My position is, if you believe it's reasonable enough to allow a hidden character in combat to move their speed from cover and make a melee attack with the advantage granted by Invisible, which I think we agree on.
I think it's reasonable to allow a hidden character to move from combat and attack with advantage, but it's not because the character is invisible, it's because it's a surprise because they were invisible.
My position is, if you believe it's reasonable enough to allow a hidden character in combat to move their speed from cover and make a melee attack with the advantage granted by Invisible, which I think we agree on.
I think it's reasonable to allow a hidden character to move from combat and attack with advantage, but it's not because the character is invisible, it's because it's a surprise because they were invisible.
The Surprise effect is only for advantage on initiative rolls. The Attacks Affected effect gives advantage on attacks made and disadvantage to attacks received. Once an attack is rolled, both Hidden and Invisible end. This should also mean that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity before attacking, since they can't be seen while Invisible (Concealed).
The Surprise effect is only for advantage on initiative rolls. The Attacks Affected effect gives advantage on attacks made and disadvantage to attacks received. Once an attack is rolled, both Hidden and Invisible end. This should also mean that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity before attacking, since they can't be seen while Invisible (Concealed).
It's worth distinguishing between game mechanic and how it's described. The game mechanic is that the character is treated as invisible. The description is that, while visible, they haven't been visible for long enough for the defender to be prepared for their attack, and thus the attack is at advantage. This is why I would have them lose the invisible status at the end of their turn -- they've been seen, it's just that it takes a bit of time for this fact to register with potential enemies.
The lawyering around "invisible" is almost irrelevant. Once you're successfully hidden, the enemy doesn't notice you until it finds you via perception. We know that requires either its passive perception to beat your Hide roll, or its Search action to beat your Hide on its turn. If it's your turn in combat, the latter doesn't matter, and the former is unlikely to be high enough to matter either. There's no written carveout where entering a visible space automatically breaks that Invisibility; the enemy has to find you first. In a fast-paced fight, it makes perfect narrative sense for a combatant to get distracted and lose track of you as you hid, crept up in his blind spot, and stabbed him in the neck.
In short, going by RAW, rogues can hide in cover, move (quietly) while retaining the Hidden/Invisible status, approach to melee range, and attack with advantage, thus qualifying for Sneak Attack damage. I would welcome a change to require half-speed to maintain Hidden, since running full speed should make some amount of noise, but again, that isn't in the rules so it doesn't matter.
The key detail that you are missing here is the information that was added by the errata which clarifies that you only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden".
We already know what is required to Hide since the Hide action spends quite a lot of words on these requirements. You must be Heavily Obscured or at least behind three-quarters cover and you must do this in a successfully stealthy manner (Stealth check) while Unseen by any enemy. While doing this (i.e., while "concealed"), you enjoy certain benefits and there is also list of things which cause you to stop being hidden immediately. But while NOT doing this, none of those things apply -- in that case you just simply are not hidden.
If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?
No, it doesn't imply that. All that this means is that the rule that exists in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar which normally reveals a hidden creature's position after their attack hits or misses does not apply to a creature who has this feature. Such a creature must remain concealed for their entire turn for this to apply.
If such a creature stops hiding and then attacks, then they do not have the benefits of hiding during their attack or immediately after their attack (since the attack itself did not reveal their location in this case) and if they move back into a position that would qualify for hiding by the end of their turn then they would still have to successfully take another Hide action in order to actually be hidden at the end of their turn.
Likewise, if such a creature attacks while hidden but then stops hiding to run across an open area and then they move back into a position that would qualify for hiding by the end of their turn . . . once again they would still have to successfully take another Hide action in order to actually be hidden at the end of their turn -- this is because, again, it was not the attack itself that revealed their location (in this case because of this feature). Instead, their location was revealed by running out into the open. This feature does not prevent that from happening.
If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?
No, it doesn't imply that. All that this means is that the rule that exists in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar which normally reveals a hidden creature's position after their attack hits or misses does not apply to a creature who has this feature. Such a creature must remain concealed for their entire turn for this to apply.
Unseen Attackers was removed from the 2024 rules. Now we have Invisible.
The key detail that you are missing here is the information that was added by the errata which clarifies that you only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden".
We already know what is required to Hide since the Hide action spends quite a lot of words on these requirements. You must be Heavily Obscured or at least behind three-quarters cover and you must do this in a successfully stealthy manner (Stealth check) while Unseen by any enemy. While doing this (i.e., while "concealed"), you enjoy certain benefits and there is also list of things which cause you to stop being hidden immediately. But while NOT doing this, none of those things apply -- in that case you just simply are not hidden.
That is not how the rule is worded. The rule is You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [go back and read the last ten pages of posts before you bring this up], you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component. Not when you leave cover, and not when you're in another creature's line of sight again. You gain Invisible when you successfully hide, therefore leaving cover doesn't automatically make you found.
I wasn't talking abou take the macguffin, i was talking about grab the guard
Ah. That is the point of confusion. No. I can certainly agree that grabbing the guard would break Stealth. What I was talking about, however, was grabbing the macguffin, while all the guards were standing around it, and then sprinting past them down the hall.
The rule is You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [go back and read the last ten pages of posts before you bring this up], you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component. Not when you leave cover, and not when you're in another creature's line of sight again. You gain Invisible when you successfully hide, therefore leaving cover doesn't automatically make you found.
This is incorrect. You don't "gain" anything. You "have" the Condition while hidden. Whenever you are not hiding you don't have any of those benefits. Nothing in the wording implies that anything about the activity is permanent or absolute. It is conditional. It is also ongoing. The DC that is set is saved for later because that die roll value remains valid while hidden. As soon as you are not hidden that die roll value becomes invalid, and a new roll would be required.
You are correct that leaving cover and being in another creature's line of sight are not examples of things that would cause you to stop being hidden immediately while you are hiding. They are examples of ways that you can know that you are not currently hiding.
It is also true that leaving cover doesn't automatically make you "found". There is never any reason to find anything that's not actually hidden.
Again, you don't gain Invisible when you successfully hide. You have the Invisible condition while you successfully hide. Hiding involves successfully "concealing" yourself in the manner described in the text for the Hide action.
Unseen Attackers was removed from the 2024 rules. Now we have Invisible.
What? What do you mean? There is an entire sidebar in the main section of the rules dedicated to these rules and mechanics. This is also where many of the rules and mechanics related to being hidden that are not listed within the Hide action are contained:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss.
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
My position is, if you believe it's reasonable enough to allow a hidden character in combat to move their speed from cover and make a melee attack with the advantage granted by Invisible, which I think we agree on, then you ought to grant at least the same or similar benefit outside of combat. Limitations beyond that would need to be house ruled, because it isn't addressed in the RAW. Should the Dash bonus action break Hiding? Probably. Sprinting would be noisy, unless your gear says otherwise.
I think there is some confusion. I am happy to grant the same or similar benefit outside of combat.
If a character in combat breaks cover and attacks, I absolutely give them all the benefits (which would consist primarily of attacking with Advantage). I will additionally allow a character to have broken cover on previous rounds without loosing stealth, as long as it is reasonable for them to have done so.
For clarity, examples of this would be moving right out in the open behind where people would most likely not be looking (i.e., NPC is fighting two characters standing shoulder to shoulder in melee combat and you position yourself so that the NPC is roughly between you and the other characters), you move through an area where people might be looking, but you are reasonably far back from where their focus is (e.g. using the earlier example but now you are crossing 50' back behind the characters rather than the NPC).
Out of combat I would absolutely give the character similar benefits.
In the example of the guarded hallway, if you want to break cover and attack you will get Advantage on your Initiative roll, you will get Advantage to your attacks, because the guards weren't ready for you, and you will get your Sneak Attack damage (since you had Advantage on the attack).
However, you aren't going to be able to just walk past them. That isn't something I'm taking away because you are now out of combat. You can be in combat and if you move yourself to a position where it is not plausible for the enemies to not see you, then they are going to see you, just like the hallway. What I will add is the caveat that the very nature of combat the plausibility of someone missing you goes up due to the confusion of combat. That benefit, however, does have some very real limits.
My apologies if you thought that I was saying that you could not gain any benefit at all from using Stealth in the theoretically hallway, or if you thought that I was maintaining that any breaking of cover meant you were immediately found. Neither of those is my position. I do feel that characters like Rogues should be able to use Stealth to good effect the vast majority of the time. I just do not agree that, RAW, it turns a character completely and literally Invisible, and that naming the Condition that way was unfortunate and leads to confusion.
