Here is an interpretation that makes the rule actually mean what we all know it should mean:
When it says "obscured area" it is not referring to just the area where the obscuring effect is, but is in fact referring to the area obscured by the obscuring effect from your point of view. Light foliage doesn't just obscure the area of the foliage, but the area behind it. Darkness (non-magical) does only obscure the area of darkness, and not illuminated areas beyond it. The rule was written under the assumption that the reader knew how vision works, and was only applying game mechanics to that common sense.
/interpretation
I mean, that is how just about everyone has claimed that the rule should probably be played right? Maybe that is what they intended, but they certainly didn't provide any language indicating that the obscured area extends beyond the obscuring effect (except for the "blocks vision entirely" bit). But are you implying that the rules on the page still take some thought? Nah. Couldn't be.
That was my point that it was how everyone agreed the rule should work. They also didn't provide any language indicating that the "obscured area" was isolated to the space the effect occupied. That was something we assumed.
Mm, if this isn’t describing that the place where the fog/shadow IS is the AREA it refers to, then I don’t know what additional language you would have wanted to achieve that.
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 when trying to see something in that area.
RAW Creature outside lightly obscured area suffer no penalty. I don't necessarily think it's intended but it's how they're written.
Assuming, you read RAW as only effecting the area the obscurement is in rather than the area the obscurement obscures, then it is actually the opposite.
Creatures on the outside looking into an obscured area suffer the penalty. Creatures in an obscured area looking out at an unobscured area are not effected. And that is RAW whether you interpret "obscured area" as an area that is obscured or an area that contains obscurement.
RAW Creature outside lightly obscured area suffer no penalty. I don't necessarily think it's intended but it's how they're written.
Assuming, you read RAW as only effecting the area the obscurement is in rather than the area the obscurement obscures, then it is actually the opposite.
Creatures on the outside looking into an obscured area suffer the penalty. Creatures in an obscured area looking out at an unobscured area are not effected. And that is RAW whether you interpret "obscured area" as an area that is obscured or an area that contains obscurement.
Again, I 100% agree that if you read the rules as you've described things make much more sense. But combining the text of something like insect plague and the actual text of light obscurement, it seems like the authors really don't mean the logical reading. The spell describes only its effect's area as lightly obscured, and the light and vision rules use the same term.
RAW Creature outside lightly obscured area suffer no penalty. I don't necessarily think it's intended but it's how they're written.
Assuming, you read RAW as only effecting the area the obscurement is in rather than the area the obscurement obscures, then it is actually the opposite.
Creatures on the outside looking into an obscured area suffer the penalty. Creatures in an obscured area looking out at an unobscured area are not effected. And that is RAW whether you interpret "obscured area" as an area that is obscured or an area that contains obscurement.
RAWIn a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. It doesn't mention causing this penalty when trying to see something in that area like heavily obscured does. So as written, only creature in a lightly obscured area suffer the penalty, not those outside.
RAW Creature outside lightly obscured area suffer no penalty. I don't necessarily think it's intended but it's how they're written.
Assuming, you read RAW as only effecting the area the obscurement is in rather than the area the obscurement obscures, then it is actually the opposite.
Creatures on the outside looking into an obscured area suffer the penalty. Creatures in an obscured area looking out at an unobscured area are not effected. And that is RAW whether you interpret "obscured area" as an area that is obscured or an area that contains obscurement.
RAWIn a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. It doesn't mention causing this penalty when trying to see something in that area like heavily obscured does. So as written, only creature in a lightly obscured area suffer the penalty, not those outside.
Standing in the dim light makes seeing things in bright light more difficult. Somehow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you ask me how it's written is a bit lacking as it mean that someone outside looking into dim light or fog area see better in it than someone inside the lightly obscured area. That's not how i rule it. I rule that similar to how heavily obscured state it, any obscured area block vision, either partially or entirely, so that people's vision is not only impaired when looking into the area, but past it as well, so that it can screen vision. I impose perception penalty to creature whenever their line of sight cross it somehow, inclusing when trying to look inside clear area past lightly obscured one.
RAWIn a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. It doesn't mention causing this penalty when trying to see something in that area like heavily obscured does. So as written, only creature in a lightly obscured area suffer the penalty, not those outside.
Light and heavy ARE worded differently... Huh. That does sort of ruin my interpretation. *sigh* WotC...
Again, I 100% agree that if you read the rules as you've described things make much more sense. But combining the text of something like insect plague and the actual text of light obscurement, it seems like the authors really don't mean the logical reading. The spell describes only its effect's area as lightly obscured, and the light and vision rules use the same term.
I think the wording of insect plague worked fine with my (now uncertain) interpretation. Regular obscurement works normally, obscuring effects obscure the area they say they do. That follows how other rules work with magic.
I blame the "Natural Language" approach and the lack of tags.
I know it was an attempt to make the game more approachable but it hits a wall at a certain point where you just start banging your head against because they want the DM to adjudicate the whole thing instead of making it more tight.
This creates a boon for the players as they can try/do more freely but puts a burden on the DM who has to make decision on the fly because honestly who thinks of these scenarios and has pre-determined decisions on them? And independent factors are not taken into account then either which could have an effect.
Does it outweigh the benefits of the Natural Language system? Maybe....I do not mind a bit more structure in my play but that is me. I like PF2e from a players perspective because I know what I can do for sure in the bounds of the game.
You have to have a DM capable and willing to work with you in 5e to get the most out of the "rulings not rules" mentality and I think that I have read enough horror stories that lead me to believe there are enough tables out there that struggle with it.
I agree, I would also agree that the respective LO and HO penalties apply when (4) the looker and the subject are both outside the LO/HO area but the area stands between them. I don't like the use of blinded in any of these situations due to the fact the condition is based on the loss of sight on the part of the creature, not due to environment (which is why you get stupid interactions like advantage and disadvantage cancelling out when both creatures are in the HO). I'd rather it be segregated and the 4 guidelines be used instead.
(4) when the looker and subject are both outside the area but the area stands between (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
Point 4 actually depends on the nature of the reason for being lightly obscured.
If it is only dim light (e.g. shadow), then the penalty should not apply.
If it is patchy fog, or moderate foliage, then it would still apply.
You guys make a distinction that the rules don't make. There is no machenical difference between a lightly obscured area of environmental or magical nature. An area is lightly or heavily obscured, despite it's nature.
I agree, I would also agree that the respective LO and HO penalties apply when (4) the looker and the subject are both outside the LO/HO area but the area stands between them. I don't like the use of blinded in any of these situations due to the fact the condition is based on the loss of sight on the part of the creature, not due to environment (which is why you get stupid interactions like advantage and disadvantage cancelling out when both creatures are in the HO). I'd rather it be segregated and the 4 guidelines be used instead.
(4) when the looker and subject are both outside the area but the area stands between (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
Point 4 actually depends on the nature of the reason for being lightly obscured.
If it is only dim light (e.g. shadow), then the penalty should not apply.
If it is patchy fog, or moderate foliage, then it would still apply.
The bullet was specific to darkness and dim light. You clipped out part of my post, but the paragraph you kept was my general response, and the bullets were part of a statement about why I don't think darkness and light should use the same rules as heavy obscurement.
I also don't think dim light and darkness should be obscurement but WoTC persist in this direction since 4E. They had to make errata because it interfered with vision between areas back then and when 5E was developped, they still used similar mechanic.
I blame the "Natural Language" approach and the lack of tags.
