I was trying to explain how it worked to my DM last Saturday when she asked, and kept mixing up the SPELL Invisibility and the condition when my ranger was using Tasha's optional feature to become invisible as a bonus action. She'd treat it as basically casting the spell Invisibility when that's not at all what the ability does.
Soulknife Rogues can become invisible with their 13th-level Psychic Veil feature, though it is very similar to the Invisibility spell, despite not casting it, as it takes an action, is magical, lasts for 1 hour ( without concentration, unlike the spell ), and ends after dealing damage or forcing a saving throw. But it's one of the most spammable, as you get a free use and then can spend a PE die to reuse it.
The nice thing about that one is that you can still cast support/healing spells or spells without saves like sleep or telekinesis (if you can somehow get access to it via item or the like), grapple or throw nets at people without dropping your invisibility.
As a plus you can make as many attack actions as you want and stay invisible if you dont hit...if I'M missing on advantage with EA and a d10 extra to hit it's time to run.
Another really nice feature of this ability (at least for attacks) is that rogues usually only get one attack ... and definitely only get one sneak attack. So it's a bonus action to guarantee you get a sneak attack WITOUT removing your ability to maneuver. Still not as good as Greater Invisibility, but yes, eminently spammable. 😈
I feel your pain there... the way I run it... and I know that this isn't exactly RAW is thus. - you have advantage on all attack rolls - attack rolls against you have disadvantage - you can attack an invisible creature at disadvantage, but can't make opportunity attacks against them (no battleship) - true sight, blind sight, tremorsense, and see invisible spells counter invisibility if a creature has one of those senses you are not considered invisible for the purposes of attack rolls, hiding, or being targeted by spells against that creature specifically (I know this isn't RAW, but that's how I run it)
@@ADT1995 an important note specifically for Gloomstalker Ranger: it is also countered by Devil's Sight. The ability specifically mentions "any creature who relies on darkvision" which DS isn't.
@@crownlexicon5225 You have to ask yourself whether the creature with DS would be able to see/sense the gloomstalker without DS. Relying on something (in this case darkvision) implies that without it you wouldn't be able to do what it is you want (seeing the gloomstalker). If you're making the claim that DS isn't darkvision then I'm not sure what you mean because it specifically grants you the ability to see normally in magical and nonmagical darkness. This can only be described as darkvision (and it is noted as such in your dndbeyond character sheet). Concluson: DS does not counter Umbral Sight. Things like truesight, blindsight, tremorsense, lighting up the area the gloomstalker is in, etc. counters Umbral Sight.
22:35 I just want to point out that even though umbral sight on a gloom stalker ranger does specifically say “you are INVISIBLE to any creature that relies on dark vision to see you” it does not give you the invisible condition, because who cares that invisible is a specified condition in 5e let’s just also use it in the traditional sense that would just hide you from sight, because that isn’t confusing at all. I know you didn’t mention it but I just wanted to point it out before someone else tried saying it gives you the invisible condition. Also interestingly enough this means that depending on the interpretation of the rules if you think that faerie fire specifically works against the condition invisible then it wouldn’t actually effect the gloom stalker’s invisibility.
They really need to rework the stealth/hiding rules, especially the invisible condition. It's especially strange that you're essentially invisible to anything that relies on darkvision as a Gloomstalker, but it doesn't apply the condition at all.
@@devin5201 unless the gloomstalker was in an area under the effects of Hunger of Hadar. Then the darkness created by that spell would supersede the light created by faire fire. Note that the darkness spell wouldn’t work since that would dispel the faire fire. Also keep in mind that you would need to be fighting a devil with devil’s sight which allows them to use their darkvision in magical darkness, however a warlock with the devil’s sight invocation could still see the ranger because that devil’s sight isn’t connected to darkvision.
but if the gloomstalker is outlined by faerie fire, the gloomstalker emits dim light. Does that not mean that if an enemy sees the gloomstalker, that enemy does so without relying on darkvision?
Getting Greater Invisibility from Sorcerer seems like the way to go if you wanna use quicken spell anyway. The rest of the build could be any number of things to take advantage of that... Well, advantage. Maybe Elven Accuracy, maybe a power attack feat, maybe just a ton of attacks, we'll see :)
@@pranakhan highly doubt we're getting coffee lock. It hasn't been that long since the Sorlock Build and he seems pretty against coffeelock strats, but love the meme
It was dumb for them to make invisibility a condition since it is dependent on the ability of others to perceive the target. Poisoned is a condition, exhausted is a condition. It is clear they affects the target regardless of what others perceive. This was just bad design by the 5E team.
One thing you didn't touch on, that I thought worth mentioning... The Invisibility spell adds an additional target for each level it is upcast. The hour duration and upcast could make it a huge alpha strike. Sink a 4th or 5th level slot to make your strikers invisible, maybe someone else casts Pass Without Trace, then drive the pain train right into the BBEG's kitchen. Three or four well built strikers, going nova, will end most level appropriate boss monsters on the first round. Without lair actions, legendary actions, and legendary resists complicating things, the rest of an encounter is mop up.
Very effective, but also a decent amount of RAW boss monsters have random anti-cheese abilities like the ability to sense invisible creatures (you would still get advantage though unless they can end the condition)
@@floofzykitty5072 exactly. The pain train isn't about avoidance. It's pure offense. The stealth ability is to get past all the minions, that could ruin that first round nova. If you can dish 500 damage in an opening hit, most anything is done, and you can follow more traditional encounter procedures from there.
It doesn't come into play until higher levels, but Contingency > Greater invisibility is a great option for one fight per day. Effectively lets you cast it without expending any action. Quickening has limited uses outside of a sorlock/sorcadin where casting non-cantrip spells isn't your main squeeze.
@@rulethegamer Contingency > Resilient Sphere is better if you're only going for defense. If you want offensive benefits, then Contingency > Greater Invisibility is better.
ah yes, i get it. will retain my comment, but you guys are right. on top of my head, GI contingency is good for Bladesingers, steel wind strikes... if contingency were available to Sorcerers, it'd be crazier offensively. Contingency -> GI is just not something I consider because of its restriction to wizard, and with wizards they can do something else with their concentration.
For my money some of the most flexible ways to get invisibility is actually with artificer, here us how: The setup Use your 11th level feature "spell-storing item" with the invisibility spell from the artificers spell list give the item to a Homunculus Servant (artificer infusion) The execution Use your bonus action to allow the servant to use an action, with this action it uses the spell storing item to cast invisibility on you. Because it wasn't you who cast the spell, you can still use other leveled spells and even consentrate on other spells as well (your servant still has to concentrate on the invisibility) So for 1 action and 1 bonus action you effectively get multiple leveled spells per turn and can maintain concentration on both. This can be done twice your int modifier per long rest. One small downside is the your servant takes its turn AFTER your turn, so it takes one round to set up. Still i have used this to great effect
I once did a build using this, tough the main objective was to add Cha to damage as many times as I could as a bit of a funny exercise . I believe it was something like Version 1 (better at low levels) 1 hexblade 7 draconic sorcerer (the main damage source I was using was greenflameblade, twinned or quickened) 7 oathbteaker paladin And that's 3 times The optimal high level version (requires making sure w ur dm cuz of some warding on celestial warlock lvl 6) 6 celestial warlock (taking tome for shillelagh CHA so that's 2 times already on greenflameblade, at least on the main targetk) 7 draconic sorc fire 7 oathbteaker pala And at lvl 20 that's +20 to your main target of greenflameblade, +22 w dueling and more if you have a +X quarterstaff Also the best combat buff I had from 7 sorc lvls happened to have been greater invis so I used it A LOT and to great effect, advantage was huge in helping me pump out dps and not being seen rendered me immune to most single target shutdown spells, was a lot of fun.
i think the separate bullet points on invisibility can make sense, depending on how you in-vision truesight. i suspect crawford sees it as a filter over normal vision that you can sort of "tune into" to see through illusions, but you can still mostly see the same things as everyone else. so while an invisible creature might be able to be seen, its still hard to track in the heat of combat
The response he gives leads me to believe it was a rules oversight that they decided to claim was intentional. Regardless, it makes for interesting mechanics. It is truly a shame how abysmal it makes See Invisibility as a spell though. All they needed to do was modify to spell to say "You ignore the invisible condition on any creature within your visual range."
Empty Body lets you punch something once as BA, if you use the optional Ki Fueled Attack feature. It's not much, but better than nothing. Also, invisibility as a reaction upon taking damage (e.g., Fade Away) can be ok defensively. If you are facing an opponent with multiattack, or are surrounded (by a mishap or otherwise), the first hit that gets through can trigger reaction and all subsequent attacks will be made at disadvantage. Not too bad as a panic button, if you accept the cost (e.g., a feat).
i did notice that the fade away gnome feat's invisibility only breaks when you attack or force an enemy to make a saving throw. It says nothing about casting non-saving throw, non-attack roll spells. Although it does require to be a gnome. If you invest in invisibility, being a goblin is a good idea so you can go invisible, take the hide action and move away during the same turn
The thing I also would like to note with Greater Invisibility (specifically the limitation of action casting it) is that you also don't have to be selfish with it. If the situation calls for it, you could easily just cast it on the fighter or something who acts right after you and watch him go sicko mode with great weapon master or sharpshooter or something. Ofc if you're a sorcerer, you can also twin spell it so you COULD cast it on yourself (at the cost of like 4 sorcery points). I'm currently playing an undead warlock who took this spell because I couldn't afford the material components for the other spell (name escaping me, necrotic Flames + heavy obscurement spell). My warlock being a Bladelock with sharpshooter benefits really greatly if I use it on myself, but its super helpful on pretty much any character on my party if I need to cast it on them (as an escape, make them cracked on offense or defense).
Although a build centered around invisibility may have trouble reaching some of the options mentioned here, it's true that anyone who gets to some of those higher-level options would probably be wise to pick some corresponding options to work with those forms of invisibility. Eldritch Knights with greater invisibility gain a lot of advantage, Rangers with Nature's Veil can use Steel-Wind Strike, and Monks can, well, you know, maybe use firearms or something. In any case, without it being a build focus, invisibility can still be a helpful power-combo when other choices are made to account for it.
I'm sure someone else has pointed it out already but the gloomstalker's umbral sight grants you the invisible condition as long as you're in darkness/dark shadow. and this invisibility doesn't break or have a short duration.
This my revised "See Invisibility" spell, which our group uses on D&D Beyond. "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent. Invisible creatures you see with this spell are blurred, shifting and wavering. You have disadvantage on attack rolls against them, but they no longer have advantage on attack rolls against you." "Revision Note: During the "Ask the Sage" Q&A (D&D Celebration 2021) [21:30], Jeremy Crawford -- the WotC lead rules designer -- said that seeing an invisible creature using this spell didn't negate the second Invisible condition benefit ("Attack rolls against the invisible creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage"). The ruling makes the original spell lackluster. The spell as written -- without the second paragraph above -- merely shuts down the first benefit of the invisible condition ("An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.") The revision meets the designer halfway. Seeing an invisible creature with this spell removes the creature's invisible condition, but it still retains the benefit of a blurred aspect, as if under the effect of the blur spell. By contrast, the 6th level true seeing spell allows the caster to ignore a creature's invisible condition."
Invisibility means that you can only be detected by noise you make or tracks you leave. If you are indoors or somewhere that doesn't leave tracks you shouldn't need to make a "stealth" roll to just sit still and make no noise. I rule that if an invisible creature moves beyond 35 feet, you cannot hear their footsteps anymore and they are automatically hidden. You would know their last position before they moved more than 35 feet away though, which can help you pinpoint what area they might be in. I base the 35 feet on the average hearing distance printed on the back of the official DM Screen (and nowhere else for some reason). The distance can be increased or decreased depending on the environment.
Like you said you have to house rule it if you and your players want the ability to suspend disbelief. For instance a genie warlock flying around invisible 250 ft away at the speed of 30ft every six seconds, would make zero noise, there would be no way that a creature could pinpoint your location until you cast a spell, but RAW they would.
Basically, as far as casting, Invisibility for first round ambushes (which you can as a caster at 5th level cast on 5 people, and you can set up ambush, but that one is most usefull on sneaking into places,a nd you should consider getting item (if DM lets you) like boots of elvenkind. Greater invisibility is is the one that yo use for combat on yourself or an ally. Then you want to consider things like War Csaster and Metamagic adept (which metamagic quicken spell would letyou at least cast a cantrip with your greater invisibility, so bonus action quicken spell greater invisibility, then cast firebot or (my new favoirte cantrip) mind sliver, or something like that. Just dont' do something like guidance or create bondfire :) remember conentration.
It's true that there are lots of creatures with truesight or blindsight that would negate the invisible condition if a DM were playing with common-sense house rules. However, the range of those senses are relevant. Generally it seems like truesight or blindsight with a range longer than 60ft. is relatively rare. In a longer range engagement, invisibility would still be quite effective against those creatures.
Had a session last night actually where the interplay of a creature yiu can see made a huge difference in how my strategy played out. Our tank had been downed (0hp) by a big bad because of that I had planned to through out a healing word from range to get them back in the fight and out of death saves. However our other spell caster who didn't pack healing spells cast invisibility on the tank to keep them out of danger and not taking hits when downed as easily. Obviously now the tank was being attacked with disadvantage but I also could not see them and made healing word useless. I instead ran in and slapped them with a cure wounds which my dm allowed as I knew the general area our tank was in and wasn't making a roll to activate my spell but because its a touch spell it put me right in melee of the enemy horde
I think the intent for advantage while seen under invisibility is kind of like a Hades vs Kronos thing. you may know where the invisible guy is, but it's hard to block a sword you don't see. Like if true sight only lets you see an aura not the actual body.
The Djinni warlock, at level 7 could cast greater invisibility and fly with the class feature. It's setup round, that's true, but if you pair it with eldritch mind you'll be able to hold it for a long time, and have advantage on all your eldritch blasts. Don't know if it's super viable, but it's seems to be...
To address the first point, Darkness doesn't actually disrupt the party as heavily as one might think. It just prevents them from getting advantage on attacks, and protects them from getting disadvantage. Based on the rules of Advantage and Disadvantage stacking, if they can both be applied to the Attack Roll, they also cancel out, regardless of how many sources of Advantage or Disadvantage would have applied. Therefore, Darkness actually just returns the battlefield within it to a completely neutral playing field of straight rolls. Sure, it prevents abilities that specifically target what a player can see, but it also protects them from any of those abilities, both inside and out of the Darkness field. Naturally, it's not a god-tier combo like some might have you believe, but it's also not actually as awful as the backlash to the former is claiming either.
But it’s also less reliable than poison damage, and sure, you’re immune to spells that you need to be seen for, but spell casting pcs are much more likely to be using sight spells than their enemies, so yeah, it is pretty disruptive, especially if you’re not sitting 120ft back or so
@@okboomer2473 That's why you and your teammates *plan out your damn encounters.* Casting Darkness lets you render your entire party immune to those spell effects, but your allies can leave the area to cast their sight spells against enemies not within the field, and then return to the Darkness after they're done. Then, you can finish off the enemies *inside* the field after those are picked off. Not to mention, you can cast Darkness on an object, and if it is completely covered (example: casting it on a rock, and putting that rock on a plate and covering it with a bowl), the Darkness field is nullified. So, you can hold an Action to uncover the rock, and your entire party can attack freely, and you only set off the Darkness in response to the enemies using something big against them. You can even cover and uncover the rock multiple times per round if you have a Familiar capable of holding objects, like a Pact of the Chain Warlock, or some of the mid-range party members stay close enough to do it themselves as well. Try thinking creatively, it'll lead you to a lot of interesting ways to play a game.
@@occultnightingale1106still more creatures than it doesn’t work on than poison damage though, and the enemies can easily hold their actions until they can see someone in you spellcasting example, and on top of that, even non spellcasting enemies can wait outside the darkness and get opportunity attacks that your character should have no way of knowing is coming if you want to go out of it to cast a spell. And like sure, technically it’s a straight roll, but also you should probably have to guess where the target is similar to if they were invisible considering the fact that you can’t see them. I’ve played with other people using it and it does really wreck things a lot of the time, even when they purposely try to have it not disrupt things. That might come down to the fact that the dm ruled that covering an object covered in darkness took an action due to the fact that you can just stop concentrating on the spell at any time if you really want it to stop so that that was still an interesting option (and honestly I agree with her) but no, it’s not something that isn’t going to negatively affect your other party members
Here’s what I find funny. Under the unseen attacker rules it says this: “Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.” It specifically mentions the invisibility spell, even though not only does it not work with attack rolls but also invisible is a condition that’s separate to unseen attacker (although you are still an unseen attacker). And they wonder why people would be confused.
