I'm sorry. Are you advocating that you have to make an Attack roll to pick something up? That's going to make meeting at the tavern absolutely hilarious as you watch people fail to pick up their drinks at least 5% of the time.
Most of the time I don't see taking your drink as an action in combat, or against a target that will react.
I'd argue that this mechanic is why the "DM might allow" clause was removed in 2024. The DM doesn't have to guess whether your stealth roll beats their perception, because it's explicit! Beating their perception means they're sufficiently distracted, or not perceptive enough, to find you.
Distraction is not a function of their perception score. Distraction is a function of being distracted -- there has to actually be something going on that distracts them.
Removing the 'DM might allow' clause I would call a straight up bad decision.
For the last time, that's a narrative problem, not a mechanical one. If you're fine permitting a magically invisible creature to pass unnoticed, then a hidden invisible creature should be given the same treatment. The DM owns the world, and should play out a scene that narratively demonstrates the players' successes and failures. The narrative here is that the character passes unnoticed by being stealthy. Why is that so impossible to imagine? Being stealthy is among the most mundane of all actions in this world.
For the last time, that's a narrative problem, not a mechanical one.
The basic job of a game system is emulate a certain type of reality. Stealth should behave like stealth, not like invisibility. It can easily behave like cinematic stealth, but that's not the same thing.
The DM owns the world, and should play out a scene that narratively demonstrates the players' successes and failures.
Narrating what they (attempt to) do is the job of the player. The job of the DM is to decide whether what they've narrated will have the results they want, and what actions and rolls might be required. If a player wants to sneak through the middle of a brightly lit room in plain view, it's their job to sell it.
For the last time, that's a narrative problem, not a mechanical one.
The basic job of a game system is emulate a certain type of reality. Stealth should behave like stealth, not like invisibility. It can easily behave like cinematic stealth, but that's not the same thing.
And this reality is one in which a successfully hidden creature can't be seen until it's found or makes noise.
The DM owns the world, and should play out a scene that narratively demonstrates the players' successes and failures.
Narrating what they (attempt to) do is the job of the player. The job of the DM is to decide whether what they've narrated will have the results they want, and what actions and rolls might be required. If a player wants to sneak through the middle of a brightly lit room in plain view, it's their job to sell it.
And a DM would be well within rights to give every NPC in that room advantage on perception rolls, and the player disadvantage on stealth to move silently and through everyone's blind spots. Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
And I never said it should. It's just the job of the player to craft that story, and "I hide and am therefore invisible, so I walk through the middle of the room" is not doing that.
Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
And I never said it should. It's just the job of the player to craft that story, and "I hide and am therefore invisible, so I walk through the middle of the room" is not doing that.
I would argue it's a cooperative endeavor. The DM sets the scene, the player thinks of what they want to do, the DM adjudicates if it's possible in the scenario, and they play it out from there.
Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
And I never said it should. It's just the job of the player to craft that story, and "I hide and am therefore invisible, so I walk through the middle of the room" is not doing that.
Not necessarily. Young or new players might not have a good grasp that they have to verbally convince the DM to allow them to do what the rules say they can. And not every table is run that way in the first place. Some players and DMs treat it more like boardgame rules for the purpose of expediting long drawn out explanations for every minute detail. Admitting that you'd ignore RAW just because the player fails their persuasion roll against the DM is not fair play IMO.
Not necessarily. Young or new players might not have a good grasp that they have to verbally convince the DM to allow them to do what the rules say they can.
Which is why you don't write the rules in a way that gives nonsense results.
For the last time, that's a narrative problem, not a mechanical one.
The basic job of a game system is emulate a certain type of reality. Stealth should behave like stealth, not like invisibility. It can easily behave like cinematic stealth, but that's not the same thing.
For a simulation game, sure. For a roleplaying game, not necessarily. D&D is sort of in the middle and your table can lean more towards either end of the spectrum. It has some crunchy rules and a bogged-down combat system but tries to create space for cinematic situations. (so long as players can stop arguing inanely about the rules...) These two design philosophies (simulation vs narrative) are often in opposition with one another and including them both can cause friction, like the debates we've seen in this thread. D&D was built from a war game and you can still see the vestigial remains, however it tends to be marketed in some circles as a "collaborative storytelling" game. I blame Critical Role for that.
I actually think a lot of people could benefit from trying out a rules-light system. It's really eye-opening.
For a simulation game, sure. For a roleplaying game, not necessarily.
The job of rules is simulating something. That something is not necessarily reality (narrativist games are generally trying to simulate the typical narrative flow of a specific fictional genre), but if you aren't trying to produce results consistent with some particular setting, style, or genre, there's no reason to have a system in the first place.
I actually think a lot of people could benefit from trying out a rules-light system. It's really eye-opening.
I've played multiple rules-light systems. Selling what you're trying to do is far more important in a rules light system than in a system with heavier rules.
Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
And I never said it should. It's just the job of the player to craft that story, and "I hide and am therefore invisible, so I walk through the middle of the room" is not doing that.
Not necessarily. Young or new players might not have a good grasp that they have to verbally convince the DM to allow them to do what the rules say they can. And not every table is run that way in the first place. Some players and DMs treat it more like boardgame rules for the purpose of expediting long drawn out explanations for every minute detail. Admitting that you'd ignore RAW just because the player fails their persuasion roll against the DM is not fair play IMO.
Here's the rub, though. You're depending on the DM to adjust the rules so they actually make sense. A strict reading of these rules means that you turn invisible and can walk across the room in the open. Even a loose reading of the rules comes to the same conclusion. Now the DM has to "well actually" the player, in violation of the rules.
A player should have a reasonable expectation of what is going to happen when they take an action and succeed on their rolls. If the player attacks and rolls an 18 against a target with an AC of 14, the DM doesn't get to say, "Actually you miss because reasons."
The argument of "Persuasion isn't mind control" falls flat because the rules never say that you can get someone to do whatever you want. They state you "honestly and graciously convince someone of something." So if I passed a persuasion check to convince the guard I did get invited by the king, they should let me through (assuming the castle isn't in lockdown or there's threats of assassins). At the point where a successful check doesn't change the outcome from a failed check, you shouldn't even be calling for a check.
Hiding literally states that if you pass the DC15 Stealth check, you gain the Invisible condition. A good faith reading of Invisibleshould mean that you are actually impossible to see without magic or special senses (otherwise Invisibility is useless). So a good faith reading means that you can just waltz across the room unseen.
And the whole "Movement makes noise louder than a whisper" argument makes Hiding less than useless!
Player: I Hide behind the column...that's a 24 for my Stealth roll! DM: You are now hidden and Invisible. Player: Great! I lean over to shoot my bow with advantage and... DM: No, you don't get advantage. You moved, which makes a noise louder than a whisper and are no longer hidden. Player: .....
The argument of "Persuasion isn't mind control" falls flat because the rules never say that you can get someone to do whatever you want. They state you "honestly and graciously convince someone of something."
Right, and stealth is defined as Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things. You hid behind something, then moved quietly, ergo, you escape notice. And at the very least, The Supreme Sneak feat makes clear that hidden doesn't break before the attack is attempted: If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
Could a DM require a new stealth check to leave cover and quietly move to melee range to maintain hidden? Sure. And could a house rule automatically end hidden if your combat turn ends outside of cover? That would at least be somewhat supported by Supreme Sneak's text. But it isn't strictly RAW.
Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition.
So it's not automatic. And I'd give "guards" who are "on duty" advantage on Perception to catch interlopers...
(And, as has been noted many times, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." So, like, doing this in a confined-but-open space in full view of guards may just not work. Gotta distract 'em! But we're dealing with an absurd extreme in this conversation, so carry on.)
My apologies I should have made it clear that, in that example, the guards are basically standing there around the macguffin and it is full sight of them, not that there are merely guards in the area.
Yes, the example is extreme, but this is because some people are trying to take the position that, by the RAW, once you make your roll you are hidden, that's it, you cannot be found unless people beat your Stealth roll (or you take one of the proscribed actions) no matter how extreme the situation, and anyone who thinks different is not following the rules correctly.
Way to misrepresent other people's arguments, gold star for you. I, for one, have specifically advocated for limited activities while hidden BECAUSE they would make noise louder than a whisper. You're the one insisting that shenanigans like juggling torches can be done silently because the RAW doesn't say otherwise, as if that's some kind of gotcha. Take it from a sound engineer, juggling clubs, flaming or not, is louder than whispering. Hell, some people BREATHE louder than a whisper, so they'd lose Hide immediately.
I'm not misrepresenting what you are saying. I'm carrying it out to its inevitable conclusion. There's a difference. You may notice I specifically said 'or you take one of the proscribed actions'. Initially I thought it would go without say, but then I suspected if I left it off you would come up with 'AH-HA! There are other ways in the RAW beyond beating the roll that you did not mention!'.
I did not, however, think you would actually try and say that after I mentioned them.
As for juggling torches, you will notice that I have left it out of the arguments because we disagree on the volume and the specifics action is irrelevant, it's the overall concept that raises the issue.
The point is that you shouldn't default to the general "do what you want" rule when a specific rule sufficiently address a situation. The mechanic to find a hidden creature is specifically proscribed in at least three different places, and in particular that it is "never trivial" to do so. Sure, play how you want, maximize fun and minimize agony, I'm not in your party. But instead of merely dodging the rule that you can't reconcile, you could have tried to create ways to increase the risks and fun. The simplest idea is to require a new check for every action taken in order to remain silent enough to not break Hide:
While passing the guards, you feel a rumble in your gut; those rations were moldy after all, Con save DC 10 to avoid farting loud enough to hear.
You want to take the MacGuffin? Better hit that Sleight of Hand so you don't fumble it or topple the stand it's on, DC 15 at least.
There's a 6 foot high gate, hit acrobatics so you vault it with a 10-point landing, all quieter than a whisper, DC 25.
Try to pick the rusty, squeaky lock, when you're in a guarded hall that's quiet enough to hear a pin drop, DC 30.
All those additional rolls you are asking for are distractions. The issue is that you are insisting that, barring me suddenly creating brand new obstacles, you can just walk past those guards.
Guess what? I did create an obstacle. Guards positioned in a way that you can't sneakily approach them. If you are going to insist that you can just magically walk past them without actually using magic then why should I believe you aren't going to try and treat any of the other obstacles the same way?
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is. Only that Invisible means what it says, that you can't be seen, and that's it.
So then, you have no problems at all with me saying 'Oh, you moved into the hallway where there's no cover. Roll Stealth. Oh, it doesn't matter what you rolled, it fails because you're in their line of sight*'?
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
(*n.b., being invisible does not mean you are not in someone's line of sight. Line of sight refers to whether there are obstructions, not whether something can actually be seen.)
I'm sorry. Are you advocating that you have to make an Attack roll to pick something up? That's going to make meeting at the tavern absolutely hilarious as you watch people fail to pick up their drinks at least 5% of the time.
Most of the time I don't see taking your drink as an action in combat, or against a target that will react.
And picking up the macguffin wasn't an action in combat. Combat doesn't start until after it is picked up.
Here's the rub, though. You're depending on the DM to adjust the rules so they actually make sense. A strict reading of these rules means that you turn invisible and can walk across the room in the open. Even a loose reading of the rules comes to the same conclusion. Now the DM has to "well actually" the player, in violation of the rules.
Zooming in on one mechanic while ignoring all other rules and aspects of the game is just plain silly. Imagine arguing that a car can never stop and the wheels will spin forever because the brake pads aren't touching the rotors. Someone has to press the brake pedal to make that happen, but you're conveniently ignoring that.
All those additional rolls you are asking for are distractions. The issue is that you are insisting that, barring me suddenly creating brand new obstacles, you can just walk past those guards.
Guess what? I did create an obstacle. Guards positioned in a way that you can't sneakily approach them. If you are going to insist that you can just magically walk past them without actually using magic then why should I believe you aren't going to try and treat any of the other obstacles the same way?
Your obstacle is defeatable by being Invisible and moving quietly. How you narratively explain it is up to you. Distractions are narrative justifications made so the narrative fits the underlying mechanical simulation. You know how Invisibility can be defeated and you know how noise works, or at least you ought to. If the guards want to keep out Invisible interlopers, they'll need truesight, blindsight, see invisibility, or noisy material on the floor (eggshells, tinfoil, broken glass, whatever you can think of). If you're so stacked in stealth that you're totaling above 30, you've earned success IMO. If you can't tell a good story with that, then I don't know why you're playing D&D.
. . .Here's the rub, though. You're depending on the DM to adjust the rules so they actually make sense. A strict reading of these rules means that you turn invisible and can walk across the room in the open. . ..
Except a strict reading doesn't say that. A strict reading is that an Intelligence (Perception) roll finds the character.
There is absolutely nothing written that states that this is the only way to find the character.
What is more, there are rules in other sections that show that this is not the only way to find the character. I think nearly all of us agree that Truesight finds the character and most of us probably agree that See Invisibility allows the character to be found (and those who do not almost definitely not taking a RAW stance).
And that is where the RAW argument falls apart. It only holds up if you insert an unsupported assumption (that the roll is the only way to find the character) that is clearly contradicted.
Now, this does not mean that you are not entitled to your interpretation that makes it possible for the Rogue to waltz between the two guards. That's your interpretation. I can understand how you got to it and, while I disagree, am not going to maintain that it absolutely must be wrong.
But please, for the love of Gygax, stop insisting that it is the RAW. It is not.
So then, you have no problems at all with me saying 'Oh, you moved into the hallway where there's no cover. Roll Stealth. Oh, it doesn't matter what you rolled, it fails because you're in their line of sight*'?
Technically, this is "the DM decides when conditions are appropriate for hiding". RAW, if the conditions are not appropriate for hiding... you aren't hiding, and therefore you aren't invisible because you're only invisible when hiding.
All those additional rolls you are asking for are distractions. The issue is that you are insisting that, barring me suddenly creating brand new obstacles, you can just walk past those guards.
Guess what? I did create an obstacle. Guards positioned in a way that you can't sneakily approach them. If you are going to insist that you can just magically walk past them without actually using magic then why should I believe you aren't going to try and treat any of the other obstacles the same way?
Your obstacle is defeatable by being Invisible and moving quietly. How you narratively explain it is up to you. Distractions are narrative justifications made so the narrative fits the underlying mechanical simulation. You know how Invisibility can be defeated and you know how noise works, or at least you ought to. If the guards want to keep out Invisible interlopers, they'll need truesight, blindsight, see invisibility, or noisy material on the floor (eggshells, tinfoil, broken glass, whatever you can think of). If you're so stacked in stealth that you're totaling above 30, you've earned success IMO. If you can't tell a good story with that, then I don't know why you're playing D&D.
I mean you are distracting from the point of the argument. We are talking about X. Don't say 'You could just throw up Y'. Y has nothing to do with X.
And what about the distinction without a difference? You didn't seem to comment on that.
All those additional rolls you are asking for are distractions. The issue is that you are insisting that, barring me suddenly creating brand new obstacles, you can just walk past those guards.
Guess what? I did create an obstacle. Guards positioned in a way that you can't sneakily approach them. If you are going to insist that you can just magically walk past them without actually using magic then why should I believe you aren't going to try and treat any of the other obstacles the same way?
Your obstacle is defeatable by being Invisible and moving quietly. How you narratively explain it is up to you. Distractions are narrative justifications made so the narrative fits the underlying mechanical simulation. You know how Invisibility can be defeated and you know how noise works, or at least you ought to. If the guards want to keep out Invisible interlopers, they'll need truesight, blindsight, see invisibility, or noisy material on the floor (eggshells, tinfoil, broken glass, whatever you can think of). If you're so stacked in stealth that you're totaling above 30, you've earned success IMO. If you can't tell a good story with that, then I don't know why you're playing D&D.
I mean you are distracting from the point of the argument. We are talking about X. Don't say 'You could just throw up Y'. Y has nothing to do with X.
And what about the distinction without a difference? You didn't seem to comment on that.
Because it's exhausting to make the same arguments over and over again.
My position is, if you believe it's reasonable enough to allow a hidden character in combat to move their speed from cover and make a melee attack with the advantage granted by Invisible, which I think we agree on, then you ought to grant at least the same or similar benefit outside of combat. Limitations beyond that would need to be house ruled, because it isn't addressed in the RAW. Should the Dash bonus action break Hiding? Probably. Sprinting would be noisy, unless your gear says otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most of the time I don't see taking your drink as an action in combat, or against a target that will react.
