Cloak of Invisibility and attacking

[Bahamut7]

So in my game, a player managed to roll up a Cloak of Invisibility during a loot grab. Which was fine until he used it in combat and attacked and then argue that he would remain invisible.

Cloak's text:

While wearing this cloak, you can pull its hood over your head to cause yourself to become invisible. While you are invisible, anything you are carrying or wearing is invisible with you. You become visible when you cease wearing the hood. Pulling the hood up or down requires an Action. Deduct the time you are invisible, in increments of 1 minute, from the cloak's maximum duration of 2 hours. After 2 hours of use, the cloak ceases to function. For every uninterrupted period of 12 hours the cloak goes unused, it regains 1 hour of duration.

Now, I know with the regular invisibility spell, if you attack, you lose invisibility but greater invisibility you remain. I don't see anyway that the cloak is balanced if it acts as a Greater Invisibility spell. Unfortunately I cannot locate any clarification and can only find subjective answers.

Has anyone come across the definitive answer on whether the cloak acts as a normal invisibility or greater invisibility?

[zinycor]

No definite answer but it seems to me it acts as greater invisibility

[Tanarii]

It's a legendary item.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

So in my game, a player managed to roll up a Cloak of Invisibility during a loot grab. Which was fine until he used it in combat and attacked and then argue that he would remain invisible.

Cloak's text:

While wearing this cloak, you can pull its hood over your head to cause yourself to become invisible. While you are invisible, anything you are carrying or wearing is invisible with you. You become visible when you cease wearing the hood. Pulling the hood up or down requires an Action. Deduct the time you are invisible, in increments of 1 minute, from the cloak's maximum duration of 2 hours. After 2 hours of use, the cloak ceases to function. For every uninterrupted period of 12 hours the cloak goes unused, it regains 1 hour of duration.

Now, I know with the regular invisibility spell, if you attack, you lose invisibility but greater invisibility you remain. I don't see anyway that the cloak is balanced if it acts as a Greater Invisibility spell. Unfortunately I cannot locate any clarification and can only find subjective answers.

Has anyone come across the definitive answer on whether the cloak acts as a normal invisibility or greater invisibility?

Specific vs General mandates that you do not become visible since the description of the item does not specifically say so. It says you become visible when you cease wearing the hood. You're correct in your assessment of how good it is, but there's a reason it's Legendary Item costing some 80,000 gold or more...you can obviously do what you want if you're the DM, but RAW and RAI (based on the Legendary Item tag) the player is right. You could also change the item if you're worried about it breaking the game, but I'd recommend letting it play. Throw enemies at they with blindsight (hulking crab for one) or something like that. Create unique opportunities or quests that wouldn't have been available to the party without the cloak. Maybe a dangerous stealth quest that they never would've succeeded in without the cloak. It'll be fun!

[Bahamut7]

Yea, this seems to be what I have seen on other threads. Even if it is legendary, I still find it unbalanced...I just wished the Munchkin at the table didn't get it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yea, this seems to be what I have seen on other threads. Even if it is legendary, I still find it unbalanced...I just wished the Munchkin at the table didn't get it.

I don't think it's fair to call the player a munchkin for using the tool they were given. There are much more problematic items that could have shown up. Ring of Three Wishes and Deck of Many Things come to mind immediately.

Being invisible doesn't automatically hide your presence, if the player is recklessly using the invisibility thinking that it entirely masks their presence there are ways to punish that behavior. Don't look for excuses to punish the player because you think they're trying to powergame.

Personal experience has shown me that if you're not ready to adapt your game to the appearance of a powerful magic item then you shouldn't have put that magic item there in the first place.

[Safety Sword]

Yea, this seems to be what I have seen on other threads. Even if it is legendary, I still find it unbalanced...I just wished the Munchkin at the table didn't get it.

Just remember that being invisible doesn't make you hidden. Sure it's harder to hit you and it's harder to defend yourself, but with a high enough attack bonus disadvantage can be overcome.

Also, faerie fire exists and so does dispel magic.

This also seem to be a cautionary tale about rolling randomly for loot. In my opinion all loot in a campaign should be placed and as a DM a player should never get anything you're uncomfortable with.

[DarkKnightJin]

Also, this item can be countered by a 2nd level spell.
See Invisibility is a thing.
It's not out of the question that a Guard Captain has specs infused with the spell (or True Seeing, if a particularly affluent region) to counter these shenanigans.

