Does a small creature hidden under your clothes also become invisible when the Invisibility spell is cast on you?

I.e.: Our druid wildshapes into a mouse that crawls into the pocket of the jacket of my character. My character then casts the spell Invisibility at second level on myself (so one target creature becomes invisible). Will the mouse also become invisible?

The wording of the spell does seem to suggest this:

Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person

Unless 'Anything' cannot be a creature...

Ps: If this is the case, then I would also rule that if the mouse crawls into my character's pocket afterwards, it would also become invisible. At least, if you combine this with the unofficial ruling of Jeremy Crawford regarding a similar question:

Only items worn/carried when invisibility is cast are invisible, but I'd let you conceal something under them.


2 Answers 2


No, the Invisibility spell cast with a 2nd level slot makes invisible one creature.

The text says (emphasis mine):

A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends.


At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 2nd.

For making invisible more than one creature, the caster must spend an higher slot.

Moreover, anything refers to items and objects, not living entities, see also this clarification.

If a DM rules otherwise, as per the situation depicted in the question, the provided Q&A contains the discussion about items picked up while under the Invisibility spell.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ In other words, Minsc and Boo require 2 charges. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Feb 28 at 9:37
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Trish I think magic works in a mysterious way for miniaturized giant space hamster... \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Feb 28 at 9:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ OP has two issues here - is the mouse 'anything worn or carried' that thus becomes invisible, and can you conceal something visible 'under invisible clothes'. You have addressed the first question but not the second. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Feb 28 at 15:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt in these cases I am puzzled to flag it as "two questions on one" or not. Anyway, the link provided by the OP already answers their question. I will remark it on my answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Feb 28 at 16:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but in this case the downvote is... Surprising \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Feb 28 at 19:00

TL;DR: The mouse is not visible but not invisible.

Firstly, as argued by @Eddymage, the mouse itself does not gain the Invisible condition:

  1. The Invisibility spell, at 2nd level, only grants the Invisible condition to 1 target creature -- in this case, your character.
  2. Only the items a character is wearing or carrying also become Invisible, not the creatures.

This does mean that your coat turns Invisible, however, and remains so as long as you are, even if you would remove it from your person.

On the other hand, as argued in the answer linked by @Eddymage, an object is not visible while in the pocket of the Invisible coat, or otherwise inside the Invisible coat.

While this does not provide a definite ruling on whether a creature would be subject to the same rule, any interpretation which differ here would run into weird situations: should the mouse enter the pocket, it would be visible, but any hair it sheds would be concealed and should it die... it'd disappear as well! Not only does it stretch the suspension of disbelief, it seems likely to impede gameplay and to open the door to shenanigans. I would suggest treating creatures the same as objects in this case.

Or in summary:

  • The mouse itself is not Invisible.
  • The mouse while in the pocket of the coat is not visible, thus Hidden.

This matters because:

  1. The mouse could crawl into the pocket of the coat after you cast Invisibility on yourself, and still be Hidden.
  2. Should the mouse crawl out of the pocket of the coat, it becomes visible, regardless of whether your Invisibility has worn off or not.
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The counter-argument to this is that the mouse is only hidden while inside the coat pocket because the coat blocks sight of the mouse allowing it to hide. Once the coat (and character wearing the coat) become invisible then they do not block sight of the mouse and the mouse may not be able to hide if the opponent can see them clearly (and would appear to float in mid-air). \$\endgroup\$
    – MT0
    Feb 29 at 14:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @MatthieuM. "Your interpretation runs against Jeremy Crawford's, so that's a bad start" usually, JC's tweets and rulings proved a lot of times to be contradicting and even against the rules and SAC rulings... There's a reason why they are not official anymore! \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Feb 29 at 16:52
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage: The people behind them aren't wrapped in a visibility denying effect, and are in fact being made visible by said effect. This is basically the Harry Potter school of invisibility; a thing that is invisible bestows that invisibility on things it is wrapped around, it doesn't obscure things on the other side of it (which would defeat the whole purpose of invisibility). \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1 at 1:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage Are you trying to bring real-world physics in a talk about an Invisibility Spell? :) I am less worried about plausibility and instead prefers to focus on consequences. An Invisible Thief pickpockets someone successfully... and now the thingy they lifted is floating around? They can't hide it? Well, that's lame. Thus, they need to be able to put it in their pocket or under their cloak and have it invisible... \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1 at 8:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage (continued) Conversely, someone manages to drop a red ball in an Invisible Guy's pocket, and now that red ball is visible to anyone... except the Guy, who is not invisible to himself! WAT? It's good for a laugh, I guess. But it's quite bizarre that it'd be concealed from the carrier while being clearly visible from everyone else no? So, I'll disagree with you. Jeremy Crawford's ruling is the sensible stance. Otherwise things get weird. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1 at 8:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .