# 5ELighting Effects

#### Charlaquin

##### Goblin Queen
I also do everything based not on the lighting conditions of what the observer is standing in... I do it based on what the object or person being perceived is standing in.

- If the target is in bright light, any perception checks made to notice details are made normally.
- If the target is in dim light, any perception checks to notice details are made with disadvantage.
- If the target is in darkness, you cannot make any perception checks to notice details, and in fact cannot see the target at all.

If you have darkvision, move each result up one line. Perception checks to notice details on targets in bright light and dim light are made normally, perception checks on targets in darkness are made with disadvantage.

I treat the darkness spell not as though the area is just regular darkness, but rather that it is a sphere of what you might essentially consider black ink. It would be considered a "solid" object as far as light sources are concerned (whether within the sphere or behind the sphere). A light source brought into a darkness sphere disappears (and does not radiate any light out to any radius), and likewise a light source that goes behind the sphere also disappears, although the radius of light it projects might be noticed if it is wider than the sphere of darkness. Most of the time it does, and you'll probably have a zone of dim light haloing around the darkness sphere that the perceiver can notice.
This is the most reasonable interpretation, in my opinion.

#### Ovinomancer

##### No flips for you!
Suppose you have a PC and an NPC. The NPC is surrounded by total non-magical darkness but stands beside a torch. 20ft bright light radius and 20ft dim light radius. (assuming no darkvision)

Suppose the PC stands in the dim light area and the NPC is in the Bright light area. If the PC wanted to perceive something about the NPC does he have disadvantage? If the NPC want's to perceive something about the PC does he have disadvantage?

Now suppose the PC is standing
50 ft from the torch in the dark area
and the NPC is in the bright area.
Does anything change?

Now suppose the PC is standing 50 ft from the torch in the dark area and the NPC in the dim area. Does anything change?
Thoughts?
Case 1: PC in dim light, NPC in bright light -- PC makes perception checks normally, NPC has disadvantage (on vision based checks).

Case 2: PC in darkness, NPC in bright light -- PC makes perception checks about the NPC normally, NPC cannot make vision based perception checks about the PC (is effectively blinded with regards to the PC in darkness).

Case 3: PC in darkness, NPC in dim light -- PC makes vision based perception checks with disadvantage. NPC cannot make vision based perception checks about the PC.

With regards to the darkness spell -- this is poorly written. I run it as "ink cloud", where it blocks all vision in and through except in cases of an ability to see in magical darkness. Has the least 'weird' effects while being easy to adjudicate.

##### First Post
This is why I ignore 5E lighting conventions, and just wing it.

#### DEFCON 1

##### Legend
Supporter
This is why I ignore 5E lighting conventions, and just wing it.
Oh no, don't skip out on the lighting conventions... LuminCon is one the highlights of the year!

#### Esker

##### Hero
Oh no, don't skip out on the lighting conventions... LuminCon is one the highlights of the year!
And I hear HighlightCon has some real luminaries this year.

#### Hriston

Suppose you have a PC and an NPC. The NPC is surrounded by total non-magical darkness but stands beside a torch. 20ft bright light radius and 20ft dim light radius. (assuming no darkvision)

Suppose the PC stands in the dim light area and the NPC is in the Bright light area. If the PC wanted to perceive something about the NPC does he have disadvantage?
You’re skipping the step where the DM determines whether the result of the PC’s effort is uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure. If it is and does, and the DM calls for a check, I see no reason given here that it would be made with disadvantage, but that would be up to the DM to decide.

If the NPC want's to perceive something about the PC does he have disadvantage?
Again, with the above caveat that the DM first determines that the result of the NPC’s effort is uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure and calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check to determine the result, if the NPC’s effort relies on sight, then yes, I think the check would likely be made with disadvantage unless the NPC had some source of advantage that would cancel it out.

Now suppose the PC is standing 50 ft from the torch in the dark area and the NPC is in the bright area. Does anything change?
Yes, the NPC can no longer see the PC.

Now suppose the PC is standing 50 ft from the torch in the dark area and the NPC in the dim area. Does anything change?
Yes, now if the DM asks the player for a Wisdom (Perception) check that relies on sight to resolve the PC’s attempt to notice something about the NPC, the check is made with disadvantage unless the PC also has a source of advantage.

Thoughts?
I think you should make your point more clear. I don’t see what you’re getting at.

#### FrogReaver

##### As long as i get to be the frog
You’re skipping the step where the DM determines whether the result of the PC’s effort is uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure. If it is and does, and the DM calls for a check, I see no reason given here that it would be made with disadvantage, but that would be up to the DM to decide.
Okay then.... Suppose the PC wants to notice something about the NPC that the DM has determined is uncertain. I shouldn't have to go back and reclarify something this freakin basic. I mean SERIOUSLY?

#### Hriston

Okay then.... Suppose the PC wants to notice something about the NPC that the DM has determined is uncertain. I shouldn't have to go back and reclarify something this freakin basic. I mean SERIOUSLY?
“Reclarify” would indicate you’ve already made an attempt to clarify this. I must have missed the part of the thread where you did that.

#### FrogReaver

##### As long as i get to be the frog
“Reclarify” would indicate you’ve already made an attempt to clarify this. I must have missed the part of the thread where you did that.
Read the post you just quoted. You'll find the reclarification right after the …. and right before I went off on you for even being rude enough to make that comment in the first place.

#### Hriston

Read the post you just quoted. You'll find the reclarification right after the …. and right before I went off on you for even being rude enough to make that comment in the first place.
Right, but where is the original clarification?

Anyway, I’d hoped there’d be a point to this thread, but I guess not?

#### FrogReaver

##### As long as i get to be the frog
Right, but where is the original clarification?

Anyway, I’d hoped there’d be a point to this thread, but I guess not?
Apparently you are immune to magical effects and the blocked condition as well. Apparently that's a common condition immunity these days. Anyways, you are blocked by me. Please don't reply to me and please don't post in my threads. Thanks.

#### Sorcerers Apprentice

I've never bothered to read the lighting and obscurement rules carefully, I just use common sense to figure out if something is illuminated and potentially visible. I am pretty strict when it comes to the range of light sources and darkvision though.

I treat the darkness spell as an opaque blob of darkness, like most others it seems. I guess you could read it that it's simply objects inside the spell that are dark, but then they might be easily visible as silhouettes from some angles. That's both tricky to adjucate and seems to go against the intention of the spell.

#### Hriston

Apparently you are immune to magical effects and the blocked condition as well. Apparently that's a common condition immunity these days. Anyways, you are blocked by me. Please don't reply to me and please don't post in my threads. Thanks.

I gave what I thought were thorough answers to the questions you asked in your OP, and this is the thanks I get for my effort? In all seriousness, I meant no offense, and since you said “please”, I’m happy to let this rest, although I would have rather had a reply about the substance of my post. Block me if you will, but this isn’t your forum to tell people to what posts and threads they can reply.

#### FrogReaver

##### As long as i get to be the frog

I gave what I thought were thorough answers to the questions you asked in your OP, and this is the thanks I get for my effort? In all seriousness, I meant no offense, and since you said “please”, I’m happy to let this rest, although I would have rather had a reply about the substance of my post. Block me if you will, but this isn’t your forum to tell people to what posts and threads they can reply.
I'll take you at your word that you meant no offense. I apologize for taking offense when you meant none. You are now officially unblocked (not that it really changes much seeing as you were immune to it in the first place).

#### DEFCON 1

##### Legend
Supporter
You probably already know this, but Ignores and Blocks only apparently work via the website forum program. The ENWorld app on mobile devices does not having the block/ignore feature I don't believe. It's an interesting and confusing quirk, as I occasionally see threads on my phone that I never knew were there when I normally hit the forums.