Ty all, this threae has given me a good laugh this morning.
I'm in the party that casting invisibility again simply means the spell lasts longer but u are still outlined in the area.
Tbh if u want to remain invisible, woukdnt the smartest move be to simply move out ofvthe area instead of wasting a spell slot?
|
I don't understand what that link was supposed to show.
Edit, looking back through some other posts, covering in dust should last longer than momentarily...because picking up an item does keep it visible...unless hidden.
http://www.pathfinder-srd.nl/wiki/InvisibilityToo many contradictions in the rules these days.
"One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)"
Thus, powder under the SRD states momentarily, while this interpretation lasts significantly longer.
I don't understand what that link was supposed to show.
Edit, looking back through some other posts, covering in dust should last longer than momentarily...because picking up an item does keep it visible...unless hidden.
http://www.pathfinder-srd.nl/wiki/InvisibilityToo many contradictions in the rules these days.
"One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)"
Thus, powder under the SRD states momentarily, while this interpretation lasts significantly longer.
That site you linked to is not an official site. The PRD is the official site and that is the one you should use.
Ty all, this threae has given me a good laugh this morning.
I'm in the party that casting invisibility again simply means the spell lasts longer but u are still outlined in the area.
Tbh if u want to remain invisible, woukdnt the smartest move be to simply move out ofvthe area instead of wasting a spell slot?
I believe stepping out of the area does not end the effect.
"One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)"That's not actually in the rules. A fan wrote that and posted it on the internet.
This is in the PRD, but it sort of supports the pro-glitterdust argument.
The caution about fan-created referenced still applies, though.
That's what these messageboards are for. ;)
Apparently glitterdust now floats just above the surface of a target; plus now it glows and can be seen in the dark, and it is a part of you gear when it lands on you.
Whether you agree with these things or not they are still fan-created rules "clarifications".
Technically, it states that the glitter from Glitterdust "sparkles" - it does not state it needs light in order to sparkle. (It also does not state that it does not need light to sparkle. Your mileage may vary.) I'd rule that it outlines foes even in non-light situations. Other GMs may very well rule otherwise. Without an official FAQ, it will remain ambiguous.
As for "fan-rules" about it floating just above the target, this is in fact using the wording for the spell. But if you would rather use the exact rule specification...
Invisibility provides a +40 to Stealth when the invisible person is standing still, or +20 when moving. Glitterdust imparts a -40 to Stealth. Thus Invisibility is effectively negated by Glitterdust and recasting Invisibility will not undo that penalty. You STILL have a -40 to your Stealth.
In addition, Glitterdust will even impart a -40 penalty to Stealth for individuals in a region of complete darkness. Thus whether or not it illuminates, the spell itself causes a significant penalty to Stealth in all circumstances.
So can you see a glitterdusted creature in the dark?
By all readings discussed in this thread, this spell works fine in the dark, and thus must be emitting some light.
Actually that is a very good question that should have a ruling (ie, FAQ candidate) - because if Glitterdust does sparkle slightly even in absolute darkness, despite not illuminating, then you see glittered foes in the darkness. But if it requires light, then all you do is roll Perception against the opponent's Stealth (with a -40 penalty) and then have to attack someone with Concealment (50% chance of missing).
Light spells continuously give off light and normally have a radius, but just because a spell is not a light spell does not mean it does not have a constant visible effect which glitterdust does.
The book says glitterdust outlines invisible things. It does not care if you are invisible before or after the spell is cast. If you are glitterdusted the dust is visible on you. The only way something that is on you becomes invisible is if it is something you own. It is a spell effect, not a belonging or something you possess.
The spell does not even say the glitterdust rest on your body, only that it outlines you. You can use any fluff/flavor you want as long as you follow the mechanics. You can say the dust floats just above the surface of your belongs and follows you everywhere you go.
If it was just normal dust or anything like flour you could just change clothes or wash it off so comparing it to flour or chalk is highly inaccurate.
Two things.
"A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area"
The particles 'cover' everything in the area. These are not magically floating orbs of light. The spell tells you what it does. Stop making stuff up.
