A Practical Guide to Light and Darkness


Rules Questions

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

ajulieinajar wrote:
Kazaan wrote:


But magical darkness is "opaque" or at least "translucent" darkness in that it even blocks your vision of what is going on outside its area of effect. It's like a sphere of inky black air.
I have to disagree. The spell description for darkness doesn't indicate this opaqueness at all. It discusses light levels only. Furthermore, it specifies that creatures with darkvision are at no disadvantage in magically created dim or dark levels of light.

It was clarified as such via FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?

No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with those who have issue with the FAQ interpretation. There is nothing in the rules or common sense that would allow "natural ambient light" to function in a Darkness spell, while a much brighter torch (with natural fire, I might add) cannot function at all.

Here is the problem that I see. Everyone is equating "increasing the light level" as being synonymous with "functioning." I believe this is incorrect. Light sources have two functions or aspects: (1) they shed light in a given area, which means the light in the immediate vicinity becomes the specified level (there is no "increasing" per se); and (2) outside of this immediate area, they "increase the light level." This is different than 3.5, so it is significant.

Here are a couple examples of light source descriptions:
Torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius and increasing the light level by one step for an additional 20 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light).

Lantern, Hooded: A hooded lantern sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light)

All light sources that I looked at have similar descriptions. Thus, when the Darkness spell specifies that non-magical light sources "do not increase the light level," it sure seems to me that it is referencing only this second aspect/ability of light sources. The first aspect is "covered" under the spell because the level gets reduced by 1 level.

If the RAW intended non-magical light sources to simply not work at all within a Darkness spell, why didn't they use such language instead of the "increase the light level" language that exactly matches the second ability of light sources? If it did say "did not function" then I would have no argument with the FAQ (although I think it still would be overpowered, but it would be a logical interpretation of the rule). I don't think it is a coincidence that it used the "increase" language.

So, in my view, according to RAW, FAQ notwithstanding, a Torch would function within a Darkness spell because it sheds Normal light, which would be reduced 1 level per the Darkness spell to Dim wherever the 20' radius of the Torch intersected with the spell. However, anywhere outside that 20' radius, where the Torch would normally increase the light level by 1 level, it does not increase at all in areas that are covered by the spell.

This seems much more in line with a second-level spell, IMHO, and more importantly, it actually uses the plain language of the rules, instead of interjecting some "natural ambient light level" aspect that is not present anywhere in the rules that I can tell.

Silver Crusade

Excellent! I never thought of it this way before, but now you've pointed it out, you're totally right! It all makes sense. : )

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So what you're saying is that, when I walk into a cave whose light level is currently "dark", and then use an item to cause the light level to become "normal light", I haven't increased the light level? Because you would have to agree with that assertion for your interpretation to be valid.

If you honestly think that changing the light level from dark to normal doesn't count as increasing the light level, well, I hope you enjoy your game but outside your own table you're just plain wrong.

Silver Crusade

I can see Xalton's point, Jiggy.

The game itself uses words which have a game mechanics definition, which may or may not correspond with the normal meaning of that word.

For example, 'prone' in normal language means 'lying face down', and if you were to lie on your back that would be 'supine', not 'prone'. But the game definition of 'prone' doesn't make this distinction.

In terms of normal language, lighting a torch in a dark cavern can certainly be said to be 'increasing the light level', but as he points out, the phrase 'increasing the light level' is a rules phrase restricted to the ring of illumination outside the radius directly surrounding the light source. In rules terms, that central area does not 'increase the light levels' in rules language, it is simply set at a certain illumination level.

Since he's taking that phrase as a defined rules term (which is fair enough), then saying that the common use of language can be used a different way from the rules definition carries little weight.


OTOH, using that to dismiss an actual FAQ answer seems a bit of a stretch.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The game itself uses words which have a game mechanics definition, which may or may not correspond with the normal meaning of that word.

Terms with a special game definition that differs from normal english usage are typically called out as such by being explicitly defined in the rules. (To use your "prone" example, the rules list it as a condition in the glossary and define it as "The character is lying on the ground.")

No such defining is done for "increase", so treating it as meaning something special is just making things up.

Even if we infer the possibility of such meaning (using the thought process he outlined), then at best we end up with a situation of "This could mean X or it could mean Y, and then the FAQ tells us which it is."

