# How do you rule on invisible weapons?



## Zzyzx (Jan 26, 2007)

The rules for invisible creatures or characters in combat are relatively clear.  But the invisibility spell can be cast on objects, and can even be made "permanent".  

What rules would you use for a character that wanted to use an invisible sword in combat?  

Or a character shooting invisible arrows?


----------



## bestone (Jan 26, 2007)

Good frigin question

I...dont...know??

Im always a fan of the circumstance bonus, i'd apply some sorta circumstance bonus, as it would be a wee bit harder to time your dodges and parries against and invisible item, or dodge an invisible arrow. 

hrmm, i'd like to see how other people would do it aswell, makes me wanna make a permanency-invisible rapier for a rogue.. of course, once it starts getting bloodied it'll be easier to follow


----------



## Jack Simth (Jan 26, 2007)

DM's friend +2 circumstance to hit.

Until it's used to strike a critter, at which point it's made an attack and breaks invisibility.


----------



## William drake (Jan 26, 2007)

*Depends.*

If the player is holding an invisible weapon, and fighting standard foe for that level, than that foe should beabel to tell, just by where the player is holding the weapon, just where that weapon's reach is, and afte the first hit, what it is. 
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. 
Invisible weapons, just like people or monsters, are super dangerous. Play them that way, but make it rare so that it doesnt hold the game back.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 26, 2007)

Thinking about an invisible whip...


----------



## bestone (Jan 26, 2007)

William drake said:
			
		

> than that foe should beabel to tell, just by where the player is holding the weapon, just where that weapon's reach is, and afte the first hit, what it is.




so your trying to say, that you can tell exactly if your opponent is wielding a longsword or a shortsword, just by "where" he is holding that weapon? unlikely

if the weapon is invisible, and he was holding, say a longsword, all you'd see is his hand in a loose fist, you wouldnt know how long the weapon he's using is at all, im sure after a few hits, you could Guess at its reach, or even what it is, but it would still be difficult

After the first hit knowing what it is? sort of, you could tell if it was slashing, piercing or bludgeoning, but you May not be able to tell if you just got cracked in the head with a mace or a club *circumstantially of course, sometimes it may be plainly clear*

Even if you had a good guess, and even if that guess was correct, it would still make it more difficult to fight against, your timing for parries and dodges would have to be perfect

Unless of course your trying to say that oh, even tho i cant see it, i know he's holding a longsword, and that makes it just as easy to fight against


----------



## atomn (Jan 26, 2007)

Maybe this will help...  Complete Scoundrel has a new magic item, Bladeshimmer (pg 114), that can be applied to non-living items to turn them invisible.  It's rules say: if someone's holding the now invisible item it looks as if their hand is empty except by a keen eyed observer.  Make an opposed check of the holder's Sleight of Hand (with a +10 bonus modifier) as the DC for the spotter's Spot check.  A defender is considered flat-footed when attacked by an invisible weapon unless they make their Spot check to notice something is amiss.


----------



## XO (Jan 26, 2007)

*Blind-Fight*

I'll remove Dodging and Dex from the target... But would limit the penalty if the target knows Blindfighting.

And I will penalize the attacker unless he has Blindfight.

High Int or Wis may eliminate or mitigate penalties: you must envision or imagine "where" your blade or other weapon is right now.


----------



## hong (Jan 26, 2007)

What a silly concept.

No benefit, no penalty.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 26, 2007)

Considering the weapon is invisible to the wielder as well, I would think that the wielder would have at least a little bit of difficulty swinging the weapon.  So I agree with the above poster, no benefit and no penalty.


----------



## Len (Jan 26, 2007)

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 (Jan 26, 2007)

Len said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

William drake said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> 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".


----------



## szilard (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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".




I disagree on all counts.

Since you and I are responding to the same issue in ways that are different from one another, there is more than one answer, none of which are "right" or "wrong."

Therefore, it is neither right nor wrong that people are giving multiple answers to the same question, nor is it right or wrong that there is more than one answer... nor is it right or wrong that that one or more answer that may or may not exist is/are right or wrong.

-Stuart


----------



## ainbimagh (Jan 26, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Even for the whip in question?
> 
> You know the weapon with no fixed length.



Yes even for the whip in question, length has nothing to do with the entire situation.


----------



## javcs (Jan 26, 2007)

<experience>
When you're fighting with someone, as long as you know what you're using, it really doesn't matter if you are looking at your weapon, you're watching the other guy and his weapon. Once you're decent with whatever weapon you're using it's really like an extension of your body.

That might not go for more flexible weapons such as whips and such weapons, I wouldn't know, I haven't used them, so I can't go from experience.
</experience>

Besides, when all of you and your weapon is invisible, you can't see yourself, you just know where everything is. When you're invisible, it should be much harder for you to wield a weapon accurately than when you are visible and the weapon is invisible, if you're going with that argument.

But yeah, since a source for rules have been given ...


----------



## lukelightning (Jan 26, 2007)

All I can say is that getting your invisible weapon disarmed is a major pain!


----------



## pallandrome (Jan 26, 2007)

There is an easy way to test the "Do you need to see the weapon to effectively know it's range?" question. It's something we do at the dojo all the time called "learning your reach". You swing your sword (or in our case at the dojo, your staff) at the target, until you barely strike it. Then you do it over and over and over again. Trust me, once someone is well trained with the staff, they can swing at the target without looking at it or their weapon, and get within half an inch of where they want to hit almost every time. Pretty much anyone who has trained extensively with a weapon will tell you the same thing. Seeing your own weapon does not help a good fighter fight.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jan 26, 2007)

Since I do not own the new Complete Han Solo book this is how I would handle it.  I might would require Exotic Weapon Proficiency to effectively wield an invisible weapon (I can see the argument either way).  I would allow the invisible weapon wielder a Sleight of Hand or Bluff check to Feint ( being Unarmed ) in order to catch their opponent Flat-footed the first round they engage combat even if they are aware of you.  I would also give a circumstance bonus to the weapon wielder in question if anyone tried to disarm or sunder their invisible weapon.  Probably a +4 or +5 against the attempt.

Thank you for your time,
William Holder


----------



## Abisashi (Jan 26, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> All I can say is that getting your invisible weapon disarmed is a major pain!




This is hillarious.



For those who want to make invisible weapons very powerful (+2 to hit, flat-foot the opponent, etc.), 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.


----------



## javcs (Jan 26, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> All I can say is that getting your invisible weapon disarmed is a major pain!



That's why you get your wizard/sorcerer buddy to arcane mark it for you.
Or you tie a string to it.
Or use Detect Magic, or See Invisibility. Or something.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> You can't disprove that wielding an invisible weapon is harder than wielding it if it were not invisible.




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.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 26, 2007)

If using an invisible weapon to hit someone is impossible, then I guess all those Wii players are miracle workers.


----------



## Zzyzx (Jan 27, 2007)

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 (Jan 27, 2007)

*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 (Jan 27, 2007)

Abisashi said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 27, 2007)

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


----------



## javcs (Jan 27, 2007)

XO said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 27, 2007)

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 (Jan 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2007)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 27, 2007)

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 (Jan 27, 2007)

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


----------



## szilard (Jan 27, 2007)

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 (Jan 27, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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

Hmmmm.


----------



## szilard (Jan 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 28, 2007)

szilard said:
			
		

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




And the reason for that would be???



			
				szilard said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 28, 2007)

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 (Jan 28, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (Jan 29, 2007)

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?


----------

