Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8417317" data-attributes="member: 6704184">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 &quot;clearly&quot; after &quot;see&quot; 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, &quot;invisible creatures do not benefit from invisibility when interacting with you&quot; or something like that, you'd be right, and the Sage Advise wouldn't say what it says.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8417317, member: 6704184"] 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, [I]and[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification