And why would you automatically assume that the observer sees the target?
Because nothing is preventing them from doing so, and the default is that you can see something unless something is preventing you from doing so. You need to make a perception check to spot something that isn't obvious... but the invisibility condition does not make the character not obvious.
And yet the Hide Action is the one that specifies requiring a Perception check to beat the Invisible condition, meaning using the senses to find something. The lack of a Perception check IS what's preventing you from doing so with the Invisibility spell; the fact you can't accept this because it's not spelled out is honestly baffling.
Again, I repeat this because you continue to ignore it: The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one. And you can't say it automatically succeeds, because there's no text in either book that supports that interpretation. If there is, prove it.
Again, I repeat this because you continue to ignore it: The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one. And you can't say it automatically succeeds, because there's no text in either book that supports that interpretation. If there is, prove it.
The concealed benefit is written as a term of art, rather than a common language term, which means it does what it says it does and nothing else, and nowhere does it say that it creates any difficulty to seeing the character.
Again, I repeat this because you continue to ignore it: The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one. And you can't say it automatically succeeds, because there's no text in either book that supports that interpretation. If there is, prove it.
The concealed benefit is written as a term of art, rather than a common language term, which means it does what it says it does and nothing else, and nowhere does it say that it creates any difficulty to seeing the character.
Correct. It follows in the monster manual design where you have an ability followed by a period, and then the description of the ability. The description specifically indicates that it is possible to see someone, in which case, they do not benefit from that section of the condition.
It seems to me that they were supposed to move the heavily obscured text to the invisibility spell, and simply forgot to do so.
Honestly, the way the Invisibility condition is written is mostly sloppy, it's fairly clear what they intended to do. The problem with hiding is that I can't even figure out what they were trying to do, all the natural interpretations are stupid.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed. It also makes sense with the updated text for See invisibility, Blindsight and Truesight, because they can negate the Invisible condition, but not break it.
The intent of the spell is not to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses. That is why I pointed out Crawford's comments about invisibility in 2014, where it is specifically stated that someone knows where you are unless you actually take the hide action. Which is important once you get greater invisibility (Because effectively any creature with greater invisibility can never be hit if you are going with sight alone. Quick explanation, you attack, then move to a new random location, thus the enemy doesn't know where you move to. Especially useful if you can move more than 30 ft.)
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed.
No, I mean the observer automatically succeeds -- as no perception DC to see the target is given, the observer just automatically sees the target, no roll required.
And why would you automatically assume that the observer sees the target? The observer is the one that has to make a Perception check to find something. If you don't have a score to beat, how can you beat it? Nowhere in the book says what you're implying. There are two ways to find something per the book: Passive Perception or a Perception check, which you do by taking the Search action below:
Search [Action]
When you take the Search action, you make a Wisdom check to discern something that isn't obvious. The Search table suggests which skills are applicable when you take this action, depending on what you're trying to detect.
Skill
Thing to Detect
Insight
Creature's state of mind
Medicine
Creature's ailment or cause of death
Perception
Concealed creature or object
Survival
Tracks or food
The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one
I highlighted the portion of text that is important as to why you don't need to take the search action. Anyone standing in front of you is obvious, thus the check isn't needed as you automatically succeed.
Honestly, the way the Invisibility condition is written is mostly sloppy, it's fairly clear what they intended to do. The problem with hiding is that I can't even figure out what they were trying to do, all the natural interpretations are stupid.
So the important part is the invisible condition doesn't make you invisible. Thus, you can't be seen when hiding because you are heavily obscured/concealed. Effectively leaving your hiding spot lets you be found. The perception check is for sounds, tracks, and any number of other things to detect where you are. Not necessarily to actively see you there, though it could be you didn't get a foot all the way behind the rock. But it is definitely written in the most confusing way. I think a lot of it could be helped by simply changing the name of the condition to something else.
The Invisibility spell is nearly the same as 2014, but it removed the line about objects worn because that was moved to the Invisible condition, and it added "deals damage" as one of the ways to end the spell.
This also doesn't answer the question, merely deflects it. There is a written mechanic on how to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find a creature under concealment by the Hide action, a mechanic that is completely absent on the Invisibility spell. If we go by the reading that the Invisible condition doesn't make you transparent, then that mechanic is specifically there in the Hide action to find someone that can be found by sight or hearing.
I highlighted the portion of text that is important as to why you don't need to take the search action. Anyone standing in front of you is obvious, thus the check isn't needed as you automatically succeed.
Sight is a sense, so you have to use Perception to find someone because your senses are tied to your Perception skill.
