(I am also confused what you even think is going on, where there's a sphere of magical darkness that you can't see anything, but you can see through to the other side of it normally? What does that look like? Assume there are objects and creatures inside the magical darkness - if you can see through it, then you can necessarily see things in the darkness, because they block your line of sight in places, so you could see a creature moving around just fine solely by the moving black shape against what's behind it - ie, light would have to illuminate the magical darkness. What you think it says is logically impossible.)
So you'd have no depth perception of anything inside, and couldn't distinguish silhouettes from each other, at all. This would include the ground. The effect would make everything inside look like a "cutout" of reality.
So imagine that applied to everything within a sphere.
That still involves illuminating the silhouettes of whatever is in the darkness. And that doesn't happen, because you can't illuminate anything in the darkness. So that is RAW not how it works.
Darkness is and always has been an opaque black sphere. It has to be, it's the only way the spell functions as described.
I don't see how your diatribe about what illumination is helps your case. No, one photon is not enough. You need many photons. But that means no photons can travel through it, because otherwise at least part of the area of the darkness spell is illuminated.
Nor does your answer to what looking through darkness does make any sense as an explanation. You're illuminating the silhouettes, and illumination is explicitly forbidden.
You have no evidence and no proof that the wording on darkvision is an error. There's no reason to believe its in error at all. If you have to start by believing part of the text is in error, you better have strong textual reasoning from elsewhere to believe that is so, and none of the other text you've cited requires it to be in error. You're simply interpreting the spell incorrectly.
Illumination is not defined in game terms. It does not mean dim light or better. It means what the word illumination normally means. So no evidence for your interpretation there.
Regardless, if you can see the silhouettes, you're effectively in dim light. Lack of at least dim light means you can't see anything. So if you can see silhouettes, you are not following RAW, even if we assume illumination = at least dim light. You have to be able to see nothing in the area of darkness, including not seeing silhouettes. And that must mean it's impossible to see through.
Your streetlight example is just wrong. There is no darkness between the streetlights in that example, because if there was, you couldn't see the other streetlight. The light shining from the far streetlight means that the line between must be at least dimly lit, because light is reaching your eyes. Darkness means no light reaches your eyes. Sure, some dip in the ground might be in darkness, but not everything between you and the other street lamp can be.
Magical Darkness, however, creates a sphere of this stuff. The spell stops light from penetrating it - that's what makes it darkness. You can't see through it. If you could, it would be illuminated, and that would violated the RAW of the spell. If there was magical darkness between two street lamps, you could not see the other street lamp through it without violating the rules as written.
Can you identify a single table where Darkness has been played like you say where you weren't the DM?
Darkness is described as opaque and opaque in this context clearly means "blocks light", I don't get how people are flinging out multi-paragraph responses against this. This is because the rules don't care about light on a cosmic level but on the level of the local played map. Personally I do believe the rules are very lackluster when it comes to light as technically it does not say how you treat an area between yourself and a source of blight or dim light, which should technically be treated as an area of darkness. As such, I can understand the confusion but this is dragging on too long for something that there is a very clear and simple answer for, darkness blocks light in D&D.
2) "Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)..."
As far as the the Moon goes, the Moon literally casts Dim Light, since there is dim light between yourself and the moon, there is no darkness in the middle, unless somebody were to cast the darkness spell, that is, or create some other form of magical darkness.
So what the text does means is only that there is still darkness outside at night even on moonlit nights. For example, if you're walking through a forest, the canopy of the trees will block the moon light from illuminating the ground, you are facing darkness while being outside and it's a moonlit night. The shadows of buildings also are likely to now be areas of darkness at night where the midday sun, they would probably be brightly lit or at worst dimly lit.
I don't see how your diatribe about what illumination is helps your case.
The reason is because people are conflating the idea that a particular area of darkness cannot be illuminated with the concept that light is unable to travel through the area (to reach your eyes, for example). I was explaining that those are two separate concepts and that the Darkness spell addresses one of these concepts and is silent on the other.
An area of Darkness in 5e is an area where the objects within it cannot be seen. It means nothing more than that. Those are the rules as they are written. Claiming that no light can reach your eyes while you are located within an area of darkness is demonstrably false considering that the rulebook explicitly uses this example:
Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)
No, one photon is not enough. You need many photons. But that means no photons can travel through it, because otherwise at least part of the area of the darkness spell is illuminated.
Hopefully it is obvious why these statements are contradictory without it having to be pointed out. If one photon is not enough to illuminate an area, then it should be obvious that it is possible for more than zero photons to travel through an area without illuminating it. Especially considering the fact that illumination in this game refers to the process of changing an area of darkness into an area of Dim Light or Bright Light or changing an area of Dim Light into an area of Bright Light. And that requires quite a lot of light. After all, even moonlight is unable to accomplish this in most cases, according to the rulebook.
Nor does your answer to what looking through darkness does make any sense as an explanation. You're illuminating the silhouettes, and illumination is explicitly forbidden.
The silhouettes that I am talking about are not illuminated. The area is still an area of darkness. These silhouettes would be just indications that my Line of Sight to a well-lit area is partially blocked for some unknown reason. In the campfire example there would just be an area of blackness covering up a portion of the area around the campfire that I would normally be able to see. Nothing more than that. If I attempted to look at this blackness, I would not actually see anything. That's because I would be blinded while trying to see something that's within an area of darkness. However, if I am NOT trying to see something that's within an area of darkness, then I am NOT blinded. When trying to see the things that are within the area around the campfire, I would be able to see most of those things, but I would also notice that there is some sort of silhouette of blackness blocking my Line of Sight to a portion of the area around the campfire.
You have no evidence and no proof that the wording on darkvision is an error. There's no reason to believe its in error at all. If you have to start by believing part of the text is in error, you better have strong textual reasoning from elsewhere to believe that is so, and none of the other text you've cited requires it to be in error. You're simply interpreting the spell incorrectly.
So, you don't think that there's any error in the idea that the spell might "block" darkvision but not regular vision? That's certainly possible but it's pretty unlikely.
It is far more likely that this portion of the spell was written in error in exactly one of two possible ways:
-- The spell should "block" darkvision and also regular vision.
OR
-- The spell is attempting to say that darkvision does not function in the manner that it normally does -- in which case the author should not have use the phrase "can't see through it" and instead should have used a description that more accurately describes the intent.
In context, it's pretty obvious that it's the second option, although it's not a slam dunk.
Illumination is not defined in game terms. It does not mean dim light or better. It means what the word illumination normally means. So no evidence for your interpretation there.
It's true that there is no formal definition given, but there are plenty of context clues to be able to understand what is meant in game terms. This concept is open to interpretation. My interpretation is the best one, but there could be others.
Regardless, if you can see the silhouettes, you're effectively in dim light. Lack of at least dim light means you can't see anything.
This is incorrect for a couple of reasons.
The game explicitly goes out of its way to explain that being located in mundane darkness does NOT cause the blinded condition. You ONLY have the blinded condition when trying to see something that's within the area of darkness. That cannot be reiterated strongly enough. It's an incredibly important distinction.
Also, darkness does not mean absolute darkness whereby the presence of even a single photon of light creates Dim Light. That's not how either of those two broad categories of light are described. The game simplifies things into three broad categories, each of which encompass many different levels of illumination. Darkness is one of those categories. Remember, a moonlit night is classified as an area of darkness.
You have to be able to see nothing in the area of darkness, including not seeing silhouettes. And that must mean it's impossible to see through.
No. That second sentence is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the information that is given in that first sentence.
Just because you cannot see the things that are within an area of Darkness does NOT mean that you cannot see through the Darkness. One is the concept of being an area that is Heavily Obscured from view. The other is the concept of a physical obstacle to your Line of Sight. These two concepts should not be conflated. They mean different things.
Your streetlight example is just wrong. There is no darkness between the streetlights in that example, because if there was, you couldn't see the other streetlight. The light shining from the far streetlight means that the line between must be at least dimly lit, because light is reaching your eyes.
It's not wrong. It's my example. I created it. I am saying that there is darkness between the streetlights and so there is darkness there -- I am the one that is setting up the example.
Furthermore, the conclusion that you are drawing here is incorrect, as seen in my previous posts about photons. For example, if in our real world we lived in a world where we had no moon and we had only one single faint star in our entire night sky . . . if we were outside in such an environment we would see absolutely nothing. For all intents and purposes we would perceive this environment as absolute darkness. And yet, we would still be able to look up and see that single star shining in our sky. That's because light from that star is traveling through our darkness, but it provides exactly zero illumination to our area.
Can you identify a single table where Darkness has been played like you say where you weren't the DM?
This is irrelevant. In RAW discussions it doesn't matter how people typically play it. It only matters what is written.
However, yes, some tables do play it the way that I am describing. In one case, the people involved made the astute observation that a large portion of the Darkness spell is written and designed in a converse manner to the Light spell:
Light spell:
Covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
Darkness:
Covering that object with something opaque, such as a bowl or helm, blocks the Darkness.
It becomes even more clear with the 2014 versions of both spells, but the implication is obvious -- in both cases you are meant to use a strategy of carrying this spell effect around with you and blocking it when that is advantageous and leaving it unblocked when that is advantageous. They are both buffing the party in similar ways.
Darkness is described as opaque and opaque in this context clearly means "blocks light",
Actually, it's the context clues that make it clear that this is NOT what is meant by "opaque" in this game. It means that the things that are located within the area in question cannot be seen at all (as opposed to clearly or with some difficulty).
2) "Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)..."
As far as the the Moon goes, the Moon literally casts Dim Light, since there is dim light between yourself and the moon, there is no darkness in the middle, unless somebody were to cast the darkness spell, that is, or create some other form of magical darkness.
So what the text does means is only that there is still darkness outside at night even on moonlit nights. For example, if you're walking through a forest, the canopy of the trees will block the moon light from illuminating the ground, you are facing darkness while being outside and it's a moonlit night. The shadows of buildings also are likely to now be areas of darkness at night where the midday sun, they would probably be brightly lit or at worst dimly lit.
No, all of that is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that the radius of illumination of the moon would reach all the way to our world in 5e -- other sources of light only have a radius of 20 feet, 40 feet, etc. The book is not saying anything about being under a thick canopy such that the moonlight somehow cannot reach you. It is saying that unless it's a full moon then the moonlight alone is not strong enough to promote the area out of the Darkness category and into the Dim Light category. A moonlit night is considered to be darkness, as per the rule book. And yet, people can always look up through this darkness and see the moon because of course they can.
Look, the darkness spell says "magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." It's not like regular darkness. It spreads. It occupies open air and makes open spaces dark. It's not just the absence of light. It's a non-physical thing which absorbs all light (which isn't sufficiently magical to overcome it). That text you quote about blocking it with an object reinforces this - it's a non-physical substance which spreads from the origin point or item. It radiates darkness like the light spell radiates light. It really is a black ball that is impenetrable to any normal sight, including darkvision.
The spell didn't need to call out normal vision, because normal vision can't see into darkness. And since the darkness emanates and blocks illumination, that means no seeing through either because the air is also in darkness. It only needed to call out darkvision, which normally can see through darkness.
(If there's light you can see, there isn't darkness between you, there's at least dim light, at least with respect to the light itself. And the game says you can encounter darkness at night, not that everything is darkness at night. The moon (if out/visible) provides dim light to everything the light of the moon can hit. Shadows at night are in darkness.)
You're fond of quoting the designers. Crawford has specifically (and repeatedly) said that Darkness is not like non-magical darkness, so you can't treat it like non-magical darkness (if you don't think the spell description is enough, but you require a designer to tell you how it works). (He's also said devil's sight only sees through the Darkness spell, not Hunger of Hadar, which I disagree with him on, but that implies nothing can see through Hunger except a True Sight spell according to Crawford).
Seeing requires more than a single photon, too. Any amount of light sufficient for seeing is sufficient for illumination, and that amount of light cannot enter or pass through a darkness spell, because it would illuminate the open space, which cannot be illuminated.
"No, all of that is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that the radius of illumination of the moon would reach all the way to our world in 5e -- other sources of light only have a radius of 20 feet, 40 feet, etc. The book is not saying anything about being under a thick canopy such that the moonlight somehow cannot reach you. It is saying that unless it's a full moon then the moonlight alone is not strong enough to promote the area out of the Darkness category and into the Dim Light category. A moonlit night is considered to be darkness, as per the rule book. And yet, people can always look up through this darkness and see the moon because of course they can."
RoFL. I suppose you think the light of the sun doesn't illuminate the world during the daytime in DND either, because it can't have bright light out to that radius, right? So daytime is also in darkness? I don't need the rulebook to tell me that moonlight makes the default dim light, i only have to look outside at night when the moon is visible.
It really is a black ball that is impenetrable to any normal sight, including darkvision.
The spell description for the Darkness spell simply does not say either of these things. They are made up statements. The rule of thumb is that spells do exactly what they say. Nothing more and nothing less.
And since the darkness emanates and blocks illumination, that means no seeing through either because the air is also in darkness. It only needed to call out darkvision, which normally can see through darkness.
Drawing that conclusion makes no sense. Whether or not you can see "through" Darkness as opposed to "into" Darkness has nothing to do with the properties of mundane darkness or of the Darkness spell. The properties of darkness are ONLY such that you cannot see "into" it, meaning, you cannot see the things that are within it. This is the concept of a Heavily Obscured area. An entirely separate concept -- the concept of Line of Sight -- is what dictates whether not you can see "through" an area, and that concept has nothing to do with mundane darkness or the Darkness spell.
Darkvision states this: "you can see . . . in Darkness within that [specified] range as if it were Dim Light." This means that you can see "through" the area as if it were Dim Light, which means that you can do it. This doesn't really matter of course because you can already see "through" darkness anyway, since nothing actually blocks your Line of Sight. It also means that you can see the things that are "within" the area as if the area were Dim Light. THIS makes a really big difference. That's because with normal vision you are blinded when trying to see something within an area of Darkness. So, the Darkness spell stating that Darkvision "can't see through it", if taken super literally without context, means almost nothing. That's because you would just use your normal vision to see through it. If it actually means that you can no longer use your Darkvision to see the things that are within the Darkness as if the area were Dim Light (which is the correct interpretation), then this is a much more meaningful portion of the spell effect.
And the game says you can encounter darkness at night, not that everything is darkness at night. The moon (if out/visible) provides dim light to everything the light of the moon can hit.
This is absolutely NOT the written rule. It says this:
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.
The only reasonable interpretation of this rule is that a moonlit night (with the exception of some especially bright full moon nights) is classified into the category of Darkness for the purposes of which rules we should be using when attacking enemies and so on. Each of these are broad categories. For the purposes of being able to see "through" the darkness, there is no mechanical difference between a moonlit night and absolute darkness (such as the sort of darkness that is provided by the Darkness spell).
You're fond of quoting the designers. Crawford has specifically (and repeatedly) said that Darkness is not like non-magical darkness, so you can't treat it like non-magical darkness (if you don't think the spell description is enough, but you require a designer to tell you how it works). (He's also said devil's sight only sees through the Darkness spell, not Hunger of Hadar, which I disagree with him on, but that implies nothing can see through Hunger except a True Sight spell according to Crawford).
I actually am not fond of any such thing. In a great many threads, I have pointed out how the designers are wrong in their informal comments about RAW and sometimes even within the Sage Advice, which is merely a glimpse into possible RAI, but not RAW. If Crawford has said as you describe above, then he was wrong when he said it. In addition, you always have to check the date on such comments, most of which were made before the 2024 version of the rules were released, making most of those older comments obsolete.
Hunger of Hadar is beyond the scope here, but this is an example of a spell that changed quite dramatically from the 2014 version to the 2024 version. One detail to note about Hunger of Hadar though -- that spell description explicitly states: "creatures fullywithin it have the Blinded condition". That verbiage is conspicuously absent from the general rules for mundane darkness and also from the spell description for the Darkness spell. People often make the assumption that darkness and the Darkness spell actually do this, but they do not. The fact that Hunger of Hadar goes out of its way to be explicit about that means that it is necessary to do so because it's not the default for Darkness.
Seeing requires more than a single photon, too. Any amount of light sufficient for seeing is sufficient for illumination, and that amount of light cannot enter or pass through a darkness spell, because it would illuminate the open space, which cannot be illuminated.
This is simply not the case in the real world nor is it the case in the game world. For real world examples, see my red LED in a pitch-black bedroom example and my single star in a night sky example. Some quick google searching will inform the reader as to the difference between the amount of light that can be detected vs the amount of light that is required for illumination. Inability to illuminate an area does not lead to a conclusion that light cannot pass through an area. It just doesn't. They are two separate concepts.
In game terms, of course, the inability to illuminate is talking about promoting the area all the way up to the Dim Light or Bright Light categories, as would be the case if the Daylight spell were cast in such a way that it overlaps with the AoE of the Darkness spell, for example. The game never explicitly says this but there are plenty of context clues. Most places in the game that talk about illumination will be referring in some way to the game's simplified model of bright light, dim light and darkness.
I am trying to help you by explaining how these things work in this game. If you do not appreciate my efforts, then you do not need to continue posting.
I suppose you think the light of the sun doesn't illuminate the world during the daytime in DND either, because it can't have bright light out to that radius, right? So daytime is also in darkness?
If you are actually asking -- no, I do not think that. There is actually a rule for this as well:
Bright Light. Bright Light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide Bright Light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
So, by default, the sun provides bright light. The outdoor environment would have to be subject to extremely unusual levels of cloud cover or inclement weather to plunge the bright light provided by the sun into the category of Dim Light.
I don't need the rulebook to tell me that moonlight makes the default dim light, i only have to look outside at night when the moon is visible.
Well, you would be creating a homebrew rule in that case. In this game, the Rules As Written state that a moonlit night is classified within the category of Darkness.
Look, let's keep this simple. The spell explicitly states that darkness spreads from the point. This isn't just stuff in deep shadow. The air is covered in darkness. It's a nontangible thing that occupies the air. If you can't see in that air, you can't see through that air. Because to see through it, you have to see in it. Not being able to see in that air means the whole thing is pitch black. You can't even see there is open air there.
And yes, if you're inside Darkness, that means you're blind (bar a way that does work explicitly), because you can't see in the air all around your head, so you can't see through that air either.
This is all necessarily required. If there's a light in the distance shining through nonmagical darkness, you can clearly see in the air between that light in yourself, because otherwise you could not see the light. The light illuminates its own path.
What you're arguing for is making the sphere invisible (with light just magically passing through it and not being affected by anything in the area), and that's not what the spell says at all. If the spell meant invisibility, it would say so.
