Does not say it outright, but it certainly does emphasize that Darkness effect and creatures within it are blinded. Sounds like Darkness is getting doubled down in that one.
Sort of. As written, a character outside of the hunger of hadar who has darkvision could freely see and target creatures inside of it, though that probably isn't the intent.
Not really, noticed how the Darkness that is mentioned is capitalized? If it was lower case it would be a different story, but they used the upper case word so that the emphasis is on the effect of darkness that is magical by nature of being part of the spell.
It literally means see Darkness Spell for details, and Darkness Spell blocks darkvision in or out of an area of magical Darkness. ( inferred by way of Grammatical reference; Capitalization[person, place, or thing. In this instance Darkness refers to the Spell of the same name who’s description defines the effect and subsequent rule changes that might occur.)
Why not try looking at the hyperlink that DnD beyond puts on the darkness in the hunger of hadar spell? Darkness is capitalized in the rules glossary and the link that DnD beyond goes to is the rules glossary definition.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
You have noticed they are working on this place and half the links to things are directed to different places and tries to make getting an answer to things like Darkness a game of hide and seek. One Darkness is not the same as another Darkness and the reason for that is obvious.
Darkness as a magical effect refers to the spell not the definition of darkness in general. Capitalizing the definition confuses the reference to the effect and brings you on a hunt.( and demonstrates something I sus is being used to generate SAC answers to avoid certain … )
Easy to confuse the ones not particularly familiar with fine details.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Does not say it outright, but it certainly does emphasize that Darkness effect and creatures within it are blinded. Sounds like Darkness is getting doubled down in that one.
Sort of. As written, a character outside of the hunger of hadar who has darkvision could freely see and target creatures inside of it, though that probably isn't the intent.
To address Paradox. If the magical darkness was enough to limit darkvision then adding the blinded condition is redundant. Given how they've tried to remove redundancy in the 2024 ruleset (to the detriment of clarity) it stands to reason that magical darkness does not limit darkvision unless it says so which is exactly what the sage advice says. Reading otherwise does not follow the RAW and while you're welcome to homebrew whatever you want that isn't what the text says.
To address Pantagruel, that most definitely is the intent. Since they used the blinded condition instead of saying that the area was heavily obscured, we know that the intent is to only affect the creatures inside the area. Heavily obscured effects creatures outside the area as well. Phrasing it this way instead of like fog cloud is longer and more complicated which does not make sense unless they are intentionally trying to leave this exception. The blinded condition does more than make your attacks have disadvantage but also makes attacks against you have advantage too. It makes total sense that creatures blinded by unspeakable horrors would be easier to hit than other creatures.
Hadar doesn’t explicitly state darkvision is blocked but does make sure to mention being blind while in it and stating that Darkness is just like the spell of the same name.
If your blind in hadars Darkness( magical ) then it reaffirmed the fact magical Darkness blocks darkvision, otherwise it would say you can see out or into this darkness if you have darkvision.
First it's "you're" not "your".
Second this entire statement is not true. If someone uses blinding smite on a creature and makes it have the blinded condition does that mean others can't see the creature or can the creature not see others? Based on your argument both would be true which makes no sense. If they wanted Hadar to block darkvision they would have said so or said it makes the area heavily obscured instead of in darkness. If we take your flawed argument as true, why bother including the blinded condition if creatures automatically get it by virtue of magical darkness? As I state above the fact that they intentionally phrase it this way tells us that magical darkness does not block darkvision unless stated. The rules glossary Darkness has abilities that negate it and those abilities do not work for other heavily obscured areas like the one caused by fog cloud. Phrasing it this way intentionally allows creatures outside the area to attack creatures in the area with advantage provided they have darkvision.
The “your” is considered to be placing you into the context of having darkvision inside of Hadar and being blind. Ether context works, but it still affirms the fact that magical Darkness blocks darkvision. Tomato, Tomatoe , tomorrow all water in drink.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Using Hunger of Hadar is a woefully bad example to bring to this conversation because it's a mechanically different spell than the Darkness spell. Let's not forget that the original 2014 version of Hunger of Hadar used the term "Blackness" and "dark between the stars" for the sphere which was changed for 2024 for convenience.
