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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8256543" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I don't think anyone else is arguing in favor of the opaque ink-blot interpretation based on a close reading of the spell text or obscurement rules. They're ruling based on which interpretation makes sense on an intuitive level (I believe "common sense" has been cited in this thread), practical considerations regarding which interpretation makes the Darkness spell usable as-is, portrayals of magical darkness in media (all of which I can think of use the far-simpler ink-blot approach), and looking at precedent from prior editions of Dungeons and Dragons. (The validity of that last as an interpretive tool is, of course, hotly contested.)My intention, however, was to point out that I don't think the question you are asking (namely, "What does the RAW of Darkness say?") has an answer at all. So it's not that I'm trying to say their reading of the text is better, I'm saying that reading the text alone is never going to be sufficient.Possible. But even if true that doesn't help resolve whether or not the Darkness spell is opaque.No, because magically induced non-magical darkness can't be the same as natural darkness because the magically induced variety can exist in situations where the later is impossible, and the spell text does not specify how to treat the creation of non-magical darkness in an area where natural darkness couldn't exist.So while the interpretation that infers that the Darkness spell is opaque is indeed making an inference, your interpretation suffers from the problem that it would render the spell text incomplete. If one is going to operate by the principle that spells do exactly what they say and no more, then picking an interpretation where the spell text is incomplete is highly problematic.To word it differently, the spell text is silent as to whether the darkness created by Darkness is opaque or transparent. The DM has to make a choice. Choosing for it to be opaque renders the rest of the spell complete. Choosing for it to be transparent opens up a whole can of new issues that the spell text is silent on.Cool. I want to remphasize that I'm not saying that you're wrong by RAW. I'm saying that the RAW can't support any stance because the rules on vision and obscurement are oversimplifications.I'm saying that if the spell is silent regarding whether or not it is transparent, and one choice leads to the spell text being complete and useable, and the other choice leads to the spell text having holes (including about such basic things as what the visual effect of the spell appears to be) that the DM must resolve before the spell can be used, then the choice that leads to the spell text being complete is probably the intended one.</blockquote>

Verification