Should we just write this up in the form of a neutral question and start spamming the FAQ button?
I don't see this discussion going anywhere but in circles, faster and faster.
This isn't a bad idea. What should the neutral question be though?
"Do mundane light sources create a level of ambient light that is adjusted by magical darkness, or are they negated by magical darkness altogether?"Or something about introducing new light levels to existing areas of magical darkness...? Like the "tearing the roof off" reference?
Once the darkness is in place it prevents any non-magical light source from increasing the light level within its (de)illuminated area, while the darkness spell is there.Question:
How does when a light source comes into effect end up effecting spells like deeper darkness?
I'll hand it to you that this is internally consistent, it just doesn't feel elegant to me.
Once the darkness is in place it prevents any non-magical light source from increasing the light level within its (de)illuminated area, while the darkness spell is there.Question:
How does when a light source comes into effect end up affecting spells like deeper darkness?
This reminds me of a certain Drow Ranger with a onyx panther figurine dropping globes of darkness between himself and his foes, or on himself and his foes because he had the Blind Fight feat, and could still hit them anyway. IIRC he did this sometimes out in the open in daylight, and the way it was described is that there was a black globe that suddenly appeared out of thin air. That description, though, is much more powerful than the spell actually is, and as far as I know there was never an actual mechanical equivalent of the "globe of darkness."
It also begs the question: if I cast darkness in a meadow over a campfire, and then the giant orb in the sky crests the horizon during the duration of the spell (which would normally increase the light level), is it still dim light/darkness where the spell was cast? Rehashing the problem of the sun actually not being a magical light source.
This reminds me of a certain Drow Ranger with a onyx panther figurine dropping globes of darkness between himself and his foes, or on himself and his foes because he had the Blind Fight feat, and could still hit them anyway. IIRC he did this sometimes out in the open in daylight, and the way it was described is that there was a black globe that suddenly appeared out of thin air. That description, though, is much more powerful than the spell actually is, and as far as I know there was never an actual mechanical equivalent of the "globe of darkness."
Wasn't this certain Drow Ranger born in the AD&D era? I can't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how darkness worked back in the day...
This reminds me of a certain Drow Ranger with a onyx panther figurine dropping globes of darkness between himself and his foes, or on himself and his foes because he had the Blind Fight feat, and could still hit them anyway. IIRC he did this sometimes out in the open in daylight, and the way it was described is that there was a black globe that suddenly appeared out of thin air. That description, though, is much more powerful than the spell actually is, and as far as I know there was never an actual mechanical equivalent of the "globe of darkness."
Just checked, and in 3.0 this is exactly how darkness worked: it created a globe of darkness, impenetrable by darkvision.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Keep in mind that the FAQ tells us to, prior to reducing the light level by one step, first default to the "ambient natural" light level. Note the word "natural"; I think that strongly implies that the sun (the most "natural" light source there is) always counts as ambient light (therefore subject only to light level reductions) and is therefore outside of the "magical/nonmagical light sources" that get shut off completely.
That solves the "3rd level spells shouldn't blot out the sun" problem, also gives us a solid starting point for what light level to "default to" (per the FAQ) before lowering the light level by a number of steps, and simultaneously keeps us from having to throw any of the "X does not increase the light level" clauses out the window.
In short, if the sun (and presumably moonlight/starlight as well) exists outside the categories of magical or nonmagical sources of light, then suddenly everything works without having to ignore any explicit rules.
@ Zavarov, I was just checking that myself. :D
That would be a lot easier to adjudicate wouldn't it? Maybe from now on I'll houserule that darkness creates a "globe" of darkness to a 20 ft. radius where darkvision still works (regardless of the previous light level, and can only be negated by a light spell of equal or greater level), and deeper darkness creates a "globe" of supernatural darkness to a 60 ft. radius (regardless of previous light level, and can only be negated by a light spell of equal or greater level). It'd be a lot easier to adjudicate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jiggy
Part of the problem is there is no good definition for "ambient natural light." If I'm in a dungeon and there are lit torches in wall sconces every 20 feet on both walls, the "ambient natural" light is normal light. Jason's quote would have the spells drop that level by one or two steps, not negate it entirely and think about what the light level would be without the torches there. The torches are both ambient, and natural.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy
Part of the problem is there is no good definition for "ambient natural light." If I'm in a dungeon and there are lit torches in wall sconces every 20 feet on both walls, the "ambient natural" light is normal light. Jason's quote would have the spells drop that level by one or two steps, not negate it entirely and think about what the light level would be without the torches there. The torches are both ambient, and natural.
Given that this is the rules forum, the Official FAQ trumps any off-the-cuff commentary that some forumite recalls hearing someone say. Now if Jason Bulmahn were to pop in here and weigh in, that would be fantastic. Until that time, however, the rules and the FAQ are what matter. The FAQ says there's a two-step process of first defaulting to natural light and THEN counting down an appropriate number of steps. Although there could be more than one interpretation of what that natural light encompasses, it has to be something that can be defaulted to as a step in a process, which means it has to be something that can at least sometimes be different than the "net" light level in an area.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's why it's easiest to just say that "ambient" light is congruous with "non-magical" light. With that paradigm, you consider whatever is the highest non-magical light effect as ambient; whether that's the sun (bright), torch (normal), candle (dim), or none at all (darkness). Then, you simply apply the highest level light-changing spell overtop of the ambient light. If a new source of ambient (non-magical) light is introduced (ie. you cast Darkness before dawn and then the sun rises), you simply re-calculate ambient light from dim at night, normal at twilight, and bright when the sun has sufficiently crested the horizon and then re-calculate the effect of magical light-altering effects.
This interpretation directly contradicts the Official FAQ, in which it explicitly states that nonmagical light sources (sunrods are the example) never increase the light level in an area of darkness.
Directly contradicting the FAQ = wrong.
And by "wrong" I mean "not how the rules work", not "bad". I actually have my own houserule system that I think is far more elegant, but this is not the forum for that. ;)
I believe I'm seeing some massive support in my favor on this.
There's support it wanting it to work your way because it's easier and more intuitive. RAW, it works in your GM's favor (not in the way that he describes it to work, just in the way that the rules say it works). Sorry.
How you and your GM resolve your wager is between you two. You can leave the forum out of that. Thank you.
|
Both darkness and light spells lack an 'area of effect'. Instead, they have, 'Target: Object touched'.
Unusually, the effects of these spells extend beyond the target. Instead, both types of these spells has the target object 'radiate' light or darkness, and it is within these area of 'radiance' that the effects of the spells take place.
Both types of spells also have a duration. These spells function entirely within their respective durations; none directly affect the world's functions before they come into effect, and none directly affect the world's functions when the duration expires.
Since these spells may be cast on objects that are portable, moving the area of radiance has the same result on the world as casting it in the first place, and moving the area of radiance away has the same effect on the world as the duration expiring. Until you move the radiance back again.
Within the radiance, light levels are increased or decreased according to the spell in question. However, darkness spells have a second effect that light spells don't: within the area of radiance during the duration of the spell, the radiance also actively prevents non-magical sources from increasing the level of light.
Note that nothing in the spell descriptions prevent the level of light decreasing if a non-magical light source is removed! So, the light level can be decreased by removing a light source, but cannot be increased by re-introducing the same (or another) non-magical light source!
Light-proof room during the day, shutter open and sunlight streams in. Deeper darkness is cast within the room. Light level drops from bright to dim. Shutter is closed, removing the sunlight. The spell does not prevent the light level from decreasing, so the light level is dark (ambient) then supernaturally dark because of the spell. The shutter is re-opened, in theory allowing the sunlight back into the room, but the spell prevents non-magical light sources from increasing the light level, so the room stays supernaturally dark until the spell expires or is removed.
The sun is not a magical light source. You could make up a rule to say that it's a 10th level spell effect, then try to backtrack when someone casts deeper darkness outdoors during the day, but we can make these spells make sense without resorting to inventing rules for a magical sun.
Both darkness and light spells lack an 'area of effect'. Instead, they have, 'Target: Object touched'.
Unusually, the effects of these spells extend beyond the target. Instead, both types of these spells has the target object 'radiate' light or darkness, and it is within these area of 'radiance' that the effects of the spells take place.
Both types of spells also have a duration. These spells function entirely within their respective durations; none directly affect the world's functions before they come into effect, and none directly affect the world's functions when the duration expires.
Since these spells may be cast on objects that are portable, moving the area of radiance has the same result on the world as casting it in the first place, and moving the area of radiance away has the same effect on the world as the duration expiring. Until you move the radiance back again.
Within the radiance, light levels are increased or decreased according to the spell in question. However, darkness spells have a second effect that light spells don't: within the area of radiance during the duration of the spell, the radiance also actively prevents non-magical sources from increasing the level of light.
Note that nothing in the spell descriptions prevent the level of light decreasing if a non-magical light source is removed! So, the light level can be decreased by removing a light source, but cannot be increased by re-introducing the same (or another) non-magical light source!
Light-proof room during the day, shutter open and sunlight streams in. Deeper darkness is cast within the room. Light level drops from bright to dim. Shutter is closed, removing the sunlight. The spell does not prevent the light level from decreasing, so the light level is dark (ambient) then supernaturally dark because of the spell. The shutter is re-opened, in theory allowing the sunlight back into the room, but the spell prevents non-magical light sources...
Ah, darkness as a ratcheting effect in a sense. I could see a GM handling light/dark this way and it would still be internally consistent.
So... Two RAW-legal methods for resolving mundane light and magical darkness?
|
Remember, the spell itself has two effects:-
1) It reduces the level of light during the spell's duration
2) It prevents non-magical light sources from increasing the level of light during the spell's duration.
Suppose that the following happens:
1) An enclosed room has normal light from torches.
2) Deeper darkness is cast.
3) The torches are extinguished.
4) The torches are re-lit.
I would like to think that the light levels go:
1) normal light
2) normal darkness
3) supernatural darkness
4) normal darkness
It seems that your position is that the prohibition against non-magical light sources increasing the light level during the spell's duration is preventing the transition from supernatural darkness in #3 to normal darkness in #4.
While this is a reasonable interpretation given the wording of the spell, it is conceptually bizarre, and seems to add incoherence to the entire system.
I would like to think that the prohibition against non-magical light sources increasing the light level during the spell's duration is what prevents you from simply lighting more torches after #2 to achieve a light level greater than normal darkness. By this reasoning, the two-level darkening effect of the deeper darkness spell is still impossible to overcome with nonmagical lighting, but you don't have the wonkiness of the overall light level being affected by temporary extinguishing of light sources. I also believe this is the intent.
Internally consistent, but not intuitive and bizarre.
See also my example of moving the darkness source around.
Close and reopen the shutter and the light level permanently drops.
Then move the Darkness source out of the room and back and the light is back up again.
Yes, but that's why I used the term "ratchet" as a metaphor. Maybe "ratchet-and-release" is more descriptive. Darkness/deeper darkness sets the ratchet, closing the shutters tightens the ratchet, moving the darkness/deeper darkness source out of the room releases the ratchet, and moving it back into the room re-sets the ratchet.
I wouldn't run it that way, but I can understand the method behind it.
|
|
Or the torches have no effect once the Darkness is cast.
In which case your sequence is
1) normal light
2) supernatural darkness
3) supernatural darkness
4) supernatural darknessNot conceptually bizarre. Simple to implement.
The only weirdness is if you try to treat the sun as just a normal source of light.
This was my conclusion on page 1, but oddly enough it was Malachi's statement about non-magical light contributing to initial light conditions providing the baseline for the deeper darkness spell which caused me to rethink the possibility of nonmagical light having an effect during such a spell.
|
There's way too much to read here for what seems fairly simple to me. I may be wrong, but the way I see it is this: We have 5 levels of light, from supernatural darkness to bright.
