Level Up (A5E) Stealth Expert

[Jimlock]

I was wondering why the "Stealth Expert" Feat, a.k.a. "ex-Skulker", copies the same incomprehensible text from 5e:

You can try to hide even while you are only lightly obscured from the creature you are trying to hide from.

When at the same time, anybody can attempt to hide when obscured (p411):

To attempt to hide from a creature, you must be unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight) and unheard by that creature, as well as undetected by any other special senses that it might possess.

and when there is no established difference between lightly obscured & obscured.

When WotC injected "clearly" into an already poorly written stealth-paragraph, it conflicted so much with Skulker (and Mask of the Wild) that it brought to life an innumerable amount of threads where bedazzled gamers were trying to figure out what was happening with stealth and how can the average joe (without Skulker) try to hide...
I would expect from a game that tries to look 5e in the eyes to have stumbled on one of the biggest elephants in the room...

 

[thuter]

Lightly Obscured and Heavily Obscured do get some wording on the 5E dungeon master screen:

Obscureness	Effect	Examples
Lightly obscured	Creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.	Dim light, patchy fog, moderate foliage
Heavily obscured	Vision is blocked; creatures are effectively blinded.	Darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage

Attempting to hide can normally only be done when heavily obscured. I never noticed this actually, but it's probably because I played a lot of 4E, where this wording has been standardized more, and there is a clear handbook on stealth.

 

[xiphumor]

AG 421:

A lightly obscured area is one that creates a minimal, but not insignificant, amount of visual impairment. A moderately wooded area, lingering smoke from a sacked town, dim lighting, and the like can all cause an area to be lightly obscured. When within this area, creatures have disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. An area that is heavily obscured may be a shoreline cloaked in dense fog, a jungle full of thick foliage and hanging vines, or darkness (magical or otherwise), that obstructs vision completely. A creature in this area is considered blind.

 

[Jimlock]

I am sorry, i don't see how the above references answer my question.

Nowhere is it mentioned, be that 5e or Level Up, that you need to be heavily obscured in order to hide. On the contrary:

5e: You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly. ("clearly" was added later)
...which clearly implies that you can attempt to hide while lightly obscured.

Level Up: To attempt to hide from a creature, you must be unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight) and unheard by that creature, as well as undetected by any other special senses that it might possess.
... Now either they forgot to add the word "heavily"(which I doubt) OR (which i believe) they imply "lightly obscured", following the exact method 5e does, albeit not with a "natural" language this time, by which the chicken out of a clear rulling ... with vagueness.

I guess "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" ....again

 

[Dragongrief]

Level Up: To attempt to hide from a creature, you must be unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight) and unheard by that creature, as well as undetected by any other special senses that it might possess.

I can't speak for the designers/writers, but I think you may be getting caught up on the term obscured. I highlighted the phrases that I would focus on when determining stealth - the initial "rule" itself, and a less subjective example.

To hide from a creature, you need to be out of its vision and not making deliberate noises (incidental noises are covered by the stealth skill itself).

Does that help?

One thing to note is that 5e (and any game without facing rules) does not do well with Assassin's Creed style stealth.

 

[Jimlock]

In all honesty no, it does not help. This is so poorly written that it actually makes no sense.
Why would I need to hide if I am already unseen? ... if I am already out of sight?
Why would I need to attempt to hide in an area where I am already heavily obscured in respect to others? An area where vision is already blocked and creatures are already effectively blinded?

Stealth is, and always will be, hard to pinpoint, I get it ... But what both 5e and Level Up fail to do is specify the game conditions UNDER WHICH you can attempt a hide check, when at the same time they both provide specific conditions of obscureness:
1) Heavily obscured/Darkness
2) Lightly obscured/Dim light
3) Not obscured/Bright light

...Instead, they both provide an explicit condition for the "Skulker" (mind you that Feats are optional in 5e) and it's copycat, the "Stealth Expert".

And please, don't even try to tell me that I am supposed to deduce the ruling of a core mechanic out of an (optional) Feat ... and again, let's not forget the addition of "clearly" in the 5e Stealth paragraph ... which speaks enough of their intention to drown a poorly written Stealth paragraph in vagueness and "DM adjudication" by alluding to the "lightly obscured"condition ...


Let's see what 3.5 does with Stealth shall we?

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check.

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.

Well, thats pretty clear. And it's not like there is no DM adjudication. The DM can easily give as many -2 or +2 "conditional modifiers" as he sees fit based on the quality of the concealment, making it from easy, to hard or even impossible.

For 5e we already new it was poorly written via "natural" language. But when I spend my 20 on something that goes by the name of "advanced 5e" and which is, among other things, supposed to address exploration ... well color me disappointed.

 

[lichmaster]

In all honesty no, it does not help. This is so poorly written that it actually makes no sense.
Why would I need to hide if I am already unseen? ... if I am already out of sight?

You need to roll for "stealth" (not hide) because you can make noise even if you're out of sight.
Being unseen and unheard (so far) is a requirement to keep staying so

 

[Jimlock]

You need to roll for "stealth" (not hide) because you can make noise even if you're out of sight.
Being unseen and unheard (so far) is a requirement to keep staying so

As you will note from my posts above, the problem is not the audible conditions but the visual ones. By underlining that you also need to be unheard in order to not be perceived, does not bring any clarity to the vagueness of the visual conditions:

To attempt to hide from a creature, you must be unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight) and unheard by that creature, as well as undetected by any other special senses that it might possess.

... Not to mention that the Level Up wording opens up another can of worms. IMHO the "hidden" pseudo-condition should rely on visual aspects only. Being unheard is another matter. Even the 5e wording does better in that respect for it makes some sort of differentiation between the two despite the fact that a single stealth check covers the both of them. Specifically it says that if you are heard "you give away your position" ...not that you stop being hidden ... even if in the majority of circumstances (but not all of them) they will see you if they hear you.

 

[lichmaster]

I really don't see the difficulty.
Heavily obscured means that vision is blocked and the "seer" is to be considered blinded. Full cover gives the same benefit. In these conditions, if you're unheard, you can roll for stealth.
The feat allows a previously unnoticed character to roll for stealth even under lightly obscured conditions (fog).
I think they omitted or forgot the word "heavily" (obscured), although they should have done so since specific beats general.

 

[Jimlock]

I really don't see the difficulty.
Heavily obscured means that vision is blocked and the "seer" is to be considered blinded. Full cover gives the same benefit. In these conditions, if you're unheard, you can roll for stealth.

Lets leave audible conditions out of this shall we? Again, they are not the problem.

The problem is the following:

Why should I even attempt to hide from view when the "seer" is already blinded?
A character that is not hidden within a heavily obscured area shares the same benefits with one that is effectively hidden. Their "seer" is equally blinded in respect to both of them.
A guy attempting to hide within darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage has the exact same benefits with a guy simply standing within darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage since "An area that is heavily obscured ... obstructs vision completely. A creature in this area is considered blind."
You cannot possibly imply that rolling for Stealth equals to "moving silently" only!!! ... do you??

The feat allows a previously unnoticed character to roll for stealth even under lightly obscured conditions (fog).
I think they omitted or forgot the word "heavily" (obscured), although they should have done so since specific beats general.

Forgot? ... I doubt it.
Omitted? Intentionally? ... Sure. Because they did not bother to clarify anything. They wanted to stay as vague as 5e is. And by doing that, they failed to provide an explicit stealth ruling which the community has been dying for for almost a decade.