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'.
Um... the fact that you think those are the same explains why you're confused about this discussion, because those sentences have significantly different meanings.
If someone is wearing green and blue, the first sentence denies entry, the second sentence permits it.
If someone is naked, the first sentence permits entry, the second sentence forbids it.
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'.
Um... the fact that you think those are the same explains why you're confused about this discussion, because those sentences have significantly different meanings.
If someone is wearing green and blue, the first sentence denies entry, the second sentence permits it.
If someone is naked, the first sentence permits entry, the second sentence forbids it.
Not to mention if you are wearing a shirt that is blue and green, you are in fact wearing a shirt that is a color other than green. Therefore you would not be able to enter.
The statement as presented just needs a color other than green to be in the shirt to bad entry.
How do you know its a mistake and not intentional?
It's extremely unlikely that the developers intended to change the game such that there is no longer any such thing as an invisible creature or object anywhere within the D&D universe. That would be a massive departure from how it's always been since the creation of the game. It's an extremely standard fantasy trope.
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 invisible condition in 2024 does not make you unseen, you must be unseen in order to have the invisible condition.
This is exactly correct. And that's the whole problem.
You must be unseen in order to have the invisible condition. Once you have it, the benefits only convey to the creature while you are unseen because it says "unless [the creature] can somehow see you". Currently, all that creature has to do to see you is to simply look at you for exactly the reason that you just said -- the invisible condition in 2024 does not make you unseen.
I haven't read the 2024 PhB, but hopefully the Invisibility spell says something like: "You magically turn invisible, you gain the Invisible condition."
You apparently have some catching up to do within this thread because it has been posted a few times already. The Invisibility spell does NOT have any such language. It grants the Invisible Condition and that's it. It's an example of a rule that is attempting to refer to another rule which no longer exists. It assumes that the language exists within the Invisible Condition, but it does not.
The same is true for the phrase "can somehow see you" within the Condition. This language is attempting to refer back to a previous sentence within the Condition itself which used to be there.
Keep in mind that this language DID exist in the Invisible Condition all the way through playtesting. But it was inexplicably removed just before publication without any rounds of quality control available to be able to spot and correct the error. When you move forward with a process like this, you inevitably have situations like this where multiple other sections of the rules are attempting to refer to this rule which was removed -- when that happens, those other sections of the rules no longer function correctly.
There were several examples of this poor development process resulting in these exact same types of problems throughout the 2014 rules as well -- it seems that they have not learned from their mistakes when it comes to proper development cycles which include proper review and testing after a change has been made before publishing that change. This crops up in core 2014 mechanics such as Targeting, Stealth and Surprise, Movement and so on. Inconsistencies stemming from making a change in one place during or right at the end of playtesting without fully realizing what else that change may have actually broken.
The invisible condition says you are concealed, which basically means unseen.
This is incorrect. The Condition doesn't actually do this. Instead, it allows a creature to experience a particular (explicitly defined) effect that is named "Concealed", but which actually has nothing to do with becoming concealed.
The invisible condition says you are concealed, which basically means unseen.
This is incorrect. The Condition doesn't actually do this. Instead, it allows a creature to experience a particular (explicitly defined) effect that is named "Concealed", but which actually has nothing to do with becoming concealed.
(yadda yadda, DnD uses natural language, and uses the normal english meanings of words outside of very explicit circumstances.)
"Invisible condition" is in the GLOSSARY. Meaning it has a particular game definition that (kinda, not really) overrides the english meaning of "invisible." (See how they didn't call it "invisible," but the "invisible condition?")
"Concealed" is not in the Glossary. It's just a word, that means "can't be seen" (more or less). There's not even a colon acting like it's in some sort of super hidden mini glossary. The invisible condition defines you to be concealed. Without that word, the next sentence or two would be kinda odd.
What's that? You think it's a definition and the word is just a label? Then why is "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." also part of it? Circular reasoning? Recursive definition? The equipment you're wearing/carrying can't be seen, but you can? Are they the emperor's new clothes?
