Casting Invisibility when under the effects of Glitterdust


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

If a creature is hit with a Glitterdust spell and THEN casts Invisibility on itself, is it invisible as the glitter is actually on the creature rather than outlining it as per Faerie Fire? For instance, some Fae are able to go invisible either multiple times a day or at-will. If they were hit with Glitterdust, would they be able to cast Invisibility again to negate the Glitterdust's anti-invisibility elements?


yes


I would say no. Glitterdust outlines invisible creatures for the duration of the spell.


Glitterdust wrote:
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.

I don't see why you should be able to effectively turn invisible after being dusted. The spell coats all creatures within the area and continues to sparkle for the duration; a visible creature who was dusted and then turned invisible would still be coated with a layer of magically-visible dust.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Because when an invisible critter picks up an object, it turns invisible. When you throw flour in the air, it only briefly outlines the foe before it becomes invisible. Glitterdust specifically negates an Invisibility spell when it is cast. However, it covers the individuals while outlining them. As such, might not a new Invisibility spell negate its visibility effect? It's not as if the spell has a constant cloud of glitter in the area, after all - once it has gone off, someone new entering the area is not hit by the spell.


Ummm.... actually I would say yes, it turns invisible.

Glitterdust is a conjuration spell, so its actual factual physical dust on the target. Its very similar to tossing a bag of flour, except that the target can't remove glitterdust so easily.

In the same situation, if you toss paint or flour or whatever onto a target while they are invisible, it makes them visible.

If you are covered in paint or flour and THEN turn invisible, these things just become invisible with you. Nothing from the Glitterdust text suggests that it would act otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's definitely something about Glitterdust that suggests it would act otherwise: It's a magical spell.

There's a pretty big difference between tossing a handful of mundane, inexpensive flour onto an invisible creature, and tossing a handful of spell-created magical dust - the purpose of which is to negate invisibility - onto a creature who then tries to turn invisible.


If what you were saying were true then Glitterdust would work like mundane powder, it would just become invisible a moment after touching the target.


As per my initial concise post, I'm of the opinion that glitterdust is like tossing flour. My evidence is that the blinding effect of glitterdust does not continue to attempt to blind anyone who enters the area of effect after the initial cast, like Grease does when people continue to walk in the area. Therefore by extension, the coating effect wouldn't continue to affect either. The spell duration is for how long the sparkly dust continues exist.

However, if you play with someone who believes that the cloud of glitterdust does continue to affect visible creatures casting invisibility inside the area of effect, just move out of the 10-ft radius spread and then cast invisibility. I don't believe that there is any evidence to support that glitterdust would continue to affect outside the area of effect.


To quote the invisibilty spell

Quote:

The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

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 Glitterdust just creates a reflective dust, then it coud be considred the same as clothing/gear and will go invisible when the spell is cast.

If the sparkle is because Gliterdust generates light, then you can still see the sparkles.


can't say I'm convinced, Sure you guys have logical fluff arguments why it would go invisible, but there's no mechanical evidence.

I'll have to double read the spells, but for me this is right up there with using lightning bolt to diffuse electricity into a pool of water to damage everyone in it, fluff justifications don't really work well with magic.

oh well till I read the spells I'll have to stay on the fence.


Wait a second, glitterdust is like tossing flour? That would mean that it becomes invisible the moment it lands on an invisible creature. Right?

I'm just curious why it would work otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaratherus wrote:

There's definitely something about Glitterdust that suggests it would act otherwise: It's a magical spell.

There's a pretty big difference between tossing a handful of mundane, inexpensive flour onto an invisible creature, and tossing a handful of spell-created magical dust - the purpose of which is to negate invisibility - onto a creature who then tries to turn invisible.

It is a conjuration spell, which means that it creates physical objects made of real substance. There is nothing to suggest that those objects (the dust) are somehow immune to invisibility, which I will note, is also a magical spell.

Lakesidefantasy wrote:


If what you were saying were true then Glitterdust would work like mundane powder, it would just become invisible a moment after touching the target.

Except that doesn't happen, a mundane bag of flour really can outline an invisible creature. If you pick up an object it does not become invisible unless you can hide it under your invisible clothes, cloak etc.

From CRB:"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)."


Faerie Fire School evocation [light];

vs

Glitterdust School conjuration (creation);

vs

See Invisibility School divination;

//////

The school of magic is pretty important. Faerie Fire continues to function because it is actually creating light from around the target, and invisibility cannot hide a light emission. This is what evocation - light spells do, they emit light.

Glitterdust creates a "cloud of golden particles". It actually creates these little particles, which simply cover everything in the area. Invisibility will most certainly make gold particles invisible if they're on the target. This is what conjuration- creation spells do, they create matter.

See Invisibility, on the other hand, doesn't affect the invisible guy at all, and simply gives the caster more information than he would normally have. In this cast, the image of the guy who is invisible. This is what divination spells do, give info.


So could you hide the glitterdust particles in order to make them invisible? Do they become part of your gear so a second casting of invisiblity makes them invisible?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay. Looking at the description, it does state "outline" and also "coat" - it would seem then that Glitterdust is almost akin to an upgraded Faerie Fire spell that also causes temporary blindness. The "glitter" creates its own light, enough to outline the object.

Thus while the invisible entity can cast invisibility a second time, that only turns the glitter invisible. The outlining effect would still be in effect and thus much like Faerie Fire it should still be visible.

It does seem that this could be a FAQ for further specification on this subject... but in all likelihood it would be ruled "outlining" in the same venue as Faerie Fire and thus negating further invisibility spells until the Glitterdust spell itself ends.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Glitterdust particles emit light, just like faerie fire does: that's why it has a duration and the spell description says they 'sparkle'. When the duration runs out they become ordinary dust.

Which leads to one of my fun stories. I was running Age of Worms, and we were working though Three Faces of Evil. The party arcane caster was a debuff bard who loved opening combat with glitterdust because a room full of blind things is easier to kill.

Well, in the Erythnul section of that dungeon, most of the enemies were grimlocks, which made glitterdust...less than effective. (Grease and hideous laughter were still super-handy, though.) The BBEG of that section is a grimlock cleric, who had sown pickled eyes into his empty eye sockets because worshiping a CE deity gives you a license to be a littlelot crazy.

The bard sees that this bad guy actually has eyes and gets excited to cast his favorite spell...which promptly does nothing, since guy is still blind. A round or two later, the fight going poorly for him, the grimlock uses his Trickery domain spell to turn invisible and flee, heal, and ambush. Being blind, though, he didn't realize he's already coated in an invisibility counter, and was promptly stabbed in the head.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

As per my initial concise post, I'm of the opinion that glitterdust is like tossing flour.

You're perfectly free to rule it that way as a GM. Another GM would be equaly valid in saying that Glitterdust is special magic dust that defeats any invisibility that a target might want to try.

This is going to be one of those things where table variation WILL be the order of the day. Accept it.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
It is a conjuration spell, which means that it creates physical objects made of real substance. There is nothing to suggest that those objects (the dust) are somehow immune to invisibility, which I will note, is also a magical spell.

Yes, it does create an object, or objects - the dust. That dust is still magical, as per the conjuration (creation) description. It's not a handful of flour; it's a handful of spell-conjured flour held together by magic for the specific purpose of keeping things visible.

Another point: Per the invisibility ability, objects that give off light - like torches - continue to do so even if an invisible creature holds them:

Quote:
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.

Glitterdust states the dust sparkles - i.e., gives off faint light. Thus, even if the visible creature turned invisible after the fact, it wouldn't negate that light source for the same reason it wouldn't negate a burning torch.

Now, I'd agree that if the coated creature picked up a cloak, turned invisible, and then threw the cloak over himself, the spell would be negated, because you're covering up the magical physical object that's emitting the light


It doesn't say it gives off light. And it is a conjuration effect, not an evocation effect. It glitters, sparkles, reflects. Golden particles. They be glittery yo.

Haha...

Do you think shiney metal can't be turned invisible? Because it can. If it is invisible, it doesn't reflect anything anymore.

Anything on the target of an invisibility spell at the time of casting turns invisible.

Only way to trump that is with the actual 'generation' of light, which glitterdust doesn't do.

Liberty's Edge

I disagree that Glitterdust gives off light. Diamonds sparkle. Mica sparkles. "Sparkles" does not imply "emits light", merely "scatters light". I think LazarX has nailed it perfectly. A GM could reasonably rule either way.

EDIT - NINJA!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

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.


Tangent101 wrote:

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.

This is a solid point, if it both coats and outlines then you could make the coating layer invisible and it wouldn't effect the stuff that's just magically floating around you,


And if it was magically floating around you, shouldn't there be recurring attempts to blind again, too?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

No, because you were blinded by the coating, not the outlining elements.


..... there is nothing that says that the particles give off light.

You quite literally summon a garish burst of glitter...it gets in people's eyes and makes them look absurd, cool. Got it.

But there really is nothing in the spell that provides any RAW evidence that it makes subsequent castings of invisibility impossible, unlike Fairie Fire which says that it negates invisibility for its duration. This just outlines a creature just like flour outlines a creature. No reason to imply that it does anything other than just that.

It is golden dust.... that really is all that it does.
I am not sure what else you need out of a level 2 spell that doesn't have a saving throw (for the outlining invisible creatures part).

Either way though, your table, your ruling.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of refuse to believe that it takes a second level spell to duplicate the effects of throwing a jar of glitter at someone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is generally not a good idea to dissect the rules to this degree. Your toys will break if you're too rough on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay. Time to bring out the exact wording:

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.

-----------

Please note: It visibly outlines invisible things for the duration of the spell. It does not say it negates invisibility by making something invisible visible. It states it OUTLINES the invisible thing. Like Faerie Fire. So if Faerie Fire cannot be ignored by casting a new Invisibility... neither can Glitterdust. And I thank people for pointing this out to me.

Also note: No Spell Resistance. (Oddly, this means it can affect Golems and can blind them.)

Lantern Lodge

"cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades". It does exactly what the spell says it does, the particles continue to sparkle until they fade, even if they turned invisible.


Frodo is right. Referring to the Invisibility Spell's RAW, as well as the RAW of Glitterdust says that it sparkles. Sparkling in this case can produce light. Light cannot be made invisible unless the source of the light is made invisible. Since you cannot specifically target the Glitterdust to make it either go away or hide it (it's a spell effect, not an object), you'd have to dispel the spell effect to get what is desired.

Glitterdust is not gear, so casting it again would not work, since it's a spell effect, not an item tallied in your inventory.

Even you can make it invisible again, it doesn't change the fact that the numbers for being invisible in contrast to being affected by Glitterdust don't add up, (+20 Stealth while moving v.s. -40 Stealth constantly? Still super easy to detect there!) meaning the intent of invisibility being able to counteract the effects of Glitterdust is absolutely ridiculous.


So can you see a glitterdusted creature in the dark?


The glitterdust is not a part of the target's gear. It is just a magical affect so it is subject to invisibility. It will continue to outline the target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It appears by the definition of sparkle, that they do give off light, defeating invisibility. This would also indicate that a glitter dusted creature glows in the dark, hence the -40 on stealth checks.

Dictionary.com wrote:

spar·kle [spahr-kuhl] Show IPA

verb (used without object), spar·kled, spar·kling.
1.
to issue in or as if in little sparks, as fire or light: The candlelight sparkled in the crystal.
2.
to emit little sparks, as burning matter: The flames leaped and sparkled.
3.
to shine or glisten with little gleams of light, as a brilliant gem; glitter; coruscate.
4.
to effervesce, as wine.
5.
to be brilliant, lively, or vivacious...

In addition, the spell description says "visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. To me that part is pretty specifically saying the dust itself remains visible.


If glitterdust actually emitted light, it would be an evocation (light) spell, or at the least explicitly say that it emits light. It does not.

It does not emit light.

In the case of spells doing things that conflict;

1) Determine the compatibility of the effects.
2) If a conflict occurs, determine results on order of application.
3) When in doubt, defer to spell level.

Glitterdust and invisibility are the same level, so that last step is irrelevant in this case... good thing we don't need it in this example.

Glitterdust creates shiny particles. The particles only exist for a few rounds, and while they do, everything that was in the original area is covered by them.

It is like gold glitter is everywhere, on everything, coating everyone.

Then someone casts Invisibility... rut ro. So what happens now? Well, Invisibility is the most recent effect, so it trumps earlier effects where a conflict occurs.

Apply effects of glitterdust, then apply effects of invisibility.

So,
Step 1, the target is covered in glitter. They are very visible.
Step 2, the target turns invisible. They are no longer visible. They, and all their stuff, vanish.

Spells have downsides. Some spells accomplish similar goals in different ways and have different counters.

Glitterdust covers an area, blinds targets, reduces stealth, and outlines invisible targets. It is a versatile spell, and it works by creating a bunch of particle, which means there is no spell resistance. Versatile and useful. The spell creates glitter.

We know this, one, because it says it does. Two, because it is a conjuration (creation) spell, and three, because it isn't affected by spell resistance. It creates objects. In this case, a bunch of glitter. "cloud of golden particles" to be precise.

But, because it creates real objects, those objects are subject to interactions like all other real objects. They most certainly can be made invisible again, by a recasting of Invisibility.

No aspect of the spell indicates that it emits light. No aspect of the spell says that the particles it creates are immune to magical effects.


