Mixing
Does radiant damage work in magical darkness?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The darkness spell states:
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.
The darkness spell doesn't mention anything about creatures inside being immune to radiant damage. It makes sense to me that this would be the case, similar to how creatures inside magical silence are immune to thunder damage, although the silence spell specifically states this.
On the other hand, the PHB description of radiant damage:
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
doesn't actually mention light being involved, but it seems implied by the name 'radiant'. According to dictionary.com, the definition of radiant is:
emitting rays of light; shining; bright
My thoughts are that radiant damage is dealt by very intense light, and since light, except that produced by spells of 3rd level or higher, can't penetrate magical darkness, creatures inside of magical darkness are immune to radiant damage. If the radiant damage is produced by a spell of 3rd level or higher, it penetrates the darkness and deals damage as normal. Spells of 2nd level or lower are dispelled and do nothing.
Any other thoughts on this or anything important I've missed?
dnd-5e spells damage-types
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The darkness spell states:
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.
The darkness spell doesn't mention anything about creatures inside being immune to radiant damage. It makes sense to me that this would be the case, similar to how creatures inside magical silence are immune to thunder damage, although the silence spell specifically states this.
On the other hand, the PHB description of radiant damage:
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
doesn't actually mention light being involved, but it seems implied by the name 'radiant'. According to dictionary.com, the definition of radiant is:
emitting rays of light; shining; bright
My thoughts are that radiant damage is dealt by very intense light, and since light, except that produced by spells of 3rd level or higher, can't penetrate magical darkness, creatures inside of magical darkness are immune to radiant damage. If the radiant damage is produced by a spell of 3rd level or higher, it penetrates the darkness and deals damage as normal. Spells of 2nd level or lower are dispelled and do nothing.
Any other thoughts on this or anything important I've missed?
dnd-5e spells damage-types
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The darkness spell states:
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.
The darkness spell doesn't mention anything about creatures inside being immune to radiant damage. It makes sense to me that this would be the case, similar to how creatures inside magical silence are immune to thunder damage, although the silence spell specifically states this.
On the other hand, the PHB description of radiant damage:
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
doesn't actually mention light being involved, but it seems implied by the name 'radiant'. According to dictionary.com, the definition of radiant is:
emitting rays of light; shining; bright
My thoughts are that radiant damage is dealt by very intense light, and since light, except that produced by spells of 3rd level or higher, can't penetrate magical darkness, creatures inside of magical darkness are immune to radiant damage. If the radiant damage is produced by a spell of 3rd level or higher, it penetrates the darkness and deals damage as normal. Spells of 2nd level or lower are dispelled and do nothing.
Any other thoughts on this or anything important I've missed?
dnd-5e spells damage-types
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The darkness spell states:
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.
The darkness spell doesn't mention anything about creatures inside being immune to radiant damage. It makes sense to me that this would be the case, similar to how creatures inside magical silence are immune to thunder damage, although the silence spell specifically states this.
On the other hand, the PHB description of radiant damage:
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
doesn't actually mention light being involved, but it seems implied by the name 'radiant'. According to dictionary.com, the definition of radiant is:
emitting rays of light; shining; bright
My thoughts are that radiant damage is dealt by very intense light, and since light, except that produced by spells of 3rd level or higher, can't penetrate magical darkness, creatures inside of magical darkness are immune to radiant damage. If the radiant damage is produced by a spell of 3rd level or higher, it penetrates the darkness and deals damage as normal. Spells of 2nd level or lower are dispelled and do nothing.
Any other thoughts on this or anything important I've missed?
dnd-5e spells damage-types
dnd-5e spells damage-types
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
edited 25 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
40.9k5203310
40.9k5203310
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
asked 1 hour ago
Edward Sills
311
311
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Edward Sills is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
Radiant damage, despite its name, is not damage caused by light.
Radiant damage simply happens to look like light. Look at the examples of radiant damage: a cleric's flame strike spell, or an angel's smiting weapon. Radiant damage is caused by holy power; it looks like light, yes, but it's a divine attack, not a laser (which would do fire damage).
Consider the 3.5e version of Flame Strike, which deals half fire damage and half "divine power" damage (since the radiant damage type didn't exist in that edition). Similarly, in 4e, where radiant damage was first introduced, it was dealt almost entirely by divine classes; almost all undead were vulnerable to it, despite most being able to walk freely in sunlight.
