ChoirOfFire, I have to agree that it likely isn't the intention, but the existence of the other approximately 20 spells which also allow targeting of worn objects means it actually could be.
This wouldn't be the first time that the way something in 5e is worded makes zero sense.
I mean, let's take this to the extreme case, right? I've got a Cloak of Invisibility. When I draw up the hood, the cloak makes me invisible. The fiction here is clear, right? This is the thing from Harry Potter. I'm swirling it around me, it's basically enveloping me as I turn invisible. Now my opponent casts Faerie Fire on me, and I successfully evade. Not only can he easily spot me despite my success, but in fact the *reason* he can spot me is that my Cloak of Invisibility... Is giving away my position. Is this not clearly absurd? Is the absurdity not sufficient for you to think, "yeah, this probably isn't the intention"?
Or how about this one:
You cast faerie fire on twin paladins. They are identical twins, and are kitted out exactly the same -- identical plate armor, identical shields, identical longswords etc.
One makes their saving throw, the other doesn't.
If all that equipment is affected regardless of the results of the saving throws, the faerie fire is granting advantage on attacks versus one of them and not the other based on, what, an extra two percent of their surface area that is lit up?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To be fair, the logic behind "magic glow = easier to hit" doesn't hold up too well even under normal conditions. Unless you were fighting in the dark before, I guess.
I feel like if a character can cast Faerie Fire, it's capable of the deduction you describe. So, while I'm not trying to argue that your reading is *incorrect,* I'd really have a hard time thinking it's in good faith when the result is that there's a saving throw to negate an effect, but succeeding on said saving throw *basically* doesn't negate that effect in most cases.
I mean, let's take this to the extreme case, right? I've got a Cloak of Invisibility. When I draw up the hood, the cloak makes me invisible. The fiction here is clear, right? This is the thing from Harry Potter. I'm swirling it around me, it's basically enveloping me as I turn invisible. Now my opponent casts Faerie Fire on me, and I successfully evade. Not only can he easily spot me despite my success, but in fact the *reason* he can spot me is that my Cloak of Invisibility... Is giving away my position. Is this not clearly absurd? Is the absurdity not sufficient for you to think, "yeah, this probably isn't the intention"?
Yep :)
However, the discussion here is mostly about what the spell actually SAYS and not what we think should have been intended. I suspect very few DMs (including me) run the spell as written. Until this thread came up, I didn't even realize that the spell didn't exclude worn or carried objects from the effect.
Mechanically, the only effects of lighting up the worn and carried items are that the DM would probably decide that hiding is impossible and that other creatures will know the location of the creature. However, the creature is still invisible and retains the benefits of being invisible even though the glowing clothing/armor/held items will reveal the creatures general location.
Does it make sense? Perhaps not, but it is playable using either interpretation without being too powerful.
However, the discussion here is mostly about what the spell actually SAYS and not what we think should have been intended.
Well, that's just it. RAW, the spell says that only creatures that fail their saving throw are affected by the spell.
That's pretty clear and simple, and as this thread has shown, thought experiments about how worn/carried objects are somehow exempt from that clear and simple rule pretty quickly devolve into nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I feel like if a character can cast Faerie Fire, it's capable of the deduction you describe. So, while I'm not trying to argue that your reading is *incorrect,* I'd really have a hard time thinking it's in good faith when the result is that there's a saving throw to negate an effect, but succeeding on said saving throw *basically* doesn't negate that effect in most cases.
But here's the thing. Everything. Everything in the area of effect is lit up and glowing. Covered in shimmering light. Maybe your DM takes the fact that everything is lit up and you're just lookin like a tablecloth into account. People are really good at recognizing faces. We have a whole section of the brain that is dedicated to just that. We don't have a section dedicated to determining if an invisible but shimmering lumpy form is or is not a person when similarly drowned out but all sorts of other distracting shimmering forms.
How you rationalize the spell effect is entirely up to you. Honestly, the game asks us to rationalize all sorts of things which simply do not make sense. Did you know adamantine chain shirt prevents you from getting critically hit because of how hard the metal is. Wait, you ask, wouldn't a critical hit be representative of a strike that bypassed the shirt and went straight to the fleshy bits??? Why yes but this is a game. Rationalize it however you can, whenever you can.
But it is undeniably true that you cannot see the creature. Mechanically this is fact. They succeeded on their save and are invisible and gain the mechanical advantages of being invisible. And, yes, their gear is detectable and deduction, super simple deduction, but deduction all the same, allows you to identify their location. But you still cannot see... them. Mechanically, you cannot target them directly with effects that require seeing your target. You have disadvantage on attacks against them, etc etc the whole nine yards.
