Jiggy wrote: JohnF wrote: 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... sorry, I missed your edit change, and now when I do the reply it cuts off your list... let me try to respond. (Realize that I am not the GM in this case, and everything I say will just be my opinion)
1) standing in a cave. (light level: dark)
2) darkness is cast on object XX, and it "radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius". (LL: dark)
3) 25' from object XX is an active sunrod, "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". (LL: within 30' of the sunrod for normal vision is "normal", at 30' to 60' it is "dim").
4) The darkness effects the light level of all the area inside it's AOE (20' radius from XX) by lowering it one level, normal light becoming "dim", and "dim" light becoming "dark". This means the area within 20 foot of XX and within 30 foot of the sunrod is "dim" and the area within 20 foot of XX and between 30 foot and 60 foot of the sunrod is dark (for normal vision).
5) (The sunrod is responsible for the increase described in #4.) Ah, no. I disagree. The light created by the sunrod raise the light level.
6) (The increase described in #4 is taking place within the area of darkness.) Yes.
7) (Therefore, the sunrod has increased the light level within the area of darkness.) No. The light created by the sunrod increases the light level.
8) (Darkness says a sunrod can't increase the light level within the area of darkness.) I feel that darkness states that a sunrond within the area of a darkness does not increase the light level, and the sunrod is not "within the area of darkness. (I assume you intended the "darkness" terms in #8 to be the spell effects "darkness)"
9) (Lines 7 and 8 are mutually-exclusive.) Line #7 does not apply.
10) (If #7 and 8 are mutually-exclusive, and #8 is a rule, then that which produced #7 is contradicting a rule.) see response in #9 above.
(IMHO)
But you knew that already right?
ok... here we go with another problem.
We have a 5' wide tunnel that is 260' long, each 5' square marked #1 thru #52.
At one end and elf and a dwarf and a human look in. the human lights a bullseye lantern.
The human and dwarf can see 60' in normal light (Sq. #1 thru #12), and 60 more feet in dim light (squares #13 thru #24) .
The elf can see 120' in normal light (squares #1 thru #24), and 120 more feet in dim light (sq. #25 thru #48).
A tiefling enters the tunnel at square #52, casts darkness on his helmet and walks down the tunnel tword the other end. what do the three (human, dwarf, elf) see?
Jiggy wrote: "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. And this is where we disagree.
I think this means one of - X type of light sources do not increase the light level [that is in effect] in an area of darkness
- X type of light sources do not increase the light level [when located] in an area of darkness
It is unclear whether "in an area of darkness" qualifies the light sources or the light level - the sentence most definitely does not unambiguously mean exactly one thing (no matter what any proscriptive grammar text book may want you to believe).
Compare the interaction of light and darkness with that of the interaction of light and antimagic field.
"An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. "
so... if I have a light spell active on an object, and I move that object tword an antimagic field the light from the spell will still light the AOE of the AMF. It is only when the object that the spell is cast on enters the AMF that the light stops being created.
IMHO, light and darkness work like this. the light from the spell will still light the AOE of the darkness. It is only when the object that the spell is cast on enters the AOE that the light stops being created. Until that point (entry of the object into the AOE), the light is created, increasing the light level inside it's radius, and then the light level is reduced by the darkness spell inside the radius of the darkness spell.
nosig wrote: Compare the interaction of light and darkness with that of the interaction of light and antimagic field.
"An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. "
so... if I have a light spell active on an object, and I move that object tword an antimagic field the light from the spell will still light the AOE of the AMF. It is only when the object that the spell is cast on enters the AMF that the light stops being created.
IMHO, light and darkness work like this. the light from the spell will still light the AOE of the darkness. It is only when the object that the spell is cast on enters the AOE that the light stops being created. Until that point (entry of the object into the AOE), the light is created, increasing the light level inside it's radius, and then the light level is reduced by the darkness spell inside the radius of the darkness spell.
This reasoning is the underlying thought process that leads to my aura-interaction model of light...
I have realized another possible problem with Jiggy's methiod of resolving light and darkness interactions.
We'll need GM input each time we encounter another type of light source. This will lead to YMMV as we get different judges ruling differently at each table.
1) Is the "glowing mold" in this area "natural light"?
2) Is the background lighting created by the property of a Demi-plan "natural light"
3) Is the "sun" in this Tapestry actually count as the "sun"?
4) In the Pathfinders Tales Called to Darkness the heros jurney deep into the Darklands, where they encounter a land lit by a "sun"... is this natural light?
each table judge will rule this different, creating YMMV.
With the way I am intrepreting it, there is no question, or at least fewer ones.
1) if the "glowing mold" makes the lighting levels no higher than dim light, then it doesn't matter
2) sure
3) yeah
4) uh huh
Can we go back to discussing how the rules for light and darkness work for PFS and forget about obscure scenario-specific situations that, in all likelihood, would have explicit GM text describing the light levels in the dungeon along with the type of doors, locks, floors, walls, etc. that is standard for any room description.
Ansel Krulwich wrote: 1) if the "glowing mold" makes the lighting levels no higher than dim light, then it doesn't matter
2) sure
3) yeah
4) uh huh
Can we go back to discussing how the rules for light and darkness work for PFS and forget about obscure scenario-specific situations that, in all likelihood, would have explicit GM text describing the light levels in the dungeon along with the type of doors, locks, floors, walls, etc. that is standard for any room description.
well... I am not sure if I can "forget about obscure scenario-specific situations" as that is where I encounter the interaction of light and darkness when I play PFS. I tried to give a general rule (light sources outside the AOE set the light level of an area) - but that seemed not to be exceptable. So I had to go to "obscure scenario-specific situations".
#2 and #3 are actually in PFS, and I do not recall any explicit GM text describing if the light sources are counted as "Sunlight" or as "Magical" or "Non-Magical" light sources.
But we can deal with specific instances, which appears to be what is needed to solve this for what I think is Jiggy's interpretation (IMHO).
1) If you cast darkness in the garden in #3-21 Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment - does the light level become "dim" or "dark"? If the lighting provided by demi-plane is a "Magical" or "Non-Magical" light source, then according to Jiggy (I think?) the light level would become "dark". If it counts as sunlight (as it does not come from the sun, this is a tough call...) the light level would become "dim".
2) If you cast darkness in "outside" in #3-19 Icebound Outpost, or in #3-25 Storming the Diamond Gate or in #3-12 The Dog Pharoah;'s Tomb, or in #3-14 Snakes in the Fold, or in any other scenario that takes place partly or totally inside the Weave, what do you get? Darkness? Dim light? Normal light? Does the light there count as "Magical" or "Non-Magical" or "Special" (or some other term)?
3) If you cast darkness the end scene of #4-06 The Green Market what do you get? Darkness? Dim light?
4) If you cast darkness in the off plane portion of 1-40 Hall of Drunken Heros what do you get? Darkness? Dim light? or maybe normal light?
A large number of scenarios and moduals (and APs now that we will be introducing them) take place on different planes - where the light is not provided by the Sun, Moon or Stars - which of these count as one of the exceptions to the rule of "Magical" or "Non-Magical" light sources NOT increasing the light level inside a darkness spells AOE? In each case it is not defined in the scenario, and you appear to be saying it is left up to the individual judges call.
If we go with Majuba's #2,
"#2 Light sources outside an area of darkness set the ambient level, which darkness modifies. Light sources cannot raise the light level in an area of darkness, because they must be account for first"
then there is no need for the judges call. And thus no YMMV.
Edit: oh! and in #1-35 Voice in the Void, I beleave in the final scene the "glowing mold" in this area took the light level to "normal" light, so I guess #1 is a possible problem after all, and should not be dismissed out of hand. The BBE in this scene has normal vision, and darkness would provide the PCs with a large advantage (if they have darkvision, for example Tieflings).
