Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hovnarr 01-03-08, 09:12 PM	Two magic effects are specifically called out, but other parts of the item text implies some sort of "complete magic immunity" which seems absurd both for the D&D game and the item price. I wonder specifically if True Seeing or psionic Touchsight would work. What about Glitterdust?
Kouk 01-04-08, 01:21 AM	I would consider it more like just those two spells are excluded, and allow True Seeing to work. Maybe just allow the Dust to block all similar spells of up to spell level 3 or 4. Glitterdust would work fine, since it is not negating the actual Invisibility, merely covering the invisible creature with something that can be seen. A bag of flour tossed at the right spot would similarly work.
hovnarr 01-04-08, 04:58 AM	OK good. Then I suppose Touchsight would work too since it converts your sight to touch rather than "see through" the invisibility.
Sinis 01-04-08, 12:12 PM	Glitterdust does the job. So does a bag of chalk or flour.
mvincent 01-04-08, 02:19 PM	I would consider it more like just those two spells are excluded, and allow True Seeing to work.That means that the subject could still be seen by Angels, Avoral, Balors, Erinyes etc. It seems like the intent was to protect you from True Seeing (but not detection spells that don't use sight to detect things).
Kouk 01-05-08, 12:26 AM	That means that the subject could still be seen by Angels, Avoral, Balors, Erinyes etc. It seems like the intent was to protect you from True Seeing (but not detection spells that don't use sight to detect things). You may be right. I guess it depends on whether you want that sort of ability, to allow anybody with enough gold to have some sort of uber-invisibility when there is not really anything else comparable with normal magic spells or other items. The way it is priced does suggest that it is more powerful than a one time use item that grants Greater Invisibility though, which itself would cost about 1400gp. How much would an item that granted Greater Invisibility but also immunity to See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge cost though? Would it be significantly less than the 3,500 the Dust of Disappearance costs?
Tedronai 01-05-08, 01:17 PM	Since it has not yet been done, I'll post the SRD text here 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 greater 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 greater invisibility bestowed by the dust lasts for 2d6 rounds.The invisible creature doesn’t know when the duration will end. Moderate illusion; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, greater invisibility; Price 3,500 gp. Relevant portion bolded by myself. It is possible to interpret that section as being exclusive to the indicated spells, but, in my opinion, that would be contrary to the apparent intended meaning. Unfortunately, the text is woefully unclear on the criteria for determining which spells should be ineffective if not merely those two. I would suggest that any spell which grants an extra sensory mode (such as Blindsight or Scent), rather than merely enhancing a creature's sight (such as True Seeing), should function perfectly well against a creature affected by Dust of Disappearance. If a spell enhances a creature's sight (with spells ranging from Detect Magic, to True Seeing and beyond), then I suggest the spell not function against the creature affected by the Dust. Similarly, spells that produce sensory 'nodes', through which sight information is conveyed to the caster (Scrying, Arcane Eye, etc.) should also fail to assist in detecting the affected creature.
hovnarr 01-06-08, 11:58 AM	Yeah it's tricky alright. I agree with most of Tedronai's suggestions. Trumping True Seeing is on the very maximum end of the power scale for an item of this price though. I'd be inclined NOT to allow it, since TS is a reactive counter measure to a specific strategy (thus inherently weak), higher level than the base spell for the item (at least 5 vs. 4) AND it has a universal clause too - "all forms of invisibility" or something like that. Detect Magic makes me confused. It's not really a visual enhancement - you're sensing magical auras and detect their prescence before their actual location. Still, if Detect Magic doesn't fall under "detected by magical means", what spell does? We also know for sure that ALL magical means can't be excluded since Dust of Appearance works and it's a magical item. For simplicity, I'd be inclined to limit it to the spells mentioned explicitly. The ability for anyone to get a 4th level effect as an expendable item (potions normally only go up to 3) is so powerful in itself, that I don't think this interpretation makes the pricing unreasonable.