So See Invisibility in 5.24 is X-ray vision? And it gives you the ability to know where every hidden character is?
I don't think so, more like the spell let you see such creature based on line of sight. If an Invisible creature via invisibility can be seen somehow with See Invisibility or Truesight, it must have clear lline of sight to it and thus have nothing that block vision entirely, such as wall or opaque fog for exemple.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
For clarity, I am not saying that looking a person under the effects of invisibility breaks the spell -- it doesn't. Rather, it makes the condition irrelevant because it negates the bonuses associated with being invisible (advantage on attacks, disadvantage on being attacked).
But you're making the assumption that because the condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, then normal sight is also capable of negating these bonuses because you're assuming the condition doesn't make you transparent. You saying that normal sight can see someone with the condition is already adding something that's not there in the text. If we go by RAW:
- The rule from 2014 where you have 360° awareness was removed from 2024.
- The book only specifies three types of vision that can see someone under the Invisible condition: Blindsight, Truesight and Tremorsense
- See Invisibility can see someone with the Invisible condition as if they're visible
-Mind Spike ignores the Invisible condition
- You can't get benefit from Invisible condition if affected by Faerie Fire. Starry Wisp also does the same per Crawford.
- DM ruling
Those are all the ones I can recall from memory, but my point is:
If the book doesn't specify in the text that normal sight can see someone with the Invisible condition to the letter, then it can't.
If the book doesn't specify in the text that normal sight can see someone with the Invisible condition to the letter, then it can't.
No, that's not how the rules work. The fact that things can be seen in the world is a core mechanic of the game that exists by default as sort of a "general rule". By default you can see creatures that have the Stunned Condition. By default you can see creatures that have the Incapacitated Condition. And so on. If a Condition makes it so that the creature cannot be seen then it must explicitly say so -- it's not the other way around. Rules only do what they say. The Invisible Condition needs to actually say that a creature with that Condition cannot be seen. Otherwise, that Condition doesn't do that.
If the book doesn't specify in the text that normal sight can see someone with the Invisible condition to the letter, then it can't.
No, that's not how the rules work. The fact that things can be seen in the world is a core mechanic of the game that exists by default as sort of a "general rule". By default you can see creatures that have the Stunned Condition. By default you can see creatures that have the Incapacitated Condition. And so on. If a Condition makes it so that the creature cannot be seen then it must explicitly say so -- it's not the other way around. Rules only do what they say. The Invisible Condition needs to actually say that a creature with that Condition cannot be seen. Otherwise, that Condition doesn't do that.
So you're just ignoring the Concealed bonus effect from the condition? Because your interpretation makes that mutually exclusive.
But you're making the assumption that because the condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, then normal sight is also capable of negating these bonuses because you're assuming the condition doesn't make you transparent.
Rules do what they say they do. The rules don't say that the condition changes your transparency... so it doesn't. Also, since hiding clearly does not make you transparent, and uses the same condition, the condition can't be making you transparent.
Some of you are continuing to assume that the debate is only about which situations can "break" (or in other words, "end" or "remove") the Condition. You are failing to see that the spell never actually makes a creature invisible. It only gives the creature the Invisible Condition. And that Condition also never actually makes a creature invisible. That's the problem. It's not only about what "breaks" the Condition or what "breaks" the spell. It's also about what the Condition and the Spell actually DO in the first place.
The spell (along with successfully hiding) literally gives you the "invisible" condition. Said condition literally says you are "concealed." (It then gives the mechanical effects of such.) Are you seriously suggesting those words are meaningless? 2014 D&D was written in "natural language" and 2024 has given no indication of changing that. They just added a glossary, which literally tells you the condition conceals you. It doesn't really say how you are concealed, probably because that varies by narrative interpretation, not to mention use case.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
For clarity, I am not saying that looking a person under the effects of invisibility breaks the spell -- it doesn't. Rather, it makes the condition irrelevant because it negates the bonuses associated with being invisible (advantage on attacks, disadvantage on being attacked).
(related to the above, which is why I've combined these replies.)
Both the spell and the Hide action give you the "invisible" condition, which includes being "concealed." You can't not acknowledge this; the mechanics of "concealed" are literally the thing that tells you someone needs to "somehow see you" to get past the condition.
The spell doesn't actually give other characters a way to see you. (It leaves that up to special things like Truesight and whatnot.) The hide action explicitly states a mechanic to "find" you (a perception check that beats your hide roll). That doesn't work on the spell. But for either, "looking" doesn't do anything. They need to get past the "concealed" part to "look" at you.
...
Hell, even in 2014 (not to mention 2024), if someone is invisible you can still attack them, with disadvantage. Most DMs I've played with try to explain that with "well, you have that shimmery refraction look that the predator gets when its cloak is up..." But that's just a narrative interpretation.
Some of you are continuing to assume that the debate is only about which situations can "break" (or in other words, "end" or "remove") the Condition. You are failing to see that the spell never actually makes a creature invisible. It only gives the creature the Invisible Condition. And that Condition also never actually makes a creature invisible. That's the problem. It's not only about what "breaks" the Condition or what "breaks" the spell. It's also about what the Condition and the Spell actually DO in the first place.
The spell (along with successfully hiding) literally gives you the "invisible" condition. Said condition literally says you are "concealed." (It then gives the mechanical effects of such.) Are you seriously suggesting those words are meaningless? 2014 D&D was written in "natural language" and 2024 has given no indication of changing that. They just added a glossary, which literally tells you the condition conceals you. It doesn't really say how you are concealed, probably because that varies by narrative interpretation, not to mention use case.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
For clarity, I am not saying that looking a person under the effects of invisibility breaks the spell -- it doesn't. Rather, it makes the condition irrelevant because it negates the bonuses associated with being invisible (advantage on attacks, disadvantage on being attacked).
(related to the above, which is why I've combined these replies.)
Both the spell and the Hide action give you the "invisible" condition, which includes being "concealed." You can't not acknowledge this; the mechanics of "concealed" are literally the thing that tells you someone needs to "somehow see you" to get past the condition.
The spell doesn't actually give other characters a way to see you. (It leaves that up to special things like Truesight and whatnot.) The hide action explicitly states a mechanic to "find" you (a perception check that beats your hide roll). That doesn't work on the spell. But for either, "looking" doesn't do anything. They need to get past the "concealed" part to "look" at you.
...
Hell, even in 2014 (not to mention 2024), if someone is invisible you can still attack them, with disadvantage. Most DMs I've played with try to explain that with "well, you have that shimmery refraction look that the predator gets when its cloak is up..." But that's just a narrative interpretation.
I was about to say something similar, but you beat me to it. Well said
But you're making the assumption that because the condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, then normal sight is also capable of negating these bonuses because you're assuming the condition doesn't make you transparent.
Rules do what they say they do. The rules don't say that the condition changes your transparency... so it doesn't. Also, since hiding clearly does not make you transparent, and uses the same condition, the condition can't be making you transparent.
Rules do what they do...on that we agree.
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.
Somehow (adverb): in a way that is not known or certain
See (verb): to perceive or detect as if by sight
In other words, while you're under the Concealed effect you can't be targeted by sight. If the enemy can't target you by sight, it can't see you, unless it can perceive you by sight in a way that's not known.
If you use the Invisibility spell, you have the concealed effect, so you can't be targeted by sight. This already invalidates normal sight, so an enemy needs another way to see you. The spell doesn't have a mechanism that requires you to roll a Perception check like the Hide action does because Perception is used to find things that are hidden or concealed using sight.
Like Kenclary said in his post, you're deliberately ignoring this to prove a point.
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.
Somehow (adverb): in a way that is not known or certain
See (verb): to perceive or detect as if by sight
In other words, while you're under the Concealed effect you can't be targeted by sight.
Nope. Your first three sentences are correct. The last one is incorrect. You can't be targeted by sight unless the target can see you.
The word 'somehow' implies that there may be an effect that is preventing you from being seen, but does not specify what that effect is, or if that effect even exists. There needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen.
The word 'somehow' implies that there may be an effect that is preventing you from being seen, but does not specify what that effect is, or if that effect even exists. There needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen.
That's some dodgy reasoning.
You're right, it doesn't specify what effect could see you. (again, I suspect that Truesight et al do that.) But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
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.
Somehow (adverb): in a way that is not known or certain
See (verb): to perceive or detect as if by sight
In other words, while you're under the Concealed effect you can't be targeted by sight.
Nope. Your first three sentences are correct. The last one is incorrect. You can't be targeted by sight unless the target can see you.
The word 'somehow' implies that there may be an effect that is preventing you from being seen, but does not specify what that effect is, or if that effect even exists. There needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen.
Agree to disagree. The word "somehow" as an adverb modifies the "See" verb, which in this case results in this: You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can "in a way that is not known or certain" see you.
The effect is what gave you the condition in the first place, and each one has their own rules. I keep telling you, these rules don't exist in a vacuum; they're conditional with each other and the effect that triggers it, but you're treating them separately as if they're not related.
The word 'somehow' implies that there may be an effect that is preventing you from being seen, but does not specify what that effect is, or if that effect even exists. There needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen.
That's some dodgy reasoning.
You're right, it doesn't specify what effect could see you. (again, I suspect that Truesight et al do that.) But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
I know. It's like he's cherry-picking what to use to validate his point. Not only to your point, but also the Invisible condition is predicated on the feature that triggers it: Hide, Invisibility or Greater Invisibility, among others.
But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
No, it isn't. The concealed effect in the text for the Invisible Condition actually has an exact definition. There's nothing "natural language" about that section. It's a keyword that gives an exact name to an effect. Then, that effect is immediately precisely defined. It has the mechanical meaning in the game that is actually written there.
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.
For this Condition, that's exactly what the word "concealed" means. We don't go back and look at how the word "concealed" might have been used in the rules for Total Cover. We don't go back and look at how the word "concealed" might have been used in the rules for a Sleight of Hand check, or in some other spell descriptions or class features. We look at exactly how it is defined within this rule.
As an example, suppose we went to the database to look up the stat block for the goblin monster. Within the goblin's stat block, we have the following:
"Nimble Escape. The goblin can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of its turns."
So, what does it mean that the goblin has a nimble escape feature? Do we try to think of the "natural language" usage of the phrase "nimble escape"? What does it mean narratively to make a nimble escape? Should we be arguing that the goblin has the ability to "just barely escape from danger whenever it wants to?"
No. Within the goblin stat block, the words "nimble escape" are given an exact definition which provides the actual mechanical impact of the feature. There's no argument about what the words mean. It is defined in the text.
Same story for what "Concealed" means in the Invisible Condition. The word "Concealed" is a bolded title which provides an exact name for a particular effect. That effect is precisely defined in the text. What the word "concealed" might mean in everyday usage is totally irrelevant here.
You aren't affected by an effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. That's it. But why wouldn't he be able to see you? No reason for that is given.
Compare this with the 2014 description:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
It should be painfully obvious how different that is from the 2024 description. This above sentence is what actually makes an invisible creature invisible -- it's because it says so! The 2024 description is completely missing anything like this. The 2024 Invisible Condition simply does not make creatures invisible because it never says that it does, and rules only do what they say.
I'm just gonna leave this here...do what you will with this information. These are all 2024 versions.
Blindsight: If you have Blindsight, you can see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can see anything that isn't behind Total Cover even if you have the Blinded condition or are in Darkness. Moreover, in that range, you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Truesight: If you have Truesight, your vision is enhanced within a specific range. Within that range, your vision pierces through the following:
Darkness. You can see in normal and magical Darkness.
Invisibility. You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
Visual Illusions. Visual Illusions appear transparent to you, and you automatically succeed on saving throws against them.
Transformations. You discern the true form of any creature or object you see that has been transformed by magic.
Ethereal Plane. You see into the Ethereal Plane.
Tremorsense: A creature with Tremorsense can pinpoint the location of creatures and moving objects within a specific range, provided that the creature with Tremorsense and anything it is detecting are both in contact with the same surface (such as the ground, a wall, or a ceiling) or the same liquid. Tremorsense can't detect creatures or objects in the air, and it doesn't count as a form of sight.
Notice how Truesight specifically says it pierces through the Invisible condition (plus the other effects). This means normal vision can't unless there are other conditional rules on the feature that gave you the invisible condition...say, like a Perception Check on the Hide Action.
You're right, it doesn't specify what effect could see you. (again, I suspect that Truesight et al do that.) But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
No it isn't. The concealed effect says nothing about whether you can be seen. It says you cannot be affected by things that require you to be seen, unless you can be seen.
I mean, there's no real question that they intended for the effect to make you unseen, this isn't a case of RAI being unclear, but it's a problem when RAW is a mismatch with RAI. It's not too hard to update, it just requires a few additional words. For example, we can add
Unseen: the subject cannot be seen, unless the observer has a means of seeing invisible, or the effect that is making the character invisible specifies a means of seeing them.
That's adequate to solve the problem. It's not the way I'd do it, I don't think see invisibility should work against hide, but it accomplishes what I assume they were trying to do.
The bigger problem is really with stealth, because they really don't give anything approaching clear guidelines on what's supposed to reveal a hidden character, and the two simplest options are both terrible. The simple options are
The invisible condition is removed when you no longer have the prerequisites for hiding (3/4 cover or heavily obscured). This makes stealth nearly useless.
The invisible condition is only removed by the effects stated in the hide action, and "find" means "successful Perception check". This means you can do a lot of things that it seems should reveal you and remain unseen.
This is harder to fix because I don't actually know what RAI is.
I'm pretty sure breathing fire and remaining hidden is not RAI, which can be fixed by adding a couple words
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, you take a clearly visible action, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
but the things I can't discern RAI about are
What happens if I no longer have the prerequisites for hiding (I moved, an enemy moved, my source of cover or concealment moved or ceased to exist).
You're right, it doesn't specify what effect could see you. (again, I suspect that Truesight et al do that.) But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
No it isn't. The concealed effect says nothing about whether you can be seen. It says you cannot be affected by things that require you to be seen, unless you can be seen.
I mean, there's no real question that they intended for the effect to make you unseen, this isn't a case of RAI being unclear, but it's a problem when RAW is a mismatch with RAI. It's not too hard to update, it just requires a few additional words. For example, we can add
They're not going to update something like this when the book is about to release, and don't expect day 1 errata for such a paltry reason.
No it isn't. The concealed effect says nothing about whether you can be seen. It says you cannot be affected by things that require you to be seen, unless you can be seen.
Of course it tells you that you are not seen. It is an impossible statement otherwise. "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
I mean, there's no real question that they intended for the effect to make you unseen, this isn't a case of RAI being unclear, but it's a problem when RAW is a mismatch with RAI.
If players were CPUs that could only follow coded instructions, you'd have a point. But they are not. Given that the authors have not explained their intent with the new book yet, the very fact that you understand RAI comes from the written words themselves. As if they are doing their jobs.
But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
No, it isn't. The concealed effect in the text for the Invisible Condition actually has an exact definition. There's nothing "natural language" about that section. It's a keyword that gives an exact name to an effect. Then, that effect is immediately precisely defined. It has the mechanical meaning in the game that is actually written there.
Incorrect. Modern D&D doesn't have "keywords" like that, unless it redefines them entirely. The concealed effect is listing the mechanical effects of itself, so players/dms do not need to improvise them. But the definition of "concealed" still stands and is quite obvious.
...
This whole conversation is about the mechanical effects of hiding (and invisibility in general), in a subforum about rules and mechanics. The mechanics are what matter here. And they are clear (heh). Mechanics that require sight don't work on invisible things, unless the person using them has a special exception (telling them they can see invisible things). You want to say the invisible person is still reflecting and blocking light? Cool. Also mechanically meaningless. Is invisibility actual transparency? A shimmering refraction effect? "Just someone always being in your blind spots"? All the same. This doesn't require a natural language definition of "concealed" or "invisible," but it sure is nice that it pretty clearly (heh) follows their natural definitions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While you have the Invisible condition in both cases, when you can be seen somehow;
Invisibility spell: You still have the Invisible condition but only benefit from the first bullet.
Hide action: You no longer have the Invisible condition since an enemy find you.
I don't think so, more like the spell let you see such creature based on line of sight. If an Invisible creature via invisibility can be seen somehow with See Invisibility or Truesight, it must have clear lline of sight to it and thus have nothing that block vision entirely, such as wall or opaque fog for exemple.
No, it doesn't let you see through walls, because a target behind a wall isn't invisible, it's heavily concealed (which has its own issues, but...)
I put my own writeup of what I think they're trying to accomplish at competently written vision rules.
But you're making the assumption that because the condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, then normal sight is also capable of negating these bonuses because you're assuming the condition doesn't make you transparent. You saying that normal sight can see someone with the condition is already adding something that's not there in the text. If we go by RAW:
- The rule from 2014 where you have 360° awareness was removed from 2024.
- The book only specifies three types of vision that can see someone under the Invisible condition: Blindsight, Truesight and Tremorsense
- See Invisibility can see someone with the Invisible condition as if they're visible
-Mind Spike ignores the Invisible condition
- You can't get benefit from Invisible condition if affected by Faerie Fire. Starry Wisp also does the same per Crawford.
- DM ruling
Those are all the ones I can recall from memory, but my point is:
If the book doesn't specify in the text that normal sight can see someone with the Invisible condition to the letter, then it can't.
No, that's not how the rules work. The fact that things can be seen in the world is a core mechanic of the game that exists by default as sort of a "general rule". By default you can see creatures that have the Stunned Condition. By default you can see creatures that have the Incapacitated Condition. And so on. If a Condition makes it so that the creature cannot be seen then it must explicitly say so -- it's not the other way around. Rules only do what they say. The Invisible Condition needs to actually say that a creature with that Condition cannot be seen. Otherwise, that Condition doesn't do that.
So you're just ignoring the Concealed bonus effect from the condition? Because your interpretation makes that mutually exclusive.
Rules do what they say they do. The rules don't say that the condition changes your transparency... so it doesn't. Also, since hiding clearly does not make you transparent, and uses the same condition, the condition can't be making you transparent.
The spell (along with successfully hiding) literally gives you the "invisible" condition. Said condition literally says you are "concealed." (It then gives the mechanical effects of such.) Are you seriously suggesting those words are meaningless? 2014 D&D was written in "natural language" and 2024 has given no indication of changing that. They just added a glossary, which literally tells you the condition conceals you. It doesn't really say how you are concealed, probably because that varies by narrative interpretation, not to mention use case.
(related to the above, which is why I've combined these replies.)
Both the spell and the Hide action give you the "invisible" condition, which includes being "concealed." You can't not acknowledge this; the mechanics of "concealed" are literally the thing that tells you someone needs to "somehow see you" to get past the condition.
The spell doesn't actually give other characters a way to see you. (It leaves that up to special things like Truesight and whatnot.) The hide action explicitly states a mechanic to "find" you (a perception check that beats your hide roll). That doesn't work on the spell. But for either, "looking" doesn't do anything. They need to get past the "concealed" part to "look" at you.
...
Hell, even in 2014 (not to mention 2024), if someone is invisible you can still attack them, with disadvantage. Most DMs I've played with try to explain that with "well, you have that shimmery refraction look that the predator gets when its cloak is up..." But that's just a narrative interpretation.
I was about to say something similar, but you beat me to it. Well said
Rules do what they do...on that we agree.
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.
Somehow (adverb): in a way that is not known or certain
See (verb): to perceive or detect as if by sight
In other words, while you're under the Concealed effect you can't be targeted by sight. If the enemy can't target you by sight, it can't see you, unless it can perceive you by sight in a way that's not known.
If you use the Invisibility spell, you have the concealed effect, so you can't be targeted by sight. This already invalidates normal sight, so an enemy needs another way to see you. The spell doesn't have a mechanism that requires you to roll a Perception check like the Hide action does because Perception is used to find things that are hidden or concealed using sight.
Like Kenclary said in his post, you're deliberately ignoring this to prove a point.
Nope. Your first three sentences are correct. The last one is incorrect. You can't be targeted by sight unless the target can see you.
The word 'somehow' implies that there may be an effect that is preventing you from being seen, but does not specify what that effect is, or if that effect even exists. There needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen.
That's some dodgy reasoning.
You're right, it doesn't specify what effect could see you. (again, I suspect that Truesight et al do that.) But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
Agree to disagree. The word "somehow" as an adverb modifies the "See" verb, which in this case results in this: You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can "in a way that is not known or certain" see you.
The effect is what gave you the condition in the first place, and each one has their own rules. I keep telling you, these rules don't exist in a vacuum; they're conditional with each other and the effect that triggers it, but you're treating them separately as if they're not related.
I know. It's like he's cherry-picking what to use to validate his point. Not only to your point, but also the Invisible condition is predicated on the feature that triggers it: Hide, Invisibility or Greater Invisibility, among others.
No, it isn't. The concealed effect in the text for the Invisible Condition actually has an exact definition. There's nothing "natural language" about that section. It's a keyword that gives an exact name to an effect. Then, that effect is immediately precisely defined. It has the mechanical meaning in the game that is actually written there.
For this Condition, that's exactly what the word "concealed" means. We don't go back and look at how the word "concealed" might have been used in the rules for Total Cover. We don't go back and look at how the word "concealed" might have been used in the rules for a Sleight of Hand check, or in some other spell descriptions or class features. We look at exactly how it is defined within this rule.
As an example, suppose we went to the database to look up the stat block for the goblin monster. Within the goblin's stat block, we have the following:
"Nimble Escape. The goblin can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of its turns."
So, what does it mean that the goblin has a nimble escape feature? Do we try to think of the "natural language" usage of the phrase "nimble escape"? What does it mean narratively to make a nimble escape? Should we be arguing that the goblin has the ability to "just barely escape from danger whenever it wants to?"
No. Within the goblin stat block, the words "nimble escape" are given an exact definition which provides the actual mechanical impact of the feature. There's no argument about what the words mean. It is defined in the text.
Same story for what "Concealed" means in the Invisible Condition. The word "Concealed" is a bolded title which provides an exact name for a particular effect. That effect is precisely defined in the text. What the word "concealed" might mean in everyday usage is totally irrelevant here.
You aren't affected by an effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. That's it. But why wouldn't he be able to see you? No reason for that is given.
Compare this with the 2014 description:
It should be painfully obvious how different that is from the 2024 description. This above sentence is what actually makes an invisible creature invisible -- it's because it says so! The 2024 description is completely missing anything like this. The 2024 Invisible Condition simply does not make creatures invisible because it never says that it does, and rules only do what they say.
I'm just gonna leave this here...do what you will with this information. These are all 2024 versions.
Notice how Truesight specifically says it pierces through the Invisible condition (plus the other effects). This means normal vision can't unless there are other conditional rules on the feature that gave you the invisible condition...say, like a Perception Check on the Hide Action.
No it isn't. The concealed effect says nothing about whether you can be seen. It says you cannot be affected by things that require you to be seen, unless you can be seen.
I mean, there's no real question that they intended for the effect to make you unseen, this isn't a case of RAI being unclear, but it's a problem when RAW is a mismatch with RAI. It's not too hard to update, it just requires a few additional words. For example, we can add
That's adequate to solve the problem. It's not the way I'd do it, I don't think see invisibility should work against hide, but it accomplishes what I assume they were trying to do.
The bigger problem is really with stealth, because they really don't give anything approaching clear guidelines on what's supposed to reveal a hidden character, and the two simplest options are both terrible. The simple options are
This is harder to fix because I don't actually know what RAI is.
I'm pretty sure breathing fire and remaining hidden is not RAI, which can be fixed by adding a couple words
but the things I can't discern RAI about are
No it doesn't. That's the fallacy of the converse.
How is it a fallacy? Because it's right there in the text that Truesight pierces the Invisible condition
They're not going to update something like this when the book is about to release, and don't expect day 1 errata for such a paltry reason.
Because it's a formal fallacy (known by various names, the most standard being affirming the consequent). Expressed very simply, the error is
Step 3 is a logical error.
Of course it tells you that you are not seen. It is an impossible statement otherwise. "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
If players were CPUs that could only follow coded instructions, you'd have a point. But they are not. Given that the authors have not explained their intent with the new book yet, the very fact that you understand RAI comes from the written words themselves. As if they are doing their jobs.
Incorrect. Modern D&D doesn't have "keywords" like that, unless it redefines them entirely. The concealed effect is listing the mechanical effects of itself, so players/dms do not need to improvise them. But the definition of "concealed" still stands and is quite obvious.
...
This whole conversation is about the mechanical effects of hiding (and invisibility in general), in a subforum about rules and mechanics. The mechanics are what matter here. And they are clear (heh). Mechanics that require sight don't work on invisible things, unless the person using them has a special exception (telling them they can see invisible things). You want to say the invisible person is still reflecting and blocking light? Cool. Also mechanically meaningless. Is invisibility actual transparency? A shimmering refraction effect? "Just someone always being in your blind spots"? All the same. This doesn't require a natural language definition of "concealed" or "invisible," but it sure is nice that it pretty clearly (heh) follows their natural definitions.