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.
It's not just DM's discretion, but actually written in Hiding rules.
RAW doesn't mean that though, per Sage Advice it means this;
RAW
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
When we consider a rule, we start with this perspective; it’s important for us to see what you see, not what we wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
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.
Allow me to rephrase then;
...seen because it's now in enemy's undistracted view so it is found and being found ends the Invisibility Condition.
You feel that the Invisible Condition always means full Invisibility. While that is a reasonable interpretation, it is only that, an interpretation. It is not supported by text. Likewise, the fact that it is not always full Invisibility is not supported by text. Thus, there is another reasonable interpretation and you are arguing against it.
From the perspective of those who do not feel that it is always full Invisibility, while there is text about the DC to find a creature with an Intelligence (Perception) roll, no roll is required since it is in the enemy's undistracted view and that rule is not exclusive (i.e., it does not claim that is the only way to find the character and there are other situations in the book that show it is not exclusive such as Truesight).
No tinkering. This is reasonable conclusion of their interpretation.
Thus, if you want to maintain that they are unable to argue RAW (because they have to make an interpretation) you also cannot argue that your position is RAW (because you are also making an interpretation on the same point, but your interpretation differs).
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.
Then RAW is a meaningless term, of no use in discussion of how the game is played.
DM discretion is part of RAW. The game is unplayable by discretionless RAW.
There are certainly parts of the rules which can be applied mechanistically... mostly.
But there are also plenty of parts which are too fundamentally situational for that to work. This is one of them.
....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.
This isn't pedantry, it's reading comprehension. Claiming the text says something it doesn't, or doesn't say something it does, is wrong. The Finding language is explicitly defined in several places, the same way every time. First, in the Hide action itself: your check’s total... is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Explicit. And under Search [Action]: When you take the Search action, you make a Wisdom check to discern something that isn’t obvious...Skill: Perception, Thing to detect: Concealed creature or object. Explicit. And especially in the DMG under Perception: An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so. Again, explicit. It's the same as Finding Hidden Objects: When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching In the hidden object’s vicinity. On a success, you find the object, other important details, or both.
The Hide action happens once, and the effect on success is that you are hidden, having Invisible while hidden. The hidden effect doesn't end until the action says it does, and leaving cover is not among those ending triggers.
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.
You, like several others in this thread, have fallen back to the narrative argument, that it's not obvious how to narratively justify the mechanics of stealthy invisibility. But frankly, that's not my problem. You're free to roleplay the scenario however you want. The most obvious way is that the rogue is able to duck right under the guard's gaze without him noticing, silent as a shadow, and the aging, dozing, poor eyesight guard just doesn't notice anything unusual. Your lack of imagination doesn't affect the mechanics of the language written here. Hiding makes you Invisible until something triggers the Hide action's effects to end. That's all there is to it.
The hiding in a closet example is demonstrative because the enemy knows what space you're in. Part of Finding Hidden Objects with Search is searching in the right vicinity when you don't know where precisely the concealed thing is. But I could see having disadvantage on the stealth roll, or advantage on the Search as also being reasonable. Or they could just attack the space in the closet with disadvantage, all of that makes sense to me.
...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.
No, seeing something that's Invisible requires an augmented vision ability that explicitly defeats the Invisible condition. There are three that I know of. Are there any others? "Distraction" is just narrative flavor for "my stealth beats his perception." Again, roleplay it however you need to, but that's how it's written.
The circumstances appropriate for hiding are determined in the moment that the Hide action is attempted, i.e. are you obscured enough and out of line of sight of every enemy. Upon success, you are hidden. You don't need to continue attempting the Hide action. The DM does also have discretion on whether an action taken after hiding would qualify as one of the triggers that ends Hide's effects, but it should reasonably fit within one of the stated categories within the RAW.
The problem I have with the "narrative problem" argument is that it's player discretion for how they want to describe what they do.
Player: I duck behind the crate and hide. DM: Roll stealth. Player: *Rolls 23* DM: Ok, you are invisible with a DC 23 to find you. Player: Alright, I now quietly step out from behind the crate (in full daylight) and smirk at the bandit standing 10' away and looking my way, flashing my dagger menacingly. DM: Alright, well he finds you. Player: How? I'm invisible. DM: You aren't trying to hide anymore, you're just standing there in the open. Player: But standing in the open isn't one of the three things that removes my invisible condition. DM: ...
