Best uses for: Invisible Spell Wall of Iron

[Heliomance]

Or any other spell that creates raw materials for that matter.

Invisible Spell Wall of Iron creates a large amount of, well, invisible iron. There have to be shenanigans that we can get up to with easy access to invisible raw materials. What are your most creative, entertaining, and/or useful ideas?

[NNescio]

Or any other spell that creates raw materials for that matter.

Invisible Spell Wall of Iron creates a large amount of, well, invisible iron. There have to be shenanigans that we can get up to with easy access to invisible raw materials. What are your most creative, entertaining, and/or useful ideas?

Can you make an iron golem out of the invisible iron?

[Trandir]

Invisible spell is a nightmare. According to the wording you could summon invisible monsters. Or the fog spells how would they work? The fog is invisible and so is whatever is inside it or everyone can see through it? What about polymorph effects if you use it on yourself and your familiar to become lets say a bulette everyone would still see a wizard and a frog and not two armored landshark walking around. Blink would be a funny one, you are glitching around but you look perfectly normal. What about a resurrection effect: do you still look like a corpse?
For the raw material part there is Mudslide from Stormwrak that can create huge ammount of invisible mud, you could in time create a fortress on top of an invisible hill. Wall of Salt from Sandstorm works just like the Wall of Iron but salt is far more valuable and you could smuggle the invisible one to avoid taxes on you free generated salt. Call Avalanche and depending on how you rule it Blizzard from Frostburn can generate lot of snow and since it is invisible also invisible water. So far you could build an invisible Castle on top of an invisible hill surronded by a moat filled by invisible water.

This metamagic feat offers more crazy uses than any DM is probably willing to concede.

[Saintheart]

Or any other spell that creates raw materials for that matter.

Invisible Spell Wall of Iron creates a large amount of, well, invisible iron. There have to be shenanigans that we can get up to with easy access to invisible raw materials. What are your most creative, entertaining, and/or useful ideas?

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Windows: all view, no access.

[Jack_Simth]

Or any other spell that creates raw materials for that matter.

Invisible Spell Wall of Iron creates a large amount of, well, invisible iron. There have to be shenanigans that we can get up to with easy access to invisible raw materials. What are your most creative, entertaining, and/or useful ideas?

Most of them amount to "stuff folks don't know you have"

E.g., you can carry an invisible Greatsword made out of invisible Iron without drawing much attention. Well, provided that the other components are done similarly, including the sheath.

What's really fun is that it's non-magical invisibility. A permanent Arcane Sight or Detect Magic (both very generically useful) won't alert folks to it's presence.

The feat goes particularly well with True Resurrection on a Vow of Poverty friend.

[magic9mushroom]

So far you could build an invisible Castle on top of an invisible hill surronded by a moat filled by invisible water.

Find a way to de-XP True Creation, and fill the moat with invisible Black Lotus Extract.

And then stick an invisible Prismatic Wall on the other side for a final insult.

[Telonius]

Great for flipping an old story on its head.

"Yes, highness, this armor is made with only the finest iron, carefully enchanted so that only your truly loyal subjects you will be able to see it."

[Segev]

The easy ruling to work with is that the iron only remains invisible when it is part of the wall.

Nothing says the invisibility is nonmagical; I don’t know where that notion came from. So arguably any items made from it are magical items and must incorporate Invisibility into their crafting costs (perhaps just for the difficulty of working with invisible materials).

That said, invisible iron walls make great windows on a castle.

As to invisible spell’s difficulties with other effects, the easiest thing to do is to just rule it made already non visible effects invisible, because the thing the spell did isn’t always its obvious purpose. That is a bit of a cop out, though.

Personally, I would give invisible summons the effect of normal invisibility.

Fog spells make sense, though: they are there to blind things that see invisible but not things hat don’t!

[ericgrau]

Great for flipping an old story on its head.

"Yes, highness, this armor is made with only the finest iron, carefully enchanted so that only your truly loyal subjects you will be able to see it."

Shouldn't it be the "true king" or something like that? So he can't say he can't see it?

[sleepy hedgehog]

I'd argue that since it create non-magical iron, that it wouldn't be invisible.

But if it did work.
It would also be useful for anything we use reinforced glass for, or see through plastics.
And you could mix it with other dyes. To make extremely bright colors.

Though nothing beats an invisible prismatic wall.

[Mato]

According to the wording you could summon invisible monsters.That's not what the feat says at all, like it even plainly explains lighting stuff on fire with invisible heat doesn't produce invisible fire. And there are various other rulings and explanations of how metamagic feats work with summoning effects, such as a maximized summon monster III spell does not maximize the monster's hit points or damage.

