Skulkers

[Dmdork]

Ok, rogue is being attacked in dim light by a band of bandits. All four of them have surrounded him. Rogue hides while right in front of them, which he can do, cuz of skulk feat. Rogues stealth checks are much higher than the bandits passives (their passives at disadvantage cuz of dim light) so the hide is successful. There is a point however where we have to move beyond RAW and implement DMs call, with regard to hiding while surrounded. I mean come on, how is that possible? So what calls would you DMs make? I would say that since the bandits have an idea that the rogue is close, they can use their actions to make an actual wisdom perception checks, which is better than passive cuz they could roll high and see the rogue.....

[nickl_2000]

There is no reason to use passive perception. This isn't a situation where the rogue is sneaking up on someone unaware. They know he is there and are actively looking for him.

That's a perception vs stealth contest where both roll without using an action. Also they are likely going to ready actions for when someone spots the rogue due to a great roll or an attack by the rogue.

[JellyPooga]

There is no reason to use passive perception. This isn't a situation where the rogue is sneaking up on someone unaware. They know he is there and are actively looking for him.

It'd be an Action for both the Rogue and the Bandits and it would be Active Checks all round, not Passive. Even so, there's every possibility of the Bandits still failing to spot the Rogue; they have Disadvantage and likely lower Perception than the Rogues Stealth; which still conjures that bizarre image of a bunch of dudes unable to find one guy just because the lighting is dim (we're not talking pitch black). That said, we are talking about a group of low-life scum trying to find someone specifically and well trained in the art of evasion; it's definitely cinematic and well within the bounds of high heroism, but if you're looking for a reality simulator, D&D isn't really the right system for it.

[Xetheral]

Rather than making a perception check, how about someone instead lights a torch? I mean, they just saw the Rogue fade into the darkness... adding some light would seem a rational response.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

And that's a reasonable use of the Use An Item action.

[BlackbirdXX]

Also reasonable to assume the bandits have advantage on the perception checks, they did just see him there a second ago.

And they could ready an action to attack at the first sign of him. Advantage would still net them a +5 on the passive check, although at least one of the should be actively searching while another tried to light a torch.

[Spiderguy24]

I would need to see the battlefield for myself, but I'm assuming all the bandits are within melee range? If so, I wouldn't let that work even with the feat. Unless you are actually going invisible, you don't actually go invisible when you hide. You are, well... hidding. It's hard to hide from a group of people that have you surrounded, in close proximity, and are staring right at you. Now if the rogue decided to disengage, assuming they are at least level 2, and ran to a different spot that is in a lightly obscured area, THEN I would allow him to hide.

[Dmdork]

That's a perception vs stealth contest where both roll without using an action. I would think that it would be an action though, Another does also. Which is it?

[nickl_2000]

I would think that it would be an action though, Another does also. Which is it?

If you have rolled initiative, it's an action for both sides. If not then no actions on either side

[Belier]

This would not work even with the feat.

You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.

You can try but it doesn't have to work cuz:

if you look in the phb, I don't have it nor do I remember the page but there is a window about hiding saying that while you are in combat everyone is on alert. Read this part and you'll understand why it is not possible to hide. Now as it is said you'll understand that hiding is more a mechanics outside of combat unless the ennemies in combat doesnt have line of sight when you are hiding.

You can try also means that it is dm call for some circumstances it could be allowed. For example the halfling could have an easier time to hide in combat if he's behind is bigger allies in dim light with shulker feat.

[Malifice]

Ok, rogue is being attacked in dim light by a band of bandits. All four of them have surrounded him. Rogue hides while right in front of them, which he can do, cuz of skulk feat.

The rogue can't hide in front of the bandits, because the bandits can see him as he makes the attempt. The skulker feat lets you hide in dim light; it doesn't remove the second restriction that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you.

The bandits are looking straight at the rogue when he attempts to hide. Ergo he cannot hide, skulker feat or otherwise.

The rogue could hide behind something as usual, and then move through dim light while retaining stealth. Or if he started the encounter hidden he can sneak directly past a bandit in a dimly lit corridor. Once/if the bandit spots him though and keeps tabs on him the jig is up.

Also the bandits arguably don't get -5 to perception because of dim light. They only get -5 to perception for visual perception checks for dim light. Presuming they can't see the rogue then they aren't using visual perception checks to find him (and such checks would automatically fail).

[Malifice]

I would think that it would be an action though, Another does also. Which is it?

The Search action. It is one of the 7 or 8 listed actions in the players handbook along with hide, dodge, dash, ready, attack and cast a spell.

The creature searches for the rogue making a perception check against the rogue stealth check result. On a success he finds the rogue and likely tell his mates where the rogue is.

[Potato_Priest]

The rogue can't hide in front of the bandits, because the bandits can see him as he makes the attempt. The skulker feat lets you hide in dim light; it doesn't remove the second restriction that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you.


