Would it be unbalanced to allow the Darkvision spell to see through magical darkness?

Darkvision is so prevalent among races that the spell Darkvision rarely sees use. Even with casters who do not have darkvision, it still seems unlikely to be taken, as a cantrip is able to provide light, and the situations where the caster without darkvision cannot use light sources are rare enough that it does not justify the spell slot or even having the spell prepared/on their spell list. To add more value to the spell, I’d propose the following changes (bolded below):

2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (either a pinch of dried carrot or an agate)
Duration: 1 hour
You touch a willing creature to grant it the ability to see in the dark. For the duration, that creature has darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. This darkvision is able to see through magical darkness.

There are 2 changes present:

  1. Duration: With the other proposed changes, if this spell remained an 8 hour spell it would become a must have, basically ensuring multiple allies (Through multiple castings) can see through any darkness for a full adventuring day. Keeping this down to 1 hour puts pressure on using it at the right time, and the spell will not remain active through a short rest.
  2. Magical Darkness: This is the big change, that I think gives the spell appeal. If you are expecting magical darkness you can be prepared, or if you are planning on using magical darkness you can ensure you and maybe some allies are still able to function within it.

Does this appear balanced as a second level spell? Would it be better suited at a higher level? I think second level is still viable, as the other methods of obtaining darkvision in magical darkness are available to the Warlock at 2nd level (Devil’s Sight), and the Sorcerer at 3rd level (though only through their own Darkness spell).

Bullseye Lantern: does pointing one away from you, keep you in darkness?

Suppose my character is in darkness. I light up a bullseye lantern:

A bullseye lantern casts bright light in a 60-foot cone and dim light for an additional 60 feet

If I point the bullseye lantern away from me, is my character illuminated in any way? Am I included in the cone of light, or am I outside of the cone, like when casting the Cone of Cold spell?

If I remain in darkness when using a Bullseye Lantern, then I can remain invisible to those without dark vision, while illuminating my enemies.

Eldritch Devil Sight and Darkness spell

Situation: Drow Warlock casts darkness. Moves out of the effect area then uses devil sight to see through the darkness to use ranged combat against enemies.

  1. Devil Sight description states "You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120ft."
  2. Key word is ‘in’.
  3. No where does it say into or through.

Q: Can the Drow Warlock see through the magical darkness and engage the enemy with ranged combat?

Navigating through magical darkness

This issue came up when the party’s warlock cast Hunger of Hadar upon some enemies. She argued that because they were within magical darkness, and blinded, that they should not be able to immediately run out of the spells area of effect without having to make some form of a check to know where they were going.

What are the rules for moving when you can’t see? Should an enemy be able to just walk out of magical darkness, or should there be a check that needs to be made? Visual below:

A grid map of a Warlock who has cast Hunger of Hadar on two enemies

Should they just be allowed to run towards her, or at least be able to escape? Or should they have to bumble around in the dark in order to try to get out, with ENEMY 1 potentially walking away from the Warlock in difficult terrain, thus being trapped in the spell for another round?

In the meantime, for less wise enemies, we would roll a d8 and they would walk in the direction that they rolled. Until I find more definitive ruling, we were thinking about the enemy having to make a survival check/wisdom saving throw opposed to the Warlock’s spell save DC, and imposing the d8 random movement if they fail.

What’s up with the domain Vile Darkness?

Usually when an in-game thing like a feat, magic item, spell, or, like in this case, a cleric domain gets reprinted in a later text, that later text’s version of the thing takes precedence over all previously published versions of the thing.

Then there’s the Darkness domain. It was introduced, reintroduced with commentary, renamed, then, finally, without commentary, reintroduced again.

Here’s how it went: The Book of Vile Darkness (Oct. 2002) introduces the domain Darkness (80). Then Player’s Guide to Faerûn (Mar. 2004) presents a Darkness domain (85) that has different spells from the Book of Vile Darkness domain of the same name, but the Guide says, “A cleric who has access to the Darkness domain [from any of the deities Graz’zt, Lolth, Mask, Set, Shar, and Shargaas] can use either the Darkness domain presented in… this book or the one in Book of Vile Darkness” (189).

But then Lords of Madness (Apr. 2005) presents the domain Vile Darkness which is like the domain from the Book of Vile Darkness, and it says, “This domain description is a revision of the Darkness domain presented in Book of Vile Darkness” (208). Finally, without commentary, the Spell Compendium (Dec. 2005) presents again the domain Darkness (272), like the one from the Player’s Guide to Faerûn, but the Compendium doesn’t mention the Book of Vile Darkness at all.

Now,—and I apologize for this hinging on technicalities and minutiae like primary sources and publication dates—, here’s the question: Does the Spell Compendium‘s Darkness domain replace all previous iterations of the Darkness domain, including, possibly, the original Darkness domain from the Book of Vile Darkness (which received neither errata nor a 3.5 revision), therefore rendering obsolete the Lords of Madness domain Vile Darkness?

Specifically, Lost Empires of Faerûn (Feb. 2005) says that clerics of Ibrandul—the dead god of caverns, dungeons, and (I guess because somebody had to be) skulks—are granted access to the domain Darkness (41), and I don’t know if such clerics should have access to the Lords of Madness domain Vile Darkness, the Spell Compendium domain Darkness, or both.

Note: While this question may sound trivial, and although they offer the same granted power (the feat Blind-fight as a bonus feat), the Lords of Madness domain Vile Darkness offers a much different selection of spells from the Spell Compendium domain Darkness. Also, while a dnd-3e source, the Book of Vile Darkness never received an official 3.5e revision, hence the inclusion of both tags below; note, however, that I am concerned only with this question’s impact on 3.5e campaigns. As for why this question even arose, see this question.

Is the Chronicles of Darkness line suitable for play with a Story Teller and two players?

I have a group of three players, but more often than not real-life stuff means that only two are available to play at any particular time. I’ve recently had my curiosity piqued by the New World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness lines but have read varying advice as to how well the system/style would work with mainly two, occasionally 3 players.

Is the Chronicles of Darkness system suitable for two players and a Story Teller?

Please note – valid answers to this question must draw on personal experience.

Can I consider darkness and dim light as cover in combat?

In D&D 5E, dim light condition only affects perception (wisdom) checks. If I interpret the Player’s Handbook correctly, for combat rolls,

  • creatures that don’t have Darkvision, whose target is in dim light, and
  • creatures that have Darkvision, whose target is in dim light or in darkness (within range, so 60 feet for Elves, for instance),

have no disadvantage on attack rolls.

This makes it difficult to use darkness and dim light in combat. You could argue that in a poorly lit dungeon, it would be more difficult to succeed an attack roll, especially in ranged attacks. But the ruleset does not provide a way to do it with a disadvantaged roll, as stated above, so I’m trying to find an alternative way to use light and darkness as a strategic asset.

Considering this, here is my question: Would it be correct for the DM to interpret dim light as cover, if they wanted to use light and darkness as strategic asset for enemies when designing a particular map, such as a dungeon, ruins, tunnels, …? Or, if not strictly correct from a ruleset point of view, woult it be acceptable as "house-rule" (when taking care to warn the players about it, of course)?

If not, is there an alternative way to use light in combat strategy, considering a party may have many creatures with Darkvision?

Can the Light cantrip create effective darkness?

The Light cantrip allows for adjustments in the color of the light it produces.

"You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like. Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light…"

Black is a color. In fact, there are different shades of black. If I choose black as the intended color while casting this cantrip, would I be creating an area of magical darkness?