Please help me settle a disagreement - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lanigiro Apr 29, 2015 20:32:49	The following disagreement came up when a friend of mine who is planning to run a game for our group in the near future and I were discussing two uncommon magic items. The items in question are boots of elvenkind (DMG 155) and cloak of elvenkind (DMG 158). My position is that the items both explicitly provide advantage on all Dexterity (Stealth) checks made by the person wearing them. The cloak also explicitly provides disadvantage to anyone making a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect the person wearing it along with an implicit -5 to the Passive Perception of anyone trying to detect the person wearing it (PHB 175). My friend's position is that the boots provide advantage only on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on hearing because of the caveat "...checks that rely on moving silently." He also maintains that the cloak provides advantage only on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on vision because of the caveat "...as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you." I have put forward the argument that those two excerpts are intended as fluff and cited Hiding (PHB 177). I also argued that it was unreasonable to parse a single skill into two or more subcategories not defined anywhere else in the canon of the rules based on the flavorful decription of how an item functions. My friend remains unconvinced. I asked my friend to describe how Dexterity (Stealth) checks would be handled if a person were wearing the boots and not the cloak or the cloak and not the boots. Under what circumstances would the wearer have advantage if any? In the case of the cloak, under what circumstances would the observer have disadvantage? My friend was unable to provide an adequate explanation. Since we are unable to come to a resolution on our own, I would greatly appreciate any helpful and informed input that this forum is kind enough to offer us.
#2 AndrewJO Apr 29, 2015 21:26:08	There are times when a creature will have bonuses or penalties to perception checks based on sight, hearing, or smell. However, in those cases it is explicitly stated that the specific sense is being affected. The description for the boots and cloak are simply fluff, they both grant advantage.
#3 lawrencehoy Apr 30, 2015 3:32:38	There are other rules that work accordingly (only granting the (Dis)Advantage under specific subsets of checks); see Invisibility, for example. The descriptions for the items can't be considered fluff only, when they specifically state their mechanics interactions.
#4 Kentus Apr 29, 2015 23:47:53	Actually your friend is right, these are only advantages/disadvantage to stealth under certain circumstances. Boots of Elvenkind grants advantages to move silently, even though your step makes no sound, there are sadly plenty of other things, that still does. Like your breath, everything your body touches and moves, etc. Of course, when you try to sneak past someone, you try to move silently and gain advantage. But there are still several instances, where it won't work, like the fact, that the thing you try to sneak past don't hear. Or when you just hide in the bushes, since hiding in one spot doesn't have to do anything with movement. Cloak of Elvenkind only work visual. So if someone has blindsense or try to sniff you out due a good sense of smell, it won't work. It also don't work, if you try to sneak at someone who is not looking your way. He could be asleep and closed his eyes (this would grant him disadvantage, but still: Your cloak doesn't do anything for this). It does help with hiding in bushes and sneaking past someone in most circumstances, but if there is a moment when visuals are either unimportant or useless, you won't get the benefits. If you have both, of course, there are even fewer things which can get in your way. And btw, fluff-text can be very important. Sometimes it can be important, if a spell make sound or light, same for magic items. And in these cases, it's actually the rules.
#5 lawrencehoy Apr 30, 2015 3:35:36	Kentus wrote:
#6 Noctaem Apr 30, 2015 4:53:08	If what you call fluff actually gives mechanical effects, IE this item sheds light, it's not fluff but crunch. You guys are just using the wrong terms.
#7 QwertyAzerty Apr 30, 2015 5:23:47	your friend is right if the "fluff" says "move silently" then it's no longer fluff and apply to check you do when you move silently (like the wolf keen sense who gain advantage to smell and hearing perception), but when you think about it 90% of your stealth benefit from BOTH moving silently and hiding so you would gain advantage on 90% of your check with corner case exception like:. - you are walking in a room A while the guard are in room B with the door close. The only way the guard would learn that you are there it's if they hear you so the cloak woul dbe useless here. - you are standing still behind a barrel, or behind a wall, in the shadow etc... waiting for the patrol to pass without noticing you. Here you are not moving, so your boot are useless. but in most case a stealth require both moving silently AND hiding visually, so in most case both item will give you advantage.
#8 jaelis Apr 30, 2015 5:30:52	The boots give advantage in a situation where hearing footsteps would be a significant part of trying to find you. Like if you are invisible, or totally obscurred, or moving across particularly noisy terrain. If you were in a situation where the only way you could be detected was by the sound of your footsteps, I would say you were undetectable. But that would be fairly uncommon. The cloak would give observers disadvantage in a situation where trying to see you was a significant part of trying to find you. Like a wood elf in the rain or a halfling hiding behind a creature, or many other situations. You should get advantage on your stealth check always though, as I read it.
