ok.. please bear with me this could be long... and if you want to respond with some constructive criticism please read everything before doing so, including the spells that are talked about.
I know this has been talked about before.. but I don't think it was answered to the level of what I wanted or some people wanted. And I hope I can explain how I see it, so it can be understood.
The combo of Invisibility Glitterdust Invisibility.
We need to talk about both spells.
We all know Glitterdust could be better explained but it is not. So, this is my take on the spell. Of course the beauty of this game is the DM can say however something is going to work in his game.
That target of Glitterdust gets a Will save for the blinding effect and gets NO spell resistance.
Now I'm not sure why the target gets a Will save instead of a Fort save.
If you cast Blindness on a target, it get a Fort save and spell resistance. But the spell Blindness is in fact a spell. Glitterdust is a area effect of glittering dust, and I'm not sure why there is no spell resistance if it is magic. you can read the description in a few ways. You can read it as it is magic and gives off a magic sparkle light or it is a sparkle like gold flakes or a metallic flake and with out light it does not sparkle like a gold coin. But if it is magic why no spell resistance?
Faerie fire is a spell that does something very similar to Glitterdust but the target gets spell resistance because faerie fire is in fact a spell that will outline a subject to shed light as candles.
Now if a target gets hit with acid splash they get no save or spell resistance. because well its a touch attack that is why there is no save and the acid is not magic, that is why there is no spell resistance. it is acid eating your face off.
Also when I was reading some forums about this, I noticed a question about the Duration of the spell.
The Area of effect of glitterdust is all creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread are covered in glitterdust.
There a couple of ways to read the Duration of the spell. Please remember the DM has final say on what the spell does.
I read it as a one shot wonder.. you splash everything in a 10-ft area with glitterdust end of story. (if somebody moves though the area of effect next round it would be like walking across sand. yours footstep could be seen or the dust/sand would move if disturbed.
The other way to read it would be seen as a cloud of glitterdust. (if somebody moves into the area of effect next round or during the duration they would all so be covered and have to make a will save or be blinded). If this is true they would/should have a description like the spells Obscuring mist or Fog Cloud. But it does not. So I would say it is not a cloud at all.
Now as you know and can see it gets a little complicated in this game we call D&D, things have to be identified magic or non magic. For example, There is magic fire and non-magic fire because there are resistance in this game. Scorching ray is in fact magic fire. If the target of the scorching ray gets hit and has spell resistance the target gets a spell resistance check.
So now, unless glitterdust is a Supernatural ability? a magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.
I would say glitterdust is not magic and it is a spell but not a Supernatural ability, so a non-magic sand/white flour of glittering dust showered over you.
I think everybody does agree magic or not, it completely and utterly counters invisibility and any concealment in every way of any target or objects in the area of effect with a -40 on stealth checks.
Now when I see No spell resistance it would mean not magic. Kind of like you just got hit with bag of white flour with a bunch of metal shavings in it. The metal shaving glitter and if you get some in your eyes, you are blinded. simple.
Or lets say even, that the dust does gives off a magic light. Like you just got stuck with a glitterdust and every spec of dust had continual flame cast on it. That would still make sense why you would not get spell resistance yet it is still have a magic light.
There is also a wondrous magic item called Dust of Appearance that, surprise! requires the spell glitterdust to make. Part of the Description is "This powder appears to be a very fine, very light metallic dust. a single handful of this substance flung into the air coats objects within a 10-foot radius, making them visible even if they are invisible." long story short, a lesser of the glitterdust spell with no blinding effects.
On to invisibility.. it is better explained then glitterdust.
Invisibility - part of the description "the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes. 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. 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). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible."
So the way invisibility says it covers a source of light I think the target of glitterdust or even Dust of Appearance could cast invisibility with glitterdust or Dust of Appearance on them and become invisible again with no -40 to stealth checks because all the dust on the target is invisible... nothing is stopping the caster from hitting the target again with glitterdust or Dust of Appearance and reveal the target again.
So... all the glitterdust or Dust of Appearance or flour or sand or anything on the target would be invisible. light source or not.
