|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Seems like a strange question as everyone I know has always assumed it does, but I happened to have reason to parse the language of Glitterdust and Faerie Fire, and now I'm not sure. So, let's see if anyone has any opinion, unofficial insights, or (heaven forbid a developer sees this and responds) official rulings:
Glitterdust (Conjuration/Creation): "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."
Faerie Fire (Evocation/Light): "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. ..."
Faerie Fire specifically calls out that it negates the benefit from concealment provided by invisibility, BUT Glitterdust does not.
I think both spells basically say the targets are outlined, so everyone just assumed that Glitterdust negated invisibility like Faerie Fire.
What does this mean? Does it mean that we've been wrong all along?
Maybe an invisible target hit by Glitterdust doesn't have its invisibility negated, and just gets -40 to its stealth rolls (which means they become pretty easy to pinpoint, but still are invisible)?
Secondary item to discuss: Also, note that Faerie Fire specifically states that the targeted creature(s) glow (and it is a LIGHT SPELL) while Glitterdust doesn't mention glowing or emanation of any light (and it is a CREATION SPELL). Does this mean that Glitterdust (in regards to perception) does not help someone who cannot see the target because of darkness? For example, a Dwarf Wizard (who has Darkvision) and a human (who does not have Darkvision) are fighting 3 orcs in total darkness (and no light source is available). The Wizard hits the orcs with Glitterdust (possibly blinding them). Can the human see the orcs?
Before you reply, please read the two spell descriptions and think about it. This question goes against how everyone I've ever met plays Glitterdust, so most knee-jerk responses (mine included) would be that it does negate invisibility (and I'm now wondering if I was wrong all along!).
I'm going to bed now, so feel free to discuss this matter.
Interesting perspective. By RAW, the invisibility is not negated. The bonus to stealth normally gained by invisibility is countered by a penalty.
At a functional level, that means the target should still receive the other benefits of total concealment: a 50% miss chance, be immune to sneak attacks, et al.
I could also see a house-rule to downgrade concealment with those effects (or similar, like the classic bag of flour). Total concealment becomes partial concealment, and partial concealment is officially negated.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been asked before. There is, indeed, an official answer.
In short, Glitterdust does indeed negate invisibility, it does indeed not help at all with any other form of concealment (such as darkness).
Glitterdust causes things in the underdark (complete darkness) to sparkle. If glitterdust does not give off light - how do things in complete darkness sparkle?
|
|
Glitterdust causes things in the underdark (complete darkness) to sparkle. If glitterdust does not give off light - how do things in complete darkness sparkle?
Uh...very dimly? It does make it easier to see such creatures (what with the -40 stealth)...it just doesn't make enough light to actually see by or catch more than a glimpse of sparkles...thus not negating the penalties from being in the dark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding invisibility, it does counter it. Pinpointing, as suggested by you as a possible outcome, is far from accurate. If you can pinpoint a creature that is invisible, all that means is that you know which 5 foot square the creature is in. This is far from what you get if the entire creature is outlined in glitter.
Even if you can't see their facial features or read their "you can't see me" t-shirt, you still see them. You see their head, shoulders, arms, and legs. You see their weapon, footwork, and movements. You see everything necessary to fight the creature because the creature is outlined. Think of it as fighting a Shadow or a Ghost; you don't have any penalties to fighting one of those even though it is just a shape, an outline, with no distinguishing features within the emptiness of the form.
An interesting bit from the Invisibility Special Ability.
PRD WROTE.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
I'd think that would be similar to what glitterdust does.
But the official answer is official.
(I think this is a case where Jason ruled on the side of simplicity, which he kinda likes.)
|
|
An interesting bit from the Invisibility Special Ability.
PRD WROTE.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
I'd think that would be similar to what glitterdust does.
But the official answer is official.
From the perspective of logic, standing in water just tells you vaguely where it's legs are, not where it's torso might be, or it's shield or sword, or any vulnerable parts...with Glitterdust you have a full, sparkly, outline and know enough to aim precisely where, say, the sword and shield aren't, and where the kidneys are.
That's enough of a difference to make getting rid of concealment entirely make sense to me.
Where it says "in water" I was thinking fully submerged.
But I have spent to much time under water in my fictional carreer.
However its worth noting that the Invisble underwater thing is a very old rule, from Module U3 The Final Enemy (TSR UK 1983/1984) at least. It's stayed with the game through every version I can remember. Even though "Concealment" is a relatively new concept.
Glitterdust and Faerie Fire should be errata'd to explicitly state that they negate invisibility.
It's not negating Invisibility that should be explicit.
They both pinpoint invisible targets in their radius.
It's negating the Concealment that should be explicit.
I think what Captain Zoom is getting at is that Glitterdust pinpoints the target but still allows the target the 50% miss chance that comes from concealment. Faerie Fire specifically calls out the concealment getting cancelled, Glitterdust does not.
Invisibility does several things. It boosts your Stealth bonus and grants Concealment.
Concealment does not require Invisibility though, Blur gives concealment even though you don't have to pinpoint the location of a Blurred target.
So knowing where something is, doesn't negate Concealment.
Glitterdust Covers the target in glitter, but it also fills the air around the target with glitter. So while you know where the creature is, and it's general shape it's not like the spell calls out that you could see gaps in armor, or even if it was armored. You could tell if it was a humanoid, and what size it is, you could tell if it was holding something large (like a sword or shield). But it doesn't really provide complete coverage of the creature.
Faerie Fire outlines the creature and makes it glow, I'd imagine that this is a more complete coverage. It would show detail, facial features, the cut of clothing.
Jason's ruling is clear though. So the RAW, and all the little what Ida and weird interactions are covered by Jason's "it kills invisibility and all associated effects".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been asked before. There is, indeed, an official answer.
In short, Glitterdust does indeed negate invisibility, it does indeed not help at all with any other form of concealment (such as darkness).
Excellent. I looked around and couldn't find anything, but someone else came through. So this settles the first question. Glitterdust DOES negate invisibility.
I noticed links sometimes stop working, so just in case for the future, the post that Deadmanwalking linked to says:
Alright, looks like I got too cute with the logic behind my explanation. Let me be clear...
Glitterdust kills invisibility and all the rules that go with it.
Glitterdust has no effect on other forms of concealment.
Glitterdust also makes it very difficult to hide and might blind you.
That is all... (as it is currently worded).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Glitterdust creates sparkling sticky dust. Sparkling means it reflects light. Absolute (magical) darkness, concealment, blur and displacement should still work (the dust seems considered part of the clothing for purposes of blur/displacement). The blindness could be physical, related to dust sticking to your eyes. Casting invisibility after being coated with dust might work depending on DM mood.
Faerie Fire creates what i interpret as a separate aura. Blurring or displacing your image does not move the aura. Hiding behind a corner, your glow might still be visible. You could still turn invisible when faeire fired, but the glow remains. Turning ethereal might remove the aura depending on DM mood.
question: how do these two spells interact with mirror image? Based on my logic above, faerie fire should foil mirror image, but glitterdust should not.
I'd agree that Glitterdust wouldn't be much use against Mirror Image.
Faerie Fire might. I'd maybe rule it that way.
But I hate the way MI works in 3.5/PF. it's too much like Blur in it's description. It used to actually spread images around you. Now it just makes duplicates in your 5' square.
|
|
Question #1 Settled.
As for Question #2, I think Jason's ruling settles that as well.
Deadmanwalking is correct that creatures in total darkness would have a -40 stealth penalty per the spell.
However, the spell does not say anything about Glitterdust actually emanating any light. Golden particles and diamonds still glitter in the dark, you just can't see them. So, IMO, and based on Jason saying it has no other effect on other forms of concealment, you still suffer from blindness per the darkness rules (unless you have darkvision).
PRD on darkness: "Darkvision allows many characters and monsters to see perfectly well without any light at all, but characters with normal or low-light vision can be rendered completely blind by putting out the lights. ...
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature). ..." (and so on)
As usual, many of us will trip over "logic". How does Glitterdust give you a -40 penalty to stealth if it doesn't glow or anything. I don't know, perhaps its magic!
So, I would say if you are blinded by darkness, the target gets -40 penalty to stealth rolls to oppose your perception checks to locate them (so you are likely to be able to pinpoint their square), BUT they still have total concealment.
Just wanted to put a little science into this. For Glitterdust to sparkle, there must be light of some kind for the light waves to bounce off. In darkness, glitterdust is useless even with darkvision. Darkvision does not create light for the sparkles to reflect light. Further darkvision is only in black and white. Darkvision would negate the shadows, the target is invisible with dust on him but the dust gives no sparkles since there is no light to reflect it. Science wins, he's still invisible.
Just wanted to put a little science into this. For Glitterdust to sparkle, there must be light of some kind for the light waves to bounce off. In darkness, glitterdust is useless even with darkvision. Darkvision does not create light for the sparkles to reflect light. Further darkvision is only in black and white. Darkvision would negate the shadows, the target is invisible with dust on him but the dust gives no sparkles since there is no light to reflect it. Science wins, he's still invisible.
If you want to use science instead of magic, do what someone else suggested and use flour. But I suspect that Glitter Dust is powered by magic not by light, otherwise there wouldn't be that duration.
The glitterdust outlines your character so people know where you are. That is how it is negated.
See this image for an example
Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.
Just wanted to put a little science into this. For Glitterdust to sparkle, there must be light of some kind for the light waves to bounce off. In darkness, glitterdust is useless even with darkvision. Darkvision does not create light for the sparkles to reflect light. Further darkvision is only in black and white. Darkvision would negate the shadows, the target is invisible with dust on him but the dust gives no sparkles since there is no light to reflect it. Science wins, he's still invisible.
Doesn't need to sparkle to give him away though. If I threw a bag of flower or a can of paint at an invisible person... it would still show up in Darkvision. It just outlines and covers him.
If I took a bag of non-magical glitter and threw at someone... they would be a dust covered thing coming at me.
However... this is MAGICAL glitter.... sooooo I don't believe science has much to say about it. The spell says it sparkles.... so I don't see a need for a torch to be present to make it sparkle.
Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.
I see it more of that the rules weren't written with the lowest common denominator in mind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to put a little science into this. For Glitterdust to sparkle, there must be light of some kind for the light waves to bounce off. In darkness, glitterdust is useless even with darkvision. Darkvision does not create light for the sparkles to reflect light. Further darkvision is only in black and white. Darkvision would negate the shadows, the target is invisible with dust on him but the dust gives no sparkles since there is no light to reflect it. Science wins, he's still invisible.
Not all the light waves are in the visible spectrum. Darkvision isn't a SU ability, so it don't work by magic, you simply see some some wavelengths that a human eye can't see. Glitterdust can reflect those wavelengths as well as the wavelengths of the visible light so a person covered in glitterdust in a dark area can sparkle for the guy with darkvision while it don't sparkle for the guy without it.
To make an example, you use a salt lens to focus some infra-red wavelength, a lens that is opaque to normal light. The right surface will reflect UV or IR wavelengths without problems.
Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.
They are not written perfectly but most people get the intent of most rules, but for this case I do agree it could have been written better.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So if you are glitterdusted when invisible, all you need to do is go invisible again, since everything on you is also turned invisible then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a rules issue, and a logic issue. Glitterdust negates the mechanics of invisibility (concealment, and what goes along with that, and the stealth bonus), but it wouldn't negate the other piece of invisibility that no one ever mentions: being unidentifiable.
