Heavy obscuring add libs

[Dmdork]

I'm firing my bow in the fog cloud. the enemy is in the cloud and in melee with an ally. Are you guys house ruling a perception check at this point, or is it still just disadvantage on the attack ?

[Expected]

Unless I'm mistaken, the advantage and disdvantage for both you and the enemy caused by Fog Cloud cancels out so it's just a straight roll.

[Keravath]

Under the sight rules ..
if you can’t see your target then you have disadvantage. If they can’t see you then you have advantage. Thus when neither can see the other advantage and disadvantage cancel leaving it a straight roll.

With all the targets in the fog cloud then everyone just makes straight rolls.

[Laserlight]

I'm firing my bow in the fog cloud. the enemy is in the cloud and in melee with an ally. Are you guys house ruling a perception check at this point, or is it still just disadvantage on the attack ?

The enemy might also have some degree of cover if your ally is in the way.

[Vorpalchicken]

This is one of those things that I'll never run RAW. In my games any attack made into or through heavily obscured space (assuming the attacker doesn't have blind sense or the like) is at disadvantage regardless of what the defender can see.

This to me is basic fundamental combat simulation. It's older than 5e. It's older than Dungeons and Dragons. The current take is nutty in my opinion.

I'll only give advantage if the attacker can see the defender while the attacker can not see the defender.

[Lombra]

It's a normal roll, but you have to guess/deduce the target's location.

Edit: it also qualifies for sneak attack.

[Vorpalchicken]

You don't have to guess the location unless the target has taken the hide action. The same goes for invisibility.

[Galithar]

RAW it's just normal rolls and you only guess on their location if they have taken a hide action.

I personally have house ruled that if you are blind (or effectively blind as would be the case of being in a fog cloud) you cannot gain advantage by non-magical means.

This is just my personal dislike of swinging blind not being penalized because the person u swing at is blind. It allows funky situations like I'm attacking at 200 ft with a longbow and my druid increases my chance to hit by casting fog cloud on my target.
I have disadvantage from the long range AND I'm effectively blind in regards to locating my target. But because they can't see me I went from disadvantage (long range) to a straight roll. Seems like a loophole that I wanted to plug.

[Dmdork]

Clearly it calls for a house rule. I'd like to believe the guys who made this rule made it super simple , so the DM can add his own rules, changing it for each situation. Perception check make sense, set a DC, something like that...

[Man_Over_Game]

RAW, advantage and disadvantage don't stack. But...you could just easily decide it does. It's not that broken to change it. Hell, a lot of DM's don't realize it's not this case in the first place.

[Demonslayer666]

In order for your attack to gain advantage from an opponent that can't see you, you need to be able to see them. You don't gain any advantage when you can't see each other, only disadvantage. A normal attack when you can't see each other isn't remotely logical.

In order to make the attack with disadvantage, the opponent needs to be pinpointed (their square). I will require a perception check to pinpoint the square of the enemy in most situations, because combat is distracting and compared to vision, hearing is very difficult to use to determine your surroundings. I take many factors into account: armor worn, number of opponents, number of combatants, range, ambient noise level, size, etc. How do you know you aren't aiming right at your ally? Based on their roll, I may narrow it down to a few squares for them, or just a general direction, or no information, or if they do really well, the exact square.

[Man_Over_Game]

In order for your attack to gain advantage from an opponent that can't see you, you need to be able to see them. You don't gain any advantage when you can't see each other, only disadvantage. A normal attack when you can't see each other isn't remotely logical.

In order to make the attack with disadvantage, the opponent needs to be pinpointed (their square). I will require a perception check to pinpoint the square of the enemy in most situations, because combat is distracting and compared to vision, hearing is very difficult to use to determine your surroundings. I take many factors into account: armor worn, number of opponents, number of combatants, range, ambient noise level, size, etc. How do you know you aren't aiming right at your ally? Based on their roll, I may narrow it down to a few squares for them, or just a general direction, or no information, or if they do really well, the exact square.

That's a fair assumption, but this is more of a houserule than an observation on the rules.


When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.
[...]
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
[...]
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


You don't need to see the target to make your attack roll (you might just have to guess what square they're in), and the advantage is granted because the target can't see you regardless if you can see them. The only penalty you get to your attack against the target if you both can't see each other is the disadvantage you get for not being able to see.

What you're describing makes sense, but the way you have it written comes off as a bit misleading as it sounds like you're describing it as how it works officially. Officially, if you know the square where your target is and neither of you can see each other, you roll to hit as normal.

[Demonslayer666]

That's a fair assumption, but this is more of a houserule than an observation on the rules.

You don't need to see the target to make your attack roll (you might just have to guess what square they're in), and the advantage is granted because the target can't see you regardless if you can see them. The only penalty you get to your attack against the target if you both can't see each other is the disadvantage you get for not being able to see.

What you're describing makes sense, but the way you have it written comes off as a bit misleading as it sounds like you're describing it as how it works officially. Officially, if you know the square where your target is and neither of you can see each other, you roll to hit as normal.

You reordered it to make it seem like that is mentioned as part of the unseen target. It's not. It's a separate paragraph.

Here's the actual quote:

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.

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when
the attack hits or misses.

[Man_Over_Game]

You reordered it to make it seem like that is mentioned as part of the unseen target. It's not. It's a separate paragraph.

Here's the actual quote:

Sorry, honestly not intentional. I had the quotes saved with the page numbers, but I didn't have the actual book in front of me.

But I think the logic is still sound. It looks like it's just organized in the sense of "Paragraph 1=Your senses; Paragraph 2= Target's Senses".

I mean, they explained the additional circumstances involved when you can't see the target, but they didn't expand on the advantage portion if the target can't see you. They could have easily have said that it required you to see them to get the advantage to attack, but they didn't.

They decided to make it pretty cut and dry. If they can't see you, attacks against them get advantage. No mention on any requirements from the point of view from the attacker.

While the rules on blind-fighting and advantage are straightforward, there isn't much mention on how "guessing where your target is" works. An example someone brought up was casting Fog Cloud at a longer range would remove the disadvantage with the Rules As Written. But it'd be pretty easy to require an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine where exactly the target was when the Cloud came up, and adding another layer of hit/miss based on that. For simplicity's sake, a DC 15 means you attack as normal, and a failure means an automatic miss.

[Louro]

What if the target is invisible, inside a fog cloud, behind an illusory wall, during night and under heavy rain.
Still normal attack?

Lawyer: yes.
Normal person: no way you can attack him.

[Demonslayer666]

Sorry, honestly not intentional. I had the quotes saved with the page numbers, but I didn't have the actual book in front of me.

But I think the logic is still sound. It looks like it's just organized in the sense of "Paragraph 1=Your senses; Paragraph 2= Target's Senses".

I mean, they explained the additional circumstances involved when you can't see the target, but they didn't expand on the advantage portion if the target can't see you. They could have easily have said that it required you to see them to get the advantage to attack, but they didn't.

They decided to make it pretty cut and dry. If they can't see you, attacks against them get advantage. No mention on any requirements from the point of view from the attacker.

While the rules on blind-fighting and advantage are straightforward, there isn't much mention on how "guessing where your target is" works. An example someone brought up was casting Fog Cloud at a longer range would remove the disadvantage with the Rules As Written. But it'd be pretty easy to require an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine where exactly the target was when the Cloud came up, and adding another layer of hit/miss based on that. For simplicity's sake, a DC 15 means you attack as normal, and a failure means an automatic miss.

No worries. It was misleading, so I had to go look it up and see what it said myself because I came to that conclusion some time ago! Had it been worded like you said, I would have no doubt that's how it should work (even if illogical) and I would agree mine is a house rule. :smallsmile:

I see it as saying normal attacks get advantage if they can't see you. I don't think it applies to all situations, especially to blinded. Logically the blind attacking the blind would be a complete miss-fest and nowhere near anything like both sides being able to see one another. Equating the two is silly.

You do not give away your location to the universe when you attack from hiding, you give it away to the immediate vicinity. Yes, I think a melee attack would be automatic with a low number of attackers, but anything further away (or numerous combatants) should be carefully considered as not automatic.

You should not take rules and blindly apply them to all situations. (pun intended)