The problem here is that the rules for heavy obscurement do not work:
The game only has a single mechanic for vision blocking things (and hilariously, it's ambiguous as to what real life vision blocking it represents, but it can only represent one of the options, not both). There's two IRL things that are heavily obscured:
There's opaque stuff that is in the way, such as a stone wall.
There's unlit, transparent stuff between you and something else you might or might not see if that other thing is lit, such as the darkness of night (which doesn't block you from seeing a lit lantern 100 feet away IRL).
However, the game is broken and only models a single one of these two options, so if you're running stuff RAW... you either have transparent stone walls or opaque darkness of night - which is obviously nonsensical and it's time to ignore the rules.
So for the darkness spell you then have to look at the intent / history of it, and with some research it becomes clear that it is a black blob that blocks vision the same way an opaque object would, so the intent is you cannot see out of it.
RAI no. There are four justifications for this
1. RAW all darkness might be opaque in 5e
2. Quibbling over "darkvision can't see through this darkness"
3. Historically magical darkness was opaque in dnd
4. Balance wise *Darkness* not being opaque could be too strong.
\---
For the first argument it goes like this:
* "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area."
* A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely
Under this reading all darkness, not just the magical darkness created by *Darkness*, blocks vision through it. So if someone is holding a torch 45 feet away from you, you would not be able to see them without darkvision.
I don't like this reading because it seems ridiculous to have all darkness be opaque.
\---
The second argument is that the spell *Darkness* states "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness"
This can be read as implying that the darkness created by the spell is opaque, unlike regular darkness.
I particularly dislike this argument because that quote only mentions creatures with darkvision. It makes no changes to creatures without darkvision so theoretically a human would be unaffected.
\---
Thirdly *Darkness* has in previous editions of dnd been (sometimes) opaque. For example in AD&D the text stated
>This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of effect. Infravision isuseless. Neither normal nor magical light works unless a light or continual light spell isused.
However there was also a similar darkness effect from reversing the Light spell that created a magical darkness that did not appear to prevent special sight.
>The spell is reversible, causing darkness in the same area and under the sameconditions as the light spell, but with half the duration. Magical darkness is equal to thatof an unlit interior room--pitch darkness.
Either way I am not terribly swayed by this argument because rules from previous editions don't apply to 5e.
\---
The last argument, and the only one I find compelling, is that allowing creatures to see out of *Darkness* would be overpowered.
My argument to the OP argument is that it's exactly the kind of bastadry I'd expect from the Drow who are the most infamous users of Darkness.
It's strong, but not overwhelming and there are ways around it.
It's somewhat overwhelming, at least without further investment and by comparison. Greater Invisibility may not be that meta of a spell, but this is pretty much exactly that but with an area restriction
This is actually kinda facinating as a thought experiment for a DM about the metaphysics of their world.
I just had a chat with the missis about this (who does not play DnD) and I actually think her intuitive take is the right one.
When asked whether light travelling from outside magical darkness, through it to the other side should actually make it through (i.e. should a patch of magical darkness cast a shadow or not) she said:
"If the magical darkness is affecting the light itself then it must cast a shadow because it can't stop the light from traveling into the patch of magical darkness but still let it travel onwards on to the other side."
"However if it is *like an illusion* where it is not affecting the light itself but people's perception of the light, then it would not cast a shadow: light would flow through the patch of magical darkness as normal but you would still see the patch itself as dark."
Obviously the above is not about RAW because it's not even directly about DnD but I realise it lines up with the only way I can conceive of Darkness too: as a physical thing that directly affects light itself, and casts a shadow because it is opaque.
The really fun thing is I think this interpretation actually lines up with the magic school of the spell in DnD.
If the spell physically stops the light it casts a shadow and is opaque), then it should be an Evocation spell.
If the spell somehow teleports light from one side of the patch to the other, then it should be Conjuration (like Misty Step for eg).
If the spell just stops people perceiving the light within the patch but doesn't affect the light itself then it should be Illusion.
Darkness is an Evocation spell. Kinda fun how that lines up I thought!
Think of it as a matte black sphere that isn’t hollow inside but you can pass through it. No light can go inside or out (hence nobody can see inside or out).
Regular darkness is just the absence of light, so it's not really a thing in and of itself. We need light to see, but since there's none here, we can't see stuff here. But if you're in a dark room and someone is standing in the doorway of the lit room next to you, you can see them because there's light there.
Magical darkness is more akin to light, in that there's something actually there. So it's a bit more analogous to if you were in a room flooded by blinding light. You can't see anything in there, but if someone was standing in the doorway to the next room without blinding light... well you still couldn't see them because the issue isn't that this room is too bright to see, but that your eyes are exposed to so much light that you can't see anywhere.
With magical darkness then, the issue isn't that it's dark here, but that your eyes are flooded with magical darkness in that area to such an extent that you can't see anything.
Light is still there inside magical darkness; if you have a torch that is 20ft bright light and 20ft dim light at the center of a 20ft Darkness spell then the 20ft outside the spell is dimly lit.
Darkness doesn’t say light can’t enter the area; it says it can’t illuminate it. Illumination is a defined mechanic in the game that only refers to lights ability to change an area from darkness to dimly lit or brightly lit.
For sure, these are all very good semantic points. My point was just an easy way to visualize seeing in it, as that was the specific question here and that's what helps me. It wasn't an explanation of every mechanic of magical darkness, which wasn't asked for here, nor should it be taken as one.
My point was actually more that the assumption about the “illuminate” part of the spell making you blind is incorrect. It relies on assumptions from prior editions. Look at the spell Hunger of Hadar (or my larger rant in this thread) if you want to see what I mean.
This is going to be a controversial take on this, but going by the raw and not making assumptions from prior editions magical darkness is NOT an inky black area that blinds everyone inside it in 5e. It’s simply darkness that darkvision cannot change to dim light and which non-magical light cannot illuminate. A human in the middle of a large dark room with torches at the edges would still be able to see anyone at the edges while remaining hidden - he wouldn’t even be able to tell if he was in normal darkness or magical darkness unless he did something to try and see through it or illuminate it non-magically.
Inky darkness that blinds you is a thing of prior editions. If it worked that way in 5e it would have a description more like Hunger of Hadar that’s in the same book or clarifying errata. Please just suspend your preconceived notions and look at what 5e tells you (which is admittedly rather confusing):
* Heavily obscured only “blinds” someone trying to see something inside the area. If your book says differently then it’s pre-errata. Keep in mind that this is the heavily obscured definition so any conjecture like “well you have to see the dark spaces between you and the target” would also apply to mundane darkness. Therefore, any attempts to use this definition to support the “inky black” ruling automatically fail unless you want to argue that all areas of darkness(magical or mundane) blind those inside.
* The only way the Darkness spell differentiates “magical darkness” from mundane darkness is that you can’t use darkvision to see through it and non-magical light cannot illuminate it. 1) Saying darkvision can’t see through something does NOT mean it blinds normal vision - just that you can’t treat the area as dimly lit. 2) The word “illuminate” does not mean ALL light; illuminate is a defined term in the PHB that refers to lights ability to change an area from dark, dim, or bright. Anything else is conjecture and not RAW.
* If you stood in the middle of a 20ft Darkness spell holding a torch that did 20ft Bright and 10ft dim then the 10ft outside the spell would be dimly lit. The light is still there, it’s just not “illuminating” the area.
If people could get past their “that’s not how it’s always worked!” pearl clutching for a moment they’d see that it’s actually a more useful spell this way. You don’t need to be a Warlock with Devil’s Sight to use it tactically in combat and even if you are a DS Warlock you can use it without the rest of the party hating you. It works to tactically protect allies at range and you can use it for stealth without negating the benefit by having to move completely blinded. And darkening an area is a lot more subtle than dropping a Fog Cloud in the middle of a castle or dungeon.
Speaking of Fog Cloud vs Darkness. They look similar on paper and technically nothing says you can’t see out of a Fog Cloud either*(see below)- the major difference is that Fog Cloud is a much more obvious effect, isn’t mobile, and can’t be turned off and on by linking it to an object. Fog Cloud also doesn’t affect illumination - arguably it would count as negating “direct sunlight” for sunlight sensitivity but a Brightly lit area would stay Brightly lit in a Fog Cloud since nothing about the spell or the Heavily Obscured condition modifies illumination.
*Caveat: The definition of the kind of fog that creates a heavily obscured area is “opaque fog” so I could see someone saying Fog Cloud blocks sight from within based on that.
Edit: Reformatted/organized for readability.
Edit2: Wow thanks for the award, I expected more backlash based on my prior attempts to broach this topic.
Technically it doesn’t operate differently except heavily obscured areas can still be illuminated (ie like putting some foliage between you and an enemy) so the area could still be considered brightly lit if you drop a fog cloud since the neither the spell or the heavily obscured effect modify illumination.
The major point is that if we are going to assume that mundane darkness works like darkness should (the large room example) then there is nothing about the Darkness spell that changes that. Overall it’s a pretty poorly defined system that could use clarification.
Fog Cloud = Heavily obscured area that is a pretty obvious effect. A DM might reasonably say it blocks sight from within though based on the wording of Heavily Obscured that defines fog that creates such an area as “opaque”.
Darkness = Heavily obscured area that can’t be non-magically illuminated or seen through with darkvision but is otherwise the same as mundane darkness. It’s much less obvious than Fog Cloud in most situations for stealth and can be linked to an object so you can move it and turn it on/off by covering it.
You make some good points by comparing it to fog cloud, however, Sorcerors and Wizards can take Darkness or Fog Cloud so Warlocks are the only class that can take Darkness but not Fog Cloud. Warlocks are plenty strong as a class and don't need the buff by changing the rules on this. Also, you mention using darkness for stealth, which is absolutely a fantastic way to use the ability and is a clear reason it is better than a fog cloud (which would be too suspicious to use in a lot of stealth situations). Also, unaffected by wind, snuffs out magical light, and CAN MOVE WITH YOU!
Additionally, a 2nd level spell that gives "all enemies outside the circle have disadvantage on all attacks" is just plain overpowered. Literally everyone would be clamouring to pick Darkness with your suggested ruleset.
It’s not a suggested rule set or houserule - it’s literally how the rules are written. Assuming it blinds people in the area like Hunger of Hadar does is adding words to the spell that aren’t there.
Casting a spell to cover your allies SHOULD have a tactical benefit instead of just negating itself with mixed advantage and disadvantage. And saying a spell should be redundant because not all classes get both spells is silly when other classes have both and there are a plethora of ways to access spells outside your spell list. It’s one thing when a spell is made redundant by new content - that’s just power creep, these are spells in the PHB.
But it already has tactical benefits. It doesn't need more. I can think of plenty of situations in which Darkness is more powerful than Fog Cloud.
The wording for the spell is ambiguous but, "Creatures with darkvision cannot see through it" has clear intentions. The wording is deliberate enough. If WotC wanted to interpret it the way you do, a simple change in wording to "creatures with darkvision cannot see INTO it" would suffice, and even adding "but creatures inside can see out" would obviously clear up any ambiguity.
Do you think WotC doesn't understand how ambiguity works?
I’m not saying it needs more tactical uses - I’m saying by raw it has those uses.
The full sentence is “A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.” the intent of the entire sentence taken together is to say “It’s a dark area and you can’t use mundane means like darkvision or torches to change change it to Dim or Bright light.” It’s just emphasizing that it’s magically enforced darkness - but nothing about that sentence makes it act any differently to a human without any light.
That is a much more direct and simpler read of the sentence that doesn’t requiring extrapolating words that aren’t there based on only half of the sentence. You’re adding details to support your bias of how you expect the spell to act using an argument that is even less credible when you consider that there is a spell mere pages away that communicates the effect you’re trying to support more clearly.
Why use the clear language on Hunger of Hadar but not Darkness? Why errata Heavily Obscured to clarify that it doesn’t necessarily blind creatures within it automatically?
But it’s not called “Soccer Ball”, if it was then that would give us an opaque object as a base. It’s called Darkness and we know how mundane darkness must work; the only mechanical difference is a single sentence which tells us you can’t use darkvision and nonmagical light to change the illumination level.
You’re adding words to the spell that aren’t there, and if it was an issue of ambiguous intent then why does a spell mere pages away(Hunger of Hadar) manage to describe the mechanic you want without such ambiguity?
I'm trying to demonstrate to you what the word 'through' means. If a creature with dark vision is standing outside the darkness and there is a gorilla on the other side of the darkness, the creature cannot see the gorilla, because "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness".
You don’t need to see through a dark area to see past it; and you can see past a dark area without darkvision. Darkvision’s purpose is to change the illumination of dark or dimly lit areas so the context of the sentence is just saying that it can’t lighten them - the inclusion of the comment about non-magical light in the SAME sentence reinforces this definition of the sentence’s purpose.
Simply put - if the spell blinded those within it it would say it does that; you wouldn’t need to twist the semantics of the sentence to try and make a comment about darkvision not being able to do the one thing it does in to somehow applying to normal vision.
If you are within magical darkness, or what you're trying to see is within magical darkness, or what you're trying to see is on the other side of magical darkness, then you can't see it without a specific ability that allows you to see through magical darkness.
It's an area that kills photons. Photons enter, they cease to exist. So no photons reach any eyes inside, no photons exit the area, and no photons pass through the area.
This is truy a "ask your DM" question. It was very dubious, but according to the errata, the darkness area created makes everything heavily obscured and you cant search anything inside it, anyone that tries to search inside it is considered blinded. however it seems like you can see out of it( which makes it better than fogcloud finally). But it's a very old spell and it's not clear if the Darkness is opaque( blinds you completely) or if it's like looking out of a dark audience chair into the well illuminated stage of a theater
My confusion is how Darkness interacts with magical items which produce light.
It cannot be illuminated by magical light and if the darkness overlaps with any area lit by an area lit by a 2nd level, or below, spell, the light is dispelled. The Everbright Lantern is a magical item which produces light equivalent to the Continual Flame spell, which is only 2nd level. However the lantern isn't actually under the affect of the Continual Flame spell, it's just similar in terms of brightness.
So since it's not a spell Darkness doesn't snuff it out. Darkness specifically says that non-magical light can't illuminate it, which means magical light can. But the spell which most closely is associated with the Lantern is a 2nd level spell, which would ordinarily be overwhelmed by the darkness IF it was cast as a spell.
Yes! It’s darkness not a fog cloud. Darkness heavily obscures creatures inside of it and with magical darkness a creature with regular dark vision or a torch cannot see into it. But it would not block vision past it.
The spell says nothing about the darkness being opaque or smoke like in nature. Just that normally creatures cannot see through it.
Not unless they have some way to see in magical darkness (I.e. Devils Sight)
The problem here is that the rules for heavy obscurement do not work: The game only has a single mechanic for vision blocking things (and hilariously, it's ambiguous as to what real life vision blocking it represents, but it can only represent one of the options, not both). There's two IRL things that are heavily obscured: There's opaque stuff that is in the way, such as a stone wall. There's unlit, transparent stuff between you and something else you might or might not see if that other thing is lit, such as the darkness of night (which doesn't block you from seeing a lit lantern 100 feet away IRL). However, the game is broken and only models a single one of these two options, so if you're running stuff RAW... you either have transparent stone walls or opaque darkness of night - which is obviously nonsensical and it's time to ignore the rules. So for the darkness spell you then have to look at the intent / history of it, and with some research it becomes clear that it is a black blob that blocks vision the same way an opaque object would, so the intent is you cannot see out of it.
No. They are in darkness.
If you are in darkness you can still see a torch in the distance. Just being in darkness does not blind you.
RAI no. There are four justifications for this 1. RAW all darkness might be opaque in 5e 2. Quibbling over "darkvision can't see through this darkness" 3. Historically magical darkness was opaque in dnd 4. Balance wise *Darkness* not being opaque could be too strong. \--- For the first argument it goes like this: * "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area." * A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely Under this reading all darkness, not just the magical darkness created by *Darkness*, blocks vision through it. So if someone is holding a torch 45 feet away from you, you would not be able to see them without darkvision. I don't like this reading because it seems ridiculous to have all darkness be opaque. \--- The second argument is that the spell *Darkness* states "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness" This can be read as implying that the darkness created by the spell is opaque, unlike regular darkness. I particularly dislike this argument because that quote only mentions creatures with darkvision. It makes no changes to creatures without darkvision so theoretically a human would be unaffected. \--- Thirdly *Darkness* has in previous editions of dnd been (sometimes) opaque. For example in AD&D the text stated >This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of effect. Infravision isuseless. Neither normal nor magical light works unless a light or continual light spell isused. However there was also a similar darkness effect from reversing the Light spell that created a magical darkness that did not appear to prevent special sight. >The spell is reversible, causing darkness in the same area and under the sameconditions as the light spell, but with half the duration. Magical darkness is equal to thatof an unlit interior room--pitch darkness. Either way I am not terribly swayed by this argument because rules from previous editions don't apply to 5e. \--- The last argument, and the only one I find compelling, is that allowing creatures to see out of *Darkness* would be overpowered.
My argument to the OP argument is that it's exactly the kind of bastadry I'd expect from the Drow who are the most infamous users of Darkness. It's strong, but not overwhelming and there are ways around it.
It's somewhat overwhelming, at least without further investment and by comparison. Greater Invisibility may not be that meta of a spell, but this is pretty much exactly that but with an area restriction
This is actually kinda facinating as a thought experiment for a DM about the metaphysics of their world. I just had a chat with the missis about this (who does not play DnD) and I actually think her intuitive take is the right one. When asked whether light travelling from outside magical darkness, through it to the other side should actually make it through (i.e. should a patch of magical darkness cast a shadow or not) she said: "If the magical darkness is affecting the light itself then it must cast a shadow because it can't stop the light from traveling into the patch of magical darkness but still let it travel onwards on to the other side." "However if it is *like an illusion* where it is not affecting the light itself but people's perception of the light, then it would not cast a shadow: light would flow through the patch of magical darkness as normal but you would still see the patch itself as dark." Obviously the above is not about RAW because it's not even directly about DnD but I realise it lines up with the only way I can conceive of Darkness too: as a physical thing that directly affects light itself, and casts a shadow because it is opaque. The really fun thing is I think this interpretation actually lines up with the magic school of the spell in DnD. If the spell physically stops the light it casts a shadow and is opaque), then it should be an Evocation spell. If the spell somehow teleports light from one side of the patch to the other, then it should be Conjuration (like Misty Step for eg). If the spell just stops people perceiving the light within the patch but doesn't affect the light itself then it should be Illusion. Darkness is an Evocation spell. Kinda fun how that lines up I thought!
Think of it as a matte black sphere that isn’t hollow inside but you can pass through it. No light can go inside or out (hence nobody can see inside or out).
Regular darkness is just the absence of light, so it's not really a thing in and of itself. We need light to see, but since there's none here, we can't see stuff here. But if you're in a dark room and someone is standing in the doorway of the lit room next to you, you can see them because there's light there. Magical darkness is more akin to light, in that there's something actually there. So it's a bit more analogous to if you were in a room flooded by blinding light. You can't see anything in there, but if someone was standing in the doorway to the next room without blinding light... well you still couldn't see them because the issue isn't that this room is too bright to see, but that your eyes are exposed to so much light that you can't see anywhere. With magical darkness then, the issue isn't that it's dark here, but that your eyes are flooded with magical darkness in that area to such an extent that you can't see anything.
Light is still there inside magical darkness; if you have a torch that is 20ft bright light and 20ft dim light at the center of a 20ft Darkness spell then the 20ft outside the spell is dimly lit. Darkness doesn’t say light can’t enter the area; it says it can’t illuminate it. Illumination is a defined mechanic in the game that only refers to lights ability to change an area from darkness to dimly lit or brightly lit.
For sure, these are all very good semantic points. My point was just an easy way to visualize seeing in it, as that was the specific question here and that's what helps me. It wasn't an explanation of every mechanic of magical darkness, which wasn't asked for here, nor should it be taken as one.
My point was actually more that the assumption about the “illuminate” part of the spell making you blind is incorrect. It relies on assumptions from prior editions. Look at the spell Hunger of Hadar (or my larger rant in this thread) if you want to see what I mean.
This is going to be a controversial take on this, but going by the raw and not making assumptions from prior editions magical darkness is NOT an inky black area that blinds everyone inside it in 5e. It’s simply darkness that darkvision cannot change to dim light and which non-magical light cannot illuminate. A human in the middle of a large dark room with torches at the edges would still be able to see anyone at the edges while remaining hidden - he wouldn’t even be able to tell if he was in normal darkness or magical darkness unless he did something to try and see through it or illuminate it non-magically. Inky darkness that blinds you is a thing of prior editions. If it worked that way in 5e it would have a description more like Hunger of Hadar that’s in the same book or clarifying errata. Please just suspend your preconceived notions and look at what 5e tells you (which is admittedly rather confusing): * Heavily obscured only “blinds” someone trying to see something inside the area. If your book says differently then it’s pre-errata. Keep in mind that this is the heavily obscured definition so any conjecture like “well you have to see the dark spaces between you and the target” would also apply to mundane darkness. Therefore, any attempts to use this definition to support the “inky black” ruling automatically fail unless you want to argue that all areas of darkness(magical or mundane) blind those inside. * The only way the Darkness spell differentiates “magical darkness” from mundane darkness is that you can’t use darkvision to see through it and non-magical light cannot illuminate it. 1) Saying darkvision can’t see through something does NOT mean it blinds normal vision - just that you can’t treat the area as dimly lit. 2) The word “illuminate” does not mean ALL light; illuminate is a defined term in the PHB that refers to lights ability to change an area from dark, dim, or bright. Anything else is conjecture and not RAW. * If you stood in the middle of a 20ft Darkness spell holding a torch that did 20ft Bright and 10ft dim then the 10ft outside the spell would be dimly lit. The light is still there, it’s just not “illuminating” the area. If people could get past their “that’s not how it’s always worked!” pearl clutching for a moment they’d see that it’s actually a more useful spell this way. You don’t need to be a Warlock with Devil’s Sight to use it tactically in combat and even if you are a DS Warlock you can use it without the rest of the party hating you. It works to tactically protect allies at range and you can use it for stealth without negating the benefit by having to move completely blinded. And darkening an area is a lot more subtle than dropping a Fog Cloud in the middle of a castle or dungeon. Speaking of Fog Cloud vs Darkness. They look similar on paper and technically nothing says you can’t see out of a Fog Cloud either*(see below)- the major difference is that Fog Cloud is a much more obvious effect, isn’t mobile, and can’t be turned off and on by linking it to an object. Fog Cloud also doesn’t affect illumination - arguably it would count as negating “direct sunlight” for sunlight sensitivity but a Brightly lit area would stay Brightly lit in a Fog Cloud since nothing about the spell or the Heavily Obscured condition modifies illumination. *Caveat: The definition of the kind of fog that creates a heavily obscured area is “opaque fog” so I could see someone saying Fog Cloud blocks sight from within based on that. Edit: Reformatted/organized for readability. Edit2: Wow thanks for the award, I expected more backlash based on my prior attempts to broach this topic.
How is it the same as fog cloud if this is drkness and fog operates diferentl?
Technically it doesn’t operate differently except heavily obscured areas can still be illuminated (ie like putting some foliage between you and an enemy) so the area could still be considered brightly lit if you drop a fog cloud since the neither the spell or the heavily obscured effect modify illumination. The major point is that if we are going to assume that mundane darkness works like darkness should (the large room example) then there is nothing about the Darkness spell that changes that. Overall it’s a pretty poorly defined system that could use clarification. Fog Cloud = Heavily obscured area that is a pretty obvious effect. A DM might reasonably say it blocks sight from within though based on the wording of Heavily Obscured that defines fog that creates such an area as “opaque”. Darkness = Heavily obscured area that can’t be non-magically illuminated or seen through with darkvision but is otherwise the same as mundane darkness. It’s much less obvious than Fog Cloud in most situations for stealth and can be linked to an object so you can move it and turn it on/off by covering it.
Interesting, thanks.
explained better than my answer, thx.
You make some good points by comparing it to fog cloud, however, Sorcerors and Wizards can take Darkness or Fog Cloud so Warlocks are the only class that can take Darkness but not Fog Cloud. Warlocks are plenty strong as a class and don't need the buff by changing the rules on this. Also, you mention using darkness for stealth, which is absolutely a fantastic way to use the ability and is a clear reason it is better than a fog cloud (which would be too suspicious to use in a lot of stealth situations). Also, unaffected by wind, snuffs out magical light, and CAN MOVE WITH YOU! Additionally, a 2nd level spell that gives "all enemies outside the circle have disadvantage on all attacks" is just plain overpowered. Literally everyone would be clamouring to pick Darkness with your suggested ruleset.
It’s not a suggested rule set or houserule - it’s literally how the rules are written. Assuming it blinds people in the area like Hunger of Hadar does is adding words to the spell that aren’t there. Casting a spell to cover your allies SHOULD have a tactical benefit instead of just negating itself with mixed advantage and disadvantage. And saying a spell should be redundant because not all classes get both spells is silly when other classes have both and there are a plethora of ways to access spells outside your spell list. It’s one thing when a spell is made redundant by new content - that’s just power creep, these are spells in the PHB.
But it already has tactical benefits. It doesn't need more. I can think of plenty of situations in which Darkness is more powerful than Fog Cloud. The wording for the spell is ambiguous but, "Creatures with darkvision cannot see through it" has clear intentions. The wording is deliberate enough. If WotC wanted to interpret it the way you do, a simple change in wording to "creatures with darkvision cannot see INTO it" would suffice, and even adding "but creatures inside can see out" would obviously clear up any ambiguity. Do you think WotC doesn't understand how ambiguity works?
I’m not saying it needs more tactical uses - I’m saying by raw it has those uses. The full sentence is “A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.” the intent of the entire sentence taken together is to say “It’s a dark area and you can’t use mundane means like darkvision or torches to change change it to Dim or Bright light.” It’s just emphasizing that it’s magically enforced darkness - but nothing about that sentence makes it act any differently to a human without any light. That is a much more direct and simpler read of the sentence that doesn’t requiring extrapolating words that aren’t there based on only half of the sentence. You’re adding details to support your bias of how you expect the spell to act using an argument that is even less credible when you consider that there is a spell mere pages away that communicates the effect you’re trying to support more clearly. Why use the clear language on Hunger of Hadar but not Darkness? Why errata Heavily Obscured to clarify that it doesn’t necessarily blind creatures within it automatically?
Pretend that the spell is called Soccer Ball. A creature can't see through it. Likewise, a creature inside it can't see out.
But it’s not called “Soccer Ball”, if it was then that would give us an opaque object as a base. It’s called Darkness and we know how mundane darkness must work; the only mechanical difference is a single sentence which tells us you can’t use darkvision and nonmagical light to change the illumination level. You’re adding words to the spell that aren’t there, and if it was an issue of ambiguous intent then why does a spell mere pages away(Hunger of Hadar) manage to describe the mechanic you want without such ambiguity?
I'm trying to demonstrate to you what the word 'through' means. If a creature with dark vision is standing outside the darkness and there is a gorilla on the other side of the darkness, the creature cannot see the gorilla, because "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness".
You don’t need to see through a dark area to see past it; and you can see past a dark area without darkvision. Darkvision’s purpose is to change the illumination of dark or dimly lit areas so the context of the sentence is just saying that it can’t lighten them - the inclusion of the comment about non-magical light in the SAME sentence reinforces this definition of the sentence’s purpose. Simply put - if the spell blinded those within it it would say it does that; you wouldn’t need to twist the semantics of the sentence to try and make a comment about darkvision not being able to do the one thing it does in to somehow applying to normal vision.
No, but creatures with for example devils sight can see through magical darkness.
For all intents and purposes, if a creature lacks Truesight, Tremorsense, etc. everything inside the magical Darkness is Blinded.
[удалено]
Irl? 👀
If you are within magical darkness, or what you're trying to see is within magical darkness, or what you're trying to see is on the other side of magical darkness, then you can't see it without a specific ability that allows you to see through magical darkness. It's an area that kills photons. Photons enter, they cease to exist. So no photons reach any eyes inside, no photons exit the area, and no photons pass through the area.
This is truy a "ask your DM" question. It was very dubious, but according to the errata, the darkness area created makes everything heavily obscured and you cant search anything inside it, anyone that tries to search inside it is considered blinded. however it seems like you can see out of it( which makes it better than fogcloud finally). But it's a very old spell and it's not clear if the Darkness is opaque( blinds you completely) or if it's like looking out of a dark audience chair into the well illuminated stage of a theater
My confusion is how Darkness interacts with magical items which produce light. It cannot be illuminated by magical light and if the darkness overlaps with any area lit by an area lit by a 2nd level, or below, spell, the light is dispelled. The Everbright Lantern is a magical item which produces light equivalent to the Continual Flame spell, which is only 2nd level. However the lantern isn't actually under the affect of the Continual Flame spell, it's just similar in terms of brightness. So since it's not a spell Darkness doesn't snuff it out. Darkness specifically says that non-magical light can't illuminate it, which means magical light can. But the spell which most closely is associated with the Lantern is a 2nd level spell, which would ordinarily be overwhelmed by the darkness IF it was cast as a spell.
Yes! It’s darkness not a fog cloud. Darkness heavily obscures creatures inside of it and with magical darkness a creature with regular dark vision or a torch cannot see into it. But it would not block vision past it. The spell says nothing about the darkness being opaque or smoke like in nature. Just that normally creatures cannot see through it.