Devil's Sight/Darkness warlock build. Worth it?

[Willie the Duck]

So Devil's sight lets you see in regular or magical darkness. Warlocks (and tieflings, which are reasonable choices for warlocks) can cast darkness. There's a natural temptation to want to use this confluence of abilities to level some serious devastation upon one's enemies. There are a bunch of limitatations:

The rest of your group likely can't see in this darkness
It's going to be limited (twice/SR for warlock, once/LR for tiefling)
Opportunity costs (any level you spend getting these abilities is levels you don't spend being a rogue and capitalizing on the combat advantage, feats like sharpshooter or GWM that likewise capitalize on it are harder to justify in MAD-heavy builds)

So is it worth it? If so, anyone have any builds they've used it with?

It seems so good on paper, I just have to assume it's not really worth it, or people would be bringing it up left and right.

[JellyPooga]

It's a cool ability and powerful, but the biggest problem with it is that if you overuse it, your GM will probably clamp down on it by throwing his own Warlocks with the same Invocation, Devils and other creatures that don't rely on sight at you.

It also has the problem of turning combats into "easy mode", somewhat; if it's not a challenge, it's not fun. Spamming out the same tired combo every fight will get boring.

Finally; it's pretty much only useful in combat. It's pretty useless for scouting, because a large area of magical darkness rarely goes unnoticed as a threat.

I'm not saying don't go for it; just be careful not to make it your go-to tactic; be sure to mix it up a little.

[Socratov]

It's a cool ability and powerful, but the biggest problem with it is that if you overuse it, your GM will probably clamp down on it by throwing his own Warlocks with the same Invocation, Devils and other creatures that don't rely on sight at you.

It also has the problem of turning combats into "easy mode", somewhat; if it's not a challenge, it's not fun. Spamming out the same tired combo every fight will get boring.

Finally; it's pretty much only useful in combat. It's pretty useless for scouting, because a large area of magical darkness rarely goes unnoticed as a threat.

I'm not saying don't go for it; just be careful not to make it your go-to tactic; be sure to mix it up a little.

Plus it pretty much invalidates your party (unless they are also devil sight warlocks) as they can't see in the dark as well.

[Toadkiller]

There's also the team sport aspect. It can end up not giving the rest of the party much to do. "I stand in the dark and listen to the scary noises."

[Willie the Duck]

Ok, that was mentioned in the original post. Anything else to say about it?

[Addaran]

Especially with a race without darkvision, devil's sight is worth it. Darkness (and later hunger of hadar) are good spells to have.

Don't go with it just for the combo, but it's usefull to have in your bag of tricks. Using it on the enemy, negating your friends will be annoying. But if the enemies are split (ranged/melee or different squad) you can tie one up, then blast them freely. With repelling blast, it will last even longer.

Another trick is to cast darkness on a rock and pocket it after your round of advantage attacks. This way, you'll give disadvantage only half the time (object interaction constraint) instead of all the times to your allies.

Other times, like an enemy wizard fond of sight spell or a beholder, darkness will be amazing and well worth the disadvantage to your friends.

Darkness is also great for covering an escape if the battle is going badly. You could stay a round or two behind, still shooting at them until they escape the darkness.



The most problematic way of using the combo is often mentionned as awesome. With a bladelock in melee, darkness on the weapon. You always have advantage, but since you're in melee with the enemy, your friends are stuck with disadvantage all fight long...

[Willie the Duck]

Don't go with it just for the combo, but it's usefull to have in your bag of tricks. Using it on the enemy, negating your friends will be annoying. But if the enemies are split (ranged/melee or different squad) you can tie one up, then blast them freely. With repelling blast, it will last even longer.

So if you have to say, "you guys take care of these guys, I've got that group of archers over there," and go drop darkness on them and then chew them up. That's when you'd use it?

The question is, is it worth it? Especially:

worth it as a warlock as opposed to whatever a warlock would otherwise do, and
worth it to add to a take-advantage-of-advantage build (say GWM, sharpshooter, or rogue)


?

[MrStabby]

It depends on how good your DM is.

If it is just an "I Win" button then it is dull. Does your DM tend to run bland fight to the death in a 40ft by 40ft room type encounters? If so, don't use it. If your DM plays enemies smart then it gets more interesting.

Where enemies can retreat, regroup, dispell, cast daylight spells, use effects like grapples that use skill checks or saves rather than attack rolls, distractions to break concentration and so on it becomes a very interesting spell for making a lot of encounters very tactical.

Its worth noting that for melee anyway, it often doesnt have a huge effect on your party. Advantage as enemy cant see cancels disadvantage for not seeing.

[Talionis]

The individual parts of the combo are worth it.

Ebon Eyes or seeing in magical darkness and regular darkness has high value, especially for a race that can't already see in darkness. Warlocks also make pretty good scouts and being able to see without a torch is invaluable.

The spell darkness is individually strong as a way to block views as you escape. It can also be used to help hide an entire party at night. The greater the distance the harder it is to distinguish magical darkness from regular darkness.

Once you have the combo, you can't/shouldn't use it all the time, but it can be powerful. Also very much depends on the rest of your build. If you have Rogue Multiclassing then thief fast hands can allow you to hide the darkness in your pocket as a bonus action and the darkness helps you to hit reliably and get advantage to reliably add Sneak Attack damage.

In general it's strong and worth having but setting expectations that it's a strong combo, but can't /shouldn't be your go to only plan for fighting. You don't have infinite spells known or spell slots, so just be smart about your other spell selection.

But you can always trade out Spells and Invocations as you level so I'd say try it and trade it off if you don't like it.

[CursedRhubarb]

I use it on a GOO Tomelock but I try to be creative with it and not to hurt my team by blinding everyone. So far I've used it to:

-Shut down and pick off ranged enemy mobs while the rest of the party focuses the BBEG of the day.
-blind an undead beholder that the barbarian and I got trapped in a room with (yay for traps splitting the party *grumble*)
-diverted panicked townspeople, by dropping it and yelling "Drow ambush, run!"
-convinced townspeople a possessed child had teleportation powers by covering him, the barbarian, and I. Then punching the barbarian to bloody his nose, Scorching the ground with prestidigitation, and stuffing the kid in a bag of Holding before falling over and pretending to be unconscious as I let the Darkness fade away. (He was evil so had it coming. Besides, DM had plans for him so he kept him alive by having the evil child not need to breathe and sucked nourishment from the ghoul that was stuffed in there before to survive for a few weeks.)

[gfishfunk]

So if you have to say, "you guys take care of these guys, I've got that group of archers over there," and go drop darkness on them and then chew them up. That's when you'd use it?

The question is, is it worth it? Especially:

worth it as a warlock as opposed to whatever a warlock would otherwise do, and
worth it to add to a take-advantage-of-advantage build (say GWM, sharpshooter, or rogue)


?

There are many creative uses:

1. Escapes: you can hit magical darkness on the area around the door and the enemy has trouble locating it, or on an area that you did not go through to completely distract pursuit.
2. Ranged Protection: If your Warlock is set apart, it really just helps you get advantage on Eldritch Blast as YOU are in darkness; if enemies approach, they also get lost in the darkness. Your team operates normally.
3. Lure: You begin combat by dropping Darkness around the corner while your team is on the opposite side of the room (outdoors this works well) and then pull aggro: start shooting things. It draws some enemies into the darkness. Then, your team flanks. Its a diversionary tactic. You can even get to the edge of darkness and burn Misty Step to rejoin your team while the enemies are frantically searching the darkness.
4. Hide-a-Hazard: Drop darkness over a hazard and then lure enemies in. They fall down the pit! Or hit the trap!
5. Jar of darkness: purchase some breakable but non-see-through jars. Cast Darkness on a rock inside the jar. Throw the jar to create a surprise Darkness spell popping up somewhere. This is especially effective if you can throw the jar without it being seen.

As a one-trick pony, it does get old. If you have time to set something up, it can be pretty interesting or fun.

EDIT: I should add that I use it as a Bladelock that lures enemies into darkness most often.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I used Darkness in combination with Blink. This would mitigate the effects of Darkness on others during rounds in which my character disappeared (about 50% of the combat) while giving me the benefits of it when I reappeared on my turn. Unfortunately, I don't know of an easy way to improve on the 50% chances for Blink to work; even the Luck feat specifies attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws, which doesn't include the dice roll for the Blink spell. So half the time your group will still have to cope with your Darkness spell.

Still, I got some good use out of that combo.

[RulesJD]

Is it worth it in actual gameplay?

Short answer, no

Long answer, nooooooooooooooooooooooooo


It is too inhibitive of your own party. Storm Kings Thunder is about the only published campaign I've seen where the areas are big enough to not interfere with your own party.

But other than that, it's a huge impeditive for really not much in return.

[Demonslayer666]

I play a Warlock with Devil's Sight and Darkness. I frequently get to use the combo without impeding my party at all. I usually cast it on my dagger so it moves with me and use it as a shield for me (or if any of my party needs it). Sometimes I don't get to use it, because I won't screw them over. Most of the time it works out great. When I can't use it, I combo Eldritch Blast with Hex.

I rarely cast it on a group of bad guys, they can just walk out of it.

Is it worth it? You bet. Advantage on your attacks and disadvantage on theirs (if they can figure out where you are) is a great boon.

[Addaran]

So if you have to say, "you guys take care of these guys, I've got that group of archers over there," and go drop darkness on them and then chew them up. That's when you'd use it?

The question is, is it worth it? Especially:

1)worth it as a warlock as opposed to whatever a warlock would otherwise do, and
2)worth it to add to a take-advantage-of-advantage build (say GWM, sharpshooter, or rogue)


?

1) Probably, especialy if you aren't fiend (fireball). Doing shatter probably won't kill all the mooks in one shot, but darkness will make them non-dangerous and you can kill one per turn with your EB. At higher level, you can use hunger of hadar.
2) Ranged weapons won't be as good as EB. For melee or rogue though, it could be worth it. (might have to do the math for bow+sneak attack vs EB)

[Yagyujubei]

RAW you arent gimping your party too much by using the GoD because while they would have disadvantage on all attacks because they cant see their target, they also get advantage on attacks against targets that cant see them so it evens out to normal rolls.

Granted they have to kinda know where their target it to begin with, but if your party is gonna whine about it just have someone throw down faerie fire first then it isn't a problem.

As someone who has played a character who used this trick I have to say it's effective, fun, and makes you feel like a total badass if you use it sparingly as a kind of trump card.

[Addaran]

Granted they have to kinda know where their target it to begin with, but if your party is gonna whine about it just have someone throw down faerie fire first then it isn't a problem.


Won't work. RAW, two advantages vs 1 disadvantage is still a normal roll. As soon as you have one advantage and one disadvantage, further dis/advantages don't matter.

[Yagyujubei]

Won't work. RAW, two advantages vs 1 disadvantage is still a normal roll. As soon as you have one advantage and one disadvantage, further dis/advantages don't matter.

where is the disadvantage coming from?

[MintyNinja]

I'm a Fighter 2 / Bladelock 5 with Devil's Sight and I've used this combination to great effect. The major problem, as everyone else is saying, is that it invalidates my party. Especially since I don't have the spell myself and I rely on one of them to cast it on me, taking up their Concentration slot. It's also useful for tactical retreats and regroupings, though. Or if we're getting ourselves beat up pretty bad in combat, it's a good equalizer: Send in the heavily armored guy with the big sword against the blinded people while we drink healing potions and pass around some healing.

And, as people are saying, it depends on your DM. At one point we were fighting a pack of hired mercenaries and when the darkness consumed them they held their ground and took the Dodge action, trying to not hit each other. That mitigated my Advantage and it was a good stalling tactic for them without feeling like the DM was trying to turn off our spell.

[Tanarii]

Before you decide if it's worth it, best to make clear how your DM rules the Darkness spell. Is it just darkness that (potentially) snuffs out light in the area of the spell? Or does it actively block viewing through the area?

IiRC RAW appears to be the former. Certainly enough people have argued in the past that's RAW. But of course, anyone that's played D&D from a previous edition will almost certainly assume it works by actively blocking vision through the area.

[Willie the Duck]

where is the disadvantage coming from?

I think the implication is that it is the darkness.
Blind: disadvantage
Blind foe: advantage
Faerie fire: advantage
Advantage + disadvantage + advantage = same as advantage + disadvantage.

I think you were thinking that the faerie fire illuminates the allies' targets, negating the Darkness. This would be true, but Faerie Fire is a 1st level spell, and Darkness dispels it if they overlap.

[BW022]

...

There are a bunch of limitatations:
...


I'll add...

* Most creatures can just move out of it or flee the area.
* In cases, where creatures can't easily move out of it... it is typically nerfing the party -- since the area is too small for you do cast it away from your party.
* Combined with party nerf... it greatly slows combat. Like fog cloud and such, everyone else is missing and missing and missing round after round. A creature which has 100hp and normally takes 20 minutes for the party to take down, now takes a hour or more of virtually only you.
* It is a hassle to deal with. If it is on you or someone else, it moves (causing redraws of its area on the battlemap all the time), it raises rules issues with say targeting spells, etc.
etc.



So is it worth it? If so, anyone have any builds they've used it with?

It seems so good on paper, I just have to assume it's not really worth it, or people would be bringing it up left and right.

I would never 'build' around it simply as you don't want to cast it in a party. The only exception would be a lot of warlocks or those with blind sense in the party.

It is similar to fog cloud, sleet storm, and other nerfing abilities. In most cases, casting this with a party is not worth it. It will make the players angry, it often doesn't help that much (the creatures would just flee, move out, etc.) and even if it help you (getting advantage), it tends to double or triple the length of combats (i.e. everyone missing round after round), and it gets into a lot of rules arguments.

That said... it isn't a bad spell for other purposes. It is one spell, yet it is useful for scouting, if the party is losing allowing escape or delays for healing, if you are solo, negating enemies for a couple of rounds in extremely large fights, etc. I would say it is Ok as maybe your second 2nd-level spell known. Even at high levels it is pretty useful. I just wouldn't plan on it being something which you will be using in combat in order to gain any type of advantage.

[Yagyujubei]

I think the implication is that it is the darkness.
Blind: disadvantage
Blind foe: advantage
Faerie fire: advantage
Advantage + disadvantage + advantage = same as advantage + disadvantage.

I think you were thinking that the faerie fire illuminates the allies' targets, negating the Darkness. This would be true, but Faerie Fire is a 1st level spell, and Darkness dispels it if they overlap.

huh...i guess im thinking of FG novels but im almost certain ive read that faerie fire still lines targets even in magical darkness

[nilshai]

I think the combo is annoying (for the warlock). I don't like to have to use an action just to get going and i don't like being pushed into doing the same all the time, warlock already got enough of that. I dislike Hex for the same reason. You get only two Spell Slots and having at least one already spoken for sucks.

If you do 2-3 levels of warlock, those levels are a big investment, which forces you into using the combo always.
Also, if you always use this combo, you will slow combat down. Instead of having everyone doing their one thing per round, you will have perception checks left and right, people trying to hide, people trying random squares to find hidden enemies, double rolls for disadvantage, more misses (meaning less damage per round overall).
And then the dm got more work to create challenging encounters and might have to use one-hit-killers with higher CR to keep the average damage up.
All in all, not worth it.

That said, if you go full warlock and Devil's Sight is just one invocation and Darkness is just another spell known, there is no problem with it. You can use it once in a while, when it's purely beneficial.

[CursedRhubarb]

huh...i guess im thinking of FG novels but im almost certain ive read that faerie fire still lines targets even in magical darkness

If FF is cast with a lvl 3 slot it would still outline. Darkness will dispell or cover any magic light of 2nd lvl or lower. But they would also be shining dim light in a 10ft radius so they might be able to see your party and avoid attacking with disadvantage in the darkness. Plus FF lights up everything within the 20ft cube so might hit allies or yourself with it too. Along with any bugs, walls, floors, furniture....It could pretty much make your Darkness useless if cast high enough to be visible in it.

[Ravinsild]

Based on all of this I assume the Warlock Dip in the Shadow Ninja build is actually not as optimized as its cracked up to be? The whole Darkness with Ki + Devil's Sight + Shadow Teleport Sneak Attack shenanigans is actually terrible for your party in general?

[gfishfunk]

Based on all of this I assume the Warlock Dip in the Shadow Ninja build is actually not as optimized as its cracked up to be? The whole Darkness with Ki + Devil's Sight + Shadow Teleport Sneak Attack shenanigans is actually terrible for your party in general?

True: it works well in a vacuum. That is, when you are fighting inside of a giant vacuum.

[Ravinsild]

True: it works well in a vacuum. That is, when you are fighting inside of a giant vacuum.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shadow_Ninja_(5e_Optimized_Build)

So this is not as optimized as the title would suggest? :( Maybe drop the Warlock levels replace with more Monk or Rogue stuff then yes?

[Spiritchaser]

I think it's very powerful and useful. Most of the time, opponents won't advance on a single front, and many types of attacks can be made by the party despite darkness.

That said, it won't always make sense... Just like just about anything else

[Socratov]

Before you decide if it's worth it, best to make clear how your DM rules the Darkness spell. Is it just darkness that (potentially) snuffs out light in the area of the spell? Or does it actively block viewing through the area?

IiRC RAW appears to be the former. Certainly enough people have argued in the past that's RAW. But of course, anyone that's played D&D from a previous edition will almost certainly assume it works by actively blocking vision through the area.

I thought raw leaned the latter? I mean, the spell does mention that it blocks regular darkvision and Devil Sight mentions that is specifically pierces magical darkness (which is why the tactic works only for warlock).

[Tanarii]

I thought raw leaned the latter? I mean, the spell does mention that it blocks regular darkvision and Devil Sight mentions that is specifically pierces magical darkness (which is why the tactic works only for warlock).
But nothing says that it 'blocks' regular vision. And darkness doesn't do that. It just prevents you from seeing what's actually in the darkness.

[Willie the Duck]

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shadow_Ninja_(5e_Optimized_Build)

So this is not as optimized as the title would suggest? :( Maybe drop the Warlock levels replace with more Monk or Rogue stuff then yes?

I've found that material on dandwiki lean towards the logic of, "here is a build that optimally accomplishes X. Whether X is a good idea is immaterial."

[gfishfunk]

The build works well solo but tends to not work so well in a group of other PCs that keep saying 'excuse me, I cannot see.'

As for dropping Warlock for those levels - sure.

That build has a lot going for it from a pure damage perspective: Hex + Martial Arts extra attacks + sneak attack on your first one/two attacks with a weapon, etc., and then using Darkness to get advantage to do massive amounts of critical hit damage. In a solo, run the numbers scenario that is pretty impressive.

You can achieve a similar (though less pure damage dealing) result just by taking any two features, though. Like Monk + Magic Initiate to get Hex. Its a once a day massive damage boost -- but you really only need to bust it out on the really big fights anyway. And this lets you do what monks do really well on top of that.

Alternatively, you could run a Rogue / Champion Fighter to get an increased critical chance, take Hex through Magic initiate, use Hide as a bonus action on a prior turn, and then spike damage + Hex + Sneak Attack + Increased Critical, bonus action a second attack to double the chances. That lets you do some spiked damage and everything a fighter or rogue does really well on top of that.

Bottom line: if you make a damage machine, chances are it will only work on certain circumstances and otherwise play boring. It will likely make the game boring for you and for other players. You can, however, achieve something substantially similar but less 'optimized' and get a lot more out of all situations.

[Ravinsild]

I've found that material on dandwiki lean towards the logic of, "here is a build that optimally accomplishes X. Whether X is a good idea is immaterial."

Oh, well on the other hand that is sort of my "thing". Specializing in things that aren't neccessarily the best idea. Like Pyromancer (Only fire spells) or "Super Ninja Assassin" regardless of whether it's flexible in other situation or not and "Small Creature Animal Companion Calvary" like a Goblin on a Wolf whether that's the best way to build a Ranger or not.

So I guess DandD wiki is good for someone like me

Edit: As for "Monk Martial Arts" when I read the PHB you can use a "Monk Weapon" to invoke "Monk Martial Arts", it isn't simply unarmed strikes. So by RAW a Shortsword (A weapon a Monk is proficient with) and all simple weapons (*cough*dagger*cough*) are Monk Martial Arts weapons which qualify for Monk Martial Arts. In addition they are also Light/Finesse weapons which count toward Sneak Attack (Shortsword, Dagger). So why does everyone make a huge deal about this whole "You can't use Sneak Attack with Unarmed Strikes" thing when you can just use a dagger or a short sword and it still scales with Monk Martial Arts? I mean it literally calls out "Shortsword" in the passage below which 100% qualifies for Rogue Sneak Attack:


Martial Arts

At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two- handed or heavy property.

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:

You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.

Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon.

Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.

Shortsword
Attributes Properties Finesse, Light
Weight 2
Damage Type Piercing
Item Type Melee Weapon
Damage 1d6

[Willie the Duck]

Oh, well on the other hand that is sort of my "thing". Specializing in things that aren't neccessarily the best idea. Like Pyromancer (Only fire spells) or "Super Ninja Assassin" regardless of whether it's flexible in other situation or not and "Small Creature Animal Companion Calvary" like a Goblin on a Wolf whether that's the best way to build a Ranger or not.

So I guess DandD wiki is good for someone like me


Well, I was going to say that there's a qualitative difference between playing "fun before effective" builds and "pisses off the rest of the group," but then I saw you mention pyromancers. :smalltongue:

[Ravinsild]

Well, I was going to say that there's a qualitative difference between playing "fun before effective" builds and "pisses off the rest of the group," but then I saw you mention pyromancers. :smalltongue:

Are Pyromancers typically problematic? To me a Wizard or Sorcerer using stuff like Suggestion or Sleep or something that ends a combat in 1 go is less fun than letting everyone get a turn to kill a thing, but I'm also fight or flight: Fight sort of player as opposed to whatever is the most optimum.

Do most people in general in D&D dislike Pyromancers? Or do they just really like spell-casters that can 1 shot an encounter with a super strong spell? I may be confused by what you said o.o

Or are we talking about stuff like the Darkness+Devil Sight combo that the thread is about being a "niche" build that also pisses off the rest of your party?

[lonewulf]

If most of your levels will be in Warlock then you'd be crazy not to pick up the combo, but you would be detrimental to your groups gaming experience if you abused it (unless the whole group are devil sighted Warlocks too)...but to have it in case of emergencies? Its a fantastic tool to have and can possible save your groups (characters) lives.

If only taking a few levels id still pack it just because they are both useful in many ways. Any race without darkvision LOVES devil's sight and Darkness has tons of uses.

[Willie the Duck]

Are Pyromancers typically problematic?

Perhaps more in reputation than in gaming reality. Having to outrun a forest fire you started, blowing up your allies, burning down the town (and being chased by an angry mob) are all beloved tropes that me and my group seem to take for granted.


Or are we talking about stuff like the Darkness+Devil Sight combo that the thread is about being a "niche" build that also pisses off the rest of your party?

Well, originally my question was effectively, "what's wrong with this that I rarely seen it brought up?" and the general response was somewhat along the lines of "you just shut out the lights for your party as well, it is only good for when you go out on your own."

[Ravinsild]

Perhaps more in reputation than in gaming reality. Having to outrun a forest fire you started, blowing up your allies, burning down the town (and being chased by an angry mob) are all beloved tropes that me and my group seem to take for granted.



Well, originally my question was effectively, "what's wrong with this that I rarely seen it brought up?" and the general response was somewhat along the lines of "you just shut out the lights for your party as well, it is only good for when you go out on your own."

Oh. I just assumed a Pyromancer would be mindful and choose appropriate spells not to friendly fire or destroy everything around them. Like single target only in tight clusters. In addition to like very focused fire in a forest like the Firebolt cantrip or Scorching Ray which is very targeted instead of "I CAST FIRE STORM IN THE FOREST LEL".

No? IDK

[Willie the Duck]

Oh. I just assumed a Pyromancer would be mindful and choose appropriate spells not to friendly fire or destroy everything around them. Like single target only in tight clusters. In addition to like very focused fire in a forest like the Firebolt cantrip or Scorching Ray which is very targeted instead of "I CAST FIRE STORM IN THE FOREST LEL".

No? IDK

Not familiar with Irregular Webcomics (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/fantasy.html), huh?

[Mirakk]

Paired this with a Goblin Way of the Shadow Monk. Dipped 4 levels of warlock. It really added a lot to the build, honestly. I have the flexibility of creating a moving pocket of silence or darkness via my Imp Familiar to help lock down enemies on the fringes of the battle. That movable darkness pairs great with Shadow Step as well for greater mobility. I picked up Sentinel to help pin down those stragglers and pummel them. Character is built for scouting, and being able to communicate through my familiar helps a lot.

Bonus cool points for Faerie Fire, Mirror Image and Shatter added to my bag of tricks. They're all quite handy to have.

[RulesJD]

Paired this with a Goblin Way of the Shadow Monk. Dipped 4 levels of warlock. It really added a lot to the build, honestly. I have the flexibility of creating a moving pocket of silence or darkness via my Imp Familiar to help lock down enemies on the fringes of the battle. That movable darkness pairs great with Shadow Step as well for greater mobility. I picked up Sentinel to help pin down those stragglers and pummel them. Character is built for scouting, and being able to communicate through my familiar helps a lot.

Bonus cool points for Faerie Fire, Mirror Image and Shatter added to my bag of tricks. They're all quite handy to have.

Silence spell can't move.

[Yagyujubei]

Based on all of this I assume the Warlock Dip in the Shadow Ninja build is actually not as optimized as its cracked up to be? The whole Darkness with Ki + Devil's Sight + Shadow Teleport Sneak Attack shenanigans is actually terrible for your party in general?

it totally still works well. you just have to work out with your party ways to deal with it. This is all DM dependant, but say you have ranged attackers who cant see into the globe of darkness, at the end of your turn use a free action to toss a rock up out of the globe above where an enemy is so they know where to aim. Cast darkness on yourself, run in to do all your fighting, and then shadow step back to your backline attackers and give them amazing cover from which they can step out, attack, and step back into. in a bossfight situation have your team focus on the main baddie while you flit around the battlefield moving down his fodder while being basically invincible.

people are talking about how many problems this causes....but it's pretty rare in DnD for a battle to take place with all the enemies and/or party members in a 15 foot sphere. Clever positioning and the insane mobility that comes from mnk bonuses + shadow step make it very possible to enjoy the benefits of this combo without gimping your party too much.

[Ravinsild]

it totally still works well. you just have to work out with your party ways to deal with it. This is all DM dependant, but say you have ranged attackers who cant see into the globe of darkness, at the end of your turn use a free action to toss a rock up out of the globe above where an enemy is so they know where to aim. Cast darkness on yourself, run in to do all your fighting, and then shadow step back to your backline attackers and give them amazing cover from which they can step out, attack, and step back into. in a bossfight situation have your team focus on the main baddie while you flit around the battlefield moving down his fodder while being basically invincible.

people are talking about how many problems this causes....but it's pretty rare in DnD for a battle to take place with all the enemies and/or party members in a 15 foot sphere. Clever positioning and the insane mobility that comes from mnk bonuses + shadow step make it very possible to enjoy the benefits of this combo without gimping your party too much.

Thank you Jubei! You have restored my hope! :D

[RulesJD]

it totally still works well. you just have to work out with your party ways to deal with it. This is all DM dependant, but say you have ranged attackers who cant see into the globe of darkness, at the end of your turn use a free action to toss a rock up out of the globe above where an enemy is so they know where to aim. Cast darkness on yourself, run in to do all your fighting, and then shadow step back to your backline attackers and give them amazing cover from which they can step out, attack, and step back into. in a bossfight situation have your team focus on the main baddie while you flit around the battlefield moving down his fodder while being basically invincible.

people are talking about how many problems this causes....but it's pretty rare in DnD for a battle to take place with all the enemies and/or party members in a 15 foot sphere. Clever positioning and the insane mobility that comes from mnk bonuses + shadow step make it very possible to enjoy the benefits of this combo without gimping your party too much.

It's a 30ft diameter sphere, which is pretty big. Especially anywhere that is indoors.

[Douche]

Plus it pretty much invalidates your party (unless they are also devil sight warlocks) as they can't see in the dark as well.

Not true! You can still throw AoE abilities in there.

Just last week I ran headfirst into the warlocks pool of Darkness with spirit guardians up. It was great!


Question, while we're on the subject.... My group has a very idiotic interpretation of Darkness (and fog cloud, any visual obscurement really). The DM rules that, since you can't see into the darkness, you have disadvantage on the attack roll (presuming you can still ascertain where to shoot via sound) which sounds about right to me... But, since you're an unseen attacker, you also have advantage on the roll. Thus, it's just a regular attack roll. advantage & disadvantage cancel each other out.

Outside of spells that require you to see your target, that essentially makes Darkness do nothing in combat. Is that really how it's supposed to function, or is there something funky going on there?

[Yagyujubei]

Thank you Jubei! You have restored my hope! :D

so it looks like I was wrong on the size of the sphere, but thats because my group homerules alot of stuff, and when i asked about being able to decide the sphere size when i cast it he decided that seemed logical. See if your DM will also let you cast a sphere of UP TO 15 foot radius, because if you can make it that big why would you not be able to make it smaller?

another fun little trick you can try is to tie a long length of rope with a rock ties to the other end to your wrist and then coil it around your arm until you need it in battle. Then you can cast darkness on the rock that's tied at the end of the rope and have the ability to move the globe around however you want once per turn for free by jerking the rope around which is a cool thing to do.

there are a ton of interesting and creative ways to increase to effectiveness of this combo if you just think about it for a bit and talk it out with your DM. hopefully if he isn't a jerk you can vastly improve the effectiveness of the trick/build.

Another fun thing to ask your DM is to allow you to take up to one person with you when you shadow step as long as you're touching, and allow you to take someone against their will while grappled if they fail an ability contest of some kind. That way you can grapple someone and teleport into the air with them and suplex them from 60 feet above the ground, or grab someone who is up in the faces of your backline and teleport away to a safe distance with them. It's not really overpowered in my opinion but it makes for a ton of interesting possibilities an feels crazy cool when you do it.

also @Douche: Yeah RAW darkness would do nothing to combat for anyone who doesn't have devil's sight because the advantage and disadvantage would cancel out. one of the DMs i played with had serious problems with this as well.

[Ravinsild]

so it looks like I was wrong on the size of the sphere, but thats because my group homerules alot of stuff, and when i asked about being able to decide the sphere size when i cast it he decided that seemed logical. See if your DM will also let you cast a sphere of UP TO 15 foot radius, because if you can make it that big why would you not be able to make it smaller?

another fun little trick you can try is to tie a long length of rope with a rock ties to the other end to your wrist and then coil it around your arm until you need it in battle. Then you can cast darkness on the rock that's tied at the end of the rope and have the ability to move the globe around however you want once per turn for free by jerking the rope around which is a cool thing to do.

there are a ton of interesting and creative ways to increase to effectiveness of this combo if you just think about it for a bit and talk it out with your DM. hopefully if he isn't a jerk you can vastly improve the effectiveness of the trick/build.

Another fun thing to ask your DM is to allow you to take up to one person with you when you shadow step as long as you're touching, and allow you to take someone against their will while grappled if they fail an ability contest of some kind. That way you can grapple someone and teleport into the air with them and suplex them from 60 feet above the ground, or grab someone who is up in the faces of your backline and teleport away to a safe distance with them. It's not really overpowered in my opinion but it makes for a ton of interesting possibilities an feels crazy cool when you do it.

also @Douche: Yeah RAW darkness would do nothing to combat for anyone who doesn't have devil's sight because the advantage and disadvantage would cancel out. one of the DMs i played with had serious problems with this as well.

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius sphere for the duration.

It's possible they didn't know Radius meant like from the center to the outer perimeter which equals a 15 foot long spread in every direction. So up, down, left, right, back to back, side to side and everywhere else for 15 feet from the center point....which would be 30 feet all the way around. or..yeah just homebrew stuff.

[Digimike]

You could simply use the silent image spell to replicate a zone of magical darkness, clue your party into it so they're not at disadvantage, and have the same effect.

To see through the illusion the enemies would need to interact with it, but creating a zone of no light leaves nothing to interact with. There's little to clue in an enemy that the effect is not real.

An arcana check may clue in an enemy caster but this should work most of the time. Plus an enemy caster would likely dispel real darkness anyway.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If most of your levels will be in Warlock then you'd be crazy not to pick up the combo, but you would be detrimental to your groups gaming experience if you abused it (unless the whole group are devil sighted Warlocks too)...but to have it in case of emergencies? Its a fantastic tool to have and can possible save your groups (characters) lives.

If only taking a few levels id still pack it just because they are both useful in many ways. Any race without darkvision LOVES devil's sight and Darkness has tons of uses.

This is partly dependent on which pact your Warlock takes. The last FeyLock I played used the Darkness/Devil's Sight combo for a while, but at 7th level he got the Improved Invisibility spell, which provides the same benefits. In most cases, he could see his enemies, and they couldn't see him. Devil's Sight and Darkness were still useful on occasion, but not nearly as often.

[Crusher]

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shadow_Ninja_(5e_Optimized_Build)

So this is not as optimized as the title would suggest? :( Maybe drop the Warlock levels replace with more Monk or Rogue stuff then yes?

The problem with saying that any particular build is "optimized" is the question: "Its optimized for what purpose?" You can't just say "Stealth" for example, because its not specific enough. Being optimized for Scouting is very different from being optimized for Surprise Attacking which is different from being good at Escaping Enemies.

On top of that is the question of "Optimized at what level?" Different classes get abilities at different points, and while multiclassing can bring in some neat abilities, it also pushes back when you get some other abilities. If that's something really important, it can really hold you back until you get there. I'm playing in a campaign where we're all level 8 and there's a Warlock/Paladin who's 4/4 and really regrets how he put his character together. Getting that second attack is a *huge* power boost and while the Barbarian got it at level 5, he's not getting it until level 9. His planned build has plenty of power at certain points, and he's had fun RPing it, but his combat power has definitely felt gimped from 5-8.

A build that's amazing at level 20 might be terrible from level 3 to 14, because optimization at 20 requires the build to happen in a particular order that back-loads when you get key abilities. Which would make it pretty terrible for a normal campaign, because most folks spend WAY more time playing level 3-14 than they would at level 20 (if the campaign even makes it that far).

[Giant2005]

Lots of people have made claims about gimping your party, but that simply isn't true.
Unless the enemies take the hide action, you know where they are whether you can see them or not. Your allies can also attack them without penalty because their disadvantage on attacks for being blind is countered by the enemy giving them advantage on attacks by also being blind. Your allies are usually perfectly okay in your Darkness.

Still, in my experience it doesn't work out too well anyway. If you use Darkness too often, all of your enemies start inexplicably having Devil's Sight themselves.

[Ravinsild]

The problem with saying that any particular build is "optimized" is the question: "Its optimized for what purpose?" You can't just say "Stealth" for example, because its not specific enough. Being optimized for Scouting is very different from being optimized for Surprise Attacking which is different from being good at Escaping Enemies.

On top of that is the question of "Optimized at what level?" Different classes get abilities at different points, and while multiclassing can bring in some neat abilities, it also pushes back when you get some other abilities. If that's something really important, it can really hold you back until you get there. I'm playing in a campaign where we're all level 8 and there's a Warlock/Paladin who's 4/4 and really regrets how he put his character together. Getting that second attack is a *huge* power boost and while the Barbarian got it at level 5, he's not getting it until level 9. His planned build has plenty of power at certain points, and he's had fun RPing it, but his combat power has definitely felt gimped from 5-8.

A build that's amazing at level 20 might be terrible from level 3 to 14, because optimization at 20 requires the build to happen in a particular order that back-loads when you get key abilities. Which would make it pretty terrible for a normal campaign, because most folks spend WAY more time playing level 3-14 than they would at level 20 (if the campaign even makes it that far).

I assumed it was optimized for using Shadow Step to get in melee range of people and do a murder on them very quickly and efficiently...? I thought it was supposed to be a ninja assassin that does the things ninja assassins do in movies like climb over walls with grappling hooks and sneakily infiltrate the important guy's house then kill him in 1 go and slip away into the night sort of fantasy.

[Socratov]

Lots of people have made claims about gimping your party, but that simply isn't true.
Unless the enemies take the hide action, you know where they are whether you can see them or not. Your allies can also attack them without penalty because their disadvantage on attacks for being blind is countered by the enemy giving them advantage on attacks by also being blind. Your allies are usually perfectly okay in your Darkness.