Per RAW, there is no mechanical way to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find someone under the Invisibility spell. People are assuming that you can see someone using the spell because the Invisible condition doesn't spell out that you can only be seen by magic or special senses, and because the "somehow can see you" line is ambiguous; but this is an assumption grounded in a very rigid interpretation of the text. At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
The mechanical trigger is "You have unobstructed line of sight on them". That's the default trigger for seeing something, and you use the default unless something introduces a new requirement.
At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
The mechanical trigger is "You have unobstructed line of sight on them". That's the default trigger for seeing something, and you use the default unless something introduces a new requirement.
Anyways, we're going to continue to disagree because we have marked differences in how we're interpreting the text, and neither of us is willing to budge, so I will agree to disagree and end this here.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
The Invisibility spell is nearly the same as 2014, but it removed the line about objects worn because that was moved to the Invisible condition, and it added "deals damage" as one of the ways to end the spell.
This also doesn't answer the question, merely deflects it. There is a written mechanic on how to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find a creature under concealment by the Hide action, a mechanic that is completely absent on the Invisibility spell. If we go by the reading that the Invisible condition doesn't make you transparent, then that mechanic is specifically there in the Hide action to find someone that can be found by sight or hearing.
I highlighted the portion of text that is important as to why you don't need to take the search action. Anyone standing in front of you is obvious, thus the check isn't needed as you automatically succeed.
Sight is a sense, so you have to use Perception to find someone because your senses are tied to your Perception skill.
Per RAW, there is no mechanical way to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find someone under the Invisibility spell. People are assuming that you can see someone using the spell because the Invisible condition doesn't spell out that you can only be seen by magic or special senses, and because the "somehow can see you" line is ambiguous; but this is an assumption grounded in a very rigid interpretation of the text. At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
According to Jeremy Crawford, when it comes to invisibility in the 2014 rules, you do not need to make a perception check to know where the character is. You automatically know where they are, because while you can't see them, perception goes beyond sight. Whether or not that should apply to the 2024 text is a different matter.
You also keep saying you have to take a search action, but the rules don't state that. Trentmonk added it in on his YouTube video that a lot of people are copying, but the text itself does not state you must take a search action.
The Invisibility spell is nearly the same as 2014, but it removed the line about objects worn because that was moved to the Invisible condition, and it added "deals damage" as one of the ways to end the spell.
This also doesn't answer the question, merely deflects it. There is a written mechanic on how to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find a creature under concealment by the Hide action, a mechanic that is completely absent on the Invisibility spell. If we go by the reading that the Invisible condition doesn't make you transparent, then that mechanic is specifically there in the Hide action to find someone that can be found by sight or hearing.
I highlighted the portion of text that is important as to why you don't need to take the search action. Anyone standing in front of you is obvious, thus the check isn't needed as you automatically succeed.
Sight is a sense, so you have to use Perception to find someone because your senses are tied to your Perception skill.
Per RAW, there is no mechanical way to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find someone under the Invisibility spell. People are assuming that you can see someone using the spell because the Invisible condition doesn't spell out that you can only be seen by magic or special senses, and because the "somehow can see you" line is ambiguous; but this is an assumption grounded in a very rigid interpretation of the text. At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
According to Jeremy Crawford, when it comes to invisibility in the 2014 rules, you do not need to make a perception check to know where the character is. You automatically know where they are, because while you can't see them, perception goes beyond sight. Whether or not that should apply to the 2024 text is a different matter.
You also keep saying you have to take a search action, but the rules don't state that. Trentmonk added it in on his YouTube video that a lot of people are copying, but the text itself does not state you must take a search action.
Knowing where they are and seeing them are two different things, which you are conflating. To your point, the Unseen attackers rule is still a thing in 2024, though I believe it has been reworded a bit.
As for the Search action: I've made that very same point myself early here and in another thread, so I am aware that it came from Treantmonk.
The fact is that we have fundamentally different interpretations of the text that are incompatible with each other, so we will continue to argue the points ad nauseam and not get anywhere
The fact is that we have fundamentally different interpretations of the text that are incompatible with each other, so we will continue to argue the points ad nauseam and not get anywhere
That's a pretty firm indicator of poorly written rules.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
I'll address this before calling it a day.
We have the invisible condition which says
"While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
1st Effect: Surprise. If you're Invisible [assuming this means the Invisible condition since it is capitalized, and there is no term invisible elsewhere in the game] when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll. [All this is saying is that if you have the Invisible condition at the start of combat, you roll advantage.]
2nd Effect: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that 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. [The important part here is that it doesn't limit seeing you to being only by magical means. Also concealed is not capitalized and is therefore not a game term. So we can assume that the equipment you are wearing or carrying can also not be effected.]
