Pass without trace and stealth checks

[Iampower]

Need some advice on ruling.

Say the trickery cleric cast pass without trace and gave the assassin rogue enough stealth to pass unoticed by the enemy. The cleric lost concentration on the spell just before the rogue takes its turn. Does this mean the rogue now has 10 lower on the previous stealth(and is now below the enemy's perception) or does the previous stealth check stay?

[nickl_2000]

During the rogue's turn, I would make the player re-roll the check since the circumstances changed.

[Erys]

Need some advice on ruling.

Say the trickery cleric cast pass without trace and gave the assassin rogue enough stealth to pass unoticed by the enemy. The cleric lost concentration on the spell just before the rogue takes its turn. Does this mean the rogue now has 10 lower on the previous stealth(and is now below the enemy's perception) or does the previous stealth check stay?

The general rule is: his roll stands until he needs to make another stealth check.

I could see some fringe cases where the sudden appearance of a strong odor might ruin a surprise, or warrant allowing a new perception check based on the original roll minus the spells bonus; but that's all DM discretion.

[ad_hoc]

Need some advice on ruling.

Say the trickery cleric cast pass without trace and gave the assassin rogue enough stealth to pass unoticed by the enemy. The cleric lost concentration on the spell just before the rogue takes its turn. Does this mean the rogue now has 10 lower on the previous stealth(and is now below the enemy's perception) or does the previous stealth check stay?

The Rogue should only make a check when it matters.

The example is a bit unclear but it sounds like the Rogue should not have made the check yet.

(Also keep in mind that being hidden requires being unseen. Pass Without Trace is not Invisibility.)

[Linkavitch]

Keep in mind Pass Without Trace only works out from 30 feet from the caster, so there's a decent chance they would not have the bonus on the rogue's turn anyways.

That being said I would usually let the original roll.

So I'm imagining it goes like this:

Cleric: Casts Pass Without Trace before the battle, everyone gets into position.
Rogue: Rolls 30-something stealth.
Monster: Goes before the Rogue, attacks the Cleric, causing the Cleric to lose concentration.
Rogue: Depending on what he does, he may have to make a new stealth check. If he attacks from where he was, no new check required before the attack. If he moves first, and desires to remain unnoticed for that sweet, sweet, sneak attack, then roll first, without PWT bonus.

[Erys]

Keep in mind Pass Without Trace only works out from 30 feet from the caster, so there's a decent chance they would not have the bonus on the rogue's turn anyways.


This is incorrect.

Range is only applicable when casting the spell. Once a spell is cast, it remains for its full duration (unless concentration is needed and broken).

[Linkavitch]

This is incorrect.

Range is only applicable when casting the spell. Once a spell is cast, it remains for its full duration (unless concentration is needed and broken).

Ah, you're right. I got it confused with how the Aura spells' radius works.

[Tanarii]

The Rogue should only make a check when it matters.

The example is a bit unclear but it sounds like the Rogue should not have made the check yet.
Hiding is a little different. When a PC attempts to hide, they make a check. That check result is used until you stop hiding or are discovered.

Of course, it's unclear what happens if you're "Sneaking" along instead of Hiding, in terms of checks. The rules are not explicit those are the same thing. And they are a valid use of Dexterity (Stealth) checks, since the skill says it is used when a character "attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

Personally I rule you reroll when circumstances change, which also means enter a new areas.

[ad_hoc]

Hiding is a little different. When a PC attempts to hide, they make a check. That check result is used until you stop hiding or are discovered.

Of course, it's unclear what happens if you're "Sneaking" along instead of Hiding, in terms of checks. The rules are not explicit those are the same thing. And they are a valid use of Dexterity (Stealth) checks, since the skill says it is used when a character "attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

Personally I rule you reroll when circumstances change, which also means enter a new areas.

That is only for taking the Hide Action in Combat (pg 192).

Hiding outside of combat falls under the DM's purview as with other Ability Checks (pg 174). The player says what they are doing and the DM determines what happens which may involve a check.

Take this situation:

Player: I hide, I got a 4.
Player: I hide again, I got a 10.
Player: I hide again, oh good 23 this time. I'm going to keep this one.

In combat it is fine as each one takes an action. Outside of combat, however, the player can just keep going until they like their roll.

Outside of combat I only call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. The character automatically hides if nothing can detect them.