#9 lanigiro Apr 30, 2015 6:35:51	So, based on what lawrencehoy and Kentus are saying, the items in question would provide advantage only against certain methods of perception (lowercase p). This seems awkward and confusing due to the way the rules handle all of a person's observational capabilities with a single ability check, Wisdom (Perception). Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me how this would work mechanically in game? For example: A person is wearing the cloak rolls Dexterity (Stealth) to hide as described in Hiding (PHB 177). Do they have advantage? If so, do they always have advantage? If not, when do they not have advantage? The rules don't seem to provide for a person trying to avoid just one sense. In other words, there's no explicit way to hide from just one method of perception (lowercase p). Furthermore, the rules stipulate that "until that person is discovered or stops hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of their presence." So in order for the cloak to apply disadvantage to the Wisdom (Perception) check of a given creature, what needs to happen? Do they need to be too far away for hearing to be a factor? How far is that? Do they need to be too far away for scent to be a factor? How far is that? The same questions apply to the Passive Perception of anyone not specifically looking for the person in question. From my perspective it seems that interpreting the desciptions of these items in such a way needlessly complicates an otherwise simple system by creating circumstances that have no explicit means of resolution within that system. In other words, if a person has advantage only when hiding from vision, do they then roll two Dexterity (Stealth) checks each time they hide; once for vision with advantage and once for every other conceivable means of detection without advantage? That seems wrong. Thoughts?
#10 OoftaMeg Apr 30, 2015 7:43:50	I take the simple approach of doing what the item says it does. The cloak gives people trying to perceive you disadvantage and you get advantage on stealth checks. The boots just give you advantage on stealth. If you needed both items to gain a significant benefit from using them, they should have been a paired item. In particular the cloak requires attunement, it's one of the three big items. If it has no effect without the boots it becomes pointles.
#11 jaelis Apr 30, 2015 8:28:49	lanigiro wrote:
#12 strider13x Apr 30, 2015 8:58:58	From my understanding to player chooses to Hide and the DM tells you when to roll a check, so in turn the DM should tell you when you have Advantage or not. The DM should know if being silent will grant Advantage, its not up to the player. Maybe no roll is required because the DM knows the creature is focused on something else, or maybe the player auto-fails because they are being tracked by an invisible telepath! Too many possibilities so best left vague...
(Reply to #9) sandvirm	lanigiro wrote:
(Reply to #9) Coredump00	lanigiro wrote:
#15 lanigiro Apr 30, 2015 10:01:04	Thanks to everyone for your comments, many of them have been very interesting. I would be particularly grateful to anyone taking the view put forward by lawrencehoy and Kentus if they could explain to me how the rules explicitly handle breaking one skill, in this case Wisdom (Perception) into many subskills where different factors are considered. A book and page number for any citings would be very useful to the conversation. If it's grown unclear what I mean by the above, here's an example: A person wearing the boots is attempting to hide in a heavily obscured hallway. That person is not visible to anyone else. It is possible that there are one or more people nearby. It is possible that one such person is a human, an animal with not particularly remarkable sense. It is possible that one such person is a dog, an animal known for both it's keen sense of smell and hearing. It is possible that one such person is a deaf dog, an animal known for it's keen sense of smell and lamentable sense of hearing. It is possible that one such person is a grick, a fictional worm monster which in place of a head has a beaked orafice surrounded by tentacles and no apparent means of seeing or hearing or otherwise sensing its environment in any way. In summary, no one knows what senses the grick possesses, but according to the rules it has darkvision 60 ft. and a passive perception of 12. With all these possibilities in mind and in one answer, does the person wearing the boots have advantage on their Dexterity (Stealth) check or not? As stated in Hiding (PHB 177) it's incumbent on the person trying to hide to roll Dexterity (Stealth). Considering all possible factors, how does that person know if they have advantage or not when they make that check? As a personal interjection, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out how unlikely it seems to me that the writers of the DMG would intentionally create one or more items that requires people to invent house rules in order to use it. In other words, and being fully aware that there are fewer more certain ways to be wrong than to presume the opinion of another person, I'd like to again put forward the view that the descriptions of these items as making their wearer quiet or difficult to see is simply a function of fluff used to justify a much simpler, if poorly presented, mechanical effect: providing their wearer with advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
(Reply to #15) EmpactWB	lanigiro wrote:
#17 Rya.Reisender Apr 30, 2015 11:00:33	Ianigiro, a lot of things done in the fifth edition (compared to older editions) was simplifying the core rules and leave a lot more things to role-playing and DM decisions. Especially most things involving stealth, hiding, light, cover are all now basically left up to the DM. Most DMs probably prefer to use realism when determining Advantage / Disadvantage. Others try to stay closest to RAW as possible and create rulings for gaps in the books. That's why these things are pretty frequently discussed here and there are no concrete rules in the books I could link you to.
#18 reddaemon Apr 30, 2015 11:31:01	Personally, I would rule that both items just grant you advantages on stealth checks, period. Breaking the perception skill down into Perception(sight) and perception(hearing) would be pretty tedious. If the floor is littered with broken glass that grants disadvantage to stealth for walking over it. If you try to sneak through the door that a guard is watching that gives disadvantage. The disadvantage in both cases is canceled out by the advantage given by the magic item making it a normal roll(advantage and disadvantage doesn't stack). You achieve the same result without having to break the perception skill apart. Just keep it simple and everyone will be happy.
#19 Orethalion Apr 30, 2015 11:49:05	lanigiro wrote:
