What spells does Invisible Spell work on and how?

[ErebusVonMori]

Got into an argument in a game and hoping for a more definitive ruling as well as more general ruling on how it affects certain types of spell.

How des Invisible Spell affect Animate Undead?

[Thurbane]

http://www.miriamjoywrites.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/nobody-knows.png

[Mordaedil]

It's just the effect that raises them that is invisible, the spell itself isn't invisible.

The only purpose of Invisible Spell is misdirection, so you can cast spells at someone while invisible without them figuring out what direction the spell came from, it just burst out of nowhere.

Some people interpret this to mean that summons are invisible, but those people are wrong. Hth.

[ErebusVonMori]

It specifically calls out the spell's manifestation so how would it fail to work on a summon?

[eggynack]

Seconding Thurbane. It's one of the most horribly dysfunctional feats in the game, with no one having much in the way of an idea of how it works. Invisible summons might well be a thing. Probably wasn't intended to be one though. And that's not even getting to stuff like invisible invisibility or invisible fogs, both for the purpose of solving true seeing. Realistically though, I wouldn't expect invisible spell to make animated undead invisible. Your magic is providing an already existent dead body with necromantic energy, not generating a zombie on its own. The zombie isn't really a visual manifestation of the spell by any definition I'd likely subscribe to.

[Kaleph]

My RAI interpretation: the invisibility lasts only for the spell duration (which is instantaneous).

Unclear by RAW, though, because it can be argued that the undeads remain invisible, but invisibility cannot be dispelled.

A starting point of the discussion could be this sentence from the SRD:

"Effect:
Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present."

What is the effect of the spell? The act of creating an undead creature, or the undead itself?

[Mordaedil]

It specifically calls out the spell's manifestation so how would it fail to work on a summon?

That would require the metamagic to be 2-4 levels above to be balanced. Seeing as it is "same level" metamagic, it doesn't do anything earth-shattering, by balance reasons.

[Melcar]

The way I understand it, is that the spell effects are invisible. That includes fogs, black tentacles force cages, and summons... I have yet to run into the problems of animation, but I would say that the animating force... eg. trails of energy, burning red eyes and such would be invisible, but the animated body would not be. Nor would a calling spell make the called creature invisible (Although the gate from whence it came would be). A summoned would be though...

I include that the manifesting energies of the spell are rendered invisible as well. So the buildup of arcane energies around the caster as he/she is casting/charging his spell are also invisible. Combine that with still and silent and you now have no idea that the roped person is actually casting a spell... thus not being able to release a readied action to counter... (not including the many ways of doing that magically)

I don't personally see a whole lot of dysfunction in it, but I don't particularly like it... and would only use it on certain sneaky caster builds... Although I do see its application!


Edit: Yes we have had a summoner use it, and yes the creatures were invisible and yes it caused so much havoc that he chose to retrain it... However it was not that single feat that made the summoner too powerful for that particular party, it was the build overall. We eventually retired the party due to too much power-gaming from the summoner... since his many, powerful summons rendered the rest of the party obsolete !

[ErebusVonMori]

I don't see how you can shoot it down RAI due to balance when monk is a class, understanding of balance has never been Wizards forte.

[gkathellar]

http://www.miriamjoywrites.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/nobody-knows.png

Alright, thread's over, Thurbane won, everybody pack up.

[Mordaedil]

I don't see how you can shoot it down RAI due to balance when monk is a class, understanding of balance has never been Wizards forte.

It's not really RAI, it's just looking at the guideline for how metamagic is sort of designed after. On a technical level, metamagic is the combination of two spells to produce a new effect, Silent and Still spell being equivalent to first level spells. For a metamagic to be equal to spell level 0, it's effect cannot exceed that of a cantrip. If the spell occupied two spell levels higher, the equivalent of invisibility, then I think we'd have something to argue in favor of the spell working like people expected it to.

Basically, this is people arguing killing a dragon using prestitidigtation by choking it to death. That isn't going to fly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not really RAI, it's just looking at the guideline for how metamagic is sort of designed after. On a technical level, metamagic is the combination of two spells to produce a new effect.
Um, what? Since when?

I will agree with you that things like "invisible summons" and "invisible fog" probably weren't intended consequences of the feat, and I wouldn't allow them to fly for that very reason... but that's a ruling. Arguably a RAI one, though given how generally vague the feat's language is I don't think there's very much "I" to work with.

[eggynack]

It's pretty hard to argue that magic altering stuff has all these implicit rules governing how they're allowed to operate given their adjustment when greenbound is sitting right there offering, just, so much stuff. Doubly true cause wall of thorns is decidedly not a 0th level spell. Prestidigitation is different. There, the fact that you can't do higher level spell stuff is totally explicit.

[Gruftzwerg]

It specifically calls out the spell's manifestation so how would it fail to work on a summon?

The (animated) body is not the manifestation, it's the power/effect that animates what is the manifestation.

The same goes for summons. The manifestation effect is binding the creature + teleporting it to you. The summoned body of the creature is not the manifestation.

what you can do:
- things like invisible Fireball
- invisible Illusions to play dirty mind games with enemy casters (good DM tool if you PC casters tend to do a lot of "Detect Magic" and has also "See invisible prepared").

and now the cheesy part:
- invisible shadow illusions (incl. shadow summons!)

imho a decent option for Shadowcraft Mages, but other than that, it's most of the part useless. Unless you intend to play a stealthy caster who heavily relies on "greater invisibility" I wouldn't take it.

[Hackulator]

Invisible Spell does nothing to Animate Dead, as the manifestation of the spell itself already has no visual component. The animating force of a zombie or skeleton has no visual effect.

[Gildedragon]

The (animated) body is not the manifestation, it's the power/effect that animates what is the manifestation.

The same goes for summons. The manifestation effect is binding the creature + teleporting it to you. The summoned body of the creature is not the manifestation.


Summoned creatures ought be affected by invisibility
Called creatures ought'n't

[Hackulator]

Summoned creatures ought be affected by invisibility
Called creatures ought'n't

No, because all the spell is doing is bringing them there, they are still real creatures. IMO, the only subschool of conjuration that you could argue works with Invisible Spell is Creation.

[Melcar]

The (animated) body is not the manifestation, it's the power/effect that animates what is the manifestation.

The same goes for summons. The manifestation effect is binding the creature + teleporting it to you. The summoned body of the creature is not the manifestation..

Summons are specifically magical aspects of the real thing... The way you describe summons are the way called creatures are. Summoned creatures are not real! Called are! You are right about the animation though!


No, because all the spell is doing is bringing them there, they are still real creatures. IMO, the only subschool of conjuration that you could argue works with Invisible Spell is Creation.

Unfortunately you are misunderstanding the sub-schools. They are opposite of what you think. Creation are real non-magical in nature. (SO is called creatures). Magic is just used to bring it forth. Summons are however magical in nature and not real!

[Hackulator]

Summons are specifically magical aspects of the real thing... The way you describe summons are the way called creatures are. Summoned creatures are not real! Called are! You are right about the animation though!



Unfortunately you are misunderstanding the sub-schools. They are opposite of what you think. Creation are real non-magical in nature. (SO is called creatures). Magic is just used to bring it forth. Summons are however magical in nature and not real!


http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_summoningsubschool&alpha=S

No. you are just wrong about summoning. Read above, clearly if it is "sent back to where it came from" it existed before the spell. Summoning is like a weird, dimensional effect that pins a creature to your location but when the pin is pulled out (the spell ends) it snaps back to where it was.

As for creation spells, while the item created is nonmagical, the MANIFESTATION of the spell is the object itself, as you actually created something purely out of magic, so you can argue it should be invisible. I don't know if I'd allow that as a DM, but it at least is a reasonable argument.

[Melcar]

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_summoningsubschool&alpha=S

No. you are just wrong about summoning. Read above, clearly if it is "sent back to where it came from" it existed before the spell. Summoning is like a weird, dimensional effect that pins a creature to your location but when the pin is pulled out (the spell ends) it snaps back to where it was.

As for creation spells, while the item created is nonmagical, the MANIFESTATION of the spell is the object itself, as you actually created something purely out of magic, so you can argue it should be invisible. I don't know if I'd allow that as a DM, but it at least is a reasonable argument.

No and no. The link provided is wrong! May I suggest reading page 172-173 of the PHB!

When a summoned creature dies it does not die, the aspect ends.

Creation is not magical when it has been created. That's why orb of acid can enter and affect a creature inside an Antimagic Zone. Or a wall of Iron is a wall of mundane iron.

You are simply wrong! Sorry!

[Aracor]

No and no. The link provided is wrong! May I suggest reading page 172 of the PHB!

When a summoned creature dies it does not die, the aspect ends.

Creation is not magical when it has been created. That's why orb of acid can enter and affect a creature inside an Antimagic Zone. Or a wall of Iron is a wall of mundane iron.

You are simply wrong! Sorry!

But summon spells are not Conjuration (Creation). They're Conjuration (Summoning). That description is on 173.

[Hackulator]

No and no. The link provided is wrong! May I suggest reading page 172-173 of the PHB!

When a summoned creature dies it does not die, the aspect ends.

Creation is not magical when it has been created. That's why orb of acid can enter and affect a creature inside an Antimagic Zone. Or a wall of Iron is a wall of mundane iron.

You are simply wrong! Sorry!

That page of the PHB says exactly the same thing as my link......like, word for word they are the same thing.

Are you trolling?

[Melcar]

But summon spells are not Conjuration (Creation). They're Conjuration (Summoning). That description is on 173.


That page of the PHB says exactly the same thing as my link......like, word for word they are the same thing.