3rd Effect. Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit for that creature. [Basically once again, it just specifies that it is possible for a creature to see you]
The important parts of the Hide Action is that the condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occur; You make a sound louder than a whisper [Which arguably if you are moving towards an opponent, you are probably under most circumstances, making a sound louder than a whisper and would end the Invisible condition based on this portion of the text.], you make an attack roll, cast a spell with a Verbal Component [This is important, because by most people's comment on how hiding works, this becomes a superior invisibility because you can stand in front of someone and cast unlimited spells as long as they don't have a verbal component.], or an enemy finds you.
So how do we know if an enemy finds you? Well it tells us that on a successful check you note your roll total which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) Check.
Conceal is not a game term (otherwise it would be capitalized) so we can assume the basic english definition, which itself would really not apply once you are moving in an open space. The rules specifically state that you only need to roll Perception if something isn't obvious. A person standing in front of you is obvious. But more importantly, the text says "...which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Key point here is that it does not say the only way to find you is with a Wisdom check, but only that if you do need to make a Wisdom check the DC would be what you rolled.
Your interpretation of the rule, leads to the hiding being significantly better than invisibility.
First, you can hide behind a tree and then start walking keeping the Invisible Condition until you attack or make a sound above a whisper. But your interpretation seems to state that walking is not a sound above a whisper.
More importantly with Subtle spell, you can cast Fireball and have the Invisible Condition remain. You can in fact cast a concentration spell and have the invisible condition remain. None of which you can do with the actual Invisibility spell. There is virtually no point in using the invisibility spell because all you need is expertise and Subtle spell, and you can have the invisible condition all day while casting spells until you run out of spell points.
So even I think it is obvious, when hiding, the Invisible condition ends as soon as you move into view of an enemy. Whether from you making a sound, the DM saying hiding is no longer appropriate, or the other person automatically seeing you because nothing is preventing him form doing so.
The fact is that we have fundamentally different interpretations of the text that are incompatible with each other, so we will continue to argue the points ad nauseam and not get anywhere
That's a pretty firm indicator of poorly written rules.
Incorrect. I've seen people at work, people that work with me argue different interpretations of work rules even when they're crystal clear. I have argued with people that have written said rules before because they change their interpretations months later, and they wrote the damn rules.
So no, even well written rules can have different interpretations based on the context they're viewed and how pedantic people want to get. This is why I dislike working with tech editors
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And yet the Hide Action is the one that specifies requiring a Perception check to beat the Invisible condition, meaning using the senses to find something. The lack of a Perception check IS what's preventing you from doing so with the Invisibility spell; the fact you can't accept this because it's not spelled out is honestly baffling.
Again, I repeat this because you continue to ignore it: The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one. And you can't say it automatically succeeds, because there's no text in either book that supports that interpretation. If there is, prove it.
The concealed benefit is written as a term of art, rather than a common language term, which means it does what it says it does and nothing else, and nowhere does it say that it creates any difficulty to seeing the character.
Correct. It follows in the monster manual design where you have an ability followed by a period, and then the description of the ability. The description specifically indicates that it is possible to see someone, in which case, they do not benefit from that section of the condition.
It seems to me that they were supposed to move the heavily obscured text to the invisibility spell, and simply forgot to do so.
Honestly, the way the Invisibility condition is written is mostly sloppy, it's fairly clear what they intended to do. The problem with hiding is that I can't even figure out what they were trying to do, all the natural interpretations are stupid.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
The intent of the spell is not to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses. That is why I pointed out Crawford's comments about invisibility in 2014, where it is specifically stated that someone knows where you are unless you actually take the hide action. Which is important once you get greater invisibility (Because effectively any creature with greater invisibility can never be hit if you are going with sight alone. Quick explanation, you attack, then move to a new random location, thus the enemy doesn't know where you move to. Especially useful if you can move more than 30 ft.)
I highlighted the portion of text that is important as to why you don't need to take the search action. Anyone standing in front of you is obvious, thus the check isn't needed as you automatically succeed.
So the important part is the invisible condition doesn't make you invisible. Thus, you can't be seen when hiding because you are heavily obscured/concealed. Effectively leaving your hiding spot lets you be found. The perception check is for sounds, tracks, and any number of other things to detect where you are. Not necessarily to actively see you there, though it could be you didn't get a foot all the way behind the rock. But it is definitely written in the most confusing way. I think a lot of it could be helped by simply changing the name of the condition to something else.
The Invisibility spell is nearly the same as 2014, but it removed the line about objects worn because that was moved to the Invisible condition, and it added "deals damage" as one of the ways to end the spell.
This also doesn't answer the question, merely deflects it. There is a written mechanic on how to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find a creature under concealment by the Hide action, a mechanic that is completely absent on the Invisibility spell. If we go by the reading that the Invisible condition doesn't make you transparent, then that mechanic is specifically there in the Hide action to find someone that can be found by sight or hearing.
Sight is a sense, so you have to use Perception to find someone because your senses are tied to your Perception skill.
