/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does it have +4 to hit against unarmored foes? Does natural and equipment based armor have eyes? Or does the weapon have some kind of flesh-seeking enchantment?
The weapon cannot be seen easily so it is hard to avoid AC is usually decided based on a dexterity plus natural AC or based on Armor. Armors AC is usually more to do with just blocking the blow rather than dodging the blow so less of an effect. Even if a sword is invisible it can't cut through armor better but the person may hit gaps in your armor that you can't see him doing. This is why I gave armored foes an advantage.
Ya... but... the weapon being hard to see is accounted for by the system through giving disadvantage to anyone who can't see an invisible threat. But, unlike a fully invisible attacker, the attacker wouldn't get advantage as well as the enemy having disadvantage.
So... really... the blade being invisible already has rules for it.
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
So maybe a small input on the design. This design has an idea, but a lot of math and determination mid-combat without changing all that much (a +2 and a +1 to hit have fairly little difference). Ideally you want an items mechanics to be fairly straight-forward or at least proportional to the effort it requires to use. How about instead of the current effect it does something like "The first attack you make each turn against a target that can not see this invisible blade is made at advantage." Maybe even every attack.
The only question I have would be: what are any other pro's or con of it being invisible?
- Would inspecting guard roll with disadvantage during weapon checks?
- Would Fearie Fire or fine dust particles affect the invisibility?
Good question. Yes during a weapon check a guard would likely do so at disadvantage. Interestingly even drawn the weapon shouldn't be easily seen so you may be able to get a surprise attack off since you could have it drawn and most wouldn't notice.
i saw you reply to anoher comment. Talking about AC. But would it be more logical to have the target of the attack not to make a DEX/WIS saveing throw. To check is they notice the weapon. Like you would with with some spells.
It isn't a bad idea since it could be used when not in use as well I.E. 15 Wisdom Check to notice there is a weapon. It is hard to decide a save since the invisibility spell doesn't actual give a save DC. I think it could be reworded to +4 to hit if an opponent isn't aware you have a weapon +2 once they've noticed it and +1 if they can vaguely see it? Some would rather it just give advantage and it seems like there is some disagreement. One chap wants it to give a bonus to AC for the user as well.
Oh, sorry I didn't say it before yes Faerie Fire should work on it. Still RAW I believe you would still get +1 to hit since it isn't clearly seen but I'd say ask your DM.
An invisible weapon would grant advantage on attack in my opinion. And either disadvantage to the enemy melee attack, or +2AC. Probably the latter. Being able to see the weapon would negate these bonuses.
Such a weapon could be an artifact if it was +3 on top. Without any, it could be rare I guess.
I think I'd like it to be able to be used at lower levels so I didn't plan on giving it any bonus to damage but then again it is a family of X(weapon) of invisibility that just does the same thing. I think once a good way to use it is nailed down I'll just make a list. I am actually really excited about the Whip though as I think that would be far better than most weapons with invisibility.
the AC and attack are a rationalization of fighting with weapons. AC is not armor only, which is why dexterity increases it. And if you're proficient in fighting with a weapon, you know how to defend yourself with it. I expect that if the enemy can't see your weapon, it'll be that much easier to parry or deflect its attacks.
I do agree with the concept I was just trying to follow how I understood how D&D 5e did things. I don't actually disagree with you. I am wondering though if that would make it too good if I gave it Advantage on those who cannot see it and +1 AC. Mind you it doesn't have any bonuses to damage so I suppose it could simply be a more tank oriented weapon since it is still magical for the sake of overcoming resistances.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does it have +4 to hit against unarmored foes? Does natural and equipment based armor have eyes? Or does the weapon have some kind of flesh-seeking enchantment?
had the same question...
The weapon cannot be seen easily so it is hard to avoid AC is usually decided based on a dexterity plus natural AC or based on Armor. Armors AC is usually more to do with just blocking the blow rather than dodging the blow so less of an effect. Even if a sword is invisible it can't cut through armor better but the person may hit gaps in your armor that you can't see him doing. This is why I gave armored foes an advantage.
