This is one of the worst errors made in any of the source books. The invisible condition desperately needs errata and if they have not yet play-tested any fixes to this yet in the UA then that would be totally negligent.
The fix is incredibly easy, too. The errata to the invisible condition should simply remove the second bullet point completely. The game should simply proceed by using the already existing Rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
This is pretty much a mandatory house-rule in my opinion until this is fixed.
Each of these game elements handle invisible creature differently though;
The ability of truesight and See Invisibility let you see invisible creatures, which counters only part of the condition while under Faerie Fire one can't benefit from being invisible at all meaning it is entirely counter.
Countering the invisible condition only in part is still significant for it means you can now see such creature and target it with effects targeting a creature you can see, actually know where it is and prevent it from trying to hide from you by being unseen this way.
But how is it that the FIRST LEVEL SPELL is the only one that actually 'Counters' the condition, when it only produces an OUTLINE of the target, be more effective than a 2nd that states that the creature is effectively 'as if they were no longer invisible', or even a 6th level spell/sense designed entirely around seeing past illusions? Which, btw, spells like Invisibility ARE ACTUAL ILLUSIONS SPELLS. [Ignoring all the other abilities, items, etc.. that trigger the invisible condition].
No, that line of logic is complete absurdity. Want to know why Faerie Fire lists that effect? Because it does not cancel out Invisibility. As soon as Faerie Fire drops, Invisibility returns. Therefore, spells that are centered on self, like See Invisibility, does not require that line because it only affects the caster. While spells like True Seeing, which can be granted to others, only affect that creature's point of view. Whereas Faerie Fire is an effect seen by the entire party, and thus, cancels out invisibility, but doesn't dispel it, for everyone seeing the glowing outline. It being a 1st level spells is why you ONLY see the glowing outline.
This is one of the worst errors made in any of the source books. The invisible condition desperately needs errata and if they have not yet play-tested any fixes to this yet in the UA then that would be totally negligent.
They've published several slight variations of invisible already.
On the current version the advantage/disadvantage clause specifically says it doesn't apply if a creature can see you anyway, which solves the problem for truesight etc., but it's still completely redundant. There's never been any need for the condition to have advantage/disadvantage listed on it, because if it makes you unseen then you gain those benefits, that bullet point/clause needs to be removed, but they've shown no indication they're going to do it (I've asked in every survey, and I expect others have to, but so far there's been no further change).
I mean really it never needed to be a condition in the first place; "unseen" should be the condition, which any creature would effectively gain by going behind total cover (you'd be "unseen" relative to anyone on the other side of the cover, but not those on the same side). The difference for spells and such is that they could allow you to be unseen while standing out in the open, and that's all we've ever needed.
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.
Each of these game elements handle invisible creature differently though;
The ability of truesight and See Invisibility let you see invisible creatures, which counters only part of the condition while under Faerie Fire one can't benefit from being invisible at all meaning it is entirely counter.
Countering the invisible condition only in part is still significant for it means you can now see such creature and target it with effects targeting a creature you can see, actually know where it is and prevent it from trying to hide from you by being unseen this way.
But how is it that the FIRST LEVEL SPELL is the only one that actually 'Counters' the condition, when it only produces an OUTLINE of the target, be more effective than a 2nd that states that the creature is effectively 'as if they were no longer invisible', or even a 6th level spell/sense designed entirely around seeing past illusions? Which, btw, spells like Invisibility ARE ACTUAL ILLUSIONS SPELLS. [Ignoring all the other abilities, items, etc.. that trigger the invisible condition].
No, that line of logic is complete absurdity. Want to know why Faerie Fire lists that effect? Because it does not cancel out Invisibility. As soon as Faerie Fire drops, Invisibility returns. Therefore, spells that are centered on self, like See Invisibility, does not require that line because it only affects the caster. While spells like True Seeing, which can be granted to others, only affect that creature's point of view. Whereas Faerie Fire is an effect seen by the entire party, and thus, cancels out invisibility, but doesn't dispel it, for everyone seeing the glowing outline. It being a 1st level spells is why you ONLY see the glowing outline.
Because of the way it's specifically worded in comparisons to other game elements that's all. The spell level matters little in the analysis of rules as written and how intended to work by Dev own admission.
I'd rather they all cancel the benefits of the invisible condition when seen somehow but it's not the way they were all designed.
They've published several slight variations of invisible already.
Yea and it is still a mess. I agree that it just shouldn't be a condition, it should be handled in the "vision" section instead and is should be clear that it isn't a on/off type of thing but rather is measured relative to other creatures/effects.
Adding the explicit exception to the advantage/disadvantage clause has actually created an even bigger, but different, problem than the PHB version. Because the new "concealed" clause says this.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
But this clause doesn't have the same explicit exception and thus you now cannot be "affected" by a whole bunch of spells even if the caster has truesight/blindsight or similar. It is utter stupidity and I won't ever play it like that but the fact that they cannot realise what their problem is and thus keeps repeating the same type of error is mindboggling.