I mean, let's take this to the extreme case, right? I've got a Cloak of Invisibility. When I draw up the hood, the cloak makes me invisible. The fiction here is clear, right? This is the thing from Harry Potter. I'm swirling it around me, it's basically enveloping me as I turn invisible. Now my opponent casts Faerie Fire on me, and I successfully evade. Not only can he easily spot me despite my success, but in fact the *reason* he can spot me is that my Cloak of Invisibility... Is giving away my position. Is this not clearly absurd? Is the absurdity not sufficient for you to think, "yeah, this probably isn't the intention"?
Nothing about that is absurd. Well... no any more than it is absurd we're discussing invisibility, magical cloaks, or the magical means to overcome their effects. I mean, if we stop and ask about absurdity in the effects of magic in a fantasy roleplaying game we're going to find absurdity. This whole genre is absurd and that's a big part of why it is fun.
If you're looking for fictional inspiration to draw upon, just think: The invisible man. He himself was invisible his clothing, not so much.
If we were talking photorealism in real life, and you wore visible clothes but your biology/hair/face etc was invisible, you could probably hide fairly readily in quite a lot of settings. People would walk right past you and not even realize you were a person. You hold still in the right spot in a slightly cluttered bedroom, for example... genuinely invisible. And, if you held still enough many people wouldn't immediately think: Oh, and invisible person! Instead they'd think: neat art.
Would the person casting Faerie Fire know what to look for? Sure of course. But not all creatures necessarily would. Animals especially.
Anyway, again, how you rationalize the game mechanics is always in your court. We rationalize crazier stuff than this on a regular basis I don't see how this is a stretch.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Faerie fire does not prevent invisibility in that way. It outlines the creature/object but they're still invisible but now outlined.
No Faerie Fire specify affected objects can’t benefit from being Invisible, so regardless of the game element granting the Invisible condition (spell, trait or feature, it will still be visible as the first benefit of being invisible is to be impossible to see.
Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Are you trying to draw attention to the fact that invisible doesn’t affect objects at all here, Plaguescarred? Because I think that is different than your intent, but you certainly did point that out.
Conditions, according to the conditions appendix, affect creatures. Invisible, according to its description, affects creatures. It seems to me to be barking up the wrong tree to give a very strict literal reading of a rule then ignore some of the words when it is convenient.
Are you trying to draw attention to the fact that invisible doesn’t affect objects at all here, Plaguescarred? Because I think that is different than your intent, but you certainly did point that out.
Conditions, according to the conditions appendix, affect creatures. Invisible, according to its description, affects creatures. It seems to me to be barking up the wrong tree to give a very strict literal reading of a rule then ignore some of the words when it is convenient.
Ha! Alright, sure. Let's grant that. Conclusion: an invisible object is something we have no rules to define. Can you see one? Maybe! Can it walk around and shoot laser beams? Maybe! There's an invisible chest in one of the modules I own. I assumed that meant it was unable to be seen, but clearly that was foolish -- I should've tracked down the writer and asked for clarification.
I feel like there needs to be an emoji or something, to indicate when we're doing these extra-literal "technically RAW" reads for fun, versus when we're trying to solve a problem. The way Reddit has taken to using "/s" to indicate sarcasm. I'll just suggest one to get the ball rolling... ">8)"?
Nah. Remember that if something is not defined in the rules then just use common language interpretation. Invisibility on objects, such as that granted by Invisibility spell, would make those objects not be visible as a benefit of the invisible condition.
Also Fearie Fire does not dispel the invisible condition. A creature or object would still have the condition, it just gets no benefit from having the condition. If something ends the Faerie Fire spell (such as break in concentration) the creature or object gets all the benefits of being invisible again.
Those benefits in question from the condition only make statements about creatures. That means an object that is invisible but doesn’t benefit from invisible is identical to one that does benefit.
A common language interpretation of an object having the invisible condition would be that it is has the benefit of being impossible to see. Thus an object that doesn't benefit from being invisible would lose that common language interpretation benefit.
If we’re defaulting back to assumptions, then this whole thread is redundant. We can just assume that the saving creature actually gets to remain invisible, along with their stuff, since by actually saving, they get to retain all the benefits of having saved. A common language interpretation of a creature being invisible also requires that too, especially considering the actual text of things like invisibility.
