D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Nefermandias]

Right, but that interpretation is relying on the phrasing “a creature without Darkvision can’t see through this darkness.” The implication of which would be that a creature with Darkvision can’t see anything on the other side of the Darkness, but a creature without Darkvision can.

They both could see it. The errata says you are only effectively blinded in relation to another creature inside the heavily Obscured area.

 

[Nefermandias]

I've previously pointed out how interpreting the spell as magically induced non-magical darkness produces gaps that the spell text does not resolve. In particular, it doesn't answer the question of what magically induced non-magical darkness in an otherwise well-lit area would look like to an observer standing outside the darkness.

Is the boundary noticable? Are creatures/objects inside silhouetted (violating the heavy obscurement rules) or invisible (not suggested by the text of the spell)? Do they cast shadows outside the area? Do non-magical light sources in the area of darkness cast light outside of the darkness?

And saying "it works just like normal darkness" doesn't answer these questions because normal darkness cannot exist in an otherwise well-lit area.

I agree this interpretation leaves some ugly gaps, but it's RAW. Maybe it's easier to just go with the popular inkblot interpretation, but keep in mind you would be adding things so the spell makes sense. By the way, have you read the 3.5 version? It kinda works as @FrogReaver is proposing:

This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.

Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness.

If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Arcane Material Component​

A bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal.

 

[Mistwell]

They both could see it. The errata says you are only effectively blinded in relation to another creature inside the heavily Obscured area.

EXCEPT the spell says, "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness." which is different than normal darkness.

 

[Charlaquin]

They both could see it. The errata says you are only effectively blinded in relation to another creature inside the heavily Obscured area.

They could both see it, if it was natural darkness. But if we accept that the statement “a creature with Darkvision can’t see through this darkness” constitutes an exception to how natural darkness works, the implication is that this would prevent a creature with Darkvision from seeing the torch, since they would quite literally need to be able to see through the darkness to do so.

 

[Nefermandias]

EXCEPT the spell says, "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness." which is different than normal darkness.

Yes, because it would be expected for creatures with Darkvision to ignore the spell effect, which they don't precisely because of this line.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, because it would be expected for creatures with Darkvision to ignore the spell effect, which they don't precisely because of this line.

Yes, that is one of the implications of that statement.

 

[Nefermandias]

Yes, that is one of the implications of that statement.

They don't have to specify that normal vision can't see through it because that's the default assumption anyway.

 

[Xetheral]

I agree this interpretation leaves some ugly gaps, but it's RAW. Maybe it's easier to just go with the popular inkblot interpretation, but keep in mind you would be adding things so the spell makes sense. By the way, have you read the 3.5 version? It kinda works as @FrogReaver is proposing:

This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.

Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness.

If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Arcane Material Component​

A bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal.

I disagree that it is RAW. I have maintained from the beginning that the vision and obscurement rules are too abstract to permit a RAW answer to the question of whether the darkness created by the spell is opaque or transparent.

I'm glad you agree that the transparent interpretation creates some ugly gaps. Do you agree that since the opaque ink-blot interpretation does not produce such gaps, that it is more likely to be the interpretation the designers were intending to communicate to the reader? (On top of the fact that the opaque ink-blot interpretation gives the phrase "can't see through this darkness" its ordinary meaning of describing the medium created by the spell as opaque.)

Yes, I'm well familiar with the 3.5 version. Note how it includes a great deal of additional information about how to adjudicate it that the 5e version lacks. This demonstrates that if WotC wanted to communicate that the darkness created by the spell was transparent, they knew how to include the necessary detail. The absence of that necessary detail from the 5e version I consider strong evidence that the transparent interpretation is not the one the designers were intending to communicate.

 

[Xetheral]

They don't have to specify that normal vision can't see through it because that's the default assumption anyway.

Only if the darkness is opaque. If the darkness is transparent than anyone with normal vision would be assumed to see through it just fine.

 

[Nefermandias]

I disagree that it is RAW. I have maintained from the beginning that the vision and obscurement rules are too abstract to permit a RAW answer to the question of whether the darkness created by the spell is opaque or transparent.

I'm glad you agree that the transparent interpretation creates some ugly gaps. Do you agree that since the opaque ink-blot interpretation does not produce such gaps, that it is more likely to be the interpretation the designers were intending to communicate to the reader? (On top of the fact that the opaque ink-blot interpretation gives the phrase "can't see through this darkness" its ordinary meaning of describing the medium created by the spell as opaque.)

Yes, I'm well familiar with the 3.5 version. Note how it includes a great deal of additional information about how to adjudicate it that the 5e version lacks. This demonstrates that if WotC wanted to communicate that the darkness created by the spell was transparent, they knew how to include the necessary detail. The absence of that necessary detail from the 5e version I consider strong evidence that the transparent interpretation is not the one the designers were intending to communicate.

I agree that treating it as an opaque cloud of darkness makes adjucation easier and even helps with balancing issues. On the other hand, they DO seem to differentiate magically induced darkness from really thick smoke.
I also believe that previous versions of the spell support the transparent darkness interpretation.
Then again, it IS strange and hard to imagine such phenomena.