Not if it repeats the same properties that are already present elsewhere, it’s easier just to reference the already existing abilities that create the same effects and note only the significant difference in the new one.
If the intent was that magical darkness (in general) blocks darkvision, they would either have magical darkness in the rules glossary, or change the wording of darkvision to
If you have Darkvision, you can see in Dim Light within a specified range as if it were Bright Light and in non-magical Darkness within that range as if it were Dim Light. You discern colors in that Darkness only as shades of gray. See also chapter 1 (“Exploration”).
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
So you and others can do you, I stand correct in my opinion and evidence, no you can not see through any form of “magical darkness” with darkvision no matter what, and anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who are wrong.
The official ruling from Devs Sage Advice is that Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
This is complete and utter nonsense, and it betrays a misunderstanding of how the rules work so fundamental that your opinion on any rule interpretation is suspect, at best
Sage Adivce is exactly what it says it is, Advice and NOT official Rules As Written, especially when it pertains to magical effects
Not it, you or anyone else can tell me the difference between non-magical and magical darkness isn’t clearly defined and that the lack of the proper context of which of those two very different phenomena are used elsewhere makes it perfectly acceptable to ignore that difference for the sake of agency.
Magical darkness is defined in a specific way, non-magical darkness is defined in general, specifically any magical darkness prevents darkvision from being useful in that effect, and stating otherwise is wrong.
Agree to disagree and you do you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
So you and others can do you, I stand correct in my opinion and evidence, no you can not see through any form of “magical darkness” with darkvision no matter what, and anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who are wrong.
The official ruling from Devs Sage Advice is that Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
If the effect is magical and created by magical means, then the magical representation of that effect in this case “darkness” means the spell of the same name supersedes the general concept of the effect.
This is complete and utter nonsense, and it betrays a misunderstanding of how the rules work so fundamental that your opinion on any rule interpretation is suspect, at best
Sage Adivce is exactly what it says it is, Advice and NOT official Rules As Written, especially when it pertains to magical effects
Not it, you or anyone else can tell me the difference between non-magical and magical darkness isn’t clearly defined and that the lack of the proper context of which of those two very different phenomena are used elsewhere makes it perfectly acceptable to ignore that difference for the sake of agency.
Magical darkness is defined in a specific way, non-magical darkness is defined in general, specifically any magical darkness prevents darkvision from being useful in that effect, and stating otherwise is wrong.
Agree to disagree and you do you.
Wrong:
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. 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 public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.
Sage Advice IS official rulings. Whatever someone from the staff at WotC or DDB says on interviews, Twitter, Discord, etc. regarding how to interpret the rules is advice--that's what that line at the end means. Someone quoting Sage Advice is giving you an official ruling by WotC, not something they made up. If YOU want to treat all darkness created by spells as magical darkness that blocks Darkvision--go ahead, but stop arguing in bad faith man
[...] - Hunger of Hadar does not create magical darkness, instead it is a gateway to another dimension that appears like mundane darkness to someone outside of it per it's very first line, hence "sphere of Darkness". It does not specify the "Darkness" is from the spell, but the Darkness defined from the Glossary (opaque).
[...] Hunger of Hadar does NOT create magical darkness because it does not say that in the spell, and every spell that creates magical darkness specifically says "magical darkness" in its description. [...]
(sorry for snipping the replies; just trying to get what I need)
Interesting. I've been ruling that Darkness (the area), when created by a spell, is always magical since it's a Magical Effect, so you can dispel it with Dispel Magic, for example.
But you make a good point about the use of "magical" in the spell descriptions.
EDIT: I didn't see Pantagruel666's answer. It's more or less what I think too.
EDIT2: fix tooltip.
I mean, you're both right that the effect is magical because it's been caused by magic, and mechanically it refers to Darkness to describe it's a Heavily Obscured area, but you're not actually creating a patch of magical darkness because the spell doesn't actually say so (the spell refers to it as a Gateway, meaning a portal). For example, both Darkness and Maddening Darkness specify its a patch of magical darkness, but Summon Fey also uses "magical darkness" for one of the spirit's Bonus Actions, and this one doesn't say Darkvision can't see through it. Magical Darkness can also be dispelled by light created by spells higher than the one that created the darkness, but Hunger of Hadar cannot be dispelled in such a way because you're not actually blotting the light out of the area, but creating a portal, hence why the spell uses the term Darkness as in Heavily Obscured area.
Honestly, had they substituted Darkness for Heavily Obscured area, HoH wouldn't even be part of this conversation. At the end of the day though, Hunger of Hadar changed the sphere from Blackness to Darkness for convenience, since that's the game term used now for dark areas with absence of light.
Dr_Selastraga I get your point, and I really appreciate the way you explained it.
The difference between magical and non-magical Darkness when it's created by a spell is the only thing I didn't consider before.
And yeah, I completely agree that not all magical Darkness blocks Darkvision, other Special Senses, or senses granted by specific features unless a spell's effect says otherwise.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If your stance is that you can't see the stars in the night sky, you've made a wrong turn in deciphering the rules. Reconsider and try again.
No. If you write rules that result in an absurd situation, you've written bad rules. If you write rules that have to be "deciphered", you've written bad rules. Quit your job and be replaced by someone competent.
I don’t know that anyone would argue that they haven’t made a mess of concealment and obscurement in the 2024 rules, but it’s also not easy to write rules that are clear, concise, and broadly applicable. Debating the vision rules of D&D is a time-honored tradition that stretches back decades, after all.
That said, putting in the 2024 rules that “a Heavily Obscured area […] is opaque” seems rather sloppy if Darkness isn’t excluded from that, because having mundane darkness be “opaque” is absurd. Otherwise you’d have two people holding candles standing 15’ apart in a dark room being unable to see each other. That is so contrary to natural intuition as to be unworkable. So that part of the rules requires interpretation, but it’s not like 2014’s “a heavily obscured area […] blocks vision entirely” isn’t saying the same thing, just a little more vaguely.
My personal interpretation is approximately “a Heavily Obscured area -other than Darkness, such as dense foliage or heavy fog- is opaque”. Because that rule already needs to be interpreted to prevent absurdity, I do understand why there is an argument for magical darkness being opaque. However I think the weight of the indirect evidence is that even magical darkness can been seen out of or through unless a specific rule associated with the source of the magical darkness says otherwise. If that wasn’t the case, those specific rules -such as the darkness spell blocking Darkvision- would be largely redundant since any opaque Heavily Obscured area would already be accomplishing their effect.
What I’m less certain of is whether the darkness spell just turns Darkvision’s effect off within its area or if it also prevents Darkvision from reducing mundane Darkness to Dim Light if the line of sight passes through the spell’s area of effect.
I think another reason this is debated is that an area where light cannot be produced and nothing can be illuminated is just harder to envision than an opaque black sphere. It’s also less concealing than you might think. Arguably, if things in the area just can’t be illuminated, nothing prevents them from being seen in silhouette. A dragon with darkness cast on it would still be a dragon-shaped shadow against a sunlit sky.
I don’t know that anyone would argue that they haven’t made a mess of concealment and obscurement in the 2024 rules, but it’s also not easy to write rules that are clear, concise, and broadly applicable.
Yeah, I know. That's why game designers get paid to do it. If you fail at your job, you should get fired and replaced.
I think another reason this is debated is that an area where light cannot be produced and nothing can be illuminated is just harder to envision than an opaque black sphere. It’s also less concealing than you might think. Arguably, if things in the area just can’t be illuminated, nothing prevents them from being seen in silhouette. A dragon with darkness cast on it would still be a dragon-shaped shadow against a sunlit sky.
It's not difficult in the slightest. In the spell's area, all surfaces are dark. Just like normal darkness. If you can imagine normal darkness, you can imagine magic darkness.
