To dispel darkness, you can use a spell of a suficient level that has le Light subtype : even the Light cantrip, if heightened at the appropriate level can dispel any darkness spell.
Light Lance has this subtype but its range is only personal, so I don't think that you can dispel a darkness as you can target the darkness spell with it.
Barbarian's spell sunder.
*Reading the title* *prepares movie announcer voice*:
"The Hopes and Dreams of the Children, forged by the Bonds of Friendship that will last a lifetime, that Inspires Generations to come"
Paying a random NPC wizard to cast continual flame on a necklace or something is a nice, 110 gold option (50 material+ [2nd level spell x caster level 3]x10) that works for everybody else until things like greater darkness comes around.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Paying a random NPC wizard to cast continual flame on a necklace or something is a nice, 110 gold option (50 material+ [2nd level spell x caster level 3]x10) that works for everybody else until things like greater darkness comes around.
Someone needs to re-read darkness.
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
(Bolding mine.)
2 is not higher than 2.
Someone needs to re-read continual flame.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Bolding mine...but this does bring up a weird problem....Which rule do we go with?
I'd imagine that it would just counter and leave light levels at their original level. Which might still be a huge advantage to the opponents if you could only see in the first place due to the torch-like light of the flame.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Someone needs to re-read continual flame.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.Bolding mine...but this does bring up a weird problem....Which rule do we go with?
You go with knowing the difference between raising the light level in the area and dispelling a spell.
Read the last lines of haste, slow, bless, bane, cause fear, remove fear, and a few others I can't remember. When you understand those, you'll see where you went wrong with your "carry a continual flame" suggestion. ;)
EDIT: Don't forget to read the FAQ about dispelling diametrically-opposed spells, too! :D
Ok, I'll admit, I mostly play martials and have little experience with light conditions, so my experience is a bit iffy.
Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light level, and it is a rather cheap, one time purchase that replaces torches. If used on something small enough, it could be hidden and kept on your person for emergencies. It is useful for classes that lack the light cantrip (such as our paladin friend in the original post).
EDIT: I am not that familiar with the FAQs concerning spells either, and that page can be a bit hard to navigate. Link? EDIT2: Found it...but it still doesn't make much sense. Do you mean that I would have to cast continual flame on the spot to prevent darkness? That seems...a bit obtuse. So, does continual flame have any real use then other than as a mere torch?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light level
Afraid not. Your 2nd-level continual flame will have no effect within the area of darkness, and the lowering of the light level in the area by one step will be applied without said light source.
So if you're outside on a moonlit night (natural dim light), using a 2nd-level continual flame to raise it to normal light, darkness will first negate your spell's effects (defaulting to dim light) and then lower the resulting light level by one step to dark.
EDIT: In the upper-right corner of every page of the Paizo website, there's a small "Help/FAQ" link.
According to Bruce Cockburn—and later the Bare Naked Ladies—you don't have to dispel it: just kick at it 'til it bleeds daylight. ;)
Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light levelAfraid not. Your 2nd-level continual flame will have no effect within the area of darkness, and the lowering of the light level in the area by one step will be applied without said light source.
So if you're outside on a moonlit night (natural dim light), using a 2nd-level continual flame to raise it to normal light, darkness will first negate your spell's effects (defaulting to dim light) and then lower the resulting light level by one step to dark.
EDIT: In the upper-right corner of every page of the Paizo website, there's a small "Help/FAQ" link.
Found it and was writing about it before your post (I know where the FAQ section is, I just find it a bit hard to navigate, since it is done by book, and I didn't initially realize 'diametrically opposed' was a specific term that could be used for a search)...but it still doesn't make much sense. Do you mean that I would have to cast continual flame on the spot to prevent darkness? That seems...a bit obtuse. I am glad I stick to martials.
So, does continual flame have any real use then other than as a mere torch?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you mean that I would have to cast continual flame on the spot to prevent darkness? That seems...a bit obtuse.
In order to DISPEL darkness, yes, because continual flame has a range of "touch" and spells use their own range when used to dispel. There's an existing mechanic that any spell with an "opposite" can counter or dispel its opposite, and some of them get more benefit from that mechanic than others due to different ranges. Nothing "obtuse" about it.
So, does continual flame have any real use then other than as a mere torch?
Did you think it was supposed to?
In any case, if you Heighten it, it becomes a strong anti-darkness measure. (Also, the cleric version of the spell is 3rd-level, making it work against non-deeper darkness without needing Heighten Spell.)
Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light levelAfraid not. Your 2nd-level continual flame will have no effect within the area of darkness, and the lowering of the light level in the area by one step will be applied without said light source.
So if you're outside on a moonlit night (natural dim light), using a 2nd-level continual flame to raise it to normal light, darkness will first negate your spell's effects (defaulting to dim light) and then lower the resulting light level by one step to dark.
You argument that it first counters, and then further dims does not make much sense either. That means I could cast continual flame in an area of darkness, counter it, and then increase the light level to bright. Counter means that neither spell works according the FAQ you cited.
By this logic, one should never bother trying to counter a magical source of light. Darkness seems overpowered if it can both cancel a magical light of the same level and continue to function.
