A condition is what a video game would call a status effect, and invisibility would normally be a status effect in a game.
Yea but that isn't really relevant here. A video game would know and apply its own rules automatically without you or me needing to know how those rules worked. You could cast your invisibility and walk around being invisible to most people while I with my truesight would see you normally without either of us having to make any in-game determinations. But it doesn't work that way at the table when playing a RPG so that classification is irrelevant.
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.
What's needed is having a centralised definition of the word/concept "Invisible" but there is no need for it to be a Condition. Putting it in the section about "Vision and Light" that defines levels of light and obscurement and (some) of the visual senses would make a lot more sense to me, it is conceptually linked with those concepts and it would put an end to the issues with it being a condition that is on even if the opponent can see you.
Of course 5E has been notoriously bad at having centralised definitions of word/concepts and I guess that's why it ended up as a condition. For example "Telepathy" doesn't have an centralised definition, it has a section in the Monster Manual and then a scattering of game features that does it and defines it (in slightly different ways even). "Teleportation" is another concept that also lack a single clear definition, it has a spell that does it and a bunch of game features that lets you do it but not all places uses the same wording. Both of those are now in the playtest material with something that seems to become a centralised definition for each. But we don't know where they'll end up in the new rules, hopefully they add a glossary where they define terms/words/concepts and if so then "Invisible" could go in that section instead.
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.
Sure that is good reasoning, I use much the same to ignore that part. But if we logic our way around the issue with it being heavily obscured then why not just logic our way around the advantage/disadvantage issue too? The issues comes from the same place, the fact that the condition says "this is how it always works" instead of letting the actual underlying rules make the determinations of why/when a creature can be seen or not.
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.
Unfortunately I'm really not sure what you're asking here -- I would respond if I could.
In this case, the RAW is what it is -- it's not even debatable.
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.
All of this is incorrect. We all agree with you about how it should work. But it currently does not work the way that it should work. Whether or not you agree with any particular logic given in this thread is irrelevant -- the Rules as Written are what they are in this case.
Currently, the RAW is that the invisible creature DOES continue to benefit from advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls after being seen by other creatures. It was explained to you why this is the case back on Post #27.
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.
And unfortunately under the current rules, none of this matters when it comes to the advantage / disadvantage on attack rolls.
First of all, perhaps counterintuitively, talking about the invisibility spell is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are focused on here is the actual invisible condition. There are many different ways that a creature could possess this Condition. This spell is only one way. Just because this spell is an illusion spell does not mean that the invisible Condition itself is associated with illusions in any way. The Condition doesn't say anything about illusions.
But all of that doesn't matter because the problem is that simply possessing the Condition grants the advantage / disadvantage benefits. Whether or not this creature is seen doesn't factor in, according to the rules. And we all agree that those rules are not functioning correctly and need to be changed.
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.
But you can't ignore a rule if you are playing by the Rules as Written.
----------
"What's needed is having a centralised definition of the word/concept "Invisible" but there is no need for it to be a Condition."
I can totally get behind that. I'm not sure exactly why the designers went so far out of their way to avoid taking this approach for 5e but I've heard it mentioned repeatedly that this was an intentional design decision. Pretty frustrating at times.
"But if we logic our way around the issue with it being heavily obscured then why not just logic our way around the advantage/disadvantage issue too?"
If I think of a way to do this I will definitely share it!
But you can't ignore a rule if you are playing by the Rules as Written.
In this very case, I highly disagree. 'Rules as Written' does not apply here, simply because it's a bullet point. Or are you saying that, in RAW, each bullet point is it's own, pre-defined rule, outside of the encompassing item, spell, or effect? Because there are likely plenty of items I could nit-pick about the whole concept, and just say 'RAW, what you're saying here doesn't specifically counter this very specific bullet point, so I still get to use it.'
