The Darkness Spell: D&D 5e Analysis

[@theshadowbadger]

One other trick I really like is dissonant whispers, which doesn’t call for sight, only that your target can hear. The fact that they can’t see makes it viable to force enemies to run into dangerous terrain you otherwise wouldn’t be able to force them into (evard’s black tenticles is my personal favorite).

[@SirKnico]

When I had this combo my favorite way to use it, would be as a social reset. When negotiations went wrong, I would cast it upon the whole group and try to once again plead our case to avoid bloodshed. Enemies are a lot more open to stop the fight, when they are shrouded in darkness and know you can see them.

[@adriel8498]

Or they can see that as a threat and start casting the spell (unless subtile) force initiative roll

[@thomasschultz9721]

Dude this was such a good video. Im. Currently on a raid-party of 8 level 14 highly optimized adventurers and the map control that dakness gives you, even at rhis level, is INSANE

[@AMorphicTool]

I've been playing a Kalashtar Shadow Sorcerer recently, darkness is very much a case-by-case basis when used. The Warlock in our party has devil's sight and casting darkness on his sword is EXTREMELY powerful. He can jump from opponent to opponent with ease and as a control sorcerer who can see into the darkness I can assist from afar if he gets into bother. When we're in close quarters, I usually cast darkness on an object before a fight begins and then obscure it, often I need to drop concentration for something like Hold Person, but it's a really great spell for the brown pants moments like a party member going down. As a shadow sorcerer, the sorcery point cost to re-cast it makes it very cheap, especially at low levels. With it obscured its an ace up your sleeve for whenever it's relevant. People who say darkness is useless haven't seen it used well. It is far from useless. Also, being captured and using mental link to say into your captors head "No, you don't understand. I'm not trapped in here with you, *mimes blowing out candles* *activates darkness* you, are trapped in here with me." Is one of the most badass moments I have ever experienced.

[@Riddlewizard]

Thank you for this. I play a Human Wizard, and took Devil's sight when the DM gave me a feat. I had been thinking of ways to utilize Darkness, and this helps accomodate the party. Now I'm going back to my original plan of casting Continual Flame on the wick of a Lantern.

[@MegaCyberleader]

sometimes you have to embrace the darkness before you can love the light.

[@christopherboylan9793]

Impressive video, great content - I just found the channel and am very pleased.

[@leohale6449]

Nice analyses of the Darkness spell and Proper use.

[@kingdragoonmk10]

Id love to see your take on a "Undying Phoenix" Build Fire, Destruction, Renewal... Ancient and Primal...

[@mikegilkey]

So glad you mentioned Bilbrons and Dragons. He has such great vidoes

[@MiroAcronymity]

Thanks for the video! Came at the right time. I have a shadow monk/rogue with a pinch of twilight cleric. I have not yet had an opportunity to cast darkness, but this will help. I am planning to use a coin as the spell's target that can be hidden or even thrown at enemies.

[@WarpstormChronicles]

As a warlock put the darkness on your imp and it can move into optimal position and also has an action to cover and uncover the cause of the darkness in addition to the warlock.

[@arcanerecovery2567]

What happens if an imp goes invisible while holding the darkness item? I know that there is a rule for light saying that light can't be invisible and will still illuminate it's area. But as far as I know there is no such rule for darkness, is there?

[@WarpstormChronicles]

Thats an interesting idea @@arcanerecovery2567

[@dmitrybr2273]

I ould like to add another way of countering the darkness, available at very 1st lvl. "Useless" Artificer 1lvl ability "Magical Tinkering" gives an option to make a tiny object to shine in 5/5 ft radius. It is not as cool as Continual Flame, but it is 1lvl option, that not many people know about. Combined with Arcane Trickster mage hand and/or Familiar it is really interesting.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Yeah the magic item thing is kind of weird.

[@NobodyDungeons]

So, what I do is put a continual flame upcast to 3rd level into a hooded lantern, making covering and uncovering it much easier.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Tied to your belt to keep your hands free :)

[@johngillan4475]

Thank you for your information video

[@fsm1137]

keep up the great work

[@Nedoiko]

I dont find the object interaction cover/uncover to be much of an issue, it's one of my preffered tactics and its always a way of doing flavorful stuff, the main I do is putting the object in my mouth and terrify the enemy by having the darkness spill out of it while i talk, just opening and closing with my free action as per the rules, but you can do things as getting a pet rat, or a familiar, have something like a best friends forever wristband, cast darkness on it, and let the pet take care of the second covering or uncovering, Familiars are already common enough in optimized settings, and sometimes its arguable if its even an object interaction to tell your rat familiar to get inside your clothes. One thing i still need to playtest is mixing hexblade with summon fey and do a similar thing, having the square of darkness that the fey summons be put on your space, the only problem beign that it doesnt move from there

[@gurugru5958]

Whoa I hadn't considered Alert. That could be a gamechanger!

[@harmonickolobok]

Darkness dispells 2nd level(or lower) spells that produce light. Flaming sphere description explicitly says that it produces light.

[@PartiallyCubed]

Interesting. Using it as a counter spell

[@chrimedina]

A Warlock with pact of the chain can cover an enemy clothe or armor with the spell, but the Warlock can see in the magic darknes thru his familiar imp eyes. Then he can spell Eldritch blast or any non concentration spell on the enemy with advantage. The foe must lose some actions to take off his armor so he can get away from the darkness, but un the mean time he will get damage and AC reduction

[@cmccbuilds8229]

A warlock using darkness should have the Devil's Sight invocation. No need to look through the imp's eyes. Also, you can't cast darkness on an enemy's armor or clothes.

[@chrimedina]

@@cmccbuilds8229Devil’s Sight it's needed only if the Warlock doesn't have the Pact of the Chain. The warlock's Voice of the Chain Master is an enhancement to the general rule for Find Familiars. You can now communicate telepathically with your familiar, and perceive through their senses, as long as they are are on the same plane as you. The Imp familiar has already 120 feet of Darkvision and the Devil's Sight ability, they are able to see through darkness both mundane and magical. It's true the spell describes the Target a point you choose within range. But also says "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" So I understand it's viable to take an object the spellcaster isn't wearing or holding, also can cast on an arrow then shot It to the enemy for instant blind if It hits.

[@kilmerenterprises7148]

​@@cmccbuilds8229While true that you can't cast on an enemy's armor, one of the most brilliant moves I've seen our Warlock do was to cast it on the oil in his flask, then throw that oil onto an enemy he was dueling.

[@TheTheoser]

I want to know if I cast darkness on myself why enemies can run away from me with their full movement. What's the point of chasing them

[@martonbenkovics5258]

okey, big question about the spell you mentioned but i don't really understand do you KNOW where the creatures are in the map in 5e when you can't see them? like, lets say the pc is in one side of the Darkness and the enemy is in the other side (after some round and moving around in the spell), having 20ft between them. Now, can my pc go exactly to the enemy, becouse they know where it is or not, becouse they can't see it? or, if my ranger is inside the Darkness, could it shoot an enemy outside the spell (with disadvantage) without seeing it? ir lets switch it and my wizard tries to get the enemy inside the spell, could they do it with a Firebolt, targeting that one enemy (with disadvantage) or should they use Fireball for it? the same questions goes to an invisible creature, if it isn't hiding

[@cmccbuilds8229]

You know where creatures are located if they aren’t hiding. Presumably because they make noise. Things get trickier when you get outside audible range.

[@GraceMcCown]

I've always had a bone to pick with treantmonk since the old days of pf1e where he listed celestial armor in every single character guide he put up. Not because he called it the best armor in the game, i honestly agree on that front, but because he put on every guide that the armor could be further upgraded, despite that it directly falls under the pf1e RAW definition of an armor that can't be upgraded due to having abilites that can't be linked to a specific enchantment in the books. Well, the more specific bone to pick is that every minmaxing pf1e player under the sun takes his word on RAW as gospel and tells you that you're wrong no matter what you point out or what rules you cite.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Whoa. That’s a deep cut.

[@gustaafargoan]

I play a Rune Knight with a 3 lvl dip in Shadow Sorcerer. It's a nice combo.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

What’s the combo?

[@Elohist2009]

I’m surprised to have only found this video recently and I can’t believe so many people are still ragging on darkness and other obscurity spells even 2 years later. It’s really not that hard to understand and it’s even less difficult to work with, especially if you’re a savvy player. I have a rogue that uses blind fighting and fog cloud and I can tell you it’s not a viable strategy in every combat scenario, just as most other strategies aren’t. But if you know how to use the battlefield to your advantage, and you’re a player that actually pays attention to the other players, you can pull some clutch moves. And if you really lock in, you will benefit your party whenever you use this tactic. You can provide cover for your archer to snipe from full range (despite people’s complaints about this, it’s perfectly legal), take away advantage from a nasty melee combat that’s gone south for your allies, or in my case, provide cover for your friends to escape while systematically cutting down any poor soul that tries to pursue through my fog cloud. The possibilities are only limited by your imagination and ingenuity, but this is definitely an advanced strategy for players who can account for their parties strengths and weaknesses in relation to their field position, initiative order, etc.

