Glitterdust in the dark

Darin McBride wrote:
> Lorenz.Lang DeleteThis @gmx.de wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 4:28 pm, Justisaur <justis... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 4:29 pm, "Mark Blunden"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOT... DeleteThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Justisaur" <justis... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f11804e6-9a3e-42f5-898c-670b57b8b990@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Mar 11, 5:21 pm, Miracle <.@.> wrote:
>>>>>> Human wizard with a lit torch in his hand casts glitterdust on a
>>>>>> drow. Dark elf retreats 50ft away from him. Can a wizard see him,
>>>>>> and how clearly?
>>>>> No. Glitterdust does not provide any illumination. 50' is out of
>>>>> the illumination.
>>>> If, instead of a glitterdust-covered Drow, there were a mirror 50 feet
>>>> down the corridor, facing the torch holder, would he see a reflection
>>>> of himself holding an illuminated torch?
>>>> Even if you rule that glitterdust generates no light of its own, it
>>>> still consists of thousands of tiny glittering particles, each of which
>>>> reflects light just as well as a mirror. Even outside the torch's
>>>> normal illumination radius, they're going to throw back a significant
>>>> amount of light.
>>> By the rules you still don't see well enough to target outside of the
>>> illumination of the torch.
>> Two parties 50' apart in the dark but with torches have total
>> concealment from each other, as if they were standing in the dark?
>
> ? No, because they're within the circle of visibility of a light source -
> the one they're holding. Makes them easy to see by anyone, not just
> someone holding the torch that lights them up.
>
> Justisaur appears to be talking about a single torch, you're adding a new
> one to the mix, changing the description, though not the mechanics.
>
> If you're out of the range of a light source, you can't be seen. Period.
> The difference of opinion, however, seems to be whether glitterdust
> provides its own source of light or not (and whether that source of light
> overpowers magical darkness if that's thrown in the mix). I see nothing in
> the RAW spell that indicates that the "golden particles" are their own
> source of light. You, apparently, do.
>
> I would likely take the route that the glitterdust, being glittery, would
> likely throw back enough light to be seen at further ranges from the light
> sources than a non-glittery creature would, but it would still be
> completely ineffective outside the increased range from all sources of
> light, or in magical darkness. (Note that the "darkness" spell isn't full
> darkness, but "shadowy" darkness, which would be similar to the outer edges
> of the range of a torch or whatever, which would NOT negate the glitter.

I was thinking something like that myself, but then the answer came from
Wizards Customer Support:

1. Glitterdust will function as normal in an area of magical darkness.
It does not need a source of light to sparkle.

2. Your Human will be able to see the Glitterdust on the Drow, and thus
can target the drow. There is no miss chance against the Drow.

I also asked weather invisible creature under glitterdust has any form
of concealment, and got:

3. The rules here are a little unclear, however begin outlined is going
to negate any concealment granted by Invisibility.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how you can crit or sneak-attack
creatures outlines.

> Glittering someone and then casting darkness on the area would be and
> effective tactic.)

That's the regular drow tactic, they just use Faerie Fire instead of
Glitterdust.

Lorenz.Lang RemoveThis @gmx.de wrote:
> On Mar 13, 1:52 pm, Miracle <.@.> wrote:
>> Lorenz.L... RemoveThis @gmx.de wrote:
>>>> So, pinpoint - yes, but still a 50% miss chance?
>>> The 50% miss is for blinded or unable to see (because of darkness),
>>> so my answer is No. The drow is visible in the dark => no miss chance.
>> This is what I want to discuss - does drow become visible in (magical /
>> regular) darkness because of glitterdust?
>
> I see two possibilities:
> 1. You desperately want to nerf Glitterdust. Then you could just
> insist,
> that the rules (in the spell desc. of Glitterdust) don't say anything
> about
> darkness. Therefore the drow covered in sparkling golden dust can
> enter
> normal or magical darkness and benefit from it as if he wasnt't under
> the effect of Glitterdust.
>
> 2. You interpret "sparkling" as a form of light which doesn't provide
> illumination, but can be seen in the dark, although the rules don't
> say so explicitly - the reason could be that it was so obvious to the
> designers that they forgot to mention it.
>
> The "sparkling" blinds the targets and makes invisible creatures
> visible, which are two good reasons to go with option 2.
> My common sense reasoning and mind-reading capabilities regarding
> the game designers of WotC are reason 3 and 4...

I want to know the rules in order to make my own house rules if I don't
like them

>> While you're in darkness, another creature might not see you, even if
>> you don't make a hide check (you don't even have to be avare of other
>> creature, for that matter).
>
> Of course. But the drow is covered in sparkling golden dust.

Dust that we're not so sure weather it sparkles in the darkness

>> And by the way - if an invisible creature falls under effect of
>> glitterdust, it becomes 'visible' in a "pinpoint a location" way, but it
>> still retains 50% miss chance (I believe).
>
> Ahhh, you really want to nerf it, admit it already!!
> Seriously, why should this be the case? Pinpointing the location
> is used against invisible targets with the help of other senses
> (hearing or scent). Glitterdust makes creatures just plain visible,
> there's no miss chance at all.

I wouldn't interpret 'outline' as 'plain visible'. there's absolutely no
doubt about creatures exact location. Creature's kidney's location, on
the other side...