In a game I'm in I opted to cast light on a demon by touching his forehead. This effectively blinded the demon for the duration. It was frustrating for the DM (because at that point any spells with a visual component were not able to be cast )- so much so that the DM messaged me a few days later to say that it would not be allowed again as light was to be cast on an object, not a person or being. My question is - is this an accurate determination of the parameters of the spell? DM and players opinions would be appreciated.
Light can only be cast on an object. Besides that, allowing a cantrip to blind an enemy (except in super niche, creative, and one time ways) is way too powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You could cast Light on something that the demon was wearing, but it would get a dex save to avoid the spell.
And wouldn't be blinded.
Yeah, I felt that Ophidimancer's reply covered that so I didn't add that in. Not a bad idea to reinforce it the way some of these threads go.
Unless maybe it was a monocle or glasses? Hehe. Not that there's many demons who wear glasses but if it came up later on an NPC who was wearing glasses, and they failed their dex save I'd be inclined to allow blindness. I know that's a pretty extreme circumstance that likely won't come up though.
I do like that you're DM allowed it in that situation for either creativity, or maybe not understanding the spell correctly, but then talked to you about it and explained why it wouldn't work in the future. From the DM side that's a good way to handle it.
Yeah, I don't necessarily see why casting Light on someone would blind them. That's not in the rules.
and it used to. But...
There were no cantrips in AD&D. Even the spell Cantrip was actually a 1st level spell. And back then a caster had to assign each instance of each spell to a specific spell slot every morning. No Arcane Recovery, no Rituals. And Wizards required the most XP/Level of any class. No other Arcane Casters. A d4 HD, and natural healing was I HP/LR. Average life Expectancy of a Wizard was level 2. So while it was legal, and cool...
In previous editions, the description of the spell Light specifically allowed for it to be cast upon an enemy’s eyes, blinding them for the duration unless they made a saving throw. Back then there were no cantrips, and light was a first level spell. This usage is far to powerful for a cantrip. One might house rule a new first level “blinding light” spell that could be used this way.
In previous editions, the description of the spell Light specifically allowed for it to be cast upon an enemy’s eyes, blinding them for the duration unless they made a saving throw. Back then there were no cantrips, and light was a first level spell. This usage is far to powerful for a cantrip. One might house rule a new first level “blinding light” spell that could be used this way.
Blindness/Deafness is a 2nd level spell and covers that specific functionality. Creating a 1st level spell that did the same thing would be both redundant and mildly OP.
I also don't see why casting light on something's forehead would blind anything. The spell isn't cast on their eyes and I don't know anyone who can see their forehead.
Also, as mentioned, using a light spell to blind someone was from previous editions of the game. In 5e, spells do exactly what they say they do, so even if a creature happened to be wearing contact lenses and the light spell was cast on them, it might just cause a cool flashlight effect coming from the creatures eyes, there is nothing that would indicate that the light would be sufficient to blind them even if it was somehow cast directly on their eyes. DMs can of course house rule as they like, but RAW, the light cantrip has no such power.
That's funny. I routinely cast continual flame (when available) on my helmet to shed light in the area. It is just easier than carrying a lantern. No one has ever suggested that I might be blinded by it... any more than you would be blinded by carrying a torch. (it actually does blind you, but not so you notice.) It should also blind people with darkvision beyond the radius of the light, as the light disrupts your ability to see in the dark. No one ever bothers with that triviality though. This is why combat troops use filters on their lights to keep it from disrupting their night vision.
In a game I'm in I opted to cast light on a demon by touching his forehead. This effectively blinded the demon for the duration. It was frustrating for the DM (because at that point any spells with a visual component were not able to be cast )- so much so that the DM messaged me a few days later to say that it would not be allowed again as light was to be cast on an object, not a person or being. My question is - is this an accurate determination of the parameters of the spell? DM and players opinions would be appreciated.
The DM is correct; a creature is not an object. Light hasn't been castable on creatures since AD&D (it does appear to be a valid use in AD&D).
Light can only be cast on an object. Besides that, allowing a cantrip to blind an enemy (except in super niche, creative, and one time ways) is way too powerful.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You could cast Light on something that the demon was wearing, but it would get a dex save to avoid the spell.
And wouldn't be blinded.
Yeah, I felt that Ophidimancer's reply covered that so I didn't add that in. Not a bad idea to reinforce it the way some of these threads go.
Unless maybe it was a monocle or glasses? Hehe. Not that there's many demons who wear glasses but if it came up later on an NPC who was wearing glasses, and they failed their dex save I'd be inclined to allow blindness. I know that's a pretty extreme circumstance that likely won't come up though.
I do like that you're DM allowed it in that situation for either creativity, or maybe not understanding the spell correctly, but then talked to you about it and explained why it wouldn't work in the future. From the DM side that's a good way to handle it.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Yeah, I don't necessarily see why casting Light on someone would blind them. That's not in the rules.
It was,...
and it used to. But...
There were no cantrips in AD&D. Even the spell Cantrip was actually a 1st level spell. And back then a caster had to assign each instance of each spell to a specific spell slot every morning. No Arcane Recovery, no Rituals. And Wizards required the most XP/Level of any class. No other Arcane Casters. A d4 HD, and natural healing was I HP/LR. Average life Expectancy of a Wizard was level 2. So while it was legal, and cool...
it almost never happened.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
In previous editions, the description of the spell Light specifically allowed for it to be cast upon an enemy’s eyes, blinding them for the duration unless they made a saving throw. Back then there were no cantrips, and light was a first level spell. This usage is far to powerful for a cantrip. One might house rule a new first level “blinding light” spell that could be used this way.
Blindness/Deafness is a 2nd level spell and covers that specific functionality. Creating a 1st level spell that did the same thing would be both redundant and mildly OP.
I also don't see why casting light on something's forehead would blind anything. The spell isn't cast on their eyes and I don't know anyone who can see their forehead.
Also, as mentioned, using a light spell to blind someone was from previous editions of the game. In 5e, spells do exactly what they say they do, so even if a creature happened to be wearing contact lenses and the light spell was cast on them, it might just cause a cool flashlight effect coming from the creatures eyes, there is nothing that would indicate that the light would be sufficient to blind them even if it was somehow cast directly on their eyes. DMs can of course house rule as they like, but RAW, the light cantrip has no such power.
That's funny. I routinely cast continual flame (when available) on my helmet to shed light in the area. It is just easier than carrying a lantern. No one has ever suggested that I might be blinded by it... any more than you would be blinded by carrying a torch. (it actually does blind you, but not so you notice.) It should also blind people with darkvision beyond the radius of the light, as the light disrupts your ability to see in the dark. No one ever bothers with that triviality though. This is why combat troops use filters on their lights to keep it from disrupting their night vision.