Darkness and Magical Tinkering Lights

[Silpharon]

The darkness spell puts out nonmagical lights and:

"If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled."

But... Magical Tinkering lights are magical and not created by spells. They are effectively magic items. Relevant text:

"...touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action and give it one of the following magical properties of your choice:

The object sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.

The chosen property lasts indefinitely. As an action, you can touch the object and end the property early."

So the way I read this, a Magical Tinkering light can be used within a darkness 15ft radius sphere. This could be used a lot of different ways, but mostly similar to fog cloud:
- Fight a melee opponent as normal while keeping ranged enemies from getting advantage
- Prevent ranged spellcasters from using sight-based spells against you
- Allows hiding if necessary
- Use it to work on something you want no one to see

Thoughts? Clearly artificer doesn't have darkness on his spell list, but a wizard dip is powerful anyway. This is effectively a weaker form of Demon Sight, Shadow Sorc, or Blind Fighting in darkness. It's closest to fog cloud fighting except that you can choose when and how vision within the cloud works.

Edit: JC confirms!
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/722870799082721280

Q: Does light from a magic weapon’s characteristics (not via a spell) count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?

A: Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD

Edit 2: Keravath corrected my advantage/disadvantage logic.

[Burley]

Magical Tinkering Lights, as you said, are effectively magic items, which are artificer's whole thing, so I think it's totally fair to use magic item logic. I'd look at it the same way that an anti-magic field would affect a magic item, which would be that it suppresses the magic until it's out of the field.

So, with Darkness/Light interactions: A Light spell would be dispelled, but a light emitting magic item would be suppressed until the Darkness effect ends (or the item leaves the effect). MTL don't have a spell level and they're definitely not going to have the equivalent power of a 3rd level spell, so, they'd not be more powerful than a 2nd level Darkness spell.

[Silpharon]

Magical Tinkering Lights, as you said, are effectively magic items, which are artificer's whole thing, so I think it's totally fair to use magic item logic. I'd look at it the same way that an anti-magic field would affect a magic item, which would be that it suppresses the magic until it's out of the field.

So, with Darkness/Light interactions: A Light spell would be dispelled, but a light emitting magic item would be suppressed until the Darkness effect ends (or the item leaves the effect). MTL don't have a spell level and they're definitely not going to have the equivalent power of a 3rd level spell, so, they'd not be more powerful than a 2nd level Darkness spell.

Well, it turns out JC agrees with me:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/722870799082721280

Darkness only cares about lights created by spells. In context to the question, you can see that magic item light still illuminates the darkness. A DM may rule that MTL is blocked by darkness, but that's not RAW or RAI.

[Brookshw]

By RAW, you're correct, the light effect is not a spell so would not be cancelled by Darkness. That said, as its a magical effect which could be implemented before the ability to cast 2nd level spells comes online, I would consider it the equivalent of a level 2 or lower spell, and could be nullified by Darkness.

[LtPowers]

So I'm perfectly willing to accept that darkness doesn't interact with Magical Tinkering as if the latter was a spell. But I'm not certain we can then assume that the light shines as if the darkness wasn't present. What we end up with is two magical effects, one creating light and one creating heavy obscurement, overlapping in the same area of space. We can't have both at the same time, can we? Does one have to take precedence over the other, and if so, which one?


Powers &8^]

[Silpharon]

By RAW, you're correct, the light effect is not a spell so would not be cancelled by Darkness. That said, as its a magical effect which could be implemented before the ability to cast 2nd level spells comes online, I would consider it the equivalent of a level 2 or lower spell, and could be nullified by Darkness.


So I'm perfectly willing to accept that darkness doesn't interact with Magical Tinkering as if the latter was a spell. But I'm not certain we can then assume that the light shines as if the darkness wasn't present. What we end up with is two magical effects, one creating light and one creating heavy obscurement, overlapping in the same area of space. We can't have both at the same time, can we? Does one have to take precedence over the other, and if so, which one?


Powers &8^]

Check out the JC Q&A (link above):

Q: Does light from a magic weapon’s characteristics (not via a spell) count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?

A: Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD

So JC thinks a magic weapon with illumination will still illuminate darkness.

[Keltest]

So I'm perfectly willing to accept that darkness doesn't interact with Magical Tinkering as if the latter was a spell. But I'm not certain we can then assume that the light shines as if the darkness wasn't present. What we end up with is two magical effects, one creating light and one creating heavy obscurement, overlapping in the same area of space. We can't have both at the same time, can we? Does one have to take precedence over the other, and if so, which one?


Powers &8^]

The text of darkness (that it puts out nonmagical lights and lights from weaker spells only) would indicate that items win.

[Brookshw]

Check out the JC Q&A (link above):


No :smalltongue: I already acknowledged that there's no effect by RAW, I just think that's stupid. Do whatever your DM will permit at the table.

[Keravath]

I agree with your comments about a tinkering light illuminating an area of magical darkness. However, most of your ideas for advantage/disadvantage don't work RAW.

1) For the light - the tinkering light is magical and is not a spell of 2nd level or less so it illuminates the area that it states 5' bright and another 5' dim with darkness beyond that. The magical darkness prevents the propagation of light so, although it would be a DM ruling, I don't think the area illuminated by the tinkering light would be visible from outside the darkness unless the lit area overlapped the edge of the darkened area.

However, a DM might easily rule otherwise. The tinkering light illuminates a 10' radius area to at least dim light. The light is magical so the darkness spell doesn't block it so it CAN illuminate the areas it states it illuminates but we are stuck with the real world physics of light vs the magic of the D&D darkness spell. The darkness spell creates areas of darkness that are heavily obscured (you can't see through them) and the tinkering light only illuminates a 10' radius area which would be surrounded by a heavily obscured area ... the darkness spell also says that it only blocks non-magical light. So we are stuck with the contradiction between heavily obscured and a region of darkness containing an area which is magically illuminated. This makes it a DM call as to whether the illuminated area can be seen from outside the darkness area or not.

2) As to your advantage/disadvantage scenarios ... if you can't see your target, you have disadvantage, if your target can't see you then you have advantage. This means that if you can't see each other (absent a house rule) then you have neither advantage nor disadvantage and the attack would be resolved as a straight roll.

In your case, whether or not you have a light source out doesn't change that advantage and disadvantage cancel out leaving it a straight roll whether you can see each other or not.

Some folks use a homebrew rule that if creatures can't see each other then both have disadvantage. In that case, pulling out the light source and putting it away might be a method to obtain a straight roll on your attacks while an opponent has disadvantage on theirs.

Other ways to obtain a similar effect would be the Alert feat which prevents other creatures gaining advantage when you can't see them - in this darkness scenario, other creatures would have disadvantage to attack the creature with the Alert feat while they would have a straight roll. Alternatively, the blind fighting style grants blindsight in a 10' radius which allows the creature to see in the magical darkness giving them advantage on their attacks while attackers would have disadvantage.

Overall, these two options would work while pulling out a tinkering light might not. However, the tinkering light is an inexpensive and easy way to illuminate magical darkness if a creature (like a warlock or devil with devil's sight) tries to use it against you.

[Silpharon]

I agree with your comments about a tinkering light illuminating an area of magical darkness. However, most of your ideas for advantage/disadvantage don't work RAW.

I think we agree actually, but maybe I miscommunicated. If I cast darkness and held a MTL, it would effectively create a spherical wall of heavy obscuration from 10-15 ft radius. Within the "bubble", all creatures can see (e.g. 2 creatures in melee). Outside of the bubble creatures (e.g. the enemy archer or spell caster) cannot see inside of the bubble.

So for a combatant inside the bubble:
- He straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures outside the bubble

For combatants outside the bubble:
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside the bubble

If the MTL and darkness are not fixed together, this can make for interesting situations (e.g. sticking the MTL on an enemy, or making a tunnel through the darkness for ranged attacks with heavy obscuration cover on the sides/rear).

I view this as a weaker form of Eldritch Sight or Blind Fighting in darkness.

[Burley]

I think the way to read Darkness is that no light is visible in the effect, unless it's coming from a magical source of sufficient strength (3rd level or higher, unless Darkness was upcast).
If Darkness was cast, would my Flametongue be visible within or without the darkness? Maybe, since it's a rare quality item, intended for characters that would have access to 3rd level spell equivalent power? What about an Everbright Lantern, which is common quality? It sheds light in a 120-ft cone, so, it could completely negate the Darkness spell, because it's an item and not a spell specifically?


Thought exercise around the power of a 1st-level class ability vs a 2nd level spell: Using Magical Tinkering, if I make an object make chirping noises, can I hear it if I'm in the effect of a Silence spell?

[diplomancer]

I think the way to read Darkness is that no light is visible in the effect, unless it's coming from a magical source of sufficient strength (3rd level or higher, unless Darkness was upcast).
If Darkness was cast, would my Flametongue be visible within or without the darkness? Maybe, since it's a rare quality item, intended for characters that would have access to 3rd level spell equivalent power? What about an Everbright Lantern, which is common quality? It sheds light in a 120-ft cone, so, it could completely negate the Darkness spell, because it's an item and not a spell specifically?


Thought exercise around the power of a 1st-level class ability vs a 2nd level spell: Using Magical Tinkering, if I make an object make chirping noises, can I hear it if I'm in the effect of a Silence spell?

I see your logic, but the Silence spell, unlike the Darkness spell, does not care whether the sound comes from a magical or nonmagical source.

[Silpharon]

If Darkness was cast, would my Flametongue be visible within or without the darkness? Maybe, since it's a rare quality item, intended for characters that would have access to 3rd level spell equivalent power? What about an Everbright Lantern, which is common quality? It sheds light in a 120-ft cone, so, it could completely negate the Darkness spell, because it's an item and not a spell specifically?


By RAW and JC RAI, the answer is yes to both those questions. The DM could houserule otherwise.

[Keravath]

I think we agree actually, but maybe I miscommunicated. If I cast darkness and held a MTL, it would effectively create a spherical wall of heavy obscuration from 10-15 ft radius. Within the "bubble", all creatures can see (e.g. 2 creatures in melee). Outside of the bubble creatures (e.g. the enemy archer or spell caster) cannot see inside of the bubble.

So for a combatant inside the bubble:
- He straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures outside the bubble

For combatants outside the bubble:
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside the bubble

If the MTL and darkness are not fixed together, this can make for interesting situations (e.g. sticking the MTL on an enemy, or making a tunnel through the darkness for ranged attacks with heavy obscuration cover on the sides/rear).

I view this as a weaker form of Eldritch Sight or Blind Fighting in darkness.

Actually no.

"So for a combatant inside the bubble:
- He straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures outside the bubble"

He has straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble since creatures inside the bubble can see them and they can see the creatures

However, RAW, he also has straight rolls against against creatures outside the bubble. He has disadvantage because they can't see them but they also have advantage because creatures outside the bubble can't see them.

So the character winds up with straight rolls to hit and to be hit either way.

"For combatants outside the bubble:
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside the bubble"

Creatures outside the bubble have a straight roll - because they can't see their target they have disadvantage but because the target can't see them either they have advantage - these cancel resulting in a straight roll.

RAW, darkness and fog cloud and most other effects that create a block to vision have very little effect on attacks that require a to hit roll due to advantage and disadvantage canceling. However, they will completely block effects that require the creature to see their target (which includes a large number of spells).

P.S. Some folks use a house rule in which creatures that can't see each other, attack each other with disadvantage. However, RAW, this situation should be a straight roll due to the canceling of advantage and disadvantage.

[Silpharon]

Actually no.

"So for a combatant inside the bubble:
- He straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures outside the bubble"

He has straight rolls for attacks inside the bubble since creatures inside the bubble can see them and they can see the creatures

However, RAW, he also has straight rolls against against creatures outside the bubble. He has disadvantage because they can't see them but they also have advantage because creatures outside the bubble can't see them.

So the character winds up with straight rolls to hit and to be hit either way.

"For combatants outside the bubble:
- He has disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside the bubble"

Creatures outside the bubble have a straight roll - because they can't see their target they have disadvantage but because the target can't see them either they have advantage - these cancel resulting in a straight roll.

RAW, darkness and fog cloud and most other effects that create a block to vision have very little effect on attacks that require a to hit roll due to advantage and disadvantage canceling. However, they will completely block effects that require the creature to see their target (which includes a large number of spells).

P.S. Some folks use a house rule in which creatures that can't see each other, attack each other with disadvantage. However, RAW, this situation should be a straight roll due to the canceling of advantage and disadvantage.

Well put, you have all valid points. I will update my OP. So in terms of benefits, the main one is that spell casters could not cast a spell that requires them to target "a creature they can see". It also allows hiding (just like fog cloud), and cancels advantage against you by creatures outside the bubble.