Continual Flame


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 1/5

I know PFs is not a fan of crafting but could I take a stone cast continual flame on it and use it as such and take it from adventure to adventure or is that considered crafting or would the stone lose the glow despite the fact that it is a permanant spell?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

If you check out the Guide to Organized Play, you'll see there's a (very short) list of spells that are allowed to persist from scenario to scenario. Continual flame is on that list, so if a PC casts it, you can have the GM note it on your chronicle sheet and keep it.

The Exchange 5/5

The Guide to PFS Organized Play pg 24 wrote:

All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with

the following exceptions:
• Spells and effects with permanent or instantaneous
duration that heal damage, repair damage, or remove
harmful conditions remain in effect at the end of the
scenario.
• Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during
a scenario remain until healed and carry over from
scenario to scenario.
• A character may have one each of the following spells that
carries overs from scenario to scenario: continual flame,
masterwork transformation, secret chest, and secret page.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

Jiggy wrote:
If you check out the Guide to Organized Play, you'll see there's a (very short) list of spells that are allowed to persist from scenario to scenario. Continual flame is on that list, so if a PC casts it, you can have the GM note it on your chronicle sheet and keep it.

wow that paragraph is actually missing from my guide ill have to redownload it thank you all

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

My year long plan of having a sorcerer to cast heightened continual flame should come to pass soon...

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

My Half-elf Oracle is one game away from doing the same, without actually having the Heighten Spell feat (thank you Paragon Surge).

Grand Lodge

It is my plan to have one of the wizards in our local group use his staff of the master to heighten a casting of continual flame to 9th level.

5/5 5/55/55/5

E. Quint wrote:
It is my plan to have one of the wizards in our local group use his staff of the master to heighten a casting of continual flame to 9th level.

Hmmm... don't know if that works. Heighten spells whole thing is raising the level, and you're not raising the level with the staff.

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
E. Quint wrote:
It is my plan to have one of the wizards in our local group use his staff of the master to heighten a casting of continual flame to 9th level.
Hmmm... don't know if that works. Heighten spells whole thing is raising the level, and you're not raising the level with the staff.

Well, a higher caster level is at least useful against that dispel magic, though.

The Exchange 5/5

Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

ah, what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?

a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level...

Scarab Sages 5/5

here you go, a link to a thread you might like....

Go to this link Continual Flame and high fashion..

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
E. Quint wrote:
It is my plan to have one of the wizards in our local group use his staff of the master to heighten a casting of continual flame to 9th level.
Hmmm... don't know if that works. Heighten spells whole thing is raising the level, and you're not raising the level with the staff.

The staff would allow you to raise the effective level of the spell via the heighten spell metamagic. Even though you are not using up a higher level spell slot, the spell is still considered a higher level spell because the "extra power" is coming from the magic energy (charges) of the staff.

Here is a related question: would a fireball heightened to 9th level through the staff have a DC of 13 + ability modifier or a 19 + ability modifier? I would say that it is 19+. If it is only 13+, what would be the purpose of using heighten spell?

All that being said, I have been proven wrong enough in my life to not be too stuck in my ways. I am open to reasonable discussion on such matters. Though if it comes down to it, a new thread should probably be created to house said discussion.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

ah, what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?

a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level...

I hear there's this newfangled magical them there spell called Deeper Darkness.

The Exchange 5/5

Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

ah, what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?

a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level...

I hear there's this newfangled magical them there spell called Deeper Darkness.

...which is a spell and not a darkness effect. So, it would be possible for an enemy spellcaster to dispel a Continual Flame spell using Deeper Darkness, by casting the spell (the Deeper Darkness) to dispel the Continual Flame, and touching the object that has the Continual Flame on it. But this is not a darkness effect, it is an enemy spellcaster dispelling your Continual Flame (and doing so at range touch - for some judges this would be a touch attack). Which I never questioned. I was asking about the second part of the statement above.

What "darkness effect" can dispel a Continual Flame?

5/5 5/55/55/5

And this is why I keep saying that the dispel part of counter and dispel isn't spelled out anywhere...

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

PRD wrote:

Darkness

School evocation [darkness]; Level bard 2, cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
...
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

Emphasis mine.

PRD wrote:
Darkness: Spells that create darkness or reduce the amount of light should have the darkness descriptor. Giving a spell the darkness descriptor indicates whether a spell like daylight is high enough level to counter or dispel it.
PRD wrote:

Continual Flame

School evocation [light]; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 2

Emphasis mine.

PRD wrote:
Light: Spells that create significant amounts of light or attack darkness effects should have the light descriptor. Giving a spell the light descriptor indicates whether a spell like darkness is high enough level counter or dispel it.

So spells like Darkness & Deeper Darkness have the Darkness Descriptor. And spells like Light, Daylight, & Continual Flame have the Light Descriptor. Any Darkness effect (spell or otherwise) with a higher effective spell level than your continual flame will suppress your Continual Flame for the duration of the effect.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

ah, what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?

a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level...

I hear there's this newfangled magical them there spell called Deeper Darkness.
...which is a spell and not a darkness effect.

Semantics?

There's also the 7th level spell Hungry Darkness, or the 7th level spell Lunar Veil, or the 9th level spell Polar Midnight, or any number of custom effects that can easily be injected into a scenario to disrupt all the Ioun Torches pathfinders seem to be carrying around these days.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Suppress is different than dispel. I think nosig means one thing and you mean something else.

The Exchange 5/5

Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame.

ah, what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?

a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level...

I hear there's this newfangled magical them there spell called Deeper Darkness.
...which is a spell and not a darkness effect.

Semantics?

There's also the 7th level spell Hungry Darkness, or the 7th level spell Lunar Veil, or the 9th level spell Polar Midnight, or any number of custom effects that can easily be injected into a scenario to disrupt all the Ioun Torches pathfinders seem to be carrying around these days.

how is this "Semantics?"

Your statement from above was:

"Be sure to write down the caster level and spell level as well. You may encounter an enemy spellcaster or darkness effect that could dispel your Continual Flame."

I asked what darkness effect "could dispel your Continual Flame.". I understand that an enemy spellcaster can dispel it with one of many spells - including dispel magic. But I know of no "darkness effect" that will dipel a Continual Flame. So I said....

"what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?
a darkness spell might, but it is range touch and would have to be of at least equal level..."

and you responded to this with "I hear there's this newfangled magical them there spell called Deeper Darkness. "

so I continued to ask...

"what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?"

Do you mean suppress the Continual Flame? this would work on all Continual Flame spells no matter what the Caster Level is... and it doesn't dispel the Continual Flame, just supresses it while it is in the area of the "darkness" spell.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

You're putting way too much effort into this.

"Giving a spell the light descriptor indicates whether a spell like darkness is high enough level counter or dispel it."

"Giving a spell the darkness descriptor indicates whether a spell like daylight is high enough level to counter or dispel it."

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And this is why I keep saying that the dispel part of counter and dispel isn't spelled out anywhere...

Helpful?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
You're putting way too much effort into this.

Actually, I think people are just missing what nosig's actually saying.

I believe he's separating darkness spells from the effects they produce, which is very relevant to an extremely common error lots of GMs (even very experienced ones) make with light/darkness.

In order for a darkness spell to dispel a light spell, you would need to cast the darkness spell on the same target that had received the light spell you're trying to dispel. This might require, for instance, walking up and successfully touching the ioun torch with your held charge of darkness. If you do so, you also fail to produce a globe of shadow—the thing I think nosig is calling a darkness effect.

So when you dispel a light spell, you use a darkness spell but don't produce a darkness effect.

Conversely, if you already have a darkness effect in place (such as from already having cast darkness on your necklace or whatever a minute ago), that darkness effect will not dispel anything ever. By the time the darkness effect (i.e., globe of shadowy reduction in light level) has been established, it's too late to dispel anything.

Unfortunately, many GMs have no idea this distinction exists, and believe that bringing a pre-existing darkness effect within close proximity of a magical light source will dispel it. This is wrong. However, it probably sounded (to nosig's ears, at least) like this is what you said originally, since you mentioned both darkness spells and darkness effects (rather than just darkness spells) as being able to dispel magical light sources.

So he was asking whether there were any darkness effects which, after having been cast and thereby passing the normal opportunity to dispel things, still held the capability of dispelling light sources.

And no one has answered that question.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I disagree with that distinction, and the FAQ you provided does as well.