It also makes very little sense to grant a single metamagic feat special exceptions just to complain about what happens if you do so. Would you imagine trying to say empowered wall of stone should have +50% more hit points because you are unsure what is part of the spell or not but want to say the designated thickness (aka hp) is variable?

Try this as a rule of thumb. If you can throw it into an antimagic field, such as an orb of acid, the snow from a blizzard, the rock from wall of stone, the mud from mudslide, the salt from wall of salt, and so on. Then it's probably not a spell and it is not invisible. And things like polymorph technically don't even have a visual manifestation in the first place. Like there is no text saying the spell sends crackling lightning down your body or ghostly images of long dead enemies don't float up into the sky around you as you change, the spell's effect is that it changes your body. Like a log being lit with visible fire after being hit with an invisible fireball, the changed state of a target is plainly visible to everyone.

[Trandir]

That's not what the feat says at all, like it even plainly explains lighting stuff on fire with invisible heat doesn't produce invisible fire. And there are various other rulings and explanations of how metamagic feats work with summoning effects, such as a maximized summon monster III spell does not maximize the monster's hit points or damage.

It also makes very little sense to grant a single metamagic feat special exceptions just to complain about what happens if you do so. Would you imagine trying to say empowered wall of stone should have +50% more hit points because you are unsure what is part of the spell or not but want to say the designated thickness (aka hp) is variable?

Try this as a rule of thumb. If you can throw it into an antimagic field, such as an orb of acid, the snow from a blizzard, the rock from wall of stone, the mud from mudslide, the salt from wall of salt, and so on. Then it's probably not a spell and it is not invisible. And things like polymorph technically don't even have a visual manifestation in the first place. Like there is no text saying the spell sends crackling lightning down your body or ghostly images of long dead enemies don't float up into the sky around you as you change, the spell's effect is that it changes your body. Like a log being lit with visible fire after being hit with an invisible fireball, the changed state of a target is plainly visible to everyone.

Empower spell clearly states that "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half." so you obviusly can't pretend to get your walls with fixed hp more hp. But Invisible spell just says that the spell carries no visual manifestation. I do not know any rules about this metamagic feat and the only reference I can find is that feat. It's resonable to say that invisible spell is works just like you sayed but than it wouldn't work with the walls either. It all lies in what a DM intend with "visual manifestation", for me it is everything caused by the spell that one can see.

[Quertus]

Or any other spell that creates raw materials for that matter.

Invisible Spell Wall of Iron creates a large amount of, well, invisible iron. There have to be shenanigans that we can get up to with easy access to invisible raw materials. What are your most creative, entertaining, and/or useful ideas?

If I could make invisible iron, I'd make huge hamster balls out of it. Basically use it as windows.

And art. Mix visible and invisible iron, stir gently. EDIT - I've so gotta see if my Barbarian can start with a "half-visible" weapon!

[Mato]

Empower spell clearly states that "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half." so you obviusly can't pretend to get your walls with fixed hp more hp.Yes, the wall's hit points are technically a fixed value based on the walls thickness. The spell may be capable of altering the wall's thickness, but the cause-and-effect of the wall's HP is not affected by the spell. And that's exactly the point my post was trying to make.

You're trying to refute a point of rebuttal that tries to demonstrate the inappropriateness of trying affirming the consequent, and while I thank you for that.

It all lies in what a DM intend with "visual manifestation", for me it is everything caused by the spell that one can see.This inaccurate approximation is the recurring problem and further suggests my last post may not be understood.

[Segev]

This inaccurate approximation is the recurring problem and further suggests my last post may not be understood.

Given this statement, I am definitely not understanding you.

Define "visual manifestation," please?

[Trandir]

Yes, the wall's hit points are technically a fixed value based on the walls thickness. The spell may be capable of altering the wall's thickness, but the cause-and-effect of the wall's HP is not affected by the spell. And that's exactly the point my post was trying to make.
You're trying to refute a point of rebuttal that tries to demonstrate the inappropriateness of trying affirming the consequent, and while I thank you for that.


I am pretty sure that with "variable" WotC intend everything that requires a roll so the walls cant be enhanced by the feat either but that's not the point here





You're trying to refute a point of rebuttal that tries to demonstrate the inappropriateness of trying affirming the consequent, and while I thank you for that.
This inaccurate approximation is the recurring problem and further suggests my last post may not be understood.

