RAW poll: can you see things in the dark?

[MaxWilson]

Scenario: you're at one end of a dark cave, 300' long. At the other end of the cave there's a man holding a torch. Everywhere else it's dark.

Relevant rules (underlined emphasis mine):

Vision and Light
The most fundamental tasks of adventuring–noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few–rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area.

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.


The question: by RAW, can you see the man?

I'm asking because on a different thread, someone said this:


I think the vast majority are in agreement that RAW says non-magical darkness blocks vision entirely.

and I want to see if that's true. Do the vast majority of DMs really think that you couldn't see the man with the torch by RAW because darkness "blocks vision entirely", or do plenty of DMs think that you should read and apply the second sentence about "effectively blinded" to understand what "blocks vision entirely" is intended to mean?

[Aimeryan]

...or do plenty of DMs think that you should read and apply the second sentence about "effectively blinded" to understand what "blocks vision entirely" is intended to mean?

Objection! The statement isn't about what is reasonable, but is about what is written.

My contention is that the book clearly states:

Darkness is a heavily obscured area
A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely
Ergo, darkness blocks vision entirely


It is of course absurd, but it is also what is written. Would people disagree that it is indeed written so in the books?

[16bearswutIdo]

"Blocks vision entirely" in this instance means that you cannot see in the area. It doesn't mean you can't see beyond it. If there's a pit between you and the man, you can't see the pit but you can see the man because he is not in darkness.

There's really no other way to interpret it unless you've never seen nighttime before and English is not your first language.

[Aimeryan]

"Blocks vision entirely" in this instance means that you cannot see in the area. It doesn't mean you can't see beyond it. If there's a pit between you and the man, you can't see the pit but you can see the man because he is not in darkness.

There's really no other way to interpret it unless you've never seen nighttime before and English is not your first language.

That is not blocking vision, that is just not providing vision. The other descriptions in heavily obscured include opaque fog and dense foilage - these clearly would block vision beyond the area they inhabit. It can not be both ways and ignoring the word 'block' is understandable but not correct.

[Dork_Forge]

Hmm, I can see the RAW argument that you can't but as a DM I take it as this: you can't see the man, but you CAN see the light.

[Max_Killjoy]

When what's written can be read as so clearly contradicting what's reasonable, I will go with what's reasonable 10 out of 10 times.

If we're only discussing natural lack-of-illumination darkness, then of course it doesn't block vision through the area. As noted in the other thread, a world in which you can't see through natural darkness is a world in which light cannot pass through that area to reach your eyes, and thus a world in which there are no stars in the sky and lighthouses don't work.

Stop and consider the in-setting / fiction-level implications of how you're reading the rules.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the writers of 5e had been less eager to use "natural language" and "rulings over rules" as excuses to not write clearly.

[Aimeryan]

When what's written can be read as so clearly contradicting what's reasonable, I will go with what's reasonable 10 out of 10 times.

Indeed, and so would most - I am not contending that.

[Segev]

"Blocks vision entirely" in this instance means that you cannot see in the area. It doesn't mean you can't see beyond it. If there's a pit between you and the man, you can't see the pit but you can see the man because he is not in darkness.

There's really no other way to interpret it unless you've never seen nighttime before and English is not your first language.

I'm in agreement with this, especially given the clarifying clause after the main rule being referenced:


A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area.

The main rule being referenced is:
A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. The next sentence, however, says:
A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area.(bolding mine)

The addition of "in that area" is entirely redundant if it is not meant as a limiting clause. Things not "in that area" are not blocked from his sight. If it were meant to include everything beyond the region of heavy obscurement, it would say "behind the obscurement" or something to that effect.

(This does not leave us with no weird effects in the RAW on vision and obscurement, though: this doesn't matter whether the obscurement comes from darkness, fog, dense foliage, or anything else; if the rules simply specify the area to be heavily obscured, then anything beyond the region is not obscured.

So if the OP's hallway has dense foliage blocking the middle 50% of its length, but the man with the torch at the far end isn't in the foliage, you can see him clearly through the thick leaves, and lose sight of him when he approaches you closely enough to walk into them.)

[MaxWilson]

When what's written can be read as so clearly contradicting what's reasonable, I will go with what's reasonable 10 out of 10 times.

If we're only discussing natural lack-of-illumination darkness, then of course it doesn't block vision through the area. As noted in the other thread, a world in which you can't see through natural darkness is a world in which light cannot pass through that area to reach your eyes, and thus a world in which there are no stars in the sky and lighthouses don't work.

Stop and consider the in-setting / fiction-level implications of how you're reading the rules.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the writers of 5e had been less eager to use "natural language" and "rulings over rules" as excuses to not write clearly.

For purposes of this poll, just give us your interpretation of what the rule says, not whether it's a good rule. Is the rule telling you that you can't see the man?

[16bearswutIdo]

That is not blocking vision, that is just not providing vision. The other descriptions in heavily obscured include opaque fog and dense foilage - these clearly would block vision beyond the area they inhabit. It can not be both ways and ignoring the word 'block' is understandable but not correct.

I am not ignoring the word block. If you think of vision as something you do AT a square, the darkness in the square blocks you from seeing it. It doesn't say "Blocks you from seeing beyond the shadow", it says "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."

The darkness blocks the area its in. It doesn't act as a wall preventing you from seeing beyond the darkness, unless beyond the darkness is just more darkness.


There's no RAW argument here, really.

[Aimeryan]

I am not ignoring the word block. If you think of vision as something you do AT a square, the darkness in the square blocks you from seeing it. It doesn't say "Blocks you from seeing beyond the shadow", it says "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."

The darkness blocks the area its in. It doesn't act as a wall preventing you from seeing beyond the darkness, unless beyond the darkness is just more darkness.


There's no RAW argument here, really.

The area blocks vision entirely. It does not state, 'of the area'. That is a pretty significant omission; without that condition it is not limited to just the area.

[Max_Killjoy]

For purposes of this poll, just give us your interpretation of what the rule says, not whether it's a good rule. Is the rule telling you that you can't see the man?


If you're only asking about interpreting RAW in a vacuum, then my answer is always going to be orthogonal to that approach, and I cordially withdraw it. :smallsmile:

[16bearswutIdo]

The area blocks vision entirely. It does not state, 'of the area'. That is a pretty significant omission; without that condition it is not limited to just the area.

What? It very specifically says the creature suffers a penalty when trying to see something IN that area.

"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."

[Aimeryan]

What? It very specifically says the creature suffers a penalty when trying to see something IN that area.

"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."

Sure, and that is a consequence of the former. It is not stated as being exhaustive.

[Imbalance]

Seems that to be classified as unlit, the dungeon must not have the man with the torch. I would rule that the torch is the only thing to be seen unless you are within the torchlight's radius.

[darknite]

I'm glad something called a "Dungeon Master" was included in this rule set.

[Segev]

What? It very specifically says the creature suffers a penalty when trying to see something IN that area.

"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."


Sure, and that is a consequence of the former. It is not stated as being exhaustive.

Then the man is obviously completely (effectively) blind when he tries to see something in the area of heavy obscurement. Therefore, while trying to see a man standing in a fog bank whose edge is 30 feet away, the character cannot see the eight orcs that have surrounded him. He is also automatically immune to the medusa's gaze, despite the fact that she stands directly between him and the fog bank, right in his line of sight, because he's TRYING to see somebody standing behind her, within the fog bank.

[MaxWilson]

If you're only asking about interpreting RAW in a vacuum, then my answer is always going to be orthogonal to that approach, and I cordially withdraw it. :smallsmile:

It's really a question about English, not gameplay. I'll count you as a non-answer for now, or maybe as "it's a bad question". : )

[Willie the Duck]

Sure, and that is a consequence of the former. It is not stated as being exhaustive.

1)A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. 2)A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area.
Numbers added to sentences
It is not decisively clear whether it is or not. The first sentence in isolation -- the existence of heavily obscured areas block vision in all places in all instances-- is nonsensical. Reading in isolation creates a mu answer to the poll question. Including the second sentence in the total rule as inseparable qualifies the term "blocks vision" into a non-nonsensical form (one that limits it to resolving whether one can see something in said area). However, there is no universal rule of language declaring that the second sentence must be interpreted as qualifying the first sentence just because not doing so leaves the first sentence nonsensical. Likewise, there is no requirement that the RAW interpretation must be sensical (in fact, the most common complaint about RAW is that it is nonsensical, although people tend to mean the consequences are, like 3e's drown-healing).

Thus my position is that there are two interpretations of RAW:

The existence of heavily obscured areas in the game world invalidate everyone's visual senses, thus meaning that you cannot see the man, his torch, or anything else in the universe ever, or
heavily obscured indicates that objects in the obscured area cannot be seen, but since the man with the torch do not meet this qualifier, they can be seen (barring additional conditions).

Neither of which are inarguably correct, but neither seem to be the outcome you are arguing for.

Out of curiosity to the OP, what is the context of this poll?

[LibraryOgre]

Seems that to be classified as unlit, the dungeon must not have the man with the torch. I would rule that the torch is the only thing to be seen unless you are within the torchlight's radius.

