D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Xetheral]

Ironically while I don’t find this to be a compelling argument that the transparent darkness interpretation is RAW, I do think it makes a pretty good case for it being the simpler ruling to adjudicate.

Wait what? The old post doesn't even begin to address what a transparent sphere of darkness in an otherwise well-lit area would look like. It asserts that creatures inside the darkness would be unseen, but doesn't address what about a darkness spell prevents those creatures from being seen as silhouettes. It also asserts that the Darkness spell is bad for stealth because the sphere itself would be visible as a big blob of anti-light, without addressing how one can see the blob of anti-light if it's transparent.

So maybe it's just adding irony on top of irony, but I read the old post and reach the opposite conclusions that you do regarding whether it makes a good case for ease of adjudication.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wait what? The old post doesn't even begin to address what a transparent sphere of darkness in an otherwise well-lit area would look like. It asserts that creatures inside the darkness would be unseen, but doesn't address what about a darkness spell prevents those creatures from being seen as silhouettes. It also asserts that the Darkness spell is bad for stealth because the sphere itself would be visible as a big blob of anti-light, without addressing how one can see the blob of anti-light if it's transparent.

So maybe it's just adding irony on top of irony, but I read the old post and reach the opposite conclusions that you do regarding whether it makes a good case for ease of adjudication.

Goes to show how different people draw entirely different meanings from the same text. Personally, I found it made a pretty good case for transparent darkness being easier to adjudicate because it’s a clean binary. Is it in the zone? You can’t see it. Is it outside the zone? You can see it. Doesn’t matter your vision type or where you are in relation to the zone, everything inside it is effectively invisible, and everything outside the zone can be seen normally, regardless of line of site.

It doesn’t make a lick of sense with how light works in real life, and I couldn’t begin to tell you what the heck it would look like, but at least it’s easy to adjudicate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It doesn’t make a lick of sense with how light works in real life, and I couldn’t begin to tell you what the heck it would look like, but at least it’s easy to adjudicate.

Ultimately the purpose of RPG rules is to help us to create the fiction, so any rule that produces outcomes that cannot be imagined in said fiction is a non-functional rule.

 

[Xetheral]

Goes to show how different people draw entirely different meanings from the same text. Personally, I found it made a pretty good case for transparent darkness being easier to adjudicate because it’s a clean binary. Is it in the zone? You can’t see it. Is it outside the zone? You can see it. Doesn’t matter your vision type or where you are in relation to the zone, everything inside it is effectively invisible, and everything outside the zone can be seen normally, regardless of line of site.

It doesn’t make a lick of sense with how light works in real life, and I couldn’t begin to tell you what the heck it would look like, but at least it’s easy to adjudicate.

Oh interesting, thanks for elaborating! Apparently the difference is in how we use the word "adjudicate". To me, until I figure out what it looks like I can't adjudicate how to describe to a player what they can see (necessary for step one of the basic play loop), and until I know if creatures in the area appear as backlit silhouettes or don't appear at all (and thus are invisible), I can't adjudicate whether creatures in the area are unseen (necessary for resolving any action declarations).

If the spell text actually said that creatures in the area were heavily obscured or unseen, then I wouldn't need to know what the spell looks like (under the transparent darkness interpretation) to adjudicate action declarations, because the specific rule of the spell would override the evaluation under the general rule of whether or not creatures inside the darkness are visible as backlit silhouettes based on specific-beats-general. But the spell text does not include any of the necessary detail to run it as transparent darkness, so from my perspective the DM first has to adjudicate what the spell looks like in order to determine what can and cannot be seen.

Even if the spell text did have the necessary detail to adjudicate action declarations, I'd still have to resolve what it looks like to be able to start the basic play loop. Given that the alternative opaque ink-blot interpretation exists and doesn't suffer from any of these issues, I strongly suspect the designers intended the darkness created by the spell to be opaque.

 

[Hriston]

Ironically while I don’t find this to be a compelling argument that the transparent darkness interpretation is RAW, I do think it makes a pretty good case for it being the simpler ruling to adjudicate.

I find the implied economy of means persuasive, i.e. that it's darkness that isn't foiled by darkvision. It's a very simple concept that has a lot of applications.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh interesting, thanks for elaborating! Apparently the difference is in how we use the word "adjudicate". To me, until I figure out what it looks like I can't adjudicate how to describe to a player what they can see (necessary for step one of the basic play loop), and until I know if creatures in the area appear as backlit silhouettes or don't appear at all (and thus are invisible), I can't adjudicate whether creatures in the area are unseen (necessary for resolving any action declarations).

If the spell text actually said that creatures in the area were heavily obscured or unseen, then I wouldn't need to know what the spell looks like (under the transparent darkness interpretation) to adjudicate action declarations, because the specific rule of the spell would override the evaluation under the general rule of whether or not creatures inside the darkness are visible as backlit silhouettes based on specific-beats-general. But the spell text does not include any of the necessary detail to run it as transparent darkness, so from my perspective the DM first has to adjudicate what the spell looks like in order to determine what can and cannot be seen.

Even if the spell text did have the necessary detail to adjudicate action declarations, I'd still have to resolve what it looks like to be able to start the basic play loop. Given that the alternative opaque ink-blot interpretation exists and doesn't suffer from any of these issues, I strongly suspect the designers intended the darkness created by the spell to be opaque.

Ah, I gotcha. I was thinking about it “on paper,” so to speak. Just working out the mechanical intersections without regard to the visual description. Which in my opinion you kind of have to do to make the “transparent darkness” interpretation function, since as you say, the spell doesn’t give you enough information to sort out what it would look like. This is why I favor the “opaque darkness” interpretation. While I can work out what could or couldn’t be seen by whom under the “transparent darkness” interpretation, I can’t imagine any way to describe it, which makes it non-functional in actual play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ultimately the purpose of RPG rules is to help us to create the fiction, so any rule that produces outcomes that cannot be imagined in said fiction is a non-functional rule.

I agree!

 

[Xetheral]

I find the implied economy of means persuasive, i.e. that it's darkness that isn't foiled by darkvision. It's a very simple concept that has a lot of applications.

Out of curiosity, how do you run the transparent darkness interpretation at your table? Are backlit creatures in the area of darkness visible as silhouettes, or are they invisible? Is the sphere itself visible on its own, or only apparent by its effects on the illumination of the objects inside (if any)?

 

[Charlaquin]

I find the implied economy of means persuasive, i.e. that it's darkness that isn't foiled by darkvision. It's a very simple concept that has a lot of applications.

I mean, yeah, darkness that isn’t foiled by darkvision is a very simple concept with a lot of implications. The problem is that the spell is also “darkness without any opaque source casting it,” which is impossible. Now, that’s fine, Magic does all sorts of impossible things. But it generally does things that we can imagine and describe. I, a creature with vision that is based on light, can’t do that with darkness without an opaque source to cast it. It’s just not something my brain has a reference for, any more than I can visualize supernumerary spatial dimensions. The closest my brain can conceive of is a massless opaque medium, functionally similar to darkness. Which certainly would also foil Darkvision.

 

[Hriston]

Out of curiosity, how do you run the transparent darkness interpretation at your table? Are backlit creatures in the area of darkness visible as silhouettes, or are they invisible? Is the sphere itself visible on its own, or only apparent by its effects on the illumination of the objects inside (if any)?

I describe it like the darkness that surrounded Morgoth when he descended on Valinor to destroy the Trees and take the Silmarils, an un-light with an existence of its own, but smaller. Creatures within the area are not visible in a game sense, but if they don't make an effort to hide, then observers who are close enough know their location which could include things like perceiving silhouettes but not seeing the creatures themselves. The sphere of magical darkness is visible as a dark area.