Hexilim's page

I feel that you ignored the video somewhat - the rogue not only seeks, but also uses an interact action to open 2 doors - in both scenarios the GM rules that opening a door (interact action - so not hide, sneak or step) is an unobtrusive.

I wasn't really focusing on the seek action - I think most people would agree that seek doesn't necessarily require any action depending on the situation, but if need be, there is an actual action that can be taken and it should be unobtrusive in most cases regarding looking or listening.

But, in the video, there is an interact action to not only look, but actively moving a piece of the environment - a door - and then being able to observe a creature (twice) - this is also ruled unobtrusive.

**EDIT**

Reading your reply again, I think that you mostly covered it actually.
I still feel it's a little bit wishy washy so to speak as to in what case an action would be unobtrusive and it feels unfortunate that it is left so much to GM fiat essentially.

One could argue that opening the door removes the cover (which is actually the case mentioned in the video) but it feels that the decisions are made mainly in support of a story, rather than game mechanics. This is fine ofc.

However, one of my least favourite things about dnd 5th is the heavy reliance on the GM to make calls as to what goes and what doesn't. It is also one of my favourite things about pathfinder where that is usually not the case and there are plenty of established rules instead.

I suppose stealth in general is just the exception to the rule and you have to hope to end up with a GM that favours stealth.

First off - thanks for all the replies. It helps a lot, even if I still find the rules to be quite convoluted and unintuitive to some extent, I believe I at least understand the RAW and RAI of the game enough to continue our session :)

Small disclaimer: The below is not meant to keep arguing my previous point. It is just further discussions as the subject is interesting!

Picture B1:

You're almost right about blue. Blue is either Unnoticed or Undetected, not both; Unnoticed is the stronger condition.

It does actually state on p 467:

You're wrong about green. There is no such thing as "we don't have line of sight but I can peek at you unobtrusively".

Hm, I feel there is room for interpretation here.

Hide action on p 251:
"...You cease to be Hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak or Step...
...The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed – possibly requiring another Stealth check."

Basics4Gamers youtube video on Stealth:
https://youtu.be/CFR-7N_nOS0?t=810

The "unobtrusive" here is the second part that I find adds to confusion for me at least - especially as it's so GM dependant and essentially can break the basic rules while still being RAW. This is how I would've reasoned as for the character peaking out at the guard without being seen - it's a Seek action and I would ask the GM if I could do so under the "unobtrustive" ruling - similar to how the rogue in the youtube video both opens the first door as well as the second door and directly observes creatures in the room.

Neither action 2 or 3 here that rogue takes are "hide, sneak or step" - rather, it's explicitly explained that these are seek and interact actions so by raw she should be revealed. But due to the "unobtrusive" it is rules as being stealthy and can roll stealth to allow the player to progress.

I think as a GM I would've allowed a character to do a peek around a corner along the same rulings - if the player was trying to be stealth as in both my example as well as the video. Given that opening a door could logically be deemed as easier to spot, making more sound and also requiring an interact action.

So, from what I can tell of the book as well as that video - it is fully possible to observe other creatures from behind cover at no extra actions spent, while still remaining undetected and even unnoticed (or hidden, for the sake of context).

Would you agree?

Also, I think I just figured out what Hexilim's confusion stems from: conflating the hidden condition with the Hide action. Similar to the blind/blinded argument we had recently.

Thanks for the help in clarifying - however I feel that it is more related to the rules for cover making it confusing for me.

Let me explain:

The CRB on p 477 says "Cover applies only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don’t have line of effect (page 457) and typically can’t target it at all."

And on p 457 it reads "You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect"

Finally, on p 466 for observed it reads "If you can’t observe the creature, it’s either hidden, undetected, or unnoticed, and you’ll need to factor in the targeting restrictions."
And for hidden "A creature that’s hidden is only barely perceptible".

As such, I've read it as "if a line of effect cannot be drawn in a straight line from the center of one character to the center of another without crossing a blocking piece of terrain or obstacle, the creature cannot be observed and the only remaining conditions that can apply are hidden and undetected".
That just so happens to be the same requirement as for determining cover.

Thus, logic would dictate for me that it isn't enough to see a leg or shoulder etc. You would need a direct, non-obstructed and full view on a target for it to be observed, instead of the "barely perceptible" as stipulated for the hidden condition.

It is what also led me to question if having cover always meant you would be concealed to all creatures whom you had cover from, since the stipulation for concealed on p 467 reads "This condition protects a creature if it’s in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures sight but does not provide a physical barrier to effects".

Meaning, a creature provides lesser cover which does not allow you to hide. But being partially masked and obscuring sight but not providing a physical barrier (aka a line of effect can be achieved) would render the creature concealed - which would then permit the hide action.

All in all, I find it very confusingly written and feel that there could be better ways to explain it.

Thanks for your help - now we know how to handle it going forward!

Player in the group here. Long post - my apologies!

The reason for my questioning of this interpretation is due to what I feel is a very inconsistent rule set for the hidden condition.

Perhaps I can illustrate my POV using some images:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yaCunMcue6tpquupPhYyBGokObmbz9zY
(link to a jpeg on my google drive - hopefully that works!)

Image has 4 sections:

Both scenarios count the walls/house as solid providing greater cover with no line of effect for precise sense to observe anything behind it.

Scenario A:
A-1 and A-2 refers to the situation in our game. The encounter occurs on a moon lit night with no torchlight (dim light everywhere). The player has previously spotted a group of enemies and ran behind a 2-story house and starts their turn from there. The enemies have not yet seen the player.

A-1)
Blue: Our player is behind a 2-story house and is hidden due to the enemies having no precise sense line of effect.

Green: In this alternate scenario, our player is out in the open with nothing blocking precise sense line of effect to the enemies.

A-2)
Dark blue: Our player uses Stride to move to the corner.

Green: Our alternate reality player uses Stride to move to the same corner.

Question:
Here is where my interpretation differs from my group.

I understand the rules as when there is no direct line of effect for a precise sense (aka, house corner counts as greater cover and has no windows or holes - the line of effect intersects the house wall corner) the blue player would remain hidden around this corner as the enemies have no line of sight.

For our blue player I argue that they remain hidden as per the RAW the conditions for being observed are not met - no direct line of effect, there blue player is obscured by a greater cover and the area is dim light meaning the player is also concealed.

I find nothing in the rules that claim the opposite as due to the dim light the player is concealed, the player has greater cover and there is no direct line of effect from the center of the player to any enemy.

For our green player they did not start out as hidden, and instead is observed but concealed to all enemies. Upon reaching the corner they are still observed, but concealed due to not having started in cover and making no attempt at hiding. If that player wishes to become hidden they must use an action to hide.

But, understanding your posts here the claim is that anytime you near a corner, regardless of concealment or type of cover, you are automatically observed by any enemy, regardless of line of effect as no attempt at sneak was made.
This I feel is wrong and not RAI or RAW - please help me understand why you say this?

---

Scenario B:
B-1 and B-2 is a made up example to help me understand better. A guard is guarding a corridor and looking straight down it. It is bright light all throughout. The player is aware of the guard and wants to cross over to the other side. The player attempted to sneak to their starting location and attempted a seek and have located the guard using hearing due to them coughing.

B-1)
Blue: Our player has no line of effect to the guard but have heard them cough and is aware of them - the guard is hidden to the player and the player is undetected and unnoticed to the guard.

Green: Alternate timeline player is at the corner but has no line of effect for precise sense (sight) but can now see the guard due to using an unobtrusive action to peek around the corner. The guard is observed to the player but the player is undetected by the guard.

B-2)
Blue: Using Stride our player moves across the hall and end their movement one square in from the corner.

Green: Using Stride our alternate timeline player moves across the hall and end their movement at the corner.

Question:
My understanding of the rules is that both players start their turn as undetected and unnoticed and end their turn as hidden in spite of nobody attempting to sneak.

Should either player opt to use sneak the DM rolls a perception check vs the players stealth DC and if that fails both players end up as undetected and unnoticed.

But, if I understand all of you correctly, you would say that the green player starts out as observed due to standing at the corner of a cover and end as observed for the same reason.

The blue player would start as undetected and unnoticed but would end as hidden but not unnoticed.

The green player can attempt to first hide, then sneak across to achieve undetected but not unnoticed. The blue player would only need to sneak to achieve the same result (however, due to halved movement would not make it that far and thus end up observed and out of cover).

TLDR; I see no difference in the two scenarios as the requirements for hidden are still maintained in both scenarios - in spite of having made no attempt at stealth since the key factor is line of effect for primary sense not being achieved in either scenario at the end of a turn.

However, what is written here is that this is the wrong interpretation of the rule and standing at a corner of any type of cover always results in being observed as long as a player can observe an enemy, even if there is no direct line of effect between the two creatures?