How best to deal with the Cloak of Elvenkind?

[charlesk]

This little item is causing a bit of a fuss in our little D&D group. Since I first encountered it as a DM myself I've thought that as written it was simply too powerful, and this is now coming up in the game I am a player in. It's exacerbated by WotC's rather lame punting on the whole matter of stealth in 5e.

The basic issue is that it causes Wisdom (Perception) checks against you to have disadvantage AND Dexterity (Stealth) checks to have advantage. This "doubling down" of enemy disadvantage and PC advantage, combined with the fact that most monsters have low Wisdom, means that any stealthy character is virtually guaranteed success. A natural 20 on a Perception check is often the only way they can be spotted.

Our DM, frustrated by this, recently ruled that it says it provides advantage on Stealth checks to Hide, meaning specifically hiding in one spot.. and that if you were moving it would no longer apply. But I don't see a separate definition of "Hide" as meaning hiding in one place and something else as meaning stealth while moving. Is this interpretation reasonable?

What other ways are there to bring this item into line while maintaining its usefulness? Thanks.

[Grand Warchief]

This little item is causing a bit of a fuss in our little D&D group. Since I first encountered it as a DM myself I've thought that as written it was simply too powerful, and this is now coming up in the game I am a player in. It's exacerbated by WotC's rather lame punting on the whole matter of stealth in 5e.

The basic issue is that it causes Wisdom (Perception) checks against you to have disadvantage AND Dexterity (Stealth) checks to have advantage. This "doubling down" of enemy disadvantage and PC advantage, combined with the fact that most monsters have low Wisdom, means that any stealthy character is virtually guaranteed success. A natural 20 on a Perception check is often the only way they can be spotted.

Our DM, frustrated by this, recently ruled that it says it provides advantage on Stealth checks to Hide, meaning specifically hiding in one spot.. and that if you were moving it would no longer apply. But I don't see a separate definition of "Hide" as meaning hiding in one place and something else as meaning stealth while moving. Is this interpretation reasonable?

What other ways are there to bring this item into line while maintaining its usefulness? Thanks.

So far as I am aware, there is no separate rule for hide and move silently like their was in 3.5, it's just stealth like pathfinder. However, his ruling is pretty solid. Think of the lord of the rings when frodo and Sam fall down the slope and they use the cloak to cover themselves. That has always been what I imagine when I think of a cloak of elvenkind, not some magical, make-you're-vision-blurry-so-you-can't-see-me-well-bull****-stealth cloak.

Another backing point for the dm ruling is the common sense behind it (I know, dangerous territory in DnD). The cloak doesn't make you note slower and more carefully, just more difficult to spot. I think the ruling of only when you're not moving is perfectly reasonable, though I'm sure others in the playground will offer other variant homebrew solutions. That is after all, their specialty. :)

Oh, and I would still allow disadvantage on perception checks, though again, only while not moving. The double down is very strong and almost guarantees a success, but that's the point of the cloak. It's just a little too strong as worded Imo. Also, careful if he starts doing ranged attacks with the feat, the one that let's him hide again.

[Rallicus]

Your DM actually just made it RAI... heck, it could even be RAW if you read closely. Notice how the description of the cloak says advantage on DEX (Stealth) checks to hide, and then read the Stealth description in the PHB. They list multiple uses of Stealth, including hiding and "slinking past."

Separate actions entirely.

[Talyn]

I agree, I think your interpretation is what the game designers meant.

[kaoskonfety]

Anything giving you disadvantage on hiding negates half the benefit, anything giving the enemies advantage of perception negates the second half of the benefit. Giving it both was a bit out there for "relative strength"

It only applies to "hiding" - its got a little sidebar and everything, neat?... Being invisible makes the cloak work better? For some reason this bothers me. Most of the ways to become hidden require you to be un-seen in the first place...

The cloak becomes useless in any situation the bads don't need to make a check at all - the player moving in plain sight clearly qualifies.

