D&D 5E Rules clarification query: Darkness (2nd lvl Spell) vs. Mantle of Flame (1st lvl Phoenix Sorcerer feature)

[jgsugden]

An easy, but not official (so don't shoot me), approach is to treat the "spell level" of a magical effect that a character can generate to be of a spell level equal to 1/2 the level at which it can be obtained (rounded up - max 9). An ability gained at 1st level is a level 1 spell equivalent, while an ability gained at 5th level would be a 3rd level equivalent. The rules do not cover everything.

 

[WhosAChaoticGoodBoy]

I kinda like the idea of treating the light from Mantle of Flame and Radiant Consumption as 1st and 2nd lvl spells, respectivrly (due to the max spell levels a full caster might have). Only strange thing that comes up is it implies the PC's spell power scales at the full spellcating progression. E.g., if a scourge aasimar fighter activates Rad.Cons, would I still treat it as a 2nd lvl spell even though the PC themself doesn't have spellslots?

Since the racial/class features aren't techincally spells I think I'm comfortable adding rules to determine whose effects overcome whose. For example, if a Scourge Aasimar activates Rad.Cons in an area of darkness, would it seem fair to have the Aasimar roll a Charisma check against the spell DC of the character that cast darkness to see if it dispells?

 

[ThePolarBear]

"Non-magical light can't illuminate" does not equal "All magical light can illuminate." Just like "Non-living things do not breathe" does not imply "All living things breathe."

And in fact here they are explicitly unequal, since it goes on to list sources of magical light that fail to illuminate. You might (reasonably) assume that list is complete, but the spell doesn't say that.

No?
The question is not about if something that we already know that can breathe (or illuminate) does in fact breathe (or illuminate).
The question is if, based on the fact that we already know how breating normally works (that magical light does in fact illuminate) is affected by the restriction on a spell (Dogs can't breathe - on-magical light cannot illuminate). The answer is no. It does not get changed and therefore act like always.

We know how darkness works but we do not know how Darkness works. Reading the spell you get to the point where we know that Darkness is darkness that is magical. We apply the general (darkness) to the specifics (Darkness). In an exception based system, this means that for anything that is not stated, the general applies: magical light that does illuminate does indeed illuminate Darkness, since no specific was given to change how and if the magic changes the darkness in this case.

If your magical light does NOT illuminate, the problem does not exist in the first place. It does not illuminate to begin with, so it can't illuminate Darkness.

 

[jaelis]

If I understand correctly, your argument is: We know in general that magical light illuminates, so unless a darkening effect makes a specific exception, the light should function as stated.

It seems to me like the reverse argument works just as well: We know in general that magical darkness darkens, so unless a light effect makes a specific exception, the darkness should function as stated.

If the darkness spell only said "... magical light can't illuminate it," then I would probably agree with you; a spell does what it says and what that says is that it suppresses non-magical light. But in fact the first line of the spell says "Magical darkness spreads ..." That seems to carry at least as much descriptive weight as, say, continual flame's description "a flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth ..."

 

[steeldragons]

The sorcerer is still on fire, just like someone carrying a torch still has a torch...Darkness doesn't snuff out the torch...just shrouded/surrounded by inky blackness and no light is passing through or escaping the Darkness "sphere/dome."

So, they're still using their ability, they just don't have light leaving the Darkness area. Whatever defensive or offensive abilities that enacts still apply...just not the illumination.

 

[cooperjer]

I've had a lot of discussion with my warlock player on similar effects of Darkness. My current thought is that if the PCs are not in Borovia then light removes darkness in the general sense. Thus, Darkness is light up by magical light, unless of course if the light is generated by a spell of 2nd level or less. Is the light from Mantle of Flame magical? The text "... you magically wreathe yourself ..." is what I would say Crawford would point to if you ask him. Therefore Mantle of Flame is magical. Is Radiant Consumption magical? In the text provided in this thread I see that with radiant consumption you "unleash divine energy from within yourself." I do not see the word magic or magical in the text, therefore an argument could be said that it's not magical. Or, an argument could be said that all divine energy is magical and thus so is Radiant Consumption.

The net result at my table would be Darkness is illuminated by both features.

 

[ThePolarBear]

If I understand correctly, your argument is: We know in general that magical light illuminates, so unless a darkening effect makes a specific exception, the light should function as stated.

It seems to me like the reverse argument works just as well: We know in general that magical darkness darkens, so unless a light effect makes a specific exception, the darkness should function as stated.

Which is exactly what happens. Darkness (the spell) describes how the darkness it creates is different from "normal" darkness. Each light source does, in fact, tell us how it does work. Each light source explicitly has a range with the effect listed. Unless there's a light source, there's darkness. However, Darkness is a specific exception on normal darkness. The specific of each exception are usually stated on the exception itself: Darkness has to deal with how Darkness works: "It creates an area of magical darkness: that's how it is magical".

If the darkness spell only said "... magical light can't illuminate it," then I would probably agree with you; a spell does what it says and what that says is that it suppresses non-magical light. But in fact the first line of the spell says "Magical darkness spreads ..." That seems to carry at least as much descriptive weight as, say, continual flame's description "a flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth ..."

And it does spread: it has a specific pattern that is, again, different from how normal darkness works. It is another difference from the normal state of darkness, an exception on the specific: it spreads from one point in space and can be blocked by being completely enclosed by opaque objects. It specifically does NOT interact with magical light sources unless otherwise stated (spells of low level).

What you are trying to argue is that in absence of directions, there's no way to determine. However directions are there: how darkness works and how light works and the fact that 5e is an exception base system that works on specifics beating general and general applying where specifics are missing.

Does light illuminate darkness? Yes, unless said darkness has some proprieties that make such darkness so that it can't be illuminated. Darkness does so, only for non-magical lights. It also prevents magical lights from spells of certain kinds from illuminating the area by dispelling them. That's the extent of the specifics.

You are not working in a vacuum. You are not trying to prove "existence". You are working on an exception based system where generic is beaten by specific and is applied where specific is not there.

You are assuming dakness, applying specifics from light and Darkness. If the two are in conflict, the more "specific" one has precedence (Darkness, in this case, calling specifically non-magical lights+spells). Otherwise, you apply general. General is: darkness, unless light.

I might have gone overboard with repetition .

 

[jaelis]

Hmm, well it still seems to me you're assuming from the start that light illuminating has priority over darkness darkening. But I checked twitter on it... JC's response is a bit ambiguous, but I would read it as agreeing with you, that the only magical light stopped by darkness is that from 1st and 2nd level spells.

Q: a question: How does the scourge aasimar radiant consumption feature interacts with the darkness spell?
A: When a rule refers to spells, it means spells, not other magical effects.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Hmm, well it still seems to me you're assuming from the start that light illuminating has priority over darkness darkening. But I checked twitter on it... JC's response is a bit ambiguous, but I would read it as agreeing with you, that the only magical light stopped by darkness is that from 1st and 2nd level spells.

I've actually not directly answered OP's question but sure. For me those are two magical effects, creating light of magical nature. It could be argued that the flames enveloping the Sorcerer aren't really magical in nature - making their light non-magical - and that the magic is just keeping the flames in place and not buning things that should not be burned.

Or it can be argued that "divine" is not really magical but really a biological reaction that somehow has always been part of the race, and all Gods do not exist...

But that's a particular DM purview that falls on "DM's world, DMs rules."

And it's not about Darkness "darknening", but about Darkness "darkening" with lower case darkness. the lowercase darkness has no special, magical exception regarding magical lights not coming from specific spells. So it should work as the general darkness does. It DOES darken. But that darkening is illuminated.

 

[schnee]

Antimagic shell suppresses non-spell like things like a Druid wild shape, but doesn't dispel it. The Druid pops back after they leave the shell.

I'd rule the same here. Darkness 'trumps' the magical light created by the lower level spell-like effect inside it's radius, but it doesn't dispel the source. It just 'beats' it in the areas they overlap.