Nope, it's easier. You have disadvantage because you're 500 ft away. You create magical darkness, fog cloud, etc. Now you can't see the target, so you have disadvantage. But the target can't see you so you have advantage. You have 2 counts of disadvantage and 1 count of advantage. Since any amount of advantage cancels out any amount of disadvantage, you now attack without advantage or disadvantage. It's easier to attack that target 500 ft away with your longbow now that you can't see what you're shooting at and it can't see you.
It's easier but not for the reason you said "Yeah, but in my example, a ranged attack is easier if the attacker can't see the target, which is not ok."
In your example the ranged attack is easier if the target can't see the attacker and elaborated in details why. Wether the attacker can see or not doesn't make it easier, it's disadvantage anyway. On the other hand, attacking a target that can't see you usually makes thing easier or not as worse. Which takes me back to what i originally said;
"A ranged attack with a weapon at long range is easier if the target can't see you than if it can, i think it's okay."
up2ng Your interpretation fails to account for the fact that an heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely first and foremost. According to you, you're only unable to see inside but not beyond. If the area is too opaque to see through it, how can it not be to see beyond? It is and you know why? Because it block vision entirely meaning you don't have line of sight to anything past it.
Wait, are you saying that if you are in the center of magical darkness, you can see something outside of it even if you don't have some way to overcome the magical darkness?
Are you also saying that if you are on one side of the magical darkness, you can see something on the other side of the magical darkness?
RAW, yes. That's almost certainly not how the rules are intended, but because the Vision and Light rules only specify that "a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in <a heavily obscured> area," it appears that darkness and other heavy obscurements only obscure things inside their actual radius. By this reading they would have no effect on creatures inside trying to see out.
I think there's probably another coherent reading that works more along the lines of how literally anyone would expect obscurement to work, but I'm still figuring out how to explain it.
up2ng Your interpretation fails to account for the fact that an heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely first and foremost. According to you, you're only unable to see inside but not beyond. If the area is too opaque to see through it, how can it not be to see beyond? It is and you know why? Because it block vision entirely meaning you don't have line of sight to anything past it.
This is a serious problem with the way 5e's rules are written in faux-naturalistic language. A lot of people, myself included, are going to take the phrase "a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely" not as literal rules text but merely as an introductory phrase to the following sentence, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." The latter is obviously rules text because it references Keywords like "creature" and "blinded condition." The former is unclear, because "vision" is never defined as a game term, so "blocks vision entirely" is hard to parse as a rule. But also, sometimes rules will actually hinge on undefined language, like how Blinded says the creature "automatically fails any ability check that requires sight". Which ability checks require sight? The rules don't specify.
This might seem pedantic but I really can't stress enough how this mix of keywording, naturalistic language, hard rules, and DM fiat make the 5e rules uniquely difficult to understand.
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
No?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Also, if your vision is blocked entirely and you can't see an object, creature or point in space for example, it may then also prevent effects requiring a target you can see and Unseen Attackers and Targets may apply to attacks.
Wait, are you saying that if you are in the center of magical darkness, you can see something outside of it even if you don't have some way to overcome the magical darkness?
Are you also saying that if you are on one side of the magical darkness, you can see something on the other side of the magical darkness?
Yes, that's correct. The magical darkness created by the level 2 darkness spell simply creates a heavily obscured area, and we just follow the rule for heavily obscured areas. A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area.
Second, while it is true that you cannot bring light into the sphere to be able to see things within the sphere, it is very much not true that you cannot see light that is outside of the sphere. You can see that light just fine -- there is no physical barrier blocking your line of sight to that light source.
Yes, there is a barrier: the darkness that emanates from the point you choose and affects the Area of Effect. Natural darkness is the absence of light, but in this case, darkness is created and spread magically. It's not just about turning off the light in a room, as in the examples you're suggesting in your posts.
No, that's incorrect. There is no barrier. In the case of foliage or fog there is a physical barrier obstructing your line of sight, but no such barrier exists with darkness. Darkness, including the magical darkness created by the level 2 Darkness spell, simply creates a heavily obscured area. According to the rules, a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. In the case of the Darkness spell, this also applies to creatures who have darkvision.
I promise, when you look up into a clear night sky, you CAN see the stars. This is also true when you are standing within this magical darkness.
With a source of light (i.e. a candle), you create light to avoid normal or natural darkess. If you extinguish the candle, then you have normal darkness.
With the darkness spell, you are creating darkness from a point, destroying light in the process (sometimes, even if the light is magical). Light cannot pass trough in either direction, so as I mentioned in my previous post, you cannot get light from outside the sphere.
First of all, why would you want to "avoid darkness" in this game?
Even in Baldur's Gate 3 which has a lot of similarities to 5e, one of the most common hints that pops up reads: "Standing in dark areas obscures you, making it harder for enemies to hit you or spot you when you are hiding.
There are entire tropes about certain types of people or monsters that "lurk in the shadows". These are predators, not prey.
With the darkness spell, for the cost of a level 2 spell slot you can create an area like this for yourself in which you can hide. Nearly half of this spell's text describes this possibility of being able to carry this AoE around with you. It's a small area, but it's enough to be able to hide within, providing more than enough squares such that an enemy won't easily be able to guess your square.
