How dark is dark?

[0-hr]

Do Darkness and Deeper Darkness make it difficult to tell which square a target is in? It seems to me that they used to (generating total darkness) but now they don't in 3.5 (generating Shadowy Illumination).

Is there any mechanics effect other than the 20% miss chance? We've been playing the usual "Listen(20) or pick a square" game to tell where the enemy is inside Darkness, but I'm not sure that is necessary any more. If it's just normal concealment, then you can see where folks are (and how many there are, and other general facts), it's just dim and shadowy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it's just normal concealment, then you can see where folks are (and how many there are, and other general facts), it's just dim and shadowy.

Right.

You can see as much within the area of a Darkness/Deeper Darkness as you can in candlelight.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You can see as much within the area of a Darkness/Deeper Darkness as you can in candlelight.

Agreed. And that's why I like to rename Deeper Darkness Wider Darkness.

 

[0-hr]

So, aside from teh 20% miss chance, you are free to make melee and ranged attacks against targets inside such an area of darkness, regardless of them moving from round to round?


If that is the case, is there a way in 3.5 to create an area of pitch black (full concealment, can't see nuthin, like the old darkness)?

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, aside from teh 20% miss chance, you are free to make melee and ranged attacks against targets inside such an area of darkness, regardless of them moving from round to round?

Yes. Moreover, targeted spells do not have any miss chance (unless they also require an attack roll).

If that is the case, is there a way in 3.5 to create an area of pitch black (full concealment, can't see nuthin, like the old darkness)?

Not in the core rules, though spells like fog cloud and invisibility will grant total concealment. The BoVD has damning darkness, but IMO that was written without the changes in 3.5 in mind. The Draconomicon might have something.

 

[werk]

I haven't seen a 3.5 Blacklight from the FRCS. Anyone know where that is?

 

[RigaMortus2]

We houseruled to just use 3.0 Darkness and Deeper Darkness. The 3.5 version are pretty useless IMO. And they don't make much sense. You can be in a cave with "natural" darkness, and have it be pitch black (granting total concealment) and if you want to make it "light" you can actually cast 3.5 Darkness and it will make it lighter? Huh? Not much sense...

 

[Cheiromancer]

I've heard that darkness is not supposed to increase light levels, only decrease them, but only to candlelight levels. I don't remember if that was a FAQ or Sage Advice or what.

I speculate that this change was prompted by the number of spells, items and special abilities that grant blindsight. If you have darkness that grants total concealment it can be unbalancing if players have access to these abilities, and unfair against the players if the DM uses them.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I speculate that this change was prompted by the number of spells, items and special abilities that grant blindsight. If you have darkness that grants total concealment it can be unbalancing if players have access to these abilities, and unfair against the players if the DM uses them.

I see your point, but I don't see how this is any more unbalancing than using Invisibility, a Ring of Invisibility or Improved (Greater?) Invisibility? IIRC, Blindsight spell wasn't a Core spell. It was located in FRCD (Magic of Faerun I think). There weren't any core feats that let you completely negate concealment (Blind-Fight let you make 1 reroll if you missed). If it was so unbalancing, that is the fault of the DM. They have final say if a player is allowed to have a non-core spell/feat (or even Core feat if you really want to get down to it). And they are the ones who dish out the magic items.

 

[Drowbane]

As written in 3.5, Darkness will actually create "light" in an area of pitch black. I guess its a new way for Drow Wizards to read thier spellbooks