I have some monsters that use invisibility as a surprise attack, I have a question, if someone, or something such as a dragon with invisibility is invisible, can they act as a normal solid being by interacting with objects and such? Let's say a monster or even a person is invisible and someone is running along and runs into that person, will you pass through the invisible person or creature, or would it be just like running into them as if they were not invisible?
In previous editions, invisibility (or at least the spell version) broke when you interacted with objects, but that is no longer the case. Invisibility means that you cannot be seen, not that you're unable to be touched. It is entirely on the invisible person to avoid getting run into.
Unless otherwise stated, a creature that is invisible is just as solid and susceptible to physical interactions as if it was visible. There are separate rules for incorporeal movement, etherealness, ephemeral... However attacks against the invisible creature usually have disadvantage since it is hard to aim at something you can't see. And the invisible creature taking some actions (such as attacking) breaks invisibility, rendering them visible again, so their action choices are limited in that regard.
So if an invisible person was walking along a path and for some unforseen reason, maybe they weren't paying attention or something, and someone walked into them, it would be the same as if they were both visible, right? Also the invisibility woould be broken at that point?
So if an invisible person was walking along a path and for some unforseen reason, maybe they weren't paying attention or something, and someone walked into them, it would be the same as if they were both visible, right? Also the invisibility woould be broken at that point?
Yes and No. Yes, the would bump into each other. The visible person would know they hit something, but the invisible person would stay invisible unless they attacked or cast a spell.
So an invisible person can go places, touch things, move things, open things, touch people (not attack) and remain invisible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The rules for unseen targets and attackers tries to cover that question, but it's somewhat confusing. As I read it, there are two interpretations. One is that, even if you're invisible, everyone still knows right where you are unless you also take the Hide action. The other interpretation is that, when you are invisible, attackers have to guess where you are first, and if they guess wrong, they auto-miss. If they guess right, they have disadvantage on the roll.
The rules for unseen targets and attackers tries to cover that question, but it's somewhat confusing. As I read it, there are two interpretations. One is that, even if you're invisible, everyone still knows right where you are unless you also take the Hide action. The other interpretation is that, when you are invisible, attackers have to guess where you are first, and if they guess wrong, they auto-miss. If they guess right, they have disadvantage on the roll.
Not to imply I think you're wrong, but what's your source on the first interpretation?
The rules for unseen targets and attackers tries to cover that question, but it's somewhat confusing. As I read it, there are two interpretations. One is that, even if you're invisible, everyone still knows right where you are unless you also take the Hide action. The other interpretation is that, when you are invisible, attackers have to guess where you are first, and if they guess wrong, they auto-miss. If they guess right, they have disadvantage on the roll.
Not to imply I think you're wrong, but what's your source on the first interpretation?
I happen to like the second, but the issue is the wishy washy wording of Unseen Attackers and Targets.
So the text says:
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. lf you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Part of the issue comes from the structure of the paragraph. The 'this' that is true in both cases is the disadvantage. But there's nothing in there that says you have to guess where the target is. It just goes on to say what happens if you target the wrong spot. So now the question becomes whether there's a chance of you targeting the wrong spot.
The other side as presented to me in another thread a bit ago was that 'Hide' is the mechanic for making people not know where you are. Thus, if I know where you are now, and you don't do anything to Hide (take that action specifically), I will know where you are...even when I can't see you. So does invisibility make you 'hidden'? The paragraph above does refer to being 'hidden' as being both unseen and unheard. Being only unseen does not make you 'hidden'. Or 'Hidden', with the capital H.
So there are people claiming that you know where the invisible person is (unless they also Hide), you just have disadvantage to attack them. They would have to also Hide for you to then have to guess where they are.
Me, I don't buy that. I personally think that paragraph should be interpreted to say something like:
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. To hit an unseen target, you must inform the DM specifically what location you are targeting. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
But I will say that the RAW isn't super clear for the people who would like to hamstring invisibility like that. "Be careful there's an invisible guy in the room!" "Oh I know, he's right there. I can't see him, but I know he's right there." :) Honestly, to their credit, the other side was bringing up issues of still being able to hear the invisible person for example. My claim is that hearing them might be a mitigating factor, but knowing the location should not be automatic without taking the Hide action.