Any town with a sufficient amount of casters at amy given time will likely have anti-invisibility measures in place.

[nickl_2000]

Yea, this seems to be what I have seen on other threads. Even if it is legendary, I still find it unbalanced...I just wished the Munchkin at the table didn't get it.

If it is that game breaking, talk to the player about it. Most people do tend to be decent about things that are ruining the DMs fun in the game or the balance of the game. Then in game have a legendary artifact trader meet with them and trade it out for something custom made for the PC.

[Rara1212]

Yeah, the Cloak of Invisibilty allows you to attack and cast spells when invisible, just like the Greater invisibility spell. It's the Ring of Invisibilty that breaks invisibility after attacking or casting a spell, but the ring has no time limit.

What the player needs to remember is, it takes an action to pull it up & down. The spell uses increments of minutes, so even using it for just one round counts as 1 minute. It has 2h of charge, and regains 1h only after 12h of not using it,

Plus as others said, invisibility doesn't make the player hidden. Enemies can attack with disadvantage, or use spells like Farie Fire, See Invisibility to negate it.

[tieren]

I would police the timing of it and not hand wave like counting arrows or something. If you don't player may be incline to abuse it. If they aren't abusing it, and choose to use it appropriately they lose their first action every combat to pull up their hood, most fights we've been in usually last only 4-5 rounds so that is a significant portion of the combat to not be fighting.

It grants advantage to the wearer and disadvantage to attackers and protection from spells that require sight to target. Mobs can still attack, casters can still drop AOE's or the detection spells mentioned above. it really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Some simple mundane anti-invisibility strategies:
bead curtains across doorways/archways, trip wires/traps, shaggy carpets, guard dogs (scent hounds), etc... If you have some Tuckers Kobolds they could have sacks of flour ready for this occasion and throw them down to burst into a cloud of flour which should act similarly to a faerie fire spell.

[Aprender]

"I can't believe they made this cloak of invisibility with dozens of cute little bells hanging off it!"

[Dalebert]

Also, faerie fire exists and so does dispel magic.


Dispel Magic only works on spells. It's not casting a spell.

Yes, the Invisibility is amazing but it can't be left on all the time and the user has to spend an action to activate it. That's actually a significant price. See my sig about the importance of the action economy.

[Lupine]

Some simple mundane anti-invisibility strategies:
bead curtains across doorways/archways, trip wires/traps, shaggy carpets, guard dogs (scent hounds), etc... If you have some Tuckers Kobolds they could have sacks of flour ready for this occasion and throw them down to burst into a cloud of flour which should act similarly to a faerie fire spell.

So... the solution to an invisible enemy is to become a hippy? ...Far out, dude.

[Bahamut7]

I appreciate all the responses so far. Couple of things.

1.) Yes, I agree, random roll loot is very dangerous, wasn't my idea, but it is what it is (multiple DMs for a west marches game).
2.) The player is a munchkin, I have known him for a long time and that is what he is. Because of this he will argue stuff to his advantage hence why I was looking for a definitive mechanical answer.
3.) I was hoping to avoid obvious counters to his perma-invisibility. I am fine with him gaining positioning and advantage on one attack but he is playing a fighter and will have a lot of attacks down the road.
4.) I intend to keep track of the timing for the cloak, but considering it is a West Marches campaign, the odds of him not getting 12 hours of uninterrupted non-use, is slim.

Oh and Godot, in the last campaign he was looking for the deck of many things with the sole intent to have people draw from the deck and was ready to argue what constituted "drawing" from the deck, so trust me, he has a tendency to abuse stuff. He's my buddy, it's just the type of player he is. He will take tools and try to optimize their use and I get it, but sometimes you have to show restraint or the game falls apart.

I just don't see how an at-will greater invisibility is balanced from a game design perspective. The spell can be countered on the spot in many ways, but the cloak gets around the 2 obvious ways (dispel magic and Counter Spell).

Please note, I am ready to deal with him having it, I was just hoping for a more balanced way of approaching it and not so much DM vs player type of vibe. I played a Pixie rogue in 3.5 once with perma-invisibility and the DM asked me if I would change characters because he would have to eventually start putting in See Invisibility type stuff specifically just to make the encounters interesting and not one sided. I agreed with no problem and understood completely.

Thanks again for comments and such.

[bobofwestgate]

I don't think it's fair to call the player a munchkin for using the tool they were given. There are much more problematic items that could have shown up. Ring of Three Wishes and Deck of Many Things come to mind immediately.

Being invisible doesn't automatically hide your presence, if the player is recklessly using the invisibility thinking that it entirely masks their presence there are ways to punish that behavior. Don't look for excuses to punish the player because you think they're trying to powergame.

Personal experience has shown me that if you're not ready to adapt your game to the appearance of a powerful magic item then you shouldn't have put that magic item there in the first place.

I think the OP is implying the player,aside from the cloak, is already a munchkin and this will make it worse.

[Lupine]

I just don't see how an at-will greater invisibility is balanced from a game design perspective. The spell can be countered on the spot in many ways, but the cloak gets around the 2 obvious ways (dispel magic and Counter Spell).

I could be wrong, but would Detect Magic kind of help? If they see an aura from a magical effect, that would kind of trounce the cloak, since it shows more or less where he is? It's a first level spell, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a sentry to have it (especially if you're handing out legendary items already.)

Alternatively, if you have an area where you don't want the cloak to work, try anti/dead magic zones.
It would hit your casters, but if you make a grid of "safe spots" casters could do stuff from there, and then you could have half a fighter visible.

Lastly, you could have creatures start trying to damage/destroy the cloak.


Edit: you also mentioned that if it is regular invisibility it ends. That will result in a hit for surprise, then using the next action to fade back and flip the hood up and down (You should not argue it would take six seconds to raise and lower a hood half of your head. I think this falls under Grod's Law.)
Even if you did require two actions, the player would sneak right behind him, attack for surprise, then run away while putting the hood up. If the player is as canny as you say, he'll be doing that.

[Man_Over_Game]

I appreciate all the responses so far. Couple of things.

1.) Yes, I agree, random roll loot is very dangerous, wasn't my idea, but it is what it is (multiple DMs for a west marches game).
2.) The player is a munchkin, I have known him for a long time and that is what he is. Because of this he will argue stuff to his advantage hence why I was looking for a definitive mechanical answer.
3.) I was hoping to avoid obvious counters to his perma-invisibility. I am fine with him gaining positioning and advantage on one attack but he is playing a fighter and will have a lot of attacks down the road.
4.) I intend to keep track of the timing for the cloak, but considering it is a West Marches campaign, the odds of him not getting 12 hours of uninterrupted non-use, is slim.

Oh and Godot, in the last campaign he was looking for the deck of many things with the sole intent to have people draw from the deck and was ready to argue what constituted "drawing" from the deck, so trust me, he has a tendency to abuse stuff. He's my buddy, it's just the type of player he is. He will take tools and try to optimize their use and I get it, but sometimes you have to show restraint or the game falls apart.

I just don't see how an at-will greater invisibility is balanced from a game design perspective. The spell can be countered on the spot in many ways, but the cloak gets around the 2 obvious ways (dispel magic and Counter Spell).

Please note, I am ready to deal with him having it, I was just hoping for a more balanced way of approaching it and not so much DM vs player type of vibe. I played a Pixie rogue in 3.5 once with perma-invisibility and the DM asked me if I would change characters because he would have to eventually start putting in See Invisibility type stuff specifically just to make the encounters interesting and not one sided. I agreed with no problem and understood completely.

Thanks again for comments and such.

The only reason standard Invisibility ends from an attack or ability is because it says so. The cloak doesn't say so, so it doesn't.

As Tanarii said, it's a legendary item by default, so it should do legendary things. Or, you could make it a Rare item by adding the same limitations as the Invisibility spell (saying that, after losing Invisibility this way, you are visible for the next minute, and this time counts against the time that the cloak is considered in use until you take the Action to remove it).

You are the DM. Decide out the item works.

[tieren]

There is nothing in the description of the item saying what the cloak looks like other than it has a hood.

As DM you could make it really flamboyant and garish to stand out to all of the world as a legendary magic item (bright colors, arcane runes embroidered in gold thread, etc...), effectively putting a huge target on his back whenever he isn't invisible.

[Bahamut7]

Yes, he was already a munchkin and this will make things worse down the road. I'm not upset with him for wanting to use the item correctly and not be deprived of its full capabilities, I am upset with the inherent imbalance of the item. This just means that when they start hitting more dangerous missions (mercenary guild type work campaign), then the enemies will start to have the necessary ingredients or tools to counter invisibility, not to the point of negating the item, just to keep some combats with tension.

