So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
This is an odd non-sequitur. You can't use Persuasion for this purpose for the same reason you can't roll Insight to make an enemy's head explode: there are no rules supporting that use of those skills. In contrast, we have detailed rules regarding Stealth and its specific applications.
I get that some people don't want to accept that those rules exist, but they do exist, they are intended and they're necessary for game balance.
Not really a non sequitur. You said:
Characters who specialize in Stealth are supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical"
So why aren't characters who specialize in Persuasion supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical"?
Please don't try and say "It's the rules" or "RAW". That is an interpretation of the rules and you are certainly welcome to it, but there are other very valid interpretations. Your statement was an appeal to narrative and I'm trying to understand why you feel that it is good narrative for the skill of Stealth being an almost supernaturally powerful ability (allowing "nonsensical" things to occur) while not allowing the skill of Persuasion to do the same.
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
Blindsight: you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
Blindsight: you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
That is an excellent questions. More stuff they copied from 5e without checking?
Nothing in the Invisible condition states that you are not visible, invisible, or impossible to see. Only the 5e rules had that.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
The short answer is "because they decided to shoehorn stealth into the invisible condition and botched the entire process horribly".
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
Blindsight: you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
The special senses let you see any creature with the Invisible Condition. The fact that some creatures with the Invisible Condition are only seen with these special senses does not mean that all creatures with the Invisible Condition can only be seen with these special senses.
analogy: The fact that some (birds/characters with the Invisible Condition) (cannot fly/can be seen without special senses) does not mean all (birds/characters with the Invisible Condition) (cannot fly/can be seen without special senses) .
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
Blindsight: you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
That is an excellent questions. More stuff they copied from 5e without checking?
Nothing in the Invisible condition states that you are not visible, invisible, or impossible to see. Only the 5e rules had that.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Man, do we have to keep going in circles? People already told you this was removed from the playtest for that very same reason. Also, the condition won't tell you that information because it's not supposed to, and you'd know this if you paid attention to what the book or the rules glossary says:
Condition
A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition.
Moreover, if you go to EVERY instance in the PHB that gives you the Invisible condition through magical means (spell or features), it is treated differently than the one given by the Hide action. I'm at work, otherwise I'd pull all of them here for your viewing pleasure.
Lastly, riddle me this with your own question: if both Hide and the Invisibility spell give you the same condition, why are you visible with one and not the other?
Well:
- Does the condition in the Invisibility spell ends if "an enemy finds you"?
- Does the condition in the Invisibility spell ends if "you make a sound louder than a whisper"?
If the answer to these is "No", then you are not visible, even if the book doesn't outright state it. Also, the book doesn't list normal sight as a sense that can see through the Invisible condition, but it does with Blindsight and Truesight.
Now WAIT--before some say that you can still know where an Invisible creature is--finding someone is not the same as detecting someone. You can detect someone's location under the Invisibility spell without seeing them, and that's what allows you to use the Unseen attackers rules.
Strictly by what’s there RAW is that the Invisible condition only blocks effects that require sight, arguably meaning that unless you can point to an explicit “that you can see” requirement for a given thing, Invisible has no ability to negate it. I don’t agree with that interpretation, but it’s the logical corollary of the “RAW says the only way you can find a creature that Hides is with Search” argument, and helps underline why there are people who feel this portion of the rules is very poorly constructed. By the strict letter argument we see, Hide and Invisible both work very counterintuitively and lopsidedly.
"Concealed (adjective): kept out of sight or hidden from view"
The condition tells you you are concealed. Sure, you can pretend that it's semantically (and fully) overriding the plain english word, but it's not a glossary entry; it's just descriptive text. That's on you, not the writers. They aren't trying to create a new language, and they are actually pretty careful redefining english words and calling out when they do so (note that they don't redefine the word "invisible" anywhere, but do provide a definition for the "Invisible Condition.")
