D&D 5E Why does Invisibility work against undead?

[SkidAce]

It doesn't work against undead. They all know exactly where you are, but consider it rude to break the illusion. They are very polite that way.

Now there is a campaign building premise....all undead are extremely polite..."Pardon sir, you are being hunted!"

 

[pogre]

Thank you for the replies. Some were amusing others reflected my current thoughts on the matter: There are lots of things in the RAW that are not satisfactorily 'explained', but consistent, fun rules are more important.

Those who replied 'magic', although some did so tongue-in-cheek, have it right. When the magic-user imbues the skeleton with life force the undeath-stitching creates senses like dark vision.

Either way, the discussion is much appreciated.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Having just re-read the Lord of the Rings, I can assure you that the Ringwraiths themselves were invisible. It's just that they didn't get the whole "anything you are wearing or carrying is invisible with you" clause, so people could see their shapes when they were clothed and such. If they'd gone around naked, no one would've known they were there.

Clearly the Ringwraiths weren't played very optimally. ;-)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In short, if you want undead (or some other class of critter) to interact with the world differently, then create rules that enforce that. If you're just asking "why?", remember that you're gaming in a world where failure to dodge (save against) disintegrate may not turn you to dust, but the next guy could be dusted even if he does everything right.

Nitpick: in 5E, disintegrate is save-for-no-damage. If he dodges, he won't be dusted.

 

[Mercule]

Nitpick: in 5E, disintegrate is save-for-no-damage. If he dodges, he won't be dusted.

That's fair. Haven't seen it in play in 5E, yet. We'll go with finger of death, then.

 

[Gadget]

As much as I like the world building of having undead 'see' the world in a completely different manner ala The Lord of the Rings, I think it is better for simplicity's sake to just make invisibility work against all sight based creatures and forgo the need to have special purpose spells like Invisibility to Undead and such.

 

[Mallus]

First off, the idea undead can see invisible people but pretend they can't out of a sense of decorum is brilliant. It invites the question, "what is the etiquette of the dead, and what happens when & if they violate it?" - which I haven't had enough coffee (or maybe bourbon) yet to properly answer.

My advice would be to pick an explanation for undead vision and then work out some interesting implications.

Quick example: undead see life force.

Implication: the closer a person is to dead, the less well undead can see them.

So maybe PCs can "hide" from undead via self-inflicted wounds.

Maybe it's easier for low-level PCs to "hide" from undead -- i.e. character level = life force -- giving lower-level groups incentive to rob tombs full of more powerful undead they can't win straight-up fights with. This also creates an incentive for higher-level NPCs to hire scrubs for tomb-raiding.

This opens up space for custom spells with interesting trade-offs. Like an invisibility to undead spell that works by allowing the target to operate at 0 HP.

Maybe you interpret "close to death" more loosely, allowing PCs with debilitating illnesses (but full HP) to conceal themselves from undead.

Etc.

 

[BoldItalic]

If you cast Invisibility on a skeleton, can it see itself?

 

[knasser]

For the same reason that a player who has never held a sword before can play a fighter who knows which end of the sword to hold.

The player has not spent the majority of his time studying wizardry, but his wizard character most certainly has. It's fairly reasonable that the character would have come across this fact in his studies, particularly while researching the Invisibility spell.

If you create a special type of skeleton that sees invisible creatures, that's one thing, but to alter the rules and say that all undead ignore invisibility (without informing the players) is a 'gotcha'. It's in no way fair, because the player made a reasonable assumption but gets punished for it.

You, as the DM, can create a world where strange physics or magic results in swords that can only be held by the blade. If you don't inform the players and one player says, "I grab the hilt of my sword and prepare to draw it" and you reply "Haha, take 1d8 damage because in this world you have to hold the sword by the blade" the player is going to be justifiably like "What the hell!?".

It's not clever to use reasonable assumptions against your players. IMO, it's cheap and results in a game that slows to a crawl as the players try to guess where the DM 'gotcha' is going to come from next.

Depends on the campaign setting. If magic is common, undead common, careers stalking into 10'x10' rooms to steal treasure is the norm, then maybe it's normal that a wizard in wizard school is told "undead are unaffected" as part of Invisibility 101. My setting is a lot more of a LotR, Wizard of Earthsea naturalistic setting filled with mysteries and PCs start out at first level just finding their way in the world. To me, watching a player that has routinely used Invisibility go quietly tip-toeing into a room of motionless skeletons only to have the PCs watching from outside panic as each skull turns silently as the invisible PC passes - and then to wonder how to alert their companion without making a noise. That's great fun. And it IS fair because the players had the opportunity to avoid it. At any point they could have stopped and asked "does Invisibility affect creatures without eyes?" It's a natural question which unless their characters have experience with undead before, is on them to think of. You're presuming a world where young wizards are familiar with how undead work. You're talking about a game where players have probably read the MM and work on assumptions of what creatures are like. Not all games are like that. Not all games should be.

TL;DR: It's a fun and tense moment that the players could have anticipated but failed to. That's the perfect challenge.

 

[knasser]

Clearly the Ringwraiths weren't played very optimally. ;-)

Good luck having a conversation with the local hobbits when you're a disembodied voice or riding a horse when you are a disembodied voice. Also, I always had the impression there was more to it than simply being invisible. When they are unhorsed in the river flood by the elven magic, Gandalf talks of them having to return to Mordor to regain new forms. Not having to visit the nearest unattended clothesline and steel new bedsheets.