Invisible Spell Shenanigans

[Scrapheap]

If I use the metamagic "Invisible Spell" on a weapon-like spell, say the druids Flame Blade, what sort of hindrances would the defender face?
I have a player that wants to use it with conjured weapons (think the Skyrim bound weapons) and make them invisible.
I know attacking while invisible means the defender is flat-footed, would attacking with an invisible weapon be similar?

[Darrin]

There is no application of Invisible Spell that doesn't result in some kind of "DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER" error. You're better off just never using this feat.

[HammeredWharf]

Invisible Spell is DM Fiat: The Feat. Rules tend to assume spells are visible, so making them invisible doesn't really do anything outside of making stealthy casting possible.

[Jack_Simth]

If I use the metamagic "Invisible Spell" on a weapon-like spell, say the druids Flame Blade, what sort of hindrances would the defender face?
I have a player that wants to use it with conjured weapons (think the Skyrim bound weapons) and make them invisible.
I know attacking while invisible means the defender is flat-footed, would attacking with an invisible weapon be similar?

This is one of those things that is poorly spelled out in the rules. The rules are primarily concerned with an invisible creature, not invisible items, and don't really address whether or not a Rogue can sneak attack someone with an invisible sword.

An Invisible Spiritual Weapon should probably get the full benefits of being invisible when attacking a normally-sighted target that cannot see it (denied dex, AC penalty, et cetera), as should an Invisible Summoned Monster (although some DM's, given that it's a +0 metamagic feat, will simply say that there is no visible accompanying effect - the Spiritual Weapon just suddenly appears, there's no mystic puff of summoning smoke).

An Invisible Fireball, being the example with no notes of particular benefits, should get no real use besides the stealth bit.

An Invisible Flame Blade? Well, that should probably be somewhere in between.

However, that's just my take. Different DM's will have different results, and trying to say any given DM is incorrect is rather pointless as the metamagic feat doesn't spell out much.

[jedipotter]

I rewrote this one way, way back when Cityscape first came out.......


Invisible Spell


You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation and has no obvious connection to its caster, and no noticeable effects that are not integral to its function.. Only Effect or Area spells that have durations of one round or less can be effected by this feat. No Conjuration (summoning), Conjuration (calling) or Conjuration (creation), can be effected by this feat. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same. Note that this feat has no bearing on any components required to cast the enhanced spell, so the spell’s source might still be apparent, depending on the situation, despite its effects being unseen. For example, a fireball cast by someone with this feat could be made invisible in the moment of its detonation, but everyone in the area would still feel the full effect (including the heat), and any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire.

Casters using spells that would reveal the magic of a invisible spell (such as detect magic) must make a caster level check (DC 11 + caster level of invisible spell’s caster) or fail to pick up any sign of its magic. Characters suffer a penalty equal to the invisible spell’s level to any Spellcraft and Spot checks made to notice the invisible spell being cast or identify it as they are cast. Any Bluff check made to pass off the effect of a invisible spell as something other than a spell gains a circumstance bonus equal to the level of the secret spell.


A spell modified using the Invisible Spell feat uses a spell slot of two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

[Rubik]

I rewrote this one way, way back when Cityscape first came out.......You may want to actually use "affected" rather than "effected," because taken as-is, that kind of ruins your intent, since "effect" is never a verb.

ie, "lern 2 rede" :smallbiggrin:

[Planar]

There is a magic item in Cityscape called Bladeshimmer that makes a weapon coated with it invisible. Mechanics-wise target is flat-footed against the attack unless he notices "something's up" with a Spot check against the bearer's Sleight of Hand check (with a +10 competence bonus). Item is a single use only so I don't know how Invisible Spell applies in its stead. I would give an increasing bonus to defender's Spot check for like 3 rounds or so until the effect is negated.

[Vaz]

I simply make it a flat +20 to the DC of the spellcraft check to identify the spell unless the person making the check has the ability to see Invisibility.

[Ravens_cry]

Stone Shape could be fun. Block a path with an invisible Stone Shape too big to be passwalled or disintegrated with a single casting in the ballpark of the current range of CLs. The best part is its not magical.

[DarkSonic1337]

I'm fond of invisible greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone).

An invisible quasi real wall that stops people SOMETIMES. Make labyrinths out of these in combination with invisible walls of stone, greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone), and just plain walls of stone for hilarity to ensue.

