By this reading, Warlocks with Devil's Sight (and any creature with Darkvision) can see in to Hunger of Hadar, but not out. Because the spell does not specify that creatures looking in are Blinded, only those "fully within the <spell's> area". Incidentally, I agree with this interpretation, but I suspect you do not.
. . .
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight do not actually interact with Hunger of Hadar at all since these abilities are only related to the concept of darkness and darkness is never mentioned anywhere in this spell.
But your second statement is indeed the correct interpretation of how Hunger of Hadar works -- it's not a heavily obscured area and it doesn't create darkness. Instead, it's an AoE spell that blinds creatures and damages them. An outside observer would notice that there's blackness there, but nothing says that this blackness is opaque or that it would in any way block anyone's line of sight.
You are telling me an area that "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate" isn't darkness. That's fine inasmuch as we can treat "darkness" as a keyword, and therefore only effects that explicitly say the word "darkness" create "darkness". I don't think this is a functional reading because again, it renders the game incomprehensible. By this definition, the lack of light in a closed room with no windows and no lights isn't "darkness" because the rules don't explicitly say that it is. The area of Hunger of Hadar is the same as the closed room: it's a zone no light can enter, and therefore it is precluded from being in bright light or dim light. The zone must be in darkness if we maintain that the vision rules have any meaning at all.
This seems completely ridiculous to me, but I can't find a good answer to it after looking. Am I interpreting this correctly, because I can't imagine this is correct, but I can't find anything in the rules to say it isn't?
While the answer to your question in the subject is "Yes", there are other rules that can impact the scenarios you presented. See the sections on Coverand Unseen Attackers and Targets.
By this reading, Warlocks with Devil's Sight (and any creature with Darkvision) can see in to Hunger of Hadar, but not out. Because the spell does not specify that creatures looking in are Blinded, only those "fully within the <spell's> area". Incidentally, I agree with this interpretation, but I suspect you do not.
. . .
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight do not actually interact with Hunger of Hadar at all since these abilities are only related to the concept of darkness and darkness is never mentioned anywhere in this spell.
But your second statement is indeed the correct interpretation of how Hunger of Hadar works -- it's not a heavily obscured area and it doesn't create darkness. Instead, it's an AoE spell that blinds creatures and damages them. An outside observer would notice that there's blackness there, but nothing says that this blackness is opaque or that it would in any way block anyone's line of sight.
You are telling me an area that "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate" isn't darkness. That's fine inasmuch as we can treat "darkness" as a keyword, and therefore only effects that explicitly say the word "darkness" create "darkness". I don't think this is a functional reading because again, it renders the game incomprehensible. By this definition, the lack of light in a closed room with no windows and no lights isn't "darkness" because the rules don't explicitly say that it is. The area of Hunger of Hadar is the same as the closed room: it's a zone no light can enter, and therefore it is precluded from being in bright light or dim light. The zone must be in darkness if we maintain that the vision rules have any meaning at all.
The difference between a shuttered room and Hunger of Hadar is that in the latter case you a conjuring up something that is described as follows:
A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point with range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away.
It is not defined as magical darkness whereas the spell Maddening Darkness does specifically qualify that the effect it creates is magical darkness. Ergo it's at least reasonable to rule that whatever essence is in play for HoH is more analogous to smoke or fog.
You are telling me an area that "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate" isn't darkness. That's fine inasmuch as we can treat "darkness" as a keyword, and therefore only effects that explicitly say the word "darkness" create "darkness". I don't think this is a functional reading because again, it renders the game incomprehensible. By this definition, the lack of light in a closed room with no windows and no lights isn't "darkness" because the rules don't explicitly say that it is. The area of Hunger of Hadar is the same as the closed room: it's a zone no light can enter, and therefore it is precluded from being in bright light or dim light. The zone must be in darkness if we maintain that the vision rules have any meaning at all.
The difference between a shuttered room and Hunger of Hadar is that in the latter case you a conjuring up something that is described as follows:
A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point with range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away.
It is not defined as magical darkness whereas the spell Maddening Darkness does specifically qualify that the effect it creates is magical darkness. Ergo it's at least reasonable to rule that whatever essence is in play for HoH is more analogous to smoke or fog.
So you think that Hunger of Hadar creates a heavily obscured zone akin to Fog Cloud, or possibly a merely lightly obscured zone, even though it doesn't use either of those keywords? Can creatures outside the zone see in, in your interpretation? Using as precise mechanical language as possible, can you describe why you came to this conclusion?
Again, I'm sorry, I know I probably look like a complete troll here, but I'm really fascinated by the range of completely incompatible readings of this spell that has come up in this thread. I really want to figure out how everyone is thinking about the game differently to come to such divergent interpretations.
So essentially, "darkness" is a key word, and only effects which explicitly create "darkness" behave as heavy obscurement? So a simple room with no windows or lights isn't "darkness" in this reading.
What i'm just saying is that Hunger of Hadar doesn't have the word "drakness" or "heavily obscured" anywhere written in the spell description but a DM can rule that such sphere of blackness is one nonetheless. Many effects other than darkness specifically say they do create heavily obscured area, Spell such as Fog Cloud or Incendiary Cloud for example.
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you folks see how these interpretations of the rules don't really work, right? Like you can't interpret the rules this way and also make any sense of the way these spells are written.
RAW while Hunger of Hadar isn't darkness or heavily obscured area that block vision entirely, a DM could still interpret that no one can see through it because no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area and light is necessary to see, unless it has some Blindsight. Even things like Truesight, Darkvision or Devil's Sight doesn't work because it's not darkness.
It's truly a unique effect as it's absence of light not categorized as darkness but blackness.
Vision & Light: The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Yeah, Hunder of Hadar is just a spell that creates an AoE that blinds creatures and damages them.
The phrase in its spell description which says "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" is sort of out-of-place in this spell, as it doesn't really do anything if the area is already well-lit, unless we make the leap that this means that light which already exists in the area is somehow extinguished by this AoE. It doesn't exactly say that, but it might be possible to get there logically.
The flavor of this AoE is that "a sphere of blackness appears" and this results in blinding creatures and damaging them. This doesn't cause any darkness in and of itself.
However, if we do decide to interpret the phrase "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" as actually creating an area of darkness, then we would just follow the rules for darkness . . . which of course is that darkness obscures areas from view but does not interrupt line of sight.
Again, the main reason why this spell was ever brought up in this thread was to demonstrate the proper phrasing of a rule that actually blinds a creature, which stands in very stark contrast to the phrasing that is used in the rule for heavily obscured areas.
The Dev most likely intended Hunger of Hadar sphere of blackness to be an area that almost nothing can see through or illuminate that's why its not darkness.
No light can illuminate Hunger of Hadar area which i interpret as the sphere of blackness taking over any ambiant light there was, wether is magical or bright light from daylight.
Yeah, Hunder of Hadar is just a spell that creates an AoE that blinds creatures and damages them.
The phrase in its spell description which says "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" is sort of out-of-place in this spell, as it doesn't really do anything if the area is already well-lit, unless we make the leap that this means that light which already exists in the area is somehow extinguished by this AoE. It doesn't exactly say that, but it might be possible to get there logically.
The flavor of this AoE is that "a sphere of blackness appears" and this results in blinding creatures and damaging them. This doesn't cause any darkness in and of itself.
However, if we do decide to interpret the phrase "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" as actually creating an area of darkness, then we would just follow the rules for darkness . . . which of course is that darkness obscures areas from view but does not interrupt line of sight.
Again, the main reason why this spell was ever brought up in this thread was to demonstrate the proper phrasing of a rule that actually blinds a creature, which stands in very stark contrast to the phrasing that is used in the rule for heavily obscured areas.
The spell is fully described as:
" A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point with range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away. No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded."
It is a sphere of "blackness". I don't know what you picture when given this description but in my case I imagine a literal sphere of blackness as described. In addition, the spell goes on to further qualify that NO light of any sort can illuminate the area. So no light can alleviate the blackness.
Can you see through the blackness to the other side? No, since if you could see through it then it wouldn't be black. Black is the absence of all light and if you can see an image from the other side of the Hunger of Hadar spell then you would not see a "sphere of blackness".
Can devils sight or darkvision see through a Hunger of Hadar? No, because it isn't darkness ... it is literally a sphere of blackness.
Is the area of Hunger of Hadar heavily obscured? Effectively yes because you can not see into it or through it because it is a sphere of blackness that no form of light can illuminate. However, the spell doesn't need to specify heavily obscured since the spell description gets to the same effect without it.
Why does the spell contain the line stating that creatures inside it are blinded? The spell description did not describe what it looks like from the inside. From the outside it is a sphere of blackness. Without the clarification that creatures are blinded inside it, someone might argue that you could see out of Hunger of Hadar but others could not see in.
It is a sphere of "blackness". I don't know what you picture when given this description but in my case I imagine a literal sphere of blackness as described.
The spell description doesn't elaborate, so these details are open to interpretation. There's nothing that specifies if the sphere is opaque or translucent or if the blackness includes any sort of physical matter or other effect that might block line of sight or if it just represents a lack of light. Would it have been any different if it were a sphere of yellowness or a sphere of orangeness or a sphere of whiteness? The DM must fill in some of these details unfortunately.
Can you see through the blackness to the other side? No, since if you could see through it then it wouldn't be black. Black is the absence of all light and if you can see an image from the other side of the Hunger of Hadar spell then you would not see a "sphere of blackness".
The color of an area does not dictate whether or not Line of Sight is blocked. There's no rules support for this.
Can devils sight or darkvision see through a Hunger of Hadar? No, because it isn't darkness ... it is literally a sphere of blackness.
These abilities don't really interact with this AoE since the AoE doesn't describe any darkness. But, if we assume that the spell also creates an area of darkness by somehow destroying the light that's already there from the phrase "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area", then both devil's sight and darkvision work as they normally do for any other darkness. But even so, these abilities would make no difference for how such creatures would perceive the "blackness".
Is the area of Hunger of Hadar heavily obscured? Effectively yes because you can not see into it or through it because it is a sphere of blackness that no form of light can illuminate. However, the spell doesn't need to specify heavily obscured since the spell description gets to the same effect without it.
The spell description doesn't say anything about creating a heavily obscured area. We would have to rely on an interpretation that the phrase ""No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" actually means that the spell creates an area of darkness, to go along with the blackness, in order for this to become a heavily obscured area -- which is a reasonable interpretation.
Why does the spell contain the line stating that creatures inside it are blinded? The spell description did not describe what it looks like from the inside. From the outside it is a sphere of blackness. Without the clarification that creatures are blinded inside it, someone might argue that you could see out of Hunger of Hadar but others could not see in.
The main reason why the spell description states that creatures inside the sphere are blinded is because that's what the spell does. The spell creates an AoE that blinds creatures and damages them, among other things. The blackness of the effect is flavor.
----------
In the end, a DM could declare that the spell creates a heavily obscured area of Darkness, NOT due to the blackness, but because of the lack of light allowed into the area. This causes creatures inside to be unable to see inside and it also causes creatures outside to be unable to see inside. But, as per the rule for heavily obscured areas, creatures inside could still see outside, and creatures outside could see what's on the other side.
However, the spell also declares that creatures within the sphere are blinded. So now the creature inside cannot see outside because he cannot see at all, NOT because something about the area prevents it. If a creature that can see is somehow immune to the blindness Condition, then such a creature within the sphere could still see out of it.
Next, a DM could declare that the blackness created by the spell qualifies as an effect that blocks Line of Sight. This is not actually specified by the spell as properties such as its opacity are undefined. It's reasonable for the DM to rule this either way. If it's declared that this blackness blocks Line of Sight (which is a different rule than the rule for heavily obscured areas), then we now have a situation where a creature on the outside cannot see what's on the other side.
So, if the DM makes the restrictive ruling that relates to heavily obscured areas and also makes the restrictive ruling that relates to Line of Sight, then the vision of the creatures inside and outside of the sphere would be affected in the ways that most people here are thinking.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
[...]
It seems that a heavily obscured area in the 2024 PHB will be worded differently (source):
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 here.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
[...]
It seems that a heavily obscured area in the 2024 PHB will be worded differently (source):
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 here.
Thanks for the citation :) .. but I really hope that they have added sufficient description to distinguish the behaviour of darkness, fog and dense foliage since they don't really behave the same in terms of seeing through them.
