D&D 5E Darkvision and Magical Darkness

[James Gasik]

We know that the Darkness spell blocks darkvision because it says it does. But I was just watching a Treantmonk video, where he points out that not being able to see in magical Darkness isn't part of Darkvision (which never says anything about it) but specific spells that create magical darkness; the spells Hallow and Summon Fey have options to create magical darkness that don't say a thing about darkvision.

So I'm curious what other people think about this. Is darkvision intended to be always blocked by magical darkness? If so, why is that explicit in some spells, and not in the rules for darkvision?

Conversely, do you feel this is a universal rule, and that Hallow or the Tricksy Fey Spirit were intended to work just like the Darkness spell, and the relevant text was simply omitted to save space?

 

[Maxperson]

We know that the Darkness spell blocks darkvision because it says it does. But I was just watching a Treantmonk video, where he points out that not being able to see in magical Darkness isn't part of Darkvision (which never says anything about it) but specific spells that create magical darkness; the spells Hallow and Summon Fey have options to create magical darkness that don't say a thing about darkvision.

So I'm curious what other people think about this. Is darkvision intended to be always blocked by magical darkness?

I think that's the intent, yes. However, if you ask Crawford he will say that it is only blocked by the darkness spell, the same way that See Invisibility doesn't let you see invisible things. He's big on letter of the law with his rulings. Then sometimes later errata clarifies and the clarification is often different than his ruling.

If so, why is that explicit in some spells, and not in the rules for darkvision?

Sloppiness is my guess. The designers tried very hard to simplify the rules. I think darkvision probably had language for it like prior editions, but the language was removed to simplify the ability. Afterwards the other spells were probably overlooked.

 

[James Gasik]

I think that's the intent, yes. However, if you ask Crawford he will say that it is only blocked by the darkness spell, the same way that See Invisibility doesn't let you see invisible things. He's big on letter of the law with his rulings. Then sometimes later errata clarifies and the clarification is often different than his ruling.

Sloppiness is my guess. The designers tried very hard to simplify the rules. I think darkvision probably had language for it like prior editions, but the language was removed to simplify the ability. Afterwards the other spells were probably overlooked.

As an aside, that invisibility ruling just rubs me the wrong way. I can see, from a power level perspective, not wanting Greater Invisibility trumped by a 2nd level spell, but then faerie fire comes along and says hi! And what about effects that let you see invisible things that aren't spells, like the Robe of Eyes? I have no words.

 

[renbot]

As an aside, that invisibility ruling just rubs me the wrong way. I can see, from a power level perspective, not wanting Greater Invisibility trumped by a 2nd level spell, but then faerie fire comes along and says hi! And what about effects that let you see invisible things that aren't spells, like the Robe of Eyes? I have no words.

Not to derail with a tangent, but I had NO idea this is how JC had "ruled." Yikes!
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that Imp Inv can't be overcome by any spell under 4th level or something?

 

[Maxperson]

Not to derail with a tangent, but I had NO idea this is how JC had "ruled." Yikes!
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that Imp Inv can't be overcome by any spell under 4th level or something?

Crawford's reasoning went something like this.

Question: "If I cast See Invisibility and can see my opponent, do I still have disadvantage to hit him?"
Crawford: "The spell doesn't say that your opponent loses the effects of being invisible, so he doesn't. In order to explain this we can imagine that you really can't see the invisible creature, so it's something like the Predator where you can see it, but not see it."

That was the point where all the rest of us scratched our heads and some of us pointed out here on the forum that the spell says you can see the invisible thing as if it were visible.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that's the intent, yes. However, if you ask Crawford he will say that it is only blocked by the darkness spell, the same way that See Invisibility doesn't let you see invisible things. He's big on letter of the law with his rulings. Then sometimes later errata clarifies and the clarification is often different than his ruling.

Yeah, in one of the 1D&D videos, he kinda stealth-confirmed that Sage Advice clarifies RAW, not RAI. He was talking about the changes to the life cleric and how the playtest version fixes a bug where the bonus healing used to work on things like Goodberry, and he said the new wording was always how they intended for the feature to work, but in the past they’ve stood by the rules as they’re actually written in the books, because those are the rules players have available and they want the game to work the way the rules say it does. Or something along those lines, I don’t recall his exact wording off the top of my head.

 

[Quickleaf]

We know that the Darkness spell blocks darkvision because it says it does. But I was just watching a Treantmonk video, where he points out that not being able to see in magical Darkness isn't part of Darkvision (which never says anything about it) but specific spells that create magical darkness; the spells Hallow and Summon Fey have options to create magical darkness that don't say a thing about darkvision.

So I'm curious what other people think about this. Is darkvision intended to be always blocked by magical darkness? If so, why is that explicit in some spells, and not in the rules for darkvision?

Conversely, do you feel this is a universal rule, and that Hallow or the Tricksy Fey Spirit were intended to work just like the Darkness spell, and the relevant text was simply omitted to save space?

The Tricksy Fey from Summon Fey (Tasha's) is poorly written, because it assumes that "magical darkness" is a unified mechanic in 5e. You kind of see that reinforced with the puzzle on page 177 that also mention magical darkness.

Which is not the case if we look at how Hallow is written. Darkness created by the darkness spell is not the same as darkness created by the hallow spell - the latter is not an impenetrable sphere of inky blackness that seeps around corners, rather the hallow spell's darkness effect is suppressing candles/torches/holy light. You can't light up the space of a hallow spell, so if the scene is nighttime at a ruined cathedral with a broken roof, you'll still have ambient moon/starlight coming in to pockets of the space, but other areas may be pitch black. However, you can walk into the hallow-darkened area as a dwarf and use your darkvision to see in shades of grey just fine.

I think "magical darkness" is not a unified mechanic just as "magical light" is not a unified mechanic. Some magical darkness is impenetrable to darkvision, other magical darkness (e.g. hallow) suppresses light both magical and mundane, while others (e.g. shadow of moil) heavily obscure you and dim any nearby light. Similarly, some magical light acts as sunlight, while other magical light does not.

I think the intent is that there is no universal "magical darkness" (or "magical light") mechanic, rather each of these spells is its own thing.

 

[Maxperson]

@James Gasik The monster manual has this tidbit. The PHB similarly calls it out with truesight.

TRUESIGHT
A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects..."

So truesight is calling out magical darkness as something it will allow vision in. It's not proof, but it's another hint that magical darkness is intended to stop darkvision.

Devil's Sight the warlock ability also calls out magical darkness.

"You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet."

I think it's pretty likely that the intent is to call out magical darkness as something you can't see in unless the ability specifies that you can see in magical darkness.

 

[James Gasik]

@James Gasik The monster manual has this tidbit. The PHB similarly calls it out with truesight.

TRUESIGHT
A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects..."

So truesight is calling out magical darkness as something it will allow vision in. It's not proof, but it's another hint that magical darkness is intended to stop darkvision.

Devil's Sight the warlock ability also calls out magical darkness.

"You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet."

I think it's pretty likely that the intent is to call out magical darkness as something you can't see in unless the ability specifies that you can see in magical darkness.

I mean it had always been my assumption it works this way (magical darkness > darkvision) because it's been that way for so long in the game's history. But to my mind, it still seems backwards.

One line in Darkvision "this ability has no effect in magical darkness" would set the precedent and then you wouldn't have to keep repeating it with every ability that creates "magical darkness".

There just isn't any real reason to do it the way it's done in the rulebooks, hence my confusion.

 

[jgsugden]

There are a lot of questions on how darkness is supposed to work. Is it blackness that blocks sight of what is on the otherside of the blackness? Or is it just that the area inside the darkness is dark and things on the other side are fully illuminated and can be seen through the darkness?

This is one area I'd like to see them improve in One D&D. They could be clearer about magical darkness. Until then, I think you just have to ask the DM what they think.