| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How does the glitterdust spell interact with darkness spells?
If it had the light descriptor it would be clear. Only higher level light spells penetrate darkness spells.
For Example: The party is in a forest with dim light below the dense canopy. BBEG casts deeper darkness, which the party follows up with glitterdust.
Is the BBEG now visibly outlined because glitterdust sais so and it is no light spell that would be suppressed by deeper darkness? What about the blind effect?
Or would it not work BECAUSE it is no light spell? I have read someone's post claiming that a high level light generating spell without the light descriptor would not produce light within a darkness spell because only [light] spells can overcome darkness/deeper darkness.
The spell in question in the sidequestion was fire shield which states giving off light like a candle but lacks the light descriptor.
The "normal" interactions of light- and darkness- spells are explained here:
The Problem is they only talk about nonmagical light sources and light spells. But not about magical light sources that are not light spells.
It doesn't interact with darkness at all. It just does what it says it does no less and no more.
That is specifically outlining invisible things, applying the blind condition and imposing a -40 to stealth checks.
Glitterdust is not a light source. It sparkles, it doesn't illuminate.
Darkness or deeper darkness provides concealment as normal, but if you try to use that concealment to make a stealth check you take a -40 to the check.
Makes sense.
What would you say about light generating spells without the light descriptor? Like fire shield.
When casting this spell, you appear to immolate yourself, but the flames are thin and wispy, increasing the light level within 10 feet by one step, up to normal light. The color of the flames is blue or green if the chill shield is cast, violet or red if the warm shield is employed. The special powers of each version are as follows.
Fireshield is not a [light] spell, so it isn't countered/dispelled by nor can it counter/dispel [darkness] spells. So that interaction is right out.
It isn't a non-magical light source so it won't be automatically extinguished.
I would apply effects simultaneously. In an area of ambient dim light you have deeper darkness reducing light by 2 levels and fireshield raises it by one to darkness within 10'.
If you were just within a darkness spell ambient light would prevail within the 10'.
Apply the maximum "up to normal light" at the end of the calculation. There are a few corner cases where applying it sequentially in different orders might give a different outcomes, but I favour simplicity where possible and it's not worth worrying about.
Do I get this right that the one with Fireshield can see and be seen with normal vision (no matter how brightly) within those 10' in the area of the lesser darkness spell, but not beyond those 10' where complete darkness persists?
The -40 to the stealth check bugs me, though. Okay, it's RAW, but with no light to reflect, how can the glitter influence stealth in an area of complete magical darkness if it isn't a light source itself?
Isn't countering a [darkness] spell a removal of the darkness in a certain area or completely, when cast on the point of origin, and not merely a reduction of its impairment?
The -40 to the stealth check bugs me, though. Okay, it's RAW, but with no light to reflect, how can the glitter influence stealth in an area of complete magical darkness if it isn't a light source itself?
It just sparkles enough that you can pinpoint the square, but not enough to remove the benefits of concealment. Magical darkness mostly just lowers ambient light, it's not the traditional sphere of inky darkness. More of a magical dimmer switch!
And on a re-read of the blog I think I am wrong above on how it interacts with darkness spells. My revised opinion:
First it is not a light spell so no countering/dispelling, that bit stands true (read step 4 of the blog - counter and dispel are distinct actions that are more than just bringing a light source into an area of darkness).
You should follow the steps outlined in step 5 of the blog about overlapping light/darkness effects - namely apply the darkness effects first, then apply the fireshield effect treating it as light spell of it's level. There is no RAW to back this up, but it is a reasonable adjudication.
The -40 to the stealth check bugs me, though. Okay, it's RAW, but with no light to reflect, how can the glitter influence stealth in an area of complete magical darkness if it isn't a light source itself?
It just sparkles enough that you can pinpoint the square, but not enough to remove the benefits of concealment. Magical darkness mostly just lowers ambient light, it's not the traditional sphere of inky darkness. More of a magical dimmer switch!
And on a re-read of the blog I think I am wrong above on how it interacts with darkness spells. My revised opinion:
First it is not a light spell so no countering/dispelling, that bit stands true (read step 4 of the blog - counter and dispel are distinct actions that are more than just bringing a light source into an area of darkness).
