D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Darkness Spell: What's the Point?

[Shadowdweller]

OK, I realize I'm late to the party on this issue, but I'm looking at a monster with the feat Quicken Spell-Like Ability (darkness). Since the monster only has low-light vision, is there any practical, tactical use for this ability in combat, other than as cover for a retreat? Someone, please show me how this could be cool.

Aside from what other people have posted regarding sneak attacks, area effects, and ranged attacks there are also certain feats (such as Blindfight and Improved Precise Shot) that can also favor the user.

Also consider the following: The spell is cast on an object, say a ring or bead in the creature's hand. Creature closes said hand (possibly as a free action depending on DM ruling), then attacks then opens said hand . Or if opening/closing DOES require an action, it can be staggered: Close hand/attack. Next round: Attack/open hand. The creature does NOT suffer the miss chance (or at least not every round). The enemy does.

 

[IanB]

Also remember that darkness only imposes the miss chance to targets in it's area of effect. If you are inside the area of 3.5 darkness you don't have a miss chance to fire an arrow out. This would allow a rogue to snipe or a caster to make ranged touch attacks. A rogue could also stand at the edge and sneak attack out with melee weapons.

3.0 Darkness would block line of site, 3.5 does not affect line of site to those not in the area.

I believe this is wrong. From the SRD:

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

If you're right on the edge of the darkness, then you could fire out without concealment, but otherwise your line will pass through a darkened square and your target will have concealment.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I believe this is wrong. From the SRD:

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

I don't think that IS wrong. Consider the following case: An archer, standing in total darkness (total concealment) firing at an enemy fully illuminated by a nonmagical camp fire. Do the dark squares provide (total) concealment to the well-lit figure?

Seems like they should by your interpretation of that quote.

 

[IanB]

Non-magical darkness is trumped by light sources; magical darkness is not. I would argue that is the difference in the two situations.

EDIT: I guess the ruling boils down to whether or not you think the darkness spell obscures/partially obscures light sources outside the area for people inside it. I think it has to, otherwise the rule about suppressing light sources doesn't really work.

 

[werk]

Non-magical darkness is trumped by light sources; magical darkness is not. I would argue that is the difference in the two situations.

EDIT: I guess the ruling boils down to whether or not you think the darkness spell obscures/partially obscures light sources outside the area for people inside it. I think it has to, otherwise the rule about suppressing light sources doesn't really work.

No question that magical darkness is different than regular darkness (shadowy illumination). "Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness. "

 

[TheGogmagog]

I believe this is wrong. From the SRD:

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

If you're right on the edge of the darkness, then you could fire out without concealment, but otherwise your line will pass through a darkened square and your target will have concealment.

I was sure of the case where you stood on the edge, wasn't positive about standing in the center. The senario I thought of was a naturally dark hallway and a lit room at the end. It's the lit portion that would determine concealment, logically at least but not by the rule above.

Magical darkness in 3.0 would block line of site, more of a physical cloud, I suppose 3.5 darkness would as well. Seems like a DM's call as to whether 3.5 darkness provides concealment to those not in it's area of effect.

 

[werk]

The darkness is not opaque, it's just shadowy, only 20% miss. I was hung up on the 'dark cloud' mental image.

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

So it can be read that if your line of sight passes through an area that provides concealment, any target would have concealment, 20%.

It doesn't say "...or border that provides concealment to that target, the target has concealment."

I can see either reading. I've always imposed the miss chance to anyone looking through the darkness. If you read it the other way, you could shoot through obscuring mist or fog cloud if you and the target are outside the area.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I was sure of the case where you stood on the edge, wasn't positive about standing in the center. The senario I thought of was a naturally dark hallway and a lit room at the end. It's the lit portion that would determine concealment, logically at least but not by the rule above.

Magical darkness in 3.0 would block line of site, more of a physical cloud, I suppose 3.5 darkness would as well. Seems like a DM's call as to whether 3.5 darkness provides concealment to those not in it's area of effect.

I would use the rule under Varying Degrees of Concealment to say that the area outside the darkness is not in concealment: "Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly." However, IanB does have a good point about magical darkness.

 

[Drowbane]

Well, if you in the Underdark, its a great way to get some reading light.

"Shadowy Illumination" Somebody needs to get them boys a dictionary. :/

Personally I use a mix of 3.x Spells. Darkness gets 3.0 treatment... as does the Animal Buffs (Bull's Str, etc)... but Heal/Harm and others get 3.5.

Oi.

 

[Odysseus]

As shadowdewler pointed out. It is easy for the caster to turn the darkness on and off.
To avoid rule lawyering , i'd rule it that the darkness doesn't effect the caster when targeting outside the darkness. Although I perhap the spell might be better as the 3.0 version.