It says "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding."
Does that mean that for the purposes of hiding, can I treat dim light as total darkness? Because, under normal conditions, if I'm in a room in total darkness I can hide in front of the enemy, in his line of vision, since he can't see me. But if the entire area in in dim light, with the skulker feat, can I just try to hide in front of the enemy while in his line of vision? I try to imagine it as making the most of the shadows of the room in general to accomplish hiding, like the clothing or cape of a rogue may help him be unseen even without a hiding spot, but I don't know if it's meant to work that way. But on the other hand, in case it doesn't work like that: if even with the skulker feat, I have to look for a hiding spot, a cover to hide, then what's even the point of that part of the skulker feat? Because that last thing is what you would normally would do in order to hide even without the skulker feat.
Another question, let's say I'm hidden, behind a cover with the skulker feat, the entire area is in dim light. Can I step out of my hiding spot to the middle of the room that is in dim light and still be hidden in order to melee attack? Without the skulker feat you normally stop being hidden if you do that in a lightly obscured area, but with the skulker feat? EDIT: Another way to word this question is, once I'm already hidden, can I step out of the hiding spot and treat the entire area in dim light a my hiding spot, walking in front of enemies in dim light while still being hidden? I'm not saying using the hide action in front of an enemy this time, but steping into the line of vision of an enemy in dim light when I was already hidden from beforehand.
Because, under normal conditions, if I'm in a room in total darkness I can hide in front of the enemy, in his line of vision, since he can't see me. But if the entire area in in dim light, with the skulker feat, can I just try to hide in front of the enemy while in his line of vision?
Yes it specifically allow you to, as you are an expert at slinking through shadows.
Another question, let's say I'm hidden, behind a cover with the skulker feat, the entire area is in dim light. Can I step out of my hiding spot to the middle of the room that is in dim light and still be hidden in order to melee attack?
Yes you can move and remain hidden in lightly obscured areas.
once I'm already hidden, can I step out of the hiding spot and treat the entire area in dim light a my hiding spot, walking in front of enemies in dim light while still being hidden? I'm not saying using the hide action in front of an enemy this time, but steping into the line of vision of an enemy in dim light when I was already hidden from beforehand.
Yes you remain hidden as long as you meet the requirement. So if you remain in dim light, you stay hidden.
Wow that sounds really useful for my rogue! Thanks!
Follow up question, in this context of a lightly obscured area where my character is hidden: can I range attack an opponent (by doing this I stop being hidden -only if it's a hit with the skulker feat-), move to a different open spot in the lightly obscured room/area and use my bonus action to hide again? It sounds a bit like that frequently asked situation when a rogue range attacks from cover (like behind a tree), goes back to being behing the tree, and uses his bonus action to hide again. Both scenarios involve the enemy seeing where you hid, but can't see you because you are hidden now (assuming that you're rolling stealth successfully). But that situation of attacking from cover, getting cover again and hiding is asked a lot, a bit controversial as I always see different answers for that one, some people claim that the rogue can attempt to hide but rolling stealth with disadvantage... so I assume the situation I first described in this comment is similar in that regard?
Wow that sounds really useful for my rogue! Thanks!
Follow up question, in this context of a lightly obscured area where my character is hidden: can I range attack an opponent (by doing this I stop being hidden -only if it's a hit with the skulker feat-), move to a different open spot in the lightly obscured room/area and use my bonus action to hide again? It sounds a bit like that frequently asked situation when a rogue range attacks from cover (like behind a tree), goes back to being behing the tree, and uses his bonus action to hide again. Both scenarios involve the enemy seeing where you hid, but can't see you because you are hidden now (assuming that you're rolling stealth successfully). But that situation of attacking from cover, getting cover again and hiding is asked a lot, a bit controversial as I always see different answers for that one, some people claim that the rogue can attempt to hide but rolling stealth with disadvantage... so I assume the situation I first described in this comment is similar in that regard?
You can do better. Shoot someone, hit and reveal yourself, hide as bonus action, then move while hidden ("sneak", if you will). The target won't be able to see you and you won't be in the last space they saw you in. You won't roll with disadvantage under normal circumstances - there's simply no rule for that happening to the Wood Elves or Lightfoot Halflings Skulker is a variation on.
