Invisibility - Glitterdust - Invisibility

[Tsyr]

I always (and still do) felt that glitterdust creates just that... glitter. You know... those little flecks of metalic stuff you can put on things to make them sparkle. Just makes them magicly.

 

[drnuncheon]

Seeing as how it can blind you, I'm pretty certain that the glitterdust actually emits light.

If the blindness were due to dust getting in your eyes, I would think that it would be a Reflex save to negate (close your eyes quickly enough that the particles don't get into them), rather than a Will save.

J

 

[Abraxas]

posted by 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.

True - but could you pinpoint the bulbs location if the room is lit by many other visible bulbs and this one bulb, its filament and the lamp holding it were invisible? Im not sure I could. Just like it is difficult to tell if the parking lights of an auto are on on a sunny day.

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

The mage in question knew this - but she wasn't interested in attacking - just getting away from an angry frost giant and a hellcat.

Actually - perhaps I should give a bit more detail.

The well lit room was an cavernous room in a frost giant lair. The walls were coated with ice and it was lit with torches and continual flame spells. Im not sure, even if the sparkling of the glitterdust was visible, that it would have been very easy to see those winking motes against the background of sparkling reflections in ice.

I sided with the mage player on this one. IMO the light emitted from the glitter dust should have been masked by the ambient lighting conditions.

Even without the particular lighting conditions that exsisted when this situation came up, I would be inclined to rule that there is still a miss chance. Exactly what chance I would decide on a case by case basis. I keep thinking about seeing fireflys against a completely dark sky - it is very (well at least for me it is) difficult to judge exactly how far away the little firefly is even when lit.

posted by Tsyr
I always (and still do) felt that glitterdust creates just that... glitter.

I agree.

 

[Hjorimir]

I don't have my PHB with me. Does Glitterdust have the Light descriptor (I'm pretty sure spells that actually emit light have a descriptor for that quality)?

 

[drnuncheon]

I don't have my PHB with me. Does Glitterdust have the Light descriptor (I'm pretty sure spells that actually emit light have a descriptor for that quality)?

It does not...but then again, neither does faerie fire.

J

 

[niteshade6]

I believe the only thing relevent about the light descriptor is how it interacts with darkness spells, and vice versa. Obviously there are plenty of spells without that descriptor that do shed light, an obvious example being wall of fire.

Personaly I'd say that even in a room lit by many light bulbs, if there was a human sized light bulb in the room glowing brightly enough to blind somebody on the inside of it, I'd be able to clearly make it out, even if the bulb itself was invisible.

 

[Staffan]

Personaly I'd say that even in a room lit by many light bulbs, if there was a human sized light bulb in the room glowing brightly enough to blind somebody on the inside of it, I'd be able to clearly make it out, even if the bulb itself was invisible.

IMO, you'd get a pretty good idea of where it was, but not as good an idea as if you could see it directly. That's why I suggested treating it as 20% miss chance. You'd also not have the invisibility trouble of pinpointing the opponent with Listen - you can clearly figure out the rough location.

 

[Malin Genie]

Glitterdust trumps invisibility but doesn't remove it

I have always assumed that glitterdust doesn't "render an invisible person visible" (like invisibility purge) - it coats them in sparkling glittery stuff, which is visible (due to the nature of the spell) despite the fact that it is in contact with an invisible person (unlike, for example, their clothing/equipment/items they pick up/possibly spaghetti suauce which is thrown on them {depending on your rules interpretation} which all becomes invisible with the person.)

Casting invisibility again makes no difference - the person is still invisible, and they are still coated with glittery stuff that is visible despite being in contact with an invisible person.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Glitterdust trumps invisibility but doesn't remove it

I have always assumed that glitterdust doesn't "render an invisible person visible" (like invisibility purge) - it coats them in sparkling glittery stuff, which is visible (due to the nature of the spell) despite the fact that it is in contact with an invisible person

That's right.

(unlike, for example, their clothing/equipment/items they pick up/possibly spaghetti suauce which is thrown on them {depending on your rules interpretation} which all becomes invisible with the person.)

... that's not. It's not an ambiguous passage - items you pick up become invisible if you tuck them into clothing or pouches. If you pick up a visible sword, it doesn't disappear unless you hide it in your cloak. If someone covers you in paint, it stays visible until you do something to change that.

The clothing, equipment, items, and spaghetti sauce on them when the spell is cast are all invisible. Anything after that is visible unless tucked away.

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I would give the 50% miss chance, but allow automatic targeting.