Glitterdust: A DM's ruling

[radmod]

I don't really agree with this ruling by the DM, but I just thought I would throw this out there if anyone wants to discuss it.

The Setup:
My latest group, like every group I have ever played with or met, used the idea that if a person is Glitterduested then reapplying Invisibility negated it. It could be something derived from 1e or just simply no-one ever bothered to argue it differently (I never did!) since it would be like covering an invisible object in flour and re-invising makes it disappear. And, no, it's not because I told them it worked that way. A lot of different people, new to me at the time, did it the same way without me saying a word.

However, thanks to Iron Wolf (I believe), I have seen the error of my misbegotten youth. Still, the DM disagrees.

The Ruling:
"If a person is Glitterdusted and goes invisible then, yes, you can still see him." So far, so good.
HOWEVER ...
"Glitterdust is essentially a cloud of gold flecks (like tin-foil confetti) that sticks to everything. By itself, it gives off no light, so you have to have a light source to cause it to sparkle."
"But, wait," I say, "wouldn't that mean Glitterdust has no affect in darkness?"
"Yes. Unless the watcher has Darkvision"
"But, it says 'sparkles until it fades' (or somesuch). Doesn't that imply it's its own light source."
"No," says a player (a RL metallurgist), "it's like a gold or silver ring. Eventually the luster wears off and it dulls. When the spell ends, the luster wears off - fades."

Alright, I don't buy it but the DM's word is final (now in my worlds, things will be done differently). What do y'all think?

 

[Deset Gled]

I would interpret "sparkles until it fades" to mean that it sparkles even in darkness, but I have no good counterarguement against your DM's ruling. Both interpretations seem reasonable.

I've never seen someone try to use Glitterdust in complete darkness. I would have trouble coming up with a scenario where it would be particularly effective.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I've never heard of such a ruling, but I suppose it makes some sense. Consider that Faerie Fire [evocation(light)] specifically sheds light "as a candle" (ie, shadowy illumination to 5ft), whereas Glitterdust [conjuration(creation)] doesn't say if/how it sheds light. So I think it's reasonable to assume that its sparkliness is due to reflection (like glitter, in fact!) and not due to an internal light source.

The part that I think is strange is ruling that re-casting an invis spell doesn't negate it, since the DM is describing it as effectively little more than sparkly flour.

 

[radmod]

The part that I think is strange is ruling that re-casting an invis spell doesn't negate it, since the DM is describing it as effectively little more than sparkly flour.

It's part and parcel with the idea that if you cast invisibility on someone carrying a torch then you don't see him but you can still see the light. In this case, the 'magic' of the 'glitter' still allows the reflection of light in the area, so it sparkles. Think of it as the dust becomes invisible but the magic effect that allows it to sparkle does not.
Of course, that's what I'm guessing they would say, because right now it seems like to me that, according to this ruling, if you were invisible and were holding a mirror then you would reflect the light. Likewise, a pally in bright shiny armor would reflect light. And since we can only see colors because of light reflection, we would be into a discussion about light waves and such. No thank you.

That's one big reason why I don't buy it. To my mind, recasting invisibility should either work or not, no in-between.

 

[radmod]

I did forget to add that there was a big technical discussion about conjuration vs. evocation. Essentially, evocations (light, continual flame) create the light, but a conjuration does not. Thus, Glitterdust (conjuration) does not create light. THAT actually made more sense to me.

 

[jefgorbach]

Personally I always took it at face value ... the spell dusts everything in the targeted 10ft radius with craft-store-type glitter. As with regular glitter, the particles themselves don't generate light, but rather reflect the AVAILABLE light, so the object's resulting visibility gradually declines/fades as the particles gradually fall off.

The sheer quantity of particles and their magical nature make them impossible to remove them until the duration expires - however subsequent actions such as concealing the subject or casting Darkness/Invisibility/etc would be effective for their own durations.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

And since we can only see colors because of light reflection, we would be into a discussion about light waves and such. No thank you.

Not to mention we'd have to ask "What exactly is darkvision?" and other similarly mind-bending questions. *shudder*

I suppose that's why we have GMs: so we don't have to think too much about the pseudo-physics of magic. Sometimes "Because I say so!" really is the best answer.

 

[anest1s]

The wizard grabs some ground mica, and casts a Conjuration spell, which turns it to Glitterdust. (This means that when the spell is over there will be nothing left- or maybe just the ground mica)

Then he throws it. And it makes invisible enemies visible, because it sticks on them. However the target gets a Will saving throw...whats that supposed to mean? Wouldn't it make sense to give a Reflex one? (cover your eyes)

Ok except that, since its stuck on you, wouldn't it become invisible when you cast a new invisibility spell, like you first mentioned? Especially since it doesn't make any light.

Then again...whats the point of being invisible while inside an area with darkness?

It makes sense however, that since there is no light, it cant make the Glitterdust sparkle...however, once the creature gets into light, it would be clearly visible. (As long as the Glitterdust is still there)


What makes no sense to me however, is that...:

How would Darkvision make the Glitterdust sparkle, even in darkness?
(except if Darkvision is some kind of x-ray vision or something like that..)

 

[HoboGod]

It's a will save because ANYONE can make the reflex save to avoid slow falling glitter from getting in your eyes. But when the glitter is the most beautiful thing you've ever seen, it takes a will save to not spontaneously think of poetry and, instead, remind yourself that it's the enemy who cast it and you should probably guard your eyes.

No comment on the darkvision aspect, I tend to house rule that glitterdust doesn't work in total darkness. A friend of mine DMs that it works by the explanation of "it's just like covering an invisible foe with flour." In my games, darkvision works by heat signature, in his games, darkvision works by the "unseen illumination of all objects." I think it's a mystical thing. *shrugs*

 

[radmod]

What makes no sense to me however, is that...:

How would Darkvision make the Glitterdust sparkle, even in darkness?
(except if Darkvision is some kind of x-ray vision or something like that..)

Dang this is a somewhat old thread to be restarting.

Our DM says it doesn't (sparkle in darkness).

I always thought it was simply a Will to keep the magic of the shiny sparkles from blinding you but I think I like Hobo's version better!