|
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.
Faerie Fire
School evocation [light]; Level druid 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within a 5-ft.-radius burst
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a –20 penalty on all Stealth checks. 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. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light. The faerie fire can be blue, green, or violet, according to your choice at the time of casting. The faerie fire does not cause any harm to the objects or creatures thus outlined.
Vs
Glitterdust
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (ground mica)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR no
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.
Let's compare glitterdust with Faerie Fire to see if it is broken for a 2nd level spell.
Level 1 vs level 2
CT the same
Components: same (material vs divine focus, it is possible sundered both the DF and the spell component pouch)
Range: long vs medium (-1 for Glitterdust)
Area: creatures and objects in a 5' burst vs 10' spread (+2 for Glitterdust)
Duration: 1 minute/level vs 1 round/level (-1 for Glitterdust)
ST none vs will against blindness: same (blindness effect covered later)
SR none: same
Final result approximately a wash.
Special effects:
Faerie fire:
Outlined subjects shed light as candles (+1) (that mean you can be seen very far away in darkness)
–20 penalty on all Stealth check (+1)
Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), (+1)
blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. (+2) (yes, I think that defeating blur, displacement and similar concealment effects is a very good feature)
Total +5
Glitterdust
causing creatures to become blinded. ... Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect. (+3 reduced to +2 because the targets save every round to stop the effects)
visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell (+1)
All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed (interesting, it can't be removed)
and continues to sparkle until it fades (no light level give, so at best like a glowing watch, visible only for a short distance in the darkness)
Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Stealth checks (+2)
Total +5
Again: same general power.
You can evaluate the possibility of temporary blindness more and/or the larger area more, but they can be drawbacks too, glitterdusting a opponent in melee with a friend can be a problem, using faerie fire create less problems.
All considered I would say that they are reasonably balanced against each other, with Faerie fire being on the strong side for its level.
- * -
Side question:
Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature.
If I read it correctly, glitterdust has a 50% chance of failing against incorporeal targets, faerie fire will always work.
If glitterdust creates light then can it be countered with dust of twilight?
I don't think glitterdust creates light so I don't think it would be countered by dust of twilight.
How about this: Could you counter dust of twilight with invisiblity?
I don't think so; for the same reason you can't counter glitterdust with invisibility.
Could you use dust of twilight in a similar fashion as glitterdust to track an invisible light source?
What's your point?
My point is you reiterated the parts of your post I agreed with, in an argumentative tone. I'm not sure who you are trying to convince or of what.
|
What's your point?My point is you reiterated the parts of your post I agreed with, in an argumentative tone. I'm not sure who you are trying to convince or of what.
I'm sorry Ross. You caught me in the middle of an attempt to thoroughly explore every possibility and show that no matter how much Invisibilty you throw about and how, glitterdust still outlines invisible things.
As for my tone, it's a debating tone. I suppose the difference may not be too clear through the text medium, and it wasn't your argument that I was deconstructing. I apologise for giving that impression. : )
Glitterdust does not have the [Light] descriptor.
It is not a light effect.
It is a Conjuration [Creation] effect.
"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."
So, yes, magic is holding the dust together. But it otherwise just exactly what the spell says it is.
"A cloud of golden particles"
////
As to the dust of having some sort of anti-invisibility property? The spell doesn't say that it does. Nowhere in the description of glitterdust does it say that the golden particles cannot be made invisible. Thus, the dust doesn't have this property.
The spell isn't a single purpose spell; it isn't a specifically 'anti-invisibility' spell, although it is indeed highly valuable against invisible targets. It can be utilized in a number of varied situations, and many of those have nothing to do with invisibility at all.
The dust created by this spell coats everything. This happens immediately when the spell is cast. The duration represents how long the coating lasts.
Creatures with a coating, whether it is dust, dirt, mud, paint, flour, whatever... can turn invisible, and the coating goes invisible with them.
