D&D 5E Darkness and Disengage

[Li Shenron]

I do think that magical darkness as a substance that blocks light is consistent with RAI, but I’ve seen enough DMs rule the other way that it’s something worth asking about if you plan to cast Darkness a lot.

I can't even say which is the majority's choice, "darkness as fog" or "darkness as absence of light". IMO the first makes it easier to run the game, but it also makes the spell too powerful for a 2nd level. There is no general rule about magical darkness, there is only the Darkness spell (a specific effect that doesn't imply anything beyond itself) which both "spreads" and "emanates".

I tried a few times to find an official answer or sage advice, either I am dumb at searching or they have purposefully avoided to answer. Past editions have used both versions by the way, so legacy doesn't provide a unique answer.

Anyway the PHB RAW is so dumb that it uses the concept of "heavily obscured" for both fog/foliage (which clearly blocks vision) and natural darkness (which clearly doesn't), so it doesn't seem to me that the designers fully understood the seriousness of the matter of even basic vision in the game :/

 

[Reynard]

If you can't see, you cannot make an opportunity attack. You can only take an opportunity attack when you can see someone move out of your reach.

Huh. I did not realize it was worded that way.

Relevant text: "
Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack. You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy. " 5ESRD

 

[Charlaquin]

I can't even say which is the majority's choice, "darkness as fog" or "darkness as absence of light". IMO the first makes it easier to run the game, but it also makes the spell too powerful for a 2nd level.

By what metric?

There is no general rule about magical darkness, there is only the Darkness spell (a specific effect that doesn't imply anything beyond itself) which both "spreads" and "emanates".

Indeed, but the text does occasionally reference “magical darkness,” such as in the Devil’s Sight Invocation. Presumably if there were other magical effects that created darkness, perhaps homebrew or third party ones, said magically-created darkness would work the same way as the darkness created by the Darkness spell.

I tried a few times to find an official answer or sage advice, either I am dumb at searching or they have purposefully avoided to answer. Past editions have used both versions by the way, so legacy doesn't provide a unique answer.

Yeah, Jeremy Crawford can be infuriatingly cagey about clarifying the intended implications of the text - he seems to adhere unflinchingly to the most literal interpretation of the rules possible in almost all instances.

Anyway the PHB RAW is so dumb that it uses the concept of "heavily obscured" for both fog/foliage (which clearly blocks vision) and natural darkness (which clearly doesn't), so it doesn't seem to me that the designers fully understood the seriousness of the matter of even basic vision in the game :/

Eh, I think it works, more or less. If fog blocks your line of sight to a thing, it has the same mechanical impact as if the thing is within an area of darkness. I don’t see any reason that shouldn’t be the case - either way, you can’t see it. I do think that the darkness spell must create some kind of substance that blocks light though. I don’t see any other way the spell’s function could make sense.

 

[jayoungr]

Here's a link to the thread where we originally hashed out the invisible/hiding thing:

D&D 5E - Invisibility and Perception

It may be relevant to mention that my group is coming to 5E directly from D&D 3.5. In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there's a fight with a couple of wizards, during which one of them goes invisible and attempts to escape. When I ran this fight for my group, the player of our Human Battlemaster...

www.enworld.org

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, Jeremy Crawford can be infuriatingly cagey about clarifying the intended implications of the text - he seems to adhere unflinchingly to the most literal interpretation of the rules possible in almost all instances.

I accept that it is his job to do so. OTOH he also almost always doesn't answer the question directly, which by all pedagogical standards is a bad mistake, and having been both a student and a teacher myself I find it a lot harder to accept.

If fog blocks your line of sight to a thing, it has the same mechanical impact as if the thing is within an area of darkness. I don’t see any reason that shouldn’t be the case - either way, you can’t see it.

Yes when you see into but what I had in mind is the case of seeing beyond, that's where fog/foliage and natural darkness are completely different.

 

[Harzel]

So, when you're in darkness (or invisible), your enemy still knows where you are unless you also hide. Think of disappearing as a two-stage process: darkness or invisibility means your enemy knows where you are but can't attack you effectively, thus getting disadvantage on attacks against you. If you are also hidden, your enemy no longer knows where you are.

Agreed, but that just begs the question in case the Warlock had cast Darkness on a prior turn, and so could move next to the target and Hide. Assuming the Warlock's Stealth roll was better than the target's passive Perception, could the target Disengage then? RAW seems to clearly be yes, but is that reasonable?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Agreed, but that just begs the question in case the Warlock had cast Darkness on a prior turn, and so could move next to the target and Hide. Assuming the Warlock's Stealth roll was better than the target's passive Perception, could the target Disengage then? RAW seems to clearly be yes, but is that reasonable?

I'd say so. The target still has good reason to suspect that the warlock is around somewhere, so it's reasonable to be cautious and reduce the chance of getting stabbed in the back.

 

[abirdcall]

Agreed, but that just begs the question in case the Warlock had cast Darkness on a prior turn, and so could move next to the target and Hide. Assuming the Warlock's Stealth roll was better than the target's passive Perception, could the target Disengage then? RAW seems to clearly be yes, but is that reasonable?

Is it reasonable for a foe to back away cautiously when engulfed in magical darkness?

Sounds like it to me.

 

[Harzel]

I'd say so. The target still has good reason to suspect that the warlock is around somewhere, so it's reasonable to be cautious and reduce the chance of getting stabbed in the back.

Is it reasonable for a foe to back away cautiously when engulfed in magical darkness?

Sounds like it to me.

Well, the target can certainly try. The question is if they don't know where the potential attacker is, is that certain to be effective enough to grant immunity from OA? Consider that in the process of "backing away", the target could bump right into the potential attacker.

 

[Charlaquin]

Agreed, but that just begs the question in case the Warlock had cast Darkness on a prior turn, and so could move next to the target and Hide. Assuming the Warlock's Stealth roll was better than the target's passive Perception, could the target Disengage then? RAW seems to clearly be yes, but is that reasonable?

Again, you don’t disengage from a particular threat. You Disengage and then for the rest of your turn your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of oppprtunity. Perhaps the action is poorly named, as what it really seems to model is guarded movement. You keep your guard up, and threats, seen or unseen, detected or undetected, can’t take advantage of you moving past them because you’re alert and on-guard.