D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mort]

'can't see through this darkness' only applies to characters with darkvision in the actual spell text.

This is clearly meant to state that darkvision also can't see through it and assumes regular vision obviously can't. Any other interpretation makes very little sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is clearly meant to state that darkvision also can't see through it and assumes regular vision obviously can't. Any other interpretation makes very little sense.

I read it as saying this darkness also impacts regular darkvision. Very simple and sensible interpretation. I would say that my take is the clear meaning and that using your interpretation to add rules to the text that aren't there isn't a strong position to be in.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even if, somehow, characters with Darkvision could not see a torch on the other side of the darkness, and characters without Darkvision could, what about this:

'nonmagical light can't illuminate it'

In neither case would the Darkness be illuminated so that rule is intact as ever.

 

[FrogReaver]

Who cares? This is game written in casual tone, there is no strict RAW, it all requires interpretation and common sense.

If you don't care, why are you here?

 

[BookTenTiger]

'nonmagical light can't illuminate it'

In neither case would the Darkness be illuminated so that rule is intact as ever.

So you agree that characters with and without darkvision cannot see into, out of, or through magical darkness, based on the rules as written?

 

[FrogReaver]

So you agree that characters with and without darkvision cannot see into, out of, or through magical darkness, based on the rules as written?

No and how you got that out of my answer on illuminate I'll never know.

 

[Hriston]

This is clearly meant to state that darkvision also can't see through it and assumes regular vision obviously can't. Any other interpretation makes very little sense.

But regular vision can see through normal darkness in the way you're talking about it, so how is this meant to be an exception for magical darkness? I think, for it to make sense, "see through" needs to be understood in terms of the errata on heavily obscured areas, i.e. that a creature with darkvision effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something that is in the area of magical darkness.

 

[Iry]

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.

To me, preventing nonmagical illumination is unambiguously blocking you from seeing through it, barring modifiers such as blindsight. While I believe your interpretation is possible, it seems to be a ruling so unlikely as to make the question almost entirely theoretical. And theoretical questions are fine, but in a real game such a ruling would confuse the heck out of most players. Since it's only one spell, they can simply accept it and move on without much impact. But as outlier rulings begin to pile up, the players will increasingly question the validity of cause and effect.

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

Why not?

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...

Revivify doesn't care about bodies, beyond not replacing body parts. The spell says you have to touch a creature, which can unambiguously be parts of a body because the spell specifically calls out missing body parts as things that can be missing when you cast it.

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

That using outlier interpretations can cause social and mechanical problems. Even more so if you are a player attempting to push these interpretations at a table. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so, of course, provided you accept the OOC outcome.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you don't care, why are you here?

To tell you that there is no such thing than strict RAW so that you can stop worrying about a non-existent thing. You're welcome.

 

[FrogReaver]

To me, preventing nonmagical illumination is unambiguously blocking you from seeing through it, barring modifiers such as blindsight. While I believe your interpretation is possible, it seems to be a ruling so unlikely as to make the question almost entirely theoretical. And theoretical questions are fine, but in a real game such a ruling would confuse the heck out of most players. Since it's only one spell, they can simply accept it and move on without much impact. But as outlier rulings begin to pile up, the players will increasingly question the validity of cause and effect.

Why not?

Revivify doesn't care about bodies, beyond not replacing body parts. The spell says you have to touch a creature, which can unambiguously be parts of a body because the spell specifically calls out missing body parts as things that can be missing when you cast it.

That using outlier interpretations can cause social and mechanical problems. Even more so if you are a player attempting to push these interpretations at a table. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so, of course, provided you accept the OOC outcome.

But you aren't showing how what I'm doing is an outlier. I would say it's you that is using the outlier interpretation.