Each of these game elements handle invisible creature differently though;
The ability of truesight and See Invisibility let you see invisible creatures, which counters only part of the condition while under Faerie Fire one can't benefit from being invisible at all meaning it is entirely counter.
Countering the invisible condition only in part is still significant for it means you can now see such creature and target it with effects targeting a creature you can see, actually know where it is and prevent it from trying to hide from you by being unseen this way.
But how is it that the FIRST LEVEL SPELL is the only one that actually 'Counters' the condition, when it only produces an OUTLINE of the target, be more effective than a 2nd that states that the creature is effectively 'as if they were no longer invisible', or even a 6th level spell/sense designed entirely around seeing past illusions? Which, btw, spells like Invisibility ARE ACTUAL ILLUSIONS SPELLS. [Ignoring all the other abilities, items, etc.. that trigger the invisible condition].
No, that line of logic is complete absurdity. Want to know why Faerie Fire lists that effect? Because it does not cancel out Invisibility. As soon as Faerie Fire drops, Invisibility returns. Therefore, spells that are centered on self, like See Invisibility, does not require that line because it only affects the caster. While spells like True Seeing, which can be granted to others, only affect that creature's point of view. Whereas Faerie Fire is an effect seen by the entire party, and thus, cancels out invisibility, but doesn't dispel it, for everyone seeing the glowing outline. It being a 1st level spells is why you ONLY see the glowing outline.
Because of the way it's specifically worded in comparisons to other game elements that's all. The spell level matters little in the analysis of rules as written and how intended to work by Dev own admission.
I'd rather they all cancel the benefits of the invisible condition when seen somehow but it's not the way they were all designed.
I have absolutely no clue who JC is, and in that context, why would it matter, to me, what he says about the rules? (I have some idea, but for the context of my argument, it doesn't matter if you tell me exactly what he did for the book. As someone who hasn't played the game for very long, hearing that 'Some bloke named JC said it worked that way' doesn't mean anything if they don't already know who the guy is.)
On that note, there's nowhere stating that each bullet point should be taken individually from the whole so no, people do not get Advantage/impose Disadvantaqe when they are very clearly being seen.
On that note, there's nowhere stating that each bullet point should be taken individually from the whole so no, people do not get Advantage/impose Disadvantaqe when they are very clearly being seen.
Currently, the RAW is that the invisible creature DOES continue to benefit from advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls.
The reason does not have anything to do with whether or not they are seen. It is because they have the invisible condition. Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures. Also, the creature who sees them might have their "See Invisibility" spell expire or something -- in which case the Invisible creature immediately goes right back to being invisible to that creature without having to make any effort to "become" invisible all over again. The condition itself persists. It is the condition which is granting the advantage / disadvantage, NOT the Unseen Attacker and Target rules and this is not impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them.
As mentioned earlier -- this is 100% a gross error by the game designers. It was not intended to function this way and it should have been corrected via errata long ago by removing the 2nd bullet point. That would cause the advantage / disadvantage to be dictated by the Unseen Attacker and Target rules which WOULD be impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them. It is a super easy fix and it is shameful that it didn't happen years ago.
Adding the explicit exception to the advantage/disadvantage clause has actually created an even bigger, but different, problem than the PHB version. Because the new "concealed" clause says this.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
But this clause doesn't have the same explicit exception and thus you now cannot be "affected" by a whole bunch of spells even if the caster has truesight/blindsight or similar. It is utter stupidity and I won't ever play it like that but the fact that they cannot realise what their problem is and thus keeps repeating the same type of error is mindboggling.
I'm not up on the latest UA developments so I'm not too familiar with this clause, but just given what you posted here I'm not so sure that your logic checks out.
Ooooohhh. I think I just realized it while writing this. Hmm, yeah that wording is really bad. Wow. Surely they are still playtesting this and it will be corrected?
Some part of a condition can be countered and other still apply, for exemple if an invisible creature has disadvantage to attack rolls and cause attack rolls against it to have advantage it doesn't automatically end the condition, it just counter the part concerned. Similarly, if it can be seen somehow, it counter the part making it impossible to see. In fact, the condition directly allude to being seen in some way without mentioning it's ended.
So when a game element specifically let it see an invisible creature, it doesn't end the condition like the prone condition is countered by standing up and specifically say it ends it. A similar note could have easily been incorporated to the condition by saying;
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense, which thereby ends the condition. 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.
Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures.
The problem is that the third bullet point still applies to the creatures that can see them; so the ancient dragon with truesight still has disadvantage to hit the invisible creature, and that creature still gets advantage against the dragon even though it can fully see them.
Of course they should retain the benefit of being invisible against other creatures that can't see them, but being invisible shouldn't give you any benefits against creatures that can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures.
The problem is that the third bullet point still applies to the creatures that can see them; so the ancient dragon with truesight still has disadvantage to hit the invisible creature, and that creature still gets advantage against the dragon even though it can fully see them.
The Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
The Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
And that still just sounds like a poorly made up after the fact excuse tbh. I mean See Invisibility that explicitly says you see things "as if they were visible" still runs into the same problem as Truesight.
At least they try to fix the issue in the playtest, it's just a shame that they create a new one with the exact same problem.
The Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
Oh yeah I remember that video, but all that did was make me think he's either never seen a Predator movie, confused his own point and only made things worse, or was grasping at straws to try and justify a silly rule.
Predators have perfect invisibility when motionless, but when moving you can vaguely see their shape, and they still rustle leaves, make footprints, disturb water etc., so this is a great example for explaining why invisible creatures still need to Hide from ordinary creatures (no special senses), in order to avoid giving away their position. But even when their position is known, they're still hard to see so invisibility is still a benefit. Invisibility vs. normal vision fully fits the Predator example, I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
But for a creature that is able to actually see the invisible creature this just does not track at all; it essentially makes truesight not really much better than tremorsense at detecting invisible creatures, and potentially worse in some ways than blindsight which is supposed to be an inferior form of vision (adult dragons typically have blindsight 60 ft., darkvision 120 ft., while ancient dragons have truesight 120 ft.). It makes the 2nd-level see invisibility and 6th-level true seeing inferior in many ways to the 1st-level faerie fire spell.
It's utterly nonsensical for an invisible creature to be visible to me but also so hard for me to see that I still suffer the main penalty for not being able to see it at all, though nothing tells us why in the rules. See invisibility and truesight etc. pretty much might as well just say "invisible creatures cannot hide from you and you can target them with effects that require sight", because describing it as seeing is so clearly illogical (creature is both visible yet also invisible to you). But again if you suspect an invisible creature is nearby you might as well just slap down a faerie fire because that will not only explicitly counteract invisibility, but flip disadvantage into advantage, and it's a less costly effect to get.
It is easily one of the most absurd and poorly thought out rules in the entire game, and the fact that Jeremy Crawford keeps trying to double down on it staying as it is makes me worry they're not going to properly fix it in OneD&D, and by properly fix it I mean either just get rid of it as a condition, or make it purely about being unseen (i.e- it's just a reminder of what rules to look for). Being non-visible is already a great benefit in D&D, it doesn't need to be any stronger, it certainly shouldn't be this nonsensical, and I highly doubt many groups actually play it as written because of how illogical the rule is.
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.
Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures.
The problem is that the third bullet point still applies to the creatures that can see them; so the ancient dragon with truesight still has disadvantage to hit the invisible creature, and that creature still gets advantage against the dragon even though it can fully see them.
Of course they should retain the benefit of being invisible against other creatures that can't see them, but being invisible shouldn't give you any benefits against creatures that can.
Yep, that's a good way to put it. That's what I was trying to say in my post but I was less clear.
This is also why the above suggestion from Plaguescarred doesn't really work ([ seeing a creature ] "which thereby ends the condition"). By design, the creators want invisibility to be different than simply being unseen. They want it to be more of a "permanent" transformation, or attribute, of a creature. So, in general, the idea of making this into an official Condition sort of serves that purpose.
For all Conditions, the effect which causes that Condition is supposed to specify the ways in which that Condition ends. From Appendix A, we have:
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.
But it is not clear what specifically and technically counters every condition (except for the prone condition where this is immediately defined) unless the text explicitly states that the Condition is being countered.
Note that the Rule does not actually allow for countering "portions" of the Condition. This Rule only applies to countering the Condition itself as a whole.
But what actually counters the Invisible Condition? Some logic would imply that seeing the creature counters it. But this is never stated anywhere and if we think about it for a bit, this is probably not even intended. I believe that this is supposed to work a bit like a person donning camouflage clothing and blending into the environment. When someone sees that person -- they are not suddenly NOT wearing this clothing. They are still wearing camouflage clothing, but someone can currently see them. When that person leaves the area, that person just goes right back to being "camouflaged". Nothing was "broken" or "countered" by being seen.
Also, sometimes a condition is not even necessarily "caused" by an effect, so there is no effect that could have specified how the Condition can be countered in the first place. For example, some creatures just ARE invisible, as a permanent trait. Just like some creatures are blinded because they don't have eyes, or whatever. So in that case, the condition can never be countered unless you can cause that creature to be affected by some effect that specifically counters it.
Anyway, I don't think that it's necessarily bad design that the Invisible Condition is a Condition. But, the Condition itself is just horribly worded to the point where it is actually broken compared to how it is supposed to work.
The Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
I am NOT buying this explanation at all. This is just an attempt by the developer to try to explain away something that was clearly an error, and this does not make any logical sense. For example, in the case of See Invisibility, we have:
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible
So in this case, we are not seeing the Invisible creature as if they are the Predator. We are not partially seeing it or "not fully" seeing it. According to the spell description, we are seeing it as if they were visible. So that comment by the Dev is simply false.
Of course they should retain the benefit of being invisible against other creatures that can't see them, but being invisible shouldn't give you any benefits against creatures that can.
I do agree with this. However, I don't think that this points to anything that is actually wrong with the first bullet of the Condition. For reference, that portion of the condition says:
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 think that all of this wording is actually ok. For example, the part about "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured" can stand as is. If a creature is looking right at them and can see them, there are other aspects of the Hiding rules which deal with that. For example, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" and "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" should be enough to prevent any shenanigans here. The Invisible creature should not be gaining any advantages that they shouldn't be gaining from the first bullet -- unlike the second bullet.
