So I chose glitterdust as one my spells

[kladams707]

Would've worked great...but the rogue kept rolling low

[TuggyNE]

I feel like there's some context I'm missing here somehow.

[Sith_Happens]

I feel like there's some context I'm missing here somehow.

Sounds like friendly fire problems to me. To which the obviously solution is "don't aim Glitterdust over your teammates."

[Slipperychicken]

Sounds like friendly fire problems to me. To which the obviously solution is "don't aim Glitterdust over your teammates."

Moral of the story: Tagging your allies with Glitterdust isn't a good idea, even if you can hit another enemy by doing so. Especially if that ally relies on attack rolls and has an abysmal Will save.

[KillianHawkeye]

Alternatively, perhaps it is simply a case of the party Rogue not being able to hit a blinded enemy (and thus not being able to apply their Sneak Attack)?

[eggynack]

I dunno. This sounds like a pretty serious and important problem to me. What are you supposed to do if you want to cover your rogue teammate in glitter in order to prettify him, but you don't want to blind him? Fortunately, you can always just cast prestidigitation to make his armor more sparkly. I think that it falls under the header of changing colors well enough.

[Azoth]

As an avid Rogue player I have to say that I would CDG someone in their sleep if they ever tried to make me sparkle in game.

Now onto helpful ideas...There is an item in the MIC that allows you to not affect an ally 3/day with your spells. There is the sculpt spell metamagic feat for only +1 spell level. There is the Blindfold of True Darkness to make him immune to it.

[Gavinfoxx]

1.) Cast Glitterdust on enemy, they are now blinded and sparkly!
2.) Hit them with ranged attacks, they are now denied their dex and thus easier to hit! Especially ranged touch attacks
3.) Have the rogue sneak attack them, but AFTER the enemies are blinded

If the rogue can't hit the enemies, that is a problem with the rogue's build. Also, EVERYONE should be attacking after the enemies are glitterdusted, the fighter should be power attacking, the cleric should be hitting the enemies, etc. etc.

Try using Glitterdust in a game of the Temple of Elemental Evil videogame, and you can get used to how to use it...


Never, ever, include your allies in the 'best of class' battlefield controls that target their weak save. The rogue is not expected to save against Glitterdust, because (wis being a dump stat for many rogues and that being a class with low wis), it is how you shut down enemy Rogues!

[Raven777]

This might be a statement about the decreased desirability of God Wizardry when your allies do not play / roll well enough to take advantage of it. Basically, in that situation, the Wizard throwing a Scorching Ray would have helped end the fight more effectively than a Glitterdust.

Or something.

[eggynack]

I wonder how many ways this topic can be interpreted. Probably a lot.

[TuggyNE]

Glitterdust makes a nice pattern if you cast it on a piece of paper or other flat surface. Good for Rorschach tests.
Yes, I know that's not a thing that works. Tough.
:smallamused:

[eggynack]

Ooh, here's another interpretation. He wasn't shooting the glitterdust at an ally rogue, he was shooting it at an enemy rogue. His DM has ruled it that the enemy rogue can roll low, beneath the cloud of glitterdust, with a high enough tumble check. You should tell your DM that that's a nonsensical rules decision, and that there's nothing in the spell description to indicate the spell works that way. It's really an out of game issue, I think.

[Sith_Happens]

In all seriousness, I think he's saying that his rogue buddy wasn't hitting the enemy's flatfooted AC.

[eggynack]

I suppose that makes sense. It just seems like such a sparse topic to base a thread on though. It's not that interesting of an occurrence, and there's no question there. The only solutions to the problem are to tell the rogue to roll better, or to just toss a buff on him. I prefer my theory, where enemy rogues are inexplicably "rolling low" under his glitterdust, and he's come here to vent about it. It's less likely, but it makes my brain happy to consider.

[TuggyNE]

What I think is that his DM has decided that an enemy rogue can roll so low on their save as to be unaffected by the spell. Kinda like those threads about over-succeeding on some task and dying/freeing a ghoul/whatever because of that? :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Here's a new theory. He's shooting enemies with glitterdust to make the rogue's job easier. However, the rogue's player is too busy in the kitchen, rolling low (lo) mein noodles to care. It would've worked great strategically, but the rogue wanted those noodles so much that he missed his initiative entirely.

[KillingAScarab]

Nah, if we're going to eek additional life out of this thread, clearly we must turn to the realm of slang. "The rogue" doesn't have the rogue class at all, but is a reference to a specific person who became infamous for playing a particular trick, or anyone who emulates it later.

The, "kept rolling low," may then refer to a trick where you fool a competing farmer into thinking you're sowing seeds for them on their field, but you're really just throwing glitterdust; then they think the failure is due to their own efforts to cultivate a crop. They "kept rolling low" as on their profession: farming checks.

While we're at it, we might as well take a look at, "Would've worked great," and note how that meant something completely different. We would say, "would've worked great," back then to mean, "it's turnip season." Which was the style at the time. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/04/25/episode-020-the-quest-to-assault-the-elderly-continues/)

[kladams707]

Simply put, killian and sith had it correct.

The party rogue couldn't hit the broadside of the barn last night. And it wasn't really venting so much as it was me finding humor in trying to enable the rogue only to find out his dice had other plans.

[Sith_Happens]

Simply put, killian and sith had it correct.

The party rogue couldn't hit the broadside of the barn last night. And it wasn't really venting so much as it was me finding humor in trying to enable the rogue only to find out his dice had other plans.

Let's see how his dice feel after a Cat's Grace. TRY to miss a flatfooted AC then, I DARE you!

[kladams707]

Let's see how his dice feel after a Cat's Grace. TRY to miss a flatfooted AC then, I DARE you!

We did at one point. I should have added however that whoever said something was wrong with his build was also correct. He had no weapon finesse despite being a melee rogue w/ high dex and low str.

Luckily this was just a one shot to get a feel for our characters anyway (esp. To resolve friendly fire issues that may crop up).

[Bakeru]

Cast Glitterdust on a vampire.

Congratulations, you're now facing the dreaded Sparklepire, with its Hideous Laughter gaze attack!

[Sith_Happens]

He had no weapon finesse despite being a melee rogue w/ high dex and low str.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/791813376/h145F9F76/

[kladams707]

True. Though he also had 3 critical failures that night too.

[Bakeru]

True. Though he also had 3 critical failures that night too.You use melee fumble rules?

[13_CBS]

You use melee fumble rules?

You don't use melee fumble rules?

...welp, this combined with the fact that my group uses Multiclass XP Penalties rules makes me feel like I'm in some sort of bizarro group. :smalleek:

[Bakeru]

You don't use melee fumble rules?

...welp, this combined with the fact that my group uses Multiclass XP Penalties rules makes me feel like I'm in some sort of bizarro group. :smalleek:Well, there are two schools of thought when it comes to melee fumble rules: "Melee is weak anyway, so let's make it weaker by letting fighters stab themselves!" and "They're fun, who cares?"
(If the answer to "who cares?" is "The party fighter/the party rogue", I'd say it's better to drop that houserule)

[kladams707]

Well for crit failures, I just meant he kept rolling ones on attacks. However, we do have fumbles in the form of a 1d4 of fate. 3 possible bad things and a 4th is a gift in that it actually goes off. he didn't roll well on those either.

[DarkEternal]

I took this spell with my Factotum who is already extremely limited with spells. From five times that I cast it, not once did I blind a single target with it. EVERY single time my DM rolled enough to pass the will save with it, even with things that have stupid arse will saves. It makes me just want to say "sod it" and take something else. The glitter thing is nice, though.

[Bakeru]

I took this spell with my Factotum who is already extremely limited with spells.You know that a Factotum can change its spells each time it rests? If Glitterdust doesn't work, take another spell.

[killem2]

Well, there are two schools of thought when it comes to melee fumble rules: "Melee is weak anyway, so let's make it weaker by letting fighters stab themselves!" and "They're fun, who cares?"
(If the answer to "who cares?" is "The party fighter/the party rogue", I'd say it's better to drop that houserule)

If groups are using only fumble rules from a melee stand point they were never really looking that hard in the first place, there are plenty of fumble rules out there that cover all classes.


Paizos deck is perfect

[Slipperychicken]

He had no weapon finesse despite being a melee rogue w/ high dex and low str.


I... have no idea how he expected to hit things. Anyway, it's his fault for being bad.

[kladams707]

Well we do tend to be more concept over build. And his concept was about running away if things got out of hand.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I would never play a noncaster in a game with fumble rules, ever.

If the rules also applied to weapon like spells, I would never use those.

If the DM REALLY stretched it to apply when enemies rolled nat 20 on their saves against my spells, I would never cast any spell that allows a saving throw and stick mostly to buffs and aura-like effects.

Most likely just not play in that game at all, though.

[DarkEternal]

You know that a Factotum can change its spells each time it rests? If Glitterdust doesn't work, take another spell.

Of course I know it, but the fact remains that if you spend your spell at some point during the day, you still have to rest for 8 hours before you get your "changed" spell available for casting. Meaning at somewhat low-mid levels(5-6) you get one glitterdust a day(or whatever level 2 spell you want that is from sor-wiz school). So "changing" it won't really do that much good.

[Slipperychicken]

I would never play a noncaster in a game with fumble rules, ever.

If the rules also applied to weapon like spells, I would never use those.

If the DM REALLY stretched it to apply when enemies rolled nat 20 on their saves against my spells, I would never cast any spell that allows a saving throw and stick mostly to buffs and aura-like effects.

Most likely just not play in that game at all, though.

Personally, I'd skip right to the 4th one (not playing at all).

[Namfuak]

I... have no idea how he expected to hit things. Anyway, it's his fault for being bad.

Maybe they are level 1 and the OP was using precocious apprentice or something similar to cast second level spells?

Also, I've found glitterdust is most effective when used where it hits at least 3 people, to the point where I rarely cast it otherwise. Someone is going to fail their save then. However, it's such a low-level spell that it's difficult at the time you get it to really make it a hard DC - the best you will likely get is 17, and that's assuming an 18 in your casting stat.

[sreservoir]

Simply put, killian and sith had it correct.

now, now, we can't have that, can we? death of the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) and all that, after all.

[Gavinfoxx]

Show the guy playing the rogue the Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior) and the PHB II Rebuilding/Retraining rules.

Also, laugh at him for dumping his primary stat. Seriously, if the most rolls you are going to be making are attack rolls, why ever would you dump the ability score that lets you do it?

A character that runs away from fights is not appropriate for a cooperative combat roleplaying game where everyone is supposed to pull their weight and contribute in combat encounters.

[kladams707]

Maybe they are level 1 and the OP was using precocious apprentice or something similar to cast second level spells?

Also, I've found glitterdust is most effective when used where it hits at least 3 people, to the point where I rarely cast it otherwise. Someone is going to fail their save then. However, it's such a low-level spell that it's difficult at the time you get it to really make it a hard DC - the best you will likely get is 17, and that's assuming an 18 in your casting stat.

Level 3. And it was against group.

I'm also noticing concerns about fumbles and cooperative play...to which I would reply as to how serious of a group you want to be with. To us, it's just a game that can have humorous effects. Might these cause incidental hijinks against other characters? Sure. But to us, we see the humor in fumbles and have a love-hate relation with them. Another reason for the fumbles is because we do not concern ourselves with XP and can bring in equal leveled characters should they die.

[HurinTheCursed]

Personally, I hate fumbles and would abandon the crit / fumble from the start if given choice. The idea of what is supposed to be a L20 melee / archery specialist is not compatible with a fumble every 30 seconds of fight. I find spending such a long time working and playing a character to have him ridiculized or badly injured once every 20 actions because of sheer luck is just bad. And it's the same for the DM who prepared his boss for a long time, just to see it critted or fumbling. It's ok when you like cartoonous games but I find it to be an immersion breaker.

My frontliner character has repeatedly his two-handed weapons slip from his hands, been injured by team members more than enemies, received friendly arrows or powerful range touch spells... When it's done too often by a new character, you can expect I bring it into roleplay. However, even if it brings roleplay opportunities I'm unsure it's something good, I dislike a character to be labelled incompetent just because the player rolls badly often and that the DM makes it an 50% chance to hit the hard to hit characters. Spellcasters have little chance of fumbling so it just increases the melee / magic gap.

However, as DM, I houserule so that you fumble / crit when your score is XX under / above the difficulty. A specialist doesn't fumble in his field of expertise and crits often there but trying something new / he's bad at is likely to end badly.

Otherwise, Glitterdust is a superb spell at its level and your rogue friend should be happy you cast it on sneakable foes as long as he's not in the cone.

[killem2]

*sigh* another hate of the fumbles derailment.

Listen, fumbles are fine and fun if you do it right. I cannot stress enough the Paizo fumble deck is is equally brutal to all methods of fighting including spell casting.

They worst that has happened is our fighter lost a hand after failing a save.

650g or so later, he was fine. Sure, it was interesting watching him have to fight with out his two handed, and use a short sword, but hey, that's fumbles. We agreed to them.

We don't play the uber duber hard core take x4 damage to yourself and you can't move for 4 minutes kinda crap.

[Rubik]

Cast Glitterdust on a vampire.

Congratulations, you're now facing the dreaded Sparklepire, with its Hideous Laughter gaze attack!If so, he deserves to die.

[Shining Wrath]

Clearly, you needed to have the Rogue take the +8 LA hit and play a vampire. Then he'd sparkle naturally and glitterdust would be unnecessary.

[eggynack]

*Yawn* another hate of the fumbles derailment.

Listen, fumbles are fine and fun if you do it right. I cannot stress enough the Paizo fumble deck is is equally brutal to all methods of fighting including spell casting.

They worst that has happened is our fighter lost a hand after failing a save.

650g or so later, he was fine. Sure, it was interesting watching him have to fight with out his two handed, and use a short sword, but hey, that's fumbles. We agreed to them.

We don't play the uber duber hard core take x4 damage to yourself and you can't move for 4 minutes kinda crap.
First of all, just as a basic, the more fumbling there is, the worse it is. If there are fumble rules that are unobtrusive, then in my opinion that's the maximum possible value for them.

Second, even if these fumble rules have some effect on magic, they will never have as much effect as they do on melee. Wizards can cast a pile of spells without ever making a single roll of any kind, whereas fighters are rolling every round if they're doing anything. In fact, it's rare that a wizard will roll to hit with a spell, and if there are fumble rules then he can just not take the spells that require it. The fighter has no similar method of recourse.

Third, fumble rules actually make fighters worse at high levels. As the number of iteratives increases, the chances of rolling a critical fumble each round increases as well, and there's rarely a mitigating factor for these fumbles. What you're left with are high level fighters falling all over themselves pretty often.

Fourth, it increases the variance in a game that already has pretty high variance. It just seems excessive to add bonus randomness when everything is already governed through dice rolling.

Finally, what are you really getting in return for these problems? Sometimes the fighter will throw his sword somewhere and it'll be amusing, or he'll accidentally cut off his own hand inexplicably. It just seems so unrealistic and pointless, especially for a seasoned veteran of swordplay.

In conclusion, as I noted, fumble rules are horrible, proportional to how intrusive they are. If the worst case scenario on it is that the sword sometimes glances off the opponents armor, and gets stuck in a wall, then the rule is at that level of pointless and annoying.