Does invisible spell: Superior Invisibility work?

[JoeYounger]

I was reading another thread when I saw this.


The best AC? Mind Blank, Invisible Spell Superior Invisibility, Superior Invisibility.

Don't worry about those little numbers on your sheet; like everything else in this game, magic invalidates it entirely.

I'm not thinking this would work, but I wanted to ask here just on the off chance that there was some obscure rule or errata in effect that makes this work.




Thanks,

[Psyren]

By RAW yes, but Invisible Spell really should not be allowed in any game; it's way more headache for the DM than it's worth.

[Chronos]

What's invisible spell applied to superior invisibility supposed to accomplish?

[Kobold-Bard]

Isn't there a clause in Invisible spell that says it can't be used with Illusion spells?

[Tyndmyr]

What's invisible spell applied to superior invisibility supposed to accomplish?

It makes the visible effects of Superior Invisibility invisible.

[Psyren]

Isn't there a clause in Invisible spell that says it can't be used with Illusion spells?

No, the feat has no restrictions of any kind in terms of what spells you can use it with. It's ridiculous.


What's invisible spell applied to superior invisibility supposed to accomplish?

Cast them both: Invisibility, and Invisible Invisibility. Those who look with their normal eyes see nothing, and those who look with True Seeing see through your Invisible Spell to the regular Invisibility (i.e. they also see nothing.)

[Siosilvar]

Invisible Darkness is another fun one, though you'll want to use Deeper Darkness.

I don't think Invisible Invisibility (Superior or otherwise) works; True Seeing goes through the invisibility, but "seeing whatever normal visible manifestations" or whatever the wording is implies that you see an invisible creature... which True Seeing lets you do.

[Necroticplague]

So is invisible wall f stone. The wall is specifically nonmagical once created, so once you cast it, you have rocks that are somehow invisible and nonmagical.

[Keneth]

I'm pretty sure true sight sees through invisible spell and normal invisibility, it's not like invisibility is your normal state. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

I'm pretty sure true sight sees through invisible spell and normal invisibility, it's not like invisibility is your normal state. :smallconfused:

Invisible Spell itself details the rule for what happens with True Seeing.


Those with detect magic, invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell.

The "visual manifestation" that accompanies invisibility is... being invisible.


It's very silly RAW, which is why the feat is so bad. Hell, even used as intended it's pretty insane, as PCs throw invisible fireballs into the middle of the crowded marketplace. Just don't use it.

[Kobold-Bard]

...


It's very silly RAW, which is why the feat is so bad. Hell, even used as intended it's pretty insane, as PCs throw invisible fireballs into the middle of the crowded marketplace. Just don't use it.

Invisible Summon Monster I. Do I have an invisible Celestial Monkey at my disposal? Or is it just the portal it pops out of that's invisible?

[Rhiom]

Cast them both: Invisibility, and Invisible Invisibility. Those who look with their normal eyes see nothing, and those who look with True Seeing see through your Invisible Spell to the regular Invisibility (i.e. they also see nothing.)
Any DM worth their salt is going to say that true seeing just goes through both invisibility effects. The only reason to do this would to be to treat the invisibility spell as a higher level spell for dispelling effects.

[sreservoir]

Invisible Summon Monster I. Do I have an invisible Celestial Monkey at my disposal? Or is it just the portal it pops out of that's invisible?

Effect: One summoned creature

[Steward]

Is this really from a book?

[Kobold-Bard]

Is this really from a book?

Cityscape p.61

It's designed to let PCs in urban/intrigue campaigns use spells that otherwise make someone fairly conspicuous eg. Fireball.

[FMArthur]

Invisible Spell itself details the rule for what happens with True Seeing.



The "visual manifestation" that accompanies invisibility is... being invisible.


It's very silly RAW, which is why the feat is so bad. Hell, even used as intended it's pretty insane, as PCs throw invisible fireballs into the middle of the crowded marketplace. Just don't use it.

Part of the spell's typical visual manifestation is being seen through by True Sight. Invisible Invisibility hides the effect of Invisibility, making you visible to those without True Sight, and against those with True Sight, the spell shows its true form and is penetrated as normal by True Sight.

Invisible Invisibility's only use is confusing creatures with access to true seeing about what your intended effect might be. Maybe you can get them to argue amongst themselves about the intelligence the wizard should have to even be able to cast spells...

[Kobold-Bard]

1. I was going to say that because unlike SM1, Invisibility doesn't have an effect line it shouldn't be affected by Invisible Spell. But neither does Fireball which is specifically called out n the Feat description, so that logic is out.

2. Would someone under Invisible Enlarge Person look the same size as normal?

3. What about Invisible Shrink Item? If I shrunk down & tower shield & put it in my pocket, would people with True Seeing etc. see my pocket as horrifically misshapen & somehow holding a tower shield, or would they only see my pulling a full size shield out of my pocket when I took the miniaturised one out, like Time Lord Pockets?

[TheCountAlucard]

2. Would someone under Invisible Enlarge Person look the same size as normal?That's right. The fact that he takes up four squares on the combat grid and has reach might hurt that, though. :smalltongue:


3. What about Invisible Shrink Item?Umm, your item would still look full-sized, and thus it's the people without True Seeing that'd be confused. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

The "visual manifestation" that accompanies invisibility is... being invisible. Sure, and True Seeing will see through that manifestation as well. It doesn't say anyone in the description of true sight that it stops after seeing through one illusion, in fact it explicitly states that the subject "sees things normally" and as long as your normal state is not invisible, you're out of luck. I don't see any loopholes here. :smallconfused:

[Lapak]

Sure, and True Seeing will see through that manifestation as well. It doesn't say anyone in the description of true sight that it stops after seeing through one illusion, in fact it explicitly states that the subject "sees things normally" and as long as your normal state is not invisible, you're out of luck. I don't see any loopholes here. :smallconfused:Invisible Invisibility isn't much good against True Seeing; the usual countermeasure I've heard of is Invisibility + Invisible Obscuring Mist.

- No normally-visible effects.
- No one using normal sight can see you because you're invisible.
- No one using True Seeing / See Invis can see you, because what they see is a great big cloud. The cloud is perfectly real, being a Conjuration effect, and blocks line-of-sight quite nicely.

It's not a portable effect, so it's not perfect for sneaking by a sentry, but it does keep True Seers from targeting you.

[The Random NPC]

Sure, and True Seeing will see through that manifestation as well. It doesn't say anyone in the description of true sight that it stops after seeing through one illusion, in fact it explicitly states that the subject "sees things normally" and as long as your normal state is not invisible, you're out of luck. I don't see any loopholes here. :smallconfused:

The feat implies a change in the way True Seeing works, rather than piercing illusions, it now shows the regular visual manifestations of whatever spell is being modified. In this case Invisibility.

[Keneth]

The feat implies a change in the way True Seeing works, rather than piercing illusions, it now shows the regular visual manifestations of whatever spell is being modified. In this case Invisibility. Actually no, it doesn't. It merely states that you can see the manifestations beneath the spell and if you're able to see them, you can see through them (assuming the manifestations are illusions), just like you can see through any other illusion.

[The Random NPC]

Actually no, it doesn't. It merely states that you can see the manifestations beneath the spell and if you're able to see them, you can see through them (assuming the manifestations are illusions), just like you can see through any other illusion.

Yes it does,

Those with detect magic, invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell.
It doesn't say that true seeing continues to behave normally, it does say that true seeing will see the regular visual manifestations of the accompanying spell. The regular visual manifestation that accompanies Invisibility is invisibility.

[Keneth]

There is nothing that implies that true seeing works any differently in that sentence.

Here's some statements:
1) Manifestations of illusion spells are illusions themselves
2) If using True Seeing you can see the manifestations of Invisible spells
3) True Seeing lets you see through any illusions in your sight

So where exactly do you think your loophole comes in? Just because you can "see invisibility" doesn't mean you can't see through it. True Sight doesn't prevent you from seeing illusions, it allows you to see things as the normally are. It's like saying you can't see darkness just because you can see in the dark.

[Psyren]

Sure, and True Seeing will see through that manifestation as well. It doesn't say anyone in the description of true sight that it stops after seeing through one illusion, in fact it explicitly states that the subject "sees things normally" and as long as your normal state is not invisible, you're out of luck. I don't see any loopholes here. :smallconfused:

Except it doesn't say "True Seeing functions normally." It says "True seeing sees the spell." Which is actually not how True Seeing is supposed to work - True Seeing is supposed to see through the spell.

Just one more example of poor editing on WotC's part; it's nothing worth starting a multi-page debate over.

[Keneth]

Like I stated above, seeing the spell doesn't prevent you from seeing through it. You're using poor logic to justify your rule abuse.

[Toliudar]

Note to self: ban Invisible Spell.

[Psyren]

Like I stated above, seeing the spell doesn't prevent you from seeing through it. You're using poor logic to justify your rule abuse.

Specific trumps general; the specific interaction described in Invisible Spell regarding True Seeing trumps the general interaction of True Seeing and invisibility effects.

And I'm agreeing with you - it isn't logical at all. Your blame is being misplaced.


Note to self: ban Invisible Spell.

Wisdom

[The Random NPC]

I don't know if you need to ban it, simply saying detect magic, true seeing, etc. work normally (because they can already see though invisibility in one way or another), and allowing it to only apply to things that have nonpermanant visual effects would probably do a lot to fix it.

[Keneth]

Specific trumps general; the specific interaction described in Invisible Spell regarding True Seeing trumps the general interaction of True Seeing and invisibility effects. Except the specific does nothing to change the general behaviour, which was my point. Seeing the illusion doesn't change the fact that you can see the normal state of the subject since true seeing doesn't change your ability to see the illusions but merely the ability to see the subject as it is. And therefore the argument is invalid and illogical.

[Medic!]

Invisible Spell only makes the physcial manifestation of the spell invisible. The physical manifestation of Invisibility is already invisible, so it doesn't do anything. Sometimes these boards make me cry silent tears into my pillow at night =(

[Silva Stormrage]

By RAW yes, but Invisible Spell really should not be allowed in any game; it's way more headache for the DM than it's worth.

I think just auto banning it is a bit harsh. I think any sane DM has to monitor and talk to the Player about it before hand. It would be like banning the use of diplomacy because the DC's are ridiculously low.

[Chronos]

Invisible Invisibility isn't much good against True Seeing; the usual countermeasure I've heard of is Invisibility + Invisible Obscuring Mist.

- No normally-visible effects.
- No one using normal sight can see you because you're invisible.
- No one using True Seeing / See Invis can see you, because what they see is a great big cloud. The cloud is perfectly real, being a Conjuration effect, and blocks line-of-sight quite nicely.At which point the true seer just drops a bunch of area-of-effects on top of the cloud. Invisibility isn't for making you harder to target; it's for making people not even know you exist at all.

[Wookie-ranger]

so invisible spell makes the result of a spell invisible, right?

sooo:
-reincarnation
-resurrection
-enlarge/reduce
-magic weapon
-grease (that would actually be really funny!)
-mount
-continual flame (light from nowhere, cooool)
-alter self
-phantom steep
-leomund's secure shelter
-secret page (seriously secret!)
-sold fog (as funny as grease!)
-all wall spells
-polymorph ?
-major creation
-clone/simulacrum
-control weather
-...
-...
-just to name a few. you get the idea


What on earth were they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Necroticplague]

so invisible spell makes the result of a spell invisible, right?
-continual flame (light from nowhere, cooool)
What on earth were they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!

Actually, it would be more like a modern infrared flare, you wouldn't see the light unless you could see invisible.

[TuggyNE]

Invisible Spell is the Truenamer of metamagic, I see.:smallsigh:

[Rubik]

Invisible Spell is the Truenamer of metamagic, I see.:smallsigh:More like the planar shepherd of metamagic, really.

[sreservoir]

More like the planar shepherd of metamagic, really.

not really; planar shepard, you can pretty much slap onto anything that qualifies and still works fine, just breaks thing; invisible spell just

[FMArthur]

At which point the true seer just drops a bunch of area-of-effects on top of the cloud. Invisibility isn't for making you harder to target; it's for making people not even know you exist at all.

Yes it is. Invisibility is for a lot of different things because it's a versatile effect with tactical benefits out the wazoo. Your opponent being aware that you are nearby but being unable to locate you is still a massive advantage for you. You are also assuming a lot about the True Seeing subject, the type of abilities they have to combat you and the circumstances they can use them. Cloud spells and Obscuring Mist don't follow you around or anything. They don't give away anything about your location or activities in it or behind it except the fact that a huge area cannot be seen into.

[Wookie-ranger]

At which point the true seer just drops a bunch of area-of-effects on top of the cloud. Invisibility isn't for making you harder to target; it's for making people not even know you exist at all.

unless you have evasion/improved evasion, and a reflex save of 'you won't beat this'

[gkathellar]

I think just auto banning it is a bit harsh. I think any sane DM has to monitor and talk to the Player about it before hand. It would be like banning the use of diplomacy because the DC's are ridiculously low.

Seconded! The standard use of Invisible Spell that I've seen is really just to use Arcane Spellsurge.

[Kobold-Bard]

...

What on earth were they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!

I believe the conversation was something along the lines of:

Writer A: Mage players only ever use blasty spells, right?
Writer B: Of course, that's common knowledge. Why?
Writer A: Well I'm writing a feat that makes spell effects invisible so that makes can snipe people with Magic Missile & stuff, and I wanted to make sure there were no weird interactions with other types of spells.
Writer B: .....nope, can't think of any. Why would a Wizard do anything other than blasting anyway?
Writer A: You're right, I was just being paranoid.

Now obviously I'm not scriptwriter, but I believe my general point comes across well enough.

Edit: Invisible Cure X Wounds spells? Would it make the healing invisible, so the person still looks wounded, or wound it make the closed wound invisible, so they look like a dalmatian with invisible patches instead of spots?

And if you used Invisible Control Water, could you flood a town without anyone noticing until they started floating through the air, seemingly drowning?

[Keneth]

That's a no. Those are the effects of the spells, not their manifestations.

[Acanous]

there's a lot of rules minutae that go into Invisible Spell, but basic DM-errata states that you just apply Invisibility to whatever the other effects are.

IE: Invisible Shrink Item gives you an invisible, shrinked item.
Invisible Cure Light Wounds wouldn't leave holes through a person in the same way that an invisible fireball doesn't leave victims with no apparent cause of death.

Given that it's such a low adjustment metamagic, it's use in games I play in is also limited by invisibility's duration, IE an invisible wall of stone is only invisible for one minute per caster level.

Invisible Summon Monster is invisible until it attacks someone.

If you use this interpretation, it's useful but much less broken.

[absolmorph]

there's a lot of rules minutae that go into Invisible Spell, but basic DM-errata states that you just apply Invisibility to whatever the other effects are.

IE: Invisible Shrink Item gives you an invisible, shrinked item.
Invisible Cure Light Wounds wouldn't leave holes through a person in the same way that an invisible fireball doesn't leave victims with no apparent cause of death.

Given that it's such a low adjustment metamagic, it's use in games I play in is also limited by invisibility's duration, IE an invisible wall of stone is only invisible for one minute per caster level.

Invisible Summon Monster is invisible until it attacks someone.

If you use this interpretation, it's useful but much less broken.
And it makes Invisible Enlarge/Reduce Person a cheap Invisibility? Shiny. Just pointing this out. It's better, but still a bit wonky. Basically, every spell requires DM adjudication.