D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Nefermandias]

No, but I genuinely want to know how you imagine this working. Because I literally can't imagine it.

Like if darkness is cast on these people so that the guy is in it but the woman is not in it, but is behind it from our perspective, what are you imagining we would see?

That's the problem... We're running in circles here. People who defend the "magically induced dark zone" version of the spell understand that Darkess (the spell) and darkness (the natural ausence of ambient light) are functionally the same thing, except for the few differences specified in the spell text.

Everything you are bringing up as argument are not really properties of the spell, but of the strange and incomplete light rules in D&D 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's the problem... We're running in circles here. People who defend the "magically induced dark zone" version of the spell understand that Darkess (the spell) and darkness (the natural ausence of ambient light) are functionally the same thing, except for the few differences specified in the spell text.

Yet that interpretation produces situations that literally cannot be imagined. In a game about imagining fictional events, that seems like a rather colossal flaw to me. And of course this interpretation ignores 'cannot be illuminated' part, which is a crucial difference between normal darkness and the magical one.

Everything you are bringing up as argument are not really properties of the spell, but of the strange and incomplete light rules in D&D 5e.

Yet the impenetrable globe of blackness produces zero issues, and is easy to imagine.

 

[Xetheral]

By natural language - the stars don’t illuminate the earth.

Here's one of the definitions of "illuminate" from Merriam Webster:

1 a (1): to supply or brighten with light

The stars both supply earth with light and brighten the earth with light, so they meet the ordinary definition of illuminating the earth. The definition quoted is neither a technical usage nor is it jargon--it's just natural language.

And the amount of light supplied by the stars is meaningful in human terms. A human being can easily notice the amount of brightening provided by the stars so long as there aren't brighter sources of illumination around. It's not like we're talking about imperceptible levels of light here.

I do agree those guys aren't heavily obscured, but please notice that it's an issue with the vision and light rules in general, not with the spell Darkness.

Everything you are bringing up as argument are not really properties of the spell, but of the strange and incomplete light rules in D&D 5e.

If the vision and light rules in 5e don't adequately support running Darkness as creating transparent darkness, why interpret the spell that way?

Sure, the rules don't work great with natural darkness either, but at least natural darkness can't exist in the environments where the vision and light rules would completely fail at modelling it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, but I genuinely want to know how you imagine this working. Because I literally can't imagine it.

Like if darkness is cast on these people so that the guy is in it but the woman is not in it, but is behind it from our perspective, what are you imagining we would see?

Sure, I'll bite: It's dark around the guy, enough that you can barely see him. So much barely see him, that if he hides (by staying still and silent), you won't know he's there. If he moves, you might spot a shadowy figure in there, and/or hear him. Her, however, you can make her out well enough that if you want to shoot her with a firebolt or an arrow (poor thing, she's just waving) then you can with no penalty, because she's clear enough to do so. If you want to follow up and ask "how clear, visually?" well, I for one would say that the darkness spell would make her look shadowed too, but not as much as he is. Shrouded, perhaps. Others might not agree. I just think it would be a more interesting effect that way. Still not enough for penalties, though.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sure, the rules don't work great with natural darkness either, but at least natural darkness can't exist in the environments where the vision and light rules would completely fail at modelling at.

Anyone who thinks that the interpretation we're talking about causes the light rules to fail to model darkness (at least any more than they already do) is not understanding what we're trying to get across. I honestly don't know where our disconnect is, but such is the nature of discussing things in writing on the internet. I suspect that we'd all have hashed this out in ten or twenty minutes in the real world - though I suppose we may still disagree.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yet that interpretation produces situations that literally cannot be imagined. In a game about imagining fictional events, that seems like a rather colossal flaw to me. And of course this interpretation ignores 'cannot be illuminated' part, which is a crucial difference between normal darkness and the magical one.


Yet the impenetrable globe of blackness produces zero issues, and is easy to imagine.

I find them equally easy to imagine. I find it harder to imagine how anyone in the zero-light globe can function at all without hurting themselves, though! (Okay, that's an exaggeration - I can imagine that too, but it sure would be easier if there was a little light!)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, I'll bite: It's dark around the guy, enough that you can barely see him. So much barely see him, that if he hides (by staying still and silent), you won't know he's there. If he moves, you might spot a shadowy figure in there, and/or hear him. Her, however, you can make her out well enough that if you want to shoot her with a firebolt or an arrow (poor thing, she's just waving) then you can with no penalty, because she's clear enough to do so. If you want to follow up and ask "how clear, visually?" well, I for one would say that the darkness spell would make her look shadowed too, but not as much as he is. Shrouded, perhaps. Others might not agree. I just think it would be a more interesting effect that way. Still not enough for penalties, though.

So you think darkness gives everyone a shadowy aura that moves with them? That doesn't sound terribly obscuring. Also how don't you know he is there if he stands still? He is a pillar of shadow clearly visible against the brightly lit forest behind him?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So you think darkness gives everyone a shadowy aura that moves with them? That doesn't sound terribly obscuring. Also how don't you know he is there if he stands still? He is a pillar of shadow clearly visible against the brightly lit forest behind him?

I'm not sure what you mean. The shadowy aura that moves with them is very similar to the opaque sphere that moves with them, only not opaque. And he's not clearly visible. He's very difficult to see in the dark area. It's dark in there. Just not absolutely-not-a-single-photon-enters-it dark.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure what you mean. The shadowy aura that moves with them is very similar to the opaque sphere that moves with them, only not opaque. And he's not clearly visible. He's very difficult to see in the dark area. It's dark in there. Just not absolutely-not-a-single-photon-enters-it dark.

Right, but how can it be dark without also making it equally difficult to see past? How can it be easier to see something behind the bubble than it is to see something in the bubble?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what you mean. The shadowy aura that moves with them is very similar to the opaque sphere that moves with them, only not opaque. And he's not clearly visible. He's very difficult to see in the dark area. It's dark in there. Just not absolutely-not-a-single-photon-enters-it dark.

But it is not dark if you can see what's behind! The light is coming through! And the bubble is 30 feet across, whereas you described an individual shadow around the guy, if it was any bigger, it would block the LoS to the woman and the forest behind the shadow as well.