Revisiting the technicalities of Hunger of Hadar

[Segev]

Thus spell is notable in that its language looks like it implies magical darkness, but the actual wording never says so, and never mentions darkvision not working within. It does say no light can illuminate it, so light-dependent sight is unable to see anything within. Unlike darkness or darkness, it does explicitly mention that it creates a region of "blackness," which even to my vantablack-interpretation-of-darkness-favoring self seems to suggest more of an "ink blot" effect.

It aiso mentions that any creature wholly inside it is blinded. Flavorfully, I suspect the intent here is to get across that the blackness is opaque and impenetrable, but that isn't actually what it says, and thus thread is about technicalities (even if few DMs would rule in favor of following the letter of the rules to this degree). So only if you are inside it are you blinded, which means that, outside of it, creatures with Darkvision can see in just fine: nothing about the spell says Darkvision fails to work, only that light cannot illuminate it.

Further, Devil's Sight works fine to see within as long as you are outside of the effect.

But neither work if you are wholly inside it: then, you are blinded, and no exceptions for darkvision nor devil's sight nor even truesight are made.

So it is especially good for a party to put its enemies in if the party has darkvision: they can see inside, but their victimsare blinded!

[da newt]

100% agree - vision and light rules are an absolute mess, and this spell doesn't help by using none of the defined terms.

This does force a DM to make a ruling and I believe the logical ruling is that the area is "heavily obscured" - aka black fog. Truesight, devil's sight, dark vision - these would all be blocked. Blind sight and tremor sense would not.

BTW - "magical darkness" does not block normal dark vision, the spell "darkness" does because it says it does. Any other source of magical darkness would need to include the 'a creature with dark vision can't see through this darkness' clause for that to be true as the vision and light rules do not differentiate between magical and non magical darkness (RAW).

[KorvinStarmast]

So only if you are inside it are you blinded

What a tortured interpretation that is. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Rukelnikov]

I think the main difference is, Darkness changes its area illumination, HoH summons a region of blackness, similar to how someone can make an illusion of a black dome, Darkvision or Devil's Sight wouldn't be of help, because the area its not dark, its doesn't look black because of poor illumination, it just IS black.

[Psyren]

I agree that the spell needs a rewrite. I would personally rule it as magical darkness (though you'll also need a way to overcome the blinded condition if you're inside it.)

Treantmonk published a list of spells (some of which are categories of spells) that need material rewrites in One, and this one is definitely on the list.

[Segev]

What a tortured interpretation that is. That makes absolutely no sense.

I do not think reading the words as they are written is 'tortured.' I agree that this is not likely the intent behind the spell. Its vision effects are very poorly worded, if we assume the intent to be something else, however.

(Heck, the interpretation of ink blot darkness spells but not ink blot natural darkness are more tortured if they try to claim he RAW support both.)

The discussion here is on what the rules of this spell technically do say. I am fine with also discussing what they probably are trying to get across, and whether darkvision or devil's sight or truesight or the like are intended to see into and through it or not.

But I do not think reading the exact text and failing to try to divine intent that contradicts it is 'tortured.' I think the text poorly worded, as I agree that this is likely not the intent.

[Joe the Rat]

What I really want to know is given that the region is an impenetrable blackness, how do we know the tentacles inside are milky?

[da newt]

Since this is a RAW discussion - we know the tentacles are milky because the spell says so.

But maybe 'milky' doesn't refer to the color - maybe they are creamy, wet, and full of lactose ...

[KorvinStarmast]

I do not think reading the words as they are written is 'tortured.'

Wrong. [Scrubbed]
If Hunger of Hadar is darker than the darkness spell, 2d level, which by its description it is, then no, you cannot see into it any more than you can see out of it, unless you torture the meaning of the term darkness.

[Scrubbed]

For da newt: maybe someone is trying to apply cheese so that they can see into HoH and shoot with advantage ..

[Chronos]

I think that "blackness" is enough, by itself, to say that you can't see inside it. At least, not with normal vision: The spell is ambiguous on whether darkvision and/or Devil's Sight will do it. Which ambiguity is really annoying, given that it's only on the list of the same class that usually takes Devil's Sight.

My table rules that it does stop darkvision and Devil's Sight, since it doesn't say that "blackness" is the same as "darkness", and so it stops everyone's vision, just like black fog would. But if someone else rules otherwise, well, I won't argue against them.

[Segev]

If darkvision and devil's sight can see into it from outside, then theymwould permit witnesses to see he tentacles and know they are milky. Alternatives include that they smell or taste that way. Why anybody might be tasting them is not a question I care to explore in great detail. But they could be moist and smell of milk, I suppose.

Wrong. [Scrub the post, scrub the quote]
If Hunger of Hadar is darker than the darkness spell, 2d level, which by its description it is, then no, you cannot see into it any more than you can see out of it, unless you torture the meaning of the term darkness.

[Scrub the post, scrub the quote]

For da newt: maybe someone is trying to apply cheese so that they can see into HoH and shoot with advantage ..

You're the one torturing the words to say that it is darker than the darkness spell; nowhere is that stated.

Let's not get personal, here. The issue with language such as this spell uses is that it is ambiguous, and your interpretation is actually unsupported by the text. I am happy to agree that it is an evocative interpretation, but you are wrong to say it is the only one.

I think that "blackness" is enough, by itself, to say that you can't see inside it. At least, not with normal vision: The spell is ambiguous on whether darkvision and/or Devil's Sight will do it. Which ambiguity is really annoying, given that it's only on the list of the same class that usually takes Devil's Sight.

My table rules that it does stop darkvision and Devil's Sight, since it doesn't say that "blackness" is the same as "darkness", and so it stops everyone's vision, just like black fog would. But if someone else rules otherwise, well, I won't argue against them.

The exact wording is: "A 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears.... No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded."
If the blackness, itself, were opaque, would there be need to state that light cannot illuminate the area? Opaque blackness would just be ... black, no matter what light fell on its surface, and opacity would naturally keep light out.

Now, maybe this is a signal that it is making an ink blot magical darkness effect, as differentiated from darkness's vantablack darkness. Or maybe it is must more poor wording and the part about illumination is wasted wording.

Certainly, I could see your reading being RAI, at least.

[da newt]

Yep - it's poorly worded. I can see how it could be ruled 'black fog' or magical darkness that is special so that folks inside it are blinded even if they have devil's sight (cause the spell says so). I'm fine with either ruling, but as a warlock PC I'd like to know before I decide to cast it.

If it's black fog - cool. If it's special magic dark - even better for me w/ devil's sight as I can target the fools inside it w/ ADV.

[Chronos]

The bit about "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" isn't necessarily wasted wordage, since it makes clear that (unlike the Darkness spell) it can't be overruled by a sufficient Light spell.

But even if it is wasted wordage, well, it's not like that's a rare thing in the rules.

[Segev]

The bit about "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area" isn't necessarily wasted wordage, since it makes clear that (unlike the Darkness spell) it can't be overruled by a sufficient Light spell.

But even if it is wasted wordage, well, it's not like that's a rare thing in the rules.

Sort-of. But if "blackness" means it's opaque, it's no more going to be overruled by magical lighting than if it were a ball of redness, or of purpleness, or of whiteness. Fog cloud doesn't need clauses about light not illuminating it to prevent light from overruling it. Only if the "blackness" is transparent or a synonym for "darkness" is the bit about light not illuminating it relevant. And even then, the lack of statement that darkvision doesn't work means that, if it's transparent, darkvision can still see inside it. At least until you're inside it, yourself, at which point it explicitly states you're blinded.

[MrStabby]

Thus spell is notable in that its language looks like it implies magical darkness, but the actual wording never says so, and never mentions darkvision not working within. It does say no light can illuminate it, so light-dependent sight is unable to see anything within. Unlike darkness or darkness, it does explicitly mention that it creates a region of "blackness," which even to my vantablack-interpretation-of-darkness-favoring self seems to suggest more of an "ink blot" effect.

