D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FitzTheRuke]

Heavily Obscured has, to me, never meant "totally can't see" anyone in it, as you can tell where a creature is in the area unless they are hiding. Heavily Obscured grants them the ability to hide, not automatically causes them to. So in the most recent example of Dog and Bunny, Dog can effectively see Bunny in either position, Dog just can't see Bunny VERY WELL. If bunny rolled a Dexterity (Stealth) check (an action, unless Bunny is a Rogue) then Bunny would be gone either way.

To me, this all makes the Darkness spell make MORE sense, and actually be worth casting more of the time.

As far as what it looks like goes, well, that's pretty simple. Everyone understands if you are standing in a light source, in the dark, and far away there is another light source. The Darkness bubble just looks like THAT, only a lot smaller. Sure, it basically looks like a shadowy blob when it reacts with nearby light sources (they unnaturally can't penetrate the area). You hold a torch up to it, it just stays dark.

I understand that some people might still have a hard time imagining it (it's unnatural, after all) but it makes sense to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

What about a single light source at the end of the hallway and both you and the orc standing in darkness, with him between you and the light.
Real world physics would tell you the orc can't see you, but you would surely be able to see his outline clearly.
How would you handle that?

Basically the same - I’d just say if you’re beyond the dim light radius of the distant light source and have no light source of your own, the light source is small enough in your field of vision that you can’t clearly make out other objects outside the dim light radius. Clearly being the operative word, maybe you can kind of see some silhouettes, but you have disadvantage on attacks against them and they’re eligible to try to hide from you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Heavily Obscured has, to me, never meant "totally can't see" anyone in it, as you can tell where a creature is in the area unless they are hiding. Heavily Obscured grants them the ability to hide, not automatically causes them to. So in the most recent example of Dog and Bunny, Dog can effectively see Bunny in either position, Dog just can't see Bunny VERY WELL. If bunny rolled a Dexterity (Stealth) check (an action, unless Bunny is a Rogue) then Bunny would be gone either way.

To me, this all makes the Darkness spell make MORE sense, and actually be worth casting more of the time.

As far as what it looks like goes, well, that's pretty simple. Everyone understands if you are standing in a light source, in the dark, and far away there is another light source. The Darkness bubble just looks like THAT, only a lot smaller. Sure, it basically looks like a shadowy blob when it reacts with nearby light sources (they unnaturally can't penetrate the area). You hold a torch up to it, it just stays dark.

I understand that some people might still have a hard time imagining it (it's unnatural, after all) but it makes sense to me.

Yeah, that’s a pretty convincing argument.

 

[Xetheral]

Heavily Obscured has, to me, never meant "totally can't see" anyone in it, as you can tell where a creature is in the area unless they are hiding.

While the rules could have been written that way, they weren't. The errata'd rules literally say that observers are "effectively blind" when trying to see anything in a heavily obscured area.

If the DM rules that a creature in darkness is within hearing range, then its location may still be known if it isn't hidden, but that's based only on sound--per the Blinded condition, sight is impossible.

Edit: Which is, of course, why the silhouette interpretation of transparent darkness conflicts with the Heavy Obscurement rules--(effectively) blind creatures can't see silhouettes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This reminds me from the invisibility thread from a while ago, where there was a long argument about whether the location of invisible things was automatically known. The truth is that the fifth edition's perception rules are an utter mess, and every GM just has to try to deal with them in manner that feels most comfortable to them.

 

[hirou]

This reminds me from the invisibility thread from a while ago, where there was a long argument about whether the location of invisible things was automatically known. The truth is that the fifth edition's perception rules are an utter mess, and every GM just has to try to deal with them in manner that feels most comfortable to them.

Rules for Stealth in 4th edition were phrased much, much better (after several rounds of errata, that is), but RAW definition of "hidden" condition is enough to maintain "hidden" condition. I.e. once you hide once successfully, you're hidden forever whatever you do, if you rule lawyer enough (see house rule #7 here). I'm not sure whether the situation was better or worse in 3e...

 

[Hriston]

While the rules could have been written that way, they weren't. The errata'd rules literally say that observers are "effectively blind" when trying to see anything in a heavily obscured area.

If the DM rules that a creature in darkness is within hearing range, then its location may still be known if it isn't hidden, but that's based only on sound--per the Blinded condition, sight is impossible.

Edit: Which is, of course, why the silhouette interpretation of transparent darkness conflicts with the Heavy Obscurement rules--(effectively) blind creatures can't see silhouettes.

Seeing the silhouette of a creature is not seeing the creature. It's seeing the creature's shadow which, I would argue, is not seeing "something in that area."

 

[Minato]

Seeing the silhouette of a creature is not seeing the creature. It's seeing the creature's shadow which, I would argue, is not seeing "something in that area."

It makes for a clear target, a clear indication of when it moves, where it goes, does something with somatic components, ectera.

 

[Xetheral]

Seeing the silhouette of a creature is not seeing the creature. It's seeing the creature's shadow which, I would argue, is not seeing "something in that area."

There's certainly room to quibble over whether, e.g., the moon can be "seen" in a solar eclipse or if instead one is seeing a shadow perfectly superimposed over the moon. Differing perspectives on what it means to be "seen" could definitely affect the relative complexity of opaque vs transparent interpretations of the spell.

I would emphasize, however, that the language used in the Heavy Obscurement rules is "effectively blind", so an observer can't see any shadows in the affected area either. You say you're ruling a silhouette to not be located in the affected area, and so bypassing that restriction, but frankly I don't know where else it's going to be.

I could make an argument that the silhouette is located on the outside observer's retina (or visual cortex, etc.), but that's no different than "seeing" anything else. We could go really deep and say that the silhouette is a concept that doesn't have a physical location at all, other than what our brain interpolates, but that's likewise going to be true for any image.

At the end of the day, from my perspective, the purpose of the vision/obscurement rules is to resolve what can be located visually, and a silhouette is definitely enough to locate a creature visually (at least at the ranges that are usually pertinent in D&D). So for me, a silhouette is generally going to be enough to "see" a creature.

 

[Hriston]

It makes for a clear target, a clear indication of when it moves, where it goes, does something with somatic components, ectera.

You seem to be imagining a much more crisp and precise silhouette than I am. The thing to remember is none of that is true unless the DM tells the players it is, and because the DM is the mediator between the players and the rules, and because the rules tell us that none of that is happening because the creature is in a heavily obscured area, then the DM really shouldn't do that. I know I wouldn't.