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.
Invisibility gives you advantage on attack rolls and gives all other creatures disadvantage on attack rolls against you. This doesn't seem to depend (RAW) on the creature actually being unseen. Therefore, having Truesight (RAW) still means that an invisible creature has advantage against you and you have disadvantage against it.
If the second part of the Invisible condition was completely removed, that would make more sense to me, or if Truesight had the line "Invisible creatures gain no benefit from their invisibility against you", that would work as well.
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.
Truesight does not explicitly override invisible, it merely allows you to see invisible creatures. Therefore, the second benefit of invisibility (which does not rely on being unseen) is still in effect.
Truesight does not explicitly override invisible, it merely allows you to see invisible creatures. Therefore, the second benefit of invisibility (which does not rely on being unseen) is still in effect.
How, exactly, does the secondary benefit of being invisible not rely entirely on being invisible? If I have truesight, you are not invisible to me. My attacks against you are not made with disadvantage, and your attacks against me are not made with advantage.
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.
Just because you can see me, does not mean I am not under the invisible condition.
Just because you are under the invisible condition does not mean the effects of that condition are always applicable.
If I'm pressed up against a wall that is larger than the entirety of my body and everything I'm wearing/carrying, I'm in total cover. Does that mean it is impossible for the person standing right next to me, on the same side of the wall, to target me directly with their attack? No, of course not, that would be absurd. These things are always relative.
If you are under the invisible condition, you are only under that condition relative to any creature that cannot actually see you. This is a slam-dunk interaction dude.
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.
Obviously I want to be pedantic about it, that’s why I asked the question. I don’t think that you could say that invisibility is “countered” by Truesight and things like it, that sort of thing needs to be explicitly stated.
Cover explicitly states that it’s only applicable against effects that originate on the other side of the cover. The invisible condition does not explicitly state that its effects only apply against creatures that cannot see you.
What part of "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense", and "A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see invisible creatures and objects" are you having trouble grasping?
The argument you are trying to make is analogous to saying a creature in a an area of dim light, which makes them lightly obscured--and which imposes disadvantage to other creatures trying to perceive them visually--is somehow not countered by another creature whom has darkvision. That's absurd.
Darkvision explicitly treats areas of dim light as if they were brightly lit up to the limit of their visual range. They do not suffer disadvantage when trying to perceive a lightly obscured creature within that range.
Truesight explicitly allows the creature to see invisible creatures up to the limit of their visual range. The effects of the Invisible condition do not apply, in relation to the creature with Truesight, within that range.
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.
If you want to treat invisibility as a binary condition, rather than an interaction between two creatures like it should be, then the rules for its ending are clear: once it is countered it is over.
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.
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.
Invisibility gives you advantage on attack rolls and gives all other creatures disadvantage on attack rolls against you. This doesn't seem to depend (RAW) on the creature actually being unseen. Therefore, having Truesight (RAW) still means that an invisible creature has advantage against you and you have disadvantage against it.
If the second part of the Invisible condition was completely removed, that would make more sense to me, or if Truesight had the line "Invisible creatures gain no benefit from their invisibility against you", that would work as well.
I see what you're saying here, I think that it could be worded slightly better. The condition of invisibility doesn't explicitly say that you need to be invisible to an opposing creature to gain these benefits, however with the application of a little common sense I think ALL of us can agree that it wouldn't make any sense for the condition to continue to grant Advantage and impose Disadvantage if you can be seen, especially when you consider that there are several senses/spells that grant the ability to specifically counter the condition of invisibility.
Skipping over the hostile replies above, not interested in people piling on with exasperated dismissal of close readings.
Persuasion, I think the issue is that you're reading the two bullets of the Invisible condition to be independent of each other, suggesting that attackers have disadvantage against you regardless of whether or not they can see you. In other words, you are carrying the condition "Invisible" even if everything looking at you has Truesight, and the condition is what is giving you advantage, not whether or not the enemies are perceiving you. Enemy A having Truesight (1) has not removed the Invisible from you, and (2) the condition says in no uncertain terms that "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage," not that "Attack rolls by creatures that cannot see the creature against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls against creatures that cannot see them have advantage." Contrast this with a scenario where you are Hidden and Heavily Obscured in Darkness, which does not give you a condition, but rather imposes a condition (Blinded) on the enemy; an enemy with Truesight would negate the Heavy Obscurement, no longer be subject to Blinded, and remove your ability to Hide in said obscurement, thus removing the advantage/disadvantage.
I was actually thinking about this same issue on the drive into work this morning, before I even saw your post. Following up on my post yesterday about how there's no real reason for Hiding and Invisible to be entirely different systems that have the exact same mechanical effect, we can also add Blinded and Heavily Obscured into that pile. There's one concept operating for all four of these things (Creature A cannot see Creature B), and yet we have four overlapping mechanics with awkward interactions:
Creature A cannot see Creature B because of a special quality of Creature B (Invisibility, binary quality of Creature B)
Creature A cannot see Creature B because of the environment (Heavily Obscured, relative quality of Creature A and B's placement)
Creature A cannot see Creature B because of Creature B's actions (Hiding, relative quality of Creature A and B's skill checks)
Creature A cannot see Creature B because of a special quality of Creature A (Blinded, binary quality of Creature A or a consequence of Creature A and B's placement or a consequence of Creature A and B's skill checks)
I think that trying to be super-RAW with how these four things work is a mistake, because it feels like each was written without really thinking about where it butts up into the other. A creature that is Hiding (3) is already Heavily Obscured (2), and Heavily Obscured halfway imposes a Blinded condition on some of the other combatants but only in respect to where they are on the battlefield (4), and the difference between a viewer being Blinded and a viewee being Invisible (1) is poorly defined and unclear. So really they're all one 'situation,' but for some reason we have four different systems. Ugh.
Thanks TigerApricot and Chicken_Champ, that's exactly what I meant. While it's pretty obvious that an invisible creature shouldn't gain any benefits from being invisible against a creature with Truesight or what have you, the fact that Invisible is a condition and the way it's written doesn't explicitly shut down the second benefit, so a strictly RAW reading of the condition means that an invisible creature has advantage on attack rolls against creatures with Truesight. I would say that the Invisible condition doesn't even need that second line, as an invisible creature would (and should) be covered by the rules on Unseen Attackers and Targets in the PHB.
I'm not advocating for an extremely strict reading of the rule, but I am pointing out that this reading is not altogether incorrect. Most of the replies here have misread/misinterpreted my initial post, or missed the point entirely.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Invisibility:
Truesight:
Invisibility gives you advantage on attack rolls and gives all other creatures disadvantage on attack rolls against you. This doesn't seem to depend (RAW) on the creature actually being unseen. Therefore, having Truesight (RAW) still means that an invisible creature has advantage against you and you have disadvantage against it.
If the second part of the Invisible condition was completely removed, that would make more sense to me, or if Truesight had the line "Invisible creatures gain no benefit from their invisibility against you", that would work as well.
Specific > General. Truesight explicitly overrides Invisible.
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.
Truesight does not explicitly override invisible, it merely allows you to see invisible creatures. Therefore, the second benefit of invisibility (which does not rely on being unseen) is still in effect.
What if I were to tell you that if I can see you, you are not invisible to me? :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that is the problem with invisible being a condition rather than an interaction.
How, exactly, does the secondary benefit of being invisible not rely entirely on being invisible? If I have truesight, you are not invisible to me. My attacks against you are not made with disadvantage, and your attacks against me are not made with advantage.
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.
Just because you can see me, does not mean I am not under the invisible condition.
If you want to be pedantic about it, a condition lasts until it is countered or for its duration. I can see you, so invisible ends.
Just because you are under the invisible condition does not mean the effects of that condition are always applicable.
If I'm pressed up against a wall that is larger than the entirety of my body and everything I'm wearing/carrying, I'm in total cover. Does that mean it is impossible for the person standing right next to me, on the same side of the wall, to target me directly with their attack? No, of course not, that would be absurd. These things are always relative.
If you are under the invisible condition, you are only under that condition relative to any creature that cannot actually see you. This is a slam-dunk interaction dude.
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.
Obviously I want to be pedantic about it, that’s why I asked the question. I don’t think that you could say that invisibility is “countered” by Truesight and things like it, that sort of thing needs to be explicitly stated.
Cover explicitly states that it’s only applicable against effects that originate on the other side of the cover. The invisible condition does not explicitly state that its effects only apply against creatures that cannot see you.
Invisibility is countered by being visible, which truesight makes you. I don’t think you could describe it another way.
So then if a creature with Truesight or Blindsight or See Invisibility looks at an invisible creature, everyone can now see that creature?
What part of "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense", and "A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see invisible creatures and objects" are you having trouble grasping?
The argument you are trying to make is analogous to saying a creature in a an area of dim light, which makes them lightly obscured--and which imposes disadvantage to other creatures trying to perceive them visually--is somehow not countered by another creature whom has darkvision. That's absurd.
Darkvision explicitly treats areas of dim light as if they were brightly lit up to the limit of their visual range. They do not suffer disadvantage when trying to perceive a lightly obscured creature within that range.
Truesight explicitly allows the creature to see invisible creatures up to the limit of their visual range. The effects of the Invisible condition do not apply, in relation to the creature with Truesight, within that range.
This is all incredibly straight-forward.
No, obviously not, and no one has claimed otherwise. You are visible only in relation to the creature that can actually see you.
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.
If you want to treat invisibility as a binary condition, rather than an interaction between two creatures like it should be, then the rules for its ending are clear: once it is countered it is over.
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.
I see what you're saying here, I think that it could be worded slightly better. The condition of invisibility doesn't explicitly say that you need to be invisible to an opposing creature to gain these benefits, however with the application of a little common sense I think ALL of us can agree that it wouldn't make any sense for the condition to continue to grant Advantage and impose Disadvantage if you can be seen, especially when you consider that there are several senses/spells that grant the ability to specifically counter the condition of invisibility.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
Skipping over the hostile replies above, not interested in people piling on with exasperated dismissal of close readings.
Persuasion, I think the issue is that you're reading the two bullets of the Invisible condition to be independent of each other, suggesting that attackers have disadvantage against you regardless of whether or not they can see you. In other words, you are carrying the condition "Invisible" even if everything looking at you has Truesight, and the condition is what is giving you advantage, not whether or not the enemies are perceiving you. Enemy A having Truesight (1) has not removed the Invisible from you, and (2) the condition says in no uncertain terms that "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage," not that "Attack rolls by creatures that cannot see the creature against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls against creatures that cannot see them have advantage." Contrast this with a scenario where you are Hidden and Heavily Obscured in Darkness, which does not give you a condition, but rather imposes a condition (Blinded) on the enemy; an enemy with Truesight would negate the Heavy Obscurement, no longer be subject to Blinded, and remove your ability to Hide in said obscurement, thus removing the advantage/disadvantage.
I was actually thinking about this same issue on the drive into work this morning, before I even saw your post. Following up on my post yesterday about how there's no real reason for Hiding and Invisible to be entirely different systems that have the exact same mechanical effect, we can also add Blinded and Heavily Obscured into that pile. There's one concept operating for all four of these things (Creature A cannot see Creature B), and yet we have four overlapping mechanics with awkward interactions:
I think that trying to be super-RAW with how these four things work is a mistake, because it feels like each was written without really thinking about where it butts up into the other. A creature that is Hiding (3) is already Heavily Obscured (2), and Heavily Obscured halfway imposes a Blinded condition on some of the other combatants but only in respect to where they are on the battlefield (4), and the difference between a viewer being Blinded and a viewee being Invisible (1) is poorly defined and unclear. So really they're all one 'situation,' but for some reason we have four different systems. Ugh.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thanks TigerApricot and Chicken_Champ, that's exactly what I meant. While it's pretty obvious that an invisible creature shouldn't gain any benefits from being invisible against a creature with Truesight or what have you, the fact that Invisible is a condition and the way it's written doesn't explicitly shut down the second benefit, so a strictly RAW reading of the condition means that an invisible creature has advantage on attack rolls against creatures with Truesight. I would say that the Invisible condition doesn't even need that second line, as an invisible creature would (and should) be covered by the rules on Unseen Attackers and Targets in the PHB.
I'm not advocating for an extremely strict reading of the rule, but I am pointing out that this reading is not altogether incorrect. Most of the replies here have misread/misinterpreted my initial post, or missed the point entirely.
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.