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.
It'd be interesting to find out how many people actually just run it that way, and how many of those even know there is a second bullet point.
When my current groups started playing most of us hadn't really read much of the rules, we just assumed things would function logically and then only looked up the actual rule if we thought we needed to; so first time one of us went invisible, we just treated enemies as being unable to see them (as you'd expect), and then looked at the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule when we wanted to know what that meant mechanically.
We never though to also look at the condition. Even when I've looked over conditions and seen the second bullet point, I always just thought to myself "that's probably just there as a reminder", never even occurred to me it would overrule things like truesight until I read about it online.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
…The 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.
Nicely put. I was thinking that Invisible shouldn't be a condition because it only exists with respect to some observers. I hadn't thought about that idea applying to other conditions.
Someone under the frightened or charmed nditions has the condition despite being by a specific creature.
A creature either has a condition or doesn't , wether its invisible, frightened or charmed for some people but not others. I attribute that to oversimplification as the concept at first seems.more adapted to conditions such as prone,.blinded, unconscious or deafened.
Invisibility is not a condition, it is the effect of a type of arcane power known to those who study it as illusion based magic.
Because illusion based arcane magic has the ability to alter the perspective of the entity and or entities effected by such energies, sans the entity that is the origin of the illusion.
The current understanding of the magic spell invisibility by those who believe the origin entity that has the effect of being “invisible” retains the bonus of advantage when attacking, whilst any entity that attacks the “invisible” entity is at disadvantage are partially correct.
Due to the fact that an entity that is under the illusion of being “invisible” and with the exception that if an entity can “see through” the illusion, then bonuses apply to entities that can not by use of magic or special abilities or senses detect or otherwise perceive the illusion and thus visually “see” location of the origin entity. however, the origin entity shall not be granted such bonuses when a different entity qualifies for the exception.
Quote from ShadoUrufu>>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.
The context is that both bullet points are part of the condition, therefore, the context of the second bullet point being no longer valid has already been described in the first.
It be like making a list for groceries, for example, and writing which store to by it from. If I shop at two places, I can do this two ways, one where each items under the store name are things I buy at that store, with the context being the name of the store above the list of items. EX: Walmart (Item 1, Item 2), Sobeys(Item 3, Item 4).
RAW, in this case, is putting every items down, and then assigning the store to it. Making it a forced redundancy because, if the redundancy isn't present, I'll just buy it at the first store I go to. Ex: Item 1 (Walmart), Item 2 (Sobeys), Item 3 , Item 4 (Walmart).
This is how the current 'RAW' looks like to me, because someone didn't copy/paste the process that ends the condition to every bullet point, people have decided to take -only- that bullet point outside of any context, and make a whole deal about it.
For further context, take any other conditions that exist. It's very common knowledge that once the condition ends, 'all' the bullet points stop working. They did not need to specify, in every bullet point: This effect is not permanent and will disappear once the condition ends.
Invisible, and in some context Charmed/Frightened, are very weird interactions. Except Charmed/Frightened is the lens from the other side of the coin. You're affected bit it, conditionally, if the creature that put those conditions on you is somewhere it can make use of those conditions. Which shows that, even in some context, only a single creature can interact with a condition that afflicts another creature.
Someone under the frightened or charmed nditions has the condition despite being by a specific creature.
A creature either has a condition or doesn't , wether its invisible, frightened or charmed for some people but not others. I attribute that to oversimplification as the concept at first seems.more adapted to conditions such as prone,.blinded, unconscious or deafened.
In actuality, these two conditions are actually the other side of the coin invisibility is on. Conditions that affect you, but can only be interacted with by a single creature. Showing some context for situations such as See Invisibility and Truesight having a similar amount of interactivity available to them, from the other side of said coin.
If only one creature can interact with the Charmed/Frightened creature to make it 'active' then only one creature needs to interact with the invisible creature to make the condition 'inactive'.
Invisible, and in some context Charmed/Frightened, are very weird interactions. Except Charmed/Frightened is the lens from the other side of the coin. You're affected bit it, conditionally, if the creature that put those conditions on you is somewhere it can make use of those conditions. Which shows that, even in some context, only a single creature can interact with a condition that afflicts another creature.
In actuality, these two conditions are actually the other side of the coin invisibility is on. Conditions that affect you, but can only be interacted with by a single creature. Showing some context for situations such as See Invisibility and Truesight having a similar amount of interactivity available to them, from the other side of said coin.
If only one creature can interact with the Charmed/Frightened creature to make it 'active' then only one creature needs to interact with the invisible creature to make the condition 'inactive'.
Ok, that was a good explanation -- at least we understand how you're looking at it now.
But the thing is, this isn't how Conditions work. Other creatures do not "interact with" a Condition that you have. A Condition is more like what many video games would refer to as a status effect. The creature has it or it doesn't and the existence of other creatures doesn't matter. If you have miniatures on a combat map, you "mark" the mini in a certain way to indicate that that creature "has" a Condition. Green for poisoned, red for unconscious, blue for invisible, or whatever. That marker stays on there until the Condition is removed.
Just seeing a creature doesn't remove any of that creature's Conditions -- how could it? Nothing has happened to that creature so how could anything have changed? It's like saying that smelling a creature removes that creature's Poisoned Condition or hearing a creature removes its Unconscious Condition. How? Not to mention that it doesn't say so anywhere in the text.
The Invisibility spell is just one way of many to have the invisible condition, other aren't necessarily arcane power or illusion based magic.
While the method of how an entity becomes “invisible” are many, the “rules and mechanics” for the application of the bonuses remain the same as I have previously described.
the issue is that there are a number of different conditions and effects that are dynamic in their mechanical interaction that forces a measure of logic to be applied when multiple variables interact, and are piss poorly written as to how the interactions are handled.
The context is that both bullet points are part of the condition, therefore, the context of the second bullet point being no longer valid has already been described in the first.
The first bullet point says nothing about ending the condition or the second bullet point, only that you are unseen unless a creature has a special sense, that's it.
It be like making a list for groceries, for example, and writing which store to by it from. If I shop at two places, I can do this two ways, one where each items under the store name are things I buy at that store, with the context being the name of the store above the list of items. EX: Walmart (Item 1, Item 2), Sobeys(Item 3, Item 4).
RAW, in this case, is putting every items down, and then assigning the store to it. Making it a forced redundancy because, if the redundancy isn't present, I'll just buy it at the first store I go to. Ex: Item 1 (Walmart), Item 2 (Sobeys), Item 3 , Item 4 (Walmart).
I'm not sure of the intention in this comparison? If you got to Store A with a list of four items you want, and it doesn't have the first of these, you can still get the remaining three.
But that's not really comparable to conditions in any useful way; if you cast the invisibility spell upon yourself you gain the invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell (and only the spell*) specifies how and when that condition ends, until that happens you have the invisible condition.
A creature seeing you does not cancel the invisible condition nor end the invisibility spell, it only counteracts the first bullet point of the condition (which specifically addresses this). The second bullet point is unaffected, which is why everyone in this thread hates it.
*There do however exist effects that can suppress the condition, such as faerie fire and branding smite, but these have very specific wording to that effect, though they still don't end the condition (only suppress it for their own duration).
This is how the current 'RAW' looks like to me, because someone didn't copy/paste the process that ends the condition to every bullet point, people have decided to take -only- that bullet point outside of any context, and make a whole deal about it.
This is a big assumption, and you can't make assumptions when talking about Rules As Written, you can only do as the rule says to do; that's what Rules As Written means. There are certainly cases where what is written is imprecise (there are multiple ways to interpret it), but there really isn't in this case.
The invisible condition's second bullet says you get advantage when invisible, and others have disadvantage against you, so that's what happens when you're invisible; the first bullet point being ignored changes nothing about this in RAW.
For further context, take any other conditions that exist. It's very common knowledge that once the condition ends, 'all' the bullet points stop working. They did not need to specify, in every bullet point: This effect is not permanent and will disappear once the condition ends.
The invisible condition doesn't end when a creature sees you; conditions, or the effects that grant them, tell you when they end, and the neither the invisibility spell nor invisible condition tell you that they end when a creature can somehow see you anyway, only the first bullet says that and only in reference to what the first bullet point says. If it meant to end the condition it would say so.
Again, think of it like the invisible condition making you impossible to see in the normal colour spectrum; creatures with truesight are like creatures that can also see in infrared/ultraviolet, therefore they can see you anyway, but you are still invisible in the normal colour spectrum regardless. It's like how night vision cameras/goggles work; they detect light that we can't see with our human eyes – light that is invisible to us, but not to them. Just because someone is wearing night vision goggles doesn't mean that infrared/ultraviolet light is now visible to everyone, it's still invisible.
Invisible, and in some context Charmed/Frightened, are very weird interactions. Except Charmed/Frightened is the lens from the other side of the coin. You're affected bit it, conditionally, if the creature that put those conditions on you is somewhere it can make use of those conditions. Which shows that, even in some context, only a single creature can interact with a condition that afflicts another creature.
Charmed and frightened are both also persistent conditions; while they might not have any impact without the source of your fear/charm to trigger their effects, you are still charmed/frightened until the trigger effect says so (which can have other repercussions if another effect targets charmed or frightened creatures, or the originating effect has additional conditions such as geas).
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.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
2. You're not taking the comparison as I explained it. The idea that I want to pick up a specific item at a specific store implies the context I'm talking about. [Maybe there's a sale, hence why I want that item there specifically], whereas the current RAW would be not caring about the sale and just buying it at the first place seen. [But again, not the point.] You asked me to explain what I meant by context, and that's what I meant. If I put everything in box 1, I know it's all a part of whatever's going on in box 1. 'RAW' is currently knocking the second point out of the box, and trying to pass it off as if it's in it's own box, entirely separate from the rest of the condition. The reason why, in my logic, See Invisibility and Truesight work without needing wording, is BECAUSE the first bullet point implies the context of the entire condition. And yes, it is negated, for that specific creature only. It doesn't 'end' but it might as well behave as if it were.
3. The first bullet point has everything to do with why it's homebrew, and not RAW. Sage advice said itself, when looking at RAW, they look at the context of the singular, in this case, condition. Bullet point 1 specifies the context in which invisibility fails to function.
4. That's not what I've been saying. But you've still just proved my side of the argument: THAT creature can still see the invisible creature. It doesn't matter that the condition is still active anymore. In a 1v1, an invisible creature being seen in the infrared spectrum or untraviolet spectrum might as well be fully visible, and thus, the condition is negated for the creature able to see past the invisibility.
5. I'm not saying that the condition ends, but that it's as selective as Charmed of Frightened. To paraphrase what you said in the context of Invisibility: You are invisible to any source that aren't able to interact with the invisibility condition. Just like you can be interacted with anything that interacts with charmed or frightened, when you have those conditions. Those interactions do not 'end' the condition, but because Charmed/Frightened are primarily negative, the interaction comes with more negative effects for that creature. Whereas Invisible is a Positive condition, making you unseen from others. But all interactions with Invisible are from a negative angle: I can see you.
TL;DR: Invisible should not be a condition, or the second bullet point should not exist. It does not change the fact that, in current RAW, the second bullet point is taken completely out of context as a means to justify the condition still being 'active' even though it's been countered [but not removed]. Most conditions, when they are countered, are also removed at the same time, which is why there's such confusion in the first place. No one is saying they removed the condition, except for Faerie Fire/Branding Smite, because those spells have the unique effect of spreading the ability to SEE the invisible creatures to everyone, not just the person with the special sense. That is why -THEY- needed that special distinction.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
That's not at all what the first bullet point says. There is no "context" that causes it to say something different; it only says what it says, and what it says that is "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or special senses" as one of its two features.
What it does not say is "if a creature can see you this condition and all of its features end" or "a creature that can see you ignores this condition in its entirety", talk of context and shopping lists doesn't conjure up what simply isn't there.
The condition has two features, only one of which is being ignored; at no point are we told to ignore both, so we don't, because that's how Rules As Written works, as we can't invent text that isn't there in a RAW argument. It's a dumb way for the rule to work, but it is absolutely how it does.
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.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
The first bullet doesn't describe what bypass the condition, it says that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense, thus conceding that those circumstances can make it possible to see such creature and more importantly, does not say it bypass or couunter the condition despite it..
The condition has two features, only one of which is being ignored;
Actually, I can't think of any scenario where the first bullet of the Invisible Condition is ignored. It always applies.
In the real world we think of the word "invisible" as meaning "impossible to see".
However, in D&D 5e that's not what it means. Explicitly, being Invisible means "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Therefore, IF you ARE using magic or a special sense to see an Invisible creature . . . that's just normal. It conforms to the very definition of being Invisible, so nothing has changed. The entire first bullet still applies. Such as, "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." All of this remains true. Now, there are other rules such as that you cannot Hide in plain sight that might situationally come into play, but that's a separate rule.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition,
2. . . . And yes, it is negated, for that specific creature only.
3. . . . Bullet point 1 specifies the context in which invisibility fails to function.
4. . . . the condition is negated for the creature able to see past the invisibility.
. . . even though it's been countered [but not removed].
All of these statements are similar and they are all incorrect. Seeing an invisible creature doesn't change anything about the invisible creature. It is still in the same state that it was in before you saw it. If it had the Invisible Condition before you saw it then it continues to have the Invisible Condition after you saw it. Similarly, if a creature had the Poisoned Condition before you smelled it then it continues to have the Poisoned Condition after you smelled it.
2. . . . And yes, it is negated, for that specific creature only.
4. . . . the condition is negated for the creature able to see past the invisibility.
5. You are invisible to any source that aren't able to interact with the invisibility condition. Just like you can be interacted with anything that interacts with charmed or frightened, when you have those conditions. Those interactions do not 'end' the condition, but because Charmed/Frightened are primarily negative, the interaction comes with more negative effects for that creature. . . . But all interactions with Invisible are from a negative angle: I can see you.
All of these statements share a similar misunderstanding about Conditions. Conditions have nothing to do with "other" creatures -- they only affect the creature that has the Condition. The manner in which that creature is affected is defined by the Condition. Any talk of "interacting" with other creatures is not really accurate. A creature has a Condition or it doesn't.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
The first bullet doesn't describe what bypass the condition, it says that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense, thus conceding that those circumstances can make it possible to see such creature and more importantly, does not say it bypass or couunter the condition despite it..
It says enough to warrant logic to take over. If a creature is 'seen' therefore, it does not benefit from being 'unseen' no matter the circumstance it's presented in.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
That's not at all what the first bullet point says. There is no "context" that causes it to say something different; it only says what it says, and what it says that is "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or special senses" as one of its two features.
What it does not say is "if a creature can see you this condition and all of its features end" or "a creature that can see you ignores this condition in its entirety", talk of context and shopping lists doesn't conjure up what simply isn't there.
The condition has two features, only one of which is being ignored; at no point are we told to ignore both, so we don't, because that's how Rules As Written works, as we can't invent text that isn't there in a RAW argument. It's a dumb way for the rule to work, but it is absolutely how it does.
Once more, you're just going into your homebrew interpretation of what this actually means. From the Sage Advice compendium:
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.
Your ruling does not stand on it's own, because you must remove it from the context of the first bullet point to even validate it existing in a permanent sense. You are purposely ignoring the first bullet point, which indicates how the 'condition' is supposed to function, in context with itself. Furthermore, by your own wording, Blinded, Charmed, Deafened, Frightened, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Restrained, Stunned, or Unconcious also never end. Because their conditions do not specify ending when the condition ends. Therefore, you are bending the logic of conditions for the purposes of keeping a single bullet point.
Funny, thought the word “condition” also meant if X meets or equals some relative value or qualification then Y shall apply, otherwise Y can not be applied.
wonder if this particular context of the word was taken into consideration?
Seems as if being “invisible” is some form of quantum entanglement paradox that might not have been considered.
Furthermore, by your own wording, Blinded, Charmed, Deafened, Frightened, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Restrained, Stunned, or Unconcious also never end.
That's correct. The rule says:
A condition lasts either until it is countered . . . or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
An example of "for a duration specified" can be seen in the invisibility spell:
A creature you touch becomes invisibleuntil the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
Note that the spell has a duration of 1 hour.
Now, suppose that instead of the Invisible Condition we were talking about the Paralyzed Condition . . .
An example of "until it is countered" can be seen in the lesser restoration spell:
You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it. The condition can be blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned.
Your ruling does not stand on it's own, because you must remove it from the context of the first bullet point to even validate it existing in a permanent sense. You are purposely ignoring the first bullet point, which indicates how the 'condition' is supposed to function, in context with itself.
I am not ignoring the first bullet point; I am repeating exactly what it says. There is no "context" that magically causes it to say something else; your interpretation is homebrew because you are inventing text that isn't there.
Rules As Written is concerned only with what it says on the page, not what you want it to say.
Feel free to find where in the rules it says that ignoring one bullet point of a list means you get to ignore the entire list; if you can find such a rule it will support your argument for the invisible condition and then proceed to break the entire rest of the game.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It'd be interesting to find out how many people actually just run it that way, and how many of those even know there is a second bullet point.
When my current groups started playing most of us hadn't really read much of the rules, we just assumed things would function logically and then only looked up the actual rule if we thought we needed to; so first time one of us went invisible, we just treated enemies as being unable to see them (as you'd expect), and then looked at the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule when we wanted to know what that meant mechanically.
We never though to also look at the condition. Even when I've looked over conditions and seen the second bullet point, I always just thought to myself "that's probably just there as a reminder", never even occurred to me it would overrule things like truesight until I read about it online.
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.
Or just specified that it was restating the unseen attackers and targets rule.
Nicely put. I was thinking that Invisible shouldn't be a condition because it only exists with respect to some observers. I hadn't thought about that idea applying to other conditions.
Someone under the frightened or charmed nditions has the condition despite being by a specific creature.
A creature either has a condition or doesn't , wether its invisible, frightened or charmed for some people but not others. I attribute that to oversimplification as the concept at first seems.more adapted to conditions such as prone,.blinded, unconscious or deafened.
Invisibility is not a condition, it is the effect of a type of arcane power known to those who study it as illusion based magic.
Because illusion based arcane magic has the ability to alter the perspective of the entity and or entities effected by such energies, sans the entity that is the origin of the illusion.
The current understanding of the magic spell invisibility by those who believe the origin entity that has the effect of being “invisible” retains the bonus of advantage when attacking, whilst any entity that attacks the “invisible” entity is at disadvantage are partially correct.
Due to the fact that an entity that is under the illusion of being “invisible” and with the exception that if an entity can “see through” the illusion, then bonuses apply to entities that can not by use of magic or special abilities or senses detect or otherwise perceive the illusion and thus visually “see” location of the origin entity. however, the origin entity shall not be granted such bonuses when a different entity qualifies for the exception.
The context is that both bullet points are part of the condition, therefore, the context of the second bullet point being no longer valid has already been described in the first.
It be like making a list for groceries, for example, and writing which store to by it from. If I shop at two places, I can do this two ways, one where each items under the store name are things I buy at that store, with the context being the name of the store above the list of items. EX: Walmart (Item 1, Item 2), Sobeys(Item 3, Item 4).
RAW, in this case, is putting every items down, and then assigning the store to it. Making it a forced redundancy because, if the redundancy isn't present, I'll just buy it at the first store I go to. Ex: Item 1 (Walmart), Item 2 (Sobeys), Item 3 , Item 4 (Walmart).
This is how the current 'RAW' looks like to me, because someone didn't copy/paste the process that ends the condition to every bullet point, people have decided to take -only- that bullet point outside of any context, and make a whole deal about it.
For further context, take any other conditions that exist. It's very common knowledge that once the condition ends, 'all' the bullet points stop working. They did not need to specify, in every bullet point: This effect is not permanent and will disappear once the condition ends.
Invisible, and in some context Charmed/Frightened, are very weird interactions. Except Charmed/Frightened is the lens from the other side of the coin. You're affected bit it, conditionally, if the creature that put those conditions on you is somewhere it can make use of those conditions. Which shows that, even in some context, only a single creature can interact with a condition that afflicts another creature.
In actuality, these two conditions are actually the other side of the coin invisibility is on. Conditions that affect you, but can only be interacted with by a single creature. Showing some context for situations such as See Invisibility and Truesight having a similar amount of interactivity available to them, from the other side of said coin.
If only one creature can interact with the Charmed/Frightened creature to make it 'active' then only one creature needs to interact with the invisible creature to make the condition 'inactive'.
Ok, that was a good explanation -- at least we understand how you're looking at it now.
But the thing is, this isn't how Conditions work. Other creatures do not "interact with" a Condition that you have. A Condition is more like what many video games would refer to as a status effect. The creature has it or it doesn't and the existence of other creatures doesn't matter. If you have miniatures on a combat map, you "mark" the mini in a certain way to indicate that that creature "has" a Condition. Green for poisoned, red for unconscious, blue for invisible, or whatever. That marker stays on there until the Condition is removed.
Just seeing a creature doesn't remove any of that creature's Conditions -- how could it? Nothing has happened to that creature so how could anything have changed? It's like saying that smelling a creature removes that creature's Poisoned Condition or hearing a creature removes its Unconscious Condition. How? Not to mention that it doesn't say so anywhere in the text.
While the method of how an entity becomes “invisible” are many, the “rules and mechanics” for the application of the bonuses remain the same as I have previously described.
the issue is that there are a number of different conditions and effects that are dynamic in their mechanical interaction that forces a measure of logic to be applied when multiple variables interact, and are piss poorly written as to how the interactions are handled.
The first bullet point says nothing about ending the condition or the second bullet point, only that you are unseen unless a creature has a special sense, that's it.
I'm not sure of the intention in this comparison? If you got to Store A with a list of four items you want, and it doesn't have the first of these, you can still get the remaining three.
But that's not really comparable to conditions in any useful way; if you cast the invisibility spell upon yourself you gain the invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell (and only the spell*) specifies how and when that condition ends, until that happens you have the invisible condition.
A creature seeing you does not cancel the invisible condition nor end the invisibility spell, it only counteracts the first bullet point of the condition (which specifically addresses this). The second bullet point is unaffected, which is why everyone in this thread hates it.
*There do however exist effects that can suppress the condition, such as faerie fire and branding smite, but these have very specific wording to that effect, though they still don't end the condition (only suppress it for their own duration).
This is a big assumption, and you can't make assumptions when talking about Rules As Written, you can only do as the rule says to do; that's what Rules As Written means. There are certainly cases where what is written is imprecise (there are multiple ways to interpret it), but there really isn't in this case.
The invisible condition's second bullet says you get advantage when invisible, and others have disadvantage against you, so that's what happens when you're invisible; the first bullet point being ignored changes nothing about this in RAW.
The invisible condition doesn't end when a creature sees you; conditions, or the effects that grant them, tell you when they end, and the neither the invisibility spell nor invisible condition tell you that they end when a creature can somehow see you anyway, only the first bullet says that and only in reference to what the first bullet point says. If it meant to end the condition it would say so.
Again, think of it like the invisible condition making you impossible to see in the normal colour spectrum; creatures with truesight are like creatures that can also see in infrared/ultraviolet, therefore they can see you anyway, but you are still invisible in the normal colour spectrum regardless. It's like how night vision cameras/goggles work; they detect light that we can't see with our human eyes – light that is invisible to us, but not to them. Just because someone is wearing night vision goggles doesn't mean that infrared/ultraviolet light is now visible to everyone, it's still invisible.
Charmed and frightened are both also persistent conditions; while they might not have any impact without the source of your fear/charm to trigger their effects, you are still charmed/frightened until the trigger effect says so (which can have other repercussions if another effect targets charmed or frightened creatures, or the originating effect has additional conditions such as geas).
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.
1. It doesn't change the fact that the first bullet point for the condition describes what can bypass the condition, thus giving context to the entire condition of how it's supposed to interact.
2. You're not taking the comparison as I explained it. The idea that I want to pick up a specific item at a specific store implies the context I'm talking about. [Maybe there's a sale, hence why I want that item there specifically], whereas the current RAW would be not caring about the sale and just buying it at the first place seen. [But again, not the point.]
You asked me to explain what I meant by context, and that's what I meant. If I put everything in box 1, I know it's all a part of whatever's going on in box 1. 'RAW' is currently knocking the second point out of the box, and trying to pass it off as if it's in it's own box, entirely separate from the rest of the condition. The reason why, in my logic, See Invisibility and Truesight work without needing wording, is BECAUSE the first bullet point implies the context of the entire condition. And yes, it is negated, for that specific creature only. It doesn't 'end' but it might as well behave as if it were.
3. The first bullet point has everything to do with why it's homebrew, and not RAW. Sage advice said itself, when looking at RAW, they look at the context of the singular, in this case, condition. Bullet point 1 specifies the context in which invisibility fails to function.
4. That's not what I've been saying. But you've still just proved my side of the argument: THAT creature can still see the invisible creature. It doesn't matter that the condition is still active anymore. In a 1v1, an invisible creature being seen in the infrared spectrum or untraviolet spectrum might as well be fully visible, and thus, the condition is negated for the creature able to see past the invisibility.
5. I'm not saying that the condition ends, but that it's as selective as Charmed of Frightened. To paraphrase what you said in the context of Invisibility: You are invisible to any source that aren't able to interact with the invisibility condition. Just like you can be interacted with anything that interacts with charmed or frightened, when you have those conditions. Those interactions do not 'end' the condition, but because Charmed/Frightened are primarily negative, the interaction comes with more negative effects for that creature.
Whereas Invisible is a Positive condition, making you unseen from others. But all interactions with Invisible are from a negative angle: I can see you.
TL;DR: Invisible should not be a condition, or the second bullet point should not exist. It does not change the fact that, in current RAW, the second bullet point is taken completely out of context as a means to justify the condition still being 'active' even though it's been countered [but not removed]. Most conditions, when they are countered, are also removed at the same time, which is why there's such confusion in the first place. No one is saying they removed the condition, except for Faerie Fire/Branding Smite, because those spells have the unique effect of spreading the ability to SEE the invisible creatures to everyone, not just the person with the special sense. That is why -THEY- needed that special distinction.
That's not at all what the first bullet point says. There is no "context" that causes it to say something different; it only says what it says, and what it says that is "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or special senses" as one of its two features.
What it does not say is "if a creature can see you this condition and all of its features end" or "a creature that can see you ignores this condition in its entirety", talk of context and shopping lists doesn't conjure up what simply isn't there.
The condition has two features, only one of which is being ignored; at no point are we told to ignore both, so we don't, because that's how Rules As Written works, as we can't invent text that isn't there in a RAW argument. It's a dumb way for the rule to work, but it is absolutely how it does.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The first bullet doesn't describe what bypass the condition, it says that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense, thus conceding that those circumstances can make it possible to see such creature and more importantly, does not say it bypass or couunter the condition despite it..
Actually, I can't think of any scenario where the first bullet of the Invisible Condition is ignored. It always applies.
In the real world we think of the word "invisible" as meaning "impossible to see".
However, in D&D 5e that's not what it means. Explicitly, being Invisible means "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Therefore, IF you ARE using magic or a special sense to see an Invisible creature . . . that's just normal. It conforms to the very definition of being Invisible, so nothing has changed. The entire first bullet still applies. Such as, "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." All of this remains true. Now, there are other rules such as that you cannot Hide in plain sight that might situationally come into play, but that's a separate rule.
This statement is always 100% wrong no matter what rule you are talking about. This is not what the words homebrew and RAW mean.
All of these statements are similar and they are all incorrect. Seeing an invisible creature doesn't change anything about the invisible creature. It is still in the same state that it was in before you saw it. If it had the Invisible Condition before you saw it then it continues to have the Invisible Condition after you saw it. Similarly, if a creature had the Poisoned Condition before you smelled it then it continues to have the Poisoned Condition after you smelled it.
All of these statements share a similar misunderstanding about Conditions. Conditions have nothing to do with "other" creatures -- they only affect the creature that has the Condition. The manner in which that creature is affected is defined by the Condition. Any talk of "interacting" with other creatures is not really accurate. A creature has a Condition or it doesn't.
So a creature who is “invisible” has a ailment that unless completely removed, retains the ability of the ailment indefinitely?
Seems to be the case, which is quite dumb.
It says enough to warrant logic to take over. If a creature is 'seen' therefore, it does not benefit from being 'unseen' no matter the circumstance it's presented in.
Once more, you're just going into your homebrew interpretation of what this actually means. From the Sage Advice compendium:
Your ruling does not stand on it's own, because you must remove it from the context of the first bullet point to even validate it existing in a permanent sense. You are purposely ignoring the first bullet point, which indicates how the 'condition' is supposed to function, in context with itself. Furthermore, by your own wording, Blinded, Charmed, Deafened, Frightened, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Restrained, Stunned, or Unconcious also never end. Because their conditions do not specify ending when the condition ends. Therefore, you are bending the logic of conditions for the purposes of keeping a single bullet point.
Funny, thought the word “condition” also meant if X meets or equals some relative value or qualification then Y shall apply, otherwise Y can not be applied.
wonder if this particular context of the word was taken into consideration?
Seems as if being “invisible” is some form of quantum entanglement paradox that might not have been considered.
That's correct. The rule says:
An example of "for a duration specified" can be seen in the invisibility spell:
Note that the spell has a duration of 1 hour.
Now, suppose that instead of the Invisible Condition we were talking about the Paralyzed Condition . . .
An example of "until it is countered" can be seen in the lesser restoration spell:
I am not ignoring the first bullet point; I am repeating exactly what it says. There is no "context" that magically causes it to say something else; your interpretation is homebrew because you are inventing text that isn't there.
Rules As Written is concerned only with what it says on the page, not what you want it to say.
Feel free to find where in the rules it says that ignoring one bullet point of a list means you get to ignore the entire list; if you can find such a rule it will support your argument for the invisible condition and then proceed to break the entire rest of the game.
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.