Glitterdust vs invisible Stalker

[xyamius]

Okay well tonight was interesting in DND land. DM ruling using glitter dust is that it doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility vs an invisible target with greater invisibility. It only outlines it allowing others to spot it easier removing the need to have to target a square and hope that the target is still there.

What happened is we are fighting multiple creatures one happened to be an invisible stalker that one of our party members noticed on a spot check and alerted the rest of the party to. The wizard then made her spot check to notice where it was and proceeded to cast glitter dust on that area so as to highlight it with the thought it would negate the invisibility.

The creature in question happened to be an Invisible Stalker. DM ruling is that it has Greater Invisibility which is a 4th level spell and glitterdust is a 2nd level spell so it would outline allowing party members to target it but they would still be subjected to the penalties of invisibility.

The question is who is correct the caster which stated it negates invisibility 100% or the DM which states it just allows you to target but you still have the penalties?

[ryu]

Okay well tonight was interesting in DND land. DM ruling using glitter dust is that it doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility vs an invisible target with greater invisibility. It only outlines it allowing others to spot it easier removing the need to have to target a square and hope that the target is still there.

What happened is we are fighting multiple creatures one happened to be an invisible stalker that one of our party members noticed on a spot check and alerted the rest of the party to. The wizard then made her spot check to notice where it was and proceeded to cast glitter dust on that area so as to highlight it with the thought it would negate the invisibility.

The creature in question happened to be an Invisible Stalker. DM ruling is that it has Greater Invisibility which is a 4th level spell and glitterdust is a 2nd level spell so it would outline allowing party members to target it but they would still be subjected to the penalties of invisibility.

The question is who is correct the caster which stated it negates invisibility 100% or the DM which states it just allows you to target but you still have the penalties?

If memory serves the caster is right. Glitterdust is the primary method of revealing invisible things in core. It is common for spells of a lower level to defeat higher level spells if they are specifically a countering effect. The creature also needs to save against blinding if it can see.

[Allanimal]

If memory serves the caster is right. Glitterdust is the primary method of revealing invisible things in core. It is common for spells of a lower level to defeat higher level spells if they are specifically a countering effect. The creature also needs to save against blinding if it can see.

The SRD states that glitterdust “visibly outlin(es) invisible things for the duration of the spell.“

“Visibly outlined” isn’t really a defined game term. Though Faerie Fire uses similar terminology but has more detail: “Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.”
So it negates the concealment aspects (50% miss chance) of invisibility for sure. To me it’s unclear about the rest, but I’d probably rule as a DM that it does. But I can see where other DMs may not.

[ryu]

I mean at that point we're in throwing a goddamn bag of flour at an invisible person which renders them entirely visible with the added benefit that even if they cast invisibility again they don't stop glowing.

[noob]

In fact if you throw a bag of flour onto someone and that person recasts invisibility he restarts being invisible since the flour on his clothes is part of his equipment and so it is now cloaked by his new castings of invisibility.

[ryu]

In fact if you throw a bag of flour onto someone and that person recasts invisibility he restarts being invisible since the flour on his clothes is part of his equipment and so it is now cloaked by his new castings of invisibility.

Yes, which is why the spell is better. Additional invisibility castings are worthless before it.

[Psyren]

DM's logic is flawed because Faerie Fire (1st level spell) beats Invisibility (2nd-level.) For that matter, See Invisibility is just as effective on Greater Invisibility (2nd vs. 4th) as it is on the normal kind.

The flour is not a bad idea here either - Invisible Stalkers can't "recast" their invisibility since it is always on, so they have no choice but to clean the flour off, by which time you've pincushioned them (unless there's a body of water nearby or something, but that presents its own challenges for an invisible attacker.)

[Lans]

In fact if you throw a bag of flour onto someone and that person recasts invisibility he restarts being invisible since the flour on his clothes is part of his equipment and so it is now cloaked by his new castings of invisibility.

I think the flour covering the person turns invisible too, but its been a minute since I heard the arguments.

[Deophaun]

I think the flour covering the person turns invisible too, but its been a minute since I heard the arguments.
Dungeonscape makes it explicit:

Coating an invisible creature in flour lets you keep track of its position and reduces the miss chance to 20% (instead of the normal 50% for total concealment). While an invisible creature is coated in flour, its bonus on Hide checks is reduced to +10 if the creature is moving, or to +20 if it is not moving (PH 76). If the creature moves through water, is subjected to a gust of wind, or spends a full-round action brushing the flour off, all the flour is removed from its body.
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to matter if the flour is made invisible or not; the penalty still applies. Recasting invisibility would still keep you at +10/+20 with only a 20% miss chance.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, the DM was wrong about this. Very few spell effects care about what spell level it is. Darkness versus Light spells is the only one I can think of off hand, where they generally suppress (and get suppressed by) equal level spells and dispel lower level spells of the opposite descriptor.

What's especially strange about the DM's ruling in this case is that Greater Invisibility doesn't make you any more invisible than regular Invisibility. It's a higher level spell only because it removes the "ends when you attack" limitation, which makes it a lot more useful for both offense and defense.

[Lans]

Dungeonscape makes it explicit:

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to matter if the flour is made invisible or not; the penalty still applies. Recasting invisibility would still keep you at +10/+20 with only a 20% miss chance.

I'm thinking that the flour in contact is invisible, but some of it is coming off as it moves, which would make sense with the penalties.

[Darrin]

I don't think the DM was too far off from RAW. It sounds like the PCs could pinpoint the invisible stalker, but it still had concealment and some other benefits of being invisible.

By RAW:



Counter
Pinpoint?
Concealment
Other


Glitterdust
Yes
50%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus


Faerie Fire
Yes
none
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus (RAI is probably "none" here)


Flour Pouch
Yes
20%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus, full round to wipe off



In all cases, there's no rules text that explicitly counters the benefits of attacking while invisible: +2 attack bonus, and target is denied Dex bonus. Faerie fire comes close, but by RAW, all it negates is the "concealment" portion of the special ability.

[Psyren]

I don't think the DM was too far off from RAW. It sounds like the PCs could pinpoint the invisible stalker, but it still had concealment and some other benefits of being invisible.

By RAW:



Counter
Pinpoint?
Concealment
Other


Glitterdust
Yes
50%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus


Faerie Fire
Yes
none
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus (RAI is probably "none" here)


Flour Pouch
Yes
20%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus, full round to wipe off



In all cases, there's no rules text that explicitly counters the benefits of attacking while invisible: +2 attack bonus, and target is denied Dex bonus. Faerie fire comes close, but by RAW, all it negates is the "concealment" portion of the special ability.

I mean, See Invisibility doesn't specifically mention losing those benefits either. So we have to assume that terms like "visible" and "pinpoint" are what do that. There's some level of deduction involved, in other words.

[xyamius]

I don't think the DM was too far off from RAW. It sounds like the PCs could pinpoint the invisible stalker, but it still had concealment and some other benefits of being invisible.

By RAW:



Counter
Pinpoint?
Concealment
Other


Glitterdust
Yes
50%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus


Faerie Fire
Yes
none
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus (RAI is probably "none" here)


Flour Pouch
Yes
20%
+2 attack, target denied Dex bonus, full round to wipe off



In all cases, there's no rules text that explicitly counters the benefits of attacking while invisible: +2 attack bonus, and target is denied Dex bonus. Faerie fire comes close, but by RAW, all it negates is the "concealment" portion of the special ability.

Your information makes no mechanical sense with the rules for 3.5 for concealment. page 151 phb.

You gain the benefits due to not being able to be seen. Once you can be seen there are no benefits to invisibility. Just because you have the spell cast on you doesn't make it auto give you benefits. You have to add common sense and mechanical effect into the equation when looking at what and how things work.

You have invisibility on you there is no 50% miss chance to area effect spells, if the players toss a bag of flour on you they now can see you and beat the crap out of you so no guess required since they can see you.

When attempting to ask does the user of invisibility gain benefits of it all you have to ask is can it be seen, outlined, highlighted, etc or is the pc's/npc's targeting the invisible creature blind to it due to invisibility. If the pc's are not blind to it then you no longer are getting the nice bump from that spell.

[Darrin]

You gain the benefits due to not being able to be seen. Once you can be seen there are no benefits to invisibility. Just because you have the spell cast on you doesn't make it auto give you benefits. You have to add common sense and mechanical effect into the equation when looking at what and how things work.


Emphasis added. In the interests of pedantry, I fairly sure that just before I posted that table I invoked "RAW" (Rules As Written). Common sense and RAW are not presently on speaking terms.



You have invisibility on you there is no 50% miss chance to area effect spells, if the players toss a bag of flour on you they now can see you and beat the crap out of you so no guess required since they can see you.


Pinpointing an invisible creature is the easy part. In each case, locating the square is not the problem. The really wonky part is the miss chance varies so much. Even covered with flour, you still get *some* concealment: 20% miss chance. Faerie fire negates the concealment entirely. Glitterdust is kinda the oddball... I can justify non-magical flour not working as well as faerie fire, but I find the fact that the glowing outline from glitterdust does not work the same way as faerie fire to be really, really annoying. Presumably, the DM handwaves this and treats them the same way, but that's outside the purview of RAW.

[Psyren]

Common sense and RAW are not presently on speaking terms.

I understand where you're coming from, but the two aren't as foreign to one another as forums would have you believe. Specifically, if a given rules term is left undefined in the rules, and could have multiple interpretations - like "pinpoint" - the GM filling in those blanks is not violating RAW, whether they do so according to common sense or not.

[xyamius]

Emphasis added. In the interests of pedantry, I fairly sure that just before I posted that table I invoked "RAW" (Rules As Written). Common sense and RAW are not presently on speaking terms.



Pinpointing an invisible creature is the easy part. In each case, locating the square is not the problem. The really wonky part is the miss chance varies so much. Even covered with flour, you still get *some* concealment: 20% miss chance. Faerie fire negates the concealment entirely. Glitterdust is kinda the oddball... I can justify non-magical flour not working as well as faerie fire, but I find the fact that the glowing outline from glitterdust does not work the same way as faerie fire to be really, really annoying. Presumably, the DM handwaves this and treats them the same way, but that's outside the purview of RAW.

The problem is you're thinking raw as in walls and barricade cover which invisibility doesn't give it gives a blindness cover bonus and once you can see any part of the target that benefit is gone.

I can not find in RAW anywhere that provides validation to what you are stating for a variation to the adjustments to invisibility.

phb 151 covers concealment modifiers. phb 309-310 covers invisibility fully:

invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2
bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its
opponents’ Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). (Invisibility has no effect
against blinded or otherwise nonsighted creatures.) An invisible
creature’s location cannot be pinpointed by visual means. It has total
concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible
creature’s location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.
An invisible creature gains a +40 bonus on Hide checks if
immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if moving. Locating the
square an invisible creature occupies requires a Spot check (DC 40 if
the creature is immobile, DC 20 if the creature moved during its last
turn), modified by appropriate factors (such as an armor check
penalty or a penalty for movement)

Based on RAW and directly quoted from the phb I think it's fairly clear that it's an either you see it and it gains no benefit or you don't and it does gain a benefit issue. Invisibility is a blind effect vs sighted targets effect.

A 20% concealment miss chance occurs when the target has partial concealment from something that effects line of sight such as fog, smoke, blur spell, darkness, tall grass. None of those effects cause a block with the exception of a cloud of flour dust when the bag of flour was tossed at the invisible creature..

[KillianHawkeye]

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that glitterdust doesn't entirely negate invisibility. The targets are completely covered in golden dust! Being "visibly outlined" means that there is no part of the affected creature that you can't see. Ergo, they have no concealment at all, unless they're getting it from somewhere else (like an intervening object).

[xyamius]

found an official ruling also http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kvto?Glitterdust-Effects#20



Alright, looks like I got too cute with the logic behind my explanation. Let me be clear...

Glitterdust kills invisibility and all the rules that go with it.
Glitterdust has no effect on other forms of concealment.
Glitterdust also makes it very difficult to hide and might blind you.

That is all... (as it is currently worded).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Blackhawk748]

found an official ruling also http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kvto?Glitterdust-Effects#20

That happens to be for PF, but i believe Glitterdust is near identical in the two games.

[Psyren]

That happens to be for PF, but i believe Glitterdust is near identical in the two games.

Mostly; Glitterdust was nerfed in PF to be "save ends" for the blindness effect, but the anti-invis stuff is the same, yeah.

[xyamius]

pathfinder is also i think 3.7 or something like that. Glitterdust has the exact same wording in both systems with the exception of stealth vs hide for the -40 which is the same mechanical skill effect just was different name.


For wording when they converted the spell over they screwed it up a bit for understanding how it works since it used to better worded in older versions. It came out back in 2nd edition. I had to go through my old books to find it.


Old 2nd edition:
range: 10 yard/level
components:v,s,m
duration:special
casting time: 2
area of effect: 20-foot cube
saving throw: special
This spell creates a cloud of glittering golden particles withing the areas of effect. Those in the area must roll a successful saving throw vs. spell or be blinded (-4 penalties to to attack rolls, saving throws, and armor class) for 1d4+1 rounds. In addition, all withing the areas are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Note that this reveals invisible creatures. The dust fades in 1d4 plus one round per caster level. Thus glitterdust cast by a 3rd level wizard lasts for four to seven rounds. The material component is ground mica.

When 3.0 and 3.5 came out it went to stating it outlines them which created confusion on what does that mean.

[Psyren]

pathfinder is also i think 3.7 or something like that. Glitterdust has the exact same wording in both systems with the exception of stealth vs hide for the -40 which is the same mechanical skill effect just was different name.

As I noted above there was a more substantial change in PF, i.e. the addition of this line:

Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.
which is not present in the 3.5 version.

[xyamius]

As I noted above there was a more substantial change in PF, i.e. the addition of this line:

which is not present in the 3.5 version.

true i forgot about the save each round which makes sense since the target is attempting to clear the crafting disaster out of their eyes.