RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nefreet, you really need to re-read the text on those descriptors. People aren't ignoring them, we're pointing out that they don't say what you appear to believe they say.
There is no general rule anywhere that a spell with the light descriptor can dispel a spell with the darkness descriptor (or vice-versa). Nowhere. Not even in those things you referenced so many times. Re-read them. They don't say that.
Additionally, those descriptors don't say that spells with the opposite descriptor can dispel them. Your earlier comment about apples would be relevant if the light descriptor, for instance, said "Giving a spell the light descriptor indicates whether a spell with the darkness descriptor (like darkness) is high enough level counter or dispel it."
But it doesn't. It makes no reference to the darkness descriptor being able to categorically dispel it.
There is no general rule that spells with the light or darkness descriptor can dispel each other just by virtue of having those descriptors.
Please, re-read those descriptors—carefully, slowly—before continuing to assert that they're being ignored.
|
Ok, I have Continual Flame cast on Mistmail armor.
I command the armor to become mist... does the light go out? Do I appear to be "on fire" ("Hot" I am already, wink), or is the mist "flaming mist"? Or ... what?
It doesn't matter what the answer is - it's about the role play whatever the answer is (unless it's a "...what?" - but even then I'd like to know so I can consider how to react to it...).
Thanks in advance for your answers!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
There are a few reason for recording the spell level and caster level of your Continual Flame:
1) Spell Level determines how the spell interacts with Darkness effects for determining which one is suppressed; spell level for Continual Flame changes based upon the base-class casting it and the possibility of a Heighten Spell metamagic feat
2) Caster Level is important for figuring out the caster level needed to dispel the effect. While you mentioned Darkness spells used to dispel require a touch attack, Dispel Magic can be done range, and you need to know the caster level of the Continual Flame to determine the Dispel DC.
3) Should your Continual Flame be dispelled (not merely suppressed), it is gone and will need to be purchased again; mark it off your ITS.
4) If a player fails to record onto their Chronicle Sheet/ITS the spell level and caster level of a Continual Flame cast by another player, then we as GMs have to assume minimum caster level from the wizard spell list (caster level 3, spell level 2) meaning a Dispel Magic caster level check of 14.
|
|
There are a few reason for recording the spell level and caster level of your Continual Flame:
1) Spell Level determines how the spell interacts with Darkness effects for determining which one is suppressed; spell level for Continual Flame changes based upon the base-class casting it and the possibility of a Heighten Spell metamagic feat
2) Caster Level is important for figuring out the caster level needed to dispel the effect. While you mentioned Darkness spells used to dispel require a touch attack, Dispel Magic can be done range, and you need to know the caster level of the Continual Flame to determine the Dispel DC.
3) Should your Continual Flame be dispelled (not merely suppressed), it is gone and will need to be purchased again; mark it off your ITS.
4) If a player fails to record onto their Chronicle Sheet/ITS the spell level and caster level of a Continual Flame cast by another player, then we as GMs have to assume minimum caster level from the wizard spell list (caster level 3, spell level 2) meaning a Dispel Magic caster level check of 14.
+1, in general, but I would like to point out a situation where a darkness or deeper darkness spell does not need to be applied as a melee touch attack. That case, since we are already accepting that Heighten is available, would be for a Reach enabled spell. That moves the spell range for darkness or deeper darkness to close instead of touch.
Which is also one of the reasons why my PC who actually has a Heightened (to SL5, CL12) continual flame applied to a dull grey Ioun stone, so it appears to all intents as though it were an Ioun torch, he also has an Ioun torch, as well. That gives his good anti-darkness torch its own version of a mirror image.
|
+1, in general, but I would like to point out a situation where a darkness or deeper darkness spell does not need to be applied as a melee touch attack. That case, since we are already accepting that Heighten is available, would be for a Reach enabled spell. That moves the spell range for darkness or deeper darkness to close instead of touch.
What are the odds of this though? You would need someone with a darkness spell, heighten spell feat, reach spell, AND written tactics to permanently destroy a PCs item.
|
+1, in general, but I would like to point out a situation where a darkness or deeper darkness spell does not need to be applied as a melee touch attack. That case, since we are already accepting that Heighten is available, would be for a Reach enabled spell. That moves the spell range for darkness or deeper darkness to close instead of touch.What are the odds of this though? You would need someone with a darkness spell, heighten spell feat, reach spell, AND written tactics to permanently destroy a PCs item.
There is a scenario with a high caster level dispel magic that specifically goes after light sources though.
|
|
+1, in general, but I would like to point out a situation where a darkness or deeper darkness spell does not need to be applied as a melee touch attack. That case, since we are already accepting that Heighten is available, would be for a Reach enabled spell. That moves the spell range for darkness or deeper darkness to close instead of touch.What are the odds of this though? You would need someone with a darkness spell, heighten spell feat, reach spell, AND written tactics to permanently destroy a PCs item.
Not quite. All you would need is deeper darkness, Reach, and the tactics. Against a standard Ioun Torch or Everburning Torch, that would destroy it, at least in PFS.
I could easily see it happening in some higher level scenarios, especially if they were written by
After all, he has at least one scenario that has sub-tier 1-2 in it, with a 3rd level negative channeling cleric, whose stated tactics are to channel as much as possible. When not casting blindness and cause fear, of course. 6 channels, one undead, so she can channel to heal the undead, if it needs it, or to harm the PCs.
|
Nefreet, you really need to re-read the text on those descriptors. People aren't ignoring them, we're pointing out that they don't say what you appear to believe they say.
There is no general rule anywhere that a spell with the light descriptor can dispel a spell with the darkness descriptor (or vice-versa). Nowhere. Not even in those things you referenced so many times. Re-read them. They don't say that.
Additionally, those descriptors don't say that spells with the opposite descriptor can dispel them. Your earlier comment about apples would be relevant if the light descriptor, for instance, said "Giving a spell the light descriptor indicates whether a spell with the darkness descriptor (like darkness) is high enough level counter or dispel it."
But it doesn't. It makes no reference to the darkness descriptor being able to categorically dispel it.
There is no general rule that spells with the light or darkness descriptor can dispel each other just by virtue of having those descriptors.
Please, re-read those descriptors—carefully, slowly—before continuing to assert that they're being ignored.
I've been chewing on this over the weekend.
I really, really don't like that interpretation. The light and darkness rules are such a mess. I read your lengthy post on the matter as well. It seems the Designers don't even know what they're thinking.
And it's absolutely silly that a 3rd level light spell can dispel a 9th level darkness effect.
There is such a simple way to handle this: light/darkness effects dispel equal or lower level darkness/light effects. One sentence. Easy peasy. That's the common sense interpretation. It's how I've been ruling encounters for as long as I can remember, for D&D and Pathfinder, and I've never had a problem with it.
The whole "issue" is absolutely absurd to me.
|
"The whole "issue" is absolutely absurd to me."
But an issue nonetheless. In your homebrew, feel free to do whatever. But you can't make such a ruling for PFS, as it blatantly goes against RAW.
"Common sense" is a bit of a misnomer, because everyone's "common sense" is different.
The light/darkness rules DO need a rewrite to address these interaction problem. Because if you parse the English of what they have written, Jiggy is 100% correct.
"I've never had a problem with it."
The text of daylight is specifically independent of spell level. So it will negate (not dispel) even a level 9 magical darkness effect. You then revert back to ambient light, which is often darkness anyway. YMMV on whether mundane sources work in the overlap. Yay for GM fiat! But it is clear from the text that with daylight, comparing spell levels means nothing.
"And it's absolutely silly that a 3rd level light spell can dispel a 9th level darkness effect."
I'd just like to point out that in most circumstances, it is just a touch range surrogate for dispel magic. Dispel magic can also dispel a 9th level darkness effect. But the light based spell can ONLY dispel darkness effects and even then, ONLY those that have the appropriate text enabling them to do so. Furthermore, light spells seem to all be limited to dispelling or countering spells of EQUAL or LOWER level.
|
|
Yeah, daylight only counters and dispels equal or lower level darkness spells. But it suppresses ANY darkness effect regardless of level because of its special text. I'll edit my above message.
This text:
"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."
There is no level qualification on this statement.
|
|
@Nefreet - There must be something you're still misunderstanding, because no, a 3rd-level light spell cannot dispel a 9th-level darkness 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.
So it doesn't matter if the 17th level enemy Witch casts Polar Midnight, all you need is a 5th level Cleric (or a 1st level Aasimar) to save the party with Daylight.
I find that utterly ridiculous.
|
|
"So it doesn't matter if the 17th level enemy Witch casts Polar Midnight, all you need is a 5th level Cleric to save the party with Daylight.
I find that utterly ridiculous."
I agree that daylight is an incredible double-edged sword. While it can negate polar midnight, it also has an IDENTICAL effect on level 2 darkness. So my daylight spell, even if heightened to 9th level, stops working in an area of level 2 darkness. Daylight is one of the most bizarre mechanics on the entire spell library.
This peculiarity of daylight is one of the big reasons I say that darkvision is the most undercosted effect in the ARG. The default lighting in so many situations is "darkness" and often, casting daylight just results is said regular darkness. GM fiat can allow sunrods to start working again, though. But not necessarily.
This is also why heightened continual flames are such a thing, because heightening daylight ONLY affects the counter/dispel clause, which almost never comes up, because counter requires a prepared action and dispel is touch range. It does not help daylight's suppression effect.
I've had several tables get more than they bargained for when because they assumed their daylight would straight up trump darkness. It doesn't.
Also, after reading polar midnight, this spell does not even function well as a darkness effect. First off, it's cap is regular darkness. Secondly, it lacks the critical language of the other darkness spells that disallow mundane light sources from functioning.
This is the relevant text: "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness"
Note that light-based spells do NOT have reciprocal language in any way. Even further, there is nothing under the darkness descriptor that implies that this language is a general rule for darkness spells, so we are forced to conclude that a regular sunrod works just fine in polar midnight areas. The darkness effect is NOT why this spell is 9th level. It's because it causes no-save damage and will freeze you solid.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Nefreet - There must be something you're still misunderstanding, because no, a 3rd-level light spell cannot dispel a 9th-level darkness 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.So it doesn't matter if the 17th level enemy Witch casts Polar Midnight, all you need is a 5th level Cleric (or a 1st level Aasimar) to save the party with Daylight.
I find that utterly ridiculous.
That is not dispelling.