|
So you're running one of the many many PFS scenarios where enemies have deeper darkness. Heck, it's even one where they have deeper darkness at will. All the lights go out. The PCs, expecting this, bring daylight. They don't have Heighten Spell, so in the overlap of the two spells, normal lighting conditions prevail. They were smart and brought a sunrod or torch, so they can see again. So far, so good.
Here's where we get to something that seems to have severe table variance, and since some versions of what can be done are much much deadlier than others, I think it's pretty important that we all agree on it, whichever side we pick. Now the monster goes again, and it can cast deeper darkness again. But what happens?
If the monster just casts deeper darkness on more and more objects, all the castings in the world still leave regular lighting conditions in the overlap with daylight. So that's pointless. That's not what you what to do--you want to use the clause in the spell that says
Deeper darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
OK, but what do those two mean? It seems that you can ready to counterspell the PC's daylight with your deeper darkness, and you can even dispel their annoying daylight altogether! So if you're like most of the GMs I've seen, you say "OK, it casts the spell again and the light goes out." If you have multiple enemies capable of deeper darkness, you may even be even more devious and have that counterspell readied, so daylight never even happens. But here's the thing--
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
But what about the "dispel" part. This is found in the section under stacking magical effects.
Spells with Opposite Effects
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.
So the dispelling version is a negation that occurs if you cast daylight and deeper darkness on the same target. I've seen multiple PFS GMs have the enemy do this to extinguish the light. In my games so far, I haven't been doing this because--
Range touch
Target object touched
So it seems to me that both of these tactics (countering and dispelling the daylight) do not work unless the enemy touches the object you targeted with daylight. Some GMs to whom I've mentioned this (actually all GMs who try to have the monster use this plan) have not agreed.
It would be great to get some consensus on this, though. Obviously whether or not the PCs can see during an encounter makes a huge difference and can probably be the difference between a tough but safe encounter and a TPK. I think I'm right, but I'm fine with being wrong on this, and if I am in fact wrong, I'm doing the PCs in my games a disservice by making it too easy on them, cheating them of the full challenge, so please, any points on either side of this are welcome. This gets even more extreme in a special where tables compete with each other for a prize, as obviously a table that has their daylight removed from range automatically at will by deeper darkness is going to perform worse than a table that doesn't. I hope you guys agree that we should all be playing this either one way or the other, whichever that winds up being.
|
Your interpretation is correct for the most part. To Dispel the darkness (or the daylight) they have to cast and touch whatever is emanating the spell effect. Now since it's a touch spell they can cast and then move and use the free touch attack to affect whatever is emanating it.
Counterspell works the same way but is a LOT harder to get off since you have to ready to use it. This means you have to be within a 5 foot step of the target of whatever the opposing caster is targeting with their spell THEN you have to touch it as they touch it.
In situations like this it's better to simply use Dispel Magic to counter it and keep your distance... Unless you're a Gish and plan to stay in melee range.
|
|
Your interpretation is correct for the most part. To Dispel the darkness (or the daylight) they have to cast and touch whatever is emanating the spell effect. Now since it's a touch spell they can cast and then move and use the free touch attack to affect whatever is emanating it.
Counterspell works the same way but is a LOT harder to get off since you have to ready to use it. This means you have to be within a 5 foot step of the target of whatever the opposing caster is targeting with their spell THEN you have to touch it as they touch it.
In situations like this it's better to simply use Dispel Magic to counter it and keep your distance... Unless you're a Gish and plan to stay in melee range.
I agree with you on all counts--I think that your post is congruent with my interpretation above, and I also agree that dispel magic is another way around it (though it does have a failure chance if you do that and you may not have dispel available). I'd also add that the caster of deeper darkness almost certainly needs to succeed at a melee touch attack against the person who is holding or wearing the object as well (if someone is holding or wearing it). A particularly clever PC could put the daylight object within a non-lightproof container that would need to be broken or opened to allow a touch.
|
|
I used to run it wrong until I realized how limiting the range is.
I can't see how a GM could really object to that once it's pointed out; they're just mad their plans have been upset.
