2014 hallow spell is one example. Sage Advice even clarified that thwarting darkvision is a feature of certain spells rather than a base feature of magical darkness. Any effect that creates magical darkness without thwarting darkvision simply does not thwart darkvision.
And again, nothing about magical darkness renders it any more opaque than nonmagical darkness. The only difference between the two is that one is magical.
In 2014, not enough was done to differentiate darkness from heavy fog for the purpose of heavy obscurement. But since it just said that darkness blocked vision, we could assume it only blocked vision of those within the darkness without preventing those in darkness from seeing things illuminated by light. Because that's how light works.
The 2014 Darkness spell creates magical darkness, thwarts darkvision, and prevents light from illuminating the area. It does not prevent light from illuminating anything outside the area, not even from the perspective of creatures inside the area.
The 2024 Darkness spell DOES thwart vision both ways, but that's because all darkness in 2024 is explicitly opaque. Which is just... stupid. It's stupid. But that's what it says.
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.
The differences between magical and normal darkness are exactly those written in the book, and nothing else.
Those differences are :
- is magical (can be dispelled, subject to AMF, and the like).
- can't be illuminated by non magical light.
- can't be defeated by darkvision.
None of these say anything about opacity. Therefore, its opacity is the same as darkness : zero.
When you're in darkness, you're obscured. When you're not in darkness, you're not obscured.
2014 hallow spell is one example. Sage Advice even clarified that thwarting darkvision is a feature of certain spells rather than a base feature of magical darkness. Any effect that creates magical darkness without thwarting darkvision simply does not thwart darkvision.
And again, nothing about magical darkness renders it any more opaque than nonmagical darkness. The only difference between the two is that one is magical.
In 2014, not enough was done to differentiate darkness from heavy fog for the purpose of heavy obscurement. But since it just said that darkness blocked vision, we could assume it only blocked vision of those within the darkness without preventing those in darkness from seeing things illuminated by light. Because that's how light works.
The 2014 Darkness spell creates magical darkness, thwarts darkvision, and prevents light from illuminating the area. It does not prevent light from illuminating anything outside the area, not even from the perspective of creatures inside the area.
The 2024 Darkness spell DOES thwart vision both ways, but that's because all darkness in 2024 is explicitly opaque. Which is just... stupid. It's stupid. But that's what it says.
2014 and 2024 versions of hallow create an area of magical darkness that both prevent normal and magical light from illuminating the area of darkness, and only magical light of a level greater than Hallow can illuminate the magical darkness.
As far as Sage Advice, that isn’t official Rules, it’s advice. If light can’t reach an area and reflect off an object, then you can’t see that object. If your in an area that absorbs light to the point where no matter what no particles of light can illuminate anything, then you can’t see anything.
Thwarting darkvision is the primary base feature of the not only the spell of darkness, but also defines how magical darkness of different spell levels function and the means of how to deal with it.
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 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.
The differences between magical and normal darkness are exactly those written in the book, and nothing else.
Those differences are :
- is magical (can be dispelled, subject to AMF, and the like).
- can't be illuminated by non magical light.
- can't be defeated by darkvision.
None of these say anything about opacity. Therefore, its opacity is the same as darkness : zero.
When you're in darkness, you're obscured. When you're not in darkness, you're not obscured.
Technically the universe is in total darkness, as light is nothing more than fast vibrations of matter.
And as of 2024 and long before darkness has been described in the game of D&D as being an obstruction to vision. If your in a really deep cave and all the light suddenly goes out, you honestly can’t say you can see anything until some small measure of light can be created, and even then that light will only travel as far as the amount of energy used to generate that light.
Magical Darkness created by magical means has no normal light capable of entering the area, and if no light can get in, then you can’t see anything from outside the darkness.
Which makes magical darkness opaque to both observers inside and outside of the area.
Guess Sage Advice doesn’t read or play the game, as anyone who has had a brief experience with being in total darkness with zero light can understand how magical darkness is effectively you can’t see squat.
Magical Darkness is opaque, and unless you have a special ability, it’s the same as if someone or something has turned the universe off.
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.
2014 and 2024 versions of hallow create an area of magical darkness that both prevent normal and magical light from illuminating the area of darkness, and only magical light of a level greater than Hallow can illuminate the magical darkness.
As far as Sage Advice, that isn’t official Rules, it’s advice. If light can’t reach an area and reflect off an object, then you can’t see that object. If your in an area that absorbs light to the point where no matter what no particles of light can illuminate anything, then you can’t see anything.
Thwarting darkvision is the primary base feature of the not only the spell of darkness, but also defines how magical darkness of different spell levels function and the means of how to deal with it.
I'm talking about the Sage Advice Compendium, and in this case, they aren't just giving advice. They are accurately explaining a common mistake regarding magical darkness, the notion that it always thwarts darkvision. Lots of people look at the magical darkness created by the Darkness spell and assume incorrectly that all magical darkness works the same way. It doesn't. One spell isn't defining the entire set of rules for all magical darkness.
The term "magical darkness" has no meaning on its own beyond what it says on the tin. It's magical, and it's darkness. Many if not all effects that create magical darkness also say the area can't be illuminated by nonmagical light. And almost all effects that create magical darkness have that darkness thwart darkvision.
But these are properties of the effects themselves, not magical darkness in general. If you want magical darkness that actually has more opacity than normal darkness, the effect has to actually grant that. For instant, Hunger of Hadar creates an area of darkness such that anyone fully inside is blinded.
And as I've already said, these effects are preventing light from ILLUMINATING the area, not from actually reaching it. Nothing in the area can be rendered visible by nonmagical light. The light itself still exists. It's just not revealing things that are inside the area.
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. Since we can see stars in the night sky, we know the latter is too ridiculous to be true (the 2024 version of the darkness rules got this horrible wrong). So in the 2014 version of the rules, we expect an effect to actually say the darkness works both ways if it's supposed to work both ways.
If you want a heavily obscured area that heavily obscures both ways, try the Fog Cloud spell, which is in fact one level lower than Darkness.
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.
2014 and 2024 versions of hallow create an area of magical darkness that both prevent normal and magical light from illuminating the area of darkness, and only magical light of a level greater than Hallow can illuminate the magical darkness.
As far as Sage Advice, that isn’t official Rules, it’s advice. If light can’t reach an area and reflect off an object, then you can’t see that object. If your in an area that absorbs light to the point where no matter what no particles of light can illuminate anything, then you can’t see anything.
Thwarting darkvision is the primary base feature of the not only the spell of darkness, but also defines how magical darkness of different spell levels function and the means of how to deal with it.
I'm talking about the Sage Advice Compendium, and in this case, they aren't just giving advice. They are accurately explaining a common mistake regarding magical darkness, the notion that it always thwarts darkvision. Lots of people look at the magical darkness created by the Darkness spell and assume incorrectly that all magical darkness works the same way. It doesn't. One spell isn't defining the entire set of rules for all magical darkness.
The term "magical darkness" has no meaning on its own beyond what it says on the tin. It's magical, and it's darkness. Many if not all effects that create magical darkness also say the area can't be illuminated by nonmagical light. And almost all effects that create magical darkness have that darkness thwart darkvision.
But these are properties of the effects themselves, not magical darkness in general. If you want magical darkness that actually has more opacity than normal darkness, the effect has to actually grant that. For instant, Hunger of Hadar creates an area of darkness such that anyone fully inside is blinded.
And as I've already said, these effects are preventing light from ILLUMINATING the area, not from actually reaching it. Nothing in the area can be rendered visible by nonmagical light. The light itself still exists. It's just not revealing things that are inside the area.
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. Since we can see stars in the night sky, we know the latter is too ridiculous to be true (the 2024 version of the darkness rules got this horrible wrong). So in the 2014 version of the rules, we expect an effect to actually say the darkness works both ways if it's supposed to work both ways.
If you want a heavily obscured area that heavily obscures both ways, try the Fog Cloud spell, which is in fact one level lower than Darkness.
While you are certainly able to believe as you wish in how to interpret the rules, understand what the correct way to play or adjudicate the rules is not up to anyone but the person who is the DM/GM of there respective campaigns.
The very words of the Darkness spell clearly state:
Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
If non magical light , aka normal light, can’t illuminate anything within the area, then how can light pass into it without being seen through the area on the other side?
If normal light can’t pass through the area and illuminate a picture behind the area of effect, then how can light pass into it and be visible from within the area of effect?
Magic is the biggest exception to the general rule, and magical darkness is the specific rule that overrides the general normal rules of darkness in that magical darkness is opaque and obstructs light in or out unless the light is magical and of a power spell level greater than the spell level of the opposing magical darkness.
The entire set of magical spells that are capable of dispelling magical darkness expressly state this, and thus provides a means of mechanically dispelling and ending magical darkness effects. ( a 3rd level Daylight spell, iirc, states it dispels magical darkness of a lower level than the level used to cast the daylight spell.)
And the ability of the magical spell of darkness to define how the very nature of magical darkness works has long been a thing in D&D.
Sage Advice Compendium always has and forever will be nothing more than advice, and when over 50 years of experience says magical darkness does not follow the same rules as normal darkness, well no matter if your ether inside or outside of magical darkness, you won’t see anything through it, won’t see anything in it, won’t see anything from outside of it while inside of the magical darkness, and no matter what amount of natural light you place the magical darkness in, you still won’t be able to see anything without the aid of magic or an ability that allows you to perceive through magical darkness.
Magical Darkness is a different beast than normal darkness, and magic is the biggest exception to the general rules of the real universe.
Repeatedly attempting to use the same IRL way normal darkness works to claim how a totally different area that is magically altered to be void of light will work does not mean the way it has been used or handled for as long as the concept of an area of darkness that just cannot be seen through, or have any sort of light that isn’t strong enough to pierce the black void, works the same as normal IRL darkness.
If the ability to distinguish between the two is difficult, imagine your looking out at an empty field broad daylight, you can see for miles, then darkness. Pure dark, not a shed of light to be seen anywhere. You can feel the breeze, you just can’t see squat, total blackness. That is magical darkness. It’s like sticking your face to the wall and trying to say you can see through it to the other side clearly as a plane of glass when all you can really see is nothing but a massive obstruction in front of your face and your nose is pushed into it.
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.
Magic is the biggest exception to the general rule, and magical darkness is the specific rule that overrides the general normal rules of darkness in that magical darkness is opaque and obstructs light in or out unless the light is magical and of a power spell level greater than the spell level of the opposing magical darkness.
No it isn't because there is no such rule. There are rules for something being a Magical Effect and there are rules for Darkness (the mundane variant) and they both play a part in determining how an area of darkness that is magical works. But there is no actual "magical darkness" rule in the game.
The 2014 and 2024 versions of the Darkness spell function in the same way. It's an AoE spell effect which fills an area with magical Darkness which behaves like normal Darkness except that it also nullifies the sense of darkvision and nonmagical (and weak magical) light cannot illuminate it. You can also cast the spell onto an object and carry this effect around with you, covering and uncovering it as desired.
Contrary to popular belief, this spell is a buff to creatures who are located within the area of effect. Those outside of the area cannot see creatures that are within the area, but those within the area can see creatures outside of it. This provides the same sort of advantage/disadvantage combat bonuses of being an "Unseen Attacker" and "Unseen Target" as a creature might normally enjoy by just choosing to "lurk in darkness" (normal darkness) with the added bonus that even an enemy with darkvision cannot see you now.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque.
The above snippet is being taken out of context. The word "opaque" is not being used in a general or ordinary way here. The "meaning" of how this word is being used in this context is explicitly defined for us immediately following the above statement. The full rule is this:
Some adventuring tasks . . . are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
The presence or absence of light determines the category of illumination in an area, as defined below.
The word "opaque" in this context is explicitly referring to how that area affects your level of vision when trying to see something there. Nothing more.
In addition, this description is notably absent from the Rules Glossary definition of a Heavily Obscured area:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Unfortunately, a lot of people get tripped up by the fact that the game defines a concept and a mechanic whereby an area itself can have a property whereby it can be generally obscured from view in an absolute (not relative) sense. This concept is totally separate from the more relative concept of "Line of Sight" which defines how vision is affected from one location to another. The rules and mechanics for Line of Sight are detailed in the DMG.
When it comes to Line of Sight, we need to know if a physical object or other phenomenon is translucent or opaque in the more traditional sense (as determined by the DM when he describes the scene) so that we can determine if that object actually obstructs the ability to see something behind it from a particular vantage point.
These are two separate concepts which are described by two separate mechanics, and it is important to keep them separate in our minds in order to adjudicate these things in a way that actually makes sense.
As it turns out, most phenomena which cause an area to be heavily obscured will actually fill that area with an obstacle which also physically obstructs Line of Sight between two locations. Dense foliage or heavy fog are examples of this.
However, Darkness does not work that way. There is nothing inherent about the phenomenon of Darkness which physically obstructs the Line of Sight between two locations. Darkness only causes its area to be heavily obscured from view.
Therefore:
Creatures outside can see what's outside.
Creatures outside cannot see what's inside.
Creatures outside can see what's behind.
Creatures inside can see what's outside.
Creatures inside cannot see what's inside.
The Darkness spell causes the same interactions as above, except that those creatures who are attempting to see inside cannot be assisted by having darkvision or lighting a torch.
Specific rules override general rules only in cases where the specific rules actually apply. You can't take a specific rule about magical darkness and extrapolate from that an imaginary general rule. There is no general rule saying magical darkness is more opaque than regular darkness. Players are not expected to read very specific spells to find general rules. I don't care how past editions handled it, that is not how this game works.
I suspect Paradox is puzzled by how a backlit object in the area wouldn't be revealed by its silhouette, but ordinary darkness has the same issue. There are no rules describing what happens if something in any darkness has a lit area behind it. Nothing about magical darkness or the Darkness spell addresses this either. Observing someone in a dark hallway with a lit torch beyond them doesn't actually do anything to reveal the person in darkness.
Again, 2024 addresses this, but in the dumbest way possible by declaring all darkness opaque.
The 2014 and 2024 versions of the Darkness spell function in the same way. It's an AoE spell effect which fills an area with magical Darkness which behaves like normal Darkness except that it also nullifies the sense of darkvision and nonmagical (and weak magical) light cannot illuminate it. You can also cast the spell onto an object and carry this effect around with you, covering and uncovering it as desired.
Contrary to popular belief, this spell is a buff to creatures who are located within the area of effect. Those outside of the area cannot see creatures that are within the area, but those within the area can see creatures outside of it. This provides the same sort of advantage/disadvantage combat bonuses of being an "Unseen Attacker" and "Unseen Target" as a creature might normally enjoy by just choosing to "lurk in darkness" (normal darkness) with the added bonus that even an enemy with darkvision cannot see you now.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque.
The above snippet is being taken out of context. The word "opaque" is not being used in a general or ordinary way here. The "meaning" of how this word is being used in this context is explicitly defined for us immediately following the above statement. The full rule is this:
Some adventuring tasks . . . are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
The presence or absence of light determines the category of illumination in an area, as defined below.
The word "opaque" in this context is explicitly referring to how that area affects your level of vision when trying to see something there. Nothing more.
In addition, this description is notably absent from the Rules Glossary definition of a Heavily Obscured area:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Unfortunately, a lot of people get tripped up by the fact that the game defines a concept and a mechanic whereby an area itself can have a property whereby it can be generally obscured from view in an absolute (not relative) sense. This concept is totally separate from the more relative concept of "Line of Sight" which defines how vision is affected from one location to another. The rules and mechanics for Line of Sight are detailed in the DMG.
When it comes to Line of Sight, we need to know if a physical object or other phenomenon is translucent or opaque in the more traditional sense (as determined by the DM when he describes the scene) so that we can determine if that object actually obstructs the ability to see something behind it from a particular vantage point.
These are two separate concepts which are described by two separate mechanics, and it is important to keep them separate in our minds in order to adjudicate these things in a way that actually makes sense.
As it turns out, most phenomena which cause an area to be heavily obscured will actually fill that area with an obstacle which also physically obstructs Line of Sight between two locations. Dense foliage or heavy fog are examples of this.
However, Darkness does not work that way. There is nothing inherent about the phenomenon of Darkness which physically obstructs the Line of Sight between two locations. Darkness only causes its area to be heavily obscured from view.
Therefore:
Creatures outside can see what's outside.
Creatures outside cannot see what's inside.
Creatures outside can see what's behind.
Creatures inside can see what's outside.
Creatures inside cannot see what's inside.
The Darkness spell causes the same interactions as above, except that those creatures who are attempting to see inside cannot be assisted by having darkvision or lighting a torch.
I'll just agree to disagree with this position. The word "opaque" is very clearly defined in the English language. The rules use the English language. Opaque MEANS that the area blocks vision in BOTH directions. Opaque does not mean it only blocks vision one way. The first sentence states that Darkness creates an area that is Opaque. The second sentence clarifies that creatures trying to see into the Darkness are effectively blinded when trying to see creatures in that area.
Why does the rule not state that creatures inside the area are also blinded? This is unnecessary to state. A creature inside an opaque heavily obscured area CAN'T see anything. They aren't "effectively blinded" ... they ARE blinded (unless they have a sense that allows them to bypass the constraints of Darkness). The clarification in the second sentence just makes it clear that creatures outside are NOT blinded but are treated as blinded when trying to view something in the Opaque area.
The interpretation presented here requires coming up with a completely new definition of the word Opaque ... allowing something to be Opaque in one direction and not in another direction. You are welcome to run the game however you wish but when folks start to come up with customized definitions of words to fit a particular interpretation then we aren't even discussing the same rules anymore and discussion is effectively fruitless since, in such a case, folks can't agree on even the basic meaning of the words used.
Finally, I will be the first to admit that these rules as written are completely brain dead when applied to natural darkness. Natural darkness should never be treated the same as fog or dense foliage. The person responsible for writing these rules has created pages of unnecessary argument and discussion because they wanted to keep rules "too simple", refusing to address the real differences in vision between natural darkness, magical darkness, dense fog and dense foliage.
Does the revised definition of "Opaque" that you use here make sense when applied to fog and dense foliage as well? These are treated identically to Darkness in the rules. Could a creature standing 50' deep in dense foliage see out of that foliage while someone looking in would be effectively blinded trying to see them? How about a pea soup fog where you can't see more than 5'? Can a creature standing 20' into a fog cloud see everything perfectly outside the fog cloud but creatures outside the fog cloud would be effectively blinded trying to see them?
Anyway ...
Personally, I rule magical Darkness as opaque along with fog and dense foliage so that a creature can't see into, out of or through such an area.
On the other hand, I will freely admit that I house rule natural Darkness to operate as most people expect it to .. natural darkness does not block vision into areas that are lit. Natural darkness does not prevent light from entering the area, natural darkness is not opaque. Two creatures both in natural darkness can't see each other unless they have additional senses like Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Truesight or Blindsight. It would be nice if the rules also made this clear but they don't.
Again, 2024 addresses this, but in the dumbest way possible by declaring all darkness opaque.
The 2024 rules do no such thing. Darkness is declared to create a Heavily Obscured area. Heavily Obscured areas are only described as opaque within the specific context of "trying to see something there" as explicitly explained in the rules for Heavily Obscured areas. It's an example of a feature using a word immediately followed by a definition of what that word means within the context of the feature.
I use Miniatures rules and to see anything beyond an opaque Heavily Obscured area, you must first be able to see something there, which you can't when you have the Blinded condition. There's effectively no line of sight when your vision is blocked in this way.
I make an exception for mundane Darkness since light can illuminate it, i don't treat it as opaque.
Line of Sight: To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.
This subject of arguments never occurs in my campaign, in the dark humans don't see except where there's light, so they can see the moon, the stars and their comrade's torch or Fireball.
Some adventuring tasks . . . are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
The presence or absence of light determines the category of illumination in an area, as defined below.
The word "opaque" in this context is explicitly referring to how that area affects your level of vision when trying to see something there. Nothing more.
No that is wrong, the two different sentences partially do separate things. The area is opaque regardless of where you are and where you look but you only have the blinded condition when trying to see something in the area.
Regardless of whether it means anything, or matters more or less, Baldur's Gate 3 implements the Darkness spell the way I'm ruling it, and it's also how I believe both the 2014 and 2024 official rules describe it.
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
Explanation/Description: This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of its effect. lnfravision or ultravision are useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell and vice versa. The material components of this spell are a bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal.
From the 1st ed D&D, certainly looks like much hasn’t changed in a few decades and that just makes the whole magic darkness acts like IRL point moot.
Anyone with experience in D&D well knows that not everything works the same way when magic is involved. and the effect of magic can change, or make exception to, the rules that govern normal IRL behavior to such an extent that it can be difficult for some to accept that magic can cause what is normal and logical to seem as if it is nonsensical.
At this point, those you wish to continue with the belief that unless absolutely specific text must exist to quantify the 50 year defacto standard that has been established in defining how magical darkness works unlike normal IRL darkness, then unfortunately we shall agree to disagree.
And backlighting an area of magical darkness is not the same as backlighting the screen of a phone, if light cannot pass through an object that is considered a solid obstacle to said light, you can not see that light.
Magical darkness and the magical spell that creates it, defines how such exceptional elements of the game world can work in a way that is not the same as a world where such magical elements do not exist.
50 years of “if your in magical darkness, unless you have a special ability to let you see, you are not going to see squat,” certainly does hold significant weight over a belief that has very little evidence to support otherwise.
Have fun trying to change common sense. i’ll stick with the same old thing that has always worked, if your in normal darkness and an object that is even darker and not reflecting or emitting any kind of light from itself or that can not be illuminated is perceivable, it’s best to avoid the things that live in absolute shadow.
So there is no puzzlement or confusion from me, just plain common sense that says magical darkness does not function as normal darkness In Real Life does, and to deny otherwise is to invite unnecessary speculation that is far worthless than good ole experience.
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.
Some adventuring tasks . . . are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
The presence or absence of light determines the category of illumination in an area, as defined below.
The word "opaque" in this context is explicitly referring to how that area affects your level of vision when trying to see something there. Nothing more.
No that is wrong, the two different sentences partially do separate things. The area is opaque regardless of where you are and where you look but you only have the blinded condition when trying to see something in the area.
I disagree. The text for this game uses this writing style frequently. They use a period to finish a general thought and then they follow up with the specific meaning behind that broad statement. In many cases there is a word followed by a period followed by the definition for that word within the scope of the feature being described. In this case, the feature essentially is saying:
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque [ which in this context means that ] you have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there."
Another common rule that uses a similar writing style which leads to a similar disagreement is the text for the Invisible condition which states:
"While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
. . .
"Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
This doesn't mean that you experience the effect of being concealed as described by the common English language definition. It means that you experience an effect that is generally described as "concealed" which is then explicitly defined immediately following the punctuation. The subsequent text defined what is meant by the term "concealed" in the context of that feature.
This writing style is used in dozens upon dozens of places throughout the game. Class features, spell descriptions and so on will often use this style of making a broad statement followed by a period and then immediately defining and clarifying the concept that the broad statement was introducing.
It's very similar to the structure for a paragraph that is taught in school -- you begin with a general introductory sentence. Then, you write subsequent sentences which explain and support that general statement. These are not separate and totally unrelated thoughts being presented. The entire paragraph is one thought. It begins with the overall thought followed by the details of precisely what the overall thought actually means.
As further evidence that the rule has been written in this style we can look to the Rules Glossary. The entry for a Heavily Obscured area in the Rules Glossary says nothing about the area being "opaque". This is because the introductory statement of the concept for a Heavily Obscured area is unnecessary when providing this summary statement. Only the mechanical details (not the general idea) are presented there. This summary only mentions that "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space."
Another point to make here is that one of the main reasons for using the word "opaque" as a broad description of a Heavily Obscured area is specifically to differentiate such an area from what is described immediately prior within the description for a Lightly Obscured area. The text has just finished describing a Lightly Obscured area as an area within which you can kinda, sorta squint into to see the objects located there -- but with some difficulty, since those objects are lightly obscured from view. It's like setting the opacity of that area to 0.5 or something -- you can't see things there as clearly as you can when the area is totally clear, but you can still see them. In contrast to that, a Heavily Obscured area is opaque. Meaning, you cannot see the objects that are within such an area at all.
I'll just agree to disagree with this position. The word "opaque" is very clearly defined in the English language. The rules use the English language. Opaque MEANS that the area blocks vision in BOTH directions. Opaque does not mean it only blocks vision one way. The first sentence states that Darkness creates an area that is Opaque. The second sentence clarifies that creatures trying to see into the Darkness are effectively blinded when trying to see creatures in that area.
You are certainly free to use such an interpretation in your games if you desire, but this means that creatures in your world are unable to see the moon or the stars on a clear night. Such creatures might as well just walk around with their eyes closed at night. This defies common sense and is almost certainly not the intention of the rule.
Why does the rule not state that creatures inside the area are also blinded? This is unnecessary to state. A creature inside an opaque heavily obscured area CAN'T see anything. They aren't "effectively blinded" ... they ARE blinded (unless they have a sense that allows them to bypass the constraints of Darkness). The clarification in the second sentence just makes it clear that creatures outside are NOT blinded but are treated as blinded when trying to view something in the Opaque area.
Now you are talking about creating a house rule which does not appear in the text. The text does not say that a creature that is located within a Heavily Obscured area is blinded. So, it is not unless you house rule otherwise.
The interpretation presented here requires coming up with a completely new definition of the word Opaque ... allowing something to be Opaque in one direction and not in another direction. You are welcome to run the game however you wish but when folks start to come up with customized definitions of words to fit a particular interpretation then we aren't even discussing the same rules anymore and discussion is effectively fruitless since, in such a case, folks can't agree on even the basic meaning of the words used.
Not at all. There is no reason at all to come up with any alternate definition of the word "opaque". Such a definition is presented to us by the text for the rule itself:
You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
Or, worded slightly differently in the Rules Glossary:
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
Does the revised definition of "Opaque" that you use here make sense when applied to fog and dense foliage as well? These are treated identically to Darkness in the rules. Could a creature standing 50' deep in dense foliage see out of that foliage while someone looking in would be effectively blinded trying to see them? How about a pea soup fog where you can't see more than 5'? Can a creature standing 20' into a fog cloud see everything perfectly outside the fog cloud but creatures outside the fog cloud would be effectively blinded trying to see them?
Yes, the definition above which is provided to us by the text of the rule does make sense when applied to fog and dense foliage as well. In every scenario that you describe here, the concept and mechanic for Heavily Obscured areas tells us that we cannot see things that are located within the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud. This mechanic tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not a creature who is located within any of these areas is able to see out of those areas -- so by default, they can.
But that is not the end of the analysis.
We must now determine if such a creature has Line of Sight from its location to some other location that exists outside of the area. For that, we look to a different rule which describes a different mechanic. That rule is the rule for Line of Sight which has been recently quoted from the DMG by Plaguescarred in a recent post above.
In your above scenarios, the presence of the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud which surrounds the creature in question causes that creature's Line of Sight to be blocked no matter which direction he looks. This is still not the same as being blinded. He can see the actual nearby foliage / pea soup / fog cloud. He just has his Line of Sight to other objects blocked. Note that this does not happen due to the rule for Heavily Obscured areas. It happens because of the rule for Line of Sight, combined with a DM description which tells the players that the physical objects or phenomena such as foliage / pea soup / fog cloud cause an obstruction to the creature's Line of Sight.
However, Darkness does not work that way. Darkness follows the same rule for Heavily Obscured areas as the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud but is not a phenomenon that would physically obstruct Line of Sight according to the rule for Line of Sight. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area that does not block Line of Sight.
Foliage: The area is Heavily Obscured. The physical foliage objects block Line of Sight.
Pea Soup: The area is Heavily Obscured. The physical soup matter blocks Line of Sight.
Fog Cloud: The area is Heavily Obscured. The fog itself blocks Line of Sight.
Darkness: The area is Heavily Obscured. The Darkness does not block Line of Sight.
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.
2014 hallow spell is one example. Sage Advice even clarified that thwarting darkvision is a feature of certain spells rather than a base feature of magical darkness. Any effect that creates magical darkness without thwarting darkvision simply does not thwart darkvision.
And again, nothing about magical darkness renders it any more opaque than nonmagical darkness. The only difference between the two is that one is magical.
In 2014, not enough was done to differentiate darkness from heavy fog for the purpose of heavy obscurement. But since it just said that darkness blocked vision, we could assume it only blocked vision of those within the darkness without preventing those in darkness from seeing things illuminated by light. Because that's how light works.
The 2014 Darkness spell creates magical darkness, thwarts darkvision, and prevents light from illuminating the area. It does not prevent light from illuminating anything outside the area, not even from the perspective of creatures inside the area.
The 2024 Darkness spell DOES thwart vision both ways, but that's because all darkness in 2024 is explicitly opaque. Which is just... stupid. It's stupid. But that's what it says.
If darkness is opaque, then the entire universe is in total darkness, since no light will be able to penetrate it.
This is false. The rules don't say that magical darkness is opaque.
The differences between magical and normal darkness are exactly those written in the book, and nothing else.
Those differences are :
- is magical (can be dispelled, subject to AMF, and the like).
- can't be illuminated by non magical light.
- can't be defeated by darkvision.
None of these say anything about opacity. Therefore, its opacity is the same as darkness : zero.
When you're in darkness, you're obscured. When you're not in darkness, you're not obscured.
2014 and 2024 versions of hallow create an area of magical darkness that both prevent normal and magical light from illuminating the area of darkness, and only magical light of a level greater than Hallow can illuminate the magical darkness.
As far as Sage Advice, that isn’t official Rules, it’s advice.
If light can’t reach an area and reflect off an object, then you can’t see that object. If your in an area that absorbs light to the point where no matter what no particles of light can illuminate anything, then you can’t see anything.
Thwarting darkvision is the primary base feature of the not only the spell of darkness, but also defines how magical darkness of different spell levels function and the means of how to deal with it.
" 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.
Technically the universe is in total darkness, as light is nothing more than fast vibrations of matter.
And as of 2024 and long before darkness has been described in the game of D&D as being an obstruction to vision. If your in a really deep cave and all the light suddenly goes out, you honestly can’t say you can see anything until some small measure of light can be created, and even then that light will only travel as far as the amount of energy used to generate that light.
Magical Darkness created by magical means has no normal light capable of entering the area, and if no light can get in, then you can’t see anything from outside the darkness.
Which makes magical darkness opaque to both observers inside and outside of the area.
Guess Sage Advice doesn’t read or play the game, as anyone who has had a brief experience with being in total darkness with zero light can understand how magical darkness is effectively you can’t see squat.
Magical Darkness is opaque, and unless you have a special ability, it’s the same as if someone or something has turned the universe off.
" 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'm talking about the Sage Advice Compendium, and in this case, they aren't just giving advice. They are accurately explaining a common mistake regarding magical darkness, the notion that it always thwarts darkvision. Lots of people look at the magical darkness created by the Darkness spell and assume incorrectly that all magical darkness works the same way. It doesn't. One spell isn't defining the entire set of rules for all magical darkness.
The term "magical darkness" has no meaning on its own beyond what it says on the tin. It's magical, and it's darkness. Many if not all effects that create magical darkness also say the area can't be illuminated by nonmagical light. And almost all effects that create magical darkness have that darkness thwart darkvision.
But these are properties of the effects themselves, not magical darkness in general. If you want magical darkness that actually has more opacity than normal darkness, the effect has to actually grant that. For instant, Hunger of Hadar creates an area of darkness such that anyone fully inside is blinded.
And as I've already said, these effects are preventing light from ILLUMINATING the area, not from actually reaching it. Nothing in the area can be rendered visible by nonmagical light. The light itself still exists. It's just not revealing things that are inside the area.
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. Since we can see stars in the night sky, we know the latter is too ridiculous to be true (the 2024 version of the darkness rules got this horrible wrong). So in the 2014 version of the rules, we expect an effect to actually say the darkness works both ways if it's supposed to work both ways.
If you want a heavily obscured area that heavily obscures both ways, try the Fog Cloud spell, which is in fact one level lower than Darkness.
It does for the 2024 rules:
Darkness (the spell):
Darkness (the area):
Exploration:
While you are certainly able to believe as you wish in how to interpret the rules, understand what the correct way to play or adjudicate the rules is not up to anyone but the person who is the DM/GM of there respective campaigns.
The very words of the Darkness spell clearly state:
Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
If non magical light , aka normal light, can’t illuminate anything within the area, then how can light pass into it without being seen through the area on the other side?
If normal light can’t pass through the area and illuminate a picture behind the area of effect, then how can light pass into it and be visible from within the area of effect?
Magic is the biggest exception to the general rule, and magical darkness is the specific rule that overrides the general normal rules of darkness in that magical darkness is opaque and obstructs light in or out unless the light is magical and of a power spell level greater than the spell level of the opposing magical darkness.
The entire set of magical spells that are capable of dispelling magical darkness expressly state this, and thus provides a means of mechanically dispelling and ending magical darkness effects. ( a 3rd level Daylight spell, iirc, states it dispels magical darkness of a lower level than the level used to cast the daylight spell.)
And the ability of the magical spell of darkness to define how the very nature of magical darkness works has long been a thing in D&D.
Sage Advice Compendium always has and forever will be nothing more than advice, and when over 50 years of experience says magical darkness does not follow the same rules as normal darkness, well no matter if your ether inside or outside of magical darkness, you won’t see anything through it, won’t see anything in it, won’t see anything from outside of it while inside of the magical darkness, and no matter what amount of natural light you place the magical darkness in, you still won’t be able to see anything without the aid of magic or an ability that allows you to perceive through magical darkness.
Magical Darkness is a different beast than normal darkness, and magic is the biggest exception to the general rules of the real universe.
Repeatedly attempting to use the same IRL way normal darkness works to claim how a totally different area that is magically altered to be void of light will work does not mean the way it has been used or handled for as long as the concept of an area of darkness that just cannot be seen through, or have any sort of light that isn’t strong enough to pierce the black void, works the same as normal IRL darkness.
If the ability to distinguish between the two is difficult, imagine your looking out at an empty field broad daylight, you can see for miles, then darkness. Pure dark, not a shed of light to be seen anywhere. You can feel the breeze, you just can’t see squat, total blackness. That is magical darkness. It’s like sticking your face to the wall and trying to say you can see through it to the other side clearly as a plane of glass when all you can really see is nothing but a massive obstruction in front of your face and your nose is pushed into it.
" 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 because there is no such rule. There are rules for something being a Magical Effect and there are rules for Darkness (the mundane variant) and they both play a part in determining how an area of darkness that is magical works. But there is no actual "magical darkness" rule in the game.
The 2014 and 2024 versions of the Darkness spell function in the same way. It's an AoE spell effect which fills an area with magical Darkness which behaves like normal Darkness except that it also nullifies the sense of darkvision and nonmagical (and weak magical) light cannot illuminate it. You can also cast the spell onto an object and carry this effect around with you, covering and uncovering it as desired.
Contrary to popular belief, this spell is a buff to creatures who are located within the area of effect. Those outside of the area cannot see creatures that are within the area, but those within the area can see creatures outside of it. This provides the same sort of advantage/disadvantage combat bonuses of being an "Unseen Attacker" and "Unseen Target" as a creature might normally enjoy by just choosing to "lurk in darkness" (normal darkness) with the added bonus that even an enemy with darkvision cannot see you now.
The above snippet is being taken out of context. The word "opaque" is not being used in a general or ordinary way here. The "meaning" of how this word is being used in this context is explicitly defined for us immediately following the above statement. The full rule is this:
The word "opaque" in this context is explicitly referring to how that area affects your level of vision when trying to see something there. Nothing more.
In addition, this description is notably absent from the Rules Glossary definition of a Heavily Obscured area:
Unfortunately, a lot of people get tripped up by the fact that the game defines a concept and a mechanic whereby an area itself can have a property whereby it can be generally obscured from view in an absolute (not relative) sense. This concept is totally separate from the more relative concept of "Line of Sight" which defines how vision is affected from one location to another. The rules and mechanics for Line of Sight are detailed in the DMG.
When it comes to Line of Sight, we need to know if a physical object or other phenomenon is translucent or opaque in the more traditional sense (as determined by the DM when he describes the scene) so that we can determine if that object actually obstructs the ability to see something behind it from a particular vantage point.
These are two separate concepts which are described by two separate mechanics, and it is important to keep them separate in our minds in order to adjudicate these things in a way that actually makes sense.
As it turns out, most phenomena which cause an area to be heavily obscured will actually fill that area with an obstacle which also physically obstructs Line of Sight between two locations. Dense foliage or heavy fog are examples of this.
However, Darkness does not work that way. There is nothing inherent about the phenomenon of Darkness which physically obstructs the Line of Sight between two locations. Darkness only causes its area to be heavily obscured from view.
Therefore:
Creatures outside can see what's outside.
Creatures outside cannot see what's inside.
Creatures outside can see what's behind.
Creatures inside can see what's outside.
Creatures inside cannot see what's inside.
The Darkness spell causes the same interactions as above, except that those creatures who are attempting to see inside cannot be assisted by having darkvision or lighting a torch.
Specific rules override general rules only in cases where the specific rules actually apply. You can't take a specific rule about magical darkness and extrapolate from that an imaginary general rule. There is no general rule saying magical darkness is more opaque than regular darkness. Players are not expected to read very specific spells to find general rules. I don't care how past editions handled it, that is not how this game works.
I suspect Paradox is puzzled by how a backlit object in the area wouldn't be revealed by its silhouette, but ordinary darkness has the same issue. There are no rules describing what happens if something in any darkness has a lit area behind it. Nothing about magical darkness or the Darkness spell addresses this either. Observing someone in a dark hallway with a lit torch beyond them doesn't actually do anything to reveal the person in darkness.
Again, 2024 addresses this, but in the dumbest way possible by declaring all darkness opaque.
I'll just agree to disagree with this position. The word "opaque" is very clearly defined in the English language. The rules use the English language. Opaque MEANS that the area blocks vision in BOTH directions. Opaque does not mean it only blocks vision one way. The first sentence states that Darkness creates an area that is Opaque. The second sentence clarifies that creatures trying to see into the Darkness are effectively blinded when trying to see creatures in that area.
Why does the rule not state that creatures inside the area are also blinded? This is unnecessary to state. A creature inside an opaque heavily obscured area CAN'T see anything. They aren't "effectively blinded" ... they ARE blinded (unless they have a sense that allows them to bypass the constraints of Darkness). The clarification in the second sentence just makes it clear that creatures outside are NOT blinded but are treated as blinded when trying to view something in the Opaque area.
The interpretation presented here requires coming up with a completely new definition of the word Opaque ... allowing something to be Opaque in one direction and not in another direction. You are welcome to run the game however you wish but when folks start to come up with customized definitions of words to fit a particular interpretation then we aren't even discussing the same rules anymore and discussion is effectively fruitless since, in such a case, folks can't agree on even the basic meaning of the words used.
Finally, I will be the first to admit that these rules as written are completely brain dead when applied to natural darkness. Natural darkness should never be treated the same as fog or dense foliage. The person responsible for writing these rules has created pages of unnecessary argument and discussion because they wanted to keep rules "too simple", refusing to address the real differences in vision between natural darkness, magical darkness, dense fog and dense foliage.
Does the revised definition of "Opaque" that you use here make sense when applied to fog and dense foliage as well? These are treated identically to Darkness in the rules. Could a creature standing 50' deep in dense foliage see out of that foliage while someone looking in would be effectively blinded trying to see them? How about a pea soup fog where you can't see more than 5'? Can a creature standing 20' into a fog cloud see everything perfectly outside the fog cloud but creatures outside the fog cloud would be effectively blinded trying to see them?
Anyway ...
Personally, I rule magical Darkness as opaque along with fog and dense foliage so that a creature can't see into, out of or through such an area.
On the other hand, I will freely admit that I house rule natural Darkness to operate as most people expect it to .. natural darkness does not block vision into areas that are lit. Natural darkness does not prevent light from entering the area, natural darkness is not opaque. Two creatures both in natural darkness can't see each other unless they have additional senses like Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Truesight or Blindsight. It would be nice if the rules also made this clear but they don't.
The 2024 rules do no such thing. Darkness is declared to create a Heavily Obscured area. Heavily Obscured areas are only described as opaque within the specific context of "trying to see something there" as explicitly explained in the rules for Heavily Obscured areas. It's an example of a feature using a word immediately followed by a definition of what that word means within the context of the feature.
I use Miniatures rules and to see anything beyond an opaque Heavily Obscured area, you must first be able to see something there, which you can't when you have the Blinded condition. There's effectively no line of sight when your vision is blocked in this way.
I make an exception for mundane Darkness since light can illuminate it, i don't treat it as opaque.
This subject of arguments never occurs in my campaign, in the dark humans don't see except where there's light, so they can see the moon, the stars and their comrade's torch or Fireball.
No that is wrong, the two different sentences partially do separate things. The area is opaque regardless of where you are and where you look but you only have the blinded condition when trying to see something in the area.
Regardless of whether it means anything, or matters more or less, Baldur's Gate 3 implements the Darkness spell the way I'm ruling it, and it's also how I believe both the 2014 and 2024 official rules describe it.
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/introduction#SpecificBeatsGeneral
Darkness, 15' Radius (Alteration)
Level: 2 Components: V, M
Range: I"/level
Casting Time: 2 segments
Duration: I turn + I round/level
Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: I 1/2" radius globe
Explanation/Description: This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of its effect. lnfravision or ultravision are useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell and vice versa. The material components of this spell are a bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal.
From the 1st ed D&D, certainly looks like much hasn’t changed in a few decades and that just makes the whole magic darkness acts like IRL point moot.
Anyone with experience in D&D well knows that not everything works the same way when magic is involved. and the effect of magic can change, or make exception to, the rules that govern normal IRL behavior to such an extent that it can be difficult for some to accept that magic can cause what is normal and logical to seem as if it is nonsensical.
At this point, those you wish to continue with the belief that unless absolutely specific text must exist to quantify the 50 year defacto standard that has been established in defining how magical darkness works unlike normal IRL darkness, then unfortunately we shall agree to disagree.
And backlighting an area of magical darkness is not the same as backlighting the screen of a phone, if light cannot pass through an object that is considered a solid obstacle to said light, you can not see that light.
Magical darkness and the magical spell that creates it, defines how such exceptional elements of the game world can work in a way that is not the same as a world where such magical elements do not exist.
50 years of “if your in magical darkness, unless you have a special ability to let you see, you are not going to see squat,” certainly does hold significant weight over a belief that has very little evidence to support otherwise.
Have fun trying to change common sense. i’ll stick with the same old thing that has always worked, if your in normal darkness and an object that is even darker and not reflecting or emitting any kind of light from itself or that can not be illuminated is perceivable, it’s best to avoid the things that live in absolute shadow.
So there is no puzzlement or confusion from me, just plain common sense that says magical darkness does not function as normal darkness In Real Life does, and to deny otherwise is to invite unnecessary speculation that is far worthless than good ole experience.
" 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. The text for this game uses this writing style frequently. They use a period to finish a general thought and then they follow up with the specific meaning behind that broad statement. In many cases there is a word followed by a period followed by the definition for that word within the scope of the feature being described. In this case, the feature essentially is saying:
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque [ which in this context means that ] you have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there."
Another common rule that uses a similar writing style which leads to a similar disagreement is the text for the Invisible condition which states:
"While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
. . .
"Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
This doesn't mean that you experience the effect of being concealed as described by the common English language definition. It means that you experience an effect that is generally described as "concealed" which is then explicitly defined immediately following the punctuation. The subsequent text defined what is meant by the term "concealed" in the context of that feature.
This writing style is used in dozens upon dozens of places throughout the game. Class features, spell descriptions and so on will often use this style of making a broad statement followed by a period and then immediately defining and clarifying the concept that the broad statement was introducing.
It's very similar to the structure for a paragraph that is taught in school -- you begin with a general introductory sentence. Then, you write subsequent sentences which explain and support that general statement. These are not separate and totally unrelated thoughts being presented. The entire paragraph is one thought. It begins with the overall thought followed by the details of precisely what the overall thought actually means.
As further evidence that the rule has been written in this style we can look to the Rules Glossary. The entry for a Heavily Obscured area in the Rules Glossary says nothing about the area being "opaque". This is because the introductory statement of the concept for a Heavily Obscured area is unnecessary when providing this summary statement. Only the mechanical details (not the general idea) are presented there. This summary only mentions that "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space."
Another point to make here is that one of the main reasons for using the word "opaque" as a broad description of a Heavily Obscured area is specifically to differentiate such an area from what is described immediately prior within the description for a Lightly Obscured area. The text has just finished describing a Lightly Obscured area as an area within which you can kinda, sorta squint into to see the objects located there -- but with some difficulty, since those objects are lightly obscured from view. It's like setting the opacity of that area to 0.5 or something -- you can't see things there as clearly as you can when the area is totally clear, but you can still see them. In contrast to that, a Heavily Obscured area is opaque. Meaning, you cannot see the objects that are within such an area at all.
You are certainly free to use such an interpretation in your games if you desire, but this means that creatures in your world are unable to see the moon or the stars on a clear night. Such creatures might as well just walk around with their eyes closed at night. This defies common sense and is almost certainly not the intention of the rule.
Now you are talking about creating a house rule which does not appear in the text. The text does not say that a creature that is located within a Heavily Obscured area is blinded. So, it is not unless you house rule otherwise.
Not at all. There is no reason at all to come up with any alternate definition of the word "opaque". Such a definition is presented to us by the text for the rule itself:
Or, worded slightly differently in the Rules Glossary:
Yes, the definition above which is provided to us by the text of the rule does make sense when applied to fog and dense foliage as well. In every scenario that you describe here, the concept and mechanic for Heavily Obscured areas tells us that we cannot see things that are located within the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud. This mechanic tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not a creature who is located within any of these areas is able to see out of those areas -- so by default, they can.
But that is not the end of the analysis.
We must now determine if such a creature has Line of Sight from its location to some other location that exists outside of the area. For that, we look to a different rule which describes a different mechanic. That rule is the rule for Line of Sight which has been recently quoted from the DMG by Plaguescarred in a recent post above.
In your above scenarios, the presence of the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud which surrounds the creature in question causes that creature's Line of Sight to be blocked no matter which direction he looks. This is still not the same as being blinded. He can see the actual nearby foliage / pea soup / fog cloud. He just has his Line of Sight to other objects blocked. Note that this does not happen due to the rule for Heavily Obscured areas. It happens because of the rule for Line of Sight, combined with a DM description which tells the players that the physical objects or phenomena such as foliage / pea soup / fog cloud cause an obstruction to the creature's Line of Sight.
However, Darkness does not work that way. Darkness follows the same rule for Heavily Obscured areas as the foliage / pea soup / fog cloud but is not a phenomenon that would physically obstruct Line of Sight according to the rule for Line of Sight. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area that does not block Line of Sight.
Foliage: The area is Heavily Obscured. The physical foliage objects block Line of Sight.
Pea Soup: The area is Heavily Obscured. The physical soup matter blocks Line of Sight.
Fog Cloud: The area is Heavily Obscured. The fog itself blocks Line of Sight.
Darkness: The area is Heavily Obscured. The Darkness does not block Line of Sight.
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.