Regarding the difference between magical and nonmagical Darkness, I shared my opinion in the linked threads, but basically my point is that the spell states nonmagical light can't illuminate the area, meaning you can't bring light in from outside, unlike with mundane darkness.
So, if there's light outside the sphere, the spell completely blocks it, preventing any stimulation of your eyes.
Additionally, here's the Dev's opinion on this:
@skullmandible does this apply to magical darkness as well? can you see things on the other side of it? @JeremyECrawford A heavily obscured area, like darkness, blocks vision entirely (see PH, 183).
Anyway, I understand not everyone will agree with me, and that's totally fine since I get the other point of view too. If in your games magical and nonmagical Darkness behave the same and your players enjoy it that way, that's great.
Ha thanks for sharing other discussions, always insightful.
The issue lies in the application of vision as location base vs line of sight.
One works well for different category of illumination from the presence or absence of light but doesn't for opaque Heavily Obscured areas by magical and environmental effects because what obscure vision should affect sight wether within or through it. For example, you and your neighbor standing in bright light porch should be able to see each other when the street between is Heavily Obscured by mundane Darkness, but not if Heavily Obscured by dense foliage, deep snow, heavy fog or magical Darkness and similar spells.
Not sure if Line of Sight was redefined in the revised Dungeon Master Guide but it's what i still use in my games.
Ha thanks for sharing other discussions, always insightful.
The issue lies in the application of vision as location base vs line of sight.
One works well for different category of illumination from the presence or absence of light but doesn't for opaque Heavily Obscured areas by magical and environmental effects because what obscure vision should affect sight wether within or through it. For example, you and your neighbor standing in bright light porch should be able to see each other when the street between is Heavily Obscured by mundane Darkness, but not if Heavily Obscured by dense foliage, deep snow, heavy fog or magical Darkness and similar spells.
Not sure if Line of Sight was redefined in the revised Dungeon Master Guide but it's what i still use in my games.
I agree with your explanation ;)
Also, let me leave the "Line of Sight" text for the 2024 DMG here:
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.
Ha thanks for sharing other discussions, always insightful.
The issue lies in the application of vision as location base vs line of sight.
One works well for different category of illumination from the presence or absence of light but doesn't for opaque Heavily Obscured areas by magical and environmental effects because what obscure vision should affect sight wether within or through it. For example, you and your neighbor standing in bright light porch should be able to see each other when the street between is Heavily Obscured by mundane Darkness, but not if Heavily Obscured by dense foliage, deep snow, heavy fog or magical Darkness and similar spells.
Not sure if Line of Sight was redefined in the revised Dungeon Master Guide but it's what i still use in my games.
One problem with that example is the fact that mundane darkness is equated with heavily obscured, when it is equated with lightly obscured.
Nighttime is nothing more than a massive shadow of the world interposed between the light of a star and the observer and thus is a lightly obscured area.
If your neighbors are even just a quarter mile away, then unless the neighbors are sporting a extremely bright light you would have a very difficult time perceiving that light. ( this considering a completely open flat field without no obstruction in between.)
Better example is a huge oak tree in the middle of an empty field at night and all the light is from moon light, the tree can be seen due to dim light that a moon might reflect with the stars behind the tree.
But if that same tree is not illuminated by any light, then that tree will form a shadow that blocks any starlight behind it, won’t be visible, and would create an area of darkness. Is that darkness magical? No because any form of light, can still illuminate the area.
Magical Darkness does not allow any form of illumination form just any source, and the source of light that can illuminate the magical darkness also has the power to possibly dispel it. The very rules throughout the entirety of the game reinforces that concept and explicitly note the difference when needed.
All of which is covered by the rules for vision & light, if your vision can be blocked then so can light that would need to be reflected off a object to be visible. Magical darkness wouldn’t allow light to reflect off a surface that might normally allow the rebounding of light.( which is why darkvision does not work in areas of magical darkness. )
The biggest issue with the linked threads is that not many within those linked threads grasp the concept that an area that is abnormal can absorb and prevent light form entering or exiting, and such areas are more likely to be magical rather than mundane darkness and the rules make an effort to distinguish between the two, especially if the darkness is magical.