Anyway, they literally define (in part) the invisible condition to mean concealed, which is how the condition makes any sense at all, and how the rules work.
Whether or not a word appears in the Glossary is 100% irrelevant to the discussion of what the actual written words of a particular rule are saying and what those words mean.
What's that? You think it's a definition and the word is just a label? Then why is "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." also part of it? Circular reasoning? Recursive definition? The equipment you're wearing/carrying can't be seen, but you can? Are they the emperor's new clothes?
I don't just think it -- it's a fact. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying experiences the same effect that the creature does -- which is that they aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the creator's effect can somehow see them.
The invisible condition defines you to be concealed.
. . .
Anyway, they literally define (in part) the invisible condition to mean concealed, which is how the condition makes any sense at all, and how the rules work.
Both of these statements are false. In fact, the rules do NOT work that way. And also, the condition does NOT make any sense at all as written. That's the whole point. We are pointing this out to people and hopefully one day it will be corrected.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind:
As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all!
Not only that, but even if the language was added back into the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible, the Concealed effect STILL does not actually do anything at all!
This is because the Concealed effect just reemphasizes rules that already exist within the general rules of the game!
Explicitly, the Concealed effect makes it so that a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see it. But guess what . . .? This is already true!
For example, if I attempt to cast Sacred Flame on a creature, we first read the spell description. It says: "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. So, if I can't see that creature, guess what happens? That creature cannot be affected by this spell effect since it requires me to see the target. However, if I can see that target, then it can be affected by this spell effect.
So, this mechanic already exists. There is literally no mechanical consequence for including this Concealed effect into the Invisible Condition. This could have been completely stricken from the Condition and it would function exactly the same.
In fact, the following sequence of events for how this all happened is possible, if not plausible. At the last minute, another developer made a phone call to the developer who authored this Condition and explained "Hey, that portion of the Invisible Condition that makes a creature Concealed? That's just redundant and unnecessary information -- you could strike that entire portion from the Condition without impacting anything." Then, the developer-author hangs up and says, hmm, ok i guess . . . and tragically, he erroneously strikes the portion of the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible instead of the Concealed effect -- all due to a simple miscommunication at the 11th hour.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind: As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all
That conclusion, alone, demonstrates that you are misreading things. This isn't mind-blowing, it's just wrong. Concealed means concealed. (hint: it's not an "effect" it's an adjective.)
[repeat my previous post that explains this.]
We are pointing this out to people and hopefully one day it will be corrected.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind: As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all
That conclusion, alone, demonstrates that you are misreading things. This isn't mind-blowing, it's just wrong. Concealed means concealed. (hint: it's not an "effect" it's an adjective.)
Their layout choices make it an effect. The problem is that D&D 5e has a history of wanting it both ways -- claiming to use natural language while actually having fairly precise intended meanings for things -- and as a result fails at both.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind: As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all
That conclusion, alone, demonstrates that you are misreading things. This isn't mind-blowing, it's just wrong. Concealed means concealed. (hint: it's not an "effect" it's an adjective.)
Their layout choices make it an effect. The problem is that D&D 5e has a history of wanting it both ways -- claiming to use natural language while actually having fairly precise intended meanings for things -- and as a result fails at both.
If the layout choice were "Concealed:" and this were the 2014 book, I could understand the confusion. But now they've made a actual, legit rules glossary, and they did not put "concealed" in as a technical term. They say you are concealed, they say you can't be affected by things that require seeing unless they can see you, and they say your stuff is concealed too.
Sure, go ahead and present this as an argument to your DM. I think the meaning is clear enough, and playing "gotcha" by proxy with people on the internet is pointless. You are now arguing about their layout.
If the layout choice were "Concealed:" and this were the 2014 book, I could understand the confusion. But now they've made a actual, legit rules glossary, and they did not put "concealed" in as a technical term.
That just means that it's a local definition rather than a global definition -- i.e. this is what concealed means within the context of the invisible status. It's just like listing "claw" in a monster stat block does not tell you what all claws do, only what this particular claw does.
If the layout choice were "Concealed:" and this were the 2014 book, I could understand the confusion. But now they've made a actual, legit rules glossary, and they did not put "concealed" in as a technical term.
That just means that it's a local definition rather than a global definition -- i.e. this is what concealed means within the context of the invisible status. It's just like listing "claw" in a monster stat block does not tell you what all claws do, only what this particular claw does.
So now you're saying that if anywhere else in the rules say you are concealed, it has the regular english meaning, despite (not) getting redefined for invisbility? So, if someone is concealed by something else, but then gains the invisibility condition, "concealed" becomes a pointless label again and anyone can see them?
I'm not buying it. The authors weren't selling it. Concealed means concealed, and the invisibility condition is not a paradoxical vortex of nonsense.
So now you're saying that if anywhere else in the rules say you are concealed, it has the regular english meaning, despite (not) getting redefined for invisbility? So, if someone is concealed by something else, but then gains the invisibility condition, "concealed" becomes a pointless label again and anyone can see them?
Yes to the first, no to the second. Concealed within the invisibility status is a pointless label. This has no effect on any other rule.
So now you're saying that if anywhere else in the rules say you are concealed, it has the regular english meaning, despite (not) getting redefined for invisbility? So, if someone is concealed by something else, but then gains the invisibility condition, "concealed" becomes a pointless label again and anyone can see them?
Actually, you're on the right track with this. For example, in the 2014 rules, the word "concealed" appears within the rules for Cover. For example:
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
In this context, the word has actual mechanical meaning, and it means something pretty close to what you've been saying in this thread.
However, in the context of the Invisible condition, the word means absolutely nothing because it is simply a label that is used to describe something else that is entirely unrelated to the regular english meaning of the word.
Just because this word appears in two different places in the rules, that doesn't have any relevance on what it means in each location. Just because this word does not appear in the Glossary, that doesn't have any relevance on what it means in each location.
There is no text that says anything like "You are concealed" or anything like that. This should not even be implied since this does not even match up with the other two labels that are used for the other two effects listed within this Condition. "Surprise" does NOT mean "you are surprised". "Attacks affected" does NOT mean "your attacks are affected".
You are simply repeatedly insisting that the text says something that simply is not there. This has been explained to you several times now.
What the text DOES say is that a creature who has the Condition experiences "the following effects". A list of effects is given, one of which is called "Concealed". That effect is then explicitly defined, and that definition has absolutely nothing at all to do with actually becoming concealed or in any way, shape or form becoming unable to be seen. It simply does not say that anywhere.
The Concealed effect just says that IF you cannot be seen, then you are not able to be affected by certain effects. This is completely different than causing the creature to become unable to be seen. The concepts are not even related.
The part that actually makes a creature with the Invisible Condition unable to be seen was deleted.
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.
If you have to be unseen to Hide, why on earth does Hiding make you invisible?!? "You have to be hidden to hide so that while hiding you are hidden." is basically what you are saying the rules say. What is the point of getting the invisible condition while Hiding if it doesn't actually do anything?!?
Your point about "I can't be there unless I can somehow get out of jury duty" would be more closely matching the writing of the rules if you wrote, "I can't be there unless I can somehow be there." It doesn't seem like there is anything stopping you from being there other than you just being there. "You cannot be the target of things that require sight, unless you can be seen." is really just the rule for requiring sight.
Whether or not a word appears in the Glossary is 100% irrelevant to the discussion of what the actual written words of a particular rule are saying and what those words mean.
What's that? You think it's a definition and the word is just a label? Then why is "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." also part of it? Circular reasoning? Recursive definition? The equipment you're wearing/carrying can't be seen, but you can? Are they the emperor's new clothes?
I don't just think it -- it's a fact. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying experiences the same effect that the creature does -- which is that they aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the creator's effect can somehow see them.
The invisible condition defines you to be concealed.
. . .
Anyway, they literally define (in part) the invisible condition to mean concealed, which is how the condition makes any sense at all, and how the rules work.
Both of these statements are false. In fact, the rules do NOT work that way. And also, the condition does NOT make any sense at all as written. That's the whole point. We are pointing this out to people and hopefully one day it will be corrected.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind:
As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all!
Not only that, but even if the language was added back into the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible, the Concealed effect STILL does not actually do anything at all!
This is because the Concealed effect just reemphasizes rules that already exist within the general rules of the game!
Explicitly, the Concealed effect makes it so that a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see it. But guess what . . .? This is already true!
For example, if I attempt to cast Sacred Flame on a creature, we first read the spell description. It says: "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. So, if I can't see that creature, guess what happens? That creature cannot be affected by this spell effect since it requires me to see the target. However, if I can see that target, then it can be affected by this spell effect.
So, this mechanic already exists. There is literally no mechanical consequence for including this Concealed effect into the Invisible Condition. This could have been completely stricken from the Condition and it would function exactly the same.
In fact, the following sequence of events for how this all happened is possible, if not plausible. At the last minute, another developer made a phone call to the developer who authored this Condition and explained "Hey, that portion of the Invisible Condition that makes a creature Concealed? That's just redundant and unnecessary information -- you could strike that entire portion from the Condition without impacting anything." Then, the developer-author hangs up and says, hmm, ok i guess . . . and tragically, he erroneously strikes the portion of the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible instead of the Concealed effect -- all due to a simple miscommunication at the 11th hour.
‘the concealed effect changes the assumption from someone can see you, to people can’t see you. Rules go from general to specific, so they are saying, you are concealed, unless some other thing says you can be seen. Note that they no longer describe vision as being 360 degrees in all directions. This means unless the narrative, or an effect allows you to be seen, while under the invisible condition, you can’t be targeted by spells.
Normally;
you can be targeted by spells unless something specifically makes you unseen
hide changes the baseline paradigm
you can’t be targeted by spells, unless something specifically makes you seen.
like normally you don’t need to ask if you can see the target
if a person is not invisible, the question is why can’t I see you (answer might be I’m behind a wall)
if a -erson is invisible, the question is how did you see me (answer might be I have true sight)
the problem with the spell is simply it never says anywhere that someone can’t see you with normal sight. Whereas a hidden person could be seen with normal sight
If you need this much text to describe such a fundamental aspect of the game (not just in practical character abilities but in the macro of just being low key/incognito) then you’ve lost the point of the game and perhaps failed in giving players what they want.
DMs nor players want to have a powerpoint presentation (or a CBT, or a 40-minute lecture) on how stealth works, and have to reference the rules every time a character does a thing that could be considered a stealthy action.
Will homebrew this rule for simplicity and brevity. Thanks for trying.
It doesn't seem like there is anything stopping you from being there other than you just being there. "You cannot be the target of things that require sight, unless you can be seen." is really just the rule for requiring sight
It is redundant clarification yes. But most of the Invisible condition is specifying that your attacks are at advantage and enemy attacks are at disadvantage. It's basically replacing the "unseen attacker" rules that currently exist with a condition called "invisible".
The Invisibility spell does NOT have any such language.
Then that is clearly a typo/error, just like Conjure Minor Elementals, probably due to their constantly shifting definitions for Invisible/Hiding in the UA.
It doesn't seem like there is anything stopping you from being there other than you just being there. "You cannot be the target of things that require sight, unless you can be seen." is really just the rule for requiring sight
It is redundant clarification yes. But most of the Invisible condition is specifying that your attacks are at advantage and enemy attacks are at disadvantage. It's basically replacing the "unseen attacker" rules that currently exist with a condition called "invisible".
The Invisibility spell does NOT have any such language.
Then that is clearly a typo/error, just like Conjure Minor Elementals, probably due to their constantly shifting definitions for Invisible/Hiding in the UA.
