Ah, thanks. I missed that. So, they actually took out the bit about "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."? And the spell doesn't actually say that the target creature becomes invisible either?
Wow, this all seems extraordinarily bad, I honestly don't know what they were thinking. And how did this sort of thing get all the way through 8 rounds of playtesting and into the final published material, that's just crazy. This will all require immediate errata.
If there are problems this serious with how some core mechanics of the game were written then it's starting to seem like a decent idea to wait a while before buying the books until they correct these things and reprint them with the inevitable changes.
What they removed was the bit from the Invisible condition that said "If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight"; it was in the Playtest all the way through Playtest 8. My point is that they removed it intentionally for the final print.
My guess is they wanted to keep it intentionally vague so that it could apply to both Hiding and magical Invisibility.
The problem with removing clarifications after playtesting is that it introduces bugs into the rules as written.
The essential issue is that the invisibility spell does NOT have the line from the 2014 rules "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
That clause needs to be applied to the invisibility SPELL but not to a creature who is hidden. A hidden creature CAN be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense - a creature made invisible by the spell should NOT be able to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense. This clause appears to be absent in the 2024 rules.
The invisibility spell applies the invisible condition. Hiding applies the invisible condition. NOTHING in either hiding or the spell indicates that any special sense is required to see a creature with the invisible condition. All the conditions says is "If a creature can somehow see you" BUT the spell has NOTHING in the text indicating that the creature affected by the spell can't be seen except by magic or special senses. The ONLY thing the spell does is apply the invisible condition which ALSO contains no text related to whether a creature is seen or unseen.
The end result of a stupid desire to create simpler rules is that the rules as written are broken for either the invisibility spell or for hiding depending on whether the DM decides whether a creature with the invisible condition can be seen with normal senses or not. The DM could house rule that a creature affected by the invisibility spell can't be seen with normal senses while a hidden creature can BUT unfortunately, the 2024 rules don't seem to state that anywhere.
Clearly a line was omitted in an attempt to simplify things that simply broke it.
-------------
P.S. In terms of the playtest line that was changed, I think someone noticed that the clause that you mention was deleted "If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight" .. implies that a creature that was hidden can NOT be seen unless special senses are used. So a creature that succeeds in hiding can walk out in front of a creature that can see them and remain "invisible" even though they can be clearly seen. That is a broken rule. However, in their attempt to fix it, they did NOT add the equivalent line to the invisibility spells so that invisiblity from the spell would require special senses. They fixed one clear problem and created another due to last minute editing (especially if the citation was part of the invisible condition through 8 playtest cycles).
P.P.S. The one difference between hiding and the invisibility spell is that when hidden you lose the invisible condition when you are "found", while being found is not an option to lose the condition when under the spell.
If you step out in front of another creature then the DM could rule that you are automatically found and thus lose the invisible condition. However, the rules on finding someone get into perception vs stealth DCs, cover, and passive perception. There is a requirement to have 3/4 or full cover or heavy obscurement to make a stealth check ... the rules do NOT say (at least the ones cited so far) that these are required to continue to remain hidden. Can a creature hide behind 3/4 cover and then move into an area with no cover and remain hidden? If they are found they remove the invisibility condition granted by being hidden. However, the rules do not appear to explicitly state that continued cover is required to remain hidden.
Without clarification on either finding a creature or the senses needed to detect a hidden creature, the simplifications they have applied using the invisible condition for both hiding and the invisibility spell are broken.
It is the same issue that they have had trying to treat darkness, foliage and fog exactly the same in the interests of simplicity when this introduces unplayable contradictions requiring a DM to introduce house rules to get something that resembles reality.
This is probably important, but in 2014, Crawford I believe (Could have been Perkins, anyone it was on the official Podcast) ruled that being invisible did not prevent someone from knowing where you are, because, while they can't see you, perception is about more than sight.
This is probably important, but in 2014, Crawford I believe (Could have been Perkins, anyone it was on the official Podcast) ruled that being invisible did not prevent someone from knowing where you are, because, while they can't see you, perception is about more than sight.
While it's a point that has also received a significant amount of confusion over the years (and the 2024 rules do not seem to have helped), it isn't relevant to the problems created by relying on the invisible condition for stealth.
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible. In the case of hiding, you need to be behind total cover/Highly Obscured to be unseen.
Passive perception would also come into play as a way to end the invisibility condition from hiding. This creates a lot of problems itself, because normally you have passive perception and the Search Action. However, you don't roll the search action/perception if the target is easily seen. Which means a creature no longer behind total cover/being highly obscured, automatically fails, as the opponent doesn't need to roll.
There is also the case in 2014, where being invisible does not grant you status of being undetectable. Crawford discussed this on the podcast. While you can't be seen, your location is still known to everyone unless you take the hide action. Which then requires perception to come into play. I haven't read the new wording on the 2024 Invisibility spell, but I'm assuming it is probably still the same concept.
It is important to remember that perception is about more than seeing the person. It is about hearing them, noticing elements on the ground as to where they are. Maybe seeing their foot prints.
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I thought that that was sort of the point that he was making (although I'm not sure) -- and it would align with what I tried to say a couple of times. That it should actually work out fine if you just add the unseen status wording back into the Condition itself. Because even if you technically treat a hidden person (who is actually hiding) as actually invisible which cannot be seen without special senses . . . that should NOT break the mechanic that a perception check can "find" a hidden person -- because seeing that person is not actually required to be successful on that perception check. They should have just left that wording in the Condition where it belongs.
The big issue is that they flipped things 180 from the 2014 rules. The 2014 invisible condition let you Hide with no need for cover; the 2024 Hide action now makes you invisible. One of those makes a lot more sense than the other.
I think the Passive Perception discussion is being overblown. The DC just to Hide is 15, and your stealth roll becomes the DC to find you. How many enemies have a Passive Perception of 15+? On the same hand, advantage on their PP pretty much cancels out any attempts to hide unless you rolled really really well (or have Expertise [is that even still a thing in 5.24?])
All of this just keeps pointing back to the one obvious truth that WotC is denying: these are not the same version/edition.
Passive perception is not addressed. It does exist and is presumably used for something, but nothing ever tells use for what.
See Invisibility working does seem correct for RAW. It's also kinda dumb and means a ton of monsters are completely immune to stealth because they have blindsight or truesight.
(Complete conjecture on my part) I kinda think the best way to rule blindsight/truesight vs a hidden person is giving them the passive perception check when the hidden person leaves cover.
Its impossible to say without the books. However, I doubt that is the way it will work. If Truesight/Blindsight provide the ability to negate the invisible condition and hiding gives the invisible condition then as soon as a hidden creature steps into the view of one of these creatures they will no longer be hidden since it negates the invisible condition on being "found". In the case of the spell, the creature will be able to see the invisible creature and negate the benefits (except the initiative one) but the creature won't lose the invisible condition.
The argument is about creatures without special senses who can see the location occupied by a hidden creature which has acquired the invisible condition by using the hide action. There is no magic or other effect preventing them from being obviously seen except the DM ruling that the circumstances prevent the creature from hiding. Relying on DM intervention entirely for revealing hidden creatures without cover will result in a lot of table variation, DM rulings and arguments with players since the rule isn't even approximately described in the material currently available.
The bottom line for me is I have to wait and see the 2024 PHB then form my own opinion of what the rules say and are trying to say. Folks who have a copy already might be able to help sort this out but it is likely too much work for them to comb through the book looking for all the rules that might be relevant.
Honestly, there has been so much haranguing about the "rules" about stealth/hiding for so long, does anyone actually care what the RAW is anymore? WotC should just give up the ghost and make the rule:
"You can hide if your DM decides that it is reasonable that you would not be noticed by the creatures you are trying to hide from given the in-game situation - e.g. lost in a crowd, squatting inside a barrel, standing in a dark shadowy corner, lying under a bed, ducking behind a thick hedge. Roll Stealth against a DC equal to the highest passive perception of the creatures you are trying to hide from on a success they cannot see you and don't know your precise location, thus cannot target you with any effect that targets specific creatures. If one of the creatures is actively looking for you (this requires the Search action in combat) use the result of their Perception check as the DC instead of their passive perception. Any creature that you fail to hide from can make gestures or call out to reveal your location to other creatures as a free action.
You remain hidden until you attack or make a noise above a whisper (this includes casting any spell with Verbal components) or move in a way that reveals your location or a creature's Perception check exceeds your Stealth check and they reveal your location."
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible. Because when hiding what grants unseen status is the heavy obscurement/concelement. Which is also what previously granted unseen status with the invisible condition.
The condition itself now does not grant you unseen status and specificly states "if you are invisible" as a requirement for advantage during initiative. Which would infer that you can have the invisible condition without being invisible.
Passive perception is not addressed. It does exist and is presumably used for something, but nothing ever tells use for what.
See Invisibility working does seem correct for RAW. It's also kinda dumb and means a ton of monsters are completely immune to stealth because they have blindsight or truesight.
(Complete conjecture on my part) I kinda think the best way to rule blindsight/truesight vs a hidden person is giving them the passive perception check when the hidden person leaves cover.
Its impossible to say without the books. However, I doubt that is the way it will work. If Truesight/Blindsight provide the ability to negate the invisible condition and hiding gives the invisible condition then as soon as a hidden creature steps into the view of one of these creatures they will no longer be hidden since it negates the invisible condition on being "found". In the case of the spell, the creature will be able to see the invisible creature and negate the benefits (except the initiative one) but the creature won't lose the invisible condition.
The argument is about creatures without special senses who can see the location occupied by a hidden creature which has acquired the invisible condition by using the hide action. There is no magic or other effect preventing them from being obviously seen except the DM ruling that the circumstances prevent the creature from hiding. Relying on DM intervention entirely for revealing hidden creatures without cover will result in a lot of table variation, DM rulings and arguments with players since the rule isn't even approximately described in the material currently available.
The bottom line for me is I have to wait and see the 2024 PHB then form my own opinion of what the rules say and are trying to say. Folks who have a copy already might be able to help sort this out but it is likely too much work for them to comb through the book looking for all the rules that might be relevant.
The rules are for heavy obscurement and total cover/concelement. That is what keeps someone from being able to see you, not the invisible condition.
I think the Passive Perception discussion is being overblown. The DC just to Hide is 15, and your stealth roll becomes the DC to find you. How many enemies have a Passive Perception of 15+?
Most animals (they tend to have advantage on some of their senses) and a fair number of higher CR enemies.
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible.
Someone on reddit checked. It grants the invisible status. Also, any legacy monster, creature, spell, or item presumably has the 2014 rules in mind, so a dramatic change in what invisibility means would break a bunch of compatibility.
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible. Because when hiding what grants unseen status is the heavy obscurement/concelement. Which is also what previously granted unseen status with the invisible condition.
The condition itself now does not grant you unseen status and specificly states "if you are invisible" as a requirement for advantage during initiative. Which would infer that you can have the invisible condition without being invisible.
I posted the description of the updated Invisibility spell earlier in the thread. The new version grants the Invisible condition and can only be broken by making an attack, dealing damage, or casting a spell. Although unsaid, breaking concentration or lasting the 1 hr duration also breaks it per the concentration rules in the glossary.
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible. Because when hiding what grants unseen status is the heavy obscurement/concelement. Which is also what previously granted unseen status with the invisible condition.
The condition itself now does not grant you unseen status and specificly states "if you are invisible" as a requirement for advantage during initiative. Which would infer that you can have the invisible condition without being invisible.
I posted the description of the updated Invisibility spell earlier in the thread. The new version grants the Invisible condition and can only be broken by making an attack, dealing damage, or casting a spell. Although unsaid, breaking concentration or lasting the 1 hr duration also breaks it per the concentration rules in the glossary.
So by my reading of the invisible condition you do not become unseen or invisible...
So that would infer that the invisibility spell does not make you invisible or unseen and therefore the invisible condition basically doesn't apply because presumably you can still be seen.
I feel like something this debated should not have made it out of internal play testing
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible. Because when hiding what grants unseen status is the heavy obscurement/concelement. Which is also what previously granted unseen status with the invisible condition.
The condition itself now does not grant you unseen status and specificly states "if you are invisible" as a requirement for advantage during initiative. Which would infer that you can have the invisible condition without being invisible.
I posted the description of the updated Invisibility spell earlier in the thread. The new version grants the Invisible condition and can only be broken by making an attack, dealing damage, or casting a spell. Although unsaid, breaking concentration or lasting the 1 hr duration also breaks it per the concentration rules in the glossary.
So by my reading of the invisible condition you do not become unseen or invisible...
So that would infer that the invisibility spell does not make you invisible or unseen and therefore the invisible condition basically doesn't apply because presumably you can still be seen.
I feel like something this debated should not have made it out of internal play testing
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does. The Invisible condition does say that you can't be targeted by effects that require you to be seen unless you can somehow be seen, but the problem comes that it doesn't explain how you can be seen. Combined with the removal of the specific line from 2014 that indicated you needed magic or special senses to be seen, it creates the debate on whether the spell gives you transparency/active camouflage or not.
What is clear is that the spell removes you from an enemy's Perception, hence no checks. How it accomplishes this is what people are arguing about, with those taking a more draconian interpretation saying that it doesn't make you transparent, so line of sight negates the Invisible condition. Here is the 2024 PHB description of Perception for reference:
Perception: Using a combination of senses, notice something that's easy to miss.
And here is the Invisibility spell:
Invisibility (2nd level spell): A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately if the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
By my reading, the fact that the spell doesn't require a Perception check means you are effectively unable to be noticed by an enemy's senses unless you have other means to negate it, like magic or special senses; this is regardless of whether you're transparent a la Predator/Mass Effect 2 or not.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed. It also makes sense with the updated text for See invisibility, Blindsight and Truesight, because they can negate the Invisible condition, but not break it.
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed.
No, I mean the observer automatically succeeds -- as no perception DC to see the target is given, the observer just automatically sees the target, no roll required.
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed.
No, I mean the observer automatically succeeds -- as no perception DC to see the target is given, the observer just automatically sees the target, no roll required.
And why would you automatically assume that the observer sees the target? The observer is the one that has to make a Perception check to find something. If you don't have a score to beat, how can you beat it? Nowhere in the book says what you're implying. There are two ways to find something per the book: Passive Perception or a Perception check, which you do by taking the Search action below:
Search [Action]
When you take the Search action, you make a Wisdom check to discern something that isn't obvious. The Search table suggests which skills are applicable when you take this action, depending on what you're trying to detect.
Skill
Thing to Detect
Insight
Creature's state of mind
Medicine
Creature's ailment or cause of death
Perception
Concealed creature or object
Survival
Tracks or food
The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one
And why would you automatically assume that the observer sees the target?
Because nothing is preventing them from doing so, and the default is that you can see something unless something is preventing you from doing so. You need to make a perception check to spot something that isn't obvious... but the invisibility condition does not make the character not obvious.
This is probably important, but in 2014, Crawford I believe (Could have been Perkins, anyone it was on the official Podcast) ruled that being invisible did not prevent someone from knowing where you are, because, while they can't see you, perception is about more than sight.
While it's a point that has also received a significant amount of confusion over the years (and the 2024 rules do not seem to have helped), it isn't relevant to the problems created by relying on the invisible condition for stealth.
The issue seems to be that many people are interpreting the Invisible condition as granting invisibility/unseen status. The Condition doesn't do that. It provides bonuses for being invisible/unseen, but it doesn't make you unseen or invisible. In the case of hiding, you need to be behind total cover/Highly Obscured to be unseen.
Passive perception would also come into play as a way to end the invisibility condition from hiding. This creates a lot of problems itself, because normally you have passive perception and the Search Action. However, you don't roll the search action/perception if the target is easily seen. Which means a creature no longer behind total cover/being highly obscured, automatically fails, as the opponent doesn't need to roll.
There is also the case in 2014, where being invisible does not grant you status of being undetectable. Crawford discussed this on the podcast. While you can't be seen, your location is still known to everyone unless you take the hide action. Which then requires perception to come into play. I haven't read the new wording on the 2024 Invisibility spell, but I'm assuming it is probably still the same concept.
It is important to remember that perception is about more than seeing the person. It is about hearing them, noticing elements on the ground as to where they are. Maybe seeing their foot prints.
The problem is that, as used in other places (such as the spell, or various monster abilities), the Invisible condition clearly is intended to grant the unseen status, and if you remove that from the Invisible condition... those abilities wind up not doing anything at all.
I thought that that was sort of the point that he was making (although I'm not sure) -- and it would align with what I tried to say a couple of times. That it should actually work out fine if you just add the unseen status wording back into the Condition itself. Because even if you technically treat a hidden person (who is actually hiding) as actually invisible which cannot be seen without special senses . . . that should NOT break the mechanic that a perception check can "find" a hidden person -- because seeing that person is not actually required to be successful on that perception check. They should have just left that wording in the Condition where it belongs.
The big issue is that they flipped things 180 from the 2014 rules. The 2014 invisible condition let you Hide with no need for cover; the 2024 Hide action now makes you invisible. One of those makes a lot more sense than the other.
I think the Passive Perception discussion is being overblown. The DC just to Hide is 15, and your stealth roll becomes the DC to find you. How many enemies have a Passive Perception of 15+? On the same hand, advantage on their PP pretty much cancels out any attempts to hide unless you rolled really really well (or have Expertise [is that even still a thing in 5.24?])
All of this just keeps pointing back to the one obvious truth that WotC is denying: these are not the same version/edition.
Its impossible to say without the books. However, I doubt that is the way it will work. If Truesight/Blindsight provide the ability to negate the invisible condition and hiding gives the invisible condition then as soon as a hidden creature steps into the view of one of these creatures they will no longer be hidden since it negates the invisible condition on being "found". In the case of the spell, the creature will be able to see the invisible creature and negate the benefits (except the initiative one) but the creature won't lose the invisible condition.
The argument is about creatures without special senses who can see the location occupied by a hidden creature which has acquired the invisible condition by using the hide action. There is no magic or other effect preventing them from being obviously seen except the DM ruling that the circumstances prevent the creature from hiding. Relying on DM intervention entirely for revealing hidden creatures without cover will result in a lot of table variation, DM rulings and arguments with players since the rule isn't even approximately described in the material currently available.
The bottom line for me is I have to wait and see the 2024 PHB then form my own opinion of what the rules say and are trying to say. Folks who have a copy already might be able to help sort this out but it is likely too much work for them to comb through the book looking for all the rules that might be relevant.
Honestly, there has been so much haranguing about the "rules" about stealth/hiding for so long, does anyone actually care what the RAW is anymore? WotC should just give up the ghost and make the rule:
"You can hide if your DM decides that it is reasonable that you would not be noticed by the creatures you are trying to hide from given the in-game situation - e.g. lost in a crowd, squatting inside a barrel, standing in a dark shadowy corner, lying under a bed, ducking behind a thick hedge. Roll Stealth against a DC equal to the highest passive perception of the creatures you are trying to hide from on a success they cannot see you and don't know your precise location, thus cannot target you with any effect that targets specific creatures. If one of the creatures is actively looking for you (this requires the Search action in combat) use the result of their Perception check as the DC instead of their passive perception. Any creature that you fail to hide from can make gestures or call out to reveal your location to other creatures as a free action.
You remain hidden until you attack or make a noise above a whisper (this includes casting any spell with Verbal components) or move in a way that reveals your location or a creature's Perception check exceeds your Stealth check and they reveal your location."
I assume the invisibility spell must say you turn invisible. Because when hiding what grants unseen status is the heavy obscurement/concelement. Which is also what previously granted unseen status with the invisible condition.
The condition itself now does not grant you unseen status and specificly states "if you are invisible" as a requirement for advantage during initiative. Which would infer that you can have the invisible condition without being invisible.
The rules are for heavy obscurement and total cover/concelement. That is what keeps someone from being able to see you, not the invisible condition.
Most animals (they tend to have advantage on some of their senses) and a fair number of higher CR enemies.
Someone on reddit checked. It grants the invisible status. Also, any legacy monster, creature, spell, or item presumably has the 2014 rules in mind, so a dramatic change in what invisibility means would break a bunch of compatibility.
I posted the description of the updated Invisibility spell earlier in the thread. The new version grants the Invisible condition and can only be broken by making an attack, dealing damage, or casting a spell. Although unsaid, breaking concentration or lasting the 1 hr duration also breaks it per the concentration rules in the glossary.
So by my reading of the invisible condition you do not become unseen or invisible...
So that would infer that the invisibility spell does not make you invisible or unseen and therefore the invisible condition basically doesn't apply because presumably you can still be seen.
I feel like something this debated should not have made it out of internal play testing
It was reported in public play testing as well. However, clear and coherent rules have never been a strength of this design team.
However, the Invisibility spell does not have a Perception check requirement to break or negate like the Hiding action does. The Invisible condition does say that you can't be targeted by effects that require you to be seen unless you can somehow be seen, but the problem comes that it doesn't explain how you can be seen. Combined with the removal of the specific line from 2014 that indicated you needed magic or special senses to be seen, it creates the debate on whether the spell gives you transparency/active camouflage or not.
What is clear is that the spell removes you from an enemy's Perception, hence no checks. How it accomplishes this is what people are arguing about, with those taking a more draconian interpretation saying that it doesn't make you transparent, so line of sight negates the Invisible condition. Here is the 2024 PHB description of Perception for reference:
And here is the Invisibility spell:
By my reading, the fact that the spell doesn't require a Perception check means you are effectively unable to be noticed by an enemy's senses unless you have other means to negate it, like magic or special senses; this is regardless of whether you're transparent a la Predator/Mass Effect 2 or not.
That doesn't make it better. That makes it worse, because it means you just automatically succeed (unless something else is adding penalties), no check required.
Yes, you can't remove the invisible condition applied by the spell without one of the methods given in the spell -- but you don't need to. You can just ignore it because you're unaffected if you can see the target, the default is that you can see targets unless something is preventing you, and the condition does not say it prevents seeing the target.
If the intent of the spell is to make you unable to be detected by a creature's senses, it makes sense that it means you automatically succeed. It also makes sense with the updated text for See invisibility, Blindsight and Truesight, because they can negate the Invisible condition, but not break it.
No, I mean the observer automatically succeeds -- as no perception DC to see the target is given, the observer just automatically sees the target, no roll required.
And why would you automatically assume that the observer sees the target? The observer is the one that has to make a Perception check to find something. If you don't have a score to beat, how can you beat it? Nowhere in the book says what you're implying. There are two ways to find something per the book: Passive Perception or a Perception check, which you do by taking the Search action below:
The Invisible condition gives you the Concealed benefit, and the Search action allows to run a Perception check to find a Concealed creature, but what score do you beat? The Invisibility spell doesn't have one
Because nothing is preventing them from doing so, and the default is that you can see something unless something is preventing you from doing so. You need to make a perception check to spot something that isn't obvious... but the invisibility condition does not make the character not obvious.