D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

This is where rulings over rules needs to come into play. Obviously, the advantage portion is due to the attacker being able to see the target that can't see him, so he gets advantage. If both are in total darkness and cannot see each other, it makes no sense for an attacker to have advantage on the swing, so only disadvantage should apply.

It makes sense. The unseen attacker's advantage is due to the target not being able to see and thus anticipate the movements of the attacker, which is still the case if both are in an area where they can't see each other. It's as simple as that.

 

[Maxperson]

The unseen attacker's advantage is due to the target not being able to see and thus anticipate the movements of the attacker, which is still the case if both are in an area where they can't see each other. It's as simple as that.

No, it's not as simple as that. The advantage comes from the attacker being able to take advantage of the target being unaware and exploit that advantage to a high degree. To do that you have to be able to see.

 

[Hriston]

No, it's not as simple as that. The advantage comes from the attacker being able to take advantage of the target being unaware and exploit that advantage to a high degree. To do that you have to be able to see.

It is according to the rule, but I understand that you have a different ruling. The problem I have with that ruling is that it treats a situation where the attacker has Blinded and the target can see the same as a situation where they both have Blinded, so it discounts the target's ability to see the attacker.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is where rulings over rules needs to come into play. Obviously, the advantage portion is due to the attacker being able to see the target that can't see him, so he gets advantage. If both are in total darkness and cannot see each other, it makes no sense for an attacker to have advantage on the swing, so only disadvantage should apply.

Sure, and that's a fine choice. It just means that you entirely ignore the rule that states that the person looking in should be "effectively blind" to what he sees inside (for someone outside who can see), and the rule that says that you have advantage attacking creatures who can't see you (when two combatants are inside). It's what I was inclined to do before I read this thread.

We're all faced with 1) Ignore the rules for what makes sense (to us in our story); 2) Change what we are imagining is happening to have the rules make sense; 3) Do both, where it suits us best. (We all do 3).

The OP was about looking at the wording of the rules another way, making it possible to stay RAW (for the purposes of an intellectual exercise! I think FrogReaver has maintained that they actually rule the spell as total darkness!) while molding the fiction to suit. In this case, the spell creates Darkness, which exists on a spectrum that still includes a small amount of ability to see through and out of, in particular into areas of bright light.

Sure, it reverses your version of the spell, which is good to drop on enemies, into a version that is good to drop on yourself. At least it's good for something! Because pure RAW, it does very little. (Next to nothing to combatants, whether they are inside or out of it).

 

[Xetheral]

I'm honestly not sure what sort of issues you're referring to. Silhouettes and opaque objects are just elements of the fiction that act within the fiction like silhouettes and opaque objects. There's a rule that you can't place an area of effect on the other side of an intervening opaque object which is about all that's needed. The only place I've seen issues like these come up is in online discussions like this where someone is trying to poke holes in someone else's interpretation of the rules.

The gaps created by the non-comprehensive vision/light/obscurement rules are myriad:

1. Can an observer see anything on the far side of something opaque? To use a previous example, can a dog see a bunny when the two are on opposite sides of opaque heavy obscurement? Does the answer change depending on whether the opaque heavy obscurement is a solid object, like a wall?
2. If light is obstructed by something opaque within its light radius, is there a shadow? Can that shadow affect the light level beyond the obstruction? Does the answer change depending on whether there exists a clear path around the obstruction that stays within the light radius of the light source? Example: there is an opaque, striaght wall 20' from a torch that completely intersects the torch's light radii other than a 1' square opening where the wall is nearest the torch. Assuming no other sources of illumination, which squares are brightly and dimly light on the far side of the wall from the torch? Is the answer different if the opening in the wall is moved 5' to one side?
3. Related to #2 (and highly pertinent to this thread), if an observer "effectively suffers from the blinded condition" with regards to an opaque object, but does not effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to something that would normally be occulted by the opaque object, what does the observer see? Does the answer change if the opaque object is instead a creature or non-solid opaque heavy obscurement? (For numerous examples, see the rest of this thread.)
4. Also related to #2, when, if ever, does full cover affect the lighting levels created by a light source? For example, a creature within the bright light radius of the only light source has full cover from that light source. Is the creature necessarily in bright light? Necessarily in darkness? Or does the light level of the creature's square depend on the geometry of the cover, the light source, and/or other nearby surfaces?
5. Does the word "illuminate" in the PHB have its ordinary dictionary definition, or is it a technical term that refers only to increasing the defined level of light in a square to a brighter level of the game's three levels of lighting?
6. How does a visual illusion of an opaque object/creature interact with local lighting levels? (For an idea of the range of complications, try substituting an illusory opaque object into examples ## 1-4.)
7. Can the boundaries of an area of transparent heavy obscurement be seen by those outside the obscured area? If so, what does the area look like?
8. Can the boundaries of an area of bright or dim light be seen by those outside the lit area? If so, what does the area look like? Example: an exceptionally large torch with double the normal bright and dim light radii is located 500' in mid-air, on a moonless night. There are no objects within 120' of the torch. Can an observer on the ground visually discern the light radii of this unusual torch? If so, what does the lit area look like?
9. Every light source in D&D produces light spherically, except for the Bullseye Lantern, which produces light in a cone. Related to #2, can other light sources be made to produce light in a cone by completely obstructing them except in one dimension? Or will the light from light sources other than a bullseye lantern return to behaving spherically outside of the obstructed area? Example: a torch is recessed in a 10' deep niche in a stone wall. Does this torch cast a cone of light beyond the niche? Or a sphere of light?
10. (And presumably many more, but this is enough of a wall of text as it is.)

The text does not explicitly say how to resolve any of these questions. It's up to individual DMs to try to draw inferences from what the text does say to resolve these questions when they come up. Necessarily, different DMs are going to have different ideas of how much realism should affect the inferences drawn from the text, which means that different DMs will reach different inferences. There is no way to objectively determine whether the inferences drawn by a particular DM are "RAW" or "not RAW" or to objectively determine which inferences are "more-RAW" or "less-RAW". (We can, of course, all have our own subjective opinions on which inferences are best supported by the text and our own notions of what elements of reality are sufficiently obvious to affect how we read the text.)

That was the maximum possible range I use for normal levels of sound. I determine that number randomly, so usually it's around 70 feet. If a creature is trying to be quiet, it's half that number. I keep the fiction what I would call loose outside of combat, so I've never been in a situation where established fiction constrained me to narrate a silhouette, but I can imagine it happening.

Thanks for the additional detail. I appreciate it.

 

[Maxperson]

It is according to the rule, but I understand that you have a different ruling. The problem I have with that ruling is that it treats a situation where the attacker has Blinded and the target can see the same as a situation where they both have Blinded, so it discounts the target's ability to see the attacker.

The rule as you interpret it, ignores any semblance of common sense. This is a rulings over rules edition and it should be ignored as you interpret it.

It doesn't treat it like that. If the attacker is blinded, he has disadvantage to attack the defender. The defender does not have disadvantage back, since he can see.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, and that's a fine choice. It just means that you entirely ignore the rule that states that the person looking in should be "effectively blind" to what he sees inside (for someone outside who can see), and the rule that says that you have advantage attacking creatures who can't see you (when two combatants are inside). It's what I was inclined to do before I read this thread.

I don't see how it ignores that rule. My version still leaves a person outside the darkness as effectively blind to what goes on inside. And again, the advantage for attacking someone who can't see you comes from you being able to aim at them while at the same time they are oblivious to where the attack is coming from. If you are flailing blindly, that rule shouldn't be applied.

 

[FrogReaver]

The gaps created by the non-comprehensive vision/light/obscurement rules are myriad:

1. Can an observer see anything on the far side of something opaque? To use a previous example, can a dog see a bunny when the two are on opposite sides of opaque heavy obscurement? Does the answer change depending on whether the opaque heavy obscurement is a solid object, like a wall?

