How does the Hide action interact with attacking?

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

If being hidden doesn't make your location unknown what The Skulker feat Sniper feature  does exactly?

 As written the Sniper feature does nothing whatsoever, because you lose the hidden condition when you make an attack roll and the sniper feature does not override that.

Quote from esampson >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Let's give this one more shot.  I endeavour to prove that Hidden must allow you to move out of 3/4 or Total Cover or Heavy Obscurement, or it is a non-action.  . .

 

When you say 'must' there are two different possible interpretations of that word.

The first possible interpretation is that moving out of 3/4 or Total Cover or Heavy Concealment absolutely cannot ever break the Hidden state. (i.e. a person must always be allowed to leave those forms of coverage without the loss of Hidden).

The second possible interpretation is that moving out of 3/4 or Total Cover or Heavy Concealment does not automatically void the Hidden state. (i.e. there must be the possibility that it can happen, but it is not guaranteed).

Claiming the first position means the following situation can occur:

A rogue in the middle of a wide open auditorium can hold up one end of a 3' wide roll of paper and allow the other end to drop to the floor (before the argument is raised, if the character holding the roll creates an issue then replace the rogue holding it with an Unseen Servant or Mage Hand, but the paper is still only about 2' in front of the character).

The rogue now has at least 3/4 cover from the people in front of them and successfully rolls Stealth, at which point they drop the top of the roll of paper.

Because moving from 3/4 Cover or Total Cover or Heavy Concealment cannot ever break the Hidden state the rogue remains unfound (barring a Perception roll) even though they now have absolutely no cover and have not moved from their initial spot.

Now, I recognize this is a very loaded setup. It is suppose to be. What I am trying to do is make sure I understand your position. Are you maintaining that in such a setup the rogue is not automatically revealed?

And for the record. I am not claiming that saying that the rogue remains hidden is an incorrect answer. It may feel like that because I am generating such an extreme situation, but the purpose of that isn't to pin you down into making a ridiculous statement or anything like that. I can absolutely see how a reasonable person can interpret the rules to allow that and I can see games in which the players and DM want that type of 'over the top' ability with skills (look at the 'Now You See Me' movies).

I am simply trying to make sure that I understand your position.

 It's a proof by contradiction, which means it only concludes that there must exist some situation in which you can be hidden and not heavily obscured or behind 3/4 or total cover.  ie, it is not a valid position that you must maintain the Hide Action make-the-stealth-check conditions [unseen and heavily obscured | Total Cover | 3/4 Cover] to remain hidden.

So there is some non-empty set of possibilities where you no longer meet those conditions and are hidden.  For the purposes of that argument, I made no attempt to define this set.

Quote from sabin76 >>

But what happens when those circumstances change? Squirrel posited that using the same stealth roll for movement after was a way of simplifying the game, and I agree that if you do that, you should do it only with that intention. My point has always been that when the circumstances change (as determined by the DM), then the roll is no longer valid and should be redone. If the circumstances are such that the roll cannot be made, then Hide automatically fails and the Invisible condition drops.

And I proved this interpretation wrong, because then Hide necessarily becomes a useless action if you cannot be hidden while the circumstances are such that you could not Hide at that moment, as it mechanically does nothing that being unseen doesn't already do.

The Hide Action only does something if hidden allows you to effectively retain the benefits of being unseen in at least some circumstances while you would otherwise (without having previously taken the Hide Action) not be unseen.  That's the only possible purpose for the existence of the Hide Action.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

 It's a proof by contradiction, which means it only concludes that there must exist some situation in which you can be hidden and not heavily obscured or behind 3/4 or total cover.  ie, it is not a valid position that you must maintain the Hide Action make-the-stealth-check conditions [unseen and heavily obscured | Total Cover | 3/4 Cover] to remain hidden.

So there is some non-empty set of possibilities where you no longer meet those conditions and are hidden.  For the purposes of that argument, I made no attempt to define this set.

I apologize. I may not have been clear. I am not asking you to come up with some in game excuse why the person would remain hidden in these circumstances. As I said, I even understand the interpretations and situations that can lead to the decision that the person remain hidden.

All I am asking is what your opinion is. Would the person remain hidden?

And again, this isn't being asked as some kind of 'gotcha'. Saying 'yes, because that's how I read the rules' or 'no, because even though the rules state that it would work that way I would invoke a houserule' or whatever are perfectly valid answers. I am simply trying to be sure I understand your position.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

If being hidden doesn't make your location unknown what The Skulker feat Sniper feature  does exactly?

 As written the Sniper feature does nothing whatsoever, because you lose the hidden condition when you make an attack roll and the sniper feature does not override that.

 It literally says that it overrides that.

The rules for hiding say you stop being hidden if you make an attack roll, and the skulker feat says you don't if it missed.

If your interpretation of the hiding rules can't handle that correctly, then your interpretation is incorrect.

