D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Mistwell]

Because the Darkness spell emits darkness from a point which pours around corners and which can only be countered by a light spell of a higher level, I look at it like it's emitting a anti-photons. Light photons cannot exist where those darkness anti-photons are located, unless such light photons are created by magic of sufficiently high enough level to counter the darkness anti-photons. IE you cannot see through the magical darkness, as that phrase "see through" is commonly used.

The darkness created by the spell isn't really well related to non-magical darkness. Non-magical darkness doesn't pour around corners. Non-magical darkness is countered by any kind of light, magical or non-magical. Non-magic darkness isn't blocked by any opaque object, but this magical darkness is. A person with darkvision can see in non-magical darkness but is just as blinded as anyone else in magical darkness.

Non-magical darkness is simply the absence of light. This is its own thing. It's like light, emitting from a point, blocked by an opaque object, except it's anti-light.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nonsense.

Saying things like this makes it hard to converse with you even when you may otherwise have a good point because it comes off as unnecessarily rude. Just FYI.

It is just the GM deciding the lightning level based on overall circumstances, like with objects creating shadows. In this instance taking account three intersecting sources of really dim light, none of which alone are sufficient to change darkness into low light; the moon and the edges of the areas the torches illuminate.

Okay, this makes more sense. I think such would be an acceptable practice by RAW, but it's not one I would find myself engaging in. For example, the monk can't hold up 2 torches and provide bright light out further than 1 torch in my game - which is the kind of ruling you are saying would be possible. I don't think what you are describing is RAI, but you've convinced me there's nothing against it from a RAW perspective.

And hell, GM is perfectly within their rights to decide that an area is lit without an apparent source, just because. It might be odd, and might cause some wonderment amongst the characters, but no rules would be broken.

I dunno, I would say the area would be a light source in that situation.

The GM decides the environment. That's the rules.

So long as his decisions don't contradict other RAW then he can make all the environmental decisions he wants and still be playing by RAW.

 

[FrogReaver]

The torches won't illuminate the darkness, though. The spell says so. If the DM determines that the darkness is pitch black, no light will so much as scratch the surface of the spell's area. Darkness by RAW blocks vision entirely and causes effective blindness.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition..."

Was talking about mundane darkness. The rules text actually goes on to explain exactly what circumstances under which darkness blocks vision entirely and amazingly it's right at the part you used the ... 'A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area')

 

[Xetheral]

That's not what I'm doing. I simply rule that silhouettes are not possible in areas of darkness. Which in practice means that in describing the environment, when the creature is in an area of darkness I would never describe a silhouette. So no, I'm not changing anything about the darkness or obscurement rules, or brightening squares that would have otherwise been dark or anything along those lines.

If you want to criticize what I'm doing with silhouettes it may be that there's a slim possibility that what I describe in game terms isn't 100% realistic - but what I am doing in game terms is rule preserving.

I'm saying nothing in darkness is seen as a sihlouette.

You'll have to explain what you mean by 'transparent wall problem'.

Thanks for clarifying. To make sure I understand correctly, you would rule that a dragon passing in front of the 3/4 moon at night would never be visible as a silhouette? We know that the dim light radius of the moon on most moonlit nights does not reach the surface of the earth, so the area the dragon occupies is in darkness. (PHB 183).

I've described the transparent wall problem multiple times since early on in this thread. To recap, if you rule that objects, like walls, aren't visible as silhouettes when backlit in darkness, then, by the heavy obscurement rules (unless you modify them, as @FitzTheRuke does), an observer effectively suffers from the blinded condition with respect to the wall. But observers don't effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to whatever is behind the backlit wall, so the wall is effectively transparent. In other words, if an observer doesn't see the blackness of the wall's silhouette, there's nothing stopping them from seeing beyond the backlit wall.

I assume you don't actually cause darkness to make backlit walls transparent at your table (even though you let darkness make creatures transparent), but that means that you're making some other change to the rules to allow backlit walls to be visible as silhouettes even when potential observers effectively suffer from the blinded condition when trying to see the silhouette.

Let's acknowledge 1 thing. When the rules are silent on something, it's expected that the DM fill that gap - but it's also expected that he does so without violating whatever RAW is related to that situation. If the gap is filled by altering the RAW for that instance then you've still altered RAW. If you feel the gap while keeping RAW intact then that's a much different thing. That's what I am doing, while what I see most everyone else doing is filling the gap by changing RAW.

Sometimes, the rules that normally work fine create contradictions in edge cases. Opaque objects in natural darkness between an observer and a light source is such an edge case. There's no way to let the object remain opaque while giving full effect to the Heavy Obscurement rules that require the observer to effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to the opaque object. Something has to give here, no matter what the DM rules.

The issue people took in that series of quotes was in the non-RAW ruling of an area between 2 lit areas not being dark. That's exactly why I responded to Crimson in that section and others were also quoting that same section and gearing their responses toward it because it was so eggregious. Seriously, just go back and read the text they quoted that they were responding to with those responses.

I have read it length, multiple times. (And I corrected the mistake I made regarding who was replying to which post.) I stand by my reading that @Crimson Longinus was generally discussing (over the course of several posts) how they resolve the edge case of backlit darkness caused by two light sources with a stretch of darkness in between. They determine that the light level in the backlit squares counts as dim light from the perspective of observers who can see the backlight. That seems reasonable to me, and no more in violation of the text than ruling that observers who are effectively suffering from the blinded condition with respect to a backlit wall can nonetheless see that wall's silhouette rather than whatever is behind it.

Since that's not how you interpret the discussion, perhaps some of the current disagreement is because you and @Crimson Longinus were misunderstanding what each other was trying to convey.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because the Darkness spell emits darkness from a point which pours around corners and which can only be countered by a light spell of a higher level, I look at it like it's emitting a anti-photons. Light photons cannot exist where those darkness anti-photons are located, unless such light photons are created by magic of sufficiently high enough level to counter the darkness anti-photons. IE you cannot see through the magical darkness, as that phrase "see through" is commonly used.

The darkness created by the spell isn't really well related to non-magical darkness. Non-magical darkness doesn't pour around corners. Non-magical darkness is countered by any kind of light, magical or non-magical. A person with darkvision can see in non-magical darkness but is just as blinded as anyone else in magical darkness.

Non-magical darkness is simply the absence of light. This is it's own thing. It's like light, emitting from a point, except it's anti-light.

Sure. Or it could be that the spell itself does that... it's invisible magic-stuff puffs its way out going around corners until it reaches its limit and then it fills that area with a "blanket" of darkness. Its aura that defines its limits also blocks darkvision, perhaps. I'm just spitballin'.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've described the transparent wall problem multiple times since early on in this thread. To recap, if you rule that objects, like walls, aren't visible as silhouettes when backlit in darkness, then, by the heavy obscurement rules (unless you modify them, as @FitzTheRuke does), an observer effectively suffers from the blinded condition with respect to the wall. But observers don't effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to whatever is behind the backlit wall, so the wall is effectively transparent. In other words, if an observer doesn't see the blackness of the wall's silhouette, there's nothing stopping them from seeing beyond the backlit wall.

... I'm not really following you here. (Including not being sure what way you think I'm modifying the obscurement rules. Not saying that I'm NOT modifying them, I just don't know what way you're talking about). I really, REALLY don't know what you're talking about with transparent walls.

 

[Xetheral]

Sure, I mean, either way you'd have to explain how you're handling it to any player who has their own ideas about how it should work.

I guess I just mean it's more binary (trinary?): Each get whatever benefit or penalty they would expect to get from whatever light source they are in, without having to ask the DM if anyone can see them. Of course, you factor in what else is going on for how you describe it, but the mechanics stay distinct.

But yeah, it's easily argued that it's much the same.

Out of curiosity, if being backlit by Cat's torch would make bunny "seen", in your way of ruling, (I mean when her torch is out, without the darkness spell) would she not be allowed to try to hide from Dog? (Does that question make sense?)

If there was a plausible way for Bunny to stop being backlit (or if Bunny had a fancy hiding ability that applied), then yes. In the example you gave, dropping prone would probably be enough to stop being backlit (and become heavily obscured) to hide from Dog and Cat unless Bunny was much larger than Dog and Cat.

 

[Maxperson]

Was talking about mundane darkness. The rules text actually goes on to explain exactly what circumstances under which darkness blocks vision entirely and amazingly it's right at the part you used the ... 'A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area')

I haven't been following the conversation that closely the last few pages. What does normal darkness have to do with the darkness spell?

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's an (IMO) interesting example, if I can do it right, to show what some people have been trying to get across:

Dog, Bunny, and Cat are in a long 5' hallway. Each of them are carrying torches:



Yellow squares are torchlight, brown are dim light from the torches (overlapping areas). With me?

Okay, Bunny's torch goes out.

By RAW we have:



Bunny is in Darkness, but I don't think anyone would argue that Dog and Cat couldn't see each other.

Now, I'm assuming that @Crimson Longinus and their "superior knowledge of light" (please take that as a friendly jab - I really don't mean it to insult at all) would ignore RAW here and just extend the "dim light" to include Bunny. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Whereas @Hriston (for example) would consider it dark enough in the middle that Bunny has Heavy Obscurement and is in "Darkness". Both are the SAME when it comes to what Dog and Cat can see! Bunny is dark (out of the range of their torchlight) but they can see each other, so enough ambient light is crossing the hall where Bunny is to make out Bunny in the shadows, assuming Bunny does not duck down (or whatever) and Hide. Something that Bunny is permitted (again by RAW) to do, because she has Obscurement from darkness.

Now, if Bunny had her Torch still lit and cast Darkness on herself? Her torch would no longer Illuminate the area around her, and by RAW the Darkness would look like this:



@FrogReaver and the initial posit simply suggested that this would look very similar to the same example of natural light above (let's assume that none of these animals have Darkvision, shall we?) Dog and Cat can still see each other, and Bunny is very hard to see, but not necessarily impossible, if she's not hiding. And her torch doesn't illuminate. If Cat or Dog move up to her, their torches fail to Illuminate the area too.

On the other hand, most of us scratch the above RAW out in favor of this: (For dog, and the same for Cat on the other side).




Does that make sense?

@Maxperson I think this post explains it fairly well

 

[Xetheral]

... I'm not really following you here. (Including not being sure what way you think I'm modifying the obscurement rules. Not saying that I'm NOT modifying them, I just don't know what way you're talking about). I really, REALLY don't know what you're talking about with transparent walls.

You're modifying the Heavy Obscurement rules (or perhaps, you're modifying the Blinded Condition) to allow an observer to see something that they effectively suffer the blinded condition with respect to. In other words, despite ruling that a creature is seen by its silhouette, you're giving it all the other benefits (except the not being seen part) of Heavy Obscurement.

As for transparent walls, let me try a concrete example:

A character is in a dark hallway with no light sources. There is an open door on the left-hand wall that the character can see because the far wall in the room through the doorway is dimly lit, even though the dim light radius doesn't reach the doorway. (Just like the moon is visible even though its dim light radius usually doesn't reach the earth.) The left-hand wall is in darkness, on both sides. When the character looks at the left-hand wall, what do they see?

Given that there is visible light coming around one edge (thanks to the doorway), there are two possible situations (one of which is absurd). The non-absurd possibility is that the character sees (i.e. visually discerns) the blackness of the wall silhouetted against the light from the doorway. This is the non-absurd approach, but it still contradicts the Heavy Obscurement rules which state that the character effectively suffers from the blinded condition with respect to the wall, and so shouldn't be able to see the blackness of the wall's silhouette. Giving full effect to the effective blinded condition means that the character can't see the black of the silhouetted wall, which gives the absurd result that they can somehow see into the room beyond the heavily obscured wall.

At the end of the day, every DM is going to be doing something atextual with light levels, the Heavy Obscurement rules, the Blinded condition, or some other rule change so that the character can see the blackness of the opaque, silhouetted wall.

Does that help?