Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you.
If you have only mundane methods of concealment, somebody having direct, uninterrupted, line of sight on you ought to count.
Not if your stealth roll is higher than 15 and their perception roll, and you don't cause the effects of Hide to end. Hide/Invisible/Concealed allows you to pass below notice, very mundanely.
Context matters. After all, it's a rule of the game that
When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure.
When the outcome is not uncertain, you don't roll. Somebody standing in full view with no extenuating circumstances will require no perception roll, because the outcome is certain. The fact that you hid before does not matter, because you are not hiding now.
Elements monks can grapple without physical contact. A number of spells can.
Yes I know, I was asking about the unarmed strike in particular. There's nothing in the Grappled condition that says anything about being restrained, or in contact with a grappler, and so on. Only that your speed is 0, your attacks are affected, and the grappler can drag you when it moves, but drag isn't defined elsewhere in the RAW so who knows what that means. There's nothing about any actual contact, so the absence of that from the text means that you aren't in contact.
That's how your arguments sound.
You're the one who wrote:
Or are you also going to argue that having the Grappled condition doesn't necessarily mean you're in physical contact with the grappler? There's nothing that says so in the condition's text. And the grappler only needs a free hand to grapple with the unarmed strike, it doesn't say anything about making or staying in contact.
Which certainly reads to me that you're arguing that the name implies physical contact.
However, should it matter, it is not necessarily the case, and one must examine the actual context.
(Also, please don't split up replies like that. It makes extra noise in the thread. It's better if you can consolidate replies to different people into one post but that is, I admit, fussy.)
So many threads end up in cyclic, bad-faith semantics arguments. It's not RAW; it's RAM (Rules As Malice). It usually comes from dropping all pretense of context from the written language.
When the outcome is not uncertain, you don't roll. Somebody standing in full view with no extenuating circumstances will require no perception roll, because the outcome is certain. The fact that you hid before does not matter, because you are not hiding now.
I'd like you to guess how many times the DMG uses the phrase "never trivially easy." Take a second to think about it. Was your answer once? Because it's once: Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. It's so extraordinary that's it's the only kind of check in the entire DMG and PHB that is explicitly never trivial. To me, that means ever.
You're the one who wrote:
Or are you also going to argue that having the Grappled condition doesn't necessarily mean you're in physical contact with the grappler? There's nothing that says so in the condition's text. And the grappler only needs a free hand to grapple with the unarmed strike, it doesn't say anything about making or staying in contact.
Which certainly reads to me that you're arguing that the name implies physical contact.
However, should it matter, it is not necessarily the case, and one must examine the actual context.
Yes, my point is that the text of the condition effects don't explain the narrative circumstances of those conditions, and strictly reading those mechanics as if they describe the narrative is an error. A creature with the Grappled condition is obviously restrained, either by a physical or magical force. A hidden creature experiences the exact same Invisible effect as a creature under the effects of the spell Invisibility. If you believe that the Hide-Invisible condition behaves differently from the Spell-Invisibility condition, then you need a mechanical explanation for why. Saying that the Rogue loses hidden because he's in LoS falls flat for at least three reasons.
That isn't in the list of what causes the Hide action's effects to end. There would be no way for a hidden creature to qualify as an Unseen Attacker, because as soon as they closed distance to melee, or leaned out of cover to ranged attack (no longer "trying to conceal" itself per the Hide action), they would no longer be hidden and no longer have the advantage of the condition. That is not how the mechanics are written.
Hiding is the proscribed mechanic for sneaking in motion: Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. If moving out of cover causes the Hide effects to be lost, then this guardian would see the hiding creature the same as any other creature, and there is no other written way to move past a guard in stealth.
The See Invisibility spell makes this 100% clear: For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible.Ergo, creatures with the Invisible condition are not visible.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, who actually reasonably thinks that Invisible means you can be seen?
(Formatting posts on mobile is heinous to begin with, see above, and especially when editing. Mea culpa.)
I'd like you to guess how many times the DMG uses the phrase "never trivially easy." Take a second to think about it. Was your answer once? Because it's once: Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. It's so extraordinary that's it's the only kind of check in the entire DMG and PHB that is explicitly never trivial. To me, that means ever.
What that means is that if it is trivially easy to spot someone, they aren't hiding, and since the invisible condition granted by hide ends if you are no longer hiding, they aren't invisible either.
I'd like you to guess how many times the DMG uses the phrase "never trivially easy." Take a second to think about it. Was your answer once? Because it's once: Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. It's so extraordinary that's it's the only kind of check in the entire DMG and PHB that is explicitly never trivial. To me, that means ever.
What that means is that if it is trivially easy to spot someone, they aren't hiding, and since the invisible condition granted by hide ends if you are no longer hiding, they aren't invisible either.
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
There is no evidence for the design utility of the hide action including anything that is not covered by the description of the stealth skill.
No, It doesn't mean that. No effect that requires you to be seen has any effect means no effect that requires you to be seen has any effect. The statement purely refers to effects and perceiving someone is not an effect. Thus, it has zero meaning as far as Perception goes.
You are claiming something the text doesn't say.
Now, I will say that your claim is not unreasonable, but again, we aren't talking about whether claims like this are reasonable or unreasonable. We are simply talking about what the text says.
Gosh, you really got me, I guess drawing the conclusion that the negation of any effect that requires being seen means you can't be seen is a real logical leap. But it doesn't say that, so it can't be true. I guess we can't treat the Invisibility spell like that either. Oh well, gg.
Wow. I would feel really stung right now, if you weren't the one who said that logical leaps weren't allowed.
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.
You do not get to define one set of rules for yourself and a different set for everyone else.
Taking the text to rational conclusions is sometimes necessary,
Now you are clearly just contradicting yourself.
but the text alone is usually sufficient to address most applications. I never said that nothing aside from the RAW in its pure form can be applied to making decisions on how the game is played. Just that you shouldn't unnecessarily depart from it.
Yes. Yes you did. I've quoted it. You can pretend you didn't say it. You can say you didn't mean it, but you did say it.
All the contrary interpretations that I've seen about how hidden ends are weak and inconsistent, and not supported by the text of the Hide action, Hiding rule, or any rule-adjacent language.
Treating natural language as meaning what it says should be the default position. Hidden creatures are classified as Unseen Attackers, which I wasn't even aware was still in the rules til yesterday. Well, "unseen" is synonymous with "not visible." Is that interpretation a homebrew departure from the RAW? I don't believe so. But is it a departure from the RAW to say there are other ways to find a hidden creature than what the RAW says multiple times? Yes, I think that's incorrect. It's better to find out how to play within the explicit rules instead of coming up with extra alternative ones that would significantly alter the mechanics that govern the world, and combat in particular.
We did that. You didn't like it. You demanded we stop and only treat the text as the text and not add or take anything away.
Could a DM require a new stealth check to leave cover and quietly move to melee range to maintain hidden? Sure.
I honestly don't know why you are so adamant about this whole "completely invisible" thing when you, yourself, have admitted that leaving cover could require a new stealth check... and that's IF they still want to move quietly into melee range. What if they've specifically narrated that they don't? That they stay quiet, but walk out in plain sight (maybe they want to visually signal their party-mates who are behind the bandits, or tied up, or something... I don't know. Do you tell them that they need to go back and change their narrative to fit the roll that they made some time ago, or do you apply mechanics to fit the new narrative?
There doesn't seem to be an actual difference in forcing a new stealth roll that is bound to fail (the player making no effort to stay out of LoS) and simply saying that the player is no longer hidden and is immediately found. And if the stealth roll is only dealing with being silent, then why would they suddenly appear to someone who was looking directly at them when the player made a noise "louder than a whisper" at a distance where that noise wouldn't even reach the bandit??
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
There is no evidence for the design utility of the hide action including anything that is not covered by the description of the stealth skill.
If your interpretation was the intended design utility, then the Example Use for stealth wouldn't be Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things, it would be Escape notice by hiding behind things and not moving.
The ideal is to stick to what is written as close as you can, and make as few complementary assumptions as possible. Using synonyms and multiple cross references to understand the meaning of mechanics is suboptimal, but that has been our lot for decades, and will likely be for decades more. So for example, concluding that Invisible means that you can't be seen based on the condition's text alone is not perfect, but rational. Thankfully, that was confirmed in the See Invisibility spell's text, so that assumption isn't necessary anymore. Both interpretations of whether losing cover ends hidden are at least based on the RAW, but one requires more big assumptions than the other. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with errata affirming either one to be the intended way to play. That's just the way it goes sometimes.
Anyway, good news! I checked the Sage Advice Compendium and it turns out that there is another way to find a hidden creature than a Search:
Q: I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
A: No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition.
I honestly don't know why you are so adamant about this whole "completely invisible" thing when you, yourself, have admitted that leaving cover could require a new stealth check... and that's IF they still want to move quietly into melee range. What if they've specifically narrated that they don't? That they stay quiet, but walk out in plain sight (maybe they want to visually signal their party-mates who are behind the bandits, or tied up, or something... I don't know. Do you tell them that they need to go back and change their narrative to fit the roll that they made some time ago, or do you apply mechanics to fit the new narrative?
Choices have consequences. If you chose to hide, you get the effects until it ends. If you let a wizard cast Invisibility on you, but you want to end the condition, you have to make an attack or cast a spell, or wait it out. But play how you want, if your DM lets you do turn rewinds then go for it. As far as "completely invisible" goes, which I think you've misunderstood, it only matters so far as being mechanically consistent. Dispensing with mechanics for no reason other than getting tripped up on narrative justifications isn't very good gameplay.
There doesn't seem to be an actual difference in forcing a new stealth roll that is bound to fail (the player making no effort to stay out of LoS) and simply saying that the player is no longer hidden and is immediately found. And if the stealth roll is only dealing with being silent, then why would they suddenly appear to someone who was looking directly at them when the player made a noise "louder than a whisper" at a distance where that noise wouldn't even reach the bandit??
Invisible doesn't mean transparent in this context, it just means not seen. Stealth vs perception is a test of whether you cognitively notice something with your senses. Making a noise means they can't go unnoticed anymore.
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
What are you talking about? 90% of the Hide action's utility is reality-breaking "You can't see me while I stand right in front of you"? Was hiding completely ineffectual in 2014 rules? Because in 2014 rules by default in combat enemies see you as soon as you leave cover, and outside of combat the DM determines when and if you can remain hidden.
But I have a question for you: if you are reduced to 0 hp while hiding, does you party / allies know it? Can they "see" you in order to heal / stabilize you? Because being reduced to 0 hp is not stated as a way to end being hidden / the Invisible condition. What if you die? Is your corpse still Invisible & Hidden?
Likewise, what about my examples from before, if a rogue hides behind a tree, gets a 29 Stealth and then walks into the middle of the road with no cover what so ever and just stands there for 3 hours, can someone walking down the road see them? Or does that count as an "ambush"?
Or what if my rogue is standing outside of a castle hides behind a our cart, gets a 27 Stealth, and then climbs up the wall of the castle, walks along the parapet right in front of multiple sentries, even accidentally bumps into one of them, then walks over to the kitchen and rips a leg off of a roast a turkey right in front of the chef, walks off with it past a bunch of guard dogs and waves the turkey leg in front of their noses, and then walks into the prison through the main door while a different guard is exiting through that same door, grabs the keys off of a table right in front of the executioner, then unlocks the manacles of a prisoner currently being tortured & interrogated. At what point are they detected / seen (if ever? or are they still Invisible)?
What is the point of the Invisibility spell existing if a rogue can do all that because of the Invisible condition from a single Stealth check?
If your interpretation was the intended design utility, then the Example Use for stealth wouldn't be Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things, it would be Escape notice by hiding behind things and not moving.
You're perfectly free to move... as long as you stay behind things. It's not like all hiding places are only 5' across.
Choices have consequences. If you chose to hide, you get the effects until it ends. If you let a wizard cast Invisibility on you, but you want to end the condition, you have to make an attack or cast a spell, or wait it out. But play how you want, if your DM lets you do turn rewinds then go for it. As far as "completely invisible" goes, which I think you've misunderstood, it only matters so far as being mechanically consistent. Dispensing with mechanics for no reason other than getting tripped up on narrative justifications isn't very good gameplay.
Invisible doesn't mean transparent in this context, it just means not seen. Stealth vs perception is a test of whether you cognitively notice something with your senses. Making a noise means they can't go unnoticed anymore.
Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't think you answered my question completely. Would you tell the player to re-narrate conforming to this roll they made an indefinite time ago? Or would you do something else? Dispensing mechanics based on narrative justifications is quite literally the DM's job. DM describes the scene, players narrate what they will do, DM dispenses appropriate rules based on the narration.
A rogue takes the hide action at the end of a well lit hallway behind the only crate in said hall. Two guards are posted at the other end. It will take a minimum of 3 turns to get to the guards. The rogue player says they "step out into the hallway and quietly walk towards the guards". As DM do you allow them to simply walk up to the guards? I wouldn't think so, considering you said both that certain situations would require a separate stealth roll and others (like the closet) wouldn't even allow hiding in the first place (even though all of the conditions necessary to hide were present). So, do you...:
Make them roll a stealth check? With a high DC? With disadvantage? With some negative modifier?
And you didn't address my second point. How do you narratively justify someone standing in the open at the end of a well lit path with alert guards on the other end 100' away being "invisible" to them until they snap their fingers? A sound which is only louder than a whisper to the person doing it. The guards at the other end of the path hear nothing from that distance, and yet, somehow, they now magically see the person that was standing there the whole time. This isn't lack of narrative imagination. This is narrative absurdity. How does making a noise (that someone else can't hear) mean that you can't go unnoticed (by that person who couldn't hear you) anymore? The cause (making the noise) and effect (losing the invisible condition) don't make narrative sense and you are forced to shoehorn in some other explanation. Or how is it that you can hide behind a crate, but lose that hide if you knock on it with no one around, and yet not lose hide if you step out into a crowd of 10 people all staring at the box?
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
They did, in fact, issue errata to clarify that your interpretation was incorrect:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden
Did it completely clean up the terminology mess and resulting confusion? No, but it makes it clear that continuing to hide is contingent upon circumstances.
What are those circumstances? Undefined. So, like taking the action in the first place, it's DM's call. And, while there are many circumstances where different DMs will disagree, "out in the open, clearly lit, and nothing else going on" ought to be a baseline of "not hidden".
As best I can tell (and I could be mistaken, you have made a lot of posts, and it's definitely not worth the effort of going back to look), your counterargument to this reduces down to:
. . .;The ideal is to stick to what is written as close as you can, and make as few complementary assumptions as possible. . .
Again. We did that. We made what we felt was as few complementary assumptions as possible. You didn't like the assumptions we made.
That is completely fair. You don't have to like our assumptions. However, what you do not have the right to do is say our assumptions are wrong and your assumptions are right.
You then tried to insist that no one make assumptions, forgetting that you, yourself, are making assumptions.
If you want to say that it is your interpretation that you can simply walk past the hypothetical guards, that is perfectly fine. I see nothing that definitively contradicts that. However, you do not have the right to insist that it is RAW because you are applying one standard to everyone else that you are not applying to yourself.
. . .Choices have consequences. If you chose to hide, you get the effects until it ends. If you let a wizard cast Invisibility on you, but you want to end the condition, you have to make an attack or cast a spell, or wait it out. . .
But the choice to stand out in the open doesn't have a consequence?
Again, one standard for you and another standard for everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Context matters. After all, it's a rule of the game that
When the outcome is not uncertain, you don't roll. Somebody standing in full view with no extenuating circumstances will require no perception roll, because the outcome is certain. The fact that you hid before does not matter, because you are not hiding now.
You're the one who wrote:
Which certainly reads to me that you're arguing that the name implies physical contact.
However, should it matter, it is not necessarily the case, and one must examine the actual context.
(Also, please don't split up replies like that. It makes extra noise in the thread. It's better if you can consolidate replies to different people into one post but that is, I admit, fussy.)
So many threads end up in cyclic, bad-faith semantics arguments. It's not RAW; it's RAM (Rules As Malice). It usually comes from dropping all pretense of context from the written language.
I'd like you to guess how many times the DMG uses the phrase "never trivially easy." Take a second to think about it. Was your answer once? Because it's once: Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy. It's so extraordinary that's it's the only kind of check in the entire DMG and PHB that is explicitly never trivial. To me, that means ever.
