I'll just throw the question out there. Does Glitterdust negate the concealment provided by the spell Invisibility?
Spells like Faerie Fire and Invisibility Purge specifically mention in their descriptions that they negate one or more conditions like concealment or invisibility, which are game mechanics. Glitterdust only says that invisible objects and creatures are "outlined", which isn't a game mechanic, but doesn't say anything about concealment. In my mind, this means that the creature can be pinpointed in a square but still benefits from concealment.
Thoughts?
It negates. An outlined creature is effectively visible. Its not like coating the floor in flour and pinpointing their location by their footprints. With glitter dust their entire form is outlined in glitter. You don't just know where they are, you know how big they are, their shape, posture, and limb position.
There is no defined game terminology for it because it is one of those things you are expected to understand through common sense.
I agree the spell makes inviable creatures visible. Visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell, is pretty clear that the “Thing” is not invisible.
Agreed with Chell Raighn and Mysterious Stranger. Keep in mind that Glitterdust has a much shorter duration than invisibility, so it doesn't completely shut down the spell. If you manage to get some form of cover and make a stealth check, you could still hide successfully. Staying still would render the bonuses from invisibility and penalties from glitterdust equal.
I didn't say it doesn't make them visible. I asked if it negates the concealment. For instance, Displacement gives you total concealment, but you're perfectly visible and targetable.
RAW it doesn't negate concealment, because it doesn't actually say that it does. RAI it does though. It is very, very much intended to negate concealment caused by invisibility.
I didn't say it doesn't make them visible. I asked if it negates the concealment. For instance, Displacement gives you total concealment, but you're perfectly visible and targetable.
Invisibility makes no mention of giving the recipient concealment. That is merely a rule tied to not being able to see a creature, which can stem from a lot of different sources (other sources, like Displacement, can grant a miss chance which works like concealment while leaving the creature visible). Glitterdust MAKES the creature visible by outlining them.
Also: displacement doesn't grant concealment. Since glitterdust imposes a -40 (!) stealth penalty I feel good with assuming that concealment is moot, no?
Well, "invisible" is a mechanic in the game which the spell grants. So it does say it via the rules.
Invisibility
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
You are considered totally concealed while invisible. RAI, Glitterdust removes this.
You are considered totally concealed while invisible. Glitterdust removes this.Invisibility
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
This is my point. The creature is outlined, has a silhouette, so they can be pinpointed, but they still benefit from the 50% miss chance.
Also, I'm not sure where this RAI keeps coming from, the spell was created as a blinding spell. The sparkling outline is a secondary effect.
I guess the short answer is RAI, the description is interpreted to negate the concealment. RAW, it doesn't.
Also, I'm not sure where this RAI keeps coming from, the spell was created as a blinding spell. The sparkling outline is a secondary effect.
That sounds like an assumption of intent. It is entirely reasonable that a 2nd level spell has the ability to render the effects of another 2nd level spell void.
Glitterdust Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft. spread
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (blinding only)
Spell Resistance: YesA cloud of glittering golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, blinding creatures and visibly outlining invisible things. Blindness lasts 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.
In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature suffers a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have full concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, grants a +2 bonus to opponents attack rolls (they are effectively invisible), moves at half speed, and suffers a 4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skills.
Glitterdust
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (blinding only)
Spell Resistance: NoA 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.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.
Material Component
Ground mica.
Glitterdust 5th-level conjuration
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S, M (ground mica)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minuteChoose a point within range. A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything within a 10-foot radius of that point, blinding creatures. Everyone and everything within the area is covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.
For the duration, any target covered by the dust has disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks, and gains no benefit from being invisible.
Each target that is a creature must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become blinded for the duration. At the end of each of a target's turns, it may repeat its saving throw, ending the blindness on a success.
At Higher Levels. The sphere's radius increases by 5 feet for every two levels above 2nd.
GlitterdustSpell 2
Evocation
Source Core Rulebook pg. 341 4.0
Traditions arcane, primal
Deities Ashava, Cosmic Caravan
Cast somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet; Area 10-foot burstSaving Throw ReflexCreatures in the area are outlined by glittering dust. Each creature must attempt a Reflex save. If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible. This applies both if the creature was already invisible and if it benefits from new invisibility effects before the end of the invisibility negation effect from this spell.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target's invisibility is negated for 2 rounds.
Failure The target is dazzled for 1 minute and its invisibility is negated for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is blinded for 1 round and dazzled for 10 minutes. Its invisibility is negated for 10 minutes.
================================================================
In all other iterations of this spell, it is intended to both blind and negate invisibility. You can see the evolution of how they worded this spell, because this isn't the first time that this has been argued about. You can see that in PF2E and D&D 5e that it's blatantly and purposefully more obvious that invisibility is negated by Glitterdust.
That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.
Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.
It negates. An outlined creature is effectively visible. Its not like coating the floor in flour and pinpointing their location by their footprints. With glitter dust their entire form is outlined in glitter. You don't just know where they are, you know how big they are, their shape, posture, and limb position.
There is no defined game terminology for it because it is one of those things you are expected to understand through common sense.
Imagine glitter dust is a magical sack of flour being burst open in an 2 x 2 square area. That flour proceeds to coat everything in that 100 square ft of area.
Now imagine instead of flour is some maddening inducing glitter that is the consistency of flour.
And now imagine you get some in your eyes. That's why you have to save against blindness, as you fight through the urge to close your eyes because you have magical glitter in your eye.
That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.
Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.
Concealed
Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 4.0
While you are concealed from a creature, such as in a thick fog, you are difficult for that creature to see. You can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn't affect you.
You have to roll a d20 as a straight roll (with no bonuses of any kind), and if you get a 4 or less, your attack/spell misses, if you get a 5 or higher then your attack/spell hits. You can still see them though.
That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.
Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.
You have to roll a d20, and if you get a 5 or less, your attack/spell misses. You can still see them though.Concealed
Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 4.0
While you are concealed from a creature, such as in a thick fog, you are difficult for that creature to see. You can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn't affect you.
Right, I agree. You can see someone affected by Glitterdust, but they still benefit from concealment.
That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.
Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.
Yeah, so concealed in PF2 means you have to make a DC 5 flat check (instead of a percentage miss chance). Which means you fail on a roll of 4 or less, meaning a 20% miss chance.
In any event, in PF1 glitterdust negates invisibility. And if you only had concealment because you were invisible, it will negate that concealment.
Oddly, in PF2 you still have some concealment. So I guess the glitterbomb is somewhat less effective in it's coverage in PF2 vs PF1.
Right, I agree. You can see someone affected by Glitterdust, but they still benefit from concealment.
The problem is, the rest of us disagree with your conclusion. In PF1 the rest of us agree you don't have any concealment.
PF2, which is obviously a different system, specifies you have concealment still but for the rest of us the reasonable interpretation of how PF1 glitterdust affects invisibility is complete negation including concealment.
I think we should be leaning on the intentions listed in D&D 5e Glitterdust because this is what they came up with after the rules of D&D 3.5E Glitterdust were debated ad nauseum, and Pf1e is pretty much a copy/paste of 3.5e.
PF2e is the only iteration of this spell that reduces Invisibility from Total Concealment (50%) to Concealment (20%). They have a whole new mechanic for Concealed vs. Hidden vs. Undetected vs. Observed, etc.
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)
The changed how the spell function in PF2 because they also changed how concealed functions in PF2. It's now a 20% miss chance which is much less than it used to be.
I don't agree with your summarization that (for PF1) "the developers agree with you". It's a different edition of the game with lots of vary different mechanics compared to D&D 3.5 or PF1.
I feel like you came here to ask people a question, but in reality you were just looking for yes men to say we agree with your interpretation when the rest of us are saying we don't.
I will plant my flag on the "a -40 stealth penalty is not compatible with concealment" hill.
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)The changed how the spell function in PF2 because they also changed how concealed functions in PF2. It's now a 20% miss chance which is much less than it used to be.
I don't agree with your summarization that (for PF1) "the developers agree with you". It's a different edition of the game with lots of vary different mechanics compared to D&D 3.5 or PF1.
I feel like you came here to ask people a question, but in reality you were just looking for yes men to say we agree with your interpretation when the rest of us are saying we don't.
^----- this.
I will plant my flag on the "a -40 stealth penalty is not compatible with concealment" hill.
^---- and this.
In PF2, they came up with all new mechanics for Concealed vs. Hidden vs. Observed vs. Undetected vs. Imprecise Senses.
Concealed is basically Concealment, Hidden is similar to Total Concealment (except you know which square they're in), and Undetected is the strongest form of Concealed, and it is similar to Total Concealment except you have no idea which square they're in, and any checks against them are rolled in secret by the GM.
While Invisible, you're considered Undetected until an enemy's Imprecise Senses can help them "Seek" you and make you merely "Hidden" to them. So in pf2e, Undetected is basically Uber-Concealed. You have literally zero chance to find an Undetected character unless the GM *wants* you to find it. Glitterdust takes Undetected all the way down to Concealed.
Anywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)
There is no poor wording of the spell. This all boils down to you not accepting how the mechanics work.
Why do you have concealment? Because no one can see you.
What does glitterdust do? Makes it so that people can see you (also, save or blind).
If you want to be extremely concise on the how/why, it is because you are a) easily identified to be within a specific 5ft square and b) your outline is visible so that people know where to hit you in that 5ft square. At most, you could argue that it would be difficult for precision damage to function, but that would still be extremely flimsy as you could imagine anything from a light dusting of magical sparkles making you hardly visible, or a dense coating outlining every crevice of your body.
Anywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.
The derailment was inevitable the moment we took the bait of trying to point out that glitterdust is fairly consistent in other versions of the game. It just gives them more material to cherry pick through and reinforce their own interpretation.
Anywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.The derailment was inevitable the moment we took the bait of trying to point out that glitterdust is fairly consistent in other versions of the game. It just gives them more material to cherry pick through and reinforce their own interpretation.
