RAW Fog Cloud does nothing at all?

[antipodeF]

Two days ago was my first game in a new 5e group, with myself as a level 1 wizard. We began in a bar wherein a brawl broke out, as nature intended all adventures to begin. I threw out a Fog cloud in the hopes that it would give us a chance to get out of there, as a brawl is no place for a level 1 wizard. GM asked "What are the effects of Fog Cloud?" So we looked at the description:

"You create a 20-foot radius sphere of fog centered on a point within range. The sphere spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."

We looked at this, then the GM shrugged his shoulders and basically continued as though it wasn't there. Nobody was rolling advantage or disadvantage, nobody had significant trouble finding each other. The one time advantage was rolled was when somebody attacked someone who had fallen prone, which probably should've been advantage anyway.

What is the spell supposed to do? I'm sure my GM will appreciate me having a more concrete answer, since it seemed to blindside him a bit when I pulled it out.

[Syll]

Two days ago was my first game in a new 5e group, with myself as a level 1 wizard. We began in a bar wherein a brawl broke out, as nature intended all adventures to begin. I threw out a Fog cloud in the hopes that it would give us a chance to get out of there, as a brawl is no place for a level 1 wizard. GM asked "What are the effects of Fog Cloud?" So we looked at the description:

"You create a 20-foot radius sphere of fog centered on a point within range. The sphere spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."

We looked at this, then the GM shrugged his shoulders and basically continued as though it wasn't there. Nobody was rolling advantage or disadvantage, nobody had significant trouble finding each other. The one time advantage was rolled was when somebody attacked someone who had fallen prone, which probably should've been advantage anyway.

What is the spell supposed to do? I'm sure my GM will appreciate me having a more concrete answer, since it seemed to blindside him a bit when I pulled it out.

PHB p. 183: 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

Appendix A: Conditions: Blinded p.291
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.

Edit:Also, I thoroughly enjoy your word choice of your DM being blindsided by the spell that imparts the blinded condition.

[LordCdrMilitant]

That's kind of weird, now that I think about it.

If RAW creatures in the cloud become blinded, and RAW a creature that is blinded has disadvantage and grants advantage, do the disadvantage and advantage cancel out for no effect for two creatures fighting in the fog, or does one roll three times and take the median value?

We've always played that advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, but in this case, it would make Fog Cloud completely pointless.

As a GM, I would probably rule that everyone has disadvantage to target and be targeted while in the cloud, instead of is blinded, but that's a houserule. RAW it doesn't seem to have an effect.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

PHB p. 183: 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

Appendix A: Conditions: Blinded p.291
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.

Edit:Also, I thoroughly enjoy your word choice of your DM being blindsided by the spell that imparts the blinded condition.

Yeah, but when blinded creatures attack other blinded creatures (or creatures that can't see them), the disadvantage and advantage cancel themselves out.

I saw a Kobold PC use Fog Cloud just the other day to cancel out sunlight sensitivity. He threw the fog cloud up 40 feet in the air and didn't have to worry about his sunlight sensitivity while under it.

But Fog cloud essentially works just like Darkness but a little less powerful. Use it to be able to hide behind or in it, use it to negate a lot of spells, use it when being attacked by invisible creatures to even out the odds, use it to negate any creature's advantage, etc.

[antipodeF]

That's kind of weird, now that I think about it.

If RAW creatures in the cloud become blinded, and RAW a creature that is blinded has disadvantage and grants advantage, do the disadvantage and advantage cancel out for no effect for two creatures fighting in the fog, or does one roll three times and take the median value?

We've always played that advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, but in this case, it would make Fog Cloud completely pointless.

As a GM, I would probably rule that everyone has disadvantage to target and be targeted while in the cloud, instead of is blinded, but that's a houserule. RAW it doesn't seem to have an effect.

And there's the explanation, apparently. You're absolutely correct. From the PHB, page 173: "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." It really is useless in a bar fight. : /

.... well, that's not quite true. "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight," therefore, I could automatically succeed on a stealth check to sneak out of the bar.

[Matticusrex]

It's an anti-archer/caster spell. A ton of spells require you to see the creature or point of impact for spells. For a level 1 spell slot it can equalize a lot of bad encounters.

[antipodeF]

I don't think it was a waste of a spell slot, no. But I shouldn't have bothered casting it in a tavern brawl. Not unless I intended to sneak out the door on the next turn.... which I probably should have. But something compelled me to stand and swing my dagger. I'm willing to blame a poor understanding of the rules. : P

Anyway, I think this topic is more or less covered. Thank you for your assistance. <3

[Foxhound438]

both sides are unable to see the other, so both have simultaneous advantage + disad. it's useful for 4 things just off the top of my head:

1) it's impossible to get net advantage or disad, because any number of one is totally canceled by one of the other- this stops enemies from getting stuff like pack tactics, as well as benefits of something like blur
--- note that this means your DM screwed the pooch, the thing that was prone should not have been attacked at advantage

2) you're heavily obscured, so you can hide even if it's an open field or featureless room and you're right next to them.

3) no attacks of opportunity; you can walk away from something for free since it can't see you leave its reach

4) most spells that aren't AOE require that you see the target- this lets you fight in a good brawl without having to worry about getting "hold person'd"



by RAW you still know the location of everyone in there who hasn't taken an action to hide, by the way.

[JNAProductions]

And there's the explanation, apparently. You're absolutely correct. From the PHB, page 173: "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." It really is useless in a bar fight. : /

.... well, that's not quite true. "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight," therefore, I could automatically succeed on a stealth check to sneak out of the bar.

Not really-you can be heard.

[Tanarii]

by RAW you still know the location of everyone in there who hasn't taken an action to hide, by the way.
The 20 page thread on invisible Bob disagrees with this statement. :smallbiggrin:

[druid91]

It's an anti-archer/caster spell. A ton of spells require you to see the creature or point of impact for spells. For a level 1 spell slot it can equalize a lot of bad encounters.

Except, per RAW it doesn't actually do that.

Obscured Areas only have effects on those INSIDE them. So those archers standing outside the fog cloud now get advantage to shoot everyone inside of it.

[Matticusrex]

The 20 page thread on invisible Bob disagrees with this statement. :smallbiggrin:


I think he meant 99% of the time.

[Trampaige]

Except, per RAW it doesn't actually do that.

Obscured Areas only have effects on those INSIDE them. So those archers standing outside the fog cloud now get advantage to shoot everyone inside of it.

"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)."

The creature inside the area is blinded, but vision is blocked entirely by the fog, so the archers can't see the target. Adv/dis cancels out.

Then we get into the stupidity of the invisibility thread where people start arguing that you know exactly where something has moved, even if it's impossible to see it, because it's making sound, so you still know the exact square to aim for even though you can't see where the target moved to or what square it's in.

[MaxWilson]

Except, per RAW it doesn't actually do that.

Obscured Areas only have effects on those INSIDE them. So those archers standing outside the fog cloud now get advantage to shoot everyone inside of it.

You're looking at an old copy of the PHB. The newer, errata'ed version (included in newer SRD as well as newer PHBs) corrects this to say the opposite:


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.

All sane DMs were already ruling this way anyway though, since otherwise a guy holding a candle in a pitch-black cavern can see everything in the cavern perfectly (because he is not obscured) but all the goblins hidden in the darkness cannot see him (because they are obscured), which would be totally insane. The errata just codifies what everyone already knew it was really trying to say: you can't see things that are concealed.