Ok this is just a periphrasis to say nothing and used just to confuse whoever tryes to read it. Please retain yourself from showing off your incredible knowledge of the english vocabulary.
Invisible spell is a feat that works entirely on a grey area with a single example and is just confirm that the spells itself is invisible but not any collateral effects caused by it. It's every DM job to rule it and the first post was just my opinion of player on how it was intended to work.

[Crichton]

That's not what the feat says at all, like it even plainly explains lighting stuff on fire with invisible heat doesn't produce invisible fire.

This isn't nearly as clear as you try to portray it.

In the very example that you reference from the Invisible Spell feat description, all of the things the Fireball spell actually creates -a small ball of fire traveling through the air, and a 20ft burst explosion of fire- are fully invisible. The only fire that's not invisible in that example is the fire that's not directly created by the spell, but instead arises from the nonmagical combustible materials igniting, and is clearly referenced as 'nonmagical fire' in the feat description.

The spell Wall of Iron directly creates the iron in question as a result of the magic of the spell, just like the actual ball of fire and fiery explosion are directly created by the spell Fireball.

So if anything, your reference to the Fireball example from Invisible Spell is really evidence in favor of the resulting iron being invisible.




To put it another way, the feat Invisible Spell says any spell cast using its metamagic 'carries no visual manifestation' and then gives as an example of this a Fireball spell, in which both the small ball of fire flying through the air and the resulting fiery explosion are invisible for as long as they last, while secondary, nonmagical effects resulting from things they interact with are not invisible.

This shows that anything that is part of a spell's effect is included in the invisibility, but that interactions between them and other nonmagical things are not.


Translating that onto the spell effect of Wall of Iron, the iron wall itself is invisible, since it's directly created by the spell, but if someone runs into it and bonks their head, any sweat or blood from their forehead that got smeared onto the wall would not be invisible.

[Jack_Simth]

The easy ruling to work with is that the iron only remains invisible when it is part of the wall.

Nothing says the invisibility is nonmagical; I don’t know where that notion came from. So arguably any items made from it are magical items and must incorporate Invisibility into their crafting costs (perhaps just for the difficulty of working with invisible materials).


A Wall of Iron spell is an Instant Conjuration (creation) spell. Nothing in Invisible Spell changes that. So if the wall is invisible, there's no magic making it so, which means that the invisibility is not magical.

[Segev]

A Wall of Iron spell is an Instant Conjuration (creation) spell. Nothing in Invisible Spell changes that. So if the wall is invisible, there's no magic making it so, which means that the invisibility is not magical.

Can you provide citation for any indication that a metamagic effect ceases to function when the spell to which it applies ends?

As-is, just because the spell is instantaneous doesn't mean the ongoing invisibility is. If there is such a citation, then the wall becomes visible because the spell duration ends. I see no reading which requires the metamagically-induced invisibility to be non-magical; the reasoning used above, to me, seems to say that the invisibility ends because the wall is no longer an effect of the spell, since the spell is over.


Interestingly, in 2e and 1e, there was a spell called "glassteel" which, when cast on steel, made it transparent, and when cast on glass, made it as strong as steel, which would achieve much the effects that invisible wall of iron could.

[NNescio]

Interestingly, in 2e and 1e, there was a spell called "glassteel" which, when cast on steel, made it transparent, and when cast on glass, made it as strong as steel, which would achieve much the effects that invisible wall of iron could.

Well, being transparent is far less useful than being invisible.

(Unless you have a way to mess with refractive indices somehow.)

[Segev]

Well, being transparent is far less useful than being invisible.

(Unless you have a way to mess with refractive indices somehow.)

For most purposes, the two are interchangeable on a game-rule level, if only because when they aren't, you get interesting questions about whether you're really invisible, or you just look like a bundle of air.

The invisibility spell saying that being in water makes you detectable is telling, as is the presence in some obscure book (I forget where I saw it) of a spell called "invisibility under water" or something like that, which expressly doesn't give away the tell-tale outline when you're wholly immersed, but has a watery form visible if you cast it out of the water.

But genuine invisibility would probably not care about the medium you're in, and, at most, would interrupt boundaries between media.

[Heliomance]

Can you provide citation for any indication that a metamagic effect ceases to function when the spell to which it applies ends?

As-is, just because the spell is instantaneous doesn't mean the ongoing invisibility is. If there is such a citation, then the wall becomes visible because the spell duration ends. I see no reading which requires the metamagically-induced invisibility to be non-magical; the reasoning used above, to me, seems to say that the invisibility ends because the wall is no longer an effect of the spell, since the spell is over.


