# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Faerie Fire (and light)

## RSP

So have been thinking about Faerie Fire, and it got me thinking about how its spell effect works. I know these all fall into the ask your DM area, but I think its a worthwhile thought practice on how magic works in 5e. That is, if a DM is interested in how magic works in their world, and wants to be consistent in its application, stuff like this helps lay the groundwork for how itll go in the future (at least it helps me).

1. Part of the spell effect creates dim light in a 10 radius from the affected object or creature. As lighting conditions are mutually exclusive in 5e, this would actually have the effect of lowering the lighting conditions if the affected object/creature were otherwise in bright light, just like it would raise the lighting conditions if the affected creature/object were in darkness. 

So a Shadow Monk 6 in bright light could cast Faerie Fire on themself to put them in conditions suitable to Shadow Step (assuming they had access to the spell somehow). In fact, they could cast FF where they are, have objects in the area, like a rock, shed dim light, pick up the rock and throw it 50 away, and then Shadow Step to the area of dim light the rock now occupies. 

Similarly, a creature with the Skulker feat could try to hide in the dim light created by a creature or object affected by Faerie Fire. 

2. Does the dim light being shed permeate through other stuff? For instance, would a burrowing creature still shed dim light through the ground? If the affected creature is 5 underground, is there then 5 of dim light above ground at its location? Likewise, if an affected creature put on a cloak, would the cloak stop the spell effect, and then the creature is no longer subject to the effects of the spell? Would a Fog Cloud prevent the effect from permeating through? 

Darkness specifically states it cancels out Faerie Fire (If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.), which is interesting in its own right; but Fog Cloud doesnt have that language, yet one spell would have to win as an area cannot be both lightly obscured and heavily obscured at the same time.

3. The nature of Darknesss ability to cancel out FF is also interesting in that if 1 of dim light shed by an object affected by FF overlaps with Darkness, the entirety of the FF spell is dispelled.

So, RAW, if FF is dropped on a 20 cube, and a Darkness spell is in affect 20 away, a creature affected by FF can pick up a rock also affected by the same FF spell, and throw it into the area of Darkness, causing entirety of the FF spell to be dispelled. FF would not just end on the thrown rock, but would be dispelled, ending the effect on all affected targets.

Also relating to Darkness, Darkness has the language of Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness, which might infer you cant block FFs dim light the same way because it doesnt say you can.

Just some thoughts on this that struck me as very interesting interactions. 

For reference, heres the RAW on lighting conditions:

*Bright light* lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

*Dim light*, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

*Darkness* creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Heres the RAW on Faerie Fire:

Each object in a 20 foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10 foot radius.

Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible.

----------


## diplomancer

> So have been thinking about Faerie Fire, and it got me thinking about how its spell effect works. I know these all fall into the ask your DM area, but I think its a worthwhile thought practice on how magic works in 5e. That is, if a DM is interested in how magic works in their world, and wants to be consistent in its application, stuff like this helps lay the groundwork for how itll go in the future (at least it helps me).
> 
> 1. Part of the spell effect creates dim light in a 10 radius from the affected object or creature. As lighting conditions are mutually exclusive in 5e, this would actually have the effect of lowering the lighting conditions if the affected object/creature were otherwise in bright light, just like it would raise the lighting conditions if the affected creature/object were in darkness. 
> 
> So a Shadow Monk 6 in bright light could cast Faerie Fire on themself to put them in conditions suitable to Shadow Step (assuming they had access to the spell somehow). In fact, they could cast FF where they are, have objects in the area, like a rock, shed dim light, pick up the rock and throw it 50 away, and then Shadow Step to the area of dim light the rock now occupies. 
> 
> Similarly, a creature with the Skulker feat could try to hide in the dim light created by a creature or object affected by Faerie Fire. 
> 
> 2. Does the dim light being shed permeate through other stuff? For instance, would a burrowing creature still shed dim light through the ground? If the affected creature is 5 underground, is there then 5 of dim light above ground at its location? Likewise, if an affected creature put on a cloak, would the cloak stop the spell effect, and then the creature is no longer subject to the effects of the spell? Would a Fog Cloud prevent the effect from permeating through? 
> ...


On point number 1, I disagree. "Shedding dim light" is not the same thing as "creating a dim light area". If you shed dim light in a bright light area, you're not making it darker (try it yourself with a candle in broad daylight if you don't believe me). You would only create a dim light area if you were in darkness before (otherwise you could have your Shadow Monk carrying a candle in broad daylight and using his Shadow Step, which would be incredibly silly).

Same thing for point number 2. Dim light is light and works like light, it doesn't go through walls or solid ground. So if the cloak was of a thick and dark enough material (and covered *all* the creature, rendering it probably blind), it would cover the light; as far as I know, fog does not stop light, but maybe distorts it?

Finally, I believe that taking a text from a spell and drawing inferences as to the effect of another spell that does not have the same added text is a very fragile interpretation.

----------


## Bobthewizard

I agree. Faerie fire doesn't make bright light dim. Compare the wording of Faerie fire "shed dim light in a 10-foot radius" to the wording of twilight cleric's twilight sanctuary "The sphere is centered on you, has a 30-foot radius, and is filled with dim light"

In the first, the target just gives off light, which would interact normally with other light in the area. In the second, the sphere fills with dim light so would override bright light in the area.

----------


## RSP

> On point number 1, I disagree. "Shedding dim light" is not the same thing as "creating a dim light area". If you shed dim light in a bright light area, you're not making it darker (try it yourself with a candle in broad daylight if you don't believe me). You would only create a dim light area if you were in darkness before (otherwise you could have your Shadow Monk carrying a candle in broad daylight and using his Shadow Step, which would be incredibly silly).
> 
> Same thing for point number 2. Dim light is light and works like light, it doesn't go through walls or solid ground. So if the cloak was of a thick and dark enough material (and covered *all* the creature, rendering it probably blind), it would cover the light; as far as I know, fog does not stop light, but maybe distorts it?
> 
> Finally, I believe that taking a text from a spell and drawing inferences as to the effect of another spell that does not have the same added text is a very fragile interpretation.





> I agree. Faerie fire doesn't make bright light dim. Compare the wording of Faerie fire "shed dim light in a 10-foot radius" to the wording of twilight cleric's twilight sanctuary "The sphere is centered on you, has a 30-foot radius, and is filled with dim light"
> 
> In the first, the target just gives off light, which would interact normally with other light in the area. In the second, the sphere fills with dim light so would override bright light in the area.


When a character casts Fireball, does nothing happen because fire in real life doesnt act as a pea-sized flare that shoots at a target spot and explodes in a 20 radius ball? 

Or does it do what the spell says because thats the magic?

I agree non-magical light most likely acts like real world light: but were discussing magical light. 

I gave the Darkness examples to show this. The Light Cantrip uses the same language as FF, Darkness uses spreds rather than sheds. But both clearly dont work like real life light. 

If you have a real life light and cover half of it, it doesnt spread around whats covered. In the game, theres a bullseye lantern that follows these rules. Darkness and Light dont: non-magical light sources arent extinguished because the light they give off touches a Darkness spell. Yet any bit of light created by Faerie Fire that touches Darkness dispels any and all light created by FF. 

If a part of the light created by a torch touches a Darkness spell area, the touch isnt extinguished. Yet the same isnt true of FF. They are different in that one is magic and one is not. 

If you have a 5 by 5 wall 5 away from a small rock with Light cast on it, does the wall block the light from going behind it? No. The light continues unless the source is completely covered. 

Same with FF. The dim light extends beyond that 5 wall. Why? Because thats the effect of the spell. 

If the thinking is bright light conditions drown out dim light, then what is seen with Faerie Fire in bright light? Nothing, because the dim light is drowned out by the bright light. And Faerie Fire has failed to do what it states it does in its description. 

However, if the dim light is still visible as dim light, the spell then accomplishes what it states it does.

----------


## Keltest

> When a character casts Fireball, does nothing happen because fire in real life doesnt act as a pea-sized flare that shoots at a target spot and explodes in a 20 radius ball? 
> 
> Or does it do what the spell says because thats the magic?
> 
> I agree non-magical light most likely acts like real world light: but were discussing magical light. 
> 
> I gave the Darkness examples to show this. The Light Cantrip uses the same language as FF, Darkness uses spreds rather than sheds. But both clearly dont work like real life light. 
> 
> If you have a real life light and cover half of it, it doesnt spread around whats covered. In the game, theres a bullseye lantern that follows these rules. Darkness and Light dont: non-magical light sources arent extinguished because the light they give off touches a Darkness spell. Yet any bit of light created by Faerie Fire that touches Darkness dispels any and all light created by FF. 
> ...


Darkness explicitly says it spreads around corners, but Light does not. Daylight is even more interesting in that it creates a sphere of light which then sheds light.

All of which is to say, your interpretation is not supported by the text.

----------


## JNAProductions

When the explicit rules text conflicts with reality, rules win.
When the rules don't say anything about what's happening, it acts like real life.

----------


## RogueJK

> Faerie Fire doesn't say anything about Fire.  Only light.


And before someone says _Uh... It's right there in the name_, the term "fairy fire" is a real-world traditional nickname for a form of fungal bioluminescence that can cause rotting wood to glow with a soft green light.  (Also called "foxfire".)  So even in the real world, it involves shedding light, but doesn't involve fire/flames.

----------


## Silpharon

I believe in-game natural light is intended to work like natural light (despite poor rules w.r.t. natural darkness).

Magical light (and darkness) is also intended to interact with natural light "naturally" unless specified otherwise (see the Sage Advice Compendium section on magical darkness). For example, the darkness spell only blocks darkvision because the spell specifically says that it does.

I think the same would apply to Faerie Fire. It sheds dim light, so within bright light it'd still look bright (maybe a marginal bit brighter).

Regardless, your point about throwing a rock into the darkness spell does seem accurate, which is a wild way to dispel it. As a DM, I might require each affected object/creature to be individually dispelled by darkness, but that's not RAW.

----------


## RSP

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.

Can an area be both shadows and lightly obscured, and bright light where creatures see normally? No. 

So how can shadows be shed from a character affected by FF if theyre also in bright light?

----------


## Keltest

> Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.
> 
> Can an area be both shadows and lightly obscured, and bright light where creatures see normally? No. 
> 
> So how can shadows be shed from a character affected by FF if theyre also in bright light?


If you light a torch outdoors, does the area get darker?

No, bright light just wins unless the spell specifically says otherwise.

----------


## RSP

> If you light a torch outdoors, does the area get darker?
> 
> No, bright light just wins unless the spell specifically says otherwise.


The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

There are 3 categories of illumination. They are mutually exclusive. The spell explicitly says it creates the category of illumination of dim light. 

Again, you cant have lightly obscured and not obscured at the same time. So why are you discounting what the spell explicitly says it does?

----------


## Keltest

> The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
> 
> There are 3 categories of illumination. They are mutually exclusive. The spell explicitly says it creates the category of illumination of dim light. 
> 
> Again, you cant have lightly obscured and not obscured at the same time. So why are you discounting what the spell explicitly says it does?


Because it doesn't say what you claim ot does. Bright light beats dim light beats darkness, period, unless an explicit exception is made as with the darkness spell.

----------


## RSP

> Because it doesn't say what you claim ot does. Bright light beats dim light beats darkness, period, unless an explicit exception is made as with the darkness spell.


None of these spells state what it creates beats the other conditions. They just state the create the conditions.

FF explicitly states that it creates dim light.

----------


## JNAProductions

> None of these spells what it creates beats the other conditions. They just state the create the conditions.
> 
> FF explicitly states that it creates dim light.


If you have a candle (5' of bright light, further 5' of dim light) lit on a sunny day, at noon, does the candle's light make a circle of dim light? Or does the sun keep it lit brightly?

Do you actually intend to use this ruling in a game, whether as a DM or as a request as a player?

----------


## Keltest

> None of these spells state what it creates beats the other conditions. They just state the create the conditions.
> 
> FF explicitly states that it creates dim light.


That's because it's a general rule. Darkness does specifically state it beats the other conditions in X circumstances.

----------


## RSP

> If you have a candle (5' of bright light, further 5' of dim light) lit on a sunny day, at noon, does the candle's light make a circle of dim light? Or does the sun keep it lit brightly?
> 
> Do you actually intend to use this ruling in a game, whether as a DM or as a request as a player?


Again, non-magical light isnt the same as magic spells. A candle operates as a candle. A spell does what it says it does. 

Do you not allow Fireball to do a 20 radius Fire damage, because fire doesnt normally explode from pea-sized motes? 

Or do you have the spell do what its effect description says it does?




> That's because it's a general rule. Darkness does specifically state it beats the other conditions in X circumstances.


No it doesnt. It doesnt say this darkness beats dim light or bright light. It just says its magical darkness that cant be illuminated. 

And if the general rule says one thing, and a specific rule says another (like FF creating dim light), are you supposed to go with the general rule or the specific?

----------


## Mastikator

Where are the rules that says magical dim light has a dimming effect on natural bright light?

Edit- if you overlap light sources then whichever is brighter wins. Magical or not.

----------


## Keltest

> Where are the rules that says magical dim light has a dimming effect on natural bright light?
> 
> Edit- if you overlap light sources then whichever is brighter wins. Magical or not.


Precisely, thank you. The darkness has specific language to make it work that way.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Where are the rules that says magical dim light has a dimming effect on natural bright light?
> 
> Edit- if you overlap light sources then whichever is brighter wins. Magical or not.


This. Its magically created light, but it operates like normal light unless noted otherwise.

So, in the case of _Faerie Fire_, they cant benefit from being invisible, and attacks against them have advantage. Otherwise, the light is normal.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Again, non-magical light isnt the same as magic spells. A candle operates as a candle. A spell does what it says it does.


_shed dim light in a 10-foot radius_.

Why would you assume that shed has the same meaning as supersede or overwhelm?

----------


## RSP

> _shed dim light in a 10-foot radius_.
> 
> Why would you assume that shed has the same meaning as supersede or overwhelm?


I dont. 

Fireball creates a big burst of fire even though thats not the normal condition. Why? Because the spell says it does. 

FF creates a 10 dim light even though its not the normal condition. Why? Because the spell says it does.

Can you have shadows (aka dim light) at the same time as bright light?

----------


## Segev

> I dont. 
> 
> Fireball creates a big burst of fire even though thats not the normal condition. Why? Because the spell says it does. 
> 
> FF creates a 10 dim light even though its not the normal condition. Why? Because the spell says it does.
> 
> Can you have shadows (aka dim light) at the same time as bright light?


It doesn't say "creates." It says "sheds." This is a deliberate word choice. It is the same word choice as used for all mundane light sources, and different from the wording used by _darkness_ and Twilight Sanctuary. These are not coincidences. These are deliberate choices to make _faerie fire's_ light behave the same way, say, a candle's light does wrt overlapping with the area of other shed light from other sources.

----------


## Mastikator

What happens if you put Dancing Lights and Light in the same square in a place that is otherwise totally dark? One will shed dim light and the other bright light, they area can't be both dim and bright. Both are cantrips, level 0 spells. Spells do exactly what it says. How would you resolve this @RSP?

For the sake of argument they're cast simultaneously by different wizards, wizards of the same level and same int score too.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> I dont. 
> FF creates a 10 dim light even though its not the normal condition. Why?
>  Because the spell says it does.


The answer is not as simple as that.
Either interpretation is valid.

What is important is which interpretation is more Sound for running the game.

This is a Qualitative argument.

Qualitatively, the interpretation of the text that most conforms to how people expect illumination to work, is better for immersion, in my opinion.

Now I have read other DMs detail how they have used the interpretation RSP is advocating for, precisely so Dancing Lights could be used to not render a Rogue with Sunlight Sensitivity unable to use Sneak Attack in sunlight.

That type of judgement call, I at least respect as a practical DM adjustment.

To axiomatically claim, that the least practically useful interpretation is the only interpretation, strikes me as missing a broad enough viewpoint.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That type of judgement call, I at least respect as a practical DM adjustment.


Personally, I find those judgement calls (and _especially_ the DM's explanation of why they made that call) _way_ more interesting and useful for my own practice as a DM than any discussion of RAW, RAI, etc. I can read the text as well as anyone else. I don't need anyone else to tell me what the text says. But why someone chose a particular reading (even if it has nothing to do with the text) and how it worked for their table? _That's_ useful, as a glimpse into other people's thought processes.

And ultimately, the purpose of the text is to help DMs make judgement calls. It's *not* intended to actually be reflexively played literally--judgement in all things is both normal and even expected and required. The text is nothing more than a possible starting point.

----------


## Segev

Even if it was just a "special thing" for how a drow's version of _dancing lights_ works, that's pretty cool, since drow get _dancing lights_ as a racial cantrip.

----------


## Witty Username

> And ultimately, the purpose of the text is to help DMs make judgement calls. It's *not* intended to actually be reflexively played literally--judgement in all things is both normal and even expected and required. The text is nothing more than a possible starting point.


Isn't that the opposite of how you normally advocate how to interpret spells as a DM?

----------


## Leon

Magical Darkness and Light have their own specifics but in a area of Bright light a effect (Spell or otherwise) producing a Dim effect isn't going to darken the area unless the spells effect says so ~ Fairy Fire in place under otherwise normal lighting with produce its colorful glow and the other effects but nothing else.

Think of it as Grades of Illumination:

Bright
Dim
Dark

Outside of magical effects Dark is always going to be won over by one of the two brightness's above it, Dim is going to in turn be overruled by Bright.

----------


## Segev

> Magical Darkness and Light have their own specifics but in a area of Bright light a effect (Spell or otherwise) producing a Dim effect isn't going to darken the area unless the spells effect says so ~ Fairy Fire in place under otherwise normal lighting with produce its colorful glow and the other effects but nothing else.
> 
> Think of it as Grades of Illumination:
> 
> Bright
> Dim
> Dark
> 
> Outside of magical effects Dark is always going to be won over by one of the two brightness's above it, Dim is going to in turn be overruled by Bright.


Precisely. And you can identify it by the words chosen in the effects. Things that "shed" light and have no other wording associated to elaborate don't override anything. They behave like mundane light sources. A torch sheds bright light in a 20 foot radius, and dim light 20 feet beyond that. This doesn't make broad daylight dimmer 20-40 feet away from a torch, and two torches 20 feet apart do not dim each other's bright light zones. When magical effects CHANGE the light level (rather than "shedding" light the way nonmagical light sources do), they use words other than "shed." The Twilight cleric's feature says the area is "filled with dim light." Not that the cleric "sheds" dim light to that radius, but that the area is "filled" with it. This is a clear override of local lighting conditions (and has some sticky interactions with _darkness_ and similar effects which need to know what level spell the competing effect equates as in order to determine precedence). The _darkness_ spell "spreads" darkness from a point, which, again, is not "sheds," and goes on to give some specific language describing how you determine what light does penetrate (and dispel) the magical darkness. It explicitly overrides nonmagical light conditions.

I think there is interesting design space for spells that create magical darkness that does NOT block darkvision, and magically dim the lighting or set the light level to dim. If _dancing lights_ did that, that'd be really cool, but it doesn't. I don't think that's a good thing for _faerie fire_ to do, so I wouldn't suggest modifying it to do so. Its purpose is revealing invisible things and as a general combat (de)buff to mark targets for easy advantage to hit. The light-shedding is almost entirely verisimilitude-based, not something the spell is doing as a primary function. It's there because it answers the question of how bright the limming fire is, so DMs don't have to make on-the-spot calls about whether it sheds any real light at all.

----------


## Catullus64

I'm curious, RSP, with your reading of the 'mutual exclusivity' of lighting conditions, if you would be inclined to run things the same way with nonmagical light sources. 

Let's suppose that we have a burning candle: 5-foot radius of bright light, and a further 5 feet of dim light. Let's then suppose that a torch is lit, such that the entire area of the candle's light, bright and dim, is within the area of the dim light cast by the torch. Would the candle no longer create an area of bright light, because the torch creates dim light in its space? Because that seems consistent with how you want to read Faerie Fire, whose language ("sheds x light in y radius") is identical.

If you are simply drawing attention to how a quirk of ambiguous language in the game rules creates this outcome if followed very strictly, well and good; I like toying around with language as well. But I don't think that it's terribly productive to claim that this outcome, which contradicts a common consensus about how to run lighting, should be taken as the foundation for making other rulings about light, such as those to do with Faerie Fire. If you think that Faerie Fire dimming the lights is cool and worth trying, fine {Scrubbed}

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Isn't that the opposite of how you normally advocate how to interpret spells as a DM?


I was speaking generally. But it still applies. While yes, *I* tend to interpret spells narrowly (but not phrase-for-phrase literally[1]), that's a choice I've made because I believe it enhances my games. I accept that others could rule otherwise, and would be interested in hearing explanations of why they prefer to do so and what it does for their particular games.

I don't interpret the text as binding anyone to anything. TTRPGs are unlike a board game, which is designed to be played by the rules and is, in fact, strongly defective if it can't be played by the rules presented in a literal fashion. TTRPGs (especially this one) are open-ended. As such, the rules cannot be fully binding. Nor can they be complete. They always have to be suggestions, subject to human adjudication, extension, and interpretation.

[1] the RAW interpretation most commonly used parses things into individual phrases and looks at those phrases in isolation, with possible cross-referencing of the same phrase used elsewhere. This is just 100% not how language works. It's bad. It's wrong. It makes a hash out of meaning. No single phrase has independent actionable meaning. Only the minimum context units do. Which for spells is usually the entire thing, including but not limited to the title. At minimum, it's the paragraph. You can't (usefully, semantically) separate individual words and phrases and clauses. And the same word, phrase, clause, or even sentence used in one spell, ability, or rules text may have a very different meaning when used in a different one. Context is the _only_ source of truth. And at a larger scale, any reading that denies the purpose of the text (which is to help people play a game) must be disfavored as well, as it violates the larger context. Thus, literal-minded readings are almost always the wrong ones for any non-trivial piece of text.

----------


## RSP

> What happens if you put Dancing Lights and Light in the same square in a place that is otherwise totally dark? One will shed dim light and the other bright light, they area can't be both dim and bright. Both are cantrips, level 0 spells. Spells do exactly what it says. How would you resolve this @RSP?
> 
> For the sake of argument they're cast simultaneously by different wizards, wizards of the same level and same int score too.


This falls under a DM ruling: you have two spells intersecting that say they do different things. If two rules interact in ways not spelled out otherwise (such as Darkness dispelling of light producing spells), its a DMs call. This isnt unique to this situation.




> I think there is interesting design space for spells that create magical darkness that does NOT block darkvision, and magically dim the lighting or set the light level to dim. If _dancing lights_ did that, that'd be really cool, but it doesn't. I don't think that's a good thing for _faerie fire_ to do, so I wouldn't suggest modifying it to do so. Its purpose is revealing invisible things and as a general combat (de)buff to mark targets for easy advantage to hit. The light-shedding is almost entirely verisimilitude-based, not something the spell is doing as a primary function. It's there because it answers the question of how bright the limming fire is, so DMs don't have to make on-the-spot calls about whether it sheds any real light at all.


The limming fire, as you refer to it (its not actually fire) is directly associated with the shed dim light: its a shadowy, blue-ish (or greenish or violetish) dim light that shows the targets location. Being dim light, tracks them in any of the illumination categories (as it would be visible against bright light, darkness or previously existing dim light).




> I'm curious, RSP, with your reading of the 'mutual exclusivity' of lighting conditions, if you would be inclined to run things the same way with nonmagical light sources. 
> 
> Let's suppose that we have a burning candle: 5-foot radius of bright light, and a further 5 feet of dim light. Let's then suppose that a torch is lit, such that the entire area of the candle's light, bright and dim, is within the area of the dim light cast by the torch. Would the candle no longer create an area of bright light, because the torch creates dim light in its space? Because that seems consistent with how you want to read Faerie Fire, whose language ("sheds x light in y radius") is identical.
> 
> If you are simply drawing attention to how a quirk of ambiguous language in the game rules creates this outcome if followed very strictly, well and good; I like toying around with language as well. But I don't think that it's terribly productive to claim that this outcome, which contradicts a common consensus about how to run lighting, should be taken as the foundation for making other rulings about light, such as those to do with Faerie Fire. If you think that Faerie Fire dimming the lights is cool and worth trying, fine, but trying to claim that it's an obvious and common-sense reading of the rules strikes me as a little disingenuous.


Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. Im not sure theres anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think thats unique to me. 

Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time. 

You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works. 

As for non-magical lights, Ive already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesnt operate in real world rules, as its already in direct opposition to real world rules. 

Also, Darkess doesnt snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.

----------


## Keltest

> Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. Im not sure theres anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think thats unique to me. 
> 
> Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time. 
> 
> You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works. 
> 
> As for non-magical lights, Ive already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesnt operate in real world rules, as its already in direct opposition to real world rules. 
> 
> Also, Darkess doesnt snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.


They are mutually exclusive, but that doesnt mean that theyre all equal. Its a sliding scale, you cant be on multiple points of it at once. General rule: brighter lights override dimmer lights. Specific rule: Darkness overrides brighter light levels in specific conditions. Notably, Faerie Fire lacks that specific rule, so the general rule applies.

If you disagree, show me where in the text of faerie fire it says that it makes bright lights dimmer.

----------


## JNAProductions

What you seem to be thinking, RSP, is that if it's magic, it completely stops obeying any normal rules of reality. But that's an assumption you're making, and one that's gonna result in a lot of wonkiness. Case in point-this thread.

Would you say that a _Firebolt_ or _Fireball_ feels hot? That's not specifically mentioned in the text, but it's what fire is.

----------


## RSP

> What you seem to be thinking, RSP, is that if it's magic, it completely stops obeying any normal rules of reality. But that's an assumption you're making, and one that's gonna result in a lot of wonkiness. Case in point-this thread.
> 
> Would you say that a _Firebolt_ or _Fireball_ feels hot? That's not specifically mentioned in the text, but it's what fire is.


I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage. 

Magic obeys the rules of magic. Most times, that means the description of spells is what we have to go by. 

There are no rules of reality in 5e. Im not even sure what you mean by this: rules of our real world reality? Certainly not, otherwise you wouldnt have any magic (unless you believe our real world has stuff like Fireball and Flying spells). Rules of Reality for the in-game setting? Sure - but the only rules we have for these realities come from the spell descriptions still, barring a specific setting (or DM homebrew) stating X spell functions this way in this setting.  

So the only rule of reality we have for how FF functions is its spell description, which tells us the 10 area around the targets are dim light. Which is also called shadows. Which also creates light obscurement in the area. 

Saying but reality wouldnt have this is moot, because reality in 5e is defined by the spell descriptions. 

Reality wouldnt have the Fly spell, Fireball, dragons, undead, etc.

----------


## JNAProductions

> I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage. 
> 
> Magic obeys the rules of magic. Most times, that means the description of spells is what we have to go by. 
> 
> There are no rules of reality in 5e. Im not even sure what you mean by this: rules of our real world reality? Certainly not, otherwise you wouldnt have any magic (unless you believe our real world has stuff like Fireball and Flying spells). Rules of Reality for the in-game setting? Sure - but the only rules we have for these realities come from the spell descriptions still, barring a specific setting (or DM homebrew) stating X spell functions this way in this setting.  
> 
> So the only rule of reality we have for how FF functions is its spell description, which tells us the 10 area around the targets are dim light. Which is also called shadows. Which also creates light obscurement in the area. 
> 
> Saying but reality wouldnt have this is moot, because reality in 5e is defined by the spell descriptions. 
> ...


5E works like actual reality, except where noted otherwise.

So, magic works-that's an explicit exception in the rules against what would happen in reality. By empowering your abilities with a 3rd level or higher slot, verbal components, somatic components, and material components or an appropriate focus, you can make a big ol' explosion; despite that not being how reality functions.

Does gravity exist in your games, RSP?
Do magnets?
Do sandwiches exist? They aren't mentioned in RAW, to my knowledge.




> I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage.





> *Fire.* Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.


It says nothing about heat. Why then, with your slavish adherence to literal text, would you assume that a _Fireball_ is hot?

----------


## GooeyChewie

> And if the general rule says one thing, and a specific rule says another (like FF creating dim light), are you supposed to go with the general rule or the specific?


I think the key here is that Faerie Fire _doesn't_ say it creates an area of dim light. It says it causes objects and creatures to _shed_ dim light. And shedding dim light into an area which is already brightly lit does not reduce the brightness to dim light.

Items and equipment in 5e also do what they say they do and their specifics override general rules. A torch says it provides a 20-foot radius area of bright light, and dim light for 20 feet beyond that. If we followed your logic, torches would also allow Shadow Monks to jump into otherwise bright areas.

----------


## RSP

> 5E works like actual reality, except where noted otherwise.
> 
> So, magic works-that's an explicit exception in the rules against what would happen in reality.


Yes, magic is an exception to how 5e differs from our reality! So when a magic spell says it creates an area of 10 shadows and light obscurement is created by a spell, it should therefore, be created a spell. 

Why are you saying the magic shouldnt do ehat it says it does?




> It says nothing about heat. Why then, with your slavish adherence to literal text, would you assume that a _Fireball_ is hot?


You asked my thoughts. In my games (and generally how I see it working even in other games) damage types mean something in-game. Fire is hot and leaves burns, Cold is cold and can leave frost/freeze burn, Slashing leaves cuts, etc.

To me, this gives value to damage types outside of just the Metagame HP loss. So the Player knows what their characters takeaway from the damage is. If the damage types are solely a Metagame concept of HP loss, then they hold no meaning in the in-game world.

As I said, I prefer they have meaning in the in-game world.

----------


## Keltest

> Yes, magic is an exception to how 5e differs from our reality! So when a magic spell says it creates an area of 10 shadows and light obscurement is created by a spell, it should therefore, be created a spell. 
> 
> Why are you saying the magic shouldnt do ehat it says it does?


The spell doesnt create light obscurement. It emits dim light. Dim light doesnt darken an area. Its light. It works how light works. What part of that is unclear?

----------


## RSP

> I think the key here is that Faerie Fire _doesn't_ say it creates an area of dim light. It says it causes objects and creatures to _shed_ dim light. And shedding dim light into an area which is already brightly lit does not reduce the brightness to dim light.


The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light. 

Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. Its not reducing the brightness, its magically replacing it.




> The spell doesnt create light obscurement. It emits dim light. Dim light doesnt darken an area. Its light. It works how light works. What part of that is unclear?


Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say its shadow and light obscurement.

----------


## Segev

> The limming fire, as you refer to it (its not actually fire) is directly associated with the shed dim light: its a shadowy, blue-ish (or greenish or violetish) dim light that shows the targets location. Being dim light, tracks them in any of the illumination categories (as it would be visible against bright light, darkness or previously existing dim light).


Correct. This is in line with what I was saying.




> As for non-magical lights, Ive already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesnt operate in real world rules, as its already in direct opposition to real world rules.


It only contradicts real-world rules or even in-game nonmagical rules where it says it does. _Continual flame_, _light_, and _dancing lights_ don't dim existing bright light in the radii where their dim light is shed. Neither does _faerie fire_. The language used for those spells' shedding of light and the way mundane lighting works is deliberately similar, if not identical. _Faerie fire_ doesn't convert the light level within 10 feet to dim; it sheds dim light out to 10 feet. A torch sheds dim light from 20 feet to 40 feet. Same principle.

When D&D 5e is SETTING a light level with magic, it says so by using something other than "sheds." Twilight Sanctuary creates a space "filled with dim light." _Darkness_ causes darkness to "spread" from its center, and then spends still more wording describing what light it does and does not override. Implying the default is that brighter lighting conditions do override dimmer ones, since such language would otherwise be unnecessary.




> Also, Darkess doesnt snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.


Correct. But it also is not illuminated by candles or torches, and is illuminated by magical light sources it does not dispel.




> The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light. 
> 
> Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. Its not reducing the brightness, its magically replacing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say its shadow and light obscurement.


It doesn't say it "comes off targets." The explicit text is, "For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius." 

It does not say it overrides other lighting conditions. It doesn't say it "fills the space" or "spreads from the targets" or any other language that suggests it behaves in any way differently from light from a candle, torch, lantern, or other light source. It is a light source, pure and simple. It sheds dim light out to a 10 foot radius. The _light_ cantrip doesn't generate an annulus of dimness in broad daylight, does it? Your interpretation of the rules - including your "magic is different, even though the rules for magical lighting don't say they operate differently than the rules for nonmagical lighting such as torches" caveat, would say such an annulus is generated.

----------


## Keltest

> The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light. 
> 
> Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. Its not reducing the brightness, its magically replacing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say its shadow and light obscurement.


Yeah, and none of that involves replacing bright light. Where do the rules say it can do that?

----------


## Catullus64

> Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. Im not sure theres anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think thats unique to me. 
> 
> Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time. 
> 
> You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works. 
> 
> As for non-magical lights, Ive already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesnt operate in real world rules, as its already in direct opposition to real world rules. 
> 
> Also, Darkess doesnt snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.


'Mutually exclusive' just means two lighting conditions cannot exist in the same space at the same time. That doesn't tell us anything about which of two conditions takes effect when multiple sources of lighting overlap in an area, just that it can only be one of the two. Some instances, like a _Darkness_ spell, make it explicit, but most, such as mundane light sources or _Faerie Fire_, don't.

As for the question of magic, I tend to assume that physical effects created by a spell differ from similar mundane physical effects _only if the spell tells me so_. Light remains light. I have no reason to think that the dim light cast by _Faerie Fire_ doesn't function the same as nonmagical sources of dim light. If you want to add to the spell that it makes there to be dim light even where there would otherwise be bright light, there's nothing wrong with that addition (in fact I think it's pretty cool), but don't claim that it's a simple plain-text reading of the rules.

----------


## Psyren

I think an example of a magic effect setting the light level (i.e. overriding ambient conditions) is found in the Twilight Cleric's Twilight Sanctuary feature. Faerie Fire's language doesn't read the same way to me at all.

----------


## RSP

> 'Mutually exclusive' just means two lighting conditions cannot exist in the same space at the same time. That doesn't tell us anything about which of two conditions takes effect when multiple sources of lighting overlap in an area, just that it can only be one of the two. Some instances, like a _Darkness_ spell, make it explicit, but most, such as mundane light sources or _Faerie Fire_, don't.





> Yeah, and none of that involves replacing bright light. Where do the rules say it can do that?


Heres Darkness wording for using a non-object:

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range

Heres Darkness wording for casting the spell on an object:

the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.

Nether of those explicitly states it replaces the existing illumination condition. Spreads and emanates are not horribly different than sheds in a way that makes it explicit that its replacing the existing illumination conditions. 

Its replacing whatever the current illumination condition is because the spell creates it. Same as FF.

----------


## Keltest

> Heres Darkness wording for using a non-object:
> 
> Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range
> 
> Heres Darkness wording for casting the spell on an object:
> 
> the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.
> 
> Nether of those explicitly states it replaces the existing illumination condition. Spreads and emanates are not horribly different than sheds in a way that makes it explicit that its replacing the existing illumination conditions. 
> ...


You've cut out the part of the text that says darkness replaces other levels of illumination, so yeah, no wonder you don't have it there.

----------


## RSP

> You've cut out the part of the text that says darkness replaces other levels of illumination, so yeah, no wonder you don't have it there.


Heres the entire text:

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

Where does it say this replaces any current illumination category? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?

----------


## Keltest

> Heres the entire text:
> 
> Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
> 
> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
> 
> If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
> 
> Where does it say this replaces any current illumination category? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?


When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Spreads and emanates are not horribly different than sheds in a way that makes it explicit that its replacing the existing illumination conditions.


I disagree with this. "Spreads" and "emanates" are not natural conditions of darkness, so the spell is saying it does something other than natural darkness. Darkness is normally just the absence of light, so this needs say how it interacts with normal light. 

"Sheds" is something natural that a dimly lit object can do, so there is no reason to think this light acts differently than natural light, and so would not overrule surrounding bright light. If they had wanted faerie fire to dim a surrounding area of bright light, they would have said so explicitly, like they do with other magical abilities that do that. "Sheds" light does not override normal light rules of bright light drowning out dim light.

----------


## Mastikator

> This falls under a DM ruling: you have two spells intersecting that say they do different things. If two rules interact in ways not spelled out otherwise (such as Darkness dispelling of light producing spells), its a DMs call. This isnt unique to this situation.


How would you rule on it as a DM?
Would that ruling set any kind of precedence or is simply a ruling on those two spells only?

----------


## JNAProductions

> Heres the entire text:
> 
> Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
> 
> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
> 
> If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
> 
> Where does it say this replaces any current illumination category? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?


Where it says that non-magical light cant illuminate it.

----------


## Witty Username

> Same with FF. The dim light extends beyond that 5 wall. Why? Because thats the effect of the spell.


That is worth noting a difference. Spells don't normally effect an area that is blocked from its point of origin, as per the spellcasting rules.

Fireball and Darkness have rules on how they interact with with corners because they are an exception to the spellcasting rules.

For Faerie Fire, this would mean that the light is blocked by objects, as normal, creature acting as the point of origin. As well as the creatures affected would need to be within the original cube and not have total cover from the the point of origin, in this case a point on one of cube's faces of the caster's choice. 


The bigger question would be, is a fireball's area reduced if it is cast into an area with significant cover?

----------


## Segev

> Heres the entire text:
> 
> Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, *and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.*
> 
> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
> 
> If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
> 
> Where does it say this replaces any current illumination category? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?





> When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.





> Where it says that non-magical light cant illuminate it.


Just because I read it several times, knowing it's in there, and couldn't find it until the 4th or 5th read through, I have bolded the relevant text in RSP's quote to back up Keltest's and JNAProductions's posts.

----------


## RSP

> Where it says that non-magical light cant illuminate it.





> When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.





> Just because I read it several times, knowing it's in there, and couldn't find it until the 4th or 5th read through, I have bolded the relevant text in RSP's quote to back up Keltest's and JNAProductions's posts.


Incorrect. This statement: nonmagical light can't illuminate it isnt saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you cant illuminate darkness of darkness doesnt exist. 

That statement you three are relying on as an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category doesnt mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it cant be illuminated with nonmagical light.

So again, if Darkness doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?

----------


## Keltest

> Incorrect. This statement: nonmagical light can't illuminate it isnt saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you cant illuminate darkness of darkness doesnt exist. 
> 
> That statement you three are relying on as an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category doesnt mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it cant be illuminated with nonmagical light.
> 
> So again, if Darkness doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?


No? Thats not how english works at all.

----------


## JNAProductions

> No? Thats not how english works at all.


Echoing this. 

RSP, if you want to make it so _Faerie Fire_ actively replaces bright light with dim light, that's fine. It's unlikely to break anything. But that's certainly not a reading that's mandated by the text-and really, the rules as written show that your reading is a houserule.

----------


## Segev

> Incorrect. This statement: nonmagical light can't illuminate it isnt saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you cant illuminate darkness of darkness doesnt exist. 
> 
> That statement you three are relying on as an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category doesnt mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it cant be illuminated with nonmagical light.
> 
> So again, if Darkness doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?


If nonmagical light can't illuminate an area, that area does not have illumination, and is, perforce, dark. Surely you're not trying to claim that, once an area is lit by a torch, even if the torch moves or goes away, the light remains behind indefinitely. That would be the necessary consequence of nonmagical light not having to illuminate something continuously for the area the nonmagical light illuminated to remain illuminated, though.




> RSP, if you want to make it so _Faerie Fire_ actively replaces bright light with dim light, that's fine. It's unlikely to break anything. But that's certainly not a reading that's mandated by the text-and really, the rules as written show that your reading is a houserule.


Exactly. It's a fine house rule if you want to make it, but the RAW do not support it.

----------


## RSP

> No? Thats not how english works at all.


Thats exactly how English works. 

The sentence is: A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isnt already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isnt already darkness?

The sentence isnt a statement of this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category its the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light. Whats being illuminated if the darkness isnt already in place?

----------


## JNAProductions

> Thats exactly how English works. 
> 
> The sentence is: A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
> 
> That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isnt already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isnt already darkness?
> 
> The sentence isnt a statement of this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category its the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light. Whats being illuminated if the darkness isnt already in place?





> If nonmagical light can't illuminate an area, that area does not have illumination, and is, perforce, dark. Surely you're not trying to claim that, once an area is lit by a torch, even if the torch moves or goes away, the light remains behind indefinitely. That would be the necessary consequence of nonmagical light not having to illuminate something continuously for the area the nonmagical light illuminated to remain illuminated, though.


Segev literally already addressed what you're talking about.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Thats exactly how English works. 
> 
> The sentence is: A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
> 
> That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isnt already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isnt already darkness?
> 
> The sentence isnt a statement of this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category its the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light. Whats being illuminated if the darkness isnt already in place?


It's in the sentence right before that one. "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners."

Note that this doesn't say, the point "sheds" darkness but rather magical darkness fills the area. That is the difference between darkness and faerie fire. 

If they had wanted faerie fire to fill an area of bright light with dim light, they would have used the language from darkness or twilight sanctuary. They did not. So by RAW, it does not fill the area. It just sheds dim light like a candle would.

----------


## RSP

> If nonmagical light can't illuminate an area, that area does not have illumination, and is, perforce, dark.


Exactly. The referenced sentence is written with the assumption darkness is already in place: the assumption is that earlier in the description when it says the spell creates darkness, that darkness is replacing the existing illumination category. (The same way Fireball doesnt need to state the burst of fire replaces any not re areas with in its AoE). 

It is not, in and of itself, stating the darkness replaces anything: thats already happened before this sentence means anything.

The sentence is saying if you light a torch in the area once darkness has taken effect, it wont illuminate anything.

Note: if you light a torch or something in an area of Darkness, it still lights, it just doesnt illuminate the area of Darkness (per the referenced sentence).




> Surely you're not trying to claim that, once an area is lit by a torch, even if the torch moves or goes away, the light remains behind indefinitely.


Surely I am not.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Surely I am not.


Your writing indicates you are, at least if you're being consistent.

----------


## RSP

> It's literally in the sentence right before that one. "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners."
> 
> Note that this doesn't say, the point "sheds" darkness but rather magical darkness fills the area. That is the difference between darkness and faerie fire.


It says darkness spreds. Thats no more of an explicit statement of darkness replacing whatever other illumination category previously existed, than dim light sheds.

Either word means the stated illumination category goes into effect.

----------


## JNAProductions

> It says darkness spreds. Thats no more of an explicit statement of darkness replacing whatever other illumination category previously existed, than dim light sheds.
> 
> Either word means the stated illumination category goes into effect.


It also says that the darkness "fill[s] a 15' radius sphere".
It also says "nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

_Faerie Fire_ says none of that.

----------


## Segev

> Exactly. The referenced sentence is written with the assumption darkness is already in place: the assumption is that earlier in the description when it says the spell creates darkness, that darkness is replacing the existing illumination category. (The same way Fireball doesnt need to state the burst of fire replaces any not re areas with in its AoE).


The spell causes darkness to spread, yes.




> It is not, in and of itself, stating the darkness replaces anything: thats already happened before this sentence means anything.


Does _fireball_ not cause damage in its area, then, because it doesn't actually cause a burst of flame that replaces the former temperature with the new one?  :Small Confused: 




> The sentence is saying if you light a torch in the area once darkness has taken effect, it wont illuminate anything.


That is one implication of it, yes. Another is that a lit torch does not continue to illuminate the area in which the _darkness_ spell is covering.




> Note: if you light a torch or something in an area of Darkness, it still lights, it just doesnt illuminate the area of Darkness (per the referenced sentence).


Correct, but not the sum total of what the sentence means.




> Surely I am not.


Then, praytell, how does the _darkness_ spell causing the light from a torch to fail to illuminate the area still leave the area illuminated?

----------


## GooeyChewie

> It's in the sentence right before that one. "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15 foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners."
> 
> Note that this doesn't say, the point "sheds" darkness but rather magical darkness fills the area. That is the difference between darkness and faerie fire. 
> 
> If they had wanted faerie fire to fill an area of bright light with dim light, they would have used the language from darkness or twilight sanctuary. They did not. So by RAW, it does not fill the area. It just sheds dim light like a candle would.


I agree with Bob. The description for Darkness has the magical darkness as the subject taking action (that action being spreading from a point). The description for Faerie Fire has objects and affected creatures taking action (that action being shedding dim light). Since the spell doesn't tell us that the dim light works in any special way, it acts like dim light would normally act. And while I'm not sure the rules technically state it anywhere, I do think the vast majority of players would agree that having a source of dim light would not normally change the lighting of a brightly lit area.

EDIT: Please note that Faerie Fire does _not_ say "dim light sheds." It says "objects and affected creatures shed dim light."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I strongly believe the best interpretation (both textually and from a game-play perspective) for light levels is that it in general acts like



```
MAX(levels)
```

With regular darkness being level 0 and omnipresent. Which means that any source of dim light removes (regular) darkness and any source of bright light overrides any source of dim light and removes (regular) darkness.

Specific sources (eg Twilight Sanctuary, Darkness spell) produce exceptions to this, effectively setting the priority of that source higher than it normally would be. The Darkness spell sets "dark" to a priority higher than any non-magical light and, when coupled with the "extinguishes sources" clause, _effectively_ sets it higher than any source from a spell of 2nd level or lower (with the side effect of affecting those sources even outside of its own area).

------

RSP, in your reading, what would happen if we had the following (entirely non-magical) situation:

Two regular torches flank a decorated wall, 10' from each other (ie torch, 10' of wall, then torch). As a result, the decorated chunk of wall is experiencing bright light from two sources.

A third, regular torch is lit at a distance of 30' from the wall. There are now _three_ sources of relevant illumination on the decorated wall--two bright and one dim.

What is the light level of the decorated wall?

Options:
Physical option: Each torch adds light to the scene, so while the wall is in bright light, the light is slightly brighter with the addition of the third torch.

Option 1. The close torches set the light level to bright. The far torch can't override that. ==> bright light. This contradicts the idea that faerie fire can _set_ the light level of an otherwise brightly lit area to dim, but makes complete sense (matching, roughly, the physical option).

Option 2. Since the far torch was lit last, it overrides all the others and the wall is in dim light. This is the only interpretation I can come up with that allows your reading of faerie fire to work. But it makes absolutely no sense in fiction whatsoever and poses severe order-of-operations issues in gameplay (you always have to track which light was lit last in any given area).

Option 3. Non-magical lights act according to the physical option, but magical lights act differently (without actually having to be marked as behaving differently). Ok, then trade the third torch for a stick with the _light_ cantrip on it. Or a torch enchanted by _continual flame_. Neither of which says it overrides all other light levels, but are magical sources of light.

----------


## RSP

> The spell causes darkness to spread, yes.


And FF causes dim light to shed. 




> Does _fireball_ not cause damage in its area, then, because it doesn't actually cause a burst of flame that replaces the former temperature with the new one?


Fireball causes both damage and an eruption of flame in its AoE, even though the spell doesnt explicitly state the fire replaces the non-fire in the area. 

The Darkness spell spreads darkness even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories. 

FF Dim sheds dim light even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories. 

Why do all these things happen? Because the spells tell us they happen. 




> Then, praytell, how does the _darkness_ spell causing the light from a torch to fail to illuminate the area still leave the area illuminated?


Ask someone making that argument I guess.

----------


## Keltest

> And FF causes dim light to shed. 
> 
> 
> 
> Fireball causes both damage and an eruption of flame in its AoE, even though the spell doesnt explicitly state the fire replaces the non-fire in the area. 
> 
> The Darkness spell spreads darkness even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories. 
> 
> FF Dim sheds dim light even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories. 
> ...


Darkness does explicitly state that it replaces the other illumination categories, and goes into quite a bit of detail as to how that works.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> And FF causes dim light to shed.


"Sheds", just like a normal dim light, not "spreads" or "fills" like a magical effect that would override bright light.




> The Darkness spell spreads darkness even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories.


Nonmagical darkness is just the absence of light and cannot spread. Therefore, this is acting in a way that is not like normal darkness and those differences are written in the spell description. 




> FF Dim sheds dim light even though the spell doesnt explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories.


Yes. It sheds dim light, just like a candle. And just like a candle, that dim light would override nonmagical darkness, be overridden by nonmagical bright light, and blocked by solid ground.

----------


## RSP

> EDIT: Please note that Faerie Fire does _not_ say "dim light sheds." It says "objects and affected creatures shed dim light."


If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.

Darkness emanates from the object. 

objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10 foot radius.

Shed dim light. 

Neither one of those terms is effectively stronger or more explicitly replaces the existing illumination category than the other. 

Each spell does what it says it does.

----------


## Keltest

> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.
> 
> Darkness emanates from the object. 
> 
> objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10 foot radius.
> 
> Shed dim light. 
> 
> Neither one of those terms is effectively stronger or more explicitly replaces the existing illumination category than the other. 
> ...


Yes. And Faerie Fire does not say it dims existing light, while Darkness does.

I dont understand why this is unclear to you.

----------


## Segev

> Ask someone making that argument I guess.


I am.

You're making the argument that light, once shed, remains in place, even if it can no longer be shed there. It keeps it illuminated without illuminating.

----------


## JNAProductions

> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.
> 
> Darkness emanates from the object. 
> 
> objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10 foot radius.
> 
> Shed dim light. 
> 
> Neither one of those terms is effectively stronger or more explicitly replaces the existing illumination category than the other. 
> ...


Why do you not quote the rest of the text of the _Darkness_ spell? It's very much relevant-cherrypicking a single sentence read out of context does not a good read make.

----------


## hiptobecubic

This thread is pretty incredible.

I think part of the confusion is that darkness, like coldness, is not a thing. The fact that there's a darkness spell that "spreads darkness" (presumably at the speed of light?) tells me that either magical darkness is a real, tangible thing that isn't just "absence of light" or that this spell is described in terms of how it looks and not the mechanism by which it works. Depending on which of those you believe, RSP's points might make sense or might not.

What is really interesting is that the spell doesn't say that the darkness must be the dominant thing, just that it's there and it overrides low level magical light and all non magical light. I could imagine a reading where a non-spell light effect overrides the darkness but doesn't dispel it (because it's not a spell) and then everyone can see through the area with the darkness *except* for creatures with darkvision, since they are explicitly called out as being unable. This is, of course, silly unless you are of the opinion that it's all magical woo-woo interacting by magic woo-woo rules that don't have to make sense.

----------


## TaiLiu

> This thread is pretty incredible.
> 
> I think part of the confusion is that darkness, like coldness, is not a thing. The fact that there's a darkness spell that "spreads darkness" (presumably at the speed of light?) tells me that either magical darkness is a real, tangible thing that isn't just "absence of light" or that this spell is described in terms of how it looks and not the mechanism by which it works. Depending on which of those you believe, RSP's points might make sense or might not.
> 
> What is really interesting is that the spell doesn't say that the darkness must be the dominant thing, just that it's there and it overrides low level magical light and all non magical light. I could imagine a reading where a non-spell light effect overrides the darkness but doesn't dispel it (because it's not a spell) and then everyone can see through the area with the darkness *except* for creatures with darkvision, since they are explicitly called out as being unable. This is, of course, silly unless you are of the opinion that it's all magical woo-woo interacting by magic woo-woo rules that don't have to make sense.


The laws of physics are obviously different in D&D worlds, so I'm not sure we can say that darkness and coldness are just the absence of light and heat, respectively. Nor can we assume that _darkness_ spreads darkness at the spread of light, since instantaneous spells exist.

----------


## Segev

> The laws of physics are obviously different in D&D worlds, so I'm not sure we can say that darkness and coldness are just the absence of light and heat, respectively. Nor can we assume that _darkness_ spreads darkness at the spread of light, since instantaneous spells exist.


However, we still can treat the language of the rules as being self-consistent, and doing what they say they do. If the DM has to stop and say, "for THIS spell, we'll read the language THIS way, even though we don't read it that way for any other rule effect dealing with shedding light," it's clearly a house rule, not reading the RAW.

----------


## TaiLiu

> However, we still can treat the language of the rules as being self-consistent, and doing what they say they do. If the DM has to stop and say, "for THIS spell, we'll read the language THIS way, even though we don't read it that way for any other rule effect dealing with shedding light," it's clearly a house rule, not reading the RAW.


That seems reasonable, though now I wonder if D&D is in fact self-consistent. Like, are there contradictions in 5e?

----------


## Keltest

> That seems reasonable, though now I wonder if D&D is in fact self-consistent. Like, are there contradictions in 5e?


It wouldnt surprise me. But if there are, they are fairly niche I think.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.
> 
> Darkness emanates from the object. 
> 
> objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10 foot radius.
> 
> Shed dim light. 
> 
> Neither one of those terms is effectively stronger or more explicitly replaces the existing illumination category than the other. 
> ...


"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration."

vs

"For the Duration, Objects and affected Creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius."

The subject of the former sentence is "magical darkness." The subject of the latter sentence is "objects and affected creatures." So yes, one of those is stronger wording than the other and more explicitly replaces the existing illumination category. One of these spells directly affects the lighting level, while the other creates a light source. You are right that each spell does what it says it does, but Faerie Fire _doesn't_ say that it creates dim light that fills an area.

To draw a parallel, Prestidigitation can ignite a torch. The torch was lit by magic. That fact doesn't make the light shed by the torch magical, or cause the area of dim light described in the torch entry to replace otherwise bright light.

To draw another parallel, Crown of Madness can cause a creature to make an attack. The fact that a spell is causing the attack doesn't make the attack magical if it wouldn't be otherwise.

----------


## hiptobecubic

> Nor can we assume that _darkness_ spreads darkness at the spread of light, since instantaneous spells exist.


I don't think that applies here because the darkness cannot "spread" if it instantaneously appears everywhere.




> The subject of the former sentence is "magical darkness." The subject of the latter sentence is "objects and affected creatures."


Right. This is what I'm getting at. It is the darkness itself that is acting, not the light retreating.

----------


## Segev

> Right. This is what I'm getting at. It is the darkness itself that is acting, not the light retreating.


Indeed.

What _darkness_ does is create a region where magical darkness has "spread" to fill it up. What this means is that the region cannot be illuminated by nonmagical light sources, and though it can be illuminated by magical light sources, any that try that are created by a spell of 2nd level or lower are dispelled rather than illuminating the region.

What spells that create light sources do is create light sources that behave, save for the fact they are magical (where that's relevant - e.g. with _darkness_ and its clauses about only nonmagical light being forbidden from illuminating it and how it dispels some magical light sources), like any other light source in the game. They shed bright light out to some radius (if they shed bright light at all), and shed dim light for a further distance out from that (usually the same distance as the bright light, effectively doubling the radius). No light source in the game overrides prevailing brighter lighting conditions. A torch in broad daylight does not create an annulus of dim light from 20 feet to 40 feet from it. A hallway with a torch every 20 feet will be brightly lit the whole way down. Replace the torches with _light_ spells, and the same remains true (though the radii may change; I forget what _light_'s radii are). _Dancing lights_ shed 10 feet of dim illumination; this will make darkness brighter, and do nothing in conditions of existing dim or bright light, because _dancing lights_ doesn't shed shadows or magical dimness; it sheds dim light. It doesn't fill the area with dim light, nor cause "dim light to spread" from itself. The same is true of _faerie fire_: it causes the limmed objects or creatures to shed dim light, but it doesn't say it "fills a ten foot radius with dim light," nor that it "causes dim light to spread," nor (as is more likely if it were intended to actually reduce light levels) that it dims light within 10 feet to dim lighting and brightens darkness within 10 feet to dim lighting...or similar language calling out that it actually changes bright light to dim light as well as shedding dim light.

Again: "sheds dim light" is consistently used in 5e to indicate a state that does not reduce bright light to dim lighting. 

When 5e wants to set conditions to dim lighting, it uses the wording of Twilight Sanctuary: "fills a thirty foot radius with dim light."


Now, once again, I actually think a drow-specific rule for their _dancing lights_ that actively dims bright light as well as shedding dim light would be cool. I think it's cool if you want _faerie fire_ to magically dim light around the targets, though that's potentially quite the boost since it lets people hide in those zones while, presumably, preventing the limmed targets from doing the same (since the whole point is to make them more visible). But both cases are house rules; the RAW of the spells do not cause this, as written.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> . This is, of course, silly unless you are of the opinion that it's all magical woo-woo interacting by magic woo-woo rules that don't have to make sense.


{Scrubbed}

The saying, _Spells do what they say they do_, in actual practice means: 
_Spells do what I want them to do_.




> The laws of physics are obviously different in D&D worlds, so I'm not sure we can say that darkness and coldness are just the absence of light and heat, respectively. Nor can we assume that _darkness_ spreads darkness at the spread of light, since instantaneous spells exist.


This way leads to madness.🃏
D&D is a game of the of the inter-subjective.  
The DMs imagination is not the sole determining factor on what makes sense.

 A satisfying game, (in my opinion of course), arises from the interplay of each participants  subjective imagination.

As a game, D&D will always have game elements that do not correspond to a persons sense of reality.  Most players, understand that, in my experience.

The authors of D&D, and most players do not assume wide scale differences in baseline ontic features , (such as light, how water functions, general features of gravity and so forth).

The 5e books do not explicitly spell out that horses poop, or have odor.
The Dungeon Masters Guide, does not explicitly state that poisons have flavor, odors, or other physical characteristics, that real life poisons actually do have.

I have read accounts, on this very board, in which people have  assumed that all poisons are like Iocane Powder from Princess Bride, and thus are Odorless, Tasteless, and undetectable by Smell. (And Dissolve instantly in water🃏)

If a DM takes the approach of _D&D Physical Laws are different than what is on Earth_, then the DM has to detail all of those changes for the players.which is a hell of a lot of work.

At that point, you might as well write a book, as the inter-subjective is now secondary to the DMs Subjective view of how the game world operates.

From my perspective, as a practically minded DM, (self proclaimed, of course🃏), this is an unsound result.

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: closed for review.

*EDIT*Metamagic Mod: Thread re-opened. If you don't like the nature of this discussion, or the way certain people involved debate, it takes zero effort not to post here.

----------


## RSP

> RSP, in your reading, what would happen if we had the following (entirely non-magical) situation:
> 
> What is the light level of the decorated wall?


As previously stated, Id imagine non-magical light acts like real world light. 

The issues with FF/Darkness/Light/Daylight etc, is that there is no real world comp to magic. 

How does magic illuminate an area? By magically illuminating an area. 

Hows that work compared to real life? It doesnt, because we dont have a real life comp to oh this space is magically illuminated to the bright light category. We only have the spell description to go off of. 

Non-magical light and magical light do not act the same. We know that because Darkness will dispel a spell if any portion of its light touches the AoE of Darkness, yet wont douse a torch. Theres all the other not normal stuff with magic as well (Concentration, slots, components, etc) that make it different.  

So the point Im trying to get across is, if the spell effect states it does something, like shedding shadows, then we should assume the spell does that. We do that with every other spell.

The alternative is, lets assume spells dont do what they say they do. Im not sure how that approach helps anything.

----------


## JNAProductions

Thats a lot of words to not answer Phoenix Pyres question.

Whats the light level on the wall?

----------


## Keltest

> As previously stated, Id imagine non-magical light acts like real world light. 
> 
> The issues with FF/Darkness/Light/Daylight etc, is that there is no real world comp to magic. 
> 
> How does magic illuminate an area? By magically illuminating an area. 
> 
> Hows that work compared to real life? It doesnt, because we dont have a real life comp to oh this space is magically illuminated to the bright light category. We only have the spell description to go off of. 
> 
> Non-magical light and magical light do not act the same. We know that because Darkness will dispel a spell if any portion of its light touches the AoE of Darkness, yet wont douse a torch. Theres all the other not normal stuff with magic as well (Concentration, slots, components, etc) that make it different.  
> ...


The game doesnt define magical light as being any different from regular light, the same way magical fire damage is not defined any differently from regular fire damage. Therefore they behave the same except where specific effects note so.

----------


## Segev

> How does magic illuminate an area? By magically illuminating an area.


Er... the spells tell us how: by having a thing the spells affect which then sheds light. A torch sheds light, illuminating an area. We agree on how that works: as it would in the real world. A _light_ spell causes the touched object to shed light. This doesn't "magically illuminate the area" save in that the fact that the object is shedding light does so due to magic. A _wall of stone_ doesn't "magically" keep people from passing through it; the stone itself magically appeared, but it behaves like stone except where the spell says otherwise. The _light_ spell's illumination behaves like that of any other source of illumination, save where rules explicitly say otherwise.

_Faerie fire_ is the same: it causes the affected objects and creatures to shed dim light in a 10 foot radius. This is exactly the same wording as how any mundane source of light works, because it is a magically-created light source, not "magically filling the area with dim light." _Darkness_ magically spreads darkness to the area. It goes around corners, it prevents the area from being illuminated by nonmagical light sources, and it dispels magical light sources created by 1st or 2nd level spells. Twilight Sanctuary "fills" the area with dim light, overriding other conditions. Unclear if it overrides _darkness_ or not, but I think the RAW support it doing so. But I digress.

_Faerie fire_ does not use any language that suggests "magically filling a ten foot radius with light." It magically turns the objects and creatures limmed in its fire into dim light sources that shed dim light in a ten foot radius, just as a candle does a five foot radius and a torch does from 20 feet to 40 feet out from itself.

----------


## Keltest

> Er... the spells tell us how: by having a thing the spells affect which then sheds light. A torch sheds light, illuminating an area. We agree on how that works: as it would in the real world. A _light_ spell causes the touched object to shed light. This doesn't "magically illuminate the area" save in that the fact that the object is shedding light does so due to magic. A _wall of stone_ doesn't "magically" keep people from passing through it; the stone itself magically appeared, but it behaves like stone except where the spell says otherwise. The _light_ spell's illumination behaves like that of any other source of illumination, save where rules explicitly say otherwise.
> 
> _Faerie fire_ is the same: it causes the affected objects and creatures to shed dim light in a 10 foot radius. This is exactly the same wording as how any mundane source of light works, because it is a magically-created light source, not "magically filling the area with dim light." _Darkness_ magically spreads darkness to the area. It goes around corners, it prevents the area from being illuminated by nonmagical light sources, and it dispels magical light sources created by 1st or 2nd level spells. Twilight Sanctuary "fills" the area with dim light, overriding other conditions. Unclear if it overrides _darkness_ or not, but I think the RAW support it doing so. But I digress.
> 
> _Faerie fire_ does not use any language that suggests "magically filling a ten foot radius with light." It magically turns the objects and creatures limmed in its fire into dim light sources that shed dim light in a ten foot radius, just as a candle does a five foot radius and a torch does from 20 feet to 40 feet out from itself.


Twilight Sanctuary creates magical light, and it isnt a spell, so it illuminates the effects of a Darkness spell just fine. Or, well, just poorly, since its only dim light, but it does illuminate it.

----------


## Smersh_23

**To the OP, 

I am curious as to what you want from this thread. You posted your interpretation repeatedly about how FF/light works. Everyone has disagreed with this interpretation using several different ways to explain their understanding of the rules. So I am naturally curious as to what result your looking for as you seem to made up your mind how it works before posting. Perhaps we can go on from there...


I do enjoy reading these threads as I gain insight on how to interpret game rules that I might not have thought of on my own. I don't post much myself but I do enjoy reading posts from Keltest, Segev, Psyren, PhoenixPhyre, JNA, Witty Username and RSP (and many others). So thanks guys/gals.

----------


## RSP

> Er... the spells tell us how: by having a thing the spells affect which then sheds light. A torch sheds light, illuminating an area. We agree on how that works: as it would in the real world. A _light_ spell causes the touched object to shed light. This doesn't "magically illuminate the area" save in that the fact that the object is shedding light does so due to magicThe _light_ spell's illumination behaves like that of any other source of illumination, save where rules explicitly say otherwise


Lets back up to this. 

You cast Light on a small rock. Does covering half the rock, block half the area from being illuminated, like it would if in the real world you blocked half the light source?

If it does, then youre ignoring this line: Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. If it isnt completely covered, then it isnt blocked. 

The lighting conditions created by Light is not like non-magical light. The spell tells us what it does. Thats where it  explicitly says otherwise.

----------


## Keltest

> Lets back up to this. 
> 
> You cast Light on a small rock. Does covering half the rock, block half the area from being illuminated, like it would if in the real world you blocked half the light source?
> 
> If it does, then youre ignoring this line: Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. If it isnt completely covered, then it isnt blocked. 
> 
> The lighting conditions created by Light is not like non-magical light. The spell tells us what it does. Thats where it  explicitly says otherwise.


Why is it not? The spell doesnt say the light spreads around corners, while the Darknes spell does. The text about covering it does not preclude partially covering it, and indeed would seem to support that the light is blocked by opaque objects. In fact, besides the ability to hover in a point without a specific source, Light and Daylight do not have any indications that they function differently than normal light.

----------


## Segev

> Lets back up to this. 
> 
> You cast Light on a small rock. Does covering half the rock, block half the area from being illuminated, like it would if in the real world you blocked half the light source?
> 
> If it does, then youre ignoring this line: Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. If it isnt completely covered, then it isnt blocked. 
> 
> The lighting conditions created by Light is not like non-magical light. The spell tells us what it does. Thats where it  explicitly says otherwise.


In addition to what Keltest said, your statement does not logically follow. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy: "If you go to the theater at five o'clock, you can see the movie I recommended," can be a completely true statement without even implying that going to the theater at another time means you cannot see said movie. Movies often have multiple showings. There may be no guarantee that this movie does, but stating a sufficient condition does not imply it is a necessary one.

It is possible, absent any other information, that NOT completely covering the rock upon which you cast _light_ would fail to obstruct it in any way, but we have further information based on how light sources work in D&D. 

As well, if you hold the light-rock next to a wall of a building with no windows on that wall, I doubt you would argue that a person on the other side of that wall sees the light from the rock illuminating everything on his side of the wall.

In fact, one could even describe the wall as "completely covering" the light source from that angle.

The text provides a sufficient condition to block/conceal the light, which is an important detail in dungeon crawling, where controlling the light your party is emitting is important. It in no way says that it is the only possible way for the light to be blocked.

Furthermore, trying to argue that your means of reading the RAW leads to more unintuitive results from magical lighting is a poor way to persuade people that your reading is a good one.



Incidentally, I found another spell with overriding light level text: _moonbeam_ says it "fills" the cylinder it creates with dim light, which means it actually reduces bright light in that area to dim lighting. It also doesn't mention shedding light out to a radius, but rather filling its own area, so it behaves differently than _faerie fire_. The use of different language may not guarantee different results, but when the behavior described by the language is different, it should!

Remember: for _faerie fire_ to work as RSP says it does, the same language used in both it and in the description of every mundane light source must have different effects, with no indication they do other than RSP's assertion that magical light must behave differently than mundane light even if nothing says so, while the two different wordings used in _faerie fire_ and _moonbeam_ must behave the same way.

Personally, I find it more consistent to assume that the same wording operates the same way unless explicitly told otherwise. e.g. if a spell said that it caused light to be shed in a radius, and it overrides the light level within that radius even if the light level would normally be brighter, that would say there is a difference between that light source and one that used the same "shed" language, but lacked the additional rule about overriding light levels.

----------


## TaiLiu

> It wouldnt surprise me. But if there are, they are fairly niche I think.


I guess the community would've immediately jumped on any obvious ones, huh?




> I don't think that applies here because the darkness cannot "spread" if it instantaneously appears everywhere.


I think that'd be a reasonable conclusion if falling weren't also instantaneous. Instantaneity really is odd. I suppose it doesn't really matter for gameplay whether the darkness takes time to spread or not.




> This way leads to madness.🃏
> D&D is a game of the of the inter-subjective.  
> The DMs imagination is not the sole determining factor on what makes sense.
> 
>  A satisfying game, (in my opinion of course), arises from the interplay of each participants  subjective imagination.
> 
> As a game, D&D will always have game elements that do not correspond to a persons sense of reality.  Most players, understand that, in my experience.
> 
> The authors of D&D, and most players do not assume wide scale differences in baseline ontic features , (such as light, how water functions, general features of gravity and so forth).
> ...


To be honest, I'm not really sure I understand what you've written here. Do you mind clarifying?

----------


## diplomancer

> As well, if you hold the light-rock next to a wall of a building with no windows on that wall, I doubt you would argue that a person on the other side of that wall sees the light from the rock illuminating everything on his side of the wall.
> 
> In fact, one could even describe the wall as "completely covering" the light source from that angle.
> 
> The text provides a sufficient condition to block/conceal the light, which is an important detail in dungeon crawling, where controlling the light your party is emitting is important. It in no way says that it is the only possible way for the light to be blocked.
> 
> Furthermore, trying to argue that your means of reading the RAW leads to more unintuitive results from magical lighting is a poor way to persuade people that your reading is a good one.


Exactly. Or to put it in a different way: if I put the light source inside a completely closed bag, and there's a tiny creature inside the bag, does the tiny creature see the light? Answer: Yes, because the light source is not completely covered _for the creature inside the bag_

----------


## RSP

> Why is it not? The spell doesnt say the light spreads around corners, while the Darknes spell does. The text about covering it does not preclude partially covering it, and indeed would seem to support that the light is blocked by opaque objects. In fact, besides the ability to hover in a point without a specific source, Light and Daylight do not have any indications that they function differently than normal light.


Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.

This tells us whats needed to block the light. Completely covering is whats needed to block the light. Youre suggesting partially covering the object blocks the light, but thats not what the effect says. 

What blocks the light produced from a Light spell? Completely covering the object with something opaque. 

If were supposed to assume any covering of any part of the object, blocks an associated amount of light, what is the point of this sentence in the effect?

----------


## Keltest

> Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
> 
> This tells us whats needed to block the light. Completely covering is whats needed to block the light. Youre suggesting partially covering the object blocks the light, but thats not what the effect says. 
> 
> What blocks the light produced from a Light spell? Completely covering the object with something opaque. 
> 
> If were supposed to assume any covering of any part of the object, blocks an associated amount of light, what is the point of this sentence in the effect?


To clarify that you can quickly put out the light if needed without ending the spell, such as with a shuttered lantern, or just putting the rock its cast on in a bag. Its still light and it behaves like light, so it doesn't go through opaque objects.

----------


## diplomancer

> To clarify that you can quickly put out the light if needed without ending the spell, such as with a shuttered lantern, or just putting the rock its cast on in a bag. Its still light and it behaves like light, so it doesn't go through opaque objects.


Which is specially relevant in that, once fighting breaks out, you can easily uncover (or cover) the light with an object interaction, without needing to take a full action.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
> 
> This tells us whats needed to block the light. Completely covering is whats needed to block the light. Youre suggesting partially covering the object blocks the light, but thats not what the effect says. 
> 
> What blocks the light produced from a Light spell? Completely covering the object with something opaque. 
> 
> If were supposed to assume any covering of any part of the object, blocks an associated amount of light, what is the point of this sentence in the effect?


The point is that completely covering it makes it so you don't see any light, but that doesn't preclude the light acting like other light in other circumstances. The light it gives off can be blocked in one direction by partially covering it, just like a normal light, but you would still be able to see the light that shines in the other direction. There is nothing in the light spell that says the light doesn't create shadows, and that's all partially blocking it does.

----------


## RSP

> To clarify that you can quickly put out the light if needed without ending the spell, such as with a shuttered lantern, or just putting the rock its cast on in a bag. Its still light and it behaves like light, so it doesn't go through opaque objects.


Except it doesnt say that. It doesnt say blocking parts of the object with something opaque blocks a respective portion of light - that would be a) redundant if its assumed the magic works as real light, and b) different than what it says. 

Completely covering isnt the same thing as partially covering. The spells tells us whats needed to block the light of the object, and thats completely covering.




> The point is that completely covering it makes it so you don't see any light, but that doesn't preclude the light acting like other light in other circumstances. The light it gives off can be blocked in one direction by partially covering it, just like a normal light, but you would still be able to see the light that shines in the other direction. There is nothing in the light spell that says the light doesn't create shadows, and that's all partially blocking it does.


This isnt what the spell states. 

However, I find it interesting that people feel the spell needs to say this acts like normal light, yet FF doesnt state that. So if Light needs to state that it acts like normal light for it to act like normal, then FF not stating it acts like normal light would mean it doesnt act like normal light. 

But again, thats not what the spell states.

----------


## Keltest

> Except it doesnt say that. It doesnt say blocking parts of the object with something opaque blocks a respective portion of light - that would be a) redundant if its assumed the magic works as real light, and b) different than what it says. 
> 
> Completely covering isnt the same thing as partially covering. The spells tells us whats needed to block the light of the object, and thats completely covering.


Its light. It behaves like light. Being magical doesnt make it not light.

----------


## Psyren

We have rules for directional light - see the bullseye lantern for example - I think that gives us a reasonable way to adjudicate partial coverage of a Lit object.

For me, whether or not a DM adjudicates that that light spell can be partially covered or not, has no bearing on whether Faerie Fire overrides ambient lighting conditions.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Except it doesnt say that. It doesnt say blocking parts of the object with something opaque blocks a respective portion of light - that would be a) redundant if its assumed the magic works as real light, and b) different than what it says. 
> 
> Completely covering isnt the same thing as partially covering. The spells tells us whats needed to block the light of the object, and thats completely covering.


I'll bring up an example that was given earlier, by someone else.

You have a bag, a very small creature (let's say a frog) and a rock that has _Light_ cast on it.
You put the rock and the frog in the bag, and then close it up. From your perspective, the rock has been completely covered. The frog, though, is in the bag with the rock, making it uncovered relative to the frog.
Is the frog in light? Or darkness?

Moreover, RSP, I think you have far too much confidence in the abilities of Wizards of the Coast to assign extremely precise meaning to every single possible word included and not included. There are words in the PHB and the other D&D books that aren't needed, that merely clarify or are just for flavor. There are words used in imperfect ways.

----------


## RSP

> Moreover, RSP, I think you have far too much confidence in the abilities of Wizards of the Coast to assign extremely precise meaning to every single possible word included and not included. There are words in the PHB and the other D&D books that aren't needed, that merely clarify or are just for flavor. There are words used in imperfect ways.


The words are what the words are: I dont expect perfection from WotC in their words/rules. 

People will read the spells and act on what they pull from those words. I certainly had never thought about throwing the FF rock into Darkness before I thought of it around the time I started the thread. 

The fact that I never thought of it before doesnt mean those words and rules werent in the RAW prior to my realizing it. 

Dim light, were told in the rules, is synonymous with shadows. The FF spell could just have well said For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed shadows in a 10 foot radius.

Its an illumination category thats created by spell. 

If others want to ignore that, or decide the spell doesnt do that, thats fine. But its not what the rules state.

----------


## Keltest

> The words are what the words are: I dont expect perfection from WotC in their words/rules. 
> 
> People will read the spells and act on what they pull from those words. I certainly had never thought about throwing the FF rock into Darkness before I thought of it around the time I started the thread. 
> 
> The fact that I never thought of it before doesnt mean those words and rules werent in the RAW prior to my realizing it. 
> 
> Dim light, were told in the rules, is synonymous with shadows. The FF spell could just have well said For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed shadows in a 10 foot radius.
> 
> Its an illumination category thats created by spell. 
> ...


The spell doesn't say how it interacts with other illumination categories, so we default to the general rules of bright light overriding it, and darkness being overridden by it (except the Darkness spell).

----------


## Segev

If the spell said it "shed shadows," that would actually be language indicating that it dimmed bright light in its radius. It does not say that.

----------


## RSP

> If the spell said it "shed shadows," that would actually be language indicating that it dimmed bright light in its radius. It does not say that.


Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.

Dim light=shadows, and creates a lightly obscured area. 

So shed dim light equals shedding shadows, and either way, creates a lightly obscured area.

----------


## Psyren

> Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.
> 
> Dim light=shadows, and creates a lightly obscured area. 
> 
> So shed dim light equals shedding shadows, and either way, creates a lightly obscured area.


Right, but the question is whether that is capable of stopping bright light from illuminating it further. Darkness has that language, but Faerie Fire doesn't.

----------


## Myth27

Just out of curiosity, have you ever found anyone else who thinks faerie fire can lower the illumination level ?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Just out of curiosity, have you ever found anyone else who thinks faerie fire can lower the illumination level ?


As I mentioned before, I have only encountered one person that had the same ruling, and that was to explicitly allow a Dark Elf Rogue PC played by their wife to be able to get Sneak Attack when outdoors in daylight, when using Dancing Lights.
_
If all instances of magical Dim Light in fact makes shade, then this is something that should have received significantly more emphasis in the books.
_
Species based in the Underdark, simply wouldnt need to be as a Cantrip takes care of Sunlight Sensitivity.  The narrative impact is rather substantial.

----------


## RSP

> Right, but the question is whether that is capable of stopping bright light from illuminating it further. Darkness has that language, but Faerie Fire doesn't.


Its about the shadows created, and if spells do what they say they do.

----------


## Witty Username

So if a vampire is within the radius of a light spell, can sunlight illuminate the area and destroy the vampire? If spells replace all light with their light level, then the vampire can shield themselves with light spells to avoid being destroyed by sunlight.

----------


## Segev

> Its about the shadows created, and if spells do what they say they do.


The spell does do what it says it does. It also doesn't do what it doesn't say it does. Nowhere in the spell does it say, "other light cannot illuminate the area into which this spell's effect sheds dim light."

There is nothing special differentiating spells and items that makes spells do what they say they do BUT that makes items NOT do what they say they do. If you are going to claim that _faerie fire_ saying that it sheds dim light means that therefore dim light overrides other illumination in the area, then you must also claim that torches saying they shed dim light from 20 feet to 40 feet means that prevents other light sources from illuminating that annulus to being brighter than dim lighting. At least, if you're going to be consistent.

Things do what they say they do. 

Nothing in _faerie fire_ indicates its overall model for light shedding is different than that of a torch, save the light level and radius. The dim light shed by _faerie fire_ behaves the same way the dim light shed by a torch does wrt other illumination sources. "But it's magic!" doesn't matter; magic only changes things where it says it does. Nothing in the text for _faerie fire_ indicates that it behaves differently wrt the light it sheds than anything else using the light-shedding rules.

----------


## RSP

> So if a vampire is within the radius of a light spell, can sunlight illuminate the area and destroy the vampire? If spells replace all light with their light level, then the vampire can shield themselves with light spells to avoid being destroyed by sunlight.


Bright light is bright light: Sunlight doesnt change the illumination category of a light spell. There is nothing RAW that states these are incompatible 

Heres another question: is the vampire not in sunlight if theyre next to a larger creature providing shade? If a Cleric casts Sunburst, which states:

Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60 foot radius centered on a point you choose within range. Each creature in that light must make a Constitution saving throw,

Would creatures behind other creatures not be affected, not have to make a save, or does the spell affect creatures in a 60 radius?

----------


## Keltest

> Bright light is bright light: Sunlight doesnt change the illumination category of a light spell. There is nothing RAW that states these are incompatible 
> 
> Heres another question: is the vampire not in sunlight if theyre next to a larger creature providing shade? If a Cleric casts Sunburst, which states:
> 
> Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60 foot radius centered on a point you choose within range. Each creature in that light must make a Constitution saving throw,
> 
> Would creatures behind other creatures not be affected, not have to make a save, or does the spell affect creatures in a 60 radius?


DM's call. Generally people aren't enough to create total cover, but there's nothing that specifically prohibits it, and the spell doesn't go around corners like Fireball does. I wouldn't say a person is enough, but a brick wall would be if it covers the entire vampire.

----------


## RSP

> DM's call. Generally people aren't enough to create total cover, but there's nothing that specifically prohibits it, and the spell doesn't go around corners like Fireball does. I wouldn't say a person is enough, but a brick wall would be if it covers the entire vampire.


So the light isnt blocked by things covering it, unless its completely covered like the spell says? Huh.

----------


## Keltest

> So the light isnt blocked by things covering it, unless its completely covered like the spell says? Huh.


If I go out into a field and stand in your shadow do I suddenly turn pitch black?

Also, no? That'd not even what I said.

----------


## RSP

> If I go out into a field and stand in your shadow do I suddenly turn pitch black?


In magical light or normal light?

If the argument is anything blocks light, even magical light, because light works that way, then wouldnt Sunburst, also light, work that way?

Or do the spells do what they say they do?

Does Burning Hands or Cone of Cold affect those in their respective cones; or, if a target is in the first position at the tip of the cone, closest to the origin, are all others safe?

----------


## Keltest

> In magical light or normal light?
> 
> If the argument is anything blocks light, even magical light, because light works that way, then wouldnt Sunburst, also light, work that way?


It does. Total cover blocks line of effect, a person just generally isn't enough for total cover.

----------


## Mastikator

> In magical light or normal light?
> 
> If the argument is anything blocks light, even magical light, because light works that way, then wouldnt Sunburst, also light, work that way?
> 
> Or do the spells do what they say they do?
> 
> Does Burning Hands or Cone of Cold affect those in their respective cones; or, if a target is in the first position at the tip of the cone, closest to the origin, are all others safe?


Objects and creatures block light.
Light is not an object.
Burning hands and cone of cold is up to the DM. How would you rule it as a DM?

----------


## GooeyChewie

> So the light isnt blocked by things covering it, unless its completely covered like the spell says? Huh.


What? Sunburst doesn't say anything about being completely covered. It sounds like you're talking about the Light cantrip, but even then the statement "Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light" does _not_ mean that partially covering the object cannot partially block the light.




> In magical light or normal light?


The light from Faerie Fire, Sunburst and Light is magical. So what? Outside of the details of each spell, the light works like normal light. You can't just add your own details on the basis of "it's magical."




> If the argument is anything blocks light, even magical light, because light works that way, then wouldnt Sunburst, also light, work that way?


Yes, it does. You can have half cover, three-quarters cover or full cover from Sunburst. Half cover and three-quarters cover wouldn't matter in this case, because those provide a bonus to Dexterity saving throws and Sunburst requires a Constitution saving throw. Full cover would cause you not to be in the light, which would allow you to avoid having to make the save at all. Side note, Sunburst doesn't really work against vampires because the light is instantaneous and the vampire weaknesses to sunlight trigger at the start of their turn.




> Or do the spells do what they say they do?


Spell do what they say they do. Some spells create light. Some of the spells which create light specify ways in which that light works differently than regular light. You are trying to have Faerie Fire create light which works in a way not detailed in the spell and which are inconsistent with regular light. In other words, you are the one adding to the spell description.




> Does Burning Hands or Cone of Cold affect those in their respective cones; or, if a target is in the first position at the tip of the cone, closest to the origin, are all others safe?


Burning Hands requires a Dexterity saving throw, so it is possible to get a +2 or +5 bonus to that save from half cover or three-quarters cover. It is up to the DM whether standing behind another target is sufficient for providing such cover. Cone of Cold requires a Constitution save, so half cover and three-quarters cover would not provide a bonus to your save even if the DM decides the first target would provide such cover. If the DM decides the first target provides full cover (which could make sense in certain scenarios), then the others would indeed be safe from either spell.

----------


## RSP

> even then the statement "Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light" does _not_ mean that partially covering the object cannot partially block the light.


So your argument is the effect of the spell stating Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light is completely meaningless?

In your view, that line holds no value, because blocking light would do that anyway? So were we to remove that sentence, nothing in the spell changes at all?

----------


## Keltest

> So your argument is the effect of the spell stating Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light is completely meaningless?
> 
> In your view, that line holds no value, because blocking light would do that anyway? So were we to remove that sentence, nothing in the spell changes at all?


It's not meaningless, just redundancy for clarity.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It's not meaningless, just redundancy for clarity.


Yeah, like all the times that dark vision is repeated.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> So your argument is the effect of the spell stating Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light is completely meaningless?
> 
> In your view, that line holds no value, because blocking light would do that anyway? So were we to remove that sentence, nothing in the spell changes at all?


I agree with Keltest. It's redundant, not meaningless. It's a reminder that the light works the way you'd expect light to work, so that players don't miss the obvious solution when they need to block the light mid-game. But more importantly for this conversation, this statement has no bearing on any situation other than when somebody completely covers the object with something opaque. As you've pointed out, spells do what they say they do, and nothing in the spell description of Light says that the light it creates works differently from regular light (other than existing in the first place).

----------


## RSP

> I agree with Keltest. It's redundant, not meaningless. It's a reminder that the light works the way you'd expect light to work, so that players don't miss the obvious solution when they need to block the light mid-game. But more importantly for this conversation, this statement has no bearing on any situation other than when somebody completely covers the object with something opaque. As you've pointed out, spells do what they say they do, and nothing in the spell description of Light says that the light it creates works differently from regular light (other than existing in the first place).


Then, I imagine, it would say the can be blocked as normal light. 

If you take that sentence out, and the effect of the spell is completely unchanged, then the sentence has no meaning towards the effect of the spell. 

I agree that spells do what they say: and some spells, like FF, say they create dim light.

----------


## Keltest

> Then, I imagine, it would say the can be blocked as normal light. 
> 
> If you take that sentence out, and the effect of the spell is completely unchanged, then the sentence has no meaning towards the effect of the spell. 
> 
> I agree that spells do what they say: and some spells, like FF, say they create dim light.


Sure, and if you put bright light on dim light, bright light wins. Faerie Fire doesn't have any text that changes that.

----------


## Witty Username

> Except it doesnt say that. It doesnt say blocking parts of the object with something opaque blocks a respective portion of light - that would be a) redundant if its assumed the magic works as real light, and b) different than what it says.


To Paraphrase, a spell cannot effect an area that it cannot trace a line of effect between that area and the point of origin (in the case of spheres the center of the effect).

In the case of the light spell, which illuminates in a radius (is a sphere AoE), it is beholden to this rule. So it can't illuminate an area on the opposite side of a solid wall for example.

The additional sentence of being completely covered is useful for people that haven't read the spellcasting rules, to clarify a common use case. In short, yes it is redundant.

----------


## Segev

> Bright light is bright light: Sunlight doesnt change the illumination category of a light spell. There is nothing RAW that states these are incompatible 
> 
> Heres another question: is the vampire not in sunlight if theyre next to a larger creature providing shade?


The more interesting question, given your interpretation, is whether _light_ causes there to be dim lighting starting 20 feet from it and extending to a total distance of 40 feet from the target of the _light_ spell, even in bright sunlight.

----------


## Witty Username

> If the argument is anything blocks light, even magical light, because light works that way, then wouldnt Sunburst, also light, work that way?


The better question, does Faerie Fire block a Sunburst spell?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> The more interesting question, given your interpretation, is whether _light_ causes there to be dim lighting starting 20 feet from it and extending to a total distance of 40 feet from the target of the _light_ spell, even in bright sunlight.


It would, if one decides that magical dim light creates shade.
The hottest parts of the desert could be lined with Continual Light torches to cause shade.

An army of spellwrights, armed with Dancing Light can wreck the growth of light sensitive crops.

It is a fun idea, but an aberration not the norm.

----------


## RSP

> The better question, does Faerie Fire block a Sunburst spell?


How spells interact is always DM fiat (minus explicit wording like Darkness countering light-producing spells, or Dispel Magic).




> The more interesting question, given your interpretation, is whether _light_ causes there to be dim lighting starting 20 feet from it and extending to a total distance of 40 feet from the target of the _light_ spell, even in bright sunlight.


Its all part of the same question: do spells do what they say they do.

----------


## JNAProductions

> How spells interact is always DM fiat (minus explicit wording like Darkness countering light-producing spells, or Dispel Magic).


No? Not at all.

_Fire Shield_ (Chill) grants resistance to Fire damage.
_Fireball_ deals 8d6 Fire damage, half on a successful save.
If you have the Chill Shield active, and cast a 3rd-level _Fireball_ including yourself in the radius, roll 24 for damage, and fail the save, you take 12 damage. There's no fiat there.

_Enhance Ability_ (Eagle's Splendor) grants advantage on Charisma checks.
_Counterspell_, as cast by a Sorcerer, requires a Charisma check.
If you have Eagle's Splendor active when you cast a Charisma-based _Counterspell_ you roll the check with advantage, if a check is required. No fiat here either.

Edit: _Light_ casts bright light in a 20' radius and dim light for 20' beyond it.
If I'm in the midday sun and cast _Light_, is there an area where there's dim light instead of bright 20'-40' from the center of the spell?

----------


## RSP

> To Paraphrase, a spell cannot effect an area that it cannot trace a line of effect between that area and the point of origin (in the case of spheres the center of the effect).
> 
> In the case of the light spell, which illuminates in a radius (is a sphere AoE), it is beholden to this rule. So it can't illuminate an area on the opposite side of a solid wall for example.
> 
> The additional sentence of being completely covered is useful for people that haven't read the spellcasting rules, to clarify a common use case. In short, yes it is redundant.


Yes, and no. 

Yes, there is a line of effect rule. 

But no, spells can break this rule, when their effect states as much. 

The question on BH and CoC (Lightning Bolt could fall into this as well) Id be a use Ive never seen a DM actually use that in play. With LB, the first creature struck would prevent the bolt from continuing as it is, by definition, a line.

So, as you paraphrased, LB would hit the first creature, but then wouldnt be able to trace a line without going through that creature. 

I hadnt thought about LB or the other spells in regards to this, but it seems LB, at least, has to assume the line of effect rule doesnt apply to it, otherwise you could not have the spells effect.




> No? Not at all.
> 
> _Fire Shield_ (Chill) grants resistance to Fire damage.
> _Fireball_ deals 8d6 Fire damage, half on a successful save.
> If you have the Chill Shield active, and cast a 3rd-level _Fireball_ including yourself in the radius, roll 24 for damage, and fail the save, you take 12 damage. There's no fiat there.
> 
> _Enhance Ability_ (Eagle's Splendor) grants advantage on Charisma checks.
> _Counterspell_, as cast by a Sorcerer, requires a Charisma check.
> If you have Eagle's Splendor active when you cast a Charisma-based _Counterspell_ you roll the check with advantage, if a check is required. No fiat here either.


Im not sure why you disagree that its DM fiat unless stated otherwise, and then choose spells that have effects that state otherwise. 




> Edit: _Light_ casts bright light in a 20' radius and dim light for 20' beyond it.
> If I'm in the midday sun and cast _Light_, is there an area where there's dim light instead of bright 20'-40' from the center of the spell?


Again, do spells do what the effect states it does? If yes, then you have your dim light. If they dont, no dim light.

----------


## Keltest

Can you actually give any examples of two spells interacting that require DM fiat to resolve?

----------


## RSP

> Can you actually give any examples of two spells interacting that require DM fiat to resolve?


Off the top of my head, in addition to the illumination category ones already pointed out, Id imagine anything like a Cone of Cold going through a Wall of Fire. Does the fire/heat from WoF impact the cold created from CoC, or vice versa?

----------


## JNAProductions

> Off the top of my head, in addition to the illumination category ones already pointed out, Id imagine anything like a Cone of Cold going through a Wall of Fire. Does the fire/heat from WoF impact the cold created from CoC, or vice versa?


RAW? No.

A DM can rule that it has an effect, but the RAW is that there's no effect.

----------


## RSP

> RAW? No.
> 
> A DM can rule that it has an effect, but the RAW is that there's no effect.


Depends on how damage is done in your campaign/by the DM. How is the area both so cold that it causes damage, while also being so hot to cause damage?

There is no RAW on damage types interacting in this way (that Im aware of)

----------


## JNAProductions

> Depends on how damage is done in your campaign/by the DM. How is the area both so cold that it causes damage, while also being so hot to cause damage?


Where is that written in the effects of the spells?

Again, many DMs can, will, and should rule that the effect is diminished, but that's *not* the RAW. It's a good ruling-would come in handy if you're facing a frozen mage and someone in the party knows _Wall Of Fire_-but it's not what's written in the rulebooks.

----------


## RSP

> Where is that written in the effects of the spells?
> 
> Again, many DMs can, will, and should rule that the effect is diminished, but that's *not* the RAW. It's a good ruling-would come in handy if you're facing a frozen mage and someone in the party knows _Wall Of Fire_-but it's not what's written in the rulebooks.


Again, theres nothing in the rules on damage types interacting. Theres nothing in the rules on cold and heat interacting. So those effects become DM fiat on how they interact. Thats why its DM fiat. 

ATs Mage Hand Legerdemain and FF would be another interaction. MHL is invisible, but would it be revealed by FF? Is the created hand an object? DM determines.

----------


## Keltest

> Again, theres nothing in the rules on damage types interacting. Theres nothing in the rules on cold and heat interacting. So those effects become DM fiat on how they interact.
> 
> ATs Mage Hand Legerdemain and FF would be another interaction. MHL is invisible, but would it be revealed by FF? Is the created hand an object? DM determines.


No, they just don't interact in the first place.

And MHL doesn't actually matter there. Mage hand is either an object or it isn't. By default it is not, as the rules would state I'd it was.

----------


## Ehcks

If you have 10 gold pieces and you cast a spell that says "You create 5 gold pieces" do you have 5 gold or 15 gold?

A spell that creates something doesn't destroy anything else unless it says so. A spell that "creates light" does not destroy light. Same thing with "shedding light" or "giving off light." A spell must be more specific to do that, like the Twilight Cleric Twilight Sanctuary feature. It creates a sphere of twilight with only dim light inside it.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Then, I imagine, it would say the can be blocked as normal light.


I imagine if it could not be blocked like normal light, they would include _that_ fact. You seem to be approaching this topic with a presupposition that magical light can permeate through opaque objects, but nothing actually says it can. There's no more reason to think the light from Light can pass through opaque objects than there is reason to think it turns everybody in the area into pink elephants.




> If you take that sentence out, and the effect of the spell is completely unchanged, then the sentence has no meaning towards the effect of the spell.


If that's your definition of 'meaningless,' then by your definition the sentence is meaningless. But you asked if _I_ was calling the sentence meaningless, and I am not. I am calling the sentence redundant. To me, the sentence being 'meaningless' would mean that the sentence is complete nonsense. "Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!" for example. I would define 'redundant' as exactly what you describe, as information which makes sense (i.e. is not meaningless) but which you could take out without actually affecting the effect of the spell.

This spell isn't the only instance of redundant information in the D&D rules. Take Scrying for example. It specifically says that on a successful save, the target is not affected, which is exactly what would happen if the spell simply didn't list anything happening on a successful save. Taking out that portion of the sentence would not change the effect of the spell at all. Sometimes WotC includes such redundant information because having the definitive answer spelled out is _useful_ even if it isn't strictly _necessary_.




> I agree that spells do what they say: and some spells, like FF, say they create dim light.


Glad we agree. So in the case of Faerie Fire, do we now agree that because it does not impart any special properties on the dim light, the dim light acts like regular dim light and thus does not darken brightly lit areas, much in the same way a the ring of dim light given off by a torch does not darken brightly lit areas?




> Depends on how damage is done in your campaign/by the DM. How is the area both so cold that it causes damage, while also being so hot to cause damage?


We're talking about spells. The answer is literally magic.




> There is no RAW on damage types interacting in this way (that Im aware of)





> Again, theres nothing in the rules on damage types interacting. Theres nothing in the rules on cold and heat interacting. So those effects become DM fiat on how they interact. Thats why its DM fiat.


You are correct that there's nothing in the rules on cold and heat interacting. If the DM _adds_ an interaction, that's DM fiat. If the DM allows the spells to go off as written, no DM fiat is necessary in this case.




> ATs Mage Hand Legerdemain and FF would be another interaction. MHL is invisible, but would it be revealed by FF? Is the created hand an object? DM determines.


Admittedly, there are cases where the DM will need to make a ruling. That fact is not limited to spell effects (and I would argue even this example is more about the definition of 'object' than the spell effects themselves). But there's a difference between the DM making rulings in unclear situations and the DM straight up adding effects which are not listed.

----------


## Segev

> Its all part of the same question: do spells do what they say they do.


Question is broader than that: do things (items and spells included) do what they say they do?

If so, does a torch cause an annulus of dimness when lit in broad daylight?

----------


## Witty Username

> But no, spells can break this rule, when their effect states as much.


Well, then where does the light spell say that it ignores or bypasses line of effect?

----------


## Mastikator

We're all kinda dancing around the crux of the issue. Does "emit dim light" mean "create region of dim light". Because if it doesn't then emitting dim light in an otherwise bright region won't make it dim. And since @RSP refuses to substantiate any arguments for why emitting dim light creates a region of dim light this thread is going nowhere.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

I do not think there has been much dancingfrom the beginning , the general response has been: Light does not work that way.

At the very least, conversations like this, demonstrate how threadbare statements such as _spells do what they say they do_ truly are.

Sometimes, slogans need to be retired

----------


## Keltest

> I do not think there has been much dancingfrom the beginning , the general response has been: Light does not work that way.
> 
> At the very least, conversations like this, demonstrate how threadbare statements such as _spells do what they say they do_ truly are.
> 
> Sometimes, slogans need to be retired


Whats threadbare about that? Spells DO only do what they say they do. Except for the one person, nobody is really disputing what the text of the spell actually says.

----------


## Segev

> I do not think there has been much dancingfrom the beginning , the general response has been: Light does not work that way.
> 
> At the very least, conversations like this, demonstrate how threadbare statements such as _spells do what they say they do_ truly are.
> 
> Sometimes, slogans need to be retired





> Whats threadbare about that? Spells DO only do what they say they do. Except for the one person, nobody is really disputing what the text of the spell actually says.


Yeah, as Keltest says, the only reason there's dispute over whether _faerie fire_ dims already-bright light around the targets is because of what I consider an inconsistent reading on the "it dims light" side of the argument. Nobody has been willing to come out and say that, by the RAW, torches lit up in broad daylight create an annulus of dim light from 20 to 40 feet distant from them, despite the fact that the exact same wording about how dim light is shed there is used in the description of _light_ and in _faerie fire_. 

The broader "rule of thumb" is that "things do what their rules say they do." If torches do not dim already-brighter light in an annulus around themselves, then the rules about how their light is shed obviously do not say that the shedding of dim light reduces already-brighter lighting. 

Since most of us read the torch rules and do not see "oh, it obviously turns bright light dimmer in its 20-40 foot annulus," it's clear that one CAN read the RAW to say otherwise with a perfectly straight face. And since torches reducing lighting levels by being lit up is a ridiculous result, it is reasonable to say that that is not the intended reading, and to go with the reading of the RAW that has torches behave more "naturally" by our expectations.

If we do this, the fact that the same wording for shedding dim light is used in various spells - most notably, for this thread, _faerie fire_ - it would indicate that the reading of the RAW that says torches do not dim lighting by being lit is the same reading of the RAW we should apply to _faerie fire_, because it's the same wording. Thus, _faerie fire_ does do what it says it does, and that does NOT include *reducing* light levels to dim if they were already brighter. No more than the exact same wording does for _light_ or a torch.

----------


## Mastikator

No that's not specific enough, the spell does exactly what it says. A targeted creature that fails its save shed dim light in a 10 ft radius.

Does shedding dim light in a bright area override, obscure bright light or does dim light being shedding create a region of dim light in a bright region? The only way @RSP is right is if the answer to at least one of those is *yes*. No other spell matters before we can have a yes or no. Talk about fireball and burning hands and cone of cold only gives him an excuse to talk about that instead, instead of just answering that very question. How would he rule on it if he was the DM?

----------


## Segev

> No that's not specific enough, the spell does exactly what it says. A targeted creature that fails its save shed dim light in a 10 ft radius.
> 
> Does shedding dim light in a bright area override, obscure bright light or does dim light being shedding create a region of dim light in a bright region? The only way @RSP is right is if the answer to at least one of those is *yes*. No other spell matters before we can have a yes or no. Talk about fireball and burning hands and cone of cold only gives him an excuse to talk about that instead, instead of just answering that very question. How would he rule on it if he was the DM?


I think the ruling on torches matters for consistency's sake.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think the ruling on torches matters for consistency's sake.


