|
I've done a bit of poking about and haven't found anything conclusive. Glitterdust indicates that it covers those in the area of effect in glittering particles, visibly outlining invisible things...
What impact does that have upon miss chances granted by concealment such as Obscuring mist or other fog effects, or blur/displacement?
I ask because Faerie Fire specifically mentions having an impact upon concealment. Glitterdust is worded much more vague, despite having a similar style of effect to FF.
Should Glitterdust have an impact upon concealment due to visual impediments such as darkness, fog or displacement effects? Or is it truly inferior *in this respect to the first level Faerie Fire?
*I'm aware GD includes a blindness, broader AoE and no SR that FF does not provide.
I've done a bit of poking about and haven't found anything conclusive. Glitterdust indicates that it covers those in the area of effect in glittering particles, visibly outlining invisible things...
What impact does that have upon miss chances granted by concealment such as Obscuring mist or other fog effects, or blur/displacement?
I ask because Faerie Fire specifically mentions having an impact upon concealment. Glitterdust is worded much more vague, despite having a similar style of effect to FF.
Should Glitterdust have an impact upon concealment due to visual impediments such as darkness, fog or displacement effects? Or is it truly inferior *in this respect to the first level Faerie Fire?
*I'm aware GD includes a blindness, broader AoE and no SR that FF does not provide.
All Glitterdust does is apply a -40 to stealth checks (coincidently an immobile invisible person has a +40 to stealth check).
You can still attempt to hide when affected by Glitterdust, it's just at a -40. So an immobile invisible person that is not attempting to hide that is affected by Glitterdust has a hide check of 0. Otherwise known as "Hey, there he is". But if they conditions existed for him to hide as well he would still be able to apply his stealth check bonus.
So a:
Invisibile
Immobile
Glitterdusted
Hide in Plain Site
Stealth of 20
Guy
Still has a +20 to his hide.
Edit - On a side note I'm not sure Faerie Fire would work on things concealed by fog either. Even at the 5' 20% miss chance range. Turning on the lights in a fog just makes things worse (if you want proof turn on your high beams in the fog, though it's best you try this when not moving).
Obscuring mist and other fogs interfere with light getting from you to my eyeballs, making it hard for me to see you. This doesn't change when you are covered with glittering dust - light from your glittery self still has to pass through the intervening fog.
If your outline is blurry or displaced in normal lighting/visibility, making it hard for me to figure out where you are, causing me to maybe miss with some of my attacks, then having a blurry/displaced glittery outline is still going to be just as hard for me to figure it out.
So, Glitterdust doesn't offer any benefit in any of these situations.
|
|
That is my reading of it as well DM_Blake, much to my somewhat dismay as a utilizer of glitterdust as a player.
However, just posing the same question - if your outline is blurry or displaced in normal lighting/visibility thus causing me to maybe miss with some of my attacks, then having a blurry/displaced faerie_fired outline is... apparently going to be no problem at all to see and strike you?
That is my reading of it as well DM_Blake, much to my somewhat dismay as a utilizer of glitterdust as a player.
However, just posing the same question - if your outline is blurry or displaced in normal lighting/visibility thus causing me to maybe miss with some of my attacks, then having a blurry/displaced faerie_fired outline is... apparently going to be no problem at all to see and strike you?
Logically, I don't see any difference in how I picture these two spells working (yes, I imagine them with different CGI, but not really different logic mechanics).
However, the spell descriptions are quite different. One, Faerie Fire, explicitly states that it messes with blur and displacement. The other, Glitterdust, does not. Maybe the Faierie Fire is more of a dispelling or suppressing effect on blur and displacement. Somehow Faerie Fire cancels those effects, at least for the duration, but Glitterdust doesn't have that benefit.
Evidently, Glitterdust is weaker at revealing magically misplaced enemies, but stronger at blinding them and at affecting more of them. Maybe that's a fair trade-off?
|
Obscuring mist and other fogs interfere with light getting from you to my eyeballs, making it hard for me to see you. This doesn't change when you are covered with glittering dust - light from your glittery self still has to pass through the intervening fog.
If your outline is blurry or displaced in normal lighting/visibility, making it hard for me to figure out where you are, causing me to maybe miss with some of my attacks, then having a blurry/displaced glittery outline is still going to be just as hard for me to figure it out.
So, Glitterdust doesn't offer any benefit in any of these situations.