This isn't just stuff in deep shadow. The air is covered in darkness. It's a nontangible thing that occupies the air. If you can't see in that air, you can't see through that air. Because to see through it, you have to see in it. Not being able to see in that air means the whole thing is pitch black. You can't even see there is open air there.
Again, the spell description simply does not say any of this. Spells only do what they say.
The existence of a magical spell effect that fills a specific AoE in and of itself has no real consequential mechanical meaning. It only matters what that magical effect actually is and does as determined by the spell description. The spell description of the Darkness spell states that the spell effect is an area of magical Darkness. On D&DBeyond, the word Darkness is linked to the rules for mundane darkness. From this portion of the description alone, there is nothing at all different about this magical darkness than regular mundane darkness. The actually differences are explicitly written into the spell -- this magical darkness is such that Darkvision can't see through it and that nonmagical light can't illuminate it. That's it. (Along with the bits about being able to cover the object and how it interacts with overlapping spells) Those are all of the differences from how mundane darkness works. Nothing more and nothing less. Spells do what they say.
And yes, if you're inside Darkness, that means you're blind (bar a way that does work explicitly), because you can't see in the air all around your head, so you can't see through that air either.
This is incorrect. Again, note that the Hunger of Hadar spell explicitly declares that creatures fully within the area are blinded. The Darkness spell does not say that, nor do the general rules for mundane darkness. Spells only do what they say.
This is all necessarily required. If there's a light in the distance shining through nonmagical darkness, you can clearly see in the air between that light in yourself, because otherwise you could not see the light. The light illuminates its own path.
None of this is true in real life or in the game. Some quick google searching on the topic would be helpful here.
What you're arguing for is making the sphere invisible (with light just magically passing through it and not being affected by anything in the area), and that's not what the spell says at all. If the spell meant invisibility, it would say so.
Who said anything about an invisible sphere? The sphere is filled with darkness, which just means that creatures cannot see things that are within the sphere. Darkness does not blind the creature, nor does it actually create any sort of physical interruption of the creature's Line of Sight. Nothing about any of these rules prevents the creature from looking out of the darkness and into a more well-lit area or detecting distant light sources such as the stars in the sky.
This isn't just stuff in deep shadow. The air is covered in darkness. It's a nontangible thing that occupies the air. If you can't see in that air, you can't see through that air. Because to see through it, you have to see in it. Not being able to see in that air means the whole thing is pitch black. You can't even see there is open air there.
Again, the spell description simply does not say any of this. Spells only do what they say.
The spell description absolutely does say that. It radiates darkness. That's not at all like normal darkness. The air is in darkness. The air can't be illuminated. Ergo, you can't see through it. It's an opaque sphere because the darkness is in the air.
Who said anything about an invisible sphere? The sphere is filled with darkness, which just means that creatures cannot see things that are within the sphere. Darkness does not blind the creature, nor does it actually create any sort of physical interruption of the creature's Line of Sight. Nothing about any of these rules prevents the creature from looking out of the darkness and into a more well-lit area or detecting distant light sources such as the stars in the sky.
You did, when you said light can pass through it.
The sphere is filled with darkness that obscures even the air. You can't see through it, because right in front of you is darkness. To see through it is to see into it, and that you can't do.
What you want to be true is akin to invisibility or a pocket dimension or something. It involves no darkness, you just magically can't see what's in the area, but the light just travels straight through it without interacting with it. That's literally invisibility.
Darkness doesn't work like that. It interacts with light, it doesn't ignore light and let it pass through.
(Light propogates through space. It has to traverse each planck length discretely, and definitionally it is illuminated, because it is light = illumination. You can see a light source normally because the air between you and the light source is full of photons, and thus it is not darkness, definitionally. Natural darkness is where almost no light can reflect off the surface and reach your eyes, ie, there are no photons in the air from that source. So if the air itself is in darkness and can't be illuminated, as per the Darkness spell, there can't be enough photons in the air to see by, or it's illuminating the darkness. If the light is traveling through the space and not interacting with things in the darkness, that's definitionally invisibility of anything in it, not darkness. So Darkness must absorb/block photons, or the spell cannot work as described).
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
RAW (Rules As Written): Up2ng is technically correct.
RAI (Rules As Intended / Common Play): Squirrelloid is functionally correct.
Here’s Why:
What the Spell Actually Says (PHB p.230 / SRD):
“Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.” — Player’s Handbook (2014, p.230); also on Roll20 Compendium
Key details:
It says nonmagical light can’t illuminate it, not that “no light can pass through.”
It says darkvision can’t see through it, implying creatures can’t see inside the area — but it doesn’t explicitly say vision can’t pass through it to things beyond.
What Up2ng Is Arguing
He’s reading RAW literally:
“Heavily obscured” (PHB p.183) means you can’t see into the area, not necessarily that line of sight is physically blocked.
Nothing in the spell text says it absorbs or blocks light, only that it can’t be illuminated.
Therefore, the spell doesn’t describe an opaque sphere — just an area where vision fails.
This interpretation fits the exact wording and aligns with RAW-only logic.
What Squirrelloid (and R3sistance) Are Arguing
They interpret Darkness as a visually opaque sphere:
Because it’s a heavily obscured area (“blocks vision entirely,” PHB p.183), most DMs treat it like you can’t see into or through it.
“Spreads from a point” suggests the air is filled with magical darkness, so sight stops at the boundary.
That’s the common RAI and how the Sage Advice rulings read it.
Official Clarification (Sage Advice / Jeremy Crawford)
Jeremy Crawford has said:
“Magical darkness creates an area that blocks vision entirely. You can’t see through it, even to the far side.” — Jeremy Crawford on X (Dec 2017)
This isn’t a new rule but confirms Rules As Intended — Darkness is functionally opaque.
The Bottom Line
Perspective
Interpretation
Who’s Right
RAW (literal text)
Light can pass through; you just can’t see things inside it. You could theoretically see what’s beyond.
✅ Up2ng
RAI / Common Table Use
The area is fully opaque; you can’t see through or into it.
✅ Squirrelloid
Physics/Realism
Irrelevant — D&D abstracts light and vision.
❌ Not applicable
Summary
RAW doesn’t technically say magical darkness blocks light or vision completely — only that you can’t see through it with darkvision and that nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. However, official commentary and most DMs treat it as blocking sight in both directions, effectively making it an opaque sphere for tactical purposes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
Uh, yeah, let me know if im just plain wrong :Thumbs_Up:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
This isn't just stuff in deep shadow. The air is covered in darkness. It's a nontangible thing that occupies the air. If you can't see in that air, you can't see through that air. Because to see through it, you have to see in it. Not being able to see in that air means the whole thing is pitch black. You can't even see there is open air there.
Again, the spell description simply does not say any of this. Spells only do what they say.
The spell description absolutely does say that. It radiates darkness. That's not at all like normal darkness. The air is in darkness. The air can't be illuminated. Ergo, you can't see through it. It's an opaque sphere because the darkness is in the air.
No. The spell description has been quoted. It absolutely does not say these things. You are making up functionality for the spell that is not written.
The air is in mundane darkness too. There is no difference there. The magical darkness of the Darkness spell and mundane darkness behave in identical ways for the most part. The differences are explicitly written into the spell description.
Who said anything about an invisible sphere? . . .
You did, when you said light can pass through it.
Ummm, those aren't the same thing. I have many glass windows in my house and light can pass through them. The glass panes are not invisible -- I can see them.
To see through it is to see into it, and that you can't do.
Seeing "through" it and seeing "into" it is two different things, dictated by two different rules. One follows the rules for Heavily Obscured Areas. The other follows the rules for Line of Sight. Darkness prevents creatures from seeing the things that are within the area. It does not prevent creatures from seeing through the area. It does not generally blind a creature (by forcing the creature to have the blinded condition). Instead, a creature ONLY has the blinded condition when trying to see something within the area.
Darkness doesn't work like that. It interacts with light, it doesn't ignore light and let it pass through.
Nothing in the game says anything like this.
Here is what the game actually has to say about darkness:
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.
Or, from the Rules Glossary:
Darkness
An area of Darkness is Heavily Obscured.
Mechanically, that is all that is happening in areas of darkness. Anything more than that is just assumptions and homebrew inventions.
(Light propogates through space. It has to traverse each planck length discretely, and definitionally it is illuminated, because it is light = illumination. You can see a light source normally because the air between you and the light source is full of photons, and thus it is not darkness, definitionally. Natural darkness is where almost no light can reflect off the surface and reach your eyes, ie, there are no photons in the air from that source. So if the air itself is in darkness and can't be illuminated, as per the Darkness spell, there can't be enough photons in the air to see by, or it's illuminating the darkness. If the light is traveling through the space and not interacting with things in the darkness, that's definitionally invisibility of anything in it, not darkness. So Darkness must absorb/block photons, or the spell cannot work as described).
Unfortunately, your own definition of Darkness does not align with how the game defines the Darkness category of Light:
Light
The presence or absence of light determines the category of illumination in an area, as defined below.
Bright Light. . . .
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.
Because it’s a heavily obscured area (“blocks vision entirely,” PHB p.183), most DMs treat it like you can’t see into or through it.
Just an FYI, the "blocks vision entirely" is old verbiage from the 2014 edition. This has since been updated in the 2024 rules and replaced with the word "opaque". The word "opaque" is absent from the Rules Glossary definition.
Vision and Light
Some adventuring tasks—such as noticing danger, hitting an enemy, and targeting certain spells—are affected by sight, so effects that obscure vision can hinder you, as explained below.
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.
