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?
Darkness
ion
... A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
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?
Darkness
ion
... A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
This. The spell only cares if it's an area of light.
I feel like the "problem" of a fire bolt within darkness solves itself on both a technical and on a practical level. The spell still functions because it has an instantaneous duration, as pointed out way back on page 1 of the thread. As for whether it emits any light or not, you either can't see it because you are blinded in the darkness, or even if you can see it, it doesn't produce light for long enough for you to make any practical use of the light it emits anyway.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
This. The spell only cares if it's an area of light.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. So if Fire Bolt emits magical light you would see it fly through the sphere of Darkness and it wouldn't be dispelled because there is no area of light specified in the spell?
Following this logic would Heat Metal then cause e.g. a red-glowing belt buckle to be seen quickly falling to the ground in the middle of the sphere of Darkness?
I feel like the "problem" of a fire bolt within darkness solves itself on both a technical and on a practical level. The spell still functions because it has an instantaneous duration, as pointed out way back on page 1 of the thread. As for whether it emits any light or not, you either can't see it because you are blinded in the darkness, or even if you can see it, it doesn't produce light for long enough for you to make any practical use of the light it emits anyway.
Would you care to give me your insights on the thesis I wrote back on page 4? Specifically regarding the section where I address what I believe is a misinterpretation (in the current context) of the "instantaneous spells can't be dispelled" rule?
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
This. The spell only cares if it's an area of light.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. So if Fire Bolt emits magical light you would see it fly through the sphere of Darkness and it wouldn't be dispelled because there is no area of light specified in the spell?
Following this logic would Heat Metal then cause e.g. a red-glowing belt buckle to be seen quickly falling to the ground in the middle of the sphere of Darkness?
Exactly it doesn't shed light in a radius to allow others to see inside such area but it is still illuminated.
For Heat Metal good question, while not fire, i believe it would also as hot metal normally glow in the dark and this illumunation would be magical in nature.
I feel like the "problem" of a fire bolt within darkness solves itself on both a technical and on a practical level. The spell still functions because it has an instantaneous duration, as pointed out way back on page 1 of the thread. As for whether it emits any light or not, you either can't see it because you are blinded in the darkness, or even if you can see it, it doesn't produce light for long enough for you to make any practical use of the light it emits anyway.
Would you care to give me your insights on the thesis I wrote back on page 4? Specifically regarding the section where I address what I believe is a misinterpretation (in the current context) of the "instantaneous spells can't be dispelled" rule?
Other than the false premise that thesis is based on? I guess you are still confused on the game's definition of instantaneous.
I feel like the "problem" of a fire bolt within darkness solves itself on both a technical and on a practical level. The spell still functions because it has an instantaneous duration, as pointed out way back on page 1 of the thread. As for whether it emits any light or not, you either can't see it because you are blinded in the darkness, or even if you can see it, it doesn't produce light for long enough for you to make any practical use of the light it emits anyway.
Would you care to give me your insights on the thesis I wrote back on page 4? Specifically regarding the section where I address what I believe is a misinterpretation (in the current context) of the "instantaneous spells can't be dispelled" rule?
Other than the false premise that thesis is based on? I guess you are still confused on the game's definition of instantaneous.
I'd view the duration of the spell Firebolt to be "instantaneous" in the same way that I might claim personally to act instantaneously. Is far as I'm concerned I act immediately and yet, from the perspective of a photon of light, I might be viewed to be acting quite slowly. Sure a firebolt may hit a target quickly, perhaps in even less than a second, but it may be worth noting that the spell isn't called, for instance, ray of fire but fire bolt. In these terms I wouldn't think that a firebolt might not hit a target literally instantaneously to any significant degree more than say a crossbow bolt.
In comparison, the topic of a darkness spell is light.
It seems quite possible to me that a darkness spell might respond to any light emited by a bolting mote of fire if that were necessary.
However, I'd think it that any light produced by such a bolt would just be consumed by darkness when entering that spell's area. Perhaps the bolt might only be affected to the same extent as a thrown torch would.
But how fast is a "bolt" of light? and is bolt a good description for the radiant energy of guiding bolt? Your guiding bolt vs my spell of darkness. Perhaps contested checks might be suitable for this one.
Why? GIGO. There is no valid argument to be made starting from false premises. We know: 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.
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.
To see if arguments are valid. The Darkness spell has described if/then type conditions. It is not reacting as a person casting a spell in response but is described as having automatic conditions. Certainly spells described as having instantaneous durations can't be dispelled with dispel magic, but that's not what we're talking about.
I’m not arguing that you can’t see a fire bolt, just that it doesn’t create an area of light that darkness could dispel.