If we’re defaulting back to assumptions, then this whole thread is redundant. We can just assume that the saving creature actually gets to remain invisible, along with their stuff, since by actually saving, they get to retain all the benefits of having saved. A common language interpretation of a creature being invisible also requires that too, especially considering the actual text of things like invisibility.
Except that if the rules specify, you don't resort to common language interpretation. Faerie Fire specifies "Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice)."
So when can we use common language? Only when it helps to proves your point? Because the rules specify that the invisible condition only provides benefits to creatures.
Any time the rules don't specify. Jeremy Crawford provided the funniest example I've seen of this idea. The short version of what he said was something like, "When you move on your turn, it is assumed that you don't leave all your clothes behind as you walk forward."
Any time the rules don't specify. Jeremy Crawford provided the funniest example I've seen of this idea. The short version of what he said was something like, "When you move on your turn, it is assumed that you don't leave all your clothes behind as you walk forward."
Huh, if only that logic were also applied here
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Any time the rules don't specify. Jeremy Crawford provided the funniest example I've seen of this idea. The short version of what he said was something like, "When you move on your turn, it is assumed that you don't leave all your clothes behind as you walk forward."
The rules do specify. It's just that the thing they specify is 1. Inconsistent with some other spells, 2. Seemingly contradictory to the intention of the effect, and 3. Counterintuitive upon first reading. I guarantee that 99% of people who read Faerie Fire for the first time didn't think it was supposed to illuminate everyone's clothes regardless of whether they saved. But it technically does.
It's my opinion, and I imagine it's also yours, that the technically correct reading here is so obviously stupid as to be irrelevant. I'm gonna go ahead and assume authorial intent contrary to what's written, partially because I refuse to believe (without proof) that this is anything other than a mistake, but mostly because I just prefer it the other way.
If I had a dollar for every time the rules *technically* did something so stupid that any reasonable person would either choose to ignore them, or flat-out skim right over the stupidity without noticing, and rule the "right" way by default, I could probably buy another PHB and fix everything in there with a Sharpie.
It doesn't bother me as much as it probably sounds like it does.
However, the discussion here is mostly about what the spell actually SAYS and not what we think should have been intended.
Well, that's just it. RAW, the spell says that only creatures that fail their saving throw are affected by the spell.
That's pretty clear and simple, and as this thread has shown, thought experiments about how worn/carried objects are somehow exempt from that clear and simple rule pretty quickly devolve into nonsense.
The spell says two things -
1) ALL objects in the area of effect start to glow - no save required - and can not benefit from being invisible.
2) ALL creatures in the area of effect roll a dex save. If successful they are unaffected and if not they also can not benefit from being invisible.
"FAERIE FIRE
Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius. Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
Compare this to fireball.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."
It targets creatures and ignites flammable objects in the area but explicitly excludes those that are worn or carried. Faerie Fire does NOT have text excluding worn or carried objects.
The Light cantrip:
"You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet."
"If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell." Only hostile creatures get a save - otherwise you can cast Light on worn or carried objects with no restriction.
The Disintegrate spell
"The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force."
"A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust."
"A magic item is unaffected by this spell."
Disintegrate can be used to target any object - including those worn or carried. It just fails against magic items but if you wanted to disintegrate a wizards spell book while they are holding it - no problem.
INVISIBLITY
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."
Invisibility turns the creature and the objects they are wearing or carrying invisible. The objects are not considered a part of the creature in the spell description.
Why all the quotes?
As far as the 5e rules are concerned..
- a creature is NOT the same as a creature and all the objects they are wearing or carrying
- spells explicitly list when they can not affect worn or carried objects (fireball can't light them on fire, light cantrip - held by hostile requires a save, disintegrate has no problem targeting a worn or carried object)
- faerie fire affects ALL objects in the area of effect with no saving throw. Faerie fire does NOT have an exclusion for worn or carried objects as all of these other spells do. Only the creature affected by faerie fire gets the save.
Does this make sense? Is it intended? I would guess not and I wouldn't play it that way ... however, when you look at the wording of faerie fire and other spells that is indeed how it would appear to work in terms of rules as written.
Does this make sense? Is it intended? I would guess not and I wouldn't play it that way
We are now on page 4 of people saying "But that's what it SAYS! I mean, I would never play it that way and it makes no sense and there's no way that's what they meant, but that's what it SAYS!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
ChoirOfFire, I have to agree that it likely isn't the intention, but the existence of the other approximately 20 spells which also allow targeting of worn objects means it actually could be.
This wouldn't be the first time that the way something in 5e is worded makes zero sense.
Or how about this one:
You cast faerie fire on twin paladins. They are identical twins, and are kitted out exactly the same -- identical plate armor, identical shields, identical longswords etc.
One makes their saving throw, the other doesn't.
If all that equipment is affected regardless of the results of the saving throws, the faerie fire is granting advantage on attacks versus one of them and not the other based on, what, an extra two percent of their surface area that is lit up?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To be fair, the logic behind "magic glow = easier to hit" doesn't hold up too well even under normal conditions. Unless you were fighting in the dark before, I guess.
Yep :)
However, the discussion here is mostly about what the spell actually SAYS and not what we think should have been intended. I suspect very few DMs (including me) run the spell as written. Until this thread came up, I didn't even realize that the spell didn't exclude worn or carried objects from the effect.
Mechanically, the only effects of lighting up the worn and carried items are that the DM would probably decide that hiding is impossible and that other creatures will know the location of the creature. However, the creature is still invisible and retains the benefits of being invisible even though the glowing clothing/armor/held items will reveal the creatures general location.
Does it make sense? Perhaps not, but it is playable using either interpretation without being too powerful.
Well, that's just it. RAW, the spell says that only creatures that fail their saving throw are affected by the spell.
That's pretty clear and simple, and as this thread has shown, thought experiments about how worn/carried objects are somehow exempt from that clear and simple rule pretty quickly devolve into nonsense.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But here's the thing. Everything. Everything in the area of effect is lit up and glowing. Covered in shimmering light. Maybe your DM takes the fact that everything is lit up and you're just lookin like a tablecloth into account. People are really good at recognizing faces. We have a whole section of the brain that is dedicated to just that. We don't have a section dedicated to determining if an invisible but shimmering lumpy form is or is not a person when similarly drowned out but all sorts of other distracting shimmering forms.
How you rationalize the spell effect is entirely up to you. Honestly, the game asks us to rationalize all sorts of things which simply do not make sense. Did you know adamantine chain shirt prevents you from getting critically hit because of how hard the metal is. Wait, you ask, wouldn't a critical hit be representative of a strike that bypassed the shirt and went straight to the fleshy bits??? Why yes but this is a game. Rationalize it however you can, whenever you can.
But it is undeniably true that you cannot see the creature. Mechanically this is fact. They succeeded on their save and are invisible and gain the mechanical advantages of being invisible. And, yes, their gear is detectable and deduction, super simple deduction, but deduction all the same, allows you to identify their location. But you still cannot see... them. Mechanically, you cannot target them directly with effects that require seeing your target. You have disadvantage on attacks against them, etc etc the whole nine yards.
Nothing about that is absurd. Well... no any more than it is absurd we're discussing invisibility, magical cloaks, or the magical means to overcome their effects. I mean, if we stop and ask about absurdity in the effects of magic in a fantasy roleplaying game we're going to find absurdity. This whole genre is absurd and that's a big part of why it is fun.
If you're looking for fictional inspiration to draw upon, just think: The invisible man. He himself was invisible his clothing, not so much.
If we were talking photorealism in real life, and you wore visible clothes but your biology/hair/face etc was invisible, you could probably hide fairly readily in quite a lot of settings. People would walk right past you and not even realize you were a person. You hold still in the right spot in a slightly cluttered bedroom, for example... genuinely invisible. And, if you held still enough many people wouldn't immediately think: Oh, and invisible person! Instead they'd think: neat art.
Would the person casting Faerie Fire know what to look for? Sure of course. But not all creatures necessarily would. Animals especially.
Anyway, again, how you rationalize the game mechanics is always in your court. We rationalize crazier stuff than this on a regular basis I don't see how this is a stretch.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No Faerie Fire specify affected objects can’t benefit from being Invisible, so regardless of the game element granting the Invisible condition (spell, trait or feature, it will still be visible as the first benefit of being invisible is to be impossible to see.
Are you trying to draw attention to the fact that invisible doesn’t affect objects at all here, Plaguescarred? Because I think that is different than your intent, but you certainly did point that out.
Conditions, according to the conditions appendix, affect creatures. Invisible, according to its description, affects creatures. It seems to me to be barking up the wrong tree to give a very strict literal reading of a rule then ignore some of the words when it is convenient.
>8)
Ha! Alright, sure. Let's grant that. Conclusion: an invisible object is something we have no rules to define. Can you see one? Maybe! Can it walk around and shoot laser beams? Maybe! There's an invisible chest in one of the modules I own. I assumed that meant it was unable to be seen, but clearly that was foolish -- I should've tracked down the writer and asked for clarification.
I feel like there needs to be an emoji or something, to indicate when we're doing these extra-literal "technically RAW" reads for fun, versus when we're trying to solve a problem. The way Reddit has taken to using "/s" to indicate sarcasm. I'll just suggest one to get the ball rolling... ">8)"?
Nah. Remember that if something is not defined in the rules then just use common language interpretation. Invisibility on objects, such as that granted by Invisibility spell, would make those objects not be visible as a benefit of the invisible condition.
Also Fearie Fire does not dispel the invisible condition. A creature or object would still have the condition, it just gets no benefit from having the condition. If something ends the Faerie Fire spell (such as break in concentration) the creature or object gets all the benefits of being invisible again.
Those benefits in question from the condition only make statements about creatures. That means an object that is invisible but doesn’t benefit from invisible is identical to one that does benefit.
A common language interpretation of an object having the invisible condition would be that it is has the benefit of being impossible to see. Thus an object that doesn't benefit from being invisible would lose that common language interpretation benefit.
If we’re defaulting back to assumptions, then this whole thread is redundant. We can just assume that the saving creature actually gets to remain invisible, along with their stuff, since by actually saving, they get to retain all the benefits of having saved. A common language interpretation of a creature being invisible also requires that too, especially considering the actual text of things like invisibility.
Except that if the rules specify, you don't resort to common language interpretation. Faerie Fire specifies "Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice)."
So when can we use common language? Only when it helps to proves your point? Because the rules specify that the invisible condition only provides benefits to creatures.
Any time the rules don't specify. Jeremy Crawford provided the funniest example I've seen of this idea. The short version of what he said was something like, "When you move on your turn, it is assumed that you don't leave all your clothes behind as you walk forward."
Huh, if only that logic were also applied here
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The rules do specify. It's just that the thing they specify is 1. Inconsistent with some other spells, 2. Seemingly contradictory to the intention of the effect, and 3. Counterintuitive upon first reading. I guarantee that 99% of people who read Faerie Fire for the first time didn't think it was supposed to illuminate everyone's clothes regardless of whether they saved. But it technically does.
It's my opinion, and I imagine it's also yours, that the technically correct reading here is so obviously stupid as to be irrelevant. I'm gonna go ahead and assume authorial intent contrary to what's written, partially because I refuse to believe (without proof) that this is anything other than a mistake, but mostly because I just prefer it the other way.
If I had a dollar for every time the rules *technically* did something so stupid that any reasonable person would either choose to ignore them, or flat-out skim right over the stupidity without noticing, and rule the "right" way by default, I could probably buy another PHB and fix everything in there with a Sharpie.
It doesn't bother me as much as it probably sounds like it does.
The spell says two things -
1) ALL objects in the area of effect start to glow - no save required - and can not benefit from being invisible.
2) ALL creatures in the area of effect roll a dex save. If successful they are unaffected and if not they also can not benefit from being invisible.
"FAERIE FIRE
Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius. Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
Compare this to fireball.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."
It targets creatures and ignites flammable objects in the area but explicitly excludes those that are worn or carried. Faerie Fire does NOT have text excluding worn or carried objects.
The Light cantrip:
"You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet."
"If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell."
Only hostile creatures get a save - otherwise you can cast Light on worn or carried objects with no restriction.
The Disintegrate spell
"The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force."
"A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust."
"A magic item is unaffected by this spell."
Disintegrate can be used to target any object - including those worn or carried. It just fails against magic items but if you wanted to disintegrate a wizards spell book while they are holding it - no problem.
INVISIBLITY
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."
Invisibility turns the creature and the objects they are wearing or carrying invisible. The objects are not considered a part of the creature in the spell description.
Why all the quotes?
As far as the 5e rules are concerned..
- a creature is NOT the same as a creature and all the objects they are wearing or carrying
- spells explicitly list when they can not affect worn or carried objects (fireball can't light them on fire, light cantrip - held by hostile requires a save, disintegrate has no problem targeting a worn or carried object)
- faerie fire affects ALL objects in the area of effect with no saving throw. Faerie fire does NOT have an exclusion for worn or carried objects as all of these other spells do. Only the creature affected by faerie fire gets the save.
Does this make sense? Is it intended? I would guess not and I wouldn't play it that way ... however, when you look at the wording of faerie fire and other spells that is indeed how it would appear to work in terms of rules as written.
We are now on page 4 of people saying "But that's what it SAYS! I mean, I would never play it that way and it makes no sense and there's no way that's what they meant, but that's what it SAYS!"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)