The Hiding Rules Contradict Themselves

[Strill]

Page 192: "Hide", says that if you use a Hide action and pass a stealth check, you gain benefits, as listed on page 195.

Page 195 lists no such benefits. Instead it lists benefits for being unseen. Being unseen is a prerequisite for hiding, and as such implies that the success or failure of the stealth check has no bearing to whether you gain these benefits.

One of these is wrong. Either you have to be HIDING to get advantage on your attacks, or the hide action is useless and you can get advantage just from being unseen, regardless of your skill check.

[pwykersotz]

:smallconfused:

Hiding allows you to stay unseen while moving or while concealing yourself from enemies as listed under the Stealth rules the paragraph also references. Otherwise it's the same as being unseen, one is just harder to discover than the other. What's the hangup?

[RealCheese]

Hiding allows you to remain unseen longer and even gives you a chance to become unseen again once you have been seen.

[Malifice]

I'm not buying into this again other than to say being unseen and being hidden are totally different things.

Invisible creatures are not (by default) hidden. Neither are creatures with total obscurement. Invisibility and obscurement just allow the hide action to be taken.

Conversely, you can attempt the hide action and be hidden (by recent RAW errata) when creatures 'can't see you 'clearly enough' (meaning you can hide when you can be seen a bit, depending on the circumstances.

Not being able to be seen and someone not knowing where you are are different things.

[D.U.P.A.]

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

:D

[Malifice]

Hiding allows you to remain unseen longer and even gives you a chance to become unseen again once you have been seen.

An invisible creatire is unseen but unless it is using stealth (via the hide action) to be quiet, you can attack it (with disadvantage). It is not hidden from you unless it makes the effort to be quiet (it takes the hide action). The benefit of being unseen (be it via invisibility, moving behind total cover or otherwise) is that it enables the hide action at will. A rogue of 2nd level (or a high level ranger) can do this every round with a bonus action. Everyone else needs to use an action so can only Attack every other round (as soon as they make a succesful Attack they are no longer hidden - although they may still be invisible and thus able to attempt the hide action again.

The other advantage of being invisible is your attacks are made at advantage.

Being hidden (which requires the hide action) and being unseen (or being seen and not heard) are different things. One requires your action and makes your position unknown and thus makes you invulnerable to targetted attacks. The other simply means they can't see you (although they may very well know where you are).

[Fighting_Ferret]

Hiding is the most common way to become unseen, the other would be located behind full cover at the start of combat. You could also circle the enemy and attack from the rear while they are engage from the front. Invisibility allows you to always be unseen. Hiding keeps you from being seen, Stealth keeps you quiet (good for us they are both included in just 1 roll!).

Here's an example: You are a a level 2 rogue using a shortbow. You are stealthily moving forward through the woods on your way to a goblin cave. You see two goblin sentries posted out front, in a position to ambush your allies moving a ways behind you. [You are hidden (unseen) amidst the shadows and the various flora and fauna, as well as moving slowly and quietly] Your stealth roll would then go up against it's passive perception of 9. If you rolled better that 9, they would be oblivious to you. You decide to attack, and since you are hidden you get advantage, as well as a surprise round. You roll to attack, scoring a hit on one, and deal enough damage to kill the one you hit. The second goblin looks down at his friend and then in your direction. He sees you, as your action has revealed your position (no perception roll required). you use your movement to move behind a tree, and then your bonus action to hide (re-rolling stealth behind full cover/concealment). Initiative is rolled and...

1) the goblin wins initiative. He knows you went behind that tree, but not where you are exactly. He can move to the tree and use his action for a perception roll to locate you. Ready an action to fire at you, after you reveal yourself. Or he can hide using his bonus action, move to seek you out, and use his action to find you or alternately let his passive perception do the searching and shoot you if he sees you.

2) you win initiative. You are smart enough not to return the way you came, so you toss a rock into some bushes further away, then go around the other side of the tree and quietly slink into some nearby bushes and fire at him ( if your stealth was better than a 9, you get advantage on the attack, if not he see you and yips in anger, you still get to attack, if you like, but without advantage. RAW you could just pop out from behind the same tree and shoot him with advantage, as he can't see you until after you attack. Arguments could be made over he knew where you went vs you successfully hid, so most DMs want some nod to the ridiculousness that is remaining hidden when the enemy know your position, thus the distraction (thrown rock) and the movement away from your current position to fire).

If the goblin won initiative and hid, you are looking at a game of cat and mouse (passive perception vs stealth scores for both of you, or actively looking for the other), or he can run to the cave to alert his fellows. Your allies show up and he uses his next turn to run screaming into the cave, yelling at the top of his lungs.


Listed relevant info bellow if anyone is interested:

---------------------------------------------------------------
"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity
(Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules
in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain
benefits, as described in the “Unseen Attackers and
Targets” section later in this chapter."
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice
by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking
in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have
disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether
you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a
creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the
location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM
typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you
guessed the target’s location correctly.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on
attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when the
attack hits or misses."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly,
and you give away your position if you make noise, such as
shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible
creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of
its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has
to stay quiet."

[Malifice]

Argggffffh!

Hiding does not make you unseen! Being unseen does not make you hidden! Being hidden and being unseen are different things.

An invisible creature (unseen) is not automatically hidden until he takes the hide action (to also be unheard).

A hidden creature is unseen AND unheard. Check the sidebar in the PHB.

[Xetheral]

Argggffffh!

Hiding does not make you unseen! Being unseen does not make you hidden! Being hidden and being unseen are different things.

An invisible creature (unseen) is not automatically hidden until he takes the hide action (to also be unheard).

A hidden creature is unseen AND unheard. Check the sidebar in the PHB.

Hiding can indeed make one unseen depending on how one interprets the notoriously poorly-worded hiding rules. You yourself said that post-errata anyone can hide when not seen clearly enough. In such situations, hiding must make the character unseen or else the ability to be hide would be meaningless.

Also, your interpretation that invisible characters' locations are known is not universally agreed-upon.

In the end, the most important (and terrible) part of the 5e hiding rules is from the errata: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." They passed the buck on this one, and we're all poorer for it.

[Malifice]

Hiding can indeed make one unseen depending on how one interprets the notoriously poorly-worded hiding rules. You yourself said that post-errata anyone can hide when not seen clearly enough. In such situations, hiding must make the character unseen or else the ability to be hide would be meaningless.

Also, your interpretation that invisible characters' locations are known is not universally agreed-upon.

In the end, the most important (and terrible) part of the 5e hiding rules is from the errata: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." They passed the buck on this one, and we're all poorer for it.

Read the hiding sidebar. 'Hidden' is defined as 'unseen and unheard'.

This is why being invisible doesn't grant being hidden. It instead says 'for the purpose of hiding, you are considered to be in total obscurement' in other words, you can now attempt a stealth check via the hide action (if you want) to become hidden. Otherwise it's asumed that you're not being stealthy (no stealth check or hide action) and you can be heard or otherwise noticed.

Making yourself unseen does not mean you are hidden. It just enables the stealth check as part of the hide action after the fact.

A wizard who casts invisibility on his turn is not hidden until he takes an action to make the hide action. If he has two levels in rogue he can attempt on the same turn he becomes invisible via cunning action as a bonus action but otherwise he's going to have to wait a turn, and roll well on the stealth check to be hidden. Even if he fails, he still gets disadvantage on attacks against him (thanks to the invisible condition) and advantage on Attack rolls he makes in return, but he can still be targeted with most attacks and his position is known with sufficient precision.

If he succeeds on the hide check on his following turn he's now hidden (no one knows where he is, he can't be attacked, and enemies have to take the search action as an action to find him as he slinks off).

Being unseen and being hidden are different things.

[Xetheral]

Read the hiding sidebar. 'Hidden' is defined as 'unseen and unheard'.

I just reread it to be sure: it doesn't actually say that in the sidebar. That definition is rather usually inferred from a comment set off with em-dashes on page 195 of the combat section. Whether that comment is intended to be a formal definition or is instead an in-passing explanation is, of course, a subject of much disagreement.


This is why being invisible doesn't grant being hidden. It instead says 'for the purpose of hiding, you are considered to be in total obscurement' in other words, you can now attempt a stealth check via the hide action (if you want) to become hidden. Otherwise it's asumed that you're not being stealthy (no stealth check or hide action) and you can be heard or otherwise noticed.

Making yourself unseen does not mean you are hidden. It just enables the stealth check as part of the hide action after the fact.

A wizard who casts invisibility on his turn is not hidden until he takes an action to make the hide action. If he has two levels in rogue he can attempt on the same turn he becomes invisible via cunning action as a bonus action but otherwise he's going to have to wait a turn, and roll well on the stealth check to be hidden. Even if he fails, he still gets disadvantage on attacks against him (thanks to the invisible condition) and advantage on Attack rolls he makes in return, but he can still be targeted with most attacks and his position is known with sufficient precision.

If he succeeds on the hide check on his following turn he's now hidden (no one knows where he is, he can't be attacked, and enemies have to take the search action as an action to find him as he slinks off).

I don't believe anyone has argued that being invisible automatically makes one hidden, so there is no disagreement on this point. An invisible character can still be heard. But not everyone interprets that to mean that the invisible character will be heard.


Being unseen and being hidden are different things.

I never said any differently.

[Fighting_Ferret]

If any of this is in response to my post, would you mind providing details...also the usage of hiding and unseen is very bad, as they are synonyms of each other if not the outright definition.

[PoeticDwarf]

Hiding allows you to remain unseen longer and even gives you a chance to become unseen again once you have been seen.

Only right answer...

[coredump]

An invisible creatire is unseen but unless it is using stealth (via the hide action) to be quiet, you can attack it (with disadvantage). Assuming you know (or can correctly guess) which square it is in.


It is not hidden from you unless it makes the effort to be quiet (it takes the hide action).
Just because is has not used the Hide action, does not mean you automatically know exactly where it is.

The benefit of being unseen (be it via invisibility, moving behind total cover or otherwise) is that it enables the hide action at will. That is one benefit, not the only benefit.


Being hidden (which requires the hide action) and being unseen (or being seen and not heard) are different things. One requires your action and makes your position unknown and thus makes you invulnerable to targetted attacks. The other simply means they can't see you (although they may very well know where you are).
The "May" is a key term here. Just because someone has not taken the "hide" action, does not mean you automatically know exactly where they are. While the invisible person standing still on a carpet may not be "hidden".... he may gain all the same benefits if the PC walking into the room is unaware of his existence/location.




1) the goblin wins initiative. He knows you went behind that tree, but not where you are exactly. He can move to the tree and use his action for a perception roll to locate you. There is no rule necessitating the use of an action just to try and perceive your environment.


or alternately let his passive perception do the searching and shoot you if he sees you. You misunderstand what a "Passive skill check" represents. This is not some radar app running in the background. Passive checks are used when you are actively doing something on a repetitive basis. 'Passive' refers to the lack of dice rolling, not to what is happening in the fiction.


2) RAW you could just pop out from behind the same tree and shoot him with advantage, as he can't see you until after you attack. There is no rule stating that. Once you 'pop out' it is possible to be seen, particularly if someone knows where to look.

[Malifice]

I just reread it to be sure: it doesn't actually say that in the sidebar. That definition is rather usually inferred from a comment set off with em-dashes on page 195 of the combat section. Whether that comment is intended to be a formal definition or is instead an in-passing explanation is, of course, a subject of much disagreement.



I don't believe anyone has argued that being invisible automatically makes one hidden, so there is no disagreement on this point. An invisible character can still be heard. But not everyone interprets that to mean that the invisible character will be heard.



I never said any differently.

They will be heard (or otherwise their position known with sufficient precison to enable attacks (with disadvantage) unless they take the hide action and beat the passive perception of those around them with a stealth check (ie - they attempt to move silently). On a success with this action, his opponents can no longer target him (he's hidden - both unseen and unheard) until and unless they succeed at a perception check opposed to his stealth check result via a use of the search action.

Even if discovered (or if the invisible person chooses not to take the hide action) they still benefit from disadvantage on attacks against them, are immune to LOS attacks, get advantage on Attack rolls they make and can attempt to hide at will. It's a potent effect for a second level spell effect.

If hidden then they simply can't be attacked until they're found (with the search action) or otherwise reveal themselves (via attacking - unless they attack and miss and have the skulker feat, or can somehow hide as a bonus action).

