Glitterdust

[Little Beast]

Hi all. I need a rules clarification on Glitterdust please. This is for 3.5 rules that I have not seen an errata for. No where in the description does it say that it negates concealment. Which that said, should it?

Here’s my thoughts: It’s a second level spell as is invisibility. Invisibility purge (3rd level spell) doesn’t do as much as Glitterdust. Dispel magic (3rd level spell) can also negate invisibility. Darkness counters any light spell of egual level or lower. This is good stuff and I can see the balance there. My problem with Glitterdust is this, it’s a spell of equal level to invisibility and it seems to negate (at least to some people) invisibility as well as force a blindness condition. That seems overpowered. Maybe if it was a 3rd level spell, but not from a 2nd. There’s also no SR. So it seems to give the caster 3 steps of improvement with one spell of equal level. I have a problem with that. You don’t find that kind of swing anywhere else that I’m aware of. Will someone please clarify this for me. Links to an official errata? Personal experience or logic surrounding this? Anything. Thanks.

[Leewei]

Hi all. I need a rules clarification on Glitterdust please. This is for 3.5 rules that I have not seen an errata for. No where in the description does it say that it negates concealment. Which that said, should it?

Here’s my thoughts: It’s a second level spell as is invisibility. Invisibility purge (3rd level spell) doesn’t do as much as Glitterdust. Dispel magic (3rd level spell) can also negate invisibility. Darkness counters any light spell of egual level or lower. This is good stuff and I can see the balance there. My problem with Glitterdust is this, it’s a spell of equal level to invisibility and it seems to negate (at least to some people) invisibility as well as force a blindness condition. That seems overpowered. Maybe if it was a 3rd level spell, but not from a 2nd. There’s also no SR. So it seems to give the caster 3 steps of improvement with one spell of equal level. I have a problem with that. You don’t find that kind of swing anywhere else that I’m aware of. Will someone please clarify this for me. Links to an official errata? Personal experience or logic surrounding this? Anything. Thanks.

It sounds like there's some confusion between Glitterdust and the similar spell, Faerie Fire, which does negate concealment. The two spells are similar in level and negate invisibility, and even sort of look the same.

Glitterdust only lasts 1rd/lvl, and blindness is negated by a Will save, so it isn't particularly overpowered.

[Khedrac]

First up, this thread should have been posted in the 3.5/D20 sub-forum. Your best option is to report your own post to ask for it to be moved (or to message a moderator). Edit: looks like this got moved while I typed.

That said:
Glitterdust does not negate concealment, however it does negate invisibility as a source of concealment (and may negate other sources depending on circumstances).

As for rules text - the underlining is mine.

Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.)

(The invisiblity special ability says much the same with a lot more rules text for special details, but begins with the exact same words.)

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.

Once the spell has "visibly outlined" an invisible creature it is no longer "visually undetectable" and therefore no longer gets the benefits of being invisible.

On the other hand, having some mist between the glittering creature and the attacker will grant concealment (partial or total depending on distance) and the glitterdust will make no difference whatsoever...

[Eldariel]

It doesn't make you aware of invisible targets so you can't really counter Invisibility with it easily. It's more for revealing targets you know are there.

That said, AOE Blind for rounds/level is better in combat than permanent single target (Blindness/Deafness from 3rd level slot) so comparatively, Glitterdust is really good, certainly above the par for its level.

[Deophaun]

Invisibility purge (3rd level spell) doesn’t do as much as Glitterdust.

Give your standard cleric a scroll of glitterdust and a scroll of invisibility purge. Which does more?

[Little Beast]

Personally, I feel Glitterdust does more. Invisibility purge only affects the caster.

[Psyren]

No where in the description does it say that it negates concealment.

See Invisibility doesn't specifically say this either, but that's what it does. Basically, you need to infer from the text. (Or rather, your DM does, when defining the non-rules-clause, "visibly outlining.")

As far as it being overpowered, Pathfinder thought so when they nerfed the blindness aspect if it, but the "reveal invisible things" aspect is fine; unlike See Invisibility, you have to target the glitterdust properly for it to be useful against an invisible opponent, and you risk hitting allies too.

[Deophaun]

Personally, I feel Glitterdust does more. Invisibility purge only affects the caster.

While glitterdust affects no one because it's a wizard/sorcerer spell and the cleric cannot cast it.

[Little Beast]

Well, he could with ranks in use magic device.

[xyamius]

Give your standard cleric a scroll of glitterdust and a scroll of invisibility purge. Which does more?

Invisibility purge is longer lasting and stronger than glitterdust vs invisible targets but glitterdust has more uses.

It comes down to use situation but purge invisible is a pretty useless spell since there are so many better 3rd level spells you can slot in it's space that will give you far better results.

you would be better off slotting:

(Spell Compendium, p. 32)
(left out spell name had to edit it in)

Blindsight

Transmutation
Level: Cleric 3, Druid 3,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature Touched
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

You touch your intended subject, which then turns its head rapidly about as if looking for the source of some sound.
This spell grants the subject the blindsight ability (MM 306) effective out to 30 feet.

further range, same duration and non personal spell so you can give it to the fighter.

