The new Gaze of Two Minds has removed the "blind and deaf" condition when perceiving through the other creature's sense. Does this mean that a Warlock using Gaze of Two Minds now has simultaneous access to their senses and the creature's senses while using the invocation?
So, hypothetically, while using bonus actions to sustain that connection, I could be on the other side of town (or the world) and simulatenously see, hear, and smell what I'm seeing/hearing/smelling and what the other creature is seeing/hearing/smelling? Would I be making Perception checks for both locations? Would I have to make a saving throw to resist Hypnotic Pattern being cast on the area of my buddy because I'm seeing it too?
I don't see anything written explaining how the senses are parsed, and yet it seems very uncanny to sense two places at once. But then again, uncanny is quite warlocky...
- Yes, the warlock has simultaneous access to their senses and the creature's senses. - Yes, you get all of that even if you're on the other side of town or the world. - Not sure about Perception checks. You see through their senses, so maybe they make the check and then, based on the result, you both get the information. But this probably depends on the DM. - Hypnotic Pattern only affects creatures in the area, so unless you're in the area of the spell when it's cast, you don't make a saving throw.
How should it be ruled if a Warlock casts a spell that requires an attack roll using another creature's space, and that creature is Invisible? Let's say the creature is a Barbarian and the Warlock is in a different room.
While perceiving through the other creature’s senses, you benefit from any special senses possessed by that creature, and you can cast spells as if you were in your space or the other creature’s space if the two of you are within 60 feet of each other.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is the one casting and making the attack, so it seems the attack should not have Advantage.
Should the Barbarian lose the Invisible condition? I guess not for the same reason.
The next scenario is also intriguing: the Warlock is Invisible, not the Barbarian.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is making the attack, so it seems the attack should have Advantage. But it's weird.
Should the Warlock lose the Invisible condition? I guess yes for the same reason.
How should it be ruled if a Warlock casts a spell that requires an attack roll using another creature's space, and that creature is Invisible? Let's say the creature is a Barbarian and the Warlock is in a different room.
While perceiving through the other creature’s senses, you benefit from any special senses possessed by that creature, and you can cast spells as if you were in your space or the other creature’s space if the two of you are within 60 feet of each other.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is the one casting and making the attack, so it seems the attack should not have Advantage.
Should the Barbarian lose the Invisible condition? I guess not for the same reason.
The next scenario is also intriguing: the Warlock is Invisible, not the Barbarian.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is making the attack, so it seems the attack should have Advantage. But it's weird.
Should the Warlock lose the Invisible condition? I guess yes for the same reason.
SCENARIO 1
The Warlock isn't one being invisible so it shouldn't gain any of the condition's benefits.
The Barbarian did nothing to break the Invisible condition so it shoudn't.
SCENARIO 2
The Warlock is invisible so it should gain the condition's benefits, including Advantage on the attack roll.
The Warlock did nothing to break the Invisible condition so it shoudn't, unless the feature granting the condition has other limitations, example if it Hide or is under Invisibility then it would no longer be Invisible.
How should it be ruled if a Warlock casts a spell that requires an attack roll using another creature's space, and that creature is Invisible? Let's say the creature is a Barbarian and the Warlock is in a different room.
While perceiving through the other creature’s senses, you benefit from any special senses possessed by that creature, and you can cast spells as if you were in your space or the other creature’s space if the two of you are within 60 feet of each other.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is the one casting and making the attack, so it seems the attack should not have Advantage.
Should the Barbarian lose the Invisible condition? I guess not for the same reason.
The next scenario is also intriguing: the Warlock is Invisible, not the Barbarian.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is making the attack, so it seems the attack should have Advantage. But it's weird.
Should the Warlock lose the Invisible condition? I guess yes for the same reason.
I think RAW the warlock gets Advantage if they're invisible, but I honestly think the vast majority of DMs would not rule it that way. I know that there's a lot of players and DMs that love this "well, technically" attitude, but for the most part I think they'll just rule what makes actual sense.
I don't think it would make sense to benefit from the Invisible condition because you can cast spells as if you were in the Invisible creature’s space.
Notwinstanding perceiving, Gaze of Two Minds just let you cast spell as if you were there.
No one can see the spell being cast, hence the Advantage should apply whether they were invisible or not. Also the "invisible" creature did nothing to end the invisibility, it was as if there were there but the invisible creature was not the one that performed the action.
Barbarian is charging for the foe while the Warlock is hiding behind a wall or a tree or something that makes sense for the location. The creature in front of the Barbarian doesn't see the hand movements or head the words or see the material, no chance to brace for impact other than the charging barbarian. Why would they expect the Eldritch Blast to come from the Barbarian. (semi surprise attack) Not to mention the Barbarian's hands are full with a great axe.
I believe that it would end hiding not the invisibility and the warlock should get advantage regardless if they are hiding somewhere or invisible. There could be a reason for the warlock to be invisible but it would end after the attack regardless.
This could make familiars nasty since the Warlock version can be invisible at will.
The next scenario is also intriguing: the Warlock is Invisible, not the Barbarian.
Should the Warlock have Advantage? The Warlock is making the attack, so it seems the attack should have Advantage. But it's weird.
Should the Warlock lose the Invisible condition? I guess yes for the same reason.
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
For these reasons, it would seem the RAW & RAI for giving a spellcaster an advantage is not applicable when the spell is coming from another location.
Along the same lines, if you have a spell with a range of 30', the object/creature the spell is coming form is 60' away and the target is 30' more, then by RAW & RAI, the target is 90' away. Yet the "Gaze..." is an exception to RAW & RAI. for much of the spell limitations.
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
While you have the Invisible condition your attack rolls have Advantage. And that's the scenario in the scenario I proposed. The spell's effect is originating from a point that isn't the Warlock, true, but the attack is still being made by the Invisible creature (the Warlock).
And yes, the Advantage would also apply if the Warlock were behind a physical barrier, since they'd count as an unseen attacker in that case.
That's my interpretation, strictly RAW (though I'm not saying the outcome makes sense)
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
While you have the Invisible condition your attack rolls have Advantage. And that's the scenario in the scenario I proposed. The spell's effect is originating from a point that isn't the Warlock, true, but the attack is still being made by the Invisible creature (the Warlock).
And yes, the Advantage would also apply if the Warlock were behind a physical barrier, since they'd count as an unseen attacker in that case.
That's my interpretation, strictly RAW (though I'm not saying the outcome makes sense)
No, that is not raw because you are not have the spell come from your location. The way you are describing this, if you have 2 warlocks behind a wall and both are unseen. The one that is actually invisible gets an advantage, while the other who cannot be seen does not. There is no way that makes any sense from the rules. 2 identical non visible PCs, one gets an advantage and one does not., is thoughly and utterly broken, but it is not how they are written that is broken.
As my example Being able to cast a 30" spell at a target 90' aways is the same type of issue. Yes you can hit a target 90" away. It is
I think RAW does give Advantage in the invisible Warlock case, but it’s one of those moments where I’d have a tough time not ruling against it at the table. Even as someone who likes sticking close to RAW, that interaction just feels a bit absurd.
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
While you have the Invisible condition your attack rolls have Advantage. And that's the scenario in the scenario I proposed. The spell's effect is originating from a point that isn't the Warlock, true, but the attack is still being made by the Invisible creature (the Warlock).
And yes, the Advantage would also apply if the Warlock were behind a physical barrier, since they'd count as an unseen attacker in that case.
That's my interpretation, strictly RAW (though I'm not saying the outcome makes sense)
No, that is not raw because you are not have the spell come from your location. The way you are describing this, if you have 2 warlocks behind a wall and both are unseen. The one that is actually invisible gets an advantage, while the other who cannot be seen does not. There is no way that makes any sense from the rules. 2 identical non visible PCs, one gets an advantage and one does not., is thoughly and utterly broken, but it is not how they are written that is broken.
Sorry, I think I'm not following you :(
What I'm basically saying is that you (Warlock 1 or Warlock 2 in your example) get Advantage on the roll if you have the Invisible condition. That's RAW, whether or not you are using Gaze of Two Minds, and whether or not your Warlock friend is also Invisible (for example, through the Hide action or the Invisibility spell)
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
While you have the Invisible condition your attack rolls have Advantage. And that's the scenario in the scenario I proposed. The spell's effect is originating from a point that isn't the Warlock, true, but the attack is still being made by the Invisible creature (the Warlock).