Meh, its quite excellent - better than it used to be, but not game breaking. It changes stealth from a bit of a craps shoot to a reliable ability - VERY reliable of you have a high score in it. At a glance blind sight, true sight and tremor sense all bypass it neatly, many of the biggest bads have some combination of these. There are a number of spells. Various "guardian" monsters with perceptions tricks, some of which the PC's won't even realize... at a quick glance the funniest is the rust monster and its 30' iron scent.

[Mr.Moron]

It seems reasonable to me. The item as presented feels pretty degenerate. Then again I'm a guy who doesn't allow invisibility spells in my games, so maybe I'm biased.

[Giant2005]

I don't think it should be nerfed. If the DM didn't want it out there, then it should never have been out there - he could have given the party access to the Boots of Elvenkind if he wanted a less powerful version.
That cloak is basically what the Predator uses to camouflage and frankly, that is cool as hell. That ability is supposed to be powerful - that is why only one member of Duke's A-Team was able to spot the Predator and event hat instance was because the Predator allowed himself to be seen as a means of drawing them into a trap. Even the Native American that supposedly had rather acute senses was unable to lay eyes on the Predator.
Don't nerf the Predator! No-one wants the Aliens to win.

[Rallicus]

That cloak is basically what the Predator uses to camouflage and frankly,

No it isn't.

[Cazero]

Are there any circumstances where both effect actually apply at the same time? If the player is rolling for stealth with advantage thanks to the cloak, why not using passive perception to locate him? If someone rolls a wisdom/perception check to locate elves ambushing him at disadvantage due to their cloaks, why not using passive stealth for the elves?

[Giant2005]

Are there any circumstances where both effect actually apply at the same time? If the player is rolling for stealth with advantage thanks to the cloak, why not using passive perception to locate him? If someone rolls a wisdom/perception check to locate elves ambushing him at disadvantage due to their cloaks, why not using passive stealth for the elves?

Advantage adds +5 to a passive roll and disadvantage subtracts 5 from a passive roll.

[Cazero]

Advantage adds +5 to a passive roll and disadvantage subtracts 5 from a passive roll.

Those modifiers were not made with opposed checks in mind, and more for static 'jump across the chasm' kind of checks.
My reasoning is that having advantage on an opposed check should be equivalent to your opponent having disadvantage on his check, wich is why the cloak does both, but applying both effect at once breaks the 'only one (dis)advantage' rule.

[Giant2005]

Those modifiers were not made with opposed checks in mind, and more for static 'jump across the chasm' kind of checks.
My reasoning is that having advantage on an opposed check should be equivalent to your opponent having disadvantage on his check, wich is why the cloak does both, but applying both effect at once breaks the 'only one (dis)advantage' rule.

Then disadvantage on perception would be completely meaningless and they may as well have just copy/pasted the text from the Boots of Elvenkind.

[Wolfsraine]

No it isn't.

It is a magical item, who's to say it isn't like predators chameleon. Either way, I don't see how it's degenerate. I have one on my ranger and it's fine. It doesn't disrupt our games at all.

How is the character with the cloak making it a problem? Is he a woodelf stealthing in the midst of combat?

[Oscredwin]

It is a magical item, who's to say it isn't like predators chameleon. Either way, I don't see how it's degenerate. I have one on my ranger and it's fine. It doesn't disrupt our games at all.

How is the character with the cloak making it a problem? Is he a woodelf stealthing in the midst of combat?

I think having the cloak on a rogue with expertise in stealth turns the character into +5 (dex) +4 (prof) +4 (expertise) and advantage vs +5 perception observer creates a situation akin to the player having a stealth mod of "Yes," which may be against the spirit of the game. Although, it may be better to give it to another character to have them be able to follow the rogue on their own.

[Gritmonger]

Hide only is the double-dip.

Stealth lists four: hide, move silently, slip away, and sneak up.