I want to say it was Romance of the Three Kingdoms which had a character arrive at a rendezvous at night, only to find a note pinned to a tree. He kindles a torch (candle? lantern?), and the note says "[Charname] dies tonight", and all the waiting bandits shoot him full of arrows, since they can see him by that light, the only light around.

Not D&D, but there you are.

[MaxWilson]

Thus my position is that there are two interpretations of RAW:

The existence of heavily obscured areas in the game world invalidate everyone's visual senses, thus meaning that you cannot see the man, his torch, or anything else in the universe ever, or
heavily obscured indicates that objects in the obscured area cannot be seen, but since the man with the torch do not meet this qualifier, they can be seen (barring additional conditions).

Neither of which are inarguably correct, but neither seem to be the outcome you are arguing for.

Out of curiosity to the OP, what is the context of this poll?

The bolded one is the outcome I personally believe is clearly RAW. (BTW "RAW" is not a compliment. In this case the RAW are fine for darkness, but pretty crazy for fog banks. I also suspect whoever wrote that rule was thinking of dense foliage that you can see over instead of tall dense foliage that would block line of sight--the RAW would work okay for foxes hiding from humans in 3'-tall bushes.)

The context of this poll is a silly thread on magical darkness (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?601817-Uses-for-the-spell-Darkness&p=24243806#post24243806) which has gone way off topic and is now about the RAW for regular darkness.


I want to say it was Romance of the Three Kingdoms which had a character arrive at a rendezvous at night, only to find a note pinned to a tree. He kindles a torch (candle? lantern?), and the note says "[Charname] dies tonight", and all the waiting bandits shoot him full of arrows, since they can see him by that light, the only light around.

Not D&D, but there you are.

How poignant.

[Talsin]

This thread opens up a couple new cans of question-worms.

1) Dense Fog; apparently if there is someone deep in the dense fog, they can still see people who aren't in it. Additionally, the people not in the fog cannot see the person in the fog, but can also see each other even across a 300' hallway with fog in the center. The RAW equates non-magical darkness with dense fog and effectively causes this; as if there is some kind of vision gap.

Thus...

2) Line of Sight can be bridged across gaps even if vision within would be blinded. This is really the crux of the initial question posited by OP. Does that sound like it should be correct?

Bonus Round!

3) How far is line of sight? If on a clear day there is a person atop a mountain some 70 miles away, do you have line of sight to him? (pretty easy to see the mountain depending on size - this would be equivalent of Mt. Rainier from UW Seattle Campus). With a spell that does not have a set distance but required line of sight, would it work on such a target?

[Aimeryan]

This thread opens up a couple new cans of question-worms.

1) Dense Fog; apparently if there is someone deep in the dense fog, they can still see people who aren't in it. Additionally, the people not in the fog cannot see the person in the fog, but can also see each other even across a 300' hallway with fog in the center. The RAW equates non-magical darkness with dense fog and effectively causes this; as if there is some kind of vision gap.

Thus...

2) Line of Sight can be bridged across gaps even if vision within would be blinded. This is really the crux of the initial question posited by OP. Does that sound like it should be correct?

Bonus Round!

3) How far is line of sight? If on a clear day there is a person atop a mountain some 70 miles away, do you have line of sight to him? (pretty easy to see the mountain depending on size - this would be equivalent of Mt. Rainier from UW Seattle Campus). With a spell that does not have a set distance but required line of sight, would it work on such a target?

The rules do group darkness, opaque fog, and dense foilage together indeed - the result is that whatever you rule it applies to all three equally, which is quite absurd when the first is transparent, the second is opaque, and the third is mix leaning more towards opaque. Either you see through all, or you see through none. Bizarre.

However, the thread itself isn't about reason or consequences, it is simply, would the average person when paying attention read 'blocks vision entirely' as to mean 'blocks vision entirely' or to mean 'can be seen through'? Not which they would prefer, but which they see as actually written.

MaxWilson contends it is the latter, with the reason being that the second sentence throws the first out the window and overrides it.
I contend it is the former, with the second sentence being a highlighted consequence, not being exhaustive or overriding.

For the record, both of us agree you should be able to see through darkness and not have vision blocked.

[Imbalance]

The rules do group darkness, opaque fog, and dense foilage together indeed - the result is that whatever you rule it applies to all three equally, which is quite absurd when the first is transparent, the second is opaque, and the third is mix leaning more towards opaque. Either you see through all, or you see through none. Bizarre.

However, the thread itself isn't about reason or consequences, it is simply, would the average person when paying attention read 'blocks vision entirely' as to mean 'blocks vision entirely' or to mean 'can be seen through'? Not which they would prefer, but which they see as actually written.

MaxWilson contends it is the latter, with the reason being that the second sentence throws the first out the window and overrides it.
I contend it is the former, with the second sentence being a highlighted consequence, not being exhaustive or overriding.

For the record, both of us agree you should be able to see through darkness and not have vision blocked.

If there is a source of light at all in this dungeon passage, the darkness is not heavily obscuring. Therefore, it blocks nothing.

[Zalabim]

That is not blocking vision, that is just not providing vision. The other descriptions in heavily obscured include opaque fog and dense foilage - these clearly would block vision beyond the area they inhabit. It can not be both ways and ignoring the word 'block' is understandable but not correct.
It can actually be both ways, but I think in this case it is actually the way that the rule only states that vision is impossible in the heavily obscured area [standing in or looking in? Whichever makes the most sense at the time], and is silent on whether or not it is possible to see what's on the other side of a heavily obscured area.

[Aimeryan]

If there is a source of light at all in this dungeon passage, the darkness is not heavily obscuring. Therefore, it blocks nothing.

The books don't provide it that way - you can have heavily obscured areas (darkness) next to areas of dim light. Realistically, you can have a light source that illuminates an area to different intensities (distance is the usual factor), with some arbitrary cut-off point at which it would be considered dark.

