A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility.
The large class of invisibility counters is to use vision blockers (for example, wall of fire for the efreeti). The rakshasa has the true seeing spell.
The "PCs are supposed to be pretty rare" argument is a cop-out, IMHO. It encourages sloppy world-building and lore-writing that has lead us, more broadly speaking, into series after series of bad Isekai anime where OP heroes always win just because they are the protagonists. Please keep that dreck (and its associated PC-centric meta-power fantasy) away from this discussion.
I don't disagree with you about it being a cop-out, but it's also the official stance of the entire edition, as I understand it. A player's Wizard isn't more capable because she's a protagonist -- she's a protagonist because she's more capable. The implication is that the collaboration between player and DM should result in a PC who is meaningfully distinct from the common novice in the shared setting -- not an average caster who inexplicably gets way more powerful than anybody else, but someone for whom it makes sense to be able to gain class levels. A genius, probably. Repeat this process for every class and don't think about it too hard, and voila, that's 5e.
I won't "keep this dreck away from this discussion," because the discussion doesn't make sense without it. You don't have to like it and you don't have to use it, but if you're coming at problems without understanding or acknowledging it, I don't see how you can make any progress. The reason monsters don't have prewritten counterplay for common PC tricks is that there's no such thing as common PC tricks, because there's no such thing as common PCs. If you want to play in a world where that's not true, well, now you know: You can just give the monsters counterplays for those tricks. There's no game reason you can't or shouldn't. Go for it.
A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility.
The large class of invisibility counters is to use vision blockers (for example, wall of fire for the efreeti). The rakshasa has the true seeing spell.
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
P.S. Also, the most basic countermeasure for invisibility is Fog Cloud.
A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility.
The large class of invisibility counters is to use vision blockers (for example, wall of fire for the efreeti). The rakshasa has the true seeing spell.
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
P.S. Also, the most basic countermeasure for invisibility is Fog Cloud.
I would have it grant advantage on checks to locate an invisible creature.
"Rare" doesn't necessarily mean "one in a million". Comparatively speaking, professional athletes are rare relative to the US population, but there's still thousands of them. A PC is objectively far more exceptional that a commoner just by virtue of their ability scores. Regarding the accessible spells, Identify is a 1st level spell. There's nothing inconsistent about there being sufficient basic practitioners in a setting that most every city has someone who can cast it. Resurrections are more of an issue, though generally the material I've seen still paints people capable of performing those as extremely rare. If they're seemingly too common in play, that's more a function of DM's preferring to bring someone's PC back rather than force them to roll a new one rather than the actual material itself being at issue. Notably, the PHB only suggests that 1st and 2nd level spells are the kind of thing you can consistently find as a basic service.
Now, what this means for play; well, for one thing there's really a very limited number of options for invisibility. Two spells, two non-scroll magic items in the basic selection- one of which is consumed on use, and a smattering of features typically with some sharp limits on application. Of those options, Greater Invisibility is the only one that comes to mind that doesn't break after an attack and then require at least another action to bring it up again. And, within the rules for 5e, during combat a creature is considered to be making enough noise to give away their general position unless they're actively hiding, so even a basic bandit is not left defenseless simply because they can't see their opponent. In short, general countermeasures don't exist because there's really not a pressing need for it combat-wise and in more general play it still comes down to Stealth vs Perception, which makes negating the invisibility advantage as easy as having a mastiff as a trained watchdog.
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
Depends how cinematic I'm feeling. Realistically speaking it pretty much just fails (invisibility affects your gear, presumably it would also affect flour stuck to you. There's going to be some visible disturbances in the air if moving rapidly but they won't do much beyond revealing location, which 5e treats as mostly automatic anyway).
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
Depends how cinematic I'm feeling. Realistically speaking it pretty much just fails (invisibility affects your gear, presumably it would also affect flour stuck to you. There's going to be some visible disturbances in the air if moving rapidly but they won't do much beyond revealing location, which 5e treats as mostly automatic anyway).
Then you would see a creature shaped hole moving through the particulates, and be able to track its footprints if it “walks.” I would still grant advantage on checks to detect and locate the invisible creature.
Then you would see a creature shaped hole moving through the particulates, and be able to track its footprints if it “walks.” I would still grant advantage on checks to detect and locate the invisible creature.
