D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Hriston]

That's certainly what the rules seem to say. In that circumstance I probably wouldn't allow perception of details around said campfire until the observing character entered its radius of at least dim light.

Then I have to wonder why you think the erratum was issued at all, considering the text already said a creature in a heavily obscured area suffers from the blinded condition. I very much doubt that it was meant to refer only to creatures outside of heavily obscured area but that they wrote "in" by mistake.

 

[Seramus]

Then I have to wonder why you think the erratum was issued at all, considering the text already said a creature in a heavily obscured area suffers from the blinded condition. I very much doubt that it was meant to refer only to creatures outside of heavily obscured area but that they wrote "in" by mistake.

People try to do the best they can, but sometimes they still mess up.

 

[prabe]

Then I have to wonder why you think the erratum was issued at all, considering the text already said a creature in a heavily obscured area suffers from the blinded condition. I very much doubt that it was meant to refer only to creatures outside of heavily obscured area but that they wrote "in" by mistake.

Apparently there are some who look at the text before this particular erratum and think it means at night you can't see stars. Without being hit on the head, I mean.

I do not believe the erratum is helpful or necessary, and I think the wording they chose generates other results that do not seem as though they can be intentional--such as the idea that you can see out of a region of magical darkness.

 

[Hriston]

People try to do the best they can, but sometimes they still mess up.

But if it was an error that needed correcting because it gave rise to a meaning that was unintended, then @prabe's interpretation can't be correct.

 

[Hriston]

Apparently there are some who look at the text before this particular erratum and think it means at night you can't see stars. Without being hit on the head, I mean.

I do not believe the erratum is helpful or necessary, and I think the wording they chose generates other results that do not seem as though they can be intentional--such as the idea that you can see out of a region of magical darkness.

Why can I see stars in the sky when I'm in a heavily obscured area but I can't see people around a campfire fifty feet away from me?

What about the idea that you can see out of a region of non-magical darkness?

 

[Seramus]

But if it was an error that needed correcting because it gave rise to a meaning that was unintended, then @prabe's interpretation can't be correct.

In game design, you are taught that players will always find loopholes and interpret things in ways you didn't imagine. So you focus on correcting the big stuff, and just accept that little stuff will fall through the cracks. Perfection is the enemy of good enough, and all that.

What about the idea that you can see out of a region of non-magical darkness?

In real life, you can. In D&D, you can't. It doesn't say why, but apparently darkness in D&D is some kind of tangible thing.
I ignore that for my own games, and go with the real life version.

 

[FrogReaver]

People try to do the best they can, but sometimes they still mess up.

Sounds like they big screw ups. The original said what they wanted and they errated it to say something incorrect. That’s flat out amazing.

 

[Mistwell]

Anyone arguing that darkvision is a disadvantage to see through magical darkness and it's easier to see through magical darkness if you don't have darkvision, is either arguing in bad faith or so deep in the forest that that don't even realize those are trees around them.

Seriously, I think the #1 hint as to how this works is the name of the spell.

 

[prabe]

Why can I see stars in the sky when I'm in a heavily obscured area but I can't see people around a campfire fifty feet away from me?

What about the idea that you can see out of a region of non-magical darkness?

Mechanically?

Because in the first instance, the GM is ruling you autosucceed at the check (or that seeing the stars in the sky doesn't require a check); in the second instance the GM believes a check is required, which you autofail.

It is worth remembering that mechanically, darkness is the same as thick fog. Heavily obscured is heavily obscured.

And this entire benighted thread started with a misinterpretation of the darkness spell which seemed to be consistent with being able to see from inside it to outside of it.

 

[Seramus]

Sounds like they big screw ups. The original said what they wanted and they errated it to say something incorrect. That’s flat out amazing.

And common. Most game design teams, from the dev to the editor to the freelancer, are just folks.
I still love the game, even with a few warts here and there.