Assuming the duration of the spell has lasted that long (extra-dimensional does not mean extra-temporal), that works just fine. Silence cast on an object creates an area of effect that offers no save. It's an entirely legitimate use of the spell. Just keep in mind that entering and leaving the zone of silence is possible if the zone is cast on an object. Casting it on a creature offers the save but moves with the creature.
Ninja'd by Chris...but I was going to say that, as long as he abides by the spell's duration, it's seems fine to me. In PFS it's probably very effective. In a campaign game, the bad guys are eventually going to hear about the guys going around silencing spellcasters and prepare tactics to counter it.
M
Handy Haversack
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th
Slot —; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds.
While such storage is useful enough, the pack has an even greater power. When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.
FYI, Pulling the coin out is a move action.
Another common tactic in our group is to cast silence of an object near the target in question. "I cast silence on a pebble on the ground at his feet" Since the items is unattended, no save is allowed. Unless the DM does some serious NPC metagaming, the NPC won't know if the silence is on them or on something near them.
|
Quick question, a player I was in PFS with recently seems to have a "Plan A" for all encounters that comes down to casting Silence on a coin, then putting it in his haversack, withdrawing it as a free action any time he needs to mute a spellcaster.
Is this legit? I dunno any details of it really.
Silence lasts 1 round/level. Go to PRD - Silence
Even assuming you meant that he is putting it in a Handy Haversack, time does not stop within. (per Bag of Holding, living creatures will suffocate within 10 minutes.)
Further complication. Silence is an emanation. Which means that it does not affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin. Since the party is able to block the emanation by simply placing the coin in a bag, any spellcaster worth their salt would simply throw their pointy hat over the coin and keep right on casting.
So.
1) Only 1 round/level
2) Can be circumvented by total cover.
3) Retrieval is a move action, not free.
[wow, totally ninja'd while checking references...]
So the whole tactic has now been modified to this:
1) Round 0 -- Cast silence on a coin (countdown of 1 round/level duration begins).
2) Place coin in Haversack -- effect of silence disappears as the emanation cannot escape the sack.
3) Round 1-? -- Walk around hoping to find a spellcaster before the duration expires.
4) Round 3 (being generous) -- Find spellcaster in group of enemies; roll initiative.
5) Round 4 -- Retrieve coin (move action) and toss coin at spellcaster (standard action); roll as splash weapon to see where it hits.
6) Round 5 -- Begin sweat profusely as duration nears its end. Watch with dismay as enemy spellcaster notices that his surroundings were silence by the shiny coin landing at his feet (east Perception check), moves 25' until he can hear again, and casts his spell anyway. Failing that, he simply steps on the coin, providing total cover with his heel.
7) Round 6-? -- Duration expires, leaving an empty feeling in your stomach.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's how I see this playing out, given a strict interpretation of the RAW and a clever (but generous) DM.
Round zero, cast silence on spot on feathering of arrow.
Round zero or 1, hand arrow to archer in group, cast other spell using silent spell.
If you do this as you enter a room, you already spent one round of duration and may not get the next spell off as you are moving.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Here's a different way to skin that cat. Cast silence on a rock, then ready an action to toss it at the feet of an enemy spellcaster right as he's casting. Readied actions go first, so the silence will stop the spell. If the spellcaster moves away (a no-brainer), go pick up the rock and repeat.
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm left with a question though (if this is too much of a derail I can take it elsewhere, but I'm staying here for now).
Does the haversack block the silence spell? Does it really? Or does the effect continue to emanate from within? I'm curious what chain of RAW leads to this ruling.
It's also great for muting yourself and all the spellcasters in the party!
Chris, were you saying this is your position as well or am I misunderstanding what you meant here?
I guess I'm not sure I believe a haversack would contain or impede a magical emanation.
As I understand it, Backpack closed, emanations and breathing blocked.
Backpack open, no emanations or breathing blocked.
Not sure how the magical Haversack should be any different.
As I understand it, Backpack closed, emanations and breathing blocked.
I don't know of any general rule saying that emanations are blocked by objects, although there are specific exceptions like Darkness (specifically blocked by a light-proof container) or Detect Magic (specifically block by certain thicknesses of stone or metal).
EDIT: Ah, I see:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
So does that mean I can enter an Antilife Shell if I'm wearing a burqa? ;-)
Does the haversack block the silence spell? Does it really? Or does the effect continue to emanate from within? I'm curious what chain of RAW leads to this ruling.
The silence spell creates a 20-ft emanation.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell.A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners).
