Continual Flame: I hate it


Homebrew and House Rules


Yes, I really do not like this spell.

Why?

For a measly 50 gp worth of powered ruby, or something, cast by a divine caster (3rd level) it blocks the effects of every darkness spell in the game.

Yes, there is heighten deeper darkness, but that really never gets cast. I am running a wrath of the righteous game and a lot of creatures have deeper darkness at-will. I like to use these tactics to create more difficult encounters, but sadly by RAW (unless I am wrong, I am wrong often) all they have to do is pull out there little continual flame rock and bang, no more darkness spell. FOREVER.

Yes, I could cast dispel magic... but they know that and carry multiple. I tried thinking about having the two effects counter and another casting of deeper darkness would then work normally, but they pull out another one. Arg... this shouldn't be an arms race.

What I am trying to figure out is how to make this spell functional, but not something that can take out stronger spells. My houserule that I want to use is treat continual flame as a mundane spell that lasts until dispelled. Then even darkness would cancel out the light effects like it would a torch. I feel this to be more balancing.

Can anyone either validate this probably terrible houserule or offer suggestion one what they do?

Thanks


Well you've made continual flame into flame. I just think at some point parties will have the resources to get around darkness as an issue.


Or you could house rule that any spell that "counters/dispels" another requires a dispel check or opposed caster level check. You'd need to use the appropriate language in writing the rule and make sure there are no unintended consequences, but there you go.

As it is, casters already have too many absolute effects as it is. Making them actually roll is blasphemy to some, however.


Can't you just have the area of overlap be the ambient light? If they are deep underground, and they didn't bother to bring mundane torches, that's pretty dark.


You could just heighten deeper darkness to 4th level if it bothers you that much and then not tell your players what level you made it.


How about a slight change. Base the effect of light spell on the caster level that created it. So a 5th level caster that made a Continual Flame would cancel out a 5th level caster Deeper Darkness spell, but not a 6th level caster Deeper Darkness.


As my party gets higher and higher level, this becomes a non-issue. They have access to daylight, which I think is a great counter.

This is a houserule I will use in my later games, so I want to hammer something out that is fast and easy.

Mr Pitt, it is still continual flame, lol, since it goes on forever.

Goth, currently, we have the two spells interact and the light returns to the prevailing condition. In some cases, its dark and others it is dim light. This is how the rules would have us do it. Since additional castings of darkness or light do not stack, these spells are pretty much done in the spell area. Players with darkvision rejoice and you have the darkvision spell to offset others. I am ok with this part as well since it is a resource expended to offset another resource expended.

Da'ath, that is a possibility, and an option one my players recommended. But how would that interact with continual flame items?


In addition to some of the other good suggestions...

Consider giving some alternate monster abilities to the enemies. There is a fetchling ability dark sight which lets you see through magical darkness. Its like the demon/devil (I forget which one) that does the same.

Consider taking away darkness as an ability for some (not all) and add obscuring mist or a smaller fog cloud with a similar ability to the wave oracle to see through mist and fog. Give the enemy blur or something similar. The party might start carrying around extra scrolls of some wind spell, but at least for a bit, it's a surprise.


3.5 has a fun spell called, as I remember, damning darkness. It was like deeper darkness, but also did damage each round (Cold? Negative energy? Can't recall). You might consider porting that over if it's for your home game.


Yes, I do this as well. Fog clouds in darkness, it's pretty fun.

It's the idea of a spell having this much power (yes, it's pretty minor; it's a pet peeve).

For example, what would the cost be of creating this item using the magic rules? My guess would be:

Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp

3 X 5 X 2,000 = 30,000 gp.

I would be pretty happy if this was the case, but it's not. For the price, you could say this should be halved since one of the rules is if the power lasts 24 hours, the cost is halved. ok, 15,000 gp.

Or if you used the light spell to base this, we are looking at this:

Spell level x caster level x 750 gp (based on 100 charges, which this formula is for 50 charges, so I will double the final total)

3 X 5 X 750 X 2 = 22,5000 gp.

This is a pretty good deal... and it bothers me. Since so many creatures have darkness as a power, or deeper darkess, a 50 gp spell that can be handed out defeats it for all of these creatures. Kind of makes the darkness spells nearly useless.

