So I have been reading, so an invisible creature doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for you can't see it(Players Hand book). So is that just the flat out rules, cause I have been reading through lots of stuff over the past few days. But I have been confused in older forums folks agree that they don't, but then get into stuff about knowing the location of such creatures through other means by foot prints, sound etc , so is it just flat out invisible creatures don't provoke opportunity attacks or would one be able to do so by other means. In my understanding one wouldnt be able to do so, for if your looking for foot prints or sound, you would be preoccupied with that, and wouldn't be able to react fast enough.
Opportunity attacks are triggered by a creature you can see leaving your reach. A creature who is invisible can't be seen so they don't trigger opportunity attacks.
That is the entire rules answer to your question :)
----
However, the discussion you were reading was likely related to a creature being Hidden. A creature who is invisible is not necessarily hidden though being invisible does allow them to make a hide check. Without making a hide check, a creature may be invisible but you generally know where it is (the location it is in) via hearing it, or seeing footprints, or its effect on the environment (moving branches, affecting airborne particles like smoke ...). This has an impact on making attacks and deciding where to make them.
Folks like to argue the "realism" of being able to know where something is only by sound or traces it leaves in the environment. Which leads to lots of house rules.Discussion over what is hidden or not and whether things can be hidden without making hide checks. It's an argument that isn't worth getting into here but I was hoping it might clarify the rest of your comments.
Been doing a bit more thinking, how would you decide whether one could make an opportunity attack against and invisible target if they are attempting to watch the movement of tracks, or sounds. I would say depending on the ground one could track feet to indentify it leaving, but you would have to be paying attention to it's tracks, would distract you from combat, so you wouldn't be able to react fast enough. And sound one wouldnt be able to identify what direction it's fleeing or simple shifting it's stance. How would you rule such things, would you make them do a check each time, or what would you do in such a case. I hope my question makes sense
RAW, any effect that needs sight needs sight. I would allow some other sense to stand in (blindsight, truesight, tremorsense), but there are plenty of effects that require line of sight and I'm not comfortable commenting on how to break those.
Been doing a bit more thinking, how would you decide whether one could make an opportunity attack against and invisible target if they are attempting to watch the movement of tracks, or sounds. I would say depending on the ground one could track feet to indentify it leaving, but you would have to be paying attention to it's tracks, would distract you from combat, so you wouldn't be able to react fast enough. And sound one wouldnt be able to identify what direction it's fleeing or simple shifting it's stance. How would you rule such things, would you make them do a check each time, or what would you do in such a case. I hope my question makes sense
Rules as Written. If you can't see the creature itself, you can't take an opportunity attack at all. No other way of knowing a creature is present or where they are matters at all for opportunity attacks. If you can't see them, then NO opportunity attacks :)
-------
Seeing the tracks it leaves, hearing the sounds it makes or anything else, will not trigger an opportunity attack against an invisible creature.
A DM is free to use house rules that are different but if you are talking about the rules as written then an opportunity attack requires you to see the creature.
--------
This leaves a few cases where a DM needs to rule on how they want to run it since the rules aren't comprehensive.
1) See invisibility spell. This says that the affected creature sees invisible creatures as if they were visible. So I would say that opportunity attacks would be allowed.
2) Blindsight, tremor sense and other forms of "seeing". This is a bit more of a gray area since some of these don't actually say you can see.
Blindsight: "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius."
Tremorsense: "A monster with tremorsense can detect and pinpoint the origin of vibrations within a specific radius, provided that the monster and the source of the vibrations are in contact with the same ground or substance."
Neither of these says that the creature "sees" the target but personally I would rule that creatures with blindsight or tremorsense could both take opportunity attacks but some DMs might disagree.
3) Faerie Fire is another case that DMs might rule differently.
"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."
This sentence can be a bit confusing - first it says that you get advantage against a creature affected by faerie fire if you can see it. Presumably, this means that you would not get advantage if you can't see it.The spell also outlines creatures with light whether they are invisible or not but it does not say explicitly that it negates the invisible condition.
However, it then goes on to say that the creature can't benefit from being invisible but the spell does not say it makes invisible creatures visible - it just outlines them so they are still invisible but they can't "benefit from being invisible". Deciding what "can't benefit from being invisible" in the context of a the sentence that says you get advantage if you can see them is up to the DM.
I would tend to give precedence to the "affected creature can't benefit from being invisible" meaning it is "effectively" seen, you would have advantage to hit it unless something other than its invisibility means you could not see it (eg fog cloud, or being blinded). I would also rule that a creature affected by faerie fire would be subject to opportunity attacks with similar reasoning.
The requirement to see the target applies to op attacks but not regular attacks. This is where trying to track the creature by othermeans can be useful. If you want to shoot a an invisible creature with your bow you can do so (at disadvantage) but if you have no dea where it is you are likely to fire in completely the wrong place. (Different DMs handle this in different ways, for example they may ask for a perrception roll to see if you know the location, or possible the approximate location and if you are usng a map might ask you to pick a square you are targetting)
Strangely attacks made against an invisible creature are made at disadvantage (and attacks made by invisible creatures are at advantage) even if their enemy can see them with something like blindsight.
More consideration has led me to wonder how one would determine whether or not it would be possible to launch an opportunity attack on an invisible target while monitoring the motion of tracks or noises. Depending on the terrain, it would be possible to trace its footsteps and determine when it departed; but, doing so would take your focus away from the fight and slow your response time.
More consideration has led me to wonder how one would determine whether or not it would be possible to launch an opportunity attack on an invisible target while monitoring the motion of tracks or noises. Depending on the terrain, it would be possible to trace its footsteps and determine when it departed; but, doing so would take your focus away from the fight and slow your response time.
What you describe is specifically covered in the invisible condition when saying the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
To me this alone shouldn't make such creature considered as if it was seen for the purposes of meeting requirement for some spell targeting or OA provoking.
In my opinion you may not be able to target an invisible creature with a spell, but you can cast an area effect spell. Fireball does not need a target. You may simply just cast it as you will. The same applies for a sword, or an arrow ect. You may simply fire an arrow or swing a sword as you will. Invisibility is said to be the most controversial spell in D and D.
In my opinion you may not be able to target an invisible creature with a spell, but you can cast an area effect spell. Fireball does not need a target. You may simply just cast it as you will. The same applies for a sword, or an arrow ect. You may simply fire an arrow or swing a sword as you will. Invisibility is said to be the most controversial spell in D and D.
It's like @Plaguescarred said.
@Kurus in case you're interested, there are at least a couple of very good threads here speaking about casting and targeting creatures:
So I have been reading, so an invisible creature doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for you can't see it(Players Hand book). So is that just the flat out rules, cause I have been reading through lots of stuff over the past few days. But I have been confused in older forums folks agree that they don't, but then get into stuff about knowing the location of such creatures through other means by foot prints, sound etc , so is it just flat out invisible creatures don't provoke opportunity attacks or would one be able to do so by other means. In my understanding one wouldnt be able to do so, for if your looking for foot prints or sound, you would be preoccupied with that, and wouldn't be able to react fast enough.
You can make an opportunity attack only against creatures that you can see.
Opportunity attacks are triggered by a creature you can see leaving your reach. A creature who is invisible can't be seen so they don't trigger opportunity attacks.
That is the entire rules answer to your question :)
----
However, the discussion you were reading was likely related to a creature being Hidden. A creature who is invisible is not necessarily hidden though being invisible does allow them to make a hide check. Without making a hide check, a creature may be invisible but you generally know where it is (the location it is in) via hearing it, or seeing footprints, or its effect on the environment (moving branches, affecting airborne particles like smoke ...). This has an impact on making attacks and deciding where to make them.
Folks like to argue the "realism" of being able to know where something is only by sound or traces it leaves in the environment. Which leads to lots of house rules.Discussion over what is hidden or not and whether things can be hidden without making hide checks. It's an argument that isn't worth getting into here but I was hoping it might clarify the rest of your comments.
I thank you for the clarification, and indeed that does make sense.
Been doing a bit more thinking, how would you decide whether one could make an opportunity attack against and invisible target if they are attempting to watch the movement of tracks, or sounds. I would say depending on the ground one could track feet to indentify it leaving, but you would have to be paying attention to it's tracks, would distract you from combat, so you wouldn't be able to react fast enough. And sound one wouldnt be able to identify what direction it's fleeing or simple shifting it's stance. How would you rule such things, would you make them do a check each time, or what would you do in such a case. I hope my question makes sense
RAW, any effect that needs sight needs sight. I would allow some other sense to stand in (blindsight, truesight, tremorsense), but there are plenty of effects that require line of sight and I'm not comfortable commenting on how to break those.
So what your saying is, it would be best to leave it as if the creature is invisible, no opportunity attacks period. Endless they can see invisibility
That's how I'd rule, to prevent all sorts of shenaniganary around spells that also require sight.
I would say that sounds like a fair ruling to me
If your tracking an invisible creature by their tracks whats to say they could not attack you first?
Or they climbed that tree next to the tracks.
Rules as Written. If you can't see the creature itself, you can't take an opportunity attack at all. No other way of knowing a creature is present or where they are matters at all for opportunity attacks. If you can't see them, then NO opportunity attacks :)
-------
Seeing the tracks it leaves, hearing the sounds it makes or anything else, will not trigger an opportunity attack against an invisible creature.
A DM is free to use house rules that are different but if you are talking about the rules as written then an opportunity attack requires you to see the creature.
--------
This leaves a few cases where a DM needs to rule on how they want to run it since the rules aren't comprehensive.
1) See invisibility spell. This says that the affected creature sees invisible creatures as if they were visible. So I would say that opportunity attacks would be allowed.
2) Blindsight, tremor sense and other forms of "seeing". This is a bit more of a gray area since some of these don't actually say you can see.
Blindsight: "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius."
Tremorsense: "A monster with tremorsense can detect and pinpoint the origin of vibrations within a specific radius, provided that the monster and the source of the vibrations are in contact with the same ground or substance."
Neither of these says that the creature "sees" the target but personally I would rule that creatures with blindsight or tremorsense could both take opportunity attacks but some DMs might disagree.
3) Faerie Fire is another case that DMs might rule differently.
"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."
This sentence can be a bit confusing - first it says that you get advantage against a creature affected by faerie fire if you can see it. Presumably, this means that you would not get advantage if you can't see it.The spell also outlines creatures with light whether they are invisible or not but it does not say explicitly that it negates the invisible condition.
However, it then goes on to say that the creature can't benefit from being invisible but the spell does not say it makes invisible creatures visible - it just outlines them so they are still invisible but they can't "benefit from being invisible". Deciding what "can't benefit from being invisible" in the context of a the sentence that says you get advantage if you can see them is up to the DM.
I would tend to give precedence to the "affected creature can't benefit from being invisible" meaning it is "effectively" seen, you would have advantage to hit it unless something other than its invisibility means you could not see it (eg fog cloud, or being blinded). I would also rule that a creature affected by faerie fire would be subject to opportunity attacks with similar reasoning.
The requirement to see the target applies to op attacks but not regular attacks. This is where trying to track the creature by othermeans can be useful. If you want to shoot a an invisible creature with your bow you can do so (at disadvantage) but if you have no dea where it is you are likely to fire in completely the wrong place. (Different DMs handle this in different ways, for example they may ask for a perrception roll to see if you know the location, or possible the approximate location and if you are usng a map might ask you to pick a square you are targetting)
Strangely attacks made against an invisible creature are made at disadvantage (and attacks made by invisible creatures are at advantage) even if their enemy can see them with something like blindsight.
More consideration has led me to wonder how one would determine whether or not it would be possible to launch an opportunity attack on an invisible target while monitoring the motion of tracks or noises. Depending on the terrain, it would be possible to trace its footsteps and determine when it departed; but, doing so would take your focus away from the fight and slow your response time.
funny shooter 2
What you describe is specifically covered in the invisible condition when saying the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
To me this alone shouldn't make such creature considered as if it was seen for the purposes of meeting requirement for some spell targeting or OA provoking.
I recently found a tweet from the Dev related to this thread. Let me add it here just for completeness:
You can make melee or ranged attacks even when blinded or otherwise unable to see.
But in such circumstances are you can't use any features normally targeting a creature/object you can see.
In my opinion you may not be able to target an invisible creature with a spell, but you can cast an area effect spell. Fireball does not need a target. You may simply just cast it as you will. The same applies for a sword, or an arrow ect. You may simply fire an arrow or swing a sword as you will. Invisibility is said to be the most controversial spell in D and D.
You can target an invisible creature with any spell that doesn't target a creature you can see.
It's like @Plaguescarred said.
@Kurus in case you're interested, there are at least a couple of very good threads here speaking about casting and targeting creatures: