Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have read through several different posts about Glitter dust. The ruling I was looking for was if glitter continues to affect the area for the duration, or is the glitter simply instant and the duration is only for the Blindness effect.
I believe it's been answered: That dust is an instant affect, and the blindness is the duration affect.

Does anyone know if Paizo officially made a ruling on this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's described in the descriptive text of the spell. The dust covers an area everything in the area, then continues to glow until it fades (duration expires).


I think the question is:if someone were to enter the area the round AFTER you cast the spell, would he get dust on him, but not be blinded?

I could see a reading of the rules leading to:anyone who enters the area during the duration is subjected to glowing and blindness. I wouldn't play it that way however.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's a spread, not an emanation. Only emanations affect an area longer than just the moment of casting.


What about fog spells? They're spread and have a duration. Just substitute glowing glitter for fog.

You could play glitter dust like stinking cloud, theoretically?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beopere wrote:

What about fog spells? They're spread and have a duration. Just substitute glowing glitter for fog.

You could play glitter dust like stinking cloud, theoretically?

I think the descriptive text of glitterdust makes it sufficiently clear that, rather than a lingering cloud of particles hanging in the air, all of the particles settle onto creatures/objects in the area immediately.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No, glitterdust is an area spell, while fog cloud is an effect spell. Note the difference between "Area: 20-ft. spread" and "Effect: fog spreads in 20-ft. radius". It seems very similar, but it isn't, when you check the definitions for these terms in the Magic chaper.


I concur with your interpretations. But I do feel its ambiguous.

After reading your post Zaister, I've read through the magic section again. Effect vs area does seem to connote different things, but I see no limitation of duration for an area spell.

This is a text about durations relative to effect vs area:

PFSRD wrote:

If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.

Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.

Area spell + duration = spell stays with that area for its duration. Seems like people would be blinded and revealed in that area the whole time. (arguably in that area ONLY and leaving would make it safe, but I'd say specific text in the spells overrides that one.

EDIT: added the last portion of the quote regarding leaving an area spell


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Check out the definitios for emanations ("continues to radiate") and compare it to the definitions for bursts and spreads which say no such thing.

Area spells are usually instantaneous. Glitterdust is something of an aberration since it's in a way a combination of an area and effect spell (or it should be, of course it doesn't say so, so officially it isn't).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Beopere, you just tried to apply the rules for the "Effect" line to a spell that has no such line.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Usually a spell with an effect like glitterdust would be formulated as a target spell. However, since the primary use of this spell is to affect invisible creatures, a target spell would not work, because you cannot target something you cannot see. Thus the strange combination of area and effect spell was born.


Anything in the area when the spell is cast is covered in glittery dust and blinded. The effects on those creatures and objects lasts until the duration expires. The duration is not for the "things become covered in glitter" part; it's for how long the effects on creatures/objects lasts. Nothing in the spell indicates that creatures or objects entering the area later are somehow covered in glittery dust that has already settled. On the bright side, affected creatures that leave the area are still affected until the spell expires.

Edit: Or not. See below.


Found the relevant area under Magic -> Duration:

Quote:
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.

Well, shoot. That jives with the "sticks to the area, not the creatures" interpretation.

This spell is broken, and not in the "omg op" way.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blahpers wrote:

Found the relevant area under Magic -> Duration:

Quote:
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.

Well, shoot. That jives with the "sticks to the area, not the creatures" interpretation.

This spell is broken, and not in the "omg op" way.

It's broken in the "if I apply the Effect rules to a spell without an Effect line, weird things happen" way?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Look, if you go to the Magic chapter of the CRB, and look up the "Area" heading (since that's what's in glitterdust), and NOT the "Effect" heading (since glitterdust doesn't have that line), you'll find that one of the subheadings is "Creatures":

Core Rulebook, Magic chapter, Spell Descriptions, Aiming a Spell, Area, Creatures wrote:
A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.


Jiggy wrote:

Look, if you go to the Magic chapter of the CRB, and look up the "Area" heading (since that's what's in glitterdust), and NOT the "Effect" heading (since glitterdust doesn't have that line), you'll find that one of the subheadings is "Creatures":

Core Rulebook, Magic chapter, Spell Descriptions, Aiming a Spell, Area, Creatures wrote:
A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.

And a burst is not an ongoing 'dispersion' effect; it triggers and then is gone. So you douse all of the creatures in the area of the spell with dust and they are coated for the duration, but someone who walks into the same area on the next initiative 'tick' is not affected in any way.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blahpers wrote:
This spell is broken, and not in the "omg op" way.