Read the description. Gold. Particles. Cover. Everything.
That is what the spell does, and that is 100% in line with what a Conjuration (creation) spell does.
Second;
By your reasoning, alter self continues to make you look like whatever you changed into even if you turn invisible. "Because it says it makes you look different, and "it doesn't care if you're invisible before or after the spell".
That simply isn't how spell effects work.
Apply the effects in the order they are applied.
If a guy covered in gold dust can turn invisible... (He can)
Then a guy who has been glitterdusted can turn invisible. (he can)
If glitterdust actually emitted light, it would be an evocation (light) spell...So you're saying a fireball doesn't emit light? You're going to want to rethink this position.
Put me in the column of GMs that would rule that a creature coated with Glitterdust is clearly outlined with sparkles even if they cast Invisibility after being coated.
Fireball is an evocation (fire) spell... uh, it emits fire. Fire creates light.
Note: Evocation.
Evocation spells deal with energy.
Light, (and fire), are considered energies in Pathfinder.
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary. The different schools of magic have different methods for achieving the effects they create.
Evocation spell emit energy.
Conjuration (creation) spells create matter.
In this case, a large quantity of glitter.
The problem lies with the wording. It states Glitterdust outlines the targets. This either means that while it coats the target it floats slightly over the target and thus cannot be hit by Invisibility, or that it puts out a faint light.
As it does not state it is negated in situations with no light at all, it would likely give off some small amount of light. Darkness does not negate Glitterdust.
Outlining is due to being covered in dust.
A bag of flour can outline an invisible creature too.
You see an outline, because you are seeing the 'outer' 'lines' of the creature.
This is done by simply coating an invisible creature or object in something. Paint, dust, flour, chalk, slime, or even golden particles...
Evocation spells deal with energy.Light, (and fire), are considered energies in Pathfinder.
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary. The different schools of magic have different methods for achieving the effects they create.
Evocation spell emit energy.
Conjuration (creation) spells create matter.In this case, a large quantity of glitter.
What sort of spell is Sepia Snake Sigil? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Incidiary Cloud? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Firey Shuriken? Does it emit light?
As GM I'd rule dust, fog or flour works because you see the void of where the person should be, not because the coating makes the person visible. Otherwise invisibility becomes even more useless (seeing that they reduced the time to minutes, diminishing its use as a scouting tool unless you've a Ring of Invisibility).
As such, Glitterdust works because it outlines the invisible person, who is still invisible. But you see where he should be because of the outlining - you see a void surrounded by light and glitter.
This is fine in your homebrew. But isn't what happens by RAW.
Only the target and all of it's possessions is turned invisible. The only way to make something else 'invisible' is to hide it inside their invisible clothing/bags/whatever.
It is a little strange, but that is how invisibility works. So, an invisible creature tagged with a bag of flour is very easy to see, as they are outlined with flour.
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary.
I literally don't even know where to start with this. There are quite a lot of spells that sit on the boundary between two schools, or have a complicated effect that really should require two or three schools, and the like. They end up with a single school because that is what the rules require.
But just looking at shield and mage armor being in separate schools should tell you that sometimes the school is, in fact arbitrary.
Or inflict spells being Necromancy while cure spells are Conjuration(Healing) (didn't you just say something about Conjuration getting matter?)
Joyd wrote a post that breaks it down pretty well over here: link, but the boundaries of what a School does are pretty flexible.
I personally think that if you're coated in glitterdust, recasting invisibility gets you nowhere.
However, ruling the opposite way is a perfectly valid interpretation also, and keeps glitterdust from being too much better than invisibility purge. (Even if it makes spending a few gp for a jar of silver dust, or flour an interesting alternative to spending 150 gp on a scroll.)
Evocation spells deal with energy.Light, (and fire), are considered energies in Pathfinder.
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary. The different schools of magic have different methods for achieving the effects they create.
Evocation spell emit energy.
Conjuration (creation) spells create matter.In this case, a large quantity of glitter.