I'd rule each is a separate situation - you hide, one roll. If you move from that hiding space, new roll. If you try and sneak up on somebody after they pass your hiding space, new roll.

If you stealth to hide, you get advantage, enemies get disadvantage.

If you stealth to move, slip away, sneak up on somebody, you roll normal, enemies have disadvantage.

If you double-up with the boots of Elvenkind, you also have advantage on the stealth to move, so you can double-dip on hiding and moving silently as well.

Slip away and sneak up on somebody rely specifically on avoiding the focused attention of observers, or waiting for someone's attention to be elsewhere, which the cloak plays into (disad on perception) but the boots do not.

[Mara]

Guys. It is a magic item. It does cool things.

Would you complain that characters with a belt of storm giant's strength starts hitting all the time and doing tons of damage?

[Gritmonger]

Guys. It is a magic item. It does cool things.

Would you complain that characters with a belt of storm giant's strength starts hitting all the time and doing tons of damage?

No complaints. Just questions of when it does and doesn't apply, which is important to what a thief is doing and does on a daily basis. For instance, if an arcane trickster is hidden with a cloak of elvenkind, do they get any kind of advantage on Mage Hand Legerdemain's Sleight of Hand check due to the opposition being a Perception check, and the cloak imparting disadvantage on such checks?

[pwykersotz]

Guys. It is a magic item. It does cool things.

Would you complain that characters with a belt of storm giant's strength starts hitting all the time and doing tons of damage?

Yes, if it allowed auto-hit and one-hit-KO of equal CR'd creatures. Relative power of magic items is a valuable discussion.

[Xetheral]

Hide only is the double-dip.

As a DM, I'd be inclined to rule that the magical camouflage provided by the Cloak of Elvenkind provides no benefit if the enemy can't see the cloak. If you're out of line-of-sight, invisible, or your opponent is blinded, what benefit do you expect to gain from camouflage?

Except, that, in 5e, one can't try to hide at all unless one is unseen. And if you're unseen, so is everything you're wearing.... So, the cloak only helps in situations where the cloak can't be seen?

So, short of Wood Elves and distracted opponents, the Cloak of Elvenkind mostly only helps one avoid making enough noise to give away their position? And yet it doesn't help with moving silently....

Is there any way to fluff the cloak that doesn't make my brain hurt?

[Gritmonger]

As a DM, I'd be inclined to rule that the magical camouflage provided by the Cloak of Elvenkind provides no benefit if the enemy can't see the cloak. If you're out of line-of-sight, invisible, or your opponent is blinded, what benefit do you expect to gain from camouflage?

Except, that, in 5e, one can't try to hide at all unless one is unseen. And if you're unseen, so is everything you're wearing.... So, the cloak only helps in situations where the cloak can't be seen?

So, short of Wood Elves and distracted opponents, the Cloak of Elvenkind mostly only helps one avoid making enough noise to give away their position? And yet it doesn't help with moving silently....

Is there any way to fluff the cloak that doesn't make my brain hurt?

Try this: The cloak shimmers like a pool of disturbed water, until allowed to settle. When in motion, your outline is broken up enough that people seeing you aren't sure of your shape, but might discern something moving (minus to perception, no plus to stealth) - while as soon as you are quiescent, it is like a stilled reflection of all around you (minus to perception, plus bonus to stealth (hide) )

[Xetheral]

Try this: The cloak shimmers like a pool of disturbed water, until allowed to settle. When in motion, your outline is broken up enough that people seeing you aren't sure of your shape, but might discern something moving (minus to perception, no plus to stealth) - while as soon as you are quiescent, it is like a stilled reflection of all around you (minus to perception, plus bonus to stealth (hide) )

Very nice description. :) Sadly, it still doesn't deal with the problem that its cloaking power shouldn't matter: the enemies can't see the cloak anyway if you're unseen enough to be able to make a hide check.

[Gritmonger]

Very nice description. :) Sadly, it still doesn't deal with the problem that its cloaking power shouldn't matter: the enemies can't see the cloak anyway if you're unseen enough to be able to make a hide check.

I'd have to ask why you'd ever make a hide check in that case. If you aren't in line of sight of anybody, that's when you hide - but if somebody else moves, or people are looking for you, that's when the hide check matters. If they never get to where you are hiding, they never make the check.

Consider this - the guard is after you, you spot an open doorway - he sees you duck in there, but in the moment you are out of line-of-sight, you make a hide check. This determines how well, in that moment of broken line-of-sight, you have made yourself like so much abandoned furniture.

The guard comes into the room he saw you duck into - there is the opposed check. You would not have been able to make your hide check before ducking in the room, but you wouldn't have needed it if he'd passed the room by. If you make a high number, and he's rolling at a disadvantage (cloak, perhaps?) he looks about the room and, seeing an open window and not much else, assumes you've gone through that.

[Psikerlord]

This little item is causing a bit of a fuss in our little D&D group. Since I first encountered it as a DM myself I've thought that as written it was simply too powerful, and this is now coming up in the game I am a player in. It's exacerbated by WotC's rather lame punting on the whole matter of stealth in 5e.

The basic issue is that it causes Wisdom (Perception) checks against you to have disadvantage AND Dexterity (Stealth) checks to have advantage. This "doubling down" of enemy disadvantage and PC advantage, combined with the fact that most monsters have low Wisdom, means that any stealthy character is virtually guaranteed success. A natural 20 on a Perception check is often the only way they can be spotted.

Our DM, frustrated by this, recently ruled that it says it provides advantage on Stealth checks to Hide, meaning specifically hiding in one spot.. and that if you were moving it would no longer apply. But I don't see a separate definition of "Hide" as meaning hiding in one place and something else as meaning stealth while moving. Is this interpretation reasonable?

What other ways are there to bring this item into line while maintaining its usefulness? Thanks.

Yeah this item is broken on a rogue using it to pop in/out of cover and get adv every attack plus the defence of being hidden in the interim. I like this DM ruling actually - hiding in one spot, fine, but if you move then it doesn't help (don't give this PC boots of elvenkind whatever you do!).

Very sloppy writing on this item and the check double down as you describe is highly regrettable. I don't know how it made it past playtesting frankly. I would not use it in it's current form at all. My houseruled version would either be as your DM's version, or just adv on stealth to hide (no disad on perception).

[charlesk]

Thanks for all the replies.

Personally, I'd rather see a DM modify an item in an intelligent way rather than ban it.


Yeah this item is broken on a rogue using it to pop in/out of cover and get adv every attack plus the defence of being hidden in the interim. I like this DM ruling actually - hiding in one spot, fine, but if you move then it doesn't help (don't give this PC boots of elvenkind whatever you do!).


Ironically, in a session just completed a couple of hours ago, my character offered to give him a pair of those boots and he refused. Strange guy.

[Xetheral]

I'd have to ask why you'd ever make a hide check in that case. If you aren't in line of sight of anybody, that's when you hide - but if somebody else moves, or people are looking for you, that's when the hide check matters. If they never get to where you are hiding, they never make the check.

Consider this - the guard is after you, you spot an open doorway - he sees you duck in there, but in the moment you are out of line-of-sight, you make a hide check. This determines how well, in that moment of broken line-of-sight, you have made yourself like so much abandoned furniture.

The guard comes into the room he saw you duck into - there is the opposed check. You would not have been able to make your hide check before ducking in the room, but you wouldn't have needed it if he'd passed the room by. If you make a high number, and he's rolling at a disadvantage (cloak, perhaps?) he looks about the room and, seeing an open window and not much else, assumes you've gone through that.