#20 OoftaMeg Apr 30, 2015 11:52:25	The cloak of elvenkind says: 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. If you are being picky, the disadvantage to perceive you is used when only sight is being made to perceive the wearer. It does not state that you lose advantage on your hide checks. If you take the hard-line approach that creatures perceiving you do not have disadvantage and you do not have advantage on your hide check if they can hear you the item becomes borderline useless, especially for an item that requires attunement. How many times do you need to roll a stealth check that relies solely on sight? How many times to you roll a stealth check when you are standing still? If you are moving, isn't the sound of your footsteps one of the main things that could give you away? This isn't a huge issue if you always give people the boots if they have the cloak but without that the utility of the cloak in 95% of the cases is significantly (or completely) nerfed. That's not fair for someone using an item that requires attunement. I'd say that the cloak gives disadvantage to the creature doing the perception check unless they specifically have advantage to perception checks based on some other sense such as keen scent which relies on smell. The person wearing the cloak always gets advantage. The boots are significantly less useful since they only give you advantage on stealth rolls that rely on hearing, but they also don't require attunement.
(Reply to #18) AaronOfBarbaria	reddaemon wrote:
(Reply to #21) OoftaMeg	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #22) AaronOfBarbaria	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #23) OoftaMeg	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #24) AaronOfBarbaria	OoftaMeg wrote:
#26 lanigiro Apr 30, 2015 12:51:53	Based on some of the latest responses, I get the feeling that I may have been unclear on a few points and that has lead to some confusion. Where this is the case I offer my apologies. Orethalion, you were curious about the reason for this discussion. It is because there are two very similar items described in the DMG whose mechanical applications seem unclear to my friend and I. Each of us has drawn a very different conclusion from the same information and I hoped that some input from interested and informed third parties might provide a more conclusive answer or persuasive arguement than we have managed between ourselves. As things stand right now we're forced to default to the stance that whatever the DM interprets is how things stand in a given game. This is expedient but it's not really an answer and if one exists in the canon of the rules I'd like to know what it is. To those of you who seem to be under the impression that I wanted to discuss the interaction of both the boots and cloak together, you are partially correct. However, I would also like to discuss how they function independently since the boots and cloak are not seperate components of one paired item and as such there will be instances where a person has one of them and not the other. To those of you arguing from the position that senses possessed by a potential observer should impact whether or not a person attempting to hide has advantage, disadvantage, or not, I am interested in the reasoning behind this idea. The only instances that come to mind of particular senses interacting with attempts to hide are where those senses prohibit the attempt to hide entirely. For example, a person could not use a shadow to provide the obscurement necessary to attempt to hide if there is an observer with blindsight in range of them because they are being observed. If there are instances of keen or unusual senses imposing disadvantage on attempts to hide made against a person I would be grateful if someone could cite a few. To those of you arguing from the position that the description of an item's function is crunchy and not fluffy I'd like to put forth an example from canon. It's interesting to note that hiding (PHB 177) states "You can't hide from a creature that can see you..." meaning that you could reasonibly expect to hide from a blind dog even if you smell like a refuse pile. I'm not necessarily advocating that position, rather I'm using it as an argument against literalism. Just because the wording is careless, not imprecise, careless, does not mean that the intent of the writer isn't clear or at the very least, can be approximated with a bit of consideration. The idea is that if you are being observed in anyway by another person, you cannot attempt to hide. I hope that serves to clarify things a bit.
#27 Wuzzard Apr 30, 2015 13:28:52	Most stealth checks you encounter in game is a check against being noisy (ie, sneak past the guard.) If the guard can see you, then it doesn't matter how quiet you are being, you are going to fail. But if you are sneaking up behind him, then noise is all that matters. The boots are great for this. Sometimes you need not to be seen, but not be completely obscurred or behind full cover. The boots don't help you here. The cloak does.
#28 Kentus Apr 30, 2015 13:38:18	Well, let's get to the heart of things. In the end, how you end up doing it is dependant on the DM. I (for example) am a DM, who takes very much interest in little details and allow my players a lot, as long as they try to get into the details, too. Your DM might be the same type, since he sees a very clear difference between "general Stealth" and "conditional Stealth". Generally, each skill have multiple purposes and even though in Stealth falls all the sneaky stuff (move silently, hiding yourself or objects, etc.), these are actually different actions. Like you can move silently in real life, without taking cover. Or like you can stay hidden and don't move at all (so you don't have to watch your steps). Like Athletics is jumping, climbing, etc. even though you train it in a set, you do actually different things with the same skill. Let me tell you a few examples, with can come up in the game. 1.) You're chased in a city and ask your DM, if you can hide yourself in the crowd. He would most likely call for a Charisma check. You might ask, if you might take your Stealth proficiency to it, since it seems to be logical, that a character who knows how to stay undetected may do the same in the crowd. I would (for example) say 'yes'. But would a Cloak of Elvenkind help you in this situation? I would say 'no', since the ability to take in the color in the surrounding might even get more attention instead. The trick in disappearing into the crowd is not to be unseen, but to blend in. 2.) You try to sneak into someone's camp, but the campers scatterted glass everywhere. But you have the Boots of Elvenkind and your steps won't make a noise. Normally the Dexterity (Stealth) check would have disadvantage, but then you remind, that your steps makes no noise, since the item says so. So you might ask, if this feature not only negates the disadvantage due the advantage, but rather make the disadvantage not applyable, while you still get your advantage on the check. 3.) When you make the Hide Action, the DM ask you to do the roll. Of course (since you have both, cloak and boots) you do it with advantage, like always. It's the monsters turn and it uses its action to use its keen smell. Even though your cloak would normally grant disadvantage to the enemies check, this sniffing doesn't rely on sight and the keen senses even grants advantage. 4.) You try to sneak upon a n adult dragon and comes into 60ft. You have your cloak, but jokes on you: He has blindsight! The dragon's senses are so sharp, that he doesn't rely on sight. Here the boots would be handy, since blindsight works without seeing, but not without hearing. 5.) You try to sneak upon an Ankheg, you have the perfect cover, your boots, your cloak and still won't be able to get near that thing without being notice, since the tremorsenses feels the vibration of you hitting the ground. You actually have to be very slow and step on as light as possible, to actually stay unnoticed. But your boots and cloak won't give you any advantage. These are only a few things, a DM let you confront. Or more so, you let the DM confront. If the DM wants to get a simple answer, he can just ignore it, but I guess your won't, since he seems to be one like me: Who actually try to go here and there into the detail. This gives the feeling, that the world is plausible, that there are multiple ways to do things and finally, this unpleasant surprise can be make a good story. The adventurer who take too much confidence in his gear is hilarious for everyone (except those adventurers, who can't pull their own legs). Of course, if you have any of these items, you get advantage in about 90-95% of the cases. But I won't let these exceptions simply drop.
(Reply to #26) EmpactWB	lanigiro wrote:
#30 MechaPilot Apr 30, 2015 15:00:31	lanigiro wrote:
#31 Macv12 Apr 30, 2015 16:58:42	To those of you arguing from the position that senses possessed by a potential observer should impact whether or not a person attempting to hide has advantage, disadvantage, or not, I am interested in the reasoning behind this idea. The only instances that come to mind of particular senses interacting with attempts to hide are where those senses prohibit the attempt to hide entirely. For example, a person could not use a shadow to provide the obscurement necessary to attempt to hide if there is an observer with blindsight in range of them because they are being observed. If there are instances of keen or unusual senses imposing disadvantage on attempts to hide made against a person I would be grateful if someone could cite a few.
#32 Greenstone.Walker Apr 30, 2015 17:57:42	Some examples, as I read it. Alice is wearing a cloak of elvenkind, with the hood up. "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." She is hiding from a badger (keen smell). Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage The badger rolls Wisdom (Perception) at advantage (because detecting a hiding person involves all senses). She is hiding from a blood hawk (keen sight). Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage The hawk rolls Wisdom (Perception) normally (advantage from keen sight cancels disadvantage from the cloak). She is hiding from a bugbear (no keen senses). Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage The bugbear rolls Wisdom (Perception) at disadvantage. Summary: If a creature has keen senses then it gets advantage on WIS (Perception) checks involving that sense. If a magic item gives disadvantage for the sense in question, then the creature doesn't get the advantage. If the creature has no keen senses then it gets disadvantage. Range: I don't think the rules give anything about range of senses. Personally, I'd say that over 100 ft (chosen for simplicity), smell and hearing no longer factor into WIS (Perception) checks, only vision.
(Reply to #26) Coredump00	lanigiro wrote:
#34 OoftaMeg Apr 30, 2015 18:29:20	For better or worse, stealth is one of the areas in the game most open to interpretation so how the item works I believe is linked to how you rule on stealth. A cloak of elvenkind requires attunement which means it's one of three "special" items you can use at any one time. That's a pretty big limitation, so the item should be pretty useful and character defining. If you state the cloak only gives a benefit to hide based on sight alone: If you go by a strict reading of stealth "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" the cloak is useless to the majority of characters. If you house rule (like AaronOfBarbaria) that you can hide/remain hidden in partial cover it still has extremely limited usefulness. You would have to be in a zone of silence, in a very noisy environment, trying to hide from a deafened creature or doing nothing that could possibly cause a sound. A cloak's effects can be replicated with a little non-magical camouflage and doesn't seem to buy anything. Boot of elvenkind would, in most cases, still give you advantage. A magic item that requires attunement should be better than a similar item that does not require attunement, which is why I would give you advantage if you use the cloak in almost every case. Magic items are supposed to be cool, not just useful in edge cases.
(Reply to #34) Coredump00	OoftaMeg wrote:
#36 lawrencehoy Apr 30, 2015 23:53:05	Coredump00 wrote:
#37 lawrencehoy May 01, 2015 1:22:35	OoftaMeg wrote:
#38 Orethalion May 01, 2015 6:59:46	lanigiro wrote:
(Reply to #35) OoftaMeg	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #39) Coredump00	OoftaMeg wrote:
#41 jonathonhawke May 01, 2015 23:14:21	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #40) OoftaMeg	Coredump00 wrote:
#43 Bumpo May 02, 2015 11:56:30	It is only because "I can't see him" is an idiom, not grammatically correct. It would be more correct to say "I do not see him." You are physically able to see him, but in this case you don't.
(Reply to #42) Coredump00	OoftaMeg wrote:
#45 lawrencehoy May 02, 2015 18:16:03	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #45) Macv12	lawrencehoy wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

lanigiro

Apr 29, 2015 20:32:49

The following disagreement came up when a friend of mine who is planning to run a game for our group in the near future and I were discussing two uncommon magic items. The items in question are boots of elvenkind (DMG 155) and cloak of elvenkind (DMG 158).

My position is that the items both explicitly provide advantage on all Dexterity (Stealth) checks made by the person wearing them. The cloak also explicitly provides disadvantage to anyone making a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect the person wearing it along with an implicit -5 to the Passive Perception of anyone trying to detect the person wearing it (PHB 175).

My friend's position is that the boots provide advantage only on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on hearing because of the caveat "...checks that rely on moving silently." He also maintains that the cloak provides advantage only on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on vision because of the caveat "...as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you."

I have put forward the argument that those two excerpts are intended as fluff and cited Hiding (PHB 177). I also argued that it was unreasonable to parse a single skill into two or more subcategories not defined anywhere else in the canon of the rules based on the flavorful decription of how an item functions. My friend remains unconvinced.

I asked my friend to describe how Dexterity (Stealth) checks would be handled if a person were wearing the boots and not the cloak or the cloak and not the boots. Under what circumstances would the wearer have advantage if any? In the case of the cloak, under what circumstances would the observer have disadvantage? My friend was unable to provide an adequate explanation.

Since we are unable to come to a resolution on our own, I would greatly appreciate any helpful and informed input that this forum is kind enough to offer us.

AndrewJO

Apr 29, 2015 21:26:08

There are times when a creature will have bonuses or penalties to perception checks based on sight, hearing, or smell. However, in those cases it is explicitly stated that the specific sense is being affected. The description for the boots and cloak are simply fluff, they both grant advantage.

lawrencehoy

Apr 30, 2015 3:32:38

There are other rules that work accordingly (only granting the (Dis)Advantage under specific subsets of checks); see Invisibility, for example. The descriptions for the items can't be considered fluff only, when they specifically state their mechanics interactions.

Kentus

Apr 29, 2015 23:47:53

Actually your friend is right, these are only advantages/disadvantage to stealth under certain circumstances.

Boots of Elvenkind grants advantages to move silently, even though your step makes no sound, there are sadly plenty of other things, that still does. Like your breath, everything your body touches and moves, etc.

Of course, when you try to sneak past someone, you try to move silently and gain advantage. But there are still several instances, where it won't work, like the fact, that the thing you try to sneak past don't hear. Or when you just hide in the bushes, since hiding in one spot doesn't have to do anything with movement.

Cloak of Elvenkind only work visual. So if someone has blindsense or try to sniff you out due a good sense of smell, it won't work. It also don't work, if you try to sneak at someone who is not looking your way. He could be asleep and closed his eyes (this would grant him disadvantage, but still: Your cloak doesn't do anything for this). It does help with hiding in bushes and sneaking past someone in most circumstances, but if there is a moment when visuals are either unimportant or useless, you won't get the benefits.

If you have both, of course, there are even fewer things which can get in your way.

And btw, fluff-text can be very important. Sometimes it can be important, if a spell make sound or light, same for magic items. And in these cases, it's actually the rules.

lawrencehoy

Apr 30, 2015 3:35:36

Kentus wrote:

Noctaem

Apr 30, 2015 4:53:08

If what you call fluff actually gives mechanical effects, IE this item sheds light, it's not fluff but crunch. You guys are just using the wrong terms.

QwertyAzerty

Apr 30, 2015 5:23:47

your friend is right if the "fluff" says "move silently" then it's no longer fluff and apply to check you do when you move silently (like the wolf keen sense who gain advantage to smell and hearing perception), but when you think about it 90% of your stealth benefit from BOTH moving silently and hiding so you would gain advantage on 90% of your check with corner case exception like:.

- you are walking in a room A while the guard are in room B with the door close. The only way the guard would learn that you are there it's if they hear you so the cloak woul dbe useless here.

- you are standing still behind a barrel, or behind a wall, in the shadow etc... waiting for the patrol to pass without noticing you. Here you are not moving, so your boot are useless.

but in most case a stealth require both moving silently AND hiding visually, so in most case both item will give you advantage.

jaelis

Apr 30, 2015 5:30:52

The boots give advantage in a situation where hearing footsteps would be a significant part of trying to find you. Like if you are invisible, or totally obscurred, or moving across particularly noisy terrain. If you were in a situation where the only way you could be detected was by the sound of your footsteps, I would say you were undetectable. But that would be fairly uncommon.

The cloak would give observers disadvantage in a situation where trying to see you was a significant part of trying to find you. Like a wood elf in the rain or a halfling hiding behind a creature, or many other situations. You should get advantage on your stealth check always though, as I read it.

lanigiro

Apr 30, 2015 6:35:51

So, based on what lawrencehoy and Kentus are saying, the items in question would provide advantage only against certain methods of perception (lowercase p). This seems awkward and confusing due to the way the rules handle all of a person's observational capabilities with a single ability check, Wisdom (Perception). Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me how this would work mechanically in game?

