D&D 5E Darkvision and Magical Darkness

[DEFCON 1]

DM's ruling. The DM can decide for themself how they wish to adjudicate it... probably with some discussion with the players who have darkvision and magical darkness capabilities to come up with an acceptable agreement.

 

[mamba]

The specific to general only works when the mechanic is referenced directly. So if Devil's Sight said "The Darkness spell doesn't impede the Imp's darkvision." then it would overcome that mechanic. But, it says "Magical darkness doesn't impede the imp's darkvision." By Crawford's ruling this is nonsensical, because ALL darkvision is not impeded by magical darkness.

according to the rules it is affected…

In this case (using Crawford's interpretation) the spell is the most specific, it says 'A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness.'

but a creature with Devil Sight can

 

[darbyrm]

according to the rules it is affected…


but a creature with Devil Sight can

I quoted all the rules. What rule says that an Imp can see through the Darkness spell. It only says it can see through magical darkness, which is more generic than the specific wording in the Darkness spell.
PHB 2014 says:
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don't have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can't normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

and 2024 version words it this way:

Exceptions Supersede General Rules
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That's a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements--class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like--that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.

So a creature with Devil's Sight generally can see through magical darkness with darkvision. (affecting multiple spells that create darkness)
Specifically the Darkness spell states darkvision cannot see through this darkness. (affecting only a single spell's darkness effect)
What 'according to the rules' says otherwise?

 

[Maxperson]

I quoted all the rules. What rule says that an Imp can see through the Darkness spell. It only says it can see through magical darkness, which is more generic than the specific wording in the Darkness spell.
PHB 2014 says:
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

It's the opposite. The Darkness Spell generally blocks darkvision, but the imp has both darkvision and a second very specific ability that allows it to see through magical darkness, which overcomes the spells general darkvision block.

 

[darbyrm]

Let me try one more time to simplify my point - which is Crawford and Sage Advice got this one wrong.

According to Crawford/SAC, magical darkness is not different than normal darkness except that it was created by magic. It otherwise follows all the normal rules for darkness.

Further, the darkvision blocking power of the Darkness spell is entirely due to the specific rules written into that spell, and has nothing to do with the fact that it is magical darkness.

Following this logic, other things written in the darkness spell are specific only to the darkness spell - including that the darkness can't be illuminated by normal light.

Here are the reasons why that ruling does not work:

Imps ability to see in magical darkness is completely redundant.

Devil's Sight. Magical Darkness doesn't impede the imp's Darkvision.

Magical Darkness (according to Crawford/SAC) doesn't impede anyone's Darkvision. An ability to see in magical darkness - no matter how specific - would not stop them from being affected by the darkness spell. The darkness spell's text stops a creature with darkvision from seeing through it. Their ability or inability to see normally in magical darkness is irrelevant. If you insist that seeing in magical darkness lets you bypass the wording of the spell (as interpreted by Crawford) you would also have to let an elf see in the darkness spell. There is absolutely no way to interpret the rules so that an Imp's ability to see in magical darkness lets them see in the darkness spell and not let an elf's normal darkvision which is also unimpeded by magical darkness do the same. The only way an imp can see in the darkness spell and an elf can't is if magical darkness normally impedes darkvision. The magical darkness isn't stopping the imp from seeing, the text of the actual spell is (Imp is a creature with darkvision - TRUE, creature with darkvision can't see in this darkness - TRUE, Imp can't see in this darkness - TRUE). An Imp's ability to see in magical darkness is not specific to the darkness spell, so it doesn't override it's rules. The ability would have to say 'An Imp can see normally in the darkness spell.' to be more specific than the rules in the darkness spell, because the darkness spell - not magical darkness - is blocking it's vision. Hunger of Hadar also is a sphere of darkness, and it specifically blinds all inside. Are imps immune to that because of devil's sight? No of course not, so they also are not immune to the specific wording of the darkness spell IF that wording is not inheirant to magical darkness as is now ruled.

The Tricksy Fey from Summon Fey has no tricks.

Crawford/SAC has ruled that none of the specific rules from the darkness spell are inherent to magical darkness. This means that not only does darkvision pierce the tricksy fey's 5' cube of magical darkness... but also it doesn't have the specific ability of the darkness spell to not be illuminated by normal light. This means if there is a torch next to the darkness, it's illuminated. If the sun is out, it's illuminated. The only place the tricksy fey's darkness can stay dark is if it's placed in an area that is already dark. So it literally does absolutely nothing.

It is clear that the original intent was for the darkness spell to define magical darkness. You don't write the imp's devil's sight in that way unless you are under the assumption that magical darkness normally blocks darkvision. You don't put a 5' cube of darkness on the tricksy fey without further details unless you assume you are going to treat it the same as the darkness spell. I agree that strict RAW Crawford is right, but putting it into SAC makes it RAI too... which means they intend imp's devil's sight to be useless and for fey spirit to also be useless. They need to swallow their pride on this, admit they are wrong, and errata in how everybody was interpreting this spell up until Crawford made his tweet.

 

[abirdcall]

Yeah, seems clear to me that magical darkness is intended to block darkvision but it got lost in the editing/drafting somewhere.