You claim it's "not an exhaustive list". That's de facto saying you don't want to bother with rules at all - and voids any argument you make about the rules. You're just stating a personal preference for your own games.
Were the developers were wasting their time when they wrote rules about a Perception DC and Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll? Were abilities like Skulker, Supreme Sneak and Naturally Stealthy intended to be useless? Why spend all that time on the Hide Action and Stealth skill if they don't actually do anything? Why include Disadvantage on Stealth rolls as a drawback on Heavy Armor if it isn't actually any sort of drawback? The folks who wrote 5E 2024 sure went to a lot of trouble to write down rules you claim don't count.
Much of the reason that the rules give what people believe are silly results is that they were designed to simplify the whole process. Instead of having to engage in a long debate at the table about what conditions apply, how you can sneak, etc., they simply changed Stealth to be literal Invisibility when in use. It simplifies the game in the exact same way computer games simplified Stealth.
"Enemy finds you" isn't a vague GM-adjudicated rule. It's explicitly laid out in the previous line: "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.".
Again, skill checks are only used when there is uncertainty.
You do not roll persuasion to persuade the king to give up his kingdom and hand the crown to you, some bozo he met five minutes ago. You do not roll persuasion to convince the shopkeeper to sell you a knife for the standard price.
Similarly, you do not roll perception to see a person standing in a well-lit open room in front of you. Even if they were hiding not very long ago.
In terms of Invisibility vs. Stealth, they both do exactly the same thing: give you the Invisible condition. The only difference is in terms of how it ends.
This is true. But the Invisible condition doesn't actually include "immune to being visible". In fact, the condition explicitly allows for people being able to see you.
There is no possible way to have a purely mechanistic stealth/hiding system in D&D. There are too many situation-specific variables.
Fortunately, D&D is not a game with purely mechanistic rules. The DM is there to interpret on the fly. Given the right circumstances, I would allow somebody to stealth through a brightly-lit room with no concealment. Most of those situations involve distractions.
You claim it's "not an exhaustive list". That's de facto saying you don't want to bother with rules at all - and voids any argument you make about the rules. You're just stating a personal preference for your own games.
That might be how you want to interpret it but that is simply what the rules DO state. You're just out of personal preference and special pledging insisting that creatures can walk out from behind cover and dance the tango and some how remain still "hidden".
Were the developers were wasting their time when they wrote rules about a Perception DC and Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll? Were abilities like Skulker, Supreme Sneak and Naturally Stealthy intended to be useless? Why spend all that time on the Hide Action and Stealth skill if they don't actually do anything? Why include Disadvantage on Stealth rolls as a drawback on Heavy Armor if it isn't actually any sort of drawback? The folks who wrote 5E 2024 sure went to a lot of trouble to write down rules you claim don't count.
And this is where context matters, are you hiding from a creature that knows you are there or did they never know? A creature that knows your hidden somewhere will be actively searching. If you hide in a box, it might from perception notice something amiss with the box and thus discern your location.
Skulker nothing I have said in here stops Skulker working, you can make attacks from hidden positions if you can see a creature and it can not see you, additionally you can more easily hide in combat. Nothing I've said conflicts with any of this.
Supreme Sneak just means that you no longer automatically end the hidden condition for taking the attack action, nothing I have said changes that. You can perform an attack from a position of three-quarters cover also if you can see a creature that can not see you, such as a spell that makes you heavily obscured from it but it is not obscured from you. Either of these situations work, alternatively you can make an attack while being blind to it but you do so at disadvantage. So those still all work with everything I have said.
Naturally Stealthy is merely a case of specific beats general, in this case you have an additional caveat that you can use to become hidden, you are however still only hidden while benefiting from cover of that creature. If you moved in front of it immediately after, you'd no longer be hidden.
Much of the reason that the rules give what people believe are silly results is that they were designed to simplify the whole process. Instead of having to engage in a long debate at the table about what conditions apply, how you can sneak, etc., they simply changed Stealth to be literal Invisibility when in use. It simplifies the game in the exact same way computer games simplified Stealth.
The stealth rules in 2024 are poorly written, I won't excuse that. These rules simply never simplified anything but rather made things more convoluted, however I do not believe anybody honestly believes that the new stealth rules means anybody who can hide now magically becomes invisible and nobody can ever see them again unless they know to specifically search for em, or that person makes a noise. The RAI are quiet clear and I'd say matches the RAW that the "invisible" condition only applies while actively trying to hide and to be actively trying to hide you must be behind cover where you aren't seen by a hostile creature while also hiding properly (the DC check).
