| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth noting that hide from undead isn't an illusion and glitter dust is normally used to help against spells like invisibility which are illusions.
That being said, an intelligent undead might be able to use glitter dust to temporarily locate a creature. They might be able to perceive an absence of glitter dust in the air and/or on the ground where the creature warded by hide from undead is standing (two unglittered footprints on the ground). However, once the warded creature moves this distinction would be lost.
Unintelligent undead wouldn't be able to see the glitter now clinging to the creature any more than they can the creature so they couldn't make use of the spell to target the creature.
Effectively, Hide from undead is a mind effecting spell. It just doesn't have that descriptor because then it wouldn't work on undead.
Since Hide from Undead doesn't make you invisible, glitter dust doesn't interact with it at all.
A glitter covered person wouldn't be any more detectable than someone who was not covered by glitter.
Well I can see this will be contentious but...I think glitterdust which creates actual glitter particles that adhere to things would enable an intelligent undead to effectively target the creature.
Glitterdust causes creatures to be visibly outlined, it says so in the spell. The main affect of Hide From Undead is that they can't normally perceive you with any of their senses. But with the application of glitterdust the can now perceive the glittering dust that is outlining your form.
Imagine it this way, if you cast hide from undead and then somehow became coated in paint, would you expect Hide from Undead to not betray your presence? I don't. The spell even specifies that intelligent undead can become suspicious and attack you. I think taking actions so that they can reasonably target you is reasonable.
A glitter covered person wouldn't be any more detectable than someone who was not covered by glitter.
I think this is the point of contention.
I strongly disagree, and as far as I know neither side has concrete proof of which is correct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hide from undead is not invisibility. You can't be perceived. You can't be perceived if you are wearing a rhinestone covered jumpsuit. You can't be perceived even if you put on the rhinestone covered jumpsuit after you cast hide from undead. You can't be perceived if you shout in the undead creatures ear. And yes, you can't be percieved if you are covered in paint or anything else and you can't be perceived if you get covered in glitter dust either.
You are certainly free to disagree, but I don't see any reason beyond you 'think it should work like invisibility' for that disagreement, when it obviously is not invisibility and doesn't work like invisibility.
my understanding is that the rules don't clearly say one way or another and that the RAW answer is "see rule 0." personally, i'm with Claxon. maybe if you cast hide from undead after you're already glittery it might help, but otherwise glitterdust will expose you to intelligent undead.
I'm with Dave on this one. Hide from undead is an abjuration, not an illusion; it's negating the undead's physical ability to sense you. Since it's the undead being affected, not you, it doesn't matter if you get painted/glitterdusted.
why would the glitter dust (the stuff conjured not the spell itself) be affected by the hide from undead spell? also, this seems like one of the ways HFU expects intelligent undead to try to find you. though i still think the RAW answer is "see rule 0.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why would the glitter dust (the stuff conjured not the spell itself) be affected by the hide from undead spell?
The glitterdust isn't affected. The paint isn't affected. Your clothes aren't affected. The undead is affected. That's why it gets a Will save (if intelligent). Note that invisibility does not give viewers a save; that's because it affects you and not them.
yes and the effect on the undead is that it can't percieve you (and we assume the things on your person at the time though it doesn't specify that either) so there's no reason to think that it can't percieve anything that touches you after the spell is cast. or rather i can understand why you might think that, but the rules don't say it. so, again, rule 0.
Dave, your argument appears to be that under no circumstances is it possible for intelligent undead to perceive someone under the affects of Hide from Undead under any circumstances.
So if there were someone under the affect of Hide from Undead completely submerged in a body of water, you're saying that the undead couldn't perceive the bubble that would be created?
Because I'm would say they can.
And by extension, coating them in paint or glitter would still allow you to see those things. You wouldn't see the creature itself, but you would see the outline.
Because the conclusion you make is too strong in my opinion. The way I understand your position there is no way for Undead perceive someone under the affect, in which case they wouldn't be capable of becoming suspicious unless someone directly told them. But since the spell mentions the contingency, it strongly implies that while they cannot directly perceive they can indirectly perceive someone under the effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes and the effect on the undead is that it can't percieve you (and we assume the things on your person at the time though it doesn't specify that either) so there's no reason to think that it can't percieve anything that touches you after the spell is cast. or rather i can understand why you might think that, but the rules don't say it. so, again, rule 0.
keep in mind hide from undead affects more than just visual cues.
Undead cannot see, hear, or smell creatures warded by this spell. Even extraordinary or supernatural sensory capabilities, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense, cannot detect or locate warded creatures.
You could cast hide from undead on yourself and then litterally river dance right in front of them and they still wouldn't be able to see you even if they had tremorsense. You could put on a pair of iron boots after casting the spell and they still won't sense you via tremorsense.
However, I would contend that the undead would be able to see said iron boots right up to the moment when you grab them and put them on. The boots would suddenly vanish and an intelligent undead could use that information to get the idea that there is a creature in the vicinity of where the boots had been. Even if the only way the undead can "see" is via tremorsense.
I see glitter dust the same way. For the undead I could understand there being a momentary "hole" in the spell that an intelligent undead could use to locate the creature for a moment. However, this advantage would be instantly lost once the warded creature moves.
other things suddenly becoming imperceptible when you touch them is not in the description of the spell...
other things suddenly becoming imperceptible when you touch them is not in the description of the spell...
Neither are things that you're holding when you're warded, for that matter.
But it makes sense for them to be imperceptible since it's an active ward that affects you instead of a glamor that affects what it was cast on.
other things suddenly becoming imperceptible when you touch them is not in the description of the spell...
Strictly speaking the spell doesn't make anything you are wearing or carrying imperceptible either. If that's the case it really shouldn't have any effect on intelligent undead as they would recognize the shirt and pants walking around and if they have any ranks in knowledge arcana would be able to work out really quick what they are observing.
Therefore, I have to assume that the spell also covers things that you are currently carrying and/or wearing at all times. So, dropping something you were carrying when you had hide undead cast on you would make that thing suddenly visible to undead since it's no longer in your possession.
which is why it's a fine way to rule, but you are, in fact, making a ruling. hence, rule 0.
which is why it's a fine way to rule, but you are, in fact, making a ruling. hence, rule 0.
So unless you strip naked and carry nothing you can be detected by undead quite easily while under the effects of this spell? What a strange interpretation.
which is why it's a fine way to rule, but you are, in fact, making a ruling. hence, rule 0.
I'm going to assume that you agree that your gear is also imperceptible when you're protected under the spell.
Quick question, then -- How long does it take something you pick up to become your gear? Remember that you and your gear are not invisible, you personally are warded against perception.
no, as written, what born_of_fire said is true. but that's obviously unreasonable and not the intent, so we can pretty much all agree that the things on your person at the time are included. however, i don't expect that we'll all agree on everything beyond that which is fine because the rules aren't explicit, we're all interpreting, and rule 0 is a thing for this very reason. according to the rules as written, you need to ask your GM.
no, as written, what born_of_fire said is true. but that's obviously unreasonable and not the intent, so we can pretty much all agree that the things on your person at the time are included. however, i don't expect that we'll all agree on everything beyond that which is fine because the rules aren't explicit, we're all interpreting, and rule 0 is a thing for this very reason. according to the rules as written, you need to ask your GM.
well, part of the distinction is that this an abjuration spell. Consider the spell Resist Energy. This is also an abjuration spell and though it doesn't specify that gear carried or worn by the character is protected by it, its generally accepted that the protection granted by this spell carries over to those things. Thanks to the rules regarding saving throws and unattended objects.
Now, imagine I cast resist energy on myself and then walk over and pick up a scroll afterward. Then someone tips a vat of non-magical acid on me which gets absorbed by the spell. You are claiming that under this situation it's unclear if the scroll would be destroyed or not and is therefore a GM call (or rule 0). It seems obvious that the scroll would be fine since it was in possession of the character and the character was protected from acid damage.
In the same way that resist energy wards the creature and says nothing about the creature's gear. Hide undead wards the creature and says nothing about the creature's gear.
Ideally the Undead needs a way to get an additional save or saves or otherwise block or end the effect of Hide from Undead. Time for the worlds Lich's to maintain 24-7 Spell Immunity to Hide from Undead :p
Hide undead is ridiculously comprehensive for a 1st level spell. It gives you all of the benefits of Invisibility(2nd) + Silence(2nd) + Negate Aroma(1st) + most of the benefits of Solidify Earth (2nd). All for a 1st level spell that lasts longer than any of those spells. Provided that you're up against undead.
