Beyond that:
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.
and:
Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.
The party isn't sightless and the pattern is also mind affecting so they would be affected as would the Orcs.
The description of color-spray says "Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray."
A) On page 562, the rules state "Darkvision is not color vision." The postulate is that since the orcs can't see the colors, color-spray doesn't work. However, orcs ALSO have normal sight.
B) The postulate is that you can't see the colors (or anything) in the dark, so color-spray doesn't work.
So the question "Does color spray function in darkness ?" becomes "Does color-spray give off light of its own ?"
As a GM (total house rule, no RAW to support), I'd rule yes, color spray functions in the dark.
Here's why. Primarily because the spell description calls out sightless creatures, but does not say that one must be able to see the spell effect. Secondarily, because ne of the effects is blindness. I see color spray functioning like a modern "dazzle" weapon.
I always saw a color spray as generating it's own light, so in that event, it should work at least as well in the dark, especially against critters that have light sensitivity/blindness.
However, since there's nothing that explicitly states this in the spell, and a Will save can negate, I guess this is just an impressionistic interpretation.
Still, since nothing in the spell says it won't work in the dark, I think we can assume it functions normally.
Yes and yes, because the spell description doesn't say the targets have to see the spell effect, just that they can't be sightless.
It's magic that uses same neural pathways (the optic nerve, et.al.) into the brain (it's a mind affecting spell, after all) to produce its effects. If a creature is sightless, it either doesn't have such pathways or they're damaged, so the spell can't use them.
However, rule 0 applies, the DM can overrule or rule however he sees fit. If the DM wants to be generous, he could use the rules for avoiding a gaze attack if the targets have some clue that it's coming, but this is total house rule territory.
By RAW, fire spells don't produce light either...
But that's just silly. Light is a by-product of most magic (see making magic weapons) Color Spray can create enough light for the spell to work in darkness. If you want to go all literal, Color Spray doesn't actually say you have to have color vision to be affected.
Now, Deeper Darkness should block Color Spray. Just mundane lack of light shouldn't.
By RAW, fire spells don't produce light either...
But that's just silly. Light is a by-product of most magic (see making magic weapons) Color Spray can create enough light for the spell to work in darkness. If you want to go all literal, Color Spray doesn't actually say you have to have color vision to be affected.
Now, Deeper Darkness should block Color Spray. Just mundane lack of light shouldn't.
Actually Deeper darkness wouldn't stop color spray either. Color spray doesn't generate any light. It generates a mind-effecting illusion of light, and thus is uneffected by the actual lighting conditions.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually Deeper darkness wouldn't stop color spray either. Color spray doesn't generate any light. It generates a mind-effecting illusion of light, and thus is uneffected by the actual lighting conditions.
You know, I never thought of that, but it makes sense. 'Sightless creatures' don't have any vision centres in their brains to be dazzled.
So how about this. Someone who was sighted but hit with a blindness spell. Would they be affected? :D
edit: Edited for word choice.
Actually Deeper darkness wouldn't stop color spray either. Color spray doesn't generate any light. It generates a mind-effecting illusion of light, and thus is uneffected by the actual lighting conditions.You know, I never thought of that, but it makes sense. 'Sightless creatures' don't have any vision centres in their brains to be dazzled.
So how about this. Someone who was sighted but hit with a blindness spell. Would they be affected? :D
edit: Edited for word choice.
I would say no.
RAW, Blindness = unable to see = sightless.
RAI, blindness permently destroys a living creature's ability to see. This probably involves some damage to the party of your brain that affects vision.
IMO... you can't have it both ways...
a creature that is unable to see in darkness is considered blind and takes the penalties of the Blind condition while they cannot see. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
If Colorspray is used on a creature that can't see, that's the same as using it on a creature that is without sight or sightless.
Why would you be considered able to see the effects of color spray under these circumstances, when you can't see anything at all?
Spells do not generate their own light source for a brief instant. Else, would you allow this flash of light generated from Color Spray as an opening for an Attack of Opportunity vs the Spell caster? What about a readied action against spells? Furthermore, this flash would necessarily give away the position of the mage so the unaffected party members could attack them. In addition, then you'd have to give creatures bonuses to perception vs spell casters that use their magic in a dark environment as they'd light up every time they cast a spell.
If you allow for all the above then I'd say it was possible for Color Spray to affect creatures that are unable to see. If you do not, then I think you're unfairly shifting the rules in your favor.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
IMO... you can't have it both ways...
a creature that is unable to see in darkness is considered blind and takes the penalties of the Blind condition while they cannot see. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
If Colorspray is used on a creature that can't see, that's the same as using it on a creature that is without sight or sightless.
Why would you be considered able to see the effects of color spray under these circumstances, when you can't see anything at all?
Spells do not generate their own light source for a brief instant. Else, would you allow this flash of light generated from Color Spray as an opening for an Attack of Opportunity vs the Spell caster? What about a readied action against spells? Furthermore, this flash would necessarily give away the position of the mage so the unaffected party members could attack them. In addition, then you'd have to give creatures bonuses to perception vs spell casters that use their magic in a dark environment as they'd light up every time they cast a spell.
If you allow for all the above then I'd say it was possible for Color Spray to affect creatures that are unable to see. If you do not, then I think you're unfairly shifting the rules in your favor.
The blindness spell renders your living anatomy unable to see, permanently. This is completely different from being in the dark.
If the spell actually generated light, then it would interact with darkness in the same way as any other light spell, but there is no reason you cannot perceive an illusion of light while in the darkness.
I also realize that we are well off the RAW track and into FAQ territory. I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. Unfortunately, the details of the "sightless" condition are left up to the DM.
The blindness spell renders your living anatomy unable to see, permanently. This is completely different from being in the dark.
I was speaking to the main slant of the thread and not the blindness side discussion, but we agree on your point.
|
|
In the area of a Darkness, the party is being attacked by Orcs and the caster 'Sprays into the Darkness - with both party members and Orcs in the area of effect - what happens?
A) Orcs can see in the Darkness (darkvision) so are they effected?
b) Party can't see in the Darkness, so are they effected?
Firstly it depends on what the light level is inside the darkness spell. Is it dim, dark, or supernaturally dark (as with deeper darkness?
If it's "dim" then color spray should work just fine against all sighted creatures. If its "dark" then color spray would only work against creatures with darkvision. If it's "supernaturally dark" then color spray wouldn't work at all.
--Vrocking grasp
Remember that color spray is a mind-affecting, illusion (pattern) spell.
Let's look at what that means.
Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects.
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
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.
Figment: a figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
I put all the text there so that I could not be accused of taking anything out of context, but I want to highlight two lines. The first is from Illusion, and it says "They cause people to see things that are not there." The second is from figment, which says "a figment spell creates a false sensation."
Remember, that patterns function as figments, which means that it creates a false sensation. So when it says that a pattern is "an image" it might better be put as, a pattern spell creates the false sensation of an image which is not really there.
In other words, the image itself does not exist, and so is completely unaffected by the prevalent light levels. The spell doesn't make a pattern in real life which is then seen, affecting the minds of those who are targeted by it. The spell affects the minds of those who are targeted and causes them to see a pattern which doesn't exist, distracting them in some way via the visual center of the brain.
So again, the light levels do not matter at all. All that matters is that the target have the mental capacity to see in general, not the situational capacity to see something in front of them at that exact moment, because there is nothing there to see, or to be hidden by darkness.
So again, the light levels do not matter at all. All that matters is that the target have the mental capacity to see in general, not the situational capacity to see something in front of them at that exact moment, because there is nothing there to see, or to be hidden by darkness.
In your reading then a creature that has been Blinded can be affected by Color Spray? (Because it has the capacity to understand sight?)
This sounds like adding a layer of complexity that way beyond the scope of what we are discussing.
If you can't see an illusion: color spray, mirror image, then you can't be affected by it. It would have no impact on you.
Look at color spray and you'll see that it is an actual cone of colors.
Thus the description:
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected according to its HD.
So again, the light levels do not matter at all. All that matters is that the target have the mental capacity to see in general, not the situational capacity to see something in front of them at that exact moment, because there is nothing there to see, or to be hidden by darkness.
In your reading then a creature that has been Blinded can be affected by Color Spray? (Because it has the capacity to understand sight?)
This sounds like adding a layer of complexity that way beyond the scope of what we are discussing.
If you can't see an illusion: color spray, mirror image, then you can't be affected by it. It would have no impact on you.
Look at color spray and you'll see that it is an actual cone of colors.
Thus the description:
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected according to its HD.
Or, since we know that an illusion (pattern) spell creates a false sensation already, it could be saving words and actually be intended to be read more as "A vivid cone of clashing colors appears to spring forth from your hand, etc."