The current wording is:
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
I am wondering whether the change from "blocks vision entirely" to opaque will change how some folks interpret this rule or not? Something that is opaque WILL block vision entirely. Something that is opaque, a creature will not be able to see into, through or out of ... however, that is exactly what "blocks vision entirely" means - so I am uncertain that changing the wording to opaque will resolve the argument for those firmly on the side of seeing through a heavily obscured area.
In my opinion, I read it as a general rule with a clarification that looking at a creature that is heavily obscured results in the blinded condition AND that the heavily obscured area affects line of sight because it is blocks vision entirely (opaque). So, for me, the 2024 wording is just trying to clarify the way I already read it ... but since I can't see the alternate interpretation, I can't see how others might interpret the 2024 revision.
P.S. I am also curious to see all of the vision rules since I am hoping that they have clarified the differences between darkness, dense fog and foliage as different types of heavy obscuration.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
[...]
It seems that a heavily obscured area in the 2024 PHB will be worded differently (source):
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 here.
Thanks for the citation :) .. but I really hope that they have added sufficient description to distinguish the behaviour of darkness, fog and dense foliage since they don't really behave the same in terms of seeing through them.
The current wording is:
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
I am wondering whether the change from "blocks vision entirely" to opaque will change how some folks interpret this rule or not? Something that is opaque WILL block vision entirely. Something that is opaque, a creature will not be able to see into, through or out of ... however, that is exactly what "blocks vision entirely" means - so I am uncertain that changing the wording to opaque will resolve the argument for those firmly on the side of seeing through a heavily obscured area.
In my opinion, I read it as a general rule with a clarification that looking at a creature that is heavily obscured results in the blinded condition AND that the heavily obscured area affects line of sight because it is blocks vision entirely (opaque). So, for me, the 2024 wording is just trying to clarify the way I already read it ... but since I can't see the alternate interpretation, I can't see how others might interpret the 2024 revision.
You're always welcome!
I agree, "blocks vision entirely" and "opaque" are similar for rule purposes, but using those words along with "here" instead of "in that area" makes the rule easier to read and understand IMO.
P.S. I am also curious to see all of the vision rules since I am hoping that they have clarified the differences between darkness, dense fog and foliage as different types of heavy obscuration.
That Darkness, capitalized, should have its own definiton. We'll see!
The problem is not that area of mundane darkness is heavily obscured wether saying its opaque or block vision entirely, since it is to the human eye. The problem is not having a rule that light can always be visible within such condition.
In my opinion, I read it as a general rule with a clarification that looking at a creature that is heavily obscured results in the blinded condition AND that the heavily obscured area affects line of sight because it is blocks vision entirely (opaque). So, for me, the 2024 wording is just trying to clarify the way I already read it ... but since I can't see the alternate interpretation, I can't see how others might interpret the 2024 revision.
P.S. I am also curious to see all of the vision rules since I am hoping that they have clarified the differences between darkness, dense fog and foliage as different types of heavy obscuration.
I completely agree that it would be great if they clarified some of this, but I'm not super optimistic about that. They don't necessarily need to differentiate between environments such as fog vs foliage though. Remember, there can be many other types of environments and effects which create heavily obscured areas -- the list is not just limited to the ones that are given as examples in the rule.
Really, it's just the way that darkness works that "should" be an exception and should be further clarified and defined. Compared to all of the other things that can create a heavily obscured area, darkness "should" work differently. This is because it should be able to fully obscure its own area, but it should not actually block line of sight TO a well-lit area.
Unfortunately, if the common interpretation of the new rule results in anything other than this, then we're right back to a situation where all DMs will feel forced to house-rule this mechanic in order to get it to work "properly". Otherwise, way too many common scenarios do not function correctly, such as the trope of a predator "lurking in darkness" to create an ambush, or a rogue hiding in an area of darkness during battle, or the common campfire scene where it should be possible to see into the well-lit area from outside of it, or the scenario in a dungeon where a thin but dark shadow stretches across a dimly-lit path, or simply being able to look up and see the moon and stars outside at night. DMs will be forced to figure out how to apply advantage and disadvantage on the fly for every scenario since they are constantly making rulings for these scenarios which do not align with the common interpretation of the rules. Honestly, after 10 years of opportunity to get this right, this result would be pretty tragic.
It seems that a heavily obscured area in the 2024 PHB will be worded differently (source):
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 here.
Taken as a snippet out of context, this doesn't really change much about which of the two interpretations is correct, although it does improve readability and it gets rid of the sloppy and undefined mechanic of being "effectively" blinded. I actually really like the change to the phrase "here", since this is more in line with my view that this is an "area-centric" rule that is describing the area itself. To me, this clarifies that you are only blinded when trying to see something that the area itself is actually obscuring.
The fact that the area is described as opaque is less clear to me. In context with the rest of the rule and with the rest of the section which describes rules for Vision and Light, is this statement just trying to differentiate these areas from the other, more lightly obscured areas? And if so, does this statement serve as just a qualifier for how the rest of the rule should be read and interpreted? That's been my interpretation of this rule all along. OR, is this meant to be a standalone statement to create a separate, standalone rule which interacts with the rules for Line of Sight and has nothing to do with the rest of the rule for heavily obscured areas? In other words, does the section for heavily obscured areas present multiple, unrelated rules simply because there are multiple sentences? In my opinion, that interpretation continues to be incorrect.
The capital "D" for darkness is mildly interesting. But remember, there is already a section within the Vision and Light rules which attempts to define "darkness" just a few paragraphs below the rule for a heavily obscured area. In the new rule, this is likely meant as a direct reference to that paragraph and it is unclear at this point if that paragraph has been modified.
Unfortunately, in the 2014 rules they did an absolutely terrible job of defining Bright Light, Dim Light and Darkness in those respective paragraphs. This is because they took an approach of having the entire section sort of flow together with a sort of common english writing style where each of these 3 terms is defined sort of relative to each other through various examples, instead of really defining each one individually and exactly how they interact with other rules and game mechanics such as Line of Sight.
I think that if the new rules simply add one line in the Darkness paragraph which says something like "Darkness does not block a creature's line of sight to an adjacent area of Bright Light or Dim Light" that would solve a lot of problems. But, I'm not optimistic that they actually did that.
It would solve the issue without taking up a lot of words space, but i'm also not optimistic, they struggled with this since at least 4E with which multiple erratas never really fixed this issue.
The problem is not that area of mundane darkness is heavily obscured wether saying its opaque or block vision entirely, since it is to the human eye. The problem is not having a rule that light can always be visible within such condition.
I disagree, mundane darkness is not opaque or block vision to a human eye. The lack of light might mean that you cannot see anything in its area but it does in no way affect your ability to see things beyond its area.
The main problem is having darkness be governed by the same rule that governs fog, foliage and similar, all things that actually does affect your ability to see past it. It should absolutely be separate rules but they seem to refuse to accept this. Adding text about light as you (and @up2ng) suggests could possibly make the rule playable but it won't solve the actual problem, that a 20ft thick bush and a 20ft area of darkness doesn't affect you vision in the same way (regardless of if you are in it or besides it).
I also have issues with their insistence of using conditions for vision related rules (like "Blinded" here or how they deal with "[Tooltip Not Found]"). Normally you have 360 vision during battle and see everything equally but now if there is an area of darkness then you suffer from the Blinded condition. Now I'm sure they didn't mean that this should make you blind to the whole battlefield but with the way conditions work that is what it means (unless you use the optional facing rules). The old "effectively" and "in that area" offered a lot more latitude to ignore the effect for any non-dark area than what the new language does.
Note that I absolutely doesn't say that anyone should ever enforce this because it would be absolutely ridiculous but that's what you get when mixing the binary yes/no way conditions work with the very relative way vision (should) work.
It would solve the issue without taking up a lot of words space, but i'm also not optimistic, they struggled with this since at least 4E with which multiple erratas never really fixed this issue.
This I agree with, they don't seem to think there is any problems with these rules.
You are telling me an area that "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate" isn't darkness. That's fine inasmuch as we can treat "darkness" as a keyword, and therefore only effects that explicitly say the word "darkness" create "darkness". I don't think this is a functional reading because again, it renders the game incomprehensible. By this definition, the lack of light in a closed room with no windows and no lights isn't "darkness" because the rules don't explicitly say that it is. The area of Hunger of Hadar is the same as the closed room: it's a zone no light can enter, and therefore it is precluded from being in bright light or dim light. The zone must be in darkness if we maintain that the vision rules have any meaning at all.
While the answer to your question in the subject is "Yes", there are other rules that can impact the scenarios you presented. See the sections on Cover and Unseen Attackers and Targets.
The difference between a shuttered room and Hunger of Hadar is that in the latter case you a conjuring up something that is described as follows:
It is not defined as magical darkness whereas the spell Maddening Darkness does specifically qualify that the effect it creates is magical darkness. Ergo it's at least reasonable to rule that whatever essence is in play for HoH is more analogous to smoke or fog.
So you think that Hunger of Hadar creates a heavily obscured zone akin to Fog Cloud, or possibly a merely lightly obscured zone, even though it doesn't use either of those keywords? Can creatures outside the zone see in, in your interpretation? Using as precise mechanical language as possible, can you describe why you came to this conclusion?
Again, I'm sorry, I know I probably look like a complete troll here, but I'm really fascinated by the range of completely incompatible readings of this spell that has come up in this thread. I really want to figure out how everyone is thinking about the game differently to come to such divergent interpretations.
RAW while Hunger of Hadar isn't darkness or heavily obscured area that block vision entirely, a DM could still interpret that no one can see through it because no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area and light is necessary to see, unless it has some Blindsight. Even things like Truesight, Darkvision or Devil's Sight doesn't work because it's not darkness.
It's truly a unique effect as it's absence of light not categorized as darkness but blackness.
Yeah, Hunder of Hadar is just a spell that creates an AoE that blinds creatures and damages them.
The phrase in its spell description which says "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" is sort of out-of-place in this spell, as it doesn't really do anything if the area is already well-lit, unless we make the leap that this means that light which already exists in the area is somehow extinguished by this AoE. It doesn't exactly say that, but it might be possible to get there logically.
The flavor of this AoE is that "a sphere of blackness appears" and this results in blinding creatures and damaging them. This doesn't cause any darkness in and of itself.
However, if we do decide to interpret the phrase "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" as actually creating an area of darkness, then we would just follow the rules for darkness . . . which of course is that darkness obscures areas from view but does not interrupt line of sight.
Again, the main reason why this spell was ever brought up in this thread was to demonstrate the proper phrasing of a rule that actually blinds a creature, which stands in very stark contrast to the phrasing that is used in the rule for heavily obscured areas.
The Dev most likely intended Hunger of Hadar sphere of blackness to be an area that almost nothing can see through or illuminate that's why its not darkness.
Doesn't that mean ambient or sunlight also does not illuminate the area?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
No light can illuminate Hunger of Hadar area which i interpret as the sphere of blackness taking over any ambiant light there was, wether is magical or bright light from daylight.
The spell is fully described as:
" A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point with range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away. No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded."
It is a sphere of "blackness". I don't know what you picture when given this description but in my case I imagine a literal sphere of blackness as described. In addition, the spell goes on to further qualify that NO light of any sort can illuminate the area. So no light can alleviate the blackness.
Can you see through the blackness to the other side? No, since if you could see through it then it wouldn't be black. Black is the absence of all light and if you can see an image from the other side of the Hunger of Hadar spell then you would not see a "sphere of blackness".
Can devils sight or darkvision see through a Hunger of Hadar? No, because it isn't darkness ... it is literally a sphere of blackness.
Is the area of Hunger of Hadar heavily obscured? Effectively yes because you can not see into it or through it because it is a sphere of blackness that no form of light can illuminate. However, the spell doesn't need to specify heavily obscured since the spell description gets to the same effect without it.
Why does the spell contain the line stating that creatures inside it are blinded? The spell description did not describe what it looks like from the inside. From the outside it is a sphere of blackness. Without the clarification that creatures are blinded inside it, someone might argue that you could see out of Hunger of Hadar but others could not see in.
The spell description doesn't elaborate, so these details are open to interpretation. There's nothing that specifies if the sphere is opaque or translucent or if the blackness includes any sort of physical matter or other effect that might block line of sight or if it just represents a lack of light. Would it have been any different if it were a sphere of yellowness or a sphere of orangeness or a sphere of whiteness? The DM must fill in some of these details unfortunately.
The color of an area does not dictate whether or not Line of Sight is blocked. There's no rules support for this.
These abilities don't really interact with this AoE since the AoE doesn't describe any darkness. But, if we assume that the spell also creates an area of darkness by somehow destroying the light that's already there from the phrase "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area", then both devil's sight and darkvision work as they normally do for any other darkness. But even so, these abilities would make no difference for how such creatures would perceive the "blackness".
The spell description doesn't say anything about creating a heavily obscured area. We would have to rely on an interpretation that the phrase ""No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" actually means that the spell creates an area of darkness, to go along with the blackness, in order for this to become a heavily obscured area -- which is a reasonable interpretation.
The main reason why the spell description states that creatures inside the sphere are blinded is because that's what the spell does. The spell creates an AoE that blinds creatures and damages them, among other things. The blackness of the effect is flavor.
----------
In the end, a DM could declare that the spell creates a heavily obscured area of Darkness, NOT due to the blackness, but because of the lack of light allowed into the area. This causes creatures inside to be unable to see inside and it also causes creatures outside to be unable to see inside. But, as per the rule for heavily obscured areas, creatures inside could still see outside, and creatures outside could see what's on the other side.
However, the spell also declares that creatures within the sphere are blinded. So now the creature inside cannot see outside because he cannot see at all, NOT because something about the area prevents it. If a creature that can see is somehow immune to the blindness Condition, then such a creature within the sphere could still see out of it.
Next, a DM could declare that the blackness created by the spell qualifies as an effect that blocks Line of Sight. This is not actually specified by the spell as properties such as its opacity are undefined. It's reasonable for the DM to rule this either way. If it's declared that this blackness blocks Line of Sight (which is a different rule than the rule for heavily obscured areas), then we now have a situation where a creature on the outside cannot see what's on the other side.
So, if the DM makes the restrictive ruling that relates to heavily obscured areas and also makes the restrictive ruling that relates to Line of Sight, then the vision of the creatures inside and outside of the sphere would be affected in the ways that most people here are thinking.
It seems that a heavily obscured area in the 2024 PHB will be worded differently (source):
Thanks for the citation :) .. but I really hope that they have added sufficient description to distinguish the behaviour of darkness, fog and dense foliage since they don't really behave the same in terms of seeing through them.
The current wording is:
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
I am wondering whether the change from "blocks vision entirely" to opaque will change how some folks interpret this rule or not? Something that is opaque WILL block vision entirely. Something that is opaque, a creature will not be able to see into, through or out of ... however, that is exactly what "blocks vision entirely" means - so I am uncertain that changing the wording to opaque will resolve the argument for those firmly on the side of seeing through a heavily obscured area.
In my opinion, I read it as a general rule with a clarification that looking at a creature that is heavily obscured results in the blinded condition AND that the heavily obscured area affects line of sight because it is blocks vision entirely (opaque). So, for me, the 2024 wording is just trying to clarify the way I already read it ... but since I can't see the alternate interpretation, I can't see how others might interpret the 2024 revision.
P.S. I am also curious to see all of the vision rules since I am hoping that they have clarified the differences between darkness, dense fog and foliage as different types of heavy obscuration.
You're always welcome!
I agree, "blocks vision entirely" and "opaque" are similar for rule purposes, but using those words along with "here" instead of "in that area" makes the rule easier to read and understand IMO.
That Darkness, capitalized, should have its own definiton. We'll see!
The problem is not that area of mundane darkness is heavily obscured wether saying its opaque or block vision entirely, since it is to the human eye. The problem is not having a rule that light can always be visible within such condition.
I completely agree that it would be great if they clarified some of this, but I'm not super optimistic about that. They don't necessarily need to differentiate between environments such as fog vs foliage though. Remember, there can be many other types of environments and effects which create heavily obscured areas -- the list is not just limited to the ones that are given as examples in the rule.
Really, it's just the way that darkness works that "should" be an exception and should be further clarified and defined. Compared to all of the other things that can create a heavily obscured area, darkness "should" work differently. This is because it should be able to fully obscure its own area, but it should not actually block line of sight TO a well-lit area.
Unfortunately, if the common interpretation of the new rule results in anything other than this, then we're right back to a situation where all DMs will feel forced to house-rule this mechanic in order to get it to work "properly". Otherwise, way too many common scenarios do not function correctly, such as the trope of a predator "lurking in darkness" to create an ambush, or a rogue hiding in an area of darkness during battle, or the common campfire scene where it should be possible to see into the well-lit area from outside of it, or the scenario in a dungeon where a thin but dark shadow stretches across a dimly-lit path, or simply being able to look up and see the moon and stars outside at night. DMs will be forced to figure out how to apply advantage and disadvantage on the fly for every scenario since they are constantly making rulings for these scenarios which do not align with the common interpretation of the rules. Honestly, after 10 years of opportunity to get this right, this result would be pretty tragic.
Taken as a snippet out of context, this doesn't really change much about which of the two interpretations is correct, although it does improve readability and it gets rid of the sloppy and undefined mechanic of being "effectively" blinded. I actually really like the change to the phrase "here", since this is more in line with my view that this is an "area-centric" rule that is describing the area itself. To me, this clarifies that you are only blinded when trying to see something that the area itself is actually obscuring.
The fact that the area is described as opaque is less clear to me. In context with the rest of the rule and with the rest of the section which describes rules for Vision and Light, is this statement just trying to differentiate these areas from the other, more lightly obscured areas? And if so, does this statement serve as just a qualifier for how the rest of the rule should be read and interpreted? That's been my interpretation of this rule all along. OR, is this meant to be a standalone statement to create a separate, standalone rule which interacts with the rules for Line of Sight and has nothing to do with the rest of the rule for heavily obscured areas? In other words, does the section for heavily obscured areas present multiple, unrelated rules simply because there are multiple sentences? In my opinion, that interpretation continues to be incorrect.
The capital "D" for darkness is mildly interesting. But remember, there is already a section within the Vision and Light rules which attempts to define "darkness" just a few paragraphs below the rule for a heavily obscured area. In the new rule, this is likely meant as a direct reference to that paragraph and it is unclear at this point if that paragraph has been modified.
Unfortunately, in the 2014 rules they did an absolutely terrible job of defining Bright Light, Dim Light and Darkness in those respective paragraphs. This is because they took an approach of having the entire section sort of flow together with a sort of common english writing style where each of these 3 terms is defined sort of relative to each other through various examples, instead of really defining each one individually and exactly how they interact with other rules and game mechanics such as Line of Sight.
I think that if the new rules simply add one line in the Darkness paragraph which says something like "Darkness does not block a creature's line of sight to an adjacent area of Bright Light or Dim Light" that would solve a lot of problems. But, I'm not optimistic that they actually did that.
It would solve the issue without taking up a lot of words space, but i'm also not optimistic, they struggled with this since at least 4E with which multiple erratas never really fixed this issue.
I disagree, mundane darkness is not opaque or block vision to a human eye. The lack of light might mean that you cannot see anything in its area but it does in no way affect your ability to see things beyond its area.
The main problem is having darkness be governed by the same rule that governs fog, foliage and similar, all things that actually does affect your ability to see past it. It should absolutely be separate rules but they seem to refuse to accept this. Adding text about light as you (and @up2ng) suggests could possibly make the rule playable but it won't solve the actual problem, that a 20ft thick bush and a 20ft area of darkness doesn't affect you vision in the same way (regardless of if you are in it or besides it).
I also have issues with their insistence of using conditions for vision related rules (like "Blinded" here or how they deal with "[Tooltip Not Found]"). Normally you have 360 vision during battle and see everything equally but now if there is an area of darkness then you suffer from the Blinded condition. Now I'm sure they didn't mean that this should make you blind to the whole battlefield but with the way conditions work that is what it means (unless you use the optional facing rules). The old "effectively" and "in that area" offered a lot more latitude to ignore the effect for any non-dark area than what the new language does.
Note that I absolutely doesn't say that anyone should ever enforce this because it would be absolutely ridiculous but that's what you get when mixing the binary yes/no way conditions work with the very relative way vision (should) work.
This I agree with, they don't seem to think there is any problems with these rules.
Light needs to be visible in darkness, wether it is heavily obscured or a seperate rule that also have an effect on vision.