An invisible sorcerer can also quicken a spell (bonus action) and then hide (action). An invisible Eldritch knight can do similar with action surge (or cast invisibility and then action surge to hide on the same turn). Arcane tricksters do it best (thanks to easy access to both invisibility AND cunning action).

An arcane trickster with the Skulker feat and expertise in stealth is a dangerous foe indeed!

[Xetheral]

They will be heard (or otherwise their position known with sufficient precison to enable attacks (with disadvantage) unless they take the hide action and beat the passive perception of those around them with a stealth check (ie - they attempt to move silently). On a success with this action, his opponents can no longer target him (he's hidden - both unseen and unheard) until and unless they succeed at a perception check opposed to his stealth check result via a use of the search action.

Even if discovered (or if the invisible person chooses not to take the hide action) they still benefit from disadvantage on attacks against them, are immune to LOS attacks, get advantage on Attack rolls they make and can attempt to hide at will. It's a potent effect for a second level spell effect.

If hidden then they simply can't be attacked until they're found (with the search action) or otherwise reveal themselves (via attacking - unless they attack and miss and have the skulker feat, or can somehow hide as a bonus action).

An invisible sorcerer can also quicken a spell (bonus action) and then hide (action). An invisible Eldritch knight can do similar with action surge (or cast invisibility and then action surge to hide on the same turn). Arcane tricksters do it best (thanks to easy access to both invisibility AND cunning action).

An arcane trickster with the Skulker feat and expertise in stealth is a dangerous foe indeed!

Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how invisibility works. See Coredump's post above yours.

[Fighting_Ferret]

There is no rule necessitating the use of an action just to try and perceive your environment.

If the rogue has successfully rolled above a 9, the goblin's passive perception, then he is hidden, the goblin would have to use it's action to search for the hidden rogue or not take notice of him.

Search
"When you take the Search action, you devote your
attention to finding something. Depending on the
nature of your search, the DM might have you make
a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence
(Investigation) check."



You misunderstand what a "Passive skill check" represents. This is not some radar app running in the background. Passive checks are used when you are actively doing something on a repetitive basis. 'Passive' refers to the lack of dice rolling, not to what is happening in the fiction.

I don't look at it as radar, I look at it as that is the skill he gets to use to actively perceive his surroundings, if he wants to do better than that, he'll have to take the search action. If for example you rolled a 6 on your stealth check, he can see you without using the search action and thus still use his action to Attack.


There is no rule stating that. Once you 'pop out' it is impossible to be seen, particularly if someone knows where to look.

This is an interpretation of RAW, one I do not defend, thus my alternate version of using your free interact with object to throw a rock into another nearby bush to misdirect the goblin, your movment to move and your attack to well attack. All of this assumes you beat his active "passive perception" with your stealth roll, which he is using to detect your location.

[Malifice]

Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how invisibility works. See Coredump's post above yours.

Yet I'm just citing the rules on invisibility and hiding.

If you can contradict me with the rule that states otherwise (an invisible creature is automatically hidden or exempt from needing to make a hide check to hide) then I'm all ears.

The rules for invisibility state that far from being hidden when invisible you are only 'treated as being in heavy obscurement for the purposes of hiding'. Heavy obscurement only enables a stealth check to hide via the hide action - it also doesn't auto make you hidden.

If invisibility or total obscurement does make you auto hidden, what's the DC of the perception check to find you?

From a reading of the rules as a whole, you require a stealth check (taken as either an action or in corner cases like cunning action as a bonus action) on your turn. You can combine this with a move. You require enough concealment to make the attempt in the first place (and invisibility simply grants you this concealment in addition to its other benefits) and your DC on the stealth check is your enemies pasdive perception. The action cost represnts the effort of keeping silent and obscuring your position. If the conditions are met, and you succeed on your stealth check you are hidden and can't be attacked. Your enemies need to use an action to take the search action to locate you (and they could then conceivably alert their allies to your location, likely granting them either advantage on perception checks or auto locating you - although this last bit is up to DM interpretation).

The above is perfectly clear by the rules as written. Remember 'stealth' includes both the 'hide' skill and the 'move silently' skill. Being invisible to one sense does not by default make you hidden if your enemy otherwise can detect you or otherwise knows your location (via hearing, touch, smell, blind sense or similar).

That's the rules as written. If you can find a rule that contradicts the above, then Please let me know where to find it.

[Xetheral]

Yet I'm just citing the rules on invisibility and hiding.

If you can contradict me with the rule that states otherwise (an invisible creature is automatically hidden or exempt from needing to make a hide check to hide) then I'm all ears.

The rules for invisibility state that far from being hidden when invisible you are only 'treated as being in heavy obscurement for the purposes of hiding'. Heavy obscurement only enables a stealth check to hide via the hide action - it also doesn't auto make you hidden.

If invisibility or total obscurement does make you auto hidden, what's the DC of the perception check to find you?

From a reading of the rules as a whole, you require a stealth check (taken as either an action or in corner cases like cunning action as a bonus action) on your turn. You can combine this with a move. You require enough concealment to make the attempt in the first place (and invisibility simply grants you this concealment in addition to its other benefits) and your DC on the stealth check is your enemies pasdive perception. The action cost represnts the effort of keeping silent and obscuring your position. If the conditions are met, and you succeed on your stealth check you are hidden and can't be attacked. Your enemies need to use an action to take the search action to locate you (and they could then conceivably alert their allies to your location, likely granting them either advantage on perception checks or auto locating you - although this last bit is up to DM interpretation).

The above is perfectly clear by the rules as written. Remember 'stealth' includes both the 'hide' skill and the 'move silently' skill. Being invisible to one sense does not by default make you hidden if your enemy otherwise can detect you or otherwise knows your location (via hearing, touch, smell, blind sense or similar).

That's the rules as written. If you can find a rule that contradicts the above, then Please let me know where to find it.

I already answered this above:


I don't believe anyone has argued that being invisible automatically makes one hidden, so there is no disagreement on this point. An invisible character can still be heard. But not everyone interprets that to mean that the invisible character will be heard.

There is no rule that states that an invisible, unhidden character is automatically heard. Some people interpret the rules to mean that one can be all of the follow simultaneously:

Invisible (and therefore, unseen) Not hidden Not heard

[Malifice]

I already answered this above:



There is no rule that states that an invisible, unhidden character is automatically heard. Some people interpret the rules to mean that one can be all of the follow simultaneously:

Invisible (and therefore, unseen) Not hidden Not heard

The assumption inferred in the rules is that when you are not actively attempting to hide (via the stealth skill and the hide action) you're not hidden.

The DC to locate someone is based off its stealth result (or maybe sleight of hand when hiding something on your person).

A DM could arbitrarily rule (and fix a DC to find) otherwise, but that is kind of circumventing the rules on stealth, hiding and perception (and powering up invisibility to levels beyond what a second level spell should be capable of IMO). It also devalues cunning action in favor of casters which im always wary of.

In my games invisibility is fantastic as a source of advantage and a great defence and utility tool. In addition to its foresight like defensive and offensive buffs it also is a skill enabler that can be a potent tool.

By requiring stealth checks (and sticking to the RAW) it becomes more likely that the wizard drops it on the rogue and the classes complement each other (arguably as intended).

In my current campaign our rogue (swashbuckler) has gotten himself boots of elven kind (advantage on hearing only stealth checks). Combined with cunning action and expertise in stealth (to re hide as a bonus action at will at +8 with advantage) he's a monster when invisible and nearly impossible to find. The trickery cleric in medium armor jangling around the place with disadvantage to stealth and a DEX of 8? Less so.

[ProphetSword]

There is no rule that states that an invisible, unhidden character is automatically heard. Some people interpret the rules to mean that one can be all of the follow simultaneously:

Invisible (and therefore, unseen) Not hidden Not heard

When you're invisible, being heard isn't the only thing that gives you away. You will still kick up dust from the ground, part grass, splash water, leave footprints and give off body heat. There are multiple ways to detect someone that doesn't involve hearing them, which is why people can sometimes detect when someone is in a dark room with them or standing behind them, even though they can't see them.

The rules support this:
An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet. In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around...
(PHB, Page 177, under "Hiding")

This is why being unseen isn't the same as being hidden.

[Strill]

Looks like this thread has gone completely off-topic. You're all bringing up a bunch of irrelevant rules, but no one is refuting the OP. I made a very specific statement. Where on page 195 does it list a benefit to using the Hide action and passing a stealth check?

I'm well aware that hiding prevents opponents from knowing your location but that's totally irrelevant, because it's not mentioned anywhere on pages 192, 194, or 195.


Hiding is the most common way to become unseen
Nope. Being unseen is a prerequisite for hiding.

page 177 "You can't hide from a creature that can see you."

[KorvinStarmast]

Looks like this thread has gone completely off-topic. You're all bringing up a bunch of irrelevant rules, but no one is refuting the OP. I made a very specific statement. Where on page 195 does it list a benefit to using the Hide action and passing a stealth check?

I'm well aware that hiding prevents opponents from knowing your location but that's totally irrelevant, because it's not mentioned anywhere on pages 192, 194, or 195.
Are you unhappy with the reply you got that referred you to the errata? (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/67357/22566)

It would seem that "not being seen" versus "not being seen clearly" is where the distinction lies, so that "if you are not seen clearly" is the minimum sufficient condition to be met to attempt to hide. (That has to do with the WoTC published errata ... )

[Xetheral]

Looks like this thread has gone completely off-topic. You're all bringing up a bunch of irrelevant rules, but no one is refuting the OP. I made a very specific statement. Where on page 195 does it list a benefit to using the Hide action and passing a stealth check?

I'm well aware that hiding prevents opponents from knowing your location but that's totally irrelevant, because it's not mentioned anywhere on pages 192, 194, or 195.

As for the original post, the contradiction is (arguably) partially resolved by the errata: "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." Some people interpret that to mean that you no longer need to be unseen in order to hide.

If being unseen is no longer a prerequisite for hiding, then presumably becoming unseen is a benefit for hiding.

That said, I agree with you that the PHB as originally written contained a fundamental contradiction.


This is why being unseen isn't the same as being hidden.

Nobody is saying that it is.


The assumption inferred in the rules is that when you are not actively attempting to hide you're not hidden.

You seem to be under the impression that I believe invisibility = hiding, or that a character can be hidden without taking the hide action. I believe neither of these things. What I am saying is that one's location can be unknown even if one isn't hidden.

[Malifice]

Looks like this thread has gone completely off-topic. You're all bringing up a bunch of irrelevant rules, but no one is refuting the OP. I made a very specific statement. Where on page 195 does it list a benefit to using the Hide action and passing a stealth check?

I'm well aware that hiding prevents opponents from knowing your location but that's totally irrelevant, because it's not mentioned anywhere on pages 192, 194, or 195.


Nope. Being unseen is a prerequisite for hiding.

page 177 "You can't hide from a creature that can see you."

The benefit of being hidden should be self explanatory?

If youre hidden, your enemies can't attack you or target you (barring a very lucky guess). They don't know where you are (and in some cases may not even be aware of your presence at all). They need to waste actions on the 'search' action making perception checks opposed by your stealth check result to locate you.

Does this help?

[Fighting_Ferret]

If you are undetected, would be a better wording. If the target is not aware of your presence, or is otherwise to occupied to notice you. I really hate the usage of hidden and unseen in the context of the PhB, as the two words are basically the same thing. The skill is called Stealth, it covers both being hidden and moving silently. Hiding for a non magic caster means not being seen, if you for whatever reason cannot be seen and you want to move, then you use the stealth skill to move silently. If you can both stay unseen and quiet enough, then tah-dah! you have advantage on your attack roll. The thing that goes against the duality of the stealth skill, is that invisibility automatically makes you unseen, thus granting you advantage on all attacks, as the enemy cannot see when/how/where you are attacking. They may attempt, in either circumstance, to hit you if they guess/know your location, but they have disadvantage on attack against invisible enemies and instead attack the space. They are unable to directly target the hidden rogue as well...that's what Fireball is for, right?

Now do you have to be 'unseen' to hide, hiding would be to be unseen or undetected by vision. Darkness, check. Full Concealment/Cover, check. The enemy not knowing you are there, thus you take the hiding action and hide under the bed, check.

Now on to the move silent part. Even invisibility requires careful movement in order to be quiet and not disturb your surroundings, but this is also included in the stealth check you would make, thus it's part in the "hidden" status. Invisibility while moving silently would allow you to walk right past an alert guard. Hiding (Hiding and Moving silently) would not, as he would see you at some point in open space. You could however, possibly still get the advantage on the attack if you used deception or persuasion to get him to lower his suspicions of you (and your DM was a swell fellow), via surprise, but that last is a bit more DM fiat.