No, I'm sure they honestly believe that it works differently. These were good solid GMs with plenty of play experience. They give back to the community and run solid, fun tables. These guys aren't going to refuse due to being "mad their plans have been upset". They truly believe that the game works that way, so I want to make sure which way it is (it seems like people are with me so far, but we only have two responses right now).
That being said, whether or not the PCs lose their ability to see is so fundamental in Pathfinder that it can singlehandedly cause the game's fun levels to fluctuate, so I think this one is really worth getting right. If something comes up in a game that is small, I'll generally just mention it in passing later for the GM's perusal, but this is pretty big.
|
Absolutely right. Where a deeper darkness and a daylight overlap, both spell effects are negated (but the spells remain active). It's the Venn diagram of Doooooom! (or, well, not doom.)
Multiple Deeper Darkness spells do nothing to affect this - where any of the deeper darkness effects overlap with a daylight effect, both effects are negated in that area. There's no way to 'supercharge' a deeper darkness effect with multiple overlapping castings in order to overpower a daylight effect. As you rightly pointed out, a deeper darkness cast directly (touch range, remember) on the object emanating the daylight would dispel the daylight spell, but that's the only way that the daylight can be truly overcome.
EDIT: Oooh, that's a nasty idea! A reach deeper darkness spell! 4th (or higher) level spell, but....hmm...
|
|
As you rightly pointed out, a deeper darkness cast directly (touch range, remember) on the object emanating the daylight would dispel the daylight spell, but that's the only way that the daylight can be truly overcome
Just found this in the Advanced Races Guide:
Elixir of Darksight This dark, syrupy drought doubles the range of the drinker's darkvision and also enables her to see through deeper darkness when using darkvision. This effect lasts for 1 hour.
But it's expensive. 1,200 GP.
|
|
As you rightly pointed out, a deeper darkness cast directly (touch range, remember) on the object emanating the daylight would dispel the daylight spell, but that's the only way that the daylight can be truly overcomeJust found this in the Advanced Races Guide:
Elixir of Darksight This dark, syrupy drought doubles the range of the drinker's darkvision and also enables her to see through deeper darkness when using darkvision. This effect lasts for 1 hour.
But it's expensive. 1,200 GP.
For those thinking about it: Page 19 of the ARG, Dwarves section. No apparent limitation to just Dwarves.
However, it would take a spell or another potion (Does PFRPG have the old potion immiscability rules?) to give the drinker some sort of Darkvision to have the range doubled and use. A waste of a good potion, otherwise.
Potion of Darkvision (or someone casting Darkvision on you, or including you in Darkvision, Mass)
Elixir of Darksight
Nice, if you can afford it.
|
Does this solve some of your problems
Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
Let me source this for folks:
Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell. (link)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I believe you to be correct, Rogue Eidolon.
While we're mentioning solutions, though, I feel I should mention the Sun Domain's 8th level power: a supernatural (can't be dispelled!) aura that auto-dispels any and all darkness effects in its radius, while simultaneously acting as daylight. As far as I'm aware, that's the single most powerful anti-darkness measure in the game.
|
|
So let me see if I'm tracking this right:
Daylight and Darkness/Deeper Darkness cast on different objects: You compare spell levels where their radius overlaps and adjust the light level accordingly.
Daylight and Darkness/Deeper Darkness cast on the same object: The second spell cast dispels the first as long as it is of equal or higher level.
Assuming that's right, using Deeper Darkness to dispel is relatively easy. You see the source of the light, so you cast the spell and touch it.
For the converse, how would you even be able to identify the object? Do you see darkness emanating from it in the split second before the lights go out? Assuming you do, you still have to get to it (assuming it's stationary) and even then your touch attack has a miss chance due to concealment, right?
Which is kind of moot, I suppose, since if you're right, you don't want to dispel Deeper Darkness, because you're better off with the two opposing spells active to prevent subsequent spells from having any effect. Seems like a weird unintended side effect of the rules.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
as an FYI---throw a blanket over whatever is causing darkness or deeper darkness and you pretty much null it til the blanket is removed.
"If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed"
|
So how would a PC figure out where the Darkness/Deeper Darkness is emanating from?
