Lighting and the effects of darkness spells

[Lab_Rat]

Hey Paizo Dev Team!

It seems to me that lighting and the effects of Darkness spells upon said lighting is an issue that really could use some explanation. Currently you have 2 FAQ posts on Darkness spells and a few threads asking for further FAQ's (these threads currently have 80+ FAQ clicks). Even after a new FAQ we all scratch our heads and wonder how this effects the game. For example, according to the new Darkness spell FAQ light behind a darkness effect is not seen. Thus a darkness effect acts like a black wall and blocks line of sight unless you have darkvision. Questions have thus arisen from this new fact. Does normal darkness act in this manner? What if the darkness effect only drops the light level to dim; does this dim effect apply to creatures on opposite sides of the darkness effect?

I think that it would be extremely useful if you could compile a FAQ blog post on lighting. The blog post would allow you to expand upon the FAQ's already published and be a venue for any new FAQ's you all wish to add to the mix.

Thanks for the great work you all do!

-LabRat-

[Avianfoo]

In the dark, no one can hear your spleen?

[Jiggy]

Lab_Rat wrote:

Currently you have 2 FAQ posts on Darkness spells and a few threads asking for further FAQ's (these threads currently have 80+ FAQ clicks).

LINK1

LINK2

[David Bowles]

This is a rules question, but it is very important for PFS, where technically DM judgement calls are not permitted in general.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Just read the latest darkness FAQ.

Imagine a 10-foot wide, 100-foot long corridor. There is a lit torch at each end of the corridor, and no other light source. So, the first 4 squares at each end of the corridor have normal light, the next 4 squares have dim light, and the central 4 squares are dark.

A human standing at one end of the corridor cannot see anything standing in the dark squares (silhouettes notwithstanding), but the fact that those squares are dark does not prevent him from seeing something standing in one of the squares at the other end of the corridor.

With me so far? Good!

The darkness spell makes an object radiate darkness in much the same way that a torch radiates light. Within the area of that dark radiance it makes the light level, well, darker (there's a clue in the name), to a maximum (minimum?) level of 'naturally dark' (as opposed to 'supernaturally dark', achievable with deeper darkness).

In the example corridor above, if a darkness spell was radiating from a point at the intersection of the central squares of the corridor, it would lower the light level of some of the squares from dim to dark, but it won't change the light level in the central squares as the light level is already as dark as the spell can make it.

The latest FAQ seems to say that this darkness spell now has the additional property of blocking the line of sight between one end of the corridor and the other. How? By what mechanism? The light level in that central portion hasn't changed at all! Darkness spells lower the level of illumination, not block line of sight!

What's going on?

[Ansel Krulwich]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The latest FAQ seems to say that this darkness spell now has the additional property of blocking the line of sight between one end of the corridor and the other. How? By what mechanism? The light level in that central portion hasn't changed at all! Darkness spells lower the level of illumination, not block line of sight!

What's going on?

Answer: It's A Kind Of Magic

[Lab_Rat]

The new FAQ does change how people feel about darkness.

Most people run lighting from a top down setting. That is, you can see everything in the lit areas and not in the darkness even if their are regions of darkness between you and the target in the next lit region.

Now the FAQ comes along and Darkness now acts more like a Fog. That is, the lighting effect created by Darkness blocks line of sight.

[mplindustries]

I'm not really sure why this is surprising to people. I've always run Darkness that way and am a little shocked it wasn't the standard.

[Xaratherus]

Sight is nothing but the translation of light, reflected off of objects, entering the eye and being translated by the brain.

Magical Darkness interrupts the natural 'flow' of light in order to reduce the ambient light level in a region. Imagine that you cast Darkness and the edge of the region is directly next to a torch; that torch's light would normally extend into the region, but it doesn't.

Why? I think the rationalization is that the border of the spell absorbs ambient light hitting the zone from outside.

Now, since sight is translation of the light bouncing off of objects, then you have the answer why you can't see the other end of the corridor: The opposite end of the Darkness zone is absorbing the light that is bouncing off that end of the corridor, and therefore it never reaches your eyes.

...

Despite the fact that I wrote it, the problem I see with the above reasoning is that absorption of light from the outside would impede your ability to actually see into the region as well - and I don't believe that's the case.

I suppose the reasoning could be that it's not that the edge of the spell that absorbs the light, but that the whole region absorbs a bit of it, and by the time the light reaches the far side there's not enough left for your eyes to 'process'?

[Jiggy]

Well, the spell says that the touched object radiates darkness out to a given radius. Seems to me that the darkness produced by the spell is an actual thing rather than the mere absence of light (which is what natural darkness is).

[nosig]

mplindustries wrote:

I'm not really sure why this is surprising to people. I've always run Darkness that way and am a little shocked it wasn't the standard.

old guy talking gamer history:

This sub-school of darkness was present sense 1st edition days. Some judges have always considered darkness to block LOS (Line of Sight). It was hardest during 3.0 days, when the spell write-up stated that the spell darkness created an area of dim light - and players started using darkness to light up rooms (dimly).
So then another spell was created (called Blacklight I think) to do what the old darkness spell had done, darkening an area (and for some judges blocking LOS) - and confused things even more. At that point you had a spell called darkness that lighted up an area, and another spell called blacklight that removed the light in an area.

I would guess the FAQ was written by someone who runs darkness like "mplindustries" does, and will be surprised to learn that most people do not. Or rather did not, though with this FAQ I can see lots of "gotcha" moments at tables in the near future. And the bad feelings that go with those "gotcha" moments, when players and/or judges learn that the way they have always played it, is no longer correct.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

Well, the spell says that the touched object radiates darkness out to a given radius. Seems to me that the darkness produced by the spell is an actual thing rather than the mere absence of light (which is what natural darkness is).

And the darkness radiated by the spell darkness does 3 things now...

1) supresses some light sources (depending on level, etc.)
2) lowers the light level
and now
3) blocks LOS if the light level is "dark" or lower.

#3 is new with the FAQ from last week (I beleave).

[thejeff]

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

[nosig]

thejeff wrote:

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

that is not actually defined.

one of the questions caused by the FAQ was,
If you are at the edge of a dark area caused by darkness, can you see out - thru squares that are not in the dark area?

We've had different responses from different judges - some saying being in the dark area would block your vision, others saying they would treat it like a fog square.

In other words... YMMV.

[Ansel Krulwich]

thejeff wrote:

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

If darkness reduces the light level to dark then yes, it would seem so.

Edit: to clarify, I would treat it like a square of fog. You pick a corner of your square, draw four lines to the corners of your target and if any lines intersect a square that provides concealment, the target is granted concealment. Being on the edge of an area of darkness you'd be able to see out but those outside would not be able to see you.

[thejeff]

nosig wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

that is not actually defined.

one of the questions caused by the FAQ was,
If you are at the edge of a dark area caused by darkness, can you see out - thru squares that are not in the dark area?

We've had different responses from different judges - some saying being in the dark area would block your vision, others saying they would treat it like a fog square.

In other words... YMMV.

Like a fog square? So edge might be okay, but being further in you're definitely blinded? (Darkvision or other senses aside.)

As the OP suggested, if the area only reached dim light, is the area beyond it treated as dim light as well? Giving people on the other side partial concealment.

[thejeff]

Ansel Krulwich wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

If darkness reduces the light level to dark then yes, it would seem so.

Edit: to clarify, I would treat it like a square of fog. You pick a corner of your square, draw four lines to the corners of your target and if any lines intersect a square that provides concealment, the target is granted concealment. Being on the edge of an area of darkness you'd be able to see out but those outside would not be able to see you.

Would you also apply this to normal (non-magical) darkness (or dim light)?

The RAW suggests that you should. I'd always assumed the whole "lines passing through a square that provides concealment" thing didn't apply to light conditions, since that doesn't match real world experience at all, but maybe it's supposed to?

Still makes no sense.

[Troubleshooter]

I don't have a problem running darkness like a fog, given that I've been running games with fogs for years. The biggest argument about that was whether creatures inside the edge square could attack without penalty but receive concealment benefits.

Just imagine the darkness like, say, cloudy water. You can't see on the other side of completely cloudy water. You can't see anything outside of completely cloudy water while you are inside. If you look across somewhat-cloudy water to examine something standing in clear water, your vision is still obscured. Likewise, when you're inside somewhat-cloudy water and examining things outside of it, everything appears cloudy even if they occupy clear spaces.

[thejeff]

I don't have a problem running magical Darkness that way. Though it is counter-intuitive.
I'm not happy if regular darkness is supposed to work that way.

And if magical Darkness is not supposed to work like regualr Darkness, it should have been made more clear in the rules. Though the FAQ is a step to clear that up.

[nosig]

thejeff wrote:

I don't have a problem running magical Darkness that way. Though it is counter-intuitive.

I'm not happy if regular darkness is supposed to work that way.

And if magical Darkness is not supposed to work like regualr Darkness, it should have been made more clear in the rules. [b]Though the FAQ is a step to clear that up.[/i]

bolding mine.

I do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. I beleave that it is better said "...the FAQ is an attempt to clear that up..." and is poorly done. It is a rule change, pretending to be a FAQ. It gives darkness effects an additional property that they do not have in the spell write-ups, and that you only get from the FAQ.

[nosig]

When combined with the common intrepretation that light sources outside of the darkness effect do not raise the light level in the AOE - we have a situation that a creature can stand at the edge of a dark area, and have total concealment, while able to see normally.

I can easily work with this. I have a wizard, who can switch to an bat familiar. My wizard could then cast deeper darkness on his bat familiar, and the familiar could could follow the wizard around, always placing himself where the DD covered the wizard (and perhaps his fellow PCs) and not the enemy... perhaps it could just fly 60' over the wizards head, thus the "globe of darkness" would only touch the ground on the square where the wizard is.

[Troubleshooter]

You can't cast darkness on a creature, but you could cast it on an object a creature is wearing. Buy your bat a velvet collar?

I think your idea is rather brilliant, really, at least when the bat is smart enough to operate independently. I'd need to invest in enough material to make it resistant to being exploded though, and I'm not sure if there are improved familiars with the enviable sensory qualities the bat has.

[Ansel Krulwich]

thejeff wrote:

Ansel Krulwich wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So, if you're in the Darkness area, I take it you can't see anything outside it? Even lit areas outside?

If darkness reduces the light level to dark then yes, it would seem so.

Edit: to clarify, I would treat it like a square of fog. You pick a corner of your square, draw four lines to the corners of your target and if any lines intersect a square that provides concealment, the target is granted concealment. Being on the edge of an area of darkness you'd be able to see out but those outside would not be able to see you.

Would you also apply this to normal (non-magical) darkness (or dim light)?

The RAW suggests that you should. I'd always assumed the whole "lines passing through a square that provides concealment" thing didn't apply to light conditions, since that doesn't match real world experience at all, but maybe it's supposed to?

Still makes no sense.

I would interpret it narrowly and figure that magical/supernatural darkness blocks line of sight. Having mundane darkness behave like that stretches credulity.

[thejeff]

Ansel Krulwich wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Would you also apply this to normal (non-magical) darkness (or dim light)?

The RAW suggests that you should. I'd always assumed the whole "lines passing through a square that provides concealment" thing didn't apply to light conditions, since that doesn't match real world experience at all, but maybe it's supposed to?

Still makes no sense.

I would interpret it narrowly and figure that magical/supernatural darkness blocks line of sight. Having mundane darkness behave like that stretches credulity.

I would too.

Going by strict RAW, however:

Quote:

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

Regular darkness or dim light in a square provides concealment, so it should provide concealment behind it.

I'd written that off for both magical and normal darkness because it stretched credulity, but given this ruling...

[nosig]

Troubleshooter wrote:

You can't cast darkness on a creature, but you could cast it on an object a creature is wearing. Buy your bat a velvet collar?

I think your idea is rather brilliant, really, at least when the bat is smart enough to operate independently. I'd need to invest in enough material to make it resistant to being exploded though, and I'm not sure if there are improved familiars with the enviable sensory qualities the bat has.

actually, any flying familiar with 60' of thread and a pebble would likely be able to pull it off... I don't want to even consider the concept of putting it on something held in the familiars mouth. It closes it mouth, moves while it can see, and opens it's mouth... a globe of darkness that winks out whenever it's the wizards turn (or on his familiars turn anyway).

[mplindustries]

nosig wrote:

I would guess the FAQ was written by someone who runs darkness like "mplindustries" does, and will be surprised to learn that most people do not.

I've run Darkness this way as long as I've played D&D--way back to the days of AD&D. It seemed like the most obvious way to handle it--otherwise, you're not making darkness, you're just shutting light off.

nosig wrote:

3) blocks LOS if the light level is "dark" or lower.

#3 is new with the FAQ from last week (I beleave).

I don't think that's new--as I said, I've always read Darkness that way. I think it was perhaps unclear before the FAQ, but it's hardly a rule change.

The bat opening and closing its mouth is a neat idea, but I prefer using Shadow Evocation to cast Deeper Darkness and giving my allies a signal of some kind that it's an illusion. Then we all disbelieve and are unaffected while the enemies flounder in the dark. It's even more awesome with the shadow related metamagic.

[Robert A Matthews]

That's... amazingly clever. I will have a new trick to try when my wizard levels up.

[Asmel Hellwick]

I suppose the question we, as players, all want answered is:

"What are effective methods of dealing with deeper darkness cast on the party while they're in an unlit dungeon."

[Lab_Rat]

Daylight. Heightened light spells. Blindsense.

And my favorite: Running away