Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="darbyrm" data-source="post: 9608476" data-attributes="member: 7047320">Let me try one more time to simplify my point - which is Crawford and Sage Advice got this one wrong.According to Crawford/SAC, magical darkness is not different than normal darkness except that it was created by magic.  It otherwise follows all the normal rules for darkness.Further, the darkvision blocking power of the Darkness spell is entirely due to the specific rules written into that spell, and has nothing to do with the fact that it is magical darkness.Following this logic, other things written in the darkness spell are specific only to the darkness spell - including that the darkness can't be illuminated by normal light.Here are the reasons why that ruling does not work:Imps ability to see in magical darkness is completely redundant.   Devil's Sight. Magical Darkness doesn't impede the imp's Darkvision.Magical Darkness (according to Crawford/SAC) doesn't impede anyone's Darkvision. An ability to see in magical darkness - no matter how specific - would not stop them from being affected by the darkness spell. The darkness spell's text stops a creature with darkvision from seeing through it. Their ability or inability to see normally in magical darkness is irrelevant. If you insist that seeing in magical darkness lets you bypass the wording of the spell (as interpreted by Crawford) you would also have to let an elf see in the darkness spell. There is absolutely no way to interpret the rules so that an Imp's ability to see in magical darkness lets them see in the darkness spell and not let an elf's normal darkvision which is also unimpeded by magical darkness do the same. The only way an imp can see in the darkness spell and an elf can't is if magical darkness normally impedes darkvision. The magical darkness isn't stopping the imp from seeing, the text of the actual spell is (Imp is a creature with darkvision - TRUE, creature with darkvision can't see in this darkness - TRUE, Imp can't see in this darkness - TRUE).  An Imp's ability to see in magical darkness is not specific to the darkness spell, so it doesn't override it's rules.  The ability would have to say 'An Imp can see normally in the darkness spell.' to be more specific than the rules in the darkness spell, because the darkness spell - not magical darkness - is blocking it's vision.  Hunger of Hadar also is a sphere of darkness, and it specifically blinds all inside.  Are imps immune to that because of devil's sight?  No of course not, so they also are not immune to the specific wording of the darkness spell IF that wording is not inheirant to magical darkness as is now ruled.The Tricksy Fey from Summon Fey has no tricks.  Crawford/SAC has ruled that none of the specific rules from the darkness spell are inherent to magical darkness.  This means that not only does darkvision pierce the tricksy fey's 5' cube of magical darkness...  but also it doesn't have the specific ability of the darkness spell to not be illuminated by normal light.  This means if there is a torch next to the darkness, it's illuminated.  If the sun is out, it's illuminated.  The only place the tricksy fey's darkness can stay dark is if it's placed in an area that is already dark.  So it literally does absolutely nothing.It is clear that the original intent was for the darkness spell to define magical darkness. You don't write the imp's devil's sight in that way unless you are under the assumption that magical darkness normally blocks darkvision.  You don't put a 5' cube of darkness on the tricksy fey without further details unless you assume you are going to treat it the same as the darkness spell.  I agree that strict RAW Crawford is right, but putting it into SAC makes it RAI too... which means they intend imp's devil's sight to be useless and for fey spirit to also be useless.  They need to swallow their pride on this, admit they are wrong, and errata in how everybody was interpreting this spell up until Crawford made his tweet.</blockquote>

Verification