D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

[Xetheral]

After nearly 40 pages, perhaps the conclusion is that there is no RAW Darkness? The rules text is inherently ambigious and can't be used without DM interpretation, and several interpretations are supported by the rules.

That's been the claim I've been trying to support from my very first post in this thread. I fear I've done a poor job of supporting it, as my examples seem to produce more confusion than illumination.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The Blinded condition says that the creature "can't see". That seems pretty total to me. I think reinterpreting the condition to be "able to see, but not well" is a great way to fix the problematic interactions with Heavy Obscurement, but that approach both goes against the text and may produce other problems when you want the Blinded condition to actually mean "can't see", like with the Blindness/Deafness spell.

If it was a dark wall seen against a dark background, I would agree--the character wouldn't be able to visually discern the presence of the wall. But there's a lit background here seen through the door, so in the real world the wall would be seen by the fact that it interrupts that lit background (i.e. the wall is silhouetted against a lit background).

To clarify the purpose of the transparent-wall example, I'm not saying that the Darkness spell needs to be an opaque ink-blot because otherwise creatures can see through walls. I'm saying that the rules for darkness/vision/obscurement are not comprehensive, and contain contradictions that require every DM to make decisions about how they want to run darkness/vision/obscurement. In particular, I'm saying there is a contradiction in the rules between being unable to see an obstruction and that obstruction remaining opaque if the obstruction is backlit. Running the Darkness as akin to normal darkness happens to run into this already-existing contradiction in the rules.

I see this contradiction as pretty straightforward (but apparently am terrible at explaining it!): if there's a big opaque object/creature standing in darkness between an observer and a well-lit background, then in the real world the observer can see the big opaque object/creature because it obstructs the well-lit background (i.e. it's silhouetted). D&D doesn't have rules for silhouettes, so the DM has to decide whether to include silhouettes in their game or not. If they do let observers see heavily obscured objects/creatures as silhouettes, the DM isn't giving full effect to the Blinded condition--the observer is able to see something the Blinded condition says they can't. By contrast, if the DM does not let observers see heavily obscured objects/creatures as silhouettes, then, by definition, the object/creature isn't obstructing the well-lit background, and so must not be opaque.

Obviously, I expect every DM to work around this contradiction in one way or another--that's the DM's job. Multiple ways to adapt/reinterpret the rules have been presented in this thread that would work well.

I saw it and replied directly quite awhile ago. "Blind" in the real world may not mean "can't see", but in D&D that's exactly what the Blinded condition says. That means that not everyone who would be considered legally blind in the real world would have the Blinded condition in D&D. By contrast, everyone trying to look into a heavily obscured area in D&D does (effectively) have the Blinded condition.

I read "effectively has the Blinded condition" as "takes penalties as if they had the Blinded condition". I don't think "effectively" can be used as a synonym for "partially", particularly since D&D conditions are binary in every other context with which I am familiar. One could decide instead to ad-hoc the penalties inflicted by each condition based on the circumstances, but that would seem to negate the entire point of having codified conditions in the first place.

We agree on pretty much all of that. (Though for some reason I still don't have any idea where you were ever going with the thing about transparent walls). You're making my case while appearing to argue with me, which is the part I don't understand.

Adding "well" to "can't see" only comes up when you need it to because of the exceptions. The blind condition gives you certain penalties, and MOST OF THE TIME it means you can't see. Sometimes it just means you can't see WELL. You still have all the penalties of the Blind Condition. I've never been trying to say that you don't get all the penalties of the Blind Condition, or that being Blind always means that you can see a little. The Blind spell would blind you, of course.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's been the claim I've been trying to support from my very first post in this thread. I fear I've done a poor job of supporting it, as my examples seem to produce more confusion than illumination.

Define illumination!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's been the claim I've been trying to support from my very first post in this thread. I fear I've done a poor job of supporting it, as my examples seem to produce more confusion than illumination.

EVERYONE has agreed on that since the beginning of the thread.

 

[Maxperson]

To clarify the purpose of the transparent-wall example, I'm not saying that the Darkness spell needs to be an opaque ink-blot because otherwise creatures can see through walls.

I liked your post, but I don't understand this part. How does treating the Darkness spell as pure blackness allow creatures to see through walls?

 

[Maxperson]

And all the attacker gets is advantage? You'd think they'd have an easier time hitting an "oblivious" target than just advantage.

You'd think, yes, but that's the rule that WotC came up with. I guess they figure that armor or luck play enough of a roll to only grant advantage.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You'd think, yes, but that's the rule that WotC came up with. I guess they figure that armor or luck play enough of a roll to only grant advantage.

Yeah, or everyone is so good that they've trained a least a little in blind-fighting.

(Or, as I've been trying to get across, sometimes they can see a little, if only just movement, when it makes sense to use that as part of your narrative.)

 

[Xetheral]

I liked your post, but I don't understand this part. How does treating the Darkness spell as pure blackness allow creatures to see through walls?

It doesn't and I'm not saying that. How are you parsing what you quoted to think I'm saying that?

(Legitimate question here--I've been having hard time in this thread expressing myself without being misunderstood, so any clarity on why you're reading it that way would be helpful!)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

EVERYONE has agreed on that since the beginning of the thread.

That's still not true. FrogReaver most definitely didn't.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's still not true. FrogReaver most definitely didn't.

I'm not sure that's true. Obviously I don't speak for FrogReaver, but I always got the impression that they were only defending their original position as a possible reading of RAW, not the only way one can read RAW. FrogReaver's way WORKS by RAW as well as any other way does (better than some, maybe), but I don't think anyone thinks that it's the BEST or ONLY way to "correctly" read RAW (as if such a thing exists). I'm pretty sure that this was mentioned multiple times and argued with anyway.