5e operates under the assumption that specific rules beat general ones. The general rule is that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you, but skulker is a specific exception to the general rule that allows you to hide when only lightly obscured (like when in dim light).

Now, with regard to the situation: it would be rather surprising if none of the bandits had a source of light such as a torch, lantern, or light cantrip that they could activate to instantly reveal the rogue.

[Erys]

5e operates under the assumption that specific rules beat general ones. The general rule is that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you, but skulker is a specific exception to the general rule that allows you to hide when only lightly obscured (like when in dim light).

Now, with regard to the situation: it would be rather surprising if none of the bandits had a source of light such as a torch, lantern, or light cantrip that they could activate to instantly reveal the rogue.

I don't believe you cannot cite Specific beats General when there is nothing in Skulker Feat that negates the rule regarding hiding while being observed.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The rogue can't hide in front of the bandits, because the bandits can see him as he makes the attempt. The skulker feat lets you hide in dim light; it doesn't remove the second restriction that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you..

I believe this is the correct ruling RAW.

Skulker feat specifically allows you to TRY to hide when you are lightly obscured.

The above bolded line is directly from the rules on hiding in chapter 7.

In the OPs scenario the bandits have surrounded the rogue which implies they see him and know where he is. Therefore even with the feat his attempts(tries) to hide will fail.

If however they were merely searching the room and had not noticed him yet (say he was hidden already before hand) then they would have to spot. Rogue could be surrounded without them knowing it.

[Potato_Priest]

I don't believe you cannot cite Specific beats General when there is nothing in Skulker Feat that negates the rule regarding hiding while being observed.

Being able to hide while only lightly obscured clearly negates the rule that says you can't hide while things can see you (since you can still see through light obscurement, just with disadvantage on vision-based perception checks), otherwise this rules question wouldn't be an issue.

Why could a rogue hide while only lightly obscured from an enemy that hadn't seen him yet at a range of 30 feet, and not while in melee combat against an enemy that has seen him? The answer to this is common sense, because there is nothing in the rules as written to distinguish the two cases.

[Belier]

Being able to hide while only lightly obscured clearly negates the rule that says you can't hide while things can see you (since you can still see through light obscurement, just with disadvantage on vision-based perception checks), otherwise this rules question wouldn't be an issue.

Why could a rogue hide while only lightly obscured from an enemy that hadn't seen him yet at a range of 30 feet, and not while in melee combat against an enemy that has seen him? The answer to this is common sense, because there is nothing in the rules as written to distinguish the two cases.

This means that if you are hidden in dim light at the moment the ennemie come around if his passive perception is not high enough you will be considered hidden to him even if you would usually be in plain sight. This does not change raw. If you try to hide in dim light while you are observed your hiding will fail.

The way it works is similar to this ability of elves but the feat is a bit better.

Mask of the Wild: You can try to hide when lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

[sophontteks]

Elves can hide in plain site. So why can't skulkers?

[Belier]

Elves can hide in plain site. So why can't skulkers?

Elves can hide if there is foliage or rain or stuff like this only if they werent seen hiding. Same as skulker

[Mortis_Elrod]

Mask of the Wild and Skulker does the same thing, gives you the ability to try to hide. Does not mean you can actually do it.

[Belier]

Mask of the Wild and Skulker does the same thing, gives you the ability to try to hide. Does not mean you can actually do it.

Yep, DM should let you roll a stealth check only if you ain't in any ennemy line of sight. If you get this prerequesite, the number you get is the passive perception needed to see you while you are hidden. As soon as any non allied group see you, you are not considered hidden any more. It is considered the ennemy is on alert and only one guy seeing you is considered having alerted the others of the place you are hidden.

An exception to this could be something made a huge boom and everybody is kinda surprised about it and looking in the boom direction(thunderwave any one? Or a tunnel collapsing near). You call to the dm, while everybody is distracted by the boom, I try to hide in the dim light. Then the dm would roll to determine if indeed everybody was looking at it or may be he clearly stated every one was distracted and he does not need to roll. Then he could tell you, ok nobody is cautious of you at the moment, roll your stealth. Such a call is obviously dm dependant and not the players choice. But the player could suggest it to the DM and he may find it creative enaugh to allow you to roll your stealth. So, in this kind of occasion, you can get a try to hide.

The other, most consistant form of hiding is to disapear from the line of sight fron anybody throught full cover and then attempt a hide action. And I'll resay it again. FULL COVER FROM EVERY ENNEMIES!

[Potato_Priest]

This means that if you are hidden in dim light at the moment the ennemie come around if his passive perception is not high enough you will be considered hidden to him even if you would usually be in plain sight. This does not change raw. If you try to hide in dim light while you are observed your hiding will fail.

