Useful use of Deeper Darkness?

[Randomocity132]

It lasts for a day/level, but what if you want to dismiss it. Well, you put it on an object, naturally, like a stone or piece of folded paper, then toss it away when you're done

But what if you want to hold onto that item? If I put it in my bag, do I still radiate darkness? My bet is yes.

What if I put it in a bag of holding? Would that keep the darkness from enveloping me?

[Pickford]

It lasts for a day/level, but what if you want to dismiss it. Well, you put it on an object, naturally, like a stone or piece of folded paper, then toss it away when you're done

But what if you want to hold onto that item? If I put it in my bag, do I still radiate darkness? My bet is yes.

What if I put it in a bag of holding? Would that keep the darkness from enveloping me?

No.


This spell functions like darkness, except that the object radiates shadowy illumination in a 60-foot radius and the darkness lasts longer.


If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

Just cover it with anything. edit: These spells are, conceptually, just light spells in reverse. (i.e. you're casting a type of light that nobody can normally see in)

[Psyren]

No to the first question, yes to the second - putting your "darkstone" into any enclosure will block the emanation, rendering it useless.

[Crake]

But what if you want to hold onto that item? If I put it in my bag, do I still radiate darkness? My bet is yes.

If you put the stone in your bag, you would actually NOT continue emanating darkness.

[Lafaellar]

Yea, just put a towel around it or something and you are fine.

[Curmudgeon]

For tactical usefulness, get the spell cast on the tip of a blade. You keep that sheathed normally (and thus cover the Deeper Darkness effect), but it's a free action to draw the blade during a normal move.

[Maginomicon]

They don't explicitly spell this out, but “shadowy light” and “dim light” on their own refer to the same lighting condition rules. Those words are are included in the descriptions of darkness spell effects primarily because zones of "shadowy illumination" in magical darkness still affect darkvision. It's in there to tell the player "I don't care if you have darkvision, your vision is STILL hampered within this zone somewhat, and here's how". This is also why darkness spells have only one "lighting condition" throughout their entire effect, while light spells have two types of "lighting conditions" throughout.

The key to understanding how magical darkness affects non-magical light is to understand that in each case of a darkness effect it says something about how it affects non-magical light. It’s not just talking about local light sources within the area, but ALL non-magical light sources that might be penetrating the area, including sunlight and moonlight. Thus, to someone without darkvision, the zone inside the spell is always pitch black inside. Once that’s understood, the rest of the ambiguous terminology in the light/darkness spell descriptions makes a lot more sense. (Thus, there's none of the nonsensical "the darkness spell creates a better-lit area than the otherwise-prevailing non-magical pure darkness it's cast in" BS you sometimes hear.)

Here's a nifty table that breaks down the differences between the various "light" and "darkness" spells (and thus why they'd still be useful):
{table=head]Level | Descriptor | Spell Name | Summary
0 | [Light] | Light | Emanates magical bright light to 20 ft then emanates magical shadowy light another 20 ft. |
0 | (none) | No Light | Spreads non-magical pure darkness to 20 ft and non-magical lights can’t light the area, but it has no effect on darkvision throughout. |
1 | [Light] | Light of Lunia | Emanates magical bright light to 30 ft then emanates magical shadowy light another 30 ft, and later allows the caster to shoot eye beams. |
1 | [Darkness] | Darklight | Only useful in non-magical pure darkness. Emanates special “darklight” to 5 ft, causing people inside the sphere to see normally despite the darkness, but has no effect on darkvision throughout. |
2 | [Light] | Continual Flame | Emanates magical bright light to 20 ft, then emanates magical shadowy light another 20 ft |
2 | [Darkness] | Darkness | Emanates magical shadowy light to 20 ft, and non-magical lights can’t light the area, effectively making the area have non-magical pure darkness, but darkvision is partially affected by the shadowy light anyway. |
3 | [Light] | Daylight | Emanates magical bright light to 60 ft then emanates magical shadowy light another 60 ft. |
3 | [Darkness] | Blacklight | Emanates magical pure darkness to 20 ft, impenetrable to everyone except to the caster inside the area, and even blocks darkvision.
3 | [Darkness] | Deeper Darkness | As the Darkness spell, but emanates to 60 ft. |
[/table]

To reiterate, people with darkvision can (depending on the spell) see inside to some variable extent. They either...

can see completely fine, in the case of the no light spell (a cantrip),
can see somewhat, in the case of the darkness spell (a 2nd-level spell), or
can't see at all, in the case of the blacklight spell (a 3rd-level spell)


As for how these effects affect low-light vision:

Any time a spell of one descriptor is cast to overlap or moves into the area of a spell of the other descriptor, a special zone exists as the "red"-indicated area of magical shadowy illumination (or bright light) overlaps the "blue"-indicated magical darkness.

http://gyazo.com/8d4e0297b31cba083dc703e6cfa53b51.png
For the purposes of determining the zone of otherwise-prevailing conditions, do not account for low-light vision (the "green"-indicated areas shown above). If both spells are the same level, the overlapped zone is lit (or lacks light) as if neither spell was in effect there (this is what is meant by the “otherwise-prevailing conditions” of the area). If they are not of the same level, the zone is instead affected by the higher-level spell. Keep in mind that if no prevailing light sources (such as sunlight) have sufficient range or line-of-effect to the zone, the zone has non-magical darkness regardless.

If you anticipate having zones of prevailing conditions, non-magical light (e.g. sunlight, moonlight, a torch, etc.) allows you to see into those zones. For example, assume a scenario in natural broad daylight, where an area of a darkness spell partially overlaps an area of a continual flame spell. The two spells have equal spell levels, so the overlapped zone has the prevailing conditions of natural broad daylight (since natural broad daylight can pass through the area of the continual flame spell).

I hope that gives you some insight as to how even the deeper darkness spell can be "useful". ^_^

[TuggyNE]

OT, re: darkness
They don't explicitly spell this out, but “shadowy light” and “dim light” on their own refer to the same lighting condition rules. Those words are are included in the descriptions of darkness spell effects primarily because zones of "shadowy illumination" in magical darkness still affect darkvision. It's in there to tell the player "I don't care if you have darkvision, your vision is STILL hampered within this zone somewhat, and here's how". This is also why darkness spells have only one "lighting condition" throughout their entire effect, while light spells have two types of "lighting conditions" throughout.

Fair enough; I've always understood it this way, but go on.


The key to understanding how magical darkness affects non-magical light is to understand that in each case of a darkness effect it says something about how it affects non-magical light. It’s not just talking about local light sources within the area, but ALL non-magical light sources that might be penetrating the area, including sunlight and moonlight. Thus, to someone without darkvision, the zone inside the spell is always pitch black inside. Once that’s understood, the rest of the ambiguous terminology in the light/darkness spell descriptions makes a lot more sense. (Thus, there's none of the nonsensical "the darkness spell creates a better-lit area than the otherwise-prevailing non-magical pure darkness it's cast in" BS you sometimes hear.)

This sounds like an awesome houserule, but it doesn't quite seem to match the actual text.
This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.

Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level.

It simply says that the area is filled with 20%-concealment-level "shadowy illumination", and normal lights can't lift the darkness to anything beyond that point. 20% is fitting for "dim, but not pitch-black". Where does the "pitch-black" come in, then? Because I'm just not seeing it. Worse, because (as you rightly noted) the spells reference the lighting conditions, "shadowy illumination" specifically means it's not pitch-black, but allows characters to see: "In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly." The fact that darkness literally radiates candlelight-level illumination is the deeply-broken part.

[Maginomicon]

OT, re: darkness
It simply says that the area is filled with 20%-concealment-level "shadowy illumination", and normal lights can't lift the darkness to anything beyond that point. 20% is fitting for "dim, but not pitch-black". Where does the "pitch-black" come in, then? Because I'm just not seeing it. Worse, because (as you rightly noted) the spells reference the lighting conditions, "shadowy illumination" specifically means it's not pitch-black, but allows characters to see: "In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly." The fact that darkness literally radiates candlelight-level illumination is the deeply-broken part.