Remy Balster wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell doesn't create ordinary dust, it creates magical dust.

What's magic about this dust?

Quote:
visibly outlining invisible things
Quote:
for the duration of the spell

If the subject is made invisible again, then this magic dust visibly outlines it. It's what it does.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

You turn invisible, not other spells on you that make you visible.

So in this situation, you are invisible and are outlined in glitter.


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.


I'd say no you can not turn invisible unless the spell says so specifically, though I think it shouldn't be conjuration or ignore SR really, but I am not a fan of conjuration (creation) abuse to bypass stuff like that.

Also it is simply not cool to ignore the spell by going invisible again.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It might not be cool, but hey, evil monsters! :D They don't care about it "not being cool." ;)

Small note here: Other conjuration spells for Core rules (which are listed via school) don't directly give off light. That said, you CAN summon something that can create light - like a Lantern Archon. Thus it could be ruled that the particles themselves are conjured but these particles also give off light. In essence, Glitterdust becomes a Summoning spell going to the realm of Fae and stealing Tinkerbell's glitter. ;)


Tangent101 wrote:
Other conjuration spells for Core rules (which are listed via school) don't directly give off light.
Sepia Snake Sigil wrote:
If it succeeds, the sepia snake dissipates in a flash of brown light ...

Also, there's Incindiary Cloud, full of white-hot embers.


AnnoyingOrange wrote:

I'd say no you can not turn invisible unless the spell says so specifically, though I think it shouldn't be conjuration or ignore SR really, but I am not a fan of conjuration (creation) abuse to bypass stuff like that.

Also it is simply not cool to ignore the spell by going invisible again.

It is not so much that you can't turn invisible. The point is that even when glitterdusted you are invisible, BUT the spell cancels out any advantage being invisible gives you so it is just a waste of a spell slot.

You will be "invisible" but that dust means nobody really cares. :)


well it won't let anything you to the discussion I can tell you what happened in our home game. The DM rules based off of many of the arguments above, but after being glitter dusted our ninja was able to become invisible again. However because the glitter dust continue to glow he was pinpointed but still receive the concealment.


Tangent101 wrote:
Because when an invisible critter picks up an object, it turns invisible. When you throw flour in the air, it only briefly outlines the foe before it becomes invisible.

This is incorrect.

PRD wrote:


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

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.

Scarab Sages

I'd seem to think that the target remains visible.

The original invisibility isn't dispelled or removed; it's still running, so reapplying really doesn't do anything, just refreshes the duration of the invisibility. The target of the glitterdust spell hasn't changed.

The premise is that somehow the dust acts as an item shouldn't be applied because the spell wouldn't orginally work per the original invis spell wording. "items picked up disappear". Essentially, if an invisible target covered himself in flour, he'd still be invisible. I don't think an enemy throwing flour would directly defeat invisibility either. I would rule that if the target was standing still and flour was thrown, you'd see the outline of his feat on the ground or could track the physical disturbances and be able to pinpoint an attack until it's next action, as per the powder rules "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there"...otherwise, he can't be seen.

I can see both sides, but Glitterdust is a magic attack that is designed to defeat invisibility without removing it.

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/Invisibility

Too many contradictions in the rules these days.


Ross Byers wrote:
I kind of refuse to believe that it takes a second level spell to duplicate the effects of throwing a jar of glitter at someone.

You are incorrect, sir. In this interpretation it is worse than a jar of glitter in that it has a duration and thus can be dispelled.


Cascade wrote:

I'd seem to think that the target remains visible.

The original invisibility isn't dispelled or removed; it's still running, so reapplying really doesn't do anything, just refreshes the duration of the invisibility. The target of the glitterdust spell hasn't changed.

The premise is that somehow the dust acts as an item shouldn't be applied because the spell wouldn't orginally work per the original invis spell wording. "items picked up disappear". Essentially, if an invisible target covered himself in flour, he'd still be invisible. I don't think an enemy throwing flour would directly defeat invisibility either. I would rule that if the target was standing still and flour was thrown, you'd see the outline of his feat on the ground or could track the physical disturbances and be able to pinpoint an attack until it's next action, as per the powder rules "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there"...otherwise, he can't be seen.

I can see both sides, but Glitterdust is a magic attack that is designed to defeat invisibility without removing it.

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/Invisibility

Too many contradictions in the rules these days.

I don't understand what that link was supposed to show.


OMG Why are we still debating this? There are at least eight other threads that have cooked this topic with the same result.

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Casting Invisibility when under the effects of Glitterdust All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.