D&D 5E Can you target an invisible creature with a spell?

[Stalker0]

For the longest time I had assumed that a creature that cannot be seen cannot be targetted by a spell.... but doing a deeper reading of the rules i'm wondering if I'm pulling in some old edition assumptions here. The only thing I can find is that attacking a creature you can't see imposes disadvantage, and if you don't target the right square your attack auto misses. There is nothing specifically mentioned about spells and targets, other than requiring a clear path, and they can't be behind total cover.

So I take that to mean is, if I know what square an invisible or hidden creature is in, I can target them with a spell without issue (taking disadvantage on an attack roll if there is one). And if I pick the wrong square, the spell autofails.


Is that correct?

 

[Stalker0]

Ok so it looks like its always covered in the spell itself. Mentioning a target "you can see".... so I think I just got used to that and assumed it was always the case.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, it is spell specific. We've had some weird things happen at the table when caster players really read the spell descriptions.

 

[jgsugden]

I maintain lists of spells that PCs commonly cast that do not require you to see the target. It makes it easier to judge these things on the fly. It is also something you need to consider when you're making homebrew spells.

 

[ECMO3]

For the longest time I had assumed that a creature that cannot be seen cannot be targetted by a spell.... but doing a deeper reading of the rules i'm wondering if I'm pulling in some old edition assumptions here. The only thing I can find is that attacking a creature you can't see imposes disadvantage, and if you don't target the right square your attack auto misses. There is nothing specifically mentioned about spells and targets, other than requiring a clear path, and they can't be behind total cover.

So I take that to mean is, if I know what square an invisible or hidden creature is in, I can target them with a spell without issue (taking disadvantage on an attack roll if there is one). And if I pick the wrong square, the spell autofails.


Is that correct?

Most spells that target a creature say in the description that you need to see the target. So those won't work. Psychic Lance is an exception to this (as long as you know the target's name).

Most spells that target an area work fine (as long as the creature is in the area).

 

[el-remmen]

I don't know the rule but my default ruling is that unless it says otherwise, any spell that requires targeting a specific creature or creatures requires that you can see them.

 

[Shiroiken]

Something a DM can rule, is that you can target a space you believe contains an invisible creature with a ranged spell attack. You have the usual disadvantage you'd have if it was a weapon, but it allow you to Eldritch Blast or Firebolt just like you could shoot a crossbow. Obviously you shouldn't allow this for anything that uses a save instead, since there would be no downside.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, like everyone's saying. Depends on the spell. If you're just shooting at them with a ranged spell attack, it works like an arrow. Shoot their space with disadvantage. Same with melee spell attacks.

You can get 'em in AoEs if they're in the area, and some spells don't bother with the line "you can see". Most of the time, this means that you can target them. It's possible that there's a few spells where that phrase is left out when it should be in there, but I suspect that they've caught them by now (that's the kind of errata that 5e designers don't seem to mind doing.)

 

[Seramus]

Blind Timmy: "I want to be a wizard when I grow up!"