Silly or stupid RAW rules

[Addaran]

What are the things you find extremely stupid if you fallow the raw. Something that you'd never think anyone would try to do , because it makes absolutely no sense or it's too broken. For me:

Abusing simulacrum and wish, so you don't risk losing it and the clones suffer the consequences.

Coffeelock to get infinite sorcery points/spell slots.

Someone mentioned using PAM while wielding a staff and another weapon, to get the opportunity attack with the other weapon.

There's been others over the years but those are the ones i remember.

[Tanarii]

Two opponents attacking each other when they can't see each other attack with neither disadvantage nor advantage. And cancel out any other advantages/disadvantages.

The Darkness spell doesn't explicitly call out that it's an Inky Blot(TM) blocking sight through it. It's possible to read it as allowing two characters on either side of it to see each other clearly, just not anything within it. And for anyone within it to see out clearly.

[ff7hero]

The Darkness spell doesn't explicitly call out that it's an Inky Blot(TM) blocking sight through it. It's possible to read it as allowing two characters on either side of it to see each other clearly, just not anything within it. And for anyone within it to see out clearly.

For anyone who reads this and gets worried, Darkness doesn't explicitly call out that it's an inky blot because it isn't. It creates a Heavily Obscured area which normal Darkvision can't see into. This was not the case prior to the errata to Heavily Obscured. (Although I'd wager the misconception has more to do with old editions and the novels starring a certain Drow Ranger).

That did remind of my own of my own RAW headache. You can see out of or through a Fog Cloud. Almost like treating Fog and Darkness as the same thing was never going to work.

[Marcloure]

Although I'd wager the misconception has more to do with old editions and the novels starring a certain Drow Ranger.

I mean, if you can see the silhouette of the creatures inside the darkness area, then it isn't that useful.

[ff7hero]

I mean, if you can see the silhouette of the creatures inside the darkness area, then it isn't that useful.

You can't see their silhouettes (although unless they Hide you can probably hear them), and the misconception comes into play when people start letting it block vision of things on the other side of the darkness, or outside of it for people inside.

[quindraco]

What are the things you find extremely stupid if you fallow the raw. Something that you'd never think anyone would try to do , because it makes absolutely no sense or it's too broken. For me:

Abusing simulacrum and wish, so you don't risk losing it and the clones suffer the consequences.

Coffeelock to get infinite sorcery points/spell slots.

Someone mentioned using PAM while wielding a staff and another weapon, to get the opportunity attack with the other weapon.

There's been others over the years but those are the ones i remember.

If we're listing examples of rules so broken/stupid they need a DM to kibosh them:

*Necromancers can spam Aid on themselves for infinite hit points.
*Returning nets.
*Subtle Spell doesn't render a spell subtle, because anyone watching you stroke your M component immediately knows you were casting a spell.

[Captain Panda]

By RAW, you cannot choose to fail a saving throw. Someone throws a fireball at you and you opt just to try to catch it in your mouth like a frisbee instead of dodging? Doesn't matter, you can save for half still.

Also most attack cantrips can target only a creature, not an object. Want to freeze a puddle with frostbite? Too bad, scrub! That isn't RAW! :\

[quinron]

You can't see their silhouettes (although unless they Hide you can probably hear them), and the misconception comes into play when people start letting it block vision of things on the other side of the darkness, or outside of it for people inside.

The fact that I'm having to restrain myself so hard from having the same absurd, brain-breaking argument that's been had like 4 times on this board is why darkness is probably the silliest or at least most poorly worded RAW spell.

As has been pointed out other places, the darkness rules in general are idiotic by RAW - total darkness is technically heavy obscurement, so by RAW two people holding torches on either end of a 100-foot-long dark corridor can't see each other.

[Lunali]

vampires can't revert from mist form

lycanthropes make their enemies immune to attacks from lycanthropes

[Tanarii]

As has been pointed out other places, the darkness rules in general are idiotic by RAW - total darkness is technically heavy obscurement, so by RAW two people holding torches on either end of a 100-foot-long dark corridor can't see each other.
The changed that rule. Now you're only effectively blinded when trying to see into the heavily obscured area. It doesn't affect seeing through it.

Which means you can see right through normal darkness ... but also a Fog Cloud. Just not anything in it.

All in all it's best just to run by the sensible RAI. The only problem is the RAI for the Darkness spell isn't made clear and are poorly worded. Lots of old edition players (myself included initially) just assume it's supposed to be Inky Blot, a sphere of impenetrable darkness you can't see into or through. Because that's how it was.

[MaxWilson]

What are the things you find extremely stupid if you fallow the raw. Something that you'd never think anyone would try to do , because it makes absolutely no sense or it's too broken. For me:

Abusing simulacrum and wish, so you don't risk losing it and the clones suffer the consequences.

Coffeelock to get infinite sorcery points/spell slots.

Someone mentioned using PAM while wielding a staff and another weapon, to get the opportunity attack with the other weapon.

There's been others over the years but those are the ones i remember.

Not allowing a vampire or Yochlol to turn from mist form into its regular form.

Allowing a drunk (poisoned), blind, exhausted, restrained-by-octopus tentacles archer shooting at a target 200 yards away (at long range) to avoid disadvantage just because the target is also blind. By RAW the blind archer will hit an AC 10ish target like a blind albino mouse well over 50% of the time, from 200 yards away while drunk!

BTW the fact that AC is unaffected by size sometimes leads to dumb results too.


As has been pointed out other places, the darkness rules in general are idiotic by RAW - total darkness is technically heavy obscurement, so by RAW two people holding torches on either end of a 100-foot-long dark corridor can't see each other.

Post-erata, they can see each other because neither of them is heavily obscured.


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.

[ff7hero]

Max's albino mouse reminds me of cats. No darkvision, very likely to die in a fall.

[Gurgeh]

Max's albino mouse reminds me of cats. No darkvision, very likely to die in a fall.
How far they have fallen from their 3.5 commoner-slaying heyday.

[Trafalgar]

Combat only interrupts a long rest if lasts an hour or more. Seems nonsensical but this was confirmed by Jeremy Crawford in a tweet (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/764150520646742016?lang=en).

[sithlordnergal]

Here are some fun ones for you:

1) If you're swallowed by a creature, you cannot target it with spells that require you to see the target because you are Blinded and cannot see anything

2) If you somehow manage to cast a spell while swallowed that lets the creature make a Dex or Strength save, they can try to make the save for Half Damage, despite the point of origin of the spell literally being inside of them

3) The Surprise rules and how you can technically stop being surprised if you roll high on initiative, even if there's no possible way for you to detect what's targeting you

4) You have to make a Strength (Athletics) check to climb things even if you have a Climb speed, unless you have Spiderclimb

5) Planar Binding causes you to lose Concentration on your spell when you cast it because its casting time is 1 hour. Meaning a single wizard can't actually conjure a creature and use Planar Binding, you need at least 2 casters to make it work.

[MaxWilson]

Here are some fun ones for you:

1) If you're swallowed by a creature, you cannot target it with spells that require you to see the target because you are Blinded and cannot see anything.

Also dumb: it can still claw/bite/tail swat you after swallowing you!


5) Planar Binding causes you to lose Concentration on your spell when you cast it because its casting time is 1 hour. Meaning a single wizard can't actually conjure a creature and use Planar Binding, you need at least 2 casters to make it work.

This one at least isn't an issue for Conjure Elemental, because "If your concentration is broken, the elemental doesn't disappear. Instead, you lose control of the elemental, it becomes hostile toward you and your companions, and it might attack. An uncontrolled elemental can't be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it."

[ff7hero]

This one at least isn't an issue for Conjure Elemental, because "If your concentration is broken, the elemental doesn't disappear. Instead, you lose control of the elemental, it becomes hostile toward you and your companions, and it might attack. An uncontrolled elemental can't be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it."

Wouldn't the 1 Hour casting time of Planar Binding mean a single caster still can't Bind a Conjured Elemental? Unless they have Action Surge or something I guess.

[MaxWilson]

Wouldn't the 1 Hour casting time of Planar Binding mean a single caster still can't Bind a Conjured Elemental? Unless they have Action Surge or something I guess.

It's controversial, but my take on it is that since a spell like Blade Ward which lasts for one round doesn't end until the end of your next turn (thus allowing you one action under the spell), a spell which lasts for an hour gives you time to make 600 actions, which is enough time to cast Planar Binding.

It's possible to read it the other way and declare that Conjure Elemental ends a few milliseconds before Planar Binding completes on the theory that there must have been a gap between finishing one spell and starting the next, but I honestly don't think 5E durations are meant to be that precise.

[ff7hero]

It's controversial, but my take on it is that since a spell like Blade Ward which lasts for one round doesn't end until the end of your next turn (thus allowing you one action under the spell), a spell which lasts for an hour gives you time to make 600 actions, which is enough time to cast Planar Binding.

It's possible to read it the other way and declare that Conjure Elemental ends a few milliseconds before Planar Binding completes on the theory that there must have been a gap between finishing one spell and starting the next, but I honestly don't think 5E durations are meant to be that precise.

I'd be arguing 6 seconds, not a few milliseconds, just to be clear, but I see your reasoning.

[MaxWilson]

I'd be arguing 6 seconds, not a few milliseconds, just to be clear, but I see your reasoning.

My response to that would be "why would you pause 6 seconds before starting to cast Planar Binding?"

[JackPhoenix]

4) You have to make a Strength (Athletics) check to climb things even if you have a Climb speed, unless you have Spiderclimb

False. "While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain). unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check."

You don't *have to* make a check when climbing under normal circumstances even if you don't have climb speed. And even spiders may have problem climbing on some surfaces, much less bigger and heavier creatures.


It's controversial, but my take on it is that since a spell like Blade Ward which lasts for one round doesn't end until the end of your next turn (thus allowing you one action under the spell), a spell which lasts for an hour gives you time to make 600 actions, which is enough time to cast Planar Binding.

What about a spell like Shield which lasts one round and ends at the start of your next turn?. Or a spell like Command, which only lasts until the target takes its turn, which may happen even in the same round you've cast it? It's less controversial and more "completely made up with no backing from the rules".

Actions aren't bad measurement, but it should be 600 of the *elemental's* actions... which, regardless of its initiative, will happen before you're able to take your 600 actions to cast Planat Binding.


My response to that would be "why would you pause 6 seconds before starting to cast Planar Binding?"

Because you can't start casting Planar Binding in the same round you've finished casting the previous spell, barring special circumstances, which means there'a bout 6 seconds between the two actions.

[Mjolnirbear]

By RAW, you cannot choose to fail a saving throw. Someone throws a fireball at you and you opt just to try to catch it in your mouth like a frisbee instead of dodging? Doesn't matter, you can save for half still.

Also most attack cantrips can target only a creature, not an object. Want to freeze a puddle with frostbite? Too bad, scrub! That isn't RAW! :\

My first point is a quibble: since the DM decides the rulings, why would he let you roll a save if you attempted something so foolish? The rules are there to help the table run the game, not hinder the consequences of foolish actions. I call it a quibble because we're discussing raw, not rulings, so your point probably stands.

My second point though is the ray of frost example? Neither silly nor stupid.

Sorcerer A chooses Shape Water as a cantrip with a lot of versatility. Warlock B chooses Ray of Frost for attack damage. If you let the warlock freeze puddles all day, then he gets attack AND versatility and the Sorcerer's choice is lessened and less effective.

Also, it's magic, not science; logic doesn't apply.

I also won't let a puddle turn Shocking Grasp into an AoE. Because that's a shocking (Hehe) power upgrade especially for an at-will spell so most DMs would immediately put the kibosh on such shenanigans. But somehow they should be letting you upgrade Ray of Frost?

Reason the 4th: you are, as a caster, a master of time and space. You have options that allow utmost creativity. While you're busy telling the laws of reality to sit down and shut up, the fighter gets... One more attack. Yay! So no. Magic does what it says in the tin. You want creative uses? Choose a creative spell. That'd why choices have consequences.

Conversely, non-spell options totally allow creativity at my table. Because there is no non-magical equivalent of Mold Earth or Minor Illusion or Prestidigitation so no-mags have no creative option to choose (unlike the warlock). And also, non-casters really have a bunch less options than a caster does, so much as I love playing casters, I see no reason not to buff martials in this way.

[Keravath]

For anyone who reads this and gets worried, Darkness doesn't explicitly call out that it's an inky blot because it isn't. It creates a Heavily Obscured area which normal Darkvision can't see into. This was not the case prior to the errata to Heavily Obscured. (Although I'd wager the misconception has more to do with old editions and the novels starring a certain Drow Ranger).

That did remind of my own of my own RAW headache. You can see out of or through a Fog Cloud. Almost like treating Fog and Darkness as the same thing was never going to work.

You realize that if Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area that you can't see through it?
"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely" ... a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely.

"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." .. this rule clarifies that trying to see something inside a heavily obscured area is equivalent to being blinded ... however, it does not change the wording that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely so you still can't see through it.

However, this has been argued frequently and isn't worth re-opening since both sides of the debate are pretty entrenched.

P.S. The vision rules could use re-writing to distinguish between darkness, magical darkness, fog cloud and other physical obstructions. Trying to treat them using the same wording runs into very weird issues.

[Willie the Duck]

I think people have mentioned the biggest offenders. Vision and Stealth rules seem to be the bugaboo of game design. Exact timing in 'everyone take turns' initiative systems as well.

My first point is a quibble: since the DM decides the rulings, why would he let you roll a save if you attempted something so foolish? The rules are there to help the table run the game, not hinder the consequences of foolish actions. I call it a quibble because we're discussing raw, not rulings, so your point probably stands.
I think the intended tone of the thread is to point out silliness in the rules, not speculate on whether said rules would be enforced at a table, or even whether a rulebook ought to have/not have such rules. I'd agree expecting a rulebook to feel the need to address some of the more outlandish situations is often itself absurd (I think most previous editions did have rules about voluntarily failing saves, but I believe it was generally intended for questionably-beneficial effects, and 5e has gone with 'If the target is unwilling, it can make a...' wording in specific spells instead).



Abusing simulacrum and wish, so you don't risk losing it and the clones suffer the consequences.
...
Someone mentioned using PAM while wielding a staff and another weapon, to get the opportunity attack with the other weapon.

It's certainly not the biggest issue, but I've always found in general one-handed quarterstaves and shields (with or without PAM) to be the most 'you couldn't have actually intended that, could you?'-ish. Conversely, Wish-Simulacrum I half suspect was deliberate, just to get the nigh-infinite wish loop out of the way so people could focus on everything else (like Hitchcock's appearance in his later movies).

[Gignere]

Mounted combat in 5e is a hot mess. Controlled/uncontrolled when does the mount go, mounting/dismounting a mount grants it a new turn. One hot pile of dog poop mess.

[Hytheter]

Combat only interrupts a long rest if lasts an hour or more. Seems nonsensical but this was confirmed by Jeremy Crawford in a tweet (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/764150520646742016?lang=en).

To me it has always been obvious that you're supposed to be able to get interrupted in the night without losing your rest, and that the rule is intended to prevent you from doing half a rest then doing a whole hour of proper adventuring stuff. It's not a "fighting ruins your whole night of sleep" rule it's a "you can't get anything meaningful done in the middle of a rest" rule.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

A druid barbarian who wildshaped before getting beast spells can get into rage and not lose concentration on his spell.

Wildshape says you can't cast spells.
Rage says you can concentrate or cast spells only if you can cast spells.
By not being able to cast spells before entering rage you can concentrate on them.

Someone posted it in this forum a long time ago.

[MrCharlie]

For anyone who reads this and gets worried, Darkness doesn't explicitly call out that it's an inky blot because it isn't. It creates a Heavily Obscured area which normal Darkvision can't see into. This was not the case prior to the errata to Heavily Obscured. (Although I'd wager the misconception has more to do with old editions and the novels starring a certain Drow Ranger).

That did remind of my own of my own RAW headache. You can see out of or through a Fog Cloud. Almost like treating Fog and Darkness as the same thing was never going to work.
It does not say "Cannot see into", it says "A creature with darkvision cannot see through this darkness". I don't know what absurd readings are popular now, but the clear RAW is that it blocks vision into and out of the darkness spell.

What is stupid is the vision rules generally, which combine with the targeting rules into an ambiguous mess that every DM reaches at some point and then casually bins so they can run the way they want to. For instance-Can you target an object with a spell that "ought" to do damage to it, like eldritch blast? The rules give info about how to resolve attacks on objects, and eldritch blast makes attacks, but it specifies creatures when targeting it.

What about an illusion of a creature-it's not a valid target, so the spell can't ever target it. This means that you can check for illusions by attempting to cast a spell, and if it does not work-with no clear rules, mind you, for what happens to the slot or the expended beam on multi-target spells-you know it's not real. But doesn't that defeat the point of having illusions to begin with?

This isn't even getting into the various headaches involved with targeting creatures when you can see them with other visions, or when you can hear them and know where they are but don't technically have vision. Even if there are RAW for this, it's not explicitly clear what they are, and they lead to incredibly rules intensive metagamey situations which disrupt play frequently.

The entire rules regarding vision are a DMs nightmare if you try to play them "RAW", and the correct solution is, as I said, to bin them and simply use what seems right in the situation. They desperately need a sanity checking re-write to confer with game logic and gameplay mechanics.

[da newt]

The over complicated mess that is 'natural weapon' 'unarmed strike' 'melee attack' 'melee weapon attack' 'attack with a melee weapon' 'weapon attack' 'attack' 'attack with a weapon' 'special attack' etc ...

The foolish SCAG cantrip weapons with a cost mess is just dumb. Does it work with shadow blade or not - write it out in plain English.

Illusions - what can they do / what can't they do.

And of course vision / light / obscurement.

[Amnestic]

Teleporting out of Evard's Black Tentacles still leaves you restrained by it, although you don't take the repeating damage.

[Trafalgar]

To me it has always been obvious that you're supposed to be able to get interrupted in the night without losing your rest, and that the rule is intended to prevent you from doing half a rest then doing a whole hour of proper adventuring stuff. It's not a "fighting ruins your whole night of sleep" rule it's a "you can't get anything meaningful done in the middle of a rest" rule.

I am not sure why 599 rounds of combat isn't considered "proper adventuring stuff". Your giving damage, taking damage, running around, etc.

[Kvess]

Humans can survive by eating a pound of food once every four days indefinitely without any mechanical consequences.

[EggKookoo]

The rules for surprise. On one hand, they're unnecessarily complicated. On the other hand, there probably should be some distinction between "hide out of sight and ambush those guys" and "hit that dude when he's not expecting it." Like, ambush vs. sucker punch.

On a related topic, it's weird that a creature can spontaneously attack during an otherwise "peaceful" moment, but then act last in the round. This isn't a problem only with the current edition but is a common thing in turn-based combat.

I feel like a creature with Powerful Build should be able to wear heavy armor without penalty despite not meeting the Strength requirement. I get that being effective at wearing armor is more than about raw strength, but that's what armor proficiency is for. The Strength requirement for heavy armor is literally a question of strength, which the Powerful Build creature has to a greater degree than his Strength score would suggest.

I get the purpose behind concentration, but I think the devs went a little too concentration-happy. Barkskin, in particular, is annoying.

And as has been already mentioned, cats and darkvision.

[Kuulvheysoon]

How hilariously long it takes people to suffocate in this edition. Not objectively, but relatively. It's (all but) impossible to drown in combat, which is kinda stupid.

[Amnestic]

How hilariously long it takes people to suffocate in this edition. Not objectively, but relatively. It's (all but) impossible to drown in combat, which is kinda stupid.

ConMod rounds to choke someone out seems fairly reasonable to me. It does make it less useful in combat though, admittedly, but I'm not really sure you want everyone to be choking each other from 100% HP to 0 in 1-2 rounds anyway.

[MrCharlie]

ConMod rounds to choke someone out seems fairly reasonable to me. It does make it less useful in combat though, admittedly, but I'm not really sure you want everyone to be choking each other from 100% HP to 0 in 1-2 rounds anyway.
If you can hold your breath first, it's on the scale of 10-60 rounds, which is virtually impossible in combat even for low CON characters. If it was CON Mod rounds, it would be quite reasonable-there are no RAW ways to choke someone out regardless, but if it's a contested grapple then that's a 1-5 round maneuver typically, which is about what it would take for a single combatant to neutralize someone just smacking them with a weapon instead, and situationally better or worse. Which is where it should be.

[Amnestic]

If you can hold your breath first, it's on the scale of 10-60 rounds, which is virtually impossible in combat even for low CON characters. If it was CON Mod rounds, it would be quite reasonable-there are no RAW ways to choke someone out regardless, but if it's a contested grapple then that's a 1-5 round maneuver typically, which is about what it would take for a single combatant to neutralize someone just smacking them with a weapon instead, and situationally better or worse. Which is where it should be.

Sure, but usually if you're suddenly choking or drowning someone they don't have a chance to hold their breath. "Holding your breath" to me seems like the sort of thing that takes preparation for a big breath. It's the thing you do when your party is going swimming under water, it's not the sort of thing where Joey Tentacles suddenly wraps his namesake appendages around your neck.

[Trafalgar]

ConMod rounds to choke someone out seems fairly reasonable to me. It does make it less useful in combat though, admittedly, but I'm not really sure you want everyone to be choking each other from 100% HP to 0 in 1-2 rounds anyway.

Real world chokeholds work two ways: they either stop the blood from reaching the brain or they stop the air from reaching the lungs. Blood chokes are faster and can knock someone out in less than 20 seconds. An air chokes will take a lot longer like over a minute.

World record for holding your breath is 24 minutes.

In game though, I agree that chokeholds knocking someone out in a couple of rounds would unbalance things, make grappling much more powerful than it already is.

[Demonslayer666]

Witchbolt is very silly. Flavorful, but silly.
Advantage and Disadvantage not stacking.
Using Charisma to escape a Force Cage via teleport. Let me broaden that: Str, Cha, and Int saves are silly.
Healing to full on a long rest. You're just sleepy after getting roasted by dragon breath (knocked out and almost killed)? Leads to promotion of the 5 minute work day.
No ill effects from being knocked unconscious and healed 1 hp to get back into combat. Pop-up healing tactic is silly.
Observant feat only adding to passive perception.
Healing is not based on the targets hit dice. Cure wounds will fully heal a commoner from death's door like a Heal spell, but not a scratch of 10 points on an experienced fighter. It should heal a scratch on both (like 1d2 per HD or something similar).
Counterspell as a reaction. It would work much better as readied action.
Haste isn't strong enough, and action surge is too strong.
More confusing than silly, but casting multiple spells per turn should be much simpler.
CR system needs a lot of work. Easy-hard are all easy, and deadly is sometimes hard and almost never deadly.
Things like Magic Missile are not considered attacking because it doesn't have an attack roll.


Silly rule omissions:
magic item prices
example skill DCs

Frustrating rules interpretations (not RAW IMHO):
Players thinking they automatically notice everything that isn't hiding.
Hide as a bonus action doesn't mean you can hide at any time instantly.
Out of combat attacks that resolve before combat starts.
Magical Darkness not blocking line of sight.
Players trying to subtle cast without Subtle Spell.
Players thinking Persuasion is mind control. "But I rolled a natural 20!"

[Keravath]

A druid barbarian who wildshaped before getting beast spells can get into rage and not lose concentration on his spell.

Wildshape says you can't cast spells.
Rage says you can concentrate or cast spells only if you can cast spells.
By not being able to cast spells before entering rage you can concentrate on them.

Someone posted it in this forum a long time ago.

Rage says: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are in an anti-magic field - does this mean you can rage while still concentrating on a spell since you can't cast a spell inside the anti-magic field? Anti-magic has no effect on concentration?

I would say No. Is a druid/barbarian able to cast spells? I would say Yes. There may be circumstances - tied up, anti-magic field, wild shaped that would prevent a creature from casting a spell at a particular time or place but the character is still capable of casting spells. As a result, I would say that they can't concentrate while raging no matter what form they are in. (but I can see the other reading).

[EggKookoo]

In game though, I agree that chokeholds knocking someone out in a couple of rounds would unbalance things, make grappling much more powerful than it already is.

There's also the weirdness that you can sneak up on a sleeping guard, put your knife to his bare throat, slice, and... deal 5 pts of damage out of his 30 total.

Hit points aren't really good for modeling general durability. They're meant to model combat fitness. D&D could model slicing the guard's throat as some kind of save-or-die system, but no one likes those. So, you end up sawing away at the guard's throat...

[MaxWilson]

Healing is not based on the targets hit dice. Cure wounds will fully heal a commoner from death's door like a Heal spell, but not a scratch of 10 points on an experienced fighter. It should heal a scratch on both (like 1d2 per HD or something similar).

It heals a greatsword wound on either. The difference is that the Commoner dies when there's a greatsword impaling then, whereas the high-level Fighter keeps functioning, like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. (It's very silly though that the wound heals overnight, I agree with you on that part. Should take days or weeks to heal naturally.)

[EggKookoo]

It's very silly though that the wound heals overnight, I agree with you on that part.

It doesn't. It just stops being a liability during a fight overnight. The wound itself is there for weeks (sans magical healing).

[Segev]

Mounted combat in 5e is a hot mess. Controlled/uncontrolled when does the mount go, mounting/dismounting a mount grants it a new turn. One hot pile of dog poop mess.

Eh, there are whole threads on this, but I will say that it being "a hot mess" is in contention, and that the reading of initiative I subscribe to makes it very clear how it works, with it being consistent with (my reading of) the RAW and without ambiguity.

Also, I contend that non-ink-blot darkness makes perfect sense and works just fine, though I understand people preferring to use legacy 3e-and-earlier ink blot darkness. To me, that just makes it a weird fog cloud, which is why I dislike it.

[Trafalgar]

There's also the weirdness that you can sneak up on a sleeping guard, put your knife to his bare throat, slice, and... deal 5 pts of damage out of his 30 total.

Hit points aren't really good for modeling general durability. They're meant to model combat fitness. D&D could model slicing the guard's throat as some kind of save-or-die system, but no one likes those. So, you end up sawing away at the guard's throat...

