A can see and target D no problem unless A has Darkvision in which case they cannot because Darkvision cannot penetrate magical darkness.
A cannot see or target C
C can target A no problem unless C has Darkvision.
C cannot see E but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
Did I miss anything?
A can see and target B no problem.
Whether A can see and target D is not clear by RAW and doesn't matter if A has Darkvision or not (except for the Devil's Sight Invocation). If A cannot see and target D, it is not because of the Darkness rule, but because the Spell effect explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
A has the Blinded when trying to see C unless A has the Devil's Sight Invocation.
Whether C can target A is also unclear by RAW and does not matter if C has Darkvision unless it is from the Devil's Sight Invocation. If C cannot see A, it is because the Spell explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
C has the Blinded condition when trying to see or target E (unless C has the Devil's Sight Invocation) but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
In this case, if you are not in Darkness and you are trying to perceive something also not in Darkness but there is an area of Darkness between you and the thing, I don't think Line of Sight is intended to be blocked.
Still not clear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
In this case, if you are not in Darkness and you are trying to perceive something also not in Darkness but there is an area of Darkness between you and the thing, I don't think Line of Sight is intended to be blocked.
Darkness creates an area of magical Darkness that Darkvision cannot see through. Darkness also says "For the duration, magical Darknessspreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere."
Darkness not created by Darkness does not inherently fill the area and block line of sight.
If Darkness blocks line of sight to something beyond the spell's area, it is not because it creates Darkness, but because that Darkness explicitly fills the Sphere.
In the post you quoted, I was referring to the general rule of Darkness. You asked for clarification regarding magical Darkness which actually behaves the same as nonmagical Darkness. I answered assuming you were asking about the spell Darkness which blocks Darkvision because that particular source of magical Darkness says that it blocks Darkvision. Magical Darkness does not block Darkvision by default.
Is that clearer? It's probably super annoying with all those tooltips but it color codes and provides context since someone decided to name the rule and the spell the same thing.
A can see and target D no problem unless A has Darkvision in which case they cannot because Darkvision cannot penetrate magical darkness.
A cannot see or target C
C can target A no problem unless C has Darkvision.
C cannot see E but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
Did I miss anything?
Yes, A can see and target B.
Next, let me address this statement:
"A can see and target D no problem unless A has Darkvision in which case they cannot because Darkvision cannot penetrate magical darkness."
First, the word "penetrate" is not used in the spell. The spell says this about the use of darkvision:
Darkvision can't see through it.
Because of the phrasing that the authors used here, this almost always gets misinterpreted. It's a poor choice of words when attempting to interpret the text word-by-word. This is another case where the authors are using a casual style of writing to describe a previously referenced concept in a certain way that is meant to clarify how that concept works. This is similar to the use of the word "opaque" elsewhere. The phrases "opaque" and "can't see through it" in this context are not referring to the concept of Line of Sight. Instead, it is an attempt to describe the level of obscureness of the area, as compared and contrasted against Lightly Obscured areas in the first case and as compared and contrasted against mundane darkness in the second case.
In this case, the text which says "Darkvision can't see through it" is a point of difference that is being made vs mundane darkness. By default, a creature with Darkvision can see the objects that are within an area of mundane darkness as if that area was Dim Light. In the case of the darkness spell, that special ability does not work. That's all that it is trying to say there.
Therefore, the above statement should be modified to the following:
-- A can see and target D no problem.
Next: Regarding this statement:
"A cannot see or target C."
Not quite. Yes, it's true that A cannot see C. However, A CAN target C. There is a clear path to C when it comes to spellcasting (although some spells require you to see the target creature so read the spell text on a case-by-case basis), and A can attack C with a ranged attack at disadvantage (presumably by being able to hear that creature). In order for C to become untargetable by A, he would have to successfully Hide, at which point A would be forced to "guess the square" when attacking. (A also cannot directly target C with a spell when C is successfully Hidden since C's location would be unknown.)
Next: Regarding this statement:
"C can target A no problem unless C has Darkvision."
Again, like the second statement above, the Line of Sight of a creature with Darkvision is not affected. Only the creature's ability to see the obscured things that are within the Darkness has changed.
Therefore, the above statement should be modified to the following:
-- C can target A no problem.
Lastly, this statement:
"C cannot see E but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls."
Yes, this is correct.
__________
Under this interpretation of the rules for mundane and magical darkness, the darkness spell is essentially a buff to those that are within it. Note that the darkness spell cannot directly target a creature. If you target a point in space, such as your own location / square, that spell effect does not move with you. However, by using the other method that is explained in the spell description of casting the spell onto an object, the spellcaster can basically carry this effect around with him and then cover it up whenever he needs to be able to see something that is nearby. Using the spell in that way is pretty much an exact parallel to the main way that most people use the Light spell.
I was not aware that there was magical darkness outside of the spell, which is why I called it magical darkness (and also to keep it in line with the OP post). To ease my lack of knowledge could you present some examples?
So for my conversations where I mention magical darkness I am referring to the spell Darkness, not any other kind.
I was not aware that there was magical darkness outside of the spell, which is why I called it magical darkness. To ease my lack of knowledge could you present some examples?
The term "magical darkness" in general just means an area of Darkness that is a magical effect. In addition to creating the effects of mundane Darkness, such a magical effect might have additional behaviors. There might be many varieties.
For example, the darkness spell creates magical darkness. The Hunger of Hadar spell (2024) also creates magical darkness. But those two magical effects behave differently.
OK so again using my diagram, with the circle being Darkness the spell or Hunger of Hadar, the example of A being able to see and target D is perfectly fine?
That is counter-intuitive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
I don't think the opaqueness is referencing whether it blocks line of sight but rather whether it completely obscures anything within the area.
Unless redefined (which can be denoted in several ways but not generally in the way we see in the rules for vision and light), words are assumed to have their ordinary language meaning, and the ordinary language meaning of opaque is 'blocks vision through it'. In any case, there's really no rules justification for treating darkness as differently from fog.
Is this complete nonsense? Yes, but it's been that way since 2014 and the devs have never seen fit to even admit there's a problem let alone do anything about it.
I don't think the opaqueness is referencing whether it blocks line of sight but rather whether it completely obscures anything within the area.
Unless redefined (which can be denoted in several ways but not generally in the way we see in the rules for vision and light), words are assumed to have their ordinary language meaning, and the ordinary language meaning of opaque is 'blocks vision through it'. In any case, there's really no rules justification for treating darkness as differently from fog.
Is this complete nonsense? Yes, but it's been that way since 2014 and the devs have never seen fit to even admit there's a problem let alone do anything about it.
Yes, the whole thing is a hot mess, but I think it is opaque when trying to observe the area, not when trying to observe something on the other side. Unless something in the area of Darkness happens to block your view.
Technically, if you try to view something in the area of Darkness, you have the Blinded condition and someone next to you has advantage on attacks against you. It is not that the sequence of words can't be interpreted as you say, it's that the interpretation leads to bonkers scenarios. As such, I think the reading of the rules needs to involve a looser interpretation with a healthy dose of context. Context, which the Rules Glossary unfortunately leaves out in favor having little bits of rules to reference indirectly. The Vision and Light rules specify that the area is opaque, but I believe the context of "when trying to see something there" applies and restricts the opaqueness to "when trying to see something there".
So, my reading may be a little more RAI than pure RAW.
OK so again using my diagram, with the circle being Darkness the spell or Hunger of Hadar, the example of A being able to see and target D is perfectly fine?
That is counter-intuitive.
Hunger of Hadar does not explicitly fill the Sphere so I think it's fine. Others may disagree. Ask your DM.
I hope this doesn't confuse you further but note that Hunger of Hadar's magical darkness does not block Darkvision.
A can see and target D no problem unless A has Darkvision in which case they cannot because Darkvision cannot penetrate magical darkness.
