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 is mostly just a matter of being able to recognize that the author is writing a book that involves a bit of prose rather than just hundreds of pages of bullet points. It's looking at the larger picture of how some rules are written within a particular context rather than always interpreting word-by-word. A lot of this actually was eliminated when transitioning from the 2014 version to the 2024 version of the rules, but there is still plenty of this happening throughout.
When the entire Vision and Light section of rules are all read together in one sitting, you can see that the author is including introductory statements and transitionary statements between the various concepts that are presented. This is mainly just for flow and readability and organization purposes. Often a concept is presented as an idea before then establishing the mechanics which execute that vision. In that context, the exclusion of the statement from the Rules Glossary becomes a major piece of evidence for which portions of the text the authors felt were mechanically significant, and which they considered to be descriptive text. Sure, on its own the difference that is seen in the Rules Glossary might not be sufficient. But in combination with all of the above, the intent becomes very clear.
What I find interesting in this case is that this was actually a change that was made from 2014 when the text said "blocks vision entirely" which was misinterpreted in exactly the same manner. They attempted to fix that in the update and tried to choose a word that would seem less rigid, and they landed on "opaque" which people have now taken to be some sort of confirmation / clarification of the old phrase. So, they still didn't find the word that would adequately describe the concept that they are going for accurately enough for many people. When you step back and think about it, it's actually pretty difficult to think of a word that works perfectly there.
If you were tasked with coming up with a word to fill in this blank:
"In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. [In contrast], a Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is ___________________.
that actually means:
"You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space."
. . . what word would you put in there? I think that they tried, but it's not an easy task.
I am personally ok with the description of "opaque" in this context because I get it. I get what they mean. I understand what they are trying to say even if the individual word on its own is not a great fit for the concept. But I understand that a lot of people are going to tunnel vision in on that one word and flip to the first dictionary definition of it and draw conclusions while ignoring the picture that is being presented by all of this other text that surrounds it, and that is a shame.
What I find interesting in this case is that this was actually a change that was made from 2014 when the text said "blocks vision entirely" which was misinterpreted in exactly the same manner. They attempted to fix that in the update and tried to choose a word that would seem less rigid, and they landed on "opaque" which people have now taken to be some sort of confirmation / clarification of the old phrase. So, they still didn't find the word that would adequately describe the concept that they are going for accurately enough for many people. When you step back and think about it, it's actually pretty difficult to think of a word that works perfectly there.
No, it really isn't. The only reason there's any problem is because of the insistence on using a single term for multiple concepts. The simplest set of changes is:
Change the definition of darkness to not referenceheavily obscured, and redefine them each separately:
Darkness: an object or creature in darkness is Unseen, unless the observer has an ability that sees in darkness.
Heavily Obscured: a heavily obscured region blocks line of sight. Any creature outside of line of sight is Unseen.
Unseen: benefits from Unseen Targets and Attackers, and cannot be targeted by abilities that require seeing the target.
You then probably want to take a nerf bat to darkness, because being able to create a mobile sphere of darkness that you can see out of but enemies can't see into is overpowered for a second level spell.
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 is mostly just a matter of being able to recognize that the author is writing a book that involves a bit of prose rather than just hundreds of pages of bullet points. It's looking at the larger picture of how some rules are written within a particular context rather than always interpreting word-by-word. A lot of this actually was eliminated when transitioning from the 2014 version to the 2024 version of the rules, but there is still plenty of this happening throughout.
The Rules Glossary are not an exhaustive collection of the rules and even on a particular item, an entry is not necessarily comprehensive. The fact that there is a Rules Glossary entry does not mean that there aren't additional rules on the topic elsewhere in the book. Action is a good example of this.
When the entire Vision and Light section of rules are all read together in one sitting, you can see that the author is including introductory statements and transitionary statements between the various concepts that are presented. This is mainly just for flow and readability and organization purposes. Often a concept is presented as an idea before then establishing the mechanics which execute that vision. In that context, the exclusion of the statement from the Rules Glossary becomes a major piece of evidence for which portions of the text the authors felt were mechanically significant, and which they considered to be descriptive text. Sure, on its own the difference that is seen in the Rules Glossary might not be sufficient. But in combination with all of the above, the intent becomes very clear.
None of that is relevant to the section within Vision and Light defining the rules on Darkness and Heavily Obscured.
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there."
"Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness."