Yes, Confirmation Bias was alive and thriving wildly in this thread :P
Yes, Confirmation Bias was alive and thriving wildly in this thread :PAnywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.The derailment was inevitable the moment we took the bait of trying to point out that glitterdust is fairly consistent in other versions of the game. It just gives them more material to cherry pick through and reinforce their own interpretation.
Well I’d say we left enough holes in his boat… we can just let it sink now… his invisible glitterdust coated boat…
Well I’d say we left enough holes in his boat… we can just let it sink now… his invisible glitterdust coated boat…
Once the boat is underwater it will have total cover from land. (But still no concealment.)
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)There is no poor wording of the spell. This all boils down to you not accepting how the mechanics work.
Why do you have concealment? Because no one can see you.
What does glitterdust do? Makes it so that people can see you (also, save or blind).If you want to be extremely concise on the how/why, it is because you are a) easily identified to be within a specific 5ft square and b) your outline is visible so that people know where to hit you in that 5ft square. At most, you could argue that it would be difficult for precision damage to function, but that would still be extremely flimsy as you could imagine anything from a light dusting of magical sparkles making you hardly visible, or a dense coating outlining every crevice of your body.
Anywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.The derailment was inevitable the moment we took the bait of trying to point out that glitterdust is fairly consistent in other versions of the game. It just gives them more material to cherry pick through and reinforce their own interpretation.
It is poor in that other spells explicitly say what they do and don't do and this one is left to interpretation. A creature being completely invisible and then being coated in a glitter doesn't make THEM visible. Certainly they would still have some level of concealment (I'd say 20% miss chance) because their form is inconsistent and hollow appearing. Hence, why they changed it in the next iteration.
Lets also consider the different reasons that various effects give you the miss chances that they do.
Fog - spells like obscuring mist, a few cloud spells, and the fog weather effect all grant concealment within 5ft and total concealment beyond 5ft. The reason for this is that in foggy weather it is increasingly difficult to see beyond a few feet, thus the total concealment beyond 5ft. Objects close to you however can be difficult to discern their true location until they are really close, you might see a shadow through the fog that is 3ft to the left of where someone actually is or that is much larger or smaller than the object casting it because of how light refracts in fog.
Darkness - unless you possess darkvision you are nearly incapable of seeing in darkness. You might see feint flashes of movement or unnaturally large looming objects as your eyes desperately try to take in whatever light stimulus they can find in the pitch black nothingness. For this reason darkness grants total concealment.
Lowlight - lowlight is very poorly defined in the rules to be honest since it seems to vary from a dimly lit room to a faint moonlit night… a dimly lit room can still be fairly easy to see in but a faint moonlit night on the other hand is very difficult to see in and is almost complete darkness. The idea behind the concealment in lowlight though stims from a natural impairment to depth perception in lowlight conditions. The weaker the lighting is in an area the harder it is to actually tell how far away something is, though in reality this impairment only really applies beyond 5ft until you get into near darkness levels of lowlight.
Blur - the blur spell distorts your outline making you difficult to see clearly. When you move this distortion can create after images. In combat you are assumed to always be in motion. Someone attempting to hit you is never really certain as to if the part of you they are swinging at is really even there or not, the result is concealment.
Displacement - displacement shifts your visible form a few feet in a random direction from your physical form. You are effectively invisible, but because your displaced image is very much visible and close enough to you to be considered within the same space as you your location is automatically pinpointed to everyone. This is why you get the 50% miss chance of total concealment but none of its other benefits.
Invisibility - you cannot be seen. Unless someone knows where you are they have almost no hope of even hitting you. For this reason you get total concealment.
Now… what does glitter dust do in each of these circumstances?
Fog- it makes someone slightly sparkly, but the light is still refracted all the same. No mechanical change.
Darkness - the sparkly glitter reflects more light, but there is no light present to reflect. No mechanical change.
Lowlight - the target sparkles in the light now, but depth perception is still impaired. No mechanical change.
Blur - despite the sparkling glittery outline, their form is still visually distorted. No mechanical change.
Displacement - an argument can be made that displacement should be negated by glitterdust, BUT… it functions under the same principle as Blur… the target is coated in glitter but even that glitter has had its visible form shifted by the displacement. No mechanical change.
Invisibility - the target is covered in glitter sparkling in the light and revealing a form. They can now be seen. Their location and form have been revealed. They are still invisible but that pesky clingy glitter is everywhere and unlike them it is not invisible. So long as they are revealed by this light reflecting glitter they gain no benefits of invisibility.
Here's the FAQ answer if you all are interested in that.
As far as I can tell it cancels invisibility on everyone and everything inside the area when the spell was cast regardless of how they've become invisible and whether or not they were invisible before or after glitterdust was cast.
Does it coat every surface down to the inside of your canteen? If I flay my enemy does his flesh glitter within? Who knows.
thanks ErichAD but it's not a FAQ per se. Hearing from the lead designer at the time does give us direction & insight for implementation of RAW.Here's the FAQ answer if you all are interested in that.
A few comments down he agrees that the spell is poorly worded
