The only way for magical darkness to actually act like heavy fog and block vision both ways is to 1. Have the effect itself say so, or 2. Have darkness as a whole behave that way.
RAW, normal darkness and heavy fog behave identically (other than one being transparent to darkvision); the moment you start treating them differently, you're in house rule territory. It's a rather common house rule because it's pretty obvious that realistically they don't behave the same, but it means that, as far as rules text goes, there's no way of knowing which way the darkness spell is supposed to work, because they don't even admit that there are two different ways heavy obscurement can work.
I actually like that idea that in 2024 fog and darkness both Heavily Obscure the area in the same way, but the reason fog also obscures things outside to those within is because it's in the way. That actually makes a lot of sense. I also like the explanation that the meaning of opacity is redefined by the next sentence, as that is consistent with how the rules are often written and with what the Glossary says, and it makes a lot more sense than a werewolf not being able to see the full moon.
I find Paradox_Traveler's take to be extremely flawed. "It's magical, therefore it must be creating this exception from outside the current ruleset" doesn't hold water. If you want to stick to 1st edition, go right ahead. But please stop presenting 1st edition arguments that have no bearing on this 5th edition discussion.
Well when 5th edition is going to mirror the same concept of magical darkness as the original one that the entire game is based on, then no I most certainly will not stop presenting arguments that relate to and defend the same premise that has existed for quite some time.
Magical Darkness is an effect that does not allow any type of normal visual rules to circumvent the fact that when inside, outside, or in between an area of magical darkness, the ability to see through that area is impossible without the aid of special abilities and therefore creates an area that heavily obscures the ability to see.
You can not stand inside an area of magical darkness and still have the ability to see anything outside of it, for magical darkness is not the same as normal darkness and so it functions quite differently and must be therefore defined differently.
You can not be on the complete opposite side of an area of magical darkness holding a flaming torch and expect to be able to see said torch from inside the area of magical darkness, nor can you expect to be on the complete opposite side of the area of magical darkness opposite a burning torch and expect to see the lit torch through the area of magical darkness, and finally if your holding a lit torch inside an area of magical darkness, you can not see that torch no matter where you are located.
Magical Darkness in D&D is not the same as a video game that takes liberties in attempting to create an area of darkness that looks like a dark cloud, nor is magical darkness in D&D the same as magical darkness in other ttRPG’s.
Magical darkness in D&D is an area of completely voided light that is opaque and can not be seen through or out of or into without special aid.
And the exception isn’t from outside the RAW, it’s literally part of the rules as written, and has been for quite a long time.
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.
" 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 video provided demonstrates what an area of magical darkness would look and act like without a source of light within it’s area.
No light in, no light out, and heavy total obscuring of vision.
Magical ain’t it. Just like how the rules attempt to define how magical darkness works.
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.
Well when 5th edition is going to mirror the same concept of magical darkness as the original one that the entire game is based on...
5th edition ISN'T mirroring the magical darkness from first edition. The whole point of having a new edition is to play by different rules. All of your points about magical darkness are just as incorrect as the first time you said them. 5th edition makes no attempt to define magical darkness in any special way, which means magical darkness is darkness that is magical. That's it.
Well when 5th edition is going to mirror the same concept of magical darkness as the original one that the entire game is based on...
5th edition ISN'T mirroring the magical darkness from first edition. The whole point of having a new edition is to play by different rules. All of your points about magical darkness are just as incorrect as the first time you said them. 5th edition makes no attempt to define magical darkness in any special way, which means magical darkness is darkness that is magical. That's it.
And as was stated before, we shall agree to disagree. If you know magical darkness is darkness that is magical, then the magical description of how the darkness spell works is the specific mechanics that supersede the general of how magical darkness functions differently than normal darkness.
Can’t claim magical darkness is the same as normal darkness except when something inside is trying desperately to gain an advantage that shouldn’t exist if both types of darkness are the same.
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.
5th edition ISN'T mirroring the magical darkness from first edition. The whole point of having a new edition is to play by different rules. All of your points about magical darkness are just as incorrect as the first time you said them. 5th edition makes no attempt to define magical darkness in any special way, which means magical darkness is darkness that is magical. That's it.
Which means it works just like fog, because 5th edition also doesn't try to define darkness as working differently.
Which means it works just like fog, because 5th edition also doesn't try to define darkness as working differently.
In terms of the Heavily Obscured mechanic this is true. Darkness does indeed work just like fog. Both phenomena cause an area to become Heavily Obscured. Meaning, they both create an area such that objects located within that area cannot be seen by anyone. The text lists both of these as examples for this mechanic:
. . . such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage . . .
However, this is untrue for the Line of Sight mechanic. In that case Darkness does not work like fog. One is a physical obstacle which obstructs the straight line between two locations and the other is not. Note that the text does not list both of these as examples of the Line of Sight mechanic:
. . . such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog . . .
In order for these to work the same way with respect to the Line of Sight mechanic, a DM would have to declare that the Darkness phenomenon behaves similarly to a stone wall or a thick curtain or a dense cloud of fog within the context of attempting to trace a line between two locations for the purposes of establishing a "line of sight" in the manner in which that term is normally used. Such a ruling would go against common sense and the nature of how our own world works which is the typical framework that we begin with when playing this game unless exceptions are explicitly mentioned.
Such a ruling would go against common sense and the nature of how our own world works which is the typical framework that we begin with when playing this game unless exceptions are explicitly mentioned.
And I guess this is why we won't agree. I accept that the rules as written are stupid and completely lacking of common sense with regards to a lot of things concerning vision and how we see things. Of course that doesn't mean that I use those stupid rules when I play the game but I can make use of that knowledge to understand this and other rules that are based on the same concepts.
IMO this is the most important part of knowing and understanding RAW, not to be bound by it when playing the game but so that I can understand how any houserule I make affect not just the direct rule I am changing but also how it affects any related rules/corner cases that might come up in other situations.
However, this is untrue for the Line of Sight mechanic. In that case Darkness does not work like fog. One is a physical obstacle which obstructs the straight line between two locations and the other is not. Note that the text does not list both of these as examples of the Line of Sight mechanic:
Now, find an example of a spell or ability that creates a heavily obscured area that actually specifically states whether or not it blocks line of sight. There are some things that create barriers that are specified as blocking line of sight, but I'm not aware of any cases where something creating a 'heavily obscured area' actually states whether the area is opaque. Which makes me assume that all heavily obscured areas behave the same.
However, this is untrue for the Line of Sight mechanic. In that case Darkness does not work like fog. One is a physical obstacle which obstructs the straight line between two locations and the other is not. Note that the text does not list both of these as examples of the Line of Sight mechanic:
Now, find an example of a spell or ability that creates a heavily obscured area that actually specifically states whether or not it blocks line of sight. There are some things that create barriers that are specified as blocking line of sight, but I'm not aware of any cases where something creating a 'heavily obscured area' actually states whether the area is opaque. Which makes me assume that all heavily obscured areas behave the same.
The only example that I can think of off the cuff might be the new version of the Hunger of Hadar spell which now creates a sphere of magical Darkness and also goes out of its way to explicitly specify that creatures within the area have the Blinded condition. This is not exactly the same as saying that the effect creates an obstruction to a creature's Line of Sight, but it's sort of an adjacent concept. The notable point is that this is explicitly stated within that spell description. Meaning, by default a creature within an area of Darkness would not have the Blinded condition, but this particular brand of magical Darkness does explicitly cause this consequence.
It is true that all heavily obscured areas behave the same with respect to the Heavily Obscured area mechanic -- they all prevent all creatures from being able to see anything in the area.
As far as subsequently adjudicating Line of Sight for these areas, that seems to have been left up to the DM to make a ruling on a case-by-case basis which would be based on the flavor description of the actual cause of the obscurement. If the area is obscured by foliage or fog, then a DM is likely to rule that the actual foliage or fog interrupts Line of Sight because it is a substance within the area which physically interrupts a path from one location to another. But there isn't really any reason why a DM should make that same ruling when dealing with a phenomenon of Darkness. Darkness isn't really a description of something that we might imagine could actually get in the way of anything and it's not listed as an example of something that interrupts Line of Sight. It's just an area that lacks illumination.
Another example of a Heavily Obscured area that does not block Line of Sight might be if a DM creates a custom world where some long-lost magical effect is affecting a given area and that area is described as an "area of invisibility". So, within this area all objects are invisible. Such an area would obscure these objects. If you attempt to see such objects, you would have the Blinded condition because those objects are in a Heavily Obscured area. But nothing about the area itself or the magical effect that resides within that area is actually blocking Line of Sight. If this area is actually empty, then all vision related to this area would be completely normal even though it's a Heavily Obscured area.
Anyway, hopefully some of what I'm saying makes sense to some people here. I fully agree that these rules could be better written and that they would benefit from some tweaking for clarity. But I do feel strongly that what I'm describing is one valid way to interpret what is written and is extremely likely to be what is intended.
To the casual observer, that magical darkness is an opaque structure that absorbs light and makes it impossible without special ability it see through it, in it or out from it.
Magical darkness is not the same or equivalent to IRL darkness and as such has to be distinctly handled and addressed specifically to have that distinction made clear
This is false. The rules don't say that magical darkness is opaque. [...]
For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere. Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Exploration:
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque.
Then the entire universe is dark. Actually, it's even worse - by using the word "opaque", they have granted darkness the same properties as a solid wall.
No one can see anything, ever. Not even with darkvision.
How does d&d rules writing keep getting worse with every edition?
This isn't even difficult to fix. Look, I'll do it right now.
"Creatures and objects in darkness can't be seen without a special sense such as darkvision or blindsight. Magical darkness works like darkness, except that darkvision doesn't defeat it."
No reference to obscurement or opacity. No strange or unexpected behavior. Darkness and magical darkness work like our intuition expects. I'm not even getting paid. Why can't the """professional""" designers figure this basic shit out? This isn't even a magical effect that we have no intuition for, like planar travel or wish. We already know how darkness should work. We have darkness in real life. Just write rules that describe how it works in real life. God damn.
To the casual observer, that magical darkness is an opaque structure that absorbs light and makes it impossible without special ability it see through it, in it or out from it.
Magical darkness is not the same or equivalent to IRL darkness and as such has to be distinctly handled and addressed specifically to have that distinction made clear
This is false. The rules don't say that magical darkness is opaque. [...]
For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere. Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Exploration:
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque.
Then the entire universe is dark. Actually, it's even worse - by using the word "opaque", they have granted darkness the same properties as a solid wall.
No one can see anything, ever. Not even with darkvision.
How does d&d rules writing keep getting worse with every edition?
This isn't even difficult to fix. Look, I'll do it right now.
"Creatures and objects in darkness can't be seen without a special sense such as darkvision or blindsight. Magical darkness works like darkness, except that darkvision doesn't defeat it."
No reference to obscurement or opacity. No strange or unexpected behavior. Darkness and magical darkness work like our intuition expects. I'm not even getting paid. Why can't the """professional""" designers figure this basic shit out? This isn't even a magical effect that we have no intuition for, like planar travel or wish. We already know how darkness should work. We have darkness in real life. Just write rules that describe how it works in real life. God damn.
Thing is though, only magical darkness functions differently then normal darkness, why because having darkvision in normal darkness is an advantage, and finding a way to level the playing field is fun.
The designers tried changing how magical darkness works to how normal darkness works and people hated the living snot out of it, so they went back to how it initially worked and the ones who hate it now are the same ones who want it changed again.
Fair rules, fair game. Magic darkness makes the universe a dark enough place to where darkvision no longer remains an advantage, and unless you’re very special it’s pretty hard to see nothing.
At least many are willing to work to distinguish the difference between the two separate versions of darkness as to not completely tip the scales in one direction or the other, but you can’t have the best of both worlds and expect the normies to think it’s a good thing for them.
Having the ability to shut darkvision down sometimes makes for better results.
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.
For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere. Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Exploration:
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque.
Then the entire universe is dark. Actually, it's even worse - by using the word "opaque", they have granted darkness the same properties as a solid wall.
No one can see anything, ever. Not even with darkvision. [...]
Then the entire universe is dark. Actually, it's even worse - by using the word "opaque", they have granted darkness the same properties as a solid wall.
No one can see anything, ever. Not even with darkvision.
How does d&d rules writing keep getting worse with every edition?
Nah, mundane darkness is automatically removed by applying light to it, and darkvision means you treat it as dim light (and therefore not opaque).
I wouldn't say rules writing in general is that bad in 5e (and it's certainly not a general property that the writing gets worse with each edition; 3e was clearer than AD&D, 4e was clearer than 3e), but for some reason the rules for perception are a complete disaster in 5e and always have been.
Another thing to keep in mind about the Darkness spell is that the spell description itself goes through quite a lot of trouble and word count to describe a method for casting a spell onto an object that you can then pick up and carry this AoE around with you.
The reason why someone might do this is because the AoE provides a buff to those within it. So, you carry it around and if you need to be able to see something nearby, you turn it off by covering it with a bowl or a helm. Then, if an enemy walks around the corner you can quickly turn it back on, plunging your own location into magical darkness and now your enemy cannot see you, not even if they have darkvision.
A Heavily Obscured area renders you Blinded when trying to see something in the area, not something outside the area. The idea is that you are in darkness but your opponent is well lit, so you get advantage and they get disadvantage.
Some areas of heavy obscurement, like fog, are also a visual obstacle themselves, blocking line of sight. This is why Fog Cloud can't help in the same way.
I don't rule most Heavily Obscured that way. You first have to see through the area before seeing beyond, since vision goes from you on out. If something opaque obscure vision, it doesn't matter where you're looking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW, normal darkness and heavy fog behave identically (other than one being transparent to darkvision); the moment you start treating them differently, you're in house rule territory. It's a rather common house rule because it's pretty obvious that realistically they don't behave the same, but it means that, as far as rules text goes, there's no way of knowing which way the darkness spell is supposed to work, because they don't even admit that there are two different ways heavy obscurement can work.
Pretty sure that's heat. Light is electromagnetic radiation and photons. (because quantum mechanics is weird)
Well when 5th edition is going to mirror the same concept of magical darkness as the original one that the entire game is based on, then no I most certainly will not stop presenting arguments that relate to and defend the same premise that has existed for quite some time.
Magical Darkness is an effect that does not allow any type of normal visual rules to circumvent the fact that when inside, outside, or in between an area of magical darkness, the ability to see through that area is impossible without the aid of special abilities and therefore creates an area that heavily obscures the ability to see.
You can not stand inside an area of magical darkness and still have the ability to see anything outside of it, for magical darkness is not the same as normal darkness and so it functions quite differently and must be therefore defined differently.
You can not be on the complete opposite side of an area of magical darkness holding a flaming torch and expect to be able to see said torch from inside the area of magical darkness, nor can you expect to be on the complete opposite side of the area of magical darkness opposite a burning torch and expect to see the lit torch through the area of magical darkness, and finally if your holding a lit torch inside an area of magical darkness, you can not see that torch no matter where you are located.
Magical Darkness in D&D is not the same as a video game that takes liberties in attempting to create an area of darkness that looks like a dark cloud, nor is magical darkness in D&D the same as magical darkness in other ttRPG’s.
Magical darkness in D&D is an area of completely voided light that is opaque and can not be seen through or out of or into without special aid.
And the exception isn’t from outside the RAW, it’s literally part of the rules as written, and has been for quite a long time.
" 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 suggest watching this video it‘s very illuminating:
" 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 video provided demonstrates what an area of magical darkness would look and act like without a source of light within it’s area.
No light in, no light out, and heavy total obscuring of vision.
Magical ain’t it. Just like how the rules attempt to define how magical darkness works.
" 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.
5th edition ISN'T mirroring the magical darkness from first edition. The whole point of having a new edition is to play by different rules. All of your points about magical darkness are just as incorrect as the first time you said them. 5th edition makes no attempt to define magical darkness in any special way, which means magical darkness is darkness that is magical. That's it.
And as was stated before, we shall agree to disagree. If you know magical darkness is darkness that is magical, then the magical description of how the darkness spell works is the specific mechanics that supersede the general of how magical darkness functions differently than normal darkness.
Can’t claim magical darkness is the same as normal darkness except when something inside is trying desperately to gain an advantage that shouldn’t exist if both types of darkness are the same.
" 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.
Which means it works just like fog, because 5th edition also doesn't try to define darkness as working differently.
In terms of the Heavily Obscured mechanic this is true. Darkness does indeed work just like fog. Both phenomena cause an area to become Heavily Obscured. Meaning, they both create an area such that objects located within that area cannot be seen by anyone. The text lists both of these as examples for this mechanic:
However, this is untrue for the Line of Sight mechanic. In that case Darkness does not work like fog. One is a physical obstacle which obstructs the straight line between two locations and the other is not. Note that the text does not list both of these as examples of the Line of Sight mechanic:
In order for these to work the same way with respect to the Line of Sight mechanic, a DM would have to declare that the Darkness phenomenon behaves similarly to a stone wall or a thick curtain or a dense cloud of fog within the context of attempting to trace a line between two locations for the purposes of establishing a "line of sight" in the manner in which that term is normally used. Such a ruling would go against common sense and the nature of how our own world works which is the typical framework that we begin with when playing this game unless exceptions are explicitly mentioned.
And I guess this is why we won't agree. I accept that the rules as written are stupid and completely lacking of common sense with regards to a lot of things concerning vision and how we see things. Of course that doesn't mean that I use those stupid rules when I play the game but I can make use of that knowledge to understand this and other rules that are based on the same concepts.
IMO this is the most important part of knowing and understanding RAW, not to be bound by it when playing the game but so that I can understand how any houserule I make affect not just the direct rule I am changing but also how it affects any related rules/corner cases that might come up in other situations.
Now, find an example of a spell or ability that creates a heavily obscured area that actually specifically states whether or not it blocks line of sight. There are some things that create barriers that are specified as blocking line of sight, but I'm not aware of any cases where something creating a 'heavily obscured area' actually states whether the area is opaque. Which makes me assume that all heavily obscured areas behave the same.
The only example that I can think of off the cuff might be the new version of the Hunger of Hadar spell which now creates a sphere of magical Darkness and also goes out of its way to explicitly specify that creatures within the area have the Blinded condition. This is not exactly the same as saying that the effect creates an obstruction to a creature's Line of Sight, but it's sort of an adjacent concept. The notable point is that this is explicitly stated within that spell description. Meaning, by default a creature within an area of Darkness would not have the Blinded condition, but this particular brand of magical Darkness does explicitly cause this consequence.
It is true that all heavily obscured areas behave the same with respect to the Heavily Obscured area mechanic -- they all prevent all creatures from being able to see anything in the area.
As far as subsequently adjudicating Line of Sight for these areas, that seems to have been left up to the DM to make a ruling on a case-by-case basis which would be based on the flavor description of the actual cause of the obscurement. If the area is obscured by foliage or fog, then a DM is likely to rule that the actual foliage or fog interrupts Line of Sight because it is a substance within the area which physically interrupts a path from one location to another. But there isn't really any reason why a DM should make that same ruling when dealing with a phenomenon of Darkness. Darkness isn't really a description of something that we might imagine could actually get in the way of anything and it's not listed as an example of something that interrupts Line of Sight. It's just an area that lacks illumination.
