But would it still obscure sight, and thus give concealment/total concealment?
If you are outside the fog can you see through the fog, and have normal vision?
And if you are inside the fog would you have normal vision? Or would your vision be limited to 5 feet?
--------
And depending on the responses how can you optimize this?
I am listing the relevant parts of the feat.
INVISIBLE SPELL [METAMAGIC]
You can make your spell effects invisible.
Prerequisite: NA
Benefit: You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same. Note that this feat has no bearing on any components required to cast the enhanced spell, so the spell’s
source might still be apparent, depending on the situation, despite its effects being unseen. For example, a fireball cast by someone with this feat could be made invisible in the moment of its detonation, but everyone in the area would still feel the full effect (including the heat), and any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire. Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time
of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell.
NA for the rest
I've only ever used this Feat once, in a one-shot game, but the only tactic I found this useful for was for effectively 'buffing' my BSF/Rogue in a fight with a high level Arcane Heirophant.
I knew from investigation that he had several spells permanencied, including See Invis, So I used Acid Fog (with an Invisible Spell meta-rod) in conjunction with a dimensional lock and a couple other things to keep him in place and blinded while I and my party were free to target/attack him with whatever we wanted to.
I think, at the end of the day, that's the best type of usage for the feat, blinding the target without blinding yourself.
It'd be a strong spell/feat combo to use in conjunction with Superior Invis as well. True seeing is the only thing that sees through Sup/Invis, so if you cast an Invisible Obscuring Mist or whatever, there's no way the target can see you, while you (and everyone else) can see it.
I don't think it would obscure vision for anyone, except those people who happen to have True Seeing. ;) I've seen Invisible Obscuring Mists used exactly for this purpose.
AWESOME, so you can screw over the monsters/npcs that are prepared for the unexpected while leaving your planning party completely unaffected.
Just my two cents
Necron
Hm ... I would say, that the invisible solid fog still breaks the line of effect, so e.g. a fireball would explode at that invisible barrier.
Just my two cents
Necron
Solid Fog doesn't stop magical attacks (e.g. "magic rays and the like").
It wouldn't conceal sight unless someone had See Invis (etc) up. At least, that's how I read it.
I always thought this was a very neat trick, but actually it's only clear that it works with True Seeing.
See Invisible has the following wording:
"You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures."
First we have the problem that RAW fog is not a being nor an object*,. ;)
Even if we classify it as such (or as a swarm of objects ?! :eek
, it's unclear whether it'll be fully visible or simply translucent (it only speaks about creatures, but why wouldn't it let you distinguish between invisible and visible objects ? note that we've already left strict RAW behind at this point).All in all: depends on the DM.
*if you do get that ruling, more power to you. I suggest you then begin to gather Permanently Shrunken fogs. :D
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/wildernessAndEnvironment.html#weather
:D
I always thought this was a very neat trick, but actually it's only clear that it works with True Seeing.
I'm basing my assumption not on the reading of the See Invis spell, but on the text of the feat, Sic:
Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell.
The visual manifestation of Obscuring Mist/et al, is the cloud of fog that blocks all site beyond 5ft, so, to me, someone with one of those three spells (and I would even argue, the spells based off them, like Arcane Sight) see the fog normally, regardless of the divination's normal effect.
I mean, detect magic normally doesn't let you see invisible objects at all (at least, as far as I know), but the feat specifically says someone with it up will see the typical visual manifestations.
I mean, detect magic normally doesn't let you see invisible objects at all (at least, as far as I know), but the feat specifically says someone with it up will see the typical visual manifestations.
I think it would let you see the normal visual manifestations that the spell grants - in the case of Detect Magic that would be the auras. You wouldn't necessarily see the ___ Fog spell visual manifestation.
At least that's how I see it. I think if they hadn't included Detect spells then someone could have argued that an invisible spells aura's wouldn't be noticeable with just a detect magic, you'd also need a see invisible or some other such affect.
I.E:
Caster A casts an Invisible Fireball
Target A has no divination up, sees nothing but the aftermath.
Target B has DM up, sees a typical fireball.
I think 'the spell' at the end of that sentence refers to the spell being made invisible by the feat, and not the spell being used to see.
I.E:
Caster A casts an Invisible Fireball
Target A has no divination up, sees nothing but the aftermath.
