This particular question is completely up to the DM. The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, the RAW is not clear on the following specific point.
Is an invisible creature still subject to the invisible condition even if that creature can be seen and is thus NOT invisible?
From See Invisibility:
"For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."
You see invisible creatures and objects "as if they were visible". 5e uses English language usage. It is impossible for an invisible creature to be invisible if it IS visible.
- JC chimed in with what I consider a ridiculous ruling that is not consistent with the English language usage employed in the 5e rules.
- The rules do NOT specify that conditions are universally applied to a creature no matter what capabilities other creatures may possess. Invisibile is a condition that can logically be countered if a creature is NOT invisible or if such a creature can be seen as if they were visible. That is common English language usage and the rules do NOT state that creatures continue to have the invisible condition towards specific creatures even if they are visible.
Spells like Faerie Fire require additional text because they specifically do NOT make a creature visible. They outline them with a color so the spell requires specific text noting that it will counter the invisible condition.
As an additional question of logic, would a creature with blindsight still suffer disadvantage attacking an invisible creature even though they don't use a sense that depends on sight to perceive them? "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius."
What does the Invisibility spell do?
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."
Invisible condition says:
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
--------------------
Which then gets back to the English language and the circular argument that an invisible creature is NOT invisible if it can be seen (using magic or a special sense as described in the condition).
A DM can decide that an Invisible creature remains invisible even to a creature that can see it "as if it was visible" or a DM can decide that a creature that can be seen "as if it was visible" can not be considered invisible from the perspective of that specific viewer with the magic or special sense. If a creature is not invisible in respect to a specific creature, then it can not have any of the effects of the invisible condition with respect to creatures to which it is visible.
------------------
P.S. I can see both interpretations of the rule ... I think proponents could argue it either way since the rules do not explicitly over ride the normal English language interpretation that an invisible creature that is visible can't be considered invisible.
This is especially true when spells like See Invisibility explicitly state that the Invisible creature can be seen "as if they were visible" ... and if they were being seen "as if they were visible" then disadvantage would certainly not apply to any attacks against that creature since they aren't invisible.
So .. it comes down to a DM deciding whether a creature that is visible can still benefit as if they were unseen even when they are seen if they happen to have an Invisible condition due to a spell or effect. (Keep in mind that although the invisible condition does not reference the unseen rules, the benefit from the spell is the same, so even when visible, a creature under the invisibility spell can have the benefit as if they were unseen even if they are perceived as if they were visible).
Anyway, it is fundamentally a language and rules issue that in my opinion RAW does not resolve. Interpretation depends on whether a DM uses a natural language reading of the rules or not.
If the rule is being change now, that means it was never intended, meaning it cannot be RAW.
While WoTC developpers release Unearthed Arcana Playtest for upcoming core rules revision and speak on Twitter/X or DragonTalk Podcast about published rules, they may reflect intents or opinions on rules mechanics but they're never invalidating RAW, nor they represent official ruling.
The only source that does is Errata or Sage Advice Compendium.
I'm not familiar with either of those sources. And you have to keep in mind that not everyone is going to be familiar with them either. Either way, everyone on this forum has been saying it's changing.
If the rule is being change now, that means it was never intended, meaning it cannot be RAW.
No, it means it's not RAI. RAW means the literal text, not the intent of the text.
Either way, you're still wrong since it's still basically homebrew. Using your own logic here: There's also nothing saying that this is always active, even when seen. And no one I've talked to believe that invisibility works this way.
Every arguments I've seen on spells like See Invisibility have all been 'oh I'm blurry' or some other form of excuse as to why the condition isn't countered. This can only lead me to the logical conclusion that it's a homebrew rule, because someone has to make excuses as to why logic doesn't apply.
The Invisible condition doesn't say the advantage/disadvantage to attack roll is a benefit from Unseen Attackers and Targets, it's a benefit directly baked in.
Either way, it should be clear which version of the invisibility they use from session 0, as it can lead to a lot of conflict from players who feel cheated, even though they have a clear counter to the condition.
In my personal opinion, keeping the second bullet point active falls under Homebrew, as it makes no logical sense to keep it active otherwise. I disagree with this being RAW, as it falls upon interpretation on both sides of the aisle. The natural reaction of people is to say 'Oh then they're just visible' and argument only arises for those who attempt to justify external sources, or strange reasons as to why they still have that second bullet point active. Furthermore, the people that I've asked concerning this ruling were all confused as to why being invisible would work that way. Meaning that, aside from those who get deep into the rules, such as rules lawyers, it's very uncommon for this 'RAW' to function as described. Which in turn, makes it difficult not to simply call it Homebrew.
RAW, to me, would be something that hasn't been written properly, in the case of, say, the ability to half the damage you take, and forgetting to add the condition of 'can only be activated once per turn' or some other similar condition where the interpretation is very clear. Or let's take Mage Hand, a common RAW interpretation, because the only statement of weight dictated is 'it can only carry 10 pounds' people have come to saw that, RAW means it can push an infinite amount of mass, because it doesn't specify that it has a push/pull limit. Nor does it specify that it -can- push or pull objects.
To me, this is where we enter the phase of RAW as Homebrew. Because it's not an 'intended' behavior, it's up to the GM to decide if it is or isn't allowed, effectively making it a homebrew ruling for that campaign.
Either way, you're still wrong since it's still basically homebrew.
This isn't what this word means. If you open up the book and point to the text, you can't say "that's homebrew" in any valid way. That's just not what it means.
aside from those who get deep into the rules, such as rules lawyers, it's very uncommon for this 'RAW' to function as described. Which in turn, makes it difficult not to simply call it Homebrew.
RAW, to me, would be something that hasn't been written properly,
To me, this is where we enter the phase of RAW as Homebrew. Because it's not an 'intended' behavior, it's up to the GM to decide if it is or isn't allowed, effectively making it a homebrew ruling for that campaign.
No, this isn't what RAW means. RAW is interpretation of the written text. Ruling according to what is written in the text can never be "a homebrew ruling for that campaign".
Because of how you keep incorrectly using these words, it is still hard to understand if you are arguing against what the text currently says or if you are just arguing for how the rule should be and / or how a DM should rule it if they want to intentionally deviate away from what is written.
This particular question is completely up to the DM. The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, the RAW is not clear on the following specific point.
Is an invisible creature still subject to the invisible condition even if that creature can be seen and is thus NOT invisible?
Yes, the invisible creature is still subject to the invisible condition. There are two points here:
First, even though it's weird, the logic of "if that creature can be seen and is thus NOT invisible" doesn't hold up. This is because the invisible condition never says that being invisible means that it cannot be seen. The Condition specifically states that an invisible creature is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." So, therefore, if you ARE using magic or a special sense to see this creature, they ARE still invisible.
Second:
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.
Seeing an invisible creature doesn't counter the condition in the sense that it completely causes the persisting Condition to end. In the case of Prone, standing up ends that Condition because you are no longer prone -- in order to "benefit" from being prone, you must actually become prone again. In addition, the Rules explicitly state that standing up ends the prone condition. None of that applies implicitly to being invisible since you are still invisible to other creatures and if this one creature who can see you vanishes from the scenario in some way then you just pop back into being invisible without having to take any action to do so. There is also no rule that explicitly states that seeing an invisible creature actually ends that Condition -- so this is something that would have to be explicitly stated by any feature that potentially interacts with this Condition. Unfortunately, the wording for effects created by spells such as See Invisibility fall short of actually saying that the persistent Condition is ended by the spell effect (which makes sense because spells like that affect the caster, not the Invisible creature).
I agree that the interaction with a creature who has blindsight is problematic, but the rules are clear on that interaction. The benefits of the Invisible Condition remain in effect.
So yeah, because of how all of that works, the wording of the Condition itself should be changed.
Because it was created before the concept of 'Unseen Attacker' and hasn't been reworked since.
It was not. Both concepts were first published within the core rules in 2014 PHB.
I'm just going off what I read on the subject. They may have been published in the same book, but I've read some people saying invisibility was made first, and then never adjusted to account for unseen attacker, hence the conflict of today.
