I had no idea the Cloak of Elvin Kind was so OP ...

[da newt]

I am an idiot. Just today I realized the full power of the Cloak of Elvin Kind - not only does it allow the wearer to make Stealth checks at ADV, but it also forces the perceiver to make perception checks at DISADV which for Passive Perception means they have a -5 penalty.

I'd never seen the penalty enforced in play. Is it just me, or are most of your tables ignoring the 2nd half of the double whammy of this basic (uncommon) magical item that with it's full power enforced is hugely impactful?

Mathematically, how advantageous is a magical item that not only gives you ADV to succeed but also gives the opponent DISADV?

[stoutstien]

It's good. As for the actual math it depends on the starting modifiers in play but overall it protects you from bad stealth rolls and makes rolling a good wisdom check to notice you harder. If you roll a 15 on your stealth then the odds of them beating that drop from 30% to 9%. (Assuming a flat roll with no bonuses.)

[Skrum]

It's somewhere in the ballpark of how good the Invisibility spell was in 3.5e. So, really really good lol.

I actually don't know how the math actually compares...but invisibility used to mean something, and this cloak does something similar.

[No brains]

Funny thing is, most places that are suitable for hiding, such as darkness (or dim light to those with darkvision), already impose disadvantage on perception checks to notice creatures within. It's kind of a ribbon ability. Think about it: where are some places where you could hide where you aren't already getting/ imposing advantage/disadvantage on stealth/perception?

[Greywander]

Funny thing is, most places that are suitable for hiding, such as darkness (or dim light to those with darkvision), already impose disadvantage on perception checks to notice creatures within. It's kind of a ribbon ability. Think about it: where are some places where you could hide where you aren't already getting/ imposing advantage/disadvantage on stealth/perception?
You only need to break line of sight to hide, line of sight doesn't need to stay broken to stay hidden. (I think the idea is that if they see you hide then they'll know where you are, but if you're already hidden they might look right at you and not notice.) Though if you hide in the middle of an open space and the guard turns around, the DM will probably rule that you're seen no matter how high your Stealth check was. But if you think of the cloak as a form of magical camo, then it makes sense it would help you just naturally blend in to a wall or whatever features happen to be around you. In an open field you might look like a weird boulder.

My rule of thumb would probably be that as long as you stay still while someone is looking at you, you would usually be able to stay hidden (assuming your Stealth beats their Perception). If you move while being observed, that's going to give a penalty to your Stealth, and in some cases might be grounds for being automatically spotted.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, it's bad.

One guess is the intent was you get advantage to opposed stealth checks, but if someone is just trying to see you when it's not a stealth check, they get disadvantage. That'd make it hard to spot you at a distance or in a crowd for example, even when you aren't trying to use stealth, and the DM sets a fixed DC for the opponents check to beat.

But that's a pure guess. It's possible they did mean it to be something on order with the +10 from PWT. Which is also bad, of course.

[Person_Man]

Poor design. Should just be advantage. Its also noteworthy that its on the list of items you can make with an Artificer infusion. So you can plan a build around it.

Though in fairness, it does require attunement, and the Surprise rules were nerfed in 5e, and its hard to set up an ambush unless the whole party builds around it. (Which is why Assassin Rogue is weaker than it seems).

[stoutstien]

Poor design. Should just be advantage. Its also noteworthy that its on the list of items you can make with an Artificer infusion. So you can plan a build around it.

Though in fairness, it does require attunement, and the Surprise rules were nerfed in 5e, and its hard to set up an ambush unless the whole party builds around it. (Which is why Assassin Rogue is weaker than it seems).

It's a great infusion option if you have a heavy footed party member. Canceling disadvantage from armor alone can be worth the slot/attunement if it opens up tactical options. Few NPCs have a PP over 15(10 is the most common) so it's a good rough target to aim for.

[Catullus64]

I would like to observe that the item imposes its penalty on "Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you." (Emphasis mine). Now, the game doesn't offer strict guidance on when different senses are relevant to a Perception check, but I tend to be a bit of a stickler about it, and rule that this penalty, as well as similarly worded effects like Dim Light, apply only to checks that are purely sight-based. If you're attempting to hide by standing still, the penalty applies (seems on-theme for an Elvish cloak), but if you're moving around, or trying to mask your scent, or something similar, then the creature rolls as normal.

[OldTrees1]

Mathematically, how advantageous is a magical item that not only gives you ADV to succeed but also gives the opponent DISADV?