Yes, my point is that the text of the condition effects don't explain the narrative circumstances of those conditions, and strictly reading those mechanics as if they describe the narrative is an error. A creature with the Grappled condition is obviously restrained, either by a physical or magical force. A hidden creature experiences the exact same Invisible effect as a creature under the effects of the spell Invisibility. If you believe that the Hide-Invisible condition behaves differently from the Spell-Invisibility condition, then you need a mechanical explanation for why. Saying that the Rogue loses hidden because he's in LoS falls flat for at least three reasons.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, who actually reasonably thinks that Invisible means you can be seen?
(Formatting posts on mobile is heinous to begin with, see above, and especially when editing. Mea culpa.)
What that means is that if it is trivially easy to spot someone, they aren't hiding, and since the invisible condition granted by hide ends if you are no longer hiding, they aren't invisible either.
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
There is no evidence for the design utility of the hide action including anything that is not covered by the description of the stealth skill.
Wow. I would feel really stung right now, if you weren't the one who said that logical leaps weren't allowed.
You do not get to define one set of rules for yourself and a different set for everyone else.
Now you are clearly just contradicting yourself.
Yes. Yes you did. I've quoted it. You can pretend you didn't say it. You can say you didn't mean it, but you did say it.
We did that. You didn't like it. You demanded we stop and only treat the text as the text and not add or take anything away.
Now you don't like that.
I honestly don't know why you are so adamant about this whole "completely invisible" thing when you, yourself, have admitted that leaving cover could require a new stealth check... and that's IF they still want to move quietly into melee range. What if they've specifically narrated that they don't? That they stay quiet, but walk out in plain sight (maybe they want to visually signal their party-mates who are behind the bandits, or tied up, or something... I don't know. Do you tell them that they need to go back and change their narrative to fit the roll that they made some time ago, or do you apply mechanics to fit the new narrative?
There doesn't seem to be an actual difference in forcing a new stealth roll that is bound to fail (the player making no effort to stay out of LoS) and simply saying that the player is no longer hidden and is immediately found. And if the stealth roll is only dealing with being silent, then why would they suddenly appear to someone who was looking directly at them when the player made a noise "louder than a whisper" at a distance where that noise wouldn't even reach the bandit??
If your interpretation was the intended design utility, then the Example Use for stealth wouldn't be Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things, it would be Escape notice by hiding behind things and not moving.
The ideal is to stick to what is written as close as you can, and make as few complementary assumptions as possible. Using synonyms and multiple cross references to understand the meaning of mechanics is suboptimal, but that has been our lot for decades, and will likely be for decades more. So for example, concluding that Invisible means that you can't be seen based on the condition's text alone is not perfect, but rational. Thankfully, that was confirmed in the See Invisibility spell's text, so that assumption isn't necessary anymore. Both interpretations of whether losing cover ends hidden are at least based on the RAW, but one requires more big assumptions than the other. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with errata affirming either one to be the intended way to play. That's just the way it goes sometimes.
Anyway, good news! I checked the Sage Advice Compendium and it turns out that there is another way to find a hidden creature than a Search:
Choices have consequences. If you chose to hide, you get the effects until it ends. If you let a wizard cast Invisibility on you, but you want to end the condition, you have to make an attack or cast a spell, or wait it out. But play how you want, if your DM lets you do turn rewinds then go for it. As far as "completely invisible" goes, which I think you've misunderstood, it only matters so far as being mechanically consistent. Dispensing with mechanics for no reason other than getting tripped up on narrative justifications isn't very good gameplay.
Invisible doesn't mean transparent in this context, it just means not seen. Stealth vs perception is a test of whether you cognitively notice something with your senses. Making a noise means they can't go unnoticed anymore.
What are you talking about? 90% of the Hide action's utility is reality-breaking "You can't see me while I stand right in front of you"? Was hiding completely ineffectual in 2014 rules? Because in 2014 rules by default in combat enemies see you as soon as you leave cover, and outside of combat the DM determines when and if you can remain hidden.
