My players get it when I explain that they can’t see into a darkness spell. But if I also say you can see everything on the other side of it just fine, I get some blank stares. It makes sense to me, but not everyone finds it intuitive as evidenced by how long this thread is. It hasn’t helped matters that the darkness spell or its close equivalents have shifted back and forth between being opaque and not across older editions with players imprinting their concept of what darkness means based on their initial exposure.
Why? Have your players never been outside at night?
I just realized, with it being late afternoon, I can get some really good examples of light and dark sections interrupting each other.
Here's what it looks like for a character standing in shadow, looking at a light section, followed by more shadow.
As you can see, it is quite easy to imagine what it looks like to see a lit area behind a dark one. You don't have to imagine it, because it happens in real life.
anything created by magic is magical, but you know what I meant: it's not the same effect as the Darkness spell. It's not what we commonly refer to as"magical darkness". Lorewise, it's a Dimensional Tear
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 obstructionis a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
Yeah. The Darkness spell operates more like a heavy fog than normal Darkness, but only blocks normal vision and Darkvision. Unfortunately, except for one of the abilities from Summon Fey, I haven't seen any other use of magical darkness from the core books that's separate from the Darkness spell.
No. Darkness doesn't work like fog, it works like darkness. If the spell created fog, it would say it created fog. The spell Fog Cloud creates fog. The spell Darkness creates darkness.
No. Darkness doesn't work like fog, it works like darkness. If the spell created fog, it would say it created fog. The spell Fog Cloud creates fog. The spell Darkness creates darkness.
Then why does the rulebook mention "moonlit nights"?
Because the rules are badly written -- though the problem is actually the reverse. It's not that darkness is opaque, it's that, based on the rules in the PHB, all heavily obscured areas are in fact transparent and do not block vision through or out of the area, only into the area. The rules for mapped combat in the DMG do state that line of sight is denied for something that "blocks vision" -- but it leaves that mostly undefined, the vast majority of effects do not specify whether they block vision, and darkness is one of the few exceptions (it specifically mentions blocking darkvision).
No, it says it can't see through it (in the same sense that normal vision can't see through invisibility or illusions). That doesn't say anything about whether it's opaque. (I agree with you about the D&D vision rules being generally idiotic, that's the point I was trying to get across.)
Then why does the rulebook mention "moonlit nights"?
Because the rules are badly written -- though the problem is actually the reverse. It's not that darkness is opaque, it's that, based on the rules in the PHB, all heavily obscured areas are in fact transparent and do not block vision through or out of the area, only into the area. The rules for mapped combat in the DMG do state that line of sight is denied for something that "blocks vision" -- but it leaves that mostly undefined, the vast majority of effects do not specify whether they block vision, and darkness is one of the few exceptions (it specifically mentions blocking darkvision).
That's not exactly true, otherwise you would be able to see through or out of Fog Cloud. The word "opaque" has to be taken into consideration when ruling on Heavily Obscured areas, since WotC also does. They used the word for a reason, and it's not for lip service/flavor text. Darkness specifically mentions Darkvision because it's a special sense that normally can see through mundane darkness; that's why it has a SAC entry for clarification. Mundane darkness should've instead had a separate entry that specifically describes it's interactions, but WoTC decided to treat it the same as fog for simplicity, and that's why people still debate on it.
No, it says it can't see through it (in the same sense that normal vision can't see through invisibility or illusions). That doesn't say anything about whether it's opaque. (I agree with you about the D&D vision rules being generally idiotic, that's the point I was trying to get across.)
Page 19 of the PHB specifically calls Darkness as opaque whether we like it or not, and it's partially correct. We normally don't notice this because of light pollution in cities, but go out at night on the countryside and it's a different story. If you're out camping with a new moon and no light, or in a forest that covers moonlight, GL trying to see anything (been there). As for moonlit nights, they provide enough illumination to be able to see at night on areas exposed to the light, so they can be considered Lightly Obscured. The rules might seem to be idiotic, but they're not meant to simulate real-world physics, just quick arbitration in a situation. For the spell, it specifically says Darkvision can't see through it, because it's a zone that absorbs all light under a specific level; that's why I said it behaves more like Fog Cloud than actual darkness, not that it creates a fog.
We normally don't notice this because of light pollution in cities, but go out at night on the countryside and it's a different story. If you're out camping with a new moon and no light, or in a forest that covers moonlight, GL trying to see anything (been there).
I hope, for your sake, that you're just shit posting here.
If you're out camping with a new moon and no light, you can see the stars. If you're out camping and it's a full moon, you can see the moon. Because darkness isn't opaque.
Seriously, if you're not taking the piss, your post makes me wonder if you know what the word "opaque" means.
Not see-through. Darkness isn't opaque in the real world unless there is absence of light. Yes, you can see stars at night and the moon because of the light they emit, but there are limitations on how much you can see. I think the issue that's tripping people is that WotC lumped nighttime with Darkness, when it shouldn't be the case. Darkness refers to areas with absence of light--like a dark cave, or a closed room with no windows--which are so dark you can't see through it. Frankly, I'd just treat nights as Lightly Obscured while outdoors for game purposes, even if it's not RAW.
My players get it when I explain that they can’t see into a darkness spell. But if I also say you can see everything on the other side of it just fine, I get some blank stares. It makes sense to me, but not everyone finds it intuitive as evidenced by how long this thread is. It hasn’t helped matters that the darkness spell or its close equivalents have shifted back and forth between being opaque and not across older editions with players imprinting their concept of what darkness means based on their initial exposure.
Why? Have your players never been outside at night?
I just realized, with it being late afternoon, I can get some really good examples of light and dark sections interrupting each other.
Here's what it looks like for a character standing in shadow, looking at a light section, followed by more shadow.
As you can see, it is quite easy to imagine what it looks like to see a lit area behind a dark one. You don't have to imagine it, because it happens in real life.
I've never tried to look through a section of darkness that suppressed all light entering and that was within it. so yeah it very easily can be viewed as a sphere of black that you can neither see into or through.
The word "suppress" doesn't appear in the spell description. It says "can't be illuminated", in other words, the light level can't be increased. That doesn't mean it's opaque. It means the light level can't be increased. Why do you keep making up stuff that the book doesn't say?
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.
If the intent was that magical darkness (in general) blocks darkvision, they would either have magical darkness in the rules glossary, or change the wording of darkvision to
If you have Darkvision, you can see in Dim Light within a specified range as if it were Bright Light and in non-magical Darkness within that range as if it were Dim Light. You discern colors in that Darkness only as shades of gray. See also chapter 1 (“Exploration”).
If the intent for devils sight was that it could see into the darkness spell it would specify it. As it is written devils sight is just Darkvision, it literally does nothing else as all devils sight is, is Darkvision which can see in magical darkness which all Darkvision can apparently do.
Reality is they really should have created 2 glossary sections one for darkness the other for magical darkness. And this was not some hidden flaw, people knew this in 2014. They had to write a sage advice as their rules don't make a lick of sense here, and now they will need to again. Maybe this time they will take the better route and have magical darkness block normal Darkvision no matter its source. So things like devils sight actually make some sense.
The word "suppress" doesn't appear in the spell description. It says "can't be illuminated", in other words, the light level can't be increased. That doesn't mean it's opaque. It means the light level can't be increased. Why do you keep making up stuff that the book doesn't say?
A distinction without a distinction. light can not enter it.
No, it is a distinction. It doesn't say light can't enter it, it says it can't illuminate it. Do you really not understand that those mean different things?
You didn't answer my question above. Why do you keep lying about what the book says?
You need light to illuminate an area. No light, no illumination. The spell is meant to block nonmagical light, normal and darkvision since 5E came out (it was slightly different in earlier editions), and that's still the same in 2024. It's treated as such in official games, conventions, AL, etc. You're trying to apply real world logic to a gamified feature, but the spell does what it says it does. A long time ago Jeremy Crawford explained in Twitter that nonmagical light cannot penetrate the area created by Darkness, and though his tweets are not considered official, it shows the design intent they had.
This has gone on for nine pages now, and folk are beginning to rely more on personal anecdotes and natural language to make arguments, and at oft times growing uncivil.
There has been some very fascinating digging into the RAW and some good sleuthing here, but I think it's time to let this topic rest for a bit.
Why? Have your players never been outside at night?
I just realized, with it being late afternoon, I can get some really good examples of light and dark sections interrupting each other.
Here's what it looks like for a character standing in shadow, looking at a light section, followed by more shadow.
As you can see, it is quite easy to imagine what it looks like to see a lit area behind a dark one. You don't have to imagine it, because it happens in real life.
anything created by magic is magical, but you know what I meant: it's not the same effect as the Darkness spell. It's not what we commonly refer to as"magical darkness". Lorewise, it's a Dimensional Tear
Yeah not all all magical Darkness are darkness , only this unique spell is.
No. Darkness doesn't work like fog, it works like darkness. If the spell created fog, it would say it created fog. The spell Fog Cloud creates fog. The spell Darkness creates darkness.
Darkness and fog work identically in 5e.
Then why does the rulebook mention "moonlit nights"? No such thing could exist if darkness was opaque.
Because the rules are badly written -- though the problem is actually the reverse. It's not that darkness is opaque, it's that, based on the rules in the PHB, all heavily obscured areas are in fact transparent and do not block vision through or out of the area, only into the area. The rules for mapped combat in the DMG do state that line of sight is denied for something that "blocks vision" -- but it leaves that mostly undefined, the vast majority of effects do not specify whether they block vision, and darkness is one of the few exceptions (it specifically mentions blocking darkvision).
No, it says it can't see through it (in the same sense that normal vision can't see through invisibility or illusions). That doesn't say anything about whether it's opaque. (I agree with you about the D&D vision rules being generally idiotic, that's the point I was trying to get across.)
That's not exactly true, otherwise you would be able to see through or out of Fog Cloud. The word "opaque" has to be taken into consideration when ruling on Heavily Obscured areas, since WotC also does. They used the word for a reason, and it's not for lip service/flavor text. Darkness specifically mentions Darkvision because it's a special sense that normally can see through mundane darkness; that's why it has a SAC entry for clarification. Mundane darkness should've instead had a separate entry that specifically describes it's interactions, but WoTC decided to treat it the same as fog for simplicity, and that's why people still debate on it.
Page 19 of the PHB specifically calls Darkness as opaque whether we like it or not, and it's partially correct. We normally don't notice this because of light pollution in cities, but go out at night on the countryside and it's a different story. If you're out camping with a new moon and no light, or in a forest that covers moonlight, GL trying to see anything (been there). As for moonlit nights, they provide enough illumination to be able to see at night on areas exposed to the light, so they can be considered Lightly Obscured. The rules might seem to be idiotic, but they're not meant to simulate real-world physics, just quick arbitration in a situation. For the spell, it specifically says Darkvision can't see through it, because it's a zone that absorbs all light under a specific level; that's why I said it behaves more like Fog Cloud than actual darkness, not that it creates a fog.
Not see-through. Darkness isn't opaque in the real world unless there is absence of light. Yes, you can see stars at night and the moon because of the light they emit, but there are limitations on how much you can see. I think the issue that's tripping people is that WotC lumped nighttime with Darkness, when it shouldn't be the case. Darkness refers to areas with absence of light--like a dark cave, or a closed room with no windows--which are so dark you can't see through it. Frankly, I'd just treat nights as Lightly Obscured while outdoors for game purposes, even if it's not RAW.
No, you can see through it just fine. You just can't see what's in it.
I've never tried to look through a section of darkness that suppressed all light entering and that was within it. so yeah it very easily can be viewed as a sphere of black that you can neither see into or through.
The word "suppress" doesn't appear in the spell description. It says "can't be illuminated", in other words, the light level can't be increased. That doesn't mean it's opaque. It means the light level can't be increased. Why do you keep making up stuff that the book doesn't say?
If the intent for devils sight was that it could see into the darkness spell it would specify it. As it is written devils sight is just Darkvision, it literally does nothing else as all devils sight is, is Darkvision which can see in magical darkness which all Darkvision can apparently do.
Reality is they really should have created 2 glossary sections one for darkness the other for magical darkness. And this was not some hidden flaw, people knew this in 2014. They had to write a sage advice as their rules don't make a lick of sense here, and now they will need to again. Maybe this time they will take the better route and have magical darkness block normal Darkvision no matter its source. So things like devils sight actually make some sense.
A distinction without a distinction. light can not enter it.
No, it is a distinction. It doesn't say light can't enter it, it says it can't illuminate it. Do you really not understand that those mean different things?
You didn't answer my question above. Why do you keep lying about what the book says?
You need light to illuminate an area. No light, no illumination. The spell is meant to block nonmagical light, normal and darkvision since 5E came out (it was slightly different in earlier editions), and that's still the same in 2024. It's treated as such in official games, conventions, AL, etc. You're trying to apply real world logic to a gamified feature, but the spell does what it says it does. A long time ago Jeremy Crawford explained in Twitter that nonmagical light cannot penetrate the area created by Darkness, and though his tweets are not considered official, it shows the design intent they had.
This has gone on for nine pages now, and folk are beginning to rely more on personal anecdotes and natural language to make arguments, and at oft times growing uncivil.
There has been some very fascinating digging into the RAW and some good sleuthing here, but I think it's time to let this topic rest for a bit.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support