As a Lich, this is why you make sure you have constructs or something that isn't undead as your guard dogs.
All I can say, is it is at least lower level than Hidden Presence (2nd), which is surprisingly even more comprehensive, but with a shorter duration.
well, part of the distinction is that this an abjuration spell. Consider the spell Resist Energy. This is also an abjuration spell and though it doesn't specify that gear carried or worn by the character is protected by it, its generally accepted that the protection granted by this spell carries over to those things.
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.
If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
If an abjuration creates a barrier that keeps certain types of creatures at bay, that barrier cannot be used to push away those creatures. If you force the barrier against such a creature, you feel a discernible pressure against the barrier. If you continue to apply pressure, you end the spell.
so, as written, there's still nothing about affecting the things you're carrying. there's also nothing in the targeting section; i checked when the thread first popped up. so, again, we're all attempting to be reasonable in assuming items on your person are included. which is fine. but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on how far that protection extends. resist energy looks like it would fall under magical barrier and makes sense to extend some beyond your actual person. hide from undead is clearly a case of negating magical and physical abilities (in this case sensory), and while you may think it's reasonable to extend this to the effects of glitterdust, i do not, and the rules are not explicit. thus, rule 0.
so, as written, there's still nothing about affecting the things you're carrying. there's also nothing in the targeting section; i checked when the thread first popped up. so, again, we're all attempting to be reasonable in assuming items on your person are included. which is fine. but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on how far that protection extends. resist energy looks like it would fall under magical barrier and makes sense to extend some beyond your actual person. hide from undead is clearly a case of negating magical and physical abilities (in this case sensory), and while you may think it's reasonable to extend this to the effects of glitterdust, i do not, and the rules are not explicit. thus, rule 0.
But, hide from undead is also a magical barrier. I start by casting hide undead on myself and other creatures. Then, I can walk into a crypt and all the skeletons, zombies and mummies in said crypt wouldn't be able to see me even though they were not present for the original casting.
so, as written, there's still nothing about affecting the things you're carrying. there's also nothing in the targeting section; i checked when the thread first popped up. so, again, we're all attempting to be reasonable in assuming items on your person are included. which is fine. but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on how far that protection extends. resist energy looks like it would fall under magical barrier and makes sense to extend some beyond your actual person. hide from undead is clearly a case of negating magical and physical abilities (in this case sensory), and while you may think it's reasonable to extend this to the effects of glitterdust, i do not, and the rules are not explicit. thus, rule 0.But, hide from undead is also a magical barrier. I start by casting hide undead on myself and other creatures. Then, I can walk into a crypt and all the skeletons, zombies and mummies in said crypt wouldn't be able to see me even though they were not present for the original casting.
eh... i'd say it's functionally an aura, but it's definitely not a barrier; it has literally no affect on where anything can go.
So...what? Does this mean our paranoid Lich needs to research a glitter dust like spell that summons a cloud of harmless undead vermin that get sprinkled over an area to defeat both invisibility and Hide from Undead? Or can we use the existing spell that says it coats everything and outlines everything in the area, invisible or not?
Both Hide from Undead and Hide from Animals are invisibility replacements for single creature types that typically have extraordinary senses that would usually not care about invisibility. Certain abilities that allow you to detect invisible creatures should work, other than See Invisibility itself. If not, we're over powering a first level spell.
The problem is, it isn't invisibility. Should glitter dust also cancel out the spell Hidden Presence? What about fog cloud?
looking at the descriptions, hide from Undead and hide from animals seem more like a low level version of hidden presence, that is lower level because it only targets a single creature type.
as for the lich, when I have fought them as a PC or run them as a GM, it's pretty common to have rooms that pulse an automatic greater dispel magic in order to remove all the pesky buffs the PCs have. Also, it's a 1st level spell that allows a will save, something the lich will most likely make. Even if the PC has a 20 int, it's what a will save DC 16? The lich in the beastiary (who is apparently naked other than a phylactery strapped to it's body) would make that save on a 5 or better.
eh... i'd say it's functionally an aura, but it's definitely not a barrier; it has literally no affect on where anything can go.
So, resist energy is an aura?
It also has no effect on where anything can go. It's not like it prevents a fire elemental from grappling you in any way. And you can specifically still drown in a pool of acid.Resist energy absorbs only damage. The subject could still suffer unfortunate side effects.
i was talking about hide from undead which is nothing like resist energy so how that works is entirely irrelevant. resist energy is a thin barrier that keeps the element from contact with you. a rubber suit isn't stopping anyone from grappling you, but they wouldn't be in contact with you either. a rubber suit is a barrier. acid doesn't need to be in contact with you to drown you. it only needs to displace too much oxygen in your lungs. i'm actually not even sure why we're still doing this. the fact that we are having this conversation means that the rules aren't explicit about how those works and that we're using rule 0 like i said before so it doesn't actually matter if we agree on this...
i was talking about hide from undead which is nothing like resist energy so how that works is entirely irrelevant. resist energy is a thin barrier that keeps the element from contact with you.
Where does it state this?
like hide from undead, resist energy is an abjuration spell that wards the creature. Granted, what the creature is warded from is different, but they can be assumed to be similar when it comes to details not listed in the spell description since they are both from the same school of magic. In this case, if the spell effect also wards items worn and/or carried by the creature the spell has targeted.
In the same way I would expect alter self and aspect of the stag to be the same when it comes to details that are not explicitly stated in the spell description. This is because both spells are transmutation (polymorph) effects. Even though the spells do completely different things.
i was talking about hide from undead which is nothing like resist energy so how that works is entirely irrelevant. resist energy is a thin barrier that keeps the element from contact with you.Where does it state this?
it doesn't.
the rules aren't explicit about how those works ... we're using rule 0 like i said before so it doesn't actually matter if we agree on this...
like hide from undead, resist energy is an abjuration spell that wards the creature. Granted, what the creature is warded from is different, but they can be assumed to be similar when it comes to details not listed in the spell description since they are both from the same school of magic. In this case, if the spell effect also wards items worn and/or carried by the creature the spell has targeted.
except that neither effect wards items worn or carried... where does it state that they do? i quoted the entirety of the abjuration section before not just a part of it. i couldn't find it in the targeting section either.
In the same way I would expect alter self and aspect of the stag to be the same when it comes to details that are not explicitly stated in the spell description. This is because both spells are transmutation (polymorph) effects. Even though the spells do completely different things.
and i would only expect them to behave similarly where stated in the polymorph subschool entry. anything that wasn't explicitly stated there would be a ruling or house rule. which is fine. i'm really not sure what this comparison is supposed to mean. the polymorph subschool explicitly states when your gear is affected... as do other transmutation spells. abjurations say nothing of the sort; we're all just being reasonable in assuming they do affect your gear. as it's not explicitly stated, we don't all have to agree on the details. thanks, rule 0.
Hide from undead is not invisibility. You can't be perceived. You can't be perceived if you are wearing a rhinestone covered jumpsuit. You can't be perceived even if you put on the rhinestone covered jumpsuit after you cast hide from undead. You can't be perceived if you shout in the undead creatures ear. And yes, you can't be percieved if you are covered in paint or anything else and you can't be perceived if you get covered in glitter dust either.
You are certainly free to disagree, but I don't see any reason beyond you 'think it should work like invisibility' for that disagreement, when it obviously is not invisibility and doesn't work like invisibility.
I don't have a strong opinion on HfU vs. Glitterdust either way, but I want to point out:
Invisibility works even if you are wearing a rhinestone covered jumpsuit. It works even if you put on the rhinestone covered jumpsuit after you cast hide from undead.Rhinestone covered jumpsuits are not a good gauge for Glitterdust's effectiveness.
Hidden Presence is very close to how Hide from Undead and Animal are worded, but Hidden Presence has a line that says 'They can’t pinpoint your location by any means, including detect spells.' There is nothing in the Hide From spells that is worded like that. Actually HFUndead says intelligent undead are able to search and attempt attacks if they have a reason to suspect. It is enough of a difference that I feel Hidden Presence goes beyond what HFU and HFA are capable of.
I agree Hidden Prescence is more comprehensive than then the lower level "hide from" spells, since it includes touch. Where as the HFUndead and HFAnimals are actually negated when touch is involved. I just see it as one of the other features of it being a higher level of a similar spell. Just as, minor image includes sound effects, where as silent image does not.
As for HFU being a first level spell, I thought about mentioning that but the obvious comeback is someone could heighten it to any level if they thought it was their best option. If your goal was to sneak through a labyrinth filled with powerful undead heightening HFU to your highest level slot isn't a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea, hide from undead is a very powerful spell no matter what interpretation you use. Greater Hide from Undead is even more powerful still since it doesn't automatically break when you touch an undead creature the way normal Hide from Undead does. My only point was that this is a low level spell, which generally aren't things liches have much if any concern for. It also allows for spell resistence so if a lich does hit you (physically), there's also the chance that the spell will simply go away. But, I think it would be a DM call since the spell was technically cast on the character and not the lich themselves.
As for treating two different abjurations alike, don't. That really is making too much of an assumption. Protection from Energy and Resist Energy are very 'similar' spells but with completely different mechanics. Trying to apply some psedu-arcane theory of how a spell works based on anything but the spell's own description is not a good idea.
My only point here is one of consistency. If Spell A doesn't state if the effect carries over to items picked up after you cast the spell, so you make a ruling that Y should happen. Then if Spell B also doesn't state if the effect carries over to items picked up after you cast the spell but both spells are of the same school of magic then Y should happen for spell B also. Especially since there is more prescient then going to spell C which is a different school of magic which specifies in it's own description what happens to items picked up after you cast the spell.
If you want to rule that Spell B should being doing Y, then spell A should also be doing Y.
The crux of the argument is do you believe that an undead affected by HFUndead would see a protected person outlinded in Glitter Dust, or is it compelled to ignore the effects of another spell or really anything that doesn't end the spell? Looking at other non-similar abjurations isn't going to help us. Especially if the other spells we're referencing don't have an official answer to a situation similar to what we're considering.
Because Hide from undead is an abjuration spell, it's effect is not a sensory one. Illusion (Glammer) spells are specifically sensory effects.
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
We know from the magic description, abjuration spells create fields that then convey some specific effect. So, hide from undead creates this sort of force field around the creature and everything within that force field is not perceptible to undead or animals (depending on the spell). The creature's senses (not just eyes) sort of slide over it, can't focus on it, etc.
This force field is not unique to hide from undead, other abjuration spells work the same way. They create a force field around the creature, inside of which is some kind of effect, whether we are talking resist energy, hide from undead, shield, protection from evil, etc. While none of these spells state this, it's generally assumed that if a character picks up an item after one of these has been cast on them, that item isn't excluded by the spell. For example, if I have protection from evil on me and I pick up a book after casting the spell, an evil summoned creature targeting the book will still suffer the penalties of the spell and will not be able to sunder it.
However, when it comes to abjuration spells that are not circles you don't get any explanation of what happens if something comes into the creature's possession after the spell has been cast. I think most players/gms assume that everything is the same as if the item had been in the creature's possession when the spell was cast since then you don't have to track what's been picked up / put down since you cast the spell. Especially since many of these spells have long durations, with some lasting all day.
This last point is extremely important to determining what happens with glitter dust. If you are under the idea that, if I cast hide from undead on myself, take off my coat and put on a different coat. That undead can now see coat number 2 and nothing else, then my conclusion is the exact opposite.
When you cast glitter dust, it clings to the creature and now they are basically wearing glitter. Since items worn by the creature come under the effects of the hide undead spell even if they were picked up/put on after the spell was cast, the glitter dust spell affecting the creature is now also under the effects of hide from undead. However, because the floor and surrounding area are not under the effects of hide from undead the undead will perceive a gap which is the character. This means that the undead would know where the character is, until that character moves. Once the character leaves the area the undead would no longer be able to tell where the character is unless the character was hit with another glitter dust spell.
So, my conclusion is that glitter dust will not reveal the creature in any meaningful way. A gm however, could make a ruling (a rule 0) that the spell does reveal the character momentarily, thanks to the gap that is temporarily noticable.
We know from the magic description, abjuration spells create fields that then convey some specific effect. So, hide from undead creates this sort of force field around the creature and everything within that force field is not perceptible to undead or animals (depending on the spell). The creature's senses (not just eyes) sort of slide over it, can't focus on it, etc.
we also know from the magic section that abjurations can simply negate abilities like sensory abilities. there's no reason to assume any kind of force field. hide from undead can just as easily create an aura around [target] that negates the sensory abilities of undead.
This force field is not unique to hide from undead, other abjuration spells work the same way. They create a force field around the creature, inside of which is some kind of effect, whether we are talking resist energy, hide from undead, shield, protection from evil, etc. While none of these spells state this, it's generally assumed that if a character picks up an item after one of these has been cast on them, that item isn't excluded by the spell. For example, if I have protection from evil on me and I pick up a book after casting the spell, an evil summoned creature targeting the book will still suffer the penalties of the spell and will not be able to sunder it.
the rules don't say this, but it's a reasonable ruling.
However, when it comes to abjuration spells that are not circles you don't get any explanation of what happens if something comes into the creature's possession after the spell has been cast. I think most players/gms assume that everything is the same as if the item had been in the creature's possession when the spell was cast since then you don't have to track what's been picked up / put down since you cast the spell. Especially since many of these spells have long durations, with some lasting all day.
yes, people assume and rule that these things are also warded. but the rules don't say that, so they're making use of rule 0.
This last point is extremely important to determining what happens with glitter dust. If you are under the idea that, if I cast hide from undead on myself, take off my coat and put on a different coat. That undead can now see coat number 2 and nothing else, then my conclusion is the exact opposite.
which is fine because at the point that any of us made anything other than the targets of the spell imperceptible/protected from _____ we were using rule 0.
When you cast glitter dust, it clings to the creature and now they are basically wearing glitter. Since items worn by the creature come under the effects of the hide undead spell even if they were picked up/put on after the spell was cast, the glitter dust spell affecting the creature is now also under the effects of hide from undead. However, because the floor and surrounding area are not under the effects of hide from undead the undead will perceive a gap which is the character. This means that the undead would know where the character is, until that character moves. Once the character leaves the area the undead would no longer be able to tell where the character is unless the character was hit with another glitter dust spell.
So, my conclusion is that glitter dust will not reveal the creature in any meaningful way. A gm however, could make a ruling (a rule 0) that the spell does reveal the character momentarily, thanks to the gap that is temporarily noticable.
i'm just confused about why you don't see that your conclusion is also a rule 0 ruling...
edit: actually, someone earlier said something about the will save and had me thinking that hide from undead affected the undead and not the person warded. upon a careful rereading your barrier seems the more reasonable effect. but i still see it more like a rubber suit that is donned when you cast the spell. everything under the rubber suit is warded. anything that hits you after or that you remove and put back on is not. as you said before, it's not invisibility which explicitly affects things you pick up after casting it.
we also know from the magic section that abjurations can simply negate abilities like sensory abilities. there's no reason to assume any kind of force field. hide from undead can just as easily create an aura around [target] that negates the sensory abilities of undead.
This is stated in the magic section when describing abjuration spells.
If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
Spells from other schools are not described as having magical fields that can interact with each other in this way.
you realize that that's independent of the spell's effects right? like... that happens even if it's a dimensional anchor, but only the target is anchored not a 10 ft. field around them.
edit: i thought dimensional anchor could be made permanent. i'll have to look to see if there's another less temporary spell that fits.
edit 2: alarm. it would happen if two non-overlapping alarms were within 10 feet of each other. that wouldn't mean the space between them is also warded now.
edit 3: or two people with endure elements on them... the point is that you seem to be implying that abjurations can ward, at minimum, a 10 ft area.
Should Glitterdust also allow Blinded targets to see affected creatures?
Because that's basically what Hide From Undead does -- makes undead blind to you.
blind to you... not to everything else. are you saying that casting hide from undead on myself makes undead blind to literally everything? because that's the comparison you just made. a blind creature (one that cannot see at all) is not the same as a creature unable to detect the presence of certain creatures via any of its senses.
you realize that that's independent of the spell's effects right? like... that happens even if it's a dimensional anchor, but only the target is anchored not a 10 ft. field around them.
edit: i thought dimensional anchor could be made permanent. i'll have to look to see if there's another less temporary spell that fits.
edit 2: alarm. it would happen if two non-overlapping alarms were within 10 feet of each other. that wouldn't mean the space between them is also warded now.
edit 3: or two people with endure elements on them... the point is that you seem to be implying that abjurations can ward, at minimum, a 10 ft area.