The Halfling's ability to hide behind larger creatures is usually seen as a way to always get your ranged attack at advantage, thus getting sneak attack damage, but it's true benefits are to give the halfling cover/concealment in battle, amongst a myriad of out of combat uses.

I did provide an example in one of my post above how to effectively use hiding in a combat scenario, as well as mention this exact RAW hiding interpretation.

[Malifice]

If you are undetected, would be a better wording. If the target is not aware of your presence, or is otherwise to occupied to notice you. I really hate the usage of hidden and unseen in the context of the PhB, as the two words are basically the same thing. The skill is called Stealth, it covers both being hidden and moving silently. Hiding for a non magic caster means not being seen, if you for whatever reason cannot be seen and you want to move, then you use the stealth skill to move silently. If you can both stay unseen and quiet enough, then tah-dah! you have advantage on your attack roll. The thing that goes against the duality of the stealth skill, is that invisibility automatically makes you unseen, thus granting you advantage on all attacks, as the enemy cannot see when/how/where you are attacking. They may attempt, in either circumstance, to hit you if they guess/know your location, but they have disadvantage on attack against invisible enemies and instead attack the space. They are unable to directly target the hidden rogue as well...that's what Fireball is for, right?

Now do you have to be 'unseen' to hide, hiding would be to be unseen or undetected by vision. Darkness, check. Full Concealment/Cover, check. The enemy not knowing you are there, thus you take the hiding action and hide under the bed, check.

Now on to the move silent part. Even invisibility requires careful movement in order to be quiet and not disturb your surroundings, but this is also included in the stealth check you would make, thus it's part in the "hidden" status. Invisibility while moving silently would allow you to walk right past an alert guard. Hiding (Hiding and Moving silently) would not, as he would see you at some point in open space. You could however, possibly still get the advantage on the attack if you used deception or persuasion to get him to lower his suspicions of you (and your DM was a swell fellow), via surprise, but that last is a bit more DM fiat.

The Halfling's ability to hide behind larger creatures is usually seen as a way to always get your ranged attack at advantage, thus getting sneak attack damage, but it's true benefits are to give the halfling cover/concealment in battle, amongst a myriad of out of combat uses.

I did provide an example in one of my post above how to effectively use hiding in a combat scenario, as well as mention this exact RAW hiding interpretation.

You're aware that moving silently requires an action first (the hide action) and a a succesful stealth check?

Being invisible negates neither. The game assumes (barring corner cases as determined by the DM) that all creatures are generally aware of each other barring an action to use the stealth skill to hide/ move silently when circumstances (such as being invisible) permit the check to be made.

I'm going to bed. This is doing my head in!

[Xetheral]

The game assumes that all creatures are generally aware of each other barring an action to use the stealth skill to hide/ move silently when circumstances permit the check to be made.

There is no such rule. It is a valid inference from the rules given, but it is not the only valid inference.

[Malifice]

There is no such rule. It is a valid inference from the rules given, but it is not the only valid inference.

Reading the rules as a whole it's the only inference that can be taken.

What's the DC to notice someone who hasn't taken the hide action? Why is your position immediately revealed once you attack from hiding (hit or miss)? Why doesn't total cover or concealment make you hidden or impose a perception DC to notice you (in the absence of a stealth check result as the DC via the hide action?)

The DM could certainly rule on corner cases where this isn't the case, but from my reading the intent of the rules as a whole is fairly clear.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Yup, fully aware that it requires the hide action...and I thought it was implied, but my bad for not stating it flat out... I just think we should re-name it to stealth, as per the skill.

My only nod towards the invisibility crowd, was that they could cast, say in the corner of an empty room before a group entered, and just stand there, and not be detected short of someone running into them. In that case, as a DM I might ask them to make a stealth check, every so often, every several minutes, if they are surprised by what they overhear/see.

Many uses of Invisibility/Hiding outside of combat a DM would ask for the Stealth check, but in combat, we are concerned with action economy and hiding is an action, even if they name it poorly and poorly word the description. This would be a good thing to discuss with your group before starting a campaign and clarify, as a DM how you would handle it. Rogues are hit and run (and hide) opportunists, not stand there and slug it out combatants. If they can get sneak attacks every other round, they are doing well.

[Malifice]

Yup, fully aware that it requires the hide action...and I thought it was implied, but my bad for not stating it flat out... I just think we should re-name it to stealth, as per the skill.

My only nod towards the invisibility crowd, was that they could cast, say in the corner of an empty room before a group entered, and just stand there, and not be detected short of someone running into them. In that case, as a DM I might ask them to make a stealth check, every so often, every several minutes, if they are surprised by what they overhear/see.

Many uses of Invisibility/Hiding outside of combat a DM would ask for the Stealth check, but in combat, we are concerned with action economy and hiding is an action, even if they name it poorly and poorly word the description. This would be a good thing to discuss with your group before starting a campaign and clarify, as a DM how you would handle it. Rogues are hit and run (and hide) opportunists, not stand there and slug it out combatants. If they can get sneak attacks every other round, they are doing well.

If they're just standing there in an empty room, trying not to make any sound... They're using the stealth skill and the hide action! The DM should call for a stealth check.

Seeing as they have time and the enemy is totally unprepared for them, he may even grant them advantage in the check.

If he beats the passive perception of anyone who enters the room all good. If they suspected he was there they could use the search action to actively look for him and try rolling higher than his stealth check result on their perception checks.

[Xetheral]

Reading the rules as a whole it's the only inference that can be taken.

Well, a substantial fraction of the community infers differently. Does our opinion not count?


What's the DC to notice someone who hasn't taken the hide action? Why is your position immediately revealed once you attack from hiding (hit or miss)? Why doesn't total cover or concealment make you hidden or impose a perception DC to notice you (in the absence of a stealth check result as the DC via the hide action?)

1) Set by the DM depending on the circumstances, the same way it would be for noticing someone a long way off or in concealment or in a crowd. 2) Because unless you have the Skulker feat, attacking is considered sufficiently non-stealthy to reveal your position. 3) Total cover and concealment do call for a perception check to notice you at the discretion of the DM, just as for all perception checks.[/QUOTE]

[Fighting_Ferret]

If they're just standing there in an empty room, trying not to make any sound... They're using the stealth skill and the hide action! The DM should call for a stealth check.

Seeing as they have time and the enemy is totally unprepared for them, he may even grant them advantage in the check.

If he beats the passive perception of anyone who enters the room all good. If they suspected he was there they could use the search action to actively look for him and try rolling higher than his stealth check result on their perception checks.

They wouldn't have to use an action at all, I'd consider it a straight skill check, now... if they tried to move after the room has filled... again they would have to state they are attempting to move quietly and we'd make them roll another skill check. Remember it's not an action until initiative is rolled. If they rolled low and sneezed out loud, the group might get suspicious and begin searching. Then it's initiative time.

[ProphetSword]

Luckily, if you were hidden in the room, they couldn't take opportunity attacks against you if you had to flee, so that's another advantage of being invisible.

[coredump]

If the rogue has successfully rolled above a 9, the goblin's passive perception, then he is hidden, the goblin would have to use it's action to search for the hidden rogue or not take notice of him.
Just because you keep repeating it, does not make it true. There is not rule.....none...anywhere... that requires the use of an action to use a skill.
The rolling of dice only means one thing... it means that the PC was attempting something that had an uncertain outcome. That 'something' may require an action, or several, or none.



Search
"When you take the Search action, you devote your
attention to finding something. Depending on the
nature of your search, the DM might have you make
a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence
(Investigation) check."
Yes, there is an action you can take that may lead to a perception check. That does not mean that is the *only* situation that would call for a perception check.



I don't look at it as radar, I look at it as that is the skill he gets to use to actively perceive his surroundings, if he wants to do better than that, he'll have to take the search action. If for example you rolled a 6 on your stealth check, he can see you without using the search action and thus still use his action to Attack. And again, you are misunderstanding the Passive Skill Check mechanic. You do not have a Passive Perception skill and an Active Perception skill. There is only one skill... the Passive mechanic has *NOTHING* to do with what the PC is doing or not doing.... it has to do with if you need to roll a die or not.
It has two uses, if you are doing the same thing over and over....it is a mechanic to use the 'average' result.
If the DM wants to keep something a secret.... then it is a convenient value to use.

[Malifice]

They wouldn't have to use an action at all, I'd consider it a straight skill check

Allowing hide with out an action massively devalued rogues cunning action, and massively improved the invisibility spell by granting it an ability (stealth checks as a non action) that it clearly is not meant to have.

A person making a stealth check to 'become hidden' when invisible is no different to someone making the same check behind a pillar or other concealment. It takes an action - specifically the hide action - to do it. The action cost represents the opportunity cost of being silent, keeping still, controlling your breathing, stilling any equipment that is jangling against stuff, etc.


Remember it's not an action until initiative is rolled.

Now we're just getting silly. It doesn't matter whether [required stealth check while alone in room] requires an irrelevant action or not. All that matters is we agree that a stealth check is required even when invisible (to set the DC for any subsequent perception checks to find the invisible PC by those that might enter the room).

Your invisible rogue in the corner breathing quietly is no different from your rogue in the other corner hiding under the bed. Both can be detected (and targeted) by any enemy that enters the room and defeats their stealth check results with passive perception scores. If those enemy get suspicious or are already actively searching for the pair, then they'll probably be making active perception checks [via the search action] upon entering the room [looking around, peering under beds, listening intently etc].

Even if detected, your invisible rogue will retain his advantage to attacks, and disadvantage on attacks against him AND the ability to simply retry to hide over and over again (he's always concealed) - and as a bonus action no less. If he also had the skulker feat (and improved invisibility) he could attack the creatures in the room and either retain being hidden on a miss (skulker) or hit and then vanish again (cunning action).

Your Rogue under the bed is in a world of pain though.

[coredump]

If you can contradict me with the rule that states otherwise (an invisible creature is automatically hidden or exempt from needing to make a hide check to hide) then I'm all ears. You are misunderstanding the disagreement. (or at least my disagreement.)
What you say here is 100% correct. Just because you are invisible doesn't mean you are hidden, and you can be invisible and folks may know exactly where you are.... may be able to track you as you move. (sound, tracks, scent, etc.)

The problem comes in when you state the opposite extreme as a forgone conclusion:


They will be heard (or otherwise their position known with sufficient precison to enable attacks (with disadvantage) unless they take the hide action and beat the passive perception of those around them with a stealth check (ie - they attempt to move silently). On a success with this action, his opponents can no longer target him (he's hidden - both unseen and unheard) until and unless they succeed at a perception check opposed to his stealth check result via a use of the search action.
!
You seem to assume that everyone will automatically just know exactly where the invisible person is if they don't Hide first... and there is nothing in the rules to indicate that.
Example, you walk into a large room and there is an invisible person wearing robes standing on carpet.... you don't automatically 'just know' that he is there, and exactly where he is.
Even if he starts moving.... you *might* know where he is....but you might not. It depends on how far away, how much noise he inherrently makes, what other noises are going on, etc etc....




If invisibility or total obscurement does make you auto hidden, what's the DC of the perception check to find you? Well, if we ignore the 'hidden' aspect... the DC is the same as most DCs in the game... under the purview of the DM to determine.
How hard is it for a person to hear someone in robes walking across carpet?
How hard is it to hear a person in chain mail if they are 60' away.... how close can you pinpoint their location?
etc
etc



From a reading of the rules as a whole, you require a stealth check (taken as either an action or in corner cases like cunning action as a bonus action) on your turn. You only require a stealth check if you are actively trying to be sneaky...... but even if you are not...they may not know you are there.


Your enemies need to use an action to take the search action to locate you (and they could then conceivably alert their allies to your location, likely granting them either advantage on perception checks or auto locating you - although this last bit is up to DM interpretation). Again, there is no requirement for 'using an action' just to perceive your surroundings.



When you're invisible, being heard isn't the only thing that gives you away. You will still kick up dust from the ground, part grass, splash water, leave footprints and give off body heat. There are multiple ways to detect someone that doesn't involve hearing them, which is why people can sometimes detect when someone is in a dark room with them or standing behind them, even though they can't see them.
.
EXACTLY!! They 'can' not that they 'do'... and they can *sometimes*, not every time automatically.

And of course, if you are invisible and walking through water, or across puddles, it becomes *much easier*...maybe even automatic. But walking across a bare floor, or a carpet....
And walking by 5' away is very different than walking by 50' away, or even 500' away.

And lets not forget the 'pin point' aspect of this. Yes, you can easily hear someone in plate armor walking by 75' away... but can you pinpoint his exact location within a couple of feet? What if there are other noises going on?


You're aware that moving silently requires an action first (the hide action) and a a succesful stealth check?



Please provide the rule that says you must Hide before you can use the stealth skill while moving?

[Gwendol]

Page 192: "Hide", says that if you use a Hide action and pass a stealth check, you gain benefits, as listed on page 195.

Page 195 lists no such benefits. Instead it lists benefits for being unseen. Being unseen is a prerequisite for hiding, and as such implies that the success or failure of the stealth check has no bearing to whether you gain these benefits.

One of these is wrong. Either you have to be HIDING to get advantage on your attacks, or the hide action is useless and you can get advantage just from being unseen, regardless of your skill check.

The 5e hiding rules are clearly not thought out properly. The errata addresses some of this by allowing the hide check to be taken even if not completely obscured/behind total cover ("not seen clearly enough"). Halflings and Wood elves are allowed to hide when lightly obscured given specific environments, as can characters with the skulker feat.

[Xetheral]

The 5e hiding rules are clearly not thought out properly. The errata addresses some of this by allowing the hide check to be taken even if not completely obscured/behind total cover ("not seen clearly enough"). Halflings and Wood elves are allowed to hide when lightly obscured given specific environments, as can characters with the skulker feat.

Of course, post-errata, it's not entirely clear under what circumstances (e.g.) a wood elf could hide where a human can't. The human needs less than total concealment, and the Wood Elf needs light concealment. So what form of concealment is enough for a wood elf but not enough for a human?

[Malifice]

You seem to assume that everyone will automatically just know exactly where the invisible person is if they don't Hide first... and there is nothing in the rules to indicate that.

Im saying that the Stealth skill covers hiding. Its sets the DC for perception checks to find you.

Barring corner cases, creatures are generally aware of every other creature unless that creauture has used stealth (and hidden).

Example:

A Rogue walks into an empty room, climbs into a box and closes the lid. He quietens his breath, and lies there silently. The DM correctly calls for a stealth check (the Rogue here is clearly using the 'hide action' and the 'stealth' skill). The Rogue gets a 15.

A minute or so later, three goblins walk into the room. Their passive perception is 9 and they are oblivious to the Rogue. They are followed by their wererat master however. The wererat has a passive perception of 12... but it also has advantage (+5 passive) on perception checks that rely on smell. Sniffing the air, the wererat detects the Rogue (he is no longer hidden) calls out to his goblin minions to surround the box, and for the 'smelly smelly tasty man creature in the box' to surrender.

The above situation is no different to if the Rogue was invisible instead of in a box. He still needs to make a stealth check. Possibly the DM could also just record a 'passive stealth' score by adding 10 to his steath bonus.


Example, you walk into a large room and there is an invisible person wearing robes standing on carpet.... you don't automatically 'just know' that he is there, and exactly where he is.

He's using Stealth be default. I would (in this case) simply add his Steath score to '10' and call for perception checks from the PC's as they enter. A reverse passive perception.


Even if he starts moving.... you *might* know where he is....but you might not. It depends on how far away, how much noise he inherrently makes, what other noises are going on, etc etc....

And thats what Stealth v Peception models. If you hear or otherwise detect (perception) an invisible person moving quietly (stealth)


How hard is it for a person to hear someone in robes walking across carpet?

Depends on largely on his Dex and bonus to the stealth skill. Assume a passive '10' on Stealth check (he's not really actively trying to be quiet so no roll required), plus Dex, plus stealth bonus.

'Swoosh shwoosh swoosh.' Plus the jangling of the spell component pouch and the creaking of leather.


How hard is it to hear a person in chain mail if they are 60' away.... how close can you pinpoint their location?

How good is his stealth skill? They have disadvantage on the check thanks to heavy armor. Assuming a Dex of 10 and no skill in Stealth, probably Perception DC 5 to hear someone casually trying to be quiet in chain mail armor, average dex and no training in stealth.


You only require a stealth check if you are actively trying to be sneaky...... but even if you are not...they may not know you are there.

What? So the Wizard in your example (who has an effective Perception DC to locate of infinity) actively tries to use stealth at +0, rolls a 10 and sets the Perception DC to spot him now at 10?

He's better off just standing there invisibly and quietly (but somehow not using the stealth skill).. as long as he can ensure the DM doesnt make him actually use the stealth skill (notwithstanding, thats what he's clearly doing)?

Thats absurd.


Again, there is no requirement for 'using an action' just to perceive your surroundings.

Nope. Passive perception in that case. You want to roll you need to take the search action.


And of course, if you are invisible and walking through water, or across puddles, it becomes *much easier*...maybe even automatic. But walking across a bare floor, or a carpet....
And walking by 5' away is very different than walking by 50' away, or even 500' away.

This is all subsumed into the Stealth v Perception mechanic. If the invisibile creature walks through water, grant advantage on the Perception checks to spot him. If he walks across a flat floor in silk slippers grant him advantage to his stealth score.

I dont think you quite get how stealth and perception work.


And lets not forget the 'pin point' aspect of this. Yes, you can easily hear someone in plate armor walking by 75' away... but can you pinpoint his exact location within a couple of feet? What if there are other noises going on?

It depends on your perception score and thier stealth score.

The doofus in plate could be a Rogue 20 with expertise in Stealth and a dex of 20. Even with disadvantage from heavy armor, he cant score less than a 22 on his Stealth check. And the person trying to hear him could be a distracted mage with a widom of 8 and no bonus to perception (needs to actively search for the plate wearing Rogue and even then needs a natural 20 to hear him).


Please provide the rule that says you must Hide before you can use the stealth skill while moving?

What? If you want to use the stealth skill in combat, you use the Hide action (this sets the DC of perception checks to hear/ see/ smell you) , and then move. If youre a Rogue 2 you can use the hide action as a bonus action and then move and then attack (or whatever).

You could still be hidden or have an applicable perception DC set against you from a previous stealth result (in a previous turn or prior to combat starting) of course.

[Xetheral]

Barring corner cases, creatures are generally aware of every other creature unless that creauture has used stealth (and hidden).

You're still claiming this as an accepted truth despite having been made aware that there is disagreement. Why?


I dont think you quite get how stealth and perception work.

We understand what you believe the rules to say, but we disagree. You seem to be unwilling to accept the possibility that there could be multiple interpretations, despite having been made aware of the existence of more than one interpretation.

[Malifice]

You're still claiming this as an accepted truth despite having been made aware that there is disagreement. Why?

When a foe is hidden, it has a perception DC to spot/ locate/ hear/ detect.

When it is not hidden, what is the DC to detect it?


We understand what you believe the rules to say, but we disagree. You seem to be unwilling to accept the possibility that there could be multiple interpretations, despite having been made aware of the existence of more than one interpretation.

Im just pointing out the absurd consequences of that interpretation to perhaps highlight why the other one should be accepted.

[Xetheral]

When a foe is hidden, it has a perception DC to spot/ locate/ hear/ detect.

When it is not hidden, what is the DC to detect it?

Set by the DM. 5e did away with tables of skill DCs as a design decision. One cannot reasonably infer from the decision not to list specific DCs that such DCs don't exist.

You also didn't answer my question. Why state something as accepted truth when you know it to be controversial?


Im just pointing out the absurd consequences of that interpretation to perhaps highlight why the other one should be accepted.

Trying to explain why you think the other interpretation is inferior is one thing. Saying outright that those who disagree with you don't understand the way the hiding rules work--despite knowing that they understand your position and nevertheless disagree with you--is quite another.

[Malifice]

Set by the DM. 5e did away with tables of skill DCs as a design decision. One cannot reasonably infer from the decision not to list specific DCs that such DCs don't exist.

Ok, lets try again.

1) A wizard hears the PC's approach and jumps into a box, concealing himself completely. He stops moving at all so as to make no noise. The PC's then enter, oblivious to the presence of the mage.

Q1) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him as the PC's enter?

Q2) Why have you not called for a Stealth check from the Mage to hide (seeing as this is clearly what he is doing?)

2) An invisible wizard is in the same room, and in response to the PC's coming, is now standing completely still. Shortly afterwards, the PC's walk in to the room.

Q3) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him?

2) Another invisible mage in the same room is standing next to the mage (from 2). He intentionally attempts to conceal his presence and hide (using the concealment granted from his invisibility specifically for this purpose) while slowing his breathing, and being as quiet as he can. Unfortunately he is not proficient in stealth, and has a Dex of 14 (+2). He rolls a ten on his stealth check to be quiet (total of 12).

Q4) What is the DC to notice him?

Q5) Why is he easier to notice than the Mage doing the exact same thing standing next to him who isnt hiding or using his stealth score?

3) A rogue is in the same room, with a huge Dex, expertise in stealth, and cunning action. He is in a second box keeping quiet, and has rolled a stealth check total of 24.

Q6) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him?

[-Jynx-]

When a foe is hidden, it has a perception DC to spot/ locate/ hear/ detect.

When it is not hidden, what is the DC to detect it?


What happens in a situation like this:

2 "evil" NPCs meet at the market to exchange some illegal items. They've taken the "hide in plain sight" approach. They haven't, and don't take the "hide" action at all and just hope that the bustle of the crowd masks them well enough.

Meanwhile a PC goes walking through the crowd nearby. Not knowing the evil NPCs are present.

In this instance I would say for all intensive purposes the NPCs are "hiding" in the sense that they've constructed a meeting in a situation with the intent on blending in so well that they aren't seen. However they are merely standing there conversing casually (and passing a strange package).

Since the PC doesn't know and isn't actively trying to find said NPCs the check falls onto the passive perception. Did the PC while aimlessly moving through the market notice the two meeting? Then you'd compare their Passive Perception to the DC of noticing them in a crowd.

[Malifice]

What happens in a situation like this:

2 "evil" NPCs meet at the market to exchange some illegal items. They've taken the "hide in plain sight" approach. They haven't, and don't take the "hide" action at all and just hope that the bustle of the crowd masks them well enough.

Meanwhile a PC goes walking through the crowd nearby. Not knowing the evil NPCs are present.

In this instance I would say for all intensive purposes the NPCs are "hiding" in the sense that they've constructed a meeting in a situation with the intent on blending in so well that they aren't seen. However they are merely standing there conversing casually (and passing a strange package).

Since the PC doesn't know and isn't actively trying to find said NPCs the check falls onto the passive perception. Did the PC while aimlessly moving through the market notice the two meeting? Then you'd compare their Passive Perception to the DC of noticing them in a crowd.

I would agree with that approach.

Its even more straight forward when dealing with detecting a creature concealed in a room (either via invisiblity or hiding under bed or in a smoke filled room or behind a pillar or in a box) who is also actively trying to remain quiet and conceal other things that could reveal their presence - thats a straight forward Stealth check v Perception check (passive if not looking, active if you are).

This whole 'as long as the invisible creature doesnt move, and conceals its presence there is no way to find it' misses the fact that this is exactly what a stealth check is for.

It's like not calling for a deception check when the PC's physically lie to an NPC becuase the player in question said the lie. If he lies to an NPC - its deception. If he examines a statue to figure out what its made from - its investigation. If he searches a room to locate something - its perception. If he tumbles away from an enemy - its acrobatics. If he is trying to remain dead silent while concealed (invisible or just in a box somewhere) its a stealth check.

How and when invisible creatures got infine perception DCs to find them I'll never know.

And yeah; this makes Wizards who suck at the steath skill not that good when invisible (barring the other advantages such as advantage on attacks, the ability to retry hiding at will, and disadvantage on other attacks and immunity to targetted effects that require LOS).

But is that such a bad thing?

[-Jynx-]

This whole 'as long as the invisible creature doesnt move, and conceals its presence there is no way to find it' misses the fact that this is exactly what a stealth check is for.



Okay, so you're on board with the passive perception of the crowd example. Now, how does that functionally differ from an invisible creature standing still in a room? He is no more noticeable than the two evil NPCs in the crowd.

The evil NPCs situation makes sense because:
> You don't know they are there
> You aren't actively looking for [insert NPCs names]
> The environment is set as such that you probably won't notice them with a broken line of sight due to people, and a loud commotion of noise provided also by the crowd of people. It masks the two NPCs forcing a passive perception check from the PC moving through.

