D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[BookTenTiger]

Problem with this is that it effectively lets things inside the darkness to be seen, as people cannot see things behind them but they can see things behind the darkness.

This is what things in FrogReaver's darkness would look like, rendering the whole spell pretty much pointless.

I mean, I agree, but I'm just trying to understand FrogReaver's interpretation.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think I'm coming to understand your interpretation of Darkness.

The FrogReaver Darkness creates a sphere of "super darkness" that acts like natural darkness for creatures with both normal vision and darkvision.

So if an elf and a human were in a hallway that was well lit, both would see a sphere of strange darkness, though they could also see well-lit areas on the other side of it.

If the lights were off in the hallway, the human would see only darkness, and the elf would see dim light except for the area of Darkness, which would look like a sphere of natural darkness.

Is that right?

Yes

 

[Xetheral]

@FrogReaver, I'm having a hard time following how you're interpreting the phrase "can't see through this darkness". The relevant text of the spell says:

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

So the magical darkness created by the spell fills a volume--we know this because the spell text explicitly says that the darkness "fills a 15-foot radius sphere". Ergo, whatever other properties magical darkness has, it is a medium that fills a sphere. So far so good?

When someone asks whether one can see through a medium, from my standpoint, under ordinary usage, the answer to the question is "yes" if the medium is transparent, "no" if the medium is opaque, and "partially" if the medium is neither fully opaque nor fully transparent.

I had thought that you were using a close parsing of the text in conjunction with the errata'd obscurement rules to argue that "can't see through this darkness" in D&D terms means "heavily obscured". And that because the errata'd rule for heavy obscurement requires only that creatures are effectively blind when trying to see into a heavily obscured area, not when trying to see past it, you were inferring that the magical darkness created by the spell must actually be transparent, even though that conflicts with the ordinary meaning of "can't see through this darkness" as describing an opaque medium. From my standpoint this interpretation is not excluded by the text, but I thought it was unlikely to be the intended function of the spell for the reasons I've previously described (in particular, that it creates ambiguities that the DM would have to resolve, whereas interpreting the spell as opaque is very straightforward to run).

Now it looks like you're saying that your interpretation instead depends on reading "see through this darkness" to mean something other than describing the opacity of the darkness. Could you please clarify how you're reading the phrase "can't see through this darkness" and how that informs your interpretation of the spell as creating a transparent medium?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes

Okay, I understand then.

Essentially, I have to imagine a room in which the walls are lit up with something like candles, but the center of the room is in darkness. If someone were standing in the darkness, they would be difficult to see, except you would be able to see their silhouette when they block a cable on the other side.

I still don't agree with that interpretation - maybe even just because it's a whole lot of mental work on my part to imagine it, compared to an opaque inky sphere.

 

[Nefermandias]

@FrogReaver, I'm having a hard time following how you're interpreting the phrase "can't see through this darkness". The relevant text of the spell says:


So the magical darkness created by the spell fills a volume--we know this because the spell text explicitly says that the darkness "fills a 15-foot radius sphere". Ergo, whatever other properties magical darkness has, it is a medium that fills a sphere. So far so good?

When someone asks whether one can see through a medium, from my standpoint, under ordinary usage, the answer to the question is "yes" if the medium is transparent, "no" if the medium is opaque, and "partially" if the medium is neither fully opaque nor fully transparent.

I had thought that you were using a close parsing of the text in conjunction with the errata'd obscurement rules to argue that "can't see through this darkness" in D&D terms means "heavily obscured". And that because the errata'd rule for heavy obscurement requires only that creatures are effectively blind when trying to see into a heavily obscured area, not when trying to see past it, you were inferring that the magical darkness created by the spell must actually be transparent, even though that conflicts with the ordinary meaning of "can't see through this darkness" as describing an opaque medium. From my standpoint this interpretation is not excluded by the text, but I thought it was unlikely to be the intended function of the spell for the reasons I've previously described (in particular, that it creates ambiguities that the DM would have to resolve, whereas interpreting the spell as opaque is very straightforward to run).

Now it looks like you're saying that your interpretation instead depends on reading "see through this darkness" to mean something other than describing the opacity of the darkness. Could you please clarify how you're reading the phrase "can't see through this darkness" and how that informs your interpretation of the spell as creating a transparent medium?

You don't have to overcomplicate things. According to @FrogReaver (and apparently, RAW after the errata) all that the Darkness spell really do is creating a transparent bubble of darkness with the special properties of not having any interaction with Darkvision or any form of light that's not created by a spell of lvl 2 or higher.
It's no different of normal Darkness in any other sense and most definitely doesn't make Darkvision worse than normal vision.
You guys are probably missing a bit of context in this discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

You are using the phrase ‘see through darkness’ again. The very thing I objected to. I’m not trying to be pedantic but if that phrase is included then it’s going to make this into a debate on the meaning of ‘see through the darkness’ as it’s obvious we understand that phrase to mean different things.

CAN EITHER OR BOTH PERSONS SEE THE TORCH?

You knew what I friggen meant by "see through the darkness" because I went to the trouble to spell it out for you but if you want to play this game (and you are playing a game) then fine. Just answer the question - can they see the torch, the one using darkvision and the other not using darkvision?

 

[Mistwell]

Nobody ever claimed such a thing. Why do you people keep bringing that nonsense up?

He is claiming it again right now. I think people don't realize the ramifications of what he's arguing. He is literally arguing that right now. Watch.

 

[Nefermandias]

CAN EITHER OR BOTH PERSONS SEE THE TORCH?

You knew what I friggen meant by "see through the darkness" because I went to the trouble to spell it out for you but if you want to play this game (and you are playing a game) then fine. Just answer the question - can they see the torch, the one using darkvision and the other not using darkvision?

Now it's you who must be trolling.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, IMO. both can see the torch

Can the one with darkvision see the torch using just darkvision, or do they have to use their non-darkvision?

 

[Mistwell]

Now it's you who must be trolling.

I'm really not. Just watch.