When read all the way through all at once (context clues) it should become reasonably clear that the word "opaque" here is just a stylistic transition word (flavor text) as the author compares and contrasts the concepts of a Lightly Obscured area to a Heavily Obscured area. It also serves as an introductory word which is immediately followed by what is actually meant by that word in this context. In other words, "opaque" in this context means that you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there.
For completeness, this is how it reads in the Rules Glossary:
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space.
RAW (Rules As Written): Up2ng is technically correct.
RAI (Rules As Intended / Common Play): Squirrelloid is functionally correct.
I agree with your overall analysis on this topic. However, I would push back on the notion that the other interpretation is the "RAI" interpretation, although I do agree that it is clearly the "Common Play" interpretation.
I believe that it was actually intended to be played as I've described. The main reason for this has to do with all of the effort that the spell description goes through to suggest a tactic where you would cast the spell onto an object and then carry that object around with you. In addition, this portion of the description parallels very closely with that same portion of the spell description of the Light spell -- and in the case of the Light spell, it is very common for people to actually play it this way, including the common tactic of casting Light onto an object and carrying it around with you. All of this is even more compelling in the 2014 version of the spell which explicitly allowed you to cast the Darkness spell onto an object "that you are holding". To me, it really reads like the spell was designed and intended for people to do exactly that.
From Darkness (2024):
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.
From Light (2024):
Covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
I disagree on RAW. The darkness radiates from the source. That is not behaving like normal darkness. And no light can illuminate anything in it. That means it can't illuminate the air. It can't illuminate your retinas (so you can't see anything while in the darkness). Unlike normal darkness, which is just the absence of light (and so light can pass through the open air above the darkness), this is an energy that blankets the entire area, including the open air, in the absence of light. And that's what it says, RAW.
Can you see through a fog cloud? No. A fog cloud blocks all sight. Opaque means you cannot see through it. Definitionally. Changing 'blocks vision entirely' to 'opaque' is just less words for the same sense, so nothing has actually changed.
As to the 'cover it up to block it', that's been present in the Darkness spell since at least 1st edition AD+D. And Darkness was absolutely an impenetrable sphere of blackness in prior editions. So that is not hinting at a strategy for seeing out of it, because that's some weird interpretation you have that was never true in the history of D+D, despite the 'carry it around with something blocking it' always existing. Instead, the entire purpose of doing that was to blind people in the darkness (generally because you had some sort of blindsight, blindfighting, truesight, or other way to see in the darkness), and to be able to turn it on and off at will. (Also, it made more sense back then, when spells just had duration and there was no 'concentration', so it didn't cost anything but the spell slot and could passively remain up for the duration).
Finally, I'd note that "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space." is better read as: while trying to see something, you are blind while in a heavily obscured space. (If they meant the thing you were trying to see was in a heavily obscured space, the better language would have included "that is" between 'something' and 'in'.) And indeed, it doesn't make sense to say you're blind while trying to look into a heavily obscured space, because you're not blind, you can see things not in the heavily obscured space at the same time you're looking at the heavily obscured space. You only have the blinded condition while you can't see anything, which only makes sense if you are the one inthe heavily obscured space. After all, the blinded condition says "you can't see", not just 'you can't see one area'. So up2ng's interpretation of Heavily Obscured is almost certainly wrong, RAW. And this better aligns the choice of the word 'opaque' with the declared effect, so we don't have to assume its a meaningless word choice = more parsimonious.
Similarly, "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." '..trying to see something there' makes more sense if you're the one there, given what the blinded condition does. And that is not an improper reading of that language.
I think up2ng's position is absolute nonsense. If someone did manage to ask a designer if that was how darkness worked, they'd probably laugh in your face. Good luck finding any table that plays that way.
Uh, yeah, let me know if im just plain wrong :Thumbs_Up:
I don't agree with the verdict for the "RAW" part. Here's my simple interpretation:
[A] Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness [...] in an area of magical Darkness.
[B] You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space (e.g. an area of magical Darkness)
But the thread derailed a couple of days ago, the OP’s question was already answered, and I'm not mad enough to rehash this topic, since the arguments here are basically the same as in past threads. My humble recommendation: check out other threads and make your own ruling/verdict:
Darkness is described as opaque and opaque in this context clearly means "blocks light",
Actually, it's the context clues that make it clear that this is NOT what is meant by "opaque" in this game. It means that the things that are located within the area in question cannot be seen at all (as opposed to clearly or with some difficulty)
Blocks light is basically the dictionary definition of the word Opaque, show where it means anything then that, this is just your own assertion that it means anything but the dictionary definition at this point.
No, it doesn't. And you won't be able to quote anything from any official publication that says that it does.
Again, the word opaque already specifically states that it does. Magical darkness goes further and says it can not be illuminated by non-magical light, so we know the spell certain does.
2) "Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)..."
As far as the the Moon goes, the Moon literally casts Dim Light, since there is dim light between yourself and the moon, there is no darkness in the middle, unless somebody were to cast the darkness spell, that is, or create some other form of magical darkness.
So what the text does means is only that there is still darkness outside at night even on moonlit nights. For example, if you're walking through a forest, the canopy of the trees will block the moon light from illuminating the ground, you are facing darkness while being outside and it's a moonlit night. The shadows of buildings also are likely to now be areas of darkness at night where the midday sun, they would probably be brightly lit or at worst dimly lit.
No, all of that is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that the radius of illumination of the moon would reach all the way to our world in 5e -- other sources of light only have a radius of 20 feet, 40 feet, etc. The book is not saying anything about being under a thick canopy such that the moonlight somehow cannot reach you. It is saying that unless it's a full moon then the moonlight alone is not strong enough to promote the area out of the Darkness category and into the Dim Light category. A moonlit night is considered to be darkness, as per the rule book. And yet, people can always look up through this darkness and see the moon because of course they can.
The book takes many liberties in not fully describing things, the wording is not that the Moon doesn't illuminate everything, it's that there are still areas of darkness within a moonlit night. So are you suggesting that nights that aren't full moons are also considered moonlit? Also there is no reason to assume the radius of illumination of the sun would reach the forgotten realms within 5E, since again, that also has no radius. Clearly on a moonlit night, the moon IS illuminating the world/plane/planet/etc and so clearly the world is lit by both.
This is to say that again, the rules do not care about light on a cosmic level, the rules only care about light on the level of the local map, as such the Sun and Moon aren't given specific radius, because they produce so much light over so much of a range that it's irrelevant to running a campaign.
Again, moonlit is a term used to describe something but it, itself isn't defined. However the only description we have of the moon lighting anything is a full moon under the dim light section. As such, there is no reason to assume that a moonlit night refers to anything but a night of the full moon and as such it'll be down to the DM to determine which areas of a map are lit and which are in darkness due to shadow. This is different to Dusk/Dawn where there would not be areas of natural darkness outside but the map would still only be dim lit.
I have to say, when up2ng first posted I was fully opposed to their interpretation. But honestly, RAW (for 2014), I feel they are correct and it does kind of change how you would use the Darkness spell (and I think makes it more interesting).
I'm going to spell out why I think they are right RAW, but I understand that there has been Sage Advice from one of the designers that directly refutes this. The Sage Advice can be the final word for many tables, but I'm just going to say how I see it. I disagreed with the designers on not being able to Twin Spell Dragon's Breath anyway, because to me their Sage Advice is adding things to the rules that aren't there instead of showing the "correct" interpretation of the rules.
So from what I can see, there really aren't that many rules to go over for this. People keep talking about how "you can't illuminate the air" and "the radius of moonlight", but I think that is all pretty inconsequential.
Here's what we have: Darkness : Creates "Darkness" in a 15ft sphere, Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. None of this means light cannot pass through it, it simply states light cannot illuminate it. This is a bit of an interpretation, but to me "illuminate" means raising the "light level", so from Darkness to Dim Light, Dim Light to Bright Light. So because non-magical light cannot illuminate it, no matter the brightness of light sources the area will remain "Darkness" and not "Dim Light" or "Bright Light". We can see this in the 2014 PHB: "The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."
So what is the definition of "Darkness" that the spell creates? "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness." Note that the broad definition for mundane Darkness includes "an area of magical darkness", suggesting there is nothing different from mundane darkness to magical darkness except specifically what the spell says ("darkvision cannot see through it").
So what is heavily obscured? "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area. Here we have a bit of an issue, as I can see why people say you cannot see through the Darkness because it describes it as "block[ing] vision entirely." However we know that it isn't the case the Darkness always blocks vision entirely because "Characters face darkness outdoors at night", and I don't think anyone would argue that a character wouldn't be able to see a torch at night from 50 feet away, even thought they are outside of the radius of the light the torch emanates. It makes more sense that it simply means what it says, when trying to see something in that area you cannot, as you are blinded.
So we have the Darkness spell, which creates the Darkness environment, which means the area is heavily obscured, and heavily obscured is defined as you are blinded if you are trying to see things that are in the area of heavy obscurement.
So what I imagine in my mind is a classroom with two doorways. The classroom is dark, no lights on it it. You are standing in the hallway by door A, and the hallway is illuminated. Door B, directly across from you, is also open, and opens to an illuminated hallway. Can you see someone standing in the other hallway by door B if you are by door A? Absolutely. But could you see someone standing in the corner of the room? Nope, too dark. If you are in your room which is totally dark, and someone opens the door and the hallway there is illuminated, can you see that person? Absolutely. Can they see you if you are still in an area that is dark (not lit by the hallway light?)? Nope! So really, it intuitively makes sense to me that Darkness is meant to conceal the things in the Darkness and not prevent those in the Darkness from seeing out.