Lupine, I would be fine with that tactic as it requires an action to flip the hood back on and like I said before, one attack with advantage and some OA free movement isn't that big of a deal. It becomes worse when he is a high AC fighter acting as a tank for the party and disadvantage on every attack against him. I don't mind missing him more often but a few hits in should be expected, especially when surrounded.

Detect Magic would also see an aura of someone invisible. SO there are ways, I just would have preferred the item to be balance and not allow shenanigans. Next campaign will definitely not allow random roll of loot and I will be balancing some items.

[Kyutaru]

I just don't see how an at-will greater invisibility is balanced from a game design perspective. The spell can be countered on the spot in many ways, but the cloak gets around the 2 obvious ways (dispel magic and Counter Spell).
In older editions, it was a staple of combat buffing to make your melee improved invisible. It doesn't help nearly as much as one might think because so many creatures just ignore it or have methods of bypassing it. Reading the monster manual of days gone past, half the spellcasters seemed to have see invisibility spells if they couldn't already sense hidden creatures. It's a legendary cloak mainly because it frees up that concentration slot. Combat rarely lasts longer than a minute so having permainvisible isn't as strong as you might think and is little different from the spell itself (aside from stacking with other concentration buffs). Other buffs last the whole combat too and grant similarly powerful effects when cast. There are boots of featherfall, winged boots of flying, strength gloves, regeneration rings, etc. Having magic items with passive effects of existing spells is common.

[Dalebert]

FWIW everyone in AL can get one of these cloaks at about 12th level really easily. It's called a seasonal unlock. It's like there's a vending machine outside every dungeon.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, he was already a munchkin and this will make things worse down the road. I'm not upset with him for wanting to use the item correctly and not be deprived of its full capabilities, I am upset with the inherent imbalance of the item. This just means that when they start hitting more dangerous missions (mercenary guild type work campaign), then the enemies will start to have the necessary ingredients or tools to counter invisibility, not to the point of negating the item, just to keep some combats with tension.

Lupine, I would be fine with that tactic as it requires an action to flip the hood back on and like I said before, one attack with advantage and some OA free movement isn't that big of a deal. It becomes worse when he is a high AC fighter acting as a tank for the party and disadvantage on every attack against him. I don't mind missing him more often but a few hits in should be expected, especially when surrounded.

Again, as far as legendary items go this one is pretty tame. It doesn't really help you fight Dragons, it doesn't help you avoid a fireball that happens to target the area you're in and it doesn't warp reality like a Ring of Wishes. Enemies with Blindsight and Tremor sense become increasingly common for higher level adventurers to fight. A player using this cloak as a crutch is going to walk face first into problems. It's a legendary item, and as far as Legendary items go it's pretty middling. There are rare or very rare items that I would be more afraid of the party grabbing hold of.

A bit off topic, just asking because it's been bothering me a little, but what behavior does this player show that you deem as "munchkin" like? I don't have a lot of first hand experience with a player I would outright label as such a thing.

[JackPhoenix]

I could be wrong, but would Detect Magic kind of help? If they see an aura from a magical effect, that would kind of trounce the cloak, since it shows more or less where he is? It's a first level spell, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a sentry to have it (especially if you're handing out legendary items already.) .

Doesn't work. Detect Magic allows you to see aura around visible creatures and objects.

[zinycor]

Well... It's a legendary item, therefore, is only fair for it to be greater invisibility. In fact is a little underwhelming.

See invisibility, detect thoughts, gust of wind, wind wall. All of those take care of the problem and many monsters care not for invisible opponents.

[Keravath]

One thing to keep in mind .. being permanently invisible means that most healing spells can not target you .. this can cause some issues for a front line fighter when a healer has to go fumbling around trying to find the body while the character makes death saves. On top of that, likely any NPC who realizes what it is will want it. The character may also be a major threat and so they become a primary target to focus down.

[LordEntrails]

I've got to agree with the consensus, this is not that impressive of a legendary item. As mentioned there are lots of ways to counter it.

But, more importantly, it sucks as a tool for tank. Sure, if all the enemies are just plain dedicated to attacking the party tank. But why would they? So first round the guy in plate mail goes invisible. What does the orc do? Run up and try to hit the guy they can't see? Nope, they use disengage to scurry around the square the invisible guy is in and attack the unprotected caster in the back. Even if they can't get around the invisible guy, why attack him when there are better targets? He's going to feel like a real heel if his job is to protect everyone yet all the monsters ignore him (because he's invisible).

