Who can see what?

[Nezgar]

In one of my most recent sessions, we had a rule conflict about who can see what and if spells and abilities are worded consistently.

In our case, it was about the Ghost's ability "Horrifying Visage" and how it is worded.

"Horrifying Visage. Each non-undead creature within 60 feet of the ghost that can see it must succeed on a DC 13 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened for 1 minute."

Player A was fighting in melee with the ghost, while player B was fighting against a different creature halfway across the room (~40 feet away) while facing away from the ghost.
The question that arose was whether player B is affected by the Horrifying Visage or not.

My point was that this is not the case, since the wording of the ability reads
"Each non-undead creature within 60 feet of the ghost that can see it"
and not
"Each non-undead creature within 60 feet of the ghost that it can see".
And having your back turned towards a creature means that you cannot see it.

Their point was that since the wording is always open to interpretation, "that can see it" is essentially the same as "that could see it" and that characters have an innate 360° field of view at all times during combat. Meaning that unless you couldn't draw a direct, unobstructed line of sight between the ghost and the victim, they will always be affected by the ability. Medusas and Basilisks are supposed to be the only exception here, because the description of the ability specifically states that creatures have to make the decision to look away in order to not be affected by the ability - though my point there was that the only reason it is mentioned like that at all, is because the ability doesn't happen as an action on the creature's turn, but is a passive ability that triggers at the start of a player's turn.

To put our example visually:
https://i.imgur.com/C8w16q6.png
(G is the ghost [facing left], A through D are characters facing in the indicated directions)

This is how my side saw it in general:
"Creatures that can see G": A and D
"Creatures that G can see": A and B

This is how they saw it:
"Creatures that can see G": A, B, C and D
"Creatures that G can see": A, B, C and D


Just writing that out seems absolutely silly, but they wouldn't budge from their position that the exact wording of a spell or ability is irrelevant.
Oddly enough, I didn't find anything regarding that on Sage Advice and nothing on the forums either - or I simply suck at using search functions, who knows.

How would you rule it? And do you agree with my assessment that the wording of the spells and abilities are very deliberate when it comes to that?

[Drogorn]

DnD doesn't have facing, so all arguments regarding facing are moot.

[Man_Over_Game]

The reason it's listed that way is because it wouldn't make much sense if its appearance could frighten a blind person.

As Drogorn said, you're seeing all around you, all the time. There are optional rules for facing you can use, but they're very specific, and strictly optional.

[Contrast]

You're assumed to be keeping an eye out around you, at which point you'll see it. As others have said - there's no intrinsic facing rules in 5E.

Is this completely realistic? No. But neither is set zones of vision and this is a game thats trying to keep things simple. I feel like you'd be arguing a different side if your DM was telling you you couldn't see a dying comrade 40ft away on the other side of a combat. Or that you were incapable of targetting an enemy with a spell because you wouldn't notice them in the open 40ft away.

I'd be inclined to let people do something similar to medusa/basilisk but their character would have to a) be aware of the ghost prior to their turn coming up and b) have reason to think that not looking at it was a good idea. And of course ghosts are incorporeal and have a fly speed so quite a tendency to pop out unexpectedly even if a character is trying to avoid looking at them.

[Laserlight]

If the ghost is not behind full cover, Darkness, other sight-obscuring effects (eg Sleet Storm, as I recall), and is not invisible, and you're not blind, unconscious, etc, then you see it. Once you know what's happening, I'd let you choose to avoid looking at it (more accurately, "avoid looking at the place you think it is"), but then I'd give it Advantage on attacks against you.

[Asmotherion]

In such a case, there are 3 simple and fair ways to resolve this:

A) Before mentioning the ability, DM asks: Were are you looking at? (This could mean anything, like missing the opportunity for a spot check).

B) If the DM forgets to mention, let the dice speak. Roll % dice, to determin what happened. 1-50, it goes with the players narative, 51-100 he instinctivelly faced the other way.

C) DM's call. When the RAW is unclear, I'd rather have a quick (and fair) solution than debate what's fair and what's not for hours.

