How do you rule on invisible weapons?

[Len]

Why would it be harder to swing the weapon? An invisible weapon is no heavier than a normal one, and you don't look at it while you're fighting.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why would it be harder to swing the weapon? An invisible weapon is no heavier than a normal one, and you don't look at it while you're fighting.

It has nothing to do with weight. It has to do with sight. How do you know how long the blade is w/o looking at it? How do you know how much thrust you need?

It's like the old saying, "I know this weapon like the back of my hand." But do you really? You might know the blade is 3 feet long, but could you estimate 3 feet just by eyeballing it in the middle of combat, where people are dodging, weaving, feinting and swinging? How do you know you if you are an inch or two off one way or the other?

 

[KarinsDad]

It has nothing to do with weight. It has to do with sight. How do you know how long the blade is w/o looking at it? How do you know how much thrust you need?

It's like the old saying, "I know this weapon like the back of my hand." But do you really?

Yes.

Seriously, the wielder of said weapon would be a lot more cognizant of its abilities than a target of said weapon.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, if that weapon is a throwing weapon, and is thrown at a foe, they should only get a listen check, and if fail, then it just hits them as if they were flatfooted, if they hear it, then they get a reflex save to try and move but with a high difficulty, but that depends on you. I mean, somethings might move to fast for the player to hear it, let alone react to what they've heard.

A Listen check for what? The weapon moving through the air??? The rustle of the clothing of the attacker throwing it? In a (typically) noisy combat?

I would think a Spot check (of the attacker's throwing motion combined with an estimate of target area) might be a lot more appropriate than a Listen check.

Unlike within the movies, thrown aerodynamic weapons do not really make any noise that a human can detect.

 

[szilard]

It's like the old saying, "I know this weapon like the back of my hand." But do you really? You might know the blade is 3 feet long, but could you estimate 3 feet just by eyeballing it in the middle of combat, where people are dodging, weaving, feinting and swinging? How do you know you if you are an inch or two off one way or the other?

Uh. Yeah. You really do.

I'm a (lapsed) fencer. When you're fencing, you don't look at your blade. That would be dumb. You learn pretty quickly what your reach is with any particular weapon.

-Stuart

 

[RigaMortus2]

Uh. Yeah. You really do.

I'm a (lapsed) fencer. When you're fencing, you don't look at your blade. That would be dumb. You learn pretty quickly what your reach is with any particular weapon.

-Stuart

You can justify it any way you want. You really can't prove it one way or the other. You can't disprove that wielding an invisible weapon is harder than wielding it if it were not invisible. And I can not disprove that it would be the same, since there is no way to cast invisibility on a weapon in real life.

We are basically in house rule territory here anyway since there are no rules about fighting with an invisible weapon. There is nothing that states the wielder gets a benefit or a penalty. So by default, there would be neither. To give one would be up to the DM.

Since all we are discussing here is opinons anyway, I am of the opinion it would be slightly harder to use a weapon effectively if you could not see it, and it would be slightly harder to defend against an invisible weapon effectively.

 

[ainbimagh]

It has nothing to do with weight. It has to do with sight. How do you know how long the blade is w/o looking at it? How do you know how much thrust you need?

It's like the old saying, "I know this weapon like the back of my hand." But do you really? You might know the blade is 3 feet long, but could you estimate 3 feet just by eyeballing it in the middle of combat, where people are dodging, weaving, feinting and swinging? How do you know you if you are an inch or two off one way or the other?

Yes.. this is by far... the silliest example of trying to apply RL to D&D.. you do not need to see your weapon to swing it effectively.. you need to see your opponent and their weapon. I would apply a +4 circumstance bonus to attack and a +1 circumstance bonus to melee ac.

On a side note, I would give opponents a spot check to reduce it to +2/+0 same as the invis spot check.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes.. this is by far... the silliest example of trying to apply RL to D&D.. you do not need to see your weapon to swing it effectively.. you need to see your opponent and their weapon. I would apply a +4 circumstance bonus to attack and a +1 circumstance bonus to melee ac.

On a side note, I would give opponents a spot check to reduce it to +2/+0 same as the invis spot check.

Even for the whip in question?

You know the weapon with no fixed length.

 

[szilard]

Since all we are discussing here is opinons anyway, I am of the opinion it would be slightly harder to use a weapon effectively if you could not see it, and it would be slightly harder to defend against an invisible weapon effectively.

It might be slightly harder to use, but not much harder. It would be more than slightly harder to defend against, particularly if the wielder of the weapon was clever with distance (not letting the opponent figure out the weapon's length).

As was stated earlier in the thread, Complete Scoundrel has rules for this.

-Stuart

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes.. this is by far... the silliest example of trying to apply RL to D&D.. you do not need to see your weapon to swing it effectively.. you need to see your opponent and their weapon. I would apply a +4 circumstance bonus to attack and a +1 circumstance bonus to melee ac.

On a side note, I would give opponents a spot check to reduce it to +2/+0 same as the invis spot check.

Silly would be speculating that there is absolutely no difference between swinging (and trying to actually hit a target) an invisible weapon and not, without any way to prove it one way or the other.

The fact that people are giving multiple answers to the same question, and they are different from one another, shows that there is more than one answer, none of which are "right" or "wrong".