Additionally, let me apologies if you thought that I was saying that you must interpret the rules as I have interpreted them (that the character does not turn completely Invisible). If you truly believe this is the designers intention, that's fine. Somewhere along the line I lost the thread and started making an argument that very much seems to say that it is illogical to make such an interpretation. It is not.
What I ask is that you stop insisting that the character turning completely Invisible is RAW. It is your interpretation of the RAW, but I hope I have shown that there is a very reasonable alternative interpretation (the Intelligence (Perception) check is not the only way to find the character and the Condition is badly misnamed) that you simply disagree with, and when there are conflicting but reasonable interpretations the 'RAW' argument tends to lose validity.
Unseen Attackers was removed from the 2024 rules. Now we have Invisible.
No it wasn't, though for some reason it doesn't have its own index entry, it's a box under Cover.
Thanks, found it! That's super weird, it doesn't show when I search my pdf. It doesn't matter though, since all of that is already in the Invisible rule.
Regardless, the Hide action doesn't say anything about staying heavily obscured or in cover to stay hidden. Simply that you need to be behind cover and out of line of sight of all enemies while you make the Hide stealth roll. Once you succeed, you're hidden, and when you're hidden, you're Invisible. You can't be seen, so being in line of sight doesn't matter. You only have to be quiet.
Scenario: Rogue moves away from an enemy and Hides behind a column. Total cover, out of line of sight, and the stealth roll totals 20. Obviously now hidden and Invisible. On the enemy's turn, it goes to the rogue's last seen location, but the rogue, though now within line of sight, is still Invisible and can't be seen. The enemy Searches, rolling a 15 total, not finding the rogue. On the rogue's turn, he attacks with Invisible's advantage, ending hidden and Invisible, also gaining sneak attack damage.
This is both RAW and clearly RAI. Otherwise, hiding and Invisible would have no practical effect unless you're inside a box with 360-degree total cover, which completely defeats the purpose of hiding in the first place.
Regardless, the Hide action doesn't say anything about staying heavily obscured or in cover to stay hidden.
No, but the rules do say that the DM decides when it's possible to hide, and if the DM rules that what you're doing is incompatible with hiding... you aren't hiding.
The rule is You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [go back and read the last ten pages of posts before you bring this up], you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component. Not when you leave cover, and not when you're in another creature's line of sight again. You gain Invisible when you successfully hide, therefore leaving cover doesn't automatically make you found.
This is incorrect. You don't "gain" anything. You "have" the Condition while hidden. Whenever you are not hiding you don't have any of those benefits. Nothing in the wording implies that anything about the activity is permanent or absolute. It is conditional. It is also ongoing. The DC that is set is saved for later because that die roll value remains valid while hidden. As soon as you are not hidden that die roll value becomes invalid, and a new roll would be required.
You are correct that leaving cover and being in another creature's line of sight are not examples of things that would cause you to stop being hidden immediately while you are hiding. They are examples of ways that you can know that you are not currently hiding.
It is also true that leaving cover doesn't automatically make you "found". There is never any reason to find anything that's not actually hidden.
Again, you don't gain Invisible when you successfully hide. You have the Invisible condition while you successfully hide. Hiding involves successfully "concealing" yourself in the manner described in the text for the Hide action.
It doesn't actually say that though. Having cover or obscured and being out of line of sight are the conditions to make the stealth check. Then you have Invisibility, which persists as long as you're hidden, which doesn't end until one of the qualifying triggers. Nothing in the rule states that you have to stay behind cover and out of sight.
Scenario: Rogue moves away from an enemy and Hides behind a column. Total cover, out of line of sight, and the stealth roll totals 20. Obviously now hidden and Invisible. On the enemy's turn, it goes to the rogue's last seen location, but the rogue, though now within line of sight, is still Invisible and can't be seen. The enemy Searches, rolling a 15 total, not finding the rogue. On the rogue's turn, he attacks with Invisible's advantage, ending hidden and Invisible, also gaining sneak attack damage.
This is both RAW and clearly RAI. Otherwise, hiding and Invisible would have no practical effect unless you're inside a box with 360-degree total cover, which completely defeats the purpose of hiding in the first place.
This is neither RAI nor does it align with the RAW.
In the above scenario, the correct ruling is that the enemy can easily see the Rogue since the Rogue is not Invisible. He only has the Invisible condition while hidden -- while successfully concealed due to being stealthily located in a Heavily Obscured area or behind at least three-quarters cover while unseen. While behind the column, he was Invisible. Now the enemy has moved such that the Rogue has less than three-quarters cover from the column and is now in the enemy's line of sight. It doesn't matter how quiet the Rogue is being (20) since being successfully quiet (stealthy) only matters while properly concealed. In this new situation, the Rogue is not hiding nor is he hidden and therefore he is not Invisible. The enemy does not have to perform any Search action nor is his Passive Perception relevant in any way -- he simply sees the Rogue standing right in front of him -- no check required. On the Rogue's turn he can attack, but he will not have advantage and will not apply any sneak attack damage.
Before the errata it might have been possible to argue that the Rogue continued to have the Invisible condition even after he stopped hiding. But this has now been clarified. Now, having the Invisible condition is conditional upon being hidden. The creature only has it while hidden. In this context, this does not refer to a snapshot in time when the Stealth check was made. It refers to the ongoing state of being concealed in the manner described by the Hide action. The value of the Stealth check is saved for later -- it's not an ability check that is immediately resolved upon performing some instantaneous activity such as lifting something heavy or remembering some lore. It's an ongoing check for an ongoing activity while the creature remains hidden and/or remains sneaking around behind things. The success or failure and the accompanying benefit of the success of the ability check is contingent upon continuing to perform the ongoing activity that the ability check is continuing to measure. Why else would the authors have made the particular two changes that we can see in the errata? A successful roll doesn't just cause you to have the condition. It causes you to have the condition while hidden. The RAI behind such a change should be extremely obvious.
Hiding does have practical effects:
1. It causes your location to be unknown to enemies. This means that they would have to "guess the square" when attempting to attack you.
2. Offensively, it allows you to lean out to three-quarters cover to make your attack while still gaining the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (advantage). Without hiding, when you lean out to three-quarters cover you would be seen immediately and therefore losing the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (so no advantage).
2a. Also offensively, your attack doesn't reveal your location until it hits or misses. The timing of this is preferable if the enemy has a Readied action to attack me as soon as he sees me. My attack would resolve first. Without hiding, the enemy's Readied action attack would resolve before mine while I was leaning out to make my attack.
Consider this. The rules state that I am allowed to intentionally drop Prone:
Dropping Prone
On your turn, you can give yourself the Prone condition (see the Rules Glossary) without using an action or any of your Speed, but you can’t do so if your Speed is 0.
In a couple of places, the text happens to mention a couple of ways that the Prone condition can be "countered":
Duration
A condition lasts either for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition or until the condition is countered (the Prone condition is countered by standing up, for example).
and
Prone [Condition]
While you have the Prone condition, you experience the following effects.
Restricted Movement. Your only movement options are to crawl or to spend an amount of movement equal to half your Speed (round down) to right yourself and thereby end the condition. If your Speed is 0, you can’t right yourself.
Attacks Affected. You have Disadvantage on attack rolls. An attack roll against you has Advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of you. Otherwise, that attack roll has Disadvantage.
So, the Prone condition is countered if I stand up and the condition ends if I right myself.
Now, as seen above, one of the benefits of having the Prone condition is that ranged attacks against me have disadvantage.
Scenario:
I intentionally drop Prone. My ally then picks me up and places me onto my feet. I did not stand up. I also did not right myself.
Are you going to argue that I can now run around the battlefield doing whatever I want while enjoying the benefits of the Prone condition?
Hopefully not.
The main reason why I do not enjoy the benefits of the Prone condition in the above scenario is simply because I am not Prone.
Likewise, I (explicitly) do not get to enjoy the benefits of being hidden when I am not hiding. It's pretty straightforward.
Hide is one action, and Hidden is not a condition. Hide has requirements, a single roll, and stated effects. Success means you're hidden and have the Invisible condition. Invisible creatures can't be seen, so entering another creature's line of sight has no effect.
