6
\$\begingroup\$

Part of the disguise self spell says:

If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into you while it was seemingly still in midair.

This means that, obviously, that part of you is not visible to the observer. However, does it mean that it is invisible? For example, if a human-sized creature with a tail disguised itself as human, would the tail become invisible?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Why are there close votes? Close votes should always come with comments detailing that, otherwise, they are useless in terms of providing feedback to the asker and allow for no ability for the asker to edit their question to fit the site's format. At this point, it just comes across as petty. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Nov 21 '18 at 4:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Close votes don't always need to come with comments, especially when the reason is self-evident. In particular, I imagine the close votes were made before your recent edit that addressed the issue already pointed out by PurpleMonkey's comment on one of the answers: you were asking two different questions in your post. Now that you've edited it out, the question seems clearly scoped and answerable. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Nov 21 '18 at 5:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast self-evident means that the issues with the post should be immediately clear to any reasonable observer, even one unfamiliar with our site. For example, commenting is not necessary when flagging spam for deletion. Closure as too broad based on multiple questions in one post should come with a comment. Expecting users to understand what site policy means in practice without explanation is unhelpful. \$\endgroup\$ – the dark wanderer Nov 21 '18 at 5:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ That doesn't mean that people need to comment when VTCing-- quick closure is more important than transparancy-- but closure should always come with a comment at some point because any closure for truly self-evident reasons should be a deletion instead. \$\endgroup\$ – the dark wanderer Nov 21 '18 at 5:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer: The "too broad" close reason description does say: "Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once." But anyway, further discussions about RPG.SE policy should probably be taken to Role-playing Games Meta. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Nov 21 '18 at 5:40
4
\$\begingroup\$

The tail, just as the example of becoming thinner, would no longer be visible. But since you put emphasis on invisible it should be noted that in Dungeons and Dragons 5e, invisible is not exactly equivalent to not being visible. It is a specific game term with specific game consequences. It is a condition.

Invisible
- An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
- Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

Nothing in the spell "Disguise Self" gives the condition invisible. So RAW you are not treated as such.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's clear in context that the question isn't about the Invisible condition. Conditions apply to a creature as a whole. \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Nov 21 '18 at 5:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells yet the asker of the question has accepted this answer. Perhaps what is "clear" is not so after all. \$\endgroup\$ – Luke Nov 21 '18 at 5:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's probably also worth noting that you cannot apply a condition to just part of you, conditions apply to an entire creature. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Nov 21 '18 at 11:36
4
\$\begingroup\$

You don't have the invisible condition but there could be situational benefits of some parts of you not being visible

You could say parts of you are invisible, as long as you are clear that this does not grant you invisibility.

It would be rare that this would take on any practical importance in game-play. For example if a dwarf hates your elven flute-playing and tries to smash your fingers with his war hammer so you'll never play again, well, perhaps your DM would give you an edge if you cast disguise self to make your arms appear longer than they really are.

Other than very specific tactical instances such as that, it would not be largely consequential, that I can see.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

According to Jeremy Crawford, the official rules designer for 5e:

Disguise Self says “must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs.” Is a tiefling’s tail a limb?

A tiefling's tail isn't considered a limb; it's not prehensile.

This seems like a pretty good baseline for other characters to decide if they would count or not.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ While this is good info, I'm not sure whether it answers the primary question: Does Disguise Self make the tail invisible or not? The question about whether tails count as limbs was meant to clarify whether making the tail invisible would be altering "the arrangement of limbs," which is not allowed. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Nov 21 '18 at 3:38
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @SeraphsWrath that question should probably either be removed and asked separately or reworded to better fit with what this question is asking to avoid confusion such as this. \$\endgroup\$ – Purple Monkey Nov 21 '18 at 3:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ The question in Twitter was about a tiefling using disguise self so it seems like it would become invisible. I should clarify that in my answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Ryan Callaghan Nov 21 '18 at 4:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.