But the game's definition of instantaneous (which has been pointed to several times in CH 10) absolutely doesn't reference dispel magic.
Also very very true
This rule states that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled after they have affected their targets (harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object). What we are discussing in this thread is prior to the spells taking the intended effect.
It doesn't matter. The definition of instantaneous includes "can't be dispelled".
Instead of simply restating your argument, please read what you are responding to. The definition states that Instantaneous spells can't be dispelled 'after they take affect' (emphasis, not quotation). In the context we are discussing, the spells haven't taken effect.
You're right that a Fire Bolt or Fireball would produce light, but that is a non-magical byproduct rather than a magical light from the spell itself. Darkness only triggers when it overlaps "with an area of light created by a spell" so you need to check whether the spell creates light in its description. If a spell description doesn't include shedding or producing light, then Darkness can't dispel it.
Consider this: If you strike a match, does the match produce light? Or is it the flame which produces light?
Also, the fact that they are instantaneous spells prevents them from being dispelled as others have mentioned. The rule for instantaneous spells says "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant." There is no condition to this statement. It does not say before/during/after the spell takes effect, it just says they cannot be dispelled.
I'll try to make a summary of the main arguments I've seen in the thread so far, and why I still believe spells such as Fire Bolt should likely be dispelled by Darkness. I'll lead with my conclusion: Specific rules beat general rules.
Arguments against Darkness dispelling Fire Bolt
0. Darkness' current write-up doesn't reflect its intent. In previous editions it specifically dispelled "lower level light spells" (e.g. Light or Dancing Lights).
1. Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do. Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't.
2. The general rules state that Instantaneous spell can't be dispelled, therefore Darkness can't dispel Fire Bolt.
Arguments for Darkness dispelling Fire Bolt
0. I agree that is most likely the case, but that doesn't change current edition RAW.
1. The general rules state that fire emits Bright Light:
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius
Fire Bolt is made of fire, thus it creates bright light (and likely dim light as well). It is hilarious to imagine a party sitting eating their dinner in complete darkness next to their short-term bonfire created by Create Bonfire :') Or a non-light-emitting Wall of Fire or even a non-light-emitting burning creature targeted by Hellish Rebuke (for reference, we know that a human torch emits 30-foot bright light and 30-foot dim light as per Immolation).
2. After having read the general rules that address Instantaneous spells, I have to agree with iconarising that the general rules likely assumes Dispel Magic as the base reference when they write "dispel" in other contexts. If Dispel Magic is indeed the base reference for the usage of the word "dispelled" used in the rules, the general rules assume that you can only dispel magical effects on a creature, object or magical effect. SAC makes this clear if it wasn't already:
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field? (SAC) Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic.
The reason why it cannot be dispelled is because the spell's effect isn't magical from the moment it is realized (See SAC quote above). Further, Dispel Magic needs a target affected by the spell it wants dispelled as stated previously.
Now, the general rule that states instantaneous spells can't be dispelled can be seen below:
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
Paraphrased (for your convenience) it looks like this: 'Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant. -or- The spell heals a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant. -or- The spell creates a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant. -or- The spell alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.'
All of the above effects from instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, as plainly written in the rules quoted above (because they aren't magical once they are realized, see SAC quote further up). However they are effects! And these effects are only realized when they reach their targets. In the case at hand, they never reach their target, never take effect, and are thus dispellable.
This opens up another question: Does this mean that Dispel Magic can effectively dispel a spell as it is flying through the air towards its target? SAC says "no":
Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect? (SAC) ... With the Ready action, dispel magic can be cast in response to another spell being cast, yet dispel magic can’t substitute for counterspell. The main reason is that dispel magic removes a spell that is already on a target, whether that target is a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon. Dispel magic can’t dispel something in advance. If a spell isn’t already present on a target, dispel magic does nothing to that target
So Dispel Magic can't dispel a spell flying through the air towards its target because it has to target a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon (unrealized spell apparently not included in this category). However, what happens if we were to remove that limitation?
Enter, Darkness! This spell changes the target from a single affected target to an area in which every spell that is 2nd level or less and creates an area of light is dispelled. The spell clearly describes what the spell dispels, and even though it diverts from the general rules for dispelling (regarding targeting), what is written in Darkness' description is a specific rule and therefore takes priority over the general rule. The effect of Darkness should therefore work much like the spell Antimagic Field when it comes to how the spell describes its effect on targeted effects, with the limitations imposed by the Darkness spell itself and excluding Antimagic Field's inclusion of magical effects (the spell is also dispelled instead of suppressed):
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.
Thus we should end up with a Fire Bolt, made of fire and therefore emitting bright light (and dim light?), that is dispelled by the area of Darkness as the spell's description makes Fire Bolt a valid target for its effect. As stated in the beginning of this post, I believe this is a case where we have a specific rule that conflicts with a general rule. Am I very wrong?
I'm not convinced. Yes, specific beats general, but I don't see any wording in the Darkness spell that directly contradicts the rule for instantaneous spells.
From what I can see your position is that a spell can be dispelled between the casting of the spell and when it reaches its target, i.e. while it is travelling. I think you are trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. The whole description section is the effect. So for a Fire Bolt the hurling of the mote of fire and the subsequent hit and damage are all considered the effect, and that all happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled.
You also haven't responded to my initial argument. Namely that there is a difference between magical light created by a spell, and non-magical light created by fire. The wording of the Darkness spell only triggers a dispel against magical light (i.e. light created by a spell). I absolutely agree with you about fire spells giving off light, I just don't think that such light triggers the dispel effect because the light isn't magical.
You say that "Darkness' current write-up doesn't reflect its intent". So what is its intent? Do you believe that it should behave like an Antimagic Field as you have been suggesting? Or that it should behave more like the older versions and only dispel "lower level light spells"? Personally I think it is the latter, but they had to re-word it because there are a number of damage spells that can also provide areas of magical light, but are not considered light spells. If they really wanted it to stop spells like Fire Bolt from entering the area of darkness then surely they would have worded it more like the Antimagic Field...
But that's just my view, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points.
So, the description for the 2nd lev spell Darkness states that, "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."
This seems to closely parallel/provide a symmetry to the description of the 3rd lev spell Daylight which states that, "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled."
If someone cast something like summon beast in an area of daylight so as to create a shadow and even if the beast sat down to create complete darkness, I don't think that the beast would necessarily be dispelled.
Arguments aren't that, "Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do." and that "Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't."
Yes the light is fairly irrelevant as an effect and extremely tertiary but the main argument here is that, while the fire is magical, the light it creates isn't.
I'm not convinced. Yes, specific beats general, but I don't see any wording in the Darkness spell that directly contradicts the rule for instantaneous spells.
From what I can see your position is that a spell can be dispelled between the casting of the spell and when it reaches its target, i.e. while it is travelling. I think you are trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. The whole description section is the effect. So for a Fire Bolt the hurling of the mote of fire and the subsequent hit and damage are all considered the effect, and that all happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled.
I agree that the travelling mote of fire is part of the effect, but is not the realized effect, just as saying that it is not the realized effect of the spell Hold Person to have the target make a wisdom saving throw they succeed. As for whether or not it "happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled", I don't believe it does. If it did, the target would be able to reach with a Shield spell or teleport out of the way of a Fireball with a readied Thunder Step spell. I am actually not sure I completely understand your logic. If everything worked the way I described in my last post, the sphere of Darkness would work similarly to a heavily limited part of Antimagic Field (as described in my last post). So if you believe the Fire Bolt strikes too fast for it to be dispelled by Darkness, would you rule the same if we were talking about an Antimagic Field? The way I see read it, Darkness dispels light-emitting spells of 2nd level or lower instantly (they get dispelled at the outer periphery of the spell).
You also haven't responded to my initial argument. Namely that there is a difference between magical light created by a spell, and non-magical light created by fire. The wording of the Darkness spell only triggers a dispel against magical light (i.e. light created by a spell). I absolutely agree with you about fire spells giving off light, I just don't think that such light triggers the dispel effect because the light isn't magical.
I think it is a difficult question, and I can't find any official rules on the matter. My personal take is that flames produced by magic is magical, and that light produced by magical flames are also magical in nature (though I am not at all certain on this point). In the Fire Bolt spell it is described that it is a mote of fire, and fire inherently creates bright light. However it is difficult to dissect a spell and rule on which part of effects are magical and which are not in my opinion. Would you also argue that Guiding Bolt, that explicitly says it is a "flash of light", is not a magical light?
Here's a quote from SAC on the matter. I'd personally say that the light is part of the spell and is fueled (however briefly) by the use of a spell slot.
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.
You say that "Darkness' current write-up doesn't reflect its intent". So what is its intent? Do you believe that it should behave like an Antimagic Field as you have been suggesting? Or that it should behave more like the older versions and only dispel "lower level light spells"? Personally I think it is the latter, but they had to re-word it because there are a number of damage spells that can also provide areas of magical light, but are not considered light spells. If they really wanted it to stop spells like Fire Bolt from entering the area of darkness then surely they would have worded it more like the Antimagic Field...
I believe I touched upon this in my last post, and a little more extensively in a prior post. I believe the same as you do. I believe RAI is for Darkness to dispel spells that exclusively produce light (e.g. Light or Dancing Lights) as in earlier editions. However they could easily have made this clear, so it's hard to say if it was intentional to leave it as is.
But that's just my view, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points.
You have excellent points and you are generally a joy to have a discussion with! :)
If you cast heat metal and the metal begins to glow, would the belated glowing of the metal cause the dispelling of the spell by a casting of darkness? I'd doubt it.
I think some of the arguments here depend on interpretations on whether the light from, say, a firebolt is magical in itself or is just an expected product as of any created fire.
Another issue is whether, in each case, there is an "area of light created by a spell" or whether light just manages to shine in some magical way.
So, the description for the 2nd lev spell Darkness states that, "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."
This seems to closely parallel/provide a symmetry to the description of the 3rd lev spell Daylight which states that, "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled."
If someone cast something like summon beast in an area of daylight so as to create a shadow and even if the beast sat down to create complete darkness, I don't think that the beast would necessarily be dispelled.
Arguments aren't that, "Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do." and that "Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't."
Yes the light is fairly irrelevant as an effect and extremely tertiary but the main argument here is that, while the fire is magical, the light it creates isn't.
It is a fair point that light produced by magical fire may be of mundane nature. I don't think so, but I am far from certain.
I think I understand what you're getting at with the Daylight spell and Summon Beast spell (though it took a while to connect the dots). Assuming that you are summoning a Shadow (even though it is not a beast), the spell is being sustained by magic and is thus dispelled (only due its nature as an actual Shadow.) If you had instead produced a dog which casts a shadow, then I wouldn't say it is dispelled as the shadow it casts is a mundane area of darkness.
I believe I see your point. I am now far less convinced that the light from the Fire Bolt is magical in nature. How would you rule in the case of Guiding Bolt which explicitly describes the spell as a "flash of light"?
If you cast heat metal and the metal begins to glow, would the belated glowing of the metal cause the dispelling of the spell by a casting of darkness? I'd doubt it.
If the spell description says the metal glows then the spell likely produces an area of light (albeit a small one), just like a spell that explicitly says it creates a dog with a shadow would be dispelled by Daylight as the shadow is part of the spell effect. RAW, spells producing light gets dispelled by Darkness.
So, the description for the 2nd lev spell Darkness states that, "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."
This seems to closely parallel/provide a symmetry to the description of the 3rd lev spell Daylight which states that, "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled."
If someone cast something like summon beast in an area of daylight so as to create a shadow and even if the beast sat down to create complete darkness, I don't think that the beast would necessarily be dispelled.
Arguments aren't that, "Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do." and that "Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't."
Yes the light is fairly irrelevant as an effect and extremely tertiary but the main argument here is that, while the fire is magical, the light it creates isn't.
It is a fair point that light produced by magical fire may be of mundane nature. I don't think so, but I am far from certain.
I think I understand what you're getting at with the Daylight spell and Summon Beast spell (though it took a while to connect the dots). Assuming that you are summoning a Shadow (even though it is not a beast), the spell is being sustained by magic and is thus dispelled (only due its nature as an actual Shadow.) If you had instead produced a dog which casts a shadow, then I wouldn't say it is dispelled as the shadow it casts is a mundane area of darkness.
I believe I see your point. I am now far less convinced that the light from the Fire Bolt is magical in nature. How would you rule in the case of Guiding Bolt which explicitly describes the spell as a "flash of light"?
If you cast heat metal and the metal begins to glow, would the belated glowing of the metal cause the dispelling of the spell by a casting of darkness? I'd doubt it.
If the spell description says the metal glows then the spell likely produces an area of light (albeit a small one), just like a spell that explicitly says it creates a dog with a shadow would be dispelled by Daylight as the shadow is part of the spell effect. RAW, spells producing light gets dispelled by Darkness.
Firebolt does not say that the spell emits light but your argument is based on the obvious fact that it does.
Say a caster cast daylight and the same or different caster casts, say, hero's feast. There's a lot of big platters there all creating darkness within their shadows. By this interpretation of RAW the feast should be dispelled. That's a hell of a party crash.
Firebolt does not say that the spell emits light but your argument is based on the obvious fact that it does.
Say a caster cast daylight and the same or different caster casts, say, hero's feast. There's a lot of big platters there all creating darkness within their shadows. RAW the feast should be dispelled.
I take your point as I said in my previous post. I now believe that Fire Bolt doesn't produce magical light as there is no direct mention of any type of light being emitted in the spell description. In the same manner, I don't believe it is written in the spell description of Heroes Feast that the big platters of food cast shadows.
Firebolt does not say that the spell emits light but your argument is based on the obvious fact that it does.
Say a caster cast daylight and the same or different caster casts, say, hero's feast. There's a lot of big platters there all creating darkness within their shadows. RAW the feast should be dispelled.
I take your point as I said in my previous post. I now believe that Fire Bolt doesn't produce magical light as there is no direct mention of any type of light being emitted in the spell description. In the same manner, I don't believe it is written in the spell description of Heroes Feast that the big platters of food cast shadows.
Cool, it's similar to the same extent that it doesn't say that light is an effect caused by a firebolt. We are just inferring the things we might logically think might happen.
Whatever happens, I think it's fair to say that RAW is more ambiguous than it perhaps needs to be leaving more room for interpretation than perhaps is needed.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
So are magical items. Though if one produces an area of light, it should be considered magical and therefore illuminate within a Darkness spell since it only affect spells of 2nd level or lower.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
I think that's likely, but DMs may make their own decisions in regard to "an area of light created by a spell" and apply rules to their interpretations accordingly.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
Are we back to the adventurers sitting inches from their magical bonfire (Create Bonfire) having a difficult time seeing what they put in their mouths? Or do you believe that said bonfire does emit light, but the light simply isn't produced by the spell? Would you have Darkness dispel Guiding Bolt's dim light?
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
So are magical items. Though if one produces an area of light, it should be considered magical and therefore illuminate within a Darkness spell since it only affect spells of 2nd level or lower.
I am not entirely sure what you're getting at, but Darkness only dispel light produced by spells, not light produced from magical items.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
Would you say the spell Darkness creates a heavily obscured area even though it doesn't say so?
I say any fire creates light just as any darkness heavily obscures.
For fire spell such as Fire Bolt, i still think they create light, just not area of light with a specific radius. I would say you can see a Fire Bolt illuminating through the magical darkness as it's magical light.
Are we talking about rules or are we talking about feelings?
Create Bonfire tells you exactly how much area it illuminates. If anyone in your game decides it illuminates more, that is completely outside of the text of the spell. Do you disagree?
Darkness creates magical darkness. Per se, an area of darkness is heavily obscured. Do you disagree?
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
Would you say the spell Darkness creates a heavily obscured area even though it doesn't say so?
I say any fire creates light just as any darkness heavily obscures.
For fire spell such as Fire Bolt, i still think they create light, just not area of light with a specific radius. I would say you can see a Fire Bolt illuminating through the magical darkness as it's magical light.
If you stood an inch from a person being lit up by Hellish Rebuke in a pitch black room, would you be able to see that it was a person being lit up? Would you be able to see the sword in your own hand?
Instead of simply restating your argument, please read what you are responding to. The definition states that Instantaneous spells can't be dispelled 'after they take affect' (emphasis, not quotation). In the context we are discussing, the spells haven't taken effect.
The rule doesn’t say that. I quoted the entire text of Instantaneous earlier. Are you confused on something?
You're right that a Fire Bolt or Fireball would produce light, but that is a non-magical byproduct rather than a magical light from the spell itself. Darkness only triggers when it overlaps "with an area of light created by a spell" so you need to check whether the spell creates light in its description. If a spell description doesn't include shedding or producing light, then Darkness can't dispel it.
Consider this: If you strike a match, does the match produce light? Or is it the flame which produces light?
Also, the fact that they are instantaneous spells prevents them from being dispelled as others have mentioned. The rule for instantaneous spells says "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant." There is no condition to this statement. It does not say before/during/after the spell takes effect, it just says they cannot be dispelled.
I'll try to make a summary of the main arguments I've seen in the thread so far, and why I still believe spells such as Fire Bolt should likely be dispelled by Darkness. I'll lead with my conclusion: Specific rules beat general rules.
Arguments against Darkness dispelling Fire Bolt
0. Darkness' current write-up doesn't reflect its intent. In previous editions it specifically dispelled "lower level light spells" (e.g. Light or Dancing Lights).
1. Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do. Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't.
2. The general rules state that Instantaneous spell can't be dispelled, therefore Darkness can't dispel Fire Bolt.
Arguments for Darkness dispelling Fire Bolt
0. I agree that is most likely the case, but that doesn't change current edition RAW.
1. The general rules state that fire emits Bright Light:
Fire Bolt is made of fire, thus it creates bright light (and likely dim light as well). It is hilarious to imagine a party sitting eating their dinner in complete darkness next to their short-term bonfire created by Create Bonfire :') Or a non-light-emitting Wall of Fire or even a non-light-emitting burning creature targeted by Hellish Rebuke (for reference, we know that a human torch emits 30-foot bright light and 30-foot dim light as per Immolation).
2. After having read the general rules that address Instantaneous spells, I have to agree with iconarising that the general rules likely assumes Dispel Magic as the base reference when they write "dispel" in other contexts. If Dispel Magic is indeed the base reference for the usage of the word "dispelled" used in the rules, the general rules assume that you can only dispel magical effects on a creature, object or magical effect. SAC makes this clear if it wasn't already:
The reason why it cannot be dispelled is because the spell's effect isn't magical from the moment it is realized (See SAC quote above). Further, Dispel Magic needs a target affected by the spell it wants dispelled as stated previously.
Now, the general rule that states instantaneous spells can't be dispelled can be seen below:
Paraphrased (for your convenience) it looks like this:
'Many spells are instantaneous.
The spell harms a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
-or-
The spell heals a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
-or-
The spell creates a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
-or-
The spell alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.'
All of the above effects from instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, as plainly written in the rules quoted above (because they aren't magical once they are realized, see SAC quote further up). However they are effects! And these effects are only realized when they reach their targets. In the case at hand, they never reach their target, never take effect, and are thus dispellable.
This opens up another question: Does this mean that Dispel Magic can effectively dispel a spell as it is flying through the air towards its target? SAC says "no":
So Dispel Magic can't dispel a spell flying through the air towards its target because it has to target a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon (unrealized spell apparently not included in this category). However, what happens if we were to remove that limitation?
Enter, Darkness!
This spell changes the target from a single affected target to an area in which every spell that is 2nd level or less and creates an area of light is dispelled.
