If there is no darkness because of a light source, then there is no darkness to block your vision, at least to that light source. There can be darkness everywhere else around you except for the line of sight to that light source.
Otherwise, forget just moon and/or stars, all light sources would not work. There would be no such thing as sunlight, since it could not get through the darkness that would be there if not for the sunlight.
This IS the problem though! If there is darkness and therefore heavily obscured area, even if there is light beyond at 50 feet or 384,400 km, you can't see it if said darkness blocks your vision to it being in between you and that light source. The very same element making things unseeable for opaque fog or dense foliage blocking vision is what makes things unseeable for darkness if it's a heavily obscured game element with no exception whatsoever.
Darkness should be a distinct rule from heavily obscured or an exception to it.
In the end it's so obvious that DM dont rule as written though.
right. accept that it doesn't make one bit of sense since there is no such situation that would actually happen involving darkness. If you have ever played hide and seek in a house and hide in a room closet you know. If the closet has zero light, but the room has dim light, you can perfectly see into the room, but you can not bee seen. if you have ever been in a campground, you know. If you are out of the area of light from the campfire at night, with no moonlight, you can't bee seen and you can perfectly see anyone sitting in the area of dim light of the fire. If you have ever been in a large room with a small fireplace you know. If the back of the room is complete darkness and you are standing their, you can't be seen, but you can definitely see anyone inside the light of the fireplace. I can't believe I am going to have to give and English language class on here but, it seems people are choosing cognitive dissonance on basic English reading.
Let's say I do this:
Extreme FIRE- Fire, acid, and hot liquids, cause complete scorching.
At this point, this statement does not infer anything other than what it says. WITHOUT CONTEXT. You can not understand this sentence on its own, just like you could not understand "blocks vision entirely" on its own, because it does not survive basic logic. in the case of Extreme FIRE, how does it cause complete scorching? Must you touch it? is standing near it enough? If I started a fire in one room, will it affect a person in another house? on the other side of the planet? The same applies to "blocks vision entirely". as it stands that sentence could mean that if there is a dark space in front of me somewhere let's say 30 ft ahead, I would not be able to see something behind me since it clearly says "blocks vision entirely". Broad sentence like this MUST ALWAYS BE FOLLOWED by a sentence clarification to give the statement context. Otherwise you have extreme, ridiculous logic flaws.
"creatures and objects essentially suffer from the "incinerated" condition whenever they touch it".
"Incinerated objects suffer complete destruction of all it's surface. If it is a creature, the creature takes 3d8 points of dmg per turn until it is no longer being incinerated and suffers permanent scarring unless healed by a wish spell"
Now the second sentence specifically tells you how to add context to the sentence before it (causing complete scorching). in this rule I just made up, you must touch it. Not be near it, not smell it. it is specific.
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
When trying to see something in that area. Not out of that area, not near that area, not on the other side of the planet. IN THAT AREA. You have now been given context. Your vision is BLOCK ENTIRELY, when trying to SEE IN THAT AREA.
Reading comprehension combine with logic (as in actual math logic). That's how the players hand book is written.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
Stormknight pretty much explained the two sentences so i won't repeat them.
Let's just put it this way, the rules for heavily obscured make no special distinction between opaque fog and darkness. So both either block vision entirely and creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in them but not outside OR they do so in and out.
If they don't let you see inside but outside you can because it doesn't block vision, that mean you can't see into an heavily obscured area (opaque fog, Sleet Storm etc) but you can see the other side of it.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
I understand the concept. You seem to have missed the part where it says opaque fog, which by definition means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
Heavily Obscured block vision entirely. If they were not then since creature don't effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something not in them, that would mean a creature inside a opaque fog or Sleet Storm would be able to see and attack someone outside of it without any disadvantage.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
I understand the concept. You seem to have missed the part where it says opaque fog, which by definition means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
Heavily Obscured block vision entirely. If they were not then since creature don't effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something not in them, that would mean a creature inside a opaque fog or Sleet Storm would be able to see and attack someone outside of it without any disadvantage.
Yes. Exactly. You can rule otherwise, but sleet storm and Blizzard are actually the same. If you are in a blizzard or a sleet storm, can you see the person next to you? If so, you are not in a heavily obscured area. In sleet, it specifically says you are in a heavily obscured area. You can not see anyone around you, no one outside can see into it. But just like a blizzard. If you make it heavily obscured, sleet is a physical object. Snow is a physical object. It's so intense (because it is ruled as heavily obscured by either the DM or the spell description) that it functions as a physical wall. You would not be able to attack the creature inside with an arrow because they would be under total cover. The sleet or snow, being so intense that you can not see the person next to you, now follows the rules for cover because it is a physical thing. The arrow would hit the snow or ice falling and not be able to find a way in to the area, OR OUT OF IT. Everyone inside is not just heavily obscured, they are completely concealed by the rules of cover. As such, you can't attack them or see them, and they can't attack OR SEE YOU, not just because of the rules of obscurity, but now because of the total cover rules. You must wait for that spell to end to attack them.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
I understand the concept. You seem to have missed the part where it says opaque fog, which by definition means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
Heavily Obscured block vision entirely. If they were not then since creature don't effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something not in them, that would mean a creature inside a opaque fog or Sleet Storm would be able to see and attack someone outside of it without any disadvantage.
Yes. Exactly. You can rule otherwise, but sleet storm and Blizzard are actually the same. If you are in a blizzard or a sleet storm, can you see the person next to you? If so, you are not in a heavily obscured area. In sleet, it specifically says you are in a heavily obscured area. You can not see anyone around you, no one outside can see into it. But just like a blizzard. If you make it heavily obscured, sleet is a physical object. Snow is a physical object. It's so intense (because it is ruled as heavily obscured by either the DM or the spell description) that it functions as a physical wall. You would not be able to attack the creature inside with an arrow because they would be under total cover. The sleet or snow, being so intense that you can not see the person next to you, now follows the rules for cover because it is a physical thing. The arrow would hit the snow or ice falling and not be able to find a way in to the area, OR OUT OF IT. Everyone inside is not just heavily obscured, they are completely concealed by the rules of cover. As such, you can't attack them or see them, and they can't attack OR SEE YOU, not just because of the rules of obscurity, but now because of the total cover rules. You must wait for that spell to end to attack them.
You can attack creature in heavily obscured area such as Sleet Storm unless noted otherwise. These effects do not say they grant total cover, otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter in them. You are free to houserule it this way if you want though.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
I understand the concept. You seem to have missed the part where it says opaque fog, which by definition means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
Heavily Obscured block vision entirely. If they were not then since creature don't effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something not in them, that would mean a creature inside a opaque fog or Sleet Storm would be able to see and attack someone outside of it without any disadvantage.
Yes. Exactly. You can rule otherwise, but sleet storm and Blizzard are actually the same. If you are in a blizzard or a sleet storm, can you see the person next to you? If so, you are not in a heavily obscured area. In sleet, it specifically says you are in a heavily obscured area. You can not see anyone around you, no one outside can see into it. But just like a blizzard. If you make it heavily obscured, sleet is a physical object. Snow is a physical object. It's so intense (because it is ruled as heavily obscured by either the DM or the spell description) that it functions as a physical wall. You would not be able to attack the creature inside with an arrow because they would be under total cover. The sleet or snow, being so intense that you can not see the person next to you, now follows the rules for cover because it is a physical thing. The arrow would hit the snow or ice falling and not be able to find a way in to the area, OR OUT OF IT. Everyone inside is not just heavily obscured, they are completely concealed by the rules of cover. As such, you can't attack them or see them, and they can't attack OR SEE YOU, not just because of the rules of obscurity, but now because of the total cover rules. You must wait for that spell to end to attack them.
You can attack creature in heavily obscured area such as Sleet Storm unless noted otherwise. These effects do not say they grant total cover, otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter in them. You are free to houserule it this way if you want though.
It also create heavily obscured area without granting any cover, nor affecting arrows and other ranged attacks.
Spell that create cover specifically say so, such as Blade Barrier
How much cover something grants is up to the DM. If a physical object, or objects conceal you fully, you have total cover. This is plainly described in the rules. It does not have to mention it in the spell description because it is already a rule set. If it is physical, and it conceals you completely, it grants total cover. Blade barrier works in reverse. It is clear the spell provides 3/4 cover., as such you can still see the opponent inside the spell, but not fully, making it not heavily obscured, but lightly obscured. Spell descriptions are designed specifically to give you an idea of how it works, PLUS any deviations from any particular rule. The Darkness spell is a perfect example. Magical darkness is specifically a heavy obscured environment, but the description gives you a deviation of the rules by letting you know that light can not penetrate it, blinding those inside as well.
Also, there is not anything that says you can not enter an area that has total cover unless it specifically says impassable. Being thirty feat into a forest tree line could be deemed as both heavily obscured and Total cover, as there are thirty feat of trees in front of you, concealing you. But you can definitely walk into the forest. Total cover is not exclusive to one completely solid object, it can be many objects that total a full covering of you by line of sight, hence why there is no stated relationship between obscurity and cover. The DM must decide that always, especially when the obscurity is being caused by a physical or set of physical objects. It seams like many of you are just doing either obscurity or cover, but not both. Hence your confusion and why you struggle with illogical situations like someone being blind in a dark area and being blind to someone standing ten feat away in dim light. LOL. That makes no senses. And everyone knows that makes no sense so guys like dungeon dudes, and anyone stuck on this bad interpretation, just say things like "darkness doesn't make sense" and "just ignore the rule for this situation". Which is actually what doesn't make sense.
You A, can't target someone with a energy arrow strike if you can't see them, either in total cover or heavy obscurement, right? And B, Fog is considered a gas, not a solid. That's basic science. Obscurement and cover must BOTH be used when the Obscuring thing can potentially provide cover.
You A, can't target someone with a energy arrow strike if you can't see them, either in total cover or heavy obscurement, right? And B, Fog is considered a gas, not a solid. That's basic science. Obscurement and cover must BOTH be used when the Obscuring thing can potentially provide cover.
You can always target creature that you can't see wether invisible or in heavily obscured area, unless the attack or spell specifically target a creature you can see. That's why such thing grant disadvantage on the attack rolls. See Unseen Attackers and Targets for more details;
Unseen Attackers and Targets: 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
How much cover something grants is up to the DM. If a physical object, or objects conceal you fully, you have total cover. This is plainly described in the rules. It does not have to mention it in the spell description because it is already a rule set.
The DM can always determine that a spell also grant total cover, but it would be houseruling it since the spell doesn't specifically say it grant total cover. Even a spell like Sleet Storm, the freezing rain and sleet fall has for effect to obscure vision rather than be cover obstacle.
Also, there is not anything that says you can not enter an area that has total cover unless it specifically says impassable. Being thirty feat into a forest tree line could be deemed as both heavily obscured and Total cover, as there are thirty feat of trees in front of you, concealing you. But you can definitely walk into the forest. Total cover is not exclusive to one completely solid object, it can be many objects that total a full covering of you by line of sight, hence why there is no stated relationship between obscurity and cover. The DM must decide that always, especially when the obscurity is being caused by a physical or set of physical objects. It seams like many of you are just doing either obscurity or cover, but not both. Hence your confusion and why you struggle with illogical situations like someone being blind in a dark area and being blind to someone standing ten feat away in dim light. LOL. That makes no senses. And everyone knows that makes no sense so guys like dungeon dudes, and anyone stuck on this bad interpretation, just say things like "darkness doesn't make sense" and "just ignore the rule for this situation". Which is actually what doesn't make sense.
When i say you cannot move into total cover, it's because you usually move in unoccupied space, and a total cover obstacle that entirely occupying a space leaves you unable to move into it. You cannot move into a wall or tree for exemple.
Cover and Obscurement are two distinct game elements that may or may not relate to one another. While you may have total cover behind a stone wall, you are not in a heavily obscured area being perfectly visible where you are even though creature cannot see you from the opposite side of the wall.
You are half right. They do not relate to one another. You make the relation. If you are completely unseen by total cover, then you are by raw heavily obscured. So if the wall is invisible, you are under total cover but not unseen, so you are not heavily obscured. Heavy obscurity and COVER can be provided by any physical objects, which is why dense foliage can provide heavy obscurity and cover, and why the definition uses the term "such as". If you are separating the two and not using them together in your environments, then you are doing it wrong, leading to all your logic issues. Any area behind a wall is considered heavily obscured by line of site. When you move, around the wall, that area is no longer obscured, now the other side is obscured. It ALSO provides Cover. If you are not doing this, you are doing it wrong, hence why the rules get so confusing. If a blizzard is so strong you can not see into it OR out of it, then it is also providing cover. It is a wall of snow. You can play with physics in dnd. Can a massive fireball blast through the blizzard? maybe. Up to you. But that also applies to any total cover. You can blast through a wall as well with a large enough projectile such as a cannon ball. You can blast through a pile of books that also provide total cover with far less. The physics of cover are left to the dm. The only issue with 5e that arrives is density. Cover rules insinuate pretty strongly that cover must be a sold object. Leaving fog in RAW Limbo as it is a gas. You could rule fog provides cover, flimsy cover, but cover. Therefore you can't see out of it. Nothing says in the spell description that it does, but rules for cover are applied independent of spell descriptions, as are rules for obscurity. They are environment rules. DnD is meant to be a bunch of rules, all being pieced together based on what you are dealing with. Is this a heavily obscured area? Does the obscurity provide cover? Does a spell description give exemption to any rule? I rule the spell fog cloud as heavily obscured, meaning if you are trying to see into it, your vision is blocked. You are blinded. That is it. Because that is what the RAW says. It does not say anything about seeing out of it. Can I chose otherwise yes. Going against raw? NO. Why? I can apply cover rules. Now the fog is considered total cover. You must move out of it to attack out of it. Simple. If they attack into it, rules for total cover and heavy obscurity are the same. You can't target the creature. The only difference is the OPTIONAL RULES for hitting the cover do not need to be used.
Edit: I know they are not exactly the same. I know the rules. I am generalizing because it's Christmas.....
The only issue with 5e that arrives is density. Cover rules insinuate pretty strongly that cover must be a sold object. Leaving fog in RAW Limbo as it is a gas. You could rule fog provides cover, flimsy cover, but cover.
Cover comes from obstacle, as indicated by the various solid exemples such as wall, furniture, tree, creature, portcullis etc
Fog should not grant cover because it is not an obstacle.
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.
5e presents a ludicrous view of just two types of fogginess in which 5 miles of patchy fog might give a mere disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight while 5 feet of opaque fog would cause complete blindness.
Realistically it's as distance increases that things get lost in the fog. I think that the dynamic would be similar to that of decreasing illumination in darkness, as a parallel to the situation in which carrying, say, a torch gives you 20 feet of vision without disadvantage, a further 20 feet with disadvantage and then no ability to see after that.
Patchy fog might give vision for a longer distance than opaque fog would need to be bizarrely extreme to block vision completely.
You are half right. They do not relate to one another. You make the relation. If you are completely unseen by total cover, then you are by raw heavily obscured. So if the wall is invisible, you are under total cover but not unseen, so you are not heavily obscured. Heavy obscurity and COVER can be provided by any physical objects, which is why dense foliage can provide heavy obscurity and cover, and why the definition uses the term "such as". If you are separating the two and not using them together in your environments, then you are doing it wrong, leading to all your logic issues. Any area behind a wall is considered heavily obscured by line of site. When you move, around the wall, that area is no longer obscured, now the other side is obscured. It ALSO provides Cover. If you are not doing this, you are doing it wrong, hence why the rules get so confusing. If a blizzard is so strong you can not see into it OR out of it, then it is also providing cover. It is a wall of snow. You can play with physics in dnd. Can a massive fireball blast through the blizzard? maybe. Up to you. But that also applies to any total cover. You can blast through a wall as well with a large enough projectile such as a cannon ball. You can blast through a pile of books that also provide total cover with far less. The physics of cover are left to the dm. The only issue with 5e that arrives is density. Cover rules insinuate pretty strongly that cover must be a sold object. Leaving fog in RAW Limbo as it is a gas. You could rule fog provides cover, flimsy cover, but cover. Therefore you can't see out of it. Nothing says in the spell description that it does, but rules for cover are applied independent of spell descriptions, as are rules for obscurity. They are environment rules. DnD is meant to be a bunch of rules, all being pieced together based on what you are dealing with. Is this a heavily obscured area? Does the obscurity provide cover? Does a spell description give exemption to any rule? I rule the spell fog cloud as heavily obscured, meaning if you are trying to see into it, your vision is blocked. You are blinded. That is it. Because that is what the RAW says. It does not say anything about seeing out of it. Can I chose otherwise yes. Going against raw? NO. Why? I can apply cover rules. Now the fog is considered total cover. You must move out of it to attack out of it. Simple. If they attack into it, rules for total cover and heavy obscurity are the same. You can't target the creature. The only difference is the OPTIONAL RULES for hitting the cover do not need to be used.
Pardon, but where is dense foliage described as cover? If is likely difficult terrain, but that is a different thing. You can move through it. Those are still plants.
You can also move through an actual blizzard. It is not a barrier and to the extent it is hard to move through, it is the wind blowing the snow around that makes it hard to move through rather than the snow itself. The snow chills you but does not block your movement per se.
Fog is similar. It is small drops of water suspended in the air, dense enough to obstruct vision but not dense enough to obstruct movement. Nothing in the rules says that something has to obstruct movement to be able to obstruct vision.
How do you reconcile darkness giving obscurement if you believe something has to be a physical object to obstruct?
