D&D 3E/3.5 How 3.5e Darkness works?

[KarinsDad]

The darkness spell cannot make something brighter. In order to do that, it would need to have the "Light" descriptor which it does not.

You are mistaken here.

The Light descriptor allows you to generate light.
The Darkness descriptor allows you to generate shadowy illumination.

An example of an object that generates shadowy illumination and not light is a candle. According to your statement here, a candle would not be able to "make something brighter".

Darkness: "This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius".

Both Shadowy Illumination and Light are actual game mechanics in DND. Candles do not generate "Light", they generate "Shadowy Illumination". Check out the Light Sources and Illumination table.

Think of a Darkness spell as a big magical candle that puts out a certain amount of "shadowy illumination" and prevents greater lights from functioning within it.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Yes, the spell is badly written. I can only assume it's not meant to illuminate dark places. But that's not what it says.

 

[MerakSpielman]

An interesting (or not) thought:

Daylight is brighter than torchlight, right?

What happens if you cast a Light spell outside at noon? Is the area slightly dimmer than it was before?

 

[sfedi]

I think it IS the intention of the spell.
Because a shadowy illumination provides just the amount of light to:
-hide
-see others (poorly if near, clear if out of area of effect)
-see your surroundings (poorly)

Which is GREAT for rogues.
And drows
(who can Faerie Fire an opponent to deny the concealment gained in the darkness)

Note that a complete darkness spell (as in 3.0) is much less useful for a rogue.

 

[Nail]

I can only assume it's not meant to illuminate dark places.

Concidering how long this weirdness of 3.5e has been talked about (the Darkness wonkiness is one of the first things discussed about 3.5e after it came out), and the fact that the FAQ and errata are out and updated......

....I'd say the spell is worded exactly the way the designers intended.

Seriously.

 

[Savage Wombat]

How about "Tenebrates" or "Obtenebrates"?

 

[DreamChaser]

You are mistaken here.

The Light descriptor allows you to generate light.
The Darkness descriptor allows you to generate shadowy illumination.

Think of a Darkness spell as a big magical candle that puts out a certain amount of "shadowy illumination" and prevents greater lights from functioning within it.

Interesting how you provide the candle as an example of shadowy illumination but fail to note that on the list of "light sources" the darkness spell is not listed. By your reasoning, it should be (because it is like a really big candle) but it is not.

There is also a terminology issue because the Daylight spell says "dim illumination" but the chart says shadowy illumination. Light says "dim light" rather than shadowy. According to the standard, when text and table contradict, the text is right.

Which means that shadow illumination and dim illumination are not the same thing.

Which means that darkness does not work like a candle.

Which means that there is nothing to indicate that darkness can make things brighter.

And in terms of the descriptors: since neither light nor darkness are defined in the SRD, we are forced to go with what we know.

Every spell with the light descriptor produces light
Light and darkness counter each other.
Thus, a spell with the dark descriptor must produce darkness.

Thus darkness cannot make things brighter.

And as MerakSpielman pointed out, light cast during high noon will not produce a dimmer area, so darkness cast in the dark will not produce a brighter area.

DC

 

[DungeonMaster]

Yep Andy Collins at his finest.
Despite making Darkness spells that light up dark rooms they made him the "sage" now you know? Damn travesty of the word.
Anyhow, ranks up there with all the other 3.5 abominations at his hands like the uncapped 3.5 holy word with marginal min/max that can kill a room full of titans in a standard action and the 3.5 shapechange that allows you, your familiar and your animal companion to turn into a different type of dragon each round for 2+ hours and breath a different energy weapon each round.

Anyhow, my suggestion is just use the 3rd edition version of these spells. The mess will all be cleared up when 4th edition rolls around I guarantee.

 

[KarinsDad]

Interesting how you provide the candle as an example of shadowy illumination but fail to note that on the list of "light sources" the darkness spell is not listed. By your reasoning, it should be (because it is like a really big candle) but it is not.

There is also a terminology issue because the Daylight spell says "dim illumination" but the chart says shadowy illumination. Light says "dim light" rather than shadowy. According to the standard, when text and table contradict, the text is right.

Which means that shadow illumination and dim illumination are not the same thing.

First off, this is a typical error people make when debating. They attempt to state that one spell has effect x, hence, a different spell can or cannot have effect y.

The effects of a Light spell are irrelevant to the effects of the Darkness spell. What is relevant to the Darkness spell is the definition of "shadowy illumination" and nothing else.

As to whether shadowy illumination and dim illumination are the same thing, you ALSO have to look at the text in the "Light and Visibility" section where dim illumination is not defined at all (in terms of game mechanics).

Hence, if "shadow illumination and dim illumination are not the same thing" as you claim, then we have RULES for game mechanics for shadow illumination (e.g. 20% concealment, etc.). But, we have NO RULES for game mechanics for dim illumination in the "Light and Visibility" section.

Hence, you are incorrect here as well and they do mean the same thing. Either that, or dim illumination is not defined in terms of game mechanics which makes your argument moot anyway since we are discussing shadowy illumination and not dim illumination.

Which means that darkness does not work like a candle.

Which means that there is nothing to indicate that darkness can make things brighter.

Except the term "shadowy illumination" (go look up what the word illumination means). Both of them create shadowy illumination, hence, they both work the same way with regard to the amount of illumination.

We not only have ANOTHER example of something that creates "shadowy illumination" (i.e. a candle), but the spell text does not state an exception here. It does not state that it only works in areas of brightness and shadowy illumination, and does not work in areas of darkness.

Anything that creates shadowy illumination (be it a candle, a darkness spell, a deeper darkness spell) will slightly "light up" a dark area.

You have no rules to support a counter position.

You have an opinion, but it does not follow the rules.

Light and darkness counter each other.
Thus, a spell with the dark descriptor must produce darkness.

Total nonsense.

A light spell attempts to create a bright illumination.
A darkness spell attempts to create a shadowy illumination.

They negate each other.

The fact that they negate each other says NOTHING about what effect is actually created.


The text is clear.

Light IS produced by a Darkness spell. It is a very dim light defined by the term "shadowy illumination".


From this, one can correctly conclude that the Light descriptor means bright light and the Darkness descriptor means dim or shadowy light.

It is still light in both cases.

 

[Nail]

Every spell with the light descriptor produces light
Light and darkness counter each other.
Thus, a spell with the dark descriptor must produce darkness.

Thus darkness cannot make things brighter.

Nice try! Doesn't quite follow that chain of thought, but nice try nonetheless.

Here's what the descriptors do:

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

So, as you see, your last link in your chain of thought doesn't follow. RAW, at least.