Is 'Darkness' useless?

[LVOD]

I noticed today that the ability to cast a 'darkness' effect is EVERYWHERE in this edition. Drow, tieflings, arcane casters, shadow monks, maybe rogues? (Im AFB).

It is probably the easiest spell effect to get access to. And yet with the exception of devils sight on a warlock, it seems virtually useless.

Am i missing something? I mean, it cripples your party as much as the enemy, so combat wise its only really useful for an escape or a shroud to hide behind. RP wise, you can make just about anything useful, but its certainly not easy. Need to steal something? Cast darkness! Then... I guess fumble around blindly and hope you can sneak off with it before someone bumps into you?

Has anyone managed to get any real use out of darkness?

[Daishain]

Cast it on archers sitting over there while you deal with their buddies closer to you.
Cast it on yourself to give you cover/time to GTFO.
When dealing with an invisible enemy, Darkness can even the odds
Cast it on a bridge so the charging enemy don't notice you're destroying it.
Blind stupid sentinels for the crucial moments needed to pass.
Lure oozes or some other appropriate blindsight critters towards an enemy, cast darkness on them both, try not to let the resulting noises haunt your nightmares.
Cast it on a spot and make sentries think an inept intruder is trying to sneak through said patch of darkness (meanwhile you're sneaking in elsewhere while their attention is occupied)

I could go on, but I think others will on my behalf.

[AvatarVecna]

Darkness can be countered by light effects if it's used on you; Light won't suffice, but more powerful spells usually will. Also, Darkness is a wonderful ability for anybody with the means to see through magical darkness. Anything with Blindsight, Tremorsense, or Truesight can see through it just fine, as can Warlocks with Devil's Sight.

[MrStabby]

Well darkness followed by using save spells not attack spells seems an obvious one (unless I am missing something)

[JoeJ]

Combine Darkness with the Alert feat and you give your opponents disadvantage to hit you while you're hitting them normally.

[DivisibleByZero]

Any time conditions are favorable for your enemy, you cast Darkness. Anytime the conditions are favorable for you, the DM can cast Darkness.
Any instance of Advantage or Disadvantage is immediately nullified. You (or the enemy) become invisible, and therefore attack with advantage. But you (or the enemy) cannot see their target, so they gain Disadvantage. The two even out, and everyone is on the same playing field, attacking normally. There are only a very select few ways to avoid this, such as Blindsense, Devil's Sight, the Alert feat as mentioned above, etc.
99% of the time, Darkness is The Great Equalizer.

[LVOD]

I guess combined with some AOE blasting it could be useful. It just still seems really situational to me. Literally any illusion spell can accomplish all of these tasks as well or better, since you (and possibly your party) can see through your own illusion.

[DivisibleByZero]

I guess combined with some AOE blasting it could be useful. It just still seems really situational to me. Literally any illusion spell can accomplish all of these tasks as well or better, since you (and possibly your party) can see through your own illusion.

Well, that depends on the player.
Illusions "can be" the most versatile and effective spells in the game, but for that to be true the player needs to be creative enough to make it so. Without that outside of the box thinking, which some people simply aren't good at, illusion spells basically become worthless.
They're either amazing, or they're utter garbage. It all depends on the imagination of the player. For those players without that skill, spells like Darkness become a whole heck of a lot better.

[MaxWilson]

For the longest time, the Shadow Monk in my party didn't make much use of her spells aside from Pass Without Trace. Then one day, she discovered the joys of Darkness. She already had the Alert feat, which (as several posters have mentioned) makes Darkness become basically free Dodging all the time against most foes. On top of that, the Lore Bard's conjured king cobras (Giant Poisonous Snakes) have Blindsight, so Darkness allows her to buff them with the equivalent of the Devil's Sight combo; and the wizard's Earth Elementals have Tremorsense, which works the same way. No one in the party currently knows Animate Objects, but animated objects have blindsight too.

Furthermore, Darkness makes you immune to many spells which require the caster to see the target, including Finger of Death and Counterspell. It also makes you immune to all beholder eye rays except anti-magic.

Darkness by itself isn't necessary worth a Concentration slot, but having it on a character who otherwise wouldn't be using his Concentration (e.g. a drow champion fighter) is really sweet.

