D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Crimson Longinus]

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Reads to me that it only blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. What makes you believe it applies to more situations than that?

 

[FrogReaver]

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Reads to me that it only blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. What makes you believe it applies to more situations than that?

@Crimson Longinus

All that says is that the rule you are citing only applies to trying to see something in the heavily obscured area. That's still 100% correct for both dense foilage and darkness. But how does that show I'm saying dense foilage and darkness function the same in every situation? Doesn't this actually show that you are misquoting me and arguing against positions I don't even hold?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay, fine... if you want to say someone without Darkvision can see out of the Darkness spell (or whatever ridiculous premise you're suggesting) then go ahead. You do you. But the rest of us think it's silly and you're trying to game the rules. If you're okay with that, then great. But if that's the case, then why the heck did you bother asking for our opinions on the matter in the first place?

Play your way happily but stop trying to convince all the rest of us otherwise, because we all think you're wrong.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus

All that says is that the rule you are citing only applies to trying to see something in the heavily obscured area. That's still 100% correct for both dense foilage and darkness. But how does that show I'm saying dense foilage and darkness function the same in every situation?

You're the one on this 'but it doesn't say I can't' crazy train. Regardless, my second example was about the darkness spell specifically. Your interpretation leads to absurd results.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're the one on this 'but it doesn't say I can't' crazy train.

Spells must specifically call out what they do. If a spell doesn't say it does something then it doesn't. That's not crazy train, that's how the game works at a basic, fundamental level.

Regardless, my second example was about the darkness spell specifically. Your interpretation leads to absurd results.

You've not shown that. You state it as fact but when you actually stop and listen to what I'm saying, my position doesn't lead to anything you claim.

 

[Iry]

Howso?

It is technically possible. Such is the nature of double standards. But then I would have to have a talk with you after the game regarding disruptive behavior.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, fine... if you want to say someone without Darkvision can see out of the Darkness spell (or whatever ridiculous premise you're suggesting) then go ahead.

It's not ridiculous.

You do you. But the rest of us think it's silly and you're trying to game the rules. If you're okay with that, then great. But if that's the case, then why the heck did you bother asking for our opinions on the matter in the first place?

Play your way happily but stop trying to convince all the rest of us otherwise, because we all think you're wrong.

If you don't want to be a part of a discussion about this then bow out. No hard feelings, but please stop with this, 'you can't even discuss it crap'

 

[FrogReaver]

It is technically possible. Such is the nature of double standards. But then I would have to have a talk with you after the game regarding disruptive behavior.

We aren't playing a game. So explain. How do I have a double standard with wall of stone and darkness? Am I saying that one spell doesn't do exactly what it says?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You've not shown that. You state it as fact but when you actually stop and listen to what I'm saying, my position doesn't lead to anything you claim.

That you cannot even follow your own logic is not my fault.

 

[FrogReaver]

That you cannot even follow your own logic is not my fault.

Removed comment.

What I said wasn't constructive so I removed it. No need to engage in what's heading toward a flame war.