Overall, I'll admit, that I have a poor grasp on all this spell specifics, but I am starting to feel that the writers didn't either. It certainly is not very intuitive at least. So I am stepping out of this frequent post argument. The whole edit thing we were doing there for a minute got complicated. So adieu.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You argument that it first counters, and then further dims does not make much sense either. By that logic, I could cast continual flame in an area of darkness, counter it, and then increase the light level to bright. Counter means that neither spell works according the FAQ you cited.Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light levelAfraid not. Your 2nd-level continual flame will have no effect within the area of darkness, and the lowering of the light level in the area by one step will be applied without said light source.
So if you're outside on a moonlit night (natural dim light), using a 2nd-level continual flame to raise it to normal light, darkness will first negate your spell's effects (defaulting to dim light) and then lower the resulting light level by one step to dark.
Where in my post did I say anything was countering anything?
Darkness seems overpowered if it can both cancel a magical light of the same level and continue to function.
On the other hand, darkness is completely trumped by darkvision (which, if your race doesn't have it, is a mere 300gp as a potion). Still sound overpowered?
Overall, I'll admit, that I have a poor grasp on all this, but I am starting to feel that the writers didn't either. It certainly is not very intuitive at least.
It's far more intuitive if you're careful not to conflate "counter", "dispel", and more generic descriptions of effect.
So I am stepping out of this frequent post argument. The whole edit thing we were doing there for a minute got complicated. So adieu.
Fair enough, happy gaming. :)
Meh. Heighten Contiual Flame into a fourth level spell and cast on something.
Remember, to counter a spell, you have to be readying an action whent he spell is cast. So there is no way to counter a spell that is already in effect.
I think we all got past the idea of specifically counter spelling and we were all going with negating its effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Missile?
That always baffled me as well. The darkness spell is supposed to lower the light level, but the vast majority of the time the current light level is based on non-magical light sources such as a torch, a campfire, the sun, and so on.
Darkness vs Continual Flame.
If the continual flame and darkness spell effects interact in an overlapping area, darkness wins. The effect of Continual Flame is completely negated in this overlapping area, and the effect of darkness takes full effect. Both spells remain active for their full durations.
If darkness is active, a caster can cast continual flame to dispel the darkness spell. The casting of continual flame never manifests as a flame or source of light, it simply undoes the darkness spell, now there is no spell active.
If a continual flame spell is active, a caster can cast darkness to dispel continual flame. The casting of darkness never manifests as a area of lower light, it simply undoes the continual flame spell, now there is no spell active.
Darkness vs Continual Flame. Continued.
If the Continual Flame spell is cast by a cleric as a 3rd level spell, or is heightened to 3rd level, then it plays out differently.
When the two spells have an area of overlapping effect, the 3rd level continual flame suppresses the effects of the darkness spell, and increases the lighting in its area as normal. Both spells remain active (even if one is suppressed) for their normal durations.
Darkness cannot be used to dispel this 3rd level continual flame. The 3rd level flame can still be used to dispel darkness as normal.
Darkness vs Continual Flame. Continued. Again.
If darkness is heightened to level 3, vs a 3rd level continual flame from either a divine caster or a heightened 3rd level arcane version, it functions the same way the level 2 vs level 2 functions. In overlapping areas, darkness wins. And either can be used to dispel the other.
This continues to be the case on up the line. A 5th level darkness trumps a 5th level continual flame. Either can be used to dispel the other. But a 6th level continual flame trumps a 5th level darkness.
This is true for almost every Light Vs Dark spell. There is one exception worth talking about, that changes everything….
Daylight Vs Darkness spells.
Daylight. It is a game changer. Daylight suppresses ‘any’ darkness spell in overlapping areas.
This means that any area that Daylight overlaps with any darkness spell of equal or higher level is in its original lighting condition. If it is noon it is bright, if dusk it is dim, star light night is Dark. Etc. Basically, the Daylight causes the darkness spell to stop working, and the darkness spell causes the daylight to stop working, in the overlapping areas.
Heightened to level 9 deeper darkness spell? Daylight negates it in any overlapping area, and is also negated. The overlapping area is normal lighting.
This makes daylight an often go to anti-darkness spell. Because a regular torch and a daylight spell gives you all the regular light you need.
I just had a character die from a vamp sorcerer with a deeper darkness... so... I brushed up on my light vs dark rules. >.<
Which to me is a completely intuitive result: Darkness makes your little torches and weaker light spells go away and lowers the normal lighting by a step.
It's only when you start parsing "non-magical sources" too finely that you start arguing "But the Sun really isn't magical so ..."
Yes. You have to think in terms that there are 3 types of light sources. Magical, Non-Magical, and Ambient.
The only area I would still be curious about, personally, would be Supernatural Light effects. It would be hard to fit them into the magical category's rules, because they don't have spell levels. They're clearly not Non-Magical, but they're not exactly ambient either... although that seems the only place to fit them in without extraneous errata.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Darkness vs Continual Flame. Continued.
If the Continual Flame spell is cast by a cleric as a 3rd level spell, or is heightened to 3rd level, then it plays out differently.
When the two spells have an area of overlapping effect, the 3rd level continual flame suppresses the effects of the darkness spell, and increases the lighting in its area as normal. Both spells remain active (even if one is suppressed) for their normal durations.
Where are you seeing language suggesting that darkness is "suppressed"?