So, I'm sure we won't get to a blog revealing environmental rules (especially lighting) for quite some time, but I'm wondering if we could get some insight if things will be 'cleaned up' in regards to this long afflicted legacy mess.
My personal wish is for light levels to properly be a property of a given square, regardless of observer (I greatly despise the way low-light vision works, for instance).
The discussion of light and darkness spells suggested that they would have degrees. So "dark 3" trumps "light 2". If so, it would mirror the degrees being applied to individual conditions like "tired 2", "frightened 3".
Of course, light/dark may be an exception, but I hope not.
The monster stat blocks didn't list ranges for darkvision and low-light vision. So it's possible that those ranges are going away.
the idea of 'dark 3' or 'light 2' sounds like an effect of the spell itself, but not necessarily the condition of a given square's light level. I mean, perhaps in Daylight (bright light by pf1e rules), a square may be affected by a dark 3 effect AND a light 2 effect. Dark 3 effect would win out, meaning the light level in the square is dropped 3 levels (Bright -> Normal -> Dim -> Dark). That is, if the 'trump' wording is correct. I wonder if it would be more natural if instead of trumping, dark and light are both applied, offsetting, the rules would just have to define what gets applied first. Then mundane light sources would apply as 'light 1' or 'light 2' effects.
The monster stat blocks didn't list ranges for darkvision and low-light vision. So it's possible that those ranges are going away.
That would be nice. Never really made sense to me.
So, I think darkness, dim light and normal light levels are definitely in the game. It seems likely that blight light is in as well. Supernatural darkness? Maybe.
I think dim light still imposes a miss chance on attacks (maybe it is a penalty). In any case, dim light hampers attacks in some way.
I think that low light vision treats dim light as normal light. Presumably dark vision does something similar. Possibly it could treat darkness as normal, or maybe it treats darkness as dim, and dim as normal. I do not think that has been revealed. Low light vision and dark vision do not appear to have ranges. It would be cool if they always functioned.
I vaguely recall that light spells of higher level negate dark spells of lower level. So level 4 light spell, cancels the effect of a level 3 darkness spell, as well as increases the light level. And the reverse is true. I think light and dark spells of the same level probably just negate each within the overlapping area. I am sure that light is a cantrip, therefore will automatically scale. Darkness may be as well.
I am probably making some of this up, but I definitely remember some of it being discussed. Probably on one of the Friday night interviews on Twitch.
I think there can definitely be some interesting tactics developed around controlling the light levels if this is all true. Also far more comprehensible than PFe1.
I would like to see (in addition to PF1's hourly way to track heat/cold dangers) a day by day way to represent overland travel through hostile environments. Having every PC roll 8 Fortitude checks is a bit cumbersome.
I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.
At the same time, significant environmental affects are really critical for limiting PC power and creating challenging situations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.At the same time, significant environmental affects are really critical for limiting PC power and creating challenging situations.
At early levels, yes. At mid to high levels it's less of a challenge and more of "imagine how screwed you'd all be if it wasn't for us full casters".
So, I think darkness, dim light and normal light levels are definitely in the game. It seems likely that blight light is in as well. Supernatural darkness? Maybe.
I think dim light still imposes a miss chance on attacks (maybe it is a penalty). In any case, dim light hampers attacks in some way.
I think that low light vision treats dim light as normal light. Presumably dark vision does something similar. Possibly it could treat darkness as normal, or maybe it treats darkness as dim, and dim as normal. I do not think that has been revealed. Low light vision and dark vision do not appear to have ranges. It would be cool if they always functioned.
I vaguely recall that light spells of higher level negate dark spells of lower level. So level 4 light spell, cancels the effect of a level 3 darkness spell, as well as increases the light level. And the reverse is true. I think light and dark spells of the same level probably just negate each within the overlapping area. I am sure that light is a cantrip, therefore will automatically scale. Darkness may be as well.
I am probably making some of this up, but I definitely remember some of it being discussed. Probably on one of the Friday night interviews on Twitch.
I think there can definitely be some interesting tactics developed around controlling the light levels if this is all true. Also far more comprehensible than PFe1.
I do like a lot of this - except the trumping spells thing. If anything, I think a higher level light spell should simply increase the light by more steps, and a higher level darkness spell should simply decrease the light by more steps. Both should always have an effect.
Normal Light in a grove. Drow casts non-heightened darkness spell (spell level 2, so unheightened). This emits a Dark 1 effect for 20 ft radius, reducing all light in the affected area by 1 step (taking the normal light to dim light).
