Darkness and targeting

[borg286]

If a warlock casts Darkness on himself, does he gain advantage on his Eldritch Blast attacks?
If he then moves such that a monster is enveloped, are fellow casters prevented from casting single target spells, like Command, on that monster?
As far as I can tell you only need a clear path to the target to be able to cast a spell on the target. Attack roll spells would of course have disadvantage.

What about spells with a dex save? Under cover it seems that the target would get bonuses to his save, but darkness does not provide cover, does it?

[MaxWilson]

If a warlock casts Darkness on himself, does he gain advantage on his Eldritch Blast attacks?
If he then moves such that a monster is enveloped, are fellow casters prevented from casting single target spells, like Command, on that monster?
As far as I can tell you only need a clear path to the target to be able to cast a spell on the target. Attack roll spells would of course have disadvantage.

What about spells with a dex save? Under cover it seems that the target would get bonuses to his save, but darkness does not provide cover, does it?

Command, like many other spells, specifically requires that the caster be able to see the target, so Darkness (or any other heavy obscurement) prevents Command.

Yes, the warlock would gain advantage on his ranged attacks. This is just like any other heavy obscurement.

I've been considering house ruling away the ranged advantage for unseen attackers because it makes it too easy to gain advantage at range just by hiding in a bush or something. Also, it doesn't make sense from a physical perspective--melee attacks from an unseen attacker cannot be parried effectively, so advantage makes sense, but attacks from a ranged attacker are not typically parried anyway. When a ranged attacker misses, that just means he misses, so being unseen shouldn't help.

But by the rules as written, yes, an unseen attacker such as a someone inside of heavy obscurement does in fact gain advantage on his ranged attacks.

Edit: and you are correct, Dex saves are unaffected. But many Dex save spells such as Disintegrate cannot be cast at all on targets that you cannot see.

[dickerson76]

When a ranged attacker misses, that just means he misses, so being unseen shouldn't help.

Or a ranged attack missed because you saw it coming and stepped out of the way, or maybe you deflected it with your shield. If you don't see the attack coming, you cannot do anything to dodge it, so the attack has advantage.

[MaxWilson]

Or a ranged attack missed because you saw it coming and stepped out of the way, or maybe you deflected it with your shield. If you don't see the attack coming, you cannot do anything to dodge it, so the attack has advantage.

If you're okay with stepping out of the way of an Eldritch Blast, more power to you. To me, that is as absurd as dodging Star Wars blaster bolts unless you have a Jedi's precognitive ability to see the future, hence my desire to house rule it. (There are other reasons as well--I'm killing multiple birds with one stone.)

In any case, it's clear that by RAW, the attack has advantage.

[NecroDancer]

I'm assuming the warlock also has "Devil's sight"

[borg286]

I'm assuming the warlock also has "Devil's sight"

Yes.
Thank you for pointing out that most spells have the "a target you can see" qualifier. Bummer. I was hoping that there would be a way to reduce the impact on the team and it seems that going toe-to-toe isn't an option. On the other hand it works the other way around. Casting darkness on yourself makes you immune to most targeted spells.

[MaxWilson]

I'm assuming the warlock also has "Devil's sight"

By RAW is actually doesn't matter in the given scenario, but it certainly does prevent the thread from going off on a tangent about how heavy obscurement works.


Yes.
Thank you for pointing out that most spells have the "a target you can see" qualifier. Bummer. I was hoping that there would be a way to reduce the impact on the team and it seems that going toe-to-toe isn't an option. On the other hand it works the other way around. Casting darkness on yourself makes you immune to most targeted spells.

Yep. For example, it makes you completely immune to the eye rays of beholders.

Standard, MM beholders that is. <evil DM laugh>

[Tanarii]

Yknow, this makes me think a list of spells that require you to be able to see your target, vs those that don't, would be very useful. I Assume there's one out there somewhere? Anyone got a handy link?