There's nothing in the darkness spell that says that light cannot pass through it. Only that light cannot illuminate the area. There's also nothing that would imply that light and illuminated areas outside of the AoE is affected at all. It's still there and you can still see it since you are not attempting to look at anything in the area when you are doing so.
Again, remember that a heavily obscured area affects the area, not a creature. The area is obscured from view. A heavily obscured area does NOT actually blind a creature. This is why the very specific and intentional wording is used that the creature is "effectively" blinded when (and only when) trying to see something in that area. If you try to see something in the heavily obscured area, you can't do it -- the area is obscured from view. If you are trying to see something in a different area, you are NOT blinded at all. The creature is not actually blinded -- this is a description about the area.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
These are treated the same way in terms of the rules for heavily obscured areas.
You're reading the rules in a strange way.
I disagree. I'm actually just reading the rules as they are written.
up2ng Your interpretation fails to account for the fact that an heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely first and foremost. According to you, you're only unable to see inside but not beyond. If the area is too opaque to see through it, how can it not be to see beyond? It is and you know why? Because it block vision entirely meaning you don't have line of sight to anything past it.
The rule in question is this:
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.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
Although the rule for a heavily obscured area is broken up into two sentences, it's one paragraph and one idea or concept. The heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It's the area itself that is obscured from view. This is a separate concept from blocking line of sight, which could impact your ability to see all sorts of things that are not confined to an area. In many cases, such as with foliage or fog it is reasonable to make a ruling that both of these concepts are in play since there is physical material in the environment that is actually blocking your line of sight.
Again, consider the example where you are in a room, and you turn out the lights and are somehow able to make it totally dark in that room. The room has walls, a floor and ceiling and various pieces of furniture. You cannot see any of those things because the room is totally dark. But your line of sight DOES extend all the way to the walls or to the furniture. You are not actually wearing a blindfold, you can actually look at these things with your eyes -- there's nothing in the way. It's just that you can't actually see them because they are obscured from your view.
Now, this doesn't really exist in the real world, but in the game world there is an actual boundary between a light source and the surrounding darkness -- or, in this case, between an area of darkness and the surrounding light. This is why it's hard for a lot of people to picture what's happening with these rules. When there is an area of darkness that is surrounded by well-lit space, you only cannot see things in the area of darkness. There's no reason why you cannot see things that are well lit.
This might seem pedantic but I really can't stress enough how this mix of keywording, naturalistic language, hard rules, and DM fiat make the 5e rules uniquely difficult to understand.
I totally agree with this. There are a lot of interviews with developers where they talk about the desire to remain concise when writing the rules, otherwise the books could explode into thousands of pages that no one would want to read. They admit that this design comes with a trade-off where many of the rules are just not well written or are ambiguous which could have been cleaned up with just a bit more text.
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
Also, if your vision is blocked entirely and you can't see an object, creature or point in space for example, it may then also prevent effects requiring a target you can see and Unseen Attackers and Targets may apply to attacks.
That's correct. If that object, creature or point in space is in the heavily obscured area, then you cannot see it, and this would impact the targeting requirement for certain spells and the rules for Unseen Targets would apply to attacks made against creatures who are in the area.
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
No?
Yeah, I think that's probably relevant. Where did you find this? I searched "line of sight" in the top bar earlier and just got a bunch of spell listings.
1) This argument about magical darkness vs regular darkness vs seeing through it has happened several times before. Those on the "vanta" black side in which creatures can see out of magical darkness but not into it tend to completely ignore various phrases in the rules like:
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
The rule says that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely. A creature can't see through something that blocks vision entirely.
P.S. The rules say nothing about blocking vision entirely "but only when trying to see something in that area". That qualification to the vision rules is a house rule.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
Here is the issue. Seeing OUT of normal darkness (heavly obscured) to a lit area makes total sense. This is what everyone expects. As written, if natural darkness was considered heavily obscured - which is exactly what the rules state - then natural darkness would block vision and you couldn't see something in a lit area outside it.
However, the rules state "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." It groups darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage together which makes no sense from a reality point of view. Those who consider darkness as something you can see out of through other heavily obscured areas are forced to treat fog and dense foliage exactly the same.
Using that interpretation in which a heavily obscured area does not block vision entirely but focusing only on the second sentence leads to the following problems.
- A creature standing in a field in an area of darkness can see out of the darkness and creatures outside the heavily obscured area can see through it but are blinded to something inside it
Similarly
- A creature in middle of a jungle (dense foliage) can see out of the foliage to a clearing 200' away while a creature in the clearing (outside the heavily obscured) area can see through hundreds of feet of jungle to a creature in another clearing but are blinded to creatures inside it.
- A creature in middle of 500' of fog (opaque fog) can see out of the fog to a creature standing 550' away while a creature standing outside the fog (outside the heavily obscured area) area can see through 1000' of fog to a creature on the other side but are blinded to creatures in the fog.
The problem is that using one interpretation for natural darkness where you can see through it but not into it runs into completely non-sensical rulings in the other cases (since it uses EXACTLY the same rules as dense foliage and opaque fog).