Passives suffer a +/-5 for advantage/disadvantage
Actives roll roughly a +/- 3 with advantage/disadvantage
Usually this cloak acts like +8 stealth* which is a nice unique boost. It is balanced against the other good uncommon magic items (In 5E I see a trend of uncommon magic items that are more valuable than rare magic items)

* However Cloak of Elvenkind is not precisely adv/disadv. It is advantage on the stealth check, but only disadvantage on the sight part of the perception check. Depending on context that falls into 3 cases

+8 Stealth: When sight is 90% of the perception, then it is adv/dis on Stealth.
+5 Stealth, +8 Unseen: When other senses (hearing) can notice you the disadvantage does not apply to noticing you but does apply to seeing you
+5 Stealth: This is check is about non sight based stealth. Are you making too much noise?

[Segev]

Passives suffer a +/-5 for advantage/disadvantage
Actives roll roughly a +/- 3 with advantage/disadvantage
Usually this cloak acts like +8 stealth* which is a nice unique boost. It is balanced against the other good uncommon magic items (In 5E I see a trend of uncommon magic items that are more valuable than rare magic items)

* However Cloak of Elvenkind is not precisely adv/disadv. It is advantage on the stealth check, but only disadvantage on the sight part of the perception check. Depending on context that falls into 3 cases

+8 Stealth: When sight is 90% of the perception, then it is adv/dis on Stealth.
+5 Stealth, +8 Unseen: When other senses (hearing) can notice you the disadvantage does not apply to noticing you but does apply to seeing you
+5 Stealth: This is check is about non sight based stealth. Are you making too much noise?


This highlights some of the oddities of 5e and stealth, since this is a case where casting invisibility on the guy wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind could innocently lead to making it easier to perceive him. "Okay, since this is based purely on whether he can hear you, he doesn't suffer disadvantage on this check." "Wait, doesn't that mean that I'd have been better off NOT being invisible?"

[Unoriginal]

This highlights some of the oddities of 5e and stealth, since this is a case where casting invisibility on the guy wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind could innocently lead to making it easier to perceive him. "Okay, since this is based purely on whether he can hear you, he doesn't suffer disadvantage on this check." "Wait, doesn't that mean that I'd have been better off NOT being invisible?"

It's perfectly logical, though. You can't benefit from effects that requires others to look at you if you're invisible.

I've never seen PCs try to Greater Invisibility a creature with Medusa-style abilities in an actual game session, though, I admit.

[da newt]

Add in the special wording of unseen attackers and targets and this gets even more nuanced ...

HA - I know right where you are! You failed to hide from me - But ... I can't "see" you so I can't target you with many spells, I can attack w/ DISADV and you attack w/ ADV.

[Segev]

It's perfectly logical, though. You can't benefit from effects that requires others to look at you if you're invisible.

I've never seen PCs try to Greater Invisibility a creature with Medusa-style abilities in an actual game session, though, I admit.

It is logical, except that it isn't.

The reason the cloak makes people have disadvantage to perceive you is that you're harder to see. If you're invisible, you're impossible to see. And yet, somehow, being harder to see but still possible to see is harder to notice than being impossible to see.

In practice, the RAW on the cloak don't say that it only applies to visual perception, though, so technically it applies even when sound or smell are all that matter. Even though the description only explains visual stuff. This is a case of two wrongs making a right, I think. :smalltongue:

[Catullus64]

In practice, the RAW on the cloak don't say that it only applies to visual perception, though, so technically it applies even when sound or smell are all that matter. Even though the description only explains visual stuff. This is a case of two wrongs making a right, I think. :smalltongue:

That's precisely what it does say:


While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage. and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide, as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you. Pulling the hood up or down requires an Action.

It's just that most DM's aren't accustomed to detailing which senses are involved in a Perception check most of the time, because the game mechanics that do are few and far between.

[Person_Man]

I would like to observe that the item imposes its penalty on "Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you." (Emphasis mine). Now, the game doesn't offer strict guidance on when different senses are relevant to a Perception check, but I tend to be a bit of a stickler about it, and rule that this penalty, as well as similarly worded effects like Dim Light, apply only to checks that are purely sight-based. If you're attempting to hide by standing still, the penalty applies (seems on-theme for an Elvish cloak), but if you're moving around, or trying to mask your scent, or something similar, then the creature rolls as normal.

Thats certainly true. And previous editions had Hide and Move Silently as separate things, and the wording of the 5E cloak’s ability is probably a carry over of that simulationist tendency.

But if your DM is going to get too granular about the exact circumstances of how you use Stealth, you probably shouldn’t invest in or build around it in the first place. Because the entire game world exists in the DMs head and not as an objective reality you can plan around. So the DM can always say something to limit or prevent you from using Stealth.

[Tanarii]

This highlights some of the oddities of 5e and stealth, since this is a case where casting invisibility on the guy wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind could innocently lead to making it easier to perceive him. "Okay, since this is based purely on whether he can hear you, he doesn't suffer disadvantage on this check." "Wait, doesn't that mean that I'd have been better off NOT being invisible?"
If making visible detection auto fail instead of disadvantage makes something easier to detect, you're applying checks wrong.

At best (for the person detecting), when another sense was already being used to detect at better odds than vision at disadvantage, the odds should remain the same.

[Segev]

If making visible detection auto fail instead of disadvantage makes something easier to detect, you're applying checks wrong.

At best (for the person detecting), when another sense was already being used to detect at better odds than vision at disadvantage, the odds should remain the same.

Which raises the question: is vision EVER the sense being tested if it is disadvantaged? Are people doing it wrong if they have perception checks in dim light or darkness-with-darkvision have disadvantage, since "obviously" other senses would be what's being used?

[OldTrees1]

This highlights some of the oddities of 5e and stealth, since this is a case where casting invisibility on the guy wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind could innocently lead to making it easier to perceive him. "Okay, since this is based purely on whether he can hear you, he doesn't suffer disadvantage on this check." "Wait, doesn't that mean that I'd have been better off NOT being invisible?"


It's perfectly logical, though. You can't benefit from effects that requires others to look at you if you're invisible.


It is logical, except that it isn't.

The reason the cloak makes people have disadvantage to perceive you is that you're harder to see. If you're invisible, you're impossible to see. And yet, somehow, being harder to see but still possible to see is harder to notice than being impossible to see.

It can be resolved. When you make a perception check you are identifying what your senses can notice. A blind person with Perception Expertise will not see you no matter how good their hearing or how frequently they hear you.

For a moment let's pretend the only senses are seeing and hearing.


1) +8 Stealth: When sight is 90% of the perception, then it is adv/dis on Stealth.
Case 1: Alice and Bob are in a noisy crowd. Alice has no chance to hear Bob. If Alice were blind she would automatically fail instead of getting a perception check to notice Bob. However Alice is not blind. Bob puts on a Cloak of Elvenkind and tries to sneak away. Alice automatically fails the hearing based perception check due to the noisy crowd (it is that noisy) but might still see Bob. Bob rolls Stealth at advantage and checks vs Alice's passive perception at disadvantage. If Bob fails, then Alice not only notices Bob, she sees Bob. If Bob casts Invisibility too, then Bob automatically passes the stealth.


3) +5 Stealth: This is check is about non sight based stealth. Are you making too much noise?
Case 3: Alice and Bob are on opposite sides of a wooden door. Bob has no chance to see Alice. If Bob were deaf he would automatically fail instead of getting a perception check to notice Alice. However Bob is not deaf. Alice puts on a Cloak of Elvenkind and tries to sneak away. Bob automatically fails the sight based perception check due to the opaque wooden door (it is that opaque) but might still hear Alice. Alice rolls Stealth at advantage and checks vs Bob's passive perception (no disadvantage). If Alice fails, then Bob notices Alice but does not see Alice. If Alice was in an area of Silence, then Alice automatically passes the stealth.


2) +5 Stealth, +8 Unseen: When other senses (hearing) can notice you the disadvantage does not apply to noticing you but does apply to seeing you
Case 2: Tired of this game of cat and mouse, both Alice and Bob don their Cloaks of Elvenkind and agree to a confrontation in the woods at noon. They try to sneak up on each other while keeping an eye out for each other. They make Stealth checks at advantage vs the other's passive perception (no disadvantage). If they fail the Stealth check they are heard. If they fail by 5 or more they are seen and heard. Bob decided to prepare with Invisibility, now they have no penalty for failing by 5 or more. Alice decided to prepare with Silence, now Bob's passive perception is at a -5 penalty (disadvantage) but if Alice fails she is seen instead of heard.

Based on rulings like these, I think it is perfectly logical. You can't benefit from a bonus to a check if you automatically pass the check.

PS: In case 2, who do you suspect has the upper hand? The Silent Alice or the Invisible Bob?

[Psyren]

I would like to observe that the item imposes its penalty on "Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you." (Emphasis mine). Now, the game doesn't offer strict guidance on when different senses are relevant to a Perception check, but I tend to be a bit of a stickler about it, and rule that this penalty, as well as similarly worded effects like Dim Light, apply only to checks that are purely sight-based. If you're attempting to hide by standing still, the penalty applies (seems on-theme for an Elvish cloak), but if you're moving around, or trying to mask your scent, or something similar, then the creature rolls as normal.

Agreed.


Thats certainly true. And previous editions had Hide and Move Silently as separate things, and the wording of the 5E cloak’s ability is probably a carry over of that simulationist tendency.

But if your DM is going to get too granular about the exact circumstances of how you use Stealth, you probably shouldn’t invest in or build around it in the first place. Because the entire game world exists in the DMs head and not as an objective reality you can plan around. So the DM can always say something to limit or prevent you from using Stealth.

I understand what you're saying but I think this reaction is a bit defeatist honestly. Just because the DM can say "hearing matters in this instance" at any time, doesn't mean optimizing your stealth against being seen isn't useful. Sight is by far the most important sense to defeat, because so many offensive actions depend on it, especially attacks and spells. Even in situations where you can't stop a guard from hearing you, that doesn't mean they can find you, and it definitely doesn't mean they can attack or detain you. They might not even raise an alarm if they can't confirm what their other senses are telling them.

[Tanarii]

Which raises the question: is vision EVER the sense being tested if it is disadvantaged? Are people doing it wrong if they have perception checks in dim light or darkness-with-darkvision have disadvantage, since "obviously" other senses would be what's being used?
Of course. It's entirely possible, easy even, to be outside of hearing and smell range, and still be trying to see something. Or environmental noise or smells might make vision the only option.

The way to think about it is there are three primary senses for detecting (other than touch), and each of them can be one of 5 things: automatic fail, disadvantage, normal, advantage, automatic success. Use the one with the best value.

[Chronos]

What is the person rolling the perception check trying to do? Are they trying to pick you out so well that they can attack you without disadvantage, or are they just trying to determine roughly what square you're in? If the former, then vision is the relevant sense, and Invisibility means the perception attempt is auto-fail. If the latter, then vision or hearing could either one be relevant, and invisibility isn't an absolute protection.

[Greywander]

I think I like OldTrees1's take the best. You could roll a separate Perception check for each sense you're using, but that would be a pain to do, and it would skew the odds against the person sneaking as the perceiver only needs to roll high on one check in order to detect the person sneaking. Rolling all senses together as a single check is a lot easier. On an unmodified check, passing your Perception check means you detect the sneaker with all your senses. If you have bonuses or penalties to particular senses, then you might need to roll higher to detect with a penalized sense, but can still detect with an unpenalized sense by passing the check.

I think this means that Perception checks against invisible creatures wouldn't be made at disadvantage, it's just that no matter how high you roll you'll never see them. Invisibility is still useful if you can find a way to dull a person's hearing, it's just that if it's so quiet you could hear a pin drop then, invisible or not, you'll still have a hard time sneaking past someone. There's also a big difference between, "You hear a noise from the corner of the room," versus, "You see a figure crouching in the shadows."

[Keravath]

You only need to break line of sight to hide, line of sight doesn't need to stay broken to stay hidden. (I think the idea is that if they see you hide then they'll know where you are, but if you're already hidden they might look right at you and not notice.) Though if you hide in the middle of an open space and the guard turns around, the DM will probably rule that you're seen no matter how high your Stealth check was. But if you think of the cloak as a form of magical camo, then it makes sense it would help you just naturally blend in to a wall or whatever features happen to be around you. In an open field you might look like a weird boulder.

My rule of thumb would probably be that as long as you stay still while someone is looking at you, you would usually be able to stay hidden (assuming your Stealth beats their Perception). If you move while being observed, that's going to give a penalty to your Stealth, and in some cases might be grounds for being automatically spotted.

RAW, you can not be hidden if you can be seen. The cloak of elvenkind doesn't change that. Your statement that "line of sight doesn't need to stay broken to stay hidden" is incorrect as far as I know. No matter what stealth roll you have, if you can be seen, you aren't hidden.

The cloak makes you more stealthy but doesn't make you invisible.