Per RAW, there is no mechanical way to use Perception (Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss) to find someone under the Invisibility spell. People are assuming that you can see someone using the spell because the Invisible condition doesn't spell out that you can only be seen by magic or special senses, and because the "somehow can see you" line is ambiguous; but this is an assumption grounded in a very rigid interpretation of the text. At a minimum, you have to take the Search action to find someone regardless of your interpretation because the Invisible condition grants a Concealed benefit and there needs to be a mechanic to beat it or negate it (magic, special sense, Perception check or mechanical triggers). Saying you can beat this without a mechanical trigger is DM Fiat.
The mechanical trigger is "You have unobstructed line of sight on them". That's the default trigger for seeing something, and you use the default unless something introduces a new requirement.
Also, just because you have the Invisible condition doesn't mean you cant be attacked, that's why the rule of unseen attackers is still there.
Again, show me where it says that
Anyways, we're going to continue to disagree because we have marked differences in how we're interpreting the text, and neither of us is willing to budge, so I will agree to disagree and end this here.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
According to Jeremy Crawford, when it comes to invisibility in the 2014 rules, you do not need to make a perception check to know where the character is. You automatically know where they are, because while you can't see them, perception goes beyond sight. Whether or not that should apply to the 2024 text is a different matter.
You also keep saying you have to take a search action, but the rules don't state that. Trentmonk added it in on his YouTube video that a lot of people are copying, but the text itself does not state you must take a search action.
That's the way rules work. My point isn't that they intended it to work this way, my point is that the way they've written the rules has that result.
Knowing where they are and seeing them are two different things, which you are conflating. To your point, the Unseen attackers rule is still a thing in 2024, though I believe it has been reworded a bit.
As for the Search action: I've made that very same point myself early here and in another thread, so I am aware that it came from Treantmonk.
The fact is that we have fundamentally different interpretations of the text that are incompatible with each other, so we will continue to argue the points ad nauseam and not get anywhere
That's a pretty firm indicator of poorly written rules.
I'll address this before calling it a day.
We have the invisible condition which says
"While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
1st Effect: Surprise. If you're Invisible [assuming this means the Invisible condition since it is capitalized, and there is no term invisible elsewhere in the game] when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll. [All this is saying is that if you have the Invisible condition at the start of combat, you roll advantage.]
2nd Effect: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that 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. [The important part here is that it doesn't limit seeing you to being only by magical means. Also concealed is not capitalized and is therefore not a game term. So we can assume that the equipment you are wearing or carrying can also not be effected.]
3rd Effect. Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit for that creature. [Basically once again, it just specifies that it is possible for a creature to see you]
The important parts of the Hide Action is that the condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occur; You make a sound louder than a whisper [Which arguably if you are moving towards an opponent, you are probably under most circumstances, making a sound louder than a whisper and would end the Invisible condition based on this portion of the text.], you make an attack roll, cast a spell with a Verbal Component [This is important, because by most people's comment on how hiding works, this becomes a superior invisibility because you can stand in front of someone and cast unlimited spells as long as they don't have a verbal component.], or an enemy finds you.
So how do we know if an enemy finds you? Well it tells us that on a successful check you note your roll total which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) Check.
Conceal is not a game term (otherwise it would be capitalized) so we can assume the basic english definition, which itself would really not apply once you are moving in an open space. The rules specifically state that you only need to roll Perception if something isn't obvious. A person standing in front of you is obvious. But more importantly, the text says "...which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Key point here is that it does not say the only way to find you is with a Wisdom check, but only that if you do need to make a Wisdom check the DC would be what you rolled.
Your interpretation of the rule, leads to the hiding being significantly better than invisibility.
First, you can hide behind a tree and then start walking keeping the Invisible Condition until you attack or make a sound above a whisper. But your interpretation seems to state that walking is not a sound above a whisper.
More importantly with Subtle spell, you can cast Fireball and have the Invisible Condition remain. You can in fact cast a concentration spell and have the invisible condition remain. None of which you can do with the actual Invisibility spell. There is virtually no point in using the invisibility spell because all you need is expertise and Subtle spell, and you can have the invisible condition all day while casting spells until you run out of spell points.
So even I think it is obvious, when hiding, the Invisible condition ends as soon as you move into view of an enemy. Whether from you making a sound, the DM saying hiding is no longer appropriate, or the other person automatically seeing you because nothing is preventing him form doing so.
Incorrect. I've seen people at work, people that work with me argue different interpretations of work rules even when they're crystal clear. I have argued with people that have written said rules before because they change their interpretations months later, and they wrote the damn rules.
So no, even well written rules can have different interpretations based on the context they're viewed and how pedantic people want to get. This is why I dislike working with tech editors