Why? GIGO. There is no valid argument to be made starting from the wrong premises: Instantaneous spells are not dispellable. There is no time between the completion of the casting of an instantaneous spell and the effect occurring in which to dispel it anyway.
I'm sure you are not trying to say that instantaneous spells are not dispellable is the wrong premise, but it sure looks like it.
If there is no time in-between the casting and the spell's effect being realized, then how come everyone that has readied an action can react to it?
Those are the correct statements, though I did phrase it poorly. I try not to perpetuate false information, so I didn't want to put your false premises directly in my post.
Good question, but even if you did ready a dispel magic, it still wouldn't work on an instantaneous spell. Because instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled per the description of that duration.
Good question, but even if you did ready a dispel magic, it still wouldn't work on an instantaneous spell. Because instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled per the description of that duration.
I'm 100% with you on this. The right tool for that job is counterspell.
@MrMattFree Does light from a magic weapon’s count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?
@JeremyECrawford Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD
@JeremyECrawford Shedding some light on a previous tweet … Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell. #DnD
@ericwithaz This is incredibly confusing, he said any magical light can illuminate a darkness. Does he mean any magical light above spell lvl 3?
@JeremyECrawford More about the darkness spell … See the final paragraph of the darkness spell for what it does to a light spell of 2nd level or lower. If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light. #DnD
@Jami_Gayle_ What about light coming from a magical item? Sun blade, flame tongue, etc. Would you consider those effects capable of lighting the darkness?
@JeremyECrawford The sun blade is magic item. It produces light. It is not a spell of 2nd level or lower. It can, therefore, illuminate the area of a darkness spell. #DnD
Yes, that discussion is solely about magical items producing light in Darkness.
Good question, but even if you did ready a dispel magic, it still wouldn't work on an instantaneous spell. Because instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled per the description of that duration.
I'm 100% with you on this. The right tool for that job is counterspell.
I'd still ask both of you to look at my post regarding that on page 4 which both of you have looked past, or look just a few posts back on page 6 where I restated some of my argument for your convenience.
@MrMattFree Does light from a magic weapon’s count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?
@JeremyECrawford Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD
@JeremyECrawford Shedding some light on a previous tweet … Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell. #DnD
@ericwithaz This is incredibly confusing, he said any magical light can illuminate a darkness. Does he mean any magical light above spell lvl 3?
@JeremyECrawford More about the darkness spell … See the final paragraph of the darkness spell for what it does to a light spell of 2nd level or lower. If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light. #DnD
@Jami_Gayle_ What about light coming from a magical item? Sun blade, flame tongue, etc. Would you consider those effects capable of lighting the darkness?
@JeremyECrawford The sun blade is magic item. It produces light. It is not a spell of 2nd level or lower. It can, therefore, illuminate the area of a darkness spell. #DnD
Yes, that discussion is solely about magical items producing light in Darkness.
If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light.
So the rules for light illuminating darkness:
Magical AND
Not a spell OR
Spell 3rd level or higher
#1 and #2 can be fulfilled by magical items, but not limited to magical items. Magical creatures and magical class abilities that are not spellcasting could also apply. For example, Oath of Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon and Holy Nimbus would both illuminate the Darkness. Neither has a spell level, although at the level you get them a Paladin has access to 1st and 5th level spells respectively. At level 3 a Paladin could not cast any spell powerful enough to penetrate Darkness, but their Sacred Weapon can.
@MrMattFree Does light from a magic weapon’s count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?
@JeremyECrawford Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD
@JeremyECrawford Shedding some light on a previous tweet … Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell. #DnD
@ericwithaz This is incredibly confusing, he said any magical light can illuminate a darkness. Does he mean any magical light above spell lvl 3?
@JeremyECrawford More about the darkness spell … See the final paragraph of the darkness spell for what it does to a light spell of 2nd level or lower. If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light. #DnD
@Jami_Gayle_ What about light coming from a magical item? Sun blade, flame tongue, etc. Would you consider those effects capable of lighting the darkness?
@JeremyECrawford The sun blade is magic item. It produces light. It is not a spell of 2nd level or lower. It can, therefore, illuminate the area of a darkness spell. #DnD
Looking at the bold/red text, it would seem that JC's position is that darkness does not dispel the entire spell, only the light effects of a spell. Does anyone else read this statement the same way?
Semantic arguments are the worst. If a spell creates fire, and the fire creates light, does that mean the spell created the light? What if I summon a creature, and the creature creates fire, and the fire creates light? What if I use the Creation spell to create some wood, light the wood on fire, and the fire creates light? Does Darkness make the wood disappear, put out the fire, or just suppress the light?
Unfortunately, for RAW arguments, I guess we have to get into semantic arguments.
So I want to lean on RAI here. I really don't think it was intended that Darkness could neutralize all manner of spells that happen to create light. Darkness is not supposed to be a shield against Fire Bolts. (However it will impose disadvantage.) If they had intended so many effects, I think they would have mentioned something about it in the spell's description. Antimagic Field goes into excruciating detail about how it affects spellcasting, spell targeting, AoE, magical travel, and magical creatures. Darkness just says "the spell that created the light is dispelled".
In "light" of that intent, as a rule of thumb to decide if Darkness dispels a spell, I think I will still use the rule that if the spell doesn't explicitly describe light and give that light an area of effect, then I don't think Darkness dispels it. In addition, I think it's visible within the darkness, according to the Jeremy Crawford ruling that if the Darkness doesn't dispel it and it's magical, it's visible. Therefore, you can see if your Fire Bolt hits something inside the darkness, because the Fire Bolt disappears at a point instead of passing through, though you cannot see what you hit, as the Fire Bolt doesn't illuminate any surrounding area.
I will still do this, even though I'm convinced that by RAW, a Fire Bolt is fire, and fire creates "illumination within a specific radius". Even though we must acknowledge that Fire Bolts and Bonfires create light, they do not specify a radius. So if a Fire Bolt passes near to an area of Darkness, how would we know if the area of light from the Fire Bolt overlaps the area of Darkness? How close does it have to be to be dispelled?
@MrMattFree Does light from a magic weapon’s count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?
@JeremyECrawford Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD
@JeremyECrawford Shedding some light on a previous tweet … Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell. #DnD
@ericwithaz This is incredibly confusing, he said any magical light can illuminate a darkness. Does he mean any magical light above spell lvl 3?
@JeremyECrawford More about the darkness spell … See the final paragraph of the darkness spell for what it does to a light spell of 2nd level or lower. If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light. #DnD
@Jami_Gayle_ What about light coming from a magical item? Sun blade, flame tongue, etc. Would you consider those effects capable of lighting the darkness?
@JeremyECrawford The sun blade is magic item. It produces light. It is not a spell of 2nd level or lower. It can, therefore, illuminate the area of a darkness spell. #DnD
Looking at the bold/red text, it would seem that JC's position is that darkness does not dispel the entire spell, only the light effects of a spell. Does anyone else read this statement the same way?
I get what you're saying and I think he phrased himself wrong here, as RAW is pretty clear it is the spell producing the light that is dispelled. What he said was technically wrong, but effectively correct.
I'd still ask both of you to look at my post regarding that on page 4 which both of you have looked past, or look just a few posts back on page 6 where I restated some of my argument for your convenience.
I did look at it. There is nothing worth responding to.
darkness dispels spells of 2nd level or lower that create areas of light. That gives us at least 3 criteria:
@MrMattFree Does light from a magic weapon’s count as magical that can illuminate a Darkness spell?
@JeremyECrawford Darkness cares only about light created by a spell. #DnD
@JeremyECrawford Shedding some light on a previous tweet … Light from any magical source can illuminate the area of a darkness spell, but the darkness spell can dispel light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, not light created by a non-spell. #DnD
@ericwithaz This is incredibly confusing, he said any magical light can illuminate a darkness. Does he mean any magical light above spell lvl 3?
@JeremyECrawford More about the darkness spell … See the final paragraph of the darkness spell for what it does to a light spell of 2nd level or lower. If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light. #DnD
@Jami_Gayle_ What about light coming from a magical item? Sun blade, flame tongue, etc. Would you consider those effects capable of lighting the darkness?
@JeremyECrawford The sun blade is magic item. It produces light. It is not a spell of 2nd level or lower. It can, therefore, illuminate the area of a darkness spell. #DnD
Looking at the bold/red text, it would seem that JC's position is that darkness does not dispel the entire spell, only the light effects of a spell. Does anyone else read this statement the same way?
Taken that Darkness dispel spells, not light alone, Jeremy must have been speaking more in broad terms i guess. Or like me he also houserule the spell loll
I'd still ask both of you to look at my post regarding that on page 4 which both of you have looked past, or look just a few posts back on page 6 where I restated some of my argument for your convenience.
I did look at it. There is nothing worth responding to.
darkness dispels spells of 2nd level or lower that create areas of light. That gives us at least 3 criteria:
spell of a certain level (2+)
dispellable (non-instantaneous)
creates a listed area of light
I appreciate you taking a look at it. Too bad you didn't find it worth responding to. I personally find it very interesting that you keep saying instantaneous spells can't be dispelled in the case at hand when the general rule on the subject clearly states that is only the case regarding spell effects that have already harmed, healed, created or altered a creature or object, which are effects that don't get to happen in the context of Darkness.
No. The rule uses the present tense. An instantaneous spell harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled. The rule does say that such spells harmed in such a way that they cannot be dispelled. An instantaneous spell, per the rules, is not dispellable. It harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled.
No. The rule uses the present tense. An instantaneous spell harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled. The rule does say that such spells harmed in such a way that they cannot be dispelled. An instantaneous spell, per the rules, is not dispellable. It harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled.
And does an instantaneous light-emitting spell that enters the sphere of Darkness harm its target?
I think it's a fair interpretation that radiant energy at least from a spell of 2nd level or lower would be darkened on entry into a sphere of magical darkness. The effect would be countered. The spell is darkness. An ability of light to enter is at least questioned. Fire, whether magical or not, would not be extinguished though, due to the darkness, it would shed no light.
What do you expect a spell that is not dispelled to do? What it’s description says!
Well seeing as it's the spell's harmful effect that can't be dispelled (because the magical effect is instantaneous and therefore doesn't linger), and the harmful effect hasn't taken place at the time it enters the Darkness, I'd say it's fairly straightforward to conclude the spell should be dispelled. We're talking about a travelling projectile that can be reacted to, so unless you rule it to materialise from your hand and hit its target in the same moment in time (akin to spells like Hold Person and Healing Word), I can't see why it would ignore the area effect it passes through when it is a legal target of said effect.
All that being said, I gather you likely don't want to continue the conversation much further. Thanks for humouring me. I definitely learned a lot over the course of this thread :)
Do you have trouble understanding what instantaneous says?
It doesn’t matter that you can react to it, that is not what darkness does. It does not matter that the spell is countered, that isn’t what darkness does. First, an instantaneous spell cannot be dispelled. Full stop. Secondly, the projectile doesn’t create any defined areas of light for this spell or for any instantaneous spells that I can think of.
And you are right, it is kind of tiring to see arguments over and over that simply ignore or don’t understand the plainly written rule on instantaneous spells and dispel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those are the correct statements, though I did phrase it poorly. I try not to perpetuate false information, so I didn't want to put your false premises directly in my post.
Good question, but even if you did ready a dispel magic, it still wouldn't work on an instantaneous spell. Because instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled per the description of that duration.
I'm 100% with you on this. The right tool for that job is counterspell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes, that discussion is solely about magical items producing light in Darkness.
I'd still ask both of you to look at my post regarding that on page 4 which both of you have looked past, or look just a few posts back on page 6 where I restated some of my argument for your convenience.
If a source of magical light is not a spell of 2nd level or lower, darkness can be illuminated by that light.
So the rules for light illuminating darkness:
#1 and #2 can be fulfilled by magical items, but not limited to magical items. Magical creatures and magical class abilities that are not spellcasting could also apply. For example, Oath of Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon and Holy Nimbus would both illuminate the Darkness. Neither has a spell level, although at the level you get them a Paladin has access to 1st and 5th level spells respectively. At level 3 a Paladin could not cast any spell powerful enough to penetrate Darkness, but their Sacred Weapon can.
Holy Nimbus would not illuminate the Darkness as it is not magical light by nature.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
Looking at the bold/red text, it would seem that JC's position is that darkness does not dispel the entire spell, only the light effects of a spell. Does anyone else read this statement the same way?
Ye olde paladin loophole
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Semantic arguments are the worst. If a spell creates fire, and the fire creates light, does that mean the spell created the light? What if I summon a creature, and the creature creates fire, and the fire creates light? What if I use the Creation spell to create some wood, light the wood on fire, and the fire creates light? Does Darkness make the wood disappear, put out the fire, or just suppress the light?
Unfortunately, for RAW arguments, I guess we have to get into semantic arguments.
So I want to lean on RAI here. I really don't think it was intended that Darkness could neutralize all manner of spells that happen to create light. Darkness is not supposed to be a shield against Fire Bolts. (However it will impose disadvantage.) If they had intended so many effects, I think they would have mentioned something about it in the spell's description. Antimagic Field goes into excruciating detail about how it affects spellcasting, spell targeting, AoE, magical travel, and magical creatures. Darkness just says "the spell that created the light is dispelled".
In "light" of that intent, as a rule of thumb to decide if Darkness dispels a spell, I think I will still use the rule that if the spell doesn't explicitly describe light and give that light an area of effect, then I don't think Darkness dispels it. In addition, I think it's visible within the darkness, according to the Jeremy Crawford ruling that if the Darkness doesn't dispel it and it's magical, it's visible. Therefore, you can see if your Fire Bolt hits something inside the darkness, because the Fire Bolt disappears at a point instead of passing through, though you cannot see what you hit, as the Fire Bolt doesn't illuminate any surrounding area.
I will still do this, even though I'm convinced that by RAW, a Fire Bolt is fire, and fire creates "illumination within a specific radius". Even though we must acknowledge that Fire Bolts and Bonfires create light, they do not specify a radius. So if a Fire Bolt passes near to an area of Darkness, how would we know if the area of light from the Fire Bolt overlaps the area of Darkness? How close does it have to be to be dispelled?
I get what you're saying and I think he phrased himself wrong here, as RAW is pretty clear it is the spell producing the light that is dispelled. What he said was technically wrong, but effectively correct.
I did look at it. There is nothing worth responding to.
darkness dispels spells of 2nd level or lower that create areas of light. That gives us at least 3 criteria:
Taken that Darkness dispel spells, not light alone, Jeremy must have been speaking more in broad terms i guess. Or like me he also houserule the spell loll
I appreciate you taking a look at it. Too bad you didn't find it worth responding to. I personally find it very interesting that you keep saying instantaneous spells can't be dispelled in the case at hand when the general rule on the subject clearly states that is only the case regarding spell effects that have already harmed, healed, created or altered a creature or object, which are effects that don't get to happen in the context of Darkness.
No. The rule uses the present tense. An instantaneous spell harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled. The rule does say that such spells harmed in such a way that they cannot be dispelled. An instantaneous spell, per the rules, is not dispellable. It harms in such a way that it cannot be dispelled.
And does an instantaneous light-emitting spell that enters the sphere of Darkness harm its target?
What do you expect a spell that is not dispelled to do? What it’s description says!
I think it's a fair interpretation that radiant energy at least from a spell of 2nd level or lower would be darkened on entry into a sphere of magical darkness. The effect would be countered. The spell is darkness. An ability of light to enter is at least questioned.
Fire, whether magical or not, would not be extinguished though, due to the darkness, it would shed no light.
Well seeing as it's the spell's harmful effect that can't be dispelled (because the magical effect is instantaneous and therefore doesn't linger), and the harmful effect hasn't taken place at the time it enters the Darkness, I'd say it's fairly straightforward to conclude the spell should be dispelled. We're talking about a travelling projectile that can be reacted to, so unless you rule it to materialise from your hand and hit its target in the same moment in time (akin to spells like Hold Person and Healing Word), I can't see why it would ignore the area effect it passes through when it is a legal target of said effect.
All that being said, I gather you likely don't want to continue the conversation much further. Thanks for humouring me. I definitely learned a lot over the course of this thread :)
Do you have trouble understanding what instantaneous says?
It doesn’t matter that you can react to it, that is not what darkness does. It does not matter that the spell is countered, that isn’t what darkness does. First, an instantaneous spell cannot be dispelled. Full stop. Secondly, the projectile doesn’t create any defined areas of light for this spell or for any instantaneous spells that I can think of.
And you are right, it is kind of tiring to see arguments over and over that simply ignore or don’t understand the plainly written rule on instantaneous spells and dispel.