Invisibility Glitterdust Invisibility

[Bloodhawk]

I wanted to post this here as well...

ok.. please bear with me this could be long... and if you want to respond with some constructive criticism please read everything before doing so, including the spells that are talked about.

I know this has been talked about before.. but I don't think it was answered to the level of what I wanted or some people wanted. And I hope I can explain how I see it, so it can be understood.

The combo of Invisibility Glitterdust Invisibility.

We need to talk about both spells.

We all know Glitterdust could be better explained but it is not. So, this is my take on the spell. Of course the beauty of this game is the DM can say however something is going to work in his game.

That target of Glitterdust gets a Will save for the blinding effect and gets NO spell resistance.
Now I'm not sure why the target gets a Will save instead of a Fort save.

If you cast Blindness on a target, it get a Fort save and spell resistance. But the spell Blindness is in fact a spell. Glitterdust is a area effect of glittering dust, and I'm not sure why there is no spell resistance if it is magic. you can read the description in a few ways. You can read it as it is magic and gives off a magic sparkle light or it is a sparkle like gold flakes or a metallic flake and with out light it does not sparkle like a gold coin. But if it is magic why no spell resistance?

Faerie fire is a spell that does something very similar to Glitterdust but the target gets spell resistance because faerie fire is in fact a spell that will outline a subject to shed light as candles.

Now if a target gets hit with acid splash they get no save or spell resistance. because well its a touch attack that is why there is no save and the acid is not magic, that is why there is no spell resistance. it is acid eating your face off.

Also when I was reading some forums about this, I noticed a question about the Duration of the spell.
The Area of effect of glitterdust is all creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread are covered in glitterdust.
There a couple of ways to read the Duration of the spell. Please remember the DM has final say on what the spell does.

I read it as a one shot wonder.. you splash everything in a 10-ft area with glitterdust end of story. (if somebody moves though the area of effect next round it would be like walking across sand. yours footstep could be seen or the dust/sand would move if disturbed.

The other way to read it would be seen as a cloud of glitterdust. (if somebody moves into the area of effect next round or during the duration they would all so be covered and have to make a will save or be blinded). If this is true they would/should have a description like the spells Obscuring mist or Fog Cloud. But it does not. So I would say it is not a cloud at all.

Now as you know and can see it gets a little complicated in this game we call D&D, things have to be identified magic or non magic. For example, There is magic fire and non-magic fire because there are resistance in this game. Scorching ray is in fact magic fire. If the target of the scorching ray gets hit and has spell resistance the target gets a spell resistance check.

So now, unless glitterdust is a Supernatural ability? a magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.

I would say glitterdust is not magic and it is a spell but not a Supernatural ability, so a non-magic sand/white flour of glittering dust showered over you.

I think everybody does agree magic or not, it completely and utterly counters invisibility and any concealment in every way of any target or objects in the area of effect with a -40 on stealth checks.

Now when I see No spell resistance it would mean not magic. Kind of like you just got hit with bag of white flour with a bunch of metal shavings in it. The metal shaving glitter and if you get some in your eyes, you are blinded. simple.

Or lets say even, that the dust does gives off a magic light. Like you just got stuck with a glitterdust and every spec of dust had continual flame cast on it. That would still make sense why you would not get spell resistance yet it is still have a magic light.

There is also a wondrous magic item called Dust of Appearance that, surprise! requires the spell glitterdust to make. Part of the Description is "This powder appears to be a very fine, very light metallic dust. a single handful of this substance flung into the air coats objects within a 10-foot radius, making them visible even if they are invisible." long story short, a lesser of the glitterdust spell with no blinding effects.

On to invisibility.. it is better explained then glitterdust.

Invisibility - part of the description "the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes. 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."

So the way invisibility says it covers a source of light I think the target of glitterdust or even Dust of Appearance could cast invisibility with glitterdust or Dust of Appearance on them and become invisible again with no -40 to stealth checks because all the dust on the target is invisible... nothing is stopping the caster from hitting the target again with glitterdust or Dust of Appearance and reveal the target again.

So... all the glitterdust or Dust of Appearance or flour or sand or anything on the target would be invisible. light source or not.

Now unless somebody can explains that glitterdust is a Supernatural ability or is some way anti-magic, invisibility should always make you invisible again know matter what is on you.

Also if a target has Faerie fire on them... it is a spell they got a spell resistance check. the target of Faerie fire cast invisibility. They are still outlined in Faerie fire because it is a spell and not touching them.

Again this is my opinion I'm not saying its right or wrong. Just trying to follow the rules that make sense.

If the description of glitterdust was better. like at the end... where it says "Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks."
Maybe if they added: Glitterdust completely and utterly counters invisibility and any concealment in every way of any target or objects in the area of effect with a -40 on stealth checks. If a creature that was effected by glitterdust casts invisibility again with glitterdust covering itself, has ______ effect.

That would have been nice.

[concerro]

Glitterdust is from the school of conjuration, and those spells don't use SR.
The intent of glitterdust is to counter invisibility so going invisible again should not work.

This is supported by "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."

[Bloodhawk]

concerro wrote:

Glitterdust is from the school of conjuration, and those spells don't use SR.

The intent of glitterdust is to counter invisibility so going invisible again should not work.

This is supported by "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."

good point. ok. thank you.

[Masterkelso]

That being said-- it sparkles because of the nature of the conjuration. It doesn't specifically say that Glitterdust is a *light source*. I believe the reason that it is a second level spell instead of a first level spell is because it is an AOE-- it covers all subjects within its area. After its created, it persists until the sheen and luster of it wears off, but the spell is not active, fluid or moving like faerie fire. Therefore, as a worn object, a second casting of invisibility would render it invisible. You are effectively expending a resource to force a caster or creature to expend its resource to go invisible again. Faerie fire, even though it is a lower level spell, is single target, evocation, specifically mentions that it is a light source, and persists to follow around a creature-- even if that creature goes invisible.

I know this is an old post, but it has come up twice in the last three weeks, so I wanted to clarify how I rule on the matter.

[Melkiador]

“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.”

Glitter dust has a duration of rounds so it is held together by magic. Also creation spells almost always ignore spell resistance.

[Kayerloth]

And further a second Invisibility does not target (nor can it) the Glitterdust itself ... which is what would continue to make the target effectively visible for its duration.

[Firebug]

Glitterdust also does not negate the concealment from the invisibility (or darkness) you just now know the square the target is in. Because it is still invisible (so recasting invisibility wouldn't help), it has total concealment, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity for any reason (barring See Invisibility/True Seeing/Blindsight/etc) and can still make stealth checks (granted, at a -40) if it wants to do so.
Faerie Fire specifically negates the concealment. This is why Faerie Fire has other restrictions because negating the concealment is huge.
Faerie Fire is also not a single target spell. It is all creatures and objects in a 5' radius burst compared to Glitterdust's all creatures and objects in a 10' radius spread. If Faerie Fire was a single target spell, you wouldn't be able to use it on an invisible creature because you have to see the target of the spell.

Incidentally, a Glitterdusted target is still not a valid target for a targeted spell for the same reason (ie, no Magic Missile on the Invisible yet Glitterdusted target) and cannot be selected out with Selective Channeling either.

[Jared Walter 356]

I disagree with this Firebug's assessment.

Faerie fire does not say it negates concealment from invisibility it says it negates concealment from normal darkness. Both spells say the targets are outlined.

faerie fire gives -20 to stealth, glitterdust -40 to stealth. Clearly you are less concealed with glitterdust than faerie fire.

Being outlined by glowing dust, makes your exact location, not just your square obvious. In my mind makes invisibility and concealment impossible. I would treat glitterdust as suppressing invisibility for its relatively short duration.

[Firebug]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

I disagree with this Firebug's assessment.

Faerie fire does not say it negates concealment from invisibility it says it negates concealment from normal darkness. Both spells say the targets are outlined.

Read the rest of the sentence after the word "darkness".

Faerie Fire wrote:

Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.

.

Glitterdust makes no mention of concealment so it does not negate it. The whole "things only do what they say they do and nothing more".

[Kayerloth]

*shrug* I'll buy the argument.

But.

That's the reason the penalty just happens to be -40, the exact opposite granted by standing still while invisible nets you i.e. +40. So you might be right but ... don't make me create a house rule about exceeding the foes Stealth with your Perception by X amount to negate it entirely. :P And I doubt the Glitterdusted target is going to be 'standing still' either.

Then again I routinely memorized See Invisibility to pair with Glitterdust so my wizard would barely care (never mind the option of True Strike). He'd light them up and then let the melee guys worry about any miss chances. And give them some trash talk if they still had trouble with the glowy dude.

[Meirril]

I often wonder why nobody links the spell in question when they want to discuss bits and pieces of its text. I think its polite and helpful to the discussion to provide at least that little curtsy.

Glitterdust Concealment

As glitterdust says in the first sentence of the description: "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."

The invisible creature is covered in golden powder that glitters and outlines the creature. In my mind, the creature no longer has concealment from invisibility. Unless they have concealment provided by something else they are not hidden.

Concealment implies that you don't know exactly where the target is but you can narrow it down to a square. "Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment)."

But Glitterdust lets you narrow down where the creature is considerably more than that. If there is nothing other than invisibility providing concealment you can determine not only what square the creature occupies, but its exact outline. In effect, there is nothing preventing you from directly targeting the creature. In this sense, I say that Glitterdust negates the concealment provided by invisibility.

And for all other cover, the glittering target of this spell (invisible or not) has a -40 chance to hide if they manage to gain concealment from some circumstance other than invisibility. It would be very difficult to hide behind a bush if you aren't actually invisible with that penalty.

[Firebug]

You can have concealment and know exactly where the target is, in fact that is basically the only thing the Blur spell does. Glitterdust would not affect Blur because it doesn't say it negates concealment. Sure, you would be 'outlined' by glitter, but since 'outlined' is never defined we don't have a mechanic for it.

The closest thing I can find dealing with Invisibility and pseudo-outlining is in Underwater Combat: Invisible: An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance).

So even though you have an 'outline' of the creature, it still gets some concealment.

I would argue that an cloud of shiny glitter is probably harder to focus on than a water bubble if you have spent any time in a pool or scuba diving. It does depend on how thick the glitter is, but since it is described as a cloud of dust that doesn't give concealment on its own I would say probably not too thick, just enough to get in your eyes. A light dusting if you will, not a gallon.

[Meirril]

Concealment and Total Concealment are different. Concealment partially obscures the target and gives a small miss chance. If the target isn't hiding (which grants total concealment) you know where they are but still have the miss chance due to your perception of the target being partially blocked.

Total Concealment means you have no targeting sense that can detect the target. You may have a vague idea where it is, but even if you guess right its 50% at best. This is striking at the footprints in the sand sort of thing.

Blur causes concealment to happen. Even by its own description, if we combine Blur and Glitterdust the outline provided would be blurred and waver considerably. By RAW the invisible glitterdusted creature could hide in pain site because he has cover provided by the spell. This also technically means a creature under blur could stand in the open and have total concealment from hide because blur provides cover. Yeah, nobody is going to buy that argument as being logical or realistic but it works by RAW.

But as far as spell interactions go, Glitterdust was worded to counter Invisibility and Darkness, not other forms of concealment.

[avr]

The original intent of glitterdust was to negate invisibility, with the blinding being a side effect someone talked the DM into (way back when contributing to AD&D 1e's Unearthed Arcana, judging by the wording then.) I'd be hesitant to make the original primary effect stop working. In PF1's version the phrase 'visibly outlining invisible things' leaves room for this interpretation IMO.

[Kayerloth]

avr wrote:

The original intent of glitterdust was to negate invisibility, with the blinding being a side effect someone talked the DM into (way back when contributing to AD&D 1e's Unearthed Arcana, judging by the wording then.) I'd be hesitant to make the original primary effect stop working. In PF1's version the phrase 'visibly outlining invisible things' leaves room for this interpretation IMO.

This.

And outside the rules forum and PFS where consistency between GMs is very important this is how I would rule it. Bye bye Invisible status but it is ambiguous and makes me wonder about the -40 mod. (outside of making it very useful to nuke a stealth build)

[Claxon]

Outside anything else, the intention of glitterdust is to defeat invisibility.

If you're invisible and you're hit with glitterdust you lose the benefits of being invisible. And trying to go invisible again wouldn't do anything.

[Volkard Abendroth]

There was a developer post clarifying Glitterdust that never made it to the FAQ page.

Comment

[Melkiador]

Good find, Volkard. That post is as official as anything we'll get.

[BigNorseWolf]

Visibly outlined means its no longer invisible

[Tangent101]

The reason for the -40 to Stealth is that when you are invisible, you can roll a Stealth roll at +20 if you move, or +40 if you stand still. Effectively, it negates invisibility.

I'm curious though... does it and Faerie Fire effectively negate Dust of Invisibility? I ask because Dust of Invisibility is immune to Invisibility Purge and See Invisible. But Faerie Fire outlines the target in a burst area, while Glitterdust would present a -40 to Stealth Checks and "visibly outlines invisible objects or persons" rather than negating invisibility itself.

And does Dust of Disappearance ignore True Seeing? It states it "sees invisible creatures or objects normally" which Dust of Disappearance seems to undo (though See Invisibility is worded differently and has the subject view invisible objects/persons as translucent, rather than "see [them] normally."

[avr]

Read the rest of the thread tangent, you'll find that people up to and including Jason Buhlman have already disagreed with you.

As to what beats dust of disappearance - unclear. True seeing claims it beats everything, the dust claims it beats all magical means. I might let the 3500 gp one use item win that, others might make a different call. OTOH seeing the faerie fire or glitterdust isn't directly seeing the dusted person, I might let the spells win those.