You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Greenfield]

That must have been a pretty short debate. Dust of disappearance works like greater invisibility, greater invisibility allows a saving throw. And, oh yeah, the rules for gaze attacks specifically state the invisible creatures can't use them. End of discussion, right?

So this is pretty much as "surprising" to me as a player saying "I swing my sword at it": It's a situation completely covered by the rules and the adjudication is obvious.

For actual creative thinking that isn't covered by the rules, I think the answer is similarly a no-brainer: You want to encourage that in pretty much every way possible.

First, while the Dust of Disappearance works like Greater Invisibility, it isn't Greater Invisibility. Look at the duration if you need proof of that. The spell is going to have a minimum of 7 rounds, while the dust lasts for 2 D6 rounds. People protected by the spell can be revealed by spells like See Invisible or True Seeing, while the dust specifically says that creatures under its affect can't be revealed by such magical means. So, while the dust works like (as in "similar but not identical to") the spell, it isn't the spell, and in fact is quite different from the spell. And, while the spell allows for a Will save, there is no Save called for under the dust's description.

As for the surprise part: When was the last time a player in your game tried this?

 

[Greenfield]

double post

 

[JustinAlexander]

First, while the Dust of Disappearance works like Greater Invisibility, it isn't Greater Invisibility. Look at the duration if you need proof of that.

You're kidding, right? Are you similarly baffled by the fact that greater invisibility doesn't list a casting time? It does say that it functions like invisibility, but it isn't invisibility. Look at the duration if you need proof of that! How am I supposed to cast greater invisibility if it doesn't list a casting time?!

In reality, of course, this is bog standard: When a rule in D&D says that it functions like spell X and then lists exceptions, it means it works like spell X except for those exceptions.

Which I would have thought was self-evident.

When was the last time a player in your game tried this?

That doesn't seem relevant. I can't remember the last time somebody in my campaign used a bead of force to create a resilient sphere (to pick another example at random), but I wouldn't be "ambushed" if it happened: I would flip open the DMG, look at the rules for the bead of force, and use them. As I said before: It's a situation completely covered by the rules and the adjudication is obvious.

 

[Greenfield]

So you're never surprised when someone uses a Bead of Force to do exactly what it was intended to do?

Good to know.

As for the dust: Many dusts list Saves. This one doesn't. Admittedly this is probably because the authors never considered it being used on an unwilling target, rather than it being intentionally designed as a "No Save" effect. (In short, they would have been surprised by this use) Still, the lack of a listed Save does tend to make some DMs leave it out.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

One of the more interesting tactics I've heard of is using Dust of Sneezing and Choking against something. Automatically stuns the target for 5d4 rounds, so it's pretty much a "screw you."

 

[MarkB]

One of the more interesting tactics I've heard of is using Dust of Sneezing and Choking against something. Automatically stuns the target for 5d4 rounds, so it's pretty much a "screw you."

Yeah, it's very nasty, especially in the hands of a rogue. "Okay, hold still while I sneak attack you repeatedly for the next couple of minutes." About the only 'fix' is to not allow characters to knowingly buy or create cursed items.

 

[LostSoul]

re: Dust of Disappearance: If I were DM, I'd read

A creature or object touched by it becomes invisible (as greater invisibility).​

and cast that as a Reflex save or a touch attack (ranged or melee, depending on the action of the character). If the basilisk even cares to dodge it; it might not, it's only dust.

But it would definitely not be against Will, no matter what the mechanics say. That works against the fiction.

 

[JustinAlexander]

As for the dust: Many dusts list Saves.

Two dusts list saving throws: Dust of dryness (which is not based on a spell) and dust of illusion (which is based on disguise self and lists the saving throw as an exception to the way the disguise self spell normally works).

There is, in fact, only one dust which is based on a spell which allows a saving throw -- which would be the dust of disappearance we're talking about. So looking to the other dusts for precedence of how this issue is handled in D&D isn't particularly valuable.

Still, the lack of a listed Save does tend to make some DMs leave it out.

And they would be wrong. The only way such a ruling would make sense is if they similarly allow wizards to cast greater invisibility without taking an action because the spell doesn't list a casting time. This is simply not the way the rules work. And if you think it is the way the rules work, adjudicating the use of dust of disappearance is going to be the least of your problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, it's very nasty, especially in the hands of a rogue. "Okay, hold still while I sneak attack you repeatedly for the next couple of minutes." About the only 'fix' is to not allow characters to knowingly buy or create cursed items.

Actually, if you tried to use dust of sneezing and choking against something I would rule that it gets you instead. It's cursed after all!

 

[MarkB]

Actually, if you tried to use dust of sneezing and choking against something I would rule that it gets you instead. It's cursed after all!

The one player I saw actually use this technique had ensured adequate protection for his character - a Necklace of Adaptation, as I recall. He kept about three bags handy in case of emergencies, and those bags, along with some DM dickery, killed a campaign for us.

Three out of four characters entered an ensorcelled cave which compelled us to try and kill each other to the best of our ability. The character in question failed his save to resist the effect, and killed both our other characters in a few rounds. The player wasn't happy to do it, and had his character commit suicide in remorse once he came to his senses. After that, it didn't seem worth trying to pick up the pieces.