Ok so I was told personally that if a creature is invisible and someone casts see invisibility then for some reason the invisible creature still has advantage on attacking the one that can see it and on the other hand even tho that creature can see them they still have disadvantage?
To me this seems wrong!
So if one is invisible and the other can see them in my opinion they should be fighting on equal terms no adv or dis with other effects! Is this right or was I told the right thing and I'm wrong?
It essentially does because See Invisibility doesn't cancel the invisible condition, it let you see the creature instead, and the advantage comes from the condition, not Unseen Attackers and Targets. It also align with a Dev's take on the matter.
It's a weird interpretation of RAW to be sure. The argument is that the invisible condition gives those benefits and see invisibility does not explicitly say they lose those benefits.
See Invisibility does say "as if they were visible" though, and since visible creatures naturally do not have the invisible condition, this should be enough for any respectable DM or rules lawyer to figure out as RAW. Several other rules use similar "as if" wordings to convey meaning this way including multiclassing rules, and I doubt you will see any respectable DM or rules lawyer arguing that a level 1 wizard/16 cleric can learn power word kill.
Truesight on the other hand only says they can see the invisible creature, not that they treat it as visible. This is harder to make RAW match the logical outcome. But I doubt you will have DMs ruling to nerf their CR20+ creatures in such a way.
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible,
If you see the invisible creature as if it were visible, that means it's not invisible to you, and doesn't get the advantages of being invisible against you. The people saying otherwise are talking nonsense (Crawford included). Common sense is that if you can see it, it is not invisible to you, so the rest of the description for the "invisible" condition doesn't apply.
Take a look at the invisible condition in the latest play test document. If they go with that in the next edition (One D&D) then it is finally explained.
I wouldn't go quite this far as the invisible person would still appear invisible to everyone else. I would just amend Truesight and See Invisibility to say that an invisible creature can be attacked without disadvantage and does not get advantage to attack you.
Yes in this case when someone can see you with See Invisibility you're still invisible to anyone else that can't see you just like when someone with Darkvision can see you in darkness you're still heavily obscured to anyone else that can't see you.
Yeah, JC did answer and kinda ignored the whole see them as if they were visible. Personally think it's a goof and/or bad raw and rai decision and they just don't want to say ok, you're right, if you cast see invisible and see them same as if they weren't invisible then no, they don't have an advantage towards you and obviously there wouldn't be a reason for you to be at disadvantaged.
Yeah, JC did answer and kinda ignored the whole see them as if they were visible. Personally think it's a goof and/or bad raw and rai decision and they just don't want to say ok, you're right, if you cast see invisible and see them same as if they weren't invisible then no, they don't have an advantage towards you and obviously there wouldn't be a reason for you to be at disadvantaged.
They are fixing this in 1d&d at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok so I was told personally that if a creature is invisible and someone casts see invisibility then for some reason the invisible creature still has advantage on attacking the one that can see it and on the other hand even tho that creature can see them they still have disadvantage?
To me this seems wrong!
So if one is invisible and the other can see them in my opinion they should be fighting on equal terms no adv or dis with other effects! Is this right or was I told the right thing and I'm wrong?
It essentially does because See Invisibility doesn't cancel the invisible condition, it let you see the creature instead, and the advantage comes from the condition, not Unseen Attackers and Targets. It also align with a Dev's take on the matter.
It's a weird interpretation of RAW to be sure. The argument is that the invisible condition gives those benefits and see invisibility does not explicitly say they lose those benefits.
See Invisibility does say "as if they were visible" though, and since visible creatures naturally do not have the invisible condition, this should be enough for any respectable DM or rules lawyer to figure out as RAW. Several other rules use similar "as if" wordings to convey meaning this way including multiclassing rules, and I doubt you will see any respectable DM or rules lawyer arguing that a level 1 wizard/16 cleric can learn power word kill.
Truesight on the other hand only says they can see the invisible creature, not that they treat it as visible. This is harder to make RAW match the logical outcome. But I doubt you will have DMs ruling to nerf their CR20+ creatures in such a way.
I agree it's weird and weaken the spell to much to my taste if it only strikes out the first benefit of the condition about being impossible to see.
I don't remember if JC answered for the spell or Truesight though now that you mention it.
If you see the invisible creature as if it were visible, that means it's not invisible to you, and doesn't get the advantages of being invisible against you. The people saying otherwise are talking nonsense (Crawford included). Common sense is that if you can see it, it is not invisible to you, so the rest of the description for the "invisible" condition doesn't apply.
Take a look at the invisible condition in the latest play test document. If they go with that in the next edition (One D&D) then it is finally explained.
My ruling would be that for the caster the Invisible condition ends when it is countered by See Invisibility.
Yes in this case when someone can see you with See Invisibility you're still invisible to anyone else that can't see you just like when someone with Darkvision can see you in darkness you're still heavily obscured to anyone else that can't see you.
See Invisibility should have use this spell as reference and just say creatures can't benefit from being invisible from you.
Or visibility should be an interaction, not a condition, as common sense would indicate.
Yeah, JC did answer and kinda ignored the whole see them as if they were visible. Personally think it's a goof and/or bad raw and rai decision and they just don't want to say ok, you're right, if you cast see invisible and see them same as if they weren't invisible then no, they don't have an advantage towards you and obviously there wouldn't be a reason for you to be at disadvantaged.
They are fixing this in 1d&d at least.