The way it works is similar to this ability of elves but the feat is a bit better.

Mask of the Wild: You can try to hide when lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

So then, if you cannot succeed at hiding while only lightly obscured from an enemy, why does skulker allow you to try? Is that feature completely useless?

[Astofel]

God why do people keep inventing these weird edge case scenarios regarding stealth.

In this case you should do what DMs are supposed to do in 5e, and make a ruling using your common sense. You tell the rogue that he cannot hide, because he is surrounded on all sides and has nowhere to go, so there is nowhere he could plausibly be other than where he currently is. By the strictest RAW reading, allowing the Hide action, I would make all the enemies attack his space anyway, again because there's no other place he could possibly be. Even with disadvantage, one of those attacks will hit eventually and boom, he's found.

Also if you're a rogue that has been surrounded on all sides then you're a pretty terrible rogue.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So then, if you cannot succeed at hiding while only lightly obscured from an enemy, why does skulker allow you to try? Is that feature completely useless?

under normal circumstances you can't try to hide simply with being lightly obscured. You need to be heavily obscured or meet a requirement set by DM to hide usually.

Hiding is better as a proactive approach instead of a reactionary one, especially with skulker feat.

If the Rogue was hidden before hand then they would have to have high enough passive perception or take the search action to find him. But the Rogue can't simply vanish out of nothing if he's already spotted and surrounded with nothing to hide him.

[Belier]

So then, if you cannot succeed at hiding while only lightly obscured from an enemy, why does skulker allow you to try? Is that feature completely useless?

Let's say that you are a skulker rogue in a dim lighted tunnel and your group notices another group that is speaking and you can see their light.

DM is asking, what are you doing guys. He expect somebody to do something. Yiu as the rogue says, my pc is going to try to be stealthy and slowly walk close to the other group so that I can hear what they say or even see them(because you want information before the group choose what to do next right?). Tou have the skulker feat so you are gonna call on your dm that you will stay in dim light so that you can stay hidden to the other group. It simplify things for you because you can get closer without looking for a place to hide because if your stealth roll is high enaugh that none of their passive is high enaugh to match your stealth roll, well now you are standing up in a situation when you would be normally visible to them, but now, they cannot see you. You even get a bonus, if they are in dim light, you have no disadvantage to roll active perception to see if you could reckognise somebody.

That is how skulker feat work. Without it, you need cover or total obscurity to stay hidden. With it, you can approach and stay hidden in plain sight as long as you are lightly obscured.

Otherwise, you would have to use walls for cover or stuff like this. You want to sneak pass a group of guards on alert? You will need to distract them to make a successful stealth to pass the guards in dim light without the feat, but with it, no need to even distract them, you just need to have dim light and roll high enaugh to try and walk your way. With a distraction, there is a possibility they becaume suspicious also.

If you cannot find a use for the feat, may be it is because your dm is lenient on how stealth is working.

[Emay Ecks]

See I don't see Skulker as a "character literally disappears into light obscurement" thing. Skulkers are just generally harder to notice people, and the feat demonstrates this by letting them hide when they're not in a brightly lit visible place. Normally in-combat characters are always alert and have eyes on all enemies, but skulker lets a character be generally harder to notice and become unnoticed by the normally attentive enemies.

So in the case of a rogue surrounded on all sides, no I wouldn't let them roll stealth.

However, unlike several people on this thread seem to believe, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to hide while they are in line of sight and lightly obscured. Skulker states "you can attempt to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are trying to hide." This means that unlike standard rules for most characters, you do not have behind full cover or otherwise out of line of sight to hide. If you are standing in an open, dimly lit room that meets the requirements for light obscurement, you may try to hide from your enemy (assuming they don't have darkvision). And if pass a check to hide (beating the passive perception of an enemy), you are unseen by them. This doesn't mean your character is invisible, it just means the enemy has ceased being able to track your character in the combat, giving you advantage when attacking them.

[Astofel]

Let's say that you are a skulker rogue in a dim lighted tunnel and your group notices another group that is speaking and you can see their light.

DM is asking, what are you doing guys. He expect somebody to do something. Yiu as the rogue says, my pc is going to try to be stealthy and slowly walk close to the other group so that I can hear what they say or even see them(because you want information before the group choose what to do next right?). Tou have the skulker feat so you are gonna call on your dm that you will stay in dim light so that you can stay hidden to the other group. It simplify things for you because you can get closer without looking for a place to hide because if your stealth roll is high enaugh that none of their passive is high enaugh to match your stealth roll, well now you are standing up in a situation when you would be normally visible to them, but now, they cannot see you. You even get a bonus, if they are in dim light, you have no disadvantage to roll active perception to see if you could reckognise somebody.

That is how skulker feat work. Without it, you need cover or total obscurity to stay hidden. With it, you can approach and stay hidden in plain sight as long as you are lightly obscured.

