|
Wow, I understand that a darkness spell can be pretty close to an encounter ender, but what the heck is the point of the new darkness spell? A) it breaks literary conventions of the spell. Remember those old drizz't novels, where the drow were hitting the dwarven front lines by casting darkness and whomping them. Now that doesn't work at all because dwarves see right through it. Not to mention it's a second level spell that is beaten by a friggen candle. so we have a 2nd level spell that does nothing to two character races and mildly inconveniences the rest for one move action.
Seriously, I understand that needing to wait till 3rd level to get a spell that countered it sucked, but howsabout just creating a second level spell that counters it instead of nerfing the spell into nothingness.
Director of Games
|
There are two issues here...
The first being that the 3.5 version of darkness (or rather "dimness") did not create actual darkness at all. In a darkened area, it actually made things lighter.
The second being that working with true darkness is a pain for the GM and the players. It creates a host of irritating situations, concerning attacking into and out of the darkness.
The current solution tries to split the difference, giving a darkness that can be circumvented to alleviate the pain it can cause.
There is part of me that thinks it does not quite work to my satisfaction.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I agree with the OP. No one in my group has seriously even thought about taking the spell since it actually changed to a "create light" spell.
It should cause darkness...it just seems like common sense to me. The argument that it's an irritating spell doesn't really cut it for me. Fireball is irritating too...expecially to the character that is in the center of it. The whole point of spells to me is to create effects that are different and varied and make the PCs actually work sometimes to resolve them.
Please make darkness actually make things dark again.
|
|
There are two issues here...
The first being that the 3.5 version of darkness (or rather "dimness") did not create actual darkness at all. In a darkened area, it actually made things lighter.
The second being that working with true darkness is a pain for the GM and the players. It creates a host of irritating situations, concerning attacking into and out of the darkness.
The current solution tries to split the difference, giving a darkness that can be circumvented to alleviate the pain it can cause.
There is part of me that thinks it does not quite work to my satisfaction.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Talk to my DM who cast darkness on the cleric who has a magical amulet of continual flame, and was also standing 5ft from a fire. before he learned the change and said nevermind I take that back. Also this kill the spell for nighttime ambushes, because the party has a campfire so the spell does nothing. I'm fine with magical light spells above first level beating darkness, but darkvision beating it and regular flame beating it, and 0 level cantrips beating a 2nd level spell means that for most parties the spell can only work during the day, for one portion of a round (the move action it takes to draw a sunrod and strike it, and every character I've ever made ever, carried a sunrod). If you want darkness to work in it's current version you need to drop it to cantrip status, because as a second level spell it is NOT working in it's current form. Actually, darkness as a cantrip isn't that bad an idea.
|
|
The current solution tries to split the difference, giving a darkness that can be circumvented to alleviate the pain it can cause.
No it kills the difference, sorry you can't say a spell that does nothing if a torch is in the area of effect splits the difference. This can't be used in dungeons (they have to have light sources to see) this can't be used at night (people set up fires). the only time it can be used is during the day, if there are no cookfires, ceremonial torches/candles, dancing lights, or prestidigitation effects going on.
Honestly I'd rather a 2nd level spell prevent targeting with ranged attacks into it and make everyone within have to blind-fight, hey maybe we'd actually see people taking that feat intstead of ignoring it because its the mild dimness spell.
I'm fine with Darkvision breaching low-level Darkness spells. (Not high-level ones, because Devils' See-in-darkness ability should do something). However, torches and fire and the like shouldn't affect it, it is magical darkness after all.
How about using the 3.5 wording, only it actually creates dark instead of shadow? (And of course, allows darkvision.)
|
Director of Games
|
I'm fine with Darkvision breaching low-level Darkness spells. (Not high-level ones, because Devils' See-in-darkness ability should do something). However, torches and fire and the like shouldn't affect it, it is magical darkness after all.
How about using the 3.5 wording, only it actually creates dark instead of shadow? (And of course, allows darkvision.)
This is the course I am considering, actually. With the added bit about ramping up deeper darkness to not allow darkvision.
Thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I'm fine with Darkvision breaching low-level Darkness spells. (Not high-level ones, because Devils' See-in-darkness ability should do something). However, torches and fire and the like shouldn't affect it, it is magical darkness after all.
How about using the 3.5 wording, only it actually creates dark instead of shadow? (And of course, allows darkvision.)
This is the course I am considering, actually. With the added bit about ramping up deeper darkness to not allow darkvision.
Thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Deeper darkness should definitely cancel out darkvision.
|
Darkness needs to remain darkness. Darkvision, sunrods should not be able to counter a 2nd level spell. As for Darkness creating light in certain situations agreed that is fairly silly and changing that is welcome, but making the spell nigh useless seems an odd fix. As for darkness being irritating, yes, that is generally the idea, confusion to the enemy, all that. I've had PCs, NPCs, monsters use darkness and it has never been something that slowed the game it was simply another obstacle.
|
|
Darkness needs to remain darkness. Darkvision, sunrods should not be able to counter a 2nd level spell. As for Darkness creating light in certain situations agreed that is fairly silly and changing that is welcome, but making the spell nigh useless seems an odd fix. As for darkness being irritating, yes, that is generally the idea, confusion to the enemy, all that. I've had PCs, NPCs, monsters use darkness and it has never been something that slowed the game it was simply another obstacle.
Well for my group it actually allowed enemies to escape, also it turned into a nasty encounter with an ally trying to prove to them that they weren't ready for the bbeg they were going to try and run headlong into by simply using it and having blindsight. The PC learned how easily they would get their buts handed to them. That was before I learned that it wasn't like the old books I read, but rather that it was a silly shadowy sphere.
I too was glad to see the "shadowy illumination" from 3.5 go away in Pathfinder - Bravo.
What you're currently considering would be fairly good - non-magical light really shouldn't work in magical darkness.
I'm of two minds regarding lower-level magical light though. Very few parties carry around Daylight spells prepped, so it can turn into quite a hassle, though not much more than an Obscuring Mist. I would suggest:
a) Darkness covers [light] spells of lower level, and counters equal level.
or b) An area Darkness doesn't hinder magical lights, but the spell can be used to target a magical light source to suppress it instead.
My group is just starting to hit Drow in SD and they'll be dealing with the Darkness spell quite a bit. It would be good to have a decent version to go on.
Also lastknightleft - even the current version still works for that Drow on Dwarves scene you were talking about, at least to a degree. When the Drow drop darkness on the dwarves, the dwarves become limited to their 60' darkvision, instead of whatever range of light they had. The Drow can then use their 120' darkvision to peg them with poison arrows, etc.
|
Wow, I understand that a darkness spell can be pretty close to an encounter ender, but what the heck is the point of the new darkness spell? A) it breaks literary conventions of the spell. Remember those old drizz't novels, where the drow were hitting the dwarven front lines by casting darkness and whomping them. Now that doesn't work at all because dwarves see right through it. Not to mention it's a second level spell that is beaten by a friggen candle. so we have a 2nd level spell that does nothing to two character races and mildly inconveniences the rest for one move action.
Seriously, I understand that needing to wait till 3rd level to get a spell that countered it sucked, but howsabout just creating a second level spell that counters it instead of nerfing the spell into nothingness.
PLEASE fix darkness, killing this spell kills the drows deadly sneak attacks from dark, i am just using the old spell until you sort it all out
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
PLEASE fix darkness, killing this spell kills the drows deadly sneak attacks from dark, i am just using the old spell until you sort it all outWow, I understand that a darkness spell can be pretty close to an encounter ender, but what the heck is the point of the new darkness spell? A) it breaks literary conventions of the spell. Remember those old drizz't novels, where the drow were hitting the dwarven front lines by casting darkness and whomping them. Now that doesn't work at all because dwarves see right through it. Not to mention it's a second level spell that is beaten by a friggen candle. so we have a 2nd level spell that does nothing to two character races and mildly inconveniences the rest for one move action.
Seriously, I understand that needing to wait till 3rd level to get a spell that countered it sucked, but howsabout just creating a second level spell that counters it instead of nerfing the spell into nothingness.
I'm also not a fan of Darkvision working in magical darkness. Almost every creature Type in the books has darkvision except Humanoids and Animals! Against the majority of monsters it's useless for a PC.
I'm also of the School that Darkness is a battlefield control spell. You use it BREAK LINE OF SIGHT from spellcasters, archers, and chargers. You can also use it to even the playing field against Invisible creatures if you don't have See Invisible, Faerie Fire, or a Glitterdust handy.
Magical Darkness should be full Darkness with no darkvision.
--Vrock and Awe!
Almost every creature Type in the books has darkvision except Humanoids and Animals! Against the majority of monsters it's useless for a PC.
I think this is a whole different problem. So many creatures have Darkvision that lack of darkvision is more of a handicap than darkvision is a bonus.
No it kills the difference, sorry you can't say a spell that does nothing if a torch is in the area of effect splits the difference. This can't be used in dungeons (they have to have light sources to see) this can't be used at night (people set up fires). the only time it can be used is during the day, if there are no cookfires, ceremonial torches/candles, dancing lights, or prestidigitation effects going on.
I'd like to expand upon this statement... when I interpret it, it seems that any light source counters it. So when casting it outside in the middle of the day, even sunlight pierces it. This of course makes the spell totally useless. Does it say that the light source must be in the area of effect to negate the darkness?