I read Glitterdust's effect as being closer to Christmas lights then tin foil. Afterall, it's light bright enough to possibly blind the target. And while I totally get your point about not being able to see well in fog, even in dense fog you are likely to see someone in bright festive illumination from 10 feet away.
Director of Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there Folks,
The text for Glitterdust does not make any mention of concealment at all, meaning that is has no effect on such affects (regardless of what the spell effect itself might indicate as logical). Little logic inconsistencies like this are the price of doing business within an incredibly complex system attempting to mimic reality (to some extent).
Hope that clears things up
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there Folks,
The text for Glitterdust does not make any mention of concealment at all, meaning that is has no effect on such affects (regardless of what the spell effect itself might indicate as logical). Little logic inconsistencies like this are the price of doing business within an incredibly complex system attempting to mimic reality (to some extent).
Hope that clears things up
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
But...invisibility is concealment. Are you saying glitterdust does not foil invisibility?
|
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But...invisibility is concealment. Are you saying glitterdust does not foil invisibility?
Glitterdust specifically mentions that it cancels invisibility, it says nothing of concealment. In this case, it cancels the specific effect (invisibility), which has the side effect of also canceling its result (concealment), but that is not a retroactive cancelation. If you catch my drift...
(although, at the heart of the matter is the fact that glitterdust could use some clarification, it is a poorly worded spell)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?
But...invisibility is concealment. Are you saying glitterdust does not foil invisibility?Glitterdust specifically mentions that it cancels invisibility, it says nothing of concealment. In this case, it cancels the specific effect (invisibility), which has the side effect of also canceling its result (concealment), but that is not a retroactive cancelation. If you catch my drift...
(although, at the heart of the matter is the fact that glitterdust could use some clarification, it is a poorly worded spell)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It is, but the more I play I find that the stealth rules in general are the clunkiest in the game. Which is certainly no fault of yours, yet nonetheless falls upon your shoulders to remedy. Concealment and its variations are sort of in this category as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?
Somewhere a dev cries.
But...invisibility is concealment. Are you saying glitterdust does not foil invisibility?Hey there Folks,
The text for Glitterdust does not make any mention of concealment at all, meaning that is has no effect on such affects (regardless of what the spell effect itself might indicate as logical). Little logic inconsistencies like this are the price of doing business within an incredibly complex system attempting to mimic reality (to some extent).
Hope that clears things up
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well hang on. You're mixing up terms. Invisibility is an effect that makes you imperceptible to sight. Mechanically, this gives you total concealment (50% miss chance), and various bonuses & penalties to either the invisibile creature's Stealth skill, or observer's Perception skill. Invisibility grants concealment, it is not concealment itself.
Also speaking mechanically, Glitterdust does two things. It blinds, and it inflicts a -40 penalty to Stealth checks. As noted by Jason Bulmahn, RAW, it does not negate the concealment granted by Invisibility.
In other words, it makes it easier to SEE invisible targets but not hit them, beyond the fact that you don't have to guess a square and if they're blinded they don't get their DEX bonus to AC. Fluff-wise, you could chalk it up to all that glittery stuff being hard to look at, dazzling you and making it impossible to aim precisely.
Personally, I think the concealment should be negated, but that's not what the rule says.
But...invisibility is concealment. Are you saying glitterdust does not foil invisibility?Hey there Folks,
The text for Glitterdust does not make any mention of concealment at all, meaning that is has no effect on such affects (regardless of what the spell effect itself might indicate as logical). Little logic inconsistencies like this are the price of doing business within an incredibly complex system attempting to mimic reality (to some extent).
Hope that clears things up
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingWell hang on. You're mixing up terms. Invisibility is an effect that makes you imperceptible to sight. Mechanically, this gives you total concealment (50% miss chance), and various bonuses & penalties to either the invisibile creature's Stealth skill, or observer's Perception skill. Invisibility grants concealment, it is not concealment itself.
Also speaking mechanically, Glitterdust does two things. It blinds, and it inflicts a -40 penalty to Stealth checks. As noted by Jason Bulmahn, RAW, it does not negate the concealment granted by Invisibility.
In other words, it makes it easier to SEE invisible targets but not hit them, beyond the fact that you don't have to guess a square and if they're blinded they don't get their DEX bonus to AC. Fluff-wise, you could chalk it up to all that glittery stuff being hard to look at, dazzling you and making it impossible to aim precisely.
Personally, I think the concealment should be negated, but that's not what the rule says.
