D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Nefermandias]

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?

It makes sense and illustrates very clearly the main point of this thread! Thank you.

PS: I'm still with the idea that the spell is no different than natural darkness.

 

[Nefermandias]

So you think that some sort of weird darkness happens where light doesn't illuminate it, but you can see through it, but not into it?

Edit: Oh, and makes it so that if you have darkvision, you cannot see through it no matter what.

Yes. That's the whole point of this discussion.

 

[Hriston]

Yes. Yes it is. Provided the attacker can also see the target. Otherwise it's just random cluster.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense for all attacks where the attacker can't see the target to have disadvantage. I would have a much easier time avoiding an attack from someone who couldn't see me if I could in turn see them rather than if I couldn't.

Hitting back. Both are blind. So they are just flailing away with disadvantage.

Usually, it's the attacker who is doing the hitting, not the other way around. The target is the one being hit.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense for all attacks where the attacker can't see the target to have disadvantage. I would have a much easier time avoiding an attack from someone who couldn't see me if I could in turn see them rather than if I couldn't.

Two sides flailing around in darkness won't have advantage to hit. They will have disadvantage due to blindness. It's pretty clear that the intent behind granting advantage to an attacker when the defender can't see him is because the attacker can aim the attacks while the defender is oblivious. If the attacker has no idea where the defender really is, there is no advantage gained. The rule doesn't say that, but it's pretty clear where that advantage comes from.

Usually, it's the attacker who is doing the hitting, not the other way around. The target is the one being hit.

Yep, and just as usually both sides are attacking each other. Not one side attacking and the other side doing nothing. It's a combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Two sides flailing around in darkness won't have advantage to hit. They will have disadvantage due to blindness. It's pretty clear that the intent behind granting advantage to an attacker when the defender can't see him is because the attacker can aim the attacks while the defender is oblivious. If the attacker has no idea where the defender really is, there is no advantage gained. The rule doesn't say that, but it's pretty clear where that advantage comes from.

Yep, and just as usually both sides are attacking each other. Not one side attacking and the other side doing nothing. It's a combat.

Agreed. Two blind people whacking each other should be hitting less often than two sighted people doing the same. Pretty obvious. One should not blindly (pun intended) apply the rules without stopping to think what they actually represent and whether the outcome makes sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed. Two blind people whacking each other should be hitting less often than two sighted people doing the same.

And two sighted people doing the same would be less effective than one sighted person attacking a blind person. Obviously in the latter example, the sighted person would have a huge advantage that doesn't exist in the other two scenarios.

Pretty obvious. One should not blindly (pun intended) apply the rules without stopping to think what they actually represent and whether the outcome makes sense.

Yep. There's a reason that 5e is rulings over rules and the DMG says that the rules are not in charge, the DM is and that the rules do not cover every situation. That's because the rules don't work universally. There are cases like this one where they fall apart if you follow them blindly(hehehe).

 

[Laurefindel]

My difficulties with 5e visibility have been twofold:
1) The rules do not differentiate between lack of light and opacity.
2) "Blinded" does not always mean "unable to percieve"

Once I allowed myself (as DM) to adjudicate on those depending of the situation, things got better.

In the scenario of [brightly lit area] - (dim light) - [heavily obscured area] - (dim light) - [brightly lit area] brought earlier in the discussion, I will treat things differently based on the situation.

Heavily obscured area = natural darkness? Two people in each brightly lit area can see each other fine, but would be blind to someone in the dark area. The person in the dark area will not be blind to either people however. That's pretty much RAW.

Heavily obscured = dense fog/sleet, curtain of water, dense foliage? Everyone is blind to everyone. This departs from RAW, but brings a more relatable simulation IMO. I tend to treat the darkness spell in this category due to the "cannot see through" clause.

Then, I accept that "Blinded" simply means disadvantage on attack / advantage to be attacked, but not necessarily "unable to see" (even if it sometimes does). Dragon flies over the PC during a full-moon night? They all see the dragon, but attacks against it are made with disadvantage (they would also make their perception with disadvantage if a check was in order). Thick fog prevents PC to see more than 30 feet ahead? The dragon will never be seen by anyone and no attack will be allowed (for what it's worth, the dragon will not see them either). Other senses might come into effect, as I adjudicate as DM.

Also, as a theatre technician and lighting designer, lighting and visibility (and the tricks and psychological phenomenons that go with them) is well-known territory. There is a lot more to it, but that the gist of it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Legally blind and effectively blind are two different things. Legally blind isn't actually blindness. It's just very, very poor eyesight and qualifies you for certain benefits. Blind and effectively blind = not being able to see at all.

Wow. Okay, if you say so. I guess you're the final arbitrator of words, hey? Howabout you do you, and I'll just keep going with effectively blind does not equal can't see anything at all and can include light, shadow, and movement. Okay with you?

After nearly 40 pages, perhaps the conclusion is that there is no RAW Darkness? The rules text is inherently ambigious and can't be used without DM interpretation, and several interpretations are supported by the rules.

I think everyone has agreed on that the entire time?

 

[Maxperson]

Wow. Okay, if you say so. I guess you're the final arbitrator of words, hey? Howabout you do you, and I'll just keep going with effectively blind does not equal can't see anything at all and can include light, shadow, and movement. Okay with you?

If legally blind were blind, they wouldn't have needed the new term. I didn't make this up. They are in fact two different things. Effectively blind is effectively blind. The PHB doesn't say effectively legally blind.

You can absolutely do you, but equating legally blind to blind is incorrect. You can change effectively blind to be the same as legally blind for your game, which is fine. We all make changes to the game. They just aren't the same thing in real life.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think everyone has agreed on that the entire time?

Definitely not.

This thread is about raw darkness spell. If you dislike the topic or don't believe what I'm asking for exists you are welcome to bow out.