The mental gymnastics required to read “shimmering field” as a non-visual effect are amusing and futile. I have said multiple times that the shimmering field doesn’t stop you from being invisible or hidden, it is just that being invisible or hidden doesn’t cause the shimmering field to stop being a visually perceptible shimmering field. Even if you’re hidden, creatures are still allowed to guess where you are for attacks and certain spells... and with a visual shimmering field around you, that guess gets easier. It doesn’t matter “at what distance,” because the field isn’t an object being carried or worn Invisibility and every other invisible-causing ability I can think of does nothing to obscure that field.
It’s funny the hills that folks will choose to die on, “a spell that says it creates a visual effect actually does create that visual effect” seems to me a far less controversial and troublesome rule of thumb than “feel free to ignore visual effects created by spells, except sometimes don’t if you think the visual effect is the main purpose of the spell and not just flavor text.” Why anyone would want to live in that second world, merely to rob players of the ability to use a creative hail Mary spell with a VERY niche application... lol, you guys do you, I suppose.
The mental gymnastics required to read “shimmering field” as a non-visual effect are amusing and futile. I have said multiple times that the shimmering field doesn’t stop you from being invisible or hidden, it is just that being invisible or hidden doesn’t cause the shimmering field to stop being a visually perceptible shimmering field. Even if you’re hidden, creatures are still allowed to guess where you are for attacks and certain spells... and with a visual shimmering field around you, that guess gets easier. It doesn’t matter “at what distance,” because the field isn’t an object being carried or worn Invisibility and every other invisible-causing ability I can think of does nothing to obscure that field.
It’s funny the hills that folks will choose to die on, “a spell that says it creates a visual effect actually does create that visual effect” seems to me a far less controversial and troublesome rule of thumb than “feel free to ignore visual effects created by spells, except sometimes don’t if you think the visual effect is the main purpose of the spell and not just flavor text.” Why anyone would want to live in that second world, merely to rob players of the ability to use a creative hail Mary spell with a VERY niche application... lol, you guys do you, I suppose.
Nothing you have said takes away the DISADVANTAGE of attacking said creature, the ADVANTAGE it gets on attacking others, or the +2 bonus to AC.
You don't have to "guess" where an invisible creature is in the first place. You only have to guess where HIDDEN creatures are. Now if you want to argue that a creature with Shield of Faith can't hide effectively, that is a different conversation. But mechanically, RAW, you know where an invisible creature is, you cannot see invisible creature, you can target invisible creature with anything that does not specify "creature you can see", and you attack it at Disadvantage while it attacks you at Advantage.
Here's one more thing to ponder, cast Shield of Faith on an incorporeal creature which is invisible, what does the shimmering field surround?
Pedro, both me and 1stson have on multiple times clarified that we are just talking about highlighting what square the invisible and/or hidden creature is in, not removing the invisible or hidden condition itself. If you play Invisibility in a way where you don’t see value in that, that’s your issue, or your DM’s... but please stop trying to argue over a point that nobody is trying to make in the first place.
If you are not removing the invisible condition or removing/modifying the hidden condition than you agree with RAW. Which means you CAN target an invisible creature and you CANNOT target a hidden creature.
RAW, there is no difference between an invisible creature with or without Shield of Faith other than the +2 to AC. You know what square it is in, you can target it, you just can't see it.
Nothing in the Shield of Faith spell says it gives disadvantage to stealth checks, reduces heavy obscurement, or raises the Perception checks for anyone else. Without those, it doesn't affect any of the Hiding criteria. WIthout an ability or the invisible condition it is not possible to hide in plain sight.
There is much dispute over whether characters (whether in or out of combat) necessarily automatically know which square an Invisible non-hidden creature is in. It certainly is one view that the location of any non-hidden creature is always necessarily known, regardless of distance, cover, obstruction, invisibility, viewer's Blinded condition or target's Invisible, etc etc... but I don't know that there's a quote in any of the rulebooks that explicitly requires that conclusion, or that it is the best/most reasonable way to interpret the rules on vision, and I've certainly never yet encountered a DM that actually plays it that way. Do I know what square of his bedchamber Elminster is standing in on the other side of the continent (or even while standing in the street outside his tower), when he isn't actively Hiding? Probably not, but if you don't accept that "you can't see him from where you're standing" is a sufficient explanation of why that is true, then I'm not sure where else you draw the line, because there's no other rule text explaining why you would know where something is other than your ability to "perceive" it. I get why folks want to say that you know where invisible creatures are until they hide, because otherwise what's the point of hiding? But as has been exhaustively described in other threads, I just don't think there is a way to read the hiding/invisible/blind/concealment rules as a coherent unified system, there's issues that pop up no matter how the cookie crumbles. Sure, maybe I can "perceive" using my hearing which square an invisible creature that isn't hiding is in when it's 5 feet away... maybe even 10 or 15 feet away... but 30 feet away? 60? 120? Normal humanoids without special senses can certainly see that far but just aren't really described as having the ability to pick out fine detail like that with hearing or smell anywhere in the rule text, so if you can pin a visual effect to an invisible creature, I am certain that most DMs would be far more likely to let you shoot an arrow at the right square of the fleeing Invisible combatant without using your action for a Perception check. Or, not shoot him, but just follow him without having to stare at the ground to try to detect tracks or other signs of his passing. The +2 AC is certainly a good reason why Shield of Faith isn't the best way to track an Invisible creature, but the fact that you can target a creature without seeing it, and it doesn't allow a save, and it lasts for 10 minutes, and it creates a visually perceptible spell effect are all good reasons why it might be just the right spell to use creatively in certain weird situations.
I try to give a lot of latitude toward creative spell uses because they are often the things that create stories people tell after the session is over. If that means bending the rules a little here or there, I'm usually up for it. My point of perspective is whether someone is trying to do something with a 1st level spell (for instance) that seems beyond the capabilities I would expect from a 1st level spell. If that's the case, I'll try to scale the effect appropriately or just give the player the opportunity to pick a different course of action.
Texas to be fair that's what I do too. And sod it Rule of Cool sometimes will take precedent, if it draws a laugh out of everyone even better. This thread was more about the cool ambiguities and how you could twist them as opposed to full tilt arguing over specific rules and conditions. But hey ho some people take life a little too seriously lol
I try to give a lot of latitude toward creative spell uses because they are often the things that create stories people tell after the session is over. If that means bending the rules a little here or there, I'm usually up for it. My point of perspective is whether someone is trying to do something with a 1st level spell (for instance) that seems beyond the capabilities I would expect from a 1st level spell. If that's the case, I'll try to scale the effect appropriately or just give the player the opportunity to pick a different course of action.
yeah, this is my approach too. In general, if it doesn't derail the plot and if it is a clever or cool use of rather than and outright abuse of the spell (or magic item), I'll typically allow it. Want to do 'create water' to drown a goblin? sure, he'll get a dex (or con) save, but you probably could have killed him with three magic missiles anyway so where's the harm? Trying to 'destroy water' on the mission's main villian and auto-kill him with a level 1 spell? Well actually, the biochemistry of that "70%" of water in the body is a lot more complicated than just the hydrogen bonds in a bucket of water, and the magical insight required by a 1st level spell wouldn't be subtle or powerful enough to separate out the ionic and hydrostatic forces involved... sorry. But I wouldn't tell them it won't work; maybe instead it just dries out the free water in the stomach, esophagus, and mouth so he suddenly has the world's worst case of dry mouth and has to stop his monologue mid-sentence and get a drink from his flask.
