Shadow Sorcerer and their own Darkness

[Segev]

The first level feature says of the darkness spell: "If you cast it with sorcery points, you can see through the darkness created by the spell." While Eyes of Darkness gives the Shadow Sorcerer 120 ft. darkvision, it doesn't actually say you need to use that darkvision to see in the darkness spell. I imagine this is a DM call, and that many would say, "well, without darkvision, you can't see in darkness anyway," but it does explicitly say that the shadow sorcerer can see through the darkness created by the spell, not that his darkvision can do so, nor that he can use darkvision to do so.

Why might this be important? Imagine the shadow sorcerer casting darkness and then moving away from it, perhaps quite a distance away. Can he still see into it or through it? Could a coffeelock, for instance, using spell sniper and distant spell to get a 1200 ft. eldritch blast drop darkness on an arrow that he fires (who cares about proficiency when targeting a square?) to land the darkness on a distant target 600 or so feet out still fire eldritch blasts at them, now with advantage due to them being blind but his ability to see through his own darkness?

[chiefwaha]

I believe it is specific overrules general, and it very specifically says if you use sorcery points you can see through the darkness... IMO, that means darkvision or distance mean nothing in this instance. Might be other rules I'm not considering, but I wouldn't have any concerns allowing this as a DM.

[quindraco]

The first level feature says of the darkness spell: "If you cast it with sorcery points, you can see through the darkness created by the spell." While Eyes of Darkness gives the Shadow Sorcerer 120 ft. darkvision, it doesn't actually say you need to use that darkvision to see in the darkness spell. I imagine this is a DM call, and that many would say, "well, without darkvision, you can't see in darkness anyway," but it does explicitly say that the shadow sorcerer can see through the darkness created by the spell, not that his darkvision can do so, nor that he can use darkvision to do so.

Why might this be important? Imagine the shadow sorcerer casting darkness and then moving away from it, perhaps quite a distance away. Can he still see into it or through it? Could a coffeelock, for instance, using spell sniper and distant spell to get a 1200 ft. eldritch blast drop darkness on an arrow that he fires (who cares about proficiency when targeting a square?) to land the darkness on a distant target 600 or so feet out still fire eldritch blasts at them, now with advantage due to them being blind but his ability to see through his own darkness?

Certainly, but also, why bother? Devil's Sight does the same thing but better with naught but an invocation.

[chiefwaha]

Certainly, but also, why bother? Devil's Sight does the same thing but better with naught but an invocation.

Devil's sight is specifically limited to 120 ft though. Also, I think this is more of a hypothetical question, as there are so many limitations and counters to the situation that it's almost pointless to do it. The best I can see is 1 round of attacks at advantage.

[Segev]

Certainly, but also, why bother? Devil's Sight does the same thing but better with naught but an invocation.


Devil's sight is specifically limited to 120 ft though. Also, I think this is more of a hypothetical question, as there are so many limitations and counters to the situation that it's almost pointless to do it. The best I can see is 1 round of attacks at advantage.

Not sure about "1 round" or not, but yes, this would be highly situational. Mainly of interest if you can throw the magical darkness a good distance away and still attack into it. And chiefwaha is right: this is superior to Devil's Sight because, if you read it as not being dependent on using darkvision, you could see through your own darkness spell at 300 feet, 600 feet, or even a mile away. Assuming you can see that far in the first place.

[chiefwaha]

Not sure about "1 round" or not, but yes, this would be highly situational. Mainly of interest if you can throw the magical darkness a good distance away and still attack into it. And chiefwaha is right: this is superior to Devil's Sight because, if you read it as not being dependent on using darkvision, you could see through your own darkness spell at 300 feet, 600 feet, or even a mile away. Assuming you can see that far in the first place.

Might be a few situations where it is better, but it's really hard to see them. Maybe keeping a hole open in some fortifications for troops to storm through(targeting a weak point with darkness and slaughtering anyone that might come into the area to try and defend the area).

The limited situations is why as a DM I wouldn't rule the darkvision is a prerequisite(and I love seeing players use different strategies to surprise me)

[Segev]

Might be a few situations where it is better, but it's really hard to see them. Maybe keeping a hole open in some fortifications for troops to storm through(targeting a weak point with darkness and slaughtering anyone that might come into the area to try and defend the area).

The limited situations is why as a DM I wouldn't rule the darkvision is a prerequisite(and I love seeing players use different strategies to surprise me)

It doesn't apply to the game I'm drawing inspiration for the scenario from, since none of the PCs are shadow sorcerers nor likely to enter into the class, but I'm in a high seas game where we frequently start encounters half a mile or more away from the enemy ship(s), and that only because that's when we're finally in cannon range of one or the other. Very long range attacks matter here because they govern ranges at which the fighting is more than just maneuvering for position on the water. Our party HAS used darkness on cannon balls to blind forward cannons on enemy vessels. If it were cast by a Shadow Sorcerer, it would potentially let said sorcerer still aim into the area if he had the range for it. (A sorlock using distant spell, eldritch spear, and spell sniper, for example.)

I don't know if anything BUT high seas has that much visibility at that range, but any game where such things come up, it could be a viable build strategy.

[Chronos]

A much more relevant point: If it just let you use your Darkvision, then you'd still have disadvantage, because darkvision lets you treat total darkness like dim light. But it doesn't do that; it just says you see through it, with no penalties specified, so presumably you see as well as in full lighting.

Which leads to the next question: What if you're in an area that's already naturally dark (a deep cave, or just the surface at night), and then cast Darkness? Do you actually see better in the magical darkness than in the natural darkness? Personally, I would say yes, on grounds of Rule of Cool, but I could see it argued either way.

[Keravath]

I'd personally rule that if the sorcerer can see TO the darkness then they can see through it no matter what distance is involved. I would tend to not allow the spell to create a region of "light" for the sorcerer if everywhere else is dark or otherwise obscured and they are prevented from seeing the area where the darkness spell is cast.

The ability only says that the sorcerer can see through it - not that they can see to it.

In your example of a darkness spell cast on a cannon ball then, if it was fired during daylight or dim light (twilight or moon lit night) then if the sorcerer can normally see the area where the darkness spell is then they can see through it. If the cannon ball was fired into a dark night where no one can see anything beyond the range of darkvision then I would say that the darkness spell does not create a region that would be effectively illuminated for the shadow sorcerer - if they can't see to it then you can't see it.

However, that is just how I would run it and I can easily see someone saying the darkness area could be considered illuminated for the shadow sorcerer so that they could see into it no matter what the range or lighting conditions. However, if there was a fog cloud or a wall or other obstruction would the shadow sorcerer still be able to see into the region of darkness? (I would tend to rule not again).

[Segev]

A much more relevant point: If it just let you use your Darkvision, then you'd still have disadvantage, because darkvision lets you treat total darkness like dim light. But it doesn't do that; it just says you see through it, with no penalties specified, so presumably you see as well as in full lighting.

Which leads to the next question: What if you're in an area that's already naturally dark (a deep cave, or just the surface at night), and then cast Darkness? Do you actually see better in the magical darkness than in the natural darkness? Personally, I would say yes, on grounds of Rule of Cool, but I could see it argued either way.


I'd personally rule that if the sorcerer can see TO the darkness then they can see through it no matter what distance is involved. I would tend to not allow the spell to create a region of "light" for the sorcerer if everywhere else is dark or otherwise obscured and they are prevented from seeing the area where the darkness spell is cast.

The ability only says that the sorcerer can see through it - not that they can see to it.

In your example of a darkness spell cast on a cannon ball then, if it was fired during daylight or dim light (twilight or moon lit night) then if the sorcerer can normally see the area where the darkness spell is then they can see through it. If the cannon ball was fired into a dark night where no one can see anything beyond the range of darkvision then I would say that the darkness spell does not create a region that would be effectively illuminated for the shadow sorcerer - if they can't see to it then you can't see it.

However, that is just how I would run it and I can easily see someone saying the darkness area could be considered illuminated for the shadow sorcerer so that they could see into it no matter what the range or lighting conditions. However, if there was a fog cloud or a wall or other obstruction would the shadow sorcerer still be able to see into the region of darkness? (I would tend to rule not again).

I had not considered these points; thanks to both of you for bringing up and discussing them. I think my instinct would have been akin to Keravath's, though like Chronos, rule of cool letting the Shadow Sorcerer use his darkness spell like special only-for-him lighting might be something I'd permit. I would not argue with a DM either way on it.

As I type, I realize it raises a further interesting question to rule that it doesn't permit the sorcerer to see clearly as if it "lit up" the area:

I was going to suggest casting light and darkness on the same arrow, but then realized that darkness specifically dispels lower-level light magic whose area overlaps it. When I thought about casting darkness on a burning arrow/torch, or hurling a magically-lit arrow next to the darkness arrow, it occurred to me that darkness specifically prevents nonmagical light from illuminating its area, and while it doesn't prevent magical light from illuminating its area, it dispels that magical light if their areas overlap at all if the magical light is lower level. Not just if the magical light source enters it, but if their areas overlap.

There are two ways to take this from here:
It is definitely not illuminated in the magical area of darkness, so you DO need Darkvision or Devil's Sight to see into it just because it is - even without the "darkvision can't see through this darkness" clause - definitely not illuminated unless you have 3rd level or higher magical light (which means anybody can see into it, if you do), or
the "you can see through the darkness created by this spell" clause is absolute, and even though it prevents light from illuminating its area, you can see through it regardless of the ambient illumination.
A third option occurs to me as I type: There are potentially two "darknesses" in an area of the darkness spell: "the darkness created by this spell" is any darkness caused by the spell preventing nonmagical illumination from shining within; and darkness that may be there even without the spell. In this interpretation, magical light of 2nd level or lower doesn't help the Shadow Sorcerer see into it, either, since it's dispelled, but nonmagical light of any source - within or without - would.

I think interpretation (1) is the most strict, and brings us back to needing the magical darkness to be in your Darkvision range to see into it, and still having disadvantage on perception checks in it because it's still dark, even if you can see through it as the Shadow Sorcerer who cast it. This also still makes Devil's Sight superior to the Shadow Sorcerer's personal explicit exception even in the Shadow Sorcerer's own darkness.

I think interpretation (2) and (3) are both valid, as well, though (3) is pretty complicated to reason through and not likely RAI. I could see (2) or (1) being RAI.

I think I am leaning towards (2) as the coolest and probably most fair, because the notion of a Shadow Sorcerer's personal darkness being even better than Devil's Sight because he can use it to "light up" an area of otherwise-dark within his range of natural vision, but only for him, is pretty darned cool. And while I can think of ways to make it useful, of course, none of them strike me as super-abusive in ways that the usual "darkness + Devil's Sight" shenanigans wouldn't be, and I'm pretty sure those are fully intended and not abuses at all.

[Temperjoke]

See, I interpret it as "You receive no extra penalty for looking through your own darkness". So, during a normal lighting scenario, to you it's the same as if the darkness didn't exist. If it were at night, then you'd still have the normal nighttime sight difficulties you'd have normally.

[Segev]

See, I interpret it as "You receive no extra penalty for looking through your own darkness". So, during a normal lighting scenario, to you it's the same as if the darkness didn't exist. If it were at night, then you'd still have the normal nighttime sight difficulties you'd have normally.

Which seems sensible until you examine what darkness does. Nonmagical light can't illuminate it, and magical light that overlaps with its area is dispelled unless it's high enough level to illuminate it normally. You'd still need Darkvision to see within it unless it provided pseudo-illumination of its own to the Shadow Sorcerer's sight.

But your ruling probably works well enough to be usable. I just get overly analytical.