D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Charlaquin]

What this would look like would depend on whether the spell prevents things inside it from reflecting/emitting light that becomes visible once it leaves the bubble. If no, everything would look perfectly normal from outside the bubble, things in it could be seen just fine. If yes, it would look like all surfaces in the area were just plain flat black, but things could still be seen clearly as silhouettes. In either case everyone in the area would be blinded.

Hmm... Yep, that checks out. So, that explanation wouldn’t work with the mechanical effects the “transparent darkness” interpretation is supposed to produce.

 

[Seramus]

When I stand in the darkness and see a bright torch in the distance, I'm not in 100% darkness. If I can see anything at all, I'm not in 100% darkness. You don't have to be in 100% darkness to be Heavily Obscured. The Darkness spell cannot be illuminated by nonmagical light.

So... does "cannot be illuminated by nonmagical light" mean it prevents 100% illumination? Or some number less than 100%?

 

[Hriston]

A back-lit sillohuete would be Lightly Obscured in my book, so I'm looking for a different visual representation.

Not in mine. If only a silhouette is seen, a creature can just blend into the shadows by trying to hide, which to me sounds like heavily obscured.

 

[Hriston]

Okay, if Darkness is cast on a wall and there's a light source behind the wall, what would the wall look like? Would you not be able to see the wall and now be able to see the interior behind the Darkness, the x-ray vision interpretation? Cause if not, they must be able to see something of the creature, just like the wall.

I don't think I understand your question. Darkness cast on a wall would just look like a dark area in front of a wall. I'm not sure how having a light source behind the wall (thus blocking the light) would change that.

 

[Hriston]

Oh! So now the darkness is not uniform, it is transparent in the middle but not on the edges! This gets even weirder. Logically this results things behind the bubble being visible through it only if they're near it's centre from the perspective of the looker, but not if they're near the edges...

Do you really get this fiddly about what's visible from specific vantages in your games?

 

[Hriston]

Except you just said that the things behind the bubble are visible though the middle of the bubble. So does the things in the bubble become transparent, so that things behind them (and the bubble) can be seen?

No, of course not. They're obscured by the darkness. It's a 15 foot radius bubble. There's room.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you really get this fiddly about what's visible from specific vantages in your games?

Wouldn’t one have to be, to establish things like cover and line of sight?

 

[Minato]

Do you really get this fiddly about what's visible from specific vantages in your games?

If you're a halfling or a gnome or a dwarf then you're looking up at just about every enemy that casts darkness, insisting they are escaping your notice by blending in to the shadows they've created on the ground doesn't do it for me.

 

[Minato]

I don't think I understand your question. Darkness cast on a wall would just look like a dark area in front of a wall. I'm not sure how having a light source behind the wall (thus blocking the light) would change that.

Exactly, so the wall still exist to be in your view rather then what's behind, so to would the creature in the forementioned example. So people would see it, it would look like a something.

 

[Nefermandias]

Wouldn’t one have to be, to establish things like cover and line of sight?

It depends how you run your games, really. Back in my 4e days, if I told my players they are standing in Concealing Terrain or behind Blocking Terrain, they would be 100% sure that they could attempt to hide, regardless of any fluffy visual description. I do recognize that the game has moved away from that kind of crunchy, tactical mindset though.