I don't get why you're still arguing for this not being homebrew, it clearly is. Yes, it should be changed, no, no one really uses in that effect. But that just means that it has become homebrew if it does get used.
You just keep re-hashing the same argument over and over again. The prone rule isn't a valid example for invisibility because it is ended by the affected creature doing something to end it.
And I can just point your argument in the other direction, and still be right: There's nothing stating that invisibility isn't removed because there doesn't need to be. The one spell that does need to make note of it is Faerie fire, because it affects more than just the invisible creature, and the creature isn't perfectly visible, just it's outline. Hence the need to specify 'hey, this means that the condition of invisibility is removed, so everyone gets advantage on their attack rolls now' because otherwise, one could still argue that they aren't visible enough to stop the benefits.
Meanwhile, Truesight and See Invisibility lets you see invisible creatures as if they were visible. They don't need to specify that the effect of Invisibility is removed, because it's not, it's still in effect for other creatures without these senses. Furthermore, truesight sees through illusions, through which most ways to become invisible is tied to illusion spells. Truesight allows them to detect illusion magic, and see invisible creatures and objects. There's nothing written because it's implied that people are smart enough to understand how these counter the invisible condition.
T;L, D;R: Because I feel this needs to be applied to you.. The condition is written badly and needs to me changed. But your arguments don't stop it from being homebrew in the eyes of new players and DM's.
I don't get why you're still arguing for this not being homebrew, it clearly is. Yes, it should be changed, no, no one really uses in that effect. But that just means that it has become homebrew if it does get used.
T;L, D;R: Because I feel this needs to be applied to you.. The condition is written badly and needs to me changed. But your arguments don't stop it from being homebrew in the eyes of new players and DM's.
No. That's not what homebrew means. This has been explained several times now so I'll just cut-and-paste:
Homebrew is when the rules of the game are intentionally changed by the DM and agreed upon by the Players to create a unique experience for playing the game that is a little different than when playing by the Rules as Written.
I'm confused by all the confusion here, but I think it's probably down to the thread veering over into complaints about how the way invisible works in Rules As Written is silly, and how it's now being presented in the OneD&D playtests (and how that's still a bit silly).
In terms of the RAW, how invisible works is dead simple; something applies the invisible condition, you retain that condition until the effect that grants it ends, and for that duration you are unseen without special senses, and you also (annoyingly) get advantage to hit, and disadvantage to be hit, simply for having the condition.
A creature having truesight or similar doesn't cause the invisible condition to end, it doesn't even negate it for the creature that has that special sight, all those special senses do is allow you to see the invisible creature, but it still gets the other benefits of the invisible condition.
The use of the word invisible in this case is not a description, it's a keyword referring specifically to the condition that is explicitly defined, so the fact that being both invisible and visible is nonsensical in plain english isn't really relevant, though it does explain why the rule isn't very intuitive (and a lot of groups don't run it as-is either knowingly or unknowingly).
And that's where a lot of groups and DMs diverge from the RAW because the invisible condition as defined has illogical outcomes; usually this means they end up ignoring the second bullet point in favour of just using the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules since that already grants the same bonuses. This makes the interaction with seeing through invisibility much more logical, and in fact I expect most groups do this without realising they've done it, as it's just a more intuitive way to run it. Some groups absolutely do it on purpose having realised what the rules actually say and deciding they don't like to run it that way.
Not sure I'd call that homebrew personally, maybe more of a house-rule, though the distinction is pretty arbitrary. I tend to think of homebrew as more like new and replacements rules like new magic items, sub-classes etc. Whereas I think of house rules as more like small tweaks, which I think dropping a bullet point qualifies for. Either way though it's diverging from the "correct" rules into something customised, whether you do it knowingly or not.
It's not unlike groups that play with critical success and failure on all rolls (not just attack rolls); this is super common, but not strictly correct, and not everyone is doing it intentionally.
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.
T;L, D;R: Because I feel this needs to be applied to you.. The condition is written badly and needs to me changed. But your arguments don't stop it from being homebrew in the eyes of new players and DM's.
