From what I understand regarding spell interactions with objects, a spell only affects an object if it specifically states so. And most spells that can affect objects, like catapult and fireball, further restrict this to only objects not being worn or carried. However, looking at the description for faerie fire, it does not impose that restriction:
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.
From my current understanding RAW, even if an invisible creature were to succeed this saving throw, any equipment they are wearing or carrying will still be affected by the spell. While technically the creature would still benefit from the invisible condition, their position would surprisingly still be revealed by the armor they are wearing. Is there a ruling I am missing regarding objects being worn or carried?
There was a rather large thread on this sometime ago.
I think the best conclusion that you can come to is that even if the creature doesn’t include its worn and held equipment, and those are just objects that light up, the creature is exactly still invisible. That means that it is mechanically no different if the creatures’s stuff is visible and it isn’t and if everything is considered invisible: all of the advantages that the creature gets and disadvantages others get are still in play.
I think that, while the wording of Faerie Fire is poor, the clear intent is that objects worn or carried by a creature would not be affected if that creature saves. That's how it would work at my table.
And, if you want to be pedantic, I would note that there would be thousands of microscopic objects and creatures in any 20' cube (dust, mites, insects, particulate matter like smoke), so the entire cube would contain thousands of dim light sources, obscuring everything.
By strict RAW, Faerie Fire doesn't exclude worn or carried objects, so they would be affected even if the invisible creature is not.
So any items wether worn/carried or not would shed dim light, not benefit from being invisible and grant advantage to attacks.
The invisible creature itself would still be impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense and be heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding. It's location could be detected by any equipments under Faerie Fire as well as any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves and attack rolls for or against it would still be at advantage or disadvantage.
No, only the equipment’s location could be determined by the equipment’s location. The creature’s location could only be inferred. That would be mechanically identical to it still being invisible.
Determined, inferred, deduced, figured, name it, if you see nothing but a person's cloths, belt, scabbard, sword, armor, backpack moving around, location will be evident.
So a humanoid in full plate mail, boots and gauntlets with their visor down, all of which is shedding dim light, would benefit from being invisible if they make their saving throw, but would not if they failed, despite the fact that no part of their body could be observed in either case. Makes perfect sense.
Determined, inferred, deduced, figured, name it, if you see nothing but a person's cloths, belt, scabbard, sword, armor, backpack moving around, location will be evident.
So says you, but the rules say that the creature is still invisible.
So a humanoid in full plate mail, boots and gauntlets with their visor down, all of which is shedding dim light, would benefit from being invisible if they make their saving throw, but would not if they failed, despite the fact that no part of their body could be observed in either case. Makes perfect sense.
It would still benefit from being invisible, only the objects it wear or carry would not.
Determined, inferred, deduced, figured, name it, if you see nothing but a person's cloths, belt, scabbard, sword, armor, backpack moving around, location will be evident.
So says you, but the rules say that the creature is still invisible.
I said the creature would still be invisible if you read carefully. It would be almost exactly identical mechanically speaking except the location determination, which will be revealed by object worn or carried even if you aren't. So you're location is still determined the same way technically, but your cloths are visible and themselves easily located.
Invisible doesn't say that the objects a creature carries gives away the location. Neither does Faerie fire. Where are you getting that idea from? Outside the game?
So a humanoid in full plate mail, boots and gauntlets with their visor down, all of which is shedding dim light, would benefit from being invisible if they make their saving throw, but would not if they failed, despite the fact that no part of their body could be observed in either case. Makes perfect sense.
It would still benefit from being invisible, only the objects it wear or carry would not.
Do you think that a character wearing a hooded cloak and gloves benefits from being an unseen opponent if they have their back to you? After all, you can only see the objects they are carrying or are wearing, not the character themselves. Or, if a character paints themselves head to toe in red paint but is otherwise naked, they have total cover, so long as their eyes are closed.
Invisible doesn't say that the objects a creature carries gives away the location. Neither does Faerie fire. Where are you getting that idea from? Outside the game?
The creature not, the object yes. Things that are not invisible gives away their location, so an invisible creature moving around with visible and flashy stuff will be easy to deduce location of the wearrer or carrier by the worn or carried objects we can see. No book needs to tell you that, it's just logic.
In order for the invisible creature to avoid that, it will need to remove or drop all worn or carried objects under Faerie Fire .
So a humanoid in full plate mail, boots and gauntlets with their visor down, all of which is shedding dim light, would benefit from being invisible if they make their saving throw, but would not if they failed, despite the fact that no part of their body could be observed in either case. Makes perfect sense.
It would still benefit from being invisible, only the objects it wear or carry would not.
Do you think that a character wearing a hooded cloak and gloves benefits from being an unseen opponent if they have their back to you? After all, you can only see the objects they are carrying or are wearing, not the character themselves. Or, if a character paints themselves head to toe in red paint but is otherwise naked, they have total cover, so long as their eyes are closed.
Normally when you are hidden or invisible, it include everything worn or carried. But Faerie Fire can create an exception where you still benefit from invisible while objects you wear or carry are not.
Normally when you are hidden or invisible, it include everything worn or carried. But Faerie Fire can create an exception where you still benefit from invisible while objects you wear or carry are not.
Hiding makes no mention of including everything worn or carried. Sorry.
Normally when you are hidden or invisible, it include everything worn or carried. But Faerie Fire can create an exception where you still benefit from invisible while objects you wear or carry are not.
Hiding makes no mention of including everything worn or carried. Sorry.
I think that, while the wording of Faerie Fire is poor, the clear intent is that objects worn or carried by a creature would not be affected if that creature saves. That's how it would work at my table.
And, if you want to be pedantic, I would note that there would be thousands of microscopic objects and creatures in any 20' cube (dust, mites, insects, particulate matter like smoke), so the entire cube would contain thousands of dim light sources, obscuring everything.
You have NBSP in your link.
But all this was argued in that thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what I understand regarding spell interactions with objects, a spell only affects an object if it specifically states so. And most spells that can affect objects, like catapult and fireball, further restrict this to only objects not being worn or carried. However, looking at the description for faerie fire, it does not impose that restriction:
From my current understanding RAW, even if an invisible creature were to succeed this saving throw, any equipment they are wearing or carrying will still be affected by the spell. While technically the creature would still benefit from the invisible condition, their position would surprisingly still be revealed by the armor they are wearing. Is there a ruling I am missing regarding objects being worn or carried?
I'd interpret it as:
If an invisible creature makes its save, it is not affected. If it is not affected it can benefit from being invisible.
Just an opinion.
There was a rather large thread on this sometime ago.
I think the best conclusion that you can come to is that even if the creature doesn’t include its worn and held equipment, and those are just objects that light up, the creature is exactly still invisible. That means that it is mechanically no different if the creatures’s stuff is visible and it isn’t and if everything is considered invisible: all of the advantages that the creature gets and disadvantages others get are still in play.
There were eight pages on this six months ago: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/124845-faerie-fire-and-objects-worn-by-creatures I would hate to see that whole argument resurrected.
I think that, while the wording of Faerie Fire is poor, the clear intent is that objects worn or carried by a creature would not be affected if that creature saves. That's how it would work at my table.
And, if you want to be pedantic, I would note that there would be thousands of microscopic objects and creatures in any 20' cube (dust, mites, insects, particulate matter like smoke), so the entire cube would contain thousands of dim light sources, obscuring everything.
No, only the equipment’s location could be determined by the equipment’s location. The creature’s location could only be inferred. That would be mechanically identical to it still being invisible.
Determined, inferred, deduced, figured, name it, if you see nothing but a person's cloths, belt, scabbard, sword, armor, backpack moving around, location will be evident.
So a humanoid in full plate mail, boots and gauntlets with their visor down, all of which is shedding dim light, would benefit from being invisible if they make their saving throw, but would not if they failed, despite the fact that no part of their body could be observed in either case. Makes perfect sense.
So says you, but the rules say that the creature is still invisible.
It would still benefit from being invisible, only the objects it wear or carry would not.
I said the creature would still be invisible if you read carefully. It would be almost exactly identical mechanically speaking except the location determination, which will be revealed by object worn or carried even if you aren't. So you're location is still determined the same way technically, but your cloths are visible and themselves easily located.
Invisible doesn't say that the objects a creature carries gives away the location. Neither does Faerie fire. Where are you getting that idea from? Outside the game?
Do you think that a character wearing a hooded cloak and gloves benefits from being an unseen opponent if they have their back to you? After all, you can only see the objects they are carrying or are wearing, not the character themselves. Or, if a character paints themselves head to toe in red paint but is otherwise naked, they have total cover, so long as their eyes are closed.
The creature not, the object yes. Things that are not invisible gives away their location, so an invisible creature moving around with visible and flashy stuff will be easy to deduce location of the wearrer or carrier by the worn or carried objects we can see. No book needs to tell you that, it's just logic.
In order for the invisible creature to avoid that, it will need to remove or drop all worn or carried objects under Faerie Fire .
Normally when you are hidden or invisible, it include everything worn or carried. But Faerie Fire can create an exception where you still benefit from invisible while objects you wear or carry are not.
Sure, it makes logical sense, but it doesn't have any rules support.
Hiding makes no mention of including everything worn or carried. Sorry.
How would you explain you can see a number of objects outlined in light but not determine their location ?
There is no rules saying being visible determine location yet we play that way all the time.
Yet DMs adjudicate it that way all the time...
You have NBSP in your link.
But all this was argued in that thread.