My take on it is that the rules are hopelessly written, but being able to see out of it (without some other special abilities) is beyond the intended power level of a 2nd level spell.
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.
I do wonder who the brilliant individual is that answers Sage Advice now.
Oh thats right it’s just advice, not actual rules.
RAW must stand on its own context without any intent implied by the designer.
So when RAW says otherwise, RAW says the spell of magical darkness specifically implies the rules for any magical effect that creates a similar effect is the RAW of how that Specific mechanic works.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium.
SAC is actually official, meaning anything stated within carries the same value as RAW from the books.
That said...
Your last line that I snipped there? Wrong. Spells and abilities do exactly what they say they do. If all magical darkness blocked darkvision, there would be a general rule about that. Because there isn't, any magical darkness that blocks darkvision must be spelled out.
I can think of two other spells right away that create magical darkness. Maddening Darkness specifies that it blocks darkvision. Hallow does not, so darkvision will still see through the magical darkness it creates.
You seem to have lost a bit there:
“A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.” Sage Advice Compendium( 2014/24 )
Magical darkness is the exception to the rule that is specially written to define how any magical darkness works.
So SAC is not truly official, what was stated previously still stands, and you can have a nice day.
Magical darkness is the Darkness spell defined. Hallow just changes the shape and level needed to dispel the darkness effect. And no you can’t see out of it with darkvision no matter how hard you cry about it, dem’s da Rules As Written.
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.
“A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.” Sage Advice Compendium( 2014/24 )
Magical darkness is the exception to the rule that is specially written to define how any magical darkness works.
So SAC is not truly official, what was stated previously still stands, and you can have a nice day.
Magical darkness is the Darkness spell defined. Hallow just changes the shape and level needed to dispel the darkness effect. And no you can’t see out of it with darkvision no matter how hard you cry about it, dem’s da Rules As Written.
A DM is allowed to change any rule. That line is just reiterating a base part of Rule 0. For your argument to actually hold up, you'd have to show where the Darkness spell creates a standard for all forms of magical darkness. It doesn't say it does, so where's the rule that does?
[Step 1] 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.
[Step 2] You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
[Step 2 reworded] You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in an area of magical Darkness.
Are you in an area of magical Darkness and trying to see something in that area? You have the Blinded condition.
The underlined portion above does not appear in the text. It's a made-up house rule. The actual text, word-for-word directly from the Glossary says this:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
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.
have absolutely no logical connection to each other. An effect that causes the Blinded condition when trying to see something in the effect's area is not at all the same as claiming that "In Darkness you can't see having Blinded condition", which is a false claim. There is no text which says that you have the Blinded condition while in Darkness and therefore you cannot see.
So, I say again:
Check again. The Darkness spell does not say anything about causing any creature to have the Blinded condition. So, it doesn't do that.
The portion TarodNet put above is not a houserule, it's rules as written put in context together. The game is full of logical connections to make because they codified language not to repeat themselsevs constantly.
Does Heavily Obscured makes you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there ? Yes.
It's the same logic why under Invisibility your attack rolls have Advantage. Because you have the Invisible condition, which say so, rather than the spell repeating it.
“A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.” Sage Advice Compendium( 2014/24 )
Magical darkness is the exception to the rule that is specially written to define how any magical darkness works.
So SAC is not truly official, what was stated previously still stands, and you can have a nice day.
Magical darkness is the Darkness spell defined. Hallow just changes the shape and level needed to dispel the darkness effect. And no you can’t see out of it with darkvision no matter how hard you cry about it, dem’s da Rules As Written.
A DM is allowed to change any rule. That line is just reiterating a base part of Rule 0. For your argument to actually hold up, you'd have to show where the Darkness spell creates a standard for all forms of magical darkness. It doesn't say it does, so where's the rule that does?
The spell itself is the definition of the standard for ALL magical darkness, otherwise SAC wouldn’t have to make an Ai generated entry in an attempt to give darkvision characters an advantage when in magical darkness, because that is exactly what that SAC entry does.
People complain that darkvision doesn’t work in magical darkness and complain magical darkness should act as normal darkness, you know like 4e tried to mimic how PF does, and sure enough here comes a SAC entry that parrots the exact wording those who think magical darkness should behave just the same as normal mundane darkness.
It’s been debated for years, you don’t get to use darkvision and the magical darkness spells to make a hunters blind to gain the upper hand. If you can see out of an area of magical darkness, then I should be able to see through that same area, but the very spell of darkness itself tells you darkvision is useless in or through it.
Darkvision does not allow you to see through magical darkness at all and that is the true RAW of the game, and some people just do not like the fact that magical darkness reduces the fun and utility for that form of vision.
As I stated elsewhere, the introduction in 2014 states that magic is the exception to the rule, and magical darkness itself is the exception that defines how it works differently than normal darkness. Otherwise there is no point for the magical spell that creates a magical effect called darkness to have wording that clearly states it blocks darkvision at all.
You and others don’t like that, then house rule it however you want, but as far as RAW is concerned magical darkness blocks darkvision no matter what feature or spell or whatever creates magical darkness.
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 spell itself is the definition of the standard for ALL magical darkness, otherwise SAC wouldn’t have to make an Ai generated entry in an attempt to give darkvision characters an advantage when in magical darkness, because that is exactly what that SAC entry does.
I disagree, Darkness is not a standards for all magical darkness but a specific example of one.
I would note that darkness specifically states that darkvision can’t see through it -- which is to say, it's opaque to darkvision. It does not say the same for normal sight, but arguing "you can see out of a darkness spell as long as you don't have darkvision" seems perverse.
I would note that darkness specifically states that darkvision can’t see through it -- which is to say, it's opaque to darkvision. It does not say the same for normal sight, but arguing "you can see out of a darkness spell as long as you don't have darkvision" seems perverse.
It wouldn't need to specify normal sight not being able to see because Darkness already cover that.
The spell Hunger of Hadar is another example of magical Darkness which doesn't block Darkvision per se.
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.
Like I said, no point in having darkvision blocked out in magical darkness if you can use it to see out from the effect.
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.
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.)
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.
This is incorrect. The concept of magical darkness is a general concept that isn't really defined anywhere in the game. The Darkness spell is something else. It's just a spell. It's a spell which does exactly what its spell description says that it does. It says that it creates an area of magical Darkness so that's what it does. It goes on to explain some specific rules for how magical Darkness behaves for this specific spell, not for the whole game in general. Spells never establish general rules that are used throughout the whole game.
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.
Having the Blinded condition only when attempting to look into a specific area is obviously not the same as something causing you to have the Blinded condition in general. In one case, you just cannot see the particular thing that you are trying to see and in the other case you cannot see at all. As long as you are not attempting to see something that is obscured then there is no reason for a special ability such as Devil's Sight. You just use your eyes to see as normal.
I would note that darkness specifically states that darkvision can’t see through it -- which is to say, it's opaque to darkvision. It does not say the same for normal sight, but arguing "you can see out of a darkness spell as long as you don't have darkvision" seems perverse.
There is more than one meaning or connotation for the word "through". The way that it is used in this context is more akin to a statement such as "he was unable to see through the deception". It's not using the term in a manner in which you might expect in some sort of a Line of Sight discussion because the concept of Darkness and of Heavily Obscured areas in general is not a discussion about Line of Sight. It's about the ability to perceive the existence of certain things. Such perception is lowered by Lightly Obscured areas that lightly obscure those things and such perception is totally unavailable when such things are heavily obscured by Heavily Obscured areas.
By default, the darkvision ability allows a creature to treat an area of Darkness as if it were a Lightly Obscured area by "seeing through" the Darkness. The Darkness spell is simply disallowing that by declaring that "Darkvision can't see through it". I agree that they probably should have chosen different words to convey this point.
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.)
This is incorrect. In 2024 the normal Darkness effect uses a capital "D":
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.
There is more than one meaning or connotation for the word "through". The way that it is used in this context is more akin to a statement such as "he was unable to see through the deception".
No, there really isn't. Seeing 'through' implies that there is a barrier to sight, which can be figurative (in the case of a deception) or literal (in the case of a wall), and that the barrier is not affecting you. Given that darkvision does not refer to seeing through darkness, I assume that in the case of darkness it has the normal meaning of the word.
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.
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.
This is incorrect. The concept of magical darkness is a general concept that isn't really defined anywhere in the game. The Darkness spell is something else. It's just a spell. It's a spell which does exactly what its spell description says that it does. It says that it creates an area of magical Darkness so that's what it does. It goes on to explain some specific rules for how magical Darkness behaves for this specific spell, not for the whole game in general. Spells never establish general rules that are used throughout the whole game.
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.
Having the Blinded condition only when attempting to look into a specific area is obviously not the same as something causing you to have the Blinded condition in general. In one case, you just cannot see the particular thing that you are trying to see and in the other case you cannot see at all. As long as you are not attempting to see something that is obscured then there is no reason for a special ability such as Devil's Sight. You just use your eyes to see as normal.
I would note that darkness specifically states that darkvision can’t see through it -- which is to say, it's opaque to darkvision. It does not say the same for normal sight, but arguing "you can see out of a darkness spell as long as you don't have darkvision" seems perverse.
There is more than one meaning or connotation for the word "through". The way that it is used in this context is more akin to a statement such as "he was unable to see through the deception". It's not using the term in a manner in which you might expect in some sort of a Line of Sight discussion because the concept of Darkness and of Heavily Obscured areas in general is not a discussion about Line of Sight. It's about the ability to perceive the existence of certain things. Such perception is lowered by Lightly Obscured areas that lightly obscure those things and such perception is totally unavailable when such things are heavily obscured by Heavily Obscured areas.
By default, the darkvision ability allows a creature to treat an area of Darkness as if it were a Lightly Obscured area by "seeing through" the Darkness. The Darkness spell is simply disallowing that by declaring that "Darkvision can't see through it". I agree that they probably should have chosen different words to convey this point.
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.)
This is incorrect. In 2024 the normal Darkness effect uses a capital "D":
Darkness
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured.
The spell defines how magical Darkness changes the rules of normal darkness, and magical Darkness as a magical effect is a feature of a great many different elements of the game, would you like to have that text repeated everywhere it needs to be?
Or do you want it put in one place and just have to reference it by Name so you can save money and space not having to repeat the same mechanic every time only making changes as needed?
And magic makes up a significant amount of spells that make rules, look at the “Invisibly Spell” it defines how the condition of the same name works, so just the spell of Invisibly means nothing as well when spells can’t set rules guidelines?
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.
My take on it is that the rules are hopelessly written, but being able to see out of it (without some other special abilities) is beyond the intended power level of a 2nd level spell.
You seem to have lost a bit there:
“A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.” Sage Advice Compendium( 2014/24 )
Magical darkness is the exception to the rule that is specially written to define how any magical darkness works.
So SAC is not truly official, what was stated previously still stands, and you can have a nice day.
Magical darkness is the Darkness spell defined. Hallow just changes the shape and level needed to dispel the darkness effect. And no you can’t see out of it with darkvision no matter how hard you cry about it, dem’s da Rules As Written.
" 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.
A DM is allowed to change any rule. That line is just reiterating a base part of Rule 0. For your argument to actually hold up, you'd have to show where the Darkness spell creates a standard for all forms of magical darkness. It doesn't say it does, so where's the rule that does?
The portion TarodNet put above is not a houserule, it's rules as written put in context together. The game is full of logical connections to make because they codified language not to repeat themselsevs constantly.
Does Darkness create Darkness ? Yes.
Does Darkness is Heavily Obscured ? Yes.
Does Heavily Obscured makes you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there ? Yes.
It's the same logic why under Invisibility your attack rolls have Advantage. Because you have the Invisible condition, which say so, rather than the spell repeating it.
The spell itself is the definition of the standard for ALL magical darkness, otherwise SAC wouldn’t have to make an Ai generated entry in an attempt to give darkvision characters an advantage when in magical darkness, because that is exactly what that SAC entry does.
People complain that darkvision doesn’t work in magical darkness and complain magical darkness should act as normal darkness, you know like 4e tried to mimic how PF does, and sure enough here comes a SAC entry that parrots the exact wording those who think magical darkness should behave just the same as normal mundane darkness.
It’s been debated for years, you don’t get to use darkvision and the magical darkness spells to make a hunters blind to gain the upper hand. If you can see out of an area of magical darkness, then I should be able to see through that same area, but the very spell of darkness itself tells you darkvision is useless in or through it.
Darkvision does not allow you to see through magical darkness at all and that is the true RAW of the game, and some people just do not like the fact that magical darkness reduces the fun and utility for that form of vision.
As I stated elsewhere, the introduction in 2014 states that magic is the exception to the rule, and magical darkness itself is the exception that defines how it works differently than normal darkness. Otherwise there is no point for the magical spell that creates a magical effect called darkness to have wording that clearly states it blocks darkvision at all.
You and others don’t like that, then house rule it however you want, but as far as RAW is concerned magical darkness blocks darkvision no matter what feature or spell or whatever creates magical darkness.
" 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 disagree, Darkness is not a standards for all magical darkness but a specific example of one.
The spell Hunger of Hadar is another example of magical Darkness which doesn't block Darkvision per se.
I would note that darkness specifically states that darkvision can’t see through it -- which is to say, it's opaque to darkvision. It does not say the same for normal sight, but arguing "you can see out of a darkness spell as long as you don't have darkvision" seems perverse.
It wouldn't need to specify normal sight not being able to see because Darkness already cover that.
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.
Like I said, no point in having darkvision blocked out in magical darkness if you can use it to see out from the effect.
" 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.
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.)
" 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 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.
This is incorrect. The concept of magical darkness is a general concept that isn't really defined anywhere in the game. The Darkness spell is something else. It's just a spell. It's a spell which does exactly what its spell description says that it does. It says that it creates an area of magical Darkness so that's what it does. It goes on to explain some specific rules for how magical Darkness behaves for this specific spell, not for the whole game in general. Spells never establish general rules that are used throughout the whole game.
Your last statement above doesn't support what you claimed earlier though, which was this:
Having the Blinded condition only when attempting to look into a specific area is obviously not the same as something causing you to have the Blinded condition in general. In one case, you just cannot see the particular thing that you are trying to see and in the other case you cannot see at all. As long as you are not attempting to see something that is obscured then there is no reason for a special ability such as Devil's Sight. You just use your eyes to see as normal.
There is more than one meaning or connotation for the word "through". The way that it is used in this context is more akin to a statement such as "he was unable to see through the deception". It's not using the term in a manner in which you might expect in some sort of a Line of Sight discussion because the concept of Darkness and of Heavily Obscured areas in general is not a discussion about Line of Sight. It's about the ability to perceive the existence of certain things. Such perception is lowered by Lightly Obscured areas that lightly obscure those things and such perception is totally unavailable when such things are heavily obscured by Heavily Obscured areas.
By default, the darkvision ability allows a creature to treat an area of Darkness as if it were a Lightly Obscured area by "seeing through" the Darkness. The Darkness spell is simply disallowing that by declaring that "Darkvision can't see through it". I agree that they probably should have chosen different words to convey this point.
This is incorrect. In 2024 the normal Darkness effect uses a capital "D":
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.
That means it's a reference to the rules glossary, not the spell.
No, there really isn't. Seeing 'through' implies that there is a barrier to sight, which can be figurative (in the case of a deception) or literal (in the case of a wall), and that the barrier is not affecting you. Given that darkvision does not refer to seeing through darkness, I assume that in the case of darkness it has the normal meaning of the word.
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.
" 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 spell defines how magical Darkness changes the rules of normal darkness, and magical Darkness as a magical effect is a feature of a great many different elements of the game, would you like to have that text repeated everywhere it needs to be?
Or do you want it put in one place and just have to reference it by Name so you can save money and space not having to repeat the same mechanic every time only making changes as needed?
And magic makes up a significant amount of spells that make rules, look at the “Invisibly Spell” it defines how the condition of the same name works, so just the spell of Invisibly means nothing as well when spells can’t set rules guidelines?
" 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.
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.