14
\$\begingroup\$

Warlocks get access to the following Eldritch Invocation at 5th level:

When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction.

If the warlock is in a dim-light/dark area (either because it's an area inside without lights or it's outside at night) and becomes invisible, and the area later becomes lit (the warlock waits until daytime, or a character nearby lights a lantern), does the warlock remain completely invisible?

\$\endgroup\$
0

5 Answers 5

18
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, you remain invisible.

The text states:

When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction.

We can break it up to determine how it works.

When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible

This is the only condition that must be met for you to become invisible. If you are in dim light or darkness, and you can take an action, you can become invisible full stop.

until you move or take an action or a reaction.

These are the only conditions that cause you to lose invisibility. The invisibility ends when you either move, take an action, or take a reaction. Transitioning from dim light/darkness to full light is not moving, taking an action, or a reaction, so the invisibility remains.

If you're worried about this being overpowered, remember that in 5E invisibility is not that useful by itself. It doesn't actually make you any stealthier or harder to detect than normal. The only thing it does is give people disadvantage against you (which is powerful no doubt), and it allows you to hide in plain sight. However, hiding is an action, which according to the text you quoted removes the invisibility. Since your Warlock can't hide without losing his invisibility, he will still be detectable by everyone around him. All this lets your Warlock do is get disadvantage on attacks against him as long as he doesn't move or take actions/reactions.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Wouldn't first hiding and than becoming one with shadow work though? \$\endgroup\$
    – Nox
    Nov 6, 2015 at 10:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, but being invisible when you're already hidden confers no benefit. Invisibility only does one thing, and that is it makes it easier for you to try to hide from people. If you're already hidden then becoming invisible doesn't do anything, because you've already done the thing it's trying to help you do. I really wish Wizards would have called invisibility something else, because mechanically it is not even remotely close to real-world invisibility. \$\endgroup\$
    – Percival
    Nov 6, 2015 at 13:47
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Not sure where you're coming from. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 8, 2016 at 17:23
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ While the guards are around the corner, you are heavily obscured, and so can attempt to hide (remain silent). While hidden (still heavily obscured and silent) you become invisible, which means you remain heavily obscured, which maintains your being hidden. Yes, you have to hide, but you can do it before becoming invisible as long as you are never not heavily obscured. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 8, 2016 at 21:20
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Percival: The thing is that in general, you stop being hidden as soon as there's nothing obscuring you from the people looking. So if you're hidden but not invisible, you're undetectable - right up until they round the corner and you have nothing to hide behind. Invisibility lets you be/remain hidden even when there's nothing between you and the enemy. As for this specific invocation, I don't know how that bit would be applied; I think your answer is RAW but I don't know about RAI (rules as intended). \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Oct 29, 2018 at 2:40
1
\$\begingroup\$

I've DMed a character who uses this ability and ran it RAW. Not being able to move or act pretty much restricts him to using it to be spooky.

If a player tries to constantly ambush people they would not be getting a massive advantage since they would instantly be visible.

If it ends because someone walks past with a torch it makes the ability practically useless.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

By RAW, there's absolutely nothing that makes lighting a relevant point after the invocation is activated.

As clarification, another answer stated that you still roll a Hide check when invisible, but that's simply not true. "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." If they were being perceived with Tremorsense or Blindsight (obscurement required), then perhaps... but that's a different question entirely.

And last but not least, it's not exactly the best choice on the invocation list. It's niche in terms of use-case, and limiting besides.

Allowing creative use of mechanics to, by proxy, allow more playstyles to exist and flourish or flounder on their own... That's one of the marks of a good DM.

To those looking to (wrongly) rules lawyer - or worse yet, make things up out of pure spite for invisibility - your players out of what you think is something OP: Be a good DM. To players looking to do the same to your DM or fellow players: Be better. Let people have fun.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Where do you get from that you do not need a hide check if you are invisible? Vision is not the only sense that allows others to perceive a creature, there is also sound, smell, etc. It would be helpful to cite rules support for the claim. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 29 at 10:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: Do you need to take the hide action when you are invisible \$\endgroup\$ Feb 29 at 10:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi @Robert, and welcome to the site. Check out our tour when you have a chance! I've revised your answer a little bit to focus specifically on answering the question and drop references to being “late” — questions and answers are part of a timeless knowledge base so an answer is no less “late” than an edit to a Wikipedia article made years later. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 29 at 12:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. \$\endgroup\$
    – Community Bot
    Feb 29 at 13:09
-2
\$\begingroup\$

from a logical thinking perspective I would say lighting a candle might not be enough as then there would still be shadows. but if it's becomes day light all shadows get a lot softer or non-existing thus would mean there are no shadows to be invisible in.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Interesting idea, but in 5E invisibility is a very clearly defined concept with concrete mechanics. Light doesn't have anything to do with it, so RAW this doesn't apply. Obviously as a DM you can overrule that if you wish. \$\endgroup\$
    – Percival
    Nov 5, 2015 at 18:06
-3
\$\begingroup\$

I will overrule the RAW and say "You will lose invisibility!"

I do agree with Percival's answer; as we all know, we generally adopt the mechanics verbatim. But if I'm DMing this, I will overrule that and say that the Warlock will lose invisibility. Why?

Well, because the specific Eldritch Invocation is named One with Shadows. If there is a light source and he stays in a specific area illuminated by the light (no more shadows), then there are no more shadows to be one with. Clearly this is not same as the invisibility spell, and should be treated differently.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Invocation is already very niche. Running it weaker than RAW seems like bad advice. Further, reading between the lines a bit, this answer does not seem to be based in actual play experience, which is no wonder, since who would take even weaker version of this Invocation? \$\endgroup\$ Feb 1 at 17:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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