Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8263063" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>I put together your first and last paragraphs, because read together they're making me think we're talking past east other. I'll try to explain--maybe we can better isolate where we agree and disagree.</p><p></p><p>First, I entirely agree with you that "DM decides" is an explicit part of the rules. The vision/light/obscurement rules are short and non-comprehensive, by design. (And, as commentary, I think that's better than trying to be comprehensive, even if I would have written the short rules differently.) So the DM has to make a ruling in situations the text of the rules doesn't cover. The DM can't simply plop down light sources and objects/walls and have the rules exactly determine who sees what (as if the rules define the physics of light in D&D). Are we in agreement so far? I think we are, based on what you said above, and based on your mention in the discussion of the examples of the DM choosing light levels on a square-by-square basis--if we're not in agreement to this point, any clarification would be helpful.</p><p></p><p>The gaps I listed were examples of issues regarding light/vision/obscurement that the rules don't explicitly discuss. I apologize that they came across to you as bizarre, but since I think we agree that the DM needs to make rulings, I don't understand how the existence of gaps requiring rulings comes across as bizarre?</p><p></p><p>Where I think we disagree regards which of my examples are places the DM will need to decide, and which are covered by the rules. That's totally cool--there is room for disagreement over <em>where</em> the rules are non-comprehensive without affecting my claim that the rules are not comprehensive.</p><p></p><p>You definitely seem to be taking issue with how literal some of my examples are, and I find that somewhat confusing because it seems to me like you are the one arguing in favor of a more-literal interpretation of the rules. For example, yes, I am familiar with what "opaque" means, and I would rule that anything opaque blocks someone from seeing beyond it. But it sounds like you would rule that dense foliage (which, absent magical transparent plants, is, of course, opaque) does not block vision of creatures on the other side. Indeed, both of the examples of heavy obscurement in the book other than darkness ("dense foliage" and "opaque fog"), are opaque, but it sounds like you would nevertheless let someone see past them unless "there is something opaque (like a wall or a tree trunk) in a heavily obscured area"? You'd expressed as much in response to [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER]'s dense foliage example, which is why I included examples that didn't take the common definition of opaque for granted, since you didn't appear to be using it. Again, I apologize that you apparently found the example preposterous, I just don't see how it can be preposterous if you're (e.g.) letting the Dog see the Bunny on the opposite side of the dense foliage. Could you please clarify?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Similarly, my intent with the shadow example was not to raise something you would consider preposterous. The rules don't mention shadows with regards to illumination at all, and given how close a parsing of the text some posters in this thread have advocated, it seemed reasonable to me that someone (not necessarily you) would argue that the light from a light source would fill the entire area of its radius, spreading around corners, which in turn would affect the interaction of shadows and light levels. Does that make sense?</p><p></p><p>Since you objected to the length of my list of examples, I'm going to not discuss the others--I think we can probably nail down where we are disagreeing with what we have so far. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to all of them, and if you would instead prefer a complete response, please let me know. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8263063, member: 6802765"] I put together your first and last paragraphs, because read together they're making me think we're talking past east other. I'll try to explain--maybe we can better isolate where we agree and disagree. First, I entirely agree with you that "DM decides" is an explicit part of the rules. The vision/light/obscurement rules are short and non-comprehensive, by design. (And, as commentary, I think that's better than trying to be comprehensive, even if I would have written the short rules differently.) So the DM has to make a ruling in situations the text of the rules doesn't cover. The DM can't simply plop down light sources and objects/walls and have the rules exactly determine who sees what (as if the rules define the physics of light in D&D). Are we in agreement so far? I think we are, based on what you said above, and based on your mention in the discussion of the examples of the DM choosing light levels on a square-by-square basis--if we're not in agreement to this point, any clarification would be helpful. The gaps I listed were examples of issues regarding light/vision/obscurement that the rules don't explicitly discuss. I apologize that they came across to you as bizarre, but since I think we agree that the DM needs to make rulings, I don't understand how the existence of gaps requiring rulings comes across as bizarre? Where I think we disagree regards which of my examples are places the DM will need to decide, and which are covered by the rules. That's totally cool--there is room for disagreement over [I]where[/I] the rules are non-comprehensive without affecting my claim that the rules are not comprehensive. You definitely seem to be taking issue with how literal some of my examples are, and I find that somewhat confusing because it seems to me like you are the one arguing in favor of a more-literal interpretation of the rules. For example, yes, I am familiar with what "opaque" means, and I would rule that anything opaque blocks someone from seeing beyond it. But it sounds like you would rule that dense foliage (which, absent magical transparent plants, is, of course, opaque) does not block vision of creatures on the other side. Indeed, both of the examples of heavy obscurement in the book other than darkness ("dense foliage" and "opaque fog"), are opaque, but it sounds like you would nevertheless let someone see past them unless "there is something opaque (like a wall or a tree trunk) in a heavily obscured area"? You'd expressed as much in response to [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER]'s dense foliage example, which is why I included examples that didn't take the common definition of opaque for granted, since you didn't appear to be using it. Again, I apologize that you apparently found the example preposterous, I just don't see how it can be preposterous if you're (e.g.) letting the Dog see the Bunny on the opposite side of the dense foliage. Could you please clarify? Similarly, my intent with the shadow example was not to raise something you would consider preposterous. The rules don't mention shadows with regards to illumination at all, and given how close a parsing of the text some posters in this thread have advocated, it seemed reasonable to me that someone (not necessarily you) would argue that the light from a light source would fill the entire area of its radius, spreading around corners, which in turn would affect the interaction of shadows and light levels. Does that make sense? Since you objected to the length of my list of examples, I'm going to not discuss the others--I think we can probably nail down where we are disagreeing with what we have so far. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to all of them, and if you would instead prefer a complete response, please let me know. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell
Top