Yes, that’s the other reasonable interpretation I was referring to. So, I would say that both this and the interpretation I gave in post 263 are valid ways to understand the interaction between Abracadabra and Purple.
Under the interpretation you’ve given here, I think the Goof Off action (listed here for reference)
Goof Off
With the Goof Off action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscures or behind Three-Quarters Covee or TotalCover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Purple condition. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component
works perfectly fine. However, under the interpretation in post 263, if Charlie uses the Goof Off action instead of the Abracadabra spell to gain the Purple condition, the goblin gaining line of sight to her would not end the Purple condition, because the Concealed benefit of Purple would be preventing the goblin from seeing Charlie. Now, the goblin could take the Search action to try to find Charlie, and if it succeeded, the Purple condition would end. But until and unless the goblin takes the Search action and succeeds at the Perception check, Charlie would retain the Purple condition as long as she doesn’t attack, cast a spell with a verbal component, or make a sound louder than a whisper.
Are you saying if a character is hiding, using the hide action, from an enemy behind a rock, and the enemy looks behind said rock, the enemy will not see the character hiding there?
Or if the "hidden" character moves into the enemies line of sight they won't be seen?
Are you saying if a character is hiding, using the hide action, from an enemy behind a rock, and the enemy looks behind said rock, the enemy will not see the character hiding there?
Or if the "hidden" character moves into the enemies line of sight they won't be seen?
I think the idea is that as written, the enemy needs to take the search action to find the character and beat their Dex (Stealth) score to find them. Looking behind a rock is a sensible narration of that check, though it might fail - failure might be narrated something like this scene from Two Towers :
If the enemy doesn't take a Search action, then as written, it doesn't seem that they can "find" an invisible target. "Somehow seen" would refer to a successful Search action, breaking the Concealment benefit of the Invisible condition, allowing them to be seen and therefore ending the Invisible condition as per the Hide action.
The roughness here is, I suspect, at least partly down to what Line of Sight means and the general lack of facing in 3.5+e D&D. It's clearly possible to sneak up on someone despite being in their (D&D) line of sight (by walking up behind them), but an interpretation of the Hide/Invisible interaction that means that breaking cover means you are automatically spotted would prevent this, which clearly limits it's usefulness. Even stepping out "in front" of someone may not (realistically) cause you to be seen - I'm sure we've all walked into someone while distracted by something.
We're all repeating the same arguments from way back when the 2024 PHB released, but here we go again!
Rules say what they do, so for those that are arguing that nothing in the condition or the spell says that you cannot be seen, I will point you to post #231. Basically, normal sight is not defined in any book, so it operates by the natural language definition. That means that only the senses, spells and abilities that specifically state that they can bypass the condition can do so for any spell that grants the condition. Meanwhile, if you get the condition from the Hide action, then a Perception check (Search) is also required as this represents using your 5 normal senses to look for something.
Line of sight (DMG p.45) also plays a role here, so even if an enemy has the ability to see you, without line of sight they cant
if my character, Charlie, casts the abracadabra spell on herself while standing within the line of sight of a Goblin Warrior with no source of cover or obscuration, can the Goblin Warrior attack her, and if it does, does it have disadvantage on that attack?
Yes, Charlie has advantage to attack the Goblin Warrior due to the Attacks Affected effect of the Purple condition. However, since she gained the Purple condition via abracadabra, the spell ends along with the benefit of her having the Purple condition.
Can Charlie’s Bard ally target her with the enlarge/reduce spell (which I double checked, does require you to be able to see the target) while she has the Purple condition?
However you answer these questions, I would appreciate you explaining how you arrived at those answers, based on the text of my homebrew spell and condition.
Now, can you (or @Parmandur or @Selas or whoever else would like to weigh in) tell me, if my character, Charlie, casts the abracadabra spell on herself while standing within the line of sight of a Goblin Warrior with no source of cover or obscuration, can the Goblin Warrior attack her, and if it does, does it have disadvantage on that attack?
Casting the spell grants the color purple until the spell ends and has only its components as a criteria for casting... so assuming those were used the answer is yes to the first part of this question.
Since purple grants disadvantage on attacks against you unless you can be seen by the creature... which the Goblin Warrior can't because the purple condition also grants concealed... all of which Charlie has until the spell ends (specific supercedes general rules), which it hasn't in this situation... sobthe answer to the 2nd part is yes.
Can Charlie’s Bard ally target her with the enlarge/reduce spell (which I double checked, does require you to be able to see the target) while she has the Purple condition?
No line in the core books say that you can be seen with normal sight from the abracadabra spell since there is no Perception check involved, so this only applies to senses, spell and abilities that say they do. Please see my post above (#273).
The Purple condition cannot define how you can be seen because then it makes Goof Off no different than the abracadabra spell.
People are overly complicating this. Does the abracadabra spell contains a clause that says an enemy can find you with Perception? Does the Goof Off action confer the Purple condition unconditionally? The answer to these questions determines whether you can be seen by normal sight or not. Don't forget, the PHB defines Wisdom as the ability to notice things in the environment, and is represented by the Perception skill.
