Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
So, I got confused by a rules question. And I don't agree with the explanation I was given at table, based on the RAW.
Disadvantage/Advantage don't stack and they cancel each other out, correct? So, if 2 sources of disadvantage apply, and 1 source of advantage applies...is it correct to say that the roll is normal, and not at disadvantage?
Scenario: Magical darkness as an aura, but the creature is hit with an upcasted Faerie Fire at 3rd level. But if you failed the constitution save for this darkness (some special Shar variant), your character gains the blinded condition. So blinded and darkness both give disadvantage, neither stacking. And the target has Faerie Fire (which, due to be upcast is not dispelled by the darkness), which gives advantage. So disadvantage and advantage cancel out and, even blinded, the roll is a 'normal' roll, correct?
Is my understanding correct here? I was told that the darkness effect cancelled the advantage from Faerie Fire, but that Blindness would apply disadvantage. That doesn't appear consistent with the explanation above. Did they misunderstand this rule, or am I missing something here? If I'm missing something please advise.
The rules for Advantage/Disadvantage are straightforward in that they cancel each other and the roll has neither of them, so if handled differently, i'd say it's either misremembered or houseruled somehow.
Specifically with Faerie Fire, there's a requirement that you be able to see it to get the advantage. If you're blinded, you can't see it.
The explanation may have been confused, but the result seems correct.
That's a very good point. Not being able to see the creatures affected by Faerie Fire would mean the advantage didn't exist at all, not that it was canceled out by disadvantage.
pronouns: he/she/they
The description was that it was visible through the darkness as a light in the middle of it. And, when asking about the nature of the blindness, it was described as "blurry blindness", not completely "blackout" blindness. In which case I would think the cancellation effect would still be in place.
However, if the blindness did render it unseeable, then it would all make sense.
I don't think you can see Faerie Fire through a Darkness spell. It is pure black darkness.
The Faerie Fire in this case was cast at 3rd Level, so the Dim Light shed by that spell lights up a portion of the area that was previously filled with that Darkness. The portion of the Darkness that is still dark is heavily obscured, but the Dim Light is not heavily obscured, so you are not blinded by obscurement when trying to see something there (something that's within the Dim Light, such as the outlined creature). However, in this scenario, it appears that some other effect was causing the creature to have the Blinded condition, which messes with the ability to see anything at all -- heavily obscured or not.
Darkness (the spell) is an impenetrable sphere of blackness (unless you have sight like True Seeing or Devil's Sight, which ignores it). So the Faerie Fire is lit (because it is high enough level), but you cannot see it inside or through the Darkness, because the darkness blocks your line of sight to it.
Nonmagical Darkness works differently. They are not the same, and the ways in which Darkness (the spell) works differently are detailed in the spell, including the fact that the magical Darkness it creates radiates. (Also, any light that actually overpowers it... dispels it.)
Oh. No, that's wrong. The darkness from the Darkness spell is just ordinary darkness with a couple of specific tweaks which can be placed at a desired location as a magical effect. The only differences from ordinary darkness are that it causes darkvision to work incorrectly and it can only be illuminated by magical light of sufficient strength. Like ordinary darkness, the affected dark areas create a heavily obscured area so you can't see the things that are within it, but if an area within it is lit then you can see into that area just fine.
No, it doesn't.
When was the last time you saw normal darkness radiate through a glass pane? Because the Darkness spell does that.
The magical darkness of the spell explicitly spreads from a point, something normal darkness doesn't do. It "fills" a 15' radius sphere, something normal darkness doesn't do, because normal darkness is not a thing, it's an absence. Magical darkness from the Darkness spell is a thing that radiates like light radiates.
Darkness from the spell is an object or effect that blocks vision.
The Darkness spell is a mess, but it does in actuality produce regular Darkness that is only different in the ways explicitly stated in the spell. "Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it," as well as that if the spell is cast on an object that the object can be covered to block the spell effect.
You said "When was the last time you saw normal darkness radiate through a glass pane? Because the Darkness spell does that." Um.... the Darkness spell cannot radiate through a glass plane, technically. At least, not if you cast it on an object. Because when you cast in on an object, it becomes an Emanation. An Emanation states: "An Emanation is an area of effect that extends in straight lines from a creature or an object in all directions. The effect that creates an Emanation specifies the distance it extends."
When we look at the "area of effect" rules we see: "If all straight lines extending from the point of origin to a location in the area of effect are blocked, that location isn’t included in the area of effect. To block a line, an obstruction must provide Total Cover. See also “Cover.”"
Cover is described as:
A window would be an object that, as part of a wall, I'm guessing, but even if the whole wall was a window, would cover a "target" on the other side of it. So as an emanation, Darkness from the spell cannot go through a window. The same is true for if it isn't cast on an object, because a Sphere is the same as an emanation, except the point of origin is included in the effect.
Now technically the spell says it "fills" the sphere, but that really doesn't work with the way the rules state a Sphere and Emanation work. Anything behind Total Cover, so a section of wall, a large enough pillar, etc, would be not in Darkness even if it were in the sphere. Technically.
Then you said "Darkness from the spell is an object or effect that blocks vision.". This is just not true. Nothing in the spell describes it as an "object". If that were true, everything within the Darkness would be describes as being behind Total Cover, from every direction. That's just simply false. The description of it "spreading" or "filling the sphere" doesn't make it an object. Nor does it make it different than mundane Darkness (as the spell specifically links to the rules for mundane darkness). It describes it in an unnatural way because IT IS MAGIC. I cannot perfectly behave like our understanding of regular darkness because then it simply wouldn't function as a spell.
The spells says "nonmagical light cannot illuminate it." This suggests that magical light CAN illuminate it. Looking through spells that create light, the only spell I can find that says anything about its interaction with the spell Darkness specifically is the Daylight spell, which states "If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of Darkness created by a spell of level 3 or lower, that other spell is dispelled." So Daylight does NOT "illuminate the Darkness". It dispels it. So we must assume based on the wording that magical light of sufficient level CAN illuminate the Darkness spell. Thus the Faerie Fire spell should be able to illuminate the Darkness if cast at a high enough level.
It is an effect, like fog, that blocks line of sight.
I will agree that the area faerie fire lights is visible - if you can draw line of sight to that area. But you can't draw line of sight through the areas of Darkness not so illuminated.
And it absolutely does radiate through a glass pane. "Covering that object with something opaque, such as a bowl or helm, blocks the Darkness." Emphasis added. A glass pane is not opaque, and does not block Darkness. The Light spell also radiates through a glass pane, for example. Objects are not absolute in the rules - you have to ask if the thing is an object to what is supposed to be blocked. A glass pane is an object to an arrow, but not an object to a ray of light, nor to the Darkness spell. (Similarly, Light or Darkness emanations pass through a Wall of Force, because it is explicitly see-through, ie, not opaque).
The spell Darkness creates a physical phenomenon in the same way Light is a physical phenomenon. It fills its emanation area (except as blocked by total cover that is opaque). Fills here means it occupies that volume, like fog occupies its volume. Nonmagical light cannot illuminate "it" - the Darkness. Not just things in the Darkness.
Regular darkness is quite different than magical Darkness. It is not a physical thing in the sense light is. It is merely the absence of light. It cannot radiate because it is not a thing. It does not fill a space, it is merely where light fails to be.
You're giving arguments for rulings, but they aren't RAW. RAW, a window blocks the Darkness from the Darkness spell (unless somehow to window is not providing Total Cover). While it says that the object can be covered by an opaque thing to block the spell, that does not override the rules for Area of Effect and Cover. It is simply a specific spell interaction with one way to block the spell effect. You can absolutely rule that the effect passes through a window, but that is a ruling and not RAW. RAW there is no distinction between a 3 foot thick stone wall providing total cover and a 0.5" large-enough window providing total cover. Your assumption about Wall of Force seems to be outside of RAW as well. Especially if you keep saying "Magical Darkness is a physical thing... spreads" when the spell specifically says "Nothing can physically pass through the wall."
Darkness is explicitly not blocked by non-opaque things, the rules for the spell explicitly say so. Otherwise a transparent glass bowl placed over the darkness-radiating source would be an obstacle and completely block the emanation. But the spell requires an opaque object to do so, so non-opaque objects are explicitly not obstacles to the spell.
Your confusion with Wall of Force is because 'physical' is being used in two ways here, one by me, and one by the rules. I'm using 'physical' in the sense of physics, where light is a physical thing (photons) that are both waves and particles. In the same way, Darkness is a physical thing.
The game, however, never uses "physical" in that way. It uses it in the colloquial English sense of 'tangible'. If you can touch it, it's a physical thing. Light cannot be touched, so it is not physical in the sense the game uses.
And we know Wall of Force uses 'physical' in that sense because it is 'invisible'. If light cannot pass through you, you are not invisible, because the degree to which light doesn't pass through you is the degree to which something is visible. So it can't mean 'physical' in the way that renders light incapable to pass through it. And Darkness explicitly works the same way Light works - it passes through non-opaque objects. So a wall of force is no barrier to Darkness, because it is invisible (and thus not opaque).
Obstacles in the game are only obstacles to the extent they block whatever it is you're determining if its an obstacle towards. Walls aren't obstacles to psychic lance, because psychic lance is psychic - it doesn't care about physical objects. A window pane is not an obstacle to a Light spell, because Light passes through window panes. And Darkness explicitly puts itself in the same category as Light - it is only blocked by opaque things, and thus you can only have Total Cover from Darkness if the thing between you and it is actually an obstacle to Darkness.
That is just false. The spell says gives a way to stop the spell effect by covering the magical object with something opaque. It does NOT say that it ignores total cover generated by something that is not opaque. You are conflating one method of stopping the spell effect with it ignoring the rules for Cover. All the rules for Cover and Area of Effect apply, RAW, and there is no text in the spell that allows for overruling those. It simply suggests that if you put a transparent bowl over the magical object that it would not have the effect of blocking all the darkness. Total cover provides protection from Spheres and Emanations unless the rules specifically say they do not (for example, the old Fireball rules that say the effect goes around corners). In the case of the Darkness spell, there is no language for ignoring specific kinds of cover. It only gives requirements for the type of object that can block the darkness specifically by covering the enchanted object. That is a specific interaction and can't be extrapolated into ignoring entire other rules in-game.
So... Psychic Lance does not, as far as I can see, ignore the rules for Cover. "To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind Total Cover." You aren't required to see the target if you speak the name, so they could have the Invisible Condition, but as far as I can tell it doesn't bypass the rules for cover. In fact, the UA it specifically said "If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover or invisibility as the lance homes in on it," however that was removed for the published version. So it seems that Total Cover would stop you from targeting someone with Raulothim's Psychic Lance.
But anyway, Magical Light and Magical Darkness are explicitly MAGICAL. And therefor they do not have to obey physics. Would you say that the spell Darkness would go through an Antimagic Field? There's nothing physically blocking it from going through, so why would it suddenly stop? Same with Daylight. The light should continue through the Antimagic Field because regular light would as well, right? But wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the field. It states "Areas of effect created by spells or other magic can’t extend into the aura." Physics or no, the Light or Darkness created by Magic still must obey the game rules unless specifically stated to violate the rules, and nothing about either of those spells says it can violate the rules of Total Cover, so they don't.
I've added numbers to make this easier.
1/ And if you covered it with a non-opaque object, it would not stop it from radiating through it. Ergo, the non-opaque object cannot count as an obstacle for it, and thus cannot provide total cover, because it does not stop the emanation from passing through it. Thus, strict RAW, only opaque objects are obstacles for Darkness.
Your misinterpretation here is thinking that 'obstacle' is an absolute category, and that things are always obstacles or always not obstacles. But the rules don't support that. In fact, the rules are rather light on describing what is or is not an obstacle. We're left with colloquial English to understand what is or is not an obstacle. And an obstacle is only an obstacle with respect to something it is capable of blocking. ie, it is an obstacle because it blocks the thing. It does not block the thing because it is an obstacle. You have the relationship backwards. Ergo, it is not an obstacle with respect to a thing if it cannot block the thing.
We know glass is not an obstacle for light, because light travels through it. So glass is sometimes an obstacle. Indeed, it's not even an obstacle to all tangible objects. If you throw a stone at a window, it goes through the window and hits what is on the other side. So glass is also not an obstacle to a stone, and a window would not give you Total Cover from a thrown stone. (And we're dealing with medieval glass here. A modern setting would care about what kind of glass).
Darkness comes straight out it says it works like light, in the same way the Light spell describes it. So glass is not an obstacle for Darkness, and thus cannot contribute to cover against it.
2/ Psychic lance is psychic. it's not physical. So stone doesn't qualify as an obstacle for it. It's not that it ignores the rules for cover, it's that there is nothing in the rules which would actually provide cover against it, because there's nothing that's an obstacle for it. Psychic lance always has a clear path. If we had psychic objects, those could contribute to cover against psychic lance, but I am aware of no such things. (I suppose brains are probably psychic objects, since that's how a psychic attack damages a creature, so i guess if there was enough living brain between you and the target, that could theoretically provide Total Cover. I have doubts such a situation could occur within the range of the spell).
The removed UA line is unneeded, because there's no obstacles against psychic phenomenon defined in the game.
And Light and Darkness both say they pass through non-opaque objects, explicitly (by saying they are only blocked by an opaque object). So that is their game physics.
AMF is... complicated. I've seen people argue it both ways, because AMF never says it obstructs a clear path.
I tend to side with the latter camp. AMF blocks magic from entering or traversing its area, and so counts as an obstacle for magic effects and spells. But RAW isn't clear.
1/ RAW, a wall of glass is absolutely Total Cover for a target behind it. You cannot target a creature on the other side of a wall of glass with a rock just because the rock will (maybe) break the glass. RAW, you would have to break the glass first to remove the total cover, then target the creature that was behind it with a second attack.
As for the object, it specifies the "something" needed to completely block the spell. "Covering that object with something opaque, such as a bowl or helm, blocks the Darkness." This is specifically talking about entirely covering the enchanted object to block the spell effect until the object is removed. This is not stating that it ignored Total Cover from certain objects. If we're going to assume that this phrasing also relates to how it interacts with Cover, then you could pick up the enchanted object, hold a small plate behind it, and basically just project the Darkness forward while the area behind you remained outside of the radius. This is NOT supported by the rules at all. The object must be completely covered by an opaque object to completely block the effect, but that does not change how it interacts with the rules for Total Cover.
Ironically, Darkness is opaque, so a really pedantic and annoying reading of the spell would have every enchanted object become Schrödinger’s Darkness, where the object is constantly both emanating an opaque "something" while also being blocked by an opaque "something".
2/ Your argument here is just so completely outside of RAW. It violates the "Clear path to target" rule, that the spell text never says it can ignore. You can say "mental power can't be blocked by anything", but that's not anything stated in the rules. All spells, regardless of what type of "power" they use, have to obey the Clear Path to Target rules unless specifically otherwise stated. The spell text doesn't grant any exception, and so the rule applies.
3/ My point with the anti-magic field is that it violates your "physics only" approach to Darkness and Light. "Areas of effect created by spells or other magic can’t extend into the aura," so the Darkness could not extend into the field. Neither could light from the Daylight spell. And that's because they are magic, and so subject to a different set of rules than normal light and darkness. The same way the field blocks them from entering (as it explicitly states), is the same as how they react to total cover, even from transparent cover, by RAW.
1/ You can, in fact, put the object Darkness targets in an (opaque) tube, and create a 'dark light' that only emanates forward. That's how emanations work. They don't spread around corners.
But if only opaque objects block it, then only opaque objects are obstacles to it, and thus only opaque objects qualify as cover.
2/ No, it does not. What makes something a clear path depends on the nature of the thing traveling that path. Whether objects are obstacles is relative to the thing they'd be an obstacle to. The cover rules just asks if there are obstacles. It never tells you how to determine if something is an obstacle. Colloquial English thus governs, and an obstacle in colloquial english is something capable of interfering with the thing it is being an obstacle to.
The rules implicitly invoke this concept for some divination spells, which specify what does and does not block the spell (that is, qualify as an obstacle for the spell). So, for example, Locate Object is blocked by any thickness of lead, but nothing else. That is, lead is an obstacle to Locate Object, and can provide Total Cover from it. But no thickness of stone, wood, or earth counts as an obstacle to it and so cannot provide Total Cover, and it can draw a clear path through these materials.
3/ No, AMF explicitly blocks magic. Non-opaque objects explicitly do not block Light or Darkness. It's not logically incoherent for one of these to count as an obstacle and not the other, because they are different things, and whether or not they are obstacles is assessed independently.
If you were correct, an non-opaque object placed covering the source of Light or Darkness would block it (because it would be total cover), but it explicitly does not. Therefore, that material cannot provide Total Cover against Light or Darkness. Proof by contradiction.
1/ That seems outside of RAW, as the spell says you must "cover" the object to get the effect, not "insert into a cylinder". The spell never specifies "object" as the opaque "something" so I guess you're on board with the Schrödinger’s Darkness.
2/ That's not really correct. Locate Object as a range of "self". YOU are the target of the spell, not the object. With the Lance, the target is the creature being targeted. You're conflating two things. Locate Object doesn't violate the "Clear path to target" because you are the target, not the object.
3/ Cover also blocks magic. See Area of Effect and Cover. Note that it never states "somethings are sometimes cover but other times they aren't." Cover is cover. You might think it's silly for a normal wall to protect you from a Meteor Swarm, but RAW it absolutely would.
1/ The opaque cylinder provides total cover. That's completely RAW.
Darkness blocks line of sight, but it is not an obstacle to darkness, so it doesn't provide total cover from itself. It is not an opaque object. Similarly, Fog Cloud blocks line of sight, but would also not be an obstacle to Darkness (and Darkness is not an obstacle to it), so Darkness and Fog Cloud could co-exist in the same spaces.
2/ It's the same fundamental logic. A clear path is based on what is taking that path. Only things which are obstacles to what is traversing the path contribute to cover.
If you have a bow which fires ethereal arrows that pass through nonliving physical objects, a stone wall is no longer cover, it's just obscurement, because the arrow travels through it without difficulty. The stone wall is not an obstacle to that ethereal arrow.
3/ It only states that 'obstacles' create cover, without defining obstacles. What is an obstacle in colloquial English? Something that obstructs the thing which is trying to pass it. So now you have to ask 'does this thing obstruct the spell effect?' It doesn't have to tell you that whether something contributes to cover or not can vary, it's implicit in the concept of obstacle. So you have to assess whether any of the things in the AoE count as an obstacle relative to whatever the spell is.
Meteor Swarm: I would say any non-magical objects which are destroyed by the meteor swarm are not obstacles to it, and do not contribute to cover from it, or only contribute a lesser amount of cover (and absorb some of the blast, based on how many hp it takes to destroy them). A curtain, however, is certainly not cover from a meteor swarm, nor is a window.