By RAW is actually doesn't matter in the given scenario, but it certainly does prevent the thread from going off on a tangent about how heavy obscurement works.I was totally looking forward to having that discussion again. Came into this thread looking for it even. *Grumble grumble*

[Vogonjeltz]

If a warlock casts Darkness on himself, does he gain advantage on his Eldritch Blast attacks?
If he then moves such that a monster is enveloped, are fellow casters prevented from casting single target spells, like Command, on that monster?
As far as I can tell you only need a clear path to the target to be able to cast a spell on the target. Attack roll spells would of course have disadvantage.

What about spells with a dex save? Under cover it seems that the target would get bonuses to his save, but darkness does not provide cover, does it?

I want to say...

Yes (assuming the target would be considered to have the blinded condition for viewing that particular location), yes (assuming it requires the ability to 'see' a creature), and yes provided the spell doesn't require the ability to see a creature.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Yknow, this makes me think a list of spells that require you to be able to see your target, vs those that don't, would be very useful. I Assume there's one out there somewhere? Anyone got a handy link?


Well, here's my question, under the rules for Spellcasting, it has this bit:
"A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET
To target something, you must have a clear path to it,
so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t
see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you
and that point, the point of origin comes into being on
the near side of that obstruction."

Okay.... does that mean that all spells other than touch or self spells couldn't be cast out of magical Darkness because you don't have a clear path to the point you want to cast to?

Total cover is defined as something being "completely concealed by an obstacle" while magical Darkness creates a heavily obscured area which "blocks vision entirely". So... isn't magical Darkness creating total cover???

[Tanarii]

Okay.... does that mean that all spells other than touch or self spells couldn't be cast out of magical Darkness because you don't have a clear path to the point you want to cast to?

Total cover is defined as something being "completely concealed by an obstacle" while magical Darkness creates a heavily obscured area which "blocks vision entirely". So... isn't magical Darkness creating total cover???No. Magical darkness is not creating cover. It does not block a clear path to the target.

It will however, block the ability to target creatures inside it with anything that requires being able to see the target.

As well as debatable/potentially blocking the ability to see (& target with abilities that require seeing) anything on the other side, if the DM rules also can't see through it, not just into it. That's the debate Max was talking about being a tangent.

[MaxWilson]

Well, here's my question, under the rules for Spellcasting, it has this bit:
"A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET
To target something, you must have a clear path to it,
so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t
see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you
and that point, the point of origin comes into being on
the near side of that obstruction."

Okay.... does that mean that all spells other than touch or self spells couldn't be cast out of magical Darkness because you don't have a clear path to the point you want to cast to?

Total cover is defined as something being "completely concealed by an obstacle" while magical Darkness creates a heavily obscured area which "blocks vision entirely". So... isn't magical Darkness creating total cover???

More to the point, why does plate armor not create total cover?

5E's cover rules are a bit incoherent. Do the best you can with them.

[Tanarii]

More to the point, why does plate armor not create total cover?I'm assuming because it doesn't completely encase the person wearing it. But it does provide a better bonus than 3/4 cover (+5 AC).

An interesting house-rule would be preventing Cover & armor/shield bonus from stacking.

[CursedRhubarb]

My DM ruled for us that if I use Darkness and ,as a GOO lock, use my telepathic abilities to tell the cleric or barbarian where the enemy is inside the darkness, if in melee range for them, that it counteracts the disadvantage on their attacks. Can only direct one per round though. Worth asking your DM about.

[MaxWilson]

I'm assuming because it doesn't completely encase the person wearing it. But it does provide a better bonus than 3/4 cover (+5 AC).

An interesting house-rule would be preventing Cover & armor/shield bonus from stacking.

Don't forget Dex bonus, which stacks with cover but not with plate armor.

[Tanarii]

Don't forget Dex bonus, which stacks with cover but not with plate armor.Checks out. You can't duck behind Plate, it moved with you. :smallbiggrin:

[Fflewddur Fflam]

As well as debatable/potentially blocking the ability to see (& target with abilities that require seeing) anything on the other side, if the DM rules also can't see through it, not just into it. That's the debate Max was talking about being a tangent.

Well, and that's what I'm talking about. Casting darkness on or around an enemy spellcaster and basically preventing him from casting out of it/through it.

[Tanarii]

Well, and that's what I'm talking about. Casting darkness on or around an enemy spellcaster and basically preventing him from casting out of it/through it.
Only spells that he needs to see the target. And only if the DM rules that magical darkness inhibits seeing through it, as opposed to only targets in it.

It's a common ruling for DMs used to how magical darkness worked in previous editions. In 5e there's been some debate on if it can do that on this forum. IRRC the errata didn't help, because it makes it clear that darkness doesn't prevent you from seeing things on the other side (or outside) of it. And magical darkness doesn't specify otherwise. A ruling that way makes it fairly advantageous to cast it on yourself if you're a ranged attacker, since you can see out to you targets just fine, but they can't see you.

Regardless, darkness still isn't cover, so it doesn't block what used to be called 'line of effect'.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Only spells that he needs to see the target. And only if the DM rules that magical darkness inhibits seeing through it, as opposed to only targets in it.


Right, and that's the problem with stuff like "heavily obscured". I like that 5e leaves a lot for a DM's discretion, but this is one of those problems in rule interpretation that seems less based on "give the DM freedom" and more based on "the game designers really weren't thinking about this stuff very thoroughly".

[Malifice]

If a warlock casts Darkness on himself, does he gain advantage on his Eldritch Blast attacks?

If he has some method of seeing in the darkness (Devils sight), and his opponents are in the darkness area (and thus blinded) for sure.


If he then moves such that a monster is enveloped, are fellow casters prevented from casting single target spells, like Command, on that monster?

Depends on the spell. Most of them the answer is 'No'. Command you definately cant. Read the spell description and it'll tell you. For example Command says:

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range.

Many spells have the 'one creature you can see' limitation. Including things like Power word kill.


As far as I can tell you only need a clear path to the target to be able to cast a spell on the target. Attack roll spells would of course have disadvantage.

Youre wrong, and it depends on the spell. If the spell requires an attack roll, and the caster is blinded (by being in darkness), then the caster gets disadvantage on his attack rolls.

Or course, the creature (if also in the darkness) grants advantage to attack rolls from creatures that can see him, so it tends to cancel out.


What about spells with a dex save? Under cover it seems that the target would get bonuses to his save, but darkness does not provide cover, does it?

No bonus to the save. Check to see if the target needs to see the effect to be able to make a Dex save or not. Most abilities dont require sight to function, but some class features (uncanny dodge, deflect arrows) do.

[Malifice]

Yes, the warlock would gain advantage on his ranged attacks. This is just like any other heavy obscurement.

Just because he is standing in heavy obscurement, doesnt mean his opponents are. They dont have the blinded condition unless they're in the darkness, so the lock doesnt get advantage on his attacks.

They get disadvantage to hit him, but he gets no bonus to hit them unless they're in the darkness themselves.

Unless you somehow think rays of energy shooting out from a patch of darkness and not from the warlock himself should be harder to dodge or something.

If the 'lock approached the bad guys and caught them up un the AOE of darkness, then fine, theyre blinded now and you can shoot them with advantage.

[hymer]

Just because he is standing in heavy obscurement, doesnt mean his opponents are. They dont have the blinded condition unless they're in the darkness, so the lock doesnt get advantage on his attacks.

They get disadvantage to hit him, but he gets no bonus to hit them unless they're in the darkness themselves.

Unless you somehow think rays of energy shooting out from a patch of darkness and not from the warlock himself should be harder to dodge or something.

If the 'lock approached the bad guys and caught them up un the AOE of darkness, then fine, theyre blinded now and you can shoot them with advantage.

You don't buy the whole 'unseen attacker' bit?

[R.Shackleford]

I'm assuming because it doesn't completely encase the person wearing it. But it does provide a better bonus than 3/4 cover (+5 AC).

An interesting house-rule would be preventing Cover & armor/shield bonus from stacking.

....


So I'm in plate Armor and being behind an arrow slit does nothing for me?

Edit

"A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk."

To distinguish AC from cover one could use the Armor as DR, reflex saves (str or dex), and then use the cover use to apply to reflex saves.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Just because he is standing in heavy obscurement, doesnt mean his opponents are. They dont have the blinded condition unless they're in the darkness, so the lock doesnt get advantage on his attacks.

They get disadvantage to hit him, but he gets no bonus to hit them unless they're in the darkness themselves.

Unless you somehow think rays of energy shooting out from a patch of darkness and not from the warlock himself should be harder to dodge or something.

If the 'lock approached the bad guys and caught them up un the AOE of darkness, then fine, theyre blinded now and you can shoot them with advantage.

If this were true then the Invisible condition wouldn't give this:
Invisible
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the
aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of
hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s
location can be detected by any noise it makes
or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage,
and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

Compare to:
Blinded
• A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails
any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and
the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.

It's basically the same condition with the same advantages and disadvantages except inverted.
A heavily obscured creature can not be seen because according to the PHB, it "blocks vision entirely". A creature trying to see them is blind to them, hence the disadvantage to hit them and advantage to be hit by them. Sure, if a creature is IN Darkness and they don't have Devil's Sight, they are blind to EVERYTHING. But creatures outside of Darkness are still blind to anything in it, because they can't see it, and thus the blinded condition applies to it with respect to an attacker who can see them but they can't see the attacker.

[hymer]

A creature trying to see them is blind to them, hence the disadvantage to hit them and advantage to be hit by them. Sure, if a creature is IN Darkness and they don't have Devil's Sight, they are blind to EVERYTHING. But creatures outside of Darkness are still blind to anything in it, because they can't see it, and thus the blinded condition applies to it with respect to an attacker who can see them but they can't see the attacker.

It's actually much simpler than that. PHB p. 195 under Unseen Attackers and Targets:


When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

[Malifice]

You don't buy the whole 'unseen attacker' bit?

Standing in a cloud of darkness shooting stuff out of it, hell no.

Put two Warlocks together, one standing in a cloud of darkness and the other not, shooting at someone 80' away. I cant imagine the bolts flying out of the cloud of darkness that I can see, are going to be any harder to dodge than the ones coming from the dude next to him in the open.

You could rule the cloud of darkness makes the Warlock 'unseen' and use the unseen attackers rule, but for mine that really relates to the Warlock being hidden. Your target definately isnt blinded (unless he's actually in the darkness).

I mean, if thats the ruling, just walk around with a pavise with an arrow slit in it. Bam presto, advantage on all your ranged attacks.

Its a bit weird with the Hide action in your darkness too. I mean, they still know you're in the darkness somewhere. Guess that makes the task of guessing youre in there still and lobbing a fireball all the more easy so its fair enough. They could be wrong (you are the kinda guy who shoots lasers from his fingers and hangs out in impenetrable darkness after all).

Watched a DM the other day make a Crossbowman pick a square to target (Lock was behind that square and hidden in darkness). Picked the wrong square and was ruled an auto miss. Personally I would have made the archer pick a line of effect for the crossbow bolt. The bolt would travel in that line, and if it intersected the locks space, you get an attack (at disadvantage).

Common sense stuff, but I all too often see DMs blinded by some notion that the only way to interpret a rule is through some kind of strict RAW, regardless of the absurdity, lack of fun, or intent of the rule as written.

But I digress.

[Malifice]

It's actually much simpler than that. PHB p. 195 under Unseen Attackers and Targets:

How far do you take that though?

What if I set up a Pavise with an arrow slit, or sit inside the illusion of a bigger archer?

Surely common sense prevails here?

In melee when you cant see a thing, yeah sure. I just cant see a bunch of invisible archers firing a volley into the air (the arrows become visible immediately) being that much harder to dodge than they normally would.

I mean, imagine it. But maybe thats just me.

[R.Shackleford]

Watched a DM the other day make a Crossbowman pick a square to target (Lock was behind that square and hidden in darkness). Picked the wrong square and was ruled an auto miss. Personally I would have made the archer pick a line of effect for the crossbow bolt. The bolt would travel in that line, and if it intersected the locks space, you get an attack (at disadvantage).

Common sense stuff, but I all too often see DMs blinded by some notion that the only way to interpret a rule is through some kind of strict RAW, regardless of the absurdity, lack of fun, or intent of the rule as written.

But I digress.

Why isn't this how bows and crossbows work even when you can't see?

Like, pick a line (range of the weapon) and treat the arrow like Catapult where it targets each creature in the line until it hits someone or something.

If you shoot at a deer and miss... the arrow doesn't exactly stop flying.

[hymer]

How far do you take that though?

What if I set up a Pavise with an arrow slit, or sit inside the illusion of a bigger archer?

Surely common sense prevails here?

In melee when you cant see a thing, yeah sure. I just cant see a bunch of invisible archers firing a volley into the air (the arrows become visible immediately) being that much harder to dodge than they normally would.

I mean, imagine it. But maybe thats just me.

I think a lot of DMs would consider this a problem with the interpretation or use of certain illusions or carrying around large objects.
As for dodging or blocking an arrow, it's a lot easier if you can see that the archer is about to shoot, and that s/he's aiming at you. Much like how it's a lot easier to receive serve from an actual player than from a tennis ball cannon.
*shrug*

[R.Shackleford]

I think a lot of DMs would consider this a problem with the interpretation or use of certain illusions or carrying around large objects.
As for dodging or blocking an arrow, it's a lot easier if you can see that the archer is about to shoot, and that s/he's aiming at you. Much like how it's a lot easier to receive serve from an actual player than from a tennis ball cannon.
*shrug*

Pshaw, tell that to Mcenroe when he went up against Sampras... Mcenroe was yelling at the line judge something like "if I couldn't see it, how the %@$#% could you?"... funny dude.

:p

[Fflewddur Fflam]

It's actually much simpler than that. PHB p. 195 under Unseen Attackers and Targets:

Good point!

[MaxWilson]

Just because he is standing in heavy obscurement, doesnt mean his opponents are. They dont have the blinded condition unless they're in the darkness, so the lock doesnt get advantage on his attacks.

Apparently you're not familiar with the PHB errata (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf):


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.

Furthermore,


Unless you somehow think rays of energy shooting out from a patch of darkness and not from the warlock himself should be harder to dodge or something.

I discussed this pretty thoroughly in post #2 already. Short version: I think it's worth changing the rules on ranged attacks for unseen attackers, because it shouldn't be easier to hit with energy rays when you're heavily obscured, and yet by the rules as written, it is.



Heavy obscurement is so beneficial and so easy to acquire that I've decided to change the rules for it, so that being unseen or hidden does not give you advantage on ranged attacks (but does enable sneak attack). It still gives advantage as usual on any melee attack (irrespective of weapon reach).

This does several things:

(1) Eliminates the worst abuse of Minor Illusion/Darkness/Fog Cloud/mundane camouflage. Under the vanilla rule, spells like Fog Cloud are disproportionately powerful compared to other spells which grant advantage (Faerie Fire) but allow a saving throw first.

(2) Eliminates the single most annoying thing about binary advantage (that heavy obscurement alone cancels out any number of disadvantage conditions like long range + prone + restrained + frightened, etc.).

(3) Makes more sense, physically. A failed melee attack can represent a successful parry, but a ranged attack cannot generally be parried--a failed attack just represents a miss. Missing on a ranged attack is easier than missing on a melee attack, because melee attacks can be redirected in-flight. Thus, it makes sense that being unseen helps melee attacks but not ranged attacks. Under this rule, camouflage will still help you defensively, but the fact that your foe doesn't know where exactly you are hiding in that bush won't somehow make you better at shooting him.

(4) Gives more of a niche for melee in the game, especially for night-fighting, because when it's dark melee attacks are resolved normally (if neither side has darkvision) but ranged attacks are at disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Apparently you're not familiar with the PHB errata (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf):
The problem is it breaks all heavily obscured except normal darkness. You have to ignore that errata for every other kind or it becomes worthless.

If you cast fog cloud on an enemy, he is able to perfectly see anything not in the fog cloud. Meanwhile you can't see him. Makes it useless.

Instead of trying to rewrite heavily obscured to fix it for (normal, and possibly magical if that was their intent) darkness, they needed to remove darkness from the category, and give it its own damn rule.

[R.Shackleford]

The problem is it breaks all heavily obscured except normal darkness. You have to ignore that errata for every other kind or it becomes worthless.

If you cast fog cloud on an enemy, he is able to perfectly see anything not in the fog cloud. Meanwhile you can't see him. Makes it useless.

Instead of trying to rewrite heavily obscured to fix it for (normal, and possibly magical if that was their intent) darkness, they needed to remove darkness from the category, and give it its own damn rule.

Personally the issue I see with this is that Darkness creates "magical" darkness and not just "darkness".

Change the spell so that it doesn't already have its own rules and things can work out well.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I discussed this pretty thoroughly in post #2 already. Short version: I think it's worth changing the rules on ranged attacks for unseen attackers, because it shouldn't be easier to hit with energy rays when you're heavily obscured, and yet by the rules as written, it is.

I disagree with this. If I can see someone shooting/throwing something at me, I'm going to have a much better chance of knowing when to duck/jump whatever. If someone is shooting something at me and I have no idea when it is coming or where it is coming from, I'm going to be at a disadvantage both figuratively and literally.

[MaxWilson]

The problem is it breaks all heavily obscured except normal darkness. You have to ignore that errata for every other kind or it becomes worthless.

If you cast fog cloud on an enemy, he is able to perfectly see anything not in the fog cloud. Meanwhile you can't see him. Makes it useless.

Instead of trying to rewrite heavily obscured to fix it for (normal, and possibly magical if that was their intent) darkness, they needed to remove darkness from the category, and give it its own ---- rule.

And by "useless" you mean "overpowered," right? Because obviously you should be casting it on yourself, not on him, in order to blind him.

I agree that the rules for heavy obscurement are sloppily written. The single oddest thing about them is that if there's a fog cloud 30' across, and I'm at one end of it, I can see the guy 30' away right outside the cloud just fine but I can't see the guy 25' away next to him inside the cloud. How does adding more cloud between me and someone make it easier to see?!?

I think we've talked about this before--that there should be a "heavy occlusion" category which functions like heavy obscurement but additionally blocks line-of-sight if more than 5' of it is between you and the target--but oh well. That's a topic for another time.

[Plaguescarred]

The problem is it breaks all heavily obscured except normal darkness. You have to ignore that errata for every other kind or it becomes worthless.

If you cast fog cloud on an enemy, he is able to perfectly see anything not in the fog cloud. Meanwhile you can't see him. Makes it useless.

Instead of trying to rewrite heavily obscured to fix it for (normal, and possibly magical if that was their intent) darkness, they needed to remove darkness from the category, and give it its own damn rule.

Yeah you cannot treat all the heavy obscurement with the same level of opacity if you mix darkness in there, yet that's what they did, unless you make an exception for line of sight with heavy obscurement vs Darkness which they didn't do.

Currently the errata address the blinded sentence, not the rest otherwise heavy fog or snow would not block vision through it and thus not be opaque. Also the rule doesn't address what you can see in heavy obscurement, it adress when you are inside it and talks about what you can see out of it.

The Vision & Light rule + errata now read: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."