We agree then as i also believe a Fire Bolt would illuminate and be visible in Darkness.
You would never be able to see the Fire Bolt in Darkness. If the Fire Bolt emits natural light it can't illuminate the sphere of Darkness, and if it is magical light produced by the Fire Bolt spell then it would be dispelled.
Only if it’s area of illumination as specified in the spell overlaps with the area of darkness, as specified by that spell.
This. The spell only cares if it's an area of light.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. So if Fire Bolt emits magical light you would see it fly through the sphere of Darkness and it wouldn't be dispelled because there is no area of light specified in the spell?
Following this logic would Heat Metal then cause e.g. a red-glowing belt buckle to be seen quickly falling to the ground in the middle of the sphere of Darkness?
Exactly it doesn't shed light in a radius to allow others to see inside such area but it is still illuminated.
For Heat Metal good question, while not fire, i believe it would also as hot metal normally glow in the dark and this illumunation would be magical in nature.
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.
To see if arguments are valid. The Darkness spell has described if/then type conditions. It is not reacting as a person casting a spell in response but is described as having automatic conditions. Certainly spells described as having instantaneous durations can't be dispelled with dispel magic, but that's not what we're talking about.
No. the rules for instantaneous duration spells don't reference the spell dispel magic at all, they simply talk about being dispelled.
Edit: you can’t say that dispel means specifically dispel magic when in the instantaneous rules, but doesn’t mean that in the darkness spell. That is moving the goalposts.
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?
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.
To see if arguments are valid. The Darkness spell has described if/then type conditions. It is not reacting as a person casting a spell in response but is described as having automatic conditions. Certainly spells described as having instantaneous durations can't be dispelled with dispel magic, but that's not what we're talking about.
No. the rules for instantaneous duration spells don't reference the spell dispel magic at all, they simply talk about being dispelled.
Edit: you can’t say that dispel means specifically dispel magic when in the instantaneous rules, but doesn’t mean that in the darkness spell. That is moving the goalposts.
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.
To see if arguments are valid. The Darkness spell has described if/then type conditions. It is not reacting as a person casting a spell in response but is described as having automatic conditions. Certainly spells described as having instantaneous durations can't be dispelled with dispel magic, but that's not what we're talking about.
We know, but the rule we are citing does not care if the dispelling is done by dispel magic, darkness or any other game effect that dispels...
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.
Do you see a reference specifically to dispel magic? There isn't one. This rule addresses all forms of dispelling magic, not just one. Unless you can prove that that rule is only referencing dispel magic then you have no argument. The logic path is: if (instantaneous duration) / then (can't be dispelled). It doesn't matter if the thing doing the dispelling is a person or an active spell effect.
Regarding non-instantaneous spells, I fall back on the wording of darkness requiring an overlap with an "area" of light. Areas are clearly defined in the rules for spells, for both areas of effect, and for light. If a spell does not have an area defined, then the spell effect is not directly creating that area, and the darkness rule is moot. As far as I am aware there is no spell that designates an area or size for it's projectile/ray/beam/etc, light or otherwise, unless they are creating an area of effect with said beam/ray/projectile
WolfOfTheBees No. the rules for instantaneous duration spells don't reference the spell dispel magic at all, they simply talk about being dispelled.
Edit: you can’t say that dispel means specifically dispel magic when in the instantaneous rules, but doesn’t mean that in the darkness spell. That is moving the goalposts.
Okay lets say that Dispel Magic isn't the base reference for the word "dispel" used in the general rules. I still think instantaneous spells can be dispelled in the context of Darkness. See my reasoning below.
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.
What doesn't make sense to you?
Basically, you should be able to take the 4 statements, and if the instantaneous spell has done any of them, it can't be dispelled:
The spell harms a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
The spell heals a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
The spell creates a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
The spell alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic only exists for an instant.
At the point where Darkness wants to dispel the instantaneous spell entering its area, a spell such as Fire Bolt has neither harmed, healed, created nor altered a creature or object. It can thus be dispelled. What cannot be dispelled would be the effect of harming, healing, creating, or altering.
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?
Because apart for 2 exceptions, all reactions occur after their triggers (exceptions being counterspell which occurs during casting, and [Tooltip Not Found] which actually does happen inbetween, but only because it specifically says so)
@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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just a mundane pitch black room :)
This. The spell only cares if it's an area of light.
I feel like the "problem" of a fire bolt within darkness solves itself on both a technical and on a practical level. The spell still functions because it has an instantaneous duration, as pointed out way back on page 1 of the thread. As for whether it emits any light or not, you either can't see it because you are blinded in the darkness, or even if you can see it, it doesn't produce light for long enough for you to make any practical use of the light it emits anyway.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. So if Fire Bolt emits magical light you would see it fly through the sphere of Darkness and it wouldn't be dispelled because there is no area of light specified in the spell?
Following this logic would Heat Metal then cause e.g. a red-glowing belt buckle to be seen quickly falling to the ground in the middle of the sphere of Darkness?
Would you care to give me your insights on the thesis I wrote back on page 4? Specifically regarding the section where I address what I believe is a misinterpretation (in the current context) of the "instantaneous spells can't be dispelled" rule?
Exactly it doesn't shed light in a radius to allow others to see inside such area but it is still illuminated.
For Heat Metal good question, while not fire, i believe it would also as hot metal normally glow in the dark and this illumunation would be magical in nature.
Other than the false premise that thesis is based on? I guess you are still confused on the game's definition of instantaneous.
Please do address the arguments I put forth :)
I'd view the duration of the spell Firebolt to be "instantaneous" in the same way that I might claim personally to act instantaneously. Is far as I'm concerned I act immediately and yet, from the perspective of a photon of light, I might be viewed to be acting quite slowly.
Sure a firebolt may hit a target quickly, perhaps in even less than a second, but it may be worth noting that the spell isn't called, for instance, ray of fire but fire bolt.
In these terms I wouldn't think that a firebolt might not hit a target literally instantaneously to any significant degree more than say a crossbow bolt.
In comparison, the topic of a darkness spell is light.
It seems quite possible to me that a darkness spell might respond to any light emited by a bolting mote of fire if that were necessary.
However, I'd think it that any light produced by such a bolt would just be consumed by darkness when entering that spell's area. Perhaps the bolt might only be affected to the same extent as a thrown torch would.
But how fast is a "bolt" of light? and is bolt a good description for the radiant energy of guiding bolt?
Your guiding bolt vs my spell of darkness. Perhaps contested checks might be suitable for this one.
Why? GIGO. There is no valid argument to be made starting from false premises. We know: 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.
To see if arguments are valid.
The Darkness spell has described if/then type conditions. It is not reacting as a person casting a spell in response but is described as having automatic conditions.
Certainly spells described as having instantaneous durations can't be dispelled with dispel magic, but that's not what we're talking about.
If you assume the light from Fire Bolt's flame is magical I'm going to assume that you'd also be able to see the effects of Hellish Rebuke, Guiding Bolt, Magic Missile, Searing Smite, Color Spray and the like, yes?
No. the rules for instantaneous duration spells don't reference the spell dispel magic at all, they simply talk about being dispelled.
Edit: you can’t say that dispel means specifically dispel magic when in the instantaneous rules, but doesn’t mean that in the darkness spell. That is moving the goalposts.
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?
Fair enough, my ref had been to a sage advice clarification https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA180
rather than to the actual rule: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#Instantaneous
I agree with you in regard to direct interpretation of RAW.
We know, but the rule we are citing does not care if the dispelling is done by dispel magic, darkness or any other game effect that dispels...
Do you see a reference specifically to dispel magic? There isn't one. This rule addresses all forms of dispelling magic, not just one. Unless you can prove that that rule is only referencing dispel magic then you have no argument. The logic path is: if (instantaneous duration) / then (can't be dispelled). It doesn't matter if the thing doing the dispelling is a person or an active spell effect.
Regarding non-instantaneous spells, I fall back on the wording of darkness requiring an overlap with an "area" of light. Areas are clearly defined in the rules for spells, for both areas of effect, and for light. If a spell does not have an area defined, then the spell effect is not directly creating that area, and the darkness rule is moot. As far as I am aware there is no spell that designates an area or size for it's projectile/ray/beam/etc, light or otherwise, unless they are creating an area of effect with said beam/ray/projectile
What doesn't make sense to you?
Basically, you should be able to take the 4 statements, and if the instantaneous spell has done any of them, it can't be dispelled:
At the point where Darkness wants to dispel the instantaneous spell entering its area, a spell such as Fire Bolt has neither harmed, healed, created nor altered a creature or object. It can thus be dispelled. What cannot be dispelled would be the effect of harming, healing, creating, or altering.
Because apart for 2 exceptions, all reactions occur after their triggers (exceptions being counterspell which occurs during casting, and [Tooltip Not Found] which actually does happen inbetween, but only because it specifically says so)
A Dev also discussed this subject on Twitter https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-light-from-a-magic-weapons-count-as-magical-that-can-illuminate-a-darkness-spell/
@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