Malachi, while I did agree that your method was consistent, I did say I wouldn't choose to handle light that way. Since I hate ASCII art diagrams, I made an image to demonstrate:
1. We have a dungeon chamber. Purple will be darkness, yellow is normal light, dark gray is supernatural darkness. I added a border to some of the cells to make it easier to see the boundaries of the deeper darkness spell.
2. Hero holding a bullseye lantern shedding a 60' cone of normal light (we're going to ignore the 60 additional feet of dim light). Origin of the light is the white cross.
3. Next, the villain casts deeper darkness at the red cross.
4. The left diagram shows how I'm understanding your light/darkness method working. The spell drops light levels by 2 steps within its area. Normal light goes to darkness and darkness goes to superdark.
5. Next, the hero steps forward 5' with the lantern. The middle diagram shows the light source moving forward if it couldn't increase the light level.
6. Next, the hero steps forward an additional 5' with the lantern. The right diagram shows this, again assuming the lantern cannot increase the light level as I understand how you've described it.
As the hero continues walking forward, you'd end up with an ever narrowing cone of light intersecting with the arc of normal light that existed prior to the spell being cast. Before we continue with the debate on the merits on your method, have I diagrammed your interpretation correctly?
|
What it's actually using is a continuous present tense which references light sources' function of continuously applying a raising effect to the light level (and the negation thereof).
The 'light level' track again:-
Superdark<dark<dim<normal<bright
If a source changes the light level toward the left, that source is 'decreasing' the light level.
If a source changes the light level toward the right, that source is 'increasing' the light level.
If a source is not changing the light level but is instead maintaining the light level where it is, then that source is neither 'decreasing' or 'increasing' the light level.
'Continuously shedding light' =/= 'continuously increasing the light level!
If a torch were able to 'continuously increase the light level, then a single torch, over time, would increase the light level from 'normal' through 'bright' to 'beyond bright', toward infinity.
The spell prevents light levels increasing. A continuously burning torch is no longer increasing the light level; the torch, while lit, is maintaining an unchanging light level of 'normal'.
|
|
Malachi, while I did agree that your method was consistent, I did say I wouldn't choose to handle light that way. Since I hate ASCII art diagrams, I made an image to demonstrate:
1. We have a dungeon chamber. Purple will be darkness, yellow is normal light, dark gray is supernatural darkness. I added a border to some of the cells to make it easier to see the boundaries of the deeper darkness spell.
2. Hero holding a bullseye lantern shedding a 60' cone of normal light (we're going to ignore the 60 additional feet of dim light). Origin of the light is the white cross.
3. Next, the villain casts deeper darkness at the red cross.
4. The left diagram shows how I'm understanding your light/darkness method working. The spell drops light levels by 2 steps within its area. Normal light goes to darkness and darkness goes to superdark.
5. Next, the hero steps forward 5' with the lantern. The middle diagram shows the light source moving forward if it couldn't increase the light level.
6. Next, the hero steps forward an additional 5' with the lantern. The right diagram shows this, again assuming the lantern cannot increase the light level as I understand how you've described it.As the hero continues walking forward, you'd end up with an ever narrowing cone of light intersecting with the arc of normal light that existed prior to the spell being cast. Before we continue with the debate on the merits on your method, have I diagrammed your interpretation correctly?
Now that I've got my eye in, yes. : )
The spell prevents the lantern from increasing the light level, but does not prevent the removal of a light source from decreasing the light level.
Yeah, I was afraid of that. :)
Imagine that hero now turning 90 degrees to his left and my head exploding as I rush to draw arcs and intersecting 45 degree lines on the battle mat to figure out what's now superdark and what is still normaldark. I think this is why you've got so many detractors against this method.
I had a spreadsheet do these lighting calculations for me and it was still really hard.
|
|
Also, no-one doubts that the sun is a different thing than a torch, but the only relevant fact for the purpose of the spell is whether the sun is magical or non-magical.Without making up your own rules, the sun is non-magical.
I would maintain that the sun does not fall into "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns". It is very definitely a different category and is treated differently under the rules.
I am unsure whether the sun is considered magical or non-magical in Golarion, but it is at the very least campaign specific. If in my campaign world the sun is the chariot of the Sun-God, then it is very much magical. It was considered so in almost every real mythology and in many classic fantasy works.
The real sun works just fine.
It is not magical.
The sun in any fantasy world works just like ours does, through (non-magical) fusion, unless a rule is invented that changes this.
The default PF and D&D rules did not change this.
You can change it if you like, and if you did then you should set a spell-level equivalent for it. But it would be your houserule, and therefore not part of this discussion.
I've got a houserule that's infinitely better than the rule in the CRB. I'd venture that we all have! But we're not talking about our suggested improvements but about the RAW, as confusing, ambiguous and unsatisfying as it is.
There is more than one solution which would also not contradict the RAW and not rely on made-up rules; mine is one.
But if you have to change the sun into a magical object, or create a third category between 'magical' and 'non-magical', then you've moved beyond RAW into houserule territory.
IMAGINE NO MORE
Heh... ok, so he takes a 5' step and turns 90 degrees. This gets fun.
@Mr. Silverclaw
I won't argue with you anymore. We have both put forward our interpretation of the spell and we don't seem to be convincing either one of us to change. I will say with your method, any dwarf or half-Orc (or other race with darkvision) is effectively immune to deeper darkness by merely carrying a lit torch with them. I don't think that was the intent of the spell.
If you really want to have fun, ask him about Chaotic Good!
(Oh, that's gonna get flagged.)
|
What it's actually using is a continuous present tense which references light sources' function of continuously applying a raising effect to the light level (and the negation thereof).The 'light level' track again:-
Superdark<dark<dim<normal<bright
If a source changes the light level toward the left, that source is 'decreasing' the light level.
If a source changes the light level toward the right, that source is 'increasing' the light level.
If a source is not changing the light level but is instead maintaining the light level where it is, then that source is neither 'decreasing' or 'increasing' the light level.
'Continuously shedding light' =/= 'continuously increasing the light level!
If a torch were able to 'continuously increase the light level, then a single torch, over time, would increase the light level from 'normal' through 'bright' to 'beyond bright', toward infinity.
The spell prevents light levels increasing. A continuously burning torch is no longer increasing the light level; the torch, while lit, is maintaining an unchanging light level of 'normal'.
Hey, let's throw this into it and see what that does to your example.
The normal light level of the universe and everything in it is DARK (Darkness is the absence of something, namely light) so ANY and every source is technically an increase.This is where I have a problem with your examples, they ignore a fundamentally basic rule of science and language.
|
|
Yeah, I was afraid of that. :)
Imagine that hero now turning 90 degrees to his left and my head exploding as I rush to draw arcs and intersecting 45 degree lines on the battle mat to figure out what's now superdark and what is still normaldark. I think this is why you've got so many detractors against this method.
I had a spreadsheet do these lighting calculations for me and it was still really hard.
Some kind of cone-shaped template would be a good idea, here. : )
Some kind of cone-shaped template would be a good idea, here. : )Yeah, I was afraid of that. :)
Imagine that hero now turning 90 degrees to his left and my head exploding as I rush to draw arcs and intersecting 45 degree lines on the battle mat to figure out what's now superdark and what is still normaldark. I think this is why you've got so many detractors against this method.
I had a spreadsheet do these lighting calculations for me and it was still really hard.
I love my templates. I made them myself out of yellow and purple pipe cleaners. I drop one down for the torch and another for the darkness SLA that the tiefling rogue just cast.
GM: This area and 20' around it is normal light. This is now dark even where they overlap. The rest of the dungeon is dim. Roll for initiative.
I think it's not unreasonable to say that any interpretation which can produce stripes is wrong. :/
I wouldn't go so far to say that it is wrong as it is one way to interpret "do not increase the light level."
It's just not the interpretation that I would choose to make.
|
|
The normal light level of the universe and everything in it is DARK (Darkness is the absence of something, namely light) so ANY and every source is technically an increase.
First, the darkness in the universe doesn't prevent light sources from increasing the light level.
Second, once a star has 'ignited', increasing the light level around it, it then spends millions of years not 'increasing' the light level significantly, just maintaining the light level, more or less.
|
|
I think it's not unreasonable to say that any interpretation which can produce stripes is wrong. :/I wouldn't go so far to say that it is wrong as it is one way to interpret "do not increase the light level."
It's just not the interpretation that I would choose to make.
While the players of the game may disagree on how darkness spells interact with their environment, it must be said that there is only one truth within the game. In game, it works a certain way, always, and the creatures using it know how it works. The only unfortunate thing is that the players don't know!
Whichever way it works, the users know it. If the spell works the way I say it does, then the creatures of the world can know the truth, and will act with that knowledge. Given that, the bearer of a bullseye lantern would be extremely foolish to move the beam around in an area of a darkness radiance!
|
|
The normal light level of the universe and everything in it is DARK (Darkness is the absence of something, namely light) so ANY and every source is technically an increase.First, the darkness in the universe doesn't prevent light sources from increasing the light level.
Second, once a star has 'ignited', increasing the light level around it, it then spends millions of years not 'increasing' the light level significantly, just maintaining the light level, more or less.
See there is the mistake you are making, that star is still constantly increasing the light level. Every instant of it's existence it is generating an illumination which GOES AWAY the following instant. The "Light" it's creating shoots out into the universe 186,000 miles per second raising the illumination where ever it lands leaving darkness behind it.
The star then generates new light and illuminating that darkness again.Remember, "light" is a particle, it only brightens the small area around it but since it's in motion it doesn't last very long.
Anything that generates illumination does it in series bursts of light with short periods of darkness in between. Just because that dark period is too short for YOU to see doesn't mean it isn't there. This is what the rules are technically showing you, a light source is constantly increasing the illumination level, the frequency of it's emission determines how high it can possibly increase that level.
I think it's not unreasonable to say that any interpretation which can produce stripes is wrong. :/
I will, however, say that any interpretation that requires a degree in astrophysics is wrong. :/
Seriously, guys. The sun isn't defined as any kind of light, magical or mundane, in the rules. Just GM handwave it already.
|
|
The normal light level of the universe and everything in it is DARK (Darkness is the absence of something, namely light) so ANY and every source is technically an increase.First, the darkness in the universe doesn't prevent light sources from increasing the light level.
Second, once a star has 'ignited', increasing the light level around it, it then spends millions of years not 'increasing' the light level significantly, just maintaining the light level, more or less.
See there is the mistake you are making, that star is still constantly increasing the light level. Every instant of it's existence it is generating an illumination which GOES AWAY the following instant. The "Light" it's creating shoots out into the universe 186,000 miles per second raising the illumination where ever it lands leaving darkness behind it.
The star then generates new light and illuminating that darkness again.
Remember, "light" is a particle, it only brightens the small area around it but since it's in motion it doesn't last very long.Anything that generates illumination does it in series bursts of light with short periods of darkness in between. Just because that dark period is too short for YOU to see doesn't mean it isn't there. This is what the rules are technically showing you, a light source is constantly increasing the illumination level, the frequency of it's emission determines how high it can possibly increase that level.
No.
I'm not saying 'no' to your physics, I'm saying 'no' to your application of the rules.
Stars generate light, among other things. But that light generation does something in the rules: it sets a light 'level', something which is a game construct, not physics!
In the game, the light 'levels' are:-
Superdark<dark<dim<normal<bright
There is no real world equivalent.
We do not disagree about how stars generate light, in terms of real world physics. But that knowledge is simply not required. All that is required is to understand what light 'level' is maintained by the light generated by the star.
For the timescales of the game, the sun generates a constant amount of light, but how that light affects the local light 'level' is dependent on a number of factors, such as time of day, cloud conditions, indoors/outdoors/underground, darkness spells, etc.
The sun, being non-magical, can generate all the light it wants, but can never increase the light 'level' in within the dark radiance of a darkness spell.
The complaint that creatures with Darkvision and a torch are unaffected~ by deeper darkness is the argument against my current position that I find most compelling. The others do not move me.
|
|
The complaint that creatures with Darkvision and a torch are unaffected~ by deeper darkness is the argument against my current position that I find most compelling. The others do not move me.
If the designers' intent were to make it superdark no matter the ambient light, then why would they bother with the whole 'reduce the light level by two steps' thing?
They could have said that the dark radiance is superdark that can't change while the radiance is there.
They didn't. They chose to go the 'light level' route, and that is the part that PF specifically re-wrote.
I just wish they had also re-written 'non-magical light sources cannot increase the light level' part, into something that wouldn't generate a thread based on that ambiguity.
P.S.S. I have $40 dollars riding on this with wrath
I see what you mean...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would this discussion be easier if the description of the spell said "existing light" instead of "ambient light"?
If we re-read the spell making that one substitution, does it make it easier to understand what the spell does?
I see this as a simple matter of making the existing lighting in the area two "steps" darker. Any existing light sources remain lit up but just don't have any illuminating effect until the spell wears off. New light sources that enter the area will have no effect (non-magical) or might raise the light (magical of sufficient level).
Any other interpretation seems to be making the spell too powerful (extinguishing existing light, even putting out fires) or too weak (unusable in daylight).
Yeah, yeah, I get the point that we're quibbling over a poorly worded spell, that the CRB wording is weak, and that every DM is going to have to figure this one out on his own for now.
But the real question is, what do we want darkness spells to do?
For me the answer is simple:
Darkness: lower the existing light by one step
Deeper Darkness: lower the existing light by two steps
Easy peasy.