[@zachswanson6643]

I like a lot of points you make in this video but I still don't think I'd want to see this character at my table, at least not in a campaign. I don't want to count on my partymembers being willing to give up movement and object interactions every round just so I can do a cool thing with darkness. And what build has a free hand to pull out an upcast continual flame in the middle of combat? Certainly none of mine. That said, I could totally see this working at the right table or with two of three people cooperating to maximize this strategy. Also, I as DM would probably put some penalty on ranged attacks out of or into darkness, because even tho "I can't see them" and they "can't see me" should cancel out, you have no way of knowing you're even aiming to the correct location anymore, unlike in melee where you can hear/feel where to swing at. A potshot shouldn't be a straight roll. All that to say, great video, you got me thinking! Subscribed 😁

[@Xhalo1183]

One trick I found works well is to cast continual flame on the wick of the bullseye lantern. It already comes with a way to cover it. No free hand required. Can be covered/uncovered as an interact action and limits the light to a cone in front of you.

[@ninjasquirrels]

You can’t SEE the target covered by said Darkness/Fog Cloud et al but…you still know where they are just like the different invisible spells. It’s not hard.

[@TheDadofMark]

I don't think a party should be forced to build around someone else's build, and I think it would be a rare party that would decide that was the party strategy. Having said that, someone can pretty easily use darkness respecting the rest of the party (Warlock at 120 ft?) and have it as a more versatile version of fog cloud - providing great run-away options or leveling the playing field against invisible enemies or those with some can of natural advantage over the party.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

you don't need to build around it, but you should certainly strategize around it

[@limbothebiggay1709]

I'm going to be honest, I never used Darkness on my tiefling goolock because I had at first thought it required a material cost but it was on the same day my character died that I learnt it didn't need the material cost as it was a race feature😔

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Why would the material component keep you from casting the spell?

[@indespeokingson8940]

I played a darkness devil's sight build with minimal annoyance to the party. How? I stayed in the back.

[@shirak8]

Also, familiars get a free object interaction

[@crunchevo8974]

People really took what treantmonk said and warped it to be like *darkness sucks*?... Darkness is a spell that requires prior preperation and a rundown of how it works. And you also need to acknowledge that it's just not gonna be the best spell to use in every scenario... Which i mean no one is trying to make builds only casting the web spell or the mirror image spell. It's just another trick in your sleeve. Sure you'll be more reliant on it on lower leves if you take it but that's just how the game works.

[@stuh42l]

As a GM using your free interact action to manipulate an object someone else is holding while both of your are blinded and in combat is suss. I can see allowing a sleight of hand check or using the full action with no check though

[@cmccbuilds8229]

The DM has the right to rule the object interaction too intricate to be a free action. This should be a fairly easy process to cover/uncover but if the team doesn’t carefully choose how it will work, then I may agree with your ruling. But RAW, it works. Covering and uncovering objects is a free action.

[@stuh42l]

@@cmccbuilds8229 I went and read over the rules again and part of the wording has me doubting that it would be a free action. The book states you can interact with an object in the environment. This to me is different that interacting with an object that is being held. Much the same way held objects and not held objects are often delineated in the rules. If it was indeed a free action to cover or uncover something that was being held then ostensibly combatants could be doing all sorts of things to their enemies as free actions in combat.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Once you add “enemy” into the action, “unwillingness” becomes an issue. I will say, looking over the non-exhaustive list of free actions in combat: Open or close a door plant a banner in the ground drink all the ale in a flagon pull a torch from a sconce Take a book from a shelf don a mask turn a key in a lock hand an item to another character All of those lead me to believe that putting a small blanket on someone's hand (or whatever has the object) should be a free action. Nothing in the rules addresses free actions in heavy obscurement to my knowledge, so that shouldn't affect anything here.

[@stuh42l]

@@cmccbuilds8229 sure of course. I'm more concerned with the wording of "in the environment".

[@cmccbuilds8229]

We have examples of ways to interact with other characters in that list: you can hand items to other characters. Putting something on a character (or object) should be easier than handing one off to another character. The specifics of the action may be necessary to decide how this works for your party/table. That should be worked out beforehand. I would, personally, err on the side of rewarding creative thinking in this way.

[@AcidArmy_]

I don’t think you can claim that a character running INTO darkness will not provoke opportunity attacks

[@PowderKeg3838]

No matter how high you cast Continual Flame it is still a 2nd level spell by RAW. It is often confused that a spell slot equals the spell level, and they are independent of one another.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

This is incorrect. Casting a Spell at a Higher Level When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level.

[@jonathanhaynes9914]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the only free object interaction drawing a weapon as part of an attack action. It is a common house rule I think.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

That is not the case. The video has a list of the examples (non-exhaustive list) provided in the PHB. I've never heard of a house rule like that. That seems ultra restrictive. Why would dropping a weapon cost an action and drawing a weapon be a free one? Or tossing your hood off your head? Or pulling out a coin from your purse etc.