Another example of a Heavily Obscured area that does not block Line of Sight might be if a DM creates a custom world where some long-lost magical effect is affecting a given area and that area is described as an "area of invisibility". So, within this area all objects are invisible. Such an area would obscure these objects. If you attempt to see such objects, you would have the Blinded condition because those objects are in a Heavily Obscured area. But nothing about the area itself or the magical effect that resides within that area is actually blocking Line of Sight. If this area is actually empty, then all vision related to this area would be completely normal even though it's a Heavily Obscured area.
Anyway, hopefully some of what I'm saying makes sense to some people here. I fully agree that these rules could be better written and that they would benefit from some tweaking for clarity. But I do feel strongly that what I'm describing is one valid way to interpret what is written and is extremely likely to be what is intended.
Then the entire universe is dark. Actually, it's even worse - by using the word "opaque", they have granted darkness the same properties as a solid wall.
No one can see anything, ever. Not even with darkvision.
How does d&d rules writing keep getting worse with every edition?
This isn't even difficult to fix. Look, I'll do it right now.
"Creatures and objects in darkness can't be seen without a special sense such as darkvision or blindsight. Magical darkness works like darkness, except that darkvision doesn't defeat it."
No reference to obscurement or opacity. No strange or unexpected behavior. Darkness and magical darkness work like our intuition expects. I'm not even getting paid. Why can't the """professional""" designers figure this basic shit out? This isn't even a magical effect that we have no intuition for, like planar travel or wish. We already know how darkness should work. We have darkness in real life. Just write rules that describe how it works in real life. God damn.
Thing is though, only magical darkness functions differently then normal darkness, why because having darkvision in normal darkness is an advantage, and finding a way to level the playing field is fun.
The designers tried changing how magical darkness works to how normal darkness works and people hated the living snot out of it, so they went back to how it initially worked and the ones who hate it now are the same ones who want it changed again.
Fair rules, fair game. Magic darkness makes the universe a dark enough place to where darkvision no longer remains an advantage, and unless you’re very special it’s pretty hard to see nothing.
At least many are willing to work to distinguish the difference between the two separate versions of darkness as to not completely tip the scales in one direction or the other, but you can’t have the best of both worlds and expect the normies to think it’s a good thing for them.
Having the ability to shut darkvision down sometimes makes for better results.
" 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.
Well, I left my opinion previously:
Nah, mundane darkness is automatically removed by applying light to it, and darkvision means you treat it as dim light (and therefore not opaque).
I wouldn't say rules writing in general is that bad in 5e (and it's certainly not a general property that the writing gets worse with each edition; 3e was clearer than AD&D, 4e was clearer than 3e), but for some reason the rules for perception are a complete disaster in 5e and always have been.
Another thing to keep in mind about the Darkness spell is that the spell description itself goes through quite a lot of trouble and word count to describe a method for casting a spell onto an object that you can then pick up and carry this AoE around with you.
The reason why someone might do this is because the AoE provides a buff to those within it. So, you carry it around and if you need to be able to see something nearby, you turn it off by covering it with a bowl or a helm. Then, if an enemy walks around the corner you can quickly turn it back on, plunging your own location into magical darkness and now your enemy cannot see you, not even if they have darkvision.
In Darkness you can't see having Blinded condition. It's not a buff unless you have a way to specifically see in it such as Devil's Sight.
A Heavily Obscured area renders you Blinded when trying to see something in the area, not something outside the area. The idea is that you are in darkness but your opponent is well lit, so you get advantage and they get disadvantage.
Some areas of heavy obscurement, like fog, are also a visual obstacle themselves, blocking line of sight. This is why Fog Cloud can't help in the same way.
I don't rule most Heavily Obscured that way. You first have to see through the area before seeing beyond, since vision goes from you on out. If something opaque obscure vision, it doesn't matter where you're looking.