1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
The first bullet doesn't describe what bypass the condition, it says that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense, thus conceding that those circumstances can make it possible to see such creature and more importantly, does not say it bypass or couunter the condition despite it..
It says enough to warrant logic to take over. If a creature is 'seen' therefore, it does not benefit from being 'unseen' no matter the circumstance it's presented in.
I agree if you're seen, you don't benefit from Unseen Attackers and Targets.
But just like if behind opaque total cover, the invisible condition not only logically is subject to it, it also have a bullet that specifically make attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage, which is independant of the first bullet.
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
I mean if a condition can be countered, would not all the effects of said condition also be countered?
Would that mean that if you somehow counter the effect or condition of something that is “invisible”, that thing no longer benefits from the condition?
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
How do you figure that? There are multiple ways to end the unconscious condition, either given by the effect that caused it (in the case of sleep etc.), or regaining hit-points in the case of being reduced to 0 hit-points etc. The moment the condition itself ends, so does every feature of it.
The same is true of invisible if you can counter the effect that caused it, as that causes the condition to end, e.g- casting dispel magic on a creature that used invisibility (though you'll need some way to see perceive them first). This is nominally the benefit of being able to see an invisible creature, in 5e RAW, as you can try to do something about it.
But that count of countering is not what's at issue here, because true seeing etc. don't end the invisible condition just because you see them, nor do they negate or ignore the condition because that's not what they say they do, all they do is let you see them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
How do you figure that? There are multiple ways to end the unconscious condition, either given by the effect that caused it (in the case of sleep etc.), or regaining hit-points in the case of being reduced to 0 hit-points etc. The moment the condition itself ends, so does every feature of it.
The same is true of invisible if you can counter the effect that caused it, as that causes the condition to end, e.g- casting dispel magic on a creature that used invisibility (though you'll need some way to see them first). This is nominally the benefit of being able to see an invisible creature, in 5e RAW, as you can try to do something about it.
But that count of countering is not what's at issue here, because true seeing etc. don't end the invisible condition just because you see them, nor do they negate or ignore the condition because that's not what they say they do, all they do is let you see them.
If creature A can “see” creature C that is “invisible” with some mechanism while creature B can not “see” creature C, is not the condition of being invisible to creature A countered, therefore the ability of the condition with respect to creature A considered also countered?
As for creature B the “invisible” condition has not been countered or ended, so the abilities of the condition shall apply till such time as the condition is ether countered or creature C has the condition ended.
which brings us to the crux of the situation, “invisibility” aka “impossible to see” is conditional on a creature by creature basis and the ability of the just aforementioned creature by creature situation in countering the effects of the condition.
Unlike other conditions, invisibility is a special case condition that interacts with other creatures and has to be treated differently with respect to said other creatures.
If creature A can “see” creature C that is “invisible” with some mechanism while creature B can not “see” creature C, is not the condition of being invisible to creature A countered, therefore the ability of the condition with respect to creature A considered also countered?
Nope.
Seeing the creature does not counter the condition.
For a moment, just pretend that the Condition was named something else, like Foobar. Now, just read the text which explains the Condition. You'll see that there's nothing about the Foobar Condition that indicates that it is countered in any way if another creature sees the creature that has the Foobar Condition. If you are able to see a creature that has the Foobar Condition, that just means that you can see it. That ability affects you -- It doesn't mean anything for the creature who has the Foobar Condition. Nothing has changed for that creature.
“invisibility” . . . is conditional on a creature by creature basis and the ability of the just aforementioned creature by creature situation in countering the effects of the condition.
Unlike other conditions, invisibility is a special case condition that interacts with other creatures and has to be treated differently with respect to said other creatures.
All of this is 100% false. There is nothing conditional about Conditions. A creature either has the Condition or it doesn't. All relationships and/or interaction with other creatures is completely irrelevant. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. Other creatures do not interact with the Condition in any way. Thinking about it that way is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Conditions work in the game.
Your ruling does not stand on it's own, because you must remove it from the context of the first bullet point to even validate it existing in a permanent sense. You are purposely ignoring the first bullet point, which indicates how the 'condition' is supposed to function, in context with itself.
I am not ignoring the first bullet point; I am repeating exactly what it says. There is no "context" that magically causes it to say something else; your interpretation is homebrew because you are inventing text that isn't there.
Rules As Written is concerned only with what it says on the page, not what you want it to say.
Feel free to find where in the rules it says that ignoring one bullet point of a list means you get to ignore the entire list; if you can find such a rule it will support your argument for the invisible condition and then proceed to break the entire rest of the game.
