I'd argue that they are still unnoticed, but not hidden. If a hidden creature is never trivially easy to spot, then a creature that is trivially easy to spot cannot be hidden.
You remain hidden (invisible condition with riders) until someone finds you. By either Passive Perception, a Search action, or DM fiat.
I agree that that's the best way to read it when just looking at the Hide action text. I think the guidance on perception in the DMG clarifies the overall intent though. A hidden creature is considered not trivially easy to notice. If a creature is in an enemy's line of sight and not obscured or behind cover, I would consider that trivially easy to notice, and therefore no longer hidden. To me, that heavily suggests the intent of the hide action is to conceal a creature from view only as long as they remain in their hiding spot.
It takes a little bit of DM fiat, I'll admit, but it's definitely a ruling made with guidance as opposed to an arbitrary assessment.
Not really pointless. If you are sneaking down a hallway and a guard turns to look, you are spotted.
The guard has 'line of sight' on you even when he's not facing your way (that's true even in a game that uses facing -- line of sight means lack of obstacles).
Not really pointless. If you are sneaking down a hallway and a guard turns to look, you are spotted.
The guard has 'line of sight' on you even when he's not facing your way (that's true even in a game that uses facing -- line of sight means lack of obstacles).
I was pretty sure that D&D considered that to be a "line of action", but I can't remember which part of the rules I saw it in.
This part of the statement makes me think that we're specifically referring to field of vision, though, otherwise the clarification would be completely unnecessary.
"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."
I'd argue that they are still unnoticed, but not hidden. If a hidden creature is never trivially easy to spot, then a creature that is trivially easy to spot cannot be hidden.
You remain hidden (invisible condition with riders) until someone finds you. By either Passive Perception, a Search action, or DM fiat.
I agree that that's the best way to read it when just looking at the Hide action text. I think the guidance on perception in the DMG clarifies the overall intent though. A hidden creature is considered not trivially easy to notice. If a creature is in an enemy's line of sight and not obscured or behind cover, I would consider that trivially easy to notice, and therefore no longer hidden. To me, that heavily suggests the intent of the hide action is to conceal a creature from view only as long as they remain in their hiding spot.
It takes a little bit of DM fiat, I'll admit, but it's definitely a ruling made with guidance as opposed to an arbitrary assessment.
It's DM fiat either way. Because they don't have facing rules, field of vision rules, or any such thing.
Say you're hiding behind a barrel, and there's a guard in the room. Sure, you step out, you get caught. But what if you do that "throw a pebble to make a noise over there" trick? Shouldn't that, assuming there's an appropriate path, let you get past the guard without notice or even get a sneak attack on the guard, if you hurry? (Substitute whatever "sneaking around and being clever" tropes your DM is cool with and your party can plan for.)
And if the guard is in combat, fighting...whatever, you could just pop out and attack them (assuming your initial Stealth roll already beat their passive perception). If they cared more about finding you than fighting, they would have used a Search action instead of whatever other combat action they used. If they are some super guard, or really dedicated, maybe the DM gives them advantage on finding you (+5 to passive perception, advantage on Search actions), but they are at disadvantage fighting...
Edit: more evidence: the Observant feat in 2024 lets you take the Search action as a Bonus Action. Why bother with that if the only combat-relevant means of finding a hiding person was "line of sight"?
Say you're hiding behind a barrel, and there's a guard in the room. Sure, you step out, you get caught. But what if you do that "throw a pebble to make a noise over there" trick? Shouldn't that, assuming there's an appropriate path, let you get past the guard without notice or even get a sneak attack on the guard, if you hurry?
Well right, you're still unnoticed and using the stealth skill, but I think they do not mean for a creature to still have the Invisible condition while out of cover. So yes, you throw the pebble and move, and you have not been noticed. No, you are not still Invisible(condition), because there is nothing (magic, cover, obfuscation, etc) rendering you not visible. You can see the guard, so you can discern that the guard cannot see you (as he is facing toward the thrown pebble) which allows you to sneak away or to find another suitable hiding location.
This is, of course, only my interpretation. But it's really the only way I can think to satisfy the rules while preventing mundane hiding from granting supernatural invisibility.
Say you're hiding behind a barrel, and there's a guard in the room. Sure, you step out, you get caught. But what if you do that "throw a pebble to make a noise over there" trick? Shouldn't that, assuming there's an appropriate path, let you get past the guard without notice or even get a sneak attack on the guard, if you hurry?
Well right, you're still unnoticed and using the stealth skill, but I think they do not mean for a creature to still have the Invisible condition while out of cover.
Of course they mean that! That's the point!
If you are not seen, then if you choose to start combat with guard, you'll have advantage on your initiative roll. If you attack them, you'll have advantage (and presumably sneak attack). If they realize something is up and attack you first (somehow beat you on initiative anyway), they'll be at disadvantage (basically making a "wild swing" because they don't quite know where you are yet. (And whatever other interactions you'd like, like the guard having the Observant feat...)
All of that is a reasonable collection of rules for that situation, that was already conveniently bundled under the Invisible condition.
This is, of course, only my interpretation. But it's really the only way I can think to satisfy the rules while preventing mundane hiding from granting supernatural invisibility.
That's probably the sticking point. The condition, alone, is not supernatural.
It's supernatural if it's a spell or whatever --- which means you can't just be "found" and perception rolls may be irrelevant, because the "finding" rules come from the Hide action, not the spell or whatever, and not the condition itself.
Say you're hiding behind a barrel, and there's a guard in the room. Sure, you step out, you get caught. But what if you do that "throw a pebble to make a noise over there" trick? Shouldn't that, assuming there's an appropriate path, let you get past the guard without notice or even get a sneak attack on the guard, if you hurry?
Well right, you're still unnoticed and using the stealth skill, but I think they do not mean for a creature to still have the Invisible condition while out of cover.
Of course they mean that! That's the point!
If you are not seen, then if you choose to start combat with guard, you'll have advantage on your initiative roll. If you attack them, you'll have advantage (and presumably sneak attack). If they realize something is up and attack you first (somehow beat you on initiative anyway), they'll be at disadvantage (basically making a "wild swing" because they don't quite know where you are yet. (And whatever other interactions you'd like, like the guard having the Observant feat...)
All of that is a reasonable collection of rules for that situation, that was already conveniently bundled under the Invisible condition.
This is, of course, only my interpretation. But it's really the only way I can think to satisfy the rules while preventing mundane hiding from granting supernatural invisibility.
That's probably the sticking point. The condition, alone, is not supernatural.
It's supernatural if it's a spell or whatever --- which means you can't just be "found" and perception rolls may be irrelevant, because the "finding" rules come from the Hide action, not the spell or whatever, and not the condition itself.
I see the sense in that as well. And actually, I think just a few words after "an enemy finds you" would clear up the confusion if that's the way they wanted it to work. Since the text says "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" in the passage just before, it's easy to assume that they mean an Invisible(hidden) creature must be found with a check, which is what allows the weird "I'm looking at you but have to make a check to see you" situation.
I agree that if we instead assume that "finds" isn't referring to a check, and just the sense of "being located, discovered, or perceived', then everything really works out pretty well.
which is what allows the weird "I'm looking at you but have to make a check to see you" situation.
Why assume they are looking at you? Succeeding at that Stealth (stealth!) check means they aren't looking at you, because you were stealthy.
In a fight, they'll be looking at whoever they are fighting. If they are, instead, doggedly trying to find you, they'll do that with an Action... Outside of that, "where they are looking" is entirely up to the collective imaginations of the playgroup, as ruled by the DM. This is only absurd if you make it absurd, and if it's absurd, then they can just see you and the condition ends.
which is what allows the weird "I'm looking at you but have to make a check to see you" situation.
Why assume they are looking at you? Succeeding at that Stealth (stealth!) check means they aren't looking at you, because you were stealthy.
In a fight, they'll be looking at whoever they are fighting. If they are, instead, doggedly trying to find you, they'll do that with an Action... Outside of that, "where they are looking" is entirely up to the collective imaginations of the playgroup, as ruled by the DM. This is only absurd if you make it absurd, and if it's absurd, then they can just see you and the condition ends.
Right. The only reason a creature would be looking at you is if it made sense in the shared imaginary scenario.
That's probably the sticking point. The condition, alone, is not supernatural.
Being invisible while in plain sight is supernatural, whatever the game chooses to call it.
That's why I've come to think just a few words clarifying "an enemy finds you" would solve much of the strangeness here.
I'm not certain what phrasing would fix it without being clunky though. But it's looking like maybe the designers intended "find" to mean both:
a) Finds you using the Search action while you are not obvious to see (concealed by cover or heavily obscured)
b) Sees you while you are in plain sight (not concealed by cover or heavily obscured)
This has mostly the same implication as needing cover to remain hidden, but it allows the advantages of being Invisible to remain even after you have exited your hiding spot, provided you have not entered an enemy's field of vision. Because the hide rules are a specific instance of the Invisible condition, this doesn't allow you to remain invisible while a creature is looking directly at you.
Giving a hiding creature the same condition as a creature that uses magic to become visibly difficult to see is the laziest way to “clarify” how hiding and being hidden from certain other creatures that currently can not see you. If an Unseen Condition or Hidden Condition were used instead, then the rules for hiding and being hidden would make more sense.
But nowhere, not in any version of the rules of d&d has any mundane creature or character, player or NPC had the ability to see in 360 degree line of sight.( certain monsters and exotic creatures notwithstanding). There has always existed a de-facto inherent creature facing mechanics within the game, otherwise what would ever be the point of having rules that specifically mention the ability to need to see a creature doing something directly.
I absolutely wish they had just written a Hidden condition, lol.
They added an entire rules glossary, what's the hardship in adding one more term? The term for hiding. A term chosen specifically to describe hiding. Kuzko's poison.
Where exactly in the rules does it say this? If a guard is facing a wall to take a bathroom break, how can they have line of sight on a creature sneaking up on them?
The section of stealth does not define line of sight. The rules for maps do, however, and it is the standard meaning of the term:
To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.
Is this actually what they meant? Probably not, since it renders the rest of the hide rules either redundant (total cover and heavy obscurement block line of sight) or nonfunctional (3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and thus you cannot actually hide while in 3/4 cover), but this gets back to the problem of not knowing what the rules are even intended to do.
Stepping slightly back from the rules, realistically speaking, it's not enough to hide -- if you want to do anything (including moving), while hidden, you must stay hidden. Staying hidden probably isn't an action in D&D terms (it's more like a movement mode, comparable to climbing or swimming), and it probably shouldn't have the same requirements as becoming hidden, but it also shouldn't have zero requirements.
I think there is difference between the Hide [Action] of the game, and an event or scenario executed by a character that several posters are trying describe. For some of these scenarios, the game doesn't have a set of rules to preform them; and in some examples it sounds like a character would be required to make multiple actions in order to successfully pull off what a poster is describing.
For the game rules, the Hide [Action] is underwhelming as written. To successfully take the action, a character needs to make a DEX (Stealth) saving throw while benefiting from an area that obstructs the vision of the creatures the character is trying to hide from. If successful, the character gains the Invisible condition (which has no other relationship to the Hide [Action] and is the same condition that is awarded via other effects that provide a character invisibility). The value of the roll on the DEX (Stealth) ability check is also used as the DC for a creature find the character with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It is also implied that if the character loses the benefit of an area that obstructs a creature's vision then the character fails at the Hide [Action]; and thus loses the benefit of the Invisible condition.
The reason I say this action is underwhelming is if one looks at the requirements for the area that obstructs a creatures vision. The character needs to be: 1) Heavily Obscured 2) Behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and must be out of any enemy’s line of sight.
Now consider the benefits from the Invisible condition:
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
The Surprise feature is the only benefit that really applies to Heavily Obscured, Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover. The benefits of Concealed and Attacks Affected (with the exception of the "your attack rolls have Advantage" portion) are achieved or surpassed by benefiting form Heavily Obscured or Total Cover. The real benefit for taking the Hide [Action] is when in combat a character can find Three-Quarters Cover and has the action economy to take the Hide [Action]. Outside of that, the benefit is being hidden before an initiative roll.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
Where exactly in the rules does it say this? If a guard is facing a wall to take a bathroom break, how can they have line of sight on a creature sneaking up on them?
The section of stealth does not define line of sight. The rules for maps do, however, and it is the standard meaning of the term:
To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.
Is this actually what they meant? Probably not, since it renders the rest of the hide rules either redundant (total cover and heavy obscurement block line of sight) or nonfunctional (3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and thus you cannot actually hide while in 3/4 cover), but this gets back to the problem of not knowing what the rules are even intended to do.
Stepping slightly back from the rules, realistically speaking, it's not enough to hide -- if you want to do anything (including moving), while hidden, you must stay hidden. Staying hidden probably isn't an action in D&D terms (it's more like a movement mode, comparable to climbing or swimming), and it probably shouldn't have the same requirements as becoming hidden, but it also shouldn't have zero requirements.
I definitely thought that was called a line of action, but I must be remembering it from a different game (or a different version of this game, who knows). Either way, I agree with you that it likely is not the mechanic they're referring to here.
I totally agree with the sentiment of "staying hidden". Maybe if we had a section more like "using each ability" section from the 2014 PHB we would have a clearer idea of what was intended. There are really several uses for the Stealth skill, but the new rules omit the useful examples.
It seems the three uses of Stealth most relevant to this discussion are:
Sneaking (to avoid drawing attention while moving or acting)
Hiding (to conceal oneself from view)
Sneaking while Hidden (moving or acting while remaining unseen)
Edit: I missed Petepan3's comment, but I think they're getting to the same point.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
Then why ever bother with the Stealth roll? You can just get behind cover and "duck" as a free action.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
Then why ever bother with the Stealth roll? You can just get behind cover and "duck" as a free action.
Because there's no mechanic for "ducking"; RAW if you are simply behind three-quarters cover then you get the benefit of that cover and that's it. To gain the benefit of Concealment from the 2024 Invisible condition, you need to have that condition some way.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
Then why ever bother with the Stealth roll? You can just get behind cover and "duck" as a free action.
Because there's no mechanic for "ducking"; RAW if you are simply behind three-quarters cover then you get the benefit of that cover and that's it. To gain the benefit of Concealment from the 2024 Invisible condition, you need to have that condition some way.
I think it just makes it obvious that Hiding is not just a "duck and cover" action. You don't need stealth to take cover, and you don't need a DC 15 to duck.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
Then why ever bother with the Stealth roll? You can just get behind cover and "duck" as a free action.
Presumably hiding behind cover and walking behind cover are different actions. Especially in the case of 3/4 cover, where moving behind 3/4 cover does not render you unseen, but hiding behind 3/4 cover does.
If hiding is not meant be a "find a hiding spot and hide there" action, then is it meant to replace other parts of the Stealth skill as well? If the hide action represents not only ducking behind cover but also sneaking quietly without notice, why is the skill separate from the action? I'm thinking hiding was intended to be a stealth option, not the only function of the stealth skill.
If the Hide action works to conceal you both in and out of cover, you take the hide action to hide, then use that one roll to narrate your way through a guarded area without making additional checks or changing tactics.
If the Hide action only represents hiding quickly and skillfully behind cover to protect yourself from view and scrutiny, then you would need to hide where there was cover, making stealth checks of a different nature to navigate between hiding places.
It seems strange to me that the intent would be to use the invisibility that somehow clings to you from hiding in one spot to act as your protection required to reach the next spot or to emerge and perform an activity, even such as movement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that that's the best way to read it when just looking at the Hide action text. I think the guidance on perception in the DMG clarifies the overall intent though. A hidden creature is considered not trivially easy to notice. If a creature is in an enemy's line of sight and not obscured or behind cover, I would consider that trivially easy to notice, and therefore no longer hidden. To me, that heavily suggests the intent of the hide action is to conceal a creature from view only as long as they remain in their hiding spot.
It takes a little bit of DM fiat, I'll admit, but it's definitely a ruling made with guidance as opposed to an arbitrary assessment.
The guard has 'line of sight' on you even when he's not facing your way (that's true even in a game that uses facing -- line of sight means lack of obstacles).
I was pretty sure that D&D considered that to be a "line of action", but I can't remember which part of the rules I saw it in.
This part of the statement makes me think that we're specifically referring to field of vision, though, otherwise the clarification would be completely unnecessary.
"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."
It's DM fiat either way. Because they don't have facing rules, field of vision rules, or any such thing.
Say you're hiding behind a barrel, and there's a guard in the room. Sure, you step out, you get caught. But what if you do that "throw a pebble to make a noise over there" trick? Shouldn't that, assuming there's an appropriate path, let you get past the guard without notice or even get a sneak attack on the guard, if you hurry? (Substitute whatever "sneaking around and being clever" tropes your DM is cool with and your party can plan for.)
And if the guard is in combat, fighting...whatever, you could just pop out and attack them (assuming your initial Stealth roll already beat their passive perception). If they cared more about finding you than fighting, they would have used a Search action instead of whatever other combat action they used. If they are some super guard, or really dedicated, maybe the DM gives them advantage on finding you (+5 to passive perception, advantage on Search actions), but they are at disadvantage fighting...
Edit: more evidence: the Observant feat in 2024 lets you take the Search action as a Bonus Action. Why bother with that if the only combat-relevant means of finding a hiding person was "line of sight"?
Well right, you're still unnoticed and using the stealth skill, but I think they do not mean for a creature to still have the Invisible condition while out of cover. So yes, you throw the pebble and move, and you have not been noticed. No, you are not still Invisible(condition), because there is nothing (magic, cover, obfuscation, etc) rendering you not visible. You can see the guard, so you can discern that the guard cannot see you (as he is facing toward the thrown pebble) which allows you to sneak away or to find another suitable hiding location.
This is, of course, only my interpretation. But it's really the only way I can think to satisfy the rules while preventing mundane hiding from granting supernatural invisibility.
Of course they mean that! That's the point!
If you are not seen, then if you choose to start combat with guard, you'll have advantage on your initiative roll. If you attack them, you'll have advantage (and presumably sneak attack). If they realize something is up and attack you first (somehow beat you on initiative anyway), they'll be at disadvantage (basically making a "wild swing" because they don't quite know where you are yet. (And whatever other interactions you'd like, like the guard having the Observant feat...)
All of that is a reasonable collection of rules for that situation, that was already conveniently bundled under the Invisible condition.
That's probably the sticking point. The condition, alone, is not supernatural.
It's supernatural if it's a spell or whatever --- which means you can't just be "found" and perception rolls may be irrelevant, because the "finding" rules come from the Hide action, not the spell or whatever, and not the condition itself.
Being invisible while in plain sight is supernatural, whatever the game chooses to call it.
I see the sense in that as well. And actually, I think just a few words after "an enemy finds you" would clear up the confusion if that's the way they wanted it to work. Since the text says "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" in the passage just before, it's easy to assume that they mean an Invisible(hidden) creature must be found with a check, which is what allows the weird "I'm looking at you but have to make a check to see you" situation.
I agree that if we instead assume that "finds" isn't referring to a check, and just the sense of "being located, discovered, or perceived', then everything really works out pretty well.
Why assume they are looking at you? Succeeding at that Stealth (stealth!) check means they aren't looking at you, because you were stealthy.
In a fight, they'll be looking at whoever they are fighting. If they are, instead, doggedly trying to find you, they'll do that with an Action... Outside of that, "where they are looking" is entirely up to the collective imaginations of the playgroup, as ruled by the DM. This is only absurd if you make it absurd, and if it's absurd, then they can just see you and the condition ends.
Right. The only reason a creature would be looking at you is if it made sense in the shared imaginary scenario.
I think we're actually on the same page.
That's why I've come to think just a few words clarifying "an enemy finds you" would solve much of the strangeness here.
I'm not certain what phrasing would fix it without being clunky though. But it's looking like maybe the designers intended "find" to mean both:
a) Finds you using the Search action while you are not obvious to see (concealed by cover or heavily obscured)
b) Sees you while you are in plain sight (not concealed by cover or heavily obscured)
This has mostly the same implication as needing cover to remain hidden, but it allows the advantages of being Invisible to remain even after you have exited your hiding spot, provided you have not entered an enemy's field of vision. Because the hide rules are a specific instance of the Invisible condition, this doesn't allow you to remain invisible while a creature is looking directly at you.
I absolutely wish they had just written a Hidden condition, lol.
They added an entire rules glossary, what's the hardship in adding one more term? The term for hiding. A term chosen specifically to describe hiding. Kuzko's poison.
Er, you know what I mean.
The section of stealth does not define line of sight. The rules for maps do, however, and it is the standard meaning of the term:
Is this actually what they meant? Probably not, since it renders the rest of the hide rules either redundant (total cover and heavy obscurement block line of sight) or nonfunctional (3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and thus you cannot actually hide while in 3/4 cover), but this gets back to the problem of not knowing what the rules are even intended to do.
Stepping slightly back from the rules, realistically speaking, it's not enough to hide -- if you want to do anything (including moving), while hidden, you must stay hidden. Staying hidden probably isn't an action in D&D terms (it's more like a movement mode, comparable to climbing or swimming), and it probably shouldn't have the same requirements as becoming hidden, but it also shouldn't have zero requirements.
I think there is difference between the Hide [Action] of the game, and an event or scenario executed by a character that several posters are trying describe. For some of these scenarios, the game doesn't have a set of rules to preform them; and in some examples it sounds like a character would be required to make multiple actions in order to successfully pull off what a poster is describing.
For the game rules, the Hide [Action] is underwhelming as written. To successfully take the action, a character needs to make a DEX (Stealth) saving throw while benefiting from an area that obstructs the vision of the creatures the character is trying to hide from. If successful, the character gains the Invisible condition (which has no other relationship to the Hide [Action] and is the same condition that is awarded via other effects that provide a character invisibility). The value of the roll on the DEX (Stealth) ability check is also used as the DC for a creature find the character with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It is also implied that if the character loses the benefit of an area that obstructs a creature's vision then the character fails at the Hide [Action]; and thus loses the benefit of the Invisible condition.
The reason I say this action is underwhelming is if one looks at the requirements for the area that obstructs a creatures vision. The character needs to be:
1) Heavily Obscured
2) Behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and must be out of any enemy’s line of sight.
Now consider the benefits from the Invisible condition:
The Surprise feature is the only benefit that really applies to Heavily Obscured, Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover. The benefits of Concealed and Attacks Affected (with the exception of the "your attack rolls have Advantage" portion) are achieved or surpassed by benefiting form Heavily Obscured or Total Cover. The real benefit for taking the Hide [Action] is when in combat a character can find Three-Quarters Cover and has the action economy to take the Hide [Action]. Outside of that, the benefit is being hidden before an initiative roll.
So hiding is really limited to the action as summarized above. It sounds like the are players looking for the game to have an Avoidance [Action], Diversion [Action], and Distracted condition; but currently the game doesn't offer it. It might have to be homebrewed, and it would require some analysis of the game mechanics. But currently, the Hide [Action] is limited to just a "duck and cover" type of maneuver and there are no benefits from the action if a character wants to move or attempt some higher form of subterfuge.
I definitely thought that was called a line of action, but I must be remembering it from a different game (or a different version of this game, who knows). Either way, I agree with you that it likely is not the mechanic they're referring to here.
I totally agree with the sentiment of "staying hidden". Maybe if we had a section more like "using each ability" section from the 2014 PHB we would have a clearer idea of what was intended. There are really several uses for the Stealth skill, but the new rules omit the useful examples.
It seems the three uses of Stealth most relevant to this discussion are:
Sneaking (to avoid drawing attention while moving or acting)
Hiding (to conceal oneself from view)
Sneaking while Hidden (moving or acting while remaining unseen)
Edit: I missed Petepan3's comment, but I think they're getting to the same point.
I fully believe the Hide action was intended as a duck and cover maneuver. That's why I first assumed the rule was intended to function only so long as the creature remained in its hiding spot.
Then why ever bother with the Stealth roll? You can just get behind cover and "duck" as a free action.
Because there's no mechanic for "ducking"; RAW if you are simply behind three-quarters cover then you get the benefit of that cover and that's it. To gain the benefit of Concealment from the 2024 Invisible condition, you need to have that condition some way.
I think it just makes it obvious that Hiding is not just a "duck and cover" action. You don't need stealth to take cover, and you don't need a DC 15 to duck.
Presumably hiding behind cover and walking behind cover are different actions. Especially in the case of 3/4 cover, where moving behind 3/4 cover does not render you unseen, but hiding behind 3/4 cover does.
If hiding is not meant be a "find a hiding spot and hide there" action, then is it meant to replace other parts of the Stealth skill as well? If the hide action represents not only ducking behind cover but also sneaking quietly without notice, why is the skill separate from the action? I'm thinking hiding was intended to be a stealth option, not the only function of the stealth skill.
If the Hide action works to conceal you both in and out of cover, you take the hide action to hide, then use that one roll to narrate your way through a guarded area without making additional checks or changing tactics.
If the Hide action only represents hiding quickly and skillfully behind cover to protect yourself from view and scrutiny, then you would need to hide where there was cover, making stealth checks of a different nature to navigate between hiding places.
It seems strange to me that the intent would be to use the invisibility that somehow clings to you from hiding in one spot to act as your protection required to reach the next spot or to emerge and perform an activity, even such as movement.