D&D 5E Invisibility and torchlight

[empireofchaos]

Here is a situation that came up in a game over the weekend: An adventuring party is in a cave complex. One of the PCs is a human sorcerer, and he is the only one in the party who does not have Darkvision, and relies on his torch to be able to see. The party is trying to sneak by some giant spiders, and with his sorcery points and metamagic, he can turn everyone in the party invisible (except the Moon Circle Druid, who can get by with his Wild Shape - as a giant spider). Problem is, if he makes himself invisible, will the torchlight still allow the beasties to see his light? I know that worn, held and carried items turn invisible with you, but the torch is different, because not only is the character not holding the flame, but if the flame were to turn invisible, logic dictates that the character would not be able to see it either, and thus, would remain effectively blind. I ruled that the spell would not make the flame invisible, so the party went with a different plan. It seems that this situation would not be uncommon, given the likelihood of human spellcasters sneaking around dungeons. What call would you make?

 

[Carl DeAmicis]

I disagree with your call.

Here is a situation that came up in a game over the weekend: An adventuring party is in a cave complex. One of the PCs is a human sorcerer, and he is the only one in the party who does not have Darkvision, and relies on his torch to be able to see. The party is trying to sneak by some giant spiders, and with his sorcery points and metamagic, he can turn everyone in the party invisible (except the Moon Circle Druid, who can get by with his Wild Shape - as a giant spider). Problem is, if he makes himself invisible, will the torchlight still allow the beasties to see his light? I know that worn, held and carried items turn invisible with you, but the torch is different, because not only is the character not holding the flame, but if the flame were to turn invisible, logic dictates that the character would not be able to see it either, and thus, would remain effectively blind. I ruled that the spell would not make the flame invisible, so the party went with a different plan. It seems that this situation would not be uncommon, given the likelihood of human spellcasters sneaking around dungeons. What call would you make?

If I were to have this situation happen in my game I would follow the rules as stated. Everything held by the recipient of the invisibility spell would become invisible along with the character including the torch and flame. The character would not be blinded because the light shed would still illuminate the area. Only the source becomes invisible.

 

[Azurewraith]

If I were to have this situation happen in my game I would follow the rules as stated. Everything held by the recipient of the invisibility spell would become invisible along with the character including the torch and flame. The character would not be blinded because the light shed would still illuminate the area. Only the source becomes invisible.

Exact same thought as mine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

An invisible torch still sheds light, for the same reason that an invisible character can still see even when the light passes straight through its eyes instead of stopping at the photo-receptors. You might be able to pinpoint the invisible light source based on proximity brightness, but it would take a little while.

 

[S'mon]

an invisible character can still see even when the light passes straight through its eyes instead of stopping at the photo-receptors.

Not really - that (actually making the character transparent) would be an alteration spell, not an illusion.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would have the torch be invisible, but the area of light would not be. This would put every creature on guard, since a moving area of light is not normal. Getting past the spiders would be VERY hard (Disadvantage on Stealth, at least), since they would be moving about looking for the source.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Another problem, if I recall correctly, is that giant spiders have blindsight/tremorsense.

 

[empireofchaos]

I would have the torch be invisible, but the area of light would not be. This would put every creature on guard, since a moving area of light is not normal. Getting past the spiders would be VERY hard (Disadvantage on Stealth, at least), since they would be moving about looking for the source.

That's a good compromise solution - though it would largely negate the benefits of the invisibility spell as per the ruling.

 

[jrowland]

I am on the "still sheds light bt torch/flame invisible" side of the ruling.

That said, I usually have underdark critters react unfavorably to light, just as you or I would if someone shined a flashlight in our eyes in the middle of a dark night. That is, yes, it kills invisibility in some regards, but really, it's just a floating point source of light. If I were a giant spider, that would bother me and I would avoid it until I adjusted to the light, and then I'd ignore it bobbing about because, you know, I am a giant spider.

 

[empireofchaos]

This, incidentally, is the expanded ruling from the d20 SRD (which I had not seen up to now):

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible. [emphasis mine]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm

Granted, this is not for 5e, but the spell has not fundamentally changed from one edition to another.