And yes, the Advantage would also apply if the Warlock were behind a physical barrier, since they'd count as an unseen attacker in that case.
That's my interpretation, strictly RAW (though I'm not saying the outcome makes sense)
No, that is not raw because you are not have the spell come from your location. The way you are describing this, if you have 2 warlocks behind a wall and both are unseen. The one that is actually invisible gets an advantage, while the other who cannot be seen does not. There is no way that makes any sense from the rules. 2 identical non visible PCs, one gets an advantage and one does not., is thoughly and utterly broken, but it is not how they are written that is broken.
Sorry, I think I'm not following you :(
What I'm basically saying is that you (Warlock 1 or Warlock 2 in your example) get Advantage on the roll if you have the Invisible condition. That's RAW, whether or not you are using Gaze of Two Minds, and whether or not your Warlock friend is also Invisible (for example, through the Hide action or the Invisibility spell)
Warlock 1 is behind a wall, and has the Gaze of Two Minds using his familiar to cast an attack spell.
Warlock 2 is behind a wall, and has the Gaze of Two Minds using his familiar to cast an attack spell. But he is invisible.
Both warlocks are next to each other. Neither can be seen by an opponent in the next room.
According to your interpretation, the one under the invisible spell has an advantage. The warlock next to him who can not be seen like the twin standing next to him does not have the advantage. How is that possible? By your interpretation if you self cast invisible, then you get advantages on all of your attack spells.
Being warlocks you can cast at will invisibility via an eldritch invocation one with the shadows. By your interpretation having this invocation and gaze and pact of the chain mean you have advantage with all of your attacks.
No, in this example both warlocks have advantage on the attack, because both are attacking someone who can't see them. No one is saying that only one of them has advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pronouns: he/she/they
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The new Gaze of Two Minds has removed the "blind and deaf" condition when perceiving through the other creature's sense. Does this mean that a Warlock using Gaze of Two Minds now has simultaneous access to their senses and the creature's senses while using the invocation?
So, hypothetically, while using bonus actions to sustain that connection, I could be on the other side of town (or the world) and simulatenously see, hear, and smell what I'm seeing/hearing/smelling and what the other creature is seeing/hearing/smelling? Would I be making Perception checks for both locations? Would I have to make a saving throw to resist Hypnotic Pattern being cast on the area of my buddy because I'm seeing it too?
I don't see anything written explaining how the senses are parsed, and yet it seems very uncanny to sense two places at once. But then again, uncanny is quite warlocky...
- Yes, the warlock has simultaneous access to their senses and the creature's senses.
- Yes, you get all of that even if you're on the other side of town or the world.
- Not sure about Perception checks. You see through their senses, so maybe they make the check and then, based on the result, you both get the information. But this probably depends on the DM.
- Hypnotic Pattern only affects creatures in the area, so unless you're in the area of the spell when it's cast, you don't make a saving throw.
How should it be ruled if a Warlock casts a spell that requires an attack roll using another creature's space, and that creature is Invisible? Let's say the creature is a Barbarian and the Warlock is in a different room.
The next scenario is also intriguing: the Warlock is Invisible, not the Barbarian.
SCENARIO 1
The Warlock isn't one being invisible so it shouldn't gain any of the condition's benefits.
The Barbarian did nothing to break the Invisible condition so it shoudn't.
SCENARIO 2
The Warlock is invisible so it should gain the condition's benefits, including Advantage on the attack roll.
The Warlock did nothing to break the Invisible condition so it shoudn't, unless the feature granting the condition has other limitations, example if it Hide or is under Invisibility then it would no longer be Invisible.
Sorry @Plaguescarred, I wrote a lot of text and forgot to say the Invisible condition was granted by the Invisibility spell :-/
Your answer included this detail, tough. Thanks!
I think RAW the warlock gets Advantage if they're invisible, but I honestly think the vast majority of DMs would not rule it that way. I know that there's a lot of players and DMs that love this "well, technically" attitude, but for the most part I think they'll just rule what makes actual sense.
I don't think it would make sense to benefit from the Invisible condition because you can cast spells as if you were in the Invisible creature’s space.
Notwinstanding perceiving, Gaze of Two Minds just let you cast spell as if you were there.
No one can see the spell being cast, hence the Advantage should apply whether they were invisible or not. Also the "invisible" creature did nothing to end the invisibility, it was as if there were there but the invisible creature was not the one that performed the action.
Barbarian is charging for the foe while the Warlock is hiding behind a wall or a tree or something that makes sense for the location. The creature in front of the Barbarian doesn't see the hand movements or head the words or see the material, no chance to brace for impact other than the charging barbarian. Why would they expect the Eldritch Blast to come from the Barbarian. (semi surprise attack) Not to mention the Barbarian's hands are full with a great axe.
I believe that it would end hiding not the invisibility and the warlock should get advantage regardless if they are hiding somewhere or invisible. There could be a reason for the warlock to be invisible but it would end after the attack regardless.
This could make familiars nasty since the Warlock version can be invisible at will.
I am not understanding why the invisible Warlock gets the advantage on casting a spell through someone else?
The spell is coming from a point that is not the warlock. So if the opponent is looking at the visible or invisible Warlock, the opponent would not know that a spell is coming from somewhere else. It does not seem to matter what visible state the warlock is in. What is the difference between a warlock that is not seen via a physical barrier or being invisible?
For these reasons, it would seem the RAW & RAI for giving a spellcaster an advantage is not applicable when the spell is coming from another location.
Along the same lines, if you have a spell with a range of 30', the object/creature the spell is coming form is 60' away and the target is 30' more, then by RAW & RAI, the target is 90' away. Yet the "Gaze..." is an exception to RAW & RAI. for much of the spell limitations.
While you have the Invisible condition your attack rolls have Advantage. And that's the scenario in the scenario I proposed. The spell's effect is originating from a point that isn't the Warlock, true, but the attack is still being made by the Invisible creature (the Warlock).
And yes, the Advantage would also apply if the Warlock were behind a physical barrier, since they'd count as an unseen attacker in that case.
That's my interpretation, strictly RAW (though I'm not saying the outcome makes sense)
No, that is not raw because you are not have the spell come from your location. The way you are describing this, if you have 2 warlocks behind a wall and both are unseen. The one that is actually invisible gets an advantage, while the other who cannot be seen does not. There is no way that makes any sense from the rules. 2 identical non visible PCs, one gets an advantage and one does not., is thoughly and utterly broken, but it is not how they are written that is broken.
As my example Being able to cast a 30" spell at a target 90' aways is the same type of issue. Yes you can hit a target 90" away. It is
I think RAW does give Advantage in the invisible Warlock case, but it’s one of those moments where I’d have a tough time not ruling against it at the table. Even as someone who likes sticking close to RAW, that interaction just feels a bit absurd.
https://startplaying.games/gm/dmkevin
Sorry, I think I'm not following you :(
What I'm basically saying is that you (Warlock 1 or Warlock 2 in your example) get Advantage on the roll if you have the Invisible condition. That's RAW, whether or not you are using Gaze of Two Minds, and whether or not your Warlock friend is also Invisible (for example, through the Hide action or the Invisibility spell)
Warlock 1 is behind a wall, and has the Gaze of Two Minds using his familiar to cast an attack spell.
Warlock 2 is behind a wall, and has the Gaze of Two Minds using his familiar to cast an attack spell. But he is invisible.
Both warlocks are next to each other. Neither can be seen by an opponent in the next room.
According to your interpretation, the one under the invisible spell has an advantage. The warlock next to him who can not be seen like the twin standing next to him does not have the advantage. How is that possible? By your interpretation if you self cast invisible, then you get advantages on all of your attack spells.
Being warlocks you can cast at will invisibility via an eldritch invocation one with the shadows. By your interpretation having this invocation and gaze and pact of the chain mean you have advantage with all of your attacks.
No, in this example both warlocks have advantage on the attack, because both are attacking someone who can't see them. No one is saying that only one of them has advantage.
pronouns: he/she/they