Yes RAW nonmagical Darkness is opaque like any other source of Heavily Obscured areas, which is the real problem. I prefer to treat category of illumination from presence or absence of light differently than other source or phenomenon, being an exception which can be illuminated by light thus possibly seen into.
Another principle i go by is that vision or line of sight always extend outward from you, so if looking in a direction causes you to have the Blinded condition, it doesn't stop while trying to see further away in the same direction. In other words, your line of sight doesn't go past anything opaque that block vision.
Everything in the area of Darkness is a black, indistinguishable, opaque mass. If you draw line of sight without crossing an actual thing in the area of darkness, the opaqueness doesn't apply.
RAW says the darkness itself is opaque, not objects in the darkness. RAW also tells us that darkness and thick fog create the same effect. This is simply irreconcilable with reality or even common sense. Unfortunately, anything you do to resolve that issue puts you in house rule territory.
Yeah, I think this is kind of the logical conclusion to it all. If you follow RAW to the letter, then normal, common sense things like seeing a lighthouse 300 feet away, or a torch 100 feet away, while you're in darkness would be impossible. You can decide that all darkness (magical and mundane) acts the exact same way as fog and creates an opaque, entirely vision-blocking area, or you can decide darkness (magical and mundane) is not actually opaque because you can see torches 100 feet away.
To those saying magical and mundane darkness are different because of the phrase "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere," I just can't really see why that makes a difference. The Darkness spell never even says it creates a Heavily Obscured area, it only references that it creates "darkness". Darkness isn't a "thing", so the fact that it fills the sphere doesn't mean anything different to mundane darkness, except that mundane darkness normally doesn't have a specified radius. Mundane darkness would be said to "fill" a room without any source of light, as well. The fact that it says that it "fills the sphere" doesn't mean anything more than that darkness reaches all points within the sphere, even around corners and other such obstacles (basically saying there is no "cover" from the darkness within the sphere).
In general, the devs decision to use common language for something like this, their decision to make magical and mundane darkness identical beyond clearly stated differences, and their decision to give total disparate ideas, such as hiding in dense foliage, fog, and darkness, the same blanket condition of creating a "heavily obscured" area makes attempts to match RAW with normal reality impossible.
Everything in the area of Darkness is a black, indistinguishable, opaque mass. If you draw line of sight without crossing an actual thing in the area of darkness, the opaqueness doesn't apply.
RAW says the darkness itself is opaque, not objects in the darkness. RAW also tells us that darkness and thick fog create the same effect. This is simply irreconcilable with reality or even common sense. Unfortunately, anything you do to resolve that issue puts you in house rule territory.
It states that in the context of observing something within the area. Therefore, it is a valid RAW interpretation to restrict the opaqueness to only interfering with observing something in the area. It is also valid that RAW creates columns of Darkness that block perception to lit areas beyond even though the area of Darkness is empty. However, you rule it, nonmagical and magical Darkness behave identically with magical Darkness sometimes have additional effects beyond just creating Darkness.
It states that in the context of observing something within the area. Therefore, it is a valid RAW interpretation to restrict the opaqueness to only interfering with observing something in the area.
It's possible to interpret the phrasing as redefining what opaque means, but that just means you wind up with a different class of nonsense result, because fog and darkness behave the same way in RAW.
It states that in the context of observing something within the area. Therefore, it is a valid RAW interpretation to restrict the opaqueness to only interfering with observing something in the area.
To me, vision is not from top down, but from you outward. The notion that you can see past an Heavily Obscured area don't factor that you have to first see within it.
To take Wysperra's exemple, A has to first see within the area of magical darkness before it can see D on the other side, which is impossible when Blinded as it can’t see.
It states that in the context of observing something within the area. Therefore, it is a valid RAW interpretation to restrict the opaqueness to only interfering with observing something in the area.
To me, vision is not from top down, but from you outward. The notion that you can see past an Heavily Obscured area don't factor that you have to first see within it.
To take Wysperra's exemple, A has to first see within the area of magical darkness before it can see D on the other side, which is impossible when Blinded as it can’t see.
