4
\$\begingroup\$

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.

\$\endgroup\$
0
11
\$\begingroup\$

No

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.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 4
    \$\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
    Jun 21 '16 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\$ Jun 21 '16 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
    Jun 21 '16 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\$ Jun 30 at 16:19
11
\$\begingroup\$

No.

Crawford answered this question back in March, with:

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

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/24/invisible-master-warlock/

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

anything

pronoun

used to refer to a thing, no matter what.

Go for it!

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\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
    Jun 25 at 10:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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