Kill the invading adventurers you can. Then when the invisible tank is all that left, dog-pile him. Grapple him and bring him prone, then beat him up, tie him up, and cut off his cloak.

This really isn't any different than any hard to hit tank. The monsters' are not totally stupid, they are going to attack the things they can hurt, not the things they can't.

[Tanarii]

I think enforcing the time limit and action to activate are your best bet. There will be plenty of times he has some warning combat might ensure, and can activate it before combat, but there will be others where that's going to have to be his first action in combat.

Also:


It becomes worse when he is a high AC fighter acting as a tank for the party and disadvantage on every attack against him. I don't mind missing him more often but a few hits in should be expected, especially when surrounded.
IMO an invisible tank is more likely to get ignored and bypassed, even if they aren't hiding and are detectable. If they want to be attacked, they want to be doing everything they can to be seen as an immediate threat, psychologically speaking. With many DMs, tanks often have enough trouble encouraging enemies that outnumber them to surround them and attack them instead of bypassing them and heading for less heavily armored enemies.

[Kenny Snoggins]

Think you're out of luck on the rules side of it. The cloak grants the condition of invisibility, it doesn't cast the spell invisibility.

There are downsides though. Evoker's cannot unselect you from AOEs. Most healing magic requires you to be able to see what is getting healed. Unless you walk around with it on all the time, you'll have to burn an action to lift the hood, which is usually like 20% or 15% of the total full actions you get in combat, largely offsetting the damage from advantage unless he has a crit fishing build or something. Places with dripping water, etc may nullify the cloak as your presence is obvious. Enemies can use fog cloud or darkness and make everyone fight at flat rolls without having to see the guy, almost completely eliminating the advantage.

[Dalebert]

I could be wrong, but would Detect Magic kind of help? If they see an aura from a magical effect, that would kind of trounce the cloak, since it shows more or less where he is? It's a first level spell, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a sentry to have it (especially if you're handing out legendary items already.)


Detect Magic would also see an aura of someone invisible. SO there are ways, I just would have preferred the item to be balance and not allow shenanigans. Next campaign will definitely not allow random roll of loot and I will be balancing some items.

As JackPhoenix pointed out, they specifically did not want Detect Magic to function as a cheap See Invisible on top of all its other uses.

Per the spell desc: "If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any *visible creature or object". *emphasis mine
There's also a blurb somewhere that detect magic doesn't ping on illusions unless and until you've already discerned it to be an illusion. Would be a massive nerf to illusions if a common 1st level spell made them useless. That might be in the general descriptions of magical schools. Not sure. And since Invisibility is illusory magic, Detect Magic won't even ping on it until you cast See Invisible or something.


There are downsides though. Evoker's cannot unselect you from AOEs. Most healing magic requires you to be able to see what is getting healed. Unless you walk around with it on all the time, you'll have to burn an action to lift the hood, which is usually like 20% or 15% of the total full actions you get in combat, largely offsetting the damage from advantage unless he has a crit fishing build or something. Places with dripping water, etc may nullify the cloak as your presence is obvious. Enemies can use fog cloud or darkness and make everyone fight at flat rolls without having to see the guy, almost completely eliminating the advantage.

Add to that list that the ONLY thing that ends the invisibility is the user himself lowering the hood. If you drop to zero hp in combat, you are now an invisible unconscious person and many spells that would heal you from a distance require seeing you. Gloomstalkers have the same problem in the dark but you can at least find them by lighting up a torch.

[sithlordnergal]

As everyone else says, it is effectively Greater Invisibility, and just like everyone else said, it's a pretty bad Legendary Magic Item. Sure, it gives you 2 hours of free Greater Invisibility, there's just one problem. Invisibility is the easiest buff to counter in the game, and you can do it in so many ways that it is ridiculous. And the higher Tiers just automatically counter it. Honestly, be glad they didn't get the Rod of Lordly Might, Armor of Invulnerability, or Ring of Three Wishes. Those are game breaking magical items, but the Cloak? Not an issue if you are cleaver. And hey, if you need ways to counter it, here are a few just off the top of my head you have:

-Fog Cloud, or anything that creates Heavy Obscurment

-See Invisibility

-AoEs that don't care

-Truesight

-Tremor Sense and Blind Sight

-Spells that don't require you to see the target

-Your own invisibility spells

-Spells like Mind Spike, Fairie Fire, ect.