Attempting to equate magical darkness with mundane darkness, or vice versa, is an attempt to possibly circumvent other rules and features that specifically address the difference between the two forms of darkness.
If no difference exists between the two, then ether darkvision doesn’t work at all, or it would work for any type of darkness, and we can all agree that isn’t the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
One problem with that example is the fact that mundane darkness is equated with heavily obscured, when it is equated with lightly obscured.
Nighttime is nothing more than a massive shadow of the world interposed between the light of a star and the observer and thus is a lightly obscured area.
Most moonlit nights are Darkness (Heavily Obscured), only a full moon might bathe the land in Dim Light (Lightly Obscured).
Dim Light. Dim Light, also called shadows, creates a Lightly Obscured area. An area of Dim Light is usually a boundary between Bright Light and surrounding Darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as Dim Light. A full moon might bathe the land in Dim Light.
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.
One problem with that example is the fact that mundane darkness is equated with heavily obscured, when it is equated with lightly obscured.
And this is where your argument falls apart, regular (lack of light) darkness is explicitly defined as heavily obscured.
It is THE big problem with this rule and one they just haven't understood how (or cared enough) to fix for all of 5E. Trying to re-define your way around it might get you to a place that makes sense for you (and to a place that is the same, or close, to what we all use) but it isn't in any way a fair or correct representation of what the rules actually say.
Really, the thing to remember here is that the rules are the beginning, not the end. A significant portion of the DM's duties is to adjudicate how the general rules on something like light levels and obscurement apply to specific situations like "torches at either end of a pitch black hallway". Particularly for 5e, as they decided to avoid going overly technical when writing out the rules. There's pro's and con's to the format, clearly, but it's a reasonable approach and I think most DMs can parse an effective ruling on the scenario above by interpreting the rules and the logical nature of the situation.
If no difference exists between the two, then ether darkvision doesn’t work at all, or it would work for any type of darkness, and we can all agree that isn’t the case.
RAW with Darkvision, actually you can see in any Darkness, wether mundane or magical one, unless noted otherwise, such as the Darkness spell.
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 it produces a magical darkness that obstructs darkvision. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not of magical darkness in general.
Really, the thing to remember here is that the rules are the beginning, not the end. A significant portion of the DM's duties is to adjudicate how the general rules on something like light levels and obscurement apply to specific situations like "torches at either end of a pitch black hallway". Particularly for 5e, as they decided to avoid going overly technical when writing out the rules. There's pro's and con's to the format, clearly, but it's a reasonable approach and I think most DMs can parse an effective ruling on the scenario above by interpreting the rules and the logical nature of the situation.
I'm sorry but that's just a poor cop out IMO. Deciding that the rules are utterly stupid is not normal adjudication or parsing of rules, it is making the sane choice of ignoring something that they have failed to write a reasonable rule for. Don't get me wrong, you absolutely should ignore it and make a ruling that works for you. I'd wager most tables do use a homebrew version of the rules even if they aren't realising that they do, because the RAW really is that bad. But IMO every time this subject comes up the designers should be reminded just how badly they have failed instead of it being brushed off as "yea the DM will fix that".
Really, the thing to remember here is that the rules are the beginning, not the end. A significant portion of the DM's duties is to adjudicate how the general rules on something like light levels and obscurement apply to specific situations like "torches at either end of a pitch black hallway". Particularly for 5e, as they decided to avoid going overly technical when writing out the rules. There's pro's and con's to the format, clearly, but it's a reasonable approach and I think most DMs can parse an effective ruling on the scenario above by interpreting the rules and the logical nature of the situation.
Exactly! Just like the Hiding rules in either 2014 or 2024, only rule-literalists complain about them. Any actual table with actual people was and is running these things just fine because it doesn't take a genius to know you can see a lit torch at the end of a dark hallway, but can't see someone on the opposite side of a hedge as you. I mean the whole point of playing an RPG with a DM is that you don't need every rule for every situation spelled out because the DM understands how the world works so can adjudicate situations as they come up. If the rule books spelled out everything for every situation the game would end up so much more confined - just like computer-RPGs - and would still be full of weird glitches that the game designers didn't think of - just like computer-RPGs.
I'm sorry but that's just a poor cop out IMO. Deciding that the rules are utterly stupid is not normal adjudication or parsing of rules, it is making the sane choice of ignoring something that they have failed to write a reasonable rule for. Don't get me wrong, you absolutely should ignore it and make a ruling that works for you. I'd wager most tables do use a homebrew version of the rules even if they aren't realising that they do, because the RAW really is that bad. But IMO every time this subject comes up the designers should be reminded just how badly they have failed instead of it being brushed off as "yea the DM will fix that".
Yes, because the designers are definitely reading reddit posts, random Youtube comments, forum posts and [unmentionable social media] arguments. They definitely don't have jobs, families, friends, hobbies, and/or pets that occupy their time.
AFAIK staff and testers/advisors keep an eye yes. I was recruited on D&D Forums (The one before DDB) in 2010 to join private Rules Advisor (some may remember the a small red beholder badge) and later signed NDA and became a D&D playtester during 4E and 5E for years.
One problem with that example is the fact that mundane darkness is equated with heavily obscured, when it is equated with lightly obscured.
And this is where your argument falls apart, regular (lack of light) darkness is explicitly defined as heavily obscured.
It is THE big problem with this rule and one they just haven't understood how (or cared enough) to fix for all of 5E. Trying to re-define your way around it might get you to a place that makes sense for you (and to a place that is the same, or close, to what we all use) but it isn't in any way a fair or correct representation of what the rules actually say.
If you had actually quoted the full text of what had been said, then your argument falls apart, as the rules clearly differentiate what is considered mundane darkness and magical darkness.
No misreading the rules, no making things up, it’s clearly in the rules, and trying to imply the same rules that should apply to mundane darkness should apply to magical darkness is a exercise in futility.
If both mundane darkness and magical darkness where to be treated the same, then no such rules that emphasize that dark-vision doesn’t not work in magical darkness would ever need to be made, yet those rules have been a part of the game for decades.
Btw on a long hallway with a torch on one end, not a single example doesn’t express how long a corridor there is. A corridor that is just a few feet long might very well illuminate the entire corridor, whereas a corridor that is say 60 foot long, might only illuminate a small length of corridor, and make the torch at the end look like a floating glowing object.
And if that same corridor has a spot within the middle, possibly hiding a trap where magical darkness is present, then no light would be seen from ether end of the corridor.
Nothing is wrong with the rules, just the ability to understand that not every single little detail is explained, and a measure of IRL understanding of how things work is needed as a base reference for how magical elements alter that normal behavior.
The argument that mundane darkness and magical darkness are the same just doesn’t hold water, and attempts to equate them as the same is what causes the confusion and implication that the rules are broken.
The same rules for both mundane darkness and magical darkness as been the same for well over several decades, and haven’t changed drastically at all.
The problem lies in the designers not fully understanding the rules and attempting to short hand them in detail and creating a situation where confusion entails.
There is a distinct difference in the rules that make mundane darkness different from magical darkness, and ignoring that difference is the reason why people get confused why certain aspects of the rules appear to be broken, when in reality they are not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The only difference between mundane and Magical Darkness is that the latter is an absence of light specifically created by a spell, a magic item, or a phenomenon that a rule labels as magical. It's still only one and a same category of illumination called Darkness as posted above.
If both mundane darkness and magical darkness where to be treated the same, then no such rules that emphasize that dark-vision doesn’t not work in magical darkness would ever need to be made, yet those rules have been a part of the game for decades.
That rule doesn't exist in 2024. Most or all Darkvision can't see in the area of magical darkness created by the Darkness spell. Any Darkvision can see in the area of magical darkness created by the Darkness option of the Hallow spell.
For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere. Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
Alternatively, you cast the spell on an object that isn’t being worn or carried, causing the Darkness to fill a 15-foot Emanation originating from that object. Covering that object with something opaque, such as a bowl or helm, blocks the Darkness.
If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of Bright Light or Dim Light created by a spell of level 2 or lower, that other spell is dispelled.
If Darkvision did not work in any magical Darkness, it would not be necessary to mention in the spell description that it did not work.
You touch a point and infuse an area around it with holy or unholy power. The area can have a radius up to 60 feet, and the spell fails if the radius includes an area already under the effect of Hallow. The affected area has the following effects.
