D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Crimson Longinus]

Wrong answer! The obscurement level of a given area is not subjective. It is determined by the DM.

It is determined by DM for the purposes of each situation and that situation may vary. Doing it otherwise leads to nonsense. standing behind bushes might provide obscurement to viewers from on direction, but not from another. Similarly some things might provide obscurement when seen from ground level, but not from the air. And of course obscurement is subjective, or how do you think darkvision works?

Since you, as DM, have established that the area between the torches is lightly obscured, what is its light source, given that the illumination provided by the torches does not reach it and the moonlight is not sufficient?

In this case it would be the combined minuscule amount of light coming from three differnt sources, two torches and the moon.

But you're looking this whole thing from the wrong perspective. I'd describe what the characters see, and then assign obscurement level that seems to make sense based on that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would not rule an area between two nearby well lit areas to be darkness to begin with.

By 5e rules , provided the torches are 100ft apart , and there are no other light sources then the area between is darkness.

 

[Hriston]

It is determined by DM for the purposes of each situation and that situation may vary. Doing it otherwise leads to nonsense. standing behind bushes might provide obscurement to viewers from on direction, but not from another. Similarly some things might provide obscurement when seen from ground level, but not from the air. And of course obscurement is subjective, or how do you think darkvision works?

Darkvision doesn't change an area of darkness into an area of dim light. It allows a creature to see in darkness as if it were dim light. It is still an area of darkness.

In this case it would be the combined minuscule amount of light coming from three differnt sources, two torches and the moon.

But you're looking this whole thing from the wrong perspective. I'd describe what the characters see, and then assign obscurement level that seems to make sense based on that.

Well then, given my example, you're describing it wrong. The characters aren't really seeing anything for you to describe. It's just stuff you're making up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's why we keep disagreeing and walking in circles. If we really want to reach and meaningful conclusion, we should stick to RAW. We were just talking about a response from a WotC employee, right?

The rules are generalised guidelines and are means to be a tool for GM making judgements, not a straitjacket. Rules alone do not differentiate between obscurement provided by different things, be it darkness, fog or dense foliage. So if we stick just to the rules as written and exclude the GM making judgements based on sensemakery, they all must work the same. And whatever you decide that 'same' to be, this leads to nonsense. These things do not work the same and this game simply doesn't work if the GM doesn't make-case-by case judgements based on what's actually going on in the fiction. Thus it is pointless to talk about some RAW-only whiteroom where the GM is replaced by an algorithm, as the game cannot actually happen in such a state.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Darkvision doesn't change an area of darkness into an area of dim light. It allows a creature to see in darkness as if it were dim light. It is still an area of darkness.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Well then, given my example, you're describing it wrong.

No, I'm actually doing my job as a GM.

 

[Hriston]

That's a distinction without a difference.

No , it isn't. If an area of darkness actually became an area of dim light because a creature with darkvision was present, then the creature could discern color there for example.

No, I'm actually doing my job as a GM.

By disregarding the vision and light rules? That's not a model of DMing I would subscribe to. Why even have rules?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No , it isn't. If an area of darkness actually became an area of dim light because a creature with darkvision was present, then the creature could discern color there for example.

We are talking about obscurement. Obscurement is subjective.

By disregarding the vision and light rules? That's not a model of DMing I would subscribe to. Why even have rules?

By understanding that rules are simplified starting point and cannot provide 'one size fits all' answers, and thus making judgements accordingly.

 

[Hriston]

We are talking about obscurement. Obscurement is subjective.

Illumination and obscurement are directly related. An area of darkness is heavily obscured. An area of dim light is lightly obscured. This is basic.

By understanding that rules are simplified starting point and cannot provide 'one size fits all' answers, and thus making judgements accordingly.

My example was very simple. If you don't think the rules can handle such a simple and straightforward scenario as two torches 100 feet apart, I wonder why you even use the rules to begin with. Oh, that's right, you don't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Illumination and obscurement are directly related. An area of darkness is heavily obscured. An area of dim light is lightly obscured. This is basic.

Except there is a situation which results this not being the case, like a person looking having darkvision. This is basic.

My example was very simple. If you don't think the rules can handle such a simple and straightforward scenario as two torches 100 feet apart, I wonder why you even use the rules to begin with. Oh, that's right, you don't.

Indeed, it was simple, and thus something that would unlike to exist in a real game. Blindly following rules and ignoring the fiction and context leads to absurdities. Like we could place four torches in your white room in so that their areas intersect, but so that there is one square in middle of them that is technically not in the reach of their light. You'd say that this one five by five feet square in the middle of a flat field in a moonlight night is heavily obscured and people could not be seen standing there and they could hide in there. That is absurd. Or similarly following the rules blindly, a person could not be seen if they were in dense foliage, but could be seen if they were behind dense foliage but not in it. That is absurd. I for one would not want to play in your game where such absurdities apparently happen.

 

[Hriston]

Except there is a situation which results this not being the case, like a person looking having darkvision. This is basic.

No, it's lightly obscured "as far as that creature is concerned" because the creature sees in darkness "as if" it were dim light. The one to one relationship between illumination and obscurement is preserved. The creature looking doesn't turn a heavily obscured area into a lightly obscured area.

Indeed, it was simple, and thus something that would unlike to exist in a real game. Blindly following rules and ignoring the fiction and context leads to absurdities. Like we could place four torches in your white room in so that their areas intersect, but so that there is one square in middle of them that is technically not in the reach of their light. You'd say that this one five by five feet square in the middle of a flat field in a moonlight night is heavily obscured and people could not be seen standing there and they could hide in there. That is absurd. Or similarly following the rules blindly, a person could not be seen if they were in dense foliage, but could be seen if they were behind dense foliage but not in it. That is absurd. I for one would not want to play in your game where such absurdities apparently happen.

You'll have to explain why you think it's absurd for someone standing outside the dim light radius of a torch to be unseen. You'll have to explain why you think it's absurd for someone standing in an area illuminated with daylight to be seen as opposed to someone obscured by dense foliage.