Help me make a call on Skulk Fallible Invisibility

[No brains]

If a skulk is visible in a mirror, does that make it a 'visible' target for the purposes of spells? This assumes line of effect/ line of 'sight' would still work as normal.

[Keltest]

My inclination would be no. You might know where they are, but a reflection isnt any more seeing the actual target than seeing bootprints in the dust where theyre standing is.

[RSP]

Interesting question. My initial inclination was “no”, similar to Keltest.

However, I’d allow divination magic to be a “yes”, and in further thought, I don’t see much difference in viewing them with magic vs viewing them with a mirror.

In one sense, you certainly are viewing them: every day I see myself in a mirror and very much believe I am viewing myself.

I’d probably say “yes”, though I can see it both ways.

[No brains]

Interesting question. My initial inclination was “no”, similar to Keltest.

However, I’d allow divination magic to be a “yes”, and in further thought, I don’t see much difference in viewing them with magic vs viewing them with a mirror.

In one sense, you certainly are viewing them: every day I see myself in a mirror and very much believe I am viewing myself.

I’d probably say “yes”, though I can see it both ways.

That's one thing I hadn't considered: If your Scrying focus is a mirror or you have a really shined up glass eye for Cairvoyance, could you see a skulk 'in' those reflective surfaces?

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I think the "target you can see" thing tends to get real weird, real fast. For example, Disintegrate is obviously intended to counter Wall of Force... but Disintegrate requires a target you can see, and Wall of Force is invisible. And I seriously doubt they were expecting you to cast See Invisibility first. I think WotC just doesn't really think this stuff through carefully.

There are similar issues with the "can't target objects" stuff. Like, you wanna tell me a red dragon can't so much as roast a marshmallow with its breath weapon?

So yeah. Weird things happen if you're super rigid with those clauses. They're just not well-thought-out enough to take it. So you should make your DM calls/rulings with that in mind!

In this case, the invisibility is meant to be circumvented by reflective surfaces. And it seems to me that seeing someone through a mirror is still seeing someone (I mean, we see everything through a reflected medium of some kind or other, that's just how sight works). If it works for divination sensors why wouldn't it work for just bouncing light? Just save yourself the collective headache and say that if you can see it, you can see it. Another reason I think this is the better DM call is because if you say 'no' it sets the player expectation that solving problem in any even slightly outside-the-box way will get nixed. In which case, you'll see players trying less creative things ("it's a nail, therefore we must utilize the hammer, or else it just doesn't work" or conversely "I will not consider using my hammer for anything other than nails").

[loki_ragnarock]

It's "fallible" invisibility.

If you can't take meaningful advantage of the supposed weakness, why bother so much with the weakness?

If Perseus can kill Medusa via reflections, then some no name Skulk should get the same treatment.

[Keltest]

It's "fallible" invisibility.

If you can't take meaningful advantage of the supposed weakness, why bother so much with the weakness?

If Perseus can kill Medusa via reflections, then some no name Skulk should get the same treatment.

The problem as I see it is that if you cast disintegrate at the mirror then you... disintegrate the mirror. You open up bouncing spells off of mirrors or other reflective surfaces, you unleash the contents of a major can of worms.

Locating a creature that is otherwise unseen is still beneficial if you, for example, want to hit them with a sword. Or a fireball.

[LudicSavant]

The problem as I see it is that if you cast disintegrate at the mirror then you... disintegrate the mirror.

OP said line of effect would work as normal. So you cast Disintegrate at the creature's location, that you can see via the mirror. As opposed to seeing it via some other reflective mechanism (e.g. how your eyes work). Or seeing it via Divination or any other indirect means that still counts as "seeing."

The "target you can see" line already has weirdly arbitrary needlessly-gamey restrictions. I see no reason to add even more by saying that some kinds of seeing don't count as seeing. You don't even have to worry about "bouncing" anything because line of effect is a separate requirement from seeing.

[loki_ragnarock]

The problem as I see it is that if you cast disintegrate at the mirror then you... disintegrate the mirror. You open up bouncing spells off of mirrors or other reflective surfaces, you unleash the contents of a major can of worms.

Locating a creature that is otherwise unseen is still beneficial if you, for example, want to hit them with a sword. Or a fireball.

Sure, if you decide to expand it into some kind of general ruling.

But for the specifics of this creature as a general exception, it's not a big deal.

[Keltest]

Sure, if you decide to expand it into some kind of general ruling.

But for the specifics of this creature as a general exception, it's not a big deal.

I mean, i dont want to speak for every group, but i sure know that my players would be asking me why they can disintegrate the invisible Skulk via its reflection, but not the ogre around the corner.

[RSP]

I mean, i dont want to speak for every group, but i sure know that my players would be asking me why they can disintegrate the invisible Skulk via its reflection, but not the ogre around the corner.

I imagine because Disintegrate doesn’t go around corners: the wall there would block line of effect.

[Keltest]

I imagine because Disintegrate doesn’t go around corners: the wall there would block line of effect.

Hidden behind a fog cloud then.

ETA: to be clear, on the other side of a fog cloud, not inside of one.

[Reach Weapon]

Disintegrate is obviously intended to counter Wall of Force... but Disintegrate requires a target you can see, and Wall of Force is invisible. And I seriously doubt they were expecting you to cast See Invisibility first.
I tend to think a wall of force would be revealed by the old kick dirt at it trick, although I guess that's another instance of "are you really seeing it" at that point.


I think WotC just doesn't really think this stuff through carefully.
The inclusion of the word "carefully" might be overselling their process.