D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Darkness Spell - Otherwise known as "Huh?"

d20Dwarf said:
This is funny to me. A rogue's primary attack form is useless unless he uses it in broad daylight! :)
LOL!! Yeah, but the new version of darkness does provide concealment which allows a rogue to use Hide as normal. Sneak attacks are gone, but it does make escaping/moving around undetected easier.

Man, I am going back and forth on this too much.... :(
 

log in or register to remove this ad

John Crichton said:
LOL!! Yeah, but the new version of darkness does provide concealment which allows a rogue to use Hide as normal. Sneak attacks are gone, but it does make escaping/moving around undetected easier.

Man, I am going back and forth on this too much.... :(
I hate the new darkness. I'm thinking of using the 3.0 version and just raising it up to 3rd level (because I think it's too good at 2nd level).
 


d20Dwarf said:
I hate the new darkness. I'm thinking of using the 3.0 version and just raising it up to 3rd level (because I think it's too good at 2nd level).
I was thinking along similar lines. However, would that affect the spell-like abilities of drow, tieflings and the like? I'm talking about their ECL.
 

jgsugden said:
Although it has not been fixed yet, there was a comment by a designer (I forgot who or where, but I do rememeber reading it) that said that the wording was unfortunate, because the spell was not intended to create light.

I've read this several times, but never seen an actual quote from a designer (not even from a personal email, let alone a link to an actual post or FAQ or the like). I don't suppose you have a link to the source of this, do you? I'd like to see it.

I've begun to think that someone once said, "I'm sure so-and-so will say that's wrong", and then someone repeated, "So-and-so said that was wrong", and the meme spread. ;)

I also am amused that deeper darkness isn't one whit deeper than regular darkness, despite it being one of the few spells not to get renamed to fit the greater whatever format; you'd think if they were going to leave it as a conspicuous exception to the renaming trend, the spell would fit the name.

IMO, the new lighting rules in general are decent ideas, badly executed. Not-so-darkness is just part of that.
 

coyote6 said:
IMO, the new lighting rules in general are decent ideas, badly executed. Not-so-darkness is just part of that.
Yeah. On some levels they work until you throw magic in there. There is a fix, I just can't put my finger on it... :(
 
Last edited:


Well, here is the way we are running the new 3.5 darkness. Basically there is a hierarchy for darkness versus light. The rule is the prevaling light is the 'baseline' and the darkness spells moves prevaling light one step towards darkness.

For example, if the caster was outside under the noon-day sun then the effect would be as described. If the caster was underground then it would be completely dark and the only way to counter it would be with a light spell of equal or greater level. If it was a light spell of equal level then I would do the 'shadowy illumination' schtick.

Ysgarran.

EDIT:
I do have to say I HATE the concealment part. I tempted to use that only when a 'shadow' effect happens when a light-dark spells of equal level are competing. Might be overly complicated but I like the idea.
 
Last edited:


Gez said:
Next week, I'll teach you how to build a magical fridge +3 with a wand of fireballs.

Well, a wand of fireballs, a wand of reduce person, and a bag of holding
would be all you need to make a fridge that works like a normal fridge does...

Step 1: Shoot a nearby kender with your wand of fireballs.
Step 2: Reduce the kender corpse while it is still heated. Compression increases the heat of the kender.
Step 3: Wait for the kender to cool to room temperature.
Step 4: Dismiss the reduce person spell. Uncompression decreases the kender's
heat.
Step 5: Dump your chilled kender corpse into the bag of holding and seal it off
to keep your perishables extra-fresh!
 

Remove ads

Top