D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not just counterspell affected here; there are lots of little interactions scattered throughout the game that were created under the existing rules.
Just taking a few minutes to scan through some books yields things like:

• Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity trait
• globe of invulnerability
• dispel magic
• Mage Slayer feat
• Wildemount's temporal shunt spell
• Shield guardian's Spell Storing trait
• Slaad tadpole victims turning into a green slaad vs red or blue
• Tarrasque's Reflective Carapace trait
• Archmage's Damage Resistance to spells
• Spectator's Spell Reflection reaction
• Oath of the Ancients paladin's Aura of Warding

Some of these have been mentioned before. Many are admittedly rare and unusual corner-case examples, but under the current rules, it is clear how to rule on them; under the new rules (without additional clarifications/guidelines), not so much.

The Arcane Trickster's Spell Thief ability, as well.

 

[Mort]

But see invisible doesn't make you not invisible, it makes it so that the creature can see you as if you were visible. You are still invisible. See Invisble doesn't say, "that creature gains no benefit from invisiblity" or "that creature is not invisible to you" or any other statement that would actually do what you want to say it does.

it's very, very simple. At some point, in order to understand RAW in 5e and not get a headache, one has to accept that RAW often doesn't make sense without a DM call to interpret a specific situation. That sometimes RAW will simply lead to strange outcomes that you'll either have to rationalize in the fiction, or ignore and rule otherwise.

At some point, you have to just deal with the fact that your perspective of what makes sense is not the same as what is RAW.

This is such a case.

Most Poisons impose the poisoned condition: "A poisoned creature has disadvantage on Attack rolls and Ability Checks"

Protection from poison says: You touch a creature. If it is poisoned, you neutralize the poison...

It DOES NOT say that the poisoned condition is removed.

Do you also rule that the poisoned creature still suffers from disadvantage on Attack rolls and Ability Checks?

Before saying something to the affect of "Well obviously a creature that is no longer poisoned doesn't suffer from the poisoned condition...,"

Keep in mind that you are arguing "An invisible creature still benefits from the invisible condition even if it is visible..."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Most Poisons impose the poisoned condition: "A poisoned creature has disadvantage on Attack rolls and Ability Checks"

Protection from poison says: You touch a creature. If it is poisoned, you neutralize the poison...

It DOES NOT say that the poisoned condition is removed.

Do you also rule that the poisoned creature still suffers from disadvantage on Attack rolls and Ability Checks?

Before saying something to the affect of "Well obviously a creature that is no longer poisoned doesn't suffer from the poisoned condition...,"

Keep in mind that you are arguing "An invisible creature still benefits from the invisible condition even if it is visible..."

If I had a spell that said that the target could makeattacks and checks as if it weren't poisoned, obviously it would still be poisoned, yes? So, if a different creature then had advantage on attacks against poisoned creatures, it would still have advantage, even if the poisoned creature is ignoring all the effects of being poisoned, right?

That would be more analogous to what we're talking about here.

Edit: And this is the last I'll say on the topic. If that seems unfair to anyone who isn't the person who annoyed me beyond the point of caring about this topic anymore, oh well.

 

[billd91]

But see invisible doesn't make you not invisible, it makes it so that the creature can see you as if you were visible. You are still invisible. See Invisble doesn't say, "that creature gains no benefit from invisiblity" or "that creature is not invisible to you" or any other statement that would actually do what you want to say it does.

it's very, very simple. At some point, in order to understand RAW in 5e and not get a headache, one has to accept that RAW often doesn't make sense without a DM call to interpret a specific situation. That sometimes RAW will simply lead to strange outcomes that you'll either have to rationalize in the fiction, or ignore and rule otherwise.

At some point, you have to just deal with the fact that your perspective of what makes sense is not the same as what is RAW.

This is such a case.

The problem is - this logic that Jeremy used, that the see invisibility spell would have to explicitly say that the invisible creature can gain no benefit of being invisible, is not understandable from reading the rules. Nor does it align with the idea of using natural language. Natural language would tell you that "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" means the invisible creature isn't invisible to you.

The explicit declaration that a target outlined in faerie fire can gain no benefit from being invisible is important because they're still invisible to everyone (who can't see invisibility). You can't see the expression on their faces, can't distinguish them from the color of their tunics, or see any coat of arms they might have on their shield. But, thanks to the faerie fire spell's description, we know that aspect of invisibility doesn't confer any benefit of the condition.

By contrast, the person with see invisibility sees them as if they were visible. Full stop. Not an outline. Not any other effect that interferes with what they can see. They can't even gain the tangential anonymity benefits of being invisible that I listed above that the faerie fire outlined targets could get. So why would they gain any benefit at all? And how are you supposed to understand that from the description of See Invisibility? That's what's fundamentally wrong with Jeremy's sage advice on See Invisibility vs Invisibility.

 

[Mort]

If I had a spell that said that the target could makeattacks and checks as if it weren't poisoned, obviously it would still be poisoned, yes?

Even if the poison were neutralized?

Natural language has pitfalls - but I think neutralized is crystal clear.

So, if a different creature then had advantage on attacks against poisoned creatures, it would still have advantage, even if the poisoned creature is ignoring all the effects of being poisoned, right?

That would be more analogous to what we're talking about here.

Nope, that's shifting things.

You are arguing that because the spell doesn't say the poisoned condition is gone (even though the poison is neutralized) it's still there. Which means the target of Neutralize Poison is STILL making all attacks and saves at disadvantage (except for those against poison, because the spell says he gets advantage on those - though now he just makes the saves normally advantage-disadvantage cancel out).

It doesn't make sense here just as it doesn't make sense with See invisibility.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem is - this logic that Jeremy used, that the see invisibility spell would have to explicitly say that the invisible creature can gain no benefit of being invisible, is not understandable from reading the rules. Nor does it align with the idea of using natural language. Natural language would tell you that "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" means the invisible creature isn't invisible to you.

The explicit declaration that a target outlined in faerie fire can gain no benefit from being invisible is important because they're still invisible to everyone (who can't see invisibility). You can't see the expression on their faces, can't distinguish them from the color of their tunics, or see any coat of arms they might have on their shield. But, thanks to the faerie fire spell's description, we know that aspect of invisibility doesn't confer any benefit of the condition.

By contrast, the person with see invisibility sees them as if they were visible. Full stop. Not an outline. Not any other effect that interferes with what they can see. They can't even gain the tangential anonymity benefits of being invisible that I listed above that the faerie fire outlined targets could get. So why would they gain any benefit at all? And how are you supposed to understand that from the description of See Invisibility? That's what's fundamentally wrong with Jeremy's sage advice on See Invisibility vs Invisibility.

Ugh, okay, one last comment I guess, because this is actually a fairly interesting point.

That's what's wrong (in your opinion) with the rules. Jeremy's sage advice simply explains what those rules are.

It may help to think about how total cover works. If you don't make a stealth check to hide, you don't have advantage on attacks and attacks against you don't have disadvantage. You just can't be seen directly. You can compare this to the wording of invisibility. If the rules were that not being seen gives you advantage and others disadvantage, the second point of invisibility would be completely redundant.

In such a case, that benefit would instead be conferred by having total concealment, and the text for invisible would simply note that you have total concealment.

Instead, the invisible condition confers certain benefits, and in order to counteract those benefits without removing the condition, a second effect has to say that it does so. So, you can target a creature, and it can't try to hide without gaining concealment some other way, but by RAW it still has the benefits of invisibility that aren't explicitly canceled by the spell. The spell doesn't say, "invisible creatures are not invisible", it says you can see them as if they were visible. Those are not the same statement.

To avoid feeling compelled to do this again, I won't be looking at any notifications I get for posts in this thread, any longer. Have fun, folks.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not just counterspell affected here; there are lots of little interactions scattered throughout the game that were created under the existing rules.
Just taking a few minutes to scan through some books yields things like:

• Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity trait
• globe of invulnerability
• dispel magic
• Mage Slayer feat
• Wildemount's temporal shunt spell
• Shield guardian's Spell Storing trait
• Slaad tadpole victims turning into a green slaad vs red or blue
• Tarrasque's Reflective Carapace trait
• Archmage's Damage Resistance to spells
• Spectator's Spell Reflection reaction
• Oath of the Ancients paladin's Aura of Warding

Some of these have been mentioned before. Many are admittedly rare and unusual corner-case examples, but under the current rules, it is clear how to rule on them; under the new rules, not so much.

It's more than that.

Cleric Corona of Light will have corner case interactions, because sometimes a big bad will catch allies in a spell.
Paladin Holy Nimbus is affected
Paladin Cleansing Touch is affected
Rogue Spell Thief is affected
Wizard Improved Abjuration is reduced in effectiveness
Wizard Spell Resistance is reduced in effectiveness
Ranger Magic User's Nemesis is reduced in effectiveness
Wizard Power Surge is reduced in effectiveness
Barbarian Magical Awareness will have some corner case interactions
Bard Bolstering Magic will have some corner case interactions
Sorcerer Clockwork Cavalcade is reduced in effectiveness

I may have missed some, but this list combined with yours is too large.

 

[Maxperson]

I gotta learn to stop diving into these ridiculous arguments that I know will feature completely intractable dedication to a blatantly incorrect reading of RAW and insistence that your interpretation of something is somehow objective fact.

lol have a good one

Ciao. I guess only you are capable of determining what RAW is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even if the poison were neutralized?

Natural language has pitfalls - but I think neutralized is crystal clear.


Nope, that's shifting things.

You are arguing that because the spell doesn't say the poisoned condition is gone (even though the poison is neutralized) it's still there. Which means the target of Neutralize Poison is STILL making all attacks and saves at disadvantage (except for those against poison, because the spell says he gets advantage on those - though now he just makes the saves normally advantage-disadvantage cancel out).

It doesn't make sense here just as it doesn't make sense with See invisibility.

Unbelievable. Read my post again, realising that I was not speaking on the particulars of an existing spell, but creating a hypothetical example of an interaction that actually resembles the one in question.

If I had a spell that

See that? That is a direct indicator that I am speaking of a hypothetical spell, not an existing spell, much less the spell you brought up.

Because "poison is neutralized" is not comparable to "you can see the creature even though it's invisible". One removes a condition, the other does not.

 

[Lyxen]

Cleric Corona of Light will have corner case interactions, because sometimes a big bad will catch allies in a spell.

Yeah, sure, this is something that will happen every game.

Paladin Holy Nimbus is affected

Oh my god, the 20th capstone is affected when the spells are cast by fiends or undead.

sigh I guess I was wrong, between that one, the above, and the fact that this affects rakshasa (my favourite monster ever, but thankfully only if it's an NPC casting the spell), this is the biggest change ever, 5e is definitively ruined for me.