I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
No, it is not. Though, it's likely only refering to invisibile here as 'unseen attacker' or something, basically saying that even if a creature has darkvision, you can't be seen by them in darkness.
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's just it with the issue though, it's a 'mechanical disadvantage' that shouldn't exist, so yes, once combat arises, it will cause issues.
In all fairness, I consider what the people say is RAW 'AS' Homebrew.
I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
No, it is not. Though, it's likely only refering to invisibile here as 'unseen attacker' or something, basically saying that even if a creature has darkvision, you can't be seen by them in darkness.
Yes it does
Umbral Sight
At 3rd level, you gain darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. If you already have darkvision from your race, its range increases by 30 feet.
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.
I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
No, it is not.
What? Was this actually in response to my conversational comment that the Feature mentioned is a design departure for using the Invisible Condition. Because it is. That comment wasn't meant to be debatable. It just is a design departure. The correct response was "Huh, yeah that's true. Very interesting."
That's just it with the issue though, it's a 'mechanical disadvantage' that shouldn't exist, so yes, once combat arises, it will cause issues.
In all fairness, I consider what the people say is RAW 'AS' Homebrew.
It doesn't matter if you consider RAW to be Homebrew. By definition, it is not. RAW is what it is.
Yet again, we all agree on how this concept should work in the game. It's unclear what you've been so upset about throughout this thread although you keep making statements that are false and you keep getting corrected. Hopefully that in and of itself is not what is causing all of this reaction.
I'm curious, does the word "invisible" in that description get a hyperlink to the Invisible Condition?
No, it is not.
What? Was this actually in response to my conversational comment that the Feature mentioned is a design departure for using the Invisible Condition. Because it is. That comment wasn't meant to be debatable. It just is a design departure. The correct response was "Huh, yeah that's true. Very interesting."
I've looked at Umbral Sight in DnDBeyond, there is no 'link' to the invisible condition anywhere in it's text. I can link it from the character sheet and builder both if you don't believe it, but the word invisible, here, does not describe the invisible 'condition' as far as I can see. A post can very easily fake it by simply adding [condition] to the word to make it pop out.
That's just it with the issue though, it's a 'mechanical disadvantage' that shouldn't exist, so yes, once combat arises, it will cause issues.
In all fairness, I consider what the people say is RAW 'AS' Homebrew.
It doesn't matter if you consider RAW to be Homebrew. By definition, it is not. RAW is what it is.
Yet again, we all agree on how this concept should work in the game. It's unclear what you've been so upset about throughout this thread although you keep making statements that are false and you keep getting corrected. Hopefully that in and of itself is not what is causing all of this reaction.
But that's the issue, it IS homebrew. People just refuse to see it otherwise because some guy named JC said otherwise. And that's the part I'm angry about, because I'm quite new to the game, I also asked my DM friend who's been playing for two years, he's never heard of this JC guy either. So for all intend and purposes, everyone it taking that one guy's tweet and treating it as RAW. Ergo, it's Homebrew.
Yes, they're changing it now. No, it should have never been that way in the first place. Does not erase the fact that it is, and that some people keep arguing 'RAW by JC standards' or that because it's a 'Condition' it's always active even when countered.
I've looked at Umbral Sight in DnDBeyond, there is no 'link' to the invisible condition anywhere in it's text. I can link it from the character sheet and builder both if you don't believe it, but the word invisible, here, does not describe the invisible 'condition' as far as I can see. A post can very easily fake it by simply adding [condition] to the word to make it pop out.
Aaaaah, thank you, that is interesting then. I do not have access to that content which is why I asked for folks to double check this detail specifically. Replies were posted that indicated that such a hyperlink exists so I just assumed that that was true. If that hyperlink actually does not exist then that is a bit more in line with my original interpretation, and with yours as well. This all assumes that how such things are displayed within D&DBeyond is official but I am assuming that it is.
But that's the issue, it IS homebrew. People just refuse to see it otherwise because some guy named JC said otherwise. And that's the part I'm angry about, because I'm quite new to the game, I also asked my DM friend who's been playing for two years, he's never heard of this JC guy either. So for all intend and purposes, everyone it taking that one guy's tweet and treating it as RAW. Ergo, it's Homebrew.