Target B has DM up, sees a typical fireball.
Sounds reasonable enough to me. It's just weird.
A savvy arson could, for example, set fire to a building using a flaming sphere or something from a distance without anyone being able to tell what started the fire. So the designers thought, hey, just to balance this, let's let it be 'normally visible' under DM, SI, and or TS. They just didn't think about the consequences of that 'balance' point.
I'm basing my assumption not on the reading of the See Invis spell, but on the text of the feat, Sic:
Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell.
The visual manifestation of Obscuring Mist/et al, is the cloud of fog that blocks all site beyond 5ft, so, to me, someone with one of those three spells (and I would even argue, the spells based off them, like Arcane Sight) see the fog normally, regardless of the divination's normal effect.
I mean, detect magic normally doesn't let you see invisible objects at all (at least, as far as I know), but the feat specifically says someone with it up will see the typical visual manifestations.
Interesting ! The plot thickens.
My first reaction was the same as Pallatine's ; now, I'm not so sure since the wording supports your interpretation a lot better. But Detect Magic doesn't belong here, as you pointed out...
Invisible Spell: A spell modified with this metamagic feat wraps the spell in an illusory effect that masks its visible manifestation. Any interaction with the spells effect terminates the illusion for the character who interacts with it. Creatures immune to illusions or figments automatically see through the illusion without having to interact with the effect. Discerning the nature of an on-going invisible spell is impossible without a means to see past the illusion or by interacting with the spell effect. Interaction, in this context, refers to physically coming in contact with the area or creature bearing the effect, or by using an effect which would necessarily interact with the effect on the creature or area (such as dispel magic). This feat does not foil divination magic intended to detect magical auras.
Furthermore, the illusory effect generated by this feat cannot grant any combat bonuses (such as granting invisibility to summoned creatures).
I believe the RAI of invisible spell is to simply mask some of the more ugly side-effects described in spells. For example, on might wish to gain the combat bonuses of iron body, but not want to look like metal mario. Similarly for a number of the more animalistic druid spells out there. It'd also be nice to mask area effects, until one comes in contact with them.
Someone inside the area would automatically be effected, while someone outside, such as the party rogue, who doesn't have see invis or whatever up, would be able to sneak attack ad nauseum without penalty and the entire party (as long as they stayed out of the AoE) would be impossible to target by the caster.
Not that I'm against the house-rule, it just doesn't fix the particular abuse pointed out in this thread.
He can still see past the Invisible Wall of Ice, he just has the benefit of knowing it's there.
"...visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures..."
...I know you need to say you know you've let me down, but you haven't, and it's hard to talk with people all around. Please don't say how proud you are. Let's do the things we normally do...
Actually, you all miss the main point, I think. A person with See Invisibility / True Seeing sees both the Illusion and what he'd normally see, at once. So he isn't hindered by it in any case, he's just aware it's there.
"...visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures..."
And you missed the point that was made that the Invisible Spell feat specifically contradicts this. And specific examples trump general cases.
Actually, you all miss the main point, I think. A person with See Invisibility / True Seeing sees both the Illusion and what he'd normally see, at once. So he isn't hindered by it in any case, he's just aware it's there.
"...visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures..."
Right, but some folks are saying that the wording of the feat overrides the wording of the individual spells (it certainly does for Detect Magic, for instance).
Also note that True Seeing doesn't have the wording about "translucent shapes".
EDIT: Ninja'ed.
How is that not contradictory? If they see it "as normal", and it normally blocks their LoS, then how can they also see through it?
I agree: "seeing normally" and "seeing as a translucent shape" aren't the same thing. How can you even see a translucent shape if it's got an opaque shape overlapping it?
At any rate, I think we can all agree that it's a poorly written feat that needs DM interpretation anyways.
It's not too bad. I think of the end result being like what you'd get if you only had Line of Sight (RL) to an object with one eye, while the other had it blocked by an object.
A headache? I agree, then. ;)
It's not too bad. I think of the end result being like what you'd get if you only had Line of Sight (RL) to an object with one eye, while the other had it blocked by an object. You'd see both superimposed. 3d is awesome.
If that's how you normally look at stuff, you must walk into a lot of walls.