Hallowed Ward. Choose any of these creature types: Aberration, Celestial, Elemental, Fey, Fiend, or Undead. Creatures of the chosen types can’t willingly enter the area, and any creature that is possessed by or that has the Charmed or Frightened condition from such creatures isn’t possessed, Charmed, or Frightened by them while in the area.
Extra Effect. You bind an extra effect to the area from the list below:
Courage. Creatures of any types you choose can’t gain the Frightened condition while in the area.
Darkness.Darkness fills the area. Normal light, as well as magical light created by spells of a level lower than this spell, can’t illuminate the area.
Daylight.Bright light fills the area. Magical Darkness created by spells of a level lower than this spell can’t extinguish the light.
Peaceful Rest. Dead bodies interred in the area can’t be turned into Undead.
Extradimensional Interference. Creatures of any types you choose can’t enter or exit the area using teleportation or interplanar travel.
Fear. Creatures of any types you choose have the Frightened condition while in the area.
Resistance. Creatures of any types you choose have Resistance to one damage type of your choice while in the area.
Silence. No sound can emanate from within the area, and no sound can reach into it.
Tongues. Creatures of any types you choose can communicate with any other creature in the area even if they don’t share a common language.
Vulnerability. Creatures of any types you choose have Vulnerability to one damage type of your choice while in the area.
Hallow can create an area of magical Darkness that does not block Darkvision and does not display lower level spells that create Light.
Feel free to quote a rule outside of a spell, item, or ability description that says magical Darkness is any different than non-magical Darkness.
Magical Darkness, by default, can be illuminated by magical and non-magical light sources, doesn't dispel spells that create magic, and Darkvision will work normally in the area. I don't think you will find a magical source of Darkness for which all of that was true, but only because the effect (such as a spell) adds additional restrictions.
It's still only one and a same category of illumination called Darkness as posted above.
Unfortunately that is not correct as the rules for vision & light clearly state a difference between the two, and the effects that create the difference respectively reflects the difference by reinforcing within the descriptive context that difference.
Just because the digital version of the rules point to a particular rule that doesn’t emphasize that distinction, doesn’t make it false or misunderstood, it means the digital version is inherently flawed by misleading how darkness is perceived.
Two very different and distinct versions of darkness exists within the game, and the rules in vision and light clearly define the difference.
Mundane darkness is considered shadows by game terms, and magical darkness is just labeled as darkness when the qualifier of magical should be placed before it to denote the difference.
The lack thereof is the reason most newcomers and those unaware tend to misinterpret and misunderstand the concept. And even if those individuals understand the rules and concept , attempting to ignore the difference is nothing more then an attempt to circumvent the penalty the difference creates, and to lazily attempt to adjudicate both as the same rather than put the effort in distinguishing between the two.
The rules of the game very much define and distinguish the difference between mundane and magical darkness.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks, mate! When you say things like that, you make me smile :D
I also shared some links about the same topic in this reply. And I remember a debate about magical Darkness here too: Blind sense and complete darkness - Rules & Game Mechanics
Regarding the difference between magical and nonmagical Darkness, I shared my opinion in the linked threads, but basically my point is that the spell states nonmagical light can't illuminate the area, meaning you can't bring light in from outside, unlike with mundane darkness.
So, if there's light outside the sphere, the spell completely blocks it, preventing any stimulation of your eyes.
Additionally, here's the Dev's opinion on this:
Anyway, I understand not everyone will agree with me, and that's totally fine since I get the other point of view too. If in your games magical and nonmagical Darkness behave the same and your players enjoy it that way, that's great.
Ha thanks for sharing other discussions, always insightful.
The issue lies in the application of vision as location base vs line of sight.
One works well for different category of illumination from the presence or absence of light but doesn't for opaque Heavily Obscured areas by magical and environmental effects because what obscure vision should affect sight wether within or through it. For example, you and your neighbor standing in bright light porch should be able to see each other when the street between is Heavily Obscured by mundane Darkness, but not if Heavily Obscured by dense foliage, deep snow, heavy fog or magical Darkness and similar spells.
Not sure if Line of Sight was redefined in the revised Dungeon Master Guide but it's what i still use in my games.