What do you do when the narrative doesn't line up with the mechanics? Do you force a different narrative on them? Part of the DM's job is to take the narrative situation and apply the appropriate rules to it.
You surely don't force a player to make an Athletics check to climb up a tapestry when they've described going up the stairs. So why would you force the player to make noise when they said they did it quietly? Or would you force another stealth check to see if they actually were able to step out quietly... and give them disadvantage, and also a high DC... that seems an awful lot like just saying they are found with extra steps.
Also, how in the hells do you narratively describe someone popping into existence when they make a sound you can't even hear.
This isn't pedantry, it's reading comprehension. Claiming the text says something it doesn't is wrong. And the Finding language is explicitly defined in several places, the same way every time. First, in the Hide action itself: your check’s total... is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Explicit.
What is explicit is only that it is the DC for making the check. You are claiming that it is saying that is the only way for the character to be found, which is not only wrong by your own criteria but also clearly false because of things such as Truesight.
And under Search [Action]: When you take the Search action, you make a Wisdom check to discern something that isn’t obvious...Skill: Perception, Thing to detect: Concealed creature or object. Explicit. And especially in the DMG under Perception: An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide.
You are out in the open without distractions. You are obvious. You are not a concealed creature or object. You are not using the Stealth skill to hide. You are attempting to use it to be Invisible.
Again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. . .
But you are not hidden.
The Hide action happens once, and the effect on success is that you are hidden, having Invisible while hidden.
You have the Invisible Condition. Invisible is the name of the Condition. Just because you have a Condition of a specific name, that does not mean you literally are the name of the Condition (e.g., Poisoned).
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
. . .No, seeing something that's Invisible requires an augmented vision ability that explicitly defeats the Invisible condition. There are three that I know of. Are there any others? . . .
True, but you are not Invisible. You have the Invisible Condition. As stated above, there are other occurrences where you can have a Condition without truly being affected by the exact name of the Condition, the there is no text that explicitly says you turn Invisible when using Stealth. You merely gain the Condition.
Again, you are claiming something the text does not say.
The circumstances appropriate for hiding are determined when you attempt the Hide action, i.e. are you obscured enough and out of line of sight of every enemy. The DM does also have discretion on whether an action taken after hiding would qualify as one of the triggers that ends Hide's effects, but it should reasonably fit within one of the stated categories within the RAW.
Standing out in the open with no distractions so that you are found does reasonably fit withing one of the stated categories, if you do not interpret Stealth as giving you full Invisibility.
The argument that Stealth is full Invisibility is only as strong as the argument that it is not. Both are interpretations. Thus, the idea that you can simply stand out in the open and not be seen is only RAW to the same extent that standing out in the open will end Stealth is RAW.
In other words, it is fairly pointless for either side to make the argument that it is RAW and the other side must be wrong, and we should probably abandon the use of RAW in this context.
Player: I duck behind the crate and hide. DM: Roll stealth. Player: *Rolls 23* DM: Ok, you are invisible with a DC 23 to find you. Player: Alright, I now quietly step out from behind the crate (in full daylight) and smirk at the bandit standing 10' away and looking my way, flashing my dagger menacingly. DM: Alright, well he finds you. Player: How? I'm invisible.
. . .
DM: You are not. You have the Invisible Condition. That is not the same thing.
You don't need special senses to find an hidden enemy or else most creature would be unable to.
Right, I didn't say that you do. You need a Search action that beats their stealth roll to find a hidden creature. But a creature with augmented sight doesn't need to search to find what it can already see, it wouldn't have disadvantage on attack rolls for example. The hidden creature would still be Invisible to non-special-sighted creatures.
The problem I have with the "narrative problem" argument is that it's player discretion for how they want to describe what they do.
Player: I duck behind the crate and hide. DM: Roll stealth. Player: *Rolls 23* DM: Ok, you are invisible with a DC 23 to find you. Player: Alright, I now step out from behind the crate (in full daylight) and smirk at the bandit standing 10' away and looking my way, flashing my dagger menacingly. DM: Alright, well he finds you. Player: How? I'm invisible. DM: You aren't trying to hide anymore, you're just standing there in the open. Player: But standing in the open isn't one of the three things that removes my invisible condition. DM: ...
