Aasimar halos in different colours, how do you feel abou it?

[Senko]

I've been playing wrath of the righteous (Owlcat RPG adaption) and the standard Aasimar halo is a yellow colour but the angel version is a larger blue/white one and it got me thinking how do people feel about halos on Aasimars, half celestials and angelic beings. Would you like them all to be to golden coloured or would you be happy with a rainbow of colours (as in peri-kin are reddish due to their link with fire, angel-kin are white and so on not one creature having a halo that is a rainbow of colours)? With the colour being either a racial identifier or player choice.

Personally I prefer them all to be just a golden colour both because I'm not really a fan of pallete race identifiers (dragons I'm looking at you) and because I can see it causing debates on "appropriate" colours e.g. you can with the right materials get fire to burn any colour from red to purple and who know's what colour a plume-kin would be.

[Rysky]

Unless it says otherwise the halo’s design and color are dependent on the specific creature, there’s not a universal standard.

[Azothath]

just have your PC's draw/paint/create their PC's picture. It's fun and helps them solidify their look and style. That said there's nothing that says they can't change the color as desired (no mechanical advantage).

[Pizza Lord]

They are a standard color (though a race or creature might have a range). Unless it says otherwise or there is a reason, it should be the same. It's like eye color. There's no mechanical advantage, but you don't just have someone naturally changing their eye color without some ability or item that does it. There might be a range of choices, but if you have orcs starting with bright pink eyes, there should be a definite reason, like albinism (unless your half-orcs or orcs have reddish eyes already).

If there's no choice, then it's whatever you determine is the norm, whether it be by race, alignment, blood-type, personality (like a mood ring, in which case it could change obviously, but still wouldn't be in the creature's control necessarily), or what-have-you.

[Sysryke]

I'd let the player choose at the start of the campaign, but then the choice is set, like eye color. Just a bit of something fun/flavorful. If the player ever wants the color to change, magic or some story factor should be involved.

Free form color shifting could lead to coded messages or minor disguise benefits. Certainly not game breaking, but the GM and players would all need to be on board with a small mechanical "freebie".

[Diego Rossi]

Quote:

Replaces Darkvision

[PFS Legal] Halo
Source Advanced Race Guide pg. 85
Some aasimars possess the ability to manifest halos. An aasimar with this racial trait can create light centered on her head at will as a spell-like ability. When using her halo, she gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks against evil creatures and on saving throws against becoming blinded or dazzled. This racial trait replaces the darkvision racial trait.

Quote:

Light

This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light). In an area of normal or bright light, this spell has no effect. The effect is immobile, but it can be cast on a movable object.

If a Halo can have different color, light too should have it.

Personally, I prefer "white" light for both. Different wavelengths of light are absorbed by the atmosphere, and even more by water, at different speeds.
A red light will be seen at a shorter distance, will disturb less human night vision, and will be less useful (for humans) when trying to detect fine details.
All stuff that isn't really considered in the perception rules, light sensitivity, and so on.
So a colored Halo or Light spell either has no mechanical effects and is meaningless or it has in-game effects and so they need to be defined.
Seems like a lot of work for a small return.

If you decide that the Halo has a specific color make it fixed, and have the default Light giving withe light, with alternate versions giving out a specific color.

It will be fun to have the wizard find a spellbook with the cantrip Red Light or Indigo Light.

[VoodistMonk]

Oh wow... intetesting how varied the table is on this.

When a player casts any sort of light spell, I ask them what color it is... because I just assumed it was their choice, every time. In my Kingmaker campaign, they had permenant spells of various colors marking range for archers and ballistas up on the walls or in towers. Different towns used different colored streetlights, too.

Given that an Aasimar [with that particular alternative racial feature] can create and dismiss the halo at will, I would let them choose which color it is, every time. It changes nothing (other than the color of the halo, obviously), so I am just absolutely not willing to entrench and die on that hill. It's completely trivial and it's easier to just let the player choose all willy-nilly than it is to argue or even care about it.

[Diego Rossi]

@VoodistMonk
First, my compliments to whoever had the idea to use Light to mark the range for archery fire.
As I said, based on my limited knowledge, a red light will not trigger light sensibility. Then there are the higher level light spells, like Daylight, that, seeing the description, don't have a range of colors, as they reproduce the light of the day. It seems a bit strange to have a lower-level spell that gets the option.
Last, there is Faerie fire: "The faerie fire can be blue, green, or violet, according to your choice at the time of casting." It specifies in the description that you can have a range of colors and a limited range too.
That said, is a matter of preferences, not really a rules or balance problem.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Do aasimar suddenly have halos by default now?

[Diego Rossi]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Do aasimar suddenly have halos by default now?

It is an alternate racial trait. It replaces Darkvision.

[VoodistMonk]

Given the extremely wide genetic range that characters can originate from, I have never been so presumptuous that even daylight is seen the same across all races... I always try say what color the glow of light is. I have color-blind friends, so I understand how not everything is seen the same, even within Humans.

