I tend to think of Darkness as similar to the Silence spell, it should stop the light based attack spells. But it is not clear.
Darkness says:
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.
I see three ways to look at that.
The words "'area of light" means it only stops spells that specifically mention creating a radius of bright or dim light. This would include only two spells that do radiant damage: Branding Smite and Moonbeam.
Consider the area of light not to be a technical term, and have it dispell any spell that has a duration and does radiant damage, including spells like Guiding Bolt and Divine Favor.
Focus on the intent of Darkness and claim that any radiant damage spell of 2nd level or lower is entirely blocked by Magical Darkness, including Sacred Flame and Word of Radiance.
For me, as a DM, the radiant damage type is not light, it is mainly something like radiation/holy damage association. If Darkness would be able to block that, it needs to be stated explicitly, like creatures and objects within magical darkness are immune to radiant damage or something like that.
The Darkness spell only affect spells that create area of light, those that don't but otherwise deals radiant damage are unaffected. Radiant damage sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power, but doesn't inherently create area of light unless the spell specifically say so.
For exemple, the spell Sacred Flame deals radiant damage but does not create any area of light. Spell that both deals radiant damage and create area of light include Moonbeam, Crown of Stars, Dawn, Sickening Radiance, Sunbeam and Wall of Light, none of which are 2nd level or lower except the first.
Light and radiant damage are completely separate things, and darkness would have no effect on the latter
For instance, look at the text of one of the first spells you cited, moonbeam:
A silvery beam of pale light shines down in a 5-foot-radius, 40-foot-high cylinder centered on a point within range. Until the spell ends, dim light fills the cylinder.
When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it is engulfed in ghostly flames that cause searing pain, and it must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 2d10 radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The damage is triggered by a creature entering the spell's area or starting its turn in the area. It's not triggered by being touched by the 'pale light' or 'dim light' that fills the cylinder. They are separate effects
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
To me a spell that doesn't expressely create an area of light can't overlap with the area of darkness, so a spell like Guiding Bolt wouldn't be dispelled even if it create light for 1 round.
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
You know what? I changed my mind on this one. The wording on darkness is pretty specific
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.
It really doesn't matter if the light and the radiant damage are the same effect or separate effects. If the spell creates an area of light it gets dispelled, regardless of what else it does
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
It's not a question of what kind of damage it does, just whether one of its listed effects is to produce an area of light
To pick one notorious example, produce flame does create an area of light and would be dispelled, while create bonfire doesn't and wouldn't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
Not all radiant spells produce light, and if my statement came off that way, then I need to clarify.
Cantrip - Sacred flame - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Cantrip - Word of radiance - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Level 1 - Divine favor - No light, would not be dispelled.
Level 1 - Guiding bolt - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Branding smite - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Moonbeam - Produces light, would be dispelled.
For me, as a DM, the radiant damage type is not light, it is mainly something like radiation/holy damage association. If Darkness would be able to block that, it needs to be stated explicitly, like creatures and objects within magical darkness are immune to radiant damage or something like that.
So, basically, light =/= radiant damage type.
This would be my ruling as well; if you compare darkness to silence, the latter explicitly blocks thunder damage as one of its effects, but darkness only blocks areas of light.
However light and radiant damage aren't necessarily the same thing, just as not all sound is thunder damage; they might be similar, some radiant effects might even explicitly produce light as well, but the radiant damage is its own separate thing that needs to be handled on its own. But if the spell does explicitly produce light it may be eligible for cancellation by darkness.
There has been discussion in the past about things like whether create bonfire would produce light, and I think the general consensus is that it may produce environmental light as a side effect of the spell (because it's described as a bonfire, and a bonfire would shed some light) but since that light is not an explicit feature of the spell it's up to the DM how much is shed and what the impacts are (if any, it might just make the area moodier and red but not meaningfully brighter).
On that same basis there are plenty of spells that would almost certainly produce flashes of visible light, or glowing projectiles or whatever, but while darkness would prevent these from being visible it would not dispel them as the light is incidental (the only gameplay effect is that someone might have noticed it had it not been blocked).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Cut and dry. It doesn't affect radiant damage, period. Spells only do what they say, not what you infer.
Edit: Fire gives off light. Lightning gives light. You could infer the same thing about fire or lightning damage. Should a single 2nd level spell negate three entire types of damage? Probably not.
Should a single 2nd level spell negate three entire types of damage? Probably not.
It isn't that big a deal. As near as I can tell, there are only six fire/lightning spells in the debate zone, and even that is only if you're taking the most restrictive view.
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
Not all radiant spells produce light, and if my statement came off that way, then I need to clarify.
Cantrip - Sacred flame - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Cantrip - Word of radiance - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Level 1 - Divine favor - No light, would not be dispelled.
Level 1 - Guiding bolt - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Branding smite - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Moonbeam - Produces light, would be dispelled.
I mostly agree with this, but I would argue that guiding bolt and branding smite don't meet the conditions to be dispelled until after they've dealt damage.
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
Not all radiant spells produce light, and if my statement came off that way, then I need to clarify.
Cantrip - Sacred flame - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Cantrip - Word of radiance - Instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled.
Level 1 - Divine favor - No light, would not be dispelled.
Level 1 - Guiding bolt - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Branding smite - Produces light, would be dispelled.
Level 2 - Moonbeam - Produces light, would be dispelled.
I mostly agree with this, but I would argue that guiding bolt and branding smite don't meet the conditions to be dispelled until after they've dealt damage.
guiding bolt doesn't produce "an area of light" as an effect, so I would argue it wouldn't be dispelled at all by darkness
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mostly agree with this, but I would argue that guiding bolt and branding smite don't meet the conditions to be dispelled until after they've dealt damage.
Yeah, I think that's accurate. Weird, but accurate.
I mostly agree with this, but I would argue that guiding bolt and branding smite don't meet the conditions to be dispelled until after they've dealt damage.
Yeah, I think that's accurate. Weird, but accurate.
This effect of darkness is a weird effect. So that tracks.
I tend to think of Darkness as similar to the Silence spell, it should stop the light based attack spells. But it is not clear.
Darkness says:
I see three ways to look at that.
For me, as a DM, the radiant damage type is not light, it is mainly something like radiation/holy damage association. If Darkness would be able to block that, it needs to be stated explicitly, like creatures and objects within magical darkness are immune to radiant damage or something like that.
So, basically, light =/= radiant damage type.
The Darkness spell only affect spells that create area of light, those that don't but otherwise deals radiant damage are unaffected. Radiant damage sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power, but doesn't inherently create area of light unless the spell specifically say so.
For exemple, the spell Sacred Flame deals radiant damage but does not create any area of light. Spell that both deals radiant damage and create area of light include Moonbeam, Crown of Stars, Dawn, Sickening Radiance, Sunbeam and Wall of Light, none of which are 2nd level or lower except the first.
Light and radiant damage are completely separate things, and darkness would have no effect on the latter
For instance, look at the text of one of the first spells you cited, moonbeam:
The damage is triggered by a creature entering the spell's area or starting its turn in the area. It's not triggered by being touched by the 'pale light' or 'dim light' that fills the cylinder. They are separate effects
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would almost vote the first option, but I don't feel a light-producing spell below level 3 needs to define its area of illumination to be dispelled by darkness as long as it produces light and has a duration longer than instantaneous. I recognize I am in the minority in this position, and I'm ok with that.
I agree with others who say that while some spells that inflict radiant damage also emit light, the two aspects need not always occur together.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But then the question becomes "what spells produce light?" Do all fire, lightning, and radiant spells get dispelled? That is pretty powerful for level 2.
For darkness to dispell it must be;
1, a spell of 2nd level or lower
2, who create an area of light*
3. that has duration, thus not instantaneous
* I define area as having a radius, generally expressed in feet with a degree of illumination dim or bright.
To me a spell that doesn't expressely create an area of light can't overlap with the area of darkness, so a spell like Guiding Bolt wouldn't be dispelled even if it create light for 1 round.
You know what? I changed my mind on this one. The wording on darkness is pretty specific
It really doesn't matter if the light and the radiant damage are the same effect or separate effects. If the spell creates an area of light it gets dispelled, regardless of what else it does
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's not a question of what kind of damage it does, just whether one of its listed effects is to produce an area of light
To pick one notorious example, produce flame does create an area of light and would be dispelled, while create bonfire doesn't and wouldn't
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not all radiant spells produce light, and if my statement came off that way, then I need to clarify.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This would be my ruling as well; if you compare darkness to silence, the latter explicitly blocks thunder damage as one of its effects, but darkness only blocks areas of light.
However light and radiant damage aren't necessarily the same thing, just as not all sound is thunder damage; they might be similar, some radiant effects might even explicitly produce light as well, but the radiant damage is its own separate thing that needs to be handled on its own. But if the spell does explicitly produce light it may be eligible for cancellation by darkness.
There has been discussion in the past about things like whether create bonfire would produce light, and I think the general consensus is that it may produce environmental light as a side effect of the spell (because it's described as a bonfire, and a bonfire would shed some light) but since that light is not an explicit feature of the spell it's up to the DM how much is shed and what the impacts are (if any, it might just make the area moodier and red but not meaningfully brighter).
On that same basis there are plenty of spells that would almost certainly produce flashes of visible light, or glowing projectiles or whatever, but while darkness would prevent these from being visible it would not dispel them as the light is incidental (the only gameplay effect is that someone might have noticed it had it not been blocked).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Cut and dry. It doesn't affect radiant damage, period. Spells only do what they say, not what you infer.
Edit: Fire gives off light. Lightning gives light. You could infer the same thing about fire or lightning damage. Should a single 2nd level spell negate three entire types of damage? Probably not.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
It isn't that big a deal. As near as I can tell, there are only six fire/lightning spells in the debate zone, and even that is only if you're taking the most restrictive view.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I mostly agree with this, but I would argue that guiding bolt and branding smite don't meet the conditions to be dispelled until after they've dealt damage.
guiding bolt doesn't produce "an area of light" as an effect, so I would argue it wouldn't be dispelled at all by darkness
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, I think that's accurate. Weird, but accurate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This effect of darkness is a weird effect. So that tracks.
Ask yourself if the radiator in your car emits light. Answer: No. In total darkness however, you can still feel the heat it radiates.
playing since 1986