As @quindraco points out, the main advantage to hide is defensive by concealing your position, forcing enemies to have to guess your location. If all you want is advantage to apply Sneak Attack, then Steady Aim, a rogue option found in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything is more reliable.
Steady Aim
3rd-level rogue feature
As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
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.
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.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
...
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured as explained in chapter 8, “Adventuring.”
That all seems fine, right? No hard restrictions about when you can or can't hide, other than that the DM decides when it's appropriate, and that you can't hide when something sees you "clearly," that being Lightly or Heavily Obscured might impact how well a creature can see you. Great.... but wouldn't one think that you could already hide when lightly obscured, if the circumstances are appropriate? What's the difference between "discovered" and being not clearly seen? Can you be a little bit seen but not clearly, and still be hidden? What if you're not seen, but are heard, is that discovered?
Then we flip forward to PHB Chapter 8, Vision and Light.
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
So lightly obscured doesn't outright block vision, but it does provide disadvantage on sight-based checks, while heavily obscured is properly blinding and vision blocking. Still nothing one way or the other to say that you can't already hide while Lightly Obscured, so let's keep reading...
PHB Chapter 9 introduces us to the Hide action in combat, which may or may not be intended to represent all hiding out of combat as well. At first, it too seems innocuous:
When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter.
We've already been over the "rules for hiding" in PHB 7, and it didn't seem to say that you needed any particular type of obscurement....
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Wait, we've got to be [entirely] unseen to be hidden all of a sudden? Is that really a rule? Since when?!? If that's the case, then going back to PHB 8, heavily obscured maybe becomes an important part of hiding, since its one way to actually make enemies effectively blinded (rendering you unseen)...
Nothing has particularly invited us to look at PHB Appendix A and Invisible, but it's got some mud to throw in these waters too:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Wait, is that implying that for the "purpose of hiding" a characterneeds to be heavily obscured? If so that's the first time we're hearing about it! Or that while hiding, an Invisible should be treated as also being Heavily Obscured? Heavily Obscured inflicts Blinded, that's pretty much its whole thing.... what does that mean, separate and apart from the benefits a creature is already deriving from being Invisible? Is a Heavily Obscured Invisible creature meaningly different from an Invisible creature!?!?
You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
Again, since when could you not already do that???? Is this referencing an unwritten-but-implied rule in the Invisible condition that would have prevented hiding while only lightly obscured? Or instead, is this saying something more powerful, like "even if the circumstances are inappropriate to hide, if you're lightly obscured, you may hide anyway"???
- - -
Theatrics aside, this is a trainwreck of a daisy chain of half-stated rules. Nowhere is it ever stated that you cannot hide while Lightly Obscured. "The rules for Hiding", if they're anywhere at all, exist in PHB Chapter 7. And PHB Chapter 7 lets you hide whenever the DM decides is appropriate, such as when an enemy "can't see you clearly," which Lightly Obscured already would seem to encompass by handing out disadvantage on sight-based checks. The example provided in PHB Chapter 7 Perception mentions that "you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door," further reinforcing that hiding in dim light is already a totally normally thing to expect to be happening.
There's two and only two possible interpretations of Skulker and similar racial features:
There always already was a rule that you can't hide when only lightly obscured, and the PHB just failed to mention it in three different chapters. With Skulker, you now can.
Skulker is providing a new and stronger ability, to hide whenever you're lightly obscured, even if the circumstances are not appropriate for hiding or when a creature would "usually" see you to break your Hide.
I prefer interpretation 2. It's definitely stronger for players than interpretation 1 is... but it also is the only one that salvages Chapter 7, 8, and 9 language about hiding as being halfway competent at communicating a full rule.
You are seen when lightly obscured. If anyone could try to hide when lightly obscured, the Skulker feat and the Elf's Mask of the Wild wouldn't list it as one of its benefit.
That’s interpretation #1. Or, interpretation #2 gives it meaning too. If you subscribe to #1, where do you find the rule that you can’t hide in lightly obscured, considering Chapter 7 strongly implies you CAN? Did I miss a quote?