Personally, I think a mix of the 3 above resolves hours of debating RAW quicklier than oppening books during the gaming session.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Everyone has a Passive Perception score, which is used for determining what they notice or don't notice.

Is the Ghost attempting to avoid being noticed? Not really.

Actually, it's doing the exact opposite, so I'm pretty sure the character in question will notice it.


FWIW, I agree this is kinda silly, and I've never liked D&D's basic assumption that "everyone sees everything" during combat. It's like the designers of every single edition either never heard of, or didn't believe there was any such thing as the "fog of war." It's complete nonsense, but RAW says otherwise, and it's been that way for decades.

[terodil]

"Horrifying Visage. Each non-undead creature within 60 feet of the ghost that can see it must succeed on a DC 13 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened for 1 minute."

If your table is using the optional facing rules from the DMG (p. 252), then they should be observed in this case, too.
If your table is not using the optional facing rules from the DMG, then 'that can see it' and 'that it can see' are functionally equivalent (as long as the creature in question is not individually hampered by impaired vision, e.g. blind, and 'it' is not fully obstructed).

[Mordaedil]

To whoever was facing away, inform them that they turn around at the sound of of a screech, but allow everyone to cover their eyes at a DC 15 dexterity save.

[Malifice]

DnD doesn't have facing, so all arguments regarding facing are moot.

Not relevant. Thats only an assumption, and due to circumstsance, ruling or Player instructions to the DM you might not be looking a certain way.

If I say my PC has his back to a creature and is not looking at it, then im not looking at it.

Feel free to apply the blinded condition to me relative to that creature as long as this remains the case (at least till the start of my next turn when I can choose to stop ignoring it) of course.

You can choose to avert your gaze against a Medusa or Baslisk at the start of your turn, so I fail to see why a Ghost or Goblin would be any different.

As long as the choice is made at the start of your turn, and youre happy eitb it lasting to the start of your next turn, you can look away from a creature just fine.

[Bloodcloud]

Not relevant. Thats only an assumption, and due to circumstsance, ruling or Player instructions to the DM you might not be looking a certain way.

If I say my PC has his back to a creature and is not looking at it, then im not looking at it.

Feel free to apply the blinded condition to me relative to that creature as long as this remains the case (at least till the start of my next turn when I can choose to stop ignoring it) of course.

You can choose to avert your gaze against a Medusa or Baslisk at the start of your turn, so I fail to see why a Ghost or Goblin would be any different.

As long as the choice is made at the start of your turn, and youre happy eitb it lasting to the start of your next turn, you can look away from a creature just fine.

Basilisk and medusa get specific rules about averting your gaze, however. The ghost doesn't.

As a genral rule of interpretation, specific beats general. Existence of specific mention usually indicates that unless said indication exists, general rule should apply.

[Malifice]

Basilisk and medusa get specific rules about averting your gaze, however. The ghost doesn't.

As a genral rule of interpretation, specific beats general. Existence of specific mention usually indicates that unless said indication exists, general rule should apply.

Dont be ridiculous.

Are you saying that you as DM would let me avert my gaze from a Baslisk, but not from an Ogre (Using the same rules; i.e i say I avert my gaze at the start of my turn, and am blinded relative to the Ogre till the start of my next turn)?

Is your argument that a PCs ability to avert their gaze from a monster by looking away or closing their eyes is a trait of the monster, and not something that people can just... do?

If so, I hope youre a player and not a DM.

[DMThac0]

I had a similar situation happen not too long ago:

Aloxyis casts Darkness to cover an area so that the basilisk that they're fighting cannot use it's gaze. She attacks and then moves away so that it is still in the spells but she's tactically covering an entry point to the room.

Basilisk walks around aimlessly (rolling a d8 to move in random directions because blind) and eventually steps out of the darkness close enough to attack Mhurren.

At the beginning of each of their turns, for each character that has line of sight to the basilisk, I have them roll a wisdom check. If they got lower than their passive perception they missed the basilisk leaving the globe of darkness. If they got between their passive perception up to +5 they saw the creature and have to make a save vs the gaze. if they got higher than their passive perception +5 they were able to see the creature leave the sphere and avoid it's gaze.

---
While I get that there is no facing in 5e, I think it's an over generalization to say that you can see all things at all times.

I am a martial artist, I am taught to be aware of my surroundings, I am taught to defend against multiple opponents, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience.

1: I can use my ears to confirm the location of multiple attackers with a large degree of accuracy, no need to see.
2: If I am working with a partner I can focus on that partner, not looking around beyond my peripheral vision, and know the location of my nearest threats.
3: If I am working with a team against multiple attackers I can, with confidence, let my teammate take an opponent and never look in that direction while I focus on my opponent.

I am not a big fan of throwing away those extra senses in favor of saying you can see everything all the time during combat. I prefer to put a little more into the combat and have those moments where a comrade falls behind you and you turn to watch a monster pull the spear out of their torso.

---
To the OP, I'd have to agree with your approach.

[Malifice]

I had a similar situation happen not too long ago:

Aloxyis casts Darkness to cover an area so that the basilisk that they're fighting cannot use it's gaze. She attacks and then moves away so that it is still in the spells but she's tactically covering an entry point to the room.

Basilisk walks around aimlessly (rolling a d8 to move in random directions because blind) and eventually steps out of the darkness close enough to attack Mhurren.

At the beginning of each of their turns, for each character that has line of sight to the basilisk, I have them roll a wisdom check. If they got lower than their passive perception they missed the basilisk leaving the globe of darkness. If they got between their passive perception up to +5 they saw the creature and have to make a save vs the gaze. if they got higher than their passive perception +5 they were able to see the creature leave the sphere and avoid it's gaze.

---
While I get that there is no facing in 5e, I think it's an over generalization to say that you can see all things at all times.

I am a martial artist, I am taught to be aware of my surroundings, I am taught to defend against multiple opponents, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience.

1: I can use my ears to confirm the location of multiple attackers with a large degree of accuracy, no need to see.
2: If I am working with a partner I can focus on that partner, not looking around beyond my peripheral vision, and know the location of my nearest threats.
3: If I am working with a team against multiple attackers I can, with confidence, let my teammate take an opponent and never look in that direction while I focus on my opponent.

I am not a big fan of throwing away those extra senses in favor of saying you can see everything all the time during combat. I prefer to put a little more into the combat and have those moments where a comrade falls behind you and you turn to watch a monster pull the spear out of their torso.

---
To the OP, I'd have to agree with your approach.

Why?

On its turn the Baslisk emerges from the darkness.

On each Players turn they then get the option to avert gaze till the start of their next turns (and be blinded for a whole turn) or risk the save vs is gaze.

Why impose the above weird, weighty and unecessary rule?

[NaughtyTiger]

1: I can use my ears to confirm the location of multiple attackers with a large degree of accuracy, no need to see.
2: If I am working with a partner I can focus on that partner, not looking around beyond my peripheral vision, and know the location of my nearest threats.
3: If I am working with a team against multiple attackers I can, with confidence, let my teammate take an opponent and never look in that direction while I focus on my opponent.


1: This is blindsight
2: This is immunity to blindness
3: This is immunity to blindness

By extension, you can stand with your eyes closed, and trust that your teammate and/or your sense of hearing will let you avoid disadvantage on attacks and avoid giving adventage on attacks against you.

[DMThac0]

I'll rephrase my opinion: 5e's no facing concept is absurd.

I don't play it that way at my table, and I agree with how the OP chose to handle the situation: The player's character was facing the wrong way and was a good distance away thus didn't see the ghost.

[Keravath]

1) The wording is pretty clear ... the effect says "CAN" see it ... not "DOES" see it. So if the creature is within 60' and can see it then the effect happens.

2) To the folks saying ... but he is looking away.

I am sure these folks will also allow the rogue automatic hide checks and sneak attacks on both players and monsters then if they happen to be behind them? In fact the rogue can stand in the open 30' away from the character and then hide simply because they are in melee with someone in front of them and they surely aren't ever looking behind them to make sure there is no creature sneaking up on them. Of course not. I'll play at your table ... sneak attacks and hide without cover all the time YES!

OP: "And having your back turned towards a creature means that you cannot see it."

Either characters are trying to maintain an awareness of everything around them with quick glances including behind them .. or they are not. If they aren't looking behind them then they can always be attacked by unseen attackers from behind who will have advantage on those attacks for being unseen. If you allow all attacks from behind another player to be at advantage then by all means your ruling makes sense. On the other hand, if characters can somehow see a rogue standing in the open behind them 40' away and deny them advantage on the attack due to that awareness then your ruling is not consistent since if they would see the rogue then they would see the ghost.


3) Some creatures like basilisks have the option to avert your gaze in exchange for disadvantage on attack rolls. However, this doesn't apply to all gaze attacks - ghost doesn't list this exception.


Finally, this is one of those cases where dropping a darkness or fog cloud on the group can be an advantage since it shuts down both the gaze attack and the possession abilities of the ghost. It also shuts down most forms of advantage and disadvantage leaving the to hit die as a straight roll. For example, if you have a ghost surrounded by a bunch of terrified adventurers. Drop darkness on both the adventurers and the ghost ... they now can't see each other ... they all have advantage for not being seen and disadvantage since they can't see their target. The disadvantage from the fear is cancelled out (since multiples instances of advantage and disadvantage don't matter) and everything is a straight roll.

[Keravath]

---
While I get that there is no facing in 5e, I think it's an over generalization to say that you can see all things at all times.

I am a martial artist, I am taught to be aware of my surroundings, I am taught to defend against multiple opponents, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience.

1: I can use my ears to confirm the location of multiple attackers with a large degree of accuracy, no need to see.
2: If I am working with a partner I can focus on that partner, not looking around beyond my peripheral vision, and know the location of my nearest threats.
3: If I am working with a team against multiple attackers I can, with confidence, let my teammate take an opponent and never look in that direction while I focus on my opponent.

I am not a big fan of throwing away those extra senses in favor of saying you can see everything all the time during combat. I prefer to put a little more into the combat and have those moments where a comrade falls behind you and you turn to watch a monster pull the spear out of their torso.

---
To the OP, I'd have to agree with your approach.

"I am a martial artist, I am taught to be aware of my surroundings, I am taught to defend against multiple opponents, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience. "

Let me say the same thing and reach the opposite conclusion :)

I am a martial artist, I am taught to be aware of my surroundings, I am taught to defend against multiple opponents, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience. I trained and taught karate for over 25 years.

There is no way that you will be sufficiently aware of a creature 40' behind you to deny them advantage on an attack against you without at least glancing in their direction to see what they are doing. During a fight you are unable to receive sufficient cues from a target you can't see at that distance to know if they are preparing to attack with a ranged weapon or throw something.

I know that when I have sparred multiple attackers (which was almost exclusively melee range). Moving quickly and maneuvering to get most of them on one side of you was essential. Letting anyone get behind you was an extremely bad idea ... the only option at that point was usually an all out assault on those in front or a very fast move or dodge to avoid an attack that might be coming from behind.

The only way to maintain sufficient awareness of your environment was to continuously use all your senses. Listening, fast glances to the side, do not look at any one point ... as soon as your attention becomes fixed on one thing in a situation like that you are at a significant disadvantage. You need a heightened sense of awareness and that includes looking all around without looking away from your opponents (since they would take advantage of any momentary inattention).

"1: I can use my ears to confirm the location of multiple attackers with a large degree of accuracy, no need to see."

Have you ever tried sparring with a blindfold or your eyes closed? Personally, I haven't achieved the level of enlightenment required to make that effective (though I did try it a couple of times just for fun).

"2: If I am working with a partner I can focus on that partner, not looking around beyond my peripheral vision, and know the location of my nearest threats.
3: If I am working with a team against multiple attackers I can, with confidence, let my teammate take an opponent and never look in that direction while I focus on my opponent."

If you have someone covering your back and choose not to keep track of their situation then you could choose to just focus on the opponents in front of you. However, when something slips past your partner or team mate or they go down, you may regret not paying attention to what was going on behind you. On the other hand, fighting back to back is a popular tactic, at least in the movies since then you can focus your attention in front of you and allow your team mate to protect your back as you are protecting theirs.

However, that does not sound like the situation being described by the OP. In this case, some characters are engaging a ghost and another is off tanking 40' away against another opponent. They don't have someone covering their back so they will be moving and paying attention to the possibility of threats from behind so they will see the ghost when it appears and will be subject to the fear effect.

[Malifice]

1) The wording is pretty clear ... the effect says "CAN" see it ... not "DOES" see it. So if the creature is within 60' and can see it then the effect happens.

2) To the folks saying ... but he is looking away.

I am sure these folks will also allow the rogue automatic hide checks and sneak attacks on both players and monsters then if they happen to be behind them? In fact the rogue can stand in the open 30' away from the character and then hide simply because they are in melee with someone in front of them and they surely aren't ever looking behind them to make sure there is no creature sneaking up on them. Of course not. I'll play at your table ... sneak attacks and hide without cover all the time YES!


Well yes, of course.

If a creature is looking away or has its back to the Rogue, then it can no longer see the Rogue clearly (meaning the Rogue - or anyone else for that matter) can use the Hide action relative to that creature on their turn.

Ditto if the creature chooses to close its eyes.

How is that in any way controversial?

Closing your eyes or looking away simply blinds you relative to the creature you're not looking at. You cant make attacks of opportunity against that creature, cant target it with most spells and special abilities, have disadvantage on attack rolls against it, it has advantage on attacks against you, and can Hide from you (via the action) at will (pending a successful Stealth check).

It might be situationally useful to (on your turn at the start of your turn) state you're closing your eyes or averting your gaze from a particular creature, but generally speaking it a bloody poor idea.

[Keravath]

Well yes, of course.

If a creature is looking away or has its back to the Rogue, then it can no longer see the Rogue clearly (meaning the Rogue - or anyone else for that matter) can use the Hide action relative to that creature on their turn.

Ditto if the creature chooses to close its eyes.

How is that in any way controversial?

Closing your eyes or looking away simply blinds you relative to the creature you're not looking at. You cant make attacks of opportunity against that creature, cant target it with most spells and special abilities, have disadvantage on attack rolls against it, it has advantage on attacks against you, and can Hide from you (via the action) at will (pending a successful Stealth check).

It might be situationally useful to (on your turn at the start of your turn) state you're closing your eyes or averting your gaze from a particular creature, but generally speaking it a bloody poor idea.

Well .. several of the responses to the OP indicated that the player involved in a combat 40' from the ghost should not be affected by the horrifying visage because they are facing the other way.

My point is that the default condition in D&D 5e is that a creature in combat is working hard to remain aware of their surroundings so that creatures behind them are noticed and are not considered "unseen" because they are at least glancing behind them. If a character specifically refuses to look behind them then (as a DM - I might say that they are not affected by a gaze attack that requires them to see the creature) however, any creatures behind them are considered unseen and will get advantage on attacks (including sneak attacks) without needing to take the hide action.

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

If a player or creature intentionally refuses to look behind them then the creature is unseen and gets advantage on its attack. The wording here in terms of using "can't" is the same wording as in the ghostly visage effect.

In this case, the OP did NOT say that the player in the other combat was specifically avoiding looking in the direction of the ghost so the implicit actions they take to remain aware of the their surroundings would expose them to the gaze attack since at some point they are looking that way in order to maintain awareness of their surroundings and prevent creatures from sneaking up/attacking from behind with advantage due to being unseen.

However, any rules regarding where a player is looking and effects on being seen or not are effectively house rules. The D&D 5e baseline is that characters are always looking around and try to remain aware of their surroundings during combat. In specific cases that are listed as exceptions (like the basilisk) they have the option to avert their gaze (yes ... I agree that a character should always have the choice of averting their gaze or not looking in a particular direction but that isn't covered in RAW :) ).