For simplicity's sake, I'm ignoring the Darkness spell. Imagine two humans (no darkvision) are each holding torches in a dark room and they are 100 feet apart (there is 20 feet of darkness between them). Can they see each other?
My friend argues that this section from the PHB means they can:
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Neither human is in an area of darkness. I point out that that same argument isn't being made for fog, and the two are equated as different forms of heavy obscurity (i.e. rules for darkness should be treated the same as rules for fog).
Without some ability to see through darkness, whether magical or mundane, that area is impenetrable to vision (heavily obscured, in game terms).
But my friend argues that Dan Dillon there is referring to a mundane way of seeing through magical darkness, rather than equating mundane darkness with magical darkness.
What is the right answer here? Answers with clear citations would be appreciated, because there are a billion different arguments for what "makes sense."
RAW, a region of darkness, mundane or magical, is effectively an opaque wall. The only relevant citation is the rule on heavy obscurement, which you already quoted. “Blocks vision entirely” leaves no room for discussion. The rules are written in such a way that opaque fog and darkness are mechanically identical.
Obviously this doesn’t make much logical sense, and many people make contrary rulings in the moment based on what feels appropriate to the situation.
5E has made certain compromises/abstractions in the name of "simplicity," and is really not designed to be an accurate simulation of physics. A dark room and a room full of opaque smoke essentially work the same way, except that Darkvision sees through darkness and not smoke, and light sources can push out the edge of darkness but not smoke.
The more you think about what that means for Underdark societies like Drow, the more and more frustrating it becomes. But, it is what it is, feel free to houserule something more reasonable.
A friend of mine referenced chapter 5, page 105 of the DMG, which states:
The light of a torch or lantern helps a character see over a short distance, but other creatures can see that light source from far away. Bright light in an environment of total darkness can be visible for miles, though a clear line of sight over such a distance is rare underground.
This complicates the issue further. It makes sense, but seems to negate that mechanical equivalency of darkness and other forms of heavy obscurity.
I still think that RAW, in my example, the two humans cannot see each other.
Agree that the core concept of RAW would support your decision, and it's your prerogative as DM to handle nonmagical darkness as such. However, I would personally handle nonmagical darkness more so along the lines of what your quote from the DMG states. Darkness completely obscures anything within it from sight (barring special senses that negate such an obscurement), but it doesn't necessarily create a tangible barrier that prevents seeing a light source on the opposite side...which is different from something like thick fog that does prevent vision from seeing beyond a particular distance.
If one handles darkness as more of a opaque barrier between the light sources, then both sides will potentially have an easier time sneaking up on one another since light sources cannot be spotted from a distance (i.e., the darkness prevents the second torch's light from being seen). Similarly, camping becomes much safer, since random encounters are less likely to occur from the campfire burning in the night.
Interestingly, I would potentially rule that stars and even the moon(s) would no longer be visible at night, since the darkness of space between the known world and these celestial bodies would obscure them from sight... So nighttime becomes pitch-black beyond whatever light source is in immediate vicinity.
I rule that natural darkness does not block sight through it if creatures are illuminated on both sides (like two creatures under spotlight in a darkened room. However, an obstruction hidden in darkness could block an effect from reaching the target, and you can't target a creature in darkness without darkvision or some other special sense like blindsight or devil's sight.
I do rule that you can't see into or through magical darkness by default (unless something says you can)
Natural darkness is just the absence of light. Magical darkness is an artificial obscurement. SagaTympana is right that for simplicity's sake, the game treats them the same, but if that is true, it is unnecessarily limiting from a gameplay standpoint. You could never see the light at the end of a long tunnel or a distant torch-wielding guard walking the parapets of a castle at night.
RAW very unclear in both directions. About half of magical darkness sources says they block Darkvision , suggesting it’s a specific (but common) ability of those spells, not a property of magical darkness in general. Unclear if magical darkness is distinct from magically created regular darkness, too, I’ve never heard that take before. Magical darkness is darkness, in the same way that magical slashing damage is slashing damage, in my opinion.
I do rule that you can't see into or through magical darkness by default (unless something says you can)
Darkvision sees through magical darkness just fine unless the particular instance of magical darkness specifically prevents darkvision from doing so.
