darkness 3.5 vs. darkness 3.0 [Archive] - Wizards Community

darkness 3.5 vs. darkness 3.0 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
swallowyersoul
03-26-07, 12:58 AM so i was checking on some stuff and i noticed that 3.5 darkness and deeper darkness are describes as an area of 'shadowy illumination' with concealment (20% miss).

3.0 darkness (and earlier versions) seem to have darkness as an opaque globe of utter blindness and blackness.

have i been doing it wrong all along, or was there a change for 3.5?

and if so, anybody know why the change?
Seeker95
03-26-07, 09:13 AM There was a change. The change was to clarify the mechanics. In 3.0, the effect of "no light" was subject to way too much debate and potential abuse. In 3.5, the effect is purely mechanical: in the area of darkness, there is concealment: 20% miss chance.

Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that there are also hyper-literalists who will try to claim that darkness will create light in an area with none.
Themightybiggun
03-26-07, 12:59 PM hehe, thats always amusing to watch the internet fights when someone brings out the "illumination" quote.

yeah, its no longer "darkness" per say, its more like "deep shadow", you can still see in it, but you might miss some of your opponents movements and actions.

And it throws off sneak attack.
OravennasBrother
03-26-07, 03:38 PM Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that
his wording left it open to a different form of abuse.
The Editor did the same.
Kresalak
03-26-07, 06:02 PM Darkness not only got crazy in the crazy way, but they also broke it to hell and back. And by that I mean they turned a spell people might sometimes cast into a cantrip without changing its level.
swallowyersoul
03-26-07, 06:29 PM yeah, i get that. darkness as written is probably a 1st level spell now, though i always thought it was pretty powerful for a 2nd level spell. no damage, but the best spell for altering the battlefield until you get up to the various walls some time up the food chain.
Kazeofwinds
03-26-07, 06:34 PM It was because in 3.5 all spells got hit by a nerf bat, and some of them just became moronic/useless because of it.

My group has the old houserule by consensus that it works as in makes the pitch black ball.
Link182
03-26-07, 09:11 PM Wasn't there a deeper darkness? or am I thinking of Deeper Darkvision which ignores Darkness. Then there's Damning Darkness as well.
I really hope they stop
Link182
03-26-07, 10:28 PM Well, I guess if they have a spell called Deeper Darkvision, which can help those with Darkvision to see through Darkness, you can cast it underground in pitch blackness and it'll still do something, and I guess that something is make some shadowy candlelight "darkness". I guess they should have called the spell, Shadowy Orb or left the quotes around it in the PHB. Perhaps they'll come up with a Lightless Black Inky Globe spell later on.

Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape about a spell description? You'd think we were talking about Mordenkainen's Disjunction or something.
Uh oh...
swallowyersoul
03-26-07, 10:45 PM link, i'm there with you. it seems we have a couple people who hate 3.0 with the sort of venom i only see in my ex wives. i don't see how that serves anybody. maybe they think it makes their dice seem bigger than ours.

now i have my own problems with 3.5 (weapon sizes, the move to battlemat descriptors for move and range for purely economic reasons are two examples). other changes i really liked (haste was overpowered though i still think they should have just moved it to 4th level, systematic organization of spell names and where to find them, weapon familiarity...). whether or not we needed a whole new edition i'm still out on.

in the end i think i'm going to go with the suggestion from earlier. i'll keep darkness as it used to be. application of common sense is fun for dick and jane.
WizO_Cat
03-26-07, 10:55 PM Ok, just a reminder: let's knock off the personal comments in the discussion: keep it to the topic of the thread and not other guests. Otherwise, I'm going to have to hand out some Official Warns. The one a only warning that I'm going to give in this thread ...
KendallDM
03-27-07, 02:27 AM I've houseruled darkness. As I have it, it provides no illumination, but decreases any illumination present to shadowy. This shadowy area gives shadowy (20% miss chance) to anyone within the darkness that is 5 ft. away, and total concealment to those more than 5 ft. away. Therefore, anyone outside the darkness can see anyone inside the sphere only if they are in the first 5 ft of the edge of the darkness. I think this solution works well enough for keep the spells at the same level, without the overpowered darkness of 3.0.

Essentially, I did this because the difference between darkness, and deeper darkness is radius, which doesn't mean anything when targeting those inside the darkness with magic missiles. The distance has to mean something. Now, I hear the argument already, that this makes it no different than obscuring mist (1st level) and fog cloud (2nd level), but they are stationary once cast and don't work in strong winds, whereas darkness (2nd level) and deeper darkness (3rd level, 60 ft radius) are far more effective and can be cast on an object and moved about.

On another note, I also brought back continual darkness to the wizard 3rd level list. Not sure why this spell was removed from the spell lists. It's especially useful with devil's and those that have the ability to see through it. Furthermore, I added an cantrip/orison to the 0 level list of clerics and wizards that is called shadow, that spell works like the current 3.5 darkness works (to counter the 0 level light spell).
Bluebrush
03-27-07, 11:36 AM Wasn't there a deeper darkness? or am I thinking of Deeper Darkvision which ignores Darkness. Then there's Damning Darkness as well.
I really hope they stopDon't forget the Dreaming Darkness!*

*Until their army of telepaths from beyond reality make you forget.
Zherog
03-27-07, 11:45 AM It was because in 3.5 all spells got hit by a nerf bat, and some of them just became moronic/useless because of it.

No, shapechange was actually powered up - specifically because one of the designers thought druids needed more power. :twitch:
swallowyersoul
03-27-07, 11:53 AM I've houseruled darkness. As I have it, it provides no illumination, but decreases any illumination present to shadowy. This shadowy area gives shadowy (20% miss chance) to anyone within the darkness that is 5 ft. away, and total concealment to those more than 5 ft. away. Therefore, anyone outside the darkness can see anyone inside the sphere only if they are in the first 5 ft of the edge of the darkness. I think this solution works well enough for keep the spells at the same level, without the overpowered darkness of 3.0.

kendall, that's a really great set of ideas. do you mind if i just steal them outright?

and thank you for a useful, considered and intelligent response.
KendallDM
03-27-07, 01:09 PM Steal away, that's why I posted it. Have fun!
WizO_Cat
03-27-07, 05:25 PM Ok, I've deleted the offensive threads from the post. If you have any concerns or any other posts that you want deleted from this thread, report them; don't bring them up in this thread. Otherwise, it is conisdered Forum Disruption which is against the Code of Conduct. Thank you.
Kazeofwinds
03-27-07, 06:07 PM No, shapechange was actually powered up - specifically because one of the designers thought druids needed more power. :twitch:

I stand corrected. *most of them got hit with the nerf bat*
Another Gnome
03-27-07, 07:27 PM 3.5 darkness is a fair alternative to the other 2nd-level concealing spells, invisibility and mirror image. Each of them gives a spellcaster better chances to attack without being attacked in turn, and darkness fills the niche of being the area effect option there.

3.0 version of the spell worked better for pure defensive use, but at the cost of one's own offensive abilities, such as preventing a caster from using targeted spells at all. A magic missile in 3.0 darkness is impossible to cast, whereas in 3.5 it's unhindered.

Sure, you could make an enemy wizard waste a fireball in 3.0 by making it guesswork to tell if you're in the dark or behind it, but again, aoe spells cast within the darkness had the exact same limitation as regards the enemy position.

Clearly, I prefer the new one because of its versatility.
pukunui
03-27-07, 10:06 PM I can see the problem with the 3.5 darkness description. It does seem to suggest that it would create light where there is none ... but I don't think that was the intention. I think the intent was to take a spell that had no real mechanical application and give it some. With the 3.0 spell, it's like, "OK, so it's totally dark. No one can see, not even with darkvision. Does that mean I can't hit the bad guy who was standing right next to me a moment ago?" With the 3.5 spell, at least you know that you still have an 80% chance of hitting someone in the dark.

I just think they could have worded it better. "Provides shadowy illumination" is the killer bit.

But the real question to ask is, if there's truly no light at all already, why would anyone bother casting the darkness spell? I guess since it effects darkvision then it could be useful in a pitch black room if you were fighting enemies who could see in the dark ... but still, it doesn't seem like a problem that would come up very often. If everyone in the pitch black room has darkvision, then they'll have no problem hitting anything, but if someone casts the 3.5 darkness spell, all of a sudden they have a 20% miss chance ... so that can't mean that the spell is making the room lighter ...
Augurer
03-30-07, 09:50 AM How is this intended to work in regards to seeing outside the area affected from within?

Can you see beyond the 20' as normal, as would be the case for "shadow illumination", or does the spell block all natural light, and produce some form of dim magical light over the area?

