Nah. Then the see invisibility spell would do nothing at all.
Exactly. RAW, the invisibility spell doesn't do anything. It's clearly not RAI, but the entire point of this discussion is that RAW is a dysfunctional mess and that we don't actually know what RAI is for stealth.
RAW the Invisibility spell grants you the Invisible condition which does not end if you are found or if you cease to be hidden. This is clearly different from the Invisible condition granted by the Hide action. It is up to DM interpretation what a creature "looks like" in-world while it is invisible due to either of these factors. The Invisible spell could be interpreted as magically preventing other creatures from looking at them - such as concept of the perception filter from Dr. Who - or it could be interpreted as magically making the creature transparent, or it could be interpreted as magically creating a cloud around the creature that obscures the vision of other creatures.
Mechanically it does not matter which of those interpretations is used, because the Invisible spell does not make a creature unnoticed / undetected by other creatures, it only makes it so the creature cannot be targeted by effects that require a the target to be seen and affects attack accuracy - unless the attacker has Blindsight/Truesight. The only way to be unnoticed / undetected is to approach enemies while being "stealthy".
In contrast a creature that is Invisible from the Hide Action has not been affected by magic so that they lose the benefits of the Invisible condition as soon as any enemy finds them or they cease to be hidden. Again it doesn't matter what being hidden "looks like" in the game world, you can imagine it as becoming transparent like in BG3 or as just pressing oneself against the wall or ducking behind objects, or as just squatting down like in Skyrim.
2024 Rules removed most of the flavour text, in favour of just mechanical effects. So you can flavour these abilities however you like! But the mechanics don't change.
Again, here you are applying the 5e rules to the 5.5e understanding of Invisible. It does not say that only Blindsight/Truesight affects a creature that has had Invisibility cast on them. It is the same exact condition as Hide. And all it says is you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen.
Unless I'm mistaken, the people (person?) arguing that Hide is perfectly fine and intuitive as is (while also allowing someone to stand out in the open after a successful roll and not be "found") seem to have left the thread some time ago. As far as I can tell, the argument has devolved into "what makes hide—and to what degree is it—unintuitive" with people arguing from different angles, but all ultimately making the same point: that hide needs some work.
A few people are saying that the text works perfectly well without needed interpretation, but leads to unintuitive conclusions that need to be corrected by the DM, while others are saying the text itself isn't tenable without some heavy lifting from the DM to make it work in an intuitive manner.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
This is exactly why the designers left it open to interpretation. There are plenty of circumstances where I would allow someone to sneak up on a guard / enemy, and but also plenty of circumstances I wouldn't. As with pretty much all my rulings the better the player can describe what they are doing in a way that it makes logical sense, the more likely I am to allow it. So if one of my players said "I'm going to sneak up on the guard." I generally don't allow them to roll, until they have explained how they are going to do that. But something like "I quickly dart into that alcove behind the suit of armour then throw a pebble down the hallway behind me and sneak past the guard while they are distracted." Would absolutely be something I'd allow. Whereas "I crouch against the wall and slowly shuffle forwards." would either not be allowed or have a very very high DC.
Except that, if you want to insist on context, the Invisible Condition is applied in situations were the creature is not, in fact, invisible (e.g. gelatinous cube).
They are unseen. Prove me wrong.
A hidden person is also unseen.
But, and this is the real thing, you're the one insisting that it is RAW, but you're also admitting you can't prove which standard is in use. I, on the other hand, am maintaining that your interpretation is possible, just not clearly RAW. Notice how my position allows for an inability to prove which standard is in use, but yours does not?
RAW, without authorial intent (RAI), is subjective. I'm not the one asserting the text can't be correct.
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
(emphasis added) My context is from the text itself; yours is from unfounded assumptions about the intent of a lexical structrure.
I think that you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding everyone's argument. Nobody is saying that the word "concealed" only means what it says in Invisible for the entire game. They are just stating that with respect to Invisible, the effect Concealed. means exactly what it says after the period and nothing more. That is how it works in the rest of the entire game, so stating that here, the title of the game term means something more, is incorrect.
Nah. Then the see invisibility spell would do nothing at all.
Exactly. RAW, the invisibility spell doesn't do anything. It's clearly not RAI, but the entire point of this discussion is that RAW is a dysfunctional mess and that we don't actually know what RAI is for stealth.
RAW the Invisibility spell grants you the Invisible condition which does not end if you are found or if you cease to be hidden. This is clearly different from the Invisible condition granted by the Hide action. It is up to DM interpretation what a creature "looks like" in-world while it is invisible due to either of these factors. The Invisible spell could be interpreted as magically preventing other creatures from looking at them - such as concept of the perception filter from Dr. Who - or it could be interpreted as magically making the creature transparent, or it could be interpreted as magically creating a cloud around the creature that obscures the vision of other creatures.
Mechanically it does not matter which of those interpretations is used, because the Invisible spell does not make a creature unnoticed / undetected by other creatures, it only makes it so the creature cannot be targeted by effects that require a the target to be seen and affects attack accuracy - unless the attacker has Blindsight/Truesight. The only way to be unnoticed / undetected is to approach enemies while being "stealthy".
In contrast a creature that is Invisible from the Hide Action has not been affected by magic so that they lose the benefits of the Invisible condition as soon as any enemy finds them or they cease to be hidden. Again it doesn't matter what being hidden "looks like" in the game world, you can imagine it as becoming transparent like in BG3 or as just pressing oneself against the wall or ducking behind objects, or as just squatting down like in Skyrim.
2024 Rules removed most of the flavour text, in favour of just mechanical effects. So you can flavour these abilities however you like! But the mechanics don't change.
Again, here you are applying the 5e rules to the 5.5e understanding of Invisible. It does not say that only Blindsight/Truesight affects a creature that has had Invisibility cast on them. It is the same exact condition as Hide. And all it says is you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen.
Please read again what I wrote, because your response here doesn't make sense. You are responding to something I did not say. My previous message is saying the invisible condition from Invisibility is only be beaten by Blindsight/Truesight whereas the invisible condition from Hiding ends if the creature is found / ceases to be hidden which is not the case for the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell. I did not say anything about Blindsight/Truesight re:Hidden, because obviously they also counter Hidden's Invisible condition.
Nah. Then the see invisibility spell would do nothing at all.
Exactly. RAW, the invisibility spell doesn't do anything. It's clearly not RAI, but the entire point of this discussion is that RAW is a dysfunctional mess and that we don't actually know what RAI is for stealth.
RAW the Invisibility spell grants you the Invisible condition which does not end if you are found or if you cease to be hidden. This is clearly different from the Invisible condition granted by the Hide action. It is up to DM interpretation what a creature "looks like" in-world while it is invisible due to either of these factors. The Invisible spell could be interpreted as magically preventing other creatures from looking at them - such as concept of the perception filter from Dr. Who - or it could be interpreted as magically making the creature transparent, or it could be interpreted as magically creating a cloud around the creature that obscures the vision of other creatures.
Mechanically it does not matter which of those interpretations is used, because the Invisible spell does not make a creature unnoticed / undetected by other creatures, it only makes it so the creature cannot be targeted by effects that require a the target to be seen and affects attack accuracy - unless the attacker has Blindsight/Truesight. The only way to be unnoticed / undetected is to approach enemies while being "stealthy".
In contrast a creature that is Invisible from the Hide Action has not been affected by magic so that they lose the benefits of the Invisible condition as soon as any enemy finds them or they cease to be hidden. Again it doesn't matter what being hidden "looks like" in the game world, you can imagine it as becoming transparent like in BG3 or as just pressing oneself against the wall or ducking behind objects, or as just squatting down like in Skyrim.
2024 Rules removed most of the flavour text, in favour of just mechanical effects. So you can flavour these abilities however you like! But the mechanics don't change.
Again, here you are applying the 5e rules to the 5.5e understanding of Invisible. It does not say that only Blindsight/Truesight affects a creature that has had Invisibility cast on them. It is the same exact condition as Hide. And all it says is you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen.
Please read again what I wrote, because your response here doesn't make sense. You are responding to something I did not say. My previous message is saying the invisible condition from Invisibility is only be beaten by Blindsight/Truesight whereas the invisible condition from Hiding ends if the creature is found / ceases to be hidden which is not the case for the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell. I did not say anything about Blindsight/Truesight re:Hidden, because obviously they also counter Hidden's Invisible condition.
Those were your exact words, quoted in your post, bolded and highlighted in blue (by me). You said that you can only be seen is by Blindsight/Truesight, which is simply not RAW. It USED to be RAW in5e, but it is not anymore.
I think that you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding everyone's argument. Nobody is saying that the word "concealed" only means what it says in Invisible for the entire game. They are just stating that with respect to Invisible, the effect Concealed. means exactly what it says after the period and nothing more. That is how it works in the rest of the entire game, so stating that here, the title of the game term means something more, is incorrect.
I understand your argument (it's not "everyone's" by any stretch of the imagination). I disagree with it, wholeheartedly. "What it says after the period" is an elaboration; and it is clearly absurd to assume it was meant as a redefinition of the term. I feel this is obvious from the entirety of the rules, including "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" from the Hide Action itself.
It's silly to assume they meant "haha, concealed doesn't mean anything, you loser readers!" It's incorrect to say that's the only way to read the Condition. "What it says after the period" provides mechanical context to a narrative idea.
It's also false to say the rest of the game works the way you claim. People aren't computers and human language isn't code. There is no key ruling to be made based on hair-splitting the definition of "concealed." If something is going to get its hair split, they usually put it in the glossary so it can be easily referenced.
(And hey, rules are always better with less hair-splitting, not more.)
I think that you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding everyone's argument. Nobody is saying that the word "concealed" only means what it says in Invisible for the entire game. They are just stating that with respect to Invisible, the effect Concealed. means exactly what it says after the period and nothing more. That is how it works in the rest of the entire game, so stating that here, the title of the game term means something more, is incorrect.
I understand your argument (it's not "everyone's" by any stretch of the imagination). I disagree with it, wholeheartedly. "What it says after the period" is an elaboration; and it is clearly absurd to assume it was meant as a redefinition of the term. I feel this is obvious from the entirety of the rules, including "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" from the Hide Action itself.
It's silly to assume they meant "haha, concealed doesn't mean anything, you loser readers!" It's incorrect to say that's the only way to read the Condition. "What it says after the period" provides mechanical context to a narrative idea.
It's also false to say the rest of the game works the way you claim. People aren't computers and human language isn't code. There is no key ruling to be made based on hair-splitting the definition of "concealed." If something is going to get its hair split, they usually put it in the glossary so it can be easily referenced.
(And hey, rules are always better with less hair-splitting, not more.)
But the condition never says "you are concealed". It says that you have three effects: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. It then defines them like it defines everything in the book with the same nomenclature. You have the effect, Concealed; you are not concealed.
This argument involves both reading something into the rules that isn't there, and then ascribing your own definition to that word. Concealed means covered or behind something. Which would imply more that there is some obstruction around you that would immediately be noticed by any guards (like having a curtain on a hoop that you pull up around yourself).
But the condition never says "you are concealed". It says that you have three effects: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. It then defines them like it defines everything in the book with the same nomenclature. You have the effect, Concealed; you are not concealed.
Look, I think that argument is ignorant and blind to the rest of the text. It also inevitably results in a useless rule, therefore even if it wasn't ignorant I would never want to rule that way. Ergo you are not making a convincing case; you are just yelling at clouds.
The condition says it has three effects and then lists "concealed" as one of them. That is saying "you are concealed." The following words aren't a definition of the term; they are a drilldown into how the effect interacts with other effects: things that have special exemption can see you. Then you go look at those things, and notice that Tremorsense and Blindsight have exemptions by not being based on sight, while Truesight and See Invisibility have explicit exemptions about the Invisible Condition. That's actually solid rules design.
If you want to say the condition could be more clear about this, or could have used a full sentence like "you are not seen by creatures," then I'd agree with you. I don't need them to have done that, because it's clear enough for me, but apparently you really want that. That's OK.
Look, I think that argument is ignorant and blind to the rest of the text. It also inevitably results in a useless rule, therefore even if it wasn't ignorant I would never want to rule that way. Ergo you are not making a convincing case; you are just yelling at clouds.
"This rule doesn't mean what it says because if it meant that it would be a bad rule" is not a convincing argument when people are saying "this is a bad rule". You're absolutely correct that it results in a useless rule, but sometimes rules really are bad.
And this illustrates the issue with determining the RAI for Hide and being found. If we are to attempt to reasonably intuit that being found can happen under circumstances beyond a high Perception check, then the rules are bad because it gives no parameters for that, leading to the arguments of “they can be Invisible for X segment because they’re moving quietly”- itself not defined anywhere in the text for the purposes of an active combat map- versus the position that- as with every other instance where something that is objectively visible to the naked eye is on the map- as soon as the subject is in clear LoS they are found. If we go strictly by the explicit text and format, then the same “it doesn’t say you can be found without Search” argument leads to “it doesn’t say you’re ever actually hidden to the naked eye, just that certain effects can’t target you”, thus creating an ungainly and counterintuitive mess of effects.
Thus we see that both attempts to parse the RAI and attempts to run a strict RAW create significant issues with creating an enjoyable and broadly consistent play experience, ergo the rules are badly constructed because insofar as this discussion shows people can’t agree on how they should be implemented.
And this illustrates the issue with determining the RAI for Hide and being found. If we are to attempt to reasonably intuit that being found can happen under circumstances beyond a high Perception check, then the rules are bad because it gives no parameters for that, leading to the arguments of “they can be Invisible for X segment because they’re moving quietly”- itself not defined anywhere in the text for the purposes of an active combat map- versus the position that- as with every other instance where something that is objectively visible to the naked eye is on the map- as soon as the subject is in clear LoS they are found. If we go strictly by the explicit text and format, then the same “it doesn’t say you can be found without Search” argument leads to “it doesn’t say you’re ever actually hidden to the naked eye, just that certain effects can’t target you”, thus creating an ungainly and counterintuitive mess of effects.
Thus we see that both attempts to parse the RAI and attempts to run a strict RAW create significant issues with creating an enjoyable and broadly consistent play experience, ergo the rules are badly constructed because insofar as this discussion shows people can’t agree on how they should be implemented.
Again, I'd push back slightly on this. I think there is actually broad agreement on how the rules should be run at any particular table to give an enjoyable experience. I think the huge disagreement is on what allows the rules to be run that way.
Arguments have everything from "it works that way as written as long as you lean a little bit on interpreting some of that written language a certain way" to "the rules are completely unusable as written and need complete DM fiat to function the way you would expect".
Arguments have everything from "it works that way as written as long as you lean a little bit on interpreting some of that written language a certain way" to "the rules are completely unusable as written and need complete DM fiat to function the way you would expect".
I don't really consider those arguments meaningfully distinct; they both amount to "up to the DM to make the rules work sensibly". The simplest way of doing that is to just toss the entire text of the hide and just say "you can hide if the DM says it's appropriate to hide".
Unless I'm mistaken, the people (person?) arguing that Hide is perfectly fine and intuitive as is (while also allowing someone to stand out in the open after a successful roll and not be "found") seem to have left the thread some time ago. As far as I can tell, the argument has devolved into "what makes hide—and to what degree is it—unintuitive" with people arguing from different angles, but all ultimately making the same point: that hide needs some work.
A few people are saying that the text works perfectly well without needed interpretation, but leads to unintuitive conclusions that need to be corrected by the DM, while others are saying the text itself isn't tenable without some heavy lifting from the DM to make it work in an intuitive manner.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
To piggyback on this: my recent experience at conventions, AL and LoG are that they are using Perception and Passive Perception to find creatures that are hidden, using it to even ambush players. In a few games my characters have walked in front of a creature hiding and in my line of sight, and unless my passive perception is high enough to beat the enemy's stealth score, I have to run the Search action if I want to find them. This may not be an official ruling, but it's how it's being done in Organized Play so far.
Unless I'm mistaken, the people (person?) arguing that Hide is perfectly fine and intuitive as is (while also allowing someone to stand out in the open after a successful roll and not be "found") seem to have left the thread some time ago. As far as I can tell, the argument has devolved into "what makes hide—and to what degree is it—unintuitive" with people arguing from different angles, but all ultimately making the same point: that hide needs some work.
A few people are saying that the text works perfectly well without needed interpretation, but leads to unintuitive conclusions that need to be corrected by the DM, while others are saying the text itself isn't tenable without some heavy lifting from the DM to make it work in an intuitive manner.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
To piggyback on this: my recent experience at conventions, AL and LoG are that they are using Perception and Passive Perception to find creatures that are hidden, using it to even ambush players. In a few games my characters have walked in front of a creature hiding and in my line of sight, and unless my passive perception is high enough to beat the enemy's stealth score, I have to run the Search action if I want to find them. This may not be an official ruling, but it's how it's being done in Organized Play so far.
That makes Rogues pretty overpowered then. If they can Hide as a BA and only be found by Passive Perception (PP over 15 is pretty rare unless you have Expertise or Proficiency and a +4 to Wis) or by taking the entire Search Action, Rogues are effectively permanently Invisible in combat unless your DM dedicates an enemy to taking the Search action, which is pretty metagame-y.
And once they hit 7, they are going to succeed every time. This kind of makes Expertise in Stealth a must for playing a Rogue now, because it makes you bonkers broken. Advantage on every attack, untargetable when it's not your turn (so long as you BA Hide at the end of your turn).
Arguments have everything from "it works that way as written as long as you lean a little bit on interpreting some of that written language a certain way" to "the rules are completely unusable as written and need complete DM fiat to function the way you would expect".
I don't really consider those arguments meaningfully distinct; they both amount to "up to the DM to make the rules work sensibly". The simplest way of doing that is to just toss the entire text of the hide and just say "you can hide if the DM says it's appropriate to hide".
Yeah, either you play it like 5e or houserule it your own way to make it work. The rule is badly written.
But the condition never says "you are concealed". It says that you have three effects: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. It then defines them like it defines everything in the book with the same nomenclature. You have the effect, Concealed; you are not concealed.
Look, I think that argument is ignorant and blind to the rest of the text. It also inevitably results in a useless rule, therefore even if it wasn't ignorant I would never want to rule that way. Ergo you are not making a convincing case; you are just yelling at clouds.
The condition says it has three effects and then lists "concealed" as one of them. That is saying "you are concealed." The following words aren't a definition of the term; they are a drilldown into how the effect interacts with other effects: things that have special exemption can see you. Then you go look at those things, and notice that Tremorsense and Blindsight have exemptions by not being based on sight, while Truesight and See Invisibility have explicit exemptions about the Invisible Condition. That's actually solid rules design.
If you want to say the condition could be more clear about this, or could have used a full sentence like "you are not seen by creatures," then I'd agree with you. I don't need them to have done that, because it's clear enough for me, but apparently you really want that. That's OK.
You are arguing from a conclusion: The rule MUST work, so therefore it makes sense and works the way I see it. It seems like you cannot even grasp that the designers could have flubbed on something and written a badly worded rule.
