Does an invisible glitterdust spell still blind people?

[Ellrin]

I think we can all agree that an invisible glitterdust is already the best application of metamagic to a spell ever, but I just want to get a definite feel for how useless it actually is. Is it the dust getting in people's eyes that causes the blindness, or the, for lack of a better word, glitteriness?

[AntiTrust]

If something is in my eyes like magic glitter sand, it doesn't matter if I can't see it, I know its there and its making me bawl like a three year old

[Answerer]

Strict-RAW, the answer is yes. Invisible Spell is weird.

[Crake]

I don't quite see how invisible glitterdust is so amazing? Losing the glitteryness on your enemies isn't such a big deal or anything. I've always liked invisibility + invisible fog. So when your enemies cast see invisibility they end up seeing a bunch of fog and not you.

[Darius Kane]

Does an invisible punch in the face still hurt?

[Psyren]

Does an invisible punch in the face still hurt?

This analogy doesn't follow. A more accurate one would be "does an incorporeal punch to the face still hurt" since you're now talking about a similar situation, i.e. attempting to assault a sense with an attack that such sense would normally ignore.

[Ellrin]

I don't quite see how invisible glitterdust is so amazing? Losing the glitteryness on your enemies isn't such a big deal or anything. I've always liked invisibility + invisible fog. So when your enemies cast see invisibility they end up seeing a bunch of fog and not you.

It was a joke. I'm not sure if RAW actually works this way, but with the dust invisible, you would expect it not to reveal any invisible creatures the way the spell is meant to.

Thereby being a terrible idea. And therefore amazing.

Heck, even if it doesn't work that way by raw, covering invisible enemies with invisible dust to reveal them is pretty awesomely stupid.

[Rubik]

This analogy doesn't follow. A more accurate one would be "does an incorporeal punch to the face still hurt" since you're now talking about a similar situation, i.e. attempting to assault a sense with an attack that such sense would normally ignore.Even though I can't see the tiny bits of gritty sand under my eyelids doesn't mean I can see any better.

[Darius Kane]

This analogy doesn't follow. A more accurate one would be "does an incorporeal punch to the face still hurt" since you're now talking about a similar situation, i.e. attempting to assault a sense with an attack that such sense would normally ignore.
Except the glitterdust doesn't become incorporeal but invisible. :smallconfused: So my analogy completely follows.

[Psyren]

Even though I can't see the tiny bits of gritty sand under my eyelids doesn't mean I can see any better.

Would it also still apply the -40 to hide checks, despite being no more visible than the thing it's supposedly revealing?

The simple fact is that Invisible Spell makes no sense.

[Bhaakon]

Is the blindness caused by the irritation of the dust, or the extreme glare of golden sparkles? The spell description isn't definitive, but it mentions the later rather prominently and the former not at all.

[Greenish]

But if a source of light is invisible, the light will still be visible.

[Psyren]

Is the blindness caused by the irritation of the dust, or the extreme glare of golden sparkles? The spell description isn't definitive, but it mentions the later rather prominently and the former not at all.

Precisely this. And "particles" is not enough, because particles are everywhere in nature - air consists of particles, yet it doesn't irritate our eyes as a matter of course.


Except the glitterdust doesn't become incorporeal but invisible. :smallconfused: So my analogy completely follows.

If it is invisible (sense: sight), how is it blinding you? Does not follow.
If you don't feel the fist (sense: touch), how is it hurting you? Does not follow.

[Duke of Urrel]

Is the blindness caused by the irritation of the dust, or the extreme glare of golden sparkles? The spell description isn't definitive, but it mentions the later rather prominently and the former not at all.

Following Greenish, I think we're approaching the key question, which is: Does Glitterdust shed light? It would seem to me that it does, because a whopping –40 penalty to Hide checks is hard to explain otherwise.

Maybe we should split the difference. Suppose half of this Hide check penalty is due to the glow of Glitterdust and the other half is due to its shininess. Invisible Glitterdust isn't shiny, but it still glows. So let it impose a only –20 penalty on Hide checks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Would it also still apply the -40 to hide checks, despite being no more visible than the thing it's supposedly revealing?

The simple fact is that Invisible Spell makes no sense.

I don't think it should apply, and frankly don't care what the RAW answer is, that'd just be too painfully stupid....


And yes, the feat is silly. The only reason I haven't banned it is no one ever tried to take it and I forgot it existed.

[Darius Kane]

If it is invisible (sense: sight), how is it blinding you?
By getting in your eyes? :smallconfused:


If you don't feel the fist (sense: touch), how is it hurting you?
Why would you not feel the fist? I already said, it's invisible, not incorporeal. :smallconfused:
What does not follow are your strawman arguments.

[Just to Browse]

By getting in your eyes? :smallconfused:


Why would you not feel the fist? I already said, it's invisible, not incorporeal. :smallconfused:
What does not follow are your strawman arguments.


A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Yes, Darius, if you decide that Glitterdust does something that it hasn't been written down to do, of course it will do that thing, because you decided it would. But since the thing you're saying it does is not something it is described as doing, Psyren is being a rational person and not interpreting it that way.

I mean that's not even a strawman on his part. If anything's the strawman, it's pretending that touching something invisible interacts the same way as seeing something invisible.

[Darius Kane]

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.
You were saying something?

[Ashtagon]

The way I see it (see (see (see [/inception] what I did there?) what I did there?) what I did there?), glitterdust essentially coats everyone and everything in a layer of (fools) gold. This layer has no effect on breathing (so either it is porous or it doesn't block mouth/nose or equivalent organs) or hearing (ditto for ears). It has no physical presence, and is a purely optical effect.

It is not, however, an eye irritant; the blindness is caused because it is physically (if porously) covering the eyes. It is truly had an eye irritant effect, it should logically also cause everyone in its area to collapse in a choking fit. It doesn't.

So invisible (http://dndtools.eu/feats/cityscape--53/invisible-spell--1684/) glitterdust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm)...

As long as the glitterdust is/remains invisible, the spell has zero effect on anyone.

From the point of view of someone who has received see invisibility, they will be blinded if they were within the area of effect of the glitterdust, until the duration of either spell expires.

If they were outside the original area of the glitterdust, they will be able to see those who were affected by glitterdust, regardless of whether or not those inside the glitterdust were previously invisible due to a separate enchantment.

[Just to Browse]

You were saying something?

I was saying that there is literally nothing about the particles getting in your eyes. Literally nothing. I was correct, and if you re-read those bold sections you've tried to use to prove your point you'll find that they actually counter it.

[Darius Kane]

Actually, the opposite is more true.

But whatever. I just gave a reasonable rationale for a tricky mechanical issue. But I really don't have to explain anything. Because it's... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DieXQI5LOPw)

[Gwendol]

Ashtagon got it right, except for the blinded part. Those affected by the spell, that have see invisibility going, will need to roll the will save, then decide if they are blinded or not.

Glitterdust is in no way an irritant. There is nothing in the spell description indicating it is.

One can discuss this in another way: in a dark area (as in no light), will glitterdust have any effect?

[Psyren]

By getting in your eyes? :smallconfused:

Where does it say it gets in your eyes? If you're wearing goggles or a mask, or have a Wind Wall in front of you, why are you still blinded? Do Restoration and Forcecage blind people too?

It still makes no sense.

[Deophaun]

Where does it say it gets in your eyes? If you're wearing goggles or a mask, or have a Wind Wall in front of you, why are you still blinded?
Because you are covered with dust by magic.

The fact is, the spell doesn't say how it blinds you. It doesn't say that the glittery nature of the dust blinds you, or if it blinds you by putting dust in your eyes, or if it blinds you because shadowy imps manifest and put their hands over your eyes while asking "Guess who?" There's also the question of if glitterdust emits its own light or if it's just highly reflective. If the former, invisible spell does nothing to it, as invisible light sources still emit light. As glitterdust works even in complete darkness, I'm going with the "sheds its own light" interpretation. YMMV.

Regardless, RAW is vague enough to support pretty much any interpretation you want in this case, which makes arguing against those interpretations pretty silly.

[Answerer]

Invisible creatures holding a light source still shed light; I would guess that the light from the glitterdust still happens even though the dust itself is invisible.

[Synovia]

Even though I can't see the tiny bits of gritty sand under my eyelids doesn't mean I can see any better.

Glitterdust doesn't say it blinds you by getting in your eyes. It talks about being sparkly and bright.


I've always understood it as targets being blinded because of all the reflections in the air around them... like being surrounded by bright lights.

[Bonzai]

Lol, I remembr the favorite joke when the feat came out was invisible pit trap illusions... "Gaaaaah... I'm falling! But I don't know how!"

[Psyren]

Regardless, RAW is vague enough to support pretty much any interpretation you want in this case, which makes arguing against those interpretations pretty silly.

You can have Invisible Invisibility by RAW, and I'm the silly one?

Actually, never mind - I'll just permaban the feat at my tables and be on my way.

[Gwendol]

Glitterdust sheds light now? What level of light and out to what distance?

[Answerer]

Well apparently strong enough to blind up close, but insufficient to illuminate one's surroundings. Bright enough to highlight the creature in question, anyway.

And this is the normal, quite visible glitterdust.

[Darius Kane]

Where does it say it gets in your eyes?
Where does it say it doesn't?


If you're wearing goggles or a mask, or have a Wind Wall in front of you, why are you still blinded?
I dunno, Magic perhaps?


It still makes no sense.
It's Magic. It doesn't have to.

[Synovia]

Where does it say it doesn't?
.

Where does it say it doesn't auto-kill all your enemies? Where does it say it doesn't summon a djinn and give you wishes? Where does it say it doesn't give you a permanent untyped +10 bonus to your CON?

[Psyren]

It's Magic. It doesn't have to.

And normally I would be fine with this explanation, except Invisible Spell is obviously an ill-thought-out mess that someone sharted onto paper to meet their word count quota. So no, I'm not content with "it just works, okay?"

[Dayzgone]

Ok this was to silly to only read and not talk upon.

In the book Glitterdust is clearly stated to be effected by "Will". Saving "negates the blindness effect only". Which does in fact mean that invisible glitterdust still causes a blinding effect, which only brings up even more questions.

However if you go by fluff, u need a Ground Mica (what ever that is) which does indicate that maybe you blow a powder into the air. Whats more its listed as Conjuration (Creation) meaning there is some kind of physical part to it.

What does this all mean? No idea! But arnt thought experiments fun :smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

However if you go by fluff, u need a Ground Mica (what ever that is) which does indicate that maybe you blow a powder into the air. Whats more its listed as Conjuration (Creation) meaning there is some kind of physical part to it.
The ground mica is a fierce woodland predator, closely related to the dread gazebo. It has been known to stalk hapless adventurers and swallow them whole. Its distant cousin the sea mica however is a completely harmless herbivore

It is not a ground mica, it is ground mica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica). So while it does imply that the caster blows dust in the air, it does not mean that this dust actually is responsible for any blindness, since the spell even affects creatures behind the caster.

As for the physical part, photons (or light waves if you prefer those) are physical as well, so there is no need for actual dust to cover the creatures in the area for the spell merit the conjuration (creation) tag.

[Dayzgone]

The ground mica is a fierce woodland predator, closely related to the dread gazebo. It has been known to stalk hapless adventurers and swallow them whole. Its distant cousin the sea mica however is a completely harmless herbivore.

:smallamused: woops that "a" wasn't supposed to be there. You win this round grammar


As for the physical part, photons (or light waves if you prefer those) are physical as well, so there is no need for actual dust to cover the creatures in the area for the spell merit the conjuration (creation) tag.

This is a very good point, and kinda solves a few things (although raises a million more questions about the spell system) Particle physics is way out of my area of expertise and the idea of turning light invisible sends shivers up my spine so ill put that on the shelf for someone else to play with.

The text also never does say what it is you actually do with the mica, perhaps you throw it up above your head and shower the area with it like a giant confetti explosion. (This is assuming that's what causes said blindness)

[Gwendol]

Well apparently strong enough to blind up close, but insufficient to illuminate one's surroundings. Bright enough to highlight the creature in question, anyway.

And this is the normal, quite visible glitterdust.

What if it's dust that, you know, glitters? No light is emanating, just reflecting.

[Frosty]

If I cast an Invisible Glitterdust on Edward, will Buffy still come and stake Edward?

On a serious note, I believe that an Invisible Glitterdust will still force the Save or be blind, but NOT reveal invisible creatures.

[Andezzar]

This is a very good point, and kinda solves a few things (although raises a million more questions about the spell system) Particle physics is way out of my area of expertise and the idea of turning light invisible sends shivers up my spine so ill put that on the shelf for someone else to play with.Don't think too hard on the physics involved in D&D, it will lead to madness. You don't even need to get into particle physics. Newtonian Physics already cry when they hear the rules of D&D (Start jump in round one, finish jump 6 seconds later, in round two).


The text also never does say what it is you actually do with the mica, perhaps you throw it up above your head and shower the area with it like a giant confetti explosion. (This is assuming that's what causes said blindness)Perhaps the caster snorts the powder. We don't know. Material components are just an annoyance/gp taxc for spellcaster. The spells almost never say what is done with them. All we know is that the component has to be in the caster's hand (see grappling).

[Dayzgone]

Perhaps the caster snorts the powder. We don't know. Material components are just an annoyance/gp taxc for spellcaster. The spells almost never say what is done with them. All we know is that the component has to be in the caster's hand (see grappling).

i like your idea for use better.

I understand that what ever the caster does is up in the air, what i was trying to point out is that by RAW glitter dust does work even while invisible, but how you interpret the use or action of casting will determine if the spell (in this case glitterdust) is a tangible object.

So inevitably it comes down to the DM once again to decide is the mica in hand the actual glitterdust to the spell. Or is it absorbed/ looked at funny/ snorted/ taken to the homecoming dance and a magical "dust" takes its place which cannot be touched. (baring "light has weight" silly physics nonsense)

[Psyren]

If you allow this though, where does it end? Does Invisible Obscuring Mist still provide concealment? By RAW it does, because Invisible Spell says nothing about negating concealment. Are normal creatures still affected by Invisible Hypnotic Pattern? By RAW they are, because they aren't "sightless" despite being unable to see it. Does Invisible Shadow Mask still obscure your features? By RAW it does. And so on. RAI may be difficult if not impossible to determine, but one thing we can definitely recognize is crap editing, and this feat reeks of it.

[TuggyNE]

On a serious note, I believe that an Invisible Glitterdust will still force the Save or be blind, but NOT reveal invisible creatures.

However, if you have see invisibility on and are facing an opponent with Invisible invisibility (and probably regular invisibility too), Invisible glitterdust will reveal the opponent!

[lunar2]

invisible invisibility purge. are they visible or not?

the negating of invisibility is the effect of invisibility purge, and it is definitely a visible effect.

[Deophaun]

the negating of invisibility is the effect of invisibility purge, and it is definitely a visible effect.
Except invisible spell is not concerned about that kind of effect. It's concerned with the spell's visible manifestation.

Consider fireball, which is given as an example in the feat. Invisible spell makes the big fiery blast invisible. However, it does not hide the burns of the victims or make the shattered ruins of the wooden structure disappear, or conceal the little after fires from flammable materials caught in its AOE. It's obvious the damage was done and things were destroyed, but the thing that caused the devastation was hidden.

Where this gets problematic is where the visible manifestation of the spell is necessary for the effect of the spell to occur. This isn't a problem with invisibility purge, as, for example, there's no glowing purple aura that reveals invisibility creatures. Invisibility simply shuts off in the area, just like a fireball does damage to an area. There's no visible manifestation to the spell, so invisible spell has no impact. Glitterdust, meanwhile, does act like that hypothetical purple aura. The visible manifestation is necessary for the spell to have (at least a partial) effect.