This is a follow up question to my original question Could a Halfling Warlock Ride a Pseudodragon?

The answer was No, riding a familiar cannot be done because of the size rule about mounts. But it appears a familiar can 'carry' a player if the familiars strength is enough to pick up the player character's weight.

So my question is, does the imp familiars invisibility affect a PC if they are being 'Carried' by the familiar?

PHB Imp familiars Invisibility:

Invisibility. The imp turns invisible until it attacks or until its concentration ends. Anything the invisible imp is carrying or wearing is invisible as long as it remains in contact with the imp.

The key word being 'anything' the invisible imp is carrying.

I know I should just leave good enough alone, and I am aware it is up to my DM in the end. But I was just wanting to know if there is a rule elsewhere that I haven't seen which negates this before I bring it up with my DM.


4 Answers 4



Creatures aren't things, they're creatures. It's pretty clear to me that invisibility's description (same as the spell in PHB) is meant to cover whatever equipment/knickknacks/clothing a creature is carrying around with it so that a pedant couldn't argue that you had to be naked for it to work.

Sadly by saying, "anything", we've got a RAW argument that when you get on an invisible horse, jump in the invisible orc's arms, or bizarrely buff up the imp and have it lift you that you should turn invisible too. By RAW this seems to work, but frankly 5e has lots of odd things that seem to work be RAW. You shouldn't expect this type of strict reading to be followed in most games.

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ The D&D version of troll physics: have an invisible imp do a handstand. The imp is now carrying the world. The whole world becomes invisible. Problem? :D \$\endgroup\$
    – DaFluid
    Commented Jun 21, 2016 at 9:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The quoted rules don't say "any object" (a defined game term). Creatures certainly are things. Nor does it require the 'troll physics' suggested by DaFluid, unless a PC on horseback isn't being carried by the horse. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 21, 2016 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TheoBrinkman As it stands I think my answer covers pretty clearly why I disagree with your line of reasoning. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ceribia
    Commented Jun 21, 2016 at 21:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmm... The 5E SRD uses a different wording that would remove ambiguity for imps (but leave it for the Invisibility spell): "Any equipment the imp wears or carries is invisible with it." The PHB uses the more vague "anything" wording. That's fun. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 30, 2021 at 16:19


Crawford answered this question back in March, with:

Nope, that invisibility works on the fiend and its gear.





used to refer to a thing, no matter what.

Go for it!

  • \$\begingroup\$ Short and sweet, and it makes sense when compared to petrification where it mentions specifically creatures. hmm... I might allow it as a "Rule of Cool", but the imp has to carry the PC. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Thank-Glob
    Commented Jun 25, 2021 at 10:05

No, only equipment carried by the imp is invisible

The text quoted in the question for the imp's Invsibility action matches the text in the printed version of the PHB (including the 2018 errata, which only changed resistances).

However, it does not match the text on D&D Beyond from the Basic Rules, form the SRD (2016) or from the Monster Manual. While it is not clear if the Monster Manual text supersedes the PHB text because the PHB is player-facing and these other documents are not, all of these more recent sources give the ability as

The imp magically turns invisible until it attacks or until its concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell). Any equipment the imp wears or carries is invisible with it.

Note the difference: not anything, instead any equipment. While one can argue, based on text in the rules for carrying weight, that a carried creature should count as equipment, the voting consensus on this points to "no". The fact that the designers intent in 2015 was to that the imp could not make its master invisible from 2015, further supports the interpretation the text was at some point changed from "anything" to "any equipment" specifically to exclude creatures from being made invisible.

In summary, while a strict rules-as-written take from just the PHB source might allow the invisibilty to extened to carried creatures, there is so much evidence against such a reading from all the other sources, that I think one can confidently state the imp should not make carried creatures invisible.

And while we are at it, equipment such as clothing and armor carried or worn by carried creatures is not the imp's equipment, it is that creature's equipment, and also should not become invisible.


You must log in to answer this question.

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