I think it boils down to this scenario: Your party is under fire from archers up on a wall. Is it better to cast Darkness on the archers, or on your party? I think RAI many will say the archers, and I get how people get to that conclusion (it is what the Sage Advice seems to say), however to me it makes sense to cast it on the party, putting them in an area of Heavily Obscured, which means the archers are blinded when trying to see into the Darkness where the party is. This also makes sense with casting Darkness on an object that you can carry with you and just cover when you don't need the effect, and uncover when it is beneficial to you.
At any rate, I think however you rule it is fine as long as you are internally consistent at your table. But for me, it seems to make sense with the RAW that you cannot see into an area of Darkness, but you could see out of it if you are in it, and through it to the other side.
So what is heavily obscured? "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area. Here we have a bit of an issue, as I can see why people say you cannot see through the Darkness because it describes it as "block[ing] vision entirely." However we know that it isn't the case the Darkness always blocks vision entirely because "Characters face darkness outdoors at night", and I don't think anyone would argue that a character wouldn't be able to see a torch at night from 50 feet away, even thought they are outside of the radius of the light the torch emanates. It makes more sense that it simply means what it says, when trying to see something in that area you cannot, as you are blinded.
No, it says while you are in an area of darkness, you have the blinded condition. "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space." If it meant while looking into a heavily obscured space, it should say 'You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something that is in a heavily obscured space.' As written, 'in a Heavily Obscured space' is a separate clause, and refers back to the subject of the sentence, you, not the object of the sentence.
And that makes sense with the rules. If you are in darkness, you cannot see anything, which is what blinded does.
If instead you were outside looking in, it doesn't make sense to say you are blinded, because you can still see things outside Heavily Obscured space. You are not blinded, which is an absolute removal of vision. (Blinded is a global condition - you cannot see anything at all).
So what I imagine in my mind is a classroom with two doorways. The classroom is dark, no lights on it it. You are standing in the hallway by door A, and the hallway is illuminated. Door B, directly across from you, is also open, and opens to an illuminated hallway. Can you see someone standing in the other hallway by door B if you are by door A? Absolutely. But could you see someone standing in the corner of the room? Nope, too dark. If you are in your room which is totally dark, and someone opens the door and the hallway there is illuminated, can you see that person? Absolutely. Can they see you if you are still in an area that is dark (not lit by the hallway light?)? Nope! So really, it intuitively makes sense to me that Darkness is meant to conceal the things in the Darkness and not prevent those in the Darkness from seeing out.
The classroom is not dark in your example. The area between the two doors (and to some radius around that path) is illuminated (indeed, the doorway itself and some area around it is probably brightly lit, and much of the room is probably dimly lit). The corners of the room may be in darkness (depending on the light intensity), but the whole room is not. If it was in darkness, you could not see the other door and that the hallway is lit (which, of course, with normal light behavior, is impossible - the fact that the hallway is lit and the door is open means light spills into the room and illuminates at least part of it). And the reason for that is light spills out of the doorway and across the room, illuminating what it reaches with sufficient intensity to make visible. You can see someone across the room near the other door because they are illuminated - they are not in darkness - and that light reaches your eyes, because the light also illuminates you. If the light doesn't illuminate you enough to activate your retina, you can't see it, definitionally.
If the opposite door was closed (and fit well enough that only a little bit of light could be seen through the crack under the door), most of the room would be in darkness, but the crack under the door is not, nor a small radius around it, and the air between your eyes and the door is illuminated enough that you can see the light under the door.
Magical Darkness does not work like normal light. It spreads out rather than just being the lack of light. It has intangible "substance" to it. And it cannot be illuminated, not even the air, so if it was in the classroom between the two doors, light from the lit hallway couldn't reach you at the other door, because it cannot illuminate the air where the magical darkness is, which means the light that was traveling from the hallway to you can't, because it can't illuminate the space between and the light can't travel to your retina. (Think of light as a series of time slices, where each slice is the light of an instant. These propogate through space - illumination is just the presence of photons. Cannot be illuminated means no photons can traverse that space. This is not how normal darkness works - normal darkness doesn't radiate, and normal darkness can be illuminated, that is, photons can travel through it, and make it not dark, partially or wholely.
Here's what we have: Darkness : Creates "Darkness" in a 15ft sphere, Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. None of this means light cannot pass through it, it simply states light cannot illuminate it. This is a bit of an interpretation, but to me "illuminate" means raising the "light level", so from Darkness to Dim Light, Dim Light to Bright Light. So because non-magical light cannot illuminate it, no matter the brightness of light sources the area will remain "Darkness" and not "Dim Light" or "Bright Light". We can see this in the 2014 PHB: "The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."
Not exactly. "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." It spreads from a source point. This tells you right off it is not normal darkness, because it radiates darkness. Normal darkness doesn't behave like that (it's just the absence of light). And that means it fills the whole sphere, it's not just where light can't reach, which means the air itself is covered in darkness. And the rulebook specifically says this kind of thing is opaque. That means you can't see through it, definitionally.
And it not being like normal darkness is why you can't see out of it, because the air itself is filled with opaque magical darkness.
(Don't get me wrong, the vision rules are horribly incomplete and don't handle normal lighting very well.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That still involves illuminating the silhouettes of whatever is in the darkness. And that doesn't happen, because you can't illuminate anything in the darkness. So that is RAW not how it works.
Darkness is and always has been an opaque black sphere. It has to be, it's the only way the spell functions as described.
I don't see how your diatribe about what illumination is helps your case. No, one photon is not enough. You need many photons. But that means no photons can travel through it, because otherwise at least part of the area of the darkness spell is illuminated.
Nor does your answer to what looking through darkness does make any sense as an explanation. You're illuminating the silhouettes, and illumination is explicitly forbidden.
You have no evidence and no proof that the wording on darkvision is an error. There's no reason to believe its in error at all. If you have to start by believing part of the text is in error, you better have strong textual reasoning from elsewhere to believe that is so, and none of the other text you've cited requires it to be in error. You're simply interpreting the spell incorrectly.
Illumination is not defined in game terms. It does not mean dim light or better. It means what the word illumination normally means. So no evidence for your interpretation there.
Regardless, if you can see the silhouettes, you're effectively in dim light. Lack of at least dim light means you can't see anything. So if you can see silhouettes, you are not following RAW, even if we assume illumination = at least dim light. You have to be able to see nothing in the area of darkness, including not seeing silhouettes. And that must mean it's impossible to see through.
Your streetlight example is just wrong. There is no darkness between the streetlights in that example, because if there was, you couldn't see the other streetlight. The light shining from the far streetlight means that the line between must be at least dimly lit, because light is reaching your eyes. Darkness means no light reaches your eyes. Sure, some dip in the ground might be in darkness, but not everything between you and the other street lamp can be.
Magical Darkness, however, creates a sphere of this stuff. The spell stops light from penetrating it - that's what makes it darkness. You can't see through it. If you could, it would be illuminated, and that would violated the RAW of the spell. If there was magical darkness between two street lamps, you could not see the other street lamp through it without violating the rules as written.
Can you identify a single table where Darkness has been played like you say where you weren't the DM?
Darkness is described as opaque and opaque in this context clearly means "blocks light", I don't get how people are flinging out multi-paragraph responses against this. This is because the rules don't care about light on a cosmic level but on the level of the local played map. Personally I do believe the rules are very lackluster when it comes to light as technically it does not say how you treat an area between yourself and a source of blight or dim light, which should technically be treated as an area of darkness. As such, I can understand the confusion but this is dragging on too long for something that there is a very clear and simple answer for, darkness blocks light in D&D.
As far as the the Moon goes, the Moon literally casts Dim Light, since there is dim light between yourself and the moon, there is no darkness in the middle, unless somebody were to cast the darkness spell, that is, or create some other form of magical darkness.
So what the text does means is only that there is still darkness outside at night even on moonlit nights. For example, if you're walking through a forest, the canopy of the trees will block the moon light from illuminating the ground, you are facing darkness while being outside and it's a moonlit night. The shadows of buildings also are likely to now be areas of darkness at night where the midday sun, they would probably be brightly lit or at worst dimly lit.
The reason is because people are conflating the idea that a particular area of darkness cannot be illuminated with the concept that light is unable to travel through the area (to reach your eyes, for example). I was explaining that those are two separate concepts and that the Darkness spell addresses one of these concepts and is silent on the other.
An area of Darkness in 5e is an area where the objects within it cannot be seen. It means nothing more than that. Those are the rules as they are written. Claiming that no light can reach your eyes while you are located within an area of darkness is demonstrably false considering that the rulebook explicitly uses this example:
Hopefully it is obvious why these statements are contradictory without it having to be pointed out. If one photon is not enough to illuminate an area, then it should be obvious that it is possible for more than zero photons to travel through an area without illuminating it. Especially considering the fact that illumination in this game refers to the process of changing an area of darkness into an area of Dim Light or Bright Light or changing an area of Dim Light into an area of Bright Light. And that requires quite a lot of light. After all, even moonlight is unable to accomplish this in most cases, according to the rulebook.
The silhouettes that I am talking about are not illuminated. The area is still an area of darkness. These silhouettes would be just indications that my Line of Sight to a well-lit area is partially blocked for some unknown reason. In the campfire example there would just be an area of blackness covering up a portion of the area around the campfire that I would normally be able to see. Nothing more than that. If I attempted to look at this blackness, I would not actually see anything. That's because I would be blinded while trying to see something that's within an area of darkness. However, if I am NOT trying to see something that's within an area of darkness, then I am NOT blinded. When trying to see the things that are within the area around the campfire, I would be able to see most of those things, but I would also notice that there is some sort of silhouette of blackness blocking my Line of Sight to a portion of the area around the campfire.
So, you don't think that there's any error in the idea that the spell might "block" darkvision but not regular vision? That's certainly possible but it's pretty unlikely.
It is far more likely that this portion of the spell was written in error in exactly one of two possible ways:
-- The spell should "block" darkvision and also regular vision.
OR
-- The spell is attempting to say that darkvision does not function in the manner that it normally does -- in which case the author should not have use the phrase "can't see through it" and instead should have used a description that more accurately describes the intent.
In context, it's pretty obvious that it's the second option, although it's not a slam dunk.
It's true that there is no formal definition given, but there are plenty of context clues to be able to understand what is meant in game terms. This concept is open to interpretation. My interpretation is the best one, but there could be others.
This is incorrect for a couple of reasons.
The game explicitly goes out of its way to explain that being located in mundane darkness does NOT cause the blinded condition. You ONLY have the blinded condition when trying to see something that's within the area of darkness. That cannot be reiterated strongly enough. It's an incredibly important distinction.
Also, darkness does not mean absolute darkness whereby the presence of even a single photon of light creates Dim Light. That's not how either of those two broad categories of light are described. The game simplifies things into three broad categories, each of which encompass many different levels of illumination. Darkness is one of those categories. Remember, a moonlit night is classified as an area of darkness.
No. That second sentence is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the information that is given in that first sentence.
Just because you cannot see the things that are within an area of Darkness does NOT mean that you cannot see through the Darkness. One is the concept of being an area that is Heavily Obscured from view. The other is the concept of a physical obstacle to your Line of Sight. These two concepts should not be conflated. They mean different things.
It's not wrong. It's my example. I created it. I am saying that there is darkness between the streetlights and so there is darkness there -- I am the one that is setting up the example.
Furthermore, the conclusion that you are drawing here is incorrect, as seen in my previous posts about photons. For example, if in our real world we lived in a world where we had no moon and we had only one single faint star in our entire night sky . . . if we were outside in such an environment we would see absolutely nothing. For all intents and purposes we would perceive this environment as absolute darkness. And yet, we would still be able to look up and see that single star shining in our sky. That's because light from that star is traveling through our darkness, but it provides exactly zero illumination to our area.
The spell description for the Darkness spell says no such thing.
This is irrelevant. In RAW discussions it doesn't matter how people typically play it. It only matters what is written.
However, yes, some tables do play it the way that I am describing. In one case, the people involved made the astute observation that a large portion of the Darkness spell is written and designed in a converse manner to the Light spell:
Light spell:
Darkness:
It becomes even more clear with the 2014 versions of both spells, but the implication is obvious -- in both cases you are meant to use a strategy of carrying this spell effect around with you and blocking it when that is advantageous and leaving it unblocked when that is advantageous. They are both buffing the party in similar ways.
Actually, it's the context clues that make it clear that this is NOT what is meant by "opaque" in this game. It means that the things that are located within the area in question cannot be seen at all (as opposed to clearly or with some difficulty).
No, it doesn't. And you won't be able to quote anything from any official publication that says that it does.
No, all of that is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that the radius of illumination of the moon would reach all the way to our world in 5e -- other sources of light only have a radius of 20 feet, 40 feet, etc. The book is not saying anything about being under a thick canopy such that the moonlight somehow cannot reach you. It is saying that unless it's a full moon then the moonlight alone is not strong enough to promote the area out of the Darkness category and into the Dim Light category. A moonlit night is considered to be darkness, as per the rule book. And yet, people can always look up through this darkness and see the moon because of course they can.
Look, the darkness spell says "magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." It's not like regular darkness. It spreads. It occupies open air and makes open spaces dark. It's not just the absence of light. It's a non-physical thing which absorbs all light (which isn't sufficiently magical to overcome it). That text you quote about blocking it with an object reinforces this - it's a non-physical substance which spreads from the origin point or item. It radiates darkness like the light spell radiates light. It really is a black ball that is impenetrable to any normal sight, including darkvision.
The spell didn't need to call out normal vision, because normal vision can't see into darkness. And since the darkness emanates and blocks illumination, that means no seeing through either because the air is also in darkness. It only needed to call out darkvision, which normally can see through darkness.
(If there's light you can see, there isn't darkness between you, there's at least dim light, at least with respect to the light itself. And the game says you can encounter darkness at night, not that everything is darkness at night. The moon (if out/visible) provides dim light to everything the light of the moon can hit. Shadows at night are in darkness.)
You're fond of quoting the designers. Crawford has specifically (and repeatedly) said that Darkness is not like non-magical darkness, so you can't treat it like non-magical darkness (if you don't think the spell description is enough, but you require a designer to tell you how it works). (He's also said devil's sight only sees through the Darkness spell, not Hunger of Hadar, which I disagree with him on, but that implies nothing can see through Hunger except a True Sight spell according to Crawford).
Seeing requires more than a single photon, too. Any amount of light sufficient for seeing is sufficient for illumination, and that amount of light cannot enter or pass through a darkness spell, because it would illuminate the open space, which cannot be illuminated.
"No, all of that is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that the radius of illumination of the moon would reach all the way to our world in 5e -- other sources of light only have a radius of 20 feet, 40 feet, etc. The book is not saying anything about being under a thick canopy such that the moonlight somehow cannot reach you. It is saying that unless it's a full moon then the moonlight alone is not strong enough to promote the area out of the Darkness category and into the Dim Light category. A moonlit night is considered to be darkness, as per the rule book. And yet, people can always look up through this darkness and see the moon because of course they can."
RoFL. I suppose you think the light of the sun doesn't illuminate the world during the daytime in DND either, because it can't have bright light out to that radius, right? So daytime is also in darkness? I don't need the rulebook to tell me that moonlight makes the default dim light, i only have to look outside at night when the moon is visible.
The spell description for the Darkness spell simply does not say either of these things. They are made up statements. The rule of thumb is that spells do exactly what they say. Nothing more and nothing less.
Drawing that conclusion makes no sense. Whether or not you can see "through" Darkness as opposed to "into" Darkness has nothing to do with the properties of mundane darkness or of the Darkness spell. The properties of darkness are ONLY such that you cannot see "into" it, meaning, you cannot see the things that are within it. This is the concept of a Heavily Obscured area. An entirely separate concept -- the concept of Line of Sight -- is what dictates whether not you can see "through" an area, and that concept has nothing to do with mundane darkness or the Darkness spell.
Darkvision states this: "you can see . . . in Darkness within that [specified] range as if it were Dim Light." This means that you can see "through" the area as if it were Dim Light, which means that you can do it. This doesn't really matter of course because you can already see "through" darkness anyway, since nothing actually blocks your Line of Sight. It also means that you can see the things that are "within" the area as if the area were Dim Light. THIS makes a really big difference. That's because with normal vision you are blinded when trying to see something within an area of Darkness. So, the Darkness spell stating that Darkvision "can't see through it", if taken super literally without context, means almost nothing. That's because you would just use your normal vision to see through it. If it actually means that you can no longer use your Darkvision to see the things that are within the Darkness as if the area were Dim Light (which is the correct interpretation), then this is a much more meaningful portion of the spell effect.
This is absolutely NOT the written rule. It says this:
The only reasonable interpretation of this rule is that a moonlit night (with the exception of some especially bright full moon nights) is classified into the category of Darkness for the purposes of which rules we should be using when attacking enemies and so on. Each of these are broad categories. For the purposes of being able to see "through" the darkness, there is no mechanical difference between a moonlit night and absolute darkness (such as the sort of darkness that is provided by the Darkness spell).
I actually am not fond of any such thing. In a great many threads, I have pointed out how the designers are wrong in their informal comments about RAW and sometimes even within the Sage Advice, which is merely a glimpse into possible RAI, but not RAW. If Crawford has said as you describe above, then he was wrong when he said it. In addition, you always have to check the date on such comments, most of which were made before the 2024 version of the rules were released, making most of those older comments obsolete.
Hunger of Hadar is beyond the scope here, but this is an example of a spell that changed quite dramatically from the 2014 version to the 2024 version. One detail to note about Hunger of Hadar though -- that spell description explicitly states: "creatures fully within it have the Blinded condition". That verbiage is conspicuously absent from the general rules for mundane darkness and also from the spell description for the Darkness spell. People often make the assumption that darkness and the Darkness spell actually do this, but they do not. The fact that Hunger of Hadar goes out of its way to be explicit about that means that it is necessary to do so because it's not the default for Darkness.
This is simply not the case in the real world nor is it the case in the game world. For real world examples, see my red LED in a pitch-black bedroom example and my single star in a night sky example. Some quick google searching will inform the reader as to the difference between the amount of light that can be detected vs the amount of light that is required for illumination. Inability to illuminate an area does not lead to a conclusion that light cannot pass through an area. It just doesn't. They are two separate concepts.
In game terms, of course, the inability to illuminate is talking about promoting the area all the way up to the Dim Light or Bright Light categories, as would be the case if the Daylight spell were cast in such a way that it overlaps with the AoE of the Darkness spell, for example. The game never explicitly says this but there are plenty of context clues. Most places in the game that talk about illumination will be referring in some way to the game's simplified model of bright light, dim light and darkness.
