Is that what that rule says? From that point of view standing up shouldn't remove the prone condition any more than not being invisible removes the invisible condition. The prone condition doesn't even say that you have to be prone to have it.
Taken the other way, the prone condition doesn't require that you're in the prone position. Imagine if you were knocked prone while standing; you could remain standing and have the prone condition. then how would you stand up while already standing?
Is that what that rule says? From that point of view standing up shouldn't remove the prone condition any more than not being invisible removes the invisible condition. The prone condition doesn't even say that you have to be prone to have it.
Taken the other way, the prone condition doesn't require that you're in the prone position. Imagine if you were knocked prone while standing; you could remain standing and have the prone condition. then how would you stand up while already standing?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to remove the invisible condition, you need to have an effect that removes conditions, such as Dispel Magic (Faerie Fire specifically says the target cannot benefit from invisibility, but does not actually remove the condition). Truesight and See Invisible don't remove the invisibility condition, they just make it have no effect against the subject of the spell. Standing up specifically removes prone.
Is that what that rule says? From that point of view standing up shouldn't remove the prone condition any more than not being invisible removes the invisible condition. The prone condition doesn't even say that you have to be prone to have it.
Taken the other way, the prone condition doesn't require that you're in the prone position. Imagine if you were knocked prone while standing; you could remain standing and have the prone condition. then how would you stand up while already standing?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to remove the invisible condition, you need to have an effect that removes conditions, such as Dispel Magic (Faerie Fire specifically says the target cannot benefit from invisibility, but does not actually remove the condition). Truesight and See Invisible don't remove the invisibility condition, they just make it have no effect against the subject of the spell. Standing up specifically removes prone.
No, just like being prone, to counter the condition, you simply need to negate it. Standing up specifically removes prone because the prone condition requires the prone position even though that is not stated anywhere in rules text. If you want to go into the land of crazy interpretations where a thing that is see-able is not visible then you have to separate the prone condition from the prone position as well.
It is clear what the rules intend here, and you can even come to the conclusion using the words that are written. I admit that it is somewhat problematic -- why is invisible a condition at all anyway? Of @#! course if you can see something then it isn't invisible to you. Arguing about it is wasting breath.
No, just like being prone, to counter the condition, you simply need to negate it.
Very well then, truesight does not negate invisibility. An effect that negated invisibility would make the invisible target visible to everyone (unless some other effect also blocked vision), and truesight does not do that.
Truesight does not counter invisibility (the character remains invisible to creatures other than the one with truesight). Blindsight does not counter blindness (the creature remains blind to anything outside of its blindsight radius).
A torch does not counter darkness. The darkness remains outside the light radius of the torch (am I doing this right?)
Truesight does not counter invisibility (the character remains invisible to creatures other than the one with truesight). Blindsight does not counter blindness (the creature remains blind to anything outside of its blindsight radius).
A torch does not counter darkness. The darkness remains outside the light radius of the torch (am I doing this right?)
Sure; if you light a torch you will not cause the sun to rise. The thing is, invisibility is not a status effect that applies to a pair of creatures (X is invisible to Y), it's a status effect that applies to a single creature (X is invisible). It arguably shouldn't be done that way, but it is, and thus to counter it you need a universal counter.
Truesight does not counter invisibility (the character remains invisible to creatures other than the one with truesight). Blindsight does not counter blindness (the creature remains blind to anything outside of its blindsight radius).
A torch does not counter darkness. The darkness remains outside the light radius of the torch (am I doing this right?)
Sure; if you light a torch you will not cause the sun to rise. The thing is, invisibility is not a status effect that applies to a pair of creatures (X is invisible to Y), it's a status effect that applies to a single creature (X is invisible). It arguably shouldn't be done that way, but it is, and thus to counter it you need a universal counter.
No, you don't need a universal counter - otherwise the rules on conditions would say that. The rules simply say that once the condition is countered, it ends. The logical conclusion of that is the opposite of what you say: Once a thing is visible (to anyone) it is no longer invisible (to everyone). Clearly, that doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is a lot closer to RAW than the stuff that you've been spouting.
By the way, it is odd that you choose the sun to be the universal counter to darkness. I'm sure that there are planes and planets all over the D&D multiverse that don't see the same sun as eachother. Therefore, a particular sun can't be the universal counter to darkness. Therefore, the sun rising doesn't actually make it any brighter in your world, since it cannot counter darkness.