I always took situations like this as being covered under Rogue Sneak Attacks. Especially under the assassin subclass abilities.

[MaxWilson]

Also, I contend that non-ink-blot darkness makes perfect sense and works just fine, though I understand people preferring to use legacy 3e-and-earlier ink blot darkness. To me, that just makes it a weird fog cloud, which is why I dislike it.

Yeah, magical darkness where it shouldn't be dark is cool if it acts like darkness. Anti-light is cool, and impossible in real life. Smoke grenades exist in real life and are not as cool as darkness where it should be light.


It doesn't. It just stops being a liability during a fight overnight. The wound itself is there for weeks (sans magical healing).

Well, under that interpretation it's silly that three greatsword wounds in one day will kill you, but fourteen of them in a week is not a problem even though they won't heal for weeks yet. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It's silly but oh well.

[EggKookoo]

Well, under that interpretation it's silly that three greatsword wounds in one day will kill you, but fourteen of them in a week is not a problem even though they won't heal for weeks yet. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It's silly but oh well.

I mean 14/7 < 3 so we're all good there!

[KorvinStarmast]

Mounted combat in 5e is a hot mess. Controlled/uncontrolled when does the mount go, mounting/dismounting a mount grants it a new turn. One hot pile of dog poop mess. Concur.

Humans can survive by eating a pound of food once every four days indefinitely without any mechanical consequences.
Do you have any idea how many meals I can make out of one pound of oats?

Stupidest rule in this edition: you can knock a flying creature prone.

sorry, prone, the term, the word, is a comparative term to the ground based term standing upright.

A flying dragon is, to use but one example, already prone (in that he's not standing up)

Dumbest rule in the game; (a) you can make a flying creature prone and (b) making it prone makes if fall. If that were the case, it couldn't fly in the first place.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. :smalltongue:

[Amnestic]

Concur.

Do you have any idea how many meals I can make out of one pound of oats?

Stupidest rule in this edition: you can knock a flying creature prone.

sorry, prone, the term, the word, is a comparative term to the ground based term standing upright.

A flying dragon is, to use but one example, already prone (in that he's not standing up)

Dumbest rule in the game; (a) you can make a flying creature prone and (b) making it prone makes if fall. If that were the case, it couldn't fly in the first place.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. :smalltongue:

Unless it's magical flying/has hover, in which case it can be knocked prone in the air and that means ranged attacks have disadvantage against it...for reasons.

Also a dragon might be able to willingly fall prone on the ground, then fly up while still prone to get that juicy disadvantage.

[Kane0]

While we're talking falling, isnt that instantaneous unless its beyond a certain distance?

[Kuulvheysoon]

While we're talking falling, isnt that instantaneous unless its beyond a certain distance?

I believe that according to XGtE, you instantly fall 500 feet at the start of your turn.

[Trafalgar]

It heals a greatsword wound on either. The difference is that the Commoner dies when there's a greatsword impaling then, whereas the high-level Fighter keeps functioning, like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. (It's very silly though that the wound heals overnight, I agree with you on that part. Should take days or weeks to heal naturally.)

Look at falling damage.

Without any CON Bonus, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a 10' fall will kill a Lvl 1 Sorcerer or Wizard.

Without any CON Bonus, there is no chance that a 2000' fall will kill a Lvl 20 Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Look at falling damage.

Without any CON Bonus, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a 10' fall will kill a Lvl 1 Sorcerer or Wizard.

Without any CON Bonus, there is no chance that a 2000' fall will kill a Lvl 20 Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin.

Actually, there's not a good chance, but it's certainly possible for a 2000 foot fall to kill a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin. Max damage of 20d6 is 120, and average HP of a d10 class with a +0 Constitution modifier is 10+(19*5.5)=104.5.

On the other hand, a barb will have 12+(19*6.5)+40=175.5 (they get the +40 HP from Primal Champion increasing their Constitution score by 4), so they'll easily tank it.

But your point remains. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.:smalltongue:

[Kane0]

The instant fall thing is pretty funny.

Druid: "I jump through the window and wildshape into an eagle, flying south to deliver the message myself"
DM: *rolls* "You take 13 falling damage, and it takes you half of your speed to get up from prone before flying off"

Of course this is a *strictly* literal reading of the rules.

[MaxWilson]

Look at falling damage.

Without any CON Bonus, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a 10' fall will kill a Lvl 1 Sorcerer or Wizard.

Without any CON Bonus, there is no chance that a 2000' fall will kill a Lvl 20 Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin.

Can you clarify your point please?

[EggKookoo]

Threads like this remind me that it's virtually impossible to play a purely RAW game. At least without occasional collapses into absurdity. But then, I suppose that's the point...

[Trafalgar]

Can you clarify your point please?

The title of the thread is "Silly or stupid RAW Rules". What clarification do you need?

[JNAProductions]

The title of the thread is "Silly or stupid RAW Rules". What clarification do you need?

I mean, I can make a first-level PC who has over a 1/3 chance of surviving a fall from orbit.

If they happen to get an 18 in Con to start (rolling for stats) that chance jumps to just shy of 60%.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Threads like this remind me that it's virtually impossible to play a purely RAW game. At least without occasional collapses into absurdity. But then, I suppose that's the point...

Exactly. But then again, that's by design. RAW was never designed to be enough to play by. It's a starting place, a set of suggestions for DMs and tables to build the real rules (rather rulings) that govern play. You were never intended to read it literally and ignore DM/player judgement.

So in essence, playing "straight RAW" isn't actually possible--it's inherently contradictory, because RAW tells you to look outside of RAW and insert judgement and reason and your own priorities. You're supposed to bring lots of things to the table yourself, not just mechanically follow some printed words because they're printed. If you want that style, there are lots of "RPG" board games out there that do a lot better of a job at that (at a cost, of course).

[MrCharlie]

Concur.

Do you have any idea how many meals I can make out of one pound of oats?

Stupidest rule in this edition: you can knock a flying creature prone.

sorry, prone, the term, the word, is a comparative term to the ground based term standing upright.

A flying dragon is, to use but one example, already prone (in that he's not standing up)

Dumbest rule in the game; (a) you can make a flying creature prone and (b) making it prone makes if fall. If that were the case, it couldn't fly in the first place.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. :smalltongue:
I disagree strongly. I actually like that prone can be inflicted on flying creatures by a few spells and tactics quite a bit, simply because most of the conditions that would render a flying creature prone would also knock a flying creature around and disrupt its flight. Sleet storm, tidal wave, successfully shoving the creature, swatting a creature out of the air is within the scope of all of these abilities.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I disagree strongly. I actually like that prone can be inflicted on flying creatures by a few spells and tactics quite a bit, simply because most of the conditions that would render a flying creature prone would also knock a flying creature around and disrupt its flight. Sleet storm, tidal wave, successfully shoving the creature, swatting a creature out of the air is within the scope of all of these abilities.

For example I smacked this fly it hit a wall then the floor then flew away. How else can you describe on D&D terms other then being knocked prone.

If lose your balance you fall doesn’t matter if your walking on legs or flying with wings. You can fall over a hundred feet in just three seconds.

[MaxWilson]

The title of the thread is "Silly or stupid RAW Rules". What clarification do you need?

"Why did you quote me in your post?"

From your latest post I guess that was just an accident.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree strongly.

Words have meanings, and what prone means in plain English has nothing to do with attaching that word to a mechanical game condition. Your disagreement is noted, and placed in file 13.

The issue at hand regarding creatures on the ground is at least remotely related to what the word prone means. The dire wolf knocks you over. OK, prone (which is actually lying down, not merely "knocked off of your feet") is close enough. (And I'll take it a step further: in rifle competition, standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone are all different body relationships with the ground and are all distinct ways to fire the rifle. In D&D, three of the four are lumped into "prone").

For flying creatures, another term and another mechanical thing that makes something like sense as it applies to flying and 3d movement is needed.

Stupid rule, WoTC were too lazy to come up with a term and a condition that actually fits flying and three dimensional movement. (To include hovering, which I learned how to do flying helicopters).

Or, you can do as the authors did, and roughly call Vaseline(TM) an adhesive.

[greenstone]

A lot of silly stuff in the rules is there because modelling real-world, real-time situations using a turn-based game is, well, silly. :-)

I think advantage/disadvantage not stacking is silly, but I understand the reason they did it (to avoid the plus-hunting that took up soooo much time in earlier versions).

I think hit points are silly, but I have no idea what a better model would be. I like the assumption that a D&D character is like a movie hero - able to shrug off injury after injury over the course of the movie, with only the last battle being at all dangerous. Sure, in real-life, a single sword hit will have you disabled and convalescing for weeks, but that makes for a bad gameplay experience, and this is, after all, a game. For comparison, check out the FNFF system for Cyperpunk 2013, which boils down to "whoever lands a shot first wins."

I think it's stupid that the authors haven't rewritten the bits of the rules that cause ongoing, frequently-heated discussion. Darkness, stealth (oh, yes, for the love of all that's holy, please rewite the stealth rules in plain English that makes sense!), mounted combat.

I think gnomes are stupid.

I think its stupid that the core books have such atrocious indexes.

I think its stupid how much arguing there is for things to give PCs more power (like allowing assassins to always go first so they can always use their assassin powers). As a GM, it's already almost impossible to defeat a party of PCS (at least without being a ****). Seriously, you players don't need any more advantages.

[Pex]

There is also the counterpoint of it being “silly or stupid” not to have rules where there should have been, which can lead to silly and stupid debates such as how hard is it to climb a tree. :smallyuk::smallbiggrin:

[MrCharlie]

Words have meanings, and what prone means in plain English has nothing to do with attaching that word to a mechanical game condition. Your disagreement is noted, and placed in file 13.

The issue at hand regarding creatures on the ground is at least remotely related to what the word prone means. The dire wolf knocks you over. OK, prone (which is actually lying down, not merely "knocked off of your feet") is close enough. (And I'll take it a step further: in rifle competition, standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone are all different body relationships with the ground and are all distinct ways to fire the rifle. In D&D, three of the four are lumped into "prone").

For flying creatures, another term and another mechanical thing that makes something like sense as it applies to flying and 3d movement is needed.

Stupid rule, WoTC were too lazy to come up with a term and a condition that actually fits flying and three dimensional movement. (To include hovering, which I learned how to do flying helicopters).

Or, you can do as the authors did, and roughly call Vaseline(TM) an adhesive.
To be fair, you can apply this to basically every single thing in DnD; they don't translate perfectly.

There is nothing wrong with prone as a condition when applied to flying creatures, and it's actually quite logical. The game does not need another condition that is conditional on what form of movement is being used, particularly because that would require re-writing several spells which should work to both knock fliers out of the sky and knock over or delay people on the ground for no reason. Prone works fine. To put it more generally, you're complaining about the game lacking a level of detail that is pedantic, and expanding on it would be impractical and a pain to play with.

There are problems with flying movement, but they mostly amount to creatures flying in areas that should not support their wingspan or the acrobatics needed to do so, and/or not moving while flying and maintaining flight. The number of animals that can do that is miniscule. It also has real mechanical implications, because it makes flight a straight upgrade to walking in all circumstances, and there is virtually no reason to ever not use a fly speed.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Rage says: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are in an anti-magic field - does this mean you can rage while still concentrating on a spell since you can't cast a spell inside the anti-magic field? Anti-magic has no effect on concentration?

I would say No. Is a druid/barbarian able to cast spells? I would say Yes. There may be circumstances - tied up, anti-magic field, wild shaped that would prevent a creature from casting a spell at a particular time or place but the character is still capable of casting spells. As a result, I would say that they can't concentrate while raging no matter what form they are in. (but I can see the other reading).
That is silly and stupid RAW, I am sure no one will alow this loop hole in their table.

[MaxWilson]

Rage says: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are in an anti-magic field - does this mean you can rage while still concentrating on a spell since you can't cast a spell inside the anti-magic field? Anti-magic has no effect on concentration?

I would say No. Is a druid/barbarian able to cast spells? I would say Yes. There may be circumstances - tied up, anti-magic field, wild shaped that would prevent a creature from casting a spell at a particular time or place but the character is still capable of casting spells. As a result, I would say that they can't concentrate while raging no matter what form they are in. (but I can see the other reading).

Agreed. Otherwise you wind up in an absurd place where everybody can concentrate on spells while Raging, because if you can cast spells while Raging, you can't cast spells while Raging, and therefore you can concentrate on spells while Raging.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Agreed. Otherwise you wind up in an absurd place where everybody can concentrate on spells while Raging, because if you can cast spells while Raging, you can't cast spells while Raging, and therefore you can concentrate on spells while Raging.

I don't think so.
I think you can write it like this and it will keep the same meaning.

If you can cast spells you can't cast spells.
Or
If you can cast spells you can't concentrate on them(spells).

You need to not be able to cast spells before raging for it.

The only ability to concentrate on spells without the ability to cast them I know is a druid wild shape before he gets beast spells.

Also, this is the "Silly and stupid RAW rules" not "Use this new loophole in your table to see your DM rage".

[MaxWilson]

I don't think so.
I think you can write it like this and it will keep the same meaning.

If you can cast spells you can't cast spells.
Or
If you can cast spells you can't concentrate on them(spells).

You need to not be able to cast spells before raging for it.

The only ability to concentrate on spells without the ability to cast them I know is a druid wild shape before he gets beast spells.

Also, this is the "Silly and stupid RAW rules" not "Use this new loophole in your table to see your DM rage".

That's my point. Twisting the words in the PHB doesn't count. That Rage thing isn't RAW, it's just twisting the words.

In order for something to count as dumb RAW, it has to match the actual rule as conceived and written.

[Hytheter]

Yeah, the Rage thing is a pretty tortured reading. "If you are able to cast spells" isn't a condition - they only phrase it this way because Barbarians can't normally use spells to begin with. "Hey buddy, on the off chance you invested in some magic, you better keep this mind." It certainly doesn't imply that you actually can concentrate on spells as long as you are unable to cast them; such an interpretation is obviously disingenuous.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Yeah, the Rage thing is a pretty tortured reading. "If you are able to cast spells" isn't a condition - they only phrase it this way because Barbarians can't normally use spells to begin with. "Hey buddy, on the off chance you invested in some magic, you better keep this mind." It certainly doesn't imply that you actually can concentrate on spells as long as you are unable to cast them; such an interpretation is obviously disingenuous.
Lets assume I am wrong and it is not RAW. After all I am still sure I am correct as I see a condition written in text form and I see a single oversight that allows to use this condition in a way that was not intended, if it is not a silly RAW, I don't know what is.
(I claim that writing something in text that contradict the intention is silly).



In case I am wrong:
I am pretty sure writing this condition is silly RAW.
Write a condition open it to be used as a condition, which I am sure was not the intention. But the intention is RAI.

It is still silly, just a different silly.



That's my point. Twisting the words in the PHB doesn't count. That Rage thing isn't RAW, it's just twisting the words.

In order for something to count as dumb RAW, it has to match the actual rule as conceived and written.

Sir, I am pretty sure what you are talking about is RAI and not RAW

English is not my first language so I used Google for a definition of one of the words you used, current me if I miss understood you.

con·ceive
/kənˈsēv/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived
1.
become pregnant with (a child).
"she was conceived when her father was 49"
(of a woman) become pregnant.
"five months ago Wendy conceived"
Similar:
get pregnant
become pregnant
become impregnated
become inseminated
become fertilized
2.
form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
"the dam project was originally conceived in 1977"
Similar:
think up
think of
come up with
dream up
draw up
devise
form
formulate
design
frame
invent
coin
originate
create
develop
evolve
hatch
cook up
contrive
form a mental representation of; imagine.
"without society an individual cannot be conceived as having rights"
Similar:
imagine
envisage
visualize
picture
picture in one's mind's eye
conjure up an image of
think
see
perceive
grasp
appreciate
apprehend
envision
ideate
LITERARY
become affected by (a feeling).
"he conceived a passion for football"

[quinron]

Sir, I am pretty sure what you are talking about is RAI and not RAW

English is not my first language so I used Google for a definition of one of the words you used, current me if I miss understood you.

RAI is the term used when the context in which the rule is presented seems to clash somewhat with the actual writing (see the discussion of "prone" above, where clearly the designers are using that term to refer to more than just "lying on the ground").

If you choose to willfully misinterpret the rules to reach a stupid conclusion - which is what's being done with the Rage wording here - then it's not really fair to say "the RAW here is stupid." The stupid conclusion being reached is, arguably, more RAI than RAW.

[MaxWilson]

Sir, I am pretty sure what you are talking about is RAI and not RAW

English is not my first language so I used Google for a definition of one of the words you used, current me if I miss understood you.

Nope. RAI vs. RAI mismatch is for when the writers would say if you asked them, "oops, we didn't mean to write it that way." A good example: how darkness, pre-errata, used to work backward, blinding creatures within it instead of concealing them. The rules were clear, and clearly did not match intent.

But if the writers would give you a funny look and say, "that's not what it says to do," while you insist that it DOES say the ridiculous thing you insist it says, that's not the writer's fault and it's not a problem with RAW. It's just someone insisting on a ridiculous interpretation of a rule instead of the correct interpretation.

[Osuniev]

Combat only interrupts a long rest if lasts an hour or more. Seems nonsensical but this was confirmed by Jeremy Crawford in a tweet (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/764150520646742016?lang=en).

Seems logical to me. I've often been woken up in the middle of the night for an emergency (including, for example, a fire drill, or something requiring running as fast as I could for 3 minutes, etc...).
It didn't prevent me from sleeping afterwards and feeling rested in the morning.

This only SEEMS absurd from a gamist point of view : we expect Long Rest to be something the DM can interrupt and prevent. But this expectation is WRONG. 5e was designed with the idea that : "if the players want a Long Rest, nothing short of TPK or story based reasons is going to stop them".



On a related topic, it's weird that a creature can spontaneously attack during an otherwise "peaceful" moment, but then act last in the round. This isn't a problem only with the current edition but is a common thing in turn-based combat.


Uh, I always ruled that as either :
a- inflicting the "Surprised" condition on everyone else (so the initiator DOES act first) if the situation was expected to be non-combat. (I also use Passive Insight versus Deception to allow people to not be surprised but that's my own ruling)
b- starting a "normal" combat in a situation where everyone is wary of each other (which seems to follow verisimilitude to me : if you see someone drawing their sword, you can be fast enough to act before them).

But now that you mentions it, (a) might not be supported by the RAW ?



I feel like a creature with Powerful Build should be able to wear heavy armor without penalty despite not meeting the Strength requirement. I get that being effective at wearing armor is more than about raw strength, but that's what armor proficiency is for. The Strength requirement for heavy armor is literally a question of strength, which the Powerful Build creature has to a greater degree than his Strength score would suggest.

If you're using offical Variant Encumbrance rules, they state to IGNORE Strength requirements for armor (since what matters is only the weight of the armor, which is already taken into account by the Encumbrance penalty and altered by the Powerful Build) which elegantly fixes your problem. It also makes Strength less of a dump stat for everybody, which IMO is a good thing.

[JackPhoenix]

But now that you mentions it, (a) might not be supported by the RAW ?

No, it's RAW: the first step of any combat encounter, before rolling initiative, is "Determine surprise: The GM determines whether anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised." The rules explain in more detail after that, mentioning stealth vs. perception, and while it's part of the same paragraph, the rest of it is "The GM determines who might be surprised. (...) Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." Ultimately, it's up to the GM to decide who is or isn't surprised.

[Hytheter]

(I also use Passive Insight versus Deception to allow people to not be surprised but that's my own ruling)


Oh, I like this.

[EggKookoo]

Uh, I always ruled that as either :
a- inflicting the "Surprised" condition on everyone else (so the initiator DOES act first) if the situation was expected to be non-combat. (I also use Passive Insight versus Deception to allow people to not be surprised but that's my own ruling)

This is essentially how I do it. The initiator gets to go unless there's some clear contextual reason why he wouldn't. I roll initiative for everyone including the initiator, but he gets a special one-time-only bump to the start of the first round.


b- starting a "normal" combat in a situation where everyone is wary of each other (which seems to follow verysimilitude to me : if you see someone drawing their sword, you can be fast enough to act before them).

Right. IME the players find that unsatisfying, and so do I.

Edit: I should clarify. Context makes the difference. If you're at a fancy gala and you have your sword under layers of robes and whatnot, and you decide to futz with your layers of robes to get your sword out... Yeah. Everyone has time to see what's coming and react, so we go with normal init order and so forth. But if you just up and sucker punch someone, or have a dagger or some light-ish/fast-ish attack at the ready, then I just let you go.

I usually don't bother with actual surprise rules unless one side is trying to coordinate something. That's when we get into stealth checks (or deception checks). And even then, I go with a simpler thing where the ambushers just get a free opening round. If you fail your stealth/whatever check (as an ambusher) you just sit that round out. Still fumbling with your robes...


But now that you mentions it, (a) might not be supported by the RAW ?

I don'ts believe it is.


If you're using offical Variant Encumbrance rules, they state to IGNORE Strength requirements for armor (since what matters is only the wieght of the armor, which elegantly fixes your problem.

Oh sure, just as I can simply houserule what I want into Powerful Build (which I do).

[Valmark]

According to a reading (which I think is wrong but I heard sillier stuff from smarter people) you can attack with a two-handed weapon and let go with one hand before damaging, thus applying Dueling.



lycanthropes make their enemies immune to attacks from lycanthropes

Third time I hear this and it still makes me laugh.

[Gignere]

According to a reading (which I think is wrong but I heard sillier stuff from smarter people) you can attack with a two-handed weapon and let go with one hand before damaging, thus applying Dueling.

This is the first time I ever heard about this exploit. If a player tried to do this in my table I would laugh in his face. Or just say his attack misses automatically because he just described how he is giving up his grip and control of the weapon.

Back on topic XGTE counterspell RAW are unplayable.

[Reynaert]

This is essentially how I do it. The initiator gets to go unless there's some clear contextual reason why he wouldn't. I roll initiative for everyone including the initiator, but he gets a special one-time-only bump to the start of the first round.

The way the writers intended you to do this is by having everyone (except the initiator) have the surprised condition. There is no need whatsoever for any 'special' thing like a one-time bump.

This also means that anyone with the 'Alert' feat could be able to go before the initiator. Let them. It's an investment of a whole feat, mainly for this exact purpose. In fact, that's a good reason to use the surprise rules as written, instead of homebrewing something.

[Osuniev]

The way the writers intended you to do this is by having everyone (except the initiator) have the surprised condition. There is no need whatsoever for any 'special' thing like a one-time bump.

This also means that anyone with the 'Alert' feat could be able to go before the initiator. Let them. It's an investment of a whole feat, mainly for this exact purpose. In fact, that's a good reason to use the surprise rules as written, instead of homebrewing something.

Agreed. It also means if the initiator is REALLY fast, (ie wins initiative), s.he gets to act TWICE before anyone else (once during the first round when everyone is surprised, and once during the second round at the beginning of their turn.)

For an interesting discussion of why it's better to stick to the RAW, see : https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/gnlso5/reminder_initiative_and_surprise_should_not_be/frdq908/

[EggKookoo]

The way the writers intended you to do this is by having everyone (except the initiator) have the surprised condition. There is no need whatsoever for any 'special' thing like a one-time bump.

The surprise rule in 5e is overloaded cognitive crap. Much simpler to just say the surpriser (surprisor?) goes first. Not concerned with thinking about if people can do their reactions or move yet or whatever.

The one-time bump is perfectly intuitive because it's happening as a direct result of a player saying "I hit him!" Great, that seems feasible in this context, go do your attack or whatever while we set up init for everyone else.


This also means that anyone with the 'Alert' feat could be able to go before the initiator. Let them. It's an investment of a whole feat, mainly for this exact purpose. In fact, that's a good reason to use the surprise rules as written, instead of homebrewing something.

One beauty of homebrewed rules is that I don't have to care about the implications for situations that don't exist at my table. None of my PCs has the Alert feat, so until an equivalent pops up in a creature I'm throwing at them, it doesn't exist for me.

Having said that, sure, if a creature has Alert, I'd let it also get a bump, relative to the initiative roll of the surpriser. It's not that complicated.

[Reynaert]

The surprise rule in 5e is overloaded cognitive crap. Much simpler to just say the surpriser (surprisor?) goes first. Not concerned with thinking about if people can do their reactions or move yet or whatever.

The one-time bump is perfectly intuitive because it's happening as a direct result of a player saying "I hit him!" Great, that seems feasible in this context, go do your attack or whatever while we set up init for everyone else.

One beauty of homebrewed rules is that I don't have to care about the implications for situations that don't exist at my table. None of my PCs has the Alert feat, so until an equivalent pops up in a creature I'm throwing at them, it doesn't exist for me.

Having said that, sure, if a creature has Alert, I'd let it also get a bump, relative to the initiative roll of the surpriser. It's not that complicated.

The beauty of the surprise rule, which is in fact very simple(*), is that the result is equivalent to "The initiator does his thing. Then, everyone roll initiative" *except* when any one of those situations (that don't exist at your table) occurs.

(The difference between the surprise rules and your homebrew is that it's possible for the initiator to get two attacks in before anyone else acts, if they roll really high on initiative.)

And as soon as any of those situations starts to come into play, you don't have to do anything extra, even if it's "not that complicated" to make it work. It just works.

Also there are many many of those situations. For example, being able or not to do reactions can be quite important. If, for example, the initiator suddenly attacks a wizard who has the Shield spell. Are they quick enough to cast it or not? Important question. The standard surprise rule covers that neatly and easily.

*) It basically boils down to: "Combat starts. Everyone roll initiative. You, you and you are surprised so you don't get to do anything on your first turn."

[Ashe]

Haste isn't strong enough,

Are... are we playing the same game? On hit effects are common enough for an extra attack (even without all the other stuff haste can be used for) to be a gamechanger. Double sneak attack Ready rogues, paladins getting another chance to crit smite, battlemasters stacking maneuvers to keep a target down etc

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, you can apply this to basically every single thing in DnD; they don't translate perfectly. Not to everything, but yes, a variety of problems with being lazy in over using their "normal English" general approach when game specific terms did need attention.

Attack, Action, action, attack, melee weapon attack ... they somehow turned that into a source of confusion.

