Uses for the spell Darkness?

[micahaphone]

While looking into potential builds, I realized that I'm not 100% sure what you do with Darkness, other than Devil's Sight cheesiness. It seems like a fog cloud that can't be pushed away by a strong wind. If you place it on the enemy casters/archers, they can probably use their movement to get out of it before attacking anyway. So it's useful when the enemy can't easily move (like a tower, or scaffolding), or if they'd have to close the distance through a choke point to see you again, bringing them into melee range. But this all seems kind of situational. Useful, but situational.

I will note that my main group has a small home ruling, that 2 creatures both fighting in the darkness have disadvantage to hit, instead of both having advantage and disadvantage which cancels out for regular fighting.

I know you could cast Darkness on a pebble, and open/close your hand freely to hide your party when it's not your turn, and attack normally when it is your turn, but I'm mostly sure that wouldn't fly at my table.

[NNescio]

It's the ultimate anti-Beholder spell. Cast it and you shut down all its eye rays (except maybe Telekinetically chucking objects into the Darkness, but the range is a complete joke).

(Granted, Beholders should be well aware of Darkness spells and how to counteract them, since they are from the Underdark where numerous creatures can innately cast Darkness [the Drow, especially], but a DM who gives a Beholder such options should probably also raise its CR.)

It's also useful to counter other enemies who have powerful abilities/attacks that require line of sight. (e.g. "target it can see", "creature it can see", "an unoccupied space you can see"). This makes it invaluable against casters or certain monsters with innate spellcasting (or similar abilities like the Beholder's). Fog Cloud can do the same, but it's not mobile or as adjustable (i.e. free object interaction to bag the Darkness'd object).

The spell also lasts long enough for out of combat utility purposes, like sneaking in a dark or dimly-lit area (the globe of darkness is too obvious in well-lit places). When upcasted, Darkness can also be used to snuff out multiple magical light sources, though this is a niche application.

[MaxWilson]

You can likewise use it to cancel disadvantage, e.g. from being prone or poisoned or restrained or wearing armor you're not proficient in (good for Necromancers whose DMs rule zombies are nonproficient in chain mail).

You can use it to prevent opportunity attacks, which only work against a target you can see.

You can use it together with Alert as a poor man's Blur spell, with a 10-minute duration instead of one minute. This is especially great for Eldritch Knights because Darkness is an evocation spell so it doesn't take a special slot pick, and Alert is a good feat for you anyway. Ditto Shadow Monks--I'd go so far as to suggest Shadow Monks should take Alert even before Mobile for this reason.

It can protect against certain gaze attacks, and against many spells including Counterspell.

It can give goblins and rogues a convenient movable area within which to Hide as a bonus action, to make them very hard to attack.



(Granted, Beholders should be well aware of Darkness spells and how to counteract them, since they are from the Underdark where numerous creatures can innately cast Darkness [the Drow, especially], but a DM who gives a Beholder such options should probably also raise its CR.)

A standard beholder should recruit minions for this reason. E.g. a dozen quaggoths don't sound like much, but inside an antimagic zone from a beholder eye they can be pretty fierce, especially if all they need to do is grab or cover whatever object would otherwise be radiating Darkness, or grapple PCs and drag them out of the Darkness zone so they can be zapped.


When upcasted, Darkness can also be used to snuff out multiple magical light sources, though this is a niche application.

Technically Darkness says nothing about upcasting boosting the light snuffing--it just says it snuffs 2nd level light spells and below. By strict RAW, Darkness beats Continual Light, but Continual Light III beats even Darkness IX, unless the DM says otherwise.

[NNescio]

Technically Darkness says nothing about upcasting boosting the light snuffing--it just says it snuffs 2nd level light spells and below. By strict RAW, Darkness beats Continual Light, but Continual Light III beats even Darkness IX, unless the DM says otherwise.

I stand corrected.

[JellyPooga]

Unfortunately, there's very little that Darkness does that Fog Cloud doesn't do better, bigger and/or cheaper and most of those things are reliant on a specific build (e.g. Devils Sight).

[MaxWilson]

Unfortunately, there's very little that Darkness does that Fog Cloud doesn't do better, bigger and/or cheaper and most of those things are reliant on a specific build (e.g. Devils Sight).

Mobility is the big one. You can't precast Fog Cloud before you enter a beholder's lair or a new section of dungeon.

Also, Darkness is easier to access for EKs and Shadow Monks.

[The Library DM]

Lots of uses:

Cast it between yourself and the enemy. Run like heck. (Most people forget that it’s enough that someone can’t see through the spell— you don’t have to be inside the radius to be hidden by the spell!

Cast it on several caltrops. Keep ‘em in bag till you see the enemy. Open bag, dump caltrops. Run like heck. Enemy chases, steps on caltrop, brings darkness along with him...

Aim an arrow/bolt at a broad, stationary target (wooden wall, door, beam, etc.). Archer draws bow/steadies crossbow. Cast the spell on the arrow/bolt. Shoot at target— you’re not likely to miss. You’ve effectively made the range of the spell the range of the bow!

Cast it on a charmed bat. Release bat, send it to follow the enemy. The bat doesn’t care about the darkness— it has echolocation! It’s going to “see” the enemy, and the enemy can’t see it at all!:smallbiggrin:

Cast it on the end of a 20’ rope. Drag the rope behind the party, effectively shielding the group from view from the rear, while the party can still have all the light it wants! This could help prevent pursuit— “You see anything down that hall, Brok?” “Nope. All dark. They didn’t go that way.” (Add a silence spell to the rope for even more effective stealthiness.)

All the spell requires is imagination, and it’s a low level slot, too!

[Tanarii]

Cast it between yourself and the enemy. Run like heck. (Most people forget that it’s enough that someone can’t see through the spell— you don’t have to be inside the radius to be hidden by the spell!
Almost certainly RAI, but the RAW on that is debatable. There's an edge interpretation that it just stops illumination of the area, and blocks darkvision.

(Yeah I went there. :smallamused: )

[sithlordnergal]

Darkness has two major uses:

1) It is a mobile form of heavy concealment

2) There are ways for players to see through Magical Darkness that some creatures do not have access to.

3) It can't be dispelled by a strong wind

Outside of that, Fog Cloud tends to be better a better option since Truesight can't pierce through Fog Cloud, and Darkness has a smaller radius then Fog Cloud. Especially if you upcast Fog Cloud.

[Keravath]

Uses for Darkness
1) Darkness + Devils sight as mentioned - works really well for this purpose too
2) Darkness (or Fog cloud) are very good at shutting down gaze attacks - Basilisk, Medusa, Vampire - you can engage any of these without being harmed by nasty petrify or charm attacks.
3) Darkness (or Fog cloud) will usually allow movement exiting the reach of enemies without triggering opportunity attacks.
4) Darkness (or Fog cloud) can cancel other sources of advantage/disadvantage. For example, firing a ranged weapon at an adjacent target in darkness or fog cloud does not have disadvantage. Altneratively, attacks by monsters like berserkers who can use reckless attack and would usually have advantage, do not have advantage in darkness or a fog cloud. Another example, an opposing magic user casts blindness on half the party. A member of your party casts darkness on the party so that the effect of blindness is negated assuming the opponents can't see your party members through the darkness.
5) Darkness has a smaller area. However, it can be cast on an object, carried around, covered or uncovered to turn the darkness on or off and lasts 10 minutes. Fog cloud can last an hour but it isn't portable and is dispersed by wind.

Keep in mind that RAW, neither darkness or fog cloud will prevent archers from firing at your party. The fact that they can't see you is countered by the fact that you can't see them so that advantage/disadvantage cancel and it is still a straight roll UNLESS your DM decides under the circumstances that you are hidden (both unseen and unheard) in which case the opponents can still fire with a straight roll but must choose the square to fire at and can't hit unless the square is occupied.

[Chugger]

We had a lock using darkness very effectively w/ his Elven Accuracy feat - he used a lance of all things as a weapon, I guess to get 10' reach and 1d12 damage. It helped him get in, attack and back off to move the darkness back so party could also attack targets.

When I got hurt, I ended my turn in his darkness. Badguys could try to find me, but they were much less likely to do so. There was a potential problem if I went to zero health in darkness - hard for others to heal me if they can't see me. But lock could move the darkness. Anyway, I could pop out on my turn, attack, and then go back into the darkness. It was very effective in several very tough fights.

[sophontteks]

I know you could cast Darkness on a pebble, and open/close your hand freely to hide your party when it's not your turn, and attack normally when it is your turn, but I'm mostly sure that wouldn't fly at my table.
You only have one free action per turn, so this would be done every other turn. It would hurt the spell quite a lot if you are unable to use the spell as its written.

[Aimeryan]

We had a lock using darkness very effectively w/ his Elven Accuracy feat - he used a lance of all things as a weapon, I guess to get 10' reach and 1d12 damage. It helped him get in, attack and back off to move the darkness back so party could also attack targets.

When I got hurt, I ended my turn in his darkness. Badguys could try to find me, but they were much less likely to do so. There was a potential problem if I went to zero health in darkness - hard for others to heal me if they can't see me. But lock could move the darkness. Anyway, I could pop out on my turn, attack, and then go back into the darkness. It was very effective in several very tough fights.

The lock I presume was using Devil's Sight; its a pretty common way to use Darkness. Mostly they just use Eldritch Blast spam so the Darkness is rarely an issue for others.

For your own use in that scenario, Darkness would not have helped against most enemies - casters are the exception, where some spells would be unable to target you (would love to see a list/breakdown of which spells require sight of the target and which don't). The issue here is that Darkness by explicit RAW does not make enemies lose track of you, nor does it make them use their attack rolls at disadvantage. Likewise, there really wouldn't have been any need for you to leave the Darkness, unless you had some way of generating advantage on your attacks.

Now, there is a little help by RAW for losing track - in various sections (such as the 'Invisibility' Condition) it mentions being perceived by different senses and those different senses being impaired differently. Therefore, it sets up the stage for there being different DCs for the different senses, even if it seemingly refuses to outright state 'you might see something but not hear it'. In the middle of loud combat are you going to be able to pinpoint the location of an enemy somewhere 40ft away in Darkness by hearing them? DC Check against passive Perception, DC based on the situation. It would not be explicit RAW, but you could argue for extrapolated RAW.

[HappyDaze]

Cast it on several caltrops. Keep ‘em in bag till you see the enemy. Open bag, dump caltrops. Run like heck. Enemy chases, steps on caltrop, brings darkness along with him...


Darkness requires concentration, so you won't be casting it on 'several' of them. Also, it lasts a maximum of 10 minutes, so placing that one caltrop in a bag with others is something you do immediately before a situation where it is likely to see use and that you are not needing another concentration spell. Taken together, those limitations make the darkened caltrop plan one that is largely impractical.

[MaxWilson]

Cast it between yourself and the enemy. Run like heck. (Most people forget that it’s enough that someone can’t see through the spell— you don’t have to be inside the radius to be hidden by the spell!

Not true. Even if you read "see through" this way (IMO a willful misreading), that clause explicitly only applies to creatures with Darkvision.

"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

To a creature without Darkvision it is just an area of mobile heavy obscurement, and heavy obscurement blinds those trying to see stuff within in, not outside of it or past it.

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area."

Anyway, creatures without Darkvision can definitely see out of or past the Darkness. They just can't see stuff within it, and neither can creatures with Darkvision.

[redwizard007]

Not true. Even if you read "see through" this way (IMO a willful misreading), that clause explicitly only applies to creatures with Darkvision.

"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

To a creature without Darkvision it is just an area of mobile heavy obscurement, and heavy obscurement blinds those trying to see stuff within in, not outside of it or past it.

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area."

Anyway, creatures without Darkvision can definitely see out of or past the Darkness. They just can't see stuff within it, and neither can creatures with Darkvision.

Are you saying that while I can't see what is in the globe of inky blackness, I can see things on the other side of it? That would be like looking at your own taint without using mirrors. It doesn't need to explicitly spelled out that it blocks line of sight because that is obvious.

[MaxWilson]

Are you saying that while I can't see what is in the globe of inky blackness, I can see things on the other side of it? That would be like looking at your own taint without using mirrors. It doesn't need to explicitly spelled out that it blocks line of sight because that is obvious.

That's how darkness works, dude. If a whole cave is filled with darkness except for an itty bitty circle of light around a candle at the other end, I can only see stuff near the candle.

(BTW in English we don't call seeing the stuff near the candle at the other end of the darkness "seeing through the darkness". "Seeing through" would mean ignoring, disregarding, being unaffected by, and would mean seeing the whole cave despite the darkness, which is why IMO it's a misreading to pretend the Darkness spell is opaque specifically to creatures with Darkvision--that's not what the RAW is saying, and it would be ridiculous to say that.)

[redwizard007]

That's how darkness works, dude. If a whole cave is filled with darkness except for an itty bitty circle of light around a candle at the other end, I can only see stuff near the candle.

(BTW in English we don't call seeing the stuff near the candle at the other end of the darkness "seeing through the darkness". "Seeing through" would mean ignoring, disregarding, being unaffected by, and would mean seeing the whole cave despite the darkness, which is why IMO it's a misreading to pretend the Darkness spell is opaque specifically to creatures with Darkvision--that's not what the RAW is saying, and it would be ridiculous to say that.)

It sounds like you are treating the area of magical darkness as a regular area of... well, darkness. I have always pictured it more as a physical thing that would obstruct vision, or a singularity from which no light can escape. I guess that is the only way I could wrap my head around magical darkness. Now I'm curious to see how others view it.

[MaxWilson]

It sounds like you are treating the area of magical darkness as a regular area of... well, darkness. I have always pictured it more as a physical thing that would obstruct vision, or a singularity from which no light can escape. I guess that is the only way I could wrap my head around magical darkness. Now I'm curious to see how others view it.

Just imagine a zone where light does not work, i.e. zero interaction between light and matter. It's just inexplicably, magically dark there.

[Demonslayer666]

You just have to ask yourself if you can see magical darkness during the day. If you answer is yes, then it blocks light. If your answer is no, then darkness only works at night/underground without any light sources beyond.

The second option is rather silly and severely limits the usefulness of casting darkness.

[MaxWilson]

You just have to ask yourself if you can see magical darkness during the day. If you answer is yes, then it blocks light.

Rather, it creates darkness, which is not the same thing as opacity. This is both RAW and RAI. It's a dark spot in the middle of a sunny desert. By RAW and RAI you can even see out of it, or across it--you just can't see stuff that isn't in the light.

[Aimeryan]

Bear in mind if you rule Darkness as being seen through then you also rule that you can see silhouettes against any backlight, which then means you are able to see creatures in the darkness - if not any detail.
Basically, they would look like the left half of this picture:

https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Stuart-Semple-blackest-paint-1.jpg

[MaxWilson]

Bear in mind if you rule Darkness as being seen through then you also rule that you can see silhouettes against any backlight, which then means you are able to see creatures in the darkness - if not any detail.
Basically, they would look like the left half of this picture:

https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Stuart-Semple-blackest-paint-1.jpg

Except that you forgot to make 15' radius of the background dark too. What you've drawn is Darkness, 1' radius.

[strangebloke]

Except that you forgot to make 15' radius of the background dark too. What you've drawn is Darkness, 1' radius.

Pure pedantry. The background could be 100' away in the picture for all you know. If you can see things on the other side of the 15' radius, you can see the sillhouette of things inside the radius.

In any case this whole bit of rules lawyering doesn't hold up to inspection. If nomagical light can't illuminate anything in the region, it can't pass through, and if light can't pass through, you can't see things on the other side. Moreover, the section regarding obscurement explicitly says "Heavy obscurement... blocks vision entirely." You can't fixate on the latter half of that obscurement defintion without allowing the previous bit. The general rule is that heavy obscurement, which Darkness explicity is, blocks vision entirely. And if we look at the list of examples for what causes heavy obscurement, its obvious that most of them create a heavily obscured area far larger than the thing itself. For example, if I'm hiding ten feet behind a patch of dense foliage, then clearly I'm still obscured if the foliage covers all possible lines of sight between me and the target.

Using your definition, any form of heavy obscurement, including things like dense fog and walls can be seen through just fine so long as the person is five feet away from the wall.

So I think this reading off by both RAW and RAI. The "Darkvision can't see through it" is clearly written with the assumption that regular vision can't see through it either.

[redwizard007]

Pure pedantry. The background could be 100' away in the picture for all you know. If you can see things on the other side of the 15' radius, you can see the sillhouette of things inside the radius.

In any case this whole bit of rules lawyering doesn't hold up to inspection. If nomagical light can't illuminate anything in the region, it can't pass through, and if light can't pass through, you can't see things on the other side. Moreover, the section regarding obscurement explicitly says "Heavy obscurement... blocks vision entirely." You can't fixate on the latter half of that obscurement defintion without allowing the previous bit. The general rule is that heavy obscurement, which Darkness explicity is, blocks vision entirely. And if we look at the list of examples for what causes heavy obscurement, its obvious that most of them create a heavily obscured area far larger than the thing itself. For example, if I'm hiding ten feet behind a patch of dense foliage, then clearly I'm still obscured if the foliage covers all possible lines of sight between me and the target.

Using your definition, any form of heavy obscurement, including things like dense fog and walls can be seen through just fine so long as the person is five feet away from the wall.

So I think this reading off by both RAW and RAI. The "Darkvision can't see through it" is clearly written with the assumption that regular vision can't see through it either.

Good to know I'm not alone. Has anyone else played at tables where Darkness is used the way Max describes?

[Warlush]

I like pre casting on a ball bearing in my pocket, then toss it into a group of unsuspecting folks and have my socerer/wizard drop a fireball on them.

It might not do much in terms of actual game tactics, but it feels like a slick trick.

[Frozenstep]

snip

So basically, if I cast darkness on myself in an open field sunny field with no obstacles around, all I've effectively done is paint myself (and some of the grass under my feet) pitch black?

[MaxWilson]

Pure pedantry. The background could be 100' away in the picture for all you know. If you can see things on the other side of the 15' radius, you can see the sillhouette of things inside the radius.

I don't like your tone, friend, but for now I'll pretend you didn't mean to be rude.

Here's a warrior in Darkness that just barely reaches part of the wall of the room she's in (it's 10' away or so):

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg (https://postimg.cc/1fn6QZrq)

Here's the same warrior without Darkness:

https://i.postimg.cc/Gmhqf80W/warrior.jpg (https://postimg.cc/tYw3Zg4k)

Try and tell me that the Darkness doesn't justify disadvantage on attacks against her, especially if she's moving.


In any case this whole bit of rules lawyering doesn't hold up to inspection. If nomagical light can't illuminate anything in the region, it can't pass through, and if light can't pass through, you can't see things on the other side.

I'm afraid that's not what "illumination" means. Light illuminates an object when it bounces off the object. Inside the Darkness zone, that can't happen--nothing within the zone is illuminated. Neither the rules text nor the intent of the rule says anything about opacity.


Moreover, the section regarding obscurement explicitly says "Heavy obscurement... blocks vision entirely." You can't fixate on the latter half of that obscurement defintion without allowing the previous bit.

And then right after that it explains exactly what that means: you can't see stuff within heavy obscurement. Unless you're arguing that being in a dark cave prevents anyone from seeing me, holding up a torch, because the darkness "blocks vision entirely"? Clearly that isn't what the rule is saying. That argument isn't going to fly.


Using your definition, any form of heavy obscurement, including things like dense fog and walls can be seen through just fine so long as the person is five feet away from the wall.

When 5E came out, WotC's rules for heavy obscurement treated everything like opaque fog: a guy in a dark cave with a torch could see everything in the cave, because he wasn't heavily obscured and therefore wasn't blinded, but nothing could see him, because they were heavily obscured and therefore blinded. WotC eventually recognized that this was both insane and not how anybody was running darkness, so they flipped the definition of heavy obscurement around in errata: now it blinds you w/rt creatures within the area. This is still bad because it fails to distinguish between opaque concealment and darkness, but if they had meant to do what you're suggesting they would have said so: "heavy obscurement blocks line of sight." They didn't, and it doesn't.

[redwizard007]

I don't like your tone, friend, but for now I'll pretend you didn't mean to be rude.

Here's a warrior in Darkness that just barely reaches part of the wall of the room she's in (it's 10' away or so):

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg (https://postimg.cc/1fn6QZrq)

Here's the same warrior without Darkness:

https://i.postimg.cc/Gmhqf80W/warrior.jpg (https://postimg.cc/tYw3Zg4k)

Try and tell me that the Darkness doesn't justify disadvantage on attacks against her, especially if she's moving.



I'm afraid that's not what "illumination" means. Light illuminates an object when it bounces off the object. Inside the Darkness zone, that can't happen--nothing within the zone is illuminated. Neither the rules text nor the intent of the rule says anything about opacity.



And then right after that it explains exactly what that means: you can't see stuff within heavy obscurement. Unless you're arguing that being in a dark cave prevents anyone from seeing me, holding up a torch, because the darkness "blocks vision entirely"? Clearly that isn't what the rule is saying. That argument isn't going to fly.



When 5E came out, WotC's rules for heavy obscurement treated everything like opaque fog: a guy in a dark cave with a torch could see everything in the cave, because he wasn't heavily obscured and therefore wasn't blinded, but nothing could see him, because they were heavily obscured and therefore blinded. WotC eventually recognized that this was both insane and not how anybody was running darkness, so they flipped the definition of heavy obscurement around in errata: now it blinds you w/rt creatures within the area. This is still bad because it fails to distinguish between opaque concealment and darkness, but if they had meant to do what you're suggesting they would have said so: "heavy obscurement blocks line of sight." They didn't, and it doesn't.

Max, I'm getting more and more convinced that you are wrong.

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."

"Blocks vision entirely" is pretty straightforward.

I do acknowledge your argument, and it makes sense from a certain perspective, but I cant imagine that was the intent of the designers.

[Demonslayer666]

Rather, it creates darkness, which is not the same thing as opacity. This is both RAW and RAI. It's a dark spot in the middle of a sunny desert. By RAW and RAI you can even see out of it, or across it--you just can't see stuff that isn't in the light.

I disagree with RAW, and RAI.

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area."

So you can't see anything in that area, not "you can silhouettes".

Edit: You blocked out much more than the figure in your illustration. That would only make darkness effective if there were other objects to hide your silhouette.

Question for you, do you give disadvantage during the day for attacking a shadow (the monster)?

[Keravath]

Rather, it creates darkness, which is not the same thing as opacity. This is both RAW and RAI. It's a dark spot in the middle of a sunny desert. By RAW and RAI you can even see out of it, or across it--you just can't see stuff that isn't in the light.

Just for reference. I've never played at a table that uses the interpretation of Darkness that Max is suggesting. Darkness in the games I have played creates a 15' radius area where light can't be created nor can it traverse. As a result it blocks lines of sight through the Darkness to either regular or darkvision.

"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled."

I'd argue that if nonmagical light can't illuminate it then nonmagical light can't pass through it and thus you can't see anything on the other side of the darkness.

If light can pass through the darkness unobstructed then you have just cast a 15' radius invisibility since light passing through is unobstructed and you see what is on the other side of the darkness without seeing whatever is in the darkness.

On the other hand, if light can not pass through, then you see an area of blackness that blocks the line of vision through the region of the darkness spell. I tend to lean towards this interpretation.

In my interpretation, light passes through regular darkness. It does not pass through magical darkness.

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely"
"A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it. "

Magical darkness is a heavily obscured area and as such "blocks vision entirely".

Arguably, normal darkness, although also heavily obscured, would not block vision through it to a lit area on the other side but RAW that does not appear to be the case :)

Anyway, since the heavily obscured area of darkness blocks vision entirely and this statement is not limited to being IN the darkness, I tend to again lean to the interpretation that casting darkness creates a 15' radius area of blackness that blocks light and darkvision and prevents seeing through the area of darkness. I also think this interpretation is both consistent with RAW and common usage.

[Frozenstep]

Try and tell me that the Darkness doesn't justify disadvantage on attacks against her, especially if she's moving.

What if there's not any tall enough obstacles within the radius of darkness and it's not against a wall?

I love the idea of what you're proposing, creating a patch of darkness you can blend into rather then what amounts to a big cloud of ink is a cool idea, but that makes things really complex as you have to decide what direction silhouettes can be seen from and how much objects within the darkness block your vision from each angle. I can imagine an archer slowly moving around the darkness bubble, stopping every 5 feet to ask me if they can see the silhouette clearly enough to not have disadvantage on it.

[stoutstien]

It's the minor illusion + torch debate 2.0.

[micahaphone]

I always thought of it as a big magical ink cloud. Like if a party (P) is fleeing torch-wielding enemy (E) down some catacombs, you could put down a sphere of darkness (O) to stop them from seeing what path at a fork you took.


>----P--------O--------E


The enemies would go from seeing the party ahead of them in their torchlight to seeing a black void. If the enemy continues through the darkness, they'll pass through an area where they can't see anything, but will break on through to the other side and their torches will continue to work.

[sophontteks]

If you can see stillettos in the darkness, then light is illuminating the darkness. If the darkness was limited to a specific person or thing, it would be different, but its applied to an area. If the air around the person is anything but black, its not darkness.

In the examples the darkness is effecting the person, and we can only see their outline. We see the outline because we can perfectly see the area around the person. It's being illuminated, and the spell does not allow any part of its area to be illuminated.

[Laserlight]

I run it as Darkness blocks Line of Sight into, out of, and through, unless you have devil's sight. No one including the four other DMs in the group has done it differently or suggested otherwise.

5e's rules on vision and illumination are terrible.
Some of the spells are badly named or worded.

[strangebloke]

I don't like your tone, friend, but for now I'll pretend you didn't mean to be rude.

Here's a warrior in Darkness that just barely reaches part of the wall of the room she's in (it's 10' away or so):

Here's the same warrior without Darkness:

Try and tell me that the Darkness doesn't justify disadvantage on attacks against her, especially if she's moving.

This is due to how you've specifically constructed the scenario. In a case where, say, someone is shooting at a person inside a globe of darkness from 100' away and said person is standing in the middle of an open field, I don't see how it really leads to disadvantage. I don't see how it confers all the other downsides of blindness, like not being able to make opportunity attacks, particularly if you're within five feet of the person.


I'm afraid that's not what "illumination" means. Light illuminates an object when it bounces off the object. Inside the Darkness zone, that can't happen--nothing within the zone is illuminated. Neither the rules text nor the intent of the rule says anything about opacity.

And then right after that it explains exactly what that means: you can't see stuff within heavy obscurement. Unless you're arguing that being in a dark cave prevents anyone from seeing me, holding up a torch, because the darkness "blocks vision entirely"? Clearly that isn't what the rule is saying. That argument isn't going to fly.
"Illuminate" simply means "light up" and as such includes everything in the space including transparent things like the air itself. A ghost would still be darkened within the region.

I'll grant the torch argument, but you have the same problem with respect to fog clouds. By your reading, the fog cloud can be seen through just fine as long as the creature isn't standing within it. Once again, there's nothing calling the fog cloud out as opaque, even if objectively anything that would obscure a creature within the sphere would obscure them if they were just standing behind it.


When 5E came out, WotC's rules for heavy obscurement treated everything like opaque fog: a guy in a dark cave with a torch could see everything in the cave, because he wasn't heavily obscured and therefore wasn't blinded, but nothing could see him, because they were heavily obscured and therefore blinded. WotC eventually recognized that this was both insane and not how anybody was running darkness, so they flipped the definition of heavy obscurement around in errata: now it blinds you w/rt creatures within the area. This is still bad because it fails to distinguish between opaque concealment and darkness, but if they had meant to do what you're suggesting they would have said so: "heavy obscurement blocks line of sight." They didn't, and it doesn't.

They did say that heavy obscurement blocks line of sight though. They literally said exactly that.

I agree that its a problematic ruling and I will allow that by RAW you can see through it and fog cloud. But I still maintain that the intent is clear. I don't believe for a moment that the intent was to create a spell that specifically blocks vision if and only if you have darkvision.

[MaxWilson]

What if there's not any tall enough obstacles within the radius of darkness and it's not against a wall?

The blackened ground will still block a large part of your view if they are anywhere close to you, and you also won't be able to distinguish details.

In broad daylight you get something like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/q7CZT10P/Outside2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/v1bv7L4h)

instead of this:

https://i.postimg.cc/WpYP7fWV/Outside1.jpg (https://postimg.cc/K4TVGQhp)

(Excuse the crudity of the drawings--I'm not an artist. That leg in the lower right should probably be also partly illuminated up to the knee, assuming that the Darkness is far enough behind the guy that his leg is sticking out of it.)

Fundamentally, human vision just isn't good at reading negative space as actual objects--our eyes are designed to see positive spaces, which is why shadow puppets can so easily fool us into seeing things that aren't there.


I love the idea of what you're proposing, creating a patch of darkness you can blend into rather then what amounts to a big cloud of ink is a cool idea, but that makes things really complex as you have to decide what direction silhouettes can be seen from and how much objects within the darkness block your vision from each angle. I can imagine an archer slowly moving around the darkness bubble, stopping every 5 feet to ask me if they can see the silhouette clearly enough to not have disadvantage on it.

In practice it's not complex at all: you just impose disadvantage on attacks against anyone inside the darkness. You're not 3D-rendering the scene for your players after all--you're just helping them play a game. Go by the rules as written and you won't run into any issues, at least for darkness.

You will run into issues with other kinds of heavy obscurement like fog, and I find it useful to say that 5' or more of fog blocks line of sight as well as creating heavy obscurement. Twelve inches of foliage would probably block line of sight as well but that's not come up per se because I haven't run any hedge mazes.

[Aimeryan]

This is due to how you've specifically constructed the scenario. In a case where, say, someone is shooting at a person inside a globe of darkness from 100' away and said person is standing in the middle of an open field, I don't see how it really leads to disadvantage. I don't see how it confers all the other downsides of blindness, like not being able to make opportunity attacks, particularly if you're within five feet of the person.

In fact, I would give advantage to those attacks - the person sticks out like a sore thumb. If you have played any first person shooters you will know someone completely in black against a light background is way easier to track than someone in neutral or even light colours.

~~~


The blackened ground will still block a large part of your view if they are anywhere close to you, and you also won't be able to distinguish details.

In broad daylight you get something like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/q7CZT10P/Outside2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/v1bv7L4h)

instead of this:

https://i.postimg.cc/WpYP7fWV/Outside1.jpg (https://postimg.cc/K4TVGQhp)

(Excuse the crudity of the drawings--I'm not an artist. That leg in the lower right should probably be also partly illuminated up to the knee, assuming that the Darkness is far enough behind the guy that his leg is sticking out of it.)

Fundamentally, human vision just isn't good at reading negative space as actual objects--our eyes are designed to see positive spaces, which is why shadow puppets can so easily fool us into seeing things that aren't there.



In practice it's not complex at all: you just impose disadvantage on attacks against anyone inside the darkness. You're not 3D-rendering the scene for your players after all--you're just helping them play a game. Go by the rules as written and you won't run into any issues, at least for darkness.

You will run into issues with other kinds of heavy obscurement like fog, and I find it useful to say that 5' or more of fog blocks line of sight as well as creating heavy obscurement. Twelve inches of foliage would probably block line of sight as well but that's not come up per se because I haven't run any hedge mazes.


You still can easily target and hit those silhouettes - you just might not hit the one you want due to lack of identifying detail. At best, if other humanoid-like silhouettes were in the darkness (mannequins?!) then you may fail to hit a useful target.

Yeah you aren't making called shots, but then you aren't anyway by RAW. At a distance I would probably actually give advantage to hit on those - they are easier to distinguish from the background (at least the guy in green against the backdrop of the trees would be).

[MaxWilson]

Max, I'm getting more and more convinced that you are wrong.

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."

"Blocks vision entirely" is pretty straightforward.

I do acknowledge your argument, and it makes sense from a certain perspective, but I cant imagine that was the intent of the designers.

You're quoting from an online source which has the wrong capitalization. In the PHB it was originally

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

Then WotC apparently realized that was insane because darkness clearly doesn't work that way and issued errata stating that


A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

If "blocks vision entirely" meant "opaque" instead of "you can't see through it", they wouldn't have said "doesn't blind you" because it would.

Note that the current wording has been updated further to say, "“A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." Nothing about problems seeing out of it (which is weird for fog but not for darkness).


I disagree with RAW, and RAI.

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area."

So you can't see anything in that area, not "you can silhouettes".

Edit: You blocked out much more than the figure in your illustration. That would only make darkness effective if there were other objects to hide your silhouette.

Question for you, do you give disadvantage during the day for attacking a shadow (the monster)?

Of course--I blocked out everything within about 15' of the Darkness source. You need light to see furniture, ground, dogs lying on beds, etc., and inside of the darkness, light doesn't illuminate.

[micahaphone]

Why would you not be able to take opportunity attacks against an enemy who is an all-black outline of a person?

[MaxWilson]

Why would you not be able to take opportunity attacks against an enemy who is an all-black outline of a person?

Let's not get started on opportunity attacks--they are stupid from the get go. Why are you not able to take opportunity attacks against a paralyzed person?

I will say though that seeing only a silhouette messes with your depth perception. You will have trouble judging fighting distance between you and them, especially because you can't see their legs either unless they are much taller than you (since the floor is dark too).

========================================


I'll grant the torch argument, but you have the same problem with respect to fog clouds. By your reading, the fog cloud can be seen through just fine as long as the creature isn't standing within it. Once again, there's nothing calling the fog cloud out as opaque, even if objectively anything that would obscure a creature within the sphere would obscure them if they were just standing behind it.

I've had this argument with Tanar'ri many times before. If you're trying to get me to agree that it was stupid for 5E's designers to equate darkness and fog, I agree! You can't use the same rules for both and get a sensible result.


They did say that heavy obscurement blocks line of sight though. They literally said exactly that.

Only if you mean "literally said exactly that" in a way I've never seen anyone use it before, i.e. "they said something that I mentally interpreted to mean exactly that." They literally said something else, and they also explained literally in the next sentence exactly what they meant, which is literally that “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.” Which is how darkness has to work to make any sense; but rules for fog are still stupid, see above.

Darkness (especially darkness, i.e. regular old no-light-shining-anywhere darkness) acts asymmetricly but fog is symmetric: should block vision in both directions.

=========================================


You still can easily target and hit those silhouettes - you just might not hit the one you want due to lack of identifying detail. At best, if other humanoid-like silhouettes were in the darkness (mannequins?!) then you may fail to hit a useful target.

How well could you evade a parry from the warrior when you can't even see what she's doing? Can you tell where the chinks in the armor are, or who's carrying shields and where? How well could you shoot at those silhouettes as they get closer and/or crouch down and the silhouettes shrink drastically?

If you want to give advantage to someone shooting at silhouettes 100 yards away in an open field in broad daylight (to cancel out the disadvantage for not seeing them), be my guest. That's a pretty niche situation in D&D, but that's why DMs exist: to make sensible rulings about niche situations.


Yeah you aren't making called shots, but then you aren't anyway by RAW. At a distance I would probably actually give advantage to hit on those - they are easier to distinguish from the background (at least the guy in green against the backdrop of the trees would be).

Green vs. trees should probably just affect Perception checks, and yeah, obviously you can't hide a source of anomalous darkness in a sunny field. Everyone will know Something Wicked This Way Comes. But the guy in green could maybe hide in the trees if it weren't for the blackness.

[Frozenstep]

The blackened ground will still block a large part of your view if they are anywhere close to you, and you also won't be able to distinguish details.

In practice it's not complex at all: you just impose disadvantage on attacks against anyone inside the darkness. You're not 3D-rendering the scene for your players after all--you're just helping them play a game. Go by the rules as written and you won't run into any issues, at least for darkness.

If it was just a single person in the darkness, near the far edge of the darkness, they wouldn't have much cover since you can see most of their body. Additionally, what if the person looking at someone in darkness's radius is below the surface the darkness is coming from? Wouldn't a short creature have an easier time seeing the difference between the enemy and the ground? If two people are fighting in darkness, wouldn't it make sense to lay low so your silhouette is against the pitch black ground, basically making you invisible to anyone close to you?

I mean, sure, you can just impose disadvantage in every case, but it just feels like we're adding a complex description for a spell that will mostly give room for players to make arguments about it. If you really want an asymmetric vision blocker, use silent image to create a fog cloud. You can see through your own illusions.

[Undyne]

While looking into potential builds, I realized that I'm not 100% sure what you do with Darkness, other than Devil's Sight cheesiness. It seems like a fog cloud that can't be pushed away by a strong wind. If you place it on the enemy casters/archers, they can probably use their movement to get out of it before attacking anyway. So it's useful when the enemy can't easily move (like a tower, or scaffolding), or if they'd have to close the distance through a choke point to see you again, bringing them into melee range. But this all seems kind of situational. Useful, but situational.

I will note that my main group has a small home ruling, that 2 creatures both fighting in the darkness have disadvantage to hit, instead of both having advantage and disadvantage which cancels out for regular fighting.

I know you could cast Darkness on a pebble, and open/close your hand freely to hide your party when it's not your turn, and attack normally when it is your turn, but I'm mostly sure that wouldn't fly at my table.

It's like an AOE Blindess effect, and I personally use it like a smokescreen to run, plus even better is that only devils can see through it! Combine it with AOE attacks, and you have fun roasting all those goblins. Or orcs. Or whatever you're fighting.

[sithlordnergal]

Personally I've always equated Darkness to a black hole that only swallows up light. You can't see into it, out of it, or through it, just like you can't see into or through a black hole. Its less that Darkness is opaque, and more that any light that enters the area of a Darkness spell ceases to exist or is suppressed.

And if you think that you could see through it, or even see silhouettes in a place with no light, I suggest going into a windowless room at night, turn off all the lights, close the door, and look around. Tell me what you see.

[MaxWilson]

If it was just a single person in the darkness, near the far edge of the darkness, they wouldn't have much cover since you can see most of their body.

If your'e asking for advice: treat "mostly visible" as "visible for combat purposes." No disadvantage to attackers.


Additionally, what if the person looking at someone in darkness's radius is below the surface the darkness is coming from? Wouldn't a short creature have an easier time seeing the difference between the enemy and the ground?

Seems logical. Will rarely matter in practice, unless you're fighting short kobolds under an open blue sky (but then the kobolds will have disadvantage anyway), but that's why DMs exist: to impose ad hoc advantage/disadvantage for scenarios not covered explicitly in the rules, and make other rulings.


If two people are fighting in darkness, wouldn't it make sense to lay low so your silhouette is against the pitch black ground, basically making you invisible to anyone close to you?

Lying prone during a swordfight seems contraindicated. You'll mess up your own fighting technique and give more momentum to your opponent's blows against you.


I mean, sure, you can just impose disadvantage in every case, but it just feels like we're adding a complex description for a spell that will mostly give room for players to make arguments about it.

*shrug* I don't see anything complex about it--I have easy answers to all of the questions you just asked, and players have never given me any grief about it although they have given me minor grief about Fog Cloud (even though it was to the players' advantage). See above house rule for fog: 5' thickness blocks line of sight. I also stopped giving advantage to unseen attackers on ranged attacks because it made ranged advantage too cheap and easy to acquire (Minor Illusion, nonmagical camouflage, etc.) and because 5E melee is so weak that it needed some kind of a boost that ranged combat didn't get: advantage on melee attacks because your enemy can't see your attacks to parry them is that boost. (But parrying doesn't apply to ranged attacks in the first place so just assume that not-parrying is already factored in.)

If you'll try just running Darkness exactly as darkness I think you'll find that it's as simple as anything else in 5E.

[Demonslayer666]

...

Of course--I blocked out everything within about 15' of the Darkness source. You need light to see furniture, ground, dogs lying on beds, etc., and inside of the darkness, light doesn't illuminate.

Then what's the big round thing blocking most of her silhouette?

You didn't answer my question about how you rule on shadows (the monster) and hitting them in daylight.

Second picture: Again, you added in more objects into the darkness to try and confuse the issue. Each of those objects can be individually targeted. That's not what darkness does. It makes everything in that area as if you are blind. Seeing silhouettes is not blind.

[Frozenstep]

snip

Point is I'd have to keep making rulings for every unique situation the spell is used in. Enemy on a platform above the party, and then darkness is there so the party is looking at them from below? Short enemies fighting tall enemies, how short do you have to be compared to your enemy before you're no longer disadvantaged? If an enemy has a spell that requires sight on the target, does a silhouette count? If you go prone against the ground, are you now impossible to see for that person trying to cast the sight-based spell? If they go prone, can they now see the difference between you and ground and now target you?

If your interpretation of the spell works for you, that's fine, but I don't think a spell should have a DM ruling the angles of lines of sight against nearby objects and how tall the creatures seeing this are. Even with 5e letting DM's rule things for themselves, I think that goes a bit too far for a 2nd level spell that could be used any number of times and require a new ruling each time.

As for disadvantage on ranged attacks, yeah, I dislike that, so I did something similar (you have to see your target to gain the advantage of being unseen when attacking) .

[MaxWilson]

Then what's the big round thing blocking most of her silhouette?

It's the ground she's standing on. You can't see it because it's too dark. The smaller round thing around her hips is my attempt to show where the wall behind her is dark too (assuming the darkness object is approximately at her center of mass). I figure she's about 10-12' away from the wall, so I figured about 2-3' radius of the wall would be darkened too, although that might be too small.

And... Pythagoras says 15'^2 - 12'^2 = 9'^2, so yeah, at 12' the wall should be darkened in a 9' radius around her instead, which means you wouldn't see her silhouette at all. The whole picture should basically be black.

Serves me right for guesstimating--I should have made the darkness much bigger!


You didn't answer my question about how you rule on shadows (the monster) and hitting them in daylight.

[looks] Oh, I see now: <<Question for you, do you give disadvantage during the day for attacking a shadow (the monster)?>>

No, but I let Shadows hide in shadows (dim light) or darkness, which is defensively even better than having disadvantage: if an attacker picks the wrong square to target he just wastes his attack, full stop.


Second picture: Again, you added in more objects into the darkness to try and confuse the issue. Each of those objects can be individually targeted. That's not what darkness does. It makes everything in that area as if you are blind. Seeing silhouettes is not blind.

I don't understand your objection here about "again, you added in more objects into the darkness." If anything I made the darkness too small (because that wasn't what the question was about). It's maybe 8' radius, should be double that (15' radius). Which objects do you think should not be dark, and why?

[Max_Killjoy]

I've always read Darkness and similar spells as blocking light, not just being "an area of normal dark" -- not just preventing illumination but also "intercepting" light that would pass through the area.

That is, it cannot be seen through at all unless you have some sort of extranormal vision that specifically negates the effect.

[redwizard007]

It's the ground she's standing on. You can't see it because it's too dark. The smaller round thing around her hips is my attempt to show where the wall behind her is dark too (assuming the darkness object is approximately at her center of mass). I figure she's about 10-12' away from the wall, so I figured about 2-3' of the wall would be darkened too, although that might be too small.

And... Pythagoras says 15'^2 - 12'^2 = 9'^2, so yeah, at 12' the wall should be darkened in a 9' radius around her instead, which means you wouldn't see her silhouette at all. The whole picture should basically be black.

Serves me right for guesstimating--I should have made the darkness much bigger!



[looks] Oh, I see now: <<Question for you, do you give disadvantage during the day for attacking a shadow (the monster)?>>

No, but I let Shadows hide in shadows (dim light) or darkness, which is defensively even better than having disadvantage: if an attacker picks the wrong square to target he just wastes his attack, full stop.



I don't understand your objection here about "again, you added in more objects into the darkness." If anything I made the darkness too small (because that wasn't what the question was about). It's maybe 8' radius, should be double that (15' radius). Which objects do you think should not be dark, and why?

I think I would let you DM for me exactly one time.

[Tanarii]

Treating Darkness as darkness, as opposed to assuming its inky blackness blocking line of sight, is only problematic if you already can't handle someone attacking another creature in the darkness between them and another character holding a torch.

Mechanically its simple to make a ruling. Disadvantage to hit, but you don't have to guess location unless they hide.

Generally speaking players love Max's version compared to the old School Inky Blackness version. I don't use it anyway, because too many players have been programmed to think of it the other way. But it is far superior due to ease of use tactically.

Its a separate issue, but its utterly stupid that Fog Cloud and (Opaque) Heavy Obscurement are treated the same as (at least natural) darkness and (transparant) heavy obscurement under the rules. And said rules are written poorly for either.

[Keravath]

Treating Darkness as darkness, as opposed to assuming its inky blackness blocking line of sight, is only problematic if you already can't handle someone attacking another creature in the darkness between them and another character holding a torch.

Mechanically its simple to make a ruling. Disadvantage to hit, but you don't have to guess location unless they hide.

Generally speaking players love Max's version compared to the old School Inky Blackness version. I don't use it anyway, because too many players have been programmed to think of it the other way. But it is far superior due to ease of use tactically.

Its a separate issue, but its utterly stupid that Fog Cloud and (Opaque) Heavy Obscurement are treated the same as (at least natural) darkness and (transparant) heavy obscurement under the rules. And said rules are written poorly for either.

Just curious .. but what is an example of "transparent" heavy obscurement? The idea with obscurement is that it blocks vision so I'm not sure (other than the issues with regular darkness) what "transparent" heavy obscurement would be.

By the way, I agree that normal non-magical darkness and magical darkness should be explicitly treated differently in the rules. At present, the way the rules read, regular darkness is heavy obscurement which blocks line of sight which really only makes sense if there are no light sources. If everything is dark then the rule is correct. :)

Finally, personally, and from a rules perspective, I don't agree with Max's interpretation of darkness with the silhouettes. Silhouettes are as easy to target as a regular target, you can see what you are shooting at, their edges are very well defined. Although, a DM is welcome to go with whatever interpretation they like, I don't think this one is either RAW or RAI.

[Segev]

What we have here are two different interpreations of what darkness creates.

On the one hand, we have people saying it creates a region where light doesn't illuminate anything, as if a massively heavy shadow obscured the zone from any light source. This would be the one where you can see things beyond it, and where you can see silhouettes of things within it starkly outlined against the background if there's a background outside the darkness to reflect light back.

On the other, we have people saying that it is effectively a dense black fog or intangible sphere of pure and solid black through which you cannot see. It may as well be a silent image of a solid wooden sphere of its dimensions painted in vantablack for which you get no chance to disbelieve; if you're inside it, you just see blackness because the illusory wooden sphere is covering your eyes completely.

The latter actually does seem in line with what the rules we do have expects it to behave like, though I tend to prefer the former as actually seeming like magical "darkness" rather than "black-colored super-thick magical fog."

[Demonslayer666]

It's the ground she's standing on. You can't see it because it's too dark. The smaller round thing around her hips is my attempt to show where the wall behind her is dark too (assuming the darkness object is approximately at her center of mass). I figure she's about 10-12' away from the wall, so I figured about 2-3' radius of the wall would be darkened too, although that might be too small.
...

[looks] Oh, I see now: <<Question for you, do you give disadvantage during the day for attacking a shadow (the monster)?>>

No, but I let Shadows hide...(snip)....


I don't understand your objection here about "again, you added in more objects into the darkness." If anything I made the darkness too small (because that wasn't what the question was about). It's maybe 8' radius, should be double that (15' radius). Which objects do you think should not be dark, and why?

My objection is because your logic breaks down when you use a simplified example. Remove all objects except the target. No back wall interfering, no multiple targets, no floor - the target is flying in a sphere of darkness in the middle of the day, or you are a halfling looking up at them. If darkness worked like you suggest, you would see a perfect silhouette of the target, yet you don't impose disadvantage for shadows, but you would for this target in darkness.

Why does one have disadvantage and one does not when they are the same?

[MaxWilson]

On the other, we have people saying that it is effectively a dense black fog or intangible sphere of pure and solid black through which you cannot see. It may as well be a silent image of a solid wooden sphere of its dimensions painted in vantablack for which you get no chance to disbelieve; if you're inside it, you just see blackness because the illusory wooden sphere is covering your eyes completely.

The latter actually does seem in line with what the rules we do have expects it to behave like, though I tend to prefer the former as actually seeming like magical "darkness" rather than "black-colored super-thick magical fog."

Hi Segev,

Can you explain your reasoning here? You're not using an old, pre-errata PHB are you? It certainly is the way the rules used to expect it to behave, but recent PHBs have flipped that around.

-Max

[Segev]

Hi Segev,

Can you explain your reasoning here? You're not using an old, pre-errata PHB are you? It certainly is the way the rules used to expect it to behave, but recent PHBs have flipped that around.

-Max

Honestly, I couldn't tell you; my PHB is not to hand for me to check minutia like what printing it is, sorry.

Can you provide a quote of the RAW as they currently exist?

[noob]

Use it in cramped spaces to flee better?
Does having restrained vision still halves movement speed?

[sithlordnergal]

Hi Segev,

Can you explain your reasoning here? You're not using an old, pre-errata PHB are you? It certainly is the way the rules used to expect it to behave, but recent PHBs have flipped that around.

-Max

I mean, I'd take it from these:

Darkness: "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

Basic rules from DnDbeyond: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

----

It seems pretty clear to me, the Darkness spell creates an area of darkness, which then follow the darkness rules with the addition that normal Darkvision can't see through it. Therefore the area becomes Heavily Obscured, and blocks all normal vision. The only exceptions are special vision senses like Truesight, Tremorsense, Blindsense, and special calss abilities.

I also looked through the errata of the DMG and PHB, the only errata I could find on vision and light says "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." Which DnD Beyond already added to their thing.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I couldn't tell you; my PHB is not to hand for me to check minutia like what printing it is, sorry.

Can you provide a quote of the RAW as they currently exist?

I'm AFB also but going off online sources:

Darkness spell's effect (creates darkness, darkvision can't see through it):
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

What does darkness do? Creates heavy obscurement, can't see stuff in it: (emphasis mine)
Vision and Light
The most fundamental tasks of adventuring–noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few–rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area.

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Note that the wording used to be the opposite: it used to say creatures within heavily-obscured areas are blinded, but this was changed in errata (because it was insane and I'm quite sure nobody used ever used that rule for actual darkness) in 2015:


Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

This was when the PHB acquired its current text, but errata was eventually updated to quote directly from the revised PHB instead of referencing the old PHB text. (Errata no longer says "a heavily obscured area doesn't blind you".)

[Keravath]

I'm AFB also but going off online sources:

Darkness spell's effect (creates darkness, darkvision can't see through it):

What does darkness do? Creates heavy obscurement, can't see stuff in it: (emphasis mine)

Note that the wording used to be the opposite: it used to say creatures within heavily-obscured areas are blinded, but this was changed in errata (because it was insane and I'm quite sure nobody used ever used that rule for actual darkness) in 2015:



This was when the PHB acquired its current text, but errata was eventually updated to quote directly from the revised PHB instead of referencing the old PHB text. (Errata no longer says "a heavily obscured area doesn't blind you".)

Just curious but how are you defining "obscured". I read all the rules you cite and I interpret them as Darkness creating a 15' radius sphere of magical darkness that blocks all light and you seem to come up with the idea that light can pass through the darkness but not illuminate it.

However, to me when something creates an area of heavy obscurement it blocks all sight into, out of and through it because that is what obscurement means. You can't see through an area of obscurement.

If darkness creates an area of heavy obscurement then by definition it means that you can't see through it. However, you seem to be interpreting it to mean that only things inside the area and NOT on the other side are obscured.

But the rule explicitly states "A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely."

The AREA blocks vision entirely. I think this means what it says, the area blocks vision whether you are standing inside of it or standing outside and trying to look through it. However, you seem to think it only obscures the area where the spell is located and somehow doesn't obscure vision through it. The only way I can see reaching that conclusion is by using a completely different definition of "blocks vision" and obscurement.

I think you might be saying that the Darkness spell which creates an area of MAGICAL darkness actually only creates an area of natural darkness through magical means. However, the spell doesn't say that. It states specifically "magical darkness".

Anyway, as always folks can play it however you like, but honestly, I don't think it fits either RAW or RAI.

[Segev]

I mean, I'd take it from these:

Darkness: "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

Basic rules from DnDbeyond: "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

----

It seems pretty clear to me, the Darkness spell creates an area of darkness, which then follow the darkness rules with the addition that normal Darkvision can't see through it. Therefore the area becomes Heavily Obscured, and blocks all normal vision. The only exceptions are special vision senses like Truesight, Tremorsense, Blindsense, and special calss abilities.

I also looked through the errata of the DMG and PHB, the only errata I could find on vision and light says "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." Which DnD Beyond already added to their thing.

Actually, it doesn't say this blocks line of sight. I believe fog and such do mention doing so.

This is important, because with the wording saying only that seeing INTO it suffers the problems of obscurement, it says nothing about seeing OUT of it. Or stuff on the far side of it. It is possible to interpret "Creatures with darkvision cannot see through it" to mean one of two things: either it blocks their line of sight, or their darkvision does not grant them power to see things within the magical darkness any more than non-darkvision creatures can.

So it's now not possible to outright state what the intent is. But it certainly is well within the RAW to rule that creatures in darkness can see out, and creatures on one side of it can see things on the far side.

The silhouettes that SHOULD appear of creatures and objects in the magically dark space, as blocks to line of sight, are not technically visible...because of obscurement rules. But equally weirdly, nothing stops them from blocking line of sight. By the RAW, then, creatures attacking silhouettes have Disadvantage despite seeing the outline of the target quite clearly, oddly enough. I wouldn't put it past a DM to rule otherwise, however.

[Aimeryan]

The 'blocks vision entirely' means simply that - vision is blocked. A wall blocks vision. An area of darkness blocks vision.

The problem here is not with Darkness, the spell, but with natural areas that are dark; the latter should not be blocking vision. I think the intent is that they did not want you 'seeing' something in natural darkness by that thing being backlit - it would create more work for the DM. So effectively, all darkness - natural and magical - works like a blot of ink.

Obviously, this seems completely incongruous to our natural understanding of darkness - a light in the distance should be seen. However, if you changed it to something more reasonable (like not providing vision, rather than blocking) this would mean the DM now has to rule on when something is silhouetted and whether this actually causes disadvantage when attacking it. Personally, I would probably rule that since you can't effectively see their weapon (it is probably within the silhouette of the creature itself) you would open yourself up for an opportunity attack, and the creature attacking you would have advantage - but you wouldn't have disadvantage attacking it.

The question then is, if you change natural darkness to instead just not provide vision, rather than block it, should you do the same for magical Darkness? I think that would be up to the DM as it is magical and shouldn't necessarily follow natural darkness rules.

[MaxWilson]

Just curious but how are you defining "obscured".

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I'm not using the term "obscured" except in the context of "heavy obscurement," which I'm using as a piece of 5E jargon defined in the PHB, not as the common English usage.


But the rule explicitly states "A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely."

In context that clearly does not mean opacity, since darkness (regular old darkness, like when you turn out the lights) is not opaque, and since in the very next sentence it elaborates in a way which makes it very, very clear that it's not a symmetrical effect (not opaque). Otherwise the second sentence would have no reason to exist, and the first sentence would say something more like "a heavily obscured area blocks line of sight, and nothing can see into or through the heavily obscured area," but of course that would be absurd because darkness doesn't work that way. If they wanted it to work that way they would have left in the original clause about creatures within the area being blinded.


Actually, it doesn't say this blocks line of sight. I believe fog and such do mention doing so.

I wish they did, and they should, but they don't, unless the DM fixes the omission.


This is important, because with the wording saying only that seeing INTO it suffers the problems of obscurement, it says nothing about seeing OUT of it. Or stuff on the far side of it. It is possible to interpret "Creatures with darkvision cannot see through it" to mean one of two things: either it blocks their line of sight, or their darkvision does not grant them power to see things within the magical darkness any more than non-darkvision creatures can.

So it's now not possible to outright state what the intent is. But it certainly is well within the RAW to rule that creatures in darkness can see out, and creatures on one side of it can see things on the far side.

Note further that adopting the first reading (= "blocks line of sight") leads immediately to an absurdity, wherein creatures with darkvision cannot see out of or through the darkness, but creatures without darkvision are unaffected. This is a strong clue that the first reading is not the intended meaning.

Furthermore, standard English usage for seeing something on the other side of darkness is to "see past" or "see beyond" the darkness, not "see through" the darkness. "Seeing through" a visual effect refers to being unaffected by it, e.g. seeing through an illusion, seeing through a con. There's no reason to think WotC's writers meant anything unusual when they said that darkvision doesn't help you see through magical darkness.


The silhouettes that SHOULD appear of creatures and objects in the magically dark space, as blocks to line of sight, are not technically visible...because of obscurement rules. But equally weirdly, nothing stops them from blocking line of sight. By the RAW, then, creatures attacking silhouettes have Disadvantage despite seeing the outline of the target quite clearly, oddly enough. I wouldn't put it past a DM to rule otherwise, however.

It's not that odd in the context of 5E. Even if you can see part of a silhouette, it's hard to tell how it's moving, whether it's facing you, whether it's holding a shield, whether it's lunging at you in a riposte, etc. Human vision just isn't good at deriving information from negative space--our brains are designed to see moving objects, not the spaces between objects. Disadvantage is a pretty appropriate penalty for someone who is trying to stab a heavily-armored warrior in the throat when he can't even really see the target's movements. It won't stop you from damaging a lightly-armored AC 10 target, but if the target is AC 21 thanks to plate armor and shield, forget it, you're not getting through that defense without being able to see it clearly.

=================================================


The 'blocks vision entirely' means simply that - vision is blocked. A wall blocks vision. An area of darkness blocks vision.

The problem here is not with Darkness, the spell, but with natural areas that are dark; the latter should not be blocking vision. I think the intent is that they did not want you 'seeing' something in natural darkness by that thing being backlit - it would create more work for the DM. So effectively, all darkness - natural and magical - works like a blot of ink.

Clearly WotC did not agree with you or they would have left the PHB the way it originally was. The change indicates that they viewed regular-darkness-as-opaque-ink-blot as a bug, not a feature.

[Erys]

Great pictures!

But I do wonder:

Why is there an extra shadow circle covering her midriff to knees?


I don't like your tone, friend, but for now I'll pretend you didn't mean to be rude.

Here's a warrior in Darkness that just barely reaches part of the wall of the room she's in (it's 10' away or so):

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg (https://postimg.cc/1fn6QZrq)

Here's the same warrior without Darkness:

https://i.postimg.cc/Gmhqf80W/warrior.jpg (https://postimg.cc/tYw3Zg4k)

While using the 'see through/silhouette interpretation' you might be able to make an argument that Darkness still prevents Line of Sight when trying to target through the spell- because the things within the spell block impair your ability to see things behind...

BUT that interpretation fails when you realize Line of sight TO the silhouette is not blocked.

If Darkness looked like the first picture--> I can see both the girl and the dog well enough to hit them with Magic Missile.

[Aimeryan]

Clearly WotC did not agree with you or they would have left the PHB the way it originally was. The change indicates that they viewed regular-darkness-as-opaque-ink-blot as a bug, not a feature.

Sure, and they failed. If they took out the line about blocking vision entirely then it would actually work; 'you effectively suffer from being blind when trying to see something inside an area of heavy obscurement' - vision outside the area would be fine, not blocked.

I'm actually down with darkness, both natural and magical, not blocking vision - unfortunately that is not what the rules say. I mean, I would probably look at situations like the Darkness spell in an open field on a bright day and go 'Yup, you can definitely see their silhouettes' and then rule what effect that has (no disadvantage attacking them, maybe advantage for them attacking you if making a lunging/piercing attack like with a lance).

[micahaphone]

The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

I guess I thought that "Nonmagical light can't illuminate it" meant that the area of the spell is pitch black dark. Because there's no light entering/illuminating that area, so there's no light to bounce off objects and go into your eyes.

They specify that a creature with darkvision can't see through it because regular vision already can't see through it, and the special trait that would overcome seeing in pitch black darkness still doesn't help you.

Otherwise, if the silhouette model is correct, wouldn't that mean that a human gets silhouette vision, but a drow gets the inky void version?

[MaxWilson]

Great pictures!

But I do wonder:

Why is there an extra shadow circle covering her midriff to knees?

It's my attempt to show that part of the wall behind her is still within the radius of the Darkness spell and is therefore dark.

Doing some after-the-fact trigonometry reveals I should have made it several times bigger, about 18' in diameter. Oh well.


While using the 'see through/silhouette interpretation' you might be able to make an argument that Darkness still prevents Line of Sight when trying to target through the spell- because the things within the spell block impair your ability to see things behind...

BUT that interpretation fails when you realize Line of sight TO the silhouette is not blocked.

If Darkness looked like the first picture--> I can see both the girl and the dog well enough to hit them with Magic Missile.

This is a separate can of worms: why can't I "cast Magic Missile at the darkness"? Even if I know an enemy is right there because he's actually grappling me, I can't cast Magic Missile with my eyes closed? Why not?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to "why can't I Magic Missile someone if I can see their silhouette?"

[sithlordnergal]

Actually, it doesn't say this blocks line of sight. I believe fog and such do mention doing so.

This is important, because with the wording saying only that seeing INTO it suffers the problems of obscurement, it says nothing about seeing OUT of it. Or stuff on the far side of it. It is possible to interpret "Creatures with darkvision cannot see through it" to mean one of two things: either it blocks their line of sight, or their darkvision does not grant them power to see things within the magical darkness any more than non-darkvision creatures can.

So it's now not possible to outright state what the intent is. But it certainly is well within the RAW to rule that creatures in darkness can see out, and creatures on one side of it can see things on the far side.

The silhouettes that SHOULD appear of creatures and objects in the magically dark space, as blocks to line of sight, are not technically visible...because of obscurement rules. But equally weirdly, nothing stops them from blocking line of sight. By the RAW, then, creatures attacking silhouettes have Disadvantage despite seeing the outline of the target quite clearly, oddly enough. I wouldn't put it past a DM to rule otherwise, however.

Actually it doesn't, Fog Cloud only creates Heavy Obscurement. It doesn't specifically state that it blocks line of sight anywhere in the text. IT doesn't even state that its an opaque fog, just that it makes Heavy Obscurement. The same is true for Darkness, Stinking Cloud, or Incendiary Cloud. All of those spells create Heavy Obscurement, none of them mention being opaque or that they block line of sight. According to the PHB:

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions) when trying to see something in that area."

Its not that you can see a silhouette, its that you can't see anything. You see a solid wall of pure black that you cannot see through or past. Unless you also want to argue that you can see through Fog Cloud to the opposite side of the spell and see fog covered silhouettes, then you should be willing to accept that you just can't see into or through Darkness. To illustrate my point further:

https://i.ibb.co/6WZjRBv/warrior.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/jWmp9BG/warrior-dark.jpg

EDIT: Again, as I said in an earlier post, think of Darkness as a mini-black hole that devours and destroys all light that enters it, provided the light is either non-magical or made by a 2nd level spell or lower. Take a look at a picture of a black hole. In fact, I'll give you one:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/blackhole.png

Now it is very fuzzy, but you cannot see into or through the black hole. That's what darkness is like.

[Keravath]

Actually it doesn't, Fog Cloud only creates Heavy Obscurement. It doesn't specifically state that it blocks line of sight anywhere in the text. IT doesn't even state that its an opaque fog, just that it makes Heavy Obscurement. The same is true for Darkness, Stinking Cloud, or Incendiary Cloud. All of those spells create Heavy Obscurement, none of them mention being opaque or that they block line of sight. According to the PHB:

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions) when trying to see something in that area."

Its not that you can see a silhouette, its that you can't see anything. You see a solid wall of pure black that you cannot see through or past. Unless you also want to argue that you can see through Fog Cloud to the opposite side of the spell and see fog covered silhouettes, then you should be willing to accept that you just can't see into or through Darkness. To illustrate my point further:

https://i.ibb.co/6WZjRBv/warrior.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/jWmp9BG/warrior-dark.jpg

EDIT: Again, as I said in an earlier post, think of Darkness as a mini-black hole that devours and destroys all light that enters it, provided the light is either non-magical or made by a 2nd level spell or lower. Take a look at a picture of a black hole. In fact, I'll give you one:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/blackhole.png

Now it is very fuzzy, but you cannot see into or through the black hole. That's what darkness is like.

I agree with your viewpoint on this completely :) .. I am in the Darkness spell creates a 15' radius black sphere of magical darkness camp creating a heavily obscured area that you can't see through. Obviously there are other opinions :)

However, I am sure the game developers are either laughing or slapping their foreheads going "Doh" at one side of this discussion ... I have no idea which :)

[Tanarii]

IMO the biggest problem for a DM to address isn't how you treat the Darkness spell specifically. It's to first address opaque heavily obscured vs translucent heavily obscured, which the rules treat the same. Thick Fog/Mist/Foliage is very different from normal darkness. One blocks line of sight into, out of, and through it, although possibly after a certain thickness. And the other only blocks seeing things in it, not out of it or through it, and even then they can be silhouetted.

After you've house-ruled that fix first, you can decide how you want Darkness to work.

Edit: As an example, I know at least one poster here uses the house rule that the first 5ft of opaque Heavily Obsured doesn't block line of sight, although I believe (but can't recall for sure) that's only for seeing out. So if I'm recalling it correctly, for them hiding in bushes or the edge of a fog lets you see out.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: As an example, I know at least one poster here uses the house rule that the first 5ft of opaque Heavily Obsured doesn't block line of sight, although I believe (but can't recall for sure) that's only for seeing out. So if I'm recalling it correctly, for them hiding in bushes or the edge of a fog lets you see out.

Yep, I do this, although I don't love it. It still feels like a kludge.

[Tanarii]

Yep, I do this, although I don't love it. It still feels like a kludge.
I didn't know that, I was thinking of someone else. Personally I just have it totally block line of sight in all directions unless I specifically make an exception. If you're in a border region you can see out of (light mist, thin foliage) it doesn't count as obsuring for anyone looking at you either.

I have limited line of sight in heavy rain and mist before, but that's usually 30-60ft. Depending on how I want the battlefield to work. But again, that's two-directional, if your charcater can see someone, they can see you.

[MaxWilson]

I didn't know that, I was thinking of someone else. Personally I just have it totally block line of sight in all directions unless I specifically make an exception. If you're in a border region you can see out of (light mist, thin foliage) it doesn't count as obsuring for anyone looking at you either.

Probably what I should do is make it render you unseen if your Intelligence (Stealth) roll beats observers' passive perception. It should be possible to be unseen in fog if you use good technique; it just should not be automatic.

[Aimeryan]

Actually it doesn't, Fog Cloud only creates Heavy Obscurement. It doesn't specifically state that it blocks line of sight anywhere in the text. IT doesn't even state that its an opaque fog, just that it makes Heavy Obscurement. The same is true for Darkness, Stinking Cloud, or Incendiary Cloud. All of those spells create Heavy Obscurement, none of them mention being opaque or that they block line of sight. According to the PHB:

"A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions) when trying to see something in that area."

Oh darn, I forgot that opaque fog and dense foilage are also included in a heavily obscured area - can't fully get rid of the 'blocks vision entirely'. They really should separate darkness from heavily obscured areas (it doesn't make any linguistic sense), or at least specifically set out that opaque fog or dense foilage block vision entirely while darkness merely has no vision itself to give but lets vision through from beyond it.

[Segev]

Thing is? If the spells don't say fog blocks line of sight, and nothing in the rules text elsewhere does, then...by strict reading of the RAW, yes, you can see things on the far side of a fog cloud and you see fog-covered silhouettes. This is obviously ridiculous.

If darkness is an opaque black ball, it really isn't darkness at all. It's an illusory black ball that isn't subject to disbelief.

In the end, without the book out and out stating one way or the other (and, so far as I've been able to read, if it does, it actually states that fog lets you see out from within just fine, as it does with darkness), it's a DM call.

It seems the current state of the RAW has some really weird and buggy effects with fog, since they didn't include specifics about blocking line of sight, but mention expressly that creatures in regions of heavy obscurement can see out just fine.

[Erys]

This is a separate can of worms: why can't I "cast Magic Missile at the darkness"? Even if I know an enemy is right there because he's actually grappling me, I can't cast Magic Missile with my eyes closed? Why not?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to "why can't I Magic Missile someone if I can see their silhouette?"

If he is grappling you, you don't generally get Somatic components...

And, yes, having your eyes closed would be similar to the 'ink blot' style Darkness- both completely block Line of Sight.

However, I am not aware of a rule preventing the targeting of someone whose actually visible but who also looks like a shadow or silhouette.

[sithlordnergal]

Thing is? If the spells don't say fog blocks line of sight, and nothing in the rules text elsewhere does, then...by strict reading of the RAW, yes, you can see things on the far side of a fog cloud and you see fog-covered silhouettes. This is obviously ridiculous.

If darkness is an opaque black ball, it really isn't darkness at all. It's an illusory black ball that isn't subject to disbelief.

In the end, without the book out and out stating one way or the other (and, so far as I've been able to read, if it does, it actually states that fog lets you see out from within just fine, as it does with darkness), it's a DM call.

It seems the current state of the RAW has some really weird and buggy effects with fog, since they didn't include specifics about blocking line of sight, but mention expressly that creatures in regions of heavy obscurement can see out just fine.

It does state it though. It literally states "A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". Which part is difficult to translate? The "blocks vision entirely" part? The "heavily obscured area" section? It even calls out darkness as a form of heavy obscurement. And in the part about Light it states that dark areas are heavily obscured, making it impossible to see through. Or maybe you're reading "Blocks vision entirely" to mean it doesn't block line of sight? Which makes zero sense. And yes, if you need to think about it as an illusory black ball, that is basically how it works. Though its not an illusion, it is literally a space where light cannot enter or exit. It is a space where light cannot exist or pass through.

Again, unless you mean to say that you can see through all forms of heavy obscurement as long as you're in it, which makes zero sense at all, your argument doesn't work. Because we can go further: A naturally occuring sandstorm that causes Heavy Obscurment doesn't block line of sight. Under your ruling anyone in the sandstorm can see perfectly while anyone outside of the sandstorm can see the other side of it without being able to see into it.

Its similar to the argument of the Coffeelock, where Coffeelock players try to argue that they no longer need Long Rests because they don't require sleep. No, it doesn't work that way, you still need to take a Long Rest even if you don't sleep, because Long Rests and Sleep are not the same thing.

EDIT: Bolded for emphasis, also corrected a small error. It didn't specifically call out Darkness as I thought. Instead it was talking about darkness as a whole

[NNescio]

It does state it though. It literally states "A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". Which part is difficult to translate? The "blocks vision entirely" part? The "heavily obscured area" section? It even calls out Darkness with a capital D, implying that it is talking about the spell. And in the part about Light it states that dark areas are heavily obscured, making it impossible to see through. And yes, if you need to think about it as an illusory black ball, that is basically how it works. Though its not an illusion, it is literally a space where light cannot enter or exit. It is a space where light cannot exist or pass through.

While I agree with your general point (especially the blocking vision part), I'd like to point out that "darkness" isn't capitalized in official rule sources, such as the PHB (with or without errata applied), the SRD, and DnD Beyond.

You are probably quoting Roll20, an unofficial source which unnecessarily capitalizes a lot of game terms that aren't supposed to be capitalized.

Though yeah, Darkness (the spell) still creates darkness (the environmental condition), so the rule still applies.

Edit: Fixed grammar.

[sithlordnergal]

While I agree with your general point (especially the blocking vision part), I'd like to point out that "darkness" isn't capitalized in either official rule sources, such as the PHB (with or without errata applied), the SRD, and DnD Beyond.

You are probably quoting Roll20, which unnecessarily capitalizes a lot of game terms that aren't supposed to be capitalized.

Though yeah, Darkness (the spell) still creates darkness (the environmental condition), so the rule still applies.

Ohh, you're right. I corrected that now

[Daithi]

As far as what you can do with Darkness ---
I've played warlock that was basically a sniper with EB. Whenever possible, I would setup away from my targets, as well as from my own party, let's say on a roof in a city environment. I would then use darkness on myself and with Devil's Sight I could see through the darkness, but my targets could not see me through the darkness. So, I got advantage as I blasted the snot out of them, but they had disadvantage trying to hit me. Plus, my party members were not in the darkness or effected by it in anyway.

[redwizard007]

As far as what you can do with Darkness ---
I've played warlock that was basically a sniper with EB. Whenever possible, I would setup away from my targets, as well as from my own party, let's say on a roof in a city environment. I would then use darkness on myself and with Devil's Sight I could see through the darkness, but my targets could not see me through the darkness. So, I got advantage as I blasted the snot out of them, but they had disadvantage trying to hit me. Plus, my party members were not in the darkness or effected by it in anyway.

What are you talking about? Oh, yeah. This was a thread about USES of Darkness...

I like to lob it at guard towers, drop it behind a fleeing group to slow pursuit, and most importantly I use it to eliminate advantage for my enemies.

[Revaros]

I'd use it to deny a position to the enemy; to prevent the enemy gaining tactical advantage, and potentially force them out of said position or simply delay engagement for the group, giving a fraction of time to close the distance.

"Oh you want to sit their behind that barricade and pepper us with missiles?" DARKNESS.

[NaughtyTiger]

(IMO a willful misreading)


I don't like your tone, friend, but for now I'll pretend you didn't mean to be rude.

to be fair, suggesting someone is intentionally reading the rules wrong also has an off-tone.
given that this has been argued before, suggesting that 12 of us are intentional misreading the rules smacks of conspiracy.

[Keravath]

While I agree with your general point (especially the blocking vision part), I'd like to point out that "darkness" isn't capitalized in official rule sources, such as the PHB (with or without errata applied), the SRD, and DnD Beyond.

You are probably quoting Roll20, an unofficial source which unnecessarily capitalizes a lot of game terms that aren't supposed to be capitalized.

Though yeah, Darkness (the spell) still creates darkness (the environmental condition), so the rule still applies.

Edit: Fixed grammar.

Just to clarify. Darkness (the spell) does NOT create darkness (the environment condition). It creates "magical darkness" which may or may not be the same as the natural environmental condition. RAW does not define whether "magical darkness" is the same as natural darkness.

Some folks consider magical darkness to be "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely" which then blocks vision entirely, into, out of or through. Some folks seem to consider the Darkness spell to create a version of transparent natural darkness (which the spell does NOT say ... it specifically says magical darkness ... whatever that is exactly) and then come up with all sorts of vision rules to try to imagine a 15' radius sphere of darkness which allows light to pass through.

I liked the example of a flying character under this sort of natural darkness spell. Using the silhouette concept everyone can see a black silhouette of exactly where this flying character is located in the 15' radius sphere. In this circumstance, the character and their location are clearly visible. It really doesn't matter that they happen to be just a black silhouette. It makes no sense for a DM to rule that attacks would have disadvantage because the target can be clearly seen from outside the area of "magical darkness". In addition, since, unfortunately, the character inside the area is treated as blinded since somehow the light that can traverse the area of darkness can't impinge on their eyes as it passes through, attacks from outside the darkness in this case would have advantage since the silhouette is clearly visible but the creature in the darkness can't see out. Anyway, to me, this interpretation makes no sense whatsoever and it won't be played that way in any game I run :)

[Segev]

It does state it though. It literally states "A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". Which part is difficult to translate? The "blocks vision entirely" part? The "heavily obscured area" section? It even calls out darkness as a form of heavy obscurement.


Just to clarify. Darkness (the spell) does NOT create darkness (the environment condition). It creates "magical darkness" which may or may not be the same as the natural environmental condition. RAW does not define whether "magical darkness" is the same as natural darkness.

The issue here, though, is that the "heavily obscured" rules don't actually call out the spell vs. normal darkness. So, if you read this consistently, that means that you can't see light sources that have darkness between you and them, because the darkness creates heavy obscurement.

So, if you have a torch, say, and it lights up 20 feet plus another 20 feet in dim light, you're just fine for avoiding being detected by anything that is outside that 40 ft. radius, because the darkness between you and them provides heavy obscurement, which "blocks vision entirely." (Now, darkvision lets you see through that normal darkness, but let's ignore darkvision for the moment.)

As written, you certainly can interpret darkness to provide an ink blot hovering in the air and physically blocking lines of sight. But using the rules quoted, non-magical darkness behaves the same way. If a corridor is lit by a chain of candles, you can see all the way down it, but if one or two candles go out, creating a small pool of darkness, that now blots out all the candles beyond, since the darkness creates heavy obscurement and blocks sight entirely.

[Aimeryan]

Just to clarify. Darkness (the spell) does NOT create darkness (the environment condition). It creates "magical darkness" which may or may not be the same as the natural environmental condition. RAW does not define whether "magical darkness" is the same as natural darkness.

Some folks consider magical darkness to be "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely" which then blocks vision entirely, into, out of or through. Some folks seem to consider the Darkness spell to create a version of transparent natural darkness (which the spell does NOT say ... it specifically says magical darkness ... whatever that is exactly) and then come up with all sorts of vision rules to try to imagine a 15' radius sphere of darkness which allows light to pass through.

I liked the example of a flying character under this sort of natural darkness spell. Using the silhouette concept everyone can see a black silhouette of exactly where this flying character is located in the 15' radius sphere. In this circumstance, the character and their location are clearly visible. It really doesn't matter that they happen to be just a black silhouette. It makes no sense for a DM to rule that attacks would have disadvantage because the target can be clearly seen from outside the area of "magical darkness". In addition, since, unfortunately, the character inside the area is treated as blinded since somehow the light that can traverse the area of darkness can't impinge on their eyes as it passes through, attacks from outside the darkness in this case would have advantage since the silhouette is clearly visible but the creature in the darkness can't see out. Anyway, to me, this interpretation makes no sense whatsoever and it won't be played that way in any game I run :)

I'm in agreement that my preference would be for magical darkness that fills a sphere to not let light through, rather than just paint things black.

Weirdly, it might still by RAW come to the same result; you could argue that you technically can't see the target because you can't see their skin - hence, you would still suffer the same as if you were blind to the target (so the whole advantage/disadvantage on attack rolls, no spells that require seeing the target, etc.).

This, of course, seems ludicrous to me; is it really any different to wearing a black zentai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentai)? Or any coloured zentai, for that matter? Or a bedsheet? Technically you wouldn't be able to literally see the skin of the target in any of these, either. The common English phrasing of 'see the target' would not mean literally the skin of the target, but would include anything that would allow you to identify the location of the target - which a zentai, bedsheet, or silhouette would do.

As I would rule it, you can see the target if you can see the silhouette, so Darkness that only painted the target black would be practically pointless outside of maybe making it difficult to know which target was which (would probably require an intelligence check).

~~~


The issue here, though, is that the "heavily obscured" rules don't actually call out the spell vs. normal darkness. So, if you read this consistently, that means that you can't see light sources that have darkness between you and them, because the darkness creates heavy obscurement.

So, if you have a torch, say, and it lights up 20 feet plus another 20 feet in dim light, you're just fine for avoiding being detected by anything that is outside that 40 ft. radius, because the darkness between you and them provides heavy obscurement, which "blocks vision entirely." (Now, darkvision lets you see through that normal darkness, but let's ignore darkvision for the moment.)

As written, you certainly can interpret darkness to provide an ink blot hovering in the air and physically blocking lines of sight. But using the rules quoted, non-magical darkness behaves the same way. If a corridor is lit by a chain of candles, you can see all the way down it, but if one or two candles go out, creating a small pool of darkness, that now blots out all the candles beyond, since the darkness creates heavy obscurement and blocks sight entirely.

That is not Keravath's issue, though, but WotC's.

It is very poorly written; they have decided to treat normal darkness (i.e., an area without much/any light in it) as the exact same as being in the middle of a mountain. This means no matter how you rule it you have problems; either you see through both no problem or you see through neither. They need to separate the two - one blocks vision, the other merely does not provide vision.

The literal interpretation of 'blocks vision entirely' I see no way of not meaning that vision is blocked, entirely. This means, technically as RAW, Darkness (spell) does act like an ink blob - because normal darkness does too. Either that or you define 'magical darkness' as different to 'darkness', which leaves it undefined and then you have to make up the rules for it. As I see it, there is no RAW way to rule it acts in the silhouette fashion.

Now, of course, you can and probably should houserule normal darkness to act in a more sane manner - however, whether you decide to do the same for magical darkness from the Darkness spell is quite independent.

[Demonslayer666]

The issue here, though, is that the "heavily obscured" rules don't actually call out the spell vs. normal darkness. So, if you read this consistently, that means that you can't see light sources that have darkness between you and them, because the darkness creates heavy obscurement.

So, if you have a torch, say, and it lights up 20 feet plus another 20 feet in dim light, you're just fine for avoiding being detected by anything that is outside that 40 ft. radius, because the darkness between you and them provides heavy obscurement, which "blocks vision entirely." (Now, darkvision lets you see through that normal darkness, but let's ignore darkvision for the moment.)

As written, you certainly can interpret darkness to provide an ink blot hovering in the air and physically blocking lines of sight. But using the rules quoted, non-magical darkness behaves the same way. If a corridor is lit by a chain of candles, you can see all the way down it, but if one or two candles go out, creating a small pool of darkness, that now blots out all the candles beyond, since the darkness creates heavy obscurement and blocks sight entirely.

But we do know how normal darkness works as real world experience. An area of darkness with a light source visible on the other side is no longer darkness since it has light passing through it.

There are no rules for seeing a light source beyond the radius in the game. We have to use real world knowledge and apply it to the game. We know that an illuminated area can be seen from a distance, even though you are not in that radius of light.

[MaxWilson]

If he is grappling you, you don't generally get Somatic components...

And, yes, having your eyes closed would be similar to the 'ink blot' style Darkness- both completely block Line of Sight.

However, I am not aware of a rule preventing the targeting of someone whose actually visible but who also looks like a shadow or silhouette.

They are not visible. You can't see them--they're in the dark. You can only infer their presence.

(Also, most DMs won't agree with you about Somatic components and grappling. Maybe if you explicitly grapple both hands, okay, but that would require extra attacks and two free hands, and that kind of double-hand-grapple isn't part of the Magic Missile scenario.)

[Max_Killjoy]

If normal darkness blocks light from passing through, no D&D setting would have visible stars, lighthouses and signal fires wouldn't work, the lights of distant cities or lonely farmhouses would not be seen, that ominous or hopeful light around the corner in the dungeon wouldn't be visible, etc.

Is this the world that any D&D setting shows us? No.

Therefore, we can conclude that normal darkness is "realistic" darkness, and does not block all light passing through it.

If the RAW are somehow unclear on this, or written such that they lead to some other determination... then the RAW are at fault, not the setting-derived obvious conclusion.

[Demonslayer666]

They are not visible. You can't see them--they're in the dark. You can only infer their presence.

...

Yes they are, just as visible as a shadow.

[Keravath]

If normal darkness blocks light from passing through, no D&D setting would have visible stars, lighthouses and signal fires wouldn't work, the lights of distant cities or lonely farmhouses would not be seen, that ominous or hopeful light around the corner in the dungeon wouldn't be visible, etc.

Is this the world that any D&D setting shows us? No.

Therefore, we can conclude that normal darkness is "realistic" darkness, and does not block all light passing through it.

If the RAW are somehow unclear on this, or written such that they lead to some other determination... then the RAW are at fault, not the setting-derived obvious conclusion.

I completely agree :) ... however, the discussion is about how to apply the rules as written to MAGICAL darkness and not to natural darkness.

I think most of us agree on how natural darkness and light sources interact. RAW, the rules on darkness may make no sense for natural darkness (which is just the absence of light). However, the rules could and perhaps do make sense for magical darkness.

Folks advocating for the silhouette option simply choose to disregard the quite clear statement
""A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely"

That statement is very clear. However, it doesn't agree with our understanding of natural darkness which contains light sources. It is fully consistent with natural darkness without light sources. If you can't see in the dark, and it IS dark, then the darkness blocks vision entirely.

The problem arises when we add a light source like a torch to natural darkness. Clearly light can pass through, can impinge on the eyes and be perceived. Thus, although you may be in darkness, you can see areas in the light. However, you still can not see other areas that are also in darkness. All the dark areas are STILL heavily obscured (though you could probably make arguments about backlighting ... however, a backlit object in a generally naturally dark area is not the same as the silhouette idea of natural darkness in a well lit environment).

However, the Darkness spell explicitly says it creates "magical darkness" and nowhere does the spell or the rules indicate that this is in any way the same as natural darkness. RAW, darkness creates a heavily obscured area, so magical darkness would do the same, no matter what the ambient lighting might be - that would be the difference between natural darkness and magical darkness. Natural darkness only occurs in the absence of light.

In addition, the Darkness spell says "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it". If light passes through the volume it IS illuminating the volume. It scatters from the air molecules or dust particles in the air. It is refracted by the air (even if the index of refraction is the same as the area surrounding the region with darkness). It even reveals the contents of the darkness, even if only in silhouette. All of these are effects of illumination which is not possible for non magical light in the area of a darkness spell.


The silhouette interpretation only seems to assume that the light can't interact with surfaces inside the volume of the spell. However, illumination involves interactions with ALL the matter inside the region of the spell. Assuming that the text refers to only illuminating surfaces found within the area of effect of the spell is just another assumption that is not actually stated by RAW.

[MaxWilson]

Yes they are, just as visible as a shadow.

Then nobody needs Darkvision, because you can still see everything's shadow on the dark. (Shadows everywhere!)

Anyway, RAW disagrees with you, and this is a discussion about RAW. You are effectively blinded w/rt things in heavy obscurement, sorry. Silhouette isn't seeing, it is NOT SEEING. Magic Missiles against something you can't see are, for some reason, illegal.

[Max_Killjoy]

I completely agree :) ... however, the discussion is about how to apply the rules as written to MAGICAL darkness and not to natural darkness.

I think most of us agree on how natural darkness and light sources interact. RAW, the rules on darkness may make no sense for natural darkness (which is just the absence of light). However, the rules could and perhaps do make sense for magical darkness.

Folks advocating for the silhouette option simply choose to disregard the quite clear statement
""A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely"

That statement is very clear. However, it doesn't agree with our understanding of natural darkness which contains light sources. It is fully consistent with natural darkness without light sources. If you can't see in the dark, and it IS dark, then the darkness blocks vision entirely.

The problem arises when we add a light source like a torch to natural darkness. Clearly light can pass through, can impinge on the eyes and be perceived. Thus, although you may be in darkness, you can see areas in the light. However, you still can not see other areas that are also in darkness. All the dark areas are STILL heavily obscured (though you could probably make arguments about backlighting ... however, a backlit object in a generally naturally dark area is not the same as the silhouette idea of natural darkness in a well lit environment).

However, the Darkness spell explicitly says it creates "magical darkness" and nowhere does the spell or the rules indicate that this is in any way the same as natural darkness. RAW, darkness creates a heavily obscured area, so magical darkness would do the same, no matter what the ambient lighting might be - that would be the difference between natural darkness and magical darkness. Natural darkness only occurs in the absence of light.

In addition, the Darkness spell says "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it". If light passes through the volume it IS illuminating the volume. It scatters from the air molecules or dust particles in the air. It is refracted by the air (even if the index of refraction is the same as the area surrounding the region with darkness). It even reveals the contents of the darkness, even if only in silhouette. All of these are effects of illumination which is not possible for non magical light in the area of a darkness spell.


The silhouette interpretation only seems to assume that the light can't interact with surfaces inside the volume of the spell. However, illumination involves interactions with ALL the matter inside the region of the spell. Assuming that the text refers to only illuminating surfaces found within the area of effect of the spell is just another assumption that is not actually stated by RAW.

There was a lot of discussion about what mundane normal darkness, so Step One to me was "OK, based on basic setting facts, normal darkness works like normal real-world darkness". We should all agree on how normal darkness works, and if RAW doesn't agree, then toss RAW and go with the answer that actually makes sense. Sadly, that's not the case it seems.

If we could all agree on normal darkness being just mundane darkness, then Step Two would be "OK, what makes magical darkness different?" And that's where things like obscuration, light not being to pass through it, and lack of any backlighting or silhouettes come into play.

[Aimeryan]

There was a lot of discussion about what mundane normal darkness, so Step One to me was "OK, based on basic setting facts, normal darkness works like normal real-world darkness". We should all agree on how normal darkness works, and if RAW doesn't agree, then toss RAW and go with the answer that actually makes sense. Sadly, that's not the case it seems.

I think the vast majority are in agreement that RAW says non-magical darkness blocks vision entirely. If that was what you were wanting to establish then considered it a success.

The disagreement remaining is whether magical darkness inherits the rules from non-magical darkness (referred to in book as only 'darkness'), or not. If it does, then it also blocks vision entirely, RAW.

Personally, I see 'magical darkness' as 'magical' [adjective] and 'darkness' [noun]; it is darkness that has additional properties, which are listed in the spell (no darkvision, no illuminating by non-magical light). However, I can also see the argument that 'magical darkness' is in actual fact an open form compound noun, and thus is completely its own thing.

[MaxWilson]

I think the vast majority are in agreement that RAW says non-magical darkness blocks vision entirely.

Assuming you mean "you can't see a candle at the other end of a dark cave," it would be a huge surprise to me if you turned out to be right about this. Too bad GITP doesn't have polls.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the vast majority are in agreement that RAW says non-magical darkness blocks vision entirely. If that was what you were wanting to establish then considered it a success.


That is exactly the opposite of what I said -- I sad that non-magical darkness does not block vision entirely, and that a light on the far side of the an area of natural darkness can still be seen. See all the examples of how natural darkness does not block light, and is only the local absence of illumination.

If non-magical darkness blocked vision entirely, the inhabitants of a D&D world wouldn't be able to see stars in the sky, or a lighthouse in the distance, or that light in the window of a local farmstead, or the light of someone else's torch around the corner in a dungeon.

[Aimeryan]

Assuming you mean "you can't see a candle at the other end of a dark cave," it would be a huge surprise to me if you turned out to be right about this. Too bad GITP doesn't have polls.

Do you mean you would be surprised if people played it that way? I know I definitely would be! Or, do you mean you would be surprised if most people read 'blocks vision entirely' and came to understand that it blocks vision entirely? I don't think I would be surprised by that, and I don't think we have had any real push on it in this thread.

[MaxWilson]

Do you mean you would be surprised if people played it that way? I know I definitely would be! Or, do you mean you would be surprised if most people read 'blocks vision entirely' and came to understand that it blocks vision entirely? I don't think I would be surprised by that, and I don't think we have had any real push on it in this thread.

I would be surprised if the vast majority of people thought that RAW required you to not see a man with a candle standing far away from you in a dark cave, since RAW says in the very next sentence that it doesn't mean this. "Blocks vision entirely" is telling DMs when to decide that something is heavy obscurement, and "a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area" tells you what is the effect of heavy obscurement.

[Aimeryan]

I would be surprised if the vast majority of people thought that RAW required you to not see a man with a candle standing far away from you in a dark cave, since RAW says in the very next sentence that it doesn't mean this. "Blocks vision entirely" is telling DMs when to decide that something is heavy obscurement, and "a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area" tells you what is the effect of heavy obscurement.

The second sentence does not negate the first: they are not mutually exclusive.

[MaxWilson]

The second sentence does not negate the first: they are not mutually exclusive.

Because the first sentence is somewhat ambiguous, the second sentence clarifies the first. We'll see how the poll thread turns out but so far it doesn't look like there's any "vast majority" of DMs agreeing with your interpretation of RAW.

[Segev]

That is not Keravath's issue, though, but WotC's.

It is very poorly written; they have decided to treat normal darkness (i.e., an area without much/any light in it) as the exact same as being in the middle of a mountain. This means no matter how you rule it you have problems; either you see through both no problem or you see through neither. They need to separate the two - one blocks vision, the other merely does not provide vision.

The literal interpretation of 'blocks vision entirely' I see no way of not meaning that vision is blocked, entirely. This means, technically as RAW, Darkness (spell) does act like an ink blob - because normal darkness does too. Either that or you define 'magical darkness' as different to 'darkness', which leaves it undefined and then you have to make up the rules for it. As I see it, there is no RAW way to rule it acts in the silhouette fashion.

Now, of course, you can and probably should houserule normal darkness to act in a more sane manner - however, whether you decide to do the same for magical darkness from the Darkness spell is quite independent.


But we do know how normal darkness works as real world experience. An area of darkness with a light source visible on the other side is no longer darkness since it has light passing through it.

There are no rules for seeing a light source beyond the radius in the game. We have to use real world knowledge and apply it to the game. We know that an illuminated area can be seen from a distance, even though you are not in that radius of light.
There is nothing in the rules that suggests that magical darkness functions differently from normal darkness wrt translucence. The only differences it poses are that magic darkness suppresses light magic of 2nd level or lower (and, in fact, dispells them, which has interesting effects on continual flame items), and that darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness.

To infer that magical darkness's "heavy obscurement" is different from normal darkness's "heavy obscurement" to the point that our observed real-world experience with natural darkness does not provide evidence for how magical darkness works wrt light sources beyond its radius is making a pretty big leap to a conclusion. Nothing in the rules specifies that magical darkness and nonmagical darkness create different kinds of "heavy obscurement." The closest we come is the fact that darkvision overrides one but not the other. And that only provides indication that there are some behavioral differences; to extend that to "And therefore it also blocks all lines of sight, but normal darkness doesn't" is as sensible as extending it to "and therefore it makes the area cold, but normal darkness doesn't." Why? Because darkness is cold, obviously!


The vision rules and obscurement rules ARE poorly written. You can either interpret them exactly as-is, or interpret them to make more sense with real-world expectations. Darkness-as-ink-blot is viable; it's how earlier editions did work. But it's not consistent to insist that the RAW make it work that way for magical darkness but not for non-magical darkness. Either "blocks vision" means "within the region, but you can still see beyond because it doesn't block line-of-sight," or it means it blocks line-of-sight. It doesn't mean different things based on whether the darkness creating it is magical or not, or even if the thing creating it is dense foliage or fog rather than a lack of light.

Which is a flaw in the RAW.

[Aimeryan]

Because the first sentence is somewhat ambiguous, the second sentence clarifies the first. We'll see how the poll thread turns out but so far it doesn't look like there's any "vast majority" of DMs agreeing with your interpretation of RAW.

The second is a consequence of the first, and need not be exhaustive.

So far there has been one response.

[Segev]

The second is a consequence of the first, and need not be exhaustive.

So far there has been one response.

It is, however, very strangely worded if it was meant to specify a subset of conditions, but not exclude others. "It obviously includes things beyond it, not just things within," is no more logically sound, given what's written, than "It obviously makes the creature blind, period, when it tries to see things in the area; it can't see anything at all as long as it's trying to see something that's in the area."

[MaxWilson]

It is, however, very strangely worded if it was meant to specify a subset of conditions, but not exclude others. "It obviously includes things beyond it, not just things within," is no more logically sound, given what's written, than "It obviously makes the creature blind, period, when it tries to see things in the area; it can't see anything at all as long as it's trying to see something that's in the area."

Yep. If someone tries to claim that keeping my eye on an dragon as it vanishes into a fog cloud 200 yards away makes me blind to the orc right in my face until I stop looking for the dragon, and that that is RAW because the RAW says "a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area" and I'm trying to see something in a heavily-obscured area... that's not a flaw in the RAW, that's just a flaw in their reading comprehension.

The difference between bad RAW and a bad reading of RAW is that to fix RAW you need to write some house rules; to fix a bad reading of RAW you just need to understand what RAW is actually saying. Bad RAW is a design flaw, but if you asked whoever wrote that sentence if it's saying that I can't see the orc, they'd stare at you in astonishment and say, "No, that's not what I meant. Of course there's no rule against seeing that orc!"

There is likewise no RAW against seeing a guy holding a torch in a dark cavern. There's just someone determined to (mis)interpret RAW to create a nonsensical reading, but we know at this point that that viewpoint is anything but in the "vast majority," which is a relief.

[Erys]

They are not visible. You can't see them--they're in the dark. You can only infer their presence.

(Also, most DMs won't agree with you about Somatic components and grappling. Maybe if you explicitly grapple both hands, okay, but that would require extra attacks and two free hands, and that kind of double-hand-grapple isn't part of the Magic Missile scenario.)

I doubt you are an expert on how 'most DMs rule'... but I digress...

Bottom line: the problem is you can see them, your picture proves this. I can locate that silhouette in your picture well enough to target it with a Magic Missile.

If I can target it with a Magic Missile, then your interpretation of Darkness does not block Line of Sight... which darkness -by RAW- is supposed to do.

[MaxWilson]

I doubt you are an expert on how 'most DMs rule'... but I digress...

Grappling in 5E is a one-handed affair, and spellcasting in 5E is much more permissive than in AD&D. I've read a lot of discussions on Silence and Mage Slayer and whatnot, and if "most DMs" thought grappling was sufficient to prevent spellcasting, grappling would have been mentioned constantly. You're wrong on this one, trust me, but if you don't trust me, feel free to take a poll. You won't find anything like a majority agreeing with you. (Not that there's anything wrong with running your game differently than the majority, but that's off-topic.)


Bottom line: the problem is you can see them, your picture proves this. I can locate that silhouette in your picture well enough to target it with a Magic Missile.

You have to see them, not just locate them. Feeling them grabbing your shirt right in front of your face isn't enough, for some strange reason. Whatever that strange reason is also prevents you from hitting them with Magic Missile, by RAW, even if you can see everything else. You are blind with respect to that creature, and blindness = can't see them.

If you ask me, RAW on needing to see creatures should in most cases be replaced by needing to have line of sight to a clearly-identified target--it's crazy that Beholders can't disintegrate invisible creatures--but we're discussing RAW at the moment, not fixes to RAW.

[Demonslayer666]

Then nobody needs Darkvision, because you can still see everything's shadow on the dark. (Shadows everywhere!)

Anyway, RAW disagrees with you, and this is a discussion about RAW. You are effectively blinded w/rt things in heavy obscurement, sorry. Silhouette isn't seeing, it is NOT SEEING. Magic Missiles against something you can't see are, for some reason, illegal.

Yes, silhouettes is seeing them, because you can see exactly where they are, just as you can a shadow (the monster).

There is no difference between seeing a shadow (the monster) and seeing a silhouette.

If you agree you can see a shadow (the monster) but you can't see a silhouette, you need to explain why.

[Aimeryan]

Yes, silhouettes is seeing them, because you can see exactly where they are, just as you can a shadow (the monster).

There is no difference between seeing a shadow (the monster) and seeing a silhouette.

If you agree you can see a shadow (the monster) but you can't see a silhouette, you need to explain why.

If it helps, ask him to throw in if he agrees you can see someone in a zentai suit, or wearing a bedsheet.

~~~


It is, however, very strangely worded if it was meant to specify a subset of conditions, but not exclude others. "It obviously includes things beyond it, not just things within," is no more logically sound, given what's written, than "It obviously makes the creature blind, period, when it tries to see things in the area; it can't see anything at all as long as it's trying to see something that's in the area."

Blocking vision to even the area is actually quite absurd - darkness in real life doesn't do that. If you have a tiny LED (like on your smartphone) you can see it is area of near complete darkness without said LED illuminating near anything at all. The vision to the LED is not blocked in real life, even if you would have no vision on anything else in the darkness. In less technological society it is generally difficult to have such a weak light as to not illuminate the area around it, so the issue would be minimalist - the only things I can think of are small glowflies and something like near-dead embers of a campfire.

The problem is they have tried to group darkness with opaque fog; one is transparent, the other is opaque. One will not block vision, the other will. Neither provides vision, which is the words they were probably going for.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, silhouettes is seeing them, because you can see exactly where they are, just as you can a shadow (the monster).

There is no difference between seeing a shadow (the monster) and seeing a silhouette.

If you agree you can see a shadow (the monster) but you can't see a silhouette, you need to explain why.

Are we discussing RAW or gameplay? The RAW answer is simple: because the shadow isn't invisible. The gameplay answer is as I told you before: because a shadow that hasn't Hidden successfully isn't embedded in an area of darkness that prevents you seeing its outline, or else it WOULD be hidden (unseen and unheard, and possibly not where you think it is).


If it helps, ask him to throw in if he agrees you can see someone in a zentai suit, or wearing a bedsheet.

If you think it over and read the thread you can figure out for yourself whether your question has anything at all to do with magical darkness. Don't change the subject to total cover.

[Aimeryan]

Are we discussing RAW or gameplay? The RAW answer is simple: because the shadow isn't invisible. The gameplay answer is as I told you before: because a shadow that hasn't Hidden successfully isn't embedded in an area of darkness that prevents you seeing its outline, or else it WOULD be hidden (unseen and unheard, and possibly not where you think it is).



If you think it over and read the thread you can figure out for yourself whether your question has anything at all to do with magical darkness. Don't change the subject to total cover.

The point we are both getting at is that something which is completely covered by something else that is near-skin tight (whether that is vantablack-like darkness or a zentai suit) does nothing to actually stop you from seeing the target*, unless you wish to rule that seeing the target requires seeing skin (or an analogue).

A Shadow (the monster) is in effect the same as a person covered in vantablack for the purposes of being able to see it. If you can see the Shadow then you can see the person.

*Excepting if attempting to camouflage in with a similar background.

[Keravath]

There is nothing in the rules that suggests that magical darkness functions differently from normal darkness wrt translucence. The only differences it poses are that magic darkness suppresses light magic of 2nd level or lower (and, in fact, dispells them, which has interesting effects on continual flame items), and that darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness.

To infer that magical darkness's "heavy obscurement" is different from normal darkness's "heavy obscurement" to the point that our observed real-world experience with natural darkness does not provide evidence for how magical darkness works wrt light sources beyond its radius is making a pretty big leap to a conclusion. Nothing in the rules specifies that magical darkness and nonmagical darkness create different kinds of "heavy obscurement." The closest we come is the fact that darkvision overrides one but not the other. And that only provides indication that there are some behavioral differences; to extend that to "And therefore it also blocks all lines of sight, but normal darkness doesn't" is as sensible as extending it to "and therefore it makes the area cold, but normal darkness doesn't." Why? Because darkness is cold, obviously!


The vision rules and obscurement rules ARE poorly written. You can either interpret them exactly as-is, or interpret them to make more sense with real-world expectations. Darkness-as-ink-blot is viable; it's how earlier editions did work. But it's not consistent to insist that the RAW make it work that way for magical darkness but not for non-magical darkness. Either "blocks vision" means "within the region, but you can still see beyond because it doesn't block line-of-sight," or it means it blocks line-of-sight. It doesn't mean different things based on whether the darkness creating it is magical or not, or even if the thing creating it is dense foliage or fog rather than a lack of light.

Which is a flaw in the RAW.

Actually no. The Darkness spell specifically states that the volume of the spell can not be illuminated by non-magical light sources. Illuminated includes the interaction with all objects within the volume of the spell including the air. If the light can't interact then it can't penetrate and you end up with a region where light is not allowed to propagate. i.e. a 15' radius sphere of blackness.

Even if you don't notice it. Light scatters off the air molecules and dust inside the spell volume. These are as "illuminated" as anything else inside the area affected by the spell which specifically states that the spell volume can't be illuminated by non-magical light sources.

[MaxWilson]

Actually no. The Darkness spell specifically states that the volume of the spell can not be illuminated by non-magical light sources. Illuminated includes the interaction with all objects within the volume of the spell including the air. If the light can't interact then it can't penetrate and you end up with a region where light is not allowed to propagate. i.e. a 15' radius sphere of blackness.

That isn't how light works. Light that doesn't interact with air molecules just keeps on travelling until it finds something it does interact with.


Even if you don't notice it. Light scatters off the air molecules and dust inside the spell volume. These are as "illuminated" as anything else inside the area affected by the spell which specifically states that the spell volume can't be illuminated by non-magical light sources.

Sure, but if that doesn't happen because magic, the light wouldn't just vanish. It will keep going until it interacts with something.

(Diffraction isn't illumination though. Illuminating dust molecules is rare--you'll see a few specks, and Darkness would prevent that from happening, but Darkness says nothing about preventing diffraction.)

[Erys]

Grappling in 5E is a one-handed affair, and spellcasting in 5E is much more permissive than in AD&D. I've read a lot of discussions on Silence and Mage Slayer and whatnot, and if "most DMs" thought grappling was sufficient to prevent spellcasting, grappling would have been mentioned constantly. You're wrong on this one, trust me, but if you don't trust me, feel free to take a poll. You won't find anything like a majority agreeing with you. (Not that there's anything wrong with running your game differently than the majority, but that's off-topic.)


You have to see them, not just locate them. Feeling them grabbing your shirt right in front of your face isn't enough, for some strange reason. Whatever that strange reason is also prevents you from hitting them with Magic Missile, by RAW, even if you can see everything else. You are blind with respect to that creature, and blindness = can't see them.

If you ask me, RAW on needing to see creatures should in most cases be replaced by needing to have line of sight to a clearly-identified target--it's crazy that Beholders can't disintegrate invisible creatures--but we're discussing RAW at the moment, not fixes to RAW.

Can I get a RAW cite regarding 'no spell casting' when grappled?

My default assumption was 'can't because hands are held' but really... now that I have a book in front of me it seems there is no rule that prevents you from casting a spell while grappled. Same with a beholder, if it makes a Perception check against the invisible persons Stealth- the beholder can target the invisible character with Disintegrate... So, it seems you are just making things up to justify your stance on how the spell Darkness should look.

By RAW: if I can see where you are--> you will be hit with Magic Missile.

[NaughtyTiger]

That isn't how light works. Light that doesn't interact with air molecules just keeps on travelling until it finds something it does interact with.

Science wise, i have to disagree. photons don't travel far in air without being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms. thus Keravath's statement is how light works.

but 6th graders shouldn't need to understand photon emission to play a game about magic.

[MaxWilson]

Actually no. The Darkness spell specifically states that the volume of the spell can not be illuminated by non-magical light sources. Illuminated includes the interaction with all objects within the volume of the spell including the air. If the light can't interact then it can't penetrate and you end up with a region where light is not allowed to propagate. i.e. a 15' radius sphere of blackness.


That isn't how light works. Light that doesn't interact with air molecules just keeps on travelling until it finds something it does interact with.


Science wise, i have to disagree. photons don't travel far in air without being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms. thus Keravath's statement is how light works.

But absorption and re-emission is a form of interaction, no? So if that doesn't happen... the photon just keeps on going until it reaches something it can interact with. It doesn't vanish into nothingness out of sheer boredom or anything.

================================================== =========================


Can I get a RAW cite regarding 'no spell casting' when grappled?

My default assumption was 'can't because hands are held' but really... now that I have a book in front of me it seems there is no rule that prevents you from casting a spell while grappled.

That's my point--there is no such RAW cite. The closest RAW comes is where the PHB chapter on Combat says you can improvise additional actions, and your DM will help you figure them out--there's nothing saying that you can't attempt to grab both of someone's hands (or their free hand if they're wielding a shield) so they can't cast spells, but preventing spellcasting is not one of the effects of the Grappled condition. Grappled just sets your speed to 0.

Previously you were the one trying to tell me that it would prevent spellcasting, so if you've changed your mind, hopefully we're on the same page now.


Same with a beholder, if it makes a Perception check against the invisible persons Stealth- the beholder can target the invisible character with Disintegrate... So, it seems you are just making things up to justify your stance on how the spell Darkness should look.

Nope, reread the beholder entry in the MM. Each of its eye rays works only on things it can see, just like Magic Missile works only on things you can see. "Making a Perception check" (I guess you mean taking the Search action?) does not change the fact that the target is invisible and that the beholder can't target it with a disintegration ray.


By RAW: if I can see where you are--> you will be hit with Magic Missile.

No, Magic Missile RAW requires you to see the target: <<Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.>>

It is not enough to be able to guess the target's location, unless your DM decides the RAW is stupid and decides to ignore it. (And there's nothing wrong with doing so because the RAW often is stupid.)

[Demonslayer666]

Are we discussing RAW or gameplay? The RAW answer is simple: because the shadow isn't invisible. The gameplay answer is as I told you before: because a shadow that hasn't Hidden successfully isn't embedded in an area of darkness that prevents you seeing its outline, or else it WOULD be hidden (unseen and unheard, and possibly not where you think it is).


A silhouette is not invisible, a silhouette is the same exact thing as targeting a shadow (the monster).

[MaxWilson]

A silhouette is not invisible, a silhouette is the same exact thing as targeting a shadow (the monster).

You didn't answer my question. Are you asking from a RAW perspective or a gameplay perspective? You can't insist on me answering your questions and then ignore both my answers and my questions.

If you're asking from a RAW perspetive, silhouettes don't matter. There is no "silhouette" in the rules, there's just a monster that you can't see.

If you're asking from a gameplay perspective, shadows will often be hidden (unseen and unheard) in darkness. If they're in bright light in normal terrain, they'll be easier to see than the warrior in Darkness because they won't be surrounded by darkness, and their outlines will be more clearly visible. Only under very unusual circumstances would a shadow actually look anything like the warrior in Darkness, and in those cases you've got a DM there to make adjustments, as discussed in post #42.

[Keravath]

But absorption and re-emission is a form of interaction, no? So if that doesn't happen... the photon just keeps on going until it reaches something it can interact with. It doesn't vanish into nothingness out of sheer boredom or anything.


Lol :) ... is this magic or physics we are discussing?

Since the Darkness spell creates "magical darkness", we don't need to explain what happens to those photons impinging on the area affected by the spell.

You seem to believe they are unaffected while I am of the opinion that rules wise the darkness spell prevents visible light interaction and propagation within the area affected by the spell. In terms of what happens to the photons, one could imagine their energy being absorbed by the spell and released as randomly distributed photons in the non-visible part of the spectrum :)

However, the explanation isn't needed :)

Out of curiosity ...

I am assuming that your version of the Darkness spell doesn't enable a creature to hide? Or do you consider a silhouette as non actually seeing the creature so they can hide?

I'm just wondering whether other than the description whether you are playing magical darkness mechanically the same as described in the rules or have you changed the mechanics so that magical darkness can't be used to hide, doesn't provide advantage to hit for warlock with devil's sight against creatures that can't see in magical darkness, allows folks outside the darkness to clearly see targets on the other side as well as clearly see the silhouette's of targets inside the darkness (which are much smaller than the 5' square they would occupy) and thus would constitute actually seeing the target for the purposes of to hit rolls (assuming the area is otherwise well lit)?

[Erys]

Nope, reread the beholder entry in the MM. Each of its eye rays works only on things it can see, just like Magic Missile works only on things you can see. "Making a Perception check" (I guess you mean taking the Search action?) does not change the fact that the target is invisible and that the beholder can't target it with a disintegration ray.



No, Magic Missile RAW requires you to see the target: <<Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.>>

It is not enough to be able to guess the target's location, unless your DM decides the RAW is stupid and decides to ignore it. (And there's nothing wrong with doing so because the RAW often is stupid.)

Well, perhaps we have a difference in style that is causing some conflict...

You see, in my games (in most cases), when you make a perception check against an invisible opponent you can see them. The Condition still provides disadvantage because, like a cloaked Predator, you still cannot easily read an invisible creatures moves. But he is now targetable for spells that force Saves and MM, and you know where he is to at least make Attacks against them.

If I read this right, it looks like you disagree here- you think that even though a successful Perception check was made the invisible creature is still actually not viewable by sight. Therefore should not be subject to MM. This principle is then being applied to the Darkness spell, you cannot target the silhouettes because it is in the darkness and not 'viewable' despite there being a lit backdrop.

I am not sure I like the idea of being able to defeat MM by simply standing (not hiding) in a shadow, being a Shadow, or turning Invisible even though you are not trying to conceal your location.

[MaxWilson]

I am assuming that your version of the Darkness spell doesn't enable a creature to hide? Or do you consider a silhouette as non actually seeing the creature so they can hide?

Returning to a previous picture:

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg (https://postimg.cc/1fn6QZrq)

That warrior can obviously hide within that darkness, and I've actually drawn the darkness too small here, as noted in previous posts on trigonometry--the darkened area on the wall behind her should be about three times bigger than it is, 18' in diameter instead of 5', so you probably shouldn't even see the warrior's silhouette at all. (But note that you can probably deduce the warrior's location anyway just by looking for the centerpoint of the darkness, if she's still carrying it, and if she isn't carrying it then she's opening up other vulnerabilities like maybe having an enemy snatch it up and move it away.)

I can imagine ad-hoc scenarios where I might rule that hiding is fruitless and pointless, but that isn't unique to the Darkness spell: if there's only one barrel in a featureless white plain and you try to Hide behind it, it isn't going to do anything useful. (I've also rewritten the rules for hiding slightly to make these scenarios less off-the-cuff.)


I'm just wondering whether other than the description whether you are playing magical darkness mechanically the same as described in the rules or have you changed the mechanics so that magical darkness can't be used to hide, doesn't provide advantage to hit for warlock with devil's sight against creatures that can't see in magical darkness, allows folks outside the darkness to clearly see targets on the other side as well as clearly see the silhouette's of targets inside the darkness (which are much smaller than the 5' square they would occupy) and thus would constitute actually seeing the target for the purposes of to hit rolls (assuming the area is otherwise well lit)?

I've changed it so being unseen doesn't provide advantage to hit on ranged attacks (only on melee attacks), ditto being hidden, but being hidden does still allow you to make sneak attacks at range. Yes you can see targets on the other side of darkness or darkness but that's not a change. Only in rare circumstances would you see a full silhouette, and a partial silhouette is still deceptive and hard to interpret correctly, thus justifying disadvantage on attacks against her and advantage on her melee attacks against you.

================================================== ===================


Well, perhaps we have a difference in style that is causing some conflict...

You see, in my games (in most cases), when you make a perception check against an invisible opponent you can see them. The Condition still provides disadvantage because, like a cloaked Predator, you still cannot easily read an invisible creatures moves. But he is now targetable for spells that force Saves and MM, and you know where he is to at least make Attacks against them.

That's not just a style difference, that's a rule difference. The normal definition of the Invisible condition in 5E is (emphasis mine):

Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have advantage.

You say you've changed it so that <<in my games (in most cases), when you make a perception check against an invisible opponent you can see them>>, instead of just detecting their location. There's nothing wrong with playing that way, but it isn't reasonable for you to come onto a forum and expect people to be playing by your rules. You didn't mention your house rules in post #65, so how was I supposed to know that you were using different rules for Magic Missile (and beholders, etc., etc.)?

I agree that under your rules it would be 100% consistent and appropriate to treat creatures in Darkness as effectively visible under certain conditions, e.g. at long range against a brightly-lit backdrop too far away from the Darkness to be affected by it.


If I read this right, it looks like you disagree here- you think that even though a successful Perception check was made the invisible creature is still actually not viewable by sight. Therefore should not be subject to MM. This principle is then being applied to the Darkness spell, you cannot target the silhouettes because it is in the darkness and not 'viewable' despite there being a lit backdrop.

I am not sure I like the idea of being able to defeat MM by simply standing (not hiding) in a shadow, being a Shadow, or turning Invisible even though you are not trying to conceal your location.

The rules as written are often stupid and I am 100% in favor of changing them where possible. "RAW" is not a compliment, often there's an implied an apology or a sigh of frustration.

"Technically by RAW there's no difference between darkness and heavy fog..."
"Technically by RAW, a Warcaster wizard can Polymorph other PCs as a reaction, as long as he has previously cast Friends on them to make them hostile to him."

Etc.

[NNescio]

Well, perhaps we have a difference in style that is causing some conflict...

You see, in my games (in most cases), when you make a perception check against an invisible opponent you can see them. The Condition still provides disadvantage because, like a cloaked Predator, you still cannot easily read an invisible creatures moves. But he is now targetable for spells that force Saves and MM, and you know where he is to at least make Attacks against them.

If I read this right, it looks like you disagree here- you think that even though a successful Perception check was made the invisible creature is still actually not viewable by sight. Therefore should not be subject to MM. This principle is then being applied to the Darkness spell, you cannot target the silhouettes because it is in the darkness and not 'viewable' despite there being a lit backdrop.

I am not sure I like the idea of being able to defeat MM by simply standing (not hiding) in a shadow, being a Shadow, or turning Invisible even though you are not trying to conceal your location.

Rules-wise, an "invisible creature" is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Normal perception doesn't do jack. You need Blindsight, See Invisibility, or some equivalent.

'Common English'-wise, an invisible creature is by definition "not visible", i.e. "cannot be seen". Unless you have echolocation, thermal vision, aura-sense, smell-sense, etc. (the many different flavors of Blindsight, basically) or magic see-through vision.

A Shadow (the creature) can still be seen though, if it's not heavily obscured or invisible. Yes, 'narratively' it should blend into shadows better, but all that means mechanically is that it gets to take the Hide action as a bonus action.

As for heavily obscured areas in general, it 'blocks vision entirely" and any creature "effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." They can't see anything within that area, period (unless they have special senses that allow them to do so, but that's a case of Specific beats General). Or, as stated explicitly by the Blinded condition (which creatures effectively suffer from even if they aren't actually Blinded), they "can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight" (when trying to look into the heavily obscured area).

You autofail all Perception checks that rely on sight. You can't see Invisible or Heavily Obscured creatures, end of story (unless you have special senses). RAW is both unambiguously and redundantly clear in this regard, as it basically states the same thing using multiple different approaches. And there's no RAW dysfunction here, either (unlike the case of trying to see past heavily obscured areas to non-obscured spaces beyond).

[NaughtyTiger]

"Technically by RAW there's no difference between darkness and heavy fog..."


Are you saying you can see silohuettes in heavy fog by RAW?
Are you saying you can see through heavy fog unimpeded by RAW?

[MaxWilson]

Are you saying you can see silohuettes in heavy fog by RAW?

Of course not. Silhouettes do not exist in RAW.



Are you saying you can see through heavy fog unimpeded by RAW?

If by "see through" you mean "see things on the other side of but not within," unfortunately yes, you can. It's not as bad as the Friends/Warcaster combo but it's vexing. Again, I have a house rule to prevent this: more than 5' of fog/foliage/etc. blocks line of sight. I'm not completely happy with this house rule but it's better than RAW.

[Tanarii]

If by "see through" you mean "see things on the other side of but not within," unfortunately yes, you can. It's not as bad as the Friends/Warcaster combo but it's vexing. Again, I have a house rule to prevent this: more than 5' of fog/foliage/etc. blocks line of sight. I'm not completely happy with this house rule but it's better than RAW.
DMG p251 rules for miniatures references line of sight being blocked by a "thick fog". That's the only place there are "line of sight" rules at all. And it doesn't even tell you what they are used for.

[Demonslayer666]

You didn't answer my question. Are you asking from a RAW perspective or a gameplay perspective? You can't insist on me answering your questions and then ignore both my answers and my questions.

If you're asking from a RAW perspetive, silhouettes don't matter. There is no "silhouette" in the rules, there's just a monster that you can't see.

If you're asking from a gameplay perspective, shadows will often be hidden (unseen and unheard) in darkness. If they're in bright light in normal terrain, they'll be easier to see than the warrior in Darkness because they won't be surrounded by darkness, and their outlines will be more clearly visible. Only under very unusual circumstances would a shadow actually look anything like the warrior in Darkness, and in those cases you've got a DM there to make adjustments, as discussed in post #42.

RAW: I agree that there is no silhouette term used in D&D, but that's not relevant. You said that this is how it works RAW, and provided a picture with silhouettes. You say your examples make them invisible, but I can clearly see silhouettes - blackened out man-sized targets. They look just like a shadow monster would. So yes, silhouettes do matter quite a lot, since it is your stance on how magical darkness functions. And being able to see silhouettes is where it all falls apart.

Gameplay: The shadow (monster) is not hiding in darkness. He's out in the middle of a bright sunny day in plain sight. A shadow (the non-hiding monster) doesn't have disadvantage to be hit in this situation, but you do give a black silhouette disadvantage to be hit (a flying figure in magical darkness). That's a big inconsistency.

Hitting a man-sized target does not rely on distinguishing features and colors. That's why I used the shadow monster as an example since it is a nondescript man-sized target that is very silhouette-like.

Let's try a different example to show you what I am getting at:
A man-sized archery target 30' away (white, black, blue, red, and yellow bull's eye style) is not harder to hit if you paint it all black. It's still a very distinguishable target, even though you can't make out the circles of different colors.

Turning something into a silhouette does not make it harder to hit, that's not being blind, and it should not impose disadvantage.

The rules specifically state that you are blind to everything in that area. Being blind means you cannot visually distinguish anything: you can't count them, or see where they are standing, or where they move, or what they are holding, and that also means you can't see the absence of things (you don't know if the area is empty or full). You get no visual information inside that area.

[Aimeryan]

The rules specifically state that you are blind to everything in that area. Being blind means you cannot visually distinguish anything: you can't count them, or see where they are standing, or where they move, or what they are holding, and that also means you can't see the absence of things (you don't know if the area is empty or full). You get no visual information inside that area.

That is a very interesting point - it reinforces that vision is blocked entirely, otherwise you wouldn't be blind to the area without further circumstantial factors.

[Segev]

That is a very interesting point - it reinforces that vision is blocked entirely, otherwise you wouldn't be blind to the area without further circumstantial factors.

It's worth noting that, absent backlighting, the silhouettes are not visible. And, with limited backlighting, they're indistinct and fuzzy, even if you can tell they're there. It requires some reasonably specific angles and quite flat ground with nothing but the creatures you want to target, with ambient lighting such that the space behind them is brightly lit, for the silhouettes to be distinct enough to not at least potentially warrant Disadvantage on the roll to hit them.

That said, you can have it be blocking vision entirely...but then, natural darkness does the same thing. Because, again, the rules say that you're blind to the people who are standing between you and the glowing wall that sheds light like a torch that's at the far end of the tunnel, as long as they're standing far enough from the glowing wall to be in natural darkness.



Now, here's a fun additional thought, though I don't think it is hard to answer as long as you know which side of this question you stand on: If I cast darkness on an area that's 40 feet in the air, and there's nothing and nobody in it, can you even tell it's there? And, let's say there's overhead lighting outside the radius of the spell (the sun, some sort of way-high-over-head chandellier, etc): does the 20 ft. radius sphere of darkness cast a shadow on the ground below?

[Aimeryan]

It's worth noting that, absent backlighting, the silhouettes are not visible. And, with limited backlighting, they're indistinct and fuzzy, even if you can tell they're there. It requires some reasonably specific angles and quite flat ground with nothing but the creatures you want to target, with ambient lighting such that the space behind them is brightly lit, for the silhouettes to be distinct enough to not at least potentially warrant Disadvantage on the roll to hit them.

The thing is, outside of an underground dungeon - and that with no lights anywhere -, it is not too difficult to have silhouettes that would be seen from many angles:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTZG94tXp7olloveb1fAmQ41LoWs-08IpKzWn-OjEvvUu6ba29mw&s

You are definitely not blind to the fact that there is a girl there, and a tree some distance off. The area is in darkness, but you are not blind to it. So, the only way to make sense of the second sentence without adding additional factors is to conclude that the first sentence's 'blocks vision entirely' is actually the case.

[Segev]

The thing is, outside of an underground dungeon - and that with no lights anywhere -, it is not too difficult to have silhouettes that would be seen from many angles:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTZG94tXp7olloveb1fAmQ41LoWs-08IpKzWn-OjEvvUu6ba29mw&s

You are definitely not blind to the fact that there is a girl there, and a tree some distance off. The area is in darkness, but you are not blind to it. So, the only way to make sense of the second sentence without adding additional factors is to conclude that the first sentence's 'blocks vision entirely' is actually the case.

And, if you read it to "block vision entirely" et al, that night sky would be unseeable. No need for magical darkness.

I will note, however, that the tree was actually something I had to look for after you mentioned it. The girl is deliberately shot at an angle against a bright nebula or the milky way (not sure which; filters can make stars funny colors). Line the girl up with the tree by revolving the cameraman around her, and, given the sky not directly in line with that bright patch, it'd probably be a lot harder to see her.

Cool pic, though; thanks for sharing it!

I'm fine with the silhouette thing being a corner case that DMs need to adjudicate, since under most conditions it isn't going to come up. My main point is that saying "magical darkness creates an ink blot because of what the RAW say about being blind to things in darkness" doesn't actually solve a problem, because it means all darkness is "an ink blot" and that nothing can see the other side of it with normal vision.

[micahaphone]

What about the line "nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. " - to have silhouettes, you'd need a light source at least passing through the area of the spell.

[Max_Killjoy]

The thing is, outside of an underground dungeon - and that with no lights anywhere -, it is not too difficult to have silhouettes that would be seen from many angles:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTZG94tXp7olloveb1fAmQ41LoWs-08IpKzWn-OjEvvUu6ba29mw&s

You are definitely not blind to the fact that there is a girl there, and a tree some distance off. The area is in darkness, but you are not blind to it. So, the only way to make sense of the second sentence without adding additional factors is to conclude that the first sentence's 'blocks vision entirely' is actually the case.


That picture is a perfect example of how natural darkness DOES NOT block light from beyond the un-illuminated area.

And if the RAW somehow says that natural darkness would block that light, then the RAW is simply wrong -- full stop, wrong.

And my stance about what makes magical darkness special is that it does block that light, even if that distinction is not made in the RAW.

[MaxWilson]

What about the line "nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. " - to have silhouettes, you'd need a light source at least passing through the area of the spell.

There's no contradiction there unless you misunderstand what "illuminate" means. The light is illuminating stuff outside the spell radius, producing the silhouette effect, but Darkness only forbids illumination of stuff within the spell radius.

Illuminate (verb) (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illuminate): to supply or brighten with light; light up.

Usage: (https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/illuminate)

She opened the single wardrobe, pushing the doors open enough for the room's light to illuminate the contents.

In such instruments an arrangement is often required to intensely illuminate the object.

From 1416 citizens were obliged to hang out candles between certain hours on dark nights to illuminate the streets.


Notice that an object is being illuminated, not a volume. The girl illuminates the contents of the wardrobe, not the space between herself and the wardrobe. When WotC's writers wrote that nothing within the Darkness's spell radius can be illuminated, this is exactly what they meant: you can't see anything inside the Darkness radius, because those things can't be illuminated. It's too dark.

"A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

Result:

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg

The area of the spell is not being illuminated despite the surrounding light.

[micahaphone]

There's no contradiction there unless you misunderstand what "illuminate" means. The light is illuminating stuff outside the spell radius, producing the silhouette effect, but Darkness only forbids illumination of stuff within the spell radius.

Illuminate (verb) (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illuminate): to supply or brighten with light; light up.

Usage: (https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/illuminate)

She opened the single wardrobe, pushing the doors open enough for the room's light to illuminate the contents.

In such instruments an arrangement is often required to intensely illuminate the object.

From 1416 citizens were obliged to hang out candles between certain hours on dark nights to illuminate the streets.


Notice that an object is being illuminated, not a volume. The girl illuminates the contents of the wardrobe, not the space between herself and the wardrobe. When WotC's writers wrote that nothing within the Darkness's spell radius can be illuminated, this is exactly what they meant: you can't see anything inside the Darkness radius, because those things can't be illuminated. It's too dark.

"A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

Result:

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg

The area of the spell is not being illuminated despite the surrounding light.

But in order to illuminate the objects you have to illuminate the volume. Drawing a distinction there feels very convoluted. The girl doesn't illuminate only the clothing within the wardrobe, leaving the air and walls of the wardrobe pitch black. When the citizens of 1416 lit candles at night along the road, it's not like the area was a void of pure black, but you'll see a man walking along in the black void.


Making Darkness just darken everything in an area but not the area itself makes it into a reverse Fairie Fire.


"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius sphere for the duration.
The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. "

"Nonmagical light can't illuminate it" refers to the darkness, the whole thing. Compare this to Faerie Fire,

"
Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). "

If the Silhouette interpretation is correct, why wouldn't the Darkness spell be written similar to Fairy Fire? Darkness' description refers to the entire area of the sphere, while Faerie Fire refers to objects within the spell's area.

[MaxWilson]

But in order to illuminate the objects you have to illuminate the volume. Drawing a distinction there feels very convoluted. The girl doesn't illuminate only the clothing within the wardrobe, leaving the air and walls of the wardrobe pitch black. When the citizens of 1416 lit candles at night along the road, it's not like the area was a void of pure black, but you'll see a man walking along in the black void.

Yes, the walls are illuminated too, but the air is invisible, not illuminated.

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that anyone is arguing that only creatures are illuminated (or darkened). Nobody is saying that--why are you talking about a man walking along in the black void? Look at the picture. The warrior's surroundings are clearly as subject to darkness as the warrior is.

*snip* the rest because I have work to do.

[micahaphone]

Yeah, the picture of the warrior and her near surrounding objects darkened, but not the background, makes it into a reverse Fairie Fire, like the second half of my previous post.

1) If we're sticking to pure RAW arguments, then why doesn't the Darkness spell specify objects within the area, instead of the whole area?

2) And why do the rules specify "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness"? If a human sees your picture of a warrior, with her image black as a shadow, would a tiefling see just a black blob? You need to be able to see through this area to see the background, and have the silhouette effect.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, the picture of the warrior and her near surrounding objects darkened, but not the background, makes it into a reverse Fairie Fire, like the second half of my previous post.

The background isn't because it's not in the radius of the Darkness spell. Thats his point.

[Aimeryan]

The background isn't because it's not in the radius of the Darkness spell. Thats his point.

The point of others, though, is that such a situation does not make you blind to the creatures in the area of darkness - merely lacking colour. It is like saying you can't watch a black and white film.

[micahaphone]

The background isn't because it's not in the radius of the Darkness spell. Thats his point.

Sure, and a creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness. So this picture is showing a human's view, but would an elf or tiefling see a black inky sphere?

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, the picture of the warrior and her near surrounding objects darkened, but not the background, makes it into a reverse Fairie Fire, like the second half of my previous post.

1) If we're sticking to pure RAW arguments, then why doesn't the Darkness spell specify objects within the area, instead of the whole area?

Perhaps because "illumination" inherently implies an object already whereas "glowing" doesn't. If Faerie Fire said that the whole area glows, you'd probably expect the air to glow too.

(It may just be me but it also appears to me that Faerie Fire would not make the ground glow, because it's not a discrete object, whereas Darkness would obviously prevent any portions of the ground within the spell radius from being illuminated.)


2) And why do the rules specify "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness"? If a human sees your picture of a warrior, with her image black as a shadow, would a tiefling see just a black blob? You need to be able to see through this area to see the background, and have the silhouette effect.

Because if they didn't mention Darkvision, you might think that darkvision lets you ignore the Darkness, and it's supposed to not work. Remember that in English "see through" (an illusion, a disguise, etc.) doesn't mean "see beyond," it means "disregard, be unaffected by."

"A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness" = "Nope, darkvision doesn't help."

You'll probably keep arguing but note that I am not obligated to keep repeating myself. There's nothing I said in this post that hasn't been said repeatedly on this thread already, and I don't promise to repeat it even more just because someone new is asking the questions.

[Segev]

That picture is a perfect example of how natural darkness DOES NOT block light from beyond the un-illuminated area.

And if the RAW somehow says that natural darkness would block that light, then the RAW is simply wrong -- full stop, wrong.

And my stance about what makes magical darkness special is that it does block that light, even if that distinction is not made in the RAW.

The trouble is, there's no support for magical darkness being treated differently than natural darkness in this respect in the RAW. You're free to rule it how you like, but it is a pure invention (or memetic holdover from earlier editions) to declare that magical darkness blocks light (creating an effective 3D ink blot) rather than behaving like non-magical darkness wrt light coming from the far side of it.

[micahaphone]

I'm just very confused by the silhouette option. If a warlock does the classic Devil's Sight + Darkness combo to snipe monsters with Eldritch Blast while standing in a field during regular daytime, the 2 ways to understand it are:

1) "Inky Black Void" model- the enemy sees a sphere of blackness, and the warlock gets advantage on its attacks because the enemy can't see where exactly the attacks are coming from.

2) "Silhouette" model- the enemy can see a black silhouette of the warlock that moves where he moves and acts like he acts, and the grass at his feet is also black, and this makes it harder for them to dodge the eldritch blast shots.

Option 2 feels odd to me.

[MaxWilson]

I'm just very confused by the silhouette option. If a warlock does the classic Devil's Sight + Darkness combo to snipe monsters with Eldritch Blast while standing in a field during regular daytime, the 2 ways to understand it are:

1) "Inky Black Void" model- the enemy sees a sphere of blackness, and the warlock gets advantage on its attacks because the enemy can't see where exactly the attacks are coming from.

2) "Silhouette" model- the enemy can see a black silhouette of the warlock that moves where he moves and acts like he acts, and the grass at his feet is also black, and this makes it harder for them to dodge the eldritch blast shots.

Option 2 feels odd to me.

Rule citation, emphasis mine:

Advantage and Disadvantage
Sometimes a special ability or spell tells you that you have advantage or disadvantage on an ability check, a saving throw, or an attack roll. *snip*
You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage. The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

If you do happen to cast darkness while standing in an open field far away from any backdrop (rare), please see post #42, quoted below. DMs are allowed to grant advantage for advantageous circumstances.


If you want to give advantage to someone shooting at silhouettes 100 yards away in an open field in broad daylight (to cancel out the disadvantage for not seeing them), be my guest. That's a pretty niche situation in D&D, but that's why DMs exist: to make sensible rulings about niche situations.

I will note parenthetically that granting advantage, even in the inky blackness case, is pretty stupid because the enemy knows exactly where the attacks are coming from: the ball of inky blackness. Furthermore, you can actually see the Eldritch Blasts themselves--they aren't invisible. I'm not surprised option 2 feels wrong to you--I'm just surprised option 1 doesn't feel wrong too! This is one reason I don't grant advantage to unseen attackers' ranged attacks.

[Max_Killjoy]

The trouble is, there's no support for magical darkness being treated differently than natural darkness in this respect in the RAW. You're free to rule it how you like, but it is a pure invention (or memetic holdover from earlier editions) to declare that magical darkness blocks light (creating an effective 3D ink blot) rather than behaving like non-magical darkness wrt light coming from the far side of it.


Well, as you note, the RAW here has a problem -- it's either broken, or missing something that it implies.

For starters, if magical darkness blocks standard Darkvision, but normal darkness (obviously) doesn't, then they have to be different... but is that difference every really laid out?

[MaxWilson]

Well, as you note, the RAW here has a problem -- it's either broken, or missing something that it implies.

For starters, if magical darkness blocks standard Darkvision, but normal darkness (obviously) doesn't, then they have to be different... but is that difference every really laid out?

An easy way to explain it for a DM would be to say that Darkvision is actually just a short-ranged form of extreme light amplification, possibly extending into the infrared spectrum, so that there is always enough light around to see by... except within an area of magical Darkness which shuts photon emission down to zero instead of ~0.000000001% like normal darkness does.

After all, normal darkness is explicitly not light-free. The PHB says that most moonlit nights are still darkness, not dim light.

[Segev]

Since this is the "uses for darkness" thread, I'll actually contribute a couple.

If you use the Ink Blot version, then you can use darkness on a point-man or other extended thing to black out the area outside your own light source. With the ink blot ruling, as long as you don't push the edge of the magical darkness into somebody else's light source or darkvision range, they'll not see it nor your own light source.

Maybe have a Gloomstalker Ranger walk 40+ feet ahead as point man, in the dark, trailing a 20-or-so-foot-long rope with a rock tied to the end that has darkness cast on it. You can then have your own stuff brightly lit, and he uses his own darkvision and invisibility thereto to keep from being spotted while you do any more detailed searching you may need to back there.


If you use the "see through" version, you could deliberately exploit the silhouette effect to try to impersonate Shadows.


The see-through version works best for those with sunlight sensitivities, too. They can stay in their nice, soothing darkness and still see things outside of it just fine (assuming their sensitivity is a vampire-like skin condition rather than to seeing things too bright, in which case this doesn't really help after all).


Even with the see-through version, darkness would grant a Gloomstalker Ranger effective invisibility to anyone without Devil's Sight. If they're invisible to darkvision, for this to not have silly, SILLY knock-on effects that make this effectively useless, they must be essentially invisible in darkness in general. So they wouldn't create the silhouet effect even with the ruling on darkness that lets you see things on the far side of it.


If the DM rules that seeing silhouettes negates the disadvantage of attacking something unseen, the "see through" version becomes a great tool for fighting monsters with gaze attacks. Just make sure you have sufficient backlighting outside the area to keep the silhouette visible, and enjoy the fact that you can't see their eyes because it's too dark!


Might help catch a nap; no pesky light to bother your sleeping. (Of course, somebody else will have to Concentrate on it, then.)


Might help you avoid nodding off. Maintain Concentration on darkness with a really bright light source in its area; if you nod off, the sudden burst of bright light likely will wake you up.


Darkness + Devil's Sight still is proof against see invisibility, even if you don't need Devil's Sight to target creatures outside the radius.

Edit to avoid double-post:

Well, as you note, the RAW here has a problem -- it's either broken, or missing something that it implies.

For starters, if magical darkness blocks standard Darkvision, but normal darkness (obviously) doesn't, then they have to be different... but is that difference every really laid out?The difference is laid out specifically, if not satisfactorily for thsoe who want an underlying reason: magical darkness doesn't let darkvision work. That's the difference. That's all we have to support any difference in the way the two behave. Well, that and the statement about what level of magical light it requires to illuminate things in the darkness or dispel it entirely.

But nothing about it being opaque.

[sophontteks]

5 pages of arguing that a perfectly clear and colored illustration is "darkness". I think sometimes its best to take a step back and look at the big picture here, because, clearly, half the illustration is definitively not dark when the entire area is supposed to be darkness. This is magical darkness, light doesn't interact with it as it does normal darkness. It literally snuffs out light. Darkness is not a thing, its a lack of a thing, but here its a physical entity in itself, basically an anti-light, that fills an area and travels around corners. You can't see through it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Edit to avoid double-post:
The difference is laid out specifically, if not satisfactorily for those who want an underlying reason: magical darkness doesn't let darkvision work. That's the difference. That's all we have to support any difference in the way the two behave. Well, that and the statement about what level of magical light it requires to illuminate things in the darkness or dispel it entirely.

But nothing about it being opaque.

That's not a difference, that's a result of whatever difference is there.

[Segev]

That's not a difference, that's a result of whatever difference is there.

Well, no.

It could be (and probably is) a result of an underlying difference.

That doesn't make it not a difference, in and of itself.

Water is liquid. Ice is solid. That's a difference between the two, despite the fact that the underlying difference of water being above 273K and ice being below 273K being the cause of that difference.


You can come up with any underlying difference you like that makes sense to you, since the game rules don't supply one. This may inform differing behaviors in other ways, which the rules may or may not natively support. House ruling any that are unsupported into place would be suitable to fit your explanation if you chose to do so.

However, the difference spelled out in the RAW is the equivalent of saying that, unlike normal water, creatures with a swim speed cannot swim in ice. "Because it's solid" isn't actually spelled out. "Because it's below freezing" isn't spelled out. We have that darkvision doesn't work in (the spell) magical darkness, even though it does in normal darkness. That's it; that's the difference, insofar as the RAW go.

I know you're not satisfied with that, and I'm not arguing that you should be; I greatly enjoy coming up with underlying explanations, myself, to make the game setting more robust, make the world more interesting to explore scientifically and conceptually. But insisting that the underlying difference exists in such a way that it can only be whatever one truth there is...is bad logic.

Because you're very literal, Max_Killjoy, I am doing my best to refrain from inferring any implied assertions that I can see, so if I am missing any points you ARE trying to make, I apologize. I have several times cut myself off from trying to head off potential arguments against points with which I disagree, realizing that though I see how what you say could lead to an implication or even statement, you never went there.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, no.

It could be (and probably is) a result of an underlying difference.

That doesn't make it not a difference, in and of itself.

Water is liquid. Ice is solid. That's a difference between the two, despite the fact that the underlying difference of water being above 273K and ice being below 273K being the cause of that difference.


You can come up with any underlying difference you like that makes sense to you, since the game rules don't supply one. This may inform differing behaviors in other ways, which the rules may or may not natively support. House ruling any that are unsupported into place would be suitable to fit your explanation if you chose to do so.

However, the difference spelled out in the RAW is the equivalent of saying that, unlike normal water, creatures with a swim speed cannot swim in ice. "Because it's solid" isn't actually spelled out. "Because it's below freezing" isn't spelled out. We have that darkvision doesn't work in (the spell) magical darkness, even though it does in normal darkness. That's it; that's the difference, insofar as the RAW go.

I know you're not satisfied with that, and I'm not arguing that you should be; I greatly enjoy coming up with underlying explanations, myself, to make the game setting more robust, make the world more interesting to explore scientifically and conceptually. But insisting that the underlying difference exists in such a way that it can only be whatever one truth there is...is bad logic.

Because you're very literal, Max_Killjoy, I am doing my best to refrain from inferring any implied assertions that I can see, so if I am missing any points you ARE trying to make, I apologize. I have several times cut myself off from trying to head off potential arguments against points with which I disagree, realizing that though I see how what you say could lead to an implication or even statement, you never went there.


This is what drives me crazy about 5e, actually -- the way the game consistently appears to deliberately play coy, constantly implying things and then pretending it didn't, trying to eat its cake and have it too.

Here are two forms of "darkness", one you can see in with Darkvision and one you can't -- ok, WHY? It implies that there's something going on there, but it refuses to say what it is -- "because we said so" isn't an answer, "you can't because you can't" isn't an answer. If they can't spell out the why, then they don't have an answer, they just have a question that they refuse to answer.

I can write histories for the worlds I build, in great detail, but I struggle mightily with mythologies. My brain is wired to dig up facts and pare away everything else -- I want the truth, not competing "Truths", I want facts, not just-so-stories. Likewise, I won't want implications and open-ended "fill in the blank" game mechanics -- I need to know what it's based on, what the underlying facts are. "Because the rules say so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

[Segev]

This is what drives me crazy about 5e, actually -- the way the game consistently appears to deliberately play coy, constantly implying things and then pretending it didn't, trying to eat its cake and have it to.

Here are two forms of "darkness", one you can see in with Darkvision and one you can't -- ok, WHY? It implies that there's something going on there, but it refuses to say what it is -- "because we said so" isn't an answer, "you can't because you can't" isn't an answer. If they can't spell out the why, then they don't have an answer, they just have a question that they refuse to answer.

I can write histories for the worlds I build, in great detail, but I struggle mightily with mythologies. My brain is wired to dig up facts and pare away everything else -- I want the truth, not competing "Truths", I want facts, not just-so-stories. Likewise, I won't want implications and open-ended "fill in the blank" game mechanics -- I need to know what it's based on, what the underlying facts are. "Because the rules say so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

With magical darkness and darkvision/infravision, that's not a 5e thing. That's just D&D. D&D is a ton of rules that just ARE, because they were put there for game purposes. This is true of a LOT of game systems that are providing mechanics to achieve certain things. The fictional physics behind them are often left to the GM's imagination. Not always, but often.

In this particular case, 5e isn't being coy. It is making a statement about what the effects of the spell darkness are. It isn't giving you how it works; it's magic, and that's all D&D cares about.

[Keravath]

This is what drives me crazy about 5e, actually -- the way the game consistently appears to deliberately play coy, constantly implying things and then pretending it didn't, trying to eat its cake and have it to.

Here are two forms of "darkness", one you can see in with Darkvision and one you can't -- ok, WHY? It implies that there's something going on there, but it refuses to say what it is -- "because we said so" isn't an answer, "you can't because you can't" isn't an answer. If they can't spell out the why, then they don't have an answer, they just have a question that they refuse to answer.

I can write histories for the worlds I build, in great detail, but I struggle mightily with mythologies. My brain is wired to dig up facts and pare away everything else -- I want the truth, not competing "Truths", I want facts, not just-so-stories. Likewise, I won't want implications and open-ended "fill in the blank" game mechanics -- I need to know what it's based on, what the underlying facts are. "Because the rules say so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

Because one is "magical darkness" and the other is natural darkness? Why would you assume that magical darkness and natural darkness are the same thing? The rules don't state that.

Anyway, these are the rules I (and I think others use) and they are as consistent with RAW if not more so as the whole silhouette concept.


A creature with regular vision in a dark room, magical or otherwise, can't see anything.
A creature with darkvision in a dark room can see everything in black and white.
A creature with darkvision in a magically darkened room can't see anything.


A creature standing in a room where one half has light and the other is naturally dark can't see anything in the dark area but can see the light area fine from anywhere in the room.
A creature with darkvision standing in a room where one half has light and the other is naturally dark can see the lighted area fine and the dark area in black and white from anywhere in the room (assuming it is within darkvision range)
A creature with either regular vision or darkvision standing in a room where one half has light and the other is magically dark can't see anything in the dark area and can only see the lighted area if they are standing in it.

In "my" reading of the rules, natural darkness (in the absence of light sources) is considered heavily obscured and creatures are effectively blinded when trying to see anything in the darkened area. If you are looking at a lit area, then of course it isn't dark so you can see it fine.

In the case of "magical darkness", the spell creates darkness no matter what the ambient conditions. If you try to look at ANYTHING in that darkness you are effectively blind to it. You can't see it or the area around it or any part of the area covered by the spell including the volume of air. The "magical darkness" heavily obscures vision into, out of or through it, no matter what the ambient conditions (unlike natural darkness). This includes preventing light propagating through it.

These are the rules that I and to be honest, everyone I have ever played with have used for both natural and magical darkness. Of course, everyone is welcome to choose how they play it, and if RAW is ambiguous then decide how you want to play which is what I and others have done with the list above.

Personally, I think RAW supports the rules I and others have been using. The rules never mention silhouettes. However, the vision rules in terms of darkness are among the worst written since they tried to group various kinds of "obscured" together and left room for essentially useless arguments about it which is probably running on 5 pages or more.

The bottom line is, play using whatever rules you and your players are happy with.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why would you assume that magical darkness and natural darkness are the same thing?

I didn't. :smallconfused:

[Erys]

Returning to a previous picture:

https://i.postimg.cc/FsGx0rfD/warrior-dark.jpg (https://postimg.cc/1fn6QZrq)

That warrior can obviously hide within that darkness, and I've actually drawn the darkness too small here, as noted in previous posts on trigonometry--the darkened area on the wall behind her should be about three times bigger than it is, 18' in diameter instead of 5', so you probably shouldn't even see the warrior's silhouette at all. (But note that you can probably deduce the warrior's location anyway just by looking for the centerpoint of the darkness, if she's still carrying it, and if she isn't carrying it then she's opening up other vulnerabilities like maybe having an enemy snatch it up and move it away.)

I can imagine ad-hoc scenarios where I might rule that hiding is fruitless and pointless, but that isn't unique to the Darkness spell: if there's only one barrel in a featureless white plain and you try to Hide behind it, it isn't going to do anything useful. (I've also rewritten the rules for hiding slightly to make these scenarios less off-the-cuff.)



I've changed it so being unseen doesn't provide advantage to hit on ranged attacks (only on melee attacks), ditto being hidden, but being hidden does still allow you to make sneak attacks at range. Yes you can see targets on the other side of darkness or darkness but that's not a change. Only in rare circumstances would you see a full silhouette, and a partial silhouette is still deceptive and hard to interpret correctly, thus justifying disadvantage on attacks against her and advantage on her melee attacks against you.

================================================== ===================



That's not just a style difference, that's a rule difference. The normal definition of the Invisible condition in 5E is (emphasis mine):

Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have advantage.

You say you've changed it so that <<in my games (in most cases), when you make a perception check against an invisible opponent you can see them>>, instead of just detecting their location. There's nothing wrong with playing that way, but it isn't reasonable for you to come onto a forum and expect people to be playing by your rules. You didn't mention your house rules in post #65, so how was I supposed to know that you were using different rules for Magic Missile (and beholders, etc., etc.)?

I agree that under your rules it would be 100% consistent and appropriate to treat creatures in Darkness as effectively visible under certain conditions, e.g. at long range against a brightly-lit backdrop too far away from the Darkness to be affected by it.



The rules as written are often stupid and I am 100% in favor of changing them where possible. "RAW" is not a compliment, often there's an implied an apology or a sigh of frustration.

"Technically by RAW there's no difference between darkness and heavy fog..."
"Technically by RAW, a Warcaster wizard can Polymorph other PCs as a reaction, as long as he has previously cast Friends on them to make them hostile to him."

Etc.

Whether a warrior can hide in that pic completely depends on where his opponents are... unless he is dropping prone to hide. And funnily enough, if the room were bigger and the shadow was not creeping up the wall, he probably couldn't even hide by dropping prone to the floor. The back-light could easily expose his location when its at ground level.

As for Invis and Magic Missile, that is interesting. I hadn't really considered 'Impossible to see" as such that the condition extends past being noticed. Like I said, my minds eye has invis looking like the predator cloaked, so yes --> you can "see it" if you are aware of it. But technically, it appears, that is a house rule.

My apologies. I had not intended to mislead.

[Segev]

In "my" reading of the rules, natural darkness (in the absence of light sources) is considered heavily obscured and creatures are effectively blinded when trying to see anything in the darkened area. If you are looking at a lit area, then of course it isn't dark so you can see it fine.

In the case of "magical darkness", the spell creates darkness no matter what the ambient conditions. If you try to look at ANYTHING in that darkness you are effectively blind to it. You can't see it or the area around it or any part of the area covered by the spell including the volume of air. The "magical darkness" heavily obscures vision into, out of or through it, no matter what the ambient conditions (unlike natural darkness). This includes preventing light propagating through it.

These are the rules that I and to be honest, everyone I have ever played with have used for both natural and magical darkness. Of course, everyone is welcome to choose how they play it, and if RAW is ambiguous then decide how you want to play which is what I and others have done with the list above.

Personally, I think RAW supports the rules I and others have been using. The rules never mention silhouettes. However, the vision rules in terms of darkness are among the worst written since they tried to group various kinds of "obscured" together and left room for essentially useless arguments about it which is probably running on 5 pages or more.

The bottom line is, play using whatever rules you and your players are happy with.Technically, nothing in the rules says what your interpretation of magical darkness is. (Yours is what has been referred to as the "ink blot" model.) Or, rather, if the rules support magical darkness behaving this way, then they equally support normal darkness behaving this way.

If your argument is that magical darkness and nonmagical darkness are so dissimilar that any comparison of the two is pointless, you still haven't managed to show any RAW that supports a) that point, or b) that magical darkness specifically has the ink blot behavior while natural darkness specifically does not.

I'm not telling you you're wrong for running it that way, but I am telling you that you aren't "right" and running it "more by the RAW" than people who run it quite differently.

[sophontteks]

Technically, nothing in the rules says what your interpretation of magical darkness is. (Yours is what has been referred to as the "ink blot" model.) Or, rather, if the rules support magical darkness behaving this way, then they equally support normal darkness behaving this way.

If your argument is that magical darkness and nonmagical darkness are so dissimilar that any comparison of the two is pointless, you still haven't managed to show any RAW that supports a) that point, or b) that magical darkness specifically has the ink blot behavior while natural darkness specifically does not.

I'm not telling you you're wrong for running it that way, but I am telling you that you aren't "right" and running it "more by the RAW" than people who run it quite differently.
Darkness is literally "the absense of light." When you see a light through darkness, its no longer darkness. When something blocks the light, it is. Its not that you are trying to apply the properties of darkness to magical darkness, its the opposite. You are speaking as though darkness is more then the simple definition of "the absense of light."

Again, in the illustration, the background is not darkness. There is no absense of light, heck its an area of bright light, since we can make out color. So how can you argue this is how normal darkness works when the example isn't even darkness at all?

So let's go ahead any apply the only definition and property of normal darkness to this illustration. If the entire area is "covered in darkness" then the entire area is "absent of light." If its absent of light, its just a black square. Anything other then this is not normal nor magical darkness.

[Tanarii]

Question for others that use Inky-Blot Darkness:
How do you rule a light source outside the Darkness spell, but that illuminates a larger area than the area of darkness? Does it make a difference to you that if it's on the other side of the darkness or in the middle of it?

I just rule that the affected area is dark, but any areas outside have their normal illumination levels based on how far they are from the source of illumination. If someone stands in the exact center of a Darkness spell (15ft radius) with a lit torch, there is 15ft radius of impenetrable darkness, 5ft of bright light, and 20ft of Dim light.

[redwizard007]

Question for others that use Inky-Blot Darkness:
How do you rule a light source outside the Darkness spell, but that illuminates a larger area than the area of darkness? Does it make a difference to you that if it's on the other side of the darkness or in the middle of it?

I just rule that the affected area is dark, but any areas outside have their normal illumination levels based on how far they are from the source of illumination. If someone stands in the exact center of a Darkness spell (15ft radius) with a lit torch, there is 15ft radius of impenetrable darkness, 5ft of bright light, and 20ft of Dim light.

I rule it the same, but have heard wonderful arguments that backed the idea of the magical darkness acting as a wall in regards to light. They went something along the lines of: if I have a lantern in an otherwise dark hallway and someone casts darkness over me the lantern's light cant escape the darkness to illuminate outside it because waves of light cant spontaneously become relevant. Likewise, a flashlight that cant penetrate magical darkness cant pass through the darkness from one side to the other... my response has always been that magic and physics are not in any way compatible and the rules governing their interaction are well beyond my lowly human understanding.

[Keravath]

I rule it the same, but have heard wonderful arguments that backed the idea of the magical darkness acting as a wall in regards to light. They went something along the lines of: if I have a lantern in an otherwise dark hallway and someone casts darkness over me the lantern's light cant escape the darkness to illuminate outside it because waves of light cant spontaneously become relevant. Likewise, a flashlight that cant penetrate magical darkness cant pass through the darkness from one side to the other... my response has always been that magic and physics are not in any way compatible and the rules governing their interaction are well beyond my lowly human understanding.

A DM can rule this either way.

I usually go with magical darkness blocking the propagation of light so the area of Darkness would cast a shadow if there is a light source outside it and if the light source is inside it, it would be suppressed.

There is no specific rules justification for any choice and it is MAGIC so any of the options can be chosen and physics need not apply :)

However, I usually go with the opaque light absorbing option because otherwise you get into the whole silhouette question and being able to see things on the other side of magical darkness since if the light can traverse the area of magical darkness then you should be able to see what is on the other side. There is no difference between reflected light and a light source. So, personally, I find it more consistent to have the Darkness block light but how these rules are interpreted is entirely up to the DM in each case :)

[Segev]

Darkness is literally "the absense of light." When you see a light through darkness, its no longer darkness. When something blocks the light, it is. Its not that you are trying to apply the properties of darkness to magical darkness, its the opposite. You are speaking as though darkness is more then the simple definition of "the absense of light."

Again, in the illustration, the background is not darkness. There is no absense of light, heck its an area of bright light, since we can make out color. So how can you argue this is how normal darkness works when the example isn't even darkness at all?

So let's go ahead any apply the only definition and property of normal darkness to this illustration. If the entire area is "covered in darkness" then the entire area is "absent of light." If its absent of light, its just a black square. Anything other then this is not normal nor magical darkness.
You’re trying to switch back and forth between real world physics and the rules. But the rules spell out what conditions create darkness.

You say here that any visible light means there’s no darkness, but that’s just not true. The thread actually on this topic opens with a question illustrating this.

A torch only casts illumination onto things out to 40 feet. Beyond that, absent other light sources, is darkness. If you’re a human standing 100 feet down an otherwise unlit corridor from another human holding a torch, you are in darkness, per the rules of the game. Can you see the torch and what it illuminates, despite darkness being between you and it?


Also, no comments on the uses for the spell I posted yesterday? That is the thread topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

Darkness is literally "the absense of light." When you see a light through darkness, its no longer darkness. When something blocks the light, it is. Its not that you are trying to apply the properties of darkness to magical darkness, its the opposite. You are speaking as though darkness is more then the simple definition of "the absense of light."

Again, in the illustration, the background is not darkness. There is no absense of light, heck its an area of bright light, since we can make out color. So how can you argue this is how normal darkness works when the example isn't even darkness at all?

So let's go ahead any apply the only definition and property of normal darkness to this illustration. If the entire area is "covered in darkness" then the entire area is "absent of light." If its absent of light, its just a black square. Anything other then this is not normal nor magical darkness.

For what's being discussed both in this thread and the other thread, a more applicable and useful definition is "the absence or lack of illumination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness)". An absolute lack of illumination or visible light is not needed for functional darkness in this discussion, because we're not talking about photon counts, we're talking about visibility.

The area the woman and the tree are in, is not illuminated. The only reason we can see that they're there is because they block the light coming from the starlit sky beyond them. It's a sort of "inverse illumination" -- even though/if they're reflecting that light from the stars, that would only illuminate them on the side opposite the camera's POV.

As shown both in that picture and in several examples that have been given (see, the torch at 100'), it's clear that natural darkness does not block light. A person could be standing outside the radius in which torchlight makes other people or objects visible to the naked eye, and still see the torch itself. If torchlight makes objects visible out to 50', and a viewreis standing 100' away, a person 75' away would only be visible if they moved between the viewer and the torch... similar to the picture of someone standing in front of a starry sky. (Numbers nominal, if someone knows how far away torchlight actually provides useful illumination please provide, but the numbers being wrong does not invalidate the point in any way.)

I don't think anyone has provided any examples of how D&D settings differ from our experience in this basic interaction of light and vision -- stars are visible in the sky, lighthouses are visible in the distance, the lamp in the window of a farmhouse is visible from far across the field, even if in each case the viewer is standing in the middle of an area so dark (ie, lacking in illumination) that they cannot see the ground at their feet or their own hand in front of their face.

So, we can conclude that in D&D settings, natural darkness is like the natural darkness we're familiar with.

And furthermore, if the RAW tries to tell us that natural darkness somehow blocks light passing through, then the RAW is wrong. Simple as that, just wrong. And we know that would be wrong because the consequences of natural darkness blocking light are not present in the settings in question.


Further, we are also told that darkvision in D&D lets a character or creature see in lower levels of illumination -- they might see more than the backlit outline of the woman in that picture, they might be able to see the ground at their feet at the same illumination level that leaves a normal human blinded.


As for magical Darkness, we know:


That it prevents darkvision from working, meaning that the level of illumination inside an area of magical darkness is far lower than in an area of normal darkness.
That it prevents normal sources of light such as torches from illuminating an area, even if the source is right next to the viewer.


Therefore, we can conclude that magical darkness is not simply a conjured area of "lack of illumination", but instead that it actively blocks light. This would mean that not only does an area of magical darkness prevent illumination in that area, it would also prevent the torch or stars far beyond from being seen, and it would cast a shadow on the side opposite a light source.

[Demonslayer666]

It's worth noting that, absent backlighting, the silhouettes are not visible. And, with limited backlighting, they're indistinct and fuzzy, even if you can tell they're there. It requires some reasonably specific angles and quite flat ground with nothing but the creatures you want to target, with ambient lighting such that the space behind them is brightly lit, for the silhouettes to be distinct enough to not at least potentially warrant Disadvantage on the roll to hit them.

Now, here's a fun additional thought, though I don't think it is hard to answer as long as you know which side of this question you stand on: If I cast darkness on an area that's 40 feet in the air, and there's nothing and nobody in it, can you even tell it's there? And, let's say there's overhead lighting outside the radius of the spell (the sun, some sort of way-high-over-head chandellier, etc): does the 20 ft. radius sphere of darkness cast a shadow on the ground below?
The darkness spell should not be less effective when normal light is involved, like during the day outside. The silhouettes would not be fuzzy and indistinct during the day time. Darkness makes you blind to everything in the area of darkness, and making silhouettes is not blind. If darkness worked this way, it would be useless during the day.

Yes, you can tell it's there because you get no visual information what's inside the darkness since you are blind to the area. You don't get to see that nothing is there.



Rule citation, emphasis mine:

Advantage and Disadvantage
Sometimes a special ability or spell tells you that you have advantage or disadvantage on an ability check, a saving throw, or an attack roll. *snip*
You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage. The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

If you do happen to cast darkness while standing in an open field far away from any backdrop (rare), please see post #42, quoted below. DMs are allowed to grant advantage for advantageous circumstances.

...
If you don't give disadvantage to hitting a clear man-sized target (shadow, archery target painted black), you should not do so for a silhouette. At best (lots of clutter), your example is disadvantage, but at it's worst (daytime), it's not even lightly obscured.

You have yet to address this very large inconsistency and explain your reasoning behind it.


...Or, rather, if the rules support magical darkness behaving this way, then they equally support normal darkness behaving this way.

...
Except that magical darkness does say darkvision cannot see through it, and it cannot be illuminated by non-magical light. Where as all vision and all light sources work in normal darkness. The only time non-magical darkness makes you blind is if there is no light to be seen.

[Aimeryan]

As for magical Darkness, we know:


That it prevents darkvision from working, meaning that the level of illumination inside an area of magical darkness is far lower than in an area of normal darkness.
That it prevents normal sources of light such as torches from illuminating [the] area, even if the source is right next to the viewer.


Bolded: that brings up an interesting question. Here is the actual quote from Darkness (spell):


A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness*, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

Lets, for the moment, rule that darkness lets light pass through it instead of blocking vision entirely, and furthermore that we apply this to magical darkness too by inheritance. The bolded section is all it says on nonmagical light and how it interacts with the spell.

Given the aforementioned ruling, light from beyond the spell area would be seen through the spell area by an observer (both on the otherside and while inside). If someone was carrying a torch inside the Darkness spell area, would that torch be seen outside the spell area (or indeed, by someone inside)? Illuminating is prevented - so nothing in the area can be lit up by a source of light, but producing light is not, and as per the aforementioned ruling light is not being blocked.


*Yes, we are ignoring the strange fact that an Human could apparently see through the darkness but not an Elf (creature with normal vision = see through, creature with darkvision = not see through).

[Segev]

So, we can conclude that in D&D settings, natural darkness is like the natural darkness we're familiar with. I agree that we should expect this result, and that rules should not cause this particular intuition to turn out to be wrong.



Further, we are also told that darkvision in D&D lets a character or creature see in lower levels of illumination -- they might see more than the backlit outline of the woman in that picture, they might be able to see the ground at their feet at the same illumination level that leaves a normal human blinded. Specifically, as long as they were within their range of Darkvision of the woman, they'd see her in black-and-white, but otherwise not suffer for lack of illumination in terms of seeing details about her.



As for magical Darkness, we know:


That it prevents darkvision from working, meaning that the level of illumination inside an area of magical darkness is far lower than in an area of normal darkness.
That it prevents normal sources of light such as torches from illuminating an area, even if the source is right next to the viewer.
Agreed, up to this point, however...


Therefore, we can conclude that magical darkness is not simply a conjured area of "lack of illumination", but instead that it actively blocks light. This would mean that not only does an area of magical darkness prevent illumination in that area, it would also prevent the torch or stars far beyond from being seen, and it would cast a shadow on the side opposite a light source.The second sentence and beyond, here, is supposition. It would be equally valid to say that light sources within the magical darkness cannot be seen nor provide illumination, and that nothing within the magical darkness can be illuminated, but that nothing prevents the light source and that which it does illuminate from beyond the darkness from being seen even by those within or on the far side of the magical darkness from the light source.

Further, and separate, is the question of whether the light source from beyond the darkness, if it has sufficient range such that the area of magical darkness would be fully within its illuminating effect absent said magic, the light source's natural light level would persist on the far side of the darkness.

To discuss the several possible ways this could work, I'm going to replace our torch with a bullseye lantern. A bullseye lantern, by the rules of 5e, projects a 60 ft. cone of bright light (and I believe dim light out to 120 feet). I will place this bullseye lantern in an otherwise-dark but wide open cavern. I will now cast darkness centered 25 ft. from the front facing of the lantern. The darkness extends in a sphere whose edge begins 5 feet from the lantern's nose, and covers a 40 foot diameter, so at 45 feet from the lantern's lens and beyond, the magical darkness is not in effect.

I will place Alice holding the lantern. Bob is standing in front of her and to the right, fully illuminated by the lantern right behind him (per the rules; yes, I know he's actually going to be mostly a silhouette). Chelsea is holding the rock on which I cast darkness, so is standing right in its center, 25 feet straight in front of Alice. And then Dave is standing 50 feet straight in front of Alice and her bullseye lantern; if the magical darkness were not present, he would definitely be fully illuminated (as he's within 60 feet of the lantern), and he is definitely not in the magical darkness (being 25 feet from Chelsea, whose darkness-bearing rock only has a 20 ft. radius of effect). Finally, Emma and Frank are standing in the same line of 5 ft. squares as Dave, perpendicular to the line of squares connecting Dave to Alice, but positioned at the edges of the cone of light projected by the lantern. They are unquestionably illuminated, being within the cone and not in nor "behind" any magical darkness.

Bob is fully illuminated in all possible cases. We'll also make Bob a drow, so he has 120 ft. darkvision. We'll ignore any light sensitivity problems he might have; he's not attacking anybody. We'll also make Emma a drow.

These are the following scenarios, depending on the way we consider magical darkness to work:

Scenario 1: In the "ink blot" interpretation, none of Alice, Bob, Emma, nor Frank can see Chelsea. Bob and Emma's darkvision treat the ink blot as a wall, blocking all sight. Chelsea can't see anybody. She is in an ink blot. Dave can't see Alice nor Bob, as the ink blot is in the way, but he can see Emma and Frank, because despite being in the shadow of the ink blot, there's nothing blocking his line of sight to them, and they're both illuminated. Alice and Bob, of course, can see Emma and Frank, and Emma and Frank can see each other and Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob can't see Dave because of the ink blot in their way. Frank can't see Dave because Dave is not illuminated (he's in natural darkness), but Emma's darkvision can pick Dave out just fine.
Scenario 2: Magical darkness behaves like regular darkness except where specifically stated otherwise. In this scenario, magical darkness created by Chelsea's darkness rock enforces a region of darkness where it otherwise wouldn't be. Nobody can see Chelsea, because she's in darkness that specifically shuts down even darkvision. Alice can see Bob (obviously), and Frank and Emma, as there's nothing between her and them. Since nothing is blocking the light from illuminating Dave, everyone can also see Dave. Even Chelsea can see everyone else, because nothing keeps her from seeing illuminated things in her line of sight. (Depending on their relative positions, Dave might also see Chelsea's silhouette against the bullseye lantern or partially blocking his view of Bob.)
Scenario 3: Magical darkness behaves like normal darkness, except as stated and by blocking paths of illumination. In this scenario, it's much as above, but now the region of magical darkness casts a natural-darkness shadow over Dave. Bob and Emma can see Dave with their darkvision, but nobody else can.
Scenario 4: The ink blot isn't physical, and thus can't cast a shadow. Here, we have something like scenario 2, except the region of darkness, while not preventing Dave from being illuminated (because he's outside the area), still prevents anybody from seeing things on the far side of it from them. Bob and Alice will be thus unable to see Chelsea or Dave. Frank and Emma both see Dave illuminated just fine. Dave can tell light is coming from the direction of the ink blot, but he can't see its source. As Scenario 1, Chelsea can't see anybody.

That's all the variables I think need to be considered; I could be missing some.

[micahaphone]

[/LIST]

Bolded: that brings up an interesting question. Here is the actual quote from Darkness (spell):



Lets, for the moment, rule that darkness lets light pass through it instead of blocking vision entirely, and furthermore that we apply this to magical darkness too by inheritance. The bolded section is all it says on nonmagical light and how it interacts with the spell.

Given the aforementioned ruling, light from beyond the spell area would be seen through the spell area by an observer (both on the otherside and while inside). If someone was carrying a torch inside the Darkness spell area, would that torch be seen outside the spell area (or indeed, by someone inside)? Illuminating is prevented - so nothing in the area can be lit up by a source of light, but producing light is not, and as per the aforementioned ruling light is not being blocked.


*Yes, we are ignoring the strange fact that an Human could apparently see through the darkness but not an Elf (creature with normal vision = see through, creature with darkvision = not see through).


So in your reading of RAW, you're saying that I could cast Darkness on a torch, and we would have a circle of darkness but outside of that radius there would be light and illumination?


I'm assuming that the devs didn't account for every corner case and didn't feel the need to write each spell as airtight as possible.

I'll go back to the warlock making ranged attacks w/ Darkness+Devils Sight in the middle of a field. Either 1) They have advantage to hit (and the enemy has disadvantage to hit) because the enemy just sees a large dome of inky blackness and doesn't know where exactly the attacks are coming from, or 2) the enemy sees the black silhouette of a warlock standing in the middle of a circle of black grass, and because they see only a silhouette, they don't know where the attacks are coming from and have difficulty shooting back.

[Max_Killjoy]

[/LIST]

Bolded: that brings up an interesting question. Here is the actual quote from Darkness (spell):



Lets, for the moment, rule that darkness lets light pass through it instead of blocking vision entirely, and furthermore that we apply this to magical darkness too by inheritance. The bolded section is all it says on nonmagical light and how it interacts with the spell.

Given the aforementioned ruling, light from beyond the spell area would be seen through the spell area by an observer (both on the otherside and while inside). If someone was carrying a torch inside the Darkness spell area, would that torch be seen outside the spell area (or indeed, by someone inside)? Illuminating is prevented - so nothing in the area can be lit up by a source of light, but producing light is not, and as per the aforementioned ruling light is not being blocked.


*Yes, we are ignoring the strange fact that an Human could apparently see through the darkness but not an Elf (creature with normal vision = see through, creature with darkvision = not see through).


Except that we already know that normal darkness does not block light passing through an area, as evidenced by stars (including the sun itself), lighthouses, signal fires, etc. If normal darkness blocks light, you have a VERY different world than we're shown by D&D settings.

And we know that torches "don't work" inside the area of magical darkness, and that only happens if the light is somehow blocked or suppressed -- meaning that the torch would also not be visible outside the area of the darkness spell, and another torch in the distance would not be visible through the area of darkness.

(Together this also means that there is no way for the "human sees, elf blind" scenario to actually occur.)

[Segev]

So in your reading of RAW, you're saying that I could cast Darkness on a torch, and we would have a circle of darkness but outside of that radius there would be light and illumination?


I'm assuming that the devs didn't account for every corner case and didn't feel the need to write each spell as airtight as possible.

I'll go back to the warlock making ranged attacks w/ Darkness+Devils Sight in the middle of a field. Either 1) They have advantage to hit (and the enemy has disadvantage to hit) because the enemy just sees a large dome of inky blackness and doesn't know where exactly the attacks are coming from, or 2) the enemy sees the black silhouette of a warlock standing in the middle of a circle of black grass, and because they see only a silhouette, they don't know where the attacks are coming from and have difficulty shooting back.

I believe - but am AFB so can't check - that all sources of magical darkness state explicitly that they suppress light sources brought within them. I know - having run something recently - that the Darkmantle's darkness effect actually dispells magical light sources whose areas overlap with the darkmantle's effect if those magical light sources are 2nd level or lower! This means that a darkmantle dropping its effect 30 feet away from a party carrying continual flame torches will have all their torches dispelled, because the light effect overlaps with the darkness effect, even though the sources weren't brought within the darkness.

But I also believe that magical darkness effects all state that any light source brought within them are suppressed (unless they're of a sufficiently high spell level to overcome the magic creating the darkness).

So, at the very least, if you walk into a region of magical darkness carrying a torch, the torch keeps burning, but sheds no light until you carry it out of the magical darkness zone.

Thus, even if you rule that, with magical darkness between you and the guy with a torch who starts 100 feet away, you can see the guy with the torch...if he then walks towards you, when he enters the region of magical darkness, his torch appears to vanish, plunging him and everything illuminated solely by that torch into regular darkness (if it wasn't already in magical darkness). Then, when he walked out the other side, facing you, his torch would bloom back into incandescence and illuminate him and everything within 40 feet of him once more.

[Aimeryan]

So in your reading of RAW, you're saying that I could cast Darkness on a torch, and we would have a circle of darkness but outside of that radius there would be light and illumination?

My reading of the RAW here is that vision is blocked entirely, as it says; you would not be able to see something in or beyond an area of darkness.

My houseruling is that darkness can be seen through and that Darkness (the spell) cannot be - so the torch would not be seen nor light up the surrounding area if placed with the Darkness spell area. I would also now rule away being blind to something in darkness if they would produce a silhouette.

[Segev]

My reading of the RAW here is that vision is blocked entirely, as it says; you would not be able to see something in or beyond an area of darkness.

My houseruling is that darkness can be seen through and that Darkness (the spell) cannot be - so the torch would not be seen nor light up the surrounding area if placed with the Darkness spell area. I would also now rule away being blind to something in darkness if they would produce a silhouette.

When you say "your reading of the RAW," are you speaking of all kinds of darkness, or just magical darkness? Because nothing in the RAW actually specifies that magical darkness behaves differently from natural darkness wrt blocking line of sight.

[Aimeryan]

Except that we already know that normal darkness does not block light passing through an area, as evidenced by stars (including the sun itself), lighthouses, signal fires, etc. If normal darkness blocks light, you have a VERY different world than we're shown by D&D settings.

RAW disagrees, however, I do remember the modules describing such things - so there is an obvious conflict occurring. Left hand, right hand.



And we know that torches "don't work" inside the area of magical darkness, and that only happens if the light is somehow blocked or suppressed -- meaning that the torch would also not be visible outside the area of the darkness spell, and another torch in the distance would not be visible through the area of darkness.

I agree, if you rule darkness blocks vision, since the inheritance by the Darkness spell would result in an unseeable torch. However, if you rule that you can see through darkness then Darkness (the spell) would also be seen through since it doesn't state otherwise.

Well, that or you go with 'magical darkness' is actually an open form compound noun, in which case all bets are off!

[Aimeryan]

When you say "your reading of the RAW," are you speaking of all kinds of darkness, or just magical darkness? Because nothing in the RAW actually specifies that magical darkness behaves differently from natural darkness wrt blocking line of sight.

All; I use 'darkness' to mean nonmagical darkness and 'Darkness' to mean the spell. The spell inherits (unless open form compound noun), so it blocks vision entirely in the way darkness does.

[Max_Killjoy]

RAW disagrees, however, I do remember the modules describing such things - so there is an obvious conflict occurring. Left hand, right hand.




I agree, if you rule darkness blocks vision, since the inheritance by the Darkness spell would result in an unseeable torch. However, if you rule that you can see through darkness then Darkness (the spell) would also be seen through since it doesn't state otherwise.

Well, that or you go with 'magical darkness' is actually an open form compound noun, in which case all bets are off!

I am not ruling that natural darkness blocks vision of things beyond it, and it is not necessary for natural darkness to do so in order for magical darkness to do so. Frankly, I'd say stop trying to find a way to make natural darkness and magical darkness the same -- when they're obviously not.

In case it wasn't clear, when RAW and the fiction layer disagree/contradict, I'm going to go with the fiction layer 100 out of 100 times. But, in this particular case, it's RAW that makes it obvious that natural darkness and magical darkness are not the same.



Natural darkness -- doesn't obscure light sources within it, doesn't stop Darkvision from working.
Magical darkness -- does obscure light sources within it, does stop Darkvision from working.





All; I use 'darkness' to mean nonmagical darkness and 'Darkness' to mean the spell. The spell inherits (unless open form compound noun), so it blocks vision entirely in the way darkness does.


I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that natural darkness blocks vision entirely in D&D settings. If RAW seems to say that it does, then RAW is simply wrong.

(Actually "blocking" vision is not the same as "there's not enough illumination on objects in this area for them to be perceived with normal sight / vision" -- actually blocking vision requires something to suppress, obscure, intercept, overwhelm, or squelch light to such a degree that insufficient light from an object reaches the eyes of the viewer. Natural darkness does not block vision, natural fog does if heavy enough, as does a wall in the way, or a sufficiently bright source of light.)

[Segev]

I am not ruling that natural darkness blocks vision of things beyond it, and it is not necessary for natural darkness to do so in order for magical darkness to do so. Frankly, I'd say stop trying to find a way to make natural darkness and magical darkness the same -- when they're obviously not.

In case it wasn't clear, when RAW and the fiction layer disagree/contradict, I'm going to go with the fiction layer 100 out of 100 times. But, in this particular case, it's RAW that makes it obvious that natural darkness and magical darkness are not the same.



Natural darkness -- doesn't obscure light sources within it, doesn't stop Darkvision from working.
Magical darkness -- does obscure light sources within it, does stop Darkvision from working.


In this case, the two things you list are true, but neither requires that magical darkness behave like an ink blot. Merely that darkvision fail to see things within the magical darkness, and that light sources brought within the magical darkness fail to shed light until removed. The RAW do not support magical darkness doing more than that, though of course, if your internal view of the fiction layer is that magical darkness is (or must be) an "ink blot," then you can certainly rule to keep things consistent. That is, however, a ruling that is verging on a house rule, because if you don't read the general rules on heavy obscurement caused by darkness to block all vision through it (including obscuring the torchbearer 100 feet away), regardless of whether it's natural or magical, there's nothing in the RAW to directly support the specific effect of magical darkness behaving differently than natural darkness when it comes to visibility of light sources originating outside the darkness itself.



I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that natural darkness blocks vision entirely in D&D settings. If RAW seems to say that it does, then RAW is simply wrong.

(Actually "blocking" vision is not the same as "there's not enough illumination on objects in this area for them to be perceived with normal sight / vision" -- actually blocking vision requires something to suppress, obscure, intercept, overwhelm, or squelch light to such a degree that insufficient light from an object reaches the eyes of the viewer. Natural darkness does not block vision, natural fog does if heavy enough, as does a wall in the way, or a sufficiently bright source of light.)
I agree that the text people quote is more accurately read as saying what can and cannot be seen in regions of that level of illumination, but they HAVE quoted text which, if read the way they do, can be interpreted to say that you can't see through any heavy obscurement at all, which would include natural darkness, and which would mean that, if you don't have at least continuous dim light connecting two points, you cannot see them without darkvision.

I think everybody agrees that's a SILLY result; the debate is partially over whether the RAW are silly wrt natural darkness or not. Those who agree that the RAW are not silly wrt natural darkness (because they interpret the RAW as you and I seem to agree on) are split into two camps: those who think magical darkness behaves differently and like those who think the RAW on natural darkness is silly, and those who (like me) think that magical darkness has no support in the RAW to behave differently than natural darkness wrt seeing things illuminated outside of it.

[Max_Killjoy]

In this case, the two things you list are true, but neither requires that magical darkness behave like an ink blot. Merely that darkvision fail to see things within the magical darkness, and that light sources brought within the magical darkness fail to shed light until removed. The RAW do not support magical darkness doing more than that, though of course, if your internal view of the fiction layer is that magical darkness is (or must be) an "ink blot," then you can certainly rule to keep things consistent. That is, however, a ruling that is verging on a house rule, because if you don't read the general rules on heavy obscurement caused by darkness to block all vision through it (including obscuring the torchbearer 100 feet away), regardless of whether it's natural or magical, there's nothing in the RAW to directly support the specific effect of magical darkness behaving differently than natural darkness when it comes to visibility of light sources originating outside the darkness itself.



I agree that the text people quote is more accurately read as saying what can and cannot be seen in regions of that level of illumination, but they HAVE quoted text which, if read the way they do, can be interpreted to say that you can't see through any heavy obscurement at all, which would include natural darkness, and which would mean that, if you don't have at least continuous dim light connecting two points, you cannot see them without darkvision.

I think everybody agrees that's a SILLY result; the debate is partially over whether the RAW are silly wrt natural darkness or not. Those who agree that the RAW are not silly wrt natural darkness (because they interpret the RAW as you and I seem to agree on) are split into two camps: those who think magical darkness behaves differently and like those who think the RAW on natural darkness is silly, and those who (like me) think that magical darkness has no support in the RAW to behave differently than natural darkness wrt seeing things illuminated outside of it.

Magical darkness squelching light sources and negating darkvision strongly implies that it actively blocks light -- unlike the obvious behavior of natural darkness -- which is where the different interaction with light sources opposite the viewer would come from.

And yes, the RAW appears to be actively silly WRT natural darkness.

[Segev]

Magical darkness squelching light sources and negating darkvision strongly implies that it actively blocks light -- unlike the obvious behavior of natural darkness -- which is where the different interaction with light sources opposite the viewer would come from.

And yes, the RAW appears to be actively silly WRT natural darkness.

It implies that to you, yes. It does not imply that to me. Doing so would be one possible explanation, and would lead to the ink blot treatment, but it is not inconsistent to read it otherwise.

And, frankly, I find the ink blot to be...unsatisfactory. It's not "darkness" at that point. It's "black fog." And that's boring. We HAVE a fog spell already.

[Max_Killjoy]

It implies that to you, yes. It does not imply that to me. Doing so would be one possible explanation, and would lead to the ink blot treatment, but it is not inconsistent to read it otherwise.

And, frankly, I find the ink blot to be...unsatisfactory. It's not "darkness" at that point. It's "black fog." And that's boring. We HAVE a fog spell already.


If magical darkness doesn't actively block light, then I would ask how it squelches light sources and blocks Darkvision.

[Evaar]

If magical darkness doesn't actively block light, then I would ask how it squelches light sources and blocks Darkvision.

How does the fire from Create Bonfire fail to create light?

The rules are silent on the "how." And this is a question of what the rules say, not how we might hypothesize it could physically function in that way.

[Max_Killjoy]

How does the fire from Create Bonfire fail to create light?

The rules are silent on the "how." And this is a question of what the rules say, not how we might hypothesize it could physically function in that way.

Looking at the Create Bonfire spell online multiple places, I see absolutely no reference to the fire not generating light -- the only reasonable conclusion is that it acts like normal fire... and generates light. It's a fire. Fires generate light. That's that.

A claim that the spell must specifically state that it generates light in order to generate light would be an excellent example of why I find the rules-laywering, rules-first, gamist approach to RPGs so... counterproductive.

If you're looking for the discussion of pure "this is what the rules say", then you're looking for the other ongoing thread on magical darkness.

[Evaar]

Looking at the Create Bonfire spell online multiple places, I see absolutely no reference to the fire not generating light -- the only reasonable conclusion is that it acts like normal fire... and generates light. It's a fire. Fires generate light. That's that.

A claim that the spell must specifically state that it generates light in order to generate light would be an excellent example of why I find the rules-laywering, rules-first, gamist approach to RPGs so... counterproductive.

If you're looking for the discussion of pure "this is what the rules say", then you're looking for the other ongoing thread on magical darkness.

If fire spells generate light without needing to specify they generate light, why does Produce Flame specify it generates light?


A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for the duration and harms neither you nor your equipment. The flame sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. The spell ends if you dismiss it as an action or if you cast it again.

Or Flaming Sphere?


When you move the sphere, you can direct it over barriers up to 5 feet tall and jump it across pits up to 10 feet wide. The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried, and it sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet.

The clear precedent is that if a spell is ongoing and sheds light, that is specified by the spell.

We might be discussing two different things, as I agree that of course Create Bonfire is going to create light and it's an oversight that the spell doesn't say how much. So you houserule a reasonable amount of light to maintain the verisimilitude. Just like you'd houserule the Darkness spell to block line of sight like an inkblot because that's how you'd expect it to look and function. But the spell doesn't include that information and it's a presumption to assume it was left out by mistake.

[Aimeryan]

If magical darkness doesn't actively block light, then I would ask how it squelches light sources and blocks Darkvision.

The argument with regards to the Darkness spell is that it only lists two additional properties to that of being darkness: creatures with darkvision cannot see through (which is absurd if creatures without it can, but eh), and, nonmagical light cannot illuminate it.

The first is interesting in its own way - it is pretty much the definition of the ink-blot interpretion, but oddly only in regards to darkvision. Actually, that isn't true - a creature with darkvision cannot see through it, not technically the darkvision itself. This means it must also block vision for normal vision, but only for creatures with darkvision... *sigh*

The second only means light cannot be reflected from any matter within the area, as this is what illuminating something means. In order to perceive something visually it needs to interact with light to some noticeable degree - absorb, reflect, diffract, etc. Most of the interaction that we convert into visual images that we can understand comes from objects absorbing (darkening in contrast to other things) and reflecting (wavelength and reflectivity dictating colour and brightness). If something only absorbs and does not reflect then it is going to look black - what happens to the non-absorbed non-reflected light is not specified by the spell.

Air, and indeed anything effectively invisible, interacts with light very minimally - so not allowing air to reflect light at all makes very little difference to our ability to see through it. This is why we would see silhouettes instead of a solid black sphere - presuming we can see through normal darkness.

[Max_Killjoy]

If fire spells generate light without needing to specify they generate light, why does Produce Flame specify it generates light?



Or Flaming Sphere?



The clear precedent is that if a spell is ongoing and sheds light, that is specified by the spell.

We might be discussing two different things, as I agree that of course Create Bonfire is going to create light and it's an oversight that the spell doesn't say how much. So you houserule a reasonable amount of light to maintain the verisimilitude. Just like you'd houserule the Darkness spell to block line of sight like an inkblot because that's how you'd expect it to look and function. But the spell doesn't include that information and it's a presumption to assume it was left out by mistake.

I don't consider the obvious consequence of a stated fact to be a houserule.

The stated fact is that Create Bonfire creates a bonfire. Fires generate light. Therefore, light.

If I had to make a guess at why those other two spells specifically state that light is generated, it's that the author(s) cared about the radius and intensity of the light generated by the other two (which is spelled out), more than that they felt the need to specify that the fires conjured up do actually generate light. Whereas for Create Bonfire, they figured that players would treat the created bonfire like a bonfire, including the heat and light generated, and look up or intuit from experience how much light a bonfire generates.

Or it's just another example of sloppy writing?

[Segev]

If magical darkness doesn't actively block light, then I would ask how it squelches light sources and blocks Darkvision.

"It's magic."

I mean, "if magical flight doesn't negate gravity, how does it hold you aloft?" It just does, and no mention is made of your various gravity-requiring items failing, or your equilibrium being off, or a sensation of falling. Your hair isn't noted to rise like it's weightless in the air.

If it makes you feel better, it could just stop the light source from shedding light. Just like an invisible light source can still shed light without being, itself, seen.

I understand that the notion that it does this is easier for you to accept if there's an impenetrable black fog or equivalent surrounding it and thus blocking the light in on all sides, but that doesn't mean it's the only explanation.

[Tanarii]

Even blocking line of sight and preventing illumination within the area doesn't necessarily mean it's intended to block light sources from illuminating outside the area if they would normally, even if they are within the affected area or on the other side of it.

Unless we're trying to apply physics to magic or something. Because then it could totally make sense. But I'm talking about possible developer RAI for the spell here. And figuring out illuminated areas is a hell of a lot easier if you just assume they're completely normal except for the area affected by the spell, especially on a map/mat/grid.

Note I am also assuming developer RAI for Darkness spell was it blocks sight, and they just didn't explicitly call that out. In other words, I am assuming inky blot was the intention. Mostly because that's how it's always been in previous editions.