[LVOD]

I hadnt considered summons or avoiding line of sight. I suppose there really are valid uses, its just really situational and nerfed compared to an illusion (but then again, illusions have saving throws, which is a big point in favor of darkness).

I suppose more than anything, it just surprises me how common it is while simultaneously hindering the character who uses it. I mean, itd actually be MORE usefull if creatures with darkvision could see through it, since players with darkvision (most of them) could use it to sneak around NPCs without it. But as is, its basically an ability that allows characters to blind themselves. Plus its concentration. And only like a 15 ft radius. So even if you cast it around some enemies, they can just leave and attack the next turn (maybe you could use it on an item an enemy has so they either walk around blind or drop the item? That actually may be the first legitimately useful function of the ability that i can think of: a no-save that forces an enemy to lose a key item or be blind.)

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I mean, itd actually be MORE usefull if creatures with darkvision could see through it, since players with darkvision (most of them) could use it to sneak around NPCs without it.

I'm going to disagree here. Darkvision is way, way too common for that to do anything but make it far more situational than it already is. And it's situational enough to begin with. You'd be pretty much incapable of using it against anything non-human at that point (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

Drow, for example would have instead of an ability that blinds themselves and the enemy, a power that works on absolutely zero percent of their most common neighbors and enemies.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well darkness followed by using save spells not attack spells seems an obvious one (unless I am missing something)

Being blinded you have to guess the right squares to target, because you know, you can't see them. So that's a potential problem.

[Inevitability]

As seems to be the case so often, a level in mystic is a big help. Blindsight means you can ignore darkvision while your enemies stumble around blindly.

[MaxWilson]

Being blinded you have to guess the right squares to target, because you know, you can't see them. So that's a potential problem.

That's only true if you take the Hide action.

[PoeticDwarf]

There are more useless spells, and for stealth it is very nice. Not very for in combat, except escaping, if you don't have blindsight, truesight, tremorsense or devilsight.

[Dysart]

I'm going to disagree here. Darkvision is way, way too common for that to do anything but make it far more situational than it already is. And it's situational enough to begin with. You'd be pretty much incapable of using it against anything non-human at that point (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

Drow, for example would have instead of an ability that blinds themselves and the enemy, a power that works on absolutely zero percent of their most common neighbors and enemies.

I agree with the above. In Pathfinder they tried to 'fix' darkness by making it decrease the amount of light by one step. But it basically made the spell useless because of all the monster races with darkvision tagged on. Well not useless, it made it so that GMs could punish those feat hungry humans :smalltongue:

[mephnick]

As seems to be the case so often, a level in mystic is a big help. Blindsight means you can ignore darkvision while your enemies stumble around blindly.

The mystic gets blindsight at level 1? That's ridiculous.

[MaxWilson]

The mystic gets blindsight at level 1? That's ridiculous.

The mystic can get Blindsight 30' at level 1 if he picks the right discipline. If so, it's pretty much the only thing he gets at level 1. I think it's fine.

[Joe dirt]

How does the alert feat help u fight in darkness.... I would think u need blindsight or devils sight

[MaxWilson]

How does the alert feat help u fight in darkness.... I would think u need blindsight or devils sight

It prevents you from being attacked with advantage by attackers who are hidden from you. They still have regular old disadvantage to attack you because they can't see you. Normally that disadvantage would be cancelled out by the advantage that comes from an unseen attacker, but Alert prevents them from gaining that advantage, ergo it's just plain disadvantage. When you attack them back it is advantage + disadvantage = nothing, as usual.

If the attacker has blindsight, truesight or tremorsense that all goes out the window of course.

[Malifice]

Combine Darkness with the Alert feat and you give your opponents disadvantage to hit you while you're hitting them normally.

Not actually true. The Alert feat only cancels advantage from attacks from hidden creatures.

Creatures in darkness are not (by default) hidden, unless they take the Hide action.

It does create the situation whereby a monster with darkvision simply standing in darkness while making a ton of noise and attacking a PC with the Alert feat in darkness gets advantage on the attack; yet if the same monster took the hide action, and attempted to attack the same PC he loses advantage on the attack.