This is not an ongoing test. The action happens once, and has triggers that cause the effects to end. That's how it's written. There's no language, explicit or implicit, that the effects of Hide end by no longer being behind cover. You keep emphasizing the word while, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of it. You must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight. But you only need the cover while you make the stealth check. Once. One action. One roll. Then you're hidden and Invisible. You can't be located by being seen if you're Invisible. That's the language of the Invisible condition's Concealed effect: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen. Being concealed doesn't make you hidden, a successful Hide action makes you Invisible, thus Concealed.
People have been really keen on quoting the second part of the Hiding rule a lot: The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Which I agree with! If an enemy watches you run into a closet and shut the door, no high stealth roll can make you hidden; it's obvious where you are. But let's not gloss over the first part of that rule: Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. Movement around creatures that would normally be able to see you is part of Hiding. Yes, even sneaking past guards unnoticed.
....That's how it's written....There's no language, explicit or implicit,.....That's the language of the Invisible condition....
Geez... pedants unite. Though also no. The language explicitly says the hiding condition ends when another creature finds you. That is DELIBERATELY left undefined. If the designers wanted "find you" to only include making a perception check they would have said so. They didn't because they want it to be at DM discretion because Hiding is situational. Only a DM can rule that "sticking to the shadows, I sneak around behind the guard and stab him in the back" works when sneaking into a bandit hideout at night, but doesn't in a well lit empty corridor outside the king's bed chamber. Or that "ducking from tree to tree, I sneak towards them." works when sneaking up on a soldier out for a piss, but not against that same soldier standing on a wall of a fort looking directly towards them while on sentry duty.
In any case "sneaking past a guardian" doesn't mean "I walk straight towards the guardian without a care in the world because I'm invisible because 3 hours ago in-game I ducked behind a box and rolled a 29 Stealth check". And "set an ambush" doesn't mean "I duck behind a rock and roll a 26 Stealth, now I walk into the middle of the road and wait for the cart to appear, while being fully invisible."
If an enemy watches you run into a closet and shut the door, no high stealth roll can make you hidden; it's obvious where you are.
Why not? the enemy can't see you. That fully fills the explicit requirements for Hiding, and gaining the Invisible condition, and since you are Invisible if the enemy opens the door to the closet they still can't see you right? Because you are Invisible, that is how you are stating hiding works.
Scenario: Rogue moves away from an enemy and Hides behind a column. Total cover, out of line of sight, and the stealth roll totals 20. Obviously now hidden and Invisible. On the enemy's turn, it goes to the rogue's last seen location, but the rogue, though now within line of sight, is still Invisible and can't be seen.
...seen because it's now in enemy's undistracted view and the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
This is also RAW, refusing to acknowledge this is another issue.
Scenario: Rogue moves away from an enemy and Hides behind a column. Total cover, out of line of sight, and the stealth roll totals 20. Obviously now hidden and Invisible. On the enemy's turn, it goes to the rogue's last seen location, but the rogue, though now within line of sight, is still Invisible and can't be seen.
...seen because it's now in enemy's undistracted view and the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
This is also RAW, refusing to acknowledge this is another issue.
Any argument reliant on "DM discretion" rules is inherently not RAW. RAW indicates the rules before the DM starts tinkering to make outcomes more to their liking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it's reasonable to allow a hidden character to move from combat and attack with advantage, but it's not because the character is invisible, it's because it's a surprise because they were invisible.
The Surprise effect is only for advantage on initiative rolls. The Attacks Affected effect gives advantage on attacks made and disadvantage to attacks received. Once an attack is rolled, both Hidden and Invisible end. This should also mean that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity before attacking, since they can't be seen while Invisible (Concealed).
It's worth distinguishing between game mechanic and how it's described. The game mechanic is that the character is treated as invisible. The description is that, while visible, they haven't been visible for long enough for the defender to be prepared for their attack, and thus the attack is at advantage. This is why I would have them lose the invisible status at the end of their turn -- they've been seen, it's just that it takes a bit of time for this fact to register with potential enemies.
I wasn't talking abou take the macguffin, i was talking about grab the guard
The key detail that you are missing here is the information that was added by the errata which clarifies that you only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden".
