See my above quote, darkness and deeper darkness specifically state that magical light in an area only works if the spell is of a higher level than the darkness spell. So, the illusion could not generate light in a darkness spell unless it is of a higher level.
No, it says magical light of a lower level cannot raise the light level unless it's a higher level. Vast difference.
That's all very nice. I give in. An illusion spell can create light in a darkness or deeper darkness spell and is not affected. I will be happy to use this rule if I ever play in either of your games. I will happily use a 1st level illusion spell to create an illusion of 10 torches floating in air and cancel out the effects of a 2nd and 4th level spell, because the illusion spell does not have the [light] descriptor, and is thus unaffected by the darkness spells.
I personally think that's the biggest rules abuse to come down the pike in I don't know how long, but that is what both of you are arguing, whether you want to admit it or not. If any illusion can create light (which is what you are both saying color spray does) then any low level illusion can create light, including the illusion of a dozen torches in deeper darkness.
That's the problem with trying to ignore the effects of spells, you allow them to be trivialized and ignored. All it takes is a 1st level illusion of some torches to counteract deeper darkness, because they do not have the [light] descriptor, by your interpretation.
I think I'll stick to my interpretation that says you can't create magical light with any spell in a darkness spell unless your spell is higher level. That way I don't have to worry about 1st level sorcerers canceling the deeper darkness spell with a 1st level illusion.
The only creatures that will not be affected by the spell (light or not) are creatures that are specifically sightless. There are a few creatures in the MM's and I'd imagine the beastiary that are specifically called out as being sightless, they typically have some other senses like blindsight or scent or tremor sense. Now in effect most of these creatures are blind BUT that does not mean that blind equals sightless. A sightless creature has never seen light, ever, they are completely incapable of comprehending the idea of it. A blind creature had the ability to see at some time (with notably few exceptions) or has the ability to be able to see, the mechanics are basically the same but that isn't what the spell is concerned with. Now you may say that it is a judgement call that blind is the same as sightless but I would then have to point out that the spell could have easily said "blind" creatures are not effected. It doesn't say that, it says sightless creatures which is a very specific subset of creatures.
That would be a very correct, if not textual, interpretation of the spell. In all fairness, its also the easiest to adjudicate.
My problem is that the description of colour spray suggests that the colour effect is linked to the mind-affecting part of the spell. At least the fact that sightless creatures are immune to the spell seem to go in that direction.
I think that the "what happens if the target cannot see the effect?" (assuming the target isn't sightless) IS a relevant and pertinent question. While the description does not include a clause of exclusion for effectively blinded creatures, everything else about the spell seems to suggest otherwise. So is the school of the spell (illusion as opposed to enchantment) and the whole colour effect irrelevant and essentially vestigial to older edition? I know this is a very personal statement to say, would it would sadden me if it was so...
'findel
I think I'll stick to my interpretation that says you can't create magical light with any spell in a darkness spell unless your spell is higher level. That way I don't have to worry about 1st level sorcerers canceling the deeper darkness spell with a 1st level illusion.
I think I'll stick to my interpretation that illusions cannot create light at all, but I'd rather use your interpretation than what seems to be RaW...
I think I'll stick to my interpretation that says you can't create magical light with any spell in a darkness spell unless your spell is higher level. That way I don't have to worry about 1st level sorcerers canceling the deeper darkness spell with a 1st level illusion.I think I'll stick to my interpretation that illusions cannot create light at all, but I'd rather use your interpretation than what seems to be RaW...
Both would work, and prevent 1st level spells from undoing higher level spells.
I'm thinking that, for logic's sake, all illusions of one level higher than any given light or darkness spell should be able to do that level of light or darkness as part of them. Otherwise, illusions of flame or smoke really don't work.
That's all very nice. I give in. An illusion spell can create light in a darkness or deeper darkness spell and is not affected. I will be happy to use this rule if I ever play in either of your games. I will happily use a 1st level illusion spell to create an illusion of 10 torches floating in air and cancel out the effects of a 2nd and 4th level spell, because the illusion spell does not have the [light] descriptor, and is thus unaffected by the darkness spells.
If you insist on being a jerk about it I will explain further. An illusion doesn't negate the darkness, it creates an image in the subjects mind that is contrary to what is actually there as is the whole point of an illusion. As such the darkness is still there but in the subjects mind they see whatever the caster wants them to see.
Going way off topic: In your case with the simplest of illusions (silent image) the subject would see a flaming torch (a single visual illusion), but the torch is there, imposed on the subject by the spell as per the casters desire. The torch doesn't allow the subject to see any better at all. If the DM is being lenient it could "provide light" in the area (of at most 4x10' cubes + 1 cube per level of the caster) of the spell but the image of light would be there, minus all the "things" in the area. That would mean no creatures (things that could move of their own accord) or objects visible, it looks like there is "light" but everything has total concealment still as nothing is visible. If the illusion was of greater magnitude the caster could create a situation with multiple images that made is seem like there was light but that requires a much higher level illusion (5th or 6th I believe). If the illusion is inappropriate the subject has the possibility for another save and I would fully expect the subject to request one in the case of the torch emitting no light or everything going black in room with light source springing into existence with everyone else that was there seemingly disappeared but still making sounds or smelling like sweat or any of the other things that might force a disbelief check.
Back on topic: Color spray isn't an illusion with a duration, as an instant spell there is no time to "disbelieve" or make a second save. It is a magical effect with no basis on light (and therefore no Light descriptor).
Anyone in the spells area is immediately effected by the spell, as it is a spell, an illusion, a magical energy that causes a certain effect - it makes no difference if there is light or not as the illusion is imposed on the subject. If there is, anyone who would be able to see the magical effect, would see the spells description. In an area of complete and utter darkness (regardless of why) anyone who relies on sight would not see a cone of light unless they were in the area of effect as the illusion doesn't create light. Anyone in the area of effect of the magical force would believe themselves to be assailed by clashing colors and suffer the effects of the spell. Whether you say the targets actually see a cone in the darkness or if they just are suddenly beset by a storm of colors, or if it is as if you had your eyes closed and someone smashed you in your head with something and you "saw" a violent spark of lights (minus the physical damage in that case) is completely "fluff" and largely irrelevant.
I personally think that's the biggest rules abuse to come down the pike in I don't know how long, but that is what both of you are arguing, whether you want to admit it or not. If any illusion can create light (which is what you are both saying color spray does) then any low level illusion can create light, including the illusion of a dozen torches in deeper darkness.
And I think you are making an issue where there is none by stating additional things are happening that aren't spelled out in the actual rules. On top of that I *never* said there was light being created, you are saying I said it was. What I am saying is the spell causes an effect in an area regardless of the absence or presence of light as the spell has no dependancy on light. As an illusion, a magical force that imposes something on a subject, the subject seeing a sudden clash of light where there is none, is pretty much on the mark for what it is supposed to do...
That's the problem with trying to ignore the effects of spells, you allow them to be trivialized and ignored. All it takes is a 1st level illusion of some torches to counteract deeper darkness, because they do not have the [light] descriptor, by your interpretation.
Wait, who is ignoring what? How am I trivializing or ignoring them? My only caveat was about sightless creatures and I have given plenty of reasoning for what that would mean and why the "Blind" status wasn't a good enough reason for immunity to the spell in question. Everything else I have stated so far came from the rules, yet your case is nothing but "I want it to be that way as it makes sense to me regardless of the rules." Yet you accuse me of ignoring things? You are failing to understand "my" interpretation so I explained further in this post, I never even suggested a 1st level illusion would counter act deeper darkness, you made an assumption and jumped all over what I said before fully grasping the ideas I put forth. We all know the old addage I imagine right? Consider my part in it fulfilled as I came back with a hostile response to your less than polite post being too tired to care at this moment in time.
I think I'll stick to my interpretation that says you can't create magical light with any spell in a darkness spell unless your spell is higher level. That way I don't have to worry about 1st level sorcerers canceling the deeper darkness spell with a 1st level illusion.
Which has completely nothing to do with color spray I might add...
I'm thinking that, for logic's sake, all illusions of one level higher than any given light or darkness spell should be able to do that level of light or darkness as part of them. Otherwise, illusions of flame or smoke really don't work.
Again you can do that as a house rule, but as I typically am interested in RAW for purposes of what "everyone" plays with I would much rather not give spells something above and beyond what they state they do as that tends to complicate things, kind of like saying color spray doesn't work in the area of darkness or deeper darkness... The rules of the game don't say that the spells effect is based on light, saying the spell requires light to be effective causes more complications then actually following the rules and thus my rather annoyed response to MDT. IIRC there used to be illusions that were "partially real", if you want an illusion that actually creates light, use one of them - just went to look and shadow conjuration at 4th level seems to be the first one available, but going futher with that is even more off topic then we already might have been.
That would be a very correct, if not textual, interpretation of the spell. In all fairness, its also the easiest to adjudicate.
My stance on "debates" on the forums like these is first and foremost read the rules (sounds simple I know), from there figure out the RAW and that is my "side." Usually that means a very literal interpretation. From there people can argue about what makes sense and I might even agree that the written rule doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make the written rule void. It just means you don't like it as it doesn't make sense to you. There are plenty of things in the game that aren't going to make sense to someone somewhere sometime, but in the grand scheme of things that is to be expected. The rules are limited in scope. I am playing a game, using rules that aren't my own, that is sometimes part of the fun no? I don't get why people seem to have the need to change the littlest things in the rules of the game to somehow "make sense" or make a huge fuss over something as little as this most of the time... But whatever.
My problem is that the description of color spray(Fixed to the PFRPG spelling :p) suggests that the colour effect is linked to the mind-affecting part of the spell. At least the fact that sightless creatures are immune to the spell seem to go in that direction.
