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.
No it isn't. RAW is RAW, that is both the beauty and the problem with the concept. Just read the words as they are written and follow it and there you have the RAW.
And in situations like this where the RAW rule is stupid and illogical you are free to ignore those words and make up your own house rule that do make sense to you. Just remember that it is a house rule so that you can discuss it whenever you play with someone new in case they have solved the issue in another way (or not at all).
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.
Conditions last until they are countered.
There is nothing in the rules that states that a condition must exist for every creature present. The charmed condition only exists between the creature that is charmed and the one that did the charming - it has no effect on other creatures present. The frightened condition only applies between the target who is frightened and the source of their fear. Conditions don't have to have a universal effect. A charmed creature is not charmed by everyone. A frightened creature is not frightened by everyone. The rules do not require an invisible creature to be invisible to everyone.
Is it really that much of a stretch for a DM to rule that the invisible condition is countered by the creature being visible?
Or "being seen as if they were visible" in the case of the See Invisibility spell? The See Invisibility spell is pretty clear that it allows them to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. This means, if the invisible creature was holding a sign, a creature affected by See Invisible would be able to read it. A creature with See Invisible can see the invisible creatures arms, legs, hands, weapons, armor, they can see if the invisible creature starts to cast a spell and they can counterspell it.
In my games, I rule that the See Invisibility spell is a counter to the Invisible condition AS stated in the rules on conditions. Of course, only the creature affected by the See Invisibility spell is able to counter the Invisible condition. It is still present for other creatures that can not see the invisible creature. Invisible is simply the inverse of the charmed or frightened conditions which only apply between one pair of creatures. The Invisible condition applies UNLESS the effect is countered. Nothing in RAW specifies that countering a condition MUST be applied to all creatures present in an encounter - as far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules that states that a condition can not be countered on a case by case basis.
In a case where the invisible condition is countered, none of the bullet points apply, and the result, in my opinion is both RAW (or within a ruling of RAW) and how I think most people expect the Invisible condition and See Invisibility to interact.
Effectively, what I'm asking is where, in the rulebook, does it state that this is the correct way to look at this kind of stuff? Not for you to re-explain the invisible condition, as that was no longer the scope of my question.
Let's say I create a condition called Flying:
You can move in the sky, unrestricted by gravity, up to the movement speed listed in your flying speed.
If you stop moving, you begin to fall to the ground at a speed of 50 feet per round.
You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls, and impose disadvantage on ranged attack rolls made against you.
Character A uses the Fly spell. Character B has wings. Because both character have a flying speed, but are currently not flying, does that mean that, per your logic, they always have adv/impose dis on ranged attack rolls? And if so, where in the rulebook does it specify how one should interpret these bullet points?
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.
Thank you, this does provide context. However, the issue remains that, for most, Truesight and See Invisibility have 'countered' the invisible condition. So is this the only text that specifies anything regarding these kind of interactions?
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
I'll read it in a moment, however, I do not see this book in the list of official literature. I cannot buy it, it does not appear when I search for it on the provided app. There really does not seem to be a way to access it without first knowing of it's existence.
Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?
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.
And here we finally have the answer as to why the current RAW of invisible is homebrew. Because the condition isn't being regarded in it's full context. Rather, each individual bullet point is being regarded as it's own, self-contained aspect, without any of it's prior context. Which is where this whole illogical mess, and the ensuing nonsensical arguments, began.
There is nothing in the rules that states that a condition must exist for every creature present. The charmed condition only exists between the creature that is charmed and the one that did the charming - it has no effect on other creatures present. The frightened condition only applies between the target who is frightened and the source of their fear. Conditions don't have to have a universal effect. A charmed creature is not charmed by everyone. A frightened creature is not frightened by everyone. The rules do not require an invisible creature to be invisible to everyone.
No. This misses the concept of a Condition. Conditions have nothing to do with other creatures. They are basically a status effect that effects only the creature that has the Condition.
Is it really that much of a stretch for a DM to rule that the invisible condition is countered by the creature being visible?
In my opinion, yes, it would be a stretch. When you think about it, why would seeing a creature cause that creature's Condition to be removed from it no matter which Condition we're talking about? Like, why would seeing a Frightened creature cause that creature to no longer be Frightened? Or, seeing a Deafened creature causes that creature to no longer be Deafened?
Also, according to the description for the Invisible Condition -- having that condition means that it is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". It doesn't mean that it's impossible to see. It means that it's impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, if you ARE using magic or a special sense to see it -- how is this Condition being countered at all? The Condition says right in the description that that's what it means to be Invisible, so you are still Invisible. Nothing has changed. Only creatures using the aid of magic or a special sense can currently see you . . .
In my games, I rule that the See Invisibility spell is a counter to the Invisible condition AS stated in the rules on conditions. Of course, only the creature affected by the See Invisibility spell is able to counter the Invisible condition. It is still present for other creatures that can not see the invisible creature. Invisible is simply the inverse of the charmed or frightened conditions which only apply between one pair of creatures. The Invisible condition applies UNLESS the effect is countered. Nothing in RAW specifies that countering a condition MUST be applied to all creatures present in an encounter - as far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules that states that a condition can not be countered on a case by case basis.
Yeah, I'm pretty confident that you are thinking about the mechanics of Conditions incorrectly. The Condition cannot be "still present for other creatures . . .". The Condition affects only the creature that has the Condition. The existence of all other creatures in the world are irrelevant. Even in the case of the Charmed and Frightened Conditions, only the creature who has the Condition is affected. Those conditions have defined mechanics which involve another creature, but the creature who is affected is always persistently affected -- it's not really a conditional thing or a relative thing. And the other creature who is referred to within the Frightened or Charmed conditions is not affected. Like, the Frightened Condition doesn't affect two creatures, one positively and one negatively -- it affects the creature who has the Condition. So, it's not really that he is Charmed vs this person or Frightened vs that person. The person is Charmed. Or the person is Frightened. Then those terms are defined with specific effects. If those Conditions are countered then the entire Condition is removed -- he is no longer Charmed or he is no longer Frightened. So, if you are Frightened of creature A but creature A is hundreds of miles away and instead you are standing next to creature B -- you are Frightened. But in the current situation, none of the text related to the Frightened Condition applies. If you are given some sort of a cure for the Frightened Condition (perhaps someone casts Power Word Heal on you) then the Frightened Condition is removed from the creature who was affected by it, and that cure does not affect other creatures.
This is why the best route for "fixing" this in future versions is to actually change the text of the Invisible Condition itself. Because you are not Invisible to this person or that person. You are simply Invisible. Or you are not. Regardless of who can see you and who cannot.
And here you are, closing the loop back on itself, and re-iterating the exact same arguments. It's becoming more and more clear to me that -you- are the broken record in this discussion. Blatantly choosing to ignore context in any situation just to harp on this one point. You are clearly playing a different game than everyone else here, with your own rules and adaptations that you choose to force upon anyone you play with. And to be honestly direct, you are playing with HOMEBREW RULES, and there's nothing that will change that fact, no matter how much you yell about it.
As such, any further argument against you only feel like a waste of time.
You can move in the sky, unrestricted by gravity, up to the movement speed listed in your flying speed.
If you stop moving, you begin to fall to the ground at a speed of 50 feet per round.
You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls, and impose disadvantage on ranged attack rolls made against you.
Character A uses the Fly spell. Character B has wings. Because both character have a flying speed, but are currently not flying, does that mean that, per your logic, they always have adv/impose dis on ranged attack rolls? And if so, where in the rulebook does it specify how one should interpret these bullet points?
It says so right there in your third bullet point, exactly as it does in the second bullet point of the invisible condition, that's where it says in the rules; merely having the condition grants all of the effects that the condition says it does, and it ends when the condition ends.
I'm guessing you're using this example on the assumption that the "flying" condition only applies while using your flying speed (or more specifically, off the ground) and ends when on the ground; but your example rule doesn't actually say that. But if it did, that would make it totally different to the invisible condition which is usually applied by a spell or ability, and lasts until it says it ends.
For example, for the invisibility spell the invisible condition ends for you when you attack or cast a spell, or the spell ends (you lose concentration, someone dispels it etc.), until that happens you have the invisible condition throughout.
the issue remains that, for most, Truesight and See Invisibility have 'countered' the invisible condition. So is this the only text that specifies anything regarding these kind of interactions?
That's not what truesight and see invisibility do though; they don't end or remove the invisible condition, they only allow you to see the invisible creatures, i.e- the creatures are still invisible, but one creature can see them anyway. If they ended the condition on the target, they would say so. Another way to think of it is if being invisible meant you were only visible in the infrared light spectrum, and truesight lets you see in that spectrum, ergo a creature that is invisible to most is visible to you.
