Permanent Invis on weapon

[MobiusKlein]

Looking over the rules on the Permanency spell, I saw the option for making an object permanently invisible.
This lead me to wonder what effect would be reasonable to apply in combat.

1) +4 circumstance bonus to feignt / sleight of hand?
2) +1 circumstance bonus to attack?
3) Not giving any automatic sneak attack effect to Rogues.
4) Spot checks to notice a person holding their hands oddly when wielding it.

5) would a Returning Dagger be able to be caught by the thrower if he did not see invisible.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Invisible weapons, I've used before. You'd probably get to negate an opponent's dexterity bonus to AC plus get a +4 bonus from being an invisible attacker-but only on the first attack. Invisibility breaks on attacking, you know-and this does not change if you make it permanent.

A better deal would be to glammer a greatsword to look like a dagger. Less bonuses-but they'd work on every attack.

[Azerian Kelimon]

If the invis is greater, it doesn't break. Hence, it gets seriously broken.

[Techonce]

I'd say that any bonus you get to attacking would quickly get offset by your penalties.

It would hard to be as effective if even you don't know where the end of your weapon is. You might have some bonus, but it would be awful inconvienent.

Getting disarmed would ruin your day.

You wouldn't get much bonus on feint. THey wouldn't know you are feinting.

As for catching the returning dagger... heck no!

[Deuce]

I would guess that True Sight from a spell or other item would make this trick a whole lot more useful.

Oh, and in honor of Adam Smith, I propose we name this weapon "The Market".

[MobiusKlein]

... You'd probably get to negate an opponent's dexterity bonus to AC plus get a +4 bonus from being an invisible attacker-but only on the first attack. ...

The advantage should be less than the attacker being invisible. The defender would still be able to see the attacker's arms, so would have some idea of the timing and placement of the attack.

It certainly would help to set up a surprise attack, but no different than an unarmed attack on surprise round.

For the feint; feint is more than just fancy weapon tricks. It's about confusing the defender sufficiently that they are exposed. Not knowing where the blade comes from certainly would help.

[Hawgh]

logically*, it wouldn't function too well beyond the first attack, since your sword would be covered in blood, dust and whatnot.







*"logically" is used instead of "this is what I believe", since it has a much nicer ring to it.
The ringing was somewhat offset by that explanation though

[Aquillion]

Invisible weapons, I've used before. You'd probably get to negate an opponent's dexterity bonus to AC plus get a +4 bonus from being an invisible attacker-but only on the first attack. Invisibility breaks on attacking, you know-and this does not change if you make it permanent.

Not so. The invisibility breaks if the subject attacks, not if they are used to attack. As long as you're the one making the attack roll and not the sword, its invisibility will never break.

[Icewalker]

Oh good old wording loopholes.


Yeah, if you can't see your weapon, it causes problems. Although it is certainly different on some level, I fence, and I know if I couldn't see my foil in a bout it would come out pretty even.

So probably...minus to hit, but they lose dodge to AC, no sneak attacks with it ever, you can surprise people who don't think you have a weapon, if you get disarmed you lose. Maybe some other minor effects as well.

[Techonce]

logically*, it wouldn't function too well beyond the first attack, since your sword would be covered in blood, dust and whatnot.

Yeah. In a recent combat between the my PC's and an invisible creature, it's invisibility becamce a bit less of an issue once the PC's managed to put a few bolts in to the other creature.

THey still had to roll the 50% for concealment, but guessing which square the creature was in became easier once they could aim for the bolts and throwing axes. I gave them a decent DC for the bolts, since they are a bit small, but the axes were easier to spot.

[Blanks]

logically*, it wouldn't function too well beyond the first attack, since your sword would be covered in blood, dust and whatnot.

I am much more familiar with 2E but im guessing they kept this rule:
When you are invisible anything you pick up turns invisible. This avoids players having to run around naked to be invisible (thank god for that rule!).
The blood on the sword turns invisible. The blood turns visible again if it drips of the blade (spooky )

[Not Dice]

I'm not so sure that not being able to see your weapon would cause any level of detriment in combat. For many things that require manual dexterity, visual cues and hand-eye coordination are unnecessary. Playing a musical instrument, dribbling a basketball or operating a manual transmission are examples of things done regularly without visual aid. And, in all cases, putting one's eyes on their work would actually diminish their ability to perform the action since their attention has to be on other things at the time (music sheet, other players, and the road respectively).

The same is true for fighting, at least in my experience. If you take boxing or some form of martial arts, or even if you're the scrappy type and you've had some scuffles, you know that you keep your eyes on your opponent, not on your fists. Doubly true if you are on the ground in a grappling situation. If you're in a grapple, you operate almost entirely by sense of touch.

[Jack Zander]

I am much more familiar with 2E but im guessing they kept this rule:
When you are invisible anything you pick up turns invisible. This avoids players having to run around naked to be invisible (thank god for that rule!).
The blood on the sword turns invisible. The blood turns visible again if it drips of the blade (spooky )

Nope. anything you are holding or wearing, etc. turns invisible when you do. Anything you pick up is not invisible, but if you conceal it it becomes invisible (until you draw the item).