[diplomancer]

That is only for taking the Hide Action in Combat (pg 192).

Hiding outside of combat falls under the DM's purview as with other Ability Checks (pg 174). The player says what they are doing and the DM determines what happens which may involve a check.

Take this situation:

Player: I hide, I got a 4.
Player: I hide again, I got a 10.
Player: I hide again, oh good 23 this time. I'm going to keep this one.

In combat it is fine as each one takes an action. Outside of combat, however, the player can just keep going until they like their roll.

Outside of combat I only call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. The character automatically hides if nothing can detect them.

I'd rule it differently, specially about stationary hiding. People usually don't know how well they are hidden until someond finds them (unless we are talking early OotS ;) ). Probably the best way to do it is by using a dice tower, to be revealed at the appropriate moment, or just waiting to roll stealth once, the moment it becomes relevant (i.e, when someone might detect you)

[ad_hoc]

I'd rule it differently, specially about stationary hiding. People usually don't know how well they are hidden until someond finds them (unless we are talking early OotS ;) ). Probably the best way to do it is by using a dice tower, to be revealed at the appropriate moment, or just waiting to roll stealth once, the moment it becomes relevant (i.e, when someone might detect you)

That is exactly what I'm advocating.

[Tanarii]

That is only for taking the Hide Action in Combat (pg 192).
The rules for Hiding I'm referring to are in Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores

[KillingTime]

This is incorrect.

Range is only applicable when casting the spell. Once a spell is cast, it remains for its full duration (unless concentration is needed and broken).


The range of Pass Without Trace is "Self".

Unfortunately it really is a 30ft stealth bubble.

[BurgerBeast]

The range of Pass Without Trace is "Self".

True.


Unfortunately it really is a 30ft stealth bubble.

I think you’ve oversimplified in arriving at this conclusion. The range of self is important here, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the wording of the spell. It is not clear that the spell functions as a stealth bubble. It’s certainly one valid interpretation.

[ThePolarBear]

I think you’ve oversimplified in arriving at this conclusion. The range of self is important here, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the wording of the spell.

Would there be any ambiguity with "each creature within 30ft of you"? Because that's what there is if we remove the ability of the spell to choose which of those creatures is affected.

[Spiritchaser]

(Also keep in mind that being hidden requires being unseen. Pass Without Trace is not Invisibility.)

I am not disagreeing with your points, but I am going to be a bit pedantic about this statement: the actual text in the players handbook requires only that you must not be seen clearly , unless you have quite an old copy, in which case (unfortunately) You’d need to refer to the errata.

I’ve seen this one explode a few times!

[KillingTime]

True.
I think you’ve oversimplified in arriving at this conclusion. The range of self is important here, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the wording of the spell. It is not clear that the spell functions as a stealth bubble. It’s certainly one valid interpretation.

I think that once you've factored in the range of self it is no longer ambiguous.
If it was range 30ft then yes I agree that you could reach out and stealth buff anyone in range and then keep it going regardless.
But becuase the range is self, the wording very much implies that the effect exists in a 30ft bubble that characters can enter or leave for the duration.

[diplomancer]

That is exactly what I'm advocating.

Ah, I see now what you meant and it is indeed the same thing. It's just a bit odd (if someone is standing alone in the middle of a brightly lit football field with no one relevant for miles, is that person "hidden" if they try to hide, by, say, crouching so as to present a lesser object? Your previous statement might imply that yes, they are "hidden", until someone approaches.)

[ThePolarBear]

I am not disagreeing with your points, but I am going to be a bit pedantic about this statement: the actual text in the players handbook requires only that you must not be seen clearly , unless you have quite an old copy, in which case (unfortunately) You’d need to refer to the errata.

I’ve seen this one explode a few times!

Err... being hidden requires being unseen. Trying to hide doesn't. The two things are not the same.

[BurgerBeast]

Would there be any ambiguity with "each creature within 30ft of you"? Because that's what there is if we remove the ability of the spell to choose which of those creatures is affected.

Let me be up front in saying: I agree that your interpretation is best. I just don’t think it’s the only correct interpretation.

There is no ambiguity about the targets needing to be within 30 feet. They must be.

Ambiguity is created by the placement of the phrase: “For the duration, ...” because it’s not clear to what it applies.

“For the duration, each creature you choose within 30 feet of you (including you) has... (effects).”

I think it’s clear that the effects last for the duration. That would seem to be the reason for the phrase.

What about “within 30 feet of you?” Does the duration apply to that? (I think it’s ambiguous, based on consideration of this sentence alone [see below])

What about “you choose?” Does the duration apply to that? Can you continually select and de-select targets for the duration? (I think it’s ambiguous*.)

* it would seem bizarre to be able to select and de-select targets throughout the duration, however, it would seem even more bizarre to apply “for the duration” to “within 30 feet” but not to “you choose.” You’d be saying it applies to one but not the other.

Rearranging the sentence, like so:

“Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you (including you) has <effects> for the duration.”

... only makes it clearer to me that “for the duration” refers to the effects. Whether it applies to the rest is not at all clear, based on this sentence. It seems that the “within 30 feet” and “you choose” are at the time of casting, not for the duration.

Note that I think your interpretation is best. I think the first sentence of the spell is what most convinces me. However there are many who would discount the first sentence as fluff, which maintains the ambiguity.


I think that once you've factored in the range of self it is no longer ambiguous.
If it was range 30ft then yes I agree that you could reach out and stealth buff anyone in range and then keep it going regardless.
But becuase the range is self, the wording very much implies that the effect exists in a 30ft bubble that characters can enter or leave for the duration.

I disagree with your line of reasoning. I think your interpretation is best (for different reasons), but it’s not the only correct interpretation.

[ThePolarBear]

There is no ambiguity about the targets needing to be within 30 feet. They must be.

Then you have your answer. If they must be, they must.


Ambiguity is created by the placement of the phrase: “For the duration, ...” because it’s not clear to what it applies.

By syntax, to everything what follows is what happens for the duration. By virtue of position, it applies to everything that follows.


What about “within 30 feet of you?” Does the duration apply to that? (I think it’s ambiguous, based on consideration of this sentence alone [see below])

You can't really consider things on their own to determine dependancies...


What about “you choose?” Does the duration apply to that? Can you continually select and de-select targets for the duration? (I think it’s ambiguous*.)

Yes. For the duration the choice is exactly as important as the position. The creatures that receive the effect have to be chosen and have to be within 30 feet, and both things have to happen in the period of the duration.


Rearranging the sentence, like so:

“Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you (including you) has <effects> for the duration.”

Nope. That's changing the meaning of the phrase. That subordinates the duration to "have" which otherwise it wouldn't be. That's what causes confusion.

Let me show you:

"For 2 hours, each creature you choose within 30 feet of you has a strong urge to sneeze for 1 minute".

See the difference? Everything is "for 2 hours", but only the urge to sneeze is for 1 minute. Position in a phrase can be very important.


Note that I think your interpretation is best. I think the first sentence of the spell is what most convinces me. However there are many who would discount the first sentence as fluff, which maintains the ambiguity.

While in language ambiguity can and does exist, at times what is perceived as "ambiguity" is simply a mistake. This, for me, is one of such cases.

[Keravath]

That is only for taking the Hide Action in Combat (pg 192).

Hiding outside of combat falls under the DM's purview as with other Ability Checks (pg 174). The player says what they are doing and the DM determines what happens which may involve a check.

Take this situation:

Player: I hide, I got a 4.
Player: I hide again, I got a 10.
Player: I hide again, oh good 23 this time. I'm going to keep this one.

In combat it is fine as each one takes an action. Outside of combat, however, the player can just keep going until they like their roll.

Outside of combat I only call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. The character automatically hides if nothing can detect them.

In my opinion no. The DM calls for dice roll, not the player. The player can roll as many dice as they want but it is irrelevant until the DM asks for a die roll. When the DM asks, the player rolls and that result is used to resolve the situation.

If the character takes the hide action, then the DM can ask for a number now or later but whatever is rolled reflects how well the character is actually hidden. The character doesn't know about die rolls, the character hides and as far as they are concerned they are perfectly hidden. The player may roll poorly but it doesn't change what the character is aware of ... so there are no further rolls.

As for pass without trace, if the character is sneaking and there is someone nearby then they use the die roll and add the modifier from the spell. If pass without trace drops then the circumstances of being hidden have changed. If there is no one around to notice the DM could call for another roll now or later or could choose to use the original roll without the +10 modifier of pass without trace. It is entirely up to the DM.

However, keep in mind that hidden is typically a stationary activity. Moving while hidden is entirely up to the DM and would usually be resolved by a stealth check or several stealth checks depending on the circumstances.

In combat, opponents are assumed to be looking around them all the time, so a rogue trying to hide in combat requires total cover or invisibility to make a hide check at all (unless they have a special ability like a halfling or wood elf).

On the other hand, a character trying to sneak through an occupied building is a very different situation. Can they sneak past an open door of an occupied room? Only if the occupants don't happen to be looking out the door and they are quiet enough. This type of situation a DM has to adjudicate based on the NPCs and the actions of the character. What are the NPCs doing, are they alert, are there any distractions ... if any of them happen to be glancing at the door or catch sight of the character moving across the open door ... the character isn't hidden even if they rolled a 30 on their stealth check.

[Spiritchaser]

Err... being hidden requires being unseen. Trying to hide doesn't. The two things are not the same.

Oh, you’ve out-pedanticed me!

But fair enough I should re-phrase:

Given that the context of the original comment i was addressing is whether or not to make a stealth roll: if a stealth roll is appropriate, it is not necessary that the character be unseen in order to have a chance to make that roll, only that they not be seen clearly.

[ad_hoc]

In my opinion no. The DM calls for dice roll, not the player. The player can roll as many dice as they want but it is irrelevant until the DM asks for a die roll. When the DM asks, the player rolls and that result is used to resolve the situation.

Which is exactly what I'm saying.

[ThePolarBear]

Oh, you’ve out-pedanticed me!

Glad to be of service! :D


But fair enough I should re-phrase:
Given that the context of the original comment i was addressing is whether or not to make a stealth roll: if a stealth roll is appropriate, it is not necessary that the character be unseen in order to have a chance to make that roll, only that they not be seen clearly.

Absolutely agree. But prehaps the stealth roll was appropriate at the time and is still relevant. And it might be possible that a DM let the assassin approach a creature that was deemed "too distracted" also thanks to the roll (which represents pretty much all senses). "Failing" the check means being heard and/or seen if possible, so a spell that makes the difference between a successful check and a failed one could, in corner cases, make a difference without leaving much room.

If we assume that the check was made because relevant. The situation that came to make the check successful no longer exists. How to handle it? I can't really say that a solution (roll again) is really better or worse than the other (reduce the check by 10). I mean, i can hide in Darkness, but if somehow the spell disappears i'm really just there for everyone to see (so, it could make sense to reduce the check by 10). On the other hand re-rolling could bring more tension to the table knowing that the roll could make or break the situation - the parameters for which changed, but for Darkness those would not leave room for a retry. Would and should a guard getting snkeaked upon thanks to the spell be able to at least hear at that point? for Darkness, the check was successful anyway. For PwT the check might have failed to begin with...

[Hail Tempus]

Ah, I see now what you meant and it is indeed the same thing. It's just a bit odd (if someone is standing alone in the middle of a brightly lit football field with no one relevant for miles, is that person "hidden" if they try to hide, by, say, crouching so as to present a lesser object? Your previous statement might imply that yes, they are "hidden", until someone approaches.) It's kind of irrelevant. Hiding is really a question of whether, assuming all of the conditions to Hide are met, your Dexterity(Stealth) check is higher than someone's passive Perception score (or their Wisdom (Perception) check if they're actively looking for you).

If there's no one to actually Hide from, why would you even ask to make a make a roll to see if you're hidden?

[Erys]

It's kind of irrelevant. Hiding is really a question of whether, assuming all of the conditions to Hide are met, your Dexterity(Stealth) check is higher than someone's passive Perception score (or their Wisdom (Perception) check if they're actively looking for you).

If there's no one to actually Hide from, why would you even ask to make a make a roll to see if you're hidden?

Even if there is no one in the room when you first attempt to hide --> it doesn't mean someone won't come in the room after you are hidden.

[Tanarii]

Which is exactly what I'm saying.Wait, so your objection is the player doesn't get to decide if Hiding is possible? I agree with the that, they get to try and decide if they want to make an attempt, and the DM decides if it's possible. Then and only then do they roll the dice.

But other than that (agreed, all important) first caveat, what I described was straight from the book for out of combat hiding. Roll once, the same roll is used from that point until you top hiding or re discovered.

Quote from the book including the important part bout the DM:
Hiding
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. 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.

