This spell targets 1 object with no size restrictions, turning it invisible for 1 full hour. From the description it pays particular attention to making things like weapons or ammunition invisible, as if this spell is being set up for some narrative use in a future AP for assassin's secretly killing people in public, which is cool...
but with no size restrictions can I turn a wall invisible? What about a castle, can a mountain qualify as an object? Compared to what Item facade does, the potential for abuse with invisible object is very, very high.
Now I know the "if it seems too good..." is going to apply somewhere in here, but arbitrating that is a little tricky. Even if it is limited to a 10ft cubic object, (which would be a completely homebrewed and arbitrary decision based on another spell) can I turn one stone in a castle invisible to see through it?
I assume that if I targeted a backpack, only the back pack would be invisible, not the things inside the backpack, but what about if I targeted a clock? Is the whole clock invisible? or just the outside part I touch? If I make a massive ship invisible, will that include all the cargo on the ship as well? Would it include the sails?
This seems semantic until I consider the possibility of making a trap invisible. How complex of a trap can be made invisible with one casting of this spell. Is an object that will eventually spring to life to attack targetable?
I am asking these questions out of honest curiosity and not an attempt to troll the writer of the spell or anyone else. It is a pretty wild and awesome spell with a lot of interesting potential uses. It just looked like it was designed specifically to allow hiding weapons or small objects on a person from the description, but gives no indicator in its target description that the spell would be limited in that way.
I'm not a native english speaker, but for me a wall is not an item, and not much of an object. Making a tree or a door invisible is kind of the extreme cases I may allow as a GM. But vehicles, structures, land marks and such would be a big no.
Again, I am not trying to game the system, just figure out what is reasonable for the spell to be able to turn invisible. I am all for using natural language, but the spell should still probably have some limit to its targeting ability beyond: 1 object. "Item" never appears in the descriptive text, which always refers to the object, so even if "item" was a more descriptive word in english than "an individual article or unit, especially one that is part of a list, collection, or set," most readers are going to be left wondering what does and doesn't fit that description.
If the intention is common holdable items, a bulk limit between 1 and 5 bulk would make a lot of sense, and provide a lot of clarity.
A lot of spells like this have some kind of volume limit, specifically because players like to get creative (and should be encouraged to do so). a 10ft by 10ft by 10ft cube would make a lot of sense as a limit, if a limit is intended.
What is the difference between turning a small figurine, a small table sculpture, or massive statue invisible? It seems like a mistake to assume that your average reader is going to see the spell "Invisible Item" and reasonably assume that one is a fair target and the others are not, without something specifying the scope of the object that can be targeted.
By RAW, as a GM, I would be inclined to disallow turning a stone in a wall invisible with this spell, and probably a wall itself or anything that is particularly architectural. But I see no reason to think a cart or something similar in size or purpose would fall outside of the spell's prevue.
Also, still unresolved for me is whether it could be used to turn a complex trap invisible.
I agree. I am not hating on the writers of this spell with this thread. I think the spell is pretty cool. I think threads like this can actually help writers if they don't devolve into angry yelling matches because they can see how readers respond to their writing.
That is why I created this thread so that people could share their ideas about what is feasible and not, and then GMs can use that to inform their own arbitration of this spell. It is good to toss out the most outlandish ideas early, and try to figure out how and why it makes sense in game to say "not that!"
|
Again, I am not trying to game the system, just figure out what is reasonable for the spell to be able to turn invisible. I am all for using natural language, but the spell should still probably have some limit to its targeting ability beyond: 1 object.
I would use the bulk limit of the caster a colossal dragon might use a catapult as a toddler does a matchbox car. So they feel that is an item, where as a human couldn't pull it, never mind lift it. the terms Item and Object are both used in the bulk rules, so I don't see it being too far of a stretch. if you an carry it, its an item.
From the discussion in the thread about APG spells, it is pretty clear that there is a broad range of what people think an "item" is, and what the limits on this spell are. I am sure we are going to have a lot of players arguing that they can turn doors invisible because spell targets one object. Right now this is definitely a spell you want to talk to your GM about before you start getting to many ideas about how you will use it.
My dividing line is roughly based on hitpoints. If something has hitpoints for sections, that's too big for an object. Sections of walls have hitpoints, so walls and buildings are too big. A door just has hitpoints, so it's good.
It's not perfect, but I'm not writing the book, so it's what I'll use if anybody tries to turn a house invisible. (That's what rituals are for.)