And then there's the issue of target/targetting that they half way addressed ... though one has to be in a hair splitting mode for it to cause any troubles.

[Chronos]

The fundamental problem with the Darkness spell is that, when the rules are unclear, we're supposed to interpret it according to how things work in the real world. So the Darkness spell acts the same way as real-world unilluminatable darkness. Which isn't a thing in the real world, so we have no clue how we're supposed to interpret it. Oh, and it also has interaction with the ability to see in total darkness, which is also not a thing that exists in the real world.

That said, every interpretation other than "ball of blackness" ends up leading to absurdities, so that's always the way I rule it.

Speaking of darkness and darkvision, how does the darkstalker ranger's ability to not be seen by darkvision work? Like, say that I'm a darkstalker ranger, and an NPC bursts into the room suddenly and there's something in the room I don't want them to see, so I make sure to stand right in front of it (you know, the classic sitcom situation). And then the NPC turns off the lights. Do they see the hidden thing through me? Is their vision obstructed by something they can't see?


Quoth Gignere:

Back on topic XGTE counterspell RAW are unplayable.
Counterspell is just as playable with Xanathar's rules as with the core rules. You see an enemy casting a spell, and you decide whether it's worth countering it. In neither the core nor the Xanathar's rules do you get to know what the spell is before you make that decision, but really, you usually don't need to know that. If I'm fighting the legendary lich-lord, and he thinks that some spell is a worthwhile use of his action, that's all I really need to know: If it's good enough for him to cast, then it's good enough for me to counter. On the other hand, if it's just some trash acolyte or apprentice wizard or whatever, then I probably don't need to bother.

[Gignere]

Counterspell is just as playable with Xanathar's rules as with the core rules. You see an enemy casting a spell, and you decide whether it's worth countering it. In neither the core nor the Xanathar's rules do you get to know what the spell is before you make that decision, but really, you usually don't need to know that. If I'm fighting the legendary lich-lord, and he thinks that some spell is a worthwhile use of his action, that's all I really need to know: If it's good enough for him to cast, then it's good enough for me to counter. On the other hand, if it's just some trash acolyte or apprentice wizard or whatever, then I probably don't need to bother.

No it’s not, because by XGTE RAW from here on out you just say casting a spell instead of I cast x spell.

It could be anything from a cantrip to a leveled spell, there is noway to tell. So everyone now need to say I cast a spell, instead of saying cast fire bolt, until the DM or player asks the DM if they are going to counterspell or ID it. Then they reveal the spell they are casting. Which just gums up the whole turn process for spell casters. Technically based on XGTE RAW you will never know the spell cast unless you blow a reaction.

[Hytheter]

No it’s not, because by XGTE RAW from here on out you just say casting a spell instead of I cast x spell.

It could be anything from a cantrip to a leveled spell, there is noway to tell. So everyone now need to say I cast a spell, instead of saying cast fire bolt, until the DM or player asks the DM if they are going to counterspell or ID it. Then they reveal the spell they are casting. Which just gums up the whole turn process for spell casters. Technically based on XGTE RAW you will never know the spell cast unless you blow a reaction.

I've definitely felt this. It's definitely easier to just announce the spell and take it from there. If you really wanted to preserve the potential mystery it might be cause to take note of the counterspellers' passive Arcana scores and use those to ajudicate whether they should know what spell is about to be cast.

[MaxWilson]

The fundamental problem with the Darkness spell is that, when the rules are unclear, we're supposed to interpret it according to how things work in the real world. So the Darkness spell acts the same way as real-world unilluminatable darkness. Which isn't a thing in the real world, so we have no clue how we're supposed to interpret it. Oh, and it also has interaction with the ability to see in total darkness, which is also not a thing that exists in the real world.

That said, every interpretation other than "ball of blackness" ends up leading to absurdities, so that's always the way I rule it.

I'm not aware of any absurdities it leads to. AFAICT just treating it as an area that's dark (as if no light source were shining on it) is 100% simple and consistent. It behaves exactly like regular 5E darkness.

If you're going to say something here about silhouettes and how you don't think they should grant disadvantage on attacks--that objection applies equally to regular nonmagical darkness because silhouettes can also be created by regular darkness, and RAW still grants disadvantage in that case. Either create a houserule that says "being silhouetted gives offsetting advantage to attackers who can see your silhouette" or admit that Darkness-as-darkness is fine too.

[Valmark]

No it’s not, because by XGTE RAW from here on out you just say casting a spell instead of I cast x spell.

It could be anything from a cantrip to a leveled spell, there is noway to tell. So everyone now need to say I cast a spell, instead of saying cast fire bolt, until the DM or player asks the DM if they are going to counterspell or ID it. Then they reveal the spell they are casting. Which just gums up the whole turn process for spell casters. Technically based on XGTE RAW you will never know the spell cast unless you blow a reaction.

Unsure I follow. Now, glossing over the fact that it's an optional rule, it doesn't actually change much- a DM never needed to tell their players what spell was being cast before and the players still need to tell the DM what they are doing.

If the issue is regarding characters (player and non) Counterspelling based on knowledge they shouldn't have it's an issue with the player/DM's roleplay, not the rule.

Overall though I agree that the ability to recognize the spell with a reaction is mostly useless and stupid.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Gotta say that I'm with Valmark here. Whenever I narrate in combat, I always make it abundantly clear when an enemy is in the process of casting a spell, and I give a meaningful pause if a PC has counterspell prepared.

I always tell them beforehand what the pause is for, and if they don't take it, then I proceed. It's a little harder to adjudicate on my side, given as how my players don't do the same, so I've got to use my best judgement. It's not perfect, but I haven't had any real complaints that we haven't been able to talk our way through the logic for.

[Keravath]

It heals a greatsword wound on either. The difference is that the Commoner dies when there's a greatsword impaling then, whereas the high-level Fighter keeps functioning, like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. (It's very silly though that the wound heals overnight, I agree with you on that part. Should take days or weeks to heal naturally.)

Hit points in D&D have always been a bit of an issue. Only a fraction of the hit points represent physical durability. The rest are luck, skill, endurance, energy, fatigue or whatever. A commoner who gets impaled by a greatsword gets mostly physical damage while an experienced fighter is able to deflect most of the blow taking little physical damage but taking a toll on their endurance.

"Your character's hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."

"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile." PHB 196

Healing magic just restores whatever is missing - whether it is physical wounds or the energy to keep on fighting.

Does it really make sense? No. An experienced fighter probably has only a few more physical hit points than a commoner but they have skills and techniques to mitigate damage and a will to keep going. A more realistic system might have the experienced character taking less physical damage (through damage resistance or a similar mechanism) but that doesn't fit with the design principles of D&D which are looking for simplicity and roll mitigation/defence/physical/mental/fatigue etc into the to hit roll, the damage roll and target hit points.

[MaxWilson]

Hit points in D&D have always been a bit of an issue. Only a fraction of the hit points represent physical durability. The rest are luck, skill, endurance, energy, fatigue or whatever.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Any way you measure it, HP are a real, observable phenomenon in 5E. They're even transferrable between characters (Life Transference spell). If you want as DM to call it "luck" that the sword didn't kill somebody (maybe it missed their heart by a fraction of an inch), fine, but it's a measurable quantity of luck that can run out, or can be replaced. A warhorse has just enough luck that it requires about three greatsword swings to put it down (two from an unusually strong person). It takes three healing potions to put the warhorse back in a state where it once again takes three swings to put it down.

If you want to call it "binding energy" or "instant healing factor" or "meat" instead of "luck", go ahead. Any way you slice it, it behaves like physical durability.


A commoner who gets impaled by a greatsword gets mostly physical damage while an experienced fighter is able to deflect most of the blow taking little physical damage but taking a toll on their endurance.

And yet both of them require about 1 healing potion to undo the damage. Tomato, tomato.

[da newt]

"Now, glossing over the fact that it's an optional rule, it doesn't actually change much- a DM never needed to tell their players what spell was being cast before and the players still need to tell the DM what they are doing."

I'm pretty certain this isn't what you were getting at, but a pet peeve of mine is the double standard of 'DM doesn't have to explain themselves - but Players must name every feature, action, spell, etc. formally' that I've experienced at multiple tables. Sure go ahead a narrate all you want, but then also name the feature, action, spell, rule, etc so we can all know what happened and why OR allow the players the same freedom to keep their specifics a mystery as well.


Yes this is a crappy little rant that should never be an issue IF everyone involved knew and used all the same rules/rulings and trusted one another, but too often this isn't the case, and I prefer contests like combat to be decided with all parties using the same rules the same way (and yes I know this is as much a me issue as a game design issue).

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Now, glossing over the fact that it's an optional rule, it doesn't actually change much- a DM never needed to tell their players what spell was being cast before and the players still need to tell the DM what they are doing."

I'm pretty certain this isn't what you were getting at, but a pet peeve of mine is the double standard of 'DM doesn't have to explain themselves - but Players must name every feature, action, spell, etc. formally' that I've experienced at multiple tables. Sure go ahead a narrate all you want, but then also name the feature, action, spell, rule, etc so we can all know what happened and why OR allow the players the same freedom to keep their specifics a mystery as well.


Yes this is a crappy little rant that should never be an issue IF everyone involved knew and used all the same rules/rulings and trusted one another, but too often this isn't the case, and I prefer contests like combat to be decided with all parties using the same rules the same way (and yes I know this is as much a me issue as a game design issue).

I'd be totally ok with a player doing the same "Casting a spell...pause for counterspell...I cast <X>" dance as DMs tend to do. As long as I trusted them...of course, if I don't trust them, I'm not going to play with them. So there's that.

As a DM, I need to know what you're doing well enough so that I can figure out what happens. However, many of the creatures (especially homebrew) use simplified or different mechanical structures (cf the deathlock's Grave Bolts, which aren't spells).

[Hytheter]

I'm pretty certain this isn't what you were getting at, but a pet peeve of mine is the double standard of 'DM doesn't have to explain themselves - but Players must name every feature, action, spell, etc. formally' that I've experienced at multiple tables. Sure go ahead a narrate all you want, but then also name the feature, action, spell, rule, etc so we can all know what happened and why OR allow the players the same freedom to keep their specifics a mystery as well.


I mean, that makes sense to me.

Players are beholden to the rules of character creation. I wouldn't expect them to name their features every time they use them but they should certainly be willing to explain themselves - to curb cheating, yes, but also simply to make sure they actually understand the rules they are using. Genuine cheating is rare in my experience, but rules mistakes are very common, because DND is a complicated game with a lot of highly specific rules minutia.

However, the DM is not beholden to the rules that players are. They are free to adjust rules and stat blocks as needed or create new ones from scratch. What's the worth in naming the unique monster action I created myself earlier in the day?

It's not a double standard, because the players and the GM aren't held to the same standards in the first place. Would you also demand that the GM disclose the statistics of monsters as well? Their HP, AC, passive perception and so on? Which of their saves is weakest and whether they have legendary resistances or not? The GM needs to know what the players are up to because they're running the whole game, but the players have no such obligation and hiding information from them is often important to the experience.

[Valmark]

"Now, glossing over the fact that it's an optional rule, it doesn't actually change much- a DM never needed to tell their players what spell was being cast before and the players still need to tell the DM what they are doing."

I'm pretty certain this isn't what you were getting at, but a pet peeve of mine is the double standard of 'DM doesn't have to explain themselves - but Players must name every feature, action, spell, etc. formally' that I've experienced at multiple tables. Sure go ahead a narrate all you want, but then also name the feature, action, spell, rule, etc so we can all know what happened and why OR allow the players the same freedom to keep their specifics a mystery as well.

Yes this is a crappy little rant that should never be an issue IF everyone involved knew and used all the same rules/rulings and trusted one another, but too often this isn't the case, and I prefer contests like combat to be decided with all parties using the same rules the same way (and yes I know this is as much a me issue as a game design issue).

Putting hands forward that I don't do it as a DM- I tipically go ahead and state what I'm doing.

That said, I think it depends on the fact that a DM needs to have all the information to establish what happens and run the game- the player doesn't. Due to that it makes sense that the players need to specify their actions while the DM can choose not to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Putting hands forward that I don't do it as a DM- I tipically go ahead and state what I'm doing.

That said, I think it depends on the fact that a DM needs to have all the information to establish what happens and run the game- the player doesn't. Due to that it makes sense that the players need to specify their actions while the DM can choose not to.

Yeah. The DM is both the opfor (opposing force) player and the game engine. The "need to specify what you're doing" is for the game engine, not the opfor side. You're not literally calling those out in character, so the DM using that information to make decisions about what to counterspell is (in my opinion) not fair play. But he needs to know it so he can do the right thing in the game world (ie narrate the changes).

[Segev]

On the subject of interpreting rules, I have developed... I guess it's an axiom?


If there are two readings of a rule that are equally valid, and one leads to a complicated mess that makes the rule seem badly designed, while the other leads to a functional mechanic that runs smoothly with the rest of the system, one should choose the reading that makes things run smoothly, rather than insisting that the rule is a mess because of the first-mentioned interpretation.



I have also found that the surprise rules for 5e, if followed strictly, DO amount to the initiator going first, barring somebody with a higher initiative being immune to surprise or for some reason not surprised. Exactly as it should be.

[Tanarii]

Back on topic XGTE counterspell RAW are unplayable.
PHB RAW too, since it doesn't give any way to identify a spell.

But yeah, it's a pita as a DM. IMO Counterspell is balanced with blind casting, not knowing what spell is being cast. But players have to state what spell they are casting, and I tend to as a DM. And ain't nobody got time to be slowing down combat every time a spell is cast to check for a counterspell. (Honestly it's more that I can't stop myself from blurting it out. Years of habit.)

[Darth Credence]

This is essentially how I do it. The initiator gets to go unless there's some clear contextual reason why he wouldn't. I roll initiative for everyone including the initiator, but he gets a special one-time-only bump to the start of the first round.



Right. IME the players find that unsatisfying, and so do I.

Edit: I should clarify. Context makes the difference. If you're at a fancy gala and you have your sword under layers of robes and whatnot, and you decide to futz with your layers of robes to get your sword out... Yeah. Everyone has time to see what's coming and react, so we go with normal init order and so forth. But if you just up and sucker punch someone, or have a dagger or some light-ish/fast-ish attack at the ready, then I just let you go.

I usually don't bother with actual surprise rules unless one side is trying to coordinate something. That's when we get into stealth checks (or deception checks). And even then, I go with a simpler thing where the ambushers just get a free opening round. If you fail your stealth/whatever check (as an ambusher) you just sit that round out. Still fumbling with your robes...

This isn't directed just at you, but yours was the first one I read that applied, so it's the stand in. Does this apply the other way, as well? If your players were talking to the guards trying to get into a city, and one guard decided to just up and stab one of the players, would you have them do it, and then start regular initiative and combat after that? And do you think they players would consider this to be fair play, even if they had consistently done it themselves?
I know my players would revolt if they were talking to someone, and I rolled a die out of nowhere and told them that the person lashed out with a dagger and stabbed the bard for 6 damage, now let's roll initiative. If a particular table is fine with that, then your method would be fine for how to run the game. Otherwise, I think it is best to roll for initiative if someone makes a surprise attack like that, and let it play out.


No it’s not, because by XGTE RAW from here on out you just say casting a spell instead of I cast x spell.

It could be anything from a cantrip to a leveled spell, there is noway to tell. So everyone now need to say I cast a spell, instead of saying cast fire bolt, until the DM or player asks the DM if they are going to counterspell or ID it. Then they reveal the spell they are casting. Which just gums up the whole turn process for spell casters. Technically based on XGTE RAW you will never know the spell cast unless you blow a reaction.

Here's how I play it. If I am running a caster against the players, I always describe them as beginning to cast a spell. Maybe three or four seconds saying something like, "the robed man with the pointy hat begins to chant and contort his hands into painful looking positions. He focuses his will, and a streak of fire flies from his hands, exploding in a ball of flame that engulfs X, Y, and Z." If someone says counterspell before I have finished saying "will" in that example, then they were able to cast counterspell. If not, they were not. If the NPC has counterspell, I plan out and write down the situations in which they would actually do it - say, based on how many slots they have left, how much damage they have taken, what spells have already been cast against them, or how many minions are left alive - but never what the spell actually is. If I counter, and a player cries foul, I would show them the notes saying that these were the parameters, and this is what caused the NPC to do so. I have never had to do that, which may in part be due to my players knowing that I have the notes there. With this method, the players don't have to pause for me to respond, they can just say the spell and we can keep moving, while I throw in extra description of what is going on. They cast a ton more spells than I do, so this doesn't slow much down, I don't think.
And while it has never happened, if one player said 'arcana check to see what spell it is', I'd let them do it, but I would give it to them in a note that the others couldn't see, so they couldn't have one person seeing what the spell is and another counterspelling based on that info.

[Gignere]

Here's how I play it. If I am running a caster against the players, I always describe them as beginning to cast a spell. Maybe three or four seconds saying something like, "the robed man with the pointy hat begins to chant and contort his hands into painful looking positions. He focuses his will, and a streak of fire flies from his hands, exploding in a ball of flame that engulfs X, Y, and Z." If someone says counterspell before I have finished saying "will" in that example, then they were able to cast counterspell. If not, they were not. If the NPC has counterspell, I plan out and write down the situations in which they would actually do it - say, based on how many slots they have left, how much damage they have taken, what spells have already been cast against them, or how many minions are left alive - but never what the spell actually is. If I counter, and a player cries foul, I would show them the notes saying that these were the parameters, and this is what caused the NPC to do so. I have never had to do that, which may in part be due to my players knowing that I have the notes there. With this method, the players don't have to pause for me to respond, they can just say the spell and we can keep moving, while I throw in extra description of what is going on. They cast a ton more spells than I do, so this doesn't slow much down, I don't think.
And while it has never happened, if one player said 'arcana check to see what spell it is', I'd let them do it, but I would give it to them in a note that the others couldn't see, so they couldn't have one person seeing what the spell is and another counterspelling based on that info.

This is pretty fair but I’ve had DMs that counterspell my booming blade because I rolled a crit and I’m positive that if I didn’t crit he wouldn’t have CS it.

It does still add kludge like you said everytime you have to describe a caster is focusing his will. That just gets old fast. I prefer everyone just say I cast x and live with the fact that people can optimize the CS. Is it unbalanced I don’t think so? Maybe it breaks a tiny bit of verisimilitude but I think I will gladly trade that than the kludgy work arounds.

[EggKookoo]

This isn't directed just at you, but yours was the first one I read that applied, so it's the stand in. Does this apply the other way, as well? If your players were talking to the guards trying to get into a city, and one guard decided to just up and stab one of the players, would you have them do it, and then start regular initiative and combat after that? And do you think they players would consider this to be fair play, even if they had consistently done it themselves?
I know my players would revolt if they were talking to someone, and I rolled a die out of nowhere and told them that the person lashed out with a dagger and stabbed the bard for 6 damage, now let's roll initiative. If a particular table is fine with that, then your method would be fine for how to run the game. Otherwise, I think it is best to roll for initiative if someone makes a surprise attack like that, and let it play out.

I have done it the other way around and the players have not objected. If a player is asking questions or saying things or acting in a way that suggests some attention is being paid to the NPC's intentions, I'll certainly ask for an Insight check (and I will try to drop hints). Success means they caught the NPC's intentions and we just roll initiative. Failure, or not even getting a roll because they're not keeping an eye out? SUDDEN DAGGER!

To be fair, I don't pull that kind of trick nearly as often as the players do (which in turn isn't truly that often either). I'm not plotting things with the NPCs the same way the players plot things among themselves. It just doesn't work out that I've got something up my sleeve like that. Whereas the players have done things like been in a semi-public gathering where one PC recognized the half-ogre that killed her wife. That kind of simmering "should I do it or not?" situation is much more of a player thing than a DM thing.

My expectation is that my players would tolerate me doing that as long as it didn't feel abusive. I have much less of a problem with it happening the other way around, since my NPCs aren't "my" characters the same way and I kind of expect the PCs to beat the crap out of them.

[MaxWilson]

This isn't directed just at you, but yours was the first one I read that applied, so it's the stand in. Does this apply the other way, as well? If your players were talking to the guards trying to get into a city, and one guard decided to just up and stab one of the players, would you have them do it, and then start regular initiative and combat after that? And do you think they players would consider this to be fair play, even if they had consistently done it themselves?

IME players don't mind as long as they aren't behind by one action permanently for the whole combat. If the out-of-the-blue dagger stab just results in losing 8 HP early on round 1 instead of late, and initiative order for later rounds is not tied to the order of that first round, that doesn't generate objections or bad feelings AFAICT.

This is one of the many reasons why vanilla RAW initiative (IGOUGO round robin in a fixed order) is worse than WEGO initiative variants. It can lead to player resentment, on top of the player boredom and disengagement that comes from forcing players to spend 75%+ of their time during combat not being allowed to interact with the DM because it's "not your turn."

[cookieface]

This isn't directed just at you, but yours was the first one I read that applied, so it's the stand in. Does this apply the other way, as well? If your players were talking to the guards trying to get into a city, and one guard decided to just up and stab one of the players, would you have them do it, and then start regular initiative and combat after that? And do you think they players would consider this to be fair play, even if they had consistently done it themselves?
I know my players would revolt if they were talking to someone, and I rolled a die out of nowhere and told them that the person lashed out with a dagger and stabbed the bard for 6 damage, now let's roll initiative. If a particular table is fine with that, then your method would be fine for how to run the game. Otherwise, I think it is best to roll for initiative if someone makes a surprise attack like that, and let it play out.



Here's how I play it. If I am running a caster against the players, I always describe them as beginning to cast a spell. Maybe three or four seconds saying something like, "the robed man with the pointy hat begins to chant and contort his hands into painful looking positions. He focuses his will, and a streak of fire flies from his hands, exploding in a ball of flame that engulfs X, Y, and Z." If someone says counterspell before I have finished saying "will" in that example, then they were able to cast counterspell. If not, they were not. If the NPC has counterspell, I plan out and write down the situations in which they would actually do it - say, based on how many slots they have left, how much damage they have taken, what spells have already been cast against them, or how many minions are left alive - but never what the spell actually is. If I counter, and a player cries foul, I would show them the notes saying that these were the parameters, and this is what caused the NPC to do so. I have never had to do that, which may in part be due to my players knowing that I have the notes there. With this method, the players don't have to pause for me to respond, they can just say the spell and we can keep moving, while I throw in extra description of what is going on. They cast a ton more spells than I do, so this doesn't slow much down, I don't think.
And while it has never happened, if one player said 'arcana check to see what spell it is', I'd let them do it, but I would give it to them in a note that the others couldn't see, so they couldn't have one person seeing what the spell is and another counterspelling based on that info.

What I find incredibly silly about the "identify a spell" rules is that there are no stipulations about what knowledge about spells a player already has, or how long that knowledge stays with them.

Let me explain: The rules seem to imply that a particular spell has a specific hand gesture/magical phrase/physical components necessary for its casting. ("Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures", "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion", etc. from PHB203.) That means that when my halfling sorcerer casts Fireball, it should look and sound the same as when the enemy drow wizard casts Fireball.

So logically, wouldn't my halfling sorcerer immediately realize that the drow wizard is casting a pretty dangerous spell? Why would I need to react to identify it, when it is something I cast every day ... shouldn't that information be immediately apparent to me?

But then what about if I see that same drow wizard cast Dispel Magic, which I do not know? There are two options: (1) I spend a reaction to identify the spell that this drow wizard is casting, and then I learn that it is Dispel Magic. Okay neat! I can't really do anything about it. (2) I just allow it to happen, but I see the gestures he makes and the arcane words he says to cast the spell. It works, and I see what its effects are. I might not know it as "Dispel Magic", but I know what it looks/sounds like and I know what it does.

Why do those two things require different mechanics to work by the rules?

Now let's extend this out beyond that immediate casting of the spell:
- What if the drow wizard casts Dispel Magic again on the next turn? Shouldn't I know what is coming? By RAW, I should not.
- What about tomorrow, when I come across a dragonborn cleric who casts Dispel Magic? Why would I forget what that spell looks like overnight?

In general, the XGE "Identify a spell" rules seem specifically designed to nerf Counterspell by retconning how spellcasting works in practice at most tables. It doesn't take any other logic into account, especially in cases where a PC should logically know what a certain spell looks like, such as when they have it prepared/known. Are there really not better ways to rework Counterspell so that it is not the hands-down best third level spell in the game? Something like, "Make a skill check using your spell attack modifier bonus as a bonus to the skill check. The DC of the check is [some formula based on the level of the spell cast and the spell slot used for Counterspell]. If this skill check fails, the spell fails and the slot is wasted."

[Tanarii]

Let me explain: The rules seem to imply that a particular spell has a specific hand gesture/magical phrase/physical components necessary for its casting. ("Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures", "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion", etc. from PHB203.) That means that when my halfling sorcerer casts Fireball, it should look and sound the same as when the enemy drow wizard casts Fireball.
There's no implication that any two given casters use the same V or S components for the same spell.

For that matter, there's no implication that any one given caster uses the same V and S components for any two castings of the same spell. It may vary based on range to target or other parameters of the spell. Or strength of the local weave. Or seasons. Etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's no implication that any two given casters use the same V or S components for the same spell.

For that matter, there's no implication that any one given caster uses the same V and S components for any two castings of the same spell. It may vary based on range to target or other parameters of the spell. Or strength of the local weave. Or seasons. Etc.

Yeah. At minimum, it needs to encode the parameters. It might very by where the caster learned it or even what kind of caster they are (a fiend warlock, an evocation wizard, and a light cleric may all cast fireball a little bit different). That's why it's always an intelligence (arcana) check--you're piecing together the evidence from bits and hints. This isn't anime, casters aren't calling their spells. Unless, of course, that's what the individual wants to do.

[Zalabim]

The changed that rule. Now you're only effectively blinded when trying to see into the heavily obscured area. It doesn't affect seeing through it.

Which means you can see right through normal darkness ... but also a Fog Cloud. Just not anything in it.

All in all it's best just to run by the sensible RAI. The only problem is the RAI for the Darkness spell isn't made clear and are poorly worded. Lots of old edition players (myself included initially) just assume it's supposed to be Inky Blot, a sphere of impenetrable darkness you can't see into or through. Because that's how it was.
If anything, the wording used in 5E is more clear that it is supposed to be an inky blot than most. Compared to 3.0 darkness which is probably just supposed to be a dark area where darkvision doesn't help, and then 3.5 darkness is actually a dimly lit area where darkvision doesn't help, so there's no question of it being opaque. 5E's darkness instead fills the area and spreads around corners.This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. Not even creatures that can normally see in the dark can see in an area shrouded in magical darkness. Normal lights do not work, nor do light spells of a lower level. Darkness and the 2nd-level spell daylight cancel each other, leaving whatever light conditions normally prevail in the overlapping areas of the spells. Higher-level light spells are not affected by darkness.
If the spell is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effects are blocked until the covering is removed.
Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower level.

Eh, there are whole threads on this, but I will say that it being "a hot mess" is in contention, and that the reading of initiative I subscribe to makes it very clear how it works, with it being consistent with (my reading of) the RAW and without ambiguity.

Also, I contend that non-ink-blot darkness makes perfect sense and works just fine, though I understand people preferring to use legacy 3e-and-earlier ink blot darkness. To me, that just makes it a weird fog cloud, which is why I dislike it.
Agreed. Both versions of darkness have history in D&D, with the "it's just dark" version just being notable for being extremely powerful or disruptive in the context of 3.0's rules.

There's no implication that any two given casters use the same V or S components for the same spell.

For that matter, there's no implication that any one given caster uses the same V and S components for any two castings of the same spell. It may vary based on range to target or other parameters of the spell. Or strength of the local weave. Or seasons. Etc.
This. Or as The Magicains puts it: Every Magician for every Spell has to account for the specific Circumstances affecting that spellcasting. Circumstances include internal circumstances, possibly physical, possibly mental, as well as external circumstances like the environment, the target, the time of day, the season of the year, and the activities of nearby celestial objects. So if someone were to say, move the moon out of its orbit, it would throw off spellcasting for every Magician on the planet. For any spell cast, there's probably some things that are repeated every time, some things that are particular to that specific use of the spell, some things that are common in every spell that caster uses, and some things that are just personal flourishes or embellishments which are neither necessary nor detrimental.

[Valmark]

There's no implication that any two given casters use the same V or S components for the same spell.

For that matter, there's no implication that any one given caster uses the same V and S components for any two castings of the same spell. It may vary based on range to target or other parameters of the spell. Or strength of the local weave. Or seasons. Etc.

To add to this I think that... in Tasha? The opposite is said- that casters all have their own versions of the spells and you're encouraged to refluff them.

[EggKookoo]

There's no implication that any two given casters use the same V or S components for the same spell.

For that matter, there's no implication that any one given caster uses the same V and S components for any two castings of the same spell. It may vary based on range to target or other parameters of the spell. Or strength of the local weave. Or seasons. Etc.

I don't think spells even have consistent names. Virtually no one in the fiction actually calls it "magic missile." The only spells that might have some kind of consistent identifier are the few named after their creator, and even then I doubt most field practitioners (adventurers) refer to them as such. I'm not sure when a sorcerer suddenly works out how to cast it, he thinks "wow, this is aganazzar's scorcher!" He just knows he can blast fire. The spell names are a convenience for players, and maybe are examples of what they might be called by some of those who would categorize such things in the fiction.

[Reach Weapon]

If anything, the wording used in 5E is more clear that it is supposed to be an inky blot than most.

I don't know that is necessarily true. If we understand "magical darkness" as creating an area where light particles simply do not exist in space-time (which could be consistent with some understandings of quantum phenomenon) then one could reasonably see things that are on the other side of the area of effect, and shadows wouldn't be cast from things in that field. Visually, this might result in some distortion, like with a mirage. Arguably, this might explain why insufficiently powerful light spells are dispelled by the effect, rather than simply overwhelmed by inky blackness.

[Azuresun]

The beauty of the surprise rule, which is in fact very simple(*), is that the result is equivalent to "The initiator does his thing. Then, everyone roll initiative" *except* when any one of those situations (that don't exist at your table) occurs.


*) It basically boils down to: "Combat starts. Everyone roll initiative. You, you and you are surprised so you don't get to do anything on your first turn."

That's how I read it, how I've always played it, and it seems very simple. Every time I see someone complaining about how complex it is, I wonder if I've missed something obvious in the text.

[Chronos]

The Big Bad for the adventure I'm currently running is a spellcaster with Counterspell (who also happens to know the party and their capabilities). The actual big confrontation with him probably won't be for another couple of sessions, but I've already decided that he's going to counter whatever the first spell is the sorcerer casts (unless, of course, it occurs to the sorcerer to cast it subtly). Because he knows that the sorcerer is the strongest spellcaster in the group (well, him or the cleric, but the Big Bad already has other plans concerning the cleric), and whatever the sorcerer thinks is worth opening combat with is probably something the Big Bad doesn't want to happen.

As for Darkness, the usual alternative to "black blot" that I've seen, or at least the alternative that's described in enough detail to tell how it works, is to treat it as though everything in the area were painted with perfect black paint. Black paint exists in our world, and we can extrapolate what we see in the real world to perfect black paint, so we can adjudicate this. But the problem is, it doesn't do much. With this interpretation, as long as there's some open space behind the Darkness spell (which there usually will be), you'd still be able to see everyone and everything in the area of the spell as black silhouettes. And a black silhouette is plenty of detail to easily aim an arrow or sword at (in fact, black silhouettes are often what's used for target practice). In other words, it wouldn't even impose disadvantage.

[jaappleton]

RAW, Soul Knives can't use their third level class feature for opportunity attacks.

Which is dumb. Oh so very dumb.

[Segev]

As for Darkness, the usual alternative to "black blot" that I've seen, or at least the alternative that's described in enough detail to tell how it works, is to treat it as though everything in the area were painted with perfect black paint. Black paint exists in our world, and we can extrapolate what we see in the real world to perfect black paint, so we can adjudicate this. But the problem is, it doesn't do much. With this interpretation, as long as there's some open space behind the Darkness spell (which there usually will be), you'd still be able to see everyone and everything in the area of the spell as black silhouettes. And a black silhouette is plenty of detail to easily aim an arrow or sword at (in fact, black silhouettes are often what's used for target practice). In other words, it wouldn't even impose disadvantage.Boldness added for emphasis.

This is not true in my experience, both as a player and as a DM. In the game I ran, where I used the "black paint" model rather than "ink blot," the need for a backdrop came up only once, and it was easily achieved. And in the game I'm in now, though the DM does use "ink blot" darkness, I have always wound up using it in ways that would cause the "black paint" to render anything in the area indistinguishable from its background.

Now, the "ink blot" choice of model DOES change how we use it! If we used "black paint," I'd cast it on our own ship and fire out of it, making it harder to pick individual targets out in the blackness. Since we use "ink blot," I instead cast it on a cannon ball and we fire the cannon ball at the enemy ship, creating a blot on their cannon row or their forward bow to blind their shots or their steering.

As to "a black silhouette [being] plenty of detail to easily aim...at," I bring up the blur spell, which doesn't exactly eliminate the blockage of line-of-sight nor remove the vague silhouette of whoever it's affecting. If the silhouettes in magical darkness are "hazy" in some fashion - which I know isn't quite right for the "black paint" model - that would account for the difficulty aiming at them. Don't underestimate the difficulties loss of depth-perception based on contrast with background, either, for figuring out where and how to aim. Inability to read body language for how they're going to move, alone, could screw up aiming in a tense situation.

In short: it can work just fine, and be perfectly sensible. Rarely will you have the situation where you genuinely have a sparse set of sharp silhouettes against a brightly-lit background.

[Eric Diaz]

One-handing 4 lb. quarterstaffs.

I bet it was a mistake.

Which is why the mace and greatclub are both useless are written.

Maces should be versatile BTW.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/5e-d-melee-weapons-one-by-one-analysis.html

Also, I find the fact that light armor can be heavier than medium, etc., confusing and silly.

I dislike the Lucky feat turning disadvantage into double advantage, but it can see it working in some types of campaigns.

I agree with people who mentioned counterspell (I'd rather jus allow a "free" arcana check), and vision/light rules are unnecessarily confusing.

[Pex]

PHB RAW too, since it doesn't give any way to identify a spell.

But yeah, it's a pita as a DM. IMO Counterspell is balanced with blind casting, not knowing what spell is being cast. But players have to state what spell they are casting, and I tend to as a DM. And ain't nobody got time to be slowing down combat every time a spell is cast to check for a counterspell. (Honestly it's more that I can't stop myself from blurting it out. Years of habit.)

I agree the player getting to know what the spell is before casting Counterspell makes the spell stronger than intended, but I think it best in the long run for DMs to get over it and I don’t mean that in my usual cynical way. Call it an acquiescence to the players’ favor. The player feels useful using up a resource against an enemy who is supposed to lose anyway. Why should it really bother a DM the player knows he’s stopping a Fireball or Wall of Force or whatever? The DM should not be bothered the bad guy failed to get the PCs. No need for pauses after every declaration of casting a spell. No need to secretly write down what’s being cast. Just play out the combat. The game does not become an unplayable mess because of this.

[MaxWilson]

This. Or as The Magicains puts it: Every Magician for every Spell has to account for the specific Circumstances affecting that spellcasting. Circumstances include internal circumstances, possibly physical, possibly mental, as well as external circumstances like the environment, the target, the time of day, the season of the year, and the activities of nearby celestial objects. So if someone were to say, move the moon out of its orbit, it would throw off spellcasting for every Magician on the planet. For any spell cast, there's probably some things that are repeated every time, some things that are particular to that specific use of the spell, some things that are common in every spell that caster uses, and some things that are just personal flourishes or embellishments which are neither necessary nor detrimental.

This narrative is more compelling in systems where failing to cast a spell is a possibility. I.e. spells as fallible skills instead of reliable powers.


As for Darkness, the usual alternative to "black blot" that I've seen, or at least the alternative that's described in enough detail to tell how it works, is to treat it as though everything in the area were painted with perfect black paint. Black paint exists in our world, and we can extrapolate what we see in the real world to perfect black paint, so we can adjudicate this. But the problem is, it doesn't do much. With this interpretation, as long as there's some open space behind the Darkness spell (which there usually will be), you'd still be able to see everyone and everything in the area of the spell as black silhouettes. And a black silhouette is plenty of detail to easily aim an arrow or sword at (in fact, black silhouettes are often what's used for target practice). In other words, it wouldn't even impose disadvantage.

5E's ruleset disagrees with the point in bold, because when you create this exact effect with regular nonmagical darkness (seeing silhouettes against a lit background), you have disadvantage despite the silhouette.

As a DM you are free to grant offsetting advantage for silhouetted creatures, but personally I wouldn't, because silhouettes are in fact not easy to decipher 3D movements from, which is why shadow puppets work, and IMO disadvantage is justified. But if you want to change it, you have to change it for nonmagical darkness too because it's not a situation unique to magical darkness.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, I hardly ever explicitly name a spell when I'm casting it. It's usually something more like

Me: "Varag says a word in Draconic, and the six goblins in front of him all need to make Wis saves, DC 16".
DM: "<roll> OK, four of them failed."
Me: "Those four are now frightened and trying to flee."
Wizard's player: "I speak Draconic. What was the one word?"
Me: "It's tough to translate, but it's something like 'you are so far outclassed by me that your only chance is to flee and hope that I do not deign to pursue.'. And yes, dragons have a single word for that."

Everyone can tell that I cast a Fear spell, but there's no need to say that explicitly.

[MaxWilson]

For what it's worth, I hardly ever explicitly name a spell when I'm casting it. It's usually something more like

Me: "Varag says a word in Draconic, and the six goblins in front of him all need to make Wis saves, DC 16".
DM: "<roll> OK, four of them failed."
Me: "Those four are now frightened and trying to flee."
Wizard's player: "I speak Draconic. What was the one word?"
Me: "It's tough to translate, but it's something like 'you are so far outclassed by me that your only chance is to flee and hope that I do not deign to pursue.'. And yes, dragons have a single word for that."

Everyone can tell that I cast a Fear spell, but there's no need to say that explicitly.

I approve, but FWIW that's still more information than Xanathar's optional rule would give others. Xanathar's rule doesn't tell a potential Counterspeller that it's a Wis AoE targeted at the goblins.

[Trafalgar]

One-handing 4 lb. quarterstaffs.

I bet it was a mistake.

Which is why the mace and greatclub are both useless are written.

Maces should be versatile BTW.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/5e-d-melee-weapons-one-by-one-analysis.html

Also, I find the fact that light armor can be heavier than medium, etc., confusing and silly.

I dislike the Lucky feat turning disadvantage into double advantage, but it can see it working in some types of campaigns.

I agree with people who mentioned counterspell (I'd rather jus allow a "free" arcana check), and vision/light rules are unnecessarily confusing.

I used to go on 30 minute rants about the 5e weapon chart, in particular about quarterstaves, spears, mauls, whips, rapiers etc. Now I just go with it.

[Xetheral]

But if you want to change it, you have to change it for nonmagical darkness too because it's not a situation unique to magical darkness.

True, silhouettes are not unique to magical darkness, but sharp, dramatic silhouettes are far more likely to occur with magical darkness than they are with normal darkness, because magical darkness can more easily be created in situations of stark backlighting.

Indeed, most real world examples of stark silhouettes, the silhouetted creature isn't actually in darkness in D&D terms, they're illuminated by whatever light source is creating the silhouette. The starkest real world silhouettes are probably creatures skylined against a setting sun, but those creatures are in Bright Light in D&D terms (because they're in LOS to the sun, whose bright light radius obviously reaches the surface of the planet), so there's no disadvantage to hit them.

But unlike that real world example where everything has to (literally) line up perfectly to get that kind of stark silhouette, any outdoor, daytime use of magical darkness is going to create the same effect (unless near a substantial obstacle). Many indoor uses will also create stark silhouettes if used in brightly lit rooms substantially larger than the darkness effect.

By contrast, real world silhouettes where the silhouetted creature is in darkness (in D&D terms) tend to be much less distinct, as the background is either not as well lit, or much farther away.

So if magical darkness creates silhouettes as stark as those created by creatures in Bright Light (which definitely don't grant disadvantage to hit), why should it be harder to hit the silhouettes created by your interpretation of magical darkness?

I personally find the ink blot interpretation of magical darkness much simpler, since it avoids all these issues entirely. Also, I think it better fits the description of the spell as filling a sphere through which (even) Darkvision cannot see. Creatures with Darkvision definitely can see through the sphere under your interpretation, which blatantly contradicts the description. Also, if the main effect of the spell is to silhouette everything in the area, isn't it a little odd that silhouettes aren't mentioned even once?

(As an aside, I would also note that any situation where an observer can see a silhouette arguably shouldn't grant disadvantage under the rules. The source of disadvantage to hit due to obscurement is the Blinded condition, but if the observer can see the silhouette then, by definition, the observer isn't suffering the Blinded condition with respect to that creature. If they were suffering from the Blinded condition, they wouldn't be able to see the silhouette at all, since the Blinded condition is defined by being unable to see. Ergo, there shouldn't be disadvantage to hit any creature the DM describes as visible as a silhouette, since the DM must not be imposing Blinded condition with respect to that creature.)

[MaxWilson]

Indeed, most real world examples of stark silhouettes, the silhouetted creature isn't actually in darkness in D&D terms, they're illuminated by whatever light source is creating the silhouette...

...I personally find the ink blot interpretation of magical darkness much simpler, since it avoids all these issues entirely.

"Most" isn't all, so you still have to deal with silhouettes anyway, such as when there's a campfire illuminating the ground around it, and you're fighting something in the darkness between you and the campfire. The simplest way to run it is just to stick with RAW: "it's in darkness, so you have disadvantage." It's perfectly simple. So is doing the same thing for magical darkness.


So if magical darkness creates silhouettes as stark as those created by creatures in Bright Light (which definitely don't grant disadvantage to hit)

Ah. You see, I don't share your certainty in this "definitely" point. In fact I think removing disadvantage in this case is unjustified most of the time with most weapons (especially melee weaponry). Negative images are not a good substitute for actual visual input. Good luck evading your opponent's parries with no depth perception and only a vague awareness of their body positioning.


Also, I think it better fits the description of the spell as filling a sphere through which (even) Darkvision cannot see. Creatures with Darkvision definitely can see through the sphere under your interpretation, (A) which blatantly contradicts the description. Also, (B) if the main effect of the spell is to silhouette everything in the area, isn't it a little odd that silhouettes aren't mentioned even once?

(A) The spell says creatures with darkvision can't see through this darkness, as opposed to regular darkness which they can see through. Clearly this means they can't ignore the darkness. (Same as how "seeing through" a disguise means recognizing the truth--it's not a statement about the disguise being transparent and being able to see things in the other side of it.) Otherwise, if you interpret the text to mean that the air in the sphere is opaque like fog to creatures with darkvision, you'd end up in a bizarre place where creatures without darkvision can see beyond the darkness normally (seeing things in the other side of it), but creatures with darkvision see an ink cloud instead of darkness. Interpretations which lead to unnecessary absurdity are not good interpretations and I reject that one.

"Creatures with darkvision can't see through Darkness."

"It affects them just as much as creatures without darkvision."

These are two different ways of saying the same thing.

(B) The silhouettes usually won't exist in situations where Darkness usually gets cast, and have no game effect even when they do (unless the DM invents some), so why would the spell mention them? They're not important.

[Xetheral]

"Most" isn't all, so you still have to deal with silhouettes anyway, such as when there's a campfire illuminating the ground around it, and you're fighting something in the darkness between you and the campfire. The simplest way to run it is just to stick with RAW: "it's in darkness, so you have disadvantage." It's perfectly simple. So is doing the same thing for magical darkness.

A silhouette against a distant (i.e. at least 40'+ to be in darkness, assuming the campfire is at least as bright as a torch) is going to be anything but stark--it's likely to even be incomplete as the creature occludes most of the campfire. A silhouette created by magical darkness, however, is often going to be extremely stark, visible against a Brightly Lit background like a daytime sky or landscape.

And again, arguably you aren't using RAW... if the attacker can see the silhouette, it ipso facto isn't effectively suffering the Blinded condition when trying to see the silhouetted creature, and thus doesn't have disadvantage.


Ah. You see, I don't share your certainty in this "definitely" point. In fact I think removing disadvantage in this case is unjustified most of the time with most weapons (especially melee weaponry). Negative images are not a good substitute for actual visual input. Good luck evading your opponent's parries with no depth perception and only a vague awareness of their body positioning.

If you're granting disadvantage to hit silhouetted creatures that are in Bright Light, you're definitely not following any interpretation of RAW with which I am familiar. Remember that the example of the starkest natural silhouette is a skylined creature silhouetted by the setting sun. In D&D terms that creature is within the unobstructed Bright Light radius of the sun and thus is standing in Bright Light, despite visually appearing as a silhouette.


(A) The spell says creatures with darkvision can't see through this darkness, as opposed to regular darkness which they can see through. Clearly this means they can't ignore the darkness. (Same as how "seeing through" a disguise means recognizing the truth--it's not a statement about the disguise being transparent and being able to see things in the other side of it.) Otherwise, if you interpret the text to mean that the air in the sphere is opaque like fog to creatures with darkvision, you'd end up in a bizarre place where creatures without darkvision can see beyond the darkness normally (seeing things in the other side of it), but creatures with darkvision see an ink cloud instead of darkness. Interpretations which lead to unnecessary absurdity are not good interpretations and I reject that one.

I think it's more natural to read an implicit "even" into the text (i.e. even creatures with darkvision...) than it is to try to interpret "see through this darkness" as referring to anything but transparency. Sure, "see through" could be a synonym for "defeat" as with disguises, but that seems a very tortured reading to me. Still, which textual interpretation is better is, of course, subjective. I'm just explaining why I think the ink-blot interpretation is a more natural reading of the text.


(B) The silhouettes usually won't exist in situations where Darkness usually gets cast, and have no game effect even when they do (unless the DM invents some), so why would the spell mention them? They're not important.

The only way to avoid silhouettes is to either cast the spell while up against an obstacle that is also inside the radius of the spell, or to cast it when you're already in darkness with no light source around. The former case is indistinguishable from the ink-blot anyway, and in the latter case the spell is superfluous because you're already in darkness.

In other words, the only time your interpretation is meaningfully different from the ink-blot interpretation is when creatures in the darkness are silhouetted. Thus, regardless of how often silhouettes are encountered, it makes sense to focus on the treatment of silhouettes as they are where the two interpretations differ.

[Zalabim]

Otherwise, if you interpret the text to mean that the air in the sphere is opaque like fog to creatures with darkvision, you'd end up in a bizarre place where creatures without darkvision can see beyond the darkness normally (seeing things in the other side of it), but creatures with darkvision see an ink cloud instead of darkness. Interpretations which lead to unnecessary absurdity are not good interpretations and I reject that one.

"Creatures with darkvision can't see through Darkness."

"It affects them just as much as creatures without darkvision."

These are two different ways of saying the same thing.

No one who suggests that Darkness fills its area with magical darkness is under the impression that creatures without darkvision should be able to see through darkness. It's only an issue for creatures with darkvision, so the spell only mentions the special interaction for creatures with darkvision. The interpretation that creatures without darkvision should be able to see through the darkness is a strawman. No one makes that suggestion.

[Tanarii]

True, silhouettes are not unique to magical darkness, but sharp, dramatic silhouettes are far more likely to occur with magical darkness than they are with normal darkness, because magical darkness can more easily be created in situations of stark backlighting.
Not really. One or more party members in the darkness (because they have dark vision and don't care) being between a source of light (usually Light) carried by an ally without dark vision and and enemies in the darkness are extremely common IMX.

Treating it like normal darkness is IMO as simple a ruling as treating it like a Fog Cloud spell. It also makes it more useful than a Fog Cloud spell. Otherwise Darkness is a pretty niche spell, and generally speaking you're better with an upcast Fog Cloud. It seems like weird intent, that the primary intended use is casting it on an arrow so you can fire it at targets 600ft away.

[Addaran]

So many great answers! Thanks everyone who answered. I was busy with moving out, didn't expect the thread to explode like that. =)

Another i remembered is ritual casting. RAW doesn't seem to care if you are travelling ( by foot or horseback ridding) while casting them. Which doesn't make sense to me. Ritual evoke the image of summoning with a pentagram, an exorcist or a baptism. Possibly with a book/bible open to have the full steps of the ritual. Hell, you can still talk during a ritual while in most work of fictions, messing the ritual by even one syllable will often twist or fail it.

[jaappleton]

I know some disagree on this next one.

But damnit, I will die on this hill:

SMALL CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE HEAVY WEAPONS WITHOUT PENALTY

20 Strength is 20 Strength, whether from a Gnome or a Goliath.

Your suspension of disbelief goes along with having people gain magical power from having sex with a Dragon but ends with a Halfling utilizing Greatweapon Master without penalties?

[Trafalgar]

I know some disagree on this next one.

But damnit, I will die on this hill:

SMALL CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE HEAVY WEAPONS WITHOUT PENALTY

20 Strength is 20 Strength, whether from a Gnome or a Goliath.

Your suspension of disbelief goes along with having people gain magical power from having sex with a Dragon but ends with a Halfling utilizing Greatweapon Master without penalties?

Or at least have small characters use weapons scaled to their size that do the same damage, have the same features as the larger ones. So a halfling can use a halfling sized halberd just like a halfling can wear halfling sized plate mail.

[EggKookoo]

I know some disagree on this next one.

But damnit, I will die on this hill:

SMALL CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE HEAVY WEAPONS WITHOUT PENALTY

20 Strength is 20 Strength, whether from a Gnome or a Goliath.

Conversely, Powerful Build should negate this issue, along with the strength requirements for heavy armor. Or if not outright negate it, at least influence it. Like, if you have Powerful Build, your Strength score is doubled for the purposes of determining if you meet that requirement.

Did 3e have weapon sizes that worked in conjunction with creature size? I can't remember.

I don't know if it's in the rules, but I imagine a Medium creature using a big two-hander meant for a Large creature would also suffer the same penalty as a Small creature using a conventional greatsword.


Or at least have small characters use weapons scaled to their size that do the same damage, have the same features as the larger ones. So a halfling can use a halfling sized halberd just like a halfling can wear halfling sized plate mail.

A greatsword scaled for a halfling is basically a longsword that the halfling can only use two-handed. Or you could custom whip something up that does, what, 2d4 damage instead of 2d6? Seems like the longsword model is a better deal.

[DwarfFighter]

I
SMALL CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE HEAVY WEAPONS WITHOUT PENALTY

20 Strength is 20 Strength, whether from a Gnome or a Goliath.


Small hands, short arms. It's not just about the weight.

[Valmark]

Small hands, short arms. It's not just about the weight.

That would be true if it wasn't called 'heavy' and if the opposite was true- that bigger creatures cannot use equipment that is too small.

[Trafalgar]

Small hands, short arms. It's not just about the weight.

The Game already ignores the effect of body size on combat, though. A Goliath is 7-8 feet tall. An Elf is 5-6 feet tall. Both are Medium and use the same weapons even though a 7'6" person can wield a much larger weapon than a 5'6" person.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That would be true if it wasn't called 'heavy' and if the opposite was true- that bigger creatures cannot use equipment that is too small.

The opposite would become necessary if we suddenly invented halfling sized greatswords. Having a larger creature (that is still medium sized) doesn't break logic so much. A dagger is still a dagger in their hand even if it looks like a toothpick while they hold it.

The same would not be true for a halfling greatsword, which would look, and function, like a longsword in their hand. A greatsword is simply too large for a halfling, and if you make a smaller weapon for them, it's just a longsword that fit some reason is a more effective weapon for them.

To simply say that the weapons are too unwieldy for small creatures is a much less fiddly (and not unrealistic) rule.

[DwarfFighter]

That would be true if it wasn't called 'heavy' and if the opposite was true- that bigger creatures cannot use equipment that is too small.
Well, sure. But those "Flimsy" weapons don't exist outside homebrew.

