View Full Version : Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat

2005-11-18, 11:05 AM
I was wanting a meta-magic feat that would make a spell have no visual results. So, and Invisible Fireball, would melt everyone's skin, and cause combustables to burst into flame, but you would not be able to see why. Just pain and spntanious combustion. What kind of an ajustment would that be? I was thinking +1 level or +0 level as there is very little advantage, besides causing general confusion and mayhem. Also, can you think of any major advantage this would give that I missed?

2005-11-18, 11:11 AM
an invisible Prismatic Wall would be pretty dangerous.

2005-11-18, 11:11 AM
You would still be required to use all verbal, somatic and material components when casting the spell?

If that is the case, then I agree that it should not be more than +1. Not that I have compared too much, but I reckon a +1 should do it, as it would be some distinct advantages to it, but it's not really that powerful.

The main advantage would be against spellcasters without ranks in spellcraft (low int sorcerers or divine spellcasters would be the most likely candidates).

2005-11-18, 11:12 AM
Perhaps limit it to "instantaneous" spells? (though occured after reading anime713's post)

2005-11-18, 01:07 PM
I like it. Obviously, though, there are some spells that it won't work with. That's the only downside. Invisible spell + illusion is completely useless. In fact, the only schools that are going to get really good use out of it are conjuration, evocation, and necromancy.

So I'd say that a +1 spell slot is appropriate.

2005-11-18, 01:12 PM
Thanks, I would have to look into the wall effect, and obviously add in that Conjuration (Creation) spells are unneffected.

2005-11-18, 01:25 PM
Limiting it to instantaneous would do well. I can see how this would be valuble to "Boom" wizards. If a certain party of adventurers is well know for having their enemies eplode a lot, eventually the Powers That Be will order troops to kill the wizard first... but if the wizard can cast spells without a bunch of brightly colored missles drawing a line between him and the enemy, the opposing force might have a hard time focusing their fire on the heavyn artillery.

2005-11-18, 01:27 PM
Yes, I was thinking that warmages in particular would benifit from this feat, as without all the magic projectiles flying from them, they look very much like any other fighting soldier.

2005-11-18, 01:37 PM
I would definitely think about making it either instantaneous-only or abjuration/evocation only. Or, since it's a house-rule feat anyway, just make your players check it with you before they apply it to any given spell. Things like Summon Monster would be really bad with this.

Alternately, just make an "Invisible Evocation" feat with a +1 adjust, and a more generic "Invisible Spell" feat with a higher one (+3?). If only because I like the idea of a mad wizard making invisible mazes.

For the sake of flavor, also think about making Invisibility or even Greater Invis. a prerequisite to take the feat.

2005-11-18, 01:56 PM
Good point, actually this is starting to sound less and less like an actual metamagic feat and more of a specific spell aiding feat (like augment Summoning). I could change it to...

Invisible Evocation (General)
Prerequisits (sp): Spell Focus (Evocation)
Benefit: With this feat, any damaging Evocation spell you cast with an Instantanous durations gives off no visible emmision. You are still required to complete all Material, Verbal, Somatic, Xp, and Focus components of the spell, but the spell effect itself is invisible. For example, and Invisible fireball would deal normal fire damage, to all in the radius, but not create any visible fire.
Normal: Without this feat, your spells dazzle as well as damage opponents.

2005-11-18, 02:03 PM
I like the idea of the invisibility spell being a prereq, but what about the Shape Spell feat. It deals with a visual effect as does, more or less, the Invisible Spell feat. I know some feats even require "Specified feat" + "any other metamagic feat". The same could be applied here so that the +1 adjustment would be ok.

2005-11-18, 03:19 PM
Yes, but the shape Spell feat allows you to avoid blasting your teammates, a distinct tactical advantage. This one doesn't change the spell mechanics much, is very specific, and has limited use, so thats why it seemed harsh to dole out a level penalty. Also, if I were playing a wizard, I would much rather pull down Still Spell to be able to cast in armor than spend my Spell Levels hiding my fireballs.

2005-11-18, 03:34 PM
My first instinct would also be a +1 level adjustment.

There are cases when this is feat would give a distinct advantage. So it shouldn't be +0.

2005-11-18, 04:37 PM
If the spell is invisible, shouldn't the DC on reflex saves be higher?

2005-11-18, 05:58 PM
If the spell is invisible, shouldn't the DC on reflex saves be higher?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

2005-11-18, 09:13 PM
How would you even dodge something you can't see? At the least you would be flat footed, so imagine if an arcane trickster got a hold of this...

'You mean I can deal +5d6 extra damage or so with all of my targetted spells for just one spell level higher?'

I think we can see who would take that.

2005-11-18, 09:24 PM
I think a spell like this should be boosted 3 levels.