It does for them, and that's what matters. It literally doesn't matter one bit whether area is obscured or not if no one is looking, it only matters what the effect is for those who are looking.
The explanation is that I understand how vision works. I could of course go into more detail, but at this point it is obvious that it would be a waste of time.
I don't know about you and the others, but between you and me, you seem to think that there is a vast divide between how we're seeing things, when in reality we only have one minor difference:
For instance, this comment is very arrogant of you to assume that no one else understands how vision works, just because they don't agree with you that "Heavy Obscurement" requires a 100% lack of vision.
Yes. All that talk about not letting a single photon go though made me realize that too. They believe "heavily obscured" must mean absolutely devoid of any light. Which is kinda impossible to achieve. Even inside a sealed metal box, quantum tunnelling is bound to teleport a few photons in eventually.
And yet they assume that we don't understand the science, because the spell very obviously causes something to exist that is impossible. Which is what magic does and we all know it!
No, it's not that. I accept that the game state 'darkness' can also mean, really, really dark but still not total pitch-black. But the difference I was trying to explain was that I consider the visibility from the point of view of the one who is looking, thus visibility is subjective, not objective. The same thing can be obscured to one person but not to another. Darkvision of course commonly creates this situation, but other factors should logically cause it too, like the relative positions of the onlookers.
No, heavy obscurement doesn't require that. An area that cannot be illuminated however does.
Not so. As I’ve said before, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of creatures and objects being sufficiently obscured as to incur the penalties associated with heavy obscurement, without necessarily being completely impossible to see. Legal blindness is a good example. The photon stuff is about the descriptive language of the spell.
That's a really fair and reasonable way to rule it. Still, the main goal of this thread was to clarify if the Darkness spell should block or not vision to things beyond it's area, but not inside it. By RAW.No, it's not that. I accept that the game state 'darkness' can also mean, really, really dark but still not total pitch-black. But the difference I was trying to explain was that I consider the visibility from the point of view of the one who is looking, thus visibility is subjective, not objective. The same thing can be obscured to one person but not to another. Darkvision of course commonly creates this situation, but other factors should logically cause it too, like the relative positions of the onlookers.
For example here bunny is next to heavy foliage. I'd rule she is heavily obscured to the dog, but not obscured at all to the cat. Pretty normal situation. In some situations lightning conditions might require similar directional assessment.
Normal darkness sure, but not the spell. The spell specifically says that non-magical light doesn't illuminate it, so there is nothing but blackness within the spell. No shades of grey at all. Since it also negates darkvision, there is no way to see at all while inside of it, or into it if you are outside of it. All ambient light ceases to have any effect.
