I've got a party of casters happy to Glitterbomb an entire square mile every combat session (I mean to say that they all happily cast Glitterdust until everything is blinded). They've used this tactic a lot, and I don't mind it, as Glitterdust isn't that powerful of a spell, but there are times when I'm not sure it makes sense.
Can you blind shadows? Can you blind skeletons? Can you use Glitterdust to affect creatures underwater? Can you use Glitterdust on incorporeal creatures?
Gliiterdust on shadows or skeletons : yes, undeads have normal sight so they can be blinded as long as the blinding effect is not covered by their immunities (a blindness spell can not affect them as it requires a fortitude save)
Glitterdust underwater : I don't see anything that prevents the spell to work underwater
Glitterdust on incorporeal : The spell can affect incorporeal creatures but they still have their 50% to avoid the effect (as this is not a force effect).
As I understand the spell yes, you can do all that.
I can't think of a reason why skeletons could not be blinded, their sense of vision functions just like any other creatures even though they lack eyeballs; Shadows and other incorporeal creatures only have a 50% chance of being affected by the spell... and as for underwater, well the btb answer seems to be "some spells might function differently underwater subject to GM discretion (core rule book page 432)", meaning it is up to the GM if it works underwater or how it works underwater.
In the games that I GM, for example, I have decided that glitterdust underwater creates a 10' radius cloud of floating, sparkling particulates that rather than blinding people with in it acts as a fog cloud type spell (creatures 5' away have concealment, creatures more that 5 feet away have total concealment). As a player I would have no complaints if the GM chose to run it some other way.
Nice. I'm glad there is something there that supports underwater spell effects in the Core. I ruled on underwater targeting of spells differently as well, since I think it'd be harder to target a burst spell precisely on a creature 40 feet underwater when you're on the surface looking down.
I otherwise played it as the people in the thread recommended it.
I don't have a problem with using Glitterdust on skeletons. They may not have eyes, but Glitterdust doesn't target eyes. They see with Darkvision as well as Orcs do, for example. Obviously, creatures with other senses may still be able to use them, like Blindsight -- and that's where 'immunity' might come into play.
However, I don't think Glitterdust would work against Incorporeal creatures (such as Shadows). Incorporeal creatures have no body that nonmagical dust can settle on; rather, it would float right through them.
It is an attack generated by a spell -- but I see it as a nonmagical attack that is merely Conjured magically (note that it doesn't allow Spell Resistance for additional evidence). In the same manner, if you create a sword with Minor Creation or you summon a Horse with Summon Monster II, they will not harm an Incorporeal creature; they may be conjured magically, but are not inherently magical.
Further, look at Acid Splash (I believe there are other examples, but I best remember the Orb spells from 3.5 which no longer apply). It's a spell you can cast to harm golems that are Immune To Magic, with the justification that you're merely magically conjuring a nonmagical but harmful material. Somebody that allows this to harm Incorporeal creatures is suggesting that it simultaneously benefits as if it were magical and nonmagical, which is a train of thought I find suspect.
The thing for underwater combat you should remember is that a water border breaks line of effect. You generally can't fire effects from abovewater to underwater and vice-versa.
Dunno guys. There is a point where sometimes the official rules don't make sense. If a spell is supposed to drop glitter on everyone, and a being doesn't have eyes to begin with (skeletons, zombies etc) then I'd rule that it won't blind them.
But, that's merely imho, take it as you will.
If skeletons can see they have to have some sensory organs. If they have sensory orgens they can be blinded.
If they don't have sensory orgens they can't be blinded because they already are blind.
But if they are already blind they get the blind penalties.
There are plenty of strange creatures, also including Constructs, Plants, and Elementals that can see without having eyes. Although Plants likely have photoreceptors instead, that still leaves us wondering 'how does animate water, or a stone statue, see?'
None of them are immune to the Blind condition, after all.
So you can blind a plant creature?
If skeletons can see they have to have some sensory organs. If they have sensory orgens they can be blinded.
If they don't have sensory orgens they can't be blinded because they already are blind.But if they are already blind they get the blind penalties.
Not all sensory organs can be blinded though. Only those that see.
Yes you can blind plant creatures provided the plant was able to see in the first place.
If skeletons can see they have to have some sensory organs. If they have sensory orgens they can be blinded.
If they don't have sensory orgens they can't be blinded because they already are blind.But if they are already blind they get the blind penalties.
Not all sensory organs can be blinded though. Only those that see.
Yes you can blind plant creatures provided the plant was able to see in the first place.
Of corse I meant visual sensory organs.
If skeletons can see they have to have some sensory organs. If they have sensory orgens they can be blinded.
If they don't have sensory orgens they can't be blinded because they already are blind.But if they are already blind they get the blind penalties.
This does not follow. Do recall that skeletons and zombies do not have functional organs in any sense of the word. They are rotting undead, created by magic. Magic does not need any kind of sensory organs.
Your logic is flawed. I stand by my point, however I am not attempting to convert anyone. I simply would not rule as DM in the same fashion as this thread seems inclined.
@Piccolo,
I understand what you are saying, but the rules are a set of instructions for running the mechanics of a game. If we follow your logic, which is more real life in nature, the undead skeleton that a caster might raise via the animate undead spell would not only not be able to be blinded, but would never hear the verbal commands that the caster is suppose to use to command them in the first place as skeletons clearly do not have ear membranes.
