D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FrogReaver]

They can get the same benefit from Fog Cloud, by RAW.

No they can’t. I’ve already elaborated on why too many times to just repeat myself again.

But what really boggles my mind is three people standing in a row. The middle one is in magical darkness. If the first one shoots the third one, does the third one get the benefit of partial cover?

The darkness being magical isn’t adding any quirks to the system not already present for non-magical darkness.

So how would you rule that situation in regular darkness? Take that same ruling for magical darkness. I can’t provide a RAW answer for that example as RAW is silent on that specific topic.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@FrogReaver , Wall of Stone doesn't even say it blocks vision, so could a character see through that? Wall of Stone

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver , Wall of Stone doesn't even say it blocks vision, so could a character see through that? Wall of Stone

Are stones transparent? IMO. We all know what a stone is and that a stone isn’t transparent. So No.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Are stones transparent? IMO. We all know what a stone is and that a stone isn’t transparent. So No.

But purely Rules as Written, does it say we cannot see through the stones?

Spell descriptions don't have to spell out every single thing to be understood. We can assume that the walls created by Wall of Stone cannot be seen through.

Darkness uses the same logic. If the Darkness spell says it's special darkness that characters without Darkvision cannot see through, then we can assume no one can see in or out of the sphere of darkness.

 

[FrogReaver]

But purely Rules as Written, does it say we cannot see through the stones?

Spell descriptions don't have to spell out every single thing to be understood. We can assume that the walls created by Wall of Stone cannot be seen through.

Darkness uses the same logic. If the Darkness spell says it's special darkness that characters without Darkvision cannot see through, then we can assume no one can see in or out of the sphere of darkness.

By calling it ‘stone’ the text explicitly refers to something you cannot see through.

saying characters with dark vision cannot see through does not imply that characters without it cannot. That’s adding to the text.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And the game doesn't need an explanation that goes into all these details, because it's all common sense and only someone trying to play linguistic games would ever to say "Well, the game doesn't SAY you can't look "out" of it!" If you are inside the darkness spell... you have to look "through" the darkness to the edge of the spell before you can look "out" of it. Which the spells says you can't do.

The RAW has gotten away from picayune nitpickery in its language. This edition is not about finagling your way around exactly what it does, or does not, explicitly say. It expects you to use some fragment of common sense in interpreting it, not hyper-literal thinking.

I really want to agree with both of you on this, and generally speaking I do, but I feel like it's worth pointing out that quite a few Sage Advice bits from Jeremy Crawford have come down more on the "linguistic games" side of things than on the "common sense" side of things (particularly ones which might impact balance). Thankfully in 5E those aren't generally regarded as errata, but I feel like asserting that 5E was designed to rely on common sense is really questioned by some of the Sage Advice stuff (I avoid providing specific examples specifically to avoid re-litigating them, note).

As an on-topic-ish aside, man 5E Darkness is probably the most "more trouble than it's worth" spell in all of 5E. I haven't seen a single spell even come close to creating as many online and actual in-game discussions and confusions and "but but but..."s. And yet however you interpret it, it rarely has that much actual impact, it's just really annoying. I feel like in a few cases it would have been really helpful for spells, feats and a few others to contain a sentence or three more making explicit how they functioned. Or to have been written differently to start with.

 

[Mort]

Edit: Removed as unnecessary.

 

[Seramus]

Those are posts by @Mistwell and @prabe, and one of them is making the same claim as the one you're trying to support. I meant an actual example of someone saying the thing you claimed they were.

Those are the citations you asked for. They have quotes from other people in them. That's the thing to focus on.
But I'm happy to dig one up myself. Hrrm... Post 33?

Post errata there is no rule that would not permit a creature in darkness from seeing a creature in a lit area outside the darkness. In fact the rule that didn't allow that was errated away. There has never been anything in the darkness spell itself that precludes creatures without darkvision from seeing through it. So a creature without darkvision should be able to stand in the darkness and see a creature out of it. The only question - which I've made my case for - is whether a creature with darkvision can do the same.

That does give me the impression they are making a case that someone with darkvision inside magical darkness cannot see things outside of magical darkness.

 

[FrogReaver]

Those are the citations you asked for. They have quotes from other people in them. That's the thing to focus on.
But I'm happy to dig one up myself. Hrrm... Post 33?

That does give me the impression they are making a case that someone with darkvision inside magical darkness cannot see things outside of magical darkness.

Edit:

Explicitly the case I made for which the post you quoted is referring to was the case that one with dark vision could see out of the darkness spell.

 

[Hriston]

Those are the citations you asked for. They have quotes from other people in them. That's the thing to focus on.
But I'm happy to dig one up myself. Hrrm... Post 33?

That does give me the impression they are making a case that someone with darkvision inside magical darkness cannot see things outside of magical darkness.

I'm not @FrogReaver , but I notice that the quoted passage raises the question of whether a creature with darkvision can see out of the area of the darkness spell as an uncertainty, which is far from stating that it can't.