| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 00:35:38
I have been working on an NPC who wields a pair of permanently invisible swords. I have asked around the WotC boards for ideas and suggestions, but haven't yet found anything. It seems like such a simple trick, and everything seems broken. I'd like any suggestions on the game mechanics for such a thing. I'm playing 3rd. I have checked all of my resource and can't find a precedent anywhere. Thoughts? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Nov 2015 : 23:24:52
Anyone that would make a weapon invisible would also bestow see invisibility upon the wielder. Also, I could definitely see a possible want for the weapon to be silent as well that the previous post mentions. Therefore, I don't see any special need for feats or hindrances and such.
As far as what kind of abilities it might give? I'm thinking it would be a +2 circumstance bonus to hit, but make it a +3 enhancement bonus cost since its bonus would stack with the enhancement bonus of the weapon and the person would also get see invisibility. I'd also throw in that it lessens all nearby sound to make a +2 circumstance bonus on move silently checks.
Personally, if I had such a weapon, I'd want the dancing property on it. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 27 Nov 2015 : 13:34:25
I found this an old PF grimoire and figured I'd post in case anydoy ever has the same idea...
Quinn’s Weapons
Whisper and Shadow
Aura Moderate illusion; CL 10th
Slot weapon; Price 12,310 gp each
Description
These cruel, paired +1 cold iron shortswords
where once wielded by the Doom Bringers at
the end of the First World and were thought
to be lost. Recently, pairs of these blades
have emerged once more, finding their way
into the hands of men and elves. Most sages
consider their reappearance a dark omen,
though only the most erudite even know
these weapons’ true origins. When you use
Whisper and Shadow in tandem you gain the
Two Weapon Fighting feat (even if you do not
qualify for it).
Additionally, three times per day, Whisper
may be used to cast silence (CL 10th, DC 20).
Three times per day, Shadow may be used
to cast invisibility (CL 10th), or the blade
itself can be turned invisible for one round,
making it incredibly difficult to parry and
dodge. If your opponent cannot see invisible
objects and does not succeed on a DC 25
Spot check to follow your arm motions, he is
considered flat-footed against all your attacks
with Shadow that round.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor,
invisibility, silence; Cost 6,155 gp, 480 XP
excerpt from p.p 10 oft the GameMastery module written by Tim Hitchcock and Nicholas Logue.
So what do you all think? Too heavy?
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 16:23:31
I'd imagine that shields could easily block the weapon regardless of what it might be. Shields aren't always popular with players (who typically prefer a second weapon instead), but they were an important nutrient in medieval (even ancient) combat for untold centuries. If a shield can block arrows and spear thrusts than it should still do a fair job against invisible swords. My argument is that shield AC should always apply against invisible blades. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 14:03:29
Well, speaking purely as a modern fencer, if someone came at me with an invisible sword, dodging would be all I did until I could get a feel for what kind of weapon I was facing. It's termed a "distance parry," though it isn't actually a parry for right-of-way purposes, and it means essentially getting out of Dodge as your opponent closes. The less you can move without getting hit, the better.
And of course you can parry a blade you can't see, because you can still see what your opponent's arm is doing. This is especially true with slashing weapons, but even holds true with piercing weapons since your point is moving in a straight line out from the hilt of the blade. It would be harder, sure, but possible.
Honestly, it would be easier to deal with an invisible long sword, say, than an invisible modern fencing sword. Fencing sabres move so quickly that it's sometimes hard to see what's going on even with fully-visible blades. If you're working with a sword that's a bit heavier, and therefore a bit slower, it would get significantly easier. Not saying it wouldn't be annoying, though, or at least until you'd done enough damage to coat your blade in blood/ichor. |
| Drizztsmanchild |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 08:21:38
Just used the clues you gave me.
Star
orion
invisible sword
Mine |
| Dracons |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 06:44:24
quote:
Originally posted by Drizztsmanchild
quote:
Originally posted by Dracons
Gah... what was the name of that anime movie from way back then? Like maybe early-late eighties. Sci-fi one. Lots of space. The main hero was in a mine and saw this sword hilt. The sword hilt had an invisible blade.
GAH! what was it... great. I wanna say it started with an O and had... star in it... Oriono... no.
Here you go:
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0090065/
THANK YOU.
How'd you find it? My google fu was very weak. |
| Drizztsmanchild |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 06:25:16
quote:
Originally posted by Dracons
Gah... what was the name of that anime movie from way back then? Like maybe early-late eighties. Sci-fi one. Lots of space. The main hero was in a mine and saw this sword hilt. The sword hilt had an invisible blade.
GAH! what was it... great. I wanna say it started with an O and had... star in it... Oriono... no.
Here you go:
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0090065/ |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 03:56:07
I'll only point out that (in 2E anyhow), similar advantages are gained from proficiency in "dirty fighting" and from the Amazon kit (against male opponents who would underestimate female warriors). In both cases a +3 bonus is applied to-hit/attack, but not damage. Only on the first hit, after which the target is too wary to be fooled again. Also only on opponents of lesser level than the attacker and never on seasoned opponents of 6 levels/HD or greater. This might help provide a model to work from.
I agree with the idea that invisible weapons could negate dex/dodge bonuses, at least in part. I also agree that dedicated practice (spending a feat) for the weapon would negate or offset the attacker's penalties, assuming the ability to see these blades isn't granted by the swords themselves. Opponents with blind-fighting could have the option of simply closing their eyes and fighting blind if that inflicts less penalties. I would personally rule that the blades are normally visible and the invisibility is activated (for some maximum duration) only when commanded or when certain conditions are met. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 03:19:52
I'm by no means a swordsman, but I don't feel an invisible blade would completely negate dodge like bonuses. With boxers they talk about the opponents noting the shifting of weight when punches are to be thrown. I would think similiar clues would be available to swordsmen. I doubt you just stare at the sword, but the opponent's body language.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 03:17:57
You can understand a person's method of attack, and still not be able to do anything about it.
For instance, if a Black Belt were to fight me, I would expect him to hit me (with his feet or hands, depending upon the form), and I would be able to do absolutely nothing about it.
If an attack happens in such a way that you can't defend against it (in my case above because it would be too quick for my untrained reflexes), then it hits you, regardless of weather you understand it or not.
You can comfort yourself with knowing WHY you are lying on the floor in a pool of blood. |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:37:51
One thing I don't understand about having invisible weapons is how is an opponent going to have difficulty understanding your method of attack?
If you're definitely holding something, even if it's invisible, I would think an opponent would understand that they're being attacked with a weapon. Granted, claiming to have an invisible weapon may elicit laughter from the opponent at first, but who's to say that an opponent of average intelligence would really fall for the idea that, say, your character appears to only pretend to have a weapon? I mean, not every opponent should be an unintelligent brute or have no means of detecting magical items or such. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:34:54
I would apply the -2 to AC for only the first round, but apply the 'no dex' rule throughout the combat. You CANNOT parry a blade you can't see, regardless of your skill (unless you have blind-fighting, or some other ability that allows you to fight the 'unseen').
Spiderman's 'Spider sense', for instance.
If the combat lasts awhile (most don't), a truly EXCEPTIONAL opponent (Drizzt, Kale, etc) may pick up on the subtle nuances of stance, and look for tell-tale signs of an impending attack by a flick of the wrist, or something in his opponent's eyes, in which case I would allow a Wis savings throw each round of combat beyond (21 - level) for the adversary to overcome his inability to see his opponent's weapon.
For most D&D encounters, however, this will never come into play. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:32:33
Gah... what was the name of that anime movie from way back then? Like maybe early-late eighties. Sci-fi one. Lots of space. The main hero was in a mine and saw this sword hilt. The sword hilt had an invisible blade.
GAH! what was it... great. I wanna say it started with an O and had... star in it... Oriono... no. |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:01:02
If you look at the rules for blinded characters you see that they get -2 to AC and don't get their dex bonus to AC in combat.
Here the enemy isn't blind but only doesn't see the swords, so maybe you could apply the above only in the first round.
It definatly has to be a lesser disadvantage than beeing completly blind. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 21:10:54
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
I had considered having the wielder have to pick up an Exotic Weapon Feat or somesuch, <snip>
THIS
I hadn't even considered your own need to overcome the swords drawbacks.
Plus my statements above about the weapon inducing the same elements as 'surprise' against opponents (regardless of weather they are aware of you holding it or not). Any non-armor induced defenses are negligible (except magical ones that specifically aid defensive bonus, and not just up your speed, etc). You (or your DM) would have also consider the possibility of someone over-coming the swords invisibility (true-seeing, or faerie fire, or just some paint or magnetic dust thrown at it). Also, the swords advantage would be lost against an opponent who has Blind-Fighting (and most Underdark races have this).
Anything beyond that depends upon what other magical abilities you give the sword. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 18:46:37
I would just like to thank everybody that has chimed in so far, you have all given me much to consider. Thanks again. keep them coming. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 18:16:02
I understand the concept, but what exactly do you want the weapon to do mechanically?
If you look at Glassteel, it gains some benefits to being spotted on a person since it's transparent like glass. This add bonuses to hide the object, but doen't gain additional bonuses for combat. If your looking for something simple that doesn't tweak combat, then I'd say just use Glassteel. If you want the weapon to gain benefts that bypass armor, or gain bonuses to hit because it's hard to see, or something to that extent then yea, a substantial amount of gold should be paid for a weapon with those abilities. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 16:58:32
Were I your DM, I’d (initially) rule you don’t need to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield an invisible sword.
The (Third Edition) rules don’t ask you to spend a Feat when you’re wielding a magical sword with any of the properties one can add to magical blades as found in the DMG (flaming, frost, etc…), so why penalize you now?
I’ll assume the weapon itself is entirely invisible (no hilt or pommel showing). Because of this, I’d rule the swords provide an unnamed bonus to attack rolls (say +2) whenever you have surprise against a foe (i.e. a surprise round). After that, your foes will know you’re armed and dangerous and can act accordingly.
I’d also rule that you enjoy the same +2 bonus to attack rolls on the first attack you make against each new foe you face in battle, since at first they’re not going to know how long or thick your blade is. Once you’ve attacked though, everything’s back to normal.
My Reasoning: From my own (very limited) experience practicing with swords via Shinkendo*, I’d think an experienced fighter—once he or she gets a weapon in his or her hands—can rely on the weight and heft of an item to figure its feel and play in battle. The game assumes you fiddle around with your new magical weapons in between adventures anyway, so I figure you’ll cover the thing in sand to figure out how long it is and what its exact shape is, and otherwise get the hang of the blade in order to use it in battle.
However, your blade is invisible. Sight is important when parrying with a sword and measuring distance to a target by the length of your sword. If you can’t see your weapon, you’re at nearly the same disadvantage as an opponent trying to parry your invisible weapon or dodge it.
In my opinion these disadvantages (yours and your opponents) cancel each other out, so there’s no bonus that ought to be awarded to you during regular combat after the first attack made against your opponent.
Back to Feats: If you so choose, I’d allow you to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the invisible sword. This would increase your surprise and first-round attack bonuses to +4 and give you a +2 unnamed bonus to attack rolls whenever you flank an opponent in battle. These bonuses would not stack if you managed to both flank and surprise a foe at the same time.
As for costing: I’m inclined to say invisibility for a weapon is the equivalent of a +3 or +4 weapon bonus.
*International Shinkendo Federation website linky: http://www.shinkendo.com/ |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 16:44:41
A simple set of game mechanics: For the wielder of the invisible weapons, I'd impose a -4 penalty to hit without training. To offset this would require blindfighting (reducing the penalty to -2) and exotic weapon proficiency (Ivisible longsword/shortsword, etc.) to reduce it by another 2. As far as bonuses applied for the invisible weapon, I'd give the benefit of negating Dex to AC on the first round of combat, adding one point of Dex to AC for each subsequent round facing the blades. This 'resets' for each new opponent, though (as a DM) I would rule that a skilled fighter (anyone with a BAB of +5 or more) would only be fooled by this once. If you faced him again, he would gain half his Dex to AC bonus to start, and improve from there. Also, Uncanny Dodge would apply, meaning that anyone with this class feature would be essentially 'immune' to these weapons.
I used to fence (kendo) and can say, as Hoondatha did above, that you don't really watch the blade, as it can't go anywhere that the fencer's body doesn't direct it; your opponent's body movements telegraph the place where his blade *will be* which is more important than where it *is*. As such, your eyes mostly flick from feet to shoulders to wrists. The blade being invisible would still be a major pain, since you'd have no idea how long it is (is that a longsword, shortsword, scimitar, bastard sword, or what?) or what type of grip your opponent was using.
A side note: *some* part of the weapon would likely have to be visible, since otherwise, being disarmed in combat would likely mean that the blade is lost forever to anyone who doesn't have the ability to see invisible objects. Most likely, the hilts or pommel would remain visible. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 14:39:20
You'd definitely need extra training in the weapon to use it effectively. You also need to decide whether it's just the blade that's invisible, or the entire sword. If it's just the blade, then the hilt is still visible and you can tell an awful lot from just the hilt. Not exactly how long a sword it, but you and make an educated guess, get an idea to its position, etc.
I am a fencer, and I agree that the bonuses would be high. However, they wouldn't be impossibly so, at least once your opponent realizes what they face. Also, the true effect would only serve until the first hit. After that, you'd get blood running down the blade, making it at least partially visible. If I was DM'ing it, I'd halve the bonus after the first hit, and then negate the bonus completely after either another 4-6 hits, or a specific amount of hit point damage, with the reasoning that by that time there's so much blood on the blade that it effectively negates the invisibility. Then they'd just be a normal magic sword until the character has a chance to thoroughly clean them. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 10:49:44
I had considered having the wielder have to pick up an Exotic Weapon Feat or somesuch, but the weapons are magical perhaps the wielder can see them or maybe the wielder is granted See Invisibility, hmmm yes |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 09:27:31
I'd allow feinting as a free action with an invisible blade, and maybe bonuses to first strikes, but I wouldn't give too insane bonuses because I imagine a skilled swordsman would still be able to get some idea of where you are attacking by watching your wrists, body position, and footwork. I'm not someone who knows enough about swords to be able to say how true that is though, so it could be that knowing all that other stuff does you no good if you can't see the blade itself. Honestly, the best use I could think of for an invisible weapon is a dagger that you could use as an assassin's weapon, walk up to someone apparently emptyhanded and suddenly you have a blade buried in their chest, or kidney, or neck. |
| Drizztsmanchild |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 09:11:35
Drizzt could fight them. He does fight within a globe of darkness a lot. I know there has to be other fighters who can fight blind. Maybe you can look a some of their abilitys and bonuses and compare. |
| Sandro |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 09:05:55
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Insane.
You can't effectively parry a weapon you can't see. Throw all non-armor defenses right out the window (like Dex, or Int or Wis in the case of certain PRCs). Basically the weapon would always follow the rules for a surprised opponent.
Deadly.
And that's without any inherent magical bonuses or other abilities.
But conversely (and I'm not a fencer - Mr de Bie, care to chime in with your wisdom?), wouldn't your inability to see your own blade, hamper your ability to parry, thrust for weak spots etc.? Maybe it all cancels out ...
-- George Krashos
In a novel setting, I'd imagine, using them well would be a result of years of practice, and they'd be familiar enough with the weapons to know how to use them, even though they can't see them.
In a game setting, though, I dunno how you'd apply that: presumably it could be treated something like two-weaponed fighting, with large minuses to hit initially that can be mitigated with a series of feats that can be gained as you progress, with the character eventually able to use them effectively as well as if they could be seen.
Those minuses would also help off-set the huge advantage of attacking everyone flat-footed at the beginning, and by the time you can use them to their full potential, opponents will be that much better, and have spells and such available that allow them to defend themselves better (See Invisibility, anyone?). |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 07:05:21
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Insane.
You can't effectively parry a weapon you can't see. Throw all non-armor defenses right out the window (like Dex, or Int or Wis in the case of certain PRCs). Basically the weapon would always follow the rules for a surprised opponent.
Deadly.
And that's without any inherent magical bonuses or other abilities.
But conversely (and I'm not a fencer - Mr de Bie, care to chime in with your wisdom?), wouldn't your inability to see your own blade, hamper your ability to parry, thrust for weak spots etc.? Maybe it all cancels out ...
-- George Krashos
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 05:55:14
Insane.
You can't effectively parry a weapon you can't see. Throw all non-armor defenses right out the window (like Dex, or Int or Wis in the case of certain PRCs). Basically the weapon would always follow the rules for a surprised opponent.
Deadly.
And that's without any inherent magical bonuses or other abilities. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 02:21:58
Yes, but what would the bonuses for being unseen be? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 01:40:40
That can be added separately, and the weapon would still remain unseen, unless the other enchantment(s) create some sort of magical aura or energy that is visible. (ie- making it keen would not cause it to be visible, but a flaming sword would still give off light.) |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 00:53:35
it seems to me that some bonus to attack above and beyond the enchantment is warranted |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 00:47:52
You might use swords with a incorporeal property, or ethereal. Either would appear "invisible" on the material plane. |
|
|