I feel like you're getting hung up on the fact that the condition is called "invisible", but you're not being told "the creature is no longer visible to anyone" you're being told that the creature has the invisible condition, and the condition then tells you exactly it does. The word "invisible" is not being used descriptively, it's being used as a keyword or a name. It's understandable to find it illogical, if you're visible then you're not invisible (at least not to a particular creature) but that's what most of us are complaining about; the rule doesn't intuitively model what it's supposed to, but that doesn't alter what the rule says, that's why we want it changed, and why most people likely don't play it as written (knowingly or not).
Imagine the condition was instead called "Condition A"; so long as you have "Condition A" on your character you cannot be seen without special senses, and you have advantage on attacks and disadvantage to be hit. Truesight now says "you can see creatures with the Condition A condition" (thus conforming to the first part of the condition, but doing nothing about the second). You wouldn't argue that seeing a creature with Condition A means that Condition A ends, because the name is meaningless; the difference for invisible is that there's a disconnect between what it's called, and how it functions.
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.
Effectively, what I'm asking is where, in the rulebook, does it state that this is the correct way to look at this kind of stuff?
Appendix A of the PHB defines the rules for Conditions:
Conditions alter a creature's capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster's attack, or other effect. . . .
A condition lasts either until it is countered . . . or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition. . . .
A creature either has a condition or doesn't . . .
The following definitions specify what happens to a creature while it is subjected to a condition.
So, a condition affects a creature -- it's not a relationship between creatures. It can arise in a variety of ways and then persists until it is removed in its entirety. You have the condition or you don't -- you never have a partial condition or only some bullet points of a condition. Everything that is listed for the condition describes what happens to a creature while it is subjected to the condition.
You can move in the sky, unrestricted by gravity, up to the movement speed listed in your flying speed.
If you stop moving, you begin to fall to the ground at a speed of 50 feet per round.
You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls, and impose disadvantage on ranged attack rolls made against you.
Character A uses the Fly spell. Character B has wings. Because both character have a flying speed, but are currently not flying, does that mean that, per your logic, they always have adv/impose dis on ranged attack rolls? And if so, where in the rulebook does it specify how one should interpret these bullet points?
In this example, by far the most important point is that the Fly spell that you hyperlinked would actually have to be altered to impose the Flying Condition on the creature. Without this, your definition for your Condition never comes into play. If that Condition IS imposed by the spell, then everything within your definition for your Condition is then applied to that creature and that Flying Condition is ongoing until it is removed from that creature. It doesn't matter if the creature is currently flying or not. It has the Flying Condition and that condition defines everything that happens to that creature as a result of being afflicted with that Condition.
Thank you, this does provide context. However, the issue remains that, for most, Truesight and See Invisibility have 'countered' the invisible condition. So is this the only text that specifies anything regarding these kind of interactions?
Yes, it's understandable that most people think of it this way. But there are at least three reasons why these do not actually counter the Condition is accordance with the rules. The first two reasons were discussed in my previous reply to David42's post. The third reason is that abilities and spells such as truesight and see invisibility basically target "self". They affect another creature (not the Invisible creature) and grant them with a special power. Those spells do not actually affect the Invisible creature at all.
And here we finally have the answer as to why the current RAW of invisible is homebrew.
Hopefully you are aware by now -- in every post that you ever write in this forum from now until the end of time which discusses any rule in the entire game, this statement will always be 100% wrong. By definition, the written text cannot be homebrew. That's not what the word means.
. . . the condition isn't being regarded in it's full context. Rather, each individual bullet point is being regarded as it's own, self-contained aspect, without any of it's prior context.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. By rule, the entire Condition must be taken together as a whole. While subjected to a Condition, everything listed in the description for that Condition applies to the creature.
You are clearly playing a different game than everyone else here, with your own rules and adaptations that you choose to force upon anyone you play with.
Why in the world would you assume that? Just like everyone else, I don't follow the RAW for this rule.
Is it really that much of a stretch for a DM to rule that the invisible condition is countered by the creature being visible?
Or "being seen as if they were visible" in the case of the See Invisibility spell? The See Invisibility spell is pretty clear that it allows them to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. ints apply, and the result, in my opinion is both RAW (or within a ruling of RAW) and how I think most people expect the Invisible condition and See Invisibility to interact.
The invisible creature's condition is not specifically countered since it's fully active for others, you are not being visible, you're being seen by someone as if you were being visible. So for such creature, an invisible creature is seen. It's still invisible, but someone can see somehow. The Dev infer only the first bullet is not applying to such creature, thus maintaining the advantage/disadvantage bullet.
