D&D 5E Does Darkness the spell dispel Faerie Fire?

[pdegan2814]

So how would lets say a 3rd level FF react with a 2nd lvl darkness just the outline of the creature in the big sphere of inky blackness? or what if the target was on the opposite side of the spell oh god can of worms.

As for the first part, I'd say yeah it'd be like seeing a bright outline against a dark background. The "you have advantage on attacks" feature still makes sense, because they stick out like a sore thumb in such a high-contrast environment. As for the 2nd part, I dunno. If the Darkness field acts as something of a solid barrier for the purposes of obscuring items outside its radius but on the opposite side, then either it's doing the same for the object affected by the Faerie Fire, or only the Faerie Fire outline is shining through the Darkness field. The Darkness spell does say "nonmagical light can't illuminate it", suggesting that magical light can. So perhaps the magical glow of the Faerie Fire shines through the Darkness field, still allowing you to "see" the creature, almost like X-Ray Vision.

 

[Redthistle]

Yes, though if the Darkness was cast as an innate ability, such as the racial abilities of the Drow or Tiefling, those act as if cast at their lowest possible level. So in the original example, if the Drow is "casting Darkness" as his racial ability, then a 3rd-level Faerie Fire wouldn't be dispelled.

My thinking when I replied was based on the PHB entry for Drow Magic (p24; mind you, this was not the updated 2nd printing) which doesn't mention that limitation. I failed to check the SA Compendium (v1.03) which confirms your clarification, so I stand corrected:

"Can you cast darkness with a higher level slot to end a spell of 3rd level or higher that creates light? - No. The darkness spell can dispel only a light-creating spell of 2nd level or lower, no matter what spell slot is used for casting darkness. Similarly, the daylight spell can dispel only a darkness-creating spell of 3rd level or lower, regardless of the spell slot used."

Thank you, pdegan2814.

 

[Azurewraith]

As for the first part, I'd say yeah it'd be like seeing a bright outline against a dark background. The "you have advantage on attacks" feature still makes sense, because they stick out like a sore thumb in such a high-contrast environment. As for the 2nd part, I dunno. If the Darkness field acts as something of a solid barrier for the purposes of obscuring items outside its radius but on the opposite side, then either it's doing the same for the object affected by the Faerie Fire, or only the Faerie Fire outline is shining through the Darkness field. The Darkness spell does say "nonmagical light can't illuminate it", suggesting that magical light can. So perhaps the magical glow of the Faerie Fire shines through the Darkness field, still allowing you to "see" the creature, almost like X-Ray Vision.

Ye after mulling it over i came to the same conclusion.Just like to be prepared it may never come up in lay but then you never know.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"Can you cast darkness with a higher level slot to end a spell of 3rd level or higher that creates light? - No. The darkness spell can dispel only a light-creating spell of 2nd level or lower, no matter what spell slot is used for casting darkness. Similarly, the daylight spell can dispel only a darkness-creating spell of 3rd level or lower, regardless of the spell slot used."
Thank you, pdegan2814.

I have a fairly simple rule regarding developer clarifications: If it contradicts the written text, then it isn't authoritative, just opinion--regardless of where it is printed. The only exceptions would be if it were placed in the formal errata documents and included in new printings.

In this case, I'm going to reject the sage's advice, because he is incorrectly (IMO) invoking "specific beats general" in a situation where there is no evidence that the specific is out of harmony with the general.

General rule is that 3rd-level slot means 3rd-level spell. For a specific rule to overrule that it would have to you know, actually disagree with that, by referring to something like a "natural spell level" or some such, which doesn't exist in the game. Alternately, it could use some unwieldy phrase like, "if it's area overlaps the area of a spell with 2nd-level as its lowest possible level (regardless of what level it is cast at) the spell that created ...".

That's not what it says. Therefore the actual rule should apply. I respectfully disagree with the official interpretation.

 

[thalmin]

So how would lets say a 3rd level FF react with a 2nd lvl darkness just the outline of the creature in the big sphere of inky blackness? or what if the target was on the opposite side of the spell oh god can of worms.

In both cases, I would rule that, although the fairy fire is not dispelled, it would not be visible while within or if obscured by the magical darkness. If someone can see within or through the magical darkness (like maybe with True Seeing if you rule it that way) they would then benefit from the fairy fire cast on a target.

 

[Azurewraith]

In both cases, I would rule that, although the fairy fire is not dispelled, it would not be visible while within or if obscured by the magical darkness. If someone can see within or through the magical darkness (like maybe with True Seeing if you rule it that way) they would then benefit from the fairy fire cast on a target.

May i ask what the process of thinking got to that decision? It always interests me to see why rulings differ

 

[pdegan2814]

I have a fairly simple rule regarding developer clarifications: If it contradicts the written text, then it isn't authoritative, just opinion--regardless of where it is printed. The only exceptions would be if it were placed in the formal errata documents and included in new printings.

In this case, I'm going to reject the sage's advice, because he is incorrectly (IMO) invoking "specific beats general" in a situation where there is no evidence that the specific is out of harmony with the general.

General rule is that 3rd-level slot means 3rd-level spell. For a specific rule to overrule that it would have to you know, actually disagree with that, by referring to something like a "natural spell level" or some such, which doesn't exist in the game. Alternately, it could use some unwieldy phrase like, "if it's area overlaps the area of a spell with 2nd-level as its lowest possible level (regardless of what level it is cast at) the spell that created ...".

That's not what it says. Therefore the actual rule should apply. I respectfully disagree with the official interpretation.

I'm not sure what you're actually saying here, your post was a bit convoluted. The Sage Advice ruling is spot-on. What it's saying is that the dispel effect that's part of the Darkness spell is a non-scaling effect, it is independent of the level the Darkness spell is cast at. That's plain from the wording of the spell. Unlike spells such as Fireball or Counterspell, Darkness does not contain an "At higher levels" section, and makes zero mention of any increased potency when cast at a higher level. It's not "dispels magical light from sources equal to the level of the Darkness spell," it's "dispels light created by spells 2nd level or lower". Period.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm not sure what you're actually saying here, your post was a bit convoluted. The Sage Advice ruling is spot-on. What it's saying is that the dispel effect that's part of the Darkness spell is a non-scaling effect, it is independent of the level the Darkness spell is cast at. That's plain from the wording of the spell. Unlike spells such as Fireball or Counterspell, Darkness does not contain an "At higher levels" section, and makes zero mention of any increased potency when cast at a higher level. It's not "dispels magical light from sources equal to the level of the Darkness spell," it's "dispels light created by spells 2nd level or lower". Period.

I must have misunderstood the context then. I thought what was being said was that darkness was able to dispel a faerie fire cast in a 3rd (or higher) level slot, which is an interpretation that appears to contradict the rules. I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Lanefan]

In both cases, I would rule that, although the fairy fire is not dispelled, it would not be visible while within or if obscured by the magical darkness. If someone can see within or through the magical darkness (like maybe with True Seeing if you rule it that way) they would then benefit from the fairy fire cast on a target.

May i ask what the process of thinking got to that decision? It always interests me to see why rulings differ

I'm not [MENTION=662]thalmin[/MENTION] but as my ruling would be exactly the same, here's my rationale: simplicity. The Faerie Fire can happily keep going - there's no need to have the Darkness interact with it in any way at all other than to block its light thus I wouldn't need to worry about casting level or any other stuff - but inside the Darkness it effectively Does Nothing as the Darkness trumps it. However if a Faerie Fire'd creature manages to get out of the Darkness (or if the Darkness somehow moves away) it would then resume glowing, and if the Darkness somehow got dispelled without the Faerie Fire also getting clobbered the glowing would also resume.

Same thing if someone inside a Darkness has a glowing weapon - as far as I'm concerned the weapon still glows all the while but the Darkness prevents anyone from seeing it. Up to each DM whether something like an everburning torch would be knocked out by a Darkness; I'd be consistent here and say it continues to function but the Darkness trumps whatever light it can generate.

Lan-"magical light vs. magical darkness arguments have been going on since the game was invented...nothing new here"-efan

 

[thalmin]

May i ask what the process of thinking got to that decision? It always interests me to see why rulings differ

First, Fairy Fire does not provide a strong area of light. I see Fairy Fire as magically highlighting something, sort of like using a yellow marker on text in a book. The marker makes something stand out. But it doesn't make the text easier to read if you're sitting in the dark. And it doesn't help much if the book is in Braille.
I also rule that Fairy Fire does not help someone who is blind(ed). If someone can't see, making a target "sparkle" isn't going to give advantage, unless the DM decides that the sparkle is also audible, hissing and popping like static electricity or something.

I rule that Darkness does not dispell it because FF is not just illumination of an area centered on a target. Likewise, Darkness does not dispell the cantrip Produce Flame. That little bit of magical fire is still there and could be thrown (at disadvantage), but it just can't be seen while in the magical darkness.