|
I had a D&D session the other night. The group was attacked by a pair of invisible stalkers. The wizard cast a Glitterdust spell to help find the creatures.
The argument is this, Is the Glitterdust spell capable of reducing the concealment of a creature for being invisible?
As I see it, according to the spell, it helps to spot the creatures and not having to blinly look for the creature, after all the spell states "Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty to Hide checks."
According to the DM guide it happens to be the same bonus to spot an Invisible being, so my understanding is that the spell just puts an end to having to pinpoint where an invisible being is at, but since it still is invisible would still get the concealment bonus.
Can anyone put some other input into this, would really appreciate it.
Fred Victor
The -40 to hide check could well be on top of invisible creatures becoming visible. In other words this spell, while usually being used to find invisible foes, is actually very good against that rogue with an obscene hide check as well.
|
|
Within the spell it does not state anything about effecting the concealment from invisibility, just the hide checks. This would make it easier to spot an invisible creature, the reason for the outline and also for the -40 to hides checks.
In the DMG page 295 it states "An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment."
I would think that See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge would allow you to bypass the concealment of something invisible, because now you can see it, and glitterdust was meant to allow to pinpoint the creature more easier to spot it, reason for taking a -40 to hide check, and be able to hit it.
Can some more people elaborate on this subject, would love to hear what others think on this.
Fred Victor
|
Within the spell it does not state anything about effecting the concealment from invisibility, just the hide checks. This would make it easier to spot an invisible creature, the reason for the outline and also for the -40 to hides checks.
In the DMG page 295 it states "An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment."
I would think that See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge would allow you to bypass the concealment of something invisible, because now you can see it, and glitterdust was meant to allow to pinpoint the creature more easier to spot it, reason for taking a -40 to hide check, and be able to hit it.
Can some more people elaborate on this subject, would love to hear what others think on this.
Fred Victor
Going from the Epic Level Handbook(sorry I know its 3.0):
"DC 20: Notice the presence of active invisible creature.
DC 30: Notice presence of unmoving living invis creature.
DC 40: Notice presence of inanimate invis object OR notice unmoving, unliving invis creature."
Kuo Toa get the Keen Sight ability with allows them to see invisible creatures, unless the invisibile creature is standing still. I dont think its unreasonable to say that glitterdust would reduce invisibility, which is 50% concealment to a 20% concealment number.
Going by the DC values from the ELH, invisibily creatures get a +20 to their hide if they are moving and a +30 to hide if they are standing still.
Just my opinion though.
Within the spell it does not state anything about effecting the concealment from invisibility, just the hide checks. This would make it easier to spot an invisible creature, the reason for the outline and also for the -40 to hides checks.
In the DMG page 295 it states "An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment."
I would think that See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge would allow you to bypass the concealment of something invisible, because now you can see it, and glitterdust was meant to allow to pinpoint the creature more easier to spot it, reason for taking a -40 to hide check, and be able to hit it.
Can some more people elaborate on this subject, would love to hear what others think on this.
Fred Victor
Well I'll concede that the spell could certainly have been expanded on a little further then this. I wish they would take a more active role in clarifying things in this game. The spell really does not address the issue at all except to state that invisible creatures are outlined in this glowing dust.
Still presumably their outlined in three dimensions. You have a pretty good outline of your attacker in this case. I'm not sure how you could possibly be having a hard time hitting some one who glows in three dimensions.
Finding a vacum moving about in water seems much more difficult.
|
|
I have searched high and low for an answer. Really, would have been nice if they did clarify more on some of these spells.
I do have to agree with maybe reducing the concealment bonus to a 20%, because it should be effected in some way. But within my search there are so many opinions on this matter, especially on wizards message board.
For one, Faerie Fire states within its spell that you put the target in a Outlining pale glow which they do not benefit from any concealment normally provided by darkness,(magical darkness functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.
Glitterdust states 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.
Now there are some that say Glitterdust works the same way as Faerie Fire, but others say Glitterdust is only dust, unlike Faerie fire which is a pale glow. Glitterdust I would think reduce the concealment chance, and that you would need the other spells See Invisibility and Invisibility purge to cut through the concealment altogether.
There is also an article on wizards site There, not there Parts 1 and 2
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a
Here is some interesting insights to invisible. such as this about marking an invisible.
Marking an Invisible Creature: Since a visible object stays visible when an invisible creature picks it up (at least until the invisible creature tucks the object into its clothing), you may make an invisible thing visible (or at least reveal its location) by dousing it with something visible. My own favorite device for doing this is a bag packed with about a pound of flour. You could just as easily use ink or paint.
Toss the bag of flour just like a splash weapon. A direct hit leaves an invisible creature smeared with flour, which reveals the creature's location. An invisible creature caught in the flour's splash effect can attempt a Reflex save (DC 20) to avoid getting covered with flour. A creature can shed its outer clothing (at least a full-round action) and be rid of the flour. Otherwise, it must bathe or wait for the flour to wear off on its own (which takes an hour or two in dry conditions).
It states here about making something visible or at least reveal it's location. SO If they fail the Reflex save they lose their concealment, and if they make their save - then What? Is their concealment reduced or do they keep their concealment and you can just locate it, instead of attacking blindly for it.
Now with mundane items used to spot and cover invisible like this, what of the spells in question I have been asking. Take the spells as read or figure out a happy median.
Fred Victor
IME, in all the games I have played or run, glitterdust has always completely nullified invisibility.
IME, in all the games I have played or run, glitterdust has always completely nullified invisibility.
Same for me.
IME, in all the games I have played or run, glitterdust has always completely nullified invisibility.
Same here, but a thought added:
You can pinpoint the creature that is covered in glitterdust, but you can't make out, which creature, or who it is.
"Okay, there is someone invisibly stalking us, but damn if I knew who that could be. Or what for what it's worth..."
|
In my games glitterdust makes all invisible objects visible by causing a very fine dust (like flour, only sprakling) to rain down in the area of effect. This has the effect of coating all objects in the dust, revealing their shape in three dimensions. There is simply no way an invisible character can benefit from invisibility after being coated in this fine, sparkling powder. I read the modifier on Hide checks as an indication that the sparkling dust is exceedingly reflective, so much so that any attempt to "hide in the shadows" causes a great deal of the indirect light striking the covered target to reflect back toward anyone looking into the area, making hiding virtually impossible.
Although it has never come up in my game, I might rule that it is not possible to make out facial or other details of the 'dusted target as they are still invisible. Thus the party may know that a bipedal humanoid is present from it's general outline, but they would not be able to tell if it was Gorkuk the orc shaman or Malvern, an enemy mage that is stalking them without additional clues of some kind.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Although it has never come up in my game, I might rule that it is not possible to make out facial or other details of the 'dusted target as they are still invisible. Thus the party may know that a bipedal humanoid is present from it's general outline, but they would not be able to tell if it was Gorkuk the orc shaman or Malvern, an enemy mage that is stalking them without additional clues of some kind.
I agree with this, though I would probably let a character make a DC 20 Spot check to determine what kind of creature it was (within the same size/type category).
For example, succeeding at the Spot check would allow a character to tell that the 'dusted creature is an orc, an elf, or a human based on build and racial features (pointy ears, tusks, etc.). Discerning the creature's exact identity would be nigh-impossible, though perhaps permissible with, say, a DC 50 Spot check or similar absurdity.
|
I wouldn't normally impose any difficulty in identifying the (formerly invisible) target of Glitterdust for the same reason I wouldn't impose any difficulty in identifying a particularly well-done bronze statue of a person. When the surface is well-defined, identification is simple. (Things would change, of course, if the target had covered his face with a mask or veil prior to the spell taking effect.)
|
|
I wouldn't normally impose any difficulty in identifying the (formerly invisible) target of Glitterdust for the same reason I wouldn't impose any difficulty in identifying a particularly well-done bronze statue of a person. When the surface is well-defined, identification is simple. (Things would change, of course, if the target had covered his face with a mask or veil prior to the spell taking effect.)
Excellent points.
I wouldn't normally impose any difficulty in identifying the (formerly invisible) target of Glitterdust for the same reason I wouldn't impose any difficulty in identifying a particularly well-done bronze statue of a person. When the surface is well-defined, identification is simple. (Things would change, of course, if the target had covered his face with a mask or veil prior to the spell taking effect.)
I suppose it comes down to one's visualization of the spell, and what one considers necessary coverage (in glitter) for the spell to "provide" it's target(s) to achieve its effects. If one feels that glitterdust simply outlines the three dimensional shape of the creature, it may not necessarily reveal enough fine detail to identify the subject. At the same time, there's nothing in the spell's description that says it doesn't cover the target well enough for observers to recognize the creature so revealed. In this case, it's a DM's call (although I'm sure everyone here will agree that the DM needs to be consistent with the way he handles the issue).