That might be a bit too simplistic. For the purposes of targeting, you have disadvantage on an attack roll that passes through a heavily obscured space, and you do not have line of sight for anything with a "that you can see" stipulation. Heavily obscured is a bit tricky at first glance because it's a condition that applies to terrain, but I think most players try to interpret it as if it applies directly to a creature.
The description for heavily obscured says it "blocks vision completely". Using a grade school level of reading comprehension, we can then intuit that you cannot magically see around the blocked area.
The full text is "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." Normal language parsing is that the second sentence is explanatory text to clarify the first.
The real problem is that 5e is trying to treat darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage as the same thing, and they aren't, because (mundane) darkness is not opaque (you can see out of or through it just fine), while most other things that grant obscurement in 5e are probably opaque.
The description for heavily obscured says it "blocks vision completely". Using a grade school level of reading comprehension, we can then intuit that you cannot magically see around the blocked area.
The full text is "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." Normal language parsing is that the second sentence is explanatory text to clarify the first.
The real problem is that 5e is trying to treat darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage as the same thing, and they aren't, because (mundane) darkness is not opaque (you can see out of or through it just fine), while most other things that grant obscurement in 5e are probably opaque.
That is certainly one interpretation. On the other hand, the two sentences could be read as separate especially since the rules are poorly written to start with.
My personal take is that the original text was being misinterpreted such that creatures inside the heavily obscured area were blinded but that creatures outside were not so they tried to fix that misunderstanding and ended up with the current messed up text.
Here is the original PHB text.
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition."
In this case, using the method of interpretation that you want to apply to the current text then the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely BUT the clarification seems to indicate that creatures INSIDE the area are effectively blinded but it doesn't say anything about creatures outside. This could be interpreted to mean that creatures inside the heavily obscured area are blinded but that creatures outside the area can see into it. However, this version is quite clear that the a heavily obscured area is intended to block vision entirely.
So - how do they decide to change this so that it becomes clear that creatures inside the area are effectively blinded but that creatures outside trying to look at something in a heavily obscured area are also blinded? They change the text to the following:
"A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."
However, this version then has an issue that a creature looking OUT of the heavily obscured area can see something outside the area because it is not obscured by the heavily obscured area.
So then they try the current version (there may have been other errata versions in between).
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Which I think is an attempt to split the first sentence from the second by making clear that something outside trying to look in is blinded while something inside can't see out because the heavily obscured region blocks vision entirely.
The other reason I think that is the intent is the example of opaque fog as a heavily obscured area. OPAQUE means literally "not able to be seen through; not transparent." So saying that opaque fog blocks vision entirely is just a statement of fact by definition of what opaque fog IS. Including darkness and dense foliage with opaque fog emphasizes that these all share the same characteristic of being opaque and block vision entirely.
The second sentence of the current version of the errata is an attempt to make it clear that creatures OUTSIDE the heavily obscured area are ALSO affected by the heavily obscured area even though they are not in the area and that they are effectively blinded when trying to see something within the area.
So taken in the context of the stream of errata for this rule AND the fact that they only wanted to change one sentence so that the type setting of the PHB didn't change much - they made the minimum change to try and clarify the situation but end up with interpretations like you presented that ignore the clear statement in the first sentence that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely in favor of an interpretation that the second sentence is some sort of qualifier on the first rather than an addendum to it.
Bottom line, RAW is not clear enough to state that only one interpretation is either correct or RAI in this case. In my opinion, the first sentence has to mean that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely since if they did not want it to block vision for creatures inside the area but continue to block it for creatures outside they could have simply left in the first errata revision rather than changing it again.
Bottom line, RAW is not clear enough to state that only one interpretation is either correct or RAI in this case. In my opinion, the first sentence has to mean that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely since if they did not want it to block vision for creatures inside the area but continue to block it for creatures outside they could have simply left in the first errata revision rather than changing it again.
I assume the original intent is that it works in the way vision actually works, which means an opaque object blocks line of sight (preventing vision into, out of, or through it), and mundane darkness blocks vision into the area (but not out of or through). The problem is that there's no way to actually state that without changing their terminology.
Honestly, while the rules aren't a perfect reflection of seeing something backlit in darkness, they're not too far off. If you're out in deep darkness, looking towards a source of light, and you then try to look at something between yourself and the source of light, you're gonna have a hard time seeing much of anything, since your eyes will have adjusted to the light. And, for practical purposes like combat, this would be a very edge case scenario.
Honestly, while the rules aren't a perfect reflection of seeing something backlit in darkness, they're not too far off. If you're out in deep darkness, looking towards a source of light, and you then try to look at something between yourself and the source of light, you're gonna have a hard time seeing much of anything, since your eyes will have adjusted to the light. And, for practical purposes like combat, this would be a very edge case scenario.
If you're in deep darkness, you can see an object in a lit area just fine. You can't see another object in the darkness, but I didn't say you could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That might be a bit too simplistic. For the purposes of targeting, you have disadvantage on an attack roll that passes through a heavily obscured space, and you do not have line of sight for anything with a "that you can see" stipulation. Heavily obscured is a bit tricky at first glance because it's a condition that applies to terrain, but I think most players try to interpret it as if it applies directly to a creature.
The full text is "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." Normal language parsing is that the second sentence is explanatory text to clarify the first.
The real problem is that 5e is trying to treat darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage as the same thing, and they aren't, because (mundane) darkness is not opaque (you can see out of or through it just fine), while most other things that grant obscurement in 5e are probably opaque.
That is certainly one interpretation. On the other hand, the two sentences could be read as separate especially since the rules are poorly written to start with.
My personal take is that the original text was being misinterpreted such that creatures inside the heavily obscured area were blinded but that creatures outside were not so they tried to fix that misunderstanding and ended up with the current messed up text.
Here is the original PHB text.
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition."
In this case, using the method of interpretation that you want to apply to the current text then the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely BUT the clarification seems to indicate that creatures INSIDE the area are effectively blinded but it doesn't say anything about creatures outside. This could be interpreted to mean that creatures inside the heavily obscured area are blinded but that creatures outside the area can see into it. However, this version is quite clear that the a heavily obscured area is intended to block vision entirely.
So - how do they decide to change this so that it becomes clear that creatures inside the area are effectively blinded but that creatures outside trying to look at something in a heavily obscured area are also blinded? They change the text to the following:
"A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."
However, this version then has an issue that a creature looking OUT of the heavily obscured area can see something outside the area because it is not obscured by the heavily obscured area.
So then they try the current version (there may have been other errata versions in between).
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Which I think is an attempt to split the first sentence from the second by making clear that something outside trying to look in is blinded while something inside can't see out because the heavily obscured region blocks vision entirely.
The other reason I think that is the intent is the example of opaque fog as a heavily obscured area. OPAQUE means literally "not able to be seen through; not transparent." So saying that opaque fog blocks vision entirely is just a statement of fact by definition of what opaque fog IS. Including darkness and dense foliage with opaque fog emphasizes that these all share the same characteristic of being opaque and block vision entirely.
The second sentence of the current version of the errata is an attempt to make it clear that creatures OUTSIDE the heavily obscured area are ALSO affected by the heavily obscured area even though they are not in the area and that they are effectively blinded when trying to see something within the area.
So taken in the context of the stream of errata for this rule AND the fact that they only wanted to change one sentence so that the type setting of the PHB didn't change much - they made the minimum change to try and clarify the situation but end up with interpretations like you presented that ignore the clear statement in the first sentence that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely in favor of an interpretation that the second sentence is some sort of qualifier on the first rather than an addendum to it.
Bottom line, RAW is not clear enough to state that only one interpretation is either correct or RAI in this case. In my opinion, the first sentence has to mean that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely since if they did not want it to block vision for creatures inside the area but continue to block it for creatures outside they could have simply left in the first errata revision rather than changing it again.
I assume the original intent is that it works in the way vision actually works, which means an opaque object blocks line of sight (preventing vision into, out of, or through it), and mundane darkness blocks vision into the area (but not out of or through). The problem is that there's no way to actually state that without changing their terminology.
Honestly, while the rules aren't a perfect reflection of seeing something backlit in darkness, they're not too far off. If you're out in deep darkness, looking towards a source of light, and you then try to look at something between yourself and the source of light, you're gonna have a hard time seeing much of anything, since your eyes will have adjusted to the light. And, for practical purposes like combat, this would be a very edge case scenario.
If you're in deep darkness, you can see an object in a lit area just fine. You can't see another object in the darkness, but I didn't say you could.