Which is very different from "The rules say X but the FAQ comes out of left field with Y!"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The game itself uses words which have a game mechanics definition, which may or may not correspond with the normal meaning of that word.

Terms with a special game definition that differs from normal english usage are typically called out as such by being explicitly defined in the rules. (To use your "prone" example, the rules list it as a condition in the glossary and define it as "The character is lying on the ground.")

No such defining is done for "increase", so treating it as meaning something special is just making things up.

Even if we infer the possibility of such meaning (using the thought process he outlined), then at best we end up with a situation of "This could mean X or it could mean Y, and then the FAQ tells us which it is."

Which is very different from "The rules say X but the FAQ comes out of left field with Y!"

I actually don't disagree with any of that, Jiggy.

How D&D and its descendants treat darkness spells, and how they interact with both light spells and non-magical light sources (including the frustratingly undefined 'ambient' light sources), has always been difficult.

Each edition seems to improve on this, without solving it. I had high hopes when I first read PF's 'light levels', and it is a definite improvement on 3.5, but PF's total stance on this subject remains unsatisfactory, and this FAQ hasn't made it satisfactory.

The suggestion above shows the way toward a satisfactory conclusion. I dream of a day when these rules are that when the area of a darkness and a light spell intersect then the lower level spell has no effect in the intersecting area while the higher level spell continues unaffected by the lower level spell. I dream of a day when a non-magical light source can set the level of ambient illumination within an area of magical darkness (which is then reduced by the number of steps that the darkness spell says it does, while (per the darkness spell) the non-magical light source, having set the light level in the area surrounding the light source, is unable to increase the light level in the area surrounding that central area, like the rules say it (usually) does.

Quote:
See Table: Light Sources and Illumination for the radius that a light source illuminates and how long it lasts. The increased entry indicates an area outside the lit radius in which the light level is increased by one step (from darkness to dim light, for example)

So, a torch sets the level of illumination to 'normal' within a 20-foot radius (which would be reduced by one or two levels, depending on the particular darkness spell), and increases the level of illumination in an area outside the 'lit' radius (this 'increasing of the level of illumination' is what is prevented by darkness spells).

I'm not saying that's the official position; I'm saying that the official position is terribly flawed (although less flawed than previous editions), and that this suggested interpretation is the way forward toward vision and light rules that are fit for purpose.


Of course, with the current wording and this interpretation of "do not increase the light level in an area of darkness", magical light sources would do exactly the same thing as non-magical ones. Light and Continual Flame both are equivalent to a torch.

I'm not sure why you would want a standard torch to work better in magical Darkness than a magical one.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:

Of course, with the current wording and this interpretation of "do not increase the light level in an area of darkness", magical light sources would do exactly the same thing as non-magical ones. Light and Continual Flame both are equivalent to a torch.

I'm not sure why you would want a standard torch to work better in magical Darkness than a magical one.

Because:-

Darkness wrote:
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

A non-magical torch is not better than a magical equivalent.


Good stuff. Thanks Jiggy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
OTOH, using that to dismiss an actual FAQ answer seems a bit of a stretch.

Except for the fact that the question in the FAQ didn't even raise this point. The question was "Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?" The answer was "No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light." If the answer ended here, I would have no problem. Sunrods are nonmagical, so the question seems a bit silly for a FAQ on its surface. But the answer continued, "In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level (the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on), and then reduces it one step."

IMHO, everything after the first sentence in that answer was unnecessary in order to answer the question. There is no question that sunrods are nonmagical, so of course no matter how many you have, you cannot "increase" the light level in darkness. For me, anyway, it is hard to give a lot of weight to such an "answer" when it wasn't even pertinent to the question. In other words, how much thought and analysis do we think really went into that answer when the question posed did not even implicate that aspect of the answer? Did the person who posted the answer even realize the "increase" aspect of light sources? As Malachi noted, lots of people have missed this. (And on an unrelated topic, even Pazio's James Jacobs admitted that he was not a computer and did not know every rule printed.) :P

And Jiggy, yes the word "increase" certainly has a commonly understood meaning in English. But when the rules call out that light sources have two aspects, and one of which is "increase the light level," and later a rule says that certain light sources "do not increase the light level," it is easy to interpret that they only were referencing that aspect. In addition to the two entries I listed for torch and lantern, they even reiterate this special "increase" aspect in their table:

Table: Light Sources and Illumination
Object Normal Increased Duration
Candle n/a 5 ft. 1 hr.
Everburning torch 20 ft. 40 ft. Permanent
Lamp, common 15 ft. 30 ft. 6 hr./pint
Lantern, bullseye 60-ft. cone 120-ft. cone 6 hr./pint
Lantern, hooded 30 ft. 60 ft. 6 hr./pint
Sunrod 30 ft. 60 ft. 6 hr.
Torch 20 ft. 40 ft. 1 hr.

Spell Normal Increase Duration
Continual flame 20 ft. 40 ft. Permanent
Daylight 60 ft. 120 ft. 10 min./level
Light 20 ft. 40 ft. 10 min./level

You have to admit that the use in the darkness spell of the phrase "do not increase the light level" seems like an odd way to simply state "does not work" or "does not function" or "does not illuminate." Why add a somewhat nuanced phrase like "increase the light level" when you just intend to say that it doesn't work? I think it's because whoever authored the darkness spell in the first place only intended to limit this "increase" ability and not everything. Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure, unless that person speaks up. But I don't think it was a coincidence that the darkness spell uses the exact language found in the light source section.

Regardless, even if one accepts the FAQ response at face value, how does that response reconcile with common sense? We are to believe that the darkness spell can distinguish the nonmagical moon light (works but gets lessened) from the nonmagical light generated by a nearby large city (doesn't work)? Why? I cannot see logical way to explain this away.

Anyway, not trying to ruffle any feathers here. Normally, I would agree with you, Jiggy, that Pazio has spoken on the issue, and if we don't like it, we should just house rule it. :) But because of the way the question was posed to them in the FAQ and because of the apparent lack of common sense on its face, I don't have a lot of confidence in the dicta in their answer, unfortunately. I think the interpretation I provide is true to the text of the rules and also is much more in line powerwise for a 2nd-level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has "spoken on the issue" regarding Flurry of Blows requiring two weapons (and then reversed their position), on Half-Elves and Half-Orcs not qualifying for racial archetypes while Humans with Racial Heritage do (also changed for consistency), and Haste doesn't work with Spell Combat because it isn't technically the full-attack action (also reversed). If they make a FAQ ruling that is nonsensical, people are fully justified in bringing up the question as to whether that was the correct answer to give. And, sometimes, they change it to a more sensible answer. I think that's the case here. There's a definite pattern to the verbiage used in the Darkness spell that matches up with the pattern of verbiage for the Light/Illumination rules and it points towards a mechanical distinction between Normal being considered Ambient while Increased being, mechanically, a different animal altogether.


Question:
I have a object with Continual Flame cast on it and I walk into a naturally dark area that is also affected by deeper darkness.

I then cast Daylight. Daylight "temporarily negates" deeper darkness and causes the "otherwise prevailing light conditions" to control.

Is it now dark or normal?

a) Dark, because "prevailing" means the same thing as "natural".

b) Normal, because "otherwise prevailing light conditions" means what the light level would have been without either of the two "negated" spells.


Given that the official rules for light & darkness are still "WAARGGHHHAARRRBBBBLLLL", I'll just continue to use the much easier and much more playable rules I already posted.

Also, the discussion of whether or not a torch "increases light level" is disingenuous and silly. The rules use natural language all the god damn time and you know it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy's guide is helpful, but I feel like what we really need is a bit of an idiot's guide to Light and Darkness.

That is, in each light level, what happens when you bring a specific type of light and darkness into it?

Something like this (and this is completely wrong; just an example of layout):

Dim Light
Sunrod: 20ft area around sunrod becomes Normal Light
Light spell: 20ft area around target of light spell becomes Normal Light
Daylight spell: xft area around target of daylight spell becomes Bright Light
Deeper Darkness spell: xft area around target becomes Supernatural Darkness.

Darkness
Sunrod: etc
Everburning Torch: etc
Continual Flame spell: etc

etc etc.

I feel like that's the only real way this is going to ever be clearly understood.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Question:

I have a object with Continual Flame cast on it and I walk into a naturally dark area that is also affected by deeper darkness.

I then cast Daylight. Daylight "temporarily negates" deeper darkness and causes the "otherwise prevailing light conditions" to control.

