Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8256486" data-attributes="member: 6802765">This is a great example. Under the "opaque ink-blot" interpretation, the resolution is easy: the Dog can't see anything in or behind the darkness. Under the "transparent zone of magically induced non-magical darkness" interpretation, things get much trickier. The Dog should be able to see the trees and the flowers, because they are illuminated and the intervening darkness is transparent. We know the Dog can't see the Bunny (because it isn't illuminated), but presumably it also can't see the illuminated mushroom, (because the Bunny itself is opaque and in the way). That would imply that the Dog sees Bunny's silhouette against the backdrop of the illuminated mushroom, but letting Dog see Bunny's silhouette conflicts with the errated rule that Dog is effectively blind with respect to Bunny. By that rule Bunny is effectively invisible, and the Dog can see the mushroom clearly, but that conflicts with the text of the Darkness spell that says nothing about invisibility. So under this interpretation of the spell, the DM still needs to fill in gaps like these.Furthermore, neither the text of spell nor the text of the obscurement rules answer the question of whether the Dog can even tell there is a zone of darkness in the first place, or what that zone looks like if it can.</blockquote>