But this errata create another problem; since it still mix all heavily obscureness togheter, (heavy fog, snow, darkness etc) then it means now that you can't see something in the obscurement, but you can see outside it, meaning you don't see when you're outside in a heavy fog for exemple, but you can still see someone not heavily obscured by the fog that would be outside the fog in a clear lit room for exemple. So what we have;

Is heavy obscurement opaque thus blocking vision yet letting you see outside through it, working for darkness but screwing all other form of heavy obscurement?

OR

Is heavy obscurement opaque thus blocking vision but not letting you see outside through it, working for all form of heavy obscurement but screwing darkness?

Right now you must choose which interpretation you use, and one of them screws something. Unless you specifically treat darkness differently than other heavy obscurement. They could just errata to say all heavily obscurement block line of sight except darkness. This would then handles opacity the right way for the different heavy obscurements.

[MaxWilson]

You could treat "blocks vision entirely" as a prefatory remark, instead of operative rules text.


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 A) when trying to see something in that area.

You aren't obligated to give the first sentence of the heavy obscurement paragraph ("blocks vision entirely") a rules effect independent of the second sentence ("effective... blinded"). You can treat it as guidance to the DM for how to recognize when something would be heavy obscurement as opposed to light obscurement: if you can't see things in it (e.g. darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage), treat it as heavy obscurement (you can't see things in it).

[Tanarii]

I think we've talked about this before--that there should be a "heavy occlusion" category which functions like heavy obscurement but additionally blocks line-of-sight if more than 5' of it is between you and the target--but oh well. That's a topic for another time.Okay I like that way of doing it, adding a category/rule to 'physically blocking sight' obscuring, rather than making an exception for darkness allowing you to see through it. Although it'd effectively be the same thing.


Right now you must choose which interpretation you use, and one of them screws something. Unless you specifically treat darkness differently than other heavy obscurement. They could just errata to say all heavily obscurement block line of sight except darkness. This would then handles opacity the right way for the different heavy obscurements.IMO it's best to house-rule it as darkness allows you to see through it, just not into it. But anything that physical blocks sight (fogs, etc) don't allow you to see through it or into it. Count magical darkness as 'blocking' if that's what you want it to do.

(Also, Hi Plague! Good to see you still active & posting occasionally. :smallbiggrin: I changed my handle from FitzNighteyes when I migrated from WotC forums.)

[MaxWilson]

Okay I like that way of doing it, adding a category/rule to 'physically blocking sight' obscuring, rather than making an exception for darkness allowing you to see through it. Although it'd effectively be the same thing.

The major benefit to creating a new category is that spells and effects like Darkness/Fog Cloud/Stinking Cloud/Sleet Storm/etc. could be explicit and unambiguous about whether or not they block line of sight. Arguably, 5E already has this distinction (see Hunger of Hadar for an example of a spell that both creates heavy obscurement AND blocks visibility within it), but apparently there's still enough confusion that it might be worth clarifying.

[CursedRhubarb]

I always saw darkness and fog cloud as two spells with a similar effect but different mechanics.

Both prevent mundane vision from seeing anything/anyone within the area or on the other side and inside it you can't see anything inside or outside it since your vision would be blocked by the fog/darkness. Both are great for breaking line-of-sight to give protection from ranged attacks by dropping on yourself, them, or between you and them. Breaking concentration of the caster ends either one.

Differences between the two:

Fog cloud is bigger, lasts longer, no one can see in it or through it other than blind-sight, is only a lvl 1 spell, but it has a fixed location and can be blown away by natural or magical wind.

Darkness is smaller, lasts a shorter duration, is a lvl 2 spell, blind-sight works in it and devil's sight can see right through it, it can be cast on a person or object so it can be hidden and is mobile. Harder to get rid of since it requires a daylight spell of equal level to get rid of it.

[Plaguescarred]

(Also, Hi Plague! Good to see you still active & posting occasionally. :smallbiggrin: I changed my handle from FitzNighteyes when I migrated from WotC forums.)Hey Fitz been a long time good to see you here!