D&D 5E How does the errata on hiding affect the mask of the wild ability of the wood elf?

[DEFCON 1]

This doesnt change the Halfling or WE ability at all (both abilities only change what you can hide behind; neither ability changes the restriction of not being able to hide while being observed).

So you can how hide when a creature 'cant see you clearly' instead of only being able to hide when you cant be seen at all.

I suspect that's all this errata is doing... clearing up one possible hiccup where people might be wondering about their judgement call-- especially when in regards to the Wood Elf and the Halfling's abilities.

When a Wood Elf is in natural terrain and Lightly Obscured, they were allowed to make DEX (Stealth) checks to hide. Now by definition lightly obscuring terrain doesn't completely block line of sight. If it did, it would be considered Heavily Obscuring terrain. And thus, a player could make the argument that a wood elf in lightly obscuring terrain could possibly been seen in some form or fashion.

Thus... when you run this state up against the original rule for going into Hiding-- which is that you aren't allowed to be seen AT ALL (because it says in black-and-white "can't be seen" as opposed to the current errata of "can't be seen clearly")... perhaps some players have been questioning them how Wood Elves are allowed to make the attempt? Being in Lightly Obscuring terrain allows them to try and hide, but yet they haven't fulfilled Rule #1 in hiding, which is they cannot be seen at all.

Now sure... a so-called "common sense" ruling by the DM would have him make the jump in logic that the whole point of the 'Mark of the Wild' rule is to change the "can't be seen" definition of Hiding to "can't be seen clearly because Lightly Obscuring terrain doesn't entirely block line of sight and thus the Wood Elf theoretically could be noticed". But if not enough players were making that jump from A to B... perhaps that's why they added the "seen clearly" amendment via the errata.

This is the stumbling block that comes with writing rules in Natural Language-- some player's use of the language isn't always that natural. And thus, the few times when it seems to them that enough people aren't putting 2 + 2 together to make 4, they have to change their natural language a bit to help them solve the equation.

 

[ki11erDM]

Lolwut? Are you saying that seriously, or sarcastically?

I chocked on my coffee when I read his post, the amount of spilled ink/pixels for just 4e was crazy and 3.X was not much better.

good time.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The difference us that the Wood Elf is like Barman.

"So that's what that feels like..."

In what way is the typical bartender stealthy?

 

[ShadowSeeker]

Thus... when you run this state up against the original rule for going into Hiding-- which is that you aren't allowed to be seen AT ALL (because it says in black-and-white "can't be seen" as opposed to the current errata of "can't be seen clearly")... perhaps some players have been questioning them how Wood Elves are allowed to make the attempt? Being in Lightly Obscuring terrain allows them to try and hide, but yet they haven't fulfilled Rule #1 in hiding, which is they cannot be seen at all.

If that's the case the errata is not very helpful, but confusing. I understood the Wood Elf ability as an exception to the rule that you can't hide in line of sight. That was the benefit.

Also, I (and my group) didn't have any trouble with the hide /move silently rules of 3.x. Of course we had situations where the DM had to make a call. But we had no problem to apply the rules.

Here it's still unclear to me.

Can a human hide in light fog?

A. No. Only Wood Elves can do that.
B. Yes. He can't be seen clearly (disadvantage on perception)
C. Perhaps. It depents on how dense the light fog is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If that's the case the errata is not very helpful, but confusing. I understood the Wood Elf ability as an exception to the rule that you can't hide in line of sight. That was the benefit.

Also, I (and my group) didn't have any trouble with the hide /move silently rules of 3.x. Of course we had situations where the DM had to make a call. But we had no problem to apply the rules.

Here it's still unclear to me.

Can a human hide in light fog?

A. No. Only Wood Elves can do that.
B. Yes. He can't be seen clearly (disadvantage on perception)
C. Perhaps. It depents on how dense the light fog is.

The answer is still A.

Humans cannot try to hide in light fog. They need to be out of line of sight or Heavily Obscured. That rule has not changed. The errata does not talk about the attempt to hide, it only talk about when a character is hiding.

However, once they have fulfilled the requirements to make the attempt to hide-- out of line of sight or heavily obscured, not making noise; made a DEX (Stealth) check that is higher than the Passive Perception of anyone in the area who might possibly hear/notice them... then the character is hiding. At that point they are free to move around as long as they are not in the open (they have to have at least some obscurement.) It is at this point that being completely unseen no longer is a hard and fast requirement, as per DM decision, and where the "not seen clearly" comes in.

So a rogue could lean out from behind a pillar and throw a dagger at his target and still gain the benefit of being hidden (Advantage on the check.) Or he could be in foliage that is lightly obscuring him and throw the dagger and still gain the benefit of being Hidden. In both of these cases, the rogue can be seen to a certain extent (the target can possibly see the rogues upper body when he leans out from behind the pillar, or his rough outline in the underbrush as he throws the dagger.) This is where they are editing it so that people don't say "Hey! When he leans out he's no longer unseen and thus he's no longer Hidden, and so he doesn't get Advantage!" Instead, the DM can say "Sorry Target, you didn't get to see the rogue clearly before he released his dagger attack because of the speed it took to lean and throw." It just closes that one small avenue of possible argument that those people who weren't already making the logical leap were getting hung up on. It's a fix to a problem that probably most people didn't have... but apparently enough people did that they felt like they needed to amend how they explained it.

 

[Yaarel]

DefCon, I agree your interpretation of the rules as written is plausible, but I am unsure if that is the intent.

I find myself leaning toward ShadowSeeker.

The wording of the rules is unfortunate. ‘While you are hiding’, is ambiguous. It can mean, you previously hid and are currently in hiding, in other words, ‘While you are hidden’.

But it can also mean, while you are trying to hide. Thus you can try to hide when in partial obscurement - shadows, foliage, crowds, and so on.

Regarding intent, it seems to me, the authorship wanted Rogues to use their hiding routinely during combat, thus making partial obscurement enough to attempt to hide.

If so, it makes the Wood Elf feature obsolete and worthless. Also similar features.

It seems the erratum itself needs an erratum to clarify intent.

 

[Flamestrike]

when you try to sneak around someone in darkness, that person can see you at least theoretically. So you can never hide at all.

No; pre-errata it didnt matter if you could be 'theoretically' seen. You either are seen (and thus cant attempt to hide on your turn) or you are not able to be seen (and thus you can attempt to hide on your turn). The DM determines which is the case.

Post errata, the question turns to 'can you be seen clearly enough?' If the answer is 'yes' you cannot attempt the Hide action on your turn. If the answer is 'no', you can attempt the Hide action on your turn. Again - this is a question for the DM. He can rule that the creatures are too distracted to see you clearly enough (for example) where as before you are deemed to always be seen by opponents unless you were already hidden or in total cover or concealment.

Mask of the wild allows you to hide from someone looking at you directly.

No it does not.

Mask of the wild allows you to attempt the Hide action in light natural obscurement. It does not remove the (pre-errata) requirement that you can only hide when not being observed, nor does it remove the post errata requirement that you can only hide when not being observed 'closely enough'.

It only changes what you can hide in; it does not remove the restriction on hiding while being observed.

Even post-errata you still cant hide in light obscurement using mask of the wild when being directly observed.

You can now use it when you are not being observed 'closely enough'. (DM's call).

When a Wood Elf is in natural terrain and Lightly Obscured, they were allowed to make DEX (Stealth) checks to hide.

And they still can do just this.

The Wood elf just can only do it when they are not being observed 'closely enough' by the creature they want to hide from. Before the errata, the Wood Elf could only Hide in light natural obscurement when they weren't being watched. They couldn't attempt to hide in light concealment if they could be seen before making the attempt.

Now (post errata) the Wood Elf can attempt to take the Hide action in natural terrain as long as they cant be seen 'clearly' before making the attempt.

A Halfling can make the same attempt in combat situations to hide behind a medium sized creature. Before making the Hide attempt simply ask your DM at the start of your turn: 'Can I be seen clearly enough to deny me the ability to attempt to hide this turn'. If the answer is 'Yes', do something else with your actions this turn.

If the answer is 'No' you can attempt the Hide action on your turn (as long as you can find some cover or total obscurement to hide behind). If your character also happens to be a Wood Elf you can also attempt to Hide in light natural concealment; if you happen to be a Halfling you can attempt to Hide behind a medium creature. If you happen to have the Skulker feat, you can hide in any light obscurement.

Step 1: (start of your turn) Ask your DM if you can be seen 'clearly' by the monster you want to hide from (or make a call on your own if your DM doesnt want to reveal what the monsters can or cannot see 'clearly'). If you cannot be seen 'clearly' (as determined by the DM) you can then attempt the Hide check.

Step 2: Move into cover or total obscurement (or light natural obscurement if you are a WE or light obscurement if you are a Skulker, or behind a M or larger creature if you are a Halfling) and make a Stealth check (as either an action or a bonus action for Rogue 2) opposed by the passive perception score of the creature you want to hide from.

