Quote from Greenstone_Walker >>

Quote from Persuasion >>

Obviously I want to be pedantic about it, 

In all seriousness, don't.

The rules weren't written in legalese with a goal of being unambiguous and complete; they were written in natural language.

In this case, if Akiro is invisible but Thoth-Amon can see invisible creatures then Akiro does not have the invisible condition as far as Thoth-Amon is concerned. Akiro is still invisible to Conan and Zula.

 

 In all seriousness, the rule should be clearer and shorter, not "legalese". Simply remove the second line of the condition, and then have the Invisible creature follow the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets, which both is easier to understand and is unambiguous between RAI and RAW.

I don't understand why there's no desire to make the rules more clear and easier to follow. D&D has rules for a reason, to provide a framework within which to play the game. Even if the rules can't ever be perfect, that's not a reason to not want them to be improved when and where they can.

Greenstone, the issue is, I can think of only one situation where you only have a condition "as far as another creature is concerned." That is Blinded, which you have in relation to a creature you are trying to perceive who is Heavily Obscured, but which you do not really have in relation to yourself or anyone else on the battlefield. This is bizarre, but at least the rules specifically spell out that you aren't really Blinded, and who you treat as though you are Blinded, and what effects it. 

Logically, being Invisible while being perceived by a creature that sees through Invisibility should be exactly the same situation in reverse: you should have Invisible, but not in relation to the creature who is Truesighting you, but yes in relation to yourself and anyone else on the battlefield. I don't think that Persuasion is disagreeing that that is how it should work, or is intended to work, but nothing has been written anywhere suggesting that that is how it does work. Playing it that way essentially requires a homebrew errata. 

You make a fair point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to strive for the clearest and most concise wording of the rules for this game. That being said, if you're visible to a creature, you gain no benefit toward that creature from being invisible.

All of this handwringing about "oh well it couldn't possibly have  been written any clearer" is letting the authors off too easily. From where I'm standing, just spitballing here, all of this would be cleared up by stripping everything down to one single condition, Invisible.

• Rewrite Heavily Obscured so that "you are treated as though you are Invisible by any creature to which you are Heavily Obscured by cover or lighting." 
• Rewrite Hiding so that "you are treated as Invisible by any creature from which you are successfully Hiding."
• Rewrite anything that hands out Blinded, or rewrite Blinded, "While Blinded, you cannot perceive your surroundings with vision and all creatures are treated as Invisible to you, unless you succesfully perceive them with another special sense not relying on vision, such as Blindsight or Truesight"
• Rewrite Blindsight, Truesight, etc. to say something more explicit about "You can treat creatures that are Invisible as if they were not Invisible when they are within the radius of your special sense"

The precise tweaking of this could be cleaned up a little I'm sure, but how does that not instantly fix everything we're struggling with? 

This whole thread is an excellent example of why RAI is better than RAW.

Everyone here knows exactly what was intended, whether or not they want to admit it. So arguing about it is moot. Just have the DM rule on it and be done with it.

The point of the disadvantage/advantage that is gained from invisible condition is that a creature can't see you even if they know roughly where you stand and thus unable to avoid a hit they can't see or hit something that may be a few inches to the right or squating. I would rule RAI that truesight allows the caster to see the invisible target and negate the benefits of invisibility for the one enemy that can see them.

Now my question is what happens if an invisible creature has mind blank cast upon them? Sorry to add another tangle to this web of knots.

Oh man, I can't believe - given the ridiculous amount of time I've spent trying to actually understand all the stealth mechanics in 5e - that I never noticed this.  These books are in serious need of a rewrite.

In this case, I don't think they need to change things up how you're suggesting, Chicken_Champ.  They literally just need to remove the second bullet point from invisible. It's redundant, seeing as being invisible makes you Heavily Obscured to other creatures, which makes them treat you as though they were blinded, which already imposes the advantage/disadvantage.  All that second bullet in invisible does is create this confusing situation.

They should also probably remove the "for the purposes of hiding" from invisible, it's unnecessary and could also cause confusion.

Quote from Jaysburn >>

Oh man, I can't believe - given the ridiculous amount of time I've spent trying to actually understand all the stealth mechanics in 5e - that I never noticed this.  These books are in serious need of a rewrite.

 It's bad when people uphold twitter posts as canon interpretations to the rules.

Quote from Shaylic >>

Quote from Jaysburn >>

Oh man, I can't believe - given the ridiculous amount of time I've spent trying to actually understand all the stealth mechanics in 5e - that I never noticed this.  These books are in serious need of a rewrite.

 It's bad when people uphold twitter posts as canon interpretations to the rules.

 ... You lost me.  What?

The best use of RAI is to supplement and shore up the gaps in RAW. RAI has no strict guidelines, so anyone can claim and argue for anything, and your idea of "intended" may disagree slightly or completely with someone else's.

There is no argument to be made. RAW, Invisible creatures still have advantage on attacks against creatures with Truesight, and creatures with Truesight have disadvantage on attacks against invisible creatures. RAI, invisible creatures gain no benefits against creatures with Truesight.

@Shaylic, an invisible creature with Mind Blank would still gain all the benefits of invisibility against a creature who had True Seeing cast on them, but would not be invisible to creatures that innately have Truesight.

Quote from Jaysburn >>

Oh man, I can't believe - given the ridiculous amount of time I've spent trying to actually understand all the stealth mechanics in 5e - that I never noticed this.  These books are in serious need of a rewrite.

In this case, I don't think they need to change things up how you're suggesting, Chicken_Champ.  They literally just need to remove the second bullet point from invisible. It's redundant, seeing as being invisible makes you Heavily Obscured to other creatures, which makes them treat you as though they were blinded, which already imposes the advantage/disadvantage.  All that second bullet in invisible does is create this confusing situation.

You are correct and I think it's even simpler than that. They could remove the second bullet point entirely and the Unseen Attackers sidebar from PHB p.194 would handle the rest just fine.

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. 

At best, the second bullet point is redundant. At worst, it gives pedants a reason to argue that someone can be invisible and visible at the same time.

Yes, my initial suggestion in my first post was to remove the second line of the Invisible condition.

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.

Quote from Sigred >>

 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.

Oh, this lovely game.  The Hiding sidebar indeed says "if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you," but it also says "you give away your position if you make any noise," and the invisible condition says "the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves," both of which approaching someone would do.  Not that it really matters, if you're going up to attack them then being ivisible is still going to give you advantage.  Apparently even against people with special senses, RAW -_-

If all you do is take away that bullet point, it fixes this one issue, but it doesn't fix any of the other various issues around this subject such as:

• Can creatures with special senses still be Blinded?
• 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? 
• Can Blindsight see through solid objects providing cover? What about intangible objects providing concealment?

My rewrite, which phrases all of the various "unseen" systems in terms of a single Invisible, would finally make everything operate off of a single mechanic (binary "is this creature treated as Invisible or are they not?") instead of there being multiple overlapping conditions, states, and interactions which use different vocabulary. If we're talking about errata, might as well fix the problem entirely to bring RAW in line with RAI, instead of just putting a single bandaid on and doing the bare minimum. As written, it's like a physics equation that's only half in metric and half in imperial, it's too twisty. 

Instead of complicated analysis of "what's the difference between Hiding and Invisible?" (see above), imagine a world where you could just say "they're the same thing"? Ah, how gameplay would be streamlined, I'm weeping with joy at the thought. 

I've ranted about stealth and hiding before, I'll try to find one to link when I get home because I don't want to go through it all again, but at the very least your second point of "What's the difference between an Invisible creature, and 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?" is fairly easy to answer.  The rest... oof.

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.  

That's fair.  Easy may not have been the correct word.  I suppose "possible" is what I was going for :P

Quote from Chicken_Champ >>

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.  

So as not to meander off topic on this thread and at the same time into a place where another active thread is discussing the matter, I'll just point out that I posted what I feel is a pretty comprehensive case both for and against an unhidden and invisible creature's exact location being known to all.

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.