5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[smbakeresq]

Maybe an example will help, like an Invisible Stalker:

Invisibility. The stalker is invisible.

Unseen Threat. Invisible stalkers are composed of air and are naturally invisible. A creature might hear and feel an invisible stalker in passing, but the elemental remains invisible even when it attacks. A spell that allows someone to see the invisible reveals only the invisible stalker's vague outline.

It also has a stealth check of +10.

Ok, so the stalker always has the invisible condition.

1. When motionless, it emits no sound, so it is undetectable barring magic or special sense. Your DM might rule it is always making a sound, maybe by air circulation, it is still invisible but now detectable. In this case I would rule it has a passive stealth check of 20, 10 + its stealth modifier.

2. It can try to move and hide, which in this case "hide" means make no sound. It has stealth +10 for this. If it fails you can hear and feel the invisible stalker in passing, like the description says. If you do not detect it, it still stays hidden from you even though it is moving.

3. If it attacks, the stalker gives away its position but it is still invisible. You can track it but not see it. Until it stops making noise (takes the hide action or remains motionless to stop making sound) you still know its location. Since it is invisible it can always take the hide action to drop off the map.


Essentially the Invisible Stalker in most cases will attack with advantage. If you can detect its location you will still attack with disadvantage, if you cant detect where it is then you have to guess the square. It can always take the hide action, even in a brightly lit square in the open, to disappear and thus disguise its location. It can fail this check of course, someone make a perception high enough to notice something, although +10 to stealth is pretty high for its CR of 6.

I don't think an Invisible Stalker makes sound on it own or leaves tracks, but it does make sound when moving (see description) so if not moving to me it is impossible to see. When flying around it needs to make a hide check to see if you can detect it, and if it attacks you know its location but it is still invisible.



Some spells will rarely target an Invisible Stalker like Sacred Flame ("a target you can see") as you know where it is but cant see it, or attack with disadvantage (attack roll spells) or be unaffected (area spells like fireball.) Spells like Faerie Fire are effective if you can beat the Invisible Stalkers saving throw.

On an odd note, Barbarians are effective against an Invisible Stalker once the location is known as their reckless attack cancels disadvantage while giving up nothing and an invisible creature attacks with advantage.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

In what world do you read this as anything but multiple means to the same ends? You don't need to be invisible AND hide to escape notice. It's one of the 3 options presented. In your invisible stalker example, why would you know where it is after it moves?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

That sentence makes my brain hurt.

I find it makes sense when you define "hidden" not as "unseen" but as as "unseen and unheard and unsmelt and unfelt and …".

If something is only unseen (invisible, darkness, blind condition) then you can still know where it is by hearing or smell or touch or traces of its presence. Even though you know where it is you are still at disadvantage to attack it, because it is unseen.

To be "hidden" you must first be unseen and then take some steps to be unheard and unsmelt and otherwise unnoticed. In combat, taking these steps is covered by the Hide Action.

As an aside, it is possible to be hidden but seen - we call this "disguised".

For the invisible golem in the corner of a quiet room, it is in fact hidden. Why? Because we can't see it (it is invisible and we don't have any blindsight), we can't hear it (it is immobile), we can't smell it (maybe), and we can't percieve any traces of its presence (there are no tracks on the floor, there is no smoke in the air to reveal it, etc).

TLDR: "Unseen" is not the same as "hidden" - you can be unseen but not hidden.

 

[smbakeresq]

I am not sure it is correct to interpret this as meaning that the target must be wearing carrying the invisible item at the time the spell is cast. I could see going both ways.

1. Only items carried at time spell cast are invisible and if they are removed from the invisible target's person, the items are no longer invisible.

This fits with the common movie and TV tropes. You go invisible but then when you carry something it hovers in the air. You can smudge paint on your face. But in those depictions, this is usually because only the targets physical body, not clothes or held items are invisible. The invisible man had to go nude to be invisible. The plus side it is makes it easier to detect the invisible creature by throwing flour in the air, rain, etc. But it also means that the invislbe thief can't, say, hide a stolen gem. You would just have a floating gem moving about.

2. Anything on the target's person is/becomes invisible for the duration.

This allows a player to take something--like a letter, gem, etc.--and make it invisible. It also does not completely nerf the flour in the air trick, because even though the flour turns invisible when it hits the invisible creature's body, their will be a more obvious distortion.

Reading over this list and thinking about it, I've come to realize that I prefer option two. I like to think of invisibility is similar to Predator or Skyrim. You can, if paying attention, notice a distortion. It makes it hard to hid and very hard to see if the invisible creature is hiding. While you are invisible, whatever you carry is invisible.

Both interpretations raise some interesting questions. I'll assume the first interpretation, only that which is on your person when invisibility is cast on you is also made invisible.

1. You are holding a torch when invisibility is cast on you. Is the torch now invisible? Does it still cast light? Or is the light "leaving" your person? Same with the heat. Also the smoke would be visible because it is leaving your person. I would rule that you could see the flame and smoke, but not the torch itself.

2. You are holding an injured comrade. Can a "person" be on your person? If you give someone a piggyback ride, can you have two party members made invisible for the price of one? Per the RAW, a person is something you can carry. I would say yes. Think of the fun you could have with a party made up of a Goliath and four gnomes.

3. Are you invisible to yourself? I would say, either "no" or that you see a translucent glowing version of yourself.

As far as first 1, the gem would be visible until you placed into your belt pouch, it is still visible but completely enclosed in an invisible object, so it wont be seen while in the pouch.


As far as first 2. Yes, unless the object leaves your person. If you are invisible and shoot an arrow the arrow doesn't stay invisible. In fact by shooting the arrow you give away your position, see Unseen Attackers and targets.


For second 1, the torch is invisible. It still casts light. You are correct.

The second 2, Yes if they were carried at the same time.

For the only 3, I would say no, you can see yourself. Its an illusion effect, you see through your own illusions. To me you radiate a glammer from yourself. If you look at your self in a mirror though, you wouldn't see your self as the mirror changes you POV outside your perspective, so you see what the mirror sees which is whatever is "behind" you.

 

[smbakeresq]

I find it makes sense when you define "hidden" not as "unseen" but as as "unseen and unheard and unsmelt and unfelt and …".

If something is only unseen (invisible, darkness, blind condition) then you can still know where it is by hearing or smell or touch or traces of its presence. Even though you know where it is you are still at disadvantage to attack it, because it is unseen.

To be "hidden" you must first be unseen and then take some steps to be unheard and unsmelt and otherwise unnoticed. In combat, taking these steps is covered by the Hide Action.

As an aside, it is possible to be hidden but seen - we call this "disguised".

For the invisible golem in the corner of a quiet room, it is in fact hidden. Why? Because we can't see it (it is invisible and we don't have any blindsight), we can't hear it (it is immobile), we can't smell it (maybe), and we can't percieve any traces of its presence (there are no tracks on the floor, there is no smoke in the air to reveal it, etc).

TLDR: "Unseen" is not the same as "hidden" - you can be unseen but not hidden.

Its in the rule set, although poorly located and referenced, under Unseen Attackers and Targets page 195 in PHB

"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."


Hidden is unseen and unheard to a creatures senses.

 

[Hriston]

Remember though an invisible creature still needs to take the hide action to actually be removed from the map. Invisibility grants the chance to take that hide action, otherwise you still know where the invisible creature is, you just can’t see it.

Can we stop with this rules lawyer BS already? "You enter a room. Your eyes are immediately and automatically drawn to the invisible iron golem standing motionless in a corner, no check needed". I don't care what the printed rule is, it's aggressively stupid.

Some of us enjoy the rules lawyer BS. I would assume that the invisible golem standing motionless in the corner is hiding. See? I got there per the rules without being aggressively stupid. Maybe stupid, but not aggressively so.

Since the golem's Stealth skill is a whopping -1, it is very likely to be detected (and its location pinpointed) whether it's hiding or not. You walk into the room and just know that there's an invisible golem in the corner.

"Invisible creature standing still" is one of the failure points of the stealth rules.

Hiding ("stealth rules") excerpt:

<snip>

In the invisible golem example, the golem is not actively trying to hide when the PCs enter the room, it already IS hiding probably as a result of being commanded by its master to stay perfectly still and quiet until those pesky kids come through the room trying to tamper with its master's stuff. As indicted above in the RAW, unless the PCs are actively searching for an invisible golem in that particular room - which is highly unlikely unless they were tipped off prior to entering the room - they are not going to automatically detect it. Or did I miss a more specific stealth rule here?

Yes, Passive Perception:

<snip>

What’s wrong with the DM making the golem hidden and setting a DC to detect it as high as s/he wishes? Is it difficult to notice? Set the DC at 20. Is it very difficult? Set it at 25. Nearly impossible? 30.

 

[smbakeresq]

In what world do you read this as anything but multiple means to the same ends? You don't need to be invisible AND hide to escape notice. It's one of the 3 options presented. In your invisible stalker example, why would you know where it is after it moves?

Because its how you read English. You also read only that sentence but nothing else, try reading them all.

You are trying to achieve the same thing, but each has its own set of prerequisites. Hiding is the Hide action, requiring you to not be seen (cant take Hide action) by using something to obscure vision like being out of line of sight. Invisibility always allows you to take the Hide action, its in the description of the Hide action. Lurking in Darkness means being in an area that is heavily obscured, such as an area with no light or beyond creatures vision with its light source, for example you are 60' away from a creature holding a torch. They all achieve the same thing.

In my example, I explained it. It is also in the monsters description, which I quoted. Its called an Invisible Stalker, not an invisible and silent stalker. The Stalker is undetectable until it move, it moves and makes a hide check with a +10 modifier as it makes sound as it moves, like the wind and in a direction if you are perceptive enough (active not passive) and if it attacks you know the direction of the attack and its location (Unseen attackers and Targets) where upon you focus on it and track it until it stops making noise and leaves no trace of its movement (takes the Hide action.) You could take an opportunity attack if it moves away (with disadvantage.)


I get your confusion, but the Stalkers description clearly states "Unseen Threat. Invisible stalkers are composed of air and are naturally invisible. A creature might hear and feel an invisible stalker in passing, but the elemental remains invisible even when it attacks. A spell that allows someone to see the invisible reveals only the invisible stalker's vague outline.

Its always invisible but you can hear and feel it in passing. It can ALWAYS try to move silently (HIDE) since it always has the invisibility condition.


Knowing a creatures location IS VERY DIFFERENT then seeing it, if a rogue ducks behind a column in the middle of a room it is unseen (and can take the hide action) but you know where it is (behind the column.)



This distinction is how rogues operate BTW. The rogue attacks with advantage from being hidden (getting bonus damage) gives away its position by attacking (see Unseen Attackers and Targets) and then uses cunning action (bonus action to take Hide action) to Hide again, with a move in their somewhere.

 

[smbakeresq]

Since you want to go down this rabbit hole, I'm saying it never takes the hide action. Why is it automatically detected again? You have to roll for non-invisible traps like tripwires. Clearly an invisible trap would be infinitely times worse due to being automatically detected!

This rule is bad, and those who wrote it should feel bad.

No, people who wont read the rules and continue to argue them are obtuse and should feel bad.

Go read the rule on finding Hidden Objects, its next to the Hiding rule. Passive Perception doesn't work that way, you need to actively describe what you are doing.

 

[smbakeresq]

What’s wrong with the DM making the golem hidden and setting a DC to detect it as high as s/he wishes? Is it difficult to notice? Set the DC at 20. Is it very difficult? Set it at 25. Nearly impossible? 30.

Nothing is wrong with the DM making that rule. But the invisibility condition states it would be impossible to see, since it isn't making noise (unless the DM says it is) and isn't moving (definition of the example.) I would treat it as an object, since it is a construct that wont move unless activated.


This also applies to the other example, an invisible trip wire. You need to explain what actions you are taking to find it.

As far as the OP, in the case of a Golem, it is a massive magical construct, a detect magic spell wouldn't outline it but would vector in as a strong magical presence in the corner of the room.

 

[Maxperson]

Whether or not you know an invisible creature is there (and I would say they are not automatically detected unless they take the hide action, that's a tangent), the spell is clear.

You know there's something magic, you don't know what and since you can't see the aura you don't know the school. At least that's how I rule it.

But if they do take the hide action, they ARE automatically detected?