While as a GM you could rule as such, what you cannot be aware of at first thought is how else your ruling may change other events. You just took away a PC's ability to handle the horde of undead. Might that not also increase the CR and XP of the encounter. If you move the undead as independent creatures with tactics have you over stepped their "mindless" nature or allowed their creator too much of a free hand in issuing those voice commands?
Again, I am not saying your way is wrong, but I am saying that changing RAW or RAI can lead to consequences we have not anticipated. I know, we nearly had a TPK last week due to such an event.
I interpreted his post to mean that skeletons can see and hear 'because magic, that's why'.
Because magic, exactly. Skeletons aren't normal, naturally occurring creatures, and neither are their senses. They operate by the law of similarity.
Despite not having any muscles, they can move, as long as they have legs and joints; and they can hold weapons as long as they have hands. Despite not having eye balls, they can see as long as they have eye sockets. They can hear as long as their skull isn't too badly damaged around the ear area. They might even be able to talk despite not having any tongue or lips or lungs or vocal cords, as long as they have that lower jaw. And all those things can be impeded in the same way as a real creature can be impeded.
I interpreted his post to mean that skeletons can see and hear 'because magic, that's why'.
Correct.
A way to look at it might be that in that case the magic of Glitterdust interferes with the magic which powers their 'sight' along the same lines as aluminium chaff screws with electronic sensors, same overall effect, flavoured so that it doesn't require eyes or such to work in their case.
That's nice, but we aren't talking about real world physics, we are talking about magical monsters.
Just seems silly to have a handful of glitter screw up a beastie that doesn't have eyes in any sense of the word. But that's imho.
That's nice, but we aren't talking about real world physics, we are talking about magical monsters.
Just seems silly to have a handful of glitter screw up a beastie that doesn't have eyes in any sense of the word. But that's imho.
How does a skeleton see/hear? Magic.
How does Glitterdust work? Magic.
It seems a bit silly that you rule that skeletal magic (which has no rules, it just works), is more powerful than a magic spell that has its effects clearly stated out.
After all, we aren't talking about real-world physics here. We're talking about magical spells. I bet there's more to Glitterdust than your average 5-year-old's craft supplies.
I dunno dude, it just seems so very odd. I realize it's the game rules, but it just doesn't make much sense. Kinda a silly mental image, to get right down to it.
"I throw glitter at the giant horrible eyeless monster to blind it!"
Also, that spell is ripe for munchkin overuse.
|
Neither the mechanics of undead animation nor the mechanics of glitterdust are fully detailed beyond a few basic parameters, meaning how both interact is left up to the GM. Some might rule that glitterdust is brought into being by magic, but what waswas brought into being is otherwise mundane and might not have the same effect on creatures who sense through magical rather than physical means. Others may rule the opposite, that the dust called forth is itself lingering magic and not merely the byproduct, and that skellies see via physical sensors of some kind, and the dust would effect them the same. Fact is, with so much left to interpretation, both interpretations are equally valid.
|
|
I dunno dude, it just seems so very odd. I realize it's the game rules, but it just doesn't make much sense. Kinda a silly mental image, to get right down to it.
"I throw glitter at the giant horrible eyeless monster to blind it!"
Also, that spell is ripe for munchkin overuse.
Not to repeat what others have stated like 50 times but uh...
We're not talking about glitter that comes out of commoner's bag. We're talking about a spell.
Consider this: maybe Glitterdust doesn't create it's blinding effect in a literal sense. Maybe the "glitter" is a magically enhanced/conjured substance such that mere contact with it, in any form, is enough to disrupt a creature's senses - even if those senses are also magical.
As for "munchkin overuse," it's no worse than the 500 million other ways to control a creature in this game. Is a temporary blindness, which allows a save every round to remove any worse than a multi-round daze that only gives one initial save? I don't think it is, personally.
Just for the record, when a post is rife with "maybe", it doesn't make for a very authoritative refutation of the opposing viewpoint.
@Kazejin,
Actually, RAI is not open. Per SKR: here.
A monster's type (such as undead or construct) tells you what sort of effects it's immune to. If the type doesn't say "immune to illusions" or "immune to blindness/deafness," then it's not immune to those things.
Also, note that the ooze type says
• Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight.
whereas the construct and undead types DO NOT say that, so constructs and undead are not blind, and are thus not immune to gaze attacks and so on.
|
That's nice, but we aren't talking about real world physics, we are talking about magical monsters.Just seems silly to have a handful of glitter screw up a beastie that doesn't have eyes in any sense of the word. But that's imho.
It seems silly to have a creature with no eyes be able to target enemies, hell, it seems silly for a skeleton with no ligaments to remain held together... but that's magic.
The exact same way a conjured, magical, cloud of energy can blind said creature. Magic.
Many things in rpgs are 'silly' if you try and burrow down into ' But how would that actually work?!'
If you as a GM don't want skeletons and other undead to be affected, BAM! They're unaffected, that's the beauty of the game and rule zero. But if you're running your game RAW and you want to stick to the Paizo interpretation, glitterdust blinds them per SKR as Treesmasha posted.
It's your choice and whatever works best for you and your players is what you should do if you're in a homebrew game, if you're playing in PFS they'll be blinded.
I have trouble believing that something like a tendriculos or shambling mound would be subjected to petrification due to a basilisk's gaze attack.
Can creatures without eyes avert them? Can a creature without eyes attempt to put on a blindfold? Where would a Xtabay place a blindfold? What about a viper vine?
rules and logic do not always mesh... and when they do not rules trump, because logic can throw game balance all out of whack.
Thus we end up with horsesh!t like gorillas having strengths of 15 (to fit with in a certain CR).