D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Maxperson]

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

What part of "corner case" did you not understand? Let me help you so that you don't engage in more Strawmen by arguing things that you are making up for me to have said.

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

Because Demon Lords and Archdevils are not a thing at 20th level

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.

And there you go arguing against things that I didn't say, but which you made up for me to have said. Stop with the Strawman arguments. If you can't respond to what I'm actually saying, don't respond to me.

Edit: And don't think your cherry picking around the abilities that are more commonly affected wasn't noticed.

 

[Mort]

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.

Yes, that's called building a strawman, I chose to ignore it.

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.

But that's not what it says. It says the target is visible to you, you know just as if you'd neutralized the invisible condition.

Natural language has pitfalls but I prefer not to twist it into a pretzel.

Edit: Look, I GET what you are saying - That the invisible condition has specifics and that see invisibility doesn't counter the advantage because it doesn't say it counters that part. By a strict reading? sure you can get there. BUT, I'm saying that to read the see invisibility spell is just a step too far off of the common sense road (and sure common sense doesn't always factor in, but here? Sorry but see invisibility should do what it says).

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, that's called building a strawman, I chose to ignore it.

A Strawman requires attributing the argument to you, which @doctorbadwolf did not do. He provided a counter example as his counter argument. That's different. You can see a good example of a Strawman with @Lyxen's response to me above where he alters my corner case argument into happening every game and then he argues against his switch.

His counter example is flawed,, though. Poison is a physical condition and if you have a spell that can ignore the effects, you are still poisoned. That much is true. Where his example is flawed is that it's not comparable to Invisibility and See Invisibility. The See Invisibility spell is not ignoring the effects of invisibility. It actually makes the invisible person or object visible to the caster. Unlike the above poison example, you cannot be both visible and invisible at the same time. They are mutually exclusive positions

 

[Krachek]

We can consider another title for the thread:
Counterspell will make a comeback at many tables!
Some like counterspell but some DM banish it.
The new monster template will protect some key abilities, transforming them into non spell and thus protecting them from counterspell.
Will this be enough to reinstate the spell?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, that's called building a strawman, I chose to ignore it.

No, it isn't. Like...objectively you are accusing me of a thing I didn't do. A counter example is not a strawman. I didn't attribute any argument to you.

By a strict reading? sure you can get there. BUT, I'm saying that to read the see invisibility spell is just a step too far off of the common sense road (and sure common sense doesn't always factor in, but here? Sorry but see invisibility should do what it says).

That's all I was ever concerned with in this discussion, because it is all that was ruled on in Sage Advise. Sage Advise isn't errata, it's a space where Crawford explains the RAW. That's it. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not to you, max, me, or even to Jeremy himself, it is what it is. It's not, what they wish they'd written, it's what they wrote. By understanding that, you can more easily use SA to engage with the rules and make changes from a position of understanding them. If you insist that "common sense" (itself a myth) guide SA, you make SA about as useful as Matt Collville videos about running the game. Useful at the table, but not for actually understanding what the rules text says.

 

[Rabulias]

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

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.

Your hyperbole smiley is noted, but you cannot deny that the game would go from X number of interactions that could be clearly and unambiguosly answered by the rules, to some-number-less-than-X.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A Strawman requires attributing the argument to you, which @doctorbadwolf did not do. He provided a counter example as his counter argument. That's different. You can see a good example of a Strawman with @Lyxen's response to me above where he alters my corner case argument into happening every game and then he argues against his switch.

His counter example is flawed,, though. Poison is a physical condition and if you have a spell that can ignore the effects, you are still poisoned. That much is true. Where his example is flawed is that it's not comparable to Invisibility and See Invisibility. The See Invisibility spell is not ignoring the effects of invisibility. It actually makes the invisible person or object visible to the caster. Unlike the above poison example, you cannot be both visible and invisible at the same time. They are mutually exclusive positions

Ah screw it, I guess I'm not done after all. Had lunch, my patience mete refilled. Sorry if I was getting overly contentious with my tone and approach before.

So, I get where you're coming from, but your position is predicated on the assumption that the rules need to make sense and be consistent, neither of which is the case.

The RAW here is illogical. It is still RAW. You are invisible, and the other creature can see you as if you weren't. Both are true. Because you are still invisible, you still gain any benefit of being invisible that isn't directly counteracted by the spell. TBH, even just adding the word "clearly" after "see" would make your position more likely to be true, though I'm not sure even that would change things. It would just push the RAW far enough into direct contradiction that it would have to be treated as a rule that doesn't work, and thus cannot be used RAW.

If it said, "invisible creatures do not benefit from invisibility when interacting with you" or something like that, you'd be right, and the Sage Advise wouldn't say what it says.

 

[Mort]

No, it isn't. Like...objectively you are accusing me of a thing I didn't do. A counter example is not a strawman. I didn't attribute any argument to you.

That's all I was ever concerned with in this discussion, because it is all that was ruled on in Sage Advise. Sage Advise isn't errata, it's a space where Crawford explains the RAW. That's it. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not to you, max, me, or even to Jeremy himself, it is what it is. It's not, what they wish they'd written, it's what they wrote. By understanding that, you can more easily use SA to engage with the rules and make changes from a position of understanding them. If you insist that "common sense" (itself a myth) guide SA, you make SA about as useful as Matt Collville videos about running the game. Useful at the table, but not for actually understanding what the rules text says.

As I said, you can get there - but it requires you to interpret "as if they were visible" as not negating invisibility - Which again, while you can get there is too tortured for me to accept at ANY table. So it's a useless ruling.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I said, you can get there - but it requires you to interpret "as if they were visible" as not negating invisibility - Which again, while you can get there is too tortured for me to accept at ANY table. So it's a useless ruling.

It isn't tortured at all, it just comes to a conclusion you disagree with.

 

[Rabulias]

Ah screw it, I guess I'm not done after all. Had lunch, my patience mete refilled. Sorry if I was getting overly contentious with my tone and approach before.

So, I get where you're coming from, but your position is predicated on the assumption that the rules need to make sense and be consistent, neither of which is the case.

The RAW here is illogical. It is still RAW. You are invisible, and the other creature can see you as if you weren't. Both are true. Because you are still invisible, you still gain any benefit of being invisible that isn't directly counteracted by the spell. TBH, even just adding the word "clearly" after "see" would make your position more likely to be true, though I'm not sure even that would change things. It would just push the RAW far enough into direct contradiction that it would have to be treated as a rule that doesn't work, and thus cannot be used RAW.

If it said, "invisible creatures do not benefit from invisibility when interacting with you" or something like that, you'd be right, and the Sage Advise wouldn't say what it says.

I think we need to add some logical interpretation into see invisibility. By a hairsplitting technical reading, I could say that I see invisible creatures in the next room through the wall between us. Or even invisible creatures miles away that I normally would not be able to see. Clearly the spell does not do such things.