Are we talking about rules or are we talking about feelings?
Create Bonfire tells you exactly how much area it illuminates. If anyone in your game decides it illuminates more, that is completely outside of the text of the spell. Do you disagree?
Darkness creates magical darkness. Per se, an area of darkness is heavily obscured. Do you disagree?
Seeing as Create Bonfire doesn't specify any area of illumination, I would go with the general rules on Light and use what references I can find. I agree the general rules are outside the rules of the specific spell.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
So are magical items. Though if one produces an area of light, it should be considered magical and therefore illuminate within a Darkness spell since it only affect spells of 2nd level or lower.
I am not entirely sure what you're getting at, but Darkness only dispel light produced by spells, not light produced from magical items.
Where i'm getting at is there are game elements such as spells and magic items that emit magical light without being area specific and that can still illuminate magical Darkness.
If you stood an inch from a person being lit up by Hellish Rebuke in a pitch black room, would you be able to see that it was a person being lit up? Would you be able to see the sword in your own hand?
The fire itself would be visible from a distance for sure though how much else can you see from it would have to be determined by the DM.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
What page is that rule on?
I believe he is referring to the following quote from the Casting a Spell section:
Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
What page is that rule on?
It is a close paraphrase of the second sentence describing an Area of Effect.
I agree that the travelling mote of fire is part of the effect, but is not the realized effect, just as saying that it is not the realized effect of the spell Hold Person to have the target make a wisdom saving throw they succeed. As for whether or not it "happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled", I don't believe it does. If it did, the target would be able to reach with a Shield spell or teleport out of the way of a Fireball with a readied Thunder Step spell. I am actually not sure I completely understand your logic. If everything worked the way I described in my last post, the sphere of Darkness would work similarly to a heavily limited part of Antimagic Field (as described in my last post). So if you believe the Fire Bolt strikes too fast for it to be dispelled by Darkness, would you rule the same if we were talking about an Antimagic Field? The way I see read it, Darkness dispels light-emitting spells of 2nd level or lower instantly (they get dispelled at the outer periphery of the spell).
Yeah my logic is not very clear here to be honest, but I'm going to blame that on the poor wording of the spell. ;-)
I think what I want to say is that Darkness does not allow you to interrupt a spell effect. I understand what you're saying about the realised effect from a logical standpoint but I don't think there is any basis for that differentiation under the rules. Logically there are several steps to spellcasting due to player agency:
You declare that you are casting a Fire Bolt at a target.
You roll to see if you hit or not.
On a successful hit you roll for damage.
Point 3 would be the realised effect from a player's view, but from rule perspective points 2 and 3 are both considered part of the spell effect. This is the important factor for me. A spell might be counterspelled when you declare it in point 1, which means you never proceed to step 2, or a spell can be dispelled after point 3 (assuming it is a valid target for the dispel). But neither of these lets you interrupt the spell once you proceed past the declaration.
The Shield and readied action rely on Reactions which are special actions that also happen instantly, and are designed to interrupt other effects/actions, so I don't see that as the same as an ongoing effect like Darkness.
Ha! No way would I rule the same for an Antimagic Field, it is very clear in how it works. In the example above you should stop after point 1 because the Antimagic Field declares that a targeted spell (like Fire Bolt) that targets a creature or an object in the sphere has no effect on that target. Although the DM might let you roll to hit and then say nothing happens to keep you guessing.
I think it is a difficult question, and I can't find any official rules on the matter. My personal take is that flames produced by magic is magical, and that light produced by magical flames are also magical in nature (though I am not at all certain on this point). In the Fire Bolt spell it is described that it is a mote of fire, and fire inherently creates bright light. However it is difficult to dissect a spell and rule on which part of effects are magical and which are not in my opinion. Would you also argue that Guiding Bolt, that explicitly says it is a "flash of light", is not a magical light?
Here's a quote from SAC on the matter. I'd personally say that the light is part of the spell and is fueled (however briefly) by the use of a spell slot.
I couldn't find a definitive answer in the rules either so it is more of a logical argument. My preference is for a strict interpretation, relying on explicitly declared light sources in spells rather than implied ones like fire, because I feel that it fits the intent of the spell better. Explicit declarations are also beneficial in a game system to reduce the amount of interpretation. My argument for this is the fact that only some fire spells explicitly mention light (Flame Blade, Faerie Fire). If the light from a fire was expected to be part of the spell, then surely all fire based spells would mention it, or none of them would because everyone understands that they produce light.
Guiding Bolt is an awkward one for sure, but one that I'd allow to hit based on the timing above. I believe the spell effect should be completed without interruption, dealing damage to the target, but once that is resolved the "dim light glittering on the target" would then cause the spell to be dispelled by the darkness. Also the description does not have the "flash of light" illuminating anything else so I don't consider it an "area of light" in the same way as the Light cantrip or Faerie Fire etc.
I believe I touched upon this in my last post, and a little more extensively in a prior post. I believe the same as you do. I believe RAI is for Darkness to dispel spells that exclusively produce light (e.g. Light or Dancing Lights) as in earlier editions. However they could easily have made this clear, so it's hard to say if it was intentional to leave it as is.
...
You have excellent points and you are generally a joy to have a discussion with! :)
I just wasn't quite sure which side you believed RAI to be since your comments covered both sides of the argument.
Thanks, you've given me some good ideas to think about, and you've helped me to better define my own position. Don't feel you need to reply to this one, I'm happy to leave matters where they stand. Ultimately it falls to individual DMs to decide since there is a lot of room for interpretation. :-)
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
So are magical items. Though if one produces an area of light, it should be considered magical and therefore illuminate within a Darkness spell since it only affect spells of 2nd level or lower.
I am not entirely sure what you're getting at, but Darkness only dispel light produced by spells, not light produced from magical items.
Where i'm getting at is there are game elements such as spells and magic items that emit magical light without being area specific and that can still illuminate magical Darkness.
There are game elements that tell you that they illuminate a vague, non-specified area?
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
What page is that rule on?
It is a close paraphrase of the second sentence describing an Area of Effect.
I think it is overly reductive to apply a spell's area of effect to all aspects of a spell. It's like saying that shatter can only be heard within its 10-foot area of effect despite the description saying, "A sudden loud ringing noise, painfully intense, erupts from a point of your choice within range." And to keep things specifically on topic, even if create bonfire only created light within its area of effect, it would still be dispelled by darkness.
While spells do what they say they do, sometimes spells say they do things that include aspects of those things that don't need to be laid out in complete detail. Shatter makes a painfully intensely loud noise. Loud enough for the troll in the next room to come investigate? Ask your DM. Create bonfire creates a bonfire. Since every bonfire makes light, we expect this one does too. Might a magical bonfire NOT create light? Sure. But if there was a dark bonfire spell, would it be enough for the spell description to simply say "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range,"? According to the above logic, that would be fine since no area of light is defined. But that would be needlessly confusing to people because all bonfires create light unless something was in the spell description to tell us it doesn't.
So how much light does a bonfire produce? The PHB says fires produce bright light. Enough for the bugbear in the nearby trees to spot your camp? Ask your DM.
I think it is overly reductive to apply a spell's area of effect to all aspects of a spell. It's like saying that shatter can only be heard within its 10-foot area of effect despite the description saying, "A sudden loud ringing noise, painfully intense, erupts from a point of your choice within range." And to keep things specifically on topic, even if create bonfire only created light within its area of effect, it would still be dispelled by darkness.
That is the opposite of what I'm saying, and actually goes to my point. I am saying that the spell specifies the area of its effects. If a spell produces light in an area it will tell you what area is illuminated per the rule on areas of effect.
If a spell creates a sound that can be heard in an area, that spell will tell you what that area is. If a spell damages creatures in an area, that spell will tell you what area is affected. If the spell specifies different areas then those areas would be different. Why would we treat light any differently? That is actually what you're asking for.
edit: Also notice that shatter produces both sound and damage. Each of those effects has its own area that are specified in the spell.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
Would you say the spell Darkness creates a heavily obscured area even though it doesn't say so?
I say any fire creates light just as any darkness heavily obscures.
For fire spell such as Fire Bolt, i still think they create light, just not area of light with a specific radius. I would say you can see a Fire Bolt illuminating through the magical darkness as it's magical light.
If you stood an inch from a person being lit up by Hellish Rebuke in a pitch black room, would you be able to see that it was a person being lit up? Would you be able to see the sword in your own hand?
Darkness
ion
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seeing as Create Bonfire doesn't specify any area of illumination, I would go with the general rules on Light and use what references I can find. I agree the general rules are outside the rules of the specific spell.
Where i'm getting at is there are game elements such as spells and magic items that emit magical light without being area specific and that can still illuminate magical Darkness.
The fire itself would be visible from a distance for sure though how much else can you see from it would have to be determined by the DM.
What page is that rule on?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I believe he is referring to the following quote from the Casting a Spell section:
It is a close paraphrase of the second sentence describing an Area of Effect.
Yeah my logic is not very clear here to be honest, but I'm going to blame that on the poor wording of the spell. ;-)
I think what I want to say is that Darkness does not allow you to interrupt a spell effect. I understand what you're saying about the realised effect from a logical standpoint but I don't think there is any basis for that differentiation under the rules. Logically there are several steps to spellcasting due to player agency:
Point 3 would be the realised effect from a player's view, but from rule perspective points 2 and 3 are both considered part of the spell effect. This is the important factor for me. A spell might be counterspelled when you declare it in point 1, which means you never proceed to step 2, or a spell can be dispelled after point 3 (assuming it is a valid target for the dispel). But neither of these lets you interrupt the spell once you proceed past the declaration.
The Shield and readied action rely on Reactions which are special actions that also happen instantly, and are designed to interrupt other effects/actions, so I don't see that as the same as an ongoing effect like Darkness.
Ha! No way would I rule the same for an Antimagic Field, it is very clear in how it works. In the example above you should stop after point 1 because the Antimagic Field declares that a targeted spell (like Fire Bolt) that targets a creature or an object in the sphere has no effect on that target. Although the DM might let you roll to hit and then say nothing happens to keep you guessing.
I couldn't find a definitive answer in the rules either so it is more of a logical argument. My preference is for a strict interpretation, relying on explicitly declared light sources in spells rather than implied ones like fire, because I feel that it fits the intent of the spell better. Explicit declarations are also beneficial in a game system to reduce the amount of interpretation. My argument for this is the fact that only some fire spells explicitly mention light (Flame Blade, Faerie Fire). If the light from a fire was expected to be part of the spell, then surely all fire based spells would mention it, or none of them would because everyone understands that they produce light.
Guiding Bolt is an awkward one for sure, but one that I'd allow to hit based on the timing above. I believe the spell effect should be completed without interruption, dealing damage to the target, but once that is resolved the "dim light glittering on the target" would then cause the spell to be dispelled by the darkness. Also the description does not have the "flash of light" illuminating anything else so I don't consider it an "area of light" in the same way as the Light cantrip or Faerie Fire etc.
I just wasn't quite sure which side you believed RAI to be since your comments covered both sides of the argument.
Thanks, you've given me some good ideas to think about, and you've helped me to better define my own position. Don't feel you need to reply to this one, I'm happy to leave matters where they stand. Ultimately it falls to individual DMs to decide since there is a lot of room for interpretation. :-)
There are game elements that tell you that they illuminate a vague, non-specified area?
I think it is overly reductive to apply a spell's area of effect to all aspects of a spell. It's like saying that shatter can only be heard within its 10-foot area of effect despite the description saying, "A sudden loud ringing noise, painfully intense, erupts from a point of your choice within range." And to keep things specifically on topic, even if create bonfire only created light within its area of effect, it would still be dispelled by darkness.
While spells do what they say they do, sometimes spells say they do things that include aspects of those things that don't need to be laid out in complete detail. Shatter makes a painfully intensely loud noise. Loud enough for the troll in the next room to come investigate? Ask your DM. Create bonfire creates a bonfire. Since every bonfire makes light, we expect this one does too. Might a magical bonfire NOT create light? Sure. But if there was a dark bonfire spell, would it be enough for the spell description to simply say "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range,"? According to the above logic, that would be fine since no area of light is defined. But that would be needlessly confusing to people because all bonfires create light unless something was in the spell description to tell us it doesn't.
So how much light does a bonfire produce? The PHB says fires produce bright light. Enough for the bugbear in the nearby trees to spot your camp? Ask your DM.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That is the opposite of what I'm saying, and actually goes to my point. I am saying that the spell specifies the area of its effects. If a spell produces light in an area it will tell you what area is illuminated per the rule on areas of effect.
If a spell creates a sound that can be heard in an area, that spell will tell you what that area is. If a spell damages creatures in an area, that spell will tell you what area is affected. If the spell specifies different areas then those areas would be different. Why would we treat light any differently? That is actually what you're asking for.
edit: Also notice that shatter produces both sound and damage. Each of those effects has its own area that are specified in the spell.
Fire in general provides light. So i assume it can illuminate as in being made visible, without shedding light beyond a specific radius.
Within a specific radius, right? The rules on bright light say that part too.
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying in that case.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes when specified. Most game elements specify it shed light in a radius, even if it doesn't it sill illuminate in itself don't you think?
That a candle flame is visible in darkness while a mote of fire hurled with Fire Boilt isn't to me breaks versimilitude.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
Darkness