I love elegant game design and mechanics. Its nice to be able to point at a rules interaction that is blissfully free of any attempt at elegance as a potent reminder that sometimes the floor is lower than you expect.
Well I guess you could run it two ways. Either Invisibility is just like the blinded status effect and can be simply negated by see invisibility or true sight, or perhaps more interestingly, invisibility acts as a double layer of hidden where you may see them with true sight or see invisibility but they have a Fog Cloud like effect on them that still imposes disadvantage to hit them. Players would love to have it but hate to fight it
I honestly never thought it can be seen as "See invisible" doesn't negate the disadvantage, and it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But if it works for you this way - well, more power to you!
I wouldn't say sloppy, just misunderstood. If a creature can be seen, it is not invisible and thus does not benefit from the invisible condition. Furthermore, if a 'special sense' negates the need to see, the invisible condition has no use since it specifically targets sight. As for those special senses, invisibility only plays a factor if it is relying on sight all but one of those go beyond sight. Darkvision only turns darkness into dim light and dim light into bright light it says nothing about seeing things that aren't usually accounted for. determining things how things work for flavor might be fun for some people, but it causes problems, unfairness, takes up time, and just over complicate things. As a side note, skeletons have darkvision, but don't need eyes or a skull to function but can be blinded.
I agree that is the cleanest way to run it. That is not how it's presented in the text or what the designers say, though. As usual, the DM is left to make these decisions themselves.
I love elegant game design and mechanics. Its nice to be able to point at a rules interaction that is blissfully free of any attempt at elegance as a potent reminder that sometimes the floor is lower than you expect.
Having the same rule for the same context three times is like Klingon redundant organs. XD
"Sloppy design? No, that's intentional" -JCraw
I think invisibility is not seen except by see invisible and true seeing
Tremor sense should cancel invisibility advantage
Well I guess you could run it two ways. Either Invisibility is just like the blinded status effect and can be simply negated by see invisibility or true sight, or perhaps more interestingly, invisibility acts as a double layer of hidden where you may see them with true sight or see invisibility but they have a Fog Cloud like effect on them that still imposes disadvantage to hit them. Players would love to have it but hate to fight it
I honestly never thought it can be seen as "See invisible" doesn't negate the disadvantage, and it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But if it works for you this way - well, more power to you!
I wouldn't say sloppy, just misunderstood. If a creature can be seen, it is not invisible and thus does not benefit from the invisible condition. Furthermore, if a 'special sense' negates the need to see, the invisible condition has no use since it specifically targets sight. As for those special senses, invisibility only plays a factor if it is relying on sight all but one of those go beyond sight. Darkvision only turns darkness into dim light and dim light into bright light it says nothing about seeing things that aren't usually accounted for. determining things how things work for flavor might be fun for some people, but it causes problems, unfairness, takes up time, and just over complicate things.
As a side note, skeletons have darkvision, but don't need eyes or a skull to function but can be blinded.
I agree that is the cleanest way to run it. That is not how it's presented in the text or what the designers say, though. As usual, the DM is left to make these decisions themselves.