Xalthon's page

OTOH, using that to dismiss an actual FAQ answer seems a bit of a stretch.

Except for the fact that the question in the FAQ didn't even raise this point. The question was "Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?" The answer was "No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light." If the answer ended here, I would have no problem. Sunrods are nonmagical, so the question seems a bit silly for a FAQ on its surface. But the answer continued, "In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level (the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on), and then reduces it one step."

IMHO, everything after the first sentence in that answer was unnecessary in order to answer the question. There is no question that sunrods are nonmagical, so of course no matter how many you have, you cannot "increase" the light level in darkness. For me, anyway, it is hard to give a lot of weight to such an "answer" when it wasn't even pertinent to the question. In other words, how much thought and analysis do we think really went into that answer when the question posed did not even implicate that aspect of the answer? Did the person who posted the answer even realize the "increase" aspect of light sources? As Malachi noted, lots of people have missed this. (And on an unrelated topic, even Pazio's James Jacobs admitted that he was not a computer and did not know every rule printed.) :P

And Jiggy, yes the word "increase" certainly has a commonly understood meaning in English. But when the rules call out that light sources have two aspects, and one of which is "increase the light level," and later a rule says that certain light sources "do not increase the light level," it is easy to interpret that they only were referencing that aspect. In addition to the two entries I listed for torch and lantern, they even reiterate this special "increase" aspect in their table:

Table: Light Sources and Illumination
Object Normal Increased Duration
Candle n/a 5 ft. 1 hr.
Everburning torch 20 ft. 40 ft. Permanent
Lamp, common 15 ft. 30 ft. 6 hr./pint
Lantern, bullseye 60-ft. cone 120-ft. cone 6 hr./pint
Lantern, hooded 30 ft. 60 ft. 6 hr./pint
Sunrod 30 ft. 60 ft. 6 hr.
Torch 20 ft. 40 ft. 1 hr.

Spell Normal Increase Duration
Continual flame 20 ft. 40 ft. Permanent
Daylight 60 ft. 120 ft. 10 min./level
Light 20 ft. 40 ft. 10 min./level

You have to admit that the use in the darkness spell of the phrase "do not increase the light level" seems like an odd way to simply state "does not work" or "does not function" or "does not illuminate." Why add a somewhat nuanced phrase like "increase the light level" when you just intend to say that it doesn't work? I think it's because whoever authored the darkness spell in the first place only intended to limit this "increase" ability and not everything. Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure, unless that person speaks up. But I don't think it was a coincidence that the darkness spell uses the exact language found in the light source section.

Regardless, even if one accepts the FAQ response at face value, how does that response reconcile with common sense? We are to believe that the darkness spell can distinguish the nonmagical moon light (works but gets lessened) from the nonmagical light generated by a nearby large city (doesn't work)? Why? I cannot see logical way to explain this away.

Anyway, not trying to ruffle any feathers here. Normally, I would agree with you, Jiggy, that Pazio has spoken on the issue, and if we don't like it, we should just house rule it. :) But because of the way the question was posed to them in the FAQ and because of the apparent lack of common sense on its face, I don't have a lot of confidence in the dicta in their answer, unfortunately. I think the interpretation I provide is true to the text of the rules and also is much more in line powerwise for a 2nd-level spell.

I have to agree with those who have issue with the FAQ interpretation. There is nothing in the rules or common sense that would allow "natural ambient light" to function in a Darkness spell, while a much brighter torch (with natural fire, I might add) cannot function at all.

Here is the problem that I see. Everyone is equating "increasing the light level" as being synonymous with "functioning." I believe this is incorrect. Light sources have two functions or aspects: (1) they shed light in a given area, which means the light in the immediate vicinity becomes the specified level (there is no "increasing" per se); and (2) outside of this immediate area, they "increase the light level." This is different than 3.5, so it is significant.

Here are a couple examples of light source descriptions:
Torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius and increasing the light level by one step for an additional 20 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light).

Lantern, Hooded: A hooded lantern sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light)

All light sources that I looked at have similar descriptions. Thus, when the Darkness spell specifies that non-magical light sources "do not increase the light level," it sure seems to me that it is referencing only this second aspect/ability of light sources. The first aspect is "covered" under the spell because the level gets reduced by 1 level.

If the RAW intended non-magical light sources to simply not work at all within a Darkness spell, why didn't they use such language instead of the "increase the light level" language that exactly matches the second ability of light sources? If it did say "did not function" then I would have no argument with the FAQ (although I think it still would be overpowered, but it would be a logical interpretation of the rule). I don't think it is a coincidence that it used the "increase" language.

So, in my view, according to RAW, FAQ notwithstanding, a Torch would function within a Darkness spell because it sheds Normal light, which would be reduced 1 level per the Darkness spell to Dim wherever the 20' radius of the Torch intersected with the spell. However, anywhere outside that 20' radius, where the Torch would normally increase the light level by 1 level, it does not increase at all in areas that are covered by the spell.

This seems much more in line with a second-level spell, IMHO, and more importantly, it actually uses the plain language of the rules, instead of interjecting some "natural ambient light level" aspect that is not present anywhere in the rules that I can tell.

Our group has never had a monk until now. My question is this: If a monk gets his WIS modified someway, either by Owl's Wisdom or some other means during the day, does this affect his Ki Pool?

My inclination is "no" because the rules state that the Ki pool is replenished at the start of the day. Thus, I would think that the Ki pool is set regardless of what happens to the monk's WIS later in the day (good or bad).

Just wondering what the real rule was.

Thanks!

Edit: Now that I go back and read that section, I kinda get what you are saying, but look at the example further down the page with the spiders, it should help clarify.

I think the question is if this is what how injury poisions are handled, then how are inhaled/ingested ones handled?

Also does the portion of the rule, "Each additional dose extends the total duration of the poison (as noted under frequency) by half its total duration. In addition, each dose of poison increases the DC to resist the poison by +2. This increase is cumulative," only apply to injury/contact ones? There is no qualifier, so it just adds confusion.

But is also says

pfsrd wrote:

Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses.

Are the details given for each ability supposed to be inclusive, or just examples that cover most of the cases? The more I read this, the more confusing it becomes.

This entry refers to ability drain, where the ability actually does get reduced.

I don't see how the system of subtracting from each relevant skill, save, AC, attack, damage, etc. is any simpler than just reducing the ability itself. You get situations like you pointed out with the STR and 2-handed damage. It's obvious what they are intending, but they have to make these lengthy rules... and for what?

If characters losing feats and prestige classes was the main concern, a simple rule that "when determining whether a character meets the prerequisites for any feat/class, use the undamaged ability score" would have been a lot cleaner IMHO.

I noticed that ability damage doesn't really reduce the actual ability, it just *acts* like it did.

What is the point of this? Wouldn't it have been much simpler just to say when you take ability damage the ability is reduced by a like amount? Done. Instead, they explain all the dependent rolls/abilities that are affected are reduced.

The ONLY rationale I could come up with is that it may have been too tedious to look up new encumbrances if STR was damaged.

Anyway, I fail to see why they went with this approach. If anyone can shed some light, I would love to hear it.

If a wizard casts Fireball, do you roll damage for each creature individually within the area of effect, or do you roll once and apply that result to all the affected creatures? Same goes for Channel Energy.