Posted without comment to either combatant-
From Nov. 2015 Sage advice-
Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”
Mike Mearls Tweet, Sept. 2014-
Use as y'all will.
Neither supports nor weakens what I'm saying. I agree with everything posted.
Since there are a ton of players, playing 5e, who do not see it your way, I guess yours isn't the only interpretation of RAW. And that's key.
Im not saying my interpretation is the only interpretation. In fact I said the exact opposite. I said there are two interpretations. Explicitly.
If you read my posts instead of being snide, you'd probably know this. Or maybe you are reading them, but just don't understand them. I cant help you in the latter case.
For the bloody upteenth time, there are two main interpretations of the RAW. (The RAW being essentially: You cant hide when someone is watching you). The first (the gamist interpretation) of this passage states you can thus attempt the Hide action by simply breaking LOS on your turn (enter full cover). The second (the plain English language interpretation) states the act of moving into hiding while under observation is enough to foil the attempt.
Whichever interpretation you prefer is irrelevant to me. The rules expressly let you rule hiding however you damn well want, and states (as RAW) 'the DM determines when you can or cant hide'. I prefer the latter (plain english) interpretation as it gives plain english meaning to the word 'hiding' and 'hidden'.
The gamist interpretation results in a number of absurd situations (jack in the box rogue, removal of object permanence) and fails to account for
what exactly a person does represented by 'the hide action' once behind that pillar I saw them jump behind that suddenly makes me think they are no longer there, as opposed to anyone else I observe leaping behind a pillar breaking LOS who doesn't take the hide action.
You want to stick with your interpretation, fine bro. The OP on the other hand is looking for a method to kerb a jack in the box rogue who seems capable of removing object permanence in his targets (i.e. he appears to have been using the gamist interpretation).
My suggestion to him is to use a plain english interpretation of the RAW instead. Its just as RAW as the gamist one, and doesnt lead to situations of absurdity with every stand up fight resulting in a game of (unrealistic) hide and seek from someone dissapearing behind a pillar and suddenly no-one knows where he is anymore over and over again.
(((Mike Mearls))) 
