|
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.
This statement is of the form "X does Y within area Z", with X being light sources, Y being "fail to increase the light level" and Z being the radius of darkness.
Within the structure "X does Y within area Z", the clause "within area Z" defines where Y takes place, regardless of the location of X. Contrast this with "X within area Z does Y", in which "within area Z" defines the set of X which will be doing Y, regardless of where Y would take place. With darkness having used the former rather than the latter, we can conclude that the light level within the radius of a darkness effect is not increased by nonmagical sources of light, regardless of where the sources are. (The parameters of the area are applied to the action of increasing the light level, not applied to the light sources themselves.) For the same reason (the parameter of area being applied solely to the effect of preventing light level increase), we can further conclude that the effect of preventing the increase of a light level is limited to the defined area, and therefore a light source will continue to affect lighting conditions outside the area.
|
|
Too much complexity. What does the scenario say the lighting in the room/area is? Start from that ligh level and lower it. If it blocks out the sun then why would it even have to state that it lowers the light level? It would just make everything dark unless there was a magical light source which is silly. Think about an orb of darkness on a hot sunny day.
Too much complexity. What does the scenario say the lighting in the room/area is? Start from that ligh level and lower it.
Bingo.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it blocks out the sun then why would it even have to state that it lowers the light level?
I'm not aware of anyone ever having claimed that the sun is handled that way. The only time the notion of "pitch black at high noon" comes up is when someone describes someone else's position as "if we take part of your idea but ignore a crucial piece of it then it produces a black globe in broad daylight, therefore your entire position is wrong".
But no one (that I'm aware of) *actually* holds any position that produces that effect.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the source is not in the AOE, the source is not effected.
The spell only effects things in it's AOE... after all, that's it's Area of Effect, right?
I'm not aware of anyone saying anything different.
If I'm holding a torch and standing 5ft outside the radius of darkness, no one is saying that my torch fails to shed light (though that seems to be what you think one or more people are saying).
You and I (and I think everyone else) agree that if I'm holding a torch 5ft outside the radius of darkness then the part of my torch's radius that overlaps darkness (and only that part) is affected by darkness.
The disagreement is whether that affect is "lower the light level by 1 step" or "it does not increase the light level in the area". But we all agree there's an effect there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sounds right, yes.
The reason I don't hold to your version is that if the area would normally be dark (say, in a cave), but in the area where my sunrod and darkness overlap it's instead dim light, then my sunrod is increasing the light level in an area of darkness, which is explicitly prohibited.
I fully admit that my interpretation involves having to declare the sun to be a special case. However, my interpretation also fails to explicitly contradict any written rules. I see fabricating a definition for something that's undefined to be a "lesser evil" than contradicting something that is defined. Thus, in the absence of any interpretations (that I'm aware of) which do neither, then I'll choose the "make up my own definition for the undefined nature of sunlight" version over the "explicitly contradicts clear rules" version.
Naturally, if somone else ranks those two methods differently (i.e., better to contradict than to fabricate), then they'll end up picking a different interpretation. Which I can live with.
so,
the light level in the cave is Normal light, due to the sunrods the Mooks have around cave walls.The Tiefling PC casts darkness, resulting in dim light....
In the location features for the cave, the scenario writer likely actually wrote, "This underground cave is naturally dark and the tiefling rogues rely on their darkvision to maneuver around."
But it's a contrived example. Maybe the tieflings have some human friends?
"This underground cave is naturally dark but the tieflings are considerate of their human companions and have put up torches and sunrods in common areas."
The cave is still naturally dark.
If the scenario writer didn't state what the natural light level is of the cave, I'd simply rule that the cave is naturally dark because caves are dark. The fact that torches or sunrods are in a room is irrelevant to a cave's natural lighting conditions.
If the scenario writer, in the location features section actually explicitly wrote, "this underground cave's light level is normal light," then the scenario author was probably clueless about caves (because seriously... caves is dark) or has made an error that will cause problems for rules-abiding GMs or has a tactical or strategic reason why the rooms must be considered to be starting from normal light. If it's a home game, I'd fix it. If it's PFS, then I'd have no choice but to run as written (and I'd post feedback in a forum thread about it).
Simple as that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In the location features for the cave, the scenario writer likely actually wrote, "This underground cave is naturally dark and the tiefling rogues rely on their darkvision to maneuver around."
But it's a contrived example. Maybe the tieflings have some human friends?
"This underground cave is naturally dark but the tieflings are considerate of their human companions and have put up torches and sunrods in common areas."
The cave is still naturally dark.
If the scenario writer didn't state what the natural light level is of the cave, I'd simply rule that the cave is naturally dark because caves are dark. The fact that torches or sunrods are in a room is irrelevant to a cave's natural lighting conditions.
If the scenario writer, in the location features section actually explicitly wrote, "this underground cave's light level is normal light," then the scenario author was probably clueless about caves (because seriously... caves is dark) or has made an error that will cause problems for rules-abiding GMs or has a tactical or strategic reason why the rooms must be considered to be starting from normal light. If it's a home game, I'd fix it. If it's PFS, then I'd have no choice but to run as written (and I'd post feedback in a forum thread about it).
Simple as that.
Er... Unless I'm forgetting something, every time a scenario mentions the light level of an area before the PCs get there, a light source is mentioned (usually wall-mounted torches, or big braziers).
So first I thought you were saying that whatever the written light level is would be considered the default light level for an area and be lowered by steps when darkness is cast.
Now it sounds like instead you're saying that you'll figure the ambient light level yourself (usually different from the net light level written into the scenario) and shut down the pre-written light sources if darkness is cast.
So I don't really know what your position is anymore. :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are waaaaay overthinking this.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think people are waaaaay overthinking this.
You might not still be saying that once you've lost a PC because your GM told you that the thing you brought specifically to deal with darkness doesn't help you at all and you needed something else, or once you've GM'd for a player who now wants a refund/retrain because he thought he needed an expensive/obscure answer to magical darkness but you let somebody else solve it for next to nothing.
addendum to my previous post: Jiggy, I assure you that I agree with you. nosig, I misread your example. Yes, the tiefling is a PC. Yes, I agree with you that whether the PCs or the NPCs light up a cave that darkness would work the same.
A scenario where a dark cave that is lit by sunrods by its human inhabitants is still a dark cave and when the tiefling PC uses darkness in the sunrod-lit room, the area of the SLA becomes dark. I would argue that the scenario writer is hopefully well-enough experienced in the light/darkness rules and would likely describe the cave at the beginning of the act as "no natural light reaches down here so the cave is naturally dark but some rooms may be lit by torches or sunrods."
That's what I'm saying.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2) Once light is created, it's light. Not light from a sunrod, or light from a star, or light from glowing mold.
What about light from dancing lights versus light from a 5th-level heightened continual flame? Still "just light"?
So I view the statement "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness." as being the same as "In an area of darkness, nonmagical sources of light (such as torches and lanterns) do not increase the light level."
Incorrect. In the former, the location defines parameters of "do not increase the light level", while in the latter, the location defines parameters of both "nonmagical sources of light" and "do not increase the light level". The two are not equivalent.
Darkness has two effects. Supress light sources and lower light levels.
Incorrect. Darkness never says anything about suppressing light sources. It says they do not increase the light level. Thus, your separation of "light levels versus light sources" is fabricated.
.....
Just like my definition of sunlight. ;)
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Light is light, whereever it comes from.
Well, maybe.
Sunlight, starlight, and all non-magical sources of light, yes.
But magical sources of light are magic.
Does the light from a magical spell come from the magic creating light at a specific point (whereupon the light radiates from that point using the normal laws of physics), or does the spell create a magical field which has the effect of creating illumination throughout the field?
There are a lot of magical spells that seem to work the second way, so that does seem to make it plausible that a magical light spell would work in such a fashion (and this ties in with the way daylight and darkness spells interact). But, on the other hand, the fact that a light (or darkness) spell can be blocked simply by placing the enchanted object inside a light-tight container argues for the first interpretation.
TL;DR The rules on light & darkness are overly complex (and possibly inconsistent).
|
|
Minor points:
2) Once light is created, it's light. Not light from a sunrod, or light from a star, or light from glowing mold.What about light from dancing lights versus light from a 5th-level heightened continual flame? Still "just light"?
Yes. That's the benefit of the "in the AOE only" definition.
So I view the statement "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness." as being the same as "In an area of darkness, nonmagical sources of light (such as torches and lanterns) do not increase the light level."Incorrect. ... The two are not equivalent.
He knows that. That's why he has "So I view... as being the same." The sentence is grammatically ambivalent in the context.
