How distinctive is "an outline"?

[ChudoJogurt]

If an invisible character has been glitterdusted, ("visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell", as per exact wording of the effect) would someone who has seen them before be able to recognize them?

Or would outline being visible mean that you could only figure out its a humanoid?

Would some sort of roll be appropriate? Spot, perhaps? What would be a difficulty class of that roll in that case?

[sleepyphoenixx]

I wouldn't rule it as allowing someone to be recognized. I don't have any RAW support for that though.

If i allowed a spot check it'd have a fairly high DC, with modifiers if the outlined wears any kind of concealing clothes like a hood, cloak or mask.
All of those together would require a DC of 40-50 (modified by distance of course) since you're basically recognizing them based on a partial view of their body language alone.
That's verging pretty firmly into "epic skill check" territory.

I'd allow a Listen check to recognize their voice though, assuming they speak or curse when they get glitterdusted. OOC counts btw, assuming it's a player. :smalltongue:

If you want RAW the only thing i have is that a DC 80 Spot check sees through any visual illusion without a save, again modified by distance.
Invisibility is a visual illusion, so that no-sells even Superior Invisibility. You don't even need Glitterdust in that case.
It's not even very hard, depending on class and book access. A druid can get up to +37 just from spells, add a high wis and some skill ranks and you're already there.

[Duff]

I would say it's a bit easier than recognising someone by silhouette. You could make informed guess as to race and general physique, especially if they're moving around. If you know them very well you'd pick their shape if they were still, but know for sure when they start moving.
I'd allow spot or sense motive. "Looks like a halfling and moves like a warrior" might actually (for example) be a fairly short gnomish ranger. That level of info I'd give for free.
Roll to get more specific

[KoDT69]

Just an outline is way too vague. I would require some additional parameters even to determine a general race. Is that a big elf or A small human? Is it a halfling, gnome, goblin, skinny dwarf, or a Kender? Nevermind, it was a kobold on stilts!

If I were a player and suspected an invisible person was someone specific, I would taunt them directly and try to trick them into giving themselves away. No DM call on a roll of you do it right!

[Doctor Awkward]

Watch Hollow Man:


https://youtu.be/3ymeKBesahg

That's what you get with an outline.
Would you know that was Kevin Bacon if I didn't tell you?

[rel]

I'd rule that the target looks like a sparkle vampire and is identifiable if they didn't bother wearing a mask.
A -40 penalty to hide checks suggests a pretty thorough covering of glitter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd rule that the target looks like a sparkle vampire and is identifiable if they didn't bother wearing a mask.
A -40 penalty to hide checks suggests a pretty thorough covering of glitter.

To put that in perspective, a stationary -object- has the entire bonus to hide negated and any living creature is now easier to spot than if there were no spells on him at all. If they're moving they're been rendered as much easier to spot, net, by the glitterdust as they were rendered more difficult to spot by invisibility.

To compare, splashing the creature with a flour pouch, covering just a portion of their body only reduces their hide bonus by 10; one fourth of the penalty applied by glitterdust.

The spell more than negates invisibility. If they're not wearing a mask or otherwise concealing their face, I'd think they'd have a devil of a time avoiding recognition.

[Batcathat]

I'd rule that the target looks like a sparkle vampire and is identifiable if they didn't bother wearing a mask.
A -40 penalty to hide checks suggests a pretty thorough covering of glitter.

That only means they can't really hide, it might still be hard to identify the sparkly outline of a person.

[sleepyphoenixx]

That only means they can't really hide, it might still be hard to identify the sparkly outline of a person.

I agree with that. Being covered in sparkly glitter doesn't really do much to reveal their face. Or even detailed body shape if they're wearing a hooded cloak or simply wide clothing.

You could tell their general body shape and size. But a medium humanoid male could be a human, elf, half orc or even a halfling sitting on another halflings shoulders if distinctive features like pointed ears are covered.
You'd probably recognize a dwarf from his body shape alone, but if you can't see the face or ears a slender human looks pretty much identical to an elf if you only see the outline.

[hamishspence]

The word "outline" for me, implied a two-dimensional covering rather than 3-dimensional.

Less "powder" and more "aura".

Kind of like certain "Kirlian photography" pics - but instead of a black silhouette, a completely transparent silhouette, with the glittering aura surrounding it.

[KoDT69]

The word "outline" for me, implied a two-dimensional covering rather than 3-dimensional.

Less "powder" and more "aura".

Kind of like certain "Kirlian photography" pics - but instead of a black silhouette, a completely transparent silhouette, with the glittering aura surrounding it.

That is EXACTLY how I interpreted glitterdust. Just a tiny 2D outline enough to get past the negatives for attacking an invisible target.

[Segev]

I interpret faerie fire as outlining things (no matter which way you look at them), but glitterdust as actually coating the surface. Though I admit I hadn't considered just what the -40 to hide really entails in terms of HOW visible it makes them.

That said...it doesn't give any penalty to disguise. Though neither does invisibility give you a bonus to it. I'd...probably let you ID somebody, if you knew them.

[Duff]

Watch Hollow Man:


https://youtu.be/3ymeKBesahg

That's what you get with an outline.
Would you know that was Kevin Bacon if I didn't tell you?

Nice example!.
So, I think from that I get - definitely human-like. Probably too lightly built for orc, tall for an elf. Basically human shaped head so not a skinny hobgoblin (at least according to most art of hobgoblin heads) and not an Illithid. Short or no hair (or a close fitting hood) - no long flowing locks and no ponytails. If I sparred with Kevin regularly I'd consider myself in with a chance of recognizing how he moves in a fight. Most people can recognise a spouse or parent at a distance by their walk.
But also