RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 100 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The darkness spell does two things: it lowers the light level in its area by one step, and it also prevents most light sources (all nonmagical and most magical light sources) from increasing the light level in the area.
The current Official FAQ on the subject confirms that applying darkness is a two-step process, in which you first default to what it calls the "ambient natural light level", and THEN reduce the resulting light level by one step.
This question is about the first step in the process: when we "automatically default to the ambient natural light level", what exactly are we defaulting to?
Sunlight? Moonlight? Anything else?
Please click the FAQ flag on the upper-right portion of this post. I've recently learned that things have a better chance of getting the FAQ treatment if it's a single, concise question rather than a whole topic, so I'm going to make a thread per question and maybe we can get some answers. Click that FAQ button! :D
Good luck with this Jiggy. I saw those posts about the types of questions that get addressed for FAQ also, and I think your question is worded perfectly for those purposes. I'd really like to see an answer to this as well.
|
In science, we talk about ambient light as the illumination present without enhancement from devices or objects designed to assist in lighting.
In other words, ambient light is the visibility when the lights or candles or torches aren't on.
However, in common literature, ambient is just used to describe the lighting at the time of observation.
Given the spell specifically calls out artificial light sources as ineffective, then we rule them as not counting for setting the initial ambiance.
Cheers
|
Given the spell specifically calls out artificial light sources as ineffective, then we rule them as not counting for setting the initial ambiance.
No it doesn't!
The spell description does not make a distinction between natural/artificial, it makes a distinction between magical/non-magical.
The sun is non-magical. Whatever applies to torches in the spell description also applies to sunlight.
You could houserule that the sun is magical (if it was created by a sun god)....but you could also rule that the sun is not natural (if it was created by a sun god)!
Lava? Lightning? Natural fires? Starlight? Glowing fungi? Glowing insects?
Perhaps it means non-point natural sources, such as sun, moon, starlight, or maybe a large cave completely covered by luminous fungi. But just speculation so I hit FAQ as well.
Sun, moon, starlight outside to clarify.
|
|
Lava? Lightning? Natural fires? Starlight? Glowing fungi? Glowing insects?
But what is and is not "natural?" I leave a torch lying on the ground and lightning from a natural storm ignites it? How is the light different than if I were to ignite the torch with flint & and steel? And what if instead the lightning strikes a nearby tree and I ignite my torch from that natural fire? Is it natural or not? It is easy to differentiate, both logically and mechanically, the difference between magical light and non-magical light. It is not so easy when we are talking about ambient versus non-ambient or natural versus non-natural.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQed.
I'm fairly sure that, when you step back and look at the whole thing instead of focusing on it one word at a time, the spell really functions by taking the existing light and making it darker, while preventing any new light sources form increasing the light unless they are higher level magical sources.
As long as we focus on it at the word vs. word level, it's confusing, but when we step back and look at the whole spell, in context of other light/darkness spells and the lighting rules, it becomes more clear that this is what the spell does. Or at least, it becomes more clear that trying to do it any other way makes it conflict with more words than doing it this way.
Sure, that's assuming RAI. Sure we could use an official FAQ update.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
FAQed.
I'm fairly sure that, when you step back and look at the whole thing instead of focusing on it one word at a time, the spell really functions by taking the existing light and making it darker, while preventing any new light sources form increasing the light unless they are higher level magical sources.
Except that this directly contradicts the only FAQ we do have, which explicitly says that you "default to the ambient natural light level" and THEN reduce it by one step.
But thanks for FAQ-flagging it anyway! :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Faq'd
My view on it:
All non-magical light sources within the area of effect are suppressed, and do not give out light per the spell description. Without these specific suppressed light sources, what light would the area at large have?
Sunlight would provide bright light. Starlight and moonlight would be dim. Unsuppressed light sources such as torches, fire, lava, or cave fungus would provide average dim light, to maybe bright depending.
Then the light within the area of effect is lowered a step.
I would say ambient light is the amount of non-magical light present in an area excluding any suppressed light sources.
Just my 2 cp.
Thanks Jiggy. FAQ'd it earlier.
What preventing you all from FAQ'ing the other thread? I'm looking at you, 13+ random people!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Faq'd
My view on it:
All non-magical light sources within the area of effect are suppressed, and do not give out light per the spell description. Without these specific suppressed light sources, what light would the area at large have?Sunlight would provide bright light. Starlight and moonlight would be dim. Unsuppressed light sources such as torches, fire, lava, or cave fungus would provide average dim light, to maybe bright depending.
Then the light within the area of effect is lowered a step.
I would say ambient light is the amount of non-magical light present in an area excluding any suppressed light sources.
Just my 2 cp.
Funnily enough, your description runs headlong into the topic of the other FAQ-request thread I made today, so head on over there and FAQ that one too! :)
Reconsidering this question and the rules I find myself at as much of a loss for an answer (or at least, an answer with any grounding in anything other than speculation) as I was before.
So, FAQed.
Wow, this got a lot of votes pretty fast considering it was only made yesterday.
Clicked on it for you guys. I will probably run it the way I have always run it regardless of the "official" ruling.
What it means by "does not increase the light level" is that lighting a torch in an area of darkness won't bring it all the way up to normal light as a torch normally does. Aside from that, there's no practical difference between having a torch already lit and then casting darkness or casting darkness and then lighting a torch. No torturous logic needed. Standing on a stool doesn't make you taller; if you're 5'6" before standing on the stool, you're still a 5'6" person standing on a foot-high stool. But it allows you to reach higher than standing on the ground.The most logical conclusion is that any and all non-magical sources of light contribute to "ambient" light and you simply take the effect of the highest level one. If you have a candle and a torch together, only the torch counts. It also means that any new light sources introduced to the area are added "underneath" the magical darkness because they're modifying the "ambient" light. So if I'm in a dark cave without any light sources, it's dark. If I then cast Darkness, it's still dark. But if I bring a torch into the area, ambient light comes up to normal which Darkness then drops down to dim.Except for the whole bit about "do not increase the light level in an area of darkness". It takes some torturous logic to say it doesn't increase the light level in the area of darkness, it just increases the ambient light level which winds up not being lowered so far so the it gets brighter by one level without actually increasing the light level in the darkness.
And "increasing the light levels" is "increasing the light levels" whether it is a little increase or a lot...
|
Clicked on it for you guys. I will probably run it the way I have always run it regardless of the "official" ruling.
That's the best thing to do for home games - pick a system you like, and say that's how it works.
But for those of us who play (and judge) quite a bit of PFS, we really would like to know the official position, because that's what we are supposed to use at a PFS table.
Clicked on it for you guys. I will probably run it the way I have always run it regardless of the "official" ruling.That's the best thing to do for home games - pick a system you like, and say that's how it works.
But for those of us who play (and judge) quite a bit of PFS, we really would like to know the official position, because that's what we are supposed to use at a PFS table.
Totally understand. Funny enough, a friend of mine is trying to get me into PFS. I've always avoided it (and truthfully didn't really know about it) because I've always only played with people I know. I'm still a little wary but he has really taken to it.
|
|
I play both. We run a 'home' game (actually played at a game store) once a week. One week we play Jade Regent (one low-level table, one higher level), and the other week we're playing Rise of the Runelords with two low-level tables. GM duties are split between four different folks, so even those of us who GM one week get to play the next week.
We also have another couple of other local game stores who host PFS (one on Mondays, one on Fridays). My wife and I play (or GM) at one of them most weeks, and at the other one less often (perhaps once or twice a month).
We also play PFS at three local conventions each year (and try and drop in at a different store and meet new folks if we're out of town for any reason, including vacation).
The home game requires a regular commitment, but we have the advantage of knowing who will be at the table, so we can plan our characters to work well together. But that does mean that if a key player doesn't show up one week, the party can be severely handicapped.
PFS is in some ways a lot more casual; the decision on whether or not to play can be made on a week-to-week basis, as (with a few exceptions) each week's adventure is a stand-alone scenario. You also never know who will be in your adventuring party on any week, so you have to hope your group will have the key roles covered.
For a GM there is less freedom than in a home game; there is far less opportunity to deviate from the script. But in return for this loss of freedom comes the portability that lets me play my character in Texas one week, and in California the next week, and be pretty sure that my experience at the out-of-town store was pretty close to what I would have seen if I had run at my local store.