This is why I am thinking about making the flame mundane, but still allowing it to last forever. Like an eternal sunrod or something.


To add (this is fun)...

an everburning torch says this and costs 110 gp

Everburning Torch This otherwise normal torch has a continual flame spell cast on it. This causes it to shed light like an ordinary torch, but it does not emit heat or deal fire damage if used as a weapon. Price 110 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Why does a mundane item cost twice what the magic version costs? Especially since you use the magic spell to create the mundane item? My guess is if you were making an everburning torch, it should cost you 55 gp... or spend 50 gp and have a magical one that kicks the crap out of the more expensive version.

Does that make any sense at all?


Globetrotter wrote:

Da'ath, that is a possibility, and an option one my players recommended. But how would that interact with continual flame items?

Vod Canockers offers a REALLY simple solution, which is pretty good.

As far as the suggestion your player and I put forth, one would affect the other as if your standard counter worked (using normal rules). I believe for permanent items, it would suppress the torch while it was within the area of the darkness spell. Once it left, it would function normally, but you couldn't go in and out of the area expecting a second chance, third chance, and so on. That is, once one wins, it wins till the effect is gone. You'd roll normally for "new" effects.


@Globetrotter:

I think what you really need is to introduce your players to the concepts of disarm, sunder and steal. Very easy to do counters to an everburning torch.


Lol... they would rather just kill the person.

This discussion is really a lot less about my players (they like the rules as is), but more about satisfying something that bothers me.

I think I am going to make it non-magical and end my thoughts.

I really thank you guys for contributing.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you probably need to look at it from a different way. From the player's side, Darkness is annoying (and I mean players, not characters). It's not fun. There should have been plenty of time for you to use it against them earlier, and well most of the first part of the AP, and now that they have gotten to a point that they can overcome that, you want to rob them of that? Just like everything else, it's a spell or ability that just doesn't work so well after a few levels.

To me that really comes off as terrible DMing, and by that I mean it sounds like the intent is to be DM vs the party rather than Dm and the party (and if that's not the case, than ignore) . Enemies should not always have the advantage, and it would probably be pretty dang cool if for a while, you played the enemies like they probably should, have them burn actions/spells or whatever and try to make Darkness, only to find out their Plan A doesn't work.

Something else to keep in mind, is that Darkness is a Level 2 Wiz/Cleric spell, while Continual Flame is a Level 2 Wizard, Level 3 Cleric spell.

Unless the party's Cleric/Oracle is making the Everburning Torch, it defaults to the Wizard Level 2 version, which means that Darkness does affect it. "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an
area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
"

However, if you just want to make Darkness work anyway, because you want to screw over the party, then there is absolutely no reason to have Continual Flame in the game, and I'm pretty sure your Cleric/Oracle player is going to feel pretty gipped.


It'd be interesting if you made some underdarkies with Continual Darkness items to toss around as well... fight fire with fire, so to speak.

I get what you mean, this spell really shoots the bell curve of item creation. But do they have the spell in their spellbook? Can they find a Ruby? Will their god grant it for the day? Will the all mighty dollar be able to afford the item when it's for sale? Light should be available, but Perma-Light may be reserved for higher level adventures, say as a reward in a scroll at the end of an adventure arc, when you're through with a tread through the dark dungeon?

You need a Ruby for this spell, an Onyx for that spell... how rare are gemstones in your world?


Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, this is not for my current game but for future games. The players now have many ways to bypass it

However, I so think it's great that I'm a terrible GM now because I don't like a spell.

Thanks!


Globetrotter wrote:

To add (this is fun)...

an everburning torch says this and costs 110 gp

Everburning Torch This otherwise normal torch has a continual flame spell cast on it. This causes it to shed light like an ordinary torch, but it does not emit heat or deal fire damage if used as a weapon. Price 110 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Why does a mundane item cost twice what the magic version costs? Especially since you use the magic spell to create the mundane item? My guess is if you were making an everburning torch, it should cost you 55 gp... or spend 50 gp and have a magical one that kicks the crap out of the more expensive version.

Does that make any sense at all?

It makes perfect sense, because its market price.

Cost to pay a wizard to cast a 2nd level spell 60gp (Caster Level 3 multiplied by spell level 2, multiplied by 10).
Cost of ruby ruby dust 50gp

Total cost 110gp, Incidentally a divine continual flame item would cost

Here's how you handle this whole darkness issue, you don't need magical darkness you just need distance. A torch would let you see 40ft away, more if you have low-light vision... however you and your torch could be seen from much further away.


Snively wrote:

It'd be interesting if you made some underdarkies with Continual Darkness items to toss around as well... fight fire with fire, so to speak.

I get what you mean, this spell really shoots the bell curve of item creation. But do they have the spell in their spellbook? Can they find a Ruby? Will their god grant it for the day? Will the all mighty dollar be able to afford the item when it's for sale? Light should be available, but Perma-Light may be reserved for higher level adventures, say as a reward in a scroll at the end of an adventure arc, when you're through with a tread through the dark dungeon?

You need a Ruby for this spell, an Onyx for that spell... how rare are gemstones in your world?

I'm not really looking to micromanage or get in an arms race with the players. I just don't understand some items. I was thinking a lot about the ecology of certain creatures and the scare factor of darkness. Then I started thinking about economies and how if continual flame was so cheap, lights would be everywhere. I'm mean everywhere.

So trying to look at all of these things, plus thinking about a darkness discussion we recently had at the table I saw the silliness in this spell. At least from my perspective.

I told my players of the house rule and they are all for it, so I'm happy. It won't change much at the table, but it makes me feel better.

Thanks again for all the suggestions!


Globetrotter wrote:


I'm not really looking to micromanage or get in an arms race with the players. I just don't understand some items. I was thinking a lot about the ecology of certain creatures and the scare factor of darkness. Then I started thinking about economies and how if continual flame was so cheap, lights would be everywhere. I'm mean everywhere.

Cheap for adventurers, not commoners.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Globetrotter wrote:


I'm not really looking to micromanage or get in an arms race with the players. I just don't understand some items. I was thinking a lot about the ecology of certain creatures and the scare factor of darkness. Then I started thinking about economies and how if continual flame was so cheap, lights would be everywhere. I'm mean everywhere.
Cheap for adventurers, not commoners.

For the market price of an everburning torch you could have, 3,300 hours of light by lamp oil, and a ordinary lamp is a lot less attractive to thieves.

Now major cities in a world where low level casters are fairly common would probably have big poles with continual flame cast on them in upper class areas. Providing continual light and the objects being 10ft poles, not practical to steal.

Sovereign Court

I think DM Beckett's point is important.

Darkness is fairly annoying as a player. If you score a hit and it gets nullified because of miss chance, that's much more annoying than not hitting in the first place due to higher AC.

It's even more annoying because usually all the players can see the battle mat with the minis; it's just the PCs that suffer a 50% miss chance because they can't see what all the players can see. The players aren't all that "immersed" in an exciting fight in the dark against unseen foes, because they can see the foes right there as players.

Now, it's okay to annoy players now and then, because when they eventually win, the victory tastes sweeter. But you can't do that too often, because then it just becomes a drag.

There's also the arms race thing going on; monsters have a tactic, players adapt. At that point the monsters should be coming up with a different tactic, not trying to strongarm the same tactic into working.

Try to see it from the player POV: would you really be excited by monsters that use the same trick against you for 20 levels?

So what I'd suggest is actually letting the players get away with it, most of the time; monsters use Darkness, it doesn't work, and players feel like their PCs are getting better at fighting demons as they go up levels. Stuff that stumped them at low levels isn't a problem anymore now. Good! However, you've also given the demons some other new edge, to keep up the difficulty in a different way. You just stop factoring Darkness into their CR, because at this point it doesn't make the monsters more challenging.

And then rarely, the players run into a demon that actually has a higher-level darkness power. Because the abbyss is infinite and varied like that. This darkness isn't just regular darkness with a higher level; it's an exotic darkness spell that also does other things, like perhaps cold damage or something like that. (Otherwise it'd look like a cheesy move.) And that makes this demon a Special monster that makes the players really nervous.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I think DM Beckett's point is important.

Beckett's point was made in his first paragraph, which is where his post should have ended. "You suck, but ignore me if I'm wrong" is rarely ignored by those on the receiving end (as you can see from the following post by the OP).

Ascalaphus wrote:
Try to see it from the player POV: would you really be excited by monsters that use the same trick against you for 20 levels

I agree with you in spirit. I think, these days, we try to see things far too often from the player's point of view, and not from the broader perspective of the game as a whole. The game encourages players and GMs alike to use the same tricks for 20+ levels.

So Globetrotter wants fewer absolutes. Spellcasters might have to roll and possibly fail (if applied globally) - like everyone else in the game. I'm not seeing the problem.

Sovereign Court

Da'ath wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think DM Beckett's point is important.

Beckett's point was made in his first paragraph, which is where his post should have ended. "You suck, but ignore me if I'm wrong" is rarely ignored by those on the receiving end (as you can see from the following post by the OP).

It was indeed needlessly rude, which is why I felt it necessary to treat the subject in a more neutral tone.

Da'ath wrote:


Ascalaphus wrote:
Try to see it from the player POV: would you really be excited by monsters that use the same trick against you for 20 levels

I agree with you in spirit. I think, these days, we try to see things far too often from the player's point of view, and not from the broader perspective of the game as a whole. The game encourages players and GMs alike to use the same tricks for 20+ levels.

So Globetrotter wants fewer absolutes. Spellcasters might have to roll and possibly fail (if applied globally) - like everyone else in the game. I'm not seeing the problem.

If a Darkness spell can sometimes persist against a higher-level Light spell, shouldn't it work the other way around as well? Meaning that a normal Light spell could work against a normal Darkness spell, if the caster rolled well?

Shadow Lodge

Actually, it did. The rest was a breakdown of how the spells interact. I know, aweso,e things happen when you bother to read, right.

Anyway, if it doesnt apply, then feel free to ignor, but, as you said, from the OPs responce, it looks like it does apply and they just want to mess with the players or whatever. So whatever. I gave my opinion as well as some ideas on how it might not work. Take it or leave it.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It was indeed needlessly rude, which is why I felt it necessary to treat the subject in a more neutral tone.

Agreed; and your tone did come off quite neutral. It is my hope you didn't see my response as an attack on you - I apologize if you did, as that was not my intent, you simply gave me an opening to address Beckett's comment.

Ascalaphus wrote:
If a Darkness spell can sometimes persist against a higher-level Light spell, shouldn't it work the other way around as well? Meaning that a normal Light spell could work against a normal Darkness spell, if the caster rolled well?

It is my opinion that yes, the reverse would also hold true. I would much rather see effect vs effect with an appropriate contested roll which takes spell level into account, than spell level vs spell level as an absolute, which automatically overcomes.

A pet project of mine has been to maintain caster power level (with appropriate checks and balances, some of which were removed between additions), while including them in the same rules everyone else is expected to adhere to. Unfortunately, it is tiresome "work", so a little progress gets made here and there.

Edit:

DM Beckett wrote:
Actually, it did. The rest was a breakdown of how the spells interact. I know, aweso,e things happen when you bother to read, right.

You're assuming he doesn't know, which there is no indication of, while simultaneously being rude once again, though targeting me. Grow up.

Reading comprehension is important, I agree.

DM Beckett wrote:
Anyway, if it doesnt apply, then feel free to ignor, but, as you said, from the OPs responce, it looks like it does apply and they just want to mess with the players or whatever. So whatever. I gave my opinion as well as some ideas on how it might not work. Take it or leave it.

Again, you're making assumptions about the OP, specifically, that he is a poor GM and is antagonistic toward his players, without any proof.

Top it off with a racial slur in your post and you've violated several of Paizo's policies to keep their "messageboards friendly and fun".

Dark Archive

3rd level Continual Flame will not beat Deeper Darkness. You're confusing the special rules for just the Daylight spell and the rules for light spells and darkness spells interacting. It has to be heightened to 4th level to beat Deeper Darkness

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Continual flame is a counter to deeper darkness because deeper darkness is super un-fun and annoying to players.

This is especially true when monsters can spam deeper darkness at will.


Darkness itself is the problem.

Darkness (more accurately "dimness" since there's still light around after you cast it) spells are nearly useless because they don't make things much darker and when they actually work any critter that isn't part of a very specific subset of critters is just as blind. If it's dark enough to blind the torch-bearer, he can snuff his torch and make it dark enough to blind the darkvision-critter unless it's a devil or something similar. I don't know your adventure path, maybe everything IS a devil or something similar.

In my experience magic darkness is how you run away or spend an inordinate amount of time fumbling around trying to hit the players while they try to hit you in a very long, boring, pointless fight.

Deeper Darkness counters and dispels any light spell of 3rd level, including a heightened-to-3 continual flame, so that's an at-will ability that costs the party 50 gold per torch snuffed. Hit and run attacks on the light can get costly. And as a rule, PCs fear damage to their wallets more than damage to their persons. Then again I've never been in a campaign where the party actually reached the WBL chart, so maybe my experiences are different than yours.

I mean, if you want "the primal horror of the dark" you don't want a critter, you want some sort of has-no-statblock force that just damages people in the dark. You don't want them to HAVE an enemy to fight and kill, you want something that doesn't entirely exist.


Victor Zajic wrote:
3rd level Continual Flame will not beat Deeper Darkness. You're confusing the special rules for just the Daylight spell and the rules for light spells and darkness spells interacting. It has to be heightened to 4th level to beat Deeper Darkness
Continual Flame, evocation(light) wrote:
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.

Continual Flame is 3rd level for clerics, Deeper Darkness is 3rd level. Deeper darkness gets countered and dispelled by Continual Flame.

Dark Archive

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:
3rd level Continual Flame will not beat Deeper Darkness. You're confusing the special rules for just the Daylight spell and the rules for light spells and darkness spells interacting. It has to be heightened to 4th level to beat Deeper Darkness
Continual Flame, evocation(light) wrote:
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Continual Flame is 3rd level for clerics, Deeper Darkness is 3rd level. Deeper darkness gets countered and dispelled by Continual Flame.

Counter and Dispel have very specific game mechanics. You can hold an action and counterspell the casting of Deeper Darkness with your 3rd level Continual Flame. And you can try and cast a 3rd level Continual Flame on the object that the Deeper Darkness targeted in order to dispel the spell.

Bringing an item with 3rd level Continual Flame into an area within the radius of the item targeted by Deeper Darkness doesn't not turn off the Deeper Darkness effect. The Daylight spell will do so, because the text of Daylight explicitly says so.

Dark Archive

I thought you had to cast a spell with the purpose of dispelling, and then you didn't get the effects of the spell they just dispelled the other one.

also an easy fix would be to remove the light descriptor and give it the fire descriptor.


If memory serves, "counter and dispel" is different from "Counter" and "Dispel". It means both spells stop working.

If you cast YOUR spell again, it works normally.

Now the rules don't have a specific commentary or FAQ on what happens if you have one Deeper Darkness spell and 10 Continual Flame Torches that are already out and glowing. I'd probably go with "one gets snuffed" but it's also entirely within the rules to say "every one that's in line-of-effect gets snuffed" or even "every single one gets snuffed until the darkness spell ends."

Shadow Lodge

boring7 wrote:
If memory serves, "counter and dispel" is different from "Counter" and "Dispel". It means both spells stop working.

Your memory does not serve.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Read This.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpgw?A-Practical-Guide-to-Light-and-Darkness#1

Then Favorite it for when the question comes up again. Spread the love.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

Link to above thread
Because I learned things from it


This reminds me why when I put a continual flame as treasure, I set it inside a piece of glass or mended together quartz.


The way I house rule continual flame in a darkness effect is to dim the light from the continual flame so the bearer can see 5' around them, similar to being in Obscuring Mist. This makes the continual flame useful, but still allows the darkness spell to have an effect.


Da'ath, thank you for your words, I think you understand me better than others.

I didn't intent this to become a deep rules discussion or an example of how people can be rude for no reason.

I understand the rules well enough to know that I do not like this spell the way it is written. I had a discussion with my players and we all agreed it was odd how the spell worked for such a low cost. We discussed alternatives, some of the same thoughts appeared in this thread.

I decided my course since it would be fast for me at the table, no rolls necessary, and as long as the rule is known well in advance, there are no upset players. I brought my decision to my players and they agreed it was a fair house rule.

My players are currently 11th level and 4th mythic tier. This rule doesn't effect the game much, but it makes me happier for it.

This is why I posted in the house rule section over the rules or advice section.

For those who think I am a bad DM because I like using environment and lighting in my game, well, please keep that to yourself. My players are happy and I enjoy running, which is the point.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Continual Flame: I hate it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules