Incorrect. I've seen people at work, people that work with me argue different interpretations of work rules even when they're crystal clear. I have argued with people that have written said rules before because they change their interpretations months later, and they wrote the damn rules.
Those are also bad rules. It's not a phenomenon unique to RPGs.
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.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
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.
I was just getting ready to say that. The game uses perception to determine whether or not you can be seen unless something else prevents you from being seen. In the case of hiding it is concealment/being heavily obscured. The hide spell adds in perception not necessarily because of being seen (as the rule specifically states perception only comes into play when something can't obviously be seen) but in case of sound, or not masking your tracks, or any number of other reasons you could be detected apart from sight.
Seems to me they forgot to add the heavily obscured statement to invisibility since it was previously part of the invisible condition.
This right here is what bothers me; the fact that you're both choosing to ignore/invalidate an entire feature because it is not literally spelled out, and that's why I cannot agree with your conclusions, so I'll agree to disagree.
I'll address this before calling it a day.
We have the invisible condition which says
"While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
1st Effect: Surprise. If you're Invisible [assuming this means the Invisible condition since it is capitalized, and there is no term invisible elsewhere in the game] when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll. [All this is saying is that if you have the Invisible condition at the start of combat, you roll advantage.]
2nd Effect: Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed. [The important part here is that it doesn't limit seeing you to being only by magical means. Also concealed is not capitalized and is therefore not a game term. So we can assume that the equipment you are wearing or carrying can also not be effected.]
3rd Effect. Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit for that creature. [Basically once again, it just specifies that it is possible for a creature to see you]
The important parts of the Hide Action is that the condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occur; You make a sound louder than a whisper [Which arguably if you are moving towards an opponent, you are probably under most circumstances, making a sound louder than a whisper and would end the Invisible condition based on this portion of the text.], you make an attack roll, cast a spell with a Verbal Component [This is important, because by most people's comment on how hiding works, this becomes a superior invisibility because you can stand in front of someone and cast unlimited spells as long as they don't have a verbal component.], or an enemy finds you.
So how do we know if an enemy finds you? Well it tells us that on a successful check you note your roll total which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) Check.
Conceal is not a game term (otherwise it would be capitalized) so we can assume the basic english definition, which itself would really not apply once you are moving in an open space. The rules specifically state that you only need to roll Perception if something isn't obvious. A person standing in front of you is obvious. But more importantly, the text says "...which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Key point here is that it does not say the only way to find you is with a Wisdom check, but only that if you do need to make a Wisdom check the DC would be what you rolled.
Your interpretation of the rule, leads to the hiding being significantly better than invisibility.
First, you can hide behind a tree and then start walking keeping the Invisible Condition until you attack or make a sound above a whisper. But your interpretation seems to state that walking is not a sound above a whisper.
More importantly with Subtle spell, you can cast Fireball and have the Invisible Condition remain. You can in fact cast a concentration spell and have the invisible condition remain. None of which you can do with the actual Invisibility spell. There is virtually no point in using the invisibility spell because all you need is expertise and Subtle spell, and you can have the invisible condition all day while casting spells until you run out of spell points.
So even I think it is obvious, when hiding, the Invisible condition ends as soon as you move into view of an enemy. Whether from you making a sound, the DM saying hiding is no longer appropriate, or the other person automatically seeing you because nothing is preventing him form doing so.
Bro, wth? You just twisted my words to say something I haven't actually said. I've never implied that Hide is better than the Invisibility spell, nor did I implied any of the other things you said about the Hide action. The fact that you came to this conclusion is telling, so I am done with this conversation.
FYI, my point this entire time is that people are negating the Invisibility spell to irrelevance because of everything you just mentioned above.
And yet the Hide Action is the one that specifies requiring a Perception check to beat the Invisible condition, meaning using the senses to find something. The lack of a Perception check IS what's preventing you from doing so with the Invisibility spell; the fact you can't accept this because it's not spelled out is honestly baffling.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say. It's never the case that a Feature does something specifically because something is NOT written. In order for the Invisibility spell to actually make a creature invisible, it must say that it does so. You are suffering from bias because we all know what a spell called Invisibility "should" do and what it's always done. However, according to the 2024 rules that have been posted here so far, the Invisibiliity spell does not do this. It only grants the Invisible Condition. And that Condition does NOT make a creature invisible.
The only consequence of the fact that the Invisibility spell lacks the clause that the Condition can be ended with a Perception check is that the Condition cannot be ended with a Perception check. That's all. Any further assumptions about what the spell actually does is false if what is assumed is not actually written into the spell.
