This pretty basic concept just got our group scratching their heads.
Invisibility - attack, and the spell ends. Detectable thru spells. See Invisibility, True Seeing, etc.
Greater Invisibility - attack, but the spell doesn't end. Does the attacker become visible at all during their attack? Detectable thru spells.
DoD - as Greater, but undetectable thru spells. Luckily, limited to 2d6 rounds.
So the head scratcher comes from 'does the attacker become visible at any point of their attack, and if so for how long?' As written, it appears the answer is no. Too powerful? Am thinking of house ruling where the attacker becomes visible on their initiative, but regaining invisibility at the end of their attack. Therefore, able to be targeted if someone has a held action and is able to spot them.
Comments?
Greater invisibility is a good spell. It is not overpowered, if the DM keeps to the rules for detecting invisible enemies. It is a high level spell, and should do more than the second level version. The caster or subject can still be heard, smelled, tremorsensed, blindsensed, echolocated, targeted with area attacks, grappled and sonic attacked.
I don;t think the spell is broken.
The wizard in my game uses this all the time, and it is certainly a great spell, but it is not one that should be nerfed.
Nope... otherwise the spells would state that there is a momentary appearance.
However, that does not preclude a person from making perception checks to not where the source of an attack comes from, is they are made at range (thrown, projectile, or spell). If the attack is melee, you also have an idea of what square the attack originated from. Of course, that isn't alway acurate either as they may have Spring Attack, or move after the attack (move or 5' step). Even then though a perception check is still available to note "disturbances" from their movement.