Any benefit to invisible swords?

[SangoProduction]

So, obviously, if I were to animate the swords, they'd get benefits as though invisible.

But is there any benefit to wielding an invisible weapon? Obviously, the enemy wouldn't know the reach of the weapon being used, although outside of actual reach weapons, is largely irrelevant to D&D.

Are there any rules for this?

[Draconi Redfir]

Sounds like something that would be up to the DM. i could see a minor AC penalty on the target's part with the logic that it doesn't know how exactly you're holding the sword.

For example if you hold your sword backhand, (the Pommel is wrapped between your thumb and index finger, with the blade alongside your arm), and the opponent believes you are holding the sword traditionally (Blade pointed at the bad guy) then they might make a move to dodge what they believe to be the location of the blade, but then get hit by what they believe to be empty space.

If you constantly shift your grip on the sword so it's always in a different position, or if your sword has a non-traditional grip to it, then i could see this penalty either being higher, or not going away after the first couple of strikes inform the target of how it's being held.

[NNescio]

So, obviously, if I were to animate the swords, they'd get benefits as though invisible.

But is there any benefit to wielding an invisible weapon? Obviously, the enemy wouldn't know the reach of the weapon being used, although outside of actual reach weapons, is largely irrelevant to D&D.

Are there any rules for this?

I don't think you gain anything (explicit), technically, but this is grounds for justifying a circumstance bonus of some kind, probably +2 until an enemy acclimates to the weapon.

That said, there is precedence for this kind of effect. Complete Scoundrel-p.114 has Bladeshimmer, which is basically an 'oil' (technically it's a Wondrous Item) you can apply to weapons to make it invisible for one strike (it lasts indefinitely otherwise). Creatures who fail to notice the invisible weapon (Spot check against wielder's Sleight of Hand with the latter getting a hefty +10 bonus) are considered flat-footed against that one attack.

(Due to the an oversight in the way Bladeshimmer is worded, by RAW creatures who aren't dependent on sight (like those with Blindsight) don't get to autosucceed, and blind creatures autofail because they can't make a Spot check.)

MIC-p.29 also has the blurstrike property, which turns the weapon into an "amorphous blur" when activated and makes the opponent be considered flat-footed against the first attack (in the same round the property is activated) made with said weapon. Creatures who aren't dependent on sight (e.g. has blindsight) or have Uncanny Dodge are immune to this effect.

You can use these two examples to help come up with rules for perma-invisible weapons.

[Vizzerdrix]

I could see a penalty for not being able to see your own weapon.

[Troacctid]

Total concealment ought to make the weapon harder to sunder if nothing else.

[Psyren]

Per the DMG, the golden rule for a circumstance that isn't explicitly covered is to apply a +2/-2 circumstance modifier (DMG 30, "The DM's Best Friend"); this seems like it would qualify. So I'd give a +2 circumstance to your attacks, and a -2 to any sunder attempt.

With that said, you could argue for zero bonus just as easily. Sure the enemy can't see your blade (+2 to hit) but neither can you, so maybe you can't gauge range for your attacks as well (-2 to hit, net effect nil.)

[Anthrowhale]

Total concealment ought to make the weapon harder to sunder if nothing else.

Right. Invisible weapons also help with Disarm.

[heavyfuel]

I could see a penalty for not being able to see your own weapon.

I second this. Any penalty the opponent takes to his AC for not seeing, you take to attack for not seeing. In the end I'd say it evens out (though I'd allow Blind-Fight to negate the penalties on either side)

[SangoProduction]

I second this. Any penalty the opponent takes to his AC for not seeing, you take to attack for not seeing. In the end I'd say it evens out (though I'd allow Blind-Fight to negate the penalties on either side)

I'd counter with 2 bits.
1) You know what sort of weapon you have, what grip you hold it in, and how it feels. You've trained with it, and considering most adventurers only ever really use one type of weapon (greatsword) if they use one at all...

2) Your sword should be the periphery of what you look at, and you should instead be focusing on your opponent. Most sword handles were oblong shaped so as to give the swordsmen an innate feeling of the direction of the blade without needing to see it.

I'd at least agree that it might be harder to parry (can't really test something like that...at least not without VR), but weapons don't grant any AC bonus in 3.5, so that point is moot.

[Yael]

At most you could get to be king of Britain.

I second not getting an attack penalty, due to through training, one can measure distances on your weapon attacks. As some people say, a sword is an expension of your self. Though a -2 AC is fine, is circumstancial (which is, to my knowledge, a fairly rare penalty for AC or bonus to attack), so I'd allow it as a clever use of tools.

[Bronk]

I could see there being some benefit to having an invisible sword, because of the Ghost Blade strike. That strike creates an illusory weapon to fake out your foe, whereupon your real blade, which is hidden by the illusion, catches your opponent flat-footed, which can be super useful. Maybe you could work something around that, maybe combining the invisibility of the sword with another illusion or a really good bluff check to do something similar.

