Recently during 5th edition session, a player cast Hunter's Mark on a Troglodyte Spellcaster. When the Troglodyte cast invisibility on itself, the player asked if the Hunter's Mark was still visible. Making a snap judgement I said it was not. But going over the rules, I'm not sure if Hunter's Mark acts as the creatures equipment when it goes invisible. I guess it's my call, but just wanted to see what the forum thinks and if there are other examples of this.
hunter's mark does not create an literal physical mark on the opponent, rather the ranger gains some kind of metaphysical focus concentrated on their foe, when the ranger casts hunter's mark there is no visual indication that the target is affected by hunters mark.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It is not visible, but it grants advantage on wisdom checks to find the target. So i would rule that the ranger gets a +5 on his passiv perception to know the location of the invisible creature. For combat purpose the creature would still have the „invisible“ condition, but the ranger would know where it is.
I think I understand the confusion ... Hunter's Mark in World of Warcraft was a physical indicator hovering over the target that everyone could see... While the spell in WOW was definitely inspired by this class ability, it's not the same. ArtificeMeal is correct.
The creature would be invisible, and the Hunter's Mark on the target would still persist.
A Hunter's Mark has no effect on a target that become invisible afterward, you still have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it despite being unable to see it.
To touch on the tracking implications during combat, it’s worth remembering that in 5e even if you’re invisible, your location is still known until you actively take the Hide action; Hunter’s Mark has no interactions with the invisible condition itself, although if a marked target attempted to hide the caster would have advantage on rolls to then find the target.
I think of the mark" in Hunter's Mark being more like marking another player in a game of football. The spells helps the hunter in continually paying attention of where the target is and continually positioning themself in the best position to attack and/or locate the target.
Greetings everyone.
Recently during 5th edition session, a player cast Hunter's Mark on a Troglodyte Spellcaster. When the Troglodyte cast invisibility on itself, the player asked if the Hunter's Mark was still visible. Making a snap judgement I said it was not. But going over the rules, I'm not sure if Hunter's Mark acts as the creatures equipment when it goes invisible. I guess it's my call, but just wanted to see what the forum thinks and if there are other examples of this.
Thank you all!
~Dan
hunter's mark does not create an literal physical mark on the opponent, rather the ranger gains some kind of metaphysical focus concentrated on their foe, when the ranger casts hunter's mark there is no visual indication that the target is affected by hunters mark.
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It is not visible, but it grants advantage on wisdom checks to find the target. So i would rule that the ranger gets a +5 on his passiv perception to know the location of the invisible creature. For combat purpose the creature would still have the „invisible“ condition, but the ranger would know where it is.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I think I understand the confusion ... Hunter's Mark in World of Warcraft was a physical indicator hovering over the target that everyone could see... While the spell in WOW was definitely inspired by this class ability, it's not the same. ArtificeMeal is correct.
The creature would be invisible, and the Hunter's Mark on the target would still persist.
Thank you all for posting your replies. I will take your suggestions into account if the scenario presents itself again.
I'd say advantage on finding/locating the creature, which you can then inform ya team, and then disadvantage on hitting it.
A Hunter's Mark has no effect on a target that become invisible afterward, you still have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it despite being unable to see it.
To touch on the tracking implications during combat, it’s worth remembering that in 5e even if you’re invisible, your location is still known until you actively take the Hide action; Hunter’s Mark has no interactions with the invisible condition itself, although if a marked target attempted to hide the caster would have advantage on rolls to then find the target.
In other word, you don't need to find an invisible creature unless it's hidden and if it is, wether its invisible or not doesn't matter.
I think of the mark" in Hunter's Mark being more like marking another player in a game of football. The spells helps the hunter in continually paying attention of where the target is and continually positioning themself in the best position to attack and/or locate the target.
Mark as in target, quarry, victim, objective. Not mark as in permanent marker.
Right. (If you're wondering why someone would bother becoming invisible, it's because it lets them hide anywhere, even right out in the open.)