Magical Darkness is not the same as darkness created by magic. Magical Darkness blocks Darkvision. Darkness created by a spell might not.
I was speaking in terms of the Sage Advice Compendium entry:
Does all magical darkness block darkvision?
Magical darkness blocks darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of darkness says it does. For example, the darkness spell specifies that it produces a magical darkness that obstructs darkvision. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not of magical darkness in general.
This is one of those times where the RAW (not being able to see light through non-magical darkness) is worth ignoring. They should see each other, so most DMs should rule that they do.
It honestly wouldn’t even occur to me to question this, and if someone at my table tried to argue this crap I would stare at them so hard in absolute silence until they apologized for being “that person.” (As in “don’t be that guy person.”)
When I play my Artificer, I hand out those glow stones to the folks what can’t see. Sometimes people comment about how small the light radius is and I tell them to go outside at night and hold their cellphone flashlight over their heads aimed down as that is a beautifully analog, approximately 5’ of bright and 5’ of dim. Then people are like damn! Yup. A torch is literally 4 magnitudes brighter. That is bright AF. If you’re the one holding the torch, sometimes you have to squint a little because the darn thing is that bright.
How did they let these rules go out where RAW this is a problem. The fact that two parties w/ torches can be in a room 80 feet apart and see each other, but if either torchbearer takes one step backwards it’s the equivalent of the entire room being plunged into darkness for both parties in regards to seeing each other. 😳 Tehfawk?!? If you got two light sources in a room, then you got a lit room!?! It may not be a well lit room, but it sure as heck ain’t a dark room.
Simulating the real behavior of light (it illuminates objects it strikes, not pockets of space) isn’t really any more feasible than what they have.... maybe say it brightly illuminates objects/creatures within 20 of the light source for observers who are any distance from the light source?
The problem is that darkness piggybacks it’s rules off of obscurement (i.e. fog) rather than invisibility or blindness. It’s a little long and hard for me to explain on a phone, but I feel like 5E approaches vision and light from the wrong direction, trying to describe the environmental effect rather than the consequence for creatures with/without special senses.
For simplicity's sake, I'm ignoring the Darkness spell. Imagine two humans (no darkvision) are each holding torches in a dark room and they are 100 feet apart (there is 20 feet of darkness between them). Can they see each other?
My friend argues that this section from the PHB means they can:
Neither human is in an area of darkness. I point out that that same argument isn't being made for fog, and the two are equated as different forms of heavy obscurity (i.e. rules for darkness should be treated the same as rules for fog).
I thought that this Sage Advice would settle it:
But my friend argues that Dan Dillon there is referring to a mundane way of seeing through magical darkness, rather than equating mundane darkness with magical darkness.
What is the right answer here? Answers with clear citations would be appreciated, because there are a billion different arguments for what "makes sense."
RAW, a region of darkness, mundane or magical, is effectively an opaque wall. The only relevant citation is the rule on heavy obscurement, which you already quoted. “Blocks vision entirely” leaves no room for discussion. The rules are written in such a way that opaque fog and darkness are mechanically identical.
Obviously this doesn’t make much logical sense, and many people make contrary rulings in the moment based on what feels appropriate to the situation.
^ This.
5E has made certain compromises/abstractions in the name of "simplicity," and is really not designed to be an accurate simulation of physics. A dark room and a room full of opaque smoke essentially work the same way, except that Darkvision sees through darkness and not smoke, and light sources can push out the edge of darkness but not smoke.
The more you think about what that means for Underdark societies like Drow, the more and more frustrating it becomes. But, it is what it is, feel free to houserule something more reasonable.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A friend of mine referenced chapter 5, page 105 of the DMG, which states:
This complicates the issue further. It makes sense, but seems to negate that mechanical equivalency of darkness and other forms of heavy obscurity.
I still think that RAW, in my example, the two humans cannot see each other.
