D&D 5E A wizard with a "Boots of Elvenkind" using inivisibility spell

[Nebulous]

But by far my favorite defense is Faerie Fire. I point it out to every new spell caster because it not only reveals the invisible creature but everybody gets advantage on attacks against them. An almost ridiculously powerful 1st level spell.

Ilbranteloth

It is kind of ridiculous. As a fully seen, visible enemy has a normal chance to be hit, somehow outlining it with faint light makes it substantially more vulnerable. I'd think just making an invisible enemy visible would be sufficient without granting Adv. on top!

 

[txshusker]

It doesn't matter. The boots do not state that they do not work with armor, so they do work with armor. If they work with armor, the item would be worthless with armor if it did not prevent the sound. Plus, there would be no way to adjudicate it since there is no perception roll at all for something that does not make sound. Hence, there is no disadvantage for heavy armor for a perception roll that does not exist.

Bottom line, any noise from armor is considered part of movement. If the armor is not moving, it should not be making noise.

This does not mean that if something struck the armor, that it would not make a sound. It would. It just means that the normal sounds of armor caused by movement would not be heard.

I personally wouldn't be so militant with that particular definition/interpretation. Just because it doesn't state it doesn't work with armor, doesn't have to mean armor is silent - the absence of a fact doesn't make that conclusion concrete. Oftentimes there are places where it would state : this also works when the character is wearing armor. So I could argue the fact that because the description doesn't say it also works with armor, means it doesn't work with armor. It also refers to only the atmosphere on the ground - which could easily infer they are referring to only steps being silent. I mean, Elves make sounds when they move - you can still attempt to perceive them. The description doesn't state the boots cause a silence 2' radius spell. I always treat descriptions like this like the pirates' code... more guidelines than rules. If you want to make the character completely silent, then feel free. If you feel that it doesn't cover the sound of improperly kept fasteners on plate mail or the cachinking of chain linked mail, then by all means, go ahead. You're the DM... if you're being consistent about all the rules when you interpret them, even rulemongers shouldn't complain.

Even if you decided they didn't cover the armor, they can still be very useful... you can still be stealthy with armor, so if you simply giving advantage to stealth checks for armored wearers, that still nearly assures the character of always being stealthy - especially a robed mage or unarmored monk.

on the OPs question, you could have them damaged in battle at some point, making them less potent. Or the character might do something that they haven't tried yet, and suddenly they find the boots don't cover that move. I just read another thread where the DM didn't let the player ID all the specific abilities of the magic item, letting them discover them in play... that idea could work for you.

 

[KarinsDad]

I personally wouldn't be so militant with that particular definition/interpretation. Just because it doesn't state it doesn't work with armor, doesn't have to mean armor is silent - the absence of a fact doesn't make that conclusion concrete. Oftentimes there are places where it would state : this also works when the character is wearing armor. So I could argue the fact that because the description doesn't say it also works with armor, means it doesn't work with armor. It also refers to only the atmosphere on the ground - which could easily infer they are referring to only steps being silent. I mean, Elves make sounds when they move - you can still attempt to perceive them. The description doesn't state the boots cause a silence 2' radius spell. I always treat descriptions like this like the pirates' code... more guidelines than rules. If you want to make the character completely silent, then feel free. If you feel that it doesn't cover the sound of improperly kept fasteners on plate mail or the cachinking of chain linked mail, then by all means, go ahead. You're the DM... if you're being consistent about all the rules when you interpret them, even rulemongers shouldn't complain.

Even if you decided they didn't cover the armor, they can still be very useful... you can still be stealthy with armor, so if you simply giving advantage to stealth checks for armored wearers, that still nearly assures the character of always being stealthy - especially a robed mage or unarmored monk.

I just don't get the point of trying to come up with ways to make the magic of the item not work. Sure, the item does not explicitly state that it makes the PC 100% quiet, but as a DM, what's the point of trying to nitpick when it can and cannot do that if one is going to hand out the magic item?

Player: "Woo Hoo! I have Boots of Elvenkind."
DM: "Too bad they didn't help you to move silently."
Player: "WT???"

 

[txshusker]

I just don't get the point of trying to come up with ways to make the magic of the item not work. Sure, the item does not explicitly state that it makes the PC 100% quiet, but as a DM, what's the point of trying to nitpick when it can and cannot do that if one is going to hand out the magic item?

Not to get in a side debate... but I was attempting to help the OP, who is looking for a way to combat the combination, as they apparently believe it is too powerful at the moment. Since campaigns are individual, they apparently were looking for outs. And I didn't say to make it not work... I offered limitations. 2 different things. But, not to rehash everything above, as I said - they could still be useful. Maybe a DM already uses disadvantage on stealth checks for heavy armor already in their world - which is quite common sensical considering the sound heavy armor makes upon hard stone or the creaking of layers of leather and straps... the boots could allow an improvement. (just an example, as the OP is talking about an unarmored mage). And like any other magic item lying around, maybe they'll help some characters but not others, just like every other magic item that is found. A wand isn't much use to a barbarian just like magic male is not useful to a sorcerer. But it's still useful to someone. I personally haven't played any campaigns with single character vs DM.

Rules lawyer all you want... that's perfectly fine. But if someone's attempting to negate the magic because they think it's breaking the game, there are ways around it. Again, though, the DM should be consistent with the next interpretation of an alike rule/description. The inconsistency is always when the bickering starts.

Player: "Woo Hoo! I have Boots of Elvenkind."
DM: "Too bad they didn't help you to move silently."
Player: "WT???"

been there... bickering ensued.

 

[KarinsDad]

But if someone's attempting to negate the magic because they think it's breaking the game, there are ways around it. Again, though, the DM should be consistent with the next interpretation of an alike rule/description. The inconsistency is always when the bickering starts.

Whereas I suggested to the OP earlier that he should consider not thinking of it as a problem as opposed to finding a bunch of workarounds. Often, our first impressions of "broken" are nothing of the kind. It's often just a knee jerk reaction to something that happens in the game (sometimes repeatedly) that raises an eyebrow.

Does it really matter if a wizard is invisible and silent? Sure, he might stealth in and take over the job of a rogue once in a while. Does that really matter? Maybe, maybe not at a given table. As a DM, there are a lot of opportunities of the quiet/invisible wizard to get into trouble. Traps. Area effect spells from his fellow PCs. Even the fact that the wizard is now concentrating on a spell and cannot attack or cast another spell is hindering in many cases.

been there... bickering ensued.

And it shouldn't have had to. If DMs would not react to potent abilities as broken and instead considered both the pros and cons, situations like that would not result in bickering as often. Both the DM and the player would have closer expectations if the DM isn't trying to find ways to rein in a given game element and just let them work per RAW or RAI.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I just don't get the point of trying to come up with ways to make the magic of the item not work. Sure, the item does not explicitly state that it makes the PC 100% quiet, but as a DM, what's the point of trying to nitpick when it can and cannot do that if one is going to hand out the magic item?

Player: "Woo Hoo! I have Boots of Elvenkind."
DM: "Too bad they didn't help you to move silently."
Player: "WT???"

Totally agree. If you don't want them in the game, don't hand them out. If you find that something's more powerful than you thought, hey, you're the DM! Come up with a creative and not punitive solution.

Having said that, think through what you're determining the effects are. If they make you totally silent (armor, etc.) are they silencing you? Can you even talk?

I haven't seen the 5th Ed version yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they simply give you advantage on Hide checks while moving. Since you already have advantage on Hide checks while invisible, and it doesn't stack, then it would be moot anyway. I'd probably still apply disadvantage to the opponent's Perception check.

Incidentally, the other night when rolling 2d20 I rolled a 1 and a 20. It was actually for 2 attack rolls, not advantage and disadvantage, but still pretty cool.

Ilbranteloth

 

[txshusker]

Whereas I suggested to the OP earlier....

yes you did... I agree with that. I was just trying to offer a different route.

And it shouldn't have had to. If DMs would not react to potent abilities as broken and instead considered both the pros and cons, situations like that would not result in bickering as often.

we were so young... so sure of our power...

Totally agree. If you don't want them in the game, don't hand them out.

yup...

And if I'm a wizard and find Boots of Elvenkind, I'm totally travelling inviso most of the time.

I think a good example of DMing crazy stuff you aren't happy with is the Acqusitions Inc stuff. Chris Perkins is often saying... "yeah... uh, sure, I'll allow that..."

Incidentally, the other night when rolling 2d20 I rolled a 1 and a 20. It was actually for 2 attack rolls, not advantage and disadvantage, but still pretty cool.

So you fumbled the sword, knocked it away while trying to make a last ditch grab at the hilt, but it flew point first into the orc's eye?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I like it! But no, two creatures making attacks. One did great, the other not so much.

Ilbranteloth

 

[RotGrub]

Well the silence spell with invisibility does the same. I'm fine with it, but in the past invisibility creating a shimmering effect that could be detected if you spent the time looking for it.

As I understanding being invisible in 5e doesn't mean you are not located. In theory if there are 20 invisible creatures in room you know the location of all them. There are obviously strange things that can happen with the invisibility rules as written, which is why I'd just go with what you think is best for the situation at hand. Don't let the rules control everything.

 

[RotGrub]

I think the rules cover this pretty well already.

Initially, the chance for detection would be Passive Perception (at -5 due to disadvantage). This covers all of those minute possibilities that they are just noticed. Once there is a reason for somebody to actively be searching, I would rule that they make a Perception check with disadvantage.

Note that even without the boots of elvenkind, invisibility automatically grants advantage on your attack (because you can't be seen), and then is dispelled. If your opponent is attempting to attack first, it's at disadvantage (because they can't see you), and might miss altogether if they don't know where you are.

The miss chance goes away if they know where you are (succeed on their Perception check). Once they know where you are (presumably even if you have a ring or cloak that can't be dispelled), you'd have to successfully Hide (with advantage, and their Perception check is probably at disadvantage) in order to be someplace else to maintain that miss chance.

The fact that all of this is irrelevant with a 1st level spell (Faerie Fire) can't be overlooked. Throwing a shovelful of ashes from the fireplace onto the floor, smashing a few bottles, or similar approaches to reveal footsteps, or even throwing ashes or flour onto the invisible creature (DMs judgement as to whether it becomes invisible) are also things to keep in mind.

Another thing that DMs often forget is that your allies can't determine where you are either. So if they are planning on rushing into battle (or firing missiles) then there could be potential consequences as well. At the very least I'd probably rule that a critical miss might in fact have struck the silent and invisible ally. It depends a lot on the action that's going on.

As was also mentioned before, other sense still work, and I think that, at least in their home, most high level villians have far too few pets (dogs, etc.) than they should. Once a dog has latched onto the invisible creature, then Perception checks are irrelevent. Attacks against them may still be at disadvantage, but they wouldn't have a miss chance then either.

But by far my favorite defense is Faerie Fire. I point it out to every new spell caster because it not only reveals the invisible creature but everybody gets advantage on attacks against them. An almost ridiculously powerful 1st level spell.

Ilbranteloth

I agree with your rules. You shouldn't be automatically located, but I recal Mearls confirming that invisibility doesn't work that way in 5e. Apparently, you only have to guess the creatures location if they are also hidden.

There is no check required to detect them and they can be targeted even when they are invisible.

Here is one of the tweets but there was another that also talked about blindsense that I can't find.
https://twitter.com/magehammer/status/512176075850674176