EDIT: Compare this to, for example, Suggestion. If you read the Suggestion description, you will notice that it never at any point ever says that the target of the spell actually has to do what is suggested on a failed save. That seems like a critical piece of information! It is, instead, carried in the spell descriptor (compulsion) tag.
And honestly, I don't know how it would interact with someone being Blinded per the spell. If they have been blinded by losing their eyes, I think it would still work (just as they would still be vulnerable to, for example, phantasmal killer, as they would still see that phantasm despite not having functioning eyes. But blinded by the spell? That I can't give an answer to, and I'll admit it is a weakness to my reading, but I don't think it changes the facts of what the spell descriptors mean.
I think we should just hit the FAQ button in the opening post. :)
I think we should just hit the FAQ button in the opening post. :)
NO!!!!
We must continue to fight over unprovable arguments with vehemence of a dire badger defending her nest. It is the internet forum way.
wow... (now to add a tangent line to start additional conflict) what about Minor Image over the area of the Darkness spell - cast by someone with Darkvision so that he can give his companions the exact layout of the area complete with the monsters in it.... "Just shoot where you think you see them!" "Wait! I'll Magic Missile the one in the back!"
can you target a Magic Missile at the Minor Image of a monster that is laid over the actual monster that is concealed by a Darkness spell....
I suppose it depends on how loosely you define the "object, creature, or force" which minor image allows you to create. Also note that the spell allows the creation of only one such image.
I suppose you could create an image of a specific enemy in a specific spot to be targeted, but I doubt that your control over the image would allow you to so perfectly mirror the enemy's movement there to get past the total concealment issue. RAW certainly not. If one of my players did this, I would probably let them treat it as 20% concealment, rather than 50%.
And magic missile would be a non-starter. The missiles would, by definition, go for the parts of the image where there is no actual monster there to interfere with their ability to hit their target without fail. Because if they hit the monster, then they have NOT hit the image, which they can't do.
EDIT: Also, magic missile has to target a creature, which an illusion is not.
If Colorspray is used on a creature that can't see,due to darkness,
that's the same as using it on a creature that is without sight or sightless.
(I added the "due to darkness" to avoid taking the sentence out of context.)
Not quite. You can't see in absolute darkness because no photons are hitting the rods and cones in your eye, not because your rods and cones have ceased to function or because magic is blocking the nerve signals down your optic nerve.
If I was to shine a flashlight in the eyes of a creature in the dark, it would see the light. It is not blind, its sight is functional, it just doesn't have any photons to work with. Now, I'm not saying that color spray actually produces photons. I would, however, grant that a creature under the effects of a blindness spell is likely unaffected (that is, considered sightless for the effects of color spray) because they couldn't see the light EVEN IF I could shine that flashlight right in the eyes.
NO!!!!We must continue to fight over unprovable arguments with vehemence of a dire badger defending her nest. It is the internet forum way.
OMG. Dire Badgers have dens not nests. Why don't you read the monster's manualatrolololololololo...
wow... (now to add a tangent line to start additional conflict) what about Minor Image over the area of the Darkness spell - cast by someone with Darkvision so that he can give his companions the exact layout of the area complete with the monsters in it.... "Just shoot where you think you see them!" "Wait! I'll Magic Missile the one in the back!"
can you target a Magic Missile at the Minor Image of a monster that is laid over the actual monster that is concealed by a Darkness spell....
I would say that the functionality of illusions in the area of darkness is a huge grey area. Just the fact that you are seeing an illusion of something in the dark might gives someone cause to disbelieve the illusion.
It is definately not black and white....
wow... (now to add a tangent line to start additional conflict) what about Minor Image over the area of the Darkness spell - cast by someone with Darkvision so that he can give his companions the exact layout of the area complete with the monsters in it.... "Just shoot where you think you see them!" "Wait! I'll Magic Missile the one in the back!"
can you target a Magic Missile at the Minor Image of a monster that is laid over the actual monster that is concealed by a Darkness spell....
I would say that the functionality of illusions in the area of darkness is a huge grey area. Just the fact that you are seeing an illusion of something in the dark might gives someone cause to disbelieve the illusion.
It is definately not black and white....
Of course not. If it were black and white, that would mean you have darkvision, and the whole point is moot.
picture a section of cavern floor, with several pits etc. Drop a Darkness in the middle of it. Now enter a Dwarven Wiz. with the spell Minor Image (or even Silent Image). He creates the illusion of a cavern floor (four 10'cubes +one 10' cube per level area), which is exactly what he sees with his dark vision. His companions can move thru the area with no problem? as long as they miss the save vs. his spells. The halfling gang attacking them though are hosed. Cause they MADE thier saves....?
Again, remember that silent/minor allows you only to create the illusion of a single "object, creature, or force," so first you have to get the GM to sign off on the idea that the cavern floor fits that description. The spell doesn't jut let you fill a bunch of 10' cubes with whatever illusions you want.
Second, even if an illusion spell is successfully disbelieved, remember this:
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
So the halflings would continue to see the illusion, they just would know it was an illusion. They could think, "how helpful of that enemy to show us where the pit traps are," or could cautiously fear that the pit traps are, in fact, beneath the illusions of solid terrain, while the illusionary pit traps cover safe ground.
And not all illusion spells are able to be disbelieved.
Sorry I was speaking in general not this specific case -- I've had people try to tell me they were going to disbelieve a color spray before.
Silent Image? Disbelieve or not?
and the Illusion of a cavern floor? otherwise why is the area of effect so big?
would you be able to see the translucent outline in the area of the Darkness spell, which you know blocks vision?
The area of effect is so big because
You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.
It's a long-range spell, but if you drop the image of a guard dog next to yourself, and want it to chase someone away, then it can only chase as far as the area of effect, not the full 400+ ft range of the spell.
You can create an image of a single object, creature, or force of size up to your available area of effect. You can then move that image around inside that area of effect, but cannot move it beyond those bounds. So if your image takes up the whole AoE, then it can't move at all.
If you accept my premise that figment, pattern, and phantasm illusions continue to function in areas of darkness, then yes, you would continue to be able to see the outline on a successful disbelieve save. If you don't accept that, then no, you wouldn't be able to. Nothing about the interaction with the visual centers of the brain or darkness (magical or otherwise) changes when you disbelieve.
Not quite. You can't see in absolute darkness because no photons are hitting the rods and cones in your eye, not because your rods and cones have ceased to function or because magic is blocking the nerve signals down your optic nerve.
If I was to shine a flashlight in the eyes of a creature in the dark, it would see the light. It is not blind, its sight is functional, it just doesn't have any photons to work with. Now, I'm not saying that color spray actually produces photons. I would, however, grant that a creature under the effects of a blindness spell is likely unaffected (that is, considered sightless for the effects of color spray) because they couldn't see the light EVEN IF I could shine that flashlight right in the eyes.
Ok. Great?
The point is that a character who is blind or effectively blind wont see the cone of colors, so they won't be affected by the spell. This reliance on visual observation is built into the color spray spell description.
Furthermore, the same character won't see the mirror images, minor images or silent images and thus they would have no meaning for the character in question and be negated entirely.
One important clarification -- figments and patterns create images that are actually there. The underlying objects may not be there, but the images themselves are objectively there.
You never get a Will save not to see a figment or pattern, only to disbelieve it. You always see it, because the image (or other sensation) is objectively there for all to perceive. Even those who disbelieve it can still see that it's there.
That's one way that figments and patterns differ from phantasms, where the image only exists in the minds of those successfully affected. Resisting a phantasm stops you from seeing anything at all; you always see what's there with a figment or pattern, even if you manage not to be affected.
I would agree with those who have pointed out that you have to see the colors of a color spray to be affected by the pattern. Whether the color spray is visible in darkness or not is a matter of interpretation not spelled out in the rules; I would also assume that the colors produce enough light to see them even in darkness.
What's interesting to me, though, is whether or not the darkness spell should negate color spray. After all, even a level 1 spell that does nothing but produce light does not shine through the area of this level 2 spell; why should the incidental self-light produced by color spray be more powerful? It may be reasonable to assume that the colors are self-illuminating, but still suppressed within an area of darkness.
Furthermore, the same character won't see the mirror images, minor images or silent images and thus they would have no meaning for the character in question and be negated entirely.
To clarify, I'm not saying they won't exist, but for the character that can't see these vision based illusions are not visible and thus have no meaning or impact on them. For this character, those spells might as well not exist.
If the darkness is removed somehow, or the character is given the ability to see in the prevailing conditions, then the illusions will have their intended effect on the character in question.