For example: A person is wearing the cloak rolls Dexterity (Stealth) to hide as described in Hiding (PHB 177). Do they have advantage? If so, do they always have advantage? If not, when do they not have advantage? The rules don't seem to provide for a person trying to avoid just one sense. In other words, there's no explicit way to hide from just one method of perception (lowercase p). Furthermore, the rules stipulate that "until that person is discovered or stops hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of their presence." So in order for the cloak to apply disadvantage to the Wisdom (Perception) check of a given creature, what needs to happen? Do they need to be too far away for hearing to be a factor? How far is that? Do they need to be too far away for scent to be a factor? How far is that? The same questions apply to the Passive Perception of anyone not specifically looking for the person in question.

From my perspective it seems that interpreting the desciptions of these items in such a way needlessly complicates an otherwise simple system by creating circumstances that have no explicit means of resolution within that system. In other words, if a person has advantage only when hiding from vision, do they then roll two Dexterity (Stealth) checks each time they hide; once for vision with advantage and once for every other conceivable means of detection without advantage? That seems wrong.

Thoughts?

#10

OoftaMeg

Apr 30, 2015 7:43:50

I take the simple approach of doing what the item says it does. The cloak gives people trying to perceive you disadvantage and you get advantage on stealth checks. The boots just give you advantage on stealth.

If you needed both items to gain a significant benefit from using them, they should have been a paired item. In particular the cloak requires attunement, it's one of the three big items. If it has no effect without the boots it becomes pointles.

#11

jaelis

Apr 30, 2015 8:28:49

lanigiro wrote:

#12

strider13x

Apr 30, 2015 8:58:58

From my understanding to player chooses to Hide and the DM tells you when to roll a check, so in turn the DM should tell you when you have Advantage or not. The DM should know if being silent will grant Advantage, its not up to the player. Maybe no roll is required because the DM knows the creature is focused on something else, or maybe the player auto-fails because they are being tracked by an invisible telepath! Too many possibilities so best left vague...

(Reply to #9)

sandvirm

lanigiro wrote:

(Reply to #9)

Coredump00

lanigiro wrote:

#15

lanigiro

Apr 30, 2015 10:01:04

Thanks to everyone for your comments, many of them have been very interesting. I would be particularly grateful to anyone taking the view put forward by lawrencehoy and Kentus if they could explain to me how the rules explicitly handle breaking one skill, in this case Wisdom (Perception) into many subskills where different factors are considered. A book and page number for any citings would be very useful to the conversation.

If it's grown unclear what I mean by the above, here's an example: A person wearing the boots is attempting to hide in a heavily obscured hallway. That person is not visible to anyone else. It is possible that there are one or more people nearby. It is possible that one such person is a human, an animal with not particularly remarkable sense. It is possible that one such person is a dog, an animal known for both it's keen sense of smell and hearing. It is possible that one such person is a deaf dog, an animal known for it's keen sense of smell and lamentable sense of hearing. It is possible that one such person is a grick, a fictional worm monster which in place of a head has a beaked orafice surrounded by tentacles and no apparent means of seeing or hearing or otherwise sensing its environment in any way. In summary, no one knows what senses the grick possesses, but according to the rules it has darkvision 60 ft. and a passive perception of 12. With all these possibilities in mind and in one answer, does the person wearing the boots have advantage on their Dexterity (Stealth) check or not? As stated in Hiding (PHB 177) it's incumbent on the person trying to hide to roll Dexterity (Stealth). Considering all possible factors, how does that person know if they have advantage or not when they make that check?

As a personal interjection, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out how unlikely it seems to me that the writers of the DMG would intentionally create one or more items that requires people to invent house rules in order to use it. In other words, and being fully aware that there are fewer more certain ways to be wrong than to presume the opinion of another person, I'd like to again put forward the view that the descriptions of these items as making their wearer quiet or difficult to see is simply a function of fluff used to justify a much simpler, if poorly presented, mechanical effect: providing their wearer with advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.

(Reply to #15)

EmpactWB

lanigiro wrote:

#17

Rya.Reisender

Apr 30, 2015 11:00:33

Ianigiro, a lot of things done in the fifth edition (compared to older editions) was simplifying the core rules and leave a lot more things to role-playing and DM decisions. Especially most things involving stealth, hiding, light, cover are all now basically left up to the DM. Most DMs probably prefer to use realism when determining Advantage / Disadvantage. Others try to stay closest to RAW as possible and create rulings for gaps in the books.

That's why these things are pretty frequently discussed here and there are no concrete rules in the books I could link you to.

#18

reddaemon

Apr 30, 2015 11:31:01

Personally, I would rule that both items just grant you advantages on stealth checks, period. Breaking the perception skill down into Perception(sight) and perception(hearing) would be pretty tedious. If the floor is littered with broken glass that grants disadvantage to stealth for walking over it. If you try to sneak through the door that a guard is watching that gives disadvantage. The disadvantage in both cases is canceled out by the advantage given by the magic item making it a normal roll(advantage and disadvantage doesn't stack). You achieve the same result without having to break the perception skill apart. Just keep it simple and everyone will be happy.

#19

Orethalion

Apr 30, 2015 11:49:05

lanigiro wrote:

#20

OoftaMeg

Apr 30, 2015 11:52:25

The cloak of elvenkind says:

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.

If you are being picky, the disadvantage to perceive you is used when only sight is being made to perceive the wearer. It does not state that you lose advantage on your hide checks.

If you take the hard-line approach that creatures perceiving you do not have disadvantage and you do not have advantage on your hide check if they can hear you the item becomes borderline useless, especially for an item that requires attunement.