There are many other Conjuration [Creation] spells out there... are we to deduce from the arguments made here that objects created by magic spells are for some reason immune to invisibility??
Of course magically created objects and creatures can be turned invisible. There is not restriction that they cannot. The dust of glitterdust is not an exception to this simply because you want it to be so. The spell is a rather simple one, it creates a bunch of glitter that goes poof.
But once someone has been coated by glitter, they can still turn invisible afterwards just fine. Or are we going to argue that strippers are immune to Invisibility because of their taste in cosmetics?
But once someone has been coated by glitter, they can still turn invisible afterwards just fine. Or are we going to argue that strippers are immune to Invisibility because of their taste in cosmetics?
No, we're not, because it's not a valid comparison - unless those strippers are wearing magically-created cosmetics the intent of which is it make invisible creatures visible by magically outlining them in sparkles. Which is exactly what the spell does by its description.
But once someone has been coated by glitter, they can still turn invisible afterwards just fine. Or are we going to argue that strippers are immune to Invisibility because of their taste in cosmetics?
It "worked" for Elan over in Order of the Stick... ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, yes, magic is holding the dust together. But it otherwise just exactly what the spell says it is.
"A cloud of golden particles"
Yes. The spell does exactly what it says it does.
It creates a cloud of golden particles.
Magical golden particles.
That stick to creatures and objects.
And visibly outline invisible creatures.
Creations, as you say, are not immune to being made invisible.
However, if a visible spell is made invisible, this doesn't prevent it's magic taking its usual effect.
A fireball spell doesn't have the light descriptor, but it still looks like a ball of fire! This is fluff, rather than crunch; the crunch being damage, range, etc.
If you made a fireball invisible somehow, it would still have its usual effect; it would still do all that damage.
The fluff of glitterdust is the 'golden particles' part, just like the fluff of fireball is the 'ball of fire' part.
The crunch of glitterdust is the 'visibly outlines invisible creatures' part, just like the crunch of fireball is the '10d6 fire damage' part. Both spells are visible, but being made invisible has zero effect on the crunch of either spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for my tone, it's a debating tone. I suppose the difference may not be too clear through the text medium, and it wasn't your argument that I was deconstructing. I apologise for giving that impression. : )
You quoted my post, so I assumed it was me that was being talked to. Anyway, no worries.
Despite glitterdust being a *very* strong spell, there are too many critters with invisibility at will that would laugh at this counter - and it is supposed to be a counter.
Despite glitterdust being a *very* strong spell, there are too many critters with invisibility at will that would laugh at this counter - and it is supposed to be a counter.
I agree with you, but as a devil's advocate, glitterdust would be a damn fine second level spell even if all it did was blind creatures in a radius for 1 round/level. Being an invisibility counter is a bonus. (Compare see invisibility and invisibility purge, which have several advantages in range, targeting, and duration, but ONLY counter invisibility.)
Creatures or spellcasters with limited access to invisiblity still have to spend a use, and even critters with at-will invisibility would have to spend an action. And they're still likely blind.
Let's put it this way. If Detect Invisible was a Touch-range spell that could be used by anyone, then Glitterdust would be too powerful against invisible critters.
However, its "blindness" feature can be compared to the other 2nd level Blindness spell. The latter is permanent until healed. Glitterdust's blindness is on a round-by-round basis. It also provides a means of seeing invisible critters.
In essence, Glitterdust combines the effect of the 1st level Druid spell Faerie Fire which reveals invisible and concealed critters and a very short-term effect of the 2nd level spell Blindness. It is not overpowered.
Blindness/deafness also only affects a single target, and when used by PCs on monsters, the relative duration doesn't matter: either lasts until the target is dead.
Anyway, my point wasn't that glitterdust is overpowered. My point was that even if recasting invisibility negated the dust, it would still be a good spell. In order for it to make a difference, the following circumstances have to occur:
1) You have encounter an invisible foe
2) They make the save against glitterdust (because if blinded becoming invisible again is not the biggest problem)
3) They must have the means to become invisible again (most prepared casters and anyone who used a potion probably can't)
4) They must live long enough to use those means (many creatures who use invisibility as a defense are fragile, and might not survive till the next turn if revealed.)
5) They must actually try to become invisible again instead of using a different tactic or having a more urgent problem to solve.
Like many corner-case rules questions, I'm not sure this comes up in practice.
|
|
Despite glitterdust being a *very* strong spell, there are too many critters with invisibility at will that would laugh at this counter - and it is supposed to be a counter.I agree with you, but as a devil's advocate, glitterdust would be a damn fine second level spell even if all it did was blind creatures in a radius for 1 round/level. Being an invisibility counter is a bonus. (Compare see invisibility and invisibility purge, which have several advantages in range, targeting, and duration, but ONLY counter invisibility.)
Creatures or spellcasters with limited access to invisiblity still have to spend a use, and even critters with at-will invisibility would have to spend an action. And they're still likely blind.
Beside the initial save, they get a save every round to remove the blindness. The DC is 12+stat bonus, probably a 16 when first learned. Let's say the DC increase by one every 4 level of the caster (a simplification, but acceptable):
Bad save for a CR 3 monster: +2, he will save with 14+, 65% chance of being affected, 42% of still being affected at the end of his first round, 27% at the end of the second round.
CR 4 monster +3 against a DC of 17, same chances
CR 6 monster +5 against a DC of 17, save with a 12+, 55% chance of being affected, 30% at the end of his first round.
CR 8 monster +7 against a DC of 18, save with a 11+, 50% chance of being affected, 25% at the end of his first round.
And so on.
Against:
Blindness/Deafness
School necromancy; Level bard 2, cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one living creature
Duration permanent (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
You call upon the powers of unlife to render the subject blinded or deafened, as you choose.
Permanent vs 2-3 rounds. A small AeO and no SR make a difference, but permanent until cured make a difference too.
Generally invisible creature don't travel in "fireball formation" so affecting 2 targets with a casting of glitterdust is a good result. A lot of encounter will last only 1-2 rounds after you get into full attack range, but nothing grant that will be into full attack range when glittersut is cast.
As the main targets of this spell are creatures capable to stay invisible or to resume invisibility after attacking, they will generally use ranged attacks or some form of spring attack/fly-by attack. As you know the square from which a invisible creature attacked you attacking and moving is a common tactic for this kind of creature, staying near a enemy, even if invisible, mean eating a full attack. Even with a 50% miss chance that can be nasty.
|
|
Blindness/deafness also only affects a single target, and when used by PCs on monsters, the relative duration doesn't matter: either lasts until the target is dead.
You assume that the target will generally fail the save. Wile it is reasonably probable that a creature with a bad will St will fail the initial save, failing it for several successive rounds is fairly improbable.
And blindness is a huge drawback but it is not a instant death sentence.RAW the blinded creature can move a half speed and avoid most chances of being the target of a full attack (barring archers in the party).
Being blinded don't stop you from using the withdraw maneuver.
Despite glitterdust being a *very* strong spell, there are too many critters with invisibility at will that would laugh at this counter - and it is supposed to be a counter.I agree with you, but as a devil's advocate, glitterdust would be a damn fine second level spell even if all it did was blind creatures in a radius for 1 round/level. Being an invisibility counter is a bonus. (Compare see invisibility and invisibility purge, which have several advantages in range, targeting, and duration, but ONLY counter invisibility.)
Creatures or spellcasters with limited access to invisibility still have to spend a use, and even critters with at-will invisibility would have to spend an action. And they're still likely blind.
I suppose my point was more that glitterdust would be a perfectly fine second level spell even if all it did was counter invisibility.
