Invisibility vs Glitterdust

[Mattias]

Does an Invisibility spell cancel the visibly outlining effect of a previously cast Glitterdust?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would say no - the dust glows, and light is unaffected by invisibility.

-Hyp.

 

[trentonjoe]

I agree, Glitterdust cancels invisiblity but not vice versa.

 

[HeavyG]

Related question :

Would spell resistance protect an invisible creature from being made visible by Glitterdust ?

The spell descriptions does say "SR : yes". I am sure SR will prevent blindness, but what about the detection effect ?

I'm curious what people think about that one.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would say SR only protects from the blindness, although I can see a good argument for going the other way.

This is after all a 3rd level spell with a short duration (1 round per level). Balance-wise it seems reasonable to allow it to temporarily foil a 2nd or 4th level invisibility. Keep in mind that both Invis and Improved Invis have vastly longer durations.

 

[AuraSeer]

My ruling is no, SR does not help an invisible creature remain so.

I ruled that the spell's magic is aimed at the dust particles themselves, making them glowy and sticky. Then the sticky particles physically glom onto to all objects in the area of effect. SR doesn't protect against this, any more than it would protect against a bagful of flour dumped over your head.

 

[HeavyG]

Going strictly by the rules, I'd say the SR would actually protect against all effects of the spell, including the invisibility nullification. And this is how I ruled when faced with the situation.

But, Auraseer's interpretation is good too.

Honestly, I can see it going either way. Which is why I'm very interested in everyone's opinions.

I would say SR only protects from the blindness, although I can see a good argument for going the other way.

This is after all a 3rd level spell with a short duration (1 round per level). Balance-wise it seems reasonable to allow it to temporarily foil a 2nd or 4th level invisibility. Keep in mind that both Invis and Improved Invis have vastly longer durations.

It's a 2nd level spell. Without even approaching the invisibility purge effect, it blinds foes in an area-effect, making them rogue-fodder. This is not a weak spell.

 

[Al]

HeavyG: Dead right. I would argue Glitterdust to be probably the strongest 2nd level spell there is.

As for Glitterdust vs Invisibility, I'd rule that Spell Resistance DOESNT work against Glitterdust's Invisibility effect. It doesn't work against Dust of Appearance or Invisibility Purge, and against most instantaneous conjurations (read the spell resistance description in the DMG) so in this case no is the answer. Against the blindness, of course it does.

 

[Mattias]

After much debating within my own group and a hard time to convince them that a Invisibility spell don’t cancel the outlining effect of a previously cast Glitterdust spell, I have formulated my reasoning like this:

First:

The Glitterdust particles emit light. The spell description doesn’t state that the spell is useless in total darkness. A to big exception not to have in the describing text.

I see them like sparkles from a fire, they don’t illuminate anything but their own small space but they are clearly visibly, especially in darkness. Glitterdust have higher intensity and is therefore visibly in daylight and initially can blind it’s target.

Secondly:

“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)”, the SRD states. Since the Glitterdust particles don’t illuminate anything put their own small space the sparkles are still visible at their original location on the target.

Ergo, the outlining effect is not cancelled.


What say ye?


- Mattias

 

[Hypersmurf]

First: The Glitterdust particles emit light.

Secondly: Light, however, never becomes invisible.

Ergo, the outlining effect is not cancelled.

What say ye?

Well, you know what I say Since I said the same thing early on in the thread

-Hyp.