Hmm, now I'm wondering if a mimic is smart enough to voluntarily fail the saving throw so as not to risk being discovered
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)
AntonSirius, a Mimic has an Intelligence of 5. Same as a Hill Giant and Ogre, so it is certainly possible. Further, an Octopus only has an Intelligence of 3, and we know (at least on Earth) that they are quite crafty.
Further, the Mimic has a Wisdom of 13, compared to the Octopus's Wisdom of 10, the Hill Giant's of 9, and the Ogre's of 7.
Between these, I think the Mimic should be able to voluntarily fail the save (assuming any hostile creature can voluntarily fail the save).
AntonSirius, a Mimic has an Intelligence of 5. Same as a Hill Giant and Ogre, so it is certainly possible. Further, an Octopus only has an Intelligence of 3, and we know (at least on Earth) that they are quite crafty.
Further, the Mimic has a Wisdom of 13, compared to the Octopus's Wisdom of 10, the Hill Giant's of 9, and the Ogre's of 7.
Between these, I think the Mimic should be able to voluntarily fail the save (assuming any hostile creature can voluntarily fail the save).
It'd have to know it was a faerie fire spell that it was saving against for it to, maybe, even want to fail the save.
But the question of if it even gets to make a save is interesting. It has Polymorphed into an object. Yet, it still continues to use the creature stat block anyway. So it is both an object but also a creature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Would darkness dispel faerie fire? The spell itself isn't shedding the dim light with a 10' radius, but the effect is created by the spell.
The light is created by the spell, so yes it would dispel the spell if any of the light from the spell enters the area of darkness. Darkness can dispel quite a few spells people might not immediately assume it can, a whole host of fire based spells, for example, are also susceptible.
Branding Smite, Continual Flame, Control Flames (if it's altering the radius of light, that is). Amusingly, Create Bonfire doesn't say it produces light, so I guess that one's immune. >8) Then there's Dancing Lights, obviously, and Faerie Fire, and then Flame Blade, as if it needed to be held back in power, and Flaming Sphere. Guiding Bolt? Seems like it. Jim's Glowing Coin and Light for obvious reasons. Moonbeam, Produce Flame. I believe that's everything. There's a couple of spells like Branding Smite that mention fire, but not light, and of course in real life you sometimes have fires that aren't bright enough to shed any meaningful amount of light, so I feel it's reasonable to say these spells don't actually create light, but I could just as easily accept the opposite.
I believe in earlier editions you could "upcast" Darkness to affect higher-leveled Light spells, which you can't do anymore. However, I also believe in earlier editions Darkness didn't get to kill spells that create light, it could only kill the light from them. The edition changes giveth and taketh away, I suppose.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
Color Spray is questionably dispelled if an area of its cone includes the darkness spell. Since "colored light springs from your hand" but that is a harder sell. Same reason as a "? seems like it" for Guiding Bolt. Ray of Frost, too, falls into this same "says light" type of spell. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
You're still not following. We're talking about creatures.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
You're still not following. We're talking about creatures.
I am following. Creatures need to make saves. Objects do not. That's all there is to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
You're still not following. We're talking about creatures.
I am following. Creatures need to make saves. Objects do not. That's all there is to it.
And Gerg is saying that they'd play it that creatures wouldn't need to, they'd fail automatically. And they asked for objections. Are you sure you're getting this? Because your responses sure aren't adding up.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
You're still not following. We're talking about creatures.
I am following. Creatures need to make saves. Objects do not. That's all there is to it.
And Gerg is saying that they'd play it that creatures wouldn't need to, they'd fail automatically. And they asked for objections. Are you sure you're getting this? Because your responses sure aren't adding up.
He isn't saying that. He's saying that their worn or carried objects would be lit up. Because they're objects. You may have misunderstood him. The RAW position has been well established at this point. I suggest rereading it with the idea in mind that he's talking about the RAW position that objects, even worn, get affected by the spell even if the creature isn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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?
You got it wrong, RAV, that isn't what Gerg said at all. Try harder.
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?
You got it wrong, RAV, that isn't what Gerg said at all. Try harder.
He is. You'd be able to deduce their positioning based on seeing their gear. That's what he's talking about. Like I said back a page ago, if you read it with the understanding of the position being put forward you'd know what he was saying. Their worn objects are visible, so that could "automatically" give away their position. They're still invisible, mechanically, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
And again, my objection remains valid. The spell doesn't say it reveals creatures carrying items and it doesn't imply that it should.
In fact the implication is the opposite, that an invisible creature remains invisible -- that actually saving against the spell has a real game effect. And obviously, that would mean -- just like a moving creature's item's moves with them -- an invisible creature's invisible items would stay invisible.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
I'll grab the important bits for ya:
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 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.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
#82 is wrong too. For the same reason. The spell doesn't suggest that it should do that directly or indirectly.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
#82 is wrong too. For the same reason. The spell doesn't suggest that it should do that directly or indirectly.
Objects are illuminated. You'd see them. Even if they are worn or carried.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
#82 is wrong too. For the same reason. The spell doesn't suggest that it should do that directly or indirectly.
Objects are illuminated. You'd see them. Even if they are worn or carried.
But creatures can save. And #82 says that creatures would have their positions automatically revealed. That is not what the spell says. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
#82 is wrong too. For the same reason. The spell doesn't suggest that it should do that directly or indirectly.
Objects are illuminated. You'd see them. Even if they are worn or carried.
But creatures can save. And #82 says that creatures would have their positions automatically revealed. That is not what the spell says. [REDACTED]
We've potentially got two spell descriptions in a potential conflict:
Invisibility A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisibleas long as it is on the target's person. ...
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.
The wording of Invisibility associates the invisibility of things worn or carried by the target with the invisibility of the target.
Faerie Fire presents an objects first presentation of its text.
A further and noted complication comes in considerations of "the affected creature..." A (perhaps not typically faerie) creature who had various things worn or carried would certainly be affected by the spell if all their things were outlined with light and this would be the case whether or not they made their Dexterity saving throw.
Saying that "Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw" implies that any creature that makes its dexterity saving throw would not be outlined in light. If a DM chose to follow this logic then it could be safe to interpret that worn and carried items could not be outlined as this would effectively leave the creature outlined.
Basically, the texts are a mess. They aren't written tightly.
A sensible interpretation would be that objects worn or carried would be included in a Faerie Fire dex save and that this is probably RAI - but, then again, when have Faeries ever been sensible?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm, now I'm wondering if a mimic is smart enough to voluntarily fail the saving throw so as not to risk being discovered
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)
AntonSirius, a Mimic has an Intelligence of 5. Same as a Hill Giant and Ogre, so it is certainly possible. Further, an Octopus only has an Intelligence of 3, and we know (at least on Earth) that they are quite crafty.
Further, the Mimic has a Wisdom of 13, compared to the Octopus's Wisdom of 10, the Hill Giant's of 9, and the Ogre's of 7.
Between these, I think the Mimic should be able to voluntarily fail the save (assuming any hostile creature can voluntarily fail the save).
It'd have to know it was a faerie fire spell that it was saving against for it to, maybe, even want to fail the save.
But the question of if it even gets to make a save is interesting. It has Polymorphed into an object. Yet, it still continues to use the creature stat block anyway. So it is both an object but also a creature.
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.
Branding Smite, Continual Flame, Control Flames (if it's altering the radius of light, that is). Amusingly, Create Bonfire doesn't say it produces light, so I guess that one's immune. >8) Then there's Dancing Lights, obviously, and Faerie Fire, and then Flame Blade, as if it needed to be held back in power, and Flaming Sphere. Guiding Bolt? Seems like it. Jim's Glowing Coin and Light for obvious reasons. Moonbeam, Produce Flame. I believe that's everything. There's a couple of spells like Branding Smite that mention fire, but not light, and of course in real life you sometimes have fires that aren't bright enough to shed any meaningful amount of light, so I feel it's reasonable to say these spells don't actually create light, but I could just as easily accept the opposite.
I believe in earlier editions you could "upcast" Darkness to affect higher-leveled Light spells, which you can't do anymore. However, I also believe in earlier editions Darkness didn't get to kill spells that create light, it could only kill the light from them. The edition changes giveth and taketh away, I suppose.
And they said they'd run it that way and then they asked for objections. The objection is that isn't want the spell does or implies that it should do. [REDACTED]
Color Spray is questionably dispelled if an area of its cone includes the darkness spell. Since "colored light springs from your hand" but that is a harder sell. Same reason as a "? seems like it" for Guiding Bolt. Ray of Frost, too, falls into this same "says light" type of spell. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head.
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.
Objects are affected. They don't get saves. You don't have to run it that way if you don't want to, but it is an accurate reading of the RAW.
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.
You're still not following. We're talking about creatures.
I am following. Creatures need to make saves. Objects do not. That's all there is to it.
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.
And Gerg is saying that they'd play it that creatures wouldn't need to, they'd fail automatically. And they asked for objections. Are you sure you're getting this? Because your responses sure aren't adding up.
He isn't saying that. He's saying that their worn or carried objects would be lit up. Because they're objects. You may have misunderstood him. The RAW position has been well established at this point. I suggest rereading it with the idea in mind that he's talking about the RAW position that objects, even worn, get affected by the spell even if the creature isn't.
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.
You got it wrong, RAV, that isn't what Gerg said at all. Try harder.
He is. You'd be able to deduce their positioning based on seeing their gear. That's what he's talking about. Like I said back a page ago, if you read it with the understanding of the position being put forward you'd know what he was saying. Their worn objects are visible, so that could "automatically" give away their position. They're still invisible, mechanically, though.
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.
That is not what that says. You are inserting your opinion into someone else's statement.
And again, my objection remains valid. The spell doesn't say it reveals creatures carrying items and it doesn't imply that it should.
In fact the implication is the opposite, that an invisible creature remains invisible -- that actually saving against the spell has a real game effect. And obviously, that would mean -- just like a moving creature's item's moves with them -- an invisible creature's invisible items would stay invisible.
No, I'm just reading the whole conversation and not starting at post #100. The entire context for what he is talking about is long established by this post. Maybe follow your own advice and read the preceding posts for context? Try post #82 if you want to know his position.
I'll grab the important bits for ya:
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.
#82 is wrong too. For the same reason. The spell doesn't suggest that it should do that directly or indirectly.
Objects are illuminated. You'd see them. Even if they are worn or carried.
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.
But creatures can save. And #82 says that creatures would have their positions automatically revealed. That is not what the spell says. [REDACTED]
We've potentially got two spell descriptions in a potential conflict:
Invisibility
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. ...
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.
The wording of Invisibility associates the invisibility of things worn or carried by the target with the invisibility of the target.
Faerie Fire presents an objects first presentation of its text.
A further and noted complication comes in considerations of "the affected creature..." A (perhaps not typically faerie) creature who had various things worn or carried would certainly be affected by the spell if all their things were outlined with light and this would be the case whether or not they made their Dexterity saving throw.
Saying that "Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw" implies that any creature that makes its dexterity saving throw would not be outlined in light. If a DM chose to follow this logic then it could be safe to interpret that worn and carried items could not be outlined as this would effectively leave the creature outlined.
Basically, the texts are a mess. They aren't written tightly.
A sensible interpretation would be that objects worn or carried would be included in a Faerie Fire dex save and that this is probably RAI - but, then again, when have Faeries ever been sensible?