In this situation with invisible Jimmy standing in the corner of a room he is functionally accomplishing the same thing except he is manufacturing the broken line of sight through invisibility and is simply being quiet to match the noise level fo the environment.

All that holding true a passive perception should still come into play to see if the PCs notice invisible Jimmy.

Edit: a stealth check to me is going above and beyond just standing still and being quiet. It would be squeezing into a small place, or having to find a spot that you can contort behind to mask your presence. It's covering yourself in foliage, it's stalking through the shadows. It's more complex then "standing there and shutting the hell up". I wouldn't make a PC roll an athletics check to open a door, ya know? It's just not a complex (or hard thing to do) to warrant a check.

[Malifice]

Okay, so you're on board with the passive perception of the crowd example. Now, how does that functionally differ from an invisible creature standing still in a room? He is no more noticeable than the two evil NPCs in the crowd.

I agree. The PC's (upon entering the room) compare their passive perception scores to [invisble mages] stealth result.

On a success they notice (two squashed shagpile footprints in the carpet, the sound of breathing, the creaking of leather, the smell of his component pouch etc).

[Malifice]

Edit: a stealth check to me is going above and beyond just standing still and being quiet. It would be squeezing into a small place, or having to find a spot that you can contort behind to mask your presence.

So you wouldnt have a Rogue make a stealth check after crawling into a box to conceal himself and attempting to keep totally still and quiet while inside?

Because to me thats exactly when you do call for a stealth check!

And if you would call for a check, how is it any different from the same guy casting invisibility (instead of climing into a box) and also attempting to remain totally still and quiet to hide from someone?

Why does the guy in the box have to make a check but the invisible dude doesnt?

When I read invisiblity all it does is 'give you the box to hide in'. Its wording is very clear on this.

[-Jynx-]

I agree. The PC's (upon entering the room) compare their passive perception scores to [invisble mages] stealth result.

On a success they notice (two squashed shagpile footprints in the carpet, the sound of breathing, the creaking of leather, the smell of his component pouch etc).

My edit to my post may not have made it in before you read my post earlier; but it seems unreasonable to ask the invisible person to make a stealth check. As my edit shows earlier, you aren't doing anything but standing still and not saying words. Anyone can do it, a check really is unnecessary. You wouldn't make your PCs roll an athletics check to open a door.

I do see where you are coming from, I think. You believe the invisible person needs to make a stealth check (maybe with a bonus due to invisibility?) that must overcome all PCs Passive perception to not be heard, or have arbitrary foot indents seen. While I believe that the invisible person (unless he decides to do something other than stand still) does not need to roll and is instead awarded a static "hiding" DC that the PCs Passive Perception must overcome. I don't think either is wrong its just a different way in doing things.

Like my NPCs in a crowd example, I would have given the NPCs a static hide DC based on the situation that the PCs passive perception had to overcome. They didn't have to make a stealth roll, because they weren't going out of their way to really hide other than stand "hopefully" in the right place and the right time.

[-Jynx-]

So you wouldnt have a Rogue make a stealth check after crawling into a box to conceal himself and attempting to keep totally still and quiet while inside?

Because to me thats exactly when you do call for a stealth check!

And if you would call for a check, how is it any different from the same guy casting invisibility (instead of climing into a box) and also attempting to remain totally still and quiet to hide from someone?

Why does the guy in the box have to make a check but the invisible dude doesnt?

When I read invisiblity all it does is 'give you the box to hide in'. Its wording is very clear on this.

I think those are good questions. I think a stealth check isn't just clambering into a box but finding a box in the first place. When a PC tells me "Hey I want to hide!" and I say "alright roll a stealth check" that score partially encompassing finding an object or place to hide in and also the ability to utilize the object or space effectively.

I think that the act of just standing in one spot and being quiet just doesn't require any amount of skill. Heck any of us could do it right now. Stand up, and for the next minute don't say a word. It wasn't hard, it wasn't straining, it really required no thought at all. The only difference is, Jimmy put a spell on himself first that eliminated one of the 5 senses which now creates a plausible means of "hiding". Now that he is unseen, the PCs passive perception must come into play to now beat a static hide check because Jimmy is now much harder to recognize.

[Malifice]

I do see where you are coming from, I think. You believe the invisible person needs to make a stealth check (maybe with a bonus due to invisibility?) that must overcome all PCs Passive perception to not be heard, or have arbitrary foot indents seen.

Yes - if the invisible person is trying not to be noticed (even just by doing his best to stand as still as possible and quieten his breathing) they have to make a stealth check (opposed by the passive perception checks) to succeed.

All the invisibility spell does is 'create the box for you to hide in'. It doesnt give you an infinite stealth check result. It just enables the check anywhere, any time.

Beware invisible rogues.


While I believe that the invisible person (unless he decides to do something other than stand still) does not need to roll and is instead awarded a static "hiding" DC that the PCs Passive Perception must overcome. I don't think either is wrong its just a different way in doing things.

I disagree. By the same reasoning, a PC standing stilland trying not to make any noise in a box, behind a curtain or tapestry, or in a closet should get the same 'auto stealth DC', and have his stealth skill disregarded.

It doesnt work that way.

From a mechanical perspective, youre massively overpowering a second level spell too, that is already (when compared to Blink at the same level - plenty powerful enough).

Finally, youre devaluing rogues (and skills), and powering casters with no rule to back you up. Look at 'charm person' - it just gives advantage on the persuasion skill. Invisibility just gives you the ability to hide at will - it doesnt atually make you any better at it.

[Malifice]

I think those are good questions. I think a stealth check isn't just clambering into a box but finding a box in the first place. When a PC tells me "Hey I want to hide!" and I say "alright roll a stealth check" that score partially encompassing finding an object or place to hide in and also the ability to utilize the object or space effectively.

Intresting way to affect the narrative. The player uses his skills to create stuff to hide in. Not sure if I would go that far, but it's a valid method.

My PC's ask me whats around them. I then explain the environment. They then interact with it (by hiding, invesitgating, searching, smashing or whatever).


I think that the act of just standing in one spot and being quiet just doesn't require any amount of skill. Heck any of us could do it right now. Stand up, and for the next minute don't say a word.

I had to supress a sneeze, and my mobile went off. If I was stealthier I would have turned it on silent first, and be better able to suppress my cold.

Ever notice how loud your breathing is when youre trying not to breathe loudly by the way?

Also - by your logic, lying in long grass and not moving (such as waiting for an ambush) 'isnt a use of the stealth skill'. I respectfully totally disagree.

[Vogonjeltz]

You misunderstand what a "Passive skill check" represents. This is not some radar app running in the background. Passive checks are used when you are actively doing something on a repetitive basis. 'Passive' refers to the lack of dice rolling, not to what is happening in the fiction.

When I see a disagreement about what is meant by something, I typically go to the source material for references to try and prove or disprove one of the two competing theorems.

In this case there is evidence supporting both notions, which means that you are incorrect in your statement.

PHB page 175: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." and later on: "The rules on hiding in the "Dexterity" section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules in chapter 8."

PHB page 177, on the rules for hiding: "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 notice you" which is followed by the mechanics for determining the wisdom (perception) score vs the dexterity (stealth) check.

So, yes, you're factually correct in that passive checks can be used for repeated actions. However, in this specific instance, the rules are specific that passive perception to identify the existence of a hidden enemy is, in point of fact, something that is used when a character is not actively attempting to search.

So here, specifically, your assertion is wrong.


Nope. Being unseen is a prerequisite for hiding.

page 177 "You can't hide from a creature that can see you."

Strictly speaking that doesn't actually say you have to be unseen, in general. What it is saying is that, if a particular creature can see you, then you can not hide from that particular creature.

It's entirely possible for a character to be seen by some creatures and still hide from other creatures that can't see them at that particular moment.

An example is a lightfoot halfling rogue who approaches a group of enemy orcs. He stands with one between him and the others, and is able to hide from the others using cunning action, then he moves around the one orc (still hidden from the others) and can sneak attack one of the others because although their ally knows where he is, the others don't. They have been caught in misdirection by the rogue. This emulates the classic stories of hobbits as amazingly stealthy from tolkein's lord of the rings stories.


Of course, post-errata, it's not entirely clear under what circumstances (e.g.) a wood elf could hide where a human can't. The human needs less than total concealment, and the Wood Elf needs light concealment. So what form of concealment is enough for a wood elf but not enough for a human?

Disagree, the line is crystal clear: Normally a creature could be seen, theoretically, (pre-hide) while lightly obscured. Thus, if seen, the creature can not make an attempt to hide against the observer.

The Wood Elf exception allows them to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by natural phenomena (per their racial trait).

[Xetheral]

Ok, lets try again.

1) A wizard hears the PC's approach and jumps into a box, concealing himself completely. He stops moving at all so as to make no noise. The PC's then enter, oblivious to the presence of the mage.

Q1) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him as the PC's enter?

Q2) Why have you not called for a Stealth check from the Mage to hide (seeing as this is clearly what he is doing?)

2) An invisible wizard is in the same room, and in response to the PC's coming, is now standing completely still. Shortly afterwards, the PC's walk in to the room.

Q3) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him?

2) Another invisible mage in the same room is standing next to the mage (from 2). He intentionally attempts to conceal his presence and hide (using the concealment granted from his invisibility specifically for this purpose) while slowing his breathing, and being as quiet as he can. Unfortunately he is not proficient in stealth, and has a Dex of 14 (+2). He rolls a ten on his stealth check to be quiet (total of 12).

Q4) What is the DC to notice him?

Q5) Why is he easier to notice than the Mage doing the exact same thing standing next to him who isnt hiding or using his stealth score?

3) A rogue is in the same room, with a huge Dex, expertise in stealth, and cunning action. He is in a second box keeping quiet, and has rolled a stealth check total of 24.

Q6) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him?

A1-A2: Unless the box was cramped or the wizard had to remain there a long time, or the PCs themselves weren't making any noise, I would simply rule that the PC's don't notice the wizard. If specific conditions didn't warrant an autosuccess I would indeed call for a stealth check because the wizards is actively attempting to remain unnoticed (probably with advantage, and with disadvantage for the PCs).

A3-A4: Again, I wouldn't call for a stealth check (in either case) and instead would rule it an autosuccess unless the wizards had to remain still for a protracted period or the PCs were silent.

A5: He isn't, because it would probably be an autosuccess.

A6: Again, mostly likely an autosuccess.

Here are some questions for you:

A wizard wants to walk down a hallway where the PC's are currently engaged in a fight with another adventuring party. The wizard retreats out of earshot, casts invisibility, and then blithely strolls down the hallway past the battle. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

The PCs are fighting an enemy adventuring party on a freshly-harvested field. An enemy wizard is invisible, waiting for his chance to use his Wand of Fireballs if he can avoid hitting his teammates. Every round he circles partway around the battle at a distance of 50', and Readies an action to take the Use an Object action to activate his wand if he can catch at least two PCs and no allies. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

[Fighting_Ferret]

Just because you keep repeating it, does not make it true. There is not rule.....none...anywhere... that requires the use of an action to use a skill.
The rolling of dice only means one thing... it means that the PC was attempting something that had an uncertain outcome. That 'something' may require an action, or several, or none.


In this case, combat has started and the level 2 rogue used his cunning action bonus action to hide behind a large tree, not just move behind it, but hide. Here is how I see this working out.

The Phb states that in combat a creature is aware of it's surroundings, but hide is still in effect in combat, and in this case the rogue left the goblin's vision and hid.

The goblin might move to check out the last known location of the rogue, and as a DM you'd have to interrupt what the rogue's hide action actually meant, and whether or not he is nonchalantly just using the tree for cover or is actively trying to maintain out of sight and unheard.

If the first interpretation is true, the rogue has successfully used an action for no reason what-so-ever, as anything that moves around the tree can see him, because he's just standing there.
If the second is true, and the rogue is actively trying to avoid detection, say he crouched down behind some bushes on his side. Even if the goblin knows where to look, he still has to find the rogue via the search action.

If the player isn't noticed, it takes an action to search for them. I'd rule the latter, but YMMV.

[-Jynx-]

Intresting way to affect the narrative. The player uses his skills to create stuff to hide in. Not sure if I would go that far, but it's a valid method.

My PC's ask me whats around them. I then explain the environment. They then interact with it (by hiding, invesitgating, searching, smashing or whatever).

Fair enough, everyone handles stealth a bit differently I suppose. I always encompassed stealth checks like playing hide and seek, you're not only trying to be still and in place, but also finding a spot.




I had to supress a sneeze, and my mobile went off. If I was stealthier I would have turned it on silent first, and be better able to suppress my cold.

Ever notice how loud your breathing is when youre trying not to breathe loudly by the way?

Also - by your logic, lying in long grass and not moving (such as waiting for an ambush) 'isnt a use of the stealth skill'. I respectfully totally disagree.

The mobile obviously is a moot point in a DnD setting. The sneeze I'd argue that your body would naturally turn those kinds of unconscious responses when you realize you're in danger. If you disagree, then I'd also argue you're just as likely to sneeze if you're a rogue who's stealthily hiding in a box rather than Jimmy who's invisible just standing around.

Point made on the grass thing. Though I'd still say just laying in tall grass in a field does not require a check, but if you then try to move and maneuver while in the grass you do. Laying down takes no skill, maneuvering while trying to hide in tall grass does.

[Malifice]

mostly likely an autosuccess

OK, so all I need to do to obtain an infiinite stealth check result is stand still behind something where you cant see me.

I guess all I need to get an infinite deception check is to lie.


A wizard wants to walk down a hallway where the PC's are currently engaged in a fight with another adventuring party. The wizard retreats out of earshot, casts invisibility, and then blithely strolls down the hallway past the battle. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

If the Wizard failed to make any effort to conceal his presence at all then most likely the PC's notice him. Despite what you say, i cant imagine him not trying to be quiet. He cast invisibilty so as not to be seen; I assume he is also trying (on some level) not to bump into anyone on the way past the PC's in the corridoor (be felt) and is also trying not to make too much noise on the way past (be heard) etc. I personally would note his passive stealth score (of 10+stealth), and call for perception checks from the PC's (its more fun that way). If they fail to beat it, he walks past just fine and none of them are the wiser.


The PCs are fighting an enemy adventuring party on a freshly-harvested field. An enemy wizard is invisible, waiting for his chance to use his Wand of Fireballs if he can avoid hitting his teammates. Every round he circles partway around the battle at a distance of 50', and Readies an action to take the Use an Object action to activate his wand if he can catch at least two PCs and no allies. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

They dont know exactly where he is. Theyre at disadvantage to hit him because of they dont know. They also cant target him with direct attack LOS magic. However, if he isnt making any effort to conceal his location, such as making no effort to not make noise etc the PC's have a rough idea he's there and where he is. The idiot should perhaps try and move quietly, keep his voice down, and stop kicking up that freshly harvested grass.

[Malifice]

Point made on the grass thing. Though I'd still say just laying in tall grass in a field does not require a check, but if you then try to move and maneuver while in the grass you do. Laying down takes no skill, maneuvering while trying to hide in tall grass does.

Yet a passing ranger could notice a glint from a shiny bit of metal the lying down character failed to conceal properly, his scabbard jutting up in the air, or hear the creak of leather from his harness, or see the depression in the grass. He could spot a spooked bird flying off from the spot where the person was lying.

As a bloke who spent time in the Army, little things give hidden things away, and lying down, staying still and keeping totally silent (waiting for an ambush) is not easy.

Stealth represents your ability to remain totally silent, to supress coughs, to understand the principles of camoflage, movement, and stepping lightly, to know not to hide in the obvious spot, and a million other things. How not to reveal your presence to other people.

Whenever a PC is (actively or passively) trying to hide their presence from other people, I call for a stealth check. Just like I call for a deception check whenever a PC is actively or passively attempting to decieve, manipulate or hoodwink another creature.

[pwykersotz]

A wizard wants to walk down a hallway where the PC's are currently engaged in a fight with another adventuring party. The wizard retreats out of earshot, casts invisibility, and then blithely strolls down the hallway past the battle. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

The PCs are fighting an enemy adventuring party on a freshly-harvested field. An enemy wizard is invisible, waiting for his chance to use his Wand of Fireballs if he can avoid hitting his teammates. Every round he circles partway around the battle at a distance of 50', and Readies an action to take the Use an Object action to activate his wand if he can catch at least two PCs and no allies. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

Just weighing in...

In my mind it would be an auto-success to be undetected if there was no way for the sensory clues which would reveal the person to be found. The DM can fairly easily make that distinction and set a DC as appropriate when those who would perceive the invisible foe get close enough. Disadavantage on Stealth or advantage on Perception if circumstances swing against the sneaker, reverse it if they are favorable. DC would be set by how far the sound travels. Knocking over a cup in a crowded room would be a higher DC than knocking one over in an empty room. But until the DM rules that there is some indicator which could possibly be perceived, the invisible person would remain completely undetected with no counter-rolls.

If they were making footprints in the carpet or similar, I would set a DC relative to the complexity of the room they're in versus a search, but it wouldn't be based on Stealth because they're not hiding. It's just environmental at that point. It's like walking into a laboratory and seeing a mess and trying to figure out if the owner is just messy or if someone trashed it. Heck, the footprints might also be of someone who teleported away, or a pair of invisible boots that were a gag gift from an archmage.

[-Jynx-]

Yet a passing ranger could notice a glint from a shiny bit of metal the lying down character failed to conceal properly, his scabbard jutting up in the air, or hear the creak of leather from his harness, or see the depression in the grass. He could spot a spooked bird flying off from the spot where the person was lying.

Yes, but that alludes more to the a high passive perception of the ranger or adversely a relatively low static hide check for laying in grass. The ranger could also fluff wise be more of a town archer who has studied up on his plants/animals in his off time. Perhaps fields aren't a favored terrain. So those kinds of subtleties he isn't trained for (or adversely the the rangers favored terrain was tall grass a creature laying in grass would probably auto-fail without some good magical or otherwise reason) I could give you a plethora of reasons as to why the Ranger may not notice Timmy laying in the grass even if he's not "actively" hiding by my definition.

Again I do see your point. There is a fine line of when you are "hiding" or when you're hidden due to your current environment.


Stealth represents your ability to remain totally silent, to supress coughs, to understand the principles of camoflage, movement, and stepping lightly, to know not to hide in the obvious spot, and a million other things. How not to reveal your presence to other people.

All of this I 100% agree with, I'm just presenting scenarios in where your environment is affecting your ability to hide more than you actually are. In which case you're not combining raw or trained skill in being stealthy, but instead you're relying entirely on the environment to do the legwork.

[Icewraith]

A wizard wants to walk down a hallway where the PC's are currently engaged in a fight with another adventuring party. The wizard retreats out of earshot, casts invisibility, and then blithely strolls down the hallway past the battle. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

The PCs are fighting an enemy adventuring party on a freshly-harvested field. An enemy wizard is invisible, waiting for his chance to use his Wand of Fireballs if he can avoid hitting his teammates. Every round he circles partway around the battle at a distance of 50', and Readies an action to take the Use an Object action to activate his wand if he can catch at least two PCs and no allies. What in the rules would lead you to think that the PCs automatically are both aware of the presence of the invisible wizard and would know exactly where he is?

If the wizard is seriously walking down a hallway through a fight and not trying to be stealthy, everyone will be aware that something weird is going on in an area of the hallway. If you're not being careful of how you move, you will make noise and you will disturb things. If you ARE being careful then you're making a stealth check.

In the second case, if the wizard isn't trying to be stealthy, then he's going to kick up piles of dirt and disturb things as he passes. The players find out that "something is disturbing the ground 50' that way".

Note that if the wizard is readying an action every round and moving, he has no actions left to make stealth checks with unless he also has Rogue levels for the bonus action hide.

Just because you're invisible doesn't mean people won't notice something's up if you move around or make noise. If you're invisible, take a move, and DON'T use your action to stealth, every creature in the immediate vicinity knows there's something unusual about the square your character occupies. If you're invisible, are actively trying to hide, and are not moving in theory your action is free to do something else once you use an action to take that first stealth check. For instance, you could take out your Wand of Fireball as part of your free interact with an object on the turn you make your Stealth check, or if you're already standing still you'd need to make a Stealth check to draw the wand without making any noise. Then you could remain in place and use your action to ready the wand.

Once the wand gets used your position is revealed because you just shot a fireball out of it, even if you're using Greater Invisibility.

Moving while invisible without trying to be stealthy means that you won't try to suppress biological functions like clearing your throat, sneezing, coughing, etc. It means you won't not start humming a tune that's stuck in your head. You'll breathe normally, walk normally, move normally, any items on your person that move when you walk (keys, familiars, spell component pouches, robes, manacles, lanterns, armor, hunting traps) will squeak or swish or clink appropriately. Your attention is not focused on being stealthy. You'll kick up dust clouds, walk through streams of smoke, bump into objects etc.

[coredump]

Basically, most of your post consists of you making up rules and claiming them as fact.... but even when I explicitly ask, you can't find any actual rules to support your assertions. I will try and point them out when they happen....



Im saying that the Stealth skill covers hiding. Its sets the DC for perception checks to find you.Yes, it sets the DC *IF and When the target is actually hiding or using Stealth.



Barring corner cases, creatures are generally aware of every other creature unless that creauture has used stealth (and hidden).
Example 1: Please provide a rule, or even a commonsense application, that indicates that everyone will automatically know where every other creature is. YOu have made that up...


Example:

A Rogue walks into an empty room, climbs into a box and closes the lid. He quietens his breath, and lies there silently. The DM correctly calls for a stealth check (the Rogue here is clearly using the 'hide action' and the 'stealth' skill). The Rogue gets a 15.

A minute or so later, three goblins walk into the room. Their passive perception is 9 and they are oblivious to the Rogue. They are followed by their wererat master however. The wererat has a passive perception of 12... but it also has advantage (+5 passive) on perception checks that rely on smell. Sniffing the air, the wererat detects the Rogue (he is no longer hidden) calls out to his goblin minions to surround the box, and for the 'smelly smelly tasty man creature in the box' to surrender.
Yes, we all understand that is how stealth and hiding works in that situation. That is not the issue at hand.


The above situation is no different to if the Rogue was invisible instead of in a box. He still needs to make a stealth check. Possibly the DM could also just record a 'passive stealth' score by adding 10 to his steath bonus. No, he does not 'need' to make a stealth check.... you have made up another rule.
There is also no call for just using the 'passive stealth'.... again, a *passive* check is only used when you are actually *using* that skill. If a person is just standing in a room... they are not (usually) actually using their stealth skill.



He's using Stealth be default. I would (in this case) simply add his Steath score to '10' and call for perception checks from the PC's as they enter. A reverse passive perception. What? Stealth by default? You just made up another rule. What if he is not trying to be stealthy? What if he is just standing and looking out the window? Or reading? or whatever?




And thats what Stealth v Peception models. If you hear or otherwise detect (perception) an invisible person moving quietly (stealth)

Depends on largely on his Dex and bonus to the stealth skill. Assume a passive '10' on Stealth check (he's not really actively trying to be quiet so no roll required), plus Dex, plus stealth bonus.

'Swoosh shwoosh swoosh.' Plus the jangling of the spell component pouch and the creaking of leather. this is just more of the same. You have decided that people are using stealth, even when they are not using stealth. You have fabricated some rule about 'default stealth' and made up another rule about just using passive stealth, even when they are not using that skill.




How good is his stealth skill? They have disadvantage on the check thanks to heavy armor. Assuming a Dex of 10 and no skill in Stealth, probably Perception DC 5 to hear someone casually trying to be quiet in chain mail armor, average dex and no training in stealth.
1) His stealth skill doesn't matter...since he is *not using* that skill.
2) You completely skipped over the 'pinpoint' aspect. Knowing that someone is walking around is very different from knowing their exact location. But you seem to imply that the rules say you will automatically 'just know' the exact location of every creature in the area.....



What? So the Wizard in your example (who has an effective Perception DC to locate of infinity) actively tries to use stealth at +0, rolls a 10 and sets the Perception DC to spot him now at 10?

He's better off just standing there invisibly and quietly (but somehow not using the stealth skill).. as long as he can ensure the DM doesnt make him actually use the stealth skill (notwithstanding, thats what he's clearly doing)?

Thats absurd. I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. None.
The point is, if someone is invisible, or behind a bookshelf, or just sitting in the corner reading, there is a good chance they will go unnoticed even if they are not trying to go unnoticed.
And even if you do notice something.... that is not the same as knowing their exact location...




Nope. Passive perception in that case. You want to roll you need to take the search action. You have made up another rule. As I have asked before... please present the rule that states you must use an action in order to use a skill. Or please stop claiming it is a rule.




This is all subsumed into the Stealth v Perception mechanic. If the invisibile creature walks through water, grant advantage on the Perception checks to spot him. If he walks across a flat floor in silk slippers grant him advantage to his stealth score.

I dont think you quite get how stealth and perception work. No, the problem is that you are not following the conversation well. This comment was about how sometimes it is easy to detect an invisible person, and sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is automatic. But "stealth" is only used if and when someone is actually using that skill. Perception would be used in either case.


It depends on your perception score and thier stealth score.

The doofus in plate could be a Rogue 20 with expertise in Stealth and a dex of 20. Even with disadvantage from heavy armor, he cant score less than a 22 on his Stealth check. And the person trying to hear him could be a distracted mage with a widom of 8 and no bonus to perception (needs to actively search for the plate wearing Rogue and even then needs a natural 20 to hear him).What if there *is no stealth score*? What if the invisible guy in plate is just walking across the cavern floor? According to you, you will automatically 'just know' the exact location of him, and anyone else walking around.
So, if is possible to detect someone, but not know their exact location?




What? If you want to use the stealth skill in combat, you use the Hide action (this sets the DC of perception checks to hear/ see/ smell you) , and then move. If youre a Rogue 2 you can use the hide action as a bonus action and then move and then attack (or whatever).

You could still be hidden or have an applicable perception DC set against you from a previous stealth result (in a previous turn or prior to combat starting) of course.Please show me that the rule dictating that the only way to use the Stealth Skill is to Hide first? You have made up another rule.

[coredump]

When a foe is hidden, it has a perception DC to spot/ locate/ hear/ detect.

When it is not hidden, what is the DC to detect it?
Determined like so many other DCs in the game. The DM adjudicates the DC based on the variables at the time.
Same way we know the DC for climbing a certain wall
Or the DC for intimidating a certain person or group.
Or the DC for Knowing a piece of lore
etc
etc





Ok, lets try again.

1) A wizard hears the PC's approach and jumps into a box, concealing himself completely. He stops moving at all so as to make no noise. The PC's then enter, oblivious to the presence of the mage.

Q1) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him as the PC's enter?

Q2) Why have you not called for a Stealth check from the Mage to hide (seeing as this is clearly what he is doing?)

Since the wizard is *using* the stealth skill... I would have him roll Dex(Stealth). Since it is somewhat a matter of willpower to not move, I might even allow a Wis(Stealth) check instead.

2) An invisible wizard is in the same room, and in response to the PC's coming, is now standing completely still. Shortly afterwards, the PC's walk in to the room.

Q3) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him? Again... since the wizard is *using* his skill... I would call for a roll.


2) Another invisible mage in the same room is standing next to the mage (from 2). He intentionally attempts to conceal his presence and hide (
using the concealment granted from his invisibility specifically for this purpose) while slowing his breathing, and being as quiet as he can. Unfortunately he is not proficient in stealth, and has a Dex of 14 (+2). He rolls a ten on his stealth check to be quiet (total of 12).

Q4) What is the DC to notice him?
Depends.... there is a good chance I would give him (or any of the above) advantage on their roll, if you get advantage from dim light, it seems reasonable to give advantage for invisible.
Further, it is assumed that the PCs are always 'checking out' their environment. But if the situation was different, the person entering may get disadvantage on their check, or even an autofail.
It is the DMs job to adjudicate each situation based on the exact details of that situation.


Q5) Why is he easier to notice than the Mage doing the exact same thing standing next to him who isnt hiding or using his stealth score? Why do you assume that is true?



3) A rogue is in the same room, with a huge Dex, expertise in stealth, and cunning action. He is in a second box keeping quiet, and has rolled a stealth check total of 24.

Q6) What is the DC for the PC's to notice him? Assuming the PCs were 'on alert', they would need a 24.

[Malifice]

Determined like so many other DCs in the game. The DM adjudicates the DC based on the variables at the time.
Same way we know the DC for climbing a certain wall
Or the DC for intimidating a certain person or group.
Or the DC for Knowing a piece of lore
etc
etc





Since the wizard is *using* the stealth skill... I would have him roll Dex(Stealth). Since it is somewhat a matter of willpower to not move, I might even allow a Wis(Stealth) check instead. Again... since the wizard is *using* his skill... I would call for a roll.

Depends.... there is a good chance I would give him (or any of the above) advantage on their roll, if you get advantage from dim light, it seems reasonable to give advantage for invisible.
Further, it is assumed that the PCs are always 'checking out' their environment. But if the situation was different, the person entering may get disadvantage on their check, or even an autofail.
It is the DMs job to adjudicate each situation based on the exact details of that situation.
Why do you assume that is true?

Assuming the PCs were 'on alert', they would need a 24.

Looks like our main point of contention here is: 'When is one using the steath skill?' otherwise articulated as: 'Does attmpting to stand completely still while totally obscured behind a tapestry, in a closet, or while invisible' count as using the Stealth skill?'

For mine the answer to question two is 'Obviously yes'

Youre drawing a weird artificial distinction that can be expressed as: 'You only make a Stealth check when the creature announces he is trying to hide, and not when his actions as described in game clearly reflect him attempting to be quiet and/or conceal himself'.

Which is like saying 'You only make a Deception check when the creature announces he is using the deception skill, and not when he othwise hoodwinks a NPC'.

I mean come on man; if a PC announces he turns himself invisible and then stands totally still... what is he doing? If he announces he crawls into the shadows and then stands stock still, what is he doing? If he crawls into cover and quietens his breath what is he doing? If he obscures his smell by rubbing mud over himself what is he doing?

Concealing his presence. Using stealth. Making it harder for him to be detected. Hiding. Obscuring his location to one or more of the senses.

Look; I might grant you that if he's just standing there he is only passively using the Stealth skill (so DC = 10 plus Stealth). But he is still using it; intentionaly or not.

It's weird and tortured logic that youre using to prove what you're saying. Have you looked at it from the other perspective (that those creatures are objectively using the Stealth skill whether they subjectively announce its specific mechanical use or not).

[coredump]

Dude, are you *purposely* not reading what I have been writing? Because I really can't see anyway for anyone to read what I wrote, and come up with the questions you still have....


Looks like our main point of contention here is: 'When is one using the steath skill?' otherwise articulated as: 'Does attmpting to stand completely still while totally obscured behind a tapestry, in a closet, or while invisible' count as using the Stealth skill?'

For mine the answer to question two is 'Obviously yes'
When have I *ever* said anything otherwise....

You even asked that question and I explicitly said *YES*. I can't make it any plainer...


Youre drawing a weird artificial distinction that can be expressed as: 'You only make a Stealth check when the creature announces he is trying to hide, and not when his actions as described in game clearly reflect him attempting to be quiet and/or conceal himself'. Again, I have *never* said that..... further, in answering your questions I have said the *exact opposite*... Did you read what I wrote...??? You quoted it....



I mean come on man; if a PC announces he turns himself invisible and then stands totally still... what is he doing? C'mon man... you have already asked that, and I already answered... yes he is trying to Hide/stealth.

If you don't care what I answer... if you are just going to ignore it....then why keep asking the question.


Look; I might grant you that if he's just standing there he is only passively using the Stealth skill (so DC = 10 plus Stealth). But he is still using it; intentionaly or not. And now we go back to making up rules. You treat "Passive" as if it is the same as 'accidentally' or 'unknowingly' or 'unintentionally'..... that is *not* what it means.



It's weird and tortured logic that youre using to prove what you're saying. Have you looked at it from the other perspective (that those creatures are objectively using the Stealth skill whether they subjectively announce its specific mechanical use or not).Your logic is
1) People can use skills accidentally, when they have no intention of doing so...
2) That people somehow automatically 'just know' *exactly* where every other creature is...

I don't think its my logic that is 'tortured' here...



Since you seem to completely ignore my answers to your questions.... lets reverse it:

Q1) If a PC walks into a large completely dark room, and inside there are some people; some are walking around, some are standing, some are sitting. Does the PC know where every person is automatically.... exactly where they each are?

Q2) If someone is invisible and just sitting in their library quietly reading..... and a PC walks in, does the PC automatically know exactly where that person is?

Q3) if an invisible person in metal armor is walking around in a field about 75ft away, and you hear them...does that mean you know exactly where they are?

[Malifice]

And now we go back to making up rules. You treat "Passive" as if it is the same as 'accidentally' or 'unknowingly' or 'unintentionally'..... that is *not* what it means.

passive [pas-iv]
adjective

1. not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.
2. not participating readily or actively; inactive: a passive member of a committee.
3. not involving visible reaction or active participation: to play a passive role.
4. inert or quiescent.
5. influenced, acted upon, or affected by some external force, cause, or agency; being the object of action rather than causing action (opposed to active ).

Thats actually exactly what it means.

Check the PHB page 175 for when to use passive checks. Passive insight score opposed by deception when lied to and not actively (ie rolling) to detect the lie. Passive perception vs stealth when not actively (i.e rolling) searching. And so on.

Generally its stealth v passive perception, but I'd be more than happy to apply passive stealth vs active perception.

In fact, when my players enter dungeons, the assumption is that they are trying to move as quietly as they can, sticking to corners, whispering etc. I note the passive stealth scores (10+stealth+/-5 for advantage or disadvantage) of all of them (along with passive perception, and insight scores) and compare those numbers to the passive perception scores of monsters nearby as they wander around.

The rules for passive checks on P175 clearly let me do this.


Your logic is
1) People can use skills accidentally, when they have no intention of doing so...

Yes. Of course. Subconsiously.

Were not talking about a case that the invisible creature in question is accidentally using stealth. His actions (being totally still keeping quiet while invisible) indicate he is trying to conceal his presence - the DM then calls for a stealth check.

Its no different to when a PC tries to convince a NPC to do something, threatens one with a veiled threat or lies to one. The DM calls for a persuasion, intimidate or deception check from the PC in question. It doesnt matter if the PC 'intended' to use those skils; the actions of the PC himself indicate that that's exactly what he is doing.


2) That people somehow automatically 'just know' *exactly* where every other creature is...

Nope. There are corner cases where this isnt the case. You dont (for example) know the location of every other person in 5 mile radius of a major city at any given time with a perception check. Were not talking about extreme examples like that here - we're talking about a creature that is otherwise immediately obvious to one sense (standing 10 feet away in the middle of a room) being invisible (and thus blind to that one sense) and making no effort to conceal the other senses.

Nothing in the rules infers or implies that invisibility grants 'infinite perception DC' - in fact the rules simply grant an invisible creature the conditions necessary for the use of the stealth skill to hide. No more and no less. It can hide at will all day along as long as it maintains its invisiblity.


Q1) If a PC walks into a large completely dark room, and inside there are some people; some are walking around, some are standing, some are sitting. Does the PC know where every person is automatically.... exactly where they each are?

I compare his passive perception with the stealth DC's of the people in the room who are trying (intentionally, accidentally or subconsiously) to be quiet. He automatically hears anyone being noisy (not acidentally or intentionally trying to keep quiet).

I then tell him he is aware of other people in the room who either arent quiet (no stealth) or arent quiet enough (he beats the stealth DC's with his passive perception) giving him a rough idea of how many he can hear talking or moving around, the distance to them and their rough location (within 5'). He can attack them if he wants (with disadvantage to the check thanks to the darkness) and they get advantage to attack rolls against him (assuming they can see in the dark) and are immune to LOS attacks.

The people he didnt hear (stealth beats pasive perception) are 'hidden' from him - I give him no information about them, and he cannot target them with spells or attacks.


Q2) If someone is invisible and just sitting in their library quietly reading..... and a PC walks in, does the PC automatically know exactly where that person is?

Unless they were actively (or passively) attempting a stealth check, yes. The PC notices a book on the table turning its own pages, and hears some murmuring about the pages contents coming from a stool in front of the book, the creaking of the stool, and the smell of spell components.

If the invisible wizard was trying to be quiet (as you infer he is from your example) then I would allow for steath check from the invisible wizard opposed by the PC's perception check to notice the above.


Q3) if an invisible person in metal armor is walking around in a field about 75ft away, and you hear them...does that mean you know exactly where they are?

Not exactly no, but precisely enough to make a speculative attack in his direction, walk up to him and swing or point it out to others. If your perception check beats his stealth check (the invisible dude has disadvantage on the check due to the clanging of his armor, but this is probably cancelled out by advantage on his stealth check as he is so far away) you know his location well enough to launch an attack at him (at disadvantage as you're not quite sure exactly where he is precisely thanks to his invisiblity).

[huttj509]

As an example, since I found it fitting that it happened as reading this:

I'm sitting at my computer, reading this thread, with headphones on.

My across the hall neighbor just entered the building, came downstairs, and entered his apartment.

He's on the other side of a wall, and the nearby window provides no view of the approach to the building.

I know what happened, because while he wasn't being an elephant (I always feel like I make a lot of noise on those steps), he wasn't trying to be stealthy.

He was unseen, but he was not hidden.

[Marcelinari]

I've not got an argument which will convince anyone, but for what it's worth, I think that instituting a Passive Stealth check for unseen (but not actively hidden) characters solves the problem nicely. Passive in this case is simply the opposite of active - if you would not be seen as a matter of course, then clearly some DC must be met in order to notice you. Since you are not actively attempting to conceal your presence (a Hide action and a Stealth check), the DC must be passively determined. The current protocol for passive scores are 10 + skill mod + proficiency, +/- adv.

A wizard sitting and reading a book whilst invisible would use his passive Stealth score, even if he doesn't take the Hide action. This represents the unwillingness of people to believe in what they cannot see. If the onlooker wishes to investigate the room (Intelligence [Investigate]), they may easily notice the turning of the pages or something else, and deduce the location of the wizard. If the wizard wishes to ensure that he goes undetected, he sneaks over behind a bookshelf and keeps very still, with shallow breathing - a Hide check.

I suspect part of where I'm disagreeing with Malice's argument comes from their use of 'using the Stealth skill' when it comes to passive hiding. I would suggest that you cannot 'use' something passively, as usage is an active endeavor - instead 'being Stealthy' or 'benefiting from the Stealth skill'. This is a very pedantic criticism. I may even have contradicted myself above. Hopefully it's still a helpful example.

[Telok]

Questions:

Is an invisible treasure chest "hiding" or is it's position always known?

A golem stands in the middle of a featureless room, it cannot hide. If someone casts invisibility on it does it become hidden? Does anyone entering the room know there is an invisible golem there? The golem takes no actions unless instructed to, is it any different from the treasure chest unless it moves?

[Dark Tira]

You are all horrible people for making me agree with Malifice in a hide thread, especially you Malifice. Anyways, rules are straightforward here, if you don't make a hide check you aren't hidden because you aren't trying to be hidden. General lapses in perception are handled with GM discretion but just because you didn't notice the parade marching down main street doesn't make it hidden.

[Xetheral]

Of course, post-errata, it's not entirely clear under what circumstances (e.g.) a wood elf could hide where a human can't. The human needs less than total concealment, and the Wood Elf needs light concealment. So what form of concealment is enough for a wood elf but not enough for a human?

Disagree, the line is crystal clear: Normally a creature could be seen, theoretically, (pre-hide) while lightly obscured. Thus, if seen, the creature can not make an attempt to hide against the observer.

The Wood Elf exception allows them to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by natural phenomena (per their racial trait).

You're forgetting the errata that says a creature can attempt to hide whenever it cannot be seen clearly. Ergo, both a human and a wood elf can attempt to hide in (e.g.) rain that is heavy enough to both render them unable to be clearly seen (for the human) and heavy enough to provide light obscurement (for the wood elf). Presumably the Wood Elf racial feature still has value, which necessitates that light obscurement is not always enough to prevent one from being clearly seen. But the boundary between light obscurement that still allows one to be clearly seen and light obscurement that doesn't allow one to be clearly seen has been left unclear.


OK, so all I need to do to obtain an infiinite stealth check result is stand still behind something where you cant see me.

In many cases, yes. If you cannot be seen and you aren't making any noise audible over the background level, then the odds of being noticed are negligible. Even a highly perceptive person cannot notice non-existent stimuli. Accordingly, in such situations the character is considered to be trying to hide, but there is no need for the DM to call for a check.

As I mentioned, specific circumstances could easily result in a chance of being detected. If the box was cramped or the wizard had to remain in it for an extended period, it would be challenging to avoid giving off any noise, especially if the box wasn't thick enough to muffle sound well. Accordingly, I'd call for check as I described.


I guess all I need to get an infinite deception check is to lie.

Your extrapolation from one specific circumstance to a general circumstance is baseless. A better comparison would be handing a document to a minor bureaucrat that has a false name on it. You don't need to roll a deception check, because there is no plausible way for your deceit to be detected.


If the Wizard failed to make any effort to conceal his presence at all then most likely the PC's notice him. Despite what you say, i cant imagine him not trying to be quiet. He cast invisibilty so as not to be seen; I assume he is also trying (on some level) not to bump into anyone on the way past the PC's in the corridoor (be felt) and is also trying not to make too much noise on the way past (be heard) etc.

I see nothing in the rules to suggest that the Wizard would be detected. He cannot be seen, and I can't imagine ordinary footsteps being audible to the distracted combatants over the din of battle. If the wizard was wearing leather-soled shoes on a marble floor, that's another matter. And a stealth check is not usually required to avoid bumping into people. I'd probably set the perception DC 15 with disadvantage.

Again, if the situation was different and the wizard had to walk through the middle of the combat, that would be another story, and would certainly result in a PC noticing something if the Wizard didn't try to be stealthy, but without a successful perception check the PCs wouldn't know what or where.


They dont know exactly where he is. Theyre at disadvantage to hit him because of they dont know. They also cant target him with direct attack LOS magic. However, if he isnt making any effort to conceal his location, such as making no effort to not make noise etc the PC's have a rough idea he's there and where he is. The idiot should perhaps try and move quietly, keep his voice down, and stop kicking up that freshly harvested grass.

They have no reason to even know he's there at all. At 50' his footsteps will be utterly inaudible even if there wasn't a combat going on, he's not speaking or making any other significant source of noise, and walking (or even running!) on a freshly harvested wheat field he isn't going to kick up anything unless he wants to. And he's not an idiot: since he's readying an action every round he can't also be making a stealth check unless he is also a rogue.

I'd probably set the perception DC at 20 with disadvantage. If he was spending his actions on Stealth, I'd likely just rule it an autosuccess.


Just weighing in...

In my mind it would be an auto-success to be undetected if there was no way for the sensory clues which would reveal the person to be found. The DM can fairly easily make that distinction and set a DC as appropriate when those who would perceive the invisible foe get close enough. Disadavantage on Stealth or advantage on Perception if circumstances swing against the sneaker, reverse it if they are favorable. DC would be set by how far the sound travels. Knocking over a cup in a crowded room would be a higher DC than knocking one over in an empty room. But until the DM rules that there is some indicator which could possibly be perceived, the invisible person would remain completely undetected with no counter-rolls.

If they were making footprints in the carpet or similar, I would set a DC relative to the complexity of the room they're in versus a search, but it wouldn't be based on Stealth because they're not hiding. It's just environmental at that point. It's like walking into a laboratory and seeing a mess and trying to figure out if the owner is just messy or if someone trashed it. Heck, the footprints might also be of someone who teleported away, or a pair of invisible boots that were a gag gift from an archmage.

(Emphasis added.) I agree, particularly with the bolded part.


If the wizard is seriously walking down a hallway through a fight and not trying to be stealthy, everyone will be aware that something weird is going on in an area of the hallway. If you're not being careful of how you move, you will make noise and you will disturb things.

Do you have a rules quote for that? Because I see nothing to suggest that is true, and real world experience suggests just the opposite: most people don't disturb objects when they walk down a hall, and the minimal noise made by normal footsteps would be lost amidst the din of combat.


In the second case, if the wizard isn't trying to be stealthy, then he's going to kick up piles of dirt and disturb things as he passes. The players find out that "something is disturbing the ground 50' that way".

Again, do you have a rules quote? Because I find it highly implausible that anyone would kick up dirt while walking. If there were puddles or something that would create ripples, I could see giving the PC's a chance to notice the ripples, probably against a fairly high DC (since they'd be creating ripples of their own) and at disadvantage for being in the middle of combat.


Note that if the wizard is readying an action every round and moving, he has no actions left to make stealth checks with unless he also has Rogue levels for the bonus action hide.

Yes, which is why the wizard in question isn't trying to be stealthy: he doesn't have time.


Just because you're invisible doesn't mean people won't notice something's up if you move around or make noise. If you're invisible, take a move, and DON'T use your action to stealth, every creature in the immediate vicinity knows there's something unusual about the square your character occupies.

I see no reason to believe this is true either in-game or in the real-world.


Once the wand gets used your position is revealed because you just shot a fireball out of it, even if you're using Greater Invisibility.

In the case of Greater Invisibility, I'd let everyone know the vector on which the bead of fire arrived, but I'd require a perception check to notice the originating square.


Moving while invisible without trying to be stealthy means that you won't try to suppress biological functions like clearing your throat, sneezing, coughing, etc. It means you won't not start humming a tune that's stuck in your head. You'll breathe normally, walk normally, move normally, any items on your person that move when you walk (keys, familiars, spell component pouches, robes, manacles, lanterns, armor, hunting traps) will squeak or swish or clink appropriately. Your attention is not focused on being stealthy. You'll kick up dust clouds, walk through streams of smoke, bump into objects etc.

... ? You and I apparently walk very differently. I'm not in the habit of kicking up dust clouds, walking through smoke, or bumping into things.

Yes, moving inevitably produces noise. But, absent unusual circumstances, that noise is not going to be audible over the sounds of combat. Also, there's a big difference between "not spending your actions on stealth" and "carrying yourself entirely casually as if no one else were around".


You are all horrible people for making me agree with Malifice in a hide thread, especially you Malifice. Anyways, rules are straightforward here, if you don't make a hide check you aren't hidden because you aren't trying to be hidden. General lapses in perception are handled with GM discretion but just because you didn't notice the parade marching down main street doesn't make it hidden.

No one is saying that one can be "hidden" (in the game sense) without trying to hide. What we are saying is that one can remain unnoticed without trying to hide.

If you believe the rules state that characters are automatically aware of all non-hidden characters (short of "general lapses in perception"), you'll need to provide a citation to that effect.

[Malifice]

You are all horrible people for making me agree with Malifice in a hide thread, especially you Malifice. Anyways, rules are straightforward here, if you don't make a hide check you aren't hidden because you aren't trying to be hidden. General lapses in perception are handled with GM discretion but just because you didn't notice the parade marching down main street doesn't make it hidden.

Sorry mate!

You'll note since the eratta (where it now states 'you can hide if you can't be seen clearly enough' I've also changed my stance on 'in combat' hiding.

Cunning action wood elves and halflings in my campaign rejoiced!

[Vogonjeltz]

You're forgetting the errata that says a creature can attempt to hide whenever it cannot be seen clearly. Ergo, both a human and a wood elf can attempt to hide in (e.g.) rain that is heavy enough to both render them unable to be clearly seen (for the human) and heavy enough to provide light obscurement (for the wood elf). Presumably the Wood Elf racial feature still has value, which necessitates that light obscurement is not always enough to prevent one from being clearly seen. But the boundary between light obscurement that still allows one to be clearly seen and light obscurement that doesn't allow one to be clearly seen has been left unclear.

No, I'm not forgetting that. Light obscurement is not enough to say a character can not be seen, for that you need to be heavily obscured. Here, maybe categorization will help:

The universe of potential states are:

1) No one around to see you.
2) You are heavily obscured from those who wish to see you.
3) You are lightly obscured from those who wish to see you.

If you are human you can attempt to hide in situations 1 and 2.
If you are a wood elf you can attempt to hide in situations 1, 2, and, so long as the thing that is making you lightly obscured is natural, 3.
If you are a lightfoot halfling you can attempt to hide in situations 1, 2, and provided you are being obscured by another character, 3.

The very important distinction for all of this is that attempting to hide is different than remaining hidden. One refers to when you can enter the state of hidden, the other refers to the conditions under which you retain the state of being hidden. Remaining hidden is entirely governed by two things: Perception score (passive) or Perception checks (active) contested by the stealth check.

[Xetheral]

No, I'm not forgetting that. Light obscurement is not enough to say a character can not be seen, for that you need to be heavily obscured.

The errata changed that: you don't need to be unseen to hide anymore. Now you need only to not be seen clearly.

[Gwendol]

No, I'm not forgetting that. Light obscurement is not enough to say a character can not be seen, for that you need to be heavily obscured. Here, maybe categorization will help:


The errata has changed the wording somewhat. Here is the exact quote:

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.

In other words; anything goes as long as the DM is on board and the player can argue that the enemy can't see his PC clearly.