Depends on what you mean by linked? The description of the spell says there is a visual cone of light when cast and those in this cone are subject to certain effects based on the HD of the creature. There is a will save as it is a magical force that affects the minds of the creatures, not a fortitude save or reflex save. Nor is there a provision for "not looking", "looking away" or "shutting your eyes." If it were meant to be that easy to ignore, or if those actions were to make a difference I would think they would put in modifiers like they have in other situations like that. In the end that means if you were curled up in a ball with your thumb in your mouth rocking back and forth with your eyes clamped shut with your back to the caster and you are in the area of effect of this spell, you make a saving throw and determine the effects from there. That is what happens in the game mechanically by the rules. Closing your eyes when someone yells the keyword is a house rule and is kinda breaking the rules even (technically that is readying an action, which would leave you not doing anything else in combat until the keyword was spoken...), saying the color spray spell doesn't work in deeper darkness is a house rule, they may be house rules based on the rules of the game BUT that makes it so you and I aren't playing the same game anymore which causes a discussion like this to break down into what it has.
I think that the "what happens if the target cannot see the effect?" (assuming the target isn't sightless) IS a relevant and pertinent question. While the description does not include a clause of exclusion for effectively blinded creatures, everything else about the spell seems to suggest otherwise. So is the school of the spell (illusion as opposed to enchantment) and the whole colour effect irrelevant and essentially vestigial to older edition? I know this is a very personal statement to say, would it would sadden me if it was so...'findel
It is relevant only if you go on the "flavor text" meaning something more than flavor. In past debates on the "rules text" versus "flavor text" the mechanics/rules text are to be followed even if the flavor directly and completely contradicts it. As I said before, there are creatures who are noted as being sightless. As a sightless creature they are effectively blind permanently with no possibility to become "sighted", a remove blindness spell won't work on them to "restore" sight as they never physically had the capability to begin with. For whatever reason the designers decided to just state in the spell these creatures are flat out immune to it.
As for the spell suggesting otherwise, how so? It is based on a mental attack (will save) which could or could not even have a relevant visible effect - the only reason that there is a visible effect is from flavor text. You want to say it is relevant because you see it has a visible description and it makes sense that would play some part in it, but in truth as a mental attack what does that have to do with it being visible? It is still a magical force creating the effect on another creature resisted by will power (will save). What if the reason the reason sightless creatures are not effected is because they have an "alien" mindset that doesn't mesh well with what the sighted caster understands and is attempting to push upon them? The spell doesn't work because something is lost in the translation from a sighted creature to a sightless one.
Now these are reasonings I've come up with due to the way the rules interact in game as it was published to play. Instead of going "this doesn't make sense because it should work this way" and declaring the rules be changed or break each other I took the other route and said, "it could make sense this way" with the rules as they are. Neither school is irrelevant as both enchantment and illusion create something where there wasn't anything before, be that feelings or seemingly real objects with no substance. Maybe you feel illusions spells are supposed to be based on visual objects, but where does that visualization come from? Is it an actual object seemingly floating in front of you until you realize it is fake or is it the magical power influencing your thoughts making you "see" the object. If the magical effect is making your mind "convinced" something is there or that something happened it doesn't matter if something is actually there, maybe the descriptive text for color spray is from the point of view of the subject of the spell and there is no visual for those outside the spells effect? Regardless, the RAW states what happens mechanically in the game and so that is what I'll continue to support. If you (in general not calling you out for it) can't wrap your head around the concept, fine, go ahead and change it in your game but don't sit there and argue against the RAW as if it didn't spell out specifically what happens and that "something else" is happening and trying to posture as if it isn't a house rule.
An illusion doesn't negate the darkness, it creates an image in the subjects mind that is contrary to what is actually there as is the whole point of an illusion.
This would be true in many other systems, and that's also the way I'd like it to be; but to be fair with MDT, I'm not convinced it is the way all illusions work in D&D.
A figment is an illusion, yet the image thus created seems to be a 'real' image. Figments are not mind-affecting (based on the fact that they do not possess the 'mind-affecting' descriptor and on the fact that that undead can be fooled by those as well), which seem to suggest that the image is as real as an image can get, as opposed to a mental creation in the beholder's mind-eye.
This results in a different causality with illusions in relation to darkness, which seems to be the nature of your argument with MDT.
|
I'd like to humbly remind folks that guys like Jason, Sean, Monte, and Erik have been playing since the dawn of Gygax and what's often not explained is that there's a hollistic "sense" of how stuff works. Rules simply stem from that "sense." Even amidst todays vast librams of rules, its fairly important for the GM to "get it" hollistically, and will find all the "rulings" about this sort of stuff stem from there.
Creating an illusion of torches in darkness or magical darkness doesn't cause a paradox or conflict with the general "light" spell. Generally strong magical darkness isn't disrupted by the light of other lessor spells. But dungeons are very dark generally, and color spray is the type of effect that is seen, but as an illusion is subject to belief in the illusion (or a saving throw as the mechanical determination of the illusions effect on the character).
And, if you will indulge me in a minor point: serve your campaign first, the story second, the characters third. Rules are just one tool to help do that and need not be 100% internally consistent across rule types. I know that will make a majority of folks want to vomit inside their skull. I understand this is paramount for computer programming and digital game design. However, there are some areas of magic, illusion and phantasm that will make your head hurt if you try to apply empiricism and scientific laws to them. Realize there are some dichotomys, there are exceptions that prove the general rule, and yes, even after 30+ years, players should still need to accept that the skill of dealing with ambiguity and suspension of disbelief is an important aspect to the game. Thank you, gentle reader, for indulging these comments.