Last night I cast the spell in broad daylight, and the DM ruled sight outside the sphere was impossible, which makes some sense if the spell blocks natural light within the area.
Rogue Shadows
03-30-07, 09:54 AM I'm not a big fan of the 3.5 change to Darkness, basically because it's such a fundemental change to a classic spell.

Also, I like drow.

I'd of preferred them to up the spell level or something. Just keep it as utter, inpenetrable darkness.
Seeker95
03-30-07, 10:38 AM I'd of preferred them to up the spell level or something. Just keep it as utter, inpenetrable darkness.A 4th level assassin spell in Complete Scoundrel: Assassin's Darkness (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/spells.php?ID=6434)
DungeonMaster
03-30-07, 11:05 AM The change was to clarify the mechanics. In 3.0, the effect of "no light" was subject to way too much debate and potential abuse.

These statements are outright wrong and misleading. There was never any debate and no potential abuse, ever on 3rd edition darkness.
Prove your statements.
There is plenty of debate and derision at the terribly worded 3.5 darkness spell. Here are some recent examples.
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=57505
http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-274717.html
http://www.gameskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/games-dnd/8390/Darkness-spell
This is from all over the net, not confined to a specific sub-group, from a 2 minute search.

In 3.5, the effect is purely mechanical: in the area of darkness, there is concealment: 20% miss chance.

The spell says it radiates "shadowy illumination" which is defined as candle-light. It lights up totally dark rooms. By the book. And people clearly debate this regularly so it has outright failed your "purely mechanical" statement.

Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that there are also hyper-literalists who will try to claim that darkness will create light in an area with none.
Mistakes were made in 3.5. Big stupid mistakes that really never ever should have been made with 30+ years of D&D history behind us, such as the wording of the darkness spell. I call it incompetence, no matter which way it is sugar coated. You may beg to differ.
Roxlimn
03-30-07, 11:41 AM Please bear in mind that "shadowy illumination" allows people to hide in it and makes your attacks miss because you can't make out your target well enough.

It's less like the shade under a tree and more like your room at night with a very faint nightlight or starshine.
Shatteredtower
03-30-07, 03:36 PM yeah, i get that. darkness as written is probably a 1st level spell now, though i always thought it was pretty powerful for a 2nd level spell. no damage, but the best spell for altering the battlefield until you get up to the various walls some time up the food chain.First level? A creative user can use it to hide, drop and raise the effect as a free action (by casting it on a tongue stud, for example) to advantage, level the playing field between darkvision and low-light vision on a clear night (when the elves would otherwise have a huge range advantage over orcs -- one reason so many humanoids with darkvision may prefer thrown weapons to bows), or fade from sight while under direct observation (though the unnatural darkness might give a general indicator of where you are). It may make it easier to track your general location in broad daylight, but if you're hiding within it while approaching a target, you can't be targetted by enemies that depend on any form of vision to locate you -- at least until you're within range of true seeing. Still, 250 gp and a 5th level spell to let one character overcome a 2nd level spell with an effect with an effect the caster can pass to or even share with others? Sounds pretty good.

It's also a fairly good decoy spell. If you enter a room and notice the effect, do you expend any resources to determine if something is hiding in it? If it suddenly appears, is there a creature hiding there or was it remotely released from a casing (for example, a stone within a snowball, whether tossed or one simply left to melt)?

In 3.0, those in the area of the spell were effectively blinded. That means the drow who lobbed the stone-in-eggshell at you had a 50% miss chance, but also got at least a +2 bonus to hit you, higher if your AC was at all Dexterity-dependent. Furthermore, your swimming, climbing, balancing, moving silently, escape artistry, and riding checks all became more difficult (-4 penalty). True, this only lasted while you were within the spell's area of effect, but that initial volley could hurt.

These are the reasons I still prefer 3.5's version.
swallowyersoul
03-30-07, 03:54 PM First level? ....[etc] (no disrespect, it's a long post directly above this)

You could be right, though a 40' diameter sphere of concealment isn't all that big a deal, especially since it affects you and your allies. but whether it belongs at 1st or 2nd level, the concealment darkness feels about a level in power lower than the globe of black darkness.

perhaps the gobe of black darkness should have been 3rd level all along...

sort of like haste. they did a good fix, but i would've liked to see a 4th or 5th level spell (greater haste?) that kept the hyperspiffy 3.0 effects.
Roxlimn
03-30-07, 04:31 PM Actually, it is. Globe of Black Darkness adheres closely to the Blacklight spell in terms of the effect you want.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
swallowyersoul 03-26-07, 12:58 AM	so i was checking on some stuff and i noticed that 3.5 darkness and deeper darkness are describes as an area of 'shadowy illumination' with concealment (20% miss). 3.0 darkness (and earlier versions) seem to have darkness as an opaque globe of utter blindness and blackness. have i been doing it wrong all along, or was there a change for 3.5? and if so, anybody know why the change?
Seeker95 03-26-07, 09:13 AM	There was a change. The change was to clarify the mechanics. In 3.0, the effect of "no light" was subject to way too much debate and potential abuse. In 3.5, the effect is purely mechanical: in the area of darkness, there is concealment: 20% miss chance. Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that there are also hyper-literalists who will try to claim that darkness will create light in an area with none.
Themightybiggun 03-26-07, 12:59 PM	hehe, thats always amusing to watch the internet fights when someone brings out the "illumination" quote. yeah, its no longer "darkness" per say, its more like "deep shadow", you can still see in it, but you might miss some of your opponents movements and actions. And it throws off sneak attack.
OravennasBrother 03-26-07, 03:38 PM	Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that his wording left it open to a different form of abuse. The Editor did the same.
Kresalak 03-26-07, 06:02 PM	Darkness not only got crazy in the crazy way, but they also broke it to hell and back. And by that I mean they turned a spell people might sometimes cast into a cantrip without changing its level.
swallowyersoul 03-26-07, 06:29 PM	yeah, i get that. darkness as written is probably a 1st level spell now, though i always thought it was pretty powerful for a 2nd level spell. no damage, but the best spell for altering the battlefield until you get up to the various walls some time up the food chain.
Kazeofwinds 03-26-07, 06:34 PM	It was because in 3.5 all spells got hit by a nerf bat, and some of them just became moronic/useless because of it. My group has the old houserule by consensus that it works as in makes the pitch black ball.
Link182 03-26-07, 09:11 PM	Wasn't there a deeper darkness? or am I thinking of Deeper Darkvision which ignores Darkness. Then there's Damning Darkness as well. I really hope they stop
Link182 03-26-07, 10:28 PM	Well, I guess if they have a spell called Deeper Darkvision, which can help those with Darkvision to see through Darkness, you can cast it underground in pitch blackness and it'll still do something, and I guess that something is make some shadowy candlelight "darkness". I guess they should have called the spell, Shadowy Orb or left the quotes around it in the PHB. Perhaps they'll come up with a Lightless Black Inky Globe spell later on. Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape about a spell description? You'd think we were talking about Mordenkainen's Disjunction or something. Uh oh...
swallowyersoul 03-26-07, 10:45 PM	link, i'm there with you. it seems we have a couple people who hate 3.0 with the sort of venom i only see in my ex wives. i don't see how that serves anybody. maybe they think it makes their dice seem bigger than ours. now i have my own problems with 3.5 (weapon sizes, the move to battlemat descriptors for move and range for purely economic reasons are two examples). other changes i really liked (haste was overpowered though i still think they should have just moved it to 4th level, systematic organization of spell names and where to find them, weapon familiarity...). whether or not we needed a whole new edition i'm still out on. in the end i think i'm going to go with the suggestion from earlier. i'll keep darkness as it used to be. application of common sense is fun for dick and jane.
WizO_Cat 03-26-07, 10:55 PM	Ok, just a reminder: let's knock off the personal comments in the discussion: keep it to the topic of the thread and not other guests. Otherwise, I'm going to have to hand out some Official Warns. The one a only warning that I'm going to give in this thread ...
KendallDM 03-27-07, 02:27 AM	I've houseruled darkness. As I have it, it provides no illumination, but decreases any illumination present to shadowy. This shadowy area gives shadowy (20% miss chance) to anyone within the darkness that is 5 ft. away, and total concealment to those more than 5 ft. away. Therefore, anyone outside the darkness can see anyone inside the sphere only if they are in the first 5 ft of the edge of the darkness. I think this solution works well enough for keep the spells at the same level, without the overpowered darkness of 3.0. Essentially, I did this because the difference between darkness, and deeper darkness is radius, which doesn't mean anything when targeting those inside the darkness with magic missiles. The distance has to mean something. Now, I hear the argument already, that this makes it no different than obscuring mist (1st level) and fog cloud (2nd level), but they are stationary once cast and don't work in strong winds, whereas darkness (2nd level) and deeper darkness (3rd level, 60 ft radius) are far more effective and can be cast on an object and moved about. On another note, I also brought back continual darkness to the wizard 3rd level list. Not sure why this spell was removed from the spell lists. It's especially useful with devil's and those that have the ability to see through it. Furthermore, I added an cantrip/orison to the 0 level list of clerics and wizards that is called shadow, that spell works like the current 3.5 darkness works (to counter the 0 level light spell).
Bluebrush 03-27-07, 11:36 AM	Wasn't there a deeper darkness? or am I thinking of Deeper Darkvision which ignores Darkness. Then there's Damning Darkness as well. I really hope they stopDon't forget the Dreaming Darkness!* *Until their army of telepaths from beyond reality make you forget.
Zherog 03-27-07, 11:45 AM	It was because in 3.5 all spells got hit by a nerf bat, and some of them just became moronic/useless because of it. No, shapechange was actually powered up - specifically because one of the designers thought druids needed more power. :twitch:
swallowyersoul 03-27-07, 11:53 AM	I've houseruled darkness. As I have it, it provides no illumination, but decreases any illumination present to shadowy. This shadowy area gives shadowy (20% miss chance) to anyone within the darkness that is 5 ft. away, and total concealment to those more than 5 ft. away. Therefore, anyone outside the darkness can see anyone inside the sphere only if they are in the first 5 ft of the edge of the darkness. I think this solution works well enough for keep the spells at the same level, without the overpowered darkness of 3.0. kendall, that's a really great set of ideas. do you mind if i just steal them outright? and thank you for a useful, considered and intelligent response.
KendallDM 03-27-07, 01:09 PM	Steal away, that's why I posted it. Have fun!
WizO_Cat 03-27-07, 05:25 PM	Ok, I've deleted the offensive threads from the post. If you have any concerns or any other posts that you want deleted from this thread, report them; don't bring them up in this thread. Otherwise, it is conisdered Forum Disruption which is against the Code of Conduct. Thank you.
Kazeofwinds 03-27-07, 06:07 PM	No, shapechange was actually powered up - specifically because one of the designers thought druids needed more power. :twitch: I stand corrected. most of them got hit with the nerf bat
Another Gnome 03-27-07, 07:27 PM	3.5 darkness is a fair alternative to the other 2nd-level concealing spells, invisibility and mirror image. Each of them gives a spellcaster better chances to attack without being attacked in turn, and darkness fills the niche of being the area effect option there. 3.0 version of the spell worked better for pure defensive use, but at the cost of one's own offensive abilities, such as preventing a caster from using targeted spells at all. A magic missile in 3.0 darkness is impossible to cast, whereas in 3.5 it's unhindered. Sure, you could make an enemy wizard waste a fireball in 3.0 by making it guesswork to tell if you're in the dark or behind it, but again, aoe spells cast within the darkness had the exact same limitation as regards the enemy position. Clearly, I prefer the new one because of its versatility.
pukunui 03-27-07, 10:06 PM	I can see the problem with the 3.5 darkness description. It does seem to suggest that it would create light where there is none ... but I don't think that was the intention. I think the intent was to take a spell that had no real mechanical application and give it some. With the 3.0 spell, it's like, "OK, so it's totally dark. No one can see, not even with darkvision. Does that mean I can't hit the bad guy who was standing right next to me a moment ago?" With the 3.5 spell, at least you know that you still have an 80% chance of hitting someone in the dark. I just think they could have worded it better. "Provides shadowy illumination" is the killer bit. But the real question to ask is, if there's truly no light at all already, why would anyone bother casting the darkness spell? I guess since it effects darkvision then it could be useful in a pitch black room if you were fighting enemies who could see in the dark ... but still, it doesn't seem like a problem that would come up very often. If everyone in the pitch black room has darkvision, then they'll have no problem hitting anything, but if someone casts the 3.5 darkness spell, all of a sudden they have a 20% miss chance ... so that can't mean that the spell is making the room lighter ...
Augurer 03-30-07, 09:50 AM	How is this intended to work in regards to seeing outside the area affected from within? Can you see beyond the 20' as normal, as would be the case for "shadow illumination", or does the spell block all natural light, and produce some form of dim magical light over the area? Last night I cast the spell in broad daylight, and the DM ruled sight outside the sphere was impossible, which makes some sense if the spell blocks natural light within the area.
Rogue Shadows 03-30-07, 09:54 AM	I'm not a big fan of the 3.5 change to Darkness, basically because it's such a fundemental change to a classic spell. Also, I like drow. I'd of preferred them to up the spell level or something. Just keep it as utter, inpenetrable darkness.
Seeker95 03-30-07, 10:38 AM	I'd of preferred them to up the spell level or something. Just keep it as utter, inpenetrable darkness.A 4th level assassin spell in Complete Scoundrel: Assassin's Darkness (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/spells.php?ID=6434)
DungeonMaster 03-30-07, 11:05 AM	The change was to clarify the mechanics. In 3.0, the effect of "no light" was subject to way too much debate and potential abuse. These statements are outright wrong and misleading. There was never any debate and no potential abuse, ever on 3rd edition darkness. Prove your statements. There is plenty of debate and derision at the terribly worded 3.5 darkness spell. Here are some recent examples. http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=57505 http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-274717.html http://www.gameskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/games-dnd/8390/Darkness-spell This is from all over the net, not confined to a specific sub-group, from a 2 minute search. In 3.5, the effect is purely mechanical: in the area of darkness, there is concealment: 20% miss chance. The spell says it radiates "shadowy illumination" which is defined as candle-light. It lights up totally dark rooms. By the book. And people clearly debate this regularly so it has outright failed your "purely mechanical" statement. Unfortunately, the designer that wrote the description forgot that there are also hyper-literalists who will try to claim that darkness will create light in an area with none. Mistakes were made in 3.5. Big stupid mistakes that really never ever should have been made with 30+ years of D&D history behind us, such as the wording of the darkness spell. I call it incompetence, no matter which way it is sugar coated. You may beg to differ.
Roxlimn 03-30-07, 11:41 AM	Please bear in mind that "shadowy illumination" allows people to hide in it and makes your attacks miss because you can't make out your target well enough. It's less like the shade under a tree and more like your room at night with a very faint nightlight or starshine.
Shatteredtower 03-30-07, 03:36 PM	yeah, i get that. darkness as written is probably a 1st level spell now, though i always thought it was pretty powerful for a 2nd level spell. no damage, but the best spell for altering the battlefield until you get up to the various walls some time up the food chain.First level? A creative user can use it to hide, drop and raise the effect as a free action (by casting it on a tongue stud, for example) to advantage, level the playing field between darkvision and low-light vision on a clear night (when the elves would otherwise have a huge range advantage over orcs -- one reason so many humanoids with darkvision may prefer thrown weapons to bows), or fade from sight while under direct observation (though the unnatural darkness might give a general indicator of where you are). It may make it easier to track your general location in broad daylight, but if you're hiding within it while approaching a target, you can't be targetted by enemies that depend on any form of vision to locate you -- at least until you're within range of true seeing. Still, 250 gp and a 5th level spell to let one character overcome a 2nd level spell with an effect with an effect the caster can pass to or even share with others? Sounds pretty good. It's also a fairly good decoy spell. If you enter a room and notice the effect, do you expend any resources to determine if something is hiding in it? If it suddenly appears, is there a creature hiding there or was it remotely released from a casing (for example, a stone within a snowball, whether tossed or one simply left to melt)? In 3.0, those in the area of the spell were effectively blinded. That means the drow who lobbed the stone-in-eggshell at you had a 50% miss chance, but also got at least a +2 bonus to hit you, higher if your AC was at all Dexterity-dependent. Furthermore, your swimming, climbing, balancing, moving silently, escape artistry, and riding checks all became more difficult (-4 penalty). True, this only lasted while you were within the spell's area of effect, but that initial volley could hurt. These are the reasons I still prefer 3.5's version.
swallowyersoul 03-30-07, 03:54 PM	First level? ....[etc] (no disrespect, it's a long post directly above this) You could be right, though a 40' diameter sphere of concealment isn't all that big a deal, especially since it affects you and your allies. but whether it belongs at 1st or 2nd level, the concealment darkness feels about a level in power lower than the globe of black darkness. perhaps the gobe of black darkness should have been 3rd level all along... sort of like haste. they did a good fix, but i would've liked to see a 4th or 5th level spell (greater haste?) that kept the hyperspiffy 3.0 effects.
Roxlimn 03-30-07, 04:31 PM	Actually, it is. Globe of Black Darkness adheres closely to the Blacklight spell in terms of the effect you want.