D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Xetheral]

Okay, but now that leads me to the next question. Why does not treating Darkness as an opaque ink-blot allow creatures to see through walls? I don't understand it that way, either.

It doesn't! I'm explicitly not making that claim.

Claim A: "the Darkness spell needs to be an opaque ink-blot because otherwise creatures can see through walls."

What I was trying to say: "I'm not saying (Claim A)."

Hopefully that makes it clear? I do not think either of the interpretations of the Darkness spell as creating opaque or transparent darkness leads to creatures being able to see through walls.

I do think that the basic rules have an inconsistency, where the addition of silhouettes to the vision rules violates the rules for the Blinded condition (by letting observers see backlit creatures they are effectively Blinded to), but not adding silhouettes to the vision rules causes backlit creatures/objects/walls to fail to interrupt an observer's ability to see the lit area behind (meaning the creatures/objects/walls must not be opaque).

Does that make sense? (Same question for @FitzTheRuke.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No one is suggesting that anyone would ever play it that way, but you could still try to follow the logic that leads to it. It was perfectly coherent.

I HAVE tried! I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.

So yes, in three dimensions the foliage isn't a "solid block of plant material". But when seen from a distance as a two-dimensional image, the overlapping opaque branches, stems, and leaves fill the entire area. If there were any significant gaps that persisted even 5' into the dense foliage an observer would be able to see a creature at the edge of the dense foliage, which Heavy Obscurement does not permit.

I think this comes from the fact that the creature can MOVE through it (sure, difficult terrain, yadda yadda) without having to hack away at it that makes it seem like it probably had more openings than you might imagine it to - leading back to "can't see WELL" over "can't see AT ALL" being a probable interpretation of "effectively blinded" by Heavy Obscurement.

Does that make sense? (Same question for @FitzTheRuke.)

Sort of? Maybe a little? It seems to me that it would be the wall itself not its silhouette that would block your vision - though you might see it's silhouette in the story fluff, if that's what you mean. I think it might not be so much that I can't understand how you could come up with a way to make walls transparent by RAW, but it's so far outside what anyone would rule that I can't understand why we'd even talk about it. It makes it hard for my brain to "go there" even if I'm trying to be with you for the intellectual exercise. I really am trying to play along here!

 

[Laurefindel]

Okay, but now that leads me to the next question. Why does not treating Darkness as an opaque ink-blot allow creatures to see through walls? I don't understand it that way, either.

As far as I understand it, it goes like this: under the assumption that one can see beyond the borders of a darkness spell...

You cannot see through darkness. You also cannot see through a wall.

But you can see beyond the dark area (as long as there is light behind). Therefore, you can see beyond a wall (as long as there is light behind).

It's a false analogy IMO, but that's how I understood the contradiction.

 

[Maxperson]

As far as I understand it, it goes like this: under the assumption that one can see beyond the borders of a darkness spell...

You cannot see through darkness. You also cannot see through a wall.

But you can see beyond the dark area (as long as there is light behind). Therefore, you can see beyond a wall (as long as there is light behind).

It's a false analogy IMO, but that's how I understood the contradiction.

Yeah. That makes no sense. The darkness does not exist in a vacuum and other things can affect the outcome. If there is a wall, you still cannot see through the wall, regardless of whether or not you can see a torch behind darkness if there is no other obstruction. It's apples and oranges.

This is especially true since the Darkness spell goes around corners, which means that it doesn't go through the wall, indicating that the Darkness, like vision, obeys line of sight/effect.

 

[Maxperson]

I HAVE tried! I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.

There are a number of things like that where if you use your head and consider the argument, are clearly wrong. One of my favorite is from 3.5.

In 3.5 if you go to -1 or greater hit points, you dying which adds unconscious. Dying only applies until -9. Okay. So far so good. Once you go past -9 to dead, you are no longer dying, which means the unconscious caused by it no longer applies. Okay. Now we look at dead. Dead says that your soul leaves. Okay. You can't be healed naturally or through magic. Okay. You start to decay. Fine. Nowhere does it say that you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious.

At some point you just have to accept how words are commonly used and understood and just apply them. WotC clearly thinks that you should know what dead really means and didn't feel the need to tell you that someone who is dead can't get back up and keep fighting, but if all you do is follow the chain of effects, you can do just that.

This wall idea seems the same to me. Even if you play Darkness as some measure of opaque, it's pretty clear that walls are not normally in any way see through and you can't see through them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are a number of things like that where if you use your head and consider the argument, are clearly wrong. One of my favorite is from 3.5.

In 3.5 if you go to -1 or greater hit points, you dying which adds unconscious. Dying only applies until -9. Okay. So far so good. Once you go past -9 to dead, you are no longer dying, which means the unconscious caused by it no longer applies. Okay. Now we look at dead. Dead says that your soul leaves. Okay. You can't be healed naturally or through magic. Okay. You start to decay. Fine. Nowhere does it say that you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious.

I mean where you think all those zombies and skeletons come from?

At some point you just have to accept how words are commonly used and understood and just apply them. WotC clearly thinks that you should know what dead really means and didn't feel the need to tell you that someone who is dead can't get back up and keep fighting, but if all you do is follow the chain of effects, you can do just that.

This wall idea seems the same to me. Even if you play Darkness as some measure of opaque, it's pretty clear that walls are not normally in any way see through and you can't see through them.

The issue arose because some people say that you can see things behind heavily obscured areas, but the intervening things in said area still do not become visible as silhouettes. I.e. they remain heavily obscured, i.e. you cannot see them. Walls becoming see through is a logical reductio ad absurdum consequence of that. No, no one would actually play that way.

 

[Hriston]

They have absolutely no awareness of exactly where the strike at them is going or when it will arrive. They might be aware that a hit is coming towards them at some point. They can hear the enemy flailing around with a weapon, but that hit could come in 1 second or 6, and could come at the left leg or right arm. Or with that disadvantage, they may never get hit. They have no way of telling. Hence, oblivious.

Okay. I wouldn't call that "oblivious", but I mostly agree with your description of the situation. Now, don't you think the target would have a better chance of avoiding that blow if they could see the attacker?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. I wouldn't call that "oblivious", but I mostly agree with your description of the situation. Now, don't you think the target would have a better chance of avoiding that blow if they could see the attacker?

Sure, but that deficit is more than countered by the deficit the attacker has in being totally blind. Most of the attacker's swings aren't going to hit the target, instead they're just going to be wild swings in the darkness. Some of those wild swings, had the target been able to see, would have been better aimed and hit(attacker has disadvantage). Once the attacker overcomes that disadvantage and hits anyway, the defender's defensive skills would come into play, except that 5e doesn't really work that way. There are no real defensive skills other than dex bonus.

The best way to model what happens is to give the target the appropriate disadvantage on the attack, but also remove the target's dex bonus from AC and perhaps shield. That would involve a house rules, though.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't! I'm explicitly not making that claim.

Claim A: "the Darkness spell needs to be an opaque ink-blot because otherwise creatures can see through walls."

What I was trying to say: "I'm not saying (Claim A)."

Hopefully that makes it clear? I do not think either of the interpretations of the Darkness spell as creating opaque or transparent darkness leads to creatures being able to see through walls.

I do think that the basic rules have an inconsistency, where the addition of silhouettes to the vision rules violates the rules for the Blinded condition (by letting observers see backlit creatures they are effectively Blinded to), but not adding silhouettes to the vision rules causes backlit creatures/objects/walls to fail to interrupt an observer's ability to see the lit area behind (meaning the creatures/objects/walls must not be opaque).

Does that make sense? (Same question for @FitzTheRuke.)

It sounds like you are saying that if a solid object should be backlit, but isn't due to Darkness making everyone blind to everything inside of it, that the object is transparent if you can still see things behind it.

That's a possible interpretation, but so is "magic." "Magic" seems like a cop out in this circumstance, so I think that making Darkness pitch black and allowing no light to go through it is the more elegant solution. No seeing anything behind an area of the Darkness spell.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean where you think all those zombies and skeletons come from?


The issue arose because some people say that you can see things behind heavily obscured areas, but the intervening things in said area still do not become visible as silhouettes. I.e. they remain heavily obscured, i.e. you cannot see them. Walls becoming see through is a logical reductio ad absurdum consequence of that. No, no one would actually play that way.

As far as I recall, no one argued that a creature in the darkness would be invisible, just that they wouldn't necessarily imagine them as a perfectly back-lit silhouette. Usually this distinction was part of an argument about a back-lit silhouette being too visible and counting as dim light, or some other ruling. I think the expectation was that a creature in the darkness spell would be more obscured than that. Perhaps a barely visible figure in deep shadow or only visible at all as some vague movement in the darkness.