Invisible Spell + Transmutation Spells, and other shenanigans

[ben-zayb]

So, I've been browsing the web about how such would specifically interact, but I haven't found the answer that I wanted (although it led me to some enlightening and awesome archived GitP threads).

Basically, I'm wondering how dangerous would it be for the opposition if the caster can be Invisible Polymorph-ed. Your opponents wouldn't be able to see you improved reach and threat range, among other things they should be alerted to. True Seeing, and other similar effects wouldn't help much as well, since these effects would be able to see through the illusion, but it would see through the shapechanging as well correct? It means they would see the caster in his normal form, too. If not for the feat description, I would think that See Invisibility will reveal the Shapechanged form. But this quote from the feat disagrees with this, and reinforces the previous assertion further:

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

Is it really that broken? Or am I missing something important?

On another note, could Invisible spell in this regard be considered as too much of a game changer? It just has so many applications (and yes, you'll most likely apply it to everything anyway, if you have it). Summoning, calling, and creation spells, Abjuration (Prismatic defenses and Prying Eye scouts)and Transmutation (Fabricate, how ya doin?) spells in general, just to name a few.

[Gamer Girl]

Unless this is a joke....

I rule that: Invisible Spell does not make the changes a spell makes invisible, it makes the spell casting manifestation invisible. After all, the no increase in spell level does equal ''not much effect''.

I know, I know, the feat does not say that word for word...but this is something that could be added to the Common Sense Rulings Thread.

The thing is you will have endless problems if you say this feat makes the spells effects invisible. The idea that you'd cast polymorph on yourself and turn into an invisible a umber hulk for the whole spell duration is a bit silly. So every spellcaster in the world could cast an invisible disguise self every day and always be invivsible? How long does the invisiblity last?

The RAI here is to make the visual manifestation of the spell, like the 'blot of magic energy' invisible. So you could hide in a crowd and cast spells, for example. Not so you'd have a near permanent army of summoned monsters around you, invisible, at all times. Or that you can make invisible walls of fire.

And as a Common Copper would say: if this feat gave you free unlimited invisibility 24/7 for everything...it might cost at least a couple spell levels AND have a couple lines about what the feat does.

[Lord_Gareth]

So, I've been browsing the web about how such would specifically interact, but I haven't found the answer that I wanted (although it led me to some enlightening and awesome archived GitP threads).

Basically, I'm wondering how dangerous would it be for the opposition if the caster can be Invisible Polymorph-ed. Your opponents wouldn't be able to see you improved reach and threat range, among other things they should be alerted to. True Seeing, and other similar effects wouldn't help much as well, since these effects would be able to see through the illusion, but it would see through the shapechanging as well correct? It means they would see the caster in his normal form, too. If not for the feat description, I would think that See Invisibility will reveal the Shapechanged form. But this quote from the feat disagrees with this, and reinforces the previous assertion further:


Is it really that broken? Or am I missing something important?

On another note, could Invisible spell in this regard be considered as too much of a game changer? It just has so many applications (and yes, you'll most likely apply it to everything anyway, if you have it). Summoning, calling, and creation spells, Abjuration (Prismatic defenses and Prying Eye scouts)and Transmutation (Fabricate, how ya doin?) spells in general, just to name a few.

By RAW, it really is that broken. That means that an Invisible Invisibility makes beings with True Seeing unable to see you. It means that Invisible Prismatic Walls are the deadliest practical jokes ever. It means that Invisible Walls of Iron get turned into invisible iron golems. The examples they used in the book were things like Invisible Fireballs and the like, but it goes so far beyond that that the situation can ONLY be funny.

[ben-zayb]

Unless this is a joke....

I rule that: Invisible Spell does not make the changes a spell makes invisible, it makes the spell casting manifestation invisible. After all, the no increase in spell level does equal ''not much effect''.

I know, I know, the feat does not say that word for word...but this is something that could be added to the Common Sense Rulings Thread.

The thing is you will have endless problems if you say this feat makes the spells effects invisible. The idea that you'd cast polymorph on yourself and turn into an invisible a umber hulk for the whole spell duration is a bit silly. So every spellcaster in the world could cast an invisible disguise self every day and always be invivsible? How long does the invisiblity last?

The RAI here is to make the visual manifestation of the spell, like the 'blot of magic energy' invisible. So you could hide in a crowd and cast spells, for example. Not so you'd have a near permanent army of summoned monsters around you, invisible, at all times. Or that you can make invisible walls of fire.

And as a Common Copper would say: if this feat gave you free unlimited invisibility 24/7 for everything...it might cost at least a couple spell levels AND have a couple lines about what the feat does.

Oh, no, no. Not what I'm saying at all. By that I mean that, say there is a Human wizard. He casts invisible polymorph to become a Huge creature (with an effective reach of 10-5ft). From anybody's perspective he'll still look like a human(with limited reach and threat range), so they wouldn't be as careful in approaching him as when they realize that he is already in a Huge creature form.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh, no, no. Not what I'm saying at all. By that I mean that, say there is a Human wizard. He casts invisible polymorph to become a Huge creature (with an effective reach of 10-5ft). From anybody's perspective he'll still look like a human(with limited reach and threat range), so they wouldn't be as careful in approaching him as when they realize that he is already in a Huge creature form.

Again, as I said in my post above - that's pretty much exactly how the RAW works. Invisible Spell is one of WotC's biggest gaffes.

Great for comedy campaigns, though. Priceless, really.

[TuggyNE]

Invisible Spell is stupidly stupid, and needs a ground-up rewrite to be usable. What, for example, is the result of an Invisible Summon Monster IX? How about Invisible wall of force? Invisible greater invisibility? Invisible stone shape? Invisible explosive runes?

Gamer Girl's adaptation of it is, at least, not overpowered, although it kind of interferes (IMO) with at least one major point of the feat; however, that aspect (being able to cast normally obvious spells without anyone seeing them) needs both more restrictions and a higher spell level. There's no way a +0 metamagic should be able to do anything interesting with actual spell invisibility.

To start with, it should probably be limited to Effect or Area spells (and excluding Conjuration (summoning) and Conjuration (calling) — edit: as well as Conjuration (creation), arguably). You'll still get some oddities with things that e.g. create naturally invisible effects, but those can either be ignored or specifically worded against.

Sorry, I just realized I'm turning this into "Invisible Spell: The Fix Thread" :smallredface:

But anyway, I'm not sure your questions are really decidable, at least not in any sensible way, without serious departure from RAW.

[Flickerdart]

Is it really that broken? Or am I missing something important?
Yes, you are missing something. The normal manifestation of Shapechange (if, for example, it was used to turn into a dragon) is a dragon, so someone with See Invisibility would see the dragon form.

[ben-zayb]

Sorry, I just realized I'm turning this into "Invisible Spell: The Fix Thread" :smallredface:
No problem. I actually wouldn't even find it unreasonable if the DM rule is to have the Invisible aspect only working on non-creation / undead animation instantaneous effects, which seems to be the one in the feat's example.

Besides, TBH, I only use that feat as a (sorcerer cast) greater arcane spellsurge bypass anyway. :smallbiggrin:


Yes, you are missing something. The normal manifestation of Shapechange (if, for example, it was used to turn into a dragon) is a dragon, so someone with See Invisibility would see the dragon form.

Well, the part of the feat that I quoted makes it seem that there is an exclusive condition that See Invis will work, and that is when you are under that effect when the spell was cast and you were there to witness it.

Of course, it's not explicitly said. It could go either way, IMO.

[mattie_p]

Friends don't let friends use Invisible Spell outside of TO discussions.

[Mithril Leaf]

I like the idea of making an invisible suit of armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm).

[Someonelse]

Please excuse me for bumping a two year old thread. I came across this while researching Invisible Spell. I want to use it for a BBEG who is a Rogue Wizard focused on getting sneak attack damage with ranged and melee touch spells.

I figure an invisible spell would be able to work just like an invisible attacker, denying dex to allow sneak attack and granting a +2 to attack. I think it would be reasonable for this to pretty much only be useful for weapon like spells, but it could also be helpful flavor wise for a sneaky spell caster who wants to use a spell that is described as being flashy. Although I don't see this being much good on Illusion spells, I would rule that invisible illusion spells have no effect unless they somehow elude a sense other than sight, like if there were an illusion spell that created an illusion of a smell or sound.

And I think the RAI is that the visual effects are invisible but the result of the spell is not. They give the example of an invisible fireball, the invisible fireball doesn't cause invisible burns. An invisible conjuration or transmutation spell would simply have invisible magic affects, the stuff that's given in the dramatic spell description. It would have little effect on the actual spell. Anything you conjure or summon or transform remains visible, however the swirling vortex of arcane energies that you might usually describe in a dramatic spell description are all invisible; the thing just appears, or suddenly changes form or whatever. This would be the case with a lot of other spells as well. You could be sneaking around and cast a silenced invisible charm on a guard, then use an invisible message spell to issue a command while remaining hidden 30ft away.

This spell is really just a useful companion to silence spell, it just wasn't clarified very well.

Just my 2 CP

[Crake]

thread necro ho!

for future reference, thread necromancy is against the forum rules, if you want to post on the topic, make a new thread and link the old one instead.