edit RETRACT: No, at least not per RAW, yet DMs may houserule. For instance, effects (or just light effects) may be nullified. Flameblade may either be ineffective or it's light may not be seen while in the darkened area. Moonbeam may shine from above the 'area' and can be moved - DM can judge the effect between the spells. Creatures that were lit up while in the 20-foot cube of faerie fire may or may not be in a 15-foot diameter of darkness and DMs can adjudicate the results.
As a player, you can always propose views but, to answer questions like these, ask for an arcana check or just try it.
Guiding bolts advantage effect, yes, but not the initial damage, I would say. So say a creature is hit by guiding bolt, they get damaged, has a dim on them, but if it enters an area of darkness before anyone attacks then the effect is dispelled.
I'd say that, if a firebolt hits, it would still burn. Guiding bolt hits deliver 'radiant damage' and an 'advantage, thanks to the mystical dim light glittering on the target'. Both might be interpreted to be counteracted by darkness.
No, at least not per RAW, yet DMs may houserule. For instance, effects (or just light effects) may be nullified. Flameblade may either be ineffective or it's light may not be seen while in the darkened area. Moonbeam may shine from above the 'area' and can be moved - DM can judge the effect between the spells. Creatures that were lit up while in the 20-foot cube of faerie fire may or may not be in a 15-foot diameter of darkness and DMs can adjudicate the results.
As a player, you can always propose views but, to answer questions like these, ask for an arcana check or just try it.
As per RAW, Darkness seems to dispel the spell that produced the light in question. I have always simply thought that the spells were suppressed, but that doesn't seem to be the case after a rereading of the spell.
Why would you rule that Fire Bolt can pass through/hit a creature in Darkness? Is it because it is not mentioned in the spell description that the Fire Bolt emits light?
Guiding bolts advantage effect, yes, but not the initial damage, I would say. So say a creature is hit by guiding bolt, they get damaged, has a dim on them, but if it enters an area of darkness before anyone attacks then the effect is dispelled.
So if Guiding Bolt was cast targeting a creature in Darkness (assume the caster is a warlock with Devil's Sight), the spell would be able to reach the target?
Good call, In this case I'd say that moonbeam, Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt would be dispelled along with Sacred Flame (radiant), Word of Radiance and both Divine Favour and Branding Smite (at the point of a hit within the area of darkness). I'd think that flame blade and firebolt might well become as equally unseen as a normal blade or bolt but I think their fire damage would remain.
Good call, In this case I'd say that moonbeam, Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt would be dispelled along with Sacred Flame (radiant), Word of Radiance and both Divine Favour and Branding Smite (at the point of a hit within the area of darkness). I'd think that flame blade and firebolt might well become as equally unseen as a normal blade or bolt but I think their fire damage would remain.
Why would their fire damage remain if the spell is dispelled?
Darkness states: "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". Do spells like Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt actually create an area of light, or just a source of light that doesn't explicitly light up an area? I'd interpret that this light might count but it may depend on if the DM interprets the area mentioned by an area of effect type definition. in the case of fire I guess you could say that a level of localised light was indirectly created by the spell which allows another layer of interpretation.
Neither of those create "an area of light" and thus is unaffected. A DM could rule that the advantage effect of Guiding Bolt ceases. IMO it would be neither RAW nor RAI but if it's thematic then go for it, it's not a big deal.
So if Guiding Bolt was cast targeting a creature in Darkness (assume the caster is a warlock with Devil's Sight), the spell would be able to reach the target?
Why would you rule that Fire Bolt can pass through/hit a creature in Darkness? Is it because it is not mentioned in the spell description that the Fire Bolt emits light?
Neither Fire Bolt nor Guiding Bolt is a light effect/attack and thus there is no interaction.
RAW the Darkness spell dispel other lower light producing spells. IMC I've houseruled long ago that it only supress the spell's light rather than dispel it entirely while overlapping.
RAW the Darkness spell dispel other lower light producing spells. IMC I've houseruled long ago that it only supress the spell's light rather than dispel it entirely while overlapping.
RAW the Darkness spell dispels spells of equal or lower level whose area of created light created overlaps with the Darkness spell's affected area. Many houserules may divert or develop from RAW and I guess extents to which this may happen may depend of views held as to whether darkness should overcome light or vice versa.
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
To me it makes sense that an area that instantly dispels spells that emits light would make them fizzle as soon as they enter the area, i.e. the spells don't make it through or even to the middle of the Darkness (or wherever your target might be hiding). If that is how it happens, it shouldn't matter if the spell is instantaneous or has a longer duration. Just like how an Antimagic Field works:
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects, such as magic missile and charm person, that target a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect on that target.
What do you think?
Also, does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
Thezzaruz & Plaguescarred The reason I brought up Fire Bolt is exactly because the spell description doesn't say the spell emits light. However it is a fact that fire does emit light. And even if the area it illuminates is less than a 5-feet square, it'd logically be difficult to explain how a spell that creates less light than e.g. a Flaming Sphere would be more resistant to the effect of Darkness. Would you also say that Magic Missile doesn't emit light because the spell description doesn't use that exact word?
Does the Darkness spell dispel spells such as Flame Blade, Moonbeam, and Faerie Fire?
Yes.
What about spells such as Fire Bolt and Guiding Bolt?
edit
RETRACT: No, at least not per RAW, yet DMs may houserule.
For instance, effects (or just light effects) may be nullified.
Flameblade may either be ineffective or it's light may not be seen while in the darkened area.
Moonbeam may shine from above the 'area' and can be moved - DM can judge the effect between the spells.
Creatures that were lit up while in the 20-foot cube of faerie fire may or may not be in a 15-foot diameter of darkness and DMs can adjudicate the results.
As a player, you can always propose views but, to answer questions like these, ask for an arcana check or just try it.
Guiding bolts advantage effect, yes, but not the initial damage, I would say. So say a creature is hit by guiding bolt, they get damaged, has a dim on them, but if it enters an area of darkness before anyone attacks then the effect is dispelled.
I'd say that, if a firebolt hits, it would still burn.
Guiding bolt hits deliver 'radiant damage' and an 'advantage, thanks to the mystical dim light glittering on the target'. Both might be interpreted to be counteracted by darkness.
As per RAW, Darkness seems to dispel the spell that produced the light in question. I have always simply thought that the spells were suppressed, but that doesn't seem to be the case after a rereading of the spell.
Why would you rule that Fire Bolt can pass through/hit a creature in Darkness? Is it because it is not mentioned in the spell description that the Fire Bolt emits light?
So if Guiding Bolt was cast targeting a creature in Darkness (assume the caster is a warlock with Devil's Sight), the spell would be able to reach the target?
Good call, In this case I'd say that moonbeam, Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt would be dispelled along with Sacred Flame (radiant), Word of Radiance and both Divine Favour and Branding Smite (at the point of a hit within the area of darkness). I'd think that flame blade and firebolt might well become as equally unseen as a normal blade or bolt but I think their fire damage would remain.
Why would their fire damage remain if the spell is dispelled?
Darkness states: "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".
Do spells like Faerie Fire and Guiding Bolt actually create an area of light, or just a source of light that doesn't explicitly light up an area? I'd interpret that this light might count but it may depend on if the DM interprets the area mentioned by an area of effect type definition.
in the case of fire I guess you could say that a level of localised light was indirectly created by the spell which allows another layer of interpretation.
Neither of those create "an area of light" and thus is unaffected. A DM could rule that the advantage effect of Guiding Bolt ceases. IMO it would be neither RAW nor RAI but if it's thematic then go for it, it's not a big deal.
Neither Fire Bolt nor Guiding Bolt is a light effect/attack and thus there is no interaction.
Guiding Bolt specifically creates dim light
RAW the Darkness spell dispel other lower light producing spells. IMC I've houseruled long ago that it only supress the spell's light rather than dispel it entirely while overlapping.
RAW the Darkness spell dispels spells of equal or lower level whose area of created light created overlaps with the Darkness spell's affected area. Many houserules may divert or develop from RAW and I guess extents to which this may happen may depend of views held as to whether darkness should overcome light or vice versa.
Fire bolt has a duration of instantaneous and cannot be dispelled.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It also doesn't say it create light
It wouldn't matter either way. You don't dispel an instantaneous spell because there is no lingering effect to dispel. You can try to prevent it from being cast in the first place.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there would be no point in an instantaneous spell having an area of illumination anyway. What would it do, flash the light in an area, then immediately go away? That's kind of useless.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Darkness dispelling Flame Blade and similar spells is more the result of sloppy editing when it was updated for 5th edition than a deliberate feature in my opinion. Traditionally it only negated spells that directly created light (e.g. Light), not spells that happen to shed light as a byproduct of creating fire (or other luminescent materials.) That's a fight you'll have to take up with your DM though.
Yeah that is what I thought as well.
To me it makes sense that an area that instantly dispels spells that emits light would make them fizzle as soon as they enter the area, i.e. the spells don't make it through or even to the middle of the Darkness (or wherever your target might be hiding). If that is how it happens, it shouldn't matter if the spell is instantaneous or has a longer duration. Just like how an Antimagic Field works:
What do you think?
Also, does a Fireball not light up a dark room in your world?
Thezzaruz & Plaguescarred
The reason I brought up Fire Bolt is exactly because the spell description doesn't say the spell emits light. However it is a fact that fire does emit light. And even if the area it illuminates is less than a 5-feet square, it'd logically be difficult to explain how a spell that creates less light than e.g. a Flaming Sphere would be more resistant to the effect of Darkness. Would you also say that Magic Missile doesn't emit light because the spell description doesn't use that exact word?