Interestingly, in 2e and 1e, there was a spell called "glassteel" which, when cast on steel, made it transparent, and when cast on glass, made it as strong as steel, which would achieve much the effects that invisible wall of iron could.

The invisibility is not an ongoing effect, the spell simply fails to have any visible manifestation. It creates iron that can't be seen, not iron that is under the effect of Invisibility.

Interestingly, I think technically Invisible Invisibility would do nothing, as turning you invisible is a visible manifestation and thus would not occur.

[Segev]

The invisibility is not an ongoing effect, the spell simply fails to have any visible manifestation. It creates iron that can't be seen, not iron that is under the effect of Invisibility.

Interestingly, I think technically Invisible Invisibility would do nothing, as turning you invisible is a visible manifestation and thus would not occur.

One way to argue the above wording is that the conjuration of the iron has no visible manifestation. The wall itself, being a nonmagical consequence of the spell, would be perfectly visible, but nobody could see it appear. Which is good for semi-spooky effects: cast Invisible wall of iron, and it only comes into view for individual targets when they look away and look back, or blink, or the like.

[Mato]

This isn't nearly as clear as you try to portray it.I know it's a little hard to understand. But you did just try to say an invisible evocation[fire] spell that creates and instantaneously removes an invisible wave of energy that then leaves behind visible nonmagical chemical reactions should be all the proof I need that an invisible conjuration(creation) spell that invisibly creates that then leaves behind a nonmagical permanent source of matter should be invisible. :smallwink:

Ok ok, wordplay aside. We're dealing with abstractions and I'm trying to point out how the differences between the assumptions of them vs how the rules use them creates problems. To arrive at the correct solution, you have to be able to observe the differences in direct and indirect effects and learn how to separate them so you can identify where the spell's sphere of influence ends. And even more importantly, understand that the functional outcome, or cause-and-effect, cannot change the properties of otherthings outside of their scope without an illogical fallacy being made.

So for a hyperboled example, shooting a fireball at a creature with -8 hp does not make fireball a [death] effect or make fireball a save-or-die. It is and will remain a spell that deals damage. And this goes for every spell. Like major creation is not an [earth] spell because you choose to create shiny rocks nor can you claim it's a poisonous spell that violates certain exalted oaths because it's possible to create the venom of a snake while using it. To make usage of another old example we can just use metamagic effects & summoning in general. The official FAQ has an entry, which outranks any negative comment anyone on here could ever make, that enforces the idea that D&D's spells operate logically. A maximized summon monster II can alter the number of creatures summoning when using SMI's list but it cannot affect any outcome of wanting to roll the creature's hit point total. To put it into a more relevant example drawn from precedence and understanding, an invisible summon monster spell does not produce invisible creatures and there is no valid debate otherwise. And this can be contextually & logically explained as invisible spell affects the spell's properties, but not the creature's characteristics such as appearance and visibility.

Continuing on you can say part of fireball's effect is setting things on fire, it's even in the description. But the feat's example with an invisible fireball, "any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire." really makes you split hairs. While logic/FAQ says the metamagic effects on a conjuration spell shouldn't affect the properties of produced outcomes, this feat is internally defining how to read "the fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." So maybe when you resolve fireball's instantaneous duration everything burning from invisible fire is being burned by visible fire or maybe an invisible fireball never burns anything. Maybe a fireball is less fire and more heat so all fire is cause-and-effect and that's why it's visible. To be honest, it doesn't really matter whatever headcannon theory you want to build, so long as it continues to operate in the rules specified way that the effects of the spell, which is different than the spell's effects, remain remain visible. But you cannot do that or refine your ideas about this subject until your overcome the bias of your current explanation and return to what the rules say instead of what you think they should mean.

[Trandir]

Ok the FAQ are indeed an interesting reading but here is the answer you are quoting every time: "The metamagic effect applies only to the specific rules of the spell itself -- the spell’s range, its casting time, the variable number of creatures summoned, and so forth -- not to the monsters it brings."
Now assuming that this is applicable also on every spell and not just the summoning ones then no spell is invisible right?

[NNescio]

The invisibility is not an ongoing effect, the spell simply fails to have any visible manifestation. It creates iron that can't be seen, not iron that is under the effect of Invisibility.

Interestingly, I think technically Invisible Invisibility would do nothing, as turning you invisible is a visible manifestation and thus would not occur.

It's for screwing around people with True Sight (and See Invisible/Detect Magic), due to Invisible Spell's detailing its specific interaction with True Sight which trumps over TS's general interactions with illusions:


Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell...

The visual manifestation which typically accompany the Invisibility spell is being invisible.

(Granted, it is also possible to argue that the visual manifestation is "being invisible that can be seen through by True Sight [and Detect Magic and See Invisible]", but this is reaching a bit further.)

[Crichton]

I know it's a little hard to understand. But you did just try to say an invisible evocation[fire] spell that creates and instantaneously removes an invisible wave of energy that then leaves behind visible nonmagical chemical reactions should be all the proof I need that an invisible conjuration(creation) spell that invisibly creates that then leaves behind a nonmagical permanent source of matter should be invisible. :smallwink:

Ok ok, wordplay aside. We're dealing with abstractions and I'm trying to point out how the differences between the assumptions of them vs how the rules use them creates problems. To arrive at the correct solution, you have to be able to observe the differences in direct and indirect effects and learn how to separate them so you can identify where the spell's sphere of influence ends. And even more importantly, understand that the functional outcome, or cause-and-effect, cannot change the properties of otherthings outside of their scope without an illogical fallacy being made.

So for a hyperboled example, shooting a fireball at a creature with -8 hp does not make fireball a [death] effect or make fireball a save-or-die. It is and will remain a spell that deals damage. And this goes for every spell. Like major creation is not an [earth] spell because you choose to create shiny rocks nor can you claim it's a poisonous spell that violates certain exalted oaths because it's possible to create the venom of a snake while using it. To make usage of another old example we can just use metamagic effects & summoning in general. The official FAQ has an entry, which outranks any negative comment anyone on here could ever make, that enforces the idea that D&D's spells operate logically. A maximized summon monster II can alter the number of creatures summoning when using SMI's list but it cannot affect any outcome of wanting to roll the creature's hit point total. To put it into a more relevant example drawn from precedence and understanding, an invisible summon monster spell does not produce invisible creatures and there is no valid debate otherwise. And this can be contextually & logically explained as invisible spell affects the spell's properties, but not the creature's characteristics such as appearance and visibility.

Continuing on you can say part of fireball's effect is setting things on fire, it's even in the description. But the feat's example with an invisible fireball, "any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire." really makes you split hairs. While logic/FAQ says the metamagic effects on a conjuration spell shouldn't affect the properties of produced outcomes, this feat is internally defining how to read "the fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." So maybe when you resolve fireball's instantaneous duration everything burning from invisible fire is being burned by visible fire or maybe an invisible fireball never burns anything. Maybe a fireball is less fire and more heat so all fire is cause-and-effect and that's why it's visible. To be honest, it doesn't really matter whatever headcannon theory you want to build, so long as it continues to operate in the rules specified way that the effects of the spell, which is different than the spell's effects, remain remain visible. But you cannot do that or refine your ideas about this subject until your overcome the bias of your current explanation and return to what the rules say instead of what you think they should mean.

I think Trandir was right. Periphrasis indeed. For a post talking about overcoming biases and assumptions and returning to what the rules say, I'm seeing a lot of assumptions and biases, and not a lot of looking at actual rules text.


To be somewhat brief:

Your Summon Monster example doesn't apply, since the spell doesn't create the summoned monsters, as such they aren't part of the visual manifestation of the spell. It merely summons them from their extraplanar origins.

No idea what your point was about changing spell descriptors based on the outcome of casting them. No one's talking about Invisible Spell changing the Descriptor on any spell it's applied to.

I'm not sure how you can call it 'splitting hairs' to describe the difference between the fire that's actually created as part of the Fireball spell, and the regular, nonmagical fire that results from regular, nonmagical materials being ignited and continuing to burn after the ignition source (the magical fire) has been removed. That's exactly what Fireball says it does, and it's exactly what's referenced in Invisible Spell as an example of what counts as a visual manifestation and what doesn't. All it's saying is that the invisibility effect doesn't extend to things that already exist that the spell effect interacts with.

As written, 'visual manifestation' is an ambiguous term (unless you can do as others have requested and find a rules-text definition for the term), so we're left with the feat's own example to draw clarity on what it applies to and what it doesn't. That example shows that whatever is directly created by the spell is rendered invisible. Is it silly and exploitable? Yes. Should the feat have been worded more clearly? Yes. Is it consistent with the text of the feat itself? Also yes.

[phlidwsn]

So the BBEG can live in a glass house and throw stones.

Edit: I suppose Riverine would work for this as well.

[Jack_Simth]

Can you provide citation for any indication that a metamagic effect ceases to function when the spell to which it applies ends?
I'm curious why you'd think I'd need to do so.


