D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mistwell]

You pulled that quote out of context. It's clear from the context that @FrogReaver was refuting @BookTenTiger 's use of the text that says creatures with darkvision can't see through the area of the spell to support an argument that all creatures, with or without darkvision, are unable to see out of magical darkness into an illuminated area. Obviously, that text only applies to creatures with darkvision, and pointing that out isn't an argument that "it's easier to see through magical darkness if you don't have darkvision".

I so wasn't pulling it out of context that he replied to me and his reply was not "that's not what I meant" nor was it "you took it out of context."

You earlier accused me of not following the thread but it now looks like you jumped into the middle of a discussion yourself?

 

[Hriston]

I so wasn't pulling it out of context that he replied to me and his reply was not "that's not what I meant" nor was it "you took it out of context."

You earlier accused me of not following the thread but it now looks like you jumped into the middle of a discussion yourself?

@FrogReaver’s reply doesn’t make you not responsible for what you do.

And no, that wasn’t me.

 

[Nefermandias]

I think this is a good thought provoking post. I've been contemplating this picture and what other plausible ways the spell could be described and it strikes me that it's either this or inkblot style (provided there is illumination behind the darkness emanating in a sphere.)

But this picture doesn't really go with the first few sentences of the spell description IMO - '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.' IMO The above picture is definitely not depicting what the spell describes.

So IMO, despite those sentences being easily written off as unmeaningful descriptive fluff, the importance of these first couple of sentences in the spell is paramount. They are the RAW that validates darkness spell isn't transparent such that you can see things on the other side. Once that has been established, it's clear that normal vision can't see something in the darkness spell, nor something on the other side of it. The spell also specifies that this is the same for darkvision.

I think this makes for a strong case that RAW functions you say.

This picture shouldn't really be regraded as evidence for the inkblot interpretation. I mean, two points of bright light with a patch of regular darkness in between would also cause any figure standing in the middle to cast a silhouette like that and yet, nobody argues that the patch in the middle would still be considered heavily Obscured by the rules.
@FrogReaver , you have convinced me that Darkness actually creates an area of transparent darkness with only the few differences listed in the spell text. I don't think you should back down just yet just because people is having a hard time imagining what such darkness would look like.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think you should back down just yet just because people is having a hard time imagining what such darkness would look like.

It’s not just an issue of having a hard time imagining what it would look like. The issue is that the transparent darkness interpretation produces results that would be visually incomprehensible to creatures with light-based vision.

Darkness is absence of light. Transparency is the ability for light to pass through something. If light passed through an area of darkness, it would by definition not be dark, because there wouldn’t be an absence of light. Heck, the only reason the animals in that image cast silhouettes is because they’re opaque. For light on the other side of an area of darkness to be visible, it would have to pass through the area, which would illuminate it.

We can imagine that, by magic, the light is somehow suppressed when passing through an area affected by the Darkness spell, but becomes luminous again when it reaches the other side. But we can’t imagine what that would look like because we have no frame of reference for it, which makes it impractical to use in game. Additionally, as FrogReaver observed, the visual description of the spell does appear to be consistent with opaque darkness. Which makes sense, given that opaque darkness is the only comprehensible visual description of free-standing darkness possible.

 

[Nefermandias]

It’s not just an issue of having a hard time imagining what it would look like. The issue is that the transparent darkness interpretation produces results that would be visually incomprehensible to creatures with light-based vision.

Darkness is absence of light. Transparency is the ability for light to pass through something. If light passed through an area of darkness, it would by definition not be dark, because there wouldn’t be an absence of light. Heck, the only reason the animals in that image cast silhouettes is because they’re opaque. For light on the other side of an area of darkness to be visible, it would have to pass through the area, which would illuminate it.

We can imagine that, by magic, the light is somehow suppressed when passing through an area affected by the Darkness spell, but becomes luminous again when it reaches the other side. But we can’t imagine what that would look like because we have no frame of reference for it, which makes it impractical to use in game. Additionally, as FrogReaver observed, the visual description of the spell does appear to be consistent with opaque darkness. Which makes sense, given that opaque darkness is the only comprehensible visual description of free-standing darkness possible.

But please notice that natural darkness is also transparent and the game still treats it as heavily Obscured even when creatures inside it are casting silhouettes all the same. Not sure why you couldn't just describe the visuals as you would any normal unlit area. Besides, the transparent darkness has precedent in previous editions and the weirdness of the visual effects were never an issue before.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It creates an impenetrable darkness. You are blind when in it and you can't see into it or through it.

That is my ruling. It's final. Go away or I start rolling on the wandering monster table.

Yeah, pretty much. It's just a pity they didn't just write that down. Call it "Sphere of Darkness" or whatever and I bet arguments would decline three bazillion percent. @FrogReaver is hardly the only person with the "dark area wot you can see stuff on the other side of" (I've seen it evolve apparently independently on reddit and GitP) interpretation in 5E, but I never saw such an interpretation in earlier editions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, I fully agree that it is needlessly ambiguously written.

 

[Nefermandias]

Yeah, pretty much. It's just a pity they didn't just write that down. Call it "Sphere of Darkness" or whatever and I bet arguments would decline three bazillion percent. @FrogReaver is hardly the only person with the "dark area wot you can see stuff on the other side of" (I've seen it evolve apparently independently on reddit and GitP) interpretation in 5E, but I never saw such an interpretation in earlier editions.

3.5e says nothing about it being a black inkblot and in fact, the text seems to encourage you to drop the spell over your party and nuke enemies away with ranged attacks, since it only describes the benefits of having Darkness over you.

Darkness :: d20srd.org

 

[Ruin Explorer]

3.5e says nothing about it being a black inkblot and in fact, the text seems to encourage you to drop the spell over your party and nuke enemies away with ranged attacks, since it only describes the benefits of having Darkness over you.

Darkness :: d20srd.org

I still don't remember anyone treating it as anything other than a blob of darkness in 3.XE though. However, I think we can both agree that 3.XE's rules on lighting were, to put it generously, bizarre. The dreaded "shadowy illumination" is present in the spell description I note.

 

[Nefermandias]

I still don't remember anyone treating it as anything other than a blob of darkness in 3.XE though. However, I think we can both agree that 3.XE's rules on lighting were, to put it generously, bizarre. The dreaded "shadowy illumination" is present in the spell description I note.

Bizarre as it might have been, at least the language never left so much for the DM to adjucate on spot and most surely there was a clear distinction between the lack of light and a heavy bush blocking your line of sight.