D&D 3E/3.5 Darkness Spell in 3.5

[ptolemy18]

Is it just me, or is there NO spell which creates true darkness in D&D 3.5? I only recently noticed that the 3.5 Player's Handbook version of "Darkness" instead creates "shadowy illumination". :/ (!?!??!)

So instead of full Darkness, it's just a 20% concealment modifier? What the hecK?! Why don't they change the name of the spell to "Shadows"? More importantly, where is the TRUE Darkness spell? They CAN'T have eliminated it completely! What spell are my evil NPC priests supposed to cast?

I assume there was some game-balance thing involved in this decision, but I don't see what's so unbalanced about the "Darkness" spell as originally written in 3.0... If it was so bad they should've just changed the duration to rounds instead of minutes. Anyway, I've established that my campaign uses the 3.0 Darkness spell (another in a long series of friggin' in-house 3.0-3.5 rules changes, sigh....) but I'm confused at why this decision was ever made...

Jason the Whiny

 

[Scion]

I would think you could use other spells to make full darkness, possibly shadow evocation/conjuration (evoke some darkness! summon physical black ) or even things like limited wish. I havent looked over the 3.5 spell list recently enough to put up better suggestions unfortunately.. but here are a few threads about it, or at least have mentions.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61608
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75127
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6526

 

[Targos]

Its certainly a different spell with different uses. One thing's for sure, drow will never be the same.

 

[Methos of Aundair]

Originally posted by Targos

One thing's for sure, drow will never be the same.

Neither will Darkness.

 

[Squire James]

Since my players had never used the Darkness spell, I never really noticed the change. Strange. If I wanted a Blur effect, I'd cast Blur. Since Darkvision didn't penetrate the old Darkness, I don't see why someone thought it was unbalanced.

I'll simply "forget" there ever was a change. Since I'm the DM IMC, I can do stuff like that...

 

[Scion]

I think that the main problem was that if the pcs had it, and prepared ahead of time, it turned a lot of difficult battles into being pretty trivial.

Also, it left some pcs out (like those whose character concept is killed by the spell).

So, the one or two pcs (or even npcs) who planned around it were disproportionately powerful while other pc's were left with nothing to do. Not much fun

For a very similar reason I dont know why silence did not get a similar change. I have changed silence in my games, for a long time now, to similar penalties of being deafened. Solves all sorts of problems.

 

[ptolemy18]

I think that the main problem was that if the pcs had it, and prepared ahead of time, it turned a lot of difficult battles into being pretty trivial. Also, it left some pcs out (like those whose character concept is killed by the spell). So, the one or two pcs (or even npcs) who planned around it were disproportionately powerful while other pc's were left with nothing to do. Not much fun

Making difficult battles easy is the advantage of preparing in advance. Strategy is supposed to reward smart players. It's ultimately always up to the DM to figure out ways to challenge the players, without taking away powers or items that they already have.

I once ran a campaign (not D&D) where, due to my sloppiness in overseeing character generation, one character ended up being INORDINATELY powerful compared to everybody else, so that there was no way the other characters could match up to them in combat. At first I was kind of irritated and considered killing off the character, but then I realized that I could work with him instead and make things much more enjoyable for both of us. The result being that his character sort of went off on a different path from the others, and ended up fighting the super-powerful opponents while the other players were off doing more role-playing-intensive or investigative stuff. And everybody was happy.

Similarly, if somebody in D&D is playing "the 3.0 Polymorph Other Wizard" or "the 3.0 Darkness Wizard", or something, the DM should be able to balance the campaign by picking encounters appropriately, and having the PCs develop a reputation for using their particular special ability, causing NPCs to prepare for it in advance, and so on, etc. etc.

Anyway, it's irrelevant to my campaign, of course...

Jason

 

[Matafuego]

Shadowy illumination?
If I cast Darkness on a competely dark place... now it gives ilumination????

 

[Hypersmurf]

Shadowy illumination?
If I cast Darkness on a competely dark place... now it gives ilumination????

As bright as a candle, but in a larger radius.

-Hyp.

 

[argo]

I assume there was some game-balance thing involved in this decision, but I don't see what's so unbalanced about the "Darkness" spell as originally written in 3.0... If it was so bad they should've just changed the duration to rounds instead of minutes. Anyway, I've established that my campaign uses the 3.0 Darkness spell (another in a long series of friggin' in-house 3.0-3.5 rules changes, sigh....) but I'm confused at why this decision was ever made...

Jason the Whiny

It made creatures with blindsight stupid powerfull, effectievly granting them Imporved Invisibility (except not subject to the invisibility-counters) for the cost of a second level spell.

Though I'll admit it does seem a bit wacky the first time you encoutner it. And yes, casting Darkness in an area of natural total darkness does create ilumination.