Blinded vs heavily obscured vs invisible

[Dmdork]

I know this topic has been covered but I'm still not clear. I'm just trying to run this thing as best I can. There is RAW and then there's DMs calls.

First, I'm proceeding from the assumption that in regard to combat, being blinded, in Heavy obscurement (I.e. Fog cloud), or invisible are all the same thing. I think this is what 5e has in mind, being that they wanna streamline stuff.

So let's assume those three things are the same when it comes to my specific example (if you are going to refute that these things are not the same, please give me rules as written, and if you're gonna give me what you THINK it means, let me know. Hell, I think I might be doing that right now:smallsmile:).

Let's take one of them: blinded. If I'm blinded I can walk right up and attack a foe, or point and shoot my missle weapon at them and attack. I can also cast most spells at a foe, just pointing and shooting. This must mean that I know where they are. Only thing is I get disadvantage on attacks, and spells are no different except if the spell says that you have to 'see' the target. Is my thinking backwards?

[MaxWilson]

Let's take one of them: blinded. If I'm blinded I can attack a foe/cast most spells at a foe. This must mean that I know where they are. Only thing is I get disadvantage on attacks, and spells are no different except if the spell says that you have to 'see' the target. Is my thinking backwards?

Your thinking is correct, though there is some controversy over extreme scenarios like whether a DM can rule that you don't know where an enemy is if they are beyond easy hearing range.

Additionally, for things like Fog Cloud and Darkness, there are occasional confused arguments from people who don't understand what "block vision entirely" means or are using old versions of the PHB without knowing about the heavy obscurement errata; and there are DMs and players who are not confused but don't like the RAW, and so choose to run such spells as opaque clouds blocking line of sight, and not merely as heavy obscurement.

[Greywander]

Here's my two cents on the subject:

Yes, when trying to attack a creature that is invisible or heavily obscured, you would treat the attack as if they were blinded.

The "as if" is important, because some creatures are immune to being blinded, but would still be affected by invisibility and heavy obscurement.

There are also subtle differences between them. For example, Truesight will let you see invisible creatures but will not pierce through heavy fog. Creatures with Truesight can also be blinded, if they're not immune.

As for attacking while blinded, I'm assuming that the creature is using their other senses to get a general idea of where the enemy is, hearing, for example. If a character was both blinded and deafened, and didn't have another sense strong enough (such as keen smell), then I would rule it as all enemies would be basically hidden from them as if they had succeeded on a stealth check. However, if they bumped into someone while moving around, that would be enough to break concealment and allow attacks at disadvantage until the enemy moves away.

[MaxWilson]

As for attacking while blinded, I'm assuming that the creature is using their other senses to get a general idea of where the enemy is, hearing, for example. If a character was both blinded and deafened, and didn't have another sense strong enough (such as keen smell), then I would rule it as all enemies would be basically hidden from them as if they had succeeded on a stealth check. However, if they bumped into someone while moving around, that would be enough to break concealment and allow attacks at disadvantage until the enemy moves away.

Assuming, that is, that they have some way of telling what it is they've bumped into, which is harder than it may sound when you're living in a fantasy world littered with the corpses of recently-slain monsters. They could wind up just attacking an already-dead zombie while goblins shoot them full of arrows.

[Millstone85]

Yes, when trying to attack a creature that is invisible or heavily obscured, you would treat the attack as if they were blinded.

The "as if" is important, because some creatures are immune to being blinded, but would still be affected by invisibility and heavy obscurement.One thing I would criticize the PHB for is that it offers a simple enough set of rules...
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

lf you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. but doesn't refer to it while describing related conditions, instead needlessly repeating itself...
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.

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. which could lead to some confusion. By the description of the invisible condition, it could be argued that the advantage/disadvantage part works even if the creature is seen through a special sense, as that is a separate bullet.

But worst of all, why oh why does the PHB refers to the blinded condition when trying to define heavy obscurement? It is not the most intuitive approach by far.

[Tanarii]

Your thinking is correct, though there is some controversy over extreme scenarios like whether a DM can rule that you don't know where an enemy is if they are beyond easy hearing range.The DM can rule anything, set a DC for any task and specify the action it takes, if any. What's usually argued if they should rule to account for being beyond easy hearing range. Also in this case, it's clearly a ruling and not a house rule, because there is no clear RAW of what an "easy hearing range" is, no existing rule being modified.

Personally I have detailed in advance rulings for what hearing ranges are and how they work. Because it's such a common issue in both exploration and combat. But TMMV on if this is needed for this issue.


One thing I would criticize the PHB for is that it offers a simple enough set of rules... but doesn't refer to it while describing related conditions, instead needlessly repeating itself... which could lead to some confusion.Pretty sure they did it to avoid confusion. Saying "refer to unseen targets" and requiring people to page through the book to find how something works is poor writing, albeit all too common in RPG rules. For example, even some conditions that do this referring to another condition in the same set of PHB pages regularly cause confusion.


But worst of all, why oh why does the PHB refers to the blinded condition when trying to define heavy obscurement? It is not the most intuitive approach by far.
This I agree with. If you are going to refer to another rule, at least choose the one that makes sense.

----------

What bothers me most is disadvantage of an cannot see attacker being cancelled by advantage for a cannot see defender. This is one situation in which it doesn't make sense for disadvantage to be cancelled. Of course, this issue is significantly mitigated if you require guessing if they cannot locate the creature by hearing.

[Greywander]

What bothers me most is disadvantage of an cannot see attacker being cancelled by advantage for a cannot see defender. This is one situation in which it doesn't make sense for disadvantage to be cancelled. Of course, this issue is significantly mitigated if you require guessing if they cannot locate the creature by hearing.
My thought is that the logic here is that while you can't see clearly to strike with accuracy, your target also can't see clearly to defend themselves. Think of it like a blind man trying to hit someone that is asleep. The blind man can't see, but the sleeping person can't dodge. The situation assumes that both attackers are able to guess close enough where their opponent is, or else the attack would be an automatic miss, but there is a difference between knowing where your enemy is and being able to see them wind up an attack.

[Tanarii]

Yes, I agree it works okay if you assume that both people know where the other is.

When it starts becoming a farce is when the DM allows archers shooting at enemies in a Fog Cloud, 75 ft away from them, without any guessing of location, and has the attack rolls be normal because the advantage and disadvantage cancel out.

Even at 10ft and throwing a dagger it's pretty much a farce to not require guessing (or at least a DC 20 check to pinpoint an unseeable enemy in the noise of combat). But there's a point at which it's easier to say "screw simulation" and just accept disadvantage is sufficient instead of a guess or incredibly hard DC gating pinpointing. But allowing a normal attack roll is too much saying "screw simulation".

[mcsillas]

You are correct:when blinded, you are able to pinpoint your foe as long as they are not hidden. The penalty to being blinded is accounted for in the condition, causing advantage/disadvantage. The same applies to being invisible in that you must be hidden (unseen and unheard) or enemies will pinpoint your location; invisibility is also accounted for in the condition. Pinpointing is not clearly addressed in the PH, but Crawford did address it in a podcast on hiding - http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

Heavily obscured areas block vision for those both located in the area and those looking into the area. This effectively causes the blinded condition for both combatants, the obvious exception being darkness in that the one in the darkness can see one located in an illuminated area and not the other way around. Since both are blinded, the advantage/disadvantage cancel out. I think both having disadvantage is more realistic but the RAW works for gaming mechanics better. According to this rule, a rogue would not be able to use sneak attack in a heavily obscured area, which I think is ridiculous, so I allow a rogue with skulker to hide on the outskirts of a heavily obscured area assuming they can find a lightly obscured placed to hide. That allows the rogue to see out while gaining the ability to hide. In darkness, I don't require this.

Some bring up that the heavily obscured rules make spells like Fog Cloud useless. Fog Cloud is an equalizer spell in that if something has advantage on you, cast Fog Cloud and now the advantage/disadvantage cancel out putting you on equal ground with your foe. Also, this spell effectively blinds your foe eliminating his ability to cast sight dependent spells on you.

[Tanarii]

You are correct:when blinded, you are able to pinpoint your foe as long as they are not hidden.That's your person ruling as a DM, not explicit RAW.

[Greywander]

That's your person ruling as a DM, not explicit RAW.
No, I think this is right. Being undetected explicitly requires using a Hide action.


In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.

For example, a rogue can't just run behind an obstacle and be "hidden", they have to explicitly use an action (or bonus action for rogues) to Hide. Basically, a creature is assumed to be giving away their position to everyone within perceptual range unless they use an action to Hide, and even then there will be an opposed Stealth vs. Perception check.

