The difference is that one is nonsensical from the standpoint of being completely incompatible with a vast swathe of rules while the other is only nonsensical if you refused to acknowledge that Stealth is an abstraction like so many other rules.
The difference is that one is nonsensical from the standpoint of being completely incompatible with a vast swathe of rules.
Neither version is incompatible with other rules. The problem is that sensible rule is somewhere in between the two and we have no indication of where that in between might be.
That is what the SAC is talking about. Hiding is not a magical action and applies no magical conditions. Ultimately nobody has been able to prove any intention in the rules that the invisible condition from hiding makes you imperceptible and until you do, you don't have an argument, it's just all pointless.
Oh, it's been proven countless times already, it's just not enough to convince you and a couple of others, apparently. But there's plenty of evidence. Invisibility is not a "magical condition". There's no mention of "magic" in its description. It's a condition that makes other creatures not be able to see you, and the "hidden" state gives it to you. Period. Don't like it? Make a house-rule about it... You're the one who doesn't have an argument, so you just make things up in order to justify ignoring the rules.
You have the invisible condition while hidden. That's it. Whether you like it or not. No need to extrapolate "but unless someone sees you". It's like saying "you're flying, unless you get off the ground", or "you have darkvision, unless it's dark". That's ridiculous.
So is the idea that coming into full clear and unobstructed view doesn't reveal your location.
That's what invisibility does. Invisibility is not necessarily magical. It just means you can't be seen, and in this case, it's because you're stealthy. Again, don't like it? Make a house-rule about it.
Also, there are plenty of ways to mitigate the effectiveness of stealth in a party. If they hide before combat, go into initiative order, and have them roll stealth at every turn. It's your prerogative as a DM to decide when to make checks, so do that. They're trying to get past guards on active duty? Have the guards take periodic Search actions. They're on guard duty, that's what they're supposed to do. Even with Pass Without Trace, someone is bound to get detected eventually.
That's what invisibility does. Invisibility is not necessarily magical. It just means you can't be seen, and in this case, it's because you're stealthy.
Actually, it doesn't mean you can't be seen. It means you are treated as unseen unless they can see you, but does not have any verbiage preventing you from being seen. In addition, as of the current errata, you only have the invisible condition while hidden -- which the rules do not define.
"SOMEHOW see you"... That means with Blindsight, or Truesight. You know, like the SAC mentions... Again, your argument is like saying "you can fly, unless you get off the ground".
Hidden is what you are when you hide. It's that simple.
"SOMEHOW see you"... That means with Blindsight, or Truesight. You know, like the SAC mentions... Again, your argument is like saying "you can fly, unless you get off the ground".
Hidden is what you are when you hide. It's that simple.
Why are you again repeating this already debunked argument? The section you refer to is specifically about targeting and does nothing against plain sight. So again, show where hiding makes a creature imperceptible while in plain sight? Until you can do that, you have no argument.
"The section you refer to is specifically about targeting"
Show me where it says that. You need to stop making things up and claim them as rules, like you did when you claimed that invisibility was a "magical condition". Until then, I'm done arguing with you.
Even with Pass Without Trace, someone is bound to get detected eventually.
Why would you say that? Any character with at least a +4 to their Stealth cannot fail a Stealth check with Pass without Trace. It is not difficult to have an entire party with at least a +4 to their Stealth.
It's not enough to pass the Stealth check. You need to beat the perception score of every creature around, AND their active perception checks when they make one.
Hide [Action]
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
For example, a Storm Giant has a perception score of 20. If you rolled 18 on your Stealth check, the giant still sees you (even if you're outside its Truesight range), since you didn't beat its passive perception score.
And because that one enemy found you, it makes your attempt at hiding fail entirely, even if the other enemies around have lower perception scores, since an enemy finding you is one of the listed conditions that ends it.
The difference is that one is nonsensical from the standpoint of being completely incompatible with a vast swathe of rules.
Neither version is incompatible with other rules. The problem is that sensible rule is somewhere in between the two and we have no indication of where that in between might be.
The "in between" version is easily attainable with a sense of nuance and judgement calls made by a DM, like basically everything in DnD.
And one of those versions, specifically the one where Stealth can be used to successfully sneak around a battlefield to make sneak attacks and stuff, is very sensible in the concrete, discretized combat system, in the majority of cases.
It's not said in the description of that Special Sense (though it is mentioned for Blindsight), but it makes sense to me because you don't have line of sight to the hidden creature.
You need to beat the perception score of every creature around, AND their active perception checks when they make one.
No, you don't. It is always DC 15 to Hide. Your stealth check is the DC for another creature to use a Perception check to find you if they are actively looking for you - read what you posted! So assuming you have a +4 and Pass without Trace it goes like this:
Your turn -> Action:Hide vs DC 15 = autosuccess, you are hidden. Enemy turn -> Action:Search vs DC equal to your Stealth check, if successful they find you. Your turn -> Action:Hide vs DC 15 = autosuccess, you are hidden again. ... repeat for as long as you want.
But most of the time, enemies aren't actively looking for you. Most of the time the party is the one hunting the enemies, not the other way round. So as soon as the enemy isn't looking for you, you're entire party is permanently invisible. E.g. if you're infiltrating an enemy base, generally there will be sentries around the perimeter, but within the camp they are doing their own thing. Which means a couple of quiet assassinations, or one unlucky roll by the sentry and the party can sneak in no problem and never be found no matter how many times the DM asks them to roll.
[This of course is using the obviously stupid interpretation of the rules, that enemies must actively look for someone to "find" them]
"The section you refer to is specifically about targeting"
Show me where it says that. You need to stop making things up and claim them as rules, like you did when you claimed that invisibility was a "magical condition". Until then, I'm done arguing with you.
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.
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 against that creature.
I suppose you could be talking about Attacks Affected instead of the concealed section but neither of these make you imperceptible to normal sight, and so my point still stands. Nothing here stops you being seen by plain sight and i've literally pointed this out to people five times now, now show where the Invisibility says you can not see a creature with the invisible condition or just admit that your side is making this up, because your side is. There is literally nothing that says you aren't seen by normal sight, no where in the invisible condition and no where in the hide action.
I missed this response but since you're asking to be continually debunked for being wrong.
Invisibility. You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
You see through Invisibility, thus you no longer benefit from the invisibility condition from being hidden against a creature with True Sight. Nothing in True Sight suggests cover or obscurity annuls this section. You can suggest perhaps that heavy obscurity still inflicts the blinded condition but I am being specific regarding Hide and Invisibility, not Blinded.
note on blinded: Truesight says you see any invisible creature in range, so technically Blinded wouldn't apply anyways as you're automatically seen by Truesight, but then you're no longer hidden and thus no longer invisible meaning you're no longer seen in an area of Heavy Obscurity or behind total cover. Yay for poorly written interactions within the rules.
Oh, it's been proven countless times already, it's just not enough to convince you and a couple of others, apparently. But there's plenty of evidence. Invisibility is not a "magical condition". There's no mention of "magic" in its description. It's a condition that makes other creatures not be able to see you, and the "hidden" state gives it to you. Period. Don't like it? Make a house-rule about it... You're the one who doesn't have an argument, so you just make things up in order to justify ignoring the rules.
You have the invisible condition while hidden. That's it. Whether you like it or not. No need to extrapolate "but unless someone sees you". It's like saying "you're flying, unless you get off the ground", or "you have darkvision, unless it's dark". That's ridiculous.
Again, you've done literally nothing to prove a creature can not be seen from the invisibility condition. Show me where in the text explicitly it states a creature can not see you? This was actually removed from the Invisibility condition from 2014 to 2024, thus Invisibility no longer stops creatures seeing you as per 2024 rules.
the Hide Action is explicit that you must be out of another creature's line of sight for it to work, there is nothing anywhere that then says it can no longer see you if you move into an area of plain sight. This is just a whole nothing argument since you're basically avoiding the main point.
Go on, compare the 2014 version to the 2024 version:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
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.
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 against that creature.
in 2014 we have: "An invisible creature is impossible to see"
in 2024 there is no such statement anywhere in the condition.
So once again, I am forced to say
Show me where in 2024 that either the Hide Action or Invisible condition makes you imperceptible like the 2014 version did, show it. Don't worry about any other point, until we get past this one, you remain having no real point at all, it's all just a waste of everybody's time. Focus solely on this one point and realise.... 2024 Invisibility doesn't make you imperceptible. Yeah, it is dumb, it is counter-intuitive and makes no sense, but it simply doesn't stop creatures from seeing you in plain sight.
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.
Isn't that obvious? Just what level of pedantry and obliviousness to intent are you applying here to not see that this is exactly the evidence you need? Not to mention that you're basically completely ignoring every other description in the game that makes this intent even more obvious.
Like for example See Invisibility says that "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible", meaning that without that spell, they are in fact NOT visible.
Or another example that clearly shows that the Invisible condition means that you are in fact not visible: the Ring of Invisibility. Same vocabulary here: while you use it, you are NOT visible.
I guess they didn't explicitly write it because the devs didn't expect that someone would argue that "Invisibility" is not invisibility... And yet here you are...
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.
Isn't that obvious? Just what level of pedantry and obliviousness to intent are you applying here to not see that this is exactly the evidence you need? Not to mention that you're basically completely ignoring every other description in the game that makes this intent even more obvious.
Like for example See Invisibility says that "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible", meaning that without that spell, they are in fact NOT visible.
Or another example that clearly shows that the Invisible condition means that you are in fact not visible: the Ring of Invisibility. Same vocabulary here: while you use it, you are NOT visible.
I guess they didn't explicitly write it because the devs didn't expect that someone would argue that "Invisibility" is not invisibility... And yet here you are...
No, it's not "obvious" because again, it doesn't say that a creature can not be seen, it says the creature has the invisible condition which supplies concealed but concealed at no point say it makes things not visible, nor is visible described, one definition of visible is in public view (I.E. the painting was placed visibly on display). Thus saying see invisibility would see a creature while it is still actively hiding in a position it should be able to take the hide condition.
Now you can infer that this means that they should be but this is not RAW we are talking at this point, it's RAI and currently we can not be certain on RAI as the specific text that made creatures imperceptible in 2014 was purposefully removed.
I will re-iterate an earlier point in this discussion, the Stealth rules in 2024 are abysmally written and linking Stealth to Invisibility was straight up a terrible design choice. There are other parts of the hide condition which are simply up to interpretation such as the words "while hidden" which could mean you are hidden or it could mean you have to actively remain hidden. I am here saying the stealth rules in 2024 basically make no sense and we shouldn't be inferring that they make something imperceptible in plain sight, that is a LONG reach and stretching statements that are already open to interpretation to begin with.
People continued to insist that on leaving their hidden position they are still hidden (which again is interpretation based) and are inferring that they thus can not be seen, but again this is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules. In 2014 it was explicitly stated that you could not be seen with the invisibility condition, in 2024 it just says you can not be targeted (such as by a spell) by anything that requires sight, not that you can not be seen. You could further infer that visible here then means that you can be targeted by anything that requires sight, even if you're hiding behind three-quarters cover actively. Overall the rules are just too lax and a straight downgrade from 2014 which was more clear on how many of these interactions specifically work.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's literally right in front of you. I don't know why you have such a visceral and deep hatred for Stealth to be that much biased against it, but your interpretation requires a level of mental gymnastics that I cannot possibly fathom being anything else than bad faith. Again, I'm done arguing with you. At this point it's not that you can't see it. You just won't.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's literally right in front of you. I don't know why you have such a visceral and deep hatred for Stealth to be that much biased against it, but your interpretation requires a level of mental gymnastics that I cannot possibly fathom being anything else than bad faith. Again, I'm done arguing with you. At this point it's not that you can't see it. You just won't.
and again, it's NOT in front of me, what is in front of me is your interpretation of how you think it works, not what is specifically written. At no point in the invisible condition does it say a creature can not see you, in 2014 the invisible condition states a creature can not see you. It's literally right in front of you, you can see this. In 2024 You can see that concealed section contains no such text, that attacks affected contains no such text.
So don't say in's literally right in front of me when you know it literally isn't. What is in front of me is what you infer based on what's written, and again, I do not agree with that interpretation because it is based solely on inference of ROI where we can not know the ROI but it is definitely not noted in the RAW.
"Concealed" means you are concealed. People want to believe otherwise. This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, when under the effects of an invisibility spell, you are concealed because you are, I suppose, transparent. (Note: nothing in the rules actually says you are transparent. It literally doesn't matter.) When hidden, you are concealed because everyone has lost track of you. "Finding" you means finding you / regaining track of your location --- in combat, this can be quite difficult, what with the target-rich environment and the life-or-death and all the stuff going on simultaneously.
I think of Tremorsense and Blindsight like sonar, pinging you to things nearby. Truesight is like terminator vision (like a visual overlay), telling you what things are and identifying targets.
"Concealed" means you are concealed. People want to believe otherwise. This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, when under the effects of an invisibility spell, you are concealed because you are, I suppose, transparent. (Note: nothing in the rules actually says you are transparent. It literally doesn't matter.) When hidden, you are concealed because everyone has lost track of you. "Finding" you means finding you / regaining track of your location --- in combat, this can be quite difficult, what with the target-rich environment and the life-or-death and all the stuff going on simultaneously.
I think of Tremorsense and Blindsight like sonar, pinging you to things nearby. Truesight is like terminator vision (like a visual overlay), telling you what things are and identifying targets.
Concealed is specific in what it does. Again
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
Concealed simply means you can not be "targeted" by anything that requires sight. You're applying things to concealed that by your own words, are not there and yes this literally does matter because that means you aren't dealing with RAW, you're dealing with a house rule. This is a rules and mechanics thread, not a, "what is a good house rule" thread.
Apologies if this is a bit short, but I think house rules are cool and good for the game, however it's just not really relevant to what this discussion is about. The discussion is about RAW and RAI, we should not apply things to RAW that are not written, nor try to decipher RAI when there is no basis for what is or is not intended.
So is the idea that coming into full clear and unobstructed view doesn't reveal your location.
The difference is that one is nonsensical from the standpoint of being completely incompatible with a vast swathe of rules while the other is only nonsensical if you refused to acknowledge that Stealth is an abstraction like so many other rules.
Neither version is incompatible with other rules. The problem is that sensible rule is somewhere in between the two and we have no indication of where that in between might be.
Absolutely not. Truesight does not go through total cover, and doesn't go through heavily obscured area. It's not X-ray vision...
Oh, it's been proven countless times already, it's just not enough to convince you and a couple of others, apparently. But there's plenty of evidence. Invisibility is not a "magical condition". There's no mention of "magic" in its description. It's a condition that makes other creatures not be able to see you, and the "hidden" state gives it to you. Period. Don't like it? Make a house-rule about it... You're the one who doesn't have an argument, so you just make things up in order to justify ignoring the rules.
You have the invisible condition while hidden. That's it. Whether you like it or not. No need to extrapolate "but unless someone sees you". It's like saying "you're flying, unless you get off the ground", or "you have darkvision, unless it's dark". That's ridiculous.
That's what invisibility does. Invisibility is not necessarily magical. It just means you can't be seen, and in this case, it's because you're stealthy. Again, don't like it? Make a house-rule about it.
Also, there are plenty of ways to mitigate the effectiveness of stealth in a party. If they hide before combat, go into initiative order, and have them roll stealth at every turn. It's your prerogative as a DM to decide when to make checks, so do that. They're trying to get past guards on active duty? Have the guards take periodic Search actions. They're on guard duty, that's what they're supposed to do. Even with Pass Without Trace, someone is bound to get detected eventually.
Actually, it doesn't mean you can't be seen. It means you are treated as unseen unless they can see you, but does not have any verbiage preventing you from being seen. In addition, as of the current errata, you only have the invisible condition while hidden -- which the rules do not define.
"SOMEHOW see you"... That means with Blindsight, or Truesight. You know, like the SAC mentions...
Again, your argument is like saying "you can fly, unless you get off the ground".
Hidden is what you are when you hide. It's that simple.
Why are you again repeating this already debunked argument? The section you refer to is specifically about targeting and does nothing against plain sight. So again, show where hiding makes a creature imperceptible while in plain sight? Until you can do that, you have no argument.
"The section you refer to is specifically about targeting"
Show me where it says that. You need to stop making things up and claim them as rules, like you did when you claimed that invisibility was a "magical condition".
Until then, I'm done arguing with you.
Why would you say that? Any character with at least a +4 to their Stealth cannot fail a Stealth check with Pass without Trace. It is not difficult to have an entire party with at least a +4 to their Stealth.
It's not enough to pass the Stealth check. You need to beat the perception score of every creature around, AND their active perception checks when they make one.
For example, a Storm Giant has a perception score of 20. If you rolled 18 on your Stealth check, the giant still sees you (even if you're outside its Truesight range), since you didn't beat its passive perception score.
And because that one enemy found you, it makes your attempt at hiding fail entirely, even if the other enemies around have lower perception scores, since an enemy finding you is one of the listed conditions that ends it.
The "in between" version is easily attainable with a sense of nuance and judgement calls made by a DM, like basically everything in DnD.
And one of those versions, specifically the one where Stealth can be used to successfully sneak around a battlefield to make sneak attacks and stuff, is very sensible in the concrete, discretized combat system, in the majority of cases.
(sorry for snipping the text, I just wanted to respond to this part)
AFAIK, or it's how I'm ruling it, even with Truesight, you can't see an Invisible creature behind Total Cover.
It's not said in the description of that Special Sense (though it is mentioned for Blindsight), but it makes sense to me because you don't have line of sight to the hidden creature.
No, you don't. It is always DC 15 to Hide. Your stealth check is the DC for another creature to use a Perception check to find you if they are actively looking for you - read what you posted! So assuming you have a +4 and Pass without Trace it goes like this:
Your turn -> Action:Hide vs DC 15 = autosuccess, you are hidden.
Enemy turn -> Action:Search vs DC equal to your Stealth check, if successful they find you.
Your turn -> Action:Hide vs DC 15 = autosuccess, you are hidden again.
... repeat for as long as you want.
But most of the time, enemies aren't actively looking for you. Most of the time the party is the one hunting the enemies, not the other way round. So as soon as the enemy isn't looking for you, you're entire party is permanently invisible. E.g. if you're infiltrating an enemy base, generally there will be sentries around the perimeter, but within the camp they are doing their own thing. Which means a couple of quiet assassinations, or one unlucky roll by the sentry and the party can sneak in no problem and never be found no matter how many times the DM asks them to roll.
[This of course is using the obviously stupid interpretation of the rules, that enemies must actively look for someone to "find" them]
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#InvisibleCondition
I suppose you could be talking about Attacks Affected instead of the concealed section but neither of these make you imperceptible to normal sight, and so my point still stands. Nothing here stops you being seen by plain sight and i've literally pointed this out to people five times now, now show where the Invisibility says you can not see a creature with the invisible condition or just admit that your side is making this up, because your side is. There is literally nothing that says you aren't seen by normal sight, no where in the invisible condition and no where in the hide action.
I missed this response but since you're asking to be continually debunked for being wrong.
You see through Invisibility, thus you no longer benefit from the invisibility condition from being hidden against a creature with True Sight. Nothing in True Sight suggests cover or obscurity annuls this section. You can suggest perhaps that heavy obscurity still inflicts the blinded condition but I am being specific regarding Hide and Invisibility, not Blinded.
note on blinded: Truesight says you see any invisible creature in range, so technically Blinded wouldn't apply anyways as you're automatically seen by Truesight, but then you're no longer hidden and thus no longer invisible meaning you're no longer seen in an area of Heavy Obscurity or behind total cover. Yay for poorly written interactions within the rules.
Again, you've done literally nothing to prove a creature can not be seen from the invisibility condition. Show me where in the text explicitly it states a creature can not see you? This was actually removed from the Invisibility condition from 2014 to 2024, thus Invisibility no longer stops creatures seeing you as per 2024 rules.
the Hide Action is explicit that you must be out of another creature's line of sight for it to work, there is nothing anywhere that then says it can no longer see you if you move into an area of plain sight. This is just a whole nothing argument since you're basically avoiding the main point.
Go on, compare the 2014 version to the 2024 version:
2014: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/appendix-a-conditions#Invisible
2024: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#InvisibleCondition
in 2014 we have: "An invisible creature is impossible to see"
in 2024 there is no such statement anywhere in the condition.
So once again, I am forced to say
Show me where in 2024 that either the Hide Action or Invisible condition makes you imperceptible like the 2014 version did, show it. Don't worry about any other point, until we get past this one, you remain having no real point at all, it's all just a waste of everybody's time. Focus solely on this one point and realise.... 2024 Invisibility doesn't make you imperceptible. Yeah, it is dumb, it is counter-intuitive and makes no sense, but it simply doesn't stop creatures from seeing you in plain sight.
Isn't that obvious? Just what level of pedantry and obliviousness to intent are you applying here to not see that this is exactly the evidence you need? Not to mention that you're basically completely ignoring every other description in the game that makes this intent even more obvious.
Like for example See Invisibility says that "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible", meaning that without that spell, they are in fact NOT visible.
Or another example that clearly shows that the Invisible condition means that you are in fact not visible: the Ring of Invisibility. Same vocabulary here: while you use it, you are NOT visible.
I guess they didn't explicitly write it because the devs didn't expect that someone would argue that "Invisibility" is not invisibility... And yet here you are...
No, it's not "obvious" because again, it doesn't say that a creature can not be seen, it says the creature has the invisible condition which supplies concealed but concealed at no point say it makes things not visible, nor is visible described, one definition of visible is in public view (I.E. the painting was placed visibly on display). Thus saying see invisibility would see a creature while it is still actively hiding in a position it should be able to take the hide condition.
Now you can infer that this means that they should be but this is not RAW we are talking at this point, it's RAI and currently we can not be certain on RAI as the specific text that made creatures imperceptible in 2014 was purposefully removed.
I will re-iterate an earlier point in this discussion, the Stealth rules in 2024 are abysmally written and linking Stealth to Invisibility was straight up a terrible design choice. There are other parts of the hide condition which are simply up to interpretation such as the words "while hidden" which could mean you are hidden or it could mean you have to actively remain hidden. I am here saying the stealth rules in 2024 basically make no sense and we shouldn't be inferring that they make something imperceptible in plain sight, that is a LONG reach and stretching statements that are already open to interpretation to begin with.
People continued to insist that on leaving their hidden position they are still hidden (which again is interpretation based) and are inferring that they thus can not be seen, but again this is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules. In 2014 it was explicitly stated that you could not be seen with the invisibility condition, in 2024 it just says you can not be targeted (such as by a spell) by anything that requires sight, not that you can not be seen. You could further infer that visible here then means that you can be targeted by anything that requires sight, even if you're hiding behind three-quarters cover actively. Overall the rules are just too lax and a straight downgrade from 2014 which was more clear on how many of these interactions specifically work.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's literally right in front of you. I don't know why you have such a visceral and deep hatred for Stealth to be that much biased against it, but your interpretation requires a level of mental gymnastics that I cannot possibly fathom being anything else than bad faith.
Again, I'm done arguing with you. At this point it's not that you can't see it. You just won't.
and again, it's NOT in front of me, what is in front of me is your interpretation of how you think it works, not what is specifically written. At no point in the invisible condition does it say a creature can not see you, in 2014 the invisible condition states a creature can not see you. It's literally right in front of you, you can see this. In 2024 You can see that concealed section contains no such text, that attacks affected contains no such text.
So don't say in's literally right in front of me when you know it literally isn't. What is in front of me is what you infer based on what's written, and again, I do not agree with that interpretation because it is based solely on inference of ROI where we can not know the ROI but it is definitely not noted in the RAW.
"Concealed" means you are concealed. People want to believe otherwise. This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, when under the effects of an invisibility spell, you are concealed because you are, I suppose, transparent. (Note: nothing in the rules actually says you are transparent. It literally doesn't matter.) When hidden, you are concealed because everyone has lost track of you. "Finding" you means finding you / regaining track of your location --- in combat, this can be quite difficult, what with the target-rich environment and the life-or-death and all the stuff going on simultaneously.
I think of Tremorsense and Blindsight like sonar, pinging you to things nearby. Truesight is like terminator vision (like a visual overlay), telling you what things are and identifying targets.
Concealed is specific in what it does. Again
Concealed simply means you can not be "targeted" by anything that requires sight. You're applying things to concealed that by your own words, are not there and yes this literally does matter because that means you aren't dealing with RAW, you're dealing with a house rule. This is a rules and mechanics thread, not a, "what is a good house rule" thread.
Apologies if this is a bit short, but I think house rules are cool and good for the game, however it's just not really relevant to what this discussion is about. The discussion is about RAW and RAI, we should not apply things to RAW that are not written, nor try to decipher RAI when there is no basis for what is or is not intended.