Sacred Weapon vs. Darkness

[Paeleus]

My Google-fu has failed me. I believe I have seen a thread just like this one months ago, but I have searched to no avail.

So my question is; does the light emitted from a Devotion paladin's weapon, stemming from his Channel Divinity - Sacred Weapon, work inside the confines of a darkness spell?

[Arkhios]

I'm inclined to say: yes.
Sacred Weapon is not a spell, so it won't be dispelled by Darkness.
However, while Sacred Weapon isn't a spell, it isn't natural light either. It would illuminate within the area, as it is far from non-magical.

Everything that's magical doesn't need to originate from spells :)

[RickAllison]

Originally, I was leaning against it but I find that Sacred Weapon probably does count. It's an explicitly magical effect, bypassing the nonmagical light clause; it's independent of spells (Channel Divinity) which means it isn't cancelled by the spell clause. It seems solidly in favor of that interpretation.

[Vogonjeltz]

My Google-fu has failed me. I believe I have seen a thread just like this one months ago, but I have searched to no avail.

So my question is; does the light emitted from a Devotion paladin's weapon, stemming from his Channel Divinity - Sacred Weapon, work inside the confines of a darkness spell?

The light seems to be magical in nature, so yes, it should operate based on the wording of the Darkness spell.

[coredump]

The rules do not cover this. All we know is that non-magical light has no effect, and that light from low level spells is dispelled.

There is nothing in the rules saying that magical light does, or does not, work.** Thus it is completely up to the DM.

Personally, I would let the light work, but to a very limited extent. At most I would give it 5' of dim light....maybe not even that much.



**People continually confuse permissions and restrictions. More specifically, they confuse the lack of a restriction as a permission, or a lack of permission as a restriction. In this case, the rules give a restriction to non-magical light, and there is a lack of restrictions for magical light. That lack of a restriction is *not* the same as permission.

[Corran]

In this case, the rules give a restriction to non-magical light, and there is a lack of restrictions for magical light. That lack of a restriction is *not* the same as permission.
If magical light were not to be restricted, why did the spell description go all the way to specify non-magical light? This is not a case of non-restriction, this is a case where the restrictions are precisely specified to the letter, and sacred weapon is not one of them. RAW, sacred weapon works in magical darkness.

Sure, it took some unfortunate phrasing for that to happen, but maybe it was intended, I dunno... All I know is that I dont like it, as I feel the wording of darkness was poor and didd not take into account spell-like abilities. So in my game I would probably houserule it, but RAW is very clear.

[RickAllison]

If magical light were not to be restricted, why did the spell description go all the way to specify non-magical light? This is not a case of non-restriction, this is a case where the restrictions are precisely specified to the letter, and sacred weapon is not one of them. RAW, sacred weapon works in magical darkness.

Sure, it took some unfortunate phrasing for that to happen, but maybe it was intended, I dunno... All I know is that I dont like it, as I feel the wording of darkness was poor and didd not take into account spell-like abilities. So in my game I would probably houserule it, but RAW is very clear.

This. It specifically calls out cases where Darkness overshadows light sources, as it would be at the same level of specificity for those and so overrides them. RAI (I'm not sure if I'm confident enough to call it RAW), that indicates that light sources not covered under the exceptions prevail over the magical darkness.

[AstralFire]

I think it's a bit difficult to say RAI. To me, I read the non-specificity as an invitation for the GM to decide based on any individual source of darkness or light as to which is the "stronger" effect.

I'd probably treat it as a light effect of a level equal to the paladin's proficiency bonus if I needed fine mechanics on it.

[Arkhios]

I think it's a bit difficult to say RAI. To me, I read the non-specificity as an invitation for the GM to decide based on any individual source of darkness or light as to which is the "stronger" effect.

I'd probably treat it as a light effect of a level equal to the paladin's proficiency bonus if I needed fine mechanics on it.

Absolutely everything in the rules that's even mildly vague is subject to GM's discretion. If it would come to the strength of the Sacred Weapon, I'd compare the paladin's level to the Darkness' effective level. How would I do this? Search for the most probable caster (if unknown), and look for its "caster level". Then, since Paladins have a caster level equal to half their paladin level, I'd consider Sacred Weapon as equal to the highest level spell the paladin could cast.
3rd Paladin level: equal to 1st level spell
5th Paladin level: equal to 2nd level spell
9th Paladin level: equal to 3rd level spell
13th Paladin level: equal to 4th level spell
17th Paladin level: equal to 5th level spell

Or, since multi-classing works as it does, I would refer to the characters total caster level instead. Equal to the highest available spell slot to cast. If the Darkness effect was equal or less, Sacred Weapon would illuminate in Darkness. If the Darkness effect was greater, Darkness would suppress the Light from Sacred Weapon as long as it remains inside the Darkness.
While it's unlikely that a caster would use his or her highest spell slot for Darkness, it's possible. In any case, I would mark him or her having used relevant spell slot for that encounter, if relevant.