Now unless somebody can explains that glitterdust is a Supernatural ability or is some way anti-magic, invisibility should always make you invisible again know matter what is on you.
Also if a target has Faerie fire on them... it is a spell they got a spell resistance check. the target of Faerie fire cast invisibility. They are still outlined in Faerie fire because it is a spell and not touching them.
Again this is my opinion I'm not saying its right or wrong. Just trying to follow the rules that make sense.
If the description of glitterdust was better. like at the end... where it says "Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks."
Maybe if they added: Glitterdust completely and utterly counters invisibility and any concealment in every way of any target or objects in the area of effect with a -40 on stealth checks. If a creature that was effected by glitterdust casts invisibility again with glitterdust covering itself, has ______ effect.
That would have been nice.
Glitterdust seems pretty clear on the effects...
visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell
..............visibly outlining invisible things
which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades
I personally think it would be absurd to have the spell description read as you are suggesting (for every possible circumstance....)
good point. so you would think it would have SR. but does not even though it is a spell.
So.. glitterdust: you can not go invisible with glitterdust on but you could go invisible with Dust of Appearance on you?
Dust of Appearance
this substance flung into the air coats objects within a 10-foot radius
also-
concerro wrote:
Glitterdust is from the school of conjuration, and those spells don't use SR.
The intent of glitterdust is to counter invisibility so going invisible again should not work.
This is supported by "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."
another good point i missed about the SR.
|
also-
another good point i missed about the SR.concerro wrote:
Glitterdust is from the school of conjuration, and those spells don't use SR.
The intent of glitterdust is to counter invisibility so going invisible again should not work.
This is supported by "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."
I agree with Bloodhawk. It is from the conjuration school so there would be no SR. You dont get SR against a summoned monster when its clawing your gonads out. It brings something physical into existence. As for turning invisible with the Dust of Appearance on you, I suppose if you want to keep memorizing invisibility spells or using your spell slots have at it. I suppose its all up to the DM who is of course always right.
-V-
my thoughts on it are a bit more old school.
The spell in MY interpritation CONJURES the normal non-magical material.
I personally think SR is way over used but thats a diffrent thread.
All this spell does is create a whirling "blanket" of gold dust gilter type metal. The metal Iron Pyrite is what comes to mind when I picture the spell circling it's victums. It is just a unmagical metal being made to act in a very brief magical way but it's nature is non-magical so SR should not apply.
The various creation spells follow that same logic, the wood thats created with fabricate isn't treated as magical in anyway and can still be used in spells that state only non-magical items are allowed to benifit from said spell.
My veiw of the gliterdust spell is along those same lines. The spell simply brings the material from location X to a 10ft cube in a whirling cloud of very fine shiney metal flakes.
I personally think it would be absurd to have the spell description read as you are suggesting (for every possible circumstance....)
I don't think it would be absurd to put in the one circumstance the spell is meant to counter.
I think i would have the spell DESCRIPTION like this...
A cloud of golden particles created, covering everyone and everything in the area with a sparkling glow that surrounds and outlines the subjects, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible or hiden 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. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.
Glitterdust completely and utterly counters invisibility and any concealment in every way of any target or objects in the area of effect with a -40 on stealth checks. If a creature that was effected by glitterdust casts invisibility again before glitterdust spell duration is over, it has no effect.
The glitterdust spell conjures (hence no SR, because the magic affects everything indirectly) a cloud of glittering dust that hangs in the air and sparkles for the duration of the spell.
Invisible or otherwise concealed creatures/objects within the cloud are coated with the sparkling dust, thus being outlined and revealed.
A second invisibility spell cast upon a creature in the cloud would be ineffective, as the creature would simply become coated in the floating, sparkling particles again.
Also note that while light sources are rendered invisible, the light emmanating is not. Therefore a creature may seem to be covered in sparkles rather than sparkling dust. Either way, the creature becomes discernible whether you rule that glitterdust creates a persistent cloud or a one-time sprinkling.
The glitterdust spell conjures (hence no SR, because the magic affects everything indirectly)
I was going to use conjures.. but decided to use created from Conjurations subschool. I think both would work.
a cloud of glittering dust that hangs in the air and sparkles for the duration of the spell.
maybe cloud should not be used... from your description it seems like the cloud would stay there and anybody walking into it would be effected for the duration of the spell.
Invisible or otherwise concealed creatures/objects within the cloud are coated with the sparkling dust, thus being outlined and revealed.A second invisibility spell cast upon a creature in the cloud would be ineffective, as the creature would simply become coated in the floating, sparkling particles again.
Also note that while light sources are rendered invisible, the light emmanating is not. Therefore a creature may seem to be covered in sparkles rather than sparkling dust. Either way, the creature becomes discernible whether you rule that glitterdust creates a persistent cloud or a one-time sprinkling.
Yes, i see your point. I was reading the invisibility wrong. I was reading it, that the light was invisible out to 10 feet. And that would be wrong. Only items that stick out past 10 feet become visible. So no matter what the light will still be seen.
Thanks!
Ive never used Glitterdust as a cloud....me thinks I should
Yes it would! the only problem i see with it as a cloud would be you could end up giving concealment to a target that you are trying to take concealment away from. Like the spells Obscuring mist or Fog Cloud.
Thats why i don't think Glitterdust is really a cloud but more of a spray. or a conjured cloud that is instant like a flash of light.
true it would... it could be used in a bunch of different ways. =)
Thanks!
You're welcome. :)
DDO does a pretty good visual representation of the glitterdust spell. It creates a sparkly, pixie dust cloud reminiscent of the old Star Trek transporter effect that hangs in the air for a while.
You cannot 'cheat' glitterdust or dust of appearance by dropping a second invisibility.
The dust from the former is a "pouf alla yous in this spread are coated in shiny sparklies for (x) rounds". The -40 Stealth penalty precisely counters the "immobile" bonus to Stealth of +40 from invisibility. The only way to get rid of the stuff is to dispel it.
The glitterdust is admittedly somewhat poorly worded. The stuff sticks to whomever's caught in the initial *pouf* for the duration. Those who are initially blinded continue to be able to save to shrug the blindness off until they succeed or when the duration expires.
However, I see your point about the "lingering cloud" - however, in such cases the spell also describes the benefits/circumstances/etc from when you leave the cloud. If it lingers and floats, the coating would only remain suspended within the cloud - when you leave, the sparklies end. Makes it pretty useless. With such a 'version' of glitterdust I'd really be jonseying to find an arcane version of faerie fire to back it up with.
As previously discussed, there is not much that will stop it due to lacking SR. Which is ok - it's not a discriminatory effect, so if you accidentally sparklie your buddies along with the baddies, they hate you too.
Dust of Appearance is basically the consumable-use version of Glitterdust, only better (as it is just about the only way to counter Dust of Disappearance, barring having other-than-human senses), although it lacks the ability to blind those you splatter the Dust of Appearance onto.
Dust of Appearance is basically the consumable-use version of Glitterdust, only better (as it is just about the only way to counter Dust of Disappearance, barring having other-than-human senses), although it lacks the ability to blind those you splatter the Dust of Appearance onto.
I still don't know about Dust of Appearance.
First part of the description-
"This powder appears to be a very fine, very light metallic dust. a single handful of this substance flung into the air coats objects within a 10-foot radius, making them visible even if they are invisible."
It does not saying anything about a sparkle or light effects.. just a metallic dust.
"It likewise negates the effects of blur and displacement. In this, it works just like the faerie fire spell. The dust also reveals figments, mirror images, and projected images for what they are. a creature coated with the dust takes a –30 penalty on its Stealth checks. The dust's effect lasts for 5 minutes."
in this it states like faerie fire it negates blur and displacement. But still does not say it glows like faerie fire.
The reason both glitterdust and faerie fire work so well is that light is involved. and though you can make the source of light invisible you can't make the light go away. And that is why you can't go invisible again with any good effect.
Again, i could be wrong.. this is just how i'm reading it. And sometimes i can't do that very well it seems.
So if Dust of Appearance has some light source... i agree. you can not go invisible. But if it is just dust sticking to you like flour... you can.
One thing to look at are the spells required to make the dusts. dust of appearance is pretty specific in what it does - negate invisibility and other forms of magical concealment, like you're saying.
I can see a variant or higher-level version of glitterdust working both as a lingering cloud of sparkly fog added to what it already does though!
I agree you should look at Construction Requirements of a item to get a idea of what the item is suppose to do.
But that does not always mean it is the same or better.
For example.. Cloak of Elvenkind. Construction Requirements are the spell invisibility. But you get far less then becoming invisible. but only a +5 competence bonus on Stealth check or even Lens of Detection has Construction Requirement of the spell true seeing. But the item does not even come close to what the spell is capable of.
I do agree there should be some upgrade to glitterdust like a cloud of some kind. hopefully.
|
Question in a very similar vein of some of the debates above. What about glitterdust with an incorporeal creature? We encountered a shadow demon a session or two ago and I had a consideration of glitterdusting it since it could use dim light to go invisible.
There was some debate about whether the glitterdust acted as a non-damage spell effect and would highlight it still, or whether it being conjuration meant that there was some sort of physical glitter that would just fall through the incorporeal form even if it was created magically.
With it having the 'creation' spelltype, I am of the opinion that it would be the latter. The spell physically creates a bunch of highly visible dust that sticks to the creature. But with this interpretation, it would mean that casting invisibility again would hide the dust too as an object on the creature.
Question in a very similar vein of some of the debates above. What about glitterdust with an incorporeal creature? We encountered a shadow demon a session or two ago and I had a consideration of glitterdusting it since it could use dim light to go invisible.
There was some debate about whether the glitterdust acted as a non-damage spell effect and would highlight it still, or whether it being conjuration meant that there was some sort of physical glitter that would just fall through the incorporeal form even if it was created magically.
With it having the 'creation' spelltype, I am of the opinion that it would be the latter. The spell physically creates a bunch of highly visible dust that sticks to the creature. But with this interpretation, it would mean that casting invisibility again would hide the dust too as an object on the creature.
Hrm ... that's a really good point. I'll get back on this when I have some neurons left to rub together. :)
|
Dang, that incorporeal situation is a thinker . . .
From the PRD -->
Incorporeal: Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
Glitterdust *is* a Conjuration [Creation] spell, which seems to indicate that it produces a physical effect, albeit not a damaging one. Y'know, I'd go ahead and rule that the glitterdust does negate the shadow blending ability of the shadow demon [I think that's what you're referring to]. The description of the spell says that the target "continues to sparkle," so that seems to indicate that the particles do produce some light. While certainly not enough light to prevent shadow blending, the spell description appears to imply that it should work. The demon is still blending into the shadows, he's just got a sparkling film around him that's easily visible.
As a GM, I'd definitely rule in favor of that trick. Not only does it make sense, it's doggone creative, and creativity goes a long way to making the game more enjoyable.
There was some debate about whether the glitterdust acted as a non-damage spell effect and would highlight it still, or whether it being conjuration meant that there was some sort of physical glitter that would just fall through the incorporeal form even if it was created magically.With it having the 'creation' spelltype, I am of the opinion that it would be the latter. The spell physically creates a bunch of highly visible dust that sticks to the creature. But with this interpretation, it would mean that casting invisibility again would hide the dust too as an object on the creature.
I agree with Stockvillain... a tough one...
I think you can glitterdust a incorporeal target.
incorporeal
"It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms"
Glitterdust is a spell of conjuration like you where saying, but it still is a spell, and i think it will outline a incorporeal target.
Glitterdust would cover everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell.
If the target goes invisible and if there is dust on him. The dust does go invisible but the light/sparkle from the dust can be seen just fine. And that is why you cant go invisible again until the spell duration is over.
couple of hard parts..
1. is saying if it is like Faerie Fire and the glow/sparkle surrounds and outlines the subjects. but i don't think it matters if the glitterdust does stick the target.
2. like you where saying do you conjuration a non-magical dust? there for not magic? or do you conjuration a dust that outlines or surrounds the target there for not really touching him?
I'm not saying its right or wrong.
But i would say glitterdust does work on incorporeal targets.
i had some other thoughts after i posted.
And i'm going to blame the bad description of glitterdust.
Glitterdust is a conjuration [creation] and a non-damaging one at that. There is magic involved because it sticks to the targets and cant be removed and it glitters lights.
But you don't get a SR even though it is magic that is making it stick to you.
I can see Faerie Fire working just fine, but the target gets a SR with Faerie Fire. plus Faerie Fire surrounds and outlines the subjects.
Glitterdust just outlines the targets. I guess it would be based of your definition of outline?
Because if the dust is non-magic... it should not be able to stick to a incorporeal target.
But my guess is the magic of the spell is making the dust outline the target with non-magic dust that sparkles with light.
and Glitterdust is suppose to be a upgrade to Faerie Fire as well.
So yea.. i think glitterdust does work on incorporeal targets... i'm done rambling now..
Creative rambling good sir, creative rambling. :)
Question in a very similar vein of some of the debates above. What about glitterdust with an incorporeal creature? We encountered a shadow demon a session or two ago and I had a consideration of glitterdusting it since it could use dim light to go invisible.
There was some debate about whether the glitterdust acted as a non-damage spell effect and would highlight it still, or whether it being conjuration meant that there was some sort of physical glitter that would just fall through the incorporeal form even if it was created magically.
With it having the 'creation' spelltype, I am of the opinion that it would be the latter. The spell physically creates a bunch of highly visible dust that sticks to the creature. But with this interpretation, it would mean that casting invisibility again would hide the dust too as an object on the creature.
I brought this up to my group this last weekend because of all the glitterdust debates. Even though i think it is possible for glitterdust to work on incorporeal. 3 people in my group do not think it will and we ruled it that way as a house rule.
There points were. it is a conjuration spell there for you get no SP and there for it does not stick to the incorporeal targets. Unless of course they are not incorporeal and you hit them with glitterdust then they go incorporeal, glitterdust works normal.
Another point i brought up was that glitterdust was a upgrade to faerie fire. the response was they did not think it was. as faerie fire is druid spell, divine and not arcane. and that glitter is arcane not divine. There for completely different spells and not a upgrade.
I do agree with there points.. so like i said as a house rule we set it as glitterdust has no effect on incorporeal targets.
That target of Glitterdust gets a Will save for the blinding effect and gets NO spell resistance.
Now I'm not sure why the target gets a Will save instead of a Fort save.If you cast Blindness on a target, it get a Fort save and spell resistance. But the spell Blindness is in fact a spell. Glitterdust is a area effect of glittering dust, and I'm not sure why there is no spell resistance if it is magic.
While this doesn't appear to be the current (or main) concern about the spell, going back to older editions (with more generous text descriptions) helps in this case.
Blindness is a necromancy spell, affecting a creature directly by permanently destroying the victim's organ in some ways.
Therefore, Fortitude save to overcome the damage, spell resistance to shrug off the magic.
Glitterdust creates a bang-flash of golden particles. You can avert your eyes with a Will save (although this one is debatable) to avoid being temporarily blinded.
Since the magic does not directly affect you (other than by its effect), there is no spell resistance.
In this regard, glitterdust is like an better version of flare (except for the Will save).
Thanks you! that does help. I do see where the debate would come on the Will save... you would think it would be Reflex to avert your eyes.
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).
So the torch is invisible, but the light emitted by its flickering flames isn't. I would go as a far as stating that the flames themselves are visible as manifestation of light.
As for Glitterdust, it isn't an evocation spell and doesn't have the [light] descriptor, but from the fluff of the spell, I'd say that yes, it does produce light - not enough to provide and degree of illumination, but enough to make things outlined and visible in the dark. All it says is that the dust "and continues to sparkle until it fades".
As far as I'm concerned, magical sparkling doesn't need a light source to reflect.
I would be also drawing conclusion that invisibility does not save you from glitterdust as long as the latter is in effect.