If one can't see in the dark, it's all just dark. And if you cast a Light/Daylight spell, you've got normal light in the overlap, so the object would no longer be visibly emanating. I guess if you can see in the dark, you could possible see the source of the darkness, like you can see the source of a bright light 'cause it's brighter? Trying to determine the center of a sphere of darkness seems a little meta-game and I imagine would require one hell of a Perception/Wisdom/Intelligence check in game.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
deeper darkness only lowers light by two levels--if you were in bright light and it was cast-it takes it down to dim light-you could still see the source. darkness only takes it down one level--so from normal to dim.
also someone with other senses==like tremor sense, scent or blindsense could target a npc if they knew the npc had cast it on themself. toss a blanket over them like a net--with neg penalties to hit a touch ac of course.
|
|
Seems like the thing to do, then, would be to cast it on a hand full of pebbles or coins and then scatter them within a 5' square. Harder to pinpoint with other senses and you'd have to touch the right one dispel.
EDIT: Just for fun, what would happen if you cast it on an arrow, and then next round fired the arrow at a target? Would the target be become blind/flatfooted as the arrow approached?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
School evocation [darkness]; Level bard 2, cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M/DF (bat fur and a piece of coal)
Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
would only target one of the pebbles. but yes just like silence--you can put it on an arrow and then shoot that arrow into someone. if you put it on head of arrow and arrow head was buried in target, it would probably be considered covered (by skin and clothing)
|
|
i play a shadowcaster and have had this come up several times both against me and my party and by my own action against enemies and my party. you are correct.
personally i've seen GM's use invisibility and blur to much more dastardly effects than darkness. and as players, just cast obscuring mist and then it doesn't matter for either side! ...very few enemy's have seeking ammo. have your familiar deliver touch spells with stealth/slight-of-hand and there is little that can avoid your effect since most animals have a secondary form of sense beyond site.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So let me see if I'm tracking this right:
Daylight and Darkness/Deeper Darkness cast on different objects: You compare spell levels where their radius overlaps and adjust the light level accordingly.
Incorrect:
"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."So when you're dealing with the "Venn Diagram" situation, you don't compare spell levels. Both the increase in light level from daylight and the decrease from the darkness effect are negated, returning to the "otherwise prevailing light conditions".
Daylight and Darkness/Deeper Darkness cast on the same object: The second spell cast dispels the first as long as it is of equal or higher level.
Correct.
|
|
Rogue: I agree with your assessment. It's still nasty nasty stuff.
Agreed. Still extremely nasty.
So it looks like everyone so far agrees. And I hope everyone agrees that the difference between not being able to see and being able to see is so huge that it completely changes the game, so it isn't something we want to have as table variance. Thus, what do people recommend if I find another GM who goes with the auto-dispel from range version (or the less-common version where the GM claims that two overlapping castings of deeper darkness are more powerful than one). So far, gently mentioning the fact has not been sufficient to convince GMs who disagree. Would a printout of this thread be likely to help? I'm honestly not sure what recourse there is, since arguing at the table is unacceptable to me, but so is having multiple PC deaths over a devastatingly misapplied rule. I guess what I want is something definitive to make sure the rule is applied consistently across tables, since it can be so make-or-break, so I'm probably up a creek without a paddle unless there's an official ruling.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Option 1: Be extremely concise when pointing out an incorrect use of darkness. Things like "Darkness doesn't stack" or "It's a range of touch". I mean, what exactly does a GM say to that? It's not like 3-4 words are disruptive or taking too long, so are they really going to protest? Have you encountered GMs who think darkness isn't a touch spell? I could see maybe a GM not realizing that darkness doesn't stack, but that's easy enough to resolve, being explicit in the spell description.
What are you picturing going wrong, Rogue Eidolon?
|
|
Option 1: Be extremely concise when pointing out an incorrect use of darkness. Things like "Darkness doesn't stack" or "It's a range of touch". I mean, what exactly does a GM say to that? It's not like 3-4 words are disruptive or taking too long, so are they really going to protest? Have you encountered GMs who think darkness isn't a touch spell? I could see maybe a GM not realizing that darkness doesn't stack, but that's easy enough to resolve, being explicit in the spell description.
What are you picturing going wrong, Rogue Eidolon?