Again, I repeat this because you continue to ignore it: 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 you can't say it automatically succeeds, because there's no text in either book that supports that interpretation. If there is, prove it.
Unfortunately, the Concealed benefit, as written, does not do what you think it does. All this benefit actually does is make it so that you cannot be affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen, unless you can be seen. But if you are standing out in the open, you can be seen by default. Nothing about this Condition or this spell actually changes that.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed." Modern D&D doesn't do the keyword thing in general, but even if you insist it does, the keyword is "invisible" as in the "invisible condition" (under "i" in the glossary, presumably). "Concealed" is part of the description of that condition.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
Or you could, you know, understand basic language. It's not legal jargon.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed." Modern D&D doesn't do the keyword thing in general, but even if you insist it does, the keyword is "invisible" as in the "invisible condition" (under "i" in the glossary, presumably). "Concealed" is part of the description of that condition.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
Or you could, you know, understand basic language. It's not legal jargon.
The magic the gathering judge test and previous rulings by Perks and Crawford would beg to differ.
For example in 2014, the Invisible condition/spell does not mean someone doesn't know where you are, it only means they can't see you. But you know exactly where a character is, unless they take the hide action.
Bro, wth? You just twisted my words to say something I haven't actually said. I've never implied that Hide is better than the Invisibility spell, nor did I implied any of the other things you said about the Hide action. The fact that you came to this conclusion is telling, so I am done with this conversation.
FYI, my point this entire time is that people are negating the Invisibility spell to irrelevance because of everything you just mentioned above.
Important note, I'm not saying that you specifically said that. I am saying that the way you read the invisible condition results in that. With your interpretation there is nothing preventing you from hiding behind a tree and walking 20 miles and still have the invisible condition once you get to the gate.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed."
And then defines what that means. Which does not include any actual difficulty seeing the creature, it just assigns penalties if you can't see the creature.
A correct writeup of what they were trying to do is probably
Invisible (condition)
When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects. Concealed:You are difficult or impossible to see. The effect that is making you invisible may specify a DC to see you with a Search action or passive perception; if no DC is specified, you can only be seen with special senses. Any equipment you wearing or carrying is also concealed. Surprise: if you're invisible when you roll initiative, you have advantage on that roll, unless at least one enemy can somehow see you. Unseen: You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen, unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Attacks Affected: Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage, unless the other creature can somehow see you.
Bold face is the key text that is missing in the current writeup, the rest is just slight restructuring for clarity (and changing the surprise benefit to only work if you're actually invisible).
For example in 2014, the Invisible condition/spell does not mean someone doesn't know where you are, it only means they can't see you. But you know exactly where a character is, unless they take the hide action.
But wait!! How do we know this!?
Answer: Because it SAYS so:
2014 Invisible Condition:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed." Modern D&D doesn't do the keyword thing in general, but even if you insist it does, the keyword is "invisible" as in the "invisible condition" (under "i" in the glossary, presumably). "Concealed" is part of the description of that condition.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
Or you could, you know, understand basic language. It's not legal jargon.
The magic the gathering judge test and previous rulings by Perks and Crawford would beg to differ.
This isn't MtG. "Natural language," love it or hate it, is a huge part of making the modern rules accessible and friendly, which is in turn a huge part of why modern DnD got so damn huge in the market. Most DnD players never played MtG, nor older versions of DnD.
For example in 2014, the Invisible condition/spell does not mean someone doesn't know where you are, it only means they can't see you. But you know exactly where a character is, unless they take the hide action.
And?
In 2014, hidden and invisible were different things. In 2024, hidden is redefined to be invisible, just with a special non-magical way to get into it (stealth check behind cover/obscurement) and an extra non-magical way to get gotten out (perception check).
In both 2014 and 2024, invisible means you have advantage to attacks against things that can't see you, and disadvantage to attacks from those things. They have to know where you are to actually target you; they just get disadvantage. If you're all in total darkness, all this cancels out. (Even in total darkness, you can still attack each other and hit each other.)
Is that weird? A little. It makes more sense when you're playing on a battle map with figurines, though.
...