And again, your understanding of the term "Concealed." means that the rule is also saying "you are surprise" and "you are attacks affected". You are trying to say that Concealed. mechanically gives your more than is spelled out. Even if I granted that it says, "you are concealed", what is the mechanics of that?
And I'd ask you to lose your smug sense of superiority over saying you can intuit what the game makers REALLY meant when they wrote this. You don't. You are making up your own houserule on how it should work and calling it RAW. It really isn't RAW, but you can say that. That's OK.
Again, here you are applying the 5e rules to the 5.5e understanding of Invisible. It does not say that only Blindsight/Truesight affects a creature that has had Invisibility cast on them. It is the same exact condition as Hide. And all it says is you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen.
This is exactly why the designers left it open to interpretation. There are plenty of circumstances where I would allow someone to sneak up on a guard / enemy, and but also plenty of circumstances I wouldn't. As with pretty much all my rulings the better the player can describe what they are doing in a way that it makes logical sense, the more likely I am to allow it. So if one of my players said "I'm going to sneak up on the guard." I generally don't allow them to roll, until they have explained how they are going to do that. But something like "I quickly dart into that alcove behind the suit of armour then throw a pebble down the hallway behind me and sneak past the guard while they are distracted." Would absolutely be something I'd allow. Whereas "I crouch against the wall and slowly shuffle forwards." would either not be allowed or have a very very high DC.
I think that you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding everyone's argument. Nobody is saying that the word "concealed" only means what it says in Invisible for the entire game. They are just stating that with respect to Invisible, the effect Concealed. means exactly what it says after the period and nothing more. That is how it works in the rest of the entire game, so stating that here, the title of the game term means something more, is incorrect.
Please read again what I wrote, because your response here doesn't make sense. You are responding to something I did not say. My previous message is saying the invisible condition from Invisibility is only be beaten by Blindsight/Truesight whereas the invisible condition from Hiding ends if the creature is found / ceases to be hidden which is not the case for the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell. I did not say anything about Blindsight/Truesight re:Hidden, because obviously they also counter Hidden's Invisible condition.
Those were your exact words, quoted in your post, bolded and highlighted in blue (by me). You said that you can only be seen is by Blindsight/Truesight, which is simply not RAW. It USED to be RAW in5e, but it is not anymore.
I understand your argument (it's not "everyone's" by any stretch of the imagination). I disagree with it, wholeheartedly. "What it says after the period" is an elaboration; and it is clearly absurd to assume it was meant as a redefinition of the term. I feel this is obvious from the entirety of the rules, including "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" from the Hide Action itself.
It's silly to assume they meant "haha, concealed doesn't mean anything, you loser readers!" It's incorrect to say that's the only way to read the Condition. "What it says after the period" provides mechanical context to a narrative idea.
It's also false to say the rest of the game works the way you claim. People aren't computers and human language isn't code. There is no key ruling to be made based on hair-splitting the definition of "concealed." If something is going to get its hair split, they usually put it in the glossary so it can be easily referenced.
(And hey, rules are always better with less hair-splitting, not more.)
But the condition never says "you are concealed". It says that you have three effects: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. It then defines them like it defines everything in the book with the same nomenclature. You have the effect, Concealed; you are not concealed.
This argument involves both reading something into the rules that isn't there, and then ascribing your own definition to that word. Concealed means covered or behind something. Which would imply more that there is some obstruction around you that would immediately be noticed by any guards (like having a curtain on a hoop that you pull up around yourself).
Look, I think that argument is ignorant and blind to the rest of the text. It also inevitably results in a useless rule, therefore even if it wasn't ignorant I would never want to rule that way. Ergo you are not making a convincing case; you are just yelling at clouds.
The condition says it has three effects and then lists "concealed" as one of them. That is saying "you are concealed." The following words aren't a definition of the term; they are a drilldown into how the effect interacts with other effects: things that have special exemption can see you. Then you go look at those things, and notice that Tremorsense and Blindsight have exemptions by not being based on sight, while Truesight and See Invisibility have explicit exemptions about the Invisible Condition. That's actually solid rules design.
If you want to say the condition could be more clear about this, or could have used a full sentence like "you are not seen by creatures," then I'd agree with you. I don't need them to have done that, because it's clear enough for me, but apparently you really want that. That's OK.
"This rule doesn't mean what it says because if it meant that it would be a bad rule" is not a convincing argument when people are saying "this is a bad rule". You're absolutely correct that it results in a useless rule, but sometimes rules really are bad.
And this illustrates the issue with determining the RAI for Hide and being found. If we are to attempt to reasonably intuit that being found can happen under circumstances beyond a high Perception check, then the rules are bad because it gives no parameters for that, leading to the arguments of “they can be Invisible for X segment because they’re moving quietly”- itself not defined anywhere in the text for the purposes of an active combat map- versus the position that- as with every other instance where something that is objectively visible to the naked eye is on the map- as soon as the subject is in clear LoS they are found. If we go strictly by the explicit text and format, then the same “it doesn’t say you can be found without Search” argument leads to “it doesn’t say you’re ever actually hidden to the naked eye, just that certain effects can’t target you”, thus creating an ungainly and counterintuitive mess of effects.
Thus we see that both attempts to parse the RAI and attempts to run a strict RAW create significant issues with creating an enjoyable and broadly consistent play experience, ergo the rules are badly constructed because insofar as this discussion shows people can’t agree on how they should be implemented.
Again, I'd push back slightly on this. I think there is actually broad agreement on how the rules should be run at any particular table to give an enjoyable experience. I think the huge disagreement is on what allows the rules to be run that way.
Arguments have everything from "it works that way as written as long as you lean a little bit on interpreting some of that written language a certain way" to "the rules are completely unusable as written and need complete DM fiat to function the way you would expect".
I don't really consider those arguments meaningfully distinct; they both amount to "up to the DM to make the rules work sensibly". The simplest way of doing that is to just toss the entire text of the hide and just say "you can hide if the DM says it's appropriate to hide".
To piggyback on this: my recent experience at conventions, AL and LoG are that they are using Perception and Passive Perception to find creatures that are hidden, using it to even ambush players. In a few games my characters have walked in front of a creature hiding and in my line of sight, and unless my passive perception is high enough to beat the enemy's stealth score, I have to run the Search action if I want to find them. This may not be an official ruling, but it's how it's being done in Organized Play so far.
That makes Rogues pretty overpowered then. If they can Hide as a BA and only be found by Passive Perception (PP over 15 is pretty rare unless you have Expertise or Proficiency and a +4 to Wis) or by taking the entire Search Action, Rogues are effectively permanently Invisible in combat unless your DM dedicates an enemy to taking the Search action, which is pretty metagame-y.
And once they hit 7, they are going to succeed every time. This kind of makes Expertise in Stealth a must for playing a Rogue now, because it makes you bonkers broken. Advantage on every attack, untargetable when it's not your turn (so long as you BA Hide at the end of your turn).
Yeah, either you play it like 5e or houserule it your own way to make it work. The rule is badly written.
You are arguing from a conclusion: The rule MUST work, so therefore it makes sense and works the way I see it. It seems like you cannot even grasp that the designers could have flubbed on something and written a badly worded rule.
And again, your understanding of the term "Concealed." means that the rule is also saying "you are surprise" and "you are attacks affected". You are trying to say that Concealed. mechanically gives your more than is spelled out. Even if I granted that it says, "you are concealed", what is the mechanics of that?
And I'd ask you to lose your smug sense of superiority over saying you can intuit what the game makers REALLY meant when they wrote this. You don't. You are making up your own houserule on how it should work and calling it RAW. It really isn't RAW, but you can say that. That's OK.