Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So, you would break the invisibility hide.
About the familiar, would fall in two points: 1- "you make a sound louder than a whisper", 2- "an enemy finds you"
Then you go to DM rulling:
1- The familiar going to the target would made a sound lounder then a whisper.
2- The familiar touch the target could mean "an enemy finds you".
1/ Nonsense. Hiding covers moving silently. And many creatures wouldn't make a sound louder than a whisper while moving without hiding. (Spider, Rat, Owl, Cat at least). Heck, owl flight should be silent by default, and tiny spiders should be silent by default.
Also, technically they're already next to the target and still hidden (by assumption - since we said they're hidden and having them deliver the touch attack), because they have to use a reaction to deliver the touch attack on your turn.
2/ I am unconvinced the touch would mean the familiar is found.
a/ The only way to find a hidden creature, RAW, is a search action/perception check. (Or have a high enough passive perception, which presumably the enemy doesn't because you were still hidden at the start of the spell).
b/ A spider touching you would certainly be unnoticeable (since touching your boot would be sufficient for the touch attack - you'd only have a chance of noticing if it touched bare skin, and even then it's probably not noticeable). And in combat conditions a light touch by an unseen tiny animal would be even less noticeable.
Heck, there's a whole skill for humanoid creatures touching other humanoids unnoticeably. (Sleight of Hands covers picking pockets, iirc, which is 'touching unnoticeably').
But I'd think Stealth would still cover this. They're trying to remain unnoticed.
(Aside: Some creatures really should have a 'passive stealth' value. Spiders and owls are inherently and passively stealthy (no audible sound moving or flying respectively). I also find it hilarious that a 1st level medium-sized character can be better at hiding than a tiny animal.)
I went checking. There's only 3 non-cantrip offensive touch spells I could find (Inflict Wounds, Bestow Curse, and Contagion). None of them require an attack roll. So i guess if you can manage to cast them without verbal components, your familiar can deliver it and everyone remains hidden. They're all necromancy, though, i can't think of a way to remove the V without subtle spell.
I went checking. There's only 3 non-cantrip offensive touch spells I could find (Inflict Wounds, Bestow Curse, and Contagion). None of them require an attack roll. So i guess if you can manage to cast them without verbal components, your familiar can deliver it and everyone remains hidden. They're all necromancy, though, i can't think of a way to remove the V without subtle spell.
Eh, I think "touch lets them know the familiar is there" is a ruling a DM might make. (Personally, I'd make it, for any familiar regardless of size, just for game balance reasons --- the "magic touch" can be obvious in my book.) But that's in a DM's hands.
Would your interpretation allow a caster using Subtle Spell to cast Fireball to remain hidden since no attack is involved?
That comes down to whether the listed means of breaking stealth are considered an exhaustive list (in which case it's not on the list, so no) or a representative list (in which case the DM is free to state that a brilliant mote of fire coming from your hands reveals your position). There's some reason to think that it's a representative list, but the text is by no means clear.
Would your interpretation allow a caster using Subtle Spell to cast Fireball to remain hidden since no attack is involved?
That comes down to whether the listed means of breaking stealth are considered an exhaustive list (in which case it's not on the list, so no) or a representative list (in which case the DM is free to state that a brilliant mote of fire coming from your hands reveals your position). There's some reason to think that it's a representative list, but the text is by no means clear.
I mean, RAW has to be exhaustive, right? If it doesn't say it breaks hide's invisibility, it doesn't break hide's invisibility. (There's a reason its list is different than the Invisibility spell's list of things that break it).
(Presumably your stealth check means you choose the moment to fire that brilliant mote when they're not looking, just like you choose the moment to move somewhere when they're distracted, yawning, etc...).
I went checking. There's only 3 non-cantrip offensive touch spells I could find (Inflict Wounds, Bestow Curse, and Contagion). None of them require an attack roll. So i guess if you can manage to cast them without verbal components, your familiar can deliver it and everyone remains hidden. They're all necromancy, though, i can't think of a way to remove the V without subtle spell.
Eh, I think "touch lets them know the familiar is there" is a ruling a DM might make. (Personally, I'd make it, for any familiar regardless of size, just for game balance reasons --- the "magic touch" can be obvious in my book.) But that's in a DM's hands.
"Balance" is a funny concept to apply here, because the monsters don't have feeling and don't care about balance. Balance only makes sense as a concept between PCs, mostly about ensuring that all players can contribute and get cool moments.