But the current argument isn't about the invisible condition, it's about what "concealed" means. People seem to be saying that the whole-ass invisible condition is lost if someone looks in your direction, because then they "somehow see you" which removes the "concealed" part. Except you have to completely ignore the "concealed" part to make it trivial to see them. It's circular logic, and it makes the idea of hiding or the invisibility spell mostly irrelevant. Rules as Malice (RaM); bending over backwards to make the rule more confusing and/or pointless.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed." Modern D&D doesn't do the keyword thing in general, but even if you insist it does, the keyword is "invisible" as in the "invisible condition" (under "i" in the glossary, presumably). "Concealed" is part of the description of that condition.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
Or you could, you know, understand basic language. It's not legal jargon.
The magic the gathering judge test and previous rulings by Perks and Crawford would beg to differ.
This isn't MtG. "Natural language," love it or hate it, is a huge part of making the modern rules accessible and friendly, which is in turn a huge part of why modern DnD got so damn huge in the market. Most DnD players never played MtG, nor older versions of DnD.
For example in 2014, the Invisible condition/spell does not mean someone doesn't know where you are, it only means they can't see you. But you know exactly where a character is, unless they take the hide action.
And?
In 2014, hidden and invisible were different things. In 2024, hidden is redefined to be invisible, just with a special non-magical way to get into it (stealth check behind cover/obscurement) and an extra non-magical way to get gotten out (perception check).
In both 2014 and 2024, invisible means you have advantage to attacks against things that can't see you, and disadvantage to attacks from those things. They have to know where you are to actually target you; they just get disadvantage. If you're all in total darkness, all this cancels out. (Even in total darkness, you can still attack each other and hit each other.)
Is that weird? A little. It makes more sense when you're playing on a battle map with figurines, though.
...
But the current argument isn't about the invisible condition, it's about what "concealed" means. People seem to be saying that the whole-ass invisible condition is lost if someone looks in your direction, because then they "somehow see you" which removes the "concealed" part. Except you have to completely ignore the "concealed" part to make it trivial to see them. It's circular logic, and it makes the idea of hiding or the invisibility spell mostly irrelevant. Rules as Malice (RaM); bending over backwards to make the rule more confusing and/or pointless.
You claim natural language, and then immediately violate it.
First you are claiming I can hide behind a tree, then walk 18 miles to the town gate, and still benefit from the Invisible condition. In front of guards who are supposed to be watching, simply because I hid behind a tree 18 miles earlier. Which also makes invisibility the spell rather pointless. when a Sorcerer can just get expertise and hide behind a tree and still cast spells while remaining invisible as long as they use subtle spell or cast one of the 18 spells that don't have verbal components.
But more importantly, I can cast a concentration spell, walk behind a tree, and hide. Then walk 30 minutes with the spell up, and still be invisible once we reach the gate.
Natural language doesn't allow you to be concealed when you aren't actually concealed. Further, the interpretation you are presenting makes invisibility pointless and creates loopholes to avoid concentrating on invisibility.
My point is, natural language and common sense works against your interpretation of the rules.
Natural language doesn't allow you to be concealed when you aren't actually concealed. Further, the interpretation you are presenting makes invisibility pointless and creates loopholes to avoid concentrating on invisibility.
Natural language tells me what "concealed" means. All the people (not you?) saying "but the invisible condition never actually says you can't be seen normally!" are ignoring the word "concealed" and trying to use the condition's definition to undermine itself.
Hiding granting invisibility isn't a loophole. It's to enable a stealth fantasy (in a magical fantasy game) that goes beyond "duck behind cover and snipe." If you hide, you can get found with a simple perception check (or, as discussed ad nauseum, with passive perception if the DM allows, or by the DM just saying "nah, this isn't appropriate for hiding"). The invisibility spell does not have those vulnerabilities. (Well, it does if you ignore the natural definition of "concealed," but that's asinine.)
Natural language also tells me what 'invisible' means, and it's not what hiding does, so presumably they don't have natural language in mind.
"Natural language" doesn't mean rules can't ever be distinct from a dictionary entry. It just means they don't bother defining most words; they mean what they mean. The actual tweet-quote from Crawford is "Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English." In most cases, they are just adding mechanics to make things playable, not turning every noun (to the left of a colon) into abstract, technical jargon.
The "invisible condition" is getting an actual glossary entry to define it. It's probably fair to say they are "completely redefining" that phrase.
"Natural language" doesn't mean rules can't ever be distinct from a dictionary entry. It just means they don't bother defining most words; they mean what they mean. The actual tweet-quote from Crawford is "Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English."
Which the rules do. When you have a list of bullet points consisting of a word, followed by a :, followed by a definition, you're explicitly defining terms of art.
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.)