A cannot see or target C
C can target A no problem unless C has Darkvision.
C cannot see E but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
Did I miss anything?
A can see and target B no problem.
Whether A can see and target D is not clear by RAW and doesn't matter if A has Darkvision or not (except for the Devil's Sight Invocation). If A cannot see and target D, it is not because of the Darkness rule, but because the Spell effect explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
A has the Blinded when trying to see C unless A has the Devil's Sight Invocation.
Whether C can target A is also unclear by RAW and does not matter if C has Darkvision unless it is from the Devil's Sight Invocation. If C cannot see A, it is because the Spell explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
C has the Blinded condition when trying to see or target E (unless C has the Devil's Sight Invocation) but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
Just leaving my ruling here for that area of magical Darkness (I'm putting aside characters with Darkvision for simplicity):
- No Cover in any case. - A can see and target B no problem. And vice-versa. - A has the Blinded condition while trying to see or target C, D and E. And vice-versa. Spells or game features that say "that you can see" are affected. - C has the Blinded condition when trying to see or target E. And vice-versa. Spells or game features that say "that you can see" are affected.
I agree with Plaguescarred's interpretation of the spell, not up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng says that A can see D, but A cannot see C. In other words, A can see through the area of Darkness to what is on the other side - or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes. The Darkness spell does not convey the Invisible condition (as per the spell Invisibility) onto C, so if light can pass through the area of Darkness to reach A, then C would be outlined against the light reflected off of what was past C from A's point of view, and C would be visible to A, if only in the form of a C-shaped black area.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
I do as well rule nonmagical darkness isn't opaque to areas of Dim or Bright Light so you can see them normally, regardless how RAW kosher it is.
But otherwise any souce of Heavily Obscured areas is opaque and thus block vision line of sight, wether it is Fog Cloud, magical darkness, Darkness, heavy fog or snowfall etc...
Like this i reconcile the fact you can see light in the dark yet not see past anything opaque which has worked fine for my games thus far like i said upthread.
I agree with Plaguescarred's interpretation of the spell, not up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng says that A can see D, but A cannot see C. In other words, A can see through the area of Darkness to what is on the other side - or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes. The Darkness spell does not convey the Invisible condition (as per the spell Invisibility) onto C, so if light can pass through the area of Darkness to reach A, then C would be outlined against the light reflected off of what was past C from A's point of view, and C would be visible to A, if only in the form of a C-shaped black area.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
Right, this is my take as well. Darkness explicitly says that it fills the sphere. That is what would block Line of Sight, not that it creates Darkness. By contrast, Hunger of Hadar doesn't say it fills the Sphere so the Darkness behaves like "mundane" Darkness in regard to blocking Line of Sight.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
I do as well rule nonmagical darkness isn't opaque to areas of Dim or Bright Light so you can see them normally, regardless how RAW kosher it is.
But otherwise any souce of Heavily Obscured areas is opaque and thus block vision line of sight, wether it is Fog Cloud, magical darkness, Darkness, heavy fog or snowfall etc...
Like this i reconcile the fact you can see light in the dark yet not see past anything opaque which has worked fine for my games thus far like i said upthread.
Nonmagical Darkness is by RAW opaque.
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.
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.
Emphasis added. Heavily Obscured even calls out Darkness as a source of Heavily Obscured areas.
The way I reconcile it is that it is only inherently opaque in regards to trying to see something in that area and not necessarily when trying to see something beyond it.
The way I reconcile it is that it is only inherently opaque in regards to trying to see something in that area and not necessarily when trying to see something beyond it.
That doesn't make sense. The way I resolve it is by ignoring the rules and saying "mundane darkness works like it does in the real world". Unfortunately, that does not tell us anything about how magical darkness works.
That is the problem as normal darkness is just an absence of light, or a blinded condition which is not the same as being opaque.
But your next line is the RAW definition which states darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. That is not opaque, but a blinded condition can be due to the absence of light.
