Darkness Discussion

[Easy_Lee]

Saw an interesting question pop up in another thread, regarding darkness. For reference, darkness is in the free PDF.

The spell creates a 15' opaque sphere which only superior vision can see through (dark vision doesn't do the trick, which is kind-of ironic). By the text, it stuffs magical light sources if they were created by a level 2 or lower spell.

Here's the question: how does it interact with regular light?

Does light pass through it / does it cast a shadow?
Can light emanating from within the darkness escape the spell's area / would it work to suppress the light of a torch or chandelier?
Doea it bend light, block light, or destroy light?

[Wartex1]

I'd say it destroys visible light, and that if you're outside, and someone else is outside, but you are on opposite ends of the sphere, then you can't see them.

[Ralanr]

I'd imagine that magic darkness in OOTS is a good example.

[Shining Wrath]

So I think you're looking for DM rulings here, because the RAW doesn't give a clear indication. So from my viewpoint:
There's a volume where light is stopped. Little D&D equivalents to photons just stop existing and go off to the positive material plane to visit their dead relatives. From that thesis:
1) Torches, chandeliers, et cetera, still burn but their light goes no where
2) The volume casts a shadow. Create this outside, even sunlight doesn't break through
3) Light is destroyed
4) Not asked, but ... it's only a level 2 spell. You cast Darkness on a powerful magical source of light (say a Light Cleric with his aura on), your spell fizzles, as Darkness is destroyed by the power of the light.

[ruy343]

So I think you're looking for DM rulings here, because the RAW doesn't give a clear indication. So from my viewpoint:
There's a volume where light is stopped. Little D&D equivalents to photons just stop existing and go off to the positive material plane to visit their dead relatives. From that thesis:
1) Torches, chandeliers, et cetera, still burn but their light goes no where
2) The volume casts a shadow. Create this outside, even sunlight doesn't break through
3) Light is destroyed
4) Not asked, but ... it's only a level 2 spell. You cast Darkness on a powerful magical source of light (say a Light Cleric with his aura on), your spell fizzles, as Darkness is destroyed by the power of the light.

100 % agreed. Darkness dispells any lower-level spells (or cantrips) active in the area, is completely opaque, and light cannot pass through it (so, casting darkness on the entrance to a tunnel would darken the whole tunnel by blocking sunlight). Torches, being a non-magical chemical reaction, continue to burn and give off heat, but no light is visible.

As for cancelling class abilities, I'd have to go with a rule like:
- the level at which you obtain the ability/2 (rounded up) = approx spell level of ability (so light cleric's warding flare would be blocked, since you learn it at first level, but a paladin's capstone aura of radiance or a light cleric's high-level aura would not be blocked).

At least, that's the rule I'll be going with for my table for now. And yes, I know that the spell level thing doesn't line up with paladin spell levels. Sue me.

[Mr.Moron]

The "Magical Darkness" is an area of null-perception to vision, and doesn't interact with normal light per se. I'd rule it has the following properties :

A torch inside is imperceptible with your eyes, but you can feel the heat. A creature that can see in infrared would feel the heat, but still not see anything.

The darkness ball and the objects inside don't cast shadows. A wall on the opposite of the spell is illuminated by a torch on the the other side normally. Looking through the ball you can't see the torch. Shadows cast by objects on the other side of the ball fall on the wall normally.

Looking into a mirror facing the darkness reflects the darkness you see a dark ball in the mirror just as you would looking at the spell.

[Safety Sword]

I think we're reading too much into this.

Take the prevailing light conditions. Plonk a sphere of darkness in it. Job done. If light starts inside the sphere it doesn't escape. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

It's magic. It doesn't need the physics discussion on whether light passes through it or around it. It does neither.

It's magic. It doesn't have to make any more sense than that.

[ruy343]

I think we're reading too much into this.

Take the prevailing light conditions. Plonk a sphere of darkness in it. Job done. If light starts inside the sphere it doesn't escape. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

It's magic. It doesn't need the physics discussion on whether light passes through it or around it. It does neither.

It's magic. It doesn't have to make any more sense than that.

Actually, that tunnel thing that I mentioned just happened in my adventure... It made more sense toa adjudicate that way (because of the player's logic), and we moved on.

[ChubbyRain]

Because of how my groups are tired of the magic/not-magic stuff of D&D we say that everything is the same.

So that magic that creates darkness is just making the area dark, Darkvision sees right through it. The player can describe the spell as continuously teleporting the light out of the area or however but there is no such thing as "magical darkness".

Fire damage and magical fire damage is the same thing. How you make it might change, creating it (evocation), summoning it (conjuration), or striking two things together (mundane) but it all does the same type of damage.

[Easy_Lee]

Because of how my groups are tired of the magic/not-magic stuff of D&D we say that everything is the same.

So that magic that creates darkness is just making the area dark, Darkvision sees right through it. The player can describe the spell as continuously teleporting the light out of the area or however but there is no such thing as "magical darkness".

So darkness just doesn't work on elves, dwarves, orcs, and so on?

[Mellack]

Because of how my groups are tired of the magic/not-magic stuff of D&D we say that everything is the same.

So that magic that creates darkness is just making the area dark, Darkvision sees right through it. The player can describe the spell as continuously teleporting the light out of the area or however but there is no such thing as "magical darkness".

Fire damage and magical fire damage is the same thing. How you make it might change, creating it (evocation), summoning it (conjuration), or striking two things together (mundane) but it all does the same type of damage.

If it just makes the area dark, wouldn't it be destroyed by someone lighting a torch?
With so many races having darkvision, this seems like a huge nerf.

[asorel]

I think we're reading too much into this.

Take the prevailing light conditions. Plonk a sphere of darkness in it. Job done. If light starts inside the sphere it doesn't escape. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

It's magic. It doesn't need the physics discussion on whether light passes through it or around it. It does neither.

It's magic. It doesn't have to make any more sense than that.

This isn't true for every campaign. Depending on how far you take the "Wizards are fantasy scientists" theme, a more systematic knowledge of spells may be expected.

[Safety Sword]

This isn't true for every campaign. Depending on how far you take the "Wizards are fantasy scientists" theme, a more systematic knowledge of spells may be expected.

I have a physics degree and even I think it's a bad idea to try and bring science into D&D. :smalltongue:

No wonder commoners go all torches and pitchforks on them...

[Easy_Lee]

I have a physics degree and even I think it's a bad idea to try and bring science into D&D. :smalltongue:

Software engineer here, and I agree.

[asorel]

I have a physics degree and even I think it's a bad idea to try and bring science into D&D. :smalltongue:

No wonder commoners go all torches and pitchforks on them...

It depends what you mean by 'science.' I'm not certain if I would enjoy Arcane technobabble in the core books, but I prefer my games with the implicit assumption that magic "works" in some fashion, and can be understood to a certain extent by characters, though not necessarily the players.

[Safety Sword]

It depends what you mean by 'science.' I'm not certain if I would enjoy Arcane technobabble in the core books, but I prefer my games with the implicit assumption that magic "works" in some fashion, and can be understood to a certain extent by characters, though not necessarily the players.

I didn't mean that wizards can't have a scientific way of doing research or getting formulae working. I think that's intended.

I meant it's a really bad idea to try and use real world physics and try to fit it to game mechanics or vice versa.

To go back to the OP: You can rule it any way you like, but to me darkness is an opaque bubble only in the area of the darkness spell. It doesn't act like a solid object that throws shadows for light sources "behind" it. You can't see objects on the other side of it if it is between you and the object you are trying to view. Normal light can't enter the area, illuminate the area or escape the area.

Think of it like a real world black curtain that you throw over the area. That's the test we use.

Clearly if the light dispels the effect then that happens. Otherwise, it doesn't.

One of my groups is a bunch of physicists and when they try to "physics D&D" I threaten to throw my 3.5E books at them. I have a a lot of 3.5E books. And I am adept at throwing them. Many have tried and failed to physics my game world and been denied by me simply saying "Complete Mage".

[Easy_Lee]

Off topic, on the subject of physics and D&D, I tend to assume that real world sciences apply except where otherwise stated, but I take a very loose interpretation to the word "stated." For example, falling damage in D&D is a linear progression, rather than square (based on acceleration, \vec{F} = m * \vec{a}). So we can conclude that either D&D humanoids are much smaller than us (so air resistance has a very significant limiting factor on their falling speeds, and the cube/square law is more in their favor, which in turn solves a lot of other problems with D&D physics), gravity works differently in D&D, or both. As another example, D&D humanoids regularly teleport and summon matter instantaneously from other dimensions, so we can conclude that the Theory of Relativity is either wrong or incomplete as far as D&D is concerned.

Back on topic, I think I have an answer for devil's sight. If the darkness spell merely blocks the visible spectrum of light, devil's sight would still work if they're seeing light outside that spectrum. Or maybe their eyes are magic and bounce magic signals off of stuff, receive that magic signal back, and then magically report that to their magic brains which then magically interpret the image. There are a lot of ways that could work, so I'm not bothered by it.

After reading through the thread, I'm of the opinion that having darkness block light is, overall, the preferable interpretation.

[Shining Wrath]

Off topic, on the subject of physics and D&D, I tend to assume that real world sciences apply except where otherwise stated, but I take a very loose interpretation to the word "stated." For example, falling damage in D&D is a linear progression, rather than square (based on acceleration, \vec{F} = m * \vec{a}). So we can conclude that either D&D humanoids are much smaller than us (so air resistance has a very significant limiting factor on their falling speeds, and the cube/square law is more in their favor, which in turn solves a lot of other problems with D&D physics), gravity works differently in D&D, or both. As another example, D&D humanoids regularly teleport and summon matter instantaneously from other dimensions, so we can conclude that the Theory of Relativity is either wrong or incomplete as far as D&D is concerned.

Back on topic, I think I have an answer for devil's sight. If the darkness spell merely blocks the visible spectrum of light, devil's sight would still work if they're seeing light outside that spectrum. Or maybe their eyes are magic and bounce magic signals off of stuff, receive that magic signal back, and then magically report that to their magic brains which then magically interpret the image. There are a lot of ways that could work, so I'm not bothered by it.

After reading through the thread, I'm of the opinion that having darkness block light is, overall, the preferable interpretation.

Two interpretations, I think both are valid:
1) It's a region in which light is removed. So if light hits one side of it, that light is removed from this world and doesn't come out the other
2) It's a region in which light is not perceived. Light passes through it just fine. Light sources within the region do not produce visible light

[ChubbyRain]

If it just makes the area dark, wouldn't it be destroyed by someone lighting a torch?
With so many races having darkvision, this seems like a huge nerf.

Yup, a torch can stop a darkness spell. Magic doesn't need to be exception to the rules when magic is part of the rules.

Darkness is one of the better debuff spells in the game (no save, easy to keep creatures in it), this Nerf makes it a good choice but doesn't make it useless or worthless. As is, darkness is one of the most unfair spells in the game and needs a Nerf.

This isn't a magic versus not magic debate, it just doesn't fit within how other spells work. Most other spells this powerful has a way to end the effect. Moving sometimes works but there are so many ways to keep the target in the darkness it isn't even funny.

Plus by getting rid of magic darkness and darkness differences you make the game simpler. There really is no reason why magical darkness can't or isn't just normal darkness.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The way I see it, in the honored D&D tradition of using the same word to achieve different meanings, there are three forms of "darkness" we need to know about.

Regular old darkness is the relative absence of light that makes it to our eyes, as normal.
Darkness is an evocation spell that emits "magical darkness" around a point. Note that it's a spread that can be blocked by encompassing it in something opaque.
Magical darkness blocks darkvision and dispels magical light sources. It must, then, be some magical substance or energy, not a mere lack of light. I like to think of it as magical energy that absorbs ("destroys" would work much in the same way) light and magical light in an area.

With this interpretation, the answer to your questions are as follows:
Shining a light on one side of an area of magical darkness would indeed create a shadow, as the light doesn't make it to the other side. As normal, carefully note other light sources and light reflected by other objects.
The magical darkness absorbs or dispels any low-level light emitted inside of it.
Absorbs.

[Gwendol]

The way I see it, in the honored D&D tradition of using the same word to achieve different meanings, there are three forms of "darkness" we need to know about.

Regular old darkness is the relative absence of light that makes it to our eyes, as normal.
Darkness is an evocation spell that emits "magical darkness" around a point. Note that it's a spread that can be blocked by encompassing it in something opaque.
Magical darkness blocks darkvision and dispels magical light sources. It must, then, be some magical substance or energy, not a mere lack of light. I like to think of it as magical energy that absorbs ("destroys" would work much in the same way) light and magical light in an area.

With this interpretation, the answer to your questions are as follows:
Shining a light on one side of an area of magical darkness would indeed create a shadow, as the light doesn't make it to the other side. As normal, carefully note other light sources and light reflected by other objects.
The magical darkness absorbs or dispels any low-level light emitted inside of it.
Absorbs.

Agrees fully. As usual the devil is in the details.

[Mr.Moron]

The way I see it, in the honored D&D tradition of using the same word to achieve different meanings, there are three forms of "darkness" we need to know about.

Regular old darkness is the relative absence of light that makes it to our eyes, as normal.
Darkness is an evocation spell that emits "magical darkness" around a point. Note that it's a spread that can be blocked by encompassing it in something opaque.
Magical darkness blocks darkvision and dispels magical light sources. It must, then, be some magical substance or energy, not a mere lack of light. I like to think of it as magical energy that absorbs ("destroys" would work much in the same way) light and magical light in an area.

With this interpretation, the answer to your questions are as follows:
Shining a light on one side of an area of magical darkness would indeed create a shadow, as the light doesn't make it to the other side. As normal, carefully note other light sources and light reflected by other objects.
The magical darkness absorbs or dispels any low-level light emitted inside of it.
Absorbs.

I kind of dislike explanations like this because they're so... rational. The darkness you've described may as well be some opaque gas. For all practical purposes it's just a peculiarly static ink cloud.

For magic to be magic in my view it needs to function in some way that isn't directly analogous to a real world phenomenon. At least when you're trying to dig down past the immediate description of the game effects to how it might be behave in a broader sense.

This is why I put forward that it wouldn't cast a shadow. A light source on one side would illuminate the other just as if the darkness wasn't there but you can't see the light source looking back through the effect. This is clearly nonsensical. If the light reaching points past the darkness isn't changed you must be able to see the light source on the other side. That's how vision works, "seeing" the torch is just taking in the light it emits/reflects. if that light is making it across unobstructed and unmodified you have to be able to see it, that's how the world works. That's how the real world works.

The ruling I'm describing makes the behavior externally consistent and to an extent predictable, but contradictory and absolutely impossible.

[SharkForce]

I kind of dislike explanations like this because they're so... rational. The darkness you've described may as well be some opaque gas. For all practical purposes it's just a peculiarly static ink cloud.

For magic to be magic in my view it needs to function in some way that isn't directly analogous to a real world phenomenon. At least when you're trying to dig down past the immediate description of the game effects to how it might be behave in a broader sense.

darkness that emanates from something and can be blocked by a curtain like light can be sounds pretty unusual to me.

[ChubbyRain]

darkness that emanates from something and can be blocked by a curtain like light can be sounds pretty unusual to me.

Yeah, also for d&d magic is part of their "real world" within the setting. So a logical explanation would make sense.

Sure in the real world magic is unusual and would be hard to understand but in the D&D world where magic is built into the very core of the setting and multiverese? There should be some sort of set logical rules for it, or else chaos would win and wizards would have a harder time using magic than sorcerers.

To many people look at the D&D settings and take on the idea of the setting being "real world + magic" when the setting is actually "fantasy world that has magic". Those are two entirely different things. People push their views on the game as if magic is an outside force that should be allowed to bend rules, when the precense of magic is actually part of the rules and should be tied in better.

Magical fire deals just fire damage. Magical darkness is just darkness. Magic isn't allowing you to bend th rules on these issues, just put this fire or darkness somewhere is wouldn't be without your input.

Kinda hard for me to explain with my thumbs.

[Mellack]

Yeah, also for d&d magic is part of their "real world" within the setting. So a logical explanation would make sense.

Sure in the real world magic is unusual and would be hard to understand but in the D&D world where magic is built into the very core of the setting and multiverese? There should be some sort of set logical rules for it, or else chaos would win and wizards would have a harder time using magic than sorcerers.

To many people look at the D&D settings and take on the idea of the setting being "real world + magic" when the setting is actually "fantasy world that has magic". Those are two entirely different things. People push their views on the game as if magic is an outside force that should be allowed to bend rules, when the precense of magic is actually part of the rules and should be tied in better.

Magical fire deals just fire damage. Magical darkness is just darkness. Magic isn't allowing you to bend th rules on these issues, just put this fire or darkness somewhere is wouldn't be without your input.

Kinda hard for me to explain with my thumbs.


I am kinda confused by this. If magical fire is just fire, it isn't magical. It is magical because it can burn without consuming any fuel. If it needs fuel, then you just have oil and a lighter. Magical darkness can be blocked from spreading by putting it in a container. There is no analogous behavior for normal darkness, so does that not happen in your game? Normal darkness is stopped by any light source, magical darkness blots out candles, torches, and sunlight. When would a darkness spell ever work if it was just normal darkness? Whatever light source was there will just destroy it instantly, or if it was already dark you accomplished nothing. I would say magic is magic because it is not normal.

[asorel]

I am kinda confused by this. If magical fire is just fire, it isn't magical. It is magical because it can burn without consuming any fuel. If it needs fuel, then you just have oil and a lighter. Magical darkness can be blocked from spreading by putting it in a container. There is no analogous behavior for normal darkness, so does that not happen in your game? Normal darkness is stopped by any light source, magical darkness blots out candles, torches, and sunlight. When would a darkness spell ever work if it was just normal darkness? Whatever light source was there will just destroy it instantly, or if it was already dark you accomplished nothing. I would say magic is magic because it is not normal.

I believe that ChubbyRain's stipulation is that the effects of magic need not be more magical than necessary. Magic fire can burn for a short period without fuel, but that doesn't mean it will burn while submerged. Breaking one law of physics doesn't mean you throw the rest out the window.

[HoarsHalberd]

I kind of dislike explanations like this because they're so... rational. The darkness you've described may as well be some opaque gas. For all practical purposes it's just a peculiarly static ink cloud.

For magic to be magic in my view it needs to function in some way that isn't directly analogous to a real world phenomenon. At least when you're trying to dig down past the immediate description of the game effects to how it might be behave in a broader sense.

This is why I put forward that it wouldn't cast a shadow. A light source on one side would illuminate the other just as if the darkness wasn't there but you can't see the light source looking back through the effect. This is clearly nonsensical. If the light reaching points past the darkness isn't changed you must be able to see the light source on the other side. That's how vision works, "seeing" the torch is just taking in the light it emits/reflects. if that light is making it across unobstructed and unmodified you have to be able to see it, that's how the world works. That's how the real world works.

The ruling I'm describing makes the behavior externally consistent and to an extent predictable, but contradictory and absolutely impossible.

That wouldn't work for me because it would make the darkness effectively be giving off light. As for it being analogous to a real world phenomenon, it isn't. No gas can stop all light. No material can cause no effect on objects going through it and yet blot out all light. And no force in our universe can snuff out only light sources and not have any effect on any other chemical reaction. It's essentially "anti-light" that doesn't exist and cannot exist from our current understanding of physics.

[ChubbyRain]

I am kinda confused by this. If magical fire is just fire, it isn't magical. It is magical because it can burn without consuming any fuel. If it needs fuel, then you just have oil and a lighter. Magical darkness can be blocked from spreading by putting it in a container. There is no analogous behavior for normal darkness, so does that not happen in your game? Normal darkness is stopped by any light source, magical darkness blots out candles, torches, and sunlight. When would a darkness spell ever work if it was just normal darkness? Whatever light source was there will just destroy it instantly, or if it was already dark you accomplished nothing. I would say magic is magic because it is not normal.

It is magic to bring the fire out and use it in ways that non magical creates can't.

The fire is still fire.

Magic is normal in these settings because magic is part of their core lore/make up of that reality.

Think of it like this. Natural plasma and man made plasma both will kill you the same way. The "magic" is being able to harness and use the plasma in a way of your choosing instead of just having it in nature.

Man made plasma and natural plasma is the same stuff. Science and Plasma is a natural part of our reality just the same way as Magic and Fire is part of the D&D reality.

So magical darkness is just gaining natural darkness in a way that isn't natural.

I know it is hard to understand this because hollywood and a lot of authors tend to... Regurgitate the same lore and ideals. That these fantasy realities are earth + small change but they always seem to make that small change affect the fantasy world as an outside force instead of thinking of it as a natural phenomenon.

So it isn't earth + Magic, it is magic earth.

This is one of the reasons we have issues with settings, they just throw crap together without thinking of how it should really relate.

[Mellack]

I sort of get what you are saying, but I have to disagree. Magical fire is different than normal fire in that (at the least) it needs no fuel. Plasma follows the same rules wether it is natural or made in a lab. A firebolt does not. It travels differently, and needs no fuel or ignition source. What I understand is that you are trying to limit the amount of ways that it is different than normal, but to say it is identical I feel is to ignore many of the glaring differences.
This is especially true with magical darkness. It must behave differently than normal darkness or it literally does nothing. It would instantly be removed by any light source at all, the way normal darkness is.
You are, of course, welcome to play your table anyway you desire. I am not trying to say it is badwrongfun.

[ChubbyRain]

I sort of get what you are saying, but I have to disagree. Magical fire is different than normal fire in that (at the least) it needs no fuel. Plasma follows the same rules wether it is natural or made in a lab. A firebolt does not. It travels differently, and needs no fuel or ignition source. What I understand is that you are trying to limit the amount of ways that it is different than normal, but to say it is identical I feel is to ignore many of the glaring differences.
This is especially true with magical darkness. It must behave differently than normal darkness or it literally does nothing. It would instantly be removed by any light source at all, the way normal darkness is.
You are, of course, welcome to play your table anyway you desire. I am not trying to say it is badwrongfun.


The thing is, with a simplicity core mentality there is no reason to have magical fire and fire. Either all fire is natural or all fire is magic with this sort of mentality.

If you start adding in more fiddly rules then you start going away from the simplicity core concept.

Even fire elementals can be normal fire, with sentience. It doesn't have to be magic, you just have to get away from the idea that in order to be different or special it *must* be magic.

You could make all fire be magical in nature. When you light a fire (such as a torch) it's a ritual that brings to life a magical flame that burns up the sacrificial material. When the material is eaten the fire desummons itself back to the plane of fire.

Just make things consistent and logical. Stop with the fiddly rules.

Fire burns and magical fire burns, there is no reason to separate them. Especially if magic is part of the core concept of reality within a setting.

Note: Think of it like Star Trek when they found Gas or Polymer elementals on their travels. Those beings weren't (always) magical in nature but were fantastical. Special, different, or imaginative things don't have to be magic.

The only difference between Star Trek and D&D is technology and Magic scale of dominance and one has 100% less Shatner.

[Mellack]

So how does darkness work?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I kind of dislike explanations like this because they're so... rational.Magic is an excuse for something making no sense, not an imperative to make no sense.

[ChubbyRain]

In OUR world yes, magic makes no sense. In a world where magic is at its core and is a part of nature? No, magic makes perfect sense.

Magic makes perfect sense within a setting. When someone does magic in D&D it is like turning on a computer in our world. Now you can have a setting where magic makes no sense, sure, but that isn't D&D.

Because magic a a natural force within the setting it would almost be required to have some logic behind it (unless the elemental chaos rules the setting...). We have rules of magic in the phb and a picture of a gnome (?) explaining it. We have wizard schools and gods that give magic out like candy.

Just because someone doesn't understand how it works doesn't mean it makes no sense.

Does anyone know how smart phones work? Like every piece of it? I'm betting that most do not. However we use this technology, or magic, like second nature. This technology to most people makes no sense and could be ran by tiny spaghetti monsters living inside our phones for all we know.

However we can find out how things works because even though the items seems strange and crazy, there are rules and logical issues behind it. Plus google exists.

Now, since the elemental chaos and chaos magic isn't the prevailing force behind the setting of D&D we can pull in the same ideas.

In D&D, magic is viewed to them like we view our technology. Maybe not everyine knows how it works but they know it does work. Just because you don't know how it works doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. A commoner seeing a wizard fly doesn't think "oh, that is illogical and can't happen!" any more than a real person seeing a jet fly by says "oh, that is illogical and can't happen!".

[Kajorma]

I think that darkness should dampen all light within the radius, but that light should otherwise be able to pass to the other side.

That said, I would let players get away with darkening the whole tunnel with the spell just because it's a clever solution to their problem.

And as a note, if the mechanic was something that seemed like it was overpowered after use, I wouldn't even have to reverse the ruling later. I would simply make it so that there were not many rooms that had light coming from a single source. Hell, a bad guy could defeat this by lighting a torch, which only costs an action.

[Easy_Lee]

And as a note, if the mechanic was something that seemed like it was overpowered after use, I wouldn't even have to reverse the ruling later. I would simply make it so that there were not many rooms that had light coming from a single source. Hell, a bad guy could defeat this by lighting a torch, which only costs an action.

Regarding this, I do like the idea that the darkness spell could be blown away via a wind spell or powerful explosion. As is, its only defined counters are Dispel Magic or the relatively uncommon Daylight spell. For such a potentially powerful effect, basically equivalent to combat invisibility in a way and having a ten minute duration, it seems like there should be more ways to counter it.

[Yagyujubei]

Software engineer here, and I agree.

im secretly Neil deGrasse Tyson and i also agree!

[Xetheral]

So it isn't earth + Magic, it is magic earth.

You absolutely can run D&D in a "magic earth" setting. I prefer to run D&D in a "'earth + magic' + societal changes to account for the existence of magic" setting.

I tend to view the very definition of magic as anything outside the physical boundaries of what is possible in our reality. So all the fantastical elements in my games are either the direct or indirect result of magic.

[Safety Sword]

Regarding this, I do like the idea that the darkness spell could be blown away via a wind spell or powerful explosion. As is, its only defined counters are Dispel Magic or the relatively uncommon Daylight spell. For such a potentially powerful effect, basically equivalent to combat invisibility in a way and having a ten minute duration, it seems like there should be more ways to counter it.

It's your game...

Honestly, I think most spell casters who can prepare Dispel Magic would. It's probably got the widest applications for any single spell. Magic is a game changer, so the ability to dispel it is powerful.

The fact is that darkness does have counters. Blindsight, dispelling, devil sight, etc etc.

I don't think it's any more powerful than other control effects when you actually use it in the game.

[Ziegander]

I'd thought this would be a discussion about how 5e Darkness got smashed with the nerfhammer...

Why are we trying to limit its usefulness or discussing creating additional countermeasures for it? It's a 15ft radius, for crying out loud, when an enemy gets stuck in it, they just walk out of it with no penalties, and no consequences. Is this spell actually disrupting games out there?

[Easy_Lee]

I'd thought this would be a discussion about how 5e Darkness got smashed with the nerfhammer...

Why are we trying to limit its usefulness or discussing creating additional countermeasures for it? It's a 15ft radius, for crying out loud, when an enemy gets stuck in it, they just walk out of it with no penalties, and no consequences. Is this spell actually disrupting games out there?

I think it's more of a theoretical thing than anything. That said, I didn't have a player use it disruptively, but I did find out how disruptive it can be myself.

I've told this story before. I had a team of three players, mostly casters, and attacked them with a blade-pact warlock one level higher, built with the same rules as they used. He had the darkness spell, and I cast it in the center of the room. None of them had a counter, and I had to hold back and make him act stupid to avoid a TPK.

That's the thing with darkness; when it works, it works really well, preventing targets from even knowing where to throw their attacks attempting to hit you. If you combine that with something like defensive duelist (I did), it makes it even more difficult for anyone to land a hit. And in comparison to spells like fog cloud, there really isn't a whole lot of creativity to be had with countering it. Either you have dispel magic or daylight, or the darkness is there to stay until you disrupt the caster.

That said, this is really just a personal gripe. I like for spells to be counter-able through creative mundane means, so that martials have a way to outsmart their magical enemies.

[Safety Sword]

I'd thought this would be a discussion about how 5e Darkness got smashed with the nerfhammer...

Why are we trying to limit its usefulness or discussing creating additional countermeasures for it? It's a 15ft radius, for crying out loud, when an enemy gets stuck in it, they just walk out of it with no penalties, and no consequences. Is this spell actually disrupting games out there?

It's only the fact that there are a certain few strong combinations that make it even slightly disruptive.

Casting darkness on yourself and have devil's sight I guess is the easiest example.

I don't think it's game breaking honestly. I think there are other abilities in the game that are about the same power level.

[Cyan Wisp]

While I like the idea of the darkness blocking the tunnel, I am wary of this sort of ruling descending into quibbling (about light sources, ambience, photon paths, wave/particle duality etc). I guess it depends on the sort of game you want to run:

Simple and fast (as I think 5e is intended to be): darkness creates a light void 15ft radius. Nothing else changes. If you want an explanation, the spell makes photons incorporeal (and thus invisible and unable to reflect) for their transit through the area. The tunnel would remain lit by outside sources of light if their illumination reaches that far.

Complex/pseudo-physics: The darkness absorbs photons entirely (and maybe gives off some freaky dim purplish fluorescence). The spell acts as an opaque object; the tunnel is darkened. This is more complex because you have to account for the passage of light more rigorously (irregular cave entrance, do streams of light enter the tunnel? What level of illumination beyond?)

Personally, for ease of use, I would choose the former.

When I first played 5e, my main eyebrow raising moment came from an archer shooting into darkness at a foe. I searched high and low for the penalty to the roll, only to discover that the attack roll was normal: no penalty - the product of an Advantage/Disadvantage cancellation! Weird. :smallamused:

[Xetheral]

When I first played 5e, my main eyebrow raising moment came from an archer shooting into darkness at a foe. I searched high and low for the penalty to the roll, only to discover that the attack roll was normal: no penalty - the product of an Advantage/Disadvantage cancellation! Weird. :smallamused:

Just wait until your archers realize they can cast darkness or fog cloud near themselves to remove other sources of disadvantage, such as shooting a long range. Sure, they can't see what square the target is in, but movement out of the darkness to pick an opponent, then back in to shoot fixes that problem entirely. The only cost is the action to cast the spell in the first place.

[Easy_Lee]

Just wait until your archers realize they can cast darkness or fog cloud near themselves to remove other sources of disadvantage, such as shooting a long range. Sure, they can't see what square the target is in, but movement out of the darkness to pick an opponent, then back in to shoot fixes that problem entirely. The only cost is the action to cast the spell in the first place.

Right. It's a bit off-topic, but this is my gripe with the advantage / disadvantage rules as written: one source of either cancels all sources of the other, and the effect for multiple sources isn't cumulative. As an example, which I used in another thread, consider the following:

Archer 1: I cast darkness on archer 2. Archer 2 can't see me or my attacks, but I can see through it will devil's sight.
Archer 2: I lie flat on my back.

Archer 2 already had disadvantage to his attack rolls, and so loses nothing from lying down. Archer 1 now has disadvantage to attack archer 2, which cancels out his advantage. Archer 2 has improved his position by doing something that, logically, should have made things even worse for him.

[ChubbyRain]

I'd thought this would be a discussion about how 5e Darkness got smashed with the nerfhammer...

Why are we trying to limit its usefulness or discussing creating additional countermeasures for it? It's a 15ft radius, for crying out loud, when an enemy gets stuck in it, they just walk out of it with no penalties, and no consequences. Is this spell actually disrupting games out there?


It got hit with a Nerf hammer and yet still one of the best spells out there.

Funny that.

[Safety Sword]

Right. It's a bit off-topic, but this is my gripe with the advantage / disadvantage rules as written: one source of either cancels all sources of the other, and the effect for multiple sources isn't cumulative. As an example, which I used in another thread, consider the following:

Archer 1: I cast darkness on archer 2. Archer 2 can't see me or my attacks, but I can see through it will devil's sight.
Archer 2: I lie flat on my back.

Archer 2 already had disadvantage to his attack rolls, and so loses nothing from lying down. Archer 1 now has disadvantage to attack archer 2, which cancels out his advantage. Archer 2 has improved his position by doing something that, logically, should have made things even worse for him.

So, Archer 1 is making a normal attack and Archer 2 is attacking with disadvantage/randomly because he might not know which space his opponent is in once they move.

If you even allow bows to be fired from prone (I wouldn't) it is still a better case scenario for Archer 1.

Darkness/Devil's Sight combo isn't an an "I WIN" button. Nor should it be. You can just move out of the darkness in most instances.

Still not seeing how people think darkness is so powerful.

[Easy_Lee]

So, Archer 1 is making a normal attack and Archer 2 is attacking with disadvantage/randomly because he might not know which space his opponent is in once they move.

If you even allow bows to be fired from prone (I wouldn't) it is still a better case scenario for Archer 1.

Darkness/Devil's Sight combo isn't an an "I WIN" button. Nor should it be. You can just move out of the darkness in most instances.

Still not seeing how people think darkness is so powerful.

Of course it's still better for archer 1, but I was just showing a hypothetical scenario within the advantage / disadvantage metagame. Regarding bows being fired from prone, there are no sources (of which I'm aware) that say one can't do so.

Regarding darkness, there are situations where it's not that useful, but most of them involve fights with devils, displlers, or daylight casters. You can move out of the darkness, but the darkness can also move when cast on an object. Consider the warlock who casts darkness on a rock, picking up and dropping the rock every so often to confuse foes as to his exact location. I can imagine a shadow monk / warlock using this to great effect. Also, 15' is big enough to take up a large part of many rooms, or completely fill some.

[Safety Sword]

Of course it's still better for archer 1, but I was just showing a hypothetical scenario within the advantage / disadvantage metagame. Regarding bows being fired from prone, there are no sources (of which I'm aware) that say one can't do so.

I guess it's that common sense thing coming into play again. If you're lying flat on your back it would be rather difficult to fire a bow anywhere because you can't pull your arm back behind your chest...


Regarding darkness, there are situations where it's not that useful, but most of them involve fights with devils, displlers, or daylight casters. You can move out of the darkness, but the darkness can also move when cast on an object. Consider the warlock who casts darkness on a rock, picking up and dropping the rock every so often to confuse foes as to his exact location. I can imagine a shadow monk / warlock using this to great effect. Also, 15' is big enough to take up a large part of many rooms, or completely fill some.

Sounds like most area effect spells. Still not breaking the game. If a warlock want to pick up and drop a rock as incidental things as part of movement, that's totally legal. I'll note that area of effect spells cast just before the darkened area still penetrate it. Also, if I remember correctly, Darkness requires concentration to maintain.

I think the biggest drawback is that it's going to be an issue for the rest of the warlock's party to deal with the darkness too. You have to spend some resources to get true sight, which isn't trivial in the levels where darkness is typically even having an effect on combat.

I'm still not seeing how it's that big of an issue for either side of a combat to overcome..

[Easy_Lee]

The issue I have with darkness is the same issue that many have with foresight. It provides a very difficult to overcome source of advantage and disadvantage for a select character, and can last for quite a while. Unlike foresight, there is more than one way to get rid of darkness (for foresight, it pretty much has to be dispelled). But like foresight, darkness is there to stay if one does not have those effects. Unlike foresight, darkness only applies to attack rolls and certain kinds of actions. But also unlike foresight, darkness can negatively affect enemies making attack rolls against anyone, not just the caster / target of the spell. Also unlike foresight, darkness takes a very specific setup to make use of, and isn't beneficial against all foes. However, when you have that setup in place, and when darkness is beneficial, it's a game-changer. And it's versatile enough to be extremely useful in a wide variety of situations.

I think that all of this would have been solved if darkness were immobile. Being able to move it around with oneself, or put it on an object and move that object where necessary, makes the spell much more effective than it normally would be. The darkness / devil's sight combo is one of the saving graces of the blade-pact warlock archetype, since one is able to attack his enemies with advantage and give them disadvantage for the cost of a single spell, just by putting darkness on his weapon or on a held item.

[ChubbyRain]

I think that all of this would have been solved if darkness were immobile. Being able to move it around with oneself, or put it on an object and move that object where necessary, makes the spell much more effective than it normally would be. The darkness / devil's sight combo is one of the saving graces of the blade-pact warlock archetype, since one is able to attack his enemies with advantage and give them disadvantage for the cost of a single spell, just by putting darkness on his weapon or on a held item.

Yup, darkness would be better balanced if it worked like silence.

[Safety Sword]

The issue I have with darkness is the same issue that many have with foresight. It provides a very difficult to overcome source of advantage and disadvantage for a select character, and can last for quite a while. Unlike foresight, there is more than one way to get rid of darkness (for foresight, it pretty much has to be dispelled). But like foresight, darkness is there to stay if one does not have those effects. Unlike foresight, darkness only applies to attack rolls and certain kinds of actions. But also unlike foresight, darkness can negatively affect enemies making attack rolls against anyone, not just the caster / target of the spell. Also unlike foresight, darkness takes a very specific setup to make use of, and isn't beneficial against all foes. However, when you have that setup in place, and when darkness is beneficial, it's a game-changer. And it's versatile enough to be extremely useful in a wide variety of situations.

I think that all of this would have been solved if darkness were immobile. Being able to move it around with oneself, or put it on an object and move that object where necessary, makes the spell much more effective than it normally would be. The darkness / devil's sight combo is one of the saving graces of the blade-pact warlock archetype, since one is able to attack his enemies with advantage and give them disadvantage for the cost of a single spell, just by putting darkness on his weapon or on a held item.

It's pretty much the same with every control spell. They do change the way characters interact in combat.

Look at it this way: Inflicting blindness on creatures in a 15 ft radius would actually be superior to darkness because the attacker and their party wouldn't have any of the disadvantages (no pun intended) of the actual darkness spell.

The fact that you have to invest character abilities to make the combo of darkness and devil's sight work is the cost of having it. It doesn't make warlocks invincible or even any harder to shut down. I don't think that a warlock being constantly in darkness in combat even breaks it. If that's what you want to use your concentration on, well... that's nice. I hope your party likes always being 15 ft away from you. My enemy wizards will still throw fireballs, ice storms and cones of cold. Blind sense still isn't affected in the slightest.

If you can't think of anything better to do than cast darkness with your spell slots on a warlock chassis, I'd suggest reading some more spells.

If the only thing we're trying to "fix" here is melee warlocks, I'd suggest that we should move on to other issues. Blade Pact Warlocks are hardly tearing the world apart with their damage.