RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Huh. Half this stuff is just how I play any caster.
Some more:
Hiding under a floating disc to use it as cover from elevated archers.
For less morally constrained parties, use animate dead to create your ambulatory trap bait.
When fighting the obviously dominated prince/paladin/etc, use protection from (x) to give the foe a new save against their mind control.
There's a lot of old style cantrip tomfoolery that you might get a GM to allow. Try using pretidigitation to: sew an enemy's sleeeve to his side, summon a fly in someone's tea, dirty someone's clothes, basically use the power to annoy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, no, that's not what happens.
As soon as their area of effects touch, they negate one another and both spells collapse. it doesn't actually have to hit the center of effect.
Note the language is DISPEL...which means they work fine as pre-cast spells. Stopping as cast is a counter...stopping once in effect is a dispel.
So, yes, they eliminate one another instantly as soon as they touch. That's what Dispel means.
They did this for exactly the reasons you are citing...to stop the whole 'overlapping illumination changes' stuff. Now, it's either all or none.
==Aelryinth
I'm not claiming I know what I'm talking about, but that's not how I read that at all.
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Not "Darkness dispels", but "Darkness can be used to dispel". By my reading, this means that if Wizard 1 cast Light on a coin, Wizard 2 could cast Darkness specifically to dispel the ongoing light effect (targeting the coin or the effect itself). If Wizard 2 instead cast Darkness on his own coin, then he has chosen to use the spell to create an area of darkness rather than use it to counter or dispel a light spell.
Basically my interpretation is that dispelling a magical effect is an explicit action that the caster takes when casting the appropriate spell (Dispel Magic generally, or Darkness in this example). It is not an ongoing effect after the spell has been cast.
If cloth from a pocket breaks a silence effect, then why couldn't a spell caster just put some cloth over their mouth to cast spells in a silenced area?Because then they would be gagged? ;P
More seriously though, 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.
The ENTIRE caster would need to break line of effect to pull of your trick, not just his mouth, since the rules account for creatures, not body parts.
This is also why you need to be within reach of a creature to make attacks of opportunity against it, even though it may be able to reach you and attack you just fine from 10 feet away.
So then if the Wizard was wearing full body covering, gloves, mask, goggles, etc, then he’d be immune to Silence? Doubtful.
I don’t think clothes provide such a barrier. Even for the silence pebble in your pocket. It’d need to be wrapped in lead foil, or in clay or something.
|
|
Regarding the Silence effect, you can rationalize it with a little meta-physics. The silence effect is caused by out-of-phase sound wave eminating from the object. In order to negate the silence effect, you have to put it in a sound-proof container or behind some other barrier. A closed chest or behind a closed door would block the effect, but a cloth bag would not.
BTW, no, I have nothing to back it up, but it is a way to figure out what blocks line of effect for that spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So then if the Wizard was wearing full body covering, gloves, mask, goggles, etc, then he’d be immune to Silence? Doubtful.I don’t think clothes provide such a barrier. Even for the silence pebble in your pocket. It’d need to be wrapped in lead foil, or in clay or something.
Well, line of effect works both ways, so any wizard that covered himself up enough to be immune also couldn't cast spells out.
If cloth from a pocket breaks a silence effect, then why couldn't a spell caster just put some cloth over their mouth to cast spells in a silenced area?Because then they would be gagged? ;P
More seriously though, 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.
The ENTIRE caster would need to break line of effect to pull of your trick, not just his mouth, since the rules account for creatures, not body parts.
This is also why you need to be within reach of a creature to make attacks of opportunity against it, even though it may be able to reach you and attack you just fine from 10 feet away.
That makes sense, I guess. You're basically giving everything total cover against the spell, right? So if a bead of fireball went off in your pocket, no one would get hurt (although part of your clothing might catch fire). And we can use a large sheet of cloth to counter darkness spells. Just get a piece of cloth and cover the point of origin. Darkness effectively countered.
Or heck, a tower shield can grant total cover and protect against burst, emanation, and spread spells (requires a standard action to do this). That's actual RAW. Pretty cool. So we can use a tower shield to "wade through" darkness spells or silence spells. Not sure how useful that is, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, no, that's not what happens.
As soon as their area of effects touch, they negate one another and both spells collapse. it doesn't actually have to hit the center of effect.
