invisibility – Silence = -4 to Notice against Sounds, but what about Notice against Stealth in general?

Silence gives anyone who tries to hear you -4 to their Notice roll (or an auto-fail with a Raise), but how much does this spell influence your Stealth roll where you also have to stay out of sight?

I am planning on combining Silence (-4/auto-fail to Notice) and Invisibility (-4/-6 to Notice), but I don’t know how to combine these numbers. Without the auto-fail I would’ve just added them up, but the auto-fail gives me the impression that it was intended that I don’t do that in general with these spells.

dnd 5e – Does Invisibility provide cover for the purpose of ending Witch Bolt?

You have not specified if it is the warlock or the target who is subject to the invisibility spell.


In either case, invisibility does not provide cover.

In addition, being invisible does not make you hidden. To be hidden, you must have taken the Hide action and subsequently not done something to lose hidden status. Unless you are hidden, people know where you are. See What advantages does hiding have? One thing that would cause you to loose hidden status would be to be at the end of “a sustained arc of lightning”, like from, hmmm … Witch Bolt

Invisible Warlock

If the warlock is subject to an Invisibility spell then casting Witch Bolt or any other spell ends the Invisibility spell. Being an unseen attacker would grant the warlock advantage on the ranged spell attack.

If the warlock has already cast the Witch Bolt and then is the target of an Invisibility spell they can continue to concentrate on the Witch Bolt and do damage each round without ending the Invisibility since they are neither casting a spell or attacking. Of course, they cannot Hide without ending the Witch Bolt as that would take their action. If they can Hide as a bonus action or have more than one action per turn, they can Hide but would immediately lose hidden status due to being at the end of “a sustained arc of lightning”; just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Invisible Target

An invisible target gives you disadvantage on the ranged spell attack. In addition, if the target is also Hidden, you would need to guess its location; if you guess wrong you will automatically miss. If you are playing on a grid this would mean indicating the square your think the target is in; if not playing on a grid it would mean indicating in some other way.

On a hit, the creature would remain invisible but would not be hidden nor be able to Hide while subject to the spell.

dnd 5e – Do Nondetection and Invisibility protect you from True Seeing?


The beneficiary of a nondetection spell:

  1. Can’t be targeted by any divination magic, and
  2. Can’t be perceived through magical scrying sensors.

There are only two spells in the PHB that create magical scrying sensors: clairvoyance and scrying. These are obviously covered by Item 2.

It’s reasonable to assume that the remaining 28 spells from the divination school in the PHB, including true seeing, are covered by Item 1. They certainly fall into the category “any divination magic,” so the question is, what does it mean to be “targeted” by these spells?

Does the spell have to explicitly refer to a “target” in its spell description? That’s only two spells: the cantrip true strike and the 1st level ranger spell hunter’s mark. This would be a very short list for a 3rd level spell, and neither of these is really a ‘detect’-class spell. We need a broader definition for “targeted” than this.

It might be tempting to equate the target of a spell with the range of a spell; however, at least in the case of divination spells, this yields rather absurd results. Out of the 28 spells, 17 have a range of “Self,” while another 4 have a range of “Touch” where the spell description specifies a willing creature. Clearly the recipient of these spells is not the one being “targeted” by them. Otherwise this would imply that a caster under the protection of nondetection, for instance, would not be able to cast spells like comprehend languages or speak with animals on themselves for the duration. That is clearly not the intent of the spell. Furthermore, even if a creature thought this was a desirable effect, they could avoid being “targeted” by 3/4ths of all divination spells simply by not casting them or by declaring that they aren’t “willing.”

In addition, if we assume that the target of a spell with range “Self” is the caster’s own self, and not a creature one is trying to detect, then nondetection would provide no protection from detect evil and good or detect thoughts, which would seem to be exactly the kind of thing for which this spell is intended.

There is even a case to be made from RAW that target is not the same as range. Consider detect thoughts. It has a range of “Self,” and it allows the caster to detect creatures they can’t otherwise see. Yet the rules for Targets say (PHB 204): “Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed.” So the range of the spell is the caster’s self, but the target of the spell is the creature having its thoughts read.

Since “target equals range” leads us to absurdity, I propose a simpler, alternative reading of the spell: the recipient “can’t be detected by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.” If they can be detected by other means, fine; but if the only reason they can be detected is because of a divination spell, as is the case with an invisible creature who could be perceived with true seeing but is otherwise hidden, then they remain undetected.

dnd 5e – Does Blindsight detect invisibility?

Blindsight is the use of a sense other than sight such as hearing(echolocation), touch(sensitivity to vibrations) to detect things within its radius. It can see anything that comes within its radius.

Tremorsense is a similar ability to Blindsight as well, but is limited to those who are touching the ground within a certain radius of the character.

All of the above forms of sight penetrate invisibility.

dnd 3.5e – Overcoming flour or other nonmagical ways to defeat invisibility

I am looking for ideas on how to defeat a flour trap. As a rogue, I rely on sneak attack to really damage my foes. The plan for taking on the BBEG is the party will make me invisible with our wand of Greater Invisibility. However, I know the enemy has set up several flour traps and uses telekinesis to disperse the flour into the air, making invisible creatures immediately visible.

However, flour is tricky. If you get it wet, it does not clean it off. Instead, it only makes it sticky. How could I overcome a flour trap and resume my invisibility? I think my DM is doing this because we have used flour against invisible creatures he’s sent after us, and I think he is hoping we come up with a clever way of defeating it so he can use that same thing in the future. So, I’m not entirely sure I want an answer, lol.

To make this question more specific, we have at our disposal a cleric, a wizard, and a fighter. The cleric can prepare Create Water, but that will not help. Prestidigitation only clears one cubic foot per round, so the greater invisibility will wear off before the flour is entirely cleared. Is there anything that can clean an entire five foot square in a single round?

Edit: At the time of this update, there are two votes to close this because it is “opinion-based”. I am trying to remove any opinion by explaining exactly what the DM has already allowed or disallowed, so there is no opinion left. It is just the situation the party is in. A very narrow situation where they are facing a flour trap to defeat their invisibility. If you have suggestions how this can be narrowed further, it would be appreciated. I would like to avoid this question being closed as “opinion-based”.

spells – Am I doing invisibility right?

If you go invisibility can you use a hide action without having a place to hide? and also if you hit someone after you did the hide action, would you get a surprise attack? This is using a rogue assassin, at level 17 although I doubt I ever get high of a level.

spells – How does Invisibility work if you cast it while observed?

In PF2, undetected and hidden are distinct conditions. A literal reading of the invisibility spell suggests that, upon casting the spell, the caster automatically becomes undetected.

Cloaked in illusion, the target becomes invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead.

If the caster is undetected, then other creatures can attempt to find them by taking the seek action on their turns.

However, the rules for being invisible seem to contradict this:

If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak.

Suppose a spellcaster is being observed, and they cast invisibility. Do they become undetected, or do they become hidden?

If they want to become undetected, would they need to use an action to Sneak after turning invisible?

dnd 5e – For a level 10 Swords bard with Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, when is it better for DPR to use Greater Invisibility vs. Swift Quiver?

I’m sure someone else can come with an analytical solution to this, personally I’m fond of the universiality of monte carlo methods. The general principle, create a simulation of what you want to compare, run the simulation many, many times and average the results.

In this case, all we need is a function which for a set of paramaters (number of attacks, advantage, AC, etc.) simulates that round (rolls to hit and for damage). Run that simulation 100000 times for each set of parameters. So, for each of the four cases (GI or SQ and Sharpshooter or not) we can run that for a set of ACs. My Python code here. Doing that we get damage per round as a function of AC for each case (GI is Greater Invisibility, SQ is Swiftquiver, and a suffix S means with Sharpshooter):

enter image description here

For AC 13 to 22 using greater invisibility with Sharpshooter gives the highest DPR. So unless you’re fighting exceedingly low AC enemies or exceedingly high AC that combo is best. If the AC goes 23 or up just use greater invisibility until you hit AC 29 at which point you should start using Sharpshooter again (you’re only hitting on crits, so you just want hits to hit as hard as possible). Using swiftquiver and Sharpshooter is only better for ACs 12 or lower, at which point you’re basically hitting every non-nat1, so advantage isn’t worth the one less attack.

dnd 5e – Greater Invisibility vs Swift Quiver

The scene: A level 10 College of Swords Bard (includes extra attack). Crossbow Expert. Sharpshooter. 20 Dexterity. Hand crossbow + 1.

Intelligence is his dump stat so he needs to ask a friend what to pick for his magical secret.

One is definitely Find Greater Steed, because he is going to ride on a griffon while raining down death with his hand crossbow. The other may or may not be Swift Quiver.

Greater Invisibility will give me 2 attacks with my action, 1 attack as a bonus action, +10 to hit with advantage.

Swift Quiver will give me 2 attacks with my action, 2 attacks with my bonus action, +10 to hit.

Ignoring opportunity costs, spell slots costs, defence and anything else other than crossbow damage per round, at what point is it better to use Swift Quiver vs Greater Invisibility?

dnd 5e – Does activating a Tentacle Rod break the invisibility spell?

RAW, I would rule that the Tentacle Rod (and its wielder) remain invisible.

Invisibility states:

A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. (…) The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell. (PHB, pg. 254)

The “target” of invisibility is the creature you touch. Invisibility ends when that target attacks or casts a spell.

The description of the Tentacle Rod is quite clear – the tentacles are making the attacks:

While holding the rod, you can use an action to direct each tentacle to attack a creature you can see within 15 feet of you. Each tentacle makes a melee attack roll with a +9 bonus. On a hit, the tentacle deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage. (DMG, pg. 208)

The Tentacle Rod is not the target of invisibility, so invisibility does not end when the tentacles attack.

If it were the cast the the wielder were the one making the attacks with the tentacles, I would expect the language to be more similar to something like scorching ray:

Make a ranged spell attack for each ray.

For me, to rule this the other way, the description for the tentacle attacks would have to have said something like:

Make a melee attack for each tentacle, using +9 to hit.

Worded this way, it’s clear the wielder is making the attack.