I'd like to humbly remind folks that guys like Jason, Sean, Monte, and Erik have been playing since the dawn of Gygax and what's often not explained is that there's a hollistic "sense" of how stuff works. Rules simply stem from that "sense." Even amidst todays vast librams of rules, its fairly important for the GM to "get it" hollistically, and will find all the "rulings" about this sort of stuff stem from there.
Creating an illusion of torches in darkness or magical darkness doesn't cause a paradox or conflict with the general "light" spell. Generally strong magical darkness isn't disrupted by the light of other lessor spells. But dungeons are very dark generally, and color spray is the type of effect that is seen, but as an illusion is subject to belief in the illusion (or a saving throw as the mechanical determination of the illusions effect on the character).
And, if you will indulge me in a minor point: serve your campaign first, the story second, the characters third. Rules are just one tool to help do that and need not be 100% internally consistent across rule types. I know that will make a majority of folks want to vomit inside their skull. I understand this is paramount for computer programming and digital game design. However, there are some areas of magic, illusion and phantasm that will make your head hurt if you try to apply empiricism and scientific laws to them. Realize there are some dichotomys, there are exceptions that prove the general rule, and yes, even after 30+ years, players should still need to accept that the skill of dealing with ambiguity and suspension of disbelief is an important aspect to the game. Thank you, gentle reader, for indulging these comments.
+1
I'm quite happy to accept that things "just happen that way" and just get on and play the game and have done with it. Otherwise you start getting bogged down in Super Chicken theories. Would it work on bovines as they see in black and white...Are dogs effected by Shout because their hearing range is different...What if I have a Super Chicken...
My stance on "debates" on the forums like these is first and foremost read the rules (sounds simple I know), from there figure out the RAW and that is my "side." Usually that means a very literal interpretation. From there people can argue about what makes sense and I might even agree that the written rule doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make the written rule void.
no, and most of my houserules (and I do admit that they are personal interpretation and thus are houserules) do not nullify the RaW. But sometimes, (such as in the case of colour spray), the written rules appear incomplete for my satisfaction.
I'm not 'looking for faults', I'm only looking to expand on the game just as I'm expanding on the universe.
Depends on what you mean by linked? The description of the spell says there is a visual cone of light when cast and those in this cone are subject to certain effects based on the HD of the creature. There is a will save as it is a magical force that affects the minds of the creatures, not a fortitude save or reflex save. Nor is there a provision for "not looking", "looking away" or "shutting your eyes." If it were meant to be that easy to ignore, or if those actions were to make a difference I would think they would put in modifiers like they have in other situations like that.
My problem is that the description of color spray(Fixed to the PFRPG spelling :p) suggests that the colour effect is linked to the mind-affecting part of the spell. At least the fact that sightless creatures are immune to the spell seem to go in that direction.
True, but the exceptions listed in the spell description do not need to be the ONLY exclusions for the spell. Take the example of language-dependent spells: ELF-the-bard cast suggestion on GOBLIN-the-warrior. ELF-the-bard does not speak goblin, so he takes a chance and formulates his suggestion in common. It so happens that GOBLIN-the-warrior does not speak common, so the spell does not affect him. That does not mean that GOBLIN-the-warrior is immune to suggestion.
This situation is easy to adjudicate because the rules are clearer on that situational condition. To help us rule it out, suggestion has the 'language dependent' descriptor. In the case that interests us, colour spray has the 'pattern' descriptor, which unfortunately, does not have the necessary clarification to clearly define to what degree it relies on sight (or hearing or smell...). It does mention that it creates an image like a figment AND that it also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it, but it is unfortunately silent on the relation (or lack thereof) between the visual element of the spell and the mind-affecting element of the spell. I blame the source if this whole thread on the flimsy description of the 'pattern' descriptor more than on the text of the spell, which is as clear and concise as it should be. as I see it, the whole point of descriptor was to avoid unnecessary repetitive text in single spell, which means that the descriptor should have been, ironically, a bit more descriptive to satisfy me.
anyhow, I'm of the school of those who think that rule-text should support the fluff-text, and that the writing of the rule should support the intention behind the rule, but that's a personal take on things.
'findel
I'd like to humbly remind folks that guys like Jason, Sean, Monte, and Erik have been playing since the dawn of Gygax and what's often not explained is that there's a hollistic "sense" of how stuff works. Rules simply stem from that "sense." Even amidst todays vast librams of rules, its fairly important for the GM to "get it" hollistically, and will find all the "rulings" about this sort of stuff stem from there.
Yes of course. Yet, the game has moved along a great deal since the dawn of of Gygax, and each re-iteration (including 3.5 to pathfinder) is done with the intention to improve the game.
My efforts to improve the game may be more modest than those of Jason, Sean, Monte, and Erik, but I don't think they are futile.
I know you did not mean it this way, but when I red your post, I found it rather demising...
'findel
I generally keep in mind that the rules cannot cover every possible scenario/possibility, especially when trying to write a short, precise and condensed spell descriptions.
My interpretation of the spell's interaction with darkness, sight, closed eyes, etc.
It will cause a strobe like effect in both normal darkness and magical darkenss (I am not sure if I will allow it to work in deeper darkness - probably not) which will allow it to affect all creatures that can see and have their eyes open.
If players (or monsters) choose to close their eyes for the spell, then they will be "blind" for a full round. To be able to do so, they will either have to coordinate the casting or succeed on a spellcraft check.
I will probably even allow a perception check to notice things when the strobe goes off (like allies down, general location of some of the enemies, the seemingly very large blade swinging at them).
An illusion doesn't negate the darkness, it creates an image in the subjects mind that is contrary to what is actually there as is the whole point of an illusion.This would be true in many other systems, and that's also the way I'd like it to be; but to be fair with MDT, I'm not convinced it is the way all illusions work in D&D.
A figment is an illusion, yet the image thus created seems to be a 'real' image. Figments are not mind-affecting (based on the fact that they do not possess the 'mind-affecting' descriptor and on the fact that that undead can be fooled by those as well), which seem to suggest that the image is as real as an image can get, as opposed to a mental creation in the beholder's mind-eye.
This results in a different causality with illusions in relation to darkness, which seems to be the nature of your argument with MDT.
That is the essence of the argument, but I don't think either side is prepared to back down on that, so it's kind of a waste of time to argue at this point. One side is saying the illusion is all in your mind, which is not backed up by the [mind affecting] quality being on the illusion.
EDIT: Not backed up by the [mind affecting] being on ALL illusions is what I meant.
That's all very nice. I give in. An illusion spell can create light in a darkness or deeper darkness spell and is not affected. I will be happy to use this rule if I ever play in either of your games. I will happily use a 1st level illusion spell to create an illusion of 10 torches floating in air and cancel out the effects of a 2nd and 4th level spell, because the illusion spell does not have the [light] descriptor, and is thus unaffected by the darkness spells.If you insist on being a jerk about it I will explain further. An illusion doesn't negate the darkness, it creates an image in the subjects mind that is contrary to what is actually there as is the whole point of an illusion. As such the darkness is still there but in the subjects mind they see whatever the caster wants them to see.
Sorry if I came across as being a jerk about it. I was hopped up on benadryl and dayquil (allergies on top of flu, yuck) and so not quite feeling well. As to illusions, any figment illusion, as stated above, is an actual image, not a mental artifact, so that part of your logic breaks down. And it's also what I was trying to get at. Not all illusions are mind-affecting. Any non-mind affecting figment creates a real illusion. If you have it create the illusion of a torch, it has to create physical light to create the physical illusion of a torch. That means it's creating light. Because of that, and because it doesn't have the [light] descriptor, either you have to rule darkness and deeper darkness of higher level negate it, or you are allowing a lower level spell to completely trump a higher level spell.
This would be true in many other systems, and that's also the way I'd like it to be; but to be fair with MDT, I'm not convinced it is the way all illusions work in D&D.
A figment is an illusion, yet the image thus created seems to be a 'real' image. Figments are not mind-affecting (based on the fact that they do not possess the 'mind-affecting' descriptor and on the fact that that undead can be fooled by those as well), which seem to suggest that the image is as real as an image can get, as opposed to a mental creation in the beholder's mind-eye.
This results in a different causality with illusions in relation to darkness, which seems to be the nature of your argument with MDT.
Well I guess it requires another qualifier, illusions with [mind affecting] don't require a visual stimuli. Color spray is one such spell and my reasoning as to why it works in this case still stands. That is the difference between figments and patterns. Color spray is a pattern.
My "argument" with MDT is that due to those differences the spell does work even though it doesn't fit the flavor text and how one might expect the effect to be transferred to the subject. That it somehow breaks the game even if it does have a visual component that is created and overrides the deeper darkness spell for the split second it is cast is... just being horribly nit picky to say the least. It is not game breaking, it isn't even something I would see as being game pausing really. If you don't want it to, then it doesn't, but that doesn't keep the spell from affecting those in the area of effect.
True, but the exceptions listed in the spell description do not need to be the ONLY exclusions for the spell. Take the example of language-dependent spells: ELF-the-bard cast suggestion on GOBLIN-the-warrior. ELF-the-bard does not speak goblin, so he takes a chance and formulates his suggestion in common. It so happens that GOBLIN-the-warrior does not speak common, so the spell does not affect him. That does not mean that GOBLIN-the-warrior is immune to suggestion.
Well, yes and no. The spell says it is a such and such spell (school, descriptor, effect which all take part in exceptions) and has rules text to make further limitations/restriction/explanations. So the spell description might not be completely inclusive of all information BUT the spell stat block does point to said information. In your case the spell itself would state it is language dependent no? In the summary of the spell it would say it was an enchantment and its level and other pertinent information that comes into play. With that being said, there are basically only a few places you find exceptions, the spell stat block/description, the subjects stat block/description and then the extraneous things (spells like minor glove of invulnerability, spell turning, magic items and abilities). Again in a game there are typically exceptions.
However the exceptions are typically in 1 of 2 places, the spell stats or the creatures stats. Color spray says it is ineffective on sightless creatures, a creatures stats will say if it is sightless. That seems to be consistent to me. That something is consistent makes me comfortable in saying it reasonable to say the spell and the creature stats are where you should look for exceptions if there are no other circumstances.
This situation is easy to adjudicate because the rules are clearer on that situational condition. To help us rule it out, suggestion has the 'language dependent' descriptor. In the case that interests us, colour spray has the 'pattern' descriptor, which unfortunately, does not have the necessary clarification to clearly define to what degree it relies on sight (or hearing or smell...). It does mention that it creates an image like a figment AND that it also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it, but it is unfortunately silent on the relation (or lack thereof) between the visual element of the spell and the mind-affecting element of the spell. I blame the source if this whole thread on the flimsy description of the 'pattern' descriptor more than on the text of the spell, which is as clear and concise as it should be. as I see it, the whole point of descriptor was to avoid unnecessary repetitive text in single spell, which means that the descriptor should have been, ironically, a bit more descriptive to satisfy me.anyhow, I'm of the school of those who think that rule-text should support the fluff-text, and that the writing of the rule should support the intention behind the rule, but that's a personal take on things.
Well I disagree, color spray has all the pertinent information to make the situation clear mechanically. It is as clear as the language dependent case and, technically, not even the same thing so you can't compare them. Suggestion spell says targeted creature that can't understand will not follow the suggestion. Color spray says creature that is sightless is immune. That is two differing situations, one is under the effect but the caster cannot get the effect to work, the other is immune from the get go. As for the link, there doesn't have to be one, so you may be making up a complication for your own peace of mind, which, amusingly enough is bothering you. If the rules are silent on something, wouldn't it stand that there isn't a connection above and beyond what was stated? The description is only "flimsy" if you are intent on making it so, the descriptor has to cover multiple spells under its umbrella, having a spell every once in awhile that isn't 100% reasonable isn't surprising. Again as a game it is one of those things you take as it is stated and run with it to avoid complications, despite "reasonableness" as it works the majority of the time within the rules set.
As for your school of thought, I am almost 100% sure that it is backwards. Usually the concept is created, the mechanics are made up and they are handed off to do the flavor text. The mechanic and concept/flavor people aren't the same typically in a decent sized organization, and it wouldn't be uncommon for those people to not have a full grasp of things about each others work if any. It also would mean that there is no direct link between them necessarily. Not to mention things being left overs or sacred cows and being "untouchable." Designers redesigning such things usually leave them more or less the same with minor alterations at best and as you mentioned the concept may be dated for the current system. YMMV as always.
That is the essence of the argument, but I don't think either side is prepared to back down on that, so it's kind of a waste of time to argue at this point. One side is saying the illusion is all in your mind, which is not backed up by the [mind affecting] quality being on the illusion.EDIT: Not backed up by the [mind affecting] being on ALL illusions is what I meant.
While it might be true that not all illusions are [mind affecting], that isn't the case for this particular situation. So that fact hasn't got any real bearing on the topic at hand (not trying to be dismissive just point out the facts of what we have to work with). We are talking about a spell that does have that description and a situation where it allows the spell to work even though some may disagree as to it making sense.
Illusions not all being [mind affecting], how does that matter? You are saying that even though the school has multiple subsets so they can have differing properties, that a spell from one subset that has the [mind affecting] description shouldn't work differently than one that doesn't? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having differing subsets in the first place? I don't see how that argument makes sense personally.
Looking at the illusions that aren't listed as mind affecting, they seem to be a majority of defensive and personal spells, they aren't overtly offensive or are very limited in that respect. Making them [mind affecting] as well would in all likelihood create an imbalance in power (striping illusions from being effective against a large amount of creatures for defensive reasons as well as offensive would make them rather useless and horribly situational in many cases). Immunity to mind affecting spells/effects it typically a defensive mechanism for creatures, having a defensive mechanism that pierces other defenses would be too much in my opinion.
Sorry if I came across as being a jerk about it. I was hopped up on benadryl and dayquil (allergies on top of flu, yuck) and so not quite feeling well. As to illusions, any figment illusion, as stated above, is an actual image, not a mental artifact, so that part of your logic breaks down. And it's also what I was trying to get at. Not all illusions are mind-affecting. Any non-mind affecting figment creates a real illusion. If you have it create the illusion of a torch, it has to create physical light to create the physical illusion of a torch. That means it's creating light. Because of that, and because it doesn't have the [light] descriptor, either you have to rule darkness and deeper darkness of higher level negate it, or you are allowing a lower level spell to completely trump a higher level spell.
Meh whatever! I was tired too :p
Anyways it isn't like I haven't been accused of the same in other threads where there was no intention of it as well.
I understand what you are saying, but again, this particular situation has nothing to do with your argument and is rather off topic for the OP. The spell color spray does work in a darkness/deeper darkness area. As for a lower level spell "trumping" a slightly higher level spell in a corner case... So what? It happens from time to time and this is a far far stretch from being game breaking somehow. Sometimes a spell is available at a lower level to certain classes, sometimes rules are ignored/modified by others in ways that aren't allowed by those same rules initially (feats are the biggest offender here), sometimes there are exceptions... Sometimes you can let it go and enjoy the game. Letting something like that go hardly breaks the verisimilitude unless you force it to. And if you are in the habit of forcing it, well, there you are. What more can be said about that?
Meh whatever! I was tired too :p
Anyways it isn't like I haven't been accused of the same in other threads where there was no intention of it as well.
I understand what you are saying, but again, this particular situation has nothing to do with your argument and is rather off topic for the OP. The spell color spray does work in a darkness/deeper darkness area. As for a lower level spell "trumping" a slightly higher level spell in a corner case... So what? It happens from time to time and this is a far far stretch from being game breaking somehow. Sometimes a spell is available at a lower level to certain classes, sometimes rules are ignored/modified by others in ways that aren't allowed by those same rules initially (feats are the biggest offender here), sometimes there are exceptions... Sometimes you can let it go and enjoy the game. Letting something like that go hardly breaks the verisimilitude unless you force it to. And if you are in the habit of forcing it, well, there you are. What more can be said about that?
True enough, color spray has mind affecting, so I've got less of an issue with it working in a darkness spell, it's more creating the illusion in the person's mind. I just wish it didn't have 'figment' on it.
However, I still maintain that there is a disconnect between illusion and darkness spells. Case in point :
Silent Image
School illusion (figment); Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a bit of fleece)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)Effect visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration concentration
Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with); Spell Resistance noThis spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.
Note the bolded sections above in Silent Image (A level one illusion). Since it specifically states what it does not create, that means it can create light (since that is not listed). Thus, it can generate light in a darkness spell. And since it doesn't have the light descriptor, it isn't overridden by the darkness spell.
So, we have a 1st level spell that can negate even a deeper darkness spell. To me, that's broken RAW. Yes, sometimes a lower level spell will be able to triumph over a higher one due to different levels of casting, but within a single classes spell list, that shouldn't happen. IE: A third level sorcerer should not be able to counteract a 20th level sorcerer's deeper darkness with his first level illusion spell.
Fellow Paizonians, the following situation has come up last session, and I need your help:
The PCs were in an area of total darkness, facing enemies with darkvision. The group's wizard decides to cast Color Spray in the general direction the enemies seem to be coming. However, it also includes other PCs (which do not possess darkvision). Now, who is affected ? Does Color Spray generates a "flash", cancelling momentarily the darkness, thus affecting everyione in its path, does it affect only those which can see in the conditions under which the spell was cast, or does it fail to affect friend and foe ?
Going back to the OP, this is how I'd rule it. If you remove the adjectives, it gets to the core of the effect.
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become ...
A cone springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become ...
The cone will spring forth from your hands regardless of the darkness conditions. Because this is a pattern, what the cone looks like isn't important, so whether people can actually see that cone is not relevant. It could have been an invisible cone, a dull gray cone, a plaid cone, whatever. But with a name like color spray, having it be a vivid clash of color fits the name.
The mind-affecting pattern will affect anyone within the cone with ocular organs, regardless of their current vision status (blind, blindfolded, eyes shut, whatever). Those who see the cone, but aren't in the cone, aren't affected at all.
A possible explanation is that the spell causes the mind to react as if the ocular organs were stimulated, which causes the effects listed. Those without ocular organs (ie sightless), or mindless then logically cannot be affected. But the actual mechanics of how the spell causes the effect aren't relevant either. It's magic, not science.
This solves the issues around light/vision, and explains the spell based on its descriptors, IMHO. My $0.02.
A possible explanation is that the spell causes the mind to react as if the ocular organs were stimulated, which causes the effects listed. Those without ocular organs (ie sightless), or mindless then logically cannot be affected. But the actual mechanics of how the spell causes the effect aren't relevant either. It's magic, not science.
+1
Also,
So, we have a 1st level spell that can negate even a deeper darkness spell.
Not true.
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
Darkness is a 2nd level spell, so you'd need a 3rd level illusion to create light within it's area (if in fact illusions can create light). Deeper Darkness uses the same rules (and just adds additional restrictions), and is a 3rd level spell so you'd need a 4th level illusion to pierce it.
I personally don't have an issue with figments creating light, but I can see the points from both sides. I disagree with the assertion made by a poster at some point that illusions cannot block light however (and thus cast no shadow). If they cannot block light, they would all appear translucent (if not transparent) and thus would be useless as illusions.
A possible explanation is that the spell causes the mind to react as if the ocular organs were stimulated, which causes the effects listed. Those without ocular organs (ie sightless), or mindless then logically cannot be affected. But the actual mechanics of how the spell causes the effect aren't relevant either. It's magic, not science.
This solves the issues around light/vision, and explains the spell...
As I said earlier, sightless can refer to multiple things. It could refer to the definition you've stated. It can also refer to things that cannot see (without sight), which is effectively the blinded condition. But what about blindsight, which allows you to "see" without sight? Since blindsight is "the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision", I think it's safe to say blindsight is not a form of vision. Vision is the key element to color spray, since color is perceived entirely by vision.
So, it's really a DM judgment call. Your definition is the cleanest mechanically. It avoids the pitfalls with various game elements (darkness, darkness spells, blah blah). But a DM is not necessarily "compelled" by the rules to follow such a definition -- because the rules are not explicit.
As for advice for the original poster and after reading this thread, I think I would follow FarmerBob's ruling.
There's nothing in the spell description about requiring the effect to be seen. The colors are simply part of the effect, not the cause of the effect.
It would definitely not light up an area of magical darkness. 1) It doesn't have the [light] descriptor. 2) Even if it did, the spell creating the darkness would have to be of lower or equal level, and there is no such spell to my knowledge. 3) And even ignoring [1] and [2], the two spells would simply cancel each other out in the overlapping area temporarily; Color Spray wouldn't light up the area.
It is a [mind-affecting] illusion spell, and it can affect people without being seen. From the Core rulebook,
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
(Emphasis mine.)
I always start with RAW, and make the fluff match. This illusion creates and area of effect where creatures are stunned and possibly blinded. The fluff is color, light, etc. but what matters is the effects. I would view the fluff as how the magic manifests itself in the world (the visual portion of the pattern, like a figment), but in reality you're just shutting down people's vision abruptly enough to stun them (the mind affecting part of the pattern). Whether they are unable to see because of lack of light, or colorblindness, is irrelevant. However, if they are sightless, they can't be effected because the illusion relies on the optical cortex.
If you wanted to call it "ectoplasmic ice-cream headache" with swirls of white, green and pink, it would work the same way. The fluff is not relevant. As soon as it is, you run up against endless problems.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Note the bolded sections above in Silent Image (A level one illusion). Since it specifically states what it does not create, that means it can create light (since that is not listed). Thus, it can generate light in a darkness spell. And since it doesn't have the light descriptor, it isn't overridden by the darkness spell.
Just curious, I'd think if I created (say) an illusion of a torch, in an area of magical darkness, you'd just see the torch (at best) as it isn't shedding light. Now if you made an illusion of a torch and the area it illuminates that could be seen in the darkness, but if something moved from where it was in your image, your image wouldn't automatically change to update it. Does that make sense?
Aside, given the effect can't extend beyond four 10' cubes +1 per level, I've always been confused on how visible it is anyway. If a first level caster makes a 10X10X50 tower, can it be seen from 100' away? Or do you have to be effectvely standing *in* the tower?
Since I posted in this thread 3 years ago and I currently play a caster who uses color spray -- I still like FarmerBob's ruling (:
Color spray is a visual illusion. If the caster created a visual illusion of an orc in total darkness, the party members wouldn't see it. There are good reasons that illusions don't create real light unless the spell description says they do.
Color spray works on color-blind creatures, as far as I can tell from the description, but darkvision is a bit beyond that. It's a different form of perception that can't carry color.
I'd say: The party members don't see the color spray. The monsters see a subdued cone of subtly different shades of gray. Nobody is affected.
I would disagree slightly. It is a visual and mind affecting illusion. To me that means that if your visual senses can percieve the spell it affects your mind. Therefore anyone who can see the spell will see the colors 'in their minds' since that is what the spells does. It is an illusion. It creates the stated effect such that the observers mind see's it, whether or not the actual visual effects are fully possible in the area. So those people who are in darkness but can see the spell effect see actual color. It is not actually there in the darkness but it is there in their heads.
It sounds like a contradiction but with illusions, that is all they are made of. It is the very power of illusion magic that makes your mind beleive sensory data that does not exist or is not true.
Edit: Rofl, wow Kinithin, way to necropost! :)
I still like FarmerBob's ruling (:
His [strike]ruling[/strike]opinion is self-contradictory. He states the mind-affecting pattern should cause the effect to be perceived even when it can't actually be perceived, but then contradicts himself:
"Those without ocular organs (ie sightless), or mindless then logically cannot be affected."
That should simply be:
"The mindless logically cannot be affected".
Then, you'd be adding colour* to the game without changing the mechanics of the game or of the spell. I'm all for that.
I always start with RAW, and make the fluff match.
Doing otherwise would requiring changing the effect of just about every spell, and that's just not feasible.
Rofl, wow Kinithin, way to necropost! :)
One of my players dug it up and sent me a comment on it by email. I figured I'd post the reply I sent to him.
* -- Pun intended :)
|
Color spray is a visual illusion. If the caster created a visual illusion of an orc in total darkness, the party members wouldn't see it. There are good reasons that illusions don't create real light unless the spell description says they do.
Color spray works on color-blind creatures, as far as I can tell from the description, but darkvision is a bit beyond that. It's a different form of perception that can't carry color.
I'd say: The party members don't see the color spray. The monsters see a subdued cone of subtly different shades of gray. Nobody is affected.
I would disagree slightly. It is a visual and mind affecting illusion. To me that means that if your visual senses can percieve the spell it affects your mind. Therefore anyone who can see the spell will see the colors 'in their minds' since that is what the spells does. It is an illusion. It creates the stated effect such that the observers mind see's it, whether or not the actual visual effects are fully possible in the area. So those people who are in darkness but can see the spell effect see actual color. It is not actually there in the darkness but it is there in their heads.
It sounds like a contradiction but with illusions, that is all they are made of. It is the very power of illusion magic that makes your mind beleive sensory data that does not exist or is not true.
Yes, due to another thread about illusory torches, I may have to revise my earlier opinion.