What do you do when the narrative doesn't line up with the mechanics? Do you force a different narrative on them? Part of the DM's job is to take the narrative situation and apply the appropriate rules to it.
You surely don't force a player to make an Athletics check to climb up a tapestry when they've described going up the stairs.
Also, how in the hells do you narratively describe someone popping into existence when they make a sound you can't even hear.
Hide requires continued quiet to maintain the effect. If the player's roleplay doesn't match stealthy behavior, then it's reasonable for the DM to say it made noise and is no longer hidden.
The disconnect is thinking that Invisible means transparent. For magical illusion Invisibility (which mechanically is the exact same condition), that may be the case. But for stealth, it just means that people don't see you. Perception's example use in the PHB is: Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss. A successful stealth invisibility means that your presence is so easy to miss that no one notices you. There's no popping in and out of existence, you're just not drawing anyone's attention.
Hide requires continued quiet to maintain the effect. If the player's roleplay doesn't match stealthy behavior, then it's reasonable for the DM to say it made noise and is no longer hidden.
Please read my edit.
The disconnect is thinking that Invisible means transparent.
This appears to be what you've been arguing. No one who thinks someone should be automatically found under certain circumstances after a hide check thinks they are actually transparent.
For magical illusion Invisibility (which mechanically is the exact same condition), that may be the case. But for stealth, it just means that people don't see you. Perception's definition in the PHB is: Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss. A successful stealth invisibility means that your presence is so easy to miss that no one notices you. There's no popping in and out of existence, you're just not drawing anyone's attention.
The popping into existence is exactly what happens under your interpretation of the rules, though. Someone at some point took the hide action not near anyone and then quietly steps in plain view of someone else 100' away. They are still unseen. They then snap their fingers and suddenly the person who cannot even hear them snap their fingers notices them. You could shoehorn the narrative to state that they just happened to finally notice you when you snapped your fingers, but that is not the cause and effect written in the rules.
As long as you don't treat "an enemy finds you" as "an enemy finds you with the search action" then there is no problem. The search action is A way to find a hidden creature, not THE way. But the incredibly limited list read as strictly as you propose is simply absurd.
This isn't pedantry, it's reading comprehension. Claiming the text says something it doesn't is wrong. And the Finding language is explicitly defined in several places, the same way every time. First, in the Hide action itself: your check’s total... is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Explicit.
What is explicit is only that it is the DC for making the check. You are claiming that it is saying that is the only way for the character to be found, which is not only wrong by your own criteria but also clearly false because of things such as Truesight.
Truesight allows you to see creatures with the Invisible condition. They are technically still hidden, and even have Invisible, but they don't have the benefits of the Concealed effect against the Truesight creature.
You are out in the open without distractions. You are obvious. You are not a concealed creature or object. You are not using the Stealth skill to hide. You are attempting to use it to be Invisible.
Again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. . .
But you are not hidden.
A creature with the Invisible condition experiences the Concealed effect, so yes, a creature that successfully Hides experiences Concealed until no longer hidden. We disagree on how a creature can "find" a hidden creature. I favor the repeated text of the RAW.
This isn't pedantry, it's reading comprehension. Claiming the text says something it doesn't is wrong. And the Finding language is explicitly defined in several places, the same way every time. First, in the Hide action itself: your check’s total... is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Explicit.
What is explicit is only that it is the DC for making the check. You are claiming that it is saying that is the only way for the character to be found, which is not only wrong by your own criteria but also clearly false because of things such as Truesight.
Truesight allows you to see creatures with the Invisible condition. They are technically still hidden, and even have Invisible, but they don't have the benefits of the Concealed effect against the Truesight creature.
You are out in the open without distractions. You are obvious. You are not a concealed creature or object. You are not using the Stealth skill to hide. You are attempting to use it to be Invisible.
Again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. . .
But you are not hidden.
A creature with the Invisible condition experiences the Concealed effect, so yes, a creature that successfully Hides experiences Concealed until no longer hidden. We disagree on how a creature can "find" a hidden creature. I favor the repeated text of the RAW.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effectthat requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Nope. Sorry. Concealed doesn't do what you say it does. Concealed protects you from effects (e.g., if the AoE of Conjure Celestial runs over the space you are in you are unaffected by it because the spell specifies that it applies to creatures that the caster sees). Ending the Condition because they can't help but see you does not qualify as an 'effect'.
