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.
You're going to have to define "creature's gear", because by that interpretation, the invisibility spell isn't very useful.
That would mean that similar things are not 'the creature's gear', dirt/dust/mud/etc. And most everything has some degree of this stuff on them.
This would suggest anything with Invisibility would already be outlined by a visible layer.
Glitterdust does not have the [Light] descriptor.
It is not a light effect.
It is a Conjuration [Creation] effect.
Glitterdust's description says the dust “....continues to sparkle until it fades.” Plenty of effects from spells that don’t have the [light] descriptor emit light, so you’re building your whole argument on a false premise.
Are you still saying that no Conjuration [Creation] spell effects emit light? Even after people have cited other Conjuration [Creation] spell effects that emit light? Heck, I'll add one: Fire Seeds.
I see no reason a spellcaster couldn't make a Fiery Shuriken invisible. But people would still know exactly where it was, because it's on fire.
I agree with all the many folks who say creatures who get hit with Glitterdust are visibly outlined for the spell’s duration even if they cast Invisibility again. Why? Because the spell has the effect of "... visibly outlining invisible things".
This interpretation relies on the wording of the spell. Yours relies on assumptions of how the spell works, i.e. that the dust does not emit light and that it has no anti-invisibility properties.
The [fire] descriptor spells have been a recurring theme in trying to counter my argument about the spell requiring the [light] descriptor if it was to emit light. I didn't go there originally, because it is entirely irrelevant... Is Glitterdust a [Fire] spell?
But all of that glosses over my original contention... The spell doesn't create light, because it doesn't say it does. And absent a [light] descriptor, (or even a [fire] descriptor… or elec.. etc) the only way to conclude that it creates light... is to make it up.
For a spell to create light, it either needs the descriptor to indicate this, or it needs to explicitly state that it does. Glitterdust doesn't explicitly state that it creates light. It doesn't have the light descriptor.
Glitterdust doesn't create light.
If it doesn't create any light how does it function to give a -40 stealth to all creatures? Those creatures could be in the shadow or in complete darkness -- nothing will sparkle in darkness. Makes no sense unless they are glowing independently of light sources.
Also the spell says "continues to sparkle until it[the dust] fades." Either the dust is changing hue or it is reducing the amount of light that it is emitting. Of those uses of the word "fade" I would suggest that diminishing light would make more sense.
Fades out of existence. That is what Conjuration [creation] spells with durations do, fade out of being when the time is up.
If you are correct, and this spell creates light... Then this spell should be the go to anti-darkness spell.
Why? because it doesn't have the [light] descriptor! Meaning darkness wouldn't suppress the effects, as it isn't a 'light spell' and it would magically illuminate everyone in the darkness. Similarly, it would magically illuminate anyone in a heightened to 9th level deeper darkness. Because glitterdust doesn't increase the light level, it just outlines creatures.
A spell like scintillating-pattern does not have the fire or light descriptor, yet it creates colourful lights.But all of that glosses over my original contention... The spell doesn't create light, because it doesn't say it does. And absent a [light] descriptor, (or even a [fire] descriptor… or elec.. etc) the only way to conclude that it creates light... is to make it up.
Effect colorful lights in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Yes...
It explicitly says so. You're right.
If only Glitterdust said it created light too, then we'd have a nice fuzzy happy resolution. Alas, it doesn't.
Like I said. That if a spell doesn't explicitly say it creates light, and is lacking a descriptor that indicates it creates light... well, if you are trying to say it makes light, you're fabricating that.
A spell like scintillating-pattern does not have the fire or light descriptor, yet it creates colourful lights.But all of that glosses over my original contention... The spell doesn't create light, because it doesn't say it does. And absent a [light] descriptor, (or even a [fire] descriptor… or elec.. etc) the only way to conclude that it creates light... is to make it up.
Effect colorful lights in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Yes...
It explicitly says so. You're right.
If only Glitterdust said it created light too, then we'd have a nice fuzzy happy resolution. Alas, it doesn't.
Alas, it does, and it was pointed out to you pages ago in the thread: The word 'sparkle' (a word included in the description of the spells effect) includes in its common definitions "to shine brightly with flashes of light; to give off sparks; to give off or reflect light".
Treating this as mundane dust that is treated like flour, and that the spell's description does not include the word 'sparkle', is a fabrication.
It is a cloud of sparklies guys, a cloud. Ergo, even if the glitter on you disappears, it is constantly moving shifting like mist inside said cloud. As long as you are within the cloud you are visible, the difference between powder and glitterdust is the powder eventually falls, the glitterdust doesnt. It creates a conbstant effect, cloud, until it disappears. Furthermore to even argue that the dust touching you becomes invisible, it now creates the only spot in the globe NOT covered with shiny bits. Which means, I still see you.
A spell like scintillating-pattern does not have the fire or light descriptor, yet it creates colourful lights.But all of that glosses over my original contention... The spell doesn't create light, because it doesn't say it does. And absent a [light] descriptor, (or even a [fire] descriptor… or elec.. etc) the only way to conclude that it creates light... is to make it up.
Effect colorful lights in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Yes...
It explicitly says so. You're right.
If only Glitterdust said it created light too, then we'd have a nice fuzzy happy resolution. Alas, it doesn't.
Like I said. That if a spell doesn't explicitly say it creates light, and is lacking a descriptor that indicates it creates light... well, if you are trying to say it makes light, you're fabricating that.
In a total pitch black room with no light sourses whatsoever, does glitterdust sparkle?
Since there is nothing in the spell description about reflecting existing light, then the traget in the area does indeed sparkle. If so by ur explanation that it does not create light, HOW does it sparkle still in a completely pitch black room with no light sourses to reflect?
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.
It's no point, He/She won't listen. This is exactly what I was trying to convey.
|
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.
I can't work out if you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand the crux of the argument, or whether you truly don't understand.
So I'll use the example you just provided.
I'm not saying that you can't turn a phantom steed invisible (I might, but that's not helpful here). I'm saying that an invisible (perfectly transparent) phantom steed still magically functions just as the spell says it does! It still carries a rider, can still walk on water/fly etc, according to the spell description. Being transparent has absolutely no detrimental, or indeed any, affect on the functioning of the phantom steed spell.
It's the same with glitterdust. Even if you were to somehow make the magical golden particles perfectly transparent, this would in no way affect the magical functioning of the spell, which is to magically visibly outline perfectly transparent creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, changing the opacity of an object does not alter or hinder the object's intended function.
|
|
You can see a large bonfire at night from many miles away. But it won't illuminate the place you are standing.
If the area is naturally dark, glitterdust will allow those affected to be seen, but this will not increase the illumination level in the area (dark to dim, etc.). Only those things coated in the dust at the instant the spell is cast can be seen, and will continue to be visible for the duration.
However, your vision can still be blocked by fog or similar, and you won't be able to see anything, even creatures affected by glitterdust.
This is how the spell can give off light, without being an evocation(light) spell. It doesn't illuminate an area, or anything not affected by the spell.
Whether you can actually see the dust itself is neither here nor there. You are actually seeing the outline of the creatures/objects affected by the glitterdust spell. The invisibility spell doesn't affect the functioning of the glitterdust spell in any way, just like it wouldn't affect the functioning of the phantom steed spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, changing the opacity of an object does not alter or hinder the object's intended function.Well put!
Why can't I be so concise. : )
As someone who usually lets his words run away with him, I accept your compliment. I strive for brevity; I usually wind up with 'novella'. ;)
You can see a large bonfire at night from many miles away. But it won't illuminate the place you are standing.
While that is indeed one of the most common houserules, it is not actually true by the rules.
To quote the exploration rules:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
So by the rules, anyone near a bonfire can see miles away, while anyone in the dark can't see the bonfire.
Yet these rules are so obviously silly, that everybody houserules them.
As someone who has spent a lot of times in the woods, at nite time I can see the moon but amcompletely blinded to everything around me to where I ccan't see the ground or an inch in front of my face but I can still see the moon. Technically I'm still blinded by the darkness eventhough I can see something.
You can see a large bonfire at night from many miles away. But it won't illuminate the place you are standing.
While that is indeed one of the most common houserules, it is not actually true by the rules.
To quote the exploration rules:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
So by the rules, anyone near a bonfire can see miles away, while anyone in the dark can't see the bonfire.
Yet these rules are so obviously silly, that everybody houserules them.
You are reading this incorrectly. "In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly." refers to where a character is looking, not where they are standing. It means that all characters can clearly see things that are in an area of bright light. You can see the bonfire, and creatures/object near it from any distance (distance penalty on Perceptions checks, blah blah). The line about being blinded in the dark is the similar. You are being excessively literal.
In any case, I think the subject has been fairly well covered. Either interpretation of what happens when a creature affected by glitterdust attempts to become invisible is defensible. (Though I have seen a lot of terrible logic in this thread attempting to prove it one way or the other.)
I know how I would run it, you know how you would run it, and that's as far as we're going to get without a FAQ answer specifying how it works in Pathfinder, or an author from 3.0 (or earlier, I don't know how much the text for that spell changed between second and third edition) wants to show up to tell us the original intent of that wording.
The sentence is clear that it refers to when a character is in an area of light. You're just misreading it because it seems so wrong.
I disagree. Human language is not only allowed to be interpreted flexibly, it is essentially required. Human communication would be impossible if we were required to understand only what a person said instead of what they meant. Words are innately ambiguous, and we rely on inferring context and connotations to resolve them. This is why 'legalese' is so far removed from ordinary English. And we still have a system of courts who have to constantly translate it back and forth to regular English and settle disagreements about the same. It is why Natural Language Processing is so incredibly difficult, and why instructions written in programming languages are referred to as 'code': they're cryptic.
It is why we are still having this conversation (and so many other perpetual rules debates.) By the Rules as Written, does 'sparkle' mean like a star (casting light), or like a diamond (reflecting light)? At least we can assume it doesn't mean 'sparkle' as in 'sparkling wine'.By Rules as Intended, should we take the design that the spell is meant to counter invisibility to mean that invisibility is not supposed to counter it back?
It might be the basis of old vaudeville jokes to read "man eating tiger" as a man who eats tiger because the correct phrasing for a tiger which eats mean is "man-eating tiger", but insisting upon the former because of an omitted hyphen is not being more literate or more intelligent, it is being pedantic.
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...
Actually, no. I am planning out two potential encounters for my gaming group. Don't click the Spoilers if you're in my group (Steve).
Bogeymen have the ability to cast Invisibility at-will. As a GM I wanted to determine what would happen if the Bogeyman cast Invisibility while covered with Glitterdust. The specification that it "outlines" the foe suggests that the extra Invisibility won't let it become invisible again.
That said, even if it did, there is still a simple element around this: Invisibility provides a +20 to Stealth when moving, or +40 when still. Glitterdust imparts a -40 penalty to Stealth. Thus I can have the players make Perception checks to detect the invisible-but-glittered Bogeyman and then have them have a 50% chance of missing.
Oh, and as for being in complete darkness... Glitterdust imparts a -40 penalty to Stealth. Thus anything hit by Glitterdust in Darkness (magical or mundane) is still easily detected and thus only gains concealment. Assuming that it doesn't negate Concealment like Faerie Fire does.
The [fire] descriptor spells have been a recurring theme in trying to counter my argument about the spell requiring the [light] descriptor if it was to emit light. I didn't go there originally, because it is entirely irrelevant... Is Glitterdust a [Fire] spell?Nope, and neither is Sepia Snake Sigil, another Conjuration [Creation] spell. But both emit light.
Sepia Snake Sigil explicitly states that it generates light. So… it generates light.
Glitterdust does not explicitly state that it generates light. Additionally, it lacks any descriptor tag that would suggest that it creates light.To generate light, a spell must say that it does, or at the least have a descriptor indicating it does. Otherwise, you are pulling it out of thin air.
Glitterdust's spell description says the created dust sparkles. You insist on reading this as the dust is reflective. This is purely your interpretation. Since the spell does not specify that the dust sparkles only when light is cast on it, it is a closer reading of the text to say it emits light. Since this explains how the dust visibly outlines invisible objects for the spell's duration, this is also an interpretation that harmonizes with the rules as written.
Incidentally, I'm not writing to convince Remy--no textual evidence is going to change his mind. This is for gamers who search the forums for an answer to this question and stumble across this thread--it's important that the one voice giving the wrong answer not be the final word in the thread.
The spell says it creates a cloud of gold particles. This is the first thing the spell says. This is the basis for everything that follows.
Gold dust sparkles. Just throwing that out there. If you've ever seen a bunch of gold dust, it is sparkly.
It doesn't sparkle in the sense that a thousand candles sparkle, or a sparkler sparkles, or the stars sparkle. It sparkles like something glossy, specks of shiny reflective dust.
Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that gold dust generates light? We all know it doesn't. Gold dust doesn't generate light. Fact.
To interpret 'sparkles' in context of 'gold dust' as 'to generate light' is the wrong interpretation. It is faulty.
What does gold dust do? Sparkle (reflective) or sparkle(generates light)?
Honest question, which is a characteristic of "gold particles"?
In other words, changing the opacity of an object does not alter or hinder the object's intended function.
That is fundamentally incorrect, though.
So, this is the source of the disagreement? Hrm.
Conjuration [creation] spells bring into existence an object or objects. These objects are then susceptible to being altered by the world around them.
That 'must' change the way they behave.
Create Food And Water says "The food that this spell creates is simple fare of your choice--highly nourishing, if rather bland."
Prestidigitation says "It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material."
By your standpoint, you couldn't use Prestidigitation to flavor the bland food created by Create Food and Water? Simply because it says it creates bland food, and that nothing can change this, because that is the spell effect?
But what of the spell effect of Prestidigitation? It says you can... flavor it.
Are you saying that
A) This would remain bland
B) This could be flavored
C) This would somehow be bland flavorful food
I'm trying to understand where yall are coming from. But I just cannot see how a conjured item is immune to further modification, or how being modified doesn’t actually change it.
|
You can see a large bonfire at night from many miles away. But it won't illuminate the place you are standing.
While that is indeed one of the most common houserules, it is not actually true by the rules.
To quote the exploration rules:
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
So by the rules, anyone near a bonfire can see miles away, while anyone in the dark can't see the bonfire.
Yet these rules are so obviously silly, that everybody houserules them.
You are reading this incorrectly. "In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly." refers to where a character is looking, not where they are standing. It means that all characters can clearly see things that are in an area of bright light. You can see the bonfire, and creatures/object near it from any distance (distance penalty on Perceptions checks, blah blah). The line about being blinded in the dark is the similar. You are being excessively literal.
In any case, I think the subject has been fairly well covered. Either interpretation of what happens when a creature affected by glitterdust attempts to become invisible is defensible. (Though I have seen a lot of terrible logic in this thread attempting to prove it one way or the other.)
I know how I would run it, you know how you would run it, and that's as far as we're going to get without a FAQ answer specifying how it works in Pathfinder, or an author from 3.0 (or earlier, I don't know how much the text for that spell changed between second and third edition) wants to show up to tell us the original intent of that wording.
Actually, Malachi is wrong but for a different motive. He has totally forgotten that the area of bright light or normal light has a radius.
You can see perfectly what is in a area of bright or normal light, but the area extend x' foots from your light source. With a bonfire it can extend 30' or 40', depending on its size and position, then it become dim light for the same distance and then it do nothing.So people near a bonfire will see clearly at 30', see somewhat from 31' to 60' and nothing beyond that. They will not see anything miles away.
He is somewhat right when he say that the paragraph speak of the people within the area of bright/normal/dim light, as the other pieces of the paragraph speak of the penalties from bright light for creatures with light blindness and sensibility or how people in dim light benefit from concealment and can hide.
That notwithstanding, you are right when you say that the paragraph applies to people in a area of bright/normal/dim light when seen from outside the area.
As for other parts of the rules it is a implicit information, as all of us has that kind of experience and so it isn't necessary to repeat it.
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)
I wish I had seen this earlier. What did I make up? Be specific?
I like quotes.
By reasoning the spell imparts a -40 and outlines the target because that is what the spell says it does. It does NOT say that if the subject cast invis again that the effects of the spell go away.
If you disagree provide a quote.
PS: I never said glitterdust made you not invisible, BUT beign outlined means ti just does not matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in other news: Myself and Malachi are actually agreeing. <----I think that should end the thread.. :)
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)
I wish I had seen this earlier. What did I make up? Be specific?
I like quotes.
By reasoning the spell imparts a -40 and outlines the target because that is what the spell says it does. It does NOT say that if the subject cast invis again that the effects of the spell go away.If you disagree provide a quote.
PS: I never said glitterdust made you not invisible, BUT beign outlined means ti just does not matter.
Uh... this is from page 2, and I quoted your post in mine. So... it has already been quoted. I like quotes too, tis why I quoted you.
I've already been over what you're asking me for. I'm not sure it is necessary to go into it any further. I will if you really want to I guess.
But if my reasoning wasn’t good enough the first couple dozen or however many posts I made on this topic, I'm not sure repeating it all again is going to help. Especially when you could just reread it and save us both time.
And in other news: Myself and Malachi are actually agreeing. <----I think that should end the thread.. :)
To any relevant extent, it is over.
|
|
I'm trying to understand where yall are coming from. But I just cannot see how a conjured item is immune to further modification, or how being modified doesn’t actually change it.
'I just cannot see how a conjured item is immune to further modification'
• the gold particles created by the spell are not necessarily immune to being made invisible (they might, but this is moot because....)
'...or how being modified doesn’t actually change it'
• even if the gold particles are invisible, this won't stop them functioning. Their function, as described in the spell, is to visibly outline invisible creatures. It doesn't stop the target from being transparent, or even the gold particles from being transparent. Transparent objects are still visibly outlined because that is the function of glitterdust, and the dust itself doesn't need to be seen, only the visible outline magically emanating from the (possibly transparent) golden dust.
I'm trying to understand where yall are coming from. But I just cannot see how a conjured item is immune to further modification, or how being modified doesn’t actually change it.'I just cannot see how a conjured item is immune to further modification'
• the gold particles created by the spell are not necessarily immune to being made invisible (they might, but this is moot because....)
'...or how being modified doesn’t actually change it'
• even if the gold particles are invisible, this won't stop them functioning. Their function, as described in the spell, is to visibly outline invisible creatures. It doesn't stop the target from being transparent, or even the gold particles from being transparent. Transparent objects are still visibly outlined because that is the function of glitterdust, and the dust itself doesn't need to be seen, only the visible outline magically emanating from the (possibly transparent) golden dust.
So, the invisible dust visibly outlines the invisible creature, then?
That seems, well...
Logically in-congruent.
Visibly outlining is a function of visible golden dust. Once rendered invisible, all non-light 'visible' functions are now 'invisible' functions. (as per the function of the invisibility spell)
Thus 'visibly outlining' becomes 'invisibly outlining'.
In that case, why doesn't Faerie Fire vanish when you cast Invisibility a second time? After all, Light Sources are hidden by the spell. And you can't track exactly WHERE a person is by an invisible light source. And yet Invisibility won't negate Faerie Fire's ability to reveal the location of the invisible party. And this is a level 1 spell doing this.
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.
-------
The reasoning is, the spell surrounds and outlines the subjects. The outlining ability means a fresh Invisibility won't stop people from seeing the shape of the invisible person. Likewise, an invisible person hit by Glitterdust is ALSO outlined (and that word is specifically used).
In that case, why doesn't Faerie Fire vanish when you cast Invisibility a second time? After all, Light Sources are hidden by the spell. And you can't track exactly WHERE a person is by an invisible light source. And yet Invisibility won't negate Faerie Fire's ability to reveal the location of the invisible party. And this is a level 1 spell doing this.
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 yesA 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.
-------
The reasoning is, the spell surrounds and outlines the subjects. The outlining ability means a fresh Invisibility won't stop people from seeing the shape of the invisible person. Likewise, an invisible person hit by Glitterdust is ALSO outlined (and that word is specifically used).
Faerie fire doesn't create anything that can be turned invisible. Whether it in on them, floating, or wherever. There isn't anything conjured or created, it is just light.
Yes, the word outlined is used. But glitterdust doesn't say the other word there 'surrounds'. Nor does that really have anything to do with why faerie fire cannot be made invisible.
Invisibility tells us why it cannot be made invisible.
|
|
Glass is almost invisible, but cut glass will sparkle when hit by a light. From a distance a pane of glass can be very hard to discern, the same quantity of glass cut at different angles and not forming a smooth plane will be fairly visible.
The glitter from glitterdust can work the same way. It sparkle from refracted light, and even if made invisible will still form rainbows from reflected light and deviate it enough to make the invisible creature easy to localize.
That would allow the creature to become invisible again, but it would still suffer from the -40 to stealth imparted by the spell.
That is the interpretation my GM has decided to use, and it seem a acceptable one.
It keep the sparkle effects, it keep the -40 to stealth that is not dispelled by casting invisibility, it resolve the problem if glitterdust will outline someone in pitch blackness (it wouldn't as the sparkles are refracted and deflected ambient light, not light generated by the spell).
Faerie fire doesn't create anything that can be turned invisible. Whether it in on them, floating, or wherever. There isn't anything conjured or created, it is just light.
And this is copied from the text for Invisibility:
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.
If Faerie Fire's source were to become invisible all you'd see is a faint area of light without being able to discern where it is. This is not how the spell works, however, and invisibility will not negate Faerie Fire (or the penalty it imparts to Stealth - a -20 in this case).
Or are you now saying that Faerie Fire can be rendered ineffectual by recasting Invisibility? I believe that a FAQ was done on that, and the ruling was that Faerie Fire cannot be negated by a fresh casting of Invisibility.
Faerie fire doesn't create anything that can be turned invisible. Whether it in on them, floating, or wherever. There isn't anything conjured or created, it is just light.And this is copied from the text for Invisibility:
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.
If Faerie Fire's source were to become invisible all you'd see is a faint area of light without being able to discern where it is. This is not how the spell works, however, and invisibility will not negate Faerie Fire (or the penalty it imparts to Stealth - a -20 in this case).
Or are you now saying that Faerie Fire can be rendered ineffectual by recasting Invisibility? I believe that a FAQ was done on that, and the ruling was that Faerie Fire cannot be negated by a fresh casting of Invisibility.
Faerie fire's source is already invisible. The source is the magic of this evocation spell. No object is generating it, it is light that is being evoked.
edit; that was sloppy language. Faerie fire's source is non-visual. It has no visual representation, as it is magically evoked. It is like asking what a whisper looks like, it simply doesn't have a visual representation.
If the source is non-visual then it would not be light. If the source was invisible then it would not negate invisibility. You're handwaving away the effects of one relevant spell because it negates your argument.
|
|
Faerie fire doesn't create anything that can be turned invisible. Whether it in on them, floating, or wherever. There isn't anything conjured or created, it is just light.And this is copied from the text for Invisibility:
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.
If Faerie Fire's source were to become invisible all you'd see is a faint area of light without being able to discern where it is. This is not how the spell works, however, and invisibility will not negate Faerie Fire (or the penalty it imparts to Stealth - a -20 in this case).
Or are you now saying that Faerie Fire can be rendered ineffectual by recasting Invisibility? I believe that a FAQ was done on that, and the ruling was that Faerie Fire cannot be negated by a fresh casting of Invisibility.
Faerie fire's source is already invisible. The source is the magic of this evocation spell. No object is generating it, it is light that is being evoked.
edit; that was sloppy language. Faerie fire's source is non-visual. It has no visual representation, as it is magically evoked. It is like asking what a whisper looks like, it simply doesn't have a visual representation.
This is how a creature outlined by faerie fire would look. It is akin to St. Elmo's fire. Even the possible colors of the faerie give that away.
I have to state, that is a truly disturbing photograph. Glorious, but disturbing! I'd hate to be on an aircraft glowing like that! ^^;;
Glitterdust outlines as Faerie Fire does. So while any coating may be invisible, there is still the outline around the invisible object and thus recasting invisibility no more makes Glitterdust go away than it does Faerie Fire.
(Invisibility, 10' radius on the other hand...)
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How has this not generated a FAQ yet?
Questions on Glitterdust:
1. Does Glitterdust continue to affect the area of its effect after the initial casting of the spell (if someone enters the area, are they subject to the dust)?
2. Once applied to a creature, does casting Invisibility upon that creature negate the effects of Glitterdust?
2a. Can the dust itself be turned invisible?
3. Does Glitterdust emit its own light?
3a. Does Glitterdust function in total darkness, visibly outlining creatures even for those viewing with only normal sight (not darkvision)?
4. Is Glitterdust a physical substance?
4a. Is Glitterdust (the substance) considered mundane or magical?
4b. Does Glitterdust suffer a 50% chance to not affect incorporeal creatures?
How has this not generated a FAQ yet?
Questions on Glitterdust:
1. Does Glitterdust continue to affect the area of its effect after the initial casting of the spell (if someone enters the area, are they subject to the dust)?
2. Once applied to a creature, does casting Invisibility upon that creature negate the effects of Glitterdust?
2a. Can the dust itself be turned invisible?3. Does Glitterdust emit its own light?
3a. Does Glitterdust function in total darkness, visibly outlining creatures even for those viewing with only normal sight (not darkvision)?4. Is Glitterdust a physical substance?
4a. Is Glitterdust (the substance) considered mundane or magical?
4b. Does Glitterdust suffer a 50% chance to not affect incorporeal creatures?
This will be a tricky one for them to answer, as they've stated that they must answer all asked question if they answer any in a faq post.
My answers;
1. The spell covers everything in the area, and once covered, persist on the creatures and objects so effected until the duration expires.
2. Casting invisibility on an effected creature doesn't negate the effects of glitterdust, it simply renders the effects invisible.
2a. Gold dust can be turned invisible
3. No
3a. It visibly outlines invisible creatures even in total darkness. If you can see in this lighting condition, you can see the effect, if you cannot see in this lighting condition, you are effectively blind, and cannot perceive any effects.
4. Yes, gold particles. This is both what it says it does and what Conjuration [creation] spells do as a general rule.
4a. The dust is magically created golden particles. It only exists while the spell duration is in effect. But is otherwise like mundane golden particles.
4b. The spell cannot effect incorporeal creatures. It is physical matter.
If we get an answer, it'll finally put this topic to rest... hopefully we do, it would be very illuminating.
Sadly, the players never bothered using Glitterdust on it. See Invisible, sure. And when they could see it, they wailed on it something fierce. (Did lose the Cohort Paladin to a Phantasmal Killer, but I have Save-or-Die spells reduce people to negative hit points and then remain unconscious for several rounds after being healed up.)
So essentially... I caused a huge brouhaha over something that ended up not being a factor! Ah well... maybe the FAQ will be answered by the time it becomes an issue again. ;)
Does glitterdust do anything, mechanically speaking, other than the -40 to stealth?
Yes, it says it outlines the invisible creature. But, mechanically that seems irrelevant. Being outlined doesn’t stop them from being invisible, per se. So, does that even make any difference?
They would still have all the benefits of being invisible, just significantly easier to locate via perception.
|
|
I have mentioned it before, and others touched on it. Glitterdust doesn't actually make the creature it effects visable, it only outlines them. Those that are already invisible at the casting of Glitterdust are still invisible after they are outlined by the dust.
Casting Invisibility again only resets the duration of the effect of invisibility, it does not negate the effects of Glitterdust. This would be the case whether or not the caster of Invisibility is still invisible from another spell effect/racial ability.
Really, is there still a question about this. I would think the disparity between Enlarge Person and Reduce Person in regards to fired weapons damage is worth more discussion than this.
I have mentioned it before, and others touched on it. Glitterdust doesn't actually make the creature it effects visable, it only outlines them. Those that are already invisible at the casting of Glitterdust are still invisible after they are outlined by the dust.
Casting Invisibility again only resets the duration of the effect of invisibility, it does not negate the effects of Glitterdust. This would be the case whether or not the caster of Invisibility is still invisible from another spell effect/racial ability.
Really, is there still a question about this. I would think the disparity between Enlarge Person and Reduce Person in regards to fired weapons damage is worth more discussion than this.
Yeah, thanks. I just said that.
The question wasn't "does it outline them?", it was "does outlining them actually have a mechanical effect other than the penalty to stealth?" No other penalty is listed.
Creatures so affected seem to need a save vs blind, and then suffer a penalty to stealth. And that is all. Outlining them doesn't seem to be of any rules centric importance, other than a penalty to stealth.
So, you still do not automatically pinpoint them, they still have concealment, etc etc, all the normal benefits of Invisibility.
|
|
So, you still do not automatically pinpoint them, they still have concealment, etc etc, all the normal benefits of Invisibility.
I don't believe that for a moment.
A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area....visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell
Every single thing, every single fold of cloth, movement of the blades, wave of the feather in their hat can be precisely located. The miss chance represents not knowing exactly where the target is, and glitterdust shows you exactly where everything is.
So in other words it's a colorful Invisibility Purge.