It's not going to stay suspended in the air for very long or cover much area; "I'll know if the invisible guy travels through that 5' square" is not entirely useless, but it's not very useful.
Hitting the invisible target with alchemist's fire should be pretty effective at revealing them until the fire gets extinguished.
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
I have to admit that I'm pretty surprised by the responses to this scenario so far. Maybe I'm picturing this differently. I am imagining walking straight up to an invisible creature with a large open bag of flour and forcefully dousing the flour directly onto the creature such that it is completely and totally covered by a very thick and highly visible layer of flour. In my opinion, common sense should prevail and a DM should rule that everyone can now effectively see that creature. in the case of the Invisibility spell and the bit where it says "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person" -- in my opinion this flour does not qualify. I interpret "on the target's person" to basically mean "personal property" or something small that you are intentionally carrying around in your hands, etc. Like, if an invisible creature walked over to a large table and lifted it off of the floor does that table just disappear? That's weird and again in my opinion that's another example of something that is not "on the target's person". So it takes a bit of interpretation but I think that we can get to the common sense answer if we try.
Mechanically, I don't think that we can say that the creature actually loses the Invisible condition. Instead, I think that we have to examine the description for that condition and make the necessary changes as the situation dictates. For example, here is the condition:
Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
I think that a DM should look at that description and then rule that for the purpose of hiding, the creature is no longer considered to be in a heavily obscured area by virtue of being Invisible alone while covered in the flour. The creature's location can now (also) be detected by seeing the flour. I also think that a DM should declare that the covering flour also causes attack rolls against an affected invisible creature (and only an affected invisible creature) to have advantage (which cancels out with the disadvantage due the Invisible condition) and also causes an affected invisible creature's (and only an affected invisible creature's) attack rolls to have disadvantage (which cancels out with the advantage due to the Invisible condition). Those last adjustments are a bit clumsy but it gets us to the common sense game state.
Of course, the obvious follow-up question is whether these adjustments should be made if the invisible creature just gets a little flour on its hand or its finger or something? How much of the creature needs to be covered in flour in order for it to become effectively visible mechanically? The answer, of course, is that it's the DM's call.
There are two unspoken assumptions happening in the bag of flour scenario. Let us speak them, and in speaking them, rob them of their power.
1) You can get flour all over and around someone in a combat scenario. In other words, a bag of flour has enough flour to cloud up a 5x5x5ft square, and you can get all of that flour out in a single turn, and you can direct it where you want it.
2) Flour lingers in the air for any significant period of time in a combat scenario.
Okay, so let's continue assuming these things for the sake of argument. The flour would float in the air for at least an entire turn, and the invisible person would appear as a void inside the cloud of flour. You still can't see them though. You can tell where they are, but you already knew where they are, otherwise you wouldn't have known where to throw the flour. Knowing where they are is easy unless they hide, and for most characters, becoming invisible and hiding takes 2 turns, so you probably know. But you still can't see them.
I'll remind everyone that flour is extremely cheap, carry weight is nearly meaningless, and getting an item out of your incredibly overstuffed backpack doesn't require an action. Essentially ANY creature, but especially PCs, can trivially access and maintain the power to counter any and every Invisibility spell at the cost of one action if you allow this, which raises the question: Why wouldn't the Invisibility spell simply describe this commonplace countermeasure? Minor Illusion describes its own extremely commonplace countermeasure: A creature can use an action to inspect it. The flour trick really is as ubiquitous as that, RAW. Carrying around a sack of flour is as easy as having a working sensory organ with which to inspect something. It sounds stupid but it's true.
"Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person" [...] Like, if an invisible creature walked over to a large table and lifted it off of the floor does that table just disappear? That's weird and again in my opinion that's another example of something that is not "on the target's person".
If the target is carrying it, it's invisible yes. Wearing and carrying are listed separately for a reason. If they pickpocket your wallet, the wallet becomes invisible before they put it in their own pocket. If they grab a sword from a rack, the sword becomes invisible. And if they lift up a piece of furniture, the furniture becomes invisible. I don't recommend doing this, as it makes it extremely challenging to get the table through the doorway and into your getaway vehicle. Better to Reduce the table and run.
Of course, the obvious follow-up question is whether these adjustments should be made if the invisible creature just gets a little flour on its hand or its finger or something? How much of the creature needs to be covered in flour in order for it to become effectively visible mechanically? The answer, of course, is that it's the DM's call.
In other words, a bag of flour has enough flour to cloud up a 5x5x5ft square . . .
2) Flour lingers in the air for any significant period of time in a combat scenario.
The flour would float in the air . . . and the invisible person would appear as a void inside the cloud of flour. You still can't see them though.
I guess I'm still picturing this quite differently than most of you guys. A lot of you are describing this gentle mist of dust floating around in the air and watching to see if they are disturbed. I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted the scenario but I'm thinking about it like just dumping an entire bag of flour right on top of someone's head. Think about what that looks like in real life. It's a huge mess. The person would be absolutely covered and it would take a big effort to clean it off to the point where it's not noticeable. If that person were invisible I feel like I could see them pretty clearly in that scenario.
And if they lift up a piece of furniture, the furniture becomes invisible . . . If the target is carrying it, it's invisible yes.
The Invisibility spell doesn't quite say that though. It says that "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisibleas long as it is on the target’s person." Logically, if everything that you were wearing or carrying was automatically on your person, then why would they bother to clarify that? Why wouldn't they have just said "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible"? It must be because not everything that you wear or carry should qualify as being on your person and I just tried to give some examples where we might interpret that to be the case. I think that clause is open to interpretation. But when I google the phrase the first hit describes an object "on/about your person" as being "in your pockets or attached to you" in which case both the flour and the furniture would not qualify. In the case of the flour you are not really wearing it or carrying it anyway -- it is just covering you.
Anyway, I consider this bag of flour idea to be a reasonably clever solution that should be rewarded. It's not all that different from carrying around a common mirror in case you run across a basilisk in my opinion.
The issue with dumping a bag of flour on an invisible person's head is the matter of knowing where exactly their head is. Keep in mind that for the purposes of combat you're interacting with a 5ft x 5ft square of space. Even knowing that your target is in there, you'd be hard pressed to dump a bag of flour on top of them within a 6 second window in the middle of a combat encounter.
Then you would see a creature shaped hole moving through the particulates, and be able to track its footprints if it “walks.” I would still grant advantage on checks to detect and locate the invisible creature.
It's not going to stay suspended in the air for very long or cover much area; "I'll know if the invisible guy travels through that 5' square" is not entirely useless, but it's not very useful.
Hitting the invisible target with alchemist's fire should be pretty effective at revealing them until the fire gets extinguished.
A bag of flour would disperse into a much greater area than a 5-foot cube, more like a 20-foot diameter sphere. And it’d linger for at least 2d4 rounds. Trust me, I worked in a fair number of pizza places.
A bag of flour would disperse into a much greater area than a 5-foot cube, more like a 20-foot diameter sphere. And it’d linger for at least 2d4 rounds. Trust me, I worked in a fair number of pizza places.
The quantity of flour you can practically disperse as a single action is fairly limited. Given time you can probably fill a 20' diameter sphere, but not in a single action.
The person would be absolutely covered and it would take a big effort to clean it off to the point where it's not noticeable. If that person were invisible I feel like I could see them pretty clearly in that scenario.
And if they lift up a piece of furniture, the furniture becomes invisible . . . If the target is carrying it, it's invisible yes.
The Invisibility spell doesn't quite say that though. It says that "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisibleas long as it is on the target’s person." Logically, if everything that you were wearing or carrying was automatically on your person, then why would they bother to clarify that? Why wouldn't they have just said "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible"?
Probably to make doubly clear that the duration of that conditional invisibility is different than the duration of the spell. In other words, they wanted to restate that you can't just go around picking things up, invisible-izing them, and setting them back down again until the whole room is invisible. It's a sloppy fix, but that's not uncommon in this game.
I think your interpretation of the intention of this wording also makes sense. I just don't think it's correct.
Anyway, I consider this bag of flour idea to be a reasonably clever solution that should be rewarded. It's not all that different from carrying around a common mirror in case you run across a basilisk in my opinion.
Another no-brainer move then. If a player doesn't buy a bag of flour and a mirror with their starting gold in one of your games then they're a fool. Is it really clever when it's the default for literally everyone? I'm not convinced.
That said, when I introduce an invisible monster, do I put it in a place with a kitchen and pantry? You bet.
