I have a question about Greater Invisibility spell which also counts for Invisibility as well. The spell description says:
You or 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.
So here is the scenario in my current campaign. I'm carrying around a kobold child. So when I cast this spell on myself, does the kid become invisible as well since I'm carrying it? The rule actually doesnt specify if it needs to be object.
The spell specifies "a creature", and then uses anything to qualify what else is affected. As such, other creatures would not be affected, only objects (aka things)
I have a question about Greater Invisibility spell which also counts for Invisibility as well. The spell description says:
You or 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.
So here is the scenario in my current campaign. I'm carrying around a kobold child. So when I cast this spell on myself, does the kid become invisible as well since I'm carrying it? The rule actually doesnt specify if it needs to be object.
As a DM, my ruling would come down to the role the child has in the party
If this is a Lone Wolf and Cub kind of thing where you are only protecting the child, then yes, I'd rule they become invisible along with you, as they aren't really an active participant in combat or the like
If they do take any sort of active role at times, though, then no, they'd need a separate invisibility cast on them
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)
The spell specifies "a creature", and then uses anything to qualify what else is affected. As such, other creatures would not be affected, only objects (aka things)
I disagree with this, based on the usage of the word anything in the PHB. When used in the PHB, they don't use anything to designate objects. They use the word objects.
Resilient Sphere for instance: The sphere is immune to all damage, and a creature or object inside can’t be damaged by attacks or effects originating from outside, nor can a creature inside the sphere damage anything outside it. Basically, the creature inside can be damaged by certain, very limited things but they can't damage anything outside it. Person or otherwise.
Etherealness? You can see and hear the plane you originated from, but everything there looks gray, and you can't see anything more than 60 feet away. - Does this mean I can only see objects within 60 feet?
Obliteros, from Dragon Heist: Utterly fearless, it preys on anything that crosses its path, including whales and ships. - This one uses anything and then specifies a creature and an object.
The way I interpret this spell is that the target of the spell is a creature, and anything the creature is holding or carrying at the time of the cast is invisible. So if the target is carrying someone, they too are invisible.
That's where my thinking goes, the rules usually specify if the things can be only objects, here isn't this specification. I guess some could argue that baby kobold is not a thing. So they dont count towards anyTHING, but for me that's a bit of a stretch. :D
So, you're definitely not supposed to be able to get two creatures with a single target spell. On the other hand, the reason for that is basically down to balance concerns -- two combatants equals two unseen attacks, two threats it's harder to eliminate, etc. If the second target is a little kid, not a fighter...
As a DM, I would say this isn't necessarily "correct," but I'd certainly allow it, because it feels appropriate. And because I'm not really trying to kill NPC children. I'm only threatening it so that my players can be responsible for saving them. (Not to say I wouldn't follow through.)
From an extremely technical perspective, it might actually be legal, as discussed above. I'm not gonna weigh in on that because I don't think I have anything to add.
I think the intent is pretty clearly to affect only one creature. But as others have suggested, I would probably rule it to work with a kid or something that isn't a combatant.
I think the intent is pretty clearly to affect only one creature. But as others have suggested, I would probably rule it to work with a kid or something that isn't a combatant.
Honestly, I'd just rule that anyone who is being affected by the spell makes an attack or casts a spell, it ends. If you cast invisibility on a horse, and it causes it's rider to also go invisible? If either the horse or the rider make an attack or cast a spell, it ends. If you're carrying a little girl, and you sneak by someone and she tries to scratch them? It ends.
I would agree that if the baby would scratch someone the invisibility would go off. If you think about it, it's similar to holding lets say a dagger and scratching someone with it, but in this case the "dagger" has mind of its own. :D
I have a question about Greater Invisibility spell which also counts for Invisibility as well. The spell description says:
You or 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.
So here is the scenario in my current campaign. I'm carrying around a kobold child. So when I cast this spell on myself, does the kid become invisible as well since I'm carrying it? The rule actually doesnt specify if it needs to be object.
Because invisibility is absolutely useless if it doesn't render creatures inside the target creature invisible as well (i.e. if it only works on the target creature, as Davyd suggested, invisibility wouldn't turn you invisible - at a bare minimum you'd look like a floating cloud of gut fauna, and in the general case you'd still look humanoid, since you're covered in tiny creatures all of the time), my ruling as a DM is always that Invisibility extends to any Tiny creature with only 1 hit point that is in total opaque cover where said total opaque cover is also Invisible. So in this case, you could render the baby Invisible by swaddling it up and sticking it in a papoose. But if any part of the baby is visible normally, it'll stay visible despite invisibility - it's only rendered invisible when it would normally be impossible to see without Ghost Sight.
I would agree that if the baby would scratch someone the invisibility would go off. If you think about it, it's similar to holding lets say a dagger and scratching someone with it, but in this case the "dagger" has mind of its own. :D
Hmm... if invisibility doesn't cover the baby, would it cover a sentient weapon?
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 would agree that if the baby would scratch someone the invisibility would go off. If you think about it, it's similar to holding lets say a dagger and scratching someone with it, but in this case the "dagger" has mind of its own. :D
Hmm... if invisibility doesn't cover the baby, would it cover a sentient weapon?
Definitely. A weapon isn't a creature, and it can be carried, so it's included in the spell's effect if the target is carrying it. A sentient weapon can't attack or cast a spell, so a sentient weapon can't break Invisibility targeted on itself. It can compel an invisible person to attack, and if it's just normal Invisibility then that would break the spell, but the weapon can't attack on its own, so there's no cheese where the weapon attacks while its wielder stays invisible.
To specify the kobold baby. She is not part of the iniciative, so she is not combatant and though you could come up with clever use of that kid I tend not to, mainly so I could utilize these kind of spells. She serves a roleplaying purpose for now.
Alos here is my view on magic in DnD. I understand it as an energy present in the character, but technicaly it is represented as spell slots. With traditional Invisibility you can upcast it to cover more people, which I wouldingame understood as using more magical energy. I'd say that covering a small harmless child doesnt require that much more energy to cover it, especially when its on your body all the time.
I don't know what this says about me as a DM, but if you had the ability to upcast the spell to have two targets, I'd make you do that. No freebies! If you didn't yet have the spell slots, then I wouldn't. If you had them, bit you had already used them... Hm. Probably that's too bad. No invisibility for your kiddo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi
I have a question about Greater Invisibility spell which also counts for Invisibility as well. The spell description says:
You or 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.
So here is the scenario in my current campaign. I'm carrying around a kobold child. So when I cast this spell on myself, does the kid become invisible as well since I'm carrying it? The rule actually doesnt specify if it needs to be object.
The spell specifies "a creature", and then uses anything to qualify what else is affected. As such, other creatures would not be affected, only objects (aka things)
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
As a DM, my ruling would come down to the role the child has in the party
If this is a Lone Wolf and Cub kind of thing where you are only protecting the child, then yes, I'd rule they become invisible along with you, as they aren't really an active participant in combat or the like
If they do take any sort of active role at times, though, then no, they'd need a separate invisibility cast on them
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 disagree with this, based on the usage of the word anything in the PHB. When used in the PHB, they don't use anything to designate objects. They use the word objects.
Resilient Sphere for instance: The sphere is immune to all damage, and a creature or object inside can’t be damaged by attacks or effects originating from outside, nor can a creature inside the sphere damage anything outside it. Basically, the creature inside can be damaged by certain, very limited things but they can't damage anything outside it. Person or otherwise.
Etherealness? You can see and hear the plane you originated from, but everything there looks gray, and you can't see anything more than 60 feet away. - Does this mean I can only see objects within 60 feet?
Obliteros, from Dragon Heist: Utterly fearless, it preys on anything that crosses its path, including whales and ships. - This one uses anything and then specifies a creature and an object.
The way I interpret this spell is that the target of the spell is a creature, and anything the creature is holding or carrying at the time of the cast is invisible. So if the target is carrying someone, they too are invisible.
That's where my thinking goes, the rules usually specify if the things can be only objects, here isn't this specification. I guess some could argue that baby kobold is not a thing. So they dont count towards anyTHING, but for me that's a bit of a stretch. :D
So, you're definitely not supposed to be able to get two creatures with a single target spell. On the other hand, the reason for that is basically down to balance concerns -- two combatants equals two unseen attacks, two threats it's harder to eliminate, etc. If the second target is a little kid, not a fighter...
As a DM, I would say this isn't necessarily "correct," but I'd certainly allow it, because it feels appropriate. And because I'm not really trying to kill NPC children. I'm only threatening it so that my players can be responsible for saving them. (Not to say I wouldn't follow through.)
From an extremely technical perspective, it might actually be legal, as discussed above. I'm not gonna weigh in on that because I don't think I have anything to add.
I think the intent is pretty clearly to affect only one creature. But as others have suggested, I would probably rule it to work with a kid or something that isn't a combatant.
Honestly, I'd just rule that anyone who is being affected by the spell makes an attack or casts a spell, it ends. If you cast invisibility on a horse, and it causes it's rider to also go invisible? If either the horse or the rider make an attack or cast a spell, it ends. If you're carrying a little girl, and you sneak by someone and she tries to scratch them? It ends.
I would agree that if the baby would scratch someone the invisibility would go off. If you think about it, it's similar to holding lets say a dagger and scratching someone with it, but in this case the "dagger" has mind of its own. :D
Because invisibility is absolutely useless if it doesn't render creatures inside the target creature invisible as well (i.e. if it only works on the target creature, as Davyd suggested, invisibility wouldn't turn you invisible - at a bare minimum you'd look like a floating cloud of gut fauna, and in the general case you'd still look humanoid, since you're covered in tiny creatures all of the time), my ruling as a DM is always that Invisibility extends to any Tiny creature with only 1 hit point that is in total opaque cover where said total opaque cover is also Invisible. So in this case, you could render the baby Invisible by swaddling it up and sticking it in a papoose. But if any part of the baby is visible normally, it'll stay visible despite invisibility - it's only rendered invisible when it would normally be impossible to see without Ghost Sight.
There's no gut fauna or microorganisms at my table. Just like there's no atoms or antimatter. It's just not appropriate for the genre imo.
I wonder if there's any monster that can swallow you whole and also turn invisible though.
Hmm... if invisibility doesn't cover the baby, would it cover a sentient weapon?
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)
Definitely. A weapon isn't a creature, and it can be carried, so it's included in the spell's effect if the target is carrying it. A sentient weapon can't attack or cast a spell, so a sentient weapon can't break Invisibility targeted on itself. It can compel an invisible person to attack, and if it's just normal Invisibility then that would break the spell, but the weapon can't attack on its own, so there's no cheese where the weapon attacks while its wielder stays invisible.
To specify the kobold baby. She is not part of the iniciative, so she is not combatant and though you could come up with clever use of that kid I tend not to, mainly so I could utilize these kind of spells. She serves a roleplaying purpose for now.
Alos here is my view on magic in DnD. I understand it as an energy present in the character, but technicaly it is represented as spell slots. With traditional Invisibility you can upcast it to cover more people, which I wouldingame understood as using more magical energy. I'd say that covering a small harmless child doesnt require that much more energy to cover it, especially when its on your body all the time.
I don't know what this says about me as a DM, but if you had the ability to upcast the spell to have two targets, I'd make you do that. No freebies! If you didn't yet have the spell slots, then I wouldn't. If you had them, bit you had already used them... Hm. Probably that's too bad. No invisibility for your kiddo.