D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mistwell]

Well, to be fair...

No. If we're being fair, you'd say yeah that's probably what he means. Instead you disagree with his view and so spun it to a very unlikely interpretation to preserve your view. Which is your right of course to do, but let's not pretend it's the "fair" thing to do with this context since it gives zero benefit of the doubt.

But hey, again, this is a rules question on EnWorld. This is par for the course, even in a game where the designers are constantly talking about plain language and rules intent.

 

[Hriston]

That's not all he says, and it's in response to a specific question. But see, this is why I ask for clarification. Because it's a D&D rules question on EnWorld, which involves things like, "That depends on what the definition of "is" is" and people not liking the use of the word "through" because they think it's too vague.

Do you think heavily obscured = opaque?

 

[Mistwell]

Do you think heavily obscured = opaque?

I think he was answering "no" to a question which asked if one person could see through magical darkness to another person on the other side. I think that is the, to use your term, "fair" reading of his response. And I think if he clarifies he will double-down on that answer and this back and forth we're having right now will become moot and will will then shift to discussing if he's right.

 

[Hriston]

I think he was answering "no" to a question which asked if one person could see through magical darkness to another person on the other side. I think that is the, to use your term, "fair" reading of his response. And I think if he clarifies he will double-down on that answer and this back and forth we're having right now will become moot and will will then shift to discussing if he's right.

I'm not arguing about what he meant. I'm arguing about what he said. It's a classic (by now) Jeremy Crawford-style rules non-clarification, which IMO is all you're ever going to get out of someone speaking for WotC in an official capacity.

 

[SkidAce]

@Hriston , Dan said it was impenetrable, if something is impenetrable, I don't expect to see through it.

 

[Hriston]

@Hriston , Dan said it was impenetrable, if something is impenetrable, I don't expect to see through it.

Which he equates to heavily obscured. You know what heavily obscured is, right? It's just, like, normal darkness.

 

[SkidAce]

Which he equates to heavily obscured. You know what heavily obscured is, right? It's just, like, normal darkness.

or camouflaged in brush, etc etc. I am well versed in cover and concealment.

 

[Hriston]

or camouflaged in brush, etc etc. I am well versed in cover and concealment.

Then you must know that a heavily obscured area prevents creatures from seeing things that are in that area and has no effect on whether things outside of that area can be seen.

 

[Charlaquin]

But see, this is why I ask for clarification. Because it's a D&D rules question on EnWorld, which involves things like, "That depends on what the definition of "is" is" and people not liking the use of the word "through" because they think it's too vague.

This is prime quote-in-signature material

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not arguing about what he meant. I'm arguing about what he said. It's a classic (by now) Jeremy Crawford-style rules non-clarification, which IMO is all you're ever going to get out of someone speaking for WotC in an official capacity.

I disagree. This answer may not be completely unambiguous, but the intent is pretty clear if you’re not actively trying to misread it. JC non-clarifications are famous for completely dodging the question.