Are you trolling?

I edited and wrote 172 and 173. Read the whole two pages, not just the summoning line.

With that said, summoning has a duration, they can be dispelled, ergo they are a magical effect. Called creatures or created elements cannot. They are instantaneous in durations and are SR: No and are thus not magical in nature when created or called. Nor does Antimagic Zone protect against conjuration (creation) spells, since you are affected by a mundane energy, like real fire, or a falling wall of iron... not magical evocation fire,

A called creature is teleported, that's the manifestation of that kind of spell. The magic of a creation spell is gone when it has been created thus the created item is not invisible. Summons are sustained through magic and is an aspect of the real creature, thus sustained by magic and being the effect (manifestation), thus being invisible.

[Hackulator]

I edited and wrote 172 and 173. Read the whole two pages, not just the summoning line.

With that said, summoning has a duration, they can be dispelled, ergo they are a magical effect. Called creatures or created elements cannot. They are instantaneous in durations and are SR: No and are thus not magical in nature when created or called. Nor does Antimagic Zone protect against conjuration (creation) spells, since you are affected by a mundane energy, like real fire, or a falling wall of iron... not magical evocation fire,

A called creature is teleported, that's the manifestation of that kind of spell. The magic of a creation spell is gone when it has been created thus the created item is not invisible. Summons are sustained through magic and is an aspect of the real creature, thus sustained by magic and being the effect (manifestation), thus being invisible.

It can be dispelled, but what you are dispelling is the effect forcing the creature to be there. That's why when you dispel it, it returns home, like it says in the description. The fact that you could try to argue with me about the definition of the word "manifestation" in the fluff doesn't change the very specific and clear description in the summoning subschool section.

As for the creation thing, I'm not sure if you are not reading my comments or what. This will be my last post in this argument with you as you're now basically just refusing to read the very clear information in both my posts and the PHB.

[Melcar]

It can be dispelled, but what you are dispelling is the effect forcing the creature to be there. That's why when you dispel it, it returns home, like it says in the description. The fact that you could try to argue with me about the definition of the word "manifestation" in the fluff doesn't change the very specific and clear description in the summoning subschool section.

As for the creation thing, I'm not sure if you are not reading my comments or what. This will be my last post in this argument with you as you're now basically just refusing to read the very clear information in both my posts and the PHB.

I did read your comments, but I believe your are misunderstanding the rules.

Calling actually teleports a real creature. Summoning does not! The same reasoning is why an animated creature would not invisible and why a wall of iron would not invisible and why I would ague an orb of X would not be invisible. I would however ague that the actually casting would have no effects thus not showing any arcane energies being manipulated at the time of casting. A wall of iron would simply spring into being out of nowhere.

It is my interpretation that the summoning sub-school summons an aspect of the real creature. That is based on what the summoned creatures can and cannot do. Therefore the summoned creature/energy is inherently magic. Both Calling and instantaneous creation spells are not inherently magical and thus not applicable for the invisible spell meta-magic feat.

I guess on could ague, that the meta-magic feat simply casts invisibility of what ever comes out of the casting, but that does not make any sense nor is supported by the rules.


But for every ones sake lets agree to disagree. We clearly have two very different ways of reading/understanding the texts involved in describing the spell schools.


EDIT: Can I just say, that not even the designers get this right, so I believe there is a very real possibility, that we are both wrong. Just take a look at the description of the paladins mount! :smallbiggrin:

[Mordaedil]

Um, what? Since when?

I will agree with you that things like "invisible summons" and "invisible fog" probably weren't intended consequences of the feat, and I wouldn't allow them to fly for that very reason... but that's a ruling. Arguably a RAI one, though given how generally vague the feat's language is I don't think there's very much "I" to work with.

Well, it's just a thing I discovered when trying to design my own stuff that I noticed with some metamagic and the way things were worded in Unearthed Arcana with regards to making casters spontaneous and use spell points and how thy made that system work and reading the "behind the rules" paragraphs. It was maybe the most implicit thing, but it made sense to me. Of course, the purpose of metamagic is to sort of be able to bend the rules on that aspect.


It's pretty hard to argue that magic altering stuff has all these implicit rules governing how they're allowed to operate given their adjustment when greenbound is sitting right there offering, just, so much stuff. Doubly true cause wall of thorns is decidedly not a 0th level spell. Prestidigitation is different. There, the fact that you can't do higher level spell stuff is totally explicit.

Right. Here's a cookie for finding a feat somebody wrote that contradicts what I said.

Good job.

[Cosi]

Yeah, no one really knows. It uses words that aren't defined in the context where they are used.

Fortunately, no one really cares either, because the real point of Invisible Spell is to let Sorcerers double up on spells with arcane spellsurge and still cast spells out of appropriate spell slots. The feat could do nothing (and maybe it does), and it would still be like 95% as good as it is right now.