They actually ARE heavily obscured, despite the fact that we can see them. The Rules interaction there is similar to the general Chapter 8 rules for Vision and Light which defines total darkness as a heavily obscured area. But we can stand in total darkness and a creature with darkvision will still see us. In that situation, the rules state that:
a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned
Therefore, while standing in total darkness, we are considered to be only lightly obscured vs that creature who has darkvision.
The same sort of rules interaction should apply when we can see an Invisible creature as if they were visible. I think that this automatically changed things so that the Invisible creature is no longer heavily obscured (and no longer obscured at all) vs the creature who can clearly see them. If there is some rules lawyer reason why this is not true then I would agree that the first bullet of the Invisible condition is also functioning incorrectly. But as I see it here, that bullet should be ok and works as intended.
So, as of now, I am still thinking that the Invisible Condition can be totally fixed by simply removing the 2nd bullet.
While it's not the prettiest fix, UA has mostly resolved this
INVISIBLE [CONDITION]
While Invisible, you experience the following effects:
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
Surprise. If you are Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
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.
But what actually counters the Invisible Condition? Some logic would imply that seeing the creature counters it. But this is never stated anywhere and if we think about it for a bit, this is probably not even intended. I believe that this is supposed to work a bit like a person donning camouflage clothing and blending into the environment. When someone sees that person -- they are not suddenly NOT wearing this clothing. They are still wearing camouflage clothing, but someone can currently see them. When that person leaves the area, that person just goes right back to being "camouflaged". Nothing was "broken" or "countered" by being seen.
No I'm sure it isn't intended. And I would not play it as such. But it is still a lot more logical and in keeping with the rules than having the "invisible" creature keep its the benefit against a creature that can see them clearly.
Anyway, I don't think that it's necessarily bad design that the Invisible Condition is a Condition. But, the Condition itself is just horribly worded to the point where it is actually broken compared to how it is supposed to work.
I'd say that it is. The way conditions work is that they either are, or they aren't. Having one that is judged relative to other creatures doesn't really work, that's the reason this is an issue in the first place. Taking out the last paragraph would help but it still doesn't fully fix the issue (especially with the UA re-write). Saying that a creature you look at is heavily obscured when you can see them "as if they were visible" makes no more sense than allowing them to have advantage on attacking you for no other reason than the condition saying so.
I'd say that it is. The way conditions work is that they either are, or they aren't. Having one that is judged relative to other creatures doesn't really work, that's the reason this is an issue in the first place.
A condition is what a video game would call a status effect, and invisibility would normally be a status effect in a game. The real problem is that it should just be
Invisible
An invisible creature cannot be seen with normal vision or darkvision. This may affect combat; see unseen attackers and targets.
Pantagruel666, thanks for posting the full UA "fix". The "Concealed" clause and the "Surprise" clause currently do not work as intended at all and they need to be changed.
But what actually counters the Invisible Condition? Some logic would imply that seeing the creature counters it. But this is never stated anywhere and if we think about it for a bit, this is probably not even intended. I believe that this is supposed to work a bit like a person donning camouflage clothing and blending into the environment. When someone sees that person -- they are not suddenly NOT wearing this clothing. They are still wearing camouflage clothing, but someone can currently see them. When that person leaves the area, that person just goes right back to being "camouflaged". Nothing was "broken" or "countered" by being seen.
No I'm sure it isn't intended. And I would not play it as such. But it is still a lot more logical and in keeping with the rules than having the "invisible" creature keep its the benefit against a creature that can see them clearly.
Anyway, I don't think that it's necessarily bad design that the Invisible Condition is a Condition. But, the Condition itself is just horribly worded to the point where it is actually broken compared to how it is supposed to work.
I'd say that it is. The way conditions work is that they either are, or they aren't. Having one that is judged relative to other creatures doesn't really work, that's the reason this is an issue in the first place. Taking out the last paragraph would help but it still doesn't fully fix the issue (especially with the UA re-write).
Yeah, I can see what you're saying there. I'm just not sure how you would do it. Making it a Condition helps to centralize the rules and consequences of turning invisible in one place so that all of the dozens of places throughout the game which interact with this concept don't have to redefine it every time and try to stay consistent about it throughout. Plus, it does allow it to be a bit more "permanent" than something like being Unseen or Hidden currently allows. But you're right -- it's the only Condition that suffers from this issue where other creatures might interact with this differently depending on their abilities so in that sense it seems a little out of place. But I think it can still be made to function properly that way if the right changes were made to the Condition.
Saying that a creature you look at is heavily obscured when you can see them "as if they were visible" makes no more sense than allowing them to have advantage on attacking you for no other reason than the condition saying so.
Yeah, in terms of making sense I agree that this isn't great. But the difference is that the advantage / disadvantage clause just straight up is not functioning properly. But I think that technically the heavily obscured clause is functioning as intended, even though it's confusing and unclear and doesn't make sense.
The general rules for heavily obscured only refer to areas as being heavily obscured. This area blocks vision entirely. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." So, creatures and objects within that area can be referred to as heavily obscured sort of indirectly. So, the Invisible Condition is essentially saying that any area is considered to be a heavily obscured area for the Invisible creature for the purpose of hiding.
But the general rules for heavily obscured areas already set the precedent that when a creature can see into a heavily obscured area as if it were a lightly obscured area or as if it were an unobscured area, then that area IS lightly obscured or unobscured, respectively, as far as that creature is concerned. This is demonstrated in the rule for darkvision here:
a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned
It should be possible to extend this concept to situations where we can see an Invisible creature "as if they were visible". At that point, the area containing only the invisible creature is no longer heavily obscured "as far as that creature (who can see the other creature) is concerned". I think that this conclusion is supported by the RAW but I'm not 100% sure.
But I agree that that clause could definitely benefit from being cleaned up and improved.
On that note, there's nowhere stating that each bullet point should be taken individually from the whole so no, people do not get Advantage/impose Disadvantaqe when they are very clearly being seen.
Currently, the RAW is that the invisible creature DOES continue to benefit from advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls.
The reason does not have anything to do with whether or not they are seen. It is because they have the invisible condition. Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures. Also, the creature who sees them might have their "See Invisibility" spell expire or something -- in which case the Invisible creature immediately goes right back to being invisible to that creature without having to make any effort to "become" invisible all over again. The condition itself persists. It is the condition which is granting the advantage / disadvantage, NOT the Unseen Attacker and Target rules and this is not impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them.
Please, show me where in the DMG/PHB, on what page and in what paragraph, is is listed that one should ignore any and all context clues and take bullet points as individual, stand-alone rulings? [And don't direct me to the out of book rulings made on twitter, I do not consider it 'official source' on the matter if I have to go watch/read some decade-old video/tweet.
As mentioned earlier -- this is 100% a gross error by the game designers. It was not intended to function this way and it should have been corrected via errata long ago by removing the 2nd bullet point. That would cause the advantage / disadvantage to be dictated by the Unseen Attacker and Target rules which WOULD be impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them. It is a super easy fix and it is shameful that it didn't happen years ago.
I know this is an obvious error, that's why I don't support any of the logic stated above. Only the fact that you are invisible/unseen is granting you that benefit. Spells that only affect a single creature, short of Dispel, cannot remove the invisible condition, and thus, don't need to state it, because it's only for the observer. Faerie Fire is the sole exception, because it applies it's effect in a way that allows other party members to 'see' the invisible creature, thus bypassing the condition.
And it grants advantage on attacks against said creature, which means that either GM are going to be mean and simply make it 'attack normally' because adv counters dis, but that would be wrong, because the creature no longer gets to benefit from being invisible, or they will jump straight from disadvantage to advantage, because the spell is thus countered.
The Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
And that still just sounds like a poorly made up after the fact excuse tbh. I mean See Invisibility that explicitly says you see things "as if they were visible" still runs into the same problem as Truesight.
At least they try to fix the issue in the playtest, it's just a shame that they create a new one with the exact same problem.
And just to add to this discussion: Invisibility is an Illusion spell, which is naturally bypassed by Truesight. Which would both, in the sense, allow them to 'See invisible creatures and objects' and 'Automatically detect visual illusions' of which Invisibility is, thus, granting a Truesight user the ability to bypass invisibility by normal means twice.
But the general rules for heavily obscured areas already set the precedent that when a creature can see into a heavily obscured area as if it were a lightly obscured area or as if it were an unobscured area, then that area IS lightly obscured or unobscured, respectively, as far as that creature is concerned. This is demonstrated in the rule for darkvision here:
a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned
It should be possible to extend this concept to situations where we can see an Invisible creature "as if they were visible". At that point, the area containing only the invisible creature is no longer heavily obscured "as far as that creature (who can see the other creature) is concerned". I think that this conclusion is supported by the RAW but I'm not 100% sure.
But I agree that that clause could definitely benefit from being cleaned up and improved.
That's pretty much what everyone is saying about why we should be able to ignore the second clause when it comes to Blindsight (You are already 'unseen' but do not get the benefit, especially if the creature does not have actual sight), Truesight (Bypasses both invisibility and illusions, for which the Invisibility spell is both), and the See Invisibility spell. All three of these are clear, logical counters to a creature being 'unseen' as per the Invisibility condition.
Let's also add to it that creatures with Blindsight seem to be completely immune to the effects of being Blinded, even though there's nowhere in the wording of Blindsight or the Blinded condition where this is true, and you simply have people trying to enforce the second clause of Invisibility because 'they spent a spell slot for it and it got countered almost immediately by every creature in the room' as far as I'm concerned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is one of the worst errors made in any of the source books. The invisible condition desperately needs errata and if they have not yet play-tested any fixes to this yet in the UA then that would be totally negligent.
The fix is incredibly easy, too. The errata to the invisible condition should simply remove the second bullet point completely. The game should simply proceed by using the already existing Rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
This is pretty much a mandatory house-rule in my opinion until this is fixed.