It works well for a wood elf in a forest who can hide while lightly obscured by natural terrain (ie. seen but not clearly). It also works well for a character with the skulker feat who can hide while lightly obscured by anything. However, any other character needs to be heavily obscured or behind total cover in order to hide and remain hidden.

"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 always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

The text of the cloak is:

"While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage, and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide, as the cloak’s color shifts to camouflage you. Pulling the hood up or down requires an Action."

The cloak does not make you lightly obscured. A DM could rule that the cloak makes it so you can't be seen clearly - but the magic item description doesn't say that.

So, overall, as written, I don't find the cloak that useful. Should the cloak allow a character to hide in plain sight, to remain hidden when they can be seen, to attempt to hide without at least being lightly obscured? I think that would move the item from underpowered to overpowered. A high level rogue could wear the cloak and walk through a crowd and not be noticed. It would rival a cloak of invisibility in game terms.

Finally, the cloak would help if a character was crossing a small open area where they might be seen, in this case, the stealth roll is to determine whether a creature happened to look in that direction at the time the creature was visible and noticed something. The cloak makes them more difficult to notice but if the character stood in the open then they would be seen and would not remain hidden. (The difference between seen and seen clearly).

[Tanarii]

Finally, the cloak would help if a character was crossing a small open area where they might be seen, in this case, the stealth roll is to determine whether a creature happened to look in that direction at the time the creature was visible and noticed something. The cloak makes them more difficult to notice but if the character stood in the open then they would be seen and would not remain hidden. (The difference between seen and seen clearly).
That wouldn't even necessarily need to be Wisdom (Perception) vs Dexterity (Stealth). It might just be vs a fixed DC picked by the DM based on distance and terrain. But probably a low one if close, given you specified an open area.

-----

What I find interesting is the advantage to Stealth when hiding doesn't depend on sight. It's just a bonus regardless. That's almost certainly not RAI given the camouflage description, but the see you part is clearly associated with the disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks the way they worded it.

[Keltest]

That wouldn't even necessarily need to be Wisdom (Perception) vs Dexterity (Stealth). It might just be vs a fixed DC picked by the DM based on distance and terrain. But probably a low one if close, given you specified an open area.

-----

What I find interesting is the advantage to Stealth when hiding doesn't depend on sight. It's just a bonus regardless. That's almost certainly not RAI given the camouflage description, but the see you part is clearly associated with the disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks the way they worded it.
Eh, it's magic. It could easily muffle the noise you make and even nullify your smell a little on top of the visual camouflage.

[Keravath]

Eh, it's magic. It could easily muffle the noise you make and even nullify your smell a little on top of the visual camouflage.

True. It's magic. However, as written, a cloak of elvenkind only affects checks to SEE you - not hear or smell. On the other hand the boots of elvenkind ...

"While you wear these boots, your steps make no sound, regardless of the surface you are moving across. You also have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on moving silently."

Give you advantage on stealth checks that involve moving silently.

So I'd say that the cloak is not intended to do anything about your sound or smell :)

In addition, the boots don't say you make no sound at all - just that your steps make no sound. Your armor could jingle, weapons could bump, coins could rattle in your purse. The boots would give an invisible character advantage on stealth checks to hide since they are already unseen and hidden is defined as unseen and unheard - but they would not make a character automatically hidden.

[Segev]

The distinction between advantage on stealth checks related to you being seen and related to you being heard is a big complication that I doubt really gets explored in most games.

Consider the following: If a lightfoot halfling rogue is wearing a Cloak of Elvenkind in combat with a group of orcs, and he chooses to use his racial feature to use Medium or larger creatures as his obscurement to hide, does he get Advantage on the Dexterity(Stealth) check to hide? Or does the fact that other senses besides sight might give him away mean he doesn't get Advantage?

What if, instead of a Cloak of Elvenkind, he's wearing Boots of Elvenkind? Does he gain Advantage on his Dexterity(Stealth) check to hide? Or does the fact that vision applies mean he doesn't?

Note that the Dexterity(Stealth) check is independent of what creature(s) are looking for him. An orc and a bat have the same DC to beat to sense the rogue using hearing alone. The bat has Advantage due to Keen Senses (Hearing), but the same DC.

What about smell? Scent is a valid "Keen Sense," so sometimes detection based on it must be a valid option. Neither cloak nor boots cover your scent, so does that mean that you never actually get to roll your Dexterity(Stealth) check with advantage because the enemies might be using scent to detect you?

If you do gain Advantage to hide when only wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind while hiding amidst those orcs, does that mean it becomes harder for you to hide from them than if you were visible, because now you don't get Advantage on your check and they don't suffer Disadvantage on theirs?

Or, when you have Advantage to hide from one particular sense, do you roll without Advantage first, then roll your "advantage die," and record two different DCs - one to sense you by any other sense, and one to sense you by the sense you've got Advantage against? The rules certainly don't say to do that. And with the exception of providing you with disadvantage on enemy attack rolls, the difference between them hearing but not seeing you and them seeing you is almost negligible.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I am an idiot. Just today I realized the full power of the Cloak of Elvin Kind - not only does it allow the wearer to make Stealth checks at ADV, but it also forces the perceiver to make perception checks at DISADV which for Passive Perception means they have a -5 penalty.

I'd never seen the penalty enforced in play. Is it just me, or are most of your tables ignoring the 2nd half of the double whammy of this basic (uncommon) magical item that with it's full power enforced is hugely impactful?

Mathematically, how advantageous is a magical item that not only gives you ADV to succeed but also gives the opponent DISADV?

It's good, but there are just so many ways to break bounded accuracy with skill checks that I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. Expertise is the most common, but (as was mentioned upthread) PWT is crazy good. I personally consider PWT the most broken low level spell, not just for the +10 bonus, but also for the number of creatures (the whole party) you impact, and the duration. You can basically avoid or trivialize several encounters with this one spell; often that would be a whole SR worth of encounters.

The only thing I would say, and it goes beyond this one item, is that awarding a -5 for disadvantage is a little weird. The only time on an active role that advantage or disadvantage is actually equal to a + or - 5 is on a coin-flip role: when an 11 is the target. If a 1 or 20 is the target then advantage/ disadvantage is only worth 1 point on an active role. As a result I tend to only award a 3 point modifier to passive checks regardless of RAW.

[Keravath]

The distinction between advantage on stealth checks related to you being seen and related to you being heard is a big complication that I doubt really gets explored in most games.

Consider the following: If a lightfoot halfling rogue is wearing a Cloak of Elvenkind in combat with a group of orcs, and he chooses to use his racial feature to use Medium or larger creatures as his obscurement to hide, does he get Advantage on the Dexterity(Stealth) check to hide? Or does the fact that other senses besides sight might give him away mean he doesn't get Advantage?

What if, instead of a Cloak of Elvenkind, he's wearing Boots of Elvenkind? Does he gain Advantage on his Dexterity(Stealth) check to hide? Or does the fact that vision applies mean he doesn't?

Note that the Dexterity(Stealth) check is independent of what creature(s) are looking for him. An orc and a bat have the same DC to beat to sense the rogue using hearing alone. The bat has Advantage due to Keen Senses (Hearing), but the same DC.

What about smell? Scent is a valid "Keen Sense," so sometimes detection based on it must be a valid option. Neither cloak nor boots cover your scent, so does that mean that you never actually get to roll your Dexterity(Stealth) check with advantage because the enemies might be using scent to detect you?

If you do gain Advantage to hide when only wearing the Cloak of Elvenkind while hiding amidst those orcs, does that mean it becomes harder for you to hide from them than if you were visible, because now you don't get Advantage on your check and they don't suffer Disadvantage on theirs?

Or, when you have Advantage to hide from one particular sense, do you roll without Advantage first, then roll your "advantage die," and record two different DCs - one to sense you by any other sense, and one to sense you by the sense you've got Advantage against? The rules certainly don't say to do that. And with the exception of providing you with disadvantage on enemy attack rolls, the difference between them hearing but not seeing you and them seeing you is almost negligible.

I'd just like to say ... Really good questions :)

I think the problem is that the cloak and boots have roots in previous editions of the game where hide in shadows and move silently were separate skills so that each magic item had an effect on the related skill.

5e leaves any level of detail for these sorts of checks up to the DM. The vision rules on heavily obscured/lightly obscured/darkness etc are some of the worst written in the game and stealth fits right in there.

The way I would tend to run it is that perception represents the use of all of the senses. Magic items like the boots and cloak would grant advantage on the stealth checks UNLESS the specific sense is not applicable to a particular perception check.