As-is, just because the spell is instantaneous doesn't mean the ongoing invisibility is. If there is such a citation, then the wall becomes visible because the spell duration ends. I see no reading which requires the metamagically-induced invisibility to be non-magical; the reasoning used above, to me, seems to say that the invisibility ends because the wall is no longer an effect of the spell, since the spell is over.
The actual text of the feat in question:

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. 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, 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. Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell: A spell modified using the Invisible Spell feat uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level.

You'll notice it doesn't actually say it turns the effect invisible, nor does it actually reference the Invisibility spell. It just "carries no visual manifestation".

If the wall being seen is considered to be part of the visual manifestation of the spell, then the resulting iron can't be seen by normal means.
If the wall being seen isn't considered to be part of the visual manifestation of the spell, then the resulting iron can be seen by normal means.

For the purposes of this discussion, I've been going by the OP's interpretation, as the question is what would one do with invisible materials, rather than examine the presupposition. I'm not going to evaluate the underlying premise, as it's irrelevant - the OP's DM has already decided which way it goes.

So if it does work, then nothing about the feat changes the duration of the spell - explicitly, even - and feats themselves default to Ex, so that invisibility (not actual invisibility, just a complete lack of visual manifestation, although the difference is mostly academic) is nonmagical.

[Psyren]

+1 to whoever is saying "the spell carries no visual manifestation" doesn't mean "the nonmagical iron wall is transparent forever."

[Mr Adventurer]

Yeah, like, you can't have it both ways - either the iron is part of the spell's magic, and can be dispelled, or, the only magical part of the spell is the act of creation itself, not the result of that creation.

[Quertus]

For most purposes, the two are interchangeable on a game-rule level, if only because when they aren't, you get interesting questions about whether you're really invisible, or you just look like a bundle of air.

The invisibility spell saying that being in water makes you detectable is telling, as is the presence in some obscure book (I forget where I saw it) of a spell called "invisibility under water" or something like that, which expressly doesn't give away the tell-tale outline when you're wholly immersed, but has a watery form visible if you cast it out of the water.

But genuine invisibility would probably not care about the medium you're in, and, at most, would interrupt boundaries between media.

Eh, I would call that being "genuinely" invisible, whereas I would call being unseen in air or water "advanced camouflage".


Yeah, like, you can't have it both ways - either the iron is part of the spell's magic, and can be dispelled, or, the only magical part of the spell is the act of creation itself, not the result of that creation.

Why not? The Wall is made of Dark Matter Iron, which does not interact with light. Is Invisible, only magic is in the act of creation, invisibility isn't dispelled, Boom! Done.

[Mr Adventurer]

Why not? The Wall is made of Dark Matter Iron, which does not interact with light. Is Invisible, only magic is in the act of creation, invisibility isn't dispelled, Boom! Done.

1. I don't see how your comment intersects with what I said at all. I'm referring to the game rules, while you... I dunno, are trying to refer to modern physics for some reason?

2. Dark matter actually doesn't interact with regular matter at all (or hardly at all), AIUI, so the wall would do nothing anyway.

3. Even accepting your premise, you are ignoring the subject of the discussion - the Invisible Spell feat - to instead propose an alternate method for making invisible matter with spells. This seems like a non-sequitur.

4. What about the way the spell is written suggests that dark matter versions is a choice you get to make?

[Quertus]

1. I don't see how your comment intersects with what I said at all. I'm referring to the game rules, while you... I dunno, are trying to refer to modern physics for some reason?

2. Dark matter actually doesn't interact with regular matter at all (or hardly at all), AIUI, so the wall would do nothing anyway.

3. Even accepting your premise, you are ignoring the subject of the discussion - the Invisible Spell feat - to instead propose an alternate method for making invisible matter with spells. This seems like a non-sequitur.

4. What the way the spell is written suggests that dark matter versions is a choice you get to make?

In the absence of a defined *mechanic* for *how* the feat makes the visual effects invisible, I was proposing an alternate implementation ("all visible effects are replaced with Dark Matter substitutes") that works with the OP, would produce an invisible wall, that was permanently invisible, and not affected by Dispel Magic.

In other words, you absolutely *can* have it both ways - saying otherwise is indicative of either a lack of imagination, or making assumptions about how the metamagic operates. I was demonstrating how a different outlook can lead to different conclusions than you made.

[Mr Adventurer]

In the absence of a defined *mechanic* for *how* the feat makes the visual effects invisible, I was proposing an alternate implementation ("all visible effects are replaced with Dark Matter substitutes") that works with the OP, would produce an invisible wall, that was permanently invisible, and not affected by Dispel Magic.

In other words, you absolutely *can* have it both ways - saying otherwise is indicative of either a lack of imagination, or making assumptions about how the metamagic operates. I was demonstrating how a different outlook can lead to different conclusions than you made.

The mechanic is that the application of the metamagic feat makes the visual effects of the spell invisible. So, I'm afraid you've lost me at the first hurdle. It seems like you are conflating "how the rules work" with "how the physics operates", which is a category error, to start with. I mean, I'd also suggest that's a general error, since modern physics isn't really relevant to D&D, but I recognise that's probably more about my own preferences.

And, sure, if you want to just house rule stuff, then you can do whatever you want. Nobody's going to stop you. I didn't think we needed to spell out that this wasn't really about that.

But dude, by implying I lack imagination you have made this unnecessarily snarky. I'll not return to this thread if you're going to be throwing around thinly-veiled insults.

[Heliomance]

The mechanic is that the application of the metamagic feat makes the visual effects of the spell invisible. So, I'm afraid you've lost me at the first hurdle. It seems like you are conflating "how the rules work" with "how the physics operates", which is a category error, to start with. I mean, I'd also suggest that's a general error, since modern physics isn't really relevant to D&D, but I recognise that's probably more about my own preferences.

And, sure, if you want to just house rule stuff, then you can do whatever you want. Nobody's going to stop you. I didn't think we needed to spell out that this wasn't really about that.

But dude, by implying I lack imagination you have made this unnecessarily snarky. I'll not return to this thread if you're going to be throwing around thinly-veiled insults.

If you rule that "the visual effects of the spell" are "there is a massive lump of iron where there was not a massive lump of iron moments ago", which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, then it logically follows that the massive lump of iron must be invisible.

As a DM, I would look askance at any player trying to abuse this, as I would any player trying to abuse any piece of RAW silliness. I am firmly convinced, however, that it is indeed RAW silliness, and thus perfectly reasonable to make a fun thread about.

Arguing about whether or not Invisible Spell Works Like That is not my idea of a fun thread. That is not why I created it. I created it to see the Playground through around wacky ideas and daft munchkinry, as it is so good at doing. So, can we drop the debate about whether Invisible Spell works like that or not please?

Assuming that Invisible Spell applied to instantaneous [Creation] spells does in fact create invisible matter, what are the best (by which I mean most entertaining) uses you can think of for this?

[Mato]

I think Trandir was right. Periphrasis indeed. For a post talking about overcoming biases and assumptions and returning to what the rules say, I'm seeing a lot of assumptions and biases, and not a lot of looking at actual rules text.Have you considered trying to talk about the rules then?

To be somewhat brief, Trandir tried to quote out of context with personally applied emphasis in order to assume that the FAQ said maximize spell only applies to the header but not to the description. Then with this he used it as an ad hominem attack to set forth the FAQ entry that helps clarify a matter everyone is complaining about being to ambiguous should not apply. But it does and I feel you both know this, hence why you both are attacking it.

And due to your assumption that my entire post was based on that, you think you're right. You are completely blind that it was just an official example of precedence and proof of D&D's adherence to what is, or isn't, part of a magical spell. You also completely missed an invisible fireball's outcome is that produces "visible effects" according to the feat. All well, I can at least say I made an attempt.

[Psyren]

For most purposes, the two are interchangeable on a game-rule level, if only because when they aren't, you get interesting questions about whether you're really invisible, or you just look like a bundle of air.

The invisibility spell saying that being in water makes you detectable is telling, as is the presence in some obscure book (I forget where I saw it) of a spell called "invisibility under water" or something like that, which expressly doesn't give away the tell-tale outline when you're wholly immersed, but has a watery form visible if you cast it out of the water.

But genuine invisibility would probably not care about the medium you're in, and, at most, would interrupt boundaries between media.

I'd definitely say the medium matters to your detectability, otherwise the "bag of flour" counter to invisibility probably wouldn't function the same way, if at all. In both instances, you're detectable due to your movement through a perceivable fluid.

