Essentially, we're talking about two distinct descriptions of Darkness spell effect:
cloud of opaque magical fog, that blocks all light from passing through
magical effect that forbids all objects within itself to reflect light, i.e. prevents anything to be illuminated but does not block light by itself
I actually like the second variant, it seems more magical somehow, but the problem is that in this case you would see the silhouette of objects within the Darkness, if there is a light source on its far side...
The vision and obscurement rules are very abstract, treating light levels as a constant at any particular location rather than taking into account the relative positions of observers and light sources. There's two broad ways (with infinitely many variations and intermediate approaches) a DM can approach this:
DMs can treat the rules as an abstraction, sticking with them when they make sense and deviating from them when they don't. In such a case, a backlit creature in a naturally dark square would be visible by its silhouette and thus, by definition, not heavily obscured.
DMs can treat the rules as defining the physics of how light works in a D&D setting, and go with them regardless of whether or not they produce outcomes that match real-world understandings of what would or would not be visible in certain circumstances. In such a case, a backlit creature in a naturally dark square would be heavily obscured, by definition, and thus observers would be "effectively blind" when trying to see that creature, rendering the silhouette unseen. Under this approach creatures would never be visible as silhouettes, since any creature would have to be standing in at least dim light for the silhouette to be visible, but in dim light the creature would be visible as more than a silhouette anyway.
Either approach has (surmountable!) problems when trying to describe the visuals of the Darkness spell "as you would any normal unlit area".
In the first approach, backlit creatures in the area of the spell are visible as silhouettes, which contradicts the rule that creatures in a heavily obscured area are not visible (because observers are "effectively blind" when trying to observe them). (This issue doesn't arise with natural darkness because under approach 1 the DM simply rules that creatures visible in natural darkness as silhouettes aren't heavily obscured in the first place.) This issue can be surmounted by nerfing the spell and ruling that backlit creatures in the area aren't heavily obscured after all.
In the second approach, backlit creatures in the area of the spell are not visible. The spell effectively thus creates a sphere in which observers are "effectively blind" with regards to everything in the area, but not the areas behind the darkness, making everything in the area effectively transparent. This directly conflicts with the description of the spell that describes it as creating darkness that fills a sphere and says nothing about making creatures or objects transparent. Additionally, if the spell has the effect of rendering creatures and objects transparent, there is the additional problem of what to do with barriers in the area like walls and floors. Observers are "effectively blind" with respect to them too, but not to the areas behind them, so in theory they should also be rendered transparent, but that produces the absurd result of letting the Darkness spell allow observers to see past opaque barriers into lit areas beyond. (This issue doesn't arise with natural darkness, because there is no spell involved that needs to be interpreted to have a consistent effect that matches the spell text.*) This issue can be surmounted by being ok with the radical departure from the descriptive text of the spell. The walls/floors issue can be surmounted by ruling that the transparency produced by the spell is directional, and only applies when seen from directions in which there is a backlight, and that creatures/objects/walls/floors remain opaque when viewed from non-backlit angles.
A super-literal version of the second approach could, if taken far enough, produce the "effectively-blind-with-respect-to-an-unilluminated-wall" x-ray vision problem with natural darkness, but I'm assuming no DMs go that far.
If instead the darkness created by the spell is opaque, neither approach to the vision and obscurement rules produces a problem.
I would also note that any interpretation that treats the darkness created by spell as transparent has the problem that the darkness itself can't be seen, which arguably conflicts with the description of the spell as creating darkness that fills a sphere. This is surmountable either by being ok with the created darkness being unapparent to observers, or by, e.g., making the darkness only partially transparent so that its scope is still visible.
As for why the 3.5 version didn't have the same issues, that's because the spell fairly clearly described a situation where affected creatures and objects were visible as silhouettes, and provided explicit game rule effects for how to treat those silhouettes (i.e. 20% miss chance from concealment). 3.5 also lacked the "effectively blind" language in its vision rules that produces so many complications in 5e.
That's how I'm going to run that from now on:
Visually, the spell can cause the creatures within to cast their silhouettes against a bright background. Even in that case, mechanically, creatures would still benefit from being inside a heavily Obscured area, thus any attack made against them would still have disadvantage.
That's how I'm going to run that from now on:
Visually, the spell can cause the creatures within to cast their silhouettes against a bright background. Even in that case, mechanically, creatures would still benefit from being inside a heavily Obscured area, thus any attack made against them would still have disadvantage.
That approach certainly works. Do note that ruling such creatures are both visible and simultaneously Heavily Obscured may produce follow-on complications, such as whether or not you let such creatures take the Hide action.
That approach certainly works. Do note that ruling such creatures are both visible and simultaneously Heavily Obscured may produce follow-on complications, such as whether or not you let such creatures take the Hide action.
They can. They are mechanically heavily Obscured. The visible silhouette stuff is just to satisfy the player's need for a visual clue. I doubt my players will ever pay attention to that anyway.
Assuming that the dense foliage is so high that the dog cannot see over it, there's still the issue that there are spaces and gaps between the tree trunks, leaves, vines, etc. through which the dog could see the bunny in the sunlit area beyond. If you're positing that the area of trees is a solid obstacle, providing the bunny with total cover, that's something in addition to a heavily obscured area.
Assuming that the dense foliage is so high that the dog cannot see over it, there's still the issue that there are spaces and gaps between the tree trunks, leaves, vines, etc. through which the dog could see the bunny in the sunlit area beyond. If you're positing that the area of trees is a solid obstacle, providing the bunny with total cover, that's something in addition to a heavily obscured area.
This thread have made me reach the conclusion that both the "magically induced transparent area of shadows" and the "impenetrable black inkblot"interpretations are equally possible and can both be made to fit RAW. It seems it would be easier to just delete the Darkness spell altogether and spare ourselves from the headache.
That said, this thread also made me realize how incomplete the lighting rules really are. Forget the spell for a moment. Imagine someone is standing at one end of a hallway, right under the bright light radius of a lamp and at the far end, there's a brick wall with another lamp attached to it. Now imagine there's an orc standing within the darkness in the middle of the hallway. Would the first character be able to see the orc's silhouette against the brightly lit background?
That said, this thread also made me realize how incomplete the lighting rules really are. Forget the spell for a moment. Imagine someone is standing at one end of a hallway, right under the bright light radius of a lamp and at the far end, there's a brick wall with another lamp attached to it. Now imagine there's an orc standing within the darkness in the middle of the hallway. Would the first character be able to see the orc's silhouette against the brightly lit background?
That's what I might have done too, but how far apart the two light sources should be for me to consider the area in between as heavily obscured?
Also, it's worth nothing that the use o dynamic lighting in VTT's make this kind of on-spot adjucating harder.