I am trying to help you by explaining how these things work in this game. If you do not appreciate my efforts, then you do not need to continue posting.
If you are actually asking -- no, I do not think that. There is actually a rule for this as well:
So, by default, the sun provides bright light. The outdoor environment would have to be subject to extremely unusual levels of cloud cover or inclement weather to plunge the bright light provided by the sun into the category of Dim Light.
Well, you would be creating a homebrew rule in that case. In this game, the Rules As Written state that a moonlit night is classified within the category of Darkness.
Look, let's keep this simple. The spell explicitly states that darkness spreads from the point. This isn't just stuff in deep shadow. The air is covered in darkness. It's a nontangible thing that occupies the air. If you can't see in that air, you can't see through that air. Because to see through it, you have to see in it. Not being able to see in that air means the whole thing is pitch black. You can't even see there is open air there.
And yes, if you're inside Darkness, that means you're blind (bar a way that does work explicitly), because you can't see in the air all around your head, so you can't see through that air either.
This is all necessarily required. If there's a light in the distance shining through nonmagical darkness, you can clearly see in the air between that light in yourself, because otherwise you could not see the light. The light illuminates its own path.
What you're arguing for is making the sphere invisible (with light just magically passing through it and not being affected by anything in the area), and that's not what the spell says at all. If the spell meant invisibility, it would say so.
Again, the spell description simply does not say any of this. Spells only do what they say.
The existence of a magical spell effect that fills a specific AoE in and of itself has no real consequential mechanical meaning. It only matters what that magical effect actually is and does as determined by the spell description. The spell description of the Darkness spell states that the spell effect is an area of magical Darkness. On D&DBeyond, the word Darkness is linked to the rules for mundane darkness. From this portion of the description alone, there is nothing at all different about this magical darkness than regular mundane darkness. The actually differences are explicitly written into the spell -- this magical darkness is such that Darkvision can't see through it and that nonmagical light can't illuminate it. That's it. (Along with the bits about being able to cover the object and how it interacts with overlapping spells) Those are all of the differences from how mundane darkness works. Nothing more and nothing less. Spells do what they say.
This is incorrect. Again, note that the Hunger of Hadar spell explicitly declares that creatures fully within the area are blinded. The Darkness spell does not say that, nor do the general rules for mundane darkness. Spells only do what they say.
None of this is true in real life or in the game. Some quick google searching on the topic would be helpful here.
Who said anything about an invisible sphere? The sphere is filled with darkness, which just means that creatures cannot see things that are within the sphere. Darkness does not blind the creature, nor does it actually create any sort of physical interruption of the creature's Line of Sight. Nothing about any of these rules prevents the creature from looking out of the darkness and into a more well-lit area or detecting distant light sources such as the stars in the sky.
The spell description absolutely does say that. It radiates darkness. That's not at all like normal darkness. The air is in darkness. The air can't be illuminated. Ergo, you can't see through it. It's an opaque sphere because the darkness is in the air.
You did, when you said light can pass through it.
The sphere is filled with darkness that obscures even the air. You can't see through it, because right in front of you is darkness. To see through it is to see into it, and that you can't do.
What you want to be true is akin to invisibility or a pocket dimension or something. It involves no darkness, you just magically can't see what's in the area, but the light just travels straight through it without interacting with it. That's literally invisibility.
Darkness doesn't work like that. It interacts with light, it doesn't ignore light and let it pass through.
(Light propogates through space. It has to traverse each planck length discretely, and definitionally it is illuminated, because it is light = illumination. You can see a light source normally because the air between you and the light source is full of photons, and thus it is not darkness, definitionally. Natural darkness is where almost no light can reflect off the surface and reach your eyes, ie, there are no photons in the air from that source. So if the air itself is in darkness and can't be illuminated, as per the Darkness spell, there can't be enough photons in the air to see by, or it's illuminating the darkness. If the light is traveling through the space and not interacting with things in the darkness, that's definitionally invisibility of anything in it, not darkness. So Darkness must absorb/block photons, or the spell cannot work as described).
I think we've got another 58-pager here, folks
pronouns: he/she/they
Dude this is the first time ive seen an argument so beautiful
I kinda wanna hop in
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
TL;DR Verdict
RAW (Rules As Written):
Up2ng is technically correct.
RAI (Rules As Intended / Common Play):
Squirrelloid is functionally correct.
Here’s Why:
What the Spell Actually Says (PHB p.230 / SRD):
Key details:
It says nonmagical light can’t illuminate it, not that “no light can pass through.”
It says darkvision can’t see through it, implying creatures can’t see inside the area — but it doesn’t explicitly say vision can’t pass through it to things beyond.
What Up2ng Is Arguing
He’s reading RAW literally:
“Heavily obscured” (PHB p.183) means you can’t see into the area, not necessarily that line of sight is physically blocked.
Nothing in the spell text says it absorbs or blocks light, only that it can’t be illuminated.
Therefore, the spell doesn’t describe an opaque sphere — just an area where vision fails.
This interpretation fits the exact wording and aligns with RAW-only logic.
What Squirrelloid (and R3sistance) Are Arguing
They interpret Darkness as a visually opaque sphere:
Because it’s a heavily obscured area (“blocks vision entirely,” PHB p.183), most DMs treat it like you can’t see into or through it.
“Spreads from a point” suggests the air is filled with magical darkness, so sight stops at the boundary.
That’s the common RAI and how the Sage Advice rulings read it.
Official Clarification (Sage Advice / Jeremy Crawford)
Jeremy Crawford has said:
This isn’t a new rule but confirms Rules As Intended — Darkness is functionally opaque.
The Bottom Line
Summary
RAW doesn’t technically say magical darkness blocks light or vision completely — only that you can’t see through it with darkvision and that nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.
However, official commentary and most DMs treat it as blocking sight in both directions, effectively making it an opaque sphere for tactical purposes.
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
Uh, yeah, let me know if im just plain wrong :Thumbs_Up:
Just Your Friendly Animated Armor :3
I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds I love birds
No. The spell description has been quoted. It absolutely does not say these things. You are making up functionality for the spell that is not written.
The air is in mundane darkness too. There is no difference there. The magical darkness of the Darkness spell and mundane darkness behave in identical ways for the most part. The differences are explicitly written into the spell description.
Ummm, those aren't the same thing. I have many glass windows in my house and light can pass through them. The glass panes are not invisible -- I can see them.
Seeing "through" it and seeing "into" it is two different things, dictated by two different rules. One follows the rules for Heavily Obscured Areas. The other follows the rules for Line of Sight. Darkness prevents creatures from seeing the things that are within the area. It does not prevent creatures from seeing through the area. It does not generally blind a creature (by forcing the creature to have the blinded condition). Instead, a creature ONLY has the blinded condition when trying to see something within the area.
Nothing in the game says anything like this.
Here is what the game actually has to say about darkness:
Or, from the Rules Glossary:
Mechanically, that is all that is happening in areas of darkness. Anything more than that is just assumptions and homebrew inventions.
Unfortunately, your own definition of Darkness does not align with how the game defines the Darkness category of Light:
Just an FYI, the "blocks vision entirely" is old verbiage from the 2014 edition. This has since been updated in the 2024 rules and replaced with the word "opaque". The word "opaque" is absent from the Rules Glossary definition.
When read all the way through all at once (context clues) it should become reasonably clear that the word "opaque" here is just a stylistic transition word (flavor text) as the author compares and contrasts the concepts of a Lightly Obscured area to a Heavily Obscured area. It also serves as an introductory word which is immediately followed by what is actually meant by that word in this context. In other words, "opaque" in this context means that you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there.
For completeness, this is how it reads in the Rules Glossary:
I agree with your overall analysis on this topic. However, I would push back on the notion that the other interpretation is the "RAI" interpretation, although I do agree that it is clearly the "Common Play" interpretation.
I believe that it was actually intended to be played as I've described. The main reason for this has to do with all of the effort that the spell description goes through to suggest a tactic where you would cast the spell onto an object and then carry that object around with you. In addition, this portion of the description parallels very closely with that same portion of the spell description of the Light spell -- and in the case of the Light spell, it is very common for people to actually play it this way, including the common tactic of casting Light onto an object and carrying it around with you. All of this is even more compelling in the 2014 version of the spell which explicitly allowed you to cast the Darkness spell onto an object "that you are holding". To me, it really reads like the spell was designed and intended for people to do exactly that.
From Darkness (2024):
From Light (2024):
I disagree on RAW. The darkness radiates from the source. That is not behaving like normal darkness. And no light can illuminate anything in it. That means it can't illuminate the air. It can't illuminate your retinas (so you can't see anything while in the darkness). Unlike normal darkness, which is just the absence of light (and so light can pass through the open air above the darkness), this is an energy that blankets the entire area, including the open air, in the absence of light. And that's what it says, RAW.
Can you see through a fog cloud? No. A fog cloud blocks all sight. Opaque means you cannot see through it. Definitionally. Changing 'blocks vision entirely' to 'opaque' is just less words for the same sense, so nothing has actually changed.
As to the 'cover it up to block it', that's been present in the Darkness spell since at least 1st edition AD+D. And Darkness was absolutely an impenetrable sphere of blackness in prior editions. So that is not hinting at a strategy for seeing out of it, because that's some weird interpretation you have that was never true in the history of D+D, despite the 'carry it around with something blocking it' always existing. Instead, the entire purpose of doing that was to blind people in the darkness (generally because you had some sort of blindsight, blindfighting, truesight, or other way to see in the darkness), and to be able to turn it on and off at will. (Also, it made more sense back then, when spells just had duration and there was no 'concentration', so it didn't cost anything but the spell slot and could passively remain up for the duration).