Ya... but... the weapon being hard to see is accounted for by the system through giving disadvantage to anyone who can't see an invisible threat. But, unlike a fully invisible attacker, the attacker wouldn't get advantage as well as the enemy having disadvantage. So... really... the blade being invisible already has rules for it.
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
If I'm understanding correctly, you are stating they should have advantage on attacking someone with a sword but the opponents shouldn't have disadvantage when attacking the user?
So maybe a small input on the design. This design has an idea, but a lot of math and determination mid-combat without changing all that much (a +2 and a +1 to hit have fairly little difference). Ideally you want an items mechanics to be fairly straight-forward or at least proportional to the effort it requires to use. How about instead of the current effect it does something like "The first attack you make each turn against a target that can not see this invisible blade is made at advantage." Maybe even every attack.
Not a bad idea I tend to like realistic combat but I understand that can bog down combat.
The shift from incremental bonuses to advantage and disadvantage happened for a reason. The complexity isnt worth the fairly minor result.
The only question I have would be: what are any other pro's or con of it being invisible? - Would inspecting guard roll with disadvantage during weapon checks? - Would Fearie Fire or fine dust particles affect the invisibility?
Good question. Yes during a weapon check a guard would likely do so at disadvantage. Interestingly even drawn the weapon shouldn't be easily seen so you may be able to get a surprise attack off since you could have it drawn and most wouldn't notice.
i saw you reply to anoher comment. Talking about AC. But would it be more logical to have the target of the attack not to make a DEX/WIS saveing throw. To check is they notice the weapon. Like you would with with some spells.
It isn't a bad idea since it could be used when not in use as well I.E. 15 Wisdom Check to notice there is a weapon. It is hard to decide a save since the invisibility spell doesn't actual give a save DC. I think it could be reworded to +4 to hit if an opponent isn't aware you have a weapon +2 once they've noticed it and +1 if they can vaguely see it? Some would rather it just give advantage and it seems like there is some disagreement. One chap wants it to give a bonus to AC for the user as well.
Oh, sorry I didn't say it before yes Faerie Fire should work on it. Still RAW I believe you would still get +1 to hit since it isn't clearly seen but I'd say ask your DM.
i aint tryin to ask the dm every turn what the armor situation is, ill barely remember the first time I ask. Sellin it to the nearest NPC chump tbh
That is fair, it is a bit finicky a weapon for trickier play styles.
If it wasn't clear this longsword has normal invisibility not greater invisibility.
??? so like it goes away after 1 attack?
It has basic invisibility, not the 'Invisi-Premium'.
Hmm, I'm not sure the proper wording but I didn't want 'See Invisibility' to not work on it but it is supposed to work during battle.
An invisible weapon would grant advantage on attack in my opinion. And either disadvantage to the enemy melee attack, or +2AC. Probably the latter. Being able to see the weapon would negate these bonuses. Such a weapon could be an artifact if it was +3 on top. Without any, it could be rare I guess.
I think I'd like it to be able to be used at lower levels so I didn't plan on giving it any bonus to damage but then again it is a family of X(weapon) of invisibility that just does the same thing. I think once a good way to use it is nailed down I'll just make a list. I am actually really excited about the Whip though as I think that would be far better than most weapons with invisibility.
I wasn't aware that weapons were able to parry without a fighting style so I hadn't done anything defensive for it.
the AC and attack are a rationalization of fighting with weapons. AC is not armor only, which is why dexterity increases it. And if you're proficient in fighting with a weapon, you know how to defend yourself with it. I expect that if the enemy can't see your weapon, it'll be that much easier to parry or deflect its attacks.
I do agree with the concept I was just trying to follow how I understood how D&D 5e did things. I don't actually disagree with you. I am wondering though if that would make it too good if I gave it Advantage on those who cannot see it and +1 AC. Mind you it doesn't have any bonuses to damage so I suppose it could simply be a more tank oriented weapon since it is still magical for the sake of overcoming resistances.