| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell level as nothing to do with it. Glitterdust reveals invisible opponents, even those using greater invisibility.
Same with See Invisibility (also a 2nd level spell).
My book says
"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 think you were wrong. The invisible guy should be visibly outlined and there is no talk about retaining some concealment.
Next time just let the bad hat move after casting his Spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weakness of Glitterdust is the small radius. If the person going invisible is being observed it is a smart move to first go invisible and then move 30 ft away so if someone targets your old square with a Glitterdust they will miss you. This is just one of those interactions people learn as they play, both effects come up often enough if you play published material much.
Higher level spells do not always have the advantage.
Protection from evil and death ward can both trump higher level spells.
I GM a campaign In a modified version of a very popular Mega-crawl dungeon.
The encounter.......The evil enchanter cast greater invisibility on himself before combat ensued. One of the PCs cast glitterdust on the evil enchanter.
My thoughts were" no way that a cheezy 2nd lvl spell can diminish entirely a 4th lvl spell with the words greater before the name proper:"
So, I after the save from blindness, I told him(my PC) that he could not entirely see the enchanter but gave the target a 20% concealment benefit.
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
Thank you all.
So if someone wants to cast Finger of Death against an invisible target, but they can't (Because they don't see him), you let him because it's cheesy that a 2nd lvl spell (invisibility) foils a 7th lvl spell (finger of death)?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a general rule of game design, counters and defenses are usually cheaper / easier than the thing being countered / defended.
This is because the defender needs to be able to counter across a broad range of threats, while the attacker gets to pick his threat and focus on it.
So if someone wants to cast Finger of Death against an invisible target, but they can't (Because they don't see him), you let him because it's cheesy that a 2nd lvl spell (invisibility) foils a 7th lvl spell (finger of death)?I GM a campaign In a modified version of a very popular Mega-crawl dungeon.
The encounter.......The evil enchanter cast greater invisibility on himself before combat ensued. One of the PCs cast glitterdust on the evil enchanter.
My thoughts were" no way that a cheezy 2nd lvl spell can diminish entirely a 4th lvl spell with the words greater before the name proper:"
So, I after the save from blindness, I told him(my PC) that he could not entirely see the enchanter but gave the target a 20% concealment benefit.
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
Thank you all.
Worse even, the 1st level spell Vanish.
There's nothing wrong with modifying the way some spells work for more flair, but you should lay these out ahead of time. A spellcaster in your game world would know how their spell worked before casting it.
Even if you nerf glitterdust, there is see invisibility, also a 2nd level spell. Really, the ideal way to counter glitterdust is cast 1st and then move. But, you should let the player's spells work occasionally too unless your baddy knows they have a specific spell (like glitterdust).
I GM a campaign In a modified version of a very popular Mega-crawl dungeon.
The encounter.......The evil enchanter cast greater invisibility on himself before combat ensued. One of the PCs cast glitterdust on the evil enchanter.
My thoughts were" no way that a cheezy 2nd lvl spell can diminish entirely a 4th lvl spell with the words greater before the name proper:"
So, I after the save from blindness, I told him(my PC) that he could not entirely see the enchanter but gave the target a 20% concealment benefit.
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
Thank you all.
Yeah....you would be 100% wrong.
It's not cheesy, it's the specific purpose of the spell. It does two things: creates bright reflective metallic dust which outlines anything that it touches, blinds those coated by the dust.
So, if your invisible character is hit by the glitterdust (which has a small area compared to everywhere an invisible creature could be) then it is outlined and the benefits of invisibility are completely negated.
You could look at it this way:
Invisibility is a pretty powerful ability, and it's almost always useful.
Spells that counter invisibility are useful for exactly one purpose. You have to dedicate a spell slot/place on your spell list/place in your scroll box for a uni-tasker spell, just in case you need it, and that takes away the ability to cast another spell that would be more generally useful.
Forcing the characters to prep Glitterdust every day is one less buff or one less attack spell they have available. And the invisible creature can greatly reduce its effects just by keeping moving.
Actually, I've ruled that spells like Glitterdust allow you to pinpoint invisible foes' locations, but doesn't remove the concealment portion of the effect. Knowing where your foe is doesn't make him visible, unless it specifically says it does (which Faerie Fire does).
This is my reading of the rules too.
In any case, pinpointing is the hard part. If you can attack a 50% miss chance is only duplicating the time to down the target.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would advise against selectively changing the effects and outcomes of spells or PC actions as you go along, this is the kind of thing better done up front. Or allow PCs to continually rebuild their characters to account for various things no longer working per the original rules.
I agree with this statement.
I absolutely despise DMs who constantly change the rules because a player wins an encounter. I've had a DM straight up say s~%+ like "All The Trolls are too single minded to be affected by Enchantment spells." while I'm playing an enchanter wizard. I wouldn't have built an enchanter if I knew you were going to hose me with special rules because you are tired of having a creature locked down making the fight easier. It is not a good time. Especially when there are SOOOOOO many other things you can throw at me that are straight immune to Enchantments like Plants, constructs, undead, anything able to cast protection From good.
It just seems the OP is a little upset that encounters are not going his way and want to punish the player for actually following rules.
You could look at it this way:
Invisibility is a pretty powerful ability, and it's almost always useful.
Spells that counter invisibility are useful for exactly one purpose. You have to dedicate a spell slot/place on your spell list/place in your scroll box for a uni-tasker spell, just in case you need it, and that takes away the ability to cast another spell that would be more generally useful.
Forcing the characters to prep Glitterdust every day is one less buff or one less attack spell they have available. And the invisible creature can greatly reduce its effects just by keeping moving.
That exact point I couldn't back. Glitterdust is an attack spell as well as the invisibility counter it was first intended as, and a good one. If you can prepare it you almost always should.
Invisibility is a marvelous defence and utility and the fact that glitterdust can counter invisibility (if you place the area right) mitigates but doesn't eliminate that.
Actually, I've ruled that spells like Glitterdust allow you to pinpoint invisible foes' locations, but doesn't remove the concealment portion of the effect. Knowing where your foe is doesn't make him visible, unless it specifically says it does (which Faerie Fire does).
The intent is to cancel invisibility, and the concealment is from being invisible per Jason(lead rules guy). We can always FAQ it to make it official intent, but I think we already know what the answer will be and it would waste an FAQ.
I am sure someone is going to doubt me so I may as well find the quote.
<goes off to find the quote>
<returns with the quote>
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
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I've ruled that spells like Glitterdust allow you to pinpoint invisible foes' locations, but doesn't remove the concealment portion of the effect. Knowing where your foe is doesn't make him visible, unless it specifically says it does (which Faerie Fire does).
The Pathfinder Lead Designer disagrees.
Glitterdust specifically mentions that it cancels invisibility, it says nothing of concealment. In this case, it cancels the specific effect (invisibility), which has the side effect of also canceling its result (concealment), but that is not a retroactive cancelation. If you catch my drift...(although, at the heart of the matter is the fact that glitterdust could use some clarification, it is a poorly worded spell)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
------------
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
The whole thread sounds a bit weird if you ask me, if we are going to follow the logic across the entire table then a 6th level character would be immune to the effects of 1st and 2nd level spells because "how unfair it is for a 1st level wizard to deal damage to such a powerful character"
The only spells that actually work in the way described in this thread is the Light and Dark spells where the highest level thrumps the lowest.
Anti invisibility have to be prepared for Wizards and Clerics thats a spell slot less to other things, for sorcerers and oracles thats a spell known which can hurt them.
The whole thread sounds a bit weird if you ask me, if we are going to follow the logic across the entire table then a 6th level character would be immune to the effects of 1st and 2nd level spells because "how unfair it is for a 1st level wizard to deal damage to such a powerful character"
The only spells that actually work in the way described in this thread is the Light and Dark spells where the highest level thrumps the lowest.
Anti invisibility have to be prepared for Wizards and Clerics thats a spell slot less to other things, for sorcerers and oracles thats a spell known which can hurt them.
It looks to me like you agree with most of the thread and nobody is on the other side, since the OP left, so what do you find weird? Davor seem to think that glitterdust could use a minor nerf but he realize it is a house rule.
|
I don't think my understanding of Glitterdust is a nerf, and I happen to disagree with the lead designer on this one. Glitterdust has a lot of useful applications as my understanding of the rules gives it, and it becomes more balanced next to a spell like See Invisibility, an equal level spell that PALES in comparison for a vast majority of situations, especially if you think that Glitterdust completely counters Invisibility.
At least if the enemies retain concealment, Glitterdust becomes helpful (the effects are party-wide, and there's a blind tacked onto it), but remains roughly balanced with an equal level spell with a similar effect.
I don't think my understanding of Glitterdust is a nerf, and I happen to disagree with the lead designer on this one. Glitterdust has a lot of useful applications as my understanding of the rules gives it, and it becomes more balanced next to a spell like See Invisibility, an equal level spell that PALES in comparison for a vast majority of situations, especially if you think that Glitterdust completely counters Invisibility.
At least if the enemies retain concealment, Glitterdust becomes helpful (the effects are party-wide, and there's a blind tacked onto it), but remains roughly balanced with an equal level spell with a similar effect.
See invisible have a longer duration and works vs all the invisible baddies and you dont even need to know there location before casting the Spell. if you have see invisible up you can tell your friends where the baddi is. With glitter dust you need to know where he is to cast the Spell. And it can be countered if he makes his save by running away for 1round/level.
And apperantly i was wrong we do have a disagreement here after all:)|
|
See Invisibility does last a good bit longer. However, it only affects you, and you have to constantly be telling your allies the new locations of enemies, and if you ever become incapacitated, blinded, etc., your spell stops working. I'm not saying it isn't useful, but if Glitterdust leaves concealment, then it works similarly to See Invisibility, but with a blinding AoE rider for rounds per level. This seems relatively balanced to me given the similarity between the spells.
See Invisibility does last a good bit longer. However, it only affects you, and you have to constantly be telling your allies the new locations of enemies, and if you ever become incapacitated, blinded, etc., your spell stops working. I'm not saying it isn't useful, but if Glitterdust leaves concealment, then it works similarly to See Invisibility, but with a blinding AoE rider for rounds per level. This seems relatively balanced to me given the similarity between the spells.
but if the badguy have the nerve to move around or be more than one glitterdust is not that amazing.
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
You've been pretty thoroughly reamed, so I won't pile on, but I'd like to maybe shed some light on how spell-levels do work.
First, spells become available roughly when they're necessary. You'd not see raise dead come online at 1st-level because it would negate the danger of death so early in the game that the material cost would have to be very, very low, meaning at higher levels, death would be meaningless. So think of it as a trickle of abilities that are distributed to maintain a smooth increase in potential.
Second, spell-level doesn't imply power. Sure, the DCs keep going up, which suggests there's more magical energy going on, but the effects are what matters. For instance, resist energy is a 2nd-level spell that simply reduces energy damage you take. It does what it does regardless of if it's target is hit by a meteor swarm (9th-level spell) dealing energy damage. So why is meteor swarm 9th when it can be effectively negated by a 2nd-level spell? Because the effect of meteor swarm has so much more potential. It's kind of four fireballs with some solids inside. It could be used to say... interrupt a caster by forcing them to take two types of damage, where lower-level flaming sphere couldn't.
So, hopefully this helps you to see WHY higher-level doesn't mean "trumps lower-level". Spells do what they say, and that's very, very deliberate.
Final examples: protection from evil and dominate monster. Doesn't matter what the DCs are, you're still protected if you've got the former up and running.
See invis works against all invisible opponents, but Invisbility works against all sighted opponents that don't have see invis.
Guesse which one of those is the larger group.
|
A simple bag of flour could.
No - it can't. There are specific rules for using white powder vs invis creatures.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
So - no. You can't really beat invis with flour - just find out if they're in a square. If you know invis creatures are coming it can be handy to lay down a bunch it can be handy - but pretty worthless in combat.
First, spells become available roughly when they're necessary. You'd not see raise dead come online at 1st-level because it would negate the danger of death so early in the game that the material cost would have to be very, very low, meaning at higher levels, death would be meaningless. So think of it as a trickle of abilities that are distributed to maintain a smooth increase in potential.
Actually, Raise Dead comes in about the time that monsters in 1st edition AD&D got Save or Die abilities. It hasn't moved since then. A lot of when things come in is based on when it did so in older editions. A few spells have moved (Spider Climb, Fly split into two spells, etc.) but most stayed at the same level they were at in 1st Edition.
I would advise against selectively changing the effects and outcomes of spells or PC actions as you go along, this is the kind of thing better done up front. Or allow PCs to continually rebuild their characters to account for various things no longer working per the original rules.I agree with this statement.
...
It just seems the OP is a little upset that encounters are not going his way and want to punish the player for actually following rules.
That is going to far. There is no need to be that insulting and antagonistic.
He made a mistake. A mistake that isn't all that uncommon and has at least some logic behind it.
If he was an ash-hat trying to punish a player, he wouldn't have come here asking for advice.
It looks to me like you agree with most of the thread and nobody is on the other side, since the OP left, so what do you find weird? Davor seem to think that glitterdust could use a minor nerf but he realize it is a house rule.The whole thread sounds a bit weird if you ask me, if we are going to follow the logic across the entire table then a 6th level character would be immune to the effects of 1st and 2nd level spells because "how unfair it is for a 1st level wizard to deal damage to such a powerful character"
The only spells that actually work in the way described in this thread is the Light and Dark spells where the highest level thrumps the lowest.
Anti invisibility have to be prepared for Wizards and Clerics thats a spell slot less to other things, for sorcerers and oracles thats a spell known which can hurt them.
Jeez yeah, i guess it was early in the morning and my reading comprehention reached an all time low.
|
|
A bucket of paint would do better than a bag of flour. Something colorful and adhesive.
It doesn't work any better than the flour. The reason the flour only tells if they're in a square - is that you don't see the flour once it touches them. You see the flour vanishing - letting you know that it's now on the invisible creatures. Paint would work the same way.
As a slight derail:
Does glitterdust work vs. ethereal creatures? Ethereal states that the creature is invisible, glitterdust counters invisibility. So would glitterdust make an ethereal creature visible?
An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed. An ethereal creature can move through solid objects, including living creatures. An ethereal creature can see and hear on the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and ephemeral. Sight and hearing onto the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.
Force effects and abjurations affect an ethereal creature normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can't attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.
An ethereal creature treats other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material.
Or is the part about force effects and abjuration effects exclusive, saying that other effects to not work, making the creature immune to glitterdust, which is a conjuration/creation effect.
A bucket of paint would do better than a bag of flour. Something colorful and adhesive.It doesn't work any better than the flour. The reason the flour only tells if they're in a square - is that you don't see the flour once it touches them. You see the flour vanishing - letting you know that it's now on the invisible creatures. Paint would work the same way.
And both help to make footprints visible. Paint might be better than flour in that as it can tell you where the creature goes after leaving the painted square.
|
|
Re: Paint / flour
Glowing marker dye on the other hand...
the dye may go invisible the moment it hits him, but the light it sheds does not. (invisibility can make a light source invisible but not the light coming from that source.)
So at very least you are going to be able to follow him from square to square. (Well, as long as he is in dim light anyway.)
|
|
Re: Paint / flour
Glowing marker dye on the other hand...
the dye may go invisible the moment it hits him, but the light it sheds does not. (invisibility can make a light source invisible but not the light coming from that source.)
So at very least you are going to be able to follow him from square to square. (Well, as long as he is in dim light anyway.)
Very true - that would be pretty sweet actually. You'd still have to deal with the 50% miss chance, but you'd know right where they are.
Is there glowing ink/paint in the official rules? If so - it's going on my utility belt right between my alchemist fire & my steel mirror.