Level
2nd
Casting Time
1 Action
Range/Area
60 ft.
(15 ft. )
Components
V, M *
Duration
Concentration
10 Minutes
School
Evocation
Attack/Save
None
Damage/Effect
Control
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
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.
* - (bat fur and a drop of pitch or piece of coal)
You can't see even if you are the user
Was thinking of tying 16ft of string with a coin on the end to my familiar. Then cast this spell on the coin. It would be portable darkness. Is that allowed?
Technically speaking, the Darkness spell would hide the light from the Firebolt and the torch, but it wouldn't dissipate their energy. That bolt and torch would be invisible, but would still deliver their heat.
Question, RaW says "a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration." so would I be able to cast it smaller? lets say just 5ft?.
I do appreciate 5e's attempts to return to a simpler, humbler time. The spell itself is a very very old one.
"This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of its effect. lnfravision or ultravision are useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell and vice-versa" -AD&D PHB (1Ed)
This description from the 1st edition tells me all the important information I need to know in 5 short sentences. But it does not cover all the special use cases it may be used for. And I understand some of the confusion newer players have because...what the hell is ultravision? We didn't really know either. Mostly we imagined ultravision as like a starlight scope that is more accurately low-light vision and infrared as actively seeing heat signatures. Neither is darkvision, but of the two, ultravision is probably closer to the mark.
""This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of its effect. lnfravision is useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell and vice versa." -AD&D PHB (2Ed) They dropped ultravision because it was confusing (mainly like people were thinking infra/ultra were like two ends of the spectrum of visible light) and just about no player characters or even monsters used it.
"This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. Not even creatures who can normally see in the dark (such as with darkvision) can see in an area
shrouded in magical darkness. Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) do not work, nor do light spells of lower level (flare, light, dancing lights).
Darkness and the 2nd-level arcane spell daylight cancel each other, leaving whatever light conditions normally prevail in the overlapping areas of the spells.
Higher-level light spells (such as the 3rd-level cleric spell daylight) are not affected by darkness. If the spell is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof
covering, the spell’s effects are blocked until the covering is removed. Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower level." AD&D PHB (3.0 Ed)
This is the first mention of "radiating" darkness that I can remember. So, not just an absence of photons, but the presence of anti-photons, if you will. I really respect 3e designers because I think they were trying to cover all bases. They are still stating that the spells "negate" each other, but this doesn't mean "dispel" as it mentions "overlapping areas" where the spell effects persist. This is also the first special usage case added to the description, i.e. the hooded lantern of darkness effect which just absolutely totally had to mean someone did this in one of their games. Which is cool. But the implied construction requires that the darkness "shines" like light does. So I think we've moved away from the original intent and onto a more mechanical type of anti-flashlight rather than the supernatural power that its previous incarnations were.
Also, I really appreciated the abbreviated summaries for spells that 3.0 introduced: "Darkness. 20-ft. radius of supernatural darkness." I really do like this. It's all a DM NEEDS needs.
"This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-footradius. All creatures in the area gain con-
cealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or lowlight vision) have the miss chance in an
area shrouded in magical darkness. Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level (such
as light or dancing lights). Higher level light spells (such as daylight) are not affected by darkness. If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof
covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed. Darkness counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower spell level." AD&D PHB (3.5 Ed)
This to me is where we went off the rails. This is woowoo harry potter meets goop magic, this is just trying to be exotic because we're being paid by wordcount or something. "Darkness" was never meant to be "shadowy", they've literally added a light source to the darkness spell here, and I can't agree with this at all. The construction of a darkness that "radiates" has turned into a literal dim lighting effect. Far from moving away from complicated mess, we have entered a nebulous and weird description of darkness as "shadowy" and instead of the very straightforward language of "darkness negates light" they play this strange baroque game of saying light is "not affected" or are "incapable of brightening" which I think we can agree is pretty terrible when the goal of a description should be to describe something clearly so players playing a game don't get confused.
"..." AD&Something (4th Ed) Almost incoherent.
"Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. 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." AD&D (5e)
I do respect 5e for trying to trim the fat off earlier editions. This is objectively a clearer description. I appreciate they have completely ditched the "shadow" lighting effect. Can't see "through" the darkness is clear enough, so it blocks light, got it. Nonmagical light cannot illuminate it--clear direction is useful. Adds clearer cases such as casting onto items, where you can use it, what it can be effected by. I'm all for this kind of description, and I do appreciate special use cases being added whenever and wherever.
As an aside, the 1ed DMs guide had special cases spelled out for the use of Darkness. In Re: Gem of Seeing "A darkness spell will drain 1 of its charges, or make it useless for 1 round, at the option of the gem owner. A continual darkness spell will cause it to be useless for 1 day, or expend 5 charges, at the option of the owner..." AD&D DMs guide (1Ed) or In Re: Scrying: "If crystal balling or scrying in any other form is detected by the observed, then it can be stopped by the use of darkness or dispel magic, the observed simply noting the small disturbance in the air caused by the magical viewing and casting the spell upon that spot, thus causing the scrying to cease for the length of the darkness spell or for a full day in the case of dispel magic" -AD&D DMs guide (1Ed) See, that to me is very cool, its giving the DM ideas such as using a lantern of darkness, and that's the most important thing these rulebooks should be doing.
TLDR: In my campaign, darkness is impenetrable by non-magical means. It can be dispelled, it can be negated with light spells of equivalent potency. It can be cast on items, or even creatures, but the latter get saving throws. And if the critter sees through magical darkness (and you don't), you may have just done it a favor. It can also be used in ways I haven't thought of yet, and I'll just have to cross that bridge when I come to it. Defending yourself from a stained-glass golem by casting continual darkness on yourself? Hmmm. Could work.
It is stating that races with darkvision see the same as those without darkvision. In the case of this it is a magical darkness that puts all inside the area on the same playing field, in terms of being able to see.
Question. If my PC is hiding in the darkness spell, can the enemy just shoot into the darkness with an arrow at disadvantage and still hit if they roll well enough? Even though they don't know where I am in the spell.
That's actually an interesting idea
this spell is so USEFUL when in combat
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
I would assume the darkness part of this would also apply to the darkness spell.
Darkness = heavily obscured. It’s definitely in the basic rules:
“Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.”
I’m sure it’s in the DMG, too.
this is why I hope the 2024 version of everything has better info structure. You shouldn’t have to jump through three hoops to find an answer.
Unless they have a way to see through magical darkness (twilight cleric, some warlocks, etc) the person casting it would also be affected.
Just because they can't see you doesn't mean they can't attempt to detect you with their other senses. If you take the Hide action and beat the enemy's passive perception with your stealth check, then you are indeed hidden and they don't know exactly where you are (unless they use a Search action and their perception check beats your stealth check). They can still assume you're in there somewhere, guess a particular 5-foot radius and shoot blindly into it, and if they guess right they can hit you if their attack roll with disadvantage is high enough, but if they guess wrong they just automatically miss.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets
I have this question too
Well the fact that darkness is there means that you can’t see without dark vision
hi
Different kind of question. If the caster of darkness moves out of the 60ft range after casting it, is the darkness maintained or not. What if the caster is up to half a mile away before the 10 mins duration is finished. Would the darkness still remain?
https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/rules-of-spellcasting
"You don’t need to be within line of sight or within range to maintain concentration on a spell, unless a spell’s description or other game feature says otherwise."
Sounds like you can even change planes, so long as you are concentrating, and have the Darkness remain.
This is incorrect, because Firebolt, etc. does not have a light component to its description. Produce Flame does, but since it is a cantrip, the light would still disappear within the sphere.
Interesting note: Create Bonfire also does not have a light component in its description. Which is preposterous.
"If you are inside the darkness and can see through it, attacking someone who is outside it, you don't get disadvantage since you can see, but you don't automatically get advantage, because your weapon has to leave the darkness in order to hit the target, so they have a chance to see it coming."
Considering the rules as written your bold statement above is incorrect:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets
If you are unseen in respect to a creature outside of the darkness spell, you DO have advantage.
"When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it."
This goes for both melee and ranged attacks