They're allowed to "expand" and "narrow" some words all they want. That doesn't make "concealed" a meaningless label. (In fact, since it's not its own glossary entry, it's not getting redefined.)
They're defining it within the specific context. It might have other meanings elsewhere.
You seem to be making the argument that the "can somehow see you" clause means they can just look right at you with no effort.
No, the argument is that no text prevents looking right at you with no effort.
If that were true they wouldn't have called it being "concealed"! That word is not without meaning. Your argument is deliberately obtuse. If you were trying to teach these rules to someone I would accuse you of malice.
These people are being deliberately obtuse and draconian in their interpretations...and they say I'm biased.
Like you said, the Invisible condition is defining what it does, and it's being ambiguous on how to negate it because that's the job of the feature or effect that gave it to you to determine. Their claim that no text is preventing them from doing what they claim is based on pure conjecture and flawed reading, because they want the condition to spell it out like in 2014. It's not.
Hide has 5 things that negate or break it: Perception check, sound louder than whisper, enemy finds you, make an attack roll and casting with a verbal component
Invisibility has 3 things that break it: make an attack, deal damage, or casting a spell.
A lot of their claims about being able to see you can apply to the Hide action, because they can be catalogued under the "an enemy finds you" trigger. But the Invisibility spell doesn't have this, so how can an enemy find you when that is not a mechanism the spell provides? This is where their argument of "I can just look and see you" falls short.
But it doesn't matter, because they are splitting hairs for every word, and the only ones that do so are people trying to squeeze every last benefit from rules, people that want to win arguments no matter what, or people arguing in bad faith.
Edit: oh, and I forgot one more...Tech Editors to make your life miserable on every article you write.
The reason you can be found when it comes to invisibility is because perception is more than sight, but also sound, clues (like tracks). It doesn't break the invisible condition because you can't be seen, but someone still knows where you are because they can still perceive you and nothing about the invisible condition makes it so they cannot.
The condition doesn't say you can't be perceived. It just doesn't list that as something that can break the condition.
Which like I said is how Crawford ruled invisibility in 2014. Seems that is still the intent.
I get this, and the rule for Unseen Attackers would apply in this case until you move because you can't be targeted by effects that rely on sight. But knowing where someone is even if you can't see them is one thing; what some people here are saying is that since the condition doesn't imply that you're transparent anymore, that "they can still SEE you with normal sight because nothing in the text prevents you from doing that".
Even if they knew where you are, they would still be making all their attacks against you with disadvantage, because to negate some of the effects from the Invisible condition, an enemy must be able to "somehow see you", which is undefined. The "somehow can see you" and how it's being interpreted is the whole point of contention of this entire conversation.
Even if they knew where you are, they would still be making all their attacks against you with disadvantage, because to negate some of the effects from the Invisible condition, an enemy must be able to "somehow see you", which is undefined. The "somehow can see you" and how it's being interpreted is the whole point of contention of this entire conversation.
Honestly, this whole conversation makes me fear for the literacy rates in the USA. It's shocking honestly how many D&D arguers are incapable of understanding basic english sentences. I don't know if it is deliberate because they want to "prove the game is broken" or to prove they are "smart" because they invented some loophole by refusing to understand language, I kind of hope it is one of those two reasons and it isn't that they actually are incapable of understanding language.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight. That could be blindsight, truesight, see invisibility spells, magic items that let one see invisible things, class features that let you see invisible things, or feats that let you see invisible things, or anything else that would allow them to see you despite you being invisible.
When you are hiding you are effectively invisible - by definition you are obscured or behind cover. If you cannot hide - e.g. stand out in the open right in front of an enemy - you aren't hidden anymore and don't gain any benefits of hiding. The rules state the DM decides if you can / cannot hide.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
And now you just gave magical invisibility to the Hide action. They removed that line for this very reason, because Hide also gives the Invisible condition. They tried to simplify things, but human nature tends to overcomplicate things. And so here we are...
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
And now you just gave magical invisibility to the Hide action. They removed that line for this very reason, because Hide also gives the Invisible condition. They tried to simplify things, but human nature tends to overcomplicate things. And so here we are...
No, this would have worked as intended. Including the above statement into the Invisible Condition would not be giving "magical invisibility" to the Hide action per se. It would just do exactly what it says it does. It would simply make it so that a creature who has the condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. This is actually true of someone who is actually hidden and remains hidden. I would have to have the ability to see through solid objects in order to see someone who is hiding behind a brick wall, for example. If I now "find" that creature with a perception check, it doesn't necessarily mean that I saw it, so there is nothing wrong with putting the "actually invisible" wording directly into the Condition that is used when hiding -- it would all function as intended. Once "found", that creature is still not actually seen for reasons that have to do with totally separate rules such as Line of Sight, but that creature no longer gains the benefits associated with the Condition until they attempt to Hide again with another Hide action. If the creature IS seen for some other reason such as moving into a position where you now have Line of Sight on that creature, then that creature is just no longer Hiding / "concealed", and/or the situation is no longer appropriate for Hiding, which should also cause the Condition to be automatically lost and thus the creature can now be seen. But a lot of that is not very clearly and explicitly written at this time unfortunately which is why there is so much confusion.
Of course, this should be combined with some slightly clearer wording that you only have the Condition while you remain actually hidden. Otherwise, if we start insisting on an interpretation where a "hidden" creature can run around on the battlefield without being seen, then describing such as creature as "invisible" quickly becomes extremely nonsensical. But really that's already a very nonsensical interpretation of "hiding" regardless of how the Invisible Condition is technically defined.
There is nothing in the invisible condition that makes you undetectable. Both the invisible spell and the HIde condition state ways that the condition may end. So even if we grant that the invisible condition makes one concealed. That doesn't mean you can't be detected by sound, tracks, making a noise, etc. It simply means that a perception check doesn't end the condition.
No one said "undetectable"; I (and the rules, verbatim) say "concealed," as you are so generously granting.
I think we agree that, in both 2014 and 2024, "being invisible" doesn't mean "completely undetectable." You can be attacked, even, just at disadvantage. (Etc.) In 2024, they decided that hiding gives the same condition for the same mechanics --- it's an extra non-magical way to get the condition, with extra non-magical ways to lose it. This actually all fits together, if you accept the badass stealth fantasy.
(Cue someone telling me that "concealed" is meaningless, and a whole book's worth of writers and editors are idiots... 'round and around we go.)
Honestly, this whole conversation makes me fear for the literacy rates in the USA. It's shocking honestly how many D&D arguers are incapable of understanding basic english sentences. I don't know if it is deliberate because they want to "prove the game is broken" or to prove they are "smart" because they invented some loophole by refusing to understand language, I kind of hope it is one of those two reasons and it isn't that they actually are incapable of understanding language.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
No, it really doesn't. People think the language is clear because they know what they want it to say. "Somehow see you" specifies absolutely nothing about how the observer is seeing you. The word "somehow" does imply that there is some effect that would be expected to prevent being seen, but says nothing about what that effect is, or what methods are required to defeat it -- those questions need to be answered elsewhere. The problem is that the effect preventing being seen is not, in fact, defined anywhere, and while there are some methods that explicitly permit seeing the invisible target, there is nothing stating that other methods don't also work.
"somehow" is extremely clear? I is every and any thing that specifies that it allows a creature to see invisible creatures. There are loads of things in the book that explicitly say they allow the creature to see invisible creatures. It is not necessary for them to list them out in the definition of "invisible" as doing so would prevent them or DMs from adding new things that do so. "Somehow" is all encompassing of anything a DM decides to HB or anything in any of the books that says it enables a creatures to see someone / something that is invisible. Why are you incapable of understanding? It's not a hard concept.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
The use of 'somehow' implies 'in order to do X, I need to do Y, and there is an obstacle to me doing Y'. It does not specify what the obstacle is. This is consistent across all of your examples. Thus, in the case of invisibility, it presumes that an obstacle to seeing the subject exists... but says nothing about what the obstacle is.
They're allowed to "expand" and "narrow" some words all they want. That doesn't make "concealed" a meaningless label. (In fact, since it's not its own glossary entry, it's not getting redefined.)
They're defining it within the specific context. It might have other meanings elsewhere.
You seem to be making the argument that the "can somehow see you" clause means they can just look right at you with no effort.
No, the argument is that no text prevents looking right at you with no effort.
If that were true they wouldn't have called it being "concealed"! That word is not without meaning. Your argument is deliberately obtuse. If you were trying to teach these rules to someone I would accuse you of malice.
These people are being deliberately obtuse and draconian in their interpretations...and they say I'm biased.
Like you said, the Invisible condition is defining what it does, and it's being ambiguous on how to negate it because that's the job of the feature or effect that gave it to you to determine. Their claim that no text is preventing them from doing what they claim is based on pure conjecture and flawed reading, because they want the condition to spell it out like in 2014. It's not.
Hide has 5 things that negate or break it: Perception check, sound louder than whisper, enemy finds you, make an attack roll and casting with a verbal component
Invisibility has 3 things that break it: make an attack, deal damage, or casting a spell.
A lot of their claims about being able to see you can apply to the Hide action, because they can be catalogued under the "an enemy finds you" trigger. But the Invisibility spell doesn't have this, so how can an enemy find you when that is not a mechanism the spell provides? This is where their argument of "I can just look and see you" falls short.
But it doesn't matter, because they are splitting hairs for every word, and the only ones that do so are people trying to squeeze every last benefit from rules, people that want to win arguments no matter what, or people arguing in bad faith.
Edit: oh, and I forgot one more...Tech Editors to make your life miserable on every article you write.
The reason you can be found when it comes to invisibility is because perception is more than sight, but also sound, clues (like tracks). It doesn't break the invisible condition because you can't be seen, but someone still knows where you are because they can still perceive you and nothing about the invisible condition makes it so they cannot.
The condition doesn't say you can't be perceived. It just doesn't list that as something that can break the condition.
Which like I said is how Crawford ruled invisibility in 2014. Seems that is still the intent.
I get this, and the rule for Unseen Attackers would apply in this case until you move because you can't be targeted by effects that rely on sight. But knowing where someone is even if you can't see them is one thing; what some people here are saying is that since the condition doesn't imply that you're transparent anymore, that "they can still SEE you with normal sight because nothing in the text prevents you from doing that".
Even if they knew where you are, they would still be making all their attacks against you with disadvantage, because to negate some of the effects from the Invisible condition, an enemy must be able to "somehow see you", which is undefined. The "somehow can see you" and how it's being interpreted is the whole point of contention of this entire conversation.
Based on the reading of the Invisible condition, you can in fact still be seen.
The problem here is of course (1) they way they set up the features of the condition to mirror the monster manual, would infer that Concealed only does what it says it does after the period and nothing more.
(2) Lets just say for the sake of argument we grant that Concealed. = everything after the period and means you are concealed. Based on the common usage of the word concealed, it is not equivalent to being invisible. You can see something concealed, (Usually by moving a different direction). So there is still an issue because the condition doesn't make you invisible.
When you are hiding you are effectively invisible - by definition you are obscured or behind cover. If you cannot hide - e.g. stand out in the open right in front of an enemy - you aren't hidden anymore and don't gain any benefits of hiding. The rules state the DM decides if you can / cannot hide.
When you are hiding you are effectively invisible - by definition you are obscured or behind cover. If you cannot hide - e.g. stand out in the open right in front of an enemy - you aren't hidden anymore and don't gain any benefits of hiding. The rules state the DM decides if you can / cannot hide.
When you are hiding you are effectively invisible - by definition you are obscured or behind cover. If you cannot hide - e.g. stand out in the open right in front of an enemy - you aren't hidden anymore and don't gain any benefits of hiding. The rules state the DM decides if you can / cannot hide.
It says the DM Can decide if you can hide. It doesn't say the DM can say when you can no longer be hidden.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
And now you just gave magical invisibility to the Hide action. They removed that line for this very reason, because Hide also gives the Invisible condition. They tried to simplify things, but human nature tends to overcomplicate things. And so here we are...
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
And now you just gave magical invisibility to the Hide action. They removed that line for this very reason, because Hide also gives the Invisible condition. They tried to simplify things, but human nature tends to overcomplicate things. And so here we are...
Honestly, the Invisibility spell just needs to state that you are heavily obscured and gain the invisible condition, or something like that.
"somehow" is extremely clear? I is every and any thing that specifies that it allows a creature to see invisible creatures. There are loads of things in the book that explicitly say they allow the creature to see invisible creatures. It is not necessary for them to list them out in the definition of "invisible" as doing so would prevent them or DMs from adding new things that do so. "Somehow" is all encompassing of anything a DM decides to HB or anything in any of the books that says it enables a creatures to see someone / something that is invisible. Why are you incapable of understanding? It's not a hard concept.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
"somehow" is extremely clear? I is every and any thing that specifies that it allows a creature to see invisible creatures. There are loads of things in the book that explicitly say they allow the creature to see invisible creatures. It is not necessary for them to list them out in the definition of "invisible" as doing so would prevent them or DMs from adding new things that do so. "Somehow" is all encompassing of anything a DM decides to HB or anything in any of the books that says it enables a creatures to see someone / something that is invisible. Why are you incapable of understanding? It's not a hard concept.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
The issue is the invisible condition does not make you invisible.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
The use of 'somehow' implies 'in order to do X, I need to do Y, and there is an obstacle to me doing Y'. It does not specify what the obstacle is. This is consistent across all of your examples. Thus, in the case of invisibility, it presumes that an obstacle to seeing the subject exists... but says nothing about what the obstacle is.
The obstacle is clearly that they cannot see you. Hence "unless they can somehow see you" which uses the exact same syntax as all my other examples so I do not understand why you cannot understand this very simple sentence. How they cannot see you depends on what effect is giving you the Invisible condition, just like every other condition in the game. How you are frightened does not appear in the definition of frightened, because many things can make you frightened. How you are charmed does not appear in the definition of charmed, because many things can make you charmed. There is absolutely nothing different about the structure of this definition of the Invisible condition from any other condition in the game. Have you been playing 5e for 10 years without being able to understand how any of the conditions work?
"somehow" is extremely clear? I is every and any thing that specifies that it allows a creature to see invisible creatures. There are loads of things in the book that explicitly say they allow the creature to see invisible creatures. It is not necessary for them to list them out in the definition of "invisible" as doing so would prevent them or DMs from adding new things that do so. "Somehow" is all encompassing of anything a DM decides to HB or anything in any of the books that says it enables a creatures to see someone / something that is invisible. Why are you incapable of understanding? It's not a hard concept.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
The issue is the invisible condition does not make you invisible.
That's poor word choice for the name of the condition yes, but it's clear from the definition of the condition that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. They should have called it "Unseen" rather than "Invisible" but nothing about the name affects how it works.
The obstacle is clearly that they cannot see you. Hence "unless they can somehow see you" which uses the exact same syntax as all my other examples so I do not understand why you cannot understand this very simple sentence.
That's poor word choice for the name of the condition yes, but it's clear from the definition of the condition that you cannot be seen when you have the condition.
No. This is not how the rules work in this game. Rules and Features do what they say, and they do only what they say.
The Condition does NOT say that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. Therefore, the Condition does not do that.
You have to go back and compare this to what existed in the 2014 rules. In those rules, we had this sentence:
Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
It was that sentence and ONLY that sentence which made an invisible creature invisible. It wasn't because the Condition was named invisible, and it wasn't because the creature was "implied to be" invisible. It was because it was explicitly written that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
This does not exist in 2024. It's a mistake that was made by the developers, plain and simple. It will need to be corrected.
The obstacle is clearly that they cannot see you. Hence "unless they can somehow see you" which uses the exact same syntax as all my other examples so I do not understand why you cannot understand this very simple sentence.
That's poor word choice for the name of the condition yes, but it's clear from the definition of the condition that you cannot be seen when you have the condition.
No. This is not how the rules work in this game. Rules and Features do what they say, and they do only what they say.
The Condition does NOT say that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. Therefore, the Condition does not do that.
You have to go back and compare this to what existed in the 2014 rules. In those rules, we had this sentence:
Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
It was that sentence and ONLY that sentence which made an invisible creature invisible. It wasn't because the Condition was named invisible, and it wasn't because the creature was "implied to be" invisible. It was because it was explicitly written that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
This does not exist in 2024. It's a mistake that was made by the developers, plain and simple. It will need to be corrected.
How do you know its a mistake and not intentional? Because from a lot of the rules I've read so far, devs have streamlined the wording of many rules, only using as many as needed to convey their point across. However, people tend to overanalyze things when they are simplified because they can't accept it, and that leads to this overblown discussion we are having
The obstacle is clearly that they cannot see you. Hence "unless they can somehow see you" which uses the exact same syntax as all my other examples so I do not understand why you cannot understand this very simple sentence.
That's poor word choice for the name of the condition yes, but it's clear from the definition of the condition that you cannot be seen when you have the condition.
No. This is not how the rules work in this game. Rules and Features do what they say, and they do only what they say.
The Condition does NOT say that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. Therefore, the Condition does not do that.
Geez, do I really have to explain grammatical and logical structures?
If I say "Anyone can enter this room, unless they are wearing a colour other than green." It means 'you must be wearing green to enter this room'. Similarly if a condition say "You gain X, Y, Z unless they can see you." it means you must not be seen by that someone in order to gain X,Y,Z.
The requirements do not need to be stated as a positive because a negative of a negative is a positive, nor do they need to be listed first in a piece of writing.
The invisible condition in 2024 does not make you unseen, you must be unseen in order to have the invisible condition.
I haven't read the 2024 PhB, but hopefully the Invisibility spell says something like: "You magically turn invisible, you gain the Invisible condition."
Hiding gains you the Invisible condition, because you must be unseen in order to Hide. But it doesn't make you invisible so if you move such that you can be seen you no longer benefit from the Invisible condition you got from Hiding.
I get this, and the rule for Unseen Attackers would apply in this case until you move because you can't be targeted by effects that rely on sight. But knowing where someone is even if you can't see them is one thing; what some people here are saying is that since the condition doesn't imply that you're transparent anymore, that "they can still SEE you with normal sight because nothing in the text prevents you from doing that".
Even if they knew where you are, they would still be making all their attacks against you with disadvantage, because to negate some of the effects from the Invisible condition, an enemy must be able to "somehow see you", which is undefined. The "somehow can see you" and how it's being interpreted is the whole point of contention of this entire conversation.
Honestly, this whole conversation makes me fear for the literacy rates in the USA. It's shocking honestly how many D&D arguers are incapable of understanding basic english sentences. I don't know if it is deliberate because they want to "prove the game is broken" or to prove they are "smart" because they invented some loophole by refusing to understand language, I kind of hope it is one of those two reasons and it isn't that they actually are incapable of understanding language.
"somehow see you" = means that they can see you using something other than normal sight. That could be blindsight, truesight, see invisibility spells, magic items that let one see invisible things, class features that let you see invisible things, or feats that let you see invisible things, or anything else that would allow them to see you despite you being invisible.
Re: Hiding
When you are hiding you are effectively invisible - by definition you are obscured or behind cover. If you cannot hide - e.g. stand out in the open right in front of an enemy - you aren't hidden anymore and don't gain any benefits of hiding. The rules state the DM decides if you can / cannot hide.
This is incorrect. The statement before your equal sign is not equivalent to the statement after your equal sign. They mean two different things. You are making an assumption or an extrapolation that they are the same but that is not actually written anywhere.
The clause "somehow see you" simply means that you can be seen somehow. In the real world, if someone is located completely behind an opaque obstacle then I can't see them. I would have to move my own location in order to create an angle where I have line of sight -- then I could see them. If a person is located in an extremely dark place then I might need to use nightvision goggles -- then I could see them. If a person was really far away then I might need to use binoculars -- then I could see them. But, if a person is standing nearby in plain sight, then by default all I need to do is look at them in order to see them.
This is just yet another example where something in the rules is attempting to refer back to another rule that doesn't actually exist. This sort of error in the rules for this game is pretty common and is the result of this exact thing -- something was changed during playtesting, which breaks other rules which are attempting to refer back to this rule that was changed.
Notice how much more sense the clause "somehow see you" would make in this context:
"Invisible [Condition]
A creature who has the Invisible condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you."
Apparently, something like this existed in most of the playtesting. You can see here how the phrase "somehow see you" is actually meant to refer back to the first sentence where it is explicitly explained that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. So, in order to somehow see you, one of those methods of sight would be required.
However, a last-minute change was made, and the critically important detail was inexplicably removed that was the rule that actually makes someone invisible. As a result, the clause "somehow see you" doesn't really mean anything because in order to see someone by default you just look at them.
I honestly don't understand the stubborn refusal to just recognize that an error was made here in the writing. We don't have some sort of agenda, or some desire to "win" the game by finding a loophole or are otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing as some in this thread are repeatedly accusing. We are simply discussing the rules as they are written -- and in doing so, we are pointing out a significant mistake that was made in the writing that needs to be corrected via errata. But meanwhile, we will all be house-ruling this to work the same way as you all want it to work. Which is that the word "invisible" actually means invisible.
And now you just gave magical invisibility to the Hide action. They removed that line for this very reason, because Hide also gives the Invisible condition. They tried to simplify things, but human nature tends to overcomplicate things. And so here we are...
No, this would have worked as intended. Including the above statement into the Invisible Condition would not be giving "magical invisibility" to the Hide action per se. It would just do exactly what it says it does. It would simply make it so that a creature who has the condition is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. This is actually true of someone who is actually hidden and remains hidden. I would have to have the ability to see through solid objects in order to see someone who is hiding behind a brick wall, for example. If I now "find" that creature with a perception check, it doesn't necessarily mean that I saw it, so there is nothing wrong with putting the "actually invisible" wording directly into the Condition that is used when hiding -- it would all function as intended. Once "found", that creature is still not actually seen for reasons that have to do with totally separate rules such as Line of Sight, but that creature no longer gains the benefits associated with the Condition until they attempt to Hide again with another Hide action. If the creature IS seen for some other reason such as moving into a position where you now have Line of Sight on that creature, then that creature is just no longer Hiding / "concealed", and/or the situation is no longer appropriate for Hiding, which should also cause the Condition to be automatically lost and thus the creature can now be seen. But a lot of that is not very clearly and explicitly written at this time unfortunately which is why there is so much confusion.
Of course, this should be combined with some slightly clearer wording that you only have the Condition while you remain actually hidden. Otherwise, if we start insisting on an interpretation where a "hidden" creature can run around on the battlefield without being seen, then describing such as creature as "invisible" quickly becomes extremely nonsensical. But really that's already a very nonsensical interpretation of "hiding" regardless of how the Invisible Condition is technically defined.
No one said "undetectable"; I (and the rules, verbatim) say "concealed," as you are so generously granting.
I think we agree that, in both 2014 and 2024, "being invisible" doesn't mean "completely undetectable." You can be attacked, even, just at disadvantage. (Etc.) In 2024, they decided that hiding gives the same condition for the same mechanics --- it's an extra non-magical way to get the condition, with extra non-magical ways to lose it. This actually all fits together, if you accept the badass stealth fantasy.
(Cue someone telling me that "concealed" is meaningless, and a whole book's worth of writers and editors are idiots... 'round and around we go.)
No, it really doesn't. People think the language is clear because they know what they want it to say. "Somehow see you" specifies absolutely nothing about how the observer is seeing you. The word "somehow" does imply that there is some effect that would be expected to prevent being seen, but says nothing about what that effect is, or what methods are required to defeat it -- those questions need to be answered elsewhere. The problem is that the effect preventing being seen is not, in fact, defined anywhere, and while there are some methods that explicitly permit seeing the invisible target, there is nothing stating that other methods don't also work.
"somehow" is extremely clear? I is every and any thing that specifies that it allows a creature to see invisible creatures. There are loads of things in the book that explicitly say they allow the creature to see invisible creatures. It is not necessary for them to list them out in the definition of "invisible" as doing so would prevent them or DMs from adding new things that do so. "Somehow" is all encompassing of anything a DM decides to HB or anything in any of the books that says it enables a creatures to see someone / something that is invisible. Why are you incapable of understanding? It's not a hard concept.
If I say I'm going to go bankrupt unless "somehow" I get the money to pay off my credit card. It is perfectly clear what I mean. If I say I'll be late unless "somehow" the traffic clears, or I "somehow" find a away around it. It is perfectly clear what it means. Do you honestly have no idea what those sentences mean? Is English not your first language or something?
How can literate person not understand : "I won't be able to come to your wedding, unless I can somehow get out of jury duty"?
The use of 'somehow' implies 'in order to do X, I need to do Y, and there is an obstacle to me doing Y'. It does not specify what the obstacle is. This is consistent across all of your examples. Thus, in the case of invisibility, it presumes that an obstacle to seeing the subject exists... but says nothing about what the obstacle is.
Based on the reading of the Invisible condition, you can in fact still be seen.
The problem here is of course (1) they way they set up the features of the condition to mirror the monster manual, would infer that Concealed only does what it says it does after the period and nothing more.
(2) Lets just say for the sake of argument we grant that Concealed. = everything after the period and means you are concealed. Based on the common usage of the word concealed, it is not equivalent to being invisible. You can see something concealed, (Usually by moving a different direction). So there is still an issue because the condition doesn't make you invisible.
It says the DM Can decide if you can hide. It doesn't say the DM can say when you can no longer be hidden.
Honestly, the Invisibility spell just needs to state that you are heavily obscured and gain the invisible condition, or something like that.
The issue is the invisible condition does not make you invisible.
The obstacle is clearly that they cannot see you. Hence "unless they can somehow see you" which uses the exact same syntax as all my other examples so I do not understand why you cannot understand this very simple sentence. How they cannot see you depends on what effect is giving you the Invisible condition, just like every other condition in the game. How you are frightened does not appear in the definition of frightened, because many things can make you frightened. How you are charmed does not appear in the definition of charmed, because many things can make you charmed. There is absolutely nothing different about the structure of this definition of the Invisible condition from any other condition in the game. Have you been playing 5e for 10 years without being able to understand how any of the conditions work?
That's poor word choice for the name of the condition yes, but it's clear from the definition of the condition that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. They should have called it "Unseen" rather than "Invisible" but nothing about the name affects how it works.
and
No. This is not how the rules work in this game. Rules and Features do what they say, and they do only what they say.
The Condition does NOT say that you cannot be seen when you have the condition. Therefore, the Condition does not do that.
You have to go back and compare this to what existed in the 2014 rules. In those rules, we had this sentence:
It was that sentence and ONLY that sentence which made an invisible creature invisible. It wasn't because the Condition was named invisible, and it wasn't because the creature was "implied to be" invisible. It was because it was explicitly written that an invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
This does not exist in 2024. It's a mistake that was made by the developers, plain and simple. It will need to be corrected.
How do you know its a mistake and not intentional? Because from a lot of the rules I've read so far, devs have streamlined the wording of many rules, only using as many as needed to convey their point across. However, people tend to overanalyze things when they are simplified because they can't accept it, and that leads to this overblown discussion we are having
Geez, do I really have to explain grammatical and logical structures?
If I say "Anyone can enter this room, unless they are wearing a colour other than green." It means 'you must be wearing green to enter this room'. Similarly if a condition say "You gain X, Y, Z unless they can see you." it means you must not be seen by that someone in order to gain X,Y,Z.
The requirements do not need to be stated as a positive because a negative of a negative is a positive, nor do they need to be listed first in a piece of writing.
The invisible condition in 2024 does not make you unseen, you must be unseen in order to have the invisible condition.
I haven't read the 2024 PhB, but hopefully the Invisibility spell says something like: "You magically turn invisible, you gain the Invisible condition."
Hiding gains you the Invisible condition, because you must be unseen in order to Hide. But it doesn't make you invisible so if you move such that you can be seen you no longer benefit from the Invisible condition you got from Hiding.
The invisible condition says you are concealed, which basically means unseen.
Concealed and invisible are similar terms but have two very different meanings.