I have pointed to the 'ruling' in question, which you choose to ignore in your reply. Just like you've chosen to ignore the context of the bullet points, because you choose to simply take the bullet points as their individual components, and not as a whole context.
Either way, your interpretation remains homebrew, because you have to bend over backwards so many times to achieve it, we're having this discussion in the first place.
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
I mean if a condition can be countered, would not all the effects of said condition also be countered?
Would that mean that if you somehow counter the effect or condition of something that is “invisible”, that thing no longer benefits from the condition?
As I stated before: we are screwed if conditions ever acted in the first part of this statement.
I have pointed to the 'ruling' in question, which you choose to ignore in your reply. Just like you've chosen to ignore the context of the bullet points, because you choose to simply take the bullet points as their individual components, and not as a whole context.
Either way, your interpretation remains homebrew, because you have to bend over backwards so many times to achieve it, we're having this discussion in the first place.
It's not homebrew, it's Rules As Written, and no "bending over backwards" is required to arrive at it because we are literally just pointing to what it says on the page. You know, the rules as they are written (hence Rules As Written).
There is no "context" that changes those words on the page, and you've yet to cite a rule that tells us you can ignore an entire condition if one of its bullet points no longer takes effect (although as others have pointed out the first bullet point actually applies in all cases, because it is in fact the part of the condition that handles special senses, unlike the second bullet point).
If you don't like what the rule says, fine, none of us here do. But that doesn't change what is stated right there on the page.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
As I stated before: we are screwed if conditions ever acted in the first part of this statement.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here at all. What does any of this have to do with the Unconscious Condition? And YES, the Unconscious Condition DOES work like that. It is a permanent Condition.
A condition lasts either until it is countered . . . or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
So, if the duration never expires and the Condition is never countered -- then yes, you would remain Unconscious forever. What's the point?
The same is true of invisible if you can counter the effect that caused it, as that causes the condition to end, e.g- casting dispel magic on a creature that used invisibility (though you'll need some way to see them first).
And as I've said before, the first bullet point is what states that the second bullet point doesn't function when you are seen, even with the condition active. In this case, you are playing Homebrew, trying to pull everything you can to make it 'official' simply by stating and re-stating 'This is RAW' when I've pointed out where I got the ruling of context from, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. This ruling is Homebrew, but has been ingrained as RAW for so long, people refuse to admit otherwise.
If I cast truesight on me and you have the invisible condition, how can the condition affect me if I “see you coming”?
The Condition doesn't affect you, that's the whole point. The Condition only affects the creature that has the Condition. It is not relevant to any other creature. The Invisible Condition does what it says to the Invisible creature. That seems to be the main area of misunderstanding. Conditions do not affect or interact with or relate to any other creature in any way. They affect the creature that has the Condition and they do what they say.
And as I've said before, the first bullet point is what states that the second bullet point doesn't function when you are seen, even with the condition active.
Where exactly do you think the first bullet point says anything of the sort? As far as I know, the first bullet point says this:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
I don't see anything in there that "states" anything at all about the 2nd bullet point.
It provides a definition for what it means to be an invisible creature in 5e. It gives guidance about how and why a creature with this Condition might be able to Hide out in the open. It clarifies that just because it might be unseen doesn't mean that it's also unheard, and it also leaves visible tracks that anyone else might leave when it moves. That's all that the first bullet says.
Nothing about this first bullet point changes if another creature sees this creature. Nothing about this first bullet point impacts the 2nd bullet point in any way.
The entire Condition persists until it is countered or expires.
And as I've said before, the first bullet point is what states that the second bullet point doesn't function when you are seen, even with the condition active.
And as everyone else has pointed out, that's not what it says at all in any way shape or form. You are arguing for something that the text doesn't state, which means it cannot ever be Rules As Written without other supporting rules which you haven't provided.
All you've cited is a note in Sage Advice on how they interpret RAW for their rulings, but "context" doesn't mean the rules now say things that aren't stated anywhere. Context is used when what the rules say is vague, but there is nothing vague in the rules for the invisible condition, which means that anything else you want it to say is invention, not RAW.
In this case, you are playing Homebrew
No, we're not. Rules As Written is running the rules as they are written. The condition is written with two effects and you don't get to ignore one of them unless you're told to, which you aren't, at any point.
Again, that's not to say that any of us here run the rules as written, but in a RAW debate you have to be aware of what the rule actually states; I expect most if not all of us here ignore the second bullet point as redundant, and find the rules a lot more intuitive as a result, but that being a common house rule doesn't make it RAW, it just means that the RAW likely needs to be changed.
