Darkness Trick - The Darkness Inside You

[Trickery]

This is a little trick for warlocks who want to use Darkness + Devil's Sight, but don't want to anger their party.

The Situation
You have Darkness cast on an object you're holding. You have Devil's Sight, so you can see through the darkness. Your attacks against most creatures will be made with advantage, and their attacks against you have disadvantage. Many spells cannot target you because the caster cannot see you. This is a potent strategy, especially if more than one party member has Devil's Sight.

The Problem
You can see through magical darkness, but your party can't. This means that, if you're within 5' of an target, they can't see the target and won't be able to cast certain spells on it. It also means they won't be able to target you with certain spells, (ex: Healing Word - A creature you can see regains hit points equal to...).

The Trick
Cast it on your eyeball, as this is technically an object that you could say that you are holding (the spell doesn't specify inorganic material only). If your DM isn't cool with that, then cast it on a small something that you can hold between your teeth. Open your mouth or eye when you want to use the darkness (such as on your turn), and close it when you don't.

Why It Works
Darkness specifies that it spreads around corners to fill its 15' radius, but that it can be blocked if it is completely covered. A closed eyelid completely conceals the eye. Likewise, a closed mouth completely conceals anything inside.

It's the simple things in life we treasure.

[Malifice]

You get one free object/ environment interaction per turn, otherwise it uses your action that turn.

So (presuming you havent already interacted with an object/ the environment) I'd be cool with you choosing at some point on your turn to turn a darkness radiating object either on OR off (your choice, on your turn).

No different to shuttering a lantern.

[Lord8Ball]

That moment when your enemies see you grabbing your lantern. Internal thoughts "OMG he is going to try and set us on fire". PC: "Behold my Lantern of darkness" opens the lid.

Ps. If you cast it on a stone you could load it into a sling and toss it 120 ft which is double the base spells range. It is a nice little trick for sorcerers to use with quickened without investing into spell sniper. Also if you use a longbow it can increase the range of up to 600 ft which is 10x the base spell range.

Pps. If you use daylight on an arrow at night it could be useful to signal to your allies. It can notify you of dangers lurking beyond your sight as well as give you a view of otherwise inaccessible areas. Additionally, an arrow stuck in your target can Alert you towards their location.

[Mellack]

I agree with Malifice. If you are trying to get mechanical effects from it, it takes your object interaction. So you cannot both open and close the cover on the same round unless you also use your action. At least that is how I would rule.

[Kenny Snoggins]

Also closing your eye or whatever, aside from busting the number of item interactions you're allowed, would negate half the advantage of the spell as bad guys would be able to hit you without disadvantage since the darkness was down.

I am a tomelock and I have my bat familiar carry a ring with the darkness spell cast in it 9 feet over my head so the darkness only covers my square and a 15' radius sphere above it. The bat has blindsight so he doesn't care.

[Malifice]

Also closing your eye or whatever, aside from busting the number of item interactions you're allowed, would negate half the advantage of the spell as bad guys would be able to hit you without disadvantage since the darkness was down.

I am a tomelock and I have my bat familiar carry a ring with the darkness spell cast in it 9 feet over my head so the darkness only covers my square and a 15' radius sphere above it. The bat has blindsight so he doesn't care.

The Bat moves on its own initiative, so that would be super annoying.

Either you or the Bat are going to have to spend a lot of time using the Delay action, and moving at half speed on each others turns and not doing much of anything else.

[Trickery]

You get one free object/ environment interaction per turn, otherwise it uses your action that turn.

So (presuming you havent already interacted with an object/ the environment) I'd be cool with you choosing at some point on your turn to turn a darkness radiating object either on OR off (your choice, on your turn).

No different to shuttering a lantern.

Gotta say: I would absolute love to have a debate at the table over whether I can open my eye/mouth more than once in a combat round.

[Mellack]

I am not Malifice, but for me you mechanically get one object interaction to spend. You can describe whatever you want as long as mechanically that is all you get. For example you want to draw a sword. You can just say you draw it; or you could say you draw it out, spin it a couple of times, toss it, catch it behind your back, sheath it with the off hand, then kick the sheath so it flies up into your hand again. As long as mechanically you just had the effect of a single draw, describe it how you like.
Don't try to argue realism in my game. It is a game, not a simulator. There is so much unrealistic already. There is no realistic reason not to be able to draw a dagger with each hand in the same time as drawing just one hand, but the rules say you can't. You can open your mouth as many times as you want, as long as you expect no special benefit of doing so. Open and close it like a fish if you want. But as soon as you expect some sort of mechanical effect for doing so it now has to be balanced by the one object interaction rule.

[Malifice]

Gotta say: I would absolute love to have a debate at the table over whether I can open my eye/mouth more than once in a combat round.

As DM, the debate in this one goes: 'I win. You dont like it, there's the door. Your move.' That's how I pretty much roll with most table 'debates' in my game.

You get one free object interaction per turn. Opening a door, shuttering a lantern, picking up an item, drawing a weapon, flicking a switch etc.

You get to choose if you want to be in Darkness till the start of your next turn, or if you don't want to be. Your call. Either way it uses your object interaction, so is either a free action or an action, so (barring a 3rd level Thief, with Fast Hands) you're under those limitations.

End of debate.

To answer your question, you could strobe on or off 3 times in a turn; Once as your 'free' object interaction, a second time with your Action that turn (as per the rules on interacting with an object), and a third time presuming you had 3 levels in Thief Rogue (for the Fast Hands ability).

[Trickery]

As DM, the debate in this one goes: 'I win. You dont like it, there's the door. Your move.' That's how I pretty much roll with most table 'debates' in my game.

That's cool, but are you the DM of these forums? Seems to me you're saying you would rule it this way - which is fine. But you didn't say why it doesn't work by the rules as written. I don't really care about rulings or even intent until I'm actually playing a game with someone.

Thinking logically, you can close and open your mouth more than once in six seconds. Otherwise it would take a long time to say pepperoni. Just saying. But, if I was at your table and you didn't want me to use this trick, I'd just change tactics. Players can have a dialogue with the DM without anyone getting angry.

[Malifice]

That's cool, but are you the DM of these forums? Seems to me you're saying you would rule it this way - which is fine. But you didn't say why it doesn't work by the rules as written.

I was citing the RAW mate.

Use an Object
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.

You get one free simple object interaction per turn. A second one (or a single complex one like applying poison to a weapon, or spreading a bag of caltrops, or picking a lock and so forth) uses your Action (or sometimes multiple actions, like a sufficiently complex lock).

In addition Thief Rogues can use a bonus action to interact with an object or environment as a bonus action.

That's the game mechanics. If you want to interact with a glowing (or darkness radiating) pebble, thats the Use an Object action (the pebble being the object). It can be done without using your action (its a simple enough thing to do) as part of another Action.

If you want to do it twice on your turn, you can but it uses your action.

You can also do it three times, if you're a Rogue of 3rd level or higher (as a Bonus action using your Fast Hands ability).

I dont want to hear your 'logic' getting in the way of game mechanics. It's illogical that a person can load and fire a Heavy Crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds, but Fighters can do that. It's illogical that a person can teleport themselves to another continent or plane of existence but Wizards can do that. It's illogical that a person can fall from the moon and take only 20d6 damage and survive but any high level PC can do that.

They're the rules. Live with them.

[Mellack]

That's cool, but are you the DM of these forums? Seems to me you're saying you would rule it this way - which is fine. But you didn't say why it doesn't work by the rules as written. I don't really care about rulings or even intent until I'm actually playing a game with someone.

Thinking logically, you can close and open your mouth more than once in six seconds. Otherwise it would take a long time to say pepperoni. Just saying. But, if I was at your table and you didn't want me to use this trick, I'd just change tactics. Players can have a dialogue with the DM without anyone getting angry.

You can't use real-world logic, it is a game. The same reason drinking all the ale in a flagon is an object interaction that you can do one free per turn, yet drinking a healing potion takes an action. "Realistically" they should be the same, but because of game balance they take different times. The same way using a command word to activate a magic item is usually an action while talking is otherwise free. Game balance. You seem to be trying to find a way to subvert that game balance. It is part of the GM's job to keep it fair.

[JackPhoenix]

The Trick
Cast it on your eyeball, as this is technically an object that you could say that you are holding (the spell doesn't specify inorganic material only). If your DM isn't cool with that, then cast it on a small something that you can hold between your teeth. Open your mouth or eye when you want to use the darkness (such as on your turn), and close it when you don't.

Unless you pluck out your eye, it's not an object, it's part of a creature. And holding it in your mouth would prevent you from using V components.

[BobZan]

I'm with Malifice and Mellack. On my table it would be a no.

[Kenny Snoggins]

The Bat moves on its own initiative, so that would be super annoying.

Either you or the Bat are going to have to spend a lot of time using the Delay action, and moving at half speed on each others turns and not doing much of anything else.

Is it common to run the familiars on different initiatives? I know that is RAW but I have literally never seen that happen in hundreds of games with a dozen different DMs. Even breaking out pets/summons on their own initiative steps is rare, I've maybe seen that twice.

[Malifice]

Is it common to run the familiars on different initiatives? I know that is RAW but I have literally never seen that happen in hundreds of games with a dozen different DMs. Even breaking out pets/summons on their own initiative steps is rare, I've maybe seen that twice.

