Reading the description of the Disguise Self spell has brought me to an interesting way you could hypothetically use it, and I want to know if you could in fact use it in this manner.
The description for Disguise Self is: "You make yourself, including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person, look different until the spell ends or until you use your action to dismiss it. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between. You can't change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs. Otherwise, the extent of the illusion is up to you.
The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection. For example, if you use this spell to add a hat to your outfit, objects pass through the hat, and anyone who touches it would feel nothing or would feel your head and hair. If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into you while it was seemingly still in midair."
This means that hypothetically you could use Disguise Self also as a bootleg invisibility by making an illusion of your body so thin it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye while still following the written rule of the spell being that you can't change body type, though someone could bump into you as if you had your normal body proportions.
This could also mean if you used disguise self before a fight in this manner you could remain hidden for what, 600 rounds? because it also says that you will look different until the spell ends or until you dismiss it by using another action and why would you do that? So even if you made a weapon attack that would normally reveal your position well now you're technically invisible to anyone that uses normal sight or dark vision so they would have to roll with disadvantage to attack you with the exceptions of blindsight, tremor sense, and true sight since they would be able to detect you in one way or another. I also suppose they could roll a perception check to try to find your location.
Is this correct or am I overthinking things?
The scenario I've come up with is this:
Say you don't do this, and you're hidden in a tree on a battlefield with a sniper rifle, musket, bow, etc. You make your attack, and now the enemies have heard/seen where the bullet/arrow/spell/etc. has come from. They approach your tree and then look up, seeing you sitting on one of the limbs. of course you aren't hidden anymore
Now, say you do the same thing but with your improv invisibility, the enemies rush to the tree where they heard the shot ring out from and look up and alas, no one is there. They could use a perception check to try and find you in the tree or maybe they could fire blindly into the tree, rolling with disadvantage, but as long as they didn't pass the perception check or hit you you would still be invisible and they still would not know your exact location, meaning if you really really wanted to you could also just move to a different location and repeat the same process while maintaining your endless advantage over enemies.
It is true that the spell Disguise Self does last an hour and does not require concentration.
However, your argument about using it to make your body ". . . so thin it wouldn't be visible . . ." has a few issues. First is that being Invisible is a condition, one that Disguise Self does not grant. Second, the spell says you can appear thin, not one dimensional. D&D 5e uses idiomatic English as much as possible in its rules, and only defines terms when using a word or phrase to mean something different than in normal English. This does make for a lot of ambiguity in the rules at times, but how often do you encounter people so thin they are difficult to see? The third and final issue is simply that even if you make a compelling argument for your position being RAW you are unlikely to find a DM that would actually run it that way at their table.
I see, thank you for answering, I can sometimes imagine some pretty extreme scenarios, and dnd's cryptic wording confuses me more often than not. I suppose another reason would be at the end of the explanation for Disguise Self: "...Otherwise, the extent of this illusion is up to you" meaning that you should be able to go to any extreme you want as long as the requirement of "... Adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs." had been met.
I can understand that, yeah, but you have to admit, having the spell itself say that "As long as you follow this one condition the spell can be as extreme as you want it to, as long as the DM permits it." could cause heaps of confusion.
It's not "confusion", imo. The spell is literally called "Disguise Self". Ergo its intent is demonstrably to make you look like a different person, not attempt to use it as concentration free invisibility. Most complaints I see about the natural language being "confusing" come when people are trying to seriously twist or stretch a spell to get a more powerful effect from it.
Ok, now I see where you're coming from, but yeah doing what I said would also technically be disguising yourself but nah now I have no doubts, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Once I think of something it becomes hard for me to pull back out and read it at face value.
D&D has rules for visibility and invisibility. It has rules for size. These two sets of rules have no intersection. It doesn't matter how small something is -- anyone with sight can see it, unless it's invisible.
This is a genre where molecules and atoms aren't a concept. The smallest thing is, like, a bug. And for combat purposes, you can always see a bug I guess.
Now, say you do the same thing but with your improv invisibility, the enemies rush to the tree where they heard the shot ring out from and look up and alas, no one is there. They could use a perception check to try and find you in the tree or maybe they could fire blindly into the tree, rolling with disadvantage, but as long as they didn't pass the perception check or hit you you would still be invisible and they still would not know your exact location, meaning if you really really wanted to you could also just move to a different location and repeat the same process while maintaining your endless advantage over enemies.
Nope. When the invisible creature in the tree makes an attack it gives away its position.
"If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
Once a creature's location is known, it has to take the hide action to make its location unknown again.
"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."
If the creature can't be seen (because it is invisible or behind cover) it is eligible to take the hide action. If it succeeds then its location may become unknown. i.e. The creature can move without alerting the observer to the new location it occupies and attackers will have to guess where it is. Of course, if the creature hasn't moved, it will still be where it was but the observer doesn't know that for sure.
"This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."
The stealth check when a creature can't be seen is to see if its efforts to also move quietly enough not to be noticed were also successful.
So, in your example of an invisible attacker in a tree. When they take a shot they reveal their location. The creatures run over to the tree and they know where the creature is, perhaps they can see the bend in the branches, the leaves that are being affected by the invisible creature, the different sounds that are being made by the creature in the tree. They still can't see the creature so their attacks will have disadvantage but they do not need to try to guess the location or even if the creature is still in the tree unless the invisible creature succeeds on a hide check or the DM rules they are automatically hidden.
How can a DM rule a creature is automatically hidden? Hidden is defined as both unseen and unheard. If a creature is invisible, not leaving tracks, and not making sufficient noise to be heard over whatever ambient sound is in the area then the DM could decide the creature is automatically unseen and unheard and thus hidden. However, the DM should inform the characters when they are making such a ruling and under similar circumstances the PCs might be able to take advantage of such rulings as well.
One good example of a creature that I might let hide automatically is he invisible stalker. It is invisible, it flies and likely doesn't make much noise except a wind or breeze that might or might not be noticeable depending on the ambient sound. Near a waterfall, it would never be noticed. In a silent dungeon then the noise of a faint breeze is likely enough to let a PC know where the creature is.
ok i need the think tank on this one, now think Gilly suit technique. it disguises you and obscures you. the spell says you can make you look like anything roughly you shaped. what about a tree or bush? how about make me look like snow when im in a snow filled mountain? can i use disguise self as a cheap light or heavy obscurity camo? or get advantage on stealth rolls using it?
RAW, spells do what they say they do and nothing more. The spell does not say it affects Stealth rolls, so it’s up to your DM if you can change your appearance to something that then lets you roll Stealth with advantage. Gaining the benefit of being obscured as the term is used in 5e mechanics is simply beyond the scope of the effect, however.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reading the description of the Disguise Self spell has brought me to an interesting way you could hypothetically use it, and I want to know if you could in fact use it in this manner.
The description for Disguise Self is: "You make yourself, including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person, look different until the spell ends or until you use your action to dismiss it. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between. You can't change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs. Otherwise, the extent of the illusion is up to you.
The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection. For example, if you use this spell to add a hat to your outfit, objects pass through the hat, and anyone who touches it would feel nothing or would feel your head and hair. If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into you while it was seemingly still in midair."
This means that hypothetically you could use Disguise Self also as a bootleg invisibility by making an illusion of your body so thin it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye while still following the written rule of the spell being that you can't change body type, though someone could bump into you as if you had your normal body proportions.
This could also mean if you used disguise self before a fight in this manner you could remain hidden for what, 600 rounds? because it also says that you will look different until the spell ends or until you dismiss it by using another action and why would you do that? So even if you made a weapon attack that would normally reveal your position well now you're technically invisible to anyone that uses normal sight or dark vision so they would have to roll with disadvantage to attack you with the exceptions of blindsight, tremor sense, and true sight since they would be able to detect you in one way or another. I also suppose they could roll a perception check to try to find your location.
Is this correct or am I overthinking things?
The scenario I've come up with is this:
Say you don't do this, and you're hidden in a tree on a battlefield with a sniper rifle, musket, bow, etc. You make your attack, and now the enemies have heard/seen where the bullet/arrow/spell/etc. has come from. They approach your tree and then look up, seeing you sitting on one of the limbs. of course you aren't hidden anymore
Now, say you do the same thing but with your improv invisibility, the enemies rush to the tree where they heard the shot ring out from and look up and alas, no one is there. They could use a perception check to try and find you in the tree or maybe they could fire blindly into the tree, rolling with disadvantage, but as long as they didn't pass the perception check or hit you you would still be invisible and they still would not know your exact location, meaning if you really really wanted to you could also just move to a different location and repeat the same process while maintaining your endless advantage over enemies.
I think your over thinking things.
Maybe, but I can't find anything going against it so I think it is still possible as long as your DM would allow it.
It is true that the spell Disguise Self does last an hour and does not require concentration.
However, your argument about using it to make your body ". . . so thin it wouldn't be visible . . ." has a few issues. First is that being Invisible is a condition, one that Disguise Self does not grant. Second, the spell says you can appear thin, not one dimensional. D&D 5e uses idiomatic English as much as possible in its rules, and only defines terms when using a word or phrase to mean something different than in normal English. This does make for a lot of ambiguity in the rules at times, but how often do you encounter people so thin they are difficult to see? The third and final issue is simply that even if you make a compelling argument for your position being RAW you are unlikely to find a DM that would actually run it that way at their table.
I see, thank you for answering, I can sometimes imagine some pretty extreme scenarios, and dnd's cryptic wording confuses me more often than not. I suppose another reason would be at the end of the explanation for Disguise Self: "...Otherwise, the extent of this illusion is up to you" meaning that you should be able to go to any extreme you want as long as the requirement of "... Adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs." had been met.
Sometimes I wish DND wasn't worded so poorly.
It's not worded poorly, it just expects the DM to use common sense when adjudicating the effects of a spell.
I can understand that, yeah, but you have to admit, having the spell itself say that "As long as you follow this one condition the spell can be as extreme as you want it to, as long as the DM permits it." could cause heaps of confusion.
It's not "confusion", imo. The spell is literally called "Disguise Self". Ergo its intent is demonstrably to make you look like a different person, not attempt to use it as concentration free invisibility. Most complaints I see about the natural language being "confusing" come when people are trying to seriously twist or stretch a spell to get a more powerful effect from it.
Ok, now I see where you're coming from, but yeah doing what I said would also technically be disguising yourself but nah now I have no doubts, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Once I think of something it becomes hard for me to pull back out and read it at face value.
D&D has rules for visibility and invisibility. It has rules for size. These two sets of rules have no intersection. It doesn't matter how small something is -- anyone with sight can see it, unless it's invisible.
This is a genre where molecules and atoms aren't a concept. The smallest thing is, like, a bug. And for combat purposes, you can always see a bug I guess.
Nope. When the invisible creature in the tree makes an attack it gives away its position.
"If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
Once a creature's location is known, it has to take the hide action to make its location unknown again.
"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."
If the creature can't be seen (because it is invisible or behind cover) it is eligible to take the hide action. If it succeeds then its location may become unknown. i.e. The creature can move without alerting the observer to the new location it occupies and attackers will have to guess where it is. Of course, if the creature hasn't moved, it will still be where it was but the observer doesn't know that for sure.
"This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."
The stealth check when a creature can't be seen is to see if its efforts to also move quietly enough not to be noticed were also successful.
So, in your example of an invisible attacker in a tree. When they take a shot they reveal their location. The creatures run over to the tree and they know where the creature is, perhaps they can see the bend in the branches, the leaves that are being affected by the invisible creature, the different sounds that are being made by the creature in the tree. They still can't see the creature so their attacks will have disadvantage but they do not need to try to guess the location or even if the creature is still in the tree unless the invisible creature succeeds on a hide check or the DM rules they are automatically hidden.
How can a DM rule a creature is automatically hidden? Hidden is defined as both unseen and unheard. If a creature is invisible, not leaving tracks, and not making sufficient noise to be heard over whatever ambient sound is in the area then the DM could decide the creature is automatically unseen and unheard and thus hidden. However, the DM should inform the characters when they are making such a ruling and under similar circumstances the PCs might be able to take advantage of such rulings as well.
One good example of a creature that I might let hide automatically is he invisible stalker. It is invisible, it flies and likely doesn't make much noise except a wind or breeze that might or might not be noticeable depending on the ambient sound. Near a waterfall, it would never be noticed. In a silent dungeon then the noise of a faint breeze is likely enough to let a PC know where the creature is.
ok i need the think tank on this one, now think Gilly suit technique. it disguises you and obscures you. the spell says you can make you look like anything roughly you shaped. what about a tree or bush? how about make me look like snow when im in a snow filled mountain? can i use disguise self as a cheap light or heavy obscurity camo? or get advantage on stealth rolls using it?
RAW, spells do what they say they do and nothing more. The spell does not say it affects Stealth rolls, so it’s up to your DM if you can change your appearance to something that then lets you roll Stealth with advantage. Gaining the benefit of being obscured as the term is used in 5e mechanics is simply beyond the scope of the effect, however.