meta-magic summons

[Bloodymango]

doing some searching for a final feat for my cleric i came along a feat called Invisible Spell. well im playing a summoner cleric my question is if i use this feat does it make my summon invisible.

[Ernir]

Yes, it does. Stuff like that is the feat's primary purpose.

Invisible Spell can result in some weird situations.

[Darrin]

Yes, it does.


Only if the DM isn't paying attention.



Stuff like that is the feat's primary purpose.


No, the intended purpose was to disguise the fact that the spellcaster is trying to deep-fry someone with blasty-stuff. It doesn't appear that it ever occurred to the designers that if you try to apply it to a non-blasty spell, everything goes a bit pear-shaped.



Invisible Spell can result in some weird situations.

Even when you use it for its intended purpose (evocations), it results in some pretty fantastically weird *bleep*. The feat is broken not in the "overpowered" sense (although it does do that when mixed in with Arcane Thesis) but in the "this causes the rules to turn into a left-handed buffalo-flavored were-cactus paladin/assassin/dential-hygienist with tripolar disorder" sense.

[Ernir]

No, the intended purpose was to disguise the fact that the spellcaster is trying to deep-fry someone with blasty-stuff. It doesn't appear that it ever occurred to the designers that if you try to apply it to a non-blasty spell, everything goes a bit pear-shaped.
"Stuff like that" was... vague.

I meant "turning spell effects invisible is the feat's primary purpose". The secondary purpose I was trying to imply is metamagic shenanigans.
I should also add that this "purpose" is as interpreted by me, if I were to consider taking it on one of my characters. I make no claims to know whatever the hell the designers were thinking when they wrote it.


Even when you use it for its intended purpose (evocations), it results in some pretty fantastically weird *bleep*.
We agree here. It's what I was trying to say with my last sentence.

[Bloodymango]

so whats the correct answer

[Jack_Simth]

so whats the correct answer
That the rules are inconsistent, so you need to ask the DM to make a ruling and move on.

Take a line from Dispel Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm): "If an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning) is in the area, you can make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured that object or creature (returning it whence it came) in addition to attempting to dispel spells targeting the creature or object. "

However, the Summoning Subschool (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning) in the Magic overview says "A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate."

While the actual Summon Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm) spell text just says it summons the creature... but does list the creature as the effect.

So depending on where you look, a Summon itself both is, and is not, the effect of the spell. So depending on where you look, Invisible Spell does, or does not, cause the Summoned critter to be invisible on Summoning.

In general, the concensus seems to be that the designers did not intend for the feat to actually be used creatively (on defensive spells to turn them into surprisingly potent traps (invisible Prismatic Wall), on Summoned creatures to give the Summons a seriously nice buff, Invisible Walls of Stone for windows / skylights, Invisible Obscurring Mist to foil True Seeing, and so on).

[mootoall]

The best is using Invisible Obscuring Mist, so that your party isn't bothered by it, but that Continuously Seeing Invisible demon is.

[LaughingRogue]

Yo dawg, I heard you like being invisible, so I put some invisible in your invisibility so you can be invisible while you are invisible. (credit "arguskos")

And yes by raw there is no limitation to the school in which you can apply invisible spell to so yes it does work on your summons unless you're going to try to say that "the summon is not the effect of the spell" and that's just nonsense.

1 spell level higher for an invisible summon --- now weather or not it remains invisible for the length of the spell or works "as invisibility" can be argued.

[Randomguy]

A more fun use for it is invisible wall of stone. Or prismatic wall.

[LaughingRogue]

A more fun use for it is invisible wall of stone. Or prismatic wall.

I agree but --- he OP wanted to know about his summons.

[Cadian 9th]

For added fun combine with high CL and Insiduous Magic (Shadow Magic) for spells that don't get detected by divination spells...

Just a quick reminder that the PHB2 errata'd Arcane Thesis to not being able to reduce the spells level to lower than the original.

There's a great use for invisible spell, with the spell Arcane Spellsurge from Dragon Magic. Basically doubles your spell output per round comfortably.

[Prime32]

I recall some shenanigans with invisible invisibility, but I can't remember how it worked.

[Tyndmyr]

Only if the DM isn't paying attention.

The visible effects of the spell are no longer visible.

Effect line from summon monster:

Effect: One summoned creature

Yes....yes it does make it invisible.



Even when you use it for its intended purpose (evocations), it results in some pretty fantastically weird *bleep*. The feat is broken not in the "overpowered" sense (although it does do that when mixed in with Arcane Thesis) but in the "this causes the rules to turn into a left-handed buffalo-flavored were-cactus paladin/assassin/dential-hygienist with tripolar disorder" sense.

It's the best kind of feat. One that doesn't add raw power and huge numbers, but instead gives options to those who think creatively. It leads to logical developments of power within the story, and interesting new situations.

It is fantastic, and more feats should be like this, instead of like Toughness.

[Darrin]

so whats the correct answer

Same answer you get when you divide by zero.

[LaughingRogue]

The visible effects of the spell are no longer visible.

Effect line from summon monster:


Yes....yes it does make it invisible.




It's the best kind of feat. One that doesn't add raw power and huge numbers, but instead gives options to those who think creatively. It leads to logical developments of power within the story, and interesting new situations.

It is fantastic, and more feats should be like this, instead of like Toughness.

I enjoyed this post so much I decided to quote the entire thing and make my text invisible so people can see it again.

[Jack_Simth]

1 spell level higher for an invisible summon --- now weather or not it remains invisible for the length of the spell or works "as invisibility" can be argued.It's a +0 metamagic feat, not a +1. But do note that Invisible (the condition) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) and Invisibility (the special ability) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) are not the same thing as Invisibility (the spell) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm).

I recall some shenanigans with invisible invisibility, but I can't remember how it worked.
Well, with the wording of Invisible Spell, anyone with True Seeing, See Invisibility, or Detect Magic see the normal visual effect associated with the spell. The normal visual effect associated with the Invisibility spell is that the subject can't be seen. You do the math.

[LaughingRogue]

It's a +0 metamagic feat, not a +1. But do note that Invisible (the condition) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) and Invisibility (the special ability) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) are not the same thing as Invisibility (the spell) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm).

Well, with the wording of Invisible Spell, anyone with True Seeing, See Invisibility, or Detect Magic see the normal visual effect associated with the spell. The normal visual effect associated with the Invisibility spell is that the subject can't be seen. You do the math.

right on both counts but I believe it is a viable nerf if the DM thinks that it is too powerful the other way (for a different discussion).