That’s interpretation #1. Or, interpretation #2 gives it meaning too. If you subscribe to #1, where do you find the rule that you can’t hide in lightly obscured, considering Chapter 7 strongly implies you CAN? Did I miss a quote?
In a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. But it doesn't block vision for those outside the area looking into it. So it still can be seen clearly, at least for the purpose of hiding.
In other words, the lightly obscured perception penalty apply to cheatures within the area only, where heavily obscured one affect those inside it as well as those trying to see into it from outside.
It can certainly be “seen.” But the fact that it is obscured and you have disadvantage to see it, suggests it cannot be seen CLEARLY, which is all hiding requires.
The hiding rules in Chapter 7 specifically mention light obscurement as impacting vision in the context of hiding. How do you take from that a rule that you can’t hide in LO?
ordinarily, you’re in LO and are not being seen clearly. If circumstances are appropriate, you may hide, and are now unseen.
With skulker, just strike “if circumstances are appropriate.” That’s what skulker does in my opinion. It lets you ALWAYS try to hide when LO, instead of needing DM permission for the context.
It can certainly be “seen.” But the fact that it is obscured and you have disadvantage to see it, suggests it cannot be seen CLEARLY, which is all hiding requires.
Who exactly have perception penalty? Creatures inside. A lightly obscured area has no effect on those outside of it.
It can certainly be “seen.” But the fact that it is obscured and you have disadvantage to see it, suggests it cannot be seen CLEARLY, which is all hiding requires.
Who exactly have perception penalty? Creatures inside. A lightly obscured area has no effect on those outside of it.
Awkward wording aside, I do not agree that it is RAI that heavy fog (HO) influences creatures outside and inside it, while light fog (LO) only influences creatures inside of it. The vision and light section provides that "effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance." LO, by its most core definition and plain english, obscures vision; an interpretation of LO that does not obscure vision is absurd. It is at worst ambiguous whether the "in" in LO refers to the see-er being "in" the LO or the thing-being-seen being "in" the LO or both (and HO is always treated as both, so why not extend the same to LO?), and considering that one interpretation renders it absurd and one doesn't... I prefer the not absurd reading. Both LO and HO are measured in relation to whether you are obscured from an observer in the same way. It makes no immersion or linguistic sense for both to measure obscurement from the see-er, but then only have HO impose a vision hindrance on that observer, and not LO.
And all of that being said... that's kind of a tangent, that doesn't really cut for or against either of our positions, does it?
Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”
Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”
A creature that is lightly obscured is not in "full view" (or "seen clearly"), so I have no problem agreeing with the literal word of this ruling even though i suspect I'm disagreeing on the spirit. Others have disadvantage on perception checks to see such creatures, so they literally aren't in "full" view.
Skulker/those subraces lets those charactes hide in a situation where others can't: where they are lightly obscured, but the situation would not otherwise allow for hiding to be appropriate. I agree with that 100%, they can always hide while lightly obscured, which is special.
I disagree with the implication that there is a rule that says that lightly obscured in general cannot ever be a situation where hiding is appropriate for creatures without Skulker. Chapter 7 does not say that, in fact says the opposite, and there is no quotable sentence anywhere in the PHB which would suggest there is such a rule.
I do also think it's funny that that SAC quote ends with the author confusing obscurement with cover, since hiding behind a guard is a half/threequarter/total cover situation, not an obscurement situation at all :)
They reason they mention it is because you normally have to be unseen somehow to try to hide, wether invisible, heavily obscured, blinded and the elf and halfling are seen when they try to as opposed to everyone else. That's why SAC says both subraces (and i'd include Skulker) are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t.
Where does it say that you must be "unseen" to hide? The only time "unseen" is used, is when describing what you are after you are hidden. When describing conditions necessary to attempt to hide, all that is required is that you not be "seen clearly."
I understand what you're trying to say, and I understand that it makes sense. What I'm saying is, there's nothing you can point to in the PHB that makes that an actual stated rule.
Where does it say that you must be "unseen" to hide? The only time "unseen" is used, is when describing what you are after you are hidden. When describing conditions necessary to attempt to hide, all that is required is that you not be "seen clearly."
I understand what you're trying to say, and I understand that it makes sense. What I'm saying is, there's nothing you can point to in the PHB that makes that an actual stated rule.
I think it boils down to … do we really need to analyze it this deeply? It might not be RAW, but the game plays perfectly fine and balanced if you don’t allow hiding while Lightly Obsucred, except with those aforementioned features.
Do we really need something to be so literal when it’s implied by all of the feats that follow it?
For a character that wants to hide while lightly obscured... yeah, probably? For a character with Skulker that wants to use that special ability to hide in dim light while standing 5 feet away from an enemy that's looking right at them.... yeah, probably? My interpretations empower more players, and are better supported by the PHB text. So "do we really need to be so literal [when we could instead just use an unwritten rule that stops players from hiding]?" doesn't seem like a good compromise to me.
DMs and tables can rule as they wish; I think it's important, however, that they do so while understanding fully that the PHB never actually says you can't hide while Lightly Obscured. The Hiding rules are complicated enough without injecting new ones that aren't written down anywhere.
It says "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding."
Does that mean that for the purposes of hiding, can I treat dim light as total darkness? Because, under normal conditions, if I'm in a room in total darkness I can hide in front of the enemy, in his line of vision, since he can't see me. But if the entire area in in dim light, with the skulker feat, can I just try to hide in front of the enemy while in his line of vision? I try to imagine it as making the most of the shadows of the room in general to accomplish hiding, like the clothing or cape of a rogue may help him be unseen even without a hiding spot, but I don't know if it's meant to work that way. But on the other hand, in case it doesn't work like that: if even with the skulker feat, I have to look for a hiding spot, a cover to hide, then what's even the point of that part of the skulker feat? Because that last thing is what you would normally would do in order to hide even without the skulker feat.
Another question, let's say I'm hidden, behind a cover with the skulker feat, the entire area is in dim light. Can I step out of my hiding spot to the middle of the room that is in dim light and still be hidden in order to melee attack? Without the skulker feat you normally stop being hidden if you do that in a lightly obscured area, but with the skulker feat? EDIT: Another way to word this question is, once I'm already hidden, can I step out of the hiding spot and treat the entire area in dim light a my hiding spot, walking in front of enemies in dim light while still being hidden? I'm not saying using the hide action in front of an enemy this time, but steping into the line of vision of an enemy in dim light when I was already hidden from beforehand.
Yes it means any lightly obscured area can be used to try to hide, including in dim light, provided enemies don't have Darkvision.
Yes it specifically allow you to, as you are an expert at slinking through shadows.
Yes you can move and remain hidden in lightly obscured areas.
Yes you remain hidden as long as you meet the requirement. So if you remain in dim light, you stay hidden.
Wow that sounds really useful for my rogue! Thanks!
Follow up question, in this context of a lightly obscured area where my character is hidden: can I range attack an opponent (by doing this I stop being hidden -only if it's a hit with the skulker feat-), move to a different open spot in the lightly obscured room/area and use my bonus action to hide again? It sounds a bit like that frequently asked situation when a rogue range attacks from cover (like behind a tree), goes back to being behing the tree, and uses his bonus action to hide again. Both scenarios involve the enemy seeing where you hid, but can't see you because you are hidden now (assuming that you're rolling stealth successfully). But that situation of attacking from cover, getting cover again and hiding is asked a lot, a bit controversial as I always see different answers for that one, some people claim that the rogue can attempt to hide but rolling stealth with disadvantage... so I assume the situation I first described in this comment is similar in that regard?
You can do better. Shoot someone, hit and reveal yourself, hide as bonus action, then move while hidden ("sneak", if you will). The target won't be able to see you and you won't be in the last space they saw you in. You won't roll with disadvantage under normal circumstances - there's simply no rule for that happening to the Wood Elves or Lightfoot Halflings Skulker is a variation on.
As @quindraco points out, the main advantage to hide is defensive by concealing your position, forcing enemies to have to guess your location. If all you want is advantage to apply Sneak Attack, then Steady Aim, a rogue option found in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything is more reliable.
Essentially, you can do the Jason Bourne disappearances from the movies. Walk behind a tree or wagon and disappear.