What sort of spell is Sepia Snake Sigil? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Incidiary Cloud? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Firey Shuriken? Does it emit light?
I feel like you're asking me to do your homework.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Light spells continuously give off light and normally have a radius, but just because a spell is not a light spell does not mean it does not have a constant visible effect which glitterdust does.
The book says glitterdust outlines invisible things. It does not care if you are invisible before or after the spell is cast. If you are glitterdusted the dust is visible on you. The only way something that is on you becomes invisible is if it is something you own. It is a spell effect, not a belonging or something you possess.
The spell does not even say the glitterdust rest on your body, only that it outlines you. You can use any fluff/flavor you want as long as you follow the mechanics. You can say the dust floats just above the surface of your belongs and follows you everywhere you go.
If it was just normal dust or anything like flour you could just change clothes or wash it off so comparing it to flour or chalk is highly inaccurate.
Two things.
"A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area"
The particles 'cover' everything in the area. These are not magically floating orbs of light. The spell tells you what it does. Stop making stuff up.
That is what the spell does, and that is 100% in line with what a Conjuration (creation) spell does.
Yes - it creates physical objects out of magic and (if you read the description of what the creation subschool does) those physical objects are held together by magic themselves for the duration. In other words, those objects are magical. So it might be golden glitter, but it's absolutely, indisputably magical. Thus, treating it as though it were simply a handful of mundane, golden glitter, is not appropriate.
Second;
By your reasoning, alter self continues to make you look like whatever you changed into even if you turn invisible. "Because it says it makes you look different, and "it doesn't care if you're invisible before or after the spell".That simply isn't how spell effects work.
Uh, yeah it is. If you use Alter Self to make your human self look like an elf, then you still look like an elf, even if you become invisible. The fact that no one can see you at that point does not mean you suddenly go back to looking like a human; should someone be able to see past the invisibility for some reason (but not past the Alter Self) they would see you as an elf.
Apply the effects in the order they are applied.
If a guy covered in gold dust can turn invisible... (He can)
Then a guy who has been glitterdusted can turn invisible. (he can)
Glitterdust = spell-created magical dust that sparkles and is meant to make things visible. Gold dust = mundane dust that has no 'purpose'. Treating them as the same thing is absolutely invalid.
However, ruling the opposite way is a perfectly valid interpretation also, and keeps glitterdust from being too much better than invisibility purge.
Glitterdust definitely has a lot of advantages. However, Invisibility Purge can last much longer, can affect a larger area, and reveals creatures that move into the area of effect after casting--I seem to remember that the “spread” part of Glitterdust implies that the dust only affects those in the area at the time of casting, that the duration describes the coating and not a lingering cloud. (Wasn’t there a thread on that recently?)
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary.I literally don't even know where to start with this. There are quite a lot of spells that sit on the boundary between two schools, or have a complicated effect that really should require two or three schools, and the like. They end up with a single school because that is what the rules require.
But just looking at shield and mage armor being in separate schools should tell you that sometimes the school is, in fact arbitrary.
Or inflict spells being Necromancy while cure spells are Conjuration(Healing) (didn't you just say something about Conjuration getting matter?)
Joyd wrote a post that breaks it down pretty well over here: link, but the boundaries of what a School does are pretty flexible.
I personally think that if you're coated in glitterdust, recasting invisibility gets you nowhere.
However, ruling the opposite way is a perfectly valid interpretation also, and keeps glitterdust from being too much better than invisibility purge. (Even if it makes spending a few gp for a jar of silver dust, or flour an interesting alternative to spending 150 gp on a scroll.)
I said conjuration (creation) spells create matter yes. Conjuration (healing) spells are a little weird, for conjuration, but within the subschool of (healing) pretty much always.. well, ya know... heal.
There are some spells that do indeed skirt the boundaries of the schools. But glitterdust certainly isn't one of them. The effect of the spell is pretty basic, and is 100% in line with the effects of conjuration (creation) spells themes. It simply brings into existence a bunch of matter, in this case, gold particles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you're asking me to do your homework.