If you read the rules for cover, you know that "Walls, TREES, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm." When you are dealing with any forest encounter, you must decide first, what is the obscurity level of the forest you are in, and then, what level of cover does it provide, then, how difficult is the terrain to pass. Anytime you have objects interfering with sight, you must do this. Not doing this is what leads many to weird rule interpretations. The correlations between them are up to the DM. If an area is heavily obscured by trees, you must ask, do those trees also provide cover? if so, how much? Yes, you can move through an actual blizzard. But an actual blizzard is also not heavy obscurity, typically, it is lightly obscured, since you can definitely see the person next to you in a blizzard, been in a few myself. Shit I even snowboarded in one once. So I would never personally say that a blizzard is heavy obscurity, unless it is some type of spell that specifically states that it is, in which case, this is not a natural phenomenon, and the intensity is so great, that I would rule it provides a level of cover, adding to the AC if not out right blocking attacks and spells out right. Sleet storm specifically says it causes the area to be heavily obscured and difficult terrain. Can you imagine how much sleet would have to be coming down that you are blind to what's inside? You can rule it provides cover, which won't mean much since what is inside is taking dmg anyway.I may not allow arrows to pierce into it, and melee attacks suffer the spells description. But what if you put it in between you and an enemy? With no other way around? Now you are using it as an obstacle, which means aside from the spell description, you must declare (at least to yourself as the DM) what level of cover it provides.
The only issue with 5e that arrives is density. Cover rules insinuate pretty strongly that cover must be a sold object. Leaving fog in RAW Limbo as it is a gas. You could rule fog provides cover, flimsy cover, but cover.
Cover comes from obstacle, as indicated by the various solid exemples such as wall, furniture, tree, creature, portcullis etc
Fog should not grant cover because it is not an obstacle.Which is why I said fog is a RAW limbo existence. But you can rule that it creates cover. Rules for cover only give examples of cover, it does not dictate what cover can and can't be on the physical spectrum.
"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover."
Obstacle is not itself defined in 5e. So you can not make that claim. You can view it like that at your choice and leisure, because if you are the DM, you have final say in your campaign, but the term obstacle is not defined in 5e. You have physical cover and you have visual cover in the real world. Though the rules give you examples, it leaves what the DM considers an obstacle open ended. And while most people assume cover is something that blocks an attack, it never states that. It only increases your AC or out right prevents you from being targeted. Hitting the thing providing cover is an OPTIONAL RULE. We already know an increase in AC does not mean that it is a physical protection, since dexterity also increases your AC, so it just means you are more difficult to hit. Cover is there to use at your leisure to add more dimension, complexity, and realism to your environments.
I'm sorry, but I really do not understand why repeating what I said and spewing it out as a counter argument is somehow helping anyone understand rules.
"however that does not mean there will be obscurement." < "The correlations between them are up to the DM. If an area is heavily obscured by trees, you must ask, do those trees also provide cover? IF SO how much?"
"Similarly, you can have concealment without there being cover." <. "you must decide first, what is the obscurity level of the forest you are in, and then, what level of cover does it provide" (as in, uhh, it could be none perhaps?)
"Apples are fruit. This does not mean oranges are not also fruit." Ok wut????
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.
5e presents a ludicrous view of just two types of fogginess in which 5 miles of patchy fog might give a mere disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight while 5 feet of opaque fog would cause complete blindness.
Realistically it's as distance increases that things get lost in the fog. I think that the dynamic would be similar to that of decreasing illumination in darkness, as a parallel to the situation in which carrying, say, a torch gives you 20 feet of vision without disadvantage, a further 20 feet with disadvantage and then no ability to see after that.
Patchy fog might give vision for a longer distance than opaque fog would need to be bizarrely extreme to block vision completely.
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.
5e presents a ludicrous view of just two types of fogginess in which 5 miles of patchy fog might give a mere disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight while 5 feet of opaque fog would cause complete blindness.
Realistically it's as distance increases that things get lost in the fog. I think that the dynamic would be similar to that of decreasing illumination in darkness, as a parallel to the situation in which carrying, say, a torch gives you 20 feet of vision without disadvantage, a further 20 feet with disadvantage and then no ability to see after that.
Patchy fog might give vision for a longer distance than opaque fog would need to be bizarrely extreme to block vision completely.
.
I agree that fog is broken in 5e. I handle fog cloud as the same as darkness because gloom stalkers shooting arrows out of a fog cloud like some ninja is just cool.
You A, can't target someone with a energy arrow strike if you can't see them, either in total cover or heavy obscurement, right? And B, Fog is considered a gas, not a solid. That's basic science. Obscurement and cover must BOTH be used when the Obscuring thing can potentially provide cover.
You can always target creature that you can't see wether invisible or in heavily obscured area, unless the attack or spell specifically target a creature you can see. That's why such thing grant disadvantage on the attack rolls. See Unseen Attackers and Targets for more details;
This IS the problem though! If there is darkness and therefore heavily obscured area, even if there is light beyond at 50 feet or 384,400 km, you can't see it if said darkness blocks your vision to it being in between you and that light source. The very same element making things unseeable for opaque fog or dense foliage blocking vision is what makes things unseeable for darkness if it's a heavily obscured game element with no exception whatsoever.
Darkness should be a distinct rule from heavily obscured or an exception to it.
In the end it's so obvious that DM dont rule as written though.
right. accept that it doesn't make one bit of sense since there is no such situation that would actually happen involving darkness. If you have ever played hide and seek in a house and hide in a room closet you know. If the closet has zero light, but the room has dim light, you can perfectly see into the room, but you can not bee seen. if you have ever been in a campground, you know. If you are out of the area of light from the campfire at night, with no moonlight, you can't bee seen and you can perfectly see anyone sitting in the area of dim light of the fire. If you have ever been in a large room with a small fireplace you know. If the back of the room is complete darkness and you are standing their, you can't be seen, but you can definitely see anyone inside the light of the fireplace. I can't believe I am going to have to give and English language class on here but, it seems people are choosing cognitive dissonance on basic English reading.
Let's say I do this:
Extreme FIRE- Fire, acid, and hot liquids, cause complete scorching.
At this point, this statement does not infer anything other than what it says. WITHOUT CONTEXT. You can not understand this sentence on its own, just like you could not understand "blocks vision entirely" on its own, because it does not survive basic logic. in the case of Extreme FIRE, how does it cause complete scorching? Must you touch it? is standing near it enough? If I started a fire in one room, will it affect a person in another house? on the other side of the planet? The same applies to "blocks vision entirely". as it stands that sentence could mean that if there is a dark space in front of me somewhere let's say 30 ft ahead, I would not be able to see something behind me since it clearly says "blocks vision entirely". Broad sentence like this MUST ALWAYS BE FOLLOWED by a sentence clarification to give the statement context. Otherwise you have extreme, ridiculous logic flaws.
"creatures and objects essentially suffer from the "incinerated" condition whenever they touch it".
"Incinerated objects suffer complete destruction of all it's surface. If it is a creature, the creature takes 3d8 points of dmg per turn until it is no longer being incinerated and suffers permanent scarring unless healed by a wish spell"
Now the second sentence specifically tells you how to add context to the sentence before it (causing complete scorching). in this rule I just made up, you must touch it. Not be near it, not smell it. it is specific.
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
When trying to see something in that area. Not out of that area, not near that area, not on the other side of the planet. IN THAT AREA. You have now been given context. Your vision is BLOCK ENTIRELY, when trying to SEE IN THAT AREA.
Reading comprehension combine with logic (as in actual math logic). That's how the players hand book is written.
That is exactly my point. But actually if you have ever been in a fog clog, you know, your vision is not blocked inside of it. It's outside looking in. I have seen many and been in many fog cloud. it's not like in the movies. Being inside one is not a big deal. it's seeing something covered by it. it works quite, like darkness actually. Something to do light and crystals and the source of light.
If you have a problem understanding it in the context of a blizzard, that is ridiculous, since how likely is it that the blizzard is only on top of you? And if it is? Then you can see out of it as long as you aren't taking dmg to your eyes and that is a specific action. When you are in a blizzard. more likely, everyone is in that blizzard, and so everyone is looking into it, therefore suffering blinded.
Stormknight pretty much explained the two sentences so i won't repeat them.
Let's just put it this way, the rules for heavily obscured make no special distinction between opaque fog and darkness. So both either block vision entirely and creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in them but not outside OR they do so in and out.
If they don't let you see inside but outside you can because it doesn't block vision, that mean you can't see into an heavily obscured area (opaque fog, Sleet Storm etc) but you can see the other side of it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I understand the concept. You seem to have missed the part where it says opaque fog, which by definition means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
Heavily Obscured block vision entirely. If they were not then since creature don't effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something not in them, that would mean a creature inside a opaque fog or Sleet Storm would be able to see and attack someone outside of it without any disadvantage.
Yes. Exactly. You can rule otherwise, but sleet storm and Blizzard are actually the same. If you are in a blizzard or a sleet storm, can you see the person next to you? If so, you are not in a heavily obscured area. In sleet, it specifically says you are in a heavily obscured area. You can not see anyone around you, no one outside can see into it. But just like a blizzard. If you make it heavily obscured, sleet is a physical object. Snow is a physical object. It's so intense (because it is ruled as heavily obscured by either the DM or the spell description) that it functions as a physical wall. You would not be able to attack the creature inside with an arrow because they would be under total cover. The sleet or snow, being so intense that you can not see the person next to you, now follows the rules for cover because it is a physical thing. The arrow would hit the snow or ice falling and not be able to find a way in to the area, OR OUT OF IT. Everyone inside is not just heavily obscured, they are completely concealed by the rules of cover. As such, you can't attack them or see them, and they can't attack OR SEE YOU, not just because of the rules of obscurity, but now because of the total cover rules. You must wait for that spell to end to attack them.
You can attack creature in heavily obscured area such as Sleet Storm unless noted otherwise. These effects do not say they grant total cover, otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter in them. You are free to houserule it this way if you want though.
As for Blizzard are you talking about the spell from Kobold Press? https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/3pp-spells/spells-kobold-press/blizzard/
It also create heavily obscured area without granting any cover, nor affecting arrows and other ranged attacks.
Spell that create cover specifically say so, such as Blade Barrier
How much cover something grants is up to the DM. If a physical object, or objects conceal you fully, you have total cover. This is plainly described in the rules. It does not have to mention it in the spell description because it is already a rule set. If it is physical, and it conceals you completely, it grants total cover. Blade barrier works in reverse. It is clear the spell provides 3/4 cover., as such you can still see the opponent inside the spell, but not fully, making it not heavily obscured, but lightly obscured. Spell descriptions are designed specifically to give you an idea of how it works, PLUS any deviations from any particular rule. The Darkness spell is a perfect example. Magical darkness is specifically a heavy obscured environment, but the description gives you a deviation of the rules by letting you know that light can not penetrate it, blinding those inside as well.
Also, there is not anything that says you can not enter an area that has total cover unless it specifically says impassable. Being thirty feat into a forest tree line could be deemed as both heavily obscured and Total cover, as there are thirty feat of trees in front of you, concealing you. But you can definitely walk into the forest. Total cover is not exclusive to one completely solid object, it can be many objects that total a full covering of you by line of sight, hence why there is no stated relationship between obscurity and cover. The DM must decide that always, especially when the obscurity is being caused by a physical or set of physical objects. It seams like many of you are just doing either obscurity or cover, but not both. Hence your confusion and why you struggle with illogical situations like someone being blind in a dark area and being blind to someone standing ten feat away in dim light. LOL. That makes no senses. And everyone knows that makes no sense so guys like dungeon dudes, and anyone stuck on this bad interpretation, just say things like "darkness doesn't make sense" and "just ignore the rule for this situation". Which is actually what doesn't make sense.
You A, can't target someone with a energy arrow strike if you can't see them, either in total cover or heavy obscurement, right? And B, Fog is considered a gas, not a solid. That's basic science. Obscurement and cover must BOTH be used when the Obscuring thing can potentially provide cover.
You can always target creature that you can't see wether invisible or in heavily obscured area, unless the attack or spell specifically target a creature you can see. That's why such thing grant disadvantage on the attack rolls. See Unseen Attackers and Targets for more details;
The DM can always determine that a spell also grant total cover, but it would be houseruling it since the spell doesn't specifically say it grant total cover. Even a spell like Sleet Storm, the freezing rain and sleet fall has for effect to obscure vision rather than be cover obstacle.
When i say you cannot move into total cover, it's because you usually move in unoccupied space, and a total cover obstacle that entirely occupying a space leaves you unable to move into it. You cannot move into a wall or tree for exemple.
Cover and Obscurement are two distinct game elements that may or may not relate to one another. While you may have total cover behind a stone wall, you are not in a heavily obscured area being perfectly visible where you are even though creature cannot see you from the opposite side of the wall.
You are half right. They do not relate to one another. You make the relation. If you are completely unseen by total cover, then you are by raw heavily obscured. So if the wall is invisible, you are under total cover but not unseen, so you are not heavily obscured. Heavy obscurity and COVER can be provided by any physical objects, which is why dense foliage can provide heavy obscurity and cover, and why the definition uses the term "such as". If you are separating the two and not using them together in your environments, then you are doing it wrong, leading to all your logic issues. Any area behind a wall is considered heavily obscured by line of site. When you move, around the wall, that area is no longer obscured, now the other side is obscured. It ALSO provides Cover. If you are not doing this, you are doing it wrong, hence why the rules get so confusing. If a blizzard is so strong you can not see into it OR out of it, then it is also providing cover. It is a wall of snow. You can play with physics in dnd. Can a massive fireball blast through the blizzard? maybe. Up to you. But that also applies to any total cover. You can blast through a wall as well with a large enough projectile such as a cannon ball. You can blast through a pile of books that also provide total cover with far less. The physics of cover are left to the dm. The only issue with 5e that arrives is density. Cover rules insinuate pretty strongly that cover must be a sold object. Leaving fog in RAW Limbo as it is a gas. You could rule fog provides cover, flimsy cover, but cover. Therefore you can't see out of it. Nothing says in the spell description that it does, but rules for cover are applied independent of spell descriptions, as are rules for obscurity. They are environment rules. DnD is meant to be a bunch of rules, all being pieced together based on what you are dealing with. Is this a heavily obscured area? Does the obscurity provide cover? Does a spell description give exemption to any rule? I rule the spell fog cloud as heavily obscured, meaning if you are trying to see into it, your vision is blocked. You are blinded. That is it. Because that is what the RAW says. It does not say anything about seeing out of it. Can I chose otherwise yes. Going against raw? NO. Why? I can apply cover rules. Now the fog is considered total cover. You must move out of it to attack out of it. Simple. If they attack into it, rules for total cover and heavy obscurity are the same. You can't target the creature. The only difference is the OPTIONAL RULES for hitting the cover do not need to be used.
Edit: I know they are not exactly the same. I know the rules. I am generalizing because it's Christmas.....
Cover comes from obstacle, as indicated by the various solid exemples such as wall, furniture, tree, creature, portcullis etc
Fog should not grant cover because it is not an obstacle.
5e presents a ludicrous view of just two types of fogginess in which 5 miles of patchy fog might give a mere disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight while 5 feet of opaque fog would cause complete blindness.
Realistically it's as distance increases that things get lost in the fog. I think that the dynamic would be similar to that of decreasing illumination in darkness, as a parallel to the situation in which carrying, say, a torch gives you 20 feet of vision without disadvantage, a further 20 feet with disadvantage and then no ability to see after that.
Patchy fog might give vision for a longer distance than opaque fog would need to be bizarrely extreme to block vision completely.
.
If you read the rules for cover, you know that "Walls, TREES, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm." When you are dealing with any forest encounter, you must decide first, what is the obscurity level of the forest you are in, and then, what level of cover does it provide, then, how difficult is the terrain to pass. Anytime you have objects interfering with sight, you must do this. Not doing this is what leads many to weird rule interpretations. The correlations between them are up to the DM. If an area is heavily obscured by trees, you must ask, do those trees also provide cover? if so, how much? Yes, you can move through an actual blizzard. But an actual blizzard is also not heavy obscurity, typically, it is lightly obscured, since you can definitely see the person next to you in a blizzard, been in a few myself. Shit I even snowboarded in one once. So I would never personally say that a blizzard is heavy obscurity, unless it is some type of spell that specifically states that it is, in which case, this is not a natural phenomenon, and the intensity is so great, that I would rule it provides a level of cover, adding to the AC if not out right blocking attacks and spells out right. Sleet storm specifically says it causes the area to be heavily obscured and difficult terrain. Can you imagine how much sleet would have to be coming down that you are blind to what's inside? You can rule it provides cover, which won't mean much since what is inside is taking dmg anyway.I may not allow arrows to pierce into it, and melee attacks suffer the spells description. But what if you put it in between you and an enemy? With no other way around? Now you are using it as an obstacle, which means aside from the spell description, you must declare (at least to yourself as the DM) what level of cover it provides.
"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover."
Obstacle is not itself defined in 5e. So you can not make that claim. You can view it like that at your choice and leisure, because if you are the DM, you have final say in your campaign, but the term obstacle is not defined in 5e. You have physical cover and you have visual cover in the real world. Though the rules give you examples, it leaves what the DM considers an obstacle open ended. And while most people assume cover is something that blocks an attack, it never states that. It only increases your AC or out right prevents you from being targeted. Hitting the thing providing cover is an OPTIONAL RULE. We already know an increase in AC does not mean that it is a physical protection, since dexterity also increases your AC, so it just means you are more difficult to hit. Cover is there to use at your leisure to add more dimension, complexity, and realism to your environments.
I'm sorry, but I really do not understand why repeating what I said and spewing it out as a counter argument is somehow helping anyone understand rules.
"however that does not mean there will be obscurement." < "The correlations between them are up to the DM. If an area is heavily obscured by trees, you must ask, do those trees also provide cover? IF SO how much?"
"Similarly, you can have concealment without there being cover." <. "you must decide first, what is the obscurity level of the forest you are in, and then, what level of cover does it provide" (as in, uhh, it could be none perhaps?)
"Apples are fruit. This does not mean oranges are not also fruit." Ok wut????
I agree that fog is broken in 5e. I handle fog cloud as the same as darkness because gloom stalkers shooting arrows out of a fog cloud like some ninja is just cool.
You are right, I meant hidden, sorry.
I am not changing the playing field. The playing field is obscurity rules and when and how cover relates. [REDACTED]