Difference between revisions of "Talk:Luminous (3.5e Equipment)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
(added a reply) |
HarrowedMind (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::::There's no need to change anything here since countering Darkness is already hard baked into the system with ''[[SRD:Continual Flame|continual flame]]'' and unless a DM wants to houserule that differently, that new rule would apply to this by extension after ''continual flame'' and everburning torches. --[[User:Ganteka Future|Ganteka Future]] ([[User talk:Ganteka Future|talk]]) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | :::::::There's no need to change anything here since countering Darkness is already hard baked into the system with ''[[SRD:Continual Flame|continual flame]]'' and unless a DM wants to houserule that differently, that new rule would apply to this by extension after ''continual flame'' and everburning torches. --[[User:Ganteka Future|Ganteka Future]] ([[User talk:Ganteka Future|talk]]) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::::Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either, it was meant as something to consider for those who do. Also, woops! I saw "Light", didn't really look further and thought that was the prerequisite spell. My bad! 😅 --[[User:HarrowedMind|-HarrowedMind]] ([[User talk:HarrowedMind|talk]]) 20:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:07, 1 November 2023
Price[edit]
An item that emits light is fine enough for 100gp, but countering darkness at will, at that price, is a little much I think. --Sulacu (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any recommendations other than just removing that part about countering it at all? --Ganteka Future (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, without altering the price, I'm not sure. I mean, the price is pretty analogous to an everburning torch, which is fine, but that does not counter any spells. --Sulacu (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think I might have something with "after countering, the luminous enhancement is nullified for 1 hour or whatever" or something along those lines. Thoughts there? Also, after re-reading some stuff, it sounds like if you cast a darkness on a continual flame/everburning torch, the two would cancel/counter each other, snuffing out the light and costing you 50 gp for replacement. Not sure if normally overlapping areas just cause effect suppression or total countering/cancelation of each other though. --Ganteka Future (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- After being informed by Eiji, apparently the countering thing is already how continual flame already works. --Ganteka Future (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- A possible solution, if you're worried about it being too strong, is having it working on Darkness effects of 1st level and lower, instead of second. That way, it won't work against the spell of the same name, but it still has that effect on weaker, similar (and very rare) effects, such as a Shadowcaster's Black Candle Shadow Fundamental (their equivalent of cantrips) and items based on it. It does use a cantrip as the prerequisite spell, after all. Just an idea. ---HarrowedMind (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- There's no need to change anything here since countering Darkness is already hard baked into the system with continual flame and unless a DM wants to houserule that differently, that new rule would apply to this by extension after continual flame and everburning torches. --Ganteka Future (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either, it was meant as something to consider for those who do. Also, woops! I saw "Light", didn't really look further and thought that was the prerequisite spell. My bad! 😅 ---HarrowedMind (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
