If you are inside something that is invisible

[Hackulator]

Are you visible or invisible?

[Hish]

You are visible. The only situation where something becomes invisible without the spell being directly cast on it is if an invisible creature tucks an item into its (invisible) gear.

Also, in the future, questions like this can go in the simple RAW thread.

[Braininthejar2]

I'm not sure actually. food eaten by an invisible character doesn't become visible, I think. What about characters swallowed whole?

[Hish]

The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes too.
...
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible. Items picked up disappear if tucked into clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

RAW, eaten food (or creatures) remain visible, because they weren't "tucked into clothing or pouches worn by the creature." RAI, things that were eaten probably would become invisible like a tucked item.

The way I read the OP, I think the question is about hiding inside an invisible item, like an invisible cardboad box. In that case, there's no debate, because the clause about disappearing specifies a creature. And that's the only thing in the spell description about something that the spell was not cast on becoming invisible.

[Andezzar]

So what happens if you cast invisibility on a closed box? Can you see what's inside?

[SimonMoon6]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/64/82/df6482a6123508c0492b3066f964604d.jpg

[Hackulator]

RAW, eaten food (or creatures) remain visible, because they weren't "tucked into clothing or pouches worn by the creature." RAI, things that were eaten probably would become invisible like a tucked item.

The way I read the OP, I think the question is about hiding inside an invisible item, like an invisible cardboad box. In that case, there's no debate, because the clause about disappearing specifies a creature. And that's the only thing in the spell description about something that the spell was not cast on becoming invisible.

What if you are inside a creature, and that creature casts invisibility?

[Waker]

What if you are inside a creature, and that creature casts invisibility?

If you were alive, I'd argue you would be visible. If dead, you would disappear as well.
If you are inside a stomach, you can't be considered gear nor could you be affected by the spell directly since you wouldn't have line of effect.

[Pleh]

This is a clear case of RAW not quite best suiting every scenario. A GM should consider the RAI carefully and adjucate the spells effects according to the circumstances.

For a player hiding in a box, I would probably apply the spell's weight limit. Sure, you can climb into an invisible box to borrow its invisibility, but if you, the box, and any other box contents together exceed the spell's limit at any time, the spell fizzles.

[Hish]

This is a clear case of RAW not quite best suiting every scenario. A GM should consider the RAI carefully and adjucate the spells effects according to the circumstances.

For a player hiding in a box, I would probably apply the spell's weight limit. Sure, you can climb into an invisible box to borrow its invisibility, but if you, the box, and any other box contents together exceed the spell's limit at any time, the spell fizzles.

I definitely would not rule that. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the only things that become invisible are the things you cast it on.

Cast it on a large sheet (large enough to cover the party), and Mass Invisibility is useless. Once you reach the level of mass invisibility, you can probably affect the entire party. Perminancy it, and you don't even have to spend spell slots on it.

[Pleh]

I definitely would not rule that. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the only things that become invisible are the things you cast it on.

Cast it on a large sheet (large enough to cover the party), and Mass Invisibility is useless. Once you reach the level of mass invisibility, you can probably affect the entire party. Perminancy it, and you don't even have to spend spell slots on it.

Useless? Mass Invisibility allows creatures to be up to 180 ft from each other.

A sheet with a radius of 180ft has an area of 102,000 square feet.

A quick google search says the lightest common fabric is about 30 grams per square meter, which google says is about 0.00614 pounds per square foot, making this sheet weigh 628.28 lbs.

This is a very light fabric.

This weight requires a caster level 7 to pull off and has the problem of every creature within as much as 102,000 square feet tripping over an invisible sheet.

Have fun with your 600lb blanket of improvised mass invisibility.

Miscalculated. The sheet ought to be 180 diameter, not radius.

Area of sheet is now slightly more than 25446.9 square feet

Weight is now 156.25.

Much more manageable than my first calculation predicted, but still a rather fair tradeoff for getting mass invisibility just a couple levels early.

Edit: remember the sheet actually needs to be bigger to accomodate wrapping over medium sized creatures standing upright.

Can four people fit under a smaller sheet? Yes, but it still limits their movement and likely either
1 drags along the ground making sound and possibly being stepped on
Or 2 hangs a little above the ground and might let a toe glimpse under the sheet.

A sudden breeze can foil it in either case.

[Jay R]

I would rule that the spell makes the object you cast it on invisible, which requires making everything inside it invisible. The contents of a box are not inherently different from the contents of somebody's stomach, when the spell is cast.

But nothing becomes invisible later, except via the specific method described in the rules - "tucked into clothing or pouches worn by the creature." Hiding inside an invisible box is trying to get invisibility cast on you without a casting. The box can't choose to include you in its spell, but a creature can choose to include an object, via tucking it into clothing or a pouch.

[Braininthejar2]

By RAI, it depends on how the invisibility is supposed to work.

If it makes you perfectly translucent, people can see through you - you can't hide inside an invisible stalker.

If it bends the light around you, then anything goes.

[Jay R]

By RAI, it depends on how the invisibility is supposed to work.

If it makes you perfectly translucent, people can see through you - you can't hide inside an invisible stalker.

If it bends the light around you, then anything goes.

But what if it's not physical at all? In D&D, it's an illusion, and is tricking the mind, not affecting the light.

[SimonMoon6]

But what if it's not physical at all? In D&D, it's an illusion, and is tricking the mind, not affecting the light.

Oh no, not another "I cast invisibility on the door; can I see through it?" thread! :p

[Pleh]

You can see through an invisible wall. Why not an invisible door?

[Waker]

But what if it's not physical at all? In D&D, it's an illusion, and is tricking the mind, not affecting the light.
Not really. Invisibility is a glamer, which uses this for it's definition.

A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
An illusion spell that is dependent upon influencing the mind of the observer would be a Phantasm.

A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression. (It’s all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see.) Third parties viewing or studying the scene don’t notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.
An invisibility spell changes the properties of the creature/object cast upon, it has no affect on the perceptions of any observing creatures. If it were based on Phantasm, you could make the argument that an invisible object would effectively render a creature behind/inside it invisible since you would be blocking sight for any observers. Since it actually affects the creature/object itself though, anything behind/inside would be visible. Basically think of becoming invisible as being super translucent.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible
This bit of the spell of course is the big sticking point. Note in the description that it specifically mentions the interaction between a creature acting upon an object. It goes one-way and specifically calls out creature w/ object. Someone hiding in an invisible box becomes a mime in the park. Someone eaten by an invisible monster becomes an unpleasant variant on Wonder Woman flying her jet. A person eaten by an invisible monster who then dies, becomes an object (corpse) and suddenly vanishes.

[lolcat]

I would also agree that everything inside a container or creature on which invisibility is cast also becomes invisible.

So f.e. if you cast invisibility on a tent, you hide it and all its animate and inanimate contents.

While there IS a case of "rule of cool" to be made when an invisble creature succeeds on a swallow whole, i think it's easier to rule coherently with the former approach.