|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read it as the two spells are negating each other in the overlap, so the mundane light source works.Thats probably the intent but the raw only remembered to to have daylight negate the lowered light level of the deeper darkness, not its ability to shut off the light.
Heightened dancing lights ftw!
This is also a viable judge interpretation. It depends on that devilish prevailing clause. I try to be nicer to the PCs if possible and allow the mundane light sources to function, but the way you run it is also backed by the rules depending on prevailing.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That has nothing to do with my question at all.I was gonna guess that maybe the "Daylight and torches" plan worked in older editions. Is that not the case?
<----- THAT question.
Okay, I guess I asked two questions.
In any case, I'm still not seeing an answer to why SammyT's party's ioun torch didn't come back online while in the area in which torches would have worked. Instead I keep getting an answer to why torches would work, which I never asked.
|
|
That has nothing to do with my question at all.I was gonna guess that maybe the "Daylight and torches" plan worked in older editions. Is that not the case?
<----- THAT question.
Okay, I guess I asked two questions.
In any case, I'm still not seeing an answer to why SammyT's party's ioun torch didn't come back online while in the area in which torches would have worked. Instead I keep getting an answer to why torches would work, which I never asked.
Looking closely, I can also see your interpretation, Jiggy. I've never been a fan of the wording about the area of overlap for daylight and darkness spells, now even less so. I feel that everything else about the light and darkness rules, while confusing, is well-specified. It would be better if daylight worked more like other light spells.
It looks like the rules on this point are unclear enough that people should expect table variation from nicest (Jiggy) to least nice (BNW).|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Looking closely, I can also see your interpretation, Jiggy.
What interpretation do you mean?
It looks like the rules on this point are unclear enough that people should expect table variation from nicest (Jiggy)
Yeah, now I'm very curious what interpretation you're referring to.
And I'm still wondering where people are getting this weird partial-negation thing.
|
|
Looking closely, I can also see your interpretation, Jiggy.What interpretation do you mean?
That the definition of negate in daylight is not fully specified by the end of the sentence that contains it, and thus that you just flat out ignore both of them in the overlap, for all purposes. This is also pretty reasonable. Essentially it's all from the English of the word negate, which as far as I know is not a game term.
Negate could mean that the light effects are equal and opposite so you're left where you started, or it could mean that the two spells literally annihilate each other in the overlap and there is no magic present there. Now that you mentioned your interpretation and I looked at it more, I can see both.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That the definition of negate in daylight is not fully specified by the end of the sentence that contains itLooking closely, I can also see your interpretation, Jiggy.What interpretation do you mean?
I don't even know what you mean here.
and thus that you just flat out ignore both of them in the overlap, for all purposes. This is also pretty reasonable.
What's the "them" in that clause? Both spells (i.e., both daylight and deeper darkness)? Both of DD's light-suppressions (i.e., both magical and nonmagical light sources)? What exactly am I ignoring both of?
|
|
That the definition of negate in daylight is not fully specified by the end of the sentence that contains itLooking closely, I can also see your interpretation, Jiggy.What interpretation do you mean?I don't even know what you mean here.
and thus that you just flat out ignore both of them in the overlap, for all purposes. This is also pretty reasonable.What's the "them" in that clause? Both spells (i.e., both daylight and deeper darkness)? Both of DD's light-suppressions (i.e., both magical and nonmagical light sources)? What exactly am I ignoring both of?
Both the spells. And it's the generic you. See my edit above for clarification.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you believe my stance on the "negation zone" to be that it's as though neither spell had ever been cast?
Interesting conclusion to draw, given that I said no such thing in this thread. (I even went back to the old half and checked!)
Fascinating that I can ask a question about how others do something, and get:
• No answers to my question,
• Answers to a question I never asked, and
• Ascribed a position I never mentioned.
I'm so lost right now.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you do not see does not mean the question was not answered, Jiggy.
But it is good to know that you can't anwer my questions either.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That you do not see does not mean the question was not answered, Jiggy.
Wait, that was supposed to be an answer to my question?
