Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8256511" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Exactly.One might suggest that this point should also apply equally to everyone else that is so sure it "actually" works the other way based on their close reading of the obscurement rules.IMO, post errata they are silent on the topic of how heavy obscurement works when your not looking at something in the heavily obscured area.  Seems like they've left that up to the DM - perhaps so that he can rule areas behind opaque heavily obscured areas also count as heavily obscured while areas behind natural darkness that are well lit will not count as heavily obscured.While I agree there's nothing preventing either interpretation in the Spell text.  I would suggest that: opaque inkblot certainly is an addition to the text even though it doesn't actually contradict it.  Magical darkness that functions similarly to non-magical darkness except how it's explicitly spelled out in the Spell is not an addition and also doesn't contradict the text.  Isn't that sufficient reason to make mine the stronger stance?Agreed.  Like with the diagram above it would result in individual DM rulings - though in all fairness that's never stopped them from creating a rule before.  In terms of power this normal darkness except where explicitly defined as different also makes the darkness spell stronger.  So IMO there are plenty of reasons to stick with opaque inkblot ruling even if it's decided RAW best supports my my stance.Wait, how the heck?  I don't get the leap of logic where you go 'it doesn't say A' therefore it must be the other thing it doesn't say, B'IMO.  I'm not sure how much more clear one would need to get to mean "transparent zone of magically induced darkness" than saying "magical darkness".  If any words would need to be explicitly there for the interpretation to work it would be something to indicate opaque inkblot.I just don't get the leap of logic</blockquote>

Verification