In general, spells do what they say they do. Darkness spells don't say that they prevent radiant damage in any way, so they don't. Silence spells do explicitly make their subjects immune to thunder damage, so we can see that the designers haven't simply forgotten that these area spells might have such an effect.
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
Radiant damage, despite its name, is not damage caused by light.
Radiant damage simply happens to look like light. Look at the examples of radiant damage: a cleric's flame strike spell, or an angel's smiting weapon. Radiant damage is caused by holy power; it looks like light, yes, but it's a divine attack, not a laser (which would do fire damage).
Consider the 3.5e version of Flame Strike, which deals half fire damage and half "divine power" damage (since the radiant damage type didn't exist in that edition). Similarly, in 4e, where radiant damage was first introduced, it was dealt almost entirely by divine classes; almost all undead were vulnerable to it, despite most being able to walk freely in sunlight.
In general, spells do what they say they do. Darkness spells don't say that they prevent radiant damage in any way, so they don't. Silence spells do explicitly make their subjects immune to thunder damage, so we can see that the designers haven't simply forgotten that these area spells might have such an effect.
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
Radiant damage, despite its name, is not damage caused by light.
Radiant damage simply happens to look like light. Look at the examples of radiant damage: a cleric's flame strike spell, or an angel's smiting weapon. Radiant damage is caused by holy power; it looks like light, yes, but it's a divine attack, not a laser (which would do fire damage).
Consider the 3.5e version of Flame Strike, which deals half fire damage and half "divine power" damage (since the radiant damage type didn't exist in that edition). Similarly, in 4e, where radiant damage was first introduced, it was dealt almost entirely by divine classes; almost all undead were vulnerable to it, despite most being able to walk freely in sunlight.
In general, spells do what they say they do. Darkness spells don't say that they prevent radiant damage in any way, so they don't. Silence spells do explicitly make their subjects immune to thunder damage, so we can see that the designers haven't simply forgotten that these area spells might have such an effect.
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
Radiant damage, despite its name, is not damage caused by light.
Radiant damage simply happens to look like light. Look at the examples of radiant damage: a cleric's flame strike spell, or an angel's smiting weapon. Radiant damage is caused by holy power; it looks like light, yes, but it's a divine attack, not a laser (which would do fire damage).
Consider the 3.5e version of Flame Strike, which deals half fire damage and half "divine power" damage (since the radiant damage type didn't exist in that edition). Similarly, in 4e, where radiant damage was first introduced, it was dealt almost entirely by divine classes; almost all undead were vulnerable to it, despite most being able to walk freely in sunlight.
In general, spells do what they say they do. Darkness spells don't say that they prevent radiant damage in any way, so they don't. Silence spells do explicitly make their subjects immune to thunder damage, so we can see that the designers haven't simply forgotten that these area spells might have such an effect.
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
Radiant damage, despite its name, is not damage caused by light.
Radiant damage simply happens to look like light. Look at the examples of radiant damage: a cleric's flame strike spell, or an angel's smiting weapon. Radiant damage is caused by holy power; it looks like light, yes, but it's a divine attack, not a laser (which would do fire damage).
Consider the 3.5e version of Flame Strike, which deals half fire damage and half "divine power" damage (since the radiant damage type didn't exist in that edition). Similarly, in 4e, where radiant damage was first introduced, it was dealt almost entirely by divine classes; almost all undead were vulnerable to it, despite most being able to walk freely in sunlight.
In general, spells do what they say they do. Darkness spells don't say that they prevent radiant damage in any way, so they don't. Silence spells do explicitly make their subjects immune to thunder damage, so we can see that the designers haven't simply forgotten that these area spells might have such an effect.
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
edited 39 mins ago
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
answered 45 mins ago
Oblivious Sage
41.1k14127192
41.1k14127192
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
3
3
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
While I agree with this answer, lasers in the futuristic weapons section of the DMG do radiant damage. So, I wouldn't go as far as to state flatly that lasers would do fire damage. They could if you wanted them to of course, but the official materials suggest that radiant damage would be appropriate as well.
– Adam
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Edward Sills is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Edward Sills is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Edward Sills is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Edward Sills is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134751%2fdoes-radiant-damage-work-in-magical-darkness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
To the downvoters... While the question shows a misunderstanding of the rules, it has enough references and thought to show that research was done (even if the conclusions reached are not correct). Furthermore, the question is not unclear. It does not pass muster for either of the two primary downvote reasons. If people didn't misunderstand things, we wouldn't have any questions here at all, so be gentle with the new contributor.
– T.J.L.
35 mins ago