I literally just quoted four different places in the PHB and DMG. Scroll up. There is no other mechanical way offered, or even suggested, in the RAW.
The rules you quoted don't say what you claim though, it describe result when doing so.
Okay, I'll bite. Aside from all the rules that say to check Perception to find a hidden creature, which qualifies as a Search under the PHB's action table, how do you think the rules say you can find a hidden creature?
Nope. Sorry. Concealed doesn't do what you say it does. Concealed protects you from effects (e.g., if the AoE of Conjure Celestial runs over the space you are in you are unaffected by it because the spell specifies that it applies to creatures that the caster sees). Ending the Condition because they can't help but see you does not qualify as an 'effect'.
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Sure it does, none of the effects that require you to be seen have any effect. That includes opportunity attacks and all other reactions I can find, for example. Furthermore, you don't know the location of a creature that's hidden. So if you can't take a reaction against it and you can't locate it, that works precisely as I think it does. Or do you now think the spell Invisibility doesn't work either since it's the same Concealed effect?
Okay, I'll bite. Aside from all the rules that say to check Perception to find a hidden creature, which qualifies as a Search under the PHB's action table, how do you think the rules say you can find a hidden creature?
The rules for Hiding which say the DM determine circumtances appropriate for hiding.
Nope. Sorry. Concealed doesn't do what you say it does. Concealed protects you from effects (e.g., if the AoE of Conjure Celestial runs over the space you are in you are unaffected by it because the spell specifies that it applies to creatures that the caster sees). Ending the Condition because they can't help but see you does not qualify as an 'effect'.
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Sure it does, none of the effects that require you to be seen have any effect. That includes opportunity attacks and all other reactions I can find, for example. Furthermore, you don't know the location of a creature that's hidden. So if you can't take a reaction against it and you can't locate it, that works precisely as I think it does. Or do you now think the spell Invisibility doesn't work either since it's the same Concealed effect?
Again, the text doesn't say that. There is other text that says you can't make an Opportunity Attack against creatures you can't see, but that is exclusive to Opportunity Attacks. The text we are discussing, the Concealment section of the Invisibility Condition, makes none of these claims.
So again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say (though in fairness, one part of that claim is made in different text).
Okay, I'll bite. Aside from all the rules that say to check Perception to find a hidden creature, which qualifies as a Search under the PHB's action table, how do you think the rules say you can find a hidden creature?
The rules for Hiding which say the DM determine circumtances appropriate for hiding.
Yes, hiding with the Hide action, not maintaining being hidden. Once you've succeeded in the Hide action, you have Invisible until the circumstances are appropriate to stop being hidden, which are spelled out.
Again, the text doesn't say that. There is other text that says you can't make an Opportunity Attack against creatures you can't see, but that is exclusive to Opportunity Attacks. The text we are discussing, the Concealment section of the Invisibility Condition, makes none of these claims.
So again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say (though in fairness, one part of that claim is made in different text).
No, I'm not. Concealed creatures aren't affected by any effect that requires being seen, not just the enumerated actions in the entire PHB. Being noticed visually is an effect of being seen. Being hidden means your location is not known.
Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
Unseen Attackers and Targets: If you are hidden when making an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Skulker feat, Sniper: If you make an attack roll while hidden and the rollmisses, making the attack roll doesn’t reveal your location.
It's not just DM's discretion, but actually written in Hiding rules.
RAW doesn't mean that though, per Sage Advice it means this;
Allow me to rephrase then;
...seen because it's now in enemy's undistracted view so it is found and being found ends the Invisibility Condition.
You feel that the Invisible Condition always means full Invisibility. While that is a reasonable interpretation, it is only that, an interpretation. It is not supported by text. Likewise, the fact that it is not always full Invisibility is not supported by text. Thus, there is another reasonable interpretation and you are arguing against it.
From the perspective of those who do not feel that it is always full Invisibility, while there is text about the DC to find a creature with an Intelligence (Perception) roll, no roll is required since it is in the enemy's undistracted view and that rule is not exclusive (i.e., it does not claim that is the only way to find the character and there are other situations in the book that show it is not exclusive such as Truesight).
No tinkering. This is reasonable conclusion of their interpretation.
