D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Xetheral]

If this was regular darkness and the bunny was there, what would the dog see? IMO. It will be the same.

That example can't exist with natural darkness in the real world because natural darkness doesn't exist as a volume-filling concept (instead darkness is the lack of perception of light on a particular vector). It can kind-of-sort-of exist in the abstraction of D&D if you approach the rules as defining the physics of the game world, but unless I'm mistaken I don't think you approach the rules as an alternative physics engine.

If one did use the very vague obscurement rules to try to define the physics of light in the D&D world, it would still be up to the DM to determine what could be seen in the example, as the rules aren't complete enough to create a well-defined system.

 

[FrogReaver]

That example can't exist with natural darkness in the real world because natural darkness doesn't exist as a volume-filling concept (instead darkness is the lack of perception of light on a particular vector). It can kind-of-sort-of exist in the abstraction of D&D if you approach the rules as defining the physics of the game world, but unless I'm mistaken I don't think you approach the rules as an alternative physics engine.

If one did use the very vague obscurement rules to try to define the physics of light in the D&D world, it would still be up to the DM to determine what could be seen in the example, as the rules aren't complete enough to create a well-defined system.

You've apparently never stood at your well lit house in the night and looked across the empty countryside to your neighbors house a couple of miles away? I'm here to tell you:
1. You can see his house clearly
2. You can't see much inbetween (providing the moon isn't full or is covered by clouds)

Yes that example exists in the real world.

 

[Iry]

I'm curious about an example?

Sure. We can go with Fireball since I already mentioned it. The radius of damage is 20', but it doesn't specify how big the explosion of flame is. Could be a bottlerocket size and set almost nothing on fire, or it could be several miles wide. Both outlier interpretations, but technically possible.

Or Mind Blank, since there is no definition of effect, could prevent you from sensing your own emotions or read your own thoughts even with mundane means. Doubly so if you don't have a brain because the world operates without chemical reactions and the creation of every thought is magical.

Revivify doesn't say it requires a whole body. Cast it on a severed head.

Raise Dead talks about the soul rejoining the body, but Ressurection and True Ressurection don't provide that service. Living creatures running around without souls.

Yadda, yadda.

 

[R_J_K75]

Darkness: Its dark like really dark, so dark you cant see in. and you cant see out. That means you too Darkvision.

There I fixed the spells description. This is fun, which spells next?

 

[Xetheral]

You've apparently never stood at your well lit house in the night and looked across the empty countryside to your neighbors house a couple of miles away? I'm here to tell you:
1. You can see his house clearly
2. You can't see much inbetween (providing the moon isn't full or is covered by clouds)

Yes that example exists in the real world.

But that's not the example provided.... The example has a single, sharp-edged zone of darkness seen at short range in the middle of an area that would otherwise be lit. Your house example is almost the exact opposite: a single brightly lit object seen at long range in an otherwise dark environment.

I'm out of time for the moment, but I'll address your longer post to me when I can.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah... this is one of those moments when we learn that the phrase
“There are no stupid questions.” Is a lie we tell children so we don’t stunt their learning.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. We can go with Fireball since I already mentioned it. The radius of damage is 20', but it doesn't specify how big the explosion of flame is. Could be a bottlerocket size and set almost nothing on fire, or it could be several miles wide. Both outlier interpretations, but technically possible.

I agree the radius of the flames is ambiguous. My stance would have fireball do what it says. Since there's clearly an ambiguous element then the DM makes a ruling. I'm not seeing how this is in the same kind of category as the Darkness spell.

Or Mind Blank, since there is no definition of effect, could prevent you from sensing your own emotions or read your own thoughts even with mundane means. Doubly so if you don't have a brain because the world operates without chemical reactions and the creation of every thought is magical.

Seems forced. Creatures have emotions and have thoughts. They don't need to read their own emotions or read their own thoughts.

Revivify doesn't say it requires a whole body. Cast it on a severed head.

Raise Dead talks about the soul rejoining the body, but Ressurection and True Ressurection don't provide that service. Living creatures running around without souls.

Yadda, yadda.

A bit forced again. Revivify says "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can’t return to life a creature that has died of old age, nor can it restore any missing body parts."

A head is not a body. Though a body without a head being returned to life at 1 hp might be interesting as an example. IMO that would be DM's call on how to proceed on that one. Personal ruling on that would be it returns to life only to bleed out through it's neck...

I'm not quite sure I'm seeing whatever it is you are trying to point out?

 

[FrogReaver]

But that's not the example provided.... The example has a single, sharp-edged zone of darkness seen at short range in the middle of an area that would otherwise be lit. Your house example is almost the exact opposite: a single brightly lit object seen at long range in an otherwise dark environment.

I'm out of time for the moment, but I'll address your longer post to me when I can.

Np. Why does distance between the brightly lit areas and darkness inbetween matter when it comes to the substance of the example?

 

[BookTenTiger]

The spell seems exceedingly clear to me, Rules as Written.

A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness,

Since a creature without darkvision can't see through normal darkness, the spell is saying treat a creature with darkvision the same way. In fact, in the Environment section of the PHB, it says:

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely.

And

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Oh hey, look at that, magical darkness!

So RAW states: darkness blocks sight, except for characters with darkvision. Magical Darkness blocks sight even for characters with darkvision.

The Darkness spell then says:

nonmagical light can't illuminate it

Which means the torch on the other side of the Darkness can't be seen.

Yeah?

 

[FrogReaver]

Since a creature without darkvision can't see through normal darkness, the spell is saying treat a creature with darkvision the same way. In fact, in the Environment section of the PHB, it says:

The full rule there with errata now says:

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

It was changed so that characters in non-magical darkness could see illuminated areas outside of the non-magical darkness. Since characters in normal darkness can now see out of it - that kind of renders the rest of that argument moot?