The gaps created by the non-comprehensive vision/light/obscurement rules are myriad:
This is completely bizarre. The rules aren't creating these so-called gaps. I'll try to explain why. I'll have to de-construct your ridiculously long list to do so, so apologies if there are any formatting errors.
- Can an observer see anything on the far side of something opaque?
Of course not. You know what
opaque means. That isn't a gap in the rules. The rules don't have to contain definitions of common words to be complete.
To use a previous example, can a dog see a bunny when the two are on opposite sides of opaque heavy obscurement? Does the answer change depending on whether the opaque heavy obscurement is a solid object, like a wall?
This is confused. Opacity is not a component of whether an area is heavily (or lightly) obscured. If you're positing that there is something opaque (like a wall or a tree trunk) in a heavily obscured area, then that is something additional to the heavily obscured area.
[*]If light is obstructed by something opaque within its light radius, is there a shadow?
Are you serious? Of course! Again, you know what
opaque means. You know how light interacts with opaque objects. You know what a shadow is. The rules don't have to answer these questions for you to be complete.
Can that shadow affect the light level beyond the obstruction?
Yes, I think it's clear in the rules that categories of illumination are available to the DM to apply as they see fit. Do you disagree?
Does the answer change depending on whether there exists a clear path around the obstruction that stays within the light radius of the light source? Example: there is an opaque, striaght wall 20' from a torch that completely intersects the torch's light radii other than a 1' square opening where the wall is nearest the torch. Assuming no other sources of illumination, which squares are brightly and dimly light on the far side of the wall from the torch? Is the answer different if the opening in the wall is moved 5' to one side?
No, the answer doesn't change under any of these circumstances. Opaque objects cast shadows when light is shined on them. This is taken as a given part of the fictional in-game situation, and it's part of the DM's job of designing the adventure.
[*]Related to #2 (and highly pertinent to this thread), if an observer "effectively suffers from the blinded condition" with regards to an opaque object, but does not effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to something that would normally be occulted by the opaque object, what does the observer see?
I'm not sure what work the word
normally is meant to be doing here, but I think it's clear that the observer would see neither the opaque object nor the thing behind it, line of sight to the thing being obstructed by the opaque object which itself cannot be seen.
Does the answer change if the opaque object is instead a creature or non-solid opaque heavy obscurement? (For numerous examples, see the rest of this thread.)
Creatures are not objects as defined in the rules and, as I've already said, opacity is not a component of what constitutes a heavily obscured area, so yes, the answer changes because there is no rules-based reason for saying that line of sight is blocked by a creature and if there is an opaque object in the heavily obscured area, then that is what is blocking line of sight, not the heavily obscured area itself.
[*]Also related to #2, when, if ever, does full cover affect the lighting levels created by a light source? For example, a creature within the bright light radius of the only light source has full cover from that light source. Is the creature necessarily in bright light? Necessarily in darkness? Or does the light level of the creature's square depend on the geometry of the cover, the light source, and/or other nearby surfaces?
First. it would depend on whether the obstacle providing cover is opaque or translucent, and to what degree. Again, this is a matter of adventure design. The categories of illumination are there for the DM to place accordingly.
[*]Does the word "illuminate" in the PHB have its ordinary dictionary definition, or is it a technical term that refers only to increasing the defined level of light in a square to a brighter level of the game's three levels of lighting?
Remove the word
only, and the answer is
both.
[*]How does a visual illusion of an opaque object/creature interact with local lighting levels? (For an idea of the range of complications, try substituting an illusory opaque object into examples ## 1-4.)
This would depend on whether such interactions were part of the illusion being cast.
[*]Can the boundaries of an area of transparent heavy obscurement be seen by those outside the obscured area? If so, what does the area look like?
This gets into how the DM chooses to describe the environment, but for ease of gameplay, I'd say that the boundaries of such areas are discernable. The area looks like whatever is providing the obscurement, e.g. darkness, fog, foliage, etc.
[*]Can the boundaries of an area of bright or dim light be seen by those outside the lit area? If so, what does the area look like? Example: an exceptionally large torch with double the normal bright and dim light radii is located 500' in mid-air, on a moonless night. There are no objects within 120' of the torch. Can an observer on the ground visually discern the light radii of this unusual torch? If so, what does the lit area look like?
Same as above. Presumably in the fiction, the categories of illumination around a light source would transition gradually, but for ease of gameplay, I would expect them to be described in a way that's discernable. This, however, is dependent upon there being surfaces for the light to be reflected from. If there are no such surfaces, as in your example, I would say that there would be no way to discern the areas, although the light could be described as twice as bright as a normal torch to get the same point across.
[*]Every light source in D&D produces light spherically, except for the Bullseye Lantern, which produces light in a cone. Related to #2, can other light sources be made to produce light in a cone by completely obstructing them except in one dimension? Or will the light from light sources other than a bullseye lantern return to behaving spherically outside of the obstructed area? Example: a torch is recessed in a 10' deep niche in a stone wall. Does this torch cast a cone of light beyond the niche? Or a sphere of light?
Presumably, a bullseye lantern casts its light in a cone because it is radiating from a circular opening. I'd say the shape of the torchlight emerging from the recess would depend on the shape of the recess.
[*](And presumably many more, but this is enough of a wall of text as it is.)
[/LIST]
The text does not explicitly say how to resolve any of these questions. It's up to individual DMs to try to draw inferences from what the text does say to resolve these questions when they come up. Necessarily, different DMs are going to have different ideas of how much realism should affect the inferences drawn from the text, which means that different DMs will reach different inferences. There is no way to objectively determine whether the inferences drawn by a particular DM are "RAW" or "not RAW" or to objectively determine which inferences are "more-RAW" or "less-RAW". (We can, of course, all have our own subjective opinions on which inferences are best supported by the text and our own notions of what elements of reality are sufficiently obvious to affect how we read the text.)
It doesn't need to. "DM decides" is an explicit part of the rules. Most of what you've posted here is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the rules. They don't tell you what fiction to establish. They provide a framework for adjudicating changes to the established fiction.
Thanks for the additional detail. I appreciate it.
You're welcome!