Darkness + natural sunlight + vampires = ?

[Cheiromancer]

Does natural sunlight counter/dispel magical darkness? If not, can creatures adversely affected by sunlight use it to travel by day?

I know there is some spell in FR (Cloak of Dark Power, I think) which does this, but since darkness has been reduced to "shadowy illumination" I'm wondering if it would work, too.

On the other hand, natural sunlight appears to be superior to the spell daylight, so if daylight dispels darkness then sunlight should too.

 

[Magic Slim]

You can cast "Darkness" outside, in broad daylight. Ergo, sunlight doesn't dispel magical darkness (magical darkness is only dispelled by magical light effects of its level or higher).

Sure, a vampire could cast darkness on himself and travel by day. I doubt he'd be able to see (vampires don't have blindsight, do they?). Also, it's hard being inconnuos (sp?) when you're actually a 20'-radius ball of darkness travelling the countryside

Slim

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sure, a vampire could cast darkness on himself and travel by day. I doubt he'd be able to see (vampires don't have blindsight, do they?).

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsD-E.rtf

 

[Magic Slim]

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsD-E.rtf

Was that a reply to correct something I said, or are you still adjusting to the new reply buttons (reply vs post reply)?

Slim

 

[orbitalfreak]

Sure, a vampire could cast darkness on himself and travel by day. I doubt he'd be able to see (vampires don't have blindsight, do they?). Also, it's hard being inconnuos (sp?) when you're actually a 20'-radius ball of darkness travelling the countryside

Slim

Except, that in 3.5, the Darkness spell only provides 20% concealment due to shadows, not total darkness and complete lack of light.

 

[Magic Slim]

Except, that in 3.5, the Darkness spell only provides 20% concealment due to shadows, not total darkness and complete lack of light.

true, true, but I assumed that he meant for 3.0. I doubt he would have asked the question, had he played 3.5 and read the spell description.

Slim

 

[Cheiromancer]

true, true, but I assumed that he meant for 3.0. I doubt he would have asked the question, had he played 3.5 and read the spell description.

Slim

Oddly enough, I had read the spell description, as indicated by this snippet of my original post:

...but since darkness has been reduced to "shadowy illumination" I'm wondering if it would work...

But let me rephrase my question: Does darkness in 3.5 provide 100% cover against natural sunlight.

 

[Magic Slim]

Oddly enough, I had read the spell description, as indicated by this snippet of my original post:

But let me rephrase my question: Does darkness in 3.5 provide 100% cover against natural sunlight.

Well, the spell only grants 20% concealment now, so you can actually see in the area affected by a darkness spell. If you can see, then there's some light going in and coming out of the area.

Slim

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, the spell only grants 20% concealment now, so you can actually see in the area affected by a darkness spell. If you can see, then there's some light going in and coming out of the area.

Ah, but is it sunlight, or is it the magic light that the Darkness spell now creates?

-Hyp.

 

[Magic Slim]

Ah, but is it sunlight, or is it the magic light that the Darkness spell now creates?

-Hyp.

Stop making my brain explode please.

It's funny to imagine that Darkness doesn't create shadow, or darkness, or whatever, but simply a peculiar lighting condition.

Slim