Abjurations occupy a space equal to their effect +10 feet. If there's an assumption that the abjuration spell also affects the extra 10 feet then the statement becomes recursive and the spell ends up effecting everything everywhere.
You wanted to know where I was getting this force field idea from. This is where.
Ok, now look at the argument above, but replace every instance of HFUndead with Invisibility and you should notice why I don't buy this argument. Because you can make the same argument that Glitter Dust shouldn't reveal invisible creatures! Glitter Dust isn't like a mundane object, it is a spell effect that is specifically made not to be hidden and to reveal hidden things. If it works as LordKailas claims it is as effective as carrying a small pouch of flour, except with a better range and a small chance of blinding.
Obviously that isn't the case. If you want us to take HFUndead seriously, maybe you should take Glitter Dust more seriously as well. It doesn't just create a magical substance that has no properties,...
Well, the problems are
1. Glitter dust has a specific effect when cast on invisible creatures.
2. Invisibility does not make things picked up or worn invisible after the spell has been cast. But you can stuff non-invisible things into your invisible pockets to make them hidden from view.
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).
If I cast invisibility on myself, take off my coat and put on a new coat. As per the description of invisibility, creatures will observe coat #2 and nothing else.
So, even if glitter dust did not explicitly state that it cancels invisibility, it would still work because of how invisibility functions.
okay, now note that hide from undead says nothing about what happens to coat #2 so whatever you decide is a ruling. thanks again for being so cool, rule 0.
also, yes, i see where you're getting the force field (though it says nothing about force). do you see yet why it's irrelevant?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that when Hide From Undead affects the undead in question, it prevents them from seeing you, hearing you, smelling you, feeling the vibrations of your movement through the ground, feeling the vibrations of your movement in the air, or perceiving your displacement in some fluid (in most cases, air) according to spell text.
Hide From Undead prevents you from being perceived (but does not make you Invisible).
Glitterdust outlines Invisible creatures (which you are not under Hide From Undead) and makes them visible. It also covers you in dust. It does not specifically do the following:
1. Prevent you from being "you"
2. Cause imperceptible things to suddenly become perceptible.
If you want to rule that Glitterdust defeats Hide From Undead because "it's basically Invisibility" then that's a fine houserule. If you want to rule that anything the warded creature carries remains to be warded even after the creature drops it (horses should be able to carry about 100 gal of holy water, right?), then by all means do so. But that's not what the spells say that they do. You'll want to be upfront with your players about what these spells do in order to stop mid-adventure arguments.
okay, now note that hide from undead says nothing about what happens to coat #2 so whatever you decide is a ruling. thanks again for being so cool, rule 0.
There is nothing in the spell description that tell us the answer to our question. However, often times you can find the answer to your question by looking at details.
1. Are there any key phrases or terms in the spell description that we can use to reference a rule that will answer our question?
2. Does the spell block give any clue as to where else we might look for relevant information on the spell.
Following this logic, I found the referenced detail. Since the spell creates a magical field (or bubble) that is tied to the effect it seems relevant to determining if it makes sense for the spell to include or exclude items introduced after the spell is cast.
I am making an attempt to look at the rules and find an answer that is inline with what has been stated. Claiming rule zero seems very dismissive of this attempt and makes it sound like I'm saying that the interaction of the spells is a certain way just because it's how I "feel" they should interact and that it isn't backed by any consideration of the rules. While it may not have been your intention to insult me, it does come across that way, which makes it more difficult to respond in a coherent manner to any valid points you have.
If I'm able to find a rule that answers the question one way or another that's great. I have no emotional investment about it working one way or the other.
Outside of the rules, I know that generally when it comes to abjuration spells (like resist energy), DMs and players assume that items picked up after the spell is cast are now similarly protected. Maybe this is wrong, and by the rules this isn't what should happen. However, since it seems to be such a common ruling I have to assume that it must at the very least be in line with RAI if not RAW somewhere. Therefore, for reasons of consistency this interpretation would include hide from undead. This I agree, is fully outside of the RAW unless I were able to find an FAQ or other official statement about this sort of detail regarding any abjuration spell.
also, yes, i see where you're getting the force field (though it says nothing about force). do you see yet why it's irrelevant?
Yes, I just used the term force field as a visual short hand. It would of been more correct to say magical field.
Physical and magical barriers are one manifestation of Abjurations, along side negating magical or physical abilities, ect. This is just a bucket list of the general effects expected of abjurations not "they all create physical or magical barriers" because that interpretation ignores the coma and wants to put a period or colon in its place.Abjuration
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
QFT. i've been trying to communicate this. perhaps you will be successful.
Claiming rule zero seems very dismissive of this attempt and makes it sound like I'm saying that the interaction of the spells is a certain way just because it's how I "feel" they should interact and that it isn't backed by any consideration of the rules. While it may not have been your intention to insult me, it does come across that way, which makes it more difficult to respond in a coherent manner to any valid points you have.
if this seems dismissive or insulting to you, then you might want to consider what you have against rule 0? rule 0 is a rule and is intended for situations like this where the other rules aren't clear. that you are looking at other interactions to judge how this could/should work is evidence that you are using rule 0. there is nothing wrong with rule 0 or its use. what's wrong is when people can't accept that the rules are not entirely comprehensive and get offended when someone points out that they are using rule 0.
Also you're misinterpreting that entire section.
Abjuration
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
Physical and magical barriers are one manifestation of Abjurations, along side negating magical or physical abilities, ect. This is just a bucket list of the general effects expected of abjurations not "they all create physical or magical barriers" because that interpretation ignores the coma and wants to put a period or colon in its place.
I fail to see how I am misrepresenting this section. I agree this is just a list of different effects that abjurations create.
Also the only time Abjurations produce a field 10' around them is when another abjuration is there to 'push' against, within 10', and for 24 hours. And that field makes them easier to notice. That doesn't suddenly improve the way abjurations work, or give abjurations some sort of advantage over other spells. Actually this is a disadvantage of the spell line.
And all spells produce a "field" though the normal terminology for this is "aura" and it is detectable through intense study (spellcraft and time), or with the aid of Detect Magic and its line of dependent spells.
you are using conflicting logic. We know from detect magic that spell effects have auras. A functioning spell of 3rd level or lower has a faint aura for example. This is completely independent of what school of magic it is. So, yes all spells have auras all the time. They do not suddenly gain a magical aura because you cast detect magic. Because detect magic does not specify how small or large these auras are (only how vibrant). We do not know the actual size.
If we take magical field to mean the same thing as magical aura then we know that after 24 hours of two active abjuration spells being active within 10 feet of each other the magical auras of the spells interfere with one another creating an effect that is visible though very hard to see. Interference makes sense if the two auras are in some way touching one another. Especially when we consider that this occurs no matter how close inside of 10 feet the two auras are. We didn't see it because the two auras expanded and began touching after 24 hours. It began 24 hours later because the auras are "too close".
I absolutely agree that this is a disadvantage of abjuration spells. Stack too many in one place for too long and it starts to become obvious that there is a magical effect going on.
From this we can infer that the magical auras of abjuration spells expand 10 feet from the spell in question.
if this seems dismissive or insulting to you, then you might want to consider what you have against rule 0? rule 0 is a rule and is intended for situations like this where the other rules aren't clear. that you are looking at other interactions to judge how this could/should work is evidence that you are using rule 0. there is nothing wrong with rule 0 or its use. what's wrong is when people can't accept that the rules are not entirely comprehensive and get offended when someone points out that they are using rule 0.
You seem to have a much broader definition of rule 0 then I do. If I want to know the answer to the question.
"Can I cast spells while under the effect of Plant Shape II?"
You seem to be indicating that, I am invoking rule 0 just because the answer to that question is given under the magic section where it talks about transmutation (polymorph) spells and not the spell description.
That doesn't seem like a rule 0 solution. That seems like I'm just having to look in a section other than the spell description in order to determine the answer to my question.
no, whether or not you can cast under the effect of plant shape II is answered explicitly by the text. whether or not you can use the haft of your spear as an improvised weapon against adjacent enemies is not. you can look at the improvised weapons section, or the weapons section, or the combat section, and this will not be answered explicitly, so using some fighter archetype or whatever to make a judgement is using rule 0.
similarly, the rules do not explicitly answer the question of how glitterdust and hide from undead interact. you are not simply flipping to the magic section to the part labelled "glitterdust and hide from undead." you are extrapolating based on what the rules do say which isn't directly related to these two spells or their interaction.