In subsequent encounters, if they want to use the spell again for the same purpose but it feels too powerful for the spell level, I'll explain that they CAN do that, but because of the complexity involved they'll actually need to burn a higher level spell slot instead. and of course if they start to spam it so that it's actually HURTING the narrative and coolness of the game, enemies have ways to figure that kind of stuff out. Even a goblin will learn to keep his mouth closed if he just saw 2 of his friends vomiting out copious amounts of water that came from nowhere...
Addendum: I also think in general DM's want to be very careful about making sure the 'that spell can't do that' they are enforcing really is RAW accurate. Pretty frustrating for a player to be told that the cool, novel use of a spell they came up with, that they've researched thoroughly in the player's guide and that perfectly fits the situation, can't work just because the DM hasn't seen it used that way or thought about it being used that way before. I've only played with a DM like that once. Once. On the other hand, if a DM typically says "yeah let's figure out how that would work" for something you want to try, that DM gets a lot of leeway later when they really do have to say "actually that wouldn't really work." In some ways, that's what makes RPG's different than RPG style board games in the first place.
Shield of faith: If you know an enemy is in the room, but is hidden and has invisibility, yeah, this removes hidden with a first level spell slot. Make's them hard to hit, but at least you can hit them.
Destroy Water: we are not open containers. if you want to count the lungs or stomach, fine, you make them thirsty, and give them cotton mouth, but nothing worse
Create Water: This is interesting. If I were DM I'd allow the target to make a con save. If they succeed, they splutter but nothing else. If they fail, they spend the next action hacking up water. You aren't drowning them because you can't fit 10 gallons into lungs.
Fog Cloud-Shape water - Ice Knife. DEFINITELY ALLOW THIS. it's bad-ass. however, that dagger is GOING to shatter and be unusable after 1 use. and while it may be magical for the purposes of over coming yadda-yadda, no pluses.
I hadn't thought about the drying his mouth out use for the spell and I think it's brilliant, and could just imagine the party using it as a way of interrupting the BBEG monologue just to piss him off. And I have played with people who would burn through spells just to piss someone off, because it's funny lol.
This is why I started the thread, I wanted creative "FUN" ways of interpreting spells. Using the ambiguity of how they are written against them, it still comes down to the DM to smile and set a DC for the PC to pass for it to work, I mean player tries to use destroy water to completely dessicate the BBEG and DM says give me a Nat 20 and you can do it. How cool does the player feel if they role that nat 20 and the boss just shrivels up or they fail the check they just dry his mouth out lol
My Divination Wizard is a fan of using Levitation as a banishment. Oh, that really beefy swole boy, yeah, he's going to spend the fight 20 ft in the air and we're going to ignore him until we deal with the mooks and caster. Then we'll burn him down as a group.
Yeah levitate is good as long as they fail the con check you have them locked down for the entire fight. Then as they gently glide down to the ground at the end blast the **** out of them (after the fight you can always send them a bit higher just to give you more time to explode/negotiate lol)
I've (briefly) played a Drow Sorceress with the "Criminal" background, a magic using Assassin from the Underdark (I joked that "It's the Underdark, she isn't a criminal, it's a legit work"!) who did the math and decided she liked her odds better if she could find a respected cleric/paladin to stick to so she wouldn't be lynched on sight. And when the party's first fight turned ugly (One PC downed during the Surprise Round, no one in good shape), she used Disguise Self to create an illusory Ghillie Suit she used to disappear, before sneaking in to the enemy camp (they intended to keep the party as slaves) and rescue everyone.
Also as an aside, I'd allow the Form Water trick to create an improvised dagger (basically a dagger that has a chance to break on a hit, the "harder" the armor the greater the chances of breakage) if the character has some kind of armorer proficiency. In short, if the character knows what they're doing, I'd allow it.
I mean, if you're like me and dont mind using your 9th level spell slot for some fun, then true polymorphing any huge monster into a toilet and...you know...using it before you, use animate obejct and make it throw it's self of a clif or in avulcano or maybe just bang it's self against a wall untill it shatters in bits...you know that sort of thing is, allways funny, and poop and fart jokes rarely aren't.
I mean, if you're like me and dont mind using your 9th level spell slot for some fun, then true polymorphing any huge monster into a toilet and...you know...using it before you, use animate obejct and make it throw it's self of a clif or in avulcano or maybe just bang it's self against a wall untill it shatters in bits...you know that sort of thing is, allways funny, and poop and fart jokes rarely aren't.
I mean, if you're like me and dont mind using your 9th level spell slot for some fun, then true polymorphing any huge monster into a toilet and...you know...using it before you, use animate obejct and make it throw it's self of a clif or in avulcano or maybe just bang it's self against a wall untill it shatters in bits...you know that sort of thing is, allways funny, and poop and fart jokes rarely aren't.
Sort of related, I like to use Command to make someone pee themself or poop their pants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The mental gymnastics required to read “shimmering field” as a non-visual effect are amusing and futile. I have said multiple times that the shimmering field doesn’t stop you from being invisible or hidden, it is just that being invisible or hidden doesn’t cause the shimmering field to stop being a visually perceptible shimmering field. Even if you’re hidden, creatures are still allowed to guess where you are for attacks and certain spells... and with a visual shimmering field around you, that guess gets easier. It doesn’t matter “at what distance,” because the field isn’t an object being carried or worn Invisibility and every other invisible-causing ability I can think of does nothing to obscure that field.
It’s funny the hills that folks will choose to die on, “a spell that says it creates a visual effect actually does create that visual effect” seems to me a far less controversial and troublesome rule of thumb than “feel free to ignore visual effects created by spells, except sometimes don’t if you think the visual effect is the main purpose of the spell and not just flavor text.” Why anyone would want to live in that second world, merely to rob players of the ability to use a creative hail Mary spell with a VERY niche application... lol, you guys do you, I suppose.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Heat metal + mending = world's laziest blacksmith?
it'd be a tough combination, since Heat Metal only lasts a minute and mending takes a minute to cast...
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Good catch.
Nothing you have said takes away the DISADVANTAGE of attacking said creature, the ADVANTAGE it gets on attacking others, or the +2 bonus to AC.
You don't have to "guess" where an invisible creature is in the first place. You only have to guess where HIDDEN creatures are. Now if you want to argue that a creature with Shield of Faith can't hide effectively, that is a different conversation. But mechanically, RAW, you know where an invisible creature is, you cannot see invisible creature, you can target invisible creature with anything that does not specify "creature you can see", and you attack it at Disadvantage while it attacks you at Advantage.
Here's one more thing to ponder, cast Shield of Faith on an incorporeal creature which is invisible, what does the shimmering field surround?
Pedro, both me and 1stson have on multiple times clarified that we are just talking about highlighting what square the invisible and/or hidden creature is in, not removing the invisible or hidden condition itself. If you play Invisibility in a way where you don’t see value in that, that’s your issue, or your DM’s... but please stop trying to argue over a point that nobody is trying to make in the first place.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you are not removing the invisible condition or removing/modifying the hidden condition than you agree with RAW. Which means you CAN target an invisible creature and you CANNOT target a hidden creature.
RAW, there is no difference between an invisible creature with or without Shield of Faith other than the +2 to AC. You know what square it is in, you can target it, you just can't see it.
Nothing in the Shield of Faith spell says it gives disadvantage to stealth checks, reduces heavy obscurement, or raises the Perception checks for anyone else. Without those, it doesn't affect any of the Hiding criteria. WIthout an ability or the invisible condition it is not possible to hide in plain sight.
So playing invisibility by RAW is an issue?
There is much dispute over whether characters (whether in or out of combat) necessarily automatically know which square an Invisible non-hidden creature is in. It certainly is one view that the location of any non-hidden creature is always necessarily known, regardless of distance, cover, obstruction, invisibility, viewer's Blinded condition or target's Invisible, etc etc... but I don't know that there's a quote in any of the rulebooks that explicitly requires that conclusion, or that it is the best/most reasonable way to interpret the rules on vision, and I've certainly never yet encountered a DM that actually plays it that way. Do I know what square of his bedchamber Elminster is standing in on the other side of the continent (or even while standing in the street outside his tower), when he isn't actively Hiding? Probably not, but if you don't accept that "you can't see him from where you're standing" is a sufficient explanation of why that is true, then I'm not sure where else you draw the line, because there's no other rule text explaining why you would know where something is other than your ability to "perceive" it. I get why folks want to say that you know where invisible creatures are until they hide, because otherwise what's the point of hiding? But as has been exhaustively described in other threads, I just don't think there is a way to read the hiding/invisible/blind/concealment rules as a coherent unified system, there's issues that pop up no matter how the cookie crumbles. Sure, maybe I can "perceive" using my hearing which square an invisible creature that isn't hiding is in when it's 5 feet away... maybe even 10 or 15 feet away... but 30 feet away? 60? 120? Normal humanoids without special senses can certainly see that far but just aren't really described as having the ability to pick out fine detail like that with hearing or smell anywhere in the rule text, so if you can pin a visual effect to an invisible creature, I am certain that most DMs would be far more likely to let you shoot an arrow at the right square of the fleeing Invisible combatant without using your action for a Perception check. Or, not shoot him, but just follow him without having to stare at the ground to try to detect tracks or other signs of his passing. The +2 AC is certainly a good reason why Shield of Faith isn't the best way to track an Invisible creature, but the fact that you can target a creature without seeing it, and it doesn't allow a save, and it lasts for 10 minutes, and it creates a visually perceptible spell effect are all good reasons why it might be just the right spell to use creatively in certain weird situations.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I try to give a lot of latitude toward creative spell uses because they are often the things that create stories people tell after the session is over. If that means bending the rules a little here or there, I'm usually up for it. My point of perspective is whether someone is trying to do something with a 1st level spell (for instance) that seems beyond the capabilities I would expect from a 1st level spell. If that's the case, I'll try to scale the effect appropriately or just give the player the opportunity to pick a different course of action.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Texas to be fair that's what I do too. And sod it Rule of Cool sometimes will take precedent, if it draws a laugh out of everyone even better. This thread was more about the cool ambiguities and how you could twist them as opposed to full tilt arguing over specific rules and conditions. But hey ho some people take life a little too seriously lol
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
yeah, this is my approach too. In general, if it doesn't derail the plot and if it is a clever or cool use of rather than and outright abuse of the spell (or magic item), I'll typically allow it. Want to do 'create water' to drown a goblin? sure, he'll get a dex (or con) save, but you probably could have killed him with three magic missiles anyway so where's the harm? Trying to 'destroy water' on the mission's main villian and auto-kill him with a level 1 spell? Well actually, the biochemistry of that "70%" of water in the body is a lot more complicated than just the hydrogen bonds in a bucket of water, and the magical insight required by a 1st level spell wouldn't be subtle or powerful enough to separate out the ionic and hydrostatic forces involved... sorry. But I wouldn't tell them it won't work; maybe instead it just dries out the free water in the stomach, esophagus, and mouth so he suddenly has the world's worst case of dry mouth and has to stop his monologue mid-sentence and get a drink from his flask.
In subsequent encounters, if they want to use the spell again for the same purpose but it feels too powerful for the spell level, I'll explain that they CAN do that, but because of the complexity involved they'll actually need to burn a higher level spell slot instead. and of course if they start to spam it so that it's actually HURTING the narrative and coolness of the game, enemies have ways to figure that kind of stuff out. Even a goblin will learn to keep his mouth closed if he just saw 2 of his friends vomiting out copious amounts of water that came from nowhere...
Addendum: I also think in general DM's want to be very careful about making sure the 'that spell can't do that' they are enforcing really is RAW accurate. Pretty frustrating for a player to be told that the cool, novel use of a spell they came up with, that they've researched thoroughly in the player's guide and that perfectly fits the situation, can't work just because the DM hasn't seen it used that way or thought about it being used that way before. I've only played with a DM like that once. Once. On the other hand, if a DM typically says "yeah let's figure out how that would work" for something you want to try, that DM gets a lot of leeway later when they really do have to say "actually that wouldn't really work." In some ways, that's what makes RPG's different than RPG style board games in the first place.
Okay, for stuff suggested here
Shield of faith: If you know an enemy is in the room, but is hidden and has invisibility, yeah, this removes hidden with a first level spell slot. Make's them hard to hit, but at least you can hit them.
Destroy Water: we are not open containers. if you want to count the lungs or stomach, fine, you make them thirsty, and give them cotton mouth, but nothing worse
Create Water: This is interesting. If I were DM I'd allow the target to make a con save. If they succeed, they splutter but nothing else. If they fail, they spend the next action hacking up water. You aren't drowning them because you can't fit 10 gallons into lungs.
Fog Cloud-Shape water - Ice Knife. DEFINITELY ALLOW THIS. it's bad-ass. however, that dagger is GOING to shatter and be unusable after 1 use. and while it may be magical for the purposes of over coming yadda-yadda, no pluses.
onechapelcredit, yay someone gets it lol
I hadn't thought about the drying his mouth out use for the spell and I think it's brilliant, and could just imagine the party using it as a way of interrupting the BBEG monologue just to piss him off. And I have played with people who would burn through spells just to piss someone off, because it's funny lol.
This is why I started the thread, I wanted creative "FUN" ways of interpreting spells. Using the ambiguity of how they are written against them, it still comes down to the DM to smile and set a DC for the PC to pass for it to work, I mean player tries to use destroy water to completely dessicate the BBEG and DM says give me a Nat 20 and you can do it. How cool does the player feel if they role that nat 20 and the boss just shrivels up or they fail the check they just dry his mouth out lol
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
My Divination Wizard is a fan of using Levitation as a banishment. Oh, that really beefy swole boy, yeah, he's going to spend the fight 20 ft in the air and we're going to ignore him until we deal with the mooks and caster. Then we'll burn him down as a group.
Yeah levitate is good as long as they fail the con check you have them locked down for the entire fight. Then as they gently glide down to the ground at the end blast the **** out of them (after the fight you can always send them a bit higher just to give you more time to explode/negotiate lol)
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Like I said, Divination wizard. he tells the DM, "I'm going to cast Levitate on him, and he's going to fail his saving throw."
I've (briefly) played a Drow Sorceress with the "Criminal" background, a magic using Assassin from the Underdark (I joked that "It's the Underdark, she isn't a criminal, it's a legit work"!) who did the math and decided she liked her odds better if she could find a respected cleric/paladin to stick to so she wouldn't be lynched on sight. And when the party's first fight turned ugly (One PC downed during the Surprise Round, no one in good shape), she used Disguise Self to create an illusory Ghillie Suit she used to disappear, before sneaking in to the enemy camp (they intended to keep the party as slaves) and rescue everyone.
Also as an aside, I'd allow the Form Water trick to create an improvised dagger (basically a dagger that has a chance to break on a hit, the "harder" the armor the greater the chances of breakage) if the character has some kind of armorer proficiency. In short, if the character knows what they're doing, I'd allow it.
I mean, if you're like me and dont mind using your 9th level spell slot for some fun, then true polymorphing any huge monster into a toilet and...you know...using it before you, use animate obejct and make it throw it's self of a clif or in avulcano or maybe just bang it's self against a wall untill it shatters in bits...you know that sort of thing is, allways funny, and poop and fart jokes rarely aren't.
I love it, i will try this one day lol
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Sort of related, I like to use Command to make someone pee themself or poop their pants.