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.
A direct, RAW reading of Faerie Fire would hardly be game-breaking. All it would mean is that invisible creatures carrying or wearing objects in a 20-foot cube can't prevent their location from becoming discernable.
Advantage against the creature itself would still only be achieved if the creature failed its saving throw. Mechanically, nothing much would be changed.
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!"
LOL you are 100% right on the mark here. Peace! I'm out!
Advantage against the creature itself would still only be achieved if the creature failed its saving throw. Mechanically, nothing much would be changed.
That's what makes the discussion so hilarious to me, because it just creates absurd situations where "mechanically, nothing much would be changed."
A creature in full plate gets hit with faerie fire when the visor on their helmet is down. Visually, per the "objects light up regardless" reading, they will appear exactly the same whether they make the saving throw or not. So what's giving the advantage?
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)
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!"
LOL you are 100% right on the mark here. Peace! I'm out!
There is no requirement for magic to make sense, let alone faerie magic.
Internal consistency is still important but that can still function fine with this RAW as is.
The main question could be what would make the best game for the DM and players?
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.
No i'm not trying to say that, on the contrary i even said that to me it should apply to objects as well if specifically mentioning invisible. Or at least the natural language of it since Conditions normally affect creatures (invisible seems an exception used in the rules though) But one way or another, if something is said to not be able to benefit from being invisible, then it is not, with everything it entails. Essentially something not invisible is visible.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
You might ask, why does this distinction matter!?
Easy. If the effect of faerie fire expires before the invisibility effect does they're still invisible. Just like if you wipe the paint off that glass pane it'll still be transparent.
Advantage against the creature itself would still only be achieved if the creature failed its saving throw. Mechanically, nothing much would be changed.
That's what makes the discussion so hilarious to me, because it just creates absurd situations where "mechanically, nothing much would be changed."
A creature in full plate gets hit with faerie fire when the visor on their helmet is down. Visually, per the "objects light up regardless" reading, they will appear exactly the same whether they make the saving throw or not. So what's giving the advantage?
Visually the guy in full plate with his visor down can somehow take slashing damage from a shortsword without it even scratching his armor. We get over this type of thing all the time, there is no reason to get hung up on it here for faerie fire v worn objects.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
Transparency: the quality that makes it possible to see through something
But the glass is transparent. The paint is what isn't transparent.
The objects in faerie fire, if invisible, remain invisible. Just like painted glass remains transparent. They simply don't benefit from this transparency because of being coated in something. They are both invisible and also "not benefiting" from that invisibility.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
Transparency: the quality that makes it possible to see through something
But the glass is transparent. The paint is what isn't transparent.
The objects in faerie fire, if invisible, remain invisible. Just like painted glass remains transparent. They simply don't benefit from this transparency because of being coated in something. They are both invisible and also "not benefiting" from that invisibility.
It's possible to have the Invisibility spell remain active, without the target actually being invisible. This "invisible while visible" nonsense is not necessary to maintain functionality within the rules.
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.
No i'm not trying to say that, on the contrary i even said that to me it should apply to objects as well if specifically mentioning invisible. Or at least the natural language of it since Conditions normally affect creatures (invisible seems an exception used in the rules though) But one way or another, if something is said to not be able to benefit from being invisible, then it is not, with everything it entails. Essentially something not invisible is visible.
Ok, so again, that reading relies on a particular assumption, when the obvious assumption in this case would be different.
When we get to the point of relying on assumptions, there is no way except DM fiat to decide.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
Transparency: the quality that makes it possible to see through something
But the glass is transparent. The paint is what isn't transparent.
The objects in faerie fire, if invisible, remain invisible. Just like painted glass remains transparent. They simply don't benefit from this transparency because of being coated in something. They are both invisible and also "not benefiting" from that invisibility.
It's possible to have the Invisibility spell remain active, without the target actually being invisible. This "invisible while visible" nonsense is not necessary to maintain functionality within the rules.
It isn't nonsense. If an invisible creature got dusted by flour, or paint, or anything else that clings to their surface and outlined them, they, themselves would still be invisible. But you could see the stuff coating them and make out their form.
Mechanically, they are "not benefiting" from being invisible. That is what the spell faerie fire does. It doesn't prevent invisibility. It doesn't end invisibility. It doesn't dispel invisibility. It doesn't even suppress invisibility. What does the spell say?
"affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
Can't benefit: from being invisible.
Again, it doesn't say squat about them not being invisible, it even uses the phrase "from being invisible". The spell is acknowledging they can "be invisible" right there.
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.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
Transparency: the quality that makes it possible to see through something
But the glass is transparent. The paint is what isn't transparent.
The objects in faerie fire, if invisible, remain invisible. Just like painted glass remains transparent. They simply don't benefit from this transparency because of being coated in something. They are both invisible and also "not benefiting" from that invisibility.
It's possible to have the Invisibility spell remain active, without the target actually being invisible. This "invisible while visible" nonsense is not necessary to maintain functionality within the rules.
It isn't nonsense. If an invisible creature got dusted by flour, or paint, or anything else that clings to their surface and outlined them, they, themselves would still be invisible. But you could see the stuff coating them and make out their form.
Mechanically, they are "not benefiting" from being invisible. That is what the spell faerie fire does. It doesn't prevent invisibility. It doesn't end invisibility. It doesn't dispel invisibility. It doesn't even suppress invisibility. What does the spell say?
"affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
Can't benefit: from being invisible.
Again, it doesn't say squat about them not being invisible, it even uses the phrase "from being invisible". The spell is acknowledging they can "be invisible" right there.
They just can't "benefit" from it.
I get what you're saying, but you seem to have missed the part where I was saying it doesn't matter.
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!"
Pedantic thought experiments and deconstructions of written rules can be fun from time to time, but they seem to have become particularly frequent on this subforum of late, and they tend to get a lot of traction due to the confidence with which absurd positions are presented and defended as well as the incredulity with which the rest of us appeal to common sense. Tribes form, people upvote positions supporting their own, and threads reach hundreds of replies.
Meanwhile, nobody on either side of the argument would likely suggest running the game this way at the table.
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!"
Pedantic thought experiments and deconstructions of written rules can be fun from time to time, but they seem to have become particularly frequent on this subforum of late, and they tend to get a lot of traction due to the confidence with which absurd positions are presented and defended as well as the incredulity with which the rest of us appeal to common sense. Tribes form, people upvote positions supporting their own, and threads reach hundreds of replies.
Meanwhile, nobody on either side of the argument would likely suggest running the game this way at the table.
I'd be quite happy to run Faerie Fire as per RAW. All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items. It could even lead to some fun moments should creatures choose to shed their carried items.
What deconstructions do you consider are involved?
Two creatures come at you -- one wearing full plate armor, the other a suit of animated armor. You cast faerie fire, and both make their saving throw. One of them lights up.
Yeah, have fun with that nonsense.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A direct, RAW reading of Faerie Fire would hardly be game-breaking. All it would mean is that invisible creatures carrying or wearing objects in a 20-foot cube can't prevent their location from becoming discernable.
Advantage against the creature itself would still only be achieved if the creature failed its saving throw. Mechanically, nothing much would be changed.
It's not a big issue.
LOL you are 100% right on the mark here. Peace! I'm out!
That's what makes the discussion so hilarious to me, because it just creates absurd situations where "mechanically, nothing much would be changed."
A creature in full plate gets hit with faerie fire when the visor on their helmet is down. Visually, per the "objects light up regardless" reading, they will appear exactly the same whether they make the saving throw or not. So what's giving the advantage?
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)
There is no requirement for magic to make sense, let alone faerie magic.
Internal consistency is still important but that can still function fine with this RAW as is.
The main question could be what would make the best game for the DM and players?
Either ruling can work.
No i'm not trying to say that, on the contrary i even said that to me it should apply to objects as well if specifically mentioning invisible. Or at least the natural language of it since Conditions normally affect creatures (invisible seems an exception used in the rules though) But one way or another, if something is said to not be able to benefit from being invisible, then it is not, with everything it entails. Essentially something not invisible is visible.
The object is still invisible, it just isn't benefiting from being so.
If you paint a glass pane you stop being able to see through it but the glass pane itself is still transparent.
You might ask, why does this distinction matter!?
Easy. If the effect of faerie fire expires before the invisibility effect does they're still invisible. Just like if you wipe the paint off that glass pane it'll still be transparent.
I got quotes!
Visually the guy in full plate with his visor down can somehow take slashing damage from a shortsword without it even scratching his armor. We get over this type of thing all the time, there is no reason to get hung up on it here for faerie fire v worn objects.
I got quotes!
A painted glass is not transparent anymore if you can't see through according to its meaning https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transparency
But the glass is transparent. The paint is what isn't transparent.
The objects in faerie fire, if invisible, remain invisible. Just like painted glass remains transparent. They simply don't benefit from this transparency because of being coated in something. They are both invisible and also "not benefiting" from that invisibility.
I got quotes!
It's possible to have the Invisibility spell remain active, without the target actually being invisible. This "invisible while visible" nonsense is not necessary to maintain functionality within the rules.
Ok, so again, that reading relies on a particular assumption, when the obvious assumption in this case would be different.
When we get to the point of relying on assumptions, there is no way except DM fiat to decide.
It isn't nonsense. If an invisible creature got dusted by flour, or paint, or anything else that clings to their surface and outlined them, they, themselves would still be invisible. But you could see the stuff coating them and make out their form.
Mechanically, they are "not benefiting" from being invisible. That is what the spell faerie fire does. It doesn't prevent invisibility. It doesn't end invisibility. It doesn't dispel invisibility. It doesn't even suppress invisibility. What does the spell say?
"affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
Can't benefit: from being invisible.
Again, it doesn't say squat about them not being invisible, it even uses the phrase "from being invisible". The spell is acknowledging they can "be invisible" right there.
They just can't "benefit" from it.
I got quotes!
Its being invisible in nothing but name ☺
I get what you're saying, but you seem to have missed the part where I was saying it doesn't matter.
Like if you were to save from the spell, but have all of your clothes appear anyway.
That's exactly the situation of the 70s Invisible Man TV series. It was mainstream but he still needed to be naked to be invisible.
Check out invisible man hg wells
Pedantic thought experiments and deconstructions of written rules can be fun from time to time, but they seem to have become particularly frequent on this subforum of late, and they tend to get a lot of traction due to the confidence with which absurd positions are presented and defended as well as the incredulity with which the rest of us appeal to common sense. Tribes form, people upvote positions supporting their own, and threads reach hundreds of replies.
Meanwhile, nobody on either side of the argument would likely suggest running the game this way at the table.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd be quite happy to run Faerie Fire as per RAW. All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items. It could even lead to some fun moments should creatures choose to shed their carried items.
What deconstructions do you consider are involved?
Why do you object?
Two creatures come at you -- one wearing full plate armor, the other a suit of animated armor. You cast faerie fire, and both make their saving throw. One of them lights up.
Yeah, have fun with that nonsense.
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)