D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[Rabulias]

Vision doesn't go through walls unless there is a specific mention that it does.

RAW citation? (And you do understand I agree with you on this?) I mean all the talk about heavily obscured areas does not mention walls....

Vision not going through walls is an a priori assumption that does not need to be RAW, IMO. Just as an ability that lets one see invisible creatures negates all advantages of invisibility with respect to that particular viewer does not need to be explicitly RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

RAW citation? (And you do understand I agree with you on this?) I mean all the talk about heavily obscured areas does not mention walls....

Page 7 of the PHB, Specific Beats General. A rule is a rule unless something SPECIFICALLY counters it, such as invisible being specifically countered by visible.

Page 183 of the PHB, Vision and Light. Heavy obscurement blocks sight entirely.

Page 274 of the PHB, See Invisibility. No part of See Invisibility specifically allows you to ignore the general vision rules. All it does is specifically allow you to see invisible people and objects as if they were visible, subject to the confines of the general Vision and Light rules.

It's just as if invisibility were not present. Nothing more.

Vision not going through walls is an a priori assumption that does not need to be RAW, IMO.

It is in RAW, though. Walls are heavy obscurement.

Edit: It's also on page 196 of the PHB, Cover. Walls can give you total cover, which also conceals you.

Again, nothing in See Invisibility specifically negates the Cover rules, either.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Vision not going through walls is an a priori assumption that does not need to be RAW, IMO. Just as an ability that lets one see invisible creatures negates all advantages of invisibility with respect to that particular viewer does not need to be explicitly RAW.

OK, this thread has run it's course. Nothing to see here folks, it's over.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

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.

Absolutely. Of course my feeling better after a meal lasted a short time, because the soda was full sugar and I was too hungry to notice, so now I’ve taken an extra diabetes pill and drank a liter of water and I’m still shakey and nauseous…lol

Yeah I think the RAI is clearly that you can see the creature and it has no benefits of invisibility, and though I can also see such a spell only showing a hazy outline, if they wanted that they should have described it.

Im fine with disagreeing about what the RAW says.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely. Of course my feeling better after a meal lasted a short time, because the soda was full sugar and I was too hungry to notice, so now I’ve taken an extra diabetes pill and drank a liter of water and I’m still shakey and nauseous…lol

Sorry to hear that. My wife is diabetic, so I know from the other side what that's like, as well as when she doesn't eat enough.

Yeah I think the RAI is clearly that you can see the creature and it has no benefits of invisibility, and though I can also see such a spell only showing a hazy outline, if they wanted that they should have described it.

Im fine with disagreeing about what the RAW says.

 

[Rabulias]

Edit: It's also on page 196 of the PHB, Cover. Walls can give you total cover, which also conceals you.

Ah, yes, I forgot about walls being "covered" in Cover.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Closer. Blindsight specifically states that the creature perceives without sight, but I’d have to read up more than I’ve time for right now to say for sure which way it goes RAW.

 

[Rabulias]

Absolutely. Of course my feeling better after a meal lasted a short time, because the soda was full sugar and I was too hungry to notice, so now I’ve taken an extra diabetes pill and drank a liter of water and I’m still shakey and nauseous…lol

Glad you are feeling better. I don't want any discussion to distract anyone from taking good care of themselves.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

No, you're right, it's a major change, the whole game is affected, it's a real drama, the designers are really idiots.

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

Yes, and you fight them at every fight, and of course, they all have caster levels and are all affected by the change,, instead of already having most of their strength in traits. Right...

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.

I actually was replying to you because of the list of totally insignificant corner cases that you have provided.

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

They all had the same level of insignificance for the game in general. There is nothing in there that qualifies as not totally minor, even assuming that the DM does not label them spells because he can.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you're right, it's a major change, the whole game is affected, it's a real drama, the designers are really idiots.

Let's count them. I never said the bolded parts, so it's a twisting of what I said. We'll see if you argue against it later.

Yes, and you fight them at every fight, and of course, they all have caster levels and are all affected by the change,, instead of already having most of their strength in traits. Right...

And again.

I actually was replying to you because of the list of totally insignificant corner cases that you have provided.

Finally a response to something I actually said. Thanks!

A number of them were not corner cases.

They all had the same level of insignificance for the game in general.

And this is objectively and provably false. Counterspell, Dispell Magic, the paladin auras, etc. will be commonly encountered since many encounters have spellcasting and/or innate spellcasting. The corner cases will not be. The corner cases are far less significant.

There is nothing in there that qualifies as not totally minor

Your opinion is noted.

At least there was no Strawman this time. That's a change from the usual response, thanks. Try not to twist my arguments, though. It's not cool, even if you don't argue against your twistings.