D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

Resurrection not returning your soul is "collateral damage" of so literal an interpretation. Revivify bringing parts of a body instead of a goodly chunk of the body is "collateral damage". Players arguing about the radius of Fireball flame is "collateral damage". Players making the wrong choice in games because their expectations cannot possibly happen (as opposed to merely failing) is "collateral damage". Etc.

A single outlier ruling about Darkness isn't going to do much. A growing pile of outlier rulings can blow up a game.

So you're making a slippery slope argument?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Are we really going there?

Illuminate means something like to 'light up'. In no case is the darkness ever lit up. I'm guessing you think illuminate means something far different than it actually does?

If the sphere of darkness created by the spell is never lit up, how can characters see a torch on the other side of it?

 

[FrogReaver]

Resurrection not returning your soul is "collateral damage" of so literal an interpretation.

Not having a soul doesn't impact the game in any mechanical way that I'm aware of. So what if it does or doesn't? I would think it's DM's call on whether it does or not given the lack of rules. I'm fine with DM rulings - especially when something is truly ambiguous. I mean there's always the question of can that creature return to life without it's soul. Is that even a possibility, that's not a rule anywhere either. So another DM call. DM's have to make lots of calls in 5e.

Revivify bringing parts of a body instead of a goodly chunk of the body is "collateral damage".

I still think you are pushing revivify a little beyond what it can entail. It does require you touch a creature that has died. I'm not sure touching the detached toe of Bob the Wizard would count as a creature. That part is DM call and that's fine. I'm not seeing how that's collateral damage.

Players arguing about the radius of Fireball flame is "collateral damage".

It's the DM's call as it's clearly ambiguous. How's that collateral damage?

Players making the wrong choice in games because their expectations cannot possibly happen (as opposed to merely failing) is "collateral damage". Etc.

Such is the case in any game with DM rulings. I'm not seeing how anything about darkness relates to any of these. The darkness spell isn't based on something ambiguous - it's based on something clearly in the rules and not adding to those rules just because we don't like the outcome.

A single outlier ruling about Darkness isn't going to do much. A growing pile of outlier rulings can blow up a game.

It's not an outlier ruling.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the sphere of darkness created by the spell is never lit up, how can characters see a torch on the other side of it?

What does the sphere being lit up have to do with seeing a torch on the other side?

 

[Iry]

Well, being in the majority doesn't necessarily equate to being right. Nor does being in the majority equate to not having adopted an outlier interpretation.

It does equate to making things easier on your players, having other people understand you, and how much they trust you to run a table if they don't understand you.

As for your other posts, we've reached the Agree to Disagree point. I see your interpretation as technically possible but unreasonable. You see it as perfectly reasonable. And that's pretty much the end of it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

What does the sphere being lit up have to do with seeing a torch on the other side?

If the sphere cannot be illuminated, then it blocks sight.

 

[FrogReaver]

It does equate to making things easier on your players, having other people understand you, and how much they trust you to run a table if they don't understand you.

Only in a whiteroom without any other variables present.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the sphere cannot be illuminated, then it blocks sight.

ummm.... That's not what illuminated or in this case, not illuminated means.

It's a logical leap to go from 'cannot be illuminated' to 'blocks sight'

 

[BookTenTiger]

ummm.... That's not what illuminated or in this case, not illuminated means.

It's a logical leap to go from 'cannot be illuminated' to 'blocks sight'

It is a sphere of magical darkness that cannot be illuminated. It is dark. Characters cannot see through it.

Please describe your interpretation.

 

[FrogReaver]

As for your other posts, we've reached the Agree to Disagree point. I see your interpretation as technically possible but unreasonable. You see it as perfectly reasonable. And that's pretty much the end of it.

Sure.