Then the question needs to be asked. Stationary compared to what? The local environment? The planet?I'm not sure what the theory of relativity or frames of reference have to do with this conversation. Those are real world ideas, and this is a game with rules.
Those rules include a system for determining the order in which things happen. During initiative everything happens at its own unique moment so that only one thing can ever be "brought into" another.
If a actor on the board moves on their turn, and then moves on their next turn, they're only moving during their initiative, they aren't moving in between their turns. You can't take move actions outside of your initiative so you can't be moving except for during your own turn.
Well, that's effectively stationary compared to the local environment. If you're both standing on a moving ship, both light and darkness are in motion compared to the shoreline. If light 'moves first' and enters the darkness area on initiative, that doesn't mean that dark is actually stationary. It's still moving along with the ship. Yet somehow the relative motion of the light makes it weaker compared to the motion of the darkness? And of course, this type of motion can occur outside of combat where there is no initiative to begin with.
Then, of course, you have to explain what the 'overlapping area' in the spell means if one of the spells is negated thus eliminating any overlapping area.
You sure you don't just want to use the more common sense negation ruling?
Whether they're both on a moving ship or not isn't relevant. They're both always going to move, if they move at all, on an initiative count. And at that moment only one is every going to be moving. (There could be the odd case of someone holding both light and dark, but again they would have to obtain the light and then the dark, or the dark and then the light. Both can't be obtained at the same time.)
Also, the overlapping area is the area in which the spells overlap. The clause explains exactly what negate means, and that isn't the same as dispelled. Thus even if one spell is negated, it still exists and still has an area with which to overlap.
Let me pose it to you this way, in game terms explain to me how a Darkness spell is brought into a Daylight spell under this exact circumstance:
There is a permanent version of Darkness cast in a room. The party enters, and cast Daylight.
If it is the case that "magical darkness brought into Daylight is temporarily negated" then how is it that the darkness would come to be negated in this scenario?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one that happens first in initiative.But even then, I'd just second what thejeff said. In that case only one can be brought into another at a time.Are you familiar with the concept of relativity?
What if both the darkness and daylight effects are moving--say, they both target moving objects that move to overlap one another? Which effect is brought "into" the other?
Does this seem like a rational interpretation of the rules text, given that another equally-valid parsing provides a consistent result that doesn't depend in metaconcepts like initiative?
How is initiative meta in any regard when talking about rules text? And see my earlier points, I don't think that the other interpretation you're referring to is equally valid.
If what you're saying that clause means could be said more concisely, wouldn't it be irrational to assume that the extra words mean nothing?
1) Daylight inside of magical darkness is temporarily negated.
2) Daylight brought into magical darkness is temporarily negated.
I would always take the first to mean anytime Daylight is in magical darkness, it is negated.
I would always take the second to mean that Daylight brought into magical darkness is negated.
Dude, that's exactly what you're doing.According to your reading:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.the bolded words are entirely superfluous.
I'm not ignoring that part, and there is as much point to when one is negated as there would be with two. In fact, I'd argue it makes slightly more sense with only one being negated because of the word prevail, and the plural "light conditions."
Edit: How would it be there is no point to that clause with only one negated, and there is a point with both negated? Without it being there just to explain what negated means?
Someone already made that claim earlier, to which I answered and raised a question which so far hasn't been answered.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "negated on an object", I don't think I ever said that anywhere. And I think we're both in agreement on what negated means.
I'm not sure what happens which is why I started this thread, but of the two options I presented at the start of this thread I'm leaning towards this:
After you initially move the Daylight coin, where the areas of Darkness and Daylight overlap, the Daylight is negated, yet the conditions of Darkness persist (along with all of the other non-magical conditions).
Afterwards, if you move the Darkness towards the Daylight, the Daylight continues to be negated and the conditions of Darkness persist (along with all the other non-magical conditions).
Only if the Darkness leaves the area of the Daylight, and then the Darkness reenters the area of Daylight would the Darkness then be negated, leaving the conditions of Daylight to persist (along with all the other non-magical conditions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cast a daylight spell (60' radius + 60' radius) on a coin and place it in location 1.
I cast darkness (20' radius) on a coin and place it in location 2, say 200 feet away.