For example, a cloak of elvenkind would have no effect on an invisible character. Boots of elvenkind would have no effect on a creature trying to hide in a noisy environment, where the listener is too far away to hear anything, or if the character was in a silence spell.

Otherwise, I would tend to give the character advantage on the stealth roll due to the magic item.

However, that approach opens up a different series of problems. If a rogue with a cloak of elvenkind tries to hide behind a wall do they get advantage on the stealth check? Since they can't be seen behind total cover, it isn't clear why the cloak would help at all. In addition, an invisible rogue behind total cover doesn't get advantage on the stealth roll - why would being visible but wearing a cloak provide advantage?

If a character is standing in clear view, they can't hide even if they are wearing a cloak of elvenkind. They COULD attempt to hide if invisible but they don't get advantage.

Basically, any situation where a creature tries to hide and vision is a factor, being invisible is fundamentally superior to wearing a cloak of elvenkind - so under what circumstances would a creature wearing a cloak get to roll stealth with advantage while trying to hide while invisible would not have advantage? You could just say "Its a magic item ... it has some magic property that does something better than invisibility" but honestly, that doesn't seem to me to make a lot of logical sense.

[Chronos]

For example, a cloak of elvenkind would have no effect on an invisible character. Boots of elvenkind would have no effect on a creature trying to hide in a noisy environment, where the listener is too far away to hear anything, or if the character was in a silence spell.
So it being hard to hear you (because you're wearing magically-quiet boots) makes it easier to hide than it being impossible to hear you (because there's so much background noise that nobody can hear anything)?

[Keravath]

So it being hard to hear you (because you're wearing magically-quiet boots) makes it easier to hide than it being impossible to hear you (because there's so much background noise that nobody can hear anything)?

That is the point I was making about the items (cloak and boots) not really being consistent with the current set of rules which don't (RAW) have any good rules splitting up hearing, seeing or smelling to determine the location of a hidden creature.

The boots say that they give advantage on stealth checks when sound is a factor. Shouldn't a silence spell be even better than that? However, the silence spell does not say anything about advantage on stealth checks where sound is a factor.

So, we are left with items providing benefits that the DM has to rule on and trying to find a situation where they are applicable. In addition, the DM has to decide whether the silence spell or the invisibility spell should allow for advantage on stealth checks since they a similar effect to the boots and cloak of elvenkind, only better (the spells make it impossible to see a creature or hear a creature at all while neither item does that).

[Segev]

To add to this: if you are invisible in a magically silenced area, most of the time the DM should probably say you cannot be detected, since it is impossible to see or hear you. However, in theory, a dog could still smell you, and it probably has Keen Scent, giving it advantage to do so.

The main issues, I think, are the notion that a given stealth check can be said to apply to any particular sense, and the fact that certain features and items grant advantage to stealth for doing less than things that do not.

Being silent or invisible makes it impossible to hear or see you, but you do not get advantage on stealth checks from these. You are assumed to be locatable unless you roll better, unmodified stealth than observers roll perception; if they cannot hear you, they still see you, and if they cannot see you, they still hear you (unless both are blocked entirely).

By this logic, the Cloak and the Boots do not grant their Advantage to stealth unless sound or sight (respectively) are the only senses that can detect the wearer. If you have both, they still only apply if those are the only two senses that could detect the wearer, because scent still could.

This greatly diminishes their potency. To almost nil, since scent will almost always apply and has little means to magically get rid of. Prestidigitation might do it if the DM agrees.

[Keltest]

To add to this: if you are invisible in a magically silenced area, most of the time the DM should probably say you cannot be detected, since it is impossible to see or hear you. However, in theory, a dog could still smell you, and it probably has Keen Scent, giving it advantage to do so.

The main issues, I think, are the notion that a given stealth check can be said to apply to any particular sense, and the fact that certain features and items grant advantage to stealth for doing less than things that do not.

Being silent or invisible makes it impossible to hear or see you, but you do not get advantage on stealth checks from these. You are assumed to be locatable unless you roll better, unmodified stealth than observers roll perception; if they cannot hear you, they still see you, and if they cannot see you, they still hear you (unless both are blocked entirely).

By this logic, the Cloak and the Boots do not grant their Advantage to stealth unless sound or sight (respectively) are the only senses that can detect the wearer. If you have both, they still only apply if those are the only two senses that could detect the wearer, because scent still could.

This greatly diminishes their potency. To almost nil, since scent will almost always apply and has little means to magically get rid of. Prestidigitation might do it if the DM agrees.

Personally, unless a creature has an ability that enhances their smell, I dont bother having smell come into the equation except for exceptional circumstances like if youre covered in sewage or something. A dog might smell you because thats what they do, but a human can never locate you via scent.

[Segev]

Personally, unless a creature has an ability that enhances their smell, I dont bother having smell come into the equation except for exceptional circumstances like if youre covered in sewage or something. A dog might smell you because thats what they do, but a human can never locate you via scent.

Likely common. Noteworthy that this means nobody ever makes a "scent perception" roll without advantage, since creatures with abilities that enhance their smell have this represented by Keen Smell, which gives advantage on perception checks involving scent.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, Keen Smell is basically a feature that not only enables pinpointing by smell in the first place, but also gives advantage.

Although it's not useless for humans. We detect things by scent all the time. That smell after rain, gas, rotting things, feces, cigarette/cigar smokers, coffee drinkers at the end of a work day, etc. We just generally can't use it to pinpoint their location when they're invisible. :smallamused:

The perception system definitely is an area where they could have been more precise, and chose not too. The big failure was failing to distinguish between detecting something (becoming aware of it) and pinpointing it (including not having to guess when attacking it).


True. It's magic. However, as written, a cloak of elvenkind only affects checks to SEE you - not hear or smell. On the other hand the boots of elvenkind ...As written, cloak of elven kind only affects perception checks rolled against you to see you. But it affects any stealth checks you make to hide, regardless of of if they can potentially see, hear or smell you.

Otoh that does make it easier to adjudicate. It's very easy to say "person detecting uses best sense", roll based on that. But it's much harder to modify the stealth side. It can either eliminate possible modes of detection (enemy automatically fails), fail to cover a possible mode of detection (enemy automatically succeed) at all, or must be modified with advantage/disadvantage for any kinds of detection that still apply.

The cloak really should have only penalized enemy sight detection chances. Same for boots, it should only penalize only son d detection chances. Or, in keeping with 5e and abstraction, both should only give advantage to stealth (specially to hide) and having one would do the trick, two would just be redundant.

[Keltest]

Likely common. Noteworthy that this means nobody ever makes a "scent perception" roll without advantage, since creatures with abilities that enhance their smell have this represented by Keen Smell, which gives advantage on perception checks involving scent.

I dont think thats necessarily even unfair or a problem. Scent is one of the harder senses to trick or disguise from my understanding.

[Chronos]

Quoth Keravath:

That is the point I was making about the items (cloak and boots) not really being consistent with the current set of rules which don't (RAW) have any good rules splitting up hearing, seeing or smelling to determine the location of a hidden creature.

That's not really about the items, though, because the rules are already inconsistent with themselves, when you poke too much at different senses.

For instance, by the rules, all that Keen Senses does is give the creature advantage on checks involving that sense. Which means that anything that a bloodhound can do with scent, an ordinary human can, too, just with somewhat lower chances of success (but not all that much lower). Which means that if you're trying to sneak past a guard, and you're invisible and have Silence on you, not only do you still have to roll Stealth, but it's no easier to do so than it would be without the spells.

[Tanarii]

For instance, by the rules, all that Keen Senses does is give the creature advantage on checks involving that sense. Which means that anything that a bloodhound can do with scent, an ordinary human can, too, just with somewhat lower chances of success (but not all that much lower). Which means that if you're trying to sneak past a guard, and you're invisible and have Silence on you, not only do you still have to roll Stealth, but it's no easier to do so than it would be without the spells.
This doesn't follow. The check for detecting a scene for a generic human(oid) may be "automatic failure" and for a generic animal may be "DC 10".

[Segev]

This doesn't follow. The check for detecting a scene for a generic human(oid) may be "automatic failure" and for a generic animal may be "DC 10".

In theory, the DC doesn't change based on who's doing it. And what animals would get DC 10 for scent perception but not have Keen Scent as a trait?

[Tanarii]

In theory, the DC doesn't change based on who's doing it.It doesn't change if it's the same task. I can accept any two PHB characters. That's a single task of "humanoid detects smells". But two different species? IMO that is are two different tasks.

Same as someone growing up in candlekeep having one DC for "person from candlekeep recalls commonly known candlekeep history" and another automatic fail on task of "person from Thay recalls commonly known candlekeep history". Two different tasks.


And what animals would get DC 10 for scent perception but not have Keen Scent as a trait?A boar?