19
\$\begingroup\$

The rules for Faerie Fire state:

Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible.

As I read it, there are two ways to interpret this. The first is that being held unseen is a benefit of being invisible, and therefore the spell removes that benefit. Since the invisible creature is then visible, you have advantage against it.

The other interpretation is that the order of the sentence matters; first, check if you can see them, and you have advantage if you can. Then, strip them of the benefits of invisibility. In this case, you would have a regular attack roll against the creature, without disadvantage from being invisible nor advantage from Faerie Fire.

What interpretation of the rule aligns with the intention of the spell?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It wouldn't help against hidden (unseen) enemies, but negates invisibility. If the invisible creature is hiding, it would cure the invisibility, but the creature would still be hiding and you would have to see it (pass a Wisdom(perception) check) to gain advantage on it. \$\endgroup\$ – Aviose Oct 18 '17 at 15:34
31
\$\begingroup\$

According to Jeremy Crawford, lead designer of D&D 5e, attacks have advantage against invisible creatures affected by Faerie Fire. So your first interpretation aligns best with the intention of the spell.

\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

Miniman's answer does a fine job of pointing out developer intent that faerie fire should work to help you attack invisible opponents. I do feel it's worth adding two points:

  • The first interpretation of yours--that fareie fire gives one advantage against otherwise-invisible targets--comports perfectly with one of the early descriptions of that spell's use in Forgotten Realms canon: in The Halfling's Gem (1990) we see R.A.Salvatore's first depiction of a certain dark elf using his innate faerie fire ability against an invisible foe. (During a battle on Duedermont's ship, on p.138 of my paperback.)

    This trick gets much more play in the prequel trilogy: Homeland, Exile, and Sojourn.

  • Secondly, this spell highlights one of the important distinctions between spells that require attack rolls and spells that require saves. The strong delineation of those two mechanics was important to 5e's designers, and it bears consideration by all players of casters.

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

Yes, the attacker has advantage.

A parsing of the sentence reveals the intent. The second clause is not a dependent clause. Or rather, there is not an implied conditional in the second clause. It is a statement of effect, not a test for the possibility of effect. If it were, the statement would have a qualifying word, such as:

Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and if the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible.

Since that if is not in there, the sentence indicates that this is what will happen, not that it is some kind of test or contingency for effect.

\$\endgroup\$

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.