D&D 5E Invisible Objects and Spell Effects under RAW

[BigBadDM]

That's demonstrably incorrect. Lots of interesting and important question arise that are not addressed by the rules.

It's a game. So, not really. If there isn't a rule for something--then well it doesn't really need an answer or least any firm one. I have no qualms about the question, but it is one that doesn't need an answer. It is a general rhetoric question without any specifics.

But I have already given my two cents: ranging from using magic, reverting to the standard DC difficulty tables, giving the player's clues, not using such 'mechanisms' in game, etc. There are many solutions to open ended questions such as these and I thought I outlined solutions well enough; perhaps not.

I mean, at least I am putting my thoughts out there on the OP topic. I think it is a better use of the forum rather than pitting intellect against another commenter. I mean, at least I am staying on topic.

 

[R_J_K75]

I always enjoy when people use ellipses in a passive-aggressive manner, rather than using them for their literary intention.

I was wondering myself what was left out of that post and even what it meant.

I bet 99% of people who use ellipses in texts or elsewhere have no clue what there true use is.

 

[jgsugden]

...With the cup, and this applies generally to invisible objects, the difficulty, or means (or both) by which those might be discovered, for me anyway, depends entirely on why the invisible object is there in the first place. How key is it that the party find the invisible object? The more important it is the more handholds you need to put into your encounter to make it possible (or likely). Personally, I'd probably tailor that specifically to the party in question, rather than picking arbitrary difficulties or whatever.

This is addressed above, but generally speaking - As a DM, I don't railroad. I do not set a difficulty for an event based upon whether I want the PCs to succeed or not. Instead, I make sure the world makes sense and make sure the story we're telling together works if the PCs succeed or fail. I'm not telling the story to the players, I'm setting up the world and we're discovering how the story unfolds together. For me, anyways, the difficulty or means by which the cup would be discovered are independent of the reasons the cup was there.

So, for purposes of this conversation, you might consider that finding the cup is useful, but not essential?

Context matters too. If you're talking about a wizard's study, the chances that someone is going to bust out detect magic are pretty high, so problem solved...

For an invisible object or creature, Detect Magic would reveal that magic is present, but not a location or aura. Look for the word visible in the spell description. Detect magic does not olve the problem of invisibility, especially if there is a lot of magic in the area as there tends to be with most PCs.

I was hoping that someone had some ideas on this topic that I had not considered. I'm not seeing any novel ideas, yet. Anyone else?

 

[FrogReaver]

I always enjoy when people use ellipses in a passive-aggressive manner, rather than using them for their literary intention.

Anyhow, since you wanted to chime in--what are your thoughts on the OP topic at hand?

While I might have given a colorful response; we do live in the collective of the world, where I do find it important to view all sides (though disagreement often runs rampant). I'm curious your take?

A thing can be both passive-aggressive and used for it's proper intention

 

[Hriston]

In 5E, invisible creatures are not hidden by default. Even though you're invisible, until you take the hide action, your location is obvious due to your sounds, tracks, etc... We don't all like the rule, but it is there.

What about invisible objects or spell effects? If a cup is made invisible, what needs to be done to detect the presence of it on a table? What does a creature need to do to detect an arcane eye or rope trick portal?

From what I can tell, you fall back to generic rules of setting a perception DC to perceive something that is hard to spot under the RAW - perhaps a DC of somewhere between 15 and 25. Is that how you'd handle the PCs attempting to detect an arcane eye, a rope trick portal, a scrying sensor or an invisibile object on a table?

I’m not sure what the problem is. I’d ask the players what their characters do and go from there.

 

[Oofta]

This is addressed above, but generally speaking - As a DM, I don't railroad. I do not set a difficulty for an event based upon whether I want the PCs to succeed or not. Instead, I make sure the world makes sense and make sure the story we're telling together works if the PCs succeed or fail. I'm not telling the story to the players, I'm setting up the world and we're discovering how the story unfolds together. For me, anyways, the difficulty or means by which the cup would be discovered are independent of the reasons the cup was there.

So, for purposes of this conversation, you might consider that finding the cup is useful, but not essential?For an invisible object or creature, Detect Magic would reveal that magic is present, but not a location or aura. Look for the word visible in the spell description. Detect magic does not olve the problem of invisibility, especially if there is a lot of magic in the area as there tends to be with most PCs.

I was hoping that someone had some ideas on this topic that I had not considered. I'm not seeing any novel ideas, yet. Anyone else?

What else do you want? You can house rule invisibility to make it Terminator invisibilty where you can detect ripples of light because it's not 100% perfect.

But by RAW? If you want to give the PCs a chance to notice the object, give them some way to notice it. Since it's invisible, that's probably going to have to be something external in the environment.

 

[Mistwell]

I always enjoy when people use ellipses in a passive-aggressive manner, rather than using them for their literary intention.

Well then it was a double benefit. You enjoyed it, and I enjoyed it! Woo hoo!

To be clear, the "sweet summer child" quote is not a complete quote, and therefore the ellipses are appropriately being used to indicate it is a partial quote. Also, there was nothing passive about it.

If you want the full quote:

“Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods”

Anyhow, since you wanted to chime in--what are your thoughts on the OP topic at hand?

While I might have given a colorful response; we do live in the collective of the world, where I do find it important to view all sides (though disagreement often runs rampant). I'm curious your take?

The idea that, if something needs an answer then by definition it "would be rules in the book," is patently absurd to anyone who has played role-playing games of any kind for any reasonable period of time to have formulated an opinion on that topic. The rulebooks for all RPGs lack answers to some questions which will come up in your game. They are a toolset to deal with different questions which may come up, and not a complete tome of answers to all possible questions which may come up.

From that I conclude either you were perhaps making a joke, or engaging in extreme hyperbole, or sarcasm, or lack the experience to realize how erroneous your comment appeared. But perhaps I am wrong. Care to clarify?