Can someone explain the Darkness spell to me?

[90sMusic]

This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

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.

This spell does not stack with itself. Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

This is what it says the spell does, but it doesn't really make any sense to me.

First of all, why have the whole "only decreases lighting by one step" bit? If an area is only lit by non-magical sources like torches and fires or whatever, shouldn't it immediately go from whatever brightness down to total darkness since it explicitly says non-magical sources of light don't function within an area of darkness?

And then, it says spells like Light only work in an area of darkness if it is higher spell level than the darkness. So doesn't that also mean any light spell, unless it's spell level was increased through metamagic, would automatically not work in an area of darkness, again reducing it down to total darkness from whatever light level it was by virtue of it being level 0 and darkness being level 2?

And what about the sun? Is it considered a "magical light" of some infinite spell level? Because if it is considered natural light, then shouldn't it also be completely negated in an area of darkness bringing light down to nothing?

The rules seem contradictory to me. Seems like you can either reduce light levels by 1 step OR have it make non-magical and weaker magical lights not function within it. But doing both just... doesn't make sense? When would it ever reduce it by only one step if no natural source of light will work within and only stronger light spells function within? Shouldn't stronger light spells make the darkness cease functioning if they are lower level? Wouldn't the light and dark spell have to be the exact same level and that be the only time the "one step lower" rule applies?

I just don't get it.

[Gallowglass]

This is what it says the spell does, but it doesn't really make any sense to me.

First of all, why have the whole "only decreases lighting by one step" bit? If an area is only lit by non-magical sources like torches and fires or whatever, shouldn't it immediately go from whatever brightness down to total darkness since it explicitly says non-magical sources of light don't function within an area of darkness?

And then, it says spells like Light only work in an area of darkness if it is higher spell level than the darkness. So doesn't that also mean any light spell, unless it's spell level was increased through metamagic, would automatically not work in an area of darkness, again reducing it down to total darkness from whatever light level it was by virtue of it being level 0 and darkness being level 2?

And what about the sun? Is it considered a "magical light" of some infinite spell level? Because if it is considered natural light, then shouldn't it also be completely negated in an area of darkness bringing light down to nothing?

The rules seem contradictory to me. Seems like you can either reduce light levels by 1 step OR have it make non-magical and weaker magical lights not function within it. But doing both just... doesn't make sense? When would it ever reduce it by only one step if no natural source of light will work within and only stronger light spells function within? Shouldn't stronger light spells make the darkness cease functioning if they are lower level? Wouldn't the light and dark spell have to be the exact same level and that be the only time the "one step lower" rule applies?

I just don't get it.

It might help your understanding if you concentrate on the fact that the object radiating the darkness only affect things out to a 20' radius. If you were in a complete dark room and you lit a torch, that torch would now radiate light out to 20' from the torch that would raise the light level from total darknees to dim light within that 20' radius sphere around the torch. The darkness spell basically works like a reverse torch but with a magical bumper.

You are also misreading the exact line of "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness" to parse as "explicitly says non-magical sources of light don't function within an area of darkness". It doesn't explicitly say that at all. It says what it says, that you can't use non magical sources to increase the light level within the 20' radius of the darkness spell.

So let's describe the use cases, because that might help you.

use case 1: You are in a sourceless field of bright light. You may be suffering penalties to vision due to the brightness. If you are a drow you are really hurting. So you cast darkness on your glove. This now lowers the 'bright light' to 'normal light within a 20' sphere of you, but its still bright light outside that sphere. This will clear up your vision penalties at close range and, depending on DM adjucation, might help you focus on things further than 20' out.

use case 2: You are in a sourced field of bright light emanating from a sconce next to you. You cast darkness. Is the CL of the spell powering the sconce higher than 2nd level? Yes? then your spell fizzles. No? Then the sconce deactivates and, presumably, drops the light level to whatever it would be without the sconce's magic.

use case 3: You are outside in normal light, perhaps in a busy street or open field. You cast darkness. Now for a 20' radius sphere around you, the light level is dim light, but its still normal light outside your sphere. What does this look like to a casual observer outside your circle? A strange shadow perhaps, or an odd distortion. Certainly NOT a black sphere of total darkness. Just a dimming of light for no particular reason. However as the darkness EMANATES from the object you cast the spell on a non-casual observer would be able to look at how the shadows fall and where the shadows are thickest and figure out easily that its your glove or whatever that is emanating the darkness like a torch emanates light.

use case 4: You are in a cave dimly lit by torches every 40' or so. You cast darkness on an object you carry. You are now in total darkness for a 20' space around you and, as you move down the corridor, passing torches, they seem to blink out when they enter your radius and blink back on after you pass.

use case 5: you are in a cave brightly lit by torches every 5-10' creating an overal area of normal light with bright light spaces around the clusters of torches. You cast darkness on an object you carry. For a 20' space around you, the torches no longer work, but this does NOT lower you to total darkness because the ambient light from the torches outside your radius are still there and still illuminating. So you lower the light level from normal light to dim light for 20' around you as you travel down the room. If you find a corner or take out some torches out to, say, 40 or 60' around you, somehow, you may be able to get the darkness down to total darkness, but that's between you and the GM.

use case5: In preparing an ambush you have extinguished lights in a room, plunging it into total darkness, then cast darkness as well. When your victims enter with their torches lit, or enter and light a torch in the room, your spell keeps them from increasing the light level to dim light. The torch is still lit, still giving off heat, but no light. If they cast a light spell (0th level) it also fails to do anything (as it is lower level than your 2nd level spell). But if they cast daylight(3rd level spell) your darkness fails and the room bursts into normal light from the daylight spell revealing your ambush.

Hope this helps.

[Nibbens]

Snip.

*walks in, opens mouth to comment, pauses, closes mouth, walks out.*

My work here is done.

[Florian]

I just don't get it.

First of all, remember that there are more spells and abilities out there than pure "Darkness". It is not the "be all, end all" of spells there.
In essence, it comes down to "I dim the ambient light" and can have defensives as well as offensives uses, depending on what the ambient light is.

[Deophaun]

use case 1: You are in a sourceless field of bright light.
Can you give an example of a "sourceless" field of bright light? That's pretty much the problem the OP is having: your use case 1 never happens, but there's a whole lot of text devoted to it.

Use case 3 is incorrect, because the sun is a nonmagical light source, and the spell does not allow non-magical light sources to illuminate the area. You are now in total darkness, not dim-light.

Use case 4 is a description of what would happen if the spell was worded as you say it isn't. But, as there's nothing in darkness that says non-magical light sources cease to function within its area--only that they cannot illuminate areas within darkness--a torch in darkness will still happily illuminate the area outside of it.

Use case 5: Nope, for the same reason as 3 puts you into total darkness. Here's the FAQ for clarity:


Can a non-magical light source increase the light level within the area of darkness if the light source is outside the spell's area?

No. Non-magical light sources do not increase the light level within the spell's area, regardless of whether the light source is in the area or outside the area.

[Slithery D]

Can you give an example of a "sourceless" field of bright light? That's pretty much the problem the OP is having: your use case 1 never happens, but there's a whole lot of text devoted to it.

Some planar locations? Pretty sure you could have a demiplane that did that.

[Yanisa]

Can you give an example of a "sourceless" field of bright light? That's pretty much the problem the OP is having: your use case 1 never happens, but there's a whole lot of text devoted to it.

Vision and Light (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light)

Areas of bright light include outside in direct sunshine and inside the area of a daylight spell.
Emphasis mine.

Or in other words, in any open field during the day.

[Gallowglass]

Can you give an example of a "sourceless" field of bright light? That's pretty much the problem the OP is having: your use case 1 never happens, but there's a whole lot of text devoted to it.

Use case 3 is incorrect, because the sun is a nonmagical light source, and the spell does not allow non-magical light sources to illuminate the area. You are now in total darkness, not dim-light.

Use case 4 is a description of what would happen if the spell was worded as you say it isn't. But, as there's nothing in darkness that says non-magical light sources cease to function within its area--only that they cannot illuminate areas within darkness--a torch in darkness will still happily illuminate the area outside of it.

Use case 5: Nope, for the same reason as 3 puts you into total darkness. Here's the FAQ for clarity:



Well, a "sourceless" field of bright light could be a demiplane or plane where light is the norm and darkness isn't. Or it could be a generic magical area where some enterprising dungeon building wizard has created a room that is lit with no obvious or discernable source for said light. Those seem to be pretty common in magic rich worlds. It was just a use case to demonstrate functionality against possible instances. I think the other poster is right to say that "an open field on a sunny day" may as well count as a sourceless field of bright light. I guarantee you that the author of the spell and the author of the FAQ did not account for "the sun" in their mental structure of "outside light source."

I understand why you are saying my other use cases are incorrect, but I do not agree with you. I am unfamiliar with the source of your FAQ, but I assume it is from some authorial source. Regardless, I don't think the FAQ clarifies anything. I'm not going to get into a RAW vs RAI argument because I find them asinine. The intent of the spell is obviously to create the equivalent of a reverse torch that sheds darkness in an identical way that a torch sheds light. They clumsily tried to account for obvious issues with the rest of the spell text and ended up creating an issue where, a RAW reading like you are parsing, the spell is dysfunctional. A dysfunctional spell is silly, so the job of any DM is to make the dysfunctional spell work. Usually as close to the intention of the spell in the first place.

I repeat: I guarantee you that the author of the spell and the author of the FAQ did not account for "the sun" in their mental structure of "outside light source."

The spell, obviously, is meant to let you lower light one level in a 20' radius of you. It's also meant (as far as I'm concerned) to black out any light source that is less powerful than the spell that falls WITHIN the radius, but not black out light sources outside the radius. Its also meant (as far as I'm concerned) to be cancelled out by more powerful light magic, and to cancel out less powerful light magic.

Now if I was in a game with someone and they wanted to argue that "the torch IN the darkness area, should still be illuminating outside the darkness area" and the other players or the GM wanted to play it that way, no problem. That's silly, but its magic and magic does funky things sometimes. I could work with that. But its not my understanding of the spell.

Now if I was in a game with someone and they wanted to argue that "the sun is a non magical source, so by this FAQ, it can't affect the darkness" and the other players or the GM wanted to play it that way, then okay. A darkness spell is now just a 20' radius blob of complete blackness that rolls around like a big black ball everywhere the object goes. In some ways that makes it more powerful, in a lot of ways, it makes is less useful, but we can work with it as long as we agree that's how the spell works. But its not my understanding of the spell.

My only further attempt to explain this is to point out that the spell is cast to affect the existing environment that the spell is cast in. If you are in a large room, lit by many torches, that as a result is "normal light" then when you cast the spell you are creating a spot that emanates darkness that affects THAT environment, lowering it to dim light around you. The fact that, when you get within range of some of the torches they seem to shed no light while you stand next to them, is just "fluff" of the spell. The result is still dim light around you, normal light in the rest of the room. Because that's the INTENT of the spell. It spells it out in the first paragraph.

And by the same INTENT of the spell, if the normal light is due to ONE light source and you can get that light source within range of your radius, then AND ONLY THEN, can you go from normal light to total darkness. It spells that out in the following paragraph.

My parsing of your FAQ is "if you have created an area of darkness and someone tries to light a torch outside that range, it cannot have the effect of raising your darkness up a step even though it is outside the radius". It seems to be to be a rider added for -THAT- particular use case: the stacking of a NEW environmental affecting object onto your environmental affecting object. I doubt that will satisfy you as I assume you are very attached to your parsing of that FAQ, but that is the argument I would give. Honestly, I think that FAQ is poorly written and poorly though out by whomever wrote it. Again, I'm just assuming it comes from an authorial source. Not all FAQs are helpful.

Intent is not a bad word, despite how many thousands and millions of words are spent on this board talking about RAW over RAI.

[Psyren]

Another sourceless light is an invisible light source, or a light source being carried by an invisible character. The light from the source is visible, but not the source itself. (Though depending on how small the light is, you might be able to guess the center by looking at the radius of the effect.)

[Deophaun]

Or in other words, in any open field during the day.
Your quote says nothing about it being sourceless. In fact, "direct sunshine" implies a source, otherwise what are you "direct" to?

I am unfamiliar with the source of your FAQ, but I assume it is from some authorial source.
A little company called Paizo (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnn). As this is PF, the FAQ is RAW.

Regardless, I don't think the FAQ clarifies anything. I'm not going to get into a RAW vs RAI argument because I find them asinine.
If you aren't going to get into a RAW vs RAI argument, the first step is to not start a RAW vs RAI argument.

Anyway, RAW and RAI are the same and both cut against you, because faced with the opportunity to clarify it to work with how you envision it, Paizo went the other way and confirmed the strict RAW interpretation.

They clumsily tried to account for obvious issues with the rest of the spell text and ended up creating an issue where, a RAW reading like you are parsing, the spell is dysfunctional.
Dysfunctional means the spell doesn't work, not that it works in ways you don't like. Darkness does, indeed, work. It's a bit more powerful than you would otherwise expect, but it does do the job it says it does on the tin. Hence, not dysfunctional.

I repeat: I guarantee you that the author of the spell and the author of the FAQ did not account for "the sun" in their mental structure of "outside light source."
Your guarantee is worth nothing. And the FAQ, which in PF is RAW, explicitly says your interpretation that limits it to light sources inside the area is wrong. You may houserule it otherwise, but as the OP is not asking about how it works at your table, that's also irrelevant.

[Beheld]

EDIT: Nevermind tag was maybe added while I was posted? Or I just missed it.

[Sian]

Use case 3 is incorrect, because the sun is a nonmagical light source

You could argue that that depends on the setting. In many Spelljammer crystals the sun is a leaky spot of Elemental plane of Fire

[Gallowglass]

Well there you go, OP.

I live in a world where the spell works the way its described.

Deophaun lives in a world where he gets to have a 40' ball of rolling absolute blackness to hamster wheel around in.

You can work with your GM to figure out what world you live in. Hope at least some of this helped.

Good luck.

[Sayt]

One might argue that the sun doesn't raise the light level, but sets the light level default for the rough time/location you are in. For instance, it's clear winter's day, the sun is shining, and the Light level is Normal. Somebody casts Darkness, the Light level goes down to Dim. Somebody strikes a match, but the Darkness suppresses this light.

On the other hand, this does lead to situations where, say, you dig a hole in a field, climb in, cover it was a blackout curtain, cast darkness, and then take the curtain away, and you ahve a Dark Hole in the ground that the sun can't get through.


Basically the whole 'Light level" system is screwy and it's kinda hard to make it work consistently.

That said, hands free magical lighting is really cheap (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/h-l/ioun-torch)

[Deophaun]

Basically the whole 'Light level" system is screwy and it's kinda hard to make it work consistently.
This, basically.

Sure, 3.5's darkness was weird in how you could use it to illuminate dark areas, but you always knew how it worked.

[Segev]

The sun is not within the radius of your darkness spell. Or if it is, you probably have bigger problems than whether or not you can dim the light. Because of this, it will not be extinguished by your spell. The spell still lowers the ambient light by 1 level, but the ambient light is non-zero due to the Sun, which is (as previously stated) not extinguished because it is outside the radius of your spell.

[Psyren]

The sun is not within the radius of your darkness spell. Or if it is, you probably have bigger problems than whether or not you can dim the light. Because of this, it will not be extinguished by your spell. The spell still lowers the ambient light by 1 level, but the ambient light is non-zero due to the Sun, which is (as previously stated) not extinguished because it is outside the radius of your spell.

This. But people determined to read something in an absurd way can usually succeed in doing so.

[Deophaun]

The sun is not within the radius of your darkness spell. Or if it is, you probably have bigger problems than whether or not you can dim the light. Because of this, it will not be extinguished by your spell.
Even if you could survive long enough (fire immunity?) and Gallowglass's interpretation of darkness was correct, I don't think you could get its radius big enough to shut off the sun. And then, it certainly wouldn't extinguish it; once the duration was over, the sun would be shining.

The spell still lowers the ambient light by 1 level, but the ambient light is non-zero due to the Sun
You know, I really wish people who argue this point would actually provide rules text to support it. Instead, I have to go and do their job for them.

Darkness: Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?

No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light. In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level (the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on), and then reduces it one step.
So sunlight and moonlight and starlight are, indeed, different, because Paizo says so. However, pre-existing torchlight is not going to cut it, no matter how ambient it is.

[Segev]

Ah, I didn't realize that the sun was specifically called out as "natural" for purposes of "natural light level," but that certainly is unambiguous!

[Deophaun]

Ah, I didn't realize that the sun was specifically called out as "natural" for purposes of "natural light level," but that certainly is unambiguous!
Now that that's settled, the next question is, is a forest fire, being natural, like the sun, moon, and stars, or is it like a campfire? Bonus points for lava flows.

[DarkSoul]

In my opinion a forest fire would produce light equal to a daylight spell for purposes of light level and distance. Lava flows would produce dim light.

[Segev]

Now that that's settled, the next question is, is a forest fire, being natural, like the sun, moon, and stars, or is it like a campfire? Bonus points for lava flows.

I'm inclined to state that the portion of the fire that is not "extinguished" (in a light-shedding sense) by the spell raises the ambient light in the area. There is a little bit of question regarding whether the light from a non-magical source "cannot raise" the light level simply because it is extinguished, or if that clause overrides the ambient light of the source, as well.

The intent, I think, is that if the light level is consistent across the region, such that you're not worried about any one particular source in a game-mechanical sense, that is the inherent light level of the region. So a forest fire, a lake of lava, or a room light by sconce upon sconce of torches or chandeliers (or even many candles) has a set light level which darkness lowers by one. A room or region that you need a particular light source for, such that you're really concerned about the radius of light from it, has a light level of whatever lies beyond that radius.

Mechanically, it is up to the GM to declare what the ambient, natural light level is. And he can change it at any time. Though players are free to call shenanigans if he does so in a way that makes no sense with the narrative.

I think he'd be well within his rights to say that the same darkness spell that was preventing a camp fire (not within its radius) from raising the ambient light above "total darkness" in the area the spell does cover no longer is able to keep it "totally dark" when the forest catches fire and elevates the ambient light level to "daylight." At that point, the darkness spell would merely prevent fire within its radius from shedding light and would lower it from "daylight" to "dimly lit."

[Deophaun]

The intent, I think, is that if the light level is consistent across the region, such that you're not worried about any one particular source in a game-mechanical sense, that is the inherent light level of the region.
I don't see any justification for that. Paizo explicitly bases the dimming value of darkness to "ambient natural light," and then further clarifies that as "the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on." I cannot see how you get that the intent is for a lot of torches to qualify as ambient natural light from that.