D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Darkness Spell 20% ?

[Red Baron]

Yeah, but everybody can see through their darkness, even the humans and halflings. Not too terribly effective.

Yep, that's dumb. The 3.5 darkness won't make it to my table... But, I'm happy to say, it's one of very few changes I don't like.

(Another thing that amuses me about the new light & darkness rules -- despite the fact that an area of "shadowy illumination" is an area that's low in light, low-light vision is no better than plain old vision in such areas.

Well, you do get to see twice as far, so it's not like l-lv is totally useless or anything. And outdoors at night, it's the bees' knees...

 

[Urbannen]

Elder-Basilisk: Just remembered last night. The drow can use Faerie Fire on their opponent, which allows them to sneak attack in Darkness.

My DM and I were talking about Darkness last night. We're going to play as though the area were really dark. If there are only normal light sources around - torches, light spell, candles - then you can only see if you have low-light vision or darkvision. In the Underdark, humans and halflings are blind in a Darkness spell. If the spell is cast outside during the day, anyone can see through the darkness. In any case, everyone gets 20% concealment in the darkness. The spell implies that this is how it works (I guess???)

It's lame that the changes to the lighting rules don't seem to be playtested, BTW.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Elder-Basilisk: Just remembered last night. The drow can use Faerie Fire on their opponent, which allows them to sneak attack in Darkness.

That would be nice for drow if it worked. However, if you check the 3.5 descriptions of Faerie Fire, you'll find that it's specifically excluded.

From the SRD:

A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Outlined creatures do not benefit
from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions
normally),

blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or
dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light. The faerie fire can be blue, green, or violet, according to your choice at the time
of casting. The faerie fire does not cause any harm to the objects or creatures thus outlined.[/Quote]

 

[Urbannen]

How'd I miss that?

Drow stink in 3.5.

Andy Collins and gang really did not think through the changes to lighting effects and spells for 3.5 very well, did they?

 

[The Little Raven]

Just change the wording of the spell.

"Within the radius of a darkness spell, bright light is reduced to shadowy illumination and shadowy illumination is reduced to total darkness. This spell functions as shadowy illumination against darkvision."

There... it reduces light levels (and can be just as good in a shadowy cave as 3.0), but doesn't illuminate.

I think the designers considered it common sense that you couldn't use darkness to light an area, and thus didn't think of interpreting it that way. They failed to take into account that gamers will nit pick every sentence in order to find something to break.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The only reason that the spell gives to think that it wouldn't light an area is the title. (I'd say, "and legacy" but the legacy of D&D Darkness spells has nothing at all to do with this new version--D&D darkness has always been inpenetrable to darkvision, infravision, or ultravision in all previous editions). And since the description of "shadowy illumination" doesn't fit the title no matter how you interpret it, I see no reason to assume that the title presents an accurate description.

Anyway, illuminating an area with the darkness spell is hardly broken. It's just the only use the spell has other than Mass Blur.

I think the designers considered it common sense that you couldn't use darkness to light an area, and thus didn't think of interpreting it that way. They failed to take into account that gamers will nit pick every sentence in order to find something to break.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only reason that the spell gives to think that it wouldn't light an area is the title.

Almost. The other is its subtype. It's an Evocation [Darkness] spell.

What they would need to do, to make things work the way they intuitively should, is to have a note under the Evocation school description that Evocation [Light] spells do not diminish local lighting conditions, and Evocation [Darkness] spells do not increase local lighting conditions.

But as it stands, that is not defined... so while it makes a logical house rule, it isn't official.

At present, about the only use those descriptors have is for determining which spells counter/dispel/suppress each other.

-Hyp.

 

[The Little Raven]

And since the description of "shadowy illumination" doesn't fit the title no matter how you interpret it, I see no reason to assume that the title presents an accurate description.

dark (adj. dark·er, dark·est)

Lacking or having very little light: a dark corner.
Lacking brightness: a dark day.

Seems to fit the description of dark to me.

 

[The Little Raven]

Almost. The other is its subtype. It's an Evocation [Darkness] spell.

That is probably the most telling point I've seen in this argument. The spell evokes darkness, not light, and thus could not raise the local lighting.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, that's one interpretation. The description says that it creates an area of shadowy illumination but whatever. I suppose this just means that the spell is ONLY useful as Mass Blur which means that it's almost entirely useless.

Less meaningful options. Now that's what we all wanted in the revision, isn't it?

That is probably the most telling point I've seen in this argument. The spell evokes darkness, not light, and thus could not raise the local lighting.