You know why an invisible creature is described as “impossible to see without aid of magic or special senses”, because that statement sets the difficulty class of an active perception check to 30 which in the rules is considered impossible.
a creature can not be permanently invisible, as the creature has to have the ability to perceive ( detect one can say ) if itself is injured.
As for the medium sized, air elemental with active camouflage type invisible ( guessing at will usage of camouflage due to piss poor use of homebrew monster builder ) can still be detected and seen by same means as any other invisible creature.
You know why an invisible creature is described as “impossible to see without aid of magic or special senses”, because that statement sets the difficulty class of an active perception check to 30
No it doesn't.
You can't will yourself to see something when you lack even the possibility of doing so; you can however perceive an invisible creature by the sounds it makes, tracks it leaves etc., either by default, or as a contested check via the rules for hiding. This is again yet another thing that the condition itself literally tells you (it being invisible doesn't mean it's imperceptible, only that you can't see it visually).
a creature can not be permanently invisible, as the creature has to have the ability to perceive ( detect one can say ) if itself is injured.
No it doesn't.
You don't seem to be interested in what is rules-as-written if you keep just inventing more and more text that isn't there? If you want to run your own custom version of the rules, have at it, but that's not what the Rules & Game Mechanics sub-forum is for, we have a Homebrew & House Rules sub-forum for you to post your own custom rules in, or the Unearthed Arcana sub-forum if you'd rather discuss what the updated 2024 rules should say.
But here the main topic is supposed to be what the current rules are, and you don't seem to want to even know that?
To be fair, it's a pretty easy monster to miss. By design.
YOU HIT! Hehe i saw what you did :)
Talking about design, t reminds me the image of the Invisible Stalker in the AD&D 2nd Edition Monster Manual, it was flawless the artist worked hard to make such a good rendering.
You know why an invisible creature is described as “impossible to see without aid of magic or special senses”, because that statement sets the difficulty class of an active perception check to 30 which in the rules is considered impossible.
No DC 30 is Nearly Impossible and it's impossible to see an invisible creature so no ability check or Wisdom (Perception) check can do so. Very few abilities can let you see one in fact.
You know why an invisible creature is described as “impossible to see without aid of magic or special senses”, because that statement sets the difficulty class of an active perception check to 30 which in the rules is considered impossible.
No DC 30 is Nearly Impossible and it's impossible to see an invisible creature so no ability check or Wisdom (Perception) check can do so. Very few abilities can let you see one in fact.
Half asleep, I stand corrected. Yet a significantly high roll would bring the general area of where the creature is located down to a reasonable size.
As a DM you shall run your game as you see fit, but RAW is clear if invisible creatures can be seen, they get no benefit from having invisibility.
As a DM you shall run your game as you see fit, but RAW is clear if invisible creatures can be seen, they get no benefit from having invisibility.
How DM shall run it is not what we're discussing here, but where RAW stand on this and unfortunately unless you can back this up with anything written what you say doesn't have any rule support.
As a DM you shall run your game as you see fit, but RAW is clear if invisible creatures can be seen, they get no benefit from having invisibility.
That's not the Rules As Written at all; if you have the invisible condition you gain the effects of both bullet points, being seen by a special sense is addressed in the first and does nothing to the second, and doesn't end the condition.
This is literally what the rules tells you; it may be dumb (there is no need for the second bullet point), but it's not ambiguous in any way.
But even if we removed that second bullet point you'd still be wrong; because being seen by one creature doesn't mean that all creatures can see you, you still have the condition because you are still impossible for everyone else to see.
We really need you to start making clear to us that you understand this, because these are the most basic aspects of how the condition works; this isn't a RAW discussion if you keep refusing to accept that the rules say literally what the text on the page is.
I have clearly and fully shown I understand the Rules As Written, shown that Jeremy Crawford was wrong, and I have shown that when the very core of what is the reason for a creature to have the invisible condition can be countered as per the Rules As Written as they stand within the framework of the current version of the Rules As Written.
So with all due respect, take the personal ruling that the second bullet point of a condition remains in effect even if the underlying effect that causes the condition to be countered and take IT to the homebrew rules section.
if an invisible creature is possible to see with the aid of magic or special senses and abilities, then that creature can not benefit from the illusion of invisibility and gains no advantage from it.
I have clearly and fully shown I understand the Rules As Written, shown that Jeremy Crawford was wrong, and I have shown that when the very core of what is the reason for a creature to have the invisible condition can be countered as per the Rules As Written as they stand within the framework of the current version of the Rules As Written.
No you haven't, because the rules themselves literally say things other than what you claim.
The conditions rules tell you that conditions last until countered, then gives you a specific example of a condition (prone) that explicitly tells you how to counter it (stand up, as per its first bullet point telling you how to end the condition). The condition literally tells you how to counter it, nowhere do the rules state that you can treat anything you like as a counter to a condition.
The invisible condition provides no counter; the first bullet just makes you impossible to see except via special senses; having such a special sense does not invalidate that bullet point (the creature is still impossible to see without such a sense). No part of the first bullet point causes the condition to end, the creature remains invisible until the source of that condition ends.
And it certainly doesn't state that anybody being able to see you means you lose the entire condition; you have provided absolutely zero supporting rules for that idea, and it's clearly not how the rules are intended to function. A creature having truesight does not cause invisibility to end, that's nonsensical, because one thing see you doesn't mean everyone gets to.
So with all due respect, take the personal ruling that the second bullet point of a condition remains in effect even if the underlying effect that causes the condition to be countered and take IT to the homebrew rules section.
It's not homebrew, it's literally what the rules say on the pages of the book.
if an invisible creature is possible to see with the aid of magic or special senses and abilities, then that creature can not benefit from the illusion of invisibility and gains no advantage from it.
The rules do not say this anywhere, in any way shape or form.
If you walk up to an invisible creature you can see and say, “Surprised?!” , is that creature invisible?
It doesn't matter how many creatures can see it because that has precisely nothing to do with whether or not it has the invisible condition as set out in the rules of the very condition itself.
The first bullet point of the condition specifically allows an invisible creature to both have the condition and yet be visible to some creatures, so long as those creatures have the benefit of magic or special senses.
Literally all of this is in the rules for the condition; you know, the rules that you keep claiming say something entirely different from what they actually say?
or were you not paying attention to the thread?
Everybody here has been paying attention to the thread except you.
At this point there is literally no other way for us to try and explain this to you; a creature either has a condition or it doesn't, and it only loses a condition when the rules say it loses the condition. Refusing to accept such a basic aspect of the rules only invalidates your entire argument from the outset.
If you walk up to an invisible creature you can see and say, “Surprised?!” , is that creature invisible?
or were you not paying attention to the thread?
Your problem is that you're taking "common language" past the point that it was intended and adding extra rules to a rule just because of the name of said rule. Just because the invisible condition is called the invisible condition doesn't mean that you can't be visible.
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)
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.
Agreed. Just as dumb as the Invisibility vs See Invisibility.
The vision and light rules in 5e are totally borked and these issues with conditions are only a small fraction of it.
Just for reference in terms of Blindsight:
"A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons. If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception."
From the Blindness spell as one source of blindness:
"You can blind or deafen a foe. Choose one creature that you can see within range to make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, the target is either blinded or deafened (your choice) for the duration."
The Blinded condition:
"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."
-------------------
The exact same problems as the Invisible condition except in this case you have the target being subject to being blind and the effects of the Blinded condition even if they do not use sight. The advantage and disadvantage are in a second bullet that applies even if the creature is not using sight putting it in the same category as the Invisible condition.
How can a creature be Blinded if they can perceive without using sight? How can a creature have the Invisible condition when they are clearly seen? The rules don't answer these questions they just state that some creatures can be penalized by the blinded condition even if they don't see and creatures can still benefit from the invisible condition even if they can be seen clearly.
Personally, I just house rule it to be something sensible and move on.
---------------------
Creatures with blindsight not immune to the Blinded condition (MM):
Personally, I just house rule it to be something sensible and move on.
Simplest fix is to just ignore the second bullet point; when I first read the rules I just assumed it was a reminder for the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules, and played it as such (and still do), and everything works as you would expect as a result, i.e- being blinded means everyone else becomes unseen (to you) and being invisible makes you unseen, and anything that bypasses that ignores those effects for as long as it lasts.
It's silly really that after 10 years they've never errata'd it in this way; all they had to do was tweak the text so the second bullet is either contingent on the first being active, or so it's clearly just a reminder of the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. It's been a problem for a decade, and they're clearly well aware of it, so why not fix it?
Just a slight correction, but only dragons up to adults have blindsight with another sense (darkvision); most (all?) ancient dragons have truesight only instead which leads to its own oddities, as blindsight + darkvision can actually be superior to truesight in some cases, though I doubt you'd find many DMs who would run it that way.
For example, in the presence of actual (as opposed to illusory) fog, blindsight seems like it would be better, since truesight only specifically bypasses darkness, illusions and invisibility. At least not unless you treat seeing into the ethereal plane as bypassing it I guess? It's not very well defined in the rules what that actually means beyond "you see stuff that used etherealness or whatever".
You know why an invisible creature is described as “impossible to see without aid of magic or special senses”, because that statement sets the difficulty class of an active perception check to 30 which in the rules is considered impossible.
a creature can not be permanently invisible, as the creature has to have the ability to perceive ( detect one can say ) if itself is injured.
As for the medium sized, air elemental with active camouflage type invisible ( guessing at will usage of camouflage due to piss poor use of homebrew monster builder ) can still be detected and seen by same means as any other invisible creature.
Byte my shiny metal ass
No it doesn't.
You can't will yourself to see something when you lack even the possibility of doing so; you can however perceive an invisible creature by the sounds it makes, tracks it leaves etc., either by default, or as a contested check via the rules for hiding. This is again yet another thing that the condition itself literally tells you (it being invisible doesn't mean it's imperceptible, only that you can't see it visually).
No it doesn't.
You don't seem to be interested in what is rules-as-written if you keep just inventing more and more text that isn't there? If you want to run your own custom version of the rules, have at it, but that's not what the Rules & Game Mechanics sub-forum is for, we have a Homebrew & House Rules sub-forum for you to post your own custom rules in, or the Unearthed Arcana sub-forum if you'd rather discuss what the updated 2024 rules should say.
But here the main topic is supposed to be what the current rules are, and you don't seem to want to even know that?
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
YOU HIT! Hehe i saw what you did :)
Talking about design, t reminds me the image of the Invisible Stalker in the AD&D 2nd Edition Monster Manual, it was flawless the artist worked hard to make such a good rendering.
No DC 30 is Nearly Impossible and it's impossible to see an invisible creature so no ability check or Wisdom (Perception) check can do so. Very few abilities can let you see one in fact.
As the Dungeon Master Guide suggest you don't make ability check for impossible task;
Half asleep, I stand corrected. Yet a significantly high roll would bring the general area of where the creature is located down to a reasonable size.
As a DM you shall run your game as you see fit, but RAW is clear if invisible creatures can be seen, they get no benefit from having invisibility.
Byte my shiny metal ass
How DM shall run it is not what we're discussing here, but where RAW stand on this and unfortunately unless you can back this up with anything written what you say doesn't have any rule support.
That's not the Rules As Written at all; if you have the invisible condition you gain the effects of both bullet points, being seen by a special sense is addressed in the first and does nothing to the second, and doesn't end the condition.
This is literally what the rules tells you; it may be dumb (there is no need for the second bullet point), but it's not ambiguous in any way.
But even if we removed that second bullet point you'd still be wrong; because being seen by one creature doesn't mean that all creatures can see you, you still have the condition because you are still impossible for everyone else to see.
We really need you to start making clear to us that you understand this, because these are the most basic aspects of how the condition works; this isn't a RAW discussion if you keep refusing to accept that the rules say literally what the text on the page is.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I have clearly and fully shown I understand the Rules As Written, shown that Jeremy Crawford was wrong, and I have shown that when the very core of what is the reason for a creature to have the invisible condition can be countered as per the Rules As Written as they stand within the framework of the current version of the Rules As Written.
So with all due respect, take the personal ruling that the second bullet point of a condition remains in effect even if the underlying effect that causes the condition to be countered and take IT to the homebrew rules section.
if an invisible creature is possible to see with the aid of magic or special senses and abilities, then that creature can not benefit from the illusion of invisibility and gains no advantage from it.
Byte my shiny metal ass
No you haven't, because the rules themselves literally say things other than what you claim.
The conditions rules tell you that conditions last until countered, then gives you a specific example of a condition (prone) that explicitly tells you how to counter it (stand up, as per its first bullet point telling you how to end the condition). The condition literally tells you how to counter it, nowhere do the rules state that you can treat anything you like as a counter to a condition.
The invisible condition provides no counter; the first bullet just makes you impossible to see except via special senses; having such a special sense does not invalidate that bullet point (the creature is still impossible to see without such a sense). No part of the first bullet point causes the condition to end, the creature remains invisible until the source of that condition ends.
And it certainly doesn't state that anybody being able to see you means you lose the entire condition; you have provided absolutely zero supporting rules for that idea, and it's clearly not how the rules are intended to function. A creature having truesight does not cause invisibility to end, that's nonsensical, because one thing see you doesn't mean everyone gets to.
It's not homebrew, it's literally what the rules say on the pages of the book.
The rules do not say this anywhere, in any way shape or form.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
If you walk up to an invisible creature you can see and say, “Surprised?!” , is that creature invisible?
or were you not paying attention to the thread?
Byte my shiny metal ass
Yes, that creature is invisible. Whether or not you are paying attention to the thread is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter how many creatures can see it because that has precisely nothing to do with whether or not it has the invisible condition as set out in the rules of the very condition itself.
The first bullet point of the condition specifically allows an invisible creature to both have the condition and yet be visible to some creatures, so long as those creatures have the benefit of magic or special senses.
Literally all of this is in the rules for the condition; you know, the rules that you keep claiming say something entirely different from what they actually say?
Everybody here has been paying attention to the thread except you.
At this point there is literally no other way for us to try and explain this to you; a creature either has a condition or it doesn't, and it only loses a condition when the rules say it loses the condition. Refusing to accept such a basic aspect of the rules only invalidates your entire argument from the outset.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Your problem is that you're taking "common language" past the point that it was intended and adding extra rules to a rule just because of the name of said rule. Just because the invisible condition is called the invisible condition doesn't mean that you can't be visible.
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)
Agreed. Just as dumb as the Invisibility vs See Invisibility.
The vision and light rules in 5e are totally borked and these issues with conditions are only a small fraction of it.
Just for reference in terms of Blindsight:
"A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons. If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception."
From the Blindness spell as one source of blindness:
"You can blind or deafen a foe. Choose one creature that you can see within range to make a Constitution saving throw. If it fails, the target is either blinded or deafened (your choice) for the duration."
The Blinded condition:
"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."
-------------------
The exact same problems as the Invisible condition except in this case you have the target being subject to being blind and the effects of the Blinded condition even if they do not use sight. The advantage and disadvantage are in a second bullet that applies even if the creature is not using sight putting it in the same category as the Invisible condition.
How can a creature be Blinded if they can perceive without using sight? How can a creature have the Invisible condition when they are clearly seen? The rules don't answer these questions they just state that some creatures can be penalized by the blinded condition even if they don't see and creatures can still benefit from the invisible condition even if they can be seen clearly.
Personally, I just house rule it to be something sensible and move on.
---------------------
Creatures with blindsight not immune to the Blinded condition (MM):
Without other senses:
Darkmantle, Tarrasque, Water Weird, Bat, Constrictor Snake, Crab, Flying Snake, Giant Centipede, Giant Constrictor Snake, Giant Crab, Giant Fire Beetle, Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Scorpion, Giant Shark, Hunter Shark, Killer Whale, Reef Shark
With other senses:
Barlgura, Chasme, Dracolich, Dragons, Hook Horror, Mezzoloth, Nycaloth, Giant Spider,
Simplest fix is to just ignore the second bullet point; when I first read the rules I just assumed it was a reminder for the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules, and played it as such (and still do), and everything works as you would expect as a result, i.e- being blinded means everyone else becomes unseen (to you) and being invisible makes you unseen, and anything that bypasses that ignores those effects for as long as it lasts.
It's silly really that after 10 years they've never errata'd it in this way; all they had to do was tweak the text so the second bullet is either contingent on the first being active, or so it's clearly just a reminder of the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. It's been a problem for a decade, and they're clearly well aware of it, so why not fix it?
Just a slight correction, but only dragons up to adults have blindsight with another sense (darkvision); most (all?) ancient dragons have truesight only instead which leads to its own oddities, as blindsight + darkvision can actually be superior to truesight in some cases, though I doubt you'd find many DMs who would run it that way.
For example, in the presence of actual (as opposed to illusory) fog, blindsight seems like it would be better, since truesight only specifically bypasses darkness, illusions and invisibility. At least not unless you treat seeing into the ethereal plane as bypassing it I guess? It's not very well defined in the rules what that actually means beyond "you see stuff that used etherealness or whatever".
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.