Im always DM, and I generally read the rules and play by them, so at my table it happens.

It cuts down on familiar abuse as well.

[Kenny Snoggins]

Im always DM, and I generally read the rules and play by them, so at my table it happens.

It cuts down on familiar abuse as well.

Nice snark. I guess if you're not comfortable running high power groups that's okay. But in convention play, etc it's not at all unlikely that a tier 3 or higher party can have 18+ initiative steps if they are all subdivided out. It gets to be a tedious, unworkable grind pretty quick.

If you prefer to abide by RAW in situations where the base rule set is obviously beginning to bend under the strain then fine, but imo you're sacrificing the most important goal for things that are supposed to support that goal. And if familiar abuse is a problem, last time I checked Fireball is still a thing, and familiars still don't like it very much.

[BobZan]

When a player has familiar and use it for things like "free Aid every round" or other mechanical 'abuse' that works mainly because player and familiar are together on initiave, I run familiar with it's own initiative.

[Lalliman]

The above posters are not unjustified in denying this trick, because it goes beyond what the system is intended to govern. That said, I would allow it simply because it's not that good. It still costs you an action, a second level spell slot, and concentration, and all you get for it is advantage on your attacks. You have to be close to your enemies for it to work, and they take no disadvantage against you, so your concentration is likely to drop quickly. On top of that, casting it on your eyeball has no right to work - it's attached to the rest of your body, making your whole body one object - so you'll have to put it in your mouth. And if you carry a small object in your mouth during combat, I'm gonna make you save to not swallow it or choke on it whenever you take damage :P

[Trustypeaches]

I do this but I just have my imo carry a lantern of darkness.

[HappyDaze]

Unless you pluck out your eye, it's not an object, it's part of a creature. And holding it in your mouth would prevent you from using V components.

I fully agree. Parts of a living/animate creature are not objects, but it gets a bid weird with objects.

As for the other part, it's not really new. I have seen a small charm (coin with a hole in the center) on a leather thong necklace so enchanted and then held in the mouth with the cord still around the neck. When ready to get dark, the charm/coin was simply spit from the mouth to rest upon the chest dangling from the cord. Of course, some might argue that the coin & leather thong taken together are the whole object, but we didn't see an issue. We have likewise allowed darkness to be cast on sword blades so that the darkness only becomes in effect when the blade is drawn.

[Unoriginal]

That's cool, but are you the DM of these forums? Seems to me you're saying you would rule it this way - which is fine. But you didn't say why it doesn't work by the rules as written. I don't really care about rulings or even intent until I'm actually playing a game with someone.

RAW isn't some sacro-saint measure we have uphold, and if you didn't care about rulings you wouldn't have made a thread about how Darkness can get more powerful via a specific ruling.


Even if you wanted to go "nuh-uh, there is no limits to how often I can open and close my mouth in a turn", then the DM would have to point out that as there is no limit, you have to make an effort to maintain your mouth closed at all time except when you want it open, or else you could unleash the Darkness anytime you open your mouth during the physical activities of combat (for things such as breathing or the like).

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Gotta say: I would absolute love to have a debate at the table over whether I can open my eye/mouth more than once in a combat round.

One object interaction, one sword swing and 30 feet of movement seems plenty for me over 6 seconds. I just discovered I can open and close my mouth about 20 times in six seconds so maybe I'd allow you to create a strobe effect if you decided not to do anything else. It would be kinda freaky.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have another trick.
Move your darkness in a way it block only part of the enemies, you get some in your darkness and force them to move or have bad attacks and your party can kill the ones outside of the darkness.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Now there is a way to do this by RAW, however, it's not very practical and even though nothing about it is against the rules, very subjective to DM approval.

Step 1: Cast Darkness on the blade of a sheathed Weapon.
Step 2: Draw weapon for advantage (1 object interaction)
Step 3: After attacking, drop weapon (this is generally understood as a free action, however, it's a disliked workaround of terrible stowing/drawing rules. Ask your DM first)
Step 4: Fall prone (part of your movement, costing 0 speed and no action) over the dropped weapon to conceal the darkness

Like I said, not practical, but it does technically follow RAW without risking an obvious second object interaction ruling. Even though this leaves the darkness user at a disadvantage I'm not sure a DM would allow this either, I'd definitely have a hard time rationalizing it at my own table.

[HappyDaze]

Now there is a way to do this by RAW, however, it's not very practical and even though nothing about it is against the rules, very subjective to DM approval.

Step 1: Cast Darkness on the blade of a sheathed Weapon.
Step 2: Draw weapon for advantage (1 object interaction)
Step 3: After attacking, drop weapon (this is generally understood as a free action, however, it's a disliked workaround of terrible stowing/drawing rules. Ask your DM first)
Step 4: Fall prone (part of your movement, costing 0 speed and no action) over the dropped weapon to conceal the darkness

Like I said, not practical, but it does technically follow RAW without risking an obvious second object interaction ruling. Even though this leaves the darkness user at a disadvantage I'm not sure a DM would allow this either, I'd definitely have a hard time rationalizing it at my own table.

As a DM, I have no problems with a PC that is willing to fall upon his own sword. The monsters are generally fine with it too.

[tieren]

I'd allow a PC to open or close his mouth frequently (maybe 12 times in 6 seconds).

However, the spell doesn't say how long it takes the darkness to spread around those corners and fill its described area. Could reasonably take 6 seconds to be complete.

Everytime the player wanted to make an attack at the same time black ooze is pouring out of his mouth I would rule the enemies can see him until the end of his turn. If he closes his mouth at the end of his turn I might leave it there for the entire next player's turn while it dissipates.

[Trickery]

Like I said guys, it's cool if you don't allow it. It does work by the rules, or rather they don't explicitly prevent it. I don't know if it's intended; I'd have to ask Crawford. I run my own game, though, so I don't need to.

But that's the great thing about D&D: you can allow or not allow anything you want if you're running a game. My ruling has no bearing on yours. There's no reason to be offended.

Do keep in mind, there are no DMs online. That means that, while it's fine to say how you would rule something and why, you shouldn't confuse that with saying "this is how the game works."

[BurgerKingMan]

I could see someone with a criminal background using this trick on their gold tooth to get out of a sticky situation. Using it in combat makes it similar to a barbarians reckless attack in some ways. You gain advantage on your attacks but you no longer impose disadvantage when you close your mouth and you still have to maintain concentration when those attacks eventually connect to your face, which once you lose will take another action to recast. Great for when you can get the jump on the enemy but once/if it dissipates you should move on to plan B. Definitely a nice trick till you gain shadows of moil at 7th.

[Ganymede]

Constituent parts of a creature, such as an eyeball, are not objects because they are not inanimate. As such, they cannot be the target of a Darkness spell.

People saying "it does work by the rules" are playing a prank on you.

[Trickery]

I could see someone with a criminal background using this trick on their gold tooth to get out of a sticky situation. Using it in combat makes it similar to a barbarians reckless attack in some ways. You gain advantage on your attacks but you no longer impose disadvantage when you close your mouth and you still have to maintain concentration when those attacks eventually connect to your face, which once you lose will take another action to recast. Great for when you can get the jump on the enemy but once/if it dissipates you should move on to plan B. Definitely a nice trick till you gain shadows of moil at 7th.

My thought was a drow elf casting it on a tongue ring, as that seems like the kind of thing that race would do. I like your idea too.

[Ganymede]

My thought was a drow elf casting it on a tongue ring, as that seems like the kind of thing that race would do. I like your idea too.

This doesn't work. The DMG is clear on the difference between "worn" and "carried." It points out that things like a tongue ring are worn, and things that are worn do not anchor Darkness.

You could remove your tongue ring, cast the spell on it, then put it back on, tho.

[Mellack]

Like I said guys, it's cool if you don't allow it. It does work by the rules, or rather they don't explicitly prevent it. I don't know if it's intended; I'd have to ask Crawford. I run my own game, though, so I don't need to.

But that's the great thing about D&D: you can allow or not allow anything you want if you're running a game. My ruling has no bearing on yours. There's no reason to be offended.

Do keep in mind, there are no DMs online. That means that, while it's fine to say how you would rule something and why, you shouldn't confuse that with saying "this is how the game works."

Saying the rules don't explicitly prevent it is a very weak argument. The rules don't explicitly prevent that calling "Ni" out loud disables your opponents, but that doesn't mean it works either.

[BurgerKingMan]

This doesn't work. The DMG is clear on the difference between "worn" and "carried." It points out that things like a tongue ring are worn, and things that are worn do not anchor Darkness.

You could remove your tongue ring, cast the spell on it, then put it back on, tho.

That is right but it can be done in so many other ways that to allow it is more of a cosmetic choice. You could still pull it off with a piece of hay, toothpick, chewing gum, wad of tobacco, a pebble. If you have some ability to speak with animals you can cast darkness on your mouse from your urchin background and keep it in your mouth for some giggles.

[Ganymede]

That is right but it can be done in so many other ways that to allow it is more of a cosmetic choice. You could still pull it off with a piece of hay, toothpick, chewing gum, wad of tobacco, a pebble. If you have some ability to speak with animals you can cast darkness on your mouse from your urchin background and keep it in your mouth for some giggles.

Please do not be a New Years Prankster by tricking people into thinking they can cast Darkness on creatures.

[BurgerKingMan]

Please do not be a New Years Prankster by tricking people into thinking they can cast Darkness on creatures.

Fine I said it was for giggles but since its no fun allowed I'm now a fiend pact warlock. I put the mouse in my mouth and chomp on it and snap its neck. I then cast darkness on the corpse.

[Trickery]

You can cast Darkness on a worn item by holding it, casting Darkness, then wearing it. However, if you think that's a tedious extra step that has no place in an actual game, I agree with you.

To those trying to find some reason why this won't work, what is your motivation? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

[Willie the Duck]

You can't use real-world logic, it is a game. The same reason drinking all the ale in a flagon is an object interaction that you can do one free per turn, yet drinking a healing potion takes an action. "Realistically" they should be the same, but because of game balance they take different times. The same way using a command word to activate a magic item is usually an action while talking is otherwise free. Game balance. You seem to be trying to find a way to subvert that game balance. It is part of the GM's job to keep it fair.

More to the point, if you are going to use realism as a guidepost, doing it selectively in this instance leads to an interesting result, but nothing more. Realistically, you can't 'Open your mouth or eye when you want to use the darkness (such as on your turn), and close it when you don't,' because, in reality, your character's turn doesn't exist (with all the other characters waiting to take their turn)--that is all an abstraction to make the games initiative system work. Realistically, there should be a very complex interaction of a character being able to drop darkness (that they can see through) right at the moment they are trying to land a blow or the like. It would be something of an advantage, but exactly what is not clear. But overall, trying to throw a single realism argument in without thinking through all the massively many ways in which the game system is a simplification or abstraction doesn't actually increase the realism of the game. It is (to use an analogy) trying to add digits to pi when you are already constrained by the significant digits of your radius measurements, or the like.



Like I said guys, it's cool if you don't allow it. It does work by the rules, or rather they don't explicitly prevent it. I don't know if it's intended; I'd have to ask Crawford. I run my own game, though, so I don't need to.

But that's the great thing about D&D: you can allow or not allow anything you want if you're running a game. My ruling has no bearing on yours. There's no reason to be offended.

Do keep in mind, there are no DMs online. That means that, while it's fine to say how you would rule something and why, you shouldn't confuse that with saying "this is how the game works."

First and foremost, as others have said, no it doesn't. The rules are silent on many of the issues used in the argument, and directly work against others (such as your eye being an object upon which the spell can be cast, or unlimited object interactions per turn even if it were). The rules not explicitly preventing it (as false as that seems), would be a terrible argument even if it weren't. But more to the point, you came here, presented this proposed tactic to public review, and then decided that the public's positions didn't matter, since the only one whose did matter was yours. Mind you, not all of the pushback you've gotten has been all that high-minded either, and has included some snark, but that doesn't change that this thread kind of boils down to 'Hey guys, look at this cool thing I thought up?... what, you don't think it works?... Well fine then, who cares what you think?'


RAW isn't some sacro-saint measure we have uphold, and if you didn't care about rulings you wouldn't have made a thread about how Darkness can get more powerful via a specific ruling.

Pretty much this.


To those trying to find some reason why this won't work, what is your motivation? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

People are legitimately pointing out how the proposed mechanic doesn't work. They are stress testing the creation you submitted for review. That's not, overall, hostility (although, yes, there has been some snark, as I mentioned), that is them being helpful to you.

[Trickery]

People are legitimately pointing out how the proposed mechanic doesn't work. They are stress testing the creation you submitted for review. That's not, overall, hostility (although, yes, there has been some snark, as I mentioned), that is them being helpful to you.

There are no rules governing opening and closing one's mouth. As others have pointed out, you can cast Darkness on an object and stick it in your mouth. We know it doesn't take an object interaction to open your mouth specifically because of spells with verbal components. Therefore you can open and close your mouth without using an object interaction.

This all seems like an argument over rulings, not rules, to me. And I'm not interested in arguing about rulings - I see no point. I have no say in how others run their games.

But maybe I'm missing something. Please help me understand what it is I don't get.

[ashtrails]

To those trying to find some reason why this won't work, what is your motivation? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

I think that's mainly, apart from just being very strict with the written rules, because it actually is not creative in a mechanical sense.
Creativity is using synergy between tools in your toolbox and achieving something clever / unexpected within their parameters of the game mechanics, for example.

I love the flavor of a warlock with an enchanted eye made from glass/gold/silver/obisidian to FLUFF this, don't get me wrong. That is actually creative as a concept for your character.
However, you mix that with a way to overcome a mechnical restriction.
Common general agreement on the table is not doing that so it won't cascade into many incidences of 'well, actually, then this should be possible too', if you make it its own rule instead of a clever exception all players can enjoy.

According to this, of course what you want to do is possible, your arguments are valid. But it should be actually your responsibility to come up with a reason / accepting that this cannot be a free actions, because that's what the rules dictate, despite common sense.
Someone brought up healing potions VS having a sip of booze. Technically, as long as the drinker doesn't know there's healing brew in there, it shouldn't cost a proper action, right?
Except you can explain that by the viscous nature of healing potions, alchemical wax seals that have to be cracked etc... you don't need to, because the rules say: action cost = X. But it's nice flavor and an in-universe explanation.

Your darkness proposal is not exactly the same, but it hits the same vein.
It's not creative thinking. It's arguing common sense, and ironically by using the game's rules against itself.

What you are proposing, is holding the system's good will hostage; that simple things like blinking, breathing or talking which give you freedom to express ideas or roleplay, or give wiggle room for lateral / everyday stuff implicitly excluding hardwired things should also be used to circumvent RAW.

Or to make it short: your idea is creative as a concept. But it's clearly an exploit and that may rub people the wrong way.
At least this would be my reasoning if someone approached me with this.

[BurgerKingMan]

People are legitimately pointing out how the proposed mechanic doesn't work. They are stress testing the creation you submitted for review. That's not, overall, hostility (although, yes, there has been some snark, as I mentioned), that is them being helpful to you.

I would like to stress this point. Ideas flourish under scrutiny. The Op's first post was a rough sketch for a concept and though back and forth we simmered down the idea to the basics of cast darkness on object, put object in mouth, use when needed. Now that the idea is at its base elements one can now ask "Now that I can put a darkened object in my mouth is there any mechanical difference to touching the stone on my tongue/false tooth in my mouth/eyeball and getting the same effect?" To make an analogy, by going through this debate and hashing out the idea we were able to take this discussion of a cheating mod and turn it into a discussion of a texture mod which is much more palatable to the community.

[E’Tallitnics]

Like I said guys, it's cool if you don't allow it. It does work by the rules, or rather they don't explicitly prevent it. I don't know if it's intended; I'd have to ask Crawford. I run my own game, though, so I don't need to.

But that's the great thing about D&D: you can allow or not allow anything you want if you're running a game. My ruling has no bearing on yours. There's no reason to be offended.

Do keep in mind, there are no DMs online. That means that, while it's fine to say how you would rule something and why, you shouldn't confuse that with saying "this is how the game works."

So much this attitude!

Backstory: During the playtest the "Edition Wars" were where a person would express their opinion on a certain new game mechanic introduced, then others would chime in on their thoughts, then some malcontent would chime in that everything that was (or wasn't) "Edition X" was utter crap and anyone that supported otherwise was stupid and that the game devs where morons, etc. Wash, Rinse & Repeat. They'd get so bad no constructive conversation could be had and threads and entire forums would be shut down because of it.

Presently: What you encountered is what I refer to as, "Edition Wars 2.0"! But they're in reverse now...

v2.0 is where someone like yourself posts a question, and then some of the replies give only a super strict RAW interpretation, usually when RAW wasn't even asked for. The intent seems to be to suck all the fun and joy out of playing the game for anyone reading their responses.

I for one love your idea! The eyeball idea is utterly horrifying if you think about how that would playout in the game.

My Warlock always casts Darkness on a copper piece then gave that to my Imp familiar. It would only need to open or close its hand to release or contain the darkness. (Can you feel it Tricky? Can you feel them debating if the hand of an imp is large enough to completely contain a copper piece?)

So continue to ignore the Edition Warriors, and those that DM but must stick only to RAW because they lack imagination to handle creative players.

[Monster Manuel]

To those trying to find some reason why this won't work, what is your motivation? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

I think those who are most vocal in arguing that it doesn't work are the same people who have been burned by a slippery slope ruling in the past.

"Whoa, Darkness can be cast on an individual body part as an Object? OK, I cast Levitate on his beard, and pull it up over his eyes to blind him!"
"Oh, yeah well I cast Arcane Lock on his eyelids, and blind him even more!"
"Oh, yeah, well I cast Control Water on the blood in his brain and freeze it into a blood clot, and he DIES!"

None of these actually work (maybe the first one, but probably not). But the can of worms that is opened by allowing the Cool Thing from casting Darkness on your eyeball leads to more rules arguments than the Cool Thing is worth.

Consistency in how a ruling is handled is important to keep future rulings simple, understandable, and palyable.

In fairness, a better way to do this might be to Research a brand new spell that makes a Darkness effect come from your eyes, at the same level as Darkness, that lets you apply darkness to your square at will but blinds you when you're not using it because your eyes are closed. The specific spell effect supersedes the general rule on object interaction. That way, the ruling applies just to the specific spell, and not a broadly-applicable ruling about the general Object Interaction rule, so no unintended downstream consequences...

[Trickery]

The Op's first post was a rough sketch for a concept and though back and forth we simmered down the idea to the basics of cast darkness on object, put object in mouth, use when needed.