The same is true of invisible if you can counter the effect that caused it, as that causes the condition to end, e.g- casting dispel magic on a creature that used invisibility (though you'll need some way to see them first).
Dispel magic does not have a vision requirement.
I should have said something like "perceive" though dispel magic is actually a bit vague; you're still trying to target a magical effect, so at the very least you need to know roughly where it is. If the invisible creature isn't also hiding that will be a lot easier though as you could then try to target the space.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
All bullets are part of a condition's definition, bullet #2 is not dependant of being unseen but from being subjected to the invisible condition.
So when any effect makes a creature see you, the only question that matter is - are you still subjected to the invisible condition? If yes, than the definition of what happen when you do still apply;
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
Conditions: The following definitions specify what happens to a creature while it is subjected to a condition.
I kind of think of it as. If a person is sick (invisible condition) because of a germ in their body. A doctor who is able to see the germ (true sight), via microscope does not then automatically make the germ go away. The person still is sick (still has invisible condition). Unless the doctor prescribes medication (dispel magic or the like)
If creature A can “see” creature C that is “invisible” with some mechanism while creature B can not “see” creature C, is not the condition of being invisible to creature A countered, therefore the ability of the condition with respect to creature A considered also countered?
Nope.
Seeing the creature does not counter the condition.
For a moment, just pretend that the Condition was named something else, like Foobar. Now, just read the text which explains the Condition. You'll see that there's nothing about the Foobar Condition that indicates that it is countered in any way if another creature sees the creature that has the Foobar Condition. If you are able to see a creature that has the Foobar Condition, that just means that you can see it. That ability affects you -- It doesn't mean anything for the creature who has the Foobar Condition. Nothing has changed for that creature.
“invisibility” . . . is conditional on a creature by creature basis and the ability of the just aforementioned creature by creature situation in countering the effects of the condition.
Unlike other conditions, invisibility is a special case condition that interacts with other creatures and has to be treated differently with respect to said other creatures.
All of this is 100% false. There is nothing conditional about Conditions. A creature either has the Condition or it doesn't. All relationships and/or interaction with other creatures is completely irrelevant. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. Other creatures do not interact with the Condition in any way. Thinking about it that way is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Conditions work in the game.
... and this entirely the crux of the problem. Invisible was written into the rules as a condition. The rules indicates that conditions absolutely apply to the creature affected until the CONDITION is countered. Countering a condition consists of removing the condition from the creature, not conditionally bypassing elements of the condition.
The example above of calling the Invisible condition something else if very apropos. If they had called the "Invisible condition" "Out of Phase Condition" which conveys the listed benefits then folks would not have a problem with requiring spells like "See Out of Phase" to see the creature and would write off as "magic" the reason for still receiving the advantage/disadvantage benefits. The problem is that Invisibility has related expectations in the real world to the use of the word AND the benefit of the Invisible condition is identical to the benefits from being Unseen. There is no surprise given the names and logical expectations that the rules surrounding Invisibility do not agree with the expectations of most people, nor that DMs likely run this differently from as written.
In the case of Invisible, the rules do not say that Invisible can be conditionally countered by a creature that has the ability to see invisible creatures/objects.
Personally, I think that is a basic normal expectation of how something called invisible would function which is why so many folks (myself included), consider the ability to See Invisible to conditionally cancel the Invisible condition for that observer ... but it is not rules logic. The rules regarding conditions do not make that distinction which is why we get into a thread like this one.
As I said, if the rules logic is that no bullet point of a condition can affect any other bullet point of ether the same condition or any other condition, then when a creature is affected by the unconscious condition how does one counter the incapacitated condition?
no where in the text of any of the rules of the game address this issue.
Again as I stated, if a condition is countered then does not the effects of the condition ether good or bad also get countered?
an invisible creature that can be seen, has the effects of the condition countered much like if I counter the unconscious condition I no longer suffer the effects of the incapacitated condition.
As I said, if the rules logic is that no bullet point of a condition can affect any other bullet point of ether the same condition or any other condition, then when a creature is affected by the unconscious condition how does one counter the incapacitated condition?
When you remove the condition all bullet points are removed. The problem is that the ability to see invisible does not remove the invisible condition.
As I said, if the rules logic is that no bullet point of a condition can affect any other bullet point of ether the same condition or any other condition, then when a creature is affected by the unconscious condition how does one counter the incapacitated condition?
When you remove the condition all bullet points are removed. The problem is that the ability to see invisible does not remove the invisible condition.