How many times do you need to roll a stealth check that relies solely on sight? How many times to you roll a stealth check when you are standing still? If you are moving, isn't the sound of your footsteps one of the main things that could give you away?

This isn't a huge issue if you always give people the boots if they have the cloak but without that the utility of the cloak in 95% of the cases is significantly (or completely) nerfed. That's not fair for someone using an item that requires attunement.

I'd say that the cloak gives disadvantage to the creature doing the perception check unless they specifically have advantage to perception checks based on some other sense such as keen scent which relies on smell. The person wearing the cloak always gets advantage.

The boots are significantly less useful since they only give you advantage on stealth rolls that rely on hearing, but they also don't require attunement.

(Reply to #18)

AaronOfBarbaria

reddaemon wrote:

(Reply to #21)

OoftaMeg

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #22)

AaronOfBarbaria

OoftaMeg wrote:

(Reply to #23)

OoftaMeg

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #24)

AaronOfBarbaria

OoftaMeg wrote:

#26

lanigiro

Apr 30, 2015 12:51:53

Based on some of the latest responses, I get the feeling that I may have been unclear on a few points and that has lead to some confusion. Where this is the case I offer my apologies.

Orethalion, you were curious about the reason for this discussion. It is because there are two very similar items described in the DMG whose mechanical applications seem unclear to my friend and I. Each of us has drawn a very different conclusion from the same information and I hoped that some input from interested and informed third parties might provide a more conclusive answer or persuasive arguement than we have managed between ourselves. As things stand right now we're forced to default to the stance that whatever the DM interprets is how things stand in a given game. This is expedient but it's not really an answer and if one exists in the canon of the rules I'd like to know what it is.

To those of you who seem to be under the impression that I wanted to discuss the interaction of both the boots and cloak together, you are partially correct. However, I would also like to discuss how they function independently since the boots and cloak are not seperate components of one paired item and as such there will be instances where a person has one of them and not the other.

To those of you arguing from the position that senses possessed by a potential observer should impact whether or not a person attempting to hide has advantage, disadvantage, or not, I am interested in the reasoning behind this idea. The only instances that come to mind of particular senses interacting with attempts to hide are where those senses prohibit the attempt to hide entirely. For example, a person could not use a shadow to provide the obscurement necessary to attempt to hide if there is an observer with blindsight in range of them because they are being observed. If there are instances of keen or unusual senses imposing disadvantage on attempts to hide made against a person I would be grateful if someone could cite a few.

To those of you arguing from the position that the description of an item's function is crunchy and not fluffy I'd like to put forth an example from canon. It's interesting to note that hiding (PHB 177) states "You can't hide from a creature that can see you..." meaning that you could reasonibly expect to hide from a blind dog even if you smell like a refuse pile. I'm not necessarily advocating that position, rather I'm using it as an argument against literalism. Just because the wording is careless, not imprecise, careless, does not mean that the intent of the writer isn't clear or at the very least, can be approximated with a bit of consideration. The idea is that if you are being observed in anyway by another person, you cannot attempt to hide.

I hope that serves to clarify things a bit.

#27

Wuzzard

Apr 30, 2015 13:28:52

Most stealth checks you encounter in game is a check against being noisy (ie, sneak past the guard.) If the guard can see you, then it doesn't matter how quiet you are being, you are going to fail. But if you are sneaking up behind him, then noise is all that matters. The boots are great for this.

Sometimes you need not to be seen, but not be completely obscurred or behind full cover. The boots don't help you here. The cloak does.

#28

Kentus

Apr 30, 2015 13:38:18

Well, let's get to the heart of things. In the end, how you end up doing it is dependant on the DM. I (for example) am a DM, who takes very much interest in little details and allow my players a lot, as long as they try to get into the details, too. Your DM might be the same type, since he sees a very clear difference between "general Stealth" and "conditional Stealth".

Generally, each skill have multiple purposes and even though in Stealth falls all the sneaky stuff (move silently, hiding yourself or objects, etc.), these are actually different actions. Like you can move silently in real life, without taking cover. Or like you can stay hidden and don't move at all (so you don't have to watch your steps). Like Athletics is jumping, climbing, etc. even though you train it in a set, you do actually different things with the same skill.

Let me tell you a few examples, with can come up in the game.

1.) You're chased in a city and ask your DM, if you can hide yourself in the crowd. He would most likely call for a Charisma check. You might ask, if you might take your Stealth proficiency to it, since it seems to be logical, that a character who knows how to stay undetected may do the same in the crowd. I would (for example) say 'yes'. But would a Cloak of Elvenkind help you in this situation? I would say 'no', since the ability to take in the color in the surrounding might even get more attention instead. The trick in disappearing into the crowd is not to be unseen, but to blend in.

2.) You try to sneak into someone's camp, but the campers scatterted glass everywhere. But you have the Boots of Elvenkind and your steps won't make a noise. Normally the Dexterity (Stealth) check would have disadvantage, but then you remind, that your steps makes no noise, since the item says so. So you might ask, if this feature not only negates the disadvantage due the advantage, but rather make the disadvantage not applyable, while you still get your advantage on the check.

3.) When you make the Hide Action, the DM ask you to do the roll. Of course (since you have both, cloak and boots) you do it with advantage, like always. It's the monsters turn and it uses its action to use its keen smell. Even though your cloak would normally grant disadvantage to the enemies check, this sniffing doesn't rely on sight and the keen senses even grants advantage.

4.) You try to sneak upon a n adult dragon and comes into 60ft. You have your cloak, but jokes on you: He has blindsight! The dragon's senses are so sharp, that he doesn't rely on sight. Here the boots would be handy, since blindsight works without seeing, but not without hearing.

5.) You try to sneak upon an Ankheg, you have the perfect cover, your boots, your cloak and still won't be able to get near that thing without being notice, since the tremorsenses feels the vibration of you hitting the ground. You actually have to be very slow and step on as light as possible, to actually stay unnoticed. But your boots and cloak won't give you any advantage.

These are only a few things, a DM let you confront. Or more so, you let the DM confront. If the DM wants to get a simple answer, he can just ignore it, but I guess your won't, since he seems to be one like me: Who actually try to go here and there into the detail. This gives the feeling, that the world is plausible, that there are multiple ways to do things and finally, this unpleasant surprise can be make a good story. The adventurer who take too much confidence in his gear is hilarious for everyone (except those adventurers, who can't pull their own legs).

Of course, if you have any of these items, you get advantage in about 90-95% of the cases. But I won't let these exceptions simply drop.

(Reply to #26)

EmpactWB

lanigiro wrote:

#30

MechaPilot

Apr 30, 2015 15:00:31

lanigiro wrote:

#31

Macv12

Apr 30, 2015 16:58:42

To those of you arguing from the position that senses possessed by a potential observer should impact whether or not a person attempting to hide has advantage, disadvantage, or not, I am interested in the reasoning behind this idea. The only instances that come to mind of particular senses interacting with attempts to hide are where those senses prohibit the attempt to hide entirely. For example, a person could not use a shadow to provide the obscurement necessary to attempt to hide if there is an observer with blindsight in range of them because they are being observed. If there are instances of keen or unusual senses imposing disadvantage on attempts to hide made against a person I would be grateful if someone could cite a few.

#32

Greenstone.Walker

Apr 30, 2015 17:57:42

Some examples, as I read it.

Alice is wearing a cloak of elvenkind, with the hood up.

"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."

She is hiding from a badger (keen smell).

Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage

The badger rolls Wisdom (Perception) at advantage (because detecting a hiding person involves all senses).

She is hiding from a blood hawk (keen sight).

Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage

The hawk rolls Wisdom (Perception) normally (advantage from keen sight cancels disadvantage from the cloak).

She is hiding from a bugbear (no keen senses).

Alice rolls DEX (Stealth) at advantage

The bugbear rolls Wisdom (Perception) at disadvantage.

Summary: If a creature has keen senses then it gets advantage on WIS (Perception) checks involving that sense. If a magic item gives disadvantage for the sense in question, then the creature doesn't get the advantage. If the creature has no keen senses then it gets disadvantage.

Range: I don't think the rules give anything about range of senses. Personally, I'd say that over 100 ft (chosen for simplicity), smell and hearing no longer factor into WIS (Perception) checks, only vision.

(Reply to #26)

Coredump00

lanigiro wrote:

#34

OoftaMeg

Apr 30, 2015 18:29:20

For better or worse, stealth is one of the areas in the game most open to interpretation so how the item works I believe is linked to how you rule on stealth.

A cloak of elvenkind requires attunement which means it's one of three "special" items you can use at any one time. That's a pretty big limitation, so the item should be pretty useful and character defining.

If you state the cloak only gives a benefit to hide based on sight alone:

If you go by a strict reading of stealth "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" the cloak is useless to the majority of characters.
If you house rule (like AaronOfBarbaria) that you can hide/remain hidden in partial cover it still has extremely limited usefulness. You would have to be in a zone of silence, in a very noisy environment, trying to hide from a deafened creature or doing nothing that could possibly cause a sound.
A cloak's effects can be replicated with a little non-magical camouflage and doesn't seem to buy anything.
Boot of elvenkind would, in most cases, still give you advantage.

A magic item that requires attunement should be better than a similar item that does not require attunement, which is why I would give you advantage if you use the cloak in almost every case. Magic items are supposed to be cool, not just useful in edge cases.

(Reply to #34)

Coredump00

OoftaMeg wrote:

#36

lawrencehoy

Apr 30, 2015 23:53:05

Coredump00 wrote:

#37

lawrencehoy

May 01, 2015 1:22:35

OoftaMeg wrote:

#38

Orethalion

May 01, 2015 6:59:46

lanigiro wrote:

(Reply to #35)

OoftaMeg

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #39)

Coredump00

OoftaMeg wrote:

#41

jonathonhawke

May 01, 2015 23:14:21

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #40)

OoftaMeg

Coredump00 wrote:

#43

Bumpo

May 02, 2015 11:56:30

It is only because "I can't see him" is an idiom, not grammatically correct. It would be more correct to say "I do not see him." You are physically able to see him, but in this case you don't.

(Reply to #42)

Coredump00

OoftaMeg wrote:

#45

lawrencehoy

May 02, 2015 18:16:03

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #45)

Macv12

lawrencehoy wrote: