I don't have the book with me but that part of stealth works the same as always.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
The rest of possibilities, like attacking in melee while stealthed, running from your hideout to the opponent, etc its a case by case scenario that should be rule by your DM.
But most of it its explained in the PHB in their respective rules.
Hide its not the Invisibility Spell... so if you hide (because you were behind a wall/pillar/dark corner of the room), and move into a room in full view of an opponent, you are no longer hidden.
The best benefit of succesfully hiding is the possibility of surprising the opponent, and going first in initiative, or bypassing its passive perception while moving from hiding spot to hiding spot.
There are some recent threads discussing this topic. You might find some Heroic Inspiration in them, but I agree we need some guidance on the Hiding and Invisibility rules.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
Level 9: Supreme Sneak
You gain the following Cunning Strike option.
Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). 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.
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
I dont see the point of moving while stealthing without errata, dmg examples or sage advice. You could have -8 wisdom and find people without perception checks if stealth moving in front of you. Please wotc clarify this
Page 19: “Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.”
Page 368: “HIDE ACTION With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible con-dition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Per-ception) check.
The condition ends on you 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.”
Stealth page 14: “escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things”
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
Level 9: Supreme Sneak
You gain the following Cunning Strike option.
Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). 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.
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
Sneak Attack is not intended to work with Hiding in melee in the Skyrim "I walk up behind them in broad daylight and shiv them" sense; that's why it procs on an ally being next to the target. Stealth Attack is for sniping or when you're in conditions that allow for hiding in melee- most likely attacking in the dark when you have darkvision. If Hiding literally made you Invisible it would be ridiculously broken on Rogues; they can take Expertise in Stealth a 1st level and with Cunning Actions the level after they'd almost always be Invisible, especially at 10th when Reliable Talent means they'll probably be hitting 20+ per Stealth roll.
that isn’t how stealth or hide is described in the book though
Stealth page 14: “escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things”
Page 19: “Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.”
Page 368: “HIDE ACTION With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible con-dition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Per-ception) check.
I agree that the 2024 rules on hiding need clarification, and that isn't the only one. It's almost as if they wrote the 2024 PHB while whispering to themselves, "Let's word everything in such a way as to make our intent impossible to decipher hehehehe."
Until there's sage advice saying otherwise, i'm going with as soon as someone has line of sight to the hiding (aka invisible condition) character without being obstructed by concealment, cover, or distraction - they're likely seen.
In otherwords, adding to the "The condition ends on you 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.”
OR THE TARGET GAINS LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU UNOBSTRUCTED BY CONCEALMENT OR COVER
If a guard is at the north end of a well lit hallway, and the character is at the south end, completely hidden around a corner - and the character rolls a successful Stealth check (Hide) - let's say they roll a 25... as soon as they step around that corner and into the guard's view, i'm ruling that they have been spotted - unless there's something actively distracting that guard.
I don't buy the whole argument some are making that "but it said you gain the invisible condition, and you haven't cast a spell, made a noise, the guard can't roll a perception check that high, and you haven't made an attack so you're still invisible and can just walk out in the open with no chance of being seen."
If it turns out that WAS the designer's intent, then we're houseruling it away because that's ridiculous.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
Level 9: Supreme Sneak
You gain the following Cunning Strike option.
Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). 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.
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
Sneak Attack is not intended to work with Hiding in melee in the Skyrim "I walk up behind them in broad daylight and shiv them" sense; that's why it procs on an ally being next to the target. Stealth Attack is for sniping or when you're in conditions that allow for hiding in melee- most likely attacking in the dark when you have darkvision. If Hiding literally made you Invisible it would be ridiculously broken on Rogues; they can take Expertise in Stealth a 1st level and with Cunning Actions the level after they'd almost always be Invisible, especially at 10th when Reliable Talent means they'll probably be hitting 20+ per Stealth roll.
So your interpretation is that it's impossible to be hiding, then move out of cover to a target (within your move range, even as short a distance as 5-10 feet) and get sneak attack if the advantage granted from hiding was the only reason you'd be getting it? Even if the guy walked right up to the bush you were hiding in, but didn't know you were there, no sneak attack?
Setting that aside, sniping from long range still would not be allowed to get Sneak Attack under your interpretation because to hit the target, you'd need line of sight on them, and entering line of sight would immediately remove the Hidden Invisible condition.
It was my understanding that Rogues essentially need to get Sneak Attack every round to remain competitive in damage.
I'm reasonably certain that it's supposed to be able to move out of hidden cover and make a sneak attack, because monsters like the tiger don't make sense unless it's possible. However, I have no idea what the intended limit of that ability is.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
Level 9: Supreme Sneak
You gain the following Cunning Strike option.
Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). 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.
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
Sneak Attack is not intended to work with Hiding in melee in the Skyrim "I walk up behind them in broad daylight and shiv them" sense; that's why it procs on an ally being next to the target. Stealth Attack is for sniping or when you're in conditions that allow for hiding in melee- most likely attacking in the dark when you have darkvision. If Hiding literally made you Invisible it would be ridiculously broken on Rogues; they can take Expertise in Stealth a 1st level and with Cunning Actions the level after they'd almost always be Invisible, especially at 10th when Reliable Talent means they'll probably be hitting 20+ per Stealth roll.
So your interpretation is that it's impossible to be hiding, then move out of cover to a target (within your move range, even as short a distance as 5-10 feet) and get sneak attack if the advantage granted from hiding was the only reason you'd be getting it?
Yes. The way awareness works in 5e, if a creature has unobstructed line of sight on you and you don't have something like the Invisibility spell up, then for the purposes of combat they see you.
Even if the guy walked right up to the bush you were hiding in, but didn't know you were there, no sneak attack?
If you're unseen when you make the attack, then you would get advantage; however, in 5e there's no "window of surprise" in combat when you rush out from the bush into open space to stab the guy
Setting that aside, sniping from long range still would not be allowed to get Sneak Attack under your interpretation because to hit the target, you'd need line of sight on them, and entering line of sight would immediately remove the Hidden Invisible condition.
Being unseen is not necessarily the same thing as not having LoS; the exact nature of how cover works in regard to LoS from different positions is a DM matter
It was my understanding that Rogues essentially need to get Sneak Attack every round to remain competitive in damage.
Well, first things first there's no such thing as "competitive" damage in the design of 5e because it's not a competition. This isn't WoW, you don't kick people from the party just because they're not meeting the mandated DPS threshold. However, regarding procing Sneak Attack, that would be both why there's a suite of other features to proc Sneak Attack aside from attacking while unseen such as Vex weapons, having an ally within 5 ft of the target, and Steady Aim. Attacking from stealth is an option that might potentially be available, but it's not the only one and imo the psuedo-flanking is clearly meant to be the default method.
I'm reasonably certain that it's supposed to be able to move out of hidden cover and make a sneak attack, because monsters like the tiger don't make sense unless it's possible. However, I have no idea what the intended limit of that ability is.
I could see that, but I could also see the concept being that a Tiger is best equipped to attack from three-quarters cover such as tall grass (similar to IRL). It's unfortunate they didn't deign to put any form of description whatsoever into the PHB stat block entries, which might have helped clarify the design intent on features such as this.
I agree that the 2024 rules on hiding need clarification, and that isn't the only one. It's almost as if they wrote the 2024 PHB while whispering to themselves, "Let's word everything in such a way as to make our intent impossible to decipher hehehehe."
Until there's sage advice saying otherwise, i'm going with as soon as someone has line of sight to the hiding (aka invisible condition) character without being obstructed by concealment, cover, or distraction - they're likely seen.
In otherwords, adding to the "The condition ends on you 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.”
OR THE TARGET GAINS LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU UNOBSTRUCTED BY CONCEALMENT OR COVER
If a guard is at the north end of a well lit hallway, and the character is at the south end, completely hidden around a corner - and the character rolls a successful Stealth check (Hide) - let's say they roll a 25... as soon as they step around that corner and into the guard's view, i'm ruling that they have been spotted - unless there's something actively distracting that guard.
I don't buy the whole argument some are making that "but it said you gain the invisible condition, and you haven't cast a spell, made a noise, the guard can't roll a perception check that high, and you haven't made an attack so you're still invisible and can just walk out in the open with no chance of being seen."
If it turns out that WAS the designer's intent, then we're houseruling it away because that's ridiculous.
It would be nice if it was more clear, but I do think that part, "OR THE TARGET GAINS LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU UNOBSTRUCTED BY CONCEALMENT OR COVER", is already present in the "an enemy finds you" portion of the description. Note that it does not say "when an enemy makes a successful [Perception] Search check against you," it just says "finds". It seems clear to me, with the designers intent on using common language, that "finds you" would include you walking around the corner into their line of sight. If it was specific to them making a [Perception] Search check then it would say so explicitly, I would imagine.
5.24 never actually declares "line of sight" to be perfect. That's basically the kicker. By the new hiding rules, in an action-to-action sort of situation like in combat, people are essentially defined to be "too distracted" unless they are taking a Search action (the new Observant feat makes that a bonus action, even). And that Search action has a DC of the hider's original stealth roll, representing them doing their best to stay out of your gaze / not make noise / etc.
The DM has a ton of leeway here: maybe you get disadvantage on the stealth roll because you're too obvious; maybe you get advantage on the Search action because they're sneaking in a bright, open space with nothing much going on; maybe a guard not-in-combat is continually Searching, and the hider needs to beat the guard's passive Perception and not get found by a Search action; maybe a guard gets auto-success (unless there's an invisibility spell involved) because they are out of combat and have full view of the only area you could sneak through...or various combinations of those options.
Yes, it would be real nice to see a detailed example (in the DMG?) to clarify all this. But they like leaving these sorts of rulings to DMs, and people can get the above with only reading the PHB.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
Level 9: Supreme Sneak
You gain the following Cunning Strike option.
Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). 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.
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
- Supreme Sneak is one of the exceptions to the rule of losing "hide-invisibly" while making an attack. Remember that you can sneak attack from anywhere as long as the conditions are met (finesse or ranged weapons, you have advantage on an attack like being "hiding" or having a friend next to the target). Supreme Sneak plays more for ranged characters than can hide again after the attack (or are next to cover when they attack and move in an out), it can work for melee if the right conditions (and Dm ruling) are met. For example being always hidden before and after the attack (like someone else mentioned: attacking in darkness with darkvision or similar effect).
LoS is covered in the ‘14 DMG, at least by implication since tracking facing is an optional rule. Implicitly, if you’re not tracking facing then line of sight is 360, and by definition a creature that has no cover or other effect that would keep another given creature from seeing it cannot be “unseen”. Ergo, given that being found ends the effect of Hide and that LoS being expressly limited is an optional rule, we can conclude that the RAI is that LoS is a 360 field unless explicitly modified and therefore a creature will be “found” if it steps into an uncovered position given that the Invisible condition does not apply if a creature can somehow see you, and I believe everyone can agree that a simple Stealth roll will not make a character literally transparent.
LoS is covered in the ‘14 DMG, at least by implication since tracking facing is an optional rule. Implicitly, if you’re not tracking facing then line of sight is 360, and by definition a creature that has no cover or other effect that would keep another given creature from seeing it cannot be “unseen”
Much of what is in the '24 PHB implies that is no longer the intention for 5.24. Obviously, if the '24 DMG says that vision is 360 without explicit LoS tracking, then I'm wrong. But it sure does look like they're making implicit LoS the norm, via Search checks vs hidden people, when those conditions arise. Sort of having their minimalist cake and eating it too.
Basically, it's probably why they re-used the invisible condition for this.
The wording of supreme sneak is consistent with one way I have seen proposed for dealing with this, which is
If at the end of any turn you lack 3/4 cover, total cover, or heavy obscurement from an enemy, you lose this invisible condition.
But if you’ve already got Hide as a Bonus Action and Reliable Talent since that’s now 7th level, what does Supreme Sneak do then? Some protection from AoO doesn’t hurt, but I’m not sure it’s worth spending even one damage die on when you’ll have two opportunities to take Speedy for most of the protection against AoO and extra features. Thieves don’t have much else to spend the Bonus Action on, since if you’re planning to TWF you’ll almost certainly use the Nick mastery. Just seems like a weak feature, and one that a tempting feat pick for Rogues pretty much kills.
LoS is covered in the ‘14 DMG, at least by implication since tracking facing is an optional rule. Implicitly, if you’re not tracking facing then line of sight is 360, and by definition a creature that has no cover or other effect that would keep another given creature from seeing it cannot be “unseen”
Much of what is in the '24 PHB implies that is no longer the intention for 5.24. Obviously, if the '24 DMG says that vision is 360 without explicit LoS tracking, then I'm wrong. But it sure does look like they're making implicit LoS the norm, via Search checks vs hidden people, when those conditions arise. Sort of having their minimalist cake and eating it too.
Basically, it's probably why they re-used the invisible condition for this.
If you choose to interpret it that way in your games that’s your prerogative, but by definition the 14 DMG rules represent the default for what they cover until the updated edition is released. A new 5e PHB doesn’t make the old 5e DMG obsolete.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/s/d1M24qrAiQ
there are dozens of social media posts on this topic, please have the team write an article for scenarios
1. you hide beating their dc 15 and role a stealth check lets say 25
2. you now move in the room, can the two monsters see you if not obscured by total or 3/4 cover?
do they:
a. Need to still search perception check beating your dc25
or is it:
b. Up to dm
kind of painful in its current state, should be clarified in phb erreta imho or dmg
https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/s/n2wXK7AuY9
I don't have the book with me but that part of stealth works the same as always.
If you move into the line of sight of an opponent, you lose stealth, unless something else says you don't, like still being obscured and they don't have darkvision.
The rest of possibilities, like attacking in melee while stealthed, running from your hideout to the opponent, etc its a case by case scenario that should be rule by your DM.
But most of it its explained in the PHB in their respective rules.
Hide its not the Invisibility Spell... so if you hide (because you were behind a wall/pillar/dark corner of the room), and move into a room in full view of an opponent, you are no longer hidden.
The best benefit of succesfully hiding is the possibility of surprising the opponent, and going first in initiative, or bypassing its passive perception while moving from hiding spot to hiding spot.
There are some recent threads discussing this topic. You might find some Heroic Inspiration in them, but I agree we need some guidance on the Hiding and Invisibility rules.
If that was the intended reading, then it means it is usually impossible for a Rogue to get Sneak Attack from hiding then attacking. I do not believe that is the intended reading based on wording of the Thief subclass's level 9 feature:
This suggests that you should be able to get Sneak Attack if you attack from hiding.
I dont see the point of moving while stealthing without errata, dmg examples or sage advice. You could have -8 wisdom and find people without perception checks if stealth moving in front of you. Please wotc clarify this
Page 19: “Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.”
Page 368: “HIDE ACTION
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself.
To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible con-dition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Per-ception) check.
The condition ends on you 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.”
Stealth page 14: “escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things”
Sneak Attack is not intended to work with Hiding in melee in the Skyrim "I walk up behind them in broad daylight and shiv them" sense; that's why it procs on an ally being next to the target. Stealth Attack is for sniping or when you're in conditions that allow for hiding in melee- most likely attacking in the dark when you have darkvision. If Hiding literally made you Invisible it would be ridiculously broken on Rogues; they can take Expertise in Stealth a 1st level and with Cunning Actions the level after they'd almost always be Invisible, especially at 10th when Reliable Talent means they'll probably be hitting 20+ per Stealth roll.
that isn’t how stealth or hide is described in the book though
Stealth page 14: “escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things”
Page 19: “Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.”
Page 368: “HIDE ACTION
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself.
To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible con-dition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Per-ception) check.
I agree that the 2024 rules on hiding need clarification, and that isn't the only one. It's almost as if they wrote the 2024 PHB while whispering to themselves, "Let's word everything in such a way as to make our intent impossible to decipher hehehehe."
Until there's sage advice saying otherwise, i'm going with as soon as someone has line of sight to the hiding (aka invisible condition) character without being obstructed by concealment, cover, or distraction - they're likely seen.
In otherwords, adding to the "The condition ends on you 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.”
OR THE TARGET GAINS LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU UNOBSTRUCTED BY CONCEALMENT OR COVER
If a guard is at the north end of a well lit hallway, and the character is at the south end, completely hidden around a corner - and the character rolls a successful Stealth check (Hide) - let's say they roll a 25... as soon as they step around that corner and into the guard's view, i'm ruling that they have been spotted - unless there's something actively distracting that guard.
I don't buy the whole argument some are making that "but it said you gain the invisible condition, and you haven't cast a spell, made a noise, the guard can't roll a perception check that high, and you haven't made an attack so you're still invisible and can just walk out in the open with no chance of being seen."
If it turns out that WAS the designer's intent, then we're houseruling it away because that's ridiculous.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
So your interpretation is that it's impossible to be hiding, then move out of cover to a target (within your move range, even as short a distance as 5-10 feet) and get sneak attack if the advantage granted from hiding was the only reason you'd be getting it? Even if the guy walked right up to the bush you were hiding in, but didn't know you were there, no sneak attack?
Setting that aside, sniping from long range still would not be allowed to get Sneak Attack under your interpretation because to hit the target, you'd need line of sight on them, and entering line of sight would immediately remove the
HiddenInvisible condition.It was my understanding that Rogues essentially need to get Sneak Attack every round to remain competitive in damage.
I'm reasonably certain that it's supposed to be able to move out of hidden cover and make a sneak attack, because monsters like the tiger don't make sense unless it's possible. However, I have no idea what the intended limit of that ability is.
Yes. The way awareness works in 5e, if a creature has unobstructed line of sight on you and you don't have something like the Invisibility spell up, then for the purposes of combat they see you.
If you're unseen when you make the attack, then you would get advantage; however, in 5e there's no "window of surprise" in combat when you rush out from the bush into open space to stab the guy
Being unseen is not necessarily the same thing as not having LoS; the exact nature of how cover works in regard to LoS from different positions is a DM matter
Well, first things first there's no such thing as "competitive" damage in the design of 5e because it's not a competition. This isn't WoW, you don't kick people from the party just because they're not meeting the mandated DPS threshold. However, regarding procing Sneak Attack, that would be both why there's a suite of other features to proc Sneak Attack aside from attacking while unseen such as Vex weapons, having an ally within 5 ft of the target, and Steady Aim. Attacking from stealth is an option that might potentially be available, but it's not the only one and imo the psuedo-flanking is clearly meant to be the default method.
I could see that, but I could also see the concept being that a Tiger is best equipped to attack from three-quarters cover such as tall grass (similar to IRL). It's unfortunate they didn't deign to put any form of description whatsoever into the PHB stat block entries, which might have helped clarify the design intent on features such as this.
It would be nice if it was more clear, but I do think that part, "OR THE TARGET GAINS LINE OF SIGHT TO YOU UNOBSTRUCTED BY CONCEALMENT OR COVER", is already present in the "an enemy finds you" portion of the description. Note that it does not say "when an enemy makes a successful [Perception] Search check against you," it just says "finds". It seems clear to me, with the designers intent on using common language, that "finds you" would include you walking around the corner into their line of sight. If it was specific to them making a [Perception] Search check then it would say so explicitly, I would imagine.
5.24 never actually declares "line of sight" to be perfect. That's basically the kicker. By the new hiding rules, in an action-to-action sort of situation like in combat, people are essentially defined to be "too distracted" unless they are taking a Search action (the new Observant feat makes that a bonus action, even). And that Search action has a DC of the hider's original stealth roll, representing them doing their best to stay out of your gaze / not make noise / etc.
The DM has a ton of leeway here: maybe you get disadvantage on the stealth roll because you're too obvious; maybe you get advantage on the Search action because they're sneaking in a bright, open space with nothing much going on; maybe a guard not-in-combat is continually Searching, and the hider needs to beat the guard's passive Perception and not get found by a Search action; maybe a guard gets auto-success (unless there's an invisibility spell involved) because they are out of combat and have full view of the only area you could sneak through...or various combinations of those options.
Yes, it would be real nice to see a detailed example (in the DMG?) to clarify all this. But they like leaving these sorts of rulings to DMs, and people can get the above with only reading the PHB.
- Supreme Sneak is one of the exceptions to the rule of losing "hide-invisibly" while making an attack. Remember that you can sneak attack from anywhere as long as the conditions are met (finesse or ranged weapons, you have advantage on an attack like being "hiding" or having a friend next to the target). Supreme Sneak plays more for ranged characters than can hide again after the attack (or are next to cover when they attack and move in an out), it can work for melee if the right conditions (and Dm ruling) are met. For example being always hidden before and after the attack (like someone else mentioned: attacking in darkness with darkvision or similar effect).
LoS is covered in the ‘14 DMG, at least by implication since tracking facing is an optional rule. Implicitly, if you’re not tracking facing then line of sight is 360, and by definition a creature that has no cover or other effect that would keep another given creature from seeing it cannot be “unseen”. Ergo, given that being found ends the effect of Hide and that LoS being expressly limited is an optional rule, we can conclude that the RAI is that LoS is a 360 field unless explicitly modified and therefore a creature will be “found” if it steps into an uncovered position given that the Invisible condition does not apply if a creature can somehow see you, and I believe everyone can agree that a simple Stealth roll will not make a character literally transparent.
The wording of supreme sneak is consistent with one way I have seen proposed for dealing with this, which is
Much of what is in the '24 PHB implies that is no longer the intention for 5.24. Obviously, if the '24 DMG says that vision is 360 without explicit LoS tracking, then I'm wrong. But it sure does look like they're making implicit LoS the norm, via Search checks vs hidden people, when those conditions arise. Sort of having their minimalist cake and eating it too.
Basically, it's probably why they re-used the invisible condition for this.
But if you’ve already got Hide as a Bonus Action and Reliable Talent since that’s now 7th level, what does Supreme Sneak do then? Some protection from AoO doesn’t hurt, but I’m not sure it’s worth spending even one damage die on when you’ll have two opportunities to take Speedy for most of the protection against AoO and extra features. Thieves don’t have much else to spend the Bonus Action on, since if you’re planning to TWF you’ll almost certainly use the Nick mastery. Just seems like a weak feature, and one that a tempting feat pick for Rogues pretty much kills.
If you choose to interpret it that way in your games that’s your prerogative, but by definition the 14 DMG rules represent the default for what they cover until the updated edition is released. A new 5e PHB doesn’t make the old 5e DMG obsolete.