I'm not sure it's quite so straightforward how we're supposed to interpret this feature.
First, here's "basic" Hiding in PHB Chapter 7:
That all seems fine, right? No hard restrictions about when you can or can't hide, other than that the DM decides when it's appropriate, and that you can't hide when something sees you "clearly," that being Lightly or Heavily Obscured might impact how well a creature can see you. Great.... but wouldn't one think that you could already hide when lightly obscured, if the circumstances are appropriate? What's the difference between "discovered" and being not clearly seen? Can you be a little bit seen but not clearly, and still be hidden? What if you're not seen, but are heard, is that discovered?
Then we flip forward to PHB Chapter 8, Vision and Light.
So lightly obscured doesn't outright block vision, but it does provide disadvantage on sight-based checks, while heavily obscured is properly blinding and vision blocking. Still nothing one way or the other to say that you can't already hide while Lightly Obscured, so let's keep reading...
PHB Chapter 9 introduces us to the Hide action in combat, which may or may not be intended to represent all hiding out of combat as well. At first, it too seems innocuous:
We've already been over the "rules for hiding" in PHB 7, and it didn't seem to say that you needed any particular type of obscurement....
PHB Chapter 9 Unseen Attackers uses "hidden" in a brand new, and potentially problematic, way:
Wait, we've got to be [entirely] unseen to be hidden all of a sudden? Is that really a rule? Since when?!? If that's the case, then going back to PHB 8, heavily obscured maybe becomes an important part of hiding, since its one way to actually make enemies effectively blinded (rendering you unseen)...
Nothing has particularly invited us to look at PHB Appendix A and Invisible, but it's got some mud to throw in these waters too:
Wait, is that implying that for the "purpose of hiding" a character needs to be heavily obscured? If so that's the first time we're hearing about it! Or that while hiding, an Invisible should be treated as also being Heavily Obscured? Heavily Obscured inflicts Blinded, that's pretty much its whole thing.... what does that mean, separate and apart from the benefits a creature is already deriving from being Invisible? Is a Heavily Obscured Invisible creature meaningly different from an Invisible creature!?!?
Okay, umm... maybe Skulker clarifies?
Again, since when could you not already do that???? Is this referencing an unwritten-but-implied rule in the Invisible condition that would have prevented hiding while only lightly obscured? Or instead, is this saying something more powerful, like "even if the circumstances are inappropriate to hide, if you're lightly obscured, you may hide anyway"???
- - -
Theatrics aside, this is a trainwreck of a daisy chain of half-stated rules. Nowhere is it ever stated that you cannot hide while Lightly Obscured. "The rules for Hiding", if they're anywhere at all, exist in PHB Chapter 7. And PHB Chapter 7 lets you hide whenever the DM decides is appropriate, such as when an enemy "can't see you clearly," which Lightly Obscured already would seem to encompass by handing out disadvantage on sight-based checks. The example provided in PHB Chapter 7 Perception mentions that "you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door," further reinforcing that hiding in dim light is already a totally normally thing to expect to be happening.
There's two and only two possible interpretations of Skulker and similar racial features:
I prefer interpretation 2. It's definitely stronger for players than interpretation 1 is... but it also is the only one that salvages Chapter 7, 8, and 9 language about hiding as being halfway competent at communicating a full rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are seen when lightly obscured. If anyone could try to hide when lightly obscured, the Skulker feat and the Elf's Mask of the Wild wouldn't list it as one of its benefit.
That’s interpretation #1. Or, interpretation #2 gives it meaning too. If you subscribe to #1, where do you find the rule that you can’t hide in lightly obscured, considering Chapter 7 strongly implies you CAN? Did I miss a quote?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. But it doesn't block vision for those outside the area looking into it. So it still can be seen clearly, at least for the purpose of hiding.
In other words, the lightly obscured perception penalty apply to cheatures within the area only, where heavily obscured one affect those inside it as well as those trying to see into it from outside.
It can certainly be “seen.” But the fact that it is obscured and you have disadvantage to see it, suggests it cannot be seen CLEARLY, which is all hiding requires.
