any good metamagic feats for Summon Monster?

[Halinn]

The feat itself specifically mentions the effects being unseen, so how do you read that as the 'effect' line being unchanged?

[Captnq]

The feat itself specifically mentions the effects being unseen, so how do you read that as the 'effect' line being unchanged?

"You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same. Note that this feat has no bearing on any components required to cast the enhanced spell, so the spell’s source might still be apparent, depending on the situation, despite its effects being unseen. Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell."

Effects does not = Effect Line in the stat block.
By your logic, Invisible spell can ONLY be used with spells that have an effect line.

All it says is that the spell has no visual manifestation. You are assuming the effect line is a manifestation. The effect line CAN be a manifestation, but not all manifestations are effect.

Now, my sticking point is...

"All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same."

Now, the manifestation of a spell is usually listed in the description. This line lists off a number of Stat Block attributes and states that "All other aspects of the spell" remain the same.

Now, looking at it from a strickly Mechanical viewpoint, That means this spell can only change what is listed in the Description.

EVACUATION RUNE
- COMPLETE SCOUNDREL (3.5)
Conjuration (Teleportation)
Level: Bard 5, Sorcerer/Wizard 5
Effect: One invisible rune

Here we have an example of an effect line that says, "Invisible".

So, everyone else assumes that Invisible Spell adds "Invisible" to the effect line. I state, that by the RAW reading, The stat block must remain unchanged. Only the Description can change (The only place manifestations are listed). Therefore, no spell with an Effect line can be made invisible.

However, I am starting to think the RAI for the feat is to limit the metamagic feat to any part of the spell that is created by the spell, not anything the spell effects.

For example:
Summon Monster Transports Critters: Visible critters.
Conjure Ice Beast MAKES critters: Invisible Critters.

What about Gate?
Or, a simpler version:

it creates an inter-dimensional connection between your plane of existence and a plane you specify

So, your gate would be invisible, but the critters it calls would not.

Black Blade of Disaster.
Conjuration (Creation)
Effect: Sword-shaped planar rift
You create a black blade-shaped planar rift about 3 feet long.

Isn't the visual manifestation of the spell "a black blade-shaped planar rift about 3 feet long"?

Yes, but it's a creation spell, so it is CREATING the Blade, therefore, the blade is a manifestation of the spell.

EDIT: If you want to discuss a Summoning spell, here's Lesser Luminous Assassin.

The spell is bringing the assassin from somewhere else, therefore, the Assassin is not a manifestation of the spell.


Summary of my current Argument
AH. I think I get it now. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Manifestation of the Spell: Anything the spell does/creates.
Subjects of the Spell: Things/Objects/Critters the spell is targeting.

So, A Conjuration Creation is a Manifestation of the spell and subject to invisibility, whereas a Conjuration Calling/Summoning would be a SUBJECT of the spell, and therefore not subject to said invisibility.

Now then, unless I'm reading this wrong, a Conjured Ice Beast would be invisible is created via invisible spell. Since invisibility, as a condition, does not carry any rules for 'appearing while attacking.' (Those rules are under invisibility the spell, not invisibility, the condition), would it not stand to argue that said critters will remain invisible, no matter what?

[Unbeliever]

Punchline:  Invisible Spell is so poorly-written that relying on RAW with it is a waste of time.  Either you have creatures that are invisible no matter what -- which is ridiculously overpowered for a +0 feat and makes it one of the greatest summoning feats out there (up with Greenbound and Rashemani Elementals) -- or god only knows how it applies.  This was my opinion before we started on this thread, though, and nothing has changed to convince me otherwise.  So ... umm, ask your DM I guess.  Btw, thanks everyone for the suggestions earlier in the thread, if I didn't say that already.


Captnq's reading in this post is just what I said it was in #12 and #14.  So, I understood it correctly from the get-go. 

It's just that I think it's incorrect.  It relies heavily on reading summoning's fluff and applying that as a limitation to Invisible Spell.  Furthermore, it looks for a strict mechanical definition of a "visual manifestation" that doesn't exist, and, when it's not found, relies on saying that the stat block "must remain unchanged."  Except that "all other aspects of the spell" means all aspects other than its "visual manifestation," a thing that is not confined -- or even defined -- by a spell's statblock. 

Hence, it essentially adds, as I have stated before, a "does not work on summoning spells" into the text of Invisible Spell.  Such a broad limitation should be stated somewhere, and not, at most, vaguely intimated.

[brujon]

Um... Wow. My two words have certainly had an impact over here, it seems.

[Kethrian]

Conjuration (summoning) "brings a manifestation".  Does this not state that it is not bringing the actual creature/object, merely a manifestation of it?  Now, where does the manifestation come from?  If the spell makes it, as we know conjuration spells are capable of, then Invisible Spell should make the manifestation invisible.  If it doesn't, then the manifestation had to exist previously.  Does anyone know of any 3.5e book that talks about manifestations existing anywhere outside of summoning spells?  If not, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that the spell creates a manifestation of a creature and brings that to you.  Ergo, invisible when using Invisible Spell.

[brujon]

Conjuration (summoning) "brings a manifestation".  Does this not state that it is not bringing the actual creature/object, merely a manifestation of it?  Now, where does the manifestation come from?  If the spell makes it, as we know conjuration spells are capable of, then Invisible Spell should make the manifestation invisible.  If it doesn't, then the manifestation had to exist previously.  Does anyone know of any 3.5e book that talks about manifestations existing anywhere outside of summoning spells?  If not, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that the spell creates a manifestation of a creature and brings that to you.  Ergo, invisible when using Invisible Spell.

Personally, my take on Invisible Spell is that it makes you look like an Autistic Schizophrenic, because you just stay there spouting gibberish and nothing at all seems to happen, until people are randomly melted, burning, getting bigger, stronger and whatever...

Basically, i think it renders ALL of a spell's effects invisible. Summon Creature? Bang, the creature is invisible. Wall of Fire? Invisible wall of fire.  Mage Armor? Invisible mage armor! Alter Self? Two spells for one, you're now invisible and an alter ego!

Of course house rules are necessary to balance it all out, since the effect modifies the spell, and thus uses the duration of the spell, so the invisibility could be nearly permanent, and also not end when in combat.

[Captnq]

I think this needs to continue in a new thread.
Here