Your still obviously putting effort into swinging it about (or are an amazingly good Mime)
Mime Bard...I'm doing it!
What about when the blade gets bloody? I don't think the blood coating the blade would be invisible, too. Thus, the blade would lose invisibility after the first successful attack.
TSR Adventure Path A1 Salve pits of the undercity, A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade, A3 Assault on the Aeirie of the Slave Lords, and A4 In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords.
Why bring these up? Just taking a trip down memeory lane and knew I had seen an invisible sword somewhere before, just had to figure out which module it was...
A3: Sword of the Lyons , shortsword +1 that is invible, when sheathed the wearer is also invivible, but when fighting the blade always remained invisible.
Not sure if it matter in the realms of this discussion, just wanted to figure out where i had seen it before. How it would work in todays game who knows....
RAW is silent about it, they don't specifically say "when attacking with an invisible weapon, your opponent is NOT considered flat-footed" or anything of the sortK what about spiked chain, or 3-section nunchucks? or other exotic weapons that consist of misguiding and distracting movement?By RAW, invisible weapons provide no benefit to allow you to sneak attack. Period.
Look at it this way,
The rules don't say what happens when your sword is invisible, but they do say when sneak attack damage applies. It only happens when the target is denied dex bonus to AC.
There's always "rule of cool" though. If you play a game that's light on the rules and you don't mind counting on your GM to house-rule or decide how things work on the fly. That can be fun. But I still don't see it. You're talking about denying your opponent his dex bonus to AC just because your sword is invisible.
Even creatures who are grappled or entangled have something like a static -4 penalty to dex rather then being denied their full dex bonus to AC, right? I mean in a few cases if they have low dex that could be an even bigger hit to AC for them, but even so it doesn't leave them open to unlimited sneak attacks.
tl;dr: from a rules point of view I believe the invisible sword has no benefit at all. From a common sense/game balance point of view I believe it is worth something like +2 to hit or -2 to opponents AC.
this would be the ultimate form of kentucky windage.
As a resident of Kentucky I can say, it's not a tough shot until you're aiming a foot or move above your target ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue sits in a bar. He walks up to a guy a guy at the counter and greets him. Pretends to pat him brotherly on the back.
Wham! Sneak attack with an invisible sword, dagger or boiled leek.
I agree!
Because the target is flatfooted since you attacked him out of nowhere and he had no time to react.
The sword being invisible has zero to do with it.
If yo are a good GM, you'll let the mechanics flow from the story. Absolutely I would give an invisible sword a +2 bonus.
My being a good GM and my disallowing some random tactic that doesn't make any logical sense and is not within the rules at all are not mutually exclusive.
Quite the opposite, in fact.