Was Socrates known for wandering around Greece, asking people to do his homework?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you're asking me to do your homework.Was Socrates known for wandering around Greece, asking people to do his homework?
Now I'm certain you want me to do your homework ^.^
Uh, yeah it is. If you use Alter Self to make your human self look like an elf, then you still look like an elf, even if you become invisible. The fact that no one can see you at that point does not mean you suddenly go back to looking like a human; should someone be able to see past the invisibility for some reason (but not past the Alter Self) they would see you as an elf.
Second;
By your reasoning, alter self continues to make you look like whatever you changed into even if you turn invisible. "Because it says it makes you look different, and "it doesn't care if you're
Maybe I wrote that sloppily.
If someone uses Alter Self to disguise themselves as an elf. And then someone cast invisibility on them. They do not still look like an Elf to the normal sighted. They don't look like anything, because they're invisible.
This is what happens with glitterdust too. If someone is coated with gold particles, and then goes invisible. The normal sighted cannot see them. Because... they're invisible.
Now, if you could See Invisibility? You'd see the guy's Elf disguise just fine. And you'd see some dude covered in gold dust too.
However, ruling the opposite way is a perfectly valid interpretation also, and keeps glitterdust from being too much better than invisibility purge.Glitterdust definitely has a lot of advantages. However, Invisibility Purge can last much longer, can affect a larger area, and reveals creatures that move into the area of effect after casting--I seem to remember that the “spread” part of Glitterdust implies that the dust only affects those in the area at the time of casting, that the duration describes the coating and not a lingering cloud. (Wasn’t there a thread on that recently?)
I was mis-remembering the effect of invisibility purge.
So by your interpretation Remy, If I go hug a tree and cast invisibility the tree and myself become invisible? The tree is touching me much like the ordinary flour or gold dust you are referring to.
Do note: By the specific statistical aspects of the spells Invisibility and Glitterdust, all Invisibility does is provide a +20 to Stealth when moving or +40 to Stealth when still. Glitterdust provides a -40 to Stealth. As bonuses do not stack, casting Invisibility a second time will not cause Glitterdust to stop working. The bonuses and penalties to Stealth still apply, in all situations (except for Antimagic Shell which would negate both).
So, whether or not the gold glitter vanishes when it hits the invisible person or when someone then casts invisibility a second time is apparently immaterial to the game mechanic of Stealth bonuses and penalties.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you're asking me to do your homework.
Evocation spells deal with energy.Light, (and fire), are considered energies in Pathfinder.
There is a reason spells are classified by schools, it isn't arbitrary. The different schools of magic have different methods for achieving the effects they create.
Evocation spell emit energy.
Conjuration (creation) spells create matter.In this case, a large quantity of glitter.
What sort of spell is Sepia Snake Sigil? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Incidiary Cloud? Does it emit light?
What sort of spell is Firey Shuriken? Does it emit light?
No, he's asking you to be honest. He brought up some of those spells earlier (and actually spoon-fed you the information), and you completely ignored them. Now he's bringing them up again, and you're dodging them again by using the fact that he framed them in question format to distract attention from that fact.
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well, then here's a question that someone can click the FAQ for:
Does the glitter from the Glitterdust spell produce any light (however faint) of its own when outlining targets (including invisible ones), or does it only reflect existing light and thus not affect concealment in an environment of total darkness?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are some spells that do indeed skirt the boundaries of the schools. But glitterdust certainly isn't one of them. The effect of the spell is pretty basic, and is 100% in line with the effects of conjuration (creation) spells themes. It simply brings into existence a bunch of matter, in this case, gold particles.
That's circular logic. Glitterdust can't emit light because it's a simple, perfect conjuration spell which it must be because it doesn't emit light.
Plenty of conjuration spells bring energy, have odd side effects, or conjure matter that itself has magical properties that aren't conjuration. Do all conjuration spells? No, but you cannot assert glitterdust is not one of them based purely on the conclusion you already reached. Heck, phosphorescent materials in the real world aren't magic, and they emit light. They even have a duration!
Your conclusion is perfectly valid, even if I disagree, but the logic you are using to REACH that conclusion is faulty. The question comes down to if you think the spell description means mundane 'sparkling' or supernatural 'sparkling'. Unless someone from several editions ago wants to chime in on the intent, that's as far as this is going to go. I am not trying to prove you wrong: I am trying to make you better at logic and future debates.
Does the glitter from the Glitterdust spell produce any light (however faint) of its own when outlining targets (including invisible ones), or does it only reflect existing light and thus not affect concealment in an environment of total darkness?
I think of it as it re-emits light of the same brightness as the area it is in. So it's bright enough to be seen in a bright room, but dark enough not to light you up in a dark room (but the guy with darkvision can see the sparkles in the dark room.) That explains the stealth penalty, without making the spell into a backup light source or odd interactions with lighting rules.
I am willing to admit that I am adding more complications to the spell, like pre-Copernican astronomers adding epicycles to their orbits.
|
Uh, yeah it is. If you use Alter Self to make your human self look like an elf, then you still look like an elf, even if you become invisible. The fact that no one can see you at that point does not mean you suddenly go back to looking like a human; should someone be able to see past the invisibility for some reason (but not past the Alter Self) they would see you as an elf.
Second;
By your reasoning, alter self continues to make you look like whatever you changed into even if you turn invisible. "Because it says it makes you look different, and "it doesn't care if you'reMaybe I wrote that sloppily.
If someone uses Alter Self to disguise themselves as an elf. And then someone cast invisibility on them. They do not still look like an Elf to the normal sighted. They don't look like anything, because they're invisible.
This is what happens with glitterdust too. If someone is coated with gold particles, and then goes invisible. The normal sighted cannot see them. Because... they're invisible.
Now, if you could See Invisibility? You'd see the guy's Elf disguise just fine. And you'd see some dude covered in gold dust too.
Yes.
Magical dust.
What's magic about it?
visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell
I don't normally like relying on the "Because magic!" answer, but I don't feel like it's appropriate to ignore it in this situation.
Note that 'order of operations' regarding spells only makes sense in certain circumstances. A creature that uses Alter Self to look like an elf still continues to look like an elf after it casts Invisibility. And the way that I view it, a layer of magical dust that was created with the intent to outline invisible objects would still keep doing its job even if the creature became visible and then vanished again. Why? Because that's exactly what the dust was intended to do.
It's not flour - it's magical, sparkling, invisibility-revealing golden flour (which I can combine with blahper's magical butter from the Grease discussion to make a magical cake).
Small addendum concerning flour and invisible critters:
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#_invisibility
However, the rules do not state that flour, dust, fog, or other materials would negate the concealment bonus of an invisible entity. So even with the dusting on it, it appears that invisible entities only are hit 50% of the time.
Of course, this now raises the question: Does Glitterdust negate the concealment bonus of an invisible entity? (I posted that question in a separate thread.)
I don't think so.
Ill use ur example of the item coated in flour, it would give a 50% because if they are holding it in their hands...how would u know which hand they were holding it. If u thought it was in their left hand and swung right when they had it thier right hand and their body was to the left...then u would miss. I see visually someone transfering hands to throw the pcs off hence why the continued 50% chance to miss.
The glitterdut though outlines their whole body (or whatever part of their body was in the area of effect if they were bigger than medium) so u would have a really good idea where their bodyis compared to an item being held.
This of course is based on the theory that glitterdust shows up in darkness from the sparkles though.
Redneckdevil, I don't think we're talking about an item covered in flour, I think we're talking about getting the whole person with flour.
Which of course brings up another thing: you need to roll to-hit to try to cover the invisible entity with flour. Which means you need to find the five-foot square it is in. And to be honest, the invisible entity can see the flour coming... so I'd honestly allow a Reflex save to try and avoid the flour, or even the 50% miss chance for concealment.
Glitterdust actually is a better spell in that it has an area of effect and has a greater chance of actually hitting the area in which the invisible entity is in. (That said, See Invisible and flour might work better - you see exactly where the invisible entity is, and then it doesn't get a concealment bonus against the thrown flour.)
|
I would like those having difficulty in imagining someone invisible being outlined by Glitterdust. (It does not negate the invisibility already effecting the character either, just to point out)
Think of the Invisible Man in a very hard rain that has raindrops pelting against him. He would be outlined by the water as it is stopped by his being in the way, a visible marker to his presence. Glitterdust works in much the same way, giving a marker for where the invisible person is, making the overall effect of the outline being a silhouette of a person within the dust itself.
Turning invisible again would not do much for the caster under the effects of Glitterdust as far as trying to conceal themselves from others.
Redneckdevil, I don't think we're talking about an item covered in flour, I think we're talking about getting the whole person with flour.
Lol I misread tangents post. I thought I was reading if an invisible person picks up an item that's covered in flour that they would still have the 50% chance to miss.....yeah rereading dunno where I got that part either. But my second part was about being covered in flour and not having the 50% chance to miss :-)
Some spells can render the effects of other spells meaningless.
If a creature that has been glitterdusted, or for that matter alterselfed gets turned invisible, the effects of the invisibility render the visual effects of the previous spells meaningless. (Unless a target can see invisibility)
So the penalties to stealth from being visibly coated in glitter do not apply, except to things which can see invisibility.
This is basic spell interaction.
|
|
Targets: you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Is glitterdust a magical force or does it conjure trillions of motes of glittery magical dust?
If it's a magical force then it's not a valid target for invisibility.
If it conjures trillions of magical dust motes, pick one and target it with invisibility. The other trillion motes are still going strong.
Glitterdust does not negate invisibility. It visibly outlines creatures, even if they are invisible. Making the glitter invisible (even if you could) doesn't stop it from magically visibly outlining creatures/objects. Invisibility just makes creatures/objects invisible, and glitterdust doesn't interfere with that. It just visibly outlines things that are invisible.
Targets: you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./levelIs glitterdust a magical force or does it conjure trillions of motes of glittery magical dust?
If it's a magical force then it's not a valid target for invisibility.
If it conjures trillions of magical dust motes, pick one and target it with invisibility. The other trillion motes are still going strong.
Glitterdust does not negate invisibility. It visibly outlines creatures, even if they are invisible. Making the glitter invisible (even if you could) doesn't stop it from magically visibly outlining creatures/objects. Invisibility just makes creatures/objects invisible, and glitterdust doesn't interfere with that. It just visibly outlines things that are invisible.
Malachi, your armor and clothes aren't valid targets for the spell either, they still turn invisible with you when you cast the spell. If you were covered in dirt or mud, that would also turn invisible.
Clearly, if you are invisible first, glitterdust outlines you. That's in the spell description. What is unclear is if casting invisiblity afterwards renders the dust invisible (as it would a fresh coating of mud or flour), or if the dust continues to emit light (or is a special exemption to becoming invisible.) Which is far less clear from the description of either spell.
Keep in mind, I agree with you: glitterdust will still sparkle even if you turn invisible under it. But claiming it isn't a valid target is not a reason for that: following that logic, invisibility is a useless spell because if doesn't change all of your gear invisible too.
Hm... Well what about this then?
If you splatter someone with mud and they cast invisibility, the mud is considered their gear and becomes invisible too. This makes sense. It's a mundane item in their possession.
If you coat someone in glitterdust and then cast invisibility, they aren't covered with a mundane item that would count as a possession of theirs. They are covered in a hostile spell effect. If it could be considered a possession at all, it would be the hostile spellcaster's possession.
Does this logic work? Well, if someone is in the middle of a web spell and you cast invisibility on them, does the chunk of web they are attached to become invisible? I'd say no, but I'm not completely sure.
Heh, heh, heh...dust of twilight on an invisible sunrod.
|
|
Targets: you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./levelIs glitterdust a magical force or does it conjure trillions of motes of glittery magical dust?
If it's a magical force then it's not a valid target for invisibility.
If it conjures trillions of magical dust motes, pick one and target it with invisibility. The other trillion motes are still going strong.
Glitterdust does not negate invisibility. It visibly outlines creatures, even if they are invisible. Making the glitter invisible (even if you could) doesn't stop it from magically visibly outlining creatures/objects. Invisibility just makes creatures/objects invisible, and glitterdust doesn't interfere with that. It just visibly outlines things that are invisible.
Malachi, your armor and clothes aren't valid targets for the spell either, they still turn invisible with you when you cast the spell. If you were covered in dirt or mud, that would also turn invisible.
Clearly, if you are invisible first, glitterdust outlines you. That's in the spell description. What is unclear is if casting invisiblity afterwards renders the dust invisible (as it would a fresh coating of mud or flour), or if the dust continues to emit light (or is a special exemption to becoming invisible.) Which is far less clear from the description of either spell.
Keep in mind, I agree with you: glitterdust will still sparkle even if you turn invisible under it. But claiming it isn't a valid target is not a reason for that: following that logic, invisibility is a useless spell because if doesn't change all of your gear invisible too.
The dust itself doesn't need to be visible to work. The dust has a magical effect, and that effect works even if the dust can't be seen.
The magic of the dust does not negate invisibility; the target is still transparent. But he is outlined by the spell effect. It's what it does. It's raison d'être is to outline invisible things, and the target and his gear being invisible can't defeat it by definition! Even if you take the dust as gear, it isn't mundane glitter, it's magic glitter and the magic outlines invisible creatures and the dust doesn't need to be visible itself for it's magic to work.
|
I'd say it would work because of how ridiculous Glitterdust is anyway. I mean, it negates invisibility, possibly blinds, and possibly negates concealment. For a 2nd level spell. This I say should work.
If you are invisible and you get dusted, you become visible. Once the dust has been conjured, you can become invisible because the magic now becomes invisible. HOWEVER, I'd rule if you stayed in the radius of the spell, dust still hangs in the air and you get dusted again. So if you burn a standard action to cast a 2nd or higher level spell, and you move out of your current positioning and stay out for the spell duration, then yes, you are invisible. If you move through the area or you stay there, you are visible. YMMV.
Keep in mind, I agree with you: glitterdust will still sparkle even if you turn invisible under it. But claiming it isn't a valid target is not a reason for that: following that logic, invisibility is a useless spell because if doesn't change all of your gear invisible too.
The dust itself doesn't need to be visible to work. The dust has a magical effect, and that effect works even if the dust can't be seen.The magic of the dust does not negate invisibility; the target is still transparent....
|
|
Keep in mind, I agree with you: glitterdust will still sparkle even if you turn invisible under it. But claiming it isn't a valid target is not a reason for that: following that logic, invisibility is a useless spell because if doesn't change all of your gear invisible too.
The dust itself doesn't need to be visible to work. The dust has a magical effect, and that effect works even if the dust can't be seen.The magic of the dust does not negate invisibility; the target is still transparent....
What's your point?
Hm... Well what about this then?
If you splatter someone with mud and they cast invisibility, the mud is considered their gear and becomes invisible too. This makes sense. It's a mundane item in their possession.
If you coat someone in glitterdust and then cast invisibility, they aren't covered with a mundane item that would count as a possession of theirs. They are covered in a hostile spell effect. If it could be considered a possession at all, it would be the hostile spellcaster's possession.
Does this logic work? Well, if someone is in the middle of a web spell and you cast invisibility on them, does the chunk of web they are attached to become invisible? I'd say no, but I'm not completely sure.
There's lots of logic as to why a spell designed to counteract the invisibility condition, well . . . counteracts that condition (even if it is applied after the fact).
From Ultimate Equipment:
Powder
Price 1 CP
Weight 1/2 lb.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with
adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures.
Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against
AC 5, and momentarily reveals whether an invisible creature
is there. A much more effective method is to spread powder
on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
It is implied that dust turns invisible shortly after coating an invisible person.
Glitterdust doesn't turn invisible on contact, either because it's a light source and light sources can't be invisible, or because it is in some way immune to invisibility effects.