The 2024 rule changed "blocks vision entirely" to "is opaque", which seems very deliberate
I'm not sure how this discussion got split across two threads, but it means that a lot of the same points have to be repeated unfortunately.
Yes, the change was quite deliberate, and it was a good change.
The main reason for this change is because in 2014 the phrasing suggested that a Heavily Obscured area "does" something to a creature (a verb, "blocks", was used), which was not in line with the concept at all.
In 2024 it has just become a descriptive word for the area.
The important point about this rule in general is that it's NOT something that happens to a creature. It's something that describes an area. The area is obscured.
For example, in one of these threads earlier the Hunger of Hadar spell was brought up. That is an example of a spell effect within an Area of Effect that actually DOES cause something to happen to the creature. A creature within that area becomes actually Blinded, full stop. Entirely different concept.
That's incorrect again, an Obscured Area obcures vision as written under Vision and Light.
Yes, that's right. It obscures vision in the sense that you cannot see something that you normally should be able to see. In the case of a Heavily Obscured area, this is accomplished by obscuring the area from your vision, NOT actually causing you to become totally blind.
I'm not sure if the phrase is used like this anymore in 2024, but in 2014 in addition to an area being Heavily Obscured, a person could also be Heavily Obscured -- such as an Invisible person. The presence of an Invisible person didn't actually blind you -- there was nothing actually wrong with your vision. It's just that your vision was obscured when trying to see that person. So, that person was obscured, not your eyes. It's the same concept when an area is Heavily Obscured.
The first sentence is not just flavor text, it's describing what Obscured Areas are, without it we wouldn't tell what one is.
On the contrary, in 2024 I can flip directly to the Glossary and learn exactly what a Heavily Obscured area is:
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and chapter 1 (“Exploration”).
That doesn't tell you what an Heavily Obscured area is, such as Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage.
Oh, I see what you were saying now. Sure, this is useful information. But just listing some examples of what might qualify as a Heavily Obscured area doesn't really have any mechanical impact. This is just descriptive text which describes the concept which will then be precisely defined in game terms in the next sentence.
But if you guys want to keep fighting for a rule interpretation about Darkness that doesn't actually make any common sense then go for it, I guess. I think it's weird that your characters won't be able to see the stars at night when there is a perfectly good and logical rule interpretation available that would allow them to do so just fine, but people can play however they want.
But if you guys want to keep fighting for a rule interpretation about Darkness that doesn't actually make any common sense then go for it, I guess. I think it's weird that your characters won't be able to see the stars at night when there is a perfectly good and logical rule interpretation available that would allow them to do so just fine, but people can play however they want.
I want the rules to work sensibly for both darkness and obscurement. This is impossible to do without separating the concepts (i.e. make darkness and obscurement not the same thing), but in practice there aren't any spells or abilities that create mundane darkness and magical darkness has pretty consistently been treated as opaque.
But if you guys want to keep fighting for a rule interpretation about Darkness that doesn't actually make any common sense then go for it, I guess. I think it's weird that your characters won't be able to see the stars at night when there is a perfectly good and logical rule interpretation available that would allow them to do so just fine, but people can play however they want.
I want the rules to work sensibly for both darkness and obscurement. This is impossible to do without separating the concepts (i.e. make darkness and obscurement not the same thing), but in practice there aren't any spells or abilities that create mundane darkness and magical darkness has pretty consistently been treated as opaque.
Hmm, that's odd, it's like you just haven't been reading any of the explanations that I've been providing which are answering your questions.
It's not impossible -- it's already being done right now. You put everything that causes obscurement into one pot which describes the rules for obscurement. Then, within that, you have some of those things which cause obscurement and also block line of sight, and some other things which cause obscurement but do not block line of sight as determined by a separate rule for Line of Sight.
There's nothing different about magical darkness except that Darkvision doesn't function as it normally does, and you cannot turn that particular darkness into dim light or bright light without relatively powerful magic.
But if you guys want to keep fighting for a rule interpretation about Darkness that doesn't actually make any common sense then go for it, I guess. I think it's weird that your characters won't be able to see the stars at night when there is a perfectly good and logical rule interpretation available that would allow them to do so just fine, but people can play however they want.
I want the rules to work sensibly for both darkness and obscurement. This is impossible to do without separating the concepts (i.e. make darkness and obscurement not the same thing), but in practice there aren't any spells or abilities that create mundane darkness and magical darkness has pretty consistently been treated as opaque.
Hmm, that's odd, it's like you just haven't been reading any of the explanations that I've been providing which are answering your questions.
It's not impossible -- it's already being done right now. You put everything that causes obscurement into one pot which describes the rules for obscurement. Then, within that, you have some of those things which cause obscurement and also block line of sight, and some other things which cause obscurement but do not block line of sight as determined by a separate rule for Line of Sight.
There's nothing different about magical darkness except that Darkvision doesn't function as it normally does, and you cannot turn that particular darkness into dim light or bright light without relatively powerful magic.
There is. The description of the spell pretty much indicates that the Darkness spell does not operate like natural darkness, and is meant to be an opaque area that light cannot get through normally, like a heavy fog. This is why non-magical light cannot illuminate it, and why any bright or dim light created by a 2nd level spell or lower is automatically dispelled. Its also why Darkvision cannot see through it.
Honestly, the spell operates more like an anti-light area, and should have been named like that instead.
It's not impossible -- it's already being done right now. You put everything that causes obscurement into one pot which describes the rules for obscurement. Then, within that, you have some of those things which cause obscurement and also block line of sight, and some other things which cause obscurement but do not block line of sight as determined by a separate rule for Line of Sight.
There is. The description of the spell pretty much indicates that the Darkness spell does not operate like natural darkness, and is meant to be an opaque area that light cannot get through normally, like a heavy fog.
None of that is in the spell description and in my opinion that is not the intent of the spell.
The spell description uses up nearly half of its text describing a way in which you could cast this onto an object that you could then pick up and carry around with you, blocking and unblocking the spell effect as desired. In 2014, it was even more obvious that the spell was intended to be used in that way.
Why would someone do this? Because it's meant to be useful. The spell is designed to be a buff -- you can make your own darkness instead of having to try to look for other opportunities to "lurk in darkness" or to otherwise become "Unseen".
As yet another example, consider the spell Shadow of Moil. Are people suggesting that when you cast that spell on yourself that you are Blinding yourself? Because if so, that would be a pretty terrible spell.
If you are in an area of magical darkness, you can’t seen into it, you can’t see out of it. You are blinded and have the blinded condition while inside the area, and are only “blind” to what is occurring inside the area of magical darkness.
The only way inside or outside of magical darkness, is by magic, such as TrueSight, or any magical effect that allows vision into an area of magical darkness.
Pretty much none of this is in the spell description.
The spell says that the Darkvision special sense does not interact with this type of Darkness in the same way that it does with mundane Darkness. Instead, the Darkvision "can't see through it" (in contrast to what it can do in mundane darkness). This is just referring to the obscurement that is caused by Darkness, not anything to do with physically blocking a creature's vision. Sure, this isn't the best way that that could have been phrased, but that is the intent.
The spell also says that nonmagical light can't illuminate it. That term isn't further defined so it's left up to interpretation. My interpretation of that is simply that you are unable to change the Darkness into Dim Light or Bright Light by any nonmagical means. That does not affect whether or not light photons could travel directly through the empty space.
There is. The description of the spell pretty much indicates that the Darkness spell does not operate like natural darkness, and is meant to be an opaque area that light cannot get through normally, like a heavy fog.
None of that is in the spell description and in my opinion that is not the intent of the spell.
The spell description uses up nearly half of its text describing a way in which you could cast this onto an object that you could then pick up and carry around with you, blocking and unblocking the spell effect as desired. In 2014, it was even more obvious that the spell was intended to be used in that way.
Why would someone do this? Because it's meant to be useful. The spell is designed to be a buff -- you can make your own darkness instead of having to try to look for other opportunities to "lurk in darkness" or to otherwise become "Unseen".
As yet another example, consider the spell Shadow of Moil. Are people suggesting that when you cast that spell on yourself that you are Blinding yourself? Because if so, that would be a pretty terrible spell.
If you are in an area of magical darkness, you can’t seen into it, you can’t see out of it. You are blinded and have the blinded condition while inside the area, and are only “blind” to what is occurring inside the area of magical darkness.
The only way inside or outside of magical darkness, is by magic, such as TrueSight, or any magical effect that allows vision into an area of magical darkness.
