Invisibility - Glitterdust - Invisibility

[Abraxas]

Something that came up the other nite in our game.

Our mage is invisible due to Improved Invisibility spell.
She gets hit with Glitter Dust.
Next round she activates her ring of invisibility in an attempt to turn the Glitter Dust particles invisible.

Question: Is she then invisible or not?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Actually she was invisible before she activated the ring. Just covered with golden, glowing sparkles.

She's still invisible, but people know where is because of the golden, glowing sparkles.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To clarify:

Before Glitterdust, she was invisible.

After Glitterdust, she is invisible, but covered with visible particles that shed visible light.

After the second invisibility, the particles are indeed invisible. However, the light they shed is still visible, so you gain no major benefit.

As an alternative - if instead of Glitterdust, someone threw a plate of spaghetti at her, then she'd be covered in visible pasta sauce... but when she activated her ring again, the pasta would turn invisible, and she'd be hard to see again.

The primary feature of Glitterdust is that invisible light sources continue to shed visible light.

-Hyp.

 

[Abraxas]

When this occurred in game, no one disputed that invisible light sources still illuminate - even the player whose character was affected.

A point of contention arose due to the mage players understanding of what the Glitter Dust spell actually does. It was her opinion that the golden particles didn't glow, in and of themselves, but reflected ambient light. If the particles went invisible with her when she used her ring they wouldn't reflect and she wouldn't be seen.

After a short discussion she accepted that they do in fact sparkle without reflecting. However, she did not agree that the continued illumination from the sparkling particles, in a well lit room, completely eliminated the benefits of being invisible.

The mage player was of the opinion that there should still be a 50% miss chance for creatures attacking her character. There was also some disagreement over whether or not creatures would be able to automatically pinpoint the square her character occupied.

Just thought I'd see what others thought.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even in a well-lit room, you can tell the difference between a light bulb that's on and a light bulb that isn't.

The spell specifically "outlines invisible creatures", similar to Faerie Fire. I don't think it can be convicingly argued that you can't see a glowing human-shaped blob, even in a well-lit room. Think Star Trek TOS transporter sparkle.

Now, a thornier one is Glitterdust or Faerie Fire cast on a creature under the effect of Mirror Image.

The Images all end up limned in green flame or sporting golden particles... but figments cannot illuminate darkness. In a dark room, the real caster will be glowing like a candle, while the Images will all be covered in green flames that cast no light, off in the shadows.

However, in a well-lit room, how do you tell the difference between a green flame that casts light as a candle, and a green flame that doesn't?

-Hyp.

 

[danielinthwolvesden]

Glitterdust is supposed to trump invisibility. So- it does.

 

[Staffan]

I'm thinking that the particles will be invisible, but the light they shed won't. You won't be able to see the precise outline of the invisible character, but you will get a good idea of their general location. I'd probably give it a miss chance similar to blur or something like that, at 20%.

Note that the second invisibility spell would be the general invisibility and thus be cancelled by one attack.

 

[rhammer2]

You are forgetting Fairy Fire, it also outlines the invisible creature with light and cancels all concealment. It is also a lower level spell.

I'm thinking that the particles will be invisible, but the light they shed won't. You won't be able to see the precise outline of the invisible character, but you will get a good idea of their general location. I'd probably give it a miss chance similar to blur or something like that, at 20%.

Note that the second invisibility spell would be the general invisibility and thus be cancelled by one attack.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This came up recently in my game, and my on the spot ruling was that the second invisibility made the person completly invisible again, effectively allowing the spells to trump each other.

My reasoning at the time was that invisibility made you and everything on you invisible at the time of casting. Glitterdust coated an invisible person with sparkly particles, rendering them visible, but the second invisibility turned the wizard and associated sparkly particles invisible.

Conceptually I thought of it like haste - slow - haste. A spell used to automatically counter another spell can be countered again by a further casting of the original spell.

As an on the spot ruling, I was happy with it, but I'm interested to see what other thoughts people come up with here, because I'm willing to change if there is a clearly better way of doing it.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

"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)."

Whether a second invisibility trumps it depends on whether you consider Glitterdust to cast its own light or not. I must confess, I always simply assumed it did - that's why it glitters and sparkles. The spell description makes no mention of it not glittering and sparkling in a dark room.

But there's room to interpret it as reflective, not luminescent.

-Hyp.