Alternately, if you had an invisible blade, and could hold it without being obvious about it (maybe a perform check to walk more naturally and obscure the shape of your hand while it's holding the hilt?), perhaps you could initiate combat while in full view and still get a surprise round...

[Psyren]

I'd counter with 2 bits.
1) You know what sort of weapon you have, what grip you hold it in, and how it feels. You've trained with it, and considering most adventurers only ever really use one type of weapon (greatsword) if they use one at all...

2) Your sword should be the periphery of what you look at, and you should instead be focusing on your opponent. Most sword handles were oblong shaped so as to give the swordsmen an innate feeling of the direction of the blade without needing to see it.

I'd at least agree that it might be harder to parry (can't really test something like that...at least not without VR), but weapons don't grant any AC bonus in 3.5, so that point is moot.

I mean, presumably the weapon you trained with was visible, so "you trained with it" doesn't necessarily apply here.

As for the blade being in your periphery, you're downplaying that a bit; I'd say peripheral vision does matter in a fight.

I'd personally be fine with a +2 bonus here, but I wouldn't lose sleep if a GM ruled that you get no benefit at all.

[Troacctid]

+2 is the same bonus you get for being entirely invisible. It seems odd that there would be no difference.

[SangoProduction]

+2 is the same bonus you get for being entirely invisible. It seems odd that there would be no difference.

I mean. There's 2 (offensive) parts to invisibility. There are people saying to deny dex to AC. For various reasons. Makes sense, as it's much harder to dodge something you can't see. Although suddenly rogues, and some DMs don't much appreciate it being easy on the poor thieves.
And then there's people saying +2, because...well, it's the "universal" miscellaneous modifier.
And there's one guy who said -2 AC. Which is weird, but all the same.

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest both yet. It's quite the ... half truth ... to point to one half of the suggestions which say to apply the universal modifier and say it's entirely equivalent....for half of the (attack-only) benefits of being invisible.

[Particle_Man]

Could be good for “no one notice I am a bad guy” assassins, since the assassin’s dagger is otherwise rather obvious from its appearance.

[Psyren]

+2 is the same bonus you get for being entirely invisible. It seems odd that there would be no difference.

Nah, you get way more than that against most enemies if you're entirely invisible, because they lose their Dex bonus to AC unless they can perceive invisibility. And if they can do that, then your invisible sword shouldn't matter either.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Aren't there a pair of enchantments (one being a Greater version) in MiC that do that?

[SangoProduction]

Aren't there a pair of enchantments (one being a Greater version) in MiC that do that?

There is?
Blurstrike: Faint outline of the weapon. First attack is vs flat footed. Except against non-sighted enemies...or those with uncanny dodge. That's fairly random but OK.

Otherwise, that's it, from my reading..

[NNescio]

There is?
Blurstrike: Faint outline of the weapon. First attack is vs flat footed. Except against non-sighted enemies...or those with uncanny dodge. That's fairly random but OK.

Otherwise, that's it, from my reading..

Maybe TotallyNotEvil is thinking of the Blurring armor property, which does come with a Greater variant. Different effect though, and only applies to armor.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It feels, to me, like it should give a benefit only when you take a specific EWP, like gold or kaorti resin. So EWP (Invisible Longsword) and if you have it you get a +2 circumstance bonus on attacks vs enemies that cannot see invisible objects. Unlike gold or kaorti I would allow an invisible longsword to be used at no additional proficiency penalty (+2 for being invisible and -2 for using a fundamentally strange weapon, like people said).

[GrayDeath]

Its really hard for anyone to steal the sword, seeing as they likely have to fumble around with their hands until they find it.

[SangoProduction]

Something I just thought about from a previous post:
If invisible weapons would impart a penalty, then why wouldn't being totally invisible do the same?

[torrasque666]

People don't know you're actually beating them up with your trusty bow.

[Thurbane]

Just as an aside, would make it a lot easier to sneak weapons into areas where you're not supposed to be armed...

[Asmotherion]

At most you could get to be king of Britain.

I second not getting an attack penalty, due to through training, one can measure distances on your weapon attacks. As some people say, a sword is an expension of your self. Though a -2 AC is fine, is circumstancial (which is, to my knowledge, a fairly rare penalty for AC or bonus to attack), so I'd allow it as a clever use of tools.

Second this as well; Having some training with a bunsh of weapons (bo staff/sai/nunchaku/katana) it involves getting a good "feel" of the weapon and it's weight to the point of being able to wield it with closed eyes.

Now i'm nowere near a "fighter" level but if i can do it they definitelly can too.

[Psyren]

Something I just thought about from a previous post:
If invisible weapons would impart a penalty, then why wouldn't being totally invisible do the same?

Can't you see yourself/your gear while invisible? I seem to recall that's how it works. Otherwise, forget combat, think about things like picking locks...

[rel]

picking locks is done by feel. not being able to see the picks wouldn't affect much.

[AnimeTheCat]

picking locks is done by feel. not being able to see the picks wouldn't affect much.

except getting the thin tools in a very tight space with relative precision, from some amateur lockpicking experience, picking a simple padlock in a dark room is WAY harder than picking one in a well lit room.