-Anti-Magic zones.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

-Your own invisibility spells



This part made me imagine an invisible PC and an invisible orc trying to fight each other. It's quite a funny image. I'd watch that movie.

[Rukelnikov]

This part made me imagine an invisible PC and an invisible orc trying to fight each other. It's quite a funny image. I'd watch that movie.

They both roll as normal, since both get adv and disav from being unseen, and having their enemy unseen.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

They both roll as normal, since both get adv and disav from being unseen, and having their enemy unseen.

And yet that's less poetic than what I had in mind...

[Rukelnikov]

And yet that's less poetic than what I had in mind...

I know, I'm sorry, can't lose a chance to remark how silly the vision rules are.

[Dalebert]

Note: Alert feat modifies this nicely. Since enemies don't get adv from being hidden from you, enemies continue to attack you with disadvantage and you attack normally. It's the closest thing available in this edition to a blind-fighting feat.

[Teaguethebean]

3.) I was hoping to avoid obvious counters to his perma-invisibility. I am fine with him gaining positioning and advantage on one attack but he is playing a fighter and will have a lot of attacks down the road.


Does this mean he isn't even level 5!?! This was a serious mistake on your part if he isn't even high enough Level to have multi attack but has a legendary item. The invisibility cloak specifically should be showing up from cr 17+ monsters what exactly happened.

[Tanarii]

Does this mean he isn't even level 5!?! This was a serious mistake on your part if he isn't even high enough Level to have multi attack but has a legendary item. The invisibility cloak specifically should be showing up from cr 17+ monsters what exactly happened.
The OP means "one attack then become visible again" so any other attacks would be without advantage.

And the Cloak has a 8%*2% chance of showing up in each of the 12 treasure hoards found from levels 11-16. That works out to about 2% chance of seeing it in Tier 3.

Still, I got the impression the player got this before level 11 as well.

[Ceaon]

OP is not the only GM in this game, from what I understand.

[Bahamut7]

OP is not the only GM in this game, from what I understand.

This is correct. I do appreciate everyone's input and I do understand it not as powerful as a ring of three wishes. Like I said, it may be abused or not for a little bit, but I am aware of the counters. I have already talked to the player and he is aware of what the DMs will have to start doing down the road, so hopefully he took it as a cue to not abuse it. I was just really hoping there was a more natural mechanical way to balance it, but it is what it is.

Of course in future campaigns, I will adjust the item for what I feel is better balance.

[zinycor]

This is correct. I do appreciate everyone's input and I do understand it not as powerful as a ring of three wishes. Like I said, it may be abused or not for a little bit, but I am aware of the counters. I have already talked to the player and he is aware of what the DMs will have to start doing down the road, so hopefully he took it as a cue to not abuse it. I was just really hoping there was a more natural mechanical way to balance it, but it is what it is.

Of course in future campaigns, I will adjust the item for what I feel is better balance.

I mean... the item is pretty well balanced... the loot table you used isn't.

[LordEntrails]

I mean... the item is pretty well balanced... the loot table you used isn't.

You mean the loot table published int he DMG?

Didn't we already go through all the problems with rolling random magic items? And hasn't the OP said repeatedly that he is not the DM that granted the item (via random table).

[Christian]

You mean the loot table published int he DMG?

The cloak of invisibility is on Table I, which first shows up in the hoard table for CR 11-16. This is really not an overpowered item for a fighter in his teens; if it was made available earlier, then the DM was either using customer tables or misusing the DMG ones.

[Bloodyshadow1]

I understand that you're not looking for ways to counter exactly, but there are a lot of ways around it
Spells at gates that dispell passive item/spell effects to prevent people from sneaking in
or Fairy fire traps that mob bosses use to get a drop on the whole party
Being in an area with a lot of noisy
Monsters that rely on smell to be able to see him,
opponents with good survival being able to passively track him, he might be invisible but his tracks aren't

And of course there's just the no metagaming ways around it

The fighter's invisible well fine, those squishy's over there aren't and he kind of loses his role as a tank
If he's invisible than the healer can't get to him and a blaster can't be aware of where he is so make them roll
for int or wis to make sure they don't hit his invisible body for an aoe or if he's ahead than make them flip a coin to see
if they hit him while aiming for their target.

[Mad_Saulot]

You shouldnt try to actively "counter" the use of this item to do so would penalise a player for rolling well on a rule created by the DM, if he has this item it is the fault of the DM and if anyone should be penalised it is the DM, let him have the thing with no counter play, it'd be interesting to see what sucxh a character could achieve.

If you really cant deal with it have some random offer him another much better magic item as trade.

[Dalebert]

Spells at gates that dispell passive item/spell effects to prevent people from sneaking in ...


Once again though, it can't be dispelled because it's not a spell.

[TheUser]

"You become visible when you cease wearing the hood."

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Other invisibility effects denote that moving or actions or spells or what have you drop the invisibility. This tells you how the invisibility is removed.

I mean... it's a legendary item so...I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be just like greater invisibility.

[Talsin]

They both roll as normal, since both get adv and disav from being unseen, and having their enemy unseen.

A funny interaction here is that they both roll normal but - only if they attack the correct square, since they don't necessarily know which square their opponent is in. It would be a silly game of chess to continue attempting to ascertain the location of your invisible opponent.

[Dalebert]

"You become visible when you cease wearing the hood."

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Yep, or it runs out of minutes (120).

[tieren]

A funny interaction here is that they both roll normal but - only if they attack the correct square, since they don't necessarily know which square their opponent is in. It would be a silly game of chess to continue attempting to ascertain the location of your invisible opponent.

Assuming they could take the hide action between attacks. Without taking the hide action after an attack their position is known and they can be attacked at disadvantage.

[Rukelnikov]

Assuming they could take the hide action between attacks. Without taking the hide action after an attack their position is known and they can be attacked at disadvantage.

But the disadvantage is cancelled because they get advantage from being unseen to their enemy, thus they both keep attacking normally.

[Bloodyshadow1]

Once again though, it can't be dispelled because it's not a spell.

Yes it can, just because dispel magic doesn't work doesn't mean it can't be dispelled. Spells and magic items are created everyday,
there are literally mechanics in the dmg for spell creations.
there's no reason why a mobster or an evil wizard shouldn't have an antimagic device to prevent people from entering their lair undetected.
A gate enchanted to negate all illusion magic in general from passing a certain point for example
As long as the players have a chance to roll to understand the trap and have the ability to learn the spell or create the same item it's perfectly fair

[ProsecutorGodot]

But the disadvantage is cancelled because they get advantage from being unseen to their enemy, thus they both keep attacking normally.

I think you're misunderstanding, the invisible target is the one being attacked at disadvantage. He's not hidden (meaning his position is revealed) but he is unseen (meaning he is being attacked at disadvantage).


Yes it can, just because dispel magic doesn't work doesn't mean it can't be dispelled. Spells and magic items are created everyday,
there are literally mechanics in the dmg for spell creations.
there's no reason why a mobster or an evil wizard shouldn't have an antimagic device to prevent people from entering their lair undetected.
A gate enchanted to negate all illusion magic in general from passing a certain point for example
As long as the players have a chance to roll to understand the trap and have the ability to learn the spell or create the same item it's perfectly fair

What you're describing is an Antimagic Field, not a Dispel Magic effect. Dalebert is correct in saying that you can't strictly dispel a magic item. Dispel Magic has no such effect as it only cancels the effects of spells. Antimagic Field specifically mentions its ability to render magical items mundane in its area. Remember that creating custom spells and effects is an optional ruleset, many players discuss the game under the assumption that optional rules aren't being used unless it's been explicitly mentioned prior in the discussion.

It's also important to note, even Antimagic Field doesn't fare too well against this item. Assuming we put it in a Glyph of Warding so that it doesn't have to remain centered on the caster, all it does is prevent the character from being invisible inside of that 10ft sphere (suppressing, not dispelling the effect) so as soon as they leave that area they would become invisible again. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve creating new types of magic made specifically to deal with it.

[Rukelnikov]

I think you're misunderstanding, the invisible target is the one being attacked at disadvantage. He's not hidden (meaning his position is revealed) but he is unseen (meaning he is being attacked at disadvantage).

I'm talking about both being invisible

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm talking about both being invisible

My mistake then, that's what I get for jumping into the middle of a comment chain.

[Segev]

I still heartily recommend that the (dis)advantage rules for fighting unseen opponents be house ruled so that you only gain Advantage when they can't see you AND you can see them. Leave the rules on having Disadvantage for not seeing your target alone. So a blind character, or a character facing an invisible opponent, has Disadvantage to hit the foe he can't see, and his unseen foe has Advantage attacking him (because the foe can see him just fine). But two blind opponents (or two invisible ones, or foes facing each other in the dark or in a cloud of dense fog, etc.) both have Disadvantage when facing each other. And an archer fighting at extreme range doesn't lose Disadvantage by standing in a fog bank through which he can't see.

[Rukelnikov]

My mistake then, that's what I get for jumping into the middle of a comment chain.

No prob ;)


I still heartily recommend that the (dis)advantage rules for fighting unseen opponents be house ruled so that you only gain Advantage when they can't see you AND you can see them. Leave the rules on having Disadvantage for not seeing your target alone. So a blind character, or a character facing an invisible opponent, has Disadvantage to hit the foe he can't see, and his unseen foe has Advantage attacking him (because the foe can see him just fine). But two blind opponents (or two invisible ones, or foes facing each other in the dark or in a cloud of dense fog, etc.) both have Disadvantage when facing each other. And an archer fighting at extreme range doesn't lose Disadvantage by standing in a fog bank through which he can't see.

Yeah, this is a simple fix and gets the job done.

[furby076]

So in my game, a player managed to roll up a Cloak of Invisibility during a loot grab. Which was fine until he used it in combat and attacked and then argue that he would remain invisible.

Cloak's text:

While wearing this cloak, you can pull its hood over your head to cause yourself to become invisible. While you are invisible, anything you are carrying or wearing is invisible with you. You become visible when you cease wearing the hood. Pulling the hood up or down requires an Action. Deduct the time you are invisible, in increments of 1 minute, from the cloak's maximum duration of 2 hours. After 2 hours of use, the cloak ceases to function. For every uninterrupted period of 12 hours the cloak goes unused, it regains 1 hour of duration.

Now, I know with the regular invisibility spell, if you attack, you lose invisibility but greater invisibility you remain. I don't see anyway that the cloak is balanced if it acts as a Greater Invisibility spell. Unfortunately I cannot locate any clarification and can only find subjective answers.

Has anyone come across the definitive answer on whether the cloak acts as a normal invisibility or greater invisibility?

Since the cloak does not say "you become invisible like the invisibility spell" then the cloak does not "cast" the invisibility spell. It makes the user invisible and says nothing about attacks breaking it.

[furby076]

I think enforcing the time limit and action to activate are your best bet. There will be plenty of times he has some warning combat might ensure, and can activate it before combat, but there will be others where that's going to have to be his first action in combat.

Also:

IMO an invisible tank is more likely to get ignored and bypassed, even if they aren't hiding and are detectable. If they want to be attacked, they want to be doing everything they can to be seen as an immediate threat, psychologically speaking. With many DMs, tanks often have enough trouble encouraging enemies that outnumber them to surround them and attack them instead of bypassing them and heading for less heavily armored enemies.

Beyond this, don't remind the player he has invisibility on. If he doesn't specify he turned it off...well out of combat time goes quick.

[Mellack]

Beyond this, don't remind the player he has invisibility on. If he doesn't specify he turned it off...well out of combat time goes quick.

This is one of those things that I think shows the difference between what the player experiences and what the character experiences. It is easy for the player to forget their character is invisible. It is a lot more obvious to the characters. As long as other characters are around, you can assume one of them would tell him to stop skulking around invisible.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is one of those things that I think shows the difference between what the player experiences and what the character experiences. It is easy for the player to forget their character is invisible. It is a lot more obvious to the characters. As long as other characters are around, you can assume one of them would tell him to stop skulking around invisible.
I also don't think playing "gotcha" with the player is a good way to deal with the problem. In fact, I think a better solution is to make absolutely sure that they are managing the time limit. The more you bring it up the better.

It's not actually that hard for the player to burn 2 hours of invisibility unless you're giving them ample downtime to replenish it with. Remember that it needs 12 continuous hours without use to recharge 1 hour of use, a long rest isn't enough by itself. It's eventually going to wear down and naturally wear down the use time, the DM doesn't have to even do anything specifically aimed to use it up.

If the player is only using it in combat to gain advantage, I'd say that's not even much to be concerned about.