D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[SkidAce]

Just my two cents, its a magical field that absorbs all light.

So you cant see out of it (light is absorbed before it hits your eyes.
You cant see into it (light is absorbed on the way out to your eyes.
You cant see through/past it (light that would have passed through it is absorbed upon entering.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

It's not that it's a paradox, so much as a contradiction by definition. If the darkness is fully transparent, then it can't be seen at all, by definition. If the darkness is instead partially transparent and partially opaque, then it can be seen (if it's backlit, anyway) because it partially blocks the light from behind that is passing through, making that light dimmer.

Any level of opacity can be made to work, I just am not sure what level of opacity you have in mind, since you seem to be saying the darkness is simultaneously 100% transparent and still visible.

Let's say that darkness is cast in midair (it can't technically be cast in midair, but assuming it could be for sale of argument) on a sunny, cloudless day. There are no objects or creatures in its area. Under your approach, do observers on the ground looking up see:

1. An uninterrupted bright blue sky? (darkness is 100% transparent)
2. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of dimmer blue? (darkness is less than 100% transparent, but greater than 0% transparent)
3. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of black? (darkness is 0% transparent)

(For reference, the clearest ordinary glass is about 85% transparent, if I remember correctly.)

From your descriptions I'm pretty sure you run Darkness as #2, partially transparent. Is that correct?

 

[Imaculata]

The way to look at it is this:

Imagine a lantern, but instead of light, it shines magical darkness that cancels all light. The magical darkness basically creates an area that absorbs any light that passes through it.

Thus the idea that you can see in or out or through it is answered. In order for you to see something on the other side of the magical darkness, light would need to pass through it and hit your eyes. But magical darkness prevents exactly that. Light cannot pass through it, so you can't see anything on the other side, regardless of wether it is illuminated or not.

I don't know however if a bunny can cast the Darkness spell. I'll leave that mystery for someone else to answer.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

We can't really regard 1 as fluff because a lot of spells and special abilities do requires you to "see" the target.

 

[Charlaquin]

We can't really regard 1 as fluff because a lot of spells and special abilities do requires you to "see" the target.

Good point.

 

[Seramus]

Thus the idea that you can see in or out or through it is answered. In order for you to see something on the other side of the magical darkness, light would need to pass through it and hit your eyes. But magical darkness prevents exactly that. Light cannot pass through it, so you can't see anything on the other side, regardless of wether it is illuminated or not.

That's the Ink Blot interpretation, and I don't think they have that position.

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

I am. A back-lit sillohuete would be Lightly Obscured in my book, so I'm looking for a different visual representation.

 

[pwhimp]

It's not that it's a paradox, so much as a contradiction by definition. If the darkness is fully transparent, then it can't be seen at all, by definition. If the darkness is instead partially transparent and partially opaque, then it can be seen (if it's backlit, anyway) because it partially blocks the light from behind that is passing through, making that light dimmer.

Any level of opacity can be made to work, I just am not sure what level of opacity you have in mind, since you seem to be saying the darkness is simultaneously 100% transparent and still visible.

Let's say that darkness is cast in midair (it can't technically be cast in midair, but assuming it could be for sale of argument) on a sunny, cloudless day. There are no objects or creatures in its area. Under your approach, do observers on the ground looking up see:

1. An uninterrupted bright blue sky? (darkness is 100% transparent)
2. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of dimmer blue? (darkness is less than 100% transparent, but greater than 0% transparent)
3. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of black? (darkness is 0% transparent)

(For reference, the clearest ordinary glass is about 85% transparent, if I remember correctly.)

From your descriptions I'm pretty sure you run Darkness as #2, partially transparent. Is that correct?

After reading this whole thread, this is exactly the question I want to know the answer to. (Also midair can totally be "a point you choose within range" for casting darkness)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

After reading this whole thread, this is exactly the question I want to know the answer to. (Also midair can totally be "a point you choose within range" for casting darkness)

You're all thinking a little too scientifically, which is why you're having trouble. The effect is IMPOSSIBLE.

The spell creates DARKNESS. It's transparent, but it's not allowing light to go through it. Whether or not it's not allowing 100% of light to go through it or not is where we're all at odds. Maybe it's not 100% perfectly all-the-time effective. But it's not anything other than an absence of light - IE darkness.

There are contradictions in the rules that suggest possibly not. There is reason to believe that in spite of the line "nonmagical light can't illuminate it" means that a source of nonmagical light won't cause the area of darkness to become an area of light, but may NOT mean that light can't go through it just enough that you can see what's on the other side, or possibly even see some movement/shadowy shapes/etc that are inside it. This is because OTHER RULES say that you CAN, and the spell is silent either way.

Everyone agrees that it's not very well worded to be sure.

 

[Hriston]

It's not that it's a paradox, so much as a contradiction by definition. If the darkness is fully transparent, then it can't be seen at all, by definition. If the darkness is instead partially transparent and partially opaque, then it can be seen (if it's backlit, anyway) because it partially blocks the light from behind that is passing through, making that light dimmer.

Any level of opacity can be made to work, I just am not sure what level of opacity you have in mind, since you seem to be saying the darkness is simultaneously 100% transparent and still visible.

Let's say that darkness is cast in midair (it can't technically be cast in midair, but assuming it could be for sale of argument) on a sunny, cloudless day. There are no objects or creatures in its area. Under your approach, do observers on the ground looking up see:

1. An uninterrupted bright blue sky? (darkness is 100% transparent)
2. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of dimmer blue? (darkness is less than 100% transparent, but greater than 0% transparent)
3. A bright blue sky interrupted by a 30' wide circle of black? (darkness is 0% transparent)

(For reference, the clearest ordinary glass is about 85% transparent, if I remember correctly.)

From your descriptions I'm pretty sure you run Darkness as #2, partially transparent. Is that correct?

I don't think it makes sense to talk about the darkness as transparent, but I would say that the area of the spell is both transparent and dark. We've all, I imagine, had the experience of standing in daylight at the entrance of an unlit tunnel which is dark and through which the light at the other end of the tunnel can be seen. The medium that fills the tunnel, the air, is transparent, allowing light from the end of the tunnel to reach your eyes, and yet the tunnel itself is dark. This is the same thing. I anticipate that someone might object that the tunnel has opaque walls that make it dark, which is true, but the spell area doesn't need opaque walls to make it dark because its darkness is created by magic.

So let's say the spell is cast 60 feet above the caster in mid-air (which is completely possible according to the spell description). Looking up, I imagine the caster would see a black ring defining the outside of the sphere, with the blackness fading towards its center where the blue sky beyond could be seen as through a dark tunnel.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think it makes sense to talk about the darkness as transparent, but I would say that the area of the spell is both transparent and dark. We've all, I imagine, had the experience of standing in daylight at the entrance of an unlit tunnel which is dark and through which the light at the other end of the tunnel can be seen. The medium that fills the tunnel, the air, is transparent, allowing light from the end of the tunnel to reach your eyes, and yet the tunnel itself is dark. This is the same thing. I anticipate that someone might object that the tunnel has opaque walls that make it dark, which is true, but the spell area doesn't need opaque walls to make it dark because its darkness is created by magic.

So let's say the spell is cast 60 feet above the caster in mid-air (which is completely possible according to the spell description). Looking up, I imagine the caster would see a black ring defining the outside of the sphere, with the blackness fading towards its center where the blue sky beyond could be seen as through a dark tunnel.

If a creature was in that darkness what would it look like?