[Mato]

Interestingly, in 2e and 1e, there was a spell called "glassteel" which, when cast on steel, made it transparent, and when cast on glass, made it as strong as steel, which would achieve much the effects that invisible wall of iron could.
Well, being transparent is far less useful than being invisible.
(Unless you have a way to mess with refractive indices somehow.)
For most purposes, the two are interchangeable on a game-rule level, if only because when they aren't, you get interesting questions about whether you're really invisible, or you just look like a bundle of air.
The invisibility spell saying that being in water makes you detectable is telling, as is the presence in some obscure book (I forget where I saw it) of a spell called "invisibility under water" or something like that, which expressly doesn't give away the tell-tale outline when you're wholly immersed, but has a watery form visible if you cast it out of the water.
But genuine invisibility would probably not care about the medium you're in, and, at most, would interrupt boundaries between media.
I'd definitely say the medium matters to your detectability, otherwise the "bag of flour" counter to invisibility probably wouldn't function the same way, if at all. In both instances, you're detectable due to your movement through a perceivable fluid.While it is hard to imagine exactly how you are invisible, everyone knows you can use a spot check to pinpoint an invisible non-moving object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot) and creatures are easier right?

[Segev]

Assuming that Invisible Spell applied to instantaneous [Creation] spells does in fact create invisible matter, what are the best (by which I mean most entertaining) uses you can think of for this?Fair enough. Under that assumption...

Use the rules for creating it in a way that is easily tipped over to deny targets reaction, because they don't know it's coming.
Loony Toons-style "slam into the painting of a tunnel" shenanigans, though with the twist that the tunnel is there, but there's a wall in front of it. Use with ironguard for maximum entertainment value.
Pretend to be an Elocator by walking on top of a foot-thick one.
High-quality picture-windows for your castle.
Fill a room with a maze that has to be felt out, even though you can see all the way across the room.
Combine with illusory wall for apparent clipping errors in reality.
Build over a standard waist-high fence for the "waist-high invisible wall" effect.
Secret bridge over a moat, chasm, gorge, or other defensive barrier.
Layered murals: cast one, paint a layer, then cast another right in front of it, and paint another layer. Get semi-3D effects, like a lot of stageplays do with layered panel-scenery.
Bold architectural design: make a balcony out of invisible iron wall, and drape a carpet over it for an apparently floating carpet.
Obvious pit that fills a corridor or room, spikes or other nasty things below. Most of the room or hall is floored with invisible iron walls. The pit traps are just sections where there's no invisible iron to walk on.
Hogwarts's dining hall ceiling.



I'd definitely say the medium matters to your detectability, otherwise the "bag of flour" counter to invisibility probably wouldn't function the same way, if at all. In both instances, you're detectable due to your movement through a perceivable fluid.
No, the flour thing works just fine even if you're "filled in" by the appropriate medium. Unless you're actually immersed in flour to the point that it is the medium, itself.

To illustrate, a "truly invisible" creature per my thesis on having the medium be irrelevant could be half-immersed in water and would seem to have the water surface just fine. But any time he raised his arm out of it, he'd have water visibly drip off of it, and any air bubbles clinging to him when he brought his arm below would visibly do that.

But if he were still, you couldn't see a "hole" in the water where he is, nor a water-creature-outline in the air where he is. And if he goes under water, you'd see the splash of displaced water, but he'd be invisible below it. If he climbed out, you'd see the splashes and the water dripping off, but he'd quickly become invisible again, too.

Throw flour on him, and there's flour sticking to a humanoid form.

[Bphill561]

If reusing the metal, invisible caltrops would be mean. Like those legos you always find on the floor by stepping on them, but worse.

Likewise, maybe making a lich's phylatery out of the invisible material. Iron might not be the best material, but you could repeat the process with true creation for a similar effect.

An invisible wall of eyes could be fun. Especially if you just want it to spy on a location from afar.

Maybe make an apparatus of kaliwash (ouch spelling) clear for your under water adventures.

[Zaq]

Shape the iron into a wagon, then turn the wagon into an animated object.

[Heliomance]

Shape the iron into a wagon, then turn the wagon into an animated object.

No no no. Shape it into a door first so you can attach a Disc of Silent Portal

[Zaq]

No no no. Shape it into a door first so you can attach a Disc of Silent Portal

Shades of Rood the Doorforged...

[Malphegor]

If I could make invisible iron, I'd make huge hamster balls out of it. Basically use it as windows.

And art. Mix visible and invisible iron, stir gently. EDIT - I've so gotta see if my Barbarian can start with a "half-visible" weapon!

... damn, I really want to 'invent' zorb balls as a spell because of this. some kind of variant of resilient sphere, perhaps.

[Jack_Simth]

... damn, I really want to 'invent' zorb balls as a spell because of this. some kind of variant of resilient sphere, perhaps.

Telekinetic Sphere has been around for quite some time. The trick is shooting through it. You need something like the Burrowing Power metapsionic feat.

[Akkristor]

Best use of Invisible Spell Wall of Iron:

REALLY confusing a Mime.