D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[FitzTheRuke]

Nah, I am comfortable with the notion that someone in the darkness could be sufficiently difficult to see that you are “effectively blind” to them and suffer the mechanical effects of heavy obscurement with regards to them. What I can’t wrap my head around is how that same effect wouldn’t be applied to everything “behind” the darkness from your perspective as well.

So rule that they are? I would imagine that it's a matter of degree.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Note that the rules text for Heavy Obscurement doesn't say "effective blind". It says "effectively suffers from the Blinded condition". And the Blinded condition itself has two effects:

"Effectively suffers from the blinded condition" doesn't mean that the creature suffers a reduced set of drawbacks from those listed in the condition. It means that the creature suffers the fully effects of the condition even though it isn't actually blinded.

Yes, I get that. I admit, I am adding the word "well" to "can't see" in that condition. Partly that's because I feel that "can't see (at ALL)" would often be worse than "disadvantage on attacks", etc. There's NO CHANCE (RAW) that you'll trip over anything, for example, or any other movement penalty.

But we all do that. There's the rules, and there's the fiction, and they don't always line up. When they don't we're all faced with three choices: 1) Bend the Rules; 2) Bend the Fiction; 3) Do a bit of both.

In BOTH "sides" of this, we're doing a bit of both, just to different degrees and in different places.

 

[Xetheral]

Yes, I get that. I admit, I am adding the word "well" to "can't see" in that condition. Partly that's because I feel that "can't see (at ALL)" would often be worse than "disadvantage on attacks", etc. There's NO CHANCE (RAW) that you'll trip over anything, for example, or any other movement penalty.

But we all do that. There's the rules, and there's the fiction, and they don't always line up. When they don't we're all faced with three choices: 1) Bend the Rules; 2) Bend the Fiction; 3) Do a bit of both.

In BOTH "sides" of this, we're doing a bit of both, just to different degrees and in different places.

I don't think the opaque interpretation requires bending the rules or bending the fiction. That's why I think it's the better interpretation. At most you have to read the whole spell text in the context of the opaque interpretation, so that it makes sense that darkvision is called out as unable to see through the darkness, but normal vision isn't mentioned.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, something like that. The exact level of "dimmed" would be up to whatever you feel comfortable with counting as "not enough obscurement to count mechanically as heavily obscured" (for the woman) and "enough obscurement to count mechanically as heavily obscured" (for the man). You can see her well enough to shoot her without disadvantage, and you can see him poorly enough to have disadvantage on shooting him. From my (perhaps "our" when we keep talking about "sides") perspective, that means she's dark and he's darker, but she's not GONE and nor is he. Again, I (we?) feel that the Inkblot side seems to be insisting that he has to be absolutely black to be "heavily obscured" and she has to be absolutely bright to not be. (And would be utterly gone too, if the area of the spell is in front of her).

But darkness only matters relative to surroundings. How dark is the forest behind them? If the guy is really dark, but the forest behind him (that is outside the bubble) less dark, that makes him more visible, not less.

I'm an artist too and I absolutely could paint what I'm talking about. I assume that you really, fundamentally just can't grasp what I'm saying, for whatever reason. I have no idea why this is, but it has nothing to do with "top-down" playing or whatever, I play mostly theatre-of-the-mind.

OK, then you should have no problem with photoshopping a shadow layer that roughly shows your interpretation on the pic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

RAW, heavily obscured is heavily obscured, of course the DM can rule otherwise, but for sake of the discussion, we must assume RAW.

The issue arises from the 'see through' side insisting describing a thing that by rules is obscured, in a manner that doesn't sound obscured at all. This happens, because they ignore 'cannot be illuminated' aspect of the spell. Yes, creatures in normal darkness can be made visible as silhouettes by being backlit. This is the area being illuminated, which cannot happen to magical darkness. This stems from failure to understand that things being visible trough the are of darkness, means that the area is being illuminated at least somewhat. Light and visibility are ultimately the same phenomenon, you cannot disconnect them from each other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I get that. I admit, I am adding the word "well" to "can't see" in that condition. Partly that's because I feel that "can't see (at ALL)" would often be worse than "disadvantage on attacks", etc. There's NO CHANCE (RAW) that you'll trip over anything, for example, or any other movement penalty.

But we all do that. There's the rules, and there's the fiction, and they don't always line up. When they don't we're all faced with three choices: 1) Bend the Rules; 2) Bend the Fiction; 3) Do a bit of both.

In BOTH "sides" of this, we're doing a bit of both, just to different degrees and in different places.

'Can't see' is part of the rule. It will have whatever situational effects the DM sees fit. The blinded condition cannot exhaustively list every possible eventuality. If the rules say that the creature 'cannot see' and you describe things in a manner that they can see, you're not following the rule. And that's not big deal, as you say, we all do that from time to time and if this way works for you, then by all means do so. But this whole thing started with the 'see trough' side arguing that their interpretation is the RAW, so ignoring an explicit rule definitely goes against that.

 

[FrogReaver]

'Can't see' is part of the rule. It will have whatever situational effects the DM sees fit. The blinded condition cannot exhaustively list every possible eventuality. If the rules say that the creature 'cannot see' and you describe things in a manner that they can see, you're not following the rule. And that's not big deal, as you say, we all do that from time to time and if this way works for you, then by all means do so. But this whole thing started with the 'see trough' side arguing that their interpretation is the RAW, so ignoring an explicit rule definitely goes against that.

In natural language, ‘Seeing through darkness’ is always a reference to seeing into the darkness and never to seeing something past the darkness in an area of light beyond the darkness.

 

[Mistwell]

Don't know if this has been mentioned by Dan Dillon of WOTC (edit: he is on the D&D game design team) was asked about part of this:

Dillon: Hey #dnd folks! Have you had burning questions that haven't been covered in Sage Advice or answered by Jeremy directly? Please ask those questions in response to this tweet! I won't necessarily be answering them directly, but I'm compiling to see what needs answers. #WotCStaff

PickAxed Asked:

Is the area of a darkness spell opaque, i.e. blocks line of sight? So, can two creatures in a large well lit room standing on opposite sides of the area of a darkness spell see each other? I’m guessing not but just trying to reconcile the spell against how normal darkness works.

Dan Dillon responds:
Without some ability to see through darkness, whether magical or mundane, that area is impenetrable to vision (heavily obscured, in game terms).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

But darkness only matters relative to surroundings. How dark is the forest behind them? If the guy is really dark, but the forest behind him (that is outside the bubble) less dark, that makes him more visible, not less.

OK, then you should have no problem with photoshopping a shadow layer that roughly shows your interpretation on the pic.

I don't have Photoshop, nor do I know how to use it, or I would. (Though it's probably not the best use of my time).

'Can't see' is part of the rule. It will have whatever situational effects the DM sees fit. The blinded condition cannot exhaustively list every possible eventuality. If the rules say that the creature 'cannot see' and you describe things in a manner that they can see, you're not following the rule. And that's not big deal, as you say, we all do that from time to time and if this way works for you, then by all means do so. But this whole thing started with the 'see trough' side arguing that their interpretation is the RAW, so ignoring an explicit rule definitely goes against that.

Well, I added the "seeing a little bit" part because I think it's more dynamic for my descriptions, is all. Not everyone on my "side" would do that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Don't know if this has been mentioned by Dan Dillon of WOTC was asked about part of this:

Dillon: Hey #dnd folks! Have you had burning questions that haven't been covered in Sage Advice or answered by Jeremy directly? Please ask those questions in response to this tweet! I won't necessarily be answering them directly, but I'm compiling to see what needs answers. #WotCStaff

PickAxed Asked:

Is the area of a darkness spell opaque, i.e. blocks line of sight? So, can two creatures in a large well lit room standing on opposite sides of the area of a darkness spell see each other? I’m guessing not but just trying to reconcile the spell against how normal darkness works.

Dan Dillon responds:
Without some ability to see through darkness, whether magical or mundane, that area is impenetrable to vision (heavily obscured, in game terms).

No idea who Dan Dillion is but it’s good to know where wotc is saying the RAI is. Thanks for the timely reference.

I wish there was a follow up about a normal area of darkness and how since it’s also a heavily obscured if that means they can’t see the creature through that darkness either.