Agree that the core concept of RAW would support your decision, and it's your prerogative as DM to handle nonmagical darkness as such. However, I would personally handle nonmagical darkness more so along the lines of what your quote from the DMG states. Darkness completely obscures anything within it from sight (barring special senses that negate such an obscurement), but it doesn't necessarily create a tangible barrier that prevents seeing a light source on the opposite side...which is different from something like thick fog that does prevent vision from seeing beyond a particular distance.
If one handles darkness as more of a opaque barrier between the light sources, then both sides will potentially have an easier time sneaking up on one another since light sources cannot be spotted from a distance (i.e., the darkness prevents the second torch's light from being seen). Similarly, camping becomes much safer, since random encounters are less likely to occur from the campfire burning in the night.
Interestingly, I would potentially rule that stars and even the moon(s) would no longer be visible at night, since the darkness of space between the known world and these celestial bodies would obscure them from sight... So nighttime becomes pitch-black beyond whatever light source is in immediate vicinity.
#Flattoril confirmed, if the sun was in space everything would be dark because space is dark and light can't travel through darkness, it's opaque!!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well what's the radius of the sun's light? I'd argue it sheds light for billions of miles, illuminating all of Toril.
I rule that natural darkness does not block sight through it if creatures are illuminated on both sides (like two creatures under spotlight in a darkened room. However, an obstruction hidden in darkness could block an effect from reaching the target, and you can't target a creature in darkness without darkvision or some other special sense like blindsight or devil's sight.
I do rule that you can't see into or through magical darkness by default (unless something says you can)
Natural darkness is just the absence of light. Magical darkness is an artificial obscurement. SagaTympana is right that for simplicity's sake, the game treats them the same, but if that is true, it is unnecessarily limiting from a gameplay standpoint. You could never see the light at the end of a long tunnel or a distant torch-wielding guard walking the parapets of a castle at night.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Darkvision sees through magical darkness just fine unless the particular instance of magical darkness specifically prevents darkvision from doing so.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
RAW very unclear in both directions. About half of magical darkness sources says they block Darkvision , suggesting it’s a specific (but common) ability of those spells, not a property of magical darkness in general. Unclear if magical darkness is distinct from magically created regular darkness, too, I’ve never heard that take before. Magical darkness is darkness, in the same way that magical slashing damage is slashing damage, in my opinion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I was speaking in terms of the Sage Advice Compendium entry:
Does all magical darkness block darkvision?
Magical darkness blocks darkvision only if the rules text for a particular instance of darkness says it does. For example, the darkness spell specifies that it produces a magical darkness that obstructs darkvision. That obstruction is a feature of the spell, not of magical darkness in general.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is one of those times where the RAW (not being able to see light through non-magical darkness) is worth ignoring. They should see each other, so most DMs should rule that they do.
It honestly wouldn’t even occur to me to question this, and if someone at my table tried to argue this crap I would stare at them so hard in absolute silence until they apologized for being “that person.” (As in “don’t be that
guyperson.”)When I play my Artificer, I hand out those glow stones to the folks what can’t see. Sometimes people comment about how small the light radius is and I tell them to go outside at night and hold their cellphone flashlight over their heads aimed down as that is a beautifully analog, approximately 5’ of bright and 5’ of dim. Then people are like damn! Yup. A torch is literally 4 magnitudes brighter. That is bright AF. If you’re the one holding the torch, sometimes you have to squint a little because the darn thing is that bright.
How did they let these rules go out where RAW this is a problem. The fact that two parties w/ torches can be in a room 80 feet apart and see each other, but if either torchbearer takes one step backwards it’s the equivalent of the entire room being plunged into darkness for both parties in regards to seeing each other. 😳 Tehfawk?!? If you got two light sources in a room, then you got a lit room!?! It may not be a well lit room, but it sure as heck ain’t a dark room.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Simulating the real behavior of light (it illuminates objects it strikes, not pockets of space) isn’t really any more feasible than what they have.... maybe say it brightly illuminates objects/creatures within 20 of the light source for observers who are any distance from the light source?
The problem is that darkness piggybacks it’s rules off of obscurement (i.e. fog) rather than invisibility or blindness. It’s a little long and hard for me to explain on a phone, but I feel like 5E approaches vision and light from the wrong direction, trying to describe the environmental effect rather than the consequence for creatures with/without special senses.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.