So, that's my usual modus operandi too, Jiggy. While I will say that I have found the interpretation rare in general, so far, several GMs, including those with a reasonable number of stars, have disagreed that a touch on the object was necessary, citing reasons such as "When you use it to dispel, it would have the same range as dispel magic, which is longer than touch" or "I just need to touch any point in the spell's radius to dispel it, so I don't have to go to the spell's center--where does it say I have to touch the target object itself?". In fact, due to bizarre happenstance and coincidence with small sample size, it happens that most of the GMs I've played with in PFS who had a deeper darkness at will monster have thought this way. I've seen characters lose expendables and rounds they could have spent doing something else to continually casting daylight over and over and having the monster auto-dispel it (until the rest of the party takes care of the enemies) and in one case there were fatalities. There's nothing saying that either of these defenses to using the dispel at range are correct in the rules, but there isn't anything specifically denying them (since the designers can't be expected to negate every possible variant or incorrect interpretation of their text).
|
My question is, what would the effect of Deeper Darkness be on a character with darkvision who carries a lit torch into an area of Deeper Darkness? The torch casts normal illumination within 20', and the Deeper Darkness spell causes the illumination to be reduced by 2 levels (so normal illumination becomes darkness). Is the PC with darkvision able to see out to 20' due to the radius of the torch, but not beyond that because of the supernatural darkness of the spell? That is what my reading of the rules suggests to me.
|
|
My question is, what would the effect of Deeper Darkness be on a character with darkvision who carries a lit torch into an area of Deeper Darkness? The torch casts normal illumination within 20', and the Deeper Darkness spell causes the illumination to be reduced by 2 levels (so normal illumination becomes darkness). Is the PC with darkvision able to see out to 20' due to the radius of the torch, but not beyond that because of the supernatural darkness of the spell? That is what my reading of the rules suggests to me.
This is how i'm reading it, and why i get confused when it interacts with daylight
Deeper darkness works like darkness.
Darkness contains the line
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.
So you have whatever the light level normally is, THEN you shut off the torch, THEN you drop it two steps. So if you're underground the torch is shut off, and it goes from Darkness to supernaturally dark.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, what would the effect of Deeper Darkness be on a character with darkvision who carries a lit torch into an area of Deeper Darkness? The torch casts normal illumination within 20', and the Deeper Darkness spell causes the illumination to be reduced by 2 levels (so normal illumination becomes darkness). Is the PC with darkvision able to see out to 20' due to the radius of the torch, but not beyond that because of the supernatural darkness of the spell? That is what my reading of the rules suggests to me.This is how i'm reading it, and why i get confused when it interacts with daylight
Deeper darkness works like darkness.
Darkness contains the line
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.
So you have whatever the light level normally is, THEN you shut off the torch, THEN you drop it two steps. So if you're underground the torch is shut off, and it goes from Darkness to supernaturally dark.
Ayup. For the darkness spells, you ignore any improvements to the light level from non-magical light, drop down the ambient light level X steps, and then consult the spell.
Bright - people with light sensitivity/blindness suffer penalties
Normal - no penalty to anyone
Dim - 20% miss chance without darkvision
Dark - blind unless you have darkvision
Supernaturally Dark - only accessible via deeper darkness or spells of greater power. Nobody can see unless they have the ability to see in all darkness, such as dark folk.
So even deeper darkness doens't blind everybody unless you cast it in at least dim lighting conditions, as it drops the ambient light level 2 steps.
|
|
This is why I've always found it odd that people advocate carrying mundane torches to deal with deeper darkness.
Well, if you go with what i THINK is rules as intended that the daylight and deeper darkness completely negate each other then it makes sense. If you technically go through point by point and notice that daylight doesn't negate deeper darknesses ability to shut off other light sources.. not so much.
|
|
This is why I've always found it odd that people advocate carrying mundane torches to deal with deeper darkness.
To be fair, if you're in an area that's naturally dark and you don't have communal darkvision up on the party, then you do want some mundane light for after you do the daylight overlapping.
This is why there's a wand I'd dispel magic in a certain scenario..
While the exact kind of twisted evil we would expect from you, Kyle, it's way more fair than letting deeper darkness dispel daylight from range, if for no other reason than the dispel check is going to be less than 50/50 at that tier unless the PCs used an oil to get their effect (or if the wand has a higher caster level than 5).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is why I've always found it odd that people advocate carrying mundane torches to deal with deeper darkness.Well, if you go with what i THINK is rules as intended that the daylight and deeper darkness completely negate each other then it makes sense. If you technically go through point by point and notice that daylight doesn't negate deeper darknesses ability to shut off other light sources.. not so much.
Well, the text says that daylight is negated and that the otherwise prevailing light applies. Never says anything about deeper darkness getting negated at all.
|
|
Well, the text says that daylight is negated and that the otherwise prevailing light applies. Never says anything about deeper darkness getting negated at all.This is why I've always found it odd that people advocate carrying mundane torches to deal with deeper darkness.Well, if you go with what i THINK is rules as intended that the daylight and deeper darkness completely negate each other then it makes sense. If you technically go through point by point and notice that daylight doesn't negate deeper darknesses ability to shut off other light sources.. not so much.
It does based on my reading of "vice versa" and "so that". YMMV.
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
|
|
It does based on my reading of "vice versa" and "so that". YMMV.
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
"Vice versa" refers to the text preceding it. In this case, it represents the converse of "daylight brought into an area of magical darkness" and therefore means "an area of magical darkness brought into daylight" (or possibly "magical darkness brought into an area of daylight").
This leaves the sentence as follows:
"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or magical darkness brought into an area of daylight) is temporarily negated..."
Therefore, the subject for the verb "is" (in "is temporarily negated") includes both daylight and magical darkness.
Therefore, magical darkness is negated.
|
|
It does based on my reading of "vice versa" and "so that". YMMV.
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."Vice versa" refers to the text preceding it. In this case, it represents the converse of "daylight brought into an area of magical darkness" and therefore means "an area of magical darkness brought into daylight" (or possibly "magical darkness brought into an area of daylight").
This leaves the sentence as follows:
"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or magical darkness brought into an area of daylight) is temporarily negated..."Therefore, the subject for the verb "is" (in "is temporarily negated") includes both daylight and magical darkness.
Therefore, magical darkness is negated.
That is also my reading, but I didn't want to be too pushy about it and contradict the alter ego of the almighty Grammar Nazi on grammar, so I left it up to semantic preference.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I'm open to correction. It's the only way to get better at the rules, after all. Too many people only listen to opposing viewpoints if they already feel unsure. Seems like most people, once their minds are made up, will deflect anything other than a rules quote that directly contradicts them - and even then they might set their own view up as "the clear intent".
/rant
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It doesn't say it completely coats anything, just that the particles stick and the lights are extinguished. Heck, we don't even know if the particles are entirely opaque. So no, it wouldn't cover up the source of a darkness effect and block it.
Dispel magic requires a dispel check, so anything that dispels "as dispel magic" would require one as well unless otherwise specified.
As for continual flame... well, that depends on whether it was cast by a cleric or a wizard. :/
|
|
How is the interaction of Daylight and Deeper Darkness effected by low-light vision?
(CRB pg 173)
"Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and
half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given
radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal
light, and dim light for such characters."if the effective radius of a Daylight spell doubles for an Elf, does it cover more of the area of a Deeper Darkness? would an elf be able to see things that a human beside him could not, because they are in the "expanded radius" that the elf sees, but the human doesn't? or heck, that a dwarf wouldn't?
In a cavern, a dwarf holds a torch with Daylight cast on it over head. 120 feet away there is a Deeper Darkness cast on a small pebble. 90 feet from the dwarf, in line to the pebble, is a demon. Can an elf, standing beside the dwarf, see the demon? Can the Dwarf?
The elf could see twice as far if there was no magical darkness around, but since the daylight spell's magic has a given radius and only defeats darkness magic in that radius, the deeper darkness would only be negated in the actual spell radius.
|
|
the deeper darkness would only be negated in the actual spell radius.Is the "actual spell radius" 60ft or 120ft?
Hmm, you're right that the emanation's radius is not listed in the header for the spell. I can see how it could go both ways then. Though presumably based on the wording the spell's author assumes that the magic effect has a set radius.