D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I'd love to hear how being able to see invisible stuff allows you to see through walls.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd love to hear how being able to see invisible stuff allows you to see through walls.

Maybe you can only see invisible things.

 

[Mort]

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

FYI this interpretation means that True Seeing or anything else that grants truesight doesn't prevent the invisible person from having advantage on you (you can see the person, but it doesn't say the invisible condition is negated).

So, yeah, I'll stick with being visible negates the invisible condition.

 

[Rabulias]

I'd love to hear how being able to see invisible stuff allows you to see through walls.

The same way you claim the benefits of invisibility have nothing to do with being unseen.

For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent.

It says I see "invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible." Is an invisible creature on the other side of a wall visible? No they are not, but when I cast see invisibility, I see them as if they were visible.

Logically, we know that see invisibility does not enhance the caster's vision in any additional ways. So logically we know that if someone can see invisible creatures, those creatures lose the benefits of invisibility with respect to that viewer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The same way you claim the benefits of invisibility have nothing to do with being unseen.

It says I see "invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible." Is an invisible creature on the other side of a wall visible? No they are not, but when I cast see invisibility, I see them as if they were visible.

Logically, we know that see invisibility does not enhance the caster's vision in any additional ways. So logically we know that if someone can see invisible creatures, those creatures lose the benefits of invisibility with respect to that viewer.

You’re using a wildly different line of reasoning from me, so no. There is no similarity between the two cases.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No worries! We all get there. Me, I tend to get contentious with contentiousness, so I apologize for my post at well.

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.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can also see where you are coming from, but firmly believe that the bolded portion is already true.

I don't think the word "clearly" is needed, because the See Invisibility spell says visible, which is opposite to invisible AND it explicitly goes out of its way to describe how ethereal creatures are viewed a bit differently. Had it intended treat non-ethereal creatures and objects like that, it would have offered up some description, rather than saying visible.

Anyway, thanks for coming back to the discussion. I'd much rather leave things off on a peaceful note.

 

[Maxperson]

The same way you claim the benefits of invisibility have nothing to do with being unseen.

It says I see "invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible." Is an invisible creature on the other side of a wall visible? No they are not, but when I cast see invisibility, I see them as if they were visible.

Vision doesn't go through walls. Someone on the other side of a wall, visible or invisible, is not going to be seen by you. Now, if you were also wearing a Ring of X-ray Vision...

 

[Rabulias]

You’re using a wildly different line of reasoning from me, so no. There is no similarity between the two cases.

OK, let's try something closer to your line of reasoning (I think):

I successfully cast blindness on a adult black dragon. The dragon now has the Blinded condition. So you are saying attack rolls against the dragon have advantage and its attack rolls have disadvantage, even though the dragon has Blindsight?

 

[Rabulias]

Vision doesn't go through walls. Someone on the other side of a wall, visible or invisible, is not going to be seen by you. Now, if you were also wearing a Ring of X-ray Vision...

Hey, I am just going by a strict RAW approach. The spell says they are now visible to me, with no limits or caveats. It's magic!

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, I am just going by a strict RAW approach. The spell says they are now visible to me, with no limits or caveats. It's magic!

No. It does not ignore other rules in play. Vision doesn't go through walls unless there is a specific mention that it does. It makes invisible things visible to you, provided that they can be seen(since that general rule isn't overridden in a specific manner).