Note the language is DISPEL...which means they work fine as pre-cast spells. Stopping as cast is a counter...stopping once in effect is a dispel.
So, yes, they eliminate one another instantly as soon as they touch. That's what Dispel means.
They did this for exactly the reasons you are citing...to stop the whole 'overlapping illumination changes' stuff. Now, it's either all or none.
==Aelryinth
I'm not claiming I know what I'm talking about, but that's not how I read that at all.
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Not "Darkness dispels", but "Darkness can be used to dispel". By my reading, this means that if Wizard 1 cast Light on a coin, Wizard 2 could cast Darkness specifically to dispel the ongoing light effect (targeting the coin or the effect itself). If Wizard 2 instead cast Darkness on his own coin, then he has chosen to use the spell to create an area of darkness rather than use it to counter or dispel a light spell.
Basically my interpretation is that dispelling a magical effect is an explicit action that the caster takes when casting the appropriate spell (Dispel Magic generally, or Darkness in this example). It is not an ongoing effect after the spell has been cast.
You're being selective and ignoring the other language that 'counters and negates darkness spells of equal or lower level.' Which covers the 'existing spell' concept. The two spells negate one another when they come into contact.
You're trying now to justify the 'casting style' as an excuse for your rules. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. WHen you cast your darkness spell at the coin of Light, the areas overlap as the spell manifests, and negate one another. mechanically, that's no different then bringing the darkness spell into the radius of the Light spell...they work exactly the same way.
In other words, you're trying to complicate the issue, instead of saying the spells react the same way to one another, all the time! :) I think you can see where I'm going with this. IT was to remove complications that the spells were ruled that way.
I.e. You are outside on a cloudy day. Enemy casts darkness. You cast light. The spell areas overlap.
So, in the overlap area, do you ahve shadowy illumination (where they negate one another) or cloudy day illumination? Sub in night time, twilight, etc...
Nope, they did away with the questions at a stroke. When the spells make contact, they negate or counter one another. End of story. Doesn't matter if you are casting it or pre-existing.
So stop adding complexity to the game! (shakes fist) It has enough on its own! :)
==Aelryinth
If cloth from a pocket breaks a silence effect, then why couldn't a spell caster just put some cloth over their mouth to cast spells in a silenced area?Because then they would be gagged? ;P
More seriously though, 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.
The ENTIRE caster would need to break line of effect to pull of your trick, not just his mouth, since the rules account for creatures, not body parts.
This is also why you need to be within reach of a creature to make attacks of opportunity against it, even though it may be able to reach you and attack you just fine from 10 feet away.
That makes sense, I guess. You're basically giving everything total cover against the spell, right? So if a bead of fireball went off in your pocket, no one would get hurt (although part of your clothing might catch fire). And we can use a large sheet of cloth to counter darkness spells. Just get a piece of cloth and cover the point of origin. Darkness effectively countered.
Or heck, a tower shield can grant total cover and protect against burst, emanation, and spread spells (requires a standard action to do this). That's actual RAW. Pretty cool. So we can use a tower shield to "wade through" darkness spells or silence spells. Not sure how useful that is, but still.
I don't believe you can move when using a Tower Shield to provide cover. Or spell cast.
==Aelryinth
So if a bead of fireball went off in your pocket, no one would get hurt (although part of your clothing might catch fire).
Not quite. Fireball is quite clear that it can keep going if it burns through something. Also, it is a spread, not a burst, so it uses entirely different rules.
And we can use a large sheet of cloth to counter darkness spells. Just get a piece of cloth and cover the point of origin. Darkness effectively countered.
The trick is finding the point of origin when you are unable to find it. Becomes even harder if it's a pendent or something on a moving target.
Or heck, a tower shield can grant total cover and protect against burst, emanation, and spread spells (requires a standard action to do this). That's actual RAW. Pretty cool. So we can use a tower shield to "wade through" darkness spells or silence spells. Not sure how useful that is, but still.
Doesn't do much against spread spells (they go around your shield), but against bursts and emanations, it could potentially block their effects. Note that this may not be of much use in certain situations, however. If you create a gap in the darkness with your shield, you might be able to see behind you, but not what's ahead. Every time you stuck your head over the shield for a peak, you would be looking into the darkness (in fact, you head would have to be in it).
What's more, if you got disoriented in the dark before attempting this, and positioned your shield incorrectly in relation to the point of origin, it won't block any of the emanating darkness.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found the Periapt of Proof Against Poison useful. You can pour a flask of contact poison over your head, and start grappling.
The post about grappling with Alchemist's Fire reminded me of this.
I did this to a Warforged Assassin NPC in one of my games, it smeared contact paralysis poison on itself, so when the monk hit it, bam...save vs poison, which he failed. Fun Stuff.
|
That is sooooo depressing. Good problem solving boiled down to a couple of numerical bonuses. Sigh. My old grumpy gamer persona is coming out. I distinctly remember going through Tomb of Horrors with a couple of amazing trap players. We still died, but the tricks they pulled were awesome. By the way, I completely agree with an earlier post that pitons are terrific. Another use for them is to wedge a trap door shut or open.Both would just give a +2 to perception and disable device respectively. Most of the oldschool tricks worked because there were no rules to back them up.A great trick is when you are looking for secret doors to use a candle and pour the wax along the edge between the flooor and wall. The wax will run under the open space between the floor and the secret door but will still stick enough to the edge of the door that it will outline the crease.
Another trick is to pour oil into a lock that may be trapped. Then set fire to the oil. The fire really won't be hot enough to destroy the lock or the trap mechanism, but will probably burn away any contact poison or acid bladder.
Thank you
|
I see a lot of cool ideas, and having gamed for as long as I have, I've used many of them. My only real comment is that you have to have a very agreeable GM to pull off many of these ideas. In my current group, most, if not ALL of these plans would not be allowed as they would be viewed as "broken" tactics, unbalancing the game etc. And in many cases that would be correct, but not always... Not to mention that many of the old spell effects (and I realize that to some, "old" = 3E) are not the same as they used to be for this very reason....
Someone in the party has uncanny dodge or improve evasion. Use them for goon bait then cast fireball on said party member. Might want cure potions ready, just in case...
I'm a big fan of tying one of a rope to a BBEG, one end to an anvil, and dropping the anvil off a cliff. I like to use tactics like that against "invulnerable" opponents, like golems.
I don't believe you can move when using a Tower Shield to provide cover. Or spell cast.
It's a standard action, so you can still move. Can't cast, though.
So if a bead of fireball went off in your pocket, no one would get hurt (although part of your clothing might catch fire).Not quite. Fireball is quite clear that it can keep going if it burns through something. Also, it is a spread, not a burst, so it uses entirely different rules.
Yeah, I misread the rules. Only burst spells are stopped by total cover. Emanation and spread spells are not.
And we can use a large sheet of cloth to counter darkness spells. Just get a piece of cloth and cover the point of origin. Darkness effectively countered.The trick is finding the point of origin when you are unable to find it. Becomes even harder if it's a pendent or something on a moving target.
I was thinking of just working with the other players to cover the whole area. :) Or if you saw someone cast it on themselves, throw it on them. If it's in a whole room (say 10' tall), attach it to poles and walk into the room, spreading out from the door. As you walk in, you're blocking the darkness from the point of origin leaving the rest of the room lit (until you pass the point of origin, but then you'd be able to narrow down where it is).
Or heck, a tower shield can grant total cover and protect against burst, emanation, and spread spells (requires a standard action to do this). That's actual RAW. Pretty cool. So we can use a tower shield to "wade through" darkness spells or silence spells. Not sure how useful that is, but still.Doesn't do much against spread spells (they go around your shield), but against bursts and emanations, it could potentially block their effects. Note that this may not be of much use in certain situations, however. If you create a gap in the darkness with your shield, you might be able to see behind you, but not what's ahead. Every time you stuck your head over the shield for a peak, you would be looking into the darkness (in fact, you head would have to be in it).
What's more, if you got disoriented in the dark before attempting this, and positioned your shield incorrectly in relation to the point of origin, it won't block any of the emanating darkness.
