|
Firstly, I'd like to apologise if the answer to this is obvious and I've just overlooked something, or if it has already been answered and I've failed to find it. As I see it often phrased, my search-fu is weak. But on to the question.
So recently, in a campaign I'm in, my Great Axe was enchanted with the abilities of a Sun Blade, sans the bastard sword/short sword bit. It was a boon bestowed upon me by GM fiat (complicated dwarf/vampire story going on, not question important), but it works as the Sun Blade for all intents and purposes.
Another player is a vampire, who is operating with the party by the use of a continuous magic item enchanted with the spell Protective Penumbra.
Party dynamics/GM fiat aside, I'm curious as to what happens, RAW/RAI, if I use the daylight power of the axe while my vampiric ally is within 10 feet of me (or any range within the aura's affect). Would the light created by the Sun Blade override the Protective Penumbra? Would both cancel each other out for her square, and expose her to prevailing conditions, while the daylight fills all other nearby squares normally? If the latter, can she move through the area and have her "exposure to prevailing conditions" follow her, or would she have to stay in the original square in order to avoid exposing herself to the daylight?
I ask on the basis of the Daylight (used to create the Sun Blade), versus Darkness (a darkness descriptor spell of the same level as Protective Penumbra) debate, which I must admit, I am also not 100% clear on. Thanks in advance. :)
The real answer is "Ask your GM how he wants it to work."
Technically, he's hosed.
Protective Penumbra lets you ignore penalties from vulnerability to sunlight. Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Vampires are staggered then destroyed when exposed to direct sunlight. The staggered condition is not a numerical value subtracted from a check or score. This means the spell does not protect a vampire from becoming staggered or destroyed by direct sunlight.
However, and this is why you should ask your GM, Vampires don't have light blindness or light sensitivity, they don't take any penalties for sunlight, which means the spell does nothing for them (unless they're kobold zombies?) and yet they're explicitly mentioned in the spell description. This could mean that the intent is for the spell to remove any disadvantage caused by sunlight. (Effectively using the English definition of penalty, rather than the defined game mechanic)
If this is the case, then it just depends on if a level 2 spell should completely remove one of the most iconic (and useful, if you hunt them) aspects of vampirism.
The sword is basically irrelevant. It makes natural sunlight. If the vampire can stand around in bright natural sunlight, then he's fine next to the sword. If not, then he's not.
The real answer is "Ask your GM how he wants it to work."
Technically, he's hosed.
Protective Penumbra lets you ignore penalties from vulnerability to sunlight. Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Vampires are staggered then destroyed when exposed to direct sunlight. The staggered condition is not a numerical value subtracted from a check or score. This means the spell does not protect a vampire from becoming staggered or destroyed by direct sunlight.
Politely and respectfully disagree. Look at the vampire template, there is no 'vulnerability to sunlight' section. There is an explanation about what happens to a vampire in sunlight under the 'weaknesses.' The spell specifically calls out that the spell allows creatures with vulnerability to sunlight (and calls out wraiths and vampires) to ignore those penalties.
There is exactly one sentence which can be referred to from that, so the vampire gets to ignore that sentence while the spell is in effect. That sentence contains the penalties, the penalties being staggered and death.
That sentence contains the penalties, the penalties being staggered and death.
Perhaps my citations were unclear.
Core Rulebook, Getting Started, Penalty: "Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another."
That's what penalties are. It's the game-specific definition.
Core Rulebook, Glossary, Staggered: "A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition."
As you can see, the staggered condition does not apply any numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. This means the staggered condition does not apply any penalties.
Protective Penumbra says: "A target with light blindness, light sensitivity, or vulnerability to sunlight (such as vampires and wraiths) may ignore penalties from those qualities."
Since being staggered doesn't apply any penalties, the protective penumbra spell doesn't change anything.
In order for the spell to do anything for a vampire in sunlight, you must interpret 'vulnerability' to include 'weakness' as well as changing 'penalty' to 'disadvantage' (or some other non-game mechanic defined keyword with the same English meaning).
The main problem I see with your argument is the game unfortunately doesn't always refer back to game mechanic definitions like you are stating. It does sometimes use english definitions, just look at FAQs/Errata where things are 'cleared up.'
If in this situation it were referring back to the game definition of penalties, why would they take the time and word count to state a specific creature who doesn't take penalties or have any of the game mechanic particulars (light sensitive/vulnerable to sunlight/etc) and state they don't suffer them while under the effect of the spell? The spell does absolutely nothing for them mechanically, why make examples of them?
Where as if the writers were using the common english definition of penalties and vulnerablity, the spell and examples make sense.
You can argue semantics obviously, but in this case I'd have to say it is very clear they aren't using game mechanic definitions, they are using english definitions. The most telling point being, the spell does nothing for the specific creatures they make examples of in the spell if you strictly look at game definitions. It works and does something in the specified examples if you use english definitions.