The point is that it's not clear how Naturally Stealthy changes the stealth rules. Does it still need to be reasonable to hide? That's hard to judge, because Naturally Stealthy is usually not reasonable. If we say that there's no relaxing, then the racial feature is basically useless. It will let you hide in a crowd. Honestly, I kind of wish it had been called, "Hide in the Crowd." It's not bad if it's weaker, considering that it competes with Dwarf-style poison resistance, but many tables and players are ruling it as a consistent, reusable form of advantage. The designers haven't told us which way they expected us to rule or just how powerful they expected this ability to be.
Regarding the lightfoot compared to the stout, I agree that the two features should be balanced in their effect. If the lightfoot is always using its feature in combat then the stout should also have ample opportunity to use its feature, by say, always fighting creatures who use poison.
Looking at the subrace descriptions, this caught my eye:
Basic Rules said:
As a lightfoot halfling, you can easily hide from notice, even using other people as cover.
Notice it says that other people are cover for the lightfoot, so this ability to hide should be treated the same as any other creature's ability to hide behind cover, subject to the rule that you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly.
You state in response to my Rogue and Barbarian example that, "it is only possible for the lightfoot to hide repeatedly as you describe if he and his barbarian friend are at least lightly obscured," and later, "if everyone knows where he is then he is not hidden from anyone." Why?
I know your questions are rhetorical, but I'd like to explain myself. To be hidden is to have your location unknown, but it doesn't work like a spell, granting that effect. Hidden is, rather, a description of the state you achieve when you are unseen and unheard, and your location is unknown by those from whom you are hiding. If you fail to meet any of these criteria then you are simply not hidden.
Naturally Stealthy says you only need to be obscured by a creature to attempt to hide. The plain English meaning of the ability directly contradicts your two statements.
What about the plain English meaning of hide? To "attempt to hide" you need to try to hide, right?
If you have to have light obscurement, too, then exactly what does Naturally Stealthy do?
It allows you to be obscured by other creatures when you are using them as cover. Being at least lightly obscured as you move behind such cover is needed to prevent undistracted creatures from seeing you clearly .
If you still can't hide when people know your location, why can you hide by ducking around a corner or into a closet?
Because
Naturally Stealthy isn't an exception to how you hide, it's an exception to what you can hide behind.
You note that heavy obscurement makes you an unseen attacker, but that's not the only effect of hiding. Hiding makes you an unseen attacker *and* makes your location unknown. Being in heavy obscurement does not do that. Being invisible does not do that. Being in total cover does not do that (and doesn't make you an unseen attacker, either). All those conditions allow a character to take an action and hide to make their location unknown, but unless they do that, the game assumes location is still known.
I don't see a problem with any of this. If you are hidden, no one knows where you are.
The point of the example with the Ranger/archer behind total cover isn't to say that he can't take an action to hide. The point isn't to say that what the Rogue is doing is "obviously ridiculous." It's to draw some attention to the inconsistency of total cover and hiding. Because in the real world those two are a lot more consistent than they are in the game.
Sorry, I still don't understand the point of this example.
