Daylight, Deeper Darkness, Continual Flame Interactions

DrSpunj

Explorer
Yeah...

IanB said:
Hmm. I think not allowing light spells to work in the cancel/overlap area leads to a bit of an odd situation, where a lit candle will provide light in there but a magical light won't work. It just seems strange to me.

And what about glowing magic weapons? They 'shed light equal to a torch' but they're magical. Is that the equivalent of the light spell? Or is it really the equivalent of continual flame? I can see arguments for both.

That's essentially what's getting me. A mundane torch is considered okay in the overlap, but a Light cantrip is not? That seems weird. I guess that's why I keep thinking/arguing strongly over the words "temporarily negates" and the phrase "prevailing light conditions". If the effects of Daylight and Deeper Darkness are "temporarily negated", how could Deeper Darkness still be there to be effective against a Light cantrip but not a torch? And remember, while Continual Flame is a 3rd level Cleric spell, it has a Permanent effect, so my spelunking helmet is essentially a magic item, a funny everburning torch if you will. The glowing magic weapons argument is equally sound and viable. Are they muted as well?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Yeah...

And remember, while Continual Flame is a 3rd level Cleric spell, it has a Permanent effect, so my spelunking helmet is essentially a magic item, a funny everburning torch if you will.

Nothing funny about it - it's exactly an Everburning Torch.

It's why Everburning Torches don't need an Item Creation feat - it's just a stick with Continual Flame cast on it. They can get taken out by an area Dispel.

Anyway. Post-Errata, Dancing Lights and Continual Flame are both Light spells of equal or lower level than Deeper Darkness, so either can be countered or dispelled by that spell.

However, while Daylight and Deeper Darkness specifically talk about negating each other, these are the only spells that mention a suppressive effect. Light will not function is "an area of magical darkness". But while the two Big Spells are negating each other, there is no area of magical darkness - so a Light spell, or a Continual Flame, or even a Dancing Lights should function.

"The area of effect of a Deeper Darkness spell" is only "an area of magical darkness" when it's dark, if that makes sense :)

Thus, I would also allow a second Daylight or Deeper Darkness spell to have normal effect while the other two battle it out, so to speak.

Just my interpretation.

-Hyp.
 

rhammer2

First Post
Re: Re: Yeah...

This is how my group runs the light/darkness spells.


Hypersmurf said:


Nothing funny about it - it's exactly an Everburning Torch.

It's why Everburning Torches don't need an Item Creation feat - it's just a stick with Continual Flame cast on it. They can get taken out by an area Dispel.

Anyway. Post-Errata, Dancing Lights and Continual Flame are both Light spells of equal or lower level than Deeper Darkness, so either can be countered or dispelled by that spell.

However, while Daylight and Deeper Darkness specifically talk about negating each other, these are the only spells that mention a suppressive effect. Light will not function is "an area of magical darkness". But while the two Big Spells are negating each other, there is no area of magical darkness - so a Light spell, or a Continual Flame, or even a Dancing Lights should function.

"The area of effect of a Deeper Darkness spell" is only "an area of magical darkness" when it's dark, if that makes sense :)

Thus, I would also allow a second Daylight or Deeper Darkness spell to have normal effect while the other two battle it out, so to speak.

Just my interpretation.

-Hyp.
 

To clarify since it's relevant, I believe they all say "equal or lower level". Continual Flame, Daylight and Deeper Darkness are all Clr 3. I'm still not swayed here. The phrase "temporarily negated" says to me that the Deeper Darkness isn't really effective in the "areas of overlapping effect", so I really think the Light cantrip and Continual Flame helmet should function as the Deeper Darkness isn't really there because of Daylight. I could be wrong which is why I'm asking.

Firstly I'll agree with the post a few above this one, Heighten Spell can be really usefull when casting, or crafting items that cast, Light/Dark spells. Going to make a Wand of Daylight? Just consider making it a Heightened Wand of Daylight, cast at 4th level. Sure it costs a bit more and takes a few extra Exp, but you'll rarely find anyone that's prepared to counter a 4th level light type spell short of a blanket Dispel Magic type effort.

I interpret that "Temporarily negated" differently than you do. I see the spells as 'radiating' either Light or Dark. The level of the spell establishes the 'intensity' of said radiation. Any spell of lower level trying to function in it's opposite's AoE would be essentially ignored because it's simply too weak and is smothered by the more powerfull (ie: Higher level) spell's effect. This is the classic Light spell cast/brought into the AoE of a Deeper Darkness spell.

Spells of equal intensity (ie: same level) on the other hand are evenly matched, and thus the radiations simply cancel each other out. This is why the lesser magics, regardless of being light- or dark-based, are still smothered. The magical light/dark is still present in the over-lap zone, you just can't see either effect because they're canceling each other out. The Magic is still strong enough to smother lesser spells inside this zone.

I suppose you could rationalize that mundane light sources (ie: Torches, Lamps, etc..) function in the over-lap zone because they aren't magical. A Light spell is smothered when in this over-lap zone because there's a more powerful magic, of an opposite nature, in effect in that area. Since the torch isn't magical it's not smothered by opposite magic and goes about it's buisness of shedding light as normal.

I think one of the problems with this spell, as WotC has it worded, is that they say the light/dark itself is radiated. This leads to people trying to explain how, when two spells over-lap and cancel each others' effects (if only partialy/temporarily) they also cancel the magic behind said effects. Thus you have arguements like those in the above posts. A simple change to say that the magical 'aura' is radiated, excepting through solid objects (this allows the 'magic lamp creations still'), and that said 'aura' causes light or dark effects to manifest in the area covered. Thus the light and dark overlaps would still mean 'prevailing light conditions hold sway', but you'd still have the 'magic' there, and thus smothering any lower level spells.

Perhaps it's just not as clear to others as it is to me (natural enough, as I thought of it), and it doesn't help that I'm trying to explain my reasoning when I'm tired. :p

Hatchling Dragon
 

Grendel

First Post
I like to fall back on the stacking rules in situations like this.

Magical light does not stack, the most powerful source (in the area) takes presidence. Even if the darkness is "negated temporarily" the light and darkness source are still surpressing other light and darkness sources in the area.

This rule came up out of nessessity rather than a logical conclusion. Back in the good ole 2e days, our party would combat drow in the underdark, their favorite tactic was blanket the area in darkness, our favorite tactic was to produce litterally hundreds of objects with continual light cast on them, ultimately whover had the most won. This was such a silly and ridiculous situation that we decided that a single darkness with surpress an number of light stones, and vise-versa. That rule has carried over to the 3e and worked just fine for us. It makes a good reason to hang onto mundane light sources and forgoe the magical crutch of everburing armor.
 

DrSpunj

Explorer
Well...

Obviously this isn't exactly clear cut as I'm getting (thanks to you all) very good reasoning on both sides. Grendel and Hatchling Dragon have brought up the exact same points my DM did while Hypersmurf and rhammer2 seem to be interpreting most things my way.

I think I'll e-mail the Sage and see if he's not too busy to answer this one. I'll post his responses here if I get a response. Thanks all.
 

Remove ads

Top