Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
See Invisibility and truesight both specify that they detect invisible creatures and objects. There are several divination spells (such as scrying) that create an invisible sensor, and others (such as wall of force) that create invisible effects that do not seem to be creatures or objects. There are also spells that specify that their effects cannot be seen (such as 2024 mordenkainen's faithful hound) but do not mention the invisible condition.
I'm guessing at least some of those are intended to be visible. How do DMs rule on this?
I don't think there's really any evidence the the Scrying sensor isn't meant to be thought of as an object, especially since the spell description goes out of its way to define what it looks like if something can see it. I would certainly rule that if you can see invisible things, you can see that.
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound is different because it explicitly says that no one but the caster can see it, without saying that it has the Invisible condition.
pronouns: he/she/they
I'd rule one with See Invisibility or Truesight can see a Scrying sensor and may even ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check to determine what it is.
I agree that a Scrying Sensor is an object.
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound can't be seen by anyone but the caster. Doesn't matter what kind of sight they have. Seems pretty clear to me.
Also agree that the sensors (and Arcane Eye) are objects. I'd even go so far as to argue that an Unseen Servant is an object, if only to make sense. It is discrete and is non-living.
The sensors are spell effects, just like things such as dancing lights. Is your assertion that all spell effects, even immaterial ones, are objects?
Hmmm, I don't see why not. Most of the time it wont matter, as they don't have stats that can be interacted with for the purpose of being destroyed. Except for the Servant, which I am assuming is intended.
I'm just trying to read these in a way that aligns more with what I think the intention was: You can see sensors with See Invisibility and you can target and destroy an Unseen Servant.
In order to do that, they need to be "objects". If this breaks other things, then I'd need to see what those other things are in order to judge whether I'm breaking more than it's worth by doing so.
I am going to change my opinion. I don't think a scrying sensor is an object, because it is intangible. Objects must be tangible by (colloquial english) definition (for objects in the sense the game uses objects). (All objects are tangible, however, not all tangible things are necessarily objects - if nothing else, creatures are not objects but are typically tangible).
Arcane Eye, however, is invisible and invulnerable, and never explicitly intangible nor a magical force. So I think it is supposed to be an object. (There's no point in saying its invulnerable if it is intangible).
Unseen Servant is explicitly a magical force, not an object or a creature. Similarly, Wall of Force is explicitly a magical force. I do not think See Invisibility is supposed to be able to see a Wall of Force...? I would treat them similarly. (Unseen Servant is also 'shapeless', which must mean you cannot touch it. It just manifests force when it pushes/pulls/carries things).
Dancing Lights is light. And illusory light at that. It is not an object (because it is intangible -- light is not an object). And (visual) illusions are definitionally not objects. (I would go so far as to say that Illusion is largely the manipulation of waves, so illusions produce "real" light, often mimicking reflection of light waves off things which aren't actually there).
(For the game term 'object', I am going by colloquial English, which would not generally class anything like a photon or an electron as an object. Similarly, water is not 'an object' even though it is tangible, because liquids are classed differently in colloquial English. There's nothing discrete in a liquid you can pick up. This boundary is fuzzy; glass is an object even though it is a liquid at room temperature, because we perceive it as a solid since it moves really slowly.)
(Magical forces are just weird. Wall of Force is 'invisible' but 'nothing can physically pass through the wall'. However, light is a physical phenomenon, which creates a contradiction. To be invisible means light passes through you, while to block light from passing through you is to be visible. Invisible is the more specific qualifier (because otherwise saying it's Invisible is meaningless, as it otherwise wouldn't be), so I assume light should be able to pass through Wall of Force, but that should also mean something like a Sunbeam should pass through Wall of Force. And of course that means that you need blindsight to actually cast Disintegrate at a Wall of Force, because you can't otherwise see it).
It does feel like a slippery slope to me to categorize phenomena that are described as "intangible" or as a "force" as objects. How about illusions such as images created by Major Image?
At the end of the day, it does seem like a DM call for what is and is not considered to be a "distinct thing". Where the line is drawn on that might be a bit arbitrary. I would probably lean towards not classifying any of these as objects but if another DM ruled another way then they are probably also justified.
The problem might be the targeting rules rather than the definition of object.
There is no particular reason you shouldn't be able to target an empty point in midair with fire bolt. It won't do anything (unless by coincidence there's something in that location you're unaware of), but it shouldn't be impossible. I would be inclined to rule that see invisibility just ignores the invisible condition, full stop, no matter what it's applied to, though it does not let you see things that are unseen without the invisible condition.
It might be interesting to this discussion that the Clairvoyance spell includes this wording:
I would note that the clairvoyance sensor is invisible and invulnerable, like the Arcane Eye, so I think it's an object. (This is distinct from Scrying's, which is intangible instead).
FWIW, the Clairvoyance sensor is invisible and intangible and invulnerable. The eye is invisible and invulnerable. Scrying's sensor is invisible and intangible. The description for what the Clairvoyance sensor looks like is identical to the description for what the Scrying's sensor looks like.