It’s not removing the condition, it’s about countering the effects of a condition.
if one can counter a condition, are not the effects of a condition not also countered to some degree?
I agree if you're seen, you don't benefit from Unseen Attackers and Targets.
But just like if behind opaque total cover, the invisible condition not only logically is subject to it, it also have a bullet that specifically make attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage, which is independant of the first bullet.
If bullet points are independent of other mitigating factors and mechanics, as some seem to suggest, any creature that gains the unconscious condition is eternally screwed till it dies.
I mean if a condition can be countered, would not all the effects of said condition also be countered?
Would that mean that if you somehow counter the effect or condition of something that is “invisible”, that thing no longer benefits from the condition?
How do you figure that? There are multiple ways to end the unconscious condition, either given by the effect that caused it (in the case of sleep etc.), or regaining hit-points in the case of being reduced to 0 hit-points etc. The moment the condition itself ends, so does every feature of it.
The same is true of invisible if you can counter the effect that caused it, as that causes the condition to end, e.g- casting dispel magic on a creature that used invisibility (though you'll need some way to
seeperceive them first). This is nominally the benefit of being able to see an invisible creature, in 5e RAW, as you can try to do something about it.But that count of countering is not what's at issue here, because true seeing etc. don't end the invisible condition just because you see them, nor do they negate or ignore the condition because that's not what they say they do, all they do is let you see them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If creature A can “see” creature C that is “invisible” with some mechanism while creature B can not “see” creature C, is not the condition of being invisible to creature A countered, therefore the ability of the condition with respect to creature A considered also countered?
As for creature B the “invisible” condition has not been countered or ended, so the abilities of the condition shall apply till such time as the condition is ether countered or creature C has the condition ended.
which brings us to the crux of the situation, “invisibility” aka “impossible to see” is conditional on a creature by creature basis and the ability of the just aforementioned creature by creature situation in countering the effects of the condition.
Unlike other conditions, invisibility is a special case condition that interacts with other creatures and has to be treated differently with respect to said other creatures.
Nope.
Seeing the creature does not counter the condition.
For a moment, just pretend that the Condition was named something else, like Foobar. Now, just read the text which explains the Condition. You'll see that there's nothing about the Foobar Condition that indicates that it is countered in any way if another creature sees the creature that has the Foobar Condition. If you are able to see a creature that has the Foobar Condition, that just means that you can see it. That ability affects you -- It doesn't mean anything for the creature who has the Foobar Condition. Nothing has changed for that creature.
In D&D 5e, the Invisible Condition does NOT mean "impossible to see".
Explicitly, it means this:
All of this is 100% false. There is nothing conditional about Conditions. A creature either has the Condition or it doesn't. All relationships and/or interaction with other creatures is completely irrelevant. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. Other creatures do not interact with the Condition in any way. Thinking about it that way is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Conditions work in the game.
I have pointed to the 'ruling' in question, which you choose to ignore in your reply. Just like you've chosen to ignore the context of the bullet points, because you choose to simply take the bullet points as their individual components, and not as a whole context.
Either way, your interpretation remains homebrew, because you have to bend over backwards so many times to achieve it, we're having this discussion in the first place.
As I stated before: we are screwed if conditions ever acted in the first part of this statement.
It's not homebrew, it's Rules As Written, and no "bending over backwards" is required to arrive at it because we are literally just pointing to what it says on the page. You know, the rules as they are written (hence Rules As Written).
There is no "context" that changes those words on the page, and you've yet to cite a rule that tells us you can ignore an entire condition if one of its bullet points no longer takes effect (although as others have pointed out the first bullet point actually applies in all cases, because it is in fact the part of the condition that handles special senses, unlike the second bullet point).
If you don't like what the rule says, fine, none of us here do. But that doesn't change what is stated right there on the page.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here at all. What does any of this have to do with the Unconscious Condition? And YES, the Unconscious Condition DOES work like that. It is a permanent Condition.
So, if the duration never expires and the Condition is never countered -- then yes, you would remain Unconscious forever. What's the point?
Dispel magic does not have a vision requirement.
If I cast truesight on me and you have the invisible condition, how can the condition affect me if I “see you coming”?
And as I've said before, the first bullet point is what states that the second bullet point doesn't function when you are seen, even with the condition active. In this case, you are playing Homebrew, trying to pull everything you can to make it 'official' simply by stating and re-stating 'This is RAW' when I've pointed out where I got the ruling of context from, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. This ruling is Homebrew, but has been ingrained as RAW for so long, people refuse to admit otherwise.
I'm done with this argument.
The Condition doesn't affect you, that's the whole point. The Condition only affects the creature that has the Condition. It is not relevant to any other creature. The Invisible Condition does what it says to the Invisible creature. That seems to be the main area of misunderstanding. Conditions do not affect or interact with or relate to any other creature in any way. They affect the creature that has the Condition and they do what they say.
Where exactly do you think the first bullet point says anything of the sort? As far as I know, the first bullet point says this:
I don't see anything in there that "states" anything at all about the 2nd bullet point.
It provides a definition for what it means to be an invisible creature in 5e. It gives guidance about how and why a creature with this Condition might be able to Hide out in the open. It clarifies that just because it might be unseen doesn't mean that it's also unheard, and it also leaves visible tracks that anyone else might leave when it moves. That's all that the first bullet says.
Nothing about this first bullet point changes if another creature sees this creature. Nothing about this first bullet point impacts the 2nd bullet point in any way.
The entire Condition persists until it is countered or expires.
No.
And as everyone else has pointed out, that's not what it says at all in any way shape or form. You are arguing for something that the text doesn't state, which means it cannot ever be Rules As Written without other supporting rules which you haven't provided.
All you've cited is a note in Sage Advice on how they interpret RAW for their rulings, but "context" doesn't mean the rules now say things that aren't stated anywhere. Context is used when what the rules say is vague, but there is nothing vague in the rules for the invisible condition, which means that anything else you want it to say is invention, not RAW.
No, we're not. Rules As Written is running the rules as they are written. The condition is written with two effects and you don't get to ignore one of them unless you're told to, which you aren't, at any point.
Again, that's not to say that any of us here run the rules as written, but in a RAW debate you have to be aware of what the rule actually states; I expect most if not all of us here ignore the second bullet point as redundant, and find the rules a lot more intuitive as a result, but that being a common house rule doesn't make it RAW, it just means that the RAW likely needs to be changed.
I should have said something like "perceive" though dispel magic is actually a bit vague; you're still trying to target a magical effect, so at the very least you need to know roughly where it is. If the invisible creature isn't also hiding that will be a lot easier though as you could then try to target the space.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
All bullets are part of a condition's definition, bullet #2 is not dependant of being unseen but from being subjected to the invisible condition.
So when any effect makes a creature see you, the only question that matter is - are you still subjected to the invisible condition? If yes, than the definition of what happen when you do still apply;
I kind of think of it as. If a person is sick (invisible condition) because of a germ in their body. A doctor who is able to see the germ (true sight), via microscope does not then automatically make the germ go away. The person still is sick (still has invisible condition). Unless the doctor prescribes medication (dispel magic or the like)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
... and this entirely the crux of the problem. Invisible was written into the rules as a condition. The rules indicates that conditions absolutely apply to the creature affected until the CONDITION is countered. Countering a condition consists of removing the condition from the creature, not conditionally bypassing elements of the condition.
The example above of calling the Invisible condition something else if very apropos. If they had called the "Invisible condition" "Out of Phase Condition" which conveys the listed benefits then folks would not have a problem with requiring spells like "See Out of Phase" to see the creature and would write off as "magic" the reason for still receiving the advantage/disadvantage benefits. The problem is that Invisibility has related expectations in the real world to the use of the word AND the benefit of the Invisible condition is identical to the benefits from being Unseen. There is no surprise given the names and logical expectations that the rules surrounding Invisibility do not agree with the expectations of most people, nor that DMs likely run this differently from as written.
In the case of Invisible, the rules do not say that Invisible can be conditionally countered by a creature that has the ability to see invisible creatures/objects.
Personally, I think that is a basic normal expectation of how something called invisible would function which is why so many folks (myself included), consider the ability to See Invisible to conditionally cancel the Invisible condition for that observer ... but it is not rules logic. The rules regarding conditions do not make that distinction which is why we get into a thread like this one.
As I said, if the rules logic is that no bullet point of a condition can affect any other bullet point of ether the same condition or any other condition, then when a creature is affected by the unconscious condition how does one counter the incapacitated condition?
no where in the text of any of the rules of the game address this issue.
Again as I stated, if a condition is countered then does not the effects of the condition ether good or bad also get countered?
an invisible creature that can be seen, has the effects of the condition countered much like if I counter the unconscious condition I no longer suffer the effects of the incapacitated condition.
When you remove the condition all bullet points are removed. The problem is that the ability to see invisible does not remove the invisible condition.
It’s not removing the condition, it’s about countering the effects of a condition.
if one can counter a condition, are not the effects of a condition not also countered to some degree?