I'm confused as to how the darkness spell operates. It says it counters or dispels light spells of equal or lower level. Does this require a caster check, as per a targeted dispel? Also, if the spell is cast and a continual flame is used in the area, does the continual flame cancel the concealment because it is of equal level? Or does it continue to provide light, as well as darkness providing concealment? Lastly, if there is no magical light within the radius, and no natural light, does it cover these artificial light sources, creating total darkness (except for those with darkvision, who still suffer the penalties of concealment)? If not, why is it more effective against magical light (it can dispel it) than it is against artificial light (which it only partially mutes)?
I'm sure there was a sage advice about this somewhere. Could someone "enlighten" me? Thanks.
Lastly, if there is no magical light within the radius, and no natural light, does it cover these artificial light sources, creating total darkness (except for those with darkvision, who still suffer the penalties of concealment)? If not, why is it more effective against magical light (it can dispel it) than it is against artificial light (which it only partially mutes)?
Oddly, if there is no magical light, no natural light, and no light sources at all, the darkness spell actually *radiates* shadowy light.
The reason the spell works this way is because it was completely broken under 3.0.
Oddly, if there is no magical light and no natural light, the darkness spell actually *radiates* shadowy light.The reason the spell works this way is because it was completely broken under 3.0.
Weird. So if darkness is cast on an area lit only my nonmagical light, it radiates shadowy light. Now what happens if an everburning torch is brought within that area?
Darkness
Evocation [Darkness]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.
Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness.
If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Arcane Material Component
A bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal.
Continual Flame
Evocation [Light]
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Effect: Magical, heatless flame
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Material Component
You sprinkle ruby dust (worth 50 gp) on the item that is to carry the flame.
Weird. So if darkness is cast on an area lit only my nonmagical light, it radiates shadowy light. Now what happens if an everburning torch is brought within that area?
If the Everburning Torch was created by a cleric, it's a 3rd level spell. Darkness says, "Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness." So, the everburning torch prevails.
If the Everburning Torch was created by a wizard or sorcerer, it's a 2nd level spell. Not sure what happens. Sounds like they are both cancelled out within the area of overlap.
Help! Jeremy?
Thanks, I do have the Player's Handbook and have read these entries. What's confusing is that both spells seem to "counter or dispel" each other. Is this like a dispel magic targeted dispel or is it automatic? Does this mean that an everburning torch brought within a darkness spell would fizzle AND the darkness spell would be ended? Or do they merely suppress each other for the duration of the darkness spell? (leaving any nonmagical light in the area intact).
http://d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/magicOverview.htm#counterspells
"Specific Exceptions
Some spells specifically counter each other, especially when they have diametrically opposed effects."
I'm pretty sure this is what they are talking about when they say "counters". In other words, I think they mean it in the D&D mechanical sense, not in the ordinary English sense of the word.
Or do they merely suppress each other for the duration of the darkness spell? (leaving any nonmagical light in the area intact).
Sounds good to me, at least for the wizard version of the everburning torch.
- rob
Ah yes, the darkness spell, one of 3.5's landmines. Let's see if we can sort this out.
First of all, it is important to note that the phrase "counters and dispels" refers to two distinct ways a spellcaster can use the spell that are different from its normal operation. So that neither of these apply if the spells are cast normally and their effects overlap.
To be specific, when a spell says it "counters" another spell, it means if you have a readied action to counter a spell an opponent is casting, (say, dancing lights) and you identify the dancing lights spell with a spellcraft check, you can use a prepared darkness spell to counter the dancing lights spell (normally you could only use another dancing lights spell or a dispel magic spell).
For more information on couterspells, see the PHB page 170.
When a spell says it dispels another spell, that means you can cast that spell and target a specific ongoing spell, and automatically dispel it, without having to make a caster level check. So, for example, if your opponents have cast a "light" spell on a rock, you can cast a darkness spell targeting the "light" spell and it will automatically be dispelled.
Neither of these two effects is relevant when you are trying to determine how two spells interact when their areas overlap.
There is only one piece of text that is relevant here: "Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness."
Since it only says that lower level spells are incapable of brightening the area, another second level spell (such as continual flame) would be unaffected. The fact that the spell specifically states that higher level spells are unaffected (and not spells of the same level) is irrelevant.
Note that the daylight spell has specific text for what happens when it interacts with deeper darkness. "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."
If you would like an existing darkness spell to have some effect on continual flame, you could steal the daylight text and apply it to continual flame. That would be a house rule, however. Also note that continual flame cast as a second level spell is ineffective in deeper darkness, but cast as a third level spell it works.
A topic of long discussion in my own game a couple weeks back.
By counter it means you can use this spell to "counterspell" an opposing casters light spell of equal or lesser level. By dispel it means you can cast a darkness spell at the area of a light spell of equal or lower level to dispel it.
Simply bringing a magical light source of equal level into the area of a darkness spell does not dispel it (as I erroneously thought and was corrected). Instead there is shadowy illumination as described wherever the light overlaps the darnkess spell's area of effect (up to its bright illumination radius-not its shadowy area).
If somone has already said this, sorry for repeating.
Instead there is shadowy illumination as described wherever the light overlaps the darnkess spell's area of effect (up to its bright illumination radius-not its shadowy area).
I disagree with you on this Steve. I don't see anywhere where the RAW say an ongoing darkness spell or effect has any effect on a light spell of equal level at all.
And also note that since the darkness spell provides shadowy illumination itself, the question of whether the continual flame (or other light source) provides shadowy illumination within the radius of a darkness spell is moot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the final answer is:
A Continual Light spell, or an everburning torch, prevails in areas of overlap with a darkness spell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the final answer is:
A Continual Light spell, or an everburning torch, prevails in areas of overlap with a darkness spell.
Sounds good to me. Thanks for all y'all's help deciphering the code that is the darkness spell description!
One more thing (since I don't think this was answered). I believe that you don't need to make a caster level check to dispel a light spell with a darkness spell. I also believe that you need to target the object that the light spell has been cast on to dispel it, since that's what darkmantles do when they are attacking creatures with magical light sources.
I've considered house ruleing that darkness cannot raise the level of illumination in an area. It's just not right that darkness can be used to create light.
Instead there is shadowy illumination as described wherever the light overlaps the darnkess spell's area of effect (up to its bright illumination radius-not its shadowy area).
I disagree with you on this Steve. I don't see anywhere where the RAW say an ongoing darkness spell or effect has any effect on a light spell of equal level at all.
And also note that since the darkness spell provides shadowy illumination itself, the question of whether the continual flame (or other light source) provides shadowy illumination within the radius of a darkness spell is moot.
As pointed out just before this post, a darkness spell cannot be used to actually create light, which some may think "the darkness spell provides shadowy illumination itself" means. It does not. When reading, it's assumed that there is an existing, normal ambient light (a torch, campfire, sunlight, etc) when the darkness spell is cast. Otherwise this would not be a Evocation (Darkness) spell, but an Evocation (Light) spell since it would be creating light, dim though it may be. And if so, this spell is way off and needs to be re-written properly. Darkness is darkness or should be called a "Shadowy Illumination" spell - Evocation (Light).
Jeremy, since the description specifically states that "higher level light spells (such as daylight) are not affected by darkness" (brought into the area of affect, that is), but says nothing about equal level ones, my take on it is that equal level light spells are also incapable of brightening the area of a darkness spell and vice-versa.
As pointed out just before this post, a darkness spell cannot be used to actually create light, which some may think "the darkness spell provides shadowy illumination itself" means. It does not. When reading, it's assumed that there is an existing, normal ambient light (a torch, campfire, sunlight, etc) when the darkness spell is cast. Otherwise this would not be a Evocation (Darkness) spell, but an Evocation (Light) spell since it would be creating light, dim though it may be.
There is nothing in the rules that says a spell with the darkness descriptor cannot create light, nor is there anything in the rules that says a spell with the light descriptor has to create light. The descriptors (with the exceptions of language-dependant and mind affecting), in fact, have no rules text applied to them universally; they are meaningful only in the context of other rules. For more information see the PHB, page 174.
Also, saying that something is "assumed when reading" in the context of the D&D rules is incorrect. Regardless of how you think the spell should work, it means what it says.
You are free to house rule it, however (I do for my own campaign).
Jeremy, since the description specifically states that "higher level light spells (such as daylight) are not affected by darkness" (brought into the area of affect, that is), but says nothing about equal level ones, my take on it is that equal level light spells are also incapable of brightening the area of a darkness spell and vice-versa.
The text does say that higher-level light spells are unaffected by darkness. That implies (but does not specifically say) that equal level light spells are affected.
Meanwhile, the spell specifically says that lower level light spells are ineffective within the radius of a darkness spell.
The logic here is this: A spell works a certain way, unless another spell specifically says it doesn't work that way. Simply implying that it doesn't work is not good enough; it has to say it doesn't work.
It's quite possible the game designers meant for darkness to override light spells of equal or lower level (its also just as possible they didn't though, I don't see any real evidence either way). However because they didn't say the darkness spell overrides 2nd-level light spells, it doesn't.
Once again, if you don't like it feel free to house rule it (the daylight text above is a good way to do this IMO).
One more thing (since I don't think this was answered). I believe that you don't need to make a caster level check to dispel a light spell with a darkness spell. I also believe that you need to target the object that the light spell has been cast on to dispel it, since that's what darkmantles do when they are attacking creatures with magical light sources.
I did say up above that you could use a darkness spell to dispel a light spell of equal or lower level without having to make a caster level check, but it was buried in some pretty dense rules text, so it's worth restating.
To split hairs :) you actually target the light spell itself with the darkness spell, not the object the light spell is cast on (otherwise, you couldn't dispel light spells that aren't cast on objects, like dancing lights). If the light spell is cast on an object, you still have to have line of sight to the target of the light spell though. This is the equivalent of casting the targeted version of dispel magic targeting a spell.
Hmmm... Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one, Jeremy. I can easily see your angle on this, though.
However, I hold with the thought that it's the same basic Dungeons & Dragons game I've played since 1st Ed., though the mechanics are much more detailed and far better than the original. In the 1st Ed. "Darkness 15' Radius" spell the very first words in the description read, "This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of effect." Now before someone rants "That's first edition, you dolt! We're talking about 3.5, here," I only refer to that because it still has relevance as to what type of spell the Darkness spell was and still is meant to be. I still maintain (and will continue to do so until there is an official errata stating otherwise) that a Darkness spell creates DARKNESS, not light.
IMO, spells are described in the PHB with some basic assumptions in mind: you can see, you can hear, and you can move. Obviously this isn't always the case, but DMs have rules to adjudicate to spellcasters casting in less than these perfect cicumstances. For my part, I ASSUME (yes, I know "Ass out of you and me") that there is some kind of prevailing light as the spell is described and the spell dims that light to shadowy illumination, barring an equal level (*I concede that point to you, Jeremy) or higher level light spell is brought into its area of effect or it's dispelled. If it is cast in an already dark area, it's not going to change anything. It's still dark. But again, this is my opinion and I suppose I'll have to start calling it a "house rule" until something official can support it.
One last thing I'd like to point out, where the rules fail to clarify, common sense must be used. Darkness means "darkness" and Light means "light."
If nothing else, this has been an insightful thread. My original misconceptions about the spell are obviously not alone.
Jeremy, has there been any Sage Advice articles addressing this or Errata? Though I don't like the taste of eating my own words, I would humbly admit my error if there was something official to clear this up.
*The Daylight spell description supports your opinion when it states, "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."
"Darkness" is relative to the prevailing conditions. The darkness spell is not as dark as an unlit underground cave or dense forest on a dark moonless night, but its certainly darker than a normal sunny day or a brightly lit room. The reason its a darkness spell is not necessarily because it creates darkness (though it does create a level of poor illumination), but because it prevents creatures from using darkvision or low-light vision, disables non-magical light sources, and can be used to counter or dispel magical light sources or spells with the light descriptor. In a brightly lit room you would cast darkness to create a certain level of darkness, but that's not why a drow cleric would cast it while deep underground in a lightless cavern. She would be casting it to negate or destroy the PCs light sources.
I agree with Steve and Jeremy that changing the spell so that it won't illuminate pitch darkness is a good house rule.
That said, I think the intent of the 3.5 version as written is obvious in the first line:
"This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius."
In other words, it *does* radiate illumination, a.k.a. light.
IMHO, the 3.5 Darkness spell is a weak spell, while the 3.0 Darkness spell was too devastating, and not very much fun. Making things worse, I heard of 3.0 campaigns where a character would have Darkness cast on their shield and True Seeing cast on them, and then just wade into an army and basically kill at will. Weeee!
- rob