D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FrogReaver]

If you're in an area that "blocks vision entirely" how is your vision not blocked?

Because the rules immediately clarify that with: A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

 

[prabe]

Because the rules immediately clarify that with: A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

The rules are speaking of someone outside the area. They say nothing about someone in the area, so it seems reasonable to presume someone inside an area that "blocks vision entirely" has their vision entirely blocked.

 

[FrogReaver]

The rules are speaking of someone outside the area. They say nothing about someone in the area, so it seems reasonable to presume someone inside an area that "blocks vision entirely" has their vision entirely blocked.

If that was the case there wouldn't have been a need for an errata to change it from: "A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

 

[prabe]

If that was the case there wouldn't have been a need for an errata to change it from: "A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

Unless they wanted to clarify that you couldn't see from outside a heavily-obscured area to inside it. Which they did. Kind of. Ish. They really didn't accomplish much with that erratum.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's try to visualise this. A person is not in a dense foliage, but they're looking at something that is behind an area of dense foliage. According to @FrogReaver they could see the thing just fine. However, if the thing they were looking at were closer to them, in the foliage, they couldn't see it. That is absurd. Furthermore, as probably even FrogReaver agrees that you cannot see through people (I hope) their interpretation would effectively let people outside the darkness spell bubble to see creatures inside it as silhouettes, just by declaring that they're looking at wall/forest/whatever behind the darkness bubble, as they could differentiate between the area of darkness (through which they could see things behind it) and creatures in it (through which they couldn't see.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's try to visualise this. A person is not in a dense foliage, but they're looking at something that is behind an area of dense foliage. According to @FrogReaver they could see the thing just fine.

I never said that, nor implied, nor even believe it.

Let me be the first to say: Dense foilage is not darkness

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I never said that, nor implied, nor even believe it.

But that is the result of your logic.

 

[FrogReaver]

But that is the result of your logic.

How so? Did I ever say or imply that dense foilage and darkness function exactly the same?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How so? Did I ever say or imply that dense foilage and darkness function exactly the same?

Yes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes.

Please quote it.