I thought this was a moot point, settled and done, but a recent errata opens up the question for me again.

Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

This corrects the following rule:

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.

Now, this errata implies to me that being within a heavily obscured area does not prevent one from seeing OUT of the area, merely from seeing INTO the area. For instance, a rogue in an area of deep shadow would be heavily obscured to the guard standing by the streetlamp, but the rogue could easily see the guard. (Substitute thick foliage and elf for a less light based situation.)
On the other hand, the rogue would be effectively blinded to anything else in the same area of darkness.

So, what in the Darkness spell specifically prevents one from seeing OUT? The only indication I can see is that "A creature with darkvision can't see THROUGH" it and that doesn't really convince me. Can Darkness be interpreted as simply a mobile, impenetrable shadow?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I fully acknowledge that this interpretation makes Darkness incredibly OP. I also know that the interpretation at WotC (via Sage Advice) is that Darkness is a two-way block to vision. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 9, 2016 at 20:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related followup question by you: Does the Darkness spell block vision? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Dec 27, 2019 at 8:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The errata you mention got changed - now it reads “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.” \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4, 2020 at 0:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Guillaume F, I think that wording more strongly supports my assertion that you can see targets outside a heavily obscured area from inside the area. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 10, 2020 at 21:15

4 Answers 4


Caveat: I don't think this is incredibly clear from the wording of the spell, so my answer will be subject to some semantic parsing.

No, that errata does not impact the effect of the Darkness spell.

The fact that "darkness" as opposed to "the effects of the Darkness spell" is listed as an example of a heavily-obscured area and that the spell description doesn't describe it as creating "a heavily obscured area" means that errata is kind of a red herring in this case.

The spell description says that a creature with darkvision can't see through it (which requires the logical leap that creatures without darkvision also can't see through it :) ), which means someone in the area of effect can't see out, since that would require seeing through some portion of the darkness.

A more grody scientific explanation would say that since "nonmagical light can't illuminate it," you can't see something unless light bounces off that thing and hits your eyes, and light that does do that would potentially be illuminating something in the darkness, so...no on that front as well (though if your game gets to the point of debating the nature of light itself, you might want to call it a day already).

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd disagree with the difference between "darkness" and "the effects of the Darkness spell", since the effects of the Darkness spell is an area of "Magical darkness", which isn't defined elsewhere in the rules, so would default to the definition of "darkness", except, ya know, "magical". The fact that Darkvision doesn't see through it does indeed require a logical leap to apply the same to normal vision. See, Darkvision specifically references "darkness", so this reads to me like "It's so dark, even Darkvision doesn't let you see into the dark area like it normally would." \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 0:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Of course none of that negates the bolded part of your answer, which indicates that I asked the wrong question. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 0:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, that's why I was really cautious about my answer, since it is super-vague. I'd still say that if you can't see through it, that means you can't see through any of it, but that's more of a "here's how I'd rule at my table" than an ironclad answer. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 3:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ I just noticed that the description of darkness on PH183 specifically mentions "magical darkness", which is the same wording used by the Darkness spell. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 22:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ While I agree with your bolded statement, I disagree with the conclusion you've drawn from it. Regarding your final paragraph, would you rule that someone in an area of darkness could see a light cast from the light cantrip at a distance, so long as the area it illuminates doesn't overlap the darkness? If not, would you rule that a character in a mundane darkened cave doesn't see the light cast from the same cantrip if they are 60 feet away, outside its radius? \$\endgroup\$ May 19, 2020 at 8:18

The errata doesn't change the rule, it only clarifies it.

Normal darkness creates a heavily obscured area, which you can see out of. For example, in a darkened room a creature with normal vision can see a creature standing in a well lit adjoining room with no intervening obstructions.

The original wording:

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.

Emphasis mine.

The errata:

Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

Emphasis mine.

Beginning from disregarding the Darkness spell entirely, both wordings are essentially saying the same thing. If you are trying to see something in a heavily obscured area, you can't. It's entirely possible an area could be obscured in both directions, a thick tapestry or dense hedge or fog could prevent two creatures on opposite sides from seeing each other, effectively making the heavily obscured area everything on the other side of the obstruction. It doesn't preclude an obscured area being one way only, it certainly should not be the default presumption.

Regarding the Darkness spell, it's a case of specific beats general.

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.

Emphasis mine.

Let's look at the section

A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness,

Darkvision as described in PHB 183, specifies:

[...] Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, [...]

This is a specific exception to the general rules.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. [...]


A heavily obscured area - such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage - blocks vision entirely.

The wording in the spell Darkness is an even more specific rule overriding the exception of the darkvision. Nothing in the spell or rules preclude the possibility of seeing out of magical darkness.

Furthermore, the darkness can in fact be illuminated. Even by something as simple as Faerie Fire.

From 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.

