So the responses on my question have been somewhat less than helpful. Is there a better way I could rephrase my core question so that it's clearer what I'm trying to get at?
Rereading it, I feel like I may have overcomplicated the question (it just feels cluttered) but I'm not sure how to trim away extraneous detail without missing the point.
Ah i see your comment - here is something that might clear it up
"invisible" is not actually a condition, although it sort of behaves like one. But we use the plain english definition of invisible to apply the mechanics to it. If you can see it then to you it is not invisible, by definition
@SirCinnamon As I pointed out in the comments under it, it misses the point of my question: from my reading, Invisible granting Disadvantage/Advantage is an innate feature of the condition, and it's not clear that I'm supposed to infer that it's a consequence of being Unseen.
@SirCinnamon It is a condition though. In the PHB appendix, the section on Conditions, Invisible appears there.
I quoted the literal text of what's found there in my question.
Between Paralyzed and Incapacitated.
And the spell Invisibility simply reads
> A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
@SirCinnamon TBH, if that's the takeaway from all this, that "The Invisible Condition was written poorly, don't take it as gospel", that would honestly satisfy my issue.
Like heavily obscured = Attackers treated as blinded = disadvantage on attacks etc. Why would they not just say "you effectively heavily obscured to creatures without a way to see you"
@Rubiksmoose Well, my question wasn't really about the spell though. Lots of creatures/class features let someone turn invisible at will/once per rest anyways, so it's not like I'd lay the blame on the Spell.
@SirCinnamon I mean, if it took you rereading and me reexplaining the question to make it seem valid, then that's a pretty clear sign the question is badly written. =P
But I also think that I'm going to agree with that answer - Invisibility restates the fact that unseen creatures have those adv/disadv rules, it doesnt add them again
Yeah, theres a lot of lawyering to be done - I would recommend trimming your quotes to the relevant sentence and including a link to the full text, and maybe adding a tldr summary at the top or bottom
The funny thing is that the See Invisibility spell doesn't have this problem.
> For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent.
Emphasis mine.
Whatever. I think your earlier observation that the condition is poorly worded is probably what I've settled on. I think I'll just add that as an answer and leave it be, soak up the Karma losses.
@Xirema Does that solve the problem though? Because your thesis is that just being seen isn't enough to remove the dis/adv right? Because the condition doesn't word the dis/adv to be based on the fact the creature can't be seen.
@Rubiksmoose Yeah this is really the problem with the condition - Its qualities are A) Can't be seen, is transparent, etc and B) Harder to hit, easier to be hit by, regardless of point A
@Xirema I would add to your answer that the ruling doesn't make sense in that it really makes see invisibility and truesight much weaker and have no effect almost on invisible creatures.
I think maybe a "if a creature is able to see the invisible creature, they do not get any benefits of the invisible condition with respect to that creature." would be a fix for that condition.
Broadly speaking, RAW is supposedly useful as a common shared baseline for people from different groups and playstyles to talk about their games with each other, while other ways of understanding each others' games require identifying differences between groups and styles.
Its popularity mostly evolved in the context of online forums in which strangers help each other with their games; the idea of applying RAW literally while playing a game, rather than using it as a rhetorical/analytical tool, comes from the unrelated conception of system rules as physical laws of the game world.
If an effect or spell changes an NPC's Constitution (e.g. the Belt of Dwarvenkind or the fortitude Ioun Stone), how does it affect that creature's max HP? I'm interested in Constitution decreases as well, I guess.
I'm also curious about how Con changes from such items/sources affect a druid in W...
As I noted in a comment, his additional edits seem to be the start of an answer rather than part of the question itself.
He replied: "Haha yeah, I posted and kept doing research, but I'm still not clear on the answer, so I am posting all of my new findings in the question to help with the answering"
Is there a certain approach we should take to this sort of situation?
Is it considered 'best-practice' to come back and edit a question with the actual solution that was used in the situation?
For example, I have a question (Playing a loyal character without it being boring) that attracted a number of good answers of which I selected one as being the best for my s...
@MikeQ I think it's possible, but not for characters. Divine or monster races can have attributes up to 30, which gives 1d20+10 = 30. It's possible (for them) to beat a DC 20. I think.
As far as I know, it is okay to answer your own questions. It is also recommended to show your progress with a question, and this is easily accomplished by editing the question itself and incorporating the progress there.
When should I answer my own question and when should I edit the outcome in...
