D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mistwell]

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.

See I think it's a complete rules clarification. Because ultimately it's just a "can't see through darkness spell" and 98% of people are fine with that and move on and 2% are not and really, that's all they need to do to be considered "clarified." Because even if they were hyper-specific-clear with pages of clarification text, at least half of that remaining 2% would ignore it anyway, if they ever even saw it.

 

[Mistwell]

This is prime quote-in-signature material

You crack me up Charlaquin!

 

[Hriston]

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.

The more I look at them, both the questions and the answer are just very poorly worded. The first question equates opacity with blocking line of sight when I think we can at least agree that non-magical darkness blocks line of sight to things in the darkness, but not to things outside of the darkness, so is it opaque or not? The second question is more to the point and makes clear that the overall question is specifically asking about blocking line of sight to things outside the area of the spell as opposed to how non-magical darkness works.

The "answer" does not answer this question! It basically just says that the area of the spell is heavily obscured, which is not at all different from non-magical darkness. It also glosses heavily obscured as "impenetrable to vision" which, if understood in the context of non-magical darkness must mean impenetrable to vision targeting things in the area. The answer also implies that if you have darkvision (the ability to see through non-magical darkness) that the area of the spell is not impenetrable to vision, which, no matter how you interpret "impenetrable to vision" can't be right unless by "that area" Dan is also referring to an area of non-magical darkness.

So I'd say the answer, just like the rules they're an echo of, is trading on the ambiguity that surrounds game-terms like "blocks vision entirely", "can't see (clearly?)", and "can't see through", allowing the reader to apply and perceive support for their preferred interpretation, thus preserving, not clarifying, the ambiguity of the text, which is intentional.

 

[Hriston]

See I think it's a complete rules clarification. Because ultimately it's just a "can't see through darkness spell" and 98% of people are fine with that and move on and 2% are not and really, that's all they need to do to be considered "clarified." Because even if they were hyper-specific-clear with pages of clarification text, at least half of that remaining 2% would ignore it anyway, if they ever even saw it.

You seem to be reading-in your preferred interpretation to what was said.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

It's not the we refuse to accept, but the same guy also bought up normal darkness into his answer. Do you believe normal darkness would block vision between two creatures standing at opposite sides of it but outside the area?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not the we refuse to accept, but the same guy also bought up normal darkness into his answer. Do you believe normal darkness would block vision between two creatures standing at opposite sides of it but outside the area?

I would not rule an area between two nearby well lit areas to be darkness to begin with.

 

[Hriston]

I would not rule an area between two nearby well lit areas to be darkness to begin with.

White room time! Two lit torches are placed 100 feet apart on a flat plain outdoors on a typical moonlit night (not a super-moon). Each torch provides bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. There are no other light sources. What is the level of obscurement of the 20 foot space between the dim light radii of the two torches?

Hint: I am referencing actual rules for this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

White room time! Two lit torches are placed 100 feet apart on a flat plain outdoors on a typical moonlit night (not a super-moon). Each torch provides bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. There are no other light sources. What is the level of obscurement of the 20 foot space between the dim light radii of the two torches?

Hint: I am referencing actual rules for this.

To whom? Considering that it is such a small area and this is flat plain, I'd probably rule it to be lightly obscured regardless of the POV of the onlooker. With a larger gap I might need to consider the POV of the one looking and think what they actually see. Reason: makes sense, and it's the GMs job to make case-by-case judgements on such thing.

This again seems to hint to a difference between top-down tactical play and to theatre of mind play. Which is not to say that I don't ever use maps, but they're just a tool.

 

[Hriston]

To whom? Considering that it is such a small area and this is flat plain, I'd probably rule it to be lightly obscured regardless of the POV of the onlooker. With a larger gap I might need to consider the POV of the one looking and think what they actually see. Reason: makes sense, and it's the GMs job to make case-by-case judgements on such thing.

This again seems to hint to a difference between top-down tactical play and to theatre of mind play. Which is not to say that I don't ever use maps, but they're just a tool.

Wrong answer! The obscurement level of a given area is not subjective. It is determined by the DM. Since you, as DM, have established that the area between the torches is lightly obscured, what is its light source, given that the illumination provided by the torches does not reach it and the moonlight is not sufficient?

 

[Nefermandias]

I would not rule an area between two nearby well lit areas to be darkness to begin with.

That's why we keep disagreeing and walking in circles. If we really want to reach and meaningful conclusion, we should stick to RAW. We were just talking about a response from a WotC employee, right?