No, you don't need a universal counter - otherwise the rules on conditions would say that. The rules simply say that once the condition is countered, it ends. The logical conclusion of that is the opposite of what you say: Once a thing is visible (to anyone) it is no longer invisible (to everyone). Clearly, that doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is a lot closer to RAW than the stuff that you've been spouting.
No, the logical conclusion of that is that truesight does not counter invisibility. The rules don't say exactly what a 'counter' is (at least in general; some particular effect specify that they counter other effects), but other than the prone example, other effects that explicitly end conditions are Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration, and anything specified in the effect that applied the condition (e.g. the Invisibility spell says that the condition ends when the spell ends).
"When you Attack a target that 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...When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on Attack rolls against it. (PHB p.194)"
Truesight does not end the invisible condition but it counters it for the individual the same way see invisibility does.
Someone is not invisible to you if you can see them
The case against:
Truesight does not end the invisible condition therefore it is still in effect.
The second bullet point of the invisible condition exists independently of the first. Countering the first part does not automatically counter the second.
How I play it:
My conclusion is that while truesight does not end the invisible condition with regard to everyone the way dispel magic or faerie fire would, it gives the trueseer an exception to the invisible condition without ending it for everyone. I believe this method is supported by the rules as written on PHB p.194. Furthermore, I don't believe an edit is required to the invisible condition, but if I were to make one, I would add a single word to the second bullet point to tie it explicitly into the rules for unseen attackers, "Attack rolls against the unseen creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the second bullet point is supposed to just be a restatement of the rules on unseen attackers and targets, in which case it's obvious that anything that lets you see them (see invisible, truesight, blindsight) negates that point.
I guess most reasonable people would agree with TexasDevin's assessment, and even the bit about how they play it. It is a problematic ruleset around this issue.
"When you Attack a target that 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...When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on Attack rolls against it. (PHB p.194)"
Truesight does not end the invisible condition but it counters it for the individual the same way see invisibility does.
Someone is not invisible to you if you can see them
The case against:
Truesight does not end the invisible condition therefore it is still in effect.
The second bullet point of the invisible condition exists independently of the first. Countering the first part does not automatically counter the second.
How I play it:
My conclusion is that while truesight does not end the invisible condition with regard to everyone the way dispel magic or faerie fire would, it gives the trueseer an exception to the invisible condition without ending it for everyone. I believe this method is supported by the rules as written on PHB p.194. Furthermore, I don't believe an edit is required to the invisible condition, but if I were to make one, I would add a single word to the second bullet point to tie it explicitly into the rules for unseen attackers, "Attack rolls against the unseen creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."
Ok, I LOVE your edit of "unseen" that is so refined and simple... just as not making the conditions separate bullet points. Sometimes easy is the best way. I always over complicate things. I'd like to point out, though, that rules lawyering (especially wanting things to be extremely specific) is a great thing. If they would write things out completely people wouldn't have to scour sage advice or tweets for what is lacking in the original text. WotC (to my knowledge via M:tg) gets extremely anal over the rules for things. Here's to 6e being twice as thick with half unused, unread or completely over looked mechancs xD
My conclusion is that … it gives the trueseer an exception to the invisible condition without ending it for everyone.
That seems the most sensible ruling.
It works the same way as other situations and immunities.
In darkness, creatures are blinded. If one creature has darkvision, that creature has an exception to the blinded condition, without effecting any other creatures in the darkness.
In a fire, creatures take fire damage. If one creature has immunity to fire damage, that creature takes no damage, without effecting any other creatures in the fire.
It seems also possible that the second feature of invisibility and the specific wording of everything else is intended to grant players or creatures with invisibility a persistent and unique high level buff even when other high level abilities counter part of them. Maybe not and the arguments against it are of course extremely reasonable that being said this is not a sloppy game and has many changes and clarifications by now this not being one of them.
I don't disagree that a lot of things in this edition are poorly written and overly convoluted. However, there actually is a rather important difference between being Invisible and simply being hidden: combat.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
There's a common misconception that taking the Hide action allows you to go about your turn as if you were invisible; it doesn't. If you successfully hide behind total cover, that's only valid while you are still in cover. If you move out from total cover, whether you were successfully hidden or not, you are no longer hidden. The general rule is that any creature, capable of seeing you, does see you immediately as you pop out. In order to remain hidden while moving, the creature must use another Hide action to roll Stealth for hiding in another location that is also total cover. Creatures that are Invisible do not immediately reveal their location by leaving cover (or needing to be in cover at all). If they had successfully hidden themselves, their previous Stealth check stands until they take an action that does reveal themselves (or are spotted by an active Perception check.
Hiding in combat is not nearly as good as people think it is, but it is significantly better for rogues that use ranged attacks via Cunning Action. While hidden, they do get the advantage on their attack, and can use their bonus action to attempt hiding again in another location. They must still move to a new location as having attacked reveals their position whether they hit or miss.
Theres always the misunderstood line: “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.”.
It is always best to chat with your DM first before making assumptions about how the Hiding rules will work in your campaign. Be clear to your PCs and everything will work just fine.
5 pages of a pointless discussion. How interesting.
Whether raw or rai, the rules as written when it comes to Truesight vs Invisibility need not change at all... unless you somehow don't understand English and can't contextually criticize text.
But without even showing the descriptions of the rules, it's obvious and final that if you have True sight, the person that is invisible and is attacking you no longer has advantage, and you no longer have disadvantage. If anyone disagrees with that COMMON SENSE, they're homebrewing, and that's their choice to make.
5 pages of a pointless discussion. How interesting.
Whether raw or rai, the rules as written when it comes to Truesight vs Invisibility need not change at all... unless you somehow don't understand English and can't contextually criticize text.
But without even showing the descriptions of the rules, it's obvious and final that if you have True sight, the person that is invisible and is attacking you no longer has advantage, and you no longer have disadvantage. If anyone disagrees with that COMMON SENSE, they're homebrewing, and that's their choice to make.
Peaces. :P
And for that statement you necro'ed this thread? (sorry couldn't help myself)
I think that is the problem with invisible being a condition rather than an interaction. "
I agree wholeheartedly, an interaction would be better but there is no excuse here to set aside common reasoning. No DM is going to give you advantage on attacks against a creature that can see you, that kind of rules lawyering certainly won't fly in league play. And that's all that this post is : ignoring the obvious implication that the advantage from invisibility is not dependent on being invisible,
I think that is the problem with invisible being a condition rather than an interaction. "
I agree wholeheartedly, an interaction would be better but there is no excuse here to set aside common reasoning. No DM is going to give you advantage on attacks against a creature that can see you, that kind of rules lawyering certainly won't fly in league play. And that's all that this post is : ignoring the obvious implication that the advantage from invisibility is not dependent on being invisible,
The problem with this entire thread is one of the designers misinterpreted the condition rules (that he probably wrote) and gave that exact advice; and a few people in this thread spent a long time trying to justify why you should rule that way.
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)
Every DM I know house rule against this as they regard it as ridiculous
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is that what that rule says? From that point of view standing up shouldn't remove the prone condition any more than not being invisible removes the invisible condition. The prone condition doesn't even say that you have to be prone to have it.
Taken the other way, the prone condition doesn't require that you're in the prone position. Imagine if you were knocked prone while standing; you could remain standing and have the prone condition. then how would you stand up while already standing?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to remove the invisible condition, you need to have an effect that removes conditions, such as Dispel Magic (Faerie Fire specifically says the target cannot benefit from invisibility, but does not actually remove the condition). Truesight and See Invisible don't remove the invisibility condition, they just make it have no effect against the subject of the spell. Standing up specifically removes prone.
No, just like being prone, to counter the condition, you simply need to negate it. Standing up specifically removes prone because the prone condition requires the prone position even though that is not stated anywhere in rules text. If you want to go into the land of crazy interpretations where a thing that is see-able is not visible then you have to separate the prone condition from the prone position as well.
It is clear what the rules intend here, and you can even come to the conclusion using the words that are written. I admit that it is somewhat problematic -- why is invisible a condition at all anyway? Of @#! course if you can see something then it isn't invisible to you. Arguing about it is wasting breath.
Very well then, truesight does not negate invisibility. An effect that negated invisibility would make the invisible target visible to everyone (unless some other effect also blocked vision), and truesight does not do that.
A torch does not counter darkness. The darkness remains outside the light radius of the torch (am I doing this right?)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sure; if you light a torch you will not cause the sun to rise. The thing is, invisibility is not a status effect that applies to a pair of creatures (X is invisible to Y), it's a status effect that applies to a single creature (X is invisible). It arguably shouldn't be done that way, but it is, and thus to counter it you need a universal counter.
No, you don't need a universal counter - otherwise the rules on conditions would say that. The rules simply say that once the condition is countered, it ends. The logical conclusion of that is the opposite of what you say: Once a thing is visible (to anyone) it is no longer invisible (to everyone). Clearly, that doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is a lot closer to RAW than the stuff that you've been spouting.
By the way, it is odd that you choose the sun to be the universal counter to darkness. I'm sure that there are planes and planets all over the D&D multiverse that don't see the same sun as eachother. Therefore, a particular sun can't be the universal counter to darkness. Therefore, the sun rising doesn't actually make it any brighter in your world, since it cannot counter darkness.
No, the logical conclusion of that is that truesight does not counter invisibility. The rules don't say exactly what a 'counter' is (at least in general; some particular effect specify that they counter other effects), but other than the prone example, other effects that explicitly end conditions are Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration, and anything specified in the effect that applied the condition (e.g. the Invisibility spell says that the condition ends when the spell ends).
The case for truesight beating invisible:
The case against:
How I play it:
My conclusion is that while truesight does not end the invisible condition with regard to everyone the way dispel magic or faerie fire would, it gives the trueseer an exception to the invisible condition without ending it for everyone. I believe this method is supported by the rules as written on PHB p.194. Furthermore, I don't believe an edit is required to the invisible condition, but if I were to make one, I would add a single word to the second bullet point to tie it explicitly into the rules for unseen attackers, "Attack rolls against the unseen creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the second bullet point is supposed to just be a restatement of the rules on unseen attackers and targets, in which case it's obvious that anything that lets you see them (see invisible, truesight, blindsight) negates that point.
I guess most reasonable people would agree with TexasDevin's assessment, and even the bit about how they play it. It is a problematic ruleset around this issue.
Ok, I LOVE your edit of "unseen" that is so refined and simple... just as not making the conditions separate bullet points. Sometimes easy is the best way. I always over complicate things.
I'd like to point out, though, that rules lawyering (especially wanting things to be extremely specific) is a great thing. If they would write things out completely people wouldn't have to scour sage advice or tweets for what is lacking in the original text.
WotC (to my knowledge via M:tg) gets extremely anal over the rules for things. Here's to 6e being twice as thick with half unused, unread or completely over looked mechancs xD
That seems the most sensible ruling.
It works the same way as other situations and immunities.
In darkness, creatures are blinded. If one creature has darkvision, that creature has an exception to the blinded condition, without effecting any other creatures in the darkness.
In a fire, creatures take fire damage. If one creature has immunity to fire damage, that creature takes no damage, without effecting any other creatures in the fire.
It seems also possible that the second feature of invisibility and the specific wording of everything else is intended to grant players or creatures with invisibility a persistent and unique high level buff even when other high level abilities counter part of them. Maybe not and the arguments against it are of course extremely reasonable that being said this is not a sloppy game and has many changes and clarifications by now this not being one of them.
Theres always the misunderstood line: “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.”.
It is always best to chat with your DM first before making assumptions about how the Hiding rules will work in your campaign. Be clear to your PCs and everything will work just fine.
5 pages of a pointless discussion. How interesting.
Whether raw or rai, the rules as written when it comes to Truesight vs Invisibility need not change at all... unless you somehow don't understand English and can't contextually criticize text.
But without even showing the descriptions of the rules, it's obvious and final that if you have True sight, the person that is invisible and is attacking you no longer has advantage, and you no longer have disadvantage. If anyone disagrees with that COMMON SENSE, they're homebrewing, and that's their choice to make.
Peaces. :P
And for that statement you necro'ed this thread? (sorry couldn't help myself)
I think that is the problem with invisible being a condition rather than an interaction. "
I agree wholeheartedly, an interaction would be better but there is no excuse here to set aside common reasoning. No DM is going to give you advantage on attacks against a creature that can see you, that kind of rules lawyering certainly won't fly in league play. And that's all that this post is : ignoring the obvious implication that the advantage from invisibility is not dependent on being invisible,
The problem with this entire thread is one of the designers misinterpreted the condition rules (that he probably wrote) and gave that exact advice; and a few people in this thread spent a long time trying to justify why you should rule that way.
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)
Every DM I know house rule against this as they regard it as ridiculous