Invisible Spell and Reflex Saves?

[Captn_Flounder]

Should an invisible fireball or other some such deny or impose a penalty on defending creature's reflex save? I know by RAW it seems it shouldn't:

"You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same."

What do you think? Denying the save entirely seems a little too powerful since it doesn't raise the spell level or anything, but does a +4 to the DC sound unreasonable?

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Zaq]

Man, Invisible Fireball was like the only non-broken Invisible spell, and now you want to turn Invisible into hyper Spell Focus? That strikes me as troubling.

[heavyfuel]

It sounds very unreasonable.

For the price of 1 feat you get +4 to your save DC, for every reflex based spell, with no increase in spell level, on top of the expected benefit of having the spell effect be invisible, and having the perfect combo for Arcane Thesis.

It's not just unreasonable, it's a must have feat for anyone focusing on blasting spells (that aren't Orbs, which aren't so well known).

Also, remember that Reflex does offer some SoL effects, such as Word of Binding. Getting +4 to them is an even bigger deal.

It also makes little sense. A Fireball for example, is a small pebble until it hits a surface and explodes. You don't call for a Spot or Spellcraft check to notice the pebble before having people roll Reflex. So neither vision nor knowledge are important for saving throws normally. Why would an Invisible Spell be any different?

[Zaq]

It's not just unreasonable, it's a must have feat for anyone focusing on blasting spells (that aren't Orbs, which aren't so well known.)

We’re in 100% agreement about how bad this rule is and why it’s bad, but just to be contrary about the quoted bit, is there really anyone at this point in 3.5’s life cycle who both does know about Invisible Spell (to say nothing of Arcane Thesis) and doesn’t know about Orbs?

[heavyfuel]

We’re in 100% agreement about how bad this rule is and why it’s bad, but just to be contrary about the quoted bit, is there really anyone at this point in 3.5’s life cycle who both does know about Invisible Spell (to say nothing of Arcane Thesis) and doesn’t know about Orbs?

Hmmm, fair enough Hahaha

[Crake]

This is easily solved by pointing out that blind characters recieve no penalty on reflex saves, so an invisible effect should offer no penalty either.

[Talar]

Using real world logic you aren't wrong. How can someone dodge what they cannot see after all, but the problem is when you start applying real world logic the game can become unhinged even more than it already is in certain aspects by RAW.

Applying that type of bonus to the spell save DC is too powerful. One because there is no significant cost to gain the benefit, and two it invalidates other feats and abilities. As is Invisible Spell is a powerful option in regards to Arcane Thesis shenanigans and just being able to hide the source(the caster) of the spell in some situations.

[Necroticplague]

What do you think? Denying the save entirely seems a little too powerful since it doesn't raise the spell level or anything, but does a +4 to the DC sound unreasonable?

Yes, yes it does. Consider the closest equivalent feat (Spell Focus) provides a bonus half as big to a much smaller portion of spells. As a plus zero metamagic, it should have very minimal affects on spellcasting. +4 DC is way, way too much for a +0 metamagic, even if you limit it to just certain types of saves.