Party dynamics and spells with "... that you can see"

[terodil]

Hi,

I was wondering how you handle visibility checks within your party dynamics. A few buffing spells as well as a few other spells include the little qualifier 'creature that you can see' and I'm uncertain about this when it comes to party-friendly effects.

E.g. Spirit Guardians:

When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it. An affected creature... <negative effects of the spell, intended for foes obviously>

What about the rogue that approaches the camp from the back and that is currently fully obscured behind a tent? What about the wizard that cast an invisibility spell as part of her battle preparation?

RAW is pretty clear here, I think, in that neither would be an eligible target to be exempt from the negative effects of Spirit Guardians. Is this also RAI? Do you think this makes sense or do you tend to benevolently overlook this kind of proviso when handling buffing spells / exemption from detrimental spells?

[Unoriginal]

Hi,

I was wondering how you handle visibility checks within your party dynamics. A few buffing spells as well as a few other spells include the little qualifier 'creature that you can see' and I'm uncertain about this when it comes to party-friendly effects.

E.g. Spirit Guardians:


What about the rogue that approaches the camp from the back and that is currently fully obscured behind a tent? What about the wizard that cast an invisibility spell as part of her battle preparation?

RAW is pretty clear here, I think, in that neither would be an eligible target to be exempt from the negative effects of Spirit Guardians. Is this also RAI? Do you think this makes sense or do you tend to benevolently overlook this kind of proviso when handling buffing spells / exemption from detrimental spells?

People that you can't see can't be affected by spells that require you to see the targets, including allies.

If the wizard is invisible or the rogue obscured, then they cannot be targeted by said spell.

Spells are powerful enough you don't need to give them free boosts by ignoring the requirements.

[Deox]

What Unoriginal said. In fact, have played in a few sessions where this exact scenario came up. Party member was invisible / stealthing and could not benefit from being removed from hostile Spirit Guardians. No balance issues, and gave each scenario a nice twist, as well as some fun RP elements after.

[terodil]

Thank you, Unoriginal + Deox, for your answers. Much appreciated.

[greenstone]

It's a tradeoff. For example, if a warlock chooses to hide in darkness then they won't be blessed.

I like it when choices have real consequences.

As an aside, note that Bardic Inspiration doesn't require sight; it requires sound.

[Malifice]

Hi,

I was wondering how you handle visibility checks within your party dynamics. A few buffing spells as well as a few other spells include the little qualifier 'creature that you can see' and I'm uncertain about this when it comes to party-friendly effects.

E.g. Spirit Guardians:


What about the rogue that approaches the camp from the back and that is currently fully obscured behind a tent? What about the wizard that cast an invisibility spell as part of her battle preparation?

RAW is pretty clear here, I think, in that neither would be an eligible target to be exempt from the negative effects of Spirit Guardians. Is this also RAI? Do you think this makes sense or do you tend to benevolently overlook this kind of proviso when handling buffing spells / exemption from detrimental spells?

When you cast the spell, pick a number of creature you can see. They wont be effected by the spell.

If you cant see the party rogue (he's invisible or hidden behind a tree) you cant pick him when you cast the spell, so he'll be effected by the spell after casting.

If you can see him when you cast, he can be selected to be not effected. If he later becomes invisible or hides, he remains unaffected.

Its pretty clear how it works.

[Malifice]

It's a tradeoff. For example, if a warlock chooses to hide in darkness then they won't be blessed.

I like it when choices have real consequences.

As an aside, note that Bardic Inspiration doesn't require sight; it requires sound.

Its shocking how many offensive abilities contain the language 'choose one target you can see...'

Spells like: Power word kill, Hex, Counterspell, Magic Missile, Hold Person, Dominate etc etc etc, to things like Attacks of Opportunity and so forth.

Invisibility is a strong defensive option, and thats before you bear in mind that it also lets you attempt to Hide (as an action) at will, and the disadvantage it grants others on attacks against you.

They've handled it really well in this edition.

[DeadMech]

I'd generally allow a hiding party member to be targeted assuming they aren't outside line of sight. The rogue isn't trying to hide from the friendly caster and the caster is generally aware of the rogue's MO.

A rogue crouching behind a table that the caster is also behind for instance. Or hiding behind a tree which the caster is looking at from the side.

But if the rogue was inside a barrel the caster was not directly next to or if they were behind a wall on the opposite side of the battlefield, inside magical darkness, invisible then they wouldn't be able to be targeted.

For other cases where It's not so cut and dry maybe a perception check, possibly with advantage. Rogue slipped off into a bush or something.

[Zene]

Yep. Party members that pop spirit guardians without warning always fry my warlocks’s invisible familiar.

[Estrillian]

I had a party member cast Spirit Guardians when another party member was in an adjacent corridor. The Guardians appeared in the corridor and beat him unconscious without anyone else knowing.

Hilarity ensued ...