Reincarnation and Invisible Spell

[Denver]

The metamagic feat Invisible Spell (Cityscape, p.61) reads (in part) that the spellcaster "can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation."

The Druid's spell Reincarnate reads (in part) that "[t]he magic of the spell creates an entirely new young adult body for the soul to inhabit from the natural elements at hand."

Would this allow a Druid to reincarnate a completely invisible individual?
Does the first part of the sentence ("the magic of the spell creates") give any weight to the idea of the new body being a manifestation of the spell?
Or does the latter part of the clause ("from the natural elements at hand") explicitly clarify otherwise?

[Darrin]

There is no application of this feat that does not result in a DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER error. Even for its supposedly intended purpose (evocation spells), it causes impenetrable rules headaches.

[Deophaun]

The problem lies in the interpretation of the word "manifestation," which is nowhere defined in the game. (and note: the word "effect" is also used outside of its game terminology, as fireball has no effect otherwise) If your interpretation results in dividing by cucumber, your interpretation is likely wrong.

For a sane interpretation of the word "manifestation," watch the old Disney Cinderella, and imagine the transformation scene without the sparkles.

[legomaster00156]

In short: yes, this works exactly like you think it does. :smallsigh:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Another valid interpretation, given that neither effect nor manifestation are clearly defined, is that while the new flesh is invisible, the old flesh remains visible and the changes in coloration that would be expected do not occur. Consequently, you look like the corpse of what you were, stretched over the body of what you are. Good luck getting any use out of that.

[Crake]

The problem lies in the interpretation of the word "manifestation," which is nowhere defined in the game. (and note: the word "effect" is also used outside of its game terminology, as fireball has no effect otherwise) If your interpretation results in dividing by cucumber, your interpretation is likely wrong.

For a sane interpretation of the word "manifestation," watch the old Disney Cinderella, and imagine the transformation scene without the sparkles.

This is the interpretation i use. Basically the accompanying visual effects to a spell. For example, in my games teleport comes with the visual effect of world bending around the caster, but with invisible spell, that would not appear. In my games, invisible spell is used for misdirection and deception. In the aforementioned teleport example, if someone teleports away, normally it's obvious, but with invisible spell, the players could be left wondering if the caster instead went invisible and is still around.

The main reason I have for this interpretation is because the feat says that those with detect magic, see invis and true seeing active at the time the spell is cast can see the effects. If it was for anything other than disappating instantaneous visual effects, then those those spells shouldn't be required at the time of casting, otherwise invisible spell actually beats true seeing, unless it was up at the moment the spell was cast, which is just dumb.

[Chronos]

It still causes headaches, though. What does it do with a Fireball? Now, what does it do with Wall of Fire? Does it make magically-evoked flame invisible or not?

[dascarletm]

The spell is invisible, so for spells that have a duration the effects generated would be invisible.

For reincarnate, the duration is instantaneous, however.

The magic of the spell creates an entirely new young adult body for the soul to inhabit from the natural elements at hand.

So, this question also applies to fabricate... The magic transforms objects into something else, but would that count as a "manifestation" of the spell? I would say no.

If the spell generates new material that would be invisible,
If the spell changes/manipulates existing elements it would be visible

I think.

[Chronos]

If the spell generates new material that would be invisible,
If the spell changes/manipulates existing elements it would be visible

I think.
So what about Wall of Stone? That generates new material, but it's an instantaneous spell and the new material is nonmagical once created. It'd be pretty silly to have nonmagical invisible stone.

[Afgncaap5]

It still causes headaches, though. What does it do with a Fireball? Now, what does it do with Wall of Fire? Does it make magically-evoked flame invisible or not?

My interpretation of Fireball is that the Fire might be visible, but the tiny little bead that shoots from your finger to detonate into the Fireball is not. I think the feat makes the most sense for Ray or Line effect spells which have a clearly defined point of origin (the caster).

Alternatively: invisible fire could be cool.

[Deophaun]

It still causes headaches, though. What does it do with a Fireball? Now, what does it do with Wall of Fire? Does it make magically-evoked flame invisible or not?
The spell tells you exactly what it does with fireball; it's literally the example used. The only things that are iffy are, as you point out, evocations with a duration. But there, no matter whether you rule things like wall of fire are invisible or not, you don't wind up with something ridiculously broken or nonsensical for a +0 Metamagic.

The spell is invisible, so for spells that have a duration the effects generated would be invisible.
It has nothing to do with duration. The magic itself is invisible. The result of that magic is completely unaffected. For Conjurations, this means that all the important things about the spell are still painfully visible; everyone is going to see your orb of acid (SR: No is the clue here). For Evocations, most every spell will be concealed except for the aftermath.

[dascarletm]

So what about Wall of Stone? That generates new material, but it's an instantaneous spell and the new material is nonmagical once created. It'd be pretty silly to have nonmagical invisible stone.

I said that not in a way I intended... I agree with you.

I would say that if there was a hypothetical spell that was similar to Wall of Stone, but had a listed duration and the stone ceased to exist after said duration then that stone would be invisible.