Pretty much none of this is in the spell description.
The spell says that the Darkvision special sense does not interact with this type of Darkness in the same way that it does with mundane Darkness. Instead, the Darkvision "can't see through it" (in contrast to what it can do in mundane darkness). This is just referring to the obscurement that is caused by Darkness, not anything to do with physically blocking a creature's vision. Sure, this isn't the best way that that could have been phrased, but that is the intent.
The spell also says that nonmagical light can't illuminate it. That term isn't further defined so it's left up to interpretation. My interpretation of that is simply that you are unable to change the Darkness into Dim Light or Bright Light by any nonmagical means. That does not affect whether or not light photons could travel directly through the empty space.
Again, this is your opinion based on you disregarding certain words as flavor text by your own admission, and you seem to be in the minority here when it comes to the Darkness spell. The word "Opaque" in the block below replaces in the same spot the phrase "Blocks Vision Entirely" that was in 2014. This is not flavor text since it is an adjective that directly describes what a Heavily Obscured Area is, and opaque is not defined in the book no matter what you want to claim so it defaults to the natural meaning of the word, which is: "not letting light through; not transparent; blocking the passage of radiant energy and especially light". The next line just lists the effect you get from looking in a Heavily Obscured area, and the Rules Glossary lists the effect which then directs you to CH1 for clarification.
And just in case, here's what adjective means: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else
Vision and Light
Some adventuring tasks—such as noticing danger, hitting an enemy, and targeting certain spells—are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
Obscured Areas
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured. In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
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.
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
Now, there is a case for trying to separate mundane darkness from other effects (i.e. Pot 1: mundane darkness | Pot 2: everything else) so that it operates more like real world, but this is homebrewing, not RAW or RAI. Personally, I'm on board with this.
opaque . . . "not letting light through; not transparent; blocking the passage of radiant energy and especially light".
Yes, the word "opaque" means all of those things. But in the context of the Heavily Obscured area rule, it means these things only as it relates to the visibility of particular objects or other visible effects -- specifically, those which are located within the area in question. Nothing more. We know this because the rule itself says so. And the rule's Glossary entry confirms it.
If there is a particular visible object in an open field and it is surrounded by some very light foliage which has lots of gaping holes between the leaves and branches and grasses such that you are still able to see the object, then the object itself is not fully obscured from view. All objects within that area are not fully obscured. You can't see it as well as if there was no foliage, but you can still see it. The obscurement of that particular object is sort of half-opaque and half-translucent. We might describe that as an opacity of 0.5.
Note that none of this has anything to do with obscuring your eyes or blinding your vision. The concept is that it's the area that is obscured or not obscured -- meaning, the particular objects within that area that you might attempt to spot with some sort of Perception check are visible or not visible. If you look in a different direction . . . any direction that is not directly at one of these objects . . . then this rule does not apply. It's the visibility of these objects that this rule adjudicates based on the particular object or effect that may or may not be causing an obscurement.
Now, back to the open field, now the object is within dense foliage. The leaves and branches are so thick that you cannot see through to the object. The object is heavily obscured from view. It cannot be seen. The obscurement of that particular object is opaque. The opacity of this obscurement is 1.0. Again, that's the obscurement of the object. How visible is the object. That's all. Of course, in this exact example, because we're talking about foliage, your Line of Sight would ALSO be blocked by the foliage. Different concept. That would impact your vision. But the rule for a Heavily Obscured area describes an area, not your vision. Whether or not objects within that area can be seen. That's it.
The reason why this distinction is important is because it's obvious that not all areas which "opaquely" (I invented a word to make a point, deal with it) obscure objects from being seen are actually blocking your Line of Sight to do so. Darkness is the most obvious and common example, but there could be all sorts of other objects or effects which do this. Maybe there's some sort of globe made of magical (translucent) glass that somehow bends the light around the objects that are inside of it. Maybe similar to an "antimagic field" there is an "anti-visible field" which just makes objects within that area invisible. Maybe there's some sort of illusion that wraps around an area that looks totally normal, but you just cannot see any objects that are in there, even though they are right in front of you. These obscurements are opaque -- you cannot "see through them" in the sense that you cannot see the object that you are trying to spot, for whatever reason. One such reason might be a Line of Sight interruption -- but that's far from the only possible reason.