For me it is both. If you have an empty room in darkness, you cannot see in that area, but you might be able to see through it. If there is something in the area, that can block line of sight as normal. Fog, for example, also creates a heavily obscured area but also involves something (the fog) being in that space.
OK so again using my diagram, with the circle being Darkness the spell or Hunger of Hadar, the example of A being able to see and target D is perfectly fine?
That is counter-intuitive.
Why would you say that this is counter-intuitive? This is by far the most intuitive interpretation since this is exactly what happens in real life. See the often-mentioned two campfires example.
there's really no rules justification for treating darkness as differently from fog.
This is not correct. The rules justification has been quoted and explained extensively across multiple threads. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation is another story, but it is certainly a justifiable interpretation.
Is this complete nonsense? Yes, but it's been that way since 2014 and the devs have never seen fit to even admit there's a problem let alone do anything about it.
This mechanic actually functioned correctly in 2014 as well. It was just very widely misinterpreted.
I agree with Plaguescarred's interpretation of the spell, not up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng says that A can see D, but A cannot see C. In other words, A can see through the area of Darkness to what is on the other side - or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes. The Darkness spell does not convey the Invisible condition (as per the spell Invisibility) onto C, so if light can pass through the area of Darkness to reach A, then C would be outlined against the light reflected off of what was past C from A's point of view, and C would be visible to A, if only in the form of a C-shaped black area.
I have no idea what you mean by "or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes". I have never said anything like that.
As for the silhouette argument -- while it might work like that in real life, it turns out that the mechanics for such things in 5e are greatly simplified. Such a silhouette might indeed be created by some sort of object that physically blocks your Line of Sight to things directly behind it, but you cannot identify or locate or target the object which makes such a silhouette in 5e. That's because you are actually blinded when trying to see something within the area. So, while there might be a stone wall that cuts all the way across the lower half of an area of darkness, for example, you cannot actually identify what it is or where it is -- you cannot actually look at the stone wall. You are blinded when you try to do so. Functionally, it might block your view of half of the campfire scene behind it, but you don't really know why exactly. You'll just be aware that some of your Line of Sight is currently blocked for some reason.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
Why in the world would you make a ruling like this? This makes the least sense. It makes far more sense to either rule both mundane Darkness and magical darkness one way or to rule both of those things the other way. But it doesn't make any sense at all to rule one of those things one way and the other one the other way.
The reason for that is because the magical darkness that is created by the darkness spell IS mundane Darkness, but with a few extra very specific mechanics added to it. If you look at the text in the spell description online, it says this: "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "Darkness" within that text is hyperlinked, and when you hover your mouse over it or you click on it, you'll see that you are brought to the rule for mundane Darkness.
So, the spell actually just creates mundane Darkness as a magical effect, thereby making it magical Darkness. In addition, the spell also creates a few additional extremely specific effects. But you start with the rules and mechanics for mundane Darkness, and then you add exactly what the spell description says to that, such as Darkvision not functioning properly, etc.
I do as well rule nonmagical darkness isn't opaque to areas of Dim or Bright Light so you can see them normally, regardless how RAW kosher it is.
But otherwise any souce of Heavily Obscured areas is opaque and thus block vision line of sight, wether it is Fog Cloud, magical darkness, Darkness, heavy fog or snowfall etc...
See above. Such a ruling makes no sense. The magical Darkness created by the darkness spell works mechanically in a manner that is identical to mundane Darkness except for the ways that are explicitly mentioned by the spell description.
Right, this is my take as well. Darkness explicitly says that it fills the sphere. That is what would block Line of Sight, not that it creates Darkness. By contrast, Hunger of Hadar doesn't say it fills the Sphere so the Darkness behaves like "mundane" Darkness in regard to blocking Line of Sight.
The fact that the sphere "appears" in the case of Hunger of Hadar and is created via the normal means for a sphere AoE (beginning at the point of origin and expanding outwards to fill the sphere) in the case of the Darkness spell has no mechanical significance, at least not in the way that you are saying. (It could impact which areas are included or excluded from the AoE as per the general rules for an AoE, but that's the only impact.) The phrase "fills a sphere" in this context is just talking about filling the area with a magical effect. The fact that an area contains a magical effect in and of itself has no bearing on whether or not Line of Sight within that area is affected. There are a great many AoE magical effects that are totally indiscernible to the eye.
"mundane darkness works like it does in the real world". Unfortunately, that does not tell us anything about how magical darkness works.
It doesn't? Why not? The spell description uses the term "Darkness" with a capital D and the online version hyperlinks that word to the rules for mundane Darkness. What more do we need to know? Wherever you land on how you think mundane Darkness works . . . magical Darkness works the same way. Specific spells which create magical darkness such as darkness or Hunger of Hadar might alter this default behavior in ways that are explicitly mentioned in those spell descriptions.
Per the rules in Vision and Light, Heavily Obscured areas are opaque.
Note that the Rules Glossary entry, which includes only the mechanically significant bits and not the flavor text, does not include this term within the definition of the concept for a Heavily Obscured Area.
Statements like this get thrown around a lot whenever this topic comes up. But the game never defines Darkness like that. In 5e, Darkness is one of three possible categories of Light. It's the category whereby there is not enough light to be able to see functionally, thus you are blinded while trying to see something there. It doesn't mean that there is NO light -- it just means that there isn't enough light.
RAW says the darkness itself is opaque, not objects in the darkness. RAW also tells us that darkness and thick fog create the same effect. This is simply irreconcilable with reality or even common sense. Unfortunately, anything you do to resolve that issue puts you in house rule territory.
This take just is not the best interpretation of the text.
There is plenty of context which tells us that the statement in which this term appears is essentially flavor text. The style of writing in that portion of the text is such that the author is making a transitionary statement that is intending to introduce the next concept and simultaneously compare and contrast it against the previous concept of Lightly Obscured areas within which you actually can see, but with some difficulty. The actual mechanics for the concept are then defined in the statement which follows that. If you look at the summary of the mechanics for the concept as listed in the Rules Glossary, that statement which mentions the term "opaque" is not included. Only the mechanically significant statements are included.
Furthermore, the rules tell us that Darkness and thick fog create the same effect only as it relates to the concept of an Obscured Area, not Line of Sight. When you look at the rule for Line of Sight, thick fog is mentioned as an example, but Darkness is not.
Another principle i go by is that vision or line of sight always extend outward from you, so if looking in a direction causes you to have the Blinded condition, it doesn't stop while trying to see further away in the same direction. In other words, your line of sight doesn't go past anything opaque that block vision.
What is the justification for this? If the rule says that you are blinded while trying to see something there (or in a Heavily Obscured space), then why would you apply that condition when NOT looking at something there? If the thing that you are looking at is NOT in a Heavily Obscured space, which rule are you actually applying?
Right, this is my take as well. Darkness explicitly says that it fills the sphere. That is what would block Line of Sight, not that it creates Darkness. By contrast, Hunger of Hadar doesn't say it fills the Sphere so the Darkness behaves like "mundane" Darkness in regard to blocking Line of Sight.
The fact that the sphere "appears" in the case of Hunger of Hadar and is created via the normal means for a sphere AoE (beginning at the point of origin and expanding outwards to fill the sphere) in the case of the Darkness spell has no mechanical significance, at least not in the way that you are saying. (It could impact which areas are included or excluded from the AoE as per the general rules for an AoE, but that's the only impact.) The phrase "fills a sphere" in this context is just talking about filling the area with a magical effect. The fact that an area contains a magical effect in and of itself has no bearing on whether or not Line of Sight within that area is affected. There are a great many AoE magical effects that are totally indiscernible to the eye.
It's not definitively mechanically impactful or not. You can use it as basis it for the argument that Darkness creates an opaque bubble. Fluff and mechanics sometimes get blurred in the spell description.
Per the rules in Vision and Light, Heavily Obscured areas are opaque.
Note that the Rules Glossary entry, which includes only the mechanically significant bits and not the flavor text, does not include this term within the definition of the concept for a Heavily Obscured Area.
Note that the Rules on Vision and Light, does include this and Rules Glossary does not represent a comprehensive collection of the rules. It is often authoritative on a particular term but that does not actually invalidate the main rules.
I am not saying that it is clear one way or another whether you can see through magical or mundane darkness to the other side or that it is consistently one result or the other. I am saying that whether you can or not does not matter based on whether it is magical or mundane and instead on the rules for the source of the effect.
I'm also ruling non-magical or mundane Darkness as in the real world. But I agree that the rules don't help on this.
Which text is compelling you to rule that default magical darkness works mechanically differently than mundane Darkness?
We've already had this debate before, and I linked the threads above. Since it's the same arguments again, I don't think it makes sense to rehash everything, and you have your own ruling, anyway.
[...] You cannot see through the magical darkness, even if you have darkvision. Logically, creatures without darkvision can't see through it either.
The spell also states light cannot illuminate the area, so there is no way of bringing in light from outside to stimulate your vision. If there is light outside the sphere, it is completely blocked by the spell. Even, if that light is magical. [...]
Another principle i go by is that vision or line of sight always extend outward from you, so if looking in a direction causes you to have the Blinded condition, it doesn't stop while trying to see further away in the same direction. In other words, your line of sight doesn't go past anything opaque that block vision.
What is the justification for this? If the rule says that you are blinded while trying to see something there (or in a Heavily Obscured space), then why would you apply that condition when NOT looking at something there? If the thing that you are looking at is NOT in a Heavily Obscured space, which rule are you actually applying?
Logic-wise, vision isn't a top down view where you can choose to look there but not here, there's space in between. The rule i use to determine vision between spaces is Line of Sight.
If as DM i determine an Heavily Obscured area of heavy fog is opaque and block vision, there won't be any line of sight you can trace that pass through it.
Line of Sight: To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.
I'm also ruling non-magical or mundane Darkness as in the real world. But I agree that the rules don't help on this.
Which text is compelling you to rule that default magical darkness works mechanically differently than mundane Darkness?
We've already had this debate before, and I linked the threads above. Since it's the same arguments again, I don't think it makes sense to rehash everything, and you have your own ruling, anyway.
The only thing I want to say is the magical Darkness is no different mechanically than mundane Darkness inherently. If there was a hypotthetical spell that just created an area of Darkness, it would be magical and behave the same as mundane Darkness. The particular source of the magical Darkness adds additional effects like whether Darkvision can see through it, whether magical or mundane light can illuminate it (it wouldn't be much use if mundane light could illuminate it, but hey...), or other effects.
I think that's important to consider when discussing the behavior of base magical Darkness.
A Darkness that is magical has no additional effect unless noted otherwise. So if i use a published adventure, it will have whatever additional effect written.
If i place magical Darkness in my own adventure, it's not be illuminated by light and may block Darkvision if i decide so. I tend to make these more powerful than the Darkness spell.
I have no idea what you mean by "or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes". I have never said anything like that.
Because that's how real-world light works. Light is photons which are either emitted from a source directly or reflected off of something. You (or the lens of a light-sensing device) "see" when these photons reach your eyes . If A can see C, it is only because photons from a light source bounce off of C and hit the eyes of A.
Why in the world would you make a ruling like this? This makes the least sense. It makes far more sense to either rule both mundane Darkness and magical darkness one way or to rule both of those things the other way. But it doesn't make any sense at all to rule one of those things one way and the other one the other way.
The reason for that is because the magical darkness that is created by the darkness spell IS mundane Darkness, but with a few extra very specific mechanics added to it. If you look at the text in the spell description online, it says this: "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "Darkness" within that text is hyperlinked, and when you hover your mouse over it or you click on it, you'll see that you are brought to the rule for mundane Darkness.
So, the spell actually just creates mundane Darkness as a magical effect, thereby making it magical Darkness. In addition, the spell also creates a few additional extremely specific effects. But you start with the rules and mechanics for mundane Darkness, and then you add exactly what the spell description says to that, such as Darkvision not functioning properly, etc.
I would make a ruling like that because I do not agree that your interpretation makes more sense than Plaguescarred's interpretation. The text says "Darkvision cannot see through it," and you are interpreting that to mean "you can actually see past the area of Darkness, just not inside it." I disagree with that, I think the interpretation of cannot see through it is intended to be literal; the area of Darkness is opaque. In my opinion, your interpretation of the Darkness spell changes it from something you cast on an enemy position to one you cast on a ranged ally's position.