The end result is that the DM has to house rule some aspect of the vision rules in order to get them to function as expected for natural darkness, magical darkness, dense foliage and opaque fog at the same time. Personally, I just house rule natural darkness to behave in the way everyone expects rather than trying to force RAW to fit one definition since RAW as written is broken in this case.
3) As far as RAW goes, darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage blocks vision entirely - period - and this results in natural darkness not behaving as one would expect. That is what RAW states, so personally I house rule natural darkness to deal with the issue. Other DMs can choose to do as they wish in terms of the rules but anyone insisting that there is only ONE interpretation of RAW for vision rules in the 2014 PHB is simply incorrect since the rules as written just don't properly emulate natural darkness, dense foliage and opaque fog at the same time.
P.S. If folks want to argue about this further rather than "agreeing to disagree" ... please feel free to dig up the old threads on the topic, it really isn't worth adding to this thread which was only asking about advantage and disadvantage cancelling.
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
No?
Yeah, I think that's probably relevant. Where did you find this? I searched "line of sight" in the top bar earlier and just got a bunch of spell listings.
DMG Chapter 8
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Ok, Up2ng, this is thoroughly amusing because my brain literally can't process what a creature sees based on how you're saying this works. Here's an amazing work of art I drew to describe people A, B, and C. B cast darkness on himself. A is looking at person C, who has a hat to distinguish him from C (he also thinks it makes him look sophisticated). Which of the above options does person A see when he looks at person C based on how you think magical darkness works? If there's a third option, please draw it for me, because I can't think of any other way this could work.
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.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
Although the rule for a heavily obscured area is broken up into two sentences, it's one paragraph and one idea or concept. The heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It's the area itself that is obscured from view.
No that is not what the rules say, you are mixing up sentences. The first sentence says "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely." Period. Your bolded part is in the second sentence and was added in a PHB Errata in 2018 as before it caused creature to be blinded without specifing viewing where.
Vision and Light (p. 183). The second sentence of the third paragraph has been changed to “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.”
The area itself is not obscured from view at all, it's because you see it that affect how you see. If there's dense fog or heavy snow, you can see it. Likewise, if there's a Fog Cloud or area of darkness you can see it. What the heavily obscured area does is it block vision entirely. And second fold, it cause creature to effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Aiside, one of the example cited is opaque fog, opaque means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
I would also point out the ways that the rules language in Darkness is different than that in Hunger of Hadar. Both spells create areas of magical darkness, but Hunger of Hadar specifies that creatures in the area suffer from the Blinded condition. Why would this be necessary if darkness already inflicts the Blinded condition on creatures inside it? It's possible they did wrote it this way just to prevent Warlocks with Devil Sight from seeing out, but personally I don't find that explanation compelling.
The spell Hunger of Hadar is a unique effect that create a sphere of blackness and never refer to the word darkness anywhere. It has no heavily obscured area RAW.
The spell Hunger of Hadar is a unique effect that create a sphere of blackness and never refer to the word darkness anywhere. It has no heavily obscured area RAW.
Does it have to use the actual word "darkness" for the area to be darkness? You don't feel the clause "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area," necessarily implies the area is in darkness?
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
The rule says that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely. A creature can't see through something that blocks vision entirely.
P.S. The rules say nothing about blocking vision entirely "but only when trying to see something in that area". That qualification to the vision rules is a house rule.
This is false. Amazingly, you've quoted the rule correctly but then ignored the text. The area itself blocks vision entirely when trying to look around within the area. That's exactly what the rule says -- you've just quoted it. That's why all creatures (located outside OR inside the area) are "effectively" blinded when trying to see something in that area, but NOT otherwise. The creature is not actually blinded. It's just that his vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area. This is to distinguish from the previous rule for lightly obscured areas, which do NOT block vision entirely when looking around within that area -- those areas somewhat block your vision, but not entirely. You can still see things in those areas, but not very well -- you'd have disadvantage when searching for things. If you try to search for something in a heavily obscured area using your sight, you automatically fail as per the blinded Condition.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
Here is the issue. Seeing OUT of normal darkness (heavly obscured) to a lit area makes total sense. This is what everyone expects. As written, if natural darkness was considered heavily obscured - which is exactly what the rules state - then natural darkness would block vision and you couldn't see something in a lit area outside it.
The reason why you think that this is broken is because you are not interpreting the rule correctly. If your interpretation does not allow you to look up into a clear night sky and see the stars, then you are probably not interpreting the rule correctly. This is not a problem with the rule itself. The problem is that a lot of people are not reading it and then interpreting what it says correctly.
Of course you can see out of normal darkness. Normal darkness in the game is quite similar to how it is in real life. The main difference is that there is a simplification where a light source has a specific radius which creates a hard and fast boundary between an area with some light and an area with no light -- it doesn't really work that way in reality so this can cause some headaches when trying to envision what is actually happening in the game.
But you can definitely see out of normal darkness into areas that are well lit. The well-lit areas are unaffected. Those areas do not obscure your vision when trying to see something in those areas.
A heavily obscured area affects that area. Your vision is blocked when trying to see something in that area. That's it. This is a totally separate concept from line of sight, whose definition was posted earlier by @wysperra.
However, the rules state "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." It groups darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage together which makes no sense from a reality point of view. Those who consider darkness as something you can see out of through other heavily obscured areas are forced to treat fog and dense foliage exactly the same.
No, these three things block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It makes perfect sense for those three things to be grouped together in that context. This has nothing to do with line of sight, which is defined separately in the rules. This is talking about an area that is obscured from view, plain and simple.
As an example, suppose I laid a bunch of coins flat on the floor of my room. Then, I spread out a large blanket on top of these coins, covering the entire floor. Now, I ask you if you can see any of those coins. The answer is no. This is because the blanket is obscuring that area from your view. It blocks your vision entirely when trying to see those coins. You are effectively blinded when trying to see the coins under the blanket and would automatically fail any attempt to search for those coins using only your sight.
Now, if you were under the blanket and you tried to see out into the rest of the room, you would struggle. That's NOT because the blanket is heavily obscuring the area, it's because the blanket itself is actually interrupting your line of sight, which is a separate concept. This would be the case for foliage and fog, but not for darkness.
If instead of using a blanket, I could magically create a small cube of total darkness right on top of the coins, you wouldn't be able to see the coins. But, if you were inside this cube of darkness, of course you would be able to see out into the room -- why wouldn't you? Nothing is actually interrupting your line of sight. But your vision of what is inside that cube of darkness would be blocked entirely. It's just hard to visualize this in reality because we cannot create such boundaries between a well-lit room and a cube of darkness within it -- that requires magic and/or simplified lighting physics.
- A creature standing in a field in an area of darkness can see out of the darkness and creatures outside the heavily obscured area can see through it but are blinded to something inside it
Yes, this is exactly correct, and somewhat mirrors reality. It's not a "problem" at all.
Suppose a person is walking down a street at night in 19th century London. The street itself is almost totally dark, but every 1/10 of a mile or so there's a lantern in a lamp post which illuminates a small area of the street. If you are in the well-lit area near one lamp post, you could look down the street and see the area under the next lamp post pretty well, but the area in-between would appear very dark and you would have trouble see objects in that area at all. A person that is in the darkness between the two lamp posts could look in one direction or the other and see the area under both lamp posts quite well, but he would have to watch his step while walking because it's almost totally dark where he is walking. The difference here is that there is at least some gradient and some small amount of ambient light, even if it's just moonlight. But, in the game there is not. It's totally dark between the well-lit areas in the game and you cannot see anything in those dark areas.
- A creature in middle of a jungle (dense foliage) can see out of the foliage to a clearing 200' away while a creature in the clearing (outside the heavily obscured) area can see through hundreds of feet of jungle to a creature in another clearing but are blinded to creatures inside it.
- A creature in middle of 500' of fog (opaque fog) can see out of the fog to a creature standing 550' away while a creature standing outside the fog (outside the heavily obscured area) area can see through 1000' of fog to a creature on the other side but are blinded to creatures in the fog.
The problem is that using one interpretation for natural darkness where you can see through it but not into it runs into completely non-sensical rulings in the other cases (since it uses EXACTLY the same rules as dense foliage and opaque fog).
No, this is not correct at all. In the case of foliage and fog there is a physical obstruction in the environment that actually blocks your line of sight. This is a totally separate concept from the concept of a heavily obscured area and has separate rules in the game for dealing with that.
The reason why you cannot see out of an area of dense foliage has nothing to do with the fact that the dense foliage creates a heavily obscured area -- it's because the foliage itself interrupts your line of sight. But it also creates a heavily obscured area so that you cannot see things in the area.
So, in terms of creating a heavily obscured area, darkness has the same effect as dense foliage and thick fog. But for the purposes of line of sight these behave differently.
3) As far as RAW goes, darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage blocks vision entirely - period - and this results in natural darkness not behaving as one would expect.
This is incorrect. You've quoted the rule yourself. These environments block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It's a rule that affects an area, not a creature and not anything that is outside of the defined area.
Ok, Up2ng, this is thoroughly amusing because my brain literally can't process what a creature sees based on how you're saying this works. Here's an amazing work of art I drew to describe people A, B, and C. B cast darkness on himself. A is looking at person C, who has a hat to distinguish him from C (he also thinks it makes him look sophisticated). Which of the above options does person A see when he looks at person C based on how you think magical darkness works? If there's a third option, please draw it for me, because I can't think of any other way this could work.
Option 2 is correct. It's hard for us to visualize because we'll never see a small area of nighttime somewhere in front of us in the middle of the day. But it would work a lot like my streetlamp example above -- you can see within your own well-lit space, and you can see the next well-lit space, but you cannot see what's in-between.
No that is not what the rules say, you are mixing up sentences. The first sentence says "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely." Period. Your bolded part is in the second sentence and was added in a PHB Errata in 2018 as before it caused creature to be blinded without specifing viewing where.
No, that's not correct. The two sentences go together to create the concept of the heavily obscured area. It's the area that is obscured. You cannot see things in that area.
The area itself is not obscured from view at all, it's because you see it that affect how you see.
Wait . . . what??? It's in the name! It's a heavily obscured area! What do you mean the area is not obscured? That is just dead wrong.
A heavily obscured area is an area that is blocked entirely from view. You simply cannot see anything in that area. That's because there is fog in that area or dense foliage in that area or the area is too dark to see anything within it. Honestly this is becoming pretty baffling -- the rule has been quoted and explained a few times now.
This is still relevant to the original question because the manner in which a DM interprets the rules for darkness will impact whether or not advantage or disadvantage is applied to various situations.
Ok, so in your view, a creature sees no darkness/blackness whatsoever, the area just no longer exists? You literally just make a bubble of invisibility, like a massively powerful invisibility spell? I believe this effectively is a greater invisibility spell on a group of creatures (since attacking doesn't break it) for the low low price of a 2nd level spell slot?
Ok, so in your view, a creature sees no darkness/blackness whatsoever, the area just no longer exists? You literally just make a bubble of invisibility, like a massively powerful invisibility spell? I believe this effectively is a greater invisibility spell on a group of creatures (since attacking doesn't break it) for the low low price of a 2nd level spell slot?
No, I think you would see that that area is dark. You just can't see anything within that dark area. Like my street lamp example. You can see what's nearby the next street lamp pretty clearly -- there might be a bench and a trash can and even cracks in the sidewalk. But, between your street lamp and the next street lamp there is an area of darkness within which you cannot see such objects because it's too dark within that area. A mugger could be lurking in the shadows there, waiting to attack you when you try to walk from one street lamp to the next and you wouldn't be able to see him. Of course, once you are actually walking in that dark area, he wouldn't be able to see you either.
In some ways there might be some similarities to invisibility in the sense that creatures cannot see you when you are standing in darkness. It's definitely a buff. The spell description itself actually goes through a lot of trouble to suggest that you can cast this spell onto an object that you are holding to be able to carry this darkness around with you and to be able to turn it on and off at will (perhaps with an item interaction).
But there are plenty of differences. You have to stay within this relatively small area to remain unseen. A creature would notice this area of darkness, and might perceive the darkness itself to be a threat, especially if it were moving around, so you're less likely to surprise an enemy in that situation, even if you are Hidden and are sneaking with a good stealth check. Creatures with darkvision can see you in regular darkness (but not if you are within the magical darkness that's created by the spell). You also cannot see anything within the area, so it's less useful for a melee encounter.
Also, the area is pretty small, so an enemy could narrow down approximately where you are located and could hit you with an AoE spell such as Fireball.
Oh, I misunderstood the drawing then. You would see that the area in front of you is dark, but you can see the person standing in a well-lit area further down the street, so I guess it's Option 3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's easier but not for the reason you said "Yeah, but in my example, a ranged attack is easier if the attacker can't see the target, which is not ok."
In your example the ranged attack is easier if the target can't see the attacker and elaborated in details why. Wether the attacker can see or not doesn't make it easier, it's disadvantage anyway. On the other hand, attacking a target that can't see you usually makes thing easier or not as worse. Which takes me back to what i originally said;
"A ranged attack with a weapon at long range is easier if the target can't see you than if it can, i think it's okay."
up2ng Your interpretation fails to account for the fact that an heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely first and foremost. According to you, you're only unable to see inside but not beyond. If the area is too opaque to see through it, how can it not be to see beyond? It is and you know why? Because it block vision entirely meaning you don't have line of sight to anything past it.
RAW, yes. That's almost certainly not how the rules are intended, but because the Vision and Light rules only specify that "a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in <a heavily obscured> area," it appears that darkness and other heavy obscurements only obscure things inside their actual radius. By this reading they would have no effect on creatures inside trying to see out.
I think there's probably another coherent reading that works more along the lines of how literally anyone would expect obscurement to work, but I'm still figuring out how to explain it.
This is a serious problem with the way 5e's rules are written in faux-naturalistic language. A lot of people, myself included, are going to take the phrase "a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely" not as literal rules text but merely as an introductory phrase to the following sentence, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." The latter is obviously rules text because it references Keywords like "creature" and "blinded condition." The former is unclear, because "vision" is never defined as a game term, so "blocks vision entirely" is hard to parse as a rule. But also, sometimes rules will actually hinge on undefined language, like how Blinded says the creature "automatically fails any ability check that requires sight". Which ability checks require sight? The rules don't specify.
This might seem pedantic but I really can't stress enough how this mix of keywording, naturalistic language, hard rules, and DM fiat make the 5e rules uniquely difficult to understand.
Line of Sight
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight.
No?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Also, if your vision is blocked entirely and you can't see an object, creature or point in space for example, it may then also prevent effects requiring a target you can see and Unseen Attackers and Targets may apply to attacks.
Yes, that's correct. The magical darkness created by the level 2 darkness spell simply creates a heavily obscured area, and we just follow the rule for heavily obscured areas. A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area.
No, that's incorrect. There is no barrier. In the case of foliage or fog there is a physical barrier obstructing your line of sight, but no such barrier exists with darkness. Darkness, including the magical darkness created by the level 2 Darkness spell, simply creates a heavily obscured area. According to the rules, a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. In the case of the Darkness spell, this also applies to creatures who have darkvision.
