Invisible Spell feat + Summon Monster

[odigity]

Was just reading this guide to summoning elementals (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10603), which mentions a feat called Invisible Spell, which is +0 Metamagic and makes the effects of your spell invisible. Presumably, someone with this feat who casts Summon Monster would get invisible monsters to play with.

This seems enormously powerful, but I'm hesitant to jump on because I saw no mention of it in The Conjurer's Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19863086/The_Conjurers_Handbook), The Summoner's Guide (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864066/Summoning_Handbook), or Mastering the Malconvoker (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=289.0).

What's the deal? Is this legit? If so (or even if not), why no mention in the three best summoning handbooks?

[docnessuno]

RAW using invisibile spell on summon monster works, but it's likely to cause book throwing in non High-OP games.

There are other nifty (and probably unintended) uses for the feat, one for example is Invisible Fog cloud (blocks vision to anyone able to see invisibility but not to those who cannot).

[Solophoenix]

I'll second that it's totally RAW, but really shouldn't be used.

My favourite use for Invisible Spell is Invisible Sculpted Caltrops.

For the price of a first level spell slot, cover four 10ft squares of floor in invisible spiky pain. And as they're invisible, not only do people step on them without hesitation, they get denied their DEX bonus to AC against the caltrop's attack roll!

[Barstro]

I think there is a decent argument that the Summoning (not the creature) is the effect of the spell, so the already not-visible manifestation of magic remains unseen. The creature is not created by the spell, it is simply transported from whatever plane to where the caster directs.

Similarly, Augment Summoning does not give the creature better stats, it gives the caster the ability to summon a creature with better stats.
I like my theory, but it has been proven false.

Pathfinder counter argument; if a Summoner uses a summoning spell enhanced by Augment Summoning, the original Eidolon has better stats.

But, I have no argument for that caltrops trick. Those appear to be the effect of the spell.

[Uncle Pine]

Another funny (and well known) RAW fact about Invisible Spell is that if you use it in conjunction with a spell based on vision only creatures able to see the invisible will be affected.
Example: an Invisible Darkness spell will have no effect on a commoner, but it will as soon as you cast See Invisibility on such a commoner.

[Karoht]

Invisible Spell = Invisible Summons as RAW.
Summons being invisible is extremely helpful, but not gamebreaking.

Take Babau's.
Invisible Summon.
They have See Invisible and Dispel Magic as At Will abiltities.
Normally they come out visible. Now they come out invisible.
You have an invisible detector who can also dispel the invisibility of others. Or they can hold their actions and counterspell other casters with Dispel Magic.
The invisibility doesn't make them all that more powerful or useful. It just takes another resource (See Invisibility, Glitterdust, etc) to deal with them. It is a commonly available resource as well.

Still Silent Invisible Grease is just funny as far as pranking material goes. Someone feels greasy and icky, and probably falls over a lot. And they don't know why.

Now, Invisible Spell combo'd up with Project Image
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/project-image
Your spells are invisible, your Project Image is invisbile but firing spells.
Very fun.

[Slipperychicken]

Invisible Wall of Stone. Roll around laughing as your enemy blunders around trying to get past it. Especially sadistic if you take time to create a "maze" which actually doesn't have an exit. It still blocks Line of Effect per RAW, so let people fail at casting their spells and attacking for a while before they figure it out.

Invisible Stone + Craft: (Masonry) = Really hard glass?

[Solophoenix]

Invisible Spell = Invisible Summons as RAW.
Summons being invisible is extremely helpful, but not gamebreaking.

Take Babau's.
Invisible Summon.
They have See Invisible and Dispel Magic as At Will abiltities.
Normally they come out visible. Now they come out invisible.
You have an invisible detector who can also dispel the invisibility of others. Or they can hold their actions and counterspell other casters with Dispel Magic.
The invisibility doesn't make them all that more powerful or useful. It just takes another resource (See Invisibility, Glitterdust, etc) to deal with them. It is a commonly available resource as well.

Still Silent Invisible Grease is just funny as far as pranking material goes. Someone feels greasy and icky, and probably falls over a lot. And they don't know why.

Now, Invisible Spell combo'd up with Project Image
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/project-image
Your spells are invisible, your Project Image is invisbile but firing spells.
Very fun.

It's not so much that invisible summons are broken, it's that you're getting them for the cost of a feat, no spell level adjustment or anything. That's effectively an extra second level spell being cast every time you summon something, without having to spend a spell slot or an action. Also keep in mind that you can do this at level 1, long before enemies have any means to deal with invisible foes.

EDIT: Make that a 4th level spell, as the invisibility doesn't end when they attack.

[Uncle Pine]

Invisible Wall of Stone. Roll around laughing as your enemy blunders around trying to get past it. Especially sadistic if you take time to create a "maze" which actually doesn't have an exit. It still blocks Line of Effect per RAW, so let people fail at casting their spells and attacking for a while before they figure it out.
This is amazing. Can I steal it for the next time I'll use a wizard as a BBEG?

[odigity]

Thanks for the replies, all. I probably won't take it -- both because I don't want the DM to throw a book at me, and because it requires at least one other MM feat as a prereq, and I'm not planning to take any other MM feats.

However, I might pick it up in Rod of Metamagic form someday, assume that's available. Speaking of which, are there any guidelines for pricing Rods of Metamagic if there isn't already a published rod for the particular MM feat you're interested in?

---

Another summoner related question that's on my mind:

Am I right in thinking I can't take Abrupt Jaunt now (Conjurer ACF) and retrain it later for Rapid Summoning, because Rapid Summoning is technically a class variant, rather than an ACF, and therefore retraining rules don't apply?

[Karoht]

It's fantastic for dungeon building.

So the party comes to an area, and on one of the walls is an illusion of a door, and an invisible wall of stone which, if one could walk through it, looks like another route to take. You have the hallway it's covering immediately turn, so there could be treasure, maybe not.

First, you have the non-believers. That is, those who think the wall is an illusion just as the door was. They try to disbelieve and walk through it. BONK!
One of them might even try to use Dispel Magic on it. Excellent. Now there is a solid wall there, where one was not before. Wait what?
And the illusion of a door on the wall? Opens up to a wall. Just to mess with them. Or you can be a jerk and leave a trap behind the illusion. Such as a Symbol of X, Glyph of Warding, Exploding Runes, Sepia Snake Sigil, or anything else that comes to mind, goes off once the illusion is interacted with.

Explanation-The caster who works in this place, likes to seal off his private area with a wall of stone, and leaves the fake door as bait. The fake door triggers an alert in his private area. If the party takes the time to break through the wall to get to him, this gives him time to buff up, and alerts the caster to the relative strength/cunning of the party. If they chop their way through with pick axes, they aren't too bright, maybe don't have a caster with them, or are being conservative with magic. If they make it past that wall with magic, the caster will likely deduce such, and maybe not even fight the party, leaving some summoned monsters as decoys and some mediocre treasure, leaving the dungeon altogether, or heading to a different section of the dungeon and preparing for a showdown.

[Slipperychicken]

This is amazing. Can I steal it for the next time I'll use a wizard as a BBEG?

Go for it. It's not like I patented it or anything. Observers will probably think it's a Wall of Force at first, since Force is invisible by default.

[Solophoenix]

I don't think it works for Wall of Stone, as that has a duration of instantaneous, the magic part of it is only there when it's cast, the stone itself is unremarkable and non-magical.

There is a spell for making stone transparent, though, Clearstone, in Lost Empires of Faerun.

[TuggyNE]

Was just reading this guide to summoning elementals (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10603), which mentions a feat called Invisible Spell, which is +0 Metamagic and makes the effects of your spell invisible. Presumably, someone with this feat who casts Summon Monster would get invisible monsters to play with.

This seems enormously powerful, but I'm hesitant to jump on because I saw no mention of it in The Conjurer's Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19863086/The_Conjurers_Handbook), The Summoner's Guide (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864066/Summoning_Handbook), or Mastering the Malconvoker (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=289.0).

What's the deal? Is this legit? If so (or even if not), why no mention in the three best summoning handbooks?

You can basically do this by strict and abusive RAW, but it's stupidly stupid. Invisible Spell seems to have been intended to allow you to disguise your fireballs and what-not (and is not too powerful for that), but most of its interesting uses are absurdly overpowered for +0 spell level adjustment and a single feat. (The already mentioned Invisible fog cloud or Invisible invisibility to mess with true seeing, magically non-magical invisible walls of stone, and so on and so forth.)

Friends don't let friends use Invisible Spell for normal games.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think it works for Wall of Stone, as that has a duration of instantaneous, the magic part of it is only there when it's cast, the stone itself is unremarkable and non-magical.


[Rules-based argument]
It works for Instantaneous spells. The example given is Fireball, after all. It makes the effect invisible, and Wall of Stone's effect is the Wall of Stone which it creates. It doesn't matter much when the "magic part" happens, the effect is invisible.


[Common Sense]
Yeah, it sounds pretty stupid, but there are nonmagical invisible things in D&D. So it wouldn't surprise me if you could put that property into stone. I would also never let that happen in one of my games, because it's idiotic and unbalancing :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Invisible walls are the funniest, Prismatic seven times so.

Dropping an invisible Wall of Iron on someone is also hilarious.

Ed: this feat is on my ban list.

[Snowbluff]

Invisible walls are the funniest, Prismatic seven times so.


Dammit, you beat me to it. I like the pun, though.

Invisible Prismatic Sphere, anyone?

[Solophoenix]

Presumably, Invisible Alter Self gets you Greater Invisibility for 10 minutes/level as a second level spell.

[Cog]

Presumably, Invisible Alter Self gets you Greater Invisibility for 10 minutes/level as a second level spell.
It would either not work (by a strict reading, Alter Self has no Effect entry, and so doesn't have an effect to be made invisible) or, more likely, the transformation would be invisible, leaving you looking like yourself (which is still plenty nice from the standpoint of keeping a low profile while adventuring in a decent combat form).

[Solophoenix]

It would either not work (by a strict reading, Alter Self has no Effect entry, and so doesn't have an effect to be made invisible) or, more likely, the transformation would be invisible, leaving you looking like yourself (which is still plenty nice from the standpoint of keeping a low profile while adventuring in a decent combat form).

The transformation isn't an illusion, though, your body is actually changing, so if only the changes were invisible, you'd look like you were missing a bunch of skin and muscle...

[Darth Stabber]

invisible mount: i am a hovercraft

Invisible create water: the clearest water ever

invisble enlarge person: hit harder and reach further, surprise people when they bump into you but you look like you are skill 3 feet away.

invisible black tentacles: they just got naughtier.

invisible animate dead: so evil they don't even interact with photons.

invisible explosive runes + invisible secret page: you just had to peek.

Invisble stoneskin: visible organs.

Invisible magic circle X: like those invisible shock collar dog fences, only for outsiders.

Invisible wish for inherant charisma bonus: get more charming while staying ugly. Perfect for that orc bard you've always been wanting to play.

Invisible summon instrument: play air guitar, FOR REAL.

[Amidus Drexel]

Invisible summon instrument: play air guitar, FOR REAL.

Hilarious! :smallbiggrin: You don't mind if I sig that, do you?

My favorite is probably invisible invisibility. If you put the illusory spell metamagic feat on that too, it's even funnier.

[Darth Stabber]

Hilarious! :smallbiggrin: You don't mind if I sig that, do you?

Sure, that's fine with me.

[Invader]

Similarly, Augment Summoning does not give the creature better stats, it gives the caster the ability to summon a creature with better stats.


That's not true.

"Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it".

It specifically says the creature you summon gains better stats, not you summon a more powerful base creature.

[Slipperychicken]

Hilarious! :smallbiggrin: You don't mind if I sig that, do you?


You didn't sig the quote right. You need another close bracket ] after the string of numbers. I suspect you accidentally backspace'd it out while copying the quote.

[Amidus Drexel]

You didn't sig the quote right. You need another close bracket ] after the string of numbers. I suspect you accidentally backspace'd it out while copying the quote.

:smallredface: Oops. So I did. Thanks; it probably would have taken a while for me to notice that.