Scourge Aasimar vs Darkness

[Armored Walrus]

Googling hasn't helped me much here. Anyone know of any official answer to this question that came up in my session last night?

Darkness - Can't be illuminated by nonmagical light. Quenches light from spells of 2nd level or lower.
Scourge Aasimar - when aura is on radiates light.

The Aasimar feature does not describe the light as "magical light" it just says "light." Does this aura illuminate the Darkness?

The question came up as to whether the aura gets quenched by the Darkness, but I think that one's obvious - it's not "a Spell of 2nd level or lower."

Anyone know of an erratum, or at least a Sage Advice, or, at worst, a tweet?

[Lombra]

It won't illuminate the darkness, treat it the same way you'd treat a torch.

[Armored Walrus]

It won't illuminate the darkness, treat it the same way you'd treat a torch.

Based on what? I'm not looking to swap opinions, because I have my own. I'm wondering if there has been any word from WotC on this. My searching hasn't produced anything.

Thanks for the input though.

[Millstone85]

Here is a tweet that makes me think the aasimar's aura would win.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/949114071571341314)
Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell.

But I wouldn't be surprised if he said the opposite somewhere else.

[Lombra]

Based on what? I'm not looking to swap opinions, because I have my own. I'm wondering if there has been any word from WotC on this. My searching hasn't produced anything.

Thanks for the input though.

I'm not aware of any official statement specific to this issue, all I know is that Scourge Aasimar's Radiant Consumption is not a spell, so it should be treated as a mundane item when interacting with spells, it doesn't say that it is being cast, it doesn't specify any spell level for the ability, it just won't light any Darkness spell area, at the same time, Darkness won't disable Radiant Consumption's effects beyond illumination.

[Millstone85]

Scourge Aasimar's Radiant Consumption is not a spell, so it should be treated as a mundane item when interacting with spellsSpellcasting is a form of magic. Not all magic is spellcasting.

[Armored Walrus]

Spellcasting is a form of magic. Not all magic is spellcasting.

That's the crux of the issue.


Here is a tweet that makes me think the aasimar's aura would win.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/949114071571341314)

But I wouldn't be surprised if he said the opposite somewhere else.

Hmmph, the tweet doesn't give me a clear answer. I guess I just have to rule on whether or not the aura creates "magical light." It's not a spell, but it's not bio-luminescence either. Thanks for the input.

[Vorpalchicken]

It seems pretty clear that if it's not light from a spell that is cast at a higher level than the magical darkness spell, then you are in the dark. That's what I read from the PHB and that's what I pick up from that tweet. Exceptions to this will unambiguously say so in the description of the effect.

If a light effect cancels magic darkness it will say so. For example, take a look at Radiance of the Dawn. It's not a spell but it specifically says that it cancels magical darkness. Your Aasimar thingy doesn't mention anything like that.

[Armored Walrus]

Radiance of the Dawn is from what? I'll take a peek at it.

[Vorpalchicken]

Radiance of the Dawn is from what? I'll take a peek at it.

It's the light domain cleric's Channel Divinity

[Armored Walrus]

Good enough. Thanks for the reference.

[Millstone85]

Radiance of the Dawn is not a light source, though. Not like the light cantrip or a sun blade.

It is an instantaneous effect that deals radiant damage.

[Waazraath]

Solid 'ask your DM' territory. It's not spelled out in the rules, simple as that.

[Lombra]

Spellcasting is a form of magic. Not all magic is spellcasting.

You're making this more complicated than it actually is. In this edition, the only magic is the magic from spells that are cast, and the magic within magic items. An aasimar is neither of the two. And don't debate lore or semantics, because it has no weight, since this edition's setting is meant to fit any homebrew campaign. Even life itself is a form of magic acccording to some settings, but you clearly don't die in an antimagic field.

It's very simple really, if a light source is not from a spell of level 2 (or the level at which darkness is cast) or higher, it can't illuminate the darkness, unless specified otherwise, don't read what's not written, this edition is that simple.

[Millstone85]

You're making this more complicated than it actually is.Darkness is a complicated spell.

It creates an area of magical darkness that can only be illuminated by magical light. If an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower is considered magical light, as it probably should be, it can technically illuminate this magical darkness.

However, the spell of 2nd level or lower will itself be dispelled the moment its area overlaps the one created by darkness.

It is not intuitive, but that's how the spell is written.


In this edition, the only magic is the magic from spells that are cast, and the magic within magic items.It could be true that these are the only effects considered magical by default, for game purposes. But I am not convinced of it yet.

[Lombra]

Darkness is a complicated spell.

It creates an area of magical darkness that can only be illuminated by magical light. If an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower is considered magical light, as it probably should be, it can technically illuminate this magical darkness.

However, the spell of 2nd level or lower will itself be dispelled the moment its area overlaps the one created by darkness.

It is not intuitive, but that's how the spell is written.

One should read the whole spell before trying to understand how it works. Your reading is complicated because you try to understand the spell bit by bit, while it's not until the end of the spell's description that all pieces come together. This is true for every manual reading to be honest. Once you read the whole spell, it's clear what it does: nonmagical light can't permeate it, and if the darkness interacts with magical light of an inferior level, the spell that originates the light is dispelled. It's complicated only if you stop thinking about the single pieces of the spell, because it doesn't help you understanding what it does.

[Millstone85]

Once you read the whole spell, it's clear what it does: nonmagical light can't permeate it, and if the darkness interacts with magical light of an inferior level, the spell that originates the light is dispelled.Which is what I just said.

Anyway, would you consider that a sun blade can illuminate this darkness?

[Waazraath]

In this edition, the only magic is the magic from spells that are cast, and the magic within magic items.

Do you have a source for this statement?

[Millstone85]

Do you have a source for this statement?I actually just found one that supports Lombra's position.
How do I tell if something in the game is magical? For an extensive discussion of this topic, see the question “Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?” in the “Monsters” section below.

[...]

But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

[...]

The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about.

[...]

Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

[Lombra]

Which is what I just said.

Anyway, would you consider that a sun blade can illuminate this darkness?

Since it's not a spell, I'd treat it like a torch. With no mechanical downside except for the way the light works.

Edit: actually, since it's magical light, I'd let it illuminate darkness.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I think the aasimars glow would win. They have no bioluminescence or other way to shed natural light and the light they produce is due to the magic in their bodies. So there for the light they produce is magical. It only works at 3rd because spells of 2nd or lower don't work.... at least thats my take on it.

[Millstone85]

Since it's not a spell, I'd treat it like a torch. With no mechanical downside except for the way the light works.

Edit: actually, since it's magical light, I'd let it illuminate darkness.Okay, I think we are now on the same page. Which was yours, so kudos. :smallwink:


the light they produce is due to the magic in their bodies. So there for the light they produce is magical.Fluff-wise yes, but not crunch-wise, according to the SAC's guideline.

[Lombra]

Yeah, I can see why

[Armored Walrus]

Millstone, that Sage Advice is exactly what I was looking for. It supports how I ruled it in game, (doesn't illuminate) but I started to second guess myself after I pulled the books out and read both things. That Sage Advice reinforces the "if it doesn't say it's magical, it's not magical" interpretation. I've also seen Mearls say they try to use "programming language" when writing these things, which also reinforces that interpretation. Of course, the player in the Darkness also gave "if the light doesn't illuminate does it also not do damage?" a try, but obviously the light and the damage are two separate effects.

So I feel like I ruled it correctly in the moment, and will stick with it.

Thanks for the advice, folks.

[Arial Black]

If you rule that the damaging radiant aura is not 'magic', then Scourge Aasimar can do it in an anti-magic field, right?

I'm pretty sure my DM wouldn't let me get away with that!

[Armored Walrus]

Sure I get comfortable with my ruling and you throw a monkey wrench at it...

But yeah, DM apparently has to make a ruling as to whether it's magic or not. If it's magic it illuminates the darkness and antimagic field will shut it down. If it's not it doesn't illuminate darkness but it can be used in antimagic field. If you have a really stingy DM, then both things get shut down (no illumination and no aura in anti-magic), if you have a generous one, both work. I'll just have to fall on one side or the other. Mechanically it's balanced no matter which way you rule as long as you're consistent about your interpretation of either a) is magic, or b) is not magic.