That just reads like a re-stating of your belief that "" gets negated while "" does not get negated; but you don't actually explain why.
|
|
So you believe my stance on the "negation zone" to be that it's as though neither spell had ever been cast?
Interesting conclusion to draw, given that I said no such thing in this thread. (I even went back to the old half and checked!)
Fascinating that I can ask a question about how others do something, and get:
• No answers to my question,
• Answers to a question I never asked, and
• Ascribed a position I never mentioned.I'm so lost right now.
Jiggy, at first I thought you were just asking about why it could be anything but one extreme or the other.
But then you didn't seem satisfied with BNW's position that neither magical nor nonmagical light sources work in the overlap, so I concluded that you must be going for the other extreme, which is the only position left.
It's also possible that you were confused by BNW and still hold the position that either extreme is OK.
If that's the case then your question has been answered. The middle-line is based on the definition of prevailing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That you do not understand the answer is not my problem, Jiggy.
The DD is still negating light spells. I said that it's my impression that since daylight is negating the darkening effect from the darkness the non-magical light soruces will illuminate.
Again, I'm reading your point that on a plain, at noon, on a cloudless sky, the deeper darkness will make the area of the spell supernaturally dark.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, at first I thought you were just asking about why it could be anything but one extreme or the other.
That may or may not be correct, depending on what you mean by "one extreme or the other".
But then you didn't seem satisfied with BNW's position that neither magical nor nonmagical light sources work in the overlap, so I concluded that you must be going for the other extreme, which is the only position left.
Why would BNW's description of a different position satisfy my question about the reasoning behind *your* position?
It's also possible that you were confused by BNW and still hold the position that either extreme is OK.
If that's the case then your question has been answered. The middle-line is based on the definition of prevailing.
You lost me.
Let me try again:
I don't care whether the D/DD negation zone supresses torches or not.
I don't care whether the D/DD negation zone supresses ioun torches or not.
It just seems to me that both should be the same (either both supressed, or neither supressed). But you (Rogue Eidolon, and others at other times) have said that only one of those two identically-worded supressions is negated, while the other remains in force. I am asking why. I am *not* asking how you came to the conclusion that torches are not supressed. I am *not* asking how you came to the conclusion that ioun torches are suppressed. I am asking how you reconcile coming to both conclusions at the same time.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The DD is still negating light spells.
I assume you're referring to the line , yes?
Okay, so it's your position that the above line is NOT negated by daylight, and magical light sources therefore are still suppressed, right? Let's call this "conclusion #1".
I said that it's my impression that since daylight is negating the darkening effect from the darkness the non-magical light soruces will illuminate.
Okay, so I assume you're talking about daylight negating the line , yes?
So it's your position that the above line IS negated by daylight, and nonmagical light sources are therefore no longer suppressed, right? Let's call this "conclusion #2".
My question is not how you justify conclusion #1.
My question is not how you justify conclusion #2.
My question is how conclusions #1 and #2 can coexist at the same time, when they are opposites of each other. If someone were to ask you whether light sources within the D/DD negation area were still suppressed, your answer would simultaneously be "yes" and "no". I am simply asking for that apparent contradiction to be explained.
So far, no one has explained that. Each component piece (i.e., conclusion #1 and conclusion #2) has separately been explained, but that's not the explanation I asked for.
Again, I'm reading your point that on a plain, at noon, on a cloudless sky, the deeper darkness will make the area of the spell supernaturally dark.
I never said any such thing. In fact I deliberately did not answer when you asked me that earlier, because it's not really relevant to what I'm asking about.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually it is very relevant to the topic at hand. You saying it isn't doesn't change that.
And it is quite simple how.
The sun is a) a non-magical light source or b) a magical light source.
IF it is a) then casting deeper darkness in an open plain at noon plunges the area into supernatural darkness.
If it is b) then deeper darkness does nothing.
