The text from the Darkness spell specifically says non-magical light cannot illuminate the darkness created by the spell. The spell works more like inky black fog rather than a non-illuminated area. This is why Darkvision cannot see through the area.
No, the spell works like darkness, because it creates darkness. Regular vision can't see through regular darkness, and it can see things not in darkness. Darkvision can't see through Darkness, and it can see things not in Darkness.
The text from the Darkness spell specifically says non-magical light cannot illuminate the darkness created by the spell. The spell works more like inky black fog rather than a non-illuminated area. This is why Darkvision cannot see through the area.
No, the spell works like darkness, because it creates darkness. Regular vision can't see through regular darkness, and it can see things not in darkness. Darkvision can't see through Darkness, and it can see things not in Darkness.
Believe it or not, BG3 got it right when they animated the Darkness spell as a black fog
Tweets aren't rules. If Crawford disagrees with the books, he's wrong. BG3 got it wrong.
Tweets aren't official, but they show the design intent of the developers. Like I mentioned in the other thread, you're trying to apply real-world logic to a gamified feature, and you're not supposed to do so. Fact is, the game treats darkness, heavy fog and dense foliage the same for simplicity; you may not agree with this but that's the design intent (A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque). This has been the case in previous editions as well, but those editions also had defined concealment rules with degrees of accuracy, which are absent in 5E.
3.5E, pg. 152: Typically, concealment is provided by fog, smoke, a shadowy area, darkness, tall grass, foliage, or magical effects that make it difficult to pinpoint a target’s location.
3.5E, pg. 164: In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
For 5E, the Darkness spell creates a Heavily obscured area, prevents non-magical light from illuminating said area, and blocks Darkvision. The SAC entry further makes a distinction between magical darkness and the Darkness spell, though IMO they should've stuck with 3.5E Darkvision rules, which specified Darkvision cannot see in magical darkness.
I don't care what they intended. I don't run games based on what I think the designers maybe might have been thinking when they wrote the rulebook, gee whiz if only they hadn't been incompetent lazy morons, I run games based on what actually is in the rulebook. If they didn't intend what they wrote, then THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID INTEND. You know, by maybe taking a few seconds to actually think before publishing garbage.
I'm not being paid to read minds. The designers ARE being paid to write rules that don't suck. If that's too hard, or you don't care, then quit your job and let someone who does care, and can do it, do it instead.
Nobody forced the 3.5 designers to write "when you start drowning, your hit points go to zero" in the rulebook, obviously resulting in any character with negative hit points being healed by drowning, as anyone with more capacity for critical thinking than a flatworm can INSTANTLY recognize upon reading that sentence. They put that dumb shit in there all on their own. If they didn't INTEND for your HIT POINTS to GO TO ZERO when you START DROWNING, then they should not have ******* WRITTEN THAT. It isn't the customers' fault that the product is shit. It is the fault of the people who made the product that way.
If you can't be bothered to make a good product, then I can't be bothered to purchase it. Enjoy unemployment.
3.5E, pg. 164: In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.
Case in point. This sentence means that no one can see the stars, the moon, or any other light source as long as they're standing in darkness. Incredible. It's like they didn't even proofread, let alone playtest anything. How are these embarrassments in charge of one of the largest tabletop properties in the entire world?
Maybe you need to take a break off this specific topic; there's no reason to antagonize people here that are just trying to provide you with explanations because you don't like them. Devs put this in the book because that's what they meant: RAW darkness has been mostly the same throughout editions going back to DnD's inception. Way back then, blinded by darkness gave between 20-50% chance for attacks to miss along AC & DEX mod penalties, and in 5E it gives the blinded condition. DnD rules are not meant to simulate the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world, it's gamified mechanics for ease of play. You're more than welcome to change how it operates on your home games as a DM.
Wow - so has any of this come up in an actual game that was not resolved by a 10 second well this is what makes sense call by the DM? The beauty of D&D is DM's run the table - run the table and have fun this is all like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle stuff. I have never had an issue about any of this and I run 2-3 games a week. All of them l14+
Have fun - make the call - move on.
Magial Darnkess = Devilsight /Truesight
Darkness (caves and whatnot) = Darkvision
Hiding not effective against Truesight unless behind total cover.
Wow - so has any of this come up in an actual game that was not resolved by a 10 second well this is what makes sense call by the DM? The beauty of D&D is DM's run the table - run the table and have fun this is all like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle stuff. I have never had an issue about any of this and I run 2-3 games a week. All of them l14+
Have fun - make the call - move on.
Magial Darnkess = Devilsight /Truesight
Darkness (caves and whatnot) = Darkvision
Hiding not effective against Truesight unless behind total cover.
Pretty Easy leave the typos alone.
$.02
I get you, and that's a pretty normal DM ruling for this you got there; unfortunately there are players that want the rules to account for everything for multiple reasons.
Wow - so has any of this come up in an actual game that was not resolved by a 10 second well this is what makes sense call by the DM?
It's a problem when players can't know out how a rule works without asking the DM, and don't discover that their assumptions are wrong until they already tried the thing they think should work. I think the majority of players will assume that vision works the way they're used to, which solves problems like mundane darkness (obviously transparent) or fog (obviously opaque), but that leaves cases that aren't so clear. Most of which are related to magical darkness (darkness, hunger of hadar, maddening darkness, shadows of moil, etc) as it's usually intuitive that smoke, dust, fog, clouds, etc, are opaque.
You're both right, of course, and this is a great discussion. Dr_Selastraga, I get what you're saying—I also tend to weed out players who are hardcore rules lawyers at the table. It just kills the pace and isn't my style.
Pantagruel666, you're also spot-on that there are plenty of grey areas. I've read a lot of your posts, and you have a much finer appreciation for the ruleset than I do. That said, I try to stick to two basic principles: be consistent and follow the spirit of the rule. The moment I make a call on something, it's the official ruling for the rest of the campaign, so my players know exactly where they stand and can plan accordingly.
Ultimately, I'm all about consistency and keeping the game moving. The players I game with tend to have a similar mindset, so it just works out. I appreciate that same approach when I'm a player. I might not always agree with the DM's call, but as long as they're consistent, I'll take their ruling and move on. It's their table, after all.
$.02
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Special senses Truesight and Devil’s Sight would only let you see in Darkness not Heavily Obscured of other type.
No, the spell works like darkness, because it creates darkness. Regular vision can't see through regular darkness, and it can see things not in darkness. Darkvision can't see through Darkness, and it can see things not in Darkness.
Tweets aren't rules. If Crawford disagrees with the books, he's wrong. BG3 got it wrong.
Tweets aren't official, but they show the design intent of the developers. Like I mentioned in the other thread, you're trying to apply real-world logic to a gamified feature, and you're not supposed to do so. Fact is, the game treats darkness, heavy fog and dense foliage the same for simplicity; you may not agree with this but that's the design intent (A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque). This has been the case in previous editions as well, but those editions also had defined concealment rules with degrees of accuracy, which are absent in 5E.
For 5E, the Darkness spell creates a Heavily obscured area, prevents non-magical light from illuminating said area, and blocks Darkvision. The SAC entry further makes a distinction between magical darkness and the Darkness spell, though IMO they should've stuck with 3.5E Darkvision rules, which specified Darkvision cannot see in magical darkness.
Maybe you need to take a break off this specific topic; there's no reason to antagonize people here that are just trying to provide you with explanations because you don't like them. Devs put this in the book because that's what they meant: RAW darkness has been mostly the same throughout editions going back to DnD's inception. Way back then, blinded by darkness gave between 20-50% chance for attacks to miss along AC & DEX mod penalties, and in 5E it gives the blinded condition. DnD rules are not meant to simulate the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world, it's gamified mechanics for ease of play. You're more than welcome to change how it operates on your home games as a DM.
Wow - so has any of this come up in an actual game that was not resolved by a 10 second well this is what makes sense call by the DM? The beauty of D&D is DM's run the table - run the table and have fun this is all like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle stuff. I have never had an issue about any of this and I run 2-3 games a week. All of them l14+
Have fun - make the call - move on.
Magial Darnkess = Devilsight /Truesight
Darkness (caves and whatnot) = Darkvision
Hiding not effective against Truesight unless behind total cover.
Pretty Easy leave the typos alone.
$.02
I get you, and that's a pretty normal DM ruling for this you got there; unfortunately there are players that want the rules to account for everything for multiple reasons.
It's a problem when players can't know out how a rule works without asking the DM, and don't discover that their assumptions are wrong until they already tried the thing they think should work. I think the majority of players will assume that vision works the way they're used to, which solves problems like mundane darkness (obviously transparent) or fog (obviously opaque), but that leaves cases that aren't so clear. Most of which are related to magical darkness (darkness, hunger of hadar, maddening darkness, shadows of moil, etc) as it's usually intuitive that smoke, dust, fog, clouds, etc, are opaque.
@ Dr_Selastraga and Pantagruel666,
You're both right, of course, and this is a great discussion. Dr_Selastraga, I get what you're saying—I also tend to weed out players who are hardcore rules lawyers at the table. It just kills the pace and isn't my style.
Pantagruel666, you're also spot-on that there are plenty of grey areas. I've read a lot of your posts, and you have a much finer appreciation for the ruleset than I do. That said, I try to stick to two basic principles: be consistent and follow the spirit of the rule. The moment I make a call on something, it's the official ruling for the rest of the campaign, so my players know exactly where they stand and can plan accordingly.
Ultimately, I'm all about consistency and keeping the game moving. The players I game with tend to have a similar mindset, so it just works out. I appreciate that same approach when I'm a player. I might not always agree with the DM's call, but as long as they're consistent, I'll take their ruling and move on. It's their table, after all.
$.02