- Hunger of Hadar does not create magical darkness, instead it is a gateway to another dimension that appears like mundane darkness to someone outside of it per it's very first line, hence "sphere of Darkness". It does not specify the "Darkness" is from the spell, but the Darkness defined from the Glossary (opaque).
- From a mechanical standpoint, the reason the spell goes out of it's way to tell you that creatures are FULLY Blind within is because nothing works inside it: no natural sight; no Darkvision; no Truesight; and NO Devil's Sight. The spell effectively shuts all kinds of sights that rely on your eyes. In the inside, it works more like a void or black hole, hence no light can illuminate it and why creatures are fully Blind. The 2014 version used "blackness" to refer to the sphere, but this was changed to "Darkness" in 2024 to allow Warlocks to target enemies inside HoH with Devil Sight or Darkvision while the caster is outside, because in 2014 RAW Warlocks couldn't do this.
On the other side, the Darkness spell specifies Darkvision as the only special sense that can't see through it, so both Truesight and Devil Sight work in and out of the spell.
I will not debate which point is right or not; just wanted to point out why using HoH is a poor example to try and prove that normal sight can see outside of the Darkness spell when the spells are mechanically different.
Using Hunger of Hadar is a woefully bad example to bring to this conversation because it's a mechanically different spell than the Darkness spell. Let's not forget that the original 2014 version of Hunger of Hadar used the term "Blackness" and "dark between the stars" for the sphere which was changed for 2024 for convenience.
- Hunger of Hadar does not create magical darkness, instead it is a gateway to another dimension that appears like mundane darkness to someone outside of it per it's very first line, hence "sphere of Darkness". It does not specify the "Darkness" is from the spell, but the Darkness defined from the Glossary (opaque).
- From a mechanical standpoint, the reason the spell goes out of it's way to tell you that creatures are FULLY Blind within is because nothing works inside it: no natural sight; no Darkvision; no Truesight; and NO Devil's Sight. The spell effectively shuts all kinds of sights that rely on your eyes. In the inside, it works more like a void or black hole, hence no light can illuminate it and why creatures are fully Blind. The 2014 version used "blackness" to refer to the sphere, but this was changed to "Darkness" in 2024 to allow Warlocks to target enemies inside HoH with Devil Sight or Darkvision while the caster is outside, because in 2014 RAW Warlocks couldn't do this.
On the other side, the Darkness spell specifies Darkvision as the only special sense that can't see through it, so both Truesight and Devil Sight work in and out of the spell.
I will not debate which point is right or not; just wanted to point out why using HoH is a poor example to try and prove that normal sight can see outside of the Darkness spell when the spells are mechanically different.
Mabye they changed the wording so darkvision is blocked by magical Darkness but the two spells that can see can watch?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Hunger of Hadar does not specify that Darkvision can't see into it, but that creatures inside are fully Blind; meanwhile, the reference to "sphere of Darkness" means those outside treat it as mundane darkness (Heavily Obscured). Nowhere does it say in the spell that the sphere is magical darkness, so you have to treat HoH as it's own thing.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
If it doesn't say the darknessspell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
If it doesn't say the darknessspell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
if it was referring to the definition then it refers to itself as the D&D definition is:
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”). [ Notice how the Darkness in this definition is capitalized, and emphasizes how Darkness is an area that is Heavily Obscured. Same as the Spell of the same name. Coupled with the additional effects of the Hadar Spell and it effectively restates the same thing the magical Darkness spell does. ]
If it was to link to the spell, you would have better understanding of what the Hadar spell is doing, but books don’t have hyperlinks, so rather than run around you just jump to that Darkness Spell and cut the run-around BS out. Insta digital tripskip doesn’t exist in hardcopy media, and time is wasted looking for the actual rules that are already written to clarify the intent.
How many different references to Darkness run people in circles and don’t actually stop on the actual correct version of darkness normal or magical?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
No, it isn't. It's referring to an effect called darkness. Which is different from the darkness spell because, unless specifically stated otherwise, darkvision can see through it.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
No, it isn't. It's referring to an effect called darkness. Which is different from the darkness spell because, unless specifically stated otherwise, darkvision can see through it.
Referring to an effect called darkness that is magical. So darkvision can see though “it” means what? That now darkvision can see through magical darkness, well the someone needs to be fired because they must have forgot to edit a good number of the rules that clearly state darkvision can not see through magical Darkness.
It’s very well documented, and when a magical spell has Darkness as a magical effect, you can not use darkvision in that magical effect area.
You do you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Referring to an effect called darkness that is magical. So darkvision can see though “it” means what? That now darkvision can see through magical darkness.
Darkvision can see through magical darkness unless the spell specifies otherwise.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
If it doesn't say the darknessspell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
if it was referring to the definition then it refers to itself as the D&D definition is:
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”). [ Notice how the Darkness in this definition is capitalized, and emphasizes how Darkness is an area that is Heavily Obscured. Same as the Spell of the same name. Coupled with the additional effects of the Hadar Spell and it effectively restates the same thing the magical Darkness spell does. ]
If it was to link to the spell, you would have better understanding of what the Hadar spell is doing, but books don’t have hyperlinks, so rather than run around you just jump to that Darkness Spell and cut the run-around BS out. Insta digital tripskip doesn’t exist in hardcopy media, and time is wasted looking for the actual rules that are already written to clarify the intent.
How many different references to Darkness run people in circles and don’t actually stop on the actual correct version of darkness normal or magical?
My God man, go to page 19 in the PHB and you will see this in the book:
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
See how it capitalizes Darkness and it does NOT refer to the spell? Or are you gonna claim that the text there also refers to the Darkness spell? Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. Darkness is a game term that refer to obscure areas and not specifically to the spell, but you're mixing both while bringing 1e rules to justify a claim that is incorrect. It's also been well documented in 5E that Darkvision can see through magical darkness except for spells that specifically say it can't, like the Darkness spell, dating back to the 2014 Sage Advice.
If you had read CH1 of the book, you would've known this and avoided this pointless debate.
Edit: Even more, go to page 105 and you will see that in the Shadow Monk level 3 feature, the Darkness spell is italicized, while the Darkness area is not. There's your evidence that you're mixing these terms, and that the term Darkness in Hunger of Hadar is not the spell, but a heavily obscured area.
See how it capitalizes Darkness and it does NOT refer to the spell? Or are you gonna claim that the text there also refers to the Darkness spell? Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description.
Eh, the darkness is definitely a magical effect (dispel magic works on it). It's just irrelevant that it's magical, because blocking darkvision isn't a property of magical darkness, it's a property of darkness that says it blocks darkvision (as far as I know, only darkness and maddening darkness say that).
[...] - Hunger of Hadar does not create magical darkness, instead it is a gateway to another dimension that appears like mundane darkness to someone outside of it per it's very first line, hence "sphere of Darkness". It does not specify the "Darkness" is from the spell, but the Darkness defined from the Glossary (opaque).
[...] Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. [...]
(sorry for snipping the replies; just trying to get what I need)
Interesting. I've been ruling that Darkness (the area), when created by a spell, is always magical since it's a Magical Effect, so you can dispel it with Dispel Magic, for example.
But you make a good point about the use of "magical" in the spell descriptions.
EDIT: I didn't see Pantagruel666's answer. It's more or less what I think too.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
If it doesn't say the darknessspell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
if it was referring to the definition then it refers to itself as the D&D definition is:
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”). [ Notice how the Darkness in this definition is capitalized, and emphasizes how Darkness is an area that is Heavily Obscured. Same as the Spell of the same name. Coupled with the additional effects of the Hadar Spell and it effectively restates the same thing the magical Darkness spell does. ]
If it was to link to the spell, you would have better understanding of what the Hadar spell is doing, but books don’t have hyperlinks, so rather than run around you just jump to that Darkness Spell and cut the run-around BS out. Insta digital tripskip doesn’t exist in hardcopy media, and time is wasted looking for the actual rules that are already written to clarify the intent.
How many different references to Darkness run people in circles and don’t actually stop on the actual correct version of darkness normal or magical?
My God man, go to page 19 in the PHB and you will see this in the book:
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
See how it capitalizes Darkness and it does NOT refer to the spell? Or are you gonna claim that the text there also refers to the Darkness spell? Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. Darkness is a game term that refer to obscure areas and not specifically to the spell, but you're mixing both while bringing 1e rules to justify a claim that is incorrect. It's also been well documented in 5E that Darkvision can see through magical darkness except for spells that specifically say it can't, like the Darkness spell, dating back to the 2014 Sage Advice.
If you had read CH1 of the book, you would've known this and avoided this pointless debate.
Edit: Even more, go to page 105 and you will see that in the Shadow Monk level 3 feature, the Darkness spell is italicized, while the Darkness area is not. There's your evidence that you're mixing these terms, and that the term Darkness in Hunger of Hadar is not the spell, but a heavily obscured area.
Quoted from the book:
EXCEPTIONS SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULES
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
I see the statement “The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins.” which means the magical spell of darkness is the exception to the general rule and defines how the magical effect of darkness works.
Magical Darkness and normal darkness do not work the same way. You may want to go back and reread the book again yourself, and I suggest starting with the contents page, as we seem to agree to disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
If it doesn't say the darknessspell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
if it was referring to the definition then it refers to itself as the D&D definition is:
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”). [ Notice how the Darkness in this definition is capitalized, and emphasizes how Darkness is an area that is Heavily Obscured. Same as the Spell of the same name. Coupled with the additional effects of the Hadar Spell and it effectively restates the same thing the magical Darkness spell does. ]
If it was to link to the spell, you would have better understanding of what the Hadar spell is doing, but books don’t have hyperlinks, so rather than run around you just jump to that Darkness Spell and cut the run-around BS out. Insta digital tripskip doesn’t exist in hardcopy media, and time is wasted looking for the actual rules that are already written to clarify the intent.
How many different references to Darkness run people in circles and don’t actually stop on the actual correct version of darkness normal or magical?
My God man, go to page 19 in the PHB and you will see this in the book:
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
See how it capitalizes Darkness and it does NOT refer to the spell? Or are you gonna claim that the text there also refers to the Darkness spell? Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. Darkness is a game term that refer to obscure areas and not specifically to the spell, but you're mixing both while bringing 1e rules to justify a claim that is incorrect. It's also been well documented in 5E that Darkvision can see through magical darkness except for spells that specifically say it can't, like the Darkness spell, dating back to the 2014 Sage Advice.
If you had read CH1 of the book, you would've known this and avoided this pointless debate.
Edit: Even more, go to page 105 and you will see that in the Shadow Monk level 3 feature, the Darkness spell is italicized, while the Darkness area is not. There's your evidence that you're mixing these terms, and that the term Darkness in Hunger of Hadar is not the spell, but a heavily obscured area.
Quoted from the book:
EXCEPTIONS SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULES
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
I see the statement “The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins.” which means the magical spell of darkness is the exception to the general rule and defines how the magical effect of darkness works.
Magical Darkness and normal darkness do not work the same way. You may want to go back and reread the book again yourself, and I suggest starting with the contents page, as we seem to agree to disagree.
I've read the book and I'm very aware of the difference between normal and magical darkness, but you seem not to; otherwise you would not be having this pointless debate. Every spell that creates magical darkness in 5e and 5e24 specifically says "magical darkness" in it's description, but you continue to ignore this. Instead, you're applying the Darkness spell effects to every spell that creates a Darkness area, which is not how it works. Spells say what they say they do, and if it doesn't say it creates "magical darkness" then it doesn't do so and it refers to the general rule about Darkness from the Rules Glossary and the Exploration sections. Everyone in this threat has told you that you're flat-out wrong, but you don't present proper evidence to support your claims. We've shown you how the physical book differentiates between the general term and the spell with italics, and you continue to argue against this. At this point, you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no reason to continue with this conversation.
I've read the book and I'm very aware of the difference between normal and magical darkness, but you seem not to; otherwise you would not be having this pointless debate. Every spell that creates magical darkness in 5e and 5e24 specifically says "magical darkness" in it's description, but you continue to ignore this. Instead, you're applying the Darkness spell effects to every spell that creates a Darkness area, which is not how it works. Spells say what they say they do, and if it doesn't say it creates "magical darkness" then it doesn't do so and it refers to the general rule about Darkness from the Rules Glossary and the Exploration sections. Everyone in this threat has told you that you're flat-out wrong, but you don't present proper evidence to support your claims. We've shown you how the physical book differentiates between the general term and the spell with italics, and you continue to argue against this. At this point, you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no reason to continue with this conversation.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is the ability of darkvision to not be able to see through the magical version of darkness at all.
When others are going to quote Advice and not actual RAW in the attempt to “have it their way”, then they are the ones who are intentionally arguing in bad-faith. I stand by my statement, and nothing anyone says can change what the very thing, and proper evidence was provided numerous times over.
What’s even more interesting is in a statement made earlier the term “game state” was used which was observed in Sage Advice Compendium as well as the continued practice of “if it’s not written it’s not true..” insistence about how certain aspects of the game work.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when the conversation is always “ your incorrect” or some other nonsense that is based upon repeating false and inaccurate information, then the problem is not myself.
As yourself and others have pointed out, if it says “magical darkness” it’s talking about a completely different “game state” then the general concept and therefore the specific concept must have precedence over the general as stated by the rules.
Continued repetition of a flawed and inaccurate representation of two different concepts does not make it any more true then it is, and how such repetition can negatively impact and influence the unaware.
Magical darkness prevents anyone with darkvision from being able to see in or out of the magical area of effect and nothing anyone says can change that fact no matter what they say, as the very core of the Rules As Written explicitly states that magical darkness is a completely different thing from normal darkness.
And a physical representation is not the same as a digital one, as a digital representation can be manipulated to create a false perception of what the actual intention of the topic is, so using just the digital representation of normal darkness is wrong.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
So you and others can do you, I stand correct in my opinion and evidence, no you can not see through any form of “magical darkness” with darkvision no matter what, and anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who are wrong.
Have a nice day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is the ability of darkvision to not be able to see through the magical version of darkness at all.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is that magical darkness is a magical effect for purposes of abilities that care, such as detect magic. It may also have additional properties that don't exist for normal darkness, such as blocking darkvision, but if so those properties will be described in the spell or ability that creates it.
If the intent was that all magical darkness blocked darkvision, there would either be a glossary entry for magical darkness (there isn't), or darkvision would say that it cannot see through magical darkness (it doesn't).
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
So you and others can do you, I stand correct in my opinion and evidence, no you can not see through any form of “magical darkness” with darkvision no matter what, and anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who are wrong.
The official ruling from Devs Sage Advice is that Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
This is complete and utter nonsense, and it betrays a misunderstanding of how the rules work so fundamental that your opinion on any rule interpretation is suspect, at best
EDIT: to be clear, "specific beats general" means something like a spell or class feature may contain rules that supersede the general rules only in its specific use case
It does not mean "find a specific rule and create a new general rule out of it"
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is the ability of darkvision to not be able to see through the magical version of darkness at all.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is that magical darkness is a magical effect for purposes of abilities that care, such as detect magic. It may also have additional properties that don't exist for normal darkness, such as blocking darkvision, but if so those properties will be described in the spell or ability that creates it.
Not if it repeats the same properties that are already present elsewhere, it’s easier just to reference the already existing abilities that create the same effects and note only the significant difference in the new one.
Or simply state plainly “non-magical darkness” when appropriate. Using different context in similar terms and situations is the problem, as many don’t see non-magical darkness as the same as magical darkness.
If you want to reference one or the other, three little letters are all that is needed to distinguish the difference between the two.
If non-magical darkness and magical darkness are to be expected to behave the same way then why did they change the way magical darkness functions back to the way it did before 3/3.5 ?
Perhaps because like this thread, the insistence that magical darkness should behave as non-magical darkness creates a situation where features that depend on that difference are being affected in ways that make the ability to maintain a consistent balance impossible.
And if you haven’t already noticed, the lack of well defined and written elements in need of greater clarity has increased not decreased, and pointing to the wrong context is not helpful. If a magical spell refers to a magical effect, the magical effect should take higher priority, not the other way around.
It’s the way the game is/was designed, some things we don’t like some things we do, but you have to understand a lot of things are implied and in magic spells the implication is the magical version of darkness not the non-magical version of the same thing.
( and how the new SAC was developed is as obvious as the broad side of a barn in the middle of nowhere. And it makes a bigger mess than is necessary. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because the hyperlink is a digital thing, if I’m reading the book i can’t click the word and get a wrong address, so text has to guide me to the Darkness spell considering that magical effect is being used in this context.
You have noticed they are working on this place and half the links to things are directed to different places and tries to make getting an answer to things like Darkness a game of hide and seek. One Darkness is not the same as another Darkness and the reason for that is obvious.
Darkness as a magical effect refers to the spell not the definition of darkness in general. Capitalizing the definition confuses the reference to the effect and brings you on a hunt.( and demonstrates something I sus is being used to generate SAC answers to avoid certain … )
Easy to confuse the ones not particularly familiar with fine details.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The “your” is considered to be placing you into the context of having darkvision inside of Hadar and being blind. Ether context works, but it still affirms the fact that magical Darkness blocks darkvision.
Tomato, Tomatoe , tomorrow all water in drink.
Oh and there is a spell:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2018-blindness-deafness?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Using Hunger of Hadar is a woefully bad example to bring to this conversation because it's a mechanically different spell than the Darkness spell. Let's not forget that the original 2014 version of Hunger of Hadar used the term "Blackness" and "dark between the stars" for the sphere which was changed for 2024 for convenience.
- Hunger of Hadar does not create magical darkness, instead it is a gateway to another dimension that appears like mundane darkness to someone outside of it per it's very first line, hence "sphere of Darkness". It does not specify the "Darkness" is from the spell, but the Darkness defined from the Glossary (opaque).
- From a mechanical standpoint, the reason the spell goes out of it's way to tell you that creatures are FULLY Blind within is because nothing works inside it: no natural sight; no Darkvision; no Truesight; and NO Devil's Sight. The spell effectively shuts all kinds of sights that rely on your eyes. In the inside, it works more like a void or black hole, hence no light can illuminate it and why creatures are fully Blind. The 2014 version used "blackness" to refer to the sphere, but this was changed to "Darkness" in 2024 to allow Warlocks to target enemies inside HoH with Devil Sight or Darkvision while the caster is outside, because in 2014 RAW Warlocks couldn't do this.
On the other side, the Darkness spell specifies Darkvision as the only special sense that can't see through it, so both Truesight and Devil Sight work in and out of the spell.
I will not debate which point is right or not; just wanted to point out why using HoH is a poor example to try and prove that normal sight can see outside of the Darkness spell when the spells are mechanically different.
Mabye they changed the wording so darkvision is blocked by magical Darkness but the two spells that can see can watch?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Hunger of Hadar does not specify that Darkvision can't see into it, but that creatures inside are fully Blind; meanwhile, the reference to "sphere of Darkness" means those outside treat it as mundane darkness (Heavily Obscured). Nowhere does it say in the spell that the sphere is magical darkness, so you have to treat HoH as it's own thing.
If it doesn't say the darkness spell, it's referring to the rules glossary.
It’s in a spell referring to a magical effect called Darkness.
if it was referring to the definition then it refers to itself as the D&D definition is:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#Darkness
Darkness
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
[ Notice how the Darkness in this definition is capitalized, and emphasizes how Darkness is an area that is Heavily Obscured. Same as the Spell of the same name. Coupled with the additional effects of the Hadar Spell and it effectively restates the same thing the magical Darkness spell does. ]
If it was to link to the spell, you would have better understanding of what the Hadar spell is doing, but books don’t have hyperlinks, so rather than run around you just jump to that Darkness Spell and cut the run-around BS out. Insta digital tripskip doesn’t exist in hardcopy media, and time is wasted looking for the actual rules that are already written to clarify the intent.
How many different references to Darkness run people in circles and don’t actually stop on the actual correct version of darkness normal or magical?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
No, it isn't. It's referring to an effect called darkness. Which is different from the darkness spell because, unless specifically stated otherwise, darkvision can see through it.
Referring to an effect called darkness that is magical. So darkvision can see though “it” means what? That now darkvision can see through magical darkness, well the someone needs to be fired because they must have forgot to edit a good number of the rules that clearly state darkvision can not see through magical Darkness.
It’s very well documented, and when a magical spell has Darkness as a magical effect, you can not use darkvision in that magical effect area.
You do you.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Darkvision can see through magical darkness unless the spell specifies otherwise.
My God man, go to page 19 in the PHB and you will see this in the book:
See how it capitalizes Darkness and it does NOT refer to the spell? Or are you gonna claim that the text there also refers to the Darkness spell? Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. Darkness is a game term that refer to obscure areas and not specifically to the spell, but you're mixing both while bringing 1e rules to justify a claim that is incorrect. It's also been well documented in 5E that Darkvision can see through magical darkness except for spells that specifically say it can't, like the Darkness spell, dating back to the 2014 Sage Advice.
If you had read CH1 of the book, you would've known this and avoided this pointless debate.
Edit: Even more, go to page 105 and you will see that in the Shadow Monk level 3 feature, the Darkness spell is italicized, while the Darkness area is not. There's your evidence that you're mixing these terms, and that the term Darkness in Hunger of Hadar is not the spell, but a heavily obscured area.
Eh, the darkness is definitely a magical effect (dispel magic works on it). It's just irrelevant that it's magical, because blocking darkvision isn't a property of magical darkness, it's a property of darkness that says it blocks darkvision (as far as I know, only darkness and maddening darkness say that).
(sorry for snipping the replies; just trying to get what I need)
Interesting. I've been ruling that Darkness (the area), when created by a spell, is always magical since it's a Magical Effect, so you can dispel it with Dispel Magic, for example.
But you make a good point about the use of "magical" in the spell descriptions.
EDIT: I didn't see Pantagruel666's answer. It's more or less what I think too.
EDIT2: fix tooltip.
Quoted from the book:
EXCEPTIONS SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULES
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
I see the statement “The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins.” which means the magical spell of darkness is the exception to the general rule and defines how the magical effect of darkness works.
Magical Darkness and normal darkness do not work the same way. You may want to go back and reread the book again yourself, and I suggest starting with the contents page, as we seem to agree to disagree.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I've read the book and I'm very aware of the difference between normal and magical darkness, but you seem not to; otherwise you would not be having this pointless debate. Every spell that creates magical darkness in 5e and 5e24 specifically says "magical darkness" in it's description, but you continue to ignore this. Instead, you're applying the Darkness spell effects to every spell that creates a Darkness area, which is not how it works. Spells say what they say they do, and if it doesn't say it creates "magical darkness" then it doesn't do so and it refers to the general rule about Darkness from the Rules Glossary and the Exploration sections. Everyone in this threat has told you that you're flat-out wrong, but you don't present proper evidence to support your claims. We've shown you how the physical book differentiates between the general term and the spell with italics, and you continue to argue against this. At this point, you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no reason to continue with this conversation.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is the ability of darkvision to not be able to see through the magical version of darkness at all.
When others are going to quote Advice and not actual RAW in the attempt to “have it their way”, then they are the ones who are intentionally arguing in bad-faith.
I stand by my statement, and nothing anyone says can change what the very thing, and proper evidence was provided numerous times over.
What’s even more interesting is in a statement made earlier the term “game state” was used which was observed in Sage Advice Compendium as well as the continued practice of “if it’s not written it’s not true..” insistence about how certain aspects of the game work.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when the conversation is always “ your incorrect” or some other nonsense that is based upon repeating false and inaccurate information, then the problem is not myself.
As yourself and others have pointed out, if it says “magical darkness” it’s talking about a completely different “game state” then the general concept and therefore the specific concept must have precedence over the general as stated by the rules.
Continued repetition of a flawed and inaccurate representation of two different concepts does not make it any more true then it is, and how such repetition can negatively impact and influence the unaware.
Magical darkness prevents anyone with darkvision from being able to see in or out of the magical area of effect and nothing anyone says can change that fact no matter what they say, as the very core of the Rules As Written explicitly states that magical darkness is a completely different thing from normal darkness.
And a physical representation is not the same as a digital one, as a digital representation can be manipulated to create a false perception of what the actual intention of the topic is, so using just the digital representation of normal darkness is wrong.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
So you and others can do you, I stand correct in my opinion and evidence, no you can not see through any form of “magical darkness” with darkvision no matter what, and anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who are wrong.
Have a nice day.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The difference between magical darkness and normal darkness is that magical darkness is a magical effect for purposes of abilities that care, such as detect magic. It may also have additional properties that don't exist for normal darkness, such as blocking darkvision, but if so those properties will be described in the spell or ability that creates it.
If the intent was that all magical darkness blocked darkvision, there would either be a glossary entry for magical darkness (there isn't), or darkvision would say that it cannot see through magical darkness (it doesn't).
While Darkness creates Darkness , not all source of Darkness are Darkness, it can be outdoors at night or unlit room, Hunger of Hadar etc...
The official ruling from Devs Sage Advice is that Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
This is complete and utter nonsense, and it betrays a misunderstanding of how the rules work so fundamental that your opinion on any rule interpretation is suspect, at best
EDIT: to be clear, "specific beats general" means something like a spell or class feature may contain rules that supersede the general rules only in its specific use case
It does not mean "find a specific rule and create a new general rule out of it"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not if it repeats the same properties that are already present elsewhere, it’s easier just to reference the already existing abilities that create the same effects and note only the significant difference in the new one.
Or simply state plainly “non-magical darkness” when appropriate. Using different context in similar terms and situations is the problem, as many don’t see non-magical darkness as the same as magical darkness.
If you want to reference one or the other, three little letters are all that is needed to distinguish the difference between the two.
If non-magical darkness and magical darkness are to be expected to behave the same way then why did they change the way magical darkness functions back to the way it did before 3/3.5 ?
Perhaps because like this thread, the insistence that magical darkness should behave as non-magical darkness creates a situation where features that depend on that difference are being affected in ways that make the ability to maintain a consistent balance impossible.
And if you haven’t already noticed, the lack of well defined and written elements in need of greater clarity has increased not decreased, and pointing to the wrong context is not helpful. If a magical spell refers to a magical effect, the magical effect should take higher priority, not the other way around.
It’s the way the game is/was designed, some things we don’t like some things we do, but you have to understand a lot of things are implied and in magic spells the implication is the magical version of darkness not the non-magical version of the same thing.
( and how the new SAC was developed is as obvious as the broad side of a barn in the middle of nowhere. And it makes a bigger mess than is necessary. )
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.