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.
Yet DMs adjudicate it that way all the time...
So then why is faerie fire different...?
Its intent is obvious, you even point that out in #21.
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.
Yet DMs adjudicate it that way all the time...
So then why is faerie fire different...?
Its intent is obvious, you even point that out in #21.
Its different because while your location may not be compromised, the location of items you wear or carry is, and since they share your space, it'd be evident to locate.
I don't know the intent of the spell, nor was it ever clarrified on Sage Advice Compendium or Twitter by a Dev. Is the ommission deliberate or not, who knows, what i said was that it's simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried than how its currently written.
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.
Yet DMs adjudicate it that way all the time...
So then why is faerie fire different...?
Its intent is obvious, you even point that out in #21.
Its different because while your location may not be compromised, the location of items you wear or carry is, and since they share your space, it'd be evident to locate.
I don't know the intent of the spell, nor was it ever clarrified on Sage Advice Compendium or Twitter by a Dev. Is the ommission deliberate or not, who knows, what i said was that it's simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried than how its currently written.
Wait. You are saying that since the hiding rules don't mention worn/carried items, they're included. BUT, since faerie fire doesn't mention worn/carried items, they aren't? No. That is terribly inconsistent.
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.
Yet DMs adjudicate it that way all the time...
So then why is faerie fire different...?
Its intent is obvious, you even point that out in #21.
Its different because while your location may not be compromised, the location of items you wear or carry is, and since they share your space, it'd be evident to locate.
I don't know the intent of the spell, nor was it ever clarrified on Sage Advice Compendium or Twitter by a Dev. Is the ommission deliberate or not, who knows, what i said was that it's simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried than how its currently written.
Wait. You are saying that since the hiding rules don't mention worn/carried items, they're included. BUT, since faerie fire doesn't mention worn/carried items, they aren't? No. That is terribly inconsistent.
Actually, I don't believe this is inconsistent. Taking the hide naturally requires you to also hide your equipment. If you don't, you're not hiding. So hiding must therefore hide the objects on your person. Faerie fire has the virtue of being a spell, which has no real analog. So it not mentioning worn/carried items is a validly more contentious point.
No inconcistencies, one is inclusion, the other non-exclusion. The way it's written Faerie Fire specifically target any objects in an area of effect, despite wether they're worn/carried or not. Ruling this way would reveal objects originally invisible/hidden with a creature.
@armando_doval When the rules for making an attack or casting a spell talk about targeting an object, is it implied that it's an unattended object, or it possible to target someone's armor/shield directly with an attack in an attempt to damage/break it?
@JeremyECrawford If a game effect lets you target an object, the text of that effect tells you if worn/carried objects are prohibited. The rules don't assume that "object" means "object not currently worn or carried by anyone."
"Failing the save is functionally the same as making it, yes that's right, no inconsistencies."
No it's not the same. Falling the save means you are not invisible anymore, while succeeding it let you remain.
The only thing that change is your stuff will indirectly betray your location that's all, otherwise you still benefit from the invisible condition as i described in post #5.
"Failing the save is functionally the same as making it, yes that's right, no inconsistencies."
No it's not the same. Falling the save means you are not invisible anymore, while succeeding it let you remain.
The only thing that change is your stuff will indirectly betray your location that's all, otherwise you still benefit from the invisible condition as i described in post #5.
A creature's position is generally known anyway, unless it is hiding.
Just a couple of sentences in the unseen attackers section to point out:
"When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
"If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
I hope statements that the rules make aren't in disputed territory.
But then, I guess you are right, your location is known if you are *just* invisible. Whether or not you fail the save of faerie fire. So saying that faerie fire reveals your location is saying nothing new.
"Failing the save is functionally the same as making it, yes that's right, no inconsistencies."
No it's not the same. Falling the save means you are not invisible anymore, while succeeding it let you remain.
The only thing that change is your stuff will indirectly betray your location that's all, otherwise you still benefit from the invisible condition as i described in post #5.
Would you require the "invisible" creature (but with all visible equipment being worn, carried, wielded, etc.) to be attacked with Disadvantage, because of the Unseen Attacker rule?
Would you make the same ruling if "all visible equipment being worn, carried, wielded, etc." included a set of full plate, with visor down, or a full robe and cloak with pulled down hood?
Would you also require a fully "visible" (as in "not under the invisible condition"), with the same equipment as (2) above, to be attacked with Disadvantage, because of the Unseen Attacker rule?
What difference, from the point of view of the attacker, is there between situations (2) and (3)? They both see, basically, an animated set of equipment, and infer the presence of a creature under it. If invisibility's protection to attacks comes from the attacker not being able to see the target, and not from some unspecified magical effect causing Disadvantage, why is there a difference between situations (2) and (3)?
Yes, you still benefit from the invisible condition. We can't see you despite seeing your gear.
Yes since you are still impossible to see and thus subject to Unseen Attacks and Targets rules etc..
No since the Unseen Attacks & Targets and or the invisible condition would not apply.
The difference is that the objects can be seen and targeted normally now being seen (as opposed to you) and if your location was not known, it indirectly reveals it along the way. But for you as an invisible or hidden creature, it would not change anything regarding Unseen Attackers and Targets. Except, like i said, for location determination. (i include invisible for DMs that rule an invisible creature's location is unknown even if not hidden, since some are)
Yes, you still benefit from the invisible condition. We can't see you despite seeing your gear.
Yes since you are still impossible to see and thus subject to Unseen Attacks and Targets rules etc..
Yes you still can't be seen even if your gears are themselves visible.
The difference is that the objects can be seen and targeted normally now being seen (as opposed to you) and if your location was not known, it indirectly reveals it along the way. But for you as an invisible or hidden creature, it would not change anything regarding Unseen Attackers and Targets. Except, like i said, for location determination. (i include invisible for DMs that rule an invisible creature's location is unknown even if not hidden, since some are)
I'm not sure you read my 3rd point properly. The 3rd point mentions a non-invisible creature fully covered in visible, but opaque, equipment, such that you can't actually see the creature, since it's covered from head to toe in gear. An example would be a regular Fighter in full plate armor, with visor down, or a regular Rogue, in full leather clothes and a cloak with the hood pulled down. You seem to be agreeing that such creatures should always be attacked at Disadvantage, because you can't literally see them.
If that is, indeed, your position, then I'm done, since you've painted yourself into a logical corner, proposing a ruleset where creatures are somehow harder to hit when they're not showing any skin.
I'm not sure you read my 3rd point properly. The 3rd point mentions a non-invisible creature fully covered in visible, but opaque, equipment, such that you can't actually see the creature, since it's covered from head to toe in gear. An example would be a regular Fighter in full plate armor, with visor down, or a regular Rogue, in full leather clothes and a cloak with the hood pulled down. You seem to be agreeing that such creatures should always be attacked at Disadvantage, because you can't literally see them.
If that is, indeed, your position, then I'm done, since you've painted yourself into a logical corner, proposing a ruleset where creatures are somehow harder to hit when they're not showing any skin.
Sorry misunderstood #3 and changed it to "No since the Unseen Attacks & Targets and or the invisible condition would not apply."
The distinction to remember is that attacks, spells and effects target creatures, objects or area of effects. Only the objects in #1 -2 are affected, not the creature.
Now if you are trying to bring a corner case scenario where a invisible creature completely clad by visible clothing or amor would give weird result yes it would, since there would be a distinction between your gear and yourself as a result of the spell effect.
I'm not sure you read my 3rd point properly. The 3rd point mentions a non-invisible creature fully covered in visible, but opaque, equipment, such that you can't actually see the creature, since it's covered from head to toe in gear. An example would be a regular Fighter in full plate armor, with visor down, or a regular Rogue, in full leather clothes and a cloak with the hood pulled down. You seem to be agreeing that such creatures should always be attacked at Disadvantage, because you can't literally see them.
If that is, indeed, your position, then I'm done, since you've painted yourself into a logical corner, proposing a ruleset where creatures are somehow harder to hit when they're not showing any skin.
Sorry misunderstood #3 and changed it to "No since the Unseen Attacks & Targets and or the invisible condition would not apply."
The distinction to remember is that attacks, spells and effects target creatures, objects or area of effects. Only the objects in #1 -2 are affected, not the creature.
Now if you are trying to bring a corner case scenario where a invisible creature completely clad by visible clothing or amor would give weird result yes it would, since there would be a distinction between your gear and yourself as a result of the spell effect.
That is not such a corner case. It's barely an edge case. Many Fighters and Paladins fight in full plate armor, and would naturally have their visors down. Many Rogues are covered from head to toe in their clothes and hood, with maybe their hands showing (for delicate work), but I'm assuming you wouldn't give them the benefit of invisibility if only their hands were to fade. It'd be quite absurd to treat a creature as invisible just because you couldn't see their hands, and maybe their ankles. It's still a stretch to treat them so if you can't see their face. A stereotypical "Amazon" type, clad in just a small, revealing "armor" bikini... I could see treating as invisible if they were invisible but all their gear was visible. But a standard adventurer, with all the gear they wear (clothes, armor, backpack, etc.)? How do you justify treating them as invisible, when you can very obviously see all but the color of their skin?
Edited to add:
The point being: invisibility's protection is not intrinsic, but extrinsic. It depends on the ability of an attacker to see the target. If you can't tell whether your target is invisible or not, why would that affect your ability to hit them, or your ability to defend against their attacks?
I could see an argument for a creature with invisible arms being able to attack, unarmed, with Advantage, since their targets can't see where their arms are, and so would be unable to properly defend against them. But If I see an animated set of full clothing, there's nothing stopping me from "attacking" the clothes, treating them as a creature, with, naturally, the same AC as the actual creature under them (same ability to move, same actual armor), and therefore functionally ignoring the invisible condition, since the fact that I can't literally see my target is inconsequential.
I don't justify anything, i'm merely explaining the result effect at face value. As i said earlier, it's far simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried.
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?
It'll be exactly as invisible as it would be while carrying any other invisible light source, e.g. an invisible person carrying a torch. What you're after is a rule for that, and so far as I know, there's no special handling of it in the rules, so invisible objects still emit light.
I think others in this thread have covered it, but just to be explicit, normally spells can't affect an attended object unless the attender fails their save, so it's an intrinsically reasonable homebrew to apply that logic to this spell, despite it not being RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Even if the spell doesn't specifically say so it's far simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried though.
Yea I have to think that even though it haven't received an errata it is an mistake the way it is written.
So then why is faerie fire different...?
Its intent is obvious, you even point that out in #21.
Its different because while your location may not be compromised, the location of items you wear or carry is, and since they share your space, it'd be evident to locate.
I don't know the intent of the spell, nor was it ever clarrified on Sage Advice Compendium or Twitter by a Dev. Is the ommission deliberate or not, who knows, what i said was that it's simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried than how its currently written.
Wait. You are saying that since the hiding rules don't mention worn/carried items, they're included. BUT, since faerie fire doesn't mention worn/carried items, they aren't? No. That is terribly inconsistent.
Actually, I don't believe this is inconsistent. Taking the hide naturally requires you to also hide your equipment. If you don't, you're not hiding. So hiding must therefore hide the objects on your person. Faerie fire has the virtue of being a spell, which has no real analog. So it not mentioning worn/carried items is a validly more contentious point.
No inconcistencies, one is inclusion, the other non-exclusion. The way it's written Faerie Fire specifically target any objects in an area of effect, despite wether they're worn/carried or not. Ruling this way would reveal objects originally invisible/hidden with a creature.
The Devs has said before that game effect letting you target objects target any objects unless noted otherwise. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/958122401258074112?s=20&t=HSYQJxJZ1Sh7NDIkHLhUSA
"Failing the save is functionally the same as making it, yes that's right, no inconsistencies."
Whatever. That is a bad ruling, and I think you know it.
No it's not the same. Falling the save means you are not invisible anymore, while succeeding it let you remain.
The only thing that change is your stuff will indirectly betray your location that's all, otherwise you still benefit from the invisible condition as i described in post #5.
A creature's position is generally known anyway, unless it is hiding.
Please don't go there, we risk entering a different disputed territory loll
Just a couple of sentences in the unseen attackers section to point out:
I hope statements that the rules make aren't in disputed territory.
But then, I guess you are right, your location is known if you are *just* invisible. Whether or not you fail the save of faerie fire. So saying that faerie fire reveals your location is saying nothing new.
I'm not sure you read my 3rd point properly. The 3rd point mentions a non-invisible creature fully covered in visible, but opaque, equipment, such that you can't actually see the creature, since it's covered from head to toe in gear. An example would be a regular Fighter in full plate armor, with visor down, or a regular Rogue, in full leather clothes and a cloak with the hood pulled down. You seem to be agreeing that such creatures should always be attacked at Disadvantage, because you can't literally see them.
If that is, indeed, your position, then I'm done, since you've painted yourself into a logical corner, proposing a ruleset where creatures are somehow harder to hit when they're not showing any skin.
Sorry misunderstood #3 and changed it to "No since the Unseen Attacks & Targets and or the invisible condition would not apply."
The distinction to remember is that attacks, spells and effects target creatures, objects or area of effects. Only the objects in #1 -2 are affected, not the creature.
Now if you are trying to bring a corner case scenario where a invisible creature completely clad by visible clothing or amor would give weird result yes it would, since there would be a distinction between your gear and yourself as a result of the spell effect.
That is not such a corner case. It's barely an edge case. Many Fighters and Paladins fight in full plate armor, and would naturally have their visors down. Many Rogues are covered from head to toe in their clothes and hood, with maybe their hands showing (for delicate work), but I'm assuming you wouldn't give them the benefit of invisibility if only their hands were to fade. It'd be quite absurd to treat a creature as invisible just because you couldn't see their hands, and maybe their ankles. It's still a stretch to treat them so if you can't see their face. A stereotypical "Amazon" type, clad in just a small, revealing "armor" bikini... I could see treating as invisible if they were invisible but all their gear was visible. But a standard adventurer, with all the gear they wear (clothes, armor, backpack, etc.)? How do you justify treating them as invisible, when you can very obviously see all but the color of their skin?
Edited to add:
The point being: invisibility's protection is not intrinsic, but extrinsic. It depends on the ability of an attacker to see the target. If you can't tell whether your target is invisible or not, why would that affect your ability to hit them, or your ability to defend against their attacks?
I could see an argument for a creature with invisible arms being able to attack, unarmed, with Advantage, since their targets can't see where their arms are, and so would be unable to properly defend against them. But If I see an animated set of full clothing, there's nothing stopping me from "attacking" the clothes, treating them as a creature, with, naturally, the same AC as the actual creature under them (same ability to move, same actual armor), and therefore functionally ignoring the invisible condition, since the fact that I can't literally see my target is inconsequential.
I don't justify anything, i'm merely explaining the result effect at face value. As i said earlier, it's far simpler to have Faerie Fire not affect objects worn or carried.
It'll be exactly as invisible as it would be while carrying any other invisible light source, e.g. an invisible person carrying a torch. What you're after is a rule for that, and so far as I know, there's no special handling of it in the rules, so invisible objects still emit light.
I think others in this thread have covered it, but just to be explicit, normally spells can't affect an attended object unless the attender fails their save, so it's an intrinsically reasonable homebrew to apply that logic to this spell, despite it not being RAW.