Never have I seen someone trying to make the case for that interpretation. It requires disregarding what is written in favor of a grammar analysis of what is (allegedly) implied. I'm with you. I think that first interpretation is a pretty big stretch of both RAW and RAI and anyone trying to make that claim at my table would likely get a pretty strong side-eye from players and DM alike.
It really came down to the issue of the Hide action. The claim was that someone who went invisible (or I think in the thread discussion it was about being in a Darkness spell) has not taken the Hide action. And it's taking the Hide action that formally prevents your opponent from knowing where you are. There is nothing specific about Darkness or Invisibility that says "Your opponent will not know where you are." That was the boiled down version of the argument as I was understanding it.
I more or less reacted as you did. In fact...looking back at the argument now, I'm not even sure why I brought it up here. It seemed in retrospect like it had more going for it, enough at least to point it out here. But no--I'm back to thinking it's entirely silly :)
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
Curious...if attacking an invisible enemy gives the attacker disadvantage, does the one invisible gain added AC as if they were in full cover, also?
Additional AC is gained from cover, but not from being invisible or obscured.
Think of it as though with cover there's more stuff in the way that can block or deflect the attack; invis is like perfect camouflage that just makes it harder to aim the strike.
... If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. (PHB p195)
Why is hidden singled out as the case where you give away your location when you attack unless hidden is the only case where your location is unknown before the attack?
Hidden doesn’t require you to Hide, it requires that you are unseen and unheard. There is more than one way to achieve that. If you are invisible and too far away to be heard, or background noise is too loud, or target is deaf, or Silence spell, or etc.
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
I was thinking about this myself. In lieu of a stealth check, you could use the invisible creature's passive stealth as the DC of the perception check. Since the target is invisible, you might choose to add +5 to the passive stealth. I have never actually done this in gameplay.
I've always played it as though when someone hides successfully they have effective invisibility and then we use the rules for that.
When someone is searching, we do perception to try and hear or see evidence of their current movement or sound; investigation or survival checks to try and spot signs of their passing.
You can always make it more interesting by adding elements like insight and deception to try and anticipate what the hidden person will do or bluff them into making a mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have some monsters that use invisibility as a surprise attack, I have a question, if someone, or something such as a dragon with invisibility is invisible, can they act as a normal solid being by interacting with objects and such? Let's say a monster or even a person is invisible and someone is running along and runs into that person, will you pass through the invisible person or creature, or would it be just like running into them as if they were not invisible?
In previous editions, invisibility (or at least the spell version) broke when you interacted with objects, but that is no longer the case. Invisibility means that you cannot be seen, not that you're unable to be touched. It is entirely on the invisible person to avoid getting run into.
Unless otherwise stated, a creature that is invisible is just as solid and susceptible to physical interactions as if it was visible. There are separate rules for incorporeal movement, etherealness, ephemeral... However attacks against the invisible creature usually have disadvantage since it is hard to aim at something you can't see. And the invisible creature taking some actions (such as attacking) breaks invisibility, rendering them visible again, so their action choices are limited in that regard.
So if an invisible person was walking along a path and for some unforseen reason, maybe they weren't paying attention or something, and someone walked into them, it would be the same as if they were both visible, right? Also the invisibility woould be broken at that point?
Yes and No. Yes, the would bump into each other. The visible person would know they hit something, but the invisible person would stay invisible unless they attacked or cast a spell.
So an invisible person can go places, touch things, move things, open things, touch people (not attack) and remain invisible.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Oh ok, thanks, that is all I needed to know, it just wasn't too clear in the PHB about the invisibility spell.
Curious...if attacking an invisible enemy gives the attacker disadvantage, does the one invisible gain added AC as if they were in full cover, also?
That's a good question...you would think so since trying to attack an invisible enemy would be quite difficult at best.
The rules for unseen targets and attackers tries to cover that question, but it's somewhat confusing. As I read it, there are two interpretations. One is that, even if you're invisible, everyone still knows right where you are unless you also take the Hide action. The other interpretation is that, when you are invisible, attackers have to guess where you are first, and if they guess wrong, they auto-miss. If they guess right, they have disadvantage on the roll.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Not to imply I think you're wrong, but what's your source on the first interpretation?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I happen to like the second, but the issue is the wishy washy wording of Unseen Attackers and Targets.
So the text says:
Part of the issue comes from the structure of the paragraph. The 'this' that is true in both cases is the disadvantage. But there's nothing in there that says you have to guess where the target is. It just goes on to say what happens if you target the wrong spot. So now the question becomes whether there's a chance of you targeting the wrong spot.
The other side as presented to me in another thread a bit ago was that 'Hide' is the mechanic for making people not know where you are. Thus, if I know where you are now, and you don't do anything to Hide (take that action specifically), I will know where you are...even when I can't see you. So does invisibility make you 'hidden'? The paragraph above does refer to being 'hidden' as being both unseen and unheard. Being only unseen does not make you 'hidden'. Or 'Hidden', with the capital H.
So there are people claiming that you know where the invisible person is (unless they also Hide), you just have disadvantage to attack them. They would have to also Hide for you to then have to guess where they are.
Me, I don't buy that. I personally think that paragraph should be interpreted to say something like:
But I will say that the RAW isn't super clear for the people who would like to hamstring invisibility like that. "Be careful there's an invisible guy in the room!" "Oh I know, he's right there. I can't see him, but I know he's right there." :) Honestly, to their credit, the other side was bringing up issues of still being able to hear the invisible person for example. My claim is that hearing them might be a mitigating factor, but knowing the location should not be automatic without taking the Hide action.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Never have I seen someone trying to make the case for that interpretation. It requires disregarding what is written in favor of a grammar analysis of what is (allegedly) implied. I'm with you. I think that first interpretation is a pretty big stretch of both RAW and RAI and anyone trying to make that claim at my table would likely get a pretty strong side-eye from players and DM alike.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It really came down to the issue of the Hide action. The claim was that someone who went invisible (or I think in the thread discussion it was about being in a Darkness spell) has not taken the Hide action. And it's taking the Hide action that formally prevents your opponent from knowing where you are. There is nothing specific about Darkness or Invisibility that says "Your opponent will not know where you are." That was the boiled down version of the argument as I was understanding it.
I more or less reacted as you did. In fact...looking back at the argument now, I'm not even sure why I brought it up here. It seemed in retrospect like it had more going for it, enough at least to point it out here. But no--I'm back to thinking it's entirely silly :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
Additional AC is gained from cover, but not from being invisible or obscured.
Think of it as though with cover there's more stuff in the way that can block or deflect the attack; invis is like perfect camouflage that just makes it harder to aim the strike.
Ok, Simple question, but now I'm lost and confused. LOL
Unseen Attackers And Targets
... If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. (PHB p195)
Why is hidden singled out as the case where you give away your location when you attack unless hidden is the only case where your location is unknown before the attack?
Hidden doesn’t require you to Hide, it requires that you are unseen and unheard. There is more than one way to achieve that. If you are invisible and too far away to be heard, or background noise is too loud, or target is deaf, or Silence spell, or etc.
Could an invisible person pick up a , let' say a branch, and sneak up behind someone and whop them over the head with the branch and remain invisible?
I was thinking about this myself. In lieu of a stealth check, you could use the invisible creature's passive stealth as the DC of the perception check. Since the target is invisible, you might choose to add +5 to the passive stealth. I have never actually done this in gameplay.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I've always played it as though when someone hides successfully they have effective invisibility and then we use the rules for that.
When someone is searching, we do perception to try and hear or see evidence of their current movement or sound; investigation or survival checks to try and spot signs of their passing.
You can always make it more interesting by adding elements like insight and deception to try and anticipate what the hidden person will do or bluff them into making a mistake.