[3.5] Glitterdust disputes

[Thurbane]

Hey all,

A couple members of my group have a standing dispute about how Glitterdust works.

My understanding is that any creature not specifically immune to blinding and/or visual effects (Grimlock, oozes etc.) is vulnerable to the blinding effect of the spell on a failed Will save.

Others in my group argue that the spell cannot affect any creature that does not have "eyes" (i.e. Skeletons, golems etc.). I believe they are reading rules into the spell that simply are not there. Am I correct?

Cheers - T


Glitterdust
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (blinding only)
Spell Resistance: No
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.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Hide checks.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Any creature that uses sight can become blinded, regardless of what the source of that sight is.

For example, a Skeleton may not have eyes, but its empty eye sockets are still the source of its sight. If those eye sockets become lined with bright glittering dust from this spell, the glare alone is sufficient to completely block its sight if it fails the Will save.

[Deaxsa]

Hey all,

A couple members of my group have a standing dispute about how Glitterdust works.

My understanding is that any creature not specifically immune to blinding and/or visual effects (Grimlock, oozes etc.) is vulnerable to the blinding effect of the spell on a failed Will save.

Others in my group argue that the spell cannot affect any creature that does not have "eyes" (i.e. Skeletons, golems etc.). I believe they are reading rules into the spell that simply are not there. Am I correct?

Cheers - T

well, IMHO you are correct by RAW, and they are by RAI. but yea. in any game i DM, they would be immune. because it never mentions a noise component. however, the dust MAY still act like chaff for creatures with sonar such as bats... so it might work.


EDIT: i was rambling and i kinda changed my opinion halfway through my post, but really didn't decide on one side or the other. i just made the point that the dust may be considered chaff to things that rely on sonar. Don't take me so seriously :smalleek:

[eggynack]

well, IMHO you are correct by RAW, and they are by RAI. but yea. in any game i DM, they would be immune. because it never mentions a noise component. however, the dust MAY still act like chaff for creatures with sonar such as bats... so it might work.
What you're saying seems kinda like the opposite of how it is. Glitterdust wouldn't really work on bats, because blindsight and blindsense work despite blindness. Zombies, by contrast, do not see with their ears. They see with their normal vision.

[Eldariel]

well, IMHO you are correct by RAW, and they are by RAI. but yea. in any game i DM, they would be immune. because it never mentions a noise component. however, the dust MAY still act like chaff for creatures with sonar such as bats... so it might work.

If it is indeed RAI, things with no eyes and no other listed stand-in sense should be blind and therefore have to move at ½ speed, rely on Listen to locate enemies, always have 50% miss chance, be denied Dex-bonus to AC and -2 to AC (or well, +2 to enemies).

If it doesn't have those deficits it's detecting its enemies through some means and the only non-listed senses are the normal human senses out of which only vision can provide you with unhindered knowledge of the surroundings.


Basically, I'm saying that a creature who's attacking something has to detect that something somehow. If it's not vision, it needs to be something else; if such a detection method is not there, the creature should be treated as "blind" with or without Glitterdust. It's worth noting that all creatures explicitly lacking sight (Oozes & al.) basically always have Blindsight.

[Tvtyrant]

I give all my undead "livesight" where they can see the positive energy in living organisms. That is why "hide from undead" works.

[HalfQuart]

Any creature that uses sight can become blinded, regardless of what the source of that sight is.
I agree with this interpretation.

[Amphetryon]

I give all my undead "livesight" where they can see the positive energy in living organisms. That is why "hide from undead" works.

How do they follow people up stairs, or around non-living obstacles that "livesight" wouldn't reasonably pick up?

I know, I know, physics in D&D, poor catgirls, etc.

[TuggyNE]

How do they follow people up stairs, or around non-living obstacles that "livesight" wouldn't reasonably pick up?

I know, I know, physics in D&D, poor catgirls, etc.

Besides that, there's the problem that certain highly specific undead (dread wraiths, for example, but not regular wraiths) actually do have lifesense. That's not how their lifesense works (they appear to be able to see unliving things as well with regular sight), and it's strongly implied that it's an unusual ability.

If nothing else, by the complete lack of rules for default abilities for regular undead to do this.

[Thurbane]

There's a feat in Libris Mortis called Lifesense, that any undead with Cha 13+ can pick up.

It means living creatures give off illumination like a torch. A bit limited really.

[Tvtyrant]

How do they follow people up stairs, or around non-living obstacles that "livesight" wouldn't reasonably pick up?

I know, I know, physics in D&D, poor catgirls, etc.

Bacteria providing them with a thin membrane sense of what is around them.

[ericgrau]

Grimlocks are blind
...
Blindsight (Ex)
Grimlocks can sense all foes within 40 feet as a sighted creature would



A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded

I don't think grimlocks are affected. They are already blind and don't actually see. They don't face blindness penalties because they sense as a sighted creature does.



Blinded
The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
You could argue for the AC, speed and skill check penalties, but not spot check failure nor concealment (since concealment rules refer to sight which is overridden). But even then it's a bit of a stretch and, even by RAW, more of an ambiguous issue than a "all hail the mighty and absolute RAW" issue. Because it does not specify whether or not these penalties are sight based (meaning blindsight would override them), which is quite different from saying that they are or aren't sight based.

Of course they are sight based and by RAI glitterdust should never affect blindsight.

EDIT: And the general blindsight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#blindsightAndBlindsense) rules are even more specific:


Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures using blindsight.

So I guess all that Grimlock stuff is moot even by RAW, except that it explains why they don't face penalties even before glitterdust. Blindsight also says "sense" rather than see. But I'm getting lazy now. Check the link for more info.

[Psyren]

I don't think anyone said grimlocks could be blinded. The OP was saying the opposite - that grimlocks and oozes are specifically immune to it.

[Shining Wrath]

I side with Thurbane.

How does an eyeless creature "see"?
If said creature has blindsense or acute hearing or whatever else that it uses in place of seeing, then it is immune to glitterdust.

If, however, a creature is sensing light but using something that's not an eye to sense it (left unspecified for skeletons, but since archtypically a skeleton turns its head toward sound let's assume it's the back of the eye socket), glitterdust still interferes with the passage of the light to their eye replacements, whatever they are.

The key is whether or not the passage of light from outside the creature to some portion of the creature is part of the sensory process. If so, the passage of that light is impeded by a bazillion little glittery particles, regardless of what form the sensory "organ" takes.