Yes, they're changing it now. No, it should have never been that way in the first place. Does not erase the fact that it is, and that some people keep arguing 'RAW by JC standards' or that because it's a 'Condition' it's always active even when countered.
Ah ok, if you are new to the game then this might just be a question of terminology. Just for your own information, if you and your group are still not actually aware of who JC refers to -- that is Jeremy Crawford:
Crawford became the Co-Lead Designer, along with Mike Mearls, of the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Crawford also became the lead rules developer and managing editor of the edition. He is credited as one of the authors of the Player's Handbook for the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, along with several other books in the edition. He also authors the monthly "Sage Advice" newsletter.
So, he basically wrote the rules for the game. That is an oversimplification obviously but in essence this is why people often post what he says on these forums. Often what he says can clarify what the rules actually say (although sometimes he is wrong because he sometimes responds to questions in the moment without referring back to his own books). At the very least, they can often shed some light into how the rules are intended to function -- that's Rules As Intended (RAI).
I personally don't put any stock into his answers via Twitter but I understand why people post his comments here.
Getting back to your post -- that's not what Homebrew means. 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. By definition, the Rules as Written are not homebrew.
The Rules as Written for this topic have been quoted and explained without even referring to JC for any of it. It is what it is. You can decide that you don't like the rule, but calling the rule homebrew is incorrect.
Finally, no one has said that a Condition is always active even when countered. The problem is that the rules never say anywhere that being seen counters the Condition, so it does not.
I've looked at Umbral Sight in DnDBeyond, there is no 'link' to the invisible condition anywhere in it's text. I can link it from the character sheet and builder both if you don't believe it, but the word invisible, here, does not describe the invisible 'condition' as far as I can see. A post can very easily fake it by simply adding [condition] to the word to make it pop out.
Ah ok, if you are new to the game then this might just be a question of terminology. Just for your own information, if you and your group are still not actually aware of who JC refers to -- that is Jeremy Crawford:
Crawford became the Co-Lead Designer, along with Mike Mearls, of the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Crawford also became the lead rules developer and managing editor of the edition. He is credited as one of the authors of the Player's Handbook for the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, along with several other books in the edition. He also authors the monthly "Sage Advice" newsletter.
So, he basically wrote the rules for the game. That is an oversimplification obviously but in essence this is why people often post what he says on these forums. Often what he says can clarify what the rules actually say (although sometimes he is wrong because he sometimes responds to questions in the moment without referring back to his own books). At the very least, they can often shed some light into how the rules are intended to function -- that's Rules As Intended (RAI).
I personally don't put any stock into his answers via Twitter but I understand why people post his comments here.
Getting back to your post -- that's not what Homebrew means. 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. By definition, the Rules as Written are not homebrew.
The Rules as Written for this topic have been quoted and explained without even referring to JC for any of it. It is what it is. You can decide that you don't like the rule, but calling the rule homebrew is incorrect.
Finally, no one has said that a Condition is always active even when countered. The problem is that the rules never say anywhere that being seen counters the Condition, so it does not.
Yes, I've become aware of who he was over the course of reading comments and such. I'm just saying, for the sake of argument, that not a lot of people actually know who he is. Least not if they are newer players or GM's. So who is is does not matter for the sake of this argument.
Asking that GM friend, he said that it made no sense for the effects of the 'condition' to still be active when seen, this, RAW, to him, means that the condition no longer applies to that player.
And I know what homebrew means, I do a lot of it for my own campaign. You can't tell me that the second point remaining active when the invisible creature is seen is an intended behavior, and expect me to believe you. And yes, plenty of people have. Including you:
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.
And I have never said anything even remotely resembling that the RAW is the intended behavior in this case. How did you get that from what I said in your quoted and bolded text from my post? In fact, it was not intended to work this way and they are in the middle of correcting their mistake. But that doesn't mean it isn't currently the Rules as Written.
And I have never said anything even remotely resembling that the RAW is the intended behavior in this case. How did you get that from what I said in your quoted and bolded text from my post? In fact, it was not intended to work this way and they are in the middle of correcting their mistake. But that doesn't mean it isn't currently the Rules as Written.
He's not, he doesn't know who JC is. Also, I gathered what you were saying from the context of the previous posts, and the rest of the stuff in your post. If you want to backpedal, I won't stop you, but don't try and tell me you didn't do this. You've been caught saying it, and it was the closest example I could find, in the context of my remark which was 'People keep saying that because it's a condition, point 2 still apply' which, even if that may not have been exactly what you were saying, still exacerbates the argument due to the concept of 'it's a condition and nothing says it counters point 2 other than Faerie Fire.
You can't tell me that the second point remaining active when the invisible creature is seen is an intended behavior, and expect me to believe you. And yes, plenty of people have. Including you:
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.
I have NEVER said that this is the intended behavior. On the contrary, I've mentioned several times that this mechanic currently does NOT work as intended. So I have no idea what you're talking about with that.
I really don't understand why you keep making the statements that you are making at this point. You've been told many many times now how this works, and it has nothing at all to do with who JC is.
On the other hand, your most recent comment says this:
'People keep saying that because it's a condition, point 2 still apply' which, . . . , still exacerbates the argument due to the concept of 'it's a condition and nothing says it counters point 2 other than Faerie Fire.
Indeed, this is exactly how it works. What argument are you talking about? There is nothing to argue.
Because it doesn't. It very simply does not. The fact that they're currently changing how invisibility works says as much. All I see are arguments of [currently how it works] being twisted into something that makes absolutely no sense and addressed as if it were' working as intended' when clearly, it's not. [And yes, I can 'homebrew' it, which I -do- but unlike you, I don't call it Homebrew, I call 'how it should normally work']
If we're all agreeing that it shouldn't be a thing, why are YOU still arguing with me? Stop pushing your 'this is the RAW' and all that if you agree with me, because you keep seeming to say things that just contradicts you agreeing that Invisibility is NOT working as intended. [Or w/e your argument is at this point]
Sometimes the "sage advice" forgets to read everything...
See invisible and True sight are going to get around the invisible status at my game table. Sometimes "Sage advice/rulings" just get on the wrong side of RAW vs RAI. There a difference between "detect invisible"(which is more a perception check) and "see invisible" as a spell effect.
In online play, a fog of war vision control actually does better here than a real world gaming miniature tabletop. If a creature is invisible on a live tabletop the DM should have to pull the PC mini from the table and engage that PCs movement secretly from other players, otherwise you're inviting metagaming to the table.
This is a pet peeve of mine with "perception" rolling 3.5 spot and listen checks together for 5e. Arguably the three most valuable spells at 2nd level are silence, invisibility and see invisibility... especially when used together and wisely by a party who uses Dark Elven sign language....
Because it doesn't. It very simply does not. The fact that they're currently changing how invisibility works says as much. All I see are arguments of [currently how it works] being twisted into something that makes absolutely no sense and addressed as if it were' working as intended' when clearly, it's not. [And yes, I can 'homebrew' it, which I -do- but unlike you, I don't call it Homebrew, I call 'how it should normally work']
If we're all agreeing that it shouldn't be a thing, why are YOU still arguing with me? Stop pushing your 'this is the RAW' and all that if you agree with me, because you keep seeming to say things that just contradicts you agreeing that Invisibility is NOT working as intended. [Or w/e your argument is at this point]
Something is still getting lost in translation here. Terms like "RAW" and "homebrew" have very specific meanings in these forums so it's important to use these terms correctly or else your posts will continue to be very confusing.
Like, the beginning of your above post. You cannot say that certain text does not say something and the evidence is that it's being changed. That's nonsensical. Either text says something or it doesn't. That's the idea behind discussions of the Rules As Written -- what does the text actually say and what does it mean. Whether or not the rule functions as intended doesn't change what it says. The way that it was intended to function is referred to as Rules As Intended, or RAI. We all agree on the RAI of this rule.
Whether or not you "call" something homebrew or not doesn't change whether or not it is or it isn't. If you change a rule and play the game according to the changed rule, that's a homebrew rule. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. Saying that your way is "how it should normally work" and therefore is not homebrew is just incorrect usage of that term.
So, either you are just using the terms incorrectly, OR you actually do not think the rules say what they say. In either case, the result is causing you to make statements that are false. I keep correcting you mostly so that future readers who look to this thread for answers aren't getting bad information.
Well you can stop correcting, because I'm not using the terms wrong. Those who believe in JC's post, to my understanding throughout all this research, is telling me that what JC says is true about the second bullet point, is essentially homebrew that has been converted into RAW.
Because JC is just one guy, not a lot of people know who he is, so, as I've been explaining it, bringing his name up generally doesn't mean anything aside from 'some rando on the internet is saying this is how the rules work' when, in all honesty, there wasn't any real confusion about how it was 'supposed to work' [RAI] before he got involved. Referring to my GM friend, I asked him how he thought the 'condition' worked, and without knowing any of this, he told me that when the creature is seen, it doesn't gain any of the benefits from being invisible. When I told him about JC's ruling, he was confused as to why it was even a thing.
So, again, your insistence in 'correcting' me is only causing more confusion. My experience so far, outside of this forum and those who've played this game for a very long time, has been pretty much how I've described it. Yes, everyone believes the rule is idiotic, but it doesn't change the fact that, outside of people who've been playing the game for a very long time, confusion is only introduced when you start bringing up JC's versions of RAW.
Because JC is just one guy, not a lot of people know who he is, so, as I've been explaining it, bringing his name up generally doesn't mean anything . . .
But YOU are the one who keeps bring him up! I refer to the written text and explain what it means and then YOU bring up JCs name . . . again! This makes no sense.
essentially homebrew that has been converted into RAW.
Ok, so again, that's not what these words mean. You cannot "convert homebrew into RAW" without literally republishing a new version of the book which incorporates the new content. Nothing like that is happening here.
Referring to my GM friend, I asked him how he thought the 'condition' worked, and without knowing any of this, he told me that when the creature is seen, it doesn't gain any of the benefits from being invisible.
Your GM friend is wrong. That's not the rule. Now, if your friend was actually talking about "how it should work" then that's a different conversation.
I'm bringing him up because it's part of my argument. You refuse to understand that your methods, your terms, are outdated.
If the rule is being change now, that means it was never intended, meaning it cannot be RAW. Therefore, by pure logic, I can only conclude it was Homebrew because it's a nonsensical way of thinking of that condition. It only further reinforces the issue of 'But I spent a 2nd level spell slot, I should still get something until the spell ends' and otherwise refusing to understand the meaning of specific words in any of the other spells.
And no, my friend is not wrong. He's literally never understood invisibility as working like it was explained on this forum until I asked him if that's how it worked. So please, stop telling me that it's not homebrew, because it's so uncommon that it's being enforced that way that it might as well BE homebrew at this point if you allow it. No one knows that the 'rule' is supposed to work that way. And you're just causing issues for other GM's when the rules lawyers are going to be browsing this conversation trying to find an answer, when it's being changed to begin with.
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.
Interesting. Indeed, that is quite the design departure then for that Feature.
No, it is not. Though, it's likely only refering to invisibile here as 'unseen attacker' or something, basically saying that even if a creature has darkvision, you can't be seen by them in darkness.
That's just it with the issue though, it's a 'mechanical disadvantage' that shouldn't exist, so yes, once combat arises, it will cause issues.
In all fairness, I consider what the people say is RAW 'AS' Homebrew.
Yes it does
What? Was this actually in response to my conversational comment that the Feature mentioned is a design departure for using the Invisible Condition. Because it is. That comment wasn't meant to be debatable. It just is a design departure. The correct response was "Huh, yeah that's true. Very interesting."
It doesn't matter if you consider RAW to be Homebrew. By definition, it is not. RAW is what it is.
Yet again, we all agree on how this concept should work in the game. It's unclear what you've been so upset about throughout this thread although you keep making statements that are false and you keep getting corrected. Hopefully that in and of itself is not what is causing all of this reaction.
I've looked at Umbral Sight in DnDBeyond, there is no 'link' to the invisible condition anywhere in it's text. I can link it from the character sheet and builder both if you don't believe it, but the word invisible, here, does not describe the invisible 'condition' as far as I can see. A post can very easily fake it by simply adding [condition] to the word to make it pop out.
But that's the issue, it IS homebrew. People just refuse to see it otherwise because some guy named JC said otherwise. And that's the part I'm angry about, because I'm quite new to the game, I also asked my DM friend who's been playing for two years, he's never heard of this JC guy either. So for all intend and purposes, everyone it taking that one guy's tweet and treating it as RAW. Ergo, it's Homebrew.
Yes, they're changing it now. No, it should have never been that way in the first place. Does not erase the fact that it is, and that some people keep arguing 'RAW by JC standards' or that because it's a 'Condition' it's always active even when countered.
Aaaaah, thank you, that is interesting then. I do not have access to that content which is why I asked for folks to double check this detail specifically. Replies were posted that indicated that such a hyperlink exists so I just assumed that that was true. If that hyperlink actually does not exist then that is a bit more in line with my original interpretation, and with yours as well. This all assumes that how such things are displayed within D&DBeyond is official but I am assuming that it is.
Ah ok, if you are new to the game then this might just be a question of terminology. Just for your own information, if you and your group are still not actually aware of who JC refers to -- that is Jeremy Crawford:
Crawford became the Co-Lead Designer, along with Mike Mearls, of the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Crawford also became the lead rules developer and managing editor of the edition. He is credited as one of the authors of the Player's Handbook for the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, along with several other books in the edition. He also authors the monthly "Sage Advice" newsletter.
So, he basically wrote the rules for the game. That is an oversimplification obviously but in essence this is why people often post what he says on these forums. Often what he says can clarify what the rules actually say (although sometimes he is wrong because he sometimes responds to questions in the moment without referring back to his own books). At the very least, they can often shed some light into how the rules are intended to function -- that's Rules As Intended (RAI).
I personally don't put any stock into his answers via Twitter but I understand why people post his comments here.
Getting back to your post -- that's not what Homebrew means. 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. By definition, the Rules as Written are not homebrew.
The Rules as Written for this topic have been quoted and explained without even referring to JC for any of it. It is what it is. You can decide that you don't like the rule, but calling the rule homebrew is incorrect.
Finally, no one has said that a Condition is always active even when countered. The problem is that the rules never say anywhere that being seen counters the Condition, so it does not.
I don't what you were looking but i the Character Options: Subclasses - Xanathar's Guide to Everything - Sources - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com) do have hyperlink to the condition as i quoted in post #66.
Yes, I've become aware of who he was over the course of reading comments and such. I'm just saying, for the sake of argument, that not a lot of people actually know who he is. Least not if they are newer players or GM's. So who is is does not matter for the sake of this argument.
Asking that GM friend, he said that it made no sense for the effects of the 'condition' to still be active when seen, this, RAW, to him, means that the condition no longer applies to that player.
And I know what homebrew means, I do a lot of it for my own campaign. You can't tell me that the second point remaining active when the invisible creature is seen is an intended behavior, and expect me to believe you. And yes, plenty of people have. Including you:
Your friend is wrong about what the RAW says.
And I have never said anything even remotely resembling that the RAW is the intended behavior in this case. How did you get that from what I said in your quoted and bolded text from my post? In fact, it was not intended to work this way and they are in the middle of correcting their mistake. But that doesn't mean it isn't currently the Rules as Written.
He's not, he doesn't know who JC is. Also, I gathered what you were saying from the context of the previous posts, and the rest of the stuff in your post. If you want to backpedal, I won't stop you, but don't try and tell me you didn't do this. You've been caught saying it, and it was the closest example I could find, in the context of my remark which was 'People keep saying that because it's a condition, point 2 still apply' which, even if that may not have been exactly what you were saying, still exacerbates the argument due to the concept of 'it's a condition and nothing says it counters point 2 other than Faerie Fire.
Yes, he is wrong about what RAW says here. This is not debatable.
I'm not backpedaling anything. The way that this mechanic works is very clear.
Previously, you made this claim:
I have NEVER said that this is the intended behavior. On the contrary, I've mentioned several times that this mechanic currently does NOT work as intended. So I have no idea what you're talking about with that.
I really don't understand why you keep making the statements that you are making at this point. You've been told many many times now how this works, and it has nothing at all to do with who JC is.
On the other hand, your most recent comment says this:
Indeed, this is exactly how it works. What argument are you talking about? There is nothing to argue.
Because it doesn't. It very simply does not. The fact that they're currently changing how invisibility works says as much. All I see are arguments of [currently how it works] being twisted into something that makes absolutely no sense and addressed as if it were' working as intended' when clearly, it's not. [And yes, I can 'homebrew' it, which I -do- but unlike you, I don't call it Homebrew, I call 'how it should normally work']
If we're all agreeing that it shouldn't be a thing, why are YOU still arguing with me? Stop pushing your 'this is the RAW' and all that if you agree with me, because you keep seeming to say things that just contradicts you agreeing that Invisibility is NOT working as intended. [Or w/e your argument is at this point]
Sometimes the "sage advice" forgets to read everything...
See invisible and True sight are going to get around the invisible status at my game table. Sometimes "Sage advice/rulings" just get on the wrong side of RAW vs RAI. There a difference between "detect invisible"(which is more a perception check) and "see invisible" as a spell effect.
In online play, a fog of war vision control actually does better here than a real world gaming miniature tabletop. If a creature is invisible on a live tabletop the DM should have to pull the PC mini from the table and engage that PCs movement secretly from other players, otherwise you're inviting metagaming to the table.
This is a pet peeve of mine with "perception" rolling 3.5 spot and listen checks together for 5e. Arguably the three most valuable spells at 2nd level are silence, invisibility and see invisibility... especially when used together and wisely by a party who uses Dark Elven sign language....
Something is still getting lost in translation here. Terms like "RAW" and "homebrew" have very specific meanings in these forums so it's important to use these terms correctly or else your posts will continue to be very confusing.
Like, the beginning of your above post. You cannot say that certain text does not say something and the evidence is that it's being changed. That's nonsensical. Either text says something or it doesn't. That's the idea behind discussions of the Rules As Written -- what does the text actually say and what does it mean. Whether or not the rule functions as intended doesn't change what it says. The way that it was intended to function is referred to as Rules As Intended, or RAI. We all agree on the RAI of this rule.
Whether or not you "call" something homebrew or not doesn't change whether or not it is or it isn't. If you change a rule and play the game according to the changed rule, that's a homebrew rule. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. Saying that your way is "how it should normally work" and therefore is not homebrew is just incorrect usage of that term.
So, either you are just using the terms incorrectly, OR you actually do not think the rules say what they say. In either case, the result is causing you to make statements that are false. I keep correcting you mostly so that future readers who look to this thread for answers aren't getting bad information.
Well you can stop correcting, because I'm not using the terms wrong. Those who believe in JC's post, to my understanding throughout all this research, is telling me that what JC says is true about the second bullet point, is essentially homebrew that has been converted into RAW.
Because JC is just one guy, not a lot of people know who he is, so, as I've been explaining it, bringing his name up generally doesn't mean anything aside from 'some rando on the internet is saying this is how the rules work' when, in all honesty, there wasn't any real confusion about how it was 'supposed to work' [RAI] before he got involved. Referring to my GM friend, I asked him how he thought the 'condition' worked, and without knowing any of this, he told me that when the creature is seen, it doesn't gain any of the benefits from being invisible. When I told him about JC's ruling, he was confused as to why it was even a thing.
So, again, your insistence in 'correcting' me is only causing more confusion. My experience so far, outside of this forum and those who've played this game for a very long time, has been pretty much how I've described it. Yes, everyone believes the rule is idiotic, but it doesn't change the fact that, outside of people who've been playing the game for a very long time, confusion is only introduced when you start bringing up JC's versions of RAW.
But YOU are the one who keeps bring him up! I refer to the written text and explain what it means and then YOU bring up JCs name . . . again! This makes no sense.
Ok, so again, that's not what these words mean. You cannot "convert homebrew into RAW" without literally republishing a new version of the book which incorporates the new content. Nothing like that is happening here.
Your GM friend is wrong. That's not the rule. Now, if your friend was actually talking about "how it should work" then that's a different conversation.
I'm bringing him up because it's part of my argument. You refuse to understand that your methods, your terms, are outdated.
If the rule is being change now, that means it was never intended, meaning it cannot be RAW. Therefore, by pure logic, I can only conclude it was Homebrew because it's a nonsensical way of thinking of that condition. It only further reinforces the issue of 'But I spent a 2nd level spell slot, I should still get something until the spell ends' and otherwise refusing to understand the meaning of specific words in any of the other spells.
And no, my friend is not wrong. He's literally never understood invisibility as working like it was explained on this forum until I asked him if that's how it worked. So please, stop telling me that it's not homebrew, because it's so uncommon that it's being enforced that way that it might as well BE homebrew at this point if you allow it. No one knows that the 'rule' is supposed to work that way. And you're just causing issues for other GM's when the rules lawyers are going to be browsing this conversation trying to find an answer, when it's being changed to begin with.
No, it means it's not RAI. RAW means the literal text, not the intent of the text.
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.