Yet... Deeper Darkness will lower the light level in its area to dim light, doing neither of those things. Again showing the rules are in error. (Since any 'ambient light' is from a light source, and those sources are supressed by the darkness
Now as to the light/daylight/deeper darkness corrundum...
overlapping daylight negates the light lowering of deeper darkness it doesn't allow the light spell to start working.
Since the light dimming is negated, the torch will generate light.
That's my logic.
Now for my next trick I'll explain why you can be burned by a torch in an anti-magic shell
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Now as to the light/daylight/deeper darkness corrundum...
overlapping daylight negates the light lowering of deeper darkness it doesn't allow the light spell to start working.
So here, it sounds like you're asserting that DD's effect of lowering the light level by two steps and its effect of suppressing magical light sources are two entirely separate and unrelated effects; it sounds like you are further asserting that daylight negates the two-step drop but does not negate the suppression of magical light sources.
Did I follow you correctly?
Since the light dimming is negated, the torch will generate light.
Here, it sounds like you're asserting that DD's effect of suppressing nonmagical light sources is a direct result of the two-step light level drop; therefore, if you negate the latter, the former goes with it.
Did I follow you correctly?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew's point about how darkness affects sunlight was the rationale that led me to my belief that the suppression of non-magical light sources only affects light sources that are themselves within the area of effect of the darkness spell; for light sources outside that area the darkness spell merely lowers the illumination level.
It is true, sunrods are pretty awesome.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew's point about how darkness affects sunlight was the rationale that led me to my belief that the suppression of non-magical light sources only affects light sources that are themselves within the area of effect of the darkness spell; for light sources outside that area the darkness spell merely lowers the illumination level.
After quite a bit of reflection and re-reading, I think (*think*) I finally get why he was so adamant of the relevance of his "DD at high noon" scenario to my question.
Here's how I think his logic is going:
• Darkness effects suppress nonmagical light sources (or more accurately, nonmagical light sources fail to increase the light level), because the rules say so.
• The sun is a nonmagical light source (presumably because it is in real life, or perhaps because it doesn't have a spell level for darkness to compare itself against?)
• Darkness effects won't blot out the sun, they'll merely lower the light level it produces, because Common Sense.
Therefore, the suppression of nonmagical light sources that darkness describes is a function of the lowering of light levels, rather than being a rule of its own.
Meanwhile, darkness also says it suppresses magical light sources, and in the absence of a magical sun to produce the same line of reasoning as we see above, we take that line more literally.
As a result, the actual effect of a darkness spell (deeper or otherwise) is to magically suppress magical light sources but merely fight against the light level produced by nonmagical light sources (pushing the light level down the prescribed number of levels). Daylight's effect then negates the pushing down of the light level (leaving nonmagical light sources uninhibited), but does not negate the on/off switch that's applied to magical light sources.
--------------------------------------
Did I get that anywhere close to right, Matthew? Honestly trying to understand here, so let me know how close (or not) I am.
@Rogue Eidolon: Is the reasoning behind your position anything like this as well?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Well, let me see if I can argue without mentioning torches or sunrods.
We know, from the way the various darkness spells are described, that one of these cast outside in bright sunlight lowers the illumination level within the spell's area of effect.
But from the way magical darkness and magical light are described, there is no way to achieve this effect by combining a darkness spell and a magical light source; either the two magical effects cancel each other out, so neither has any effect, or the stronger one prevails. This would lead to an area of either full daylight or full darkness.
This tells me that the illumination from the sun is not magical light.
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.
But obviously the sun (shown, above, to be a non-magical source of light) is contributing to the light level in an area of darkness; it is raising the illumination level to one or two steps below full daylight.
The simplest way, to me, to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to interpret the quoted restriction on non-magical light sources as only applying to to light sources that are themselves within the area of effect of the darkness spell; light sources outside that zone continue to add their contribution to the region of darkness.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We know, from the way the various darkness spells are described, that one of these cast outside in bright sunlight lowers the illumination level within the spell's area of effect.
But from the way magical darkness and magical light are described, there is no way to achieve this effect by combining a darkness spell and a magical light source; either the two magical effects cancel each other out, so neither has any effect, or the stronger one prevails. This would lead to an area of either full daylight or full darkness.
This tells me that the illumination from the sun is not magical light.
We know, from the way the various darkness spells are described, that one of these cast outside in bright sunlight lowers the illumination level within the spell's area of effect.
But from the way magical darkness and nonmagical light are described, there is no way to achieve this effect by combining a darkness spell and a nonmagical light source; either the two effects cancel each other out, so neither has any effect, or the stronger one prevails. This would lead to an area of either full daylight or full darkness.
This tells me that the illumination from the sun is not nonmagical light.
How do we know which of you is right?
You're both using this argument:
Premise: Sunlight still raises the light level even within a darkness radius.
Premise: Darkness prevents X from raising the light level within its radius.
Conclusion: Sunlight is not X.
You fill in X with "magical light", and your evil twin fills in X with "nonmagical light". You both use the same first premise. The second premise is explicitly backed up in the rules regardless of what X is. The path from the premises to the conclusion is identical.
So how did you decide which value of X would have this logic applied to it, and which would be exempt from it? It is exactly the same argument either way, so how did you decide which one you would use and which one you would toss out the window? Why is one more valid than the other? What is the difference between them?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
They're both right.
The important conclusion is that the easiest (only?) way to avoid a contradiction is to say that a darkness spell only affects light sources that are themselves within the area of effect.
If you do that (for both magical and non-magical light sources), you can come up with a consistent system, even when you add in the special-case rules for daylight and darkness spells with overlapping areas of effect.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if darkness spells just made it dark, and light spells made it light? Ah, yearning for the good old days... sorry, as you were.
Actually, discussing all this has led me to an idea for a solution I'll probably use if I'm ever running a homebrew game.
Then there's a 1st-level spell called lesser darkness whose entire effect is just to drop the light level by one step (from whatever point you calculated based on the brightest light source). There's no suppression of light sources (magical or otherwise), just an overlay of one-step darkening on top of whatever light sources are there.
Darkness, then, is simplified to just be the two-step version of lesser darkness. That's one more step than Pathfinder darkness, but also taking away the whole light suppression thing.
Finally, deeper darkness is the three-step version (notice how the spell level matches the number of steps of darkening?) and the only one capable of going past "dark" and into "supernaturally dark".
None of the darkness effects stack with themselves or each other (just like light sources don't stack).
The only exception to this whole simplified step-system is that if natural sunlight is the dominant light source, the effectiveness of darkness spells is reduced by 1. So lesser darkness does nothing, darkness drops the level by 1, and deeper darkness drops it by 2.
Examples:
Party in a cave, carrying torches as the only light source. If they encounter lesser darkness, the immediate torch radius becomes dim light and the outer area becomes dark. Darkness puts the whole party in the dark, and DD puts them into supernatural darkness. The scenario doesn't change if the party has other light sources that function like a torch (light spell, etc). Casting daylight means LD takes you down to normal light, D goes to dim, and DD down to normal-dark. Daylight + darkvision beats anything.
Outside at high noon, LD does nothing, D takes you to normal light, and DD takes it to dim.
That seems infinitely simpler than Pathfinder's system, IMO.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
They're both right.The important conclusion is that the easiest (only?) way to avoid a contradiction is to say that a darkness spell only affects light sources that are themselves within the area of effect.
If you do that (for both magical and non-magical light sources), you can come up with a consistent system, even when you add in the special-case rules for daylight and darkness spells with overlapping areas of effect.
Ah, so you actually do apply both versions of that logic? Okay. Seems that Matthew and RE are only doing it one way, and I can't seem to fully decipher the reason why.
Personally, I think there's got to be a better way to deal with the "sunlight is not blotted out" issue than to decide that "Magical light sources don't work" and "Nonmagical light sources don't work" somehow mean different things. Sounds like you agree, and your "better way" is to only suppress light sources if the actual source is within the darkness effect's radius. Solves the sunlight problem while preserving the validity of both suppression clauses. Did I follow you right?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
What if darkness spells just made it dark, and light spells made it light? Ah, yearning for the good old days... sorry, as you were.
Actually, discussing all this has led me to an idea for a solution I'll probably use if I'm ever running a homebrew game.
** spoiler omitted **...
That's pretty much how I'd like things to be, too.
EDIT: In reply to the immediately preceding post, you do indeed follow what I hoped I was saying.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Having the continual flame work normally in the area of overlap means that you are essentially stacking magical light effects. One can argue that having multiple overlapping magical light sources should not be more powerful than what the highest spell level of those can achieve in this circumstance since it is no more powerful in every other circumstance.
This looks to me like an answer to "Why wouldn't magical light sources work?"
Yet you yourself quoted where I said that's not the question. The question is why the answer to "Does it work?" is different for nonmagical versus magical light sources.
Your explanation about stacking magical light sources does not explain why nonmagical light sources would be any different. If I have a torch in one hand and a spell that sheds light "as a torch" in the other hand, and I'm standing in the overlap of daylight and deeper darkness, most GMs I've talked to would say that my torch now works while my spell doesn't. And when I ask why exactly one of my light sources is working (instead of 2 or 0 light sources working), the answer is almost always an explanation of why one of them does or doesn't work, with no discussion at all about why the two are treated differently from each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd say both would work, Jiggy. Because the way I read it, none of the effects of deeper darkness would apply in the overlap area. It simply doesn't exist in that area. That's the way I'll run it, at least.
As a DM, nor the magic light nor the mundane light worked in an area where deeperdarkness and daylight overlap each other.
It's the way I see it, but I think it's a gray area (^^) and each DM can see this otherwise
These are the two interpretations that make sense to me: either both types of light sources stop functioning (Ilmakis' version), or both function normally (David's version). They're opposites of each other based on how you interpret daylight's negation area, but each one is at least internally consistent.
What doesn't make sense to me is to apply Imakis' version to one type of light source and David's to the other, at the same time, yet that's the idea I've seen espoused more than any other.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I really think that not allowing daylight to completely cancel every effect of deeper darkness in the overlap area over powers deeper darkness.
If you completely cancel every effect of deeper darkness, then that means a second deeper darkness can re-darken the area (normally it can't stack with itself, but if that restriction's been negated...), so the first time you encounter a creature with at-will DD, the party is completely hosed unless they have Heighten Spell available.
If instead you have daylight negate only the lowering of the light level (leaving DD's radius and other effects in place), then a single daylight is all you need to keep out of supernatural shadow. You'll still (usually) be in the dark, but then all you need to get firmly into "I win" territory is darkvision (natural or via potion). On the other hand, it also means that even if the enemy can only cast DD once, you still need darkvision to finish the package.
In short, total negation means that daylight is an all-in-one solution for everything except at-will DD, which suddenly can't be beaten except with extremely specific countermeasures. Meanwhile, "light level only" negation means that daylight+darkvision is always the total solution for DD (but that anything less is never sufficient against DD).
An interesting choice to be made.
|
I understand the problem my interpretation poses, but I really don't understand the basis for the "light level only" negation.
One might also argue that daylight/deeper darkness could negate multiple copies of the opposite. The language does say "temporarily negate", so one could argue that the spell is still in effect, so it is still an area of deeper darkness/daylight, and that bringing in another copy of deeper darkness doesn't change the situation at all. It ends up negated because its still an area of daylight, even though its effects are temporarily negated.
It's also important to note that if the starting light level is bright, then deeper darkness only goes down to regular darkness.
In general, this thread has made me reconsider the use of blind fighting on some of my PCs. It's also making me consider taking heighten spell for my cleric, when I really want power attack. Choices, choices.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If you completely cancel every effect of deeper darkness, then that means a second deeper darkness can re-darken the area (normally it can't stack with itself, but if that restriction's been negated...)
I'd disagree with this conclusion. The deeper darkness spell hasn't been dispelled - it's still present, but temporarily has no effect. As such, I wouldn't allow a second darkness spell to do anything.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By the way, since I don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread, there's actually an Official FAQ on the subject:
Darkness: Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?
No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light. In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level, and then reduces it one step.
I think the second sentence of the answer is extremely important:
"In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level, and then reduces it one step."See how there's two things to do? First you default to the ambient natural light level, and THEN you apply the one-step light level reduction.
This pretty much shuts down any and all theories in which "ambient light" is defined as "whatever the light level was before darkness was cast". If there's never anything to default to prior to the second part of that sentence, then why mention defaulting to anything? Obviously there's something we're supposed to do prior to lowering the light level by one step.
This is also really hard on Matthew Morris' idea that nonmagical light sources are suppressed as a result of lowering the light level, since the FAQ explicitly says that sunrods (a nonmagical light source) never increase the light level within the area.
So when darkness comes on the scene, we do two things, per the FAQ:
1) We default to the ambient "natural" light level.
2) We then apply the decrease in light level.
Any interpretation of the light/darkness rules in which you never actually do anything in step 1 is simply wrong. Given the context of the FAQ, I think the most reasonable application of step 1 is to apply both of the "X does not increase the light level" clauses, and whatever you're left with is the "natural" light level to which you default. Once you've determined that, you then decrease by 1 (or 2 for DD) level.
Treating step 1 as "do nothing because whatever light level we're already at counts as ambient" would be pretty asinine when taking the FAQ into consideration.
This doesn't solve the related issue of daylight's "negation zone", but it sure clears up the rest of the darkness rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yeah, because the way I read it, daylight makes the FAQ moot, since the darkness is negated in that area. Hence, sunrods work until the daylight moves away or is dispelled.
I really wish you'd use Pathfinder's convention of italicizing spell names, so I can tell whether you mean daylight or daylight (or for that matter, darkness or darkness).
;)
Anyway, let's re-read daylight's negation clause (also, in case it matters, this gets its own paragraph in the spell's text, so it's not an elaboration on other parts, etc):
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.
First, this doesn't explicitly say that the darkness effect is negated (only daylight itself). However, it does strongly imply a mutual negation, by virtue of the described result being something that only takes place in the overlap (as opposed to being identical to the rest of the darkness effect's radius). So I think we can proceed with an assumption of mutuality regarding this "negation zone".
So what exactly is the nature of the negation? Let's focus in on that part:
"...temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."
What does "otherwise prevailing" mean? To me, that reads a bit differently than "ambient natural light" which the FAQ references for calculating the effect of darkness in the first place.
Here's another thought: the line says, basically, "X, so that Y happens". That could be read as a way of defining X. That is, "X in such a way as to produce Y". So perhaps we're supposed to interpret "temporarily negated" to mean "whatever we have to do in order to have the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist, and no more".
Well, there are three things darkness does:
1) It shuts off light sources (both nonmagical, and magical up to a certain level).
2) It reduces the light level by a number of steps.
3) It disallows stacking with itself.
Well, #1 and #2 both seem to inhibit the stated end goal of the negation, while #3 does not. So if we take the last part of daylight's negation clause to be a definition of how we're supposed to implement it, then I'll need to amend how I've been thinking it works: darkness effects still can't stack, but both the lowering of the light level AND the suppression of light sources get negated in the overlap.
I'm glad we had this discussion! It always feels good to come to a new conclusion. :D
|
|
Someone can always throw down regular darkness, which should operate as normal in an area of daylight and deeper darkness overlap, since darkness and deeper darkness are distinct spells, and so there are no stacking issues. However, any PC with darkvision can see right through it. Of dubious value at higher levels.
Sunrod
Price 2 gp; Weight 1 lb.
This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped iron rod glows brightly when struck (a standard action). It sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A sunrod does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.
So strange the creators of this game would use the word darkness. So strange.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So strange the creators of this game would use the word darkness. So strange.Sunrod
Price 2 gp; Weight 1 lb.
This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped iron rod glows brightly when struck (a standard action). It sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A sunrod does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.
Spell names are always italicized in Pathfinder rules. If it's not italicized, it's not referring to a spell.