Illuminating Darkness

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Light and darkness. Given how powerful it is to take away someone's sight in Pathfinder, few topics share the three 'C's that make light and darkness such an important topic: Common, Crucial, and Confusing. In this blog, I will thoroughly explain light and darkness, providing a detailed example, so by the end, you will be armed and ready to run light and darkness in your games, even the edgiest of edge cases. Lets start by covering a number of important guidelines for dealing with light and darkness in your game.

1. Let There Be Light


Illustration by Craig J Spearing

In the absence of darkness magic, light magic is fairly straightforward. Without magic involved, there are four light levels: darkness, dim light, normal light, and bright light. Each light spell tells you what light level it creates, and in what radius. So that's not bad at all!

2. What a Nice Ambience

Darkness magic by itself isn't too bad either, but it's harder to deal with than light magic. Darkness spells first negate nonmagical light sources like lanterns and sunrods, and then they tell you how many steps to reduce the "ambient" light, and some of them can create a new fifth light level called supernatural darkness below darkness, in which even darkvision is useless (but the devil/darkfolk ability see in darkness still reigns supreme). However, there's one tricky nuance in darkness magic, and that's the question "what is ambient anyway?" The FAQ from October 2010 tells us a little more: it defines ambient light as "the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on." This is a good start, but it leads into a debate about "natural." So here's the strongest rule of thumb for what kind of light is ambient, "If a creature is moving it around with them, it's almost never ambient, and if the light is quite different in pockets instead of spread throughout an area uniformly, it's probably not ambient (with exceptions for holes in the ceiling streaming down sunlight in patches, for example)." For example, in a Darklands cavern lit by luminescent fungi, that light is ambient. If a svirfneblin plucked some of the fungi and put them in a lantern-frame and carried them around, the light is not ambient. If a svirfneblin took some seeds and grew a cavern of the fungi equivalent to the first, it's ambient. Use your judgment, but with an eye towards most corner cases not being ambient.

3. And Ne'er the Two Shall Meet

OK, we can do light, and we can do darkness. But what if the two of them meet? There's quite a few interactions, including a special exception for the spell daylight, so first let's focus on the basic interactions. From the descriptors and the spells themselves, we glean the following facts: Spells with the light descriptor only raise the light level within an area of a darkness descriptor spell if they are higher level than the darkness descriptor spell. Apparently also, darkness spells can counter or dispel light spells of equal or lower level (and light spells can do the same to darkness spells). So what does that mean?

4. I Counter Your Counter!

There are many ways to misinterpret the "counter or dispel" text for light and darkness spells. Here's how that particular rule actually works. To counter a spell of the opposing descriptor, you ready an action just like any other counterspell. Just as normal for counterspell, the target of the spell must be within range (which, without Reach Spell metamagic, is touch for most light and darkness spells). If the target is in range, you automatically counter the opposing spell and it has no effect, just like always for counterspell. To dispel, you simply cast your spell on the same target (just like with enlarge person and reduce person) and then they cancel each other out, leaving no spell. Again, the range is usually touch and the target is the object that radiates the darkness or light; you can't just touch an arbitrary spot within the darkness or light.

5. Pierce the Darkness

Now that we have those out of the way, let's assume the more typical case where someone cast a darkness spell on one object, somebody else cast a light spell on another object, and the areas overlap. We're still not dealing with daylight yet. Based on the rules of light and darkness, here's how to adjudicate this situation within the overlap:

First, the darkness spell turns off nonmagical light sources and lowers the ambient light level. If there are multiple darkness spells, figure out the highest spell level (not caster level!)

Next, the light spells attempt to shine through. For every light spell, check to see if it has a higher spell level (not caster level!) than the highest spell level of any of the darkness spells. If so, that light spell has its normal effect, as per the spell. Do not reduce its light level again for the darkness spell; that already happened. This is true in all overlapping areas, as per the May 2013 FAQ, whether the light spell's source object is within the area of darkness or not.

6. Here I Stand, in the Light of Day

OK, so what about daylight? We've been putting that one off until now because it simply doesn't work like other light and darkness spells. As it says "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." Daylight comes in, if necessary right after those last two bullet points in section 5:

If no other light spell is sufficient to overcome the darkness spells in the overlapping area, and if there is a daylight spell active in the overlapping area, the daylight spell's special negation clause kicks in (regardless of the spell level of daylight and the darkness spell; it just works, always). This means that you negate all the magical light changes in the area and bring it back to prevailing conditions. As a side effect of negating the magical darkness, those nonmagical light sources activate again (while they are not ambient, they were still part of prevailing conditions). Other magical light sources still are not active in the area; they had their chance to attempt to negate the darkness spells and didn't, so they were not part of the prevailing light conditions, instead subsumed by daylight's more powerful special negation clause.

