Well this just ****ed my Oni right up.

I didn't realize this let you see into the Ethereal Plane. That seems pretty sweet, but also a great way to cast this then see 50 phase spiders about their business. Or all kinds of weird ethereal creatures.

Quote from Charmandenator >>

I didn't realize this let you see into the Ethereal Plane. That seems pretty sweet, but also a great way to cast this then see 50 phase spiders about their business. Or all kinds of weird ethereal creatures.

 I do love the idea that this simple spell reveals a "behind the scenes” world of imps, spirits, and Fey which are omnipresent in a fantasy setting.

So if "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible", your character wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if something they are seeing would have been invisible if they weren't using the spell?

Quote from jjcf89 >>

So if "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible", your character wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if something they are seeing would have been invisible if they weren't using the spell?

 That’s another excellent point about this spell.

Can this be used to reveal creatures hidden in darkness?

Quote from George_Rotan_III >>

Can this be used to reveal creatures hidden in darkness?

 

 

Beyond 20

 

 

 

 

 

 You see invisible things (under the invisible condition) as though they were not so. This has no effect on things that are heavily obscured to you, as that’s essentially you suffering from the blinded condition.

Funny enough this spell lets you see invisible creatures, but that creature still has the invisible condition. That condition as written grants them Adv on attacks, and attacks against them have Disadvantage. RAW, the spell doesn't remove that (but obviously any DM would rule it does)

Quote from JustinTBassett >>

Funny enough this spell lets you see invisible creatures, but that creature still has the invisible condition. That condition as written grants them Adv on attacks, and attacks against them have Disadvantage. RAW, the spell doesn't remove that (but obviously any DM would rule it does)

During the "Ask the Sage" Q&A (D&D Celebration 2021) [21:30], Jeremy Crawford -- the WotC lead rules designer -- said this is the intent--- i.e. that merely seeing the invisible creature doesn't negate the second Invisible condition benefit, unless an effect description specifically says so (e.g. faerie fire spell). The invisible creature is still shimmering, ghostly, translucent, blurry, making it harder to it, and making it easier for the creature to attack you. 

This ruling makes this spell lackluster imo, as the spell only shuts down the first benefit of the invisible condition ("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.") 

It was also said in another Sage Advice podcast that the intent was for an invisible creature's location to be pretty much known while in combat (because of the noise it makes while moving and fighting) while still benefitting from the Adv / Disadv benefits of the invisible condition. 

So the spell's usefulness is limited to seeing an invisible object or an invisible creature that is Hiding, making it less useful than 1st-level faerie fire in combat situations.

Definitely house ruling that Sage Advice ruling. Meeting the rule designer half way, I might give the invisible creature the benefit of the blur spell if seen through this spell : you have disadvantage on attacks against the invisible creature, but the "seen" invisible creature doesn't get advantage on attacks against you. 

Just making sure that my interpretation of the rules is correct.  Casting the 3rd level Nondetection spell on an Invisible character negates this spell.  Right?

Yes because Nondetection gives immunity to Divination spells and this is a Divination spell

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. If the character is invisible and hiding, and makes their stealth check to hide their noise, then enemies can't even find them to attack. This mechanic works the same in darkness.

I have done this mechanic before; the enemy must guess which square the invisible character is in to attack and make their role hit. You don't tell the enemy if the character is there. If they are not in the square it is an auto miss.

2. Since the character loses invisibility if they attack or cast a spell, it makes sense that they would just hide in most cases. If they are hiding, then, in my opinion, see invisibility does help. Unless they are obscured by a tree or wall or rock, the enemy would see them and then be able to attack at a disadvantage.

These are just my opinions, so please take them however you like to.

"The invisible creature is still shimmering, ghostly, translucent, blurry, making it harder to it, and making it easier for the creature to attack you. "

If Crawford said this, that's pretty bad. The spell says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible", not "you can see invisible creatures just a little bit but they're blurry and still hard to see."

Jeremy offered that as a possible narrative way to explain how you could see an invisible creature while still having the disadvantage to attack them.

You can see invisible stuff. Look!     https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/see-invisibility

"For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible"

Pretty simple, cut and dry. Left right there, alone, Crawford's response makes little sense. I'm having a hard time concluding the intent as anything other than the creature indeed remains invisible and retains every benefit of one who is invisible... except to the one actively under the effects of See Invisibility, who quote again, sees "invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible."

Crawford's conclusion goes directly against the spell as written. The oversite was the spell should have specifically stated "and an invisible creature loses all benefits of invisibility to any creature under the effects of this spell." It's plain weird, and it even gets more so when you examine the rest of the spell.

"and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."

Add this, and Crawford's input is completely contradicted. The spell as written already goes out of the way to delineate that you see invisible creatures as if they were visible, and you see ethereal objects in a manner that is indeed, different from anything else that is normally visible... they are ghostly and translucent. It says absolutely nothing about the person who sees the invisible creature or object as anything other than plainly visible, and then goes out of its way to say ethereal things appear... ethereal. 

At our family table, we rarely home-rule directly against Sage Advice, and never unless there is 100% agreement. This is one of those cases. Spell works exactly as written and what I believe most DMs/Players would agree was actually intended, and barring Nondetection and the ilk, the invisible creature/object is treated completely visible to the caster of See Invisibility, and loses those invisibility benefits to that caster, but only to that caster. The invisibility otherwise breaks as it would normally, stealth vs perception to remain unheard vs. unseen works as normal, etc.

The second benefit of the invisible condition:

• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

is independent from both the first benefit of the invisible condition:

• 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.

and the unseen attackers and targets mechanic ("[...] 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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.").

If you want to see the second benefit of the invisible condition making perfect sense elsewhere in the rules, the 18th level ranger class feature feral senses provides further insight into the subject: "[...] You are [...] aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.", the ranger still can't see invisible creatures through their feral senses and, if the creature isn't invisible (because the invisible condition provides two separate benefits to the invisible creature), feral senses state: "[...] When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it. [...]", which is relevant whenever the creature's beyond the range of the ranger's special senses, for example 5 feet away from their 0 feet blindsight and tremorsense in opaque fog possibly generated through the fog cloud spell, or 65 feet away from their 60 feet darkvision in the dark.

Anyway, what I'd like to point out about this wonderful spell is that an 18th level wizard can master it to no longer require a second level spell slot, so their simulacrum (while the original wizard's affected by the mind blank spell) can potentially have it active all day, every day. May also master magic missile watching out for creatures immune to magic missile, for those and paralyzed, petrified, stunned, unconscious targets (who automatically fail strength and dexterity saving throws) a backup could be acid splash. Bonus fact about magic missile: Night hags can cast it at will.

This spell needs serious errata so that it removes the invisible condition for the caster.  The spell description makes no sense otherwise and largely negates the usefulness of this spell.    Jeremy Crawford's sage advise likewise makes no sense and is contradicted by the text of the spell.  

A big disconnect from most dnd players and JC is IC sees the narrative of the game being entirely separate from machanics. 

I think this philosophy is intended to facilitate players being able to RP the flavor however they want but because of natural language  and suggestions for the RP of the spells it completely clashes with the  "game machanics are just game machanics" philosophy. 

The invisibility spell is perhaps the best example of this. The only way it's machanics makes sense is that the spell Grant's the advantage/disadvantage as a result  of a magical effect. Rather than the mundane effect of people simply not being able to see you past your tracks.  

Future rewrites should either be made with flavor in mind making sense. Or not have flavor text at all. (For example removing the description of fireball starting off small and flying from the casters finger and instead simply stating the machanics of it)

This might be stupid but does this let you hear things in that plane too? Or just observe in silence?