Finally, I'd note that "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space." is better read as: while trying to see something, you are blind while in a heavily obscured space. (If they meant the thing you were trying to see was in a heavily obscured space, the better language would have included "that is" between 'something' and 'in'.) And indeed, it doesn't make sense to say you're blind while trying to look into a heavily obscured space, because you're not blind, you can see things not in the heavily obscured space at the same time you're looking at the heavily obscured space. You only have the blinded condition while you can't see anything, which only makes sense if you are the one in the heavily obscured space. After all, the blinded condition says "you can't see", not just 'you can't see one area'. So up2ng's interpretation of Heavily Obscured is almost certainly wrong, RAW. And this better aligns the choice of the word 'opaque' with the declared effect, so we don't have to assume its a meaningless word choice = more parsimonious.
Similarly, "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." '..trying to see something there' makes more sense if you're the one there, given what the blinded condition does. And that is not an improper reading of that language.
I think up2ng's position is absolute nonsense. If someone did manage to ask a designer if that was how darkness worked, they'd probably laugh in your face. Good luck finding any table that plays that way.
I don't agree with the verdict for the "RAW" part. Here's my simple interpretation:
[A] Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area. Characters face Darkness [...] in an area of magical Darkness.
[B] You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space (e.g. an area of magical Darkness)
But the thread derailed a couple of days ago, the OP’s question was already answered, and I'm not mad enough to rehash this topic, since the arguments here are basically the same as in past threads. My humble recommendation: check out other threads and make your own ruling/verdict:
Blocks light is basically the dictionary definition of the word Opaque, show where it means anything then that, this is just your own assertion that it means anything but the dictionary definition at this point.
Again, the word opaque already specifically states that it does. Magical darkness goes further and says it can not be illuminated by non-magical light, so we know the spell certain does.
The book takes many liberties in not fully describing things, the wording is not that the Moon doesn't illuminate everything, it's that there are still areas of darkness within a moonlit night. So are you suggesting that nights that aren't full moons are also considered moonlit? Also there is no reason to assume the radius of illumination of the sun would reach the forgotten realms within 5E, since again, that also has no radius. Clearly on a moonlit night, the moon IS illuminating the world/plane/planet/etc and so clearly the world is lit by both.
This is to say that again, the rules do not care about light on a cosmic level, the rules only care about light on the level of the local map, as such the Sun and Moon aren't given specific radius, because they produce so much light over so much of a range that it's irrelevant to running a campaign.
Again, moonlit is a term used to describe something but it, itself isn't defined. However the only description we have of the moon lighting anything is a full moon under the dim light section. As such, there is no reason to assume that a moonlit night refers to anything but a night of the full moon and as such it'll be down to the DM to determine which areas of a map are lit and which are in darkness due to shadow. This is different to Dusk/Dawn where there would not be areas of natural darkness outside but the map would still only be dim lit.
Whew, what a roller coaster.
I have to say, when up2ng first posted I was fully opposed to their interpretation. But honestly, RAW (for 2014), I feel they are correct and it does kind of change how you would use the Darkness spell (and I think makes it more interesting).
I'm going to spell out why I think they are right RAW, but I understand that there has been Sage Advice from one of the designers that directly refutes this. The Sage Advice can be the final word for many tables, but I'm just going to say how I see it. I disagreed with the designers on not being able to Twin Spell Dragon's Breath anyway, because to me their Sage Advice is adding things to the rules that aren't there instead of showing the "correct" interpretation of the rules.
So from what I can see, there really aren't that many rules to go over for this. People keep talking about how "you can't illuminate the air" and "the radius of moonlight", but I think that is all pretty inconsequential.
Here's what we have: Darkness : Creates "Darkness" in a 15ft sphere, Darkvision can’t see through it, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. None of this means light cannot pass through it, it simply states light cannot illuminate it. This is a bit of an interpretation, but to me "illuminate" means raising the "light level", so from Darkness to Dim Light, Dim Light to Bright Light. So because non-magical light cannot illuminate it, no matter the brightness of light sources the area will remain "Darkness" and not "Dim Light" or "Bright Light". We can see this in the 2014 PHB: "The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."
So what is the definition of "Darkness" that the spell creates? "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness." Note that the broad definition for mundane Darkness includes "an area of magical darkness", suggesting there is nothing different from mundane darkness to magical darkness except specifically what the spell says ("darkvision cannot see through it").
So what is heavily obscured? "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area. Here we have a bit of an issue, as I can see why people say you cannot see through the Darkness because it describes it as "block[ing] vision entirely." However we know that it isn't the case the Darkness always blocks vision entirely because "Characters face darkness outdoors at night", and I don't think anyone would argue that a character wouldn't be able to see a torch at night from 50 feet away, even thought they are outside of the radius of the light the torch emanates. It makes more sense that it simply means what it says, when trying to see something in that area you cannot, as you are blinded.
So we have the Darkness spell, which creates the Darkness environment, which means the area is heavily obscured, and heavily obscured is defined as you are blinded if you are trying to see things that are in the area of heavy obscurement.
So what I imagine in my mind is a classroom with two doorways. The classroom is dark, no lights on it it. You are standing in the hallway by door A, and the hallway is illuminated. Door B, directly across from you, is also open, and opens to an illuminated hallway. Can you see someone standing in the other hallway by door B if you are by door A? Absolutely. But could you see someone standing in the corner of the room? Nope, too dark. If you are in your room which is totally dark, and someone opens the door and the hallway there is illuminated, can you see that person? Absolutely. Can they see you if you are still in an area that is dark (not lit by the hallway light?)? Nope! So really, it intuitively makes sense to me that Darkness is meant to conceal the things in the Darkness and not prevent those in the Darkness from seeing out.
I think it boils down to this scenario: Your party is under fire from archers up on a wall. Is it better to cast Darkness on the archers, or on your party? I think RAI many will say the archers, and I get how people get to that conclusion (it is what the Sage Advice seems to say), however to me it makes sense to cast it on the party, putting them in an area of Heavily Obscured, which means the archers are blinded when trying to see into the Darkness where the party is. This also makes sense with casting Darkness on an object that you can carry with you and just cover when you don't need the effect, and uncover when it is beneficial to you.
At any rate, I think however you rule it is fine as long as you are internally consistent at your table. But for me, it seems to make sense with the RAW that you cannot see into an area of Darkness, but you could see out of it if you are in it, and through it to the other side.
No, it says while you are in an area of darkness, you have the blinded condition. "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space." If it meant while looking into a heavily obscured space, it should say 'You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something that is in a heavily obscured space.' As written, 'in a Heavily Obscured space' is a separate clause, and refers back to the subject of the sentence, you, not the object of the sentence.
And that makes sense with the rules. If you are in darkness, you cannot see anything, which is what blinded does.
If instead you were outside looking in, it doesn't make sense to say you are blinded, because you can still see things outside Heavily Obscured space. You are not blinded, which is an absolute removal of vision. (Blinded is a global condition - you cannot see anything at all).
The classroom is not dark in your example. The area between the two doors (and to some radius around that path) is illuminated (indeed, the doorway itself and some area around it is probably brightly lit, and much of the room is probably dimly lit). The corners of the room may be in darkness (depending on the light intensity), but the whole room is not. If it was in darkness, you could not see the other door and that the hallway is lit (which, of course, with normal light behavior, is impossible - the fact that the hallway is lit and the door is open means light spills into the room and illuminates at least part of it). And the reason for that is light spills out of the doorway and across the room, illuminating what it reaches with sufficient intensity to make visible. You can see someone across the room near the other door because they are illuminated - they are not in darkness - and that light reaches your eyes, because the light also illuminates you. If the light doesn't illuminate you enough to activate your retina, you can't see it, definitionally.
If the opposite door was closed (and fit well enough that only a little bit of light could be seen through the crack under the door), most of the room would be in darkness, but the crack under the door is not, nor a small radius around it, and the air between your eyes and the door is illuminated enough that you can see the light under the door.
Magical Darkness does not work like normal light. It spreads out rather than just being the lack of light. It has intangible "substance" to it. And it cannot be illuminated, not even the air, so if it was in the classroom between the two doors, light from the lit hallway couldn't reach you at the other door, because it cannot illuminate the air where the magical darkness is, which means the light that was traveling from the hallway to you can't, because it can't illuminate the space between and the light can't travel to your retina. (Think of light as a series of time slices, where each slice is the light of an instant. These propogate through space - illumination is just the presence of photons. Cannot be illuminated means no photons can traverse that space. This is not how normal darkness works - normal darkness doesn't radiate, and normal darkness can be illuminated, that is, photons can travel through it, and make it not dark, partially or wholely.
Not exactly. "For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere." It spreads from a source point. This tells you right off it is not normal darkness, because it radiates darkness. Normal darkness doesn't behave like that (it's just the absence of light). And that means it fills the whole sphere, it's not just where light can't reach, which means the air itself is covered in darkness. And the rulebook specifically says this kind of thing is opaque. That means you can't see through it, definitionally.
And it not being like normal darkness is why you can't see out of it, because the air itself is filled with opaque magical darkness.
(Don't get me wrong, the vision rules are horribly incomplete and don't handle normal lighting very well.)