D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FrogReaver]

I actually think that interpretation IS possible

Also, thank you.

 

[FrogReaver]

Bunny has casted a dakness spell around herself. What can the dog see?

If this was regular darkness and the bunny was there, what would the dog see? IMO. It will be the same.

 

[Mort]

I'm curious about an example?

Well, for one, devil's sight (Warlock invocation) and eyes of the dark (shadow sorcerer ability) become less useful.

Eyes of the dark expressly states that IF you use sorcery points to cast the darkness spell, you can see through the darkness created by the spell. This is less useful if ANYONE can see out of the spell into a lit area.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with @FrogReaver that, just like a creature can see out of normal darkness into an illuminated area, there is no rule that suggests that a creature cannot see out of the radius of the darkness spell. That is an assumption that other posters are bringing in from outside of the game.

I will say, pre-errata there was a rule that stated you were blinded when in heavy obscurement. So in fairness, at one time the rules stated that in any darkness you couldn't see out without darkvision and since the spell darkness explicitly precluded darkvision then no PC could see out of it. But with the errata that rule went away and opened up the door to being able to see out of normal darkness. I think most haven't really went about reevaluating darkness spell in light of this errata. I know I hadn't till just today.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, for one, devil's sight (Warlock invocation) and eyes of the dark (shadow sorcerer ability) become less useful.

Eyes of the dark expressly states that IF you use sorcery points to cast the darkness spell, you can see through the darkness created by the spell. This is less useful if ANYONE can see out of the spell into a lit area.

I don't think that's really the kind of examples @Iry had in mind.

Regarding your examples: Seeing through magical darkness can be viewed as small flavorful secondary effect of each of those abilities. I agree that anything interacting with darkness spell will change in terms of power if how people rule the darkness spell changes. Such is inevitable, but not really a bad thing in itself.

 

[Xetheral]

One might suggest that this point should also apply equally to everyone else that is so sure it "actually" works the other way based on their close reading of the obscurement rules.

I don't think anyone else is arguing in favor of the opaque ink-blot interpretation based on a close reading of the spell text or obscurement rules. They're ruling based on which interpretation makes sense on an intuitive level (I believe "common sense" has been cited in this thread), practical considerations regarding which interpretation makes the Darkness spell usable as-is, portrayals of magical darkness in media (all of which I can think of use the far-simpler ink-blot approach), and looking at precedent from prior editions of Dungeons and Dragons. (The validity of that last as an interpretive tool is, of course, hotly contested.)

My intention, however, was to point out that I don't think the question you are asking (namely, "What does the RAW of Darkness say?") has an answer at all. So it's not that I'm trying to say their reading of the text is better, I'm saying that reading the text alone is never going to be sufficient.

IMO, post errata they are silent on the topic of how heavy obscurement works when your not looking at something in the heavily obscured area. Seems like they've left that up to the DM - perhaps so that he can rule areas behind opaque heavily obscured areas also count as heavily obscured while areas behind natural darkness that are well lit will not count as heavily obscured.

Possible. But even if true that doesn't help resolve whether or not the Darkness spell is opaque.

While I agree there's nothing preventing either interpretation in the Spell text. I would suggest that: opaque inkblot certainly is an addition to the text even though it doesn't actually contradict it. Magical darkness that functions similarly to non-magical darkness except how it's explicitly spelled out in the Spell is not an addition and also doesn't contradict the text. Isn't that sufficient reason to make mine the stronger stance?

No, because magically induced non-magical darkness can't be the same as natural darkness because the magically induced variety can exist in situations where the later is impossible, and the spell text does not specify how to treat the creation of non-magical darkness in an area where natural darkness couldn't exist.

So while the interpretation that infers that the Darkness spell is opaque is indeed making an inference, your interpretation suffers from the problem that it would render the spell text incomplete. If one is going to operate by the principle that spells do exactly what they say and no more, then picking an interpretation where the spell text is incomplete is highly problematic.

To word it differently, the spell text is silent as to whether the darkness created by Darkness is opaque or transparent. The DM has to make a choice. Choosing for it to be opaque renders the rest of the spell complete. Choosing for it to be transparent opens up a whole can of new issues that the spell text is silent on.

Agreed. Like with the diagram above it would result in individual DM rulings - though in all fairness that's never stopped them from creating a rule before. In terms of power this normal darkness except where explicitly defined as different also makes the darkness spell stronger. So IMO there are plenty of reasons to stick with opaque inkblot ruling even if it's decided RAW best supports my my stance.

Cool. I want to remphasize that I'm not saying that you're wrong by RAW. I'm saying that the RAW can't support any stance because the rules on vision and obscurement are oversimplifications.

Wait, how the heck? I don't get the leap of logic where you go 'it doesn't say A' therefore it must be the other thing it doesn't say, B'

IMO. I'm not sure how much more clear one would need to get to mean "transparent zone of magically induced darkness" than saying "magical darkness". If any words would need to be explicitly there for the interpretation to work it would be something to indicate opaque inkblot.

I just don't get the leap of logic

I'm saying that if the spell is silent regarding whether or not it is transparent, and one choice leads to the spell text being complete and useable, and the other choice leads to the spell text having holes (including about such basic things as what the visual effect of the spell appears to be) that the DM must resolve before the spell can be used, then the choice that leads to the spell text being complete is probably the intended one.

 

[Mort]

I don't think that's really the kind of examples @Iry had in mind.

Regarding your examples: Seeing through magical darkness can be viewed as small flavorful secondary effect of each of those abilities. I agree that anything interacting with darkness spell will change in terms of power if how people rule the darkness spell changes. Such is inevitable, but not really a bad thing in itself.

I think that's significantly under playing it.

Both abilities, for example, allow the caster to :

1. Center the spell on himself and attack those outside it with advantage. A significant advantage, that your interpretation would allow anyone to do.

2. Center the spell on an enemy, remain in a lit area, yet still attack them without hindrence - while they have a hard time attacking you. With your interpretation, you're actually doing them a favor against anyone on the battlefield in a lit area!

I consider both of these scenarios common and undesirable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think anyone else is arguing in favor of the opaque ink-blot interpretation based on a close reading of the spell text or obscurement rules.

We are on two different planets here...

They're ruling based on which interpretation makes sense on an intuitive level (I believe "common sense" has been cited in this thread), practical considerations regarding which interpretation makes the Darkness spell usable as-is, portrayals of magical darkness in media (all of which I can think of use the far-simpler ink-blot approach), and looking at precedent from prior editions of Dungeons and Dragons. (The validity of that last as an interpretive tool is, of course, hotly contested.)

If that was the basis for their position then why are you the first citing those sources? IMO. It doesn't add up.

My intention, however, was to point out that I don't think the question you are asking (namely, "What does the RAW of Darkness say?") has an answer at all. So it's not that I'm trying to say their reading of the text is better, I'm saying that reading the text alone is never going to be sufficient.

So, from my perspective I can't understand why you aren't replying to those on the other side the same way. Instead you are solely focused on my position and using the argument that RAW is silent to deconstruct my argument without also doing the same to theirs. IMO, there's something unfair about your process even if your only point is that RAW is silent about this.

Possible. But even if true that doesn't help resolve whether or not the Darkness spell is opaque.

Do you think non-magical darkness is opaque?

No, because magically induced non-magical darkness can't be the same as natural darkness because the magically induced variety can exist in situations where the later is impossible, and the spell text does not specify how to treat the creation of non-magical darkness in an area where natural darkness couldn't exist.

I can't say I follow this line of reasoning at all. It seems forced and incoherent. You are saying that magical darkness can't be the same as magical darkness in all other respects other than where it can be induced? That doesn't add up. Of course it can. It's magical!

So while the interpretation that infers that the Darkness spell is opaque is indeed making an inference, your interpretation suffers from the problem that it would render the spell text incomplete. If one is going to operate by the principle that spells do exactly what they say and no more, then picking an interpretation where the spell text is incomplete is highly problematic.

How does it make it incomplete? Is non-magical darkness somehow incomplete as well?

To word it differently, the spell text is silent as to whether the darkness created by Darkness is opaque or transparent. The DM has to make a choice. Choosing for it to be opaque renders the rest of the spell complete. Choosing for it to be transparent opens up a whole can of new issues that the spell text is silent on.

One would argue that the term 'magical darkness' with no other details would imply it's darkness that's like regular darkness but magically induced. Why would it mean anything else?

Cool. I want to remphasize that I'm not saying that you're wrong by RAW. I'm saying that the RAW can't support any stance because the rules on vision and obscurement are oversimplifications.

It would be more compelling if you applied that to other posts in this thread instead of just ones regarding my position.

I'm saying that if the spell is silent regarding whether or not it is transparent, and one choice leads to the spell text being complete and useable, and the other choice leads to the spell text having holes (including about such basic things as what the visual effect of the spell appears to be) that the DM must resolve before the spell can be used, then the choice that leads to the spell text being complete is probably the intended one.

I don't follow how you are concluding that my reading makes the spell unusable or incomplete? Elaborate?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that's significantly under playing it.

Both abilities, for example, allow the caster to :

1. Center the spell on himself and attack those outside it with advantage. A significant advantage, that your interpretation would allow anyone to do.

2. Center the spell on an enemy, remain in a lit area, yet still attack them without hindrence - while they have a hard time attacking you. With your interpretation, you're actually doing them a favor against anyone on the battlefield in a lit area!

I consider both of these scenarios common and undesirable.

That's fair. Those are more good reasons to rule it works like the opaque inkblot. But I'm not seeing how they have any bearing on what RAW says?

 

[R_J_K75]

Bunny has casted a dakness spell around herself. What can the dog see?

Is this a trick question?