I agree with your explanation ;)
Also, let me leave the "Line of Sight" text for the 2024 DMG here:
@TarodNet Thanks same then, which dense cloud of fog pretty much fits my definition of an Heavily Obscured areas.
One problem with that example is the fact that mundane darkness is equated with heavily obscured, when it is equated with lightly obscured.
Nighttime is nothing more than a massive shadow of the world interposed between the light of a star and the observer and thus is a lightly obscured area.
If your neighbors are even just a quarter mile away, then unless the neighbors are sporting a extremely bright light you would have a very difficult time perceiving that light. ( this considering a completely open flat field without no obstruction in between.)
Better example is a huge oak tree in the middle of an empty field at night and all the light is from moon light, the tree can be seen due to dim light that a moon might reflect with the stars behind the tree.
But if that same tree is not illuminated by any light, then that tree will form a shadow that blocks any starlight behind it, won’t be visible, and would create an area of darkness. Is that darkness magical? No because any form of light, can still illuminate the area.
Magical Darkness does not allow any form of illumination form just any source, and the source of light that can illuminate the magical darkness also has the power to possibly dispel it.
The very rules throughout the entirety of the game reinforces that concept and explicitly note the difference when needed.
All of which is covered by the rules for vision & light, if your vision can be blocked then so can light that would need to be reflected off a object to be visible.
Magical darkness wouldn’t allow light to reflect off a surface that might normally allow the rebounding of light.( which is why darkvision does not work in areas of magical darkness. )
The biggest issue with the linked threads is that not many within those linked threads grasp the concept that an area that is abnormal can absorb and prevent light form entering or exiting, and such areas are more likely to be magical rather than mundane darkness and the rules make an effort to distinguish between the two, especially if the darkness is magical.
Attempting to equate magical darkness with mundane darkness, or vice versa, is an attempt to possibly circumvent other rules and features that specifically address the difference between the two forms of darkness.
If no difference exists between the two, then ether darkvision doesn’t work at all, or it would work for any type of darkness, and we can all agree that isn’t the case.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Most moonlit nights are Darkness (Heavily Obscured), only a full moon might bathe the land in Dim Light (Lightly Obscured).
And this is where your argument falls apart, regular (lack of light) darkness is explicitly defined as heavily obscured.
It is THE big problem with this rule and one they just haven't understood how (or cared enough) to fix for all of 5E. Trying to re-define your way around it might get you to a place that makes sense for you (and to a place that is the same, or close, to what we all use) but it isn't in any way a fair or correct representation of what the rules actually say.
Really, the thing to remember here is that the rules are the beginning, not the end. A significant portion of the DM's duties is to adjudicate how the general rules on something like light levels and obscurement apply to specific situations like "torches at either end of a pitch black hallway". Particularly for 5e, as they decided to avoid going overly technical when writing out the rules. There's pro's and con's to the format, clearly, but it's a reasonable approach and I think most DMs can parse an effective ruling on the scenario above by interpreting the rules and the logical nature of the situation.
RAW with Darkvision, actually you can see in any Darkness, wether mundane or magical one, unless noted otherwise, such as the Darkness spell.
There's an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium on this;
I'm sorry but that's just a poor cop out IMO. Deciding that the rules are utterly stupid is not normal adjudication or parsing of rules, it is making the sane choice of ignoring something that they have failed to write a reasonable rule for. Don't get me wrong, you absolutely should ignore it and make a ruling that works for you. I'd wager most tables do use a homebrew version of the rules even if they aren't realising that they do, because the RAW really is that bad.
But IMO every time this subject comes up the designers should be reminded just how badly they have failed instead of it being brushed off as "yea the DM will fix that".
Exactly! Just like the Hiding rules in either 2014 or 2024, only rule-literalists complain about them. Any actual table with actual people was and is running these things just fine because it doesn't take a genius to know you can see a lit torch at the end of a dark hallway, but can't see someone on the opposite side of a hedge as you. I mean the whole point of playing an RPG with a DM is that you don't need every rule for every situation spelled out because the DM understands how the world works so can adjudicate situations as they come up. If the rule books spelled out everything for every situation the game would end up so much more confined - just like computer-RPGs - and would still be full of weird glitches that the game designers didn't think of - just like computer-RPGs.