I'll note that RSP never really answered my direct question about the light level of the wall. That's the core of the issue. You can't hold the opinion that light levels override each other willy-nilly without making that example both nonsensical from any fictional standpoint and a stone cold mess to adjudicate in game. You _can_ hold the opinion that it's a one-way ratchet subject to explicit override (bright overrides dim overrides dark except as specifically and explicitly stated) without making any of a mess. You need a statement to the effect that the dim light/darkness _replaces_ the current light level.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Whats threadbare about that? Spells DO only do what they say they do. Except for the one person, nobody is really disputing what the text of the spell actually says.


Threadbare, in the sense that a spell description only states what the spell does, and  does not give any examples of how the spell interacts with the other rules, and assumed physical laws.

The dispute here is less about the Faerie Fire spell, and more about how the general properties of Light play out in D&D.

The adage of Spells do what they say they do winds up being tossed out by proponents of different positions, and the adage is seemingly used like an insult, because it sure as hell doesnt ever seem to clarify anything.

----------


## Keltest

> Threadbare, in the sense that a spell description only states what the spell does, and  does not give any examples of how the spell interacts with the other rules, and assumed physical laws.
> 
> The dispute here is less about the Faerie Fire spell, and more about how the general properties of Light play out in D&D.
> 
> The adage of Spells do what they say they do winds up being tossed out by proponents of different positions, and the adage is seemingly used like an insult, because it sure as hell doesnt ever seem to clarify anything.


If it doesnt say how they interact, then they dont. Fire damage doesnt set things on fire unless the source says it does, like Fireball. Thats why Cone of Cold and Wall of Fire dont do anything to each other.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Keltest, you seem to be  ignoring inferenceand inference is part of the reason why RPGs require Humans to adjudicate.

Cone of Cold freezes the corpses of creatures killed by the spell.
Does that mean Objects are unaffected?

If one looks at the object rules in the DMG, the DM has Carte Blanche on determining how and when effects impact objects.

It would be a fairly sound inference that a chill wind that freezes creatures solid, might also cause ice to form on a wall or furniture in the impacted area.

Objects do not typically have Saving Throws, so often times spell descriptions do not mention interactions with Objects, due to effects and objects being under the narrative control of the DM.

A Lightning Bolt spell that strikes a wall, should tunnel through the wall based off Object Hit point rules, but many games do not go into such granular details.

Spells do more than what they say they do, because of other rules and inferences from those rules.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> Keltest, you seem to be  ignoring inferenceand inference is part of the reason why RPGs require Humans to adjudicate.
> 
> Cone of Cold freezes the corpses of creatures killed by the spell.
> Does that mean Objects are unaffected?
> 
> If one looks at the object rules in the DMG, the DM has Carte Blanche on determining how and when effects impact objects.
> 
> It would be a fairly sound inference that a chill wind that freezes creatures solid, might also cause ice to form on a wall or furniture in the impacted area.
> 
> ...


Except spells explicitly say when they work against objects. If the effect of spells on object was supposed to be purely under the DM's control, there would be no need to specify _Fireball_ or _Lightning Bolt_ set flammable stuff on fire, that _Shatter_ or _Meteor Swarm_ damage objects, or that _Fire Bolt_ can target object while another attack roll cantrip, _Ray of Frost_, doesn't. The DM would be supposed to "infer" all of that on their own.

----------


## Keltest

> Keltest, you seem to be  ignoring inferenceand inference is part of the reason why RPGs require Humans to adjudicate.
> 
> Cone of Cold freezes the corpses of creatures killed by the spell.
> Does that mean Objects are unaffected?
> 
> If one looks at the object rules in the DMG, the DM has Carte Blanche on determining how and when effects impact objects.
> 
> It would be a fairly sound inference that a chill wind that freezes creatures solid, might also cause ice to form on a wall or furniture in the impacted area.
> 
> ...


Indeed, I am ignoring inference, because if you have to infer a spell's effect, then the spell doesn't actually do that thing. That is in fact the entire point of the saying.

----------


## Segev

Regardless, while a DM is free to adjudicate side effects as they make sense in his world - a _cone of cold_ freezing a glass of water in its path, for example - the only possible place such "common sense inferences" comes in is in assuming that nonmagical, mundane torches do not cause a bright sunny day to suddenly have an annulus of dim light appear around them when they light up. That inference is what leads to the assumption that brighter light sources by default dominate dimmer light sources, raising light levels to the highest of any light source illuminating a particular spot. From this, we get that shedding dim light does not mean "dimming bright  light to dim light in this region," and thus _faerie fire_ does not cause light around the subjects to be dimmer than it otherwise would be. It can only elevate the illumination level to "dim lighting," not reduce it to that.

If one chooses to interpret the rules as not allowing this "common sense inference" in order to argue that dim light being shed by _faerie fire_ reduces the overall light level in the specified radius, should the light level otherwise be brighter, we run into several problems: First, torches now must do the same thing, making them behave entirely counterintuitively and not at all like real-world light sources do, despite not being magical; second, we now have no way of knowing which light source dominates when two light sources overlap, except for _darkness_ and a few spells and effects which actually specify they dispel magical darkness. Note that _faerie fire_ is neither magical darkness (it sheds dim light, not darkness) nor has any text specifying whether it overrides the bright light from a torch or _light_ spell, or the other effect overrides it. I know this interpretation of the RAW is being made specifically to justify _faerie fire_ dimming any bright light to the level of dim light, but even with this interpretation, we don't have evidence that it should; why would it take precedence over the text that says bright light is shed in the same region, from another spell or even a nonmagical light source? Nothing in it references overcoming lower-level spells or non-magical light, so it doesn't do so by default. This would be a ruling the DM would have to invent to cover the hole the interpretation in question has created in the rules. A hole that doesn't exist with the alternate interpretation that also happens to leave torches functioning as one might expect, rather than as strange light-dimming devices.

----------


## thompur

> I imagine if it could not be blocked like normal light, they would include _that_ fact. You seem to be approaching this topic with a presupposition that magical light can permeate through opaque objects, but nothing actually says it can. There's no more reason to think the light from Light can pass through opaque objects than there is reason to think it turns everybody in the area into pink elephants.
> 
> 
> If that's your definition of 'meaningless,' then by your definition the sentence is meaningless. But you asked if _I_ was calling the sentence meaningless, and I am not. I am calling the sentence redundant. To me, the sentence being 'meaningless' would mean that the sentence is complete nonsense. *"Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!"* for example. I would define 'redundant' as exactly what you describe, as information which makes sense (i.e. is not meaningless) but which you could take out without actually affecting the effect of the spell.
> 
> This spell isn't the only instance of redundant information in the D&D rules. Take Scrying for example. It specifically says that on a successful save, the target is not affected, which is exactly what would happen if the spell simply didn't list anything happening on a successful save. Taking out that portion of the sentence would not change the effect of the spell at all. Sometimes WotC includes such redundant information because having the definitive answer spelled out is _useful_ even if it isn't strictly _necessary_.
> 
> 
> Glad we agree. So in the case of Faerie Fire, do we now agree that because it does not impart any special properties on the dim light, the dim light acts like regular dim light and thus does not darken brightly lit areas, much in the same way a the ring of dim light given off by a torch does not darken brightly lit areas?
> ...


You're calling my philosophy of life nonsense?! I challenge your Geminis to Raspberry hats at 40 quatloos! The nerve!

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The saying, _Spells do what they say they do_, in actual practice means: 
> _Spells do what I want them to do_.


 *sort* I'll get to my example at the end of this post. 




> D&D is a game of the of the inter-subjective.   The DMs imagination is not the sole determining factor on what makes sense.   A satisfying game, (in my opinion of course), arises from the interplay of each participants  subjective imagination.


Yes, that social interaction between people is integral to the game.  :Small Big Grin: 



> {snip interesting exposition} From my perspective, as a practically minded DM, (self proclaimed, of course🃏), this is an unsound result.


 Likewise. 



> For me, whether or not a DM adjudicates that that light spell can be partially covered or not, has no bearing on whether Faerie Fire overrides ambient lighting conditions.


 But how does it interact with non spell effects, like that of a Juevnile Kraken? (A practical problem I had last night). (Salt Marsh adventures)  



> Sometimes, slogans need to be retired


 Next slogan to be under siege is "words have meanings"  :Small Big Grin: 



> Threadbare, in the sense that a spell description only states what the spell does, and  does not give any examples of how the spell interacts with the other rules, and assumed physical laws.


 The Juevnile Kraken has the ability to spurt out a 40' radius ink cloud of stuff that offers obscurement. The druid in the party (Me DM) threw a faerie fire spell into the area, hoping to illuminate the creature inside of it. (They had detected it as it approached, but then it did that thing and the big obscuring cloud erupted). I had the juvenile kraken make a saving throw because I didn't feel like slowing the game down to look up the exact words of faerie fire ... and it missed. So here I had a glowing juvenile kraken (huge, takes up 15' square, roughly) shedding dim light, inside a 40' radius that acted as obscurement.  It wasn't the darkness spell.  It would have been easier on me to just say "you see nothing" *Spoiler: roll 20 mucking about ensued for a few moments, and then it was abandoned*
Show


I had tried to get the dynamic lighting to do a particular thing and then stopped trying. 
 But because the FF sheds dim light it was a light source ... so I required a perception check (DC 20) to see the glowing area and be able to move to engage with the monster. 



> *Spoiler: ff spell*
> Show
> 
> Faerie Fire 
> 1st-*‐‑level evocation
> Casting Time: 1 action Range: 60 feet Components: V
> Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
> Each object in a 20-*‐‑foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-*‐‑foot radius. Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it,  and the affected creature or object cant benefit from being invisible.


 Note that there is no 'that you can see' in this spell for where to cast it, and that being obscured is not the same thing as being invisible. 

Was it a perfect ruling? No, but it kept the game moving. Maybe I should have told the druid that despite the faerie fire, the obscurement was too dark/deep for the dim light to help.  (the monster had moved from the center of the cloud to about 10 feet from the edge of it, the cloud did not move with the monster) I chose rule of cool and we played on.

----------


## Psyren

> But how does it interact with non spell effects, like that of a Juevnile Kraken? (A practical problem I had last night). (Salt Marsh adventures)
> 
>  The Juevnile Kraken has the ability to spurt out a 40' radius ink cloud of stuff that offers obscurement. The druid in the party (Me DM) threw a faerie fire spell into the area, hoping to illuminate the creature inside of it. (They had detected it as it approached, but then it did that thing and the big obscuring cloud erupted). I had the juvenile kraken make a saving throw because I didn't feel like slowing the game down to look up the exact words of faerie fire ... and it missed. So here I had a glowing juvenile kraken (huge, takes up 15' square, roughly) shedding dim light, inside a 40' radius that acted as obscurement.  It wasn't the darkness spell.  It would have been easier on me to just say "you see nothing" *Spoiler: roll 20 mucking about ensued for a few moments, and then it was abandoned*
> Show
> 
> 
> I had tried to get the dynamic lighting to do a particular thing and then stopped trying. 
>  But because the FF sheds dim light it was a light source ... so I required a perception check (DC 20) to see the glowing area and be able to move to engage with the monster. 
>  Note that there is no 'that you can see' in this spell for where to cast it, and that being obscured is not the same thing as being invisible.


Given that "clouds of stuff" beat Truesight, I'd say they beat light too (both kinds). Illuminating the Kraken would confer no mechanical benefit while it's inside, no more than light would help you spot it if it was buried underground or at the bottom of a tar pit.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Given that "clouds of stuff" beat Truesight, I'd say they beat light too (both kinds). Illuminating the Kraken would confer no mechanical benefit while it's inside, no more than light would help you spot it if it was buried underground or at the bottom of a tar pit.


That being said, making a quick ruling to keep the game running is what a DM should do.

I agree with you, Psyren, but Korvin ruling otherwise isnt a big deal. Sounds like Korvin did a fine job.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That being said, making a quick ruling to keep the game running is what a DM should do.
> 
> I agree with you, Psyren, but Korvin ruling otherwise isnt a big deal. Sounds like Korvin did a fine job.


The folks I play with are pretty rule savvy, and if I'd have stopped and asked "wait, does this work" a couple of them might have helped me make the other choice. But I wanted to not stop play, and off we went.  
When I got up this morning, I began second guessing myself.  
I'll talk with the players via discord about that ruling, since in the cold light of day (pun intended) I also think that Psyren is correct.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Except spells explicitly say when they work against objects. If the effect of spells on object was supposed to be purely under the DM's control, there would be no need to specify _Fireball_ or _Lightning Bolt_ set flammable stuff on fire, that _Shatter_ or _Meteor Swarm_ damage objects, or that _Fire Bolt_ can target object while another attack roll cantrip, _Ray of Frost_, doesn't. The DM would be supposed to "infer" all of that on their own.


Many spell descriptions handle  targeting objects _poorly_.
Tashas Caustic Brew is a spell that is illustrative of how neglectful spell descriptions are in describing interactions with objects.  This fact requires inferences from the players have in order to have _logically_, consistent results.

Tashas Caustic Brew creates a stream of active and persistent acid, that is 5 wide and 30 long.  The spell makes no mention, if the spell affects objects.

Since the spell is a Dexterity save, Cover bonuses could apply.
Theoretically a DM, could chose to interpret this as meaning that the spell does not affect objects.

Such a ruling would mean a Paper and Bamboo dressing screen would act as Full Cover, despite the fact that Caustic Brew does 2d4 acid damage a round, and a Fragile Medium Object, per the DMG, has 4 Hit Points.

Conceptually, a stream of acid, _should_ melt objects, as that is how our real world works.  Same for a spell like Dragons Breatha creature  could exhale a 15 come of fire in a dry wooded area, and supposedly not start a forrest fire.

Is that very much different then from RSPs statement that magical Dim Light creates shade?  Neither example, is conforming to our real world understanding of natural laws, and justify the result with stating, _this is how Magic works._




> Indeed, I am ignoring inference, because if you have to infer a spell's effect, then the spell doesn't actually do that thing. That is in fact the entire point of the saying.


Axiomatically, this is problematic, because not every possible interaction is detailed in the short spell descriptions. The Object rules in the DMG leave open many possible resolution methods for interactions.

Also, how far do you want to take this axiom? 
Does _a Dragons Breath weapon  just do what is says it does_?
None of the  Dragon entries specify their breath weapons affect objects.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> You're calling my philosophy of life nonsense?! I challenge your Geminis to Raspberry hats at 40 quatloos! The nerve!


Challenge accepted! My Geminis are prepared to Quartermaine your snickerdoodle!




> Theoretically a DM, could chose to interpret this as meaning that the spell does not affect objects.


The fact that the spell does not state that it affects objects does mean that, by RAW, it does not affect objects. It's certainly reasonable for a DM to rule that Tasha's Caustic Brew affects objects. But if you propose a character concept that somehow revolves around destroying objects with Tasha's Caustic Brew, be prepared for people to correctly respond that the concept does not work _by RAW_ and that you'll need to check with your DM to see if it will be allowed.




> Is that very much different then from RSPs statement that magical Dim Light creates shade?  Neither example, is conforming to our real world understanding of natural laws, and justify the result with stating, _this is how Magic works._


If a spell creates an area of Dim Light, then it would indeed create shade in that area. Earlier in this thread, Moonbeam was held up as an example of a spell doing exactly that. The key difference is that Faerie Fire _does not say it creates an area of Dim Light_. Faerie Fire causes creatures and objects to shed dim light, just like how the flame from Produce Flame sheds dim light for an additional 10 feet beyond the bright light it sheds. It's totally possible for spells to not conform to our real world understanding of natural laws, but there is a difference between a spell not having all the natural consequences one might expect versus adding unnatural consequences which are not listed in the spell.





> Axiomatically, this is problematic, because not every possible interaction is detailed in the short spell descriptions. The Object rules in the DMG leave open many possible resolution methods for interactions.
> 
> Also, how far do you want to take this axiom? 
> Does _a Dragons Breath weapon  just do what is says it does_?
> None of the  Dragon entries specify their breath weapons affect objects.


Axiomatically, adding in inference is problematic, because there's no way to ensure everybody will make the same inferences. For actual play, it's fine for different tables to use different inferences and have things work slightly differently. At your table, perhaps the DM does infer the Dragon's breath affects objects, despite the fact that they don't specifically do so. At RSP's table, the DM might infer that Faerie Fire creates a zone of dim light, despite the fact that Faerie Fire does not say it does so. The problem arises when we confuse "this is a reasonable inference that works at our table" with "this is what the rules actually say," because any given table's inferences do not inherently apply to everybody else.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> But if you propose a character concept that somehow revolves around destroying objects with Tasha's Caustic Brew, be prepared for people to correctly respond that the concept does not work _by RAW_ and that you'll need to check with your DM to see if it will be allowed.


I reject this formulation.  
D&D is too complex a system for there to be a singular _correct_ answer, for many questions.

A spell, such as Dust Devil is oddly worded, and often works by RAW, in a manner that is not how people expected the spell to function.
If we stick to your correct RAW answer, the result is a disappointed player, and a spell that will never be used again.

I would argue, a better method of resolution would be fixing the spell with input from the player.  Good Governance has always depended upon using interpretations to garner effective outcomes, instead of slavishly sticking to text that ultimately leads to a train wreck.




> Axiomatically, adding in inference is problematic, because there's no way to ensure everybody will make the same inferences.


Well to quote Balmer, That is a feature not a bug.  This is not a D&D issue, it is an issue inherent to communication.  As this thread, and many other conversations have shown, different people read the same sentence and come away with different interpretations.

There is not a One size fits all solution.  The fact that many different tables run things differently and then talk with each other on _how they run things differently, leads to innovation._

(The Laboratory of the States as it were).

----------


## GooeyChewie

> I reject this formulation.  
> D&D is too complex a system for there to be a singular _correct_ answer, for many questions.
> 
> A spell, such as Dust Devil is oddly worded, and often works by RAW, in a manner that is not how people expected the spell to function.
> If we stick to your correct RAW answer, the result is a disappointed player, and a spell that will never be used again.
> 
> I would argue, a better method of resolution would be fixing the spell with input from the player.  Good Governance has always depended upon using interpretations to garner effective outcomes, instead of slavishly sticking to text that ultimately leads to a train wreck.


You say you reject my formulation, but your 'better method' is the exact same formulation. Dust Devil works a certain way based on RAW. The RAW way Dust Devil works is disappointing for many tables. Thus, players at those tables should work with their DM to see if something other than RAW is allowed. I am in no way advocating that tables should "slavishly stick to text." What I am saying is that you shouldn't expect your own personal inferences to be automatically accepted at all tables.

RAW is the baseline standard; any given table can and should deviate from RAW however works best for that table. The deviations from RAW at any given table don't change the baseline RAW at another table.




> Well to quote Balmer, That is a feature not a bug.  This is not a D&D issue, it is an issue inherent to communication.  As this thread, and many other conversations have shown, different people read the same sentence and come away with different interpretations.
> 
> There is not a One size fits all solution.  The fact that many different tables run things differently and then talk with each other on _how they run things differently, leads to innovation._
> 
> (The Laboratory of the States as it were).


To quote myself in the very next sentence after the one you quoted, "For actual play, it's fine for different tables to use different inferences and have things work slightly differently." What I'm warning against is insisting to other tables that _they_ have to abide by _your_ inferences.

----------


## Keltest

You know, I'm pretty sure that "words have meanings" comment from earlier was meant to be sarcastic, yet here we are.

Yes, you can absolutely derive a correct outcone from the rules. That is in fact the point of the rules: to lead you to an outcome. You're free to change the rules if you find the outcome undesirable, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> You know, I'm pretty sure that "words have meanings" comment from earlier was meant to be sarcastic, yet here we are.


The intent was humorous, yes.  There is a highway that AC-DC sang about whose paving stones were often crafted from the best of intentions... :Small Eek:

----------


## RSP

> I'll note that RSP never really answered my direct question about the light level of the wall. That's the core of the issue. You can't hold the opinion that light levels override each other willy-nilly without making that example both nonsensical from any fictional standpoint and a stone cold mess to adjudicate in game.


What was the question I didnt answer? Trying to keep up with threads over the holidays is tough

----------


## Segev

> What was the question I didnt answer? Trying to keep up with threads over the holidays is tough


This isn't the one to which he was referring, but I am curious if you have torches lit in broad daylight create annuluses of dim lighting in the otherwise brightly-lit fields under open skies.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> What was the question I didnt answer? Trying to keep up with threads over the holidays is tough


In short:

Consider you have two casters of equal power (Alice and Bob), each of whom has cast the _light_ cantrip on a small object they are holding (to produce magical light). They stand 10' on either side of a colored mark on a wall in an otherwise dark room (no other sources of light). At T=0, the mark is obviously in bright light (inside the bright-light range of both sources).

At T = 1, Bob moves such that he is now 30' directly in front of the marked spot on the wall so that Bob's _light_ spell (considered alone) would put the mark in dim light.

*Q1*: What is the light level at the mark at T = 1?
*Q2*: Would it matter if at 0 < T < 1 Alice had extinguished their light, _then_ recast the spell after Bob was in place (ie 1 < T < 2)?

At T = 2, Bob moves back to his original position.

At T = 3, Charlie comes into the room with a lit torch and moves until he is 30' from the marked spot.

*Q3*: What is the light level at the mark at T =3?

*Q4*: If at some time 3 < t < 4, both Alice and Bob had extinguished their cantrips and then one of them had re-cast it at T = 4, what would be the light level at T = 4?

----------


## RSP

> This isn't the one to which he was referring, but I am curious if you have torches lit in broad daylight create annuluses of dim lighting in the otherwise brightly-lit fields under open skies.


As I previously answered, I expect non-magical light in the game world, to work similarly to how we expect light to work in the real world. 

However, spells do what they say. And if we accept words like eminates and spreads mean whats emanating or spreading replaces what was previously there, theres no reason not to assume sheds replaces in the same way. 

If a dog sheds hair, there is dog hair there. If a tree sheds leaves, there are leaves there.

Again, if Faerie Fire doesnt shed dim light, or shadows, then its not doing what it specifically states it does in the spell. 

Lets look at it this way:

What happens when the bright light area of a Light spell interacts with the dim light area of another Light spell? We have this rule:

Combining Magical Effects
The effects of the same spell cast multiple times dont combine, however. Instead, the most potent effectsuch as the highest bonusfrom those castings applies while their durations overlap. Or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.

So, per this rule, you cant have two Light spells overlap in the same area. You cant have the second Light spell turn the dim light area of the first into bright light: that would be combining their effects. Per this rule, the dim light area from the more recent casting would override the bright light area from the older casting.




> In short:


Does the above answer your question? RAW, its the most recent casting, assuming its determined the Light cantrips are of equal power.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Does the above answer your question? RAW, its the most recent casting, assuming its determined the Light cantrips are of equal power.


So to be absolutely explicit here, you're saying that the answers to the 4 questions are:

Q1: Impossible to determine without knowing who cast first. Oops, this should be bright light
Q2: Bright light because Alice cast most recently. But Dim light if Alice was the one that had moved.
Q3: Impossible to determine, because the interaction of regular and magical light is indeterminate. But probably Bright assuming magic wins.
Q4: Same as Q3. But if instead of a regular torch, Charlie had a torch with _continual flame_ on it, it would be dim light.

Assuming those are correct...well...that's an interpretation. I think it's an utterly unworkable, impractical, anti-intuitive set of answers that no one in their right mind would come up with at the table. But it's an interpretation all right.

If I have to
a) keep track of which lights are magical and which aren't. This isn't trivial--the spells don't say they produce magical light. They are _magical sources of light_, which does not change the light itself by default. Just like there is no magical slashing damage--there is only slashing damage from a magical source.
b) know which of all the sources counts as the most powerful
c) keep track of the order of operations _since the beginning of time_
...
yeah. No, that's not an interpretation that is usable at any table.

Edit: And no, "emanates" and "spreads" does _not_, in any form of english I'm aware of, mean "replaces". You can emanate hostility...and have the overall attitude of the group be friendly. You can spread flour over something without replacing what was already there. Both of those are _additive_ words. And without that, your interpretation falls apart.

----------


## RSP

> yeah. No, that's not an interpretation that is usable at any table.


Question for you: do you disagree that the Combining Magical Effects rule would not tell us those are the answers?

I understand you not wanting to track who cast Light first, but isnt that what the rule states?




> Edit: And no, "emanates" and "spreads" does _not_, in any form of english I'm aware of, mean "replaces". You can emanate hostility...and have the overall attitude of the group be friendly. You can spread flour over something without replacing what was already there. Both of those are _additive_ words. And without that, your interpretation falls apart.


Again, those were used in relation to the Darkness spell, where posters have said those words mean the Darkness replaces the current illumination conditions, but sheds does not. 

To me, if you accept that emanates means it replaces in Darkness, theres no reason why sheds wouldnt as well in FF.

Also note: Magic tends to win out over non-magic (otherwise the spell isnt doing what it says it does, I imagine) for your Q3.

For Q4, up to the DM as you now have two different spells interacting.

----------


## JNAProductions

_Darkness_ says a lot more than just emanates.

That word alone isnt enough.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> _Darkness_ says a lot more than just emanates.
> 
> That word alone isnt enough.


Right. You need _explicit_ wording to say "replaces". Not just "emanates".

@RSP what you're doing is called "proof texting". You're pulling words and phrases out of context in specific examples and then claiming that they represent general rules.

Nothing about the Darkness spell tells you anything about how other sources of light behave. You can't reason from Darkness to any other spell or any other piece of wording _anywhere_. Darkness only tells you about darkness.

And as for combining magical effects...I don't believe that light is a magical effect for the purposes of that rule unless the ability specifically calls it out as such. Period. Because doing that produces all sorts of absurdity and there are other readings that do not do so.

Beyond that...you're talking to someone who wholesale rejects the value of RAW as that acronym is commonly used. Those cramped, context-ignoring interpretations commonly called RAW _mean absolutely nothing_ except as ways to engage in internet debates. I care about value at the table. And your interpretation (which is anything but required) produces horrific, unworkable effects at the table.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> As I previously answered, I expect non-magical light in the game world, to work similarly to how we expect light to work in the real world.


Objects, including torches, do what they say. The fact that the rules do what they say is not unique to spells.




> However, spells do what they say. And if we accept words like eminates and spreads mean whats emanating or spreading replaces what was previously there, theres no reason not to assume sheds replaces in the same way.


I don't accept words like "emanates" and "spreads" mean what's emanating or spreading replaces what was previously there. Darkness and Moonbeam say that the specified light level "fills" an area. If Faerie Fire said that the dim light shed by the objects and creates "filled" a 10-foot radius sphere, then I'd agree that it replaces the existing light level even if it was bright. Instead it uses "sheds," like Light, Produce Flame and Daylight do for their dim light areas beyond their initial bright light areas - and I wouldn't argue that any them "lower" existing bright light to dim.




> Again, if Faerie Fire doesnt shed dim light, or shadows, then its not doing what it specifically states it does in the spell.


Faerie Fire does cause the objects and creatures affect to shed dim light. It's just that shedding dim light in an area which is already brightly lit has no mechanical effect. It's like pointing a flashlight at the sun. The flashlight still shines, but its light gets drown out.

----------


## Segev

> As I previously answered, I expect non-magical light in the game world, to work similarly to how we expect light to work in the real world. 
> 
> However, spells do what they say. And if we accept words like eminates and spreads mean whats emanating or spreading replaces what was previously there, theres no reason not to assume sheds replaces in the same way.


Except that items, too, do what they say they do. Why would the torch NOT do what it says it does, but a _light_ spell does? Where is the rule text that specifies that these behave differently even though they use the same wording?




> If a dog sheds hair, there is dog hair there. If a tree sheds leaves, there are leaves there.


If a dog sheds water, there is water there. Does a dog shaking to shed water that causes a 10 foot radius of dampness around him cause a soaked set of towels to dry up to merely damp because he sheds it?

Shedding a lesser amount of light does not subtract from already-present light. It adds to it. Now, the rules don't provide anything to tell us how much you have to add to move from dim to bright; they just assume sources shed dim or bright light, and the brightest prevails. (If they do NOT assume that, there would be no need for _darkness_ to specify that nonmagical light cannot illuminate the spell's area; it would, in fact, be worded as "shedding" darkness, and it would override other light sources...except there's no precedent established for what light source levels apply.)




> Again, if Faerie Fire doesnt shed dim light, or shadows, then its not doing what it specifically states it does in the spell.


"Dim light" is "dim light" or "light shadows;" it is not always both. It is a description of a lighting level, as well as an amount of lighting. _Faerie fire_ is doing exactly what it says it does if it leaves a brightly lit area brightly lit. You need to show that shedding dim light default overrides bright light for your assertion to be accurate.

And the trouble, again, arises if we take two _light_ spells and place them 40 feet apart. Each one's brightly lit zone falls into the dimly lit zone of the other. How bright is it in that 40 foot space between them?

By your interpretation, there is no way to say. The DM has to make something up, and it will inevitably contradict the text of _light_, because either he rules that the bright light overwhelms the dim light (which would require us to go back to _faerie fire_ having its dim light overwhelmed by bright light and never dimming the bright light), or he rules that the dim light overrides the bright light, in which case the _light_ spells are no longer doing what they say they do because they aren't making bright light in the radius 20 feet around them.




> Lets look at it this way:
> 
> What happens when the bright light area of a Light spell interacts with the dim light area of another Light spell? We have this rule:
> 
> Combining Magical Effects
> The effects of the same spell cast multiple times dont combine, however. Instead, the most potent effectsuch as the highest bonusfrom those castings applies while their durations overlap. Or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
> 
> So, per this rule, you cant have two Light spells overlap in the same area. You cant have the second Light spell turn the dim light area of the first into bright light: that would be combining their effects. Per this rule, the dim light area from the more recent casting would override the bright light area from the older casting.


Except you're having to determine one overrides the other, still. Your logic doesn't work. Are you saying the two cancel out completely because one cannot overlap the other? 




> Does the above answer your question? RAW, its the most recent casting, assuming its determined the Light cantrips are of equal power.


...wait, you're asserting that the more recently-cast _light_ spell will dim the bright light of the older _light_ spell? REally?

Funny how nothing in any of the descriptions of anything in any of D&D uses this! It's an amazing power! Nobody ever mentions the difficulties of lighting a whole room with magical lighting. Nobody ever mentions dimming light in an annulus with a _light_ spell. Vampires should make _faerie fire_ and _dancing lights_ regular things that accompany them everywhere in daytime! Why is no D&D module ever using this amazing aspect of the RAW!?

The answer is simple: This isn't what the RAW say. And to avoid having torches behave the same way, you're having to invent out of whole cloth a rule that doesn't exist that says magic light behaves differently than nonmagical light even if nothing says anything about it. 

A more consistent reading is to simply accept that light behaves as we expect it to, whether it comes from a magical source or not, and if it behaves differently than normal, _the spell or other effect will say so_. Usually by using wording different than that used by mundane light sources, such as torches and lanterns and candles. _Moonlight_ and the Twilight Sanctuary feature of the Twilight Domain Cleric both speak of filling the space with dim light. This is actually different wording and implies an overriding condition, whereas things shedding it use the same language as torches.

Since you need to invent rules that you cannot cite in order for items to NOT do what they say they do, but spells TO do what they say they do, simply because one is magical, in order to justify your reading of "what the spells say they do" as being accurate while the items don't do that, and your reading, if taken consistently, creates dysfunctions and bugs that make lighting work weirdly compared to normal expectations, while my reading is entirely consistent and within the RAW without needing to invent anything but "assume that, if it doesn't say otherwise, things will work as you'd expect them to in the real world or in a standard work of fiction," and my reading leads to no dysfunctions, bugs, or oddities, I find my reading to be the more accurate one.

Yours requires inconsistency to avoid blatant bugs, and GENERATES odd behavior that nothing in the way D&D is written seems to expect to be there. Therefore, I find your reading inconsistent and unlikely to be an accurate way to interpret the RAW.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Faerie Fire does cause the objects and creatures affect to shed dim light. It's just that shedding dim light in an area which is already brightly lit has no mechanical effect. It's like pointing a flashlight at the sun. The flashlight still shines, but its light gets drown out.


Actually beyond that, it means that if you look at someone under the effects of _faerie fire_, they have little glowing lights on them. So yes, it does exactly what it says. It's just that that effect is made redundant by existing conditions.

Just like if you cast _fear_ at a high-level paladin and they fail the save, the fear spell does exactly what it says. Produces fear. But the paladin's immunity overrides that and produces no observable effect.

No observable mechanical effect (as you say) =/= "doesn't do what it says".

----------


## Mellack

> As I previously answered, I expect non-magical light in the game world, to work similarly to how we expect light to work in the real world. 
> 
> However, spells do what they say. And if we accept words like eminates and spreads mean whats emanating or spreading replaces what was previously there, theres no reason not to assume sheds replaces in the same way. 
> 
> If a dog sheds hair, there is dog hair there. If a tree sheds leaves, there are leaves there.
> 
> Again, if Faerie Fire doesnt shed dim light, or shadows, then its not doing what it specifically states it does in the spell.


Where you differ from the rest of the community is that you are adding in exclusivity.  When the spell says it sheds dim light, it does what it says.  You are then adding that it somehow now excludes any other light that is there.  The spell makes no mention of doing any such thing.  
Like in you dog hair example.  You dog sheds hair.  You expect dog hair there.  Your dog shedding hair does not eliminate the hair left by another dog in the same location.  
Another spell example would be minor illusion to make a sound of a whisper.  The spell says it creates sound.  By your same reasoning, nobody can speak or hear any other sounds for the duration.  You can now use minor illusion as a budget silence spell, because you have added in that spells that create things also somehow exclude other sources of what they created.
I don't see that as a supported position.

----------