I promise, when you look up into a clear night sky, you CAN see the stars. This is also true when you are standing within this magical darkness.
First of all, why would you want to "avoid darkness" in this game?
Even in Baldur's Gate 3 which has a lot of similarities to 5e, one of the most common hints that pops up reads: "Standing in dark areas obscures you, making it harder for enemies to hit you or spot you when you are hiding.
There are entire tropes about certain types of people or monsters that "lurk in the shadows". These are predators, not prey.
With the darkness spell, for the cost of a level 2 spell slot you can create an area like this for yourself in which you can hide. Nearly half of this spell's text describes this possibility of being able to carry this AoE around with you. It's a small area, but it's enough to be able to hide within, providing more than enough squares such that an enemy won't easily be able to guess your square.
There's nothing in the darkness spell that says that light cannot pass through it. Only that light cannot illuminate the area. There's also nothing that would imply that light and illuminated areas outside of the AoE is affected at all. It's still there and you can still see it since you are not attempting to look at anything in the area when you are doing so.
Again, remember that a heavily obscured area affects the area, not a creature. The area is obscured from view. A heavily obscured area does NOT actually blind a creature. This is why the very specific and intentional wording is used that the creature is "effectively" blinded when (and only when) trying to see something in that area. If you try to see something in the heavily obscured area, you can't do it -- the area is obscured from view. If you are trying to see something in a different area, you are NOT blinded at all. The creature is not actually blinded -- this is a description about the area.
I disagree. I'm actually just reading the rules as they are written.
The rule in question is this:
Although the rule for a heavily obscured area is broken up into two sentences, it's one paragraph and one idea or concept. The heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It's the area itself that is obscured from view. This is a separate concept from blocking line of sight, which could impact your ability to see all sorts of things that are not confined to an area. In many cases, such as with foliage or fog it is reasonable to make a ruling that both of these concepts are in play since there is physical material in the environment that is actually blocking your line of sight.
Again, consider the example where you are in a room, and you turn out the lights and are somehow able to make it totally dark in that room. The room has walls, a floor and ceiling and various pieces of furniture. You cannot see any of those things because the room is totally dark. But your line of sight DOES extend all the way to the walls or to the furniture. You are not actually wearing a blindfold, you can actually look at these things with your eyes -- there's nothing in the way. It's just that you can't actually see them because they are obscured from your view.
Now, this doesn't really exist in the real world, but in the game world there is an actual boundary between a light source and the surrounding darkness -- or, in this case, between an area of darkness and the surrounding light. This is why it's hard for a lot of people to picture what's happening with these rules. When there is an area of darkness that is surrounded by well-lit space, you only cannot see things in the area of darkness. There's no reason why you cannot see things that are well lit.
I totally agree with this. There are a lot of interviews with developers where they talk about the desire to remain concise when writing the rules, otherwise the books could explode into thousands of pages that no one would want to read. They admit that this design comes with a trade-off where many of the rules are just not well written or are ambiguous which could have been cleaned up with just a bit more text.
That's correct.
That's correct. If that object, creature or point in space is in the heavily obscured area, then you cannot see it, and this would impact the targeting requirement for certain spells and the rules for Unseen Targets would apply to attacks made against creatures who are in the area.
Yeah, I think that's probably relevant. Where did you find this? I searched "line of sight" in the top bar earlier and just got a bunch of spell listings.
Just a couple quick comments ...
1) This argument about magical darkness vs regular darkness vs seeing through it has happened several times before. Those on the "vanta" black side in which creatures can see out of magical darkness but not into it tend to completely ignore various phrases in the rules like:
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
The rule says that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely. A creature can't see through something that blocks vision entirely.
P.S. The rules say nothing about blocking vision entirely "but only when trying to see something in that area". That qualification to the vision rules is a house rule.
2) However, the problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with trying to fit the rules as specified to account for natural darkness. The problem is the rules that are broken and I am hoping the 2024 rules at least fix it.
Here is the issue. Seeing OUT of normal darkness (heavly obscured) to a lit area makes total sense. This is what everyone expects. As written, if natural darkness was considered heavily obscured - which is exactly what the rules state - then natural darkness would block vision and you couldn't see something in a lit area outside it.
However, the rules state "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." It groups darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage together which makes no sense from a reality point of view. Those who consider darkness as something you can see out of through other heavily obscured areas are forced to treat fog and dense foliage exactly the same.
Using that interpretation in which a heavily obscured area does not block vision entirely but focusing only on the second sentence leads to the following problems.
- A creature standing in a field in an area of darkness can see out of the darkness and creatures outside the heavily obscured area can see through it but are blinded to something inside it
Similarly
- A creature in middle of a jungle (dense foliage) can see out of the foliage to a clearing 200' away while a creature in the clearing (outside the heavily obscured) area can see through hundreds of feet of jungle to a creature in another clearing but are blinded to creatures inside it.
- A creature in middle of 500' of fog (opaque fog) can see out of the fog to a creature standing 550' away while a creature standing outside the fog (outside the heavily obscured area) area can see through 1000' of fog to a creature on the other side but are blinded to creatures in the fog.
The problem is that using one interpretation for natural darkness where you can see through it but not into it runs into completely non-sensical rulings in the other cases (since it uses EXACTLY the same rules as dense foliage and opaque fog).
The end result is that the DM has to house rule some aspect of the vision rules in order to get them to function as expected for natural darkness, magical darkness, dense foliage and opaque fog at the same time. Personally, I just house rule natural darkness to behave in the way everyone expects rather than trying to force RAW to fit one definition since RAW as written is broken in this case.
3) As far as RAW goes, darkness, opaque fog and dense foliage blocks vision entirely - period - and this results in natural darkness not behaving as one would expect. That is what RAW states, so personally I house rule natural darkness to deal with the issue. Other DMs can choose to do as they wish in terms of the rules but anyone insisting that there is only ONE interpretation of RAW for vision rules in the 2014 PHB is simply incorrect since the rules as written just don't properly emulate natural darkness, dense foliage and opaque fog at the same time.
P.S. If folks want to argue about this further rather than "agreeing to disagree" ... please feel free to dig up the old threads on the topic, it really isn't worth adding to this thread which was only asking about advantage and disadvantage cancelling.
DMG Chapter 8
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Ok, Up2ng, this is thoroughly amusing because my brain literally can't process what a creature sees based on how you're saying this works. Here's an amazing work of art I drew to describe people A, B, and C. B cast darkness on himself. A is looking at person C, who has a hat to distinguish him from C (he also thinks it makes him look sophisticated). Which of the above options does person A see when he looks at person C based on how you think magical darkness works? If there's a third option, please draw it for me, because I can't think of any other way this could work.
No that is not what the rules say, you are mixing up sentences. The first sentence says "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely." Period. Your bolded part is in the second sentence and was added in a PHB Errata in 2018 as before it caused creature to be blinded without specifing viewing where.
The area itself is not obscured from view at all, it's because you see it that affect how you see. If there's dense fog or heavy snow, you can see it. Likewise, if there's a Fog Cloud or area of darkness you can see it. What the heavily obscured area does is it block vision entirely. And second fold, it cause creature to effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Aiside, one of the example cited is opaque fog, opaque means "not able to be seen through; not transparent."
I would also point out the ways that the rules language in Darkness is different than that in Hunger of Hadar. Both spells create areas of magical darkness, but Hunger of Hadar specifies that creatures in the area suffer from the Blinded condition. Why would this be necessary if darkness already inflicts the Blinded condition on creatures inside it? It's possible they did wrote it this way just to prevent Warlocks with Devil Sight from seeing out, but personally I don't find that explanation compelling.
The spell Hunger of Hadar is a unique effect that create a sphere of blackness and never refer to the word darkness anywhere. It has no heavily obscured area RAW.
Does it have to use the actual word "darkness" for the area to be darkness? You don't feel the clause "no light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area," necessarily implies the area is in darkness?
This is false. Amazingly, you've quoted the rule correctly but then ignored the text. The area itself blocks vision entirely when trying to look around within the area. That's exactly what the rule says -- you've just quoted it. That's why all creatures (located outside OR inside the area) are "effectively" blinded when trying to see something in that area, but NOT otherwise. The creature is not actually blinded. It's just that his vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area. This is to distinguish from the previous rule for lightly obscured areas, which do NOT block vision entirely when looking around within that area -- those areas somewhat block your vision, but not entirely. You can still see things in those areas, but not very well -- you'd have disadvantage when searching for things. If you try to search for something in a heavily obscured area using your sight, you automatically fail as per the blinded Condition.
The reason why you think that this is broken is because you are not interpreting the rule correctly. If your interpretation does not allow you to look up into a clear night sky and see the stars, then you are probably not interpreting the rule correctly. This is not a problem with the rule itself. The problem is that a lot of people are not reading it and then interpreting what it says correctly.
Of course you can see out of normal darkness. Normal darkness in the game is quite similar to how it is in real life. The main difference is that there is a simplification where a light source has a specific radius which creates a hard and fast boundary between an area with some light and an area with no light -- it doesn't really work that way in reality so this can cause some headaches when trying to envision what is actually happening in the game.
But you can definitely see out of normal darkness into areas that are well lit. The well-lit areas are unaffected. Those areas do not obscure your vision when trying to see something in those areas.
A heavily obscured area affects that area. Your vision is blocked when trying to see something in that area. That's it. This is a totally separate concept from line of sight, whose definition was posted earlier by @wysperra.
No, these three things block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It makes perfect sense for those three things to be grouped together in that context. This has nothing to do with line of sight, which is defined separately in the rules. This is talking about an area that is obscured from view, plain and simple.
As an example, suppose I laid a bunch of coins flat on the floor of my room. Then, I spread out a large blanket on top of these coins, covering the entire floor. Now, I ask you if you can see any of those coins. The answer is no. This is because the blanket is obscuring that area from your view. It blocks your vision entirely when trying to see those coins. You are effectively blinded when trying to see the coins under the blanket and would automatically fail any attempt to search for those coins using only your sight.
Now, if you were under the blanket and you tried to see out into the rest of the room, you would struggle. That's NOT because the blanket is heavily obscuring the area, it's because the blanket itself is actually interrupting your line of sight, which is a separate concept. This would be the case for foliage and fog, but not for darkness.
If instead of using a blanket, I could magically create a small cube of total darkness right on top of the coins, you wouldn't be able to see the coins. But, if you were inside this cube of darkness, of course you would be able to see out into the room -- why wouldn't you? Nothing is actually interrupting your line of sight. But your vision of what is inside that cube of darkness would be blocked entirely. It's just hard to visualize this in reality because we cannot create such boundaries between a well-lit room and a cube of darkness within it -- that requires magic and/or simplified lighting physics.
Yes, this is exactly correct, and somewhat mirrors reality. It's not a "problem" at all.
Suppose a person is walking down a street at night in 19th century London. The street itself is almost totally dark, but every 1/10 of a mile or so there's a lantern in a lamp post which illuminates a small area of the street. If you are in the well-lit area near one lamp post, you could look down the street and see the area under the next lamp post pretty well, but the area in-between would appear very dark and you would have trouble see objects in that area at all. A person that is in the darkness between the two lamp posts could look in one direction or the other and see the area under both lamp posts quite well, but he would have to watch his step while walking because it's almost totally dark where he is walking. The difference here is that there is at least some gradient and some small amount of ambient light, even if it's just moonlight. But, in the game there is not. It's totally dark between the well-lit areas in the game and you cannot see anything in those dark areas.
No, this is not correct at all. In the case of foliage and fog there is a physical obstruction in the environment that actually blocks your line of sight. This is a totally separate concept from the concept of a heavily obscured area and has separate rules in the game for dealing with that.
The reason why you cannot see out of an area of dense foliage has nothing to do with the fact that the dense foliage creates a heavily obscured area -- it's because the foliage itself interrupts your line of sight. But it also creates a heavily obscured area so that you cannot see things in the area.
So, in terms of creating a heavily obscured area, darkness has the same effect as dense foliage and thick fog. But for the purposes of line of sight these behave differently.
This is incorrect. You've quoted the rule yourself. These environments block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area. It's a rule that affects an area, not a creature and not anything that is outside of the defined area.
Option 2 is correct. It's hard for us to visualize because we'll never see a small area of nighttime somewhere in front of us in the middle of the day. But it would work a lot like my streetlamp example above -- you can see within your own well-lit space, and you can see the next well-lit space, but you cannot see what's in-between.
No, that's not correct. The two sentences go together to create the concept of the heavily obscured area. It's the area that is obscured. You cannot see things in that area.
Wait . . . what??? It's in the name! It's a heavily obscured area! What do you mean the area is not obscured? That is just dead wrong.
A heavily obscured area is an area that is blocked entirely from view. You simply cannot see anything in that area. That's because there is fog in that area or dense foliage in that area or the area is too dark to see anything within it. Honestly this is becoming pretty baffling -- the rule has been quoted and explained a few times now.
This is still relevant to the original question because the manner in which a DM interprets the rules for darkness will impact whether or not advantage or disadvantage is applied to various situations.
Ok, so in your view, a creature sees no darkness/blackness whatsoever, the area just no longer exists? You literally just make a bubble of invisibility, like a massively powerful invisibility spell? I believe this effectively is a greater invisibility spell on a group of creatures (since attacking doesn't break it) for the low low price of a 2nd level spell slot?
No, I think you would see that that area is dark. You just can't see anything within that dark area. Like my street lamp example. You can see what's nearby the next street lamp pretty clearly -- there might be a bench and a trash can and even cracks in the sidewalk. But, between your street lamp and the next street lamp there is an area of darkness within which you cannot see such objects because it's too dark within that area. A mugger could be lurking in the shadows there, waiting to attack you when you try to walk from one street lamp to the next and you wouldn't be able to see him. Of course, once you are actually walking in that dark area, he wouldn't be able to see you either.
In some ways there might be some similarities to invisibility in the sense that creatures cannot see you when you are standing in darkness. It's definitely a buff. The spell description itself actually goes through a lot of trouble to suggest that you can cast this spell onto an object that you are holding to be able to carry this darkness around with you and to be able to turn it on and off at will (perhaps with an item interaction).
But there are plenty of differences. You have to stay within this relatively small area to remain unseen. A creature would notice this area of darkness, and might perceive the darkness itself to be a threat, especially if it were moving around, so you're less likely to surprise an enemy in that situation, even if you are Hidden and are sneaking with a good stealth check. Creatures with darkvision can see you in regular darkness (but not if you are within the magical darkness that's created by the spell). You also cannot see anything within the area, so it's less useful for a melee encounter.
Also, the area is pretty small, so an enemy could narrow down approximately where you are located and could hit you with an AoE spell such as Fireball.
Wait wait wait, you just said that option 2 is the correct option. There's no darkness in that option.
Oh, I misunderstood the drawing then. You would see that the area in front of you is dark, but you can see the person standing in a well-lit area further down the street, so I guess it's Option 3.