But I have a question for you: if you are reduced to 0 hp while hiding, does you party / allies know it? Can they "see" you in order to heal / stabilize you? Because being reduced to 0 hp is not stated as a way to end being hidden / the Invisible condition. What if you die? Is your corpse still Invisible & Hidden?
Likewise, what about my examples from before, if a rogue hides behind a tree, gets a 29 Stealth and then walks into the middle of the road with no cover what so ever and just stands there for 3 hours, can someone walking down the road see them? Or does that count as an "ambush"?
Or what if my rogue is standing outside of a castle hides behind a our cart, gets a 27 Stealth, and then climbs up the wall of the castle, walks along the parapet right in front of multiple sentries, even accidentally bumps into one of them, then walks over to the kitchen and rips a leg off of a roast a turkey right in front of the chef, walks off with it past a bunch of guard dogs and waves the turkey leg in front of their noses, and then walks into the prison through the main door while a different guard is exiting through that same door, grabs the keys off of a table right in front of the executioner, then unlocks the manacles of a prisoner currently being tortured & interrogated. At what point are they detected / seen (if ever? or are they still Invisible)?
What is the point of the Invisibility spell existing if a rogue can do all that because of the Invisible condition from a single Stealth check?
You're perfectly free to move... as long as you stay behind things. It's not like all hiding places are only 5' across.
Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't think you answered my question completely. Would you tell the player to re-narrate conforming to this roll they made an indefinite time ago? Or would you do something else? Dispensing mechanics based on narrative justifications is quite literally the DM's job. DM describes the scene, players narrate what they will do, DM dispenses appropriate rules based on the narration.
A rogue takes the hide action at the end of a well lit hallway behind the only crate in said hall. Two guards are posted at the other end. It will take a minimum of 3 turns to get to the guards. The rogue player says they "step out into the hallway and quietly walk towards the guards". As DM do you allow them to simply walk up to the guards? I wouldn't think so, considering you said both that certain situations would require a separate stealth roll and others (like the closet) wouldn't even allow hiding in the first place (even though all of the conditions necessary to hide were present).
So, do you...:
Make them roll a stealth check?
With a high DC?
With disadvantage?
With some negative modifier?
And you didn't address my second point. How do you narratively justify someone standing in the open at the end of a well lit path with alert guards on the other end 100' away being "invisible" to them until they snap their fingers? A sound which is only louder than a whisper to the person doing it. The guards at the other end of the path hear nothing from that distance, and yet, somehow, they now magically see the person that was standing there the whole time. This isn't lack of narrative imagination. This is narrative absurdity. How does making a noise (that someone else can't hear) mean that you can't go unnoticed (by that person who couldn't hear you) anymore? The cause (making the noise) and effect (losing the invisible condition) don't make narrative sense and you are forced to shoehorn in some other explanation. Or how is it that you can hide behind a crate, but lose that hide if you knock on it with no one around, and yet not lose hide if you step out into a crowd of 10 people all staring at the box?
It is a poorly written rule.
They did, in fact, issue errata to clarify that your interpretation was incorrect:
Did it completely clean up the terminology mess and resulting confusion? No, but it makes it clear that continuing to hide is contingent upon circumstances.
What are those circumstances? Undefined. So, like taking the action in the first place, it's DM's call. And, while there are many circumstances where different DMs will disagree, "out in the open, clearly lit, and nothing else going on" ought to be a baseline of "not hidden".
As best I can tell (and I could be mistaken, you have made a lot of posts, and it's definitely not worth the effort of going back to look), your counterargument to this reduces down to:
Again. We did that. We made what we felt was as few complementary assumptions as possible. You didn't like the assumptions we made.
That is completely fair. You don't have to like our assumptions. However, what you do not have the right to do is say our assumptions are wrong and your assumptions are right.
You then tried to insist that no one make assumptions, forgetting that you, yourself, are making assumptions.
If you want to say that it is your interpretation that you can simply walk past the hypothetical guards, that is perfectly fine. I see nothing that definitively contradicts that. However, you do not have the right to insist that it is RAW because you are applying one standard to everyone else that you are not applying to yourself.
But the choice to stand out in the open doesn't have a consequence?
Again, one standard for you and another standard for everyone else.