There's quite a lot of give-and-take between the 'home' and PFS games, too; several of the players at our home game are people we first met at PFS, and some of the players who joined our home game first have now joined the local PFS community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "increasing the light levels" is "increasing the light levels" whether it is a little increase or a lot...And ridiculously pedantic argument is ridiculously pedantic. You're reading "raise the light level" from an absolutist context; in that sense, even a torch, in its "normal light" radius raising the light to "dim light" is "raising the light level" and your position would be valid. But that introduces far too many loopholes, discrepancies, and ridiculous situations to warrant credibility. I'm reading it from at relativistic context; introducing a torch to raise the ambient light is not raising the light level because it's re-calculating the ambient light level and yields the same result as casting darkness in an area already under the influence of a torch.
Do I really need an argument other than that? "I'm not raising the light level. I'm just raising the light level." The spell explicitly mentions that torches do not raise the light level. In your scenario the level of light is higher (or raised) with the torch and your counter argument is kids playing with their stool.
How about this? I tell you to bring me the candy off the top shelf but don't use a stool to reach it. Then you stand on the stool and grab the candy. My argument is that you have used the stool; your argument is you didn't use the stool to reach the candy, you just used the stool to be taller and that allowed you to reach the candy. Do you see how you're wrong?
And how is it pedantic to say the spell says torches don't work so torches don't work? What loopholes does that create?
The real problem with darkness is that the spell simply does not make sense.
First: it says that it reduces the ambient light by one step.
Second: it says that non-magical light sources cannot raise the light level.
So what is defined ambient light? In short, nothing. Since magic light is treated differently then all ambient light is non-magical (sun, moon, stars, lanterns, torches, etc). Thus ambient light is, by process of elimination, always 100% dark.
Now, if we assume that non-magical sources do create ambient light then it creates a contradiction where an ambient light source that is there *before* the spell is cast is reduced by one step but an ambient light source presented *after* the spell is cast does nothing.
Neither version makes sense.
- Gauss
Well I went into this with the other thread but I seem to love to repeat myself.
I don't need the book to tell me the sun is different from a torch. If you need it to then I would point out the spell that specifically mentions torches and not the sun. Also in the book, torches cannot raise the light above normal while the sun raises the level to bright (another difference). I don't like the idea that magic is beaten by a torch. I'm fine with magic being beat by the sun.
Just as a side note: I've always ran it as Darkness makes it dark, Deeper Darkness makes it super dark. The end. Plain and simple. I know that is different from the book (although I think only slightly) but it is easy and makes the spell(s) effective. Otherwise all I need is a torch and darkvision and I've negated a third level spell.
|
|
I don't need the book to tell me the sun is different from a torch. If you need it to then I would point out the spell that specifically mentions torches and not the sun. Also in the book, torches cannot raise the light above normal while the sun raises the level to bright (another difference). I don't like the idea that magic is beaten by a torch. I'm fine with magic being beat by the sun.
This is one of a myriad of perfectly reasonable ways to run darkness. I don't mean this in a bad way (even though it usually seems like a disparaging remark when I see it), but it's a houserule. It doesn't solve the conundrum for the rest of us.
The spell is so ambiguously written that there cannot be a consensus based on RAW, hence the need for dev intervention.
Wow, 68 FAQ flags. I think that's a new personal record. Thanks everyone!
I'm just send my FAQ request through you from now in Jiggy.
To put it completely blunt, your position of "I'm not raising the light level, I'm just raising the light level" is inherently flawed because it's based on a premise of absolutism in the lighting levels. You think that the light going from dark to dim because a torch changed the ambient light level to normal is "raising the light level". That's incorrect. The light level is exactly the same as any situation where darkness is cast in an area of normal ambient light. "Raising the light level" would be raising it all the way from dark to normal, thinking that a torch raises light to normal no matter what the light conditions were before. The spell doesn't say "torches don't work". It says they don't raise the light level; which means they don't apply on top of the magically reduced light level. They certainly affect the ambient light level and changing the ambient light level isn't "raising the light level" any more than a torch would be "raising the light level" if it were already lit and darkness were introduced after. It doesn't matter which happens first, torch being lit or darkness being cast; it results in dim light either way. So your analogy is flawed; the...Do I really need an argument other than that? "I'm not raising the light level. I'm just raising the light level." The spell explicitly mentions that torches do not raise the light level. In your scenario the level of light is higher (or raised) with the torch and your counter argument is kids playing with their stool.
How about this? I tell you to bring me the candy off the top shelf but don't use a stool to reach it. Then you stand on the stool and grab the candy. My argument is that you have used the stool; your argument is you didn't use the stool to reach the candy, you just used the stool to be taller and that allowed you to reach the candy. Do you see how you're wrong?
And how is it pedantic to say the spell says torches don't work so torches don't work? What loopholes does that create?
I get your argument (although I'm not sure if you understand mine), I just think you're wrong. I'm saying the torch doesn't work because the spell says that torches don't work. You're saying that torches don't work as well as they normally would without the spell in effect. If the torch raises the light level then it has raised the light levels. If the torch increases the light level then it has raised the light level. If the torch set the light level to a higher level then there would be without the torch then it has raised the light level. In effect, the torch does not work. Because the magic says so.
In words you might understand, the stool doesn't work because the magic "disables" the stool. So if the stool is on the floor it raises you off the floor. If the stool is in a hole it raises you from the hole. If someone casts a magic spell that prevents the use of stools then just ignore the stool!
Then in that case, the darkness spell simply "deactivates light" and there's no need for the "drops by 1 level" clause because there is no level above dark. If the light of a torch doesn't raise ambient light in a field of darkness, then the light of the sun doesn't raise the level either nor any other source of light in between. But if one non-magical source of light can set a certain level of "ambient light", then any other non-magical source can set a certain level of "ambient light" and the spell functions properly. The spell doesn't disable stools. It doesn't say it disables stools. It says that you can't float stools at floor level above a hole in the ground.
And this is exactly why Jiggy set up the FAQ question. We'd all like a definitive answer to this once and for all.
|
|
While I agree that C2 is indeed the simplest option, I'm not sure that I can agree it's the most likely to be 'right' (as in RAI). If that was how things were intended to work, there would have been no need for the confusing language about how mundane light sources affect the level of illumination. Presumably that text was added to specify some kind of exception to the simple case (although just what is not clear).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Kazaan - You've based a number of your six interpretations on assumptions not found within the rules (like the sun being non-magical; it's actually undefined).
You've also taken other stances that flatly contradict a plain reading of rules (dismissing said contradictions as being overly nitpicky) and treated them as equal to stances which do not; a false equivalency that is required in order to force Occam's Razor onto a set to which it does not actually apply because that's the only way to be left with the interpretation you prefer.
Furthermore, you've also repeatedly ignored (unless I missed a post?) that the Official FAQ says that when darkness is cast, you first default to ambient light, and THEN reduce the resulting light level by one step. This is plainly at odds with your preferred interpretation, yet (again, unless I missed it) you give no rebuttal or justification for why that's not an issue. You simply continue on as though the FAQ didn't exist.
Here's something else that's interesting:
You've stated before that you interpret "torches don't increase the light level" to actually mean "torches don't increase the light level all the way up to their maximum", therefore allowing you to apply a multi-layered system which has a net result (after a few steps) of a torch increasing the light level.
Conversely, you reject the idea that "torches don't increase the light level" could actually mean "torches don't increase the light level".
And then, having chosen the former over the latter, you actually claim to have involved Occam's Razor ("simpler is better") in your thought process?
You're being awfully selective in your applications of logic.
All you have to do is accept that "non-magical sources such as torches and lanterns" wasn't meant to include sunlight.
That is surprisingly hard for some people to accept.
|
|
I don't think my preferred reading falls into any of those categories.
D1) The sun and other similar sources (stars, moon, possibly others by GM fiat) set and can vary the ambient light level in real time. Darkness spells decrease the light level from there. Other mundane sources do not increase the light (ambient or final) whether the source is in the area or the radius simply overlaps the darkness. If you cast Deeper Darkness on a cloudy day(normal light) it becomes dark. If it then clears up, the ambient would go to bright, so the final result is dim. If you bring a torch near or in the darkness it does not raise the light level.
That has always seemed the simplest reading to me and the one that comes closest to the text. All you have to do is accept that "non-magical sources such as torches and lanterns" wasn't meant to include sunlight.
This is pretty much the simplest interpretation. Sunlight isn't defined as either nonmagical or magical, so it's neither, and, as such, darkness doesn't treat it as nonmagical or magical.