Silhouettes don't cause a problem, unless you think they cause a problem for normal darkness as well. A creature in darkness is obscured regardless of whether you can see its silhouette, and receives all the normal benefits of being obscured.
I don’t know that anyone would argue that they haven’t made a mess of concealment and obscurement in the 2024 rules, but it’s also not easy to write rules that are clear, concise, and broadly applicable.
Both 3e and 4e did a much better job of it. The core problem is that 5e tried to use the same rules for darkness and smoke/fog/etc, and they're not the same thing. This means that for magical effects we don't know which type of effect is trying to be created.
As I see it, the primary difficultly with imagining a non-opaque magical darkness is understanding what it would be like in an otherwise lit area. In that context, it’s substantially more likely that you would be between a light source and someone looking at you and thus visible in silhouette. Standing in a darkness spell in a field at noon the outcome would be more like someone dumped Vantablack paint in a 15’ radius than being in a normal shadow. You’d only really be hard to see if the ground or something else in the area of effect was behind you from the viewer’s perspective, but they’d still only be seeing a two-dimensional shadow.
Since the mechanics don’t account for that, it’s a little difficult to square them with that way of picturing darkness. I’m just saying that I can see why some people prefer it as a swirling dark mist instead. I would be incredulous if a DM were to tell me I couldn’t see that flying dragon in darkness.
As I see it, the primary difficultly with imagining a non-opaque magical darkness is understanding what it would be like in an otherwise lit area. In that context, it’s substantially more likely that you would be between a light source and someone looking at you and thus visible in silhouette. Standing in a darkness spell in a field at noon the outcome would be more like someone dumped Vantablack paint in a 15’ radius than being in a normal shadow. You’d only really be hard to see if the ground or something else in the area of effect was behind you from the viewer’s perspective, but they’d still only be seeing a two-dimensional shadow.
Since the mechanics don’t account for that, it’s a little difficult to square them with that way of picturing darkness. I’m just saying that I can see why some people prefer it as a swirling dark mist instead. I would be incredulous if a DM were to tell me I couldn’t see that flying dragon in darkness.
You can see it just fine, it's simply obscured. Obscured and invisible do not mean the same thing.
What is difficult about imagining it? Be specific.
You can see it just fine, it's simply obscured. Obscured and invisible do not mean the same thing.
What is difficult about imagining it? Be specific.
Well, by the RAW you can’t see anything in Darkness. You’re [Tooltip Not Found] while you’re looking into it, and you shouldn’t be able to visually ascertain where in the Darkness the dragon is located. But that really only comes up if you get into a discussion about how obvious making an air assault covered by magical darkness is under various lighting conditions, which is probably not a universal experience.
My players get it when I explain that they can’t see into a darkness spell. But if I also say you can see everything on the other side of it just fine, I get some blank stares. It makes sense to me, but not everyone finds it intuitive as evidenced by how long this thread is. It hasn’t helped matters that the darkness spell or its close equivalents have shifted back and forth between being opaque and not across older editions with players imprinting their concept of what darkness means based on their initial exposure.
That said, putting in the 2024 rules that “a Heavily Obscured area […] is opaque” seems rather sloppy if Darkness isn’t excluded from that, because having mundane darkness be “opaque” is absurd.
In the context of this rule, the word "opaque" is essentially flavor text. The designers have mostly tried to avoid this style of writing in the 2024 ruleset, but it still slips in here and there. What's happening here is that they are writing a descriptive word as an introduction to the concept that is contrasted against the previous concept of lightly obscured areas, and it also serves as sort of a summary of the concept that is actually described and explained in the following sentence. So, they wrote the word "opaque" followed by a period. Then, in the following sentence, they immediately explain what they actually mean by the usage of that word in this context -- which is that "You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there."
EDIT: Important Note: The word "opaque" does not even appear in the Rules Glossary entry for "Heavily Obscured". Only the actual mechanics (without the flavor text) is listed there.
So, in this context, the word "opaque" is not meant to convey that you cannot see through it -- it is meant to convey that you cannot see into it or within it. The area itself is obscured from view. Surrounding areas are unaffected by this rule. This rule only applies when trying to see something there. When trying to see something elsewhere, the rule is ignored.
My personal interpretation is approximately “a Heavily Obscured area -other than Darkness, such as dense foliage or heavy fog- is opaque”.
Note that the concept of obscurement is not the same as the concept of physically blocking Line of Sight. These are two different concepts and are handled by two different rules. An environmental feature such as dense foliage can serve to heavily obscure an area and it also physically blocks Line of Sight. On the other hand, the phenomenon of Darkness also heavily obscures an area, but it does not physically block Line of Sight.
What I’m less certain of is whether the darkness spell just turns Darkvision’s effect off within its area or if it also prevents Darkvision from reducing mundane Darkness to Dim Light if the line of sight passes through the spell’s area of effect.
It's the first one. It just turns Darkvision's effect off within its area. The spell is just creating an area of Darkness within which even a creature with Darkvision cannot see. That area is obscured from view even more than normal. Areas outside of the AoE are unaffected, and Darkness does not physically block Line of Sight.
I think another reason this is debated is that an area where light cannot be produced and nothing can be illuminated is just harder to envision than an opaque black sphere. It’s also less concealing than you might think. Arguably, if things in the area just can’t be illuminated, nothing prevents them from being seen in silhouette. A dragon with darkness cast on it would still be a dragon-shaped shadow against a sunlit sky.
As I see it, the primary difficultly with imagining a non-opaque magical darkness is understanding what it would be like in an otherwise lit area. In that context, it’s substantially more likely that you would be between a light source and someone looking at you and thus visible in silhouette. Standing in a darkness spell in a field at noon the outcome would be more like someone dumped Vantablack paint in a 15’ radius than being in a normal shadow.
. . .
I would be incredulous if a DM were to tell me I couldn’t see that flying dragon in darkness.
The reason why these things can be difficult to properly imagine is because it works drastically differently in the D&D universe than how it works in real life. In 5e, the game greatly simplifies the physics by defining perfectly sharp borders between different categories of light as you move away from a light source.
In real life, if an area is adjacent to a light source, it can never really be truly dark -- there is always some light from the light source illuminating the space. In real life, the gradient is gradually changing as you get farther away. But you cannot truly achieve total darkness unless you isolate an area away from any light source, such as in an enclosed room or in a deep cave.
As a consequence, objects in Darkness which block a light source beyond the Darkness will create a perfect silhouette of blackness. You would not be able to see the object at all -- just an object-shaped "hole" covering a portion of the well-lit space behind it. Mechanically, the object is still heavily obscured by virtue of being located within a heavily obscured area and therefore you have the blinded condition when trying to see this object. If the object is a creature, that creature is still unseen. If that creature is also hidden, then its location is still unknown. Before combat, for the purposes of surprise, a successful stealth check could be interpreted to mean that the silhouette is unrecognizable as any sort of threat. It might just look like some sort of blob that could be mistaken for a boulder or a bush or whatever.
But the critical point is that if there is no such object which physically blocks your line of sight to a distant light source then you can see that light source just fine as well as the objects that are illuminated by that light source. An area of Darkness between you and that light source does not change that -- such Darkness simply creates an area within which you cannot see any objects because those objects are heavily obscured.
Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstructionis a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstructionis a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
Yeah. The Darkness spell operates more like a heavy fog than normal Darkness, but only blocks normal vision and Darkvision. Unfortunately, except for one of the abilities from Summon Fey, I haven't seen any other use of magical darkness from the core books that's separate from the Darkness spell.
Yeah. The Darkness spell operates more like a heavy fog than normal Darkness, but only blocks normal vision and Darkvision. Unfortunately, except for one of the abilities from Summon Fey, I haven't seen any other use of magical darkness from the core books that's separate from the Darkness spell.
Maddening Darkness is the only other darkness effect I'm aware of that functions the same way, though Hunger of Hadar blinds creatures in the area (which is weird, as it works even against creatures that can see through the darkness).
Yeah. The Darkness spell operates more like a heavy fog than normal Darkness, but only blocks normal vision and Darkvision. Unfortunately, except for one of the abilities from Summon Fey, I haven't seen any other use of magical darkness from the core books that's separate from the Darkness spell.
Maddening Darkness is the only other darkness effect I'm aware of that functions the same way, though Hunger of Hadar blinds creatures in the area (which is weird, as it works even against creatures that can see through the darkness).
Hunger of Hadar is a special case because it's supposed to simulate a dimensional tear inside the sphere that's linked to either outer space or the Far Realm. The sphere is not magical darkness, but does appear as Darkness when looking from outside, hence Darkvision works looking in. The closest example I can use to describe it is the wormhole from Interstellar
If the intent was that magical darkness (in general) blocks darkvision, they would either have magical darkness in the rules glossary, or change the wording of darkvision to
Sage Adivce is exactly what it says it is, Advice and NOT official Rules As Written, especially when it pertains to magical effects
Not it, you or anyone else can tell me the difference between non-magical and magical darkness isn’t clearly defined and that the lack of the proper context of which of those two very different phenomena are used elsewhere makes it perfectly acceptable to ignore that difference for the sake of agency.
Magical darkness is defined in a specific way, non-magical darkness is defined in general, specifically any magical darkness prevents darkvision from being useful in that effect, and stating otherwise is wrong.
Agree to disagree and you do you.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Wrong:
Sage Advice IS official rulings. Whatever someone from the staff at WotC or DDB says on interviews, Twitter, Discord, etc. regarding how to interpret the rules is advice--that's what that line at the end means. Someone quoting Sage Advice is giving you an official ruling by WotC, not something they made up. If YOU want to treat all darkness created by spells as magical darkness that blocks Darkvision--go ahead, but stop arguing in bad faith man
I mean, you're both right that the effect is magical because it's been caused by magic, and mechanically it refers to Darkness to describe it's a Heavily Obscured area, but you're not actually creating a patch of magical darkness because the spell doesn't actually say so (the spell refers to it as a Gateway, meaning a portal). For example, both Darkness and Maddening Darkness specify its a patch of magical darkness, but Summon Fey also uses "magical darkness" for one of the spirit's Bonus Actions, and this one doesn't say Darkvision can't see through it. Magical Darkness can also be dispelled by light created by spells higher than the one that created the darkness, but Hunger of Hadar cannot be dispelled in such a way because you're not actually blotting the light out of the area, but creating a portal, hence why the spell uses the term Darkness as in Heavily Obscured area.
Honestly, had they substituted Darkness for Heavily Obscured area, HoH wouldn't even be part of this conversation. At the end of the day though, Hunger of Hadar changed the sphere from Blackness to Darkness for convenience, since that's the game term used now for dark areas with absence of light.
Dr_Selastraga I get your point, and I really appreciate the way you explained it.
The difference between magical and non-magical Darkness when it's created by a spell is the only thing I didn't consider before.
And yeah, I completely agree that not all magical Darkness blocks Darkvision, other Special Senses, or senses granted by specific features unless a spell's effect says otherwise.
Thank you for getting back to me!
If your stance is that you can't see the stars in the night sky, you've made a wrong turn in deciphering the rules. Reconsider and try again.
Edit, PS: Sage Advice is official rules for 2014. It actually says the only rulebooks are the 2014 ones. So, invalidates the 2024 ones. See:
It is pretty funny, really.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Don't know who your comment is directed to but regarding Sage Advice, we're talking about the 2024 version found here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium
No. If you write rules that result in an absurd situation, you've written bad rules. If you write rules that have to be "deciphered", you've written bad rules. Quit your job and be replaced by someone competent.
I don’t know that anyone would argue that they haven’t made a mess of concealment and obscurement in the 2024 rules, but it’s also not easy to write rules that are clear, concise, and broadly applicable. Debating the vision rules of D&D is a time-honored tradition that stretches back decades, after all.
That said, putting in the 2024 rules that “a Heavily Obscured area […] is opaque” seems rather sloppy if Darkness isn’t excluded from that, because having mundane darkness be “opaque” is absurd. Otherwise you’d have two people holding candles standing 15’ apart in a dark room being unable to see each other. That is so contrary to natural intuition as to be unworkable. So that part of the rules requires interpretation, but it’s not like 2014’s “a heavily obscured area […] blocks vision entirely” isn’t saying the same thing, just a little more vaguely.
My personal interpretation is approximately “a Heavily Obscured area -other than Darkness, such as dense foliage or heavy fog- is opaque”. Because that rule already needs to be interpreted to prevent absurdity, I do understand why there is an argument for magical darkness being opaque. However I think the weight of the indirect evidence is that even magical darkness can been seen out of or through unless a specific rule associated with the source of the magical darkness says otherwise. If that wasn’t the case, those specific rules -such as the darkness spell blocking Darkvision- would be largely redundant since any opaque Heavily Obscured area would already be accomplishing their effect.
What I’m less certain of is whether the darkness spell just turns Darkvision’s effect off within its area or if it also prevents Darkvision from reducing mundane Darkness to Dim Light if the line of sight passes through the spell’s area of effect.
I think another reason this is debated is that an area where light cannot be produced and nothing can be illuminated is just harder to envision than an opaque black sphere. It’s also less concealing than you might think. Arguably, if things in the area just can’t be illuminated, nothing prevents them from being seen in silhouette. A dragon with darkness cast on it would still be a dragon-shaped shadow against a sunlit sky.
Yeah, I know. That's why game designers get paid to do it. If you fail at your job, you should get fired and replaced.
It's not difficult in the slightest. In the spell's area, all surfaces are dark. Just like normal darkness. If you can imagine normal darkness, you can imagine magic darkness.
Silhouettes don't cause a problem, unless you think they cause a problem for normal darkness as well. A creature in darkness is obscured regardless of whether you can see its silhouette, and receives all the normal benefits of being obscured.
Both 3e and 4e did a much better job of it. The core problem is that 5e tried to use the same rules for darkness and smoke/fog/etc, and they're not the same thing. This means that for magical effects we don't know which type of effect is trying to be created.
As I see it, the primary difficultly with imagining a non-opaque magical darkness is understanding what it would be like in an otherwise lit area. In that context, it’s substantially more likely that you would be between a light source and someone looking at you and thus visible in silhouette. Standing in a darkness spell in a field at noon the outcome would be more like someone dumped Vantablack paint in a 15’ radius than being in a normal shadow. You’d only really be hard to see if the ground or something else in the area of effect was behind you from the viewer’s perspective, but they’d still only be seeing a two-dimensional shadow.
Since the mechanics don’t account for that, it’s a little difficult to square them with that way of picturing darkness. I’m just saying that I can see why some people prefer it as a swirling dark mist instead. I would be incredulous if a DM were to tell me I couldn’t see that flying dragon in darkness.
You can see it just fine, it's simply obscured. Obscured and invisible do not mean the same thing.
What is difficult about imagining it? Be specific.
Well, by the RAW you can’t see anything in Darkness. You’re [Tooltip Not Found] while you’re looking into it, and you shouldn’t be able to visually ascertain where in the Darkness the dragon is located. But that really only comes up if you get into a discussion about how obvious making an air assault covered by magical darkness is under various lighting conditions, which is probably not a universal experience.
My players get it when I explain that they can’t see into a darkness spell. But if I also say you can see everything on the other side of it just fine, I get some blank stares. It makes sense to me, but not everyone finds it intuitive as evidenced by how long this thread is. It hasn’t helped matters that the darkness spell or its close equivalents have shifted back and forth between being opaque and not across older editions with players imprinting their concept of what darkness means based on their initial exposure.
In the context of this rule, the word "opaque" is essentially flavor text. The designers have mostly tried to avoid this style of writing in the 2024 ruleset, but it still slips in here and there. What's happening here is that they are writing a descriptive word as an introduction to the concept that is contrasted against the previous concept of lightly obscured areas, and it also serves as sort of a summary of the concept that is actually described and explained in the following sentence. So, they wrote the word "opaque" followed by a period. Then, in the following sentence, they immediately explain what they actually mean by the usage of that word in this context -- which is that "You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there."
EDIT: Important Note: The word "opaque" does not even appear in the Rules Glossary entry for "Heavily Obscured". Only the actual mechanics (without the flavor text) is listed there.
So, in this context, the word "opaque" is not meant to convey that you cannot see through it -- it is meant to convey that you cannot see into it or within it. The area itself is obscured from view. Surrounding areas are unaffected by this rule. This rule only applies when trying to see something there. When trying to see something elsewhere, the rule is ignored.
Note that the concept of obscurement is not the same as the concept of physically blocking Line of Sight. These are two different concepts and are handled by two different rules. An environmental feature such as dense foliage can serve to heavily obscure an area and it also physically blocks Line of Sight. On the other hand, the phenomenon of Darkness also heavily obscures an area, but it does not physically block Line of Sight.
It's the first one. It just turns Darkvision's effect off within its area. The spell is just creating an area of Darkness within which even a creature with Darkvision cannot see. That area is obscured from view even more than normal. Areas outside of the AoE are unaffected, and Darkness does not physically block Line of Sight.
and also
The reason why these things can be difficult to properly imagine is because it works drastically differently in the D&D universe than how it works in real life. In 5e, the game greatly simplifies the physics by defining perfectly sharp borders between different categories of light as you move away from a light source.
In real life, if an area is adjacent to a light source, it can never really be truly dark -- there is always some light from the light source illuminating the space. In real life, the gradient is gradually changing as you get farther away. But you cannot truly achieve total darkness unless you isolate an area away from any light source, such as in an enclosed room or in a deep cave.
As a consequence, objects in Darkness which block a light source beyond the Darkness will create a perfect silhouette of blackness. You would not be able to see the object at all -- just an object-shaped "hole" covering a portion of the well-lit space behind it. Mechanically, the object is still heavily obscured by virtue of being located within a heavily obscured area and therefore you have the blinded condition when trying to see this object. If the object is a creature, that creature is still unseen. If that creature is also hidden, then its location is still unknown. Before combat, for the purposes of surprise, a successful stealth check could be interpreted to mean that the silhouette is unrecognizable as any sort of threat. It might just look like some sort of blob that could be mistaken for a boulder or a bush or whatever.
But the critical point is that if there is no such object which physically blocks your line of sight to a distant light source then you can see that light source just fine as well as the objects that are illuminated by that light source. An area of Darkness between you and that light source does not change that -- such Darkness simply creates an area within which you cannot see any objects because those objects are heavily obscured.
Yeah. The Darkness spell operates more like a heavy fog than normal Darkness, but only blocks normal vision and Darkvision. Unfortunately, except for one of the abilities from Summon Fey, I haven't seen any other use of magical darkness from the core books that's separate from the Darkness spell.
Maddening Darkness is the only other darkness effect I'm aware of that functions the same way, though Hunger of Hadar blinds creatures in the area (which is weird, as it works even against creatures that can see through the darkness).
Hunger of Hadar is a special case because it's supposed to simulate a dimensional tear inside the sphere that's linked to either outer space or the Far Realm. The sphere is not magical darkness, but does appear as Darkness when looking from outside, hence Darkvision works looking in. The closest example I can use to describe it is the wormhole from Interstellar
The Darkness effect of Hunger of Hadar is magical because it is created by a spell.