Dust of Disappearance

[JacktheRabbit]

Will the Glitterdust spell reveal someone who is invisible via Dust of Disappearance?

Or are you forced to go all the way up to a True Seeing spell or use Dust of Appearance to see them?

 

[Crothian]

Glitterdust will work for dust of disappearence.

 

[BBrendolfus]

I agree with Crothian, indeed I treat it like any other invisiblity effect.

OT, how many pinches of dust for the price listed in the DMG?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As far as I know the price is for a single pinch of the dust.

I agree with Crothian, indeed I treat it like any other invisiblity effect.

OT, how many pinches of dust for the price listed in the DMG?

 

[LokiDR]

From the SRD, http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemswonderousitems.html

Dust of Disappearance

This dust looks just like dust of appearance and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature or object touched by it becomes invisible (as improved invisibility). Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge. Dust of appearance, however, does reveal people and objects made invisible by dust of disappearance. Other factors, such as sound and smell, also allow possible detection.

The improved invisibility bestowed by the dust lasts for 2d10 minutes (1d10+10 if sprinkled carefully upon an object).

Seems to say single dose of dust (more than a pinch per person)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The description says the person cannot be found with magical means and then quotes Invis Purge and See Invis. That is why I wonder if glitterdust will work.

 

[gfunk]

I don't think Glitterdust will work. That's the Dust, IMO, should be increased in price. All "magical means of detection" is a very broad statement. Some people still allowed powerful spells (True Seeing) to still work, however.

 

[Morose]

We've used two different interpretations. One, that "can't be detected by magical means" is intended as just that... NO magical means. The other is that only the spells specifically mentioned are not effective. Personally? I lean towards the former. They can still be detected by means such as Blindsight, but not by purely magical means such as See Invis, Invis Purge, or Truesight. Glitterdust is questionable since it simply coats the whole area in a layer of sparkles. By the same token, would a bucket of paint brought forth by Minor Creation NOT work simply because it was summoned? All kinds of possibilities here. I haven't seen errata saying one way or the other.

 

[gfunk]

Of course, if you use the strict interpretation, then you start running into some strange contradictions. For instance, the spell Blindsight in MaoF would, presumably, fail to penetrate a person rendered invisible by the dust.

However, "natural" Blindsight possessed by Oozes and Dragons is Extraordinary and therefore not magical.

The first wouldn't work, but the second would.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I think I will go with glitterdust working. The spell does not let you see the person while they are invisible. Instead you are seeing the suspended particles that are coating them. Underneath those particles you are still quite invisible.