My point was there are plenty of situations, especially in scouting, where you are moving and using Stealth. And this rule taken literally means you use the one result until you are discovered (they beat your roll) or stop hiding (can be seen clearly). Sometimes the great (roll once and hold onto the result until it relevant is a great time saver). And other times it a pain in the ass (when you encounter something that gives advantage, disadvantage, or changes the result of the roll).

I agree some extra DM fiat to prevent abuse is reasonable (I.e. stopping hiding and starting again when conditions are pretty inarguably in place for hiding generally).

[ad_hoc]

Wait, so your objection is the player doesn't get to decide if Hiding is possible? I agree with the that, they get to try and decide if they want to make an attempt, and the DM decides if it's possible. Then and only then do they roll the dice.

But other than that (agreed, all important) first caveat, what I described was straight from the book for out of combat hiding. Roll once, the same roll is used from that point until you top hiding or re discovered.

Quote from the book including the important part bout the DM:
Hiding
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. 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.

My point was there are plenty of situations, especially in scouting, where you are moving and using Stealth. And this rule taken literally means you use the one result until you are discovered (they beat your roll) or stop hiding (can be seen clearly). Sometimes the great (roll once and hold onto the result until it relevant is a great time saver). And other times it a pain in the ass (when you encounter something that gives advantage, disadvantage, or changes the result of the roll).

I agree some extra DM fiat to prevent abuse is reasonable (I.e. stopping hiding and starting again when conditions are pretty inarguably in place for hiding generally).

The player doesn't decide when to roll.

The DM does. That is "straight from the book."

Where does it say the character can only attempt to hide once? And does it say that if you roll low you must pretend that you didn't know what you rolled and have your character act accordingly?

If I try to sneak through the forest and I roll a 3 then I'm going to stop and go back to the party. However, if I'm sneaking through the forest and there are some orcs that could detect me and then I roll, that's drama. That's how it is supposed to work.

Rolling before there is any consequence for rolling leads to all kinds of problems.

I agree that once you are in the action, once you roll, you don't keep rolling. This should go for most ability checks. Rolling multiple times to do the thing just isn't fun.

[Tanarii]

Rolling before there is any consequence for rolling leads to all kinds of problems.
Rolling only when there is something there to detect you also leads to all kinds of problems.

Edit: honestly this is a good argument for PCs using Passive Stealth and enemies rolling to detect them. And PCs using Passive Perception while enemies roll to hide from them.

[Man_Over_Game]

Man, did I hate stealth rules.

You have to be (mostly) Unseen to Hide.

If you attack while Hidden, you have Advantage on that attack.

However, it is not the fact that you are Hidden that grants you Advantage on your attack, but rather it's because you are Unseen.

Therefore, almost any scenario where you could gain Advantage on your attack while Hiding is one where you'd be able to attack with Advantage without Hiding (as you'd have to be Unseen for the first, and should still be Unseen for the second).

That is, unless you decide there's a difference between Unseen (that is, undetected, unknowing of a target's presence), and Heavily Obscured (that is, literally blinded from seeing the target, generally from an obstacle).

And most DMs don't.

[HiveStriker]

Err... being hidden requires being unseen. Trying to hide doesn't. The two things are not the same.
Errr. Second sentence is extremely correct, but the first is extremely wrong.

You can perfectly be hidden, although you are technically visible. Most obvious example is "chameleon-like" camouflage. :)

[JackPhoenix]

That is, unless you decide there's a difference between Unseen (that is, undetected, unknowing of a target's presence), and Heavily Obscured (that is, literally blinded from seeing the target, generally from an obstacle).

Being unseen = being heavily obscured. Being *hidden*, however, is different from just being unseen: the enemy has to guess your position to attack you. You can still be targetted (ignoring many spells) without guessing if you're just unseen, even if it's at disadvantage.


Errr. Second sentence is extremely correct, but the first is extremely wrong.

You can perfectly be hidden, although you are technically visible. Most obvious example is "chameleon-like" camouflage. :)

If you aren't unseen, you aren't hidden. Being hidden means being both unseen and unheard.

[Tanarii]

Errr. Second sentence is extremely correct, but the first is extremely wrong.

You can perfectly be hidden, although you are technically visible. Most obvious example is "chameleon-like" camouflage. :)
And more importantly, because the prerequisite for hiding is that the creature doing it cannot be clearly seen. Not that it cannot be seen.

Some DMs interpret this to allow hiding in dim light, or behind light concealment. Of course, it's worth noting there is a Feat to be able to hide in Dim Light, so if you're giving it away for free it lowers the worth of it. And Wood Elves have a similar feature for natural concealment. But there's room for DM judgement, ie either of those at a large distance might be possible for anyone, or in a large crowd at a distance anyone might be able to hide behind others (kinda like a halfling).

[ThePolarBear]

Errr. Second sentence is extremely correct, but the first is extremely wrong.

No it isn't.


You can perfectly be hidden, although you are technically visible.

Being unseen doesn't mean being invisible. It's the resolution of the question "does X see y?" You can be visible (there is the potential that someone spots you) and still unseen (they do not, in fact, notice you). Edit: But to be hidden you are required to be unseen, not invisible. Whomever is there doesn't perceive you - and this includes sight.


And more importantly, because the prerequisite for hiding is that the creature doing it cannot be clearly seen. Not that it cannot be seen.

And again: being hidden is not trying to hide. The rules for hiding tell you when you can make the attempt at hiding, resulting in you being hidden if successful, which means that if successful you are, in fact, unseen and unheard. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be seen or heard (as in, it is not possible to do so), simply that it didn't happen and as a matter of fact the state you are in in respect to that particular creature is that you are unseen and unheard. To be hidden means to be unseen and unheard (as a general case, obviously other senses can come into play in particular situations).

This has nothing to do with the prerequisite of hiding since it is the result of a successful application of those requisites, but being hidden is absolutely not limited to that situation. A creature on the other side of the planet is, in general, hidden from you even if it is screaming and trying to catch your attention. It is simply impossible for them to be heard and seen, and thus are de facto both invisible and unhearable, making them unseen and unheard.
But this can also happen to a creature that is just behind a crate. It might be possible for you to see them. But if you do not notice them for whatever reason, including them trying to hide successfully, they are in fact hidden from you if you don't see and don't hear them - unseen and unheard.

[HiveStriker]

No it isn't.



Being unseen doesn't mean being invisible. It's the resolution of the question "does X see y?" You can be visible (there is the potential that someone spots you) and still unseen (they do not, in fact, notice you). Edit: But to be hidden you are required to be unseen, not invisible. Whomever is there doesn't perceive you - and this includes sight.



And again: being hidden is not trying to hide. The rules for hiding tell you when you can make the attempt at hiding, resulting in you being hidden if successful, which means that if successful you are, in fact, unseen and unheard. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be seen or heard (as in, it is not possible to do so), simply that it didn't happen and as a matter of fact the state you are in in respect to that particular creature is that you are unseen and unheard. To be hidden means to be unseen and unheard (as a general case, obviously other senses can come into play in particular situations).

This has nothing to do with the prerequisite of hiding since it is the result of a successful application of those requisites, but being hidden is absolutely not limited to that situation. A creature on the other side of the planet is, in general, hidden from you even if it is screaming and trying to catch your attention. It is simply impossible for them to be heard and seen, and thus are de facto both invisible and unhearable, making them unseen and unheard.
But this can also happen to a creature that is just behind a crate. It might be possible for you to see them. But if you do not notice them for whatever reason, including them trying to hide successfully, they are in fact hidden from you if you don't see and don't hear them - unseen and unheard.
You are the one trying to put false meaning in our words.

Unseen is being unseen.
I NEVER MIXED UP INVISIBLE AND UNSEEN. On the contrary, I make the distinction, which you seem not to do. Otherwise, you are in fact saying exactly the same as me.

IF you're camouflaged, technically you're visible, YET you can hide.
Most simple example of this is Ranger's "Hide in Plain Sight".

Technically, a Ranger using this is "visible" (there is no total cover between anyone looking and his body). Yet, he can make a Stealth check.

[Chronos]

Wait, did they actually incorporate the errata in a later printing? That's an impressive feat, given that what's in the errata document on the topic isn't even errata. And doesn't even clarify anything, either, in true Jeremy Crawford fashion.

[Tanarii]

And again: being hidden is not trying to hide. The rules for hiding tell you when you can make the attempt at hiding, resulting in you being hidden if successful, which means that if successful you are, in fact, unseen and unheard.
Absolutely and I misread your comment. My bad.

[ThePolarBear]

You are the one trying to put false meaning in our words.

