Can creatures with special senses still be Blinded? (1)
What's the difference between an Invisible creature, an Invisible creature that is Hiding, and a Hiding creature that is not Invisible, especially in terms of whether other creatures know what space they are in? (2)
Can Blindsight see through solid objects providing cover? What about intangible objects providing concealment? (3)
If they have physical eyes, yes, but that only applies to their normal vision range. Special senses do not rely on having actual eyes, and they have their own limited range. A "normal" creature that has (x)ft of Blindsight, and is also Blinded retains that special sense up to the max range. Beyond that range, Blinded is in full effect.
A non-hidden invisible creature can be audibly detected by movement/activity. Assuming the DM had them roll a stealth check at the same time they went invisible, that's the DC to beat until they make an explicit action, unless the DM says they need to roll another one. This one is a lot more dependent on DM deciding what does or does not warrant rolling another check.
An invisible creature that is hiding (assumed they aren't actively making noise or moving) is entirely concealed.
A hiding creature that is not invisible is concealed only to the extent of their remaining in hiding. They can be spotted by passive or active perception as normal. The moment they are no longer in cover, they are spotted. Unless, again, the DM decides that other creatures are "too distracted" to notice.
No, Blindsight absolutely does not penetrate cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
All reasonable answers, all of which are debatable, and none of which are airtight in RAW. (1) is actually entirely unsupported by RAW, even if its RAI (which I'm not sure it is); (2) involves a ton of houseruling or DM interpretation, is complicated, and is controversial, (3) is controversial and relies on applying the rules about spell effect areas to a sense radius.
I'm not arguing with your conclusions as possible ways the rules should be, but right now our rules don't provide clear answers to them. Everything just being phrased as Invisible solves it all.
I'll quit plugging my houserule errata now, but y'all quit trying to defend this as a coherent rule system that's as good as it can be, because it isn't.
Since we're discussing the specifics of the invisible condition and how it allies to attacking, let's find out where we agree and disagree on the following points:
Since you get advantage when attacking while invisible, if you cast a spell that has an attack roll, you get advantage on that attack even if casting the spell ends the condition.
If you cast a spell while invisible, you cannot be counterspelled by someone who cannot see you even if casting the spell ends the condition.
If you attack someone while invisible (which has advantage) and it ends the condition, someone cannot use a reaction in response to that attack that requires being able to see you.
(1) Agree, the condition ending doesn't change the fact that the spell was cast while Invisible. Otherwise, attacking while under the effect of Invisibility or while Hiding wouldn't give advantage either, which seems not RAI. If an order of operations is needed to be spelled out, you make the attack/cast the spell then you cease to be Invisible.
(2) Agree, based on above understanding of order of operations. You aren't visible while you are "in the process" of casting a spell, you are visible after you have cast a spell. Note: most reactions to spells/attacks are not phrased this tightly, unfortunately.
(3) RAW ambiguous, case by case. Depends on whether the reaction is phrased to trigger after an attack or in the process of it, and not all such features are phrased tight enough to tell. For example, contrast Protection fighting style ("When a creature you can see attacks a target" clearly must be mid-attack, since it imposes disadvantage on the attack) versus Mage Slayer ("When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell" sounds like it can be after the spell, which is supported by JC's tweets about the RAI of interaction with Misty Step and the like).
It isn't easy to answer though, it's complex, and it's controversial, and it's commonly misapplied, and when you look it up in the book it requires you to flip back and forth between different sections of the PHB. This is a game, not a simulation, and "when you hide from a creature you are Invisible to them until you stop being Hidden (which happens when they use Perception to find you, or you step out from cover, or you make an attack, or you stop Hiding)" is a vastly superior gameplay mechanic to what we have, while mechanically being virtually identical to how the rules are RAI supposed to play out.