That line of text is the source of the "darkness causes brighter than the otherwise-prevailing conditions" nonsense. It makes absolutely zero sense for a spell called darkness to for any reason (or twisting of the RAW or RAI) improve lighting conditions in any given otherwise-prevailing condition. Once you put it in the context of a darkness effect being cast inside prevailing non-magical darkness, you must realize that's absurd: it can't possibly really mean it "changes" the lighting conditions to that. It's not a "house rule", and it's not even "broken". It's just plain English being poorly worded in the text of the spells.

Any time "shadowy illumination" or "shadowy light", is mentioned in a darkness effect, it's referring to a general case which affects all relevant forms of vision explicitly including darkvision. The "normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area" line is a more specific case (remember, specific trumps general) that makes it obvious that it's visually pitch black inside. Q.E.D.

You also will note that without this interpretation, the No Light spell does absolutely nothing.

The caster creates an area of darkness. Normal light sources cannot illuminate the area, but darkvision allows a creature to see within the area. Light counters no light (and vice versa), leaving whatever light conditions normally prevail in the overlapping areas of the spells. Higher-level light spells counter and dispel no light.

(Without the understanding that it blocks sunlight/moonlight/torchlight, this spell does absolutely nothing.)

There's no way they'd write a spell that effectively does absolutely nothing, so that gives even more proof that it MUST mean that non-magical light such as sunlight and moonlight can't penetrate those areas.

Interesting to note: No Light is a transmutation spell. Thus, normal light not being able to penetrate the area is a transmutation effect apparently. That means the spell transmutes the properties of the lighting medium (air) so that normal light can't penetrate it. Logically, that means the "evoking" of a zone that also affects darkvision (as the darkness spell does) is what makes it an evocation spell.

[Segev]

That line of text is the source of the "darkness causes brighter than the otherwise-prevailing conditions" nonsense. It makes absolutely zero sense for a spell called darkness to for any reason (or twisting of the RAW or RAI) improve lighting conditions in any given otherwise-prevailing condition.Honestly, while I love your interpretation as probable RAI and as good sense, you're wrong when you say RAW supports your reading. RAW and common sense need never even cordially acknowledge each others' existence, sadly.


Once you put it in the context of a darkness effect being cast inside prevailing non-magical darkness, you must realize that's absurd: it can't possibly really mean it "changes" the lighting conditions to that. It's not a "house rule", and it's not even "broken". It's just plain English being poorly worded in the text of the spells.Again, no. The "plain english" of the spell text says nothing about actually creating darkness. A spell called "Fluffy Kittens" that has its text say it makes green spheres float about the area makes green spheres float about the area...and does nothing about kittens at all. It might be a badly-named spell, or a VERY badly-written one, but that's what the RAW say.

The plain English says, quite clearly, "This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius." It at no point says that it creates darkness, only that light sources of insufficient level cannot increase the brightness of the area beyond "shadowy illumination."


Any time "shadowy illumination" or "shadowy light", is mentioned in a darkness effect, it's referring to a general case which affects all relevant forms of vision explicitly including darkvision.True. It refers to all forms of sight. Including normal sight. Which benefits from the shadowy illumination such that it sees better in it than in normal, natural darkness.


The "normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area" line is a more specific case (remember, specific trumps general) that makes it obvious that it's visually pitch black inside. Q.E.D.I think you're misusing Q.E.D. here, though it may simply be because your argument doesn't say what you assert it does. It is also wrong.

"Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area" is explicit: they cannot make the area brighter. The spell also explicitly radiates "shadowy illumination;" absent some other effect making it darker than that (and natural darkness won't do it any more than natural darkness makes the area of a daylight spell darker than indicated), that is how bright the area is: shadowy illumination.

Nowhere in the Darkness spell does it say that it makes the area dark, and certainly not "pitch dark." I wish it did. But it doesn't.


You also will note that without this interpretation, the No Light spell does absolutely nothing.

(Without the understanding that it blocks sunlight/moonlight/torchlight, this spell does absolutely nothing.)You're actually wrong. "No Light" says, quite explicitly, that "The caster creates an area of darkness." It goes on to say that normal light cannot illuminate the area.

Note that darkness never says it creates an area of darkness. It also says that lights less powerful than a certain magical level cannot make it brighter than the illumination cast by the darkness spell, but it never says that the area is not illuminated to the shadowy level for all kinds of sight.


There's no way they'd write a spell that effectively does absolutely nothing, so that gives even more proof that it MUST mean that non-magical light such as sunlight and moonlight can't penetrate those areas.Ironically, No Light, per the RAW, makes an area darker (absent magical light sources) than does Darkness. This is because, as the two spells are written, No Light actively creates darkness. Darkness does not. It should and the RAI may intend for that to be the case, but it doesn't. (Worse, I actually suspect the RAI was that you'd only cast Darkness if it were already brightly lit, so the spell is written meaning that it reduces the light level to that. I think the "shadowy illumination" is meant for normal vision to see in, at least partially, under the assumption that Darkness is making it dimmer than normal. They failed to consider what happens if it's cast in the dark.)


Interesting to note: No Light is a transmutation spell. Thus, normal light not being able to penetrate the area is a transmutation effect apparently. That means the spell transmutes the properties of the lighting medium (air) so that normal light can't penetrate it. Logically, that means the "evoking" of a zone that also affects darkvision (as the darkness spell does) is what makes it an evocation spell.Interesting speculation, but not really relevant to the discussion or dispute.



In short: I like your house rule and can see it might well be RAI, particularly given that they made a freaking Cantrip that expressly drops light to naught (but doesn't impact Darkvision).

But your efforts to prove that the RAW support your reading are logically flawed. The RAW do, honestly, say that Darkness and Deeper Darkness create "shadowy illumination," and never specify that they make it any less bright than that for any kind of vision. And because they have no call-out for different behavior if the ambient light level is not at least "shadowy," they radiate that light level even if they were cast in a dark room.

Re-writing Darkness to work "as No Light, except that it causes Darkvision to act as if it had only shadowy illumination and prevents from brightening the area," would be an excellent house rule. It would make Darkness much more in line with what people expect it to be.

While we're at it, we should clarify Ebon Eyes to simply allow one to see in magical darkness as well (or as poorly) as one sees in non-magical darkness. AS written, it either does nothing at all or makes you able to see in the dark better than does [I]Darkvision, a higher level spell.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Have it cast on a tiny pendant you wear on a cord around your neck. Hold the pendant in your mouth to block the darkness effect. When needed you can 'drop' it as a free action by spitting it out, it returns to hanging from your neck and plunges the area into darkness.

Note that a Heightened darkness/light effect will overpower any light/darkness effect of lower level, regardless of what the original spell's level or name is. For example, an Everburning Torch is just a stick with Continual Flame cast on it, a 2nd level Evocation [Light], and it's priced at the standard NPC spellcasting fee of spell level x caster level x 10 gp, plus material components. You could buy one Heightened to 9th level at a caster level of 20 for 1,850 gp, and it always overrides any darkness effect you'll run into unless it too is Heightened to 9th level. Since Continual Flame lasts forever (unless dispelled) this is a one-time payment to trump any darkness you'll run into until the very high levels, so it's definitely worth it.

[Fax Celestis]

Honestly, while I love your interpretation as probable RAI and as good sense, you're wrong when you say RAW supports your reading. RAW and common sense need never even cordially acknowledge each others' existence, sadly.

This is why we have a thing called RAMS.

[Segev]

A minor note on oddities about emanations, line of effect, and lack of facing.

If you use the "hold it in your mouth" trick, and then open your mouth, because there's no facing, the line of effect for the whole emanation extends in all directions.

If, however, you put it on a tower shield's front surface, suddenly you have only a half-sphere of darkness, because the emanation's line of effect is blocked by the cover granted by the tower shield.

"flashlights" - whether for continual flame or for darkness emitters - don't work. Bullseye Lanterns only work because they give explicit rules for how they do. (It would be a reasonable house rule to allow a Bullseye Lantern to work for emanations of light or dark other than the original "burning wick" that would normally be inside, but it would still technically be a house rule.)

[Deophaun]

You could buy one Heightened to 9th level at a caster level of 20 for 1,850 gp, and it always overrides any darkness effect you'll run into unless it too is Heightened to 9th level.
There's an odd gap in the rules when it comes to [Light] and [Darkness] spells of equal level:

Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness.
Lower... higher... but no mention of equal. Sure, you can use it for dispel attempts or to counterspell [Light] spells, but if you take your active [Darkness] spell into an active [Light] spell of the same level, RAW gets all coy on what's supposed to happen (I believe [Light] should win out, though).

[Fax Celestis]

Lower... higher... but no mention of equal. Sure, you can use it for dispel attempts or to counterspell [Light] spells, but if you take your active [Darkness] spell into an active [Light] spell of the same level, RAW gets all coy on what's supposed to happen (I believe [Light] should win out, though).

IIRC, the newer (or newest introduced) effect wins. Torch of continual flame on a sconce, dude holding a stone of deeper darkness walks towards it. Since the stone is being brought into the area of the torch, it wins.

[Segev]

I can't quote a RAW on this, so it could just be my own assumptions-***-house-rule, but I've always treated it as the two neutralizing and whatever "natural" prevailing conditions are in place...prevailing.

I think we do have some rule about "Continual Light" countering "Darkness," don't we? Or is that only "Daylight" and "Deeper Darkness?"

[137beth]

I can't quote a RAW on this, so it could just be my own assumptions-***-house-rule, but I've always treated it as the two neutralizing and whatever "natural" prevailing conditions are in place...prevailing.
That's what I always thought it was as well. A light spell counters and dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, and vice versa, so the rules seem to support your and my interpretation.
EDIT: of course True Seeing beats even 9th level darkness. You need to through in an invisible obscuring mist or similar effect at that point.

[TuggyNE]

That line of text is the source of the "darkness causes brighter than the otherwise-prevailing conditions" nonsense. It makes absolutely zero sense for a spell called darkness to for any reason (or twisting of the RAW or RAI) improve lighting conditions in any given otherwise-prevailing condition.

Segev very comprehensively covered nearly all the responses I'd like to make, so I'll content myself by noting one thing: the reason that line of text is the source of that nonsense is because that line of text is utter nonsense itself. "Radiates shadowy illumination" means, and can mean, exactly nothing other than "makes the area around it as bright as a candle would", because that is the definition of shadowy illumination! The spell is simply dysfunctional at a very basic level, because the writer just did not understand the definitions of lighting conditions, nor the variety of uses for the spell.

It is not, of course, at all difficult to figure out how the spell should work, and not all that much more difficult to figure out how it should be phrased. But the current RAW is, as my sig suggests, at least 110% silly.

[Maginomicon]

Honestly, while I love your interpretation as probable RAI and as good sense, you're wrong when you say RAW supports your reading. RAW and common sense need never even cordially acknowledge each others' existence, sadly.

Again, no. The "plain english" of the spell text says nothing about actually creating darkness.

It is plain English that if light explicitly isn't allowed to illuminate an area, it is pitch black there. This is not rocket science. (and is also why I was using Q.E.D. correctly, and don't try to be coy by veering off-topic into the "definition of Q.E.D.".)

I'm not saying anything more on this issue. Please do not quote/reply and then argue against this specific post of mine (Replying to the thread is fine. I'm not suggesting cutting off discussion for the thread, I'm just personally not going to answer anyones responses to this post specifically so there's no real point in quote/replying to it). I'm fed up. The "darkness radiates shadowy light" argument is one of the most old, tired, retched, and absolutely-bonkers kinds of "RAW" arguments I've ever seen (this is far from the first time I've seen the "darkness radiates light by RAW LOL" argument, and it certainly won't be the last).

[Segev]

Sorry, I'm replying to you, Maginomicon. You're right. It's silly.

But it's what it says.

The words you're quoting say that the normal light sources cannot make it brighter. Brighter than what? Well, it specifies the brightness of the area of its effect as "shadowy illumination." Nowhere does it say it makes it any darker than that, and in fact it does say it sets it to that brightness, so even if it was darker to begin with, it's now shadowy.

That is what the rules, as written, say.

Yes, it's bonkers. Because the spell is "Darkness."

We can all agree that we think it should work differently. But it does take checking with your DM, because you can't assume he's house ruling it until you do.

[Curmudgeon]

It is plain English that if light explicitly isn't allowed to illuminate an area, it is pitch black there.
The trouble is, your paraphrase alters some of the actual rules text and ignores another part. As previously noted by others, the spell itself illuminates the area; you're willfully ignoring that. And the part you're altering is:
Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Everything is allowed to illuminate the area up to the level of candlelight, but not to brighten it further than that.

I don't buy the "RAMS" argument here. The use of "brighten" (rather than Maginomicon's "illuminate") after specifying "radiate shadowy illumination" is too apropos. This spell is quite consistent in everything except the name. If they'd called it Dimness instead of Darkness there wouldn't be any debate going on.

[Segev]

Well, except that we'd be looking for something to cast actual darkness, still.

:smallannoyed:

[Deophaun]

The spell is simply dysfunctional at a very basic level, because the writer just did not understand the definitions of lighting conditions, nor the variety of uses for the spell.
Have we considered that maybe the writer did understand, and the effect is intentional? It seems to me that the wording is too... peculiar for it to have been a mistake. (Plus, I actually think the usage of darkness to illuminate an area is awesome)

[137beth]

I'd just like to point out that PF fixed it--it now lowers the light level in the area by one step.

Carry on:smalltongue:

[Duke of Urrel]

I sympathize with Maginomicon, because I had the same opinion about the Darkness spell until recently. It was Psyren who convinced me that the Darkness spell can indeed create light. My objection focused on the [Darkness] descriptor. Psyren pointed out that there is a psionic power with the [Light] descriptor (the Control Light power) that permits the user to decrease as well as increase light. That turned me around.

I have something else to share: a few house rules of mine about making Hide checks in areas of shadow. These rules have consequences for the Deeper Darkness spell, as I'll explain further below.

"In general, I allow you to make a Hide check to hide in or behind a concealment factor only if it offers you at least normal concealment, that is, would impose at least a 20% miss chance if the creatures you are hiding from tried to attack you. I allow you to hide only inside, not behind an area of dim light or darkness, and I allow you to do so only if this area both offers at least normal concealment from all enemies and is darker than, or at least as dark as, the enemies’ surroundings." (End of house rules.)

If you accept my house rules, then the Deeper Darkness spell gains a significant advantage over the Darkness spell, because it has a much wider radius: 60 feet rather than only 20 feet. With the Deeper Darkness spell, you're much more likely to bring your enemies inside the area of shadowy illumination that you create, which enables you to hide from them, as you could not – by my rules – if their surroundings were darker than yours.

[Psyren]

I'd just like to point out that PF fixed it--it now lowers the light level in the area by one step.

Carry on:smalltongue:

Dang, you beat me to it.

And they fixed Deeper Darkness too... by actually making it deeper!

[Randomocity132]

The understanding I've finally come to by re-reading the description a hundred times, checking interpretations on forums, tossing out 3 of my own interpretations, and applying common sense, is that it simply makes the area shadowy, as a shadowy alley way.

Shadowy illumination is merely "kinda dark". It's not a cloudy ball of darkness, as it's merely cast on the objects in the area, not the air, since you can see OUT of it fine. It also doesn't raise the light of a pitch black cave to dim lighting, since casting a shadow in a situation like that is going to add nothing.

This is the definition that makes the most sense, whether strict RAW definition actually means this or not.