Does turning invisible cancel out Glitterdust?

[domino]

I seem to recall the question coming up before, but I can't find any sources.

We blew an ambush, so, per my usual tactics, I glitterdusted the other guys. Actually worked, even. Then, things went poorly for the enemies, and one of them tried to go invisible.

I brought up the idea that glitterdust revealed invisible people, and thought that it might still render the bad guy visible even after he turned invisible.

The GM thought that turning invisible would also turn the motes invisible along with the subject. To avoid a hairy situation, the guy did something else, I forget what, it didn't work, we won.

So, my question is this; Is there a consensus on the subject, and if so, what is it, and has it been officially ruled on by WotC anywhere?

 

[Derro]

I haven't seen a consensus but here's some facts.

Glitterdust has a duration meaning that it is a persistent spell effect. This is mainly to do with the blinding but has the secondary effect of canceling invisibility. It's area of effect indicates targets meaning it applies to characters as opposed to an area like an anti-magic field.

Glitterdust inflicts a -40 penalty to hide checks. Conversely invisibility provides a +40 bonus to Hide checks.

The 1e in me says the Invisibility would cancel the effect of the Glitterdust but not turn the caster invisible. The 3e in me says make an opposed caster level check and have the winner's spell effect apply.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I agree with Derro's facts, but not his conclusion. Invisibility gives a +40 on Hide checks; glitterdust imposes a -40 penalty. Thus, it seems to me that glitterdust cancels out invisibility, rather than the other way around.

That is to say, your invisibility now gives you an effective +0 bonus on Hide checks...which is just another way of saying it doesn't do squat.

 

[Runestar]

I am inclined to say that invis negates glitterdust. Here is my rationale.

A bag of flour, if dumped on an invisible character, will reveal him (the flour will not be turned invisible by said spell). Conversely, if a character covered in flour casts invisibility on himself, he (and the flour on him) will turn invisible.

Same concept should apply to glitterdust, if we treat glitterdust as a souped up bag of flour. Of course, he will still be blinded.

What we need to establish now is if glitterdust is to be treated as a continuous, self-renewing effect which constantly overrides any attempt at turning invisible, or if it is just a 1-shot effect.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'd like to add that making light sources invisible will only turn the source of the light invisible, not the light itself. Does glitterdust shed light?

 

[green slime]

Nope. IMO, the glitterdust hangs around in the air, which would make the invisibility completely irrelevant, asyou would still the shape or outline of the character in question.

 

[Teydyn]

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.

Glitterdust doesnt cancel invisibility. It just sits glittering on top of the still invisible creature.

Haste/Slow and Enlarge/Reduce Person counter or disple each other, nothing mentioned of that here.


The glitterdusted person casts invisibility and turns invisible. The glitterdust is still on him and outlines him.

 

[azhrei_fje]

If true Teydyn, then anyone planning to use invisibility should wear a second, normal cloak (beyond the cloak of protection they probably have ) so that when glitterdust is cast, they can whip off the normal cloak and reverse it, then put it back on (or drop it). That would eliminate 80%-90% of the dust particles, right? ...

 

[Derro]

I agree with Derro's facts, but not his conclusion. Invisibility gives a +40 on Hide checks; glitterdust imposes a -40 penalty. Thus, it seems to me that glitterdust cancels out invisibility, rather than the other way around.

That is to say, your invisibility now gives you an effective +0 bonus on Hide checks...which is just another way of saying it doesn't do squat.

Actually by that rationale it does do squat. Since the character is still technically invisible and thus gaining the benefit of total concealment they can make Hide checks as long as the invisibility's duration persists. That's pretty lawyery but in line with the rules.

Although the light given off by glitterdust is not quantified as, say, torchlight it is still a light source. Turning invisible after being dusted would most likely hide the motes of dust but not the light they shed. So I'll rescind my previous call of caster vs. caster and say that the invisible character could freely make Hide checks due to concealment but not with the +40 bonus, that being cancelled by the glitterdust light being shed. Also if the invisible hider started moving around they would suffer a -20 penalty to any Hide rolls.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've always read this question as "It depends"... and it depends on the answer to "Why does Glitterdust glitter?" or, if you prefer, "What happens if you cat Glitterdust in a pitch-black room?"

In other words, do the dust particles generate light, or do they only reflect light?

If they only reflect light (and so have no effect in a pitch-black room), then they will turn invisible when the creature does, and no longer be able to be seen.

If they generate light (and so outline someone in a pitch-black room with glowing traces), then when the creature turns invisible, the dust particles will also turn invisible, but the light they generate will not... and so there will still be a man-shaped cluster of glowing pinpricks of light, which will exactly pinpoint the creature's location, rendering the concealment of the invisibility ineffective.

-Hyp.