I don't agree that that's the way the rules are even intended to work. Concealment is not a consequence of stealth, it's a prerequisite for stealth. My take on it is:
When you hide from a creature, they no longer know your position on the map. They can still attack random squares if they wish, or they may attempt an active perception roll to find you. You generally need cover or concealment to hide; if you lose the prerequisite, you are no longer hidden.
If your location is known, it remains known until you successfully hide or otherwise break contact.
When you have heavy concealment from a creature, their attacks against you have disadvantage, and your attacks on them have advantage.
Invisible (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) maybe conceals which square you are in depending on the meaning of "can be...", and (4) treats you as Heavily Obscured (which is 100% redundant).
Hiding (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) conceals which square you are in. Hiding might require Heavily Obscured, or it might not, "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." Possibly 100% redundant with Heavily Obscured, depending on what the relation between Blinded and Invisible is.
Heavily Obscured (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals your location, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being Invisible? (unclear)
Blinded (1) gives you disadvantage on your attacks, (2) advantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals the locations of others, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being invisible? (unclear).
Which of the above do you disagree with? Concealment is a consequence of Invisibility, and is usually (but not always) a prerequisite of Hiding. How does that impact the fact that all of these are over-complicating the same 3 benefits over and over again?
Invisible (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) maybe conceals which square you are in depending on the meaning of "can be...", and (4) treats you as Heavily Obscured (which is 100% redundant).
Hiding (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) conceals which square you are in. Hiding might require Heavily Obscured, or it might not, "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." Possibly 100% redundant with Heavily Obscured, depending on what the relation between Blinded and Invisible is.
Heavily Obscured (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals your location, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being Invisible? (unclear)
Blinded (1) gives you disadvantage on your attacks, (2) advantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals the locations of others, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being invisible? (unclear).
Which of the above do you disagree with? Concealment is a consequence of Invisibility, and is usually (but not always) a prerequisite of Hiding. How does that impact the fact that all of these are over-complicating the same 3 benefits over and over again?
Hm. The basic issue is that all of these are redundant with yet another place: Unseen Attackers and Targets (on p194). This specifies:
When you attack a target you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.
This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
If you're hidden -- both unseen and unheard -- when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Now, for additional things:
According to Hiding (p177), 'invisible creatures can always try to hide'. This implies that there is a benefit to an invisible creature hiding, presumably becoming unheard.
According to Invisible(p291), 'For the purposes of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured'.
According to Vision and Light(p183), 'A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area'.
This implies that invisible is actually the same thing as your opponent being blinded to you, and allows simplifying the rules greatly.
If you are unseen and unheard, your location is unknown.
If you are unseen, attacks against you have disadvantage and you have advantage on your attacks.
An invisible or heavily obscured character is unseen.
A blinded character treats all other characters as unseen.
Hiding causes you to be both unseen and unheard. You may always hide if you are already unseen.
I guess what 194 says when you get down to it is that there's no such thing as "Hidden," there's only "Unseen" (advantage/disadvantage) and "Unseen and Unheard" (advantage/disadvantage/unknown square). You roll stealth while Unseen behind concealment (cover or darkness, etc.) to become "Unseen and Unheard", or you might cast Invisibility to become Unseen without needing concealment and then roll stealth to become "Unseen and Unheard."
If that's the case though, Invisible and Blinded, as well as probably a bunch of other stuff, needs to be rewritten to make it clear that it's really "Unseen" and "Unseen and Unheard" that's doing the heavy lifting here.
I guess what 194 says when you get down to it is that there's no such thing as "Hidden," there's only "Unseen" (advantage/disadvantage) and "Unseen and Unheard" (advantage/disadvantage/unknown square). You roll stealth while Unseen behind concealment (cover or darkness, etc.) to become "Unseen and Unheard", or you might cast Invisibility to become Unseen without needing concealment and then roll stealth to become "Unseen and Unheard."
If that's the case though, Invisible and Blinded, as well as probably a bunch of other stuff, needs to be rewritten to make it clear that it's really "Unseen" and "Unseen and Unheard" that's doing the heavy lifting here.