Continual Flame says it appears as a flame... cool, I can think of half a dozen different colors of flame, right meow... different temperatures of fire burn at diffetent colors... different elements being burned changes colors... you choose your temp on a brazing/cutting torch by adjusting its mixture and the color changes...

Life is way too short to say everything sees sunlight as yellow-ish, and all flame is equally yellow-ish... and therefor all Aasimar halos must also be this boring shade of p!ss mustard yellow. No, it can be whatever color you want because it's a fantasy game, not a prison camp. You can make your own choices here, nobody will hurt you. You're safe here... even with a red or purple halo.

Why would I, or anyone else, be willing to fight over that? Literally, who cares what color the light is? There is absolutely no mechanical benefit, advantage, or affect... it's just the color of the light being produced by freaking magic in a fantasy game. It does say light like daylight... but who cares enough to argue what color daylight really is? It's magical light, in a fantasy game, let it be whatever color they freaking fantasize. Pick your battles... that hill isn't worth dying on.

[Mark Hoover 330]

The light quoted in the Halo ability doesn't state "Light as per the spell" or other such language, so it can be whatever color the PC wants it to be. I wouldn't allow it to change colors throughout the game though without the PC gaining that ability later in the game or through a Trait at character creation.

the Light spell, as quoted above, states it sheds light as a torch. In my games, this means that the light that comes from a Light spell looks and acts like a torch; it flickers and has a fiery countenance but is otherwise smokeless and heatless.

If you want multicolored light in my game, cast Dancing Lights. In the fluff of that spell it describes one application of the spell as resembling a Will-o-Wisp. In the description of that creature they are stated to be able to be many different colors and even change their colors.

PCs have used the color changing abilities of Dancing Lights to send coded messages in a crude fashion. Since no spell explicitly states it generates the equivalent of candle flame, I've also allowed PCs to generate that level of light with Prestidigitation, then since that spell says you can change an object's color I've allowed the candle flame of light from a Prestidigitation spell to also be color changing as well.

Either way, getting back to the OP, I think a single, fixed color based on PC preference is fine.

[Diego Rossi]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

PCs have used the color changing abilities of Dancing Lights to send coded messages in a crude fashion. Since no spell explicitly states it generates the equivalent of candle flame, I've also allowed PCs to generate that level of light with Prestidigitation, then since that spell says you can change an object's color I've allowed the candle flame of light from a Prestidigitation spell to also be color changing as well.

Faerie fire: "A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles."

[Senko]

@VoodistMonk
Funnily enough daylight on the scientific scale is classed more as green than yellow light wave length wise.

@Diego Rossi
I thought Daylight's benefit was "Burn the undead" but that's probably a holdover from earlier editions where it duplicates the symbolic/magical nature of daylight to harm vampires and the like unlike a regular light spell.

@Mark Hoover 330
Interesting interpretation of the light spell I've not seen that one before. I can see arguments by players if you let dancing lights change colour but not light give its changes seem more in line with mechanical effects than the light of it.

[Diego Rossi]

Senko wrote:

@Diego Rossi
I thought Daylight's benefit was "Burn the undead" but that's probably a holdover from earlier editions where it duplicates the symbolic/magical nature of daylight to harm vampires and the like unlike a regular light spell.

Daylight is a 3rd level spell, it doesn't damage undead or other creatures vulnerable to light. You need higher-level or specialized spells for that (probably you need some light in the UV band to get that effect).

Quote:

Creatures that take penalties in bright light take them while within the 60-foot radius of this magical light. Despite its name, this spell is not the equivalent of daylight for the purposes of creatures that are damaged or destroyed by such light.

I think it would be as useful as electric lights for raising plants and similar uses. I.e. it will not be useful.

[VoodistMonk]

Daylight doesn't burn the Undead... it actually doesn't harm anything really, unless they have Light Blindness/Sensitivity... that is why you need someone spamming Fear the Sun.

Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell, and actual-kill-vampires-light-of-day two different things...

Why? Literally nobody knows. Lol.

Why is the Daylight spell different from the light of day? What makes the day light? The sun. Why is the spell called Daylight a different type of light than sunlight? You have to buy or craft Bottled Sunlight or some such $#!+ for that... but why?

When it comes to asinine things like the aforementioned difference between the light of day, and the spell called Daylight... I give up. I am not going to fight you on anything as long as you aren't trying to kill a Vampire with Daylight.

You want purple light ceeated with the Daylight spell? Sure, why not. The spell "Daylight" has no actual relation or connection to the light of day, so it can be whatever color you want. If it had to be the same color as sunlight, then maybe it would kill Vampires like sunlight... but it doesn't... so it literally doesn't matter what color it is.

Or, at least, that's my take on it.

[Rysky]

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell"

WoTC, actually. It's a direct transplant from 3.5.

Maybe do some research before huffing and puffing?

[Diego Rossi]

Rysky wrote:

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell"

WoTC, actually. It's a direct transplant from 3.5.

Maybe do some research before huffing and puffing?

And WoTC simply redid AD&D/D&D BECM Continual Light, removing the permanent duration and changing the name.

He has a tendency to rant for no apparent reason.

[Senko]

Which makes me ponder what level a (1) continual light spell would now be and (2) what level a sunlight spell that functions as searing light regarding effects on plants/undead and daylight for its apperance would be. The later especially as a zone of light in the middle of the night that burns undead would be really useful.

[Diego Rossi]

Senko wrote:

Which makes me ponder what level a (1) continual light spell would now be and (2) what level a sunlight spell that functions as searing light regarding effects on plants/undead and daylight for its apperance would be. The later especially as a zone of light in the middle of the night that burns undead would be really useful.

A bit weaker, but Continual Flame is a permanent fire source.

I don't recall any long-lasting area effect light capable to damage undead, but I don't know all spells.

[Sysryke]

Rysky wrote:

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell"

WoTC, actually. It's a direct transplant from 3.5.

Maybe do some research before huffing and puffing?

There's a complete sentence there beyond what you snipped. Quoting out of context so you can snark at people accomplishes nothing. When you look at the whole sentence

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell, and actual-kill-vampires-light-of-day two different things.." ,

the implication is not that Paizo made the spell, but that they made (or possibly just continued/enforced) a difference between the spell and actual environmental daylight. That is a case of poor naming conventions and/or poor use of terminology that causes confusion. Not saying V-Monk is right or wrong (opinions can't really be either), but taking things out of context isn't useful to the conversation either.

[VoodistMonk]

I do have a tendency rant, and probably could have presented my point with less sarcasm. Sysryke is correctly identifying what it is about the spell's description and effects that just rub me the wrong way. Regardless, the color of magical light should be players' choice, in my opinion.

[Rysky]

"but taking things out of context isn't useful to the conversation either."

Neither is using the wrong words, it wasn't taken out of context, VM worded it that way and needed clarification to specify otherwise.

[Diego Rossi]

Sysryke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell"

WoTC, actually. It's a direct transplant from 3.5.

Maybe do some research before huffing and puffing?

There's a complete sentence there beyond what you snipped. Quoting out of context so you can snark at people accomplishes nothing. When you look at the whole sentence

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell, and actual-kill-vampires-light-of-day two different things.." ,

the implication is not that Paizo made the spell, but that they made (or possibly just continued/enforced) a difference between the spell and actual environmental daylight. That is a case of poor naming conventions and/or poor use of terminology that causes confusion. Not saying V-Monk is right or wrong (opinions can't really be either), but taking things out of context isn't useful to the conversation either.

And again, it was WoTC that created the Daylight spell, not Paizo.

Quoted verbatim from the Daylight spell description in the Player Handbook for 3.5: "Despite its name, this spell is not the equivalent of daylight for the purpose of creatures that are damaged or destroyed by bright light (such as vampires)."

So, both you and VoodistMonk should try to aim better your rants. Rysky was correct in her post.

[Azothath]

things changed as the game editions changed. Mainly things and spells got to be more specific or have a constrained effect. Cont. Light DnD2 & DnD1 compared to Cont. Flame DnD3.5 & Daylight DnD 3.5, and Cont. Flame PF1 & Daylight PF1. Just different editions and a long legacy of doing things slightly differently. DnD4, DnD5 & PF2 went in new directions.

The only time DnD3.0/3.5 publishing history impacts PF1 play is when an OGL item isn't changed/edited by PF1 rules, then you have inheritance from the earlier OGL text. It's happened in a few places as PF1 started out as just a tense change to most of the DnD3.5 rules. PF1 changes went on for a few years after initial publishing. PF Year 1 scenarios were rewritten for PF1. It was a rough start with a lot of over-powered scenarios. Today a considerable number of the Year 1 scenarios are not used in PF Org Play.

[Senko]

Azothath wrote:

things changed as the game editions changed. Mainly things and spells got to be more specific or have a constrained effect. Cont. Light DnD2 & DnD1 compared to Cont. Flame DnD3.5 & Daylight DnD 3.5, and Cont. Flame PF1 & Daylight PF1. Just different editions and a long legacy of doing things slightly differently. DnD4, DnD5 & PF2 went in new directions.

The only time DnD3.0/3.5 publishing history impacts PF1 play is when an OGL item isn't changed/edited by PF1 rules, then you have inheritance from the earlier OGL text. It's happened in a few places as PF1 started out as just a tense change to most of the DnD3.5 rules. PF1 changes went on for a few years after initial publishing. PF Year 1 scenarios were rewritten for PF1. It was a rough start with a lot of over-powered scenarios. Today a considerable number of the Year 1 scenarios are not used in PF Org Play.

I think I prefer continual lights rules.