D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Xetheral]

An observer only suffers from Blinded "when trying to see something in that area", so as long as there are sufficient places for things to not be seen, it works.

Ok, so we're coming at this from entirely opposite directions. In technical terms, you're reading "something" as invoking an existential quantifier, whereas I'm reading it as invoking a universal quantifier. So for you, an area can be Heavily Obscured so long as there are sufficient places for a "something in the area" to not be seen. For me, an area can only be Heavily Obscured if, for everything that is "something in the area", it cannot be seen.

I must confess that I don't understand how your reading is a plausible interpretation of the text. But English is notoriously bad at unambiguously referring to specific quantifiers, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising to see this kind of ambiguity crop up.

Yes, if someone put their face in one of the gaps in the canopy, I could see it, but that's not where someone would be to not be seen.

Don't forget that the Heavily Obscurement applies to objects too, and they can't pick where to stand. It also applies to unaware creatures that don't know to try to not be seen.

That's what I've been telling you. The vision rules don't require considerations of opacity at all.

That's not true. For a very trivial counter example, "opaque fog" is listed as providing Heavy Obscurement. That pretty unambiguously refers to fog that is sufficiently dense to constitute an opaque area, I hope?

 

[Xetheral]

I can't think of the last time I've seen a silhouette in real life

I mean photo's where they can play with contrast and lighting sure, or photo's where they set up their camera to be at the perfect angle during a sunset to capture it, but in general - the phenomenon seems pretty rare.

Just go outside and look at that distant, lit farmhouse you mentioned. Anything between you and that house that you can see as dark contrast against that lit background is a silhouette.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see this contradiction as pretty straightforward (but apparently am terrible at explaining it!): if there's a big opaque object/creature standing in darkness between an observer and a well-lit background, then in the real world the observer can see the big opaque object/creature because it obstructs the well-lit background (i.e. it's silhouetted). D&D doesn't have rules for silhouettes, so the DM has to decide whether to include silhouettes in their game or not. If they do let observers see heavily obscured objects/creatures as silhouettes, the DM isn't giving full effect to the Blinded condition--the observer is able to see something the Blinded condition says they can't. By contrast, if the DM does not let observers see heavily obscured objects/creatures as silhouettes, then, by definition, the object/creature isn't obstructing the well-lit background, and so must not be opaque.

Obviously, I expect every DM to work around this contradiction in one way or another--that's the DM's job. Multiple ways to adapt/reinterpret the rules have been presented in this thread that would work well.

Well at least I understand your objection now. I'd like to propose a counter theory and get your thoughts.

What you are seeing when you see a silhouette isn't the creature but rather the lack of lighting on the wall where you would expect it. You might reasonably infer there's a creature between you and the wall but that's just it - it's an inference and not actually what you are seeing. That inference may even end up being incorrect.

 

[Xetheral]

Well at least I understand your objection now. I'd like to propose a counter theory and get your thoughts.

What you are seeing when you see a silhouette isn't the creature but rather the lack of lighting on the wall where you would expect it. You might reasonably infer there's a creature between you and the wall but that's just it - it's an inference and not actually what you are seeing. That inference may even end up being incorrect.

That isn't substantially different from how human vision works for well-lit objects: the brain is inferring where one object begins and another ends by noticing the edges as a contrast to a background. (That's why camouflage works even in bright light.) And in bright light the inference can also be incorrect, which is how optical illusions work

 

[FrogReaver]

That isn't substantially different from how human vision works for well-lit objects: the brain is inferring where one object begins and another ends by noticing the edges as a contrast to a background. (That's why camouflage works even in bright light.) And in bright light the inference can also be incorrect, which is how optical illusions work

Then I think we have found our winner! No need to rule silhouettes don't exsist and no reason to believe you are seeing the creature when seeing darkness created by the superimposed absence of light it creates over a lit up backdrop.

 

[Xetheral]

Then I think we have found our winner! No need to rule silhouettes don't exsist and no reason to believe you are seeing the creature when seeing darkness created by the superimposed absence of light it creates over a lit up backdrop.

I don't follow. Could you clarify?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't follow. Could you clarify?

You aren't actually seeing the creature/object when you see the silhouette.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't think of the last time I've seen a silhouette in real life

I have. When it's really dark. I grew up in rural Michigan and during summer camps we would be outside without anything but starlight and a bit of moonlight. You just saw human shaped dark shadows sometimes. No features. More rarely during sleepovers as a teenager, we had so many at a friend's house that multiple kids had to sleep in a room. Saw some silhouettes then, too.

 

[Iry]

I see them anytime I'm east/west of a big city, during the corresponding dusk/dawn.

 

[Hriston]

Ok, so we're coming at this from entirely opposite directions. In technical terms, you're reading "something" as invoking an existential qualifier, whereas I'm reading it as invoking a universal qualifier. So for you, an area can be Heavily Obscured so long as there are sufficient places for a "something in the area" to not be seen. For me, an area can only be Heavily Obscured if, for everything that is "something in the area", it cannot be seen.

I must confess that I don't understand how your reading is a plausible interpretation of the text. But English is notoriously bad at unambiguously referring to specific quantifiers, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising to see this kind of ambiguity crop up.

I don't think that's quite it. I think the difference is in how we each expect this rule to function in the game. For me, it tells me what happens when and only when a creature tries to see something in that area. I get to make up why that happens. For you, it seems to establish some causative quality of the area (opacity) that exists in the fiction even when a creature is not trying to see something in that area. Does that make sense?

Don't forget that the Heavily Obscurement applies to objects too, and they can't pick where to stand. It also applies to unaware creatures that don't know to try to not be seen.

Again, this gets back to what I just said. If the question comes up whether something in the area can be seen, the heavily obscured area rules answer that question: it cannot be seen. The exact process whereby it is not seen are not (and don't need to be) covered in the rules. All the rules say is that the area blocked the observer's vision. Part of the DM's job is to invent how that happened.

That's not true. For a very trivial counter example, "opaque fog" is listed as providing Heavy Obscurement. That pretty unambiguously refers to fog that is sufficiently dense to constitute an opaque area, I hope?

Yes, opaque is used as an intensifying descriptor for fog. I don't think that establishes opacity as a necessary condition for something to constitute a heavily obscured area. Also, fog isn't actually opaque. It might appear so from a distance (like dense foliage), but at its edges it is quite translucent or even transparent, especially to an observer looking out into an area under daylight.