D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

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.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying the shadow isn't in the area of darkness. I'm saying it's not a thing to be seen. Seeing a shadow is a kind of un-seeing because it's seeing an absence of photons, so you're not seeing anything. It's just looking at darkness.

And I would say that, as DM, you need to dial it back so that it isn't enough to "see" the creature.

 

[Minato]

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.

On a level playing field with just an absence of light on the spot where the creature is standing it's opponents should be able to see everything that is going on behind him, except for a creature shaped darkness, because nothing else is actually physically obscuring this "heavily obscured" area other then the creature's shape. real darkness doesn't have a shape. It's opponent will know where that shape is and see when it makes a move.

 

[Hriston]

On a level playing field with just an absence of light on the spot where the creature is standing it's opponents should be able to see everything that is going on behind him, except for a creature shaped darkness, because nothing else is actually physically obscuring this "heavily obscured" area other then the creature's shape. real darkness doesn't have a shape. It's opponent will know where that shape is and see when it makes a move.

That isn't consistent with how the spell is described. It's not just a neutral absence of light which allows external light to flood in and cast crisp shadows. The sphere of effect is filled with magical darkness which is going to have an obscuring effect on the creature and its shadow.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That isn't consistent with how the spell is described. It's not just a neutral absence of light which allows external light to flood in and cast crisp shadows. The sphere of effect is filled with magical darkness which is going to have an obscuring effect on the creature and its shadow.

And that obscuring sphere can visually exist only if you cannot see though it!

 

[Minato]

That isn't consistent with how the spell is described. It's not just a neutral absence of light which allows external light to flood in and cast crisp shadows. The sphere of effect is filled with magical darkness which is going to have an obscuring effect on the creature and its shadow.

If there's something the people looking at Darkness are seeing that is obscuring it's contents then they won't be able to look behind the Darkness either. Then it's back to spheres of black ink or orbs of smoke or gas with some level of opaqueness.

 

[Seramus]

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."

You can see a Shadow, Shadow Lurker, Shadow Demon, Black Pudding, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

If there's something the people looking at Darkness are seeing that is obscuring it's contents then they won't be able to look behind the Darkness either. Then it's back to spheres of black ink or orbs of smoke or gas with some level of opaqueness.

I'm not convinced this argument is true. Even with natural darkness something can be in it and obscured and we can see the lit up house across the dark field despite not being able to see into the dark field.

 

[Hriston]

And that obscuring sphere can visually exist only if you cannot see though it!

I don't get this. First, I have to say the phrase "see through it" is problematic because it's used in the spell to denote (IMO) the ability to see what's inside the sphere. So I agree that you cannot "see through it" to things inside of it.

But (second) you can "see through it" to things outside of it, which is what I think you meant by using that phrase. And this can certainly exist visually. We've all experienced being in a lit part of a house or other building and "seeing through" an unlit hallway or something into another illuminated part of the building. It needn't be more complicated than that. Personally, I like to imagine there's a lensing effect of looking through the sphere at what's on the other side, perhaps making it look small and far away, like looking down a long dark hall.

If there's something the people looking at Darkness are seeing that is obscuring it's contents then they won't be able to look behind the Darkness either. Then it's back to spheres of black ink or orbs of smoke or gas with some level of opaqueness.

That thing is darkness. It fills the sphere and obscures its contents. And just like normal darkness, you can see what's on the other side of it.

You can see a Shadow, Shadow Lurker, Shadow Demon, Black Pudding, etc.

Um, those are creatures, so seeing them is seeing a creature, right? Maybe I'm not getting the joke.

 

[Xetheral]

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying the shadow isn't in the area of darkness. I'm saying it's not a thing to be seen. Seeing a shadow is a kind of un-seeing because it's seeing an absence of photons, so you're not seeing anything. It's just looking at darkness.

And I would say that, as DM, you need to dial it back so that it isn't enough to "see" the creature.

I think you and I may have very different conceptions of the neurological phenomenon of "sight". To me it's perfectly meaningful to talk about seeing the absence of something. For example, if a wall is all green except for a white patch, it's perfectly reasonably for me to say I can see the absence of color in that patch, and to furthermore say that I can see the location of that absence of color. Similarly, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say one can see a shadow and the location of that shadow.

That isn't consistent with how the spell is described. It's not just a neutral absence of light which allows external light to flood in and cast crisp shadows. The sphere of effect is filled with magical darkness which is going to have an obscuring effect on the creature and its shadow.

It sounds like you're arguing for interpreting the Darkness created by the Darkness spell as partially transparent, as opposed to the full transparency Frogreaver was originally suggesting? So like a dark mist instead of natural darkness?

If so, would you agree that the same level of "obscuring effect" within the area of darkness will also apply to anything located behind the area of darkness from an outside observer's perspective?

 

[Hriston]

I think you and I may have very different conceptions of the neurological phenomenon of "sight". To me it's perfectly meaningful to talk about seeing the absence of something. For example, if a wall is all green except for a white patch, it's perfectly reasonably for me to say I can see the absence of color in that patch, and to furthermore say that I can see the location of that absence of color. Similarly, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say one can see a shadow and the location of that shadow.

Sure, it's reasonable to talk that way, but you're not really seeing the absence of green paint on the wall. You're seeing the white paint that makes the patch white instead of green. And sure, you can "see" a shadow, but it's not really seeing anything except the light that defines the shadow by its absence. I think, in terms of the darkness spell, it's pretty meaningless to say that seeing a shadow is seeing "something" in the area of the spell, which shouldn't be allowed because you can't see things in a heavily obscured area, because then you'd have to say that someone looking into the spell area couldn't even see the darkness inside of it.

It sounds like you're arguing for interpreting the Darkness created by the Darkness spell as partially transparent, as opposed to the full transparency Frogreaver was originally suggesting? So like a dark mist instead of natural darkness?

If so, would you agree that the same level of "obscuring effect" within the area of darkness will also apply to anything located behind the area of darkness from an outside observer's perspective?

This is mostly a matter of aesthetic preference to me, but I dislike the idea of there being a mist or any other medium by which the sphere is darkened. My preference is that it's filled with a kind of elemental darkness, so completely transparent like the air of a pitch-dark room.

Rather than an obscuring effect on things on the other side of the sphere from an outside observer, which would imply to me they would be hidden or unseen like things inside the area of effect, I mentioned just up-thread the idea of a lensing effect, like looking through a darkened glass globe. That would be my preference.