D&D 5E The Impenetrable Darkness

[the Jester]

No. The objection is that if you are in a huge underground vault (no intervening walls), and 100 feet away there is a guy with a torch, a strict reading of the rules would say you cannot see the torch. You are outside the torch's light radius, therefore standing in a heavily obscured area, therefore blind and unable to see anything.

This is an absurd outcome. A light source should be more visible in darkness rather than less. If you are close enough to see the torch in daylight, you are close enough to see it in the dark. More generally, whether you can see a given thing at a given distance depends on how well illuminated that thing is, not how well illuminated you are.

The cause of the problem is that D&D is using the obscurement rules to handle both darkness and fog. In reality, the way darkness affects vision is quite distinct from the way fog affects it. However, I'm pretty okay with leaving this one to DM judgement and common sense.

5e is not a strict rules lawyer's game. 5e encourages the DM to use common sense and uses the "rulings, not rules" approach of pre-3e D&D. Rules that spell out that you can see the light from someone's torch even though the hall between you is dark are for games with a strict adherence to the text, not games that spell out over and over again that the dm should apply common sense and hack the game to make it his own.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

In short, this is not an issue at all for me, and I can't see most tables would have issues with it, either. Even the tiniest dribble of common sense ought to be enough to overcome this problem.

 

[Boarstorm]

I agree with [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION]Jester, but thank [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] for clearly explaining the issue as written.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

Anyone who cant or wont use common sense rulings needs to be beat with a sock full of dice...


I am glad Darkness is Darkness again. Especially Magical Darkness, and not that stupid "Shadowy Illumination" of 3.5... Being able to cast Darkness while in total darkness to be able to see better had to go...

 

[wedgeski]

No. The objection is that if you are in a huge underground vault (no intervening walls), and 100 feet away there is a guy with a torch, a strict reading of the rules would say you cannot see the torch. You are outside the torch's light radius, therefore standing in a heavily obscured area, therefore blind and unable to see anything.

I see the rules as spelling out those situations which could cause any actual confusion at the table, and letting the bleeding obvious speak for itself (or rather, through the DM). This is a preferable approach than couching every situation in language that covers every base and just obscures the intended meaning.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with @theJester, but thank @Dausuul for clearly explaining the issue as written.

Oh, I agree too. Like I said, I'm pretty okay with leaving this one to DM judgement and common sense. It's a theoretical debate, not a practical concern.

(Though I do now find myself wondering if there is a clever way to rewrite the darkness rules that would cover this case without any added complexity... but that's because I'm a tinker at heart. I certainly don't think it's necessary.)

Also, you're welcome.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see the rules as spelling out those situations which could cause any actual confusion at the table, and letting the bleeding obvious speak for itself (or rather, through the DM). This is a preferable approach than couching every situation in language that covers every base and just obscures the intended meaning.

The wording here is so terrible that, frankly, it would make many new DMs question the quality of 5E's rules in general.

 

[wedgeski]

The wording here is so terrible that, frankly, it would make many new DMs question the quality of 5E's rules in general.

The wording is perfectly clear to me. There is nothing contradictory or opaque about it. It just seems like you (and others) don't like the actual rules that the words are describing. If you think so, how would you word it? Don't change the rule, just re-write the words.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The wording is perfectly clear to me. There is nothing contradictory or opaque about it. It just seems like you (and others) don't like the actual rules that the words are describing. If you think so, how would you word it? Don't change the rule, just re-write the words.

I'd need to differentiate magical and non-magical darkness, arguably "changing" the rule (I think that argument is ridiculous but this is the internet!). May do so later.

 

[Dausuul]

After a bit of thinking, here is a way to rewrite the darkness rules that (I believe) tackles the issue without additional complexity. Again, I should emphasize that I'm only doing this because I like rules-tinkering, not because I believe this is an important problem in 5E.

• Anything in a dimly lit area is lightly obscured. Anything in an unlit area is heavily obscured.
• Smoke and fog can obscure (lightly or heavily) things behind them.
• You can't see things which are heavily obscured or invisible.
• If you're blind, you can't see anything at all.
• If you can't see something, you automatically fail ability checks that depend on seeing it. You have disadvantage when attacking it, and it has advantage when attacking you.

Since a light source, by definition, is never in an unlit area, it's never obscured (unless there's something in between you and it).

 

[Thaumaturge]

Except a light source in fog should increase the obscurity level.

Thaumaturge.