D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[Hriston]

When you say that I don't speak for standard 5e, are you just saying I don't work for WofTC?

No. I'm saying you don't get to decide for us what "standard 5e" is, and you don't get to tell us we aren't playing "the real D&D" if we don't play according to your personal understanding of the rules, which in my opinion is deeply flawed.

When I said "creatures PP is always operational as long as they are conscious", well again, you keep saying you watched the podcast but you deny that? That is a quote from that podcast from Crawford. Now your denial of that statement is completely correct, there are situations when a pcs PP does not contribute to noticing stuff, as outlined in teh PHB. However I suspect Crawford is aware of that, and since he said that and we assume he knows the rules, denying that statement of his is a bit pedantic. Although I agree it needs to be mentioned for people who have not yet read the rule books.

It isn't pedantic because it bears directly on this particular exchange we're having. Let me recount for you, since you seem to have forgotten. You said it's possible to sneak past unalert creatures while in the open as long as you beat their passive Perception, as if being unalert somehow makes you blind. In response, I said I require you to be heavily obscured or concealed to sneak past unalert creatures, the same as any other attempt to escape notice, but that because the creature is not alert, I don't consult its passive Perception and the attempt auto-succeeds. You responded that conscious creatures' passive Perception is always on even when not alert. I replied no, that isn't true. If a creature's attention is otherwise occupied with a task like tracking or foraging, its passive score is not in effect when it comes to noticing hidden/sneaking/stealthy threats. The game (and Jeremy Crawford) describes passive Perception in terms of "always on" with reference to combat, because creatures are assumed to be alert in combat, the exception being DM-ruled distraction. Also to make it clear you don't have to take the Search action to be alert in combat.

Sneaking up on things, heavily obscured; that is fine, but it seems to me that RAI do not require such strict conditions.

What's your evidence? You seem to be speaking on behalf of "standard 5e" again.

So I said I agree "pretty much" with your OP on hiding. Now you want to say hiding and stealth are basically the same, this is new and I do not agree with that.

But I don't think you've named one application of the Stealth skill that isn't an attempt to avoid notice. If that isn't hiding, I don't know what is. If you see a distinction between hiding and sneaking being made in the rules, however, I'd be very interested in having you point it out to me.

But in your OP, I just don't agree with this;

"I would add to the top two above circumstances the requirement that the area or object must be of sufficient size to create uncertainty as to your precise location, or you must not be observed entering the area or getting behind the object by the creature from which you are hiding, whereas invisibility creates its own uncertainty as long as the invisible creature is free to move."

This contradicts hiding clarifications in the podcast.

What clarifications does it contradict? I admit this is my houserule, but it isn't in contradiction to anything of which I'm aware. It's meant to preserve the situation presented in the rules for attacking from hiding that when you are hidden, your location is unknown.

And again I think your confusion is thinking hiding and stealth are synomins, which you then go into attempting to justify from supposed prose in various books.

At the risk of being accused of pedantry again, I'm going to repeat what I explained up-thread. Hiding is an action. Stealth is a skill. They are not synonyms in my opinion. The terms I would say are mechanically synonymous are hiding and sneaking. If you think the rule-book makes a distinction between the two, I would encourage you to point out where you're reading that. By the way, all the terms I listed as synonyms for hiding I found in one book, the PHB.

It doesnt matter how we individually fluff up in our minds what different things means, it only matters if it effects mechanics. Which it seems to me that this is basically emerging into mechanics, like this;

You require concealment (or some other special condition) to stealth past things.
I do not. I merely require that the players are sufficiently low perceptual footprint (stealth check beats PP).

Up-thread you said this was true of creatures that are not alert. Now it seems you allow sneaking past alert creatures while in the open as well. If this is correct, and given the extra requirement of not being clearly seen that hiding entails, why does anyone try to hide in your games when it's much easier to avoid notice by sneaking in the open?

 

[Guest 6801328]

It directly addresses the post it is referencing. "not even wrong" famous physicist quote; basically not even related/totally missing the point/etc.....

Anyway I think that is a worst possible response to a comment I make; If true it means I am completely confused about what the topic even is. In this case, I don't think it applies tho

The part you got wrong is in expecting RPGs to be as formal as set theory.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Hmm? People we seem to be getting a bit off topic here;

* Yeah I said RPGs are not and should not be written in formal language.

* If it was in a formal language, it would be being applied to the RPG, so have its semantics, again lets not side track into mathematical logic here... its pretty simple concept...

* Who decides what is standard 5e; WotC, their people and books. We ascertain what it all means and then state that, if we are being honest.

The long and short of it is, that no matter how much some people want to argue for the sake of arguing; we have successfully converged on the correct (for the most part), mechanics here.

Congrats everyone, and thanks

 

[Hriston]

Who decides what is standard 5e; WotC, their people and books. We ascertain what it all means and then state that, if we are being honest.

First you label the games of those who don't play like you as non-standard, and now you suggest that those who disagree with you about the game's design intent are being dishonest. Charming!

 

[Hriston]

I deem circumstances appropriate for hiding whenever I would call for a (likely Passive) Perception check to perceive (i.e. see or hear, occasionally other senses) a creature who isn't hiding. A creature in such circumstances who takes an action to hide replaces the Perception DC with the result of their Stealth check (absent unusual circumstances, the original DC is effectively a floor on the result of the Stealth check). Additonally, I always deem circumstances as appropriate for hiding if the conditions of a special ability are met.

The basic idea behind my approach is that when there is no question that a creature is seen or heard (e.g. unobstructed view, sufficiently close range, noiseless environment, lack of distractions, etc.), then (absent a special ability) there is no possible method by which to conceal oneself, so hiding is useless.

Similarly, if there is no question that that a creature is NOT seen or heard (e.g. totally obstructed view, extreme range, loud environment, all-consuming distraction) hiding is pointless because the would-be hider won't be perceived anyway.

In the middle ground, when the perceiving is uncertain (and thus a check is warranted) where one's skill at hiding has a chance to make a difference. Therefore, those are the circumstances I deem appropriate for hiding.

I know my approach is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I find it works well and is easily explainable to both new and experienced players. Its largest downside is the potential for setting different base Perception DCs in similar situations, so it requires a little extra thought to make sure I'm staying reasonably consistent.

(Note that I do not interpret the rule about creatures being alert in combat as implying auto-detection of everythig not-hidden. Also, being unperceived in my approach does not preclude an enemy knowing or deducing one's location.)

I find this approach intriguing and would like to ask a few clarifying questions if I may. I assume that when you consider it certain that a creature will be noticed, it's because circumstances are such that either there is no barrier to sight available or, as you say, it's so quiet that even the heartbeat and light breathing of a creature would give its position away. I admit that I've never had the latter scenario come up in one of my games, but I don't usually pay close attention to ambient noise levels. Also, I'm unclear on whether you would consider a lightly obscured area as providing a sufficient enough barrier to disqualify it from the former. If you do, how do you adjudicate the wood elf hiding feature and the Skulker feat?

Likewise, I also assume that when you consider it certain that a creature won't be noticed, it's because circumstances block both vision and hearing entirely (e.g. a roaring waterfall inside a dark cave). In my games, such conditions prevail wherever a heavily obscured area exists outside of audible range, but I do allow creatures to hide in those places in anticipation of an approaching enemy and let the check total stand until such a time as it's contested, i.e. when the enemy comes within hearing range, which may be before or after they enter the range of any potential surprise attacks. Is that basically how you would handle it?

Remaining in your "middle ground" are circumstances in which sight is blocked entirely and hearing is possible but not guaranteed (my usual condition for hiding), or in which hearing is blocked entirely and sight is possible but not guaranteed, or in which both sight and hearing are possible but not guaranteed. Personally, I generally run hearing as possible but not guaranteed whenever someone is trying to hide/be stealthy, but I don't do this with respect to sight. How do you run sight this way without stepping on the toes of characters that have the above-mentioned wood elf hiding feature and Skulker feat?

 

[Hriston]

There's no way to parse "...circumstances are appropriate for hiding" into any more simpler form.

Actually, I was asking more about the "DM decides" part, as in how do you, as a DM, do this?

Second, uh...the ENTIRE PREMISE OF A DM BASED RPG IS TO ASK THE DM IF YOU CAN TRY/DO SOMETHING! That's kind of how it works...

<snip>

See, ALL of those are "DM, may I?". Every single one.

My post wasn't a criticism of "DM, may I?" I think that's a perfectly valid play-style.

To me it sounds like you want a million-point list of "appropriate circumstances" for the DM to pick and choose when he "builds encounters".

No, you misunderstand. I'm looking for broad categories of fictional circumstances, things like, "dense woods" and "blizzard conditions". I want to see what different ways DMs have of doing this. I gave a short list as an example (nowhere near a million points ), hoping that others might have something to add or a list of their own.

When I DM, the circumstances in which I consider appropriate for hiding is this: "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". I mean, it honestly CAN'T get any more clear than that without resorting to, as I said, a million-plus list of absolute "circumstances".

Okay, but when a player asks you, "DM, are there any conditions here that are good for hiding?", do you say, "Yeah, circumstances are appropriate." OR do you TELL them what the circumstances ARE?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Actually, I was asking more about the "DM decides" part, as in how do you, as a DM, do this?

My post wasn't a criticism of "DM, may I?" I think that's a perfectly valid play-style.

No, you misunderstand. I'm looking for broad categories of fictional circumstances, things like, "dense woods" and "blizzard conditions". I want to see what different ways DMs have of doing this. I gave a short list as an example (nowhere near a million points ), hoping that others might have something to add or a list of their own.

Okay, but when a player asks you, "DM, are there any conditions here that are good for hiding?", do you say, "Yeah, circumstances are appropriate." OR do you TELL them what the circumstances ARE?

Ahh....got it. The thing is, I don't have a 'set list' of absolutes (or even nigh-absolutes). I think what this is going to boil down to is "group experience"...as in the group of people sitting around the table are all experienced in RP'ing with each other, the campaign setting, and me, Mr.Dres...er..the DM.

My group (which is, unfortunately, down to a mere *2* players!; hasn't been this low in decades...literally [RL stuff all kinda punched everyone in the donkey snacks]), has/had been playing together for at least 15 years, upwards of 30+ for a couple. So when an "appropriate circumstance" shows up, everyone kinda just knows that, yeah, you can try and hide.

For example:

DM: It's a thick, foggy morning, cold and damp. A few glowing spots of yellow-orange can be seen bobbing around down the streets you know are there. Horses clip-clop down the cobblestone, slowly, and the coach driver calls out ever few seconds to clear the way. Hide: Yes. There is visibility issues, points of light to distract onlookers, noises they hear but can't tell what made them due to the people milling about with candle-lanterns and torches. Hide with Advantage.

DM: It's a thick foggy morning, cold and damp. The streets are eerily silent as people wisely decided to wait for the fog to lift. Soft, warm yellow-orange glowing balls of light from the fancy gas light-posts that line the cobblestone street. Hide: Yes. There are visibility issues, but it is almost dead silent. Hide with Advantage, but any movement will need another check at Disadvantage to remain Hidden

DM: It's a normal morning. A bit cool, with dew clinging to the shadows and metalic objects like the unlit gas light-posts.
A few early risers are milling about, greeting each other and starting the days business. A two-horse cart noisily makes its way down the cobblestone street. Traders and shopkeepers slowly set up their stands or open their shutters. Hide: Yes, but the person hiding is at Disadvantage.

So, for the first two...we have "obscured vision" from the fog as well as the "obscured hearing"; I'd treat "detecting" a person trying to hide here as primarily using their hearing rather than vision. This is why the first example is easy; vision and hearing, with distracting highlights to which the persons trying to detect would have their attention (vision and hearing) drawn. The second example, the vision is the same as the first, but it's really quiet. In this case the fog may actually work a bit against the Hider - if nothing is 'moving', people tend to not notice and so their vision will sort of 'shift into secondary mode', and their hearing will start to take focus. In the last example, vision isn't obscured much, but the amount of busy-body's in the area, all moving around, and the noises, and probably smells and even tastes are all sort of "evening out". The person trying to Hide may have to quickly duck behind an apple cart to stay out of the line of site from the person trying to find him...but the apple vendor is likely to stop placing apples, turn his head and look down at this weirdo who just hunkered down next to his cart...and he'll probably ask/talk to the would be Hider ("Uh, excuse me sir? Can I help you?"...SSssshhh! I'm trying to hide!...).

So, I can't say "light obscurement" as a simple "if you have it, you can hide". My game doesn't work that way. Everything in the situation is looked at, and I then simply decide if "appropriate circumstances" are viable.

In a MUCH shorter way of saying it: I use the examples in the book (obscurement, cover, etc), but only as a bare-bones starting, and frequently ignore them if circumstances dictate.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Xetheral]

I find this approach intriguing and would like to ask a few clarifying questions if I may.

I'm happy to elaborate!

I assume that when you consider it certain that a creature will be noticed, it's because circumstances are such that either there is no barrier to sight available or, as you say, it's so quiet that even the heartbeat and light breathing of a creature would give its position away. I admit that I've never had the latter scenario come up in one of my games, but I don't usually pay close attention to ambient noise levels. Also, I'm unclear on whether you would consider a lightly obscured area as providing a sufficient enough barrier to disqualify it from the former. If you do, how do you adjudicate the wood elf hiding feature and the Skulker feat?

I've not had the "utterly silent" scenario come up either. But I do take unusual ambient noise levels into account when setting Perception DCs in general, on an ad hoc basis. Combat is the most common case, where I assume anything involving multiple combatants in hand-to-hand fighting is going to be loud.

A lightly obscured area by itself isn't enough to hide at my table without a special ability (e.g. Wood Elf/Stalker), because most conditions that provide only light obscuration I wouldn't consider enough to create doubt over whether someone not hidden would be perceived. Add in other factors (range and distraction being the big ones) in combination with light obscuration, however, and eventually you get enough doubt that I'd call for a Perception check.

For example, at my table, in a dimly lit field at twilight, someone with skulker could try to hide at any range, even if they were close enough that I wouldn't normally call for a perception check to notice them. Someone without skulker would need to be significantly farther away to introduce uncertainty as to whether they might be noticed (and thus for me to deem hiding appropriate). As the distance increased the Perception DC (absent hiding) would go up until I decided a roll wasn't necessary. The precise ranges would vary based on the target's degree of distraction, the environmental conditions, what's in the background, etc. Note that in practice, the only two questions I need to be able to answer are "Can I hide here?" and "How close can I get and still have a chance of remaining unnoticed?".

Note that even without any obscuration at all there are ranges beyond which I'd have doubt whether an observer would necessarily notice the character; the ranges would just be even longer. Usually such ranges will be too far to matter for anything except trying to avoid encounters in the first place, but terrain and other factors (such as crowds) can drastically shorten the distances beyond which perception is questionable, particularly by distracted targets.

Likewise, I also assume that when you consider it certain that a creature won't be noticed, it's because circumstances block both vision and hearing entirely (e.g. a roaring waterfall inside a dark cave). In my games, such conditions prevail wherever a heavily obscured area exists outside of audible range, but I do allow creatures to hide in those places in anticipation of an approaching enemy and let the check total stand until such a time as it's contested, i.e. when the enemy comes within hearing range, which may be before or after they enter the range of any potential surprise attacks. Is that basically how you would handle it?

Basically, yes. I'd let a character hide in advance, or if the character was unaware that no one was close enough to possibly perceive them. It just wouldn't matter until someone did come close enough.