@Squirreloid

I never said that moving out of cover always changed the circumstances. That's what I'm trying to impress upon you; that it's at the DM's discretion. There are times where moving out of cover doesn't really change the "circumstances for hiding" and I have no problem keeping the creature hidden in those times. They might have to do with the surrounding environment, how the player narrated their hiding, some combination, or something entirely different. I also think that within one turn (as a round is meant to all be the same 6 seconds), there is a lot of leeway in what I'd allow a player to do and remain hidden (until the end of said turn) based on a bunch of factors. I see that as one of my roles as a DM.

Quote from esampson >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

 It's a proof by contradiction, which means it only concludes that there must exist some situation in which you can be hidden and not heavily obscured or behind 3/4 or total cover.  ie, it is not a valid position that you must maintain the Hide Action make-the-stealth-check conditions [unseen and heavily obscured | Total Cover | 3/4 Cover] to remain hidden.

So there is some non-empty set of possibilities where you no longer meet those conditions and are hidden.  For the purposes of that argument, I made no attempt to define this set.

 

I apologize. I may not have been clear. I am not asking you to come up with some in game excuse why the person would remain hidden in these circumstances. As I said, I even understand the interpretations and situations that can lead to the decision that the person remain hidden.

All I am asking is what your opinion is. Would the person remain hidden?

And again, this isn't being asked as some kind of 'gotcha'. Saying 'yes, because that's how I read the rules' or 'no, because even though the rules state that it would work that way I would invoke a houserule' or whatever are perfectly valid answers. I am simply trying to be sure I understand your position.

 The argument I was advancing requires no affirmative position.  That was the purpose of it.

I would not object to a DM saying you could not become and/or remain hidden in that circumstance.

Depending on how the player described what was happening, I may well allow them to remain hidden.  It's a magic trick, where you cover an object, and then make it disappear. Magicians perform this on stage in real life, even with people.  Pulling away the cover is the 'prestige' of the trick.  I'd expect them to not be still standing there when the sheet drops, because the sheet is the distraction while they 'disappear', but i wouldn't require them to be behind cover or heavily concealed where they ended up, either.  The attention is on the sheet.

(Seriously, this is just Willow's disappearing pig trick, except the 'pig' can move quietly and in a way that doesn't attract attention).

Edit: if it wasn't clear, I think this requires Unseen Servant or Mage Hand or something to independently hold the sheet.  Because if you're holding it, it's equipment, and you are still seen).

More generally, I'm trying to avoid a discussion of what I think the RAW is, because clearly that's a non-starter, so I'm just trying to limit what the Rules cannot be with this argument.

And it's not like I personally run stealth pure RAW.  On balance, I'm probably more generous to the sneaking character than the RAW, as, for example, I care about whether the sound is louder than a whisper where the listener is, and bundle spellcasting with a verbal component into the 'no sound louder than a whisper', so if you're far enough away you can use verbal components and not lose hidden, because there's nothing special about spellcasting relative to other sounds for Hidden.  But on the other hand, I will ask my player how he does something while he stays hidden if it's really silly.  

I have played at tables that run stealth pure RAW, no DM judgment, and it mechanically works just fine.

Quote from sabin76 >>

@Squirreloid

I never said that moving out of cover always changed the circumstances. That's what I'm trying to impress upon you; that it's at the DM's discretion. There are times where moving out of cover doesn't really change the "circumstances for hiding" and I have no problem keeping the creature hidden in those times. They might have to do with the surrounding environment, how the player narrated their hiding, some combination, or something entirely different. I also think that within one turn (as a round is meant to all be the same 6 seconds), there is a lot of leeway in what I'd allow a player to do and remain hidden (until the end of said turn) based on a bunch of factors. I see that as one of my roles as a DM.

 Fair enough.  That meets the minimum requirements for the argument I advanced.  (There exists at least some circumstances in which you can remain hidden and not meet the conditions for taking the Hide Action).

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding and it can definitely be used to avoid combat, or sneak past enemies if as DM i determine they're too distracted to see or hear you as i explained in Post #27 it's very circumstantial.

An enemy finds you if the DM say so. Perhaps you made a noise louder than a whisper and it heard you walking up to it. Or if you prefer, the enemy's Passive Perception beat your Stealth DC with some circumstantial bonus to the check. It may not even rely on a Wisdom (Perception) check because it determine it's not easy to miss you walking within sight uncovered since afterall the DMG also state "If the task is trivial or impossible, don't bother with a D20 Test." This is all rules a DM can use.

Just as much as a DM can say "sure the enemy is too distracted to see you move towards it, go ahead and make your attack roll with Advantage."

 

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from esampson >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

 It's a proof by contradiction, which means it only concludes that there must exist some situation in which you can be hidden and not heavily obscured or behind 3/4 or total cover.  ie, it is not a valid position that you must maintain the Hide Action make-the-stealth-check conditions [unseen and heavily obscured | Total Cover | 3/4 Cover] to remain hidden.

So there is some non-empty set of possibilities where you no longer meet those conditions and are hidden.  For the purposes of that argument, I made no attempt to define this set.

 

I apologize. I may not have been clear. I am not asking you to come up with some in game excuse why the person would remain hidden in these circumstances. As I said, I even understand the interpretations and situations that can lead to the decision that the person remain hidden.

All I am asking is what your opinion is. Would the person remain hidden?

And again, this isn't being asked as some kind of 'gotcha'. Saying 'yes, because that's how I read the rules' or 'no, because even though the rules state that it would work that way I would invoke a houserule' or whatever are perfectly valid answers. I am simply trying to be sure I understand your position.

 The argument I was advancing requires no affirmative position.  That was the purpose of it.

I would not object to a DM saying you could not become and/or remain hidden in that circumstance.

Depending on how the player described what was happening, I may well allow them to remain hidden.  It's a magic trick, where you cover an object, and then make it disappear. Magicians perform this on stage in real life, even with people.  Pulling away the cover is the 'prestige' of the trick.  I'd expect them to not be still standing there when the sheet drops, because the sheet is the distraction while they 'disappear', but i wouldn't require them to be behind cover or heavily concealed where they ended up, either.  The attention is on the sheet.

(Seriously, this is just Willow's disappearing pig trick, except the 'pig' can move quietly and in a way that doesn't attract attention).

Edit: if it wasn't clear, I think this requires Unseen Servant or Mage Hand or something to independently hold the sheet.  Because if you're holding it, it's equipment, and you are still seen).

More generally, I'm trying to avoid a discussion of what I think the RAW is, because clearly that's a non-starter, so I'm just trying to limit what the Rules cannot be with this argument.

And it's not like I personally run stealth pure RAW.  On balance, I'm probably more generous to the sneaking character than the RAW, as, for example, I care about whether the sound is louder than a whisper where the listener is, and bundle spellcasting with a verbal component into the 'no sound louder than a whisper', so if you're far enough away you can use verbal components and not lose hidden, because there's nothing special about spellcasting relative to other sounds for Hidden.  But on the other hand, I will ask my player how he does something while he stays hidden if it's really silly.  

I have played at tables that run stealth pure RAW, no DM judgment, and it mechanically works just fine.

Thank you so much for explaining all of that. I honestly thought you had a more extreme position.

Yeah, for all of the 'extreme' examples I was putting forward it was never my intent to say that Stealth automatically failed regardless of PC coming up with something clever that moves the situation from the 'extreme' condition being supplied to something plausible. I was only talking about situations in which the situation remained unmitigated.

And as I said, I could sit at a table or even run a table in which the extreme interpretation is being invoked, just so long as that is what the majority wants to do. It personally wouldn't be my first choice, but it is far from being a deal breaker.

Quote from jl8e >>

 It literally says that it overrides that.

The rules for hiding say you stop being hidden if you make an attack roll, and the skulker feat says you don't if it missed.

No, the skulker feat does not say that. It should say that, it's clearly the intent, but it's not what it says.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from jl8e >>

 It literally says that it overrides that.

The rules for hiding say you stop being hidden if you make an attack roll, and the skulker feat says you don't if it missed.

No, the skulker feat does not say that. It should say that, it's clearly the intent, but it's not what it says.

 OK, I've got to ask. How does:

If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location.

not mean you stay hidden?

And I reiterate that, if your interpretation reaches that conclusion, your interpretation needs a rebuild until it works.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from jl8e >>

 It literally says that it overrides that.

The rules for hiding say you stop being hidden if you make an attack roll, and the skulker feat says you don't if it missed.

No, the skulker feat does not say that. It should say that, it's clearly the intent, but it's not what it says.

 OK, I've got to ask. How does:

If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location.

not mean you stay hidden?

And I reiterate that, if your interpretation reaches that conclusion, your interpretation needs a rebuild until it works.

 Well, it says it doesn't reveal your location, and... hidden does not hide your location.  So it still ends hidden (because you made an attack), but your location is not revealed by the attack.  (ie, you are unseen and unheard but not hidden).  Of course, losing hidden could well reveal your location...

And... that complies with what the rest of the rules say... it just creates some weird situations sometimes.

Quote from jl8e >>

not mean you stay hidden?

By the fact it doesn't say so. There are two rules about making an attack roll revealing you

1. Unseen Attackers and Targets specifies "If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
2. Hide specifies "You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs:... you make an attack roll"

The skulker feat, as worded, overrules (1) and is entirely silent about (2). Thus, (2) still applies normally.

Quote from jl8e >>

And I reiterate that, if your interpretation reaches that conclusion, your interpretation needs a rebuild until it works.

This is a RAW discussion, not an RAI discussion. Appeals to common sense are RAI arguments.

The reality is, if you just delete the 2024 hide rule and replace it with the 2014 rules, everything else works better. The problem is that 2024 tried to do something with the hide action (I have no idea what), and the end result is totally dysfunctional.