So what you're saying is that invisibility doesn't make you unseen, as you have to be unseen to even become invisible. So Invisibility does.....what, exactly? Grants you advantage on one attack roll and disadvantage on attacks against you? So it just has become a Dodge action + True Strike? All for a 3rd level spell!
Then that is clearly a typo/error, just like Conjure Minor Elementals, probably due to their constantly shifting definitions for Invisible/Hiding in the UA.
Sorry for the off-topic, but what was the issue with Conjure Minor Elementals?
So what you're saying is that invisibility doesn't make you unseen, as you have to be unseen to even become invisible. So Invisibility does.....what, exactly? Grants you advantage on one attack roll and disadvantage on attacks against you? So it just has become a Dodge action + True Strike? All for a 3rd level spell!
We're saying that a mistake has been made because currently as written it's actually much worse than this.
Currently (in the 2024 rules), the Invisibility spell grants the Invisible Condition which does not make the creature invisible. Also, if that creature is standing right in front of somebody, it does NOT get any of those advantage / disadvantage benefits that you just listed -- basically, in that situation, it becomes a 3rd level spell that grants advantage on an initiative roll.
Honestly, this thread needs to die and be locked out because it is not providing any clarification on the rules; instead, its making it worse due to some interpretations based on bad faith reading of the text that continue to be pushed. Rules are meant to be interpreted in good faith, not with the intent to exploit loopholes to gain advantages or push disadvantages.
It doesn't seem like there is anything stopping you from being there other than you just being there. "You cannot be the target of things that require sight, unless you can be seen." is really just the rule for requiring sight
It is redundant clarification yes. But most of the Invisible condition is specifying that your attacks are at advantage and enemy attacks are at disadvantage. It's basically replacing the "unseen attacker" rules that currently exist with a condition called "invisible".
The Invisibility spell does NOT have any such language.
Then that is clearly a typo/error, just like Conjure Minor Elementals, probably due to their constantly shifting definitions for Invisible/Hiding in the UA.
It is not a typo/error. The Invisibility spell is the same as 2014, but it changes invisible to Invisible condition, and it removes the line about gear since it was moved to the condition itself. The spell does the same as it did in 2014. The problem here is that some in this thread are pushing the interpretation that you can be seen by normal means because the Invisible condition doesn't specify in writing that "a creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" like in 2014. This line got instead replaced by one that says "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you", and some are taking that to mean ANY means to somehow see you, including normal means. This interpretation breaks the functionality of the game because it invalidates Hide, Invisibility, One with Shadows, Mislead, See Invisibility, Truesight, and many other features that rely on the Invisible condition; but you only get to this interpretation if you're doing a bad faith reading of the text.
The Invisible condition is meant to be a general rule for being unseen, with the actions or spells containing the specific triggers to break or negate it. You can tell by the wording in the condition that WotC used the word Invisible as it's defined in the Oxford Dictionary, not how it's defined in popular culture. They did this so that they could use a singular term to define the condition in a way that is also compatible with 2014 while altering its function to also apply to Hiding, and it's also why they removed the line about "using magic or other senses to see you" that was present in the Playtest.
Invisible (Oxford Dictionary): unable to be seen; not visible to the eye. That by its nature is not an object of sight.
And with this, I am done; this thread has run it's course IMO. People are going to continue to see things their way unless Errata comes out or Crawford himself clarifies this, and I doubt it will change things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Um... the fact that you think those are the same explains why you're confused about this discussion, because those sentences have significantly different meanings.
Not to mention if you are wearing a shirt that is blue and green, you are in fact wearing a shirt that is a color other than green. Therefore you would not be able to enter.
The statement as presented just needs a color other than green to be in the shirt to bad entry.
It's extremely unlikely that the developers intended to change the game such that there is no longer any such thing as an invisible creature or object anywhere within the D&D universe. That would be a massive departure from how it's always been since the creation of the game. It's an extremely standard fantasy trope.
This is exactly correct. And that's the whole problem.
You must be unseen in order to have the invisible condition. Once you have it, the benefits only convey to the creature while you are unseen because it says "unless [the creature] can somehow see you". Currently, all that creature has to do to see you is to simply look at you for exactly the reason that you just said -- the invisible condition in 2024 does not make you unseen.
You apparently have some catching up to do within this thread because it has been posted a few times already. The Invisibility spell does NOT have any such language. It grants the Invisible Condition and that's it. It's an example of a rule that is attempting to refer to another rule which no longer exists. It assumes that the language exists within the Invisible Condition, but it does not.
The same is true for the phrase "can somehow see you" within the Condition. This language is attempting to refer back to a previous sentence within the Condition itself which used to be there.
Keep in mind that this language DID exist in the Invisible Condition all the way through playtesting. But it was inexplicably removed just before publication without any rounds of quality control available to be able to spot and correct the error. When you move forward with a process like this, you inevitably have situations like this where multiple other sections of the rules are attempting to refer to this rule which was removed -- when that happens, those other sections of the rules no longer function correctly.
There were several examples of this poor development process resulting in these exact same types of problems throughout the 2014 rules as well -- it seems that they have not learned from their mistakes when it comes to proper development cycles which include proper review and testing after a change has been made before publishing that change. This crops up in core 2014 mechanics such as Targeting, Stealth and Surprise, Movement and so on. Inconsistencies stemming from making a change in one place during or right at the end of playtesting without fully realizing what else that change may have actually broken.
This is incorrect. The Condition doesn't actually do this. Instead, it allows a creature to experience a particular (explicitly defined) effect that is named "Concealed", but which actually has nothing to do with becoming concealed.
(yadda yadda, DnD uses natural language, and uses the normal english meanings of words outside of very explicit circumstances.)
"Invisible condition" is in the GLOSSARY. Meaning it has a particular game definition that (kinda, not really) overrides the english meaning of "invisible." (See how they didn't call it "invisible," but the "invisible condition?")
"Concealed" is not in the Glossary. It's just a word, that means "can't be seen" (more or less). There's not even a colon acting like it's in some sort of super hidden mini glossary. The invisible condition defines you to be concealed. Without that word, the next sentence or two would be kinda odd.
What's that? You think it's a definition and the word is just a label? Then why is "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed." also part of it? Circular reasoning? Recursive definition? The equipment you're wearing/carrying can't be seen, but you can? Are they the emperor's new clothes?
Anyway, they literally define (in part) the invisible condition to mean concealed, which is how the condition makes any sense at all, and how the rules work.
Whether or not a word appears in the Glossary is 100% irrelevant to the discussion of what the actual written words of a particular rule are saying and what those words mean.
I don't just think it -- it's a fact. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying experiences the same effect that the creature does -- which is that they aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the creator's effect can somehow see them.
Both of these statements are false. In fact, the rules do NOT work that way. And also, the condition does NOT make any sense at all as written. That's the whole point. We are pointing this out to people and hopefully one day it will be corrected.
As for the "concealed" effect -- I will now explain something that might blow your mind:
As written, the Concealed effect does not actually do anything at all!
Not only that, but even if the language was added back into the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible, the Concealed effect STILL does not actually do anything at all!
This is because the Concealed effect just reemphasizes rules that already exist within the general rules of the game!
Explicitly, the Concealed effect makes it so that a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see it. But guess what . . .? This is already true!
For example, if I attempt to cast Sacred Flame on a creature, we first read the spell description. It says: "Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. So, if I can't see that creature, guess what happens? That creature cannot be affected by this spell effect since it requires me to see the target. However, if I can see that target, then it can be affected by this spell effect.
So, this mechanic already exists. There is literally no mechanical consequence for including this Concealed effect into the Invisible Condition. This could have been completely stricken from the Condition and it would function exactly the same.
In fact, the following sequence of events for how this all happened is possible, if not plausible. At the last minute, another developer made a phone call to the developer who authored this Condition and explained "Hey, that portion of the Invisible Condition that makes a creature Concealed? That's just redundant and unnecessary information -- you could strike that entire portion from the Condition without impacting anything." Then, the developer-author hangs up and says, hmm, ok i guess . . . and tragically, he erroneously strikes the portion of the Condition that actually makes a creature invisible instead of the Concealed effect -- all due to a simple miscommunication at the 11th hour.
That conclusion, alone, demonstrates that you are misreading things. This isn't mind-blowing, it's just wrong. Concealed means concealed. (hint: it's not an "effect" it's an adjective.)
[repeat my previous post that explains this.]
You are tilting at windmills.
Their layout choices make it an effect. The problem is that D&D 5e has a history of wanting it both ways -- claiming to use natural language while actually having fairly precise intended meanings for things -- and as a result fails at both.
If the layout choice were "Concealed:" and this were the 2014 book, I could understand the confusion. But now they've made a actual, legit rules glossary, and they did not put "concealed" in as a technical term. They say you are concealed, they say you can't be affected by things that require seeing unless they can see you, and they say your stuff is concealed too.
Sure, go ahead and present this as an argument to your DM. I think the meaning is clear enough, and playing "gotcha" by proxy with people on the internet is pointless. You are now arguing about their layout.
That just means that it's a local definition rather than a global definition -- i.e. this is what concealed means within the context of the invisible status. It's just like listing "claw" in a monster stat block does not tell you what all claws do, only what this particular claw does.
So now you're saying that if anywhere else in the rules say you are concealed, it has the regular english meaning, despite (not) getting redefined for invisbility? So, if someone is concealed by something else, but then gains the invisibility condition, "concealed" becomes a pointless label again and anyone can see them?
I'm not buying it. The authors weren't selling it. Concealed means concealed, and the invisibility condition is not a paradoxical vortex of nonsense.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Concealed within the invisibility status is a pointless label. This has no effect on any other rule.
Actually, you're on the right track with this. For example, in the 2014 rules, the word "concealed" appears within the rules for Cover. For example:
In this context, the word has actual mechanical meaning, and it means something pretty close to what you've been saying in this thread.
However, in the context of the Invisible condition, the word means absolutely nothing because it is simply a label that is used to describe something else that is entirely unrelated to the regular english meaning of the word.
Just because this word appears in two different places in the rules, that doesn't have any relevance on what it means in each location. Just because this word does not appear in the Glossary, that doesn't have any relevance on what it means in each location.
No. It doesn't.
Concealed means:
No. They do not say that.
There is no text that says anything like "You are concealed" or anything like that. This should not even be implied since this does not even match up with the other two labels that are used for the other two effects listed within this Condition. "Surprise" does NOT mean "you are surprised". "Attacks affected" does NOT mean "your attacks are affected".
You are simply repeatedly insisting that the text says something that simply is not there. This has been explained to you several times now.
What the text DOES say is that a creature who has the Condition experiences "the following effects". A list of effects is given, one of which is called "Concealed". That effect is then explicitly defined, and that definition has absolutely nothing at all to do with actually becoming concealed or in any way, shape or form becoming unable to be seen. It simply does not say that anywhere.
The Concealed effect just says that IF you cannot be seen, then you are not able to be affected by certain effects. This is completely different than causing the creature to become unable to be seen. The concepts are not even related.
The part that actually makes a creature with the Invisible Condition unable to be seen was deleted.
If you have to be unseen to Hide, why on earth does Hiding make you invisible?!? "You have to be hidden to hide so that while hiding you are hidden." is basically what you are saying the rules say. What is the point of getting the invisible condition while Hiding if it doesn't actually do anything?!?
Your point about "I can't be there unless I can somehow get out of jury duty" would be more closely matching the writing of the rules if you wrote, "I can't be there unless I can somehow be there." It doesn't seem like there is anything stopping you from being there other than you just being there. "You cannot be the target of things that require sight, unless you can be seen." is really just the rule for requiring sight.
‘the concealed effect changes the assumption from someone can see you, to people can’t see you. Rules go from general to specific, so they are saying, you are concealed, unless some other thing says you can be seen. Note that they no longer describe vision as being 360 degrees in all directions. This means unless the narrative, or an effect allows you to be seen, while under the invisible condition, you can’t be targeted by spells.
Normally;
you can be targeted by spells unless something specifically makes you unseen
hide changes the baseline paradigm
you can’t be targeted by spells, unless something specifically makes you seen.
like normally you don’t need to ask if you can see the target
if a person is not invisible, the question is why can’t I see you (answer might be I’m behind a wall)
if a -erson is invisible, the question is how did you see me (answer might be I have true sight)
the problem with the spell is simply it never says anywhere that someone can’t see you with normal sight. Whereas a hidden person could be seen with normal sight
If you need this much text to describe such a fundamental aspect of the game (not just in practical character abilities but in the macro of just being low key/incognito) then you’ve lost the point of the game and perhaps failed in giving players what they want.
DMs nor players want to have a powerpoint presentation (or a CBT, or a 40-minute lecture) on how stealth works, and have to reference the rules every time a character does a thing that could be considered a stealthy action.
Will homebrew this rule for simplicity and brevity. Thanks for trying.
It is redundant clarification yes. But most of the Invisible condition is specifying that your attacks are at advantage and enemy attacks are at disadvantage. It's basically replacing the "unseen attacker" rules that currently exist with a condition called "invisible".
Then that is clearly a typo/error, just like Conjure Minor Elementals, probably due to their constantly shifting definitions for Invisible/Hiding in the UA.
So what you're saying is that invisibility doesn't make you unseen, as you have to be unseen to even become invisible. So Invisibility does.....what, exactly? Grants you advantage on one attack roll and disadvantage on attacks against you? So it just has become a Dodge action + True Strike? All for a 3rd level spell!
Sorry for the off-topic, but what was the issue with Conjure Minor Elementals?
We're saying that a mistake has been made because currently as written it's actually much worse than this.
Currently (in the 2024 rules), the Invisibility spell grants the Invisible Condition which does not make the creature invisible. Also, if that creature is standing right in front of somebody, it does NOT get any of those advantage / disadvantage benefits that you just listed -- basically, in that situation, it becomes a 3rd level spell that grants advantage on an initiative roll.
Honestly, this thread needs to die and be locked out because it is not providing any clarification on the rules; instead, its making it worse due to some interpretations based on bad faith reading of the text that continue to be pushed. Rules are meant to be interpreted in good faith, not with the intent to exploit loopholes to gain advantages or push disadvantages.
It is not a typo/error. The Invisibility spell is the same as 2014, but it changes invisible to Invisible condition, and it removes the line about gear since it was moved to the condition itself. The spell does the same as it did in 2014. The problem here is that some in this thread are pushing the interpretation that you can be seen by normal means because the Invisible condition doesn't specify in writing that "a creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" like in 2014. This line got instead replaced by one that says "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you", and some are taking that to mean ANY means to somehow see you, including normal means. This interpretation breaks the functionality of the game because it invalidates Hide, Invisibility, One with Shadows, Mislead, See Invisibility, Truesight, and many other features that rely on the Invisible condition; but you only get to this interpretation if you're doing a bad faith reading of the text.
The Invisible condition is meant to be a general rule for being unseen, with the actions or spells containing the specific triggers to break or negate it. You can tell by the wording in the condition that WotC used the word Invisible as it's defined in the Oxford Dictionary, not how it's defined in popular culture. They did this so that they could use a singular term to define the condition in a way that is also compatible with 2014 while altering its function to also apply to Hiding, and it's also why they removed the line about "using magic or other senses to see you" that was present in the Playtest.
And with this, I am done; this thread has run it's course IMO. People are going to continue to see things their way unless Errata comes out or Crawford himself clarifies this, and I doubt it will change things.