Remaining in your "middle ground" are circumstances in which sight is blocked entirely and hearing is possible but not guaranteed (my usual condition for hiding), or in which hearing is blocked entirely and sight is possible but not guaranteed, or in which both sight and hearing are possible but not guaranteed. Personally, I generally run hearing as possible but not guaranteed whenever someone is trying to hide/be stealthy, but I don't do this with respect to sight. How do you run sight this way without stepping on the toes of characters that have the above-mentioned wood elf hiding feature and Skulker feat?

As above, it will usually come down to range. Wood Elves and skulkers can use their abilities (in the respective conditions) to be unpercieved at ranges where characters without those abilities would be perceived without a Perception check. I'm comfortable that that's enough of an advantage for those abilities to keep their value.

Another way for me to word it would be that characters with special hiding abilities can always try to be unperceived (in the appropraite conditions) whereas everyone else has to worry about how close they are to the potential observers. Making range a non-factor is a pretty big deal when it comes to stealth.

Did I address all your questions? If not, let me know and I'll clarify. I'm also happy to answer any others.

 

[Harzel]

It directly addresses the post it is referencing. "not even wrong" famous physicist quote; basically not even related/totally missing the point/etc.....

Anyway I think that is a worst possible response to a comment I make; If true it means I am completely confused about what the topic even is. In this case, I don't think it applies tho

No, sadly, it does not mean 'not related' nor 'missed the point' nor even 'not on topic'. What it means is that even though you were using English words and, for the most part, adhering to the rules for English grammar, we cannot find a coherent meaning for what you have written. We cannot tell or have an opinion about whether it is right or wrong because we cannot tell what it means.

 

[Harzel]

Ok I get my comment maybe a little "technical" for some people to easily understand.

Oh, it was a little "technical". Well that would explain why all of the poorly educated, unsophisticated folks who inhabit these forums could not make heads nor tails of it.

Formal langauge

Oh, look! Despite my paltry education, you managed to stumble into my area of expertise. What an unexpected treat.

is a specific term though, I don't mean that like how we use "formal" in everyday language, like formal dress/manner, or more or less formal, in that way. A formal language is a special type of construct, like first order logic or mathematics, or programming languages;

The syntax of first order logic can be described with a formal language, but there's more to first order logic than that. Mathematics is a rather broad set of endeavors, some of which study formal languages, and some of which use formal languages as part of their expression; but mathematics is not a formal language. Programming languages - ok, sure, close enough.

they are precise special kinds of ways of making a "language"; The 5e rulebooks are definitely not written in any kind of "formal language"...

True. Obvious, I would have thought, but true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language

Not the most lucid description I have ever seen.

Anyway that comment was referencing the comment it references, it completely and utterly refutes the comment it refers to... However it is a bit off topic for me write pages of educational material that would be necessary for anyone to understand it. I thought I wrote that comment in a way that most people could easily grok the basic gist of it, but yeah, no worries.

EDIT: incidentally, if the rulebooks were written in a formal language, there would be no argument about the rules at all, everything stated in it would be an axiom (100% true) or a theorem (100% true and provably so). And anything that anyone claims the rules are saying would be a theorem of the system as well, provable in the system.

I don't think you said what you meant here. I think what you meant was that for every assertion (formally, a sentence in the language) you could prove (from the axioms) whether it was true or false; that is, you could prove either the assertion or its negation. And this demonstrates your naivete about the subjects you are discussing. It is possible that that would be the case, but your axioms would have to be limited in ways that would probably make the game pretty limited, for instance not encompassing all the rules of natural number arithmetic. It would likely be very difficult, under such constraints, to express the rules for a game in which you can attempt anything. For further info, Google "incompleteness theorem".

There would be no confusion at all.

Nonsense. Despite the fact we can formalize the axioms in many mathematical domains, numerous unsolved problems remain. Even things that are provable may not be easy to prove. Furthermore, purported proofs are sometimes controversial as to their validity, and sometimes are shown to be invalid even after some people have accepted them.

The problem is, you would need a degree to be able to read it.

Patience, perhaps. I'm not sure about the degree.