D&D 5E Counterspell nerfed!

[billd91]

Gotta say the spell says "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible"

It's pretty nonsensical to rule the benefit from invisibility still applies!

Yeah, I'm confident I'll be ignoring the Sage Advice interpretation on that one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yep. You are no longer invisible to that person, so no portion of invisibility applies by RAW.

That isn't what the RAW says. You're again conflating what makes sense to you with what the RAW says.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Many class abilities are now worthless as Crawford said in the video that I posted that the took every good combat spell and made them actions to let monsters punch at the appropriate CR. That means that they just invalidated every class ability that keys off of spells and Counterspell, as those abilities and Counterspell are there for the combat spells.

This is such an incredibly wild hyperbolic version of what he said. He literally did not say that. He said that the spells that are key to the creature's CR are spelled out so the monster doesn't accidentally punch under it's CR. That is not the same thing as what you've described.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn't what the RAW says. You're again conflating what makes sense to you with what the RAW says.

This is what RAW says.

"INVISIBLE
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."

If you are not invisible, you do not get those bullet points. If someone casts See Invisibility, you are no longer invisible to that person per the RAW of See Invisible. Therefore, by RAW you do not get those bullet points since you are not invisible to get them. To someone else you would still be invisible and get the benefit of the condition.

You have to be, you know, INVISIBLE to get the benefits of the INVISIBLE condition. VISIBLE people do not get it. See Invisibility makes you VISIBLE by RAW.

 

[Undrave]

Why the hell are the monsters not using magic spells anymore? This looks like they're taking monsters back to the 4e format, which was terrible.

I still stand by the 3e system of "the PCs and enemies" utilizing the same system and rules. That was far more streamlined than anything else I've seen after 3e.

5e is stupid easy enough. How is this "easier"? What was so wrong with them having spell slots like an actual caster? And a DM can arrange the spells as they see fit?

Because monsters using PC system is dumb and complicated for no reason. You want to call the MESS that is 3.X PC creation 'Streamlined'?! Really??

Monsters don't have a past and they don't have a future, like it or not, they only exist for that one fight. Any other detail is useless faff that has no place behind the DM's screen. I don't need to track the monster's stupid spell slots because it'll never take a rest. Monsters just need to function as good opponents that are easy to run and that's all that matters. If that means they get unique abilities then so be it. If it means I don't need to flip through the book for every damn spell then so much the better.

 

[Maxperson]

Because monsters using PC system is dumb and complicated for no reason. You want to call the MESS that is 3.X PC creation 'Streamlined'?! Really??

I can line up the dozen or so books I had to look through into a stream.

Don't get me wrong, I loved 3e character creation and it's still my favorite edition for that since I could build almost any concept I could imagine, but it wasn't streamlined.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is what RAW says.

"INVISIBLE
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage."

If you are not invisible, you do not get those bullet points. If someone casts See Invisibility, you are no longer invisible to that person per the RAW of See Invisible. Therefore, by RAW you do not get those bullet points since you are not invisible to get them. To someone else you would still be invisible and get the benefit of the condition.

You have to be, you know, INVISIBLE to get the benefits of the INVISIBLE condition. VISIBLE people do not get it. See Invisibility makes you VISIBLE by RAW.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not to the caster you aren't. It removes the invisible portion for the caster of See Invisibility.

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 does say the bolded. It says it here, "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible..." That sentence exactly means that "the creature is not invisible to you."

This is such a case.

It's really not. All you have to do is understand that by the RAW of See Invisibility, the creature is not invisible to you since it is VISIBLE.

 

[Rabulias]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not to the caster you aren't. It removes the invisible portion for the caster of See Invisibility.

It does say the bolded. It says it here, "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible..." That sentence exactly means that "the creature is not invisible to you."

It's really not. All you have to do is understand that by the RAW of See Invisibility, the creature is not invisible to you since it is VISIBLE.

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