That's what I put in my opening post, though. I anticipated the eye is not an object concern and suggested using an object in the mouth. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, here. I'm trying to learn.

I was surprised by the response. This thread has gone from "it doesn't work" to "it does work but your DM might not like it." But the trick hasn't actually changed.

If I has to guess, I would say that the problem is that I put the word "trick" in the thread title. When you say "trick," some people hear "exploit." Is this an exploit?

In D&D, the rules are whatever your DM says they are. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all of this was a video game. Instead, we'd be wondering if it was going to be patched.

Please forgive my ignorance.

[ashtrails]

So continue to ignore the Edition Warriors, and those that DM but must stick only to RAW because they lack imagination to handle creative players.

Sorry, but this is not creative.
First of all, as you said yourself just now and a bunch of people before that: it's obviously easy to make darkness efficient. This is not some great illuminating game changer or even a great intellectual effort. It's trying to optimize your tool.
This is as creative as putting a nail through your club and wrapping ductape around it for a better grip, mechanically speaking.
It's optimizing, a matter of efficiency.

[BurgerKingMan]

That's what I put in my opening post, though. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, here.

I was surprised by the response. This thread has gone from "it doesn't work" to "it does work but several people don't like it." But the trick hasn't actually changed.

If I has to guess, I would say that the problem is that I put the word "trick" in the thread title. When you say "trick," some people hear "exploit." Is this an exploit?

In D&D, the rules are whatever your DM says they are. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all of this was a video game. Instead, we'd be wondering if it was going to be patched.

It's all about presentation. Your presented this trick as a surefire thing while saying some wrong things on accident (like saying from the get-go its ok to use your eyeball). You are now wresting with Cuningham's Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law. People are rushing to point out your wrong not because they want to stifle creativity but because that is how human nature work on some level. If you made your first post pointing out the darkened object in mouth trick, then asking if this was a good idea would it also be reasonable to flavor it as xyz... you would have had a more positive reception.

[Trickery]

Sorry, but this is not creative.
First of all, as you said yourself just now and a bunch of people before that: it's obviously easy to make darkness efficient. This is not some great illuminating game changer or even a great intellectual effort. It's trying to optimize your tool.
This is as creative as putting a nail through your club and wrapping ductape around it for a better grip, mechanically speaking.
It's optimizing, a matter of efficiency.

Are we now debating the definition of creativity? I thought we were talking about Darkness and whether it can be cast on an object that one puts in one's mouth.

Though it did occur to me that a glass eye might be even more thematic. Put darkness on the glass eye and you can turn it on and off by blinking. For any Naruto fans, you could make a Kakashi-like character via this method. At least, it should work if your DM allows the concept.

Is that creative? I don't know. People disagree about what is and is not creative. Sometimes, creative just means "I like it," and not creative just means "I don't." I've had discussions of this nature during pre- and post-game chats with players before, but those were much more civil.

Regardless, I'm certainly no expert.

[fbelanger]

Nice trick to make the DM angry at you.

[Malifice]

You can cast Darkness on a worn item by holding it, casting Darkness, then wearing it. However, if you think that's a tedious extra step that has no place in an actual game, I agree with you.

To those trying to find some reason why this won't work, what is your motivation? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

We're not being hostile mate. We're just pointing out the rules.

[ashtrails]

Are we now debating the definition of creativity?


Please mind the quote. This was not a direct answer to your idea. : )
For me, it became an item when all counterpoints had been reduced to 'bah, ignore them, they can't handle creativity!' during the discussion.


My post above that outlines somewhat clearer why I doubt this is a creative (constructive) idea in the context of a rule-driven roleplay system.

[Trickery]

We're not being hostile mate. We're just pointing out the rules.

So you're saying that opening your mouth is an object interaction? Or are you fine with that part? I feel I've lost track of the thread, here.

Either way, I just wanted to share the idea. You may not like it, and that's fine. I allow things like this in my games, but you don't have to allow it in yours. It's more of a role playing idea than a mechanical trick, as the better mechanical trick is to simply not stand next to party members when using darkness.

[tieren]

Just cast Blink, doesn't require concentration and while you are on the ethereal plane the rest of your party can see. [talk about fun strobe light shenanigans]

[Malifice]

So you're saying that opening your mouth is an object interaction?

If by opening your mouth you're interacting with an object (which is your express stated intent here, plus also expressly what you're doing with the object in your mouth) then, Yes that is precisely what I am saying.


Either way, I just wanted to share the idea. You may not like it, and that's fine. I allow things like this in my games, but you don't have to allow it in yours. It's more of a role playing idea than a mechanical trick, as the better mechanical trick is to simply not stand next to party members when using darkness.

You can allow Fighters to auto kill people just by looking at them and winking in your games if you want, and more luck to you.

There is no mechanical trick here. The rules are clear. You're interacting with an object (in this case, one you have inside your mouth). You can do it for free as part of another action once per turn (shut off your darkness aura to see let a creature see you on your turn as you make an attack), a second time (or in a complex way, such as repeatedly opening and closing your mouth) by using an action (or a bonus action if you're also a 3rd level Thief Rogue).

Thats the intent and the wording of the rules. Feel free to do what you want at your table, but this wont fly at many others.

[tieren]

Its definitely an object interaction, but I don't think it is clear that the object interaction can't be "open and close my mouth".

Would you let another player open a door to peek inside and close it? Lift a lid on a pot and put it back on? In the modern world couldn't they flip a light switch a few times?

If you wouldn't let them open and close a door, would you let them turn a knob and pull it open? Open a pouch and pull something out?

[Contrast]

As others have pointed out, you can cast Darkness on an object and stick it in your mouth. We know it doesn't take an object interaction to open your mouth specifically because of spells with verbal components. Therefore you can open and close your mouth without using an object interaction.

I can drink a liquid from a vial as a free object interaction...but drinking a healing potion takes an action. Because we're playing a game.

If me and an enemy both move to press a button at the same time and we move at the same speed, starting from the same spot, there is a good chance we will be 30ft apart when the button is pressed. Because we're playing a game.

You're arguing logic in a game system. Sometimes logic should trump the game system and the rules empower the DM to make that decision. In this case I'd be of the opinion that the rules for object interactions make sense - you only gain the benefit of fighting from darkness when its on, not a momentary strobe light.


So you're saying that opening your mouth is an object interaction? Or are you fine with that part? I feel I've lost track of the thread, here.

I believe the point being made was if its just fluff, open and close your mouth as much as you want. If you plan to gain mechanical advantage from interacting with an object, assume the rules written for interacting with objects will be in effect. A DM is at liberty to ignore those rules if they don't feel they're relevant but I wouldn't just casually assume this to be the case without asking them before trying to do it.

[BurgerKingMan]

Page 190 of the phb " You can communicate however you are able through brief utterances and gestures as you take your turn". Use your object interaction to put the thing in your mouth, then scream/grunt/yodel whenever you attack.

[Malifice]

Its definitely an object interaction, but I don't think it is clear that the object interaction can't be "open and close my mouth".

Would you let another player open a door to peek inside and close it? Lift a lid on a pot and put it back on? In the modern world couldn't they flip a light switch a few times?

If you wouldn't let them open and close a door, would you let them turn a knob and pull it open? Open a pouch and pull something out?

Open and close a door is beyond what 'interact with an object' as part of another action can do. It would be an action (or a bonus action for a Rogue thief).

You could open a door as part of the Search action for free though. Or you could open and close the door, looking in without searching (use you action to interact with the door).

Anything beyond a simple interaction (draw weapon, pull out some rope, pick up the mace from the floor, open door, retrieve components/ arcane focus for a spell, pull potion from belt etc) and you need to use the 'Use an Object' action.

Applying poison to a weapon, opening and closing a door on your turn (or opening more than one door), drawing two weapons (barring having the Dual Wielder feat), spreading caltrops on the floor, hurling a rope over a tree branch etc), picking a lock, etc are all things that require an action (the use an object action).

A glowing thing inside your mouth is no different to a shutter on a lantern. Opening the lantern is a free object interaction (as would be closing it) opening and closing it multiple times or opening and closing multiple lanterns would require your action (unless you're a thief with Fast Hands in which case you get to do it as a bonus action).

[Trickery]

I believe the point being made was if its just fluff, open and close your mouth as much as you want. If you plan to gain mechanical advantage from interacting with an object, assume the rules written for interacting with objects will be in effect. A DM is at liberty to ignore those rules if they don't feel they're relevant but I wouldn't just casually assume this to be the case without asking them before trying to do it.

See, now that makes it clear. That's a point I understand. If I can rephrase: you must spend resources to gain mechanical advantage. So, if you have a glass eye, blinking does not normally cost anything. But if you cast Darkness on that glass eye (taking it out and putting it back in, if needed), then blinking now costs two object interactions - one to close the eyelid, one to open it. And this is because of the mechanics - it doesn't have to make real world sense.

Is that correct? I don't agree with it, and I don't think the rules clearly state that this is the case. But I'm trying to at least understand the point. I think it's important to look at things from more than one perspective, if I can say that without sounding cliché.

[Malifice]

See, now that makes it clear. That's a point I understand. If I can rephrase: you must spend resources to gain mechanical advantage. So, if you have a glass eye, blinking does not normally cost anything. But if you cast Darkness on that glass eye (taking it out and putting it back in, if needed), then blinking now costs two object interactions - one to close the eyelid, one to open it. And this is because of the mechanics - it doesn't have to make real world sense.

