How do you rule on invisible weapons?

[szilard]

I've been thinking about this.

My conclusion: an invisible weapon allows you to make a Feint as a free action with a +4 on the Bluff check.

Why? Two reasons:

1) It makes sense.
2) It neatly reduces to being very similar to the mechanics in Complete Scoundrel.

-Stuart

 

[KarinsDad]

I've been thinking about this.

My conclusion: an invisible weapon allows you to make a Feint as a free action with a +4 on the Bluff check.

Why? Two reasons:

1) It makes sense.
2) It neatly reduces to being very similar to the mechanics in Complete Scoundrel.

So, an Invisible weapon is good for Rogue types, but not for Combatant types?

Hmmmm.

 

[szilard]

So, an Invisible weapon is good for Rogue types, but not for Combatant types?

Hmmmm.

Well, better for Rogue types, anyway... as it should be.

Still, the Fighter isn't going to complain when his opponent loses his Dex bonus to AC.

-Stuart

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, better for Rogue types, anyway... as it should be.

And the reason for that would be???

Still, the Fighter isn't going to complain when his opponent loses his Dex bonus to AC.

This will rarely happen.

Fighters tend to not have good Bluff skills and his opponent gets to add his Sense Motive AND his BAB to avoid the Feint.


Your system here is not well designed since it gives a major advantage to Rogues (which they currently do not get), and does nothing for most any other class. At +4, it is practically auto-Feint and auto-Sneak Attack for Rogues against many types of opponents (especially spell casters) and since you made it a Free Action, you also allowed Rogues to Feign more than once per round. That's way out of balance.


An Invisible weapon should be more or less equally beneficial to many classes, not a run away benefit for Rogues and virtually nothing for other classes. That's not game balance, that's a poor game mechanic design.

 

[Korvax]

Seeing as this is the invisibility spell, and not "greater invisibility", wouldn't the weapon become visible after any strike?

I interpret the permanency spell as changing the duration to "permanent". This would not change the spell description which states that the target is visible after making an attack. The advantage is that your weapon could stay invisible for a very long time if you don't use it (ie: need to smuggle it inside a "no-weapons-allowed" spot? no problem!). Effectively you would lose the 1min/caster level limitation.

I might be convinced to allow the weapon to regain it's invisibility 1 day later, to get a little more mileage out of the xp spent, but I wouldn't allow it to derail magic weaponry in the world.

 

[Raduin711]

I'm basing that idea on the fact that it is the rules.

Nothing in the Invisibility spell explicitly states that the creature sees himself.

Hence, he does not.

The Invisibility spell states that a creature is Invisible. Hence, he is Invisible to everyone (including himself) unless someone (again, including himself) has a way to see him.

For your assumption to be true, the rules do not have to state that he explicitly cannot see himself, they have to state that he explicitly can see himself. The reason is that the rules already state that if he is Invisible, he cannot be seen. That is the default rule. Hence, the burden of rules proof is on someone who claims (like yourself) that he can see himself.

I agree with Karinsdad, and his original post was the most insightful.

I tend to agree with the idea that in a melee fight, a fighter wouldn't be terribly hampered by an invisible weapon. I think the concept that "this sword is just an extention of me..." is more than a cliche'.

In baseball, do you look at your bat when you swing? Same concept. Keep your eye on the ball. Focus on your target.

Also consider that when you watch chinese martial arts you may notice some of the weapons have rather elaborate tassels attatched to the spears. This is designed to distract their opponent (who IS looking at their weapon); yet, because of their training with their own weapon, they do not distract themselves. Again, they don't look at their own weapon, they look at their opponent's.

So what kind of bonus should be given? Well, IIRC, and I don't have my PHB at hand, being invisible gives you a +2 to your hit. Having just your weapon be invisible isn't nearly as good as that, so halve it, or deny dex bonuses, or both, whatever works balance-wise...
I don't know if this qualifies as proof,

 

[Kmart Kommando]

I have seen people doing weapon katas flip a bo staff in the air behind their back, have it spin a dozen times, and catch it again, all without looking back to see where it is going. So how hard would it be to take said stick and poke it at someone without looking at it?