No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
Obviously the effect that prevents it. Otherwise you think the faerie fire cannot prevent things from becoming invisible?
If something prevents a condition from affecting you, and another thing causes that condition... the one that prevents it is more specific. Otherwise there is no such thing as immunity to conditions.
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
This is not a "dispel invisibility" spell.
Ah, a valid response. It is probably true that a feature preventing a condition takes precedence over that condition. On the other hand, the benefits might not apply to the objects, but none of those benefits affect finding or attacking the creature wearing them at all. So the creature wearing them still can benefit from being invisible, meaning that wearing them doesn't affect the invisibility of the creature at all. So we still come to the conclusion that only the creature's invisibility matters to gameplay mechanics. Which is the point I made in my first post.
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
This is not a "dispel invisibility" spell.
Yes, this is much better phrased than my comment. 100% this.
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
This is not a "dispel invisibility" spell.
The first benefit of the Invisible condition is to be impossible to see. While it specifically mention creature, i see no reason to not apply it to object as well.
Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves. Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.
Additionally, depending on the source of the invisibility, there is a direct contradiction in rules where there is (to my eye) no clear "more specific" rule -- objects on the invisible target worn and carried are invisible because the creature is (still) invisible, but objects affected by the spell are incapable of being invisible. At this point, only a DM can help us sort things out by making a ruling, and hopefully the DM will do the obvious thing and allow the objects on the unaffected creature to also remain unaffected.
The creature would be invisible but their held or worn affected objects would not be. Mechanically this is no different from being Invisible. The creature is still impossible to see. Their location would potentially be easier to deduce but that's about it. it could already be deduced anyway. You're presumed to just know every combatant's location unless they take the hide action.
As written, I would agree with this assessment. If the creature passes the save against faerie fire they are still invisible and receive the benefits of the invisible condition in terms of being unseen. Invisibility by itself never allows a creature to be hidden anyway.
However, their objects would be affect by Faerie Fire making those items visible. Mechanically, the only effect this has, is that you don't have to guess which location the target currently occupies and it prevents the target from taking the hide action since their items are always visible there is no way for them to become hidden. Attacks against the invisible creature would still be at disadvantage and the invisible creature would still have advantage on their attack rolls.
Faerie Fire is written in such a way that it explicitly affects all objects in the AoE AND it has no explicit exclusion for worn or carried objects unlike spells like fireball or light which might only target creatures or include specific text excluding worn or carried items from the effect or giving them a saving throw.
Is this intended in terms of Faerie Fire? I have no idea. I haven't been running Faerie Fire this way and I don't know anyone who has ... I've always run it that worn or carried objects share the save of the creature but RAW that doesn't appear to be how the spell works.
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
This is not a "dispel invisibility" spell.
Ah, a valid response. It is probably true that a feature preventing a condition takes precedence over that condition.
It is true. yes.
On the other hand, the benefits might not apply to the objects, but none of those benefits affect finding or attacking the creature wearing them at all.
So, yes. Seeing the worn/held objects outlined in dim light doesn't specifically reveal the creature. deductive reasoning is what then reveals the location of the creature.
So the creature wearing them still can benefit from being invisible, meaning that wearing them doesn't affect the invisibility of the creature at all.
Yeah the creature is invisible. (assuming it made the save)
So we still come to the conclusion that only the creature's invisibility matters to gameplay mechanics. Which is the point I made in my first post.
I don't think anyone argued otherwise. The creature is invisible, but you can clearly tell where they are with some trivial deductive reasoning. "Is that dimly illuminated outline of plate armor running around... the cleric I just tried to faerie fire? probably is!"
That doesn't help you avoid the mechanical effects of invisibility though. You can't see the creature, you can't determine the creature's location directly, only through deductive reasoning, you have disadvantage against attacks against them and they have advantage on attacks against creatures that can't see them.
Are we intentionally dancing around the fact that... a creature who successfully saves but wears armor can turn invisible, but is covered in visible armor, but still can hide in plain sight without penalties? Or is that something we're cool with in this reading, and I just missed it?