Otherwise, you would have to use walls for cover or stuff like this. You want to sneak pass a group of guards on alert? You will need to distract them to make a successful stealth to pass the guards in dim light without the feat, but with it, no need to even distract them, you just need to have dim light and roll high enaugh to try and walk your way. With a distraction, there is a possibility they becaume suspicious also.

If you cannot find a use for the feat, may be it is because your dm is lenient on how stealth is working.

I'm not sure why you're quoting me, nothing I said goes against what you're saying here. In fact I agree with all of these points. All I'm saying is that in the particular case outlined in the OP I would personally say "screw the RAW, no you can't hide because that would be silly."

[Belier]

I'm not sure why you're quoting me, nothing I said goes against what you're saying here. In fact I agree with all of these points. All I'm saying is that in the particular case outlined in the OP I would personally say "screw the RAW, no you can't hide because that would be silly."

I meant to quote the text of the other post before you sorry

[Potato_Priest]

Let's say that you are a skulker rogue in a dim lighted tunnel and your group notices another group that is speaking and you can see their light.

DM is asking, what are you doing guys. He expect somebody to do something. Yiu as the rogue says, my pc is going to try to be stealthy and slowly walk close to the other group so that I can hear what they say or even see them(because you want information before the group choose what to do next right?). Tou have the skulker feat so you are gonna call on your dm that you will stay in dim light so that you can stay hidden to the other group. It simplify things for you because you can get closer without looking for a place to hide because if your stealth roll is high enaugh that none of their passive is high enaugh to match your stealth roll, well now you are standing up in a situation when you would be normally visible to them, but now, they cannot see you. You even get a bonus, if they are in dim light, you have no disadvantage to roll active perception to see if you could reckognise somebody.

That is how skulker feat work. Without it, you need cover or total obscurity to stay hidden. With it, you can approach and stay hidden in plain sight as long as you are lightly obscured.



I'd appreciate it if you could quote some rules to back up your position that skulker only allows you to travel though areas of light obscurement and remain hidden, rather than allowing you to begin to hide there.

That's not the simple RAW of the situation. The skulker feat lets you attempt to hide when you are already lightly obscured from your enemies, not just allowing you to maintain your cover when you are behind total cover, hide, and then move into a lightly obscured area.


You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom(perception) check of any creature that actively searches for your presence.

Thus, the skulker feat allows you to begin hiding when creatures should be able to see you, because you are lightly obscured. This means that you make a stealth check, contested by your enemy's perception.

For the record, I wouldn't let the rogue who was completely surrounded in melee hide either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't RAW.

[Mortis_Elrod]

That's not the simple RAW of the situation. The skulker feat lets you attempt to hide when you are already lightly obscured from your enemies, not just allowing you to maintain your cover when you are behind total cover, hide, and then move into a lightly obscured area.




Thus, the skulker feat allows you to begin hiding when creatures should be able to see you, because you are lightly obscured. This means that you make a stealth check, contested by your enemy's perception.

For the record, I wouldn't let the rogue who was completely surrounded in melee hide either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't RAW.

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

[Potato_Priest]

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

In my version of the PHB, it says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly". Using this, there's two possible interpretations, without having to resort to specific beats general, (although if you ask me that ought to come into play here regardless).

1. Being lightly obscured means that the enemy can't see you clearly, though they can unquestionably still see you. With this rule, skulker would allow you to hide while lightly obscured from a creature that can see you, because they can't see you clearly since you're lightly obscured.
2. Being able to "try to hide" doesn't mean you can succeed, and you can't succeed if your enemy can see you at all. Because the first term of the skulker feat only allows you to try to hide while lightly obscured (not continue being hidden when moving through areas of light obscurement, because it doesn't say a thing about that), this interpretation would make that portion of the feat completely useless.

[Mortis_Elrod]

In my version of the PHB, it says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly". Using this, there's two possible interpretations, without having to resort to specific beats general, (although if you ask me that ought to come into play here regardless).

1. Being lightly obscured means that the enemy can't see you clearly, though they can unquestionably still see you. With this rule, skulker would allow you to hide while lightly obscured from a creature that can see you, because they can't see you clearly since you're lightly obscured.
2. Being able to "try to hide" doesn't mean you can succeed, and you can't succeed if your enemy can see you at all. Because the first term of the skulker feat only allows you to try to hide while lightly obscured (not continue being hidden when moving through areas of light obscurement, because it doesn't say a thing about that), this interpretation would make that portion of the feat completely useless.


2. And the feat isnt useless. its better as a proactive use than reactive. I've said this before.

A rogue with skulker can almost always hide first before they even lay eyes on him, and again you can't even attempt to hide with only being lightly obscured unless you have this feat.

