Right, well, the thing about 1978 is that, shockingly, it isn't 2014. In this way, it is very similar to 2024, which actually isn't 2014 either.
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)
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.
Please find 'advantage' in AD&D. The mechanics for attacks by and against invisible creatures have been different in every edition of D&D.
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.
Please find 'advantage' in AD&D. The mechanics for attacks by and against invisible creatures have been different in every edition of D&D.
AD&D2ed;pg.111 instance to context of illusion effects of invisibly.
So I just watched a video that blew my mind about Invisibility. Per the actual rules and Jeremy Crawford confirming, if you're invisible via the Invisibility spell or Greater Invisibility, and a creature has Blindsight, Truesight, or Wizard lets say casts See Invisibility, they can see you, but you still have advantage to attack and they have disadvantage to attack you. MIND BLOWN! I thought Blindsight, Truesight and See Invisibility prevented this but Jeremy Crawford stated it does not, and that is the reason for spells like Faerie Fire which specifically state the creature can't benefit from being invisible vs just saying the creature can't go invisible. The key word was "benefit" meaning the advantage and disadvantage is also removed.
So after realizing that and blowing my mind, I thought about Shadow of Moil and essentially creating the Blinded condition since it heavily obscures the area and that creates Blinded. And like the Invisible condition, there are two separate points, so would this mean Truesight, Blindsight and Tremorsense don't negate the advantage on attacks and disadvantage for attacks against the Shadow of Moil caster? I'm not sure if its supposed to work the same as Invisible condition.
Here are the points for each
Invisible
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.
Blinded
A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
Original post of the topic of the thread, does having the blinded condition confer the invisible condition to any creature not blinded and in opposition to any creature with the blinded condition within a sphere of blindness.
if a condition(s) that relies on visual sight to impart effects and abilities of the condition can be countered, then the effects and abilities of the condition(s) shall not apply as appropriate.
That has been part of the rules of the game for years, as per the fundamental principles of RAW.
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. ]
Now take the prone condition and replace it with the blinded condition, the mechanical effects of the bullet points counter each other out and it’s a wash
Now take the prone condition and replace it with the blinded condition, the mechanical effects of the bullet points counter each other out and it’s a wash
The blinded condition does not counter the prone condition; advantage from one source cancelling disadvantage from another (or vice versa) has nothing to do with countering conditions. The prone condition is countered by standing up, it literally tells you this in the condition.
Conditions end when they, or the effect that triggered them, say they do. How many times does this need to be said? It's not complicated or vague.
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.
Now take the prone condition and replace it with the blinded condition, the mechanical effects of the bullet points counter each other out and it’s a wash
The blinded condition does not counter the prone condition; advantage from one source cancelling disadvantage from another (or vice versa) has nothing to do with countering conditions.
Conditions end when they, or the effect that triggered them, say they do. How many times do people need to say this? It's not complicated or vague.
Never said the condition(s) are ended, only the abilities granted by such conditions are countered, and I have shown that all bullet points of a condition countered renders the condition and its abilities useless.
You are correct in that it is not complicated or vague, it is well within the RAW.
If a creature that has the blind condition has the invisible condition applied, does not the bullet points that impart a beneficial mechanical effect based on having both conditions effectively counter each other out, as per RAW?
If one of the benefit of a condition is countered, that doesn't make the other benefit of the condition necessarily countered as well. For exemple;
If a creature is blinded and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it still can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If a creature is prone and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - still it's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up.
If a creature is stunned and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still incapacitated, can't move, can speak only falteringly and automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
If a creature is unconscious and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings. It drops whatever it's holding and falls prone and any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
If a creature is frightened and somehow gain advantage on ability checks and attack rolls, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it still can't willingly move closer to the source of its fear.
If a creature is petrified and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - its still transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone). Its weight increases by a factor of ten, and it ceases aging. The creature is still incapacitated (see the condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings. The creature still has resistance to all damage. and automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws and it's still immune to poison and disease, although a poison or disease already in its system is suspended, not neutralized.
If a creature is invisible while fighting a invisible enemy, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still 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.
If a creature is invisible but seen by magic or special sense, it doesn't counter the other benefit - attack rolls against it still have disadvantage, and it's attack rolls have advantage.
If a creature has the blinded condition and has truesight cast upon it is the blind condition ended, or does the creature sit there and get its butt handed to it due to truesight not countering the second bullet of the blinded condition?
If the fundamental basis of a condition is based on a specific set of circumstances, would not countering that fundamental basis also not counter the conditions effects?
Must be nice to toss the rules when it is of positive benefit, and enforce them ( the rules ) when the benefits are negative.
If a creature has the blinded condition and has truesight cast upon it is the blind condition ended, or does the creature sit there and get its butt handed to it due to truesight not countering the second bullet of the blinded condition?
If a creature with truesight is blinded then it cannot see, so truesight does nothing for it until the blindness ends.