Other than that, I like where this discussion is heading. The dim light version of 3.5 never sat well with me at our gaming sessions. It always seemed awkward.
What if the Darkness spell reduced the effects of Darkvision?
Like say to equal Low Light Vision or something similar?
As a 2nd-level spell Darkness should definitely negate all non-magical darkness. Negating darkvision would make it a little too good, though. Perhaps it could hinder darkvision in a manner similar to Obscuring Mist. I say this because at this point, pre-modification, Obscuring Mist is a far more useful battlefield control spell than the higher-level Darkness.
Or, if negating non-magical darkness seems too powerful, perhaps Darkness would suppress it by lowering its illumination by a step or so. Candles would be worthless but sunrods still somewhat effective.
Those are my thoughts. Which means I'll try it out in my campaign.
My players think the Pathfinder version of the Darkness spell sucks, though they don't have any offered solutions.
What if the Darkness spell reduced the effects of Darkvision?
Like say to equal Low Light Vision or something similar?
I've been ninja'd by Dark Psion (well, almost... I'm a VERY slow ninja, you see...), but I have a very similar suggestion:
1) Deeper Darkness: no Darkvision at all (only Devils and the like can see through it), no normal lights, only 3rd-level or higher (or 4th-level or higher...unsure about this) light spells can work
2) Darkness: no normal lights, Darkvision works with a reduced range (something like 5 or 10 feet of visual per 30 feet of Darkvision; in this way, Drow ambush would still occur, since Drow - with their 120 feet Darkvision, and so 20 or 40 feet into Darkness - have the opportunity to stalk from the darkness agaist Dwarves, which have only 60 feet of Darkvision - only 10 or 20 feet into Darkness). Only 2nd-level or higher (or 3rd-level or higher...unsure about this, too) light spells can work.
Hope this would be useful.
atm Darkness reads pretty much like the cantrip Light
so why not make it a cantrip of equal 'value':
shedding darkness in a 20-foot radius (and dims light for an additional 20 feet), can be countered with any artificial light source,
darkvision (and low light vision in the outer 20') still work
this would serve as a cool distraction spell in the open during daylight
plus this sentence in the description of Light would make more sense:
"Light can be used to counter or dispel any darkness spell of equal or lower spell level"
atm this is pretty silly as there is no 0 level darkness spell (at least in the PHB or beta PRPG)
.
the cantrip Darkness could then be expanded with:
1st level spell:
Deeper Darkness (darkvision still works, non magic light not)
+ a new 1st level spell 'Brighter Light' to counter (and maybe put these 1st level spells on the list in the description of Permanency rather than the cantrip Light)
3rd level spell:
Greater Darkness (blocks even darkvision) equal in power to / countered by Daylight
Well IMO 3.5 Darkness was quite deadly, especially used by creatures with darkvision. Why so ? Because these creatures ( eg : Drows ) tend not to fight in brightlight. Basically, cast a darkness in an already dark area : Seems stupid ? Maybe not
Those who don't have darkvision are now considered blind if they don't have a magical mean to counter the darkness effect. Those who have a darkvision only suffer a 20% miss chance. I shall remind that blind creatures loses their DEX bonus to AC thus making them easy prey for rogues.
This darkness spell in 3.5 just works fine if used in correct conditions. I don't really see the point to changing this.
Now, there is a spell that could be changed ( or not ) and that is faerie fire. Why ? I haven't read the drow saga by Salvatore, but my players tell me that drow fighting techniques use darkness spell in conjunction with faerie fire, the latter being able to overcome the darkness. I admit it makes this level 1 spell something new, quite powerful, and an exception to the rule of Light/darkness overcoming each other. Now, I guess it's up to everyone to see they want to play this
I liked the complete darkness spell, because it meant blindness for everyone. It's a good distraction and was a good way to enjoy the benefit of the Blind Fighting feat.
Just a bit concealment is nothing like that.
I liked the complete darkness spell, because it meant blindness for everyone. It's a good distraction and was a good way to enjoy the benefit of the Blind Fighting feat.
Just a bit concealment is nothing like that.
Blindfighting stills works with 20% concealment. Otherwise there is a spell that was in Magic of Faerun under the Darkness Domain that allows you to cast a complete darkness zone but gives you the ability too see through it.
|
|
Those who don't have darkvision are now considered blind if they don't have a magical mean to counter the darkness effect. Those who have a darkvision only suffer a 20% miss chance. I shall remind that blind creatures loses their DEX bonus to AC thus making them easy prey for rogues.
Except that Rogues in 3.5 became completely unable to use their Sneak Attack if the target had any level of Concealment versus them. So the Rogues, even the ones with darkvision and 'only' a 20% miss chance were just subpar fighters with smaller-than-normal swords. No Sneak Attack dice equals sad Rogue.
Whatever Darkness was intended to do, all it really ends up doing is slowing down the game, IMO.
Those who don't have darkvision are now considered blind if they don't have a magical mean to counter the darkness effect. Those who have a darkvision only suffer a 20% miss chance. I shall remind that blind creatures loses their DEX bonus to AC thus making them easy prey for rogues.Except that Rogues in 3.5 became completely unable to use their Sneak Attack if the target had any level of Concealment versus them. So the Rogues, even the ones with darkvision and 'only' a 20% miss chance were just subpar fighters with smaller-than-normal swords. No Sneak Attack dice equals sad Rogue.
Whatever Darkness was intended to do, all it really ends up doing is slowing down the game, IMO.
Good point, Forgot about this one. Still it's 20% miss chance vs 50% and bonuses to hit
|
|
Those who don't have darkvision are now considered blind if they don't have a magical mean to counter the darkness effect. Those who have a darkvision only suffer a 20% miss chance. I shall remind that blind creatures loses their DEX bonus to AC thus making them easy prey for rogues.Except that Rogues in 3.5 became completely unable to use their Sneak Attack if the target had any level of Concealment versus them. So the Rogues, even the ones with darkvision and 'only' a 20% miss chance were just subpar fighters with smaller-than-normal swords. No Sneak Attack dice equals sad Rogue.
Whatever Darkness was intended to do, all it really ends up doing is slowing down the game, IMO.
So remove it from the game, don't nerf it to the point that there's no point in casting it.
I have been waiting a while to post on this spell because I also find a candle completely negating a second level spell and foiling an important spell-like ability for many creatures to be fundamentally broken. I also understand that for a second level spell it is quite powerful in 3.0 compared to the other 2nd level spells. I never used the 3.5 version because I thought the creation of light was silly.
Here is what I have been using in my games and has worked well for us:
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. Creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded in this area. Creatures with darkvision have their vision concealed as though a dark fog has consumed the area of effect. Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) and light spells brought inside the area of darkness can brighten the area, allowing a creature to see one level of illumination lower than the light source allows. 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 can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
To me, this seems to be a bit of a balance between the traditional use of the spell and by reducing some of the encounter ending effects for such a low level spell. It doesn't completely punish those with darkvision, but it does hamper their visibility as it should. It also allows for raising the light level within the area somewhat for creatures that do not have darkvision at the cost of a spell or some resource to create light.
Far too many things have darkvision to make darkness a viable spell if you can beat it with darkvision. Darkness should shut out any light source below third level spells, and give a 20% miss chance if you have darkvision. Deeper darkness should be complete darkness, even with darkvision.
Honestly, other than the odd bit of how darkness actually created light, I thought the spell was fine.
As it stands, darkness effectively failing when cast outside during the day is totally unacceptable. I would be hard pressed to find any situation where one would even notice the spell effect.
|
|
Far too many things have darkvision to make darkness a viable spell if you can beat it with darkvision. Darkness should shut out any light source below third level spells, and give a 20% miss chance if you have darkvision. Deeper darkness should be complete darkness, even with darkvision.
Honestly, other than the odd bit of how darkness actually created light, I thought the spell was fine.
As it stands, darkness effectively failing when cast outside during the day is totally unacceptable. I would be hard pressed to find any situation where one would even notice the spell effect.
I agree here, Darkness was fine except for that stupid wording that it was a globe of shadowy illumination. Instead just say that if cast in an area of complete darkness the darkness spell has no effect other than preventing lower level light sources from illuminating.
I agree here, Darkness was fine except for that stupid wording that it was a globe of shadowy illumination. Instead just say that if cast in an area of complete darkness the darkness spell has no effect other than preventing lower level light sources from illuminating.
Yes, I agree; that's the solution that makes the most sense to me.
|
I'm fine with Darkvision breaching low-level Darkness spells. (Not high-level ones, because Devils' See-in-darkness ability should do something). However, torches and fire and the like shouldn't affect it, it is magical darkness after all.
How about using the 3.5 wording, only it actually creates dark instead of shadow? (And of course, allows darkvision.)
This is the course I am considering, actually. With the added bit about ramping up deeper darkness to not allow darkvision.
Thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I like this. I also like the idea of darkness reducing darkvision. Drow have a longer range of darkvision than anyone else, so as long as the reduction is a set amount they should still come out on top when using that spell as part of an ambush.
How about something like...
"This spell cloaks all light out to a 20-foot radius.
