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: 8263263" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Thanks for clarifying. To make sure I understand correctly, you would rule that a dragon passing in front of the 3/4 moon at night would never be visible as a silhouette? We know that the dim light radius of the moon on most moonlit nights does not reach the surface of the earth, so the area the dragon occupies is in darkness. (PHB 183).I've described the transparent wall problem multiple times since early on in this thread. To recap, if you rule that objects, like walls, aren't visible as silhouettes when backlit in darkness, then, by the heavy obscurement rules (unless you modify them, as [USER=59816]@FitzTheRuke[/USER] does), an observer effectively suffers from the blinded condition with respect to the wall. But observers don't effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to whatever is behind the backlit wall, so the wall is effectively transparent. In other words, if an observer doesn't see the blackness of the wall's silhouette, there's nothing stopping them from seeing beyond the backlit wall.I assume you don't actually cause darkness to make backlit walls transparent at your table (even though you let darkness make creatures transparent), but that means that you're making some other change to the rules to allow backlit walls to be visible as silhouettes even when potential observers effectively suffer from the blinded condition when trying to see the silhouette.Sometimes, the rules that normally work fine create contradictions in edge cases. Opaque objects in natural darkness between an observer and a light source is such an edge case. There's no way to let the object remain opaque while giving full effect to the Heavy Obscurement rules that require the observer to effectively suffer from the blinded condition with respect to the opaque object. Something has to give here, no matter what the DM rules.I have read it length, multiple times. (And I corrected the mistake I made regarding who was replying to which post.) I stand by my reading that [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] was generally discussing (over the course of several posts) how they resolve the edge case of backlit darkness caused by two light sources with a stretch of darkness in between. They determine that the light level in the backlit squares counts as dim light from the perspective of observers who can see the backlight. That seems reasonable to me, and no more in violation of the text than ruling that observers who are effectively suffering from the blinded condition with respect to a backlit wall can nonetheless see that wall's silhouette rather than whatever is behind it.Since that's not how you interpret the discussion, perhaps some of the current disagreement is because you and [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] were misunderstanding what each other was trying to convey.</blockquote>

Verification