Level Up (A5E) Stealth Expert

[lichmaster]

Man, I don't understand why you remove the important audible aspect that clarifies why you need a roll in the first place. Heck, even on the invisible condition it is written that while invisible your position can still be deduced if you make noise. Stealth is precisely not to give your position away by sight or sound. So stealth does not equal to move silently only, but also not to hide only.

 

[thuter]

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.

The difference between having the "seer" blinded and being hidden is that in the blinded case the seer makes attacks with disadvantage and fails ability checks relying on sight, and you attack it with advantage, while being hidden also hides your position. In combat you are automatically aware of all non-hidden creature's positions. Enemies would have to guess your square while you are hidden from them, but "merely" being totally obscured or behind full cover will still alert them to your position, even though they cannot see you. And the difference here is, indeed, the audible aspect (or they could smell you).

Basically: Without stealth, people know where you are.

 

[Jimlock]

Man, I don't understand why you remove the important audible aspect that clarifies why you need a roll in the first place. Heck, even on the invisible condition it is written that while invisible your position can still be deduced if you make noise. Stealth is precisely not to give your position away by sight or sound. So stealth does not equal to move silently only, but also not to hide only.

I do not remove the "important audible aspect". I am saying that the visual one is incomprehensible, as I clarifed times and again above. But in order to see the problem you have to focus on the visual aspect only. Can you? ... focus on the visual aspect please?

Try an example with characters which, for one reason or another, cannot listen ... Be that because they are deaf or because they simply do not rely on hearing to perceive creatures ... Be that because they are within or close to a busy/noisy enviroment (a city market, a lively tavern, a waterfall, a turbulent river, a windy plane, a downpour, a battle, a gala with music ...) ... Be that because they are covered in silence or some other similar effect ... Be that because the distance between seer and object is such that renders noise irrelevant..

Please try and you will see how your theory by which you need to be in a heavily obscured area in order to take the hide action (even though we both acknowledge that the word "heavily" is mysteriously missing from both 5e and Level Up) ... simply breaks down.

 

[Jimlock]

... And the difference here is, indeed, the audible aspect (or they could smell you).

Funny how when you quoted me, you missed out my starting phrase "Lets leave audible conditions out of this shall we? Again, they are not the problem"

My answer to lichmaster should cover you.

 

[thuter]

...or olfactory or whatever other means of perception they might possess... Whether or not it makes sense is a different question altogether. But my point was mostly the first paragraph: as long as you are not hidden, people know your position. That is the (only) difference between hidden and invisible/heavily obscured.

Although as a DM, in conditions where hearing does not apply for reasons mentioned before, and the player is unseen in some way, I would - given that the targets do not have other senses - probably make the stealth check an auto-succeed. Whether they would be considered hidden before the check is up to you, but RAW they wouldn't be. In such cases we are talking about -10 to passive perception. If you run with passive stealth or something like it, then yes: People are hidden by default in such conditions.

To answer the question you started the topic with, however: Normally you have to be "unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" which is only the case with heavily obscured, because you are not "unseen" in lightly obscured. Just like 'behind something' means something that provides total cover, not just a lamp post. The ex-Skulker feat changes this part of the requirement to only require lightly obscured. So still no lamp posts, but "a moderately wooded area, lingering smoke from a sacked town, dim lighting" all will do just fine.

I will give you this: The wording could be upgraded to "unseen (behind something that provides total cover, heavily obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" and while that would not change the rules the examples would be more clear indeed.

 

[xiphumor]

...or olfactory or whatever other means of perception they might possess... Whether or not it makes sense is a different question altogether. But my point was mostly the first paragraph: as long as you are not hidden, people know your position. That is the (only) difference between hidden and invisible/heavily obscured.

Although as a DM, in conditions where hearing does not apply for reasons mentioned before, and the player is unseen in some way, I would - given that the targets do not have other senses - probably make the stealth check an auto-succeed. Whether they would be considered hidden before the check is up to you, but RAW they wouldn't be. In such cases we are talking about -10 to passive perception. If you run with passive stealth or something like it, then yes: People are hidden by default in such conditions.

To answer the question you started the topic with, however: Normally you have to be "unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" which is only the case with heavily obscured, because you are not "unseen" in lightly obscured. Just like 'behind something' means something that provides total cover, not just a lamp post. The ex-Skulker feat changes this part of the requirement to only require lightly obscured. So still no lamp posts, but "a moderately wooded area, lingering smoke from a sacked town, dim lighting" all will do just fine.

I will give you this: The wording could be upgraded to "unseen (behind something that provides total cover, heavily obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" and while that would not change the rules the examples would be more clear indeed.

I like this ruling. Stealth Expert/Skulker modify “unseen” rather than “obscured.”

 

[Jimlock]

...or olfactory or whatever other means of perception they might possess... Whether or not it makes sense is a different question altogether. But my point was mostly the first paragraph: as long as you are not hidden, people know your position. That is the (only) difference between hidden and invisible/heavily obscured.

...And yet I try to make sense of a badly written paragraph which is both incompressible from a RAW standpoint as well as from a RAI one. This IS the question.

Although as a DM, in conditions where hearing does not apply for reasons mentioned before, and the player is unseen in some way, I would - given that the targets do not have other senses - probably make the stealth check an auto-succeed. Whether they would be considered hidden before the check is up to you, but RAW they wouldn't be. In such cases we are talking about -10 to passive perception. If you run with passive stealth or something like it, then yes: People are hidden by default in such conditions.

"unseen in some way" ?????? You can't get more vague than that..

Boy, I would not want to play a rogue in your campaign where everyone can hide in the market for free... But we are dangerously treading into homebrew which does not help the discussion...

To answer the question you started the topic with, however: Normally you have to be "unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" which is only the case with heavily obscured, because you are not "unseen" in lightly obscured.

... How exactly do you go from unseen to heavily obscured? I do not want your interpretation or "inner feeling" please. Just quote me the text from the book.

Just like 'behind something' means something that provides total cover, not just a lamp post.

woaahh ... That's reaching.

The ex-Skulker feat changes this part of the requirement to only require lightly obscured. So still no lamp posts, but "a moderately wooded area, lingering smoke from a sacked town, dim lighting" all will do just fine.

Again, do not ask of me to deduce a core mechanic out of an optional feat. This is simply wrong.

I will give you this: The wording could be upgraded to "unseen (behind something that provides total cover, heavily obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)" and while that would not change the rules it would be more clear indeed.

oh... Not only does this change the rules. It flips them on their head!


For what's its worth, I will give you my interpretation of what is really going on ...

At some point WotC realised how poorly written Stealth was, by which some people were preposterously claiming what you are saying: That you need to be heavily obscured in order attempt a hide check. So what did they do? They took the phrase
You can't hide from a creature that can see you.
and via an errata, they turned it into the infamous:
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly.

... Moreover, in order to wash their hands ala Pontius Pilate, the added the all inclusive:
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
To the crashing majority of players out there it was clear that the intention all along was to say without saying that you can now hide while lightly obscured (which makes perfect sense just like it made perfect sense in 3.5 ... and Pathfinder if I am not mistaken). As you can imagine, the fact that "Skulker" & "Mask of the Wild" remained unchanged spurred even more chaos in the forums... Understandably they could not rewrite the entire handbook. The wanted to make a significant change ... without actually making it ... with minimum effort and without turning the tables. They wanted to keep everyone satisfied and even-more-vagueness was the way to go.
Unfortunately this change was not accepted in cheers ... Players need rulings and not "The DM knows" for the 100th time.

Level Up did the same mistake. They too chickened out of an explicit ruling.
... which ofcourse makes you wonder why, since they were free of previous mistakes...
When you specify lightly obscured and heavily obscured and yet you employ neither of them for a core mechanic such as stealth that desperately needs one ... it cannot be by chance ... not after how 5e treated the matter.

If I was to guess, they were either sloppy or ... most likely ... they intentionally took the middle/vague road which did not have the risk of alienating a portion of the fanbase.

Excuse my english. I am not a native speaker

 

[thuter]

"unseen in some way" ?????? You can't get more vague than that..

I do not mean this in any vague way. I mean via the conditions mentioned: behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight.

Boy, I would not want to play a rogue in your campaign where everyone can hide in the market for free...

I do not know where you got this impression... This was in the case of a roaring waterfall in the middle of the night and other examples you mentioned (no sight, no hearing), in which case you would still need to take an action to make a stealth check to pass passive perception, but the passive perception of those people would suffer tremendously because of the aforementioned circumstances. I don't run passive stealth, nor would I want to. But I thought you were claiming people would obviously be hidden in these aforementioned circumstances, and passive stealth lets you give it to them without spending an action. This has nothing to do with a marketplace, where people's ears work and you are in no way invisible, and per RAW you need to take the Hide action.

How exactly do you go from unseen to heavily obscured?

Because the "obscured" in the mentioned section is an example of "being unseen". This would mean the obscurement they give as an example needs to be good enough to become being unseen. There are two forms of obscurement: Lightly and Heavily. This is in the rules. One of these makes you basically invisible to observers, the other one does not, but gives them a penalty to perceive you. It logically follows that being lightly obscured is not the same as being unseen. And the reason why I am allowed to make this distinction, is because they also mention the cover rules ("being behind something"). You cannot say: "It says whenever I am behind something, I am unseen," because it depends on what you are standing behind. This is the reason for my lamppost example. Standing behind a lamppost does not make you unseen, and I don't think anyone would try to make that case based on the line "unseen (behind something, obscured, invisible, or otherwise out of sight)." This is a very similar problem to the whole "obscured" debacle, but here it is clear that "behind something" means behind total cover, not just "behind my shield" or "behind the gnome", it means the object blocks all line of sight to you. Because you need to be unseen to hide, and half cover for example does not make you unseen.

Now as to how I get to why heavily obscured is needed and lightly obscured does not suffice, even though they both have the word "obscured" in them as used in the example: Heavily obscured means the target is not able to see you, which is necessary for hiding according to AG141:

"If a creature sees you while you are hiding or makes a successful Perception check to locate you, or you make a noise that it can overhear, you are discovered and are no longer hidden from that creature."

Lightly obscured does not block line of sight, heavily obscured does. So it seems pretty clear to me that you cannot normally hide when you are lightly obscured because the creature will see you while you are hiding from it. This is the general rule or core mechanic.

Again, do not ask of me to deduce a core mechanic out of an optional feat. This is simply wrong.

I am not asking anything of you, you are the one that started this thread, I simply try to explain.

To the crashing majority of players out there it was clear that the intention all along was to say without saying that you can now hide while lightly obscured (which makes perfect sense just like it made perfect sense in 3.5 ... and Pathfinder if I am not mistaken).

Not in 4E, where you need total cover or total concealment, and very comparable exceptions are provided via feats as well.

Excuse my english. I am not a native speaker

Neither am I

 

[xiphumor]

As a native English speaker with an MA in English, I support the above post.

 

[Jimlock]

Fortunately for you guys, this will be my last post in this thread. I think I tired you enough with my rants.
I know that I must sound like an egocentrical troll for saying so, but in my perspective none of your above posts touched the heart of the problem ... as I see it anyway. I stand firmly by what I explained over and over and over in a perhaps repetitive and exhausting manner ... but only because I felt that none of the anwers were hitting the target.

Honelsty all of the points above did not change my mind a bit, and that is because in my perspective they either answered a different question or because they went as far as to interpret things that are not even written in the books.

The polite closing:
Lets agree that we disagree.
The bitter closing:
After this, one can only wonder whether an EN World forum is the correct place to critique an EN World-Publsihing product...