Combining those, we have that an area of Darkness is opaque and creatures have the Blinded while viewing something there. If that is not completely copied and pasted into the Rules Glossary or not, it is still a printed rule.
What I find interesting in this case is that this was actually a change that was made from 2014 when the text said "blocks vision entirely" which was misinterpreted in exactly the same manner. They attempted to fix that in the update and tried to choose a word that would seem less rigid, and they landed on "opaque" which people have now taken to be some sort of confirmation / clarification of the old phrase. So, they still didn't find the word that would adequately describe the concept that they are going for accurately enough for many people. When you step back and think about it, it's actually pretty difficult to think of a word that works perfectly there.
Both phrases work fine. The issue is whether you acknowledge that the opaqueness or blocking vision is restricted by the context of viewing something within the space or not.
If you were tasked with coming up with a word to fill in this blank:
"In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. [In contrast], a Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is ___________________.
No.
I am not going to discuss a fabricated sentence designed to misdirect from the RAW. We have the RAW and it's written pretty clearly. I can understand and respect some of the disagreement within the post, but I think that you will have pretty consistent experiences across tables because it is clear.
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. [...]
Both phrases work fine. The issue is whether you acknowledge that the opaqueness or blocking vision is restricted by the context of viewing something within the space or not.
Yes exactly. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why you are arguing with me in this thread. We both agree that these terms in this context are referring to the level of obscurement of the area and not Line of Sight. You've said so yourself several times and I have agreed with you. You are actually one of the only people that seems to get it across multiple threads on this topic.
When the entire Vision and Light section of rules are all read together in one sitting, you can see that the author is including introductory statements and transitionary statements between the various concepts that are presented. This is mainly just for flow and readability and organization purposes. Often a concept is presented as an idea before then establishing the mechanics which execute that vision. In that context, the exclusion of the statement from the Rules Glossary becomes a major piece of evidence for which portions of the text the authors felt were mechanically significant, and which they considered to be descriptive text. Sure, on its own the difference that is seen in the Rules Glossary might not be sufficient. But in combination with all of the above, the intent becomes very clear.
None of that is relevant to the section within Vision and Light defining the rules on Darkness and Heavily Obscured.
"A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there."
"Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness."
Combining those, we have that an area of Darkness is opaque and creatures have the Blinded while viewing something there. If that is not completely copied and pasted into the Rules Glossary or not, it is still a printed rule.
Is this arguing just for the sake of arguing? I don't really get it. I have presented support for the interpretation that you have been pushing in this thread! What's the problem?
Maybe I should put the important bits in bold as well:
Obscured Areas
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured. In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
. . .
Darkness.Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
The point is, in this case it's important to read the whole thing together. Otherwise, you miss the forest for the trees. The author is presenting a logical progression a various levels of obscurement using a style of prose.
If you follow along with the style of writing that is being used throughout the section, in my opinion this is the less accurate interpretation:
Lightly Obscured Area:
You have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Heavily Obscured Area:
The area is opaque, blocking Line of Sight.
You have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there.
Instead, in my opinion this is the more accurate interpretation:
Lightly Obscured Area:
You have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Heavily Obscured Area:
The area is opaque, which means that, unlike what you can see within Lightly Obscured areas, you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there.
In addition to just recognizing the style of writing that is used throughout that section, additional evidence for this interpretation is the fact that the clause about the area being opaque is absent from the Rules Glossary. That's because it isn't needed. In the main text, the author is saying that the opaqueness of the area means that you are blinded when trying to see something there. So that's what they put into the Rules Glossary -- the actual mechanical consequence.
If you were tasked with coming up with a word to fill in this blank:
"In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. [In contrast], a Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is ___________________.
No.
I am not going to discuss a fabricated sentence designed to misdirect from the RAW. We have the RAW and it's written pretty clearly. I can understand and respect some of the disagreement within the post, but I think that you will have pretty consistent experiences across tables because it is clear.
Um, the sentence isn't fabricated. It's directly quoted from the text. I even put it inside of quotation marks to make that even more obvious. This was a simple thought exercise designed to help people think about why the author might have chosen the particular word that seems to bother everybody. It wasn't necessary to respond to it.
If you were tasked with coming up with a word to fill in this blank:
"In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. [In contrast], a Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is ___________________.
No.
I am not going to discuss a fabricated sentence designed to misdirect from the RAW. We have the RAW and it's written pretty clearly. I can understand and respect some of the disagreement within the post, but I think that you will have pretty consistent experiences across tables because it is clear.
