Request for an FAQ on whether a player can turn invisible whilst under the effects of Glitterdust

[basil888]

Greetings

I am requesting an FAQ for the above topic. Here are the reasons I believe that you cannot go invisible whilst under the effects of Glitterdust. Note that various GM's in PFS play have different interpretations. Below are ideas I support.

'When analyzing rules from a RAW perspective, specific trumps general.

The general rule is that invisibility prevents one from being seen and grants several advantages. Glitterdust specifically counters the advantages invisibility confers -- and specifically does so for the duration of the Glitterdust spell.

If invisibility specifically mentioned that it counters the effects of Glitterdust, then casting it again or after being Glitterdusted would allow one to gain the benefits of being invisible. Read Darkness and Daylight to see examples of this sort of wording.

Since invisibility does not provide a specific exception to Glitterdust's power, then subsequent castings do not circumvent Glitterdust's specific power to outline invisible targets.
When arguing RAW, common sense and physics don't factor in.

Glitterdust specifically says it "...outlines invisible things FOR THE DURATION OF THE SPELL." Unless invisibility states that it counters Glitterdust, then even subsequent castings do nothing to prevent Glitterdust from continuing to outline the thing.
Another statement in support of the above position: If the player has a reference on hand, I cede to it. If not, too bad. As far as I'm concerned, RAW is you're covered in magic dust preventing invisibility. It's not like they used Mage Hand to dump ordinary glitter on you. The magic dust is specifically immune to invisibility.'

[BigNorseWolf]

This should probably go into the rules forum, as it doesn't deal with the organized play rules themselves. it will probably get moved there.

For the record i agree withyou. You are both invisible and brightly sparkly, casting invisibility again won't change that.

[The Morphling]

Heh. This again.

No, if you're glittery, you can't go invisible.

[Pirate Rob]

This is already an answered question.

See Here.
Further Clarification.

[GM Lamplighter]

I think: *you* would be invisible, but the perfectly "you"-shaped glitterdust envelope is not. It's like being invisible underwater - people can't technically see you, but they know exactly where you are without penalty and can see every little move you make in perfect detail.

I can't think of a case where that is functionally different from "can't go invisible", but I bet someone will.

[Paulicus]

That's also how I understood it.

Though, I believe invisibly underwater still grants concealment, but not total. Could be mistaken though.

[Claxon]

Yes you can, but no it wont do anything.

[thorin001]

Glitterdust is a spell, not an object, thus Invisibiity cannot make the 'glitter' invisible.
Neither Invisibility nor Glitterdust mention Invisibility altering the effects of Glitterdust.
So, casting Invisibility while under the effect of Glitterdust has zero effect.

[David knott 242]

On the other hand, if casting Invisibility on a person already covered by a Glitterdust spell results in a glittering shell that can be targeted as easily as the original person could be, there could still be the issue of being unable to see color or other non-shape related details of that person's appearance.

[Casual Viking]

David knott 242 wrote:

On the other hand, if casting Invisibility on a person already covered by a Glitterdust spell results in a glittering shell that can be targeted as easily as the original person could be, there could still be the issue of being unable to see color or other non-shape related details of that person's appearance.

true, but now you're far below the resolution of official rulings.

[BigNorseWolf]

You can, won't do anything. Its kind of like a chameleon changing colors after its been painted. Sure, under the paint the skin cells technically ARE a different color .. but its still purple.

We now return you to activities more constructive than painting random helpless critters.

[basil888]

Jason Buhlman has spoken - glitterdfust cancels invisibility - because magic pixie dust - for duration of glitterdust. End of story - period. We all know now that invisibility does not cover over glitterdust.

'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
Jason Bulmahn Lead Designer
Jun 3, 2010, 09:14 pm | FLAG |
LIST
| FAQ | REPLY
________________________________________
1 person 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

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'
Like · Reply · Just now

[basil888]

It seems pretty clear - 'glitterdust cancels invisibility and all the rules that go with it' - that's it - no more needs to be said.

The reason is that the magic pixie dust cannot be made invisible, not at all , to the extent it even subtracts 40 from stealth rolls.

I will certainly be stopping invisibility on anyone who is glitter dusted as per the lead developer's statement. I've printed it out so i can show it to players who argue.- if they wish to take it further i will refer them to the message boards.

I still think an FAQ is required - just to make it crystal clear and to make life easier for GM's when they meet the more litigious players who enjoy nit-picking rules more than any other aspect of the game.

Having said this - i've never seen this become an issue in a game - maybe it added a couple of rounds to a fight but that's about it. Let's not forget that 'invisibility purge' is out there and 'see invisibility'. In my game this week the enemy with 'see invisibility' running cast glitterdust so his friends were not disadvantaged.

[Nefreet]

Just a side note, when you're typing up your replies look for the "How to format your text" spoiler underneath the comment box. It shows you how to quote someone, which is handy for when someone goes to quote you, so that conversations can flow naturally.

Plus, it just makes you appear more experienced with forum etiquette.

[fretgod99]

What if somebody subject to Glitterdust finds themselves in the area when Invisibility Sphere is case?

[Mekkis]

As I see it, the reasoning is that Invisibility clearly states:

prd wrote:

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.

[Imbicatus]

fretgod99 wrote:

What if somebody subject to Glitterdust finds themselves in the area when Invisibility Sphere is case?

Exactly the same if they cast Invisibility. Invisibility Sphere functions like invisibility, so Glitterdust still wins.