That is the problem as normal darkness is just an absence of light, or a blinded condition which is not the same as being opaque.
But your next line is the RAW definition which states darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. That is not opaque, but a blinded condition can be due to the absence of light.
Per the rules in Vision and Light, Heavily Obscured areas are opaque.
The way I reconcile it is that it is only inherently opaque in regards to trying to see something in that area and not necessarily when trying to see something beyond it.
That doesn't make sense. The way I resolve it is by ignoring the rules and saying "mundane darkness works like it does in the real world". Unfortunately, that does not tell us anything about how magical darkness works.
Everything in the area of Darkness is a black, indistinguishable, opaque mass. If you draw line of sight without crossing an actual thing in the area of darkness, the opaqueness doesn't apply. Per RAW, there is no difference between magical Darkness and mundane Darkness. The only difference is what is described by the effect that creates the magical Darkness. Magical Darkness isn't much of a defined concept except for its use with Devil's Sight and maybe a handful of other uses.
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.
So, in terms of Darkvision the behavior is identical except when described otherwise. This doesn't explicitly lay out that magical Darkness is identical to mundane Darkness, but I would argue that nothing lays out that magical Darkness is different from mundane Darkness.
Everything in the area of Darkness is a black, indistinguishable, opaque mass. If you draw line of sight without crossing an actual thing in the area of darkness, the opaqueness doesn't apply.
RAW says the darkness itself is opaque, not objects in the darkness. RAW also tells us that darkness and thick fog create the same effect. This is simply irreconcilable with reality or even common sense. Unfortunately, anything you do to resolve that issue puts you in house rule territory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A can see and target B no problem.
Whether A can see and target D is not clear by RAW and doesn't matter if A has Darkvision or not (except for the Devil's Sight Invocation). If A cannot see and target D, it is not because of the Darkness rule, but because the Spell effect explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
A has the Blinded when trying to see C unless A has the Devil's Sight Invocation.
Whether C can target A is also unclear by RAW and does not matter if C has Darkvision unless it is from the Devil's Sight Invocation. If C cannot see A, it is because the Spell explicitly creates an opaque sphere.
C has the Blinded condition when trying to see or target E (unless C has the Devil's Sight Invocation) but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls.
Is that clearer?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Still not clear.
"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
Okay. There is Darkness and Darkness.
Darkness creates an area of magical Darkness that Darkvision cannot see through. Darkness also says "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere."
Darkness not created by Darkness does not inherently fill the area and block line of sight.
If Darkness blocks line of sight to something beyond the spell's area, it is not because it creates Darkness, but because that Darkness explicitly fills the Sphere.
In the post you quoted, I was referring to the general rule of Darkness. You asked for clarification regarding magical Darkness which actually behaves the same as nonmagical Darkness. I answered assuming you were asking about the spell Darkness which blocks Darkvision because that particular source of magical Darkness says that it blocks Darkvision. Magical Darkness does not block Darkvision by default.
Is that clearer? It's probably super annoying with all those tooltips but it color codes and provides context since someone decided to name the rule and the spell the same thing.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Yes, A can see and target B.
Next, let me address this statement:
"A can see and target D no problem unless A has Darkvision in which case they cannot because Darkvision cannot penetrate magical darkness."
First, the word "penetrate" is not used in the spell. The spell says this about the use of darkvision:
Because of the phrasing that the authors used here, this almost always gets misinterpreted. It's a poor choice of words when attempting to interpret the text word-by-word. This is another case where the authors are using a casual style of writing to describe a previously referenced concept in a certain way that is meant to clarify how that concept works. This is similar to the use of the word "opaque" elsewhere. The phrases "opaque" and "can't see through it" in this context are not referring to the concept of Line of Sight. Instead, it is an attempt to describe the level of obscureness of the area, as compared and contrasted against Lightly Obscured areas in the first case and as compared and contrasted against mundane darkness in the second case.