I'd be far more concerned about verisimilitude than balance in a situation like this. And verisimilitude says no one notices a tiny spider in the middle of a combat, no matter what the spider is doing. (And it should probably be even smaller than tiny. If a Cat is tiny, a spider is at least 2 size classes smaller than that, maybe 1 if it's a really large spider like a tarantula).
"Balance" is a funny concept to apply here, because the monsters don't have feeling and don't care about balance. Balance only makes sense as a concept between PCs, mostly about ensuring that all players can contribute and get cool moments.
Well, I'm talking about "balance" between choices-of-familiar. Some of them are classically "OP" compared to others, and "no-one ever even knows the spider is anywhere, even when it does stuff, so it never gets attacked" feels too good to me.
But I don't spend a lot of time adjucating Familiar shenanigans; maybe it's fine?
No, RAW is far from exhaustive, particularly where skill checks and similar abstract effects are concerned. Determining what all is covered by those and how they function in play is a substantial part of the DM’s job.
No, RAW is far from exhaustive, particularly where skill checks and similar abstract effects are concerned. Determining what all is covered by those and how they function in play is a substantial part of the DM’s job.
Hide gives a specific list of conditions that break it. If it was a representative list, you'd expect it to have something like "etc..." or "and so on" or start the list with "These are examples of things which cause you to stop being hidden."
Instead, it says "You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs:" This is pretty clearly an indication of an exhaustive list. First, because the default is 'you are hidden' (since you passed your stealth test and gained hidden/invisibility), and you remain hidden unless otherwise stated. So this is the statement of what makes you not hidden. It only lists those things, with no indication anything else does it. Since the default is stay hidden, then RAW only those things end hidden.
RAW is what is written, nothing more. So if it's not written, it's not RAW.
RAW doesn't cover everything, it's true. But RAW is still RAW. Anything beyond that is RAI or houserules, and NOT RAW.
(Note: RAW does include common definitions and concepts that words represent, because that's how language works. ie, a Sword is a long blade with a handle, RAW, because that's what the word sword means, and the game uses the word sword).
No? That would be fallacy of the converse -- "if X, then Y" does not mean "if not X, then not Y". The rule never actually says what things don't end the hiding state.
No? That would be fallacy of the converse -- "if X, then Y" does not mean "if not X, then not Y". The rule never actually says what things don't end the hiding state.
I think you might actually be using the fallacy of the converse here. "It doesn't say doing X doesn't end Hide, so that means that doing X must end Hide." is the fallacy of the converse.
It's like people saying the mere presence of Truesight means that no one else can see Invisible creatures, even though Invisible never says that it makes you hard/impossible to see.
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So, you would break the invisibility hide.
About the familiar, would fall in two points: 1- "you make a sound louder than a whisper", 2- "an enemy finds you"
Then you go to DM rulling:
1- The familiar going to the target would made a sound lounder then a whisper.
2- The familiar touch the target could mean "an enemy finds you".
1/ Nonsense. Hiding covers moving silently. And many creatures wouldn't make a sound louder than a whisper while moving without hiding. (Spider, Rat, Owl, Cat at least). Heck, owl flight should be silent by default, and tiny spiders should be silent by default.
Also, technically they're already next to the target and still hidden (by assumption - since we said they're hidden and having them deliver the touch attack), because they have to use a reaction to deliver the touch attack on your turn.
2/ I am unconvinced the touch would mean the familiar is found.
a/ The only way to find a hidden creature, RAW, is a search action/perception check. (Or have a high enough passive perception, which presumably the enemy doesn't because you were still hidden at the start of the spell).
b/ A spider touching you would certainly be unnoticeable (since touching your boot would be sufficient for the touch attack - you'd only have a chance of noticing if it touched bare skin, and even then it's probably not noticeable). And in combat conditions a light touch by an unseen tiny animal would be even less noticeable.
Heck, there's a whole skill for humanoid creatures touching other humanoids unnoticeably. (Sleight of Hands covers picking pockets, iirc, which is 'touching unnoticeably').
But I'd think Stealth would still cover this. They're trying to remain unnoticed.
(Aside: Some creatures really should have a 'passive stealth' value. Spiders and owls are inherently and passively stealthy (no audible sound moving or flying respectively). I also find it hilarious that a 1st level medium-sized character can be better at hiding than a tiny animal.)
First remember that i say all of that fall in DM RULLING
1/ yes, the familiar can move silently, but the DM can say that he need to pass in a stealh check, and yes, some familiar my come pass without the check, but, agains, in DM RULLING
2/
a/ nowere in the RAW is say the only way to someone to be found is the search check
b/ a spider can be unnoticeable, or can't be, that DM RULLING
I think you might actually be using the fallacy of the converse here. "It doesn't say doing X doesn't end Hide, so that means that doing X must end Hide." is the fallacy of the converse.
And if that was what I was saying, you would be correct. However, my assertion is "It doesn't say doing X doesn't end Hide, so whether doing X ends hide cannot be determined from the rules for hide", at which point, like any indeterminate situation in the rules, it's up to a DM ruling.
No? That would be fallacy of the converse -- "if X, then Y" does not mean "if not X, then not Y". The rule never actually says what things don't end the hiding state.
Rules only do what they say they do. "It never says x doesn't do y" means that x doing y is not RAW. By definition, it's not a Rule as Written if it's not written. Things do what they say they do and nothing more. Things don't do what the rules don't say they do. So when it doesn't list any other conditions for ending hide, then RAW, the listed conditions are the only ones that end hide according to the rules. (The DM is free to rule other things, and we're into house rules).
Edit: And literally the only reason to give a list of conditions that end hide is for it to be exhaustive, so the player knows what he can do while hiding (ie, stuff not on that list).
Well, let's see if I can get a concrete answer to a question:
You're a spellcaster who is hiding and you have a familiar. You cast a touch spell without a verbal component (I don't know that one exists, but there's always Sorceror with Subtle Spell and Ritual Caster) and have your familiar deliver the touch attack. Is the spellcaster's invisibility from hide broken? (ie, does the familiar count as the one attacking?)
If the spellcaster's invisibility is broken (ie, it's still their attack roll), what if the familiar was also hiding. Does it remain hidden since it didn't make the attack roll?
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So, you would break the invisibility hide.
About the familiar, would fall in two points: 1- "you make a sound louder than a whisper", 2- "an enemy finds you"
Then you go to DM rulling:
1- The familiar going to the target would made a sound lounder then a whisper.
2- The familiar touch the target could mean "an enemy finds you".
1/ Nonsense. Hiding covers moving silently. And many creatures wouldn't make a sound louder than a whisper while moving without hiding. (Spider, Rat, Owl, Cat at least). Heck, owl flight should be silent by default, and tiny spiders should be silent by default.
Also, technically they're already next to the target and still hidden (by assumption - since we said they're hidden and having them deliver the touch attack), because they have to use a reaction to deliver the touch attack on your turn.
2/ I am unconvinced the touch would mean the familiar is found.
a/ The only way to find a hidden creature, RAW, is a search action/perception check. (Or have a high enough passive perception, which presumably the enemy doesn't because you were still hidden at the start of the spell).
b/ A spider touching you would certainly be unnoticeable (since touching your boot would be sufficient for the touch attack - you'd only have a chance of noticing if it touched bare skin, and even then it's probably not noticeable). And in combat conditions a light touch by an unseen tiny animal would be even less noticeable.
Heck, there's a whole skill for humanoid creatures touching other humanoids unnoticeably. (Sleight of Hands covers picking pockets, iirc, which is 'touching unnoticeably').
But I'd think Stealth would still cover this. They're trying to remain unnoticed.
(Aside: Some creatures really should have a 'passive stealth' value. Spiders and owls are inherently and passively stealthy (no audible sound moving or flying respectively). I also find it hilarious that a 1st level medium-sized character can be better at hiding than a tiny animal.)
First remember that i say all of that fall in DM RULLING
1/ yes, the familiar can move silently, but the DM can say that he need to pass in a stealh check, and yes, some familiar my come pass without the check, but, agains, in DM RULLING
2/
a/ nowere in the RAW is say the only way to someone to be found is the search check
1/ He's already hiding, so he already passed a stealth check. He keeps using that stealth check for the duration of his hide. He doesn't need to make a new one.
2a/ No other method of finding someone is given in the rules, so RAW, the only way someone is found is through a search check. Anything else is a house rule (ie, DM decision).
Come on guys, the moment we're to "DM Decision", that's a house rule, not RAW. (Even if RAW is literally "DM decides", the actual decision is a house rule.)
Rules only do what they say they do. "It never says x doesn't do y" means that x doing y is not RAW. By definition, it's not a Rule as Written if it's not written. Things do what they say they do and nothing more. Things don't do what the rules don't say they do. So when it doesn't list any other conditions for ending hide, then RAW, the listed conditions are the only ones that end hide according to the rules.
When you try to determine the answer to a question using RAW, there are three possible answers: "Yes", "No", and "Unspecified". Other effects ending hide is Unspecified.
Edit: And literally the only reason to give a list of conditions that end hide is for it to be exhaustive, so the player knows what he can do while hiding (ie, stuff not on that list).
(a) that's an RAI argument, and (b) both exhaustive and representative lists are useful.
Come on guys, the moment we're to "DM Decision", that's a house rule, not RAW. (Even if RAW is literally "DM decides", the actual decision is a house rule.)
Whether something is a DM decision is not a house rule. The actual decision, obviously, is.
Rules only do what they say they do. "It never says x doesn't do y" means that x doing y is not RAW. By definition, it's not a Rule as Written if it's not written. Things do what they say they do and nothing more. Things don't do what the rules don't say they do. So when it doesn't list any other conditions for ending hide, then RAW, the listed conditions are the only ones that end hide according to the rules.
When you try to determine the answer to a question using RAW, there are three possible answers: "Yes", "No", and "Unspecified". Other effects ending hide is Unspecified.
Not in a situation like this.
Like "Does wiggling my ears counter a spell?" RAW is not 'unspecified', it's "no, the rules never say wiggling your ears counters a spell". If the rules don't say, RAW is always 'no, it's not RAW', because the rules don't say it. This is literally definitional - if it's not written, it can't be Rules as Written. (That never stops the DM from just saying it works, because the DM is not bound by RAW).
RAW is a constructive approach to reading rules. Anything not in the rules is not RAW. Stuff does what it says. if it's not said, it doesn't do it by RAW. (It might work if the DM says otherwise, but that's not RAW). Stuff doesn't do anything it isn't explicitly given the power to do.
Some areas of the game can't be played by RAW, because there just aren't rules. That's fine.
Edit: And literally the only reason to give a list of conditions that end hide is for it to be exhaustive, so the player knows what he can do while hiding (ie, stuff not on that list).
(a) that's an RAI argument, and (b) both exhaustive and representative lists are useful.
Sure, representative lists are useful. They also signal they're representative lists by including clauses like "activities like..." or ", and etc..." or otherwise similar constructions. Without any words signaling the list is only representative (ie, that there are similar things not on this list), the proper way to read it is as an exhaustive list.
We also need to have some idea of how they're representational for it to function as a representational list.
Sure, representative lists are useful. They also signal they're representative lists by including clauses like "activities like..." or ", and etc..." or otherwise similar constructions. Without any words signaling the list is only representative (ie, that there are similar things not on this list), the proper way to read it is as an exhaustive list. We also need to have some idea of how they're representational for it to function as a representational list.
I agree with you that "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component" is a (basically) exhaustive list. However, I think there's plenty of wiggle room in the RAW itself:
1) "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" is there, explicitly, in chapter 1. That may not be part of the exhaustive list, but it preempts the entire mechanic. I think this is a far superior way to wrangle and prevent shenanigans than trying to imply a bunch of "gotcha" clauses in the Hide Action itself.
2) "An enemy finds you" is pretty open ended. While that list is exhaustive, "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" is not an exhaustive list of ways to "find" someone. This thread has had plenty of argumentum ad absurdum, but "if you sit in someone's lap while hidden, they find you" seems a clear, obvious, and intuitive ruling. Same for "silently tap someone on the shoulder to alert them to your presence." As you noted elsewhere, verisimilitude matters. - Also, imagine Character A is hidden in a square, and Enemy B unknowingly tries to hide in the exact same square. They will bump into each other --- they can't occoupy the same space! That's gotta constitute "finding."
3) "[A] sound louder than a whisper" is a concrete idea, but there are zero concrete mechanics for judging the volume of anything. That's entirely within the realm of rulings. - Though, I do think movement makes sound-louder-than-a-whisper by default, unless you are moving with a Stealth roll to "move quietly" and beat Passive Perception scores. That is a fairly explicit mechanic. While I agree with you, at least in combat, that the Stealth check in the Hide Action can also cover for movement, I think that's just a sensible houserule that streamlines play --- especially by keeping a "sneak up -> melee sneak attack -> run away -> Hide -> repeat" loop to (usually) one Stealth check per turn. But at least that one published adventure (above in thread) has PCs making a second Stealth check to sneak quietly after Hiding. Which still makes sense out of noisy combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's just strict RAW. A fireball does not involve an attack roll. If subtle, there's no verbal component. Hiding is not broken.
1/ Nonsense. Hiding covers moving silently. And many creatures wouldn't make a sound louder than a whisper while moving without hiding. (Spider, Rat, Owl, Cat at least). Heck, owl flight should be silent by default, and tiny spiders should be silent by default.
Also, technically they're already next to the target and still hidden (by assumption - since we said they're hidden and having them deliver the touch attack), because they have to use a reaction to deliver the touch attack on your turn.
2/ I am unconvinced the touch would mean the familiar is found.
a/ The only way to find a hidden creature, RAW, is a search action/perception check. (Or have a high enough passive perception, which presumably the enemy doesn't because you were still hidden at the start of the spell).
b/ A spider touching you would certainly be unnoticeable (since touching your boot would be sufficient for the touch attack - you'd only have a chance of noticing if it touched bare skin, and even then it's probably not noticeable). And in combat conditions a light touch by an unseen tiny animal would be even less noticeable.
Heck, there's a whole skill for humanoid creatures touching other humanoids unnoticeably. (Sleight of Hands covers picking pockets, iirc, which is 'touching unnoticeably').
But I'd think Stealth would still cover this. They're trying to remain unnoticed.
(Aside: Some creatures really should have a 'passive stealth' value. Spiders and owls are inherently and passively stealthy (no audible sound moving or flying respectively). I also find it hilarious that a 1st level medium-sized character can be better at hiding than a tiny animal.)
I went checking. There's only 3 non-cantrip offensive touch spells I could find (Inflict Wounds, Bestow Curse, and Contagion). None of them require an attack roll. So i guess if you can manage to cast them without verbal components, your familiar can deliver it and everyone remains hidden. They're all necromancy, though, i can't think of a way to remove the V without subtle spell.
Eh, I think "touch lets them know the familiar is there" is a ruling a DM might make. (Personally, I'd make it, for any familiar regardless of size, just for game balance reasons --- the "magic touch" can be obvious in my book.) But that's in a DM's hands.
That comes down to whether the listed means of breaking stealth are considered an exhaustive list (in which case it's not on the list, so no) or a representative list (in which case the DM is free to state that a brilliant mote of fire coming from your hands reveals your position). There's some reason to think that it's a representative list, but the text is by no means clear.
I mean, RAW has to be exhaustive, right? If it doesn't say it breaks hide's invisibility, it doesn't break hide's invisibility. (There's a reason its list is different than the Invisibility spell's list of things that break it).
(Presumably your stealth check means you choose the moment to fire that brilliant mote when they're not looking, just like you choose the moment to move somewhere when they're distracted, yawning, etc...).
"Balance" is a funny concept to apply here, because the monsters don't have feeling and don't care about balance. Balance only makes sense as a concept between PCs, mostly about ensuring that all players can contribute and get cool moments.
I'd be far more concerned about verisimilitude than balance in a situation like this. And verisimilitude says no one notices a tiny spider in the middle of a combat, no matter what the spider is doing. (And it should probably be even smaller than tiny. If a Cat is tiny, a spider is at least 2 size classes smaller than that, maybe 1 if it's a really large spider like a tarantula).
Well, I'm talking about "balance" between choices-of-familiar. Some of them are classically "OP" compared to others, and "no-one ever even knows the spider is anywhere, even when it does stuff, so it never gets attacked" feels too good to me.
But I don't spend a lot of time adjucating Familiar shenanigans; maybe it's fine?
No, RAW is far from exhaustive, particularly where skill checks and similar abstract effects are concerned. Determining what all is covered by those and how they function in play is a substantial part of the DM’s job.
Hide gives a specific list of conditions that break it. If it was a representative list, you'd expect it to have something like "etc..." or "and so on" or start the list with "These are examples of things which cause you to stop being hidden."
Instead, it says "You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs:" This is pretty clearly an indication of an exhaustive list. First, because the default is 'you are hidden' (since you passed your stealth test and gained hidden/invisibility), and you remain hidden unless otherwise stated. So this is the statement of what makes you not hidden. It only lists those things, with no indication anything else does it. Since the default is stay hidden, then RAW only those things end hidden.
RAW is what is written, nothing more. So if it's not written, it's not RAW.
RAW doesn't cover everything, it's true. But RAW is still RAW. Anything beyond that is RAI or houserules, and NOT RAW.
(Note: RAW does include common definitions and concepts that words represent, because that's how language works. ie, a Sword is a long blade with a handle, RAW, because that's what the word sword means, and the game uses the word sword).
No? That would be fallacy of the converse -- "if X, then Y" does not mean "if not X, then not Y". The rule never actually says what things don't end the hiding state.
I think you might actually be using the fallacy of the converse here. "It doesn't say doing X doesn't end Hide, so that means that doing X must end Hide." is the fallacy of the converse.
It's like people saying the mere presence of Truesight means that no one else can see Invisible creatures, even though Invisible never says that it makes you hard/impossible to see.
First remember that i say all of that fall in DM RULLING
1/ yes, the familiar can move silently, but the DM can say that he need to pass in a stealh check, and yes, some familiar my come pass without the check, but, agains, in DM RULLING
2/
a/ nowere in the RAW is say the only way to someone to be found is the search check
b/ a spider can be unnoticeable, or can't be, that DM RULLING
And if that was what I was saying, you would be correct. However, my assertion is "It doesn't say doing X doesn't end Hide, so whether doing X ends hide cannot be determined from the rules for hide", at which point, like any indeterminate situation in the rules, it's up to a DM ruling.
Rules only do what they say they do. "It never says x doesn't do y" means that x doing y is not RAW. By definition, it's not a Rule as Written if it's not written. Things do what they say they do and nothing more. Things don't do what the rules don't say they do. So when it doesn't list any other conditions for ending hide, then RAW, the listed conditions are the only ones that end hide according to the rules. (The DM is free to rule other things, and we're into house rules).
Edit: And literally the only reason to give a list of conditions that end hide is for it to be exhaustive, so the player knows what he can do while hiding (ie, stuff not on that list).
1/ He's already hiding, so he already passed a stealth check. He keeps using that stealth check for the duration of his hide. He doesn't need to make a new one.
2a/ No other method of finding someone is given in the rules, so RAW, the only way someone is found is through a search check. Anything else is a house rule (ie, DM decision).
Come on guys, the moment we're to "DM Decision", that's a house rule, not RAW. (Even if RAW is literally "DM decides", the actual decision is a house rule.)
When you try to determine the answer to a question using RAW, there are three possible answers: "Yes", "No", and "Unspecified". Other effects ending hide is Unspecified.
(a) that's an RAI argument, and (b) both exhaustive and representative lists are useful.
Whether something is a DM decision is not a house rule. The actual decision, obviously, is.
Not in a situation like this.
Like "Does wiggling my ears counter a spell?" RAW is not 'unspecified', it's "no, the rules never say wiggling your ears counters a spell". If the rules don't say, RAW is always 'no, it's not RAW', because the rules don't say it. This is literally definitional - if it's not written, it can't be Rules as Written. (That never stops the DM from just saying it works, because the DM is not bound by RAW).
RAW is a constructive approach to reading rules. Anything not in the rules is not RAW. Stuff does what it says. if it's not said, it doesn't do it by RAW. (It might work if the DM says otherwise, but that's not RAW). Stuff doesn't do anything it isn't explicitly given the power to do.
Some areas of the game can't be played by RAW, because there just aren't rules. That's fine.
I agree with you that "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component" is a (basically) exhaustive list. However, I think there's plenty of wiggle room in the RAW itself:
1) "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" is there, explicitly, in chapter 1. That may not be part of the exhaustive list, but it preempts the entire mechanic. I think this is a far superior way to wrangle and prevent shenanigans than trying to imply a bunch of "gotcha" clauses in the Hide Action itself.
2) "An enemy finds you" is pretty open ended. While that list is exhaustive, "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" is not an exhaustive list of ways to "find" someone. This thread has had plenty of argumentum ad absurdum, but "if you sit in someone's lap while hidden, they find you" seems a clear, obvious, and intuitive ruling. Same for "silently tap someone on the shoulder to alert them to your presence." As you noted elsewhere, verisimilitude matters.
- Also, imagine Character A is hidden in a square, and Enemy B unknowingly tries to hide in the exact same square. They will bump into each other --- they can't occoupy the same space! That's gotta constitute "finding."
3) "[A] sound louder than a whisper" is a concrete idea, but there are zero concrete mechanics for judging the volume of anything. That's entirely within the realm of rulings.
- Though, I do think movement makes sound-louder-than-a-whisper by default, unless you are moving with a Stealth roll to "move quietly" and beat Passive Perception scores. That is a fairly explicit mechanic. While I agree with you, at least in combat, that the Stealth check in the Hide Action can also cover for movement, I think that's just a sensible houserule that streamlines play --- especially by keeping a "sneak up -> melee sneak attack -> run away -> Hide -> repeat" loop to (usually) one Stealth check per turn. But at least that one published adventure (above in thread) has PCs making a second Stealth check to sneak quietly after Hiding. Which still makes sense out of noisy combat.