D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

How do you stand in an area where visibility is entirely blocked, and see out?

So you ignore the errata?

 

[prabe]

So you ignore the errata?

The erratum is clearly talking about someone outside the area looking into it.

 

[Hriston]

The erratum is clearly talking about someone outside the area looking into it.

Is it? I don't think so. I think it's addressing the problem created by the interpretation for which you're advocating in which someone standing in a heavily obscured area, say an area of darkness, is looking into an illuminated area like the light-radius of a campfire and can't see it because their vision is blocked. Is that how you understand the rules would handle that situation?

 

[el-remmen]

Join in! It's like throwing someone a football but they catch it as a basketball.

The people who keep insisting on tossing that football are just as funny. Actually, a better football analogy is Lucy and Charlie Brown

 

[prabe]

Is it? I don't think so. I think it's addressing the problem created by the interpretation for which you're advocating in which someone standing in a heavily obscured area, say an area of darkness, is looking into an illuminated area like the light-radius of a campfire and can't see it because their vision is blocked. Is that how you understand the rules would handle that situation?

That's certainly what the rules seem to say. In that circumstance I probably wouldn't allow perception of details around said campfire until the observing character entered its radius of at least dim light.

 

[FrogReaver]

The erratum is clearly talking about someone outside the area looking into it.

You’ve also got to look at what they removed....

they removed the part about being on the inside making you effectively blind.

doesn’t that mean anything to you?

 

[prabe]

You’ve also got to look at what they removed....

they removed the part about being on the inside making you effectively blind.

doesn’t that mean anything to you?

It means the erratum probably needs an erratum.

Seriously, I think one can go by common sense, augmented by the words in the rulebooks, and come to something workable. I don't think trying to parse those rules word by word is helpful.

If you're in an area of darkness, you fail at any vision-related ability check I call for that I don't determine is an automatic success. This seriously isn't rocket surgery.

 

[FrogReaver]

It means the erratum probably needs an erratum.

Seriously, I think one can go by common sense, augmented by the words in the rulebooks, and come to something workable. I don't think trying to parse those rules word by word is helpful.

If you're in an area of darkness, you fail at any vision-related ability check I call for that I don't determine is an automatic success. This seriously isn't rocket surgery.

So Common sense is that you can’t see outside normal darkness when you are in it.

Your common sense is on a totally different level than mine

 

[prabe]

So Common sense is that you can’t see outside normal darkness when you are in it.

Your common sense is on a totally different level than mine

I'm saying that if you're in an area of darkness, and you need to make a vision-based ability check, if there's a chance of failure, you'll fail.

 

[Seramus]

The Darkness spell is missing a word. Bold mine.

"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. Even a creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."