If the group is needing to counter invisibility, taking an action to overcome glitterdust would be well worth it, especially if they are blind (more opportunities to make a new save).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Invisibility, when you boil it down, makes the target transparent. Perfectly transparent.
If you dispel it, the target is no longer transparent.
But glitterdust doesn't alter that transparency! It just outlines things, whether or not the target is transparent. It doesn't make a difference to things that could be seen anyway, but it really helps against transparent things.
Being transparent before or after the glitterdust won't stop the spell having the usual effect of outlining transparent creatures. Even making the dust transparent won't stop the spell from outlining creatures, because all the invisibility spell does is make things transparent; it doesn't stop spells from functioning unless that spell were to dispel the actual transparency, which glitterdust never does! You are still transparent! People can still see the magical outline which is the glitterdust spell.
Which brings up another question I mentioned in a separate thread meant for an FAQ: Does Glitterdust actually effectively negate Invisibility, meaning an invisible opponent hit by Glitterdust is now visible and thus can be hit by melee attacks, or does it just provide the attacker with an idea where the invisible person is, and thus still allow the invisible foe to have Concealment and a 50% miss chance?
Do note, the spell does not state it negates Concealment. Which thus means it is possible for someone to argue Glitterdust doesn't turn the invisible person visible and still allows for a 50% chance for attacks to miss the invisible foe.
I would say its a matter of perception than concealment.
U would be outlined but could still not be seen if someone rolls a terribad perception roll.
The 50% chance to miss is because u know they are in a 5ft area just not where in that 5 ft area. Being outlined, u are shown exactly where u are...if they don't roll horrible on their perception.
|
|
For all intents and purposes, the creature is visible in some way, thus the usual cover miss chance is negated by FF and Glitterdust. (That is usually how it is run in the Society games)
Think of my previous example of the Invisible Man in a downpour of rain. The rain outlines him, makes him visible as he is still transparent. There are other movies that have invisible characters being discovered, and other creatures that are made of water that look about the same as the effect that Glitterdust would provide.
So, yes, magic is holding the dust together. But it otherwise just exactly what the spell says it is.
"A cloud of golden particles"
Yes. The spell does exactly what it says it does.
It creates a cloud of golden particles.
Magical golden particles.
That stick to creatures and objects.
And visibly outline invisible creatures.
Creations, as you say, are not immune to being made invisible.
However, if a visible spell is made invisible, this doesn't prevent it's magic taking its usual effect.
A fireball spell doesn't have the light descriptor, but it still looks like a ball of fire! This is fluff, rather than crunch; the crunch being damage, range, etc.
If you made a fireball invisible somehow, it would still have its usual effect; it would still do all that damage.
The fluff of glitterdust is the 'golden particles' part, just like the fluff of fireball is the 'ball of fire' part.
The crunch of glitterdust is the 'visibly outlines invisible creatures' part, just like the crunch of fireball is the '10d6 fire damage' part. Both spells are visible, but being made invisible has zero effect on the crunch of either spell.
Fireball has the [fire] descriptor... and the crunch of fireball is 'fire damage'. Taking the [fire] out of fireball turns it into nothing...
Similarly, the 'crunch' of a conjuration [creation] spell is the 'thing(s)' that is created. The conjuring of a cloud of golden particles is 'what it does'. That isn't fluff, it is central to the very operation of the spell, without that 'cloud of golden particles', glitterdust wouldn't 'do' anything...
The particles visibly outline invisible creatures, yes, by default they do. And when something that is visible is turned invisible, it stops visibly doing anything. The particles would then "Invisibly outline invisible creatures" when they are turned invisible.
That is the 'crunch' of Invisibility; It makes something 'visible' into something 'invisible'.
That is the assumption. The problem is the rules don't specify this, but they DO specify it for Faerie Fire. It is probably just a matter of minimizing the side of the spell so it doesn't take up too much room in the book. But it also breeds ambiguity.
@Remy: Actually, the description of the spell is it "outlines and coast" which means that not only is there particles ON the invisible object... but AROUND the invisible object. Thus if renewing your Invisibility doesn't stop Faerie Fire, it shouldn't stop Glitterdust.
|
|
Similarly, the 'crunch' of a conjuration [creation] spell is the 'thing(s)' that is created. The conjuring of a cloud of golden particles is 'what it does'. That isn't fluff, it is central to the very operation of the spell, without that 'cloud of golden particles', glitterdust wouldn't 'do' anything...
The crunch is that the particles visibly outline stuff. It's not mundane glitter that is created; it's magical glitter. Being transparent would not stop it being magical, nor prevent it from visibly outlining stuff.
Your logic depends on the glitter just being mundane glitter. It isn't. It has a magical effect, stated in the spell description, and there's nothing in the spell description which implies that it ceases to function if made invisible.
Spells do exactly what they say they do. In this case, it visibly outlines invisible things.
...when something that is visible is turned invisible, it stops visibly doing anything.False, by the rules. An invisible light source casts visible light, and can thereby be pinpointed, whether the light is a lantern, a everburning torch...or a creature coated in magically sparkling dust.
Since Glitterdust's spell description says the dust it creates sparkles, and since it says Glitterdust visibly outlines invisible things coated with it, your interpretation doesn't work. Sorry!
I would happily agree if the spell said what you say it says, unfortunately, it doesn't. You are simply making up answers.
A source of light generates light. A reflective object reflects light. Unfortunately, 'sparkles' doesn't mean 'generates light', not with any certainty.
It also doesn't say it 'creates' sparkles. It says "continues to sparkle". In this case, 'sparkles' is a verb, and not a noun. So it doesn't create sparkles [noun], it continues to sparkle [verb].
A good example would be a man covered in mundane glitter. He is covered in glitter, the glitter sparkles. If he were to be the recipient of an Invisibility spell, however, he would vanish, and the glitter would disappear with him. The glitter would continue to spark, but it would invisibly sparkle, and only be seen by those who can See Invisibility.
That is essentially how glitterdust would interact with a new casting of Invisibility, the man and the gold particles would vanish, and while the particles still sparkle, they would invisibly sparkle. It would only be seen by folk who can See Invisibility.
If reflective material cannot be turned invisible without continuing to reflect light, then there would be severe penalties for people holding swords or wearing metal armor while Invisible. But there isn't, because they don't reflect light while invisible, not visibly anyway.
Invisibility makes visible stuff invisible. That is what it does.
'Visibly outline' turns into 'invisibly outline.'
Similarly, the 'crunch' of a conjuration [creation] spell is the 'thing(s)' that is created. The conjuring of a cloud of golden particles is 'what it does'. That isn't fluff, it is central to the very operation of the spell, without that 'cloud of golden particles', glitterdust wouldn't 'do' anything...The crunch is that the particles visibly outline stuff. It's not mundane glitter that is created; it's magical glitter. Being transparent would not stop it being magical, nor prevent it from visibly outlining stuff.
Your logic depends on the glitter just being mundane glitter. It isn't. It has a magical effect, stated in the spell description, and there's nothing in the spell description which implies that it ceases to function if made invisible.
Spells do exactly what they say they do. In this case, it visibly outlines invisible things.
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?
If the dust is immune to invisibility I would agree that the Glitterdust continues to visibly outline the target.
Unfortunately, I can't see how to interpret the description to make it say that the dust cannot be made invisible.
And since spells do what they say they do, you apply the effect of Invisibility, which makes visible things invisible. The target and the dust he is wearing become Invisible.
The problem with simply saying "The spells do what they say they do"... is that you are ignoring the effects of Invisibility on the dust. The dust should be affected by the casting of Invisibility, but you are indicating that Invisibility should fail to affect the dust for the reason of... {Insert something here}.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?
Read it again. His/her argument is that this is magical and not regular dust.
If I go with your interpretation of how invisibility works, anything that is touching me at the time I cast the spell turns invisible. So I am laying on the ground when I cast, now myself and the ground are invisible. I jump in to the bushes and cast, now the myself and the bushes are invisible. I go hug a tree and cast, now myself and the tree are invisible.
@Remy: Actually, the description of the spell is it "outlines and coast" which means that not only is there particles ON the invisible object... but AROUND the invisible object. Thus if renewing your Invisibility doesn't stop Faerie Fire, it shouldn't stop Glitterdust.
I don't follow your meaning.
Outlining and coating in this case are rather synonymous. "Hovering around the target" is what you are implying the gold particles do, but the spell doesn't say that they can do this.
For Faerie Fire; “A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects.” So, Faerie Fire creates sort of an aura of light around a creature, it does say how it works, and in the case of reapplying invisibility is simply a superior counter. The effect is that of a glow, which is a light effect. “Outlined subjects shed light as candles.” Further illustrates and illuminates this point.
It has its own drawbacks of course.
Both spells create different effects. Glitterdust isn't simply a larger area version of Faerie Fire. They do similar things, but they achieve those results with dramatically different methods. And those differing methods do have consequences for how the spells interact with other effects.
So is the dust gear? Or is it tucked into clothing?
Everyone is assuming that the way dust and flour work is that it sticks to the creature and is visible. If they fill the area, then you can see the invisible creature by there being nothing in a particular space. Imagine rainfall. The invisibility doesn't create the illusion of rain where the creature is standing. You'll either see water splashing off of it, or see a space where the rain stops falling.
Also, it is a cloud of particles that continues to function in the area. So you just get coated again.
Are we done using physics to explain magic? Dispel the glitterdust.
You will find you are in the minority opinion that the cloud continues to be a cloud for the entire duration of the spell.
There is another thread about this specific topic. I believe most of us discussing this interaction have safely agreed that the cloud of particles covers everything, and having covered everything, isn't in the air anymore.
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?Read it again. His/her argument is that this is magical and not regular dust.
If I go with your interpretation of how invisibility works, anything that is touching me at the time I cast the spell turns invisible. So I am laying on the ground when I cast, now myself and the ground are invisible. I jump in to the bushes and cast, now the myself and the bushes are invisible. I go hug a tree and cast, now myself and the tree are invisible.
If you are carrying the ground, then... yeah, it is yours, and would turn invisible with you. But only to 10ft away. (The spell clarifies this) Can you carry the ground? (If yes, Hi Atlas! ^.^)
Hugging a tree isn’t quite carrying it. Although if you picked up the tree, and then cast invisibility, it would disappear. Well, all of it that didn’t extend beyond that 10ft limit, of course.
The dust has negligible weight, and as it coats the targets, is being carried by them. So would be subject to the effect of a casting of Invisibility.
The question is, simply put... Is the dust Immune to Invisibility?
Nothing says that it is. Unless I missed it, in which case, please direct me to the line that tells us that the gold particles created by Glitterdust are immune to invisibility... or a reference to Conjuration [creation] spells creating matter which is inherently immune to invisibility, or to a reference that gold particles in general are immune to Invisibility.
I cannot find any source to indicate there is any kind of Invisibility immunity provided to this dust, but would love to be shown what I overlooked.
Can someone link where it says invisible light still gives off visible light sourse? If so then I'm guessing the magical dust would become invisible around the character but the sparkles it gibes off to outline the invisible target would continue to visible sparkle for the duration of the spell.
Also if glitterdust does go invisble being coated in it, then if u were smack dab in the middle of a bush being coated by its leaves and such I would say the bush disappears by same logic.
If you are carrying the ground, then... yeah, it is yours, and would turn invisible with you. But only to 10ft away. (The spell clarifies this) Can you carry the ground? (If yes, Hi Atlas! ^.^)
I wouldn't say you are carrying dust. The spell also says any gear/item you carry turns invisible. Dust, mud, water, etc are not items or gear and would fall outside of the effects of the spell.
Can someone link where it says invisible light still gives off visible light sourse? If so then I'm guessing the magical dust would become invisible around the character but the sparkles it gibes off to outline the invisible target would continue to visible sparkle for the duration of the spell.
Also if glitterdust does go invisble being coated in it, then if u were smack dab in the middle of a bush being coated by its leaves and such I would say the bush disappears by same logic.
Is this what you are looking for?
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).
I wouldn't say you are carrying dust. The spell also says any gear/item you carry turns invisible. Dust, mud, water, etc are not items or gear and would fall outside of the effects of the spell.If you are carrying the ground, then... yeah, it is yours, and would turn invisible with you. But only to 10ft away. (The spell clarifies this) Can you carry the ground? (If yes, Hi Atlas! ^.^)
I wouldn't say most people are carrying their clothes either. They are wearing them, not carrying them.
There is actually a distinction for carrying something in Pathfinder though. It refers to something on/worn/equipped/held. It references weight, and capacity. It could be loosely defined as 'all things being supported by your body'.
If it is on you, you are carrying it.
Edit/Addition: if you really don’t think dirt/dust/mud/water etc that is on you counts as being carried, then invisibility spell is rather silly. No one is perfectly clean, and the effect of the spell should indicate that a walking humanoid smear is the effect of a humanoid under the effect. Most objects would remain mostly or at least partially visible due to any dust or dirt on them when the spell was cast.
The clothes you ‘wear’ aren’t being carried either, so you’d have to strip down first or look like an animated explorers outfit.
Trying to pick apart the 'carried’ line just gets you into further quagmire, and should likely be avoided. We can explore this quagmire if you would really like to, but I expect it to be fruitless.
|
|
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?
NO!
My argument is that whether or not the magical golden dust is visible, the magical effect of it continues unabated. That magical effect is to visibly outline invisible creatures. It doesn't stop the invisibility from affecting the creature, it simply magically visibly outlines the (still) invisible creature.
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?NO!
My argument is that whether or not the magical golden dust is visible, the magical effect of it continues unabated. That magical effect is to visibly outline invisible creatures. It doesn't stop the invisibility from affecting the creature, it simply magically visibly outlines the (still) invisible creature.
But it would do that invisibly, as it is invisible.
It would magically invisibly outline invisible creates with magical invisible golden dust that invisibly sparkles.
By the reasoning going on here…
Phantom Steed cannot be made invisible either.
“You conjure a Large, quasi-real, horse-like creature (the exact coloration can be customized as you wish). It can be ridden only by you or by the one person for whom you specifically created the mount. A phantom steed has a black head and body, gray mane and tail, and smoke-colored, insubstantial hooves that make no sound. It has what seems to be a saddle, bit, and bridle. It does not fight, but animals shun it and refuse to attack it.”
Because it would continue to have a “black head and body, gray mane and tail, and smoke-colored, insubstantial hooves” even while invisible, so would be plainly clear to see.
|
|
This whole argument seems to boil down to someone butthurt that a tactic they tried didn't work out as planned and wants to try to rules lawyer the point to generate sympathy...
With that said, glitterdust coats the targets in the area, if they were invisible before, they are now visible. However, it's not like they just wink back into full view, they are still technically invisible, just coated with magic dust that reveals their outline. So any further casting of invisibility is going to reset the duration of the previous invisibility. Let us not forget that even if the dust particles on you were to become invisible too, you are still in the area and walking in the area to gain new dust on your feet and legs...
And if you cast Sepia Snake Sigil on a book "You cause a small symbol to appear in the text of a written work." and then cast invisibility on the book... then;
The "small symbol" would still be visible, because the spell says "to appear in the text" So it would be visible.
There are numerous other examples of a spell giving a visual description, especially the conjuration [creation] spells. But...
I still don't see why you apply the effects of the description of the appearance and not the effects of invisibility?
You should apply both. The object and creatures in the area of the glitterdust spell get covered by golden particles, if a creature then uses invisibility, it turns invisible along with everything it carries...
So the result is an invisibly outlined invisible creature. Or, you could even say an invisibly visibly outlined invisible creature. Meaning it is visibly outlined, if you can see invisibility.
Magical pixie dust has a duration, invisibility does not say it counters glitterdust in the description. Therefore glitterdust wins by lack of counterspell specifications. However with a sufficient stealth check and not moving it doesn't really matter. It's magical glitter, the herpes of the crafting world... man why didn't I think of that for superstar.
This whole argument seems to boil down to someone butthurt that a tactic they tried didn't work out as planned and wants to try to rules lawyer the point to generate sympathy...
With that said, glitterdust coats the targets in the area, if they were invisible before, they are now visible. However, it's not like they just wink back into full view, they are still technically invisible, just coated with magic dust that reveals their outline. So any further casting of invisibility is going to reset the duration of the previous invisibility. Let us not forget that even if the dust particles on you were to become invisible too, you are still in the area and walking in the area to gain new dust on your feet and legs...
I assume this insult is directed my direction since I am the most outspoken supporter for the "yes you can go invisible" position? If so... cute... but an unnecessary devolution of the discussion, especially as it is off base. This has never come up in my experience.
As far as I am concerned this is a theoretical problem to be discussed and hashed out with those willing to discuss it. By doing so, perhaps we can all help one another gain a better grasp of the rules as a whole, and learn a couple things in the process.
Even if it is directed at someone else, it isn't very productive. Some people do in fact get 'butthurt' and trying to fuel it further isn't really encouraged here, so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature casts invisibility, then it is invisible (undetectable by vision, concealment, +20/+40 bonus on Stealth checks).
If it is affected by glitterdust, then it is still "invisible" but is also visibly outlined for the duration and takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks.
If it is affected by glitterdust and then casts invisibility, the same situation applies: the creature is both "invisible" and visibly outlined. Glitterdust doesn't negate invisibility, that's what invisibility purge is for. But invisibility also doesn't negate glitterdust, they both remain in effect.
So what does it mean to be both invisible and visibly outlined? Well, the creature is definitely detectable by vision: they're covered in sparkling golden particles. Maybe not identifiable, but certainly detectable. The bonus and penalty to Stealth checks negate each other, so either a net +0 while not moving or -20 while moving.
And as far as concealment...I'd say that the visibly outlined but invisible creature still has total concealment (line of effect but no line of sight) since an enemy can only see the outline, not the actual creature. It would be similar to a creature with blindsense: they can tell that the invisible enemy is there and can even pinpoint their square, but they still have a 50% miss chance against the invisible enemy and are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC against attacks from the invisible creature.
If it is affected by glitterdust and then casts invisibility, the same situation applies: the creature is both "invisible" and visibly outlined. Glitterdust doesn't negate invisibility, that's what invisibility purge is for. But invisibility also doesn't negate glitterdust, they both remain in effect.
That is the assertion that has been made numerous times. But no one has yet to explain why the gold particles that visibly outline invisible creates cannot be made invisible by the newer invisibility spell.
Thus, for both spells to be in effect we reach the syntax error "The invisible gold particles visibly outline the invisible creature". This can be parsed as true if the person looking has See Invisibility. Thus, if you can See Invisible, the invisible creature is visible, and is visibly outlined by visible invisible gold particles. Else, the target is simply invisible (coated in invisible particles).
To say both spells have their effect means that the particles on the invisible target are also invisible. Both spells function. That is how they would interact.
The visual effect of the particles would continue to function, if you see them, which is achievable if you can see invisible things.
The gold particles aren't the creature. They also aren't the creature's gear. So, they are not affected by the creature casting invisibility and remain visible.