How do you rule on invisible weapons?

[Zzyzx]

The OP is grateful for the answers so far.

To stir the pot some more, should a monk's "deflect arrows" work if the said arrow is invisible? I say no, or maybe if there is an insanely high Spot check.

 

[XO]

Oh Yes Yes Yes

Let me enjoy this by plunging my detractors into a slime pool of discredit, as Itar and featehr them with a simple question: ever plied a little archery at the range?

All who have will understand my point when I say that not seeing your bow and/or not seeing your arrow could prove.... off the mark.

 

[brehobit]

This is hillarious.



For those who want to make invisible weapons very powerful why wouldn't every high-level adventurer use an invisible weapon? The price is much less than adding that 5th +1. I would be ready for any high-level PC to invest in this as soon as you reveal how good it is.

I think they would, IF the price was right. Just as they'd be invisible in all fights were it possible.

I personally would go with flat-footed if the opponent didn't know what was going on. After that I might give a misc +2 bonus to attack.

Mark

 

[Rath the Brown]

Why not make it similar to Blurstrike, from Races of the Wild?

 

[javcs]

Let me enjoy this by plunging my detractors into a slime pool of discredit, as Itar and featehr them with a simple question: ever plied a little archery at the range?

All who have will understand my point when I say that not seeing your bow and/or not seeing your arrow could prove.... off the mark.

Well, I, at least, was speaking about meleeing with the invisible weapon. However, as has been stated several times, per RAW, when you and your weapon are invisible, you have bonuses, not penalties. To be consistent, when you are visible and your weapon is invisible, there are bonuses, not penalties.

To all of you who believe that there should be attack penalties - Do you believe that there should be attack penalties when the character is under the effects of invisibility?

 

[Boondoggle]

While you probably don't need to see your weapon to gague your reach with it when thrusting or swinging at something, I would bet you definitely would be at a significant penalty in an actual fight. When blades are clashing & deflecting off each other, sheilds and armor and generally whirling about in a barely controlled manner, not seeing your weapon would make knowing the exact location of your blade significantly harder. So things like defending yourself with your weapon would be less effective.

Rules wise, i would say for a bladed or hafted weapon, fighting with an invisible weapon would give you a -2 penalty to your AC, a +2 bonus to your attack and would negate half of your opponents dex bonus to AC. However, it would also be an exotic weapon.

If the weapon had any part that wasn't fixed in place with relation to the rest of the weapon (flails, spiked chain, etc.), it would be unusable effectively.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I might not be able to disprove it, but I can make a strong case according to the rules.

If one is Invisible and swings his Invisible weapon at an opponent, then according to the RULES, there are no penalties to hit.

So minimally, there should be no penalties for swinging an invisible weapon while visible if there are no penalties for doing it while invisible. In both cases, he cannot see his weapon. It can be inferred from the rules that is it not harder to swing a weapon while it is invisible.

Whether there are bonuses is debatable.

You're basing your premise on the idea that an invisible person cannot see himself, which I do not personally ascribe to. And without this supposition, your logic has no foundation in the rules.

I have some experience with swordfighting, though I am by no means a master. I believe there would be a very real hindrance to not being able to see your blade. Even if you know the extent of your reach innately, parrying maneuvers, locking hilts, etc, would suffer somewhat, IMO. They wouldn't be impossible, just not as clean as a visible blade, where you can make unconcious adjustments to your actions based on what you're seeing.

On the other hand, there are certainly advantages to an invisible blade, offensively.

As far as I'm concerned, these two factors cancel each other out.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're basing your premise on the idea that an invisible person cannot see himself, which I do not personally ascribe to. And without this supposition, your logic has no foundation in the rules.

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.

 

[Nareau]

Interesting question.

I think I'd handle it in one of two different ways:
1) Grant a +1 circumstance bonus to hit. It's a cool idea, and I could see it being harder to defend against an invisible weapon.
2) Grant the attacker the full benefits of attacking while invisible, but treat the weapon as "having made an attack" every time it's swung.

I'm tempted to house-rule that under any circumstance, firing a bow or crossbow that you can't see grants a -2 circumstance penalty.

Nareau

 

[Asmo]

I´ve been of these boards forever,but I can´t remember that this question ever came up before. And that´s quite odd, because it should have Interesting question, indeed!

I don´t have any good answer though, I wonder if it has been discussed on the boards over at WotC?

Asmo