Dust of Disappearance

[Jack Zander]

How many uses of this are there until it is used up? An infinite amount?

[Kurald Galain]

How many uses of this are there until it is used up? An infinite amount?

Not an infinite amount, no. More like "one charge".

[Jack Zander]

Not an infinite amount, no. More like "one charge".

Can you tell me where it says that?

[The White Knight]

Can you tell me where it says that?

It doesn't, as far as I have been able to tell. However, if you examine the guidelines in the table on page 285 of the DMG, you'd see that a use-activated item of improved invisbility would cost you (Spell Level)*(Caster Level)*(2000 gp), or 56000 gp, which vastly exceeds the 3500 gp cost of the Dust of Disappearance.

[Jack Zander]

It doesn't, as far as I have been able to tell. However, if you examine the guidelines in the table on page 285 of the DMG, you'd see that a use-activated item of improved invisbility would cost you (Spell Level)*(Caster Level)*(2000 gp), or 56000 gp, which vastly exceeds the 3500 gp cost of the Dust of Disappearance.

Ah, congrats to the editors over at Wizards once again.

Did they even mention anything in the errata about that?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Ah, congrats to the editors over at Wizards once again.

Did they even mention anything in the errata about that?

There's no reason for them to. Because it is very clearly a one use item. Why do people keep expecting errata to confirm that something is exactly like it says? It's a one use item, there is no question that it is a one use item. It has been a one use item for multiple editions of D&D.

You don't get errata to confirm the obvious.

[holywhippet]

There's no reason for them to. Because it is very clearly a one use item. Why do people keep expecting errata to confirm that something is exactly like it says? It's a one use item, there is no question that it is a one use item. It has been a one use item for multiple editions of D&D.

You don't get errata to confirm the obvious.

Because it's required to deal with rules lawyers - people who find loopholes in how things are written vs. how things are meant.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Because it's required to deal with rules lawyers - people who find loopholes in how things are written vs. how things are meant.

Except this is reverse rules-lawyering. They expect errata to clarify that it isn't an error.

"Hey, there's no limit on the number of times I can use this ability, but it's too powerful to be used at will. Is there an errata you can point to where WotC says, 'Hey look, that ability is at will, totally. We really meant it to be at will.' Because if you can't I can only believe that it must be limited to once a day."

[holywhippet]

Except this is reverse rules-lawyering. They expect errata to clarify that it isn't an error.

"Hey, there's no limit on the number of times I can use this ability, but it's too powerful to be used at will. Is there an errata you can point to where WotC says, 'Hey look, that ability is at will, totally. We really meant it to be at will.' Because if you can't I can only believe that it must be limited to once a day."

That's the whole idea of rules lawyering, abusing the rules as written to get an unfair advantage. Dust of disappearance says it works on whatver it touches, so doesn't that mean a single grain of dust will be enough?

Likewise with potions, I don't think it's explicitely stated that you can't just take a little sip making the potion able to be used multiple times.

[OverWilliam]

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of the Once Great Common Sense. It died as it lived; stretched and abused, it's only consolation that those who abused and ignored it at least had some to ignore, unlike the vast majority of the human race. Perhaps we shall see it again in the next life, where I'm sure it will enjoy a reprieve of peace and comfort, as in its absence the idea that an intangible concept might die and/or go to any sort of afterlife does not seem at all far fetched. An eternity of shame lie on all your shoulders. Eternal, undying shame.

[Kurald Galain]

Likewise with potions, I don't think it's explicitely stated that you can't just take a little sip making the potion able to be used multiple times.

I think there were rules for that somewhere, that you could dilute one potion into two potions with a weaker effect. Didn't work out too well, though.

[holywhippet]

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of the Once Great Common Sense.

It's not a lack of common sense generally. It's to do with players being determined to "win" no matter what. Munchkins are often a major contributer to this kind of behaviour. Consider things like the locate city bomb. Common sense tells us that the spell isn't intended to be modified so as to function like a nuclear weapon. There is nothing in the rules specifically stopping it though.

[OverWilliam]

Well I'd argue that Magic is closer to calligraphy than it is to a Type writer. You can tweak little parts of magic (with enough experimentation) because it is by nature a very fluid thing. You can 'bend' the functions of magic because it is an active change being enacted by the caster. A magic item, on the other hand, is pre-designed for a specific use or function. The creator might be able to tweak it at creation, but after that it's set in stone.

Also, back on topic, if someone tried to use a single grain of Dust of Disappearance or a sip of a healing potion I'd have an invisible 'hole' show up in their arm or on the item they're trying to 'vanish' or have a single cut or bruise repair (not even a single HP of difference, probably). Just remember that the rules are based on logical reactions of 'magic' if it existed, and so the unwritten patches can be filled in by referencing the concept that the rules themselves were written after.

[rockdeworld]

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of the Once Great Common Sense. It died as it lived; stretched and abused, it's only consolation that those who abused and ignored it at least had some to ignore, unlike the vast majority of the human race. Perhaps we shall see it again in the next life, where I'm sure it will enjoy a reprieve of peace and comfort, as in its absence the idea that an intangible concept might die and/or go to any sort of afterlife does not seem at all far fetched. An eternity of shame lie on all your shoulders. Eternal, undying shame.

Second.

Like feats, an item that doesn't list multiple uses (or "continuous effect") is a 1-use item. I say "like feats" because the feats don't explicitly say that you can't take them more than once (in the d20srd at least), but you don't try that do you?

That's the whole idea of rules lawyering, abusing the rules as written to get an unfair advantage. Dust of disappearance says it works on whatver it touches, so doesn't that mean a single grain of dust will be enough?

Likewise with potions, I don't think it's explicitely stated that you can't just take a little sip making the potion able to be used multiple times.

A single grain of DoD isn't enough, because when DoD says it works on whatever it touches, it means the whole thing. Imagine, if you will, that a single dose of DoD contains 1000 grains of dust. Then each grain of dust would make whatever it touches 1/1000th invisible (not exactly how the dust works, but imagine it). And since it is on DMs that the onus of specific rules-lawyering falls, enforce it that way in your games.

Same with potions. A pot of Heroism gives +2 will save? Then drinking half the bottle gives you half the effect, for half the duration.