Part of rules discussion is discussing when attempts to overanalyze the rules results in something that detracts from the D&D experience. An area of magically created dim light like that of Moonlight or Twilight Domain CD is evocative and 100% in line with the concept and very arguably RAI.
What I'm hearing in this thread is an attempt to override magical effects with real world physics. There is no rule that explicitly says that natural bright light can override a spell that fills an area with magical dim light. It doesn't need to conform to how natural light works because it's magic. If the RAW is debatable and one choice is way cooler, just do your table a favor and choose the cool one.
But since the rules don't say, what happens if an area of bright light (like light) and an area of dim light (like dancing lights) overlap? What if 2 everbright lanterns are facing eachother from 120 feet away, how bright is the area between them?
The magical effect controls. Or, if both are magical, the higher level magical controls. It’s not the impossible quandary you make it out to be. “Magical light” and “natural light” (and magical vs natural darkness) are absolutely different concepts, which there are no shortage of features and abilities referencing.
Whats more reasonable? “There is no way to magically dim a natural light in 5E”, or “spells that create dim light can dim natural lights”? like, what’s the point of complaining about the system overlooking the need for that type of spell, when there are no shortage of printed spells and magic items that COULD fit that role, if you just don’t insist on limiting them with an unwritten rule?
Lots of characters and monsters want dim light. Lots of spells create dim light. I don’t see a problem with preferring a reading that sees the one as a solution to the other.
Where in the rules does it imply that? You can just make up rules for your own game, but not for rule discussions.
There are ways of dimming light, either through one of the few spells that say they do or by extinguishing light sources with other spells. Creating artificial darkness/dimness is hard. I wouldn't expect there to be many spells that can do it.
Plenty of creatures do want dim light, I agree. Few to none of those creatures live in Sun lit areas. Why would this be the case if there are cantips and common magic items that can evidently block the sun with dim light?
Many spells and features interact with “magical (light/darkness)” or “natural (light/darkness).” They’re not defined terms in the vision and light section, but they are re used terms with rule significance of some sort.
im not saying my suggestion is the RAW gospel, I was just providing a way a DM might resolve something that you’re acting like there’s no way to resolve. My point only ever was, there IS no RAW rule controlling this question one way or the other, it’s a situation that 5E provides no rule for. A DM is not “mistaken” to hold that Dancing Lights dims bright light, they’re simply making a ruling that is different from your own in an area with NO RAW GUIDANCE. I prefer that ruling. You prefer a different one. Both have good supporting arguments (me: spells do what they say they do, don’t contradict spell text in the absence of explicit rules telling you to do so; you: real light sources don’t work that way). Both are fine.
Many spells and features interact with “magical (light/darkness)” or “natural (light/darkness).” They’re not defined terms in the vision and light section, but they are re used terms with rule significance of some sort.
im not saying my suggestion is the RAW gospel, I was just providing a way a DM might resolve something that you’re acting like there’s no way to resolve. My point only ever was, there IS no RAW rule controlling this question one way or the other, it’s a situation that 5E provides no rule for. A DM is not “mistaken” to hold that Dancing Lights dims bright light, they’re simply making a ruling that is different from your own in an area with NO RAW GUIDANCE. I prefer that ruling. You prefer a different one. Both have good supporting arguments (me: spells do what they say they do, don’t contradict spell text in the absence of explicit rules telling you to do so; you: real light sources don’t work that way). Both are fine.
If that's how a DM wishes to rule, that's their business. But that's house rules, and this is ostensibly a RAW subforum.
Point of order: This is not a RAW subforum. This is a rules and game mechanics subforum. Discussions of RAW are neither inherently more nor less valid in terms of what is appropriate for discussion here. In this thread, we are discussing the mechanics of light and illumination as they apply to spells and nonmagical sources.
Not trying to stifle debate. The OP asked whether or not there were cantrips that could reduce magical light (a la control flames). And the answer is there isn't.
Spells do what they say they do, and that's it. If they create light, they create light. If they darken, they darken. At no point does creating light mean something has to darken unless the spell says otherwise. If a DM wishes to say otherwise, that is their prerogative. And while the DM making rulings on the fly is part of the rules, it's not particularly helpful to this discussion. A DM can rule however they wish; even jettisoning rules entirely.
“Rulings” are subjective, “rules” are a shared framework of play built on objective language, context, or clearly demonstrated author intent. I don’t disagree with you Jounichi. The only reason we went down this tangent, you presented your own ruling on Dancing Lights as a rule, and said others were “mistaken” for disagreeing. Some folks in this thread have agreed with your ruling, others have disagreed.
There aren’t “rules” for everything. 5E is not a comprehensive simulation. Not every situation has a single “correct” solution. This is one of them.
I do think it’s been a nice discussion of some pros and cons for both schools of thought, though, for anyone who might be looking for a way to mitigate Sunlight Sensitivity or get the most out of their Shadow Monk. Dancing Lights is a concentration cantrip, with limited range and area, and a rather conspicuous origin for its spell effect, I don’t think it’s unbalancing or threatening to the foundations of the D&D cosmos to let twilight-loving characters use it to create pools of shade.
Did I type out of turn? Features, traits, and spells only do what they say they do. The spell grease doesn't create a more flammable area. It doesn't add to fire damage the way an oil (flask) does. Yet, if a DM wishes to adjust things, they can. That is their perogative.
But it's entirely in the hands of the DM. I do not believe that is suitable for a rules discussion.
This isn’t a situation of asking what unwritten extra things a spell might do. This is a matter of “spell says X. X literally no matter what, or can other circumstances overwrite when real world logic dictates?”
“Can I cast Create Bonfire underwater?” or “does ice created by Shape Water stay frozen in a fire?” are more analogous to this dispute than “is Grease flammable?”
Create bonfire specifically requires the spell to be cast, "on ground that you can see within range." Whether it can be cast underwater depends on whether or not "ground" is available. Judging by common nomenclature, no, you cannot cast it underwater. We use terms like "seabed" and "abyssal plain", instead. That said, if a DM rules such a surface counts as "ground" then so be it. I'm not that lenient, but I won't argue with a DM who decides to allow it.
And there are no rules for melting ice by fire, so the second one is completely up to DM fiat. Unlike the other two, there is no guidance.
You're trying to argue that a portable, dispellable light source actually dims the light in a given area. It's an asinine position.
This isn’t a situation of asking what unwritten extra things a spell might do. This is a matter of “spell says X. X literally no matter what, or can other circumstances overwrite when real world logic dictates?”
Just to cover my interpretation of the RAW (since your phrasing sounds like an attack on it), I would say that a space can be filled with different light levels at the same time. It is light after all, it doesn't take up space. And since darkness is the absence of light (according to both the rules and logic), more light naturally never equals a lower light level.
But you already agreed to disagree, so I am not going to argue with your 2+1=1 interpretation. So please counter Jounichi's points with something other than strawmen arguments, and both of you try not to start an argument about any other poorly written rules in an effort to make a point.
Normal water quenches normal fire. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume that normal water quenches a magical bonfire like Create Bonfire? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY water puts it out...
Normal fire melts normal ice. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume that normal fire melts magical ice like Shape Water? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY fire melts it...
Normal bright light illuminates normal dim light or normal darkness. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume normal bright light illuminates magical dim light like Dancing Lights or Moonbeam or magical darkness? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY brighter light can illuminate its area filled with dim light...
Calling me asinine or accusing this of being a straw man argument doesn’t make your position any stronger or put words on a page that aren’t already written there. these aren’t situations where real world physics are terribly relevant. We’re talking about “magic”, and furthermore, magic in a game system that generally cares more about spells and abilities interacting according to their rule text, than attempting to simulate reality.
“Can I cast Create Bonfire underwater?” or “does ice created by Shape Water stay frozen in a fire?” are more analogous to this dispute than “is Grease flammable?”
I don't like these tangents being thrown back and forth like they are relevant, so let's knock them down.
Fun fact, some fires can burn underwater (depends on the fuel). Fire magic doesn't need fuel because magic. So create bonfire makes an area of hot, glowing bubbles (that are actually water vapor and possibly hydrogen) on the sea floor or wherever this is.
Shape water doesn't just freeze water, it keeps it frozen. Fire doesn't melt ice, it heats it up which causes it to change states. So no, it will not melt.
And that is why these spells are not analogous to the argument at hand. Neither is grease, but that wasn't actually his point when he mentioned it.
Your rationalization of “it’s actually boiling water or hot bubbles, not fire” is precisely the sort of “fine If you want to play it that way, but that’s not what the spell says so that’s not RAW” that I’m talking about. Create Bonfire says it creates “bonfire,” with no suggestion that it cares one lick whether fire could normally exist there (in a vacuum, underwater, no fuel, etc.). Shape Water freezes ice, with no suggestion it cares about the sorts of temperatures ice can ordinarily exist at. And it’s an instant spell with no concentration, so “it keeps freezing it as it melts” contradicts explicit PHB language, btw... And Dancing Lights creates areas of dim light, with no suggestion it cares about the level of brightness or darkness that area would have normally. All three (and many more besides) do the same thing: use magic to turn physics on its head, and break the rules the world normally operates on.
Your rationalization of “it’s actually boiling water or hot bubbles, not fire” is precisely the sort of “fine If you want to play it that way, but that’s not what the spell says so that’s not RAW” that I’m talking about. Create Bonfire says it creates “bonfire,” with no suggestion that it cares one lick whether fire could normally exist there (in a vacuum, underwater, no fuel, etc.). Shape Water freezes ice, with no suggestion it cares about the sorts of temperatures ice can ordinarily exist at. And it’s an instant spell with no concentration, so “it keeps freezing it as it melts” contradicts explicit PHB language, btw... And Dancing Lights creates areas of dim light, with no suggestion it cares about the level of brightness or darkness that area would have normally. All three (and many more besides) do the same thing: use magic to turn physics on its head, and break the rules the world normally operates on.
Nothing is broken in any of these examples.
Create bonfire, so long as it has a surface to be cast on so it's not free-floating, works. It's a concentration spell that, presumably, provides its own fuel. And there is precedent for water causing fire damage. The dragon turtle's Steam Breath does just this. Yes, the spell can ignite flammable objects, but the "completely submerged in water" aspect will immediately extinguish them, so nothing changes. And such a target would take half-damage from the fire damage because, again, they're completely submerged in water.
Shape water doesn't care about the ambient temperature of the world around it. It doesn't matter if you're on the frozen tundra of Icewind Dale or the steamy tropical jungle of Chult. Why should fire make a difference?
The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Adding light does not reduce the amount of light in a given area. Ergo, spells which shed dim light do not reduce the amount of light within their area of effect. To say otherwise means you are creating special rules for some, but not all, spells which provide illumination. As I've stated before, it's asinine.
None of this, as far as anyone else here is aware, contradicts any language from the PHB. If you can point to examples of a meaningful contradiction, we'd love to see them.
Your rationalization of “it’s actually boiling water or hot bubbles, not fire” is precisely the sort of “fine If you want to play it that way, but that’s not what the spell says so that’s not RAW” that I’m talking about. Create Bonfire says it creates “bonfire,” with no suggestion that it cares one lick whether fire could normally exist there (in a vacuum, underwater, no fuel, etc.). Shape Water freezes ice, with no suggestion it cares about the sorts of temperatures ice can ordinarily exist at. And it’s an instant spell with no concentration, so “it keeps freezing it as it melts” contradicts explicit PHB language, btw... And Dancing Lights creates areas of dim light, with no suggestion it cares about the level of brightness or darkness that area would have normally. All three (and many more besides) do the same thing: use magic to turn physics on its head, and break the rules the world normally operates on.
What, no. Fire is fire even if it is under water. But you won't see proper flames, because the water around it will boil, but the bubbles will glow from the light of the flames.
Shape water is an instant spell that can have up to 2 effects last for an hour without concentration. That is WotC's BS, not mine. And it doesn't keep freezing as it melts, it simply doesn't melt in the first place.
If you want a proper analogy to dancing lights and sunlight, try this: If you fire bolt a burning building, does the fire go out except for the 1 part you hit?
My big takeaway from this discussion is whether you can even see the area of effect if you cast moonbeam outside during the day. Because if you can, then we have to strongly consider whether the dim light from dancing lights would dim bright ambient light within the radius.
I think that the most comprehensible way to interpret these is that if a spell (or feature) effect says it is filled with a type of light, then it is exactly that, whatever was there before. If an effect says that it sheds or provides light or illuminates an area, then it adds light of whatever type to the light that was there before.
Is there rules support for separating them? Other than the difference in English between "sheds" and "is filled with", maybe not. I'm ok with that for this ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But since the rules don't say, what happens if an area of bright light (like light) and an area of dim light (like dancing lights) overlap? What if 2 everbright lanterns are facing eachother from 120 feet away, how bright is the area between them?
RAW doesn’t answer, so the DM makes a ruling. What’s the problem, how does that support your argument?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Where in the rules does it imply that? You can just make up rules for your own game, but not for rule discussions.
There are ways of dimming light, either through one of the few spells that say they do or by extinguishing light sources with other spells. Creating artificial darkness/dimness is hard. I wouldn't expect there to be many spells that can do it.
Plenty of creatures do want dim light, I agree. Few to none of those creatures live in Sun lit areas. Why would this be the case if there are cantips and common magic items that can evidently block the sun with dim light?
But if the RAW doesn't say, how can you assume it happens at all?
And again, the rules don't differentiate between natural and magical light. They are the same unless stated otherwise.
Many spells and features interact with “magical (light/darkness)” or “natural (light/darkness).” They’re not defined terms in the vision and light section, but they are re used terms with rule significance of some sort.
im not saying my suggestion is the RAW gospel, I was just providing a way a DM might resolve something that you’re acting like there’s no way to resolve. My point only ever was, there IS no RAW rule controlling this question one way or the other, it’s a situation that 5E provides no rule for. A DM is not “mistaken” to hold that Dancing Lights dims bright light, they’re simply making a ruling that is different from your own in an area with NO RAW GUIDANCE. I prefer that ruling. You prefer a different one. Both have good supporting arguments (me: spells do what they say they do, don’t contradict spell text in the absence of explicit rules telling you to do so; you: real light sources don’t work that way). Both are fine.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're cracking me up. Only you, Chicken_Champ :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If that's how a DM wishes to rule, that's their business. But that's house rules, and this is ostensibly a RAW subforum.
Point of order: This is not a RAW subforum. This is a rules and game mechanics subforum. Discussions of RAW are neither inherently more nor less valid in terms of what is appropriate for discussion here. In this thread, we are discussing the mechanics of light and illumination as they apply to spells and nonmagical sources.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not trying to stifle debate. The OP asked whether or not there were cantrips that could reduce magical light (a la control flames). And the answer is there isn't.
Spells do what they say they do, and that's it. If they create light, they create light. If they darken, they darken. At no point does creating light mean something has to darken unless the spell says otherwise. If a DM wishes to say otherwise, that is their prerogative. And while the DM making rulings on the fly is part of the rules, it's not particularly helpful to this discussion. A DM can rule however they wish; even jettisoning rules entirely.
“Rulings” are subjective, “rules” are a shared framework of play built on objective language, context, or clearly demonstrated author intent. I don’t disagree with you Jounichi. The only reason we went down this tangent, you presented your own ruling on Dancing Lights as a rule, and said others were “mistaken” for disagreeing. Some folks in this thread have agreed with your ruling, others have disagreed.
There aren’t “rules” for everything. 5E is not a comprehensive simulation. Not every situation has a single “correct” solution. This is one of them.
I do think it’s been a nice discussion of some pros and cons for both schools of thought, though, for anyone who might be looking for a way to mitigate Sunlight Sensitivity or get the most out of their Shadow Monk. Dancing Lights is a concentration cantrip, with limited range and area, and a rather conspicuous origin for its spell effect, I don’t think it’s unbalancing or threatening to the foundations of the D&D cosmos to let twilight-loving characters use it to create pools of shade.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Did I type out of turn? Features, traits, and spells only do what they say they do. The spell grease doesn't create a more flammable area. It doesn't add to fire damage the way an oil (flask) does. Yet, if a DM wishes to adjust things, they can. That is their perogative.
But it's entirely in the hands of the DM. I do not believe that is suitable for a rules discussion.
This isn’t a situation of asking what unwritten extra things a spell might do. This is a matter of “spell says X. X literally no matter what, or can other circumstances overwrite when real world logic dictates?”
“Can I cast Create Bonfire underwater?” or “does ice created by Shape Water stay frozen in a fire?” are more analogous to this dispute than “is Grease flammable?”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Create bonfire specifically requires the spell to be cast, "on ground that you can see within range." Whether it can be cast underwater depends on whether or not "ground" is available. Judging by common nomenclature, no, you cannot cast it underwater. We use terms like "seabed" and "abyssal plain", instead. That said, if a DM rules such a surface counts as "ground" then so be it. I'm not that lenient, but I won't argue with a DM who decides to allow it.
And there are no rules for melting ice by fire, so the second one is completely up to DM fiat. Unlike the other two, there is no guidance.
You're trying to argue that a portable, dispellable light source actually dims the light in a given area. It's an asinine position.
Just to cover my interpretation of the RAW (since your phrasing sounds like an attack on it), I would say that a space can be filled with different light levels at the same time. It is light after all, it doesn't take up space. And since darkness is the absence of light (according to both the rules and logic), more light naturally never equals a lower light level.
But you already agreed to disagree, so I am not going to argue with your 2+1=1 interpretation. So please counter Jounichi's points with something other than strawmen arguments, and both of you try not to start an argument about any other poorly written rules in an effort to make a point.
Normal water quenches normal fire. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume that normal water quenches a magical bonfire like Create Bonfire? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY water puts it out...
Normal fire melts normal ice. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume that normal fire melts magical ice like Shape Water? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY fire melts it...
Normal bright light illuminates normal dim light or normal darkness. We don’t need a printed rule to tell us that... but can we assume normal bright light illuminates magical dim light like Dancing Lights or Moonbeam or magical darkness? RAW, no, so reasonable DMs could rule both ways. The spell doesn’t SAY brighter light can illuminate its area filled with dim light...
Calling me asinine or accusing this of being a straw man argument doesn’t make your position any stronger or put words on a page that aren’t already written there. these aren’t situations where real world physics are terribly relevant. We’re talking about “magic”, and furthermore, magic in a game system that generally cares more about spells and abilities interacting according to their rule text, than attempting to simulate reality.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't like these tangents being thrown back and forth like they are relevant, so let's knock them down.
Fun fact, some fires can burn underwater (depends on the fuel). Fire magic doesn't need fuel because magic. So create bonfire makes an area of hot, glowing bubbles (that are actually water vapor and possibly hydrogen) on the sea floor or wherever this is.
Shape water doesn't just freeze water, it keeps it frozen. Fire doesn't melt ice, it heats it up which causes it to change states. So no, it will not melt.
And that is why these spells are not analogous to the argument at hand. Neither is grease, but that wasn't actually his point when he mentioned it.
Your rationalization of “it’s actually boiling water or hot bubbles, not fire” is precisely the sort of “fine If you want to play it that way, but that’s not what the spell says so that’s not RAW” that I’m talking about. Create Bonfire says it creates “bonfire,” with no suggestion that it cares one lick whether fire could normally exist there (in a vacuum, underwater, no fuel, etc.). Shape Water freezes ice, with no suggestion it cares about the sorts of temperatures ice can ordinarily exist at. And it’s an instant spell with no concentration, so “it keeps freezing it as it melts” contradicts explicit PHB language, btw... And Dancing Lights creates areas of dim light, with no suggestion it cares about the level of brightness or darkness that area would have normally. All three (and many more besides) do the same thing: use magic to turn physics on its head, and break the rules the world normally operates on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nothing is broken in any of these examples.
Create bonfire, so long as it has a surface to be cast on so it's not free-floating, works. It's a concentration spell that, presumably, provides its own fuel. And there is precedent for water causing fire damage. The dragon turtle's Steam Breath does just this. Yes, the spell can ignite flammable objects, but the "completely submerged in water" aspect will immediately extinguish them, so nothing changes. And such a target would take half-damage from the fire damage because, again, they're completely submerged in water.
Shape water doesn't care about the ambient temperature of the world around it. It doesn't matter if you're on the frozen tundra of Icewind Dale or the steamy tropical jungle of Chult. Why should fire make a difference?
And as per Vision and Light in the Basic Rules:
Adding light does not reduce the amount of light in a given area. Ergo, spells which shed dim light do not reduce the amount of light within their area of effect. To say otherwise means you are creating special rules for some, but not all, spells which provide illumination. As I've stated before, it's asinine.
None of this, as far as anyone else here is aware, contradicts any language from the PHB. If you can point to examples of a meaningful contradiction, we'd love to see them.
What, no. Fire is fire even if it is under water. But you won't see proper flames, because the water around it will boil, but the bubbles will glow from the light of the flames.
Shape water is an instant spell that can have up to 2 effects last for an hour without concentration. That is WotC's BS, not mine. And it doesn't keep freezing as it melts, it simply doesn't melt in the first place.
If you want a proper analogy to dancing lights and sunlight, try this: If you fire bolt a burning building, does the fire go out except for the 1 part you hit?
My big takeaway from this discussion is whether you can even see the area of effect if you cast moonbeam outside during the day. Because if you can, then we have to strongly consider whether the dim light from dancing lights would dim bright ambient light within the radius.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that the most comprehensible way to interpret these is that if a spell (or feature) effect says it is filled with a type of light, then it is exactly that, whatever was there before. If an effect says that it sheds or provides light or illuminates an area, then it adds light of whatever type to the light that was there before.
Is there rules support for separating them? Other than the difference in English between "sheds" and "is filled with", maybe not. I'm ok with that for this ruling.