Thus, if you want to maintain that they are unable to argue RAW (because they have to make an interpretation) you also cannot argue that your position is RAW (because you are also making an interpretation on the same point, but your interpretation differs).
Then RAW is a meaningless term, of no use in discussion of how the game is played.
DM discretion is part of RAW. The game is unplayable by discretionless RAW.
There are certainly parts of the rules which can be applied mechanistically... mostly.
But there are also plenty of parts which are too fundamentally situational for that to work. This is one of them.
This isn't pedantry, it's reading comprehension. Claiming the text says something it doesn't, or doesn't say something it does, is wrong. The Finding language is explicitly defined in several places, the same way every time. First, in the Hide action itself: your check’s total... is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Explicit. And under Search [Action]: When you take the Search action, you make a Wisdom check to discern something that isn’t obvious...Skill: Perception, Thing to detect: Concealed creature or object. Explicit. And especially in the DMG under Perception: An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so. Again, explicit. It's the same as Finding Hidden Objects: When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching In the hidden object’s vicinity. On a success, you find the object, other important details, or both.
The Hide action happens once, and the effect on success is that you are hidden, having Invisible while hidden. The hidden effect doesn't end until the action says it does, and leaving cover is not among those ending triggers.
You, like several others in this thread, have fallen back to the narrative argument, that it's not obvious how to narratively justify the mechanics of stealthy invisibility. But frankly, that's not my problem. You're free to roleplay the scenario however you want. The most obvious way is that the rogue is able to duck right under the guard's gaze without him noticing, silent as a shadow, and the aging, dozing, poor eyesight guard just doesn't notice anything unusual. Your lack of imagination doesn't affect the mechanics of the language written here. Hiding makes you Invisible until something triggers the Hide action's effects to end. That's all there is to it.
The hiding in a closet example is demonstrative because the enemy knows what space you're in. Part of Finding Hidden Objects with Search is searching in the right vicinity when you don't know where precisely the concealed thing is. But I could see having disadvantage on the stealth roll, or advantage on the Search as also being reasonable. Or they could just attack the space in the closet with disadvantage, all of that makes sense to me.
No, seeing something that's Invisible requires an augmented vision ability that explicitly defeats the Invisible condition. There are three that I know of. Are there any others? "Distraction" is just narrative flavor for "my stealth beats his perception." Again, roleplay it however you need to, but that's how it's written.
The circumstances appropriate for hiding are determined in the moment that the Hide action is attempted, i.e. are you obscured enough and out of line of sight of every enemy. Upon success, you are hidden. You don't need to continue attempting the Hide action. The DM does also have discretion on whether an action taken after hiding would qualify as one of the triggers that ends Hide's effects, but it should reasonably fit within one of the stated categories within the RAW.
You don't need special senses to find an hidden enemy or else most creature would be unable to.
The problem I have with the "narrative problem" argument is that it's player discretion for how they want to describe what they do.
Player: I duck behind the crate and hide.
DM: Roll stealth.
Player: *Rolls 23*
DM: Ok, you are invisible with a DC 23 to find you.
Player: Alright, I now quietly step out from behind the crate (in full daylight) and smirk at the bandit standing 10' away and looking my way, flashing my dagger menacingly.
DM: Alright, well he finds you.
Player: How? I'm invisible.
DM: You aren't trying to hide anymore, you're just standing there in the open.
Player: But standing in the open isn't one of the three things that removes my invisible condition.
DM: ...
What do you do when the narrative doesn't line up with the mechanics? Do you force a different narrative on them? Part of the DM's job is to take the narrative situation and apply the appropriate rules to it.
You surely don't force a player to make an Athletics check to climb up a tapestry when they've described going up the stairs. So why would you force the player to make noise when they said they did it quietly? Or would you force another stealth check to see if they actually were able to step out quietly... and give them disadvantage, and also a high DC... that seems an awful lot like just saying they are found with extra steps.
Also, how in the hells do you narratively describe someone popping into existence when they make a sound you can't even hear.
What is explicit is only that it is the DC for making the check. You are claiming that it is saying that is the only way for the character to be found, which is not only wrong by your own criteria but also clearly false because of things such as Truesight.
You are out in the open without distractions. You are obvious. You are not a concealed creature or object. You are not using the Stealth skill to hide. You are attempting to use it to be Invisible.
Again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say.
But you are not hidden.
You have the Invisible Condition. Invisible is the name of the Condition. Just because you have a Condition of a specific name, that does not mean you literally are the name of the Condition (e.g., Poisoned).
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
True, but you are not Invisible. You have the Invisible Condition. As stated above, there are other occurrences where you can have a Condition without truly being affected by the exact name of the Condition, the there is no text that explicitly says you turn Invisible when using Stealth. You merely gain the Condition.
Again, you are claiming something the text does not say.
Standing out in the open with no distractions so that you are found does reasonably fit withing one of the stated categories, if you do not interpret Stealth as giving you full Invisibility.
The argument that Stealth is full Invisibility is only as strong as the argument that it is not. Both are interpretations. Thus, the idea that you can simply stand out in the open and not be seen is only RAW to the same extent that standing out in the open will end Stealth is RAW.
In other words, it is fairly pointless for either side to make the argument that it is RAW and the other side must be wrong, and we should probably abandon the use of RAW in this context.
DM: You are not. You have the Invisible Condition. That is not the same thing.
Right, I didn't say that you do. You need a Search action that beats their stealth roll to find a hidden creature. But a creature with augmented sight doesn't need to search to find what it can already see, it wouldn't have disadvantage on attack rolls for example. The hidden creature would still be Invisible to non-special-sighted creatures.
Hide requires continued quiet to maintain the effect. If the player's roleplay doesn't match stealthy behavior, then it's reasonable for the DM to say it made noise and is no longer hidden.
The disconnect is thinking that Invisible means transparent. For magical illusion Invisibility (which mechanically is the exact same condition), that may be the case. But for stealth, it just means that people don't see you. Perception's example use in the PHB is: Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss. A successful stealth invisibility means that your presence is so easy to miss that no one notices you. There's no popping in and out of existence, you're just not drawing anyone's attention.
Where is that specifically written ?
As long as you don't treat "an enemy finds you" as "an enemy finds you with the search action" then there is no problem. The search action is A way to find a hidden creature, not THE way. But the incredibly limited list read as strictly as you propose is simply absurd.
I literally just quoted four different places in the PHB and DMG. Scroll up. There is no other mechanical way offered, or even suggested, in the RAW.
Truesight allows you to see creatures with the Invisible condition. They are technically still hidden, and even have Invisible, but they don't have the benefits of the Concealed effect against the Truesight creature.
A creature with the Invisible condition experiences the Concealed effect, so yes, a creature that successfully Hides experiences Concealed until no longer hidden. We disagree on how a creature can "find" a hidden creature. I favor the repeated text of the RAW.
The rules you quoted don't say what you claim though, it describe result when doing so.
Nope. Sorry. Concealed doesn't do what you say it does. Concealed protects you from effects (e.g., if the AoE of Conjure Celestial runs over the space you are in you are unaffected by it because the spell specifies that it applies to creatures that the caster sees). Ending the Condition because they can't help but see you does not qualify as an 'effect'.
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Okay, I'll bite. Aside from all the rules that say to check Perception to find a hidden creature, which qualifies as a Search under the PHB's action table, how do you think the rules say you can find a hidden creature?
Sure it does, none of the effects that require you to be seen have any effect. That includes opportunity attacks and all other reactions I can find, for example. Furthermore, you don't know the location of a creature that's hidden. So if you can't take a reaction against it and you can't locate it, that works precisely as I think it does. Or do you now think the spell Invisibility doesn't work either since it's the same Concealed effect?
The rules for Hiding which say the DM determine circumtances appropriate for hiding.
Again, the text doesn't say that. There is other text that says you can't make an Opportunity Attack against creatures you can't see, but that is exclusive to Opportunity Attacks. The text we are discussing, the Concealment section of the Invisibility Condition, makes none of these claims.
So again, you are claiming something the text doesn't say (though in fairness, one part of that claim is made in different text).
Yes, hiding with the Hide action, not maintaining being hidden. Once you've succeeded in the Hide action, you have Invisible until the circumstances are appropriate to stop being hidden, which are spelled out.
No, I'm not. Concealed creatures aren't affected by any effect that requires being seen, not just the enumerated actions in the entire PHB. Being noticed visually is an effect of being seen. Being hidden means your location is not known.
Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
Unseen Attackers and Targets: If you are hidden when making an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Skulker feat, Sniper: If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn’t reveal your location.