We already know what is required to Hide since the Hide action spends quite a lot of words on these requirements. You must be Heavily Obscured or at least behind three-quarters cover and you must do this in a successfully stealthy manner (Stealth check) while Unseen by any enemy. While doing this (i.e., while "concealed"), you enjoy certain benefits and there is also list of things which cause you to stop being hidden immediately. But while NOT doing this, none of those things apply -- in that case you just simply are not hidden.
No, it doesn't imply that. All that this means is that the rule that exists in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar which normally reveals a hidden creature's position after their attack hits or misses does not apply to a creature who has this feature. Such a creature must remain concealed for their entire turn for this to apply.
If such a creature stops hiding and then attacks, then they do not have the benefits of hiding during their attack or immediately after their attack (since the attack itself did not reveal their location in this case) and if they move back into a position that would qualify for hiding by the end of their turn then they would still have to successfully take another Hide action in order to actually be hidden at the end of their turn.
Likewise, if such a creature attacks while hidden but then stops hiding to run across an open area and then they move back into a position that would qualify for hiding by the end of their turn . . . once again they would still have to successfully take another Hide action in order to actually be hidden at the end of their turn -- this is because, again, it was not the attack itself that revealed their location (in this case because of this feature). Instead, their location was revealed by running out into the open. This feature does not prevent that from happening.
Unseen Attackers was removed from the 2024 rules. Now we have Invisible.
That is not how the rule is worded. The rule is You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [go back and read the last ten pages of posts before you bring this up], you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component. Not when you leave cover, and not when you're in another creature's line of sight again. You gain Invisible when you successfully hide, therefore leaving cover doesn't automatically make you found.
No it wasn't, though for some reason it doesn't have its own index entry, it's a box under Cover.
Ah. That is the point of confusion. No. I can certainly agree that grabbing the guard would break Stealth. What I was talking about, however, was grabbing the macguffin, while all the guards were standing around it, and then sprinting past them down the hall.
My apologies for not making that clearer.
This is incorrect. You don't "gain" anything. You "have" the Condition while hidden. Whenever you are not hiding you don't have any of those benefits. Nothing in the wording implies that anything about the activity is permanent or absolute. It is conditional. It is also ongoing. The DC that is set is saved for later because that die roll value remains valid while hidden. As soon as you are not hidden that die roll value becomes invalid, and a new roll would be required.
You are correct that leaving cover and being in another creature's line of sight are not examples of things that would cause you to stop being hidden immediately while you are hiding. They are examples of ways that you can know that you are not currently hiding.
It is also true that leaving cover doesn't automatically make you "found". There is never any reason to find anything that's not actually hidden.
Again, you don't gain Invisible when you successfully hide. You have the Invisible condition while you successfully hide. Hiding involves successfully "concealing" yourself in the manner described in the text for the Hide action.
What? What do you mean? There is an entire sidebar in the main section of the rules dedicated to these rules and mechanics. This is also where many of the rules and mechanics related to being hidden that are not listed within the Hide action are contained:
I think there is some confusion. I am happy to grant the same or similar benefit outside of combat.
If a character in combat breaks cover and attacks, I absolutely give them all the benefits (which would consist primarily of attacking with Advantage). I will additionally allow a character to have broken cover on previous rounds without loosing stealth, as long as it is reasonable for them to have done so.
For clarity, examples of this would be moving right out in the open behind where people would most likely not be looking (i.e., NPC is fighting two characters standing shoulder to shoulder in melee combat and you position yourself so that the NPC is roughly between you and the other characters), you move through an area where people might be looking, but you are reasonably far back from where their focus is (e.g. using the earlier example but now you are crossing 50' back behind the characters rather than the NPC).
Out of combat I would absolutely give the character similar benefits.
In the example of the guarded hallway, if you want to break cover and attack you will get Advantage on your Initiative roll, you will get Advantage to your attacks, because the guards weren't ready for you, and you will get your Sneak Attack damage (since you had Advantage on the attack).
However, you aren't going to be able to just walk past them. That isn't something I'm taking away because you are now out of combat. You can be in combat and if you move yourself to a position where it is not plausible for the enemies to not see you, then they are going to see you, just like the hallway. What I will add is the caveat that the very nature of combat the plausibility of someone missing you goes up due to the confusion of combat. That benefit, however, does have some very real limits.