That the RAW can be interpreted another way, is mostly just special pledging that "while hidden" doesn't mean actively staying hidden and instead is some magical thing where you're not invisible because you "hid" but are no longer hiding, the DMG literally has a section about not making bad faith interpretations and yet this bad faith interpretation isn't going away.
Skulker and Supreme Sneak are invalidated by your rules because the moment a player steps out to make an attack, you claim the player is immediately detected (despite the fact that we have explicit rules to cover this very scenario). Since the player is immediately detected, they cannot later prevent losing stealth from making the attack. Likewise, a Halfling making use of Naturally Stealthy would, according to you, be immediately detected without even the need for a roll.
Also, the rules aren't poorly written. They're fairly simple. They lay out in explicit detail what happens at each stage and they all function in a sensible, consistent manner. They don't require all sorts of GM interpretations and inventing rules to cover missing parts.
There's nothing "bad faith" about interpreting the literal rules as written and intended.
sorta collating some points from many previous threads:
1) "Hide" is an Action; being "hidden" is a condition:
a) Specifically, "hidden" is a shallow wrapper around the Invisible Condition, that requires being unseen and unheard. "Being found" means someone saw or heard you (more or less), despite your best efforts. b) The condition tells you exactly how it ends, and "when you break cover/concealment" is not in the list. The errata from SAE draws attention to this, and did not add to the list (it would have been trivial to do so). c) This is quite similar to how casting a spell may take an action, but the spell's duration may last much longer, even if you could no longer cast it --- a polymorphed caster can walk into a Silence AoE without the spell ending.
2) Hide is clearly meant to be used in combat:
a) From the Skulker feat: "Fog of War. You exploit the distractions of battle, gaining Advantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) check you make as part of the Hide action during combat." b) Additionally under the Skulker feat: "Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn’t reveal your location." c) Under the Observant feat: "Quick Search. You can take the Search action as a Bonus Action." d) Under the Thief's 9th level feature: "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."
Additionally, 2.d is a very strong hint that you could make the attack when not behind cover. It would be phrased very differently if you couldn't.
3) There are mechanics for "finding" a hidden person:
a) Use a Search Action (Action, or Bonus Action in the case of Observant). b) Use Passive Perception when they make noise (by moving with insufficient Stealth, most likely).
4) There are many options for DMs to use fiat rulings (rulings, not rules) to end the hidden condition:
a) The DM decides you can't hide when everyone is watching you out in the open. b) The DM decides there are guards staring at your hiding location, who will find you as soon as you break cover. c) The DM decides someone finds you when fail to pick their pocket. d) The DM gives someone advantage to find you. e) The DM gives you disadvantage to Hide. f) The DM gives you disadvantage to move silently while hidden in a mousetrap factory. g) The DM uses someone's Passive Perception to find you when you break cover. h) The DM decides you only need to roll Stealth once per Round or something. i) Especially outside of combat, common sense will reign over the action economy.
5) In effect, there is only one key difference, between 2014 and 2024, for how "OP" hiding is:
a) In 2014, you were revealed if you "approached" them (emphasis added): "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." Meaning you could snipe or sneak off, but not approach and melee sneak attack. b) In 2024, that has not been repeated. Instead, in combat, you now only need not alert them to your presence (making noise, etc). c) This is quite likely to make melee rogues better able to ambush with sneak attacks.
As others have noted, this has been discussed ad nauseum. Pending errata or sage advice discussing how it's actually supposed to work, I recommend just using the 2014 rules.
As others have noted, this has been discussed ad nauseum. Pending errata or sage advice discussing how it's actually supposed to work, I recommend just using the 2014 rules.
There is errata and sage advice. So you should be covered. At least I think it helps.
Skulker and Supreme Sneak are invalidated by your rules because the moment a player steps out to make an attack, you claim the player is immediately detected (despite the fact that we have explicit rules to cover this very scenario).
Again, attacks can be made from three-quarters cover, so yes, if you step out you're detected but you're the one insisting that they MUST step out of cover to make the attack, stop confusing your point with my own, I clearly stated that in fact you do not need too step out of cover since there is literally no rule that says you have to.
If you hide in a bush the DM might rule that you're benefiting from Heavy Obscurity but you can see out of the bush just fine, naturally if you step out of the bush in front of 5 goblins, you are not hiding anymore. However if instead you stay hidden in the bush and attack with a Crossbow, you wouldn't be leaving your Obscurity but rather would have still made an attack roll, is that really so hard a concept to understand? As such, Literally nothing I said breaks any of these. If you still insist that it does then you're not reading what I am saying and are just running on fumes in this thread.
Also, the rules aren't poorly written. They're fairly simple. They lay out in explicit detail what happens at each stage and they all function in a sensible, consistent manner. They don't require all sorts of GM interpretations and inventing rules to cover missing parts.
There's nothing "bad faith" about interpreting the literal rules as written and intended.
If it's not poorly written, then why are you insisting that creatures dancing out in the open are at all HIDDEN? This makes literally no sense and the rules at no point say that a creature can no longer see you if you move into their plain sight.
What the rules state is that you're concealed which is not the same thing, you're concealed because you're behind cover or else wise obscured, I do not know why this is a hard concept to get for you but clearly the rules aren't well written because you seem to be stuck on this concept that the Invisible condition makes you imperceptible like it did in 2014. However nothing in the 2024 rules actually makes you imperceptible while Hidden or having the Invisible condition which mean that you are quite perceptible while you're in plain sight. Now as I already pointed out, this in effect means the Invisibility Spell no longer makes you imperceptible either, despite the fact that is clearly what it is meant to do but and most people are going along with that is what it is meant to do but nothing says in the spell or the condition notes that creatures can not see you with plain sight anymore.
In 2014 the invisible condition literally stated you could not be seen whereas 2024, all it says is you can not be targeted by anything that relies on being seen, it at no point says that you can not be seen but notably senses such as sight do not target creatures and thus the whole concealed section doesn't apply to sight in any meaningful way, it just means you can't be targeted by effects (features or spells) that explicitly require the target to be seen (as if you're behind total cover).
Hiding is ongoing effort to remain Invisible, not something you first activate while ducking away so you can then dance around in plain view without impunity.
To Hide, you must break line of sight. That means neither you nor the other party can see one another. You can do this by utilizing cover or obscurement. To attack, you must have line of sight. If you're going with rules-as-you-wish-they-were, this means that the player would instantly detect the player the moment they poke their head out because there is now line of sight.
Heavily Obscured is both ways. You cannot be Heavily Obscured from an enemy without them being Heavily Obscured from you.
The Invisible condition literally says: "You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen". This includes noticing the player is there.
The Invisibility spell and Stealth both provide the same condition: Invisible. They have slightly different rules for initiating the condition and slightly different rules for ending it. However, it's the same condition. Anything you can do with Invisibility can be done with Stealth.
Again, none of this is complex, confusing or contradictory. Those arguing against the rules are doing so on the basis of "This literally makes no sense". Which, of course, isn't an actual argument but simply a preference. The rules of the game are an abstraction used to create simplicity and balance. It literally makes no sense that my Barbarian can take a full force hit from a Battle Axe and keep chugging along. Hit Points is a fundamentally ridiculous mechanic from the standpoint of 'realism'. But that doesn't mean we claim that the rules say that successful weapon attacks instantly kill players like they would in real life.
There is errata and sage advice. So you should be covered. At least I think it helps.
There is sage advice (no errata) that is completely useless.
I checked before I posted and it has been changed in the current version of the phb and the changelog of D&D Beyond. And should be changed in the errata document (or will be)
Heavily Obscured is both ways. You cannot be Heavily Obscured from an enemy without them being Heavily Obscured from you.
show me where in the rules this is stated. The stated example is a creature in darkness can not be seen but nothing says that creature can not see another creature that is stood in light within it's range of vision.
The Invisible condition literally says: "You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen". This includes noticing the player is there.
show me where in the rules this is stated, Where to see a creature you must target it, this passage only blocks TARGETING, it does nothing about sight.
The Invisibility spell and Stealth both provide the same condition: Invisible. They have slightly different rules for initiating the condition and slightly different rules for ending it. However, it's the same condition. Anything you can do with Invisibility can be done with Stealth.
I have literally already supplied examples where this isn't true, because of their different sources the Invisibility Spell will remain in many instances where the invisible condition does not remain for a hidden creature, a simple example is talking but another example is standing out in the open.
Again, none of this is complex, confusing or contradictory. Those arguing against the rules are doing so on the basis of "This literally makes no sense". Which, of course, isn't an actual argument but simply a preference. The rules of the game are an abstraction used to create simplicity and balance. It literally makes no sense that my Barbarian can take a full force hit from a Battle Axe and keep chugging along. Hit Points is a fundamentally ridiculous mechanic from the standpoint of 'realism'. But that doesn't mean we claim that the rules say that successful weapon attacks instantly kill players like they would in real life.
Hit points are well defined and include things like physical and mental durability, the will to live and luck, so when your barbarian gets "hit", they are not necessarily getting hit but might have instead tried to deflect a blow badly and took a knock from doing so. This however is a separate discussion but shows you're not really fully understanding the rules you talk about.
I generally have a preference to try and understand what I am talking about, which I think when talking about the rules is a good thing, that isn't to say I don't get things wrong, everybody does but I generally own up to when I do because it means I missed something or misunderstood something. However in this case, even a casual reading of the rules doesn't agree with what you infer, the Hide Action explicitly says you have to remain hidden to benefit from the invisible condition.
So here is an example, you're hidden, your ally casts light on you but as you are in darkness you no longer are heavily obscured, do the 10 Cave Ogres stood around you and your ally now see you as a brightly lit up creature or are you still "invisible"? Obviously the Cave Ogres see you, you are no longer hidden despite this not being one of the methods that "instantly" end the hidden condition. The fact that there are things "instantly" end the hidden condition clearly additionally infers that there are other things that end the hidden condition but aren't necessarily instant, none of which are listed, which is just another example of how it's not an exhaustive list.
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there." Opaque means you can't see through it.
"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."
"a dense cloud of fog" is Heavily Obscured.
I'll add a rule that people seem to keep forgetting: "Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
The group's fun is not served by subtracting huge swathes of rules while crippling certain classes and strategies against the clear intent of the rules. A rules 'interpretation' that renders the Hide action completely useless is not a good faith interpretation.
I'll add a rule that people seem to keep forgetting: "Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation.
The problem with stealth in 2024 isn't bad-faith interpretation. The problem is that it's not even clear how they intended it to work, and both of the obvious interpretations ("you are revealed if you lose the prerequisites for the hide action" and "you aren't revealed until someone takes the search action to find you") produce somewhat nonsensical results.
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there." Opaque means you can't see through it.
Let's continue this section (also link things like this, it saves everybody time)
You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there.
The following qualifier is when you try to see into the Heavily Obscured Area, you still haven't proved that a Heavily Obscured area is two ways, show the rule that explicitly states that.
The rule states that you have the Blinded Condition against anything in the Heavily Obscured area, not that something in the heavily obscured area has the blinded condition against things not in the Heavily Obscured Area.
I'll add a rule that people seem to keep forgetting: "Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
The group's fun is not served by subtracting huge swathes of rules while crippling certain classes and strategies against the clear intent of the rules. A rules 'interpretation' that renders the Hide action completely useless is not a good faith interpretation.
You're the one doing a Bad-Faith Interpretation, I have repeatedly shown this.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#SAC-Adventuring1 We literally additionally have advice that if a creature is seen, it loses the hidden condition. In this case it's true sight or blindsight automatically detect an invisible creature, the creature is found and thus no longer hidden. This is not a DC check, it is automatic and this does not fit with what you have declared above that there are only 4 ways that the hidden condition ends, clearly the intent is that if a creature is seen then hide no longer applies the invisible condition, further to this nothing in the hidden or invisible condition blocks sight, it only blocks targeting.
You are the one making the bad-faith interpretation that sight is blocked because targeting is, but you have yet to show any evidence of this.
The Invisible condition literally says: "You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen". This includes noticing the player is there.
show me where in the rules this is stated, Where to see a creature you must target it, this passage only blocks TARGETING, it does nothing about sight.
The Invisible condition literally says: "You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen". This includes noticing the player is there.
By that argument, you cannot find something that you haven't already found. Noticing is almost always done on things that are unseen (the exception is things that are disguised).
The idea that coming into an enemy's line of sight after hiding immediately reveals your location to them is nonsensical. It contradicts pretty much every mention of stealth in the entire game. When you hide, you enter the "hidden" game state, which includes invisibility. This means that enemies can't see you, and therefore can't find you unless they beat your Stealth check with their own Perception check.