The hiding rules in Chapter 7 specifically mention light obscurement as impacting vision in the context of hiding. How do you take from that a rule that you can’t hide in LO?
ordinarily, you’re in LO and are not being seen clearly. If circumstances are appropriate, you may hide, and are now unseen.
With skulker, just strike “if circumstances are appropriate.” That’s what skulker does in my opinion. It lets you ALWAYS try to hide when LO, instead of needing DM permission for the context.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Who exactly have perception penalty? Creatures inside. A lightly obscured area has no effect on those outside of it.
Awkward wording aside, I do not agree that it is RAI that heavy fog (HO) influences creatures outside and inside it, while light fog (LO) only influences creatures inside of it. The vision and light section provides that "effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance." LO, by its most core definition and plain english, obscures vision; an interpretation of LO that does not obscure vision is absurd. It is at worst ambiguous whether the "in" in LO refers to the see-er being "in" the LO or the thing-being-seen being "in" the LO or both (and HO is always treated as both, so why not extend the same to LO?), and considering that one interpretation renders it absurd and one doesn't... I prefer the not absurd reading. Both LO and HO are measured in relation to whether you are obscured from an observer in the same way. It makes no immersion or linguistic sense for both to measure obscurement from the see-er, but then only have HO impose a vision hindrance on that observer, and not LO.
And all of that being said... that's kind of a tangent, that doesn't really cut for or against either of our positions, does it?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's also RAI as per Sage Advice;
Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”
Bottom line DM's should likely not allow those in only light obscured to hide unless their racial conditions exist.
The language and interpretation of the rules do leave a lot to be desired in this case.
JC also states you can literally use one stealth roll through an entire dungeon if cover and concealment last that whole time.
So an invisible rogue can just roll one stealth check for the entire hour they are invisible.
I'll refer the operation of light obscured vs heavy obscured over to this thread in the Rules forum.
A creature that is lightly obscured is not in "full view" (or "seen clearly"), so I have no problem agreeing with the literal word of this ruling even though i suspect I'm disagreeing on the spirit. Others have disadvantage on perception checks to see such creatures, so they literally aren't in "full" view.
Skulker/those subraces lets those charactes hide in a situation where others can't: where they are lightly obscured, but the situation would not otherwise allow for hiding to be appropriate. I agree with that 100%, they can always hide while lightly obscured, which is special.
I disagree with the implication that there is a rule that says that lightly obscured in general cannot ever be a situation where hiding is appropriate for creatures without Skulker. Chapter 7 does not say that, in fact says the opposite, and there is no quotable sentence anywhere in the PHB which would suggest there is such a rule.
I do also think it's funny that that SAC quote ends with the author confusing obscurement with cover, since hiding behind a guard is a half/threequarter/total cover situation, not an obscurement situation at all :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
They reason they mention it is because you normally have to be unseen somehow to try to hide, wether invisible, heavily obscured, blinded and the elf and halfling are seen when they try to as opposed to everyone else. That's why SAC says both subraces (and i'd include Skulker) are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t.
Where does it say that you must be "unseen" to hide? The only time "unseen" is used, is when describing what you are after you are hidden. When describing conditions necessary to attempt to hide, all that is required is that you not be "seen clearly."
I understand what you're trying to say, and I understand that it makes sense. What I'm saying is, there's nothing you can point to in the PHB that makes that an actual stated rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think it boils down to … do we really need to analyze it this deeply? It might not be RAW, but the game plays perfectly fine and balanced if you don’t allow hiding while Lightly Obsucred, except with those aforementioned features.
Do we really need something to be so literal when it’s implied by all of the feats that follow it?
(Edited to be more polite! 🙂 )
For a character that wants to hide while lightly obscured... yeah, probably? For a character with Skulker that wants to use that special ability to hide in dim light while standing 5 feet away from an enemy that's looking right at them.... yeah, probably? My interpretations empower more players, and are better supported by the PHB text. So "do we really need to be so literal [when we could instead just use an unwritten rule that stops players from hiding]?" doesn't seem like a good compromise to me.
DMs and tables can rule as they wish; I think it's important, however, that they do so while understanding fully that the PHB never actually says you can't hide while Lightly Obscured. The Hiding rules are complicated enough without injecting new ones that aren't written down anywhere.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.