[Reposted from the spell itself, in order to get visibility and feedback/answers]
So, I'm an Aberrant Mind sorcerer, just hit 5th level, and got to use this spell in our first two encounters last game. I dropped it on a bunch of up-powered zombies in the first encounter, because they kept not dying (Undead Fortitude and good luck). This solved that problem, since they started their 1hp turn in teh effect, took 2d6 automatic, and died. Even if they made their save, that ended their turn... wash, rinse, repeat.
In the next encounter, our Sentinel Barbarian locked down a Giant Skeleton, and I dropped the Hunger to just barely enclose the skeleton. It couldn't move away (successfully) due to sentinel, and while it was trapped in the effect, it couldn't fight well (blinded, disadvantage). Dangerous encounter become nonevent. (Well, nonevent after it hit the barbarian for 45 damage in one round *before* I got the spell off.)
Which prompted the question, though... the description says creatures in the zone are blinded. It doesn't say creatures outside the zone can't see in, just that it is "blackness", and "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate it". But a creature with Darkvision (our dwarven barbarian, for example), can see into darkness just fine; and, not being in the AoE, isn't Blinded. So you can stand just outside the radius and fight your blinded foes - you have advantage, they have disadvantage, and you can play fun blindman games pushing them around and watching them stumble in the (difficult terrain) darkness while shooting them. A lot. ..... right?
[Please note that the blindness HAS NO SAVE. On the other hand, its duration is "while they are fully within the area", so the moment they stumble out of it, they can see perfectly.]
Lack of illumination IS darkness, so yes, the area of the spell is heavily obscured to a creature looking in without Darkvision. The area ALSO blinds creatures inside it, regardless of whether they have darkvision.
Darkvision is not the same as "normal vision all the time". The Dwarf cannot see into the darkness "just fine". First, there is a maximum range (60ft for Dwarves), and beyond that is still 100% darkness. Within 60ft, they can perceive areas of darkness as if it were dim light--they can only perceive things in shades of grey. The area would be considered lightly obscured, to the Dwarf, and they would suffer disadvantage on any Perception checks that rely on sight.
Side note: it could be argued that darkvision has no effect on the area affected by this spell. "Magical darkness" is a thing, and you basically need Truesight, or Devil's Sight (Warlock Invocation) in order to see into "magical darkness". It's a valid argument, but I'm hesitant to say it's absolutely true. Darkness specifically calls out Darkvision as not working. Hunger of Hadar does not specifically mention this. However, it also says that not even "magical light" can penetrate it, so that does seem to be a stronger restriction.
Everyone looking into the darkness is Blinded, not just those inside of it. Absent a special sense (and regular darkvision may or may not qualify), everything inside (and on the opposite side of) that sphere is heavily obscured darkness; nobody sees in, and nobody sees out.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Darkvision doesn’t work in Darkness because the spell says so, not because any sort of magical darkness in general thwarts Darkvision. Hunger of Hadar has no such language, nor does Darkvision describe itself as needing light, so there’s no invitation to rule that Darkvision doesn’t work in its darkness.
No worries, and I'm not disagreeing with you; I agree with everything you've said here, but there's more going on than just what's inside the spell. Like I said, I'm not saying it's absolute, but there is a valid argument for it. That argument would rest entirely on whether or not "magical darkness" is a codified form of darkness that denies Darkvision. Considering Truesightspecifically references magical darkness, the argument is strong. Rock solid, TBH...
Truesight
A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane.
About #2: Anyone trying to perceive what's inside the sphere of darkness (from outside), or trying to perceive what's on the other side of the sphere (cone of vision) is considered Blinded when doing so.
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.
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.
That area blocks vision entirely, so think of the snowcone parallel:
If you're at the vertex of the cone, and the sphere is the area of the spell effect, then anything contained within the area along the projected vectors is non-perceivable without truesight/devil's sight.
[edit] Trying to get that friggin picture to embed
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Darkvision doesn’t work in Darkness because the spell says so, not because any sort of magical darkness in general thwarts Darkvision. Hunger of Hadar has no such language, nor does Darkvision describe itself as needing light, so there’s no invitation to rule that Darkvision doesn’t work in its darkness.
I agree. And never having used the spell myself, then to the OP’s question can creatures outside the spell see in? Is it considered heavily obscured, lightly obscured? Treated just like normal darkness so rules for Darkvision apply like sigred mentions? So it is as if looking in dim light if you have Darkvision?
If it is "dark, like no light", then lightly obscured by using Darkvision, and therefore no penalty to combat (advantage on blinded foe). "Blinded" is a condition, highlighted in the spell's text in fact. Those outside the effect are no blinded, just having to deal with "dark, like no light".
If it is "magical darkness" (which is a status that exists nowhere but the Darkness spell, and a reference in Truesight), then those outside cannot see in without Truesight, Blindsense, or Devil's Sight. In which case, they simply get normal attacks (disad on can't see target, adv on blind target = no mods).
It looks like the difference between these is "GM's call", but hopefully someone can come up with something more official... Anyway, thanks for the responses, everyone!!
What if its not darkness or magical darkness, but "blackness" as stated. It is a perfectly black void IMO, therefore you cannot see in (and if you're inside you are blinded, of course).
Folks, you're starting to get into word games with hypotheticals that have no foundation in RAW.
Magical darkness is an actual thing. It is not only referenced by certain spells and features; it is referenced by the PHB in the section specifically about Vision and Light. Magical darkness =/= normal darkness.
Darkvision doesn’t work in Darkness because the spell says so, not because any sort of magical darkness in general thwarts Darkvision. Hunger of Hadar has no such language, nor does Darkvision describe itself as needing light, so there’s no invitation to rule that Darkvision doesn’t work in its darkness.
I agree. And never having used the spell myself, then to the OP’s question can creatures outside the spell see in? Is it considered heavily obscured, lightly obscured? Treated just like normal darkness so rules for Darkvision apply like sigred mentions? So it is as if looking in dim light if you have Darkvision?
No. Creatures outside suffer from the blinded when trying to see something inside the affected area
Heavily obscured
Not treated like normal darkness. It's magical darkness. (+1 Darkness) :P
Normal Darkvision does not work on this, so it is still full darkness for anyone without Truesight, Devil's Sight, or some other feature that explicitly states that it works on magical darkness.
It seems really odd to me that this isn't laid out in an excruciatingly obvious way in the PHB, yet it is in there, and it's consistent with downstream application.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Read my posts?! I've quoted it multiple times already. Please quote the part that says Darkvision does work in magical darkness... anywhere. Really, please show me. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.
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.
Magical darkness is a thing. This is where we have to start from; the PHB acknowledges that "magical darkness" is included in the subset of conditions/scenarios which constitute an area of darkness, creating a heavily obscured area. This is the 1st order general rule. Magical darkness is darkness, but it is not normaldarkness.
Truesight
A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane.
Devil’s Sight
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet.
It is clear that the general rule differentiates normal and magical darkness in regards to which specific features will work. You need a feature which explicitly works on magical darkness.
The burden of proof is on citing why basic Darkvisionwould work. There is ample evidence of why it wouldn't work. Darkness is a specific spell. It does not constitute a general rule.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point with range and lasting for the duration. ... No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area
So Hunger of Hadar tells us that "no light can illuminate the area." Chapter 8 tells us that the absence of light is called "darkness."
What does "darkness" do?
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.
...
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.
Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in that darkness, only shades of gray.
Darkvision tells us it can see in Darkness. It doesn't say it cannot see in magical darkness.
Several spells talk about creating "magical darkness" that Darkvision can't penetrate. Darkness, Maddening Darkness, Dark Star, a Darkmantle's aura... these all call themselves "magical darkness" and "darkness" interchangeably, and they all specifically say that Darkvision doesn't work.
Other spells and abilities (Hunger of Hadar; Drow Shadowblade's Shadow Sword; create magical darkness but don't say that Darkvision doesn't work. Is this a typo/oversight that has gone un-errata'd? Is it so obvious that it doesn't need to be said? I don't think so; I think the RAW reading of these spells is that they don't do anything that they don't say they do; darkvision works on their darkness as normal.
__________
I hear what you're saying that "magical darkness" is sometimes talked about as being distinct from "darkness," Truesight, Devil Sight, some magic items that let you see in "darkness and magical darkness".... while I'm arguing above that "magical darkness" is a subset of "darkness" (and that the specific instances of magical darkness that restrict darkvision are a further subset of magical darkness in general), it's possible that 5E has used this very misleading term "magical darkness" to refer to something that is wholly different and unrelated to regular "darkness." Perhaps it should have been called "inkyness," or "void," or "blackness" instead.... but the fact that there are abilities that say "darkness and magical darkness" instead of "darkness, including magical darkness" is a good argument that they're wholly different phenomena and not just two types or degrees of the same thing. If Darkvision says it works in Darkness, this reading would mean there's no reason to assume that Darkvision works in magical darkness.
I don't like this reading, because (1) it is linguistically counterintuitive, and (2) it requires us to write an unwritten rule that "magical darkness is not darkness" or "darkvision does not work in magical darkness", and (3) it ignores the fact that Darkness etc. still sometimes just refer to their effect as "darkness". I think good rule interpretation dictates that we should read rules with plain english meanings (magical darkness is darkness), and avoid unwritten rules when there's an alternative interpretation which doesn't require unwritten rules. That's why I think this is a bad interpretation, even though I do see the anecdotal evidence in Truesight and Devil Sight which would support it. I don't think Truesight or Devil Sight say anything that's inconsistent with the simpler interpretation I layed out above instead, so I still think that should be preferred.
Other spells and abilities (Hunger of Hadar; Drow Shadowblade's Shadow Sword; create magical darkness but don't say that Darkvision doesn't work. Is this a typo/oversight that has gone un-errata'd? Is it so obvious that it doesn't need to be said? I don't think so; I think the RAW reading of these spells is that they don't do anything that they don't say they do; darkvision works on their darkness as normal.
First, thanks for mentioning those other spells; it's important, and I'll get to it below the line.
Second, again, spells do not constitute a general rule. You cannot say the inclusion or absence of text from a specific spell is evidence of a general rule; I know that you understand this. There is a general rule from the PHB which makes a clear distinction between darkness that is normal, and darkness that is magical. This is defined prior to defining senses.
Normal darkvision does not say that it works on magical darkness, so it doesn't. Truesight does say that it works on magical darkness. This is the baseline. Spells stating that normal darkvision doesn't work with them is great, but not necessary. If the spell creates magical darkness, you need DS/TS.
Back to HoH... I realized last night that it's even more stupid than I thought, and we're arguing because we're actually both right--it's not magical darkness... it's not even darkness at all, and Devil's/True Sight doesn't work on it. I kept thinking of why they'd use such weird language in HoH--because every other spell/feature I'd seen does say "magical darkness"--and I came across an old JC tweet. It's unofficial, I know, but informative.
Devil's Sight is meant to pierce the dark created by a spell like darkness, not the void of hunger of Hadar. #DnD
I need more hands for all the facepalming this crap has induced. Soo, yeah, there's no visual sense counter to this spell. Blindsight & tremor sense would work as those don't rely on vision at all. The snowcone parallel holds; the sphere blocks vision entirely. Anyone on the outside attempting to perceive an area that's within the sphere, or beyond the sphere, is blinded when doing so.
The semantic discussion of blackness, darkness, inkiness, etc? Turns out it's not trivial--"darkness"/"magical darkness" are key words to look for, and anything that doesn't use this language is something different. They purposely chose to not define Hunger of Hadar as darkness (magical or normal), so there are no visual senses capable of penetrating it.
Vision & Light is another area of 5e that suffers from a disconnect between overly-simplified general rules, and overly-complex specific rules.
The big takeaway? If the spell/ability says it creates "magical darkness", then you need a feature that explicitly works with magical darkness. Do we know any other existing spells/abilities that don't say "magical darkness"? I'd be interested in seeing if anything else breaks formula.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I just don't agree with that, I keep coming back to the fact that the spells that say they create "magical darkness" also say that they create "darkness," so they can't really be two different things if they're used interchangeably.
I'm aware of JCs opinion about Hadar, and I even believe that that interpretation of the "void" should be what all magical darkness is. I don't think the authors thought this through sufficiently in playtesting, but "magical darkness" would have been much more mechanically straightforward and thematically consistent if opaque magical inkiness were a reliable and recreate-able effect across spells rather than having to be re-examined each and every time it's come across. But magical darkness/inkiness/void wasn't sufficiently defined to accomplish that, and even Hadar doesn't go far enough to establish that as its own unique effect, since it's language about absence of light resembles nothing so much as the PHB definition of mundane darkness.
I see some glimmerings of RAI or RA-it-should-have-been there, but RAW, I'll maintain that magical darkness is darkness in all respects other than those specifically called out in the spell/ability's description. Agree to disagree. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I get that, and I'm saying that it's unnecessary for each spell/ability to state that it doesn't work with darkvision because that's already a general rule. The text of specific spells do not constitute general rules, and are only applicable to themselves.
Drow Shadowblade does not need to specify that darkvision does not work because it specifically states that it's magical darkness. It's already under the umbrella of the general rule.
Correlation is not causation. That's why I'm asking if there are any instances of a spell/ability that does not say it creates "magical darkness" (that exact phrase), and does say darkvision doesn't work.
[edit]
And for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that--as with most things 5e--they really could've done a much better job of writing the basic rules in the first place. They should've just completely separated normal darkness from magical darkness in Ch8, rather than expressing them as subsets with differing implications.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Wow, so much conversation about this spell and the larger topic!
I thought that because the Hunger spell specifically states what happens to creatures inside it -- they are Blinded - and says nothing about what happens to creatures looking across the barrier (other than "fluff text" about darkness and acidic rubbing tentacles), that the spell was being really terribly specific. In = blind. Out = nothing, but let's call it dark like outer space.
Let me say that again. The spell *specifically* (specific trumps general) states that "in = blind". Not "can't see unless using Devil Sight". Not "gosh it's dark, but Darkvision will work". No opportunity for Truesight to cancel it. The creature is Blind. (So, yeah, Blindsight, or Tremorsense, or other ablities should still work.)
What happens trying to look into "the dark between the stars", where "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area"? Um, it's dark. Heavily obscured, as you have all posted, and can't be illuminated, but no words about restricting sight abilities.
[Reposted from the spell itself, in order to get visibility and feedback/answers]
So, I'm an Aberrant Mind sorcerer, just hit 5th level, and got to use this spell in our first two encounters last game. I dropped it on a bunch of up-powered zombies in the first encounter, because they kept not dying (Undead Fortitude and good luck). This solved that problem, since they started their 1hp turn in teh effect, took 2d6 automatic, and died. Even if they made their save, that ended their turn... wash, rinse, repeat.
In the next encounter, our Sentinel Barbarian locked down a Giant Skeleton, and I dropped the Hunger to just barely enclose the skeleton. It couldn't move away (successfully) due to sentinel, and while it was trapped in the effect, it couldn't fight well (blinded, disadvantage). Dangerous encounter become nonevent. (Well, nonevent after it hit the barbarian for 45 damage in one round *before* I got the spell off.)
Which prompted the question, though... the description says creatures in the zone are blinded. It doesn't say creatures outside the zone can't see in, just that it is "blackness", and "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate it". But a creature with Darkvision (our dwarven barbarian, for example), can see into darkness just fine; and, not being in the AoE, isn't Blinded. So you can stand just outside the radius and fight your blinded foes - you have advantage, they have disadvantage, and you can play fun blindman games pushing them around and watching them stumble in the (difficult terrain) darkness while shooting them. A lot. ..... right?
[Please note that the blindness HAS NO SAVE. On the other hand, its duration is "while they are fully within the area", so the moment they stumble out of it, they can see perfectly.]
Lack of illumination IS darkness, so yes, the area of the spell is heavily obscured to a creature looking in without Darkvision. The area ALSO blinds creatures inside it, regardless of whether they have darkvision.
yes, it’s a very effective spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Two things:
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
(Sport for double post, phone=poor formatting)
Darkvision doesn’t work in Darkness because the spell says so, not because any sort of magical darkness in general thwarts Darkvision. Hunger of Hadar has no such language, nor does Darkvision describe itself as needing light, so there’s no invitation to rule that Darkvision doesn’t work in its darkness.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No worries, and I'm not disagreeing with you; I agree with everything you've said here, but there's more going on than just what's inside the spell. Like I said, I'm not saying it's absolute, but there is a valid argument for it. That argument would rest entirely on whether or not "magical darkness" is a codified form of darkness that denies Darkvision. Considering Truesight specifically references magical darkness, the argument is strong. Rock solid, TBH...
About #2: Anyone trying to perceive what's inside the sphere of darkness (from outside), or trying to perceive what's on the other side of the sphere (cone of vision) is considered Blinded when doing so.
That area blocks vision entirely, so think of the snowcone parallel:
If you're at the vertex of the cone, and the sphere is the area of the spell effect, then anything contained within the area along the projected vectors is non-perceivable without truesight/devil's sight.
[edit] Trying to get that friggin picture to embed
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree. And never having used the spell myself, then to the OP’s question can creatures outside the spell see in? Is it considered heavily obscured, lightly obscured? Treated just like normal darkness so rules for Darkvision apply like sigred mentions? So it is as if looking in dim light if you have Darkvision?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If it is "dark, like no light", then lightly obscured by using Darkvision, and therefore no penalty to combat (advantage on blinded foe). "Blinded" is a condition, highlighted in the spell's text in fact. Those outside the effect are no blinded, just having to deal with "dark, like no light".
If it is "magical darkness" (which is a status that exists nowhere but the Darkness spell, and a reference in Truesight), then those outside cannot see in without Truesight, Blindsense, or Devil's Sight. In which case, they simply get normal attacks (disad on can't see target, adv on blind target = no mods).
It looks like the difference between these is "GM's call", but hopefully someone can come up with something more official... Anyway, thanks for the responses, everyone!!
What if its not darkness or magical darkness, but "blackness" as stated. It is a perfectly black void IMO, therefore you cannot see in (and if you're inside you are blinded, of course).
Folks, you're starting to get into word games with hypotheticals that have no foundation in RAW.
Magical darkness is an actual thing. It is not only referenced by certain spells and features; it is referenced by the PHB in the section specifically about Vision and Light. Magical darkness =/= normal darkness.
Normal Darkvision does not work on this, so it is still full darkness for anyone without Truesight, Devil's Sight, or some other feature that explicitly states that it works on magical darkness.
It seems really odd to me that this isn't laid out in an excruciatingly obvious way in the PHB, yet it is in there, and it's consistent with downstream application.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Quote plz the part that says Darkvision doesn’t work in magical darkness, other than in Darkness
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Technically there's nothing that says Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness (other than in the Darkness spell,) but it also doesn't say it does.
Darkvision says "The monster can see in dim light within the radius as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
Truesight says "A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness,"
Truesight specifically says you can see in magical darkness. Darkvision only says you can see in dim light and darkness. So, at least there's that.
Read my posts?! I've quoted it multiple times already. Please quote the part that says Darkvision does work in magical darkness... anywhere. Really, please show me. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.
PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring -- Vision and Light:
Magical darkness is a thing. This is where we have to start from; the PHB acknowledges that "magical darkness" is included in the subset of conditions/scenarios which constitute an area of darkness, creating a heavily obscured area. This is the 1st order general rule. Magical darkness is darkness, but it is not normal darkness.
It is clear that the general rule differentiates normal and magical darkness in regards to which specific features will work. You need a feature which explicitly works on magical darkness.
The burden of proof is on citing why basic Darkvision would work. There is ample evidence of why it wouldn't work. Darkness is a specific spell. It does not constitute a general rule.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
From PHB Chapter 8: Adventuring, we're given a definition of what darkness is: the "absence of light"
From Hunger of Hadar, the spell's effect is described as:
So Hunger of Hadar tells us that "no light can illuminate the area." Chapter 8 tells us that the absence of light is called "darkness."
What does "darkness" do?
So by default, yes, Hunger of Hadar-> Darkness, and Darkness-> Blinded. But...
Darkvision tells us it can see in Darkness. It doesn't say it cannot see in magical darkness.
Several spells talk about creating "magical darkness" that Darkvision can't penetrate. Darkness, Maddening Darkness, Dark Star, a Darkmantle's aura... these all call themselves "magical darkness" and "darkness" interchangeably, and they all specifically say that Darkvision doesn't work.
Other spells and abilities (Hunger of Hadar; Drow Shadowblade's Shadow Sword; create magical darkness but don't say that Darkvision doesn't work. Is this a typo/oversight that has gone un-errata'd? Is it so obvious that it doesn't need to be said? I don't think so; I think the RAW reading of these spells is that they don't do anything that they don't say they do; darkvision works on their darkness as normal.
__________
I hear what you're saying that "magical darkness" is sometimes talked about as being distinct from "darkness," Truesight, Devil Sight, some magic items that let you see in "darkness and magical darkness".... while I'm arguing above that "magical darkness" is a subset of "darkness" (and that the specific instances of magical darkness that restrict darkvision are a further subset of magical darkness in general), it's possible that 5E has used this very misleading term "magical darkness" to refer to something that is wholly different and unrelated to regular "darkness." Perhaps it should have been called "inkyness," or "void," or "blackness" instead.... but the fact that there are abilities that say "darkness and magical darkness" instead of "darkness, including magical darkness" is a good argument that they're wholly different phenomena and not just two types or degrees of the same thing. If Darkvision says it works in Darkness, this reading would mean there's no reason to assume that Darkvision works in magical darkness.
I don't like this reading, because (1) it is linguistically counterintuitive, and (2) it requires us to write an unwritten rule that "magical darkness is not darkness" or "darkvision does not work in magical darkness", and (3) it ignores the fact that Darkness etc. still sometimes just refer to their effect as "darkness". I think good rule interpretation dictates that we should read rules with plain english meanings (magical darkness is darkness), and avoid unwritten rules when there's an alternative interpretation which doesn't require unwritten rules. That's why I think this is a bad interpretation, even though I do see the anecdotal evidence in Truesight and Devil Sight which would support it. I don't think Truesight or Devil Sight say anything that's inconsistent with the simpler interpretation I layed out above instead, so I still think that should be preferred.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
First, thanks for mentioning those other spells; it's important, and I'll get to it below the line.
Second, again, spells do not constitute a general rule. You cannot say the inclusion or absence of text from a specific spell is evidence of a general rule; I know that you understand this. There is a general rule from the PHB which makes a clear distinction between darkness that is normal, and darkness that is magical. This is defined prior to defining senses.
Normal darkvision does not say that it works on magical darkness, so it doesn't. Truesight does say that it works on magical darkness. This is the baseline. Spells stating that normal darkvision doesn't work with them is great, but not necessary. If the spell creates magical darkness, you need DS/TS.
Back to HoH... I realized last night that it's even more stupid than I thought, and we're arguing because we're actually both right--it's not magical darkness... it's not even darkness at all, and Devil's/True Sight doesn't work on it. I kept thinking of why they'd use such weird language in HoH--because every other spell/feature I'd seen does say "magical darkness"--and I came across an old JC tweet. It's unofficial, I know, but informative.
I need more hands for all the facepalming this crap has induced. Soo, yeah, there's no visual sense counter to this spell. Blindsight & tremor sense would work as those don't rely on vision at all. The snowcone parallel holds; the sphere blocks vision entirely. Anyone on the outside attempting to perceive an area that's within the sphere, or beyond the sphere, is blinded when doing so.
The semantic discussion of blackness, darkness, inkiness, etc? Turns out it's not trivial--"darkness"/"magical darkness" are key words to look for, and anything that doesn't use this language is something different. They purposely chose to not define Hunger of Hadar as darkness (magical or normal), so there are no visual senses capable of penetrating it.
Vision & Light is another area of 5e that suffers from a disconnect between overly-simplified general rules, and overly-complex specific rules.
The big takeaway? If the spell/ability says it creates "magical darkness", then you need a feature that explicitly works with magical darkness. Do we know any other existing spells/abilities that don't say "magical darkness"? I'd be interested in seeing if anything else breaks formula.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I just don't agree with that, I keep coming back to the fact that the spells that say they create "magical darkness" also say that they create "darkness," so they can't really be two different things if they're used interchangeably.
I'm aware of JCs opinion about Hadar, and I even believe that that interpretation of the "void" should be what all magical darkness is. I don't think the authors thought this through sufficiently in playtesting, but "magical darkness" would have been much more mechanically straightforward and thematically consistent if opaque magical inkiness were a reliable and recreate-able effect across spells rather than having to be re-examined each and every time it's come across. But magical darkness/inkiness/void wasn't sufficiently defined to accomplish that, and even Hadar doesn't go far enough to establish that as its own unique effect, since it's language about absence of light resembles nothing so much as the PHB definition of mundane darkness.
I see some glimmerings of RAI or RA-it-should-have-been there, but RAW, I'll maintain that magical darkness is darkness in all respects other than those specifically called out in the spell/ability's description. Agree to disagree. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I get that, and I'm saying that it's unnecessary for each spell/ability to state that it doesn't work with darkvision because that's already a general rule. The text of specific spells do not constitute general rules, and are only applicable to themselves.
Drow Shadowblade does not need to specify that darkvision does not work because it specifically states that it's magical darkness. It's already under the umbrella of the general rule.
Correlation is not causation. That's why I'm asking if there are any instances of a spell/ability that does not say it creates "magical darkness" (that exact phrase), and does say darkvision doesn't work.
[edit]
And for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that--as with most things 5e--they really could've done a much better job of writing the basic rules in the first place. They should've just completely separated normal darkness from magical darkness in Ch8, rather than expressing them as subsets with differing implications.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Wow, so much conversation about this spell and the larger topic!
I thought that because the Hunger spell specifically states what happens to creatures inside it -- they are Blinded - and says nothing about what happens to creatures looking across the barrier (other than "fluff text" about darkness and acidic rubbing tentacles), that the spell was being really terribly specific. In = blind. Out = nothing, but let's call it dark like outer space.
Let me say that again. The spell *specifically* (specific trumps general) states that "in = blind". Not "can't see unless using Devil Sight". Not "gosh it's dark, but Darkvision will work". No opportunity for Truesight to cancel it. The creature is Blind. (So, yeah, Blindsight, or Tremorsense, or other ablities should still work.)
What happens trying to look into "the dark between the stars", where "No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area"? Um, it's dark. Heavily obscured, as you have all posted, and can't be illuminated, but no words about restricting sight abilities.
I agree with MOST of what you said Thelon... but Blindsight, Truesight, etc. don’t actually provide any immunity to Blinded, as written. :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.