D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mistwell]

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

what is your view of the WOTC comment?

Don't know if this has been mentioned by Dan Dillon of WOTC (edit: he is on the D&D game design team) was asked about part of this:

Dillon: Hey #dnd folks! Have you had burning questions that haven't been covered in Sage Advice or answered by Jeremy directly? Please ask those questions in response to this tweet! I won't necessarily be answering them directly, but I'm compiling to see what needs answers. #WotCStaff

PickAxed Asked:

Is the area of a darkness spell opaque, i.e. blocks line of sight? So, can two creatures in a large well lit room standing on opposite sides of the area of a darkness spell see each other? I’m guessing not but just trying to reconcile the spell against how normal darkness works.

Dan Dillon responds:
Without some ability to see through darkness, whether magical or mundane, that area is impenetrable to vision (heavily obscured, in game terms).

 

[Nefermandias]

what is your view of the WOTC comment?

Completely useless since he brought up normal darkness into the comment as well.

 

[Mistwell]

Completely useless since he brought up normal darkness into the comment as well.

And if he had left of the "or mundane" part? I've asked him to clarify on Twitter.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Hmm... ok, this kind of works for me... So the result would be that things outside the bubble viewed through the bubble are slightly dimmed, but not enough to count as lightly obscured. Things in the bubble are completely black, but have a soft dark “aura” around them, heavily obscuring them and causing them to look like a sort of dark blob rather than a clear silhouette. I imagine this would also cause them to block line of sight and grant partial cover to creatures and objects on the other side.

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.

Solid creatures and objects in the area can’t be illuminated, no, but the area can be, given that light passing through it has only a small chance of being absorbed.

I think this interpretation works, though it does still require ignoring the “the darkness can’t be illuminated” line, or at least creatively interpreting the word “illuminated.” But I can at least imagine what it would look like, and it seems like it could reasonably produce the effects it’s supposed to.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Right, but light travels in straight lines, so anti-light wouldn’t go around corners. Partially covering anti-light would create an... uhh... anti-shadow.

 

[Hriston]

what is your view of the WOTC comment?

I'm not @Nefermandias , but I notice that Dan doesn't answer the questions directly. He just gives a non-clarifying Jeremy Crawford style answer where he basically just reiterates what it says in the spell. We already knew that darkness, whether magical or mundane, was heavily obscured, and we know how real darkness works, i.e. darkness does nothing to prevent you from seeing from (or through) a dark area into a well lit area. He echoes the language used in the spell that equates the "ability to see through darkness" with visually penetrating a heavily obscured area, which is an area that blocks vision only to things in that area.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not @Nefermandias , but I notice that Dan doesn't answer the questions directly. He just gives a non-clarifying Jeremy Crawford style answer where he basically just reiterates what it says in the spell. We already knew that darkness, whether magical or mundane, was heavily obscured, and we know how real darkness works, i.e. darkness does nothing to prevent you from seeing from (or through) a dark area into a well lit area. He echoes the language used in the spell that equates the "ability to see through darkness" with visually penetrating a heavily obscured area, which is an area that blocks vision only to things in that area.

No, he says 'impenetrable to vision' and the context is a question specifically about people seeing each other trough the area of the spell whilst not being in it. The answer could be clearer, but it's still pretty clear. It requires pretty tortured reading to interpret that as anything besides "no, they can't see each other."

Not that I personally care that much what designers think, I'd still run it in my way even if they disagreed.

 

[Hriston]

No, he says 'impenetrable to vision'

Right, and a heavily obscured area is "impenetrable to vision" because it blocks vision entirely to things in that area. This doesn't clarify anything.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, and a heavily obscured area is "impenetrable to vision" because it blocks vision entirely to things in that area. This doesn't clarify anything.

No, the question was about seeing each other through the area. You just refuse to accept that impenetrable means impenetrable, like you refuse to accept tat illuminate means illuminate. It is pretty pointless to continue discussion if you refuse to accept plain and normal meanings of words.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Right, but light travels in straight lines, so anti-light wouldn’t go around corners. Partially covering anti-light would create an... uhh... anti-shadow.

It's the spell whose area goes around corners, not the light... or anti-light if it please you.