The SAC reminds us that having Blindsight or Truesight allows an enemy to by-pass the invisibility granted by the "hidden" state, and therefore allows them to immediately end it upon seeing us. This would be useless is such thing could happen even without Blindsight or Truesight.
"But with 3/4 cover it's different"... nah, you're splitting hairs here. Also, such interpretation completely breaks the feature and makes it all but unusable. If you want to ban stealth from your table, just say so, but don't try to act like it's RAI, or even RAW. It obviously isn't.
The idea that coming into an enemy's line of sight after hiding immediately reveals your location to them is nonsensical. It contradicts pretty much every mention of stealth in the entire game. When you hide, you enter the "hidden" game state, which includes invisibility. This means that enemies can't see you, and therefore can't find you unless they beat your Stealth check with their own Perception check.
The SAC reminds us that having Blindsight or Truesight allows an enemy to by-pass the invisibility granted by the "hidden" state, and therefore allows them to immediately end it upon seeing us. This would be useless is such thing could happen even without Blindsight or Truesight.
"But with 3/4 cover it's different"... nah, you're splitting hairs here. Also, such interpretation completely breaks the feature and makes it all but unusable. If you want to ban stealth from your table, just say so, but don't try to act like it's RAI, or even RAW. It obviously isn't.
If you can't believe it's still going on then why bother to bump it?
Blindsight will reveal a creature behind three-quarters cover or else wise obscured by heavy obscurity.
Truesight will just straight up instantly see anything in range, irrelevant of cover or anything else that would normally block sight.
That is what the SAC is talking about. Hiding is not a magical action and applies no magical conditions. Ultimately nobody has been able to prove any intention in the rules that the invisible condition from hiding makes you imperceptible and until you do, you don't have an argument, it's just all pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You claim it's "not an exhaustive list". That's de facto saying you don't want to bother with rules at all - and voids any argument you make about the rules. You're just stating a personal preference for your own games.
Were the developers were wasting their time when they wrote rules about a Perception DC and Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll? Were abilities like Skulker, Supreme Sneak and Naturally Stealthy intended to be useless? Why spend all that time on the Hide Action and Stealth skill if they don't actually do anything? Why include Disadvantage on Stealth rolls as a drawback on Heavy Armor if it isn't actually any sort of drawback? The folks who wrote 5E 2024 sure went to a lot of trouble to write down rules you claim don't count.
Much of the reason that the rules give what people believe are silly results is that they were designed to simplify the whole process. Instead of having to engage in a long debate at the table about what conditions apply, how you can sneak, etc., they simply changed Stealth to be literal Invisibility when in use. It simplifies the game in the exact same way computer games simplified Stealth.
Again, skill checks are only used when there is uncertainty.
You do not roll persuasion to persuade the king to give up his kingdom and hand the crown to you, some bozo he met five minutes ago. You do not roll persuasion to convince the shopkeeper to sell you a knife for the standard price.
Similarly, you do not roll perception to see a person standing in a well-lit open room in front of you. Even if they were hiding not very long ago.
This is true. But the Invisible condition doesn't actually include "immune to being visible". In fact, the condition explicitly allows for people being able to see you.
There is no possible way to have a purely mechanistic stealth/hiding system in D&D. There are too many situation-specific variables.
Fortunately, D&D is not a game with purely mechanistic rules. The DM is there to interpret on the fly. Given the right circumstances, I would allow somebody to stealth through a brightly-lit room with no concealment. Most of those situations involve distractions.
That might be how you want to interpret it but that is simply what the rules DO state. You're just out of personal preference and special pledging insisting that creatures can walk out from behind cover and dance the tango and some how remain still "hidden".
And this is where context matters, are you hiding from a creature that knows you are there or did they never know? A creature that knows your hidden somewhere will be actively searching. If you hide in a box, it might from perception notice something amiss with the box and thus discern your location.
Skulker nothing I have said in here stops Skulker working, you can make attacks from hidden positions if you can see a creature and it can not see you, additionally you can more easily hide in combat. Nothing I've said conflicts with any of this.