In this case, the text which says "Darkvision can't see through it" is a point of difference that is being made vs mundane darkness. By default, a creature with Darkvision can see the objects that are within an area of mundane darkness as if that area was Dim Light. In the case of the darkness spell, that special ability does not work. That's all that it is trying to say there.
Therefore, the above statement should be modified to the following:
-- A can see and target D no problem.
Next: Regarding this statement:
"A cannot see or target C."
Not quite. Yes, it's true that A cannot see C. However, A CAN target C. There is a clear path to C when it comes to spellcasting (although some spells require you to see the target creature so read the spell text on a case-by-case basis), and A can attack C with a ranged attack at disadvantage (presumably by being able to hear that creature). In order for C to become untargetable by A, he would have to successfully Hide, at which point A would be forced to "guess the square" when attacking. (A also cannot directly target C with a spell when C is successfully Hidden since C's location would be unknown.)
Next: Regarding this statement:
"C can target A no problem unless C has Darkvision."
Again, like the second statement above, the Line of Sight of a creature with Darkvision is not affected. Only the creature's ability to see the obscured things that are within the Darkness has changed.
Therefore, the above statement should be modified to the following:
-- C can target A no problem.
Lastly, this statement:
"C cannot see E but Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out so straight rolls."
Yes, this is correct.
__________
Under this interpretation of the rules for mundane and magical darkness, the darkness spell is essentially a buff to those that are within it. Note that the darkness spell cannot directly target a creature. If you target a point in space, such as your own location / square, that spell effect does not move with you. However, by using the other method that is explained in the spell description of casting the spell onto an object, the spellcaster can basically carry this effect around with him and then cover it up whenever he needs to be able to see something that is nearby. Using the spell in that way is pretty much an exact parallel to the main way that most people use the Light spell.
I was not aware that there was magical darkness outside of the spell, which is why I called it magical darkness (and also to keep it in line with the OP post). To ease my lack of knowledge could you present some examples?
So for my conversations where I mention magical darkness I am referring to the spell Darkness, not any other kind.
"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
The term "magical darkness" in general just means an area of Darkness that is a magical effect. In addition to creating the effects of mundane Darkness, such a magical effect might have additional behaviors. There might be many varieties.
For example, the darkness spell creates magical darkness. The Hunger of Hadar spell (2024) also creates magical darkness. But those two magical effects behave differently.
OK so again using my diagram, with the circle being Darkness the spell or Hunger of Hadar, the example of A being able to see and target D is perfectly fine?
That is counter-intuitive.
"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
Unless redefined (which can be denoted in several ways but not generally in the way we see in the rules for vision and light), words are assumed to have their ordinary language meaning, and the ordinary language meaning of opaque is 'blocks vision through it'. In any case, there's really no rules justification for treating darkness as differently from fog.
Is this complete nonsense? Yes, but it's been that way since 2014 and the devs have never seen fit to even admit there's a problem let alone do anything about it.
Yes, the whole thing is a hot mess, but I think it is opaque when trying to observe the area, not when trying to observe something on the other side. Unless something in the area of Darkness happens to block your view.
Technically, if you try to view something in the area of Darkness, you have the Blinded condition and someone next to you has advantage on attacks against you. It is not that the sequence of words can't be interpreted as you say, it's that the interpretation leads to bonkers scenarios. As such, I think the reading of the rules needs to involve a looser interpretation with a healthy dose of context. Context, which the Rules Glossary unfortunately leaves out in favor having little bits of rules to reference indirectly. The Vision and Light rules specify that the area is opaque, but I believe the context of "when trying to see something there" applies and restricts the opaqueness to "when trying to see something there".
So, my reading may be a little more RAI than pure RAW.
Hunger of Hadar does not explicitly fill the Sphere so I think it's fine. Others may disagree. Ask your DM.
I hope this doesn't confuse you further but note that Hunger of Hadar's magical darkness does not block Darkvision.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Devil’s Sight or, for example, Truesight.
Just leaving my ruling here for that area of magical Darkness (I'm putting aside characters with Darkvision for simplicity):
- No Cover in any case.
- A can see and target B no problem. And vice-versa.
- A has the Blinded condition while trying to see or target C, D and E. And vice-versa. Spells or game features that say "that you can see" are affected.
- C has the Blinded condition when trying to see or target E. And vice-versa. Spells or game features that say "that you can see" are affected.
EDIT: fixing things.
My ruling with circle is an area of magical darkness;
A can see B.
A cannot see C-D-E.
B can see A-D.
B cannot see C-E.
C cannot see A-B-D-E.
D can see B.
D cannot see A-C-E.
E cannot see A-B-C-D.
Ha! Plague wrote all the possible combinations in the (Darkness) universe. Marvelous! 😅
I didn't write all the possiblecombinations i left out the most obvious ones 😀
A can see A.
B can see B.
C cannot see C.
D can see D.
E cannot see E.
I agree with Plaguescarred's interpretation of the spell, not up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng says that A can see D, but A cannot see C. In other words, A can see through the area of Darkness to what is on the other side - or rather, light reflected off of C is passing through the darkness and is reaching A's eyes. The Darkness spell does not convey the Invisible condition (as per the spell Invisibility) onto C, so if light can pass through the area of Darkness to reach A, then C would be outlined against the light reflected off of what was past C from A's point of view, and C would be visible to A, if only in the form of a C-shaped black area.
I would rule that ordinary Darkness allows light to pass through it (so you could see stars or a distant campfire at night), but the sphere created by the Darkness spell is explicitly magical darkness and due to that, it absorbs all light, creating an opaque sphere.
I do as well rule nonmagical darkness isn't opaque to areas of Dim or Bright Light so you can see them normally, regardless how RAW kosher it is.
But otherwise any souce of Heavily Obscured areas is opaque and thus block vision line of sight, wether it is Fog Cloud, magical darkness, Darkness, heavy fog or snowfall etc...
Like this i reconcile the fact you can see light in the dark yet not see past anything opaque which has worked fine for my games thus far like i said upthread.
Right, this is my take as well. Darkness explicitly says that it fills the sphere. That is what would block Line of Sight, not that it creates Darkness. By contrast, Hunger of Hadar doesn't say it fills the Sphere so the Darkness behaves like "mundane" Darkness in regard to blocking Line of Sight.
Nonmagical Darkness is by RAW opaque.
Emphasis added. Heavily Obscured even calls out Darkness as a source of Heavily Obscured areas.
The way I reconcile it is that it is only inherently opaque in regards to trying to see something in that area and not necessarily when trying to see something beyond it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That doesn't make sense. The way I resolve it is by ignoring the rules and saying "mundane darkness works like it does in the real world". Unfortunately, that does not tell us anything about how magical darkness works.
That is the problem as normal darkness is just an absence of light, or a blinded condition which is not the same as being opaque.
But your next line is the RAW definition which states darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. That is not opaque, but a blinded condition can be due to the absence of light.
Per the rules in Vision and Light, Heavily Obscured areas are opaque.
Everything in the area of Darkness is a black, indistinguishable, opaque mass. If you draw line of sight without crossing an actual thing in the area of darkness, the opaqueness doesn't apply. Per RAW, there is no difference between magical Darkness and mundane Darkness. The only difference is what is described by the effect that creates the magical Darkness. Magical Darkness isn't much of a defined concept except for its use with Devil's Sight and maybe a handful of other uses.
Sage Advice kind of touches on this
So, in terms of Darkvision the behavior is identical except when described otherwise. This doesn't explicitly lay out that magical Darkness is identical to mundane Darkness, but I would argue that nothing lays out that magical Darkness is different from mundane Darkness.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
RAW says the darkness itself is opaque, not objects in the darkness. RAW also tells us that darkness and thick fog create the same effect. This is simply irreconcilable with reality or even common sense. Unfortunately, anything you do to resolve that issue puts you in house rule territory.