We are talking about a situation where you are in darkness and some distance away is a light.

~~~


It can actually be both ways, but I think in this case it is actually the way that the rule only states that vision is impossible in the heavily obscured area [standing in or looking in? Whichever makes the most sense at the time], and is silent on whether or not it is possible to see what's on the other side of a heavily obscured area.


You could have one block vision and the other not block vision if they wrote separate rules for them, but by saying both have the same rules you either get blocked vision for both or you don't for both.

[AHF]

The rules do group darkness, opaque fog, and dense foilage together indeed - the result is that whatever you rule it applies to all three equally, which is quite absurd when the first is transparent, the second is opaque, and the third is mix leaning more towards opaque. Either you see through all, or you see through none. Bizarre.

However, the thread itself isn't about reason or consequences, it is simply, would the average person when paying attention read 'blocks vision entirely' as to mean 'blocks vision entirely' or to mean 'can be seen through'? Not which they would prefer, but which they see as actually written.

MaxWilson contends it is the latter, with the reason being that the second sentence throws the first out the window and overrides it.
I contend it is the former, with the second sentence being a highlighted consequence, not being exhaustive or overriding.

For the record, both of us agree you should be able to see through darkness and not have vision blocked.

My RAW reading on it is they are the same for exactly what it says they are the same: "when trying to see something in that area." I don't see that RAW you have to treat them the same for seeing things outside of the area as reading the sentences together I think allow you to limit the "blocking vision entirely" to the area at issue. My read is that the second sentence gives you the mechanical parameters for the first sentence so you are not reading the first sentence out but instead qualifying it - it blocks vision entirely within that area.

Since the heavily obscured area ends at a certain point it is then relevant to look at how the area of obscurity interacts with the environment outside of the area of obscurement: darkness doesn't block the ability to see light, the opaque fog blocks the ability to see the light just as a wall would, and the dense foliage is more of a judgment call for the DM based on the density of the foliage, the distance and intensity of the light, etc.

[Talsin]

We are talking about a situation where you are in darkness and some distance away is a light.
Emphasis mine

This is why the initial question leads to: How far can you see under normal circumstances? Without knowing what the RAW for"Some distance" is, we cannot really give a RAW answer. We do however know that it is at a minimum 40 feet away since a torch puts out that much light.

Can you see a mountain climber on Mt. Rainier from UW Seattle 70 miles away enough to target them?

This is starting to sound like the setup to D&D 3.5's Level 1 Fighter Space-Program...

[Keravath]

LOL :) ... inspired by the argument about the darkness spell.

How about this ...

"The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

"A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something in that area."


Can you see a the man standing in the lighted area 300m away? YES. Since they are not in an area where vision is obscured.
Can the man in the light see someone standing in the area of darkness? NO. Because they are heavily obscured.
Can someone standing in the darkness see someone else standing in the darkness? NO. Because they are heavily obscured.
(ignoring back-lighting and all its complications).

The RAW on vision and darkness is incredibly poorly written and doesn't address possible differences between natural and magical darkness.

Yes you could read "A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely." to mean that a naturally dark area prevents vision through it to a lighted area on the far side just as opaque fog and dense foliage would. However, this doesn't really make much sense for natural darkness (even if it is fine for magical darkness) and I like to believe that the folks who wrote the rules liked to assume some level of common sense in those running the game. :) (though DMs are free as always to use whatever rules they like in the games they run).

However, a strict reading of RAW using the current wording could be interpreted to indicate that natural darkness will block line of sight. I'd never play it that way but if there is a DM out there who wants to that would be up to them.

[MaxWilson]

Emphasis mine

This is why the initial question leads to: How far can you see under normal circumstances? Without knowing what the RAW for"Some distance" is, we cannot really give a RAW answer. We do however know that it is at a minimum 40 feet away since a torch puts out that much light.

Can you see a mountain climber on Mt. Rainier from UW Seattle 70 miles away enough to target them?

This is starting to sound like the setup to D&D 3.5's Level 1 Fighter Space-Program...

See OP: for purposes of this poll, "some distance" is about 300'.

Note BTW that the 5E DMG states that normal visual range is 1-2 miles in the absence of terrain obstructions. This matches my real-world experience: it is utterly routine to become aware of things at distances of 1/4 to 1/2 a mile, or driving on the freeway would be a nightmare, and if the road is straight it's not that unusual to see large objects from a mile or more away.

Seeing someone 80 miles away would be a stretch though. As a DM, my answer would probably be, "Sure, theoretically you can cast a line-of-sight spell 80 miles away, but how do you even know when your target is in view or where to aim the spell? Your vision probably isn't that good unless you find a way to improve it." If they insisted on casting it anyway I'd figure out if the target was visible by rolling dice.

Or else I would just talk to the players and we'd create rules better than RAW for this scenario.

[NaughtyTiger]

My RAW reading on it is they are the same for exactly what it says they are the same: "when trying to see something in that area." I don't see that RAW you have to treat them the same for seeing things outside of the area as reading the sentences together I think allow you to limit the "blocking vision entirely" to the area at issue. My read is that the second sentence gives you the mechanical parameters for the first sentence so you are not reading the first sentence out but instead qualifying it - it blocks vision entirely within that area.

i think this is where i end up.

the PHB specifies the rules for looking at someone in Darkness, fog, foliage. (RAW)
the PBH is silent on the rules for looking at someone on the other side of Darkness, fog, foliage.

so, it is up to the DM to rule whether you can see the dude with the torch. not RAW one way or the other.

[sleepy hedgehog]

By RAW, I think you can see the man and the torch.
However, to me, the most sensible RAI is a ball of blackness that blocks all vision.


Followup question.
There's a duel going on between an ogre and a halfling, in a flat, open field.
You're far away on one side of the fight.
On the other side, in the background, there is a huge white wall.
And you cast darkness, such that both the combatants are in the darkness, but neither you nor the wall are in it.

What do you see, a ball of black, a pure white wall, or 2 blobs fighting?
If you see 2 blobs, can you tell which is which, based on the size?

[MaxWilson]

By RAW, I think you can see the man and the torch.
However, to me, the most sensible RAI is a ball of blackness that blocks all vision.


Followup question.
There's a duel going on between an ogre and a halfling i na flat, open field.
You're far away on one side of the fight.
On the other side, in the background, there is a huge white wall.
And you cast darkness, such that both the combatants are in the darkness, but neither you nor the wall are in it.

What do you see, a ball of black, a pure white wall, or 2 blobs fighting?
If you see 2 blobs, can you tell which is which, based on the size?

Please keep this thread focused on regular darkness, and leave magical darkness questions for other threads.

[Aimeryan]

My read is that the second sentence gives you the mechanical parameters for the first sentence so you are not reading the first sentence out but instead qualifying it - it blocks vision entirely within that area.

Could you explain why you say the second sentence limits the first, despite not saying it does? Suppose this:


The Earth is highly spherical. When travelling along the surface of the Earth without veering to the left or right you will eventually come back to the place you started.

Does the second sentence limit the consequences of the Earth being highly spherical to only being about being able to travel around it full circle? Or is it merely a consequence, not being exhaustive?

What I am saying here is that an area blocking vision entirely has a consequence of being effectively blind when trying to see into it - that is useful information. That piece of information does not prevent the other consequences from also being true - blocking vision entirely means you also don't get to see beyond the area, it just isn't mentioned (which is fine, because the second sentence is not stated as being exhaustive).

Note: Once again, I feel I must point out that I don't think this is sensible, it is just what is written. The 'blocks vision entirely' is extremely bad writing if the intent was for a transparent darkness.

[noob]

I'm glad something called a "Dungeon Master" was included in this rule set.

So when I buy dnd 5e rule books I get a DM with those for free?

[Demonslayer666]

RAW does not cover this.

The rules don't state how light behaves when observed from a distance in the dark, there are no viewing distances. That does not mean light stops working like light once it's past the dimly lit area. "Can I see him?" is answered by the DM, not the rules.

The rules only cover bright/dim light, and darkness, and how being in one is handled. The rules do not address vision distances, nor how light sources can be observed through other mediums (water, smoke, etc), or at a distance in the dark.

Real world experience tells us that yes, you can see a torch's illuminated area at 300' in the dark, because light travels that far (a candle flicker is visible to the human eye up to 30 miles away).

[Imbalance]

The books don't provide it that way - you can have heavily obscured areas (darkness) next to areas of dim light. Realistically, you can have a light source that illuminates an area to different intensities (distance is the usual factor), with some arbitrary cut-off point at which it would be considered dark.

We are talking about a situation where you are in darkness and some distance away is a light.

The books do put it that way by listing an unlit dungeon as an example of heavily obscuring darkness. In that case, indeed, the darkness is blocking. But the man has a torch, ergo the dungeon is lit. Yo.

I think I agree with your RAW interpretation to an extent, agreeing that it is not sensible, and holding that it is probably not RAI that a patch of darkness is not a visual wall. But in this example, the presence of a single light source counters the obscuring effect to that light source. Within the darkness, vision is obscured to within the darkness. The darkness you are in will block line of sight to objects illuminated by the light, but not the flame itself.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I tend to agree with the general consensus that, yes, you can see the man because mundane darkness doesn't have a property that prevents you from seeing through it, only a property to prevent you from seeing things inside of it. This doesn't apply if the area you're observing is lit, so long as there isn't a physical obstruction between you and the man holding the torch you should be able to see him within a reasonable range.

If you want an example of what the RAW would have to look like for you to not be able to see the man, all you need is to be a creature with Darkvision attempting to see the opposite side of a Darkness spell. Darkness follows the typical rules for heavily obscured unlit areas, but also has an additional caveat "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness"

Now it's very likely not intended to work this way, but it's much more in line as a RAW interpretation to draw this conclusion than it is to draw the conclusion that the man with the torch cannot be seen through mundane darkness, at least in my opinion.

[Segev]

I tend to agree with the general consensus that, yes, you can see the man because mundane darkness doesn't have a property that prevents you from seeing through it, only a property to prevent you from seeing things inside of it. This doesn't apply if the area you're observing is lit, so long as there isn't a physical obstruction between you and the man holding the torch you should be able to see him within a reasonable range.

If you want an example of what the RAW would have to look like for you to not be able to see the man, all you need is to be a creature with Darkvision attempting to see the opposite side of a Darkness spell. Darkness follows the typical rules for heavily obscured unlit areas, but also has an additional caveat "A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness"

Now it's very likely not intended to work this way, but it's much more in line as a RAW interpretation to draw this conclusion than it is to draw the conclusion that the man with the torch cannot be seen through mundane darkness, at least in my opinion.

So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that a non-darkvision-enabled creature can look through magical darkness and see the man with a torch on the opposite side, but a creature with darkvision cannot?

[Darc_Vader]

So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that a non-darkvision-enabled creature can look through magical darkness and see the man with a torch on the opposite side, but a creature with darkvision cannot?

I’d argue that the next bit of Darkness precludes that as a possibility: “a creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and non-magical light can’t illuminate it”. Otherwise you get the nonsensical situation of light shining into the sphere, disappearing, and then reappearing on the other side.

[MoiMagnus]

So for normal peoples, magical darkness would be kind of like when in a video game, lighting stop working on a small section (so all the objects are completely black, and you can't really distinguish what's on this section), but you can still see whatever is behind it because "the air" is coded to not be opaque by default?
[However, dark vision rules overwrite this, and magical darkness appear as a for someone with dark vision]

Since this threads seems to be about "Assuming someone wanted to respect RAW as if he was a computer applying rules, what behavior unintended by the devs would happen here?", that seems 'reasonable' to me.

[Segev]

I’d argue that the next bit of Darkness precludes that as a possibility: “a creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and non-magical light can’t illuminate it”. Otherwise you get the nonsensical situation of light shining into the sphere, disappearing, and then reappearing on the other side.

It doesn't have to illuminate the magically-darkened area to be visible on the other side. See the OP's example question, where the man with the torch is sufficiently far away that his torch is not elevating the light conditions where you are beyond "nonmagical darkness." Can you see the man? The light of his torch is, by definition, not illuminating the darkness between you and him.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that a non-darkvision-enabled creature can look through magical darkness and see the man with a torch on the opposite side, but a creature with darkvision cannot?

That is the RAW interpretation, yes. To be clear, I personally think the interpretation is ridiculous. The intent is pretty clear that Darkvision isn't meant to allow you to see the area inside of it but a single word of difference left us with this.

I only brought it up as an example of what the general lighting rules would have to be written as to even entertain the idea that you couldn't see the man with the torch in the example given in OP. Regular old darkness doesn't have any wording at all to imply that you wouldn't be able to see through it, only that you can't see inside of it. The man with the torch would be visible.

[HappyDaze]

I've come to the conclusion that magical darkness is not like real world darkness; rather than being an absence of light, it is more akin to filling the area with an immaterial ink-like substance that is impervious to light (thus functioning similar to really thick smoke or fog for blocking vision).

[Segev]

That is the RAW interpretation, yes. To be clear, I personally think the interpretation is ridiculous. The intent is pretty clear that Darkvision isn't meant to allow you to see the area inside of it but a single word of difference left us with this.

I only brought it up as an example of what the general lighting rules would have to be written as to even entertain the idea that you couldn't see the man with the torch in the example given in OP. Regular old darkness doesn't have any wording at all to imply that you wouldn't be able to see through it, only that you can't see inside of it. The man with the torch would be visible.It is possible and reasonable to read "cannot see through" in the same sense that one might say, "Even infravision cannot see through this invisibility." (Not a term used since 2e, but still, "infravision" here literally refers to seeing into the infrared, i.e. seeing heat.) Such a sentence is not nonsensical (though definitely worthy of riffing puns off of): it clearly conveys the message that "this invisibility" being discussed makes you invisible to infravision.

Likewise, "even darkvision cannot see through this darkness" doesn't necessarily mean it causes the darkness in question to be opaque, only that darkvision doesn't let you see things obscured by this particular darkness the way it would with nonmagical darkness. Now, I'm not saying the reading you're giving it is invalid, either, but I am pointing out that it's not unreasonable to read it such that having darkvision makes magical darkness more of an opaque barrier to sight than if you lack darkvision.


I've come to the conclusion that magical darkness is not like real world darkness; rather than being an absence of light, it is more akin to filling the area with an immaterial ink-like substance that is impervious to light (thus functioning similar to really thick smoke or fog for blocking vision).That is how a lot of people interpret it, but fog or smoke follow the same rules as mundane darkness wrt obscuring what lies outside-but-beyond it. However you answer the OP's question for normal darkness and that man with a torch on the far end of it, you have the same answer for magical darkness, and thick smoke, and fog, and even dense foliage. (This is a flaw in the RAW.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Now, I'm not saying the reading you're giving it is invalid, either, but I am pointing out that it's not unreasonable to read it such that having darkvision makes magical darkness more of an opaque barrier to sight than if you lack darkvision.
I agree, at my own tables I prefer to run it the way that HappyDaze suggests. That makes more sense to me and seems more in spirit with the spell. It's a well known fact at this point that in the attempt to make 5E simple and concise Lighting and Obscurement rules were perhaps the greatest casualties.

[AHF]

Could you explain why you say the second sentence limits the first, despite not saying it does? Suppose this:



Does the second sentence limit the consequences of the Earth being highly spherical to only being about being able to travel around it full circle? Or is it merely a consequence, not being exhaustive?

What I am saying here is that an area blocking vision entirely has a consequence of being effectively blind when trying to see into it - that is useful information. That piece of information does not prevent the other consequences from also being true - blocking vision entirely means you also don't get to see beyond the area, it just isn't mentioned (which is fine, because the second sentence is not stated as being exhaustive).

Note: Once again, I feel I must point out that I don't think this is sensible, it is just what is written. The 'blocks vision entirely' is extremely bad writing if the intent was for a transparent darkness.

The second sentence has no meaning if they are not read together and it leads to what you yourself describe as a reading that is "not sensible." If all vision is blocked for someone in non-magical darkness then there is no reason to have the "when trying to see something in that area" language in the second sentence. This text not only has no purpose but it is actually misleading because by offering that very specific qualifier it suggests that it is exhaustive. Why be precise like that if the meaning is much broader and much more easily stated as noting the player is blind for all purposes?

In contrast, reading the two statements together and interpreting the second sentence as the precise mechanical explanation gives meaning to all text and gives a reading that is sensible.

The PHB frequently has a statement of flavor text then followed by a mechanical explanation for the former wording. I read them together roughly in this way and see the two sentences working together in that way just fine.

The wording could certainly be better but I find the alternative "total blindness" interpretation to both strain logic and to deprive the second sentence of meaning. I assume if (a) something can be said more easily without a qualifier and (b) a precise qualifier is used, then that qualifier is intended to be important in applying the rule.

[Lupine]

I think the most obvious way to think about this is with a moon. If you cannot see anything in the dark, as if there is a total wall in front of you, then you would not be able to see the moon. (Even if it doesn't give enough light to be counted as "dim" Likewise, even in totally overcast night, you can see a lamppost from far away.

As for the fog example, take a lighthouse. The entire purpose is that for miles away, even in the densest of fogs, you can see the light warning about the shoals.

In effect, the human eye is ridiculously good at picking out light sources in darkness. In the case of the man, the light will illuminate everything within its reach, including the man. Some amount of that light will reflect to the observer, who will be able to pick it up (though probably not with color.)
To your question, in total darkness, there is nothing to obscure the minor reflections. You can see the man.

This may not be RAW, exactly, but interpreting it any other way would be to take verisimilitude, beat it over the head, and then chuck it out the window.

[MaxWilson]

I think the most obvious way to think about this is with a moon. If you cannot see anything in the dark, as if there is a total wall in front of you, then you would not be able to see the moon. (Even if it doesn't give enough light to be counted as "dim" Likewise, even in totally overcast night, you can see a lamppost from far away.

As for the fog example, take a lighthouse. The entire purpose is that for miles away, even in the densest of fogs, you can see the light warning about the shoals.

In effect, the human eye is ridiculously good at picking out light sources in darkness. In the case of the man, the light will illuminate everything within its reach, including the man. Some amount of that light will reflect to the observer, who will be able to pick it up (though probably not with color.)
To your question, in total darkness, there is nothing to obscure the minor reflections. You can see the man.

This may not be RAW, exactly, but interpreting it any other way would be to take verisimilitude, beat it over the head, and then chuck it out the window.

Would you mind clarifying for purposes of the poll: do you think RAW is telling you to do something different, or does RAW agree with your ruling here?

[Aimeryan]

The second sentence has no meaning if they are not read together and it leads to what you yourself describe as a reading that is "not sensible." If all vision is blocked for someone in non-magical darkness then there is no reason to have the "when trying to see something in that area" language in the second sentence. This text not only has no purpose but it is actually misleading because by offering that very specific qualifier it suggests that it is exhaustive. Why be precise like that if the meaning is much broader and much more easily stated as noting the player is blind for all purposes?

In contrast, reading the two statements together and interpreting the second sentence as the precise mechanical explanation gives meaning to all text and gives a reading that is sensible.

The PHB frequently has a statement of flavor text then followed by a mechanical explanation for the former wording. I read them together roughly in this way and see the two sentences working together in that way just fine.

The wording could certainly be better but I find the alternative "total blindness" interpretation to both strain logic and to deprive the second sentence of meaning. I assume if (a) something can be said more easily without a qualifier and (b) a precise qualifier is used, then that qualifier is intended to be important in applying the rule.

'Why spell something out in a rule book' [paraphrased]? Because that is what rule books do. Having it be redundant because it can be worked out from other text is not reason by itself to leave it out.

It was brought up in the other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?601817-Uses-for-the-spell-Darkness&p=24245781&viewfull=1#post24245781), where this discussion originates from, that the second sentence is in fact reliant on the first to mean 'blocks vision entirely' - if light passes through the area then anything in the area will be backlit (where there is such light) and then is very visible, so you are not effectively blind to the area.

For example, if you have an area of light in front of you 60ft away and an area of darkness in front of you roughly 10ft away, if a person is standing in that darkness you will see their silhouette against the backlight - you are not effectively blind to the area. Therefore, to qualify the second sentence you have to have vision blocked entirely, thereby confirming the first sentence as correct.

Also, here it is in picture form:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTZG94tXp7olloveb1fAmQ41LoWs-08IpKzWn-OjEvvUu6ba29mw&s


If the circumstantial factors are that there is no light behind the area, then yes, you can be effectively blind to the area while allowing light to pass through the area - because there is no light. Since that is not given as a requirement the only way to put the two sentences together on their own is for vision to be blocked entirely - just like the first sentence says.


~~~



This may not be RAW, exactly, but interpreting it any other way would be to take verisimilitude, beat it over the head, and then chuck it out the window.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that is plaguing this thread - the question is not 'what is reasonable' but 'what does it say'? Without being able to mentally separate the two any answer to the OP question is meaningless. You seem to have separated them here, so I thank you for that.

[KorvinStarmast]

The question: by RAW, can you see the man? Yes. How much detail you can make out will vary with:
a. How good the vision of the viewer is
b. DM narration on how much of the man is revealed.
DM Narration is RAW. (It is in fact RAW 1 and RAW 3 in how to play the game)

If the PC wants to shoot at him with a long bow( for example) the shot is rolled with disadvantage for two reasons:
1) range
but if PC has sharpshooter
2) because of the disadvantage / dim light rule from light and vision.

[MaxWilson]

2) because of the disadvantage / dim light rule from light and vision.

I don't understand. Dim light gives disadvantage on perception checks, not attack rolls. Can you explain what you mean?

[Evaar]

A heavily obscured area–such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage–blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix PH-A) when trying to see something ----IN THAT AREA----.

The man is not in the area of darkness. Thus, he can be seen per RAW.

The word "blocks" can be taken as a poor verb choice by a reasonable reader after reading the second sentence, which would seem to immediately contradict it. "Blocks" would usually suggest an opaque object, which is included as an unexclusive example, but could be taken to mean "impedes." The second sentence would seem to more specifically take a stance, as if it was meant to "block vision entirely" in the way suggested by the first sentence, the second sentence would read "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition while within the heavily obscured area." There's no reason to add the qualifiers about "when trying to see something in that area." It's blinded regardless of the location of what it's trying to see, and blinded only applies to the action of "seeing" so there's no need to call that out. Like, the character would be considered blinded when trying to hear something in that area as well, but being blind doesn't affect your hearing regardless of the location of what you're listening for.

Really, taken at face value, the two sentences contradict each other. So the reader has to make a judgment - is the word "block" a poor choice or is the whole second half of the last sentence wrong? Given those options, I think most readers would conclude "block" was a misleading word choice.

But this of course leaves us able to stand on one side of a fog cloud and clearly see someone standing on the other side of the fog cloud. So either way it's dumb. Darkness and Light should have their own rules separate from obscuration rules.

[Segev]

The man is not in the area of darkness. Thus, he can be seen per RAW.

But then I guess the question arises - can you see a man standing on the other side of a dense fog cloud?

That is the trouble with how this bit of the RAW is written, yes. Either:

1) Darkness, fog, dense foliage, magical darkness, and all other sources of heavy obscurement are opaque, meaning (amongst other things) that you can't see anything in a non-obscured (e.g. well-lit) region beyond, thus making things like the night sky (well on the far side of "regions of natural darkness") impossible to see, or
2) darkness, fog, dense foliage, magical darkness, and all other sources of heavy obscurement are transparent, but render things within them impossible to see, leading to the ability to see (yes) the night sky beyond the dark, and a man with a torch on the far side of a region of even magical darkness, but also the ability to see that man (clearely, even!) on the far side of a cloud of fog, while anything within the cloud of fog is either a) invisible or b) casting a fog-shaped silhouette against things lit clearly by the light sources on the far side.

[Evaar]

That is the trouble with how this bit of the RAW is written, yes. Either:

1) Darkness, fog, dense foliage, magical darkness, and all other sources of heavy obscurement are opaque, meaning (amongst other things) that you can't see anything in a non-obscured (e.g. well-lit) region beyond, thus making things like the night sky (well on the far side of "regions of natural darkness") impossible to see, or
2) darkness, fog, dense foliage, magical darkness, and all other sources of heavy obscurement are transparent, but render things within them impossible to see, leading to the ability to see (yes) the night sky beyond the dark, and a man with a torch on the far side of a region of even magical darkness, but also the ability to see that man (clearely, even!) on the far side of a cloud of fog, while anything within the cloud of fog is either a) invisible or b) casting a fog-shaped silhouette against things lit clearly by the light sources on the far side.

Yeah, I expanded my original post after looking through some more responses. The language results in unintuitive results either way. It's really the Euthyphro Dilemma of 5e! Given the two interpretations, I'd be more likely to go with seeing through obscured areas. Drop that Fog Cloud on yourself, definitely not on the enemy!

But then this raises some questions about the Darkness spell. If we're applying the logic that only things in the obscured area can't be seen, Darkness says this:

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it.

It says "can't see through" but it only makes that qualifier for creatures with darkvision. So creatures without darkvision would treat it as normal darkness, and it stands to reason creatures with darkvision would just not get their normal benefits and would also treat it as normal darkness mechanically. So then... you can stand in magical Darkness and see creatures outside of it. Only creatures within the Darkness are obscured. So the only benefit of Devil's Sight is if you are targeting something actually in the Darkness, and there's no particular reason you should need to do that.

So.. not to derail by bringing it over to the spell, but this ruling has direct effects on how the spell functions. None of this works like it should. I will say the spell language heavily supports the "you cannot see through darkness to a source of light" interpretation, since it suggests only a creature with darkvision might have thought they could "see through" the darkness.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, I expanded my original post after looking through some more responses. The language results in unintuitive results either way. It's really the Euthyphro Dilemma of 5e! Given the two interpretations, I'd be more likely to go with seeing through obscured areas. Drop that Fog Cloud on yourself, definitely not on the enemy!

But then this raises some questions about the Darkness spell. If we're applying the logic that only things in the obscured area can't be seen, Darkness says this:

It says "can't see through" but it only makes that qualifier for creatures with darkvision. So creatures without darkvision would treat it as normal darkness, and it stands to reason creatures with darkvision would just not get their normal benefits and would also treat it as normal darkness mechanically. So then... you can stand in magical Darkness and see creatures outside of it. Only creatures within the Darkness are obscured. So the only benefit of Devil's Sight is if you are targeting something actually in the Darkness, and there's no particular reason you should need to do that.

So.. not to derail by bringing it over to the spell, but this ruling has direct effects on how the spell functions. None of this works like it should. I will say the spell language heavily supports the "you cannot see through darkness to a source of light" interpretation, since it suggests only a creature with darkvision might have thought they could "see through" the darkness.

Please don't derail this thread with discussions about magical darkness. Keep such discussions on the magical darkness thread where they belong.

Thank you.

[Segev]

So.. not to derail by bringing it over to the spell, but this ruling has direct effects on how the spell functions. None of this works like it should. I will say the spell language heavily supports the "you cannot see through darkness to a source of light" interpretation, since it suggests only a creature with darkvision might have thought they could "see through" the darkness.

Really, what this thread is highlighting is that you are probably house-ruling how you run various forms of obstruction. It also serves to highlight that there is no textual support for treating the opacity of magical darkness differently than the opacity of nonmagical darkness.

What I would, personally, recommend is that obviously opaque sources of heavy obscurement (smoke, thick fog, dense foliage, a flour-sack-and-pillow-fight-between-a-sorority-of-giantesses shedding feathers and flour in a thick cloud, etc.) be treated as opaque, blocking line of sight for anybody trying to see anything within or beyond them, while non-opaque sources of heavy obscurement (primarily darkness, magical or not) produce silhouettes under rare circumstances at the DM's call and otherwise let people see "through" it but not "within" it.

The reason this is even being discussed so hotly is that there is a desire to rule that magical darkness behaves differently than nonmagical darkness, and is more like a solid, black, intangible sphere that covers everything and blocks all sight through and within. I'm not saying this desire is inherently wrong, though I disagree with it because I think it makes it feel less like "darkness" and more like "an illusion of a giant black ball." Because this is more or less what it WAS in earlier editions, people who remember that want to picture it that way, still. And they're free to rule it that way; we're house ruling this whole mess to make it make sense, anyway.

But there is no RAW support for magical darkness behaving like "an ink blot" that blocks all light passing through, without nonmagical darkness behaving the same way. The distinction is, in 5e, purely an invention of those who wish to have it behave that way, every bit as much a house rule as "magic missiles are green" would be. (I actually think, if they're given a color in 3e and 5e, it's pale red, but I could be misremembering. I've always pictured them as green, myself, though, ever since playing the side-scrolling D&D beat-em-up arcade game as a young teen.) It is, however, a more impactful house rule than the color of magic missiles, since it changes the use of the spell.

[Evaar]

Please don't derail this thread with discussions about magical darkness. Keep such discussions on the magical darkness thread where they belong.

Thank you.

But I'm not derailing it, I'm citing it as evidence of how non-magical darkness works.

The Darkness spell specifies that creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. That's an exception to the usual rule that creatures with darkvision can see through darkness; it includes no exceptions for creatures without darkvision. Which implies that creatures without darkvision cannot see through darkness ordinarily - that darkness does, in fact, "block" vision by RAW. That clause of the Darkness spell is the literal exception that proves the rule.

[CorporateSlave]

If the circumstantial factors are that there is no light behind the area, then yes, you can be effectively blind to the area while allowing light to pass through the area - because there is no light. Since that is not given as a requirement the only way to put the two sentences together on their own is for vision to be blocked entirely - just like the first sentence says.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that is plaguing this thread - the question is not 'what is reasonable' but 'what does it say'? Without being able to mentally separate the two any answer to the OP question is meaningless. You seem to have separated them here, so I thank you for that.

I guess I see the RAW as having the opposite meaning though (and your illustration, while an excellent example of why your interpretation of the RAW is not "what is reasonable"...is not itself part of the rules, so must be discounted in making an interpretation of the rules.)

The RAW:
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

I read the second sentence as expanding on the first - effectively explaining how (in game mechanics terms) the area "blocks vision entirely."

Q: What does a heavily obscured area do?
A: It blocks vision entirely.
Q: In what sense, i.e. how does it do this?
A: By causing a creature to suffer from the Blinded condition when it tries to see something in that area.
Q: So it blocks line of sight completely, like Total Cover?
A: Well, not exactly...the RAW doesn't specifically say that...and while it makes reasonable sense that it ought to...I mean, you can't see through to the other side of dense fog so...
Q: But we're not talking about what is reasonable...just what is RAW. Doesn't the Blinded condition just impose Disadvantage on Attack rolls?
A: Well yes...
Q: So something in a Heavily Obscured area can still be targeted directly by an Attack?
A: Well, per RAW, sort of...kind of getting off topic...
Q: Ok, ok, but it could be fair to say that a Heavily Obscured area "blocks vision entirely" BY imposing the Blinded Condition on a creature who tries to see something in that area? Instead of saying because a Heavily Obscured area blocks vision entirely, the result is it will impose the Blinded Condition on a creature who tries to see something in that area?
A: ...

My point: The first sentence says what it does. The second sentence explains the game mechanic effect...how the rules accomplish what it does. The sentence explaining the game mechanic effect specifies "in that area."

Therefore, a man standing with a torch 300' away at night, is not IN an area of darkness, and could be seen by a creature who is either itself within darkness, or on the other side of a shadowy patch of darkness...because they are not trying to see something in the Heavily Obscured area.

Of course, this means that you can now have X-ray vision to see through heavy fog and dense foliage, so makes no more reasonable sense than the opposite interpretation.

So to the OP, no, per RAW you cannot see things IN the dark. However, a man holding a torch is NOT IN the dark, he is in the middle of a patch of bright light.

[Segev]

But I'm not derailing it, I'm citing it as evidence of how non-magical darkness works.

The Darkness spell specifies that creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. That's an exception to the usual rule that creatures with darkvision can see through darkness; it includes no exceptions for creatures without darkvision. Which implies that creatures without darkvision cannot see through darkness ordinarily - that darkness does, in fact, "block" vision by RAW. That clause of the Darkness spell is the literal exception that proves the rule.

Except that "see through" can be used to refer to things like "seeing through invisibility," which in context means you can see the invisible thing. So it is quite possible and reasonable to read "see through" here to mean that darkvision doesn't let you see in the magical darkness the way it would in natural darkness. The alternative interpretation is certainly possible, but leads to degenerate behavior for nonmagical darkness (e.g. the night sky being unseeable due to the impenetrable and thick region of darkness between the viewer and said sky).

[Evaar]

Except that "see through" can be used to refer to things like "seeing through invisibility," which in context means you can see the invisible thing. So it is quite possible and reasonable to read "see through" here to mean that darkvision doesn't let you see in the magical darkness the way it would in natural darkness. The alternative interpretation is certainly possible, but leads to degenerate behavior for nonmagical darkness (e.g. the night sky being unseeable due to the impenetrable and thick region of darkness between the viewer and said sky).

I take your point, but the context of the language doesn't really suggest that reading of "through." If they meant that, it would have been more appropriate to say "within."

And yup, the result is nonsense. But that's RAW.

[Segev]

I take your point, but the context of the language doesn't really suggest that reading of "through." If they meant that, it would have been more appropriate to say "within."

And yup, the result is nonsense. But that's RAW.

Actually, I read it exactly as I outlined before people started pointing to it and saying it meant in the same context as "see through a wall." I agree, "within" would have been clearer, but if the writers and editors all thought like I did, they might not have caught such a thing. And, if they meant it as you're reading it, they wouldn't have limited it to "creatures with darkvision," since magical darkness would block line of sight for all creatures.

As written, the context DOES suggest that it's spelling out that darkvision doesn't give additional benefits over normal vision wrt this magical darkness. Since it doesn't specify that normal vision can't see things beyond a dark area, magical or otherwise, it would need to spell out that magical darkness does prevent this. Unless creatures without darkvision cannot see through normal darkness at all, either. i.e. "you can't see the night sky."

[Evaar]

Which basically takes us back to the first post of the thread - either heavily obscured areas "block" vision or they effectively blind you when you're looking for something specifically in the area of the heavily obscured squares.

The first way means you can't see the night sky or a torch at the end of a dark hallway, the second way means you can see perfectly to the other side of fog, foliage, and anything opaque that isn't quite solid enough to outright block line of sight.

And which one you pick makes a huge difference about how to use the resulting effects. Either it's a huge boon to be within a Fog Cloud, or it's not. You either need Devil's Sight to gain advantage on an attack while standing in a Darkness spell, or you just attack something at range outside the radius of the spell.

At this point, I can see arguments for both interpretations. I guess I lean more towards "block" at this point, having started from the other position. But really, I'm just going to not mention any of this to my DM and we'll keep running it in ways that make sense.

:mitd:

[MaxWilson]

Actually, I read it exactly as I outlined before people started pointing to it and saying it meant in the same context as "see through a wall." I agree, "within" would have been clearer, but if the writers and editors all thought like I did, they might not have caught such a thing. And, if they meant it as you're reading it, they wouldn't have limited it to "creatures with darkvision," since magical darkness would block line of sight for all creatures.


Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot radius Sphere for the Duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with Darkvision can't see throughwithin this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

"Within" would actually be worse because it makes it sound like the creature is blinded when it's within the darkness. "Can't see through" is reasonable standard English, although "Darkvision does not help against this darkness" would be the most explicit and hardest to misunderstand.

[Zalabim]

Unsurprisingly, (to me anyway) the DMG has a rule for line of sight that implies an answer to this question. Page 251.

LINE OF SIGHT
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision-such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

It includes dense fog, but not darkness, in its list of things that block vision.

The reason this is even being discussed so hotly is that there is a desire to rule that magical darkness behaves differently than nonmagical darkness, and is more like a solid, black, intangible sphere that covers everything and blocks all sight through and within. I'm not saying this desire is inherently wrong, though I disagree with it because I think it makes it feel less like "darkness" and more like "an illusion of a giant black ball." Because this is more or less what it WAS in earlier editions, people who remember that want to picture it that way, still. And they're free to rule it that way; we're house ruling this whole mess to make it make sense, anyway.

But there is no RAW support for magical darkness behaving like "an ink blot" that blocks all light passing through, without nonmagical darkness behaving the same way. The distinction is, in 5e, purely an invention of those who wish to have it behave that way, every bit as much a house rule as "magic missiles are green" would be. (I actually think, if they're given a color in 3e and 5e, it's pale red, but I could be misremembering. I've always pictured them as green, myself, though, ever since playing the side-scrolling D&D beat-em-up arcade game as a young teen.) It is, however, a more impactful house rule than the color of magic missiles, since it changes the use of the spell.
Except the description of the spell's effect. Which is the same kind of description as spells which fill the area like an ink blot and not like spells that lower the level of illumination in the area. Contrast magically darkening an area and filling an area with magical whatever.

[Demonslayer666]

I'm changing my answer from the rules don't address it to: Yes, RAW you can see the man.

Normal darkness does not prevent any vision from working, and all light sources work in it. Magical darkness does prevent darkvision from seeing through it and non-magical light from illuminating it.

All vision works in normal darkness, and the only time you are blind in darkness is if there is no light to see.

[Aimeryan]

But I'm not derailing it, I'm citing it as evidence of how non-magical darkness works.

The Darkness spell specifies that creatures with darkvision cannot see through it. That's an exception to the usual rule that creatures with darkvision can see through darkness; it includes no exceptions for creatures without darkvision. Which implies that creatures without darkvision cannot see through darkness ordinarily - that darkness does, in fact, "block" vision by RAW. That clause of the Darkness spell is the literal exception that proves the rule.

I was literally about to make this very statement myself - its does seem odd that Darkness (the spell) would be able to be seen through by creatures that lacked darkvision but not by creatures that do have darkvision. The text in the Darkness spell is pretty explicit, so the reasonable conclusion is that creatures with normal vision can not see through any darkness, already.

[Segev]

Unsurprisingly, (to me anyway) the DMG has a rule for line of sight that implies an answer to this question. Page 251.

LINE OF SIGHT
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision-such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

It includes dense fog, but not darkness, in its list of things that block vision.That's quite helpful. Thanks for pointing it out!


Except the description of the spell's effect. Which is the same kind of description as spells which fill the area like an ink blot and not like spells that lower the level of illumination in the area. Contrast magically darkening an area and filling an area with magical whatever.

Please quote me where in the spell that it says the darkness behaves like fog, and not like nonmagical darkness, wrt blocking line of sight.

[Willie the Duck]

I was literally about to make this very statement myself - its does seem odd that Darkness (the spell) would be able to be seen through by creatures that lacked darkvision but not by creatures that do have darkvision. The text in the Darkness spell is pretty explicit, so the reasonable conclusion is that creatures with normal vision can not see through any darkness, already.

Wait, I thought we specifically weren't discussing what was reasonable, but what was supported by RAW.

If we're discussing reasonable, vision and darkness work like they do in real life, and nonmagical darkness would not inhibit the seeing of the torchbearer.

[Aimeryan]

Wait, I thought we specifically weren't discussing what was reasonable, but what was supported by RAW.

If we're discussing reasonable, vision and darkness work like they do in real life, and nonmagical darkness would not inhibit the seeing of the torchbearer.

What is reasonable to want the text to say and what is reasonable to read as to what the text says are two different things - one is a desire, the other is derived.

[Willie the Duck]

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.


What is reasonable to want the text to say and what is reasonable to read as to what the text says are two different things - one is a desire, the other is derived.

AFAIC, that still leaves us in a quandary/at an impasse once we start allowing reasonable to be a criteria. Both reading the two sentences in the primary rule-in-question as discrete, and the second being a qualifier upon the first are reasonable interpretations.

[Segev]

I'm 90% sure the reason the OP is asking about how natural darkness operates is to allow that as firm ground to stand on before discussing how magical darkness differs.

The reason I'm sure of this is because we all expect natural darkness to allow us to see the torchbearer 100 feet away, even though there's 60 feet of natural darkness between us and him. This "natural darkness" is probably brighter than it would be if there were no torch an no other light sources, but for practical purposes, we can't see our hands in front of our faces, nor can the torchbearer see us, and that would remain true until we got within at least 40 feet of him (where his torch is shedding dim light).

However, there is a common interpretation of magical darkness (in particular the darkness spell) which treats it like an illusion of a black sphere. We've been terming it the "ink blot" model. This view of magical darkness says that light not only doesn't illuminate anything in there, but can't enter or exist within it. So the ink blot sphere casts a shadow, and actually serves as a pure black wall, blocking all line of sight.

Obviously, this view of darkness makes it look very different to normal sight than natural darkness.

My contention, personally, is that the rules don't support a treatment of magical darkness as operating differently than nonmagical darkness wrt seeing that torch on the far side of it. (e.g. man with torch is 100 feet away, and darkness is centered 50 feet away, so both the man and you are outside the region of darkness, but it lies between you). If we ignore the expectation that natural darkness would let us see the torchbearer 100 feet away in an otherwise-dark tunnel, we can find rules that can be read to say that darkness blocks sight, which would actually mean that we, standing in natural darkness outside the radius of the man's torchlight, cannot see him nor his torch. Under that reading, magical darkness behaves the same.

The trouble is that there are people who are saying that natural darkness behaves as we would intuit, but then pointing to the rules regarding obscurement (which mention "darkness," but make no distinction between magical and natural) to claim that it means magical darkness blocks sight of the torchbearer. They're treating it as if there's something in the rules that says magical darkness behaves that way while natural darkness does not.

There isn't.

Either magical darkness AND natural darkness both would prevent us from seeing a torchbearer 100 feet away in an otherwise-dark tunnel, or neither would. (Assuming the torchbearer isn't in the field of magical darkness.) Nothing in the rules supports magical darkness having the specific difference from natural darkness such that magical darkness is an "ink blot" but nonmagical darkness is not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Off topic to this thread, but not its apparent context, my comments from the other thread -- not going to belabor it here, if anyone wishes to reply please reply in that other thread.




I am not ruling that natural darkness blocks vision of things beyond it, and it is not necessary for natural darkness to do so in order for magical darkness to do so. Frankly, I'd say stop trying to find a way to make natural darkness and magical darkness the same -- when they're obviously not.

In case it wasn't clear, when RAW and the fiction layer disagree/contradict, I'm going to go with the fiction layer 100 out of 100 times. But, in this particular case, it's RAW that makes it obvious that natural darkness and magical darkness are not the same.



Natural darkness -- doesn't obscure light sources within it, doesn't stop Darkvision from working.
Magical darkness -- does obscure light sources within it, does stop Darkvision from working.



I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that natural darkness blocks vision entirely in D&D settings. If RAW seems to say that it does, then RAW is simply wrong.

(Actually "blocking" vision is not the same as "there's not enough illumination on objects in this area for them to be perceived with normal sight / vision" -- actually blocking vision requires something to suppress, obscure, intercept, overwhelm, or squelch light to such a degree that insufficient light from an object reaches the eyes of the viewer. Natural darkness does not block vision, natural fog does if heavy enough, as does a wall in the way, or a sufficiently bright source of light.)



Magical darkness squelching light sources and negating darkvision strongly implies that it actively blocks light -- unlike the obvious behavior of natural darkness -- which is where the different interaction with light sources opposite the viewer would come from.

And yes, the RAW appears to be actively silly WRT natural darkness.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm 90% sure the reason the OP is asking about how natural darkness operates is to allow that as firm ground to stand on before discussing how magical darkness differs.

The reason I'm sure of this is because we all expect natural darkness to allow us to see the torchbearer 100 feet away, even though there's 60 feet of natural darkness between us and him. This "natural darkness" is probably brighter than it would be if there were no torch an no other light sources, but for practical purposes, we can't see our hands in front of our faces, nor can the torchbearer see us, and that would remain true until we got within at least 40 feet of him (where his torch is shedding dim light).

However, there is a common interpretation of magical darkness (in particular the darkness spell) which treats it like an illusion of a black sphere. We've been terming it the "ink blot" model. This view of magical darkness says that light not only doesn't illuminate anything in there, but can't enter or exist within it. So the ink blot sphere casts a shadow, and actually serves as a pure black wall, blocking all line of sight.


I think the inkblot view is the one more supported in earlier editions; it is how I tend to view magical darkness.

[Evaar]

Either magical darkness AND natural darkness both would prevent us from seeing a torchbearer 100 feet away in an otherwise-dark tunnel, or neither would. (Assuming the torchbearer isn't in the field of magical darkness.) Nothing in the rules supports magical darkness having the specific difference from natural darkness such that magical darkness is an "ink blot" but nonmagical darkness is not.

But also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here based on the rules as written, it's equally correct to say:

"Either magical darkness AND natural darkness AND fog AND foliage AND any opaque phenomena not qualifying as outright blocking line of sight would prevent us from seeing an unobscured object/creature 100 feet away in an otherwise obscured tunnel, or none of them would."

[Zalabim]

Please quote me where in the spell that it says the darkness behaves like fog, and not like nonmagical darkness, wrt blocking line of sight.
The first part, where it behaves exactly like fog cloud, the part where it talks about the darkness as stuff instead of an affected area, and also the last part, where it snuffs out or swallows light emitting spells that get too close. Bolding to be clear. I think the "this area" style of description could have been applied in the first paragraph if the writer meant it to be a darkened area instead of an area filled with stuff called magical darkness. It's not a sure thing, just how it speaks to me.

Darkness.
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

Unrelated to this, here's a list of all the different versions of the darkness spell. Maybe interesting for comparison if you don't have, say, OD&D books on hand. Standard warning that this is a fandom wiki entry, so take it with a grain of salt. https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Darkness

[Segev]

I think the inkblot view is the one more supported in earlier editions; it is how I tend to view magical darkness.Oh, absolutely. In earlier editions, it spelled out that behavior.


But also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here based on the rules as written, it's equally correct to say:

"Either magical darkness AND natural darkness AND fog AND foliage AND any opaque phenomena not qualifying as outright blocking line of sight would prevent us from seeing an unobscured object/creature 100 feet away in an otherwise obscured tunnel, or none of them would."Before earlier today, I would have just said "yes," but somebody pointed out that there are line of sight rules which call out fog as being "something that blocks line of sight," while the heavy obscurement rules call it out separately as providing heavy obscurement.

This conjunction of rules suggests that fog, foliage, and other known-opaque phenomena can properly block line of sight without natural darkness needing to.

It is, however, true to say: "Either magical darkness AND natural darkness AND any heavily-obscuring phenomena not qualifying as outright blocking line of sight would prevent us from seeing an unobscured object/creature bearing a torch (or similar light source with a radius of less than 100 feet) 100 feet away in a tunnel which has nothing to block line of sight save the phenomena in question itself, or none of them would."

I added the bit about a torch or other light source.

"Otherwise obscured" is (heh) cloudy because "obscured" is used in the definition of what we can see, and we're talking about the heavily obscured region created by darkness and the unobscured region created by the light source 100 feet away.

Rewording it entirely: either magical and nonmagical darkness sitting between you and a guy with a torch 100 feet away both block you from seeing him, or neither do. (Both keep you from seeing anything in the dark region, though you reasonably could expect a ruling from the DM that you can see silhouettes if they stand between you and the lit background of the torch's lit region.)


The first part, where it behaves exactly like fog cloud, the part where it talks about the darkness as stuff instead of an affected area, and also the last part, where it snuffs out or swallows light emitting spells that get too close. Bolding to be clear. I think the "this area" style of description could have been applied in the first paragraph if the writer meant it to be a darkened area instead of an area filled with stuff called magical darkness. It's not a sure thing, just how it speaks to me.

Darkness.
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

Unrelated to this, here's a list of all the different versions of the darkness spell. Maybe interesting for comparison if you don't have, say, OD&D books on hand. Standard warning that this is a fandom wiki entry, so take it with a grain of salt. https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/DarknessNone of that says it "behaves like fog," certainly not in the sense of blocking line of sight. What it describes is how the darkness area emanates.

[Evaar]

Okay. I can't think of any opaque phenomena that wouldn't block line of sight that would cause an area to be obscured, so let's say we're good on that and there isn't anything else that would obscure without blocking line of sight other than darkness. That means RAW you can see the man through the dark holding the torch, regardless of the nature of the darkness you're seeing through.

This was quite a journey.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, absolutely. In earlier editions, it spelled out that behavior.

You know, I always had that impression too, but when I consulted my 2nd edition PHB to my surprise I found that it didn't. I wonder why this argument never happened back in the 80's--in theory you could have dropped a Darkness, 15' Radius on yourself and claimed -4 to all of your attackers without taking any such -4 penalty to yourself, triggering exactly the same arguments we're having today about whether or not that was legal.

I do remember that R.A. Salvatore's books modeled Drizzt's innate Darkness spell-like ability as an opaque sphere, so maybe that's why it never occurred to me to view magical darkness any other way until 5E changed its rules for darkness, in 2015.

[Evaar]

You know, I always had that impression too, but when I consulted my 2nd edition PHB to my surprise I found that it didn't. I wonder why this argument never happened back in the 80's--in theory you could have dropped a Darkness, 15' Radius on yourself and claimed -4 to all of your attackers without taking any such -4 penalty to yourself, triggering exactly the same arguments we're having today about whether or not that was legal.

I do remember that R.A. Salvatore's books modeled Drizzt's innate Darkness spell-like ability as an opaque sphere, so maybe that's why it never occurred to me to view magical darkness any other way until 5E changed its rules for darkness, in 2015.

I was going to cite exactly that example. I remember it in Homeland, the description of all the black orbs popping up around a manor as it's sieged by an enemy house.

But apart from that, I'd say 5e is getting this treatment due to the prevalence of forums like this one. Probably some table or another ran into a conflict, but those people then didn't share that story with dozens of other people.

[Zalabim]

You know, I always had that impression too, but when I consulted my 2nd edition PHB to my surprise I found that it didn't. I wonder why this argument never happened back in the 80's--in theory you could have dropped a Darkness, 15' Radius on yourself and claimed -4 to all of your attackers without taking any such -4 penalty to yourself, triggering exactly the same arguments we're having today about whether or not that was legal.

I do remember that R.A. Salvatore's books modeled Drizzt's innate Darkness spell-like ability as an opaque sphere, so maybe that's why it never occurred to me to view magical darkness any other way until 5E changed its rules for darkness, in 2015.
It is described that way in the tie in novels, and also, reading "Area: 20-ft. radius globe of darkness" brings to my mind a visible globe of darkness, rather than just an area that is unlit. Otherwise, no one could ever mistake a sphere of annihilation for an area of magical darkness either.

[Daithi]

I think most of the rules are written from the perspective that you're in the dark (pitch black) and you have a light source that illuminates a certain area. I don't believe they were intended for the scenario described with a man holding a torch 300' away in pitch darkness.

However, I would go with a mix of common sense and the rules as written --- which I guess is rules as intended. The rules do mention heavily obscured fog, and I have some experience with that. In the central valley of CA it gets very foggy. It gets so foggy that you can be parked at a stop light and the only things you can see are the stop light and the taillights of the car in front of you --- and you barely see the lights. It can be so foggy that you cannot see the actual car or the stoplight itself that is holding the light. They're just barely visible lights that you pray anyone driving up behind you can see.

So, that's they way I would rule on a light 300' away in darkness. You can see a very dim light, but that is it. You don't see any shadows or silhouettes or anything else even similar.

If it magical darkness, then you don't see squat. Period.

[Imbalance]

I think most of the rules are written from the perspective that you're in the dark (pitch black) and you have a light source that illuminates a certain area. I don't believe they were intended for the scenario described with a man holding a torch 300' away in pitch darkness.

However, I would go with a mix of common sense and the rules as written --- which I guess is rules as intended. The rules do mention heavily obscured fog, and I have some experience with that. In the central valley of CA it gets very foggy. It gets so foggy that you can be parked at a stop light and the only things you can see are the stop light and the taillights of the car in front of you --- and you barely see the lights. It can be so foggy that you cannot see the actual car or the stoplight itself that is holding the light. They're just barely visible lights that you pray anyone driving up behind you can see.

So, that's they way I would rule on a light 300' away in darkness. You can see a very dim light, but that is it. You don't see any shadows or silhouettes or anything else even similar.

If it magical darkness, then you don't see squat. Period.

This checks out similarly enough in dense foliage, too. 100 yards into the thicket, the sound of a two-stroke will get your attention, but all you'll be able to tell is that the headlight is xenon - not who's riding.

[MaxWilson]

It is described that way in the tie in novels, and also, reading "Area: 20-ft. radius globe of darkness" brings to my mind a visible globe of darkness, rather than just an area that is unlit. Otherwise, no one could ever mistake a sphere of annihilation for an area of magical darkness either.

Interesting. My 2nd edition PHB does not say "globe," it only says "area" and "a 15' radius." I agree that "globe" implies a visible globe, which only happens under the ink blot model. What game are you quoting from, 1E?

[Zalabim]

Interesting. My 2nd edition PHB does not say "globe," it only says "area" and "a 15' radius." I agree that "globe" implies a visible globe, which only happens under the ink blot model. What game are you quoting from, 1E?
That comes from the "take it with a grain of salt" fandom wiki I linked earlier. I'll have to wait until I can get home to see if it actually shows up in any of the old books. I'll let you know what I find out.

[Edited addition] Checking the listed sources, I can't find exactly what's listed on the wiki (as might be expected.) The wizard spell compendium, for example, says Area of Effect: 15-ft radius. This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of effect. Infravision is useless. Neither normal nor magical light works unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former even, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell, and vice versa.

An entry that does say "globe" is the 1e version, which I've found looks like this: Darkness, 15’ Radius (Alteration)
Level: 2
Components: V, M
Range: 1“/level
Casting Time: 2 segments
Duration: 1 turn + 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: 1½” radius globe
Explanation/Description: This spell causes total, impenetrable darkness in the area of its effect. Infravision or ultravision are useless. Neither normal nor magical light will work unless a light or continual light spell is used. In the former event, the darkness spell is negated by the light spell and vice versa. The material components of this spell are a bit of bat fur and either a drop of pitch or a piece of coal
The spell's description is also largely the same, so it's reasonable that the globe look from 1e just carries forward to each edition, through books and other osmosis.

Finally, there is a spell that makes it very clear that for at least affected creatures in the area, they can see nothing at all. This spell is Blacklight. Blacklight (Alteration)
Sphere: Combat, Sun
Level: 3
Range: 10 yds/level
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 6 Duration: 1 rd/level
Area of Effect: 20-ft. radius
Saving Throw: Special
Upon casting this spell, the priest creates a stationary, temporary area of total darkness. The darkness is impenetrable to normal vision and infravision, but the caster can see, move, attack, and cast spells normally in the affected area. Each round, others within the blacklit area are allowed a saving throw vs. spell at a -3 penalty. Those who succeed can see as the caster does for that round while those who fail are wrapped in total darkness. Creatures outside the sphere cannot see into it. The illumination of normal and magical light is negated by the blacklight. Spells that depend on visual effects (such as illusions) do not function if the victim cannot see them. Creatures within the blacklit area have a 4 penalty to attack rolls and saving throws and have their Armor Classes reduced by 4. Characters with the blind-fighting nonweapn proficiency are only penalized by -2 to their attack rolls and saving throws and have no penalty to their Armor Classes. The caster of a blacklight spell can end it at will. The casting of light, continual light, or dispel magic specifically to counter this spell destroys the blacklight effect. The material components of this spell are a piece of coal and the dried eyeball of any creature. Notes: Granted by the god Ibrandul of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting.

[CapnWildefyr]

Magical darkness is Evocation - it is a tangible but non solid thing flowing from a point to fill a volume. Not possible in the real world, it's magic. Thus it blocks line of sight.

Otherwise whats the point of using it?

As for the OP question: think about the context of the rule. That section is about what happens to you due to the environment- drowning, falling, seeing. It's all up close and personal. They just didnt consider LOS until the DMG. If you extract it from its context you get the impression you can't see the moon. In context, though, they are talking about close-quarters, combat, etc. The rule is not clear, and can be interpreted differently as we have seen, but as the rules are intended for 12&up its not a physics lesson. Therefore I vote with reality - I could see the torch. Nonmagical darkness is not something solid or with any presence whatsoever so it cannot block LOS.

Its a shame they didn't just write 'if what you are looking at is in darkness you can't see in, apply disadvantage.'

[Talsin]

Scenario: you're at one end of a dark cave, 300' long. At the other end of the cave there's a man holding a torch. Everywhere else it's dark.

...snip...

The question: by RAW, can you see the man?

I think, to respond back to OP, The RAW is not clear.
We have to move to RAI or otherwise, and that falls to the DM.
As a DM, I would rule the following: since there is nothings that would normally block line of sight, I think you would see the man holding the torch.
In addition, if you also had a torch, you both could see each other. Further, if there was a creature between the two of you, it could see both of you (provided it could normally see), and that neither of you could see the creature despite being silhouetted in opposing torchlight. As a DM, I might argue that at that point it the two of you might be under light obscurement in regards to the other due to the presence of obstructing view from the creature blocking some of the visible light from the other torch. I don't think natural darkness blocks line of sight unless the target of the sight is within the darkness which to me sounds like the initial question in a boiled-down verse.