D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

sure looks like it to me. if they're not arguing that, they're doing a horrible job communicating?

Seems like it to me.

Citations?

 

[Hriston]

That would be "little stuff" that slips through the cracks. Not "big stuff" in my book.

And yet the designers felt that it was worth making a correction.

 

[prabe]

This thread isn't talking about checks. It's talking about what you can see. If you have the blinded condition, you can't see.

Mechanically (leaving combat implications aside) you fail any vision-based ability check the DM calls for. If the DM says you can see something without resolving a vision-based ability check, you can see it.

 

[Hriston]

Mechanically (leaving combat implications aside) you fail any vision-based ability check the DM calls for. If the DM says you can see something without resolving a vision-based ability check, you can see it.

That doesn't sound like "blocks vision entirely" and "can't see", so I don't know where your getting the stuff you're saying. Have a good night.

 

[prabe]

That doesn't sound like "blocks vision entirely" and "can't see", so I don't know where your getting the stuff you're saying. Have a good night.

You, too. Thanks!

 

[Seramus]

Citations?

Post 177 and 175 at the minimum.

And yet the designers felt that it was worth making a correction.

It's clear they tried to fix things so you can be inside an area of normal darkness and still see something lit in the distance. But just like a programmer who changes something, new bugs have appeared. Now you can be inside thick fog and see things outside it, or stand on one side of a thick fog and see something on the other side of it. Obviously not intended, but still a consequence of the change.

The errata needs errata. Give it two years and it will get changed.

 

[FrogReaver]

Post 177 and 175 at the minimum.

It's clear they tried to fix things so you can be inside an area of normal darkness and still see something lit in the distance. But just like a programmer who changes something, new bugs have appeared. Now you can be inside thick fog and see things outside it, or stand on one side of a thick fog and see something on the other side of it. Obviously not intended, but still a consequence of the change.

The errata needs errata. Give it two years and it will get changed.

I would say the rules are technically silent on whether you can see out of the fog or the non-magical darkness. All the rules now say is that you can’t see things in those areas.

IMO the rest is DM decision. Given the nature of fog I would rule you cannot see through heavy fog. Given the nature of non magical darkness I would rule you can see through it. It’s not that difficult.

 

[Seramus]

IMO the rest is DM decision. Given the nature of fog I would rule you cannot see through heavy fog. Given the nature of non magical darkness I would rule you can see through it. It’s not that difficult.

I agree. I would rule the same. But I would also rule magical darkness as blocking the sight of someone inside it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree. I would rule the same. But I would also rule magical darkness as blocking the sight of someone inside it.

There is no rules indication it works any differently than non-magical darkness except for the few explicit call outs in the spell.

filling in gaps when there isn’t a rule is one thing. Making up rules and calling them RAW is another. Rulings against RAW are fine. I’ll probably go with the inkblot ruling myself but I recognize it’s not RAW.

 

[Seramus]

There is no rules indication it works any differently than non-magical darkness except for the few explicit call outs in the spell.

filling in gaps when there isn’t a rule is one thing. Making up rules and calling them RAW is another. Rulings against RAW are fine. I’ll probably go with the inkblot ruling myself but I recognize it’s not RAW.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from. RAW does seem to say you can see out of magical darkness. But RAW is also borked in several places, and I don't personally like the idea of Darkness being worse than Fog Cloud, and things get a little weird with Maddening Darkness. Plus there's all this terminology about emanating and spreading. So the ink version is an easy step.

Either way, it's a conversation that comes up every few years.