The hiding rules are particularly open to diverse interpretations. I've gotten the impression, however, that insofar as there is any consensus, in 5e hiding requires being out of line-of-sight or otherwise unseen both to initially hide and to remain hidden. If an enemy moves and you no longer have Heavy Obscurement, Total Cover, or Invisibility, (or a special ability providing looser restrictions) you are automatically noticed. So, in your example, the guard would automatically notice you upon entering the room with the furniture. In previous editions, hiding would work as you described, but not in 5e. Instead, in this edition hiding means that an enemy that can't see you also doesn't automatically know your location (although they may be able to guess from context).

For example, in 5e combatants are aware of the locations of all invisible creatures, unless those creatures spend an action to hide and win the check (and somehow the invisible Cloak of Elvenkind helps on this check). Enemies can attack invisible, unhidden creatures, albeit with disadvantage. If the invisible creature successfully hides, however, then would-be attackers need to also guess the correct 5-foot square. Similarly, if you're behind a brick wall and don't spend an action to hide, your opponents know what square you're in.

Basically, in 5e hiding requires one to already be unseen, and doesn't seem to provide any additional ability to remain unseen (unless you're a Wood Elf, Lightfoot Halfling, or have the Skulker feat).

I'd love to be proven wrong on this though, so if you disagree and can find a rule that says you can remain hidden even without Heavy Obscurement, Total Cover, or Invisibility, please let me know!

[Giant2005]

I'd love to be proven wrong on this though, so if you disagree and can find a rule that says you can remain hidden even without Heavy Obscurement, Total Cover, or Invisibility, please let me know!
There isn't any need to find such a rule, logic and the way they the rules are written is enough evidence to suggest the opposite of what you said. You would need some sort of supporting rule to suggest that the Stealth mechanic is as borked as you claim.
The entire passage of Passive Perception wouldn't exist otherwise - you can't passively see something that has total cover and to find such a person would require active investigation. Passive Perception can only work when the hidden person isn't 100% obstructed so obviously you are not automatically seen when not 100% obstructed.

[Xetheral]

The entire passage of Passive Perception wouldn't exist otherwise - you can't passively see something that has total cover and to find such a person would require active investigation. Passive Perception can only work when the hidden person isn't 100% obstructed so obviously you are not automatically seen when not 100% obstructed.

The passive perception section on PHB 177 refers to "noticing" the hiding creature rather than "seeing" them. And the paragraphs above it suggest that the way you find a hiding creature is by sound: "if you make a noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position". Now that certainly doesn't preclude the possibility that it's possible to notice a hiding creature by sight, but it does mean that Passive Perception works fine even if the hidden person is 100% obstructed. So the existence of the Passive Perception mechanic doesn't imply that one can remain hidden after losing Heavy Obscurement, Total Cover, or Invisibility.


There isn't any need to find such a rule, logic and the way they the rules are written is enough evidence to suggest the opposite of what you said. You would need some sort of supporting rule to suggest that the Stealth mechanic is as borked as you claim.

Unfortunately, logic doesn't provide a nice neat answer to the question of whether no longer meeting the requirements to make a hide check (i.e. being unseen) automatically reveals a hidden creature. On the one hand, if losing the requirements does reveal a hidden creature, you the get the fluff/verisimilitude problems I describe above. On the other hand, if losing the requirements doesn't necessarily reveal a hidden creature, you get situations such as hiding behind a closed door that is subsequently opened, and the absurdity of trying to hide in an open doorway from a creature 5' away from you. It's just as logical, if not more so to conclude that if you lose whatever you were hiding behind (or in), you can't still be hidden.

[Giant2005]

Unfortunately, logic doesn't provide a nice neat answer to the question of whether no longer meeting the requirements to make a hide check (i.e. being unseen) automatically reveals a hidden creature. On the one hand, if losing the requirements does reveal a hidden creature, you the get the fluff/verisimilitude problems I describe above. On the other hand, if losing the requirements doesn't necessarily reveal a hidden creature, you get situations such as hiding behind a closed door that is subsequently opened, and the absurdity of trying to hide in an open doorway from a creature 5' away from you. It's just as logical, if not more so to conclude that if you lose whatever you were hiding behind (or in), you can't still be hidden.

I wasn't talking logic from an in-game perspective but the logic of following the language and the rules to their obvious conclusion.
If you don't like Passive Perception... How about Advantage on attacks while hidden? If your version of the rules was any way intended then attacking from hidden would be impossible and there would need to be no caveat about adding advantage from stealth. If the moment that you no longer have total cover ruins stealth then you could never attack from stealth as you cannot attack something with total cover.

[Gritmonger]

The way it is being presented here, hide would never be used.

Light obscurement provides disadvantage to perception checks - presumably this would include checks to detect a hiding creatures.

One presumes, then, that the situation exists where it is simply an opposed check.

In other words, not while in light obscurement. Say, in the rafters of a room.

If you hide well enough, you are in plain view - if they look up.

The point in hiding is being somewhere somebody looking for you is unlikely to look, or see easily - say, behind the door in a room. Somebody can enter, shut the door, look around, and still not notice you behind where the door was, because conceptually they have already 'looked' there (there isn't a thought to check behind where the door was - they didn't see you on entering the room).

The rules about hiding when in full view mean you can't hide while under observation. This, I think, is to prevent the situation of rogue-in-the-box. You have to break line of sight to hide, and not give yourself away, else somebody knows where you are. Firing from cover, shouting, performing a spell or the like gives away your position - you can't hide there again unless you move and break line of sight - hence why invisible folks who don't break invisibility can attempt it again.

This is where the cloak comes in - the way it is worded, for the sake of hiding, it always makes you count as "lightly obscured," and if you aren't moving you get advantage on hide checks in addition to that.

[Xetheral]

I wasn't talking logic from an in-game perspective but the logic of following the language and the rules to their obvious conclusion.

My apologies--I misunderstood. In that case we simply have different perspectives on what a logical reading of the language of the rules would be. Heavens knows I have no confidence that my interpretation is any better than yours--the hiding rules are a mess.


If you don't like Passive Perception... How about Advantage on attacks while hidden? If your version of the rules was any way intended then attacking from hidden would be impossible and there would need to be no caveat about adding advantage from stealth. If the moment that you no longer have total cover ruins stealth then you could never attack from stealth as you cannot attack something with total cover.

The relevant passage is on PHB 177: "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." As you point out, if you have total cover you can't attack, so if that's what you're hiding behind you must come out of hiding first, and are thus automatically seen and cannot attack with advantage. Personally, I rely on the built-in DM exception on the same page to permit such attacks to be made with advantage, particularly if they're ranged attacks. But yes, some people (particularly on the WotC boards) appear to interpret the rules so that gaining advantage from hiding requires an independent ability to remain unseen (such as invisibility), which does indeed make hiding irrelevant for offensive purposes unless you have an ability that lets you hide in less than Total Cover or Heavy Obscurement. I don't like it (which is why I apply the DM exception liberally), but I agree with their interpretation of the rules.

At some point I plan to homebrew entirely new hiding rules, but I'm currently (slowly) working on homebrewed rules for magic item creation, purchase, and sale.


The way it is being presented here, hide would never be used.

Sure it would. Even with the very awkward rules in the book, hiding is useful to deny enemies knowledge of which square you're in. This makes it much more difficult for enemies to successfully attack. For example, if you're ducking behind a low wall and have total cover, enemies still know where you are and can target AoE effects to reach behind the wall. If instead you successfully hide behind the wall, the enemies have to guess where to center their effect to maximize their chances of hitting you. For another example, if you're in pitch darkness and don't hide, enemies can still attack you suffering only from disadvantage. If you successfully hide they have to guess your square and then even if they guess right still have to make their attack with disadvantage. The defensive benefits of hiding are huge.

Of course, in some situations it isn't useful. If you duck behind a lone tree in combat to gain full cover, hiding isn't going to help you because they still know exactly where you are (unless the DM decides the opponents are distracted enough to let you leave cover while still hidden).


Light obscurement provides disadvantage to perception checks - presumably this would include checks to detect a hiding creatures.

One presumes, then, that the situation exists where it is simply an opposed check.

In other words, not while in light obscurement. Say, in the rafters of a room.

If you hide well enough, you are in plain view - if they look up.

The point in hiding is being somewhere somebody looking for you is unlikely to look, or see easily - say, behind the door in a room. Somebody can enter, shut the door, look around, and still not notice you behind where the door was, because conceptually they have already 'looked' there (there isn't a thought to check behind where the door was - they didn't see you on entering the room).

As I understand the rules, in these situation one would be unable to hide unless the DM determines that whomever is looking for you is sufficiently distracted to let you make a hide check.

Hmm... maybe that's my solution to dealing with the cloak until I can get around to homebrewing hiding: simply don't apply the bonuses exception in situations covered by the built-in DM exception for distraction, since those appear to be the only times the enemy is in a position to be able to see the beneficial camouflage. Unfortunately that reduces the utility of the item significantly, even when I'm being liberal in applying the exception.


The rules about hiding when in full view mean you can't hide while under observation. This, I think, is to prevent the situation of rogue-in-the-box. You have to break line of sight to hide, and not give yourself away, else somebody knows where you are. Firing from cover, shouting, performing a spell or the like gives away your position - you can't hide there again unless you move and break line of sight - hence why invisible folks who don't break invisibility can attempt it again.

Rogue-in-the-box appears to work as I read the rules, it just doesn't provide any benefit: once you have total cover from the box you can make a hide check. If you succeed the enemies can't detect your presence in the box by sound or movement, but they still know you're in the box. If you leave the box to attack you don't gain any benefit because you've now lost total cover.


This is where the cloak comes in - the way it is worded, for the sake of hiding, it always makes you count as "lightly obscured," and if you aren't moving you get advantage on hide checks in addition to that.

It provides disadvantage on perception checks, but I don't see anything suggesting it provides light obscurement. I'm AFB and looking at the basic rules, though, so maybe the DMG goes into more depth.

[Gavran]

This old thread The Rules of Hidden Club (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2739081) may provide some insight to the Stealth rules.

Heavy Disclaimer: The link is about 4E specifically, I have not actually used/read the 5E Stealth rules, I do not know if they operate at all under the same principles but if they're a lot different from 3.5 it's possible that it is because they are similar to 4E. Of note, in 4E if you started an attack action while Hidden, you were "hidden" (or at least still got Combat Advantage...) until the end of the action. You could make a Stealth check to become Hidden at the end of any action in which you moved, or whenever an action says you can. Being Hidden largely required "total concealment" which is a big part of the reason I think it may be relevant here.

[Xetheral]

This old thread The Rules of Hidden Club (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2739081) may provide some insight to the Stealth rules.

Heavy Disclaimer: The link is about 4E specifically, I have not actually used/read the 5E Stealth rules, I do not know if they operate at all under the same principles but if they're a lot different from 3.5 it's possible that it is because they are similar to 4E. Of note, in 4E if you started an attack action while Hidden, you were "hidden" (or at least still got Combat Advantage...) until the end of the action. You could make a Stealth check to become Hidden at the end of any action in which you moved, or whenever an action says you can. Being Hidden largely required "total concealment" which is a big part of the reason I think it may be relevant here.

A key difference is that in 4e, as the thread you linked indicates, concealment (light obscurement in 5e) was explicitly sufficient to maintain one's hidden status. There is no such rule in 5e. Admittedly, there is also no rule that directly says concealment isn't sufficient, although some people (including myself) believe that such a conclusion follows from the rules that exist.