Thus, silence produces an emanation, which acts as a "continuous" burst, which can't affect creatures with total cover relative to the point of origin, which is the coin, which is stuck inside a Haversack. So, by "covering" the coin, you effectively grant total cover to all creatures outside of the Haversack. The Haversack is described as being "constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles," which design would seem to be impervious to emanations.
Mal
EDIT: Dang ninjas...
You guys have it all wrong! You don't cast silence on an enemy spellcaster, on a rock at their feet, or even on a coin!
What you do is cast it on your fighter and sick him on the spellcaster.
That way, he can't save against it, he can't move away from it (since the fighter will pursue), and he can't do anything in most situations except get horrifically mauled.
EDIT: Would a glove of storing halt the spell's duration while the coin was stored? That would allow you to draw it out as a free action, but is a fair bit more expensive.
|
|
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm left with a question though (if this is too much of a derail I can take it elsewhere, but I'm staying here for now).
Does the haversack block the silence spell? Does it really? Or does the effect continue to emanate from within? I'm curious what chain of RAW leads to this ruling.
It's also great for muting yourself and all the spellcasters in the party!Chris, were you saying this is your position as well or am I misunderstanding what you meant here?
I guess I'm not sure I believe a haversack would contain or impede a magical emanation.
Fairly simple and straightforward.
"A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners)."
"An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. " (same page)
Neither a burst, nor an emanation can affect a creature with total cover from it.
I guess the only question would be whether or not the haversack provides total cover. Given that its generally referred to as an extra-dimensional pocket, I think that is fairly straightforward.
I suppose the question could be made as to whether or not a hat, backpack, or shoe would provide "total cover". It would provide complete concealment, but this is not exactly the same thing. Hmm.
Would a glove of storing halt the spell's duration while the coin was stored? That would allow you to draw it out as a free action, but is a fair bit more expensive.
Nope.
[The Glove of Storing] is a single leather glove. On command, one item held in the hand wearing the glove disappears. The item can weigh no more than 20 pounds and must be able to be held in one hand. While stored, the item has negligible weight. With a snap of the fingers wearing the glove, the item reappears. A glove can only store one item at a time. Storing or retrieving the item is a free action. The item is shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen. Spell durations are not suppressed, but continue to expire.
|
and the character can draw it as a free action, then put it back as a free action in the same round? so you could, put it away, cast a spell, move, then draw it again?
It's a move action to draw and a move action to stash.
The only action you can do out of your turn is an immediate action. You can't do free actions unless it's your turn.
|
|
As I understand it, Backpack closed, emanations and breathing blocked.I don't know of any general rule saying that emanations are blocked by objects, although there are specific exceptions like Darkness (specifically blocked by a light-proof container) or Detect Magic (specifically block by certain thicknesses of stone or metal).
EDIT: Ah, I see:
So does that mean I can enter an Antilife Shell if I'm wearing a burqa? ;-)A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
A burqa doesn't provide cover. Nor does arguably a backpack, it provides concealment.
I suppose the question could be made as to whether or not a hat, backpack, or shoe would provide "total cover". It would provide complete concealment, but this is not exactly the same thing. Hmm.
Right...not the same thing. Cover is granted by solid objects completly blocking both line of sight and line of effect (e.g. wall, closed door, overturned table, tree trunk, etc.) Concealment is granted by stuff that blocks line of sight but NOT line of effect (e.g. fog, darkness, dense foliage, etc.) Strange exceptions do occur, such as transparent objects not blocking line of sight but still providing cover, but I would think a leather bag (extra-dimensional or not) is sufficiently opaque to qualify as granting cover.
A burqa doesn't provide cover. Nor does arguably a backpack, it provides concealment.
A backpack doesn't provide cover to the wearer if he is trying to use the backpack itself as cover from some other outside attack/effect. However, it seems reasonable enough to say that the backpack provides cover to the wearer (and everyone else) if the attack/effect is coming from within the backpack!
|
|
I suppose the question could be made as to whether or not a hat, backpack, or shoe would provide "total cover". It would provide complete concealment, but this is not exactly the same thing. Hmm.Right...not the same thing. Cover is granted by solid objects completly blocking both line of sight and line of effect (e.g. wall, closed door, overturned table, tree trunk, etc.) Concealment is granted by stuff that blocks line of sight but NOT line of effect (e.g. fog, darkness, dense foliage, etc.) Strange exceptions do occur, such as transparent objects not blocking line of sight but still providing cover, but I would think a leather bag (extra-dimensional or not) is sufficiently opaque to qualify as granting cover.
Seems like non-dimensional space would always block line of effect. I'm not as sure about a mundane backpack though.
Seems like non-dimensional space would always block line of effect. I'm not as sure about a mundane backpack though.
Unless the backpack is airtight, I would rule no. That is what a bottle with a well-made stopper is for. Nothing goes in, nothing gets out.
|
|
Seems like non-dimensional space would always block line of effect. I'm not as sure about a mundane backpack though.I suppose the question could be made as to whether or not a hat, backpack, or shoe would provide "total cover". It would provide complete concealment, but this is not exactly the same thing. Hmm.Right...not the same thing. Cover is granted by solid objects completly blocking both line of sight and line of effect (e.g. wall, closed door, overturned table, tree trunk, etc.) Concealment is granted by stuff that blocks line of sight but NOT line of effect (e.g. fog, darkness, dense foliage, etc.) Strange exceptions do occur, such as transparent objects not blocking line of sight but still providing cover, but I would think a leather bag (extra-dimensional or not) is sufficiently opaque to qualify as granting cover.
Just looking at the other side of the coin (as it were...), Instead of casting Silence on a copper piece, cast Light on it. Place it into a regular leather backpack. Is the emanation blocked?
Drop a delayed blast fireball into a leather backpack. Close it. Does it block line of effect?
I'm actually thinking that in both instances it might.
What about the pointy hat? Drop a pointy hat over the glowing Light coin. Does it still emanate despite the hat? Um. not sure. If it's a nice sturdy multi-layer of cloth and felt and satin lined, then I'd say probably. Drop the pointy hat over the delayed blast fireball. Well, if it's still that really nice hat just described, I'd say that it would block the effect, but might be totally consumed in the process. (Unless it somehow had evasion and made its reflex save. Why am I thinking of the Sorting Hat doing a duck and cover?) If these two cases are true, then I'd say that it would also block the silence emanation.
Okay, what about a shoe over the coin. Probably blocks most of the light, but shoes have hard soles, and it won't cover the edges very well. Some light is going to leak out from the bottom of the shoe. So no total cover there. Same or the Delayed Blast Fireball. It might provide total cover to a one-legged man balanced on the fireball bit, but only barely possibly. Anyone else to the sides would at least get some of the blast, which means no total cover, which means that the burst is not blocked. So, I'd say that a shoe does not block the Silence in that instance.
Thoughts?
|
You guys have it all wrong! You don't cast silence on an enemy spellcaster, on a rock at their feet, or even on a coin!
What you do is cast it on your fighter and sick him on the spellcaster.
That way, he can't save against it, he can't move away from it (since the fighter will pursue), and he can't do anything in most situations except get horrifically mauled.
Replace "Fighter" with "Monk" and you've got it!
Here's another idea to gum up the works:
Cast Silence on your object of choice and place the object within a bull's eye lantern (assuming your GM agrees that the casing of the lantern blocks line of effect - thus the bull's eye effect). Aim lantern at anything making too much noise (within 20').
|
Here's another idea to gum up the works:
Cast Silence on your object of choice and place the object within a bull's eye lantern (assuming your GM agrees that the casing of the lantern blocks line of effect - thus the bull's eye effect). Aim lantern at anything making too much noise.
now THAT is interesting, throw a permenancy on it and that's something all adventuring parties could use.
Lets look at this another way. If a creature is inside of a good sturdy 5'x5'x5' tent and the players wanted to shoot an arrow at it. You you let them roll the dice and then give them the 50% miss chance or tell them they cannot fire that arrow as the target has total cover?
The backpack with something in it should follow the same rules.
Now the extra dimensional space is another issue. Would you allow a player to shot at an orc hiding inside of a rope trick hole?
Put another way. Would the item you are hiding behind or inside protect you from 100% of the damage from an ancient red dragon's breath? Yes - then you have cover. No - then you have concealment.
I'll admit it.. i thought the thread name was the set-up to a dirty joke.
[/let down]
A burqa doesn't provide cover. Nor does arguably a backpack, it provides concealment.
So does that mean I can enter an Antilife Shell if I'm wearing a burqa? ;-)
Well, replace it with a tower shield then, I suppose.
I'll admit, I sort of saw this slippery slope conversation coming, which is why I was hesitant to not start a new thread. My apologies to Zerombr if they feel that I sidetracked their thread.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would rule that the effect of Silence would not be blocked by a backpack. My opinion is that to allow it to be blocked opens the door to later exploitation, which has been danced around with references to burqas and beach umberellas. I also wouldn't allow someone to step on the coin to block the silence effect.
