D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FitzTheRuke]

Framing darkness in scientific terms is mostly straightforward. In either interpretation of the spell, darkness absorbs some of the photons passing through the AoE. The difference depends on which photons get absorbed:

Inkblot Version: All photons are absorbed, period.
Transparent Version: All photons which strike a solid object are absorbed. Photons which pass near a solid object have a high chance of being absorbed. Other photons have a small chance of being absorbed.

In both cases, nothing in the area can be illuminated--"illuminated" means "lit up, made bright," and you cannot light up something that absorbs all photons striking it--and objects and creatures in the area are heavily obscured.

(As for the science of how darkness interacts with darkvision... that can't be explained without figuring out the science of how darkvision works normally. Good luck with that one.)

Thank you, that is a good way of describing it for the science-minded (which is a lot of us!)

 

[Dausuul]

Well technically it is. "Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness."

That bit is weird. Partially covering the source has no effect, and the darkness spreads around corners, so it isn't like the darkness is "anti-light" radiating from the source. It's more like a cloud that can seep through any opening, and transparent things count as openings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Framing darkness in scientific terms is mostly straightforward. In either interpretation of the spell, darkness absorbs some of the photons passing through the AoE. The difference depends on which photons get absorbed:

Inkblot Version: All photons are absorbed, period.
Transparent Version: All photons which strike a solid object are absorbed. Photons which pass near a solid object have a high chance of being absorbed. Other photons have a small chance of being absorbed.

In both cases, nothing in the area can be illuminated--"illuminated" means "lit up, made bright," and you cannot light up something that absorbs all photons striking it--and objects and creatures in the area are heavily obscured.

(As for the science of how darkness interacts with darkvision... that can't be explained without figuring out the science of how darkvision works normally. Good luck with that one.)

That indeed is understandable. However, to me the transparent version still doesn't sound consistent with 'cannot be seen' as you could still see rough shapes. It would make objects super black, albeit blurry whilst the area around them would be way less dark. Note that there is 'dim light' condition, but if the area behind the bubble is not that, but brightly lit, the contrast with the shadow forms would be very significant. They would be quite visible. It would probably look very creepy though. This description overall is more consistent with 'dim light' rather than darkness.

Furthermore, I claim that the area is illuminated if can contain light, which things being visible trough it necessitates. The spells area is 30 feet bubble, not just the objects in the 30 feet bubble. The air is part of it. Also, the light hitting anything it the area being negated would mean that creatures in the area are blind.

 

[Nefermandias]

That bit is weird. Partially covering the source has no effect, and the darkness spreads around corners, so it isn't like the darkness is "anti-light" radiating from the source. It's more like a cloud that can seep through any opening, and transparent things count as openings.

On the contrary, that sentence indicates Darkness is indeed, anti-light and not some kind of cloud. If it was a cloud, trapping it with a transparent glass bowl would be effective.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That indeed is understandable. However, to me the transparent version still doesn't sound consistent with 'cannot be seen' as you could still see rough shapes. It would make objects super black, albeit blurry whilst the area around them would be way less dark. Note that there is 'dim light' condition, but if the area behind the bubble is not that, but brightly lit, the contrast with the shadow forms would be very significant. They would be quite visible. It would probably look very creepy though. This description overall is more consistent with 'dim light' rather than darkness.

Furthermore, I claim that the area is illuminated if can contain light, which things being visible trough it necessitates. The spells area is 30 feet bubble, not just the objects in the 30 feet bubble. The air is part of it. Also, the light hitting anything it the area being negated would mean that creatures in the area are blind.

In this case, the line about illumination is referring to how a light source interacts with the darkness (it doesn't make it any brighter) but not about the vague amount of light that makes it possible to see things beyond it (and possibly, just a little bit, within it). It's dark enough to be darker than dim light, but maybe not a total lack of light. I think we can all agree that Bright Light and Dim Light do not describe a single light level, but a range, and here we mean that Darkness also has a range. Very dark, sure, but not completely black.

 

[Rabulias]

I was clearly not talking about Darkness 15' (which is obviously a Magic User spell), I was referring to the anti-cleric's reverse light. Someone else has already pointed it out in another forum, so allow me to paraphrase them:

"Here is the AD&D first edition version.

First, it depends on whether you are talking about the clerical or mage version. The clerical Darkness was actually the reverse of the Light spell. The PH makes no mention of how it affects infravision or ultravision... only the duration and area of effect.

Now the Mage spell, Darkness 15' radius, does state that "total, impenetrable darkness in the area of effect. Infravision and Ultravision are useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is cast. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated"

The discussion here is about the 5e darkness spell, which is not a cleric spell (at least not in the 5e PHB). As a 2nd level arcane spell in 5e, it clearly owes its lineage to the 1e/2e darkness, 15' radius spell more than the cleric spell, which was only 1st level and had a larger area of effect.

Still, what is the tactical or strategic benefit (if any) of the spell in the game, to you? Any examples of how it is used in your games?

 

[Dausuul]

On the contrary, that sentence indicates Darkness is indeed, anti-light and not some kind of cloud. If it was a cloud, trapping it with a transparent glass bowl would be effective.

As I said: It's a cloud that can seep through any opening, and transparent things count as openings.

If it were anti-light, it wouldn't go around corners, and partially covering the source would reduce the area accordingly.

 

[Nefermandias]

As I said: It's a cloud that can seep through any opening, and transparent things count as openings.

If it were anti-light, it wouldn't go around corners, and partially covering the source would reduce the area accordingly.

I honestly believe it's anti-light and not a cloud. They only say the spell is suppressed only when you cover it completely because it would make sense for at least some of the anti-light to shine through any small opening. I really believe you could for instance, cast darkness on a hooded lantern and use it to focus the anti-light in an specific direction.

 

[Nefermandias]

The discussion here is about the 5e darkness spell, which is not a cleric spell (at least not in the 5e PHB). As a 2nd level arcane spell in 5e, it clearly owes its lineage to the 1e/2e darkness, 15' radius spell more than the cleric spell, which was only 1st level and had a larger area of effect.

Still, what is the tactical or strategic benefit (if any) of the spell in the game, to you? Any examples of how it is used in your games?

Just said above. You can see what's outside while benefiting from being heavily obscured yourself. Just like any normal dark area.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I honestly believe it's anti-light and not a cloud. They only say the spell is suppressed only when you cover it completely because it would make sense for at least some of the anti-light to shine through any small opening. I really believe you could for instance, cast darkness on a hooded lantern and use it to focus the anti-light in an specific direction.

Not what the spell says, but yeah, it probably would make more sense if it worked this way.