Continual Flame Exploit

[Lysander]

Here's an expensive trick you could use continual flame for. Cast the spell on several tiny glass beads. Each one is now covered in fire as bright as a torch. Now glue all of these beads together into a ball shape with sovereign glue and attach it to a torch handle.

You now have a torch that emits several times the light of a normal torch. Theoretically you could use it to emit as much light as a daylight spell, or even much more. With enough beads it should be bright enough to prevent even creatures not particularly sensitive to light from seeing. There's no limit to how bright it can get, other than how much ruby dust you can afford.

This technique could be used to create spotlights if you instead place the ball within a polished metal cone, or just to create a very bright torch.

[Lyndworm]

Allow me to channel Morbo for a second, won't you?

"TORCHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Each bead casts light like a torch, but they all share the same space. This doesn't create a brighter light, it only creates two lights that share the same space.

Regardless of real-world physics, D&D light sources simply do not stack like that.

[Edge of Dreams]

Sounds similar to some stuff I've heard before. Apparently some 1e/2e DM's would let players blind an enemy by casting 'Light' on the enemy's eyes.

[The Rose Dragon]

Sounds similar to some stuff I've heard before. Apparently some 1e/2e DM's would let players blind an enemy by casting 'Light' on the enemy's eyes.

Let? If I recall correctly, it was actually in the rules for the spell.

[Lysander]

Allow me to channel Morbo for a second, won't you?

"TORCHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Each bead casts light like a torch, but they all share the same space. This doesn't create a brighter light, it only creates two lights that share the same space.

Regardless of real-world physics, D&D light sources simply do not stack like that.

D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

[The Glyphstone]

D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

They're in the same 5ft. square - in D&D terminology, the 'same space'. For all intent and purposes of the rules, they are each radiating the same amount of light that overlaps entirely for no increased radiance.

[Oracle_Hunter]

D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

Light still doesn't work that way.

You get more light output but not more intense light.

The reason why putting more candles in the room makes it "brighter" is because everything is closer to some light soure - and brightness is subject to the inverse square law.

So unless you have a way to concentrate the light (e.g. lenses or mirrors) you'd be better off tying those beads onto rats, placing those rats in a sack, and then scattering them whenever you walk into a room

[Enguhl]

What you could do is build a little reflective dome for each one, that way you get basically a bulls eye lantern in all directions.

*That* I would allow as DM.

[jiriku]

Anyone who's ever put another log on the fire grasps that when you have more stuff burning, you get more light. More continual flames does in fact equal more light...common sense should tell us this. The fact that there's no rule describing it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen -- for there's also no rule forbidding it. The lack of rules coverage simply means that this situation falls into the realm of DM adjudication.

The DM does get to make off-the-cuff rulings from time to time, y'know.

[Arbitrarity]

And, what does it do? It can't expand the radius of light, make it go from bright to dim, and CERTAINLY not emulate Daylight, according to the rules.

Also, vision deals with light as a log scale. Getting noticeably brighter requires exponentially more beads.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Continual Flame is an Evocation [Light] effect, so it counteracts and overpowers [Darkness] effects of equal or lower level. The cost of an Everburning Torch is the standard NPC spellcasting fee for a caster level 3 Continual Flame plus the material component. If you Heighten a light effect it overpowers any darkness effect of lower level. For example, you could pay (9x17x10)+50=1580 gp for an Everburning Torch that's been Heightened to 9th level, and it will overpower and suppress the effect of any darkness spell of 8th level or lower within its area.

[balistafreak]

That seems like an extremely cheap and awesome way to say "no" to darkness effects, but are there any high-level ones that you actually care about?

(So you could maybe purchase one at a lower cost, because I'm cheap like that. )

[Fouredged Sword]

Slap that onto a dull grey stone for hands free nearly undespellable light. That could actualy prove very nice if you go into the dark alot and your DM likes to put out/dispell your lights.

[Jack_Simth]

Oh, so this *isn't* about how to abuse a Called (not Summoned) Lantern Archon for a LOT of wealth?

[Kylarra]

D&D+"physics"= catgirl death

[The Glyphstone]

In this case, I think they're burning to death. Continual Flame is heatless, so the heat it would generate has to go somewhere. With all those continual flames in one place, the residual heat non-buildup is enough to cause fur to combust.

[Kylarra]

In this case, I think they're burning to death. Continual Flame is heatless, so the heat it would generate has to go somewhere. With all those continual flames in one place, the residual heat non-buildup is enough to cause fur to combust.

Death by entropy.

[Curmudgeon]

Slap that onto a dull grey stone for hands free nearly undespellable light.

If you're talking about an Ioun Stone, that seems like a spectacularly bad idea. Think about it. Those things circle your head. So if you light one up the light is either in your eyes, providing glare (½ the time) or casting a shadow of your head where you want to look (the other ½).

[Ormur]

Actually there are rules in D&D (3.0) that could be used as a baseline for "stacking" light sources. There are candelabras in the Arms and Equipment guide that hold from four to sixteen candles, that usually illuminate only in a 5 ft. radius, but illuminate a radius from 10 to 20 ft. Presumably that is shadowy like candles, but the precedent for illumination in the Player's Handbook seems to be that bright illumination always reaches out to half the distance of shadowy illumination. So a candelabra that holds four candles should illuminate the first 5 ft. brightly.

There is no difference specified between the bright light emitted from torches for 20 ft and that from the daylight spell for 60 ft.

If we presume that stacking torches works in the same way as stacking candles in candelabras in the A&EG we're still left with a DM call. Do four torches in a candelabra and every doubling after that increase the range of the illumination by the initial radius of the light source or only by 5 ft increments (the ambiguity rises from candles only having a 5 ft radius and that being such a common increment in D&D rules).

If the more generous former interpretation is used, four torches in the same space would provide shadowy illumination out to 80 ft. and bright out to 40 ft and only eight would be required to illuminate like the Daylight spell. That would cost 800 gp plus casting for continuous daylight (880 gp hired). Sixteen would exceed that and provide bright illumination for 80 ft.

On the other hand if the less generous interpretation of each doubling of four only adding another 5 ft. is used then you'd require sixteen doublings to get the equivalent of a daylight spell or a total of 262.144 torches occupying the same space. That would cost 26.214.400 gp in material components and might even stretch the limits of the 5 ft. square.

[Stompy]

Oh, so this *isn't* about how to abuse a Called (not Summoned) Lantern Archon for a LOT of wealth?

I was thinking the exact same thing. (Most of the DMs I run with don't pay attention to light radius.)

[Devils_Advocate]

This was discussed recently, as it happens.

You get more light output but not more intense light.

But... with the light output concentrated into one area, how could it not be more intense? That's, like, what intense means. Lots, all together!

So unless you have a way to concentrate the light

Like, say... by putting the light sources next to each other?

[panaikhan]

How about making the beads from metal, gluing them to a metal mace and inventing the 'Flaming Disco Ball of Doom' ?

[Aotrs Commander]

Try lighting a large room with a candle. The add another candle right next to it. Does the amount of area the candle light up double? No. If you want to light a room with candles, you use a lot of candles spaced out.

Fire-light does't stack that way. A bigger fire (or more candles concentrated) casts more light, yes, but it's certainly a) not a doubling factor, it's a diminishing returns thing (probably based on volume or surface area I'd guess off the top of my head) b) not necessaarily in big increase in range or area lit, juts how bright the lit area is and c) not at a level where you can manage daylight anyway. Think about it. Does a bonfire, even a really, really huge one, emit enough light to be compared to daylight? No. Not even a forest fire emits that amount of light. Fire just does not work that way.

For a kick-off, fire doesn't emit light in the full spectrum anyway (it's, y'know, famously red-orange) so no matter how much fire you pile on, you won't get daylight, even if you burn the countryside. You need to start burning stuff like a star does to get that.


Now, you might argre (with your DM) that with some research and effort, you might be able to make a permenant Light spell function like an LED, I guess; or make Continual Flame act like Continual Light in AD&D, but otherwise the illusion of fire is going to emit light like fire. And in that case, no matter how much you stack, it's not going to be daylight.

[Oracle_Hunter]

But... with the light output concentrated into one area, how could it not be more intense? That's, like, what intense means. Lots, all together!

Putting a bunch of light into one place doesn't suddenly produce sunlight like the OP suggests - you will never get sunburn or struck blind by a wood-burning fire of any size.

Like, say... by putting the light sources next to each other?

No, by concentrating the gross photons either through a lens or by a mirror - like I said.

Putting more torches in a small area will increase the frequency of the emmitance of light, but not the intensity of the light.

[Lysander]

It's pretty obvious that more light sources (of the same strength) equals more light. If you don't believe me just turn off the overhead lights, take two flashlights, and see whether things look brighter when you shine one or both on them.

And I'm not saying a daylight effect would happen easily. It would probably take a huge amount of continual flame spells. And of course the color would be different. But wood burning fires can become bright enough to be dazzling, it just takes something of industrial strength like a kiln.

[Curmudgeon]

Try lighting a large room with a candle. The add another candle right next to it. Does the amount of area the candle light up double? No.

That's because our senses aren't linear. It takes quite a bit more light before we perceive a doubling of brightness. A 23 watt compact fluorescent lamp emits about 1500–1600 lumens, and a lumen is 1 candela∙steradian. Thus a candle (1 candela, by definition) which shines in all directions produces 4π lumens. Which is to say that it takes 100 or so candles to produce comfortable reading illumination.

[Bagelz]

I think the questions and answers are not specific enough.
you are increasing the Radiant Emittance (amount of light from a source) and some of you are discussing the brightness near the center(radiant exitance), some are talking about the distance the light travels, and some are talking about the brightness on a surface (irradiance) some distance away from the source.

so anyhow, both the brightness on a surface, and the distance light travels are inversely square. That is every time you multiply your light source by 4, you double the max distance/ double the brightness at the same distance.

for example your torch clearly illuminates a 20-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination out to a 40-foot radius. 4 torches clearly illuminates 40ft, and shadowy to 80ft. 16 torches clearly illuminates 80ft (and is pretty hot nearby, why are you carrying a bonfire!?).

I would go with the suggestion to treat similarly crit multipliers. add one level and 20ft every time you double the light. (shadowy, clearly, as daylight, very bright).

[Aotrs Commander]

I think the questions and answers are not specific enough.
you are increasing the Radiant Emittance (amount of light from a source) and some of you are discussing the brightness near the center(radiant exitance), some are talking about the distance the light travels, and some are talking about the brightness on a surface (irradiance) some distance away from the source.

so anyhow, both the brightness on a surface, and the distance light travels are inversely square. That is every time you multiply your light source by 4, you double the max distance/ double the brightness at the same distance.

for example your torch clearly illuminates a 20-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination out to a 40-foot radius. 4 torches clearly illuminates 40ft, and shadowy to 80ft. 16 torches clearly illuminates 80ft (and is pretty hot nearby, why are you carrying a bonfire!?).

I would go with the suggestion to treat similarly crit multipliers. add one level and 20ft every time you double the light. (shadowy, clearly, as daylight, very bright).

Thank you, someone who actually knows the actual science of it.

Which is interesting in itself, since the effect is rather more than I would have guessed. And, as you say, rather easy to adjudicate.

So, in thery, with enough continual flames, you can certainly light up a large area (if you don't mind dazzling yourself).

You still can't produce daylight, though. (You might be able to get fire-light as bright as daylight, then, but that's subtly not the same thing.)

[Lord Vukodlak]

I would point out that continual flame is magic and thus the light is magic.
Which there is no reason for it to obey the laws of Radiant Emittance.

That aside assuming magical light is bound by the laws of radiant Emittance there are other things to think about, such as putting a continual flame item inside a lantern. Lanterns are often designed to intensify the light most notable in D&D with the bullseye and hooded lantern.

[Aotrs Commander]

I would point out that continual flame is magic and thus the light is magic.
Which there is no reason for it to obey the laws of Radiant Emittance.

No reason for it not to either, especially if adhering to it stops PC attempts to work around the system...

That aside assuming magical light is bound by the laws of radiant Emittance there are other things to think about, such as putting a continual flame item inside a lantern. Lanterns are often designed to intensify the light most notable in D&D with the bullseye and hooded lantern.

Personally, I treat a lantern with a continual flame to have light as a lantern, albiet one that doesn't run out of fuel.