And besides, Heavy does not stop you using the weapon:

Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.

[Amnestic]

Light weapons should clearly be too unwieldy for medium creatures, to match the 'heavy' for small. Problem solved. :)

[MaxWilson]

No one who suggests that Darkness fills its area with magical darkness is under the impression that creatures without darkvision should be able to see through darkness. It's only an issue for creatures with darkvision, so the spell only mentions the special interaction for creatures with darkvision. The interpretation that creatures without darkvision should be able to see through the darkness is a strawman. No one makes that suggestion.

On what grounds are you justified preventing A from seeing B just because a Darkness spell is between them, if A does not have darkvision so the "can't see through" clause is inoperative?


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.

Would you prevent A from seeing B just because normal darkness is between them?

[Valmark]

The opposite would become necessary if we suddenly invented halfling sized greatswords. Having a larger creature (that is still medium sized) doesn't break logic so much. A dagger is still a dagger in their hand even if it looks like a toothpick while they hold it.

The same would not be true for a halfling greatsword, which would look, and function, like a longsword in their hand. A greatsword is simply too large for a halfling, and if you make a smaller weapon for them, it's just a longsword that fit some reason is a more effective weapon for them.

To simply say that the weapons are too unwieldy for small creatures is a much less fiddly (and not unrealistic) rule.
If you don't have space enough to properly wield the smaller weapon you can't use it as well though.

And yeah, that's the point- either make it work both ways or don't.

Well, sure. But those "Flimsy" weapons don't exist outside homebrew.

And besides, Heavy does not stop you using the weapon:

Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.

My bad, though the point stays the same- it's arbitrary and somehow doesn't hold the same logic when you get bigger.

[DwarfFighter]

My bad, though the point stays the same- it's arbitrary and somehow doesn't hold the same logic when you get bigger.
It seems that the "hand's too big" is due is just out of scope for the rules since the principal actors, the PCs, usually are not larger than Medium size.

Small PCs interacting with objects made for medium-sized characters is an issue from the outset so it makes sense to make some considerations for them. It's also a staple of fantasy, small and large characters being the exotic ones, ref. Halflings in Middle Earth, Ogier in Wheel of Time.

The reverse is rare rely a concern in major settings, except maybe Caravan of Courage.

[meandean]

I don't think spells even have consistent names. Virtually no one in the fiction actually calls it "magic missile." The only spells that might have some kind of consistent identifier are the few named after their creator, and even then I doubt most field practitioners (adventurers) refer to them as such. I'm not sure when a sorcerer suddenly works out how to cast it, he thinks "wow, this is aganazzar's scorcher!" He just knows he can blast fire. The spell names are a convenience for players, and maybe are examples of what they might be called by some of those who would categorize such things in the fiction.But if your point is that different people may cast the same spell in an entirely different fashion, I think this undermines rather than helps that point. The fact that it's called "Aganazzar's scorcher" implies to me that Aganazzar documented a procedure, and when you cast the spell, you're doing it the way he did it.

The "Counterspell issue" goes way beyond counterspell, IMO. A lot of player abilities either literally don't make sense if the players aren't aware of rolls and other pertinent information, or at least wouldn't work in the way they were seemingly intended. Lucky, Portent, any of the reactions that let you add to or subtract from a die (Shield spell, Bardic Inspiration/Cutting Words, Arcane Deflection, Cosmic Omen, Glorious Defense, several Battle Master maneuvers)... there are just a whole bunch of situations that essentially assume the player is able to react to what the DM is doing mechanically.

As Pex and Gignere​ said, the easiest solution, at least, is simply to put all the cards on the table. The DM can metagame just as much as you can and save the NPC's counterspell for your big spell. That of course is perfectly fair in that scenario. Everyone's (theoretically) making The Best Move in the larger sense, rather than in the RP sense. I don't think that's what the devs really intended, but it's the logical endpoint of what they did.

[MrStabby]

I know some disagree on this next one.

But damnit, I will die on this hill:

SMALL CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE HEAVY WEAPONS WITHOUT PENALTY

20 Strength is 20 Strength, whether from a Gnome or a Goliath.

Your suspension of disbelief goes along with having people gain magical power from having sex with a Dragon but ends with a Halfling utilizing Greatweapon Master without penalties?

Hmm. I the Dragon-sex thing I give a pass to because it is based on things with which I am unfamiliar. On the other hand basic physics is something I deal with on a day to day basis.

A heavy battle axe and a halfling swinging it both rotating round their common center of mass will pull the wielder off balance in a way that a heavier wielder would be able to resist. It is a question of mass not a question of force here. Which isn't to say I think there should be a penalty - but rather a penalty makes sense.

[Reach Weapon]

True, silhouettes are not unique to magical darkness, but sharp, dramatic silhouettes are far more likely to occur with magical darkness than they are with normal darkness, because magical darkness can more easily be created in situations of stark backlighting.

If darkness is the absence of light, it might follow that magical darkness is where light is magically absent, at which point you'd need an explanation for how silhouettes could be formed in places where light is not present to interact with objects.

[Amnestic]

A heavy battle axe and a halfling swinging it both rotating round their common center of mass will pull the wielder off balance in a way that a heavier wielder would be able to resist. It is a question of mass not a question of force here. Which isn't to say I think there should be a penalty - but rather a penalty makes sense.

Okay, but why is that an issue? If we have to grant that all weapons are the same size (apparently) then a goliath (up to 8' tall) will presumably wield a greataxe in a different manner to a dwarf (4') or drow (under 5'). They're literally twice as tall as a dwarf and can weigh over twice as much.

If a halfling can get proficiency in using a greataxe, why wouldn't they have a fighting style that utilises the different centre of mass to their advantage, in exactly the same way that a dwarf's style would differ to a goliath's or a drow's?

[MrStabby]

Okay, but why is that an issue? If we have to grant that all weapons are the same size (apparently) then a goliath (up to 8' tall) will presumably wield a greataxe in a different manner to a dwarf (4') or drow (under 5'). They're literally twice as tall as a dwarf and can weigh over twice as much.

If a halfling can get proficiency in using a greataxe, why wouldn't they have a fighting style that utilises the different centre of mass to their advantage, in exactly the same way that a dwarf's style would differ to a goliath's or a drow's?

Its just the fact that the rules are not granular enough for this. There is a range considered medium and a range considered small. So yes, a goliath would be different to a dwarf, but to represent that you would need them in different size categories. Essentially it comes down to "why are Goliath and Dwarf the same size?".

[Kuulvheysoon]

Amusingly enough, in 3.5E, people had the same thoughts. Powerful Build let you use weapons that were "too big" for you back in the day. Here's the ability (from the Half-Giant, available on the d20SRD) from the Olden Days:

Powerful Build (Ex)
The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger. Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category.
So this actually does address a lot of the things that have been brought up about that. Now, they unfortunately couldn't port these aspects into 5E, because they got rid of weapon sizes. Was it a net positive? Probably. But that doesn't mean that it didn't lose things during the transition.

[MaxWilson]

(C) A silhouette against a distant (i.e. at least 40'+ to be in darkness, assuming the campfire is at least as bright as a torch) is going to be anything but stark--it's likely to even be incomplete as the creature occludes most of the campfire. A silhouette created by magical darkness, however, is often going to be extremely stark, visible against a Brightly Lit background like a daytime sky or landscape.

(B) And again, arguably you aren't using RAW... if the attacker can see the silhouette, it ipso facto isn't effectively suffering the Blinded condition when trying to see the silhouetted creature, and thus doesn't have disadvantage.

(A) If you're granting disadvantage to hit silhouetted creatures that are in Bright Light, you're definitely not following any interpretation of RAW with which I am familiar. Remember that the example of the starkest natural silhouette is a skylined creature silhouetted by the setting sun. In D&D terms that creature is within the unobstructed Bright Light radius of the sun and thus is standing in Bright Light, despite visually appearing as a silhouette.

...(D) The only way to avoid silhouettes is to either cast the spell while up against an obstacle that is also inside the radius of the spell, or to cast it when you're already in darkness with no light source around. (E) The former case is indistinguishable from the ink-blot anyway, and in the latter case the spell is superfluous because you're already in darkness.

(F) In other words, the only time your interpretation is meaningfully different from the ink-blot interpretation is when creatures in the darkness are silhouetted. Thus, regardless of how often silhouettes are encountered, it makes sense to focus on the treatment of silhouettes as they are where the two interpretations differ.

Apologies, I started a reply last night but it was a long post and my phone died in the middle and it took me a while to get up the emotional energy to recreate it.

(A) Oh, I see now. You're talking about a different situation than I thought. I thought you were talking about silhouettes created by bright light, a la this:

https://i.postimg.cc/kGQGz0cD/Visual.png

but I see now you're talking about silhouettes of creatures who are in bright light, which means they aren't silhouettes at all, they are full three-dimensional images with depth perception and everything. (An Eagle Totem Barb could even read their lips, which you can't do to a silhouette.)

I think the situation drawn above is the crux of the issue. Swordsman #1 is in darkness, as is swordsman #2, but swordsman #2 can see #1's silhouette. By RAW swordsman #2 has disadvantage to hit, but it seems that you would remove that disadvantage because a silhouette is visible. You have the right to do that as DM, but I wouldn't do so myself, because swordsman #2 will have a very tough time figuring out what #1 is doing just from the partial outline he can see (most of the body, probably not the feet, but it depends on how tall they are and how close together they are standing). A Darkness spell creates an even harder-to-read silhouette because it even blanks out part of the background so you can't see the other guy's feet or lower body, or weapon if it's held low.

In the situation you actually meant to discuss I agree, RAW is clear that there's no disadvantage, but there's also no silhouette, just a full 3D image.

(B) Hard disagree. Deducing a creature's location from things you can see (or feel) is very, very much not the same as seeing a creature by RAW.

(C) Point A illustrates a scenario that shows why I don't think this is true in general.

(E) No it isn't. (D) is very different from ink-blot in that you can see things not in darkness, while they can't see you as long as you're in the darkness. Ergo, you have advantage and they have disadvantage, under RAW at least. (I think giving unseen ranged attackers advantage is a bad idea for various reasons, so at my table being concealed by darkness grants only defensive advantages, not offensive ones.)

(F) False, see point E.

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


Your suspension of disbelief goes along with having people gain magical power from having sex with a Dragon but ends with a Halfling utilizing Greatweapon Master without penalties?

Uh, my suspension of disbelief doesn't accomodate either. Magical power is not an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

I think you meant to say magical power from having dragon DNA?

[Reynaert]

This is pretty fair but I’ve had DMs that counterspell my booming blade because I rolled a crit and I’m positive that if I didn’t crit he wouldn’t have CS it.

It does still add kludge like you said everytime you have to describe a caster is focusing his will. That just gets old fast. I prefer everyone just say I cast x and live with the fact that people can optimize the CS. Is it unbalanced I don’t think so? Maybe it breaks a tiny bit of verisimilitude but I think I will gladly trade that than the kludgy work arounds.

WTA? Does your DM also counterspell your Scorching Ray after you rolled a hit? Or counterspell your Hold Person after the creature failed its save?

[Gignere]

WTA? Does your DM also counterspell your Scorching Ray after you rolled a hit? Or counterspell your Hold Person after the creature failed its save?

It’s VTT you click booming blade and it’s all rolled already. It’s why CS as written is so bad it just adds kludge instead of just allowing us to click the spell when it is our turn and speed things along.

[MrStabby]

Uh, my suspension of disbelief doesn't accomodate either. Magical power is not an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

I think you meant to say magical power from having dragon DNA?

I dunno, there was enough wierd 3e splat that I could be persuaded that this was a canon source of certain powers.

[Reynaert]

That's how I read it, how I've always played it, and it seems very simple. Every time I see someone complaining about how complex it is, I wonder if I've missed something obvious in the text.

The surprise rule sais "the dm decides" but then goes on to say how the DM is supposed to decide who is surprised, in a way that only applies to ambushes. I guess a lot of people take this to mean that is the only way to be surprised, even though the whole situation of unepected attack by someone believed to be friendly is completely out of scope of this. And instead of just falling back to the first line "the dm decides" they come up with some kind of homebrew.

[Segev]

The surprise rule sais "the dm decides" but then goes on to say how the DM is supposed to decide who is surprised, in a way that only applies to ambushes. I guess a lot of people take this to mean that is the only way to be surprised, even though the whole situation of unepected attack by someone believed to be friendly is completely out of scope of this. And instead of just falling back to the first line "the dm decides" they come up with some kind of homebrew.

To be fair, "the DM decides" will always be 'some kind of homebrew.' Or, rather, if "the DM decides" to use a particular algorithmic method, he's still deciding. It's not "homebrew" any more or less than any other means of the DM deciding.

[Trafalgar]

Your suspension of disbelief goes along with having people gain magical power from having sex with a Dragon but ends with a Halfling utilizing Greatweapon Master without penalties?



Uh, my suspension of disbelief doesn't accomodate either. Magical power is not an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

I think you meant to say magical power from having dragon DNA?

I am trying not to imagine the shenanigans my players would get into if sex with a dragon gave you magical powers.

[Segev]

I am trying not to imagine the shenanigans my players would get into if sex with a dragon gave you magical powers.

Warlocks have gotten Patrons from less intimate relationships.

[Zalabim]

On what grounds are you justified preventing A from seeing B just because a Darkness spell is between them, if A does not have darkvision so the "can't see through" clause is inoperative?


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.

Would you prevent A from seeing B just because normal darkness is between them?
Would you prevent A from hearing B because there is space between them? Since sound does not travel in space. This is a false equivalence. An area that is dark because it is filled with magical darkness is a distinct concept from an area that is dark because it is not filled with light.

There is not a default expectation that creatures without darkvision can see through darkness. Making an exception for darkvision does not change how non-darkvision works.

[MaxWilson]

Would you prevent A from hearing B because there is space between them? Since sound does not travel in space. This is a false equivalence. An area that is dark because it is filled with magical darkness is a distinct concept from an area that is dark because it is not filled with light.

You can certainly invent such a rule but my question is whether you have any evidence from RAW.

[Aimeryan]

The RAW on Darkness (spell) is that a sphere is filled with 'magical darkness'. Two possibilities, here:


'Magical darkness' is not 'darkness'. This means the only rules we have for 'magical darkness' are the ones contained in the spell; 'A creature with darkvision cannot see through it' and 'nonmagical light can't illuminate it'. So, black paint, but no disadvantage or anything because that is not stated - oh, unless you have darkvision then you are just flatout worse off.
'Magical darkness' is 'darkness'. Thereby, refer to the rules of 'darkness'. RAW here is broke anyway because it 'blocks vision entirely'. So, ink blot; disadvantage, can't see in or through.


So, either you have a darkness spell that is only effective ironically against creatures with darkvision, or, you have a spell that is entirely dependent on broken darkness rules that if were to be fixed would likely break the spell. Matches the title for me.

[MaxWilson]

Magical darkness' is 'darkness'. Thereby, refer to the rules of 'darkness'. RAW here is broke anyway because it 'blocks vision entirely'.

Both camps agree that darkness (including magical darkness) blocks vision entirely. They just don't agree on where it is blocked and for whom.

[Aimeryan]

Both camps agree that darkness (including magical darkness) blocks vision entirely.

No they don't; I just stated the 'magical darkness as not darkness' position as not doing this - the black paint camp does not take the magical darkness to block vision entirely.


They just don't agree on where it is blocked and for whom.

The area, as stated by RAW.

[Talakeal]

According to 5E raw, darkness blocks vision, be it magical or mundane.

That isn’t at all how it works in real life or, iirc, previous editions, but that is 5e RAW.

[MaxWilson]

No they don't; I just stated the 'magical darkness as not darkness' position as not doing this - the black paint camp does not take the magical darkness to block vision entirely.

As a member of the "black paint/silhouette" camp I can assure you that's incorrect. That is blocking vision entirely, in 5E terms. Contrast with dim light which only imposes disadvantage. You could still read the lips of someone in light obscurement. With heavy obscurement, don't even bother rolling, it's automatic failure because all vision of creatures in that area is blocked entirely.

[Reach Weapon]

Two possibilities, here:

Again, there may only be two commonly held models for magical darkness1, but I don't know of a RAW argument that states a lack of a grand unifying theory of RAW "physics" (or a bad one) would somehow change the Rules As Written.


1. I've been suggesting a quantum teleportation model might work for magical darkness in this very thread.


Would you prevent A from hearing B because there is space between them? Since sound does not travel in space. This is a false equivalence. An area that is dark because it is filled with magical darkness is a distinct concept from an area that is dark because it is not filled with light.

There is not a default expectation that creatures without darkvision can see through darkness. Making an exception for darkvision does not change how non-darkvision works.

I can't tell if you're using "space" to mean a vacuum, or to mean distance (or alternating between the two), but it's interesting you mention sound, given the dramatically different verbiage between the 2nd level evocation Darkness, and the 2nd level illusion Silence. How big and in what shape is the sound shadow cast by Silence, and what justification are you using for the models informing that decision?

[Aimeryan]

As a member of the "black paint/silhouette" camp I can assure you that's incorrect. That is blocking vision entirely, in 5E terms. Contrast with dim light which only imposes disadvantage. You could still read the lips of someone in light obscurement. With heavy obscurement, don't even bother rolling, it's automatic failure because all vision of creatures in that area is blocked entirely.

Anything opaque blocks vision entirely (...eh, close enough). I am not sure where we are going here. An area of darkness (non-spell) blocks vision entirely, as per RAW. Whether an area of 'magical darkness' is an area of 'darkness' is pretty much what separates the camps. No one is arguing a solid object/creature does not block vision; we are talking about the area.

Personally, I find painting people black and then pretending that means I don't see them as silly. As would dressing them up in a table cloth. Instead, I would not see the black paint interpretation as silly (which is the thread title) if there were camouflage rules and the backdrop was also in the spell's area. As it is though...

The ink blot interpretation meaning you don't see people inside I do not find silly, however, it relies on darkness RAW that I do, so...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Put me firmly in the "inky opaque sphere" camp. Mainly because that's way cooler. It's not just non light, it's anti light.

[Zalabim]

I can't tell if you're using "space" to mean a vacuum, or to mean distance (or alternating between the two), but it's interesting you mention sound, given the dramatically different verbiage between the 2nd level evocation Darkness, and the 2nd level illusion Silence. How big and in what shape is the sound shadow cast by Silence, and what justification are you using for the models informing that decision?
It's alternating between the two, as that is the point I'm trying to illustrate.

And yeah, the rules for sound are very much on topic, where rules exist at all

[JackPhoenix]

I dunno, there was enough wierd 3e splat that I could be persuaded that this was a canon source of certain powers.

Well, there was the Lich Loved feat, and I think at least one similar, but fey related one....

[Xetheral]

Apologies, I started a reply last night but it was a long post and my phone died in the middle and it took me a while to get up the emotional energy to recreate it.

(A) Oh, I see now. You're talking about a different situation than I thought. I thought you were talking about silhouettes created by bright light, a la this:

https://i.postimg.cc/kGQGz0cD/Visual.png

but I see now you're talking about silhouettes of creatures who are in bright light, which means they aren't silhouettes at all, they are full three-dimensional images with depth perception and everything. (An Eagle Totem Barb could even read their lips, which you can't do to a silhouette.)

I think the situation drawn above is the crux of the issue. Swordsman #1 is in darkness, as is swordsman #2, but swordsman #2 can see #1's silhouette. By RAW swordsman #2 has disadvantage to hit, but it seems that you would remove that disadvantage because a silhouette is visible. You have the right to do that as DM, but I wouldn't do so myself, because swordsman #2 will have a very tough time figuring out what #1 is doing just from the partial outline he can see (most of the body, probably not the feet, but it depends on how tall they are and how close together they are standing). A Darkness spell creates an even harder-to-read silhouette because it even blanks out part of the background so you can't see the other guy's feet or lower body, or weapon if it's held low.

In the situation you actually meant to discuss I agree, RAW is clear that there's no disadvantage, but there's also no silhouette, just a full 3D image.

(B) Hard disagree. Deducing a creature's location from things you can see (or feel) is very, very much not the same as seeing a creature by RAW.

(C) Point A illustrates a scenario that shows why I don't think this is true in general.

(E) No it isn't. (D) is very different from ink-blot in that you can see things not in darkness, while they can't see you as long as you're in the darkness. Ergo, you have advantage and they have disadvantage, under RAW at least. (I think giving unseen ranged attackers advantage is a bad idea for various reasons, so at my table being concealed by darkness grants only defensive advantages, not offensive ones.)

(F) False, see point E.

Thanks for the detailed reply! I appreciate the time and effort spent on the post, even if it's clear we disagree on how fairly fundamental aspects of how vision and illumination work. :) My responses are below.

(A) Your diagram doesn't work with normal darkness. Whatever the cone-shaped light source is, it's going to reflect off of the wall and continue back towards the source, illuminating the Swordsmen either in bright light (if there's still distance left on the bright light radius after the reflection) or dim light (otherwise). With normal darkness it's very difficult to find a geometric arrangement that has a close range, brightly lit background to provide a sharp silhouette precisely because of how light spreads. (And if the wall is sufficiently dark to not reflect the light, then it can't provide a good background for a sharp silhouette either.)

And we clearly disagree on whether creatures in Bright Light can themselves be silhouetted. In the real world, creatures skylined against the setting sun are indeed silhouetted from the perspective of observers with the correct vantage point. As a DM, I would conclude the same is true in the game world because no rule tells me otherwise. The illumination rules do tell me that such a creature is in Bright Light, however, which means that creatures in Bright Light can indeed be seen as silhouettes. This also makes perfect sense in a variant of your campfire example: a creature standing in the bright light radius of the campfire and backlit by that campfire is going to be seen as a silhouette by anyone from the appropriate vantage point.

(B) I think you're overlooking that the target being in darkness does not itself provide disadvantage to hit. Instead, the target being in darkness effectively gives observers trying to see the target the Blinded condition with respect to the target, and it is the Blinded condition that imposes disadvantage to hit. If there is some reason that the observer can see the target despite it being in darkness (e.g. Darkvision, the target being silhouetted) then the observer exceptionally must not be suffering from the Blinded condition with respect to the target, and thus doesn't suffer from disadvantage on attack rolls. In other words, the vision rules never impose disadvantage to hit something you can see, so if you can see a silhouette you can attack that silhouette without vision-imposed disadvantage.

(C) Since I dispute that your diagram in Point A is possible under the rules, I don't find it a persuasive counter-example. Indeed, the fact that it doesn't work serves as a good illustration of why I think that stark silhouettes are much more common with (your interpretation of) magical darkness than they are with normal darkness.

(D)(E)(F) Good point. The differences in seeing out make my claim false, as written. I amend my claim to instead state that if there is a dark background within the range of the darkness spell, that your interpretation is indistinguishable from the ink-blot interpretation only from the perspective of those looking in. I still think focusing on the differences between the two interpretations with regards to silhouettes is reasonable given that the difficulty of looking into the area of magical darkness will almost always come up when the spell is cast. (Also, the spell description appears to describe what the spell looks like from the outside, not the inside, so interpreting what outsiders see is relevant to determining whether an interpretation is consistent with that description.)

[Segev]

(A) Your diagram doesn't work with normal darkness. Whatever the cone-shaped light source is, it's going to reflect off of the wall and continue back towards the source, illuminating the Swordsmen either in bright light (if there's still distance left on the bright light radius after the reflection) or dim light (otherwise). With normal darkness it's very difficult to find a geometric arrangement that has a close range, brightly lit background to provide a sharp silhouette precisely because of how light spreads. (And if the wall is sufficiently dark to not reflect the light, then it can't provide a good background for a sharp silhouette either.)

Untrue. You can use "not to scale" to prove it; set an arbitrary number of feet between Swordsman 1 and the brightly lit wall behind him. That number is greater than any distance of bright or dim light reflected by the wall. The brightly-lit wall is still brightly-lit, and clearly visible to Swordsman 2, unless you're using a model that says non-magical darkness entirely blocks line of sight. (Which would mean that anybody outside of the light radius of, say, a campfire, is unable to see the campfire.)

[Talakeal]

unless you're using a model that says non-magical darkness entirely blocks line of sight. (Which would mean that anybody outside of the light radius of, say, a campfire, is unable to see the campfire.)

Which is RAW according to the vision rules in the 5e PHB.

[quinron]

The opposite would become necessary if we suddenly invented halfling sized greatswords. Having a larger creature (that is still medium sized) doesn't break logic so much. A dagger is still a dagger in their hand even if it looks like a toothpick while they hold it.

The same would not be true for a halfling greatsword, which would look, and function, like a longsword in their hand. A greatsword is simply too large for a halfling, and if you make a smaller weapon for them, it's just a longsword that fit some reason is a more effective weapon for them.

To simply say that the weapons are too unwieldy for small creatures is a much less fiddly (and not unrealistic) rule.

This cuts both ways, though - if a Small-sized character has disadvantage with heavy weapons because they're too unwieldy, why doesn't a Medium-sized character with low Strength have disadvantage because the weapons are too heavy? Conversely, if the idea is that a halfling-sized greatsword is functionally a longsword and we use the longsword stats to reflect the smaller size, why is a halfling capable of wielding a longsword one-handed and dealing the same amount of damage as a human wielding a longsword one-handed?

[Mastikator]

This cuts both ways, though - if a Small-sized character has disadvantage with heavy weapons because they're too unwieldy, why doesn't a Medium-sized character with low Strength have disadvantage because the weapons are too heavy? Conversely, if the idea is that a halfling-sized greatsword is functionally a longsword and we use the longsword stats to reflect the smaller size, why is a halfling capable of wielding a longsword one-handed and dealing the same amount of damage as a human wielding a longsword one-handed?

Has to do with momentum (or inertia if you prefer that term), not strength. A small character moving a heavy weapon has to use a lot of force, force is applied back to the small character. The small character's low mass cause it to move in the opposite direction. The character has to compensate, which puts it at disadvantage.

A low strength character will have a strength penalty when using a non-finesse weapon, but they won't have the trouble of momentum.

[Segev]

Which is RAW according to the vision rules in the 5e PHB.

Which makes it fit this thread perfectly! :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

(A) Your diagram doesn't work with normal darkness. Whatever the cone-shaped light source is, it's going to reflect off of the wall and continue back towards the source, illuminating the Swordsmen either in bright light (if there's still distance left on the bright light radius after the reflection) or dim light (otherwise).

Forgive me for focusing on this part but I think it's crucial.

That diagram is just a PHB Bullseye Lantern illuminating a wall. There's no "reflect off the wall and illuminate things outside the AoE" going on, by RAW. Swordsman #1 isn't in the bullseye lantern's 60' cone so he is not illuminated. Apparently you disagree, but do you realize that you're contravening RAW on how bullseye lanterns work?


With normal darkness it's very difficult to find a geometric arrangement that has a close range, brightly lit background to provide a sharp silhouette precisely because of how light spreads.

This is why the bullseye lantern example is crucial: it's not difficult at all, if bullseye lanterns work the way the PHB says they should.


And we clearly disagree on whether creatures in Bright Light can themselves be silhouetted. In the real world, creatures skylined against the setting sun are indeed silhouetted from the perspective of observers with the correct vantage point.

Only because of subtle factors that 5E doesn't bother modeling. 5E doesn't even model facing in combat--and it definitely doesn't model creatures that are illuminated only from one direction! But again, the bullseye lantern example is crucial here because if you do want to model half-illuminated creatures, the bullseye lantern silhouettes is a logical reference point.


(B) I think you're overlooking that the target being in darkness does not itself provide disadvantage to hit. Instead, the target being in darkness effectively gives observers trying to see the target the Blinded condition with respect to the target, and it is the Blinded condition that imposes disadvantage to hit. If there is some reason that the observer can see the target despite it being in darkness (e.g. Darkvision, the target being silhouetted) then the observer exceptionally must not be suffering from the Blinded condition with respect to the target, and thus doesn't suffer from disadvantage on attack rolls.

At the risk of repeating myself, seeing a silhouette is not seeing a creature in the sense RAW uses the term "seeing." See again bullseye lantern example. Seeing footprints in the sand, or even a whole-body shape, also is not seeing an (otherwise-invisible) creature.


(C) Since I dispute that your diagram in Point A is possible under the rules, I don't find it a persuasive counter-example.

And again we come back to the question about PHB bullseye lanterns. Do you run them differently?

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


Which is RAW according to the vision rules in the 5e PHB.

You're using an old PHB. They fixed that in the errata for good reason. No sane person would ever run darkness the way the PHB originally said to run it.

[Talakeal]

Which makes it fit this thread perfectly! :smallbiggrin:

Indeed.

Lighting rules are hard, and I can see why a lot of people treat magical darkness (or in 5E's case mundane darkness) as just black fog.

In my system I only give concealment to people who are actually in darkened areas, but I still have problems with people arguing that you shouldn't be able to see out of / through darkness or that being in a darkened area shouldn't do anything as you are backlit / silhouetted by the lit area behind you.


You're using an old PHB. They fixed that in the errata for good reason. No sane person would ever run darkness the way the PHB originally said to run it.

I suppose I am. That's good to know.

Maybe then, they just forgot to update the wording of the darkness spell at the same time and that is where all the controversy comes from?

Edit: So I looked at the errata, and while it does make it better, it still doesn't remove the line that says that fog and darkness both "block" vision.

[Xetheral]

Untrue. You can use "not to scale" to prove it; set an arbitrary number of feet between Swordsman 1 and the brightly lit wall behind him. That number is greater than any distance of bright or dim light reflected by the wall. The brightly-lit wall is still brightly-lit, and clearly visible to Swordsman 2, unless you're using a model that says non-magical darkness entirely blocks line of sight. (Which would mean that anybody outside of the light radius of, say, a campfire, is unable to see the campfire.)

I'm not following what you are saying. Can you re-explain?


Forgive me for focusing on this part but I think it's crucial.

That diagram is just a PHB Bullseye Lantern illuminating a wall. There's no "reflect off the wall and illuminate things outside the AoE" going on, by RAW. Swordsman #1 isn't in the bullseye lantern's 60' cone so he is not illuminated. Apparently you disagree, but do you realize that you're contravening RAW on how bullseye lanterns work?

This is why the bullseye lantern example is crucial: it's not difficult at all, if bullseye lanterns work the way the PHB says they should.

...

And again we come back to the question about PHB bullseye lanterns. Do you run them differently?

Light doesn't just stop when it hits an opaque barrier, it reflects (unless the barrier is perfectly absorbant). That's true in real life, and thus true in the game world unless the rules say otherwise. They don't say otherwise, so the beam of bright light bounces off the wall and continues to expand in a cone-shaped beam, now heading the other direction. Once it hits a 60' path distance from the lantern, it continues expanding, spreading dim light for another 60'. True, the wall would absorb some of the light, so the illumination wouldn't be as bright after bouncing off the wall, but the rules are again silent about that, so RAW it's also up to the DM to determine if the reflected illumination is at all attenuated.

As the DM I suppose you could rule that light is completely attenuated by opaque surfaces in your game world, but that has follow-on consequences, such as the wall in your example being pitch black and thus not working as a backdrop for silhouettes. Also such a game world would visually appear nothing like the real world.

If you're going to reply that the rules don't explicitly specify that light reflects off objects, I'm going to counter that the rules don't explicitly specify the existence of friction either. That's why the game world works like the real world, unless otherwise specified--devoting page count to explaining basic physics would be a waste. (Heck, the bright light/dim light radii are a correct implementation of the inverse square law--do you really think the designers went to the trouble to include rules that accurately model how the intensity of light decays with distance, but then wrote the rules such that light fails to reflect off ordinary surfaces?)


Only because of subtle factors that 5E doesn't bother modeling. 5E doesn't even model facing in combat--and it definitely doesn't model creatures that are illuminated only from one direction! But again, the bullseye lantern example is crucial here because if you do want to model half-illuminated creatures, the bullseye lantern silhouettes is a logical reference point.

You are correct that the rules don't address creatures illuminated from one side. That means, RAW, it's up to the DM to decide how to handle situations where directional lighting matters, not that directional lighting doesn't exist in the game world. I suspect most DMs, for example, describe solar eclipses in their world (moon geometry permitting) as looking like the silhouette of the moon passing in front of the sun, rather than describing the near side of the moon as fully illuminated mid-eclipse on the grounds that the rules are silent on directional lighting.


At the risk of repeating myself, seeing a silhouette is not seeing a creature in the sense RAW uses the term "seeing." See again bullseye lantern example. Seeing footprints in the sand, or even a whole-body shape, also is not seeing an (otherwise-invisible) creature.

I agree with you that seeing footprints in the sand does not count as seeing a creature. One can see footprints and still be effectively suffering the Blinded condition with respect to the creature itself. But I disagree with you that one can see any part of a silhouette of a creature while suffering the Blinded condition with respect to that creature. The Blinded condition prevents seeing entirely. I am aware of no RAW supporting your position that one can see a creature's silhouette even if one is suffering the Blinded condition with respect to that creature. If you are aware of something in the rules I'm overlooking, please let me know what page you're referring to.

[Reynaert]

To be fair, "the DM decides" will always be 'some kind of homebrew.' Or, rather, if "the DM decides" to use a particular algorithmic method, he's still deciding. It's not "homebrew" any more or less than any other means of the DM deciding.

Unless the DM decides to not use the surprise rule at all, but comes up with a different way of facilitating "sudden attacks in plain sight".

[Aimeryan]

You're using an old PHB. They fixed that in the errata for good reason. No sane person would ever run darkness the way the PHB originally said to run it.

Unfortunately, they did not fix that. They fixed the line referencing the subject of the area of darkness to now reference the observer instead. However, they forgot to separate darkness from opaque fog and dense foilage, having left in the 'blocks vision entirely' issue. It is very much reasonable, nay expected, that opaque fog and dense foilage would block vision entirely - the same is not true of an area of natural darkness.

The issue of backlighting revealing a person not being represented in the rules is an artifact of simplified rules. It means that if you have a person standing in front of a burning barn at night (but outside the light radius of the fire) you cannot by RAW see them because they are in an area of darkness - this is somewhat silly, but understandable. The fact that the darkness also means you can't see the burning barn is a step too silly.

[JackPhoenix]

This cuts both ways, though - if a Small-sized character has disadvantage with heavy weapons because they're too unwieldy, why doesn't a Medium-sized character with low Strength have disadvantage because the weapons are too heavy? Conversely, if the idea is that a halfling-sized greatsword is functionally a longsword and we use the longsword stats to reflect the smaller size, why is a halfling capable of wielding a longsword one-handed and dealing the same amount of damage as a human wielding a longsword one-handed?

A character with low Str DOES have disadvantage, though not Disadvantage: he's got lower stat modifier to attack and damage.

[EggKookoo]

Conversely, if the idea is that a halfling-sized greatsword is functionally a longsword and we use the longsword stats to reflect the smaller size, why is a halfling capable of wielding a longsword one-handed and dealing the same amount of damage as a human wielding a longsword one-handed?

What's the penalty for a Medium creature trying to use a greatsword one-handed? Is it a disadvantage thing or simply not allowed? Whatever it is, I would expect a Small creature trying to use a longsword one-handed would run into the same issue, if we're saying it's effectively a greatsword for the creature.

Obviously 5e didn't plan to model this. Damage dice tends to increase in number (not size) as weapons scale up. Looking through the MM, it seems a Large creature wielding a Large-scaled longsword will deal 2d8 (or 2d10) damage. Going to Huge becomes 3dX. But we can't scale down to Small and do 0.5d8 -- although I guess we could just roll 1d8 and halve the result. But that's clunky. And since a greatsword does 2d6, we could say a Small one is 1d6, akin to a shortsword, but most weapons are based off a single die, so that's not a general solution.

My interpretation of all this is that a halfling is, in fact, using a halfling-scaled greatsword, and still doing 2d6, because someone figured out how to balance the weapon such that it's basically just as lethal as the bigger counterpart, just optimized for the smaller creature. But things don't always scale, and there are limits to how well you can optimize. So a Large greatsword goes up to 3d6 and you can't easily tune a Medium one to keep up. Weirdly, I think this would mean a Medium creature picking up that Small greatsword would actually do less damage, more akin to a longsword, since the weapon wasn't built for a creature of that scale. It's not just length, but things like handle size (length and girth). One thing that bugged me about Bilbo and Sting is that if that thing was intended to be a pocket knife for an ogre (or whatever the explanation was), I always thought the handle should be unwieldy and thick for a hobbit's grasp.

[Segev]

I'm not following what you are saying. Can you re-explain?

I can try, though I first want to point out that the rest of the post from which this quote comes is house ruling something that the RAW do not say about lighting. Light, in 5e, is not modeled as "reflecting" off of things to create indirect lighting. While a DM could rule it doing so, that's not what the rules say it does.

Anyway, even if you do rule that light bouncing off a wall will create a further area of bright light...

Let's say that you rule that the area of bright light caused by reflection off of the wall is another 20 feet from the wall. And the dim light is another 20 feet beyond that. Make the distance between Swordsman 1 in the diagram and the illuminated part of the wall 60 feet. He is now well outside of any brightly-lit or dimly-lit regions; he is in darkness. However, Swordsman 2 still is able to see the brightly-lit wall behind Swordsman 1, but Swordsman 1 is in darkness.

Does that clarify things?

[Tanarii]

I'm not following what you are saying. Can you re-explain?
Swordsman 1 & 2 can be more than 120ft from the wall and still be seen silhouetted against the lit wall.

A character can be more than 40ft from a Torch or Light spell and be seen silhouetted against it. That's a direct line of sight and outside the range of the lighted area.

There's no functional difference between silhouette in a Darkness is just magically created "normal" darkness version of the spell, and that caused by actual darkness. If it's a problem for you for the spell and you feel the need to make house rules for it, you're going to have to make house rules for regular darkness anyway.

Which is fine. You're going to have to make a ruling on how Darkness works in the first place (because it's not clear). And you're going to have to make a house rule to make Fog Cloud make any sense too, since the errata broke it when it fixed normal darkness, allowing people to see the other side of fog and other opaque concealing, just not within it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The issue is not really the spell but rules for darkness in general. The only difference between magical and mundane darkness is stopping darkvision and light spells.

In RL
If I was to stand at the back of a long cave. I could be enveloped in complete darkness unable to see an inch in-front of me. While at the same time easily seeing someone standing outside in daylight.
If I turned on a lantern the person outside could then see me too. But depending on the length of cave between us a third person could hug the wall or the floor and remain obscured to us.
If he didn’t we’d have the whole silhouette issue.
According to 5e rules I’m heavily obscured.

“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”
Now it does say blocks vision entirely, and if you take that line Independent of the second. Well it means I can’t see the guy outside the cave and he can’t see me if I have a lantern lit. Forget magical darkness being and only blob. Mundane darkness by raw is and inky blob.

If we take the second line as clarifying the first. Then that means if your standing in dense fog. You could clearly see someone standing outside the fog....

So the only thing to do is take the first line(blocks vision) and apply it to fog and such. You can’t see into or through that area your vision is blocked.
The second line, effectively blind towards “something in the area” applies to darkness.

Now in 5e D&D you aren’t hidden unless you try to hide. If you get stabbed by an invisible stalker. You know where it is until it takes an action to hide. You still have disadvantage because you can’t actually see him. But you don’t have to guess what square he’s in simply because he moved a few feet like in 3rd edition.

When it comes to darknes. If you take an action to hide and are successful. Then your silhouette from any back lighting is hidden.
If you don’t try to hide or fail to beat their perception then they know where you are. But that doesn’t mean disadvantage is negated.

If you treat darkness like and ink blot. Then it’s just a wind proof fog cloud.

[Aimeryan]

Which is fine. You're going to have to make a ruling on how Darkness works in the first place (because it's not clear). And you're going to have to make a house rule to make Fog Cloud make any sense too, since the errata broke it when it fixed normal darkness, allowing people to see the other side of fog and other opaque concealing, just not within it.

They didn't fix normal darkness; opaque fog and dense foliage still block vision entirely, as does darkness. The errata that seems to be frequently misunderstood only fixes the subject/observer line. Here, I'll do some direct quotes:


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).


Vision and Light (p. 183). The second sentence of the third paragraph has been changed to “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appen-dix A) when trying to see something in that area.”


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

Hope that clears it up.

[Segev]

They didn't fix normal darkness; opaque fog and dense foliage still block vision entirely, as does darkness. The errata that seems to be frequently misunderstood only fixes the subject/observer line. Here, I'll do some direct quotes:







Hope that clears it up.

Those quotes, taken together, mean one of three things:

that it "blocks vision entirely," which means non-magical darkness is an opaque wall of blackness (and thus, if you're standing 40+ feet from a torch in an otherwise-dark room, you cannot see the torch nor anything else - barring darkvision)
Creatures are blinded if they're trying to look into it, which means they can't see anything outside of it, either, if they're trying to look at something within it
Creatures are only blind to things within fog, darkness, or dense foliage, and not to things outside of them, so whether it's nonmagical darkness, fog, or foliage, they can clearly see the kobold on the far side of it, but can't see the ogre within it.

These rules rely heavily on real-world experience-guided common sense to create rulings or even house rules that ignore the literal text and instead try to derive the intent and run based on it.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Segev's first point there is why, imho, the vision rules concerning darkness (nonmagical and magical) are so borked. One line about seeing a light in darkness could have prevented so many headaches. This is why I'm glad that I kept my 3.5E book Underdark, which specifically deals with seeing points of light in a sea of (nonmagical) darkness.

[Chronos]

The 5e rules for nonmagical darkness are weird and unrealistic, sure (and hence an appropriate topic for this thread), but that's not all that big a deal, because we have nonmagical darkness in our world, and so we know how it behaves, and we can use that real-world knowledge to figure out how it should work in the game (and in the process make a houserule, but it's quite possible that nobody at the table even realizes that, because they didn't bother to look up the written darkness rules because they didn't need to because it was obvious).

It's magical darkness that we don't have experience with, so for that, we do need the rules, and that's the point when we realize the rules are weird.


On weapon sizes, the 3rd edition rule changed from 3.0 to 3.5. In 3.0, a sword with an edged blade 3-4 feet long would be called a longsword, no matter who was using it, but a medium creature could use it in one hand, while a halfling would need two hands to wield it. A sword with a 2' blade would be a shortsword, and a human could easily use it as an off-hand weapon, but it'd be a main-hand weapon for a halfling. A sword with a 6' blade would be a greatsword, and a human could wield it two-handed, and a halfling couldn't wield it at all (but an ogre could wield it one-handed).

In 3.5, no weapon could be wielded well by a creature of a different size than the intended wielder, but there were versions of weapons sized for different creatures. So a halfling's greatsword and a human's longsword might look very similar, and they'd both deal the same damage, but you'd get a penalty for using the wrong one. And if a halfling did accept that penalty, they'd still need two hands for the human's longsword, and the human would need only one for the halfling's greatsword.

Either of these rules is perfectly fine and workable, and either one favors larger creatures (though smaller creatures had their own benefits). But they decided that all of this was too complicated in 5th edition, and came up with a simpler weapon rule (that incidentally only covers sizes other than Small and Medium on a case-by-case basis), and completely eliminated the rules that benefited small characters.


Oh, and IIRC, the Nymph's Kiss feat in 3rd edition was flexible enough to include a close Platonic friendship, but Lich-Loved was explicitly squicky.

[Corsair14]

Crossbow master giving 4 shots a round? Someone super fast with extremely high strength would be able to get off maybe two if they started with a loaded light crossbow. I simply ban this feat and direct people to YouTube videos of people who know what they are doing loading and firing them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Crossbow master giving 4 shots a round? Someone super fast with extremely high strength would be able to get off maybe two if they started with a loaded light crossbow. I simply ban this feat and direct people to YouTube videos of people who know what they are doing loading and firing them.

Do you also say that magic is all fake, because it's not possible in our world? The world of D&D is not our world, it's a fantastic world.

This is not a good solution (being basically "Guy at the Gym"). That effectively removes crossbows from the game, because there's always a better solution. Heroes are supposed to be heroic. Fantastic things are supposed to be fantastic.

[Xetheral]

I can try, though I first want to point out that the rest of the post from which this quote comes is house ruling something that the RAW do not say about lighting. Light, in 5e, is not modeled as "reflecting" off of things to create indirect lighting. While a DM could rule it doing so, that's not what the rules say it does.

Allowing indirect lighting to work like the real world is no more a houserule than is the existence of friction. If you want to define "houserule" that broadly, so be it, but I don't think the term is useful when defined that broadly. As I use the term, it doesn't require a houserule to run the game world like the real world where the rules are silent.



Anyway, even if you do rule that light bouncing off a wall will create a further area of bright light...

Let's say that you rule that the area of bright light caused by reflection off of the wall is another 20 feet from the wall. And the dim light is another 20 feet beyond that. Make the distance between Swordsman 1 in the diagram and the illuminated part of the wall 60 feet. He is now well outside of any brightly-lit or dimly-lit regions; he is in darkness. However, Swordsman 2 still is able to see the brightly-lit wall behind Swordsman 1, but Swordsman 1 is in darkness.

Does that clarify things?

Yes, thanks! I entirely agree that at large enough distances (or oblique enough angles) one can get Swordsman 1 to be both standing in natural darkness and silhouetted from the perspective of Swordsman 2. Such a silhouette, however, will be much less stark than the silhouettes commonly seen with the transparent interpretation of magical darkness, because of that increased distance or oblique angle. Magical darkness lets the backlight be much closer to the silhouetted creature than is possible with natural darkness, leading to silhouettes being more of an issue for magical darkness than they are for natural darkness, which was my original point.


Swordsman 1 & 2 can be more than 120ft from the wall and still be seen silhouetted against the lit wall.

A character can be more than 40ft from a Torch or Light spell and be seen silhouetted against it. That's a direct line of sight and outside the range of the lighted area.

There's no functional difference between silhouette in a Darkness is just magically created "normal" darkness version of the spell, and that caused by actual darkness. If it's a problem for you for the spell and you feel the need to make house rules for it, you're going to have to make house rules for regular darkness anyway.

Which is fine. You're going to have to make a ruling on how Darkness works in the first place (because it's not clear). And you're going to have to make a house rule to make Fog Cloud make any sense too, since the errata broke it when it fixed normal darkness, allowing people to see the other side of fog and other opaque concealing, just not within it.

See my response to Segev, above. I agree the issue with silhouettes applies to both natural and (if interpreted to be transparent) magical darkness. However, as starker silhouettes are more commonplace with magical darkness than with normal darkness, I claim that silhouettes are a more pertinent issue at the table if magical darkness is interpreted to be transparent than if it is interpreted to be opaque.

For a trivial example, under the transparent interpretation, any casting of Darkness outside during daytime without a backdrop in the area of the spell is going to create starker silhouettes than almost anything that can be arranged with natural darkness.

[Chronos]

Are any of those guys in the YouTube videos you link to 20th-level fighters?

[MaxWilson]

Edit: So I looked at the errata, and while it does make it better, it still doesn't remove the line that says that fog and darkness both "block" vision.

The original issue was that the PHB said that creatures within darkness are Blinded. That's totally insane and makes creatures in darkness unable to see creatures in the light.

If nonmagical darkness were intended to "block vision" in the sense of opacity (as opposed to rendering vision impossible), what would have been the point of that errata? You'd still be unable to see creatures in the light.

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


I agree with you that seeing footprints in the sand does not count as seeing a creature. One can see footprints and still be effectively suffering the Blinded condition with respect to the creature itself. But I disagree with you that one can see any part of a silhouette of a creature while suffering the Blinded condition with respect to that creature. The Blinded condition prevents seeing entirely. I am aware of no RAW supporting your position that one can see a creature's silhouette even if one is suffering the Blinded condition with respect to that creature. If you are aware of something in the rules I'm overlooking, please let me know what page you're referring to.

By RAW, you are Blinded only with respect to that creature, not to the rest of the world. On what page in RAW does it say that the negative space around a creature is part of the creature?

When a creature is swallowed by a Behir, it's Blinded, but would you treat it as able to see the Behir because the Behir's silhouette is all around it and it knows exactly where the Behir is? If not, how is that different from a full-body shape from an invisible creature in the sand, or from a silhouette from a creature in darkness?

I'd like to know more about why you think the 60' bright light traits/120' dim light radius of a bullseye lantern carefully models the inverse square law. To me they just look like arbitrary numbers: double radius for dim light. If anything it VIOLATES the inverse square law because bright light sources given in the rules, such as the the sun, are not merely 4 times brighter than dim light sources given in the rules, such as an unusually bright moon.

Also, a diagram of how you run bullseye lanterns would help. Do you treat the lighting as omnidirectional once it hits a surface? Wouldn't that make the bullseye lantern itself omnidirectional from light hitting the floor? Help me understand what you're arguing.

[Segev]

Allowing indirect lighting to work like the real world is no more a houserule than is the existence of friction. If you want to define "houserule" that broadly, so be it, but I don't think the term is useful when defined that broadly. As I use the term, it doesn't require a houserule to run the game world like the real world where the rules are silent.Lighting rules are what they are. If you wish to add new ones, you can, but that is a house rule.


Yes, thanks! I entirely agree that at large enough distances (or oblique enough angles) one can get Swordsman 1 to be both standing in natural darkness and silhouetted from the perspective of Swordsman 2. Such a silhouette, however, will be much less stark than the silhouettes commonly seen with the transparent interpretation of magical darkness, because of that increased distance or oblique angle. Magical darkness lets the backlight be much closer to the silhouetted creature than is possible with natural darkness, leading to silhouettes being more of an issue for magical darkness than they are for natural darkness, which was my original point.No reason it would be fuzzier as an outline than if he was right up next to it: the shadow is still as sharp, and the lighting behind him still as visible. It is the ray tracing of the light from the wall as it is blocked by the dark-enshrouded figure that creates the sharpness of the lines.

That said, treating it as "fuzzy" is fine; it is, after all, hard to see per the rules.

But the same thing applies to magical darkness, unless you're using the ink blot model. I find the ink blot model to either be inconsistent (if you don't also use it for nonmagical darkness), or nonsensical (if you do). But nothing about "vanta black" model of magical darkness works any less well than the intuitive treatment of nonmagical darkness.



For a trivial example, under the transparent interpretation, any casting of Darkness outside during daytime without a backdrop in the area of the spell is going to create starker silhouettes than almost anything that can be arranged with natural darkness.Untrue. Any silhouette created by an obstruction between the "backlighting screen" (e.g. a lantern-lit wall) and the observer will be equally sharp. It only gets fuzzy if the screen is between the obstruction and the observer.

[CapnWildefyr]

{a} The issue is not really the spell but rules for darkness in general. The only difference between magical and mundane darkness is stopping darkvision and light spells.

{b} Now in 5e D&D you aren’t hidden unless you try to hide. If you get stabbed by an invisible stalker. You know where it is until it takes an action to hide. You still have disadvantage because you can’t actually see him. But you don’t have to guess what square he’s in simply because he moved a few feet like in 3rd edition.

I added the {a} and {b} labels...

{a} if there is this much discussion, the light rules are confusing. Let's face it, if we each have to explain our reasoning in multiple paragraphs, it's unclear. If it's unclear, it belongs here.

{b} a small point, but the invisible stalker is a bad example here. "invisible" is not "hiding." You have disadvantage and the stalker has advantage, regardless, and you do not know where it is, because it's invisible, whether or not it also tries to be silent. If it steps away, you can't tell exactly where it went. You still have disadvantage, whether it moved or not, whether it's silent or not. You don't even get an OA as it moves away because you can't see it.

[Aimeryan]

The original issue was that the PHB said that creatures within darkness are Blinded. That's totally insane and makes creatures in darkness unable to see creatures in the light.

If nonmagical darkness were intended to "block vision" in the sense of opacity (as opposed to rendering vision impossible), what would have been the point of that errata? You'd still be unable to see creatures in the light.

I think the intent is pretty clear, however, the title is in regards to RAW - which this definitely falls into. The writers failing to clear up what is written is not exactly unheard of.



But nothing about "vanta black" model of magical darkness works any less well than the intuitive treatment of nonmagical darkness.

Being painted black makes you no more unseen than a hole is unseen, or a piece of charcoal, or wearing a ghillie suit - it requires additional situational circumstances to blend in and be unseen. It is very much not intuitive for a person painted black (no matter just how black that is) to be unseen on a bright day outdoors. Same goes for wearing a tablecloth over your head and pretending you are unseen.

A relatively large black opaque sphere stopping you from seeing someone somewhere inside, on the other hand, is very intuitive.

As is, the RAW on darkness is silly, while the RAW on Darkness is silly by proxy if the interpretation is one of inheritence, or, the Raw on Darkness is silly by itself if the inpretation is not one of inheritence.

[Segev]

Being painted black makes you no more unseen than a hole is unseen, or a piece of charcoal, or wearing a ghillie suit - it requires additional situational circumstances to blend in and be unseen. It is very much not intuitive for a person painted black (no matter just how black that is) to be unseen on a bright day outdoors. Same goes for wearing a tablecloth over your head and pretending you are unseen.

A relatively large black opaque sphere stopping you from seeing someone somewhere inside, on the other hand, is very intuitive.

As is, the RAW on darkness is silly, while the RAW on Darkness is silly by proxy if the interpretation is one of inheritence, or, the Raw on Darkness is silly by itself if the inpretation is not one of inheritence.

Your argument is failing to address a key component of my point: unless you are running non-magical darkness as also being opaque, you run into the same "painted black" problems. So you solve nothing by treating magical darkness as an ink blot if you do not also treat nonmagical darkness the same way.

Yet the rules for a creature in nonmagical darkness, regardless of whether there is lighting beyond him that he creates a silhouette against, is that he is obscured from sight. This "obscurement" doesn't mean he's hidden - any more than it does with magical darkness - only that he CAN try to hide. And that creatures have Disadvantage trying to attack him.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I {b} a small point, but the invisible stalker is a bad example here. "invisible" is not "hiding." You have disadvantage and the stalker has advantage, regardless, and you do not know where it is, because it's invisible, whether or not it also tries to be silent. If it steps away, you can't tell exactly where it went. You still have disadvantage, whether it moved or not, whether it's silent or not. You don't even get an OA as it moves away because you can't see it.
You are right invisible is not hiding, it’s inferior to hidden.
If it steps away you don’t get an OA because you can’t see it but you do still know where it is because it hasn’t taken an action to hide.
So you can still move up and attack without having to guess where He is. You only suffer disadvantage.
The rules in 5e D&D are set up in such away so you aren’t so helpless against unseen foes as you were in previous editions.

Invisibility does not automatically equal hidden, likewise being blinded either literally or effectively due to enemy obscurement does not make the enemy hidden unless they take a hide action.

So a creature concealed in darkness can not be seen by someone standing in the light. But he’s not automatically hidden especially after attacking.
That’s why I bring up the invisible stalker it’s always unseen but not always hidden.
You need to be clear on how being unseen works if your going to discuss how darkness should work.

[MrCharlie]

I added the {a} and {b} labels...

{a} if there is this much discussion, the light rules are confusing. Let's face it, if we each have to explain our reasoning in multiple paragraphs, it's unclear. If it's unclear, it belongs here.

{b} a small point, but the invisible stalker is a bad example here. "invisible" is not "hiding." You have disadvantage and the stalker has advantage, regardless, and you do not know where it is, because it's invisible, whether or not it also tries to be silent. If it steps away, you can't tell exactly where it went. You still have disadvantage, whether it moved or not, whether it's silent or not. You don't even get an OA as it moves away because you can't see it.
Actually, for b, unless it takes the hide action you do know exactly where it is. This is the point of invisible =/= hidden. An invisible stalker has advantage on it's attacks, and disadvantage to be hit, but once it reveals its location (or fails its stealth check) you don't have to use the rules for randomly attacking squares or guess where it is.

You are absolutely right that you don't get AOO though, odd as that may be.

Do you also say that magic is all fake, because it's not possible in our world? The world of D&D is not our world, it's a fantastic world.

This is not a good solution (being basically "Guy at the Gym"). That effectively removes crossbows from the game, because there's always a better solution. Heroes are supposed to be heroic. Fantastic things are supposed to be fantastic.
In real life bows were generally a better solution to using a crossbow, as long as you were trained with them and using a warbow with proper draw weight. The only real advantage was ease of use and better ergonomics with fortifications. If we remove crossbow expert and make crossbows simple, crossbows, like many of the simple weapons (and ring mail), would only be useful for hirelings and low-level adventurers without proficiencies.

I do agree it does not belong here, but I don't think his house rule is problematic in and of itself.

So many great answers! Thanks everyone who answered. I was busy with moving out, didn't expect the thread to explode like that. =)

Another i remembered is ritual casting. RAW doesn't seem to care if you are travelling ( by foot or horseback ridding) while casting them. Which doesn't make sense to me. Ritual evoke the image of summoning with a pentagram, an exorcist or a baptism. Possibly with a book/bible open to have the full steps of the ritual. Hell, you can still talk during a ritual while in most work of fictions, messing the ritual by even one syllable will often twist or fail it.
As a corollary to this, that ritual casting uses concentration, as does all casting of spells over multiple turns.

The only reason it's a stupid rule is that A. No one ever remembers it and B. The number of situations it applies to is miniscule-it exists entirely to screw up otherwise sensible spell combos like planar binding a conjured elemental without multiple casters being present, and to mess with exploration spells like detect magic.

It's independently stupid that the casting times and durations on the entire suite of planar binding/magic circle/conjure elemental spells are precisely 1 hour rather than 1 hour and 10 minutes or 2 hours or something, simply because it requires stupidly precise timing that should have been engineered out of the spells from a practical perspective given that they are explicitly meant to by synergistic.


I have also found that the surprise rules for 5e, if followed strictly, DO amount to the initiator going first, barring somebody with a higher initiative being immune to surprise or for some reason not surprised. Exactly as it should be.
I'll note as a general reply to this stack-the only other difference is that the surprised pseudo-condition ends after a creatures turn, so it is possible for an assassin rogue to get screwed out of his critical if he succeeds stealth but loses initiative. He gets a free round, but no advantage and no crit because the creature had its turn and is no longer surprised at the end of it. It also means that effects which trigger at the start of a turn, you know, work. Simply not giving people a turn breaks those.

Assuming I've been reading it right and the surprised "condition" ends at the end of your first turn, which is a bit ambiguous now that I re-read the rules. It's really a wording issue, in my mind, and a case where they didn't clarify things in a way that the rules text is consistent. So I'd say its stupid, not silly.

[Reach Weapon]

Out of curiosity, for whatever model you use, how detectable is the area of effect of the Darkness spell in regular darkness, (perceived) dim light, and bright light to an outside observer? Is it an automatic announcement of presence or if there are checks, what are they?

[quindraco]

You are right invisible is not hiding, it’s inferior to hidden.
If it steps away you don’t get an OA because you can’t see it but you do still know where it is because it hasn’t taken an action to hide.
So you can still move up and attack without having to guess where He is. You only suffer disadvantage.
The rules in 5e D&D are set up in such away so you aren’t so helpless against unseen foes as you were in previous editions.

Invisibility does not automatically equal hidden, likewise being blinded either literally or effectively due to enemy obscurement does not make the enemy hidden unless they take a hide action.

So a creature concealed in darkness can not be seen by someone standing in the light. But he’s not automatically hidden especially after attacking.
That’s why I bring up the invisible stalker it’s always unseen but not always hidden.
You need to be clear on how being unseen works if your going to discuss how darkness should work.

This isn't true, but it's... when I say it isn't true, I don't mean that it's false. That is, the rules you are referencing don't actually exist, so you're not contradicting any rules in your claim, you just don't have a completely firm rules basis.

Here's a forum post by someone else going over the 9 different rules references you need to try and handle a situation like this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/102520-if-at-disadvantage-always-fight-blind#c13

As the linked post discusses, you simply can't correctly state that the rules state that you can just attack the stalker without guessing. They don't say that. What they do say is confusing and doesn't equip you to authoritatively state what the answer is.

As a result, I (or anyone else) can form several mutually exclusive and equally coherent RAW-based arguments for the exact mechanics of trying to locate and hit an invisible stalker.

[Segev]

I'll note as a general reply to this stack-the only other difference is that the surprised pseudo-condition ends after a creatures turn, so it is possible for an assassin rogue to get screwed out of his critical if he succeeds stealth but loses initiative. He gets a free round, but no advantage and no crit because the creature had its turn and is no longer surprised at the end of it. It also means that effects which trigger at the start of a turn, you know, work. Simply not giving people a turn breaks those.

Assuming I've been reading it right and the surprised "condition" ends at the end of your first turn, which is a bit ambiguous now that I re-read the rules. It's really a wording issue, in my mind, and a case where they didn't clarify things in a way that the rules text is consistent. So I'd say its stupid, not silly.
You are reading it correctly. This is a huge flaw in the design of the Assassin class. It should get its bonus damage on any creature that has not yet taken an action in combat, or it should at LEAST get a very big bonus to initiative so that it is very likely to go before anybody who's surprised goes. Perhaps, even, an Assassin should get the ability to attack a surprised creature as a Reaction (since I believe Reactions can be taken before your first turn as long as you are not, yourself, surprised).

Gloomstalker is an excellent multiclass for Assassins, since it gives Wisdom to Initiative on top of Dexterity, and it also grants an extra attack with an extra die of damage on the first round of combat.


Out of curiosity, for whatever model you use, how detectable is the area of effect of the Darkness spell in regular darkness, (perceived) dim light, and bright light to an outside observer? Is it an automatic announcement of presence or if there are checks, what are they?If you use ink blot darkness, it would be as detectable as any other 30-foot diameter black sphere imposed on the environment. It would not be visible without Darkvision unless you're (a) using transparent non-magical darkness and (b) there's a light source or lit area you can move to have the magical darkblob obstructing your view of it. If you have Darkvision, it would be an easily-seen blob of blackness. If you have Devil's Sight, you probably don't even notice it exists in an otherwise-dark field.

If you use the "painted black" version, it's entirely unnoticeable without Darkvision, because it behaves like regular darkness if you don't have Darkvision. To creatures with Darkvision, it would appear as a region where the usual black-and-white dim lighting goes away, leaving it looking like your range of Darkvision has shrunk, or a "black spot" in it has developed within your range. It would likely be visible at a minimum as a black circle on the ground.

Incidentally, the "painted black" version of magical darkness is entirely invisible if it's centered up in the air with nothing inside it, but anything entering its AoE becomes a black splotch or silhouette while inside it.

[quindraco]

Out of curiosity, for whatever model you use, how detectable is the area of effect of the Darkness spell in regular darkness, (perceived) dim light, and bright light to an outside observer? Is it an automatic announcement of presence or if there are checks, what are they?

So far as I know, everyone automatically knows the light level as they perceive it to be in any space they're looking at, so there aren't any checks - you see darkness as darkness, dim light as dim light, and bright light as bright light. The only time this gets weird is when special rules start modifying, like Detect Magic (which should register the spell Darkness's darkness as magical).

[MrCharlie]

You are reading it correctly. This is a huge flaw in the design of the Assassin class. It should get its bonus damage on any creature that has not yet taken an action in combat, or it should at LEAST get a very big bonus to initiative so that it is very likely to go before anybody who's surprised goes. Perhaps, even, an Assassin should get the ability to attack a surprised creature as a Reaction (since I believe Reactions can be taken before your first turn as long as you are not, yourself, surprised).

Gloomstalker is an excellent multiclass for Assassins, since it gives Wisdom to Initiative on top of Dexterity, and it also grants an extra attack with an extra die of damage on the first round of combat.
Glad to see some validation. It's been a while since I've DMed for an assassin (mostly because people have learned by now that it's pretty heavily flawed) and I wanted to check that I wasn't being a ****.

Assassin also benefits from the Alert feat for the same reason. It depends on if their Wisdom is good or not-if it is they not only have to worry less about being surprised themselves (better perception) but gloomstalker is A. A valid multiclass and B. A very attractive one for multiple reasons on top of that.

I personally think that Assassins should get proficiency in initiative to combat this issue, but they should still have to deal with it to model those times when an assassin gets the drop on someone but can't quite land the blow before they start defending themselves. It's one of those interactions that makes sense to me but which sucks if invoked against the player. It would also give them, you know, an actual subclass when they aren't ambushing people.

[Telok]

Do I need to break out the darkness renders and blender file again?

[MaxWilson]

Do I need to break out the darkness renders and blender file again?

That was pretty awesome. But, I don't think any of the points under dispute would be solved that way unless you can also show motion, e.g. the silhouette of someone doing something in combat, and we have to guess whether they're advancing or retreating and whether they're parrying, etc.

[Telok]

That was pretty awesome. But, I don't think any of the points under dispute would be solved that way unless you can also show motion, e.g. the silhouette of someone doing something in combat, and we have to guess whether they're advancing or retreating and whether they're parrying, etc.

Great bloody ghu! I'm 3000+ miles from my computer, surrounded by family, and getting "alone time" by locking myself in the bathroom. I can't even convert bulk text to pdf book pages until sometime next week, let alone go from different types of negative-lighting a static scene to animating and timing multiple armatures in Blender.

Throw down a google search for freelance 3d animators, show them the existing pics, explain what you want, and pony up $100 USD for 3-5 hours of work. If anyone actually cares what the difference really looks like.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

Your argument is failing to address a key component of my point: unless you are running non-magical darkness as also being opaque, you run into the same "painted black" problems. So you solve nothing by treating magical darkness as an ink blot if you do not also treat nonmagical darkness the same way.
The "painted black" situation usually isn't a problem for nonmagical darkness, because by far the two most common situations for nonmagical darkness are that you're either deep underground, or it's night. In either of those cases, what's behind the darkness is just more darkness, out to infinite space, or at least until you hit an opaque wall. If everything is dark, then there's no difference between the vantablack model and the ink-blot model. Now, nonmagical darkness doesn't always work this way: You could be in a cave, but still have line of sight to the distant daylit opening, for instance, or at night but in the vicinity (but not close vicinity) of an artificial light source. And so those cases, you have to rule differently, making up rulings that make sense. But those cases are rare.

[MaxWilson]

Great ----! I'm 3000+ miles from my computer, surrounded by family, and getting "alone time" by locking myself in the bathroom. I can't even convert bulk text to pdf book pages until sometime next week, let alone go from different types of negative-lighting a static scene to animating and timing multiple armatures in Blender.

Throw down a google search for freelance 3d animators, show them the existing pics, explain what you want, and pony up $100 USD for 3-5 hours of work. If anyone actually cares what the difference really looks like.

Right, that's why I said I don't think it would help.

Although if someone wants to find a 3D animator and explain what we need, I'd be happy to pony up the $100 USD for it, via Venmo or something. I'd be even happier if I had managed to learn enough about Blender to do it myself but alas... last time I tried I got stuck pretty quickly.

Essentially all we want is for a 3D animator to take an existing scene that they have, fill part of it with negative light/zero reflectivity in a 20' radius sphere, and then make us guess what the original scene was showing.


The "painted black" situation usually isn't a problem for nonmagical darkness, because by far the two most common situations for nonmagical darkness are that you're either deep underground, or it's night. In either of those cases, what's behind the darkness is just more darkness, out to infinite space, or at least until you hit an opaque wall. If everything is dark, then there's no difference between the vantablack model and the ink-blot model. Now, nonmagical darkness doesn't always work this way: You could be in a cave, but still have line of sight to the distant daylit opening, for instance, or at night but in the vicinity (but not close vicinity) of an artificial light source. And so those cases, you have to rule differently, making up rulings that make sense. But those cases are rare.

Light hitting an opaque wall is actually quite a common scenario in dungeon delving, arguably the most common scenario.

[Telok]

Essentially all we want is for a 3D animator to take an existing scene that they have, fill part of it with negative light/zero reflectivity in a 20' radius sphere, and then make us guess what the original scene was showing.

That's not bad, you just change/add a light point-source with the right parameters. Find a free/open Blender scene with the appropriate action. I might be able to do that next week or two.

[Tanarii]

The "painted black" situation usually isn't a problem for nonmagical darkness, because by far the two most common situations for nonmagical darkness are that you're either deep underground, or it's night. In either of those cases, what's behind the darkness is just more darkness, out to infinite space, or at least until you hit an opaque wall. If everything is dark, then there's no difference between the vantablack model and the ink-blot model. Now, nonmagical darkness doesn't always work this way: You could be in a cave, but still have line of sight to the distant daylit opening, for instance, or at night but in the vicinity (but not close vicinity) of an artificial light source. And so those cases, you have to rule differently, making up rulings that make sense. But those cases are rare.



Light hitting an opaque wall is actually quite a common scenario in dungeon delving, arguably the most common scenario.And it's not like two points of light with someone/thing trying to sneak around in between them is particularly uncommon either. Especially since movement isn't impaired by darkness and missile fire against lit targets doesn't require you to be able to see your surroundings, you don't even need darkvision to get out of the radius of your allies light if your enemies also need light to see.

[Zalabim]

Funny thing about the rule for heavily obscured: it can be read with different emphasis.

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.

Blocks sight of everything inside the area.

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.

Effectively blinds every creature inside the area.

Fog should be expected to use both. Any area that uses only the first offers advantage on both offense and defense. I think giving the sentence the option of both meanings is the only way to make the rule work better without adding more lines to the rule. Also, using effectively blinded means a player doesn't ask to cure the blindness caused by being in fog with lesser restoration.

[Chronos]

Sure, light hitting a wall is common in dungeons. But I was talking about what's beyond the darkness. Usually, in a dungeon, you'll mostly find creatures who don't mind darkness, and hence don't carry light sources. Adventuring parties are usually the only exception, so the source of light will be with the party. If they're in rooms small enough that their light source fills the room, then there's no darkness at all. If the room or corridor is larger than that, then there's some distance beyond which it's dark. And beyond that, it'll just be more darkness until the wall.

[Tanarii]

Sure, light hitting a wall is common in dungeons. But I was talking about what's beyond the darkness. Usually, in a dungeon, you'll mostly find creatures who don't mind darkness, and hence don't carry light sources. Adventuring parties are usually the only exception, so the source of light will be with the party.
Huh. That doesn't sound anything like the dungeons I run. Enemies need light too. Even ones with darkvision will use it in some places.

[Segev]

Sure, light hitting a wall is common in dungeons. But I was talking about what's beyond the darkness. Usually, in a dungeon, you'll mostly find creatures who don't mind darkness, and hence don't carry light sources. Adventuring parties are usually the only exception, so the source of light will be with the party. If they're in rooms small enough that their light source fills the room, then there's no darkness at all. If the room or corridor is larger than that, then there's some distance beyond which it's dark. And beyond that, it'll just be more darkness until the wall.


Huh. That doesn't sound anything like the dungeons I run. Enemies need light too. Even ones with darkvision will use it in some places.

Even if it WERE how things ran, the fact that the party carries a light source while the enemies use Darkvision still means the scout may wish to be 60 feet ahead of the party, outside the light radius. Does the scout get the benefit of being in dim light or darkness (i.e. the monsters relying on darkvision treating darkness as dim light, and suffering disadvantage to seeing them...or not being able to see him at all if they're more than 60 feet away) despite the party being well lit sixty feet behind the scout? Or does the scout's silhouette against the party's light make him stand out, negating the fact that he's entirely in nonmagical darkness?

[Aimeryan]

Your argument is failing to address a key component of my point: unless you are running non-magical darkness as also being opaque, you run into the same "painted black" problems. So you solve nothing by treating magical darkness as an ink blot if you do not also treat nonmagical darkness the same way.

Yet the rules for a creature in nonmagical darkness, regardless of whether there is lighting beyond him that he creates a silhouette against, is that he is obscured from sight. This "obscurement" doesn't mean he's hidden - any more than it does with magical darkness - only that he CAN try to hide. And that creatures have Disadvantage trying to attack him.

I agree, however, in terms of intuitiveness this falls into the argument that Xetheral was making in how obvious the situation is for Darkness vs mundane darkness.

I mentioned before that the lack of silhouette rules for mundane darkness is unfortunately and a little silly, but understandable. The reason I feel this is understandable is because of how niche this situation is likely to be and how I feel that if any situation should be left for the DM to handle it is likely something like this. Situational modifiers are very much DM territory for me without feeling this was silly for the rules to have left out.

Darkness does not have the same setup and is far from niche to encounter the silhouette issue. In fact, I would go to say that using Darkness when the general environment is not in darkness to be the default, which leads to almost inevitably having a backlighting (unless there is a wall or something large behind the subject from the observers line of sight and also inside the spell area). This makes not having a presupposed rule to support this as silly - it is no longer likely to be situational and instead the default.

As an additional point to this, the situations where some backlighting might occur in mundane darkness tend to be small points of light, rather than general backlighting. A small partial silhoutte being the result (in fact, often no silhouette because the light is fully eclipsed) doesn't pose the same ability to 'see' the target as a full (or near full) silhouette would - especially one that if moved would still remain silhouetted to such a degree, for example, outside in daylight while they are painted black. As an example of just how little backlighting most sources of light would provide in mundane darkness, other than the point of light itself, I provide a link to Lindybeige's clip: https://youtu.be/jiuHr5YVJBI?t=133 - and this is standing right next to the wall.

This makes silhouette Darkness with no rules to support silly to me, while silhouette darkness with no rules to support be understandable.

[Segev]

I agree, however, in terms of intuitiveness this falls into the argument that Xetheral was making in how obvious the situation is for Darkness vs mundane darkness.

I mentioned before that the lack of silhouette rules for mundane darkness is unfortunately and a little silly, but understandable. The reason I feel this is understandable is because of how niche this situation is likely to be and how I feel that if any situation should be left for the DM to handle it is likely something like this. Situational modifiers are very much DM territory for me without feeling this was silly for the rules to have left out.

Darkness does not have the same setup and is far from niche to encounter the silhouette issue. In fact, I would go to say that using Darkness when the general environment is not in darkness to be the default, which leads to almost inevitably having a backlighting (unless there is a wall or something large behind the subject from the observers line of sight and also inside the spell area). This makes not having a presupposed rule to support this as silly - it is no longer likely to be situational and instead the default.

As an additional point to this, the situations where some backlighting might occur in mundane darkness tend to be small points of light, rather than general backlighting. A small partial silhoutte being the result (in fact, often no silhouette because the light is fully eclipsed) doesn't pose the same ability to 'see' the target as a full (or near full) silhouette would - especially one that if moved would still remain silhouetted to such a degree, for example, outside in daylight while they are painted black. As an example of just how little backlighting most sources of light would provide in mundane darkness, other than the point of light itself, I provide a link to Lindybeige's clip: https://youtu.be/jiuHr5YVJBI?t=133 - and this is standing right next to the wall.

This makes silhouette Darkness with no rules to support silly to me, while silhouette darkness with no rules to support be understandable.
In my experience, it's not that much less niche for magical darkness, either. Rarely is magical darkness created in the middle of bright open fields. And every instance where it HAS been, in my experience, the converse effect of encounters at night create similar situations with blobs of light against which things well in the darkness can be silhouetted.

In other words: I think the objection based on "it only matters frequently with magical darkness" is simply incorrectly premised.

[Tanarii]

In other words: I think the objection based on "it only matters frequently with magical darkness" is simply incorrectly premised.Exactly. And far more succinctly put than my counters.

I should probably note that I actually run magical darkness as Inky Blot. So the idea that these situations don't arise in normal darkness puzzles me. In the years since this argument began for 5e, I've seen plenty of situations where the "edge cases" of normal darkness arose.

It helped that my campaign had lots of dungeon delving and i paid attention to light levels.

[Segev]

Exactly. And far more succinctly put than my counters.

I should probably note that I actually run magical darkness as Inky Blot. So the idea that these situations don't arise in normal darkness puzzles me. In the years since this argument began for 5e, I've seen plenty of situations where the "edge cases" of normal darkness arose.

It helped that my campaign had lots of dungeon delving and i paid attention to light levels.

I ran a game with "painted black" magical darkness, and I'm playing in one with "ink blot" magical darkness. Both work fine, but the tactics and strategies that work best with them differ. I will say that "ink blot" darkness is more powerful if you have a Devil's Sight character involved, because "painted black" darkness is usable dropped on yourself and firing out of it without needing Devil's Sight, but you need Devil's Sight to fight within magical darkness at all effectively with "ink blot" darkness.

The biggest difference in how they're used, though, is in whether it's a buff or a debuff.

Ink Blot Darkness is a debuff you want to drop on somebody you plan to AoE or otherwise don't need to attack directly right now. Painted Black Darkness is a buff you put on your own side during the ranged attack phase, since you can fire out of it but enjoy the benefits of being concealed while within it.

Ink Blot Darkness is a smaller-AoE, mobile fog cloud, and can be used strategically to block lines of sight. Painted Black Darkness will not block lines of sight, but is also far less obvious in a lot of circumstances, enabling interesting stealth applications.

[Yakmala]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).

[Aimeryan]

In other words: I think the objection based on "it only matters frequently with magical darkness" is simply incorrectly premised.

The objection is not when or what matters, but when or what comes off as silly. With mundane darkness subject to poor and infrequent backlighting I can suspend my disbelief enough for not bothering with silhouetting, while Darkness in the middle of the day sticks out like a sore thumb. Silliness is personal, and I find one silly and the other not.



I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).


That seems fine to me; a Wizard with Proficiency in Nature has studied Nature like your Druid has. Perhaps the issue is one of granularity, in that you would expect a Druid to basically be studying Nature 24/7, while the Wizard is unlikely to do so, however, in 5e you are either Proficient or not. I know some people play with being capable of becoming doubly Proficient in something, although that is mostly to avoid the d20 doing all the work.

[EggKookoo]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).

This is a tricky one. Per RAW, you certainly can swap out which ability scores are used for certain proficiencies. So your DM could let you roll Wisdom (Nature), but unfortunately it comes down to you convincing your DM to do it.

I let my druid player roll Wisdom for Nature -- or at least I would if she were proficient in it.

[quinron]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).

This is why I always try to separate skills from abilities. I'll call for a Wisdom check, and if it's a scenario where Nature would be an applicable skill, I'll let the druid make a Wisdom (Nature) check.

Which is technically RAW, albeit a variant rule, as per the "Skills with Different Abilities" rule on PHB 175.

[Segev]

The objection is not when or what matters, but when or what comes off as silly. With mundane darkness subject to poor and infrequent backlighting I can suspend my disbelief enough for not bothering with silhouetting, while Darkness in the middle of the day sticks out like a sore thumb. Silliness is personal, and I find one silly and the other not.

I agree it's subjective, but when you say you can suspend your disbelief for one due to infrequency, I am not sure you're really expressing that you don't find it silly...just that it bothers you less because you feel you can ignore it more often.

Frankly, "darkness in the middle of the day stands out like a sore thumb" is going to be true regardless of which model you use, so I'm still unsure why this is allegedly a point in favor of one version over the other. To the point that, if you weren't stating it as if it were a point against my position, I'd not be able to guess which position (ink blot vs. painted black) you were trying to support or oppose with the statement.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

Even if it WERE how things ran, the fact that the party carries a light source while the enemies use Darkvision still means the scout may wish to be 60 feet ahead of the party, outside the light radius. Does the scout get the benefit of being in dim light or darkness (i.e. the monsters relying on darkvision treating darkness as dim light, and suffering disadvantage to seeing them...or not being able to see him at all if they're more than 60 feet away) despite the party being well lit sixty feet behind the scout? Or does the scout's silhouette against the party's light make him stand out, negating the fact that he's entirely in nonmagical darkness?
If the stealthy scout is just striding tall down the middle of the corridor, then yes, he would be silhouetted. Which is why he's not doing that. He's hiding, and so he's instead hugging the walls and skirting from one outcropping to another and so on.

[Sorinth]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).

It's the difference between theoretical vs practical. I would expect your Druid to know lots of practical details such as this plant used in a tea is good for sore throats, but I wouldn't really expect your druid to have encyclopedic knowledge of the plant.

The only strange part is that they went the opposite with Medicine and made it Wis by default. But again I would expect Wisdom to be used when treating someone, but Intelligence when say trying to determine the cause of death. I suspect they expected practical usage to come up more frequently for Medicine and less frequently for Nature/Religion and that's why they are the way they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's the difference between theoretical vs practical. I would expect your Druid to know lots of practical details such as this plant used in a tea is good for sore throats, but I wouldn't really expect your druid to have encyclopedic knowledge of the plant.

The only strange part is that they went the opposite with Medicine and made it Wis by default. But again I would expect Wisdom to be used when treating someone, but Intelligence when say trying to determine the cause of death. I suspect they expected practical usage to come up more frequently for Medicine and less frequently for Nature/Religion and that's why they are the way they are.

I see Medicine as being much more field medicine (ie on-the-spot diagnosis and treatment), which is heavily instinctive/trained pattern-matching intuition. It's knowing how to react, rather than doing some academic study. But yes, there is a lot of overlap there. I'd guess that one reason for it being WIS is just to not have all the "know" skills be INT.

Not that Medicine comes up much...I need to do more in my own games to balance that out. That and Animal Handling...

[Segev]

If the stealthy scout is just striding tall down the middle of the corridor, then yes, he would be silhouetted. Which is why he's not doing that. He's hiding, and so he's instead hugging the walls and skirting from one outcropping to another and so on.

And that differs from painted black magical darkness how?

[JackPhoenix]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).

A wizard who somehow (it's not a wizard skill) gained proficiency in Nature is a master of bear lore (https://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png). A druid knows how to tell the party's in a bear's territory (Survival) and how to calm down the bear that just mauled the wizard who was quoting bear trivia at it (Animal Handling) even without magic.

[greenstone]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature.
I wouldn't.


And on the topic of silly rules:

A 3ft high gnome monk, who weights slightly more than a wet dishcloth, can push a colossus of akross (gargantuan construct that weighs many, many elephants) 15 feet.

And they can do this in an antimagic field (just to stop all of you saying "but its magic" heh heh heh).

[Yakmala]

Another one that comes to mind, now that Tasha's is out...

If Customizing Your Origin is allowed, then Humans become one of the physically weakest races.

A small sized Halfling, Gnome, Kobold or Goblin can start with a 17 (standard array or point buy) or 20 (rolling) Strength. A Human can only hope for 16/19 respectively.

And the same applies to all their other stats as well. A Variant Human can get around this by selecting the right starting Feat, but that means giving up using that Feat for anything else.

[MrCharlie]

I’m a Druid. One would expect me to be an authority on nature. But Nature is an Intelligence skill, not a Wisdom skill, so, even if I’m proficient in Nature, chances are a Wizard with proficiency or a Rogue/Bard with expertise is going to outshine my Druid for Nature checks. The same can also be said for Clerics and Religion (with the exception of Knowledge Clerics).
This comes down to more general issues with min-maxing in 5e, where there is no incentive to have an INT score worth a damn. If your INT score is at least above average, you will likely beat the wizard on checks or at least match them at most levels. However most people build Druids by dumping INT into a trash can and setting it on fire, so of course their nature skill sucks.

The real oddity, when you get right down to it, is that there is no such thing as cross-disciplinary synergy or any way to use your personal strengths as a spellcaster or even fighter-if you have the right ability score you're great, if you don't you're useless. A sorcerer who understands magic is almost categorically inferior at 90% of what a sorcerer does compared to a sorcerer who has no idea how magic works but can juggle.

[Gurgeh]

Another one that comes to mind, now that Tasha's is out...

If Customizing Your Origin is allowed, then Humans become one of the physically weakest races.

A small sized Halfling, Gnome, Kobold or Goblin can start with a 17 (standard array or point buy) or 20 (rolling) Strength. A Human can only hope for 16/19 respectively.

And the same applies to all their other stats as well. A Variant Human can get around this by selecting the right starting Feat, but that means giving up using that Feat for anything else.
People play non-variant humans?

[greenstone]

…there is no incentive to have an INT score worth a damn.
You mean apart from requiring INT to detect and disarm magical traps, and optionally requiring INT to deduce how to disarm a physical trap [DMG chapter 5]?

As well as communicating with a creature without a common language, estimating the value of a piece of loot (is that merchant ripping us off?), disguising someone or something, detecting a disguise, forging a document, detecting a forgery [PHB chapter 7]?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You mean apart from requiring INT to detect and disarm magical traps, and optionally requiring INT to deduce how to disarm a physical trap [DMG chapter 5]?

As well as communicating with a creature without a common language, estimating the value of a piece of loot (is that merchant ripping us off?), disguising someone or something, detecting a disguise, forging a document, detecting a forgery [PHB chapter 7]?

The value of an INT score depends critically on the DM. Especially if they let the party get away with the multi-headed hydra approach to problem solving (always subbing in the specialist without any issue, even if fictionally that makes no sense).

I ask for quite a few INT checks. And CHA checks, even from people who aren't the most talkative. And STR checks, even from the weaklings (oh wait, in my current party that's everybody).

I see STR dumped way more than I see INT dumped at my tables. No one wants to be stupid. 10 or 11 is generally fine, but it's rarely lower unless they're consciously going for the "Big Dumb Brute" archetype.

[Tanarii]

I see STR dumped way more than I see INT dumped at my tables. No one wants to be stupid. 10 or 11 is generally fine, but it's rarely lower unless they're consciously going for the "Big Dumb Brute" archetype.
Int 8 also makes for a "not well educated" character, especially if you take Investigation to reflect that they're still pretty good at a deduction.

[MrCharlie]

You mean apart from requiring INT to detect and disarm magical traps, and optionally requiring INT to deduce how to disarm a physical trap [DMG chapter 5]?

As well as communicating with a creature without a common language, estimating the value of a piece of loot (is that merchant ripping us off?), disguising someone or something, detecting a disguise, forging a document, detecting a forgery [PHB chapter 7]?
In order-Never seen a druid roll for that, never seen a druid roll INT for that (PHB aside, that's animal handling or a spell), never seen it influence anything other than roleplay, not a typical INT check (disguise kit), not a typical INT check (insight), seen a druid attempt it once (he asked the Rogue to do it after seeing the result), and this is not a clear INT check (I'd use insight, again).

So in total, from the examples you said, the majority can sub in a WIS skill or check, and the remaining are so niche to be irrelevant and can be handled by a specialist. And, in the majority of cases, they should.

Further, when the Druid with 8 INT does get into one of the two or three situations he will encounter across their entire career where they have to make a meaningful INT check and can't outsource or ignore the result, a -2 versus the Druid with 12 INT won't matter 90% of the time.

But besides the lack of penalty, the Druid with a 12 or even 16 INT gets to make those two or three checks at a higher roll, and nothing else, while the Druid with 8 INT has been making consistent DEX, CON, and WIS checks at a significantly higher modifier, which are the ultra-majority of his rolls. The benefit here came at extreme opportunity cost, summed over the characters career.

And this is for a Druid, one of the classes that can compensate for suboptimal arrays best, because they can ignore the physical attributes while wildshaped. Most of their checks won't be using their own STR, DEX, or CON scores.

I know there is a strong instinct to defend realistic arrays rather than deformed min-maxed characters, but it's unquestionable that the rules disfavor it strongly.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

And that differs from painted black magical darkness how?
Because unlike natural darkness, magical darkness can sit in the middle of a well-lit wide-open field, where there are no walls to hug.

[MaxWilson]

It's the difference between theoretical vs practical. I would expect your Druid to know lots of practical details such as this plant used in a tea is good for sore throats, but I wouldn't really expect your druid to have encyclopedic knowledge of the plant.

The only strange part is that they went the opposite with Medicine and made it Wis by default. But again I would expect Wisdom to be used when treating someone, but Intelligence when say trying to determine the cause of death. I suspect they expected practical usage to come up more frequently for Medicine and less frequently for Nature/Religion and that's why they are the way they are.


Not that Medicine comes up much...I need to do more in my own games to balance that out. That and Animal Handling...

Side note: FWIW I allow Intelligence (Medicine) for autopsies so PCs can figure out the stats and abilities of creatures they've already killed, e.g. they might learn that Chimeras have a 7d8 fiery breath weapon (15' cone) even if this particular Chimera they fought never got a chance to use it.

[Xetheral]

By RAW, you are Blinded only with respect to that creature, not to the rest of the world. On what page in RAW does it say that the negative space around a creature is part of the creature?

It doesn't need to. "Seeing" an object is a neurological phenomenon based on distinguishing the edges between where a foreground differs from a background, and directly inferring the presence of an intervening object. Accordingly, it doesn't matter whether you're (i) distinguishing light reflected from the object from light reflected from a background, (ii) distinguishing light reflected from the object from a lack of light reflected from a background, or (iii) distinguishing a lack of light reflected from the object from light reflected from a background. All three cases are the same process and result in "seeing" the creature.


When a creature is swallowed by a Behir, it's Blinded, but would you treat it as able to see the Behir because the Behir's silhouette is all around it and it knows exactly where the Behir is? If not, how is that different from a full-body shape from an invisible creature in the sand, or from a silhouette from a creature in darkness?

I would treat the swallowed creature as able to see the Behir. Technically there is no contrasting background from which to visually distinguish the Behir, but I'd still allow it if only to avoid philosophical debates along the lines of "can a person trapped in an empty, perfectly dark void see the void around them?" For reference, I would not allow impressions in a surface caused by an invisible creature's weight to count as "seeing" the creature because there is an extra step of indirect inference required to know that something is displacing the surface--it's no longer purely visual.


I'd like to know more about why you think the 60' bright light traits/120' dim light radius of a bullseye lantern carefully models the inverse square law. To me they just look like arbitrary numbers: double radius for dim light. If anything it VIOLATES the inverse square law because bright light sources given in the rules, such as the the sun, are not merely 4 times brighter than dim light sources given in the rules, such as an unusually bright moon.

The inverse square law says that proportionally increasing the distance from a light source decreases brightness by the square of that proportion. This means that the proportional drop in brightness from a distance X1 to a distance X2 from a point source of light will be the inverse of the square of the proportion X2/X1. This proportional relationship (rather than a fixed relationship) is exactly what we see in the rules: by setting the dim light radius at double the bright light radius, the additional distance required for light to dim from minimum Bright Light level to minimum Dim Light level is proportional to (specifically, equal to) the distance required for light to dim from its source level to minimum Bright Light level.

This also means that the minimum brightness necessary to qualify as Bright Light must be 4 times as bright as the minimum brightness required to qualify as Dim Light. We can even use this to calculate the relative brightness of various light sources. For example, a torch has a Bright Light radius of 20' and a Dim Light radius of 40'. So at 1', a torch is 400 times brighter than whatever the minimum level of brightness is to qualify as Bright Light (let's call that minimum level B). Similarly, a bullseye lantern with a Bright Light radius of 60' and a Dim Light radius of 120' is 3600 times as bright as B at 1'. At 2' at torch is 100B, and a bullseye lantern is 900B. This is generalizable: at any distance X the ratio in intensity of two D&D light sources will be the square of the ratio of their radii (Bright or Dim, doesn't matter). So at any given distance a bullseye lantern is 9 times brighter than a torch, since its radii are three times farther.

Accordingly, your objection that the sun is not merely 4 times brighter than the moon isn't what the inverse square law would imply. Instead, to figure out their relative D&D brightness at the earth's surface, we'd need to know their light radii, and while we can bound those radii for the moon based on the full moon=dim light idea, there isn't enough information in the rule books to try to extrapolate the radii for the sun.


Also, a diagram of how you run bullseye lanterns would help. Do you treat the lighting as omnidirectional once it hits a surface? Wouldn't that make the bullseye lantern itself omnidirectional from light hitting the floor? Help me understand what you're arguing.

For a smoothish whitish wall I'd just take the 120' cone and fold it back towards the source when it hits the wall. For a darker wall, if by some chance it actually mattered, I'd probably apply an ad hoc reduction in the remaining distance of the cone. For something exotic like a wall studded with multifacted crystals I'd probably switch to omni-directional. If the wall was covered in anachronistic retro-reflective tape (like the lettering on a modern stop sign) I'd reflect it back along the original cone towards the lantern. In short, I'd just try to simply extrapolate what would happen in the real world, since the rules don't say to do otherwise.


Lighting rules are what they are. If you wish to add new ones, you can, but that is a house rule.

Then evidently we are using a different definition of house rule. I reiterate that there is no rule in the books that says barriers absorb light without reflecting it. Accordingly, I think that RAW is that indirect lighting is left up to the DM.


No reason it would be fuzzier as an outline than if he was right up next to it: the shadow is still as sharp, and the lighting behind him still as visible. It is the ray tracing of the light from the wall as it is blocked by the dark-enshrouded figure that creates the sharpness of the lines.

That said, treating it as "fuzzy" is fine; it is, after all, hard to see per the rules.

But the same thing applies to magical darkness, unless you're using the ink blot model. I find the ink blot model to either be inconsistent (if you don't also use it for nonmagical darkness), or nonsensical (if you do). But nothing about "vanta black" model of magical darkness works any less well than the intuitive treatment of nonmagical darkness.

Untrue. Any silhouette created by an obstruction between the "backlighting screen" (e.g. a lantern-lit wall) and the observer will be equally sharp. It only gets fuzzy if the screen is between the obstruction and the observer.

The sharpness is going to be influenced by the brightness of the backlight, and the brightness of the backlight is affected by distance from the observer. Also, for non-uniform backlights, distance to the backlight controls the relative apparent size of the silhouetted creature. When the distance to the backlight is much greater than the distance to the silhouetted creature, the odds increase that the creature will completely occlude some edge of the non-uniform backlight, resulting in a partial silhouette. So the fact that magical darkness can more easily be created much closer to brightly lit, uniform backlights (like daylit landscapes) than normal darkness makes sharp silhouettes a more common result from magical darkness than they are for normal darkness.

[Segev]

The sharpness is going to be influenced by the brightness of the backlight, and the brightness of the backlight is affected by distance from the observer. Also, for non-uniform backlights, distance to the backlight controls the relative apparent size of the silhouetted creature. When the distance to the backlight is much greater than the distance to the silhouetted creature, the odds increase that the creature will completely occlude some edge of the non-uniform backlight, resulting in a partial silhouette. So the fact that magical darkness can more easily be created much closer to brightly lit, uniform backlights (like daylit landscapes) than normal darkness makes sharp silhouettes a more common result from magical darkness than they are for normal darkness.

Well outside of any useful radius of "reflected light" from the wall that could be used to actually illuminate the subject, the wall lit up by the light remains brightly visible, and the silhouette of the subject in front of the wall remains equally sharp.

But the rules are the rules, and the subject counts as "heavily obscured" because it is in darkness. If is not Hidden, you can tell where it is, but you cannot "see" it (only a black shape that you can deduce is its rough location). But, knowing where it is, you can attempt to target it with most things that don't require you to see the target. Disadvantage on attack rolls applies.

[MaxWilson]

It doesn't need to. "Seeing" an object is a neurological phenomenon based on distinguishing the edges between where a foreground differs from a background, and directly inferring the presence of an intervening object.

That is not what seeing is, either in real life or in 5E. In real life it's more color- and texture-based than edge-tracing-based, which is one reason shadows and silhouettes are so deceptive (human brains aren't wired to easily interpret negative space). In 5E, being inside of a Behir's stomach is explicitly not seeing the Behir ("While swallowed, the target is blinded and restrained"), so your methodology is leading you to incorrect conclusions.

If we can't even agree what "seeing" is, we're not going to get anywhere. We're just going in circles and repeating the same points over and over (how many times now have I pointed out that human brains don't interpret negative space as easily as visual imagery?). We'll just have to disagree. Feel free to have the last word.

[Aimeryan]

I agree it's subjective, but when you say you can suspend your disbelief for one due to infrequency, I am not sure you're really expressing that you don't find it silly...just that it bothers you less because you feel you can ignore it more often.

Frankly, "darkness in the middle of the day stands out like a sore thumb" is going to be true regardless of which model you use, so I'm still unsure why this is allegedly a point in favor of one version over the other. To the point that, if you weren't stating it as if it were a point against my position, I'd not be able to guess which position (ink blot vs. painted black) you were trying to support or oppose with the statement.

How much you have to ignore the elephant in the room can very much be the hallmark of whether it is found to be silly or not, and I am stating I find this to be the case with darkness vs Darkness using painted black rules.

As a note, my position is that the RAW is ink blot, unless you choose to interpret 'magical darkness' as not inheriting from the properties of darkness. Mundane darkness being ink blot by RAW I find to be silly and very much worthy of the thread title. Darkness being ink blot I do not find to be silly, due to the magical nature. Mundane darkness being changed to painted black rules I do not find silly, although the lack of silhouette rules I do find silly to a degree, but as mentioned, it is very easy to ignore this elephant due to the nature of the situation. Darkness being changed/interpreted as painted black I do not find silly, although the lack of silhouette rules here I do find silly as it sticks the elephant right in front of your nose. Hopefully that clarifies what and how I find the rules involved to be silly.

As an bonus, if the painted black version of Darkness was stated by RAW to magically make you ignore silhouettes I would still find this silly, unless the fluff and school type was also changed to match.

[Segev]

How much you have to ignore the elephant in the room can very much be the hallmark of whether it is found to be silly or not, and I am stating I find this to be the case with darkness vs Darkness using painted black rules.

As a note, my position is that the RAW is ink blot, unless you choose to interpret 'magical darkness' as not inheriting from the properties of darkness. Mundane darkness being ink blot by RAW I find to be silly and very much worthy of the thread title. Darkness being ink blot I do not find to be silly, due to the magical nature. Mundane darkness being changed to painted black rules I do not find silly, although the lack of silhouette rules I do find silly to a degree, but as mentioned, it is very easy to ignore this elephant due to the nature of the situation. Darkness being changed/interpreted as painted black I do not find silly, although the lack of silhouette rules here I do find silly as it sticks the elephant right in front of your nose. Hopefully that clarifies what and how I find the rules involved to be silly.Ah, so you are in the camp that all darkness is ink blot, by the RAW, but inconsistently - because it's how you think it should be, which is fine - apply a house rule only to nonmagical darkness.

That's fair, I suppose. I mean, ink blot darkness is a workable model. I just dislike it for a number of reasons, amongst them inconsistency with the way almost everybody is going to run nonmagical darkness. Specifically, inconsistency that requires magical darkness no longer inherit all unspoken properties of nonmagical darkness, but instead GAIN aspects of it house-ruled away if one assumes the RAW say that nonmagical darkness is an ink blot, but then house-rules that away.


As an bonus, if the painted black version of Darkness was stated by RAW to magically make you ignore silhouettes I would still find this silly, unless the fluff and school type was also changed to match.
It doesn't have to make you ignore a silhouette for you to treat the creature or object forming the silhouette as heavily obscured. So much information is lost due to the lack of depth and overlay that all relevant points about being "heavily obscured" easily apply, including the ability to make Hide checks and the Disadvantage on attacks targeting such creatures. You can't see the creature; you can see a silhouette, which may or may not (DM's discretion) give you enough information to determine what, precisely, you're seeing the silhouette of. If you've seen shadow puppets, you know they can be very deceptive about what is actually casting them.

[Darth Credence]

This thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that magical darkness is anything other than an inky blot, an area that light does not pass through. It is so weird to me that this would even be a topic for debate, but I'm trying to understand the POV of the Paint It, Black group.
Someone said that a big difference between the two was whether they considered it a buff or debuff. Debuff is inkblot, because you would cast it on someone so they would be surrounded by a cloud of stuff they can't see through, while PI, B would be a buff because you cast it on yourself and you can see out but no one can see in. I hope I have that right - if not, the rest of this is probably meaningless.
Darkness is a 2nd level spell. With the PI, B method, everyone inside the 15 foot sphere, which is the entire party plus friends, is effectively invisible, right? They can see you, you can't see them, but you can see past them to other things. That sounds just like invisibility - greater invisibility, in fact, since it doesn't go away on attacks. There are some limitations of course, but if you can make a group of five people invisible so that they can make ranged attacks while their foes cannot see them, it seems like it is more powerful than greater invisibility, a 4th level spell. What, then, is the point of greater invisibility? Wouldn't it be better in most cases to cast darkness at 2nd level?
I'm sure there is an answer for this that I am just not seeing.

[Xetheral]

Well outside of any useful radius of "reflected light" from the wall that could be used to actually illuminate the subject, the wall lit up by the light remains brightly visible, and the silhouette of the subject in front of the wall remains equally sharp.

But the rules are the rules, and the subject counts as "heavily obscured" because it is in darkness. If is not Hidden, you can tell where it is, but you cannot "see" it (only a black shape that you can deduce is its rough location). But, knowing where it is, you can attempt to target it with most things that don't require you to see the target. Disadvantage on attack rolls applies.

To clarify, do you agree that an observer does not effectively suffer the Blinded condition with respect to the Heavily Obscured creature's silhouette? Are we just disagreeing over whether seeing the silhouette means you can see the creature?


That is not what seeing is, either in real life or in 5E. In real life it's more color- and texture-based than edge-tracing-based, which is one reason shadows and silhouettes are so deceptive (human brains aren't wired to easily interpret negative space). In 5E, being inside of a Behir's stomach is explicitly not seeing the Behir ("While swallowed, the target is blinded and restrained"), so your methodology is leading you to incorrect conclusions.

If we can't even agree what "seeing" is, we're not going to get anywhere. We're just going in circles and repeating the same points over and over (how many times now have I pointed out that human brains don't interpret negative space as easily as visual imagery?). We'll just have to disagree. Feel free to have the last word.

Agreeing to disagree works for me. Thanks for the discussion!

[quinron]

This thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that magical darkness is anything other than an inky blot, an area that light does not pass through. It is so weird to me that this would even be a topic for debate, but I'm trying to understand the POV of the Paint It, Black group.

My friend, you have not spent enough time in the crab bucket that is this board. I'd say that among the only-tangentially-connected threads this topic has taken over, this is probably the least time that I've seen spent on it.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, quick addendum on the Darkness/disadvantage thing: this Youtube video (https://youtu.be/qFxEHpGb3II) of a boxer's silhouette is a perfect illustration of why I think disadvantage is justified. How are you going to not be impaired against this guy when you can't even judge his distance from you accurately? And your trained reaction to his uppercut will not happen as fast as it normally does, because it takes longer to even perceive that it's an uppercut.

https://i.postimg.cc/Pr8mmk3w/boxer.png

We can see from the Blur spell and from Displacer Beasts that being invisible is not necessary to impose disadvantage on a fighter. Being confused and, well, disadvantaged is enough.

(Also, in the case of a Darkness spell, you wouldn't even see the guy's feet either because the ground he's standing on is also dark.)

[Segev]

To clarify, do you agree that an observer does not effectively suffer the Blinded condition with respect to the Heavily Obscured creature's silhouette? Are we just disagreeing over whether seeing the silhouette means you can see the creature?

I do not agree with that, because the "blinded" condition is specified for any region of heavy obscurement. This is a bit of a silly rule, I admit, because of the fact that silhouettes are visible phenomena, and I'd probably allow perception checks based on sight to figure some things out (at disadvantage, of course). But for a LOT of things I wouldn't permit such a check at all, because a silhouette still totally obscures a great deal that isn't strictly liminal to the creature or object.

[Tanarii]

Oh, quick addendum on the Darkness/disadvantage thing: this Youtube video (https://youtu.be/qFxEHpGb3II) of a boxer's silhouette is a perfect illustration of why I think disadvantage is justified. How are you going to not be impaired against this guy when you can't even judge his distance from you accurately? And your trained reaction to his uppercut will not happen as fast as it normally does, because it takes longer to even perceive that it's an uppercut.I can't even tell which way they're facing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I can't even tell which way they're facing.

He's facing the viewer. The punches at about 0:08 aren't physically possible to throw if he was facing away.

[ProsecutorGodot]

He's facing the viewer. The punches at about 0:08 aren't physically possible to throw if he was facing away.

But you might not know that for certain until he's already punched.