Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Invisibility or how Larian misinterprets 5e rules again

Invisible is not un-targetable. End of story. This is another of those baggage rules people haul with them from previous editions. Even if this is a conscious choice on the devs' part, it just looks bad because this is one of those oft misinterpreted 5e rules. Invisible is unseen not undetected. Now considering the fact that they have made hide a bonus action for everyone the creature turning invisible could also use its bonus action to hide but that isn't happening in the game. They are simply going invisible and often doing other things as well and being rendered un-targetable. Attacks on an invisible target should have disadvantage, per 5e rules, but that only illustrates the fact that they should be targetable. As it is, invisibility is very much overpowered in this game from what it should be based on RAW.

Some information to back up the point:

The main use of regular invisibility is traditionally a non-combat application - for sneaking and scouting, and other similar things; that's why it lasts an hour and breaks on most major actions.

The main use of greater invisibility is for in-combat scenarios where the advantage it really provides - alongside setting them up as an unseen attacker, granting advantage on their own attacks against targets that cannot see them, and giving attackers disadvantage if they cannot see the invisible creature in another way - is that the invisibility knocks out a few other important things that are specifically combat related:

- The invisible creature generally will not provoke opportunity attacks, because the opportunity attacks specifically must be used against a target you can see.
- The same is true of many targeted spells; "a target you can see within range" is the most common wording.

So yes, unless the target has also made a stealth roll, Or the DM decides the circumstance is such that being invisible alone is enough (it is a hovering creature that makes no other sounds, for example) we should absolutely have a rough idea (as in, to the square, in combat terms) where the creature is, even though we cannot perceive it with our eyes. A practical DM, in a real-world situation, will allow this too be somewhat fuzzy - they'll tell you that you know roughly where it is, and give you a narrow general area that might encompass two or three squares, if they're not directly next to you, for example - but that's active DMing; for a game, we should simply keep track - and should eb able to target applicable abilities on the creature if they don't formally have an actual sight requirement.

For example: You CAN target an invisible creature with Scorching ray, at disadvantage - it does NOT specifically require you too be able to see the creatures you are targeting. However, you can NOT target the invisible creature with Magic Missile - as by its wording that spell requires you to be able to see the creature.

As much as I'd like to hope for it.... I have very little faith that Larian possesses the nuance to get this right, however. We can hope.

Currently, the amusing part of this is that you can still 'find' the invisible attacker by using the game's own UI against it - just wave your mouse around and watch the movement line - it will path around the invisible creature, so you can pin-point the spot where it is standing, by where the line will not go. If you then follow that up with something like create water on the spot, it breaks the target's invisibility when it gives them the 'wet' status. The game is pretty ridiculous right now.

A simple and elegant solution would be to simply let us target the invisible creature via its portrait in the initiative order. Attacks would be made at disadvantage and you don't have to make them visible to the player graphically.

Ive never understood why people complain about overpower stuff, does it matter if its fun? And besides, tabletop DD is overpowering, one good sword can turn you into killing machine or when you get your first fireball etc. Fireball was 3d6, right. Its massive damage, simple peasant flies into moon when it gets hit.

If you like to play balances games, play ESport. Ive played plenty of those, and they arent that fun in the long run. No-one forces you to use overpowering abilities, but they are good to have.

Btw, I think DOS2 Tutorial was quite pathetic if you think how complex game it was.

Apparently, based on your response, you can't read. lol

MAybe the fact that this is such a commonly confused mechanic in 5e is why they changed it? If 5e players still get it confused, how will the average gamer understand?

That's not my opinion though, I feel like with good tooltips on the spell / condition that wouldn't be an issue.

This really irritated me in my first playthrough when I tried to kill Arron in the grove and he used invisbility and ran.. I still knew where he was but I had to wait for his invisibility to wear out before I could keep attacking, it was just dull. Now on my latest playthrough I've been abusing the hell out of it.. casting cloud of daggers with my sorcerer and then drinking an invisbility potion o nthe same turn and safely holding my concentration.

I don't think it's fun in either case though.. when enemies use it it makes me go "reeeeallly?" and when I use it, it feels like cheating.

Sucks to say but usually when player doesnt realize something, its lack of good Tutorial. If you want to mainstream, you gotta have good Tutorial especially for such a complex games as this. DOS2 had absolutely awful tutorial, doesnt suprise me that this kind of threads appear.

Ive suggested that Tutorial should work via Narrator. If you dont understand targetting, go ask from her, etc. Shes always present. Narrator is the gate between gameplay and immersion/fantasy/fiction sounds like a good idea to me.

I had the same problem with the last duergar in a fight. He was invisible and I was forced to expose myself to a sneak attack to get him to appear so I could finish him off. That's just bad design all around. Went through 5+ rounds of just doing nothing before finally offering up a character in sacrifice to get him to reveal himself.

The very point is, that's it's not fun.

Pretty sure that's not the case at all.

It is absolutely the case. In previous editions of D&D invisible creatures were completely undetected. This isn't the case in 5e. I've seen people argue it. It's edition creep.

I can't answer for 2nd ed or 4th, but in 3.5 you could absolutely attack invisible creatures.

In all of those, including 3.5, you had to "pinpoint" the location of the invisible creature through other means (example: groping) before you could attack them. Invisible was undetected until you take some action that detects them or they take some action to reveal themselves. 5e carries no such assumptions. Invisible is simply unseen which carries the penalty of disadvantage to be attacked and advantage attacking those who can't see you. It is a completely different system and they have regressed back past 3.5 because you can't even attempt to located invisible creatures in BG3.

Adding to this, though it's been said elsewhere, interacting with objects should not break invisibility as it is not an attack or casting a spell, yet it does. Invisibility isn't even a remote approximation of 5e in this game.

As far as I know you still need use the hide action (stealth check) vs a perception check even if you are invisible. Until you do so, you are still detectable by sound, for example. Of course, the attacks still get disadvantage.

It is still a bit tricky and in general 5e does allow a lot of freedom based on the circumstances (I would personally take into account distance, noises, the movement of the invisible character to determine how easy it is to stealth). But there are ways to detect an invisible character.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that interacting with objects should never break invisibility. You're talking about two entirely different things.

I suspect Scales was just agreeing with the general thrust of the thread, Spyder ^.^

I’m going waaaay back but to me invisible is invisible - you shouldn’t be able to be attacked unless your opponent has sone means to detect invisibility ..true sight etc..
Maybe if using an area of effect spell or flaming oil etc , maybe if the player character is clumsy or wearing full platemail then an attacker might successfully hear them and attack with disadvantage ..
I generally employ thrown oil or burning hands etc to find auntie Ethel before she bales out of the tea house & to me that’s a plausible method of detecting invisibility..

That is simply not how 5e works. Sorry but this isn't generic RPG system where it works however you want it to. There are very specific rules regarding invisibility in 5e and your description just isn't it.

+1 to the OP. Good catch. I'm surprised I didn't catch it. I've been scrutinizing the rule system all over the place.

And you're right. When enemies are invisible, it sucks.

Interestingly, they made phase spiders mad teleporting across huge distances spitters, and their implementation of invisiblity would have been perfect for phase spiders instead. They phase. Can't hit them or detect them and they can move about however they want until they phase back.

So, Larian, adapt phase spiders to use this homebrew version of invisiblity, and make invisiblity per actual 5e rules. Then, we're good.