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?
The effects you countered are countered. If you want to get all bullet points, you have to remove the condition.
And as rules as written:
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
A creature with a condition confers both an and vantage to one creature and disadvantages to the creature affected by said condition.
invisible condition acts the same way only to the benefit of the creature that has this particular condition, and at a negative benefit to any other creature that is affected by the condition.
if the negative affect of being “impossible to see” is disadvantage to attacks against a creature with the invisible condition, then does not turning “impossible to see” into “possible to see” remove the disadvantage?
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?
You need to be very clear about what you mean here, are you talking natural language or are you talking rules language?
In a natural language meaning then yes, having an ability (or sense) that makes you able to see someone who is invisible that is absolutely countering the invisibility.
However in a rules language meaning it isn't (as was said previously, the part in the condition that says how you can still be seen by magic and such is a clear point towards that being a part of the condition).
I could of course see some valid points in an argument that the natural language meaning is also the rules meaning but there is, IMO at least, one big issue with that. The rules for conditions are absolutely crystal clear on the fact that you either have a condition or you don't, there are no "relative to that thing" or "towards that creature" or anything like that. So any argument that the condition is countered for an invisible creature that can be seen by someone is also an argument that the creature now can be seen by everyone, it is an all or nothing deal. And I don't think I've seen anyone that argues that effect being any less stupid than the being seen but still have advantage/disadvantage effect is.
I've said it before, having Invisibility be a condition is a stunningly stupid thing to do. It doesn't, conceptually, work in the same way as other things that are conditions do. And unfortunately the current playtest is just as problematic as the current rules are.
invisible condition acts the same way only to the benefit of the creature that has this particular condition, and at a negative benefit to any other creature that is affected by the condition.
This is where the mistake keeps getting made. There is no "other" creature. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. The text specifies what happens to THAT creature only.
then does not turning “impossible to see” into “possible to see” remove the disadvantage?
I'm not aware of any scenario in the game where something that is "impossible to see" becomes "possible to see". But even if that were to happen -- no, that does not remove the disadvantage.
invisible condition acts the same way only to the benefit of the creature that has this particular condition, and at a negative benefit to any other creature that is affected by the condition.
This is where the mistake keeps getting made. There is no "other" creature. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. The text specifies what happens to THAT creature only.
then does not turning “impossible to see” into “possible to see” remove the disadvantage?
I'm not aware of any scenario in the game where something that is "impossible to see" becomes "possible to see". But even if that were to happen -- no, that does not remove the disadvantage.
The first bullet point of the invisible condition is in rules mechanics speak a conditional rule.
rule grants condition(s) on a condition of a given truism. If the given truism is found to be untrue, condition is ended.
This entire post is false. The first bullet doesn't say anything of the sort. There is nothing conditional about it.
If this is your best counterpoints to the issue of the debate in which I have clearly presented within the various post I have presented, I feel you have no constructive arguments left to present.
ether a condition is or is not, ether an effect is applied both positively and or negatively otherwise the effect is not applied
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
Senses such as truesight do not counter the condition, they only provide you with an exception as described in the first bullet point of the condition. The invisible creature is still impossible to see without such special senses, and all creatures that lack those senses remain unable to see it.
All truesight does is let you ignore the effect of the first bullet point (as the first bullet point itself sets out), it does not remove the condition from the affected creature, and does nothing to the second bullet point which applies regardless, as it has no listed exceptions.
If the second bullet point said something like "attack rolls by the creature against targets that cannot see it have advantage, and attacks against it by creatures that cannot see it have disadvantage" then we wouldn't have this problem, but as the rule is defined "the creature" is "the creature with the invisible condition" not "the creature but only while it is impossible to see".
The only way to end the invisible condition on a creature is to end the effect that applied it, such as the invisibility spell which you can end with dispel magic (if you know where to aim it), or by the creature itself making an attack, casting a spell etc.
Spells like branding smite and faerie fire don't end the condition, they just suppress/ignore it; the target creature still has the invisible condition, it is just temporarily gaining no benefits. If either of those spells end before the condition does then the creature goes right back to being impossible to see without special senses as normal.
The problem here seems to be that you're relying far too much on the word "countered", but you're not looking closely enough at the example it gives you. The prone condition explicitly tells you how to end the condition (by standing up, as per the first bullet point). The invisible condition does not give you any such option; being able to see a creature in spite of its invisibility does not end the condition, and that's very much by design because you're not just "impossible to see", you're "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" which is just as true regardless of whether a creature does or does not have such a special sense.
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.
And this issue has been specifically addressed by Jeremy Crawford in a video where he confirmed that being able to “see” via a spell or trait like tremorsense or blindsight does not remove the disadvantage/advantage bullet point. It specifically works that way but they are unhappy with it so are addressing it in the 2024 core books. So I don’t understand the need to keep arguing.
Jeremy Crawford has had his rulings on numerous occasions by his own company he works for dismissed as opinion and not official rulings, so anyone can quote or use his opinion in any way they see fit but rules are rules.
when the ability to simply ignore rules, especially when it serves to do so to benefit positively while the ability to quickly and efficiently dismiss the negative benefits even when the rules clearly demonstrate the mechanisms of behavior the rule(s) impart, well one can easily sit back and watch the game and rules collapse.
the entire section on conditions demonstrates the effects and rules of the conditions, and means of how to manage them.
the second paragraph of the section on conditions provides a means of determining how a conditions effects can be negated, as the text of said paragraph clearly states:
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
[ for those who have not figured it out yet, giving a prone creature the invisible condition somewhat effectively negates ( and in context of the rules, counters ) the effects of being prone, except for the negative effect of movement from eating dirt. ]
Jeremy Crawford has had his rulings on numerous occasions by his own company he works for dismissed as opinion and not official rulings, so anyone can quote or use his opinion in any way they see fit but rules are rules.
No one says that inputs from Jeremy Crawford & other D&D team members on Twitter or Sage Advice: Dragontalk Podcast are official ruling, they are not. As Sage Advice Compendium say they are advice. The rules in this case are not contradicting his statement tough.
Official Ruling: Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Jeremy Crawford has had his rulings on numerous occasions by his own company he works for dismissed as opinion and not official rulings, so anyone can quote or use his opinion in any way they see fit but rules are rules.
No one says that inputs from Jeremy Crawford & other D&D team members on Twitter or Sage Advice: Dragontalk Podcast are official ruling, they are not. As Sage Advice Compendium say they are advice. The rules in this case are not contradicting his statement tough.
Official Ruling: Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Funny thing is, even he contradicts his own previous statement with rules he has put forth in the playtest for the new generation of rules.
he addresses the benefits of advantage and disadvantage of the invisible condition by effectively addressing the fact that if an invisible creature can be perceived, the effects do not apply.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Apparently his stance on the subject of the invisible condition has ether changed, or his previous interpretation of the rules as written was in error.
Jeremy Crawford has had his rulings on numerous occasions by his own company he works for dismissed as opinion and not official rulings, so anyone can quote or use his opinion in any way they see fit but rules are rules.
No one says that inputs from Jeremy Crawford & other D&D team members on Twitter or Sage Advice: Dragontalk Podcast are official ruling, they are not. As Sage Advice Compendium say they are advice. The rules in this case are not contradicting his statement tough.
Official Ruling: Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Funny thing is, even he contradicts his own previous statement with rules he has put forth in the playtest for the new generation of rules.
he addresses the benefits of advantage and disadvantage of the invisible condition by effectively addressing the fact that if an invisible creature can be perceived, the effects do not apply.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Apparently his stance on the subject of the invisible condition has ether changed, or his previous interpretation of the rules as written was in error.
I'd wager neither of those. My guess is that it was just sloppy writing the first time around, and it's now being properly worded. JC (accurately) explaining the RAW of the issue doesn't mean that the RAW was intentional. So, no, he doesn't contradict himself at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Funny thing is, even he contradicts his own previous statement with rules he has put forth in the playtest for the new generation of rules.
he addresses the benefits of advantage and disadvantage of the invisible condition by effectively addressing the fact that if an invisible creature can be perceived, the effects do not apply.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Apparently his stance on the subject of the invisible condition has ether changed, or his previous interpretation of the rules as written was in error.
The D&D core rules revision 2024 is not on topic and not only is normal to see changes to existing game elements and more coming which means the current version may not even be what it will be in the final, so bringing them into this discussion has little worth if any.
[ for those who have not figured it out yet, giving a prone creature the invisible condition somewhat effectively negates ( and in context of the rules, counters ) the effects of being prone, except for the negative effect of movement from eating dirt. ]
This is nonsensical and false. The prone and invisible conditions have nothing to do with each other and do not affect each other in any way.
If a prone creature is afflicted with the invisible condition then you would simply end up with a creature that has the prone AND invisible conditions.
Funny thing is, even he contradicts his own previous statement with rules he has put forth in the playtest for the new generation of rules.
That's not a contradiction; that the playtest rules are likely to change how the invisible condition works in the upcoming 2024 rulebook(s) doesn't change what the 2014 rulebook(s) say. Of course they're going to change it, because the current rule is dumb, but it still says what it has said since 2014, because they never errata'd it and the 2024 rules haven't been released yet (hint; they're not coming out until 2024).
For a current ruleset ruling all that matters is what the rules currently say in the 2014 version.
While Crawford's tweets can sometimes be incorrect (or unhelpful as I think they're usually misunderstood), his rulings on the invisible condition have come in the form of at least two interviews at length in a podcast and a video, and he has not contradicted himself in these; his ruling on what the Rules As Written states has been consistent, and agrees with… well, exactly what the rules state.
Just because the 2014 rule sucks and we all run it a different way, doesn't mean the wording doesn't say what it says 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.
[ for those who have not figured it out yet, giving a prone creature the invisible condition somewhat effectively negates ( and in context of the rules, counters ) the effects of being prone, except for the negative effect of movement from eating dirt. ]
The creature would still have both conditions until they end, but it would have an incidence on the attack rolls for or against it since there's circumstances causing rolls to have both advantage and disadvantage, thus being considered to have neither of them, and rolling one d20.
2014 rules for invisibility are the same as the rules for invisibility have been for the 40 odd years before, and appear at least for now to be continuing in same context as before.
Crawfords statements on the subject are contradictory to pure RAW and the RAW for invisibility has remained for a considerable period of time consistent, if you are invisible and a creature can see you, then you are not invisible to that creature and do not benefit from the invisibility! Period.
2014 rules for invisibility are the same as the rules for invisibility have been for the 40 odd years before, and appear at least for now to be continuing in same context as before.
Crawfords statements on the subject are contradictory to pure RAW and the RAW for invisibility has remained for a considerable period of time consistent, if you are invisible and a creature can see you, then you are not invisible to that creature and do not benefit from the invisibility! Period.
Feel free to cite a rule that proves that because such rules as written do not exist, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
The rules for conditions are clear, the condition or the triggering effect will specify how it ends, and invisible does not end when one creature sees you, because you remain invisible to every other creature that can't.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The effects you countered are countered. If you want to get all bullet points, you have to remove the condition.
And as rules as written:
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
A creature with a condition confers both an and vantage to one creature and disadvantages to the creature affected by said condition.
invisible condition acts the same way only to the benefit of the creature that has this particular condition, and at a negative benefit to any other creature that is affected by the condition.
if the negative affect of being “impossible to see” is disadvantage to attacks against a creature with the invisible condition, then does not turning “impossible to see” into “possible to see” remove the disadvantage?
You need to be very clear about what you mean here, are you talking natural language or are you talking rules language?
In a natural language meaning then yes, having an ability (or sense) that makes you able to see someone who is invisible that is absolutely countering the invisibility.
However in a rules language meaning it isn't (as was said previously, the part in the condition that says how you can still be seen by magic and such is a clear point towards that being a part of the condition).
I could of course see some valid points in an argument that the natural language meaning is also the rules meaning but there is, IMO at least, one big issue with that. The rules for conditions are absolutely crystal clear on the fact that you either have a condition or you don't, there are no "relative to that thing" or "towards that creature" or anything like that. So any argument that the condition is countered for an invisible creature that can be seen by someone is also an argument that the creature now can be seen by everyone, it is an all or nothing deal. And I don't think I've seen anyone that argues that effect being any less stupid than the being seen but still have advantage/disadvantage effect is.
I've said it before, having Invisibility be a condition is a stunningly stupid thing to do. It doesn't, conceptually, work in the same way as other things that are conditions do. And unfortunately the current playtest is just as problematic as the current rules are.
The first bullet point of the invisible condition is in rules mechanics speak a conditional rule.
rule grants condition(s) on a condition of a given truism. If the given truism is found to be untrue, condition is ended.
This is where the mistake keeps getting made. There is no "other" creature. The Condition only affects the creature who has the Condition. The text specifies what happens to THAT creature only.
I'm not aware of any scenario in the game where something that is "impossible to see" becomes "possible to see". But even if that were to happen -- no, that does not remove the disadvantage.
This entire post is false. The first bullet doesn't say anything of the sort. There is nothing conditional about it.
If this is your best counterpoints to the issue of the debate in which I have clearly presented within the various post I have presented, I feel you have no constructive arguments left to present.
ether a condition is or is not, ether an effect is applied both positively and or negatively otherwise the effect is not applied
I'd say even faerie fire doesn't end the invisible condition on a creature, it just can't benefit from it while the effect last.
Senses such as truesight do not counter the condition, they only provide you with an exception as described in the first bullet point of the condition. The invisible creature is still impossible to see without such special senses, and all creatures that lack those senses remain unable to see it.
All truesight does is let you ignore the effect of the first bullet point (as the first bullet point itself sets out), it does not remove the condition from the affected creature, and does nothing to the second bullet point which applies regardless, as it has no listed exceptions.
If the second bullet point said something like "attack rolls by the creature against targets that cannot see it have advantage, and attacks against it by creatures that cannot see it have disadvantage" then we wouldn't have this problem, but as the rule is defined "the creature" is "the creature with the invisible condition" not "the creature but only while it is impossible to see".
The only way to end the invisible condition on a creature is to end the effect that applied it, such as the invisibility spell which you can end with dispel magic (if you know where to aim it), or by the creature itself making an attack, casting a spell etc.
Spells like branding smite and faerie fire don't end the condition, they just suppress/ignore it; the target creature still has the invisible condition, it is just temporarily gaining no benefits. If either of those spells end before the condition does then the creature goes right back to being impossible to see without special senses as normal.
The problem here seems to be that you're relying far too much on the word "countered", but you're not looking closely enough at the example it gives you. The prone condition explicitly tells you how to end the condition (by standing up, as per the first bullet point). The invisible condition does not give you any such option; being able to see a creature in spite of its invisibility does not end the condition, and that's very much by design because you're not just "impossible to see", you're "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" which is just as true regardless of whether a creature does or does not have such a special sense.
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.
And this issue has been specifically addressed by Jeremy Crawford in a video where he confirmed that being able to “see” via a spell or trait like tremorsense or blindsight does not remove the disadvantage/advantage bullet point. It specifically works that way but they are unhappy with it so are addressing it in the 2024 core books. So I don’t understand the need to keep arguing.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Jeremy Crawford has had his rulings on numerous occasions by his own company he works for dismissed as opinion and not official rulings, so anyone can quote or use his opinion in any way they see fit but rules are rules.
when the ability to simply ignore rules, especially when it serves to do so to benefit positively while the ability to quickly and efficiently dismiss the negative benefits even when the rules clearly demonstrate the mechanisms of behavior the rule(s) impart, well one can easily sit back and watch the game and rules collapse.
the entire section on conditions demonstrates the effects and rules of the conditions, and means of how to manage them.
the second paragraph of the section on conditions provides a means of determining how a conditions effects can be negated, as the text of said paragraph clearly states:
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
[ for those who have not figured it out yet, giving a prone creature the invisible condition somewhat effectively negates ( and in context of the rules, counters ) the effects of being prone, except for the negative effect of movement from eating dirt. ]
No one says that inputs from Jeremy Crawford & other D&D team members on Twitter or Sage Advice: Dragontalk Podcast are official ruling, they are not. As Sage Advice Compendium say they are advice. The rules in this case are not contradicting his statement tough.
Funny thing is, even he contradicts his own previous statement with rules he has put forth in the playtest for the new generation of rules.
he addresses the benefits of advantage and disadvantage of the invisible condition by effectively addressing the fact that if an invisible creature can be perceived, the effects do not apply.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Apparently his stance on the subject of the invisible condition has ether changed, or his previous interpretation of the rules as written was in error.
I'd wager neither of those. My guess is that it was just sloppy writing the first time around, and it's now being properly worded. JC (accurately) explaining the RAW of the issue doesn't mean that the RAW was intentional. So, no, he doesn't contradict himself at all.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The D&D core rules revision 2024 is not on topic and not only is normal to see changes to existing game elements and more coming which means the current version may not even be what it will be in the final, so bringing them into this discussion has little worth if any.
This is nonsensical and false. The prone and invisible conditions have nothing to do with each other and do not affect each other in any way.
If a prone creature is afflicted with the invisible condition then you would simply end up with a creature that has the prone AND invisible conditions.
That's not a contradiction; that the playtest rules are likely to change how the invisible condition works in the upcoming 2024 rulebook(s) doesn't change what the 2014 rulebook(s) say. Of course they're going to change it, because the current rule is dumb, but it still says what it has said since 2014, because they never errata'd it and the 2024 rules haven't been released yet (hint; they're not coming out until 2024).
For a current ruleset ruling all that matters is what the rules currently say in the 2014 version.
While Crawford's tweets can sometimes be incorrect (or unhelpful as I think they're usually misunderstood), his rulings on the invisible condition have come in the form of at least two interviews at length in a podcast and a video, and he has not contradicted himself in these; his ruling on what the Rules As Written states has been consistent, and agrees with… well, exactly what the rules state.
Just because the 2014 rule sucks and we all run it a different way, doesn't mean the wording doesn't say what it says 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.
The creature would still have both conditions until they end, but it would have an incidence on the attack rolls for or against it since there's circumstances causing rolls to have both advantage and disadvantage, thus being considered to have neither of them, and rolling one d20.
2014 rules for invisibility are the same as the rules for invisibility have been for the 40 odd years before, and appear at least for now to be continuing in same context as before.
Crawfords statements on the subject are contradictory to pure RAW and the RAW for invisibility has remained for a considerable period of time consistent, if you are invisible and a creature can see you, then you are not invisible to that creature and do not benefit from the invisibility! Period.
Feel free to cite a rule that proves that because such rules as written do not exist, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
The rules for conditions are clear, the condition or the triggering effect will specify how it ends, and invisible does not end when one creature sees you, because you remain invisible to every other creature that can't.
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.