The intent appears to be that Darkness will snuff out Light and first and second level spells that create light, (and in turn be snuffed out by Daylight,) but consider

Casting a Spell at a Higher Level When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts Magic Missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that Magic Missile is 2nd level.

Therefore objects and creatures affected by the Faerie Fire spell cast using a 3rd-level slot can illuminate, without dispelling, the magical darkness created by the Darkness spell.

The interpretation that magical darkness blocks light from passing through, rather than just prevents illumination, brings up other questions as well.

Consider that:

Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

If the magical darkness were, in fact, opaque, would two spheres of magical darkness completely covering each other's points of origin cancel each other out?

Consider also the magical darkness of the Hallow spell, that does not block darkvision and certain creatures can ignore. If this were opaque darkness, how could a creature making a save or excluded from the effect ignore it?

Consider the 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness created by the 3rd level spell Hunger of Hadar

No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded.

If a similar effect were intended for the 2nd-level Darkness spell, why wouldn't such language be included in the wording of the spell?

In conclusion, without making "logical leaps" we can see magical darkness is not opaque.

It does however block vision entirely when a creature (without a more specific exception,) tries to see into the heavily obscured area it creates.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer is well detailed, though there are a some weak points: 1. Darkness expressly says creatures with darkvision can't see through the darkness (presumably neither can those with normal vision). There is no condition on the creature looking into, out of, or across the darkness - they can't see through it at all. Regardless of whether heavily obscured would permit seeing in or out, Darkness does not. 2. Regarding the rule about covering the source of the darkness, that only applies to opaque objects. Whether or not magical darkness is opaque, it isn't an object! \$\endgroup\$ Mar 11, 2021 at 5:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Spells do what they say they do. Nothing in the darkness spell says creatures without darkvision can't see through it. The general rule regarding darkness causing an area to be heavily obscured does. If you accept that Darkness is opaque at least for creature with darkvision it could lead to some interesting tactical situations. As a GM I'd be willing to accept such an argument at my table, but I'd expect it to backfire. I'll concede the point about magical darkness not being an object, though that was one of three supplementary points of consideration and not pivotal to the conclusion. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 11, 2021 at 5:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ You quoted the "Vision and Light (p. 183)" errata incorrectly. The correct errata changes the text to "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.” \$\endgroup\$ Aug 18, 2021 at 18:42
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @GuillaumeF. I did not misquote the errata. You can see the errata I referred to at media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf which was the specific errata being asked about. It has since been reverted to the one you quoted, which I believe strengthens my argument that the errata was intended as a clarification rather than a rule change. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 19, 2021 at 2:38

Normal darkness (lack of light) is not a heavily obscured area.

You can see out of normal darkness. For example, an archer in the darkness can attack targets next to the campfire with no penalty. Normal darkness does not block vision. For example, people at two different campfires can see each other clearly even though there is darkness between the areas of light around each fire.

However, anyone trying to perceive the archer in the darkness is effectively blinded (though they don't actually have the blinded condition).

Heavily obscured areas (darkness spell, hunger of hadar spell, fog cloud spell, dust, smoke, fog, foliage, etc) block vision. You can't see into them, you can't see out of them, and you can't see through them. Any situation where an area of heavy obscurement is between you and something else, then you are effectively blinded trying to see it.

For example, two people on either side of darkness or fog cloud cannot see each other and would be at disadvantage to attack rolls against each other.

The easiest way to think of it is that the darkness spell creates a big cloud of squid ink. :-)

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Where do you get the description of it as being like a big cloud of squid ink? I can find nothing that distinguishes "Darkness" from normal darkness, other than the reference to Darkvision. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 17:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Will Rhodes, from my imagination. :-) It seems like a good way to think of a heavily obscured area. The darkness spell is not normal darkness, because "nonmagical light can’t illuminate it." (Basic Rules page 86). \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 22:03
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ The problem is that normal darkness also creates a heavily obscured area. "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." (PH183) Note that it even references the term "magical darkness". \$\endgroup\$ Aug 10, 2016 at 22:24

The wording is very clear for 5e Darkness spell. Darkvision can't see through the Darkness spell. It is magical. You need a vision type that can see through magical darkness like True vision or the Warlock's invocation Devil's Eye.

So you can't see out, with darkvision, but what people are REALLY missing is that this spell says through. Which also means without aforementioned special visions you can't see what is behind the area of darkness either. Because unlike older versions that decreased the light level this one is straight up a visual barrier.

These guys dont just write random text, they are very careful with wording. If it had been a light lowering effect it would have stated as such in the description.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Dec 27, 2019 at 8:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ In colloquial English, "see through darkness" means to see something that is in an area lacking illumination. There is no sense that I cannot see an entire street's worth of street lights just because the illuminated areas do not overlap. So I do not think the argument from close reading the words is as simple as you make it. \$\endgroup\$
    – AmitaiB
    Oct 26, 2022 at 15:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .