Does a creature with blindsight have disadvantage when attacking an invisible target?
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
As the question states, if a creature has blindsight, do they have disadvantage on a target that is within the range of their blindsight and not otherwise hidden/covered?
The wording of the invisible condition suggests that attacks against an invisible creature have disadvantage AND the creature can't be seen without magic/special sense not BECAUSE the creature can't be seen.
Invisible Condition
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purposes 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.
dnd-5e vision-and-light invisibility advantage attack-roll
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
As the question states, if a creature has blindsight, do they have disadvantage on a target that is within the range of their blindsight and not otherwise hidden/covered?
The wording of the invisible condition suggests that attacks against an invisible creature have disadvantage AND the creature can't be seen without magic/special sense not BECAUSE the creature can't be seen.
Invisible Condition
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purposes 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.
dnd-5e vision-and-light invisibility advantage attack-roll
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
As the question states, if a creature has blindsight, do they have disadvantage on a target that is within the range of their blindsight and not otherwise hidden/covered?
The wording of the invisible condition suggests that attacks against an invisible creature have disadvantage AND the creature can't be seen without magic/special sense not BECAUSE the creature can't be seen.
Invisible Condition
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purposes 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.
dnd-5e vision-and-light invisibility advantage attack-roll
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
As the question states, if a creature has blindsight, do they have disadvantage on a target that is within the range of their blindsight and not otherwise hidden/covered?
The wording of the invisible condition suggests that attacks against an invisible creature have disadvantage AND the creature can't be seen without magic/special sense not BECAUSE the creature can't be seen.
Invisible Condition
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purposes 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.
dnd-5e vision-and-light invisibility advantage attack-roll
dnd-5e vision-and-light invisibility advantage attack-roll
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
17.8k248113
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
asked 2 days ago
rpeinhardt
834110
834110
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
The Special Sense Blindsense bypasses the mechanics of being Invisible
The Invisible condition states (emphasis mine):
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Blindsight is a special type of sense, along with senses like True Sight and Tremorsense.
The condition explicitly calls out that there are special senses that bypass the condition. As Blindsight allows a creature to see the unseen, being invisible is bypassed by that sense and thus the mechanics that the Invisible condition provides are not activated.
Jeremy Crawford also provides some support:
Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth.
Once you can see the creature the effects of being Invisible are no longer active.
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
No, it doesn't have disadvantage.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its environment without using sight. Therefore it can perceive invisible creatures.
"Invisible" means "unable to be seen". The Invisible condition is actually defined that way:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
So if someone can effectively see you, then you aren't invisible to them and the adverse effects of the Invisible condition don't apply to them. Note that there is precedent for being subject to a condition with respect to only some creatures: you are considered blinded when trying to see things that are heavily obscured.
The rules handle attacks between unseen characters in a consistent way, whether they're invisible, blind (and thus unable to see anything), or heavily obscured.
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An Invisible creature is still Invisible even if someone can see it
Invisibility is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) gives you and the condition only ends in the way that the effect says - I don't know of any that end just because something can "see" you. While you have the condition it does what it says it does.
So, yes, an Invisible creature attacks with advantage and is attacked with disadvantage even if the target/attacker can "see" it through blindsight, tremorsense, truesight etc.
Why? Because the advantage/disadvantage comes from the Invisible condition (PHB p.291) and is distinct from the advantage/disadvantage that comes from being unseen (PHB p.195).
Does this make sense? I don't ask that question anymore.
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
The Special Sense Blindsense bypasses the mechanics of being Invisible
The Invisible condition states (emphasis mine):
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Blindsight is a special type of sense, along with senses like True Sight and Tremorsense.
The condition explicitly calls out that there are special senses that bypass the condition. As Blindsight allows a creature to see the unseen, being invisible is bypassed by that sense and thus the mechanics that the Invisible condition provides are not activated.
Jeremy Crawford also provides some support:
Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth.
Once you can see the creature the effects of being Invisible are no longer active.
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
The Special Sense Blindsense bypasses the mechanics of being Invisible
The Invisible condition states (emphasis mine):
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Blindsight is a special type of sense, along with senses like True Sight and Tremorsense.
The condition explicitly calls out that there are special senses that bypass the condition. As Blindsight allows a creature to see the unseen, being invisible is bypassed by that sense and thus the mechanics that the Invisible condition provides are not activated.
Jeremy Crawford also provides some support:
Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth.
Once you can see the creature the effects of being Invisible are no longer active.
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
up vote
30
down vote
The Special Sense Blindsense bypasses the mechanics of being Invisible
The Invisible condition states (emphasis mine):
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Blindsight is a special type of sense, along with senses like True Sight and Tremorsense.
The condition explicitly calls out that there are special senses that bypass the condition. As Blindsight allows a creature to see the unseen, being invisible is bypassed by that sense and thus the mechanics that the Invisible condition provides are not activated.
Jeremy Crawford also provides some support:
Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth.
Once you can see the creature the effects of being Invisible are no longer active.
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
The Special Sense Blindsense bypasses the mechanics of being Invisible
The Invisible condition states (emphasis mine):
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Blindsight is a special type of sense, along with senses like True Sight and Tremorsense.
The condition explicitly calls out that there are special senses that bypass the condition. As Blindsight allows a creature to see the unseen, being invisible is bypassed by that sense and thus the mechanics that the Invisible condition provides are not activated.
Jeremy Crawford also provides some support:
Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth.
Once you can see the creature the effects of being Invisible are no longer active.
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
answered 2 days ago
NautArch
49.8k6173337
49.8k6173337
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
add a comment |
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
Strictly rules as written, "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" and "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" are written as separate effects. The "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage" line isn't written as conditional on not being able to see the creature.
– user2357112
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
No, it doesn't have disadvantage.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its environment without using sight. Therefore it can perceive invisible creatures.
"Invisible" means "unable to be seen". The Invisible condition is actually defined that way:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
So if someone can effectively see you, then you aren't invisible to them and the adverse effects of the Invisible condition don't apply to them. Note that there is precedent for being subject to a condition with respect to only some creatures: you are considered blinded when trying to see things that are heavily obscured.
The rules handle attacks between unseen characters in a consistent way, whether they're invisible, blind (and thus unable to see anything), or heavily obscured.
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
No, it doesn't have disadvantage.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its environment without using sight. Therefore it can perceive invisible creatures.
"Invisible" means "unable to be seen". The Invisible condition is actually defined that way:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
So if someone can effectively see you, then you aren't invisible to them and the adverse effects of the Invisible condition don't apply to them. Note that there is precedent for being subject to a condition with respect to only some creatures: you are considered blinded when trying to see things that are heavily obscured.
The rules handle attacks between unseen characters in a consistent way, whether they're invisible, blind (and thus unable to see anything), or heavily obscured.
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
No, it doesn't have disadvantage.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its environment without using sight. Therefore it can perceive invisible creatures.
"Invisible" means "unable to be seen". The Invisible condition is actually defined that way:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
So if someone can effectively see you, then you aren't invisible to them and the adverse effects of the Invisible condition don't apply to them. Note that there is precedent for being subject to a condition with respect to only some creatures: you are considered blinded when trying to see things that are heavily obscured.
The rules handle attacks between unseen characters in a consistent way, whether they're invisible, blind (and thus unable to see anything), or heavily obscured.
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
No, it doesn't have disadvantage.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its environment without using sight. Therefore it can perceive invisible creatures.
"Invisible" means "unable to be seen". The Invisible condition is actually defined that way:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
So if someone can effectively see you, then you aren't invisible to them and the adverse effects of the Invisible condition don't apply to them. Note that there is precedent for being subject to a condition with respect to only some creatures: you are considered blinded when trying to see things that are heavily obscured.
The rules handle attacks between unseen characters in a consistent way, whether they're invisible, blind (and thus unable to see anything), or heavily obscured.
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
answered 2 days ago
Mark Wells
4,5881332
4,5881332
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
2
2
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
– V2Blast
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
– Slagmoth
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
"Invisible" does not mean "unable to be seen" - if I am on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark I am "unable to be seen" but I am not "invisible". Also, the "invisible" condition is not defined that way - it is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) give you.
– Dale M
2 days ago
2
2
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
@DaleM And yet if you are on the other side of a closed door or standing in the dark, attack rolls against you have disadvantage. Unable to be seen = unable to be seen.
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An Invisible creature is still Invisible even if someone can see it
Invisibility is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) gives you and the condition only ends in the way that the effect says - I don't know of any that end just because something can "see" you. While you have the condition it does what it says it does.
So, yes, an Invisible creature attacks with advantage and is attacked with disadvantage even if the target/attacker can "see" it through blindsight, tremorsense, truesight etc.
Why? Because the advantage/disadvantage comes from the Invisible condition (PHB p.291) and is distinct from the advantage/disadvantage that comes from being unseen (PHB p.195).
Does this make sense? I don't ask that question anymore.
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An Invisible creature is still Invisible even if someone can see it
Invisibility is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) gives you and the condition only ends in the way that the effect says - I don't know of any that end just because something can "see" you. While you have the condition it does what it says it does.
So, yes, an Invisible creature attacks with advantage and is attacked with disadvantage even if the target/attacker can "see" it through blindsight, tremorsense, truesight etc.
Why? Because the advantage/disadvantage comes from the Invisible condition (PHB p.291) and is distinct from the advantage/disadvantage that comes from being unseen (PHB p.195).
Does this make sense? I don't ask that question anymore.
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
An Invisible creature is still Invisible even if someone can see it
Invisibility is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) gives you and the condition only ends in the way that the effect says - I don't know of any that end just because something can "see" you. While you have the condition it does what it says it does.
So, yes, an Invisible creature attacks with advantage and is attacked with disadvantage even if the target/attacker can "see" it through blindsight, tremorsense, truesight etc.
Why? Because the advantage/disadvantage comes from the Invisible condition (PHB p.291) and is distinct from the advantage/disadvantage that comes from being unseen (PHB p.195).
Does this make sense? I don't ask that question anymore.
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
An Invisible creature is still Invisible even if someone can see it
Invisibility is a condition that certain magical effects (e.g. Invisibility spell) gives you and the condition only ends in the way that the effect says - I don't know of any that end just because something can "see" you. While you have the condition it does what it says it does.
So, yes, an Invisible creature attacks with advantage and is attacked with disadvantage even if the target/attacker can "see" it through blindsight, tremorsense, truesight etc.
Why? Because the advantage/disadvantage comes from the Invisible condition (PHB p.291) and is distinct from the advantage/disadvantage that comes from being unseen (PHB p.195).
Does this make sense? I don't ask that question anymore.
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
answered 2 days ago
Dale M
98.4k19251442
98.4k19251442
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
Thank you. That is what I believed may have been the correct interpretation but there was some confusion in my group about there being disadvantage even when the creature was seen or "perceived" by blindsight.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
1
1
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt: Although you are free to accept any answer, and DaleM is clearly an expert, if you are interested in consensus as evidenced by the votes, you will see that this answer has less agreement from other voters. If you are interested in the reasons behind polarised versions of answers, this seems to be a classic example of gamist vs narrative interpretations of rules - neither are inherently "wrong", however the swing was heavily gamist for D&D v4, and there was a deliberate swing back the other way for 5E. More detail on that would be the topic of another question
– Neil Slater
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@rpeinhardt Rules do what they say, and this is indeed what the rules say. 5e has, quote honestly, poorly written rules from the perspective of "saying what they should say"; instead, 5e was written in a conversational manner, with next to no attention payed to "oh, and did we write what we meant to?" in most of it.
– Yakk
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
@ Neil Slater: That's a VERY good comment. Really, it's kind of an answer unto itself. Thank you! I've unmarked this answer as chosen not necessarily because I think it's wrong, but because it seems to be more complex.
– rpeinhardt
2 days ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135422%2fdoes-a-creature-with-blindsight-have-disadvantage-when-attacking-an-invisible-ta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
2 days ago
Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
2 days ago