D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[DEFCON 1]

Regular Darkness doesn't actually block anything in at least one example. You are in light, your opponent is in light and there is darkness between. In that case you will be able to shoot him as normal. Darkness magical or otherwise didn't block anything.

It's not the opponent that the darkness in between blocked, it's everything within the darkness between the two pockets of light that is blocked from being seen. Regular darkness blocks seeing whatever is within the regular darkness. But since regular darkness doesn't block regular light (unlike the Darkness spell, which does)... you can easily see anything lit up beyond the darkness in whatever diameter of light is out there.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not the opponent that the darkness in between blocked, it's everything within the darkness between the two pockets of light that is blocked from being seen. Regular darkness blocks seeing whatever is within the regular darkness. But since regular darkness doesn't block regular light (unlike the Darkness spell, which does)... you can easily see anything lit up beyond the darkness in whatever diameter of light is out there.

IMO. Trying to bring physics into fantasy game mechanics is an exercise fraught with peril. It's fun but not really meaningful.

 

[FrogReaver]

This rule has been errated rendering most of my above reasoning moot. It's looking more and more like the Darkness Spell allows you to see out as normal.

"A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)." becomes "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

 

[Torquar]

This rule has been errated rendering most of my above reasoning moot. It's looking more and more like the Darkness Spell allows you to see out as normal.

"A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)." becomes "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

But the sentence before that says "A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely".

 

[FrogReaver]

But the sentence before that says "A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely".

Which at best is ambiguous. There's lots of ways it can block vision entirely while not doing so in every conceivable scenario. The rules go on to clarify how it blocks vision entirely - and with the errata it's became even clearer.

"A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)." becomes "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

JFC! Will we next be arguing whether you can see though stone walls?

 

[Iry]

The "Blocks Vision Entirely" and "Nonmagical Light Can't Illuminate It" are the phrases that cement RAW for me. Without assuming basic physics, you trigger the "But it doesn't say I can't" argument. And that way leads to madness.*
*Madness in this case meaning a completely non-functional game.

 

[FrogReaver]

The "Blocks Vision Entirely" and "Nonmagical Light Can't Illuminate It" are the phrases that cement RAW for me. Without assuming basic physics, you trigger the "But it doesn't say I can't" argument. And that way leads to madness.*
*Madness in this case meaning a completely non-functional game.

Behavior of light isn't exactly basic physics Behavior of light in magic is even less basic physics

"Blocks Vision Entirerly" was errated away...
So let's take the "Nonmagical Light can't illuminate it." No idea why that matters in this context?

 

[FrogReaver]

JFC! Will we next be arguing whether you can see though stone walls?

No?

 

[Umbran]

The RAW never says you can't look into it or out of it.

The RAW has gotten away from picayune nitpickery in its language. This edition is not about finagling your way around exactly what it does, or does not, explicitly say. It expects you to use some fragment of common sense in interpreting it, not hyper-literal thinking.