The actual, literal thing they've written for it: "Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." 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. That's just bad reading. I repeat: "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
(Could it be more clear? sure. These editors trim everything within a picometer of its life.)
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.
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.
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.
I'm not trying to teach rules, I'm talking about how to write rules. This rule is poorly written (as a side note: the definition of invisible is merely poorly written: you can at least guess what they're trying to say. The definition of hiding is much worse, because you can't even really determine what they're trying to say).
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.
Merriam Webster defines Concealed as "kept out of sight or hidden from view"
Walking right in front of someone is not being kept out of sight or hidden from view.
Therefore the plain definition of the word does not grant invisibility. Which is defined as
"incapable by nature of being seen : not perceptible by vision inaccessible to view not openly acknowledged or made known not able to be recognized or identified"
Even granting you the everyday definition of concealment, it is completely different than invisibility. Thus even using the plane definition, your view is wrong as you are making concealed and invisible interchangeable, when they are not in common usage.
You are making the logical error of treating the terms as synonyms and then equating that means they have the same definition. Which isn't how that works. It is a bad habit most high school english teachers encouraged, but it isn't actually how things work in english.
Even granting you the everyday definition of concealment, it is completely different than invisibility. Thus even using the planeplain definition, your view is wrong as you are making concealed and invisible interchangeable, when they are not in common usage.
Don't put words in my mouth. The authors have defined the invisible condition (in the glossary) as, in part, "concealed." "incapable by nature of being seen" sure. Meaning all the arguments of the form "no text prevents looking right at you with no effort" are bullshit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those are also bad rules. It's not a phenomenon unique to RPGs.
Bro, wth? You just twisted my words to say something I haven't actually said. I've never implied that Hide is better than the Invisibility spell, nor did I implied any of the other things you said about the Hide action. The fact that you came to this conclusion is telling, so I am done with this conversation.
FYI, my point this entire time is that people are negating the Invisibility spell to irrelevance because of everything you just mentioned above.
This isn't how the rules work in this game. Features only do what they say. It's never the case that a Feature does something specifically because something is NOT written. In order for the Invisibility spell to actually make a creature invisible, it must say that it does so. You are suffering from bias because we all know what a spell called Invisibility "should" do and what it's always done. However, according to the 2024 rules that have been posted here so far, the Invisibiliity spell does not do this. It only grants the Invisible Condition. And that Condition does NOT make a creature invisible.
The only consequence of the fact that the Invisibility spell lacks the clause that the Condition can be ended with a Perception check is that the Condition cannot be ended with a Perception check. That's all. Any further assumptions about what the spell actually does is false if what is assumed is not actually written into the spell.
Unfortunately, the Concealed benefit, as written, does not do what you think it does. All this benefit actually does is make it so that you cannot be affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen, unless you can be seen. But if you are standing out in the open, you can be seen by default. Nothing about this Condition or this spell actually changes that.
This is just an error by the developer that will need to be fixed. Otherwise, we'll all be house-ruling this problem away.
And the feature literally says you are "concealed." Modern D&D doesn't do the keyword thing in general, but even if you insist it does, the keyword is "invisible" as in the "invisible condition" (under "i" in the glossary, presumably). "Concealed" is part of the description of that condition.
Or you could, you know, understand basic language. It's not legal jargon.
The magic the gathering judge test and previous rulings by Perks and Crawford would beg to differ.
For example in 2014, the Invisible condition/spell does not mean someone doesn't know where you are, it only means they can't see you. But you know exactly where a character is, unless they take the hide action.
Important note, I'm not saying that you specifically said that. I am saying that the way you read the invisible condition results in that. With your interpretation there is nothing preventing you from hiding behind a tree and walking 20 miles and still have the invisible condition once you get to the gate.
And then defines what that means. Which does not include any actual difficulty seeing the creature, it just assigns penalties if you can't see the creature.
A correct writeup of what they were trying to do is probably
Bold face is the key text that is missing in the current writeup, the rest is just slight restructuring for clarity (and changing the surprise benefit to only work if you're actually invisible).
But wait!! How do we know this!?
Answer: Because it SAYS so:
2014 Invisible Condition:
This isn't MtG. "Natural language," love it or hate it, is a huge part of making the modern rules accessible and friendly, which is in turn a huge part of why modern DnD got so damn huge in the market. Most DnD players never played MtG, nor older versions of DnD.
And?
In 2014, hidden and invisible were different things. In 2024, hidden is redefined to be invisible, just with a special non-magical way to get into it (stealth check behind cover/obscurement) and an extra non-magical way to get gotten out (perception check).
In both 2014 and 2024, invisible means you have advantage to attacks against things that can't see you, and disadvantage to attacks from those things. They have to know where you are to actually target you; they just get disadvantage. If you're all in total darkness, all this cancels out. (Even in total darkness, you can still attack each other and hit each other.)
Is that weird? A little. It makes more sense when you're playing on a battle map with figurines, though.
...
But the current argument isn't about the invisible condition, it's about what "concealed" means. People seem to be saying that the whole-ass invisible condition is lost if someone looks in your direction, because then they "somehow see you" which removes the "concealed" part. Except you have to completely ignore the "concealed" part to make it trivial to see them. It's circular logic, and it makes the idea of hiding or the invisibility spell mostly irrelevant. Rules as Malice (RaM); bending over backwards to make the rule more confusing and/or pointless.
You claim natural language, and then immediately violate it.
First you are claiming I can hide behind a tree, then walk 18 miles to the town gate, and still benefit from the Invisible condition. In front of guards who are supposed to be watching, simply because I hid behind a tree 18 miles earlier. Which also makes invisibility the spell rather pointless. when a Sorcerer can just get expertise and hide behind a tree and still cast spells while remaining invisible as long as they use subtle spell or cast one of the 18 spells that don't have verbal components.
But more importantly, I can cast a concentration spell, walk behind a tree, and hide. Then walk 30 minutes with the spell up, and still be invisible once we reach the gate.
Natural language doesn't allow you to be concealed when you aren't actually concealed. Further, the interpretation you are presenting makes invisibility pointless and creates loopholes to avoid concentrating on invisibility.
My point is, natural language and common sense works against your interpretation of the rules.
Natural language tells me what "concealed" means. All the people (not you?) saying "but the invisible condition never actually says you can't be seen normally!" are ignoring the word "concealed" and trying to use the condition's definition to undermine itself.
Hiding granting invisibility isn't a loophole. It's to enable a stealth fantasy (in a magical fantasy game) that goes beyond "duck behind cover and snipe." If you hide, you can get found with a simple perception check (or, as discussed ad nauseum, with passive perception if the DM allows, or by the DM just saying "nah, this isn't appropriate for hiding"). The invisibility spell does not have those vulnerabilities. (Well, it does if you ignore the natural definition of "concealed," but that's asinine.)
Natural language also tells me what 'invisible' means, and it's not what hiding does, so presumably they don't have natural language in mind.
"Natural language" doesn't mean rules can't ever be distinct from a dictionary entry. It just means they don't bother defining most words; they mean what they mean. The actual tweet-quote from Crawford is "Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English." In most cases, they are just adding mechanics to make things playable, not turning every noun (to the left of a colon) into abstract, technical jargon.
The "invisible condition" is getting an actual glossary entry to define it. It's probably fair to say they are "completely redefining" that phrase.
Which the rules do. When you have a list of bullet points consisting of a word, followed by a :, followed by a definition, you're explicitly defining terms of art.
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.)
The actual, literal thing they've written for it: "Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." 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. That's just bad reading. I repeat: "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
(Could it be more clear? sure. These editors trim everything within a picometer of its life.)
They're defining it within the specific context. It might have other meanings elsewhere.
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.
The way they have written it, the meaning is "everything following the period". This is a standard lexical construction.
I'm not trying to teach rules, I'm talking about how to write rules. This rule is poorly written (as a side note: the definition of invisible is merely poorly written: you can at least guess what they're trying to say. The definition of hiding is much worse, because you can't even really determine what they're trying to say).
Merriam Webster defines Concealed as "kept out of sight or hidden from view"
Walking right in front of someone is not being kept out of sight or hidden from view.
Therefore the plain definition of the word does not grant invisibility. Which is defined as
"incapable by nature of being seen : not perceptible by vision
inaccessible to view
not openly acknowledged or made known
not able to be recognized or identified"
Even granting you the everyday definition of concealment, it is completely different than invisibility. Thus even using the plane definition, your view is wrong as you are making concealed and invisible interchangeable, when they are not in common usage.
You are making the logical error of treating the terms as synonyms and then equating that means they have the same definition. Which isn't how that works. It is a bad habit most high school english teachers encouraged, but it isn't actually how things work in english.
Don't put words in my mouth. The authors have defined the invisible condition (in the glossary) as, in part, "concealed." "incapable by nature of being seen" sure. Meaning all the arguments of the form "no text prevents looking right at you with no effort" are bullshit.