[@jonathanhaynes9914]

@@cmccbuilds8229 what I meant is I have seen a free use an object action as a common house rule. "Use an Object You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn." Is what the PHB says on the subject. I would certainly see covering or uncovering a teammates darkness item as requiring the use an object action although it is dm discretion.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Use an object is reserved for items that need activation or the equivalent. Magic items are the primary example. "Interacting with Objects Around You" is the relevant section. I'll copy/paste for your convenience: "Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your Movement and action: draw or sheathe a sword open or close a door withdraw a potion from your Backpack pick up a dropped axe take a bauble from a table remove a ring from your finger stuff some food into your mouth plant a banner in the ground fish a few coins from your belt pouch drink all the ale in a flagon throw a lever or a switch pull a torch from a sconce take a book from a shelf you can reach extinguish a small flame don a mask pull the hood of your cloak up and over your head put your ear to a door kick a small stone turn a key in a lock tap the floor with a 10-­foot pole hand an item to another character"

[@jonathanhaynes9914]

@@cmccbuilds8229 gotcha, thanks

[@dehro]

building an entire party around the darkness spell is going to motivate the DM to find loads of ways to mess with that, from daylight spells to creatures with blindsight and other options... to the point where the investment in optimization and potentially the sacrifice of feats or abilities that we can't access for having chosen the subclass or combo that allows for this, is going to feel wasted

[@cmccbuilds8229]

I feel I addressed that concern in the video (use other tactics/no single tactic will work in all scenarios), but I will add that if the DM is creating all encounters with the goal of defeating (rather than challenging) a strong optimization tactic, then they're probably not doing a great job. It would be equivalent of a DM only throwing out creature immune to stun against a party of monks. There is a place for that in an encounter or 2, or something tied very tightly to the narrative, but doing it just to screw the party - isn't an awesome idea. Also, any optimization tactic can be countered if the DM desires. If you create a stealth party leaning on pass without a trace, the DM can create enemies with super high passive perception scores, or everyone has the alert feat etc. There is a place for that, but not in all situations. That said, if your DM isn't putting out enemies with blindsight/truesight and dispel magics/continual flames/daylights etc. then they're also not doing their job. Gotta mix it up and challenge the party. That's the fun part :)

[@hawkname1234]

This exact thing happened in one of my campaigns.

[@hawkname1234]

@@cmccbuilds8229 Most DMs are not skillful enough to elegantly handle "The PCs have advantage all the time and the enemies have disadvantage all the time." They just aren't.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

They’ll learn with time and experience. It’s part of the growing process with the game :)

[@dehro]

@@cmccbuilds8229 it's not an issue of having an adversarial DM, but one of balance. on one side, the DM has to work harder to make the game still challenging without turning into a walk in the park for either him or the players. On the other side, if he successfully does do, this negates the whole idea of creating this advantage in the first place, which reduces it to a group gimmick, a signature move (which has its own rp roleplay benefits, sure)..sort of spurred into existence by the one player who wanted to play an edge lord... And it ultimately evens out in game, which might make the investment feel unsatisfactory to the players. Is it really worth building an entire party around one strategy, the success of which is still entirely in the hands of a benevolent DM? I feel it might fossilize the game into a rinse and repeat situation. In short, extra work for a diminishing return that might actually make the game more repetitieve. A cool concept in a vacuum, but not one I see as fun to play for an entire campaign. And yes, I say so knowing full well that I am playing exactly the warlock with the darkness/devil's sight combo. (This being a character that entered into the party weten my previous one died, the party is not optimised for this combo, so I don't get to use it all that often, which is fine by me, because I do have other options).

[@shirak8]

Good stuff. You got a subscriber! Also anyone who disagrees with TreantMonks dumb ideas gets advantage at my table.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Chris is a good guy. Be nice :)

[@Samuel_Kabel]

Wait, what do we get if we disagree with his smart ideas? Disadvantage?

[@cmccbuilds8229]

@Samuel_Kabel lol

[@hawkname1234]

Sounds like the answer to why it's OK to base your character on the Darkness spell is that you can force the other players to base their builds on yours, or force their characters to all take actions based on yours. I would throw such a person out of my gaming group if they were so selfish as to suggest this.

[@cmccbuilds8229]

No one is suggesting this. There is literally a section about working together and not being antagonistic. If anyone is being “forced” to do anything - do not use this at your table.

[@Typher_]

How to use darkness: Don’t

[@cmccbuilds8229]

False

[@Typher_]

@@cmccbuilds8229 I just played with someone who cast it on a coin, so they could sheathe it and move it along the battlefield. I was proven wrong

[@cmccbuilds8229]

Props for admitting that