The rules are silent on this question. Note: It's not logically inconsistent to rule heavy obscurement caused by different sources behaves different in situations not covered by RAW. Also Note: A wall does not create heavy obscurement.

1. Does the word "illuminate" in the PHB have its ordinary dictionary definition, or is it a technical term that refers only to increasing the defined level of light in a square to a brighter level of the game's three levels of lighting?

The ordinary definition of illuminate is to not make something bright/brighter. You are framing these questions so incorrectly, as if one side is trying to be super technical there and the other side is just trying to use the natural meaning of the word. I assure you I'm using the natural meaning of illuminate when I say illuminating the spell darkness isn't possible but doesn't require a total absence of light.

The text does not explicitly say how to resolve any of these questions. It's up to individual DMs to try to draw inferences from what the text does say to resolve these questions when they come up. Necessarily, different DMs are going to have different ideas of how much realism should affect the inferences drawn from the text, which means that different DMs will reach different inferences.

It's not so simple that one persons take is more realistic than the others though and proposing that as the only reason does the discussion as a whole a disservice.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't see how it ignores that rule. My version still leaves a person outside the darkness as effectively blind to what goes on inside. And again, the advantage for attacking someone who can't see you comes from you being able to aim at them while at the same time they are oblivious to where the attack is coming from. If you are flailing blindly, that rule shouldn't be applied.

The RAW doesn't say that though. That's why you are accused of ignoring the rule. You are - with a nice 'justification' for why you are doing so. But justifying why you do something other than the text says isn't RAW. Maybe RAI. But not RAW. Not that playing solely by RAW is a good thing or even possible in all circumstances, but it would be here and you are ignoring that in favor of how you would prefer to run it. I can't repeat this last part enough: There's nothing wrong with that, other than not calling it what it is.

 

[Hriston]

The gaps created by the non-comprehensive vision/light/obscurement rules are myriad:

This is completely bizarre. The rules aren't creating these so-called gaps. I'll try to explain why. I'll have to de-construct your ridiculously long list to do so, so apologies if there are any formatting errors.

1. Can an observer see anything on the far side of something opaque?

Of course not. You know what opaque means. That isn't a gap in the rules. The rules don't have to contain definitions of common words to be complete.

To use a previous example, can a dog see a bunny when the two are on opposite sides of opaque heavy obscurement? Does the answer change depending on whether the opaque heavy obscurement is a solid object, like a wall?

This is confused. Opacity is not a component of whether an area is heavily (or lightly) obscured. If you're positing that there is something opaque (like a wall or a tree trunk) in a heavily obscured area, then that is something additional to the heavily obscured area.

[*]If light is obstructed by something opaque within its light radius, is there a shadow?

Are you serious? Of course! Again, you know what opaque means. You know how light interacts with opaque objects. You know what a shadow is. The rules don't have to answer these questions for you to be complete.

Can that shadow affect the light level beyond the obstruction?

Yes, I think it's clear in the rules that categories of illumination are available to the DM to apply as they see fit. Do you disagree?

Does the answer change depending on whether there exists a clear path around the obstruction that stays within the light radius of the light source? Example: there is an opaque, striaght wall 20' from a torch that completely intersects the torch's light radii other than a 1' square opening where the wall is nearest the torch. Assuming no other sources of illumination, which squares are brightly and dimly light on the far side of the wall from the torch? Is the answer different if the opening in the wall is moved 5' to one side?

No, the answer doesn't change under any of these circumstances. Opaque objects cast shadows when light is shined on them. This is taken as a given part of the fictional in-game situation, and it's part of the DM's job of designing the adventure.

[*]Related to #2 (and highly pertinent to this thread), if an observer "effectively suffers from the blinded condition" with regards to an opaque object, but does not effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to something that would normally be occulted by the opaque object, what does the observer see?

I'm not sure what work the word normally is meant to be doing here, but I think it's clear that the observer would see neither the opaque object nor the thing behind it, line of sight to the thing being obstructed by the opaque object which itself cannot be seen.

Does the answer change if the opaque object is instead a creature or non-solid opaque heavy obscurement? (For numerous examples, see the rest of this thread.)

Creatures are not objects as defined in the rules and, as I've already said, opacity is not a component of what constitutes a heavily obscured area, so yes, the answer changes because there is no rules-based reason for saying that line of sight is blocked by a creature and if there is an opaque object in the heavily obscured area, then that is what is blocking line of sight, not the heavily obscured area itself.

[*]Also related to #2, when, if ever, does full cover affect the lighting levels created by a light source? For example, a creature within the bright light radius of the only light source has full cover from that light source. Is the creature necessarily in bright light? Necessarily in darkness? Or does the light level of the creature's square depend on the geometry of the cover, the light source, and/or other nearby surfaces?

First. it would depend on whether the obstacle providing cover is opaque or translucent, and to what degree. Again, this is a matter of adventure design. The categories of illumination are there for the DM to place accordingly.

[*]Does the word "illuminate" in the PHB have its ordinary dictionary definition, or is it a technical term that refers only to increasing the defined level of light in a square to a brighter level of the game's three levels of lighting?

Remove the word only, and the answer is both.

[*]How does a visual illusion of an opaque object/creature interact with local lighting levels? (For an idea of the range of complications, try substituting an illusory opaque object into examples ## 1-4.)

This would depend on whether such interactions were part of the illusion being cast.

[*]Can the boundaries of an area of transparent heavy obscurement be seen by those outside the obscured area? If so, what does the area look like?

This gets into how the DM chooses to describe the environment, but for ease of gameplay, I'd say that the boundaries of such areas are discernable. The area looks like whatever is providing the obscurement, e.g. darkness, fog, foliage, etc.

[*]Can the boundaries of an area of bright or dim light be seen by those outside the lit area? If so, what does the area look like? Example: an exceptionally large torch with double the normal bright and dim light radii is located 500' in mid-air, on a moonless night. There are no objects within 120' of the torch. Can an observer on the ground visually discern the light radii of this unusual torch? If so, what does the lit area look like?

Same as above. Presumably in the fiction, the categories of illumination around a light source would transition gradually, but for ease of gameplay, I would expect them to be described in a way that's discernable. This, however, is dependent upon there being surfaces for the light to be reflected from. If there are no such surfaces, as in your example, I would say that there would be no way to discern the areas, although the light could be described as twice as bright as a normal torch to get the same point across.

[*]Every light source in D&D produces light spherically, except for the Bullseye Lantern, which produces light in a cone. Related to #2, can other light sources be made to produce light in a cone by completely obstructing them except in one dimension? Or will the light from light sources other than a bullseye lantern return to behaving spherically outside of the obstructed area? Example: a torch is recessed in a 10' deep niche in a stone wall. Does this torch cast a cone of light beyond the niche? Or a sphere of light?

Presumably, a bullseye lantern casts its light in a cone because it is radiating from a circular opening. I'd say the shape of the torchlight emerging from the recess would depend on the shape of the recess.

[*](And presumably many more, but this is enough of a wall of text as it is.)
[/LIST]
The text does not explicitly say how to resolve any of these questions. It's up to individual DMs to try to draw inferences from what the text does say to resolve these questions when they come up. Necessarily, different DMs are going to have different ideas of how much realism should affect the inferences drawn from the text, which means that different DMs will reach different inferences. There is no way to objectively determine whether the inferences drawn by a particular DM are "RAW" or "not RAW" or to objectively determine which inferences are "more-RAW" or "less-RAW". (We can, of course, all have our own subjective opinions on which inferences are best supported by the text and our own notions of what elements of reality are sufficiently obvious to affect how we read the text.)

It doesn't need to. "DM decides" is an explicit part of the rules. Most of what you've posted here is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the rules. They don't tell you what fiction to establish. They provide a framework for adjudicating changes to the established fiction.

Thanks for the additional detail. I appreciate it.

You're welcome!