Search results

That totally works. My point was that making it work requires going beyond the text, no matter what solution one prefers. :) I agree that a heavily obscured creature's location is known, if it is within hearing range. A silhouette revealing a creature's location can often be relevant at...

Thanks for clarifying! I was extrapolating from your response (IIRC) that you'd let a heavily obscured (by darkness) silhouette be visible against a broad, well-lit background, but would let the creature still benefit from being heavily obscured even though its location would be known by its...

To avoid the issue of wasted spells, I totally recommend taking a spammable utility spell or two that you would have fun casting in bulk at the end of the day. Sending takes the cake for mid-level slots: keep in touch with all your NPC contacts! But there are a bunch of great spells for...

Personally I find that kind of encounter both boring and frequently illogical if intelligent foes are involved. Why would an enemy with no chance try to fight? Sure, for the first round they might be overconfident, but with that kind of power disparity, their looming demise quickly becomes...

It takes a skilled party (or mindless foes) to have six separate encounters on a dungeon level, especially with the ability to take two one-hour breaks in-between. If the party screws up at all and their presence is noticed, the logical consequence is two encounters: the first encounter, and...

My issue with short and long rests is that having two types of rests changes pacing from a one-variable balancing act (encounters per day) into a three-variable balancing act (encounters per short rest, encounters per long rest, and short rests per long rest). (Normally that would only be two...

(Note: I'm going to be discussing my understanding of other poster's previously expressed rulings in this post. If I have misinterpreted how you would rule, please let me know so that I can better understand your perspective.) The current turn in the conversation relates back to the point I...

I think the "dark blob" approach works too, although I'd also note that nothing in the spell description suggests the spell does this. Still, it's a decent way to run it if you want transparent darkness. Balance-wise, however, it (and other transparent darkness interpretations that give full...

The opaque inkblot version is fantastic to use to buff defenders behind crenellations (or any low cover) if the approaching enemy is both close enough to locate by hearing and does not have access to cover. On their turns each defender stands up from prone, shoots at an enemy whose position they...

I don't think the opaque interpretation requires bending the rules or bending the fiction. That's why I think it's the better interpretation. :) At most you have to read the whole spell text in the context of the opaque interpretation, so that it makes sense that darkvision is called out as...

Note that the rules text for Heavy Obscurement doesn't say "effective blind". It says "effectively suffers from the Blinded condition". And the Blinded condition itself has two effects: "Effectively suffers from the blinded condition" doesn't mean that the creature suffers a reduced set of...

(Emphasis added.) I understand that you're comfortable with applying vision-based advantage/disadvantage even when a creature is neither affected by the Invisible condition, nor when their opponent is (effectively) suffering from the Blinded condition. That's definitely a way to make the...

RAW also is that the darkness spell only creates darkness--it doesn't make opaque creatures transparent. But making opaque creatures (and objects, and walls, etc.) transparent is exactly what would happen if the DM rules that silhouettes are heavily obscured by the transparent magical darkness...

Not necessarily--it's going to be DM dependent. If there is a backlight, the DM is going to have to decide how to interpret the spell and what effects it has on creatures. If the DM prioritizes the rules for heavy obscurement over spell text and let's the spell turn opaque creatures and objects...

The errata'd version of page 183 says that in darkness "[a] creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition... when trying to see something in that area". That doesn't say that normal darkness can't be seen through, and the updated phrasing works well enough for natural darkness in...

For my part, the fact that the spell says that you can't see through it, even if you have darkvision, suggests the intent is that it is opaque, because that's what opaque means. I realize you interpret that line differently (even if I'm still unsure exactly how you're interpreting it), so I know...

Here's one of the definitions of "illuminate" from Merriam Webster: The stars both supply earth with light and brighten the earth with light, so they meet the ordinary definition of illuminating the earth. The definition quoted is neither a technical usage nor is it jargon--it's just natural...

I would say that silhouettes are never heavily obscured by transparent heavy obscurement. Opaque heavy obscurement can obscure a silhouette just fine. What they probably should have done when writing the rules was treat natural darkness separately from heavy obscurement. Then heavy obscurement...

Ruling that a creature that can be seen must not be Heavily Obscured is perfectly consistent with the rules. It's just refusing to treat the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world, and instead treating them as an abstraction of real world lighting. There can be multiple valid...

Not at all. I was responding to your contention that RAW could be read to mean that silhouettes are always heavily obscured (and thus never seen) in 5e, and pointing out the complication that produces for the silhouettes of walls.