[Necroticplague]

I'm fond of invisible greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone).

An invisible quasi real wall that stops people SOMETIMES. Make labyrinths out of these in combination with invisible walls of stone, greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone), and just plain walls of stone for hilarity to ensue.

Don't forget flat out illusory walls and invisible illusory walls.

[Rubik]

I'm fond of invisible greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone).

An invisible quasi real wall that stops people SOMETIMES. Make labyrinths out of these in combination with invisible walls of stone, greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone), and just plain walls of stone for hilarity to ensue.Don't forget purely illusionary walls, invisible illusionary walls, and each of those layered over actual invisible walls.

[edit] D'oh! Illusionist'd!

[Vaz]

I'm fond of invisible greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone).

An invisible quasi real wall that stops people SOMETIMES. Make labyrinths out of these in combination with invisible walls of stone, greater shadow conjuration (wall of stone), and just plain walls of stone for hilarity to ensue.Do it with Wall of Incarnum.

Party is walking down the corridor, when suddenly, the BSF stops in his tracks, while the cleric walks through. "What's wrong?" says the cleric taking the wisdom damage.

"Nggh, can't get through" says the BSF.

"How odd, I can get through fine" steps back through, takes Wisdom damage. Repeats. "Ah, it's an invisible wall". *dispel*.

Meanwhile, Party Cleric now gets Dominated.

[Ungoded]

You may want to actually use "affected" rather than "effected," because taken as-is, that kind of ruins your intent, since "effect" is never a verb.

ie, "lern 2 rede" :smallbiggrin:

"Effect" is never a verb? Effect (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect), entry 10.

In this case, "effect" was used incorrectly as a verb, but "effect" is, in fact, sometimes used as a verb.

[Rubik]

"Effect" is never a verb? Effect (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect), entry 10.

In this case, "effect" was used incorrectly as a verb, but "effect" is, in fact, sometimes used as a verb.Okay, ONE definition is a verb, but it's hardly ever used that way.

[Socksy]

How about Invisible Invisibility?
You turn invisible, but everybody is tricked into seeing an illusion of you where you are anyway?

[Gildedragon]

Invisible Raise Dead:
You come back invisible, your party thinks you're a ghost, you get attacked.

[Ungoded]

Okay, ONE definition is a verb, but it's hardly ever used that way.

True, but I am of the opinion that if you are going to correct someone, your correction should be correct.

[Rubik]

True, but I am of the opinion that if you are going to correct someone, your correction should be correct.Fair enough.

[Jack_Simth]

Invisible Raise Dead:
You come back invisible, your party thinks you're a ghost, you get attacked.
Raise Dead requires the corpse. You want True Resurrection.

[Alex12]

Am I the only one who thinks an Invisible Fimbulwinter would be hilarious?

[Necroticplague]

Am I the only one who thinks an Invisible Fimbulwinter would be hilarious?

"My my, it has been very chilly today"
*trips over invisible snow bank*

[Snowbluff]

Invisible Raise Dead:
You come back invisible, your party thinks you're a ghost, you get attacked.
"No apparent effect. Your friends cannot tell if you have been resurrected. Your body appears to have been left carelessly on your square at the end of each turn."

Am I the only one who thinks an Invisible Fimbulwinter would be hilarious?

Heheheheh! Yes! >:3

[One Step Two]

My simple fix was that the "invisibility" applied to the spell effect lasted for one round. It gives interesting utility, but not much else. To things like fireballs, it was working as originally intended. Invisible Summon Monster Spells, gave the summoned creature invisibility for one turn. Things like Flameblade or Alter-self, their effects were invisible for one round, making it less obvious to those around you what you've done. And invisible wall of Stone is a hilarious pseudo wall of force. Invisible Illusions are still kinda silly though, especially Invisible Invisibility.

[Incanur]

Summoned creatures seemed easy enough by RAW with the feat: they're invisible.

Flame blade is a tough one, though.

[Rubik]

My simple fix was that the "invisibility" applied to the spell effect lasted for one round. It gives interesting utility, but not much else. To things like fireballs, it was working as originally intended. Invisible Summon Monster Spells, gave the summoned creature invisibility for one turn. Things like Flameblade or Alter-self, their effects were invisible for one round, making it less obvious to those around you what you've done. And invisible wall of Stone is a hilarious pseudo wall of force. Invisible Illusions are still kinda silly though, especially Invisible Invisibility.Invisible illusions can be quite useful. Cast Invisibility, then set up an Invisible Silent Image around yourself. Nobody can see you until they cast See Invisibility, in which case they still can't see you, because they see the illusion instead.

[Malroth]

is there a possible interpretation that allows Invisible Fog clouds to block line of sight for true seeing opponents but doesn't allow invisible reincarnation for a non dispellable perma invisbility?

[Incanur]

is there a possible interpretation that allows Invisible Fog clouds to block line of sight for true seeing opponents but doesn't allow invisible reincarnation for a non dispellable perma invisbility?

Well, you could rule the new body isn't the spell's visual manifestation but akin to the nonmagical fire a fireball causes by igniting flammable materials.

[Ravens_cry]

Flame blade is a tough one, though.
It means it's invisible, which means the first attack is denied their dexterity bonus to that attack since it doesn't look like an attack at first. After that, they see you are obviously swinging something at them, but you still get a +2 circumstance bonus to hit since they can't judge the length of your blade.
That's how I'd rule it anyway. No, it's not RAW, but it's how I'd rule it.

[Max Caysey]

Invisible Spell is DM Fiat: The Feat. Rules tend to assume spells are visible, so making them invisible doesn't really do anything outside of making stealthy casting possible.

Im pretty sure the act of casting itself does not change. Its simply the effect that has no visual (invisibly) effect. Meaning that you can still do a spellcraft check to identify and counter the spell. Even if no verbal, somatic or material component is used you still actually see someone casting spells and thus are able to counter them....

[HammeredWharf]

Im pretty sure the act of casting itself does not change. Its simply the effect that has no visual (invisibly) effect. Meaning that you can still do a spellcraft check to identify and counter the spell. Even if no verbal, somatic or material component is used you still actually see someone casting spells and thus are able to counter them....

Oh, I don't mean it like that. There are other ways to conceal the act of casting a spell, like a skill trick. Invisible Spell allows you to do things like shooting a ray at someone without them noticing it was you.

[Rubik]

Oh, I don't mean it like that. There are other ways to conceal the act of casting a spell, like a skill trick. Invisible Spell allows you to do things like shooting a ray at someone without them noticing it was you.Assuming they don't realize that you're the one leaping around, yelling and waving your hands like an idiot for the spell components.

[Doc_Maynot]

Im pretty sure the act of casting itself does not change. Its simply the effect that has no visual (invisibly) effect. Meaning that you can still do a spellcraft check to identify and counter the spell. Even if no verbal, somatic or material component is used you still actually see someone casting spells and thus are able to counter them....

You still need to be able to identify the spell being cast before countering.
The three methods, only one of which can be used to actually counterspell:
"Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)" Easily stopped with the skill trick, or with still or silent spell.

"Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell." Invisible spell takes away this option, also the spell would be too late to counter.

"After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was." While nothing takes away the option other than not targeting the spell at you, at that point it also too late to counter the spell.

In the end, unless you were targeted by a Still/Silent Invisible Spell there is absolutely no way of knowing what it is/was. Which does help for sneaky casting.

[HammeredWharf]

Assuming they don't realize that you're the one leaping around, yelling and waving your hands like an idiot for the spell components.

That's why I mentioned skill tricks.


Conceal Spellcasting
You can cast spells without others noticing.

Benefit: You can cast a spell without revealing that you are doing so. Make a Sleight of Hand check as part of the action used to cast the spell, opposed by the Spot checks of onlookers. If you are successful, an observer can’t tell that you’re casting a spell.

[Vaz]

One of the following is required to identify a spell via spellcraft

1 - See or Hear somatic or verbal components of the spells
2 - See or detect the effects of the spell
3 - Immediately after taking a saving throw (pass or fail) against a spell which specifically targets you.

Invisible spell has no effect on 1 or 3. Against 2, however, against those who can detect the effect of the spell (such as by Detect Magic, which is explicitly called out within Invisible Spell), then even though they cannot see it, then still bypass Invisible Spell and can still detect it.

Personally, I believe this is the true RAI behind the Metamagic. Combined with the description of "no visual manifestation" leads me to believe that the author was thinking of something along the lines of Psionics, which specifically manifest AND have Display components (think along the lines of the laser sound, rather than the verbal "kamehameha" here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUwKEWPR32g)).

Along with Spell Thematics talking about actually making the spells not becoming Invisible (and adding to the DC), you can see where the train of (presumed thought) lies here.

Basically, it should just be rule 0'd. Like everything else, funnily enough.

[Max Caysey]

You still need to be able to identify the spell being cast before countering.
The three methods, only one of which can be used to actually counterspell:
"Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)" Easily stopped with the skill trick, or with still or silent spell.

"Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell." Invisible spell takes away this option, also the spell would be too late to counter.

"After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was." While nothing takes away the option other than not targeting the spell at you, at that point it also too late to counter the spell.

In the end, unless you were targeted by a Still/Silent Invisible Spell there is absolutely no way of knowing what it is/was. Which does help for sneaky casting.

If you are looking at that caster, at the time of casting, then you would still know, when he was doing the actual casting. So dispel magic could be counter-cast at the right moment even though it was still, silent, invisible and without materiels... The identification I mentioned before would not happen, but if you had readied an action or have a countermagic feat, its possible to counter a still, silent, materiel eschewed, invisible spell...

[Vaz]

If you are facing a caster going to the trouble of casting a stilled, silent, invisible spell, chances are that they'll be doing their best to remain hidden and inconspicuous anyway.

And no, you wouldn't "still know" it was the caster. EVERYTHING you can use to detect the spell is hidden, unless you have some way of detecting magic, which can detect the spell, which would give you reason to cast dispel magic.

[Gildedragon]

If you are looking at that caster, at the time of casting, then you would still know, when he was doing the actual casting. So dispel magic could be counter-cast at the right moment even though it was still, silent, invisible and without materiels... The identification I mentioned before would not happen, but if you had readied an action or have a countermagic feat, its possible to counter a still, silent, materiel eschewed, invisible spell...

So one adds "Deceptive Spell" metamagic. You're looking at the wizard in front of you, and the spell hits you from the side.

[Karoht]

Step 1-Find a Library
Step 2-Cast the spell Blade Barrier (Invisible Spell) in all the shadows you can. Perminancy a few of them.
Step 3-Lure adventurers to the Library. When they arrive, explain that the shadows are murdering people because they are the Vashta Narada. Google it, or watch "Silence in the Library" from Doctor Who.
Step 4-"I'm sorry. I'm so very sorry. You've got 2 shadows." (Silent Image with Still Spell Silent Spell)
Step 5-Occasionally use Ghost Sound to scare people down certain hallways.
Step 6-Loot the bodies.

[Rubik]

Invisible Spell'd Create Food & Drink. You are what you eat, so eventually parts of you will start turning invisible, and if that's all you eat, you'll be fully invisible in 7 years or so.

[Necroticplague]

Invisible Spell'd Create Food & Drink. You are what you eat, so eventually parts of you will start turning invisible, and if that's all you eat, you'll be fully invisible in 7 years or so.

Except for brain, nerves, spinal cord, teeth, and large portions of bone.

[Gildedragon]

Except for brain, nerves, spinal cord, teeth, and large portions of bone.

And eyes

... would be pretty awfully creepy. Not long before paladins & clerics show up thinking you undead, and rangers and cerulean sign-ees show up thinking you something from the far realms.

[Lans]

Not quite what the op was looking for, but if you make a tower shield invisible you can walk around getting full cover, but with out the enemies knowing you have full cover

[Jack_Simth]

Not quite what the op was looking for, but if you make a tower shield invisible you can walk around getting full cover, but with out the enemies knowing you have full cover
Invisible Spell Major Creation fixes that problem quite handily.

[Karoht]

Invisible Spell Wall of Stone.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, right?
But what if I live in a glass castle? Go ahead, throw a stone at it. I laugh at your puny stones.

[Alex12]

Invisible Spell Wall of Stone.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, right?
But what if I live in a glass castle? Go ahead, throw a stone at it. I laugh at your puny stones.

But what if it's a stone launched by an Invisible Spell Launch Bolt?

[manyslayer]

But what if it's a stone launched by an Invisible Spell Launch Bolt?
Hmm, didn't see that coming.

[Gildedragon]

'F course ya di'n't; launch bolt only launches bolts