But how is it that the FIRST LEVEL SPELL is the only one that actually 'Counters' the condition, when it only produces an OUTLINE of the target, be more effective than a 2nd that states that the creature is effectively 'as if they were no longer invisible', or even a 6th level spell/sense designed entirely around seeing past illusions? Which, btw, spells like Invisibility ARE ACTUAL ILLUSIONS SPELLS. [Ignoring all the other abilities, items, etc.. that trigger the invisible condition].
No, that line of logic is complete absurdity. Want to know why Faerie Fire lists that effect? Because it does not cancel out Invisibility. As soon as Faerie Fire drops, Invisibility returns. Therefore, spells that are centered on self, like See Invisibility, does not require that line because it only affects the caster. While spells like True Seeing, which can be granted to others, only affect that creature's point of view.
Whereas Faerie Fire is an effect seen by the entire party, and thus, cancels out invisibility, but doesn't dispel it, for everyone seeing the glowing outline. It being a 1st level spells is why you ONLY see the glowing outline.
They've published several slight variations of invisible already.
On the current version the advantage/disadvantage clause specifically says it doesn't apply if a creature can see you anyway, which solves the problem for truesight etc., but it's still completely redundant. There's never been any need for the condition to have advantage/disadvantage listed on it, because if it makes you unseen then you gain those benefits, that bullet point/clause needs to be removed, but they've shown no indication they're going to do it (I've asked in every survey, and I expect others have to, but so far there's been no further change).
I mean really it never needed to be a condition in the first place; "unseen" should be the condition, which any creature would effectively gain by going behind total cover (you'd be "unseen" relative to anyone on the other side of the cover, but not those on the same side). The difference for spells and such is that they could allow you to be unseen while standing out in the open, and that's all we've ever needed.
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.
Because of the way it's specifically worded in comparisons to other game elements that's all. The spell level matters little in the analysis of rules as written and how intended to work by Dev own admission.
I'd rather they all cancel the benefits of the invisible condition when seen somehow but it's not the way they were all designed.
Yea and it is still a mess. I agree that it just shouldn't be a condition, it should be handled in the "vision" section instead and is should be clear that it isn't a on/off type of thing but rather is measured relative to other creatures/effects.
Adding the explicit exception to the advantage/disadvantage clause has actually created an even bigger, but different, problem than the PHB version. Because the new "concealed" clause says this.
But this clause doesn't have the same explicit exception and thus you now cannot be "affected" by a whole bunch of spells even if the caster has truesight/blindsight or similar. It is utter stupidity and I won't ever play it like that but the fact that they cannot realise what their problem is and thus keeps repeating the same type of error is mindboggling.
I have absolutely no clue who JC is, and in that context, why would it matter, to me, what he says about the rules? (I have some idea, but for the context of my argument, it doesn't matter if you tell me exactly what he did for the book. As someone who hasn't played the game for very long, hearing that 'Some bloke named JC said it worked that way' doesn't mean anything if they don't already know who the guy is.)
On that note, there's nowhere stating that each bullet point should be taken individually from the whole so no, people do not get Advantage/impose Disadvantaqe when they are very clearly being seen.
Currently, the RAW is that the invisible creature DOES continue to benefit from advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls.
The reason does not have anything to do with whether or not they are seen. It is because they have the invisible condition. Being seen does not cause them to lose this condition. That's because they are still invisible to other creatures. Also, the creature who sees them might have their "See Invisibility" spell expire or something -- in which case the Invisible creature immediately goes right back to being invisible to that creature without having to make any effort to "become" invisible all over again. The condition itself persists. It is the condition which is granting the advantage / disadvantage, NOT the Unseen Attacker and Target rules and this is not impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them.
As mentioned earlier -- this is 100% a gross error by the game designers. It was not intended to function this way and it should have been corrected via errata long ago by removing the 2nd bullet point. That would cause the advantage / disadvantage to be dictated by the Unseen Attacker and Target rules which WOULD be impacted by whether or not the other creature can see them. It is a super easy fix and it is shameful that it didn't happen years ago.
I'm not up on the latest UA developments so I'm not too familiar with this clause, but just given what you posted here I'm not so sure that your logic checks out.
Ooooohhh. I think I just realized it while writing this. Hmm, yeah that wording is really bad. Wow. Surely they are still playtesting this and it will be corrected?
The problem is that the third bullet point still applies to the creatures that can see them; so the ancient dragon with truesight still has disadvantage to hit the invisible creature, and that creature still gets advantage against the dragon even though it can fully see them.
Of course they should retain the benefit of being invisible against other creatures that can't see them, but being invisible shouldn't give you any benefits against creatures that can.
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 Dev explains in Dragontalk podcast that an invisible creature might not be fully seen but instead partially it in fact, refering to the Predator movie as an exemple of how it might be visible or something along these lines.
And that still just sounds like a poorly made up after the fact excuse tbh. I mean See Invisibility that explicitly says you see things "as if they were visible" still runs into the same problem as Truesight.
At least they try to fix the issue in the playtest, it's just a shame that they create a new one with the exact same problem.
Oh yeah I remember that video, but all that did was make me think he's either never seen a Predator movie, confused his own point and only made things worse, or was grasping at straws to try and justify a silly rule.
Predators have perfect invisibility when motionless, but when moving you can vaguely see their shape, and they still rustle leaves, make footprints, disturb water etc., so this is a great example for explaining why invisible creatures still need to Hide from ordinary creatures (no special senses), in order to avoid giving away their position. But even when their position is known, they're still hard to see so invisibility is still a benefit. Invisibility vs. normal vision fully fits the Predator example, I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
But for a creature that is able to actually see the invisible creature this just does not track at all; it essentially makes truesight not really much better than tremorsense at detecting invisible creatures, and potentially worse in some ways than blindsight which is supposed to be an inferior form of vision (adult dragons typically have blindsight 60 ft., darkvision 120 ft., while ancient dragons have truesight 120 ft.). It makes the 2nd-level see invisibility and 6th-level true seeing inferior in many ways to the 1st-level faerie fire spell.
It's utterly nonsensical for an invisible creature to be visible to me but also so hard for me to see that I still suffer the main penalty for not being able to see it at all, though nothing tells us why in the rules. See invisibility and truesight etc. pretty much might as well just say "invisible creatures cannot hide from you and you can target them with effects that require sight", because describing it as seeing is so clearly illogical (creature is both visible yet also invisible to you). But again if you suspect an invisible creature is nearby you might as well just slap down a faerie fire because that will not only explicitly counteract invisibility, but flip disadvantage into advantage, and it's a less costly effect to get.
It is easily one of the most absurd and poorly thought out rules in the entire game, and the fact that Jeremy Crawford keeps trying to double down on it staying as it is makes me worry they're not going to properly fix it in OneD&D, and by properly fix it I mean either just get rid of it as a condition, or make it purely about being unseen (i.e- it's just a reminder of what rules to look for). Being non-visible is already a great benefit in D&D, it doesn't need to be any stronger, it certainly shouldn't be this nonsensical, and I highly doubt many groups actually play it as written because of how illogical the rule is.
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.
Yep, that's a good way to put it. That's what I was trying to say in my post but I was less clear.
This is also why the above suggestion from Plaguescarred doesn't really work ([ seeing a creature ] "which thereby ends the condition"). By design, the creators want invisibility to be different than simply being unseen. They want it to be more of a "permanent" transformation, or attribute, of a creature. So, in general, the idea of making this into an official Condition sort of serves that purpose.
For all Conditions, the effect which causes that Condition is supposed to specify the ways in which that Condition ends. From Appendix A, we have:
But it is not clear what specifically and technically counters every condition (except for the prone condition where this is immediately defined) unless the text explicitly states that the Condition is being countered.
Note that the Rule does not actually allow for countering "portions" of the Condition. This Rule only applies to countering the Condition itself as a whole.
But what actually counters the Invisible Condition? Some logic would imply that seeing the creature counters it. But this is never stated anywhere and if we think about it for a bit, this is probably not even intended. I believe that this is supposed to work a bit like a person donning camouflage clothing and blending into the environment. When someone sees that person -- they are not suddenly NOT wearing this clothing. They are still wearing camouflage clothing, but someone can currently see them. When that person leaves the area, that person just goes right back to being "camouflaged". Nothing was "broken" or "countered" by being seen.
Also, sometimes a condition is not even necessarily "caused" by an effect, so there is no effect that could have specified how the Condition can be countered in the first place. For example, some creatures just ARE invisible, as a permanent trait. Just like some creatures are blinded because they don't have eyes, or whatever. So in that case, the condition can never be countered unless you can cause that creature to be affected by some effect that specifically counters it.
Anyway, I don't think that it's necessarily bad design that the Invisible Condition is a Condition. But, the Condition itself is just horribly worded to the point where it is actually broken compared to how it is supposed to work.
I am NOT buying this explanation at all. This is just an attempt by the developer to try to explain away something that was clearly an error, and this does not make any logical sense. For example, in the case of See Invisibility, we have:
So in this case, we are not seeing the Invisible creature as if they are the Predator. We are not partially seeing it or "not fully" seeing it. According to the spell description, we are seeing it as if they were visible. So that comment by the Dev is simply false.
As for this part of the above comment:
I do agree with this. However, I don't think that this points to anything that is actually wrong with the first bullet of the Condition. For reference, that portion of the condition says:
I think that all of this wording is actually ok. For example, the part about "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured" can stand as is. If a creature is looking right at them and can see them, there are other aspects of the Hiding rules which deal with that. For example, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" and "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" should be enough to prevent any shenanigans here. The Invisible creature should not be gaining any advantages that they shouldn't be gaining from the first bullet -- unlike the second bullet.
They actually ARE heavily obscured, despite the fact that we can see them. The Rules interaction there is similar to the general Chapter 8 rules for Vision and Light which defines total darkness as a heavily obscured area. But we can stand in total darkness and a creature with darkvision will still see us. In that situation, the rules state that:
Therefore, while standing in total darkness, we are considered to be only lightly obscured vs that creature who has darkvision.
The same sort of rules interaction should apply when we can see an Invisible creature as if they were visible. I think that this automatically changed things so that the Invisible creature is no longer heavily obscured (and no longer obscured at all) vs the creature who can clearly see them. If there is some rules lawyer reason why this is not true then I would agree that the first bullet of the Invisible condition is also functioning incorrectly. But as I see it here, that bullet should be ok and works as intended.
So, as of now, I am still thinking that the Invisible Condition can be totally fixed by simply removing the 2nd bullet.
While it's not the prettiest fix, UA has mostly resolved this
(I suspect the surprise rules are changing).
No I'm sure it isn't intended. And I would not play it as such. But it is still a lot more logical and in keeping with the rules than having the "invisible" creature keep its the benefit against a creature that can see them clearly.
I'd say that it is. The way conditions work is that they either are, or they aren't. Having one that is judged relative to other creatures doesn't really work, that's the reason this is an issue in the first place.
Taking out the last paragraph would help but it still doesn't fully fix the issue (especially with the UA re-write). Saying that a creature you look at is heavily obscured when you can see them "as if they were visible" makes no more sense than allowing them to have advantage on attacking you for no other reason than the condition saying so.
A condition is what a video game would call a status effect, and invisibility would normally be a status effect in a game. The real problem is that it should just be
Pantagruel666, thanks for posting the full UA "fix". The "Concealed" clause and the "Surprise" clause currently do not work as intended at all and they need to be changed.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying there. I'm just not sure how you would do it. Making it a Condition helps to centralize the rules and consequences of turning invisible in one place so that all of the dozens of places throughout the game which interact with this concept don't have to redefine it every time and try to stay consistent about it throughout. Plus, it does allow it to be a bit more "permanent" than something like being Unseen or Hidden currently allows. But you're right -- it's the only Condition that suffers from this issue where other creatures might interact with this differently depending on their abilities so in that sense it seems a little out of place. But I think it can still be made to function properly that way if the right changes were made to the Condition.
Yeah, in terms of making sense I agree that this isn't great. But the difference is that the advantage / disadvantage clause just straight up is not functioning properly. But I think that technically the heavily obscured clause is functioning as intended, even though it's confusing and unclear and doesn't make sense.
The general rules for heavily obscured only refer to areas as being heavily obscured. This area blocks vision entirely. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." So, creatures and objects within that area can be referred to as heavily obscured sort of indirectly. So, the Invisible Condition is essentially saying that any area is considered to be a heavily obscured area for the Invisible creature for the purpose of hiding.
But the general rules for heavily obscured areas already set the precedent that when a creature can see into a heavily obscured area as if it were a lightly obscured area or as if it were an unobscured area, then that area IS lightly obscured or unobscured, respectively, as far as that creature is concerned. This is demonstrated in the rule for darkvision here:
It should be possible to extend this concept to situations where we can see an Invisible creature "as if they were visible". At that point, the area containing only the invisible creature is no longer heavily obscured "as far as that creature (who can see the other creature) is concerned". I think that this conclusion is supported by the RAW but I'm not 100% sure.
But I agree that that clause could definitely benefit from being cleaned up and improved.
Please, show me where in the DMG/PHB, on what page and in what paragraph, is is listed that one should ignore any and all context clues and take bullet points as individual, stand-alone rulings? [And don't direct me to the out of book rulings made on twitter, I do not consider it 'official source' on the matter if I have to go watch/read some decade-old video/tweet.
I know this is an obvious error, that's why I don't support any of the logic stated above. Only the fact that you are invisible/unseen is granting you that benefit. Spells that only affect a single creature, short of Dispel, cannot remove the invisible condition, and thus, don't need to state it, because it's only for the observer. Faerie Fire is the sole exception, because it applies it's effect in a way that allows other party members to 'see' the invisible creature, thus bypassing the condition.
And it grants advantage on attacks against said creature, which means that either GM are going to be mean and simply make it 'attack normally' because adv counters dis, but that would be wrong, because the creature no longer gets to benefit from being invisible, or they will jump straight from disadvantage to advantage, because the spell is thus countered.
And just to add to this discussion: Invisibility is an Illusion spell, which is naturally bypassed by Truesight. Which would both, in the sense, allow them to 'See invisible creatures and objects' and 'Automatically detect visual illusions' of which Invisibility is, thus, granting a Truesight user the ability to bypass invisibility by normal means twice.
That's pretty much what everyone is saying about why we should be able to ignore the second clause when it comes to Blindsight (You are already 'unseen' but do not get the benefit, especially if the creature does not have actual sight), Truesight (Bypasses both invisibility and illusions, for which the Invisibility spell is both), and the See Invisibility spell. All three of these are clear, logical counters to a creature being 'unseen' as per the Invisibility condition.
Let's also add to it that creatures with Blindsight seem to be completely immune to the effects of being Blinded, even though there's nowhere in the wording of Blindsight or the Blinded condition where this is true, and you simply have people trying to enforce the second clause of Invisibility because 'they spent a spell slot for it and it got countered almost immediately by every creature in the room' as far as I'm concerned.