Still, in my experience it doesn't work out too well anyway. If you use Darkness too often, all of your enemies start inexplicably having Devil's Sight themselves.

Except that non-AOE spells need a visible target to cast them (AOe risks hitting your warlcok buddy). Besides that if the enemy is in a cloud of darkness (as in accompaanied by the warlock in melee) they too are obscured by darkness. This means that even though you can locate them (which is what allows you to attack them in the first place) you are still attacking with disadvantage. So, yes, you are gimping your party by keeping the enemy in the darkness.

[Giant2005]

Except that non-AOE spells need a visible target to cast them (AOe risks hitting your warlcok buddy). Besides that if the enemy is in a cloud of darkness (as in accompaanied by the warlock in melee) they too are obscured by darkness. This means that even though you can locate them (which is what allows you to attack them in the first place) you are still attacking with disadvantage. So, yes, you are gimping your party by keeping the enemy in the darkness.

Fair point on the spells requiring a visible target.
But as I said, you are not attacking with disadvantage. You are blind, which gives you disadvantage on your attacks, but your enemy is blind too, which gives anyone attacking him advantage on their attacks. The advantage + disadvantage cancel each other out and create a perfectly neutral attack.

[imaginary]

Ever considered an entire party with devils sight and darkness? No more negative effects, and a lot more advantage.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So Devil's sight lets you see in regular or magical darkness. Warlocks (and tieflings, which are reasonable choices for warlocks) can cast darkness. There's a natural temptation to want to use this confluence of abilities to level some serious devastation upon one's enemies. There are a bunch of limitatations:

The rest of your group likely can't see in this darkness
It's going to be limited (twice/SR for warlock, once/LR for tiefling)
Opportunity costs (any level you spend getting these abilities is levels you don't spend being a rogue and capitalizing on the combat advantage, feats like sharpshooter or GWM that likewise capitalize on it are harder to justify in MAD-heavy builds)

So is it worth it? If so, anyone have any builds they've used it with?

It seems so good on paper, I just have to assume it's not really worth it, or people would be bringing it up left and right.

Best to keep it in your back pocket for when you need a trump card (can we start calling that the President Card?) and to take out a big threat.

Remember, just because someone can't see you, doesn't mean they can't locate you. You would need to take the hide action (to be silent and unseen) before the enemies can't locate you.

They would take disadvantage on attacks, but that's easy to overcome.

[Psikerlord]

We banned Devil's Sight bec it was too good.

[ChubbyRain]

We banned Devil's Sight bec it was too good.

It's good, but not too good.

There are plenty of ways to challenge the players without resorting to taking away their sight.

Even darkness + devil sight is easily defeated in order to give the players a challenge (as alluded to above).

Not being able to see doesn't stop you from knowing a creature is in a specific space (sound), check an AoE and call it a day.

Use illusions. Use illusions of different things that radiate magic.

Use creatures that can't see to begin with.

But my favorite anti-devil sight Warlock...

Halfling Rogue/Barbarians (Wolf) with expertise in perception and athletics ... Climb onto bigger creature ... Stabby while cancelling out the disadvantage from not being able to see the target for your allies. Halfling rages and has advantage on the strength check for athletics (plus expertise) and when the Halfling wants to attack? Well they have advantage on their attack from reckless attack (cancels out not being able to see).

I'm goimg to have to build it with Tavern Brawler so the Robarian can climb on things and head butt them to death.

Fun build that one.

[Malifice]

It's a cool ability and powerful, but the biggest problem with it is that if you overuse it, your GM will probably clamp down on it by throwing his own Warlocks with the same Invocation, Devils and other creatures that don't rely on sight at you.

It also has the problem of turning combats into "easy mode", somewhat; if it's not a challenge, it's not fun. Spamming out the same tired combo every fight will get boring.

Finally; it's pretty much only useful in combat. It's pretty useless for scouting, because a large area of magical darkness rarely goes unnoticed as a threat.

I'm not saying don't go for it; just be careful not to make it your go-to tactic; be sure to mix it up a little.

Its not that powerful.

You get advantage to hit, and they get disadvantage to hit you (unless they have tremorsense, blindsight etc). If you want to waste a second action (one to cast the spell and then another action on your following round to take the Hide action) you can also attempt to Hide in the darkness for a 'guess my location' effect untill you attack (revealing your position).

Unless you're a Rogue 2+ hide/attack/hide is a pretty poor use of the action economy.

It takes your concentration slot (so no Hex), and a second level spell to function. Its also a total drag for your fellow PCs (moreso with a good DM).

[Dimers]

Another trick is to cast darkness on a rock and pocket it after your round of advantage attacks.

Good thought.

[Contrast]

But nothing says that it 'blocks' regular vision. And darkness doesn't do that. It just prevents you from seeing what's actually in the darkness.

Per the rules darkness creates a heavily obscured area. A heavily obscured area is specifically described as having an effect that 'blocks vision entirely'. Other examples of things that would cause heavy obscurement specifically outlined in the rulebook are 'opaque fog' and 'dense foliage' i.e. things you cannot see through. Another example would be a wall for instance.

I would be interested to hear what exactly you think someone would be looking at if you think people can see through Darkness to the other side but not into it if someone cast Darkness in a long straight corridor.

I really don't see how there can be any argument that Darkness blocks vision, either RAW or just logically.

[ChubbyRain]

Per the rules darkness creates a heavily obscured area. A heavily obscured area is specifically described as having an effect that 'blocks vision entirely'. Other examples of things that would cause heavy obscurement specifically outlined in the rulebook are 'opaque fog' and 'dense foliage' i.e. things you cannot see through. Another example would be a wall for instance.

I would be interested to hear what exactly you think someone would be looking at if you think people can see through Darkness to the other side but not into it if someone cast Darkness in a long straight corridor.

I really don't see how there can be any argument that Darkness blocks vision, either RAW or just logically.

Perhaps they are recalling a previous edition's darkness?

I like the idea of darkness being an enchantment. The big brother to blindness (from blindness/deafness spell) but not necromancy.

You make people think that they can't see a specific area or you block that part of the world from their brains.

[xyianth]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but there is actually a much more party friendly version of this trick in the form of another invocation. Misty Visions lets you cast silent image at-will. Silent image can create an illusory cloud of obscuring fog. You can inform your party ahead of time that any fog you create is an illusion, allowing them to see through it perfectly fine. Your enemies still can't see through it unless they interact with it, which at most tables requires more than simply looking at it. The added bonus is that silent image has loads of utility uses outside of combat as well, whereas darkness is somewhat harder to use outside combat situations.

Obviously, as an illusion this is somewhat more DM dependent. But, unless your DM basically renders all illusions useless, you will at least be able to find some uses for silent image. In my games, it has been far more useful than the darkness + devil's sight combo that gets all the attention.

[Willie the Duck]

Obviously, as an illusion this is somewhat more DM dependent. But, unless your DM basically renders all illusions useless, you will at least be able to find some uses for silent image. In my games, it has been far more useful than the darkness + devil's sight combo that gets all the attention.

I would disagree with that part. I have had DMs in the past rule that illusions still block sight, even if someone realizes that they are false*. That means that an illusionary fog is just a fog, so it effects PCs and enemies alike. It is still useful, just a different breed of useful. I've found illusions and enchantments to be the most effective spells in the game, especially since we've moved from the 3e tendency to have every monster out there be effectively immune.


*On the grounds that illusions turning translucent once you realize that they are illusions has no precedent in literature and is a little silly.

[Sception]

Have you ever been in a fog? Especially a fog thick enough to outright block your view of things as close as five feet away? The air literally feels heavy. Everything gets damp. You can smell it. You can taste it. Any monster in your illusory fog will be "interacting with it" enough to realize is isn't real.

[ChubbyRain]

Have you ever been in a fog? Especially a fog thick enough to outright block your view of things as close as five feet away? The air literally feels heavy. Everything gets damp. You can smell it. You can taste it. Any monster in your illusory fog will be "interacting with it" enough to realize is isn't real.

Love the smell and feel of fog...

http://68.media.tumblr.com/1063c4cb2db489f37bfa3389b59de984/tumblr_mtghqotZsr1qbdijyo1_500.png

[Willie the Duck]

Have you ever been in a fog? Especially a fog thick enough to outright block your view of things as close as five feet away? The air literally feels heavy. Everything gets damp. You can smell it. You can taste it. Any monster in your illusory fog will be "interacting with it" enough to realize is isn't real.

Who are you responding to? If me, my response is, "great, by that DM's logic, you still can't see through it."

[xyianth]

I would disagree with that part. I have had DMs in the past rule that illusions still block sight, even if someone realizes that they are false*. That means that an illusionary fog is just a fog, so it effects PCs and enemies alike. It is still useful, just a different breed of useful. I've found illusions and enchantments to be the most effective spells in the game, especially since we've moved from the 3e tendency to have every monster out there be effectively immune.


*On the grounds that illusions turning translucent once you realize that they are illusions has no precedent in literature and is a little silly.

Well, it's less about having a precedent in literature and more about a balancing factor. In your example, saving against the illusion has no effect. That might be the reason that you find illusion spells so powerful. However, I agree that under that type of DM the misty visions trick would fail.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, it only helps with the hyper-specific case of an illusion used as a sight-blocking mechanism.

As to thinking illusions powerful, I think that has to do more with my many years of playing basic D&D, where constantly getting into fights was a really bad idea. As far as I am concerned, a spell that makes a fight not happen at all is the best possible outcome.

Edit: and to be clear, I was bringing forth an example of a DM that I've played with.

[CursedRhubarb]

My current DM got tired of my shenanigans with having Devil's Sight and it ruining a lot of his traps for us since I could see normally in the pitch dark areas. Also because AI managed to go toe-to-toe with three yeti at once with Devil's Sight+Darkness+Mold Earth shenanigans. After that we now regularly encounter enemies with magical light causing spells, Blindsight, or Tremor Sense. He also tossed in some fog and smoke but when I started using my bat familiar to report locations of enemies and to scout ahead III got death glare from the DM so I figure my familiar is going to find enemies now. (cave with no light so figured a bat would be best since it can 'see' through hearing. The wizard kept an owl and got upset when he realised it needs at least some light to see.)

[Sception]

Who are you responding to? If me, my response is, "great, by that DM's logic, you still can't see through it."

No, I was responding to xyianth's description of the use of silent image for fogs as an alternative to a darkness spell: "Your enemies still can't see through it unless they interact with it, which at most tables requires more than simply looking at it." The point of the darkness spell is to plunge your enemies into it. Do that with a silent image fog and they'll immediately be "interacting with it". Not that there aren't a million useful applications of silent image, but directly submersing enemies in one shouldn't really work.

[ChubbyRain]

My current DM got tired of my shenanigans with having Devil's Sight and it ruining a lot of his traps for us since I could see normally in the pitch dark areas. Also because AI managed to go toe-to-toe with three yeti at once with Devil's Sight+Darkness+Mold Earth shenanigans. After that we now regularly encounter enemies with magical light causing spells, Blindsight, or Tremor Sense. He also tossed in some fog and smoke but when I started using my bat familiar to report locations of enemies and to scout ahead III got death glare from the DM so I figure my familiar is going to find enemies now. (cave with no light so figured a bat would be best since it can 'see' through hearing. The wizard kept an owl and got upset when he realised it needs at least some light to see.)

DM needs to get better if being able to see ruins traps.

That's on them, not on the players or the classes.

[CursedRhubarb]

Well, it only helps with the hyper-specific case of an illusion used as a sight-blocking mechanism.

Wasn't there a Sage Advice about using illusions to make environmental effects like fog not working?

You could make it look like you used Mold Earth to block their sight, like you raised a wall of stone, or any other object would work that would block sight. But I don't think you can use it to make fog or an area of Darkness.

[Willie the Duck]

Did you miss the discussion about this being about an alternative DM ruling on illusions? This is based on a DM determining that realizing that an illusion wasn't real did not mean that you could see through it.

I like the mold earth idea.

[CursedRhubarb]

Seems odd to change it so you can't see through an illusion if you know it isn't real. It would be a two-way street wouldn't it? If you cast an illusion you wouldn't be able to see through it either and it would also make a cantrip that doesn't scale more powerful than spells with levels.

Would be interesting to distract enemies by making an illusion of a wall on an actual wall though. Enemies would know it's an illusion but, not being able to see through it, won't be able to see the actual wall so if they try to go through it or strike through it they'd hit the actual wall but it would look like they hit the illusion of a wall...Which they know is an illusion so they should be able to just go through it...But they can't.

While they puzzle it, out the party sneaks past or gets the jump on them.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Wasn't there a Sage Advice about using illusions to make environmental effects like fog not working?

You could make it look like you used Mold Earth to block their sight, like you raised a wall of stone, or any other object would work that would block sight. But I don't think you can use it to make fog or an area of Darkness.

Yes.

You could make an image of fog, but it would be like looking at a painting or TV screen of fog... Unless I'm misremembering and thinking of Minor Illusion.

[Tanarii]

Per the rules darkness creates a heavily obscured area. A heavily obscured area is specifically described as having an effect that 'blocks vision entirely'. Other examples of things that would cause heavy obscurement specifically outlined in the rulebook are 'opaque fog' and 'dense foliage' i.e. things you cannot see through. Another example would be a wall for instance.

I would be interested to hear what exactly you think someone would be looking at if you think people can see through Darkness to the other side but not into it if someone cast Darkness in a long straight corridor.

I really don't see how there can be any argument that Darkness blocks vision, either RAW or just logically.
You're out of date. The rules for heavily obscured areas have been updated by IIRC both errata and sage advice. Heavy obscurement caused by darkness doesn't block sight to things outside it or through it, only things insides it.

And the thing is ... These updates don't specificy that this is only for normal darkness.

Edit:
http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf
Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

Note that this technically applies to all heavily obscured areas, not just darkness, unless they say they block sight through the area. So by the errata you can see through or out of a Fog Cloud just fine, just not things inside it.

[Captain Bob]

I haven't exhaustively read all the responses on this topic, but my thoughts on this are that the mechanic is cool and conceptually sound, but that it can be weird to put together in a cohesive way since it basically requires A. multiclassing a casting class into a melee one (either for sneak attack or GWM) AND OR B. requires meticulous character building to compensate for the wonkiness of making such a build work.

There was a blade-lock discussion the other day that exemplified this, basically requiring a player to be variant human and sequence levels of warlock and fighter in order to allow the build to come online by level 6 in a satisfying way. Mechanically the concept allows for some really cool characters, but if you don't plan it right your core character doesn't exist until later in the game - and that sucks if you don't have the patience or game levels remaining to see your character work. Also you may need to opt out of certain race picks, which again can dampen your fun.

The other angle here is that as numerous others have pointed out... you can do similar things more easily with other classes and dips. Instead of making a darkness-seeing GWM dark paladin thing, you could always just make a straight up eldritch knight or vengeance paladin and have a mechanically analogous experience. Or monk / rogue multi-class as someone else mentioned if sneak attack is your poison of preference.

That said... pretty sure my perspective is if you wanna do this, use it but have it be part of the character's mechanically toolbox, not the only tool at your disposal. I actually really like the warlock dip for a fighter or rogue. At worst, you'll get to use mirror image / hex / <insert buff here> every combat without fail... while also having legolas-ian elf eyes in darkness, disguising yourself at will, or speaking to beasts all god damn day.

tl;dr - The concept is cool but making it work can be annoying - if you want to use this, don't let it be your main mechanism for fighting or whatever.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The Darkness/Devil's Sight combo has the benefit of only requiring two levels of Warlock. Given how powerful some people think it is, I have to wonder if Devil's Sight should have a higher level requirement. If you're not just "dipping" two Warlock levels, however, I'd recommend choosing the Fey Pact and taking Improved Invisibility at 7th level. It'll get you the same results (Advantage for you and Disadvantage for your attackers) without blinding your allies.

[RumoCrytuf]

So Devil's sight lets you see in regular or magical darkness. Warlocks (and tieflings, which are reasonable choices for warlocks) can cast darkness. There's a natural temptation to want to use this confluence of abilities to level some serious devastation upon one's enemies. There are a bunch of limitatations:

The rest of your group likely can't see in this darkness
It's going to be limited (twice/SR for warlock, once/LR for tiefling)
Opportunity costs (any level you spend getting these abilities is levels you don't spend being a rogue and capitalizing on the combat advantage, feats like sharpshooter or GWM that likewise capitalize on it are harder to justify in MAD-heavy builds)

So is it worth it? If so, anyone have any builds they've used it with?

It seems so good on paper, I just have to assume it's not really worth it, or people would be bringing it up left and right.

This is always worth it, especially if you're a bladelock. Giving all enemies around you disadvantage? HECK YUS! In an adventure I was recently in, and all of us nearly died to a bunch of giant bees. (I got critted twice. But that's what I get for being a fighter :P ) If I could have given them disadvantage on their attacks, we would have been so much better off.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Just popped in to echo what everyone else said: It's a powerful combo, but you should use it sparingly due to DM RAGE or just being kind to your fellow party-members.

I had a great time playing a Half-Elf Warlock/Rogue using this combo, but I only used it once or twice as a trump card. And even then, only if the other party members were clear of the blast radius. Still, it saved the day at least once.

[Contrast]

You're out of date. The rules for heavily obscured areas have been updated by IIRC both errata and sage advice. Heavy obscurement caused by darkness doesn't block sight to things outside it or through it, only things insides it.

And the thing is ... These updates don't specificy that this is only for normal darkness.

Edit:
http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf
Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

Note that this technically applies to all heavily obscured areas, not just darkness, unless they say they block sight through the area. So by the errata you can see through or out of a Fog Cloud just fine, just not things inside it.

I'm not seeing that that changes anything? You count as blinded (cannot see) anything that is obscured by whatever is granting the heavily obscured status. The reason they clarified is that technically previously standing behind a wall (a heavily obscured area) made you blind - which was silly. They changed it to clarify that you only count as blinded when you try to see something through the heavy obscurement (you cannot see through a wall).

None of this allows you to see through an area you cannot see through.

Edit - I would be interested to see the Sage Advice mentioned.

[Tanarii]

None of this allows you to see through an area you cannot see through.You are not blinded in regards to things on the other side of, or outside of when you are inside of, heavy obscurement.

Edit: Note I realize this makes absolutely no sense for non-darkness heavy obscurement. Whereas the reverse, darkness (non-magical) blocking seeing *through* it also makes no sense.

My original point here is if non-magical darkness doesn't block seeing THROUGH it, or OUT of it, there is no particular reason to think an area of magical darkness does. It doesn't say it blocks sight through it. It doesn't say it blocks sight out of it. It doesn't even reference the heavy obscured rules. It just talks about darkness. So there is not reason to think it blocks sight through or out of, any more than darkness blocks sight through or out of.

Unless you're carrying preconceptions from previous edition versions of the spell ...

(I certainly am. :smallbiggrin: I'm just point out what the RAW appears to say.)

Edit2: also I was just looking at SA, and the thing I was thinking of was definitely the errata I quoted. I didn't see any SA.

[Contrast]

You are not blinded in regards to things on the other side of, or outside of when you are inside of, heavy obscurement.

I'm not trying to be facetious here but...I can see through walls then?

Heavy obscurement blocks vision. Anything behind something which blocks your vision is blocked from your vision.

Beyond being a rules thing thats just a thing. I'm not going crazy am I? :smalleek:

Edit - In response to your edit. I totally agree and have argued before that the 5e lighting rules are silly. For example technically speaking if you are standing in pitch darkness and 200m away there is a large bonfire, you cannot see it as there is intervening darkness which grants heavy obscurement. That is what the rules say though as far as I can figure them. I'll leave it there and let others read the text and interpret/houserule as desired :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I'm not trying to be facetious here but...I can see through walls then?

Heavy obscurement blocks vision. Anything behind something which blocks your vision is blocked from your vision.

Beyond being a rules thing thats just a thing. I'm not going crazy am I? :smalleek:Yeah, it's totally crazy for anything other than darkness.

But if you are standing holding a torch, and down the hallway another creature is holding a torch, and in the darkness (heavily obscured) in between is a creature ... the two creatures holding torches can see each other through it, but as long as the creature in the darkness doesn't intersect a direct line between eyes and torches, it can't be seen. And it can see both.

Now replace the natural darkness with a darkness spell (not intersecting the torches, obviously). What has changed? Nothing in the spell says it blocks lines of sight through the area. The situation remains the same.

[Captain Bob]

Dunno man, according to the PHB Darkness literally DOES say you can't see through it. I'd imagine the heavily obscured **** is just thrown in to detail how it affects the dice rolls in a way that is consistent with other crap.

[Tanarii]

Dunno man, according to the PHB Darkness literally DOES say you can't see through it. I'd imagine the heavily obscured **** is just thrown in to detail how it affects the dice rolls in a way that is consistent with other crap.
No it doesn't. It says darkvision can't see through it, and stuff inside it can't be illuminated. It does not say you cannot see through it or out of it. It doesn't reference heavily obscured.

To be clear, darkness is defined as heavily obscured elsewhere, under light and vision. So it absolutely IS heavily obscured. But that doesn't matter, since heavily obscured doesn't block vision through it either.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying the Devs didn't intent for Darkness to work the same way as previous editions. They just didn't write it so that it does.

[Captain Bob]

Right... this is semantics to me though. Why would something WITHOUT darkvision be able to see through something that a creature WITH it cannot? To me, this means you apply the heavily obscured property of regular darkness, along with the caveat that you can't see through it. It literally smothers non-magical light as well. RAW its debatable, but I think the spirit of the spell and it's description lends itself to impenetrable darkness

[Captain Bob]

Gotcha. This debate reminds me of quibbles about the application of invisibility. This junk just depends more on DM interpretation than previous iterations from what I can tell

[ChubbyRain]

I'm not trying to be facetious here but...I can see through walls then?

Heavy obscurement blocks vision. Anything behind something which blocks your vision is blocked from your vision.

Beyond being a rules thing thats just a thing. I'm not going crazy am I? :smalleek:

Edit - In response to your edit. I totally agree and have argued before that the 5e lighting rules are silly. For example technically speaking if you are standing in pitch darkness and 200m away there is a large bonfire, you cannot see it as there is intervening darkness which grants heavy obscurement. That is what the rules say though as far as I can figure them. I'll leave it there and let others read the text and interpret/houserule as desired :smallbiggrin:

Don't feel too bad, you aren't crazy, you have been correct all along.

People on giantitp like to say all sorts of crazy things.

[Tanarii]

Right... this is semantics to me though. Why would something WITHOUT darkvision be able to see through something that a creature WITH it cannot? To me, this means you apply the heavily obscured property of regular darkness, along with the caveat that you can't see through it. It literally smothers non-magical light as well. RAW its debatable, but I think the spirit of the spell and it's description lends itself to impenetrable darkness


Gotcha. This debate reminds me of quibbles about the application of invisibility. This junk just depends more on DM interpretation than previous iterations from what I can tell
Because the spell disables darkvision, but lets them otherwise see through it normally?

It's not a question of RAW quibbling. It's a question of developer intent. There is nothing in the spell to indicate it blocks normal sight out of, or through, the area. Any more than normal darkness does. Absent historical knowledge of how the Darkness spell has worked in the past, why should any reasonable person assume that the spell does block normal sight out of or through the area? There's no reason to. If the Devs intended the spell to work as it used to, they should have made that somehow clear. Otherwise we're left guessing if they intended us to assume it works like it used to, or if it just cancels light & darkvision, as actually written.

[CursedRhubarb]

Yeah, it's totally crazy for anything other than darkness.

But if you are standing holding a torch, and down the hallway another creature is holding a torch, and in the darkness (heavily obscured) in between is a creature ... the two creatures holding torches can see each other through it, but as long as the creature in the darkness doesn't intersect a direct line between eyes and torches, it can't be seen. And it can see both.

Now replace the natural darkness with a darkness spell (not intersecting the torches, obviously). What has changed? Nothing in the spell says it blocks lines of sight through the area. The situation remains the same.

It's a 15' radius sphere of magical darkness and it includes that even creatures with darkvision can not see through it. It doesn't just paint the surface areas in the area a mat black, it's a big ball of darkness.

Your example would also make it so that if you cast darkness on an archer, in a grassy plains area for example, it wouldn't hinder them at all, even with mundane human vision, and he could still be seen except he'd be all black and standing in a black patch of grass. Or casting darkness on a flying creature would be moot because they could still see, it could still be seen, and there would be no ball of darkness, just a solid black flying creature.

To see the guy with the torch on the other side you would have to look through the ball to see it. But vision through it is blocked. If you are inside it, you are still having to look through the sphere in order to look out of it, which would block your sight.

If you illuminated the area with a source of magical light of an appropriate level then you would be able to see through it.

[Tanarii]

But nothing in the words of the spell support your supposition that it's a ball of darkness that blocks (edit: normal) sight through it or out of it. That's the problem. How do you know this is what's happening? The only possible way you can assume that's the developer intent is you know how that's how Darkness has worked in previous editions.

[HaltTheSlayer]

The way i think of how the darkness spell works in 5e is pretty simple. It's like a level 2 version of the deeper darkness spell from 3.5/Pathfinder where if you don't have a "special" vision to see threw it your basically SoL. There was a feature some monsters had called "See in Darkness" which allowed them to see in all forms of darkness magical or otherwise which included the deeper darkness spell.

The problem with deeper darkness was that if your allies don't have the same effective "See in Darkness" monster feature, they are in the same boat as the enemies. Then there was the problem of monsters that had a True Seeing affect on them constantly which could see through invisibility, darkness or any effective illusion spell and ethereal effects. Since the True Seeing spell was transferred to 5e, there is more then one way to see through the darkness spell besides Devil's Sight.

So a warlock with Devil's Sight should basically know their enemies abilities before trying to throw Darkness down, otherwise you may screw both you and your party. In other words this is a situation tactic.

[CursedRhubarb]

Spell says it is a ball and that even someone with darkvision, who can see in normal darkness, can not see through it

Being inside you have to look through the darkness to see out.

To see the other side you have to look through it.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm not trying to be facetious here but...I can see through walls then?

Heavy obscurement blocks vision. Anything behind something which blocks your vision is blocked from your vision.

Beyond being a rules thing thats just a thing. I'm not going crazy am I?

It was all an attempt to clarify the obvious:

When you're trying to see someone in Darkness, your vision should be obscured, if you're trying to see someone standing on the other side of a darkness (who is not in darkness) you should see them just fine.

Fog is not darkness however, it blocks line of sight.

Here's the thing about the rules, they're not specifically discussing corner cases, as originally written they're working on the assumption that everyone and everything is in the same environment.

So, when it says that darkness is a heavily obscured area, it goes on to give the examples of: "Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

What happens when you have a well lit area and someone casts a darkness spell in a portion of that area? Nobody can see in that area of darkness (unless they have the ability to see in magical darkness) and anyone in that area is heavily obscured.

That's really all that happens.

[HaltTheSlayer]

It was all an attempt to clarify the obvious:

When you're trying to see someone in Darkness, your vision should be obscured, if you're trying to see someone standing on the other side of a darkness (who is not in darkness) you should see them just fine.

Fog is not darkness however, it blocks line of sight.

Here's the thing about the rules, they're not specifically discussing corner cases, as originally written they're working on the assumption that everyone and everything is in the same environment.

So, when it says that darkness is a heavily obscured area, it goes on to give the examples of: "Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

What happens when you have a well lit area and someone casts a darkness spell in a portion of that area? Nobody can see in that area of darkness (unless they have the ability to see in magical darkness) and anyone in that area is heavily obscured.

That's really all that happens.

Yeah I get everything your saying and frankly I agree. Which is why I say if you can see in magical darkness but your party members can't, best not to throw down darkness.

[Tanarii]

Spell says it is a ball and that even someone with darkvision, who can see in normal darkness, can not see through it

Being inside you have to look through the darkness to see out.

To see the other side you have to look through it.
It doesn't say even darkvision cannot see through it. It just says creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. Right. Fine. You can't see through it with darkvision. No problem. It doesn't stop normal vision from seeing through it though.


What happens when you have a well lit area and someone casts a darkness spell in a portion of that area? Nobody can see in that area of darkness (unless they have the ability to see in magical darkness) and anyone in that area is heavily obscured.

That's really all that happens.Ya. Which is, like, a problem if you think that it's supposed to work like previous editions, and block sight out of magical Darkness or through magical Darkness. I actually run it like older editions myself ... it blocks sight through and out of, as well as making it so you can't see things in it. That might even have been the developer intent. But it's not RAW.

[Dimers]

Which is why I say if you can see in magical darkness but your party members can't, best not to throw down darkness.

Speaking of which, a few other classes do have ways to work with magical darkness. Druids can wildshape, anyone can be polymorphed, and the new UA artificer can pick from a wide variety of beasts (probably) ... what beasts get senses that ignore the dark? Plus, mystics with Third Eye focused have blindsense, and they can add in tremorsense and truesight. And if you're teamed up with a shadow sorc, have them cast the darkness instead of you, and then not only is it cheaper, they too can ignore it.

[Vogonjeltz]

It doesn't say even darkvision cannot see through it. It just says creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. Right. Fine. You can't see through it with darkvision. No problem. It doesn't stop normal vision from seeing through it though.

Ya. Which is, like, a problem if you think that it's supposed to work like previous editions, and block sight out of magical Darkness or through magical Darkness. I actually run it like older editions myself ... it blocks sight through and out of, as well as making it so you can't see things in it. That might even have been the developer intent. But it's not RAW.

For those people, I'd advise them to use the current rules, not rules from old editions that don't apply.

[Willie the Duck]

I haven't exhaustively read all the responses on this topic, but my thoughts on this are that the mechanic is cool and conceptually sound, but that it can be weird to put together in a cohesive way since it basically requires A. multiclassing a casting class into a melee one (either for sneak attack or GWM) AND OR B. requires meticulous character building to compensate for the wonkiness of making such a build work.

True. However, this is not, IMO, out of character for this edition. Another example of this is Shillelagh--the spell is, on the surface, ridiculously good. It effectively eliminates the need for any physical stat to drive your melee desires. However, to get it, and get it using a stat you would want to be maxing, you pretty much can't really get multi-attack (except by dipping 5+ levels in a martial class). Cleric and druid can get it for wisdom, but don't get multiattack. Anyone else can get it with Magic Initiate, but it's cued off of Wisdom (which they likely aren't maxing). Tomelock and lore bard can get it relatively inexpensively (we'll call one of the lore bard's 6th level secrets inexpensive, although even that's not true), but no multi-attack. Valor bard can get it with multi-attack for a 10th level secret, but man is that expensive given how few they get in their career (and what are you doing up until then?). This trick is similar--it works, it's real, but to both get it, and to be able to capitalize on it well is a lot of running around to get a single, counter-able trick. I think the lesson (pretending for a moment that this is a deliberate choice, which I'm not sure on) is that system mastery in builds still exists in this edition, but as often as not it is a not necessarily worth the effort.

tl;dr--deliberately or not, WotC has made some "super-exploits" that might not be worth the effort, once you factor in the opportunity cost.

[Dalebert]

See if you can get a Staff of Swarming Insects. It's better.

[Ursus the Grim]

Doesn't Darkness use up your Concentration slot, though? I mean, free advantage and disadvantage is great, but that's Concentration that you can't hold on other things.

With most builds, you'd deal more damage using Hex.
With a sorclock build, you'd be more fearsome Twinning Haste.

I picked up the combo on my Sorcerer/Warlock but generally don't use it because I'd rather hold Concentration for Hex+Scorching Ray shenanigans.

I still keep it in my back pocket for escape tricks (along with Shocking Grasp, Shield, and Arms of Hadar) but its not a go-to tactic for me.

[Tanarii]

With most builds, you'd deal more damage using Hex.
With a sorclock build, you'd be more fearsome Twinning Haste.Advantage is roughly 25%-40% boost in dpr, depending on your starting hit chance. But it's also a corresponding defensive boost.

Hex is typically (for damage focused builds) a roughly 30-40% dpr boost, but no defensive benefit. OTOH it can potentially last multiple fights, if you can keep the concentration up.

[Dimers]

Devil's Sight + Darkness is better for Pact of the Chain than others, because neither imp nor pseudodragon is terribly bothered by it. So the combo can give at least one ally a boost alongside you.

I'd say that Dexterity + longbow + Sharpshooter would benefit more from DS+D than no-hex eldritch blast. And it's preferable to melee builds because it lets you stay out of your allies' hair more easily. Plus the Dexterity gives you AC, an important save, initiative and some handy skills. For a 20-level build, I'd say fighter 11 / warlock 3 / rogue 5 would give the best results.

Fighter 1 first for Con saves, toughness and longbow proficiency
Then rogue 1 for Expertise and a die of sneak attack
Then 3 warlock for the heart of the combo
Follow up with more fighter to improve rate-of-fire and get an extra ASI
End with rogue because more fighter won't get you anything important by level 20 and you're mostly using warlock spell slots for darkness.


I haven't looked into the attacks of the artificer or mystic, but I think the above combo would be better than ranger, monk or straight-up warlock. Paladin in place of fighter would outperform it for melee. Shadow sorcerer replacing warlock is a little more versatile but a little weaker ... you can also perform the trick with just 2 levels of shadowsorc, though 3 is nice for metamagic and spell progression.

[Contrast]

It doesn't say even darkvision cannot see through it. It just says creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. Right. Fine. You can't see through it with darkvision. No problem. It doesn't stop normal vision from seeing through it though.

Ya. Which is, like, a problem if you think that it's supposed to work like previous editions, and block sight out of magical Darkness or through magical Darkness. I actually run it like older editions myself ... it blocks sight through and out of, as well as making it so you can't see things in it. That might even have been the developer intent. But it's not RAW.

Sorry to jump back in here but I really do think you're wrong in saying thats RAW. The spell does say it blocks regular vision when it says it creates an area of darkness.

Spell creates an area of darkness (which unlike normal darkness cannot be penetrated by darkvision)
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area.
A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely (you count as blinded when trying to see something obscured by it).

It seems our point of contention lies in the final point whereby you are claiming something behind a heavily obscured area is not obscured by it (which to me appears to ignore the rulebook stating that it blocks vision entirely). Thats certainly a way you could play it but nothing in the rulebook implies that. Either way you end up with silly situations (you can either see through walls or are immediately completely blind the moment you step out of an area of dim light into an area of darkness) so I'd strongly suggest houseruling anyway but I'm not seeing the support that your position is RAW.

It kind of appears from what you're saying that you consider darkness to create a lightly obscured area rather than a heavily obscured one - not unreasonable but definately not RAW.

Edit - To rephrase my point. There are many instances in the rulebook of things requiring line of sight but the only way to check line of sight in rules terms is 'Is there something between myself and the target which provides heavy obscurement (thereby blocking my vision and rendering it such that am I blind in terms of attempting to see that target)'.

[Tanarii]

So your contention is that if one creature is holding a torch, and someone down a long hallway is holding a torch, and there is darkness in between, that the heavily obscured darkness in between both blocks the torch-holders from seeing each other? And that a creature standing in the heavily obscured darkness would see neither?

[Contrast]

So your contention is that if one creature is holding a torch, and someone down a long hallway is holding a torch, and there is darkness in between, that the heavily obscured darkness in between both blocks the torch-holders from seeing each other? And that a creature standing in the heavily obscured darkness would see neither?

I'm saying thats what the rules say (and hence is RAW). I am not suggesting that is how I think anyone should run their games :smalltongue:

Edit - though in fairness, for clarity, I do kind of think that is how the spell Darkness should work (otherwise its a little rubbish).

[Tanarii]

I'm saying thats what the rules say (and hence is RAW). I am not suggesting that is how I think anyone should run their games :smalltongue:Meanwhile, I totally concede that my view that RAW says you CAN see through and out of heavy concealment is not how anyone should run Fog Cloud. :smallbiggrin:


Edit - though in fairness, for clarity, I do kind of think that is how the spell Darkness should work (otherwise its a little rubbish).Having an area you can stand in that obscures you, but you can see out of perfectly, is awesome. It's like Fog Cloud on steroids for archers and other ranged attackers. What it's not very good at is being a offensive "blind your enemies" spell. But Fog Cloud, which is a level lower, already does that*, so there's no reason to duplicate that effect particularly.

(edit: or *should* already do that. See my comment above hahahaha.)