Even if you didn't, it would only keep your square lit, not the rest of the area around you, so it's not like you could make any use or it or see anyone around you. At least with the Silence spell, you could have two ratfolks occupy the same space and one of them set up total cover with the tower shield so the other one could cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're being selective and ignoring the other language that 'counters and negates darkness spells of equal or lower level.' Which covers the 'existing spell' concept. The two spells negate one another when they come into contact.Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Not "Darkness dispels", but "Darkness can be used to dispel". By my reading, this means that if Wizard 1 cast Light on a coin, Wizard 2 could cast Darkness specifically to dispel the ongoing light effect (targeting the coin or the effect itself). If Wizard 2 instead cast Darkness on his own coin, then he has chosen to use the spell to create an area of darkness rather than use it to counter or dispel a light spell.
Basically my interpretation is that dispelling a magical effect is an explicit action that the caster takes when casting the appropriate spell (Dispel Magic generally, or Darkness in this example). It is not an ongoing effect after the spell has been cast.
I'm not trying to be selective, but I don't see the text you're quoting. The only similar phrasing I see in any of the spells I've checked is what I quoted above. The only place I see the word "negate" is in the Daylight spell description, where it says:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
Which is definitely not dispelling either effect. Despite this, Daylight includes the language about countering or dispelling darkness spells of equal or lower level. By your interpretation, under what circumstances would this temporary negation occur? If one or both spells are always going to be dispelled on contact, what is the point of this part of the spell description?
I may have just missed the text you're quoting, in which case I would appreciate a pointer to where I can find it.
You're trying now to justify the 'casting style' as an excuse for your rules. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. WHen you cast your darkness spell at the coin of Light, the areas overlap as the spell manifests, and negate one another. mechanically, that's no different then bringing the darkness spell into the radius of the Light spell...they work exactly the same way.
I think I explained what I meant here poorly, but I also don't think it's all that important to my interpretation, so I'll drop that part of my argument for now.
In other words, you're trying to complicate the issue, instead of saying the spells react the same way to one another, all the time! :) I think you can see where I'm going with this. IT was to remove complications that the spells were ruled that way.
I.e. You are outside on a cloudy day. Enemy casts darkness. You cast light. The spell areas overlap.
So, in the overlap area, do you ahve shadowy illumination (where they negate one another) or cloudy day illumination? Sub in night time, twilight, etc...
The description of the Darkness spell says:
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
So in this situation, the Darkness spell wins in the overlap area, and the Light spell is suppressed in the same area. EDIT: This also implies that there are magical light sources that can increase the light level in an area of Darkness. If the intent was to remove this sort of complexity entirely, wouldn't that be something to avoid?
Daylight (as I quoted above) also has rules for suppressing effects. The rules in general allow for relatively simple interactions between these spells even without automatically dispelling each other.
Nope, they did away with the questions at a stroke. When the spells make contact, they negate or counter one another. End of story. Doesn't matter if you are casting it or pre-existing.
So stop adding complexity to the game! (shakes fist) It has enough on its own! :)
==Aelryinth
I certainly don't want to add unwarranted complexity, but I do want to explain my interpretation as well as I can. Again, I make no claims that my rules knowledge is any better than yours, but I definitely read these rules differently.
Also: I just noticed this, and I'm not sure where to put it in my post, so I'm adding it here. You've been claiming that Darkness and Light will negate each other when brought in contact, but Light is a cantrip/orison while Darkness is a level 2 spell. So under your reading of the rules, wouldn't Darkness negate Light without being negated itself?
Yeah, I misread the rules. Only burst spells are stopped by total cover. Emanation and spread spells are not.So if a bead of fireball went off in your pocket, no one would get hurt (although part of your clothing might catch fire).Not quite. Fireball is quite clear that it can keep going if it burns through something. Also, it is a spread, not a burst, so it uses entirely different rules.
Getting warmer. Actually, emanations are treated like bursts.
Shadar, under your rules, the two spells don't negate off...they overlap until seperated, and you have the wishy-washiness of what the illumination level is in the overlapping area, especially if the spells are of equal level.
Yes, the darkness spell would negate the level 0 Light spell and it would go away, being stronger.
If the Orison was cast at level 2, both spells would negate the other, and both would go away.
If the Light spell was higher level, it would negate/dispel the Darkness spell and it would go away.
IF they honestly meant for the light effects to be suppressed instead of negated, they would have used that language for long-lasting effects (i.e. bring the Light spell out of the Darkness and it pops back up).
==Aelryinth
Shadar, under your rules, the two spells don't negate off...they overlap until seperated, and you have the wishy-washiness of what the illumination level is in the overlapping area, especially if the spells are of equal level.
Yes, the darkness spell would negate the level 0 Light spell and it would go away, being stronger.
If the Orison was cast at level 2, both spells would negate the other, and both would go away.
If the Light spell was higher level, it would negate/dispel the Darkness spell and it would go away.
IF they honestly meant for the light effects to be suppressed instead of negated, they would have used that language for long-lasting effects (i.e. bring the Light spell out of the Darkness and it pops back up).
==Aelryinth
I still disagree, but I don't feel all that strongly about it and I don't want to continue filling this thread with the discussion. You may very well be right, but for now I'll continue to read it my way unless my players disagree.
If you want to use darkness to dispel light or vice versa don't you need to actually touch the effected object?
Also doesn't magical darkness trump magical light when the spell level is equal?
No, all you have to do is overlap the areas of illumination.
And no, they negate one another if equal level, and both of them go away, just like a counterspell.
That's why you want the Raised Continual Flame (9th) - trumps everything with a Darkness descriptor!
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth if you don't mind can you give some citation?
When I came to PF (straight from 2e, so it was my first d20 experience) I found the rules about magical darkness and light to be quite a headache to remember. I still do, but I've worked at getting the hang of it.
What you are saying is nice and simple, but if you are right then did I just imagine all that complexity or what?
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius.
...
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.
This bolded part tells me magical light will raise the light level where it overlaps, not dispel the darkness effect (and only if the magical light comes from a higher level spell then the darkness spell). The darkness spell will still be active underneath the magical light, but the light level will be raised. (Magical light from an equal level spell can not even raise the light level.)
In addition:
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
This is a separate usage of the spell, to counter or dispel. Countering would follow the standard rules for counter-spells, being something you do as the spell is cast. On the other hand if you want to use it to dispel, it would still use the range of the spell, which is touch. The casting of darkness would dispel a light spell, not the effect, so you would have to touch the effected object to dispel the light spell.
The illumination levels in the effected areas of the two spells are just spell effects and interact as detailed in the spell descriptions. The dispel usage would still depend on the "Range" and "Target" entries which say "Touch" and "Object Touched" respectively.
Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd probably be relieved to have this simplified.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth if you don't mind can you give some citation?
When I came to PF (straight from 2e, so it was my first d20 experience) I found the rules about magical darkness and light to be quite a headache to remember. I still do, but I've worked at getting the hang of it.
What you are saying is nice and simple, but if you are right then did I just imagine all that complexity or what?
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius.
...
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.
This bolded part tells me magical light will raise the light level where it overlaps, not dispel the darkness effect (and only if the magical light comes from a higher level spell then the darkness spell). The darkness spell will still be active underneath the magical light, but the light level will be raised. (Magical light from an equal level spell can not even raise the light level.)
In addition:
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
This is a separate usage of the spell, to counter or dispel. Countering would follow the standard rules for counter-spells, being something you do as the spell is cast. On the other hand if you want to use it to dispel, it would still use the range of the spell, which is touch. The casting of darkness would dispel a light spell, not the effect, so you would have to touch the effected object to dispel the light spell.
The illumination levels in the effected areas of the two spells are just spell effects and interact as detailed in the spell descriptions. The dispel usage would still depend on the "Range" and "Target" entries which say "Touch" and "Object Touched" respectively....
You are correct. The wording you quote is unambiguous.
=/
So if I'm to understand the OP correctly, no one new to Pathfinder in PFS ever had the idea that one could send light ahead of the party by putting a spell on a coin and tossing it into a dark room.
By that logic, no one in PFS has ever done the same thing with a torch...which is what you use when you can't cast light.
I weep for future generations.
=/
So if I'm to understand the OP correctly, no one new to Pathfinder in PFS ever had the idea that one could send light ahead of the party by putting a spell on a coin and tossing it into a dark room.
By that logic, no one in PFS has ever done the same thing with a torch...which is what you use when you can't cast light.
I weep for future generations.
I was playing PFS and we were asking an NPC about the BBEG of the scenario. The NPC told us that she likes to morph into a dragon and attack pirate ships under the cloak of invisibility. We were too low-level to have good ways of dealing with invisibility so I asked the NPC if there was some place to purchase a bag of flour. The DM sort of broke character and told me "Yeah you can go to Market Basket" (a chain of real-life supermarkets in my area.) The whole table gave me a range of blank to dirty looks, so I explained that I was hoping to use the flour to outline the invisible enemy so we could keep tabs on her location. Blank looks. The scenario resumed as though I had said something disruptive. I wasn't allowed to buy flour. In Magnimar.
(I'm not intending to criticize the DM here. He was a good DM in the sense that he was running the kind of game that the majority of his players wanted to play. I was in the minority so I accepted it and we moved on.)
=/
So if I'm to understand the OP correctly, no one new to Pathfinder in PFS ever had the idea that one could send light ahead of the party by putting a spell on a coin and tossing it into a dark room.
By that logic, no one in PFS has ever done the same thing with a torch...which is what you use when you can't cast light.
I weep for future generations.
I was playing PFS and we were asking an NPC about the BBEG of the scenario. The NPC told us that she likes to morph into a dragon and attack pirate ships under the cloak of invisibility. We were too low-level to have good ways of dealing with invisibility so I asked the NPC if there was some place to purchase a bag of flour. The DM sort of broke character and told me "Yeah you can go to Market Basket" (a chain of real-life supermarkets in my area.) The whole table gave me a range of blank to dirty looks, so I explained that I was hoping to use the flour to outline the invisible enemy so we could keep tabs on her location. Blank looks. The scenario resumed as though I had said something disruptive. I wasn't allowed to buy flour. In Magnimar.
(I'm not intending to criticize the DM here. He was a good DM in the sense that he was running the kind of game that the majority of his players wanted to play. I was in the minority so I accepted it and we moved on.)
I'm beginning to understand the need of some people to have every rule explained to account for every possible situation and delivered to them by the voice of authority.
Exactly. The tactic was only going to make sense to them if I had a feat on my character sheet called "Throw Bag of Flour".
Whatever. Different play-style, not wrongbadfun I guess. I can adapt.
Okay, going back and reading through ALL of the Light/darkness descriptor spells, the relevant quotes are actually in Darkness and Daylight, not Light and COntinual Flame.
Under Darkness, you get 'can be used to counter and dispel any spell of equal or lower level with the Light descriptor'.
'used to counter and dispel' implies active action. Just 'countering and dispelling' can certainly include passive effects.
Daylight is the only spell with rules on existing spells being brought into the area of other existing spells of the opposite type...which results in temporary negation.
So, I'm right, and I'm wrong.
A spell is it's area of effect if it's a continuing spell. Therefore, any part of a daylight spell is the daylight spell.
If the daylight spell contacts an area of darkness, it's temporarily negated. This is any part of the area of effect...as long as they are in contact, it's gone.
However, none of the other spells have this kind of language. Furthermore, it says 'natural illumination prevails', which implies that the darkness spell on the other side of the exchange is also temporarily negated.
IF YOU APPLY BOTH RULES TO ALL LIGHT/DARK interactions:
Then all pre-existing light/darkness spells temporarily negate one another when their areas of effect touch, restoring 'normal' lighting conditions.
The language that dispel/counter light/darkness spells of equal or lower level has no effect on this natural effect, which basically means that Heightening a Continual Flame is only useful against a Dispel, but regardless, all they have to do is cast Darkness on the same center of effect, and it's going to be negated as long as the areas overlap.
In other words, bring a 9th level COntinual flame into a 2nd level darkness spell, and it still goes out with the darkness. Level is never checked. Throw a second level darkness spell on the source of the continual flame, and it will be negated for the duration of the darkness spell (and if it's Continual Darkness, effectively dispelled, regardless of level, since the temporary negation is effectively permanent).
Is that more satisfying to everyone?
Note that this means that if someone simply casts two darkness spells, one after another, the first one negates a light source, and then the second darkness spell is free to take effect, since the negated spell of illumination has no power to negate the second spell.
Which really, really turfs the power of a heightened continual flame, which was always intepreted to dispel any darkness spells of lower level that it moved into, not be itself temporarily negated.
==Aelryinth
|
Exactly. The tactic was only going to make sense to them if I had a feat on my character sheet called "Throw Bag of Flour".
