Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 8257067" data-attributes="member: 2629">If the intent, as most people assume, is to continue the same magical darkness concept we saw in prior editions, then they left out some key language.&nbsp; They could have achieved the goal by stating that the magical darkness creates heavy obscurement, or they could have said, &quot;All nonmagical light that enters the field of darkness is negated&quot; (or something to that effect).&nbsp; Assuming that is the intent, the description is flawed.&nbsp; As written, you can make the assertion that you can see illuminated things outside the darkness from within it, or see illuminated things on the other side of it.&nbsp; It seems most people believe this is not the intent, even though it is written this way, technically. As a DM, I certainly rule that this spell is intended to heavily obscure any line of sight that passes through it, but I can see the argument that this is not the way it is written, and that this is not how it should be played under RAW.&nbsp; It offends my concepts of continuity from prior editions, but I get it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 8257067, member: 2629"] If the intent, as most people assume, is to continue the same magical darkness concept we saw in prior editions, then they left out some key language. They could have achieved the goal by stating that the magical darkness creates heavy obscurement, or they could have said, "All nonmagical light that enters the field of darkness is negated" (or something to that effect). Assuming that is the intent, the description is flawed. As written, you can make the assertion that you can see illuminated things outside the darkness from within it, or see illuminated things on the other side of it. It seems most people believe this is not the intent, even though it is written this way, technically. As a DM, I certainly rule that this spell is intended to heavily obscure any line of sight that passes through it, but I can see the argument that this is not the way it is written, and that this is not how it should be played under RAW. It offends my concepts of continuity from prior editions, but I get it. [/QUOTE]

Verification