Light from non-magical light sources (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) in the area initially or brought into the area of effect while the duration is still in effect are completely masked and shed no illumination.
Lesser magical light sources (light spells or magically glowing items) in the area initially or brought into the area of effect while the duration is still in effect have their areas of effect of full illumination reduced to one 5' square and cast shadowy illumination into the surrounding 1 squares.
Greater magical light sources (daylight spells) suppress this spells effects.
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 can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level."
Of course the wording would have to be cleaned up but in this way creatures with darkvision are still somewhat affected (everything has 20% concealment against them) but they are not completely hosed. Also, it completely masks mundane light sources but doesn't completely extinguish low level light sources, it just reduces their area of effect. Also, it does not cast shadowy illumination, it masks light.
Just a quick idea.
[edit]Oh and also, Deeper Darkness would give everything 50% concealment vs. darkvision and completely extinguish lower level light effects, as well as have a larger area of effect and longer duration (as it is now).[/edit]
The first being that the 3.5 version of darkness (or rather "dimness") did not create actual darkness at all. In a darkened area, it actually made things lighter.
the point might have been to prevent the spell from becoming a cheap substitute for invisibility in darkened areas.
If it created a 'true' absolute light-less area, then it could for example be used to optically seal a tunnel without anybody noticing a spell was cast. or let the object it was cast on be carried by Unseen Servant, optically vanishing the party towards anyone on the other side.
By actually making things a bit lighter at least anyone in the darkened area would have a clue there is something suspicious going on.
|
|
How about something like...
"This spell cloaks all light out to a 20-foot radius.
Light from non-magical light sources (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) in the area initially or brought into the area of effect while the duration is still in effect are completely masked and shed no illumination.
Lesser magical light sources (light spells or magically glowing items) in the area initially or brought into the area of effect while the duration is still in effect have their areas of effect of full illumination reduced to one 5' square and cast shadowy illumination into the surrounding 1 squares.
Greater magical light sources (daylight spells) suppress this spells effects.
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 can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level."
Of course the wording would have to be cleaned up but in this way creatures with darkvision are still somewhat affected (everything has 20% concealment against them) but they are not completely hosed. Also, it completely masks mundane light sources but doesn't completely extinguish low level light sources, it just reduces their area of effect. Also, it does not cast shadowy illumination, it masks light.
Just a quick idea.
[edit]Oh and also, Deeper Darkness would give everything 50% concealment vs. darkvision and completely extinguish lower level light effects, as well as have a larger area of effect and longer duration (as it is now).[/edit]
See it allready grants 20% concealment to all inside the sphere in the current version why do we need to change it? Basically it's dark in the sphere, but not so dark that you can't see things right in front of you, think of like late night when there are no stars or moonlight in the woods, you aren't going to walk headfirst into things, but you can't see more than 6' in front of you. Why do we need to change it so you can beat it with darkvision. Heck the advantage of the spell is that if you have some evil dwarf or goblin who put out your light source and is fighting you while you're in the dark you can even the score with this spell, and as others have said, it can prevent line of sight for being targeted by ranged attackers etc. Heck back in the day I was conceptualizing a fighter/sorcerer with blindfight and touch attack spells that used darkness to really be nasty, now that whole concept is beaten by a dwarf, or even hey a goblin.
Let second level spells beat darkvision, or drop it down to a cantrip, none of this It can be beaten by things almost everyone except humans have stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
See it allready grants 20% concealment to all inside the sphere in the current version why do we need to change it? Basically it's dark in the sphere, but not so dark that you can't see things right in front of you, think of like late night when there are no stars or moonlight in the woods, you aren't going to walk headfirst into things, but you can't see more than 6' in front of you. Why do we need to...
Though this is off topic slightly, Vision and Light need to be clearly defined too. How far can a Human see on a cloudless night in moonlight? In Starlight? On an overcast night? This needs to be defined because Low Light Vision says "Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day." Does starlight reduce this and if so by how much? Table 8-10 on pg. 128 needs to address this.
According to the Sight section in perception a human with no ranks of Perception & no Wisdom bonus taking 10 can see a visible creature at 1,000 feet in sunlight. In Torchlight the distance is 100feet. In Moonlight the human can see a creature at 50 feet. And Candlelight it's 10 feet.
Without clearly defining Vision and Light, fixing Darkness will be tricky.
--I wanna Vrock! VROCK!
This is the course I am considering, actually. With the added bit about ramping up deeper darkness to not allow darkvision.
Yes. Emphatic yes.
I'd personally like to see light and darkness in an overlapping area cancel each other out to allow the unaltered light conditions to prevail. Got a torch? Fine, someone casts darkness on you and you can't see. So your cleric fires up light. Now the torch starts working as advertised. Since, as discussed in another thread, almost everyone will be working with light up all the time, this would be a pretty fun tactic. Adventurers would be encouraged to keep other light sources like sunrods around as backup. But I digress.
I'm fine with Darkvision breaching low-level Darkness spells. (Not high-level ones, because Devils' See-in-darkness ability should do something). However, torches and fire and the like shouldn't affect it, it is magical darkness after all.
How about using the 3.5 wording, only it actually creates dark instead of shadow? (And of course, allows darkvision.)
This is the course I am considering, actually. With the added bit about ramping up deeper darkness to not allow darkvision.
Thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Sounds like a good idea to me! So long as the Concealment bonus provided by the spell doesn't exceed 20%, it should work out well...
|
|
I agree with the OP. No one in my group has seriously even thought about taking the spell since it actually changed to a "create light" spell.
It should cause darkness...it just seems like common sense to me. The argument that it's an irritating spell doesn't really cut it for me. Fireball is irritating too...expecially to the character that is in the center of it. The whole point of spells to me is to create effects that are different and varied and make the PCs actually work sometimes to resolve them.
Please make darkness actually make things dark again.
You know, one of my adventures in my playtest campaign featured an encounter with a Tiefling (racial abilities as per FR 3.0 version) Rogue/Wizard and demons he had summoned. I thought myself very clever, as the demon blanketed the area with 'Darkness' and they were supposed to have advantage (both had innate Darkvision) over the players -- until the grinning players reminded me that Dwarves and Half-orcs can also see in it! Well, perhaps the demon had mostly dealt Tieflings and humans... ;)
Our last session featured an ambush in an temple the PC cleric is a priest in. The PCs were actually hurt (returning from the "actual" adventure), and seeking healing from the high priest, so this might have been a potentially lethal encounter for a character or two (especially as all the "melee" types have crappy Perception modifiers). The PC cleric's first action was to use a scroll of 'Darkness', which was a *great* tactical move, as *NONE* of the ambushers had Darkvision (and there was very little light coming into the temple from windows). There were archers on a balcony, but even they couldn't see into the darkened area. It was a very fun fight, as the ambushers kept occasionally hitting each other, and half the group was likewise sneaking around and trying to identify where their enemies were (and where the frickin' spell area would *end*) -- while the cleric and the fighter, who both had Darkvision, methodically eliminated the ambushers one by one. I had everyone rolling if they their lost sense of direction (most of the participants except for the two PCs constantly failed their rolls, which only added to the atmosphere of the fight). Needless to say, the PCs triumphed. :)
In both cases, I think 'Darkness'-spell worked in a more consistent, fair and generally better fashion than ever -- in PF it can really give you a tactical edge, but it's not as annoying or "overpowering" as it was in AD&D or 3E (i.e. normal light can counter it). Previously it practically meant that unless you could counter it with a spell or had Blindfight or Blindsight, you were totally screwed.
Shortly put, I *love* the PF version of 'Darkness'! :)
I have always felt that the [Light] and [Darkness] spells should run on a scale:
-Blinding Bright- [everyone is blind]
-Very Bright- [perception penalties.. maybe a constant flare?]
-Bright- [lesser penalties]
-Normal- [standard normal daylight]
-Shady- [minor penalties]
-Shadowy/Gloomy [stiffer "dark" penalties; concealment, etc]
-Total Darkness [everyone is blind]
This scale can have as many steps as you think there should be. Once you have it, the rules become simple:
1. Determine the level of light currently in place.
2. Each [Light] and [Darkness] spell states how many places it moves the ambient light up or down the scale.
-If multiple casters start throwing out multiple spells, they don't stack. Otherwise you just add them as per normal. An example being, Evil Cleric casts darkness and drops the light level by.. say 2. Along comes the wizard who casts light and increases it by 1. Net result, Ambient light -1.
Hope this makes sense, this is a "up-late-and-type-fast" kind of post.
|
|
I agree with the OP. No one in my group has seriously even thought about taking the spell since it actually changed to a "create light" spell.
It should cause darkness...it just seems like common sense to me. The argument that it's an irritating spell doesn't really cut it for me. Fireball is irritating too...expecially to the character that is in the center of it. The whole point of spells to me is to create effects that are different and varied and make the PCs actually work sometimes to resolve them.
Please make darkness actually make things dark again.
