I cast light on their eyes! (stupid spell use)

[jjpickar]

A while back I read a D&D novel by WOTC (I was curious to see if it was any good, it wasn't) and I read about Mialee (or Naull) using a curious strategy. She cast light on an enemie's eyes, effectively blinding him. I was wondering if this a legal use of the spell and if you would ban it from a game.

I can't remember the name of the particular book, unfortunately.

[tainsouvra]

I believe it could be done in a previous version, where Light happened to also be higher than level zero. I certainly wouldn't allow it in my game this edition.

[Fualkner Asiniti]

So it's a one person glitterdust, no save, and blinds them? At level ZERO? You've got to be drunk to even dream of this... Broken to The Nine Hells.

[Fax Celestis]

*waits for Fhaolan to arrive with his Create Water story*

[BlackStaticWolf]

Yeah, you could cast light on people's eyes in second edition. A save was allowed.

Third edition version of the spell... hell no.

[kpenguin]

While it might work in a novel, the problem with applying to game mechanics is that there is no way for a character to make called shots. On the other hand, if the enemy were helpless, I would allow it. Of course, I allowed a sorcerer to blind a captured BBEG with a continual flame right in the face, so I might be a bit lenient.

[Fax Celestis]

While it might work in a novel, the problem with applying to game mechanics is that there is no way for a character to make called shots. On the other hand, if the enemy were helpless, I would allow it. Of course, I allowed a sorcerer to blind a captured BBEG with a continual flame right in the face, so I might be a bit lenient.

"Excuse me, your face is on fire."
"Yes, yes, I know. I can't get it to go out."

[Jack_Simth]

Well, in 3.5, the target line for both Light and Continual Flame read "Object Touched"

As a live person's eyes are not objects, spell fails due to invalid target.

Mind you, if you want to go to the trouble of killing them, extracting their eyeballs, casting Continual Flame on the (now removed) eyeballs, putting them back in their place, then casting Raise Dead on the subject, sure, RAW-legal. Of course, at that point, he can hire a Dispel Magic.

[TheOtherMC]

Its like trying to argue you can cast light on the entire floor as its "one target"........true story, lost the argument though.

[jjpickar]

Well I thought it was pretty ridiculous when I read it. But I did get to do it once. Me andmy old highschool group were playing the Warcraft RPG (this was before WoW D20) which was pretty much a campaign setting for D&D. I was playing a lvl 1 high elf sorcerer. During the course of the first session the party gets into several random, close quarters in which I was dropped twice. We were even attacked in our hotel by giant spiders. Late in the session we are ambushed by two gnolls (CR 1 each) and a Naga (CR 3 I think). I was low on spells, tired of being nearly killed, and sick of the brutal fights so I just decided to cast light on the Naga's eyes. Well, as you can imagine, that caused quite an uproar. The upshot being the Naga was allowed a save which it failed. This tactic has been banned from this group ever since.

[Jack_Simth]

Its like trying to argue you can cast light on the entire floor as its "one target"........true story, lost the argument though.

3.5, doesn't work out well with Light, as the spell text specifies "from the point you touch." - only a single point lights up.

Continual Flame, on the other hand, has no such restriction.... but as it's still only equivalent to a normal torch, you'll get a very thin, obviously meaningless flame spread out over the entire object.

Of course, that still won't do quite what you want, as D&D tends to treat floors, ceilings, walls, and other terrain in five-foot square increments (HP is tracked separately for each segment) so you'll just get a five-foot slightly burning square, that still only produces light as a torch. Makes a nice party trick for a table or something, though.

[brian c]

Well, in 3.5, the target line for both Light and Continual Flame read "Object Touched"

As a live person's eyes are not objects, spell fails due to invalid target.

Mind you, if you want to go to the trouble of killing them, extracting their eyeballs, casting Continual Flame on the (now removed) eyeballs, putting them back in their place, then casting Raise Dead on the subject, sure, RAW-legal. Of course, at that point, he can hire a Dispel Magic.

Dude. Best zombies ever. Continual-Flame-eyed zombies, hell yes.

[jjpickar]

Naw, you have a lich with continual blue flame on his bald head that acts like Hades from Disney's Hercules movie. He even has an imp familiar called pain and a quasit cohort named panic

[MandibleBones]

To be fair, the flare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flare.htm) spell fits both the description and the effect nicely.

[JadedDM]

It's one of our favorite strategies in 2E. My players do it all of the time. It even suggests the use of it in this way right in the spell description in the PHB. Of course, it does have a saving throw and uses up a 1st level spell slot.

[Jack_Simth]

Dude. Best zombies ever. Continual-Flame-eyed zombies, hell yes.
That'd be Animate Dead, but it works too.

[Kami2awa]

Naw, you have a lich with continual blue flame on his bald head that acts like Hades from Disney's Hercules movie. He even has an imp familiar called pain and a quasit cohort named panic

If you can choose the flame colour when you cast the spell (or change it with prestidigitation) then it becomes quite useful for signalling over long distances with a colour code.

[psychoticbarber]

I wouldn't allow it with someone's eyes.

But I would allow it with someones helm. I have, and I ruled that it was really bright for one round, and essentially it allowed the Wizard to cast Daze rather than Light, if he was willing to get close enough to touch the Fighter's helmet.

[Funkyodor]

It was a limited effectiveness tactic in 2nd ed (maybe 1st ed too I don't know) that did not result in blindness, but caused an attack penalty for a limited duration. There was a higher level light spell that was permenant light but no 'cast in his eyes' option. It was how we made cheap items in 2nd edition. Permenant light on a stone, put in opaque bag, endless source of light. Cast the opposite, permenant darkness on stone, but in opaque bag, endless source of darkness.

[Nero24200]

I see no problem with this.

I've read the book I beleive you're referring to, and the target was pinned in a grapple I beleive.

Though light isn't permanent, I would rule there would be no long term effects from the spell (such as blindness). Besides, if you're able to reach over and physically touch your opponents eyes, then right away, you already had a chance to blind him. If you had a weapon in hand, such as a dagger, the eyes could be peirced. Hell, even a firm jab with two fingers would make it hard for the person to see anyway, so what difference would allowing a light spell cast on it anyway? You don't target your opponents eyes normally mid-battle, so you would only likely get such a spell off like this if the opponent was helpless or otherwise unable to prevent you (such as being pinned)

[jjpickar]

So maybe if you are close enough (such as in a grapple) you could use a light spell as a flare spell. I could see that being a reasonable house rule, since its only used in a situation where the spellcaster is at a VERY high risk of being impaled, strangled, crushed, eaten, etc.

[Harold]

if I was the DM, and one of the players tried to do that I would make it so they whoever they casted it on could see better.:smallsmile:

[Goober4473]

Light causes an object to shed light, not blind people (unless they have light blindness anyways). It would just cause their eye to shed light, even if you could do it.

Continual flame, if I recall correctly, is like a permenant light spell, not actual fire. It just glows magically, and they call it flame.

[sikyon]

Light causes an object to shed light, not blind people (unless they have light blindness anyways). It would just cause their eye to shed light, even if you could do it.


Well, they cast it on the eyelids then. So there's so much light coming off the eyelids that the person becomes effectively blind.

I would allow it, but you'd have to make an touch attack at some negative circumstance modifier. If you make the attack, your opponent is blinded. If you miss the touch attack, the spell is wasted (some random object is illuminated) if you miss the touch attack but would have succeeded if not for the modifier, then you hit your opponent with it and both he takes a negative attack modifier. (It's hard to see). If you crit fumble, you touch yourself accidently instead. If you crit him, then you poke his eyes out too.

[Jack_Simth]

Light causes an object to shed light, not blind people (unless they have light blindness anyways). It would just cause their eye to shed light, even if you could do it.

Continual flame, if I recall correctly, is like a permenant light spell, not actual fire. It just glows magically, and they call it flame.
In the case of Continual Flame (3.5, at least), has a spell description of:

"A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched."
(Emphasis added)

Looks just like a regular flame. Try looking through a candle sometime. That's a fairly mean curse to put on someone... but they have to qualify as an object to be a valid target, so they're pretty much required to be dead when you do it....

[Aquillion]

Hmm. You could cast Continual Flame on a weapon to make it appear magical and imposing. Of course, it wouldn't actually do any more damage, but it might scare creatures, trick spellcasters into casting spells that protect against fire, and so on.

[JadedDM]

Wouldn't casting Faerie Fire on a weapon have the same effect?

[Krellen]

I would generally say that a spell absolutely cannot duplicate the effects of a higher- or equal-level spell, no matter how "tricky" you try to be with it. For a lower level spell, I'd probably be a little more lenient.

So Light cannot Blind or Daze (being higher- and equal-level spells), but Daylight likely could.

[Damionte]

Seems the question has already been answered.

At the time they wrote that article yes it was possible. Since you could do this back in 2nd Edition. Light was a different spell then though.

Now ligth is a 0 level spell and we have other spells that do this same effect these days. The light spells which can actually do this are higher level.

[my_evil_twin]

Nobody seems to have picked at the most blatant flaw in this application of the spell. Mialee somehow conned her DM into letting her create two light sources with one casting of the light spell.

All other things notwithstanding, shouldn't she have to cast it once on each eye to blind someone?

[F.H. Zebedee]

Now, a few incidents where I'd allow it:
*Glasses (Duh.)
*Zombies (Good luck there.)
*Making an attack roll against a Fine target. If Wiz can do it, he deserves the break.

[Aquillion]

Nobody seems to have picked at the most blatant flaw in this application of the spell. Mialee somehow conned her DM into letting her create two light sources with one casting of the light spell.

All other things notwithstanding, shouldn't she have to cast it once on each eye to blind someone?As others have said, this was the 2nd edition version of the spell, which was totally different from the 3rd edition one you're thinking of. The second edition version has specifically different rules when cast on an 'object' or 'creature', and can specifically be cast on a creature with the light source focused on "visual organs" (plural) in order to blind them... the spell itself is designed to be cast on eyes, and behaves differently when used in that fashion.