So, archers inside a fog cloud get advantage to shoot anything not in the fog cloud.

[Dappershire]

So, archers inside a fog cloud get advantage to shoot anything not in the fog cloud.

I was with you until this line. So....what? First you're talking common sense stuff, then this pops out. How exactly would an archer inside a fog cloud get advantage on something outside the fog cloud, if they cant see?

If there were any difference between two archers, one inside, one out, it should be that the one outside the fog can actually see an attack coming

[Malifice]

I rule that the disadvantage caused by heavy obscurement cannot be cancelled out by advantage.

Creatures flailing away in darkness are always at disadvantage to attack rolls.

I also rule that you must succeed in a DC-10 dexterity saving throw if you move more than half your speed in Heavy obscurement or you fall over.

By RAW heavy obscurement blocks sight. This means it stops about 40% of all spells (Hold person, Charm person, Magic missile, Dominate, Hex, Hunters mark, all of the power word spells, Counterspell etc) and completely blocks attacks of opportunity all of which expressly require 'a target you can see.'

The OPs DM sounds like a bit of a Wally. Apparently all of the combatants in this fight had a perfect sense of orientation despite fighting a swirling combat in the middle of a 30 foot cloud of thick smoke.

[Zalabim]

@Dappershire
That's because some people don't see the rules as making any distinction between blocking sight in the affected area and blocking sight through the affected area. Basically, "Nothing in the fog can be seen" versus "The fog blocks all sight." And the rules really do just say the former for Fog Cloud. Basically, Fog Cloud is written to work the same as mundane darkness in terms of how its obscured if not in how Darkvision works on it, I'm pretty sure that isn't how fog really works either. The errata for heavily obscured allows for it to work right, but Fog Cloud doesn't say it works right.


Then we get into the stupidity of the invisibility thread where people start arguing that you know exactly where something has moved, even if it's impossible to see it, because it's making sound, so you still know the exact square to aim for even though you can't see where the target moved to or what square it's in.
The alternative is making it impossible to fight in a heavily obscured area, and impossible to fight a creature that is invisible like an invisible stalker. It takes an action to search for a hidden creature and you lose track of the creature when it moves again? And if you can't tell where the creature is when hearing it, what are you searching for? One on one fights would be impossible. And how do you tell someone else where to attack if none of you can see and hearing isn't good enough? It would be impossible to fight in fog, and I don't think that's good for the game. Nevermind what the rules actually suggest. The only stupid thing would be running invisibility like invulnerability.

[Lombra]

Your idea of using fog cloud was brilliant but poorly executed: creatures can't see while in the fog cloud, so if you intended to escape, you should have tried to hide and walk away. Advantages and disadvantsges cancel each other out but the DM should make the NPCs behave like they are blinded, one who can't see where the opponent is may hit without disadvantage, but maybe he's hitting his homie which he no longer can identify by sight.

[Coffee_Dragon]

the DM should make the NPCs behave like they are blinded, one who can't see where the opponent is may hit without disadvantage, but maybe he's hitting his homie which he no longer can identify by sight.

Has anyone ever had PCs do this?

"I turn and hit Bob."

"What?"

"Eh, we're in fog, how can I know you're not a manticore? Honest mistake. Crit! I take all his stuff."

[Cespenar]

As a summary of others' posts here:

Okay, let's say the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. You flail blindly, but the defender can't see it coming either. It kinda makes sense.

Still:

1) No one can see each other. People may have moved and the square you're targeting may have now containing your friend. Or just be empty.

2) No opportunity attacks. So it's very good for fleeing.

[Lombra]

Has anyone ever had PCs do this?

"I turn and hit Bob."

"What?"

"Eh, we're in fog, how can I know you're not a manticore? Honest mistake. Crit! I take all his stuff."

That's... totally not how I intended to deliver my message... if you are caught in a heavily obscured area and you keep hitting where you were hitting before there might be something different from your previous target in that spot.

[Dappershire]

I kinda disagree with the movement. If you're in a fight, and someone calls up fog, you're still locked in that fight. You're not suddenly disorientated. And unless you're a controller, the fight is sticking to the same spot.
chances to hit others should only occur if someone moves into the square you're fighting in/with, or you move.
Unless you have Initiative, and call the fog up before anyone can attack. Then they're screwed.

[Beelzebubba]

Yeah, my rational brain is crying out for some more possibilities to have accidents happen and other chaotic events that you'd expect when everyone is blind.

But, let's be honest - they were aiming for a Basic experience here. Not a world of weapon speeds, weapon vs. armor type adjustments, complex stacking of overlapping effects, etcetera.

They aimed for a few simple effects that make for enough variations to keep fights interesting, without bogging it all down.

IMO even if it was more realistic and everyone fought with disadvantage inside, all you'd be doing is prolonging the combat, making it annoying and dissuading use of the spell.

I think this is one of those times when their intent to be brief and to the point and let the few simple rules sort it all out isn't serving the game well. I would have never thought to choose this spell based on how it seemed to work; I only realized the usefulness after people here explained it.

[mcsillas]

You're looking at an old copy of the PHB. The newer, errata'ed version (included in newer SRD as well as newer PHBs) corrects this to say the opposite:



All sane DMs were already ruling this way anyway though, since otherwise a guy holding a candle in a pitch-black cavern can see everything in the cavern perfectly (because he is not obscured) but all the goblins hidden in the darkness cannot see him (because they are obscured), which would be totally insane. The errata just codifies what everyone already knew it was really trying to say: you can't see things that are concealed.

So, archers inside a fog cloud get advantage to shoot anything not in the fog cloud.

Yes! Someone who understands what the errata was stating: "A heavily obscured area does not blind you, but you are effectively blinded when trying to see something obscured by it." Being in a heavily obscured area is a benefit to the one in it because the one in it can see those outside of it. The one outside the heavily obscured area suffers from the blinded condition. Fog cloud is a great spell for retreating, hiding, and especially for ranged combat. Common sense tells you that depending on the type of heavy obscurity, one could only be a certain distance back in it and still be able to see out - heavy foliage, not far back; darkness, as far back as you would like.

[Tanarii]

Yes! Someone who understands what the errata was stating: "A heavily obscured area does not blind you, but you are effectively blinded when trying to see something obscured by it."
No, it's totally misunderstanding it.

If someone is in a Fog Cloud, everything outside or inside it is obscured by it.

If someone is outside a Fog Cloud, everything inside it or on the other side of it is obscured by it.

Solidly opaque obscurement, unlike darkness, obscures things not just in it. It obscures any attempt to see through it.

[Lombra]

No, it's totally misunderstanding it.

If someone is in a Fog Cloud, everything outside or inside it is obscured by it.

If someone is outside a Fog Cloud, everything inside it or on the other side of it is obscured by it.

Solidly opaque obscurement, unlike darkness, obscures things not just in it. It obscures any attempt to see through it.

Wait.
People can't see through the darkness spell (it's written in the description), it's a ball of darkness which effectively blocks sight both from the inside and from the outside.
The twist that makes it 2nd level is that you can carry it around and that you can use it to dispel low level magical light.

[Tanarii]

Wait.
People can't see through the darkness spell (it's written in the description), it's a ball of darkness which effectively blocks sight both from the inside and from the outside.

