My players have allied themselves with a manitcore and one of the party members knows the Invisibility spell. Manticores are Large Monstrosities but the spell says "a creature you touch becomes invisible" without any further specifications on the type of creature. Okay so they can turn the manticore invisible. However the spell goes on to say "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person." Does that mean if Invisibility was cast on the manticore while it was carrying the party, the party would also be invisible (so long as they remain on the manticore)? The spell does say anything carried not anyone but I feel like that's splitting hairs.
Another question about Invisibility: say the bard makes the manticore invisible and the manticore immediately takes to the sky and flies as far away as possible from her. Would the spell still affect the manticore even if it was several miles away from the one concentrating on the spell? I know Invisibility doesn't say anything about distance but I feel that miles should have some effect. I'm new to DMing so I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thank you!
1) Room to disagree, but from my perspective yes, being mounted on an invisible mount = being carried by that mount, and carried things receive invisibility by proxy. To rule otherwise would feel hair-splitty, and start inviting questions about whether familiars in pockets of invisible wizards remain revealed, etc.
2) No room to disagree, yes, you can maintain concentration regardless of distance from a spell (even on a different plane, if necessary). The only limitations on distance between caster and the spell effect will be provided in the text of that spell, and the range entry for spells relates to where it can be cast, not maintained in future rounds, unless otherwise specified.
If I make a Half Orc invisible, and he picks up his friend the gnome wizard, does the gnome become invisible because he is being 'carried'?
If you say yes, then mounting an invisible mount makes you invisible.
As a DM, I would laugh at you and say "anything carried' refers to items, not creatures. You can not turn a 1 target spell into a 2+ target spell by doing this.
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
The question about whether Invisibility applies to things you already have picked up/worn when the spell is cast, vs. things you pick up/wear afterwards while under its effect, that's what's called into question by your Half Orc/Gnome situation there. "Anything the target is wearing or carrying" = "...is wearing or carrying at that time" or "...wears or carriesfor the duration"? Plain english readings of which is implied have room for disagreement. Personally, I think it's more fun for the spell to invisible-ify everything you're carrying at the time you cast it (Orc's greataxe is invisible), but not new stuff you pick up (the barstool he then picks up seems to float in mid air), but that's more a narrative preference of mine than a certainty that RAW requires one reading over the other.
But as for whether invisibility should make both the half orc and the gnome on his shoulders wink out at once if he's already giving a piggyback ride when it's cast? That doesn't seem laughable to me, and it isn't a 2+ target spell, because the gnome only remains invisible while being actively carried by the half orc. It's just how the spell reads, in my view, it says "anything" not "any object." A "thing" is not 5E parlance for "object," 5E uses "object" when it means "object"
Thanks for the replies everyone! I think I'm going to have the spell extend to the rider(s) as long as they are on the mount when the spell was cast. Since they share the same spell, if the mount breaks invisibility it will also break for the rider, and if the rider breaks invisibility it will also break for the mount.
....and if the rider breaks invisibility it will also break for the mount.
Now that I don't think is supported in the rule text... but it sounds like a decent power compromise to make your party not get too excited about over-relying on their invisible Chimera dropship, may work for your group :)
The consensus seems to be 'no' to the first question since it is only objects, not other creatures carried that are covered.
- Personally on this one, I'd probably allow it to cover the mount and the mount's handler as one target, simply because using mounts is problematic enough due to needing somewhere to safely park them and limitations regarding using them indoors... but from what I have been reading, that would be considered overly generous by most.
On the second question there seems to be no range limit. However, it only lasts up to 1 hour (1 minute for greater) and requires concentration to maintain, so not sure it matters that much. Not like you can recast it while they are away.
The issue is, it does not state object. The text given is “anything.” Now “Thing” is possibly one of the most all encompassing words in the English language. Essentially everything that exists is a thing. So raw it includes objects, characters, quite literally “anything.” The real issue arises from the text stating that the target of invisibility will break invisibility if the “Target” casts or attacks. This means RAW that the rider, not being the target, has no described affect on the invisibility. The riders actions are independent of the effects and consequences to invisibility, as long as the mount does not attack. As awesome as this is, and an incredible loophole, it does essentially turn invisibility into greater invisibility and for an entire hour. Though amazingly awesome, it does present a balance issue.
