Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
-
2005-11-18, 11:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Richardson, Texas
- Gender
Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
I was wanting a meta-magic feat that would make a spell have no visual results. So, and Invisible Fireball, would melt everyone's skin, and cause combustables to burst into flame, but you would not be able to see why. Just pain and spntanious combustion. What kind of an ajustment would that be? I was thinking +1 level or +0 level as there is very little advantage, besides causing general confusion and mayhem. Also, can you think of any major advantage this would give that I missed?
"I'll give you a 10 second head start; if I catch you, I eat you."
-
2005-11-18, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- RIT
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
an invisible Prismatic Wall would be pretty dangerous.
The penalty good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by worse men than themselves. -- Plato
-
2005-11-18, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
You would still be required to use all verbal, somatic and material components when casting the spell?
If that is the case, then I agree that it should not be more than +1. Not that I have compared too much, but I reckon a +1 should do it, as it would be some distinct advantages to it, but it's not really that powerful.
The main advantage would be against spellcasters without ranks in spellcraft (low int sorcerers or divine spellcasters would be the most likely candidates).
-
2005-11-18, 11:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Perhaps limit it to "instantaneous" spells? (though occured after reading anime713's post)
-
2005-11-18, 01:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Newfoundland
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
I like it. Obviously, though, there are some spells that it won't work with. That's the only downside. Invisible spell + illusion is completely useless. In fact, the only schools that are going to get really good use out of it are conjuration, evocation, and necromancy.
So I'd say that a +1 spell slot is appropriate.
-
2005-11-18, 01:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Richardson, Texas
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Thanks, I would have to look into the wall effect, and obviously add in that Conjuration (Creation) spells are unneffected.
"I'll give you a 10 second head start; if I catch you, I eat you."
-
2005-11-18, 01:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Flo-ri-dah
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Limiting it to instantaneous would do well. I can see how this would be valuble to "Boom" wizards. If a certain party of adventurers is well know for having their enemies eplode a lot, eventually the Powers That Be will order troops to kill the wizard first... but if the wizard can cast spells without a bunch of brightly colored missles drawing a line between him and the enemy, the opposing force might have a hard time focusing their fire on the heavyn artillery.
-
2005-11-18, 01:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Richardson, Texas
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Yes, I was thinking that warmages in particular would benifit from this feat, as without all the magic projectiles flying from them, they look very much like any other fighting soldier.
"I'll give you a 10 second head start; if I catch you, I eat you."
-
2005-11-18, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
I would definitely think about making it either instantaneous-only or abjuration/evocation only. Or, since it's a house-rule feat anyway, just make your players check it with you before they apply it to any given spell. Things like Summon Monster would be really bad with this.
Alternately, just make an "Invisible Evocation" feat with a +1 adjust, and a more generic "Invisible Spell" feat with a higher one (+3?). If only because I like the idea of a mad wizard making invisible mazes.
For the sake of flavor, also think about making Invisibility or even Greater Invis. a prerequisite to take the feat."'To know, to do, and to keep silent.' Crowley had the first two down pat."
-
2005-11-18, 01:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Richardson, Texas
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Good point, actually this is starting to sound less and less like an actual metamagic feat and more of a specific spell aiding feat (like augment Summoning). I could change it to...
Invisible Evocation (General)
Prerequisits (sp): Spell Focus (Evocation)
Benefit: With this feat, any damaging Evocation spell you cast with an Instantanous durations gives off no visible emmision. You are still required to complete all Material, Verbal, Somatic, Xp, and Focus components of the spell, but the spell effect itself is invisible. For example, and Invisible fireball would deal normal fire damage, to all in the radius, but not create any visible fire.
Normal: Without this feat, your spells dazzle as well as damage opponents."I'll give you a 10 second head start; if I catch you, I eat you."
-
2005-11-18, 02:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- Nova Scotia, Canada
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
I like the idea of the invisibility spell being a prereq, but what about the Shape Spell feat. It deals with a visual effect as does, more or less, the Invisible Spell feat. I know some feats even require "Specified feat" + "any other metamagic feat". The same could be applied here so that the +1 adjustment would be ok.
Vulneratus, Non Victus
-
2005-11-18, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Richardson, Texas
- Gender
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
Yes, but the shape Spell feat allows you to avoid blasting your teammates, a distinct tactical advantage. This one doesn't change the spell mechanics much, is very specific, and has limited use, so thats why it seemed harsh to dole out a level penalty. Also, if I were playing a wizard, I would much rather pull down Still Spell to be able to cast in armor than spend my Spell Levels hiding my fireballs.
"I'll give you a 10 second head start; if I catch you, I eat you."
-
2005-11-18, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Virtual Austin
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
My first instinct would also be a +1 level adjustment.
There are cases when this is feat would give a distinct advantage. So it shouldn't be +0.
-
2005-11-18, 04:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
If the spell is invisible, shouldn't the DC on reflex saves be higher?
-
2005-11-18, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Anchorage AK
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
If the spell is invisible, shouldn't the DC on reflex saves be higher?
-
2005-11-18, 09:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
How would you even dodge something you can't see? At the least you would be flat footed, so imagine if an arcane trickster got a hold of this...
'You mean I can deal +5d6 extra damage or so with all of my targetted spells for just one spell level higher?'
I think we can see who would take that.
-
2005-11-18, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Anchorage AK
Re: Invisible Spell Meta-magic Feat
I think a spell like this should be boosted 3 levels.