I always interpreted it as light centered on a point, filling an unobstructed area: walls and such would obstruct/block the light. I'd also rule that it extends out to the limits of the area only, and beyond the area there would be darkness, no shadow.

I prefer to use as written, and in this case (as in Holmes or Gygax forebears), the language doesn't mention objects being restrictive to the area. 
This may have been the intent, but it just doesn't say so (and some other spells do spell this out). In this ruleset - the effect is placed on an area only, and not on an object (as can be done in other forebears) so I don't see how an object which it cannot be placed upon in this case can effect it, so that's how I'd play it.

Last edited by Iron Ranger (9/23/2024 8:49 am)

I interpret both light and darkness to be blocked by walls or anything else that blocks actual light. This was also certainly the case in AD&D (in the DMG notes on continual light, Gary states that "the spell can also be placed upon a smallish object, and a lightproof case subsequently used to encase the object so as to make it dark until the covering is removed"; if the light is blocked by "a lightproof case", it seems like it should also be blocked by walls).

Interestingly, I was involved in a Dragonsfoot discussion years ago with (among others) Frank Mentzer, author of the BECMI edition of Basic D&D, and he made it clear that he did indeed allow light and darkness spells to penetrate walls and fill their whole area. So there was at least one person at TSR who followed the variant interpretation, rather than the one spelled out in the DMG.
 

Iron Ranger wrote:

I prefer to use as written, and in this case (as in Holmes or Gygax forebears), the language doesn't mention objects being restrictive to the area. 
This may have been the intent, but it just doesn't say so (and some other spells do spell this out). In this ruleset - the effect is placed on an area only, and not on an object (as can be done in other forebears) so I don't see how an object which it cannot be placed upon in this case can effect it, so that's how I'd play it.

It actually is spelled out in 1e AD&D that continual light can be blocked just by being covered (DMG p. 41), which in my mind means it would be blocked by much thicker walls. Not that I think this means anybody can't interpret this however they like in AS&SH!

Totally agree and I for sure see that most people would opt to play the "flashlight" rules once Gary suggested that option.
But if you only read the rules up to that book's release...
Especially the bit about it is not "normal light" -  then I can see where this minority position can exist.

And this game's words are even clearer, officially closing Gary's '79 object loophole.
Even if Jeff comes on today and says he meant for it to stop dead at the wall (or the big bookcase? so there's dark shadow behind that bookcase within the sphere?), I would still say there's room for an argument that if it doesn't affect objects within the area, that the wall is just another object within the magical area.

I just want Hyperborea to be some super weird magic, and light and dark on the other side of the wall sounds like some astonishing sorcery so sign me up!  
 

Last edited by Iron Ranger (9/23/2024 2:26 pm)

One thing I would say in favor of the standard interpretation is that it lets the DM set up some nasty traps (e.g., you could have a darkness spell just inside a closed door, or inside a chest; when the PCs open it, the darkness floods out and they suddenly find themselves in the center of its area of effect).

Of course, the PCs could play similar pranks with closed doors and light or darkness spells.

Yes, I vote the magic light exists in the sphere underground, beyond walls, beyond roof.
I vote it is not directional from a source but exists evenly within the area - so no shadows behind objects and in my logic - that would mean walls too.
I vote that an advanced sorcerer may be able to harness  the spell after much experimentation to create Controlled Continuous Light.

I never considered it to penetrate beyond a confined / obstructed area, but this discussion has me intrigued, and it certainly is a creative proposition. I like it.