Ansel Krulwich wrote: 1) if the "glowing mold" makes the lighting levels no higher than dim light, then it doesn't matter
2) sure
3) yeah
4) uh huh
Can we go back to discussing how the rules for light and darkness work for PFS and forget about obscure scenario-specific situations that, in all likelihood, would have explicit GM text describing the light levels in the dungeon along with the type of doors, locks, floors, walls, etc. that is standard for any room description.
wait, I just realized that #4 was a positive.
How do you determine this? The light in the large cavern in Orv is lit by something that is discribed as likely magical - but of unknown type and origin. Perhaps it is magical, perhaps non-magical. But is most likely created by a "lost race". In other words, artificial. Are you saying it sets the light level of the cavern to bright? and would raise the light levels in the area of a darkness spell?
Well, thanks to all the discussion, I *think* I've boiled it down to two questions whose answers would solve most of the issues. As such, please go HERE and HERE and flag for FAQing. Perhaps we can get this all settled!
Oh, and if there's another question that you think should be asked that wouldn't be covered by those two, let me know and I'll write something up. (I've learned that single, concise questions are more likely to get the FAQ treatment, so we'll want a separate thread for each individual question.)
FAQed them for you Jiggy.
Busy week at work. no time last night to do my drawings, and this weekend is a little packed. I'll see what I can put together and whether the aura interaction model (which has the advantage of being EASY to implement as code, which means it's got a clear path from question to answer) does anything funky.
1 & 2) I'd just treat inside the weave as natural sunlight. I see no point in making things more complicated than they have to be.
3 & 4) I'm unfamiliar with those scenarios so cannot comment.
#1-35) Good question. Since it's likely more advantageous to players with darkvision, I'd say the final chamber is natural ambient dark, same as the rest of the basement so darkness would make it dark within its area. I don't really see a reason why glowing fungus is any different than a room full of sunrods. I'm also a fan of having darkness make caves dark since it's generally more creepy that way.
Edit: FAQ-ed Jiggy's posts. Let's see if the design team has an answer for us.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
JohnF wrote: Jiggy wrote: "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. And this is where we disagree.
I think this means one of - X type of light sources do not increase the light level [that is in effect] in an area of darkness
- X type of light sources do not increase the light level [when located] in an area of darkness
It is unclear whether "in an area of darkness" qualifies the light sources or the light level - the sentence most definitely does not unambiguously mean exactly one thing (no matter what any proscriptive grammar text book may want you to believe).
This exactly.
I'll also say that because I would express the first proposition as "within an area of darkness" and express the second proposition as "in an area of darkness" that my default interpretation of the phrase "in an area of darkness" is the second.
And yes, I'm hitting the FAQs for this.
pH unbalanced wrote: And yes, I'm hitting the FAQs for this. Great! Perhaps consider giving them a bump as well. :D
Here's an interpretation that doesn't require a new rule fabricaction that Jiggy used to make his interpretation work:
Is sun-, moon-, star-, demiplane, darklands, etc light ever defined as nonmagical or magical? If it isn't, then we can't define it as either without creating a houserule. (Deeper) Darkness only mentions magical and non-magical light sources. Anything that isn't defined as nonmagical or magical light is unaffected by (deeper) darkness aside from the reduction in light level in the area said light affects.
There's no rules fabrication, just keeping undefined light as undefined.
That is functionally identical to my interpretation. It is literally my interpretation with a label change from "special case" to "undefined" but then not actually changing anything about how it works or why.
Indeed it is. Coincidentally, I agree with you in how your interpretation works mechanically.
Even so, please go FAQ the two posts I linked a little ways up. :)
I still see it needing Judge input to decide if something is "magical", "non-magical" or " "special case"/"undefined"/"whatever".
This judge input will result in YMMV...
Which version of these do not require constant judges calls?
(stolen shamelessly from Jiggy's post above)
•X type of light sources do not increase the light level [that is in effect] in an area of darkness
•X type of light sources do not increase the light level [when located] in an area of darkness
realizing that I actually feel that "X = ALL" in the second line and "X=Judge's Call" in the first...
so it is closer to be...
1) Some types of light sources do not increase the light level [that is in effect] in an area of darkness - a judges call is required.
2) No light sources increase the light level when located in an area of darkness, unless they are of higher level than the darkness effect.
Just an update: The Dev Team sneaked in another Darkness FAQ.
CRB FAQ wrote: Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?
No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.
—Pathfinder Design Team, Thursday Back to Top
So my question is, since darkness (the spell) blocks line of sight beyond it (even if some areas are normal light) does this change how you would run lighting?
Ex:
(Player in Normal light)(Dim light).......darkness........(Dim Light)(Normal light from Torch)
Can the player with normal vision see the torch?
Does your answer change depending on whether the darkness is created by a spell or not?
Personally (and this is just me), I'd say the whole "can't see past darkness to the light beyond" thing only applies to magically-created darkness.
Oh, by the way, something that was brought to my attention in another thread:
Lantern Archon wrote: Lantern archons light many settlements in the celestial realms in lieu of mundane or magical illumination... (LINK)
Darkness spells refer to both magical and nonmagical light sources failing to increase the light level in the area. Several people have built their interpretations of light/darkness rules upon the assumption that every source of light (including the sun) must be in one of those two categories, which (combined with a further assumption that sunlight should not be automatically shut down) has resulted in all kinds of ideas about what those lines might mean.
But this passage about lantern archons implies that there are magical light sources, and mundane light sources, and then sometimes neither category is used and instead the archons light the way. This seems to make it much easier to believe that not every light source has to fit into the two categories mentioned in darkness.
It's not hard rules, but it does give a hint about the possible mindset of what's assumed to be a "light source" of the sort discussed in darkness. For whatever that's worth.
I think another question, or perhaps a different phrasing of the question, to have posted would be:
At what point do light sources apply their light level or light level increase to an area: before applying any darkness effects, after applying any darkness effects, or never if non-magical or lower level.
As this seems totally dependant on a judges call, I see no way to answer LabRats question other than opinion.
my opinion is that darkness effects do not cast shadows - they do not block light from shining thru them. Much like being able to look out of a lighted room, across a dark yard, and see someone under a streetlight across the street - and yet not see someone in the yard, as it is in darkness. (not in darkness - which is just a reduction of the light level in the area).
darkness, even deeper darkness, adjusts the light level in an area. SO, deeper darkness cast outside in an area of sunlight, would not block vision - the area isn't even dark, just dim.
does super-natureal darkness block light from passing thru it's area? Does it cast a shadow? I have seen nowhere in the rules that say so. Only judge opinions.
Uh, nosig, did you not see the new FAQ?
Jiggy wrote: Uh, nosig, did you not see the new FAQ? LOL! nope.
Sorry - I'll go look at it now. got a link?
edit: Wow... this is a change... and is going to cause problems.
Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?
No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.
I would assume that you could see thru the area with Darkvision (as long as it was not supernatural darkness). I can foresee problems when this ruling interacts with Low-Light vision...
I guess I need to retract my statement above. My opinion was wrong, at least by this FAQ. Darkness areas actually do cast shadows - but only if they cause an area of darkness, and not just reduce the light level in the area.
SO... it appears that an area of darkness will block LOS at dusk or in under a forest (in dim light) - you get a hemisphere or globe of dark that a creature can hide behind without being in it. I wonder ... if you are more than 60' away, would you be able to see thru it with Darkvision? I guess not. You'd just be able to see the 60' - even if the other part was lit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
nosig wrote: Jiggy wrote: Uh, nosig, did you not see the new FAQ? LOL! nope.
Sorry - I'll go look at it now. got a link?
Lab_Rat wrote: LOL! yeah-yeah, so I should have read your post better. I'd delete my goof, but then jiggy's post would look odd, and what the heck, I'm used to looking silly. ;)
I guess some important questions would be...
1) if I shoot at someone THRU an area reduced to dim light by a darkness effect, do I suffer a 20% miss chance? Target and shooter are both in normal light, but there is an area of dim light in between...
2) if I am in an area reduced to dim light by a darkness effect, do I suffer a 20% miss chance shooting at a target outside the area?
3) if I am in an area of darkness caused by a darkness effect, can I see out of it?
4) If I am on the edge of an area of darkness caused by a darkness effect, so that I am not looking thru any part of the darkness (except the square I am in), can I see out of it?
wow.. this is going to create a bunch of questions.
1. The precedent set by the FAQ would be that you indeed suffer the 20% miss chance.
2. Yes. Unless you are at the edge (Same reasoning as above)
3. No. Unless you have darkvision
4. Yes. I would treat it just like I do a fog effect.
An interesting side effect of the FAQ is that dropping the light level to Dim actually becomes a little bit stronger. If you drop the light to darkness, characters with darkvision are not effected. However, if you drop the light level to dim, ALL characters are effected.
Lab_Rat wrote: If you drop the light to darkness, characters with darkvision are not effected. However, if you drop the light level to dim, ALL characters are effected. Along with other places in the rules, the darkness spell itself wrote: Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty.
Lab_Rat wrote: 1. The precedent set by the FAQ would be that you indeed suffer the 20% miss chance.
2. Yes. Unless you are at the edge (Same reasoning as above)
3. No. Unless you have darkvision
4. Yes. I would treat it just like I do a fog effect.
my comments:
1) this means that it is done differently from firing at someone thru the shadow of a tree. You can see them with no problem, unless we treat the dim light cause by the darkness as some sort of fog effect - blocking and/or providing cover for anyone behind it. Is this fog effect good enough to allow someone to stealth? can you hide in the "shadow" of a darkness?
2) Why? if I am in darkness, but can see my target fine, than I have no miss chance...
3) what if I have darkvision, and the target is more than 60' away? does this mean that my Orc can see out of a darkness, but only 60'?
4) Why treat it like a fog? if you can't see - you can't see. Fog only blocks vision thru more than 5' of mist... unless you are saying someone can see 5' into the dark area - which is not true.
Jiggy wrote: Lab_Rat wrote: If you drop the light to darkness, characters with darkvision are not effected. However, if you drop the light level to dim, ALL characters are effected. Along with other places in the rules, the darkness spell itself wrote: Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. I understand this... but what if it is outside your darkvision range? So can an orc in a dark area caused by darkness see 60', but not 65'? what if the area is only dim? can an orc in a dim area caused by darkness see 60' with his darkvision, but at 65' and more he can only see dim light (due to looking out of the area of dim light)?
Last I checked, I wasn't aware of any rules in Pathfinder for dealing with the shadows of individual objects. That is, being under a forest canopy puts you at a lower light level, but a handful of scattered trees don't need to have their shadows marked on the map. If this is correct, then a good deal of your questions become irrelevant, nosig.
Such an odd FAQ ruling. Lab_Rat wrote: 1. The precedent set by the FAQ would be that you indeed suffer the 20% miss chance.
2. Yes. Unless you are at the edge (Same reasoning as above)
3. No. Unless you have darkvision
4. Yes. I would treat it just like I do a fog effect.
Agreed with all the answers except for those treating darkness like fog. If you're at the edge of darkness that drops the light level to darkness, then you can't see at all, just as if you were in the middle of the area.
Quote: I understand this... but what if it is outside your darkvision range? So can an orc in a dark area caused by darkness see 60', but not 65'? what if the area is only dim? can an orc in a dim area caused by darkness see 60' with his darkvision, but at 65' and more he can only see dim light (due to looking out of the area of dim light)? Yes, that's what would happen. This is what happens in normal circumstances with darkvision.
Jiggy wrote: Last I checked, I wasn't aware of any rules in Pathfinder for dealing with the shadows of individual objects. That is, being under a forest canopy puts you at a lower light level, but a handful of scattered trees don't need to have their shadows marked on the map. If this is correct, then a good deal of your questions become irrelevant, nosig. when targeting something, you deal with the light level of the area that the targe is in. Basicly, if the target is in Dim light, there is a 20% miss chance, if the target is in the dark, there is a 50% miss chance, if the target is in normal light there is no miss chance. The four questions I listed above deal with the light levels of the shooter, or of the area between the shooter and the target.
Without a darkness effect in place, the light level of the ares the shooter is in and the area between the shooter and target do not matter. It is only with the introduction of a darkness effect into the equation that it becomes important.
For example:
Shooter and target are in a tunnel 120 feet long, each in the lit area of a torch. The shooter has a clear line of fire at the target, even though there is an area 40' wide that he can not see in, that is dark. He can see the target. Now add a darkness spell centered in the tunnel and both can not see each other. Bring the background light level up to dim light and the darkness effect still blocks sight...
Bring it up to normal light and, you hit a problem. there is not a darkness caused area of darkness between, just an area of dim light. It does not fit the FAQ which says "If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it." The area between is just Dim light. Does it PARTLY block the light? giveing a 20% miss chance?
That's what I was addressing with question #1 & #2
If you shoot through dim light, I'd say a 20% miss chance is reasonable. The real issue I see is how to implement the whole "normal light can never raise the light level" thing. This would mean that darkness can indeed drop the light level from normal to darkness if the normal level light was coming from say, very big torches or something, maybe even sunlight. I think that is outside the scope of darkness. I think that darkness should only be able to dunk the light level by one, and that normal sources can't increase *that* level. It doesn't get to use the normal light source clause to get extra efficacy.
Serum wrote: Such an odd FAQ ruling.
...snipping your responce to LabRat, down to your response to me...
nosig wrote:
I understand this... but what if it is outside your darkvision range? So can an orc in a dark area caused by darkness see 60', but not 65'? what if the area is only dim? can an orc in a dim area caused by darkness see 60' with his darkvision, but at 65' and more he can only see dim light (due to looking out of the area of dim light)?
Yes, that's what would happen. This is what happens in normal circumstances with darkvision.
Aren't you treating the dim area produced by the darkness effect like fog then? you are ruling that because the orc is looking thru the dimly lit area caused by the darkness, all that he can see is dimly lit, even when the area is in normal lighting (other than the area around the orc). The dim light level around the orc (caused by darkness), effects what he can see... when a naturally occuring area of dim light (such as under tent) would not.
edit: bolding mine to highlight what I am asking... ("highlight" - ha!)
David Bowles wrote: If you shoot through dim light, I'd say a 20% miss chance is reasonable. The real issue I see is how to implement the whole "normal light can never raise the light level" thing. This would mean that darkness can indeed drop the light level from normal to darkness if the normal level light was coming from say, very big torches or something, maybe even sunlight. I think that is outside the scope of darkness. I think that darkness should only be able to dunk the light level by one, and that normal sources can't increase *that* level. It doesn't get to use the normal light source clause to get extra efficacy. I do not understand your reply. Please clearify.
"If you shoot through dim light, I'd say a 20% miss chance is reasonable." Do you mean a naturally dim area, such as that under a tent? If this is the case, what about a naturally dark area, such as in the example of shooting down a tunnel from one pool of torch light to another?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would rule that since the darkness spell didn't actually reduce the light level to darkness that there would be no penalty. The FAQ is cleverly worded:
FAQ wrote:
If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.
Since you can see through the darkness and the target is standing in bright or normal light there should be no penalty.
Maybe I misunderstood the exact conditions.
I'm thinking that the area of dim light would work like a filter myself. It doesn't matter how well the target is illuminated, if there is the area of magical funkiness messing with the photons.
David Bowles wrote: Maybe I misunderstood the exact conditions.
I'm thinking that the area of dim light would work like a filter myself. It doesn't matter how well the target is illuminated, if there is the area of magical funkiness messing with the photons.
Ok, I understand that.
Which would be fine, and I can work with this - but it is not what the FAQ says. It says: "...reduces the light in the area to actual darkness ...", not that it reduces the light in the area to dim light.
Does the darkness that does NOT reduce the light in the area to actual darkness block some vision? Does it provide a 20% miss chance to anything seen thru it? or from it's edge? The FAQ does not address these questions.
Robert A Matthews wrote: I would rule that since the darkness spell didn't actually reduce the light level to darkness that there would be no penalty. The FAQ is cleverly worded:
FAQ wrote:
If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.
Since you can see through the darkness and the target is standing in bright or normal light there should be no penalty.
Do you mean "Since you can see through the area of dim light caused by darkness and the target is standing in bright or normal light there should be no penalty."?
If this is not what you ment, please excuse my rewording... I do not intend to be putting words into your mouth, just trying to understand what you said.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not sure we will ever address all the issues with light/darkness without a complete rewrite of the rules on how they work.
Edit: you interpreted my response correctly. It might not be the most realistic, but it's acceptable to me.
Robert A Matthews wrote: I'm not sure we will ever address all the issues with light/darkness without a complete rewrite of the rules on how they work. and even a complete rewrite has not in the past fixed it. I've been gaming thru 3 new additions now (yes, 1st ed. was a re-write for me), and each time the darkness/light issue has been a problem. Each new edition just creates new issues... kind of depressing actually. In home games you can get your GM to go over exactly how it works, and get ruleings to live by. In PFS, I am not sure if we can get that...
nosig wrote: David Bowles wrote: Maybe I misunderstood the exact conditions.
I'm thinking that the area of dim light would work like a filter myself. It doesn't matter how well the target is illuminated, if there is the area of magical funkiness messing with the photons.
Ok, I understand that.
Which would be fine, and I can work with this - but it is not what the FAQ says. It says: "...reduces the light in the area to actual darkness ...", not that it reduces the light in the area to dim light.
Does the darkness that does NOT reduce the light in the area to actual darkness block some vision? Does it provide a 20% miss chance to anything seen thru it? or from it's edge? The FAQ does not address these questions. By induction, I'd say that it would. That's not that crazy strong for a 2nd level spell. My concern is the backdoor double light level dunk from normal light to darkness. I don't think there should be any interpretation that allows that. To me, that ability should be reserved for the 3rd level spell. I will not allow this in my home games or PFS I run unless I am forced by FAQ.
What specifically are you referring to when you say "double light level dunk from normal light to darkness"?
nosig wrote: Serum wrote: Such an odd FAQ ruling.
...snipping your responce to LabRat, down to your response to me...
nosig wrote:
I understand this... but what if it is outside your darkvision range? So can an orc in a dark area caused by darkness see 60', but not 65'? what if the area is only dim? can an orc in a dim area caused by darkness see 60' with his darkvision, but at 65' and more he can only see dim light (due to looking out of the area of dim light)?
Yes, that's what would happen. This is what happens in normal circumstances with darkvision.
Aren't you treating the dim area produced by the darkness effect like fog then? you are ruling that because the orc is looking thru the dimly lit area caused by the darkness, all that he can see is dimly lit, even when the area is in normal lighting (other than the area around the orc). The dim light level around the orc (caused by darkness), effects what he can see... when a naturally occuring area of dim light (such as under tent) would not.
edit: bolding mine to highlight what I am asking... ("highlight" - ha!) Thanks for reclarifying. I had thought everything 65+ feet away was already dim light.
There's two ways of reading the FAQ, in my opinion:
1. When they wrote darkness, they specifically meant darkness. In this case, no, magical dim light wouldn't restrict your vision outside of the affected area.
2. The answer was specific to the question. You can still see with dim light, so that isn't relevant to answering the question. In this case we try to extrapolate an answer for our new question. The answer would be that if you can't see through magically created darkness, then you probably can't see very well through magically created dim light. Specific to darkvision, since you have no trouble looking through the magically created darkness and dim light entirely contained within your range, then normal light past that should also not be affected.
I like 2 better. It stays logical to the new understanding of how magical darkness works: darkness is effectively a very dense fog that lets no light escape, dim light is a haze that lets some light escape.
|