This is why even when you're invisible you have to make Stealth checks. RP-wise, people can't see you (and thus, if you get caught, won't know your face), but mechanics-wise you just have advantage on Stealth checks and are able to hide out in the open. Invisibility is still pretty strong, but people will still know where you are if you aren't actively trying to stay hidden.

There's always room for DM fiat to say that a creature was so distracted that it lost track of you even though you didn't take a Hide action, but this would be the exception, not the rule.

[Tanarii]

No, I think this is right. Being undetected explicitly requires using a Hide action.No, it doesn't. Even the rule you quoted doesn't explicitly say that.

To be clear:
1) It doesn't say anything about pinpointing a creature. It says sees you. We're talking about an unseen creature that cannot be heard clearly.
2) It doesn't say that this holds true no matter how close or far a creature is, how noisy it is, how hard it is to see the creature.
3) It very clearly doesn't use definitive language. "usually" != always

The important one is the first of these. You're quoting a rule about trying not to be seen, and leaving cover.

[Dmdork]

Ok, first Mummy Lord lair action: each undead creature in the lair can pinpoint the location of a living creature.....

In light of our conversation here, I don't see how this has any extra mechanical benefit. For example, if there's a fog cloud spell up, RAW says you can pinpoint everyone anyway. Am I right? With the conversations we're had here, the lair action would not take away disadvantage, or trump stealth, so what does The lair action give the mummy that he didn't have already?

[mcsillas]

That's your person ruling as a DM, not explicit RAW.

It's not RAW, and it's not my personal ruling. Jeremy Crawford addresses the issue in the Podcast and clearly states that an invisible creature's location is know if they are not hidden. Hiding starts at minute 8:58 of the podcast.

[mcsillas]

Ok, first Mummy Lord lair action: each undead creature in the lair can pinpoint the location of a living creature.....

In light of our conversation here, I don't see how this has any extra mechanical benefit. For example, if there's a fog cloud spell up, RAW says you can pinpoint everyone anyway. Am I right? With the conversations we're had here, the lair action would not take away disadvantage, or trump stealth, so what does The lair action give the mummy that he didn't have already?

I would rule the benefit is that you can't hide from them. I take it as a sort of "radar" they posses that even if you are located in a heavily obscured area or you're invisible, they can still "see" you. This would take away any ability to surprise or sneak attack the undead.

[Tanarii]

It's not RAW, and it's not my personal ruling. Jeremy Crawford addresses the issue in the Podcast and clearly states that an invisible creature's location is know if they are not hidden. Hiding starts at minute 8:58 of the podcast.You're right, podcasts are not RAW. And if i recall that podcast correctly, JC makes a whole lot of whoorah at the beginning about how the entire stealth system is flexible and not designed to have hard rules, because it causes too many edge cases.

And "all non-hidden creatures are automatically pinpointed" would definitely be a strict unflexible rule that caused lots of weird edge cases.

[Dmdork]

I would rule the benefit is that you can't hide from them. I take it as a sort of "radar" they posses that even if you are located in a heavily obscured area or you're invisible, they can still "see" you. This would take away any ability to surprise or sneak attack the undead.

That's what I was thinking. But, regarding that same lair action, could the mummy also do his dreadful glare if it was blinded, or rogues were stealthed, or in a fog cloud, etc?

[Eric Diaz]

My best bet here is to use common sense.

The errata says:

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.

So technically it seems that if you cast fog cloud on an enemy... it becomes invisible, but it can see you even if surrounded by a 20-foot-radius circle of fog.

OTOH:

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

The errata seems to indicate that you can see someone with a torch even if you're standing in the darkness, which makes sense.

But:

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

Darkness "blocking" your vision must be disregarded as absurd.

What about the Darkness spell? I would guess that it would make people inside invisible, but not blind.

(Also, I'm considering if Darkness cast in any object would necessarily create a "light shadow" of sorts... a warlock with a Darkness amulet might be seem from behind... even a hat might cause some shadows... well, except maybe a sombrero... although that has nothing to do with the thread)

Attack someone you can't see? Personally, I only allow it in melee...

But this is my 2c, not strictly RAW I guess.

[Zalabim]

I just really hate the word pinpoint. Pinpointing. Pinpointed. You don't ever get pinpoint targeting of a creature in D&D combat. It's more like a generalized notion of the creature's location such that your attacks are potentially dangerous to it. If I'm pinpointing a creature in combat I might as well just shoot them in the eye, stab them in the heart, or cut their throat, since I have such an exact bead on my target.

Darkness doesn't leave light shadows because the magical darkness spreads around corners and obstacles to fill its area. That's why you have to completely cover the object to block out the darkness, too.

[Millstone85]

I believe that a creature's location is synonymous with a creature's space, whether it is expressed in hexes, squares or the theater-of-the-mind equivalent.

"Pinpoint" might indeed be an odd word to associate with an area that a creature doesn't fill entirely and is considered to be mobile in.


I take it as a sort of "radar" they posses that even if you are located in a heavily obscured area or you're invisible, they can still "see" you.
But, regarding that same lair action, could the mummy also do his dreadful glare if it was blinded, or rogues were stealthed, or in a fog cloud, etc?I take it as the mummy knowing which space to attack, effectively negating stealth. But no, it doesn't "see" you, so it still attacks you at disadvantage and can't use Dreadful Glare against you.

[Spiritchaser]

What bothers me most is disadvantage of an cannot see attacker being cancelled by advantage for a cannot see defender. This is one situation in which it doesn't make sense for disadvantage to be cancelled. Of course, this issue is significantly mitigated if you require guessing if they cannot locate the creature by hearing.

This one has been a problem for me frequently.

I’ve just started ruling that the rules as written generally hold for melee attacks, but ranged attacks will generally be at a flat disadvantage (if they can even attack at all)

So far (ok one play session where it came up) it’s been less silly than the baseline. Maybe I’m setting myself up for different weirdness at some point. I’ll just have to see.

[Pelle]

This one has been a problem for me frequently.

I’ve just started ruling that the rules as written generally hold for melee attacks, but ranged attacks will generally be at a flat disadvantage (if they can even attack at all)

So far (ok one play session where it came up) it’s been less silly than the baseline. Maybe I’m setting myself up for different weirdness at some point. I’ll just have to see.

How is the ranged attacker able at all to target something it can't see or isn't aware of? This sounds like an artifact of playing with a battle grid or something, where the player can see the enemies altough the character can not.

Just be reasonable and let the DM adjudicate based on the situation (random chance of guessing wrong, listen checks to pinpoint etc)...

[Millstone85]

How is the ranged attacker able at all to target something it can't see or isn't aware of?Let's say an archer just saw a caster disappear inside a fog cloud. Even if the caster makes a successful Dexterity (Stealth) roll, or is otherwise considered to have escaped the archer's hearing, the archer is still aware of the caster's existence and very probable presence somewhere inside that fog cloud. So the archer randomly picks a location inside the fog cloud and looses an arrow there.
If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

[Pelle]

Let's say an archer just saw a caster disappear inside a fog cloud. Even if the caster makes a successful Dexterity (Stealth) roll, or is otherwise considered to have escaped the archer's hearing, the archer is still aware of the caster's existence and very probable presence somewhere inside that fog cloud. So the archer randomly picks a location inside the fog cloud and looses an arrow there.

Exactly. It seems like the confusion of advantage/disadvantage when shooting into darkness/fog, stems from that the player knows exactly where the target is. If instead looking at it from the character's perspective, you can't just say advantage cancels disadvantage. You need to adjudicate the lack of knowing the exact location, for example randomly like you say, and it makes sense.

[tieren]

Exactly. It seems like the confusion of advantage/disadvantage when shooting into darkness/fog, stems from that the player knows exactly where the target is. If instead looking at it from the character's perspective, you can't just say advantage cancels disadvantage. You need to adjudicate the lack of knowing the exact location, for example randomly like you say, and it makes sense.

Unfortunately adjudicating the exact location is only an issue if the enemy took the hide action, otherwise it is assumed they are in a constant state of revealing their location.

[mcsillas]

My best bet here is to use common sense.

The errata says:

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.

So technically it seems that if you cast fog cloud on an enemy... it becomes invisible, but it can see you even if surrounded by a 20-foot-radius circle of fog.

You can't see into or out of a heavily obscured area:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/11/cloud-of-darkness-advantage-and-disadvantage/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/30/i-ranged-attack-enemy-in-a-cloud-from-outside-cloud-advantage-or-disadvantage/




OTOH:

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

The errata seems to indicate that you can see someone with a torch even if you're standing in the darkness, which makes sense.

Agreed



But:

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

Darkness "blocking" your vision must be disregarded as absurd.

Also agreed assuming you're in the darkness and there is a light source illuminating something. If you're holding the torch and looking into a dark cavern, the darkness does block your vision at some distance.



What about the Darkness spell? I would guess that it would make people inside invisible, but not blind.

The spell states that the darkness can't be seen through even with darkvision. Many DMs treat this spell as you can't see in or out, just like standard heavily obscured areas. If you could see out of magical darkness, you could just cast it on your weapon and have a mobile "invisibility" spell on you that doesn't dissipate when you attack. That would give you advantage and the enemy disadvantage while you move about in combat. That is way too powerful for a 2nd level spell.


Attack someone you can't see? Personally, I only allow it in melee...

That's fine I guess, but as you say it's not by the book.

[Pelle]

Unfortunately adjudicating the exact location is only an issue if the enemy took the hide action, otherwise it is assumed they are in a constant state of revealing their location.

Maybe according to RAW. You don't have to be a slave to the rules if they don't make sense though, and that's probably also why the stealth rules are written to be flexible.

In my games, regardless of missing Hide actions, if an archer is blinded, I will still ask for a Perception (listen) check to target, with the DC ranging from easy to impossible depending on the distance, background noise and how much noise the target makes.

[mcsillas]

How is the ranged attacker able at all to target something it can't see or isn't aware of? This sounds like an artifact of playing with a battle grid or something, where the player can see the enemies altough the character can not.

Just be reasonable and let the DM adjudicate based on the situation (random chance of guessing wrong, listen checks to pinpoint etc)...

I've struggled with some of these rules as well, and they are not perfect when relating them to real life. How can you make a game the same as real life and it be easy to play?
To answer your question, the attacker cannot target something he isn't aware of, that's called hiding (unseen and unheard). However, just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it isn't giving away its location by moving, etc. The revealing of its presence, even though it can't be seen, allows the attacker to make an attack on the "invisible" creature. Is the attack without a penalty, no, that's why the condition of being invisible or blinded causes advantage/disadvantage accordingly.

[Pelle]

I've struggled with some of these rules as well, and they are not perfect when relating them to real life. How can you make a game the same as real life and it be easy to play?
To answer your question, the attacker cannot target something he isn't aware of, that's called hiding (unseen and unheard). However, just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it isn't giving away its location by moving, etc. The revealing of its presence, even though it can't be seen, allows the attacker to make an attack on the "invisible" creature. Is the attack without a penalty, no, that's why the condition of being invisible or blinded causes advantage/disadvantage accordingly.

To be clear, it was a rhetorical question. The advantage/disadvantage thing assumes you know the (exact) location of the enemy. The rules may say that you know this as long as no Hide action was taken. If this doesn't make sense in the fiction though, the DM can, and probably should, adjudicate it differently. That's the point and advantage of having a DM in the first place; you don't need complex rules to cover every situation as long as you can trust the DM to find a sensible way to resolve them.

[tieren]

I've struggled with some of these rules as well, and they are not perfect when relating them to real life. How can you make a game the same as real life and it be easy to play?
To answer your question, the attacker cannot target something he isn't aware of, that's called hiding (unseen and unheard). However, just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it isn't giving away its location by moving, etc. The revealing of its presence, even though it can't be seen, allows the attacker to make an attack on the "invisible" creature. Is the attack without a penalty, no, that's why the condition of being invisible or blinded causes advantage/disadvantage accordingly.

I agree with this sentiment.

I think the major disconnect comes as a result of the action economy. If everyone could hide for free it wouldn't matter, attackers would always be rolling perception. Letting everyone hide for free isn't really fair to the rogues.

Because they can't hide for free you get people trying things like "I don't take the hide action because I want to X, but as quietly as I can I try to change position within the cloud". Trying to use stealth when they are not permitted to by the action economy.

It just doesn't sit right that they don't have the ability to add being quiet to what they are trying to do, so the presumption is they are not quiet.

[MaxWilson]

You can't see into our out of a heavily obscured area:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/11/cloud-of-darkness-advantage-and-disadvantage/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/30/i-ranged-attack-enemy-in-a-cloud-from-outside-cloud-advantage-or-disadvantage/


That's a perfect example of why Twitter is a dreadful format for rules Q&A. It isn't clear from those tweets whether Crawford got the rules wrong or simply misunderstood the question. When he says, "Advantage and disadvantage always cancel each other out," he's correct--they do--but was he assuming an extraneous source of advantage, or did he mean (incorrectly by RAW) that the shooter outside the Fog Cloud gains advantage? Or did he, as he occasionally does, mean that he would personally rule the Fog Cloud to be opaque (a reasonable ruling despite not matching RAW) and answer the question on advantage/disadvantage cancelling from that perspective?