The spell clearly describes what the spell dispels, and even though it diverts from the general rules for dispelling (regarding targeting), what is written in Darkness' description is a specific rule and therefore takes priority over the general rule.
The effect of Darkness should therefore work much like the spell Antimagic Field when it comes to how the spell describes its effect on targeted effects, with the limitations imposed by the Darkness spell itself and excluding Antimagic Field's inclusion of magical effects (the spell is also dispelled instead of suppressed):
Thus we should end up with a Fire Bolt, made of fire and therefore emitting bright light (and dim light?), that is dispelled by the area of Darkness as the spell's description makes Fire Bolt a valid target for its effect.
As stated in the beginning of this post, I believe this is a case where we have a specific rule that conflicts with a general rule. Am I very wrong?
I'm not convinced. Yes, specific beats general, but I don't see any wording in the Darkness spell that directly contradicts the rule for instantaneous spells.
From what I can see your position is that a spell can be dispelled between the casting of the spell and when it reaches its target, i.e. while it is travelling. I think you are trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. The whole description section is the effect. So for a Fire Bolt the hurling of the mote of fire and the subsequent hit and damage are all considered the effect, and that all happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled.
You also haven't responded to my initial argument. Namely that there is a difference between magical light created by a spell, and non-magical light created by fire. The wording of the Darkness spell only triggers a dispel against magical light (i.e. light created by a spell). I absolutely agree with you about fire spells giving off light, I just don't think that such light triggers the dispel effect because the light isn't magical.
You say that "Darkness' current write-up doesn't reflect its intent". So what is its intent? Do you believe that it should behave like an Antimagic Field as you have been suggesting? Or that it should behave more like the older versions and only dispel "lower level light spells"? Personally I think it is the latter, but they had to re-word it because there are a number of damage spells that can also provide areas of magical light, but are not considered light spells. If they really wanted it to stop spells like Fire Bolt from entering the area of darkness then surely they would have worded it more like the Antimagic Field...
But that's just my view, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points.
So, the description for the 2nd lev spell Darkness states that, "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."
This seems to closely parallel/provide a symmetry to the description of the 3rd lev spell Daylight which states that, "If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled."
If someone cast something like summon beast in an area of daylight so as to create a shadow and even if the beast sat down to create complete darkness, I don't think that the beast would necessarily be dispelled.
Arguments aren't that, "Spells don't emit an area of light unless they say they do." and that "Fire Bolt doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't."
Yes the light is fairly irrelevant as an effect and extremely tertiary but the main argument here is that, while the fire is magical, the light it creates isn't.
I agree that the travelling mote of fire is part of the effect, but is not the realized effect, just as saying that it is not the realized effect of the spell Hold Person to have the target make a wisdom saving throw they succeed.
As for whether or not it "happens in an instant, far too quickly for it to be dispelled", I don't believe it does. If it did, the target would be able to reach with a Shield spell or teleport out of the way of a Fireball with a readied Thunder Step spell.
I am actually not sure I completely understand your logic. If everything worked the way I described in my last post, the sphere of Darkness would work similarly to a heavily limited part of Antimagic Field (as described in my last post). So if you believe the Fire Bolt strikes too fast for it to be dispelled by Darkness, would you rule the same if we were talking about an Antimagic Field?
The way I see read it, Darkness dispels light-emitting spells of 2nd level or lower instantly (they get dispelled at the outer periphery of the spell).
I think it is a difficult question, and I can't find any official rules on the matter. My personal take is that flames produced by magic is magical, and that light produced by magical flames are also magical in nature (though I am not at all certain on this point). In the Fire Bolt spell it is described that it is a mote of fire, and fire inherently creates bright light. However it is difficult to dissect a spell and rule on which part of effects are magical and which are not in my opinion.
Would you also argue that Guiding Bolt, that explicitly says it is a "flash of light", is not a magical light?
Here's a quote from SAC on the matter. I'd personally say that the light is part of the spell and is fueled (however briefly) by the use of a spell slot.
I believe I touched upon this in my last post, and a little more extensively in a prior post. I believe the same as you do. I believe RAI is for Darkness to dispel spells that exclusively produce light (e.g. Light or Dancing Lights) as in earlier editions. However they could easily have made this clear, so it's hard to say if it was intentional to leave it as is.
You have excellent points and you are generally a joy to have a discussion with! :)
If you cast heat metal and the metal begins to glow, would the belated glowing of the metal cause the dispelling of the spell by a casting of darkness? I'd doubt it.
I think some of the arguments here depend on interpretations on whether the light from, say, a firebolt is magical in itself or is just an expected product as of any created fire.
Another issue is whether, in each case, there is an "area of light created by a spell" or whether light just manages to shine in some magical way.
It is a fair point that light produced by magical fire may be of mundane nature. I don't think so, but I am far from certain.
I think I understand what you're getting at with the Daylight spell and Summon Beast spell (though it took a while to connect the dots). Assuming that you are summoning a Shadow (even though it is not a beast), the spell is being sustained by magic and is thus dispelled (only due its nature as an actual Shadow.) If you had instead produced a dog which casts a shadow, then I wouldn't say it is dispelled as the shadow it casts is a mundane area of darkness.
I believe I see your point. I am now far less convinced that the light from the Fire Bolt is magical in nature. How would you rule in the case of Guiding Bolt which explicitly describes the spell as a "flash of light"?
If the spell description says the metal glows then the spell likely produces an area of light (albeit a small one), just like a spell that explicitly says it creates a dog with a shadow would be dispelled by Daylight as the shadow is part of the spell effect. RAW, spells producing light gets dispelled by Darkness.
Firebolt does not say that the spell emits light but your argument is based on the obvious fact that it does.
Say a caster cast daylight and the same or different caster casts, say, hero's feast. There's a lot of big platters there all creating darkness within their shadows. By this interpretation of RAW the feast should be dispelled. That's a hell of a party crash.
I take your point as I said in my previous post. I now believe that Fire Bolt doesn't produce magical light as there is no direct mention of any type of light being emitted in the spell description. In the same manner, I don't believe it is written in the spell description of Heroes Feast that the big platters of food cast shadows.
Cool, it's similar to the same extent that it doesn't say that light is an effect caused by a firebolt. We are just inferring the things we might logically think might happen.
Whatever happens, I think it's fair to say that RAW is more ambiguous than it perhaps needs to be leaving more room for interpretation than perhaps is needed.
A spell's description specifies its area of effect. If a spell doesn't provide a description of the area of light or darkness it produces, it doesn't produce such an area.
So are magical items. Though if one produces an area of light, it should be considered magical and therefore illuminate within a Darkness spell since it only affect spells of 2nd level or lower.
I think that's likely, but DMs may make their own decisions in regard to "an area of light created by a spell" and apply rules to their interpretations accordingly.
Are we back to the adventurers sitting inches from their magical bonfire (Create Bonfire) having a difficult time seeing what they put in their mouths? Or do you believe that said bonfire does emit light, but the light simply isn't produced by the spell?
Would you have Darkness dispel Guiding Bolt's dim light?
I am not entirely sure what you're getting at, but Darkness only dispel light produced by spells, not light produced from magical items.
Would you say the spell Darkness creates a heavily obscured area even though it doesn't say so?
I say any fire creates light just as any darkness heavily obscures.
For fire spell such as Fire Bolt, i still think they create light, just not area of light with a specific radius. I would say you can see a Fire Bolt illuminating through the magical darkness as it's magical light.
Are we talking about rules or are we talking about feelings?
Create Bonfire tells you exactly how much area it illuminates. If anyone in your game decides it illuminates more, that is completely outside of the text of the spell. Do you disagree?
Darkness creates magical darkness. Per se, an area of darkness is heavily obscured. Do you disagree?
If you stood an inch from a person being lit up by Hellish Rebuke in a pitch black room, would you be able to see that it was a person being lit up? Would you be able to see the sword in your own hand?
Nope i agree there's general rules on light and darkness