The way I see ambient light here is the lighting of the area, not counting any mundane light sources inside the darkness (or deeper darkness). The sun is NEVER inside the deeper darkness unless some epic monster of a wizard has done something campaign changing. Lights outside the radius contribute to ambient, as normal. Again, those inside the radius don't count. Negate those and drop it a level...2 for deeper darkness. Done.
|
|
There's way too much to read here for what seems fairly simple to me. I may be wrong, but the way I see it is this: We have 5 levels of light, from supernatural darkness to bright.
The way I see ambient light here is the lighting of the area, not counting any mundane light sources inside the darkness (or deeper darkness). The sun is NEVER inside the deeper darkness unless some epic monster of a wizard has done something campaign changing. Lights outside the radius contribute to ambient, as normal. Again, those inside the radius don't count. Negate those and drop it a level...2 for deeper darkness. Done.
Then you get such insanity as a faraway torch providing more light than a nearby torch.
|
|
Then you get such insanity as a faraway torch providing more light than a nearby torch.There's way too much to read here for what seems fairly simple to me. I may be wrong, but the way I see it is this: We have 5 levels of light, from supernatural darkness to bright.
The way I see ambient light here is the lighting of the area, not counting any mundane light sources inside the darkness (or deeper darkness). The sun is NEVER inside the deeper darkness unless some epic monster of a wizard has done something campaign changing. Lights outside the radius contribute to ambient, as normal. Again, those inside the radius don't count. Negate those and drop it a level...2 for deeper darkness. Done.
Yes. It's not affected by the spell.
|
|
Then you get such insanity as a faraway torch providing more light than a nearby torch.Yes. It's not affected by the spell.
I would expect the radiating darkness to affect nonmagical light within its area of effect, regardless of the distance of its origin point.
The concept of illuminating a sphere of deeper darkness sphere with nonmagical torchlight from outside the sphere is the sort of weirdness that makes your setup decidedly nonsimple.
|
|
Then you get such insanity as a faraway torch providing more light than a nearby torch.Yes. It's not affected by the spell.I would expect the radiating darkness to affect nonmagical light within its area of effect, regardless of the distance of its origin point.
The concept of illuminating a sphere of deeper darkness sphere with nonmagical torchlight from outside the sphere is the sort of weirdness that makes your setup decidedly nonsimple.
It affects the light, but not the torch itself, if that torch is outside of the spell. The torch helps to create the ambient light in the area, but that light is then taken down a step for darkness, 2 for deeper.
|
I don't see a RAW reason to allow sources outside the area to raise the light level in the area. The text is " Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
It's "don't increase the light level in the area", not "sources in the area don't increase the light level".The language is tricky and not at all clear. There isn't a simple solution.
"Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
In that sentence, "in an area of darkness" could modify "sources of light" or "increase the light level". Either is grammatically sound.
|
|
There's way too much to read here for what seems fairly simple to me. I may be wrong, but the way I see it is this: We have 5 levels of light, from supernatural darkness to bright.
The way I see ambient light here is the lighting of the area, not counting any mundane light sources inside the darkness (or deeper darkness). The sun is NEVER inside the deeper darkness unless some epic monster of a wizard has done something campaign changing. Lights outside the radius contribute to ambient, as normal. Again, those inside the radius don't count. Negate those and drop it a level...2 for deeper darkness. Done.
I don't see a RAW reason to allow sources outside the area to raise the light level in the area. The text is " Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
It's "don't increase the light level in the area", not "sources in the area don't increase the light level".The language is tricky and not at all clear. There isn't a simple solution.
I do see it as pretty simple. If the torchlight is enough to make the room dimly lit, that's your starting point. They don't count, beyond that.
The language is tricky and not at all clear. There isn't a simple solution.
This, oh soooo much this.
I want to reiterate Kazaan's earlier post, as I think it hits on the key to understanding the view that mundane light is independent of the darkness spells. Formatted a bit, bolded words are my interpolations:
For the sake of example, you have a torch in an otherwise dark room. It casts normal light in an area of 20' and raises the light from dark to dim out another 20'.
Now someone casts Darkness. Light levels go down by 1 step so that 20' area of normal light becomes dim light and within the 40' area of dim light it goes back down to darkness; the torch becomes a very strong candle. It isn't put out, mind you; it's still burning, but objects just aren't reflecting as much of that light as they are supposed to because of the darkness spell.
So now you have a 20' area of dim light. You can't just introduce a new torch and say "Ok, I put a torch over here, 30' away from the first torch. It casts normal light over 20' and raises/increases the dim light cast by this torch that's under the darkness spell to normal light." The new torch is, instead, accounted for before the darkness spell is accounted.
In other words, you adjudicate all non-magical light first, even those introduced after a magical source of light (or darkness), and then you determine the effects of magical light/darkness. This is why adding several sunrods doesn't affect an area of darkness or deeper darkness; because the effects aren't sandwiched with the darkness spell in-between two segregated sunrod effects. All the sunrods are considered together first (and multiple sunrods don't normally increase light anymore than a single sunrod) and then the darkness effect affects the end-result.
There are definitely multiple ways of interpreting the rules (as written).
For the record on Jason's statement (which I'm going to try to locate): I *asked* this same question at PaizoCon in 2009 and got an unsatisfactory answer. When I heard it asked again (on a recording), I was very interested in the response. While the answer still wasn't satisfying addressing the rules as written, it was very clear on the rules as intended.
Reading Kazaan's post above was the first time I was able to reconcile the two, because I had been focusing so much on the "cannot increase" line. I had always taken it, as many here do, to mean it suppresses any non-magical light source, or magical light source of lower level. I had adapted that (for my own sanity) to be when the source is within the area.
However it is much simpler to conclude that the line was written to make it clear to the casual reader that the change in light level caused by darkness spells is not a game of one-upmanship.
DM: He casts darkness.
Player: I light a torch.
DM: He casts darkness again...
This makes sense from a rules perspective, a gameplay perspective (unless, like me, you are very used to the earlier edition black globes), and the espoused rules-as-intended perspective.
|
|
It affects the light, but not the torch itself, if that torch is outside of the spell. The torch helps to create the ambient light in the area, but that light is then taken down a step for darkness, 2 for deeper.
That makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that nonmagical light can function within the area of effect of darkness, but I see no cause for distinguishing between a light source 5 feet from the source of darkness and a light source 25 feet from the source of darkness when determining the light level at a point 15 feet from the source of darkness. The wording "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness" does not seem to care how far the source of light is.
|
|
It affects the light, but not the torch itself, if that torch is outside of the spell. The torch helps to create the ambient light in the area, but that light is then taken down a step for darkness, 2 for deeper.That makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that nonmagical light can function within the area of effect of darkness, but I see no cause for distinguishing between a light source 5 feet from the source of darkness and a light source 25 feet from the source of darkness when determining the light level at a point 15 feet from the source of darkness. The wording "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness" does not seem to care how far the source of light is.
If you feel the need to complicate it, be my guest...but it's not a 'source' of darkness, it's an area covered by a spell, one that negates normal lights inside it, and then further reduces light coming in from around it (ambient) by one or 2 steps.
You will never understand it by trying to apply real-world physics...it's magic. Magic doesn't exist, per physics.
|
|
If you feel the need to complicate it, be my guest...but it's not a 'source' of darkness, it's an area covered by a spell, one that negates normal lights inside it, and then further reduces light coming in from around it (ambient) by one or 2 steps.
You will never understand it by trying to apply real-world physics...it's magic. Magic doesn't exist, per physics.
No, it really is a source of darkness. The spell is cast on an object which radiates darkness, and which can be covered to block the darkness effect, similar to the way a light source can be covered to block the illuminating effect.
|
|
No, it really is a source of darkness. The spell is cast on an object which radiates darkness, and which can be covered to block the darkness effect, similar to the way a light source can be covered to block the illuminating effect.If you feel the need to complicate it, be my guest...but it's not a 'source' of darkness, it's an area covered by a spell, one that negates normal lights inside it, and then further reduces light coming in from around it (ambient) by one or 2 steps.
You will never understand it by trying to apply real-world physics...it's magic. Magic doesn't exist, per physics.
Yes, that's what it says. Now...if I upend a table, is there light behind the table? Feel free to play it that way, but it severely complicates things. I was simply trying to put out an explanation that makes it a reasonable thing at the gaming table. Seriously, if it's a source in that sense, there's a shadow of light behind every object in the area, including the caster.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seriously, if it's a source in that sense, there's a shadow of light behind every object in the area, including the caster.
If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
|
|
Seriously, if it's a source in that sense, there's a shadow of light behind every object in the area, including the caster.If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
Yes, I get that specific quote. Now, if I step right up to it, I can basically negate a significant part of it for my party, if that's the way you want to play it...and in 'marching order', some are usually within the 'shadow' of others.
Have fun! :p
Frankly, I've always considered that the 'source' of an all-pervading darkness, one that can be cut off in a specific instance like that...but...if that's how it works in your game, if I face away from it, I can see.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is the Rules Questions forum. Ideas for improvements have their own entire dedicated forum. I don't go into Suggestions/Houserule/Homebrew threads and clutter them with explanations of how the rules are different than the ideas people there are suggesting, and it is similarly unhelpful to clutter a Rules Questions thread with explanations of how your idea is a significant improvement over the actual rules (however true that may be - I have a homebrew versio of light rules myself, but this is not the place to discuss it).
|
|
Yes, that's what it says. Now...if I upend a table, is there light behind the table? Feel free to play it that way, but it severely complicates things. I was simply trying to put out an explanation that makes it a reasonable thing at the gaming table. Seriously, if it's a source in that sense, there's a shadow of light behind every object in the area, including the caster.
I agree it would have been much simpler to make the area of effect of the darkness spell a uniform sphere affecting everything within it equally, but it was written as a darkness source that is analogous to a light source. Conceptually, it would make sense for objects to cast shadows of light in the presence of a source of darkness, but the rule as written says only that completely covering it blocks it.
I am now drifting back to the original consensus that magical darkness completely negates the presence of torch and lantern and similar mundane light within its area of effect, regardless of the initial light level:
Dark dungeon is normal darkness (0)
Dark dungeon lit with torches every 20' is normal light (2)
Dark dungeon with darkness cast is normal darkness (0)
Dark dungeon with with torches every 20' and darkness cast is still normal darkness (0) within the area of effect of the spell
Dark dungeon with with torches every 20' and deeper darkness cast is still supernatural darkness (-2) within the area of effect of the spell
Magical light of a level equal to the magical darkness level cancels out, letting any nonmagical light sources in the overlapping area of effect work normally, per the daylight spell:
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.
|
|
Why do darkness spells have a second effect that light spells don't? That is, preventing non-magical light sources from increasing the light level within the area of dark radiance?
Back when Gary Gygax first thought of the spell, it made the area dark. Just as of the torches had gone out underground. But the usual effect of lighting a torch is that the dark area becomes lit. But, if it was that easy, then the 2nd level darkness spell would be rendered worthless by a normal torch!
So the spell had to do two things: make it dark AND prevent mundane means from making it light again. Hence the line about non-magical sources not increasing the level of light.
It's still clunky in it's wording, but understood this way it's playable.
The problem lies with the idea that the spell first suppresses all non-magical light sources, then reduces the light level! If that interpretation were true then all non-magical light sources (including the sun) wouldn't count, meaning that the 'ambient' light is always dark! If that were the case, there would be no need to describe the spell as reducing light levels, it would always result in supernatural darkness!
This is not the case!
|
|
This is the Rules Questions forum. Ideas for improvements have their own entire dedicated forum. I don't go into Suggestions/Houserule/Homebrew threads and clutter them with explanations of how the rules are different than the ideas people there are suggesting, and it is similarly unhelpful to clutter a Rules Questions thread with explanations of how your idea is a significant improvement over the actual rules (however true that may be - I have a homebrew versio of light rules myself, but this is not the place to discuss it).
And?
I gave you my interpretation of RAW. I also gave you a clearer understanding of your interpretation of RAW. If you want that can of worms, as I said, have fun.