Remember to account for the Paladin ‘Find Steed’ and ‘Find Greater Steed’ spells. These specifically state that spells cast on the Paladin can be applied to the steed as well. Allowing other ways to naturally ‘twin’ a spell with a mount seems to reduce the nature of this Paladin special spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My players have allied themselves with a manitcore and one of the party members knows the Invisibility spell. Manticores are Large Monstrosities but the spell says "a creature you touch becomes invisible" without any further specifications on the type of creature. Okay so they can turn the manticore invisible. However the spell goes on to say "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person." Does that mean if Invisibility was cast on the manticore while it was carrying the party, the party would also be invisible (so long as they remain on the manticore)? The spell does say anything carried not anyone but I feel like that's splitting hairs.
Another question about Invisibility: say the bard makes the manticore invisible and the manticore immediately takes to the sky and flies as far away as possible from her. Would the spell still affect the manticore even if it was several miles away from the one concentrating on the spell? I know Invisibility doesn't say anything about distance but I feel that miles should have some effect. I'm new to DMing so I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thank you!
1) Room to disagree, but from my perspective yes, being mounted on an invisible mount = being carried by that mount, and carried things receive invisibility by proxy. To rule otherwise would feel hair-splitty, and start inviting questions about whether familiars in pockets of invisible wizards remain revealed, etc.
2) No room to disagree, yes, you can maintain concentration regardless of distance from a spell (even on a different plane, if necessary). The only limitations on distance between caster and the spell effect will be provided in the text of that spell, and the range entry for spells relates to where it can be cast, not maintained in future rounds, unless otherwise specified.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Let me ask you this:
If I make a Half Orc invisible, and he picks up his friend the gnome wizard, does the gnome become invisible because he is being 'carried'?
If you say yes, then mounting an invisible mount makes you invisible.
As a DM, I would laugh at you and say "anything carried' refers to items, not creatures. You can not turn a 1 target spell into a 2+ target spell by doing this.
The question about whether Invisibility applies to things you already have picked up/worn when the spell is cast, vs. things you pick up/wear afterwards while under its effect, that's what's called into question by your Half Orc/Gnome situation there. "Anything the target is wearing or carrying" = "...is wearing or carrying at that time" or "...wears or carries for the duration"? Plain english readings of which is implied have room for disagreement. Personally, I think it's more fun for the spell to invisible-ify everything you're carrying at the time you cast it (Orc's greataxe is invisible), but not new stuff you pick up (the barstool he then picks up seems to float in mid air), but that's more a narrative preference of mine than a certainty that RAW requires one reading over the other.
But as for whether invisibility should make both the half orc and the gnome on his shoulders wink out at once if he's already giving a piggyback ride when it's cast? That doesn't seem laughable to me, and it isn't a 2+ target spell, because the gnome only remains invisible while being actively carried by the half orc. It's just how the spell reads, in my view, it says "anything" not "any object." A "thing" is not 5E parlance for "object," 5E uses "object" when it means "object"
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thanks for the replies everyone! I think I'm going to have the spell extend to the rider(s) as long as they are on the mount when the spell was cast. Since they share the same spell, if the mount breaks invisibility it will also break for the rider, and if the rider breaks invisibility it will also break for the mount.
Now that I don't think is supported in the rule text... but it sounds like a decent power compromise to make your party not get too excited about over-relying on their invisible Chimera dropship, may work for your group :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The issue is, it does not state object. The text given is “anything.” Now “Thing” is possibly one of the most all encompassing words in the English language. Essentially everything that exists is a thing. So raw it includes objects, characters, quite literally “anything.” The real issue arises from the text stating that the target of invisibility will break invisibility if the “Target” casts or attacks. This means RAW that the rider, not being the target, has no described affect on the invisibility. The riders actions are independent of the effects and consequences to invisibility, as long as the mount does not attack. As awesome as this is, and an incredible loophole, it does essentially turn invisibility into greater invisibility and for an entire hour. Though amazingly awesome, it does present a balance issue.
Remember to account for the Paladin ‘Find Steed’ and ‘Find Greater Steed’ spells. These specifically state that spells cast on the Paladin can be applied to the steed as well. Allowing other ways to naturally ‘twin’ a spell with a mount seems to reduce the nature of this Paladin special spell.