You should follow the steps outlined in step 5 of the blog about overlapping light/darkness effects - namely apply the darkness effects first, then apply the fireshield effect treating it as light spell of it's level. There is no RAW to back this up, but it is a reasonable adjudication.
Honestly, I don't think it's a reasonable adjudication at all because it is explicitly in contradiction to the actual written rules.
There are no written rules for how non-light spells that create light interact with darkness, so it quite literally cannot contradict the written rules.
How would you rule it?
There are no written rules for how non-light spells that create light interact with darkness, so it quite literally cannot contradict the written rules.
How would you rule it?
To me, the way you put it first appears to be applying the rules directly. It's not a [light] spell but it is a magical source of light so I don't agree that the darkness spell will automatically suppress it.
That said, the light and darkness rules are a complete mess.
There are no written rules for how non-light spells that create light interact with darkness, so it quite literally cannot contradict the written rules.
How would you rule it?
To me, the way you put it first appears to be applying the rules directly. It's not a [light] spell but it is a magical source of light so I don't agree that the darkness spell will automatically suppress it.
That said, the light and darkness rules are a complete mess.
How about, it isn't a light spell, so it doesn't provide light. You use ambient light that is reflected by the magical effect to see it.
When in an area of darkness with no light to reflect, it doesn't provide any effect.
At least that is what I seem to be taking away from the explanation.
The light from a non [light] descriptor spell is a mundane side effect, not magical light.Where does it say that this is what [light] descriptor implies? As far as I am aware, it implies nothing mechanical, other than just being an abstract tag that is used as a conditional hook for things like certain metamagics, etc. that mention it.
Could be wrong, but is there text that establishes what you are saying to be true?
if not, then the target should still be visible, because that's what glitterdust says, and nothing that glitterdust says would interfere with what darkness says (darkness is all about light LEVELS in SQUARES, not visible things about objects, etc. that do not have light level effects)
Only if you look at it in a vacuum.
Or are you saying because it says you sparkle the blind guy can see you "because magic"?
There are other rules that interact, assumptions made when the rules are written. Why does the dust sparkle? Because it has its own light or because the effect reflects other light? It doesn't state anywhere it provides light (like faerie fire) so it is a HUGE jump both logically and mechanically to assume that is the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure this is totally irrelevant, but I wanted to pop in and say that DDO (the MMORPG that is quickly dying) has both of these spells, and I've actually witnessed them interacting. When glitterdust is dropped in an area of magical darkness you still get a brief "pop" of bright dust, and can quickly see the outline of creatures in the darkness, then they are again covered by the darkness. Should they leave the area of magical darkness, you can again see them covered in the dust, even if they're invisible. So... that's how the makers of the DDO game think they interact. :-P
I'm going with card rules. Some cards in MTG defy the general rules of the game.
Applying that to this, Glitterdust does what it says. Any secondary light it creates is suppressed by darkness spells. Basicly, you see the target covered in magic glitter, but if the fighter tries to charge, he trips on anything, and might get his foot stuck in a woodchuck hole. All the dead minions have made the terrain broken or worse.
I'm totally with Skylancer4's interpretation here. Light spells and darkness spells are a thing. I see glitter dust working in a manner to flour and water. Outlines an invisible creature, but if you can't see the invisible creature in the dark. Take a diamond, if you turn off the light, can you see it? Why not? It sparkles. If you raid your daughter's art supplies and pour it over the dog and turn off the lights? Why not? It sparkles. Things that sparkle require light to refract at odd angles.
That's the way I see it, or not as the case may be.
shine brightly with flashes of light
As in "they are there with flashes of light."you need flashes of light to do it.
I'm sure this is totally irrelevant, but I wanted to pop in and say that DDO (the MMORPG that is quickly dying) has both of these spells, and I've actually witnessed them interacting. When glitterdust is dropped in an area of magical darkness you still get a brief "pop" of bright dust, and can quickly see the outline of creatures in the darkness, then they are again covered by the darkness. Should they leave the area of magical darkness, you can again see them covered in the dust, even if they're invisible. So... that's how the makers of the DDO game think they interact. :-P
While semi-interesting (in so much as I wonder what the rule set used by DDO says about it), yes largely irrelevant. 3.x and PFRPG diverge on numerous points both tangential and fundamental at times. Even so far as PFRPG contradicting standing FAQs in 3.5, while using the same language.
If you were playing the PFRPG MMO that would have significantly more weight to it. But even then it could be something as stupid as the engine used in the game can't handle some interactions etc.
In my way of the Wicked campaign the GM ruled that darkness would block glitterdust's effects (I'm the rogue worried about being found), but not for creatures that can see through the darkness.
Visibly outlining invisible things, so if something did not have invisibility on, it would not be outlined. Actual glitter does not outline, but makes the whole surface glitter. A glittering outline would not need a light source.
Visibly outlining invisible things, so if something did not have invisibility on, it would not be outlined. Actual glitter does not outline, but makes the whole surface glitter. A glittering outline would not need a light source.
Might I suggest you actually read the spell before posting?
Everything in the area is covered, invisible or not. The spell specifically calls out invisible things so there is no question about targeting them being possible.
Deeper Darkness is 3rd Level and Fire Shield is 4th level.
Based upon that I say the Fire Shield raises the light level by one step.If the BBEG heightens the Deeper Darkness to 4th level, then we have a conundrum, at least to me.
Fire shield only increases the light level within 10'. You'd effectively have a bubble of light with darkness between it and the outside?
Or are you saying because it says you sparkle the blind guy can see you "because magic"?No I'm saying because it says you sparkle... you sparkle.
And since it doesn't say the sparkling raises the light level in the area, darkness has nothing to do with it to begin with.
So [thing that says you sparkle] + [thing that is irrelevant] adds up to [you sparkle]
Sparkles reflect light. In darkness there is no light to reflect.
Someone in darkness with glitterdust on IS sparkling, there just happens to be no light to reflect from his sparkles.
Sparkling != glowing
Sparkling is a combination of being reflective AND actively currently reflecting something. If it says it sparkles, then it implies both reflectiveness and a guaranteed source of light to reflect. Otherwise it wouldn't sparkle, and it says it sparkles.
And since said light wouldn't be raising the light LEVEL in an area, darkness being present doesn't matter, as it only affects light levels, not all light of any kind.
It says it sparkles. Normally rules are written with "normal" circumstances being the case. Not magically imposed darkness being assumed as written.
You are infering the spell causes visible light. The spell write up doesn't mention it. There is no implication as it is written text that doesn't mention anything regarding creating its own light or causing the light levels to increase or anything of the sort.
You are deducing from what the write up says to get from point A to point B. The spell is not strongly suggesting that it creates its own light.
Imply vs Infer.
Speaker vs Listener.
It says it sparkles.So it does, unless something says it doesn't. Simple as that.
Darkness doesn't have any relevant text to stop it.
You are infering the spell causes visible light.Yes I'm offering one possible explanation. If you have a different one, okay, but at the end of the day, that doesn't really matter because somehow or other, it DOES sparkle. So make up whatever story you like that makes it sparkle, those details aren't actually important, end result is the same.
If the sparkling is due to ambient light from the surrounding area, when the assumption is light enough to see... They absolutely do NOT result in the same thing.
Sparkling from ambient external light vs sparkling from self-created light.
Have you actually read the whole thread?
|
Fire shield only increases the light level within 10'. You'd effectively have a bubble of light with darkness between it and the outside?Deeper Darkness is 3rd Level and Fire Shield is 4th level.
Based upon that I say the Fire Shield raises the light level by one step.If the BBEG heightens the Deeper Darkness to 4th level, then we have a conundrum, at least to me.
That is the way I would treat it.
Visibly outlining invisible things, so if something did not have invisibility on, it would not be outlined. Actual glitter does not outline, but makes the whole surface glitter. A glittering outline would not need a light source.Might I suggest you actually read the spell before posting?
NO YOU MAY NOT!Everything in the area is covered, invisible or not. The spell specifically calls out invisible things so there is no question about targeting them being possible.
I did read the spell, before, during, and after the post. I didn't say they weren't also covered in glitter. The point of my post was that darkness of any kind does not stop something that is already visible. An actual object can block sight of the outline, but darkness isn't solid.
Well the spell disguise self spell still diguises you even in darkness. People just can't see the illusion unless they have some way of seeing in the darkness. The spell doesn't create light in the area. Just like glitterdust doesn't create light. Your not going to see it in the dark unless you have some way of seeing in the dark.
Take faerie fire, the spell does similar things, but it actually has the light descripter and calls out actually creating light.
A 3rd level darkness spell would have no effect on a heightened 4th level faerie fire spell.
Well the spell disguise self spell still diguises you even in darkness. People just can't see the illusion unless they have some way of seeing in the darkness.That's true, because unlike glitterdust, disguise self doesn't explicitly say that it is visible, or that it sparkles (keeping in mind that merely reflective motes not currently reflecting anything are NOT sparkling and thus violate RAW if that's all you say they are)
Just like glitterdust doesn't create light.It may or it may not. Glitterdust does exactly whatever it HAS to do to sparkle and thus fulfill the written rules. If according to your conception of the world, doing so would require generating light, then that's what it does.
I'm sorry, but when there are spells described that outline and creates light, then one that does not state that it creates light makes me think that it has no visual affect if one can not see in darkness.
Cover someone in glue and then glitter. Outlined and sparkles. Inside darkness, if you can see in darkness you can see the outline and sparkles, if you can't see in darkness, you can't see the outline and sparkles, though they are still there.
That's an extremely pedantic reading of the spell. To the point of ridiculousness, really.
By all means, describe some other way that something can sparkle and create a visible outline without producing any light, and that would be a valid alternative story. But somehow or other, it must end up doing those things.
If you can't come up with anything better, then the only workable suggestion so far seems to be that it creates some sort of light.
Ignoring the often repeated situation of glittering happening due to light normally present actually works, as well as doesn't rely on infering more than the spell states happens. He spell doesn't have the light descriptor nor does it state it creates light.
It says the effect glitters. It doesn't say the effect shines, or creates light, or anything of the sort.
In normal situations, it glitters. Normal situations for PCs would indicate some sort of ambient light no?
In magical darkness it may or may not glitter, as that isn't a "normal" situation for the rule set. It definitely doesn't have a light descriptor and definitely doesn't say it creates light.
The spell not glittering in magical darkness is as strong if not a stronger position rules wise than "it makes light, despite not saying it does".
Not only does it work, it doesn't contradict or assume more than the spell states.
I did read the spell, before, during, and after the post. I didn't say they weren't also covered in glitter. The point of my post was that darkness of any kind does not stop something that is already visible. An actual object can block sight of the outline, but darkness isn't solid.Visibly outlining invisible things, so if something did not have invisibility on, it would not be outlined. Actual glitter does not outline, but makes the whole surface glitter. A glittering outline would not need a light source.Might I suggest you actually read the spell before posting?
NO YOU MAY NOT!Everything in the area is covered, invisible or not. The spell specifically calls out invisible things so there is no question about targeting them being possible.
So because my character is visible but standing on the other side of the darkness spell that blocks the ambient light of the area, you believe I should be visible?
I'm 100% sure that it doesn't work that way, sorry.
In normal situations, it glitters.It doesn't say "in normal situations, it glitters."
It says "It glitters."
You don't get to add words in.
Yes, this is still subject to being overruled by any specific rules that explicitly overrule it, but there aren't any of those in this situation, because darkness only affects ambient light, which nobody is claiming is involved nor needs to claim is involved. Outside of that, "normal situations" is not a thing (unless you have a citation as such?). If it says it glitters, it glitters in ALL situations other than any that explicitly stop it.
Incorrect, the rules are written with some assumptions. Those assumptions may be changed or altered by the particular game. But they are still the baseline for the rule set.
This isn't adding anything to the game or words into anything. It is just stating the obvious.
It says the effect glitters. It doesn't say the effect shines, or creates light, or anything of the sort.All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.shine brightly with flashes of light
Glitter sparkles. It doesn't have phosphorescent properties or make it's own light.
A mobile made of broken mirror glass will sparkle. It doesn't radiant it's own light.
Numerous things can appear to sparkle yet have nothing but ambient light to thank for the appearance.
I'm glad you can copy paste the particular wording that is most beneficial for your argument and ignore the other possibilities. One potential possibility does not prove a point or make a rule or establish a guideline, it can prove an exception.