|
“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.”
Page 290 of the core rule book.
I hope this helps
I'm pretty sure the OP knew that part, becasue he mentioned the -40.
Since it doesn't actually say that it cancels invisibility, both apply. So a +0 in the end.
It makes sense:
An invisible creature is still invisible but outlined. In the end that makes it about as easy to see as a normally visible person.
A visible creature that gets dusted on the other hand, sparkles like a twilight vampire, and has serious trouble hiding at all.
|
|
There seems to be a little bit of a contradiction in the spell description.
"a cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area.......visibly outlining invisible things. ......All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."
The contradiction i see, is between the text that states " Visibly outlining invisible things" and "a cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area.....All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."
If something is covered with glowing sparkling particles which stick to it, it isn't outlined. its coated. But the text of the spell says something is outlined.......
Well i guess that would be a GM call. In the past i have usually had the glitter dust spell, negate the invisibility, and make it pretty much impossible to hide.
One of the real tricks, is guessing which 4 squares an invisible opponent is in.
i have always liked this spell
|
If something is covered with glowing sparkling particles which stick to it, it isn't outlined. its coated. But the text of the spell says something is outlined.......Well i guess that would be a GM call. In the past i have usually had the glitter dust spell, negate the invisibility, and make it pretty much impossible to hide.
That's my interpretation also. The creature is now covered in dust... check, like say covered in ink. So no more bonus to invisibility. Now for the second part, the creature is now glittering... so yeah, I'd it hit it with now a -40 to hiding since the creature is now sorta like a disco ball.
If something is covered with glowing sparkling particles which stick to it, it isn't outlined. its coated. But the text of the spell says something is outlined.......
It depends on the density of the coating. A light coating would create a 3D outline as you could still see into the invisible character's space and beyond.
That's my interpretation also. The creature is now covered in dust... check, like say covered in ink. So no more bonus to invisibility. Now for the second part, the creature is now glittering... so yeah, I'd it hit it with now a -40 to hiding since the creature is now sorta like a disco ball.
If something is covered with glowing sparkling particles which stick to it, it isn't outlined. its coated. But the text of the spell says something is outlined.......Well i guess that would be a GM call. In the past i have usually had the glitter dust spell, negate the invisibility, and make it pretty much impossible to hide.
+1 I have always played it this way, but the wording is just ambigious enough to make it a good FAQ canidate.
|
|
invisablity give me a +40 bonus to stealth while not moving, does glitter dust negate the plus +40 bonus and give me a -40 on top of the negation of the invisablity? Or does the +40 and the negative 40 aply a 0 modifer to the the stealth check?
yeah, one is a bonus, one is a penalty. they cancel eachother out.
but you only get a +40 if you're standing still / not moving. and they have to know where to target the glitterdust for it to work.if you're moving, its only a +20 to stealth, and a -40 from glitterdust. so most people can take 0 and notice you if you're mr. sparkly.
if you're a shadowdancer or some 10th level rogue with a +30 stealth and hiding in plain sight, the shiney sparkles still make it a lot harder for you to hide in plain sight with that -40 to stealth.
|
|
If something is covered with glowing sparkling particles which stick to it, it isn't outlined. its coated. But the text of the spell says something is outlined.......It depends on the density of the coating. A light coating would create a 3D outline as you could still see into the invisible character's space and beyond.
Good point.
However, still I think its a GM call. Since invisibility is a very powerful 2nd level spell, I would err on the side of the Glitter dust spell (also a 2nd level spell) shutting down the invisibility. Your Mr Sparkely disco ball !
Glitterdust gets much weaker if it doesn't get rid of the invisibility condition.
For example, even though you can clearly see the outline there, you still have to spend a move action to pinpoint the "invisible" sparkles, which means no full-attack, and they still benefit from full concealment (50% miss chance).
EDIT: I would say glitterdust suppresses, but does not purge invisibility. If an invisible person is glitterdusted, they lose the benefits of invisibility for the duration of the spell. When the spell ends, though, if they still have invisibility left, then they regain the invisible condition. Rounds spent glitterdusted still count against the duration of the invisibility effect.