Does a creature with blindsight have disadvantage when attacking an invisible target?











up vote
11
down vote

favorite
2












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.











share|improve this question
























  • Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago










  • Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago

















up vote
11
down vote

favorite
2












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.











share|improve this question
























  • Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago










  • Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago















up vote
11
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
11
down vote

favorite
2






2





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.











share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago









V2Blast

17.8k248113




17.8k248113










asked 20 hours ago









rpeinhardt

819110




819110












  • Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago










  • Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago




















  • Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago










  • Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
    – NautArch
    20 hours ago


















Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
20 hours ago




Related on Does blindsense detect invisibility?
– NautArch
20 hours ago












Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
20 hours ago






Related on When an invisible character leaves a blindsight creature's reach, does that creature get an opportunity attack?
– NautArch
20 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
27
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.






share|improve this answer






























    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
      – V2Blast
      20 hours ago










    • There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
      – Slagmoth
      18 hours 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
      18 hours 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
      17 hours ago


















    up vote
    -2
    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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
      20 hours 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
      14 hours 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
      7 hours 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
      4 hours ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "122"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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
































    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    27
    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.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      27
      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.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        27
        down vote










        up vote
        27
        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.






        share|improve this answer














        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.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 17 hours ago

























        answered 18 hours ago









        NautArch

        49.5k6172336




        49.5k6172336
























            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
              – V2Blast
              20 hours ago










            • There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
              – Slagmoth
              18 hours 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
              18 hours 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
              17 hours ago















            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
              – V2Blast
              20 hours ago










            • There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
              – Slagmoth
              18 hours 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
              18 hours 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
              17 hours ago













            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.






            share|improve this answer














            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 17 hours ago

























            answered 20 hours ago









            Mark Wells

            4,5901332




            4,5901332








            • 2




              This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
              – V2Blast
              20 hours ago










            • There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
              – Slagmoth
              18 hours 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
              18 hours 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
              17 hours ago














            • 2




              This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
              – V2Blast
              20 hours ago










            • There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
              – Slagmoth
              18 hours 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
              18 hours 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
              17 hours 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
            20 hours ago




            This answer would be improved by quoting/citing the sources of the relevant rules (rather than simply mentioning what they say).
            – V2Blast
            20 hours ago












            There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
            – Slagmoth
            18 hours ago




            There are a number of possible Tweets that might support this, like this
            – Slagmoth
            18 hours 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
            18 hours 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
            18 hours 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
            17 hours 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
            17 hours ago










            up vote
            -2
            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.






            share|improve this answer























            • 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
              20 hours 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
              14 hours 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
              7 hours 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
              4 hours ago















            up vote
            -2
            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.






            share|improve this answer























            • 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
              20 hours 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
              14 hours 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
              7 hours 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
              4 hours ago













            up vote
            -2
            down vote










            up vote
            -2
            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.






            share|improve this answer














            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 18 hours ago

























            answered 20 hours 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
              20 hours 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
              14 hours 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
              7 hours 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
              4 hours 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
              20 hours 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
              14 hours 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
              7 hours 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
              4 hours 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
            20 hours 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
            20 hours 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
            14 hours 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
            14 hours 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
            7 hours 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
            7 hours 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
            4 hours 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
            4 hours ago


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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




















































































            Popular posts from this blog

            Сан-Квентин

            8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

            Алькесар