Deeper Darkness questions

[kreynolds]

The normal lighting condition is darkness (lack of light) which the bad guys can see in and he can't. Hence the whole point of the original question being asked.

True. But that's an awful lot of trouble, though I can see how it would be beneficial, though only if you survive the multitude of attacks of opportunity for attack a held item or casting a spell within a threatened area.

However, the point of this discussion was to determine if DrSpunj's DM made a real screwup of a mistake. It is obvious that he did. So, now DrSpunj can go to his DM and explain what should have happened.

We got onto this because you said the following:

Touching with an active spell is an armed attach and won't provoke an AoO.

If you cast the spell, hold the charge, then move in, then yes, you won't suffer an attack of opportunity. But you never mentioned anything about holding a charge. I just mentioned it. So, in your post that I just quoted, you are absolutely 100% dead wrong. And attacking a held or worn item always triggers an AoO. It's been fun.

 

[Demogorge]

Just to add some confusion (or clarification) to the mix, here is what I feel is a relevant part of the DnD FAQ:

When an opposite spell is used to negate an effect that is already in place (such as using slow spell to counter and dispel a haste spell), is the success of the dispel automatic, or is a level check required? Does the subject or the caster of the spell being countered and dispelled get a saving throw?
Two opposite spells simply negate each other. No dispel check is required, no saving throw is allowed, and spell resistance does not apply.

So if the person would not get a saving throw, neither would his worn item, right?

 

[kreynolds]

So if the person would not get a saving throw, neither would his worn item, right?

Right. The item would not get a saving throw and neither would you. However, you are still attacking a worn item, thus provoking an attack of opportunity, thus you are going to get the crap smacked out of you for it.

 

[DrSpunj]

Well...

So if the person would not get a saving throw, neither would his worn item, right?

I believe we tried to answer this up above. The differences between the example in the D&D FAQ and the questions here are mostly confined to the differences in the Range of the spells involved. Both Haste and Slow can affect a target that is within Close Range, so you don't have to be right next to your target to "counter and dispel" it's opposite. However, all the spells in this discussion have a Range of Touch and my friend pointed out to me a passage in the Counterspelling section of the PHB that said all counterspelling had to be done within the normal range of the spell, ie. Touch. For Daylight to successfully counter or dispel Deeper Darkness (or vice versa) you must cast it and touch the affected item, hence the reason why AoOs might come into play, either because you casted right next to your opponent (and didn't do it by Casting Defensively) or because you are trying to touch a specific worn item (and not just touch your opponent anywhere, which would be much easier to do).

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I don't know if this is right, but....

You are in the dark.

You can continual flame, then someone casts deeper darkness.

The area that overlaps is dark.

You cast continual flame again (in the same place as the first one).

The area is lit because there are 2 continual flames in effect while only 1 deeper darkness is in the area.

Deeper darkness is cast again (in the area is was cast in before).

Both continual flames are negated and the area is now the original lighting - dark.

I would rule that the continual flame negates the deeper darkness, and something as simple as a level 0 light would be enough to light the area now.

That's just my opinion though.

--Opinionated Spikey

 

[DrSpunj]

Well...

I have to disagree with you on two counts, Spikey.

While I agree Deeper Darkness would suppress a Continual Flame, I believe the first Deeper Darkness would suppress both of the Continual Flames in your example and a second Deeper Darkness not only is not needed, but wouldn't add anything (though it would make the area dark for a couple extra rounds, after the DAYS this spell lasts anyway). I don't have anything in the spell descriptions to directly support this; I'm using the 3E fundamental "similar effects don't stack" dogma. Rereading your post I am unsure if you mean Deeper Darkness is cast for effect each time or if you mean someone casts in purposely to dispel the Continual Flame. I believe you are thinking for effect because a little further down you talk about 2 Continual Flames hanging around and only 1 Deeper Darkness. If I'm wrong and you do mean to directly counter/dispel the Continual Flame then I agree with you, Deeper Darkness can be cast at Touch range to counter or dispel Continual Flame.

The second thing I disagree about is this phrase:

I would rule that the continual flame negates the deeper darkness, and something as simple as a level 0 light would be enough to light the area now.

While Daylight, Darkness and Deeper Darkness all have passages describing what happens when they are brought near each other and overlap, Continual Flame doesn't have anything similar. I do not believe that was an error; I don't think the permanent effect from Continual Flame should be strong enough to negate Deeper Darkness. If I substitute Continual Flame in the above sentence with Daylight, then I agree 100%.

Anyone else here have any thoughts?

 

[kreynolds]

Nope. Maybe I can add somethin' new later, but only if the situation calls for it. I'm done with this piece and don't got nothin' else to add. By the way, I'm pretty confident that all of you are on the same page, but for some reason, no one is able to effectively communicate that to one another.