D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

Seeing creatures that are pitch black does not impose penalties to attack, assuming they are not Hiding.

Um, okay? I have a feeling you're attempting to relate this to seeing a shadow in some way?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Transparent in the sense that light can pass through it. Visible like the shadow is visible, provided there is light to provide contrast. This might seem like a paradox, but remember that it's dark inside the sphere, and the light that passes through it cannot illuminate it.

Makes sense to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Seeing creatures that are pitch black does not impose penalties to attack, assuming they are not Hiding.

Okay, but attacking creatures in a Heavily Obscured area does, even if you know where they are.

 

[Charlaquin]

It was a metaphor. I didn't mean to imply the sphere was literally filled with glass. That would be highly impractical.

No, I realize it was a metaphor, my point was that the fact that you need to describe what you envision in terms of an obscuring medium proves my point that transparent darkness without an opaque or translucent medium to cast it is completely incomprehensible.

 

[Hriston]

What does it mean that "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that [heavily obscured] area"?

1. The creature can't see things in that area.
2. The creature automatically fails any ability check to see things in that area.
3. Attack rolls by creatures in that area against the creature have advantage.
4. The creature's attack rolls against creatures in that area have disadvantage.

 

[Hriston]

No, I realize it was a metaphor, my point was that the fact that you need to describe what you envision in terms of an obscuring medium proves my point that transparent darkness without an opaque or translucent medium to cast it is completely incomprehensible.

Hmm, I'm not sure. A glass sphere is transparent, not opaque, and I only brought it up to help describe the lensing effect I was imagining, which requires it to be transparent, otherwise you couldn't see through it. I think objective claims that it's incomprehensible are countered by those of others who say it makes sense to them. I don't feel like I have too much difficulty imagining this sort of thing, although in a game I would be unlikely to get into this level of description unless there was a good reason related to there being something at stake in the game. I think if I did, it would distract from whatever it was that was actually important, and I try not to do that.

 

[Charlaquin]

What does it mean that "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that [heavily obscured] area"?

1. The creature can't see things in that area.
2. The creature automatically fails any ability check to see things in that area.
3. Attack rolls by creatures in that area against the creature have advantage.
4. The creature's attack rolls against creatures in that area have disadvantage.

All of the above. Though, it could be argued that 1 is redundant, or “fluff text”, as 2-4 are the mechanical effects of not being able to see something.

 

[Hriston]

All of the above. Though, it could be argued that 1 is redundant, or “fluff text”, as 2-4 are the mechanical effects of not being able to see something.

It wasn't a quiz! But you pass with flying colors.

Edit to add: I'd actually disagree about 1 being redundant though. I'd say 2 is the better candidate for redundancy because otherwise there might be things you can see because the DM didn't call for a check to see them.

 

[Charlaquin]

It wasn't a quiz! But you pass with flying colors.

Sorry, it was phrased as a question so I answered

 

[Hriston]

Sorry, it was phrased as a question so I answered

I was being super pedantic. Sorry!