You know, one of my adventures in my playtest campaign featured an encounter with a Tiefling (racial abilities as per FR 3.0 version) Rogue/Wizard and demons he had summoned. I thought myself very clever, as the demon blanketed the area with 'Darkness' and they were supposed to have advantage (both had innate Darkvision) over the players -- until the grinning players reminded me that Dwarves and Half-orcs can also see in it! Well, perhaps the demon had mostly dealt Tieflings and humans... ;)
Our last session featured an ambush in an temple the PC cleric is a priest in. The PCs were actually hurt (returning from the "actual" adventure), and seeking healing from the high priest, so this might have been a potentially lethal encounter for a character or two (especially as all the "melee" types have crappy Perception modifiers). The PC cleric's first action was to use a scroll of 'Darkness', which was a *great* tactical move, as *NONE* of the ambushers had Darkvision (and there was very little light coming into the temple from windows). There were archers on a balcony, but even they couldn't see into the darkened area. It was a very fun fight, as the ambushers kept occasionally hitting each other, and half the group was likewise sneaking around and trying to identify where their enemies were (and where the frickin' spell area would *end*) -- while the cleric and the fighter, who both had Darkvision,...
The level is too high, if it is allowed to be seen through by normal darkvision then it isn't a second level spell, it's a first level spell. I'm fine with darkness in this version as long as it isn't kept a second level spell.
|
|
I agree with the OP. No one in my group has seriously even thought about taking the spell since it actually changed to a "create light" spell.
It should cause darkness...it just seems like common sense to me. The argument that it's an irritating spell doesn't really cut it for me. Fireball is irritating too...expecially to the character that is in the center of it. The whole point of spells to me is to create effects that are different and varied and make the PCs actually work sometimes to resolve them.
Please make darkness actually make things dark again.
You know, one of my adventures in my playtest campaign featured an encounter with a Tiefling (racial abilities as per FR 3.0 version) Rogue/Wizard and demons he had summoned. I thought myself very clever, as the demon blanketed the area with 'Darkness' and they were supposed to have advantage (both had innate Darkvision) over the players -- until the grinning players reminded me that Dwarves and Half-orcs can also see in it! Well, perhaps the demon had mostly dealt Tieflings and humans... ;)
Our last session featured an ambush in an temple the PC cleric is a priest in. The PCs were actually hurt (returning from the "actual" adventure), and seeking healing from the high priest, so this might have been a potentially lethal encounter for a character or two (especially as all the "melee" types have crappy Perception modifiers). The PC cleric's first action was to use a scroll of 'Darkness', which was a *great* tactical move, as *NONE* of the ambushers had Darkvision (and there was very little light coming into the temple from windows). There were archers on a balcony, but even they couldn't see into the darkened area. It was a very fun fight, as the ambushers kept occasionally hitting each other, and half the group was likewise sneaking around and trying to identify where their enemies were (and where the frickin' spell area would *end*) -- while the cleric and the fighter, who both...
You know, Darkvision (or Blindfight/Blindsight) isn't that common -- at least among the Core Races. So making it a 1st-level spell might give a too good advantage either to the PCs or their enemies. I'm fine with Darkness being a second-level spell.
We really should be looking at these spells in context with the other spells that can be cast.
A third level spell can cause permanent Blindness in a target. Sure, it's only one target, but it's permanent! That's no darkvision as well, for anyone keeping track.
Deeper Darkness preventing Darkvision isn't exactly mind-blowing or overpowered.
.
A second level spell should be able to cause a temporary version of that effect. 20' radius also keeps this from making an entire region completely covered in darkness... spend a move action to move more than 20' in a single direction and you are likely to no longer be in the area of effect.
Other tactical counters are to Dispel it (also a 2nd level spell), or to simply do area damage in that area so you don't have to worry about targeting anything in particular (also 2nd level spells, fireball for example).
Continual Flame is a 2nd level Light spell that could be cast to counter it as well (if you don't have a Dispel Magic on hand).
If a spell has that many counters built into the spell system already, or can simply be walked out of the area of effect in (usually) one move action... I don't see it being a problem.
So 2nd level "Darkness" spell should actually be able to kill light in the area of effect, for the duration of the spell. Oh, and kill Darkvision (see below).
.
For a first level spell, let's take a look at other spells in the same level.
Let's take Obscuring Mist: 20% miss chance at adjacent targets, and 50% miss chance against anything further than that. Sure, it's point blank range, and can't be used in a windy environment (or countered by a Gust of Wind spell)... but it has a stronger effect (basically invisible at further than 5' away), which ups it's value.
Note that it blocks Darkvision (it's physical matter blocking your view: mist, not a light issue).
So as a point of balance, a 20% miss chance in a 20' burst, blocking Darkvision, feels fine for a 1st level spell. Call it Reduce Light, or Shadow Burst. Gives Evocation a nice defensive spell at that level too.
Give it 1 minute per level (1st level spell appropriate), and make sure it doesn't increase the light in an area, only reduces light down to the Dim light (no more shadowy illumination), and you've got a perfectly reasonable 1st level Darkness spell.