Not at all. Either you are visible (it is possible to see you) or not. The opposite of being visible is: being invisible. But the phrase in which you say i'm incorrect about did never touch on visibility of a creature. Simply on the fact that it is unseen if hidden.

So no, it isn't "extremely wrong". Being hidden means to be unseen. And being unseen is part of being hidden.


I NEVER MIXED UP INVISIBLE AND UNSEEN.

But it seems to me you are still missing the point

"You can perfectly be hidden, although you are technically visible."

You can be visible and unseen. This doesn't change the fact that to be hidden you must not be perceived by means of sight. It is not necessary for you to be "transparent", so to speak.


On the contrary, I make the distinction, which you seem not to do.

I assure you i do. It might come to confusion on my previous post the "invisible and unhearable" person on the other side of the planet. It meant "it could equally be" as far as human abilities are concerned.


Otherwise, you are in fact saying exactly the same as me.

I'm not sure we do, given that we do not agree on a phrase i wrote. You would need to tell me why i'm extremely wrong.


IF you're camouflaged, technically you're visible, YET you can hide.

Something is visible if it can be seen. "Seen" is something that has been perceived by means of sight. Unseen is something that isn't seen, visible or not. To be hidden one doesn't need to be invisible. One needs to be unseen, however, be that they are visible or not. Being invisible is one of the cases where one is unseen, generally speaking.

And no, unseen doesn't even mean behind cover! Simply unnoticed by means of sight.


Most simple example of this is Ranger's "Hide in Plain Sight".

Which gives you ability to try to hide. Not the certainity to be hidden, or to be unseen, for that matter.


Technically, a Ranger using this is "visible" (there is no total cover between anyone looking and his body).

And you don't need to be unseen to try to hide. You can in fact be seen, too! To not be "Seen clearly" is the de facto "requirement" to try to hide, so a creature that is seen, albeit unclearly, can try to hide. But if they do successfully it means that they are no longer seen - unseen - if you were before. You don't disappear out of thin air, most of the time. But whomever was looking can no longer distinguish or track you.


Yet, he can make a Stealth check.

Yes, and as you put it:

"Errr. Second sentence is extremely correct".

You don't need to be unseen to try to hide. However if you do so successfully your "status" changes. You are no longer perceived. Until discovered (be it heard or seen or otherwise found) you are hidden. And you can be hidden even without trying to hide, exactly as an object would, if the conditions are in place. But in all of those cases you are unseen, and can't be hidden without being so (as a general, obviously).

The Dex (stealth) roll is there to determine your success in passing unnoticed when compared to the ability of others of perceiving you.


Absolutely and I misread your comment. My bad.

No problem, it happens to everyone. It doesn't help that i'm not being as clear as i could possibly be in my explanations (the above "invisible other-sider-of-the-planet")

-----------

Also, it isn't really 100% relevant to the OP, so i'll just shut up :D

[Iampower]

...this is the first time a thread of kine escelated like that in any forum. In any case ill probably just rule it on a case to case basis. As far as i know the whole round is supposed to happen at the same time. So if it makes sense for pass without trace to remain in effect for the situation then that what ill do.

[Witty Username]

By syntax, to everything what follows is what happens for the duration. By virtue of position, it applies to everything that follows.
Let me show you:

"For 2 hours, each creature you choose within 30 feet of you has a strong urge to sneeze for 1 minute".

See the difference? Everything is "for 2 hours", but only the urge to sneeze is for 1 minute. Position in a phrase can be very important.

While in language ambiguity can and does exist, at times what is perceived as "ambiguity" is simply a mistake. This, for me, is one of such cases.

Out of curiosity would, "For the duration, each creature you choose within 30 ft of you at the time of casting has ..." change the meaning, just be bad grammar, or some other thing?
I find sentence structure a cruel mistress.


Edit:I realize I do have an opinion on the main topic, pass without trace uses the same language as spells like crusader's mantle and spirit guardians so I think that it is meant to be a bubble like those two effects as a matter of context. So I agree with the claim I am just trying to get a better understanding of ThePolarBear's point.

[ThePolarBear]

Out of curiosity would, "For the duration, each creature you choose within 30 ft of you at the time of casting has ..." change the meaning, just be bad grammar, or some other thing?

It would surely change the meaning by limiting the creature selection group to a single point in time. I would also change the whole phrase :D


I find sentence structure a cruel mistress.

So do i.