Is that correct? I don't agree with it, and I don't think the rules clearly state that this is the case. But I'm trying to at least understand the point. I think it's important to look at things from more than one perspective, if I can say that without sounding cliché.

Yeah, Im out.

[Man_Over_Game]

There was a well written RPG Stack Exchange question on this exact topic: Can I cast Darkness in my mouth so I can turn it on/off each round without having to use an action? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/134814/can-i-cast-darkness-in-my-mouth-so-i-can-turn-it-on-off-each-round-without-havin)

The top rated answer (41 votes): This Would Not Work (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/134816/45619)

...but not because of the way the Darkness spell works.

This wouldn't work because of an issue with the way combat happens. Combat is taken in turns, but it doesn't actually happen in turns. Mechanically, only because of how hard it is to actually do otherwise, combat is consecutive, but in actuality, combat is simultaneous.

Everyone is supposed to be fighting and defending at the same time, just your reaction times are different. Which means that open and closing your mouth during your turn won't actually do anything, since everyone else is attacking and defending during the same period of time as well. All that would happen is that there would be a strobe effect in the middle of you trying to kill each other.

-------------

However, on a game balance decision, this is a terrible idea. Darkness is designed to be a two-way hinderance, and is balanced as being so. Devil's Sight is a clear way to remove that balance in your favor, and allowing other players to get a cheap way of avoiding that problem isn't a good design strategy.

Alternatively, whenever thinking about giving something special treatment, always ask "Do they need it?" And I feel that Darkness + Devil's Sight does not.

[BurgerKingMan]

If your DM truly has a greatsword stuck up his porker you can always Warlock x/ Rogue (thief, Thanks to malifice for reminding me)3. Interact with object to open mouth, attack, bonus action to close mouth.

[Trickery]

There was a well written RPG Stack Exchange question on this exact topic: Can I cast Darkness in my mouth so I can turn it on/off each round without having to use an action? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/134814/can-i-cast-darkness-in-my-mouth-so-i-can-turn-it-on-off-each-round-without-havin)

The top rated answer (41 votes): This Would Not Work (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/134816/45619)

...but not because of the way the Darkness spell works.

This wouldn't work because of an issue with the way combat happens. Combat is taken in turns, but it doesn't actually happen in turns. Mechanically, only because of how hard it is to actually do otherwise, combat is consecutive, but in actuality, combat is simultaneous.

Everyone is supposed to be fighting and defending at the same time, just your reaction times are different. Which means that open and closing your mouth during your turn won't actually do anything, since everyone else is attacking and defending during the same period of time as well. All that would happen is that there would be a strobe effect in the middle of you trying to kill each other.

-------------

However, on a game balance decision, this is a terrible idea. Darkness is designed to be a two-way hinderance, and is balanced as being so. Devil's Sight is a clear way to remove that balance in your favor, and allowing other players to get a cheap way of avoiding that problem isn't a good design strategy.

Alternatively, whenever thinking about giving something special treatment, always ask "Do they need it?" And I feel that Darkness + Devil's Sight does not.

Interesting point. If you want to be that realistic about it, why not spend down time doing training sessions with party members so you can use it in such a way that they'll be ready for it but the enemy won't?

Top rated or not, that argument fails for one reason: movement. The normal hexblade darkness trick is to move in 15', attack, then move back 15'. No one contests that doing so works - or, at least, I've never seen anyone contest it. That seems to indicate that you can inflict darkness on a creature long enough to benefit your own attacks only without hindering the party. But, if combat was simultaneous, then moving in and out would not work, either. And yet it seems that it does.

Maybe I'm overthinking this.

You mentioned special treatment, as if allowing this to work is the player asking for a freebie. That suggests to me that you view this as an exploit, which in turn suggests that you would have a similar response to other unusual or unintended tactics. Which is fine. I don't view this as an exploit. I think that's the key difference of opinion.

[Ganders]

In D&D, if it's alive it's not an object. No such thing as a 'living object'. So an eye isn't an object. Seems odd to me, but so be it. However, the idea of darkness only on your turn still can work. In lots of ways.

The one object interaction isn't so much of a limit. For one thing, dropping an item (even a weapon) is a free action seperate from the object interaction. Also your familiar may not be able to attack, but he can interact with small object, and can even do so as a readied action.

If you cast darkness on a coin, you can put a cup or bowl over it. Or better yet, put it in a belt pouch. Object interaction to lift the lid of the belt pouch at the start of your turn. Then let go of the lid (dropping an item) at the end of your turn.

Another way is to drop the coin on the ground and step on it. When it's not your turn you naturally just stand there covering the coin with your foot. When it's your turn, you move five feet (or move 0 feet but shuffle your feet), then do your stuff, then move back to stand on the coin again. If they didn't see you cast the darkness spell in the first place, they might not even realize what you're doing -- after all there is never any moment where they can see the coin on the ground, only you know it's there.

I kinda like to put darkness on the clapper of a small bell. As long as the bell is sitting on the ground or a table, nobody knows the darkness is under there. But tip the bell over and instant darkness. If you tie a string to the bell's handle, it makes a rather nice tripwire. Or you can have your famliiar ready to pull the string at the right time.

A properly weighted bell or similar contraption will naturally fall so that it lands rightside up. So I can just drop it at the end of every turn, and use an object interaction to pick it up at the start of each turn. If your bell doesn't always land rightside up, for whatever reason, your familiar can use its readied action to tip the bell rightside up. Or merely cover the bell with its own body. If necessary, switch it around so your familiar just tips the bell over, and you use your object interaction to set it up again.

If you plan it really well, your familiar can do both parts (the interaction and the drop) so he does it all for you. Or... just have the familiar stand up and sit down on the coin as part of its movement. Or, for that matter, put it in your familiar's mouth instead of yours.

[Man_Over_Game]

Interesting point. If you want to be that realistic about it, why not spend down time doing training sessions with party members so you can use it in such a way that they'll be ready for it but the enemy won't?

Top rated or not, that argument fails for one reason: movement. The normal hexblade darkness trick is to move in 15', attack, then move back 15'. No one contests that doing so works - or, at least, I've never seen anyone contest it. That seems to indicate that you can inflict darkness on a creature long enough to benefit your own attacks only without hindering the party. But, if combat was simultaneous, then moving in and out would not work, either. And yet it seems that it does.

Maybe I'm overthinking this.

You mentioned special treatment, as if allowing this to work is the player asking for a freebie. That suggests to me that you view this as an exploit, which in turn suggests that you would have a similar response to other unusual or unintended tactics. Which is fine. I don't view this as an exploit. I think that's the key difference of opinion.

I don't consider anything really an exploit. It's always just people trying to do cool stuff.

But a DM isn't the fun uncle that lets you eat candy whenever you want because it seemed fun in the moment. The DM is the voice of reason and balance in the universe. And DnD is a game.

It's important in a game to not have one choice to completely surpass another choice (such as when choosing classes/builds), and it's also important to require strategies to evolve and adapt.

For example, attacking with advantage without hindering your allies already exists...for the Barbarian as a level 2 feature. Where a Warlock gets additional spells and utility effects, the Barbarian can attack with advantage every round. Both characters can do this every turn for a minute, twice per rest. However a Warlock gets a second spell slot to spend, and the Barbarian is restricted to melee weapons, not casting spells, and having advantage to be struck.

Darkness + Devil's Sight worked because of the drawbacks. Removing those cheapens other options (like the Barbarian).

In addition, the Darkness + Devil's Sight combo required a great deal of planning to work around with your team and the enemy's expected reaction to your strategy. By cheapening that weakness into becoming nonexistent, you have gained something from the Darkness spell without losing anything. Why does the Vengeance Paladin have to be within 10 feet, only use it once per short rest, only affect a single creature, and get no benefits to their defense when the Warlock can do it better?

------------

Ask yourself this:

Narratively, is this easy to visualize? (IMO, No)

As a game, is this balanced? (IMO, No)

If you can answer "Yes" to both of those questions, always let it happen. But I can't see those being true in this case.

[BobZan]

See, now that makes it clear. That's a point I understand. If I can rephrase: you must spend resources to gain mechanical advantage. So, if you have a glass eye, blinking does not normally cost anything. But if you cast Darkness on that glass eye (taking it out and putting it back in, if needed), then blinking now costs two object interactions - one to close the eyelid, one to open it. And this is because of the mechanics - it doesn't have to make real world sense.

Is that correct? I don't agree with it, and I don't think the rules clearly state that this is the case. But I'm trying to at least understand the point. I think it's important to look at things from more than one perspective, if I can say that without sounding cliché.

Speaking is free, now you throw in a magic item that has vocal trigger and speaking to activate it is an action. Eating a grape takes your object interaction, eating a goodbery takes your action. That's how the game works. I don't see why a 'darkened' pebble inside your mouth would be any different of those mechanics.

[krugaan]

Top rated or not, that argument fails for one reason: movement. The normal hexblade darkness trick is to move in 15', attack, then move back 15'. No one contests that doing so works - or, at least, I've never seen anyone contest it. That seems to indicate that you can inflict darkness on a creature long enough to benefit your own attacks only without hindering the party. But, if combat was simultaneous, then moving in and out would not work, either. And yet it seems that it does.