No. That's not what homebrew means. This has been explained several times now so I'll just cut-and-paste:
Homebrew is when the rules of the game are intentionally changed by the DM and agreed upon by the Players to create a unique experience for playing the game that is a little different than when playing by the Rules as Written.
So, as per your own statement, this is homebrew. No one does it that way. No players will agree to this, because it doesn't make sense for the rule to apply in that way. It's a mechanical disadvantage with zero counter, as per the normal reading of abilities and spells.
You are right in terms of it being more geared towards 'new items' but the classification of 'homebrew' can still be used in a case like this. It's certainly a house rule, but it doesn't exclude the house rule from being homebrew.
The point I'm making is that it's an old, arbitrary concept being used here, that RAW implies one thing, but anyone thinking about it logically is simply assumed to be using REI because a random person said that basic logic is not RAW.
And I have yet to find any argument that doesn't simply default to 'because this is RAW' because that honestly does not explain anything. Your argument has been the closest, But it still does not explain why the adv/dis bullet point has to be treated so differently than any other bullet points in any of the other conditions. Granted, it's very obvious when the other conditions are ended/countered, as opposed to Invisible. With the only one that has an out-of-place bullet point seeming to be the omniscient sense that a frightened creature 'always' knows where the source of it's fear is. Thus including if the source of it's fear is invisible, hidden, or otherwise out of sight. One could even argue that, for what purposes it serves, if I were to fear a creature, and then run due east, so long as that creature remains frightened, it cannot move towards the east for any reason. Even if I were to use scrying to frightened that creature.
So, I'll ask again, for the purposes of getting a fair argument out of this: Where is it stated that each bullet points, for every spells, abilities, conditions, magic items, etc.. should be taken as it's own 'source' in a sense? Where is the subset of rules that determines, in the books, what RAW, REI, and for the sake of it Homebrew are determined to be?
To me, no matter how one looks at it, either interpretations of something is simple just that, an interpretation.
How a rule is supposed to work is referred to as Rules As Intended. If this is different from the Rules As Written then the Rules As Intended is the homebrew rule.
But so far, it's still just -your- interpretation of what it RAW and what isn't. Or at least, how it's intended to work. Versus how I see it working. It still doesn't explain where you get your interpretation of the adv/dis bullet point still being active. Nor does it explain what makes 'that' the intended mechanic, when logically, there's a couple of ways pre-designed to combat it.
And if 'logic' has no meaning in what is or isn't RAW, then what's the point of even arguing with me over how I see the rule versus how you see it? Everyone is saying the current method, the way you say is RAW, is illogical. So then, does that mean anything 'illogical' is RAW in that case? Either way, you still fail to explain to me what the actual difference is, as you've now introduces a second RAI which now means that I have to review every instances of RAI, as it may either be be Intended or Interpreted, with no real context to make the distinction.
So, I'll ask again, for the purposes of getting a fair argument out of this: Where is it stated that each bullet points, for every spells, abilities, conditions, magic items, etc.. should be taken as it's own 'source' in a sense?
I'm not sure what you mean by its own source here?
If a creature has the invisible condition then it receives both of the effects outlined by that condition. Special senses such as truesight don't remove or ignore the condition, they only allow the creature to be seen/perceived, which only changes the first of the two bullet points (and only for the creature with the special sense). Regardless of how many others nearby can see them anyway, the creature is still "invisible" as far as the rules are concerned, i.e- if a creature without special senses arrives it won't see them, because whatever spell or effect is making them invisible is still active.
Another way of thinking of it is like having a spell cast that causes you to deal fire damage on your attacks; you still deal that fire damage even if your available target(s) are all immune to fire, they just don't take any extra damage because of it. If that spell instead gave you both fire damage and advantage on your attacks, you'd still get the advantage even if the fire damage has no impact.
So with the way the rules are currently set out, simply having the invisible condition means that you always have advantage to hit, and disadvantage to be hit, regardless of whether or not a creature can see you or not, as the creature(s) that can see you only ignore the first bullet point, not the second. This is why a lot of us don't like the current rule, or the proposed OneD&D playtest rule (as they only changed the part that gets ignored, and left in the clause that they didn't need to begin with).
The important interaction is that senses like truesight don't say "you ignore the invisible condition of creatures within range", it only says you "see invisible creatures", which is what the first bullet point of the invisible condition covers. So you're only ignoring the unseen part of the condition, not the party that gives them advantage/disadvantage.
A lot of people ignore the second bullet point because for creatures that can't see you it's redundant, as the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule already gives you the same advantage/disadvantage bonus, but for creatures that can see invisibility they're technically supposed to get disadvantage against you (and you advantage against them) regardless. Which is the silly part.
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.
Where is it stated that each bullet points, for every spells, abilities, conditions, magic items, etc.. should be taken as it's own 'source' in a sense?
It's stated in the description for Condition.
Conditions: A condition lasts either until it is countered or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition...The following definitions specify what happens to a creature while it is subjected to a condition.
Where is the subset of rules that determines, in the books, what RAW, REI, and for the sake of it Homebrew are determined to be?
The concepts of RAW, RAI and RAF is explained in Sage Advice Compendium under the Roles of the Rules
Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?
Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling.
The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible. No matter how good those tools might be, they need a group of players to bring them to life and a DM to guide their use.
The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.
When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to their players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.” We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.
I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This particular question is completely up to the DM. The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, the RAW is not clear on the following specific point.
Is an invisible creature still subject to the invisible condition even if that creature can be seen and is thus NOT invisible?
From See Invisibility:
"For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."
You see invisible creatures and objects "as if they were visible". 5e uses English language usage. It is impossible for an invisible creature to be invisible if it IS visible.
- JC chimed in with what I consider a ridiculous ruling that is not consistent with the English language usage employed in the 5e rules.
- The rules do NOT specify that conditions are universally applied to a creature no matter what capabilities other creatures may possess. Invisibile is a condition that can logically be countered if a creature is NOT invisible or if such a creature can be seen as if they were visible. That is common English language usage and the rules do NOT state that creatures continue to have the invisible condition towards specific creatures even if they are visible.
Spells like Faerie Fire require additional text because they specifically do NOT make a creature visible. They outline them with a color so the spell requires specific text noting that it will counter the invisible condition.
As an additional question of logic, would a creature with blindsight still suffer disadvantage attacking an invisible creature even though they don't use a sense that depends on sight to perceive them? "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius."
What does the Invisibility spell do?
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."
Invisible condition says:
Invisible
--------------------
Which then gets back to the English language and the circular argument that an invisible creature is NOT invisible if it can be seen (using magic or a special sense as described in the condition).
A DM can decide that an Invisible creature remains invisible even to a creature that can see it "as if it was visible" or a DM can decide that a creature that can be seen "as if it was visible" can not be considered invisible from the perspective of that specific viewer with the magic or special sense. If a creature is not invisible in respect to a specific creature, then it can not have any of the effects of the invisible condition with respect to creatures to which it is visible.
------------------
P.S. I can see both interpretations of the rule ... I think proponents could argue it either way since the rules do not explicitly over ride the normal English language interpretation that an invisible creature that is visible can't be considered invisible.
This is especially true when spells like See Invisibility explicitly state that the Invisible creature can be seen "as if they were visible" ... and if they were being seen "as if they were visible" then disadvantage would certainly not apply to any attacks against that creature since they aren't invisible.
So .. it comes down to a DM deciding whether a creature that is visible can still benefit as if they were unseen even when they are seen if they happen to have an Invisible condition due to a spell or effect. (Keep in mind that although the invisible condition does not reference the unseen rules, the benefit from the spell is the same, so even when visible, a creature under the invisibility spell can have the benefit as if they were unseen even if they are perceived as if they were visible).
Anyway, it is fundamentally a language and rules issue that in my opinion RAW does not resolve. Interpretation depends on whether a DM uses a natural language reading of the rules or not.
I'm not familiar with either of those sources. And you have to keep in mind that not everyone is going to be familiar with them either. Either way, everyone on this forum has been saying it's changing.
Either way, you're still wrong since it's still basically homebrew. Using your own logic here: There's also nothing saying that this is always active, even when seen. And no one I've talked to believe that invisibility works this way.
Every arguments I've seen on spells like See Invisibility have all been 'oh I'm blurry' or some other form of excuse as to why the condition isn't countered. This can only lead me to the logical conclusion that it's a homebrew rule, because someone has to make excuses as to why logic doesn't apply.
The Invisible condition doesn't say the advantage/disadvantage to attack roll is a benefit from Unseen Attackers and Targets, it's a benefit directly baked in.
Either way, it should be clear which version of the invisibility they use from session 0, as it can lead to a lot of conflict from players who feel cheated, even though they have a clear counter to the condition.
In my personal opinion, keeping the second bullet point active falls under Homebrew, as it makes no logical sense to keep it active otherwise. I disagree with this being RAW, as it falls upon interpretation on both sides of the aisle. The natural reaction of people is to say 'Oh then they're just visible' and argument only arises for those who attempt to justify external sources, or strange reasons as to why they still have that second bullet point active. Furthermore, the people that I've asked concerning this ruling were all confused as to why being invisible would work that way. Meaning that, aside from those who get deep into the rules, such as rules lawyers, it's very uncommon for this 'RAW' to function as described. Which in turn, makes it difficult not to simply call it Homebrew.
RAW, to me, would be something that hasn't been written properly, in the case of, say, the ability to half the damage you take, and forgetting to add the condition of 'can only be activated once per turn' or some other similar condition where the interpretation is very clear. Or let's take Mage Hand, a common RAW interpretation, because the only statement of weight dictated is 'it can only carry 10 pounds' people have come to saw that, RAW means it can push an infinite amount of mass, because it doesn't specify that it has a push/pull limit. Nor does it specify that it -can- push or pull objects.
To me, this is where we enter the phase of RAW as Homebrew. Because it's not an 'intended' behavior, it's up to the GM to decide if it is or isn't allowed, effectively making it a homebrew ruling for that campaign.
Because it was created before the concept of 'Unseen Attacker' and hasn't been reworked since.
This isn't what this word means. If you open up the book and point to the text, you can't say "that's homebrew" in any valid way. That's just not what it means.
That's not what homebrew means. It's never totally clear what you are actually trying to say when you keep making statements like this.
Same problem here.
No, this isn't what RAW means. RAW is interpretation of the written text. Ruling according to what is written in the text can never be "a homebrew ruling for that campaign".
Because of how you keep incorrectly using these words, it is still hard to understand if you are arguing against what the text currently says or if you are just arguing for how the rule should be and / or how a DM should rule it if they want to intentionally deviate away from what is written.
This makes no sense. What do you mean by this? The Unseen Attacker rules have always existed in 5e.
Yes, the invisible creature is still subject to the invisible condition. There are two points here:
First, even though it's weird, the logic of "if that creature can be seen and is thus NOT invisible" doesn't hold up. This is because the invisible condition never says that being invisible means that it cannot be seen. The Condition specifically states that an invisible creature is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." So, therefore, if you ARE using magic or a special sense to see this creature, they ARE still invisible.
Second:
Seeing an invisible creature doesn't counter the condition in the sense that it completely causes the persisting Condition to end. In the case of Prone, standing up ends that Condition because you are no longer prone -- in order to "benefit" from being prone, you must actually become prone again. In addition, the Rules explicitly state that standing up ends the prone condition. None of that applies implicitly to being invisible since you are still invisible to other creatures and if this one creature who can see you vanishes from the scenario in some way then you just pop back into being invisible without having to take any action to do so. There is also no rule that explicitly states that seeing an invisible creature actually ends that Condition -- so this is something that would have to be explicitly stated by any feature that potentially interacts with this Condition. Unfortunately, the wording for effects created by spells such as See Invisibility fall short of actually saying that the persistent Condition is ended by the spell effect (which makes sense because spells like that affect the caster, not the Invisible creature).
I agree that the interaction with a creature who has blindsight is problematic, but the rules are clear on that interaction. The benefits of the Invisible Condition remain in effect.
So yeah, because of how all of that works, the wording of the Condition itself should be changed.
It was not. Both concepts were first published within the core rules in 2014 PHB.
I'm just going off what I read on the subject. They may have been published in the same book, but I've read some people saying invisibility was made first, and then never adjusted to account for unseen attacker, hence the conflict of today.
I don't get why you're still arguing for this not being homebrew, it clearly is. Yes, it should be changed, no, no one really uses in that effect. But that just means that it has become homebrew if it does get used.
You just keep re-hashing the same argument over and over again. The prone rule isn't a valid example for invisibility because it is ended by the affected creature doing something to end it.
And I can just point your argument in the other direction, and still be right: There's nothing stating that invisibility isn't removed because there doesn't need to be. The one spell that does need to make note of it is Faerie fire, because it affects more than just the invisible creature, and the creature isn't perfectly visible, just it's outline. Hence the need to specify 'hey, this means that the condition of invisibility is removed, so everyone gets advantage on their attack rolls now' because otherwise, one could still argue that they aren't visible enough to stop the benefits.
Meanwhile, Truesight and See Invisibility lets you see invisible creatures as if they were visible. They don't need to specify that the effect of Invisibility is removed, because it's not, it's still in effect for other creatures without these senses. Furthermore, truesight sees through illusions, through which most ways to become invisible is tied to illusion spells. Truesight allows them to detect illusion magic, and see invisible creatures and objects. There's nothing written because it's implied that people are smart enough to understand how these counter the invisible condition.
T;L, D;R: Because I feel this needs to be applied to you.. The condition is written badly and needs to me changed. But your arguments don't stop it from being homebrew in the eyes of new players and DM's.
No. That's not what homebrew means. This has been explained several times now so I'll just cut-and-paste:
I'm confused by all the confusion here, but I think it's probably down to the thread veering over into complaints about how the way invisible works in Rules As Written is silly, and how it's now being presented in the OneD&D playtests (and how that's still a bit silly).
In terms of the RAW, how invisible works is dead simple; something applies the invisible condition, you retain that condition until the effect that grants it ends, and for that duration you are unseen without special senses, and you also (annoyingly) get advantage to hit, and disadvantage to be hit, simply for having the condition.
A creature having truesight or similar doesn't cause the invisible condition to end, it doesn't even negate it for the creature that has that special sight, all those special senses do is allow you to see the invisible creature, but it still gets the other benefits of the invisible condition.
The use of the word invisible in this case is not a description, it's a keyword referring specifically to the condition that is explicitly defined, so the fact that being both invisible and visible is nonsensical in plain english isn't really relevant, though it does explain why the rule isn't very intuitive (and a lot of groups don't run it as-is either knowingly or unknowingly).
And that's where a lot of groups and DMs diverge from the RAW because the invisible condition as defined has illogical outcomes; usually this means they end up ignoring the second bullet point in favour of just using the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules since that already grants the same bonuses. This makes the interaction with seeing through invisibility much more logical, and in fact I expect most groups do this without realising they've done it, as it's just a more intuitive way to run it. Some groups absolutely do it on purpose having realised what the rules actually say and deciding they don't like to run it that way.
Not sure I'd call that homebrew personally, maybe more of a house-rule, though the distinction is pretty arbitrary. I tend to think of homebrew as more like new and replacements rules like new magic items, sub-classes etc. Whereas I think of house rules as more like small tweaks, which I think dropping a bullet point qualifies for. Either way though it's diverging from the "correct" rules into something customised, whether you do it knowingly or not.
It's not unlike groups that play with critical success and failure on all rolls (not just attack rolls); this is super common, but not strictly correct, and not everyone is doing it intentionally.
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.
So, as per your own statement, this is homebrew. No one does it that way. No players will agree to this, because it doesn't make sense for the rule to apply in that way. It's a mechanical disadvantage with zero counter, as per the normal reading of abilities and spells.
You are right in terms of it being more geared towards 'new items' but the classification of 'homebrew' can still be used in a case like this. It's certainly a house rule, but it doesn't exclude the house rule from being homebrew.
The point I'm making is that it's an old, arbitrary concept being used here, that RAW implies one thing, but anyone thinking about it logically is simply assumed to be using REI because a random person said that basic logic is not RAW.
And I have yet to find any argument that doesn't simply default to 'because this is RAW' because that honestly does not explain anything. Your argument has been the closest, But it still does not explain why the adv/dis bullet point has to be treated so differently than any other bullet points in any of the other conditions. Granted, it's very obvious when the other conditions are ended/countered, as opposed to Invisible. With the only one that has an out-of-place bullet point seeming to be the omniscient sense that a frightened creature 'always' knows where the source of it's fear is. Thus including if the source of it's fear is invisible, hidden, or otherwise out of sight. One could even argue that, for what purposes it serves, if I were to fear a creature, and then run due east, so long as that creature remains frightened, it cannot move towards the east for any reason. Even if I were to use scrying to frightened that creature.
So, I'll ask again, for the purposes of getting a fair argument out of this: Where is it stated that each bullet points, for every spells, abilities, conditions, magic items, etc.. should be taken as it's own 'source' in a sense? Where is the subset of rules that determines, in the books, what RAW, REI, and for the sake of it Homebrew are determined to be?
To me, no matter how one looks at it, either interpretations of something is simple just that, an interpretation.
What the text says and what it means are the Rules As Written. When those rules are changed, THAT is what is homebrew / house-rule.
That' still only just -your- interpretation of how you think that rule is supposed to work.
How a rule is supposed to work is referred to as Rules As Intended. If this is different from the Rules As Written then the Rules As Intended is the homebrew rule.
But so far, it's still just -your- interpretation of what it RAW and what isn't. Or at least, how it's intended to work. Versus how I see it working. It still doesn't explain where you get your interpretation of the adv/dis bullet point still being active. Nor does it explain what makes 'that' the intended mechanic, when logically, there's a couple of ways pre-designed to combat it.
And if 'logic' has no meaning in what is or isn't RAW, then what's the point of even arguing with me over how I see the rule versus how you see it? Everyone is saying the current method, the way you say is RAW, is illogical. So then, does that mean anything 'illogical' is RAW in that case? Either way, you still fail to explain to me what the actual difference is, as you've now introduces a second RAI which now means that I have to review every instances of RAI, as it may either be be Intended or Interpreted, with no real context to make the distinction.
I'm not sure what you mean by its own source here?
If a creature has the invisible condition then it receives both of the effects outlined by that condition. Special senses such as truesight don't remove or ignore the condition, they only allow the creature to be seen/perceived, which only changes the first of the two bullet points (and only for the creature with the special sense). Regardless of how many others nearby can see them anyway, the creature is still "invisible" as far as the rules are concerned, i.e- if a creature without special senses arrives it won't see them, because whatever spell or effect is making them invisible is still active.
Another way of thinking of it is like having a spell cast that causes you to deal fire damage on your attacks; you still deal that fire damage even if your available target(s) are all immune to fire, they just don't take any extra damage because of it. If that spell instead gave you both fire damage and advantage on your attacks, you'd still get the advantage even if the fire damage has no impact.
So with the way the rules are currently set out, simply having the invisible condition means that you always have advantage to hit, and disadvantage to be hit, regardless of whether or not a creature can see you or not, as the creature(s) that can see you only ignore the first bullet point, not the second. This is why a lot of us don't like the current rule, or the proposed OneD&D playtest rule (as they only changed the part that gets ignored, and left in the clause that they didn't need to begin with).
The important interaction is that senses like truesight don't say "you ignore the invisible condition of creatures within range", it only says you "see invisible creatures", which is what the first bullet point of the invisible condition covers. So you're only ignoring the unseen part of the condition, not the party that gives them advantage/disadvantage.
A lot of people ignore the second bullet point because for creatures that can't see you it's redundant, as the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule already gives you the same advantage/disadvantage bonus, but for creatures that can see invisibility they're technically supposed to get disadvantage against you (and you advantage against them) regardless. Which is the silly part.
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.
It's stated in the description for Condition.
The concepts of RAW, RAI and RAF is explained in Sage Advice Compendium under the Roles of the Rules