3
\$\begingroup\$

So I made the mistake once of allowing Invisibility to work on two creatures when one of them is carrying the other. One of my players is insistent that a creature climbing onto another creature counts as being carried, in spite of me deciding to never let that happen again.

He then asked the following question as a basis for his argument:

If a person is wearing a Cloaker as a cloak and they become Invisible per the Invisibility spell, does the Cloaker not become invisible too?

Seeing how that is actually a more legitimate example of one creature actually being "worn or carried" I am not sure how that works. I am willing to ignore how it was ruled before, as I am partly asking for future campaigns where there is not a history of the players doing it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ How exactly is the person ‘wearing’ a Cloaker as a cloak? (That's like using a tiger as a couch—the first question anyone has about the situation isn't “how does invisibility work here?”, it will be “run away you're about to be eaten”.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 15 '16 at 19:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I'm not 100% sure how they're doing it, really. Hopefully that situation never comes up, but the more important thing is that it's actually a creature that you might find on another creature in such a fashion. Perhaps the player is a very persuasive Arcane Trickster, it's been Dominated by someone, or some other narrative stuff. If nothing else, it at least has the False Appearance of a mundane cloak. \$\endgroup\$ – Javelin Sep 15 '16 at 19:45
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Flatbears... they'll mess you up. \$\endgroup\$ – Sandwich Sep 15 '16 at 21:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ There's a doppelganger in Undermountain who wears a cloaker. The answer to how you wear a cloaker? With the cloaker's consent. Apparently the doppelgangers negotiated an accord with the cloakers nearby. \$\endgroup\$ – Ettina Kitten Oct 16 at 1:24
9
\$\begingroup\$

RAW, Cloaker is not Invisible.

A creature is not an item you carry:

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

That is any objects, or things, not other creatures. Crawford confirms:

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

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

It's DM's Call

The DM can retcon previous stuff, allow the cloaker to be an exception, or allow anything carried to include creatures.

See Also

Imp familiars Invisibility affecting a PC

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Sage Advice seems to refer to someone asking if ah Imp can even target another creature with its Invisibility Action, which it can't really do. And now I am considering the possibility that I have posted a Duplicate of the linked question... \$\endgroup\$ – Javelin Sep 15 '16 at 20:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ The intent of the question is there was an idea floating around of using an imp to carry a halfling and have the halfling turn invisible with the imp. The imp's invisibility reads just like the spell in regards to "anything it is carrying" \$\endgroup\$ – J. A. Streich Sep 15 '16 at 21:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Anything includes creatures. See #8 definition of thing (e.g. "not a living thing is sight"). Thing includes individual. Thus, anything includes creatures. \$\endgroup\$ – Makyen Sep 15 '16 at 23:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ While I would agree with you in modern useagel however, the rules as intended, as stated by Crawford, is that things in this instance are objects, not creatures. \$\endgroup\$ – J. A. Streich Sep 16 '16 at 5:18
2
\$\begingroup\$

A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell. (Player's Basic Rules Version 0.3, Page 94)

According to the rules, the Cloaker would not become invisible, as the Cloaker is not a thing. It is a creature.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is that to maintain consistency with ruling in a similar way before? \$\endgroup\$ – Javelin Sep 15 '16 at 19:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Javelin Yes. If they hadn't already allowed carried creatures to be invisible, I would say they shouldn't make the Cloaker invisible. \$\endgroup\$ – C Anderson Sep 15 '16 at 20:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm willing to ignore that sort of precedence, actually. If you want to change your answer to reflect that, I think you should. \$\endgroup\$ – Javelin Sep 15 '16 at 20:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, but please change the answer, don't just add a bit to the end that contradicts the beginning. Write your answer as if it is the first and final version, without edit notes or old, obsolete parts. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 15 '16 at 21:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Makyen, in D&D objects are often referenced as Things opposed to Creatures for individuals and monsters. You do not always follow the dictionary definition to the letter... \$\endgroup\$ – Alexis Wilke Sep 16 '16 at 17:26
-2
\$\begingroup\$

I would rule that the player had something on them that allowed the spell to apply to both & that the spell states that it affects "A creature" which precludes it applying to more without a modifier.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you clarify the first part of your answer? \$\endgroup\$ – Javelin Sep 15 '16 at 19:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the first part is suggesting a retcon of the previous time it worked, saying that “something” let it happen before and that “something” isn't in effect now, so it doesn't work now. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 15 '16 at 19:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site! Please take a read through the tour when you have the time. \$\endgroup\$ – UrhoKarila Sep 15 '16 at 20:21

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.