Carpet of Flying and Invisibility

[zachcallear]

If a character is riding a Carpet of Flying or Broom of Flying, and the character is under the effects of Invisibility, as the spell, is the carpet or broom invisible?

The spell text says, "If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too.", so it's clear that a carried broom or carpet is invisible, but it's not clear whether gear one is riding is affected in the same way.

I also read somewhere that a Carpet of Flying does not function as a mount, as per rules for mounts, and I don't know if the affects the answer.

[Diego Rossi]

The broom and the carpet are neither carried nor worn, so casting invisibility on the person using them will do nothing.
You can cast invisibility on the object to make it invisible, but making both it and the passenger invisible will require two spells.

[Kayerloth]

I agree with Diego. That said while it would not be RAW if you used Invisibility Sphere I would allow you to also make the carpet invisible. But that would strictly be a houserule.

[CMantle]

Technically keeping a hand on the broom of flying would fulfill the carrying requirement, the same way holding a weapon does. Unless people really want to get into the semantics of “carrying implies you have to fight gravity,” which brings up all sorts of other issues.

[zachcallear]

Interesting. I imagine I should expect table variation on this one. I mostly play PFS, and it doesn't seem RAW is obvious on this one.

[Java Man]

Well, if you strap the broom to your back: it is invisible, carry it over your shoulder: invisible, "ride" it like a kid's stick horse: invisible. So if you actually ride it in flight why should it not be invisible?

The carpet is a bit less obvious to me.

[CMantle]

Java Man wrote:

Well, if you strap the broom to your back: it is invisible, carry it over your shoulder: invisible, "ride" it like a kid's stick horse: invisible. So if you actually ride it in flight why should it not be invisible?

The carpet is a bit less obvious to me.

The exact logic I was working with. Glad to see someone agrees... if you pantomime riding it it’s still invisible, why would *actually* riding it change anything

Edit: I agree that the carpet would be visible... it’s like riding a non-living mount.. it would be visible imo

[Agénor]

Assuming no invisibility is involved, a spell is cast at the carpet, does the carpet use the save bonuses of the character or its own?

From there, I would determine if the carpet is gear or not.

I think it is gear hence invisible.

[Java Man]

The carpet is a tricky one for me. A wagon would not be covered, by my earlier logic I say a broom is. So which side of the line in between is a flying carpet on?

[CMantle]

Agénor wrote:

Assuming no invisibility is involved, a spell is cast at the carpet, does the carpet use the save bonuses of the character or its own?

From there, I would determine if the carpet is gear or not.

I think it is gear hence invisible.

It’s not all gear that vanishes, it’s gear being carried, which includes gear that is worn. It could be their intention that all gear the character was interacting with would be invisible, but they didn’t say so. Looking at item saving throws again though I do think it was their intention that “attended” items would go invisible with you... here’s the section on attended items:

“An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

I think it makes sense that invisibility would follow the same rules of item interaction as the items being “attended” or not for the purpose of saving throws... that’s how i’ll probably rule it if it comes up and I’m GM

[Jeff Morse]

Having GMed a module inwhich 5 of the 6 had carpets, they all said carpet was not turned invisable. thease were people from differant areas, so most will probably say it dosnt work. ask GM at start and go from there

[Diego Rossi]

CMantle wrote:

Agénor wrote:

Assuming no invisibility is involved, a spell is cast at the carpet, does the carpet use the save bonuses of the character or its own?

From there, I would determine if the carpet is gear or not.

I think it is gear hence invisible.

It’s not all gear that vanishes, it’s gear being carried, which includes gear that is worn. It could be their intention that all gear the character was interacting with would be invisible, but they didn’t say so. Looking at item saving throws again though I do think it was their intention that “attended” items would go invisible with you... here’s the section on attended items:

“An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

I think it makes sense that invisibility would follow the same rules of item interaction as the items being “attended” or not for the purpose of saving throws... that’s how i’ll probably rule it if it comes up and I’m GM

A good argument. This and the earlier post about "riding" a broom as a playing kid will change my reply to "If the broom is grasped while riding it will become invisible, the carpet won't."

[Java Man]

Where do you see the dividing line between a wagon and the broom? Since you have the carpet on the wagon side.

[avr]

More than one person can ride a flying carpet at once. For me that puts it on the 'wagon' side of the argument.

[Java Man]

How about the 5x5 foot, 200lbs capacity carpet?

[Might be Mighty Mite]

Java Man wrote:

How about the 5x5 foot, 200lbs capacity carpet?

We often use the spell spider climb to give carpets a “belly gunner”... being over 200 lbs just slows the carpet some. (Up to 400 lbs).

[avr]

It's at least the same class of item as the 5'x10' and larger, and then there's MbMM's scenario. Or swarming ratfolk.

[Java Man]

Thanks, I'm not trying to argue, just looking for insight to make a general purpose ruling, rather than a case by case.