Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6375545" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Gosh I'm slow at writing these. This ground has probably been covered 8 times by now. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />That's part of what I meant about the distinction between a relationship between two entities and a condition of one entity. IRL (or at least in the vernacular), both are true (or can be). I must say that I found the overall topic of stealth, surprise, and thieving abilities much more baffling in 1e. Hide in Shadows seemed to vary from a trap option to minor superpower, depending on the table in question. I never did figure out how to resolve the various combinations of  (Unarmored) Elf, (90' away) Halfling, Move Silently, and whatnot that would lead to surprise in certain conditions, or even the order of operations for attempting it. At least in 5e, there's a singular mechanic, even if that mechanic is a worded a little unclearly.I don't find this significantly different from how I read the 5e rules, with some adjustments for differing mechanical structures. Of course, my impression is based on reading "Hide" in the PHB as mostly an active rather than passive thing. Given the current discussion, I wonder if they instead shouldn't have favored the use of word "hidden" in their constructions.Hunh? PHB p.183 "In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on sight." It doesn't specify whether the Perception checks are opposed or not. So that part's explicit. As for whether or not they approximate 4e's rules in function...I guess that's a matter of opinion, but they seem to do so for me. I haven't found this to be any worse with 5e than with other games of the D&D line. It is a necessity when dealing with the interface of freeform fiction and rigid mechanisms. There will always be "edge" or "corner" cases.I'm not sure what to make of this argument at this point. The more I think about it, the more I think that my/ [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s interpretation is the only one that makes sense. I've included the definitions of Hide and Hidden below. It seems to me that "You cannot hide from someone who can see you" doesn't apply to someone that has already made an attempt to hide and is currently hiding, because they are presumed to be "not seen" until someone makes a Wisdom(Perception) check that beats their Dexterity(Stealth) check or they stop hiding. (from the "Hiding" sidebar on p.177 and the definitions of hide/hidden*)To take the situations in the paragraph above:Someone who is hidden is "out of sight" or "not seen". Entering the fog, by itself, makes no difference to that state. Others attempting to locate/see said person in the fog, are at a disadvantage to do so, because fog is noted for its ability to lightly obscure the area. Now, whether that's good or bad depends on PoV and from where you are entering the Fog (i.e. entering the fog from a Heavily Obscure area will make it easier to detect you). The second situation, Wood-Elf vs. anyone else. Mask of the Wild says that "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, or other natural phenomenon." If they are both hiding, they are already "unseen" and thus disadvantaged check(s) to discover them or make them seen. If they are not hiding as they enter the fog non-chalantly (or are discovered via those checks), then they are generally presumed to be "seen" (albeit poorly) by creatures around them. The difference is that the specifics of MotW, trumps the more general rule about not hiding while being seen, and allows the Elf to "attempt to hide even when lightly obscured by blah, blah, blah." *Dictionary:</blockquote>

Verification