| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our recent game a strange situation came up,
A Darkmantle cast Darkness on the room. Our Arcanist thought that since the Darkmantle was the only thing that could see, it would be the only thing effected by a Color Spray. This prompted a series of questions.
1) Does Color Spray make it's own light?
2) Does an Illusion of light actually create light people can see by?
3) If someone makes their save against a light-creating illusion, does that mean they can't see the light anymore?
4) Does a Darkness effect negate (or even effect) Illusionary light?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Color Spray says that sightless creatures are unaffected. Being unable to see because of darkness counts as being sightless.
There is nothing in the general description of Illusion or the more specific description of Pattern (or even Figment) that says such spells also produce light, and Color Spray itself doesn't say it produces light. So there is no reason to assume there is light.
Then again, neither does Lightning Bolt, but anyone who's ever seen lightning on a starless night knows it can light up the sky from horizon to horizon.
So I guess it's up to each GM to decide if Color Spray or Lightning Bolt provides light.
However...
Darkness is a 2nd level spell and Color Spray is a 1st level spell. Light can only negate darkness of a lower level, so even if Color Spray creates its own light, it probably can't be seen in magical darkness.
As for simply casting an illusion of Light (or Darkness), this has come up over and over and been argued extensively on these forums, I suggest searching for other threads on the subject,
There is nothing in the general description of Illusion or the more specific description of Pattern (or even Figment) that says such spells also produce light, and Color Spray itself doesn't say it produces light. So there is no reason to assume there is lightEr, what else could the image be other than light? Since it's creating a pattern that affects sight, it has to be generating photons somehow.
It could be a magical field that reflects photons from existing light sources in exactly the same way that an object reflects light. Red objects actually absorb every spectrum but Red, Red illusions could do the same.
It could be a magical field that reflects photons from existing light sources in exactly the same way that an object reflects light. Red objects actually absorb every spectrum but Red, Red illusions could do the same.There is nothing in the general description of Illusion or the more specific description of Pattern (or even Figment) that says such spells also produce light, and Color Spray itself doesn't say it produces light. So there is no reason to assume there is lightEr, what else could the image be other than light? Since it's creating a pattern that affects sight, it has to be generating photons somehow.
Then the spell would state that it doesn't work in the dark, no?
And yet it says no such thing.
Furthermore, then one could use illusions to block vision and light by reflecting away photons.
It does say that Sightless creatures are not affected.
Compare and contrast to Wandering Star Motes, the only Pattern effect with the [Light] Descriptor.
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.
Emphasis mine. Anything can possibly create light, but only those with the [Light] descriptor create meaningful light.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sightless and not being able to see because it is dark are two different things.
Two swords that clash in the night can spark. A sightless creature can't see it whereas others could. Because even though it is dark, they are not sightless.
Sightless creatures would normally (I guess) not have eyes to damage.
With no indication that the spell does not work in the dark, I would rule that it does.
Agreed, being sightless is a distinctly different situation then being unable to see light due to darkness. Having the capability temporarily suppressed versus the inability. In some situations the end result may be similar mechanically, but that doesn't mean the starting point or even the path to the end result are the same.
A creature who is blind is sightless, a creature who closed its eyes is not. They might both be "blind" at that moment, but one is definitely not sightless.
Also the quote above mentions being in the area of effect of the spell, so it stands that regardless of the darkness, if you are in the effect it would work on you.
Also notable, they didn't actually say blind creatures were immune, but sightless. This means you are unable to close your eyes (or other ways to impose the status) and blind yourself to avoid the effect. Which is effectively what darkness is doing.
Alright, patterns can't make light according to the rules. That helps.
So, in an area of Magical Darkness, would only creatures with Darkvision be effected by Color Spray?
I'm in agreement with Komoda/Skylancer here. In casual English, you would never, for example, say "man this room is dark, I'm completely sightless".
+1 for colour spray works just fine in darkness.
Also, be careful with the idea that the [light] descriptor means those are the only types of spell that generate light. This leads to some breaking of verisimilitude IE fireball not being visible in a dark room.
The creature is still able to see, it just is unable to make note of differences in the environment due to poor optics.
That is completely different from being sightless. Or having the complete inability to see.
Blinded condition is not the same as sightless.
Alright, patterns can't make light according to the rules. That helps.
So, in an area of Magical Darkness, would only creatures with Darkvision be effected by Color Spray?
No, any creature who was not "sightless" in the area of effect would be hit by the spell. The flavor text mention light etc, the mechanics however are mind effects and no mention of darkness or such blocking the effect. Mechanics trump flavor text.
They don't give an option for closing your eyes to avoid the effect (unlike another spell or ability I've read before so the precedent is there). And the spell makes no mention of being blind as a defense (which is what darkness is doing), but stipulates sightless.
I think people are applying reason to rules interpretations regarding a magic spell
Which makes absolutely no sense to me
There is one rule to apply modifiers to a character due to being "blinded"
Character is blinded, apply the blinded rules
Character is wearing a blindfold, apply the blinded rules
Character does not have darkvision and is in darkness, apply the blinded rules
Character is affected by a magic spell that causes blindness, apply the blinded rulesNow staying, or at least trying to, inside of the rules, if your character does not have darkvision, is plunged into darkness according to the rules and the DM tells you that you now have all the penalties of being effectively blinded, and then tells you, except for when she wants to make you be subjected to a spell which nowhere in the rules states it works on blinded characters, something is not right.
Nowhere in the rules does it say a fireball works on blinded characters either.
Oh, and outside of the strict interpretation of the rules, you can close your eyes to avoid the spell Color Spray
Its called a saving throw and no specific explanation of exactly what the saving throw means is given, so if you make the save it could mean, you are mentally strong, or, you blinked, whatever you want it to be.
Except in the places where those are legitimate ways to avoid the effects and are explained. In such cases they actually give bonuses or explicit effects when such is done.
This isn't one of those. It doesn't say you can close your eyes and be immune or have a bonus to resist.
It states sightless creatures, creature who have no sight at all, are immune.
Being able to see isn't sightless, no matter how you shake it. You have sight, you are just unable to make anything of it.
Being effectively blind isn't the same as sightless.
The difference is that there is no mention in the Fireball spell of it being ineffective against blinded creatures.
The issue for Color Spray really does seem to boil down to whether the Color Spray creates enough light for it to be seen by creatures who would not otherwise be able to see it. From the definitions of the illusion school and the pattern sub-school, it seems highly doubtful that it creates any sort of illumination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the first time this exact question has come up.
Basically the rules are conflicted and both interpretations can be correct. Ask your GM.
I keep saying that the definition of the word sightless is
"Not able to see"
I did not make that up. That is the Merriam Webster definition. Seems a lot of people here want sightless to mean, maybe
"Does not have eyes" or something like that
By the rules you are sightless if you are blinded, temporarily blinded, or subjected to the blinded condition
By the rules being subjected to the modifiers that come with the blinded condition is in fact being,"not able to see"
Or, blinded
Or sightless.
You can be temporarily sightless
A creature without eyes (or any other supernatural organ that does the same thing) is sightless.
A creature with eyes that cannot currently see, is not sightless.And, this should really drive the point home, if Blindness = sightless than sightless = blindness. That would mean that all sightless creatures would have the blinded condition. Most plants (like the Yellow Musk Creeper) in the game are sightless but have another sense. If sightless = blinded then they would all suffer -2 to AC and have a 50% miss chance on all attacks. I don't think that is the case.
The thing is, the characters' eyes are working fine. They are seeing what is to be seen, which is darkness. There are photons, but they're just not enough to allow the characters to see anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how many times you say "sightless is 'not able to see'," it doesn't become true. Sightless means 'having no capacity for sight'.
Try this instead: point out that darkvision only shows black-and-white, so 'clashing colors' wouldn't be visible.
There is NO WAY darkvision is black and white. I know the rules say the are, but it has to be grey scale to be of any use at all. Without it, you couldn't even measure distance. Everything would be a silhouette.
Actually, I don't think "sightless" is a defined game term -- thus the disagreement in this thread as to whether a person who would be physically able to see were it not for the current absence of light should be considered sightless. That word clearly includes all blind creatures -- but is it limited to them?
How about this:
Wizard #1 successfully casts Blindness on a monster. Then wizard #2 casts Color Spray on the same (now blind) monster. Does the Color Spray affect that monster?
If you say "Yes, because being blind is not the same as being sightless" then you should also say yes to allowing Color Spray to work in darkness. But if you say "No, because being blind IS the same as being sightless" then you should also say no to allowing Color Spray to work in the dark, because the RAW says you are "effectively blinded" if you are unable to see in the dark.
Maybe we can quibble about what "effectively" means, but I think it literally means "effectively", as in, "has the same effect".
The prd definition of dazzled is
Unable to see well
It is not blinded
The penalties for being dazzled are very different from the penalties for being blinded
Er, yeah, that's my point. The dictionary definition of dazzled calls out blindness. However, Pathfinder is not the dictionary (!= means not equal to) and dazzled is not blindness.
My repeating the definition of sightless is not to convince you that my definition is correct. I am repeating the Merriam Webster definition. If you chose to have a different definition for sightless, or chose to believed that pathfinder has a differerent definition for sightless, that is your choice.Pathfinder does not use dictionary definitions for its conditions, as I pointed out above with dazzled/blindness. Sightless means something specific in Pathfinder, which is not the same as being blind.
To summarize, dictionary definitions are irrelevant when it comes to Pathfinder conditions.
If I am the DM
Color Spray does not affect characters who are subjects to the current condition of blindness. The Color Spray spell does not negate the Darkness condition. Creatures who can see in darkness, who are not subjects to the blindness condition due to darkness can be affected by the Color Spray spell
Well, since this is the Rules forum, were not really all that interested in what people do in their home games, but rather what the rules indicate is the correct way to handle it.
People who can't see in the dark are not, in fact, considered sightless according to the Pathfinder rules.
You are correct that the Blind condition is defined but are incorrect about sightless. It is not a term that is defined anywhere therefore the common English usage should be used. The common English meaning of sightless is simply, unable to see.
So any creature that is unable to see at the moment for any reason, e.g. blindness, darkness, not having eyes, etc... is considered sightless. It is a general catch all term that covers a myriad of possible conditions that may apply without having to individually enumerate them all.
Color Spray doesn't work against a sightless creature regardless of the reason it is unable to see including darkness.
Concealment would only matter for targeting... Unless you are stating that if someone is in a darkness effect and another person outside cast a fireball into the effect, it would miss everyone inside because of total concealment.
If you are in the cone, barring other stipulations, you will take the effect of the color spray.
But it doesn't only matter for targeting.
Its just there to strengthen the point.
Things that have total concealment are not seen (relative to the person).
Gaze attacks follow a similar stance.
The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
You wear a blindfold and you cannot see the creature at all.
If you cannot see the creature, by extension you cannot see an illusion of the creature, or a person juggling ice knives in front of you, or a portal.
@Skylancer4: Understand I'm only trying to provide the information as it is in the books. I hope this doesn't come off as too headbutty. While the definition of Sightless is a point of contention, the Sea Anemone is the only creature I was able to find with such an ability defined by Paizo.
Sightless (Ex) A sea anemone is blind and is not affected by any effect that relies on sight, such as gaze attacks or blindness.
It just redirects back to Blind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's all up to what the definition of "sightless" is.
According to the dictionary, it is "unable to see; blind".
Paizo has no definition of the term sightless in any rulebook, so we must default to the dictionary definition of sightless. I also find the definition of "unable" is helpful. "lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something".
But it's just parsing the English language at this point, which means the only real answer is "ask your GM and what their interpretation of the English language leads to".
Pattern/Figment in the dark is an issue that comes up sometimes, and a good thought-process for looking at it goes like this:
Illusion: Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there...
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.
So: can you create the image/figment of a torch in a dark room, or will nobody see it because there's no light to see it with? Are you creating some kind of actual 'thing' that needs light shining on it to be seen, or are you deceiving creatures into thinking there's a torch there?
It seems pretty clear that you can deceive people into seeing a torch in a dark room - though importantly, it's not really there so it sheds no actual light. Shedding light can also be part of the illusion, but if you don't know what the room looks like, that illusion will be wrong.
Now say you create the illusion of a dragon in the dark. Does there need to be light on it for creatures to see it? What about if your dragon-figment has a burning torch on it's head that shines light on it? Is the torch really necessary?
So if a pattern spell like Color Spray is "like a figment" and "creates an image that others can see", then does it need to be lit to see it?
I also find this quote helpful when making a decision.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects...