@Jiggy
Remind me never to get in an argument with you. Or more pointedly, remind me never to get in an argument against you. I wouldn't mind being in an argument with you, if you and I were on the same side of the argument. =P
Bump for FAQ hits.
Other than sun, moon, stars, etc, what examples in Paizo products are there of non-point light sources (vs. having a radius)?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Other than sun, moon, stars, etc, what examples in Paizo products are there of non-point light sources (vs. having a radius)?
I've seen a number of rooms described as having something (anything from mysterious runes to metal spikes) covering all the walls and bathing the area in X light level.
Official Rules Response
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ updated with clarification: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ne9
Darkness: Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?
No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light. In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level (the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on), and then reduces it one step.
Thank you for the clarification! This will help out adjudication a lot.
Thanks a bunch, design team!
The Design Team makes me so happy today.
|
Just to make sure I've got this darkness thing down:
Assume a group was walking through an underground labyrinth in which a party member was carrying a sunrod. If an enemy cast darkness on the sunrod, the ambient natural light level would be no light, though those with darkvision could still see.
Furthermore, if person A was on one end of a long hallway (assuming deep undergound), and person B with a sunrod was on the other end of the same hallway, if a darkness spell was dropped between the two people, person A would not be able to see the light from person B.
Did I get it all right?
Ok, so the next question: does luminescent moss count as ambient light or is ambient light limited to just the Sun, Moon, and Stars? :)
*ducks*
- Gauss
It's Natural!
Are there any other light source creatures that we can shove in a bag?
Edit: Nevermind. Totally misread your post!
Is firelight natural?
You mean like a torch?
For what it's worth, the moon isn't a "light source" at all. It's just a reflection. It's OK though, even the Holy Bible got that one wrong.
It is interesting to think that I could bring a dozen sunrods into darkness and couldn't see a thing, but I could use a hand mirror to reflect the light of a signle tiny itty bitty star and see it in the darkness, assuming my eyesight is a little better than a human's.
I thought the Daylight spell says it all:
"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.
Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
So, when Daylight interacts with a higher level Darkness spell, then it will be temporarily negated (I wish they had said "suppressed" like they do in many other similar situations) until one of the spells ends. When it interacts with an equal or lower level Darkness spell, it wipes that spell out and is not negated since the Daylight is then the only spell in the area.
So, in your first two examples, the Daylight spell dispels the Darkness because it's higher level. In your third example, the Darkness is countered as it is cast because it is lower level.
|
I thought the Daylight spell says it all:
"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.
Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
So, when Daylight interacts with a higher level Darkness spell, then it will be temporarily negated (I wish they had said "suppressed" like they do in many other similar situations) until one of the spells ends. When it interacts with an equal or lower level Darkness spell, it wipes that spell out and is not negated since the Daylight is then the only spell in the area.
So, in your first two examples, the Daylight spell dispels the Darkness because it's higher level. In your third example, the Darkness is countered as it is cast because it is lower level.
I wish it said what you think it said! How you understand it makes perfect sense, and is indeed how I rule it at my table.
Unfortunately, that is not what the spell description says! Look again:-
"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.
The relative levels of the two spells are not relevant. A daylight spell (3rd level) brought into an area of magical darkness (of whatever level; higher or lower) is temporarily negated.
Making it even worse, when this happens 'the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist'. Assuming this is underground (isn't it always?) then there is absolutely no ambient light (as recently defined en passent by the design team as sun-moon-starlight) and is therefore completely dark!
What about all the torches? Tough! Torches cannot raise the light level in an area of magical darkness.
But the darkness has been 'temporarily negated', right? I wish! But look again; the daylight has been negated, but it says nothing about the darkness! Although the 'otherwise prevailing light conditions exist', the darkness spell has not been negated and still prevents non-magical light sources from increasing the level of illumination.
This is why the whole thing is FUBAR. This is why we all have and use our own house rules, and why our house rules all differ from one another, creating such division.
Actually, it is not beyond redemption. What should happen is similar to what they did with the polymorph school. Have a section in the Magic chapter of the CRB going through how light descriptor and dark descriptor spells interact. One of the design goals should be that, when an area of light radiance and an area of dark radiance intersect, then the lower level spell is completely supressed in the intersecting area while still working normally in any part of its area that is not intersecting the area of the higher level radiance. If the spells are of equal level then both spells are supressed. In any situation where magical darkness is supressed, non-magical light sources do their normal job, unhindered by the supressed darkness.
Much as I wish it, this is not the situation now. Now, a second level darkness spell 'temporarily negates' a heightened to ninth level daylight spell, and still prevents non-magical light sources from increasing the level of illumination from its ambient state of total darkness!
RAW, darkness is inexplicably more powerful than light, and this is wrong! The only factor which should determine which is most powerful should be the level of the spell!
[/rant]
Some enterprising pathfinder is going to have a huge stack of mirrors in their bag of holding. As they move through the cave they will set them up at angles to light the cave with sun/moon light. Darkness has been defeated......again.
|
|
I wish I could persuade my DM of that!
It can certainly be read as meaning that the daylight is 'temporarily negated' but the darkness is not!
Furthermore, darkness spells have two effects:-
1) reduce the light level
2) prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the light level
In the above situation, the light level becomes 'the otherwise prevailing conditions', but since the darkness spell is not negated then it's ability it prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the level of illumination still applies.
My DM says this is RAW. It is at the very least ambiguous and as such needs fixing, so that threads like this won't appear.
|
|
I wish I could persuade my DM of that!
It can certainly be read as meaning that the daylight is 'temporarily negated' but the darkness is not!
Furthermore, darkness spells have two effects:-
1) reduce the light level
2) prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the light level
In the above situation, the light level becomes 'the otherwise prevailing conditions', but since the darkness spell is not negated then it's ability it prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the level of illumination still applies.
My DM says this is RAW. It is at the very least ambiguous and as such needs fixing, so that threads like this won't appear.
There's no problem here. Behold!
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.
Let's cash out that "vice versa". It would be:
[Magical darkness] brought into an area of [daylight] (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
Boom! Problem solved. The darkness spell is (temporarily) negated along with the daylight spell. The area of overlap works as if neither had been cast. Torches, sunrods, light spells, and all the rest go back to providing illumination.
I see how your DM got to his interpretation, but once you work out the "vice versa," that interpretation can't stand. It's poorly worded, but it's not, ultimately, ambiguous.
[Also: hooray for the design team! These FAQs are very helpful. We might finally be at an end of the great darkness debates ...]
|
|
Even if your DM is generous enough to rule that both spells are negated, there remains the other problem.
I'm in a lightless underground space. I cast daylight, heightened to ninth level!
The baddies cast darkness (2nd level) on an item each carries. They swarm the poor fool who thinks that a ninth level light spell will save him.
Within each intersecting area (even with a generous, mutually-negating ruling) the light level is as if neither spell were active, leaving it pitch black!
So, a 2nd level darkness spell negates a ninth level light spell.
I know this is RAW, but is it only me that thinks this situation is utterly wrong?
|
|
Even if your DM is generous enough to rule that both spells are negated, there remains the other problem.
It isn't a matter of generosity. The text is not ambiguous, just poorly worded.
I'm in a lightless underground space. I cast daylight, heightened to ninth level!
The baddies cast darkness (2nd level) on an item each carries. They swarm the poor fool who thinks that a ninth level light spell will save him.
Within each intersecting area (even with a generous, mutually-negating ruling) the light level is as if neither spell were active, leaving it pitch black!
Unless there's some other source of light in addition to the (no-longer-providing-light) Daylight spell. Any other source of light will do.
So, a 2nd level darkness spell negates a ninth level light spell.
I know this is RAW, but is it only me that thinks this situation is utterly wrong?
Sure, that seems wrong. I'd rule otherwise. But that is RAW, and at least we now have a pretty good understanding of what RAW is, thanks to the FAQ clarifications.
|
|
I wish I could persuade my DM of that!
It can certainly be read as meaning that the daylight is 'temporarily negated' but the darkness is not!
Furthermore, darkness spells have two effects:-
1) reduce the light level
2) prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the light level
In the above situation, the light level becomes 'the otherwise prevailing conditions', but since the darkness spell is not negated then it's ability it prevent non-magical light sources from increasing the level of illumination still applies.
My DM says this is RAW. It is at the very least ambiguous and as such needs fixing, so that threads like this won't appear.
There's no problem here. Behold!
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.Let's cash out that "vice versa". It would be:
[Magical darkness] brought into an area of [daylight] (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.Boom! Problem solved. The darkness spell is (temporarily) negated along with the daylight spell. The area of overlap works as if neither had been cast. Torches, sunrods, light spells, and all the rest go back to providing illumination.
I see how your DM got to his interpretation, but once you work out the "vice versa," that interpretation can't stand. It's poorly worded, but it's not, ultimately, ambiguous.
Sadly you could also read that "vice versa" as "Whichever spell is brought into the area of the other is negated, the one that was already in effect remaining."
I think that's clearly not the intent, but others could disagree.
I agree that that's clearly not the intent. I'm not interested in arguing with somebody who would maintain such a strained reading. It seems to me difficult to maintain that reading out of anything other than contentiousness.
I thought the Daylight spell says it all:
"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.
Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
So, when Daylight interacts with a higher level Darkness spell, then it will be temporarily negated (I wish they had said "suppressed" like they do in many other similar situations) until one of the spells ends. When it interacts with an equal or lower level Darkness spell, it wipes that spell out and is not negated since the Daylight is then the only spell in the area.
So, in your first two examples, the Daylight spell dispels the Darkness because it's higher level. In your third example, the Darkness is countered as it is cast because it is lower level.
I wish it said what you think it said! How you understand it makes perfect sense, and is indeed how I rule it at my table.
Unfortunately, that is not what the spell description says! Look again:-
"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.The relative levels of the two spells are not relevant. A daylight spell (3rd level) brought into an area of magical darkness (of whatever level; higher or lower) is temporarily negated.
You cannot just read one of those two lines and ignore the other.
"counters" is what happens when you interrupt a spell as it is being cast. "dispels" is what happens when you get rid of a spell that is already in existence.
It specifically says "Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness."
So the lower level darkness spell is dispelled and therefore does not exist. Since it does not exist, it does not temporarily negate the Daylight - for it to do that, the Darkness spell must be higher level than the Daylight spell so that it is not immediately dispelled.
So, when Daylight interacts with a higher level Darkness spell, then it will be temporarily negated (I wish they had said "suppressed" like they do in many other similar situations) until one of the spells ends. When it interacts with an equal or lower level Darkness spell, it wipes that spell out and is not negated since the Daylight is then the only spell in the area.That sounds very much like the view of it I personally hold. However, the fact of the matter is that the specifics of what is meant by suppressed, countered, dispelled are all unfortunately vague. Which is why one faces discussion such as the above when the subject is brought up. And why I feel it is important to get clarification.
I would agree, but "temporarily negated", while requiring a little DM interpretation, is fairly clear. Negated means it is not in effect, temporary means it still exists and will resume effect, logically, when the darkness can no longer temporarily negate it (i.e. when the darkness expires or is otherwise dispelled).
They certainly could have been more consistent with terminology.
|
|
This FAQ might be relevant:
Dispelling: If I use a "diametrically opposed" spell to dispel another spell (bless vs. bane, haste vs. slow, and so on), does my spell have any effect other than dispelling?
No, all of your spell is used to counter all of the targeted spell, there is no "spillover" from your spell that you can apply to your allies.
For example, if an enemy sorcerer's slow spell affects your fighter ally, and you cast haste as a dispel on slow, the slow ends and nobody gains haste. The same would be true regardless of how many of your allies were affected by that slow spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People shouldn't be allowed to even discuss how light/darkness effects interact until they've read the last sentence of bless, bane, cause fear, remove fear, haste, and slow and can explain in detail what they all mean and how to run them.
When someone in a light/darkness discussion demonstrates that they're not at that point, it makes me want to just stop talking right then and not bother.