D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Mort]

Specifically the interaction was that the invisible condition did 2 things seperated by bullet points.

1. Be invisible.

2. You have advantage to attack others and others have disadvantage to attack you.

See invisibility specifically only negates the first point rather than the whole condition. So by RAW, you would see the invisible creature but it still would have all its advantages. Besides potentially some spells/effects that require you to see the target such as counterspell.

Very curious if anyone plays it this way? I sure don't, and No DMs I've seen do!

Interestingly, this was not addressed at all in the 2024 rules. The spell wording remains the same.

 

[Cadence]

Very curious if anyone plays it this way? I sure don't, and No DMs I've seen do!

Interestingly, this was not addressed at all in the 2024 rules. The spell wording remains the same.

I guess ones who vociferously play by RAW would. I assume they would also say librarians and scribes can save their books and papers from fireball just by picking them up before it's cast.

 

[Warnavick]

Very curious if anyone plays it this way? I sure don't, and No DMs I've seen do!

Interestingly, this was not addressed at all in the 2024 rules. The spell wording remains the same.

I don't think anyone played it that way either ,but it is technically true to the rules.

And it was actually addressed in the new rules. As see invisibility now says " you see creatures/objects with the invisible condition as if they are visible ". The the invisible condition specifically notes that the bonuses for the condition don't apply if the invisible creature is somehow visible. I think that is fairly neat and tidy for the rules.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't think anyone played it that way either ,but it is technically true to the rules.

And it was actually addressed in the new rules. As see invisibility now says " you see creatures/objects with the invisible condition as if they are visible ". The the invisible condition specifically notes that the bonuses for the condition don't apply if the invisible creature is somehow visible. I think that is fairly neat and tidy for the rules.

It's just regression to an older, better design. The issue was moving the benefits from general rules about being unobserved or the invisible keyword to the spell itself.

 

[Maxperson]

That's mistaken.

"A minion is destroyed when it takes any damage" RC page 313​

given the condition of taking some amount of damage is true​

then the minion is destroyed​

​

That doesn't rule out other possibilities: it only says what happens given that one condition. A different condition, such as the casting of a sleep spell, could incapacitate a minion.


That's mistaken as I have just posted upthread.

Give me a break. If you can put it to sleep with a spell, you can put it to sleep with a mace. Minions are capable of being incapacitated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Give me a break. If you can put it to sleep with a spell, you can put it to sleep with a mace. Minions are capable of being incapacitated.

"If you can dodge a mace, you can dodge a ball".

 

[Maxperson]

Please name an in-fiction minion, that's supposed to be fragile as glass like minions are mechanically.

A child. Not that it matters. The mechanical differences are not what the issue is. The mechanical differences are a different issue. Regardless of the mechanics, in-fiction they are the same creature. If you can knock one out, you can knock the other out.

 

[Maxperson]

"If you can dodge a mace, you can dodge a ball".

Yep. That's true. People are capable of dodging both.

 

[Lanefan]

Give me a break. If you can put it to sleep with a spell, you can put it to sleep with a mace. Minions are capable of being incapacitated.

Except when it only has one hit point, putting it to sleep with a mace kills it in the process. (I flat-out refuse to allow any sort of post-hoc "oh, I meant to make it unconscious" declaration; you have to say before you swing whether you're attacking to subdue or to kill)

 

[Mort]

And it was actually addressed in the new rules. As see invisibility now says " you see creatures/objects with the invisible condition as if they are visible ". The the invisible condition specifically notes that the bonuses for the condition don't apply if the invisible creature is somehow visible. I think that is fairly neat and tidy for the rules.

The text of see invisibility is identical to the old rules.

As is the text of the invisible condition.

The issue, then and now, is that the invisible condition gives two benefits:

1. 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.

2. Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

See invisible just says you can see the creature, not that the second benefit is in any way negated.

It's absurd, which is why no one plays it that way (that I'm aware of), but the new rules do not address it at all.