Why was Darkness changed?

[Jeff Wilder]

(This is appropriate for both "Rules" and "House Rules," IMO. I'll leave it to the moderators to move if they see fit. Probably depends on if it veers heavily into fixes.)

Why was darkness changed in 3.5? Anybody got any idea?

The write-up of the spell doesn't make sense any longer. According to the spell, it produces "shadowy illumination," which I assume is equivalent to the outer-radius of a light-source. So ... if my human mage casts darkness in a completely lightless underground cavern, he can suddenly see (albeit dimly)?

Has anyone come up with a logical fix?

I've been playing with the idea of "light stages," ranging from Supernaturally Bright (flare, e.g., although this stage would assume persistence) down through Supernaturally Dark (deeper darkness). A Light or Darkness spell would then adjust the ambient light-level up or down the ladder a certain number of rungs. It would only affect a magical light-level if of high enough level, and the "Supernatural levels" can only be reached (or countered) with the appropriate spells.

It needs work, but I think it's doable. Anybody already invent this wheel?

Is it easier, and just as effective, to fix darkness by saying it can't actually increase the light-level (since I'm sure that weirdness was unintentional)?

 

[Tatsukun]

Just tag a line on the end that says it has no effect if the area is already darker than the spell's darkness.

Or, leave it as is. Maybe some people in your world want a light spell that's not so light. It's great for hunting/spying on things in the dark. "We need a little light, but we don't want to allert the other guys".

-Tatsu

 

[Gregor]

I thought the same about the spell when I read it in my 3.5 PH. I just house-ruled it to stay the same as it was in 3.0. Since Drow are the main baddies in my campaign, I really didnt want to nerf their darkness ability which I always thought was pretty cool.

Cheers,

 

[juampa81]

I'm pretty sure the weirdness was unintentional

The idea of "light stages" sounds good, but if I were you I would try to stay within game terms. That is, I'd just add an adjective to each spell and work it out from there.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

There are ongoing arguments about whether darkness was too powerful or not, but I don't find them compelling one way or the other. I suspect the strongest reason for the change was simply that running a fight with a darkness effect going on could get very awkward.

 

[AuraSeer]

My gripe with the 3.0 version was that it was totally impossible to penetrate without magic. Even if you were carrying around a million-candlepower searchlight, one darkness spell would still render you totally blind. This effectively made it a no-save blindness for almost all creatures. The Blindsight ability made it even worse; a creature with that power could use one darkness spell to turn a matched battle into a one-sided slaughter.

I used to use a house rule that light sources inside a darkness effect would still work, but at 1/2 radius (or 1/4 for deeper darkness). I haven't decided whether to keep that rule or use the 3.5 version of the spell.

 

[dcollins]

Why was darkness changed in 3.5? Anybody got any idea?

Top theories are:
(1) Process of generally nerfing of magic spells, and
(2) Making it more compatible with use of miniatures on a battlemap.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here's the thing: Darkness and Deeper Darkness weren't nerfed. They were completely changed. The only real problem with the change is that the name is now inappropriate considering the D&D tradition of darkness that's well dark. Had they removed Darkness entirely and named the spells "Cloak of Shadows, lesser" and "cloak of shadows, greater" everything would have been fine. The new spells have their uses (negating sneak attack granting your side concealment in a ranged duel while leaving the other guys in the open, sneaking around without a light source to give you away, and creating a means to hide in the open, etc), none of which were really practical with the old version. The old version had its uses as well (preventing ranged attacks, blinding high dex foes (without uncanny dodge) to deny them their dex bonus to AC, preventing your retreat from being observed, enabling PCs and monsters with blindsight, the ability to see in magical darkness, and/or blindfighting to kick butt) and the new one doesn't do them very well.

As to why it was changed, my guess would be that they thought the old version slowed down combat too much and was too difficult to adjudicate. It did slow down combat and was sometimes difficult to adjudicate but I think it was worth it. The new versions are fine too but the game really ought to have both.

 

[Thanee]

Well, Darkness plus Blindsight is effectively Greater Invisibility at 3rd level.

About the 3.5 Darkness, I just play it that it restricts light to that level, but does not actually lighten the area. So, if it is cast in darkness, it mostly prevents darkvision from working properly (as shadowy illumination, others are in total darkness), if it is cast in bright light, it reduces it to shadowy illumination.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ruleslawyer]

Except that blindsight shouldn't be easy to come by (the FR version is way overpowered; AU has it pegged as a (weak-ish) 6th-level spell, which I think is spot on).