Is it now dark or normal?

a) Dark, because "prevailing" means the same thing as "natural".

b) Normal, because "otherwise prevailing light conditions" means what the light level would have been without either of the two "negated" spells.

I believe it to be "b", because that's what a plain-English, common-sense reading of "otherwise prevailing" means: that which would be prevailing otherwise.

"Prevailing" means, more or less, "winning out over something else". "Otherwise" means "if this here weren't going on".

So if the presence of the currently negated spells weren't going on, what light level would currently be "winning"?

Well, in the situation you described, it would be the light shed by your continual flame. To get the answer to be anything else, you would have to insert new rules of your own or torture the meaning of "otherwise prevailing" beyond recognition.


Jiggy wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Question:

I have a object with Continual Flame cast on it and I walk into a naturally dark area that is also affected by deeper darkness.

I then cast Daylight. Daylight "temporarily negates" deeper darkness and causes the "otherwise prevailing light conditions" to control.

Is it now dark or normal?

a) Dark, because "prevailing" means the same thing as "natural".

b) Normal, because "otherwise prevailing light conditions" means what the light level would have been without either of the two "negated" spells.

I believe it to be "b", because that's what a plain-English, common-sense reading of "otherwise prevailing" means: that which would be prevailing otherwise.

"Prevailing" means, more or less, "winning out over something else". "Otherwise" means "if this here weren't going on".

So if the presence of the currently negated spells weren't going on, what light level would currently be "winning"?

Well, in the situation you described, it would be the light shed by your continual flame. To get the answer to be anything else, you would have to insert new rules of your own or torture the meaning of "otherwise prevailing" beyond recognition.

Which also suggests that another (Deeper) Darkness would return the area to (supernatural) darkness, since the Daylight is already negated.

Sadly there are monsters with at-will (Deeper?)Darkness abilities. They always win.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Question:

I have a object with Continual Flame cast on it and I walk into a naturally dark area that is also affected by deeper darkness.

I then cast Daylight. Daylight "temporarily negates" deeper darkness and causes the "otherwise prevailing light conditions" to control.

Is it now dark or normal?

a) Dark, because "prevailing" means the same thing as "natural".

b) Normal, because "otherwise prevailing light conditions" means what the light level would have been without either of the two "negated" spells.

I believe it to be "b", because that's what a plain-English, common-sense reading of "otherwise prevailing" means: that which would be prevailing otherwise.

"Prevailing" means, more or less, "winning out over something else". "Otherwise" means "if this here weren't going on".

So if the presence of the currently negated spells weren't going on, what light level would currently be "winning"?

Well, in the situation you described, it would be the light shed by your continual flame. To get the answer to be anything else, you would have to insert new rules of your own or torture the meaning of "otherwise prevailing" beyond recognition.

Which also suggests that another (Deeper) Darkness would return the area to (supernatural) darkness, since the Daylight is already negated.

Possibly. But remember that daylight doesn't just say "negated", it says "negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist". That could be read to mean that everything after the comma is defining the way in which the spells are negated. That is, any element of either spell whose negation would not lead to the existence of the otherwise prevailing light conditions is NOT negated.

Can't prove that one, but it's an idea.

Quote:
Sadly there are monsters with at-will (Deeper?)Darkness abilities. They always win.

8th-level Sun cleric.

Heightened light effects.


There are a couple spells in Inner Sea Gods that provide counters to Darkness:

Shield of the Dawnflower, Greater is a 6th level Cleric, Bard, Magus spell that, among other things, counts as Daylight.

Unwelcome Halo is a 1st level Cleric, Paladin, Wizard spell that seems to be an attack spell, not allowing the target to get any bonuses from concealment. More importantly, however, is the last line: "If Unwelcome Halo is brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa), the effects of both spells are temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist within the overlapping field of effect."

So we've now got a counter to Deeper Darkness for 50gp a pop in the form of an oil of Unwelcome Halo. Or you've got 50 uses in the form of a wand for the same price of a single oil of Daylight to counter the at-will Darkness spammers.

Sovereign Court

dot


Turns out, Nabasu have deeper darkness, but NOT true sight. So, they can't see in their deeper darkness.

They do have telepathy, but I don't believe that pinpoints location.

Interesting, indeed.


Jiggy, thank you for this guide!

Now, here's an interesting question. Given that Darkness is cast upon an object, could someone use Detect Magic to locate the object in the darkness?

For example, a Darkmantle uses its Darkness SLA upon a rock, which it then drops onto the floor. Now, an intelligent wizard realizes that Darkness has to be cast upon an object. He/She casts Detect Magic to locate the magical aura of the object. Would he/she be able to see the aura through the darkness? Therefore allowing the wizard to simply walk over and cover up said object, and smother the spell until it's duration expires?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:

Jiggy, thank you for this guide!

Now, here's an interesting question. Given that Darkness is cast upon an object, could someone use Detect Magic to locate the object in the darkness?

For example, a Darkmantle uses its Darkness SLA upon a rock, which it then drops onto the floor. Now, an intelligent wizard realizes that Darkness has to be cast upon an object. He/She casts Detect Magic to locate the magical aura of the object. Would he/she be able to see the aura through the darkness? Therefore allowing the wizard to simply walk over and cover up said object, and smother the spell until it's duration expires?

If you go back and re-read detect magic, you'll see that it has nothing to do with "seeing" the auras. You simply detect them. It doesn't use sight. In fact, it even says "If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each." This shows that there's not already an assumption that the things you're detecting are seen; they might be, they might not be, but if they are then you can try to ID the auras' schools.

Practically speaking, though, the location of the aura isn't revealed until the 3rd round of concentration, and that's a long time to spend standing in the dark with a deathsquid. :/


Good point, Jiggy! I think perhaps I was imagining an older version of Detect Magic when I thought you could visually see the aura. You bring up a very good point too with three rounds of concentration with a deathsquid lol.

Thanks for the reply and the clarification of Detect Magic!


Deeper darkness is a very good spell, you just have to have blindsight, blindsense or tremorsense. The Caves domain has just what you need.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The detect magic comment does bring up the question of if Arcane Sight (3rd level wiz/sor spell) should also work. A very strict reading of it would indicate not since it says 'within your sight' and needing line of sight.

The arcanist See Magic exploit should allow you to find the object quickly though.


An illuminating thread indeed, that casts some light on bugs in the system that I hadn't realized existed . . . .


.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4

Great work, Jiggy. I wish I had seen this before creating these Venn Diagrams. I would appreciate your opinion on if there are any errors in the diagrams or assumptions.
Thanks.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4

This Blog post explains Paizo's take on darkness and light. It notes that darkness's ability to negate non magical sources of light does not work when daylight negates the darkness. Therefore casting daylight on your lit torch lets your torch always function.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh. My house rule is to make clearly-defined "levels" or steps of illumination; light and darkness spells simply apply +/- "x" number of steps, depending on their spell level, to a max/min also depending on their spell level. Low-light vision lets you treat all levels as 1 step higher, to a max of normal light. Darkvision lets you to see as if 2 steps higher, but within its range only.


That is a very large bonus to what low-light vision actually does. But, as you stated, it is a houserule.


Zach Klopfleisch wrote:

There are a couple spells in Inner Sea Gods that provide counters to Darkness:

Shield of the Dawnflower, Greater is a 6th level Cleric, Bard, Magus spell that, among other things, counts as Daylight.

Unwelcome Halo is a 1st level Cleric, Paladin, Wizard spell that seems to be an attack spell, not allowing the target to get any bonuses from concealment. More importantly, however, is the last line: "If Unwelcome Halo is brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa), the effects of both spells are temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist within the overlapping field of effect."

So we've now got a counter to Deeper Darkness for 50gp a pop in the form of an oil of Unwelcome Halo. Or you've got 50 uses in the form of a wand for the same price of a single oil of Daylight to counter the at-will Darkness spammers.

Note on Unwelcome Halo: The target of this spell is "one nongood creature".

Anyone know if a potion of Unwelcome Halo would fail if imbibed by a good character? Would it function as an oil placed on an object, since the normal target is a creature?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you, Jiggy, for the post. It is very clear and I think any questions about this is nickpicking about particulars. I remember the blog post, mentioned a couple of posts back, and think that your guide re-affirms what the blog has offered.


I was just perusing your helpful light and darkness guide again as I'm probably going to need it here in the near future. Thanks again for writing this in so clear a manner. All I can think when I read this, and the official blog entry, is: "Why dafuq is something so basic and important as the characters' ability to see, designed in a way that makes it this taxing to explain?!"

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A Practical Guide to Light and Darkness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.