My apologies if you thought that I was saying that you could not gain any benefit at all from using Stealth in the theoretically hallway, or if you thought that I was maintaining that any breaking of cover meant you were immediately found. Neither of those is my position. I do feel that characters like Rogues should be able to use Stealth to good effect the vast majority of the time. I just do not agree that, RAW, it turns a character completely and literally Invisible, and that naming the Condition that way was unfortunate and leads to confusion.
Additionally, let me apologies if you thought that I was saying that you must interpret the rules as I have interpreted them (that the character does not turn completely Invisible). If you truly believe this is the designers intention, that's fine. Somewhere along the line I lost the thread and started making an argument that very much seems to say that it is illogical to make such an interpretation. It is not.
What I ask is that you stop insisting that the character turning completely Invisible is RAW. It is your interpretation of the RAW, but I hope I have shown that there is a very reasonable alternative interpretation (the Intelligence (Perception) check is not the only way to find the character and the Condition is badly misnamed) that you simply disagree with, and when there are conflicting but reasonable interpretations the 'RAW' argument tends to lose validity.
Thanks, found it! That's super weird, it doesn't show when I search my pdf. It doesn't matter though, since all of that is already in the Invisible rule.
Regardless, the Hide action doesn't say anything about staying heavily obscured or in cover to stay hidden. Simply that you need to be behind cover and out of line of sight of all enemies while you make the Hide stealth roll. Once you succeed, you're hidden, and when you're hidden, you're Invisible. You can't be seen, so being in line of sight doesn't matter. You only have to be quiet.
Scenario: Rogue moves away from an enemy and Hides behind a column. Total cover, out of line of sight, and the stealth roll totals 20. Obviously now hidden and Invisible. On the enemy's turn, it goes to the rogue's last seen location, but the rogue, though now within line of sight, is still Invisible and can't be seen. The enemy Searches, rolling a 15 total, not finding the rogue. On the rogue's turn, he attacks with Invisible's advantage, ending hidden and Invisible, also gaining sneak attack damage.
This is both RAW and clearly RAI. Otherwise, hiding and Invisible would have no practical effect unless you're inside a box with 360-degree total cover, which completely defeats the purpose of hiding in the first place.
No, but the rules do say that the DM decides when it's possible to hide, and if the DM rules that what you're doing is incompatible with hiding... you aren't hiding.
It doesn't actually say that though. Having cover or obscured and being out of line of sight are the conditions to make the stealth check. Then you have Invisibility, which persists as long as you're hidden, which doesn't end until one of the qualifying triggers. Nothing in the rule states that you have to stay behind cover and out of sight.
This is neither RAI nor does it align with the RAW.
In the above scenario, the correct ruling is that the enemy can easily see the Rogue since the Rogue is not Invisible. He only has the Invisible condition while hidden -- while successfully concealed due to being stealthily located in a Heavily Obscured area or behind at least three-quarters cover while unseen. While behind the column, he was Invisible. Now the enemy has moved such that the Rogue has less than three-quarters cover from the column and is now in the enemy's line of sight. It doesn't matter how quiet the Rogue is being (20) since being successfully quiet (stealthy) only matters while properly concealed. In this new situation, the Rogue is not hiding nor is he hidden and therefore he is not Invisible. The enemy does not have to perform any Search action nor is his Passive Perception relevant in any way -- he simply sees the Rogue standing right in front of him -- no check required. On the Rogue's turn he can attack, but he will not have advantage and will not apply any sneak attack damage.
Before the errata it might have been possible to argue that the Rogue continued to have the Invisible condition even after he stopped hiding. But this has now been clarified. Now, having the Invisible condition is conditional upon being hidden. The creature only has it while hidden. In this context, this does not refer to a snapshot in time when the Stealth check was made. It refers to the ongoing state of being concealed in the manner described by the Hide action. The value of the Stealth check is saved for later -- it's not an ability check that is immediately resolved upon performing some instantaneous activity such as lifting something heavy or remembering some lore. It's an ongoing check for an ongoing activity while the creature remains hidden and/or remains sneaking around behind things. The success or failure and the accompanying benefit of the success of the ability check is contingent upon continuing to perform the ongoing activity that the ability check is continuing to measure. Why else would the authors have made the particular two changes that we can see in the errata? A successful roll doesn't just cause you to have the condition. It causes you to have the condition while hidden. The RAI behind such a change should be extremely obvious.
