Continual Flame versus Darkness spell...

[Treebore]

when cast by a Cleric, making it a 3rd level "light" spell.

How do you rule, considering what the Darkness spell description says about light spells of higher level?

[Traveller]

I average the listed spell levels of a spell to get the "effective" spell level, rounding up. So based on that, continual flame would continue to function in the presence of a darkness spell, as it has an "effective" spell level of 3 (actually 2.6) versus darkness' level of 2 (1.3).

[Arduin]

when cast by a Cleric, making it a 3rd level "light" spell.

How do you rule, considering what the Darkness spell description says about light spells of higher level?

I rule that the spell is 2nd level. Clerics and Illusionists are less capable of that kind of magic but it is not a more powerful spell when they cast it rather than a Wizards casting.

[Snoring Rock]

Siege Engine!

I do the same thing as a save vs. a spell. I use the level of the caster. A continual flame cast by a 12th level wizard can be doused by any level caster who rolled d20 plus level plus modifier and beats the 12 (prime) plus casting wizards' level (12) which is 24. So the darkness caster needs to roll d20 and add his level and modifier and beat a 24 in this example, in order to douse the flame.

As I see it, the more powerful caster, casts lower level spells better then a low level caster. Sleep is a dud after 5HD but most spells work this way.

[Rigon]

The way I ruled it last night, was the continual flame gave off light while it was inside of the darkness, but could not penetrate it from outside the darkness. I was inclined to not let it work at all, but felt my ruling was a more fair one. So some discussion is needed.

R-

[Treebore]

Darkness specifically says that it cannot effect "light" spells of 3rd level and above. The description doesn't care about the caster level, only the level it is cast at, IE 3rd for Clerics.

So, since Continual Flame is a "light" spell, since its whole purpose is to provide a "light source", then the guide lines given in the Darkness spell description should apply.

Now, in the situation last night, Continual Flame was not trying to be cast to cancel out the Darkness spell, because it was already cast, and already being used as a light source. Rigon ruled that the Continual Flame worked as "normal" once inside the Darkness itself, but while outside of it, its light could not penetrate it. Personally, I think Rigon made a good call. All of this was because the Continual Flame was cast at the Third level, by a Cleric. If it had been cast by a Wizard or Illusionist, the Darkness spell would have negated the Continual Flame, and no rules question would have resulted.

[Kayolan]

In AD&D it was called Continual Light, no mention of a flame. There was a reversed version, Continual Darkness.

In C&C we have Continual Flame, but no reversed version.

[Captain_K]

1) Why did they switch to cont flame instead of cont light?
2) O level light has no reverse and is cancelled by darkness
3) Darkness is magical darkness with a reverse of daylight - they cancel each other and darkness cancels 0 lvl light, but they cancel always, no roll, no level affects.
4) Cont Flame is not cancelled by darkness above per spell description
5) Cont Flame is only cancelled by typical means to dispel permanent magics?

Does that sum it up as well as a few more questions on the topic?

[Treebore]

1) Why did they switch to cont flame instead of cont light?
2) O level light has no reverse and is cancelled by darkness
3) Darkness is magical darkness with a reverse of daylight - they cancel each other and darkness cancels 0 lvl light, but they cancel always, no roll, no level affects.
4) Cont Flame is not cancelled by darkness above per spell description
5) Cont Flame is only cancelled by typical means to dispel permanent magics?

Does that sum it up as well as a few more questions on the topic?

Pretty much. Plus upon further re reading I realized Darkness doesn't work against Continual Flame AT ALL. Darkness ONLY affects lower level spells, not even spells of equal level. Also note that the reverse of Darkness is a 60 foot radius, rather than remaining a 20 foot radius. I think there is just Darkness hate going on in the whole thing.

As a kind of tongue in cheek thing, another board member and I were discussing this on SKYPE last night, and I wrote up a new spell to "fix" this Darkness hate going on. I'll edit it in shortly.

"Continual Darkness, Level 3, All Classes
CT: 1 R: 5 ft. D: Permanent
SV: None SR: Yes Comp: V, S, M

A Dark Flame, that usually cannot be seen, except with the help of very specific magics, equivalent in Darkness to a "torch" (IE 40 foot Radius affect), springs forth from an object that the character touches. It consumes nothing, and has no temperature. It can be covered and hidden, but not "put out" except with a Dispel Magic, or spells of similar affect and higher level than Dispel Magic, or by being countered with Continual Flame cast by a Cleric or Illusionist (3rd level versions only). The Material Component is either a 50 GP of Obsidian or Onyx, the darker black, the better.

We came up with this because as written in C&C, the 2nd level Darkness spell is pretty weak. So this version gives a more powerful version. The Material Component was added because we felt a Permanent duration spell shouldn't be "free" to cast. Especially since it is also such a sale-able spell. It would also be a good idea to add a Component to Continual Flame as well. I would suggest a 50 GP Sunstone or Yellow Topaz or Yellow Sapphire."

[Rigon]

Definitely a conundrum. I need to reread several source, going back to Basic and see how I want to handle it in the future.

R-

[Arduin]

Plus upon further re reading I realized Darkness doesn't work against Continual Flame AT ALL. Darkness ONLY affects lower level spells, not even spells of equal level.

Kinda makes sense for these two spells. The Darkness spell initially appears as a 1st level spell and has a finite duration. Continual Flame at its lowest, is a 2nd level spell of infinite duration. Overall, a more powerful spell than Darkness.

[alcyone]

It's interesting that d20 takes the 3rd level cleric spell and makes that Deeper Darkness.

[Arduin]

It's interesting that d20 takes the 3rd level cleric spell and makes that Deeper Darkness.

That is in line with AD&D's 3rd level Cleric spell, Continual Light (reversible).

[Treebore]

Plus upon further re reading I realized Darkness doesn't work against Continual Flame AT ALL. Darkness ONLY affects lower level spells, not even spells of equal level.

Kinda makes sense for these two spells. The Darkness spell initially appears as a 1st level spell and has a finite duration. Continual Flame at its lowest, is a 2nd level spell of infinite duration. Overall, a more powerful spell than Darkness.

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

[Treebore]

Definitely a conundrum. I need to reread several source, going back to Basic and see how I want to handle it in the future.

R-

Yeah, we had more "light" alternatives in other editions of D&D, but Darkness has pretty much always gotten the "hate".

[Arduin]

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

Right that. I am referring the lowest level it exists as a operational spell of the same power/effect. Which is 1st.

I measure a spells inherent & base power and complexity by what is the lowest level it manifests at. Some classes are less able to cause that type of effect and therefore, must cast it as a higher level spell. (this is just a explanation in my world of how magic works amongst various classes)

[Rigon]

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

Right that. I am referring the lowest level it exists as a operational spell of the same power/effect. Which is 1st.

I measure a spells inherent & base power and complexity by what is the lowest level it manifests at. Some classes are less able to cause that type of effect and therefore, must cast it as a higher level spell. (this is just a explanation in my world of how magic works amongst various classes)

That's actually a good way to explain it. I may just do way with the darkness spell as it's written and just say that light and continual flame have opposite spells, darkness for light and continual dark for cl. That seems like the easiest way to "fix" it.

R-

[Captain_K]

Could the darkness area just be type-o? It's only noted once, a simple type-o rather than some "fear of the dark"? To make it uniform, simply make it 60'.

[Arduin]

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

Right that. I am referring the lowest level it exists as a operational spell of the same power/effect. Which is 1st.

I measure a spells inherent & base power and complexity by what is the lowest level it manifests at. Some classes are less able to cause that type of effect and therefore, must cast it as a higher level spell. (this is just a explanation in my world of how magic works amongst various classes)

That's actually a good way to explain it. I may just do way with the darkness spell as it's written and just say that light and continual flame have opposite spells, darkness for light and continual dark for cl. That seems like the easiest way to "fix" it.

R-

That sounds like it would work just fine.

[Rigon]

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

Right that. I am referring the lowest level it exists as a operational spell of the same power/effect. Which is 1st.

I measure a spells inherent & base power and complexity by what is the lowest level it manifests at. Some classes are less able to cause that type of effect and therefore, must cast it as a higher level spell. (this is just a explanation in my world of how magic works amongst various classes)

That's actually a good way to explain it. I may just do way with the darkness spell as it's written and just say that light and continual flame have opposite spells, darkness for light and continual dark for cl. That seems like the easiest way to "fix" it.

R-

That sounds like it would work just fine.

Having just read the spell description in the RC for both light and continual light (and their reverses), I'm going to go with that. That takes care of the problem quite nicely as far as I'm concerned.

R-

[Treebore]

Yes and no, in C&C Darkness is 2nd level, and so is Continual Flame, when cast by a Wizard.

Right that. I am referring the lowest level it exists as a operational spell of the same power/effect. Which is 1st.

I measure a spells inherent & base power and complexity by what is the lowest level it manifests at. Some classes are less able to cause that type of effect and therefore, must cast it as a higher level spell. (this is just a explanation in my world of how magic works amongst various classes)

That's actually a good way to explain it. I may just do way with the darkness spell as it's written and just say that light and continual flame have opposite spells, darkness for light and continual dark for cl. That seems like the easiest way to "fix" it.

R-

That sounds like it would work just fine.

Having just read the spell description in the RC for both light and continual light (and their reverses), I'm going to go with that. That takes care of the problem quite nicely as far as I'm concerned.

R-

I do NOT see a reason to disagree. I think it is a good "fix".

[Mark Hall]

Absent other text, I'd use the level of the caster as the determinant.