Let's not go there. Just assume I was talking about mundane non-magical darkness and we can avoid completely derailing the thread. :smallwink:

[Steampunkette]

Let's not go there. Just assume I was talking about mundane non-magical darkness and we can avoid completely derailing the thread. :smallwink:

Also: Devil's Sight doesn't see through Fog Clouds.

[Lombra]

Let's not go there. Just assume I was talking about mundane non-magical darkness and we can avoid completely derailing the thread. :smallwink:

Yeah sure, I got and share your point anyways, and I agree that some statements are dangerous around here, let's forget about it.

[DragonSorcererX]

Fog Cloud is good when creatures with Blindsight use it (specially if you are trolling a Devil Sight + Darkness Warlock)... Imagine a White Dragon breathing a Fog Cloud and then wreaking havoc with whoever is inside of it.

[Specter]

Last session, the Wizard used it to protect himself from a Death Tyrant's rays. He got out of the fog to cast his spells, then would go back in after he was done. He would be dead without it.

[Coidzor]

You're not suddenly disorientated.

I mean, a person who isn't specially trained or used to it really should be, because suddenly they're in a bloody fog that's so thick that they can't even see their ruddy hands in front of their face.

[mcsillas]

No, it's totally misunderstanding it.

If someone is in a Fog Cloud, everything outside or inside it is obscured by it.

If someone is outside a Fog Cloud, everything inside it or on the other side of it is obscured by it.

Solidly opaque obscurement, unlike darkness, obscures things not just in it. It obscures any attempt to see through it.

Not misunderstanding it in the slightest. The gaming mechanics, real life simulations, and the errata all lend themselves to our interpretation. Your interpretation is what causes threads like this where someone asks, "Fog cloud does nothing at all?" If you play that those in the fog cloud can see out, specifically if they are on the perimeter of the fog cloud, you see where a spell like this is beneficial. To address the darkness spell, it specifically says you can't see out of it because its mobile and allowing someone to have a heavily obscured area move with them is much too powerful for a 2nd level spell. Going back to Max's point, natural darkness works the same way: the one holding the candle is at an extreme disadvantage to the one hiding in the darkness because the one in the darkness can see out of it. And darkness without the presence of light is opaque.

[Tanarii]

Not misunderstanding it in the slightest.So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

[mcsillas]

So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

If someone is on one side of the fog cloud and the other is on the other side of the fog cloud, I agree that they are both looking through a heavily obscured area and that neither will be able to see the other. If one is in the cloud, particularly on the perimeter of the cloud (DM discretion as to how far back in), I think the one in the cloud is able to see the one outside of it.

[Tanarii]

If someone is on one side of the fog cloud and the other is on the other side of the fog cloud, I agree that they are both looking through a heavily obscured area and that neither will be able to see the other. If one is in the cloud, particularly on the perimeter of the cloud (DM discretion as to how far back in), I think the one in the cloud is able to see the one outside of it.what it sounds like you mean is it shouldn't block some short distance of viewing through it, so that standing next to someone or near the edge doesn't block vision since there's insufficient fog to block sight if it's not 'thick' enough. But if that's the case someone in the perimeter should be just as visible to anyone outside it, and there should be some special language that it only blocks vision after X feet. There no particular simulationist reason to think it should be one way, with a creature standing in the edge able to see clearly out, but a creature out not being able to see it.

Rules wise, your interpretation that the errata should only apply as 'obscured' if you're in the fog would allow creatures to see through the entirety of it, just not into it. ie treating it identical to normal darkness.

[mcsillas]

what it sounds like you mean is it shouldn't block some short distance of viewing through it, so that standing next to someone or near the edge doesn't block vision since there's insufficient fog to block sight if it's not 'thick' enough. But if that's the case someone in the perimeter should be just as visible to anyone outside it, and there should be some special language that it only blocks vision after X feet. There no particular simulationist reason to think it should be one way, with a creature standing in the edge able to see clearly out, but a creature out not being able to see it.

Rules wise, your interpretation that the errata should only apply as 'obscured' if you're in the fog would allow creatures to see through the entirety of it, just not into it. ie treating it identical to normal darkness.

Taking what I'm saying to real life situations: If you've ever played paintball and you're in the dense woods, you are able to see someone in a clearing and they can't see you, even if you shoot them and they look in your direction. The heavy foliage is so dense, they can't see you. This analogy can be used with fog, such as being on stage in a theatrical production when the fog machine is on, or if you're in a dark ally and someone comes down it shining a flash light.

I agree that depending on the type of heavy obscurity, you should only be allowed to be so far back in it before you are blinded yourself. Also, as the errata says "... suffer from the blinded condition when you try to see something obscured by it" if you and your enemy are both in the obscured area, you both suffer from the blinded condition.

[Tanarii]

Okay. But levels of obscurity, light or heavy, isn't something supported by the 5e RAW. Things are either obscured or they aren't. You're trying to introduce simulation, and then adapt the rules to it.

Now, I'll freely admit the 5e rules also don't support opaque obscurity (Fog Cloud, Foliage, etc) vs Translucent Obscurity (darkness aka lack of light). So there's some justification for the system rules requiring a level of interpretation with 'real world' knowledge, to at least that degree. So I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable to apply whatever 'real world' simulation of exactly how opaque or translucent something is before it counts as 'obscured'.

It seems like a good way to end up with a lot of table arguments to rule that it's one directional when it's 'sorta kinda opaque' obscurity though.

[mcsillas]

Okay. But levels of obscurity, light or heavy, isn't something supported by the 5e RAW. Things are either obscured or they aren't. You're trying to introduce simulation, and then adapt the rules to it.

Now, I'll freely admit the 5e rules also don't support opaque obscurity (Fog Cloud, Foliage, etc) vs Translucent Obscurity (darkness aka lack of light). So there's some justification for the system rules requiring a level of interpretation with 'real world' knowledge, to at least that degree. So I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable to apply whatever 'real world' simulation of exactly how opaque or translucent something is before it counts as 'obscured'.


It seems like a good way to end up with a lot of table arguments to rule that it's one directional when it's 'sorta kinda opaque' obscurity though.

Check Pg 183 of the PHB for levels of obscurity.

It can be a good way to end up with table arguments, but DM has the final say!

[Tanarii]

Check Pg 183 of the PHB for levels of obscurity.Okay fair enough. I've forgotten that light obscuring existed in 5e (which is a shame, I should use that more often). But Fog Cloud is explicitly Heavily Obscured and blocks vision entirely.

In fact, that makes your position that it should be kinda-sorta-something less than-heavily obscured less tenable. Not more.


It can be a good way to end up with table arguments, but DM has the final say!Sure. Or he can just call it a Fog Cloud house rule.

For example, I recently made something I didn't even realize was a house rule an official house rule. I thought that when something wasn't visible to you due to being obscured in a fog cloud, but therefore couldn't see you back, you attacked it with disadvantage. Talking about archers outside a fog cloud targeting something inside it, not two adjacent targets in melee. So I just changed that to be global ... disadvantage due to not being able to see a target isn't cancelled by advantage from them not being able to see you either. I freely admit that's a house rule, now that it's been pointed out to me.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If we're talking simulation, it makes sense to me that (magical) fog would not behave like foliage, since the obscurimentation of the foliage obstacle should depend on the two observers' respective distances from it, while the optical depth of the fog medium would depend only on the distance it covers between the observers.