Um, the sentence isn't fabricated. It's directly quoted from the text. I even put it inside of quotation marks to make that even more obvious. This was a simple thought exercise designed to help people think about why the author might have chosen the particular word that seems to bother everybody. It wasn't necessary to respond to it.
I didn't recognize it with your alterations. I answered your question nonetheless then.
Both phrases work fine. The issue is whether you acknowledge that the opaqueness or blocking vision is restricted by the context of viewing something within the space or not.
Yes exactly. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why you are arguing with me in this thread. We both agree that these terms in this context are referring to the level of obscurement of the area and not Line of Sight. You've said so yourself several times and I have agreed with you. You are actually one of the only people that seems to get it across multiple threads on this topic.
I think you, Plaguescarred, and I agree on the end result.
You don't agree with Plaguescarred because of the attributes that they associate with magical Darkness as opposed to the effects of the source of the magical Darkness. I see no practical difference and agree with Plaguescarred adding the caveat that even blocking mundane light is a feature of the source of the effect and not a feature of magical Darkness. However, there will never be a feature that creates an area of magical Darkness that can be illuminated by mundane light because that wouldn't do anything. It's a technicality that's not worth debating. If an area of magical Darkness does not block mundane light, it is just an area that was already dark. Because of the rule organization, the blocking mundane will always be a property of the source of magical darkness and risks being accidentally omitted. I think it is safe to say that we will never see an official effect that creates magical Darkness that does not block mundane Light.
I don't agree with you regarding whether the Rules Glossary are the definitive rules on a topic. The rest of the rule book has rules and sometimes they reference the Rules Glossary and sometimes they are more extensive than the Rules Glossary. Saying that certain rules text was not included in the Rules Glossary has no value when it is present in the main rule book. I disagree with your position that Plaguescarred's and Tarodnet's positions are not valid interpretations with the caveat mentioned above. In all known official use cases, the end result of their interpretation will effectively be RAW accurate.
The point is, in this case it's important to read the whole thing together. Otherwise, you miss the forest for the trees. The author is presenting a logical progression a various levels of obscurement using a style of prose.
I don't think that there have been any significant arguments for mundane Darkness blocking line of sight. The arguments have primarily been whether magical Darkness does and sometimes why it would. I would say that the only one at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees is the one focusing on what the Rules Glossary says over the rules in general.
I don't think that there have been any significant arguments for mundane Darkness blocking line of sight. The arguments have primarily been whether magical Darkness does and sometimes why it would. I would say that the only one at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees is the one focusing on what the Rules Glossary says over the rules in general.
I think the problem is arguments saying magical Darkness would block line of sight when mundane Darkness would not. RAW, magical Darkness is identical to mundane Darkness except for added specific effects (i.e. Darkvision cannot see through it, non-magical light cannot illuminate it, etc). The rules for magical Darkness link to the rules for mundane Darkness, and only say that the area is Heavily Obscured and you are blinded when trying to "see something inside".
There have been a lot of arguments that magical Darkness is somehow different because it is said to "fill the space" (as if that has significance in the rules, or that mundane Darkness also doesn't "fill" the space), or because non-magical light cannot illuminate it meaning "light cannot pass through it" (which is not the same thing), or because Darkvision cannot see "through" it, etc. None of those arguments, in my opinion, have enough justification within the letter of the rules to actually show an innate difference between magical Darkness and mundane Darkness (outside of differences specified by the specific spell).
So RAW, if someone is to argue magical Darkness blocks line of sight, mundane Darkness should as well, as they are both Heavily Obscured and "opaque". Personally I find this to be silly and would not rule it this way in my games, but really if someone is going by RAW you either have to interpret it as both magical Darkness and mundane Darkness block line of sight, or neither does.
I don't think that there have been any significant arguments for mundane Darkness blocking line of sight. The arguments have primarily been whether magical Darkness does and sometimes why it would. I would say that the only one at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees is the one focusing on what the Rules Glossary says over the rules in general.
I think the problem is arguments saying magical Darkness would block line of sight when mundane Darkness would not. RAW, magical Darkness is identical to mundane Darkness except for added specific effects (i.e. Darkvision cannot see through it, non-magical light cannot illuminate it, etc). The rules for magical Darkness link to the rules for mundane Darkness, and only say that the area is Heavily Obscured and you are blinded when trying to "see something inside".
There have been a lot of arguments that magical Darkness is somehow different because it is said to "fill the space" (as if that has significance in the rules, or that mundane Darkness also doesn't "fill" the space), or because non-magical light cannot illuminate it meaning "light cannot pass through it" (which is not the same thing), or because Darkvision cannot see "through" it, etc. None of those arguments, in my opinion, have enough justification within the letter of the rules to actually show an innate difference between magical Darkness and mundane Darkness (outside of differences specified by the specific spell).
So RAW, if someone is to argue magical Darkness blocks line of sight, mundane Darkness should as well, as they are both Heavily Obscured and "opaque". Personally I find this to be silly and would not rule it this way in my games, but really if someone is going by RAW you either have to interpret it as both magical Darkness and mundane Darkness block line of sight, or neither does.
Yes, as I have stated previously, if magical Darkness blocks Line of Sight it is because the source of the magical Darkness causes it to block Line of Sight, not because the Darkness is magical. Either the effect will create an area of black silhouettes or it is going to create a shape (probably a sphere) that is opaque. The silhouettes or any filled shapes created by the effect will block Line of Sight. You have to look at the description of the effect to see if the Darkness created would block Line of Sight. Darkness, for example says that it fills the sphere. In that case, it is an opaque sphere because RAW, Darkness is opaque. How do you see through an opaque sphere?
There are many instances where Rules As Written are imprecise and fail to cover all situations. A notorious one has been the very long debates over the Hide Action and Invisibility in 2024. That was similar to the Darkness debate because one term is being used to cover multiple concepts, which creates ambiguity. The answer there was for the GM to use common sense and use Rules as Intended.
As Pantagruel666 points out, saying that someone inside an area of the Darkness spell can see out and no one lacking Devil's Sight can see inside would in essence, give the effect of Greater Invisibility to multiple ranged characters inside the Darkness bubble. Considering that Greater Invisibility does that for one target and it is a fourth level spell, it makes no sense to interpret the second level Darkness spell to be MORE powerful than Greater Invisibility. This cannot be Rules as Intended. For that reason, in my opinion, the only logical interpretation is that the entire area of the Darkness spell is completely opaque, and without Devil's Sight (or a higher level magical light source), one cannot see into it, see through it, or see while inside it.
I would continue to rule - regardless of RAW - that mundane darkness does not block line of sight due to that being a ridiculous interpretation, and trying to follow that would lead to many more convoluted and confusing rulings (see my earlier comments about two parties with active light sources moving towards each other). You would also not be able to see the stars at night.
Yes, as I have stated previously, if magical Darkness blocks Line of Sight it is because the source of the magical Darkness causes it to block Line of Sight, not because the Darkness is magical. Either the effect will create an area of black silhouettes or it is going to create a shape (probably a sphere) that is opaque. The silhouettes or any filled shapes created by the effect will block Line of Sight. You have to look at the description of the effect to see if the Darkness created would block Line of Sight. Darkness, for example says that it fills the sphere. In that case, it is an opaque sphere because RAW, Darkness is opaque. How do you see through an opaque sphere?
But... ALL darkness is opaque according to the rules. All darkness, mundane and magical, create areas that are heavily obscured, and heavily obscured areas are defined as being opaque. So why would magical darkness create an opaque sphere, but mundane darkness would not also create an opaque area? Nothing about the description in the Darkness spell makes the sphere opaque. It's only the rules for heavily obscured that discusses opaqueness, and that's the same between both mundane and magical Darkness. The fact that magical darkness has a defined radius/shape wouldn't seem to have any more impact on it's opaqueness than that of mundane darkness, which fills the shape of its container (minus light-sources).
But... ALL darkness is opaque according to the rules. All darkness, mundane and magical, create areas that are heavily obscured, and heavily obscured areas are defined as being opaque. So why would magical darkness create an opaque sphere, but mundane darkness would not also create an opaque area?
Because we know how mundane darkness actually works so we ignore the rules, but we don't know how magical darkness works.
As Pantagruel666 points out, saying that someone inside an area of the Darkness spell can see out and no one lacking Devil's Sight can see inside would in essence, give the effect of Greater Invisibility to multiple ranged characters inside the Darkness bubble. Considering that Greater Invisibility does that for one target and it is a fourth level spell, it makes no sense to interpret the second level Darkness spell to be MORE powerful than Greater Invisibility. This cannot be Rules as Intended. For that reason, in my opinion, the only logical interpretation is that the entire area of the Darkness spell is completely opaque, and without Devil's Sight (or a higher level magical light source), one cannot see into it, see through it, or see while inside it.
I think the advantages you get from Greater Invisibility make it understandable why it would be two levels higher than the 2nd level spell Darkness.
While Darkness can affect more people, it has the downsides of:
You or allies cannot use spells or abilities on enemies (or allies) within the Darkness that rely on sight
It can be eliminated by any illuminating spell of 3rd level or higher
It has no effect on melee attacks within the sphere
It is very conspicuous (not good for sneaking around a well-lit area as a random sphere of darkness is going to be noticed).
Greater Invisibility has much more utility outside of combat. You can sneak through an entirely occupied and well-lit room, spying, poisoning the king, etc. Darkness does not have anywhere near the same utility out of combat. In combat Darkness is more powerful, but still has drawbacks. Comparatively, the 2nd level spell Silence eliminates the ability of spellcasters to use any spells with verbal components (which is a lot) and immunity to thunder damage. Darkness blocks some spells that require seeing the target/space, but allows for any spell that just says "a point within range" or doesn't require sight on the target. So pretty comparable.
On another point, if the Darkness spell creates and area that is opaque and cannot be seen out of if inside, then how really is it different than the 1st level spell Fog Cloud? It has a smaller radius, a shorter duration, and a shorter range, but it can be moved if cast on an object? That would kind of be the only difference, right? "Darkvision can't see through it" but also Darkvision can't see through fog clouds either, so they would be pretty much the same spell except one is mobile. Just thought that was interesting.
On another point, if the Darkness spell creates and area that is opaque and cannot be seen out of if inside, then how really is it different than the 1st level spell Fog Cloud?
It's movable. That's quite useful (as for dispelling darkness with a light spell: most cloud effects can be dispelled by gust of wind, which is lower level than daylight and probably more common on NPC writeups).
Yes, as I have stated previously, if magical Darkness blocks Line of Sight it is because the source of the magical Darkness causes it to block Line of Sight, not because the Darkness is magical. Either the effect will create an area of black silhouettes or it is going to create a shape (probably a sphere) that is opaque. The silhouettes or any filled shapes created by the effect will block Line of Sight. You have to look at the description of the effect to see if the Darkness created would block Line of Sight. Darkness, for example says that it fills the sphere. In that case, it is an opaque sphere because RAW, Darkness is opaque. How do you see through an opaque sphere?
But... ALL darkness is opaque according to the rules. All darkness, mundane and magical, create areas that are heavily obscured, and heavily obscured areas are defined as being opaque. So why would magical darkness create an opaque sphere, but mundane darkness would not also create an opaque area?
Mundane darkness does create an opaque area. However, the context of it being opaque is only in terms of observing what is present in that area. That is a bit of an obtuse statement but essentially, a valid interpretation is that the opaque area only means that any thing in that area is opaque and an empty space is still completely see through (you wouldn't be able to see any details about a floor or wall in that area because you are Blinded when trying to observe them. Most magical darkness sources fill the space in some way so you can now make the argument that the space is no longer empty and it fully blocks line of sight unless you can see through the effect.
Mundane darkness does create an opaque area. However, the context of it being opaque is only in terms of observing what is present in that area.
That's not what opaque means. Mundane darkness is not opaque.
But according to the rules it is.
Darkness
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Obscured Areas
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured. In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
Mundane Darkness (well, all Darkness) creates a Heavily Obscured area. Heavily Obscured areas are describes as opaque. RAW mundane Darkness is opaque. Or at least exactly as opaque as magical Darkness.
Yes, as I have stated previously, if magical Darkness blocks Line of Sight it is because the source of the magical Darkness causes it to block Line of Sight, not because the Darkness is magical. Either the effect will create an area of black silhouettes or it is going to create a shape (probably a sphere) that is opaque. The silhouettes or any filled shapes created by the effect will block Line of Sight. You have to look at the description of the effect to see if the Darkness created would block Line of Sight. Darkness, for example says that it fills the sphere. In that case, it is an opaque sphere because RAW, Darkness is opaque. How do you see through an opaque sphere?
But... ALL darkness is opaque according to the rules. All darkness, mundane and magical, create areas that are heavily obscured, and heavily obscured areas are defined as being opaque. So why would magical darkness create an opaque sphere, but mundane darkness would not also create an opaque area?
Mundane darkness does create an opaque area. However, the context of it being opaque is only in terms of observing what is present in that area. That is a bit of an obtuse statement but essentially, a valid interpretation is that the opaque area only means that any thing in that area is opaque and an empty space is still completely see through (you wouldn't be able to see any details about a floor or wall in that area because you are Blinded when trying to observe them. Most magical darkness sources fill the space in some way so you can now make the argument that the space is no longer empty and it fully blocks line of sight unless you can see through the effect.
Sure, but the Darkness spell only fills the space with...well...Darkness. So if Darkness itself is not opaque, how would a space filled with it be?
Yes, according to the rules, mundane darkness is opaque, which means it blocks light passing through it (because that's what opaque means) and thus blocks line of sight.
This is obvious nonsense so people ignore it, but it's what the rules say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is mostly just a matter of being able to recognize that the author is writing a book that involves a bit of prose rather than just hundreds of pages of bullet points. It's looking at the larger picture of how some rules are written within a particular context rather than always interpreting word-by-word. A lot of this actually was eliminated when transitioning from the 2014 version to the 2024 version of the rules, but there is still plenty of this happening throughout.
When the entire Vision and Light section of rules are all read together in one sitting, you can see that the author is including introductory statements and transitionary statements between the various concepts that are presented. This is mainly just for flow and readability and organization purposes. Often a concept is presented as an idea before then establishing the mechanics which execute that vision. In that context, the exclusion of the statement from the Rules Glossary becomes a major piece of evidence for which portions of the text the authors felt were mechanically significant, and which they considered to be descriptive text. Sure, on its own the difference that is seen in the Rules Glossary might not be sufficient. But in combination with all of the above, the intent becomes very clear.
What I find interesting in this case is that this was actually a change that was made from 2014 when the text said "blocks vision entirely" which was misinterpreted in exactly the same manner. They attempted to fix that in the update and tried to choose a word that would seem less rigid, and they landed on "opaque" which people have now taken to be some sort of confirmation / clarification of the old phrase. So, they still didn't find the word that would adequately describe the concept that they are going for accurately enough for many people. When you step back and think about it, it's actually pretty difficult to think of a word that works perfectly there.
If you were tasked with coming up with a word to fill in this blank:
"In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. [In contrast], a Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is ___________________.
that actually means:
"You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space."
. . . what word would you put in there? I think that they tried, but it's not an easy task.
I am personally ok with the description of "opaque" in this context because I get it. I get what they mean. I understand what they are trying to say even if the individual word on its own is not a great fit for the concept. But I understand that a lot of people are going to tunnel vision in on that one word and flip to the first dictionary definition of it and draw conclusions while ignoring the picture that is being presented by all of this other text that surrounds it, and that is a shame.
No, it really isn't. The only reason there's any problem is because of the insistence on using a single term for multiple concepts. The simplest set of changes is:
You then probably want to take a nerf bat to darkness, because being able to create a mobile sphere of darkness that you can see out of but enemies can't see into is overpowered for a second level spell.
The Rules Glossary are not an exhaustive collection of the rules and even on a particular item, an entry is not necessarily comprehensive. The fact that there is a Rules Glossary entry does not mean that there aren't additional rules on the topic elsewhere in the book. Action is a good example of this.
None of that is relevant to the section within Vision and Light defining the rules on Darkness and Heavily Obscured.
Combining those, we have that an area of Darkness is opaque and creatures have the Blinded while viewing something there. If that is not completely copied and pasted into the Rules Glossary or not, it is still a printed rule.
Both phrases work fine. The issue is whether you acknowledge that the opaqueness or blocking vision is restricted by the context of viewing something within the space or not.
No.
I am not going to discuss a fabricated sentence designed to misdirect from the RAW. We have the RAW and it's written pretty clearly. I can understand and respect some of the disagreement within the post, but I think that you will have pretty consistent experiences across tables because it is clear.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Fair enough, Paladin.
Yes exactly. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea why you are arguing with me in this thread. We both agree that these terms in this context are referring to the level of obscurement of the area and not Line of Sight. You've said so yourself several times and I have agreed with you. You are actually one of the only people that seems to get it across multiple threads on this topic.
Is this arguing just for the sake of arguing? I don't really get it. I have presented support for the interpretation that you have been pushing in this thread! What's the problem?
Maybe I should put the important bits in bold as well:
The point is, in this case it's important to read the whole thing together. Otherwise, you miss the forest for the trees. The author is presenting a logical progression a various levels of obscurement using a style of prose.
If you follow along with the style of writing that is being used throughout the section, in my opinion this is the less accurate interpretation:
Lightly Obscured Area:
Heavily Obscured Area:
Instead, in my opinion this is the more accurate interpretation:
Lightly Obscured Area:
Heavily Obscured Area:
In addition to just recognizing the style of writing that is used throughout that section, additional evidence for this interpretation is the fact that the clause about the area being opaque is absent from the Rules Glossary. That's because it isn't needed. In the main text, the author is saying that the opaqueness of the area means that you are blinded when trying to see something there. So that's what they put into the Rules Glossary -- the actual mechanical consequence.
Um, the sentence isn't fabricated. It's directly quoted from the text. I even put it inside of quotation marks to make that even more obvious. This was a simple thought exercise designed to help people think about why the author might have chosen the particular word that seems to bother everybody. It wasn't necessary to respond to it.
I didn't recognize it with your alterations. I answered your question nonetheless then.
I think you, Plaguescarred, and I agree on the end result.
You don't agree with Plaguescarred because of the attributes that they associate with magical Darkness as opposed to the effects of the source of the magical Darkness. I see no practical difference and agree with Plaguescarred adding the caveat that even blocking mundane light is a feature of the source of the effect and not a feature of magical Darkness. However, there will never be a feature that creates an area of magical Darkness that can be illuminated by mundane light because that wouldn't do anything. It's a technicality that's not worth debating. If an area of magical Darkness does not block mundane light, it is just an area that was already dark. Because of the rule organization, the blocking mundane will always be a property of the source of magical darkness and risks being accidentally omitted. I think it is safe to say that we will never see an official effect that creates magical Darkness that does not block mundane Light.
I don't agree with you regarding whether the Rules Glossary are the definitive rules on a topic. The rest of the rule book has rules and sometimes they reference the Rules Glossary and sometimes they are more extensive than the Rules Glossary. Saying that certain rules text was not included in the Rules Glossary has no value when it is present in the main rule book. I disagree with your position that Plaguescarred's and Tarodnet's positions are not valid interpretations with the caveat mentioned above. In all known official use cases, the end result of their interpretation will effectively be RAW accurate.
I don't think that there have been any significant arguments for mundane Darkness blocking line of sight. The arguments have primarily been whether magical Darkness does and sometimes why it would. I would say that the only one at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees is the one focusing on what the Rules Glossary says over the rules in general.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I think the problem is arguments saying magical Darkness would block line of sight when mundane Darkness would not. RAW, magical Darkness is identical to mundane Darkness except for added specific effects (i.e. Darkvision cannot see through it, non-magical light cannot illuminate it, etc). The rules for magical Darkness link to the rules for mundane Darkness, and only say that the area is Heavily Obscured and you are blinded when trying to "see something inside".
There have been a lot of arguments that magical Darkness is somehow different because it is said to "fill the space" (as if that has significance in the rules, or that mundane Darkness also doesn't "fill" the space), or because non-magical light cannot illuminate it meaning "light cannot pass through it" (which is not the same thing), or because Darkvision cannot see "through" it, etc. None of those arguments, in my opinion, have enough justification within the letter of the rules to actually show an innate difference between magical Darkness and mundane Darkness (outside of differences specified by the specific spell).
So RAW, if someone is to argue magical Darkness blocks line of sight, mundane Darkness should as well, as they are both Heavily Obscured and "opaque". Personally I find this to be silly and would not rule it this way in my games, but really if someone is going by RAW you either have to interpret it as both magical Darkness and mundane Darkness block line of sight, or neither does.
Yes, as I have stated previously, if magical Darkness blocks Line of Sight it is because the source of the magical Darkness causes it to block Line of Sight, not because the Darkness is magical. Either the effect will create an area of black silhouettes or it is going to create a shape (probably a sphere) that is opaque. The silhouettes or any filled shapes created by the effect will block Line of Sight. You have to look at the description of the effect to see if the Darkness created would block Line of Sight. Darkness, for example says that it fills the sphere. In that case, it is an opaque sphere because RAW, Darkness is opaque. How do you see through an opaque sphere?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
There isn't argument about whether mundane darkness should block line of sight (obviously, no), but RAW it does.
Normal darkness is easily thwarted. Having it otherwise breaks verisimilitude.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There are many instances where Rules As Written are imprecise and fail to cover all situations. A notorious one has been the very long debates over the Hide Action and Invisibility in 2024. That was similar to the Darkness debate because one term is being used to cover multiple concepts, which creates ambiguity. The answer there was for the GM to use common sense and use Rules as Intended.
As Pantagruel666 points out, saying that someone inside an area of the Darkness spell can see out and no one lacking Devil's Sight can see inside would in essence, give the effect of Greater Invisibility to multiple ranged characters inside the Darkness bubble. Considering that Greater Invisibility does that for one target and it is a fourth level spell, it makes no sense to interpret the second level Darkness spell to be MORE powerful than Greater Invisibility. This cannot be Rules as Intended. For that reason, in my opinion, the only logical interpretation is that the entire area of the Darkness spell is completely opaque, and without Devil's Sight (or a higher level magical light source), one cannot see into it, see through it, or see while inside it.
I would continue to rule - regardless of RAW - that mundane darkness does not block line of sight due to that being a ridiculous interpretation, and trying to follow that would lead to many more convoluted and confusing rulings (see my earlier comments about two parties with active light sources moving towards each other). You would also not be able to see the stars at night.
But... ALL darkness is opaque according to the rules. All darkness, mundane and magical, create areas that are heavily obscured, and heavily obscured areas are defined as being opaque. So why would magical darkness create an opaque sphere, but mundane darkness would not also create an opaque area? Nothing about the description in the Darkness spell makes the sphere opaque. It's only the rules for heavily obscured that discusses opaqueness, and that's the same between both mundane and magical Darkness. The fact that magical darkness has a defined radius/shape wouldn't seem to have any more impact on it's opaqueness than that of mundane darkness, which fills the shape of its container (minus light-sources).
Because we know how mundane darkness actually works so we ignore the rules, but we don't know how magical darkness works.
I think the advantages you get from Greater Invisibility make it understandable why it would be two levels higher than the 2nd level spell Darkness.
While Darkness can affect more people, it has the downsides of:
Greater Invisibility has much more utility outside of combat. You can sneak through an entirely occupied and well-lit room, spying, poisoning the king, etc. Darkness does not have anywhere near the same utility out of combat. In combat Darkness is more powerful, but still has drawbacks. Comparatively, the 2nd level spell Silence eliminates the ability of spellcasters to use any spells with verbal components (which is a lot) and immunity to thunder damage. Darkness blocks some spells that require seeing the target/space, but allows for any spell that just says "a point within range" or doesn't require sight on the target. So pretty comparable.
On another point, if the Darkness spell creates and area that is opaque and cannot be seen out of if inside, then how really is it different than the 1st level spell Fog Cloud? It has a smaller radius, a shorter duration, and a shorter range, but it can be moved if cast on an object? That would kind of be the only difference, right? "Darkvision can't see through it" but also Darkvision can't see through fog clouds either, so they would be pretty much the same spell except one is mobile. Just thought that was interesting.
It's movable. That's quite useful (as for dispelling darkness with a light spell: most cloud effects can be dispelled by gust of wind, which is lower level than daylight and probably more common on NPC writeups).
Mundane darkness does create an opaque area. However, the context of it being opaque is only in terms of observing what is present in that area. That is a bit of an obtuse statement but essentially, a valid interpretation is that the opaque area only means that any thing in that area is opaque and an empty space is still completely see through (you wouldn't be able to see any details about a floor or wall in that area because you are Blinded when trying to observe them. Most magical darkness sources fill the space in some way so you can now make the argument that the space is no longer empty and it fully blocks line of sight unless you can see through the effect.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That's not what opaque means -- opaque means that it doesn't allow light to pass through it. Mundane darkness is not opaque.
But according to the rules it is.
Darkness
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured. See also “Heavily Obscured” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
Obscured Areas
An area might be Lightly or Heavily Obscured. In a Lightly Obscured area—such as an area with Dim Light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage—you have Disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
Darkness. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon, or in an area of magical Darkness.
Mundane Darkness (well, all Darkness) creates a Heavily Obscured area. Heavily Obscured areas are describes as opaque. RAW mundane Darkness is opaque. Or at least exactly as opaque as magical Darkness.
Sure, but the Darkness spell only fills the space with...well...Darkness. So if Darkness itself is not opaque, how would a space filled with it be?
Yes, according to the rules, mundane darkness is opaque, which means it blocks light passing through it (because that's what opaque means) and thus blocks line of sight.
This is obvious nonsense so people ignore it, but it's what the rules say.