That's why this rule and this concept is so specific. You cannot see the objects within the area for who knows what reason. The reason doesn't matter. It's a mistake to assume a reason. It's a mistake to presume that the reason why you can't see an object is because your Line of Sight to that object is interrupted. That is a biased correlation. Sometimes you can "sort of" see the objects (not an opaque obscurement) and other times you cannot see the objects at all (an opaque obscurement). Only the fact that the object cannot be seen is what this rule cares about. Nothing more.
opaque . . . "not letting light through; not transparent; blocking the passage of radiant energy and especially light".
Yes, the word "opaque" means all of those things. But in the context of the Heavily Obscured area rule, it means these things only as it relates to the visibility of particular objects or other visible effects -- specifically, those which are located within the area in question. Nothing more. We know this because the rule itself says so. And the rule's Glossary entry confirms it.
If there is a particular visible object in an open field and it is surrounded by some very light foliage which has lots of gaping holes between the leaves and branches and grasses such that you are still able to see the object, then the object itself is not fully obscured from view. All objects within that area are not fully obscured. You can't see it as well as if there was no foliage, but you can still see it. The obscurement of that particular object is sort of half-opaque and half-translucent. We might describe that as an opacity of 0.5.
Note that none of this has anything to do with obscuring your eyes or blinding your vision. The concept is that it's the area that is obscured or not obscured -- meaning, the particular objects within that area that you might attempt to spot with some sort of Perception check are visible or not visible. If you look in a different direction . . . any direction that is not directly at one of these objects . . . then this rule does not apply. It's the visibility of these objects that this rule adjudicates based on the particular object or effect that may or may not be causing an obscurement.
Now, back to the open field, now the object is within dense foliage. The leaves and branches are so thick that you cannot see through to the object. The object is heavily obscured from view. It cannot be seen. The obscurement of that particular object is opaque. The opacity of this obscurement is 1.0. Again, that's the obscurement of the object. How visible is the object. That's all. Of course, in this exact example, because we're talking about foliage, your Line of Sight would ALSO be blocked by the foliage. Different concept. That would impact your vision. But the rule for a Heavily Obscured area describes an area, not your vision. Whether or not objects within that area can be seen. That's it.
The reason why this distinction is important is because it's obvious that not all areas which "opaquely" (I invented a word to make a point, deal with it) obscure objects from being seen are actually blocking your Line of Sight to do so. Darkness is the most obvious and common example, but there could be all sorts of other objects or effects which do this. Maybe there's some sort of globe made of magical (translucent) glass that somehow bends the light around the objects that are inside of it. Maybe similar to an "antimagic field" there is an "anti-visible field" which just makes objects within that area invisible. Maybe there's some sort of illusion that wraps around an area that looks totally normal, but you just cannot see any objects that are in there, even though they are right in front of you. These obscurements are opaque -- you cannot "see through them" in the sense that you cannot see the object that you are trying to spot, for whatever reason. One such reason might be a Line of Sight interruption -- but that's far from the only possible reason.
That's why this rule and this concept is so specific. You cannot see the objects within the area for who knows what reason. The reason doesn't matter. It's a mistake to assume a reason. It's a mistake to presume that the reason why you can't see an object is because your Line of Sight to that object is interrupted. That is a biased correlation. Sometimes you can "sort of" see the objects (not an opaque obscurement) and other times you cannot see the objects at all (an opaque obscurement). Only the fact that the object cannot be seen is what this rule cares about. Nothing more.
The more you try to explain things, the more it sounds like you're making things up to try and justify your position. I told you before that you're gonna die on this hill alone, because I've yet to see someone buy your argument regarding the Darkness spell--myself included.
The Darkness spell creates a Heavily Obscured area that Darkvision also cannot see through, and non-magical light cannot illuminate. This means, this is an area of absolute darkness that snuffs any light below it's level. If you're inside this area, you cannot see normally because light cannot pass through, and if you have Darkvision you also cannot see in it either. This is why you need Devil's Sight and Truesight to see in it, because they're supernatural senses.
If you're inside a room with no windows and one door, and you close the door, you can't see because light cannot get inside the room to illuminate it. It's the same with the Darkness spell.
Because it causes observers to be blinded, anyone with condition immunity (blinded) is in fact immune to all forms of heavily obscured, which is probably not the intent.
I can see your point, but I think creatures with blinded immunity are largely immune to blindness because they don't rely on regular vision. In that sense it makes sense that hiding behind a curtain doesn't obscure you. An Ooze has blinded immunity because they use blindsight. An Animated Ballista has blinded immunity because it detects enemies magically. An Intellect Devourer has blinded immunity because it uses psychic methods to detect enemies.
I guess even if you got some magic item or spell that gave you, the PC, blinded immunity, I think you could narrate it as saying this magical effect gives you abilities to sense your surroundings that don't depend on vision. Then it again makes sense that obscurement doesn't block your "sight".
I can see your point, but I think creatures with blinded immunity are largely immune to blindness because they don't rely on regular vision.
While most creatures with immunity to blinded also have blindsight, there are a small number of exceptions, such as the skull lord, and in any case seeing through obscurement should be a feature of their blindsight, not a feature of their condition immunity.
Despite common argument on forums, I've always treated Darkness as non opaque anti-Light, creating a zone of obscurement like normal dark but that makes darkvision act like normal vision.
If someone in normal darkness can see a person standing in light 30ft out, then a normal person or darkvision person in Darkness can see the person standing in light 30ft out. If two people in light zones can see eachother down a dark hallway through a patch of natural darkness, they can still see eachother through Darkness, regardless of normal or darkvision.
The new rules just make me even more sure that is the intent, with the heavily obscured rule about the target being in the dark patch, not about the observer.
I'm good dying in this hill with the other arguing for it.
Despite common argument on forums, I've always treated Darkness as non opaque anti-Light, creating a zone of obscurement like normal dark but that makes darkvision act like normal vision.
If someone in normal darkness can see a person standing in light 30ft out, then a normal person or darkvision person in Darkness can see the person standing in light 30ft out. If two people in light zones can see eachother down a dark hallway through a patch of natural darkness, they can still see eachother through Darkness, regardless of normal or darkvision.
The new rules just make me even more sure that is the intent, with the heavily obscured rule about the target being in the dark patch, not about the observer.
I'm good dying in this hill with the other arguing for it.
The text from the Darkness spell specifically says non-magical light cannot illuminate the darkness created by the spell. The spell works more like inky black fog rather than a non-illuminated area. This is why Darkvision cannot see through the area.
Moreover, Jeremy Crawford already answered how non-magical light and Darkness spell works back in 2018, and the spell hasn't changed in how it operates. Basically, regular light cannot penetrate this darkness because it is opaque, so you can't see through it.
If I have blindsight with a 10ft range and am standing inside an area of heavy obscurement, but only 5ft from the edge: could I target a creature in bright light 20ft away? It feels like this should be possible if I have some sort of magic vision that allows me to pierce a certain amount of obscurement. But maybe not if my blindsight instead derives from a vibration sense or something.
If I have blindsight with a 10ft range and am standing inside an area of heavy obscurement, but only 5ft from the edge: could I target a creature in bright light 20ft away? It feels like this should be possible if I have some sort of magic vision that allows me to pierce a certain amount of obscurement. But maybe not if my blindsight instead derives from a vibration sense or something.
If I have blindsight with a 10ft range and am standing inside an area of heavy obscurement, but only 5ft from the edge: could I target a creature in bright light 20ft away? It feels like this should be possible if I have some sort of magic vision that allows me to pierce a certain amount of obscurement. But maybe not if my blindsight instead derives from a vibration sense or something.
If you're in a Heavily Obscured area due to normal, nonmagical darkness, I'd rule that you can see a creature in bright light 20 feet away without any problem, with or without Blindsight.
But if that Heavily Obscured area is magical, heavy fog, or dense foliage, then your Blindsight is limited by your radius.
If you have Blindsight, you can see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can see anything that isn’t behind Total Cover even if you have the Blinded condition or are in Darkness. Moreover, in that range, you can see something that has the Invisible condition.
Also, if it's interesting for anyone, we have this conversation with the Dev:
@seanbonney Cast Darkness on dragon's neck, head w/in the 15' radius. Does 60' blindsight allow it to see a tower 500 ft away? @JeremyECrawfordBlindsight works only within its radius. @skullmandible does this apply to magical darkness as well? can you see things on the other side of it? @JeremyECrawford A heavily obscured area, like darkness, blocks vision entirely (see PH, 183).
If I have blindsight with a 10ft range and am standing inside an area of heavy obscurement, but only 5ft from the edge: could I target a creature in bright light 20ft away? It feels like this should be possible if I have some sort of magic vision that allows me to pierce a certain amount of obscurement. But maybe not if my blindsight instead derives from a vibration sense or something.
Blindsight is not "pierce X' of obscurement", blindsight is "see things within distance X, ignoring obscurement". The case for devil's sight or truesight is less clear, however.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree completely.
I'm not sure how this discussion got split across two threads, but it means that a lot of the same points have to be repeated unfortunately.
Yes, the change was quite deliberate, and it was a good change.
The main reason for this change is because in 2014 the phrasing suggested that a Heavily Obscured area "does" something to a creature (a verb, "blocks", was used), which was not in line with the concept at all.
In 2024 it has just become a descriptive word for the area.
The important point about this rule in general is that it's NOT something that happens to a creature. It's something that describes an area. The area is obscured.
For example, in one of these threads earlier the Hunger of Hadar spell was brought up. That is an example of a spell effect within an Area of Effect that actually DOES cause something to happen to the creature. A creature within that area becomes actually Blinded, full stop. Entirely different concept.
Yes, that's right. It obscures vision in the sense that you cannot see something that you normally should be able to see. In the case of a Heavily Obscured area, this is accomplished by obscuring the area from your vision, NOT actually causing you to become totally blind.
I'm not sure if the phrase is used like this anymore in 2024, but in 2014 in addition to an area being Heavily Obscured, a person could also be Heavily Obscured -- such as an Invisible person. The presence of an Invisible person didn't actually blind you -- there was nothing actually wrong with your vision. It's just that your vision was obscured when trying to see that person. So, that person was obscured, not your eyes. It's the same concept when an area is Heavily Obscured.
On the contrary, in 2024 I can flip directly to the Glossary and learn exactly what a Heavily Obscured area is:
That doesn't tell you what an Heavily Obscured area is, such as Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage.
Oh, I see what you were saying now. Sure, this is useful information. But just listing some examples of what might qualify as a Heavily Obscured area doesn't really have any mechanical impact. This is just descriptive text which describes the concept which will then be precisely defined in game terms in the next sentence.
But if you guys want to keep fighting for a rule interpretation about Darkness that doesn't actually make any common sense then go for it, I guess. I think it's weird that your characters won't be able to see the stars at night when there is a perfectly good and logical rule interpretation available that would allow them to do so just fine, but people can play however they want.
I want the rules to work sensibly for both darkness and obscurement. This is impossible to do without separating the concepts (i.e. make darkness and obscurement not the same thing), but in practice there aren't any spells or abilities that create mundane darkness and magical darkness has pretty consistently been treated as opaque.
Hmm, that's odd, it's like you just haven't been reading any of the explanations that I've been providing which are answering your questions.
It's not impossible -- it's already being done right now. You put everything that causes obscurement into one pot which describes the rules for obscurement. Then, within that, you have some of those things which cause obscurement and also block line of sight, and some other things which cause obscurement but do not block line of sight as determined by a separate rule for Line of Sight.
There's nothing different about magical darkness except that Darkvision doesn't function as it normally does, and you cannot turn that particular darkness into dim light or bright light without relatively powerful magic.
There is. The description of the spell pretty much indicates that the Darkness spell does not operate like natural darkness, and is meant to be an opaque area that light cannot get through normally, like a heavy fog. This is why non-magical light cannot illuminate it, and why any bright or dim light created by a 2nd level spell or lower is automatically dispelled. Its also why Darkvision cannot see through it.
Honestly, the spell operates more like an anti-light area, and should have been named like that instead.
Pot 1: mundane darkness
Pot 2: everything else.
None of that is in the spell description and in my opinion that is not the intent of the spell.
The spell description uses up nearly half of its text describing a way in which you could cast this onto an object that you could then pick up and carry around with you, blocking and unblocking the spell effect as desired. In 2014, it was even more obvious that the spell was intended to be used in that way.
Why would someone do this? Because it's meant to be useful. The spell is designed to be a buff -- you can make your own darkness instead of having to try to look for other opportunities to "lurk in darkness" or to otherwise become "Unseen".
As yet another example, consider the spell Shadow of Moil. Are people suggesting that when you cast that spell on yourself that you are Blinding yourself? Because if so, that would be a pretty terrible spell.
Pretty much none of this is in the spell description.
The spell says that the Darkvision special sense does not interact with this type of Darkness in the same way that it does with mundane Darkness. Instead, the Darkvision "can't see through it" (in contrast to what it can do in mundane darkness). This is just referring to the obscurement that is caused by Darkness, not anything to do with physically blocking a creature's vision. Sure, this isn't the best way that that could have been phrased, but that is the intent.
The spell also says that nonmagical light can't illuminate it. That term isn't further defined so it's left up to interpretation. My interpretation of that is simply that you are unable to change the Darkness into Dim Light or Bright Light by any nonmagical means. That does not affect whether or not light photons could travel directly through the empty space.
Again, this is your opinion based on you disregarding certain words as flavor text by your own admission, and you seem to be in the minority here when it comes to the Darkness spell. The word "Opaque" in the block below replaces in the same spot the phrase "Blocks Vision Entirely" that was in 2014. This is not flavor text since it is an adjective that directly describes what a Heavily Obscured Area is, and opaque is not defined in the book no matter what you want to claim so it defaults to the natural meaning of the word, which is: "not letting light through; not transparent; blocking the passage of radiant energy and especially light". The next line just lists the effect you get from looking in a Heavily Obscured area, and the Rules Glossary lists the effect which then directs you to CH1 for clarification.
And just in case, here's what adjective means: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else
Now, there is a case for trying to separate mundane darkness from other effects (i.e. Pot 1: mundane darkness | Pot 2: everything else) so that it operates more like real world, but this is homebrewing, not RAW or RAI. Personally, I'm on board with this.
Yes, the word "opaque" means all of those things. But in the context of the Heavily Obscured area rule, it means these things only as it relates to the visibility of particular objects or other visible effects -- specifically, those which are located within the area in question. Nothing more. We know this because the rule itself says so. And the rule's Glossary entry confirms it.
If there is a particular visible object in an open field and it is surrounded by some very light foliage which has lots of gaping holes between the leaves and branches and grasses such that you are still able to see the object, then the object itself is not fully obscured from view. All objects within that area are not fully obscured. You can't see it as well as if there was no foliage, but you can still see it. The obscurement of that particular object is sort of half-opaque and half-translucent. We might describe that as an opacity of 0.5.
Note that none of this has anything to do with obscuring your eyes or blinding your vision. The concept is that it's the area that is obscured or not obscured -- meaning, the particular objects within that area that you might attempt to spot with some sort of Perception check are visible or not visible. If you look in a different direction . . . any direction that is not directly at one of these objects . . . then this rule does not apply. It's the visibility of these objects that this rule adjudicates based on the particular object or effect that may or may not be causing an obscurement.
Now, back to the open field, now the object is within dense foliage. The leaves and branches are so thick that you cannot see through to the object. The object is heavily obscured from view. It cannot be seen. The obscurement of that particular object is opaque. The opacity of this obscurement is 1.0. Again, that's the obscurement of the object. How visible is the object. That's all. Of course, in this exact example, because we're talking about foliage, your Line of Sight would ALSO be blocked by the foliage. Different concept. That would impact your vision. But the rule for a Heavily Obscured area describes an area, not your vision. Whether or not objects within that area can be seen. That's it.
The reason why this distinction is important is because it's obvious that not all areas which "opaquely" (I invented a word to make a point, deal with it) obscure objects from being seen are actually blocking your Line of Sight to do so. Darkness is the most obvious and common example, but there could be all sorts of other objects or effects which do this. Maybe there's some sort of globe made of magical (translucent) glass that somehow bends the light around the objects that are inside of it. Maybe similar to an "antimagic field" there is an "anti-visible field" which just makes objects within that area invisible. Maybe there's some sort of illusion that wraps around an area that looks totally normal, but you just cannot see any objects that are in there, even though they are right in front of you. These obscurements are opaque -- you cannot "see through them" in the sense that you cannot see the object that you are trying to spot, for whatever reason. One such reason might be a Line of Sight interruption -- but that's far from the only possible reason.
That's why this rule and this concept is so specific. You cannot see the objects within the area for who knows what reason. The reason doesn't matter. It's a mistake to assume a reason. It's a mistake to presume that the reason why you can't see an object is because your Line of Sight to that object is interrupted. That is a biased correlation. Sometimes you can "sort of" see the objects (not an opaque obscurement) and other times you cannot see the objects at all (an opaque obscurement). Only the fact that the object cannot be seen is what this rule cares about. Nothing more.
The more you try to explain things, the more it sounds like you're making things up to try and justify your position. I told you before that you're gonna die on this hill alone, because I've yet to see someone buy your argument regarding the Darkness spell--myself included.
The Darkness spell creates a Heavily Obscured area that Darkvision also cannot see through, and non-magical light cannot illuminate. This means, this is an area of absolute darkness that snuffs any light below it's level. If you're inside this area, you cannot see normally because light cannot pass through, and if you have Darkvision you also cannot see in it either. This is why you need Devil's Sight and Truesight to see in it, because they're supernatural senses.
If you're inside a room with no windows and one door, and you close the door, you can't see because light cannot get inside the room to illuminate it. It's the same with the Darkness spell.
I can see your point, but I think creatures with blinded immunity are largely immune to blindness because they don't rely on regular vision. In that sense it makes sense that hiding behind a curtain doesn't obscure you. An Ooze has blinded immunity because they use blindsight. An Animated Ballista has blinded immunity because it detects enemies magically. An Intellect Devourer has blinded immunity because it uses psychic methods to detect enemies.
I guess even if you got some magic item or spell that gave you, the PC, blinded immunity, I think you could narrate it as saying this magical effect gives you abilities to sense your surroundings that don't depend on vision. Then it again makes sense that obscurement doesn't block your "sight".
While most creatures with immunity to blinded also have blindsight, there are a small number of exceptions, such as the skull lord, and in any case seeing through obscurement should be a feature of their blindsight, not a feature of their condition immunity.
Despite common argument on forums, I've always treated Darkness as non opaque anti-Light, creating a zone of obscurement like normal dark but that makes darkvision act like normal vision.
If someone in normal darkness can see a person standing in light 30ft out, then a normal person or darkvision person in Darkness can see the person standing in light 30ft out. If two people in light zones can see eachother down a dark hallway through a patch of natural darkness, they can still see eachother through Darkness, regardless of normal or darkvision.
The new rules just make me even more sure that is the intent, with the heavily obscured rule about the target being in the dark patch, not about the observer.
I'm good dying in this hill with the other arguing for it.
The text from the Darkness spell specifically says non-magical light cannot illuminate the darkness created by the spell. The spell works more like inky black fog rather than a non-illuminated area. This is why Darkvision cannot see through the area.
Moreover, Jeremy Crawford already answered how non-magical light and Darkness spell works back in 2018, and the spell hasn't changed in how it operates. Basically, regular light cannot penetrate this darkness because it is opaque, so you can't see through it.
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/949357002676817920?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^949357002676817920|twgr^04310976b30b8b7569742aab3d0803bc937d800e|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-light-from-a-magic-weapons-count-as-magical-that-can-illuminate-a-darkness-spell/
Believe it or not, BG3 got it right when they animated the Darkness spell as a black fog
If I have blindsight with a 10ft range and am standing inside an area of heavy obscurement, but only 5ft from the edge: could I target a creature in bright light 20ft away? It feels like this should be possible if I have some sort of magic vision that allows me to pierce a certain amount of obscurement. But maybe not if my blindsight instead derives from a vibration sense or something.
Having Blindsight with a range of 10 feet should let you see within 5 feet of Heavily Obscured area.
If you're in a Heavily Obscured area due to normal, nonmagical darkness, I'd rule that you can see a creature in bright light 20 feet away without any problem, with or without Blindsight.
But if that Heavily Obscured area is magical, heavy fog, or dense foliage, then your Blindsight is limited by your radius.
EDIT: ups... ninja'd by @Plaguescarred!
---
Also, if it's interesting for anyone, we have this conversation with the Dev:
Blindsight is not "pierce X' of obscurement", blindsight is "see things within distance X, ignoring obscurement". The case for devil's sight or truesight is less clear, however.