The fact that I ran into Invisible (see Obscured) and Obscured (see Blinded) is horrible editing to start with. Also, while it's not specific on what, it is probably possible to hide without heavy obscurement (if it isn't, an elven cloak makes no sense; also, the existence of elven cloak and elven boots imply that you can roll different types of stealth checks).
I guess what 194 says when you get down to it is that there's no such thing as "Hidden," there's only "Unseen" (advantage/disadvantage) and "Unseen and Unheard" (advantage/disadvantage/unknown square). You roll stealth while Unseen behind concealment (cover or darkness, etc.) to become "Unseen and Unheard", or you might cast Invisibility to become Unseen without needing concealment and then roll stealth to become "Unseen and Unheard."
If that's the case though, Invisible and Blinded, as well as probably a bunch of other stuff, needs to be rewritten to make it clear that it's really "Unseen" and "Unseen and Unheard" that's doing the heavy lifting here.
Ideally, "unseen" shouldn't be considered a condition that you either have or do not have, but rather an effect that applies between pairs of creatures. If creature A is unseen by creature B, then the effects should apply between those two, whether or not creature A is unseen by other creatures. And if creature A is seen by creature C, then none of the effects of "unseen" apply for their interactions.
All reasonable answers, all of which are debatable, and none of which are airtight in RAW. (1) is actually entirely unsupported by RAW, even if its RAI (which I'm not sure it is); (2) involves a ton of houseruling or DM interpretation, is complicated, and is controversial, (3) is controversial and relies on applying the rules about spell effect areas to a sense radius.
#1 is absolutely airtight RAW... how is that not obvious? Genuinely curious why you wouldn't think so, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Blinded explicitly blocks your ability to see. Blindsight is a sense that explicitly does not depend on the ability to see. Creatures that are naturally blind, or are subject to the Blinded condition, can only perceive to the extent of their Blindsight range. That's RAW; no Sage Advice or other citation needed to see that it is true. o_O
#2 is an absolute mess, is complicated, and is controversial. I totally agree, but it isn't house ruling. Those are the conclusions from what is written in the source books after carefully reading the expanded sidebar on hiding in combat. I think the part that makes it a nightmare is that there isn't a 100% codified rule on exactly when a DM needs to make a player roll for stealth, or a clear rule on when such a stealth check is free vs. action. The rule gives this entirely to the DM (perfectly fine), but provides ****-all guidance to the DM on it (not fine).
#3 I thought was airtight, but good 'ol wishy-washy Crawford ****ed it again:
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
the existence of elven cloak and elven boots imply that you can roll different types of stealth checks
That is absolutely correct, and it's how I managed to completely confound a seasoned DM during a heist one-shot we once ran.
There were 3 of us attempting a "skills test" for an employer that was hiring us for the heist. We had to infiltrate a patrolled area with spotlights, and pick the lock on a door to advance to the next test. My two teammates did not quite understand the whole "don't be seen" concept, and walked right into the spotlights, prompting the "guard" to walk up and start his speech on why we had all failed the test.
I was already Invisible, and I had Boots of Elvenkind equipped. I walked right over to the door and picked it while the "guard" was mid-speech with the other two.
DM: "What part of 'do not be detected' do you idiots not understand? You've failed this test, and I will have to tell my employer that you are not suitable for being given any contracts."
Teammate: "If we failed, then why's the door open?"
DM: "What are you talking abou..." *turns around* "... huh."
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Since this thread has kind of morphed into a more general talk on pointing out and addressing shortcomings in condition descriptions, I'll add a small house rule I have been using with the blindness description that has fixed the weird advantage/disadvantage contradiction between two blinded combatants.
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage if the attacker can see the target, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Bold is my addition. This means that two blind people fighting (inside a fog cloud was where it happens for us) both have disadvantage. I left the existing implication that non-sight perception would operate as normal.
There is a bit of compromise involved in being concise. Part of the challenge is deciding what can be implied and what must be specified. If you decide you can't imply anything and must explicitly account for every situation, we're back to the complexity of previous editions. Then again, one could make a pretty solid argument that pedantry and 5e were not meant to go together anyway, but pedants still gonna pedant.
Answers to questions like "wait do I know where the invisible guy is or not?" are not pedantic, they're stumbling blocks that are going to be hit in every encounter involving an invisible combatant, and demonstrate poorly play tested gaps in language which could have been answered very clearly and directly without needing legalese. Laying out all of the invisibility/hiding/unseen/blind rules side by side to say "huh, maybe we should just use one small set of terms here instead of saying one thing four different ways" is not pedantry, it's editing.
I understand the perspective of posters that say that they're comfortable interpreting these rules, but let's not pretend that everyone else is being unreasonable by pointing out that they should have been fixed in editing or at the very least errata'd at some point in the last 10 years.
Of course pedantry and 5e go together. Anything with rules goes hand in hand with pedantry.
The rules for stealth being unclear and all over the place in the books was my first personal annoyance with 5e. And with 4e, now that I think back on it.
You can absolutely counterspell someone who is invisible. There are verbal components to spells for one thing. Also, even attacks against invisible creatures have disadvantage but are still possible so a counterspell is allowable. Really the only way you can get away with a spell that can't be countered is with subtle spell or a level 18+ druid. I'd think of invisibility like the movie Predator, more see through camo than complete invisibility. You can perceive an invisible character, attack them, and track them, just at disadvantage mostly. Harder to see and hit, but not impossible (which is great, otherwise invis would be super OP).
You can absolutely counterspell someone who is invisible.
Counterspell is one of a number of spells that specifically calls out seeing. They could have phrased it in a way that would not be defeated by invisibility, but they did not do so.
Answers to questions like "wait do I know where the invisible guy is or not?" are not pedantic, they're stumbling blocks that are going to be hit in every encounter involving an invisible combatant, and demonstrate poorly play tested gaps in language which could have been answered very clearly and directly without needing legalese.
Depending on what you mean by 'legalese'. Clarity does usually require well-defined formal terminology.
Huh, I thought it was too, but I guess it isn't? nevermind you can cast Counterspell on invisible enemies no problem.
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.
EDIT: oh wait I see it now, it's down in the reaction trigger: "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
Answers to questions like "wait do I know where the invisible guy is or not?" are not pedantic, they're stumbling blocks that are going to be hit in every encounter involving an invisible combatant, and demonstrate poorly play tested gaps in language which could have been answered very clearly and directly without needing legalese. Laying out all of the invisibility/hiding/unseen/blind rules side by side to say "huh, maybe we should just use one small set of terms here instead of saying one thing four different ways" is not pedantry, it's editing.
It is really weird that there are so many places in the written rules, in Sage Advice, and even in interviews where the rule makers could have just said one way or the other for sure, but in every instance, they use noncommittal words like "might" and "can" and refuse to be pinned down by people who come right out and ask them directly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
All reasonable answers, all of which are debatable, and none of which are airtight in RAW. (1) is actually entirely unsupported by RAW, even if its RAI (which I'm not sure it is); (2) involves a ton of houseruling or DM interpretation, is complicated, and is controversial, (3) is controversial and relies on applying the rules about spell effect areas to a sense radius.
I'm not arguing with your conclusions as possible ways the rules should be, but right now our rules don't provide clear answers to them. Everything just being phrased as Invisible solves it all.
I'll quit plugging my houserule errata now, but y'all quit trying to defend this as a coherent rule system that's as good as it can be, because it isn't.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
(1) Agree, the condition ending doesn't change the fact that the spell was cast while Invisible. Otherwise, attacking while under the effect of Invisibility or while Hiding wouldn't give advantage either, which seems not RAI. If an order of operations is needed to be spelled out, you make the attack/cast the spell then you cease to be Invisible.
(2) Agree, based on above understanding of order of operations. You aren't visible while you are "in the process" of casting a spell, you are visible after you have cast a spell. Note: most reactions to spells/attacks are not phrased this tightly, unfortunately.
(3) RAW ambiguous, case by case. Depends on whether the reaction is phrased to trigger after an attack or in the process of it, and not all such features are phrased tight enough to tell. For example, contrast Protection fighting style ("When a creature you can see attacks a target" clearly must be mid-attack, since it imposes disadvantage on the attack) versus Mage Slayer ("When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell" sounds like it can be after the spell, which is supported by JC's tweets about the RAI of interaction with Misty Step and the like).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't agree that that's the way the rules are even intended to work. Concealment is not a consequence of stealth, it's a prerequisite for stealth. My take on it is:
Invisible (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) maybe conceals which square you are in depending on the meaning of "can be...", and (4) treats you as Heavily Obscured (which is 100% redundant).
Hiding (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, (3) conceals which square you are in. Hiding might require Heavily Obscured, or it might not, "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." Possibly 100% redundant with Heavily Obscured, depending on what the relation between Blinded and Invisible is.
Heavily Obscured (1) gives you advantage on your attacks, (2) disadvantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals your location, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being Invisible? (unclear)
Blinded (1) gives you disadvantage on your attacks, (2) advantage on attacks against you, and (3) maybe conceals the locations of others, if a Blinded creature treats all others as being invisible? (unclear).
Which of the above do you disagree with? Concealment is a consequence of Invisibility, and is usually (but not always) a prerequisite of Hiding. How does that impact the fact that all of these are over-complicating the same 3 benefits over and over again?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Hm. The basic issue is that all of these are redundant with yet another place: Unseen Attackers and Targets (on p194). This specifies:
Now, for additional things:
This implies that invisible is actually the same thing as your opponent being blinded to you, and allows simplifying the rules greatly.
I guess what 194 says when you get down to it is that there's no such thing as "Hidden," there's only "Unseen" (advantage/disadvantage) and "Unseen and Unheard" (advantage/disadvantage/unknown square). You roll stealth while Unseen behind concealment (cover or darkness, etc.) to become "Unseen and Unheard", or you might cast Invisibility to become Unseen without needing concealment and then roll stealth to become "Unseen and Unheard."
If that's the case though, Invisible and Blinded, as well as probably a bunch of other stuff, needs to be rewritten to make it clear that it's really "Unseen" and "Unseen and Unheard" that's doing the heavy lifting here.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The fact that I ran into Invisible (see Obscured) and Obscured (see Blinded) is horrible editing to start with. Also, while it's not specific on what, it is probably possible to hide without heavy obscurement (if it isn't, an elven cloak makes no sense; also, the existence of elven cloak and elven boots imply that you can roll different types of stealth checks).
Ideally, "unseen" shouldn't be considered a condition that you either have or do not have, but rather an effect that applies between pairs of creatures. If creature A is unseen by creature B, then the effects should apply between those two, whether or not creature A is unseen by other creatures. And if creature A is seen by creature C, then none of the effects of "unseen" apply for their interactions.
#1 is absolutely airtight RAW... how is that not obvious? Genuinely curious why you wouldn't think so, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Blinded explicitly blocks your ability to see. Blindsight is a sense that explicitly does not depend on the ability to see. Creatures that are naturally blind, or are subject to the Blinded condition, can only perceive to the extent of their Blindsight range. That's RAW; no Sage Advice or other citation needed to see that it is true. o_O
#2 is an absolute mess, is complicated, and is controversial. I totally agree, but it isn't house ruling. Those are the conclusions from what is written in the source books after carefully reading the expanded sidebar on hiding in combat. I think the part that makes it a nightmare is that there isn't a 100% codified rule on exactly when a DM needs to make a player roll for stealth, or a clear rule on when such a stealth check is free vs. action. The rule gives this entirely to the DM (perfectly fine), but provides ****-all guidance to the DM on it (not fine).
#3 I thought was airtight, but good 'ol wishy-washy Crawford ****ed it again:
See, I never just did things just to do them. Come on, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on. I got a little more sense then that.
Yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That is absolutely correct, and it's how I managed to completely confound a seasoned DM during a heist one-shot we once ran.
There were 3 of us attempting a "skills test" for an employer that was hiring us for the heist. We had to infiltrate a patrolled area with spotlights, and pick the lock on a door to advance to the next test. My two teammates did not quite understand the whole "don't be seen" concept, and walked right into the spotlights, prompting the "guard" to walk up and start his speech on why we had all failed the test.
I was already Invisible, and I had Boots of Elvenkind equipped. I walked right over to the door and picked it while the "guard" was mid-speech with the other two.
DM: "What part of 'do not be detected' do you idiots not understand? You've failed this test, and I will have to tell my employer that you are not suitable for being given any contracts."
Teammate: "If we failed, then why's the door open?"
DM: "What are you talking abou..." *turns around* "... huh."
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Since this thread has kind of morphed into a more general talk on pointing out and addressing shortcomings in condition descriptions, I'll add a small house rule I have been using with the blindness description that has fixed the weird advantage/disadvantage contradiction between two blinded combatants.
Bold is my addition. This means that two blind people fighting (inside a fog cloud was where it happens for us) both have disadvantage. I left the existing implication that non-sight perception would operate as normal.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So, I think they way I'd rule on this to be reasonably consistent with intent:
Now for how hiding works:
There is a bit of compromise involved in being concise. Part of the challenge is deciding what can be implied and what must be specified. If you decide you can't imply anything and must explicitly account for every situation, we're back to the complexity of previous editions. Then again, one could make a pretty solid argument that pedantry and 5e were not meant to go together anyway, but pedants still gonna pedant.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Answers to questions like "wait do I know where the invisible guy is or not?" are not pedantic, they're stumbling blocks that are going to be hit in every encounter involving an invisible combatant, and demonstrate poorly play tested gaps in language which could have been answered very clearly and directly without needing legalese. Laying out all of the invisibility/hiding/unseen/blind rules side by side to say "huh, maybe we should just use one small set of terms here instead of saying one thing four different ways" is not pedantry, it's editing.
I understand the perspective of posters that say that they're comfortable interpreting these rules, but let's not pretend that everyone else is being unreasonable by pointing out that they should have been fixed in editing or at the very least errata'd at some point in the last 10 years.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Of course pedantry and 5e go together. Anything with rules goes hand in hand with pedantry.
The rules for stealth being unclear and all over the place in the books was my first personal annoyance with 5e. And with 4e, now that I think back on it.
You can absolutely counterspell someone who is invisible. There are verbal components to spells for one thing. Also, even attacks against invisible creatures have disadvantage but are still possible so a counterspell is allowable. Really the only way you can get away with a spell that can't be countered is with subtle spell or a level 18+ druid. I'd think of invisibility like the movie Predator, more see through camo than complete invisibility. You can perceive an invisible character, attack them, and track them, just at disadvantage mostly. Harder to see and hit, but not impossible (which is great, otherwise invis would be super OP).
Counterspell is one of a number of spells that specifically calls out seeing. They could have phrased it in a way that would not be defeated by invisibility, but they did not do so.
Depending on what you mean by 'legalese'. Clarity does usually require well-defined formal terminology.
Huh, I thought it was too, but I guess it isn't? nevermind you can cast Counterspell on invisible enemies no problem.EDIT: oh wait I see it now, it's down in the reaction trigger: "* - which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It is really weird that there are so many places in the written rules, in Sage Advice, and even in interviews where the rule makers could have just said one way or the other for sure, but in every instance, they use noncommittal words like "might" and "can" and refuse to be pinned down by people who come right out and ask them directly.
"Not all those who wander are lost"