Also, random note: magical fog cannot really be imagined as normal fog, but must be some kind of thick smoke, or it couldn't possibly achieve obscurement in five feet like we are informed it does.

[mcsillas]

Okay fair enough. I've forgotten that light obscuring existed in 5e (which is a shame, I should use that more often). But Fog Cloud is explicitly Heavily Obscured and blocks vision entirely.

In fact, that makes your position that it should be kinda-sorta-something less than-heavily obscured less tenable. Not more.

Sure. Or he can just call it a Fog Cloud house rule.

For example, I recently made something I didn't even realize was a house rule an official house rule. I thought that when something wasn't visible to you due to being obscured in a fog cloud, but therefore couldn't see you back, you attacked it with disadvantage. Talking about archers outside a fog cloud targeting something inside it, not two adjacent targets in melee. So I just changed that to be global ... disadvantage due to not being able to see a target isn't cancelled by advantage from them not being able to see you either. I freely admit that's a house rule, now that it's been pointed out to me.

I Agree fog cloud is a heavily obscured area and I believe that's what the errata was attempting to explain on how to handle. The RAW in the PHB makes it appear that being in a heavily obscured area blinds you when you are located in it, which errata is trying to clarify that it does not.

Much of D&D is up to personal preference/interpretation and that's part of what makes it so great - it's very wide open.

[Steampunkette]

I feel like Fog Cloud should make use of Light Obscurement as well...

In the future, I'll shrink the size of a fog cloud to 15 feet of Heavy Obscurement and tack on 15 feet of light obscurement.

[Vogonjeltz]

The 20 page thread on invisible Bob disagrees with this statement. :smallbiggrin:

No it doesn't 🙈 is not equal to 🙉

[mgshamster]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

[SharkForce]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

i suspect the answer has something to do with nerfing invisibility so that other forms of stealth remain relevant...

[MaxWilson]

So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

By the rules as written, that is correct. Obscurement affects an area, not a vector.

If you're saying you'd rule differently than the PHB if you were DMing, [shrug], that's fine. If you're saying the PHB doesn't say this, you're just wrong.

[Laserlight]

Has anyone ever had PCs do this?

"I turn and hit Bob."

"What?"

"Eh, we're in fog, how can I know you're not a manticore? Honest mistake. Crit! I take all his stuff."

Yes. It was hilarious. In-game, the artificer had just met the rest of the party about one minute before this incident. They were crawling through the passages of a gnome ship, with the cleric leading the way. The cleric realized the ship was sinking, whereupon he started cussing--and specified that he was doing so in Deep Speech. I passed the artificer a note that said "You hear someone up ahead snarling something in the Mindflayer language. It sounds like that spell caster you just met. You can't see what's happening."
The artificer said "Mindflayer!" and fired his musket. Ad/Dis cancel out and...crit!
"Chaz, there's a loud bang behind you and something hits you right in the butt." Did about a third of his HP.
Every session thereafter the cleric made sure to say, in the most aggrieved tones he could manage, "But you shot me!"

[Malifice]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

Because neither of them are hidden. The abstraction of the game assumes they're still making enough noise to be able to be located and attacked inside of 6 seconds.

Of course either one of them could use the Hide action at will to become hidden (tiptoeing around in the fog).

A rogue in a fog cloud could could stab you, and then use cunning action to hide and move away every round. He wouldn't get advantage (or sneak attack) on the attack thanks to the obscurement providing disadvantage, but you would have to guess his location in order to attack him.

[mgshamster]

Because neither of them are hidden. The abstraction of the game assumes they're still making enough noise to be able to be located and attacked inside of 6 seconds.

Of course either one of them could use the Hide action at will to become hidden (tiptoeing around in the fog).

A rogue in a fog cloud could could stab you, and then use cunning action to hide and move away every round. He wouldn't get advantage (or sneak attack) on the attack thanks to the obscurement providing disadvantage, but you would have to guess his location in order to attack him.

I could see that if it was just two people in an area that was relatively quiet enough to hear where they're at, but not in any sort of environment beyond that. For example, the OPs bar fight. It would be way too loud to be able to pinpoint anyone else by hearing if you were blind. Swinging blindly is probably enough to hit someone, but no way you'd be able to pick who.

[Malifice]

Swinging blindly is probably enough to hit someone, but no way you'd be able to pick who.

A fog cloud is not even 10 meters in radius. I could cover the entire area of it by running around for six seconds swinging a sword.

Conceptually speaking its dense smoke akin to someone pegging a smoke grenade inside your lounge room. It would be swirling around and there would be some gaps and some visibility inside it, even if only temporary.

I don't really have any problem with the abstraction that two trained combatants could reasonably locate and fight each other inside of it within 6 seconds.

If one of them doesn't want to locate and fight the other, they should take the hide action.

[Tanarii]

By the rules as written, that is correct. Obscurement affects an area, not a vector.

If you're saying you'd rule differently than the PHB if you were DMing, [shrug], that's fine. If you're saying the PHB doesn't say this, you're just wrong.
The errata refers to 'obscured by'. In common english, which is the standard the PHB uses, 'obscured by' means to keep from being seen. So no, I'm not wrong. You're just trying to use an overly technical definition of lining up 'obscured by' with 'within a heavily obscured area'. Most likely because you're holding onto previous edition thinking in which an overly technical definition was the accurate way to interpret a rule.

[StorytellerHero]

I think that it's important to note that if one stops thinking purely in terms of mechanics and remember that it's a roleplaying game, that the tavern brawl would have stopped due to everyone there suddenly being confronted with an unnatural gas that is suddenly enveloping them.

This would probably result in at least the majority of the tavern customers trying to escape the vicinity because they don't know that the fog is not dangerous.

[Strill]

It means that enemies have to guess your location in the cloud before they attack, or else they fail automatically.

[Tanarii]

A fog cloud is not even 10 meters in radius. I could cover the entire area of it by running around for six seconds swinging a sword.I'm envisioning this warrior sprawled on his face after having tripped over a chair. :smallyuk:


I don't really have any problem with the abstraction that two trained combatants could reasonably locate and fight each other inside of it within 6 seconds.OP said it was a brawl in a tavern, not two trained warriors dueling in an otherwise empty white room.

[TentacleSurpris]

The spell isn't useless. Yes, you roll a 1d20 as normal to hit a creature when attacking, but you have no idea who you are attacking. You can simply choose a square within your reach and throw a punch at whoever happens to be there. A clever spellcaster will start a barfight and cast Fog Cloud and then simply crawl out and bar the door. He won't provoke attacks of opportunity on the way out, and hopefully he noted a clear path before casting it. The other patrons will throw punches back and forth until they all knock each other out.

[Beelzebubba]

I see it as getting a reprieve from a spellcaster or archers.

And man, casting this one at higher level is definitely worth it. 3rd level = 60' radius. Some serious instant fog.

[StorytellerHero]

A clever spellcaster will start a barfight and cast Fog Cloud and then simply crawl out and bar the door. He won't provoke attacks of opportunity on the way out, and hopefully he noted a clear path before casting it. The other patrons will throw punches back and forth until they all knock each other out.

No, they won't, not in most cases. Common sense dictates that all the patrons, even if they're all drunk, would notice that there's something seriously wrong with the room and attempt to hightail it out of there themselves.

Fog Cloud is not invisible and it doesn't tell an affected person that it's harmless.

[mgshamster]

No, they won't, not in most cases. Common sense dictates that all the patrons, even if they're all drunk, would notice that there's something seriously wrong with the room and attempt to hightail it out of there themselves.

Fog Cloud is not invisible and it doesn't tell an affected person that it's harmless.

Well, only the sane ones would run. The ones who aren't sane? We also call them PCs. :smallbiggrin:

[Temperjoke]

I think that it's important to note that if one stops thinking purely in terms of mechanics and remember that it's a roleplaying game, that the tavern brawl would have stopped due to everyone there suddenly being confronted with an unnatural gas that is suddenly enveloping them.

This would probably result in at least the majority of the tavern customers trying to escape the vicinity because they don't know that the fog is not dangerous.

I love how everyone focused on the mechanics and not the practicality of the matter! :smallbiggrin: I mean, unless it was actually an assassination attempt disguised as a brawl, the fighting should have died down since normal people would have been confused by the sudden appearance of a fog cloud.

[Segev]

You know, even if you play it totally in agreement with the "you know where everybody is unless they Hide" ruling, fog cloud still means you probably can't tell who you're swinging at. Is that Bob, Fred, or the orc that started this brawl that just stepped within your 5 ft. reach?

[Tanarii]

Well, only the sane ones would run. The ones who aren't sane? We also call them PCs. :smallbiggrin:Or drunk. I mean, we are talking about a bar here, with people either aggressive enough and/or drunk enough to want to brawl.

[StorytellerHero]

Or drunk. I mean, we are talking about a bar here, with people either aggressive enough and/or drunk enough to want to brawl.

Being drunk enough to brawl and being too drunk to notice danger are pretty far in between.

Plenty don't even have to be drunk to enjoy a good brawl. :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

The errata refers to 'obscured by'. In common english, which is the standard the PHB uses, 'obscured by' means to keep from being seen. So no, I'm not wrong. You're just trying to use an overly technical definition of lining up 'obscured by' with 'within a heavily obscured area'. Most likely because you're holding onto previous edition thinking in which an overly technical definition was the accurate way to interpret a rule.

Fallacy: non sequitur. The sentences in bold don't logically follow.

The meaning of the phrased "obscured by" is not at issue; the issue is what is required for something to be obscured. In 5E the answer is simple: things within an area of heavy obscurement are obscured. Or as the SRD puts it:


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.

"In that area." Not "outside that area." Not "on the other side of that area." In that area.

Obscurement in 5E affects an area, not a vector. Obscurement is not occlusion. You can see something on the other side of a gap in lighting--you just can't see anything inside the obscured area, because it's dark. Or foggy, as the case may be. 5E is trying to keep things simple.

Feel free to rule differently at your table, but when you claim your ruling as part of 5E RAW, you're just wrong.

[Fixer]

The foggy area is heavily obscured, and by RAW it imposes the blinded condition on anyone who wants to hit targets in the area. The fog is not normal fog, it is described as opaque fog, which means
it cannot be seen through AT ALL. For all intents and purposes, in front of anyone's eyes in the area of effect is a big, whitish-grey area. Anyone outside the area sees a big, opaque, foggy sphere which obstructs vision. Common sense says it should obstruct vision for targets who must see through the area, but rules lawyers will always argue the minutia.

The rules should be similar to what they are when all your opponents are invisible. You guess where they are and attack locations, not individuals, and you cannot identify friend nor foe without using other senses.

[Jerrykhor]

I don't know if its just me, but I think one is not be fit to be DM if he/she:

1. Don't know what a basic 1st level spell can do (or worse, never heard of it)
2. Can't be bothered to find out
3. Did not run the effect of the spell properly

Your DM is a complete moron and should feel bad.

[N810]

Barbarians reckless attack negates the disadvantage to hit inside fog,
so just a straight d20 ... meanwhile everyone else it swinging with disadvantage. :P

[Tanarii]

"In that area." Not "outside that area." Not "on the other side of that area." In that area.This is what the errata changed. So quoting it is a moot point.

Instead it now reads:
"you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by [a heavily obscured area]."


Obscurement in 5E affects an area, not a vector. Obscurement is not occlusion. You can see something on the other side of a gap in lighting--you just can't see anything inside the obscured area, because it's dark. Or foggy, as the case may be. 5E is trying to keep things simple.The errata changed all this. 5e is now working as a reasonable set of rules, instead of something in which you can't see something inside fog, but can clearly see something on the other side of it.


Feel free to rule differently at your table, but when you claim your ruling as part of 5E RAW, you're just wrong.
Feel free to rule differently at your table, but when you claim your ruling as part of 5E RAW since the errata, you're just wrong.

[Millstone85]

This is what the errata changed. So quoting it is a moot point.I know three versions of the text:
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).
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.
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.And I believe they appeared in that order.

[Millstone85]

They did appear in that order.

2015 Twitter link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/675378111702175744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F12 %2F16%2Fheavily-obscured-errata%2F)

Heavily Obscured: Errata and updated Basic Rules are different "something obscured BY it" VS "something IN that area"The PH errata PDF describes corrections in a concise form. The Basic Rules and the PH include the full text.

[Tanarii]

I know three versions of the text:And I believe they appeared in that order.
Can't be. Your edition matches the original text. So the errata must have been 6th printing change.

[Millstone85]

Your edition matches the original text.No, it does not. The last sentence is different.


So the errata must have been 6th printing change.6th printing changes are identified as such in the errata. This is not one.

[Tanarii]

No, it does not. The last sentence is different.
Well now. I have no idea what I was smoking earlier, but it must have been the good stuff. Well, when I'm wrong, I'm really really wrong. :smallamused:

Although that means the D&D track record of having utterly stupid lighting and vision rules in every edition, even after errata tries to fix it, continues unabated.

[Vogonjeltz]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

Probably because Blind is not equal to Deaf.

[Millstone85]

Although that means the D&D track record of having utterly stupid lighting and vision rules in every edition, even after errata tries to fix it, continues unabated.I don't disagree.

As currently written, a heavily obscured area works like an invisibility field. You can't see its occupants but you can see what's behind them just fine. Even for a simplification, that's just not how opaque fog and dense foliage work.

[Lombra]

"In that area." Not "outside that area." Not "on the other side of that area." In that area.

Obscurement in 5E affects an area, not a vector. Obscurement is not occlusion. You can see something on the other side of a gap in lighting--you just can't see anything inside the obscured area, because it's dark. Or foggy, as the case may be. 5E is trying to keep things simple.

Feel free to rule differently at your table, but when you claim your ruling as part of 5E RAW, you're just wrong.

You are correct, it's RAW, but it doesn't make sense. You are saying that the book implies that a creature within an heavily obscured area such as fog cloud can be seen from the outside of the cloud, and that creatures outside the area of effect can see through the spell? It's magical so it's possible, but it is really hard to rule it that way without putting common sense (a big part of D&D) aside.

By your reading a creature within thick foliage is blinded, but people outside the foliage can see it because, presuming that they are not blinded, they can see in the heavily obscured area?

[Tanarii]

I don't disagree.

As currently written, a heavily obscured area works like an invisibility field. You can't see its occupants but you can see what's behind them just fine. Even for a simplification, that's just not how opaque fog and dense foliage work.
What's weird is the quote starts by saying it 'blocks vision entirely'. That alone should mean you can't see something on the other side, and also the unseen targets rule kicks in for targets on the other side. Right?

Edit: scratch that. If we use that to rule it the case, then we're back to normal darkness blocking vision.

Like I said, utterly stupid. :smallmad:

my PHB is pre-errata. I'd been assuming all this time that the errata had changed it how they wrote it. Very disappointed to find out they didn't mean what they actually wrote in the errata.



By your reading a creature within thick foliage is blinded, but people outside the foliage can see it because, presuming that they are not blinded, they can see in the heavily obscured area?No, by his (correct) reading, after the errata it's the exact opposite of that, a creature within thick foliage can see any creature outside of it perfectly. A creature outside of thick foliage can see any creature outside of it but on the other side perfectly. But any creature looking at any creature within the thick foliage is effectively blinded.

It's correct, it's now RAW. It's utterly stupid.

[Contrast]

Outside of specifics circumstances such as spells like fog cloud, the DM decides what areas count as heavily obscured. So the DM can reasonably say that the area behind a fog cloud is also heavily obscured.

As noted above, the reason this is not a hard rule is that then a strip of darkness between two bonfires would render you incapable of seeing the other bonfire.

[Lombra]

What's weird is the quote starts by saying it 'blocks vision entirely'. That alone should mean you can't see something on the other side, and also the unseen targets rule kicks in for targets on the other side. Right?

Edit: scratch that. If we use that to rule it the case, then we're back to normal darkness blocking vision.

Like I said, utterly stupid. :smallmad:

my PHB is pre-errata. I'd been assuming all this time that the errata had changed it how they wrote it. Very disappointed to find out they didn't mean what they actually wrote in the errata.

No, by his (correct) reading, after the errata it's the exact opposite of that, a creature within thick foliage can see any creature outside of it perfectly. A creature outside of thick foliage can see any creature outside of it but on the other side perfectly. But any creature looking at any creature within the thick foliage is effectively blinded.

It's correct, it's now RAW. It's utterly stupid.

How can someone see from the inside if he's effectively blinded?

[Contrast]

How can someone see from the inside if he's effectively blinded?

They're saying because the rules say you (effectively) only suffer from the blinded condition when targeting someone in the area of obscurement, not outside it.

Per my above point about the DM deciding what areas are heavily obscured - my ruling would be that anyone inside a fog cloud would suffer from complete heavy obscurement in all directions (and hence effectively suffer from the blinded condition) for the same reason that putting a blindfold on would have that effect.

[Beelzebubba]

No, by his (correct) reading, after the errata it's the exact opposite of that, a creature within thick foliage can see any creature outside of it perfectly. A creature outside of thick foliage can see any creature outside of it but on the other side perfectly. But any creature looking at any creature within the thick foliage is effectively blinded.

Nope, not the same thing.

Leaves are solid things that leave gaps of 100% air. You look out between the leaves, not through them. You are not 'effectively blinded' unless you literally shove your eyeball into leaves.

Fog is 100% opaque. There's no space to see around it, it's pervasive. Everywhere you look - fog. Every direction - fog.

I mean, I feel like I shouldn't have to say things like this, but it seems like some people in this board have literally no real life experience to draw upon.

Have you (or anyone else who thinks that fog can obscure an area completely, but beings on either side of it can see each other clearly) actually been in thick fog? Or is your experience of life theoretical, through Google?

[Contrast]

Leaves are solid things that leave gaps of 100% air. You look out between the leaves, not through them. You are not 'effectively blinded' unless you literally shove your eyeball into leaves.

That would be known as moderate foliage and would create a lightly obscured area :smalltongue:

Edit -

But more seriously - that is the correct interpretation of the rules as written... but if a DM decides not to make an area behind a visually impermeable thing heavily obscured then thats his own fault if there are weird results :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Have you (or anyone else who thinks that fog can obscure an area completely, but beings on either side of it can see each other clearly) actually been in thick fog? Or is your experience of life theoretical, through Google?youve got to be kidding me. Did you even read this thread?

Edit: In case that's not clear, you've clearly not read my position on how I think Fog Cloud should work and my opinion on the RAW of it. Including in the post you snipped that quote of me from. That's a reading comprehension fail, although not as bad as the one I made in this very thread. :smallbiggrin:

[Jerrykhor]

I mean, I feel like I shouldn't have to say things like this, but it seems like some people in this board have literally no real life experience to draw upon.


The truth has been spoken. You're putting this very mildly. Some people on this thread are so ridiculously pedantic that they will tell you they can immediately spot an invisible person who is not hiding, just because the rules tell them they can.

[Mellack]

D&D is not a real-life simulation. It is a game and has rules to play that game. It is like saying a bishop can walk both forward or diagonal, so why can't my chess bishop move any direction?

[LordCdrMilitant]

This is a case where the RAW probably don't coincide with the RAI.

RAW, all people in the cloud have disadvantage and grant advantage, so it does nothing. This obviously makes so sense, so it's your DM's prerogative to have the effect be more reasonable.

[Jerrykhor]

D&D is not a real-life simulation. It is a game and has rules to play that game. It is like saying a bishop can walk both forward or diagonal, so why can't my chess bishop move any direction?

That does not mean you can, or should do silly impossible things. The people who design the game are only human, so some things are probably an oversight. The PHB is a rulebook, but not meant to be read like a law book because it does not and will not try to cover all bases. The problem is, too many people here read it like one.

[N810]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/51361158/captain-barbossa-rules-theyre-more-what-youd-call-guidelines.jpg

[Douche]

That's kind of weird, now that I think about it.

If RAW creatures in the cloud become blinded, and RAW a creature that is blinded has disadvantage and grants advantage, do the disadvantage and advantage cancel out for no effect for two creatures fighting in the fog, or does one roll three times and take the median value?

We've always played that advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, but in this case, it would make Fog Cloud completely pointless.

As a GM, I would probably rule that everyone has disadvantage to target and be targeted while in the cloud, instead of is blinded, but that's a houserule. RAW it doesn't seem to have an effect.

It would also nullify any abilities that require line of sight though. So, for instance, it would make it easier to fight an Umber Hulk... Or it would disallow a Cleric from using Sacred Flame.

[Mellack]

There is a difference between discussing what the rules say and using them RAW in a game. I think it is perfectly valid to argue what the written rules actually say should happen, especially when pointing out how that goes against what is expected and intended.

[StorytellerHero]

I think that some of of the posters in this thread may need to be reminded that the errata doesn't completely replace the entire text of the PHB entry describing "heavily obscured".

It doesn't give you the blinded condition as in the original text but it still blocks vision, so you can't actually see something on the other side.

[Millstone85]

I think that some of of the posters in this thread may need to be reminded that the errata doesn't completely replace the entire text of the PHB entry describing "heavily obscured".

It doesn't give you the blinded condition as in the original text but it still blocks vision, so you can't actually see something on the other side.It depends on whether you consider the "blocks vision" and "effectively blinded" parts as separate, with the second just happening to be very redundant with the first, or if you consider the "effectively blinded" part to be an explanation of what they meant with "blocks vision".

In any case, you would just trade one absurd situation for another. Instead of opaque fog that counceals its occupants but lets them see what's outside and also lets others see what's behind it, you would have a dark tunnel in which approaching torches can not be seen.

I believe the core of the problem is that we should have separate mechanics for things like poor lighting and smoke. Those just don't work the same.

[StorytellerHero]

It depends on whether you consider the "blocks vision" and "effectively blinded" parts as separate, with the second just happening to be very redundant with the first, or if you consider the "effectively blinded" part to be an explanation of what they meant with "blocks vision".


I'll bring up this sage advice then.

If one can't see into a fog cloud, then obviously one can't see through it.

Blocked is blocked.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/17/fog-cloud-blindness/

[Tanarii]

I believe the core of the problem is that we should have separate mechanics for things like poor lighting and smoke. Those just don't work the same.That's what I thought this errata was supposed to be addressing. Because it changes it from 'when you are in the area' to 'when you try to see something obscured by it'. The former is stupid for darkness, the latter works for both opaque/blocking obscuring and translucent/non-blocking obscuring (aka darkness).

But apparently not. Why errata something that works, then when you go to reprint, change the errata to a form that doesn't work? What a waste of ink.

[Millstone85]

I'll bring up this sage advice then.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/17/fog-cloud-blindness/
A wizard casts Fog Cloud on an orc. The orc is inside the cloud, the wizard is outside. Are both orc and wizard effectively blinded in regards to each other (therefore adv/disadv cancel out for both creatures)?
The fog cloud spell doesn't give the spellcaster the ability to see into the cloud.As someone here likes to say, what does this have to do with the price of milk? I don't think the question was about caster privileges.

And the guy outside the cloud not seing the guy inside of it, that remains true in both our readings of the current text.

But okay, maybe Crawford actually confirmed the orc's blindness by ignoring that aspect of the question.


If one can't see into a fog cloud, then obviously one can't see through it.

Blocked is blocked.Like I already said, that makes sense for fog. But not for darkness, mundane darkness, which yet follows the same rules.

And the interpretation I have been going with makes sense for darkness, but not for fog.

[Zalabim]

As someone here likes to say, what does this have to do with the price of milk? I don't think the question was about caster privileges.

And the guy outside the cloud not seing the guy inside of it, that remains true in both our readings of the current text.

But okay, maybe Crawford actually confirmed the orc's blindness by ignoring that aspect of the question.
Or maybe Crawford confirmed the orc's ability to see the wizard by omission? Or maybe we can't glean meanings from what isn't said on twitter.

[MaxWilson]

This is what the errata changed. So quoting it is a moot point.

Instead it now reads:
"you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by [a heavily obscured area]."

The errata changed all this. 5e is now working as a reasonable set of rules, instead of something in which you can't see something inside fog, but can clearly see something on the other side of it.

Feel free to rule differently at your table, but when you claim your ruling as part of 5E RAW since the errata, you're just wrong.

You didn't bother to actually look at a new printing of the PHB before making this claim, did you?

[Tanarii]

You didn't bother to actually look at a new printing of the PHB before making this claim, did you?
No, I own a initial printing, and because I assumed it would match the errata. (Also I totally blew past it like an idiot when it was quoted for me.)

So yeah, you're right. But that comes with the IMO caveat that the printed version of the errata is utterly stupid and a waste of ink, and nobody in their right mind should actually run it that way.

[MaxWilson]

I don't disagree.

As currently written, a heavily obscured area works like an invisibility field. You can't see its occupants but you can see what's behind them just fine. Even for a simplification, that's just not how opaque fog and dense foliage work.

They really should have written different rules for darkness vs. obstacles to vision. The whole root of the 5E problem lies is trying to treat a fog cloud the same as the unlighted portion of a room. One occludes, the other does not.

[MaxWilson]

You are correct, it's RAW, but it doesn't make sense. You are saying that the book implies that a creature within an heavily obscured area such as fog cloud can be seen from the outside of the cloud, and that creatures outside the area of effect can see through the spell? It's magical so it's possible, but it is really hard to rule it that way without putting common sense (a big part of D&D) aside.

By your reading a creature within thick foliage is blinded, but people outside the foliage can see it because, presuming that they are not blinded, they can see in the heavily obscured area?

No, that's backwards. The people outside that area are blinded with respect to the creature in the foliage. They can't see it because it's heavily obscured.

First we have to get on the same page about what RAW is. THEN we can talk about situations where RAW falls down, and house rules that can correct it. But there's no point in doing that as long as everyone is still reading RAW backwards. Not to pick on you, Lombra, but the fact that everyone gets this backwards (due to the original PHB version getting it backwards too) is the whole reason I entered this thread--to point out that things have changed--so it's kind of frustrating to see that apparently not a single word I wrote has been understood.

The original PHB rules on vision were totally insane. The new PHB rules on vision are insane under some circumstances. That's an improvement.

[Dirty_toes]

Here is a quick breakdown of my research into this spell. It is based on the latest errata.

There are two things to consider with Fog Cloud:


Locating your target
Attacking your target



Locating your Target

Fog cloud creates a zone of heavy obscurement. This means that vision is blocked entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. Of course, the reverse is also true. Seeing out of a fog cloud is equally impossible. ( 5e_SRD:Vision_and_Light)
Now, common sense would tell us that if you can’t see your target, then you must not know where he is. But this isn’t how 5e works. Not seen; and not seen and not heard are two different things. To be hidden, you must be not seen and not heard. Reference (5e_SRD:Unseen_Attackers_and_Targets). So, creatures fighting in a fog cloud, or darkness, must take the hide action if they wish to conceal their location. Otherwise, anyone in the area who knew their location before the spell was cast, still knows it after the spell was cast, even if the person in the fog moves. My DM limits this based on distance from target and other ambient noise, but note that there is no stated range listed in the DMG. It is basically a perception check against an opposed hide roll.

So this takes care of locating your target. If you knew where he was before, you still know where he is. Your target must take the hide action if he wants to avoid location – and then if he attacks, his location is revealed until he hides again. In practice, it really doesn't change much about the combat. (At least on the surface!)

Attacking your target

If you can’t see your target, you attack at disadvantage. But if your target cannot see you, you attack with advantage. Reference (5e_SRD:Unseen_Attackers_and_Targets). In instances where you have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither and just roll a single d20. So, the fact that people in the cloud cannot see each other, nor can those inside see those outside and vice versa, makes no difference in the advantage/disadvantage equation. Everyone attacks normally. Again, not much (seeming) effect on combat.

So what the heck is Fog Cloud good for anyway ?!?

So, we’ve established that fog cloud won’t hide your position unless you take the hide action. And it won’t give advantage or disadvantage. So what the heck is it good for? Lots!

First use – eliminate advantage/disadvantage. Let’s look at the advantage/disadvantage thing. Advantage and disadvantage does not stack. So, let’s say you’re fighting a group of bad guys who have advantage for one reason or another. Maybe they have true strike on or some other similar spell that gives advantage. Or let’s say something about the area you’re fighting in gives your entire party disadvantage. Advantage/disadvantage doesn’t stack. If you have both, no matter from how many sources, you have neither. So, you cast Fog Cloud and because it automatically provides both against all opponents, everyone fights without advantage/disadvantage. No matter how they got that advantage or disadvantage to begin with.

Note that this would also include making a ranged attack within melee range of your opponent. (Not only because of the way advantage works, but because the description actually says that your melee opponent must be able to see you for you to get disadvantage - (PHb, pg 195).). Archers can now use a bow to attack from within 5 feet without penalty with Fog Cloud active.

Second use – Remove Attacks of Opportunity. For someone to take an AOO, they must be able to see you. (PHb, pg 195). Are you a bunch of ranged attackers who have just had melee types close in? Fog cloud to the rescue! You can safely move back 30 feet and fire at your opponents. What if they have reach or are behind you? Don’t care. No AOOs for moving through their reach.

Third use – Hide for classes that can do so. If you cannot be seen, you can always take the hide action. If you are a rogue or some other class that gets hide as a bonus action, you can attack and then use your bonus action afterwards to hide. Now they have to guess where you are and roll to hit. And Fog Cloud covers a lot of area. BTW, if they want to actually use perception to find you, they either take the passive value, or use their action to actively try to perceive you. Either way, if you've put points into hide, they're not likely to come out ahead in the deal.

Fourth, and possibly most important – Deeply limiting spellcasters and class abilities. Many spells and class abilities require that you can see your opponent. Not just know where he is, not attack an unseen opponent with disadvantage, but actually see him. Did you know that a rogue can’t perform Uncanny Dodge on a spell he can’t see? Or a fighter can’t use Protection on an ally he can’t see? How about that Command requires the caster to be able to see the target? Or Call Lightning requires that you see the spot you want to cast it on?

Of course the downside is that a lack of vision affects your party’s own heal spells, so the real trick with it is to be prepared to step out of it (both you and the hurt person) to cast the Heal, and then step back in when done. Better yet, put the cloud between your group and your opponents. Everyone can see their own party, but not each other. Just make sure the meat shields hold that dividing line!

Cheese usage: If you do it right, you can deeply screw with your opponents in large open areas using this spell. Let’s imagine it is a four on four situation. Half of your party has advantage for whatever reason, half of theirs does. How to best use fog cloud to your advantage?

Simple. Make sure that at the beginning of your turn you cast Fog Cloud in an empty location, but within movement rate of your party. Your party attacks and at the completion of each attack, the person moves into the cloud. Now each of your folks gets to use the advantage they have because they attacked while everyone was outside the cloud and thus visible. But now that they are in the fog cloud, your opponents do not get advantage because they cannot see their targets. On the next round, the Fog Cloud caster dismisses the cloud (free action) and you do it all over again. Of course you may need to use a readied action to ensure that the timing works out, and it will busy up one of your team casting and recasting the spell, but each round you do this, you essentially end up with advantage as well as giving your casters the ability to cast attack spells that the other party won’t get to use. As I said, very cheesy, but technically it works.

When do I use it?


When your entire party is at disadvantage for some reason.
If you are facing mostly spellcasters and your party is non-spellcaster heavy.
If at least half of your party has hide as a bonus action.
If you are in a melee fight where your opponents have reach or have flanked you(thus creating more AOO).
Any time your opponents have a kick ass ability that relies on sight.



In case you’re wondering what spells/abilities require sight to function, here is a list:

Giant Killer (Ability - Ranger), Volley (Ability - Ranger), Uncanny Dodge (Ability - Rogue/Ranger), Bend Luck (Ability), Dark Delirium (Ability - Warlock), Misty Escape (Ability - Warlock), Projected Ward (Ability - Wizard), Benign Transposition (Ability - Wizard), Hypnotic Gaze (Ability - Wizard), Instintive Charm (Ability - Wizard), Sculpt Spells (Ability - Wizard), Command Undead (Ability - Wizard), Dodge (Action), Attack of Opportunity (Reaction), Danger Sense (Ability - Barbarian), Intimidating Presence (Ability - Barbarian), Cutting Words (Ability - Bard), Channel Divinity: Read Thoughts (Ability - Cleric), Warding Flame (Ability - Cleric), Improved Flare (Ability - Cleric), Wrath of the Storm (Ability - Cleric), Channel Divinity: Invoke Duplicity (Ability - Cleric), Protection (Ability - Fighter), Arcane Charge (Ability - Fighter), Shadow Step (Ability - Monk), Water Whip (Ability - Monk), Protection (Ability - Paladin), Channel Divinity: Nature's Wrath (Ability - Paladin)

Spells

Animal Friendship, Animal Messenger, Animal Shapes, Arcane Gate, Bane, Banishment, Bigby's Hand (Initial cast point only), Blight, Blindness/Deafness, Blink, Call Lightning, Chain Lightning (initial target only), Charm Person, Chromatic Orb, Command, Compelled Duel, Compulsion, Conjure Animals (initial cast point only), Conjure Celestial (Initial Cast point only), Conjure Fey (Initial Cast point only), Conjure Woodland Beings (Initial Cast point only), Crown of Madness, Demiplane, Detect Thoughts, Disintegrate, Divine Word, Dominate Beast, Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Earthquake, Enlarge / Reduce, Enthrall, Evard's Black Tentacles , Eyebite, Fabricate, Feeblemind, Flesh to Stone, Gate, Geas, Grasping Vine (both at time of casting and time of attack), Harm, Haste, Heal, Healing Word, Heat Metal, Hellish Rebuke, Hex, Hold Monster, Hold Person, Hunter's Mark, Imprisonment, Knock, Magic Circle, Magic Mouth, Magic Jar, Magic Missile, Major Image, Mass Heal, Mass Healing Word, Mass Suggestion, Maze, Misty Step, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Mordenkainen's Sword, Otto's Irresitable Dance, Passwall, Phantasmal Force, Phantasmal Killer, Poison Spray, Polymorph, Power Word Killer, Power Word Stun, Prayer of Healing, Prismatic Wall, Sacred Flame, Seeming, Spirit Guardians (exception targets only), Storm of Vengeance, Suggestion, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Telekinesis, Teleport (targets, not destination), Tensor's Floating Disk (initial cast point), True Polymorph, Vicious Mockery, Water Breathing, Water Walk

Addendum: Strongly recommend you print this and provide it to your DM before you attempt to use it in combat. So far, of the 3 DM's I've sprung this on, one was fine with it, one immediately house ruled it to the point where the spell no longer did much of anything, and one lost his **** entirely and ragequit the gaming session.

[Unoriginal]

This thread is one year old.

[Dirty_toes]

This thread is one year old.

I did mention that in the beginning of my post. I thought it useful to add what I did to it because the thread goes on for pages without leaving the reader with a good summation of how all the different rules interact, based on the discussion.

[mephnick]

It is weird that people seem to completely forget that half the spells and abilities in the game require sight to use effectively.

"Doesn't give me advantage, spell is useless." *Turns page*

[Unoriginal]

I did mention that in the beginning of my post. I thought it useful to add what I did to it because the thread goes on for pages without leaving the reader with a good summation of how all the different rules interact, based on the discussion.

Why not start a new thread, rather than necro one that had no reader (or almost none) for a year?

[Dirty_toes]

Why not start a new thread, rather than necro one that had no reader (or almost none) for a year?

When I was first researching Fog Cloud, this is one of the discussions that rose to the top. Given that future researchers are likely to find the same thread, the intent is that other people who are doing similar research will now find this summation. A new thread may not be discovered the same way.

[Tanarii]

I did mention that in the beginning of my post. I thought it useful to add what I did to it because the thread goes on for pages without leaving the reader with a good summation of how all the different rules interact, based on the discussion.Hiya. Welcome to GiTP forums. Here's a link to the forum rules.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1