D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Charlaquin]

The word illumination is used in the rules for light to refer to three categories of illumination: (1) bright light - defined as daylight and areas immediately surrounding "sources of illumination", (2) dim light - defined as intermediate areas between bright light and darkness, twilight, or the light of a super-moon, and (3) darkness - defined as light levels as divergent as the light of a normal full moon down to absolute darkness.

So when the spell says "nonmagical light can’t illuminate it", this references the game's categories of illumination, meaning that the category of the area of darkness created by the spell cannot be increased to dim or bright light by any nonmagical source of illumination.

We’re getting awfully technical in our interpretation of text that is ostensibly written in natural language here.

 

[Xetheral]

(Note: I'm going to be discussing my understanding of other poster's previously expressed rulings in this post. If I have misinterpreted how you would rule, please let me know so that I can better understand your perspective.)

The current turn in the conversation relates back to the point I raised earlier, about whether one chooses to view the (quite simplistic) lighting and obscurement rules as defining the physics of light in the game world, or if one chooses to view the rules as an abstraction of how light works in the real world.

Because the light and obscurement rules are so simplistic, when run as the physics of light in the game world, they create places where the outcome deviates from what would be expected in real life, such as the dog being able to see the "unobscured" bunny in @Crimson Longinus's example.

Also, even if the rules are treated as defining the physics of light in the game world, the rules are so simplistic that a DM would still need to make judgement calls. For example, the full cover rules don't include anything about affecting light levels, only the obscurement rules do. If one reads the obscurement rules as only affecting light levels in the square the obscurement is in, then in that game world light can't be blocked by intervening objects because there is no rule to do so. A creature standing outside at night would be lit, because it was in either the bright or dim light radii of the sun and the heavy obscurement provided by the earth only affects creatures in the same squares the earth occupies. (Whether the creature would be in bright or dim light depends on whether the bright light radius of the sun intersects with the earth or extends past it). No, I don't think anyone actually runs their games this way, but it means than even those (implicitly) arguing that the rules define the physics of light in the game world are unconsciously making choices that deviate from the text (i.e. letting full cover and/or heavy obscurement affect light levels behind it) to better match how light works in the real world. So it isn't even a binary choice: instead, how much each DM chooses to treat the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world vs an abstraction of the real world is a spectrum.

For example, unlike @Crimson Longinus, in @Hriston's whiteroom example, I would treat the intervening squares as darkness. Unlike @Hriston, however, I would rule that a creature in that darkness is not heavily obscured to a particular observer if that creature directly occludes the torch from that observer's perspective. I do that because the creature would be visible as a silhouette in the real world, and the observer "effectively suffering from the blinded condition" with respect to the creature in darkness shouldn't suddenly make the creature transparent. If I instead ruled that the observer effectively suffered from the blinded condition with respect to the creature occluding the torch, and therefore couldn't see a silhouette, I would need to make the same ruling if the creature in the darkness were instead an object, like a wall. Not letting the observer see the wall's silhouette would let them see the torch beyond. Based on previous posts, I understand @Hriston uses a different method to avoid that unrealistic outcome, ruling that the silhouette is seen, but that the creature itself still gets the benefits of being Heavily Obscured, despite being seen as a silhouette. That works too, but just like my approach it's a deviation from treating the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world in favor of realism.

Nothing in the text of the rules requires treating the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world. That's good, since I don't think anyone here is taking it to the logical extremes described above. We're all, to differing extents, at least partially treating the rules as an abstraction of the real world and ruling accordingly. @Hriston is ruling that the benefits of being Heavily Obscured apply to creatures whose locations can be seen as a silhouette; I'm ruling that creatures visible as a silhouette aren't Heavily Obscured; @Crimson Longinus is ruling that squares in which creatures could cast silhouettes aren't in darkness from the perspective of observers who could see silhouettes. It's impossible to objectively identity a point on this spectrum as the dividing line between RAW and not-RAW. To the extent that which is which even matters, the question of which is which only has subjective answers, because the rules are too simplistic to be run as-is as a description of the physics of light in the game world: rulings will be required, at every table. In other worlds, the RAW itself for vision and obscurement is not well-defined.

As for how this same analysis affects the interpretation of the Darkness spell, I stand by what I said in my very first post this thread:

@FrogReaver The basic problem is that opacity and illumination are complex topics that don't lend themselves well to succinct rules. Ergo, trying to use a close reading of the obscurement rules to divine how the Darkness spells "actually" works isn't meaningful, because the rules don't support such a close reading. (For example, even the errataed version of the rules starts falling apart when trying to apply it literally to opaque heavy obscurement.) Instead, the DM just needs to decide if they want to treat the Darkness spell as an opaque inkblot or instead as a transparent zone of magically induced non-magical darkness. Neither interpretation can be excluded based on the text alone, so it's simply a judgement call.

 

[Hriston]

We’re getting awfully technical in our interpretation of text that is ostensibly written in natural language here.

Ostensibly being the operative word in this case.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ostensibly being the operative word in this case.

Yes, I chose that word intentionally, because I often find that the wording of 5e, while natural-sounding, is applied in a technical way. It’s inconsistent, and one of my biggest grievances with the edition. I’m just pointing out, we’re now getting into territory where your interpretation is based strictly on technical rules language rather than a plain-English reading. The kind of thing that tends to invite accusations of “rules-lawyering.”

 

[Hriston]

Yes, I chose that word intentionally, because I often find that the wording of 5e, while natural-sounding, is applied in a technical way. It’s inconsistent, and one of my biggest grievances with the edition. I’m just pointing out, we’re now getting into territory where your interpretation is based strictly on technical rules language rather than a plain-English reading. The kind of thing that tends to invite accusations of “rules-lawyering.”

Personally, I think too much is made of 5E's use of natural language. It's clear to me that it's structured around certain keywords and that the the illumination categories I referenced up-thread are one such occurrence. This doesn't mean that illuminate doesn't have its natural language meaning. It just means that the keyword is used in a way consistent with that meaning rather than being used as an item of pure jargon. I think the tendency of some readers to deny this under cover of "natural language" is an impediment to comprehension of a text which was, again, obviously, to me, written with that type of structure.

As for rules lawyering, I think it's entirely within the spirit of the game to understand issues of lighting, such as the ability of nonmagical light to affect the magical darkness created by the darkness spell, in terms of the game's categories of illumination.

 

[Hriston]

(Note: I'm going to be discussing my understanding of other poster's previously expressed rulings in this post. If I have misinterpreted how you would rule, please let me know so that I can better understand your perspective.)

The current turn in the conversation relates back to the point I raised earlier, about whether one chooses to view the (quite simplistic) lighting and obscurement rules as defining the physics of light in the game world, or if one chooses to view the rules as an abstraction of how light works in the real world.

Because the light and obscurement rules are so simplistic, when run as the physics of light in the game world, they create places where the outcome deviates from what would be expected in real life, such as the dog being able to see the "unobscured" bunny in @Crimson Longinus's example.

Also, even if the rules are treated as defining the physics of light in the game world, the rules are so simplistic that a DM would still need to make judgement calls. For example, the full cover rules don't include anything about affecting light levels, only the obscurement rules do. If one reads the obscurement rules as only affecting light levels in the square the obscurement is in, then in that game world light can't be blocked by intervening objects because there is no rule to do so. A creature standing outside at night would be lit, because it was in either the bright or dim light radii of the sun and the heavy obscurement provided by the earth only affects creatures in the same squares the earth occupies. (Whether the creature would be in bright or dim light depends on whether the bright light radius of the sun intersects with the earth or extends past it). No, I don't think anyone actually runs their games this way, but it means than even those (implicitly) arguing that the rules define the physics of light in the game world are unconsciously making choices that deviate from the text (i.e. letting full cover and/or heavy obscurement affect light levels behind it) to better match how light works in the real world. So it isn't even a binary choice: instead, how much each DM chooses to treat the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world vs an abstraction of the real world is a spectrum.

For example, unlike @Crimson Longinus, in @Hriston's whiteroom example, I would treat the intervening squares as darkness. Unlike @Hriston, however, I would rule that a creature in that darkness is not heavily obscured to a particular observer if that creature directly occludes the torch from that observer's perspective. I do that because the creature would be visible as a silhouette in the real world, and the observer "effectively suffering from the blinded condition" with respect to the creature in darkness shouldn't suddenly make the creature transparent. If I instead ruled that the observer effectively suffered from the blinded condition with respect to the creature occluding the torch, and therefore couldn't see a silhouette, I would need to make the same ruling if the creature in the darkness were instead an object, like a wall. Not letting the observer see the wall's silhouette would let them see the torch beyond. Based on previous posts, I understand @Hriston uses a different method to avoid that unrealistic outcome, ruling that the silhouette is seen, but that the creature itself still gets the benefits of being Heavily Obscured, despite being seen as a silhouette. That works too, but just like my approach it's a deviation from treating the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world in favor of realism.

Nothing in the text of the rules requires treating the rules as defining the physics of light in the game world. That's good, since I don't think anyone here is taking it to the logical extremes described above. We're all, to differing extents, at least partially treating the rules as an abstraction of the real world and ruling accordingly. @Hriston is ruling that the benefits of being Heavily Obscured apply to creatures whose locations can be seen as a silhouette; I'm ruling that creatures visible as a silhouette aren't Heavily Obscured; @Crimson Longinus is ruling that squares in which creatures could cast silhouettes aren't in darkness from the perspective of observers who could see silhouettes. It's impossible to objectively identity a point on this spectrum as the dividing line between RAW and not-RAW. To the extent that which is which even matters, the question of which is which only has subjective answers, because the rules are too simplistic to be run as-is as a description of the physics of light in the game world: rulings will be required, at every table. In other worlds, the RAW itself for vision and obscurement is not well-defined.

As for how this same analysis affects the interpretation of the Darkness spell, I stand by what I said in my very first post this thread:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making or how it relates to my position in this thread, but I wanted to clarify that in my games, a creature in a heavily obscured area of darkness with a torch some 50 feet behind it relative to an observer, as in the example you gave, would generally be described only by non-visual cues, the assumption being that it isn't standing in a position where it's presenting its silhouette to an observer. I would only describe the creature's silhouette, resulting from an event where the creature passes between the torch and the observer, if I introduced that bit of fiction with the purpose of giving the players some information about the creature. I can also imagine something like that being established by some action on the part of the players, but what ruling might be required on my part as DM in such a scenario would be highly situational and dependent on the intent of the player declaring the action. Bottom line is that if a creature is in an area of darkness, it is going to benefit from the mechanical effects of that area until some action is taken to impact the fiction such that the level of illumination is increased.

 

[FrogReaver]

We’re getting awfully technical in our interpretation of text that is ostensibly written in natural language here.

This seems to apply to both sides argumentations though...

 

[Charlaquin]

This seems to apply to both sides argumentations though...

Indeed, it does!

 

[Xetheral]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making or how it relates to my position in this thread, but I wanted to clarify that in my games, a creature in a heavily obscured area of darkness with a torch some 50 feet behind it relative to an observer, as in the example you gave, would generally be described only by non-visual cues, the assumption being that it isn't standing in a position where it's presenting its silhouette to an observer. I would only describe the creature's silhouette, resulting from an event where the creature passes between the torch and the observer, if I introduced that bit of fiction with the purpose of giving the players some information about the creature. I can also imagine something like that being established by some action on the part of the players, but what ruling might be required on my part as DM in such a scenario would be highly situational and dependent on the intent of the player declaring the action. Bottom line is that if a creature is in an area of darkness, it is going to benefit from the mechanical effects of that area until some action is taken to impact the fiction such that the level of illumination is increased.

Thanks for clarifying! I was extrapolating from your response (IIRC) that you'd let a heavily obscured (by darkness) silhouette be visible against a broad, well-lit background, but would let the creature still benefit from being heavily obscured even though its location would be known by its silhouette. It sounds like you wouldn't do the same for a point source like a torch, absent exceptional circumstances. Thanks for clarifying. I don't think it changes my broader point, but I appreciate the better understanding nonetheless.

 

[Hriston]

Thanks for clarifying! I was extrapolating from your response (IIRC) that you'd let a heavily obscured (by darkness) silhouette be visible against a broad, well-lit background, but would let the creature still benefit from being heavily obscured even though its location would be known by its silhouette. It sounds like you wouldn't do the same for a point source like a torch, absent exceptional circumstances. Thanks for clarifying. I don't think it changes my broader point, but I appreciate the better understanding nonetheless.

Well, this gets back to my view that a silhouette, a visual effect, cannot itself be heavily obscured. A creature or object might be heavily obscured (or unseen for some other reason), and as a result you might be able to see its silhouette under the right circumstances. As a DM, though, I'm not introducing a silhouette without some good reason because I think it would tend to confuse whether the creature or object could be seen or not, and my goal is to present a clear situation to the players that can be engaged with. Also, a point of clarification, for a heavily obscured creature's location to be known is the default, unless it is also hidden.