It aiso mentions that any creature wholly inside it is blinded. Flavorfully, I suspect the intent here is to get across that the blackness is opaque and impenetrable, but that isn't actually what it says, and thus thread is about technicalities (even if few DMs would rule in favor of following the letter of the rules to this degree). So only if you are inside it are you blinded, which means that, outside of it, creatures with Darkvision can see in just fine: nothing about the spell says Darkvision fails to work, only that light cannot illuminate it.

Further, Devil's Sight works fine to see within as long as you are outside of the effect.

But neither work if you are wholly inside it: then, you are blinded, and no exceptions for darkvision nor devil's sight nor even truesight are made.

So it is especially good for a party to put its enemies in if the party has darkvision: they can see inside, but their victimsare blinded!

This is how we always played it. Not until you raised in in this thread did I realise it was possible to to construe something explicitly saying you are blinded within a defined area as anything other than meaning you are blinded if and only if you are in tha area, nor did I consider it controversial that you can see into darkness if you have an abiliy that explicitly says you can see into darkness.

It wasn't even that I could see some potential controversy and came down on the sie of it being silly - it was simply that it never crossed our minds that there was any other reading to this.

They chose "blinded", they didn't say the area inside is heavily obscured like shadows of Moil or any other wording. They chose a well defined condition and used it in a spell - exactly where you might expect to see a condition applied.

[Chronos]

Quoth MrStabby:

This is how we always played it. Not until you raised in in this thread did I realise it was possible to to construe something...

Which makes this the worst kind of rules ambiguity. If everyone can tell that a rule is ambiguous, then it'll come up in Session 0, and the DM and players will come to some sort of agreement on how they're going to rule it. Where problems come is when everyone thinks it's obvious how it works, and doesn't even realize that there could be any other interpretation... but not everyone has the same interpretation.

[Segev]

Which makes this the worst kind of rules ambiguity. If everyone can tell that a rule is ambiguous, then it'll come up in Session 0, and the DM and players will come to some sort of agreement on how they're going to rule it. Where problems come is when everyone thinks it's obvious how it works, and doesn't even realize that there could be any other interpretation... but not everyone has the same interpretation.

I mean, the ambiguity here arises from the problem of people making assumptions and not reading the text literally. MrStabby read it literally, rather than reading text that isn't in there, the way the rest of us did.

I mean... let's put it this way: if you were writing the spell with the intent that it does what MrStabby believed it did, how would you word it differently from the existing text of the spell in order to avoid people mistakenly thinking that the spell creates an area of magical darkness that nobody can see into or out of even with darkvision or devil's sight?

[Psyren]

To me personally, the line about how light can't illuminate it suggests that it is just generating magical darkness rather than insurmountable opacity in the vein of a cloud. If the intent was that it was generating a true visual obstruction, then light failing to penetrate said opacity would be taken as red and not need to be stated, in the same way that walls and clouds don't need to state that light can't help you see inside them (from outside or in). That's the argument I'd use for my DM/players anyway.

With that said, it's definitely ambiguous, and without stated designer intent or a rewrite I think table variation is inevitable.

[OvisCaedo]

Everything about vision and obscurement is in heavy need of a rewrite. I wonder if this particular spell's wording would still need much adjustment if the base rules weren't so wonky?

...Hm. Probably still needs a second pass, yeah.

[Rukelnikov]

I always thought the idea was kind of a mini black hole tbh

[tieren]

I always thought the idea was kind of a mini black hole tbh

I think this is also supported by the specific wording of the spell that it "creates a warp in the fabric of space, and the area is difficult terrain".

I always took that to mean the very space within is difficult terrain, not just where the void intersects the ground, such that anyone flying through the area would also have its movement reduced. That would then imply the entire volume is also filled with tentacles, which means illumination rules aside there is no clear answer on whether there would be line of sight to anyone in the warped space even if you could see into the blackness.

I believe the RAI is to have no vision in or out of the area.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

I mean, the ambiguity here arises from the problem of people making assumptions and not reading the text literally. MrStabby read it literally, rather than reading text that isn't in there, the way the rest of us did.

No, MrStabby was reading things that aren't there, too, namely that it's darkness. The spell never actually says that. Absent that, a "not making assumptions" reading means that a human, a dwarf, and a devil can all see equally well into it.

[Segev]

No, MrStabby was reading things that aren't there, too, namely that it's darkness. The spell never actually says that. Absent that, a "not making assumptions" reading means that a human, a dwarf, and a devil can all see equally well into it.

No, he's reading it accurately, there: the spell says light - magical and nonmagical - cannot illuminate it. Therefore, it is dark in the area, whether it says "the area is dark" or not.

[Chronos]

And darkvision helps with things not being illuminated. But does it help with things being encased in blackness?

[Segev]

And darkvision helps with things not being illuminated. But does it help with things being encased in blackness?

The mechanics for "blackness" we are explicitly given are that anyone completely inside is blinded.

It is otherwise only a visual description of what it looks like, so any way you can picture it that doesn't invent nor violate the RAW works.

The only inference I can in good conscience draw is that if "blackness" were opaque, describing how light cannot illuminate it would be pretty pointless. Just like fog cloud doesn't talk about illumination failing to light it up. It talks about the area being heavily obscured. Hunger of Hadar doesn't mention obscurement at all. Unless I am missing it somewhere.

[Witty Username]

Further, Devil's Sight works fine to see within as long as you are outside of the effect.

Fun fact, this came up in a game, I had the warlock roll a wisdom save against psychic damage. Hunger of Hadar isn't empty space it is pure blackness filled with eldritch horror nonsense (acid damage, cold damage, slurping noises). As a DM, when the warlock asks if they can see inside the hunger, I say, "are you sure you want to."

[Mastikator]

I kinda read it as straightforward. On the inside you are blinded, period. From the outside it's blackness, creatures with true sight and devil sight can see the unknown horrors of hadar.

[Devils_Advocate]

A pertinent question here is what a "sphere of blackness" looks like. Absent text to the contrary, I feel like the most straightforward interpretation is that everything within the affected volume is colored pure black. And that's why no light can illuminate anything inside: Unlike things that are other colors, entirely black stuff just doesn't look different when light shines on it. It's also why specifically creatures fully within the region are blinded: Their vision is completely blocked by the totally black air, water, or even vacuum that fills the space. But you can see things outside of the sphere from the outside, so you can manage that if you can stick your head out. But you still can't see into the sphere itself, of course.

The spell doesn't say that it creates darkness at all, so darkvision and Devil's Sight are no help against it. Those don't overcome camouflage, which this what this is. Truesight, on the other hand, should overcome the effect, since its whole deal is that it allows someone to see how stuff would look if not affected by magic, be it illusion or transformation.

The most direct, least biased implementation is to just treat something as working exactly as it says with no ifs, ands, or buts, right? Barring anything else saying something to the contrary? Well, the spell says "blackness". So the one hundred percent straight-up, as-it's-written ruling is that, within the affected region, there is blackness. No ifs, ands, or buts! Until such time as something else says otherwise, of course.

;)

Quite frankly, Segev, I'm simply not convinced that your pedantic overanalysis is pedantic enough.

If the blackness, itself, were opaque, would there be need to state that light cannot illuminate the area? Opaque blackness would just be ... black, no matter what light fell on its surface, and opacity would naturally keep light out.

If the intent was that it was generating a true visual obstruction, then light failing to penetrate said opacity would be taken as red and not need to be stated

Obviously some people would say e.g. "It doesn't specifically say that the area can't be illuminated. I mean, that's a perfectly reasonable house rule, but it's not supported by the text". Let's not pretend, in the context of this discussion, that that wouldn't happen.

Do you really want to argue "They were explicit about some of the consequences of the spell working as one would expect, so by implication no other such consequence exists, thereby necessitating that the spell works other than one would expect"? It's pretty obviously not possible to list every way that a spell could possibly interact with anything, so this amounts to saying that the rules never point out a specific practical upshot of a spell. While none immediately comes to mind, I feel pretty sure that there are multiple clear counterexamples.

But perhaps the most obvious problem with this sort of reasoning is that it also supports the opposite position. If the intent was a region of darkness, why wouldn't they explicitly say that instead of describing an upshot?

