Witch Bolt vs invisible question

[Ganders]

Suppose you're a warlock in a battle and your enemy turns invisble. You know he's still in the room somewhere, but you're not sure where. Can you cast Witch Bolt on the invisible enemy?

Context: Most spells can only be cast on targets you can see. But two of the spells often considered to be among the worst in the book don't have that restriction (Witch Bolt and Ray of Enfeeblement). It might simply be an oversight, deserving of errata, but maybe it's intentional.

 

[jaelis]

As you note, it is not necessary to see the target. I would probably say that you need to know the target’s location though, or to guess if it is hidden from you.

 

[Rexwell]

Spells requiring line of sight wouldn't work. For Witch Bolt, you would follow the regular invisiblity/stealth rules. This was from a post by Dausuul in another thread, I think it sounds about right:

The 5E stealth rules are a hot mess. Here's how I read them in this instance:

1. When the wizard casts invisibility, everyone knows where he is, but it's tough to attack him effectively since you can't see exactly what you're doing. The PC knows where he is (no check), but has disadvantage to hit him.

2. If the wizard moves without hiding, he's detectable due to the sounds and visual disturbances of his passage. The PC still knows where he is.

3. If the wizard takes an action to hide, he rolls Stealth against the PC's passive Perception. If he makes the Stealth check, the PC no longer knows where he is, and he can move at half speed. If he fails the Stealth check, the PC still knows where he is, even if he moves.

4. If the wizard makes his Stealth check, the PC can take an action to try and find him again. The PC makes a Perception check against the result of the wizard's Stealth check. If the PC succeeds, the wizard is no longer hidden from that PC; the PC knows where he is. (The wizard can try to hide again as described in #3.)

5. No matter what, the PC has disadvantage on all attack rolls against the wizard, due to the difficulty of attacking something you can't see.

6. If the PC doesn't know where the wizard is, the PC can pick a location and swing at it blindly. If the wizard is in that location, the PC attacks with disadvantage. If the wizard is not in that location, obviously, the PC is just chopping air.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm going to go with...: Ask your DM.

Seriously. Just for opinion? Ok...in my game I'd say "No" because Invisibility isn't easy to get in my game (potion, ring, even spell), so being "Invisible" is kind of a rare thing. In my game, 1st level spells are "Impressive" and most folk will be, well, impressed. If someone's casting 2nd level spells, that's even more impressive. Level 3 spells? Folks will be in awe and both fascinated and terrified of the power. Level 4 spells...well, nobody has ever gotten high enough level to cast 4th or 5th level spells in any of our 5e games, so...yeah. I guess those would fall into the realm of "unbelievable". As in "He cast a mighty spell! An invulnerable wall of shimmering, solid MAGIC stopped the hoard of goblins in their tracks! In that escape tunnel, we were doomed...until that. The goblins hacked and chopped and threw themselves at the magic wall, and it didn't even leave a scratch!"...to which one would reply "heheh...go on then. Pull the other one! A shimmering wall of magical force? Enough to cover the width of a passage where two men in armor could ride side by side? ...Oi! Barkeep! I'll 'ave what this one 'ere is havin'!" ... ... ... don't even ask about 6th to 9th level spells.

I also rule that EVERY spell has to have a "Target". That target can't be "nebulous" (as in "I target anything invisible in that corner over there"...even if they knew there was an invisible guy hiding somewhere in that 100 square feet of space). The "target" has to be specific enough that the caster could "pick it out of a line up". E.g., someone dressed as a clown in a vast sea of clowns isn't going to work...but picking a clown out of a sea of unwashed street sweepers would be no contest.

YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[fjw70]

Since it requires a range attack roll I would treat it like any other ranged attack. You can target a spot that you think has an invisible creature in it and have disadvantage on the roll. If you guess the spot wrong then it automatically misses.

 

[Oofta]

It works just like any other ranged attack, an invisible creature and is effectively heavily obscured which means you have disadvantage to hit it. If the creature gets total concealment the spell ends.

If you know where the creature is you can still attack an invisible creature with disadvantage. If the creature turns invisible after your initial attack, you can continue the attack. The target can try to run away and hide (for most creatures you need an action to attempt a stealth check) to become concealed or move behind an obstacle, move out of range, etc.

 

[Ganders]

I was thinking that maybe Witch Bolt had an extra feature, because the 'you can see' was omitted. I was thinking I could use it as a pseudo-Faerie Fire to hit someone in the general area even without knowing where they are. Just let the magic of the spell find them. And then once the spell was going, everyone could see where the bolt ended, and thus know right where he was despite the invisibility.

But it sounds like everyone is leaning toward treating it like all other spells despite the omission, you have to actually aim it at a specific target.

 

[fjw70]

I was thinking that maybe Witch Bolt had an extra feature, because the 'you can see' was omitted. I was thinking I could use it as a pseudo-Faerie Fire to hit someone in the general area even without knowing where they are. Just let the magic of the spell find them. And then once the spell was going, everyone could see where the bolt ended, and thus know right where he was despite the invisibility.

But it sounds like everyone is leaning toward treating it like all other spells despite the omission, you have to actually aim it at a specific target.

Do other spells that require an attack roll specify seeing the target?

 

[Oofta]

I was thinking that maybe Witch Bolt had an extra feature, because the 'you can see' was omitted. I was thinking I could use it as a pseudo-Faerie Fire to hit someone in the general area even without knowing where they are. Just let the magic of the spell find them. And then once the spell was going, everyone could see where the bolt ended, and thus know right where he was despite the invisibility.

But it sounds like everyone is leaning toward treating it like all other spells despite the omission, you have to actually aim it at a specific target.

I did a quick filter and scan in DndBeyond and don't see a single spell that requires a ranged attack that also requires that you see the target.

You have disadvantage to hit something you can't see, but unless they have succeeded on an opposed stealth check they are not considered totally concealed. Basically you target the space they are in, unless they are hidden you know approximately where they are.

Of course the DM is free to rule that a stealth check is not always required to become hidden (and I do sometimes), but that's a whole other topic.

 

[Rexwell]

I did a quick filter and scan in DndBeyond and don't see a single spell that requires a ranged attack that also requires that you see the target.

You have disadvantage to hit something you can't see, but unless they have succeeded on an opposed stealth check they are not considered totally concealed. Basically you target the space they are in, unless they are hidden you know approximately where they are.

Of course the DM is free to rule that a stealth check is not always required to become hidden (and I do sometimes), but that's a whole other topic.

That is very interesting; and more consistent than I thought the spells were. Spells requiring attack rolls are governed by the same rules like melee attacks/ranged attacks.

Spells that use the saving throw mechanic are essentially auto-hit but/therefore require line of sight. (Except AoE I guess)
I don’t know how to do a similar scan and filter to check that though


You know, this is the kind of thing that would have been nice to have written out explicitly in a side bar or something as “rules governing attacks and spells”. Instead of having to read each spell in a case by case basis