Hiding does have practical effects:
1. It causes your location to be unknown to enemies. This means that they would have to "guess the square" when attempting to attack you.
2. Offensively, it allows you to lean out to three-quarters cover to make your attack while still gaining the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (advantage). Without hiding, when you lean out to three-quarters cover you would be seen immediately and therefore losing the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (so no advantage).
2a. Also offensively, your attack doesn't reveal your location until it hits or misses. The timing of this is preferable if the enemy has a Readied action to attack me as soon as he sees me. My attack would resolve first. Without hiding, the enemy's Readied action attack would resolve before mine while I was leaning out to make my attack.
Consider this. The rules state that I am allowed to intentionally drop Prone:
In a couple of places, the text happens to mention a couple of ways that the Prone condition can be "countered":
and
So, the Prone condition is countered if I stand up and the condition ends if I right myself.
Now, as seen above, one of the benefits of having the Prone condition is that ranged attacks against me have disadvantage.
Scenario:
I intentionally drop Prone. My ally then picks me up and places me onto my feet. I did not stand up. I also did not right myself.
Are you going to argue that I can now run around the battlefield doing whatever I want while enjoying the benefits of the Prone condition?
Hopefully not.
The main reason why I do not enjoy the benefits of the Prone condition in the above scenario is simply because I am not Prone.
Likewise, I (explicitly) do not get to enjoy the benefits of being hidden when I am not hiding. It's pretty straightforward.
Hide is one action, and Hidden is not a condition. Hide has requirements, a single roll, and stated effects. Success means you're hidden and have the Invisible condition. Invisible creatures can't be seen, so entering another creature's line of sight has no effect.
This is not an ongoing test. The action happens once, and has triggers that cause the effects to end. That's how it's written. There's no language, explicit or implicit, that the effects of Hide end by no longer being behind cover. You keep emphasizing the word while, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of it. You must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight. But you only need the cover while you make the stealth check. Once. One action. One roll. Then you're hidden and Invisible. You can't be located by being seen if you're Invisible. That's the language of the Invisible condition's Concealed effect: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen. Being concealed doesn't make you hidden, a successful Hide action makes you Invisible, thus Concealed.
People have been really keen on quoting the second part of the Hiding rule a lot: The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Which I agree with! If an enemy watches you run into a closet and shut the door, no high stealth roll can make you hidden; it's obvious where you are. But let's not gloss over the first part of that rule: Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. Movement around creatures that would normally be able to see you is part of Hiding. Yes, even sneaking past guards unnoticed.
Geez... pedants unite. Though also no. The language explicitly says the hiding condition ends when another creature finds you. That is DELIBERATELY left undefined. If the designers wanted "find you" to only include making a perception check they would have said so. They didn't because they want it to be at DM discretion because Hiding is situational. Only a DM can rule that "sticking to the shadows, I sneak around behind the guard and stab him in the back" works when sneaking into a bandit hideout at night, but doesn't in a well lit empty corridor outside the king's bed chamber. Or that "ducking from tree to tree, I sneak towards them." works when sneaking up on a soldier out for a piss, but not against that same soldier standing on a wall of a fort looking directly towards them while on sentry duty.
In any case "sneaking past a guardian" doesn't mean "I walk straight towards the guardian without a care in the world because I'm invisible because 3 hours ago in-game I ducked behind a box and rolled a 29 Stealth check". And "set an ambush" doesn't mean "I duck behind a rock and roll a 26 Stealth, now I walk into the middle of the road and wait for the cart to appear, while being fully invisible."
Why not? the enemy can't see you. That fully fills the explicit requirements for Hiding, and gaining the Invisible condition, and since you are Invisible if the enemy opens the door to the closet they still can't see you right? Because you are Invisible, that is how you are stating hiding works.
...seen because it's now in enemy's undistracted view and the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
This is also RAW, refusing to acknowledge this is another issue.
Any argument reliant on "DM discretion" rules is inherently not RAW. RAW indicates the rules before the DM starts tinkering to make outcomes more to their liking.