Trying to imagine a drow or something, successfully hiding in the middle of a well lit room, the way she is always allowed to do when invisible, but also she's wearing a bunch of totally visible and glowing clothes, armor, and weapons, seems to wreck the whole idea, at least for me.
Are we intentionally dancing around the fact that... a creature who successfully saves but wears armor can turn invisible, but is covered in visible armor, but still can hide in plain sight without penalties? Or is that something we're cool with in this reading, and I just missed it?
Trying to imagine a drow or something, successfully hiding in the middle of a well lit room, the way she is always allowed to do when invisible, but also she's wearing a bunch of totally visible and glowing clothes, armor, and weapons, seems to wreck the whole idea, at least for me.
That's just it, the objects aren't actually visible. they're invisible AND dimply outlined with glowing bits. But, also, there is no guarantee the objects and the creature remain together.
Can intelligent creatures deduce this situation for what it is? maybe. That'll be up to the DM probably. Do the orcs running by care about a dimly outlined invisible suit of armor? maybe. does a wolf? maybe. DM will determine who can take that bit of visual info and come to what conclusions based on it.
So, your armor can be seen, but you can't be. Not directly, anyway. but just like if you're standing in and offsetting water from a puddle, your location could be deduced.
If this was in combat people generally know your location anyway. Unless you hide.
Can you hide while wearing invisible but glowing armor? That'll be a DM call. Whether you can hide or not is basically always a DM call anyway, so again nothing really changes.
The Dragon Magazine article about Iymrith, the Dragon of Statues, gave her a spell that I tracked down to a 3.5e supplement, and basically it was a blaster type of spell that had a knock-on effect of ruining gemstones, mirrors, and other such things carried by the target. It was a weirdly complicated thing, as a lot of earlier D&D stuff is, and while I actually enjoy it at least in concept (it even has counterplay -- characters skilled with tools can attempt to fix the stuff!), I can certainly see why it didn't make the cut for 5e. I wrote up a 5e version of it for her spell list when I ran her in my SKT game, but I never end up casting it, because it wasn't that good. It might be interesting if a bunch of enemies had it, but then again, maybe not.
3.5e also had a table for determining what happened to your gear when you got hit by a spell! I've never seen it used.
So... If you *want* this kind of thing in your games, there's stuff to draw from, but the default mode in 5e is to leave all that stuff behind. And a consequence of that is, the stuff you're carrying doesn't get affected in any way by spells, really.
I'd be interested to see your 5E version of such spell, it looks fun.
I'd also be curious to see that 3.5 table you're talking about for i could have some use in my campaign
Sure! I dug it up from my old notes. Formatting is going to be terrible, my apologies in advance.
You vomit forth nearly molten sand in a thin, forceful stream. Target a creature within 150ft that you can see. It makes a CON save, taking 6d10 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much on a success. If the target fails the save, all nonmagical items carried or worn by the target are affected thusly: glass breaks, reflective surfaces are dulled, gems are coated in sand, rendering them worthless (each gem requiring 1 hour and a DC 15 Dexterity check with Jeweler's Tools to remove without halving its original value).
---
From 3.5 PHB, p.177:
Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is affected (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table 10-1. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deals (see Smashing an Object, p.165). [Example cut for brevity.] If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It is simply dealt the appropriate damage.
Table 10-1: Items Affected By Magical Attacks
Order - in order of most likely to least likely to be affected.
1st - Shield
2nd - Armor
3rd - Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th - Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
Are we intentionally dancing around the fact that... a creature who successfully saves but wears armor can turn invisible, but is covered in visible armor, but still can hide in plain sight without penalties? Or is that something we're cool with in this reading, and I just missed it?
Trying to imagine a drow or something, successfully hiding in the middle of a well lit room, the way she is always allowed to do when invisible, but also she's wearing a bunch of totally visible and glowing clothes, armor, and weapons, seems to wreck the whole idea, at least for me.
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. To me any attempt to escape notice in such conditions would automatically fail.
Are we intentionally dancing around the fact that... a creature who successfully saves but wears armor can turn invisible, but is covered in visible armor, but still can hide in plain sight without penalties? Or is that something we're cool with in this reading, and I just missed it?
Trying to imagine a drow or something, successfully hiding in the middle of a well lit room, the way she is always allowed to do when invisible, but also she's wearing a bunch of totally visible and glowing clothes, armor, and weapons, seems to wreck the whole idea, at least for me.
I'm finding this Universal Monsters Go To a Rave interpretation of invisibility and faerie fire highly entertaining
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That's just it, the objects aren't actually visible. they're invisible AND dimply outlined with glowing bits. But, also, there is no guarantee the objects and the creature remain together.
No the objects are visible, that's very clearly stated in Faerie Fire that they can't benefit from being invisible. So they are visible and outlined.
That doesn't help you avoid the mechanical effects of invisibility though. You can't see the creature, you can't determine the creature's location directly, only through deductive reasoning, you have disadvantage against attacks against them and they have advantage on attacks against creatures that can't see them.
And this is where you loose me. Are you really saying that while you can see the armour, helmet, shield and weapon visibly running around you can't determine the location of the creature wearing them? That's ridiculous tbh. For someone in heavy armor (and likely medium too) you can see everything of the creature except parts of their face.
I strongly disagree with the "glowing outlined clothes" interpretation of when a creature "saves" on the spell. You could rule that attackers still have disadvantage on the invisible target with glowing gear, but a big part of the point of being invisible is that you can hide even when in light. If your clothes are glowing, enemies will know whether you're still there, and where to target their attacks.
I'm going to point to a not completely relevant part of the Sage Advice Compendium, about Misty Step:
Misty step doesn’t say the caster can bring worn or carried equipment with them. Are they intended to leave everything, including their clothes, behind?
No, the caster’s worn and carried equipment are intended to go with them. (misty step)
My point is that a creature and their worn/carried gear are generally considered a package deal for the purposes of spells, and are specifically called out when not. Sometimes a spell calls out worn/carried gear as being included with the creature, but this is redundant.
That's just it, the objects aren't actually visible. they're invisible AND dimply outlined with glowing bits. But, also, there is no guarantee the objects and the creature remain together.
No the objects are visible, that's very clearly stated in Faerie Fire that they can't benefit from being invisible. So they are visible and outlined.
Faerie fire does not prevent invisibility in that way. It outlines the creature/object but they're still invisible but now outlined.
Like, imagine you got a handful of glowing glitter and tossed it ontop of an invisible object. That's what you'd be seeing. The object is invisible still, but not 'benefitting' from being invisible.
That doesn't help you avoid the mechanical effects of invisibility though. You can't see the creature, you can't determine the creature's location directly, only through deductive reasoning, you have disadvantage against attacks against them and they have advantage on attacks against creatures that can't see them.
And this is where you loose me. Are you really saying that while you can see the armour, helmet, shield and weapon visibly running around you can't determine the location of the creature wearing them? That's ridiculous tbh. For someone in heavy armor (and likely medium too) you can see everything of the creature except parts of their face.
This depends entirely on your ability to deduce. You must be capable of deducing that the shimmering outline of armor+etc means there is an invisible creature inside it. That is not a forgone conclusion. A mindless enemy would be unable to make that connection, for example. Most people probably can. Again, that's a DM call because he pilots the NPCs.
You also can't really say for certain exactly how much of that person is even covered in objects, so again this will depend heavily on the situation. A minotaur wielding just an axe would be a very different scenario than a paladin in full plate, shield, and longsword. One looks about the same, though just a glimmering outline of themselves, the other looks like just a floating glimmering axe. Again, how hard these would be to deduce will be a DM call.
Mechanically, there is no assumption that you can see the creature, though. If you needed to target them with a spell, for example, that required you could see your target it'd fail.
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"?
No, I'm asking that if a feature says an object is invisible and a feature says it isn't, which wins?
Obviously the effect that prevents it. Otherwise you think the faerie fire cannot prevent things from becoming invisible?
If something prevents a condition from affecting you, and another thing causes that condition... the one that prevents it is more specific. Otherwise there is no such thing as immunity to conditions.
I got quotes!
The last line of the spell: "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."
It does not say the object is not invisible. It says the object can't benefit from being invisible. So it is invisible, but due to it being outlined in glowing light, it gets none of the benefits.
This is not a "dispel invisibility" spell.
Ah, a valid response. It is probably true that a feature preventing a condition takes precedence over that condition. On the other hand, the benefits might not apply to the objects, but none of those benefits affect finding or attacking the creature wearing them at all. So the creature wearing them still can benefit from being invisible, meaning that wearing them doesn't affect the invisibility of the creature at all. So we still come to the conclusion that only the creature's invisibility matters to gameplay mechanics. Which is the point I made in my first post.
Yes, this is much better phrased than my comment. 100% this.
I got quotes!
The first benefit of the Invisible condition is to be impossible to see. While it specifically mention creature, i see no reason to not apply it to object as well.
As written, I would agree with this assessment. If the creature passes the save against faerie fire they are still invisible and receive the benefits of the invisible condition in terms of being unseen. Invisibility by itself never allows a creature to be hidden anyway.
However, their objects would be affect by Faerie Fire making those items visible. Mechanically, the only effect this has, is that you don't have to guess which location the target currently occupies and it prevents the target from taking the hide action since their items are always visible there is no way for them to become hidden. Attacks against the invisible creature would still be at disadvantage and the invisible creature would still have advantage on their attack rolls.
Faerie Fire is written in such a way that it explicitly affects all objects in the AoE AND it has no explicit exclusion for worn or carried objects unlike spells like fireball or light which might only target creatures or include specific text excluding worn or carried items from the effect or giving them a saving throw.
Is this intended in terms of Faerie Fire? I have no idea. I haven't been running Faerie Fire this way and I don't know anyone who has ... I've always run it that worn or carried objects share the save of the creature but RAW that doesn't appear to be how the spell works.
It is true. yes.
So, yes. Seeing the worn/held objects outlined in dim light doesn't specifically reveal the creature. deductive reasoning is what then reveals the location of the creature.
Yeah the creature is invisible. (assuming it made the save)
I don't think anyone argued otherwise. The creature is invisible, but you can clearly tell where they are with some trivial deductive reasoning. "Is that dimly illuminated outline of plate armor running around... the cleric I just tried to faerie fire? probably is!"
That doesn't help you avoid the mechanical effects of invisibility though. You can't see the creature, you can't determine the creature's location directly, only through deductive reasoning, you have disadvantage against attacks against them and they have advantage on attacks against creatures that can't see them.
I got quotes!
Are we intentionally dancing around the fact that... a creature who successfully saves but wears armor can turn invisible, but is covered in visible armor, but still can hide in plain sight without penalties? Or is that something we're cool with in this reading, and I just missed it?
Trying to imagine a drow or something, successfully hiding in the middle of a well lit room, the way she is always allowed to do when invisible, but also she's wearing a bunch of totally visible and glowing clothes, armor, and weapons, seems to wreck the whole idea, at least for me.
That's just it, the objects aren't actually visible. they're invisible AND dimply outlined with glowing bits. But, also, there is no guarantee the objects and the creature remain together.
Can intelligent creatures deduce this situation for what it is? maybe. That'll be up to the DM probably. Do the orcs running by care about a dimly outlined invisible suit of armor? maybe. does a wolf? maybe. DM will determine who can take that bit of visual info and come to what conclusions based on it.
So, your armor can be seen, but you can't be. Not directly, anyway. but just like if you're standing in and offsetting water from a puddle, your location could be deduced.
If this was in combat people generally know your location anyway. Unless you hide.
Can you hide while wearing invisible but glowing armor? That'll be a DM call. Whether you can hide or not is basically always a DM call anyway, so again nothing really changes.
I got quotes!
Sure! I dug it up from my old notes. Formatting is going to be terrible, my apologies in advance.
Flame Sands - Level 4, Sorcerer/Wizard, Evocation, Verbal, Range: Self, Casting time: 1 action, Atk/Save: CON.
You vomit forth nearly molten sand in a thin, forceful stream. Target a creature within 150ft that you can see. It makes a CON save, taking 6d10 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much on a success. If the target fails the save, all nonmagical items carried or worn by the target are affected thusly: glass breaks, reflective surfaces are dulled, gems are coated in sand, rendering them worthless (each gem requiring 1 hour and a DC 15 Dexterity check with Jeweler's Tools to remove without halving its original value).
---
From 3.5 PHB, p.177:
Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is affected (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table 10-1. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deals (see Smashing an Object, p.165). [Example cut for brevity.] If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It is simply dealt the appropriate damage.
Table 10-1: Items Affected By Magical Attacks
Order - in order of most likely to least likely to be affected.
1st - Shield
2nd - Armor
3rd - Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th - Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
5th - Magic cloak
6th - Stowed or sheathed weapon
7th - Magic bracers
8th - Magic clothing
9th - Magic jewelry (including rings)
10th - Anything else.
Now that's a projectile!
Thank you for undusting this for us fun spell and table!
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. To me any attempt to escape notice in such conditions would automatically fail.
That'd be one of those weird edge cases where it'd actually be easier to hide at high noon than in a dark room.
Sorta like trying to hide a lit candle.
You could do it during the day out in the full sunlight if there was sufficient obscurement for foliage or something. But certainly not at night.
I got quotes!
I'm finding this Universal Monsters Go To a Rave interpretation of invisibility and faerie fire highly entertaining
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No the objects are visible, that's very clearly stated in Faerie Fire that they can't benefit from being invisible. So they are visible and outlined.
And this is where you loose me. Are you really saying that while you can see the armour, helmet, shield and weapon visibly running around you can't determine the location of the creature wearing them? That's ridiculous tbh. For someone in heavy armor (and likely medium too) you can see everything of the creature except parts of their face.
I strongly disagree with the "glowing outlined clothes" interpretation of when a creature "saves" on the spell. You could rule that attackers still have disadvantage on the invisible target with glowing gear, but a big part of the point of being invisible is that you can hide even when in light. If your clothes are glowing, enemies will know whether you're still there, and where to target their attacks.
I'm going to point to a not completely relevant part of the Sage Advice Compendium, about Misty Step:
My point is that a creature and their worn/carried gear are generally considered a package deal for the purposes of spells, and are specifically called out when not. Sometimes a spell calls out worn/carried gear as being included with the creature, but this is redundant.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Faerie fire does not prevent invisibility in that way. It outlines the creature/object but they're still invisible but now outlined.
Like, imagine you got a handful of glowing glitter and tossed it ontop of an invisible object. That's what you'd be seeing. The object is invisible still, but not 'benefitting' from being invisible.
This depends entirely on your ability to deduce. You must be capable of deducing that the shimmering outline of armor+etc means there is an invisible creature inside it. That is not a forgone conclusion. A mindless enemy would be unable to make that connection, for example. Most people probably can. Again, that's a DM call because he pilots the NPCs.
You also can't really say for certain exactly how much of that person is even covered in objects, so again this will depend heavily on the situation. A minotaur wielding just an axe would be a very different scenario than a paladin in full plate, shield, and longsword. One looks about the same, though just a glimmering outline of themselves, the other looks like just a floating glimmering axe. Again, how hard these would be to deduce will be a DM call.
Mechanically, there is no assumption that you can see the creature, though. If you needed to target them with a spell, for example, that required you could see your target it'd fail.
I got quotes!
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"?