It negates the concealment, because that target is no longer concealed--you can see where its arms and legs and head are, and what they're doing, so you can attack and defend properly--but it wouldn't allow you to discern that that human shaped outline is Jim and not Martin if the two have roughly the same height and build. Right?
Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.I see it more of that the rules weren't written with the lowest common denominator in mind.
Yes, clear and concise rules be damned. Vague, fumbled text be praised.
|
|
There's a rules issue, and a logic issue. Glitterdust negates the mechanics of invisibility (concealment, and what goes along with that, and the stealth bonus), but it wouldn't negate the other piece of invisibility that no one ever mentions: being unidentifiable.
It negates the concealment, because that target is no longer concealed--you can see where its arms and legs and head are, and what they're doing, so you can attack and defend properly--but it wouldn't allow you to discern that that human shaped outline is Jim and not Martin if the two have roughly the same height and build. Right?
This...
Also, if Invisibility is re-cast, it does not negate the effects of Farie Fire and Glitterdust, the character is still outlined in the indicating glow.
Yes, clear and concise rules be damned. Vague, fumbled text be praised.Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.I see it more of that the rules weren't written with the lowest common denominator in mind.
That's an interesting interpretation of what I actually said. I suppose what I typed wasn't clear enough?
That's an interesting interpretation of what I actually said. I suppose what I typed wasn't clear enough?Yes, clear and concise rules be damned. Vague, fumbled text be praised.Though in all seriousness, this just shows how the rules fail to convey what they actually mean.I see it more of that the rules weren't written with the lowest common denominator in mind.
I laughed.
Though more seriously, allowing poorly written rules text to fly by based on "Surely everyone thinks precisely as I do thus I'll use vague definitions instead of using the established game terms I already made" is a pretty awful way to write a rulebook.
I laughed.
Though more seriously, allowing poorly written rules text to fly by based on "Surely everyone thinks precisely as I do thus I'll use vague definitions instead of using the established game terms I already made" is a pretty awful way to write a rulebook.
I'll agree that using the same word in multiple places with multiple meanings is bad form. That being said, it shouldn't be the default supposition that consumers of your material will go out of their way to come up with tortured uses of your rules.
People need to understand that it is impractical as well as expensive to write out all of the possible interactions of particular rules. At some point, common sense has to be exercised. If Paizo were to put out a book of spells with every possible use/outcome/interaction written out explicitly then it would be 9000 pages and cost $10,000 because a team of divorce and personal injury lawyers would need to be hired to write it.
I'll agree that using the same word in multiple places with multiple meanings is bad form. That being said, it shouldn't be the default supposition that consumers of your material will go out of their way to come up with tortured uses of your rules.
Tortured uses?
Spells do what they say and nothing more. The game isn't built on "Well the rules don't say it doesn't."
I'll agree that using the same word in multiple places with multiple meanings is bad form. That being said, it shouldn't be the default supposition that consumers of your material will go out of their way to come up with tortured uses of your rules.
Tortured uses?
Spells do what they say and nothing more. The game isn't built on "Well the rules don't say it doesn't."
You know, I tried to make this point once before. There was so much venom against it that whole chunks of the thread were deleted before it was finally locked.
I've never been fond of inconsistent verbiage in rules. I think Paizo would have had much less need for FAQs had they used more keywords consistently, and clearly indicated (via different styles) rules text and flavor text.
I remember someone at Paizo explaining that they chose a more loose writing style to help keep the books from being too dry (or possibly less "gamey", I can't recall precisely). IMO, I want my rules to be very dry and precise, but surrounded by flavor text that bridges the gap between the rules and the "real (game) world".
So if you are glitterdusted when invisible, all you need to do is go invisible again, since everything on you is also turned invisible then?
No. You are still invisible(the effect is still in place), but it is being negated by the dust. If someone were to dispel glitterdust you would get the normal benefits of being invisible.
Now if glitterdust dispelled invisibility which it does not then that might be different.