My group encountered an invisible stalker last session. The group had a hard time with it and where discussing ways to make it not so invisible. The idea of throwing sand at it came up. As far as invisible creatures go, I know this has been an area of heated discussion (would throwing flour on an invisible creature reveal it). However, an invisible stalker is an air elemental. My thinking is that the sand would just pass through it, but the argument is that it would be like throwing sand at a dust devil, you could see the sand swirling. Any thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
It's definitely a DM call, and your call seems just as valid as what mine would be.
I'd give the player a....50% chance of hitting it with scatter (on a roll of 11-20) and allow that scatter to make it visible until the beginning of its next turn, allowing everyone else a chance to attack a visible target who was between them in initiative.
An invisible stalker is an air elemental, but that doesn't mean it's a whirlwind. If the sand is heavy enough that it doesn't remain suspended in air, it probably won't remain suspended on an invisible stalker either (flour or dust is a better bet, as it does remain suspended for a while, so even if it doesn't stick, the air disturbances will be visible).
If you really feel throwing sand on it wouldn't help but like the idea the players came up with, advise they would be better off throwing the sand on the ground around them. The rules for invisible say "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." This is in reference to the creature hiding but I would rule they could layer sand on the ground around them and see where the Invisible Stalker moves. While this doesn't make the creature visible, you could rule since you know it's location attacks against it no longer have disadvantage.
And this my personal opinion, but unless the Invisible Stalker is moving every round, the players are going to know where it is. If it's attacking the Fighter, the players know it has to be within 5 feet of the Fighter and the Fighter can tell where it's getting hit from. "Ow I was just stabbed in the back of my knee." Okay the Invisible Stalker is 5 feet behind the Fighter. I know RAW still not "seeing" the creature means you have disadvantage on attacks against it, but if you have enough clues to determine it's location and the players are really struggling with the disadvantage, throw them a bone.
RAW, you know where an invisible creature is unless it has also hidden from you; attacking breaks hiding, and the invisible stalker doesn't have bonus action hide, so once it attacks once the PCs generally know where it is.
RAW, you know where an invisible creature is unless it has also hidden from you; attacking breaks hiding, and the invisible stalker doesn't have bonus action hide, so once it attacks once the PCs generally know where it is.
Yes. Don't confuse invisible and hidden. Hidden is very difficult to achieve - it takes your whole action, and in addition to needing cover (which invisibility provides) relies on a successful Stealth check to boot. Throwing sand is not even necessary - your players know where an invisible creature is unless you're using a houserule that makes it completely silent and undetectable - in which case you should adjust the CR because you've made the creature way harder than it would be RAW.
That being said, sand/flour/whatever does not remove the disadvantage they get for attacking an invisible creature, or remove the advantage that creature gets when attacking. That (in addition to easy hiding if you're willing to spend an action to do so) is the primary benefit of invisibility.
Invisibility generally allows applies to anything that you are carrying or wearing, so sand (or flour) being thrown in the air would disappear if it landed on an invisible creature.
Invisibility generally allows applies to anything that you are carrying or wearing, so sand (or flour) being thrown in the air would disappear if it landed on an invisible creature.
There is absolutely nothing about a naturally invisible creature that would make this true in any edition I have ever played.
Even the Invisibility spell does not do this unless a DM decides to rule it so. The reason the spell included the wording about gear being carried was so that anything on the characters’ person when the spell was cast would turn invisible with them - so that DMs would not rule that “you go invisible, but your clothes do not”.
EDIT: My post seems to have a rude tone to it, I didn’t intend it that way.
Being very nice. Roll to hit with the sand, hit and advantage for the rest of round. Being nice, next attack gets advantage. Normally. It is invisible you attack with disadvantage.
The simple way of interpreting this is that using sand is treated as taking the help action. So it will provide advantage (effectively negating disadvantage) for one ally, no actual roll required.
RAW, you know where an invisible creature is unless it has also hidden from you; attacking breaks hiding, and the invisible stalker doesn't have bonus action hide, so once it attacks once the PCs generally know where it is.
Yes. Don't confuse invisible and hidden. Hidden is very difficult to achieve - it takes your whole action, and in addition to needing cover (which invisibility provides) relies on a successful Stealth check to boot. Throwing sand is not even necessary - your players know where an invisible creature is unless you're using a houserule that makes it completely silent and undetectable - in which case you should adjust the CR because you've made the creature way harder than it would be RAW.
That being said, sand/flour/whatever does not remove the disadvantage they get for attacking an invisible creature, or remove the advantage that creature gets when attacking. That (in addition to easy hiding if you're willing to spend an action to do so) is the primary benefit of invisibility.
This is generally true for PCs. However, the definition of hidden is being unseen and unheard. If a creature is both unseen (not visible and not leaving any tracks/traces) and unheard (making no audible sounds) then it does not need to succeed on a hide check because it is automatically hidden BECAUSE it is both unseen and unheard.
If a creature is leaving no possible sign of its passage then it is by definition hidden even if it does not take a hide action. This is obviously a DM call. For a creature that normally makes noise when moving then they need to use a hide action to become successfully hidden. The DM is checking to see if they are successful at leaving no traces when compared to the passive perception of the creatures that could detect them. The creature is also expending significant effort on remaining undetected.
However, for creatures that do not leave any traces then a DM could decide that they are automatically hidden. An air elemental like an invisible stalker could be in that category if the DM decides that they make no noise when moving and that they leave no trace of their movement in the environment. Similarly, an invisible PC in the area of a silence spell on a hard stone floor could also be considered automatically hidden at the DMs discretion since they might be leaving no traces at all of their passage.
So although a hide check is often required in order for a creature to be hidden ... it may not always be required.
However, for creatures that do not leave any traces then a DM could decide that they are automatically hidden.
A creature that is automatically hidden will have a special trait that says so.
I think point was that PC has to have ability someway to detect creature and if they dont it is automatically hidden (and IRC this is mentioned in the rules. DM can decide that PC dont have any way to detect it).
In case of invisible stalker, eye sight is out of question (invisble and all that) it hovers/flies (so not nesessarely any marks on the ground, etc) and sound... maybe, but if it is windy or in in battle (lots of other noices, etc)...
My group encountered an invisible stalker last session. The group had a hard time with it and where discussing ways to make it not so invisible. The idea of throwing sand at it came up. As far as invisible creatures go, I know this has been an area of heated discussion (would throwing flour on an invisible creature reveal it). However, an invisible stalker is an air elemental. My thinking is that the sand would just pass through it, but the argument is that it would be like throwing sand at a dust devil, you could see the sand swirling. Any thoughts?
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
Howzit!
It's definitely a DM call, and your call seems just as valid as what mine would be.
I'd give the player a....50% chance of hitting it with scatter (on a roll of 11-20) and allow that scatter to make it visible until the beginning of its next turn, allowing everyone else a chance to attack a visible target who was between them in initiative.
...cryptographic randomness!
An invisible stalker is an air elemental, but that doesn't mean it's a whirlwind. If the sand is heavy enough that it doesn't remain suspended in air, it probably won't remain suspended on an invisible stalker either (flour or dust is a better bet, as it does remain suspended for a while, so even if it doesn't stick, the air disturbances will be visible).
If you really feel throwing sand on it wouldn't help but like the idea the players came up with, advise they would be better off throwing the sand on the ground around them. The rules for invisible say "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." This is in reference to the creature hiding but I would rule they could layer sand on the ground around them and see where the Invisible Stalker moves. While this doesn't make the creature visible, you could rule since you know it's location attacks against it no longer have disadvantage.
And this my personal opinion, but unless the Invisible Stalker is moving every round, the players are going to know where it is. If it's attacking the Fighter, the players know it has to be within 5 feet of the Fighter and the Fighter can tell where it's getting hit from. "Ow I was just stabbed in the back of my knee." Okay the Invisible Stalker is 5 feet behind the Fighter. I know RAW still not "seeing" the creature means you have disadvantage on attacks against it, but if you have enough clues to determine it's location and the players are really struggling with the disadvantage, throw them a bone.
RAW, you know where an invisible creature is unless it has also hidden from you; attacking breaks hiding, and the invisible stalker doesn't have bonus action hide, so once it attacks once the PCs generally know where it is.
Yes. Don't confuse invisible and hidden. Hidden is very difficult to achieve - it takes your whole action, and in addition to needing cover (which invisibility provides) relies on a successful Stealth check to boot. Throwing sand is not even necessary - your players know where an invisible creature is unless you're using a houserule that makes it completely silent and undetectable - in which case you should adjust the CR because you've made the creature way harder than it would be RAW.
That being said, sand/flour/whatever does not remove the disadvantage they get for attacking an invisible creature, or remove the advantage that creature gets when attacking. That (in addition to easy hiding if you're willing to spend an action to do so) is the primary benefit of invisibility.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Invisibility generally allows applies to anything that you are carrying or wearing, so sand (or flour) being thrown in the air would disappear if it landed on an invisible creature.
There is absolutely nothing about a naturally invisible creature that would make this true in any edition I have ever played.
Even the Invisibility spell does not do this unless a DM decides to rule it so.
The reason the spell included the wording about gear being carried was so that anything on the characters’ person when the spell was cast would turn invisible with them - so that DMs would not rule that “you go invisible, but your clothes do not”.
EDIT: My post seems to have a rude tone to it, I didn’t intend it that way.
...cryptographic randomness!
Being very nice. Roll to hit with the sand, hit and advantage for the rest of round. Being nice, next attack gets advantage. Normally. It is invisible you attack with disadvantage.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
The simple way of interpreting this is that using sand is treated as taking the help action. So it will provide advantage (effectively negating disadvantage) for one ally, no actual roll required.
This is generally true for PCs. However, the definition of hidden is being unseen and unheard. If a creature is both unseen (not visible and not leaving any tracks/traces) and unheard (making no audible sounds) then it does not need to succeed on a hide check because it is automatically hidden BECAUSE it is both unseen and unheard.
If a creature is leaving no possible sign of its passage then it is by definition hidden even if it does not take a hide action. This is obviously a DM call. For a creature that normally makes noise when moving then they need to use a hide action to become successfully hidden. The DM is checking to see if they are successful at leaving no traces when compared to the passive perception of the creatures that could detect them. The creature is also expending significant effort on remaining undetected.
However, for creatures that do not leave any traces then a DM could decide that they are automatically hidden. An air elemental like an invisible stalker could be in that category if the DM decides that they make no noise when moving and that they leave no trace of their movement in the environment. Similarly, an invisible PC in the area of a silence spell on a hard stone floor could also be considered automatically hidden at the DMs discretion since they might be leaving no traces at all of their passage.
So although a hide check is often required in order for a creature to be hidden ... it may not always be required.
A creature that is automatically hidden will have a special trait that says so.
I think point was that PC has to have ability someway to detect creature and if they dont it is automatically hidden (and IRC this is mentioned in the rules. DM can decide that PC dont have any way to detect it).
In case of invisible stalker, eye sight is out of question (invisble and all that) it hovers/flies (so not nesessarely any marks on the ground, etc) and sound... maybe, but if it is windy or in in battle (lots of other noices, etc)...