How does the Hide action interact with attacking?

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, making a sound louder than a whisper doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, casting a spell with a Verbal component doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, an enemy finding you doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

It only apply to the condition for attacking, so since it makes no refererence to other conditions, they still apply.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, making a sound louder than a whisper doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, casting a spell with a Verbal component doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

Supreme Sneak doesn't say If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, an enemy finding you doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

It only apply to the condition for attacking, so since it makes no refererence to other conditions, they still apply.

 And I nowhere disagreed.

But 'Is behind 3/4 or total cover' clearly isn't a condition of being hidden, or it would be worded differently, because the text assumes you could very well not be in cover when you make the attack.

That necessarily implies, to the designers, 'find you' really does mean the perception check (and the sage advice errata 'sight that ignores invisible'), and not 'moved out of cover'

@Squirrelloid... I can sum up the problem with this statement you made, "My interpretation is still the only interpretation that makes sense". Now if you had followed that with "to me", that would be different, but you did not.

It is abundantly clear that no matter what anyone says, you have already made up your mind as to what you believe the rules state. Just about everyone replying (here and elsewhere), is saying otherwise.

As has been made absolutely clear (yet I'm saying it again)... You are free to run your table any way you want! The issue here is that you seem to want everyone to use your (imho) very skewed interpretation. Multiple people have tried to explain that RAW, you are factually mistaken, and even provided (also RAW) completely reasonable ways that Rogues can still get the end result you want (DM willing - which is no different than any other part of the game).

I, for one, am done with this thread. It has been explained ad nauseum and it appears that no amount of discussion will alter your interpretation. There's nothing wrong with that, I fully support your right to interpret the rules any way you want at your table, but continuing this thread of discussion is pointless. The Devs have said that when it comes to spells, spells only do what spells say they do, but they have never extended that to any other ability or skill in the game. Your entire argument is that only stuff listed in the Hide Action applies to hiding, no other rule anywhere else applies, which simply isn't true. RAW line of sight unblocked by concealment or cover, or a spell saying otherwise, equals being seen. The idea that a Rogue could make one roll while behind cover and have invisibility forever after so long as they're quiet is utterly ridiculous... but I support your right to do it that way, at YOUR table.

I'm out.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

And I nowhere disagreed.

But 'Is behind 3/4 or total cover' clearly isn't a condition of being hidden, or it would be worded differently, because the text assumes you could very well not be in cover when you make the attack.

That necessarily implies, to the designers, 'find you' really does mean the perception check (and the sage advice errata 'sight that ignores invisible'), and not 'moved out of cover'

 Supreme Sneak implies nothing, ignoring where the Rogue is, do or move to in between, all it account for is that it end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover to not end the Hide action’s Invisible condition after it attacked; whatever happen in between is outside the scope of the feature and has no protection against it.

I agree it does let you do that.  But making the requirement to be in cover at the end of the turn means you don't have to be in cover at any other point during your turn.  And if you could be out of cover and still be hidden to not lose hidden from the ability, then you can be out of cover and hidden normally.

See, this is where you still misunderstand my stance. If circumstances allow (as judged by the DM) for the rogue to remain hidden when they break cover, then they remain hidden when they break cover (Heavy Obscurement like dense foliage, fog, or a large crowd might be some ways I'd allow for at my table, among others... though it would depend on what they wanted to accomplish when they first made their Hide roll). That a handful of DMs might stamp on that isn't a reason to claim that your interpretation is the only one.

Also note that I have never said that your interpretation isn't a way to read the rules. I'm simply saying it isn't the way to read the rules and I'll take the reading with the greater flexibility at the expense of requiring a bit of DM fiat, thank you very much. My motto for ambiguous rules is, "break the least amount of things, verisimilitude included".