Darkness and dispelling "light".

[krugaan]

the relevant tweet from the JC (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524711121739997184): "I would allow the darkness spell to dispel any spell of 2nd level or lower that explicitly produces light."

So, a list of spells that do this:

Color Spray (who uses that)
Guiding Bolt
Faerie Fire
Moonbeam

Hmmm, the list is smaller than I thought.

Jesus ... Continual Flame produces a flame, equal in brightness to a torch. Darkness doesn't dispel it. It will cover it, though.

Note, I'm not including spells which create fire or something similar "which sheds light"... or should I?

[KorvinStarmast]

Uh, what? Check the rules text. I see nowhere that Darkness dispels an attack cantrip, though the spell caster has to see the target to attack (devil's sight?) which will often render that spell being used moot.

If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled. I read that as "if the light's already there" but I think I see where the overlap may be thought to act in a preemptive manner for some light spells. Is it your take that if cast with a third level slot, Color Spray is no longer at risk?

(ignoring unconscious creatures and creatures that can’t see). heck wearing a blindfold protects you from Color Spray, right? :smallbiggrin:

PS: My brother's Evoker used Color Spray with some frequency in our first 5e campaign. Worked well enough.

[Dalebert]

You can't presume things from titles of spells and effects. Misnomers have been a proud or not-so-proud tradition of D&D from early editions. Yes, it has "flame" in the title, but it's clear from the description that it's really a light spell that looks like a flame. All it does it create light; not heat. Darkness will dispel it if it's cast at the standard level of 2.

Best to cast Continual Flame at 3rd level. Then it will always illuminate the area of a Darkness spell and the Darkness won't be able to dispel it.

I agree about the other spells. Those seem to explicitly make light that also has other effects, sometimes even damaging effects. I would equate this to Thunder dmg not working in an area of silence. Of course you could cast those spells with a 3rd level slot to overwhelm the Darkness spell.

[ThePolarBear]

the relevant tweet from the JC (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524711121739997184): "I would allow the darkness spell to dispel any spell of 2nd level or lower that explicitly produces light."

So, a list of spells that do this:

Color Spray (who uses that)
Guiding Bolt
Faerie Fire
Moonbeam

Hmmm, the list is smaller than I thought.

Jesus ... Continual Flame produces a flame, equal in brightness to a torch. Darkness doesn't dispel it. It will cover it, though.

Note, I'm not including spells which create fire or something similar "which sheds light"... or should I?

All spells that produce light.. it can also count Flaming Sphere, continual flame, light (duh), depending. Unless the spell creates something outside of the spell itself - like firebolt lighting something on fire - then it should be included, imho. Edit: and spells with istantaneous duration should be exempt. Prehaps.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't presume things from titles of spells and effects. Misnomers have been a proud or not-so-proud tradition of D&D from early editions. Yes, it has "flame" in the title, but it's a light spell that looks like a flame. Darkness will dispel it if it's cast at the standard level of 2.

Best to cast Continual Flame at 3rd level. Then it will always illuminate the area of a Darkness spell and the Darkness won't be able to dispel it.

Noting in the rules text calls that cantrip "light" so I am not sure what you mean by that. Radiant damage is a damage type ... are you reaching back to a previous edition due to the terseness of the text in this one? It's sorta sparse. (To me the issue is "can the caster even see into/through the darkness, since "that you can see" is a condition for spell casting ...)

[krugaan]

Uh, what? Check the rules text. I see nowhere that Darkness dispels an attack cantrip, though the spell caster has to see the target to attack (devil's sight?) which will often render that spell being used moot.
I read that as "if the light's already there" but I think I see where the overlap may be thought to act in a preemptive manner for some light spells. Is it your take that if cast with a third level slot, Color Spray is no longer at risk?
heck wearing a blindfold protects you from Color Spray, right? :smallbiggrin:


I just thought it was interesting that according to RAW, darkness will just flat out dispel certain things. Like, if the warlock is standing in darkness blasting, and the enemy bard decides to faerie fire something, one of your guys can just touch the locks darkness and (by RAW), dispel the faerie fire on everyone.

I agree that darkness "preventing" attack cantrips / and or spells like color spray might not be RAW, since I think you can dispel "instantaneous" effects, but I'm not sure.



PS: My brother's Evoker used Color Spray with some frequency in our first 5e campaign. Worked well enough.

To be honest, every time I envision Color Spray, it's either Carebears or Skittles to me.

Taste the Spray.

/shiver

[ThePolarBear]

To be honest, every time I envision Color Spray, it's either Carebears or Skittles to me.

Taste the Spray.

/shiver

Down with the squid! *slurping sounds*

[krugaan]

You can't presume things from titles of spells and effects. Misnomers have been a proud or not-so-proud tradition of D&D from early editions. Yes, it has "flame" in the title, but it's a light spell that looks like a flame. Darkness will dispel it if it's cast at the standard level of 2.


It mentions "light" exactly zero times in the text, though. And Crawford said "explicitly produces light". Is that the word "light" or anything that we can see?

[ThePolarBear]

It mentions "light" exactly zero times in the text, though. And Crawford said "explicitly produces light". Is that the word "light" or anything that we can see?

Well, we are also assuming that the mentioned torch is lit ;D

[Dalebert]

Noting in the rules text calls that cantrip "light" so I am not sure what you mean by that.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I didn't address any cantrips. Are you arguing that Darkness shouldn't dispel Continual Flame because it's described as a flame even though the ONLY mechanical effect it has is to make light? I would concede it from a rules-lawyering RAW position but it's clearly a light spell and Crawford has made it clear that Darkness is intended to dispel it.


Radiant damage is a damage type ... are you reaching back to a previous edition due to the terseness of the text in this one?

The spells he listed all explicitly say they create light and then go on to say additional effects the light has. That the light has additional effects doesn't change the fact that they explicitly create light. Darkness would dispel them just as Silence protects you from Thunder dmg, i.e. sound that has additional mechanical effects.


It's sorta sparse. (To me the issue is "can the caster even see into/through the darkness, since "that you can see" is a condition for spell casting ...)

That's an issue too but even if the caster had Devil's Sight to target people in Darkness, the Darkness would still dispel those spells.


...one of your guys can just touch the locks darkness and (by RAW), dispel the faerie fire on everyone.

Yep. I was thinking at first it should only dispel the effect on that creature but Darkness clearly states it dispels a light spell if any portion of them overlap. So it doesn't just take a bit out of a Continual Flame. It dispels it if they touch.

[krugaan]

Well, we are also assuming that the mentioned torch is lit ;D

Continual flame creates a "flame" that is equal in "brightness to a torch". Again, if darkness dispels anything that produces light, that means it might very well dispel anything that produces a visible effect (to a point).

edit: well, anything that produces a visible effect created by a second level spell or less, minus illusions.

[Dalebert]

It's times like this when being lawyerly with the RAW just makes the game absurd. This is clearly a light spell that simulates the appearance of a torch, so the light flickers and stuff. Mechanically, all it does it make light. The word "brightness" indicates light. It's a bit odd that they avoid use of the word "light", probably just incidentally, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what it is and that's all it is.

[krugaan]

It's times like this when being lawyerly with the RAW just makes the game absurd. This is clearly a light spell that simulates the appearance of a torch, so the light flickers and stuff. Mechanically, all it does it make light. The word "brightness" indicates light.

All particularly reasonable. I dont really care either way, but I 'm a sucker for internal consistency, and this is just a civil rules discussion that just happens to apply to other things.


It's a bit odd that they avoid use of the word "light", probably just incidentally...

It is passing strange to avoid using the word when, ostensibly, that's it's only purpose. It doesn't even say what the usual light range for a torch is. I don't even happen to know that offhand.


... but that doesn't change the fact that that's what it is and that's all it is.


Maybe, maybe not. Wasn't the original spell "Continual Light?" Odd that they would go out of their way to change it. DnD tends to be really big on tradition.

[Temperjoke]

Well, it describes Continual Flame as the same as a torch, which is described as producing light, which is listed under tools in the PHB. My guess is that they just wanted to cut words by just describing it as a torch instead of the full description.

On a side note, I've been contemplating a wizard that uses extra spell slots to make Continual Flame lights with unused spell slots, to sell for gold or distribute between party members in a dungeon.

[ThePolarBear]

Continual flame creates a "flame" that is equal in "brightness to a torch". Again, if darkness dispels anything that produces light, that means it might very well dispel anything that produces a visible effect (to a point).

edit: well, anything that produces a visible effect created by a second level spell or less, minus illusions.

My intent was of a joke around the fact that a torch is not very bright if it's unlit. If the spell referred to the flame of a torch on the other hand...


Maybe, maybe not. Wasn't the original spell "Continual Light?" Odd that they would go out of their way to change it. DnD tends to be really big on tradition.

Iirc Continual light was changed back in 3rd edition, with the more powerful but short lived "Daylight" and "Continual Flame", a "permament convenience torch" spell. Iirc there was already the stipulation that Daylight was not actual sunlight, for any creature that is affected.

[krugaan]

My intent was of a joke around the fact that a torch is not very bright if it's unlit. If the spell referred to the flame of a torch on the other hand...

Oh lol, i think i read the post wrong.



Iirc Continual light was changed back in 3rd edition, with the more powerful but short lived "Daylight" and "Continual Flame", a "permament convenience torch" spell. Iirc there was already the stipulation that Daylight was not actual sunlight, for any creature that is affected.

Went from 2 straight to 5, lol. Actually glad i skipped the intervening.