As someone stated, the rules need a rewrite (or a lengthy blog). They are either unclear or wrong, possibly both. In this case, "wrong" means they do not do what the author intended them to do.
There are many corner cases, but essentially three possibilities when there is an area of magical darkness:
In all of the above cases, magical light sources are within an area of darkness, or contain the source of darkness within their own area, interact by being suppressed, mutually negating, or overriding the source of darkness. Please read "being suppressed" as failing to raise the light level anywhere; "mutually negating" as both sources have effect on the light level; and "overriding" as the source of darkness failing to lower the light level.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd like to see how well my own interpretation holds up to scrutiny. Can anyone find any rule (or FAQ) that my interpretation contradicts? I already know that my interpretation involves making up a new "rule" for the nature of sunlight, but the nature of sunlight is not defined in the rules anywhere (i.e., they don't tell us whether it's magical, nonmagical, or something special). Thus, I'm filling in a blank, rather than having to throw anything out.
So as I see it, I'm espousing an interpretation of lighting rules which:
• Does not contradict any existing rules
• Does not cause any completely absurd situations (like a globe of blackness at high noon, two torches behaving differently than each other, etc)
As far as I'm aware, mine is the *only* interpretation which fits both of those conditions. Therefore, until someone can either show me a way in which my interpretation fails in one of those respects (either contradicts an existing rule, or causes a completely absurd situation) or can show me another interpretation which also passes both of those tests, I really have no intellectually-honest choice than to continue with my current stance.
So please, if anyone can find a "bug" with my interpretation, let me know.
The sorts of non-"natural" light sources that one might typically find in a room or in the possession of PCs/NPCs (such as sunrods, torches, wayfinders, ioun torches, etc) are completely left out of the calculation of the final light level within the radius of a darkness effect. That is, when darkness is cast and you need to determine the final light level within its radius, your first step (again referencing that same FAQ) is to "default to the ambient natural light level", which means removing all non-"natural" light sources from the equation, and THEN you lower the resulting light level by steps. Just like the FAQ says.
Nothing outside the area of the darkness effect is affected by it as far as light levels go. That is, if a torch's radius and a darkness radius are overlapping, the part of the torch's radius that's outside the darkness effect is unaffected by said darkness effect. This is because the rules define "within an area of darkness" as the only place where things "do not increase the light level".
So outside at high noon (bright light from the sun), darkness effects simply lower the light by steps.
In a cave with torches and whatnot (but no "ambient natural" light, to use the FAQ's terms), the radius of darkness is going to be unaffected by the torches and the final result will be dark (or supernaturally dark, if it's deeper darkness).
In a forest during the day (normal light from the sun), darkness effects will simply lower the light level.
On a moonlit night (dim light from the moon) with torches or wayfinders bringing the light up to normal light, the darkness radius will first "default to the ambient natural light level" (dim moonlight, ignoring the torches and such) and then lower the light level by steps from there.
EDIT:
And almost no one (including Jiggy), likes option 3, which would be the strictest reading of the rules, and the FAQ.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, option 3 is exactly how I see it.
The way Jiggy describes it is exactly how I've handled light and darkness.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Darkness does not have a radius of effect.
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius.
It has point source, as do all of the light spells we're discussing here.
This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius
You touch an object when you cast this spell, causing the object to shed bright light in a 60-foot radius.
Although you're correct that we're talking about touch spells (which I never denied, or said anything to contradict), you're incorrect that they don't have a radius (as shown by the quotes above).
Based on this, and without needing to create a new rule, I agree with nosig's interpretation rather than Jiggy's.
I don't understand how the nature of a radius (even if you had been right) in any way differentiates nosig's interpretation from mine. Neither of us depend on "radius" or other related terminology meaning anything special/specific. So how does the presence or absence of a reference to a radius favor either interpretation over the other? You've completely lost me on that point. Could you explain what you were trying to get at, with a bit more detail? "These spells don't have a radius, therefore distant light sources can raise the light level in an affected area" just reads like nonsense, even if the final conclusion ends up being right.
I find the need to create a rule via FAQ to remove the black globe at noon to be a bug in the interpretation you're advancing, Jiggy.
This presumes that prior to categorizing the sun as a special case, my interpretation would have created the black globe at noon. That's not the case.
|
"The sorts of non-"natural" light sources that one might typically find in a room or in the possession of PCs/NPCs (such as sunrods, torches, wayfinders, ioun torches, etc) are completely left out of the calculation of the final light level within the radius of a darkness effect. That is, when darkness is cast and you need to determine the final light level within its radius, your first step (again referencing that same FAQ) is to "default to the ambient natural light level", which means removing all non-"natural" light sources from the equation, and THEN you lower the resulting light level by steps. Just like the FAQ says."
I find this to be an interpretation, right or wrong, that overpowers a level 2 spell. Admittedly, in underground settings, the result is often the same. But in rooms brightly lit by conventional light, darkness should not be able to dunk it into darkness.
"The sorts of non-"natural" light sources that one might typically find in a room or in the possession of PCs/NPCs (such as sunrods, torches, wayfinders, ioun torches, etc) are completely left out of the calculation of the final light level within the radius of a darkness effect. That is, when darkness is cast and you need to determine the final light level within its radius, your first step (again referencing that same FAQ) is to "default to the ambient natural light level", which means removing all non-"natural" light sources from the equation, and THEN you lower the resulting light level by steps. Just like the FAQ says."
I find this to be an interpretation, right or wrong, that overpowers a level 2 spell. Admittedly, in underground settings, the result is often the same. But in rooms brightly lit by conventional light, darkness should not be able to dunk it into darkness.
But that's exactly what this level 2 spell does and has done... For years. For various versions of "the most popular role-playing game." If anything, Pathfinder's version of darkness is actually less powerful than it used to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I find this to be an interpretation, right or wrong, that overpowers a level 2 spell. Admittedly, in underground settings, the result is often the same. But in rooms brightly lit by conventional light, darkness should not be able to dunk it into darkness.
I assume by "brightly lit" you mean "lit up to normal, not actually bright, light"? Because just about every means of actually attaining bright light will not be dunked into darkness by the darkness spell. For that matter, even a room-with-windows at normal light via sunlight will still only go to dim.
Also, the darkvision spell is also 2nd-level, and is uninhibited by darkness. How is it that a spell which can be "beaten" by another spell of the same level is overpowered?
Finally, unless we want to petition for the rules to actually be changed, the perceived power level is rather irrelevant - the important part is to determine how it does work, not whether or not we like that determination.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I find this to be an interpretation, right or wrong, that overpowers a level 2 spell. Admittedly, in underground settings, the result is often the same. But in rooms brightly lit by conventional light, darkness should not be able to dunk it into darkness.But that's exactly what this level 2 spell does and has done... For years. For various versions of "the most popular role-playing game." If anything, Pathfinder's version of darkness is actually less powerful than it used to be.
Wow, I just looked up the 3.5 version and you're right, it's actually stronger than my interpretation of the Pathfinder version. In addition to the part about light sources being unable to brighten the area, it gives concealment regardless of darkvision or what the ambient light level is.
So in 3.5, a 2nd-level spell could make a half-orc squint in a meadow at high noon. Yikes.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@TetsujinOni: Examples, I think, are necessary for making sure people follow a given interpretation of the light/dark rules.
So! How does yours do the following?
1) I'm walking along on a moonlit night (dim light, no sources besides moonlight). I light a torch, bringing it up to normal light. Then I cast darkness. What's the current light level where I'm standing, and why?
2) I'm in a windowless cave (dark). I light a sunrod (normal, at least nearby). I cast darkness. Following the Official FAQ step by step, what is the final light level where I'm standing, and how do we get there?
3) I'm in a banquet hall that's 100ft long. There are large windows and it is daytime, putting the hall in normal light. Being a fancy place, there are also spiffy torches and braziers every 10ft (still at normal light). I cast darkness. What's the light level where I'm standing, and why?
EDIT:
#1) Dark. The torch is out of the picture as we default to ambient natural light (dim). Then we reduce it by 1 step to darkness.
#2) Dark. The FAQ says that first we default to ambient natural light, so I ignore the sunrod's contribution. Now we're at dark, and we would then move on to the FAQ's second step of reducing the light level by 1 step, but we hit the minimum and stop at dark.
#3) Dim. All the torchlight where I'm standing is failing to increase the light level, leaving me with the ambient natural light (normal). Darkness reduces it by one step to dim.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'd like to see how well my own interpretation holds up to scrutiny. Can anyone find any rule (or FAQ) that my interpretation contradicts? I already know that my interpretation involves making up a new "rule" for the nature of sunlight, but the nature of sunlight is not defined in the rules anywhere (i.e., they don't tell us whether it's magical, nonmagical, or something special). Thus, I'm filling in a blank, rather than having to throw anything out.
So as I see it, I'm espousing an interpretation of lighting rules which:
• Does not contradict any existing rules
• Does not cause any completely absurd situations (like a globe of blackness at high noon, two torches behaving differently than each other, etc)As far as I'm aware, mine is the *only* interpretation which fits both of those conditions. Therefore, until someone can either show me a way in which my interpretation fails in one of those respects (either contradicts an existing rule, or causes a completely absurd situation) or can show me another interpretation which also passes both of those tests, I really have no intellectually-honest choice than to continue with my current stance.
I do not share your belief that the definition of "ambient light" as being the light produced by light sources outside the area of effect of the spell (either all light sources, or just non-magical ones) obviously contradicts any existing rule unless you hold the wording of those rules to a much stricter standard of grammar than is seen in many other parts of the rule set.
I prefer to view that wording as being insufficiently precise to unambiguously exclude that interpretation. This means that I don't have to special-case sunlight, etc., but still end up with an interpretation that does not cause any completely absurd situations.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...seems to wind up with all of the spells acting in a pretty clean fashion
> Depends on the geometry of the torch and the object with darkness cast on it.
.....
2> Again, it depends on the relative locations... with the caveat that the light level adjustment might look very odd with the cutout for the darkness in certain geometries.3> And again. This one particularly gets weird with relative locations.
-_-'
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
where is the light source in relation to the darkness? This is esp. important for #2 because the sunrod sheds light in a 30' radius, but the darkness only reduces it for 20' radius.
Everything described as something I did is centered in my square, seeing as everything is range: touch.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I do not share your belief that the definition of "ambient light" as being the light produced by light sources outside the area of effect of the spell (either all light sources, or just non-magical ones) obviously contradicts any existing rule unless you hold the wording of those rules to a much stricter standard of grammar than is seen in many other parts of the rule set.
I prefer to view that wording as being insufficiently precise to unambiguously exclude that interpretation. This means that I don't have to special-case sunlight, etc., but still end up with an interpretation that does not cause any completely absurd situations.
"X type of light sources do not increase the light level in an area of darkness" means exactly one thing. There is not a secondary "standard of grammar" that causes it to mean something else, or to be imprecise.
However, I'm not here to give lessons on sentence diagramming, so if your interpretation of the rules is based on believing a sentence does not mean what it says (though I will grant you that *occasionally* that happens in Pathfinder rules), then we're at the point of "agree to disagree" until such time as more text (be it additional FAQ or new designer commentary regarding the intent) is added to the situation.
EDIT: Actually, I just had another idea that might be worth a shot, so I'll give it a go:
I'll describe a series of events under your interpretation. All references to light level refer to where I'm standing. Tell me which of the following is either incorrect or could have a different meaning, like you were talking about:
1) I'm standing in a very big, dark cave. (light level where I'm standing: dark)
2) I cast darkness on my belt buckle, emanating 20ft. (LL: dark)
3) Just outside my darkness spell, my buddy lights a sunrod, shedding normal light in a 30ft radius. (LL: dim)
4) The dim light I'm in now is a higher LL than the dark I was in a second ago.
5) The sunrod is responsible for the increase described in #4.
6) The increase described in #4 is taking place within the area of darkness.
7) Therefore, the sunrod has increased the light level within the area of darkness.
8) Darkness says a sunrod can't increase the light level within the area of darkness.
9) Lines 7 and 8 are mutually-exclusive.
10) If #7 and 8 are mutually-exclusive, and #8 is a rule, then that which produced #7 is contradicting a rule.
Okay. So where did I go wrong, according to you?
|
|
And almost no one (including Jiggy), likes option 3, which would be the strictest reading of the rules, and the FAQ.Unless I'm misunderstanding you, option 3 is exactly how I see it.
I think you figured out what I meant, given:
the important part is to determine how it does work, not whether or not we like that determination.
To be clear, I didn't mean that you didn't see the rules as they are written indicating it worked that way. I meant you didn't like that determination.
That's important. If virtually no one likes that determination (i.e. that you can almost never ever ever see inside/underground when deeper darkness is cast), then Fun is being lost and a change is needed.
In my opinion, option #2 is required to avoid extreme frustration, and is a legitimate interpretation of the rules and FAQ. I also, now, believe that option #1 is a legitimate interpretation of the rules, given the undefined nature of "ambient light".
Options: