RAW If you can see an invisible creature (e.g. via truesight) your attacks against it are at disadvantage and its attacks against you are at advantage.
RAI is the same (as confirmed by JC)
This is exactly what I referred to in post #102. That doesn't actually follow logic OR the condition rules as laid out in Appendix A. If a condition is countered, it ends; the condition rules flat out say that. A visible creature isn't invisible; the condition has been countered.
RAW If you can see an invisible creature (e.g. via truesight) your attacks against it are at disadvantage and its attacks against you are at advantage.
RAI is the same (as confirmed by JC)
If that’s true it’s just one more example of JC’s questionable decision making. I could accept if that’s accidentally how it works RAW because of a goofy language issue. (That isn’t RAW, but I could at least accept that explanation.) But to claim that was RAI means the intention was all kinds’a sixteen and a half diferent shades of effed the heck up.
Hm, i haven’t played before but I think if ur invis and someone with true sight can see you that applies them but others can’t see you without magic. But the effect aka the invis has an advantage on attack rolls but it’s enemy’s have a disadvantage on attack rolls to the invis, that wouldn’t apply to the character with true sight because disadvantage comes from not being able to see the target, then a character who has used magic to see them, obvi doesn’t feel that effect and the reason why the invis person gets an advantage is because you don’t know where they are Or where they will attack from, if you see them then they don’t get the advantage. But the effect would still apply to others who can’t see you. As to weather the moment anyone magically sees you, suddenly ur not invisible anymore, although to me it makes sense that wouldn’t happen, as a total and utter noob, it’s in the rules and I don’t know where, if I find it I’ll come back and tell y’all, ok bai guys!
This is the exact same type of argument as the “does a creature with blindsight suffer the negative effects of the blinded condition?” And there is always one pedantic argument that ignores all context and common sense to argue their RAW point.
the invisible condition is, by all context and common sense, overridden by an ability that allows someone to see the creature, otherwise those abilities (blindsight, truesight, the See Invisibility spell) serve no purpose.
Also it allows a second level spell to counter one of the most important new features of Dragons. They put some work into making dragons tough again for 5e and they were right to do so.
Keep the balance, this is truly stupid rules lawyering, to the point where even JC couldn't convince me otherwise. If Crawford supported this, it would call into question his judgment.
This is the exact same type of argument as the “does a creature with blindsight suffer the negative effects of the blinded condition?” And there is always one pedantic argument that ignores all context and common sense to argue their RAW point.
the invisible condition is, by all context and common sense, overridden by an ability that allows someone to see the creature, otherwise those abilities (blindsight, truesight, the See Invisibility spell) serve no purpose.
Also it allows a second level spell to counter one of the most important new features of Dragons. They put some work into making dragons tough again for 5e and they were right to do so.
Keep the balance, this is truly stupid rules lawyering, to the point where even JC couldn't convince me otherwise. If Crawford supported this, it would call into question his judgment.
This is the exact same type of argument as the “does a creature with blindsight suffer the negative effects of the blinded condition?” And there is always one pedantic argument that ignores all context and common sense to argue their RAW point.
the invisible condition is, by all context and common sense, overridden by an ability that allows someone to see the creature, otherwise those abilities (blindsight, truesight, the See Invisibility spell) serve no purpose.
Also it allows a second level spell to counter one of the most important new features of Dragons. They put some work into making dragons tough again for 5e and they were right to do so.
Keep the balance, this is truly stupid rules lawyering, to the point where even JC couldn't convince me otherwise. If Crawford supported this, it would call into question his judgment.
I still struggle to think of invisibility as an absolute condition, (you are invisible and that’s that) and instead I think of it as a relative condition (you are only invisible to people who cannot see you). These are my words and there are no categories of conditions in the rules. But invisibility is already unique among conditions so it isn’t surprising that we give it unique scrutiny.
Haha, man this thread has not aged well. Guys, how about we stop trying to judge Toril by Earth rules. I literally read the first page and before even knowing about JC's ruling, I thought "well maybe invisibility works differently in this world." Maybe it has something to do with The Border Ethereal or how your vision looks with Truesight on. Creative thinking everyone, it helps fill in these gaps you don't like or try to hand wave away.
Haha, man this thread has not aged well. Guys, how about we stop trying to judge Toril by Earth rules. I literally read the first page and before even knowing about JC's ruling, I thought "well maybe invisibility works differently in this world." Maybe it has something to do with The Border Ethereal or how your vision looks with Truesight on. Creative thinking everyone, it helps fill in these gaps you don't like or try to hand wave away.
That is one way to look at it but if you do that I think the effect should have been called something other than invisible since that has basic meanings in the English language in which the rules are supposedly written.
TLDR for the rest of the post: The designers called it "Invisible" and in English "Invisible" is countered by being visible.
------
Most folks assume that the invisible condition causes advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit due to the invisible creature not being able to be seen (writing these directly in the invisible condition avoids having to insert an explicit reference to the vision rules). The rules for unseen attackers and targets give the same results as the invisible conditions supplies. As a result, it is very normal to assume that if you can see an invisible creature then there is no benefit from the condition.
Furthermore, "A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition."
This is where the use of the term "invisible" for the condition is the issue. If you can see an invisible creature then they are NOT invisible to YOU. That is what the word invisible means.
Here is the definition of invisible:
adjective: invisible
unable to be seen; not visible to the eye.
The 5e rules are written in natural English. The meaning of Invisible is "unable to be seen". As soon as something can be seen it is NO longer invisible. That is just basic English and simple logic. If a creature is visible to you then none of the benefits of the invisible condition should be applied between the two creatures since the condition does not apply if you can see the creature.
The invisible condition says that the creature is impossible to see without magic or a special sense. However, using magic, Truesight or See Invisible or similar methods, allows the invisible creature to be seen. Logically, they are visible when these are applied, they are no longer invisible to the creature seeing them and the rest of the invisible condition should no longer apply to the creature that can see them BECAUSE they are not invisible to that creature.
The problem is that, much like lumping darkness in with fog and foliage and applying one set of rules for heavily obscured - they are trying to lump invisible in with other conditions like stunned, prone, incapacitated, paralysed etc. The difference is that invisible behaves fundamentally differently from the other conditions. The invisible condition can only apply BETWEEN two creatures and can be different for every set of two creatures depending on the magic and senses involved. Trying to treat invisible like all the other conditions which do not have individual counters (a creature isn't stunned for one creature and not stunned for another) is doubling down on stupidity. If the designers wanted invisibility to allow the creature to remain invisible even when they can be seen it would have been very simple to rename it to something more appropriate.
What is the solution?
"A condition lasts until it is countered"
A condition called INVISIBLE in the English language IS countered when that creature can be SEEN. If Invisible is countered then NONE of the effects of the invisible condition can apply including advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit.
Nothing in RAW explicitly says that conditions must be countered or cancelled for all creatures at the same time. Just because all the other conditions are applied in a unary way does not mean that some conditions can not be applied separately between each pair of creatures. A creature could have the invisible condition for some creatures but not for others. The rules do NOT require that all conditions be resolved in a unary way - that a creature that is invisible remains invisible even when visible.
In order for invisible to continue to provide its benefits even when a creature is visible then the DM has to rule that a visible invisible creature is invisible. In English, this is a logical contradiction. If this was the intent of the rules then the condition should have been named something else ...
"Supernatural Powers:
An creature with supernatural powers 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."
However, the designers did NOT do that.
They called it "Invisible" and "Invisible" is countered by being visible.
A DM can choose to play it however they like but for any condition called "invisible" in the English language then being visible counters that condition and is resolved between each pair of creature separately based on the magic and special senses that are involved.
---------------------
"Invisible
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."
"Truesight
A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range."
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."
Or, instead of all that, you could just say that Crawdaddy isn't always right. It's my opinion that he will say anything at all, in order to make it seem like the rules writers have never made a single mistake. He's the definition of "oh, I meant to do that."
While rare I know of at least one instance where JC directly admitted to their own mistake. In Dragon Talk: Jeremy Crawford, Sage Advice on Targeting Revisited (episode 309) 16:45 - 17:30. Here JC states that he feels he should have written more to explain how spells with a range of self work somewhat differently from other spells when determining range and number of targets. Later in the same episode (19:45 - 21:40) JC goes on to explain that when updating the Bladesinger for Tasha's they also updated the range of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade from 5ft to self(5ft) because they realized the original range entry was simply wrong.
I honestly do not envy their job. You have to balance listening to and incorporating community feedback while also presenting an air of confidence and competence. Anyone who has ever worked in customer service knows that while the saying "The customer is always right." may keep customers happy, it is not actually true.
In my opinion the invisible condition is a situation where the design intent just doesn't match up well with some or most of the communities assumptions and expectations.
Yes, but on the other side, it is really hard for the devs to admit mistakes. The rules already say what they say, so undermining them leads to some players in a game saying “well, they said it should be written this way” and others saying “but the books actually say something else.” That would make rules arguments even more frequent and unbearable. The only way mistakes should be admitted is through changes to the rules (errata), and all other rules advice from the devs really should be “this is what the rules say, and this is how to deal with that.”
In fact, that’s almost the situation with invisible: the books say one thing and the devs says another. Although I think in this case, Jeremy was trying to say what the rules are and how to interpret them, he just happened to get it wrong with respect to the obvious interpretation of conditions being countered.
I know Crawford said on an yt interview that “if it doesn’t explicitly say that it removes the invisibility condution ( like faerie fire/sickening radiance) then the invisibility user still has advantage on attacks and is attacked with disadvantage “
And then I checked the invisibility condition and it starts with this
”An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense”
Without the aid of magic ( truesight as spell OR robe of eyes as magical item ) OR a SPECIAL SENSE ( like, idk BLINDSIGHT ).
So, the definition starts with what is needed to be met in order to be considered Invisible to a target. I CANNOT understand how Crawford made that statement. What is the point of this then:
” An invisible creature is IMPOSSIBLE to see WITHOUT the aid of magic or a special sense”
A lot of dumping on the JC for no reason. I don't particularly mind his ruling when I look at the overall picture. Dungeons and Dragons is heavily based on Tolkien, so it's easy to see the similarities how they work in 5E, Border Ethereal and all. Let's not forget that invisibility is not an actual thing in the real world, it's a concept, one that writers interpret in many ways while bringing to life in their stories. The tiniest tweak in the wording for PHB would resolve these issues without the need for any real erratas.
It was just a matter of inserting this sentence into the invisible condition on the latest playtest document: "If a creature can somehow see you, as with Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is exactly what I referred to in post #102. That doesn't actually follow logic OR the condition rules as laid out in Appendix A. If a condition is countered, it ends; the condition rules flat out say that. A visible creature isn't invisible; the condition has been countered.
If that’s true it’s just one more example of JC’s questionable decision making. I could accept if that’s accidentally how it works RAW because of a goofy language issue. (That isn’t RAW, but I could at least accept that explanation.) But to claim that was RAI means the intention was all kinds’a sixteen and a half diferent shades of effed the heck up.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hm, i haven’t played before but I think if ur invis and someone with true sight can see you that applies them but others can’t see you without magic. But the effect aka the invis has an advantage on attack rolls but it’s enemy’s have a disadvantage on attack rolls to the invis, that wouldn’t apply to the character with true sight because disadvantage comes from not being able to see the target, then a character who has used magic to see them, obvi doesn’t feel that effect and the reason why the invis person gets an advantage is because you don’t know where they are Or where they will attack from, if you see them then they don’t get the advantage. But the effect would still apply to others who can’t see you. As to weather the moment anyone magically sees you, suddenly ur not invisible anymore, although to me it makes sense that wouldn’t happen, as a total and utter noob, it’s in the rules and I don’t know where, if I find it I’ll come back and tell y’all, ok bai guys!
Also it allows a second level spell to counter one of the most important new features of Dragons. They put some work into making dragons tough again for 5e and they were right to do so.
Keep the balance, this is truly stupid rules lawyering, to the point where even JC couldn't convince me otherwise. If Crawford supported this, it would call into question his judgment.
Crawford does support this see 5h8s video starting about 20 min in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42dboiQeOY&t=1207s
But that doesn't make him correct.
I still struggle to think of invisibility as an absolute condition, (you are invisible and that’s that) and instead I think of it as a relative condition (you are only invisible to people who cannot see you). These are my words and there are no categories of conditions in the rules. But invisibility is already unique among conditions so it isn’t surprising that we give it unique scrutiny.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Haha, man this thread has not aged well. Guys, how about we stop trying to judge Toril by Earth rules. I literally read the first page and before even knowing about JC's ruling, I thought "well maybe invisibility works differently in this world." Maybe it has something to do with The Border Ethereal or how your vision looks with Truesight on. Creative thinking everyone, it helps fill in these gaps you don't like or try to hand wave away.
That is one way to look at it but if you do that I think the effect should have been called something other than invisible since that has basic meanings in the English language in which the rules are supposedly written.
TLDR for the rest of the post: The designers called it "Invisible" and in English "Invisible" is countered by being visible.
------
Most folks assume that the invisible condition causes advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit due to the invisible creature not being able to be seen (writing these directly in the invisible condition avoids having to insert an explicit reference to the vision rules). The rules for unseen attackers and targets give the same results as the invisible conditions supplies. As a result, it is very normal to assume that if you can see an invisible creature then there is no benefit from the condition.
Furthermore, "A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition."
This is where the use of the term "invisible" for the condition is the issue. If you can see an invisible creature then they are NOT invisible to YOU. That is what the word invisible means.
Here is the definition of invisible:
The 5e rules are written in natural English. The meaning of Invisible is "unable to be seen". As soon as something can be seen it is NO longer invisible. That is just basic English and simple logic. If a creature is visible to you then none of the benefits of the invisible condition should be applied between the two creatures since the condition does not apply if you can see the creature.
The invisible condition says that the creature is impossible to see without magic or a special sense. However, using magic, Truesight or See Invisible or similar methods, allows the invisible creature to be seen. Logically, they are visible when these are applied, they are no longer invisible to the creature seeing them and the rest of the invisible condition should no longer apply to the creature that can see them BECAUSE they are not invisible to that creature.
The problem is that, much like lumping darkness in with fog and foliage and applying one set of rules for heavily obscured - they are trying to lump invisible in with other conditions like stunned, prone, incapacitated, paralysed etc. The difference is that invisible behaves fundamentally differently from the other conditions. The invisible condition can only apply BETWEEN two creatures and can be different for every set of two creatures depending on the magic and senses involved. Trying to treat invisible like all the other conditions which do not have individual counters (a creature isn't stunned for one creature and not stunned for another) is doubling down on stupidity. If the designers wanted invisibility to allow the creature to remain invisible even when they can be seen it would have been very simple to rename it to something more appropriate.
What is the solution?
"A condition lasts until it is countered"
A condition called INVISIBLE in the English language IS countered when that creature can be SEEN. If Invisible is countered then NONE of the effects of the invisible condition can apply including advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit.
Nothing in RAW explicitly says that conditions must be countered or cancelled for all creatures at the same time. Just because all the other conditions are applied in a unary way does not mean that some conditions can not be applied separately between each pair of creatures. A creature could have the invisible condition for some creatures but not for others. The rules do NOT require that all conditions be resolved in a unary way - that a creature that is invisible remains invisible even when visible.
In order for invisible to continue to provide its benefits even when a creature is visible then the DM has to rule that a visible invisible creature is invisible. In English, this is a logical contradiction. If this was the intent of the rules then the condition should have been named something else ...
"Supernatural Powers:
However, the designers did NOT do that.
They called it "Invisible" and "Invisible" is countered by being visible.
A DM can choose to play it however they like but for any condition called "invisible" in the English language then being visible counters that condition and is resolved between each pair of creature separately based on the magic and special senses that are involved.
---------------------
"Invisible
"Truesight
A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range."
"See Invisibility
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."
Or, instead of all that, you could just say that Crawdaddy isn't always right. It's my opinion that he will say anything at all, in order to make it seem like the rules writers have never made a single mistake. He's the definition of "oh, I meant to do that."
While rare I know of at least one instance where JC directly admitted to their own mistake. In Dragon Talk: Jeremy Crawford, Sage Advice on Targeting Revisited (episode 309) 16:45 - 17:30. Here JC states that he feels he should have written more to explain how spells with a range of self work somewhat differently from other spells when determining range and number of targets. Later in the same episode (19:45 - 21:40) JC goes on to explain that when updating the Bladesinger for Tasha's they also updated the range of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade from 5ft to self(5ft) because they realized the original range entry was simply wrong.
I honestly do not envy their job. You have to balance listening to and incorporating community feedback while also presenting an air of confidence and competence. Anyone who has ever worked in customer service knows that while the saying "The customer is always right." may keep customers happy, it is not actually true.
In my opinion the invisible condition is a situation where the design intent just doesn't match up well with some or most of the communities assumptions and expectations.
Yes, but on the other side, it is really hard for the devs to admit mistakes. The rules already say what they say, so undermining them leads to some players in a game saying “well, they said it should be written this way” and others saying “but the books actually say something else.” That would make rules arguments even more frequent and unbearable. The only way mistakes should be admitted is through changes to the rules (errata), and all other rules advice from the devs really should be “this is what the rules say, and this is how to deal with that.”
In fact, that’s almost the situation with invisible: the books say one thing and the devs says another. Although I think in this case, Jeremy was trying to say what the rules are and how to interpret them, he just happened to get it wrong with respect to the obvious interpretation of conditions being countered.
I know Crawford said on an yt interview that “if it doesn’t explicitly say that it removes the invisibility condution ( like faerie fire/sickening radiance) then the invisibility user still has advantage on attacks and is attacked with disadvantage “
And then I checked the invisibility condition and it starts with this
”An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense”
Without the aid of magic ( truesight as spell OR robe of eyes as magical item ) OR a SPECIAL SENSE ( like, idk BLINDSIGHT ).
So, the definition starts with what is needed to be met in order to be considered Invisible to a target. I CANNOT understand how Crawford made that statement. What is the point of this then:
” An invisible creature is IMPOSSIBLE to see WITHOUT the aid of magic or a special sense”
???
A lot of dumping on the JC for no reason. I don't particularly mind his ruling when I look at the overall picture. Dungeons and Dragons is heavily based on Tolkien, so it's easy to see the similarities how they work in 5E, Border Ethereal and all. Let's not forget that invisibility is not an actual thing in the real world, it's a concept, one that writers interpret in many ways while bringing to life in their stories. The tiniest tweak in the wording for PHB would resolve these issues without the need for any real erratas.
No we cannot, because there's always at least one person who wants to make a blatantly non-sensical argument on the basis of one ambiguous phrase.
This is why they are switching to a much more legalese style of phrasing in OneDnd.
It was just a matter of inserting this sentence into the invisible condition on the latest playtest document: "If a creature can somehow see you, as with Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature."
"Not all those who wander are lost"