Faerie Fire (and light)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't that the opposite of how you normally advocate how to interpret spells as a DM?

I was speaking generally. But it still applies. While yes, I tend to interpret spells narrowly (but not phrase-for-phrase literally[1]), that's a choice I've made because I believe it enhances my games. I accept that others could rule otherwise, and would be interested in hearing explanations of why they prefer to do so and what it does for their particular games.

I don't interpret the text as binding anyone to anything. TTRPGs are unlike a board game, which is designed to be played by the rules and is, in fact, strongly defective if it can't be played by the rules presented in a literal fashion. TTRPGs (especially this one) are open-ended. As such, the rules cannot be fully binding. Nor can they be complete. They always have to be suggestions, subject to human adjudication, extension, and interpretation.

[1] the RAW interpretation most commonly used parses things into individual phrases and looks at those phrases in isolation, with possible cross-referencing of the same phrase used elsewhere. This is just 100% not how language works. It's bad. It's wrong. It makes a hash out of meaning. No single phrase has independent actionable meaning. Only the minimum context units do. Which for spells is usually the entire thing, including but not limited to the title. At minimum, it's the paragraph. You can't (usefully, semantically) separate individual words and phrases and clauses. And the same word, phrase, clause, or even sentence used in one spell, ability, or rules text may have a very different meaning when used in a different one. Context is the only source of truth. And at a larger scale, any reading that denies the purpose of the text (which is to help people play a game) must be disfavored as well, as it violates the larger context. Thus, literal-minded readings are almost always the wrong ones for any non-trivial piece of text.

[RSP]

What happens if you put Dancing Lights and Light in the same square in a place that is otherwise totally dark? One will shed dim light and the other bright light, they area can't be both dim and bright. Both are cantrips, level 0 spells. Spells do exactly what it says. How would you resolve this @RSP?

For the sake of argument they're cast simultaneously by different wizards, wizards of the same level and same int score too.

This falls under a DM ruling: you have two spells intersecting that say they do different things. If two rules interact in ways not spelled out otherwise (such as Darkness’ dispelling of light producing spells), it’s a DM’s call. This isn’t unique to this situation.

I think there is interesting design space for spells that create magical darkness that does NOT block darkvision, and magically dim the lighting or set the light level to dim. If dancing lights did that, that'd be really cool, but it doesn't. I don't think that's a good thing for faerie fire to do, so I wouldn't suggest modifying it to do so. Its purpose is revealing invisible things and as a general combat (de)buff to mark targets for easy advantage to hit. The light-shedding is almost entirely verisimilitude-based, not something the spell is doing as a primary function. It's there because it answers the question of how bright the limming fire is, so DMs don't have to make on-the-spot calls about whether it sheds any real light at all.

The “limming fire”, as you refer to it (it’s not actually fire) is directly associated with the shed dim light: it’s a shadowy, blue-ish (or greenish or violetish) dim light that shows the target’s location. Being dim light, tracks them in any of the illumination categories (as it would be visible against bright light, darkness or previously existing dim light).

I'm curious, RSP, with your reading of the 'mutual exclusivity' of lighting conditions, if you would be inclined to run things the same way with nonmagical light sources.

Let's suppose that we have a burning candle: 5-foot radius of bright light, and a further 5 feet of dim light. Let's then suppose that a torch is lit, such that the entire area of the candle's light, bright and dim, is within the area of the dim light cast by the torch. Would the candle no longer create an area of bright light, because the torch creates dim light in its space? Because that seems consistent with how you want to read Faerie Fire, whose language ("sheds x light in y radius") is identical.

If you are simply drawing attention to how a quirk of ambiguous language in the game rules creates this outcome if followed very strictly, well and good; I like toying around with language as well. But I don't think that it's terribly productive to claim that this outcome, which contradicts a common consensus about how to run lighting, should be taken as the foundation for making other rulings about light, such as those to do with Faerie Fire. If you think that Faerie Fire dimming the lights is cool and worth trying, fine, but trying to claim that it's an obvious and common-sense reading of the rules strikes me as a little disingenuous.

Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. I’m not sure there’s anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think that’s unique to me.

Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time.

You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works.

As for non-magical lights, I’ve already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesn’t operate in real world rules, as it’s already in direct opposition to real world rules.

Also, Darkess doesn’t snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.

[Keltest]

Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. I’m not sure there’s anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think that’s unique to me.

Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time.

You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works.

As for non-magical lights, I’ve already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesn’t operate in real world rules, as it’s already in direct opposition to real world rules.

Also, Darkess doesn’t snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.

They are mutually exclusive, but that doesnt mean that theyre all equal. Its a sliding scale, you cant be on multiple points of it at once. General rule: brighter lights override dimmer lights. Specific rule: Darkness overrides brighter light levels in specific conditions. Notably, Faerie Fire lacks that specific rule, so the general rule applies.

If you disagree, show me where in the text of faerie fire it says that it makes bright lights dimmer.

[JNAProductions]

What you seem to be thinking, RSP, is that if it's magic, it completely stops obeying any normal rules of reality. But that's an assumption you're making, and one that's gonna result in a lot of wonkiness. Case in point-this thread.

Would you say that a Firebolt or Fireball feels hot? That's not specifically mentioned in the text, but it's what fire is.

[RSP]

What you seem to be thinking, RSP, is that if it's magic, it completely stops obeying any normal rules of reality. But that's an assumption you're making, and one that's gonna result in a lot of wonkiness. Case in point-this thread.

Would you say that a Firebolt or Fireball feels hot? That's not specifically mentioned in the text, but it's what fire is.

I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage.

Magic obeys the rules of magic. Most times, that means the description of spells is what we have to go by.

There are no “rules of reality” in 5e. I’m not even sure what you mean by this: “rules” of our real world reality? Certainly not, otherwise you wouldn’t have any magic (unless you believe our real world has stuff like Fireball and Flying spells). “Rules of Reality” for the in-game setting? Sure - but the only rules we have for these “realities” come from the spell descriptions still, barring a specific setting (or DM homebrew) stating “X spell functions this way in this setting”.

So the only “rule of reality” we have for how FF functions is its spell description, which tells us the 10’ area around the targets are dim light. Which is also called shadows. Which also creates light obscurement in the area.

Saying “but reality wouldn’t have this” is moot, because reality in 5e is defined by the spell descriptions.

Reality wouldn’t have the Fly spell, Fireball, dragons, undead, etc.

[JNAProductions]

I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage.

Magic obeys the rules of magic. Most times, that means the description of spells is what we have to go by.

There are no “rules of reality” in 5e. I’m not even sure what you mean by this: “rules” of our real world reality? Certainly not, otherwise you wouldn’t have any magic (unless you believe our real world has stuff like Fireball and Flying spells). “Rules of Reality” for the in-game setting? Sure - but the only rules we have for these “realities” come from the spell descriptions still, barring a specific setting (or DM homebrew) stating “X spell functions this way in this setting”.

So the only “rule of reality” we have for how FF functions is its spell description, which tells us the 10’ area around the targets are dim light. Which is also called shadows. Which also creates light obscurement in the area.

Saying “but reality wouldn’t have this” is moot, because reality in 5e is defined by the spell descriptions.

Reality wouldn’t have the Fly spell, Fireball, dragons, undead, etc.

5E works like actual reality, except where noted otherwise.

So, magic works-that's an explicit exception in the rules against what would happen in reality. By empowering your abilities with a 3rd level or higher slot, verbal components, somatic components, and material components or an appropriate focus, you can make a big ol' explosion; despite that not being how reality functions.

Does gravity exist in your games, RSP?
Do magnets?
Do sandwiches exist? They aren't mentioned in RAW, to my knowledge.

I think the heat is felt by those who take the Fire damage.

Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.

It says nothing about heat. Why then, with your slavish adherence to literal text, would you assume that a Fireball is hot?

[GooeyChewie]

And if the general rule says one thing, and a specific rule says another (like FF creating dim light), are you supposed to go with the general rule or the specific?

I think the key here is that Faerie Fire doesn't say it creates an area of dim light. It says it causes objects and creatures to shed dim light. And shedding dim light into an area which is already brightly lit does not reduce the brightness to dim light.

Items and equipment in 5e also do what they say they do and their specifics override general rules. A torch says it provides a 20-foot radius area of bright light, and dim light for 20 feet beyond that. If we followed your logic, torches would also allow Shadow Monks to jump into otherwise bright areas.

[RSP]

5E works like actual reality, except where noted otherwise.

So, magic works-that's an explicit exception in the rules against what would happen in reality.

Yes, magic is an exception to how 5e differs from our reality! So when a magic spell says it creates an area of 10’ shadows and light obscurement is created by a spell, it should therefore, be created a spell.

Why are you saying the magic shouldn’t do ehat it says it does?

It says nothing about heat. Why then, with your slavish adherence to literal text, would you assume that a Fireball is hot?

You asked my thoughts. In my games (and generally how I see it working even in other games) damage types mean something in-game. Fire is hot and leaves burns, Cold is cold and can leave frost/freeze burn, Slashing leaves cuts, etc.

To me, this gives value to damage types outside of just the Metagame HP loss. So the Player knows what their character’s takeaway from the damage is. If the damage types are solely a Metagame concept of HP loss, then they hold no meaning in the in-game world.

As I said, I prefer they have meaning in the in-game world.

[Keltest]

Yes, magic is an exception to how 5e differs from our reality! So when a magic spell says it creates an area of 10’ shadows and light obscurement is created by a spell, it should therefore, be created a spell.

Why are you saying the magic shouldn’t do ehat it says it does?

The spell doesnt create light obscurement. It emits dim light. Dim light doesnt darken an area. Its light. It works how light works. What part of that is unclear?

[RSP]

I think the key here is that Faerie Fire doesn't say it creates an area of dim light. It says it causes objects and creatures to shed dim light. And shedding dim light into an area which is already brightly lit does not reduce the brightness to dim light.

The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light.

Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. It’s not “reducing the brightness”, it’s magically replacing it.

The spell doesnt create light obscurement. It emits dim light. Dim light doesnt darken an area. Its light. It works how light works. What part of that is unclear?

Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say it’s shadow and light obscurement.

[Segev]

The “limming fire”, as you refer to it (it’s not actually fire) is directly associated with the shed dim light: it’s a shadowy, blue-ish (or greenish or violetish) dim light that shows the target’s location. Being dim light, tracks them in any of the illumination categories (as it would be visible against bright light, darkness or previously existing dim light).

Correct. This is in line with what I was saying.

As for non-magical lights, I’ve already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesn’t operate in real world rules, as it’s already in direct opposition to real world rules.

It only contradicts real-world rules or even in-game nonmagical rules where it says it does. Continual flame, light, and dancing lights don't dim existing bright light in the radii where their dim light is shed. Neither does faerie fire. The language used for those spells' shedding of light and the way mundane lighting works is deliberately similar, if not identical. Faerie fire doesn't convert the light level within 10 feet to dim; it sheds dim light out to 10 feet. A torch sheds dim light from 20 feet to 40 feet. Same principle.

When D&D 5e is SETTING a light level with magic, it says so by using something other than "sheds." Twilight Sanctuary creates a space "filled with dim light." Darkness causes darkness to "spread" from its center, and then spends still more wording describing what light it does and does not override. Implying the default is that brighter lighting conditions do override dimmer ones, since such language would otherwise be unnecessary.

Also, Darkess doesn’t snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.

Correct. But it also is not illuminated by candles or torches, and is illuminated by magical light sources it does not dispel.

The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light.

Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. It’s not “reducing the brightness”, it’s magically replacing it.



Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say it’s shadow and light obscurement.

It doesn't say it "comes off targets." The explicit text is, "For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius."

It does not say it overrides other lighting conditions. It doesn't say it "fills the space" or "spreads from the targets" or any other language that suggests it behaves in any way differently from light from a candle, torch, lantern, or other light source. It is a light source, pure and simple. It sheds dim light out to a 10 foot radius. The light cantrip doesn't generate an annulus of dimness in broad daylight, does it? Your interpretation of the rules - including your "magic is different, even though the rules for magical lighting don't say they operate differently than the rules for nonmagical lighting such as torches" caveat, would say such an annulus is generated.

[Keltest]

The dim light is maintained by the spell, same as the blue/green/violet light.

Dim light is shadow and light obscurement. The spell says it comes off the targets. It’s not “reducing the brightness”, it’s magically replacing it.



Dim light is a category of illumination. It works like the 5e rules say it works. The 5e rules say it’s shadow and light obscurement.

Yeah, and none of that involves replacing bright light. Where do the rules say it can do that?

[Catullus64]

Illumination categories are mutually exclusive. I’m not sure there’s anyway to read it otherwise, nor why you think that’s unique to me.

Not only can an area not be bright light, dim light or darkness at the same time, it also cannot be unobscured, lightly obscured or heavily obscured at the same time.

You apparently see it differently, though, so please let me know how your reading of them not being mutually exclusive works.

As for non-magical lights, I’ve already stated I assume they work like real world lights. The difference is magic doesn’t operate in real world rules, as it’s already in direct opposition to real world rules.

Also, Darkess doesn’t snuff out a candle or torch just because the light created by those touches the AoE of darkness, yet it does dispel the spell that creates light that touches.

'Mutually exclusive' just means two lighting conditions cannot exist in the same space at the same time. That doesn't tell us anything about which of two conditions takes effect when multiple sources of lighting overlap in an area, just that it can only be one of the two. Some instances, like a Darkness spell, make it explicit, but most, such as mundane light sources or Faerie Fire, don't.

As for the question of magic, I tend to assume that physical effects created by a spell differ from similar mundane physical effects only if the spell tells me so. Light remains light. I have no reason to think that the dim light cast by Faerie Fire doesn't function the same as nonmagical sources of dim light. If you want to add to the spell that it makes there to be dim light even where there would otherwise be bright light, there's nothing wrong with that addition (in fact I think it's pretty cool), but don't claim that it's a simple plain-text reading of the rules.

[Psyren]

I think an example of a magic effect setting the light level (i.e. overriding ambient conditions) is found in the Twilight Cleric's Twilight Sanctuary feature. Faerie Fire's language doesn't read the same way to me at all.

[RSP]

'Mutually exclusive' just means two lighting conditions cannot exist in the same space at the same time. That doesn't tell us anything about which of two conditions takes effect when multiple sources of lighting overlap in an area, just that it can only be one of the two. Some instances, like a Darkness spell, make it explicit, but most, such as mundane light sources or Faerie Fire, don't.

Yeah, and none of that involves replacing bright light. Where do the rules say it can do that?

Here’s Darkness’ wording for using a non-object:

“Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range”

Here’s Darkness’ wording for casting the spell on an object:

“the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.”

Nether of those explicitly states it replaces the existing illumination condition. “Spreads” and “emanates” are not horribly different than “sheds” in a way that makes it explicit that it’s replacing the existing illumination conditions.

It’s replacing whatever the current illumination condition is because the spell creates it. Same as FF.

[Keltest]

Here’s Darkness’ wording for using a non-object:

“Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range”

Here’s Darkness’ wording for casting the spell on an object:

“the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it.”

Nether of those explicitly states it replaces the existing illumination condition. “Spreads” and “emanates” are not horribly different than “sheds” in a way that makes it explicit that it’s replacing the existing illumination conditions.

It’s replacing whatever the current illumination condition is because the spell creates it. Same as FF.

You've cut out the part of the text that says darkness replaces other levels of illumination, so yeah, no wonder you don't have it there.

[RSP]

You've cut out the part of the text that says darkness replaces other levels of illumination, so yeah, no wonder you don't have it there.

Here’s the entire text:

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

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

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

Where does it say “this replaces any current illumination category”? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?

[Keltest]

Here’s the entire text:

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

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

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

Where does it say “this replaces any current illumination category”? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?

When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.

[Bobthewizard]

“Spreads” and “emanates” are not horribly different than “sheds” in a way that makes it explicit that it’s replacing the existing illumination conditions.

I disagree with this. "Spreads" and "emanates" are not natural conditions of darkness, so the spell is saying it does something other than natural darkness. Darkness is normally just the absence of light, so this needs say how it interacts with normal light.

"Sheds" is something natural that a dimly lit object can do, so there is no reason to think this light acts differently than natural light, and so would not overrule surrounding bright light. If they had wanted faerie fire to dim a surrounding area of bright light, they would have said so explicitly, like they do with other magical abilities that do that. "Sheds" light does not override normal light rules of bright light drowning out dim light.

[Mastikator]

This falls under a DM ruling: you have two spells intersecting that say they do different things. If two rules interact in ways not spelled out otherwise (such as Darkness’ dispelling of light producing spells), it’s a DM’s call. This isn’t unique to this situation.

How would you rule on it as a DM?
Would that ruling set any kind of precedence or is simply a ruling on those two spells only?

[JNAProductions]

Here’s the entire text:

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

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

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

Where does it say “this replaces any current illumination category”? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?

Where it says that non-magical light can’t illuminate it.

[Witty Username]

Same with FF. The dim light extends beyond that 5’ wall. Why? Because that’s the effect of the spell.

That is worth noting a difference. Spells don't normally effect an area that is blocked from its point of origin, as per the spellcasting rules.

Fireball and Darkness have rules on how they interact with with corners because they are an exception to the spellcasting rules.

For Faerie Fire, this would mean that the light is blocked by objects, as normal, creature acting as the point of origin. As well as the creatures affected would need to be within the original cube and not have total cover from the the point of origin, in this case a point on one of cube's faces of the caster's choice.


The bigger question would be, is a fireball's area reduced if it is cast into an area with significant cover?

[Segev]

Here’s the entire text:

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

If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

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

Where does it say “this replaces any current illumination category”? Or anything that explicitly says it changes the illumination category?

When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.

Where it says that non-magical light can’t illuminate it.

Just because I read it several times, knowing it's in there, and couldn't find it until the 4th or 5th read through, I have bolded the relevant text in RSP's quote to back up Keltest's and JNAProductions's posts.

[RSP]

Where it says that non-magical light can’t illuminate it.

When it says nonmagical light cant illuminate it. Magical light can illuminate it, but it dispels spells of a certain level.

Just because I read it several times, knowing it's in there, and couldn't find it until the 4th or 5th read through, I have bolded the relevant text in RSP's quote to back up Keltest's and JNAProductions's posts.

Incorrect. This statement: “…nonmagical light can't illuminate it” isn’t saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you can’t illuminate darkness of darkness doesn’t exist.

That statement you three are relying on as “an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category” doesn’t mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it can’t be illuminated with nonmagical light.

So again, if Darkness doesn’t explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?

[Keltest]

Incorrect. This statement: “…nonmagical light can't illuminate it” isn’t saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you can’t illuminate darkness of darkness doesn’t exist.

That statement you three are relying on as “an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category” doesn’t mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it can’t be illuminated with nonmagical light.

So again, if Darkness doesn’t explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?

No? Thats not how english works at all.

[JNAProductions]

No? Thats not how english works at all.

Echoing this.

RSP, if you want to make it so Faerie Fire actively replaces bright light with dim light, that's fine. It's unlikely to break anything. But that's certainly not a reading that's mandated by the text-and really, the rules as written show that your reading is a houserule.

[Segev]

Incorrect. This statement: “…nonmagical light can't illuminate it” isn’t saying it replaces anything. That statement can only be read as when darkness is already in place. That is, you can’t illuminate darkness of darkness doesn’t exist.

That statement you three are relying on as “an explicit statement of darkness replacing any other illumination category” doesn’t mean what you want it to. It only means that after the darkness is in place, it can’t be illuminated with nonmagical light.

So again, if Darkness doesn’t explicitly state it replaces other illumination categories, why should FF or any other spell that says it creates it?

If nonmagical light can't illuminate an area, that area does not have illumination, and is, perforce, dark. Surely you're not trying to claim that, once an area is lit by a torch, even if the torch moves or goes away, the light remains behind indefinitely. That would be the necessary consequence of nonmagical light not having to illuminate something continuously for the area the nonmagical light illuminated to remain illuminated, though.

RSP, if you want to make it so Faerie Fire actively replaces bright light with dim light, that's fine. It's unlikely to break anything. But that's certainly not a reading that's mandated by the text-and really, the rules as written show that your reading is a houserule.

Exactly. It's a fine house rule if you want to make it, but the RAW do not support it.

[RSP]

No? Thats not how english works at all.

That’s exactly how English works.

The sentence is: “A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.”

That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isn’t already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isn’t already darkness?

The sentence isn’t a statement of “this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category” it’s the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light. What’s being illuminated if the darkness isn’t already in place?

[JNAProductions]

That’s exactly how English works.

The sentence is: “A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.”

That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isn’t already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isn’t already darkness?

The sentence isn’t a statement of “this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category” it’s “the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light.” What’s being illuminated if the darkness isn’t already in place?

If nonmagical light can't illuminate an area, that area does not have illumination, and is, perforce, dark. Surely you're not trying to claim that, once an area is lit by a torch, even if the torch moves or goes away, the light remains behind indefinitely. That would be the necessary consequence of nonmagical light not having to illuminate something continuously for the area the nonmagical light illuminated to remain illuminated, though.

Segev literally already addressed what you're talking about.

[Bobthewizard]

That’s exactly how English works.

The sentence is: “A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.”

That sentence is written with darkness already in affect. Why would a creature need darkvision if there isn’t already darkness? What is being illuminated if there isn’t already darkness?

The sentence isn’t a statement of “this illumination category replaces and/or supplants any other illumination category” it’s the darkness cannot be illuminated by a nonmagical light. What’s being illuminated if the darkness isn’t already in place?

It's in the sentence right before that one. "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."

Note that this doesn't say, the point "sheds" darkness but rather magical darkness fills the area. That is the difference between darkness and faerie fire.

If they had wanted faerie fire to fill an area of bright light with dim light, they would have used the language from darkness or twilight sanctuary. They did not. So by RAW, it does not fill the area. It just sheds dim light like a candle would.