Yes, all of the rules apply. It doesn't matter if this is listed in a separate bullet point. In this case, it matters only if the overall Condition exists or not. Currently, seeing an invisible creature does not remove the Invisible Condition from that creature. Therefore, all mechanics provided by the Condition itself remain in effect. Yes, it's a problem, and it will likely be fixed in the next version of the game. For now, just house rule it.
Yes, all of the rules apply. It doesn't matter if this is listed in a separate bullet point. In this case, it matters only if the overall Condition exists or not. Currently, seeing an invisible creature does not remove the Invisible Condition from that creature. Therefore, all mechanics provided by the Condition itself remain in effect. Yes, it's a problem, and it will likely be fixed in the next version of the game. For now, just house rule it.
I am, but I'm also refusing to never stop using this house rule. And the argument can still be made that 'for the creature that can see you' the invisibility condition no longer exist. But we'd just be going around in circles at that point. I do not count what JC said, outside of what's in the books, as applicable for 'official rulings' and there's not much anyone can do to change my position on this.
I am, but I'm also refusing to never stop using this house rule. And the argument can still be made that 'for the creature that can see you' the invisibility condition no longer exist. But we'd just be going around in circles at that point. I do not count what JC said, outside of what's in the books, as applicable for 'official rulings' and there's not much anyone can do to change my position on this.
From your responses it still seems like you are arguing about what the Rule actually IS and not simply what it should be. We all agree on how it should work. But the way that is DOES work is not what you are saying.
You can't have a Condition that exists on creature A cease to exist only "for creature B". That is not how Conditions work. The mechanics for Conditions are actually pretty clear. In this case, it either exists on creature A or it doesn't. The presence of creature B and their abilities does not factor into this. It's actually not even intended to work as you describe, because that creature is meant to remain invisible vs other creatures and to go back to retaining full benefits if Creature B leaves the area. So, the Condition is simply not extinguished when seen.
Again, we agree that it should work a certain way. But having a "position" about what the rule currently IS won't get you very far in this case. In this RAW discussion, there is a correct answer and it has already been posted.
It is. The 'Condition' of being invisible is 'extinguished' by the condition of 'being seen' and the fact that people argue over simple logic is stupid.
No, it probably shouldn't be a condition, and when I ask 'what grants you those effect' and you simply point at the condition saying 'I get these because I'm under this condition' does not validate your point to be using those. It, in fact, invalidates it, because you're not giving an explanation, or a reason. You're just pointing at something and saying 'because it says so right here'
Yes, I'm with everyone saying how it 'should be' when people look at it logically, but every time, there's always someone pointing out: This is RAW because this guy said so even though it's not in any of the official books' and that's what people don't get about the issue. Or ignoring any of the otherwise valid argument to make the point of 'RAW said so' because no, RAW did not say so, to me, this falls under REI people trying to pass it off as RAW, because they're mad that they wasted a spell slot on invisibility, and everyone in the room just pulls out blindsight, truesight, and see invibility, so they're just clinging to that last shred of a 'condition' to justify them casting those spells, or using those abilities.
So no, what you claim as the 'correct answer' is not the correct answer. It's stupidity in it's highest form, a child adding onto the list of powers they have because someone has a 'counter' to their make-up abilities. EVERY INSTANCE of discussion I've seen on Seen Invisibility has been: "Your spell only shows me as being blurred, even though it states that you see me as being visible so I still get advantage" Or exactly what you're doing now, harping on the fact that it's a 'condition' that is affecting you.
NO CONDITION THAT AFFECT YOU ARE BENIFICIAL aside from Invisibility, which makes it something they just put in there for the sake of having somewhere to put it so that a character sheet could toggle the option on and off. That's it. Any further argument on the matter of it being a 'condition' is null and void.
It is. The 'Condition' of being invisible is 'extinguished' by the condition of 'being seen' and the fact that people argue over simple logic is stupid.
That's the problem with the way the current rules are structured though; currently you gain the invisible condition, and that's only lost when the spell or ability says it is. Being seen by a creature with truesight doesn't end the condition, it can just sort of see the invisible creature(s), but those creatures still have the invisible condition not only for the creature with truesight, but others that don't have truesight.
But I think this is what up2ng was getting at with it being silly to structure it that way.
For example, under the current visibility rules, if you are heavily obscured relative to another creature (due to darkness, fog etc.) then that creature is effectively blinded when it tries to perceive you. Basically it's a condition that applies to a circumstance rather than being slapped onto a creature persistently – you evaluate the rule for every creature that is trying to see you, as you may not be obscured to creatures with special senses, or from a different direction.
This is how invisibility should really work; i.e- instead of the condition having effects of not being seen, it should be something like:
INVISIBLE
You are unseen by creatures that do not have special senses such as blindsight or truesight.
So basically it triggers the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule. We could optionally make "unseen" a condition to make that a bit easier/more formal. Either way the actual important part is being unseen, the invisible condition is just there to track that you are invisible (and for backwards compatibility).
But the way it is currently in Rules As Written is a mess and I hate it, because it doesn't follow basic logic, it actively defies. 😉
Exactly, it defies the whole system, and people are just harping on the RAW side of it as an excuse to keep utilizing the second bullet point. I've stopped really arguing about whether or not this 'condition' was done well or not, and instead, I've started arguing against those who still demand to use crawford's RAW ruling when, I can assure you, most newer GM do not know who that is.
I do not count what JC said, outside of what's in the books, as applicable for 'official rulings' and there's not much anyone can do to change my position on this.
Pretty much no-one here counts JC's tweets as official rulings, declarations of RAI is probably the highest anyone goes. I don't see how that helps your argument though.
And the argument can still be made that 'for the creature that can see you' the invisibility condition no longer exist. But we'd just be going around in circles at that point.
No it cannot. The rules for conditions very clearly say that you either have a condition or you don't. So you cannot have it towards some creature but not against some. And thus any argument you make that being seen while invisible impacts the condition is also an argument that it ends it completely and everyone can see you (logically possible but I don't think you'll find many, if any, that plays it like that).
Honestly I don't see what's got you so worked up about this. The rule IS stupid, utterly moronic and completely lacking in logic even. And the design team have finally accepted that and are trying out new wordings for it in the playtest. What is so problematic about just accepting that it is too stupid to use and just house rule it?
The fact that people keep commenting on the whole thing, like you just did, about it being RAW, and a 'Condition' that you can't ignore the effects, and all of that. I'm glad they're finally looking at the stupidity of this 'condition' and I -do- homebrew it, I just will not respect a GM's decision telling me that their critters still get advantage/cause disadvantage when I clearly see them.
So really, I'm just mad a few here are still trying to push for it, when clearly, it's just so wrong even the designers are looking into changing it now.
Trust me, no one here is pushing for this Condition to continue to work this way. If you've been playing with a GM who has been ruling it this way then I agree that is pretty frustrating. This should be one of the easiest homebrews to agree upon at session 0.
But you do count what random people on the Internet say?
No, as a matter of fact, I do not. At the very least, not a singular entity. If there's a consensus on something when I need clarification, I look for the most agreed-upon interpretation, not a singular post/comment by a singular person, especially when it's explained so badly it doesn't even make sense in the first place. One comment does not make a ruling right, it simply makes it that person's own interpretation of the ruling.
So really, I'm just mad a few here are still trying to push for it, when clearly, it's just so wrong even the designers are looking into changing it now.
No one is pushing for you (or anyone) playing it the stupid way, pretty much every time the discussion comes up it ends in the consensus that the RAW rule is stupid. And yes it is being looked at and I'd wager quite a bit that a large reason for that is that the rules nerds on here (and other similar places) have made noise about it over the years (and in the playtest feedback).
I consider the whole "THIS IS RAW" discussions here more of a consumer service. In my experience if you know what a rules says and you know that a rule is stupid then it is easy to have a discussion about that/those rules at session 0 or when you meet/join a new table but if you instead just decide that the rules work as you like them to work then it is very easy to forget that maybe everyone doesn't think the same way as you do and that makes it a lot more likely to have an issue erupt mid-session and that is always the worst time for a rules argument (especially if anyone feels as strongly about it as you seem to do).
That looks like a situation where this Ranger doesn't actually get the Invisible Condition. This description might just be using the word invisible in the descriptive sense to explain the ability. I don't have the D&D Beyond digital content for that -- I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
Yea but that isn't really relevant here. A video game would know and apply its own rules automatically without you or me needing to know how those rules worked. You could cast your invisibility and walk around being invisible to most people while I with my truesight would see you normally without either of us having to make any in-game determinations. But it doesn't work that way at the table when playing a RPG so that classification is irrelevant.
What's needed is having a centralised definition of the word/concept "Invisible" but there is no need for it to be a Condition. Putting it in the section about "Vision and Light" that defines levels of light and obscurement and (some) of the visual senses would make a lot more sense to me, it is conceptually linked with those concepts and it would put an end to the issues with it being a condition that is on even if the opponent can see you.
Of course 5E has been notoriously bad at having centralised definitions of word/concepts and I guess that's why it ended up as a condition. For example "Telepathy" doesn't have an centralised definition, it has a section in the Monster Manual and then a scattering of game features that does it and defines it (in slightly different ways even). "Teleportation" is another concept that also lack a single clear definition, it has a spell that does it and a bunch of game features that lets you do it but not all places uses the same wording. Both of those are now in the playtest material with something that seems to become a centralised definition for each. But we don't know where they'll end up in the new rules, hopefully they add a glossary where they define terms/words/concepts and if so then "Invisible" could go in that section instead.
Sure that is good reasoning, I use much the same to ignore that part. But if we logic our way around the issue with it being heavily obscured then why not just logic our way around the advantage/disadvantage issue too? The issues comes from the same place, the fact that the condition says "this is how it always works" instead of letting the actual underlying rules make the determinations of why/when a creature can be seen or not.
Unfortunately I'm really not sure what you're asking here -- I would respond if I could.
In this case, the RAW is what it is -- it's not even debatable.
All of this is incorrect. We all agree with you about how it should work. But it currently does not work the way that it should work. Whether or not you agree with any particular logic given in this thread is irrelevant -- the Rules as Written are what they are in this case.
Currently, the RAW is that the invisible creature DOES continue to benefit from advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls after being seen by other creatures. It was explained to you why this is the case back on Post #27.
And unfortunately under the current rules, none of this matters when it comes to the advantage / disadvantage on attack rolls.
First of all, perhaps counterintuitively, talking about the invisibility spell is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are focused on here is the actual invisible condition. There are many different ways that a creature could possess this Condition. This spell is only one way. Just because this spell is an illusion spell does not mean that the invisible Condition itself is associated with illusions in any way. The Condition doesn't say anything about illusions.
But all of that doesn't matter because the problem is that simply possessing the Condition grants the advantage / disadvantage benefits. Whether or not this creature is seen doesn't factor in, according to the rules. And we all agree that those rules are not functioning correctly and need to be changed.
But you can't ignore a rule if you are playing by the Rules as Written.
----------
"What's needed is having a centralised definition of the word/concept "Invisible" but there is no need for it to be a Condition."
I can totally get behind that. I'm not sure exactly why the designers went so far out of their way to avoid taking this approach for 5e but I've heard it mentioned repeatedly that this was an intentional design decision. Pretty frustrating at times.
"But if we logic our way around the issue with it being heavily obscured then why not just logic our way around the advantage/disadvantage issue too?"
If I think of a way to do this I will definitely share it!
In this very case, I highly disagree. 'Rules as Written' does not apply here, simply because it's a bullet point. Or are you saying that, in RAW, each bullet point is it's own, pre-defined rule, outside of the encompassing item, spell, or effect? Because there are likely plenty of items I could nit-pick about the whole concept, and just say 'RAW, what you're saying here doesn't specifically counter this very specific bullet point, so I still get to use it.'
Yes, all of the rules apply. It doesn't matter if this is listed in a separate bullet point. In this case, it matters only if the overall Condition exists or not. Currently, seeing an invisible creature does not remove the Invisible Condition from that creature. Therefore, all mechanics provided by the Condition itself remain in effect. Yes, it's a problem, and it will likely be fixed in the next version of the game. For now, just house rule it.
I am, but I'm also refusing to never stop using this house rule. And the argument can still be made that 'for the creature that can see you' the invisibility condition no longer exist. But we'd just be going around in circles at that point. I do not count what JC said, outside of what's in the books, as applicable for 'official rulings' and there's not much anyone can do to change my position on this.
From your responses it still seems like you are arguing about what the Rule actually IS and not simply what it should be. We all agree on how it should work. But the way that is DOES work is not what you are saying.
You can't have a Condition that exists on creature A cease to exist only "for creature B". That is not how Conditions work. The mechanics for Conditions are actually pretty clear. In this case, it either exists on creature A or it doesn't. The presence of creature B and their abilities does not factor into this. It's actually not even intended to work as you describe, because that creature is meant to remain invisible vs other creatures and to go back to retaining full benefits if Creature B leaves the area. So, the Condition is simply not extinguished when seen.
Again, we agree that it should work a certain way. But having a "position" about what the rule currently IS won't get you very far in this case. In this RAW discussion, there is a correct answer and it has already been posted.
It is. The 'Condition' of being invisible is 'extinguished' by the condition of 'being seen' and the fact that people argue over simple logic is stupid.
No, it probably shouldn't be a condition, and when I ask 'what grants you those effect' and you simply point at the condition saying 'I get these because I'm under this condition' does not validate your point to be using those. It, in fact, invalidates it, because you're not giving an explanation, or a reason. You're just pointing at something and saying 'because it says so right here'
Yes, I'm with everyone saying how it 'should be' when people look at it logically, but every time, there's always someone pointing out: This is RAW because this guy said so even though it's not in any of the official books' and that's what people don't get about the issue. Or ignoring any of the otherwise valid argument to make the point of 'RAW said so' because no, RAW did not say so, to me, this falls under REI people trying to pass it off as RAW, because they're mad that they wasted a spell slot on invisibility, and everyone in the room just pulls out blindsight, truesight, and see invibility, so they're just clinging to that last shred of a 'condition' to justify them casting those spells, or using those abilities.
So no, what you claim as the 'correct answer' is not the correct answer. It's stupidity in it's highest form, a child adding onto the list of powers they have because someone has a 'counter' to their make-up abilities. EVERY INSTANCE of discussion I've seen on Seen Invisibility has been:
"Your spell only shows me as being blurred, even though it states that you see me as being visible so I still get advantage" Or exactly what you're doing now, harping on the fact that it's a 'condition' that is affecting you.
NO CONDITION THAT AFFECT YOU ARE BENIFICIAL aside from Invisibility, which makes it something they just put in there for the sake of having somewhere to put it so that a character sheet could toggle the option on and off. That's it. Any further argument on the matter of it being a 'condition' is null and void.
That's the problem with the way the current rules are structured though; currently you gain the invisible condition, and that's only lost when the spell or ability says it is. Being seen by a creature with truesight doesn't end the condition, it can just sort of see the invisible creature(s), but those creatures still have the invisible condition not only for the creature with truesight, but others that don't have truesight.
But I think this is what up2ng was getting at with it being silly to structure it that way.
For example, under the current visibility rules, if you are heavily obscured relative to another creature (due to darkness, fog etc.) then that creature is effectively blinded when it tries to perceive you. Basically it's a condition that applies to a circumstance rather than being slapped onto a creature persistently – you evaluate the rule for every creature that is trying to see you, as you may not be obscured to creatures with special senses, or from a different direction.
This is how invisibility should really work; i.e- instead of the condition having effects of not being seen, it should be something like:
So basically it triggers the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule. We could optionally make "unseen" a condition to make that a bit easier/more formal. Either way the actual important part is being unseen, the invisible condition is just there to track that you are invisible (and for backwards compatibility).
But the way it is currently in Rules As Written is a mess and I hate it, because it doesn't follow basic logic, it actively defies. 😉
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Exactly, it defies the whole system, and people are just harping on the RAW side of it as an excuse to keep utilizing the second bullet point. I've stopped really arguing about whether or not this 'condition' was done well or not, and instead, I've started arguing against those who still demand to use crawford's RAW ruling when, I can assure you, most newer GM do not know who that is.
Pretty much no-one here counts JC's tweets as official rulings, declarations of RAI is probably the highest anyone goes. I don't see how that helps your argument though.
No it cannot. The rules for conditions very clearly say that you either have a condition or you don't. So you cannot have it towards some creature but not against some. And thus any argument you make that being seen while invisible impacts the condition is also an argument that it ends it completely and everyone can see you (logically possible but I don't think you'll find many, if any, that plays it like that).
Honestly I don't see what's got you so worked up about this. The rule IS stupid, utterly moronic and completely lacking in logic even. And the design team have finally accepted that and are trying out new wordings for it in the playtest. What is so problematic about just accepting that it is too stupid to use and just house rule it?
The fact that people keep commenting on the whole thing, like you just did, about it being RAW, and a 'Condition' that you can't ignore the effects, and all of that. I'm glad they're finally looking at the stupidity of this 'condition' and I -do- homebrew it, I just will not respect a GM's decision telling me that their critters still get advantage/cause disadvantage when I clearly see them.
So really, I'm just mad a few here are still trying to push for it, when clearly, it's just so wrong even the designers are looking into changing it now.
Trust me, no one here is pushing for this Condition to continue to work this way. If you've been playing with a GM who has been ruling it this way then I agree that is pretty frustrating. This should be one of the easiest homebrews to agree upon at session 0.
But you do count what random people on the Internet say?
Yeah, it has been pretty frustrating, being denied 'tactical advantage' just because 'it's what RAW said'
No, as a matter of fact, I do not. At the very least, not a singular entity. If there's a consensus on something when I need clarification, I look for the most agreed-upon interpretation, not a singular post/comment by a singular person, especially when it's explained so badly it doesn't even make sense in the first place. One comment does not make a ruling right, it simply makes it that person's own interpretation of the ruling.
No one is pushing for you (or anyone) playing it the stupid way, pretty much every time the discussion comes up it ends in the consensus that the RAW rule is stupid. And yes it is being looked at and I'd wager quite a bit that a large reason for that is that the rules nerds on here (and other similar places) have made noise about it over the years (and in the playtest feedback).
I consider the whole "THIS IS RAW" discussions here more of a consumer service. In my experience if you know what a rules says and you know that a rule is stupid then it is easy to have a discussion about that/those rules at session 0 or when you meet/join a new table but if you instead just decide that the rules work as you like them to work then it is very easy to forget that maybe everyone doesn't think the same way as you do and that makes it a lot more likely to have an issue erupt mid-session and that is always the worst time for a rules argument (especially if anyone feels as strongly about it as you seem to do).
One situation i can think of where the Invisible condition only apply to some is with a Gloomstalker but it's certainly exceptional.
That looks like a situation where this Ranger doesn't actually get the Invisible Condition. This description might just be using the word invisible in the descriptive sense to explain the ability. I don't have the D&D Beyond digital content for that -- I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
Yes it does.