While I blame the natural language approach for lots of things, this isn't one of them. The problem is that they're trying to turn multiple distinct concepts into a single rule, and did a sloppy job what they even did. A simple version is:
Vision can be lightly or heavily obscured. Vision is lightly obscured if the target is in dim light, partially behind something opaque, or completely behind something partially opaque. If your vision is lightly obscured, Wisdom(Perception) checks based on sight are at disadvantages. Vision is heavily obscured if the target is in darkness or completely behind something opaque. If your vision is heavily obscured, you cannot see the target at all (see also Unseen Attackers and Targets).
Then just reword most of the spells that currently obscure their area to either say they create darkness or they're opaque (or both).
That would be a really solid re-write! I think that we agree that the existing rules don't do what you're describing, but I think that what you describe is a better system, and if it were enacted with errata... I really don't think it would break anything.
Well, realistically, dim light is sometimes easier to see things in than bright light, so once again I think it's an error to make compromises in RAW/RAI to chase after some illusive interpretation that makes obscurement start performing like real-life lighting does. 5E is not a simulation, it's a gameified system, and LO and HO are written as areas that debuff vision into/out of/through them in a way that makes compromises so as to be able to simply represent both lighting and haze effects.
Well, realistically, dim light is sometimes easier to see things in than bright light,
Eh, I'd disagree. The low end threshold for "bright light" isn't what you'd call "bright" in normal language if describing real-world lighting. The game term threshold for bright light is at a pretty low lumen count. Yes, going far higher than that base level and it does start getting harder and harder to see in detail, because of overexposure and whatnot. But, at the lumen level of 20ft from a lit torch? That's not going to cause anyone eye glare issues. That's mood lighting. You know?
Anyway, tangent aside... it'd only be easier to see in dim light if the bright light in question was blindingly bright. Noonday sun level bright.
so once again I think it's an error to make compromises in RAW/RAI to chase after some illusive interpretation that makes obscurement start performing like real-life lighting does. 5E is not a simulation, it's a gameified system, and LO and HO are written as areas that debuff vision into/out of/through them in a way that makes compromises so as to be able to simply represent both lighting and haze effects.
I don't know anyone who functionally treats a bush and a shadow the same way in actual play. You can see through and past the shadow, but not through and past the bush. You can call them both LO and justify treating them identically because it is a gamified system but, I've never seen anyone actually play that way and I'm fairly sure I don't want to.
You don't have to run the game like a simulation if you just make super common sense rulings like: At night you can see the illuminated castle from across the dark valley fields between you and it.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That was my point that it was how everyone agreed the rule should work. They also didn't provide any language indicating that the "obscured area" was isolated to the space the effect occupied. That was something we assumed.
Mm, if this isn’t describing that the place where the fog/shadow IS is the AREA it refers to, then I don’t know what additional language you would have wanted to achieve that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW Creature outside lightly obscured area suffer no penalty. I don't necessarily think it's intended but it's how they're written.
Funily, they made an errata for Vision and Light but never addressed this https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
Assuming, you read RAW as only effecting the area the obscurement is in rather than the area the obscurement obscures, then it is actually the opposite.
Creatures on the outside looking into an obscured area suffer the penalty. Creatures in an obscured area looking out at an unobscured area are not effected. And that is RAW whether you interpret "obscured area" as an area that is obscured or an area that contains obscurement.
Again, I 100% agree that if you read the rules as you've described things make much more sense. But combining the text of something like insect plague and the actual text of light obscurement, it seems like the authors really don't mean the logical reading. The spell describes only its effect's area as lightly obscured, and the light and vision rules use the same term.
RAW In a lightly obscured area, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. It doesn't mention causing this penalty when trying to see something in that area like heavily obscured does. So as written, only creature in a lightly obscured area suffer the penalty, not those outside.
Standing in the dim light makes seeing things in bright light more difficult. Somehow.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you ask me how it's written is a bit lacking as it mean that someone outside looking into dim light or fog area see better in it than someone inside the lightly obscured area. That's not how i rule it. I rule that similar to how heavily obscured state it, any obscured area block vision, either partially or entirely, so that people's vision is not only impaired when looking into the area, but past it as well, so that it can screen vision. I impose perception penalty to creature whenever their line of sight cross it somehow, inclusing when trying to look inside clear area past lightly obscured one.
Light and heavy ARE worded differently... Huh. That does sort of ruin my interpretation. *sigh* WotC...
I think the wording of insect plague worked fine with my (now uncertain) interpretation. Regular obscurement works normally, obscuring effects obscure the area they say they do. That follows how other rules work with magic.
I blame the "Natural Language" approach and the lack of tags.
I know it was an attempt to make the game more approachable but it hits a wall at a certain point where you just start banging your head against because they want the DM to adjudicate the whole thing instead of making it more tight.
This creates a boon for the players as they can try/do more freely but puts a burden on the DM who has to make decision on the fly because honestly who thinks of these scenarios and has pre-determined decisions on them? And independent factors are not taken into account then either which could have an effect.
Does it outweigh the benefits of the Natural Language system? Maybe....I do not mind a bit more structure in my play but that is me. I like PF2e from a players perspective because I know what I can do for sure in the bounds of the game.
You have to have a DM capable and willing to work with you in 5e to get the most out of the "rulings not rules" mentality and I think that I have read enough horror stories that lead me to believe there are enough tables out there that struggle with it.
Point 4 actually depends on the nature of the reason for being lightly obscured.
If it is only dim light (e.g. shadow), then the penalty should not apply.
If it is patchy fog, or moderate foliage, then it would still apply.
You guys make a distinction that the rules don't make. There is no machenical difference between a lightly obscured area of environmental or magical nature. An area is lightly or heavily obscured, despite it's nature.
The bullet was specific to darkness and dim light. You clipped out part of my post, but the paragraph you kept was my general response, and the bullets were part of a statement about why I don't think darkness and light should use the same rules as heavy obscurement.
I also don't think dim light and darkness should be obscurement but WoTC persist in this direction since 4E. They had to make errata because it interfered with vision between areas back then and when 5E was developped, they still used similar mechanic.
While I blame the natural language approach for lots of things, this isn't one of them. The problem is that they're trying to turn multiple distinct concepts into a single rule, and did a sloppy job what they even did. A simple version is:
Then just reword most of the spells that currently obscure their area to either say they create darkness or they're opaque (or both).
That would be a really solid re-write! I think that we agree that the existing rules don't do what you're describing, but I think that what you describe is a better system, and if it were enacted with errata... I really don't think it would break anything.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This only works logically if you are standing in an area that is dimming the light around you (as by magic) to the level of dim light.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well, realistically, dim light is sometimes easier to see things in than bright light, so once again I think it's an error to make compromises in RAW/RAI to chase after some illusive interpretation that makes obscurement start performing like real-life lighting does. 5E is not a simulation, it's a gameified system, and LO and HO are written as areas that debuff vision into/out of/through them in a way that makes compromises so as to be able to simply represent both lighting and haze effects.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Eh, I'd disagree. The low end threshold for "bright light" isn't what you'd call "bright" in normal language if describing real-world lighting. The game term threshold for bright light is at a pretty low lumen count. Yes, going far higher than that base level and it does start getting harder and harder to see in detail, because of overexposure and whatnot. But, at the lumen level of 20ft from a lit torch? That's not going to cause anyone eye glare issues. That's mood lighting. You know?
Anyway, tangent aside... it'd only be easier to see in dim light if the bright light in question was blindingly bright. Noonday sun level bright.
I don't know anyone who functionally treats a bush and a shadow the same way in actual play. You can see through and past the shadow, but not through and past the bush. You can call them both LO and justify treating them identically because it is a gamified system but, I've never seen anyone actually play that way and I'm fairly sure I don't want to.
You don't have to run the game like a simulation if you just make super common sense rulings like: At night you can see the illuminated castle from across the dark valley fields between you and it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.