D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FrogReaver]

To tell you that there is no such thing than strict RAW so that you can stop worrying about a non-existent thing. You're welcome.

This thread is about raw darkness spell. If you dislike the topic or don't believe what I'm asking for exists you are welcome to bow out.

 

[Mort]

I read it as saying this darkness also impacts regular darkvision. Very simple and sensible interpretation. I would say that my take is the clear meaning and that using your interpretation to add rules to the text that aren't there isn't a strong position to be in.

This is the result of natural language and a clear attempt to add something.

Please explain to me how it makes any sense that magical darkness impacts darkvision (an improvement on regular vision) but not regular vision.

Sure, "because magic," is an explanation but it's an objectively terrible one for this case.

 

[BookTenTiger]

No and how you got that out of my answer on illuminate I'll never know.

How can characters see through the darkness if the sphere of darkness cannot be illuminated by light? By the rules as written, light is not passing through the darkness!

 

[FrogReaver]

This is the result of natural language and a clear attempt to add something.

Please explain to me how it makes any sense that magical darkness impacts darkvision (an improvement on regular vision) but not regular vision.

Sure, "because magic," is an explanation but it's an objectively terrible one for this case.

My position has both darkvision and regular vision behave exactly the same in the darkness spell.

Your position does as well, except your position does that only after requiring words to be added to the spell that aren't there.

 

[FrogReaver]

How can characters see through the darkness if the sphere of darkness cannot be illuminated by light? By the rules as written, light is not passing through the darkness!

Most importantly, Illuminate does not equate to light passing through. Also, the rules are silent on whether light passes through it or not.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Most importantly, Illuminate does not equate to light passing through. Also, the rules are silent on whether light passes through it or not.

What does illuminate mean?

 

[Iry]

How is any of this an example of "the collateral damage [the interpretation of darkness that things outside the area of darkness that are illuminated are visible from within the area of darkness] causes if we apply it to other aspects of the game"? That interpretation doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything you're talking about.

Resurrection not returning your soul is "collateral damage" of so literal an interpretation. Revivify bringing parts of a body instead of a goodly chunk of the body is "collateral damage". Players arguing about the radius of Fireball flame is "collateral damage". Players making the wrong choice in games because their expectations cannot possibly happen (as opposed to merely failing) is "collateral damage". Etc.

A single outlier ruling about Darkness isn't going to do much. A growing pile of outlier rulings can blow up a game.

 

[Iry]

But you aren't showing how what I'm doing is an outlier. I would say it's you that is using the outlier interpretation.

That's true. We would need to create a Strawpoll and place it in multiple locations.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's true. We would need to create a Strawpoll and place it in multiple locations.

Well, being in the majority doesn't necessarily equate to being right. Nor does being in the majority equate to not having adopted an outlier interpretation.

 

[FrogReaver]

What does illuminate mean?

Are we really going there?

Illuminate means something like to 'light up'. In no case is the darkness ever lit up. I'm guessing you think illuminate means something far different than it actually does?