It's pretty clear man.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I interpret the stealth clarification as follows:

(i) DM decides if you can hide. (ii) DM should ask himself, how clearly can the NPC see the PC? (iii) Most of the time they need something like half cover or pretty thick fog or lost of distraction or far away etc to try and hide.... But if it's a wood elf, less cover is needed - light fog might be enough for example, and for a Halfling, they also have a knack for hiding behind allies. (iv) Adjudicate and call for a stealth roll if required.

So MotW and the Halfling ability are still useful. Those races will have opportunities to hide more often than the others, coz they're better at it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

DefCon, I agree your interpretation of the rules as written is plausible, but I am unsure if that is the intent.

I find myself leaning toward ShadowSeeker.

The wording of the rules is unfortunate. ‘While you are hiding’, is ambiguous. It can mean, you previously hid and are currently in hiding, in other words, ‘While you are hidden’.

But it can also mean, while you are trying to hide. Thus you can try to hide when in partial obscurement - shadows, foliage, crowds, and so on.

Regarding intent, it seems to me, the authorship wanted Rogues to use their hiding routinely during combat, thus making partial obscurement enough to attempt to hide.

If so, it makes the Wood Elf feature obsolete and worthless. Also similar features.

It seems the erratum itself needs an erratum to clarify intent.

I don't see "when you are hiding" as ambiguous at all. You ARE hiding. You have been successful at it. It is happening right now. That's why it says "are" and not "trying to".

And besides which... even if you think it *is* still ambiguous... one way of reading it means Mark of the Wild is still valid, the other reading completely invalidates it. Why on earth would you think the designers would change the rule so that the latter is now the case? That makes absolutely no sense. So when you put those two things together... the use of an active action ("are hiding") and the other reading invalidating one of the Wood Elf's primary features... there is to me only one way to read this.

If you really want to believe it's the other way and that the designers intentionally f-ed the wood elf, feel free. But I suspect you are probably in the minority on that one.

 

[Yaarel]

‘When you are hiding’.

When you hide - when you decide to hide - when you are in the process of hiding yourself - even before you become hidden.

Errata: Using Ability Scores: Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

So, ‘when you’re hiding’, you can do so even when a creature partially sees you. As long as the creature can’t see you clearly, go head. Hide.

PH 177 Textbox: Hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

The textbox says, ‘you can’t hide from a creature that can see you’. But the erratum precisely overrides this sentence, to clarify, you can hide from it as long as this creature can’t ‘see you clearly’.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.

Oh, but you can hide from a creature that can see you! As long as the creature can’t see you clearly, it is ok.

There is no requirement to be out of line-of-sight, when attempting to hide or when being hidden. Notice the original context of this sentence. ‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you’, applies in a context when you are already hidden. Thus, if you happen to be in line-of-sight in any way, the creature would automatically discover you. Similarly, if you make noise like shouting, the creature will discover you. The erratum clarifies that you can remain hidden, even during the line-of-sight of a creature that you are hidden from, as long as that creature can’t see you clearly. The point is: you can try to hide while being not being seen clearly, and you can remain hidden while not being seen clearly.

There is never a requirement to be completely unseen. It is still possible to hide.

You can hide at any time, as long as you can’t be seen ‘clearly’.


Note, you can even ‘come out of hiding’ to attack someone and still ‘stay hidden’ (!) - as long as you can’t be seen clearly. A creature that is ‘distracted’ also can’t see you ‘clearly’.

... In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

The possibility of hiding during partial visibility makes it much more useful during combat.

It seems to me, the intent of the errata was to make the Dex Stealth check of the Rogue more powerful. The Rogue becomes able to attack and then hide again in the same round, thus being able to ‘stealth kite’. At high levels, this is as powerful as a Wizard who fights while invisible and levitating or flying. The difference is, the Rogue can pull off this stunt without using magic.

The extra powerful Rogue is working as intended. It is a feature, not a bug.

The problem is, the authorship of the erratum focusing on the Rogue, forgot about the obscure wording of the racial feature of the Wood Elf. Which is fine, the features of the Wood Elf and especially the features of the High Elf are kinda lame, and probably need a boost anyway.


Finally, there is only one check. That Dex Stealth check applies versus all Wis Perception checks, whether active or passive, when unseen or at least not seen clearly.

PH 177: Dexterity: Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

There is only one Dexterity Stealth check to hide. This one result applies in all circumstances. It doesn’t matter if the check happens while a creature can see you - as long as the creature can’t see you clearly the check is in effect.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. ...

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.

So, a Rogue who is stealth-kiting a creature that has low Wisdom Perception, is very effective, indeed.