So does this match the way I understand it?

It sticks to all creatures in the area (even if they move out) and doesn't have effect on new creatures entering the area?

BTW we probably all know this, but there is table variance in the "new guys get to make a save when entering" question. About half the table GM's I regularly play have different stances.


James Risner wrote:
It sticks to all creatures in the area (even if they move out) and doesn't have effect on new creatures entering the area?

This is the way I run it.

I've never actually seen (or heard suggestions of) it being run in a different way.


First, thanks to all for taking up this subject again. I really admire many of you guy's (gal's) ability to really break the rules down to their core meanings.
This is how the other conversations about this subject have gone. Pretty much everyone essentially agrees that the Dust is no longer floating in the air, but surfaces w/in the AoE are coated and blinded (if they failed their save) for the duration. A few people have had their DM have a cloud of Glitter hanging about for the duration though and the subject came up the other day in a game i was playing in. We interpreted the spell the same way most of us have here, but it made me curious to try and get a final ruling. So....

to reiterate the question, has anyone seen an "Official" ruling by Paizo?


Ugh, then they shouldn't say creatures and spread in the same descriptor. -_- I hate tricking myself into thinking I was wrong.

Sounds like most of us run it the same way in any case--fire and that's it.


I'm pretty sure that the sane (RAI) way to run the spell is to have it affect everyone in the area at time of casting and then noone else.
The RAW way to run it is far more murky than I thought myself before reading this.
It definitely needs a clarification imo.

Dark Archive

The answer is no.


Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
The answer is no.

I'm not sure whether your answer was meant as a RAW answer, or as what you see as fitting?

If your post is supposed to be RAW, could you please point the rest of us to the relevant text, because some helpful people have posted very relevant rule text, and the answer still isn't clear.
If your post was supposed to be what you yourself would rule, could you please do us the courtesy of saying so in your post, at least when it is in the rules section of the paizo forum where we are trying to figure out what RAW is.

I write a lot of personal viewpoints on the system, even on this forum, because very often other people are better equipped to handle the RAW, but I always either state it in a way that makes it clear that I'm not 100% OR I state that it is a personal viewpoint.

Silver Crusade

I think that the question Titania is saying 'no' to is the question, 'Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling?'

Titania's answer, 'No, Paizo has not made an official ruling.'

Correct me if I misunderstood.

Grand Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I think that the question Titania is saying 'no' to is the question, 'Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling?'

Titania's answer, 'No, Paizo has not made an official ruling.'

Correct me if I misunderstood.

I think you are correct, but it was difficult to parse, since it didn't quote the question she was answering, and there are a bunch of posts with other things that could be answered with a "no" between the OP and Titania's answer.

Liberty's Edge

One thing I think you guys are missing is the fact that Glitterdust is a Conjuration (Creation) spell.

"Creation: a creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."

So, the "matter" created by the spell lingers in the original area of effect until the spell ends (duration expires). As per the spell, the "matter" continues to sparkle, which to me means, it still can have an effect on a creatures stealth skill.

Now, as an aside, I would rule that any creature that entered the area on subsequent rounds would cause a disturbance in the glitter that could be easily tracked, with the glitter sticking to an invisible creatures feet, applying the -40 to stealth adjustment. I would also modify the concealment of an invisible creature to partial concealment (20% miss chance) due to still being mostly invisible. If the creature flies or floats over the area, then there is no contact with the dust and they are free and clear...

Just a common sense ruling imho...

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Although I have always run it the other way (persistent cloud of glitterdust that lingers on affected creatures), I think Jiggy's right based on the area/effect entries (instantaneous cloud of glitterdust that lingers on affected creatures).

Liberty's Edge

Did any if you see the finale of Rescue Me? Yeah, that's how glitterdust works.

Liberty's Edge

. . . or The Big Lebowski.

Dark Archive

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I think that the question Titania is saying 'no' to is the question, 'Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling?'

Titania's answer, 'No, Paizo has not made an official ruling.'

Correct me if I misunderstood.

Correct

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I think that the question Titania is saying 'no' to is the question, 'Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling?'

Titania's answer, 'No, Paizo has not made an official ruling.'

Correct me if I misunderstood.

Correct

Wait, was that "correct" as in "Malachi was correct that they have not made an official ruling", or "correct" as in "You asked me to correct you if I misunderstood, and now I'm doing so"?

Just kidding. I understood what you meant; just poking fun at the way people sometimes try to parse rules text ;-)


So, shall we FAQ this? Over-all, we all seem to agree, but there are a few DMs who don't.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't see how this is even ambiguous. Glitterdust says it makes creatures glow, and it lists a duration.


I dont see anywhere in the spell description that says the dust settles on the ground. It merely says a cloud of particles covers everyone and everything in the area. the area has a duration of 1 round/level. I read that as anyone and anything in that area, or that goes into that area, is covered, because it's a cloud of glitter..

Even if it's a only a handful of particles sticking to them, it's magic glitter that glows, giving away their position.

And trust me, it only takes ONE piece of glitter to get in your eye for your day to be ruined.


in the end, even if there is an 'official ruling', unless it's intended for PFS.. i'd say go with the general consensus of your group. If you cant reach a unifying decision, dump a 10ft circle of glitter on the ground and have people walk through it.. and base your decision on how many people get glitter on them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It says

Quote:


Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread

so in fact it does not linger and affect other creatures. When you cast it, it effects an area, and that area is "creatures and objects within a 10 ft. radius spread." The area affected by a spell does not change once cast.


Exactly, spread. If it said "10-ft burst, duration: instaneous. affected creatures glow for 1 round/level" then i'd say 'ok, it only affects the people in the initial radius of the spell'. But, it says '10ft radius-spread' Which means it fills every space, around corners, etc. and it does so for a duration.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
But, it says '10ft radius-spread' Which means it fills every space, around corners, etc. and it does so for a duration.

No, "spread" means it goes around corners. The "and it does so for a duration" is something you added yourself; spreads do not mean that. Perhaps you're thinking of emanations?


I'm merely basing it off of what it says/doesn't say.

It doesn't say that people arent affected afterward.

Fog Cloud: cloud spreads 20ft Radius , Duration 10min/level. Just because you're not caught in the Fog when it goes off, doesn't mean you're not affected if you move into the area.

Fireball: 20ft Spread Duration: Instaneous Well that tells everyone that the people in that 20ft spread are affected. It has a duration of instaneous so there is nothing left around afterward to affect people walking into the radius after it goes off.

Stinking Cloud: cloud spreads 20ft high, duration: 1round/level. I'm farily certain if you walk into that area after the spell goes off, you're going to be rolling saves or be nauseated.

While i'll give you that glitterdust doesn't say 'cloud spreads', or 'fog spreads', but it does say "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades." And that area lasts for 1round/level.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:

I'm merely basing it off of what it says/doesn't say.

It doesn't say that people arent affected afterward.

Fog Cloud: cloud spreads 20ft Radius , Duration 10min/level. Just because you're not caught in the Fog when it goes off, doesn't mean you're not affected if you move into the area.

Fireball: 20ft Spread Duration: Instaneous Well that tells everyone that the people in that 20ft spread are affected. It has a duration of instaneous so there is nothing left around afterward to affect people walking into the radius after it goes off.

Stinking Cloud: cloud spreads 20ft high, duration: 1round/level. I'm farily certain if you walk into that area after the spell goes off, you're going to be rolling saves or be nauseated.

While i'll give you that glitterdust doesn't say 'cloud spreads', or 'fog spreads', but it does say "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades." And that area lasts for 1round/level.

Your only reading part of the description.

Glitterdust is not ambiguous, and does not need an official ruling because the CRB explains how the spell works perfectly.

10' radius spread, duration of 1 round per level. This means it hits the creatures, and they are affected for the duration of the spell. It doesn't talk about people entering or exiting or any effects that would last other than being blinded by the spell when its cast.

Lets compare to fog cloud, same level and its also a spread spell.

Fog cloud is 20' x 20' (meaning it is a cube, not a plane). Duration of 10 min/level.

Well this is interesting. The very first thing I notice when I am looking at this spell is that it specifies a height for the spell, something that glitterdust doesn't do.

The next thing that fog cloud does is explain what happens to things inside of it while the cloud is persisting. Glitterdust doesn't do that. It actually specifies that the creatures have to be covered by the dust.

Since glitterdust doesn't have any volume, like fog cloud does (it affects a plane, not a cube) you can't be covered by the glitterdust after the spell is cast. You might get some on your shoes I guess.

If you base your interpretation of this spell based off of what the spell says, you could not interpret this as acting in the same way that fog cloud does, because it does not have the same parameters and effect that fog cloud does.