Yes, because the designers are definitely reading reddit posts, random Youtube comments, forum posts and [unmentionable social media] arguments. They definitely don't have jobs, families, friends, hobbies, and/or pets that occupy their time.
Personally, i see a difference between forum rule discussions and the actual ruling done with them during play.
While for academic form, it can also bring up errata or Sage Advice material.
AFAIK staff and testers/advisors keep an eye yes. I was recruited on D&D Forums (The one before DDB) in 2010 to join private Rules Advisor (some may remember the a small red beholder badge) and later signed NDA and became a D&D playtester during 4E and 5E for years.
If you had actually quoted the full text of what had been said, then your argument falls apart, as the rules clearly differentiate what is considered mundane darkness and magical darkness.
No misreading the rules, no making things up, it’s clearly in the rules, and trying to imply the same rules that should apply to mundane darkness should apply to magical darkness is a exercise in futility.
If both mundane darkness and magical darkness where to be treated the same, then no such rules that emphasize that dark-vision doesn’t not work in magical darkness would ever need to be made, yet those rules have been a part of the game for decades.
Btw on a long hallway with a torch on one end, not a single example doesn’t express how long a corridor there is. A corridor that is just a few feet long might very well illuminate the entire corridor, whereas a corridor that is say 60 foot long, might only illuminate a small length of corridor, and make the torch at the end look like a floating glowing object.
And if that same corridor has a spot within the middle, possibly hiding a trap where magical darkness is present, then no light would be seen from ether end of the corridor.
Nothing is wrong with the rules, just the ability to understand that not every single little detail is explained, and a measure of IRL understanding of how things work is needed as a base reference for how magical elements alter that normal behavior.
The argument that mundane darkness and magical darkness are the same just doesn’t hold water, and attempts to equate them as the same is what causes the confusion and implication that the rules are broken.
The same rules for both mundane darkness and magical darkness as been the same for well over several decades, and haven’t changed drastically at all.
The problem lies in the designers not fully understanding the rules and attempting to short hand them in detail and creating a situation where confusion entails.
There is a distinct difference in the rules that make mundane darkness different from magical darkness, and ignoring that difference is the reason why people get confused why certain aspects of the rules appear to be broken, when in reality they are not.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The only difference between mundane and Magical Darkness is that the latter is an absence of light specifically created by a spell, a magic item, or a phenomenon that a rule labels as magical. It's still only one and a same category of illumination called Darkness as posted above.
That rule doesn't exist in 2024. Most or all Darkvision can't see in the area of magical darkness created by the Darkness spell. Any Darkvision can see in the area of magical darkness created by the Darkness option of the Hallow spell.
I'll quote them again.
If Darkvision did not work in any magical Darkness, it would not be necessary to mention in the spell description that it did not work.
Hallow can create an area of magical Darkness that does not block Darkvision and does not display lower level spells that create Light.
Feel free to quote a rule outside of a spell, item, or ability description that says magical Darkness is any different than non-magical Darkness.
Magical Darkness, by default, can be illuminated by magical and non-magical light sources, doesn't dispel spells that create magic, and Darkvision will work normally in the area. I don't think you will find a magical source of Darkness for which all of that was true, but only because the effect (such as a spell) adds additional restrictions.
How to add Tooltips.
Unfortunately that is not correct as the rules for vision & light clearly state a difference between the two, and the effects that create the difference respectively reflects the difference by reinforcing within the descriptive context that difference.
Just because the digital version of the rules point to a particular rule that doesn’t emphasize that distinction, doesn’t make it false or misunderstood, it means the digital version is inherently flawed by misleading how darkness is perceived.
Two very different and distinct versions of darkness exists within the game, and the rules in vision and light clearly define the difference.
Mundane darkness is considered shadows by game terms, and magical darkness is just labeled as darkness when the qualifier of magical should be placed before it to denote the difference.
The lack thereof is the reason most newcomers and those unaware tend to misinterpret and misunderstand the concept. And even if those individuals understand the rules and concept , attempting to ignore the difference is nothing more then an attempt to circumvent the penalty the difference creates, and to lazily attempt to adjudicate both as the same rather than put the effort in distinguishing between the two.
The rules of the game very much define and distinguish the difference between mundane and magical darkness.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.