D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FrogReaver]

If silhouettes always count as heavily obscured, then observers are always "effectively blind" to silhouettes and thus no silhouette can ever be seen.

Are you suggesting silhouttes don't exist in 5e by RAW?

 

[FrogReaver]

Cover and line of sight are different things than obscurement. I’ve had like four people respond to me saying “nah, obscurement is a type of terrain.” Every time I’ve explained that obscurement isn’t what I’m talking about but it keeps happening anyway.

Yes they are different things than obscurement. Darkness is obscurement though - so what's the point of talking about them in a darkness thread?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's better not to treat the vague obscurement rules as defining "the physics of light" in D&D--it can produce problems like transparent creatures and/or walls. I'd much rather treat the obscurement rules as an abstraction of the real world. So at my table, if a creature in natural darkness is visible as a silhouette, I infer that they, exceptionally, must not be heavily obscured for rules purposes. The gameplay implication of that choice is that characters should take the location of light sources into account when trying to lurk in the darkness, and I'm totally fine with that additional bit of realism.

Fine ruling. But that would not be RAW. If the creature creating the silhouette is in an area of darkness then that creature is heavily obscured.

I suppose one could argue that a creature creating a silhoutte is never in an area of natural darkness. It's obvious light is hitting their backside in order to create a silhoutte from the other side. I think that's a compelling case.

 

[Xetheral]

Are you suggesting silhouttes don't exist in 5e by RAW?

Not at all. I was responding to your contention that RAW could be read to mean that silhouettes are always heavily obscured (and thus never seen) in 5e, and pointing out the complication that produces for the silhouettes of walls.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is a contradiction. A thing is transparent if and only if light can pass through it. Otherwise, it is opaque.

No, I mean it supresses light or whatever, in order to create the effect of darkness that won't allow light to make it less-dark. C'mon, work with me here, you know what darkness is!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hrrm. The street light lets me see you just fine, so no problems there.
But what about magical Darkness? Doesn't that mess with light? What do I see then?

You see an area that looks dark.

It might be hard to describe, because it doesn't exist in the real world, but I honestly don't know why it seems so hard to imagine. It's dark. It's a dark area. It doesn't get brighter when you hold a torch up to it, but you can see light sources on the other side. What does it look like? It looks like whatever is there, only everything is a whole lot darker, so details are hard as heck to make out. You might not be able to see anything in the area at all, or maybe you can. That all depends on what's going on, where it is, and what's behind it. All we know is that it's dark, and it looks dark.

 

[Xetheral]

Fine ruling. But that would not be RAW. If the creature creating the silhouette is in an area of darkness then that creature is heavily obscured.

I suppose one could argue that a creature creating a silhoutte is never in an area of natural darkness. It's obvious light is hitting their backside in order to create a silhoutte from the other side. I think that's a compelling case.

Ruling that a creature that can be seen must not be Heavily Obscured is perfectly consistent with the rules. It's just refusing to treat the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world, and instead treating them as an abstraction of real world lighting.

There can be multiple valid readings of the rules, and there can be multiple ways to resolve contradictions that crop in corner cases. So if a creature would otherwise be both seen and Heavily Obscured, that contradiction can be resolved within the rules either by ruling that the creature is actually not seen or by ruling that creature is actually not Heavily Obscured. (Or, as some posters in this thread have suggested, ruling that the creature is seen but giving them all the mechanical benefits of being Heavily Obscured anyway.) Resolving such contradictions on the fly is one of the jobs the rules give to the DM.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ruling that a creature that can be seen must not be Heavily Obscured is perfectly consistent with the rules. It's just refusing to treat the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world, and instead treating them as an abstraction of real world lighting.

There can be multiple valid readings of the rules, and there can be multiple ways to resolve contradictions that crop in corner cases. So if a creature would otherwise be both seen and Heavily Obscured, that contradiction can be resolved within the rules either by ruling that the creature is actually not seen or by ruling that creature is actually not Heavily Obscured. (Or, as some posters in this thread have suggested, ruling that the creature is seen but giving them all the mechanical benefits of being Heavily Obscured anyway.) Resolving such contradictions on the fly is one of the jobs the rules give to the DM.

Yup. Personally, I would say that Heavily Obscured does not equal "cannot be seen". It means "difficult to see".

HIDING means "cannot be seen". (Which often requires being Heavily Obscured to achieve, though not always.).

EDIT to point out that I don't feel any need to have people agree with me, I'm just sharing my opinion, flawed as I'm sure it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes they are different things than obscurement. Darkness is obscurement though - so what's the point of talking about them in a darkness thread?

Because @Hriston asked If people get specific about different vantages.

Do you really get this fiddly about what's visible from specific vantages in your games?

To which I responded: wouldn’t one have to get specific about vantages to establish things like line of sight and cover?

 

[Hriston]

Right, again, I’m not talking specifically about heavily obscured areas. Let’s say there’s a character standing in position A, a character standing in position B, and a character standing in position C. A wall blocks the path between position A and position C, but not between position B and position C. Wouldn’t it be necessary to know what can be seen from these three characters’ vantages to establish who has line of sight to whom and who has cover from whom?

Okay, but I was in the post you quoted, specifically the area of effect of darkness, a heavily obscured area, so replying as if my comment was supposed to have been about something else kind of robs it of context. A wall is an obstacle that provides cover as well as an obstruction to vision both ways. A heavily obscured area only blocks vision into the area, so adjudication of whether something can be seen relative to that area doesn't require anything other than asking whether the visual target is in the area or not. Everything else is just fluff.