If an elf cleric casts light in the same grove (spell level 1, so also unheightened), it emits a Light 1 effect for 20 ft, increasing the light levels in the affected area by 1 step (taking the normal light to bright light).
If the circles overlap, the Light 1 and the Dark 1 would cancel each other in the affected area, leaving it at Normal light in that area.
If, no the other hand, the cleric had cast the Light spell Heightened (+2) - so at level 3 - it would emit a Light 2 effect for 20 ft, and Light 1 effect for 40 ft., then in the areas where the Light 2 effect overlaps the Drow's Dark 1 effect, the NET EFFECT is Light 1, so it would be Bright light in those areas. Not this is not necessarily that the Light spell is completely trumping the dark spell, the dark and light effects offset.
Frankly, It would make sense for torches and other mundane light sources to simply work exactly the same - a torch emits light 1 for 20 ft, sunrod emits light 2 for 20 ft, and light 1 for 40 ft.
Now, effect stacking would still apply, so Light 1 and Light 2 affecting the same area would still act as Light 2 over that area, since they are both Light effects.
But Light and Dark are different effects, so they don't really stack, but act independently. Dark 2 and Light 1 in a normally lit area would be Ambient-1 (↓↓↑).
With the Light cantrip auto-heightening, a martial elf can handle dispelling darkness effects as well as a full caster can, if they pick that ancestry option. (I’m assuming elves will get that cantrip option, given their setting lore and the fact that they can get arcane cantrips.)
PF1 lighting rules always seemed like a better idea in theory then they ever were in practice. Like they would have been very interesting in a video game with a computer tracking lighting effects, but they are a colossal headache for a DM and usually get estimated or ignored unless it becomes very important, kind of like the old encumbrance system. With the exception of getting rid of ranges and autoscaling the light cantrip, this seems about the same. It seems like the only real difference with the light cantrip is that it will "hopefully" trivialize darkness spells and the party will be able to generally ignore darkness and not worry about it unless they are fighting something more powerful than they are. In that sense, it might be better, but rocket flashlight tag was never as much fun at the table for me as it seemed like it would be when you cinematically think about fighting in different mood lighting.
At early levels, yes. At mid to high levels it's less of a challenge and more of "imagine how screwed you'd all be if it wasn't for us full casters".I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.At the same time, significant environmental affects are really critical for limiting PC power and creating challenging situations.
That is an unfortunate occurrence, but I like those low level challenges for as long as they last. I hope they dont just completely give up on environmental conditions. Especially, since they are working on an exploration mode.
I've been using virtual tabletops of some form or another for years, so the lighting can be dealt with well - the issue is with things that are based on the observer, and not on the actual lighting levels in a given space, it gets 'weird'. Things like range limited darkvision, and low-light vision extending the effective range of light sources, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yes, the light system needs to be simplified. Here's my take.
Designate areas by their light/dark levels. Since there are a wide range of light levels to work with, let's work both up and down. I'd aim for Light 4 & Dark 4 to be the max, as PF2 seems to favor capping effects at 4.
Light 4 Blinding
Light 3 Intense
Light 2 Bright, minimal shadows
Light 1 Well lit
Dark 1 Dim, shadowy
Dark 2 Hardly lit, faint glow
Dark 3 Pitch black
Dark 4 (PF1 Supernatural)
(This fits PF1 & D&D norms pretty well, though I could also imagine a scale that's more symmetrical, with more bright penalties to correspond with darkness penalties.)
Then designate what can see where, i.e. Low-light sees normally in Dark 1, maybe treats Dark 2 like Dark 1, Darkvision sees fine down to Dark 3 (no light/pitch dark), but can't see in Dark 4 (supernatural).
On the flip side, creatures with Light Blindness or Light Sensitivity would have penalties associated with light levels (and those perhaps should mirror the penalties darkness has for others.)
And Bright at Light 2, allowing for Light 3 to be penalizing and Light 4 to be blinding (and perhaps equivalent to sunlight vs. undead, etc.), which might be of use in say an inferno.
Straightforward so far, and easy to comprehend as far as these things go, so we now add light sources.
Torch gives Light 1 in 20' radius (and maybe can be jammed in someone's face for a Light 2 or 3 effect, maybe blinding a Drow) Out to 40', it's Dark 1 (so fine for Low-Light creatures. Out to 60', maybe it's Dark 2 (faint) which does nothing for normal vision, but maybe lets Low-Light vision see it as if Dark 1.
If similar to PF1, Light spell emits Light 1 also, like a torch.
Will other light spells go further for Low-Light too? Probably, so have a default rule that each increment out, the level drops by 1. So if Daylight does Light 2 in a 60' radius, each further 60' goes 1 level less, down to Dark 3 (barring other light sources).
Also, with Dark 2 (faint), there can be "Dark 2 objects" (or creatures) that glow enough to be visible in darkness without shedding enough light to illuminate around itself.
Still simple in play, and somewhat intuitive too.
Then we get to darkness effects, and we have to make choices.
The Darkness spell should be able to reduce a lit area down to Darkness 2 or 3, so let's say it shifts the light level two down. Or...to be more like the Light spell, why doesn't Darkness just set a level of light? Or maybe Light should shift light levels too, rather than work like a torch? And since D&D/PF Darkness is portrayed as emanating, wouldn't that imply it has less dark areas as it expands out?
And how will we have all these spells interact? Do we still want Daylight to dominate? If we have two light/dark spells w/ matching levels cancel each other out, do we default to mundane sources, or do we want the next highest magic sources to matter? Do we want huge quantities of light/dark sources to have an additive effect?
For simplicity, I'd lean toward spells setting a specific level of lightness/darkness, so just like a Light spell can wipe out mundane Dark 3 (giving Light 1), a Darkness spell can wipe out mundane Light 3 (giving Dark 1). This isn't traditional, but it feels like it'd be that much easier to use. Then, when the spells interact, we have the highest level spell win, or cancel each other out if tied.
Since Darkness/Cont. Darkness spamming is a thing for several monsters, I think one spell should be able to cancel out all its same or lower level competitors, if only for play balance. (Otherwise I'd be in favor of going to the next highest spell.)
So magic vs. magic, highest level wins. Tie defaults to mundane sources.
In a fantasy world where darkness is a thing (not just the absence of light as in reality), I think light & dark should be matches. In that vein, I don't think Daylight should dominate as much as it does, though I could see a carrier effect on light/dark spells that makes some better vs. their competition, not just for environmental effects. Many creatures want a specific light level in the middle, like PCs want non-blinding light and many shadow creatures don't want full darkness. They'll need a way to have competitive higher level spells without resorting to effects at the more extreme ends of the scale.
And hopefully those spells won't just be a matter of one-upping for control, but have other effects too representing that they're higher level spells. Example, maybe a spell that makes Dark 2 and gives bonuses to creatures with the shadow subtype or shadow spells or creatures w/ darkvision (or bonus penalties to those without).
I could see light/dark dispelling effects playing a part too.
So maybe Daylight could work similarly to PF1, winning via having no other perks to it at higher levels other than winning ties, but then their should be a shadowy equivalent (Dark 1?).
Anyway, my brain's gone dark from all the reflecting, so that's all.
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can imagine there will only be one 'Light' spell, and only one 'Darkness' spell, as they will use the heighten mechanic for greater effects. I think there could be a standard mechanic that artificial light diminishes one step ever 20 ft. Standardizing that would allow the 'light' spell, for instance, to not even need to define a range, just "act as a Light 1 source." This would also help naturally designate light levels in buildings, and into caves and such, allowing some very detailed light mapping if desired, and using very little rule-space to do it. Going a step further, I'd love for light to drop pone step past an occlusion as well. The canopy of a tree, for instance, drops the light below it by 1 step. Light should honestly disperse around a corner as well, at a drop of one step each time.
I'm really hoping they remove, put off for a few levels or nerf all the spells that just straight up allow a party to never worry about a survival styled campaign. Or I guess I can just carry on making sure that finding berries requires some epic survival skills because they are the best source of food if you have a druid.
Why don't you just ban those spells when running such style of a campaign. We did it for our "jungle survival" campaign, and also banned taking 10 on Survival for the first few levels. If it makes sense for the campaign, banning something like that is a very good option, while making me worry about a blanket and doing zillion survival checks and saves vs cold a day for the whole Reign of Winter would have made us quit before the third book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really hoping they remove, put off for a few levels or nerf all the spells that just straight up allow a party to never worry about a survival styled campaign. Or I guess I can just carry on making sure that finding berries requires some epic survival skills because they are the best source of food if you have a druid.Why don't you just ban those spells when running such style of a campaign. We did it for our "jungle survival" campaign, and also banned taking 10 on Survival for the first few levels. If it makes sense for the campaign, banning something like that is a very good option, while making me worry about a blanket and doing zillion survival checks and saves vs cold a day for the whole Reign of Winter would have made us quit before the third book.Oh sure I will if the problem isn't solved at a system wide level. I just feel spells that spells that remove environmental problems at low levels is just down right world breaking. In terms of societal changes, the implications of being able to create Food and Water from nothing is far more potent than fireballs. I feel that something so world altering should be a higher level.
I agree making dozens of checks is a sucky slog. I'd rather the timespan between exposure rolls was longer, but the effects were more potent and less easy to ignore.
Problem is you have people like me that don't want it 'solved' at a system wide level. for me it's working as intended thank you. I don't want to completely ignore environmental effects, and I don't want them to bog down the game so early access magic solves that nice and easy.
ooohh! I wonder how easy it would be to have variable spell levels based on the type of game you want? probably not very practical, but 2 higher tiers of 'survival' increasing all environmental type spells by (e.g) 2 levels and 4 levels respectively? Maybe a sidebar listing the spells affected?
I'm really hoping they remove, put off for a few levels or nerf all the spells that just straight up allow a party to never worry about a survival styled campaign. Or I guess I can just carry on making sure that finding berries requires some epic survival skills because they are the best source of food if you have a druid.Why don't you just ban those spells when running such style of a campaign. We did it for our "jungle survival" campaign, and also banned taking 10 on Survival for the first few levels. If it makes sense for the campaign, banning something like that is a very good option, while making me worry about a blanket and doing zillion survival checks and saves vs cold a day for the whole Reign of Winter would have made us quit before the third book.Oh sure I will if the problem isn't solved at a system wide level. I just feel spells that spells that remove environmental problems at low levels is just down right world breaking. In terms of societal changes, the implications of being able to create Food and Water from nothing is far more potent than fireballs. I feel that something so world altering should be a higher level.
I agree making dozens of checks is a sucky slog. I'd rather the timespan between exposure rolls was longer, but the effects were more potent and less easy to ignore.
Like dragonhunterq said, for some of us problem you want to be solved doesn't exist, it's system working as intended.
While you are right about effect on campaign setting as a whole, I rather like to think that spells and magic are the reason total human(oid) population isn't wiped out/starved to death by the myriad monsters lurking in the countryside.Edit: ninja'ed
admitedly, they have two ways to go on that front.
1. (Status Quo) Magic exists that makes famine and drought a non-event, but is ignored in the actual world lore, because a world without such simple conflict causing triggers makes less interesting stories. It is kept this way because it makes the game easier to play, because now players don't have to worry about food/water, and can get to the killing.
2. (Change) Magic that trivializes fundamental struggles of life exists, but is rare, due to the fewer numbers of casters with the capability to wield it. The problem with this is that the lack of those spells means players of heroes also have to be concerned with where their next meal comes from.
My personal choice would be to go with #2, as it at least allows the creation of a better game world. If the need for tracking food becomes a problem, I honestly feel it makes much more sense to simply handwave the food/water tracking, than it does for the #1 situation to simply ban that type of magic.
That said, I seriously doubt this will come to be, as they likely aren't changing general power levels of 'things you can do' between pf1e and pf2e, in order to avoid backlash.
|
admitedly, they have two ways to go on that front.
1. (Status Quo) Magic exists that makes famine and drought a non-event, but is ignored in the actual world lore, because a world without such simple conflict causing triggers makes less interesting stories. It is kept this way because it makes the game easier to play, because now players don't have to worry about food/water, and can get to the killing.
Uh...the world lore doesn't ignore this. The only groups we've seen subjected to famine are small and isolated. Magic poor, in other words. I mean, Rahadoum is an ongoing ecological disaster, but people seem to manage fine anyway specifically because of magic.
At early levels, yes. At mid to high levels it's less of a challenge and more of "imagine how screwed you'd all be if it wasn't for us full casters".I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.At the same time, significant environmental affects are really critical for limiting PC power and creating challenging situations.
True, but dispel magic is a thing. I GMed a scenario recently where one of the melee characters downed a potion of flying, ascended to attack the Big Bad, and then floated gently down after said Big Bad dispelled by the fly effect.
Things can be even more exciting underwater when a water breathing spell is dispelled.
I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.
This, please. Something that may be streamlined, and presented in a table.
Because they're fiddly, I don't see them used as often as they could/should be, and this is a shame.