It's a rather silly idea for an enemy spellcaster to have to walk up and touch your Ioun Torch just to dispel it, don't you think?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And this is why I keep saying that the dispel part of counter and dispel isn't spelled out anywhere...
Helpful?

Very. Thank you.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:

I disagree with that distinction, and the FAQ you provided does as well.

It's a rather silly idea for an enemy spellcaster to have to walk up and touch your Ioun Torch just to dispel it, don't you think?

Thats what they'd have to do though. I don't see why they wouldn't.

4/5

Nefreet wrote:

I disagree with that distinction, and the FAQ you provided does as well.

It's a rather silly idea for an enemy spellcaster to have to walk up and touch your Ioun Torch just to dispel it, don't you think?

The FAQ does not disagree with that distinction. Notice how in the example of using haste to dispel slow it specifically states that after casting haste neither of the spells is affecting the targets.

If you're talking about the touch range, well Haste and Slow are not touch range spells, Darkness, Deeper Darkness, Light, etc all are.

Note that if you use Darkness or Deeper Darkness to create their effects they will still suppress magical light sources of the same or lower level. They just won't dispel them.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:

I disagree with that distinction, and the FAQ you provided does as well.

It's a rather silly idea for an enemy spellcaster to have to walk up and touch your Ioun Torch just to dispel it, don't you think?

It's silly for a caster to use a spell with a range of touch as a dispel during combat.

Remember, the spells used in the FAQ have some range to them; darkness targets an object that you touch; it is not an area spell.

Re-read the FAQ with that in mind. See how haste and slow are being cast normally, and the dispelling is the result of one or more of the spell's targets already having the opposite spell in place at the time of casting? We're not talking about a group of hasted folks and a group of slowed folks coming close to each other and stuff starts dispelling. When one spell is cast using normal range and targeting rules and the target already has the opposite spell on them, the second spell dispels the first without producing any other effect on that target.

Which is exactly what I described.

Silver Crusade 2/5

The dispel clause is almost useless, as you must touch the item that has had the light or darkness effect cast upon it. There is no reasonable way to squeeze a ranged dispel interpretation out of the light and darkness series.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

Edit: meant as a reply before David Bowles.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

If someone's laying down that much mojo I think losing your lightrock is the least of your worries.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

Edit: meant as a reply before David Bowles.

But those spells don't dispel anything, as none of them has the "this counters and dispels BLAH" line at the end. Note that the light and darkness descriptors don't actually grant dispelling ability.

Silver Crusade 2/5

As Jiggy points out, those spells don't contain the dispel clause at all. All darkness spells with the dispel clause are touch range spells. They don't need to be any more broken than they already are.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

Edit: meant as a reply before David Bowles.

But those spells don't dispel anything, as none of them has the "this counters and dispels BLAH" line at the end. Note that the light and darkness descriptors don't actually grant dispelling ability.

They have the darkness descriptor. As has already been quoted, darkness spells dispel lower level light effects.

That text doesn't need to be repeated in the spell itself.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

Edit: meant as a reply before David Bowles.

But those spells don't dispel anything, as none of them has the "this counters and dispels BLAH" line at the end. Note that the light and darkness descriptors don't actually grant dispelling ability.

They have the darkness descriptor. As has already been quoted, darkness spells dispel lower level light effects.

That text doesn't need to be repeated in the spell itself.

Hmmm? scrolled up twice not seeing it.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

#17 and #21.

4/5

Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

And not all darkness spells target an object.

I listed three above that have AoEs.

Edit: meant as a reply before David Bowles.

But those spells don't dispel anything, as none of them has the "this counters and dispels BLAH" line at the end. Note that the light and darkness descriptors don't actually grant dispelling ability.

They have the darkness descriptor. As has already been quoted, darkness spells dispel lower level light effects.

That text doesn't need to be repeated in the spell itself.

I think maybe you need to go read those again, they state that something with the darkness or light descriptors can be dispelled by something appropriate, like Daylight or Darkness, not that they can dispel.

Daylight and Darkness have specific clauses saying they can dispel spells with the appropriate descriptors.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"They have the darkness descriptor. As has already been quoted, darkness spells dispel lower level light effects."

Not by default. The text within darkness and deeper darkness refer to the specific spells. There is nothing in the general magic rules that I can find that makes this true. The darkness descriptor by itself appears to do nothing.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:
"Giving a spell the darkness descriptor indicates whether a spell like daylight is high enough level to counter or dispel it."

But is a spell "like darkness" "any spell with the darkness descriptor" or a spell that says "Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level. " ?

Either way, the 7th and ninth level spells are rare enough that I'm not worried about them, and the third level darkness spells need to be used at touch.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Daylight doesn't care what level the target magical darkness effect is. It treats them all the same. Read it.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
"Giving a spell the darkness descriptor indicates whether a spell like daylight is high enough level to counter or dispel it."

But is a spell "like darkness" "any spell with the darkness descriptor" or a spell that says "Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level. " ?

Either way, the 7th and ninth level spells are rare enough that I'm not worried about them, and the third level darkness spells need to be used at touch.

"Fruits that are red (like apples) are appealing to monkeys."

This statement does not mean that only apples are appealing to monkeys.

"Apples" is one example of a red fruit, like Daylight is one example of a spell with a light descriptor.

English.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I don't see any such attribute assigned to either type of spell descriptor. All such capabilities are granted by specific text in specific spells.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Well, in that case, let's just start stacking Polymorph effects. Many Polymorph spells do not have specific clauses that say they don't stack with other Polymorph effects.

Right?

There are general rules in place for a reason: so they don't have to be repeated in every spell description.

Light and Darkness spells are no different.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"There are general rules in place for a reason: so they don't have to be repeated in every spell description."

As far as I'm aware, there are no general rules for light and darkness spells. There is no such property assigned to the light and darkness descriptors as I noted above.

"You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell."

From the general rules for polymorph spells. See? There is a general property for all polymorph spells that cover this contingency. There is nothing like this for darkness and light spells. The higher level spells you cited can not dispel light effects per RAW.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

The general rules for light and darkness descriptors have now been referenced 3 times in this thread.

To ignore them at this point is blatant.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

From the PRD:

Descriptors

Darkness Descriptor

Light Descriptor

Silver Crusade 2/5

Those descriptors do not give all spells of that descriptor the ability to dispel. The examples they use specifically provide text under them that give them that ability.

The Exchange 5/5

At this point I am sorry I posted the question... I would retract it if I could.

I realize that the interaction between "light" and "darkness" is a major point of YMMV.

I just thought that something other than spells were being refered to and was asking:

"...what darkness effect dispels Continual Flame?" meaning what Non-spell darkness effects are there? And how do they dispel something unless cast (as a spell) to dispel the light spell?

I did this because I thought I was going to learn about some cool new thing... perhaps a monster that created a zone darkness around it, or something like the Bardic Masterpiece that creates Darkness like the one that creates Daylight...

I know some judges have darkness and daylight spells cancel each other as soon as thier AOE touch - I have played for them (and had problems when I was playing an elf - because the daylight AOE was larger for the elf... so the mutual cancel happened at a greater distance because I was running an elf). I have had Darkness/Light interaction differences from judge to judge sense I played old D&D (pre-1st ed. days).

Can we get back to the cool uses of Continual Flame?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Fine by me.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
"Giving a spell the darkness descriptor indicates whether a spell like daylight is high enough level to counter or dispel it."

But is a spell "like darkness" "any spell with the darkness descriptor" or a spell that says "Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level. " ?

Either way, the 7th and ninth level spells are rare enough that I'm not worried about them, and the third level darkness spells need to be used at touch.

"Fruits that are red (like apples) are appealing to monkeys."

This statement does not mean that only apples are appealing to monkeys.

"Apples" is one example of a red fruit, like Daylight is one example of a spell with a light descriptor.

English.

That's not the analogy.

It would be "fruits like apples are appealing to monkeys"
Therefore "fruits that (are red) are appealing to monkeys" when it could be "fruits that (are sweet) are appealing to monkeys"

Now that very well COULD be right. (I'm leaning towards it probably is) but why on earth not just say "spells with the light descriptor can counter and dispel spells with the darkness descriptor" rather than this like business?

I'm not really that worried about it though. Unless you're using a 7th/9th level spell you have to come up and touch the light rock.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Continual Flame All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.