I personally play and rule that light in dnd-land isn't like light here, it isn't waves and particles (and whatever new they've recently come up with), and darkness isn't the absence of light. You can't see a lantern or torch outside it's range of light production. Light is more an activation of an item's natural emissions of seen-ness (which is why darkvision races don't need light). The game isn't a physics simulation (clearly!), and people aren't scientists, they take the world as it works.
I personally play and rule that light in dnd-land isn't like light here, it isn't waves and particles (and whatever new they've recently come up with), and darkness isn't the absence of light. You can't see a lantern or torch outside it's range of light production. Light is more an activation of an item's natural emissions of seen-ness (which is why darkvision races don't need light). The game isn't a physics simulation (clearly!), and people aren't scientists, they take the world as it works.
So if there's a 100 foot long tunnel which is pitch black, and the Adventuring party A is advancing through it using the Light cantrip (20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light), and Party B is advancing towards A using a torch (also 20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light). Neither party has Darkvision. Is it your interpretation that neither group can see the other until they come within 40 feet of each other, despite both having sources of light?
What about outside on a moonless night. If you're advancing across an empty plain or fields, is it impossible to see the brightly-lit city on the other side until you come within 40 feet of the walls, at which point it suddenly appears as if out of nowhere?
The text cannot cover everything. As always, it's up to the GM/DM to apply common sense in areas where the exact text falls short.
I'm also ruling non-magical or mundane Darkness as in the real world. But I agree that the rules don't help on this.
Which text is compelling you to rule that default magical darkness works mechanically differently than mundane Darkness?
We've already had this debate before, and I linked the threads above. Since it's the same arguments again, I don't think it makes sense to rehash everything, and you have your own ruling, anyway.
The only thing I want to say is the magical Darkness is no different mechanically than mundane Darkness inherently. If there was a hypotthetical spell that just created an area of Darkness, it would be magical and behave the same as mundane Darkness. The particular source of the magical Darkness adds additional effects like whether Darkvision can see through it, whether magical or mundane light can illuminate it (it wouldn't be much use if mundane light could illuminate it, but hey...), or other effects.
I think that's important to consider when discussing the behavior of base magical Darkness.
Yeah, I got your point.
Maybe I was not clear about that, either now or in the past, when I was sharing my particular POV on mundane Darkness versus the magical Darkness created specifically by the Darkness spell.
And even so, I won't deny, as this topic demonstrates across the forums, there is no clear consensus.
So if there's a 100 foot long tunnel which is pitch black, and the Adventuring party A is advancing through it using the Light cantrip (20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light), and Party B is advancing towards A using a torch (also 20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light). Neither party has Darkvision. Is it your interpretation that neither group can see the other until they come within 40 feet of each other, despite both having sources of light?
RAW, yes. RAW is problematic enough that I just ignore it for mundane darkness, but you can't do that for magical darkness because nothing tells us how it's supposed to work.
So if there's a 100 foot long tunnel which is pitch black, and the Adventuring party A is advancing through it using the Light cantrip (20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light), and Party B is advancing towards A using a torch (also 20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light). Neither party has Darkvision. Is it your interpretation that neither group can see the other until they come within 40 feet of each other, despite both having sources of light?
RAW, yes. RAW is problematic enough that I just ignore it for mundane darkness, but you can't do that for magical darkness because nothing tells us how it's supposed to work.
It's a hot mess, but the rules for Darkness tell you how it's supposed to work and do not differentiate between magical and mundane Darkness. Only the exact source of magical Darkness tells you how they are different. The final result is not there clearest and there is definitely room for variation between tables just based on varied interpretations of RAW, but it is there. I personally prefer a subtler magical Darkness where everything is not a random globe of black in the middle of nowhere; more of a "the shadows in that dark alley are too shadowy". And that is a valid take on RAW but so is that every area of Darkness is opaque and you cannot see into or see through to the other side.
I think it would be good to get clarification on the topic for consistency between tables, but I am not strongly attached to one take or the other. It's a good topic to discuss with your DM if you plan on using Darkness effects or are in a campaign involves many of them. If you have Darkvision, the impact is significantly decreased.
I'm also ruling non-magical or mundane Darkness as in the real world. But I agree that the rules don't help on this.
Yes RAW nonmagical Darkness is opaque like any other source of Heavily Obscured areas, which is the real problem. I prefer to treat category of illumination from presence or absence of light differently than other source or phenomenon, being an exception which can be illuminated by light thus possibly seen into.
Another principle i go by is that vision or line of sight always extend outward from you, so if looking in a direction causes you to have the Blinded condition, it doesn't stop while trying to see further away in the same direction. In other words, your line of sight doesn't go past anything opaque that block vision.
Yeah, I think this is kind of the logical conclusion to it all. If you follow RAW to the letter, then normal, common sense things like seeing a lighthouse 300 feet away, or a torch 100 feet away, while you're in darkness would be impossible. You can decide that all darkness (magical and mundane) acts the exact same way as fog and creates an opaque, entirely vision-blocking area, or you can decide darkness (magical and mundane) is not actually opaque because you can see torches 100 feet away.
To those saying magical and mundane darkness are different because of the phrase "Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere," I just can't really see why that makes a difference. The Darkness spell never even says it creates a Heavily Obscured area, it only references that it creates "darkness". Darkness isn't a "thing", so the fact that it fills the sphere doesn't mean anything different to mundane darkness, except that mundane darkness normally doesn't have a specified radius. Mundane darkness would be said to "fill" a room without any source of light, as well. The fact that it says that it "fills the sphere" doesn't mean anything more than that darkness reaches all points within the sphere, even around corners and other such obstacles (basically saying there is no "cover" from the darkness within the sphere).
In general, the devs decision to use common language for something like this, their decision to make magical and mundane darkness identical beyond clearly stated differences, and their decision to give total disparate ideas, such as hiding in dense foliage, fog, and darkness, the same blanket condition of creating a "heavily obscured" area makes attempts to match RAW with normal reality impossible.
It states that in the context of observing something within the area. Therefore, it is a valid RAW interpretation to restrict the opaqueness to only interfering with observing something in the area. It is also valid that RAW creates columns of Darkness that block perception to lit areas beyond even though the area of Darkness is empty. However, you rule it, nonmagical and magical Darkness behave identically with magical Darkness sometimes have additional effects beyond just creating Darkness.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It's possible to interpret the phrasing as redefining what opaque means, but that just means you wind up with a different class of nonsense result, because fog and darkness behave the same way in RAW.
To me, vision is not from top down, but from you outward. The notion that you can see past an Heavily Obscured area don't factor that you have to first see within it.
To take Wysperra's exemple, A has to first see within the area of magical darkness before it can see D on the other side, which is impossible when Blinded as it can’t see.
For me it is both. If you have an empty room in darkness, you cannot see in that area, but you might be able to see through it. If there is something in the area, that can block line of sight as normal. Fog, for example, also creates a heavily obscured area but also involves something (the fog) being in that space.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Why would you say that this is counter-intuitive? This is by far the most intuitive interpretation since this is exactly what happens in real life. See the often-mentioned two campfires example.
This is not correct. The rules justification has been quoted and explained extensively across multiple threads. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation is another story, but it is certainly a justifiable interpretation.
This mechanic actually functioned correctly in 2014 as well. It was just very widely misinterpreted.
I have no idea what you mean by "or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes". I have never said anything like that.
As for the silhouette argument -- while it might work like that in real life, it turns out that the mechanics for such things in 5e are greatly simplified. Such a silhouette might indeed be created by some sort of object that physically blocks your Line of Sight to things directly behind it, but you cannot identify or locate or target the object which makes such a silhouette in 5e. That's because you are actually blinded when trying to see something within the area. So, while there might be a stone wall that cuts all the way across the lower half of an area of darkness, for example, you cannot actually identify what it is or where it is -- you cannot actually look at the stone wall. You are blinded when you try to do so. Functionally, it might block your view of half of the campfire scene behind it, but you don't really know why exactly. You'll just be aware that some of your Line of Sight is currently blocked for some reason.
Why in the world would you make a ruling like this? This makes the least sense. It makes far more sense to either rule both mundane Darkness and magical darkness one way or to rule both of those things the other way. But it doesn't make any sense at all to rule one of those things one way and the other one the other way.
The reason for that is because the magical darkness that is created by the darkness spell IS mundane Darkness, but with a few extra very specific mechanics added to it. If you look at the text in the spell description online, it says this: "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "Darkness" within that text is hyperlinked, and when you hover your mouse over it or you click on it, you'll see that you are brought to the rule for mundane Darkness.
So, the spell actually just creates mundane Darkness as a magical effect, thereby making it magical Darkness. In addition, the spell also creates a few additional extremely specific effects. But you start with the rules and mechanics for mundane Darkness, and then you add exactly what the spell description says to that, such as Darkvision not functioning properly, etc.
See above. Such a ruling makes no sense. The magical Darkness created by the darkness spell works mechanically in a manner that is identical to mundane Darkness except for the ways that are explicitly mentioned by the spell description.
The fact that the sphere "appears" in the case of Hunger of Hadar and is created via the normal means for a sphere AoE (beginning at the point of origin and expanding outwards to fill the sphere) in the case of the Darkness spell has no mechanical significance, at least not in the way that you are saying. (It could impact which areas are included or excluded from the AoE as per the general rules for an AoE, but that's the only impact.) The phrase "fills a sphere" in this context is just talking about filling the area with a magical effect. The fact that an area contains a magical effect in and of itself has no bearing on whether or not Line of Sight within that area is affected. There are a great many AoE magical effects that are totally indiscernible to the eye.
It doesn't? Why not? The spell description uses the term "Darkness" with a capital D and the online version hyperlinks that word to the rules for mundane Darkness. What more do we need to know? Wherever you land on how you think mundane Darkness works . . . magical Darkness works the same way. Specific spells which create magical darkness such as darkness or Hunger of Hadar might alter this default behavior in ways that are explicitly mentioned in those spell descriptions.
Note that the Rules Glossary entry, which includes only the mechanically significant bits and not the flavor text, does not include this term within the definition of the concept for a Heavily Obscured Area.
Statements like this get thrown around a lot whenever this topic comes up. But the game never defines Darkness like that. In 5e, Darkness is one of three possible categories of Light. It's the category whereby there is not enough light to be able to see functionally, thus you are blinded while trying to see something there. It doesn't mean that there is NO light -- it just means that there isn't enough light.
This take just is not the best interpretation of the text.
There is plenty of context which tells us that the statement in which this term appears is essentially flavor text. The style of writing in that portion of the text is such that the author is making a transitionary statement that is intending to introduce the next concept and simultaneously compare and contrast it against the previous concept of Lightly Obscured areas within which you actually can see, but with some difficulty. The actual mechanics for the concept are then defined in the statement which follows that. If you look at the summary of the mechanics for the concept as listed in the Rules Glossary, that statement which mentions the term "opaque" is not included. Only the mechanically significant statements are included.
Furthermore, the rules tell us that Darkness and thick fog create the same effect only as it relates to the concept of an Obscured Area, not Line of Sight. When you look at the rule for Line of Sight, thick fog is mentioned as an example, but Darkness is not.
Which text is compelling you to rule that default magical darkness works mechanically differently than mundane Darkness?
What is the justification for this? If the rule says that you are blinded while trying to see something there (or in a Heavily Obscured space), then why would you apply that condition when NOT looking at something there? If the thing that you are looking at is NOT in a Heavily Obscured space, which rule are you actually applying?
It's not definitively mechanically impactful or not. You can use it as basis it for the argument that Darkness creates an opaque bubble. Fluff and mechanics sometimes get blurred in the spell description.
Note that the Rules on Vision and Light, does include this and Rules Glossary does not represent a comprehensive collection of the rules. It is often authoritative on a particular term but that does not actually invalidate the main rules.
I am not saying that it is clear one way or another whether you can see through magical or mundane darkness to the other side or that it is consistently one result or the other. I am saying that whether you can or not does not matter based on whether it is magical or mundane and instead on the rules for the source of the effect.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
We've already had this debate before, and I linked the threads above. Since it's the same arguments again, I don't think it makes sense to rehash everything, and you have your own ruling, anyway.
That said, here were some of my explanations:
And:
Logic-wise, vision isn't a top down view where you can choose to look there but not here, there's space in between. The rule i use to determine vision between spaces is Line of Sight.
If as DM i determine an Heavily Obscured area of heavy fog is opaque and block vision, there won't be any line of sight you can trace that pass through it.
I believe you are referring to your comment 50.
The only thing I want to say is the magical Darkness is no different mechanically than mundane Darkness inherently. If there was a hypotthetical spell that just created an area of Darkness, it would be magical and behave the same as mundane Darkness. The particular source of the magical Darkness adds additional effects like whether Darkvision can see through it, whether magical or mundane light can illuminate it (it wouldn't be much use if mundane light could illuminate it, but hey...), or other effects.
I think that's important to consider when discussing the behavior of base magical Darkness.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Dudes, Bros, Brodudes, darkness makes things dark. Hope this helps
A Darkness that is magical has no additional effect unless noted otherwise. So if i use a published adventure, it will have whatever additional effect written.
If i place magical Darkness in my own adventure, it's not be illuminated by light and may block Darkvision if i decide so. I tend to make these more powerful than the Darkness spell.
Because that's how real-world light works. Light is photons which are either emitted from a source directly or reflected off of something. You (or the lens of a light-sensing device) "see" when these photons reach your eyes . If A can see C, it is only because photons from a light source bounce off of C and hit the eyes of A.
I would make a ruling like that because I do not agree that your interpretation makes more sense than Plaguescarred's interpretation. The text says "Darkvision cannot see through it," and you are interpreting that to mean "you can actually see past the area of Darkness, just not inside it." I disagree with that, I think the interpretation of cannot see through it is intended to be literal; the area of Darkness is opaque. In my opinion, your interpretation of the Darkness spell changes it from something you cast on an enemy position to one you cast on a ranged ally's position.
I personally play and rule that light in dnd-land isn't like light here, it isn't waves and particles (and whatever new they've recently come up with), and darkness isn't the absence of light. You can't see a lantern or torch outside it's range of light production. Light is more an activation of an item's natural emissions of seen-ness (which is why darkvision races don't need light). The game isn't a physics simulation (clearly!), and people aren't scientists, they take the world as it works.
So if there's a 100 foot long tunnel which is pitch black, and the Adventuring party A is advancing through it using the Light cantrip (20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light), and Party B is advancing towards A using a torch (also 20 feet bright light, 20 feet dim light). Neither party has Darkvision. Is it your interpretation that neither group can see the other until they come within 40 feet of each other, despite both having sources of light?
What about outside on a moonless night. If you're advancing across an empty plain or fields, is it impossible to see the brightly-lit city on the other side until you come within 40 feet of the walls, at which point it suddenly appears as if out of nowhere?
The text cannot cover everything. As always, it's up to the GM/DM to apply common sense in areas where the exact text falls short.
Yeah, and more threads were created when the 2024 PHB was released and the new wording was debated, like Summary of issues with 2024 vision, stealth, etc. Another case is this resurrected one: Can you see a creature outside of the Darkness spell?
Yeah, I got your point.
Maybe I was not clear about that, either now or in the past, when I was sharing my particular POV on mundane Darkness versus the magical Darkness created specifically by the Darkness spell.
And even so, I won't deny, as this topic demonstrates across the forums, there is no clear consensus.
RAW, yes. RAW is problematic enough that I just ignore it for mundane darkness, but you can't do that for magical darkness because nothing tells us how it's supposed to work.
It's a hot mess, but the rules for Darkness tell you how it's supposed to work and do not differentiate between magical and mundane Darkness. Only the exact source of magical Darkness tells you how they are different. The final result is not there clearest and there is definitely room for variation between tables just based on varied interpretations of RAW, but it is there. I personally prefer a subtler magical Darkness where everything is not a random globe of black in the middle of nowhere; more of a "the shadows in that dark alley are too shadowy". And that is a valid take on RAW but so is that every area of Darkness is opaque and you cannot see into or see through to the other side.
I think it would be good to get clarification on the topic for consistency between tables, but I am not strongly attached to one take or the other. It's a good topic to discuss with your DM if you plan on using Darkness effects or are in a campaign involves many of them. If you have Darkvision, the impact is significantly decreased.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.