Displacement or Greater Invisibility?

[Eladrinblade]

As a spontaneous caster (meaning limited spells known), which is the better buff to put on a warrior-type?

Both grant 50% concealment, but invisibility keeps you from being targeted at all, and grants a +2 bonus to attacks. However, see invisibility negates it.

[OldTrees1]

Depends on the level. At higher levels I would assume the enemies have permanent See Invisibility

[Lord Vukodlak]

As a spontaneous caster (meaning limited spells known), which is the better buff to put on a warrior-type?

Both grant 50% concealment, but invisibility keeps you from being targeted at all, and grants a +2 bonus to attacks. However, see invisibility negates it.

I'd go with displacement its a level lower (3rd) instead of (4th) and sometimes you might run into trouble when you can't see your own invisible ally.

[Person_Man]

Mechanically, Greater Invisibility is usually superior.

But it's also a 4th level spell slot, whereas Displacement is only 3rd level. I've also found that DMs tend to resent regular use of Greater Invisibility, in that it can "require" them to add See Invisibility/Tremorsense/etc to some encounters in order to make some of the encounters more challenging, even if it doesn't fit with their story to have monsters/enemies with those abilities.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Greater invisibility is generally more useful since it also has out of combat application. Even in combat the ability to avoid being targeted by the majority of foes is immense compared to just having them miss half the time -if- they use attacks that require attack rolls. AoE's; displacement doesn't help. Targeted spells; displacement doesn't help. With invisibility targeted spells are a non-option and AoE's are a craps-shoot since the enemy has to guess where to place it.

See invisibility isn't so common as to be a major concern unless you fight casters quite frequently.

[Rebel7284]

Greater Invisibility is better outside of combat and untargetable is WAY better in combat. I would go with that.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Greater invisibility is generally more useful since it also has out of combat application. Even in combat the ability to avoid being targeted by the majority of foes is immense compared to just having them miss half the time -if- they use attacks that require attack rolls. AoE's; displacement doesn't help. Targeted spells; displacement doesn't help. With invisibility targeted spells are a non-option and AoE's are a craps-shoot since the enemy has to guess where to place it.

See invisibility isn't so common as to be a major concern unless you fight casters quite frequently.
An unseen fighter is also incapable of drawing attention from the squishy sorcerer. The T-Rex can't see the metal man poking him with sharp things so he'll go right for the squishy sorcerer he can see.

[Eladrinblade]

It's for a PF summoner, so they're both 3rd level. I believe I have my answer though.

Thanks, everybody.

[Kelb_Panthera]

An unseen fighter is also incapable of drawing attention from the squishy sorcerer. The T-Rex can't see the metal man poking him with sharp things so he'll go right for the squishy sorcerer he can see.

You realize that, being a spontaneous caster, the sorcerer can, and probably should, be invisible too.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You realize that, being a spontaneous caster, the sorcerer can, and probably should, be invisible too.
But then he has to make the cleric invisible and anyone else in the party invisible and that uses up a lot of spell slots and time.

Summoner's don't have a lot of spells per day. If we're talking a 7th level summoner he/she will have enough slots to for two third level spells a day.
Because summoners fight primarily with their summons and don't have many direct offensive spells they do fine with regular invisibility.

[AstralFire]

Everyone gets invisibility! An invisibility for you, and an invisibility for you, and an invisibility for you!

[Kelb_Panthera]

But then he has to make the cleric invisible and anyone else in the party invisible and that uses up a lot of spell slots and time.

Summoner's don't have a lot of spells per day. If we're talking a 7th level summoner he/she will have enough slots to for two third level spells a day.

War-weaver.

[Lord Vukodlak]

War-weaver.
That seems like an entirely irrelevant comment what does a 3.5 PrC that a Pathfinder Summoner would never take. (because it kill there summoning abilities which are class features not spells), have to do with this thread?

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's a short PrC. I'm not intimately familiar with pathfinder's summoner but surely 3 or 4 levels lost won't make it unplayable and if we're talking party buffing then there's scarcely a better PrC for an arcane caster.

[Eladrinblade]

herpaderpaderp

[Lord Vukodlak]

It's a short PrC. I'm not intimately familiar with pathfinder's summoner but surely 3 or 4 levels lost won't make it unplayable and if we're talking party buffing then there's scarcely a better PrC for an arcane caster.

Yes it will a summon's power is rooted primarily in his class features losing three or four levels could easily be crippling and certainly wouldn't be worth the trade off. Summoners use class features to summon allies not spells.

Overall I'd say the summoner is 70% class features and only 30% spell casting. If War-Weaver advanced there class features while leaving the spell casting static it be less damaging.

[Pathagaron]

No other classes will be taken. The buff is for the eidolon (but obviously can be cast on others).

If eidolons have share spells, you might be better off with greater mirror image.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If eidolons have share spells, you might be better off with greater mirror image.

They do have share spells, but greater mirror image(or even regular mirror image) isn't on the summoner's spell list. Summoners may cast arcane spells but they pick spells known from there own list.