What? No, that's not what JB said. He specifically said that glitterdust cancels invisibility AND the concealment that goes with it. Glitterdust just doesn't have any affect on other forms of concealment.
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?
Edit:
We had that problem the last sesion.Bone devil with quickened invisibility.
He turned invisible I cast glitterdust, the next round he turn invisible again.
Invisibility
If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. [...]
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible;
items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn
by the creature.
So if you turn invisible again the glittering effect ends?
On the other hand the text on invisibility later says:
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). "
Does the glittering effect equal light?
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?On the other hand the text on invisibility later says:
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). "Does the glittering effect equal light?
"A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks."
Glitter dust continues to act until it expires.
|
Director of Games
|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, looks like I got too cute with the logic behind my explanation. Let me be clear...
Glitterdust kills invisibility and all the rules that go with it.
Glitterdust has no effect on other forms of concealment.
Glitterdust also makes it very difficult to hide and might blind you.
That is all... (as it is currently worded).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?On the other hand the text on invisibility later says:
"Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). "Does the glittering effect equal light?
"A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks."
Glitter dust continues to act until it expires.
So no new Invisibility, gotcha. :)
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?
Nothing. Invisibility can't conceal sources of light.
Is the dust not described as glowing?
|
|
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?Noting. Invisibility can't conceal sources of light.
Is the dust not described as glowing?
If the dust is glowing but you(and the dust itself) is invisible, I wouldn't see that as being any different than you being invisible with an invisible light source. You can see where the light is coming from, but the person is still invisible, so I'd say you could target the square but would have miss chance.
The question is whether the dust(being a creation spell) goes invisible with you or whether there is still an outline of you there that can be targeted easily.
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility?Noting. Invisibility can't conceal sources of light.
Is the dust not described as glowing?
If the dust is glowing but you(and the dust itself) is invisible, I wouldn't see that as being any different than you being invisible with an invisible light source. You can see where the light is coming from, but the person is still invisible, so I'd say you could target the square but would have miss chance.
The question is whether the dust(being a creation spell) goes invisible with you or whether there is still an outline of you there that can be targeted easily.
You should rather consider the dust as thousand of light sources. So the target of the spell is outlined with tiny points of light with such accuracy that you can make normal attacks on her.
Casting another invisibility spell doesn't help because invisibility doesn't hide light. The tiny lights outlines the target event if she casts dozens of invisibility spells.
Jason didn't write that the spell cancel or dispel invisibility, it just renders it useless because of the impossibility to hide the light that reveals your shape and because you get -40 on stealth checks. However, if you are invisible and immobile, you still gets a +40 bonus on stealth and you can try to hide with your base stealth. Of course, if you move, invisibility gives "only" +20, so the glitterdust is really a major hindrance to anyone trying to move while the spell effect is active.
A related question that has come up in my game; what if the target is incorporeal? My player have encountered a Poltergeist that is so far easily avoiding any physical attacks, and the cleric is nearly out of Channels. Would the magic dust of the spell cling to an incorporeal creature, thus revealing it, or pass through, having no effect?
While we're at it...
I understand that Glitterdust, probably because of its, umm, glittering, causes a -40 penalty to hiding (which has been rolled up into Stealth).
However, I somehow fail to see the merit in it causing the same -40 penalty for moving silently (which it does in PF, since this now is governed by the Stealth skill, as well).
Necromancy.
If the source of light is invisible, you can't see it.
Invisibility: "An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it."
If a light-emitting particle is invisible, you can't see the actual particle, but you do see the light being emitted from where the particle is.
When I think of Glitterdust or Fairy Fire, I think of something like this:
picture from a game
I know this is not realistic but then how can you tell what looking straight at an invisible lightsource would be like?
I'd say it's looking at a transparent lightbulb, I tend to see a miniature sun that does not provoke blue spots in my vision instantly...
as glitterdust obviously does not blind people after the inital casting the light is not strong enough once cast, but still strong enough to frame in a "solar-eclipse" style?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess I always interpreted "continues to sparkle until it fades" from the spell description to imply that it does shed light - how else would it "fade"?
Also, being entirely ineffectual in the dark seems like a big enough deal that they'd have mentioned that in the text if that were the intent. Failing to mention dependency on the surrounding light levels seems like too big of a thing to assume.
My interpretation, then, is that the glitter glows enough that you can always tell where the creature is, but not enough to raise the light level in the area.