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
Strictly by what’s there RAW is that the Invisible condition only blocks effects that require sight, arguably meaning that unless you can point to an explicit “that you can see” requirement for a given thing, Invisible has no ability to negate it. I don’t agree with that interpretation, but it’s the logical corollary of the “RAW says the only way you can find a creature that Hides is with Search” argument, and helps underline why there are people who feel this portion of the rules is very poorly constructed. By the strict letter argument we see, Hide and Invisible both work very counterintuitively and lopsidedly.
True, but also by RAW the DM decides if the circumstances are appropriate for hiding (aka DM fiat), and the DMG does say you can also use Passive Perception, so Search is not the only way. However, many don't want to accept this because it once again puts the power on the DM and not the player.
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
The rules forum doesn't produce rulings (that's the job of errata, sage advice, etc), it provides advice. Sometimes, the correct advice for "how should I use rule X" is "you shouldn't".
It is generally possible to figure out the intent for most abilities that provide the invisible condition: they're supposed to work like they did in 2014 and make the creature impossible to see with normal senses. The problem with the hide rule is that it's not even clear what the intent was. My best guess is that they did want it to be possible for a creature that is hiding to burst out of its hiding place and make a melee attack with advantage, because otherwise creature writeups such as the tiger don't make much sense, and that outside of the specific tactical combat use they wanted to leave it at DM discretion so you can only hide if the DM thinks its reasonable that you can hide, but I certainly can't point to specific rules text that clearly supports that view.
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
The rules forum doesn't produce rulings (that's the job of errata, sage advice, etc), it provides advice. Sometimes, the correct advice for "how should I use rule X" is "you shouldn't".
Advice on how to make rulings, of course. And that advice/ruling helps no-one.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
The rules forum doesn't produce rulings (that's the job of errata, sage advice, etc), it provides advice. Sometimes, the correct advice for "how should I use rule X" is "you shouldn't".
Advice on how to make rulings, of course. And that advice/ruling helps no-one.
It's arguably the same advice you are giving. Your advice is just "Use this rule plus this interpretation plus what I think was intended." So you're really not using the RAW either.
Here's a hot take for you all: From a mechanics perspective being literally transparent or not doesn't matter.
From a mechanics perspective the only things that matter are :
1) Does a creature know your location. 2) Are their attacks at Disadvantage or not. 3) Can they target you with abilities that rely on sight.
#1 is answered by :
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
i.e. unless you are Hiding & succeeding on Stealth checks the enemies do know where you are.
#2 is answered by :
Invisible [Condition]
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
If you have the Invisible condition then enemy attacks are affected and you can't be targeted by effects that require the target to be seen.
From a game-mechanical perspective that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if you are literally transparent or not.
The only time literally being transparent or not matters, is when the DM is ruling what is means to "find" someone or what it means to be "hidden", for the purposes of the Hide action. For the Invisibility spell it doesn't actually matter from a game-mechanical perspective whether you are literally transparent or not, because enemies know where you are even if you are literally transparent through other senses. So even if you are literally transparent you can't just walk past a guard because they will hear you and/or smell you and know where exactly you are anyway.
The only time it would matter is again for DM-dependent rulings such as whether the guard recognizes who you are or not, or whether the guard knows what your character can do and plan strategically. So again, I don't understand this "The rules need to be so DM rulings don't matter, but also they need to explicitly say whether you are transparent or not." Or for immersion, so players can imaging what is happening in the scene, so again I don't understand this "But high-stealth characters should be able to do immersion breaking things, oh but also the rules needs to be that the high-stealth character is turning literally transparent." - If it doesn't break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, use Stealth to turn literally transparent then walk past a guard unnoticed, why would it break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, roll Stealth and then walk past a guard unnoticed without being literally transparent?
TL:DR The only time whether or not the Invisible condition makes you literally transparent matters, is for DM-dependent rulings & player interpretation of the world. It doesn't matter mechanically. So why is it a problem that whether a character with the Invisible condition is literally transparent also depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
Again I come back to other conditions: Poisoned is used for drunk, venom, and toxic gases. How the Poisoned condition ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the poisoned condition. Why is it a problem that the Invisible condition is used for both hiding & invisibility spells, and when it ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
You don't need to find a creature who's not hidden; you automatically notice creature unless they're stealthy, which it isn't.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
An enemy with normal vision finds an Invisible creature that Hide with a Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception among other things because it perceive it somehow, which emcompass more than just seeing.
Here's a hot take for you all: From a mechanics perspective being literally transparent or not doesn't matter.
From a mechanics perspective the only things that matter are :
1) Does a creature know your location. 2) Are their attacks at Disadvantage or not. 3) Can they target you with abilities that rely on sight.
#1 is answered by :
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
i.e. unless you are Hiding & succeeding on Stealth checks the enemies do know where you are.
#2 is answered by :
Invisible [Condition]
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
If you have the Invisible condition then enemy attacks are affected and you can't be targeted by effects that require the target to be seen.
From a game-mechanical perspective that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if you are literally transparent or not.
The only time literally being transparent or not matters, is when the DM is ruling what is means to "find" someone or what it means to be "hidden", for the purposes of the Hide action. For the Invisibility spell it doesn't actually matter from a game-mechanical perspective whether you are literally transparent or not, because enemies know where you are even if you are literally transparent through other senses. So even if you are literally transparent you can't just walk past a guard because they will hear you and/or smell you and know where exactly you are anyway.
The only time it would matter is again for DM-dependent rulings such as whether the guard recognizes who you are or not, or whether the guard knows what your character can do and plan strategically. So again, I don't understand this "The rules need to be so DM rulings don't matter, but also they need to explicitly say whether you are transparent or not." Or for immersion, so players can imaging what is happening in the scene, so again I don't understand this "But high-stealth characters should be able to do immersion breaking things, oh but also the rules needs to be that the high-stealth character is turning literally transparent." - If it doesn't break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, use Stealth to turn literally transparent then walk past a guard unnoticed, why would it break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, roll Stealth and then walk past a guard unnoticed without being literally transparent?
TL:DR The only time whether or not the Invisible condition makes you literally transparent matters, is for DM-dependent rulings & player interpretation of the world. It doesn't matter mechanically. So why is it a problem that whether a character with the Invisible condition is literally transparent also depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
Again I come back to other conditions: Poisoned is used for drunk, venom, and toxic gases. How the Poisoned condition ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the poisoned condition. Why is it a problem that the Invisible condition is used for both hiding & invisibility spells, and when it ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
But nothing in Hide or Invisible say that you make your location unknown. The rule you referenced is more for out of combat approaching an enemy/group of enemies. If you are not being stealthy, they notice you. If they already know you are there (before you Hide), then there is nothing that says they don't know your location based on Hiding. That is only in 5e, which is why you would still actually use Hide when Invisible because they did different things.
I noticed you kinda blew past your #3. But your #2 is also not "solved" by just reading the condition. If they can see you, then their attacks don't have disadvantage. If they can see you, they can affect you with things that require sight. So being transparent does matter. Because if being Invisible does not make you transparent or impossible to see (which was removed after playtest), then Concealed and Attacks Affected don't do anything.
And they removed the "impossible to see without special sense or magic" because they realized it made Hide overpowered, without taking the time to realize that it broke magical invisibility completely.
"Concealed (adjective): kept out of sight or hidden from view"
The condition tells you you are concealed. Sure, you can pretend that it's semantically (and fully) overriding the plain english word, but it's not a glossary entry; it's just descriptive text. That's on you, not the writers. They aren't trying to create a new language, and they are actually pretty careful redefining english words and calling out when they do so (note that they don't redefine the word "invisible" anywhere, but do provide a definition for the "Invisible Condition.")
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
The condition uses concealed as a bullet point title; the way it then defines that bullet point then only states that it applies to other effects. Again, my point is that if being found only applies to the specific example of the Search Action, then being Invisible only counts if something specifically says in the book that it requires sight, thus highlighting why the strict RAW approach is at best hamstrung by ambiguous writing.
Not really a non sequitur. You said:
So why aren't characters who specialize in Persuasion supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical"?
Please don't try and say "It's the rules" or "RAW". That is an interpretation of the rules and you are certainly welcome to it, but there are other very valid interpretations. Your statement was an appeal to narrative and I'm trying to understand why you feel that it is good narrative for the skill of Stealth being an almost supernaturally powerful ability (allowing "nonsensical" things to occur) while not allowing the skill of Persuasion to do the same.
In 5.5 Special Senses do say that so if everyone can see Invisible creature then the benefit from these Special Senses is not all that special so why would they even say that!
For clarification, any time I use "Invisible" I am talking about the condition (capitalized and italicized).
That is an excellent questions. More stuff they copied from 5e without checking?
Nothing in the Invisible condition states that you are not visible, invisible, or impossible to see. Only the 5e rules had that.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
The short answer is "because they decided to shoehorn stealth into the invisible condition and botched the entire process horribly".
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
The special senses let you see any creature with the Invisible Condition. The fact that some creatures with the Invisible Condition are only seen with these special senses does not mean that all creatures with the Invisible Condition can only be seen with these special senses.
analogy: The fact that some (birds/characters with the Invisible Condition) (cannot fly/can be seen without special senses) does not mean all (birds/characters with the Invisible Condition) (cannot fly/can be seen without special senses) .
Man, do we have to keep going in circles? People already told you this was removed from the playtest for that very same reason. Also, the condition won't tell you that information because it's not supposed to, and you'd know this if you paid attention to what the book or the rules glossary says:
Moreover, if you go to EVERY instance in the PHB that gives you the Invisible condition through magical means (spell or features), it is treated differently than the one given by the Hide action. I'm at work, otherwise I'd pull all of them here for your viewing pleasure.
Lastly, riddle me this with your own question: if both Hide and the Invisibility spell give you the same condition, why are you visible with one and not the other?
Well:
- Does the condition in the Invisibility spell ends if "an enemy finds you"?
- Does the condition in the Invisibility spell ends if "you make a sound louder than a whisper"?
If the answer to these is "No", then you are not visible, even if the book doesn't outright state it. Also, the book doesn't list normal sight as a sense that can see through the Invisible condition, but it does with Blindsight and Truesight.
Now WAIT--before some say that you can still know where an Invisible creature is--finding someone is not the same as detecting someone. You can detect someone's location under the Invisibility spell without seeing them, and that's what allows you to use the Unseen attackers rules.
Strictly by what’s there RAW is that the Invisible condition only blocks effects that require sight, arguably meaning that unless you can point to an explicit “that you can see” requirement for a given thing, Invisible has no ability to negate it. I don’t agree with that interpretation, but it’s the logical corollary of the “RAW says the only way you can find a creature that Hides is with Search” argument, and helps underline why there are people who feel this portion of the rules is very poorly constructed. By the strict letter argument we see, Hide and Invisible both work very counterintuitively and lopsidedly.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concealed
"Concealed (adjective): kept out of sight or hidden from view"
The condition tells you you are concealed. Sure, you can pretend that it's semantically (and fully) overriding the plain english word, but it's not a glossary entry; it's just descriptive text. That's on you, not the writers. They aren't trying to create a new language, and they are actually pretty careful redefining english words and calling out when they do so (note that they don't redefine the word "invisible" anywhere, but do provide a definition for the "Invisible Condition.")
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
True, but also by RAW the DM decides if the circumstances are appropriate for hiding (aka DM fiat), and the DMG does say you can also use Passive Perception, so Search is not the only way. However, many don't want to accept this because it once again puts the power on the DM and not the player.
The rules forum doesn't produce rulings (that's the job of errata, sage advice, etc), it provides advice. Sometimes, the correct advice for "how should I use rule X" is "you shouldn't".
It is generally possible to figure out the intent for most abilities that provide the invisible condition: they're supposed to work like they did in 2014 and make the creature impossible to see with normal senses. The problem with the hide rule is that it's not even clear what the intent was. My best guess is that they did want it to be possible for a creature that is hiding to burst out of its hiding place and make a melee attack with advantage, because otherwise creature writeups such as the tiger don't make much sense, and that outside of the specific tactical combat use they wanted to leave it at DM discretion so you can only hide if the DM thinks its reasonable that you can hide, but I certainly can't point to specific rules text that clearly supports that view.
Advice on how to make rulings, of course. And that advice/ruling helps no-one.
Yeah it does. "Stop twisting yourself in knots and make house rules that work for your table" is perfectly useful advice.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
It's arguably the same advice you are giving. Your advice is just "Use this rule plus this interpretation plus what I think was intended." So you're really not using the RAW either.
Here's a hot take for you all: From a mechanics perspective being literally transparent or not doesn't matter.
From a mechanics perspective the only things that matter are :
1) Does a creature know your location.
2) Are their attacks at Disadvantage or not.
3) Can they target you with abilities that rely on sight.
#1 is answered by :
i.e. unless you are Hiding & succeeding on Stealth checks the enemies do know where you are.
#2 is answered by :
If you have the Invisible condition then enemy attacks are affected and you can't be targeted by effects that require the target to be seen.
From a game-mechanical perspective that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if you are literally transparent or not.
The only time literally being transparent or not matters, is when the DM is ruling what is means to "find" someone or what it means to be "hidden", for the purposes of the Hide action. For the Invisibility spell it doesn't actually matter from a game-mechanical perspective whether you are literally transparent or not, because enemies know where you are even if you are literally transparent through other senses. So even if you are literally transparent you can't just walk past a guard because they will hear you and/or smell you and know where exactly you are anyway.
The only time it would matter is again for DM-dependent rulings such as whether the guard recognizes who you are or not, or whether the guard knows what your character can do and plan strategically. So again, I don't understand this "The rules need to be so DM rulings don't matter, but also they need to explicitly say whether you are transparent or not." Or for immersion, so players can imaging what is happening in the scene, so again I don't understand this "But high-stealth characters should be able to do immersion breaking things, oh but also the rules needs to be that the high-stealth character is turning literally transparent." - If it doesn't break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, use Stealth to turn literally transparent then walk past a guard unnoticed, why would it break your immersion for a high-stealth character to hide behind a box, roll Stealth and then walk past a guard unnoticed without being literally transparent?
TL:DR The only time whether or not the Invisible condition makes you literally transparent matters, is for DM-dependent rulings & player interpretation of the world. It doesn't matter mechanically. So why is it a problem that whether a character with the Invisible condition is literally transparent also depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
Again I come back to other conditions: Poisoned is used for drunk, venom, and toxic gases. How the Poisoned condition ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the poisoned condition. Why is it a problem that the Invisible condition is used for both hiding & invisibility spells, and when it ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
You don't need to find a creature who's not hidden; you automatically notice creature unless they're stealthy, which it isn't.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
An enemy with normal vision finds an Invisible creature that Hide with a Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception among other things because it perceive it somehow, which emcompass more than just seeing.
But nothing in Hide or Invisible say that you make your location unknown. The rule you referenced is more for out of combat approaching an enemy/group of enemies. If you are not being stealthy, they notice you. If they already know you are there (before you Hide), then there is nothing that says they don't know your location based on Hiding. That is only in 5e, which is why you would still actually use Hide when Invisible because they did different things.
I noticed you kinda blew past your #3. But your #2 is also not "solved" by just reading the condition. If they can see you, then their attacks don't have disadvantage. If they can see you, they can affect you with things that require sight. So being transparent does matter. Because if being Invisible does not make you transparent or impossible to see (which was removed after playtest), then Concealed and Attacks Affected don't do anything.
And they removed the "impossible to see without special sense or magic" because they realized it made Hide overpowered, without taking the time to realize that it broke magical invisibility completely.
The condition uses concealed as a bullet point title; the way it then defines that bullet point then only states that it applies to other effects. Again, my point is that if being found only applies to the specific example of the Search Action, then being Invisible only counts if something specifically says in the book that it requires sight, thus highlighting why the strict RAW approach is at best hamstrung by ambiguous writing.