But these suggestions upthread illustrate my point that if you say the effect is blocked by placing the emanation inside something, couldn't someone could block the emanation from themselves? Say, by wearing long hooded robes, gloves, and then turning around so their face isn't directly exposed. Does this person now have complete concealment and cover from an emanation? I don't believe they would.
Maybe I'm entering the realm of houserule, but so be it. I will not have mages placing themselves in anti-silence suits in any game I run.
|
|
Lets look at this another way. If a creature is inside of a good sturdy 5'x5'x5' tent and the players wanted to shoot an arrow at it. You you let them roll the dice and then give them the 50% miss chance or tell them they cannot fire that arrow as the target has total cover?
The backpack with something in it should follow the same rules.
Now the extra dimensional space is another issue. Would you allow a player to shot at an orc hiding inside of a rope trick hole?
Put another way. Would the item you are hiding behind or inside protect you from 100% of the damage from an ancient red dragon's breath? Yes - then you have cover. No - then you have concealment.
Actually, I'd give them complete cover from the arrow with a good sturdy canvas tent.
I've camped in those things back in the 1960's when I was a kid. I've had to set up the army versions of those things. H*LY CARP are those things sturdy, and heavy. Yes, I'd give them complete cover from at least one shot of a dragon's breath. It would probably be consumed at the end of it, but for one shot, yep, nothing gets through.
|
|
I'll admit, I sort of saw this slippery slope conversation coming, which is why I was hesitant to not start a new thread. My apologies to Zerombr if they feel that I sidetracked their thread.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would rule that the effect of Silence would not be blocked by a backpack. My opinion is that to allow it to be blocked opens the door to later exploitation, which has been danced around with references to burqas and beach umberellas. I also wouldn't allow someone to step on the coin to block the silence effect.
But these suggestions upthread illustrate my point that if you say the effect is blocked by placing the emanation inside something, couldn't someone could block the emanation from themselves? Say, by wearing long hooded robes, gloves, and then turning around so their face isn't directly exposed. Does this person now have complete concealment and cover from an emanation? I don't believe they would.
Maybe I'm entering the realm of houserule, but so be it. I will not have mages placing themselves in anti-silence suits in any game I run.
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?
So all I have to do to provide light for the party is to put it on a coin, and then I can keep the coin in my backpack, or my pocket, and I'm good?
It's an interesting call one way or another. If you say that silence is not blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are not blocked. If you say that the silence is blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are blocked.
I guess the question becomes - at what point is an emanation blocked by intervening material? And at what point is it not?
Just remember that unless they've changed it in pathfinder emination, burst, etc. can go around corners. The tower shield will only block it if it can't get around the corner of it (ie if you have a 5ft wide tower shield in a 10ft wide effect you are SOL). The bullseye lantern won't work either as it will simply go around from the outside to cover it's normal spread.
I'll admit, I sort of saw this slippery slope conversation coming, which is why I was hesitant to not start a new thread. My apologies to Zerombr if they feel that I sidetracked their thread.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would rule that the effect of Silence would not be blocked by a backpack. My opinion is that to allow it to be blocked opens the door to later exploitation, which has been danced around with references to burqas and beach umberellas. I also wouldn't allow someone to step on the coin to block the silence effect.
But these suggestions upthread illustrate my point that if you say the effect is blocked by placing the emanation inside something, couldn't someone could block the emanation from themselves? Say, by wearing long hooded robes, gloves, and then turning around so their face isn't directly exposed. Does this person now have complete concealment and cover from an emanation? I don't believe they would.
Maybe I'm entering the realm of houserule, but so be it. I will not have mages placing themselves in anti-silence suits in any game I run.
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?
So all I have to do to provide light for the party is to put it on a coin, and then I can keep the coin in my backpack, or my pocket, and I'm good?
It's an interesting call one way or another. If you say that silence is not blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are not blocked. If you say that the silence is blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are blocked.
I guess the question becomes - at what point is an emanation blocked by intervening material? And at what point is it not?
If you want a good way to keep things lit up for the party just cast continual flame on a wearable object. I had a character who had it on his helmet so he could walk around without worrying about carrying a torch. Someday I plan to have a character put it on a tongue stud just for fun.
|
|
Just remember that unless they've changed it in pathfinder emination, burst, etc. can go around corners. The tower shield will only block it if it can't get around the corner of it (ie if you have a 5ft wide tower shield in a 10ft wide effect you are SOL). The bullseye lantern won't work either as it will simply go around from the outside to cover it's normal spread.