7. Will Anyone Think of the Elves?

So what about low-light vision anyway? Those guys can see twice as far via light sources. However, they don't change the actual radius of the magic at all. We'll examine what that means for each step separately, using elves as an example instead of always saying "creatures with low-light vision" all the time:

  • In areas with light magic only, elves see twice as far. So with daylight, elves get 120 feet of bright light followed by 120 feet of one step up from normal.
  • In areas with darkness magic only, elves are affected by darkness spells in the same region. Since darkness spells quench the effects of nonmagical light sources before applying their reduction, elves should almost always be experiencing the same light level as everyone else (if supposedly "ambient" light was dispersed enough in pockets that the elf's low-light vision was giving it a different light level, chances are the light wasn't ambient to begin with). In the rare cases with odd pockets of ambient light, it is possible that an elf experiences a different light level in the darkness spell due to the ambient light being different for the elf.
  • In areas with both light and darkness magic, the elf being an elf does not change where the magics overlap. But where is that? The spells target an object, rather than stating an emanation. For the purpose of determining where light and darkness magics have an overlapping region, look at the spell and determine the farthest radius where it has an effect (for example, that would be 120 feet for daylight, 20 feet for darkness, and 40 feet for continual flame).

So, using these guidelines, lets take a look at a complicated example that brings each one of these into play:


Extended Example

Level 8 Feiya, Kyra, Ezren, and Damiel are traveling through the Darklands. Damiel brewed Ezren an infusion of darkvision, which he has active, as well as comprehend languages. Damiel also has low-light vision because he's an elf. The rest of the group had been relying on Kyra's heightened continual flame (heightened to spell level 4) to see, as well as various light cantrips, since the ambient light level is darkness. The group is ambushed by a group of darkfolk in a large cavern. In the first wave, dark creepers emerge from the darkness, each of them having cast darkness prior to the encounter. From the distance, no one, not even Ezren, can see the creepers, as they are beyond the range of his 60 foot darkvision. As they approach to 60 feet, Ezren spots them because of his darkvision. Damiel still can't see them because Kyra's heightened continual flame counts as extending 40 feet for the purpose of determining where it overlaps their darkness. As they approach within 40 feet, everyone can see them, as Kyra's heightened continual flame defeats the darkness in the area of overlap. The other light spells stop working, though.

Next, the dark stalkers advance, with their deeper darkness spells active. Even when they get to 60 feet, Ezren can't see them because it's supernatural darkness. However, since Kyra's heightened continual flame is heightened to 4th level, it keeps shining brightly. Since no one ever takes the Dark Folk language, the darkfolk use it to coordinate their attacks. Sadly for them, Ezren understands them anyway, and he warns Feiya that the darkfolk have a dark slayer who somehow heightened his spell-like ability deeper darkness to 4th level once per day through numerous blood sacrifices. Feiya nods, pulls out her rod of lesser reach metamagic and readies an action to counterspell with wandering star motes (which now has a range of 180 feet). Since wandering star motes is a 4th level light spell, the heightened deeper darkness is equal or lower level, so the counterspell ruins the dark slayer's big chance! The dark slayer snarls in anger and sends in its last big wildcard, a dark creeper barbarian, who sunders Kyra's heightened continual flame. This allows all those deeper darkness spells to defeat the remaining light sources easily, plunging the entire area into supernatural darkness, much to the darkfolks' delight.

Ezren ends their victory cheers early by casting daylight on his cane, which negates everything in the overlapping area, leaving the fight at the prevailing light level, normal darkness (hey, at least Ezren can see now!). Damiel, alchemist that he is, cracks a sunrod, which now provides light to everyone else. Desperate now, the dark slayer sends in the dark stalkers, who cast deeper darkness and then deliver the touch spell to Ezren's cane. They succeed, which dispels the daylight because daylight is equal or lower spell level.

Fed up with the whole situation, Kyra uses her 8th level sun domain ability nimbus of light, which instantly dispels all the darkness spells in 30 feet and then shines like a daylight. The battle is over soon after.


Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Craig J Spearing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

While I appreciate the attempt, my eyes just glaze over and this is why my players and I have a tacit agreement to not use spells that screw with darkness on either side and we'll just assume everyone's got torches or whatever to be able to see well enough wherever we're at.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The #1 issue here is that there isn't a weekly blog opening for this. Even if I had material, it couldn't happen.

There's a box. Want to know what it looks like outside of it?

It looks like: "some days get two blog entries".

MAJIKTHISE:
Bloody ‘ell! That’s what I call thinking! Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?

VROOMFONDEL:
Dunno. Think our minds must be too highly trained Majikthise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
GreyYeti wrote:

Sorry to darken the mood, but there is an error in your example:

Feya can't counterspell the dark slayer's hightened deeper darkness spell-like ability, because spell-like abilities cannot be counterspelled. (CRB 221)

But otherwise that blog was very enlightening.

Ah that's true. The special ritualistic heightened deeper darkness must have counted as a spell, since SLAs normally can't be heightened. Tricksy dark folk!

Does this mean Paizo plans to release a "Heighten Spell-Like Ability" feat and a feat that allows for countering spell-like abilities...?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm grateful for some clarification, but it really should be much simpler.

For me, in the intersecting area, only the higher level spell functions at all, and neither spell functions if they are of equal level.

Think how many bullet points that would save! Surely the planet cannot long support such bullet point wastage . Think of the children!

Liberty's Edge

Thanks Mark for such a well-written and thorough explanation. I've tried to clarify this topic myself repeatedly and know exactly how tricky a topic it is.

I too held the position that one needs a sunrod (or other non-magical light source) to see when Darkness and Daylight overlap with dark ambient conditions, but never had enough clout to prove it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Tels wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tels wrote:

Okay, suppose a daylight and a deeper darkness are overlapping in the area; we know that torches, sunrods, campfires, lanterns and the like, or ambient light will illuminate the overlapping area correct?

What about when the 'otherwise prevailing' light source is still within the area of deeper darkness that isn't being overlapped by daylight? Are they still suppressed so their light is not illuminating the overlapping area? Or is the light 'still there' but would normally be suppressed by the deeper darkness spell?

I think the non-overlapping area will not be affected by the other spell, but it would be nice to hear a dev say it so people won't say "you don't know for sure...".

There is no 'other spell'.

What I mean is, picture a venn diagram with the overlapping areas being the overlapping area of the two spells.

Now suppose there is a campfire burning in the 'darkness' circle and the radius of light it would, normally, illuminate includes the overlapping area.

However, because there is a darkness spell of some sort suppressing it, does the light from the camp fire still illuminate the overlapping area? The area in which deeper darkness and daylight are overlapping, for further clarification.

ok. From what the post said the light source itself is shutdown.

blog wrote:


Darkness spells first negate nonmagical light sources
If the source itself is negated there should be no light.

According to point 6 - daylight negates deeper darkness entirely, including the "negating other light sources bit".

Designer

Iammars wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tels wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tels wrote:

Okay, suppose a daylight and a deeper darkness are overlapping in the area; we know that torches, sunrods, campfires, lanterns and the like, or ambient light will illuminate the overlapping area correct?

What about when the 'otherwise prevailing' light source is still within the area of deeper darkness that isn't being overlapped by daylight? Are they still suppressed so their light is not illuminating the overlapping area? Or is the light 'still there' but would normally be suppressed by the deeper darkness spell?

I think the non-overlapping area will not be affected by the other spell, but it would be nice to hear a dev say it so people won't say "you don't know for sure...".

There is no 'other spell'.

What I mean is, picture a venn diagram with the overlapping areas being the overlapping area of the two spells.

Now suppose there is a campfire burning in the 'darkness' circle and the radius of light it would, normally, illuminate includes the overlapping area.

However, because there is a darkness spell of some sort suppressing it, does the light from the camp fire still illuminate the overlapping area? The area in which deeper darkness and daylight are overlapping, for further clarification.

ok. From what the post said the light source itself is shutdown.

blog wrote:


Darkness spells first negate nonmagical light sources
If the source itself is negated there should be no light.
According to point 6 - daylight negates deeper darkness entirely, including the "negating other light sources bit".

Ah, but they wanted to know about the even more complex situation where the light comes from a point source, and that source remains in the non-overlapping area with just deeper darkness.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, I missed the fire being in the non-overlapping part.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not bad for some light reading.


Excellent work Mark!


Elegant solutions, thank you.

To clarify for RD: 3rd-level Daylight still overcomes 2nd-level darkness - because it's a higher level spell it works, and thus it is not "brought into an area of magical darkness", so the negating clause does not apply.

Designer

Majuba wrote:

Elegant solutions, thank you.

To clarify for RD: 3rd-level Daylight still overcomes 2nd-level darkness - because it's a higher level spell it works, and thus it is not "brought into an area of magical darkness", so the negating clause does not apply.

Technically, the override of daylight still applies. It's different than all the others.


Wouldn't the "Pierce the Darkness" step work? "For every light spell, check to see if it has a higher spell level (not caster level!) than the highest spell level of any of the darkness spells. If so, that light spell has its normal effect, as per the spell."

Or do you just mean that the override applies, but the light still works. That would work out to the same thing for light levels, but there could be other negated light spells in the area, possibly with additional affects.

I suppose if you simply mean it will be non-magically dark in that space (assuming dark ambient lighting), you can at least bring non-magical lights in to illuminate it, so at least daylight isn't doing nothing.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pierce the Darkness says "We're still not dealing with daylight yet." because daylight is complex.


Alright, so darkness + daylight leaves a darkness sized hole of prevailing conditions (i.e. non-magical lights) within the radius of the daylight spell.

Bring on the torches!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sowhereaminow wrote:
There's always Unchained 2, I suppose. :-)

Which sounds better: Ultimate Pathfinder Unchained or Advanced Unchained Guide?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mystery 3rd option: Unchained Adventures


1 person marked this as a favorite.

UNCHAINED ADVENTURES!!!

(Also, Advanced Mythic.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

UNCHAINED ADVENTURES!!!

(Also, Advanced Mythic.)

Advanced Ultimate Unchained Mythic Adventures!

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Talgeron wrote:
Can you clarify if Unwelcome Halo, from Inner Sea Gods, in fact works the same way as Daylight? I've experienced table variation based on the spell level, despite the fact that it has the same language as Daylight.
It's not in the RPG line, so the design team can't officially clarify on it. That said, it sure looks like it does, which, granted, puts it far outside the expected power level of a 1st-level spell.

I am very grateful for the illuminating blog, but the fact that that policy (no FAQ/Errata for softcovers etc.) is in place, is still pretty high on my admittedly short list of things I would love to see changed.

Scarab Sages

If you have a flaming weapon inside an area with both deeper darkness and daylight, does the light from the flame count as prevailing light conditions?

I'm assuming a flaming weapon would act as a torch for light effects?


So, I read this as darkness always wins over light unless light is a higher level. The only exception is daylight which always trumps darkness spells but, in the overlap area, only non-magical light sources work. Does that seem to sum up the light vs dark spells portions?

As for the flaming sword, I don't see any text stating that flaming makes the sword give off light as a torch, and none of the spells used to create the flaming enchant are listed as light spells, so I would have to say no. Oddly, all three spells can ignite objects, so you could light a torch from it and the torch would give off light....

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't be the only one who got completely, completely confused by the clarifications in this blog post.

This post actually seems clearer. I think.


If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"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."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Designer

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"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."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
There's always Unchained 2, I suppose. :-)
Which sounds better: Ultimate Pathfinder Unchained or Advanced Unchained Guide?

I was always a fan of Pathfinder Unshackled. Then you could do Pathfinder Unfettered, Pathfinder Unleashed, Pathfinder Unbound...


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"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."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.

I would say rather that it is a confusing tangle of language. I see what you mean there, but as the parenthetical is attached to the action of "bringing into an area", I always saw it as a clumsy-in the moment-self correction on the part of the writer to clarify that it doesn't matter which is "brought into" the other. However, I think we're both right, and that means the language is all wrong.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and input Mark.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Scythia wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
There's always Unchained 2, I suppose. :-)
Which sounds better: Ultimate Pathfinder Unchained or Advanced Unchained Guide?
I was always a fan of Pathfinder Unshackled. Then you could do Pathfinder Unfettered, Pathfinder Unleashed, Pathfinder Unbound...

With Ray Harryhausen animations?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"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."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.

I would say rather that it is a confusing tangle of language. I see what you mean there, but as the parenthetical is attached to the action of "bringing into an area", I always saw it as a clumsy-in the moment-self correction on the part of the writer to clarify that it doesn't matter which is "brought into" the other. However, I think we're both right, and that means the language is all wrong.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and input Mark.

PS- Just a general cautionary to everyone, the designers included: The PHB 3.0 (and therefore the SRD, and therefore the backbone of the PFCRB) was seemingly written in a vacuum. That is, they laid out such things as 'the vision and light rules', and then they wrote rules, racial traits, descriptions for equipment, and spell descriptions, with largely no thought to interactions with additions to the rules. This sometimes causes confusion when new bits are added to the mix. The artifacts of this phenomenon are present throughout the long road from June 2000 and the 3.0 PH down to this FAQ blog post in May of 2015.

-Cheers


The main thing that I've taken from this blog is that I'll continue doing whatever I can to avoid dealing with light levels in games that I play or run; at least until such a time as the rules can receive a major rewrite.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"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."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.
I would say rather that it is a confusing tangle of language.

Too true. Given how hard it is to communicate with other people who share the same language, sometimes I think that comprehend languages is more unrealistic than fire-breathing dragons.


So we've had a corner case recently and I'm not sure we got it right. Perhaps you could en-light-en me as to the right way of handling it.

We had a room without any ambient light (ie darkness) and the BBEG cast darkness on themselves turning the area supernaturally dark which only he could see in.
But one PC had Fire shield active on himself. While fire shield does not have the light descriptor it states that it increases the light level by one step within 10ft. And it is a level 4 spell, 1 level higher than darkness.

Fire shield wrote:
When casting this spell, you appear to immolate yourself, but the flames are thin and wispy, increasing the light level within 10 feet by one step, up to normal light.

We treated it as a light spell and ruled that it raised the light level to normal darkness, letting everyone see. In addition to it we ruled that the fire shield could be seen/pinpointed despite the pc it was on has invisible.

- Should fire shield be treated as a light spell when it comes to lighting conditions?
- Is the fire shield visible in darkness while the user is invisible? Somewhere it states that light does not become invisible.

Shadow Lodge

Do you mean the BBEG cast Deeper Darkness?

Darkness doesn't reduce the darkness level to supernaturally dark.


I guess. I was one of the players, not the GM. But as it did reach supernatural dark and was a level 3 spell it seems it was deeper darkness.


I'm not sure in what way Fire Shield being treated as a light spell would change things. Probably it couldn't be used to counter or dispel darkness, since it isn't a light spell.
It is a source of magical light from a spell of higher level than the Deeper Darkness, so it would continue to function, raising the light level to normal darkness.

As for the Invisibility:

Quote:
Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).

That's not so clear. I think I'd rule it as the shield fires could not actually be seen, but it would reveal what square the light source was in.


Seems we used it more or less right. Thanks.
One question remains: Should it be possible to see the light from the fire shield from further than 10ft away? Or does the supernatural darkness from deeper darkness prevent that?
In other words would other PCs been able to see that there is light some squares away and move towards it?

Diagram:

SSSSSSS
SDDDDDS
SDDDDDS
SDDFDDS
SDDDDDS
SDDDDDS
SSSSSSS
SSSASSS

S=Supernatural Darkness
D=Darkness
F=Fireshield
A=Ally

Can A see F or the light coming from F through the field of supernatural darkness?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:

Seems we used it more or less right. Thanks.

One question remains: Should it be possible to see the light from the fire shield from further than 10ft away? Or does the supernatural darkness from deeper darkness prevent that?
In other words would other PCs been able to see that there is light some squares away and move towards it?

** spoiler omitted **

Oddly, you can't. Magical darkness (even non-supernatural darkness) blocks vision. It's not just too dark to see in the darkened area, you actually can't see through it.


Thanks again

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Scythia wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
There's always Unchained 2, I suppose. :-)
Which sounds better: Ultimate Pathfinder Unchained or Advanced Unchained Guide?
I was always a fan of Pathfinder Unshackled. Then you could do Pathfinder Unfettered, Pathfinder Unleashed, Pathfinder Unbound...

I personally can't wait for Pathfinder Unglued or Unhinged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, tossing out another 'what if' that happened to our party:

Darkness was tied to an unhallow effect in an area without ambient light. The ruling was that this made the darkness effectively a fifth-level spell and so was not negated by my character's daylight SLA and the room remained supernaturally dark.

There are several things going on here, but I think that according to the blog post, daylight and the darkness, heightened or not, should have cancelled each other out where they overlapped so original light conditions (i.e., normal darkness) would prevail - the party had darkvision, so they should be able to proceed, yes?

And no, I'm not going to bring this up to the DM because I respect rule zero. I just want to know for my future games.


LazarX wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
This is definitely an issue that should have pictures and diagrams attached.
Circles and arrows on the back of each one.....

I think we'd still need a paragraph on the back of each one, explaining what each one was about.


mln84 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
This is definitely an issue that should have pictures and diagrams attached.
Circles and arrows on the back of each one.....
I think we'd still need a paragraph on the back of each one, explaining what each one was about.

But the Judge isn't even going to look at them.

Silver Crusade

AinvarG wrote:

OK, tossing out another 'what if' that happened to our party:

Darkness was tied to an unhallow effect in an area without ambient light. The ruling was that this made the darkness effectively a fifth-level spell and so was not negated by my character's daylight SLA and the room remained supernaturally dark.

There are several things going on here, but I think that according to the blog post, daylight and the darkness, heightened or not, should have cancelled each other out where they overlapped so original light conditions (i.e., normal darkness) would prevail - the party had darkvision, so they should be able to proceed, yes?

And no, I'm not going to bring this up to the DM because I respect rule zero. I just want to know for my future games.

From the Blog, point 6:

Quote:
If no other light spell is sufficient to overcome the darkness spells in the overlapping area, and if there is a daylight spell active in the overlapping area, the daylight spell's special negation clause kicks in (regardless of the spell level of daylight and the darkness spell; it just works, always).

So, yes, darkvision should work in the overlapping area.


Raisse wrote:
I'm assuming a flaming weapon would act as a torch for light effects?
From Ultimate Equipment:
Quote:
Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. They can't be concealed when drawn, nor can their light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.

This magical glow is independent of descriptors for any prerequisite, since it can be added to weapons that have only a basic enhancement bonus. Whether a flaming weapon is one that generates a magical glow or not is a matter for the person who created it. Personally, I would rule that the flaming effect does shed light in this manner. (It is fire, after all....) However, since it counts as a magical source equivalent to a light spell, the glow would be negated by the darkness effect. Although, as SNO_75 stated, you can probably light a torch from the flaming effect, which would then be non-magical.


So in another forum we have a discussion about the darkness spell and whether or not it works as an emanation or a spread. There are people who believe that the effect is like an explosion of anti-light and that you can take cover, so to speak, by holding up your shield or whatever. And then there are people (I am one of them) who think it just instantly turns the light level in the affected area down without line of effect being a problem, so yes, darkness creeps around corners and what have you.

The problem I think is the spell's wording "causes an object to radiate darkness", which is really confusing.

Are there any official rulings on this, or a FAQ or another thread where people came to some sort of agreement? I'm not in desperate need to be proven right, but I am very interested in what the overall opinion here is.


Antariuk wrote:

So in another forum we have a discussion about the darkness spell and whether or not it works as an emanation or a spread. There are people who believe that the effect is like an explosion of anti-light and that you can take cover, so to speak, by holding up your shield or whatever. And then there are people (I am one of them) who think it just instantly turns the light level in the affected area down without line of effect being a problem, so yes, darkness creeps around corners and what have you.

The problem I think is the spell's wording "causes an object to radiate darkness", which is really confusing.

Are there any official rulings on this, or a FAQ or another thread where people came to some sort of agreement? I'm not in desperate need to be proven right, but I am very interested in what the overall opinion here is.

If it is a spread it will be called out as one. If it is not called, then it is not a spread.

Quote:


FIREBALL
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread

You can never hold up your shield to block line of affect from a radius affect, not matter if it is an emanation or not unless specifically stated by that spell.

However what I think should have been done is for them(Paizo) to use wording similar to the silence spell.

Quote:


Area 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space

That is basically how darkness works except that it only works on objects.


But thus a second deeper darkness after the daylight will work? The daylight still work even if the light not.


Antariuk wrote:


The problem I think is the spell's wording "causes an object to radiate darkness", which is really confusing.

Around here we play it* that objects with light or darkness spells can be covered to keeep the light or darkness from having an effect. So you could walk around with a pebble in your hand an the darkness spell on the pebble has no effect. Once you open the hand the darkness takes effect.

*Meaning that is how we understand RAW.


Has it been cleared up whether fireshield can defeat darkness?
The problem is: Fireshild is of higher level than darkness and states generaating light but lacks the light descriptor.


Char-Gen addict wrote:

Has it been cleared up whether fireshield can defeat darkness?

The problem is: Fireshild is of higher level than darkness and states generaating light but lacks the light descriptor.

RAW, only spells with the light descriptor can defeat darkness spells. Fire shield would light up a room of natural darkness, but not defeat any darkness spell because it lacks the light descriptor.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Illuminating Darkness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.