How does the alert feat help u fight in darkness.... I would think u need blindsight or devils sight

It doesnt; but it's a sensible interpretation of the darkness rules, and most DM's interpret it to cancel advantage from attacks from hidden (by RAW) AND invisible or obscured (by RAI) creatures.

What people miss in this thread is darkness provides one of the many weird interactions of the advantage/ disadvantage mechanics.

A creature fighting in darkness gets disadvantage to attack rolls AND his opponent has advantage to hit him (he gains the blinded condition). This means that two creatures who both cant see in the dark make attacks against each other normally (you get disadvantage to hit the monster because you cant see it because you're blinded, but all attacks against the equally blinded monster are made with advantage because it cant defend against himself properly - and they cancel each other out ).

It's weird, and it doesnt sit comfortably with me.

This results in (by strict RAW) a situation where your Warlock PC with darkness/ devils sight is getting advantage on all attack rolls, while all monsters get disadvantage on attack rolls against him. Meanwhile the rest of the combatants in the melee (PC and creature alike) make attacks normally (assuming they don't have a method of seeing in magical darkness or blind sight).

Personally this is another situation where 'common sense' prevails. I prefer to simply impose disadvantage to attack rolls for everyone in darkness unless they can see in it, or have the Alert feat. Creatures and PC's alike. Creatures that can see in the darkness, who attack those that cant see in it instead gain advantage on attack rolls (this last benefit doesnt apply to the alert feat; this just cancels the disadvantage, it doesnt grant advantage).

The Warlock still gets the same benefits, but the rest of his party get screwed over, unless they all have blindsight or similar.

[Joe dirt]

The way I interpret the rule is I would think 2 creatures with blindness effect would both have disadvantage against each other.... alertness feat only helps against hidden creatures trying to gain sneak attack. ... and if 1 creature that is blind from say darkness spell goes against another with blind sight then the one that is blind has disadvantage while the one that can see would have advantage

[Malifice]

The way I interpret the rule is I would think 2 creatures with blindness effect would both have disadvantage against each other.... alertness feat only helps against hidden creatures trying to gain sneak attack. ... and if 1 creature that is blind from say darkness spell goes against another with blind sight then the one that is blind has disadvantage while the one that can see would have advantage

Thats the way I run it too, but it's not RAW.

By RAW, in darkness you gain the blinded condition (barring the ability to see in the darkness of course). This grants disadvantage on attack rolls you make, and grants advantage on any attack rolls against you.

So when two creatures attack each other in darkness (where neither can see the other) the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, and you get normal attack rolls made by both parties.

Personally I rule it as you mention above; I would instead grant them both disadvantage to hit and call it a day.

By my reasoning you only get advantage to attack someone who is blinded as you can take advantage of the fact they cant defend themselves. The advantage to attack them relies on your ability to see them. If you cant see them unable to defend themselves, you lose that advantage.

Plus, it just suits my sensibilities to have peeps fighting blind doing so with disadvantage, even if all of them are blinded.

[MaxWilson]

By my reasoning you only get advantage to attack someone who is blinded as you can take advantage of the fact they cant defend themselves. The advantage to attack them relies on your ability to see them. If you cant see them unable to defend themselves, you lose that advantage.

I find this logic appealing, and for a long time I was planning on using it... but when the situation actually came up in play I discovered that my players really wanted the advantage and disadvantage to cancel out. Specifically, the monk's player was arguing that he shouldn't be at disadvantage because his target couldn't see him either to defend. I don't have strong feelings either way, so I just shrugged and went by RAW instead.

The root of the problem is that advantage is binary. By RAW, when you're shooting at enemies at long range (500' away), casting Darkness actually improves your aim. That's bonkers. By the variant rule ("when you're blinded, attackers who can see you have advantage on attacks against you") that can't happen. But you could also solve it by changing the way advantage and disadvantage combine: ruling that double disadvantage + advantage = advantage, instead of nothing.

[DemonSlayer6]

Being blinded you have to guess the right squares to target, because you know, you can't see them. So that's a potential problem.

Hence AoE and other "saving throw"-based spells. Particularly with a range or origin of "Self".

[Malifice]

Being blinded you have to guess the right squares to target, because you know, you can't see them. So that's a potential problem.

Possibly. Not always. And only if squares are in play and it's not ToTM in any event.