Supreme Sneak just means that you no longer automatically end the hidden condition for taking the attack action, nothing I have said changes that. You can perform an attack from a position of three-quarters cover also if you can see a creature that can not see you, such as a spell that makes you heavily obscured from it but it is not obscured from you. Either of these situations work, alternatively you can make an attack while being blind to it but you do so at disadvantage. So those still all work with everything I have said.
Naturally Stealthy is merely a case of specific beats general, in this case you have an additional caveat that you can use to become hidden, you are however still only hidden while benefiting from cover of that creature. If you moved in front of it immediately after, you'd no longer be hidden.
The stealth rules in 2024 are poorly written, I won't excuse that. These rules simply never simplified anything but rather made things more convoluted, however I do not believe anybody honestly believes that the new stealth rules means anybody who can hide now magically becomes invisible and nobody can ever see them again unless they know to specifically search for em, or that person makes a noise. The RAI are quiet clear and I'd say matches the RAW that the "invisible" condition only applies while actively trying to hide and to be actively trying to hide you must be behind cover where you aren't seen by a hostile creature while also hiding properly (the DC check).
That the RAW can be interpreted another way, is mostly just special pledging that "while hidden" doesn't mean actively staying hidden and instead is some magical thing where you're not invisible because you "hid" but are no longer hiding, the DMG literally has a section about not making bad faith interpretations and yet this bad faith interpretation isn't going away.
Skulker and Supreme Sneak are invalidated by your rules because the moment a player steps out to make an attack, you claim the player is immediately detected (despite the fact that we have explicit rules to cover this very scenario). Since the player is immediately detected, they cannot later prevent losing stealth from making the attack. Likewise, a Halfling making use of Naturally Stealthy would, according to you, be immediately detected without even the need for a roll.
Also, the rules aren't poorly written. They're fairly simple. They lay out in explicit detail what happens at each stage and they all function in a sensible, consistent manner. They don't require all sorts of GM interpretations and inventing rules to cover missing parts.
There's nothing "bad faith" about interpreting the literal rules as written and intended.
sorta collating some points from many previous threads:
1) "Hide" is an Action; being "hidden" is a condition:
a) Specifically, "hidden" is a shallow wrapper around the Invisible Condition, that requires being unseen and unheard. "Being found" means someone saw or heard you (more or less), despite your best efforts.
b) The condition tells you exactly how it ends, and "when you break cover/concealment" is not in the list. The errata from SAE draws attention to this, and did not add to the list (it would have been trivial to do so).
c) This is quite similar to how casting a spell may take an action, but the spell's duration may last much longer, even if you could no longer cast it --- a polymorphed caster can walk into a Silence AoE without the spell ending.
2) Hide is clearly meant to be used in combat:
a) From the Skulker feat: "Fog of War. You exploit the distractions of battle, gaining Advantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) check you make as part of the Hide action during combat."
b) Additionally under the Skulker feat: "Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn’t reveal your location."
c) Under the Observant feat: "Quick Search. You can take the Search action as a Bonus Action."
d) Under the Thief's 9th level feature: "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."
Additionally, 2.d is a very strong hint that you could make the attack when not behind cover. It would be phrased very differently if you couldn't.
3) There are mechanics for "finding" a hidden person:
a) Use a Search Action (Action, or Bonus Action in the case of Observant).
b) Use Passive Perception when they make noise (by moving with insufficient Stealth, most likely).
4) There are many options for DMs to use fiat rulings (rulings, not rules) to end the hidden condition:
a) The DM decides you can't hide when everyone is watching you out in the open.
b) The DM decides there are guards staring at your hiding location, who will find you as soon as you break cover.
c) The DM decides someone finds you when fail to pick their pocket.
d) The DM gives someone advantage to find you.
e) The DM gives you disadvantage to Hide.
f) The DM gives you disadvantage to move silently while hidden in a mousetrap factory.
g) The DM uses someone's Passive Perception to find you when you break cover.
h) The DM decides you only need to roll Stealth once per Round or something.
i) Especially outside of combat, common sense will reign over the action economy.
5) In effect, there is only one key difference, between 2014 and 2024, for how "OP" hiding is:
a) In 2014, you were revealed if you "approached" them (emphasis added): "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." Meaning you could snipe or sneak off, but not approach and melee sneak attack.
b) In 2024, that has not been repeated. Instead, in combat, you now only need not alert them to your presence (making noise, etc).
c) This is quite likely to make melee rogues better able to ambush with sneak attacks.
As others have noted, this has been discussed ad nauseum. Pending errata or sage advice discussing how it's actually supposed to work, I recommend just using the 2014 rules.
There is errata and sage advice. So you should be covered. At least I think it helps.
Again, attacks can be made from three-quarters cover, so yes, if you step out you're detected but you're the one insisting that they MUST step out of cover to make the attack, stop confusing your point with my own, I clearly stated that in fact you do not need too step out of cover since there is literally no rule that says you have to.
If you hide in a bush the DM might rule that you're benefiting from Heavy Obscurity but you can see out of the bush just fine, naturally if you step out of the bush in front of 5 goblins, you are not hiding anymore. However if instead you stay hidden in the bush and attack with a Crossbow, you wouldn't be leaving your Obscurity but rather would have still made an attack roll, is that really so hard a concept to understand? As such, Literally nothing I said breaks any of these. If you still insist that it does then you're not reading what I am saying and are just running on fumes in this thread.
If it's not poorly written, then why are you insisting that creatures dancing out in the open are at all HIDDEN? This makes literally no sense and the rules at no point say that a creature can no longer see you if you move into their plain sight.
What the rules state is that you're concealed which is not the same thing, you're concealed because you're behind cover or else wise obscured, I do not know why this is a hard concept to get for you but clearly the rules aren't well written because you seem to be stuck on this concept that the Invisible condition makes you imperceptible like it did in 2014. However nothing in the 2024 rules actually makes you imperceptible while Hidden or having the Invisible condition which mean that you are quite perceptible while you're in plain sight. Now as I already pointed out, this in effect means the Invisibility Spell no longer makes you imperceptible either, despite the fact that is clearly what it is meant to do but and most people are going along with that is what it is meant to do but nothing says in the spell or the condition notes that creatures can not see you with plain sight anymore.
In 2014 the invisible condition literally stated you could not be seen whereas 2024, all it says is you can not be targeted by anything that relies on being seen, it at no point says that you can not be seen but notably senses such as sight do not target creatures and thus the whole concealed section doesn't apply to sight in any meaningful way, it just means you can't be targeted by effects (features or spells) that explicitly require the target to be seen (as if you're behind total cover).
Hiding is ongoing effort to remain Invisible, not something you first activate while ducking away so you can then dance around in plain view without impunity.
To do that you must use Invisibility instead.
There is sage advice (no errata) that is completely useless.
To Hide, you must break line of sight. That means neither you nor the other party can see one another. You can do this by utilizing cover or obscurement. To attack, you must have line of sight. If you're going with rules-as-you-wish-they-were, this means that the player would instantly detect the player the moment they poke their head out because there is now line of sight.
Heavily Obscured is both ways. You cannot be Heavily Obscured from an enemy without them being Heavily Obscured from you.
The Invisible condition literally says: "You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen". This includes noticing the player is there.
The Invisibility spell and Stealth both provide the same condition: Invisible. They have slightly different rules for initiating the condition and slightly different rules for ending it. However, it's the same condition. Anything you can do with Invisibility can be done with Stealth.
Again, none of this is complex, confusing or contradictory. Those arguing against the rules are doing so on the basis of "This literally makes no sense". Which, of course, isn't an actual argument but simply a preference. The rules of the game are an abstraction used to create simplicity and balance. It literally makes no sense that my Barbarian can take a full force hit from a Battle Axe and keep chugging along. Hit Points is a fundamentally ridiculous mechanic from the standpoint of 'realism'. But that doesn't mean we claim that the rules say that successful weapon attacks instantly kill players like they would in real life.
I checked before I posted and it has been changed in the current version of the phb and the changelog of D&D Beyond. And should be changed in the errata document (or will be)
show me where in the rules this is stated. The stated example is a creature in darkness can not be seen but nothing says that creature can not see another creature that is stood in light within it's range of vision.
show me where in the rules this is stated, Where to see a creature you must target it, this passage only blocks TARGETING, it does nothing about sight.
I have literally already supplied examples where this isn't true, because of their different sources the Invisibility Spell will remain in many instances where the invisible condition does not remain for a hidden creature, a simple example is talking but another example is standing out in the open.
Hit points are well defined and include things like physical and mental durability, the will to live and luck, so when your barbarian gets "hit", they are not necessarily getting hit but might have instead tried to deflect a blow badly and took a knock from doing so. This however is a separate discussion but shows you're not really fully understanding the rules you talk about.
I generally have a preference to try and understand what I am talking about, which I think when talking about the rules is a good thing, that isn't to say I don't get things wrong, everybody does but I generally own up to when I do because it means I missed something or misunderstood something. However in this case, even a casual reading of the rules doesn't agree with what you infer, the Hide Action explicitly says you have to remain hidden to benefit from the invisible condition.
So here is an example, you're hidden, your ally casts light on you but as you are in darkness you no longer are heavily obscured, do the 10 Cave Ogres stood around you and your ally now see you as a brightly lit up creature or are you still "invisible"? Obviously the Cave Ogres see you, you are no longer hidden despite this not being one of the methods that "instantly" end the hidden condition. The fact that there are things "instantly" end the hidden condition clearly additionally infers that there are other things that end the hidden condition but aren't necessarily instant, none of which are listed, which is just another example of how it's not an exhaustive list.
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there." Opaque means you can't see through it.
"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."
"a dense cloud of fog" is Heavily Obscured.
I'll add a rule that people seem to keep forgetting: "Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
The group's fun is not served by subtracting huge swathes of rules while crippling certain classes and strategies against the clear intent of the rules. A rules 'interpretation' that renders the Hide action completely useless is not a good faith interpretation.
The problem with stealth in 2024 isn't bad-faith interpretation. The problem is that it's not even clear how they intended it to work, and both of the obvious interpretations ("you are revealed if you lose the prerequisites for the hide action" and "you aren't revealed until someone takes the search action to find you") produce somewhat nonsensical results.
Let's continue this section (also link things like this, it saves everybody time)
The following qualifier is when you try to see into the Heavily Obscured Area, you still haven't proved that a Heavily Obscured area is two ways, show the rule that explicitly states that.
The rule states that you have the Blinded Condition against anything in the Heavily Obscured area, not that something in the heavily obscured area has the blinded condition against things not in the Heavily Obscured Area.
This is further backed up by the the Rules Glossary: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/rules-glossary#HeavilyObscured
Again it only talks about things being blinded against things in the Heavily Obscured Area, not the other way around.
You're the one doing a Bad-Faith Interpretation, I have repeatedly shown this.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#SAC-Adventuring1 We literally additionally have advice that if a creature is seen, it loses the hidden condition. In this case it's true sight or blindsight automatically detect an invisible creature, the creature is found and thus no longer hidden. This is not a DC check, it is automatic and this does not fit with what you have declared above that there are only 4 ways that the hidden condition ends, clearly the intent is that if a creature is seen then hide no longer applies the invisible condition, further to this nothing in the hidden or invisible condition blocks sight, it only blocks targeting.
You are the one making the bad-faith interpretation that sight is blocked because targeting is, but you have yet to show any evidence of this.
So I shall REPEAT:
By that argument, you cannot find something that you haven't already found. Noticing is almost always done on things that are unseen (the exception is things that are disguised).
Can we not just post links to the dozen other threads that are almost the same so we don't have to post the same crap all over and over again?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I can't believe we're still debating this.
The idea that coming into an enemy's line of sight after hiding immediately reveals your location to them is nonsensical. It contradicts pretty much every mention of stealth in the entire game. When you hide, you enter the "hidden" game state, which includes invisibility. This means that enemies can't see you, and therefore can't find you unless they beat your Stealth check with their own Perception check.
The SAC reminds us that having Blindsight or Truesight allows an enemy to by-pass the invisibility granted by the "hidden" state, and therefore allows them to immediately end it upon seeing us. This would be useless is such thing could happen even without Blindsight or Truesight.
"But with 3/4 cover it's different"... nah, you're splitting hairs here. Also, such interpretation completely breaks the feature and makes it all but unusable.
If you want to ban stealth from your table, just say so, but don't try to act like it's RAI, or even RAW. It obviously isn't.
If you can't believe it's still going on then why bother to bump it?
Blindsight will reveal a creature behind three-quarters cover or else wise obscured by heavy obscurity.
Truesight will just straight up instantly see anything in range, irrelevant of cover or anything else that would normally block sight.
That is what the SAC is talking about. Hiding is not a magical action and applies no magical conditions. Ultimately nobody has been able to prove any intention in the rules that the invisible condition from hiding makes you imperceptible and until you do, you don't have an argument, it's just all pointless.