Glitterdust is a great spell and the only issue is when they converted it over from 2nd to 3rd left out the it negates invisibility clarification which they had in 2nd.

[Little Beast]

And either one could be in a wand, easily usable by any class with ranks in UMD. My question is just this, what’s the spirit of the spell? 3.5 has left a lot to discretion. And that’s ok. I was just looking for some feedback.

[Deophaun]

Well, he could with ranks in use magic device.

"Standard" cleric. Go look up cleric builds. How many invest any ranks in UMD? What's the percentage? 1%? Maybe?

What's the DC for a scroll of glitterdust? How many rounds on average are we going to waste trying to cast from that scroll even if we did invest in UMD? What's the chance of a mishap?

Yeah. Not happening.

[xyamius]

"Standard" cleric. Go look up cleric builds. How many invest any ranks in UMD? What's the percentage? 1%? Maybe?

What's the DC for a scroll of glitterdust? How many rounds on average are we going to waste trying to cast from that scroll even if we did invest in UMD? What's the chance of a mishap?

Yeah. Not happening.

Magic domain...

Drops mic....

[Deophaun]

Magic domain...

Drops mic....

Do you understand what the word "standard" means?

[Psyren]

And either one could be in a wand, easily usable by any class with ranks in UMD. My question is just this, what’s the spirit of the spell? 3.5 has left a lot to discretion. And that’s ok. I was just looking for some feedback.

I would say that no-SR AoE blindness for multiple rounds is a bit powerful for 2nd-level, and note further that (unlike See Invisibility) it counters mundane stealth too. Sure you have to know where to aim it, but that part is easy if the right familiar or animal are in the party, or you just wait until someone gets hit in melee.

So I agree with the nerf it got in PF, in other words.

[Little Beast]

So what are you getting at Deophaun? I really don’t care who cast the spell. My question is what does the spell do. That’s a pretty simple question. I didn’t ask for sarcasm.

[lord_khaine]

So what are you getting at Deophaun? I really don’t care who cast the spell. My question is what does the spell do. That’s a pretty simple question. I didn’t ask for sarcasm.

Your question is already answered. Yes the spell does all that. There are lots of badly designed spells in 3.5

[xyamius]

I would say that no-SR AoE blindness for multiple rounds is a bit powerful for 2nd-level, and note further that (unlike See Invisibility) it counters mundane stealth too. Sure you have to know where to aim it, but that part is easy if the right familiar or animal are in the party, or you just wait until someone gets hit in melee.

So I agree with the nerf it got in PF, in other words.

The pathfinders official ruling though is that it negates invisibility but they also made it so that the blindness gets a re-save each round.

It is a powerful spell i agree there it has the ability to de-buff a 10' radius for rounds equal to caster level. Then you also have Darkness, Obscuring Snow, Silence, Wave of grief, Gust of wind (vs small creatures), web and those are a few of the ones that can target multiple targets at 2nd level and impose penalties or conditions.

[Psyren]

The pathfinders official ruling though is that it negates invisibility but they also made it so that the blindness gets a re-save each round.

Yep - I'm fine with that.

It is a powerful spell i agree there it has the ability to de-buff a 10' radius for rounds equal to caster level. Then you also have Darkness, Obscuring Snow, Silence, Wave of grief, Gust of wind (vs small creatures), web and those are a few of the ones that can target multiple targets at 2nd level and impose penalties or conditions.

Agreed.

[Deophaun]

So what are you getting at Deophaun? I really don’t care who cast the spell. My question is what does the spell do. That’s a pretty simple question. I didn’t ask for sarcasm.

I'm not giving you sarcasm. Different classes have different strengths. You're complaining that a spell for a cleric does not perform as well as a spell for a wizard. Are we going to get complaints that healing for a wizard is not as good as healing for a cleric? Complaints that illusions on a Dread Necromancer are not as good as illusions on a Beguiler?

[xyamius]

I'm not giving you sarcasm. Different classes have different strengths. You're complaining that a spell for a cleric does not perform as well as a spell for a wizard. Are we going to get complaints that healing for a wizard is not as good as healing for a cleric? Complaints that illusions on a Dread Necromancer are not as good as illusions on a Beguiler?

I have to disagree on your response. You have attempted to troll several times on this thread both times ignoring the multiple different options that classes have to not be focused into just a singular mold. The 1% response you stated vs UMD shows your failure to understand what a cleric can do. They have spells which allow them to use any magic device at low levels without even needing more than 1 rank in UMD nearly flawlessly.

This isn't taking into effect the standard divine domain of Magic which is in the PHB and a very powerful domain at that to go with which allows a cleric to use arcane scrolls. Clerics at start are not limited to having to select a deity but can choose any two domains they feel fit their personal views instead of following a deity which is a standard non variant option.

Not to mention there is a long list of other options via spells and magic items that would allow even the straight fighter in a party to be casting spells.

Wizard vs Cleric on healing is a complete garbage stance both can heal and you left bard, druid, ranger, paladin and many, many, many more out also. It comes down to build if you build a wizard right you can heal better than a cleric that didn't build for healing just like a cleric can out damage a wizard that didn't build for damage out put.

If you also look at healing for what a class can do you're playing that class wrong the main aspect of any caster class isn't healing the damage after it's been done it's stopping it from ever being done in the first place and that is why Glitterdust is being discussed it effects invisibility, imposes a penalty to hide and forces a will save vs blindness as a 2nd level spells with a 10' radius. It's a conjuration school spell and like so many spells from that school unlike other schools it flat out ignores any spell resist which makes it even more deadly.

[Deophaun]

I have to disagree on your response. You have attempted to troll several times on this thread both times ignoring the multiple different options that classes have to not be focused into just a singular mold.

Noted. I shall add "troll" to the list of words you do not understand.

The 1% response you stated vs UMD shows your failure to understand what a cleric can do. They have spells which allow them to use any magic device at low levels without even needing more than 1 rank in UMD nearly flawlessly.

Yes, they can burn a spell slot and a standard action in combat to use a scroll flawlessly. I know people like to discount opportunity costs, but they are steep and get your party killed when ignored.

This isn't taking into effect the standard divine domain of Magic which is in the PHB

Again, you don't understand what standard is. You're talking about building a cleric to intentionally use arcane items. Just because it is an option in the PHB does not make it standard. The fact that it's an option precludes it from being standard. Options are not standard by definition.

There is a reason the word was used.

It comes down to build if you build a wizard right you can heal better than a cleric that didn't build for healing just like a cleric can out damage a wizard that didn't build for damage out put.

Yes. Which is why I used the word "standard." To exclude specific builds. We are talking about a spell, not a particular build. That you are ignoring the parameters actually makes you the troll. I can make a Dread Necromancer a better illusionist than the standard Beguiler. Doesn't mean that the Dread Necromancer's illusion spells should be on par with the Beguiler's right out of the box.

Not to mention there is a long list of other options via spells and magic items that would allow even the straight fighter in a party to be casting spells.

This will be fun: what spell is the straight fighter casting that allows him to cast spells? Joseph Heller on line 1.

Wizard vs Cleric on healing is a complete garbage stance both can heal

That's kinda the point there, bucko.

and you left bard, druid, ranger, paladin and many, many, many more out also/

I knew I should have mentioned Cleric vs. Samurai. Darn it!

If you also look at healing for what a class can do you're playing that class wrong

Ohhh. And the "you don't play my way you're wrong" argument comes out on top of ignoring the actual argument. Who's trolling here?

Glitterdust is being discussed it effects invisibility,

Which actually suck compared to invisibility purge or see invisibility. It's serviceable if that's all you have, but so are flour pouches, and they only cost 1 copper each.

imposes a penalty to hide and forces a will save vs blindness as a 2nd level spells with a 10' radius. It's a conjuration school spell and like so many spells from that school unlike other schools it flat out ignores any spell resist which makes it even more deadly.

It's cute that you think spell resistance is a big deal.

[xyamius]

Noted. I shall add "troll" to the list of words you do not understand.

Yes, they can burn a spell slot and a standard action in combat to use a scroll flawlessly. I know people like to discount opportunity costs, but they are steep and get your party killed when ignored.

Again, you don't understand what standard is. You're talking about building a cleric to intentionally use arcane items. Just because it is an option in the PHB does not make it standard. The fact that it's an option precludes it from being standard. Options are not standard by definition.

There is a reason the word was used.

Yes. Which is why I used the word "standard." To exclude specific builds. We are talking about a spell, not a particular build. That you are ignoring the parameters actually makes you the troll. I can make a Dread Necromancer a better illusionist than the standard Beguiler. Doesn't mean that the Dread Necromancer's illusion spells should be on par with the Beguiler's right out of the box.

This will be fun: what spell is the straight fighter casting that allows him to cast spells? Joseph Heller on line 1.

That's kinda the point there, bucko.

I knew I should have mentioned Cleric vs. Samurai. Darn it!

Ohhh. And the "you don't play my way you're wrong" argument comes out on top of ignoring the actual argument. Who's trolling here?

Which actually suck compared to invisibility purge or see invisibility. It's serviceable if that's all you have, but so are flour pouches, and they only cost 1 copper each.

It's cute that you think spell resistance is a big deal.

Oh great knowledgeable one who knows all and refuses to acknowledge op's question may you please spare a moment of your great wisdom and grand intelligence to assist such a meager minor mortal in helping him on such a trivial question since it seems to taxing of you as of yet to do such a thing. That is if it pleases thee. So his quest may come yet to a close.

[Chronikoce]

It's strong but not too strong in my experience.

Nothing really has spell resistance anyway when you gain access to it so that part is not an issue.

You have to know where to aim it to actually use vs an invisible target. It's area of effect is quite limited and a smart opponent shouldn't be giving its position away while invisible.

The blindness is a nice debuff but it's temporary.

In actual gameplay I've seen it most often used vs low-level groups of unintelligent bad guys who are grouped up for the blind. I've seen it used one time for anti invisibility and it took the sorcerer 2 or 3 tries to catch the enemy in the area of effect.