On Twitter there is no way to know. I've probably spent four Tweets' worth of characters just in this post.

[Pelle]

It just doesn't sit right that they don't have the ability to add being quiet to what they are trying to do, so the presumption is they are not quiet.

That presumption is fine. The question is rather can you still hear them. At what distance are they? How much noise is in the background? How loud do you have to speak to cast a spell?

[tieren]

That presumption is fine. The question is rather can you still hear them. At what distance are they? How much noise is in the background? How loud do you have to speak to cast a spell?

I agree, but in practice find that to not be such a big deal. Most of the time when this issue comes up in our group we're fighting in a fairly confined area (a room, cave, courtyard, whatever), we rarely have combats where distances over 120 feet even come into play (usually much less).

Fog cloud on an open field approaching a castle hundreds of feet away seems more like a target "place AOE's here".

Generally at the scale we are more likely to use we find the presumption works the vast majority of the time, but have gone the other way on occasions (usually related to extreme background noise, raging war battle, very noisy machinery in operation, etc...)

[Millstone85]

Exactly. It seems like the confusion of advantage/disadvantage when shooting into darkness/fog, stems from that the player knows exactly where the target is. If instead looking at it from the character's perspective, you can't just say advantage cancels disadvantage. You need to adjudicate the lack of knowing the exact location, for example randomly like you say, and it makes sense.Yup. If you are actually playing on a grid, where I think fog cloud's 20-foot radius would cover 44 squares, that means a 2% chance of guessing the right location of a medium creature, resolvable with percentile dice. After that, dis/advantage is once again a question of whether your inability to see the target cancels out with their inability to see you targeting them.

[Tanarii]

Maybe according to RAW. You don't have to be a slave to the rules if they don't make sense though, and that's probably also why the stealth rules are written to be flexible.

In my games, regardless of missing Hide actions, if an archer is blinded, I will still ask for a Perception (listen) check to target, with the DC ranging from easy to impossible depending on the distance, background noise and how much noise the target makes.
What you're doing is RAW. You, as the DM, may call for a check you deem necessary to resolve something the rules don't already rule on.

And the rules don't declare that any creature not hiding is automatically pinpointed.

[Dmdork]

Great stuff. So far I'd have to go with the 'rules are simple, let the DM make the little calls on way' thing. Speaking of which, I was wondering how you guys would handle a stealthed rogue in a fog cloud attacking an enemy that he kinda knows is there. Note that an ally of the rogue is next to the enemy. My way was disadvantage for the rogue cuz he can't see in the cloud, advantage cuz he's hidden, makes for a standard d20 attack, that's a sneak attack cuz of the adjacent ally. Does that sound right?

Note: The whole 'disadvantage cuz I can't see, and Advantage against enemies that can't see me canceling each other out' is another issue altogether

[mcsillas]

Great stuff. So far I'd have to go with the 'rules are simple, let the DM make the little calls on way' thing. Speaking of which, I was wondering how you guys would handle a stealthed rogue in a fog cloud attacking an enemy that he kinda knows is there. Note that an ally of the rogue is next to the enemy. My way was disadvantage for the rogue cuz he can't see in the cloud, advantage cuz he's hidden, makes for a standard d20 attack, that's a sneak attack cuz of the adjacent ally. Does that sound right?

Note: The whole 'disadvantage cuz I can't see, and Advantage against enemies that can't see me canceling each other out' is another issue altogether

Rogue in heavily obscured area, like fog cloud, attacking something that is also in a heavily obscured area = both are effectively blinded, advantage/disadvantage cancel out. Rogue can not use sneak attack because he can't gain advantage. If you have a million advantages and one disadvantage, and visa versa, they cancel each other out, leaving you with neither advantage nor disadvantage. It's addressed in the first page of chapter 7 of the PH (I think). I mentioned before that I do allow a player with the skulker feat to hide on the perimeter of a heavily obscured area, the assumption is that you can find a lightly obscured area to hide in and be able to see out. This effectively allows him to have advantage using a heavily obscured area, but doesn't allow someone in the middle of a heavily obscured area to see out. That's like saying, the forest so is dense that you can't see me, even though I'm not even trying to stay out of sight, but I can see you through the foliage that's blocking your vision.

I think what you need to keep in mind is that if you vary too much from the rules as intended (RAI) the game gets far out of balance, and a first level spell becomes treated more like a 5th level spell. I think 5e is the most balanced tabletop game because of the RAI, but there are always cases where you have to make minor changes due to common sense rulings.

[Millstone85]

My way was disadvantage for the rogue cuz he can't see in the cloud, advantage cuz he's hidden unseen, makes for a standard d20 attack, that's a sneak attack cuz of the adjacent ally.With that one correction, you are right.


Note: The whole 'disadvantage cuz I can't see, and Advantage against enemies that can't see me canceling each other out' is another issue altogetherNo, it is the rogue being hidden that is a superfluous consideration here.


Rogue can not use sneak attack because he can't gain advantage.
You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.Yes he can, as those alternate conditions are met.

[mcsillas]

Yes he can, as those alternate conditions are met.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention!

[Dmdork]

So, for my rogue situation, advantage (cuz rogue is stealthed) and disadvantage (cuz rogue can't see) cancel out, giving rogue a standard attack roll, but sneak attack because of the adjacent ally.

As for two creatures attacking each other in a fog cloud, I would make the call that they both have disadvantage, as long as the only advantage they have would be from attacking a target that can't see. Those two shouldn't cancel each other out. That being said I can't think of any other advantage/disadvantage scenario that I disagree with. The rule stills holds up well and I like it.

[Dmdork]

Quote Originally Posted by Dmdork View Post
My way was disadvantage for the rogue cuz he can't see in the cloud, advantage cuz he's hidden unseen, makes for a standard d20 attack, that's a sneak attack cuz of the adjacent ally.
With that one correction, you are right.

Note: The whole 'disadvantage cuz I can't see, and Advantage against enemies that can't see me canceling each other out' is another issue altogether
No, it is the rogue being hidden that is a superfluous consideration here.

I don't get it. Why can't I get advantage for making my stealth check, and not for just being unseen?

[Millstone85]

I don't get it. Why can't I get advantage for making my stealth check, and not for just being unseen?You do get advantage just from being unseen.

Making a successful stealth check to become hidden, i.e. unheard on top of unseen, doesn't give you advantage, because you already have it.

Why? Well, that's the rule. PHB p194-195, Unseen Attackers and Targets.

[greenstone]

As for two creatures attacking each other in a fog cloud, I would make the call that they both have disadvantage, as long as the only advantage they have would be from attacking a target that can't see. Those two shouldn't cancel each other out.
I'm suspect the writers did it that way to speed up combat. Having two players both rolling at disadvantage does nothing except make the battle take longer.

[Dmdork]

I'm suspect the writers did it that way to speed up combat. Having two players both rolling at disadvantage does nothing except make the battle take longer.

Ain't that the truth

[Dmdork]

You do get advantage just from being unseen.

Making a successful stealth check to become hidden, i.e. unheard on top of unseen, doesn't give you advantage, because you already have it.

Why? Well, that's the rule. PHB p194-195, Unseen Attackers and Targets.


Ah, well, there it is

[Dmdork]

Ok, how about this: Wizard has mirror image up. A fog cloud spell goes off. How would you handle someone attacking the wizard in the cloud?

[Millstone85]

Ok, how about this: Wizard has mirror image up. A fog cloud spell goes off. How would you handle someone attacking the wizard in the cloud?As mirror image says, "a creature is unaffected by this spell if it can't see". So you can forget the illusory duplicates when resolving attacks in the cloud.

[mcsillas]

As for two creatures attacking each other in a fog cloud, I would make the call that they both have disadvantage

I think that makes sense in real life, but as mentioned above, combat would take a very long time and may cause players to fall asleep!

It's best not think about all these scenarios so much and just go with what the rules intend. It will save you a lot of headaches.




I don't get it. Why can't I get advantage for making my stealth check, and not for just being unseen?

If it's possible for the enemy to see you when you make your attack, such as when being located behind an object and popping out or being in a lightly obscured area, I require the player to be hidden to gain advantage. If you're located in darkness and they can't see you when you attack, I don't require one to be hidden to gain advantage.

It's also necessary to be hidden to surprise an enemy.