|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have seen multiple threads on the top;ic, but there seems to be no definitive answer.
If I cast Glitterdust on an opponent, and the opponent then become invisible, does the Glitterdust cause him to remain visible?
Some treat the Glitterdust as if it were a light source (although nothing in the spell description says it sheds light) and say that the enemy remains visible.
Others treat the Glitterdust as if it were clothing or an attended object, and say it becomes invisible when the Invisibility spell is cast.
EDIT: I saw nothing in the CRB FAQ on the subject.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see your hiney, so nice and shiny...
I agree with Mr. Pitt. It would work as a preventative measure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some treat the Glitterdust as if it were a light source (although nothing in the spell description says it sheds light) and say that the enemy remains visible.Others treat the Glitterdust as if it were clothing or an attended object, and say it becomes invisible when the Invisibility spell is cast.
Both explanations are wrong. It is neither a light source nor is it clothing/an attended object.
It is a magical effect that does exactly what it says it does.No FAQ really required, just needs people to stop making stuff up.
|
|
In fairness, every GM I know has ruled that Invisibility cast after Glitterdust does cause the metallic coating to disappear.
If I threw a bag of flour onto my opponent, who then cast Invisibility, the flour would disappear along with him, yes? Flour is neither clothing nor an attended object.
The reasoning behind the ruling is that while the dust was magically conjured into being, it is not magical itself, as evidenced by the fact that it is not subject to spell resistance. It should therefore be treated just the same as any other non-magical substance coating the enemy.
It seems to me that RAW can be used to justify either ruling.
The reasoning behind the ruling is that while the dust was magically conjured into being, it is not magical itself, as evidenced by the fact that it is not subject to spell resistance. It should therefore be treated just the same as any other non-magical substance coating the enemy.
The stuff is still magical - the lack of SR means that its interaction isn't directly. If it weren't magical it wouldn't be subject to dispel or probably even have a duration limited in that way. (edit: think blank tentacles)
In a situation where I was interested in maximizing realism and was willing to complicate things for it, I might allow reapplication of invisibility to work for stationary objects but say that motion would cause some of the glitter to kick off and re-outline. It's not really within the rules, but I mention it to give a sense for where our opinions differ on the in-world reason I think foiling new invisibility is the right interpretation.
|
|
Mostly this keeps coming up because of invisible trolls. The trolls want to remain invisible yet they cannot, and trolls get angry about glitterdust.
I used to have this one come up when my druid cast fairy fire at the beginning of encounters. Nothing makes a caster more angry than invisibility not working.....
If your implication is that my starting this thread was "trolling" then I am a bit offended. I started this thread because I have seen the rule interpreted both ways, and I was hoping for clarification, or at least consensus. I considered both rulings reasonable under RAW.
And neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any question about Faerie Fire. It is clearly a light source.
I think of it like dust particles that don't so much "outline" an invisible foe, but are disturbed by their presence, just like you could track their steps across a dusty floor, or see their movements in water.
Yes, they're invisible. But they leave traces, which Glitterdust makes apparent.
I would think it depends, on how the GM rules but I can see the point on why you are visible even with second invisibility...
Your flecks, whilst invisible themselves, may still be reflecting whatever light is reaching them.
However like was said depends on how it is ruled
Yeah, another voice for "The spell does what it says it does." Spell says it outlines the creatures for the duration, therefore it does. No appeal to how invis interacts with other things necessary or relevant. (No offense intended to those making those arguments, they just don't matter for this)
A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible 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.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Stealth checks.
Since Invisibility gives you a +40 to Stealth, I think it's pretty obvious that casting Invisibility over Glitterdust doesn't make you invisible.