D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Crimson Longinus]

Until now, not a single person has talked about complete darkness. Why you suddenly adding that qualifier?

We are talking about illumination. If the area cannot be illuminated at all, it must be complete darkness. Very simple.

 

[gatorized]

The area between you and the source of the light is darkness. It’s like you’ve never been outside at night. Forget about the darkness spell a moment and let’s talk normal darkness.

your answer is really that it’s not actually dark between you and the light source because you can see the light source of in the distance?

You can see through normal darkness. You can't see through magical darkness.

 

[FrogReaver]

We are talking about illumination. If the area cannot be illuminated at all, it must be complete darkness. Very simple.

That’s not what illumination means.

 

[gatorized]

There comes a time when a post is so far outside the bounds of reasonable that there’s no point in further interacting with it. For me, this is one of those times.

Sorry you don't know how to communicate properly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s not what illumination means.

Yes it is. What else would it be?

 

[gatorized]

That’s not what illumination means.

It's exactly what illumination means.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes it is. What else would it be?

I think it’s easiest to work backwards. Go outside in a dark night where all you can see is the stars. Those stars are illuminated. Thus, By your definition they illuminate the whole world because you can see them and yet no one is going to say that the world at night with no sun up or moon shining is illuminated. It’s dark. It’s not illuminated.

That is it takes more than a tiny amount of light to cause illumination. That is The natural concept of illumination requires something different than the total absence of light.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it’s easiest to work backwards. Go outside in a dark night where all you can see is the stars. Those stars are illuminated. Thus, By your definition they illuminate the whole world because you can see them and yet no one is going to say that the world at night with no sun up or moon shining is illuminated. It’s dark. It’s not illuminated.

That is it takes more than a tiny amount of light to cause illumination. That is The natural concept of illumination requires something different than the total absence of light.

Stars do illuminate the whole world. Not much, but that’s why it’s possible to see (albeit poorly) on a moonless night with no man made light source.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it’s easiest to work backwards. Go outside in a dark night where all you can see is the stars. Those stars are illuminated. Thus, By your definition they illuminate the whole world because you can see them and yet no one is going to say that the world at night with no sun up or moon shining is illuminated. It’s dark. It’s not illuminated.

That is it takes more than a tiny amount of light to cause illumination.

It is the same thing just a continuum. That is illumination, just low level, possibly not enough to make something not 'heavily obscured' in D&D terms. But that's not what we are talking about with this spell. If it was cast in area where only illumination was some faint distant dots of light to begin with, none of this would matter, as in game terms it would all be darkness anyway. But this spell can be cast in bright daylight, and if that bright daylight can move through it and be seen, then it most definitely is not darkness!

 

[Nefermandias]

A person looking at them would see them as stark silhouettes against the background created by the things behind the bubble.

But that's precisely what happens with normal darkness too. Why would the spell be any different?