It says
An attack roll or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible.
jaelis wrote:
That seems like a possible read to me too, see if that's what most people think.
It's a little aggravating because I complained about this all through the playtest... I guess the wording seemed clear to the developers 
jaelis wrote:
I read that as there is no advantage to being invisible because the target is outlined, and attackers get advantage because the target isn't benefiting from invisibility anymore.
mrpopstar wrote:
PHB pg 239
"Any attack roll against an affected crature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
No benefit means advantage on attack rolls against them.
I see it as advantage against invisible creatures
Unless your blind, are in magical darkness, or some other sight blocking thing.
I think it is intended to negate the disadvantage for attacking the invisible creature, and also negate the advantage that they would get for attacking you. I don't think it is intended to grant advantage against invisible creatures. Why would it specify "if the attacker can see it"? In my opinion you still can't see the target, you just know where they are. And it prevents them from gaining advantage against you. This looks like another thing that different tables are going to come to different rulings about.
reddaemon wrote:
But... can you really see the creature when it is outlined in fire? Certainly you know where it is and what it is doing, but you couldn't say what color it's eyes are, or who's holy symbol it is wearing.
Or maybe you can, you might argue that being unseen is a benefit of being invisible so now you can be seen... maybe Faerie Fire just flat out suppresses any invisbility effect.
Technically, you still can't see the invisible creature. You can see the outline of the creature, but not the creature itself. You can tell where the glow is, see a general shape, but you still cannot see the invisible creature. You can't tell if its an elf or human. Nor male or female. You can't tell the physical features because its still invisible.
EDIT: the benefits of being invisible are a specific set of rules found in the back of the book / pdf. Faerie fire does not say it removes invisibility; only that you don't get those very specific benefits.
Actually, nowhere in the spell's description does it say you can see the outlined creature -- it does say that affected creatures can't benefit from being invisible (which means attacks against them don't suffer disadvantage, and their attacks don't gain advantage), but I could see interpreting the 'advantage' from faerie fire being the difference between a normally visible creature shedding light and an invisible creature shedding light -- it's only an outline, so you can't see it well enough to distinguish where the less-heavily armored parts or vulnerable spots would be (which would be represented by advantage).
Faerie fire doesn't dispel invisibility -- it just negates its benefits. And since faerie file is a concentration spell, if the creature affected by it can somehow break the caster's concentration while remaining invisible, she regains all the benefits of invisibility.
--
Pauper
jaelis wrote:
Pauper wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
It only says they are outlined in a light. I think you are interpreting that to mean that they get covered in glittery sparkles that conform to the shape of their entire body. That is one interpretation. However, there is another interpretation that some people seems to be thinking, and that is that the spell merely causes the object to glow and be outlined in a bright color, betraying its presence due to the change in light. An object(or creature) can be invisible and still emit light. It all comes down to what you think the word outline means in this context.
The spell faerie fire illuminating a target:
Since the faerie fire does not discriminate, if the recipient fails a dexterity save, then it is covered in a 3D outline of fire. In that sense an invisible creature looks the same as a visible one, i.e. a big mass of blue, green or violet light. To further support that train of thought, the creature or object sheds dim light in a 10 foot radius (ala 3D). That is my take.
I think this spell is clear RAI and RAW. Intent can be argue all day long so I will not do so.
The rules say that the spell makes it so a creaturt that fails does not benefit from invisiblity. One of the listed benefits of the invisible condition is that the creature gains advantage on attack rolls, and attack rolls made against it have disadvantage. Once the spell is in place and has affected a target, it no longer gains these benefits. The spell also says that grants advantage to attack rolls made against an affected target. There is no disadvantage from the invisibility ( see above ), so the advantage is not cancelled. Another source of disadvantage could counteract the advantage granted by the spell.
The whole " if you can see it " portion of the spell is more then likely to have the spell make sense if you were blinded since the flavor of the spell is " Oh wow, that guy is really easy to hit and see because he is outlined in light. " Without that addition, someone who is blind could legally have advantage on the affected creature even though he isn't seeing the light from the spell. ( This advantage would be cancelled the attacker being blind, resulting in a normal attack roll.) Yes, you could argue the spell is magically guiding the attacks or whatever, but it makes so much more sense that they see the aura and then have a better chance to hit the target.
The thing that bugs me about FF is ehy does it grant adv? Doesnt make sense. Are you cursed? I dunno.just being outlined in light shouldnt make you easier to hit in normal light at least.
h347h50 wrote: