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.
Nobody said anything about rehashing everything. I was asking specifically about the text that you can point to that compels you to rule that mundane darkness functions mechanically differently than default magical darkness, which you have not answered, but which you have said that that's what you are doing with your rulings in this above quote snippet.
In other words, why do you think that magical darkness is anything other than mundane darkness that exists as a magical effect, given the fact that the description uses the term Darkness with a capital D and the online entry hyperlinks us back to the rules for mundane Darkness in that portion of the text.
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.
Yes, that makes sense for heavy fog which is listed there as an example of something that blocks Line of Sight.
The question is, why would you rule it that way for magical darkness but not for mundane darkness when their mechanics with respect to Line of Sight are identical?
If you can be inside of a well-lit room and you can look up through a skylight window and through the night sky and you are able to see the stars above, then why can you not look through an area of magical darkness to be able to see the campfire behind it? The same rule applies to both circumstances. Either you can see through neither of them or you can see through both of them (you can see through both of them is the correct answer).
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.
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.
Regardless of why and how we might be able to see things in real life, in this game you cannot see things that are within a Heavily Obscured area, by rule.
This rule explains (not very well, but that's beside the point) that the reason for this is that the area is obscured, not because of anything having to do with Line of Sight. The area itself cannot be seen. Or, more precisely, the things within that area cannot be seen, just, by rule. They are obscured from your view. Often times the reason for such obscurement is due to the presence of some phenomenon that also happens to block Line of Sight, such as fog or foliage. Darkness is not an example of that. Darkness obscures an area from view, but it is not an actual thing that is forming an actual barrier between your eyes and the things that are behind it. That's why the rule doesn't just cause the blinded condition followed by a period. It causes the blinded condition only during a particular circumstance -- when you are trying to see the things that are being obscured.
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.
Well, my interpretation doesn't "change it", per se. It's always been this way, even in the 2014 version.
In 5e, the darkness spell is a buff to those that are within it, so it is clearly better to cast it on your own position or your ranged ally's position rather than on an enemy position. It's very similar to the non-magical situation where one person is simply "lurking in darkness" and his enemy is in a well-lit area. The person that is lurking in darkness in that situation is in an advantageous situation. It's possible that some previous version of the game used to have a darkness spell that functioned differently, but this is how it's been since 2014. In both the 2014 version and the 2024 version of the spell, nearly half of the text for the spell description is dedicated to explaining the fact that you might want to cast the spell onto an object and then carry it around with you, covering it up as needed when you need to see something nearby -- very similar to how many people cast the Light spell.
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.
In the absence of any such text that "tells us how it's supposed to work", why would you not consider magical Darkness to just be mundane Darkness that exists as a magical effect? Isn't that the logical meaning when you combine the words "magical" and "Darkness" when using their natural language meanings? An adjective followed by a noun? What is stopping you from ruling that default magical Darkness has identical mechanics to mundane Darkness (however you interpret those) except that it exists as a magical effect?
If you want an answer to "why do you think that magical darkness is anything other than mundane darkness that exists as a magical effect," The text of the Darkness spell says "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "magical" is important and distinguishes it from mundane Darkness. The word magical is unnecessary if it is indistinguishable from mundane Darkness; we're talking about a spell, it's magical by definition. The Daylight and Light spells both describe light spreading or shedding, but the text doesn't feel the need to be super-specific and say that it is magical light.
I argue that the area of Darkness created by the Darkness spell IS an example of a phenomenon which obscures line of sight. The evidence I use to support that argument is in the text: "Darkvision can’t see through it." There is no supporting text which suggests you can see through an area of darkness to anything on the other side.
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.
Yes, that makes sense for heavy fog which is listed there as an example of something that blocks Line of Sight.
The question is, why would you rule it that way for magical darkness but not for mundane darkness when their mechanics with respect to Line of Sight are identical?
Exactly. Also, fog is listed as an example that blocks Line of Sight, but Fog and Darkness are both listed as opaque in Vision and Light.
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.
It's inconsistent, which is fine as long as it is acknowledged as such.
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.
Yes, there is. By RAW, magical Darkness is just Darkness that can be dispelled and might have additional effects depending on the source and those additional effects will be explicitly detailed by the source. Darkness being magical has no inherent significance in terms of its mechanical behavior.
If you want an answer to "why do you think that magical darkness is anything other than mundane darkness that exists as a magical effect," The text of the Darkness spell says "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "magical" is important and distinguishes it from mundane Darkness. The word magical is unnecessary if it is indistinguishable from mundane Darkness; we're talking about a spell, it's magical by definition. The Daylight and Light spells both describe light spreading or shedding, but the text doesn't feel the need to be super-specific and say that it is magical light.
The fact that it is redundant doesn't give any mechanical weight. All Darkness created by a spell is magical. All Light created by a spell is magical. If you cannot provide a printed rule that applies to all magical Darkness because they are magical and is present outside of the spells that creates them, then, yes, the word "magical" is redundant.
I argue that the area of Darkness created by the Darkness spell IS an example of a phenomenon which obscures line of sight. The evidence I use to support that argument is in the text: "Darkvision can’t see through it." There is no supporting text which suggests you can see through an area of darkness to anything on the other side.
Again, this could be a reference to the Vision and Light rules which say that you have the Blinded when viewing the area of Darkness. I would say that the text of Darkness saying that it fills the sphere is a more solid argument because it suggests that it does indeed create a bubble of darkness and would therefore block everything except Devil's Sight.
I argue that the area of Darkness created by the Darkness spell IS an example of a phenomenon which obscures line of sight. The evidence I use to support that argument is in the text: "Darkvision can’t see through it." There is no supporting text which suggests you can see through an area of darkness to anything on the other side.
At best this phrase creates a point of ambiguity that can have multiple interpretations -- stronger interpretations and lesser interpretations. In context, the idea that the phrase "Darkvision can't see through it" actually means that all creatures have their Line of Sight blocked really has to be the lesser interpretation for multiple reasons. One frequent forum poster around here often poses the question: If that's what the authors intended, would they really have written it that way? It's more likely that they would have said something like: This magical darkness interrupts the Line of Sight of all creatures, including those who possess Darkvision.
In context, it's far more likely that the statement is a clarification about how Darkvision itself interacts with the magical effect -- not how all creatures are affected. This is presented as a way that this magical Darkness differs from mundane Darkness. In the case of mundane Darkness, the sense of Darkvision has a certain mechanical advantage. This description for the darkness spell is explicitly explaining that that mechanical advantage does not function properly for this particular Darkness. It's also likely that the phrase "see through" is referring to the level of obscurity, not the lack of Line of Sight since Darkness is an Obscured Area but not a physical obstacle. This is to compare and contrast against what happens with Lightly Obscured areas, which you can actually "see through" with some difficulty. A creature with Darkvision can "see through" mundane Darkness as if it were only a Lightly Obscured area. This is what they are trying to discuss here, but with much brevity. When you think about it, it's sort of difficult to come up with an alternate phrase in place of "see through" which adequately compares and contrasts Lightly Obscured vs Heavily Obscured areas, so they came up with something that is written in a "you know what I mean" manner since there really isn't another more precise (but brief) way to write that concept. It's being written with the assumption that the reader already understands that we are talking about Obscured Areas since that's what Darkness is and those are the rules that are referenced via hyperlink in the online version, so phrases such as "opaque" and "see through" should be interpreted as being related to comparing and contrasting Lightly Obscured areas vs Heavily Obscured areas where the area itself is either visible with some difficulty or is totally obscured from view.
Whenever this topic comes up, it really feels like it just comes down to whether the reader has an "Ah ha" moment or not. Once people get it, it becomes very logical. It seems like it's really hard for many folks to imagine how an area can be obscured without Line of Sight being blocked -- like the two are always conflated and cannot be separated. Once people are able to separate those two things conceptually the rules for all of this really do make sense. But it does get difficult to explain without relying on that "Ah ha" moment.
At best this phrase creates a point of ambiguity that can have multiple interpretations -- stronger interpretations and lesser interpretations. In context, the idea that the phrase "Darkvision can't see through it" actually means that all creatures have their Line of Sight blocked really has to be the lesser interpretation for multiple reasons. One frequent forum poster around here often poses the question: If that's what the authors intended, would they really have written it that way? It's more likely that they would have said something like: This magical darkness interrupts the Line of Sight of all creatures, including those who possess Darkvision.
"Darkvision can't see through it" means it blocks line of sight for darkvision. You could, of course, say that if you don't have darkvision it doesn't block line of sight... but that would be a really weird ruling to make.
At best this phrase creates a point of ambiguity that can have multiple interpretations -- stronger interpretations and lesser interpretations. In context, the idea that the phrase "Darkvision can't see through it" actually means that all creatures have their Line of Sight blocked really has to be the lesser interpretation for multiple reasons. One frequent forum poster around here often poses the question: If that's what the authors intended, would they really have written it that way? It's more likely that they would have said something like: This magical darkness interrupts the Line of Sight of all creatures, including those who possess Darkvision.
"Darkvision can't see through it" means it blocks line of sight for darkvision. You could, of course, say that if you don't have darkvision it doesn't block line of sight... but that would be a really weird ruling to make.
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.
Yes, that makes sense for heavy fog which is listed there as an example of something that blocks Line of Sight.
The question is, why would you rule it that way for magical darkness but not for mundane darkness when their mechanics with respect to Line of Sight are identical?
If you can be inside of a well-lit room and you can look up through a skylight window and through the night sky and you are able to see the stars above, then why can you not look through an area of magical darkness to be able to see the campfire behind it? The same rule applies to both circumstances. Either you can see through neither of them or you can see through both of them (you can see through both of them is the correct answer).
I rule magical Darkness as opaque like any other Heavily Obscured that block vision. What i rule differently is normal Darkness as not opaque to light due to the fact it can be illuminated by light. While not RAW kosher, it make sense to the players at my table which is all that truly matters.
I rule magical Darkness as opaque like any other Heavily Obscured that block vision. What i rule differently is normal Darkness as not opaque to light due to the fact it can be illuminated by light. While not RAW kosher, it make sense to the players at my table which is all that truly matters.
I think this is a valid interpretation of RAW if consider being unnaturally opaque to light as a property of the effect that creates magical Darkness rather than magical Darkness itself. I can't imagine that there is any effect that creates magical Darkness that can be illuminated by mundane light. Usually, they block magical light to some degree as well.
Darkness creates magical Darkness, blocks Darkvision, blocks normal light, and dispels Bright Light or Dim Light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower. Upcasting does not improve the dispelling effect. **
Hallow creates magical Darkness, blocks normal light, and blocks, but not dispels, lower-level Light spells. Upcasting does improve the secondary effect. **
Maddening Darkness creates magical Darkness, blocks normal light and magical light created by an 8th level spell or lower. **
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
** Technically, these only block magical light from spells. Magical Light created by magic items or other effects work just fine. Only Hunger of Hadar blanket blocks magical light. This is probably not intentional. For example, many magic weapons emit light and it is not covered by the light blocked by the above spells except Hunger of Hadar.
So, yeah. I think your table ruling is actually consistent with RAW.
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
I believe this is incorrect as you can't see through it as it is magical darkness.
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
I believe this is incorrect as you can't see through it as it is magical darkness.
I believe SmiteMakesRight_3_5 is correct, technically, Hunger of Hadar creates magical Darkness area that no light can illuminate and in which creatures fully within it have the Blinded condition, that otherwise doesn't blocks Darkvision specifically, meaning this Sage Advice official ruling apply;
Does all magical Darkness block Darkvision?
Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of Darkness says it does. For example, the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can’t see through it. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not a feature of magical Darkness in general.
"Darkvision can't see through it" means it blocks line of sight for darkvision.
As a stand-alone statement of just those five words that might be true. But the rules should not always be interpreted one word at a time since words and phrases can have different meanings when there is different context. In the context of this entire suite of rules for Vision and Light that includes the three categories of illumination, the two categories of Obscured Areas, the rule for Line of Sight and the rules for the special senses, it is pretty obvious that this statement about Darkvision is a statement about how Darkvision is affected differently by the darkness spell vs by mundane darkness with respect to what Darkvision normally does, which is to essentially change a certain type of Heavily Obscured area (Darkness) into a Lightly Obscured area (Dim Light).
I rule magical Darkness as opaque like any other Heavily Obscured that block vision. What i rule differently is normal Darkness as not opaque to light due to the fact it can be illuminated by light. While not RAW kosher, it make sense to the players at my table which is all that truly matters.
I think this is a valid interpretation of RAW if consider being unnaturally opaque to light as a property of the effect that creates magical Darkness rather than magical Darkness itself.
There is no rules support for this. There is nothing different about magical Darkness except for what is explicitly mentioned by the source that creates that magical effect. Plaguescarred has even said several times that he is intentionally using a house rule in his games to make magical Darkness function differently than mundane Darkness.
Interestingly, the fact that Hunger of Hadar specifically calls out that creatures fully within the area are blinded lends itself to the understanding that in other forms of Darkness (mundane and magical) that do have the same wording as Hunger of Hadar that creatures inside the Darkness can see out into areas that are lit.
If it wasn't the case that those within Darkness, such as that produced by the Darkness spell, could see lit areas outside of the radius of the spell because they were "blinded while trying to see something", then Hunger of Hadar wouldn't need to specify that those inside the radius are blinded. It would be assumed they were blinded, because they would be in an area of darkness and thus blinded due to being in a heavily-obscured area. But the fact Hunger of Hadar calls it out specifically means that in general situations, such as mundane or other Magical darkness, that someone within that darkness could see outside of the darkness to lit areas.
There is no rules support for this. There is nothing different about magical Darkness except for what is explicitly mentioned by the source that creates that magical effect. Plaguescarred has even said several times that he is intentionally using a house rule in his games to make magical Darkness function differently than mundane Darkness.
The house rule is actually about the behavior of mundane darkness, because RAW mundane darkness is opaque.
I rule magical Darkness as opaque like any other Heavily Obscured that block vision. What i rule differently is normal Darkness as not opaque to light due to the fact it can be illuminated by light. While not RAW kosher, it make sense to the players at my table which is all that truly matters.
I think this is a valid interpretation of RAW if consider being unnaturally opaque to light as a property of the effect that creates magical Darkness rather than magical Darkness itself. I can't imagine that there is any effect that creates magical Darkness that can be illuminated by mundane light. Usually, they block magical light to some degree as well.
Darkness creates magical Darkness, blocks Darkvision, blocks normal light, and dispels Bright Light or Dim Light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower. Upcasting does not improve the dispelling effect. **
Hallow creates magical Darkness, blocks normal light, and blocks, but not dispels, lower-level Light spells. Upcasting does improve the secondary effect. **
Maddening Darkness creates magical Darkness, blocks normal light and magical light created by an 8th level spell or lower. **
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
** Technically, these only block magical light from spells. Magical Light created by magic items or other effects work just fine. Only Hunger of Hadar blanket blocks magical light. This is probably not intentional. For example, many magic weapons emit light and it is not covered by the light blocked by the above spells except Hunger of Hadar.
So, yeah. I think your table ruling is actually consistent with RAW.
Wow, so you changed your mind and joined the "Magical Darkness is different from Mundane Darkness" chosen few?
PS. Regarding Hunger of Hadar, it is true that it doesn't block Darkvision if you're outside the spell. You could for example target enemies inside using Devil’s Sight, Darkvision, or Truesight.
Interestingly, the fact that Hunger of Hadar specifically calls out that creatures fully within the area are blinded lends itself to the understanding that in other forms of Darkness (mundane and magical) that do have the same wording as Hunger of Hadar that creatures inside the Darkness can see out into areas that are lit.
If it wasn't the case that those within Darkness, such as that produced by the Darkness spell, could see lit areas outside of the radius of the spell because they were "blinded while trying to see something", then Hunger of Hadar wouldn't need to specify that those inside the radius are blinded. It would be assumed they were blinded, because they would be in an area of darkness and thus blinded due to being in a heavily-obscured area. But the fact Hunger of Hadar calls it out specifically means that in general situations, such as mundane or other Magical darkness, that someone within that darkness could see outside of the darkness to lit areas.
The house rule is actually about the behavior of mundane darkness, because RAW mundane darkness is opaque.
As a stand-alone interpretation of just that one word that might be true. But the rules should not always be interpreted one word at a time since words and phrases can have different meanings when there is different context. In the context of this entire suite of rules for Vision and Light that includes the three categories of illumination, the two categories of Obscured Areas, the rule for Line of Sight and the rules for the special senses, it is pretty obvious that this description of Heavily Obscured Areas being opaque is descriptive flavor text (not included in the Rules Glossary entry) that is being used to introduce the concept of Heavily Obscured Areas in a way that compares and contrasts against the mechanics for Lightly Obscured areas which are not "opaque" -- you can see the things that are within Lightly Obscured Areas, but with some difficulty. This is set within the concept of areas and things within those areas being obscured from your view, not related to any concept of a physical barrier that blocks Line of Sight. The word is being used in a different way than how it's typically used.
__________
On another note, we could also include the new spell Doomtide to the list of spells that creates magical Darkness (which is also hyperlinked back to the rules for mundane Darkness). Interestingly, that spell describes the effect as both "fog" and also "magical darkness". In my opinion, this distinction is meant to make it clear that this particular iteration of magical Darkness actually does block Line of Sight (since dense fog is an example of something that actually blocks Line of Sight). So, it's a Heavily Obscured area (a la mundane Darkness) and it also blocks Line of Sight, which are two different rules which do two different things.
You create a 20-foot-radius Sphere of inky fog within range. The fog is magical Darkness and lasts for the duration or until a strong wind (such as the one created by the Gust of Wind spell) disperses it, ending the spell.
The rest of the spell effect for that spell has nothing to do with vision. Nothing about what happens to Darkvision and no restrictions that nonmagical light can't illuminate it, for example. In theory, you could light up a light source within it to illuminate the area, but it would still be full of fog anyway so there would be no point to doing that.
As a stand-alone interpretation of just that one word that might be true.
It's not about one word. There is quite simply zero evidence for treating darkness as being different from any other type of heavy obscurement other than the fact that darkvision can see through it.
As a stand-alone interpretation of just that one word that might be true.
It's not about one word. There is quite simply zero evidence for treating darkness as being different from any other type of heavy obscurement other than the fact that darkvision can see through it.
This is true, but not in the way that you are thinking.
In fact, NO heavily obscured areas block Line of Sight strictly based on the rules for Heavily Obscured areas. In this way, they should all be treated the same way. They all allow you to see out of them or through them by default. You are only blinded when trying to see something there.
Once that mechanic is in place, we can then move on to investigating each individual heavily obscured area to see if there is some other reason why any of them might also actually block Line of Sight. This basically comes down to the DM determining whether or not the phenomenon that is causing the obscurement is actually an object or effect that is capable of blocking vision:
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.
Examples given for physical barriers to vision include a stone wall, a thick curtain and a dense cloud of fog. Darkness is conspicuously absent from this list even though it is present within a similar list that is given as examples of Heavily Obscured areas: "Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage".
Wow, so you changed your mind and joined the "Magical Darkness is different from Mundane Darkness" chosen few?
No. I just think that Plaguescarred's interpretation is valid when you break out "magical Darkness cannot be illuminated by Light" as a property of the source of the Darkness instead of a property of magical Darkness. It's not a property of magical Darkness, but it is a property of every source of magical Darkness, so it's a bit of you say tomato, I say tomato. It's a technicality that separates the two. Technically, magical Darkness can be illuminated by mundane light by default. Practically, every effect that creates magical Darkness also says (independently) that it cannot be illuminated by nonmagical means. Some (all?) have additional effects.
it is pretty obvious that this description of Heavily Obscured Areas being opaque is descriptive flavor text (not included in the Rules Glossary entry)
There is no basis for the assumption that rules text in the Vision and Light rules is flavor text. Not being duplicated in the Rules Glossary is not a sufficient argument. The Rules Glossary is not a comprehensive collection rules of the game.
This basically comes down to the DM determining whether or not the phenomenon that is causing the obscurement is actually an object or effect that is capable of blocking vision:
How to determine whether something is capable of blocking vision: is the object opaque. If the intent is that darkness and other types of heavy obscurement should behave differently, darkness shouldn't reference the rules for being heavily obscured at all, it should be its own effect. Which is absolutely what the rules should have done, but not what the rules actually did.
Nobody said anything about rehashing everything. I was asking specifically about the text that you can point to that compels you to rule that mundane darkness functions mechanically differently than default magical darkness, which you have not answered, but which you have said that that's what you are doing with your rulings in this above quote snippet.
In other words, why do you think that magical darkness is anything other than mundane darkness that exists as a magical effect, given the fact that the description uses the term Darkness with a capital D and the online entry hyperlinks us back to the rules for mundane Darkness in that portion of the text.
Yes, that makes sense for heavy fog which is listed there as an example of something that blocks Line of Sight.
The question is, why would you rule it that way for magical darkness but not for mundane darkness when their mechanics with respect to Line of Sight are identical?
If you can be inside of a well-lit room and you can look up through a skylight window and through the night sky and you are able to see the stars above, then why can you not look through an area of magical darkness to be able to see the campfire behind it? The same rule applies to both circumstances. Either you can see through neither of them or you can see through both of them (you can see through both of them is the correct answer).
^ YES!! This is correct.
Regardless of why and how we might be able to see things in real life, in this game you cannot see things that are within a Heavily Obscured area, by rule.
This rule explains (not very well, but that's beside the point) that the reason for this is that the area is obscured, not because of anything having to do with Line of Sight. The area itself cannot be seen. Or, more precisely, the things within that area cannot be seen, just, by rule. They are obscured from your view. Often times the reason for such obscurement is due to the presence of some phenomenon that also happens to block Line of Sight, such as fog or foliage. Darkness is not an example of that. Darkness obscures an area from view, but it is not an actual thing that is forming an actual barrier between your eyes and the things that are behind it. That's why the rule doesn't just cause the blinded condition followed by a period. It causes the blinded condition only during a particular circumstance -- when you are trying to see the things that are being obscured.
Well, my interpretation doesn't "change it", per se. It's always been this way, even in the 2014 version.
In 5e, the darkness spell is a buff to those that are within it, so it is clearly better to cast it on your own position or your ranged ally's position rather than on an enemy position. It's very similar to the non-magical situation where one person is simply "lurking in darkness" and his enemy is in a well-lit area. The person that is lurking in darkness in that situation is in an advantageous situation. It's possible that some previous version of the game used to have a darkness spell that functioned differently, but this is how it's been since 2014. In both the 2014 version and the 2024 version of the spell, nearly half of the text for the spell description is dedicated to explaining the fact that you might want to cast the spell onto an object and then carry it around with you, covering it up as needed when you need to see something nearby -- very similar to how many people cast the Light spell.
In the absence of any such text that "tells us how it's supposed to work", why would you not consider magical Darkness to just be mundane Darkness that exists as a magical effect? Isn't that the logical meaning when you combine the words "magical" and "Darkness" when using their natural language meanings? An adjective followed by a noun? What is stopping you from ruling that default magical Darkness has identical mechanics to mundane Darkness (however you interpret those) except that it exists as a magical effect?
If you want an answer to "why do you think that magical darkness is anything other than mundane darkness that exists as a magical effect," The text of the Darkness spell says "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." The word "magical" is important and distinguishes it from mundane Darkness. The word magical is unnecessary if it is indistinguishable from mundane Darkness; we're talking about a spell, it's magical by definition. The Daylight and Light spells both describe light spreading or shedding, but the text doesn't feel the need to be super-specific and say that it is magical light.
I argue that the area of Darkness created by the Darkness spell IS an example of a phenomenon which obscures line of sight. The evidence I use to support that argument is in the text: "Darkvision can’t see through it." There is no supporting text which suggests you can see through an area of darkness to anything on the other side.
Exactly. Also, fog is listed as an example that blocks Line of Sight, but Fog and Darkness are both listed as opaque in Vision and Light.
It's inconsistent, which is fine as long as it is acknowledged as such.
Yes, there is. By RAW, magical Darkness is just Darkness that can be dispelled and might have additional effects depending on the source and those additional effects will be explicitly detailed by the source. Darkness being magical has no inherent significance in terms of its mechanical behavior.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The fact that it is redundant doesn't give any mechanical weight. All Darkness created by a spell is magical. All Light created by a spell is magical. If you cannot provide a printed rule that applies to all magical Darkness because they are magical and is present outside of the spells that creates them, then, yes, the word "magical" is redundant.
Again, this could be a reference to the Vision and Light rules which say that you have the Blinded when viewing the area of Darkness. I would say that the text of Darkness saying that it fills the sphere is a more solid argument because it suggests that it does indeed create a bubble of darkness and would therefore block everything except Devil's Sight.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
At best this phrase creates a point of ambiguity that can have multiple interpretations -- stronger interpretations and lesser interpretations. In context, the idea that the phrase "Darkvision can't see through it" actually means that all creatures have their Line of Sight blocked really has to be the lesser interpretation for multiple reasons. One frequent forum poster around here often poses the question: If that's what the authors intended, would they really have written it that way? It's more likely that they would have said something like: This magical darkness interrupts the Line of Sight of all creatures, including those who possess Darkvision.
In context, it's far more likely that the statement is a clarification about how Darkvision itself interacts with the magical effect -- not how all creatures are affected. This is presented as a way that this magical Darkness differs from mundane Darkness. In the case of mundane Darkness, the sense of Darkvision has a certain mechanical advantage. This description for the darkness spell is explicitly explaining that that mechanical advantage does not function properly for this particular Darkness. It's also likely that the phrase "see through" is referring to the level of obscurity, not the lack of Line of Sight since Darkness is an Obscured Area but not a physical obstacle. This is to compare and contrast against what happens with Lightly Obscured areas, which you can actually "see through" with some difficulty. A creature with Darkvision can "see through" mundane Darkness as if it were only a Lightly Obscured area. This is what they are trying to discuss here, but with much brevity. When you think about it, it's sort of difficult to come up with an alternate phrase in place of "see through" which adequately compares and contrasts Lightly Obscured vs Heavily Obscured areas, so they came up with something that is written in a "you know what I mean" manner since there really isn't another more precise (but brief) way to write that concept. It's being written with the assumption that the reader already understands that we are talking about Obscured Areas since that's what Darkness is and those are the rules that are referenced via hyperlink in the online version, so phrases such as "opaque" and "see through" should be interpreted as being related to comparing and contrasting Lightly Obscured areas vs Heavily Obscured areas where the area itself is either visible with some difficulty or is totally obscured from view.
Whenever this topic comes up, it really feels like it just comes down to whether the reader has an "Ah ha" moment or not. Once people get it, it becomes very logical. It seems like it's really hard for many folks to imagine how an area can be obscured without Line of Sight being blocked -- like the two are always conflated and cannot be separated. Once people are able to separate those two things conceptually the rules for all of this really do make sense. But it does get difficult to explain without relying on that "Ah ha" moment.
"Darkvision can't see through it" means it blocks line of sight for darkvision. You could, of course, say that if you don't have darkvision it doesn't block line of sight... but that would be a really weird ruling to make.
That's exactly one of my points.
I rule magical Darkness as opaque like any other Heavily Obscured that block vision. What i rule differently is normal Darkness as not opaque to light due to the fact it can be illuminated by light. While not RAW kosher, it make sense to the players at my table which is all that truly matters.
I think this is a valid interpretation of RAW if consider being unnaturally opaque to light as a property of the effect that creates magical Darkness rather than magical Darkness itself. I can't imagine that there is any effect that creates magical Darkness that can be illuminated by mundane light. Usually, they block magical light to some degree as well.
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
** Technically, these only block magical light from spells. Magical Light created by magic items or other effects work just fine. Only Hunger of Hadar blanket blocks magical light. This is probably not intentional. For example, many magic weapons emit light and it is not covered by the light blocked by the above spells except Hunger of Hadar.
So, yeah. I think your table ruling is actually consistent with RAW.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
* Technically, Hunger of Hadar allows Darkvision to see through it, but if you are fully in it, you have the Blinded Condition regardless Darkvision, Devil's Sight, or something else.
I believe this is incorrect as you can't see through it as it is magical darkness.
I believe SmiteMakesRight_3_5 is correct, technically, Hunger of Hadar creates magical Darkness area that no light can illuminate and in which creatures fully within it have the Blinded condition, that otherwise doesn't blocks Darkvision specifically, meaning this Sage Advice official ruling apply;
As a stand-alone statement of just those five words that might be true. But the rules should not always be interpreted one word at a time since words and phrases can have different meanings when there is different context. In the context of this entire suite of rules for Vision and Light that includes the three categories of illumination, the two categories of Obscured Areas, the rule for Line of Sight and the rules for the special senses, it is pretty obvious that this statement about Darkvision is a statement about how Darkvision is affected differently by the darkness spell vs by mundane darkness with respect to what Darkvision normally does, which is to essentially change a certain type of Heavily Obscured area (Darkness) into a Lightly Obscured area (Dim Light).
There is no rules support for this. There is nothing different about magical Darkness except for what is explicitly mentioned by the source that creates that magical effect. Plaguescarred has even said several times that he is intentionally using a house rule in his games to make magical Darkness function differently than mundane Darkness.
Interestingly, the fact that Hunger of Hadar specifically calls out that creatures fully within the area are blinded lends itself to the understanding that in other forms of Darkness (mundane and magical) that do have the same wording as Hunger of Hadar that creatures inside the Darkness can see out into areas that are lit.
If it wasn't the case that those within Darkness, such as that produced by the Darkness spell, could see lit areas outside of the radius of the spell because they were "blinded while trying to see something", then Hunger of Hadar wouldn't need to specify that those inside the radius are blinded. It would be assumed they were blinded, because they would be in an area of darkness and thus blinded due to being in a heavily-obscured area. But the fact Hunger of Hadar calls it out specifically means that in general situations, such as mundane or other Magical darkness, that someone within that darkness could see outside of the darkness to lit areas.
The house rule is actually about the behavior of mundane darkness, because RAW mundane darkness is opaque.
Wow, so you changed your mind and joined the "Magical Darkness is different from Mundane Darkness" chosen few?
PS. Regarding Hunger of Hadar, it is true that it doesn't block Darkvision if you're outside the spell. You could for example target enemies inside using Devil’s Sight, Darkvision, or Truesight.
Bingo!
As a stand-alone interpretation of just that one word that might be true. But the rules should not always be interpreted one word at a time since words and phrases can have different meanings when there is different context. In the context of this entire suite of rules for Vision and Light that includes the three categories of illumination, the two categories of Obscured Areas, the rule for Line of Sight and the rules for the special senses, it is pretty obvious that this description of Heavily Obscured Areas being opaque is descriptive flavor text (not included in the Rules Glossary entry) that is being used to introduce the concept of Heavily Obscured Areas in a way that compares and contrasts against the mechanics for Lightly Obscured areas which are not "opaque" -- you can see the things that are within Lightly Obscured Areas, but with some difficulty. This is set within the concept of areas and things within those areas being obscured from your view, not related to any concept of a physical barrier that blocks Line of Sight. The word is being used in a different way than how it's typically used.
__________
On another note, we could also include the new spell Doomtide to the list of spells that creates magical Darkness (which is also hyperlinked back to the rules for mundane Darkness). Interestingly, that spell describes the effect as both "fog" and also "magical darkness". In my opinion, this distinction is meant to make it clear that this particular iteration of magical Darkness actually does block Line of Sight (since dense fog is an example of something that actually blocks Line of Sight). So, it's a Heavily Obscured area (a la mundane Darkness) and it also blocks Line of Sight, which are two different rules which do two different things.
The rest of the spell effect for that spell has nothing to do with vision. Nothing about what happens to Darkvision and no restrictions that nonmagical light can't illuminate it, for example. In theory, you could light up a light source within it to illuminate the area, but it would still be full of fog anyway so there would be no point to doing that.
It's not about one word. There is quite simply zero evidence for treating darkness as being different from any other type of heavy obscurement other than the fact that darkvision can see through it.
This is true, but not in the way that you are thinking.
In fact, NO heavily obscured areas block Line of Sight strictly based on the rules for Heavily Obscured areas. In this way, they should all be treated the same way. They all allow you to see out of them or through them by default. You are only blinded when trying to see something there.
Once that mechanic is in place, we can then move on to investigating each individual heavily obscured area to see if there is some other reason why any of them might also actually block Line of Sight. This basically comes down to the DM determining whether or not the phenomenon that is causing the obscurement is actually an object or effect that is capable of blocking vision:
Examples given for physical barriers to vision include a stone wall, a thick curtain and a dense cloud of fog. Darkness is conspicuously absent from this list even though it is present within a similar list that is given as examples of Heavily Obscured areas: "Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage".
No. I just think that Plaguescarred's interpretation is valid when you break out "magical Darkness cannot be illuminated by Light" as a property of the source of the Darkness instead of a property of magical Darkness. It's not a property of magical Darkness, but it is a property of every source of magical Darkness, so it's a bit of you say tomato, I say tomato. It's a technicality that separates the two. Technically, magical Darkness can be illuminated by mundane light by default. Practically, every effect that creates magical Darkness also says (independently) that it cannot be illuminated by nonmagical means. Some (all?) have additional effects.
There is if you restructure the interpretation. The practical result is the same.
There is no basis for the assumption that rules text in the Vision and Light rules is flavor text. Not being duplicated in the Rules Glossary is not a sufficient argument. The Rules Glossary is not a comprehensive collection rules of the game.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
How to determine whether something is capable of blocking vision: is the object opaque. If the intent is that darkness and other types of heavy obscurement should behave differently, darkness shouldn't reference the rules for being heavily obscured at all, it should be its own effect. Which is absolutely what the rules should have done, but not what the rules actually did.