It definitely has its uses and the other parts of the feat are useful too.

[Malifice]

5e operates under the assumption that specific rules beat general ones. The general rule is that you can't attempt to hide when creatures can see you, but skulker is a specific exception to the general rule that allows you to hide when only lightly obscured (like when in dim light).

Now, with regard to the situation: it would be rather surprising if none of the bandits had a source of light such as a torch, lantern, or light cantrip that they could activate to instantly reveal the rogue.

Err nope. The feat doesn’t change the restriction that you can’t hide under observation.

It just changes the other conditions that enable hiding namely it lets you hide in light obscurement (shadows).

You can slip into a shadowy corner of a room and hide. You just can’t do so while I watch you.

[Maelynn]

Err nope. The feat doesn’t change the restriction that you can’t hide under observation.

But that's just the thing, the rules specifically state that you can't attempt to hide while a creature sees you clearly. It doesn't say that you can't hide at all when being watched. So then the question would be, is dim light (which is considered 'lightly obscured' as per PHB 183) enough to counter the 'clearly' aspect, thus allowing a character with the skulker feat the attempt?

And with attempt I do mean rolling against the bandits' active Perception check (although these would be with disadvantage, because of the dim light).

[Mortis_Elrod]

But that's just the thing, the rules specifically state that you can't attempt to hide while a creature sees you clearly. It doesn't say that you can't hide at all when being watched. So then the question would be, is dim light (which is considered 'lightly obscured' as per PHB 183) enough to counter the 'clearly' aspect, thus allowing a character with the skulker feat the attempt?

And with attempt I do mean rolling against the bandits' active Perception check (although these would be with disadvantage, because of the dim light).

its an issue of which phb everyone has. Apparently my copy doesn't have the word clearly in that line so id say nay. And even in the OPs scenario id say no because the bandits absolutely see him clearly ( or at least most of them do). So idk, i think thats a one of the big issues with stealth in his game.

[Malifice]

But that's just the thing, the rules specifically state that you can't attempt to hide while a creature sees you clearly. It doesn't say that you can't hide at all when being watched. So then the question would be, is dim light (which is considered 'lightly obscured' as per PHB 183) enough to counter the 'clearly' aspect, thus allowing a character with the skulker feat the attempt?

That's a question whats answer will differ from dungeon Master to dungeon Master.

In my view it is impossible to hide from someone in a dimly lit room while they are observing you closely.

However a character with the Skulker feet could hide in a dimly lit room and I could walk through it without noticing them there.

Bear in mind in my interpretation of the rules, it is impossible to attempt to hide at all while under direct observation. If your character walks behind a pillar while im watching you, you cannot attempt to hide behind that pillar. Unless you sneak through a hidden secret passage, or teleport to a different location or something similar.


And with attempt I do mean rolling against the bandits' active Perception check (although these would be with disadvantage, because of the dim light).

That is not how hiding works.

If the dungeon master tells you you can attempt to hide, you make a stealth check as an action against the passive perception of near by creatures. On a success you become hidden and you remain so until you reveal yourself, or those creatures take the search action and succeed in a perception check to find you.

[Belier]

I'd appreciate it if you could quote some rules to back up your position that skulker only allows you to travel though areas of light obscurement and remain hidden, rather than allowing you to begin to hide there.

That's not the simple RAW of the situation. The skulker feat lets you attempt to hide when you are already lightly obscured from your enemies, not just allowing you to maintain your cover when you are behind total cover, hide, and then move into a lightly obscured area.




Thus, the skulker feat allows you to begin hiding when creatures should be able to see you, because you are lightly obscured. This means that you make a stealth check, contested by your enemy's perception.

For the record, I wouldn't let the rogue who was completely surrounded in melee hide either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't RAW.

You are only quoting the beggining of the green window on phb p.177

There is a whole part you are ommiting which contains this and immediately after the sentences you quoted, we can read this exact rule.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you and if you nake noise, you give away your position.

Skulker feat does not override this rule. Every normal vision creature sees in dimlight with disadvantage, but they see, if they see you, you cannot hide.

Skulker feat means that you are discrete to a point that if they did not see you yet, you can remain hidden in dim light. If they see you, you cannot try to hide until you get fullbxover or heavy obscurement. This ruling stays the same.

The game goes even farther for combat interaction, it says that everyone is so on alert, that as long as you are in their sight, they know you are there. They end up giving some judgement for the DM interpretation of a situation so he can allow a few things and override this rule depending on the situation.

DM can overide hiding rule, skulker feat does not remove the line of sight restriction to attempt hiding.

The thing about traveling in dim light with skulker feat is more RAI based from the idea that if you are carefull eneugh, you can walk very slowly and hide everytime you move for like half your speed even with the fact that you walk in plain sight of guards(dim lighted). You would need to roll many stealth check ask by the dm for every simulated turns you move. A normal creature without skulker would need cover or a good enaugh moment of distraction to make the same thing. Of course the dm could also ask for a single check for the whole situation, could even ask for a single group check and could also not care for the skulker feat at all because all of this is always at the discretion of the dm. If your case is the latter, don't waste a precious feat on skulker

[Potato_Priest]

2. And the feat isnt useless. its better as a proactive use than reactive. I've said this before.

A rogue with skulker can almost always hide first before they even lay eyes on him, and again you can't even attempt to hide with only being lightly obscured unless you have this feat.

It definitely has its uses and the other parts of the feat are useful too.

The feat does nothing proactive. It doesn’t let you stay hidden while lightly obscured, because it doesn’t say that it does. All it does is let you try to hide (which means begin hiding) while lightly obscured. If that never works because enemies can see you, then that part of the feat is completely useless, although the other terms certainly still have some effect.



Skulker feat means that you are discrete to a point that if they did not see you yet, you can remain hidden in dim light. If they see you, you cannot try to hide until you get fullbxover or heavy obscurement. This ruling stays the same.


No, it doesn't. If that was the effect of the feat, its wording would be "when hiding, you can move through areas that are only lightly obscured without revealing your position". This is not what the feat says. The feat allows you to try to hide when lightly obscured.

[Matrix_Walker]

The word "clearly" was added to the PBH in errata. A surrounded creature can hide as long as he can't be seen clearly, and dim light is giving disadvantage on vision checks, so you're good to go there.

Just because they are hidden does not mean you don't know they must be there. So they are attacked at disadvantage, no big whoop.

[Belier]

The feat does nothing proactive. It doesn’t let you stay hidden while lightly obscured, because it doesn’t say that it does. All it does is let you try to hide (which means begin hiding) while lightly obscured. If that never works because enemies can see you, then that part of the feat is completely useless, although the other terms certainly still have some effect.



No, it doesn't. If that was the effect of the feat, its wording would be "when hiding, you can move through areas that are only lightly obscured without revealing your position". This is not what the feat says. The feat allows you to try to hide when lightly obscured.

You can try to hide, but if the ennemy see you try the result is auto-fail.

The feat feature to hide is not as good as you say it is. However, it still allow you to hide in dim light following the normal hiding rule that you need to not be sighted when hiding, which is still en enhancement/buff of the hiding mechanics

If you don't like that this is the way it works, ask your dm(or decide if you are the dm) to house rule it.

[Matrix_Walker]

You can try to hide, but if the ennemy see you try the result is auto-fail.

The feat feature to hide is not as good as you say it is. However, it still allow you to hide in dim light following the normal hiding rule that you need to not be sighted when hiding, which is still en enhancement/buff of the hiding mechanics

If you don't like that this is the way it works, ask your dm(or decide if you are the dm) to house rule it.

Your info is outdated. The eratta and subsequent printings indicate you can hide if you are not seen "clearly."

You don't even need the Feat to hide while only lightly obscured anymore.

[tieren]

I always pictured it more on a bard than a rogue.

He takes off his cloak twirls it around in the shadows and as it falls to the ground flat it is evident he is no longer there...

[Belier]

Your info is outdated. The eratta and subsequent printings indicate you can hide if you are not seen "clearly."

You don't even need the Feat to hide while only lightly obscured anymore.

That would make a feature of skulker and mask of the wild irrevelent. I have seen the errata mentionning clearly but I don't think it is meant to render these race and feat features irrevelent. Seems to me that it is more in line with the text stating the dm makes the call. Of course if I was a dm my calls could change relating to distances and lighting, partial covers, weather and such but I would not go as far as to overshadow what is a feature of a race or feat.

[Maelynn]

That is not how hiding works.

If the dungeon master tells you you can attempt to hide, you make a stealth check as an action against the passive perception of near by creatures. On a success you become hidden and you remain so until you reveal yourself, or those creatures take the search action and succeed in a perception check to find you.

I took my info straight from the PHB:

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

Contested by a Perception check. Until the total is met. Hence, you make a Stealth check and the surrounding creatures get to make an opposing Perception check (with disadvantage because of dim light). If they win, then you didn't hide successfully. If you win, then you managed to play a trick on the other creatures' eyes and are gone while they blinked, so to say - much like the way HiPS used to work.

For the rest I still go by my statement that the word 'clearly' in the PHB makes all the difference here, making it possible to attempt a hide while being watched.

[Potato_Priest]

That would make a feature of skulker and mask of the wild irrevelent. I have seen the errata mentionning clearly but I don't think it is meant to render these race and feat features irrevelent. Seems to me that it is more in line with the text stating the dm makes the call. Of course if I was a dm my calls could change relating to distances and lighting, partial covers, weather and such but I would not go as far as to overshadow what is a feature of a race or feat.

If you care to houserule this so that people can't hide from other people right in front of them, that's certainly your perogative. Whatever houserules you come up with will probably make more sense than the RAW of this situation, which would allow that surrounded rogue to hide.

[Belier]

If you care to houserule this so that people can't hide from other people right in front of them, that's certainly your perogative. Whatever houserules you come up with will probably make more sense than the RAW of this situation, which would allow that surrounded rogue to hide.

I would never allow this, it does not rewrite the rule of being seen while hiding. Even if clearly is vaguely mentionned I stick that it is a dm call to determine when someone is not seen clearly. The whole sentence before these words call for dm judgement case so it has to be innline with the preceding words.

[Malifice]

The feat does nothing proactive. It doesn’t let you stay hidden while lightly obscured, because it doesn’t say that it does. All it does is let you try to hide (which means begin hiding) while lightly obscured. If that never works because enemies can see you, then that part of the feat is completely useless, although the other terms certainly still have some effect.

What?

You can attempt to Hide in Light Obscurement. Just not while someone is looking at you.

Using the feat you can Hide in the shadows, and then walk down a dimly lit hallway past 2 alert quards.


No, it doesn't. If that was the effect of the feat, its wording would be "when hiding, you can move through areas that are only lightly obscured without revealing your position". This is not what the feat says. The feat allows you to try to hide when lightly obscured.

It lets you 'Hide in Shadows'. We get that. It just doesn't remove the restriction of'You cant hide under observation'.

You cant Hide behind total cover if I watch you enter that cover either.

[Malifice]

I took my info straight from the PHB:

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

Contested by a Perception check. Until the total is met. Hence, you make a Stealth check and the surrounding creatures get to make an opposing Perception check (with disadvantage because of dim light). If they win, then you didn't hide successfully. If you win, then you managed to play a trick on the other creatures' eyes and are gone while they blinked, so to say - much like the way HiPS used to work.

For the rest I still go by my statement that the word 'clearly' in the PHB makes all the difference here, making it possible to attempt a hide while being watched.

Its contested by a Perception check via the Search action. A creature only gets a roll against your Stealth check result if they are actively searching for you.

On your turn you take the Hide action and Hide (assuming the preconditions are met). To be successful you need to roll at least the passive perception score of the creature you're hiding from.

If you succeed, you remain hidden unless you do something to reveal yourself, or your opponent uses the Search action and rolls at least your Stealth score result, or the DM says you're found.


The word "clearly" was added to the PBH in errata. A surrounded creature can hide as long as he can't be seen clearly, and dim light is giving disadvantage on vision checks, so you're good to go there.

Youre free to rule that way, but its madness.

You're literally saying that a person surrounded by half a dozen people, and being closely watched in a candlelit room, can attempt to hide from those watching him?

Lulz.

Not being seen 'clearly' leaves room for DM discretion (as does the opening line of the Hiding rules that states 'Your DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding'.

But you've obviously never played Hide and Seek if you think a person can hide from half a dozen people staring at him (and surrounding him) in a candlelit room.


Just because they are hidden does not mean you don't know they must be there. So they are attacked at disadvantage, no big whoop.

Umm no. They don't get attacked at disadvantage. They're hidden meaning you don't know where they are anymore. Under the rules the only way you can find a hidden creature is to take the Search action to find them, they reveal themselves, or via your stated actions ('I open the box and peer inside') the DM decides you find them.

[Potato_Priest]

It lets you 'Hide in Shadows'. We get that. It just doesn't remove the restriction of'You cant hide under observation'.

You cant Hide behind total cover if I watch you enter that cover either.

You're free to rule it that way (and indeed I would probably do so myself when I DM), but the restriction "can't hide while something is looking at you" is found nowhere in the rules and is therefore not RAW (except to the extent that the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding).

[Malifice]

You're free to rule it that way (and indeed I would probably do so myself when I DM), but the restriction "can't hide while something is looking at you" is found nowhere in the rules and is therefore not RAW (except to the extent that the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding).

'You cant hide when someone can see you clearly' tells me all I need to know when applied using a common sense plain English non game jargon interpretation.

As in; if I (real me) is closely watching you (real you) attempt to hide (say; crawl under a bed in an otherwise empty room) then you cant attempt to hide (your attempt automatically fails). I know where you are and you are not hidden from me. In a game of 'Hide and Seek' I find you instantly.

You may have 'total cover' relative to me, but that's not important. You aren't doing anything under that bed that makes you hidden from me, or makes me forget where you are.

People get wrapped up in this Hiding thing because they approach it from a gamist interpretation, or from a MMORG 'mash the stealth button; interpretation. Applying common sense makes the rules crystal clear.

I'm of the view that 'cant see you clearly' means that one can be Hidden or attempt to Hide, while still observable to vision (such as hiding behind a tree, but peering around the corner, or a person attempting to hide while in the periphery of a distracted creatures sight).

If a creature cannot attempt to Hide from me in bright light (as I observe them closely) I cant see how they can do so in dim light like candlelight (while I watch them closely).

Skulker lets you attempt to Hide in dim light like candlelight (which is cool). But it doesn't let you do so while under observation (unless you as DM rule that a creature can somehow do something to blend into the shadows while under full observation, and suddenly render the observer unsure as to where you are and unable to see you despite staring straight at you).

I have no real problem with a DM that wants to rule 'Stealth = mash the Hide button' if that floats your boat. Personally, I take a more common sense approach to hiding.

A Skulker can do cool stuff like while an Ogre in total darkness fights your Barbarian buddy, move around behind the Ogre and hide, before slinking off totally unnoticed. They can sneak up to a room full of Orcs in darkness, and then continue to sneak through that room totally unnoticed. That's a nice enough benefit before one also bears in mind Skulker also lets you attack from Hiding without revealing your position on a miss (perfect for snipers), AND you no longer get disadvantage to perception checks for dim light.

If your DM wants to rule that it lets you mystically become invisible while under direct observation in dim light, go nuts. It's certainly not the only interpretation that exists, and for mine it's certainly not the preferred one, nor is it the most logical or commonsense one.

[RSP]

RAW, the answer is "ask your DM." Per the errata'd PHB:

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

This is one of those cases where the DM decides if the conditions are appropriate to allow the character the chance to succeed at Hiding.

[tieren]

Umm no. They don't get attacked at disadvantage. They're hidden meaning you don't know where they are anymore. Under the rules the only way you can find a hidden creature is to take the Search action to find them, they reveal themselves, or via your stated actions ('I open the box and peer inside') the DM decides you find them.

This is not accurate. If they haven't moved and remain in the same square, enemies can attack the square at disadvantage for attacking an unseen foe.

If he has moved enemies can randomly (or deductively) attack squares at disadvantage and might happen to get lucky. It is not strictly required to locate the target via search first (just generally a lot more effective depending on the size of the room).

If for example there is only one shadowy corner in the room and the rogue moves over there and Hides in the shadow. He'll likely just be attacked at disadvantage, but just imposing disadvantage that way in some fights would still be a good use of the feat.

[Malifice]

This is not accurate. If they haven't moved and remain in the same square, enemies can attack the square at disadvantage for attacking an unseen foe.

If he has moved enemies can randomly (or deductively) attack squares at disadvantage and might happen to get lucky. It is not strictly required to locate the target via search first (just generally a lot more effective depending on the size of the room).

If for example there is only one shadowy corner in the room and the rogue moves over there and Hides in the shadow. He'll likely just be attacked at disadvantage, but just imposing disadvantage that way in some fights would still be a good use of the feat.

It is accurate. If you're hidden they don't know where you are anymore.

I didn't say you can't guess and take a literal stab in the dark.

[greenstone]

If you're hidden they don't know where you are anymore.
I find it easier when I turn this around: If your foes don't know where you are then you are hidden.

I treat this is the definition of the term. "Hidden" is not a condition you can just apply to a character; it is something determined by the knowledge other creatures have about the character.

In other words, if you want your character to be hidden then you need to do something so that foes no longer know where your character is. Just saying "I roll stealth" is *not* sufficient. If the foes know where your character is and you haven't moved then you can roll DEX ability checks as much as you like, you are still not hidden.

[Malifice]

I find it easier when I turn this around: If your foes don't know where you are then you are hidden.

I treat this is the definition of the term. "Hidden" is not a condition you can just apply to a character; it is something determined by the knowledge other creatures have about the character.

In other words, if you want your character to be hidden then you need to do something so that foes no longer know where your character is. Just saying "I roll stealth" is *not* sufficient. If the foes know where your character is and you haven't moved then you can roll DEX ability checks as much as you like, you are still not hidden.

Hidden isn't a condition because its relative. You might be hidden relative to opponent 1 but not hidden relative to opponent 2.

It's not a state you assume independent of an observer.

[Belier]

Hidden isn't a condition because its relative. You might be hidden relative to opponent 1 but not hidden relative to opponent 2.

It's not a state you assume independent of an observer.

If you aint hidden fron opponent 2 opponent 1 knows where you are.

[sophontteks]

If you aint hidden fron opponent 2 opponent 1 knows where you are.
What if opponent 1 is also an enemy of opponent 2? What if they can't communicate?
Isn't this under the assumption that communicating is a free action, but that they would still need/want to communicate this fact?

[Malifice]

If you aint hidden fron opponent 2 opponent 1 knows where you are.


No; you can be hidden relative to some opponents in combat but not to others.