Now, I pick up the daylight coin and bring it closer. What happens when the two radii begin to overlap? Let's say that I bring the daylight coin to a position 130' away from the darkness coin, so that the two radii overlap for 10'.
What happens? What happens if I then pick up the darkness coin and move it a few inches?
Wherever the spells overlap, the lighting condition is whatever it would be if neither spell were in place. This is true regardless of which spells is up first or which spell's object is moved into the other's area.
Wherever the spells overlap, the lighting condition is whatever it would be if neither spell were in place. This is true regardless of which spells is up first or which spell's object is moved into the other's area.I cast a daylight spell (60' radius + 60' radius) on a coin and place it in location 1.
I cast darkness (20' radius) on a coin and place it in location 2, say 200 feet away.
Now, I pick up the daylight coin and bring it closer. What happens when the two radii begin to overlap? Let's say that I bring the daylight coin to a position 130' away from the darkness coin, so that the two radii overlap for 10'.
What happens? What happens if I then pick up the darkness coin and move it a few inches?
I'm pretty sure that's how _Ozy_ understands it. I'm the one that doesn't think that's the case. =p
I'm pretty sure that's how _Ozy_ understands it. I'm the one that doesn't think that's the case. =pWherever the spells overlap, the lighting condition is whatever it would be if neither spell were in place. This is true regardless of which spells is up first or which spell's object is moved into the other's area.I cast a daylight spell (60' radius + 60' radius) on a coin and place it in location 1.
I cast darkness (20' radius) on a coin and place it in location 2, say 200 feet away.
Now, I pick up the daylight coin and bring it closer. What happens when the two radii begin to overlap? Let's say that I bring the daylight coin to a position 130' away from the darkness coin, so that the two radii overlap for 10'.
What happens? What happens if I then pick up the darkness coin and move it a few inches?
Yeah, but the point he's making and I'm reinforcing is that any other interpretation doesn't much make sense. If your answer depends upon which source of (anti)light was moved last, you're going to have all sorts of problems. Ultimately, treat it as a matter of simplicity - which method makes the answer easier to glean? One says to cancel the spells oit and treat it like no magic were in that area. The other method is ... what? Which spell moved to which ine last? Or if it's this spell that moved then do X, but if it's that spell, then do Y? That's going to be an absolute PITA to adjudicate. Simplify. It'll save you in the long run.
Replying to both you, I'm not sure how what I said would be any more difficult to adjudicate.
The movement information is always going to be at hand. Both interpretations require you determine the overlapping areas of effect. Even in the case of one moving out of the other and then back in, you'd have to process in both interpretations.
The only difference is knowing what moved into what, and like I said that should be clear because that is known the moment their areas overlap. It is information you already have.
As for you _Ozy_, no you wouldn't end up with zebra striping because as long as one has been brought into the other and not left, it was still the one brought into the other.
If we were to remove initiative and we somehow go both to move at each other at the same time (which realistically I can't imagine how this would come up in game), I'd probably say both are negated since they were both brought into each other.
I got that from the clause in Daylight. Brought into means something moved, or was created inside of something else. As for during any normal play of the game, you'll only ever have one brought into the other. There is nothing wacky or complicated about that.
Also there is even less work with my interpretation because I'm saying that nothing changes. If Darkness is in an area and Daylight is brought into it, in that Darkness area nothing happens. Absolutely nothing in that overlapped area changes.
Using the both/all interpretation you have to figure out which effects are magical, negate all of them, and then determine the natural light for that area, plus all of the light sources that the negated spells may have negated along the way. That is much more work.
What I mean is that, if both/all are negated suddenly it matters if someone has a torch. Where that torch is in relation to any remaining non-negated darkness, non-negated daylight, if its in that weird negated area where the light conditions are "normal". Then you've got to figure out how much that raises the light level by.
Then after that you've got to figure out if anyone has any magical sources of light that you were ignoring before because the Daylight trumped then. Then you've got figure out where those are in relation to your 3 distinct areas (non-negated Daylight, non-negated Darkness, negated everything) and then increase the light level relative that.
No, all you have to do is determine what kind of light you would have if magic weren't present.
And to do that:
suddenly it matters if someone has a torch. Where that torch is in relation to any remaining non-negated darkness, non-negated daylight, if its in that weird negated area where the light conditions are "normal". Then you've got to figure out how much that raises the light level by.
Then after that you've got to figure out if anyone has any magical sources of light that you were ignoring before because the Daylight trumped then. Then you've got figure out where those are in relation to your 3 distinct areas (non-negated Daylight, non-negated Darkness, negated everything) and then increase the light level relative that.
My method?
You've got two areas. The light level for the darkness spell. The light level for the Daylight spell. That weird little overlap area is just the light level of the Daylight spell or the light level of the Darkness spell.
There is 0 figuring out who has what magical light sources other than Daylight. There is 0 figuring out who has torches. There is 0 figuring out if the room has torches. And mostly importantly, no figuring out where those light sources are and how they interact with this weird negative space in between.
One is clearly more simple than the other.
There is no "determine what kind of light you would have if the magic isn't present". That determine is the extra complicated and annoying to track work I'm talking about. Tracking 2 things is easier than tracking 3. Especially when you were already tracking those two things before.
In all seriousness, can either of you point out how what I'm suggesting is more complicated than your method?
Both methods calculate the exact same area of overlap. Both methods require something to be brought into something. The things you mentioned is work that is going to be done regardless of method. Neither of these things count since you're going to be doing them either way.
My extra bit of work, is literally just knowing what was the thing that was brought into the other. Yours just requires knowing that something was brought into another. What I'm saying is that it will always be abundantly clear what was brought into what at the moment your method would need to know that something was brought into something.
That extra bit of knowledge that my method does require, is knowledge that will already exist because someone or something will be doing the bringing into.
My method doesn't break outside of combat, as I already stated what would happen.
So while yes, I do require one more bit of knowledge than your method, it is knowledge you will already have.
I consider that a small price compared to having to recalculate the light level in this weird overlapping area. Seriously, what DM wants to go around their table and figure out which PC is holding a torch and where they are in relation to that negated zone? Then do the same for the monsters. Then do the same for the environmental features. Then figure out which of those actually counts, because it could be on the wrong side of non-negated area of darkness.
Wouldn't it be easier to just say that the overlapping area's light level is either that of the magical darkness or the Daylight? Both light levels that you're already aware of and tracking.
What I'm saying is that you've got the "calculate the area of overlap" on the wrong method.
Try it out right now.
You've got two monsters and two players. One player has Daylight cast on a held object. The other player is beside them and holding a lit torch. One monster has Darkness cast on a held object. The other monster is also holding a lit torch. The ambient light in the room is Dim Light.
Lets say that the player with Daylight moves in such a way that his Daylight overlaps the Darkness.
I can tell your right now, using my method, the light level in each area. The overlapped area is the light level of Darkness. The non-overlapped Darkness is still Darkness. And the non-overlapped Daylight is Daylight.
Using your method you cannot tell me the light level of the overlapped area.
EDIT: On top of that, each time the Darkness and Daylight moves you have to recalculate the light level in the overlapped area with respect to everything's new position. You're tracking three light levels, I'm only tracking two.
You've missed my point entirely. Your method cannot tell me the current light conditions at each point in the overlapping area without me giving you more information and then you calculating the results based off of that.
My method can, and tells you its darkness at every point in the overlapping area.
The point isn't that your method gets results, it's that the method I'm suggesting they're saying gets quicker results that are more clear.
Also, it could be the case that even if you're 20' from a torch the conditions are still dim light if that torch is inside the darkness, or if there is darkness between the two points. So it isn't just "dim light unless you're within 20' of one of the torches."
I'd rather just keep things simple and not have to track additional light sources, and if the line of sight to that source is blocked by magical darkness.
I don't know why anyone would want to ever increase the number of things they're tracking at once.
I mean, I don't think "brought into" needs to be a defined mechanical meaning. That should just be understood.
And you won't necessarily know because up until that point Darkness was negating lower/same level light spells and non-magical light sources. I'd imagine most people aren't figuring out the light conditions including those, then negating them, and then determining the light level with darkness. So you're probably undoing darkness, then adding in all the light sources you'd been ignoring up until that point.
Though now that I've said that, how do you rule this in your special negated area:
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
Are those non-magical light sources able to increase the light level in the negated area of Darkness? And what about those lower/same level light spells do they increase the light level in the negated area?
It seems they'd still be in the area of a darkness spell, but I don't know how that above rule would interact with this part of Daylight's clause:
temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
Okay, I think I got part of it. Finally.
I think where the breakdown in my understanding came in was when dealing with that vice versa. I kept replacing the () with ,,.
That led to me coming to the conclusion that:
Daylight brought into magical darkness, or magical darkness brought into Daylight, is temporarily negated.
Could only be used if they meant one of those, because this option is so much more clear if both were to be negated:
Daylight brought into magical darkness, and magical darkness brought into Daylight, are temporarily negated.
But subbing back in the parentheses the only way to express both would be to write it the way it is written, because this makes no sense:
Daylight brought into magical darkness (and magical darkness brought into daylight) are temporarily negated.
What I mean is that it becomes more clear that statement still needs to make sense when the stuff in the parentheses is omitted. Just writing "Daylight brought into magical darkness are temporarily negated" makes no sense, so that "is" I've been obsessing over must be used.
I'll scroll back up to where you said something about that Jiggy (if you're still lurking here and haven't given up in frustration =p), and reread that again to see where I missed your point, after I'm done posting this.
I still contend that it could be read the way I'm suggesting, but at least now I see where you guys are coming from. Sorry it took so long to get to this point. And thanks to _Ozy_ for not letting this topic slip off my radar.
You seem to have just slightly-off understandings of a handful of linguistic constructs, adding up to a series of incorrect interactions with a ripple effect that produces a wrong final conclusion.
For instance, the "is negated" versus "are negated" thing. All you're seeing is that "is = singular" and "are = plural", but that's an incomplete understanding of english. There can be grammatically-correct times to say (for instance) "family are" or "them is", based on other constructions within the sentence, even though normally the word "family" is singular and the word "them" is plural.
In the case of the Daylight thing, the use of "is" instead of "are" has to do with how the sentence was built with the "vice versa" clause. The use of "vice versa" in place of spelling out the second possibility causes the event to be a pair of singulars instead of one plural.
"Daylight brought into X is negated."
"Magical darkness brought into X is negated."In both sentences, "is" is appropriate because within that clause the statement is singular.
Now, put them together into one sentence:
"Daylight brought into X is negated, and darkness brought into X is negated."Since each verb is in a separate clause, "is" is still the appropriate verb.
Now, since "daylight" and "darkness" are each other's X's in the above sentence, we can shorten it further by listing one phrase explicitly and referencing the other with shorthand: the "vice versa" clause. But since "vice versa" is a stand-in for a singular clause, and the clause that's written out is also singular, the correct verb for each of them is still "is".
We have an "is" for the first condition, and an "is" for the second condition. Because of our "vice versa", there are actually two uses of "is", even though only one is printed. That's where your missing plurality can be found.
I would go on, but I have to go home. :)
EDIT: I'm not sure why I missed it but you said it right where I've bolded. Sorry I failed at comprehending that then.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Coming late to the party, but, for what it's worth:
I've always suppressed both the daylight effect and the magical darkness effect in the area of overlap, because that's how I believe the game designers intended the rules to work.
But I understand the original poster's interpretation that only one spell is suppressed, and I can certainly agree that that's a valid way for the two spells to interact. I agree that that's the way the text is written. I would have no trouble sitting at his table and having that be the way that he expects the spell effects to work.
Oh it certainly can be read that way, no doubt. It's not as clearly written as one my hope. But I think what makes the case is the fact that negating only one depending on which spell moves when and where is a far more difficult resolution to their interaction.
Do you guys think it's worth a FAQ request?
As for which is more difficult to run during game time, I think that depends on the answer to my above question.
How do you rule on torches and other magical light sources in the negated area? Those things are still technically inside the area of a darkness spell, so are they negated still? Specifically how do these two rules interact once there is a negated area of darkness?
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A little bird told me that the whole broader issue of light/darkness spells is already solidly on the Design Team's radar, and when addressed will probably come in the form of a full-on blog. So I imagine there won't be an earlier FAQ about this specific point by itself.
Cool! Glad to hear that =)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A little bird told me that the whole broader issue of light/darkness spells is already solidly on the Design Team's radar, and when addressed will probably come in the form of a full-on blog. So I imagine there won't be an earlier FAQ about this specific point by itself.
Cheep cheep?