Whatever. Different play-style, not wrongbadfun I guess. I can adapt.
Well, I suppose it depends on what books they allow.
If it's Core Rulebook only, maybe. But
Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
Oil of Silence thrown at the foot of the BBEG caster.
Exactly. The tactic was only going to make sense to them if I had a feat on my character sheet called "Throw Bag of Flour".
Whatever. Different play-style, not wrongbadfun I guess. I can adapt.
Well, I suppose it depends on what books they allow.
If it's Core Rulebook only, maybe. But
Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
I guess if I had APG with me it would have been allowed then. I never knew that was in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is the chalk/flour/powder thing only momentarily reveals invisible creatures. Not a deal breaker, but you better have your team coordinated.
I don't see these things so much as old school tricks, but rather just: tricks.
Here's one trick: intentional rift to the astral plane via portable hole and handy haversack. An expensive, but effective, escape in rare, contrived situations. Just so long as there are divinations, plane shifting, and making sure this LAST RESORT backup plan is known.
Doesn't do much against spread spells (they go around your shield), but against bursts and emanations, it could potentially block their effects. Note that this may not be of much use in certain situations, however. If you create a gap in the darkness with your shield, you might be able to see behind you, but not what's ahead. Every time you stuck your head over the shield for a peak, you would be looking into the darkness (in fact, you head would have to be in it).What's more, if you got disoriented in the dark before attempting this, and positioned your shield incorrectly in relation to the point of origin, it won't block any of the emanating darkness.
Glass tower shield, problem solved.
=/
So if I'm to understand the OP correctly, no one new to Pathfinder in PFS ever had the idea that one could send light ahead of the party by putting a spell on a coin and tossing it into a dark room.
By that logic, no one in PFS has ever done the same thing with a torch...which is what you use when you can't cast light.
I weep for future generations.
Alot of us olden timers have the opinion that PF and 3.x are much 'easier' than 1st and 2nd ed DnD. Not saying it is necessarily true, but the opinion is out there.
Way back when:
How to say exactly when, where, and how you were looking for a trap. “I’m walking beside the wall tapping the floor with my pole trying to see if there is a pressure plate while looking for a trip wire.” The DM would roll and you had no idea if it was a good roll unless you did find something.
Now:
“I’m searching for traps everywhere. I got a 23 on my perception.”
Wbw:
Had to describe how you were disarming a trap and hope you were at least as clever as the module writer. “I’m going to slip some pitons under the edge of the pressure plate to keep it from getting depressed then I will slide a mirror under the edge to look for the wire to cut…” Again DM would roll and you would only know whether it blew up in your face or not.
N:
“I roll a 19 on disable device.”
Wbw:
The traps were very often truly lethal. “You got stuck with a poison needle. Roll a poison save or die. You got a 15% chance to survive.”
N:
“You got stuck with a poison needle. Roll a DC 12 save or take d2 con damage.”
Wbw:
It was very common to encounter monsters that the party simply has no chance to beat in a stand up fight. The party would have to trick, bargain, or run away fairly often. I specifically remember learning that the large hobgoblin tribe was attacking caravans because the ogre family was forcing them to. We were 2nd level and could beat maybe 1 ogre or several hobs.
N:
Published modules rarely have encounters that the party has no chance of just hacking through. It may not be the best or only way, but it is possible. If it has a tribe of orcs and a family or ogres, it probably has them spread out enough that you do have a chance of just wading in blood to kill them all.
Therefore, some feel that ‘way back when’ tricks or strategies were necessary. So people spent more effort thinking. Now since you can just bull through, people don’t bother to try to think of clever tricks. It might make things easier but it is no longer necessary.
Not saying I necessarily agree with all of the attitude. But at least some of it has merit.
Exactly. The tactic was only going to make sense to them if I had a feat on my character sheet called "Throw Bag of Flour".
Whatever. Different play-style, not wrongbadfun I guess. I can adapt.
That's what the "Throw Anything" feat is for. :-P
Otherwise, you might suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty hitting that AC 5. :-P
Sorry your group doesn't value innovation. :-(
Alternatively, you can try to hit the target with alchemist fire, and then try to target the fiery bits. Or try to get a scroll of faeriefire. Or glitterdust. Oil of glitterdust sounds like a fun and useful magic item....
=/
So if I'm to understand the OP correctly, no one new to Pathfinder in PFS ever had the idea that one could send light ahead of the party by putting a spell on a coin and tossing it into a dark room.
By that logic, no one in PFS has ever done the same thing with a torch...which is what you use when you can't cast light.
I weep for future generations.
Alot of us olden timers have the opinion that PF and 3.x are much 'easier' than 1st and 2nd ed DnD. Not saying it is necessarily true, but the opinion is out there.
I started in AD&D 2e, and for sure it was much harder. That does not mean it was better, or more fun, but it was harder, that's sure.
Way back when:
How to say exactly when, where, and how you were looking for a trap. “I’m walking beside the wall tapping the floor with my pole trying to see if there is a pressure plate while looking for a trip wire.” The DM would roll and you had no idea if it was a good roll unless you did find something.
Now:
“I’m searching for traps everywhere. I got a 23 on my perception.”
*snip*
But to be fair, this is not how all old style games went either. I have played sence 1978 and I will tell you it varried from GM to GM. Some just wanted the combat and did not care about the details and others had fun with the details.
What I find is that those who have played for many years forget the growth they went through. I remember many a night we just used the random dungeon tables to play. No logic, no story, just room after room of monsters to kill and tresure to loot. Over time we learned to roleplay and our games changed. I believe given some help and time, the new generation can see the light as well. Many already do.
... But to be fair, this is not how all old style games went either. I have played sence 1978 and I will tell you it varried from GM to GM. Some just wanted the combat and did not care about the details and others had fun with the details ...
I suppose that is probably true. But everyone I ever played with required all those details.
... What I find is that those who have played for many years forget the growth they went through. I remember many a night we just used the random dungeon tables to play. No logic, no story, just room after room of monsters to kill and tresure to loot. Over time we learned to roleplay and our games changed. I believe given some help and time, the new generation can see the light as well. Many already do.
I can definitely agree with that. But I think us grumpy old men bemoaning the loss of the good old days will not remember when we were idiots and will continue to blame it on computer games. =)
I started in AD&D 2e, and for sure it was much harder. That does not mean it was better, or more fun, but it was harder, that's sure.
Alot of us olden timers have the opinion that PF and 3.x are much 'easier' than 1st and 2nd ed DnD. Not saying it is necessarily true, but the opinion is out there.
Harder, yes.... until you got to a certain level. At say level 12 or so you were dripping with magic and special abilities.
Rings of Elemental Command and Staffs of Power were not so rare. Any party (at that high of level) likely had at least one artifact.
No less than two of my PC's were Demi-Gods, another was a Proxy of a deity , at least two others were immortal....
Alot of us olden timers have the opinion that PF and 3.x are much 'easier' than 1st and 2nd ed DnD. Not saying it is necessarily true, but the opinion is out there.
Way back when:
How to say exactly when, where, and how you were looking for a trap. “I’m walking beside the wall tapping the floor with my pole trying to see if there is a pressure plate while looking for a trip wire.” The DM would roll and you had no idea if it was a good roll unless you did find something.
Now:
“I’m searching for traps everywhere. I got a 23 on my perception.”Wbw:
Had to describe how you were disarming a trap and hope you were at least as clever as the module writer. “I’m going to slip some pitons under the edge of the pressure plate to keep it from getting depressed then I will slide a mirror under the edge to look for the wire to cut…” Again DM would roll and you would only know whether it blew up in your face or not.
N:
“I roll a 19 on disable device.”It was very common to encounter monsters that the party simply has no chance to beat in a stand up fight. The party would have to trick, bargain, or run away fairly often. I specifically remember learning that the large hobgoblin tribe was attacking caravans because the ogre family was forcing them to. We were 2nd level and could beat maybe 1 ogre or several hobs.
By 2nd Ed, the Thief has % skill rolls for those things, and most folks just rolled.
It was rare to encounter such creatures. "Sandbox" games were rare unless you went into the wilderness.
... By 2nd Ed, the Thief has % skill rolls for those things, and most folks just rolled...
Every DM I had back then wouldn't give your roll a chance to succeed until after you had described a method that seemed like it had a chance to work.
But I can see that not all of them would have been like that.