Wait, why would a hexblade move in 15' and then move away again? Wouldn't it be better to stay within melee to threaten OAs?

[Man_Over_Game]

Wait, why would a hexblade move in 15' and then move away again? Wouldn't it be better to stay within melee to threaten OAs?

Booming Blade.

Plus, you don't want to stick around too long in melee combat or risk losing your Darkness.

[krugaan]

Booming Blade.

Plus, you don't want to stick around too long in melee combat or risk losing your Darkness.

Wouldn't hexblades take extra attack at 5 anyway? also, warcaster.

Then again, I play hexblade / sword bard, and I tend to wade into melee to offtank things.

[Willie the Duck]

I've never been to a forum before where creativity was met with hostility.

When you say "trick," some people hear "exploit." Is this an exploit?

Exploit, I feel, has gotten an unnecessary bad connotation in gaming, since to exploit is really a neutral word when unmodified by context (what are you exploiting, and are you supposed to be? One army fighting another is going to exploit their tactical or numeric advantages, and the term not have a negative connotation). Regardless, your trick is exploiting the intersection of where rules-defined-activity (the effects of darkness on combat, ability to cast darkness on an object), intersects with 'your character is a living breathing entity within the fictional game world, and more than a mere board-game playing piece'-isms. It is tap-dancing awfully close to, as ashtrails put it, "holding the system's good will hostage." I wouldn't use such stark terms, but it is making use of the fact that the designers didn't think they needed to put in a line along the lines of, "all attempts to exploit [neutral meaning of the world] the fact that your character is more than a game piece should be subject to DM review, and a DM should adjudicate whether the attempt is trying to get something for nothing, or something that is normally limited/has drawbacks, through said exploit, does not, and rule accordingly." Your trick is attempting to reason that, by exploiting those good graces, get what might otherwise be limited by object interaction limits (taking a darkness-imbued item into/out-of a contained space to turn on/off its power), getting unlimited uses per turn. Whether that's neutral or bad form, it doesn't hit a lot of registers for 'laudably creative.'

Onto the subject of creativity, yes it is somewhat an unclear social consensus on what types of creativity are considered impressive, which are neutral to merely unimpressive, and which ones are derision-worthy. The cheap/bad/derision-worthy are usually along the lines of 3e's drown healing (yes a very real gap in the rule structure), heading past AD&D2e and some high-level monster having been published before the psionics rules were made (and thus them having no immunity to something a level 1 psionicist might have), and towards 'the rules don't say I can't have the water from my Create Water spell show up in my enemy's lungs, making them start to drown' (or a theoretical-but-I've-never-seen-anyone-try-to-argue analogue, 'the rules don't say I can't summon my elemental inside my enemies' chest-cavity, killing them with no save.'). The good/impressive/lauded tricks tend to be along the lines of exploiting your environment ('hey look, scaffolding, I'm going to re-invent Donkey Kong and roll barrels at the orcs chasing us'), or something like the Greek Myths about young Hermes (stealing cows and tying brooms to their tails to have them brush up their own footprints), and the like. I'm sure that there are mechanical ones as well, but they have a tick against them because of how often and how much the weight of supposed inventive rule 'tricks' people come up with are in fact just cheeze or the like. Yes, you are fighting uphill against the tresspasses of others, but that's just the nature of the game culture. Regardless, your trick falls into the middle of not particuarly inventive (trying to crack open the warlock-Darkness combination is one of the first things people started trying to do when this edition came out), clearly attempting to get extra OIAs without investment, and attempting to work around the primary contraint mechanism which allows something so powerful to be an allowed thing for the designers to give warlocks in the first place. There's a high standard there, and this doesn't clear it. Mind you, if you'd started out with less of a confrontational attitude towards pushback, the whole things would have gone down more along the lines of "I'd rule against it, A, B, and C, are things I'd suggest changing to make it work," but that's water under the bridge now.

[Malifice]

Top rated or not, that argument fails for one reason: movement. The normal hexblade darkness trick is to move in 15', attack, then move back 15'.

Then the creature you attack walks forward 15' on its turn and attacks you.

It knows roughly where you are (the centre of the sphere of darkness right in front of it) and you havent taken the Hide action, are not hidden and thus it can attack you (at disadvantage due to the darkness).

Youre probably much better off keeping it in the darkness. That shuts down a lot of its abilities, including attacks of opportunity and most spells.

Your friends get disadvantage to hit it because they cant see it, but that's cancelled out by the advantage they also get because it's blinded in the darkness, so thats a wash. They cant target it with most spells, special abilities and attacks of opportunity, but otherwise can swing at it no problems (and vice versa to the monsters attacks vs them).

[Trickery]

Then the creature you attack walks forward 15' on its turn and attacks you.

It knows roughly where you are (the centre of the sphere of darkness right in front of it) and you havent taken the Hide action, are not hidden and thus it can attack you (at disadvantage due to the darkness).

Youre probably much better off keeping it in the darkness. That shuts down a lot of its abilities, including attacks of opportunity and most spells.

Your friends get disadvantage to hit it because they cant see it, but that's cancelled out by the advantage they also get because it's blinded in the darkness, so thats a wash. They cant target it with most spells, special abilities and attacks of opportunity, but otherwise can swing at it no problems (and vice versa to the monsters attacks vs them).

There are a variety of reasons why a creature may or may not move to pursue someone carrying darkness. Of course they know where the attacker is unless the attacker is also a rogue and uses cunning action: hide (DM dependent, as always). That's not the point. In your example, the warlock might be immediately after the opponent in initiave order as well, in which case there would be no chance of inconveniencing allies. But that also isn't the point.

The point is you can move in, attack, and move out on your turn without darkness necessarily interfering with your allies. If that's the case, then it stands to reason that you should be able to uncover the darkness, attack, and cover it again to achieve the same effect (assuming you are able to cover and uncover it, obviously).

I was specifically addressing the idea that essentially flicking the lights off and on during your turn to get advantage on your own attacks wouldn't work because combat is assumed to all happen at the same time. I'm saying that the simultaneousness argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny because players can move, attack, and move out to achieve an equal effect.

To address one other point, some consider the darkness + devil's sight combo to be game breaking in general. I believe that's where a lot of the debate comes from - people want to balance it. But I think that's silly. You can't know whether something is gamebreaking or not until you know what campaign you're playing and who you're playing with. Something as simple as playing a Moon Druid can be game breaking in many campaigns simply because it's a strong option and may outperform the other players. Even individual spells, like Goodberry, can trivialize certain challenges. So, in short, I'm not interested in debating whether something is broken, because I think it's impossible to make a statement like that.

[E’Tallitnics]

Sorry, but this is not creative.
First of all, as you said yourself just now and a bunch of people before that: it's obviously easy to make darkness efficient. This is not some great illuminating game changer or even a great intellectual effort. It's trying to optimize your tool.
This is as creative as putting a nail through your club and wrapping ductape around it for a better grip, mechanically speaking.
It's optimizing, a matter of efficiency.

Really? In a non-RAW thread the OP comes up with ‘Blinking’ as a workaround to the disadvantage of Darkness and that’s not creative?

[Willie the Duck]

The point is you can move in, attack, and move out on your turn without darkness necessarily interfering with your allies. If that's the case, then it stands to reason that you should be able to uncover the darkness, attack, and cover it again to achieve the same effect (assuming you are able to cover and uncover it, obviously).

Perhaps, but setting up that situation of the former, spending the movement to do so, and being constrained by times when you can't do so are all limiting factors upon the power of the ability.


I was specifically addressing the idea that essentially flicking the lights off and on during your turn to get advantage on your own attacks wouldn't work because combat is assumed to all happen at the same time. I'm saying that the simultaneousness argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny because players can move, attack, and move out to achieve an equal effect.

That would depend on whether the existence of the rule structure potentially having immersion-breaks is an argument for specifically ruling-in additional breaks at a point when making rulings. I don't think we've really had that discussion yet.


To address one other point, some consider the darkness + devil's sight combo to be game breaking in general. I believe that's where a lot of the debate comes from - people want to balance it. But I think that's silly. You can't know whether something is gamebreaking or not until you know what campaign you're playing and who you're playing with. Something as simple as playing a Moon Druid can be game breaking in many campaigns simply because it's a strong option and may outperform the other players. Even individual spells, like Goodberry, can trivialize certain challenges. So, in short, I'm not interested in debating whether something is broken, because I think it's impossible to make a statement like that.

I don't know that anyone really considers it game breaking per se. I do think people generally think it is something that is supposed to be 'powerful, but with real constraints and limitations,' such that attempts to trivialize the limitations are met with suspicion. Darkness is, at base, a decent 2nd level spell. Darkness plus Devil's Sight is a really powerful synergy of game effects, constrained by significant limitations in how readily one can capitalize upon the benefits. Darkness plus Devil's Sight plus the mitigation of those constraints is, while it certainly won't break a campaign wide open, might be too powerful for a second level spell and a single character build purchase (an invocation, especially one that is routinely useful beyond this trick).

Beyond that, what it does that other things sometimes called broken don't do is overly complicate a lot of situations. It bogs down combat into counting down the tickings of the clock, checking when things happen over in what squares, alters both PC and opponent behavior, and generally has disproportionate weight to changing what people (players and DM) spend their valuable minutes of game time doing (micromanaging the combat zone) compared to other effects of equal level or commitment. Moon druid, by comparison, is 'oh look, the druid is going to be a high-hp, low-damage-output tank for this combat, and will still have their spells left at the end of this,' that's a very different kind of broken*.
*if it is one at all, other than seeming strictly better than land druid in most games, I haven't found moon druids to be all that earth-shattering.

And that leads to my second 'beyond that' -- there are all sorts of levels of 'broken' in the game. And the biggest one of all was discovered within moments of the games' publishing 4+ years ago -- Wish + Simulacrum*. At some point, you get to the position that the existence of broken thing X (of a higher level) does not mean you should encourage broken thing Y. I don't really know if people dislike this thing you suggest specifically because they think it is broken, so much as find the mechanics unconvincing, maybe abusive/cheezy, or just continue the trend of warlocks being a gimmick class**
* so much so that people tend to forget it exists, as we all figured no sane DM would allow it, and have moved on to discussions about 'broken' things that might matter in actual campaigns
**that spams Eldritch Blast, blankets combats in darkness, gets dipped into by optimizing sorcerers and paladins, and generally doesn't live up to what aspiring players of 3e and 4e warlocks had hoped the class would be in 5e

Goodberry, now that you mention it, is a great example of a no-discussion level of broken-ness. It absolutely trivializes an entire style of gameplay (wilderness adventure/resource-management). They even removed the DM gatekeep of previous editions by removing the gatable expendable material component. But it does so so well that there's not much discussion. Most people will no longer play that gamestyle, and those that do know already that they have to pretty much disallow the spell. Discussion over. Discussing your specific proposed trick is the exact opposite--there are points of discussion, decision, and ability to deem a given required arguments good/bad/cheezy all along the way.

[Trickery]

That would depend on whether the existence of the rule structure potentially having immersion-breaks is an argument for specifically ruling-in additional breaks at a point when making rulings. I don't think we've really had that discussion yet.

Goodberry, now that you mention it, is a great example of a no-discussion level of broken-ness. It absolutely trivializes an entire style of gameplay (wilderness adventure/resource-management). They even removed the DM gatekeep of previous editions by removing the gatable expendable material component. But it does so so well that there's not much discussion. Most people will no longer play that gamestyle, and those that do know already that they have to pretty much disallow the spell. Discussion over. Discussing your specific proposed trick is the exact opposite--there are points of discussion, decision, and ability to deem a given required arguments good/bad/cheezy all along the way.

Thank you for your reply. I'm only trying to have a discussion, not argue, and I hope that comes across. I think you made especially good points in the two quoted paragraphs above. I want to expand on these a bit.

Obviously, there are odd rules interactions that break immersion. However we define immersion, it is not difficult to find mechanical inconsistencies. I'm sure we can all think of some. I don't think the existence of mechanical inconsistencies justifies finding more of them. Rather, what I was suggesting is something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules: blinking or opening one's mouth.

Up until now, I was only approaching this from two stances: either it's allowed because it makes logical sense, or it isn't allowed for balance reasons. If there are balance reasons not to permit something, I think the DM should simply say it isn't allowed. Players respect that more than they respect a DM who tells them that they were foolish, exploitative, or tying to game the system for even thinking X would work in the first place.

Your last paragraph made me think of a third stance: the rules are complete, and anything not covered by the rules is not allowed. If someone took that stance, then it's obvious that they would either not allow this trick, or they would use the most similar set of mechanics (using an object) to govern it.

It's the exact opposite of my stance. I don't think the rules are complete; I think they're just a baseline set of assumptions. Anything not covered by the rules is allowed if the DM says so in that circumstance, and the DM can be swayed by a good point. But I know from my own experiences that not everyone appreciates that stance.

I'm not accusing anyone of taking that stance; I don't think people are that easy to categorize. But I do think I have part of the explanation now.

[tieren]

I was trying to consider the issue in a serious way but then literally laughed out loud at the image of a fighter action surging to push himself to blink at double the normal rate.

[Malifice]

i was trying to consider the issue in a serious way but then literally laughed out loud at the image of a fighter action surging to push himself to blink at double the normal rate.

iron heart surge!

[Willie the Duck]

Thank you for your reply. I'm only trying to have a discussion, not argue, and I hope that comes across.

I think you started out on a very poor first foot, telegraphing (unintentionally, it seems) a 'what is up with you people, subjecting my idea to scrutiny?' attitude that did not serve you well. I am glad that you took a step back and tried to work through it rather than double down.



Obviously, there are odd rules interactions that break immersion. However we define immersion, it is not difficult to find mechanical inconsistencies. I'm sure we can all think of some. I don't think the existence of mechanical inconsistencies justifies finding more of them. Rather, what I was suggesting is something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules: blinking or opening one's mouth.

I'm not sure that the fact that it isn't explicitly covered by the rules is pertinent to whether people like or dislike things based on the immersion breaking. It's just a new issue some (not some, we, I'll take a stance, this is my main complaint) would rather not add to the game's list of inconsistencies. See, the whole mix of abstract and solid bits of the combat mechanism are a troubled spot of the game. Some commenters like Lindybeige have made videos about how it makes D&D unplayable to them, which is extremely frustrating (especially since he professes love for RuneQuest, which yes actually does really well with resolving the whole 'one character takes their actions while the others wait their turn, try not to think too hard on the inconsistencies that creates' issue, but has a whole host of its own issues, so it seems like cherry-picking). Problem is, he's not exactly wrong. I, for one, really would rather not add additional interpretations to the rules that hinge upon these jagged boundary issues between the specific and the abstract.


Up until now, I was only approaching this from two stances: either it's allowed because it makes logical sense, or it isn't allowed for balance reasons. If there are balance reasons not to permit something, I think the DM should simply say it isn't allowed. Players respect that more than they respect a DM who tells them that they were foolish, exploitative, or tying to game the system for even thinking X would work in the first place.

Sure, a DM who explains their reasoning is generally more well respected. That's a pretty universally true statement. See the my-way-or-there's-the-door statement up above and how many people agreed with it.



Your last paragraph made me think of a third stance: the rules are complete, and anything not covered by the rules is not allowed. If someone took that stance, then it's obvious that they would either not allow this trick, or they would use the most similar set of mechanics (using an object) to govern it.

It's the exact opposite of my stance. I don't think the rules are complete; I think they're just a baseline set of assumptions. Anything not covered by the rules is allowed if the DM says so in that circumstance, and the DM can be swayed by a good point. But I know from my own experiences that not everyone appreciates that stance.

I'm not accusing anyone of taking that stance; I don't think people are that easy to categorize. But I do think I have part of the explanation now.

I guess I didn't see that option in what I said, but I can see it now. I would call that a maybe an absurdist position -- no real person is likely to truly think that (and if you had thought that was where your opposition was coming from, I'd wonder about a straw argument coming), certainly not in an edition that put some serious emphasis on rulings over rules. I do think that there is probably a generalize tendency to default to the defined rulebase, and being willing to rule out proposals on logical sense, balance, or immersion reasons. So not as much 'the rules are complete,' as, 'the rules are complete enough, baring you convincing me we need to add this new thing, and convincing me that this isn't an abuse.' And I think that's a mindset that is (justifiably) honed from years of internetting, along with several editions with some really janky rules if you let someone keep arguing (and also changing tack between logical sense, balance, or immersion positions). Darkness (3.0 and earlier, in particular) being a major player in no small number of those discussions.

[Trickery]

I guess I didn't see that option in what I said, but I can see it now. I would call that a maybe an absurdist position -- no real person is likely to truly think that (and if you had thought that was where your opposition was coming from, I'd wonder about a straw argument coming), certainly not in an edition that put some serious emphasis on rulings over rules. I do think that there is probably a generalize tendency to default to the defined rulebase, and being willing to rule out proposals on logical sense, balance, or immersion reasons. So not as much 'the rules are complete,' as, 'the rules are complete enough, baring you convincing me we need to add this new thing, and convincing me that this isn't an abuse.' And I think that's a mindset that is (justifiably) honed from years of internetting, along with several editions with some really janky rules if you let someone keep arguing (and also changing tack between logical sense, balance, or immersion positions). Darkness (3.0 and earlier, in particular) being a major player in no small number of those discussions.

I wouldn't call it an absurd position. It makes some sense to treat the game as being complete as written. Nobody would argue that it is complete, I suspect, but rather that we should act as though it is. One way to justify that stance would be to say that the game works reasonably well as-is, and adding things to it that the developers did not design for is likely to make the game less functional. In that context, the rulings not rules feature is more for DMs to make one-off, circumstantial decisions in order to supplement the existing rules, not add to them.

So, what I'm saying is, I don't mean to make a strawman argument. Defaulting to the defined rulebase, as you put it, is reasonable.

It's a matter of what you consider the purpose of the rules to be. If you're the type to default to the rules, you won't appreciate it when people point out or attempt things that break immersion or that don't seem correct to you. It's easy to take that not as someone poking fun at the rules, but as someone trying to deconstruct your fun. And I say that without malice; I'm guilty of the same, but from the opposite position.

My position: the game should be about the fantasy first, the rules second. I improvise a lot when I DM. If the rules don't cover a given situation, or even if they don't cover it well, I'll interrupt the game to briefly discuss it with the players, then go with what feels right. So, in this case, I was suggesting a trick that anyone can see would work if we apply real-world logic to the spell Darkness (so long as it was timed with allies, the darkness spreads instantly, etc.). From my perspective, that sort of thing is like using a grappling hook to hook a big fish and pull it out of the water. It's not covered by the rules, and grappling hooks aren't designed to do that. But it makes realistic sense, and I've never encountered a problem using them in that sort of way during play.

Because I take the stance that I do, it's difficult for me to see things from another perspective. But I'm making an effort. And I do appreciate the discussion. For me, discussing these things and finding the little absurdities is half the fun.

[Calimehter]

+1 to Willie the Ducks comments on this thread. :)

If a player of mine proposed this, I would probably initially reject the idea of getting much more than the usual 'object interaction' based off of the various reasons already discussed at great depth in the thread.

But . . . if the player was willing to 'invest' in the suggested technique, I would consider being a bit more flexible with it. After all, trying to do this thing while in the thick of an abstracted,swirling combat has a lot of issues [again already discussed in detail], but in a similar abstract fashion some of these issues might be "realistically" overcome or reduced by focusing a lot of time and training on the technique. Some possibilities would include some kind of homebrewed Feat, class feature swapping, or maybe even just some Downtime Training time and gold to allow the Darkness to be 'switched' on and off more often than usual, probably cribbing the Legendary Action mechanic that some monsters have to do things during other combatant's turns (or at the very least allowing it as a Reaction during combat) to mechanically simulate the benefit of the investment.

When in doubt, giving a little to the DM to get something rather than arguing over 'realism vs. abstraction' is a better way to do it. :)

[Ganymede]

Lesson learned, I guess: don't make a thread offering tactic advice when you don't know the underlying rules.

It isn't a big problem. I am sure your next post will be better.

[Trickery]

Lesson learned, I guess: don't make a thread offering tactic advice when you don't know the underlying rules.

It isn't a big problem. I am sure your next post will be better.

But that's just it: I've never had a problem with this or related tactics at the table. Whether the tactic works is not a shut and closed case. But, after doing more research, people online mostly behave as though it is.

After doing more research, the online consensus seems to be that any sort of interaction with an object that has darkness cast on it requires the use an object action, no matter whether it suddenly limits the number of times you can blink or open your mouth in a six-second period. But, when I've talked to other DMs at my shop about it, they don't see a problem.

I'm being honest here; I never heard a single argument against this trick until I decided to share it online. Hence my surprise. Initially, I thought it might be a quirk having to do with this forum, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Lesson learned, indeed. But not the one you're thinking. I do understand the rules; what I didn't understand was the culture. It is as if there is an online game of D&D being played across the Internet, but the DM is not a person, but some kind of collective popular opinion.

[Ganymede]

I hereby retract my previous post.

[Maelynn]

I hereby retract my previous post.

I just spilled coffee all over my shirt. Good thing it had cooled a bit already. :p

As a Tiefling Paladin who hasn't yet found a decent way to use her Darkness ability, I read some of these posts with interest. I can still easily find objections, however, so I'm starting to wonder whether it's just me being difficult. And perhaps a bit miffed that a Tiefling can't see through its own racial ability, despite its diabolical heritage (referring to Devil's Sight).

Casting it on a bullet and then toss it with a sling - you're trying to use a weapon in darkness, so disadvantage at the roll. Depending on the DM, the bullet can end up who knows where.

Casting it on the blade of a sword - you can't choose part of an object, it's the entire object. So sheathing the weapon won't cover the darkness, as the hilt is still uncovered and enimates the spell.

Casting it on part of your body - this has been covered enough, I'm not dipping my toes into this wasp's nest. :p

I guess I could cast it on a group of enemies, but half our party is melee so it would really not be useful. Besides, during combat I have enough concentration spells to struggle with, don't fancy adding one that isn't even that great.

Which brings me to a new angle: is there anyone who can think of neat/useful out-of-combat uses for Darkness?

[Zilong]

Which brings me to a new angle: is there anyone who can think of neat/useful out-of-combat uses for Darkness?

Scaring the bejeesus out of the darn kids who won’t stay off your lawn?

[Man_Over_Game]

Which brings me to a new angle: is there anyone who can think of neat/useful out-of-combat uses for Darkness?

Few interesting things of note:

It dispels magical light from a spell slot level of 2 or less, but it can be lit up (but not dispelled) by any other magical light. So a Continuous Flame cast with a level 3 slot can make an anti-darkness torch, allowing for some shenanagins like casting Darkness on your friends and throw the magic torch at the enemies.

Also, it blocks out mundane light, like a dense fog or an obstacle, so you can use it to block out a light source, perfect for a skulking darkvision user sneaking about in a castle full of humans.

[Willie the Duck]

I wouldn't call it an absurd position. It makes some sense to treat the game as being complete as written. Nobody would argue that it is complete, I suspect, but rather that we should act as though it is.
...
Because I take the stance that I do, it's difficult for me to see things from another perspective. But I'm making an effort. And I do appreciate the discussion. For me, discussing these things and finding the little absurdities is half the fun.

The last part seems pretty clear, it really seems like you are rephrasing/mischaracterizing the positions of other people to make them more simplistic, but the end result is not what people are saying. That's what I mean by a straw argument. Now you are saying "I wouldn't call it an absurd position. It makes some sense to treat the game as being complete as written. Nobody would argue that it is complete, I suspect, but rather that we should act as though it is," but previously you stated, "Your last paragraph made me think of a third stance: the rules are complete, and anything not covered by the rules is not allowed." I still contend it is an absurd stance that no one would take, and when pressed on it, you backed off that interpretation, but this whole thread it feels like we've been dealing with you arguing against stances it would be convenient for your opposition to have taken instead of the ones that they really took.


I'm being honest here; I never heard a single argument against this trick until I decided to share it online. Hence my surprise. Initially, I thought it might be a quirk having to do with this forum, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

There is a real difference between going to your local store and asking a rule question and asking it on a forum. In in-store discussions, there's a pretty solid unspoken assumption that the DM will continue to be monitoring the situation, and if abuse happens, put a stop to it. If my player wants their Halfling rogue to try to sneak into a storm giants shorts and attack their soft bits, I'd probably want to work with the player to try to figure out a onetime resolution. And if going to the FLGS I wanted to discuss it, I'd probably get a significant number that would agree with my approach--because they know I'm there to put a stop to it if the player decides to start trying to do this every combat. With an online discussion, there is no such assumption because we don't know you or have a feel for your gaming, so we're not going to accidentally give our blessing to such things.


Lesson learned, indeed. But not the one you're thinking. I do understand the rules; what I didn't understand was the culture. It is as if there is an online game of D&D being played across the Internet, but the DM is not a person, but some kind of collective popular opinion.

There is no online game of D&D being played across the internet, there is simply an online culture. The culture has a definite suspicion toward 'great ideas,' particularly homebrew rules, in no small part because of many, many disappointments. But regardless, no one is 'DMing.' There is no gatekeeping. The only power people have over you is the ability to withhold applause. That's it. You proposed an idea, and people didn't immediately say 'excellent!' That's this thread in a nutshell.

[Man_Over_Game]

There is no online game of D&D being played across the internet, there is simply an online culture. The culture has a definite suspicion toward 'great ideas,' particularly homebrew rules, in no small part because of many, many disappointments. But regardless, no one is 'DMing.' There is no gatekeeping. The only power people have over you is the ability to withhold applause. That's it. You proposed an idea, and people didn't immediately say 'excellent!' That's this thread in a nutshell.

People are much more willing to speak their mind over the internet. For some, this just reveals how terrible of people they are, but for others it is a means of being opinionated without risk.

For some DMs, they're fine with Glaives being a Finesse weapon.

For me, DnD is both a game (with mechanics, balance and decision making, you CAN win) and an outlet for creativity (allowing you to be something else to expand your horizons).

And I have no problem allowing something to happen as long as it doesn't interfere with one of these aspects.

Balance-wise, it's not needed. Darkness is considered a good spell regardless of the number of workarounds (level 3 light spell, Devil's Sight, breaking Concentration).

Narrative-wise, it doesn't make sense to have someone being able to block Darkness exactly at the right time between the enemies' and allies' attacks.

So where's the justification as to why it should happen? Even if it's technically possible if you read the rules just right, why should it be?

I don't mean this as an attack, I'm asking this as I would a DM to a player. I truly want to understand why a player wants this to be a thing.

[Aetis]

Wow, uh, I read the OP and I thought, "hey, that's a pretty cool trick". I wasn't really expecting all the vitriol thrown at him though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wow, uh, I read the OP and I thought, "hey, that's a pretty cool trick". I wasn't really expecting all the vitriol thrown at him though.

I don't think it's exactly "vitriolic" to point out the flaws with this trick. The trick is fun, no doubt about that, but it's immersion breaking and not in line with the game rules.

[Citadel97501]

Well this thread has been great because it inspired me to make my next character for any game system do something like this but uses a glass eye, and is known as Black Eye Jack. :) extra points if I become a pirate.

D&D Options:
Rogue 3: Thief Subclass, Warlock 3: Fiend pact or Hexblade for Darkness and Devil's Sight.
-Equipment: Definitely a Rod of the Pact Keeper so I can have at least 3 spells.

Sorcerer 3: Shadow Magic Subclass, Rogue 3: Thief Subclass
-Interesting as an alternate playstyle and get a lot more spells which might make this better in some groups depending on Rests.