That is my understanding of the rules and the Dev explanation for it , as stupid as it sound.
Effectively, what I'm asking is where, in the rulebook, does it state that this is the correct way to look at this kind of stuff? Not for you to re-explain the invisible condition, as that was no longer the scope of my question.
No one is re-explaining anything. The rules text is there for all to read and it applies just as it stands, what you need to read it correctly is the rules for the Invisible condition and the general rules for Conditions. That's it.
As has been noted, what you have created doesn't do anything because there is no spell/effect/class feature/other thing that imposes the condition on anyone. You would need to create something that gives the condition to a creature for it to work (and how that something works would tell us how/when the condition works).
And if so, where in the rulebook does it specify how one should interpret these bullet points?
In those bullet points (and in the general rules for Conditions to know how conditions work).
Sure you also need to know the rules about "advantage" and "making an attack" and "attack rolls" and "ranged attack" and likely a bunch more to know what the phrase "You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls" means in totality for your play at the table. But when the text in the condition says "You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls" that means that you gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls because that IS what the text says, you don't need to go look anywhere else to see that.
Its never saud that countering a condition bullet point end the condition. If you somehow dont have advantage\disadvantage to attack rolls for or against you the Invisible condition doesn't ends even though one of its bullet point is no longer working.
Is it really that much of a stretch for a DM to rule that the invisible condition is countered by the creature being visible?
Or "being seen as if they were visible" in the case of the See Invisibility spell? The See Invisibility spell is pretty clear that it allows them to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. ints apply, and the result, in my opinion is both RAW (or within a ruling of RAW) and how I think most people expect the Invisible condition and See Invisibility to interact.
The invisible creature's condition is not specifically countered since it's fully active for others, you are not being visible, you're being seen by someone as if you were being visible. So for such creature, an invisible creature is seen. It's still invisible, but someone can see somehow. The Dev infer only the first bullet is not applying to such creature, thus maintaining the advantage/disadvantage bullet.
That is my understanding of the rules and the Dev explanation for it , as stupid as it sound.
Agreed. The devs doubled down on applying the invisible "condition" in ways that seem excessive. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with defining the invisible condition as imposing disadvantage to attack them and they have advantage to attack, it is a rules choice, but it is simply one that doesn't make any sense in the context of the rules themselves.
The effect of the second bullet of the invisible condition is the same as the unseen attackers rule. The first bullet says that an invisible creature can be seen with special senses or magic. The See Invisibility spell says that the affected creature sees invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. If a creature is visible then they are not subject to the unseen attackers rule. However, the invisible condition appears to apply an equivalent benefit from the effect even when the creature can be seen very clearly.
Logically, (at least in the English language), a creature that can be seen clearly is not invisible with regards to the creature looking at them. The word invisible simply means unseen. If a creature is seen then it is no longer invisible to the viewer. However, due to the way conditions have been written, it is arguable whether a condition can be conditionally removed between two creatures and yet remain for other creatures since the way the condition rules are written leans towards the condition being applied until the condition is removed globally (the rules don't explicitly address that except for " A creature either has a condition or doesn't.".
In my opinion, invisible should not be a condition OR the condition should be written in such a way that if a special sense/magic allows the creature to be seen then they do not receive the benefit equivalent to being unseen. However, I also agree that is not explicitly what the rule itself currently states.
I can justify ruling that it doesn't work that way (if I need any justification :) ) based on either an English language interpretation that a creature can not be invisible to a another creature if it is seen or based on the various senses/magic effects being specific counters to the invisible condition on a case by case basis but I agree that these are a bit of a stretch and that RAW provides the benefit of the second bullet of the invisible condition to creatures even when they can be seen (which logically doesn't make sense to me and is inconsistent with the unseen attackers rule since there is nothing in the invisible condition that would logically provide benefits equivalent to being unseen when an invisible creature can be seen).
I think the logical inconsistency is also why there is so much discussion ... the RAW literally doesn't make sense in the context of the rules unless the invisible condition has some mysterious and undefined magical effect in which the invisible creature still receives benefits even if it is seen as if it were visible. Unfortunately, none of the effects that can make a creature invisible define what that mysterious effect might be.
There is, in the sense that it has several bullet points. The context is within the entirety of the condition, not a singular bullet point.
You might need to explain your thinking more fully on this argument; the first bullet point of the invisible condition is the one that makes an invisible creature unseen, but it's also the one that specifically accounts for creatures with special sense (so the creature can have the invisible condition but also still be visible to some creatures). But that bullet point is just a feature of the condition, and the exception for special senses restricts when that feature applies, but says nothing about ending the condition itself.
The second bullet point just grants the advantage/disadvantage and that's it; it places no restrictions on that, which is why it annoys people because it's a weird decision mechanically, as it's both redundant (with the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules), it's illogical in terms of what invisibility is for (not being seen), and it's not intuitive to players and DMs who mostly just forget it's there to begin with so won't be using the second bullet point anyway. That's why people want it changed, but in terms of Rules As Written it is there, because Rules As Written only cares about what's on the page, not how we feel about it.
I personally ignore or change dozens of 5e's rules in my own games of D&D both as a DM and a player (with DM's consent in the latter case, of course), usually to make things simpler, more logical and/or quicker. For example, in 5e Rules As Written the DM always asks for a roll and specifies the ability score and skill, but I try to avoid asking for specific checks when I decide a check is needed, instead I'll usually just say something like "I'll need some kind of check for this" (or group check if the party is doing something collectively), and basically invite players to tell me what check(s) they'd like to roll and why, and I'll just decide what the DCs and outcomes might be like (or veto silly like Intimidation to scare a wound into closing). I don't always do it right, or forget and ask for something specific, but in general I think it's a good way to avoid falling into the DM's trap of constantly asking for the same checks, and gives players opportunities to use other skills more.
But that doesn't mean I ignore what the RAW says, and when discussing things here I usually try to address what the RAW is then separately mention how I run, or would run, a particular situation. I usually tend to prefer to think of the 5e rules as a toolkit for running the game, rather than a hard instruction set you must follow; most of the time what's on the page is fine to use as-is, but there will always be situations where it won't quite work, so you adjust accordingly, or bring in other optional rules etc.
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.
All of this could have been avoided if the invisible condition didn't have the 2nd bullet. Like that, it would make you impossible to see without magic or special sense, therefore exclusively falling back on Unseen Attackers and Targets for that benefit it may grant, which would be effective for as long as you are unseen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No it isn't. RAW is RAW, that is both the beauty and the problem with the concept. Just read the words as they are written and follow it and there you have the RAW.
And in situations like this where the RAW rule is stupid and illogical you are free to ignore those words and make up your own house rule that do make sense to you. Just remember that it is a house rule so that you can discuss it whenever you play with someone new in case they have solved the issue in another way (or not at all).
Conditions last until they are countered.
There is nothing in the rules that states that a condition must exist for every creature present. The charmed condition only exists between the creature that is charmed and the one that did the charming - it has no effect on other creatures present. The frightened condition only applies between the target who is frightened and the source of their fear. Conditions don't have to have a universal effect. A charmed creature is not charmed by everyone. A frightened creature is not frightened by everyone. The rules do not require an invisible creature to be invisible to everyone.
Is it really that much of a stretch for a DM to rule that the invisible condition is countered by the creature being visible?
Or "being seen as if they were visible" in the case of the See Invisibility spell? The See Invisibility spell is pretty clear that it allows them to see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. This means, if the invisible creature was holding a sign, a creature affected by See Invisible would be able to read it. A creature with See Invisible can see the invisible creatures arms, legs, hands, weapons, armor, they can see if the invisible creature starts to cast a spell and they can counterspell it.
In my games, I rule that the See Invisibility spell is a counter to the Invisible condition AS stated in the rules on conditions. Of course, only the creature affected by the See Invisibility spell is able to counter the Invisible condition. It is still present for other creatures that can not see the invisible creature. Invisible is simply the inverse of the charmed or frightened conditions which only apply between one pair of creatures. The Invisible condition applies UNLESS the effect is countered. Nothing in RAW specifies that countering a condition MUST be applied to all creatures present in an encounter - as far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules that states that a condition can not be countered on a case by case basis.
In a case where the invisible condition is countered, none of the bullet points apply, and the result, in my opinion is both RAW (or within a ruling of RAW) and how I think most people expect the Invisible condition and See Invisibility to interact.
Effectively, what I'm asking is where, in the rulebook, does it state that this is the correct way to look at this kind of stuff? Not for you to re-explain the invisible condition, as that was no longer the scope of my question.
Let's say I create a condition called Flying:
Character A uses the Fly spell. Character B has wings. Because both character have a flying speed, but are currently not flying, does that mean that, per your logic, they always have adv/impose dis on ranged attack rolls? And if so, where in the rulebook does it specify how one should interpret these bullet points?
Thank you, this does provide context. However, the issue remains that, for most, Truesight and See Invisibility have 'countered' the invisible condition. So is this the only text that specifies anything regarding these kind of interactions?
I'll read it in a moment, however, I do not see this book in the list of official literature. I cannot buy it, it does not appear when I search for it on the provided app. There really does not seem to be a way to access it without first knowing of it's existence.
And here we finally have the answer as to why the current RAW of invisible is homebrew. Because the condition isn't being regarded in it's full context. Rather, each individual bullet point is being regarded as it's own, self-contained aspect, without any of it's prior context. Which is where this whole illogical mess, and the ensuing nonsensical arguments, began.
No. This misses the concept of a Condition. Conditions have nothing to do with other creatures. They are basically a status effect that effects only the creature that has the Condition.
In my opinion, yes, it would be a stretch. When you think about it, why would seeing a creature cause that creature's Condition to be removed from it no matter which Condition we're talking about? Like, why would seeing a Frightened creature cause that creature to no longer be Frightened? Or, seeing a Deafened creature causes that creature to no longer be Deafened?
Also, according to the description for the Invisible Condition -- having that condition means that it is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". It doesn't mean that it's impossible to see. It means that it's impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, if you ARE using magic or a special sense to see it -- how is this Condition being countered at all? The Condition says right in the description that that's what it means to be Invisible, so you are still Invisible. Nothing has changed. Only creatures using the aid of magic or a special sense can currently see you . . .
Yeah, I'm pretty confident that you are thinking about the mechanics of Conditions incorrectly. The Condition cannot be "still present for other creatures . . .". The Condition affects only the creature that has the Condition. The existence of all other creatures in the world are irrelevant. Even in the case of the Charmed and Frightened Conditions, only the creature who has the Condition is affected. Those conditions have defined mechanics which involve another creature, but the creature who is affected is always persistently affected -- it's not really a conditional thing or a relative thing. And the other creature who is referred to within the Frightened or Charmed conditions is not affected. Like, the Frightened Condition doesn't affect two creatures, one positively and one negatively -- it affects the creature who has the Condition. So, it's not really that he is Charmed vs this person or Frightened vs that person. The person is Charmed. Or the person is Frightened. Then those terms are defined with specific effects. If those Conditions are countered then the entire Condition is removed -- he is no longer Charmed or he is no longer Frightened. So, if you are Frightened of creature A but creature A is hundreds of miles away and instead you are standing next to creature B -- you are Frightened. But in the current situation, none of the text related to the Frightened Condition applies. If you are given some sort of a cure for the Frightened Condition (perhaps someone casts Power Word Heal on you) then the Frightened Condition is removed from the creature who was affected by it, and that cure does not affect other creatures.
This is why the best route for "fixing" this in future versions is to actually change the text of the Invisible Condition itself. Because you are not Invisible to this person or that person. You are simply Invisible. Or you are not. Regardless of who can see you and who cannot.
And here you are, closing the loop back on itself, and re-iterating the exact same arguments. It's becoming more and more clear to me that -you- are the broken record in this discussion. Blatantly choosing to ignore context in any situation just to harp on this one point. You are clearly playing a different game than everyone else here, with your own rules and adaptations that you choose to force upon anyone you play with. And to be honestly direct, you are playing with HOMEBREW RULES, and there's nothing that will change that fact, no matter how much you yell about it.
As such, any further argument against you only feel like a waste of time.
It says so right there in your third bullet point, exactly as it does in the second bullet point of the invisible condition, that's where it says in the rules; merely having the condition grants all of the effects that the condition says it does, and it ends when the condition ends.
I'm guessing you're using this example on the assumption that the "flying" condition only applies while using your flying speed (or more specifically, off the ground) and ends when on the ground; but your example rule doesn't actually say that. But if it did, that would make it totally different to the invisible condition which is usually applied by a spell or ability, and lasts until it says it ends.
For example, for the invisibility spell the invisible condition ends for you when you attack or cast a spell, or the spell ends (you lose concentration, someone dispels it etc.), until that happens you have the invisible condition throughout.
That's not what truesight and see invisibility do though; they don't end or remove the invisible condition, they only allow you to see the invisible creatures, i.e- the creatures are still invisible, but one creature can see them anyway. If they ended the condition on the target, they would say so. Another way to think of it is if being invisible meant you were only visible in the infrared light spectrum, and truesight lets you see in that spectrum, ergo a creature that is invisible to most is visible to you.
I feel like you're getting hung up on the fact that the condition is called "invisible", but you're not being told "the creature is no longer visible to anyone" you're being told that the creature has the invisible condition, and the condition then tells you exactly it does. The word "invisible" is not being used descriptively, it's being used as a keyword or a name. It's understandable to find it illogical, if you're visible then you're not invisible (at least not to a particular creature) but that's what most of us are complaining about; the rule doesn't intuitively model what it's supposed to, but that doesn't alter what the rule says, that's why we want it changed, and why most people likely don't play it as written (knowingly or not).
Imagine the condition was instead called "Condition A"; so long as you have "Condition A" on your character you cannot be seen without special senses, and you have advantage on attacks and disadvantage to be hit. Truesight now says "you can see creatures with the Condition A condition" (thus conforming to the first part of the condition, but doing nothing about the second). You wouldn't argue that seeing a creature with Condition A means that Condition A ends, because the name is meaningless; the difference for invisible is that there's a disconnect between what it's called, and how it functions.
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.
Appendix A of the PHB defines the rules for Conditions:
So, a condition affects a creature -- it's not a relationship between creatures. It can arise in a variety of ways and then persists until it is removed in its entirety. You have the condition or you don't -- you never have a partial condition or only some bullet points of a condition. Everything that is listed for the condition describes what happens to a creature while it is subjected to the condition.
In this example, by far the most important point is that the Fly spell that you hyperlinked would actually have to be altered to impose the Flying Condition on the creature. Without this, your definition for your Condition never comes into play. If that Condition IS imposed by the spell, then everything within your definition for your Condition is then applied to that creature and that Flying Condition is ongoing until it is removed from that creature. It doesn't matter if the creature is currently flying or not. It has the Flying Condition and that condition defines everything that happens to that creature as a result of being afflicted with that Condition.
Yes, it's understandable that most people think of it this way. But there are at least three reasons why these do not actually counter the Condition is accordance with the rules. The first two reasons were discussed in my previous reply to David42's post. The third reason is that abilities and spells such as truesight and see invisibility basically target "self". They affect another creature (not the Invisible creature) and grant them with a special power. Those spells do not actually affect the Invisible creature at all.
Hopefully you are aware by now -- in every post that you ever write in this forum from now until the end of time which discusses any rule in the entire game, this statement will always be 100% wrong. By definition, the written text cannot be homebrew. That's not what the word means.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. By rule, the entire Condition must be taken together as a whole. While subjected to a Condition, everything listed in the description for that Condition applies to the creature.
Why in the world would you assume that? Just like everyone else, I don't follow the RAW for this rule.
Still 100% wrong. Your use of the term "HOMEBREW" in this context is incorrect. That's not what the word means.
----------
Haravikk has everything totally correct in his latest post. If you don't like my posts for some reason then read his.
The invisible creature's condition is not specifically countered since it's fully active for others, you are not being visible, you're being seen by someone as if you were being visible. So for such creature, an invisible creature is seen. It's still invisible, but someone can see somehow. The Dev infer only the first bullet is not applying to such creature, thus maintaining the advantage/disadvantage bullet.
That is my understanding of the rules and the Dev explanation for it , as stupid as it sound.
No one is re-explaining anything. The rules text is there for all to read and it applies just as it stands, what you need to read it correctly is the rules for the Invisible condition and the general rules for Conditions. That's it.
As has been noted, what you have created doesn't do anything because there is no spell/effect/class feature/other thing that imposes the condition on anyone. You would need to create something that gives the condition to a creature for it to work (and how that something works would tell us how/when the condition works).
In those bullet points (and in the general rules for Conditions to know how conditions work).
Sure you also need to know the rules about "advantage" and "making an attack" and "attack rolls" and "ranged attack" and likely a bunch more to know what the phrase "You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls" means in totality for your play at the table. But when the text in the condition says "You gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls" that means that you gain advantage on your ranged attack rolls because that IS what the text says, you don't need to go look anywhere else to see that.
You really don't understand the meaning of RAW. Most RAW discussions amount to "if you read this rule literally it has really stupid side effects".
Nah, it's homebrew. Because I read what was said on RAW, context still matters.
There's no context to the invisible status, it's just an isolated block of text.
There is, in the sense that it has several bullet points. The context is within the entirety of the condition, not a singular bullet point.
Its never saud that countering a condition bullet point end the condition. If you somehow dont have advantage\disadvantage to attack rolls for or against you the Invisible condition doesn't ends even though one of its bullet point is no longer working.
Agreed. The devs doubled down on applying the invisible "condition" in ways that seem excessive. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with defining the invisible condition as imposing disadvantage to attack them and they have advantage to attack, it is a rules choice, but it is simply one that doesn't make any sense in the context of the rules themselves.
The effect of the second bullet of the invisible condition is the same as the unseen attackers rule. The first bullet says that an invisible creature can be seen with special senses or magic. The See Invisibility spell says that the affected creature sees invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible. If a creature is visible then they are not subject to the unseen attackers rule. However, the invisible condition appears to apply an equivalent benefit from the effect even when the creature can be seen very clearly.
Logically, (at least in the English language), a creature that can be seen clearly is not invisible with regards to the creature looking at them. The word invisible simply means unseen. If a creature is seen then it is no longer invisible to the viewer. However, due to the way conditions have been written, it is arguable whether a condition can be conditionally removed between two creatures and yet remain for other creatures since the way the condition rules are written leans towards the condition being applied until the condition is removed globally (the rules don't explicitly address that except for " A creature either has a condition or doesn't.".
In my opinion, invisible should not be a condition OR the condition should be written in such a way that if a special sense/magic allows the creature to be seen then they do not receive the benefit equivalent to being unseen. However, I also agree that is not explicitly what the rule itself currently states.
I can justify ruling that it doesn't work that way (if I need any justification :) ) based on either an English language interpretation that a creature can not be invisible to a another creature if it is seen or based on the various senses/magic effects being specific counters to the invisible condition on a case by case basis but I agree that these are a bit of a stretch and that RAW provides the benefit of the second bullet of the invisible condition to creatures even when they can be seen (which logically doesn't make sense to me and is inconsistent with the unseen attackers rule since there is nothing in the invisible condition that would logically provide benefits equivalent to being unseen when an invisible creature can be seen).
I think the logical inconsistency is also why there is so much discussion ... the RAW literally doesn't make sense in the context of the rules unless the invisible condition has some mysterious and undefined magical effect in which the invisible creature still receives benefits even if it is seen as if it were visible. Unfortunately, none of the effects that can make a creature invisible define what that mysterious effect might be.
You might need to explain your thinking more fully on this argument; the first bullet point of the invisible condition is the one that makes an invisible creature unseen, but it's also the one that specifically accounts for creatures with special sense (so the creature can have the invisible condition but also still be visible to some creatures). But that bullet point is just a feature of the condition, and the exception for special senses restricts when that feature applies, but says nothing about ending the condition itself.
The second bullet point just grants the advantage/disadvantage and that's it; it places no restrictions on that, which is why it annoys people because it's a weird decision mechanically, as it's both redundant (with the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules), it's illogical in terms of what invisibility is for (not being seen), and it's not intuitive to players and DMs who mostly just forget it's there to begin with so won't be using the second bullet point anyway. That's why people want it changed, but in terms of Rules As Written it is there, because Rules As Written only cares about what's on the page, not how we feel about it.
I personally ignore or change dozens of 5e's rules in my own games of D&D both as a DM and a player (with DM's consent in the latter case, of course), usually to make things simpler, more logical and/or quicker. For example, in 5e Rules As Written the DM always asks for a roll and specifies the ability score and skill, but I try to avoid asking for specific checks when I decide a check is needed, instead I'll usually just say something like "I'll need some kind of check for this" (or group check if the party is doing something collectively), and basically invite players to tell me what check(s) they'd like to roll and why, and I'll just decide what the DCs and outcomes might be like (or veto silly like Intimidation to scare a wound into closing). I don't always do it right, or forget and ask for something specific, but in general I think it's a good way to avoid falling into the DM's trap of constantly asking for the same checks, and gives players opportunities to use other skills more.
But that doesn't mean I ignore what the RAW says, and when discussing things here I usually try to address what the RAW is then separately mention how I run, or would run, a particular situation. I usually tend to prefer to think of the 5e rules as a toolkit for running the game, rather than a hard instruction set you must follow; most of the time what's on the page is fine to use as-is, but there will always be situations where it won't quite work, so you adjust accordingly, or bring in other optional rules etc.
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.
All of this could have been avoided if the invisible condition didn't have the 2nd bullet. Like that, it would make you impossible to see without magic or special sense, therefore exclusively falling back on Unseen Attackers and Targets for that benefit it may grant, which would be effective for as long as you are unseen.