D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And this is where I reiterate the statement I've always made, which is that I firmly believe neither Jeremy, or Mike, or whomever have ever cared about being rigorous in their comments for Sage Advice... because Sage Advice goes against everything they believe in with regards to 5E rules. They have always wanted DMs to make their own rulings on parts where the DMs had questions... but instead all these DMs instead kept hounding them about "What's RAW?!? What's RAW?!? I need to know RAW!!!"

No they don't. RAW doesn't matter in 5E and explicitly never has. And thus Jeremy et. al. I don't believe have ever cared one whit to delve down into all the niggling wording to get the same airtight definitions and crap that were the hallmark of 4E. And indeed I suspect their opinions and claims change over time because they just don't remember what they've said previously because they don't really care what they've said previously, because they shouldn't have been asked about it in the first place. And when they are called out on it, they just say "Well, it's this now" because they're tired of being ignored by people who just refuse to take "It doesn't matter what the book says... if you don't like a rule, make a new one up that works for you and your table" for an answer.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yep. And what’s worse is the the immediate context of that quote makes clear that my position is that people with dark vision can see out of magical darkness but just not into it.

I think creatures without darkvision can see through it. But just like regular post errata darkness they cannot see into it.

Normally a creature with darkvision can see through normal darkness. Natural language that often means the same as they can see into the darkness. I believe all that rule 'creatures with darkvision cannot see through this darkness' is telling is is that their darkvision doesn't allow them to see into the darkness like they normally can. I believe that's why it doesn't mention creatures without darkvision.

 

[Seramus]

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.

Hrrm. Actually, you're right. I can see in Post 32 that you believe people with darkvision can see out of magical darkness. I guess I was referencing Post 3 since it's closer to the opening post, instead of Post 32 which comes later and takes priority. I retract my claim!

Still, your posts are confusing as heck.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hrrm. Actually, you're right. I can see in Post 32 that you believe people with darkvision can see out of magical darkness. I guess I was referencing Post 3 since it's closer to the opening post, instead of Post 32 which comes later and takes priority. I retract my claim!

Still, your posts are confusing as heck.

@Hriston seems to get them just fine so I don’t think they can be that confusing.

IMO. The only people I see not understanding what I’m saying are those that skip over the posts that prove their assertions about my position wrong.

*Note: understanding my position and agreeing with it are two different things.

 

[jgsugden]

If the intent, as most people assume, is to continue the same magical darkness concept we saw in prior editions, then they left out some key language. They could have achieved the goal by stating that the magical darkness creates heavy obscurement, or they could have said, "All nonmagical light that enters the field of darkness is negated" (or something to that effect). Assuming that is the intent, the description is flawed.

As written, you can make the assertion that you can see illuminated things outside the darkness from within it, or see illuminated things on the other side of it. It seems most people believe this is not the intent, even though it is written this way, technically.

As a DM, I certainly rule that this spell is intended to heavily obscure any line of sight that passes through it, but I can see the argument that this is not the way it is written, and that this is not how it should be played under RAW. It offends my concepts of continuity from prior editions, but I get it.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the intent, as most people assume, is to continue the same magical darkness concept we saw in prior editions, then they left out some key language. They could have achieved the goal by stating that the magical darkness creates heavy obscurement, or they could have said, "All nonmagical light that enters the field of darkness is negated" (or something to that effect). Assuming that is the intent, the description is flawed.

As written, you can make the assertion that you can see illuminated things outside the darkness from within it, or see illuminated things on the other side of it. It seems most people believe this is not the intent, even though it is written this way, technically.

As a DM, I certainly rule that this spell is intended to heavily obscure any line of sight that passes through it, but I can see the argument that this is not the way it is written, and that this is not how it should be played under RAW. It offends my concepts of continuity from prior editions, but I get it.

I think the continuity from prior editions is a great thing to base a ruling on, along with balance, conformity to current media depictions of magical darkness. All those are reasons I will probably continue to run it the same despite believing RAW technically says different.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

Well, 5e was explicitly designed to rely on common sense, Jeremy Crawford just changed tactics for how he answers rules questions. Shortly after the release of 5e, Sage Advice started out as a weekly column on the WotC site, and the very first one had a lengthy discussion about how any rules question really had three answers: rules a written, rules as intended, and rules as fun. And the first few questions he answered went into all three.

For example, the original Sage Advice answer to the question of if Trance allows elves finish a long rest in only four hours was that it was a reasonable interpretation of the RAW, but the RAI was only for it to give them more time during a long rest to perform light activity rather than sleep, and that if you think allowing elves to take a long rest in only 4 hours would be RAF, that’s probably fine balance wise, but keep in mind the worldbuilding implications, because if elves heal and recover spells twice as quickly as everyone else, their society is likely to be militarily superior to everyone else’s.

Of course, somewhere along the line, probably because he realized it would be untenable to go into this kind of detail about every rules question, he completely stopped bothering with RAI and RAF and just gave the most literal RAW interpretation possible for every question. Even changed the official answer to the trance question to a straightforward “yes” after the errata to the long rest wording.

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is where I reiterate the statement I've always made, which is that I firmly believe neither Jeremy, or Mike, or whomever have ever cared about being rigorous in their comments for Sage Advice...

They definitely cared at one time, very briefly. Wrote a whole blog post on RAW vs. RAI vs. RAF (Rules as Fun) and how they would go into all three for their answers. Then actually answered a small handful of questions that way, and promptly gave up.

And indeed I suspect their opinions and claims change over time because they just don't remember what they've said previously because they don't really care what they've said previously, because they shouldn't have been asked about it in the first place.

Oh, the absolutely have. The answer to the elf trance question changed when the long rest rules got errata’d, and when folks asked Jeremy why the answer changed to “yes” when the previous answer had said “no” was RAI, he said something along the lines of “the wording of a long rest changed, so our intent changed.” Which is ridiculous, especially given the previous answer went into the world building implications of a yes answer, which the new long rest wording does nothing to address.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the record, here’s that RAW vs. RAI vs. RAF article:

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Some really insightful tidbits in there. Might be worth starting a new thread about, cause I think a lot of folks have either forgotten this or never read it.

EDIT: And here’s the one with yheoriginal Trance ruling, which I maintain is the “better” ruling, even if the updated one is more consistent with the current RAW:

Errata: October 2016 | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons

This Sage Advice includes a link to the Player’s Handbook errata and answers some D&D rules questions.

dnd.wizards.com

Wouldn’t it be nice if Crawford still went into this level of detail with Sage Advice?

 

[Seramus]

@Hriston seems to get them just fine so I don’t think they can be that confusing.

To be fair, @Hriston took the same position when this was discussed in 2015.
That's consistency!