The "PCs are supposed to be pretty rare" argument is a cop-out, IMHO. It encourages sloppy world-building and lore-writing that has lead us, more broadly speaking, into series after series of bad Isekai anime where OP heroes always win just because they are the protagonists. Please keep that dreck (and its associated PC-centric meta-power fantasy) away from this discussion.
I don't disagree with you about it being a cop-out, but it's also the official stance of the entire edition, as I understand it. A player's Wizard isn't more capable because she's a protagonist -- she's a protagonist because she's more capable. The implication is that the collaboration between player and DM should result in a PC who is meaningfully distinct from the common novice in the shared setting -- not an average caster who inexplicably gets way more powerful than anybody else, but someone for whom it makes sense to be able to gain class levels. A genius, probably. Repeat this process for every class and don't think about it too hard, and voila, that's 5e.
I won't "keep this dreck away from this discussion," because the discussion doesn't make sense without it. You don't have to like it and you don't have to use it, but if you're coming at problems without understanding or acknowledging it, I don't see how you can make any progress. The reason monsters don't have prewritten counterplay for common PC tricks is that there's no such thing as common PC tricks, because there's no such thing as common PCs. If you want to play in a world where that's not true, well, now you know: You can just give the monsters counterplays for those tricks. There's no game reason you can't or shouldn't. Go for it.
So you are arguing that the lack of monsters with anti-invisibility spells is... a design Feature. Is that correct?
Well, how does one define progress? Progress for whom? For DMs? For Hasbro? For the players who want to fight dumb monsters? For the players who want to fight smart monsters? "Progress" has always been a subjective term. It's silly to use language like that when there is no particular measurements for a goal, nor even defined goals, of which it would be difficult to get a bunch of distinct individuals on a chat board to agree upon. I make no pretense of "making progress" here beyond understanding the changes that have been effected between previous editions of this hobby and the current edition as well as the reasons for such changes.
A related issue I'm seeing is how do smart monsters deal with the PCs' invisibility? Sure, some of the higher tier creatures might have blindsight or truesight, but there are plenty of Tier 2 and 3 monsters that don't and also lack any countermeasures whatsoever. Some examples include the Efreeti, spellcasting genies with 16 INT and invisibility themselves but no counters to the PCs' invisibility.
The large class of invisibility counters is to use vision blockers (for example, wall of fire for the efreeti). The rakshasa has the true seeing spell.
Hmmm, i did overlook that in the Rakshasa spell list.
Efreeti's Wall of Fire blocks vision, sure. So do their own Invisibility spells. The issue is that they would have trouble killing invisible creatures themselves, which is an issue because other genies also have the Invisbility spell. And if you think Invisibility is trouble to deal with, add innate Fly speed to the equation. How effective is flour against a flying monster with spellcasting?
I guess we are to assume that Djinni and Efreeti are in stalemate because they are all too dumb to just find some way to learn a measly 1st level Druid spell or a 2nd level Bard spell. That's totally logical.
A bag of flour would disperse into a much greater area than a 5-foot cube, more like a 20-foot diameter sphere. And it’d linger for at least 2d4 rounds. Trust me, I worked in a fair number of pizza places.
The quantity of flour you can practically disperse as a single action is fairly limited. Given time you can probably fill a 20' diameter sphere, but not in a single action.
I call 🐂💩. You have clearly never worked with large quantities of flour. One good *poof* and half the kitchen is coated. I’m serious, one good *poof* and it’ll cloud out 10 feet in every direction and hang there for half a minute. It’s happened to me more than once pouring flour into the big ass mixing bowel at a couple of pizza parlors I used to cook at. Heck, antique the hell outta someone and it’ll go at least 5 feet in every direction and hang there for at least 10-20 seconds. Remember, it doesn’t need to “fill” the area, just make a big enough cloud to spot the conspicuously empty creature shaped hole in the cloud.
"Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisibleas long as it is on the target’s person." . . . why would they bother to clarify that?
Probably to make doubly clear that the duration of that conditional invisibility is different than the duration of the spell. In other words, they wanted to restate that you can't just go around picking things up, invisible-izing them, and setting them back down again until the whole room is invisible. It's a sloppy fix, but that's not uncommon in this game.
Aaah, very interesting, you are reading "as long as" like a duration of time. Like: Anything you are carrying continues to be invisible while it remains on your person. Wow, I didn't read "as long as" in that way at all. I was seeing it more like: Anything you are carrying is invisible if and only if it is on your person. Huh.
The "PCs are supposed to be pretty rare" argument is a cop-out, IMHO.
I don't disagree with you about it being a cop-out, but it's also the official stance of the entire edition, as I understand it.
If you're coming at problems without understanding or acknowledging it, I don't see how you can make any progress.
So you are arguing that the lack of monsters with anti-invisibility spells is... a design Feature. Is that correct?
More or less, yeah. Maybe it's an unintended byproduct of intentional choices, maybe it's an intentional choice in its own right, made to support the overall "try anything" feeling of the system. Who knows. But the result is that it empowers players more often than it empowers monsters.
Well, how does one define progress? Progress for whom?
Progress for those like yourself who don't like the way there's no Invisibility Purge or whatever. Sorry, I thought I made that clear but you know how communication can be on the internet. In fact, going back over it now, I'm not even confident saying that's your stance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The large class of invisibility counters is to use vision blockers (for example, wall of fire for the efreeti). The rakshasa has the true seeing spell.
I don't disagree with you about it being a cop-out, but it's also the official stance of the entire edition, as I understand it. A player's Wizard isn't more capable because she's a protagonist -- she's a protagonist because she's more capable. The implication is that the collaboration between player and DM should result in a PC who is meaningfully distinct from the common novice in the shared setting -- not an average caster who inexplicably gets way more powerful than anybody else, but someone for whom it makes sense to be able to gain class levels. A genius, probably. Repeat this process for every class and don't think about it too hard, and voila, that's 5e.
I won't "keep this dreck away from this discussion," because the discussion doesn't make sense without it. You don't have to like it and you don't have to use it, but if you're coming at problems without understanding or acknowledging it, I don't see how you can make any progress. The reason monsters don't have prewritten counterplay for common PC tricks is that there's no such thing as common PC tricks, because there's no such thing as common PCs. If you want to play in a world where that's not true, well, now you know: You can just give the monsters counterplays for those tricks. There's no game reason you can't or shouldn't. Go for it.
So ... just curious ... how do folks run the situation in which a PC or NPC, with a large bag of flour, breaks it open and throws it into the air in the location of an invisible creature?
P.S. Also, the most basic countermeasure for invisibility is Fog Cloud.
I would have it grant advantage on checks to locate an invisible creature.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"Rare" doesn't necessarily mean "one in a million". Comparatively speaking, professional athletes are rare relative to the US population, but there's still thousands of them. A PC is objectively far more exceptional that a commoner just by virtue of their ability scores. Regarding the accessible spells, Identify is a 1st level spell. There's nothing inconsistent about there being sufficient basic practitioners in a setting that most every city has someone who can cast it. Resurrections are more of an issue, though generally the material I've seen still paints people capable of performing those as extremely rare. If they're seemingly too common in play, that's more a function of DM's preferring to bring someone's PC back rather than force them to roll a new one rather than the actual material itself being at issue. Notably, the PHB only suggests that 1st and 2nd level spells are the kind of thing you can consistently find as a basic service.
Now, what this means for play; well, for one thing there's really a very limited number of options for invisibility. Two spells, two non-scroll magic items in the basic selection- one of which is consumed on use, and a smattering of features typically with some sharp limits on application. Of those options, Greater Invisibility is the only one that comes to mind that doesn't break after an attack and then require at least another action to bring it up again. And, within the rules for 5e, during combat a creature is considered to be making enough noise to give away their general position unless they're actively hiding, so even a basic bandit is not left defenseless simply because they can't see their opponent. In short, general countermeasures don't exist because there's really not a pressing need for it combat-wise and in more general play it still comes down to Stealth vs Perception, which makes negating the invisibility advantage as easy as having a mastiff as a trained watchdog.
Depends how cinematic I'm feeling. Realistically speaking it pretty much just fails (invisibility affects your gear, presumably it would also affect flour stuck to you. There's going to be some visible disturbances in the air if moving rapidly but they won't do much beyond revealing location, which 5e treats as mostly automatic anyway).
Then you would see a creature shaped hole moving through the particulates, and be able to track its footprints if it “walks.” I would still grant advantage on checks to detect and locate the invisible creature.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not going to stay suspended in the air for very long or cover much area; "I'll know if the invisible guy travels through that 5' square" is not entirely useless, but it's not very useful.
Hitting the invisible target with alchemist's fire should be pretty effective at revealing them until the fire gets extinguished.
I have to admit that I'm pretty surprised by the responses to this scenario so far. Maybe I'm picturing this differently. I am imagining walking straight up to an invisible creature with a large open bag of flour and forcefully dousing the flour directly onto the creature such that it is completely and totally covered by a very thick and highly visible layer of flour. In my opinion, common sense should prevail and a DM should rule that everyone can now effectively see that creature. in the case of the Invisibility spell and the bit where it says "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person" -- in my opinion this flour does not qualify. I interpret "on the target's person" to basically mean "personal property" or something small that you are intentionally carrying around in your hands, etc. Like, if an invisible creature walked over to a large table and lifted it off of the floor does that table just disappear? That's weird and again in my opinion that's another example of something that is not "on the target's person". So it takes a bit of interpretation but I think that we can get to the common sense answer if we try.
Mechanically, I don't think that we can say that the creature actually loses the Invisible condition. Instead, I think that we have to examine the description for that condition and make the necessary changes as the situation dictates. For example, here is the condition:
I think that a DM should look at that description and then rule that for the purpose of hiding, the creature is no longer considered to be in a heavily obscured area by virtue of being Invisible alone while covered in the flour. The creature's location can now (also) be detected by seeing the flour. I also think that a DM should declare that the covering flour also causes attack rolls against an affected invisible creature (and only an affected invisible creature) to have advantage (which cancels out with the disadvantage due the Invisible condition) and also causes an affected invisible creature's (and only an affected invisible creature's) attack rolls to have disadvantage (which cancels out with the advantage due to the Invisible condition). Those last adjustments are a bit clumsy but it gets us to the common sense game state.
Of course, the obvious follow-up question is whether these adjustments should be made if the invisible creature just gets a little flour on its hand or its finger or something? How much of the creature needs to be covered in flour in order for it to become effectively visible mechanically? The answer, of course, is that it's the DM's call.
There are two unspoken assumptions happening in the bag of flour scenario. Let us speak them, and in speaking them, rob them of their power.
1) You can get flour all over and around someone in a combat scenario. In other words, a bag of flour has enough flour to cloud up a 5x5x5ft square, and you can get all of that flour out in a single turn, and you can direct it where you want it.
2) Flour lingers in the air for any significant period of time in a combat scenario.
Okay, so let's continue assuming these things for the sake of argument. The flour would float in the air for at least an entire turn, and the invisible person would appear as a void inside the cloud of flour. You still can't see them though. You can tell where they are, but you already knew where they are, otherwise you wouldn't have known where to throw the flour. Knowing where they are is easy unless they hide, and for most characters, becoming invisible and hiding takes 2 turns, so you probably know. But you still can't see them.
I'll remind everyone that flour is extremely cheap, carry weight is nearly meaningless, and getting an item out of your incredibly overstuffed backpack doesn't require an action. Essentially ANY creature, but especially PCs, can trivially access and maintain the power to counter any and every Invisibility spell at the cost of one action if you allow this, which raises the question: Why wouldn't the Invisibility spell simply describe this commonplace countermeasure? Minor Illusion describes its own extremely commonplace countermeasure: A creature can use an action to inspect it. The flour trick really is as ubiquitous as that, RAW. Carrying around a sack of flour is as easy as having a working sensory organ with which to inspect something. It sounds stupid but it's true.
If the target is carrying it, it's invisible yes. Wearing and carrying are listed separately for a reason. If they pickpocket your wallet, the wallet becomes invisible before they put it in their own pocket. If they grab a sword from a rack, the sword becomes invisible. And if they lift up a piece of furniture, the furniture becomes invisible. I don't recommend doing this, as it makes it extremely challenging to get the table through the doorway and into your getaway vehicle. Better to Reduce the table and run.
Quite right.
I guess I'm still picturing this quite differently than most of you guys. A lot of you are describing this gentle mist of dust floating around in the air and watching to see if they are disturbed. I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted the scenario but I'm thinking about it like just dumping an entire bag of flour right on top of someone's head. Think about what that looks like in real life. It's a huge mess. The person would be absolutely covered and it would take a big effort to clean it off to the point where it's not noticeable. If that person were invisible I feel like I could see them pretty clearly in that scenario.
The Invisibility spell doesn't quite say that though. It says that "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person." Logically, if everything that you were wearing or carrying was automatically on your person, then why would they bother to clarify that? Why wouldn't they have just said "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible"? It must be because not everything that you wear or carry should qualify as being on your person and I just tried to give some examples where we might interpret that to be the case. I think that clause is open to interpretation. But when I google the phrase the first hit describes an object "on/about your person" as being "in your pockets or attached to you" in which case both the flour and the furniture would not qualify. In the case of the flour you are not really wearing it or carrying it anyway -- it is just covering you.
Anyway, I consider this bag of flour idea to be a reasonably clever solution that should be rewarded. It's not all that different from carrying around a common mirror in case you run across a basilisk in my opinion.
The issue with dumping a bag of flour on an invisible person's head is the matter of knowing where exactly their head is. Keep in mind that for the purposes of combat you're interacting with a 5ft x 5ft square of space. Even knowing that your target is in there, you'd be hard pressed to dump a bag of flour on top of them within a 6 second window in the middle of a combat encounter.
A bag of flour would disperse into a much greater area than a 5-foot cube, more like a 20-foot diameter sphere. And it’d linger for at least 2d4 rounds. Trust me, I worked in a fair number of pizza places.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The quantity of flour you can practically disperse as a single action is fairly limited. Given time you can probably fill a 20' diameter sphere, but not in a single action.
You'd see the flour, not the person.
Probably to make doubly clear that the duration of that conditional invisibility is different than the duration of the spell. In other words, they wanted to restate that you can't just go around picking things up, invisible-izing them, and setting them back down again until the whole room is invisible. It's a sloppy fix, but that's not uncommon in this game.
I think your interpretation of the intention of this wording also makes sense. I just don't think it's correct.
Another no-brainer move then. If a player doesn't buy a bag of flour and a mirror with their starting gold in one of your games then they're a fool. Is it really clever when it's the default for literally everyone? I'm not convinced.
That said, when I introduce an invisible monster, do I put it in a place with a kitchen and pantry? You bet.
So you are arguing that the lack of monsters with anti-invisibility spells is... a design Feature. Is that correct?
Well, how does one define progress? Progress for whom? For DMs? For Hasbro? For the players who want to fight dumb monsters? For the players who want to fight smart monsters? "Progress" has always been a subjective term. It's silly to use language like that when there is no particular measurements for a goal, nor even defined goals, of which it would be difficult to get a bunch of distinct individuals on a chat board to agree upon. I make no pretense of "making progress" here beyond understanding the changes that have been effected between previous editions of this hobby and the current edition as well as the reasons for such changes.
Hmmm, i did overlook that in the Rakshasa spell list.
Efreeti's Wall of Fire blocks vision, sure. So do their own Invisibility spells. The issue is that they would have trouble killing invisible creatures themselves, which is an issue because other genies also have the Invisbility spell. And if you think Invisibility is trouble to deal with, add innate Fly speed to the equation. How effective is flour against a flying monster with spellcasting?
I guess we are to assume that Djinni and Efreeti are in stalemate because they are all too dumb to just find some way to learn a measly 1st level Druid spell or a 2nd level Bard spell. That's totally logical.
I call 🐂💩. You have clearly never worked with large quantities of flour. One good *poof* and half the kitchen is coated. I’m serious, one good *poof* and it’ll cloud out 10 feet in every direction and hang there for half a minute. It’s happened to me more than once pouring flour into the big ass mixing bowel at a couple of pizza parlors I used to cook at. Heck, antique the hell outta someone and it’ll go at least 5 feet in every direction and hang there for at least 10-20 seconds. Remember, it doesn’t need to “fill” the area, just make a big enough cloud to spot the conspicuously empty creature shaped hole in the cloud.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Aaah, very interesting, you are reading "as long as" like a duration of time. Like: Anything you are carrying continues to be invisible while it remains on your person. Wow, I didn't read "as long as" in that way at all. I was seeing it more like: Anything you are carrying is invisible if and only if it is on your person. Huh.
More or less, yeah. Maybe it's an unintended byproduct of intentional choices, maybe it's an intentional choice in its own right, made to support the overall "try anything" feeling of the system. Who knows. But the result is that it empowers players more often than it empowers monsters.
Progress for those like yourself who don't like the way there's no Invisibility Purge or whatever. Sorry, I thought I made that clear but you know how communication can be on the internet. In fact, going back over it now, I'm not even confident saying that's your stance.