You keep coming up with examples that don't even come close to supporting your argument?
It is possible to be afflicted by multiple conditions at once, it is possible for individual effects of conditions to cancel one another out to some degree, but you still have those conditions, because if one of them ends before the other you go right back to having the full effect. Just as a creature with truesight that is no longer blinded is once again able to see, and regains the use of its truesight.
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 a creature has the blinded condition and has truesight cast upon it is the blind condition ended, or does the creature sit there and get its butt handed to it due to truesight not countering the second bullet of the blinded condition?
I'm pretty sure that someone with the blinded condition gains no benefit whatsoever by gaining truesight. Sight is sight and being blinded means you don't have it.
If the creature instead were to gain blindsight then it would be able to perceive as normal (within the range for its blindsight) but it would still have the blinded condition and thus fail to see anything that is past the range of the blindsight.
The blinded would persist until some effect countered it (like having lesser restoration cast upon it).
If a creature with blindsight is blinded, it doesn't counter the other benefit - attack rolls against it still have advantage, and it's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Many monsters with such special sense have immunity to the condition but some don't, usually because they have sight too and would be subject to the condition's other hindrance.
No such thing as permanent invisibility, so no. As soon as an invisible creature is possible to see, all effects gained by such illusion shall not be granted.
To be fair, it's a pretty easy monster to miss. By design.
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)
The truesight vs blinded is an odd one. One says "the creature can see" and the other says "the creature can't see". One possible interpretation is that a creature with both can ONLY see in darkness (within a specific range), but not in dim light or bright light, which is just weird. (Along these same lines, if you only have truesight you might see well in darkness but still only see in dim light as if it were dim light -- also weird.)
I'm less convinced that blinded "beats" truesight, and if it turns out that truesight wins then I'm actually not sure what should happen to the blinded condition and / or the statements within that Condition. My hunch right now is that the blinded Condition would be countered in that case and removed. The reason is because blinded means "can't see" so if the creature can see then by definition they are not blinded. This could come with a downside -- truesight could be temporary, so the "cure" for blinded might be temporary. But during that time you would not be a valid target for a permanent cure such as lesser restoration.
No such thing as permanent invisibility, so no. As soon as an invisible creature is possible to see, all effects gained by such illusion shall not be granted.
This is 100% false. Among other reasons, an invisible creature is defined as "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense", not "impossible to see".
The truesight vs blinded is an odd one. One says "the creature can see" and the other says "the creature can't see".
Specific beats general; truesight isn't granting you the ability to see to begin with, you already can, it's extending that ability to see onto things you normally can't. The blinded condition however completely robs you of the ability to see at all.
Another way of thinking about it is that the creature with truesight still could see invisible creatures etc., it still has that ability, it just isn't currently able to see so it gains no benefit from having it until the blindness ends.
No such thing as permanent invisibility, so no. As soon as an invisible creature is possible to see, all effects gained by such illusion shall not be granted.
Entirely wrong; being seen does not end the invisible condition, how many times do we need to point this out?
Even if you were invisible in a room full of creatures with truesight you still have the invisible condition, because any new creature entering that room may be unable to see you, or the creatures with truesight may only have it temporarily (i.e- from the true seeing spell).
A condition only ends when it says it does, when the effect granting it ends, or when something explicitly ends it (as with lesser restoration vs. poisoned etc.). The moment you decide that conditions just end whenever you feel like it the game may as well not have any conditions in it at all.
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.
1978 TSR 2010 players hand book titled “Advance D&D PHB “ page 70.
Magic-user spell level 2 list:
Invisibilty:
( see related document for precise wording of )
Right, well, the thing about 1978 is that, shockingly, it isn't 2014. In this way, it is very similar to 2024, which actually isn't 2014 either.
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)
Please find 'advantage' in AD&D. The mechanics for attacks by and against invisible creatures have been different in every edition of D&D.
AD&D2ed;pg.111 instance to context of illusion effects of invisibly.
And where in there do you find 'roll twice and take the better roll'?
Referencing AD&D in 5E Rules & Mechanic question is off-topic.
As i said previously, the invisibility spell is just one way to have the invisible condition, which is what is being discussed here.
Original post of the topic of the thread, does having the blinded condition confer the invisible condition to any creature not blinded and in opposition to any creature with the blinded condition within a sphere of blindness.
if a condition(s) that relies on visual sight to impart effects and abilities of the condition can be countered, then the effects and abilities of the condition(s) shall not apply as appropriate.
That has been part of the rules of the game for years, as per the fundamental principles of RAW.
Now take the prone condition and replace it with the blinded condition, the mechanical effects of the bullet points counter each other out and it’s a wash
The blinded condition does not counter the prone condition; advantage from one source cancelling disadvantage from another (or vice versa) has nothing to do with countering conditions. The prone condition is countered by standing up, it literally tells you this in the condition.
Conditions end when they, or the effect that triggered them, say they do. How many times does this need to be said? It's not complicated or vague.
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.
Never said the condition(s) are ended, only the abilities granted by such conditions are countered, and I have shown that all bullet points of a condition countered renders the condition and its abilities useless.
You are correct in that it is not complicated or vague, it is well within the RAW.
If a creature that has the blind condition has the invisible condition applied, does not the bullet points that impart a beneficial mechanical effect based on having both conditions effectively counter each other out, as per RAW?
If one of the benefit of a condition is countered, that doesn't make the other benefit of the condition necessarily countered as well. For exemple;
If a creature is blinded and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it still can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If a creature is prone and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - still it's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up.
If a creature is stunned and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still incapacitated, can't move, can speak only falteringly and automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
If a creature is unconscious and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings. It drops whatever it's holding and falls prone and any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
If a creature is frightened and somehow gain advantage on ability checks and attack rolls, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it still can't willingly move closer to the source of its fear.
If a creature is petrified and invisible, it doesn't counter the other benefit - its still transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone). Its weight increases by a factor of ten, and it ceases aging. The creature is still incapacitated (see the condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings. The creature still has resistance to all damage. and automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws and it's still immune to poison and disease, although a poison or disease already in its system is suspended, not neutralized.
If a creature is invisible while fighting a invisible enemy, it doesn't counter the other benefit - it's still 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.
If a creature is invisible but seen by magic or special sense, it doesn't counter the other benefit - attack rolls against it still have disadvantage, and it's attack rolls have advantage.
If a creature has the blinded condition and has truesight cast upon it is the blind condition ended, or does the creature sit there and get its butt handed to it due to truesight not countering the second bullet of the blinded condition?
If the fundamental basis of a condition is based on a specific set of circumstances, would not countering that fundamental basis also not counter the conditions effects?
Must be nice to toss the rules when it is of positive benefit, and enforce them ( the rules ) when the benefits are negative.
If a creature with truesight is blinded then it cannot see, so truesight does nothing for it until the blindness ends.
You keep coming up with examples that don't even come close to supporting your argument?
It is possible to be afflicted by multiple conditions at once, it is possible for individual effects of conditions to cancel one another out to some degree, but you still have those conditions, because if one of them ends before the other you go right back to having the full effect. Just as a creature with truesight that is no longer blinded is once again able to see, and regains the use of its truesight.
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'm pretty sure that someone with the blinded condition gains no benefit whatsoever by gaining truesight. Sight is sight and being blinded means you don't have it.
If the creature instead were to gain blindsight then it would be able to perceive as normal (within the range for its blindsight) but it would still have the blinded condition and thus fail to see anything that is past the range of the blindsight.
The blinded would persist until some effect countered it (like having lesser restoration cast upon it).
If a creature with blindsight is blinded, it doesn't counter the other benefit - attack rolls against it still have advantage, and it's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Many monsters with such special sense have immunity to the condition but some don't, usually because they have sight too and would be subject to the condition's other hindrance.
It's as dumb as invisible vs See Invisibility.
No such thing as permanent invisibility, so no. As soon as an invisible creature is possible to see, all effects gained by such illusion shall not be granted.
Invisible Stalker disagree ;)
To be fair, it's a pretty easy monster to miss. By design.
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 truesight vs blinded is an odd one. One says "the creature can see" and the other says "the creature can't see". One possible interpretation is that a creature with both can ONLY see in darkness (within a specific range), but not in dim light or bright light, which is just weird. (Along these same lines, if you only have truesight you might see well in darkness but still only see in dim light as if it were dim light -- also weird.)
I'm less convinced that blinded "beats" truesight, and if it turns out that truesight wins then I'm actually not sure what should happen to the blinded condition and / or the statements within that Condition. My hunch right now is that the blinded Condition would be countered in that case and removed. The reason is because blinded means "can't see" so if the creature can see then by definition they are not blinded. This could come with a downside -- truesight could be temporary, so the "cure" for blinded might be temporary. But during that time you would not be a valid target for a permanent cure such as lesser restoration.
This is 100% false. Among other reasons, an invisible creature is defined as "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense", not "impossible to see".
Specific beats general; truesight isn't granting you the ability to see to begin with, you already can, it's extending that ability to see onto things you normally can't. The blinded condition however completely robs you of the ability to see at all.
Another way of thinking about it is that the creature with truesight still could see invisible creatures etc., it still has that ability, it just isn't currently able to see so it gains no benefit from having it until the blindness ends.
Entirely wrong; being seen does not end the invisible condition, how many times do we need to point this out?
Even if you were invisible in a room full of creatures with truesight you still have the invisible condition, because any new creature entering that room may be unable to see you, or the creatures with truesight may only have it temporarily (i.e- from the true seeing spell).
A condition only ends when it says it does, when the effect granting it ends, or when something explicitly ends it (as with lesser restoration vs. poisoned etc.). The moment you decide that conditions just end whenever you feel like it the game may as well not have any conditions in it at all.
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.