Burst hasn't gone around corners since before 3.5.
Spread goes around corners.
|
|
Replace "Fighter" with "Monk" and you've got it!You guys have it all wrong! You don't cast silence on an enemy spellcaster, on a rock at their feet, or even on a coin!
What you do is cast it on your fighter and sick him on the spellcaster.
That way, he can't save against it, he can't move away from it (since the fighter will pursue), and he can't do anything in most situations except get horrifically mauled.
That hurts the monk. Everyone knows kung fu loses all its power if you cant hear the "hiya". the monk would lose all class abilities
[/remembering an old 60's batman episode]
|
|
If you want a good way to keep things lit up for the party just cast continual flame on a wearable object. I had a character who had it on his helmet so he could walk around without worrying about...I'll admit, I sort of saw this slippery slope conversation coming, which is why I was hesitant to not start a new thread. My apologies to Zerombr if they feel that I sidetracked their thread.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would rule that the effect of Silence would not be blocked by a backpack. My opinion is that to allow it to be blocked opens the door to later exploitation, which has been danced around with references to burqas and beach umberellas. I also wouldn't allow someone to step on the coin to block the silence effect.
But these suggestions upthread illustrate my point that if you say the effect is blocked by placing the emanation inside something, couldn't someone could block the emanation from themselves? Say, by wearing long hooded robes, gloves, and then turning around so their face isn't directly exposed. Does this person now have complete concealment and cover from an emanation? I don't believe they would.
Maybe I'm entering the realm of houserule, but so be it. I will not have mages placing themselves in anti-silence suits in any game I run.
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?
So all I have to do to provide light for the party is to put it on a coin, and then I can keep the coin in my backpack, or my pocket, and I'm good?
It's an interesting call one way or another. If you say that silence is not blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are not blocked. If you say that the silence is blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are blocked.
I guess the question becomes - at what point is an emanation blocked by intervening material? And at what point is it not?
Not sure you get it. Under J.R.s interpretation, once cast on an object, there is no way to hide the continual flame, or light, as backpacks and the such would not block line of effect.
Which means that your everburning torch will ALWAYS be visible. (Metal box maybe?)
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?
As far as I can tell, the spell light is a different case altogether. It doesn't indicate the illumination generated by the spell's effect to be an emanation at all. The spell creates natural light that extends a defined distance, in a manner similar to that of a mundane source; it creates regular light, and as such it would be blocked by anything that would normally block light.
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?
So all I have to do to provide light for the party is to put it on a coin, and then I can keep the coin in my backpack, or my pocket, and I'm good?
It's an interesting call one way or another. If you say that silence is not blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are not blocked. If you say that the silence is blocked, then you have to say that all emanations and bursts are blocked.
I guess the question becomes - at what point is an emanation blocked by intervening material? And at what point is it not?
We're getting dangerously close to the point where we start talking about magic and physics, as covered (or not covered) by RAW. It's a weird place.
Once light is generated by magic it behaves as light does in "the real world"? Once silence is generated by magic it behaves...as magical silence does in the real world? I admit I don't have a good answer for this, but emanations being blocked by either by a tower shield or just a layer of cloth or leather bothers me.
Not sure you get it. Under J.R.s interpretation, once cast on an object, there is no way to hide the continual flame, or light, as backpacks and the such would not block line of effect.
Which means that your everburning torch will ALWAYS be visible. (Metal box maybe?)
Oh I get it, that character just didn't particularly care. He quite enjoyed running around with his head seeming to be on fire all the time.
As for how I would rule in this case:
Extra-dimentional space block line of effect unless they are open. When the pack is closed no silence, when it's open everything goes quiet.
An actual pack will block line of effect if completely sealed (damn hard to do and I mean AIR TIGHT), but if the effect does damage it could destroy the pack and expand outwards. If the effect is a light effect that is producing actual light, then I will treat it as if you had stuffed a light source into a backpack, ie the light will be greatly dimmed but will still be leaking out some.
Concealment is when something makes you hard to see. Cover is when a physical object is between you and the origin of the effect.
Just for clarity. If the silence was not blocked by the backpack, then a light spell on a coin would also not be blocked?As far as I can tell, the spell light is a different case altogether. It doesn't indicate the illumination generated by the spell's effect to be an emanation at all. The spell creates natural light that extends a defined distance, in a manner similar to that of a mundane source; it creates regular light, and as such it would be blocked by anything that would normally block light.
I think this pretty well answers the Light question.
Upon review, Light isn't an emanation.
Upon further review, neither is Continual Flame.