I do agree that the working is ambiguous and potentially confusing. It certainly would have been helpful to explicitly say that the sphere is opaque, if that's what they intended. But it also would have been helpful to explicitly clarify that the sphere isn't opaque, if that's what they intended. So that's a wash!

[MadMusketeer]

A pertinent question here is what a "sphere of blackness" looks like. Absent text to the contrary, I feel like the most straightforward interpretation is that everything within the affected volume is colored pure black. And that's why no light can illuminate anything inside: Unlike things that are other colors, entirely black stuff just doesn't look different when light shines on it. It's also why specifically creatures fully within the region are blinded: Their vision is completely blocked by the totally black air, water, or even vacuum that fills the space. But you can see things outside of the sphere from the outside, so you can manage that if you can stick your head out. But you still can't see into the sphere itself, of course.

The spell doesn't say that it creates darkness at all, so darkvision and Devil's Sight are no help against it. Those don't overcome camouflage, which this what this is. Truesight, on the other hand, should overcome the effect, since its whole deal is that it allows someone to see how stuff would look if not affected by magic, be it illusion or transformation.

The most direct, least biased implementation is to just treat something as working exactly as it says with no ifs, ands, or buts, right? Barring anything else saying something to the contrary? Well, the spell says "blackness". So the one hundred percent straight-up, as-it's-written ruling is that, within the affected region, there is blackness. No ifs, ands, or buts! Until such time as something else says otherwise, of course.

;)

Quite frankly, Segev, I'm simply not convinced that your pedantic overanalysis is pedantic enough.



Obviously some people would say e.g. "It doesn't specifically say that the area can't be illuminated. I mean, that's a perfectly reasonable house rule, but it's not supported by the text". Let's not pretend, in the context of this discussion, that that wouldn't happen.

Do you really want to argue "They were explicit about some of the consequences of the spell working as one would expect, so by implication no other such consequence exists, thereby necessitating that the spell works other than one would expect"? It's pretty obviously not possible to list every way that a spell could possibly interact with anything, so this amounts to saying that the rules never point out a specific practical upshot of a spell. While none immediately comes to mind, I feel pretty sure that there are multiple clear counterexamples.

But perhaps the most obvious problem with this sort of reasoning is that it also supports the opposite position. If the intent was a region of darkness, why wouldn't they explicitly say that instead of describing an upshot?

I do agree that the working is ambiguous and potentially confusing. It certainly would have been helpful to explicitly say that the sphere is opaque, if that's what they intended. But it also would have been helpful to explicitly clarify that the sphere isn't opaque, if that's what they intended. So that's a wash!

I mostly agree with your interpretation, except for the part where you describe poking your head out of the area. While a perfectly reasonable house rule, this isn't actually what the spell says - by RAW, if you poke your pinky finger out of the radius you are no longer blinded, as you are no longer entirely within the sphere. I don't think anyone would ever run it like that, but to me it seems impossible to argue that that's not the most direct interpretation of the RAW in this case.

On your other points - I agree that this is probably the most consistent possible reading of the spell, as it is the only reading that is not explicitly contradicted by the spell, but the spell is so poorly written almost any interpretation has a solid enough argument that I have trouble conclusively saying any one is correct. The spell is almost dialectical - you simply need to accept both interpretations as a part of yourself .

[Segev]

I do not see where MrStabby's interpretation is contradicted by the spell. "Blackness" doesn't have a game definition, and the English definition doesn't even imply that the color of everything in 'a region of blackness' turns black, let alone opaque. If we don't treat the text describing light's failure to illuminate the region as being an explanation of the 'blackness,' it actually has no definition in specific at all. Just that the area will appear 'black.' Which could be to differentiate it from normal darkness and the darkness spell, which lack this terminology and can be read as being entirely transparent.

The fact that anyone within is blinded is odd juxtaposed to the note on (lack of) illumination.

Honestly, for a given table, any of the interpretations given in thus thread are probably reasonable. But for straight RAW reading with no preconceptions, it is a region of darkness by virtue of having no illumination, and it stands out as visibly black against whatever background there is.