D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess, tough pill to swallow though.

DM: "The silhouette, which looks like a Drider, and definitely doesn't look like anything else in creation, pulls out what can only be described as a longbow and shoots an arrow from it. He has advantage as you are effectively blind to his presence and any movement he makes."

That... is a very weird way of describing it, and not what anyone is saying. No wonder you think it's hard to imagine.

 

[Xetheral]

Sure, something like that. The exact level of "dimmed" would be up to whatever you feel comfortable with counting as "not enough obscurement to count mechanically as heavily obscured" (for the woman) and "enough obscurement to count mechanically as heavily obscured" (for the man). You can see her well enough to shoot her without disadvantage, and you can see him poorly enough to have disadvantage on shooting him. From my (perhaps "our" when we keep talking about "sides") perspective, that means she's dark and he's darker, but she's not GONE and nor is he. Again, I (we?) feel that the Inkblot side seems to be insisting that he has to be absolutely black to be "heavily obscured" and she has to be absolutely bright to not be. (And would be utterly gone too, if the area of the spell is in front of her).

(Emphasis added.) I understand that you're comfortable with applying vision-based advantage/disadvantage even when a creature is neither affected by the Invisible condition, nor when their opponent is (effectively) suffering from the Blinded condition. That's definitely a way to make the transparent interpretation of the Darkness spell work. You are adapting the rules to make it work though, and I think the fact that you need to make that change weighs against the transparent interpretation having been intended by the designers.

 

[Minato]

That... is a very weird way of describing it, and not what anyone is saying. No wonder you think it's hard to imagine.

It surely is effectively what people are saying. real darkness doesn't have shape. the Darkness spell is given to creatures that are Larger then any player race, that you gonna be looking up at with the darkness not being cast anywhere but itself and ground beneath it, which it can't blend into like the example of looking down on a street from a window as is generally being used in this thread to visually it. Darkness should work without there already being cover or partial cover, or light obscurement being in the field of effect to begin with. It wouldn't if it works like natural darkness as we know it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

(Emphasis added.) I understand that you're comfortable with applying vision-based advantage/disadvantage even when a creature is neither affected by the Invisible condition, nor when their opponent is (effectively) suffering from the Blinded condition. That's definitely a way to make the transparent interpretation of the Darkness spell work. You are adapting the rules to make it work though, and I think the fact that you need to make that change weighs against the transparent interpretation having been intended by the designers.

And I disagree. "Effectively Blind" does not equal "Can't see a single thing" - as I mentioned before, I actually know more than one person who is LEGALLY BLIND and can see light, movement, and objects or faces from the right angle/close enough up.

It's pretty obvious to me at this point is the difference between the "sides" is quite literally the difference between things being black and white and things being shades of grey.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because she's standing in the light. I'd imagine her to still be shadowed by the darkness between you and her, but not as much as he is, in the spell's area. Because MAGIC.

She may be standing in the light, but in order to see her, light has to reflect off of her and reach your eyes, which if you’re on the other side of the darkness bubble, it would have to pass through the darkness bubble to do.

I get that it’s magic, that’s why it’s able to create darkness in a lit area without an opaque source to block the light. The magic itself must somehow be blocking the light, and that’s fine. But there’s no logical way for the person who’s standing in the light to appear less obscured through the darkness than someone in the darkness does, unless the spell bends the light around the bubble. In which case the effect would not be darkness but invisibility.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It surely is effectively what people are saying. real darkness doesn't have shape. the Darkness spell is given to creatures that are Larger then any player race, that you gonna be looking up at with the darkness not being cast anywhere but itself and ground beneath it, which it can't blend into like the example of looking down on a street from a window as is generally being used in this thread to visually it. Darkness should work without there already being cover or partial cover, or light obscurement being in the field of effect to begin with. It wouldn't if it works like natural darkness as we know it.

And again, as has been stated before, it's MAGIC. Of COURSE it doesn't work like that in real life. I tried describing the spell as "supressing light" and I was told "Light doesn't work like that"... I KNOW. Of course not. That's why it's magic!

As far as your first sentence goes, well, I could misrepresent how a DM would describe the inkblot too (I normally wouldn't, seeing as I don't have a problem with that interpretation, and I've used it myself until I read this thread) but here goes, so that maybe you understand how you "sound":

Inkblot DM: "You come upon an area of total blackness. The drider inside is going to shoot you. Yes, you know there's a drider there, in spite of not being able to see a single thing. I guess he makes drider-like noises and his bowstring makes stretchy noises."

That is RAW, too (if the Drider is not hiding), dumb as it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I disagree. "Effectively Blind" does not equal "Can't see a single thing" - as I mentioned before, I actually know more than one person who is LEGALLY BLIND and can see light, movement, and objects or faces from the right angle/close enough up.

It's pretty obvious to me at this point is the difference between the "sides" is quite literally the difference between things being black and white and things being shades of grey.

Nah, I am comfortable with the notion that someone in the darkness could be sufficiently difficult to see that you are “effectively blind” to them and suffer the mechanical effects of heavy obscurement with regards to them. What I can’t wrap my head around is how that same effect wouldn’t be applied to everything “behind” the darkness from your perspective as well.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

She may be standing in the light, but in order to see her, light has to reflect off of her and reach your eyes, which if you’re on the other side of the darkness bubble, it would have to pass through the darkness bubble to do.

I get that it’s magic, that’s why it’s able to create darkness in a lit area without an opaque source to block the light. The magic itself must somehow be blocking the light, and that’s fine. But there’s no logical way for the person who’s standing in the light to appear less obscured through the darkness than someone in the darkness does, unless the spell bends the light around the bubble. In which case the effect would not be darkness but invisibility.

Again, that's true using SCIENCE, but not with MAGIC. Heck, the worlds are fantasy, and they don't need to have light work in normal ways at all. Maybe light is just the whims of a Light God? I dunno.

Or if it helps, and I'm starting to get the impression that nothing will help, maybe the magic of the spell creates a bubble that has nothing to do with light? It's an illusion of darkness. The light still passes through normally, but the illusion interprets it as darker-looking and you see what is effectively a selective hologram.

 

[Charlaquin]

And again, as has been stated before, it's MAGIC. Of COURSE it doesn't work like that in real life. I tried describing the spell as "supressing light" and I was told "Light doesn't work like that"... I KNOW. Of course not. That's why it's magic!

I think where the disconnect might lie is that you’re comfortable with the magic being able to change how light outside the affected are works. Whereas the way I and others grok the spell is that it affects the targeted area, but that light otherwise works normally.

 

[Xetheral]

And I disagree. "Effectively Blind" does not equal "Can't see a single thing" - as I mentioned before, I actually know more than one person who is LEGALLY BLIND and can see light, movement, and objects or faces from the right angle/close enough up.

It's pretty obvious to me at this point is the difference between the "sides" is quite literally the difference between things being black and white and things being shades of grey.

Note that the rules text for Heavy Obscurement doesn't say "effective blind". It says "effectively suffers from the Blinded condition". And the Blinded condition itself has two effects:

• A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack Rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack Rolls have disadvantage.

"Effectively suffers from the blinded condition" doesn't mean that the creature suffers a reduced set of drawbacks from those listed in the condition. It means that the creature suffers the full effects of the condition even though it isn't actually blinded.