Honestly, it'd be picked and used about as often as Obscuring Mist is right now, which I don't see as being called out as "overpowered" as is.
if we divide darkness in 3 steps:
1) no darkness, no penalties or mischance of any kind
2) shadowy darkness
3) total darkness
consider the spell to create shadowy darkness (20 % mischance) not negated by darkvision, in an area that is already dark the spell would actualy create total darkness, but creatures with darkvision or a lightsource would treat it as normal darkness instead.
In effect it overlaps with natural darkness making it darker.
The spell negates light spells of lower level caught in it's area completely and is in turn negated by light spells of higher level, spells of the same level cancel eachother out.
If a party is relying on the light cantrip or dancing lights to light their way through a cave, a darkness spell would snuff it out and effectively create total darkness, the dwarf in the party could still see though with difficulty.
|
I have always felt that the [Light] and [Darkness] spells should run on a scale:
-Blinding Bright- [everyone is blind]
-Very Bright- [perception penalties.. maybe a constant flare?]
-Bright- [lesser penalties]
-Normal- [standard normal daylight]
-Shady- [minor penalties]
-Shadowy/Gloomy [stiffer "dark" penalties; concealment, etc]
-Total Darkness [everyone is blind]This scale can have as many steps as you think there should be. Once you have it, the rules become simple:
1. Determine the level of light currently in place.
2. Each [Light] and [Darkness] spell states how many places it moves the ambient light up or down the scale.-If multiple casters start throwing out multiple spells, they don't stack. Otherwise you just add them as per normal. An example being, Evil Cleric casts darkness and drops the light level by.. say 2. Along comes the wizard who casts light and increases it by 1. Net result, Ambient light -1.
Hope this makes sense, this is a "up-late-and-type-fast" kind of post.
This complicates things: BUT I actually like it.
With this in place, I could see things working pretty interestingly.
That being said - it may be a concept that just have too much complication for core rules but great as an alternat system (Like Vitality/Stamina or Spell Energy systems that some groups use - including mine).
Robert
|
|
if we divide darkness in 3 steps:
1) no darkness, no penalties or mischance of any kind
2) shadowy darkness
3) total darknessconsider the spell to create shadowy darkness (20 % mischance) not negated by darkvision, in an area that is already dark the spell would actualy create total darkness, but creatures with darkvision or a lightsource would treat it as normal darkness instead.
In effect it overlaps with natural darkness making it darker.
The spell negates light spells of lower level caught in it's area completely and is in turn negated by light spells of higher level, spells of the same level cancel eachother out.
If a party is relying on the light cantrip or dancing lights to light their way through a cave, a darkness spell would snuff it out and effectively create total darkness, the dwarf in the party could still see though with difficulty.
I think the most sense is just to say that 2nd level "Darkness" spell will suppress Continual Flame objects, and cancel all 1st or 0 level light spells whose center of origin (object, creature or whatever), is brought into the area - overlapping area of light spell simply disappears in the "darkness". All non-magical light continues to burn and produce heat - but no light.
(the reason Darkness of 2nd level successfully suppresses 2nd level continual flame is that Darkness is a finite duration - Continual Flame is permanent).
Once the continual flame brought out of the darkness area, it is lit again - but does not penetrate into the darkness area.
Within the darkness creatures have a 20% miss chance in adjacent squares and a 50% concealment beyond 5 ft. (this is no different from the first leve obscuring mist - so it's no more powerful).
Daylight Spell will penetrate the darkness as if it does not exist. If the area of Daylight leaves an area where Darkness is in place, the darkness reappears in that area (that doesn't overlap with the daylight).
Deeper Darkness (3rd level) makes 50% miss chance even in adjacent squares - (total blind).
Deeper Darkness brought into an area of Daylight will reduce the light to 20%. Daylight brought into an area of Deeper Darkness will increase the total concealment to 20% partial.
Robert
I think that making non-magic light sources ineffective in areas of Darkness would be nice.
With Deeper Darkness, maybe the caster could have an option allowing it to block darkvision or no?
I'd also like to see the range changed. Plenty of people use the old 'darkness on a crossbow bolt' trick anyway, why not just let Darkness (or maybe just Deeper Darkness) be a med range spell? Or even a range of Touch or Medium, according to the caster's choice.
I also think that there should be a higher level darkness spell that retain's 3.5's amazing duration of Deeper Darkness (1 day/level). I used this trick to no end while DMing, using a magically Dark feild to cover up pit or arrow traps and the like.
How about having darkness reduce the illumination level in its radius by 1 step? Brightly lit -> dimly lit -> dark -> can't even see with darkvision. Drop it down to a 1st or 0th level spell and allow it to stack so drow still get their ambushes.