Magus cast Glitterdust on invisible stalkers. They made the save (DC was pretty low).
GM said since it only outlines them and you can't really see them there is still the 50% miss chance of concealment.
Is that they way it is usually handled?
Yes, I know the GM can rule things differently in his home game. He didn't think he was ruling things differently. He thinks that is RAW. He may be correct. We just weren't sure.
Save: Will Negates (Blinded Only)
They are still outlined, and take a -40 to stealth checks (which negates the bonus provided to in invisible creature standing still, let alone in combat).
They are effectively visible. I look at it this way, take a sheet of really thin clear glass, lean it against a tree, walk 30 feet away and its effectively invisible. Throw some flour at the glass, walk 30 feet away, its clear as day. Because even if you can't see the glass, you can see the flour on the glass, and that's just as good.
The intent of the spell (in all previous editions) is to reveal invisible objects/creatures in the area of effect. At the least, I would reduce the miss chance to 20%.
Any other thoughts?
I can say I've seen it used many times in PFS. I don't think any of those GM's used a miss chance after Glitterdust.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it right either. We were all using Grease wrong for quite a long while.
Glitterdust is specifically supposed to be the go-to spell for targeting invisible creatures like that. Your GM basically gave you the finger in the face of how the spell is supposed to work.
Yep; if glitterdust hits an invisible target in the radius of the spell blast, the creature is now considered visible and glittery. Then they make a Will save to see if they are blinded or not.
Yes, glitterdust trumps invisibility and any concealment resulting from it. Other forms of concealment are not affected.
Thanx for the link. That is the clarification I was looking for.
If he wants to rule it as different for his games, I'm fine with that.* I just want him to be aware that it is a house rule not RAW.
* Actually, I'm more than fine with that. The next group we are starting will be very sneaky so I think I can assume we would get more benefit from it than any NPC's will. =)