Search results

I would agree that overall the rules are sufficiently clear. That doesn't stop the exceptions from becoming recurring topics of debate or confusion. For example, as explictly noted by JC, the meaning of "melee weapon attack" hinges on the lack of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon". He's...

While the rules could have been written that way, they weren't. The errata'd rules literally say that observers are "effectively blind" when trying to see anything in a heavily obscured area. If the DM rules that a creature in darkness is within hearing range, then its location may still be...

That approach certainly works. Do note that ruling such creatures are both visible and simultaneously Heavily Obscured may produce follow-on complications, such as whether or not you let such creatures take the Hide action.

The vision and obscurement rules are very abstract, treating light levels as a constant at any particular location rather than taking into account the relative positions of observers and light sources. There's two broad ways (with infinitely many variations and intermediate approaches) a DM can...

Out of curiosity, how do you run the transparent darkness interpretation at your table? Are backlit creatures in the area of darkness visible as silhouettes, or are they invisible? Is the sphere itself visible on its own, or only apparent by its effects on the illumination of the objects inside...

Oh interesting, thanks for elaborating! Apparently the difference is in how we use the word "adjudicate". To me, until I figure out what it looks like I can't adjudicate how to describe to a player what they can see (necessary for step one of the basic play loop), and until I know if creatures...

Wait what? The old post doesn't even begin to address what a transparent sphere of darkness in an otherwise well-lit area would look like. It asserts that creatures inside the darkness would be unseen, but doesn't address what about a darkness spell prevents those creatures from being seen as...

(Emphasis added.) I suspect that the original writers expected that by writing the rules casually they would make the rules easy enough to understand that there would be comparatively fewer rules ambiguities than were created by the more technical language of past editions. Heck, for all I know...

I highly doubt the designers intended natural darkness to be opaque pre-errata. Ergo, it is unlikely that they based the wording of the spell on the idea that natural darkness is opaque.

Only if the darkness is opaque. If the darkness is transparent than anyone with normal vision would be assumed to see through it just fine.

I disagree that it is RAW. I have maintained from the beginning that the vision and obscurement rules are too abstract to permit a RAW answer to the question of whether the darkness created by the spell is opaque or transparent. I'm glad you agree that the transparent interpretation creates...

I've previously pointed out how interpreting the spell as magically induced non-magical darkness produces gaps that the spell text does not resolve. In particular, it doesn't answer the question of what magically induced non-magical darkness in an otherwise well-lit area would look like to an...

@FrogReaver, I'm having a hard time following how you're interpreting the phrase "can't see through this darkness". The relevant text of the spell says: So the magical darkness created by the spell fills a volume--we know this because the spell text explicitly says that the darkness "fills a...

None of the three examples you provided appear to me to be a close parsing of the text. They're simply citing the text as justification, which is a different type of analysis. I will grant, however, that all three are making a text-based claim contrary to yours, and @Iry even mentions "RAW". So...

To my understanding, no one in this thread (as of when I had originally posted) had asserted that a close parsing of the spell and rules text requires the ink blot interpretation. Instead the general gist seems to have been limited to opposing your claim that a close parsing favors your...

But that's not the example provided.... The example has a single, sharp-edged zone of darkness seen at short range in the middle of an area that would otherwise be lit. Your house example is almost the exact opposite: a single brightly lit object seen at long range in an otherwise dark...

That example can't exist with natural darkness in the real world because natural darkness doesn't exist as a volume-filling concept (instead darkness is the lack of perception of light on a particular vector). It can kind-of-sort-of exist in the abstraction of D&D if you approach the rules as...

I don't think anyone else is arguing in favor of the opaque ink-blot interpretation based on a close reading of the spell text or obscurement rules. They're ruling based on which interpretation makes sense on an intuitive level (I believe "common sense" has been cited in this thread), practical...

Doesn't that weigh against your interpretation? If magic has endless possibilities, and we have one possible interpretation where the spell text fully resolves the spell, and another possible interpretation where the spell text leaves gaping holes, isn't that evidence that the completely...

This is a great example. Under the "opaque ink-blot" interpretation, the resolution is easy: the Dog can't see anything in or behind the darkness. Under the "transparent zone of magically induced non-magical darkness" interpretation, things get much trickier. The Dog should be able to see the...