For the last time, that's a narrative problem, not a mechanical one. If you're fine permitting a magically invisible creature to pass unnoticed, then a hidden invisible creature should be given the same treatment. The DM owns the world, and should play out a scene that narratively demonstrates the players' successes and failures. The narrative here is that the character passes unnoticed by being stealthy. Why is that so impossible to imagine? Being stealthy is among the most mundane of all actions in this world.
The basic job of a game system is emulate a certain type of reality. Stealth should behave like stealth, not like invisibility. It can easily behave like cinematic stealth, but that's not the same thing.
Narrating what they (attempt to) do is the job of the player. The job of the DM is to decide whether what they've narrated will have the results they want, and what actions and rolls might be required. If a player wants to sneak through the middle of a brightly lit room in plain view, it's their job to sell it.
And this reality is one in which a successfully hidden creature can't be seen until it's found or makes noise.
And a DM would be well within rights to give every NPC in that room advantage on perception rolls, and the player disadvantage on stealth to move silently and through everyone's blind spots. Just because it's hard to craft the story of a successful gambit, that shouldn't guarantee an automatic failure.
And I never said it should. It's just the job of the player to craft that story, and "I hide and am therefore invisible, so I walk through the middle of the room" is not doing that.
I would argue it's a cooperative endeavor. The DM sets the scene, the player thinks of what they want to do, the DM adjudicates if it's possible in the scenario, and they play it out from there.
Not necessarily. Young or new players might not have a good grasp that they have to verbally convince the DM to allow them to do what the rules say they can. And not every table is run that way in the first place. Some players and DMs treat it more like boardgame rules for the purpose of expediting long drawn out explanations for every minute detail. Admitting that you'd ignore RAW just because the player fails their persuasion roll against the DM is not fair play IMO.
Which is why you don't write the rules in a way that gives nonsense results.
For a simulation game, sure. For a roleplaying game, not necessarily. D&D is sort of in the middle and your table can lean more towards either end of the spectrum. It has some crunchy rules and a bogged-down combat system but tries to create space for cinematic situations. (so long as players can stop arguing inanely about the rules...) These two design philosophies (simulation vs narrative) are often in opposition with one another and including them both can cause friction, like the debates we've seen in this thread. D&D was built from a war game and you can still see the vestigial remains, however it tends to be marketed in some circles as a "collaborative storytelling" game. I blame Critical Role for that.
I actually think a lot of people could benefit from trying out a rules-light system. It's really eye-opening.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
The job of rules is simulating something. That something is not necessarily reality (narrativist games are generally trying to simulate the typical narrative flow of a specific fictional genre), but if you aren't trying to produce results consistent with some particular setting, style, or genre, there's no reason to have a system in the first place.
I've played multiple rules-light systems. Selling what you're trying to do is far more important in a rules light system than in a system with heavier rules.
Here's the rub, though. You're depending on the DM to adjust the rules so they actually make sense. A strict reading of these rules means that you turn invisible and can walk across the room in the open. Even a loose reading of the rules comes to the same conclusion. Now the DM has to "well actually" the player, in violation of the rules.
A player should have a reasonable expectation of what is going to happen when they take an action and succeed on their rolls. If the player attacks and rolls an 18 against a target with an AC of 14, the DM doesn't get to say, "Actually you miss because reasons."
The argument of "Persuasion isn't mind control" falls flat because the rules never say that you can get someone to do whatever you want. They state you "honestly and graciously convince someone of something." So if I passed a persuasion check to convince the guard I did get invited by the king, they should let me through (assuming the castle isn't in lockdown or there's threats of assassins). At the point where a successful check doesn't change the outcome from a failed check, you shouldn't even be calling for a check.
Hiding literally states that if you pass the DC15 Stealth check, you gain the Invisible condition. A good faith reading of Invisible should mean that you are actually impossible to see without magic or special senses (otherwise Invisibility is useless). So a good faith reading means that you can just waltz across the room unseen.
And the whole "Movement makes noise louder than a whisper" argument makes Hiding less than useless!
Player: I Hide behind the column...that's a 24 for my Stealth roll!
DM: You are now hidden and Invisible.
Player: Great! I lean over to shoot my bow with advantage and...
DM: No, you don't get advantage. You moved, which makes a noise louder than a whisper and are no longer hidden.
Player: .....
Right, and stealth is defined as Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things. You hid behind something, then moved quietly, ergo, you escape notice. And at the very least, The Supreme Sneak feat makes clear that hidden doesn't break before the attack is attempted: If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
Could a DM require a new stealth check to leave cover and quietly move to melee range to maintain hidden? Sure. And could a house rule automatically end hidden if your combat turn ends outside of cover? That would at least be somewhat supported by Supreme Sneak's text. But it isn't strictly RAW.
I'm not misrepresenting what you are saying. I'm carrying it out to its inevitable conclusion. There's a difference. You may notice I specifically said 'or you take one of the proscribed actions'. Initially I thought it would go without say, but then I suspected if I left it off you would come up with 'AH-HA! There are other ways in the RAW beyond beating the roll that you did not mention!'.
I did not, however, think you would actually try and say that after I mentioned them.
As for juggling torches, you will notice that I have left it out of the arguments because we disagree on the volume and the specifics action is irrelevant, it's the overall concept that raises the issue.
All those additional rolls you are asking for are distractions. The issue is that you are insisting that, barring me suddenly creating brand new obstacles, you can just walk past those guards.
Guess what? I did create an obstacle. Guards positioned in a way that you can't sneakily approach them. If you are going to insist that you can just magically walk past them without actually using magic then why should I believe you aren't going to try and treat any of the other obstacles the same way?
So then, you have no problems at all with me saying 'Oh, you moved into the hallway where there's no cover. Roll Stealth. Oh, it doesn't matter what you rolled, it fails because you're in their line of sight*'?
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
(*n.b., being invisible does not mean you are not in someone's line of sight. Line of sight refers to whether there are obstructions, not whether something can actually be seen.)
And picking up the macguffin wasn't an action in combat. Combat doesn't start until after it is picked up.
It's not against the rules, though. See my earlier comment: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/203294-explaining-the-2024-stealth-rules-its-cool?comment=759
Zooming in on one mechanic while ignoring all other rules and aspects of the game is just plain silly. Imagine arguing that a car can never stop and the wheels will spin forever because the brake pads aren't touching the rotors. Someone has to press the brake pedal to make that happen, but you're conveniently ignoring that.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Your obstacle is defeatable by being Invisible and moving quietly. How you narratively explain it is up to you. Distractions are narrative justifications made so the narrative fits the underlying mechanical simulation. You know how Invisibility can be defeated and you know how noise works, or at least you ought to. If the guards want to keep out Invisible interlopers, they'll need truesight, blindsight, see invisibility, or noisy material on the floor (eggshells, tinfoil, broken glass, whatever you can think of). If you're so stacked in stealth that you're totaling above 30, you've earned success IMO. If you can't tell a good story with that, then I don't know why you're playing D&D.
Except a strict reading doesn't say that. A strict reading is that an Intelligence (Perception) roll finds the character.
There is absolutely nothing written that states that this is the only way to find the character.
What is more, there are rules in other sections that show that this is not the only way to find the character. I think nearly all of us agree that Truesight finds the character and most of us probably agree that See Invisibility allows the character to be found (and those who do not almost definitely not taking a RAW stance).
And that is where the RAW argument falls apart. It only holds up if you insert an unsupported assumption (that the roll is the only way to find the character) that is clearly contradicted.
Now, this does not mean that you are not entitled to your interpretation that makes it possible for the Rogue to waltz between the two guards. That's your interpretation. I can understand how you got to it and, while I disagree, am not going to maintain that it absolutely must be wrong.
But please, for the love of Gygax, stop insisting that it is the RAW. It is not.
Technically, this is "the DM decides when conditions are appropriate for hiding". RAW, if the conditions are not appropriate for hiding... you aren't hiding, and therefore you aren't invisible because you're only invisible when hiding.
I mean you are distracting from the point of the argument. We are talking about X. Don't say 'You could just throw up Y'. Y has nothing to do with X.
And what about the distinction without a difference? You didn't seem to comment on that.
Because it's exhausting to make the same arguments over and over again.
My position is, if you believe it's reasonable enough to allow a hidden character in combat to move their speed from cover and make a melee attack with the advantage granted by Invisible, which I think we agree on, then you ought to grant at least the same or similar benefit outside of combat. Limitations beyond that would need to be house ruled, because it isn't addressed in the RAW. Should the Dash bonus action break Hiding? Probably. Sprinting would be noisy, unless your gear says otherwise.