Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8416858" data-attributes="member: 23751">Yeah.&nbsp; In the video I posted a few pages ago, he does Sage Advice for Invisibility vs. See Invisibility.&nbsp; He uses the same excuse above for his ruling, &quot;The published text is the only thing that matters when Crawford answers questions about the game rules.&quot;The question was, &quot;Does an invisible person gain advantage on attacks against someone that has cast See Invisibility.&nbsp; He says that unlike Faerie Fire, See Invisibility does not say that it removes advantage, so despite saying you can see the invisible person as if he were visible, it does not remove the advantage.&nbsp; If it was supposed to remove it, it would say so.&nbsp; Then came his justification for both being able to see the invisible creature as if it were visible, yet still allowing it to have advantage. It must be like the Predator! You can see it, but it's this almost invisible, but still visible outline.&nbsp; Which of course complete ignores the &quot;as if they were visible&quot; portion of the See Invisibility spell.&nbsp; Hell, the See Invisibility spell says that ethereal creatures appear ghostly and translucent, which is more like the Predator.&nbsp; No such language appears for invisible creatures.Hearing his logic for how he comes up with his rulings explained to me very clearly why so many of his rulings are so stupid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8416858, member: 23751"] Yeah. In the video I posted a few pages ago, he does Sage Advice for Invisibility vs. See Invisibility. He uses the same excuse above for his ruling, "The published text is the only thing that matters when Crawford answers questions about the game rules." The question was, "Does an invisible person gain advantage on attacks against someone that has cast See Invisibility. He says that unlike Faerie Fire, See Invisibility does not say that it removes advantage, so despite saying you can see the invisible person as if he were visible, it does not remove the advantage. If it was supposed to remove it, it would say so. Then came his justification for both being able to see the invisible creature as if it were visible, yet still allowing it to have advantage. It must be like the Predator! You can see it, but it's this almost invisible, but still visible outline. Which of course complete ignores the "as if they were visible" portion of the See Invisibility spell. Hell, the See Invisibility spell says that ethereal creatures appear ghostly and translucent, which is more like the Predator. No such language appears for invisible creatures. Hearing his logic for how he comes up with his rulings explained to me very clearly why so many of his rulings are so stupid. [/QUOTE]

Verification