Recent content by Minato

In my experience the line between Acrobatics and Athletics gets blurred most annoyingly.

Honestly the special effects of this movie just aren't that high budget. They do have a dwarf, and he is on screen for basically as long as the Tabaxi. The Dragonborn and the Aaracokra are part of longer scenes. None of them look convincing enough that they would have done well as main...

The gladiatorial combat you refer to was disavowed because all participants did die the last time they held them many years ago. It is only brought back as part of the evil villains plot with zero expectation by the organiser that any of the participants will survive this time around. The movie...

The 3rd Hobbit movie came out in 2014, they weren't good but they existed.

The hologram idea works for me, some false shapes are cast within to make it difficult to determine outlines/centermass of creatures within but leaving general visibility of illuminated stuff behind it.

It surely is effectively what people are saying. real darkness doesn't have shape. the Darkness spell is given to creatures that are Larger then any player race, that you gonna be looking up at with the darkness not being cast anywhere but itself and ground beneath it, which it can't blend into...

I guess, tough pill to swallow though. DM: "The silhouette, which looks like a Drider, and definitely doesn't look like anything else in creation, pulls out what can only be described as a longbow and shoots an arrow from it. He has advantage as you are effectively blind to his presence and any...

I prefer slightly more then absolutely useless to absolutely useless. Darkness is given to Large monsters. A Drider or a Draegloth should be able to use Darkness to hide from it's opponents. In a 15 feet radius inkblob you can't tell where in the inkblob even a Large creature exactly is. If they...

Ah, agreed. :)

What would it look like in the equivalent of 5e Darkness to your mind? The ground and the people in the image can get shades darker but it would not make a difference. The only thing that would help obscure them is if what was behind them wasn't still clearly visible.

Exactly, so the wall still exist to be in your view rather then what's behind, so to would the creature in the forementioned example. So people would see it, it would look like a something.

If you're a halfling or a gnome or a dwarf then you're looking up at just about every enemy that casts darkness, insisting they are escaping your notice by blending in to the shadows they've created on the ground doesn't do it for me.

Okay, if Darkness is cast on a wall and there's a light source behind the wall, what would the wall look like? Would you not be able to see the wall and now be able to see the interior behind the Darkness, the x-ray vision interpretation? Cause if not, they must be able to see something of the...

If there's something the people looking at Darkness are seeing that is obscuring it's contents then they won't be able to look behind the Darkness either. Then it's back to spheres of black ink or orbs of smoke or gas with some level of opaqueness.

On a level playing field with just an absence of light on the spot where the creature is standing it's opponents should be able to see everything that is going on behind him, except for a creature shaped darkness, because nothing else is actually physically obscuring this "heavily obscured" area...