Glitterdust isn't an aberration among spells, it acts exactly in accordance with the rules. The only way it would be confusing is if you read into its effect something that it does not say it does.

It is a spread, it hits things in the spread, but it does not hang in the air, because it doesn't have a height, it just lays on the ground for the duration of the spell, after it's initial spread.


I think the spell may be written in a way which is Just Plain Wrong, but that is in part because I think it's trying to do something the usual nomenclature doesn't cover.

There's three ways spells are generally specified: targets, effect, or area. Glitterdust can't work if it says targets, because you have to pick the targets, which means you have to be able to see them. So it has to say effect or area. If it says effect, it creates a region-of-glitter. They didn't want that, so they said area. But they want to give the spell a duration, and they don't want things to defeat it by just leaving the area. So they say "creatures or objects in".

So, my inference: This is similar-to an instantaneous spell, in that it targets the creatures (or objects) in the area, which are affected. Only it has a duration after which they cease being affected. But I don't think there's an ongoing application-of-effect happening. You'll notice that creatures who were affected get a new save every round to beat the blindness. It doesn't say "creatures remaining in the area". It doesn't say anything about creatures entering the area, and most spells that are supposed to do that have explicit wording about creatures in or entering the area.

So I think it's moderately clear that the intent is that it affects creatures in the area when it is cast, and after that the effect of the spell is glittering on those creatures or objects, not the "area".


seebs wrote:
So I think it's moderately clear that the intent is that it affects creatures in the area when it is cast, and after that the effect of the spell is glittering on those creatures or objects, not the "area".

Exactly this. There are no instructions for creatures remaining in a cloud or entering a cloud, whereas those instructions are included in spells like stinking cloud.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Your honor, I rest my case. There is enough room for interpretation, there are enough people with different opinions that we should FAQ this and ask nicely for PAIZO to make a ruling on this and hopefully re-write it in the next reprinting of the Core Rule Book.

Please FAQ this thread all.

Thx

Dark Archive

I don't get the issue here. This spell works the same as Bless. At the time the spell is cast, all creatures and objects within the area are coated with the glitter. This glitter then lasts one round per level of the caster.

Or, do you all have the same question about spells like Bless or Bane?


Ubercroz wrote:
Glitterdust isn't an aberration among spells, it acts exactly in accordance with the rules. The only way it would be confusing is if you read into its effect something that it does not say it does.

It is a favored past time on the boards to argue that glitterdust has powers that the spell doesn't mention.

It is a persistent cloud effect!

It is a light effect!

It glows in the dark!

It has special immunity to invisibility!

It floats in the air around people!

It works against incorporeal creatures!

etc.


Never mind. My urge to waste electrons overrode my willpower. I'd like to point out, though, that 'thread warring' is frowned-upon by the forum moderators.


Remy Balster wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
Glitterdust isn't an aberration among spells, it acts exactly in accordance with the rules. The only way it would be confusing is if you read into its effect something that it does not say it does.

It is a favored past time on the boards to argue that glitterdust has powers that the spell doesn't mention.

It is a persistent cloud effect!

It is a light effect!

It glows in the dark!

It has special immunity to invisibility!

It floats in the air around people!

It works against incorporeal creatures!

etc.

And what against a new invisibility? the glitter become invisible too? or not?


folletrap wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Ubercroz wrote:
Glitterdust isn't an aberration among spells, it acts exactly in accordance with the rules. The only way it would be confusing is if you read into its effect something that it does not say it does.

It is a favored past time on the boards to argue that glitterdust has powers that the spell doesn't mention.

It is a persistent cloud effect!

It is a light effect!

It glows in the dark!

It has special immunity to invisibility!

It floats in the air around people!

It works against incorporeal creatures!

etc.

And what against a new invisibility? the glitter become invisible too? or not?

Did you really go through and necro every thread with glitterdust in it? That is rather ignorant.

Sczarni

I believe Google searches are responsible for the recent string of thread necros, combined with newer posters that don't know to check for the last time the thread was commented on.

Usually, after they've made the error once, they don't repeat it.


Nefreet wrote:

I believe Google searches are responsible for the recent string of thread necros, combined with newer posters that don't know to check for the last time the thread was commented on.

Usually, after they've made the error once, they don't repeat it.

There were like 3 or 4 glitterdust threads with the same person. A necro is understandable, just going through bumping every thread with the words glitter dust is pretty ignorant even without it being a necro.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Glitterdust- Has Paizo officially made a ruling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.