Huh. As a combatant, I often try to escape my foes' notice by pounding their faces into the dirt. I mean, after awhile, they stop noticing me. Or anything else.
tbf, if you're invisible, people do not know where you are as long as you do not make noise and leave traces, as in you were already invisible in place before they came into the room
To me the "you can see invisible creatures as if they were visible" part of the See Invisibility spell means their invisible condition doesn't apply to you. My guess is that it was less convoluted than wording it in a different way that included mention of the condition.
As a wild magic sorcerer, you have a chance of turning invisible with a wild magic surge by rolling an 89 or 90, and possibly a 69 or 70 if your DM includes you in the group of creatures that becomes invisible. Rolling a 3 or 4 will allow to see invisible creatures. These invisibility conditions end on an attack or spell cast, so they're most similar to the invisibility spell. So, just always roll 1s on your d20 to surge and always roll 89 or 90 on the table.
I did have a one with shadows build that would summon a bear through conjure animals and ride it as an invisible suit of armor. Mounted combat. Fighter first level dip to get ac21. Mark of handling human for conjure animals. A grizzly with 21 ac that you attack at disadvantage is scary for a few levels. Falls off of course, but a very nice tank for levels 6-10
18:27 This was early 5e design, they didn't know if they would later include ways to attack or cast spells without using a reaction, so it seems prudent to throw that in if they really wanted you to lose invisibility if you did manage this. See, Tunnel Fighter fighting style from UA, you could make unlimited attacks without using a reaction, bonus action or action.
I have a house rule for hiding, that I really like. Basically there are 7 conditions that affect it. 1. In the Open - a character In the Open is not hidden in any way and cannot take the Hide action without moving to a position of Obscurement or Behind Partial or Full Cover. 2. Lightly Obscured - a character who is ONLY lightly obscured cannot take the hide action unless an ability or spell allows them to in light obscurement. 3. Heavily Obscured - a character who is Heavily Obscured may take the hide action on their turn. 4. Behind partial cover - a character behind partial cover may take the hide action. If a character is behind partial cover AND is Lightly OR Heavily Obscured then they receive advantage on that Hide check. Enemies targeting creatures behind partial cover receive a -2 penalty to their attack rolls against that target. 5. Behind Full Cover - a character that is behind full cover may take the Hide action and gets advantage on the check if they do, regardless of obscurement. Enemies targeting characters behind full cover receive disadvantage on their attack rolls against that target. 6. Invisible - A character that is Invisible cannot be seen for the purposes of spells that require the target to be seen, except by certain magical means, such as Truesight. An invisible creature is considered Heavily Obscured for the purpose of Hide checks. Enemies targeting an Invisible creature make attack rolls against that creature with Disadvantage. 7. Hidden - a character that is Hidden from a successful Hide check cannot be targeted by any means until they are found via a successful Search action against the Stealth check they used to Hide. Unless the searching creature announces the location of the hidden target by word or deed the target is revealed only to the creature making the search. These rules make it very clear to everyone where they stand in relation to hiding and stealth. They make cover important to hiding, but not always required, and give a nice advantage to the harder to achieve Invisible condition, without making everyone play Battleship.
"Behind Full Cover - a character that is behind full cover may take the Hide action and gets advantage on the check if they do, regardless of obscurement. Enemies targeting characters behind full cover receive disadvantage on their attack rolls against that target." Huh? You can't target an enemy behind full cover at all with an attack roll, can you? So how are they getting disadvantage on an attack roll that they cannot even make?
I used Contingency w/ Greater Invisibility to great effect when playing my high level bladesinger last week :D didn't have to worry about the 4th level slots when I had one free invisibility when I trigger it
I don't think you would keep the second bullet point against See Invisibility, but it's kinda based on semantics. The Invisibility spell doesn't say "you gain the Invisible condition", it only says you turn invisible (lowercase). Therefore, in my opinion, the spell gives you the possibility to benefit from the condition, but See Invisibility spell removes this possibility, because as per the first bullet point of the Invisible condition you are being seen with the aid of magic. If the Invisibility spell simply said "you gain the Invisible condition" it would be worded such as you keep the condition no matter what. Jerry C. is probably stretching it to save face, I don't know a single dm that agrees with his ruling on See Invisibility
I played a half elven aberrant mind sorcerer with 2 levels of hexblade, with elven accuracy. And it used greater invisibility to great effect. I know crit fishing is not optimal however it was a lot of fun. I called it the single target psychic sorlock. Also used some other nifty combo's like quickened earthen grasp or dissonant whispers after a booming blade and of course hexblade curse with magic missiles.
Correction on the Hypnotic Gaze. It does not work on an invisible target. The wizard must see the target. The target then in turn must also be able to either see or hear the wizard, so it's not enough for the wizard to only hear the target. Though I guess if you are the invisible wizard, then it does work against a visible target..
Something I noted with invisibility, though it doesn't necessarily scale well and isn't phenomenal damage, but you can use the invisibility spell with non-attacks or casting spells, ie, if you have the Healer feat or Dragon's Breath on you.
As a Pact of the Chain Sorlock, I gave my imp familiar a ring of spell storing to cast Greater Invisibility on me at the start of combat and then go hide somewhere.
Other ways to get Greater Invisibility: Elf (Mark of Shadow) gets Greater Invisibility in expanded spell list 19th level Arcane Trickster and 20th level Eldritch Knight 13th level Gloom Stalker
If allowed, there a UA background called GIANT FOUNDLING that gives the feat STRKE OF THE GIANTS. The cloud giant option gives you an extra 1d6 dmg and forces a wisdom save on a hit. On fail you become invisible until the start of your next turn.
The Matador Build: • High Elf (under 5’ tall) • Minor Illusion Cantrip • Fighter (Level 2) • Blind Fighting Style if DM will not allow you to see through your own illusions • Action = Cast Minor Illusion to create 5x5 opaque curtain / veil • Action Surge = Attack Action with Advantage, since opponent cannot see you Metamagic Adept and Quickened Spell would allow you to cast Minor Illusion as a Bonus Action before attacking as an Action. This method is probably too resource heavy for most players, though.
1. Get two wizard friends, one of level 13+ and one of level 17+. 2. Get material components for the next steps. 3. Get one of them to start casting the sequester spell on you. 4. Get the other one to cast true polymorph on you less than an hour before sequester is done. 5. Once sequester lands, the friend who was concentrating on true polymorph up until now drops their concentration. Would this work? The target of the spell was an object at the time when it was cast, but it became a creature afterwards, and the time ceases to flow only if it's a creature.
Seems like it'd work by RAW, but it automatically ends when you get hit once so probably not worth the hassle even if you could get a couple of npcs to do it for you as a 1st level character.
hi i recently saw your channel and i really do love it...i have a silly question...in case u are watching house of dragon what build would you say would fit from the ones you have published so far for Daemon Tangaryen? or in case you havent what would you like for him from a rp as well as utility point of view? sorry for the silly question
I had a wizard cast invisibility and was confused when I attacked them and I was like your invisible not hidden unless you too the hide action. Thankfully it didn’t not turn to an argument
Truesight and See Invisibility not "working" is one of the rulings from Jeremy Crawford that I choose to ignore... Hopefully such obvious things will be fixed in the next edition 😬
the 18th level feature for monks is improved with the tasha's optional rule that lets monks attack as a bonus action if they spent any ki points as an action. doesn't help all that much though
Doesn't Shadow of Moil accomplish a lot of the same goals? heavily obscured to others, means the Blinded condition, meaning the same adv and disadv effects. Sure, also an action, also 4th level, but worth mentioning?
Re: DMs who give free-action hide to everything: 1: As a player ... AGHGHGHGHGHGH 2: As a DM: DMG overcost inherent invisibility, and a lot of invisible things are tissue paper when run RAW, and the play feels bad due if you hide every other round. An 1/encounter power of free-action-hide seems about right for many of them. Re: invisible != being unseen. I hate this by feel as both a player and a DM. It does help with the inherently-invisible-creatures balance issues though.
With these clarifications, what is combat in a fog cloud like if one combatant is invisible? Does the invisible one attack with straight rolls and the visible one attack with disadvantage?
So to make it make sense I have head cannoned that if you can see an invisible creature they are still see through to explain the advantage and disadvantage, not perfect but helps. Still with this I see no reason to use See Invisibility.
Great video, but I disagree that hypnotic gaze works through invisibility. It says "choose one creature that you can see" so it doesn't matter if the invisible creature can see or hear you, they where not a viable target for the effect. Edit: welp, I'm dumb
How do you play it in your games as a dm and how do you see it played as a player ? Are they the same or different and are they RAW for invisibility and hide?
I know this is what Jeremy Crawford has said about advantage/disadvantage with regards to invisibility, but imo it makes no sense. Thankfully, none of my four DMs since I came back to to DnD two years ago, play it that way. So the fighting style Blind Fighting allows you to "see an invisible creature," but despite seeing it you would still have disadvantage on the rolls. Which would remove a whole lot of the reason to ever take Blind Fighting as a fighting style. If played the way Crawford describes invisibility working, unless you want to play a blind character, there's little reason to take the style. There are better options.
I can't recall any rules in 5E or 1DD that mentions that you have to guess a creature's location, ever. I think this is an impression inherited from earlier editions, but I don't think it is a part of 5E. Most spells cannot target what you cannot see, but for attacks I allow creatures to attack what they cannot see. Of course, if the target is in a location you cannot reach or have an no unobstructed path, the attack will fail. But otherwise, the attack just suffers disadvantage. These kinds of rulings affectthe caster balance issue quite a bit. If the wizard can't target a creature at all while the fighter just suffers disadvantage, that is obviously an advantage for the fighter.
I’d have to check, but I believe it is a game mechanic. You are correct that attacking “what you cannot see” just applies disadvantage to the attack roll. There is no guessing of the position. The disadvantage is a result of you hitting out blindly at the spot you know the enemy is. But what happens if the enemy is not just unseen but also hidden? In this circumstance the creature’s location is not known to the attacker anymore. My understanding is that this is when we have to play the game of battleship and guess where the enemy is before making our attack. Like I said I’d have to check. It’s possible you just can’t make an attack at all.
Update: I found it on PHB page 194. I’m paraphrasing, but it says you suffer disadvantage when attacking an unseen enemy (which we knew) whether because you were guessing their location or because you had some other way of knowing they were there like hearing. This implies the ability to guess a hidden creature’s location.
Jackson Lette - Good find. "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss" does imply this is a game of Battleship. There is the matter of how exactly you need to target (can you make a wide swipe or shoot along a line). But more relevant, you can just move around the area until you find a space you cannot enter.
Kinda hijacking this to get greater visibility (heh), but it is also relevant to your comment. Creatures don't know where everything in existence is. That sounds kind of obvious, but it really needs pointing out. If something is not taking the Hide action this does NOT mean you know where it is. That pen you misplaced? Not taken the Hide action - but you don't know where it is. That invisible creature casually walking down the road 300ft away? Not taken the Hide action, but you don't know where it is. This is where I dispute Chris's information somewhat. It is true that Invisibility does not act the same as taking the Hide action. However, that does not mean everyone in the world (nay, existence) knows where you are. There is actually no 'Hidden' condition (check the list) - being detected is purely dependent on the situational DC vs Perception (passive in general, although an action can be taken to make a higher roll). What the Hide action does is to allow you to personally set the DC as your Stealth check result, rather than be dependent on the situational DC. Here we can see that you don't automatically know the location of something if the Hide action is not taken: Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB, pg 194): 'If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.' So how does Inivisibility enter the mix? Well, if you are invisible then a creature cannot use Perception via sight to detect you. It can (and must) use its other senses. However, the DC for this is left up to the DM if the Hide action is not taken. With sight it is kind of given that if you have line of sight you will see and detect something not trying to hide (i.e., the DC is basically 1) - I dispute this too (tiny spider in the corner of the room? person on a mountain 6 miles away?), but it hardly matters most of the time as the distance for most things that are necessary to detect is within campaign range to easily notice via sight as long as something is not in the way. With hearing, though, there is no line of sight to decide things - you have to pick based on distances, things in the way (walls, ect.), how much noise the target is making with normal movement, other distracting sounds, and so on. To get to the point, passive Perception should be used for invisible targets (whether Invisible or just out of line of sight). If the target is nearby (say 15ft), the environment is quiet (no combat, no rushing water, etc.), the floor is not carpeted (maybe its hard granite), and there is nothing between you (no wall, no crates, etc.), then the DC to detect them is going to be low and the passive Perception will likely hone in on the target automatically. If the invisible creature wants to hide under these conditions it needs to take the Hide action to put its Stealth skill into play to get that DC up higher. As per normal, if the players suspect there is something they have not detected the players can make an active Perception check as an action to see if they can roll higher than their passive gives them. So, if a target goes invisible 30ft away during noisy distracting combat with other creatures against the party in a trimmed grass-covered field with hay stacks dotted everywhere then there is no need to take the Hide action at that distance - the situational DC is going to be something like 30 anyway. If they want to get closest, or that noisy combat ends, then sure. Even just a normal dungeon environment if the target is far enough away with any other kind of distraction in play the DC is going to be too high for the passive Perception of the chacters and a higher roll via an action is going to be needed to detect where they are.
I have one main gripe with this, it has only come up a few times but it is very nonsensical Say you are invisible, can float with a magic item (so no noise) and only attack using silent means (there is some magic items that say you make no noise, also the metamagoc for the sorcerer) and do nothing else that makes noise during your turn, now how does the enemy know where you are? The best excuse although flimsy I have been able to use is breathing and such, but some races don't even need that and it's illogical across longer distances... What would you do in this case? I think making it so the other creatures don't know would be op, since then someone could cast greater invis, float upwards ish and then the guessing game starts again...
If you go through all those steps and burn a level 4 spell slot and concentrate every minute, along with using sorcery points, I think it's not OP at all that enemies would have a hard time finding you. And a lot of spells would probably indicate your position even if they were subtle (such as scorching rays). The enemy could still attack your party in most instances too, or use area attacks/spells to affect you.
@@Quetzelkoa Agree mostly, but what about a character with any way to fly silently, they are invisible, do all their stuff on their turn, then move 30+ feet in the air in a random direction,, now the enemy is unable to target them with anything but the biggest of aoes, does that wound balanced?
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) can get it at level 17 and Fighter(Eldritch Knight) at Level 20. But of course at this level nearly everything can see invisible creature. Does blindsight cancel the invisible condition?
24:30 the Gloom Stalker also gets greater invisibility at level 13
Came in here to say this
I was trying to explain how it worked to my DM last Saturday when she asked, and kept mixing up the SPELL Invisibility and the condition when my ranger was using Tasha's optional feature to become invisible as a bonus action. She'd treat it as basically casting the spell Invisibility when that's not at all what the ability does.
Soulknife Rogues can become invisible with their 13th-level Psychic Veil feature, though it is very similar to the Invisibility spell, despite not casting it, as it takes an action, is magical, lasts for 1 hour ( without concentration, unlike the spell ), and ends after dealing damage or forcing a saving throw.
But it's one of the most spammable, as you get a free use and then can spend a PE die to reuse it.
No v/s/m components either, unlike the spell. Fantastic ability!
The nice thing about that one is that you can still cast support/healing spells or spells without saves like sleep or telekinesis (if you can somehow get access to it via item or the like), grapple or throw nets at people without dropping your invisibility.
As a plus you can make as many attack actions as you want and stay invisible if you dont hit...if I'M missing on advantage with EA and a d10 extra to hit it's time to run.
Another really nice feature of this ability (at least for attacks) is that rogues usually only get one attack ... and definitely only get one sneak attack. So it's a bonus action to guarantee you get a sneak attack WITOUT removing your ability to maneuver. Still not as good as Greater Invisibility, but yes, eminently spammable. 😈
Been looking forward to this. I’m DMing a Gloom Stalker and we seem to have to re-establish the way it works every two weeks
I feel your pain there... the way I run it... and I know that this isn't exactly RAW is thus.
- you have advantage on all attack rolls
- attack rolls against you have disadvantage
- you can attack an invisible creature at disadvantage, but can't make opportunity attacks against them (no battleship)
- true sight, blind sight, tremorsense, and see invisible spells counter invisibility if a creature has one of those senses you are not considered invisible for the purposes of attack rolls, hiding, or being targeted by spells against that creature specifically (I know this isn't RAW, but that's how I run it)
@@ADT1995 an important note specifically for Gloomstalker Ranger: it is also countered by Devil's Sight.
The ability specifically mentions "any creature who relies on darkvision" which DS isn't.
We’re still pretty low level so from time to time I like to throw in humans with torches. Super simple but somehow totally blows his mind…
@@crownlexicon5225 You have to ask yourself whether the creature with DS would be able to see/sense the gloomstalker without DS. Relying on something (in this case darkvision) implies that without it you wouldn't be able to do what it is you want (seeing the gloomstalker).
If you're making the claim that DS isn't darkvision then I'm not sure what you mean because it specifically grants you the ability to see normally in magical and nonmagical darkness. This can only be described as darkvision (and it is noted as such in your dndbeyond character sheet).
Concluson: DS does not counter Umbral Sight. Things like truesight, blindsight, tremorsense, lighting up the area the gloomstalker is in, etc. counters Umbral Sight.
@@sh1zuk0_64 DS is specifically *not* darkvision. Darkvision is its own ability. Devil's sight is something different entirely
22:35 I just want to point out that even though umbral sight on a gloom stalker ranger does specifically say “you are INVISIBLE to any creature that relies on dark vision to see you” it does not give you the invisible condition, because who cares that invisible is a specified condition in 5e let’s just also use it in the traditional sense that would just hide you from sight, because that isn’t confusing at all. I know you didn’t mention it but I just wanted to point it out before someone else tried saying it gives you the invisible condition. Also interestingly enough this means that depending on the interpretation of the rules if you think that faerie fire specifically works against the condition invisible then it wouldn’t actually effect the gloom stalker’s invisibility.
They really need to rework the stealth/hiding rules, especially the invisible condition. It's especially strange that you're essentially invisible to anything that relies on darkvision as a Gloomstalker, but it doesn't apply the condition at all.
@@snazzyfeathers You spelled "Entire Game" wrong. :D
Um ackthually because Faerie Fire makes you shed light it makes you no longer be in darkness so the GS would be visible 🤓
@@devin5201 unless the gloomstalker was in an area under the effects of Hunger of Hadar. Then the darkness created by that spell would supersede the light created by faire fire. Note that the darkness spell wouldn’t work since that would dispel the faire fire. Also keep in mind that you would need to be fighting a devil with devil’s sight which allows them to use their darkvision in magical darkness, however a warlock with the devil’s sight invocation could still see the ranger because that devil’s sight isn’t connected to darkvision.
but if the gloomstalker is outlined by faerie fire, the gloomstalker emits dim light. Does that not mean that if an enemy sees the gloomstalker, that enemy does so without relying on darkvision?
Bud. "Here's a true sight. Me kicking your ass." My God. How savage.
Getting Greater Invisibility from Sorcerer seems like the way to go if you wanna use quicken spell anyway. The rest of the build could be any number of things to take advantage of that... Well, advantage. Maybe Elven Accuracy, maybe a power attack feat, maybe just a ton of attacks, we'll see :)
Calling in now: Shadow Coffeelock ; the Dark Roast
@@pranakhan highly doubt we're getting coffee lock. It hasn't been that long since the Sorlock Build and he seems pretty against coffeelock strats, but love the meme
It was dumb for them to make invisibility a condition since it is dependent on the ability of others to perceive the target. Poisoned is a condition, exhausted is a condition. It is clear they affects the target regardless of what others perceive. This was just bad design by the 5E team.
Yes, well said.
One thing you didn't touch on, that I thought worth mentioning...
The Invisibility spell adds an additional target for each level it is upcast. The hour duration and upcast could make it a huge alpha strike. Sink a 4th or 5th level slot to make your strikers invisible, maybe someone else casts Pass Without Trace, then drive the pain train right into the BBEG's kitchen.
Three or four well built strikers, going nova, will end most level appropriate boss monsters on the first round. Without lair actions, legendary actions, and legendary resists complicating things, the rest of an encounter is mop up.
Very effective, but also a decent amount of RAW boss monsters have random anti-cheese abilities like the ability to sense invisible creatures (you would still get advantage though unless they can end the condition)
@@floofzykitty5072 exactly. The pain train isn't about avoidance. It's pure offense. The stealth ability is to get past all the minions, that could ruin that first round nova. If you can dish 500 damage in an opening hit, most anything is done, and you can follow more traditional encounter procedures from there.
It doesn't come into play until higher levels, but Contingency > Greater invisibility is a great option for one fight per day. Effectively lets you cast it without expending any action. Quickening has limited uses outside of a sorlock/sorcadin where casting non-cantrip spells isn't your main squeeze.
Contingency > Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is better. You can still get hit with greater invisibility, especially with multi attacks and aoe.
@@rulethegamer Quite a different use case. With the sphere, you can't do anything else.
@@rulethegamer Contingency > Resilient Sphere is better if you're only going for defense. If you want offensive benefits, then Contingency > Greater Invisibility is better.
ah yes, i get it.
will retain my comment, but you guys are right.
on top of my head, GI contingency is good for Bladesingers, steel wind strikes...
if contingency were available to Sorcerers, it'd be crazier offensively.
Contingency -> GI is just not something I consider because of its restriction to wizard, and with wizards they can do something else with their concentration.
@@rulethegamer Contingency is available to sorcerers - once they reach 17th level, that is.
For my money some of the most flexible ways to get invisibility is actually with artificer, here us how:
The setup
Use your 11th level feature "spell-storing item" with the invisibility spell from the artificers spell list give the item to a Homunculus Servant (artificer infusion)
The execution
Use your bonus action to allow the servant to use an action, with this action it uses the spell storing item to cast invisibility on you. Because it wasn't you who cast the spell, you can still use other leveled spells and even consentrate on other spells as well (your servant still has to concentrate on the invisibility)
So for 1 action and 1 bonus action you effectively get multiple leveled spells per turn and can maintain concentration on both. This can be done twice your int modifier per long rest.
One small downside is the your servant takes its turn AFTER your turn, so it takes one round to set up. Still i have used this to great effect
I once did a build using this, tough the main objective was to add Cha to damage as many times as I could as a bit of a funny exercise .
I believe it was something like
Version 1 (better at low levels)
1 hexblade
7 draconic sorcerer (the main damage source I was using was greenflameblade, twinned or quickened)
7 oathbteaker paladin
And that's 3 times
The optimal high level version (requires making sure w ur dm cuz of some warding on celestial warlock lvl 6)
6 celestial warlock (taking tome for shillelagh CHA so that's 2 times already on greenflameblade, at least on the main targetk)
7 draconic sorc fire
7 oathbteaker pala
And at lvl 20 that's +20 to your main target of greenflameblade, +22 w dueling and more if you have a +X quarterstaff
Also the best combat buff I had from 7 sorc lvls happened to have been greater invis so I used it A LOT and to great effect, advantage was huge in helping me pump out dps and not being seen rendered me immune to most single target shutdown spells, was a lot of fun.
You should do a guide on how surprise works, that's probably the #1 mechanic I've see DMs get wrong consistently.
I think he already did though I might be thinking of someone else.
Cooperative vid with Pack Tactics: ua-cam.com/video/yELFwPaQAAw/v-deo.html
i think the separate bullet points on invisibility can make sense, depending on how you in-vision truesight. i suspect crawford sees it as a filter over normal vision that you can sort of "tune into" to see through illusions, but you can still mostly see the same things as everyone else. so while an invisible creature might be able to be seen, its still hard to track in the heat of combat
The response he gives leads me to believe it was a rules oversight that they decided to claim was intentional. Regardless, it makes for interesting mechanics. It is truly a shame how abysmal it makes See Invisibility as a spell though. All they needed to do was modify to spell to say "You ignore the invisible condition on any creature within your visual range."
Looking Forward to the Video Chain about Invisibility to come after this
As Always Great Work Chris
Empty Body lets you punch something once as BA, if you use the optional Ki Fueled Attack feature. It's not much, but better than nothing.
Also, invisibility as a reaction upon taking damage (e.g., Fade Away) can be ok defensively. If you are facing an opponent with multiattack, or are surrounded (by a mishap or otherwise), the first hit that gets through can trigger reaction and all subsequent attacks will be made at disadvantage. Not too bad as a panic button, if you accept the cost (e.g., a feat).
I don't know if that "True Sight" joke was yours, or something you heard, but the delivery was perfection. I truly did not see it coming.
i did notice that the fade away gnome feat's invisibility only breaks when you attack or force an enemy to make a saving throw. It says nothing about casting non-saving throw, non-attack roll spells. Although it does require to be a gnome. If you invest in invisibility, being a goblin is a good idea so you can go invisible, take the hide action and move away during the same turn
As a DM my favorite means for a player to get invisibility is most definitely the 'bribe your DM with pizza' approach ;)
Great video by the way!
The thing I also would like to note with Greater Invisibility (specifically the limitation of action casting it) is that you also don't have to be selfish with it.
If the situation calls for it, you could easily just cast it on the fighter or something who acts right after you and watch him go sicko mode with great weapon master or sharpshooter or something.
Ofc if you're a sorcerer, you can also twin spell it so you COULD cast it on yourself (at the cost of like 4 sorcery points).
I'm currently playing an undead warlock who took this spell because I couldn't afford the material components for the other spell (name escaping me, necrotic Flames + heavy obscurement spell).
My warlock being a Bladelock with sharpshooter benefits really greatly if I use it on myself, but its super helpful on pretty much any character on my party if I need to cast it on them (as an escape, make them cracked on offense or defense).
Also works with mounted combatant if you ride your friends into combat or have a paladin's summoned steed.
“Here’s a true sight, me kicking your ass.” LEGEND
Although a build centered around invisibility may have trouble reaching some of the options mentioned here, it's true that anyone who gets to some of those higher-level options would probably be wise to pick some corresponding options to work with those forms of invisibility. Eldritch Knights with greater invisibility gain a lot of advantage, Rangers with Nature's Veil can use Steel-Wind Strike, and Monks can, well, you know, maybe use firearms or something. In any case, without it being a build focus, invisibility can still be a helpful power-combo when other choices are made to account for it.
Ring of invisibility is still an action to activate, the bonus action is to become visible again.
Only nice thing about the Ring of Invisibility is no concentration required.
I'm sure someone else has pointed it out already but the gloomstalker's umbral sight grants you the invisible condition as long as you're in darkness/dark shadow. and this invisibility doesn't break or have a short duration.
This my revised "See Invisibility" spell, which our group uses on D&D Beyond.
"For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent.
Invisible creatures you see with this spell are blurred, shifting and wavering. You have disadvantage on attack rolls against them, but they no longer have advantage on attack rolls against you."
"Revision Note: During the "Ask the Sage" Q&A (D&D Celebration 2021) [21:30], Jeremy Crawford -- the WotC lead rules designer -- said that seeing an invisible creature using this spell didn't negate the second Invisible condition benefit ("Attack rolls against the invisible creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage").
The ruling makes the original spell lackluster. The spell as written -- without the second paragraph above -- merely shuts down the first benefit of the invisible condition ("An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.")
The revision meets the designer halfway. Seeing an invisible creature with this spell removes the creature's invisible condition, but it still retains the benefit of a blurred aspect, as if under the effect of the blur spell.
By contrast, the 6th level true seeing spell allows the caster to ignore a creature's invisible condition."
Invisibility means that you can only be detected by noise you make or tracks you leave. If you are indoors or somewhere that doesn't leave tracks you shouldn't need to make a "stealth" roll to just sit still and make no noise. I rule that if an invisible creature moves beyond 35 feet, you cannot hear their footsteps anymore and they are automatically hidden. You would know their last position before they moved more than 35 feet away though, which can help you pinpoint what area they might be in. I base the 35 feet on the average hearing distance printed on the back of the official DM Screen (and nowhere else for some reason). The distance can be increased or decreased depending on the environment.
Like you said you have to house rule it if you and your players want the ability to suspend disbelief. For instance a genie warlock flying around invisible 250 ft away at the speed of 30ft every six seconds, would make zero noise, there would be no way that a creature could pinpoint your location until you cast a spell, but RAW they would.
Basically, as far as casting, Invisibility for first round ambushes (which you can as a caster at 5th level cast on 5 people, and you can set up ambush, but that one is most usefull on sneaking into places,a nd you should consider getting item (if DM lets you) like boots of elvenkind.
Greater invisibility is is the one that yo use for combat on yourself or an ally. Then you want to consider things like War Csaster and Metamagic adept (which metamagic quicken spell would letyou at least cast a cantrip with your greater invisibility, so bonus action quicken spell greater invisibility, then cast firebot or (my new favoirte cantrip) mind sliver, or something like that. Just dont' do something like guidance or create bondfire :) remember conentration.
It's true that there are lots of creatures with truesight or blindsight that would negate the invisible condition if a DM were playing with common-sense house rules. However, the range of those senses are relevant. Generally it seems like truesight or blindsight with a range longer than 60ft. is relatively rare. In a longer range engagement, invisibility would still be quite effective against those creatures.
Had a session last night actually where the interplay of a creature yiu can see made a huge difference in how my strategy played out. Our tank had been downed (0hp) by a big bad because of that I had planned to through out a healing word from range to get them back in the fight and out of death saves. However our other spell caster who didn't pack healing spells cast invisibility on the tank to keep them out of danger and not taking hits when downed as easily. Obviously now the tank was being attacked with disadvantage but I also could not see them and made healing word useless. I instead ran in and slapped them with a cure wounds which my dm allowed as I knew the general area our tank was in and wasn't making a roll to activate my spell but because its a touch spell it put me right in melee of the enemy horde
Gloom Stalkers gain the invisible condition while in darkness from level 3 via the Umbral Sight feature
I think the intent for advantage while seen under invisibility is kind of like a Hades vs Kronos thing. you may know where the invisible guy is, but it's hard to block a sword you don't see. Like if true sight only lets you see an aura not the actual body.
Loving the video, chapters and info you glorious god wizard.
The Djinni warlock, at level 7 could cast greater invisibility and fly with the class feature. It's setup round, that's true, but if you pair it with eldritch mind you'll be able to hold it for a long time, and have advantage on all your eldritch blasts. Don't know if it's super viable, but it's seems to be...
You're a great marketer with this teaser videos before a build. I'm excited to see next video.
To address the first point, Darkness doesn't actually disrupt the party as heavily as one might think. It just prevents them from getting advantage on attacks, and protects them from getting disadvantage. Based on the rules of Advantage and Disadvantage stacking, if they can both be applied to the Attack Roll, they also cancel out, regardless of how many sources of Advantage or Disadvantage would have applied. Therefore, Darkness actually just returns the battlefield within it to a completely neutral playing field of straight rolls. Sure, it prevents abilities that specifically target what a player can see, but it also protects them from any of those abilities, both inside and out of the Darkness field.
Naturally, it's not a god-tier combo like some might have you believe, but it's also not actually as awful as the backlash to the former is claiming either.
But it’s also less reliable than poison damage, and sure, you’re immune to spells that you need to be seen for, but spell casting pcs are much more likely to be using sight spells than their enemies, so yeah, it is pretty disruptive, especially if you’re not sitting 120ft back or so
@@okboomer2473 That's why you and your teammates *plan out your damn encounters.* Casting Darkness lets you render your entire party immune to those spell effects, but your allies can leave the area to cast their sight spells against enemies not within the field, and then return to the Darkness after they're done. Then, you can finish off the enemies *inside* the field after those are picked off.
Not to mention, you can cast Darkness on an object, and if it is completely covered (example: casting it on a rock, and putting that rock on a plate and covering it with a bowl), the Darkness field is nullified. So, you can hold an Action to uncover the rock, and your entire party can attack freely, and you only set off the Darkness in response to the enemies using something big against them. You can even cover and uncover the rock multiple times per round if you have a Familiar capable of holding objects, like a Pact of the Chain Warlock, or some of the mid-range party members stay close enough to do it themselves as well.
Try thinking creatively, it'll lead you to a lot of interesting ways to play a game.
@@occultnightingale1106still more creatures than it doesn’t work on than poison damage though, and the enemies can easily hold their actions until they can see someone in you spellcasting example, and on top of that, even non spellcasting enemies can wait outside the darkness and get opportunity attacks that your character should have no way of knowing is coming if you want to go out of it to cast a spell. And like sure, technically it’s a straight roll, but also you should probably have to guess where the target is similar to if they were invisible considering the fact that you can’t see them. I’ve played with other people using it and it does really wreck things a lot of the time, even when they purposely try to have it not disrupt things.
That might come down to the fact that the dm ruled that covering an object covered in darkness took an action due to the fact that you can just stop concentrating on the spell at any time if you really want it to stop so that that was still an interesting option (and honestly I agree with her) but no, it’s not something that isn’t going to negatively affect your other party members
Here’s what I find funny. Under the unseen attacker rules it says this:
“Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.”
It specifically mentions the invisibility spell, even though not only does it not work with attack rolls but also invisible is a condition that’s separate to unseen attacker (although you are still an unseen attacker). And they wonder why people would be confused.
Huh. As a combatant, I often try to escape my foes' notice by pounding their faces into the dirt. I mean, after awhile, they stop noticing me. Or anything else.
"Friggin' Twilight Cleric because of course."
Using a magic ring to turn yourself invisible seems like a terrible idea. Unless you happen to love being attacked by wraiths.
tbf, if you're invisible, people do not know where you are as long as you do not make noise and leave traces, as in you were already invisible in place before they came into the room
To me the "you can see invisible creatures as if they were visible" part of the See Invisibility spell means their invisible condition doesn't apply to you.
My guess is that it was less convoluted than wording it in a different way that included mention of the condition.
As a wild magic sorcerer, you have a chance of turning invisible with a wild magic surge by rolling an 89 or 90, and possibly a 69 or 70 if your DM includes you in the group of creatures that becomes invisible. Rolling a 3 or 4 will allow to see invisible creatures. These invisibility conditions end on an attack or spell cast, so they're most similar to the invisibility spell. So, just always roll 1s on your d20 to surge and always roll 89 or 90 on the table.
Whenever JC talks, I get the feeling that he needs to justify every error in the creation of the game regardless of how dumb he sounds while doing it.
I did have a one with shadows build that would summon a bear through conjure animals and ride it as an invisible suit of armor.
Mounted combat.
Fighter first level dip to get ac21.
Mark of handling human for conjure animals.
A grizzly with 21 ac that you attack at disadvantage is scary for a few levels.
Falls off of course, but a very nice tank for levels 6-10
18:27 This was early 5e design, they didn't know if they would later include ways to attack or cast spells without using a reaction, so it seems prudent to throw that in if they really wanted you to lose invisibility if you did manage this. See, Tunnel Fighter fighting style from UA, you could make unlimited attacks without using a reaction, bonus action or action.
I have a house rule for hiding, that I really like. Basically there are 7 conditions that affect it.
1. In the Open - a character In the Open is not hidden in any way and cannot take the Hide action without moving to a position of Obscurement or Behind Partial or Full Cover.
2. Lightly Obscured - a character who is ONLY lightly obscured cannot take the hide action unless an ability or spell allows them to in light obscurement.
3. Heavily Obscured - a character who is Heavily Obscured may take the hide action on their turn.
4. Behind partial cover - a character behind partial cover may take the hide action. If a character is behind partial cover AND is Lightly OR Heavily Obscured then they receive advantage on that Hide check. Enemies targeting creatures behind partial cover receive a -2 penalty to their attack rolls against that target.
5. Behind Full Cover - a character that is behind full cover may take the Hide action and gets advantage on the check if they do, regardless of obscurement. Enemies targeting characters behind full cover receive disadvantage on their attack rolls against that target.
6. Invisible - A character that is Invisible cannot be seen for the purposes of spells that require the target to be seen, except by certain magical means, such as Truesight. An invisible creature is considered Heavily Obscured for the purpose of Hide checks. Enemies targeting an Invisible creature make attack rolls against that creature with Disadvantage.
7. Hidden - a character that is Hidden from a successful Hide check cannot be targeted by any means until they are found via a successful Search action against the Stealth check they used to Hide. Unless the searching creature announces the location of the hidden target by word or deed the target is revealed only to the creature making the search.
These rules make it very clear to everyone where they stand in relation to hiding and stealth. They make cover important to hiding, but not always required, and give a nice advantage to the harder to achieve Invisible condition, without making everyone play Battleship.
"Behind Full Cover - a character that is behind full cover may take the Hide action and gets advantage on the check if they do, regardless of obscurement. Enemies targeting characters behind full cover receive disadvantage on their attack rolls against that target."
Huh?
You can't target an enemy behind full cover at all with an attack roll, can you? So how are they getting disadvantage on an attack roll that they cannot even make?
I used Contingency w/ Greater Invisibility to great effect when playing my high level bladesinger last week :D didn't have to worry about the 4th level slots when I had one free invisibility when I trigger it
I don't think you would keep the second bullet point against See Invisibility, but it's kinda based on semantics. The Invisibility spell doesn't say "you gain the Invisible condition", it only says you turn invisible (lowercase). Therefore, in my opinion, the spell gives you the possibility to benefit from the condition, but See Invisibility spell removes this possibility, because as per the first bullet point of the Invisible condition you are being seen with the aid of magic. If the Invisibility spell simply said "you gain the Invisible condition" it would be worded such as you keep the condition no matter what. Jerry C. is probably stretching it to save face, I don't know a single dm that agrees with his ruling on See Invisibility
“Here’s a true sight, me kicking your ass”. I just imagine Chris as an actual treat monk saying that to anybody.
I played a half elven aberrant mind sorcerer with 2 levels of hexblade, with elven accuracy. And it used greater invisibility to great effect. I know crit fishing is not optimal however it was a lot of fun. I called it the single target psychic sorlock. Also used some other nifty combo's like quickened earthen grasp or dissonant whispers after a booming blade and of course hexblade curse with magic missiles.
One thing I REALLY like about Pathfinder 2e is how clear they are with their definitions. Saves a lot of confusion.
Correction on the Hypnotic Gaze. It does not work on an invisible target. The wizard must see the target. The target then in turn must also be able to either see or hear the wizard, so it's not enough for the wizard to only hear the target.
Though I guess if you are the invisible wizard, then it does work against a visible target..
Something I noted with invisibility, though it doesn't necessarily scale well and isn't phenomenal damage, but you can use the invisibility spell with non-attacks or casting spells, ie, if you have the Healer feat or Dragon's Breath on you.
12:05 got me😂. You should do your next table a favour and take vicious mockery on your character
That kicking your ass line was comedy gold
Ah here it is, I remember you hinting at this one in a prior video.
Earth gensai Arcane trickster Is My Jam. It even has invisible can trips for the sweet flavor.
As a Pact of the Chain Sorlock, I gave my imp familiar a ring of spell storing to cast Greater Invisibility on me at the start of combat and then go hide somewhere.
Other ways to get Greater Invisibility:
Elf (Mark of Shadow) gets Greater Invisibility in expanded spell list
19th level Arcane Trickster and 20th level Eldritch Knight
13th level Gloom Stalker
If allowed, there a UA background called GIANT FOUNDLING that gives the feat STRKE OF THE GIANTS. The cloud giant option gives you an extra 1d6 dmg and forces a wisdom save on a hit. On fail you become invisible until the start of your next turn.
I can't believe that you didn't mention the Gloomstalker.
The Matador Build:
• High Elf (under 5’ tall)
• Minor Illusion Cantrip
• Fighter (Level 2)
• Blind Fighting Style if DM will not allow you to see through your own illusions
• Action = Cast Minor Illusion to create 5x5 opaque curtain / veil
• Action Surge = Attack Action with Advantage, since opponent cannot see you
Metamagic Adept and Quickened Spell would allow you to cast Minor Illusion as a Bonus Action before attacking as an Action. This method is probably too resource heavy for most players, though.
invisibility is a condition
i had in middle school
Being coy about a build? Well done!
My dm wanted a cool enemy and gave him the cloak of invisibility. He was then shocked when we killed him and my gunslinger/gloom stalker took it
1. Get two wizard friends, one of level 13+ and one of level 17+.
2. Get material components for the next steps.
3. Get one of them to start casting the sequester spell on you.
4. Get the other one to cast true polymorph on you less than an hour before sequester is done.
5. Once sequester lands, the friend who was concentrating on true polymorph up until now drops their concentration.
Would this work? The target of the spell was an object at the time when it was cast, but it became a creature afterwards, and the time ceases to flow only if it's a creature.
Seems like it'd work by RAW, but it automatically ends when you get hit once so probably not worth the hassle even if you could get a couple of npcs to do it for you as a 1st level character.
Gave me a coughing fit with that true sight ass kick bit lmao.
I do my own rules for invisibility to make it feel better
Thank you!
hi i recently saw your channel and i really do love it...i have a silly question...in case u are watching house of dragon what build would you say would fit from the ones you have published so far for Daemon Tangaryen? or in case you havent what would you like for him from a rp as well as utility point of view? sorry for the silly question
10:50 - Aragorn to Frodo
I had a wizard cast invisibility and was confused when I attacked them and I was like your invisible not hidden unless you too the hide action. Thankfully it didn’t not turn to an argument
Truesight and See Invisibility not "working" is one of the rulings from Jeremy Crawford that I choose to ignore...
Hopefully such obvious things will be fixed in the next edition 😬
the 18th level feature for monks is improved with the tasha's optional rule that lets monks attack as a bonus action if they spent any ki points as an action. doesn't help all that much though
Doesn't Shadow of Moil accomplish a lot of the same goals? heavily obscured to others, means the Blinded condition, meaning the same adv and disadv effects. Sure, also an action, also 4th level, but worth mentioning?
Re: DMs who give free-action hide to everything:
1: As a player ... AGHGHGHGHGHGH
2: As a DM: DMG overcost inherent invisibility, and a lot of invisible things are tissue paper when run RAW, and the play feels bad due if you hide every other round. An 1/encounter power of free-action-hide seems about right for many of them.
Re: invisible != being unseen. I hate this by feel as both a player and a DM. It does help with the inherently-invisible-creatures balance issues though.
if there ever was a two level dip possibility for Rogue's cunning action hide, this build might have it
Instead of that, just be a goblin and get it as a racial feature
Keep in mind "invisible" doesn't mean "unsmellable". Why do people always ignore the stench of unbathed, blood-covered medieval warriors?
I did not see that one coming. 😂
With these clarifications, what is combat in a fog cloud like if one combatant is invisible? Does the invisible one attack with straight rolls and the visible one attack with disadvantage?
Dragonmark of Shadow Elf gets Invisibility and Greater Invisibility spells.
So to make it make sense I have head cannoned that if you can see an invisible creature they are still see through to explain the advantage and disadvantage, not perfect but helps. Still with this I see no reason to use See Invisibility.
Another way to gain invisibility?
Shapechange into an invisible stalker! ... probably not the best use of a 9th level spell :P
I'm guessing... some kind of Sorcadin. Maybe with a touch of Hexblade.
True Polymorph, pick creatures with natural invisibility...
Great video, but I disagree that hypnotic gaze works through invisibility. It says "choose one creature that you can see" so it doesn't matter if the invisible creature can see or hear you, they where not a viable target for the effect.
Edit: welp, I'm dumb
I think he meant he meant that the Enchanter is able to be invisible while still utilizing hypnotic gaze.
@@elliotbryant3459 ahh, that makes a lot more sense. my bad
Can artificer make ring of invisibility? or infuse, I guess. or cloak of invisibility?
What about darkness? if a black dragon is in a darkness spell area and I want to attack it, do I need to guess where it is at?
How do you play it in your games as a dm and how do you see it played as a player ? Are they the same or different and are they RAW for invisibility and hide?
I know this is what Jeremy Crawford has said about advantage/disadvantage with regards to invisibility, but imo it makes no sense. Thankfully, none of my four DMs since I came back to to DnD two years ago, play it that way. So the fighting style Blind Fighting allows you to "see an invisible creature," but despite seeing it you would still have disadvantage on the rolls. Which would remove a whole lot of the reason to ever take Blind Fighting as a fighting style. If played the way Crawford describes invisibility working, unless you want to play a blind character, there's little reason to take the style. There are better options.
I can't recall any rules in 5E or 1DD that mentions that you have to guess a creature's location, ever. I think this is an impression inherited from earlier editions, but I don't think it is a part of 5E. Most spells cannot target what you cannot see, but for attacks I allow creatures to attack what they cannot see. Of course, if the target is in a location you cannot reach or have an no unobstructed path, the attack will fail. But otherwise, the attack just suffers disadvantage.
These kinds of rulings affectthe caster balance issue quite a bit. If the wizard can't target a creature at all while the fighter just suffers disadvantage, that is obviously an advantage for the fighter.
I’d have to check, but I believe it is a game mechanic.
You are correct that attacking “what you cannot see” just applies disadvantage to the attack roll. There is no guessing of the position. The disadvantage is a result of you hitting out blindly at the spot you know the enemy is.
But what happens if the enemy is not just unseen but also hidden? In this circumstance the creature’s location is not known to the attacker anymore. My understanding is that this is when we have to play the game of battleship and guess where the enemy is before making our attack. Like I said I’d have to check. It’s possible you just can’t make an attack at all.
Update: I found it on PHB page 194.
I’m paraphrasing, but it says you suffer disadvantage when attacking an unseen enemy (which we knew) whether because you were guessing their location or because you had some other way of knowing they were there like hearing.
This implies the ability to guess a hidden creature’s location.
Jackson Lette - Good find. "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss" does imply this is a game of Battleship. There is the matter of how exactly you need to target (can you make a wide swipe or shoot along a line). But more relevant, you can just move around the area until you find a space you cannot enter.
@@jacksonletts3724 Your reading makes sense.
Kinda hijacking this to get greater visibility (heh), but it is also relevant to your comment.
Creatures don't know where everything in existence is. That sounds kind of obvious, but it really needs pointing out. If something is not taking the Hide action this does NOT mean you know where it is. That pen you misplaced? Not taken the Hide action - but you don't know where it is. That invisible creature casually walking down the road 300ft away? Not taken the Hide action, but you don't know where it is.
This is where I dispute Chris's information somewhat. It is true that Invisibility does not act the same as taking the Hide action. However, that does not mean everyone in the world (nay, existence) knows where you are. There is actually no 'Hidden' condition (check the list) - being detected is purely dependent on the situational DC vs Perception (passive in general, although an action can be taken to make a higher roll). What the Hide action does is to allow you to personally set the DC as your Stealth check result, rather than be dependent on the situational DC.
Here we can see that you don't automatically know the location of something if the Hide action is not taken:
Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB, pg 194): 'If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.'
So how does Inivisibility enter the mix? Well, if you are invisible then a creature cannot use Perception via sight to detect you. It can (and must) use its other senses. However, the DC for this is left up to the DM if the Hide action is not taken. With sight it is kind of given that if you have line of sight you will see and detect something not trying to hide (i.e., the DC is basically 1) - I dispute this too (tiny spider in the corner of the room? person on a mountain 6 miles away?), but it hardly matters most of the time as the distance for most things that are necessary to detect is within campaign range to easily notice via sight as long as something is not in the way. With hearing, though, there is no line of sight to decide things - you have to pick based on distances, things in the way (walls, ect.), how much noise the target is making with normal movement, other distracting sounds, and so on.
To get to the point, passive Perception should be used for invisible targets (whether Invisible or just out of line of sight). If the target is nearby (say 15ft), the environment is quiet (no combat, no rushing water, etc.), the floor is not carpeted (maybe its hard granite), and there is nothing between you (no wall, no crates, etc.), then the DC to detect them is going to be low and the passive Perception will likely hone in on the target automatically. If the invisible creature wants to hide under these conditions it needs to take the Hide action to put its Stealth skill into play to get that DC up higher. As per normal, if the players suspect there is something they have not detected the players can make an active Perception check as an action to see if they can roll higher than their passive gives them.
So, if a target goes invisible 30ft away during noisy distracting combat with other creatures against the party in a trimmed grass-covered field with hay stacks dotted everywhere then there is no need to take the Hide action at that distance - the situational DC is going to be something like 30 anyway. If they want to get closest, or that noisy combat ends, then sure. Even just a normal dungeon environment if the target is far enough away with any other kind of distraction in play the DC is going to be too high for the passive Perception of the chacters and a higher roll via an action is going to be needed to detect where they are.
Sad there is no mention of the "Nondetection" spell as a measure of redundancy
I have one main gripe with this, it has only come up a few times but it is very nonsensical
Say you are invisible, can float with a magic item (so no noise) and only attack using silent means (there is some magic items that say you make no noise, also the metamagoc for the sorcerer) and do nothing else that makes noise during your turn, now how does the enemy know where you are?
The best excuse although flimsy I have been able to use is breathing and such, but some races don't even need that and it's illogical across longer distances...
What would you do in this case?
I think making it so the other creatures don't know would be op, since then someone could cast greater invis, float upwards ish and then the guessing game starts again...
If you go through all those steps and burn a level 4 spell slot and concentrate every minute, along with using sorcery points, I think it's not OP at all that enemies would have a hard time finding you. And a lot of spells would probably indicate your position even if they were subtle (such as scorching rays).
The enemy could still attack your party in most instances too, or use area attacks/spells to affect you.
@@Quetzelkoa Agree mostly, but what about a character with any way to fly silently, they are invisible, do all their stuff on their turn, then move 30+ feet in the air in a random direction,, now the enemy is unable to target them with anything but the biggest of aoes, does that wound balanced?
Invisibility battleship flashbacks.
I'm gonna guess some kind of Sorlock.
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) can get it at level 17 and Fighter(Eldritch Knight) at Level 20. But of course at this level nearly everything can see invisible creature. Does blindsight cancel the invisible condition?
no
I didn’t realize Empty Body is not a spell or spell effect and doesn’t require concentration. Not that it’ll ever be relevant to me, but interesting.
so truesight from a dragon doesnt shut off the invisibility condition? that is so stupid
Correct, but they can still see you and burn you to a cinder/fill your lungs with poison etc.
It knows where you are, but has disadvantage on attacks against you and you still have advantage. I don’t know any DM that rules like this though.
@@floofzykitty5072 i'd rule out the disadvantage if the attack was an aoe.
You missed the method where you take off all your clothes and run around shouting "I'm invisible!"
Possess or turn into monsters who can get invisibible