Really? This happens all the time in the real world. I don't know how to post drawings on here and I'm not sure how I would draw it.
But, if I'm in a dark room watching TV and then I turn off the tv, the room becomes mostly dark. Around the corner in the next room there's a light on. I can see through the doorway into a well-lit area such that I can see the picture on the wall in full color and other objects as well. Because that area is well-lit. But everything between me and that area I can only see in grayscale because it's mostly dark. In real life, in this situation this dark room can never be completely dark, but in 5e that's exactly what happens because there is a defined border between well-lit areas and dimly-lit areas and between dimly-lit areas and total darkness. But otherwise, this is a common occurrence.
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.
Answer: Option 1 is correct, and all person B would see is total blackness, unless as others have pointed out person A or person B had some feature or spell that allows them to see though MAGICAL darkness like Devils Sight or TrueSight.
And if person C were directly behind person B, but not in the sphere, then they would have the same view as person A, till they walked off to the side enough where they would possibly see person A, and vice-versa.
As to the OP’s original post, unless the attacker inside the Darkness sphere has one of the aforementioned abilities, or some other means of detecting the exact location of the target in which they are attacking, then the advantage of being hidden by way of the UTA( unseen threat or attacker) would not apply. ( how can you gain the advantage on attacking when inside the heavily obscured area, and can’t see sh*t yourself? )
As for AoH, it’s the same as the Darkness spell, with extras, but has the exception that NO light of any kind, normal or magical can illuminate it, but still can be seen into or out of by means of the aforementioned ways.( Again Devils Sight or Truesight are about the only two at this time I can recall that would allow vision within these AOE’s that would negate the Blindness effect of said areas.)
Answer: Option 1 is correct, and all person B would see is total blackness, unless as others have pointed out person A or person B had some feature or spell that allows them to see though MAGICAL darkness like Devils Sight or TrueSight.
No. Option 1 does not align with the 5e rules at all. In 5e, an area of darkness just makes it so that you cannot see anything within that area. Your vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area. Because it's dark there. In the picture, person A and person C are both standing in areas that are well-lit. Those are not heavily obscured areas. Trying to see something in those areas requires no effort. So, Option 1 is definitely incorrect.
As to the OP’s original post, unless the attacker inside the Darkness sphere has one of the aforementioned abilities, or some other means of detecting the exact location of the target in which they are attacking, then the advantage of being hidden by way of the UTA( unseen threat or attacker) would not apply. ( how can you gain the advantage on attacking when inside the heavily obscured area, and can’t see sh*t yourself? )
This conundrum only applies when the target that you are attacking is in the area. Because you can't see anything in the area. Because the area is heavily obscured. But if you are in the darkness and your target is in a well-lit area, you definitely have advantage on your attack because you can see him but he cannot see you:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
. . .
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
Now, if you were instead positioned in the middle of a heavily obscured area that is heavily obscured due to dense foliage or thick fog, then you would have trouble seeing because those environments actually physically interrupt your line of sight, which is a different thing altogether than the concept of a heavily obscured area. Darkness does not do this.
Someone posted the rule for line of sight a while back, but I think that it bears repeating at this point:
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.
Darkness is not listed there, and there is nothing at all about darkness that would interact with this rule at all. You can always draw a line straight through any darkness. All that an area of darkness actually does, by rule, is to make it impossible to see something in that area of darkness. Because it's too dark in there to see it.
Consider this: You are standing in an area of dense shrubbery. But the shrubbery is only 3 feet tall and you are 6 feet tall. So, your line of sight is not blocked when looking into other areas. However, if you dropped your pocket-knife on the ground while walking into the middle of the shrubbery and began looking around for it using only your vision, you would automatically fail. Because the area is obscured from your view. It's a heavily obscured area. That's what it means. The area itself is obscured from your view.
As for AoH, it’s the same as the Darkness spell, with extras, but has the exception that NO light of any kind, normal or magical can illuminate it, but still can be seen into or out of by means of the aforementioned ways.( Again Devils Sight or Truesight are about the only two at this time I can recall that would allow vision within these AOE’s that would negate the Blindness effect of said areas.)
Hunger of Hadar (not Arms of Hadar) is absolutely positively NOT the same as the Darkness spell -- not even close. Hunger of Hadar is an excellent example because it showcases the very different wording that is used and this difference is extremely intentional:
In the rule for a heavily obscured area, "A creature" (located anywhere) "effectively suffers from the blinded condition when" (and only when) "trying to see something in that area." Such creatures are not actually blinded. They ONLY have trouble seeing things in the area. It's the area that's obscured from view, not the creature.
In contrast, Hunger of Hadar states that "creatures fully within the areaare blinded." This wording is totally different and it results in a totally different meaning. Now, instead of talking about a spell that just creates a heavily obscured area, you are talking about a spell that creates and AoE that actually blinds creatures, causes damage to those creatures and so on.
THIS is the phrasing that would have been used if the common interpretation about heavily obscured areas was actually correct. But they didn't say that. Instead, they said that a creature "effectively" suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. NOT that creatures fully within the area are blinded. The difference between these two concepts is very stark, and very different wording was used to portray these two concepts.
Answer: Option 1 is correct, and all person B would see is total blackness, unless as others have pointed out person A or person B had some feature or spell that allows them to see though MAGICAL darkness like Devils Sight or TrueSight.
No. Option 1 does not align with the 5e rules at all. In 5e, an area of darkness just makes it so that you cannot see anything within that area. Your vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area. Because it's dark there. In the picture, person A and person C are both standing in areas that are well-lit. Those are not heavily obscured areas. Trying to see something in those areas requires no effort. So, Option 1 is definitely incorrect.
As to the OP’s original post, unless the attacker inside the Darkness sphere has one of the aforementioned abilities, or some other means of detecting the exact location of the target in which they are attacking, then the advantage of being hidden by way of the UTA( unseen threat or attacker) would not apply. ( how can you gain the advantage on attacking when inside the heavily obscured area, and can’t see sh*t yourself? )
This conundrum only applies when the target that you are attacking is in the area. Because you can't see anything in the area. Because the area is heavily obscured. But if you are in the darkness and your target is in a well-lit area, you definitely have advantage on your attack because you can see him but he cannot see you:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
. . .
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
Now, if you were instead positioned in the middle of a heavily obscured area that is heavily obscured due to dense foliage or thick fog, then you would have trouble seeing because those environments actually physically interrupt your line of sight, which is a different thing altogether than the concept of a heavily obscured area. Darkness does not do this.
Someone posted the rule for line of sight a while back, but I think that it bears repeating at this point:
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.
Darkness is not listed there, and there is nothing at all about darkness that would interact with this rule at all. You can always draw a line straight through any darkness. All that an area of darkness actually does, by rule, is to make it impossible to see something in that area of darkness. Because it's too dark in there to see it.
Consider this: You are standing in an area of dense shrubbery. But the shrubbery is only 3 feet tall and you are 6 feet tall. So, your line of sight is not blocked when looking into other areas. However, if you dropped your pocket-knife on the ground while walking into the middle of the shrubbery and began looking around for it using only your vision, you would automatically fail. Because the area is obscured from your view. It's a heavily obscured area. That's what it means. The area itself is obscured from your view.
As for AoH, it’s the same as the Darkness spell, with extras, but has the exception that NO light of any kind, normal or magical can illuminate it, but still can be seen into or out of by means of the aforementioned ways.( Again Devils Sight or Truesight are about the only two at this time I can recall that would allow vision within these AOE’s that would negate the Blindness effect of said areas.)
Hunger of Hadar (not Arms of Hadar) is absolutely positively NOT the same as the Darkness spell -- not even close. Hunger of Hadar is an excellent example because it showcases the very different wording that is used and this difference is extremely intentional:
In the rule for a heavily obscured area, "A creature" (located anywhere) "effectively suffers from the blinded condition when" (and only when) "trying to see something in that area." Such creatures are not actually blinded. They ONLY have trouble seeing things in the area. It's the area that's obscured from view, not the creature.
In contrast, Hunger of Hadar states that "creatures fully within the areaare blinded." This wording is totally different and it results in a totally different meaning. Now, instead of talking about a spell that just creates a heavily obscured area, you are talking about a spell that creates and AoE that actually blinds creatures, causes damage to those creatures and so on.
THIS is the phrasing that would have been used if the common interpretation about heavily obscured areas was actually correct. But they didn't say that. Instead, they said that a creature "effectively" suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. NOT that creatures fully within the area are blinded. The difference between these two concepts is very stark, and very different wording was used to portray these two concepts.
I must say, I commend the effort of definitely willing to die on that hill. Well, if an individual within any form of magical darkness can see out but not in, why would the designers even include within the text of the spells wording that explicitly states “effectively Blinded” if the individual would be able to clearly see outward?
Unfortunately, because the wording within said text does include such terminology, the only logical deduction one can truly derive is that any individual within the AOE of ether spell, Darkness or Hunger of Hadar, means that no one has Line of Sight though said AOE unless some magical means or ability grants the ability to do so.
Imagine this, your in a movie theater at night and the power goes completely out within a three block area, now everything is completely black and no visible signs of any light, not even the emergency flood lights come on. Without any source of light, would you be able to see anything that is going on outside the room or even inside the room, let alone the outside the theater building?
What about Specific vs General?, does not the specific wording of the spells effects override the very general wording of the Vision and Light rules, and the rules on Line of Sight, scattered throughout the entirety of the game rules?
sorry but at this point I just feel Up2ng that you are attempting to debate this topic in bad faith by selectively ignoring parts of the rules, and misconstruing them in an attempt to justify the false logic behind such.
As I said earlier, unless something grants the ability to see though the MAGICAL darkness, whether your in said magical darkness or outside of it, your not going to see anything. And if your inside, and can’t see out, then there is no way you can be granted advantage on attacking something from within, simply because you have no Line of Sight on the target. ( in that situation, the best guess method is the only chance one would have, unless they have some other means of having vision outside of the MAGICAL darkness.)
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?
I'm just telling you in respecting to rules as written. Many DMs would effectively treat it as darkness.
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.
"The heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area." is an erroneous parsing of the rules.
"A heavily obscured area is an area that is blocked entirely from view." is an erroneous parsing of the rules.
The area is not blocked entirely from view, when there is a spell AOE, dense foliage or opaque fog, you can see it and it's the very reason why it blocks vision entirely, because it's in your view! You don't have a clear view anywhere in or through and thus certainly not on the other side of it.
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?
I'm just telling you in respecting to rules as written. Many DMs would effectively treat it as darkness.
So essentially, "darkness" is a key word, and only effects which explicitly create "darkness" behave as heavy obscurement? So a simple room with no windows or lights isn't "darkness" in this reading.
So essentially, "darkness" is a key word, and only effects which explicitly create "darkness" behave as heavy obscurement? So a simple room with no windows or lights isn't "darkness" in this reading.
What i'm just saying is that Hunger of Hadar doesn't have the word "drakness" or "heavily obscured" anywhere written in the spell description but a DM can rule that such sphere of blackness is one nonetheless. Many effects other than darkness specifically say they do create heavily obscured area, Spell such as Fog Cloud or Incendiary Cloud for example.
Nope, environments such as fog and smoke and thick foliage present a physical barrier that interrupts the lines that are drawn from your square to the square that you are trying to see, so by the rule for Line of Sight, you cannot see through those types of environments:
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.
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.
Abilities like Devil's sight which allow creatures to see through magical darkness require Hunger of Hadar to specify that creatures are blinded in it to prevent these special abilities from working. Without that, Devils' sight would be able to see through Hunger of Hadar.
"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.
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.
You keep saying that I am reading the rule incorrectly, that I am wrong, yet we are reading the same text and reaching different conclusions.
Here is the text again:
"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."
Here is your version:
" These environments block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area."
The rule that I have quoted above does NOT say "block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area". It doesn't - where do you SEE those words? It only says that "These environments block vision entirely". The text then goes on to clarify that when trying to see something in that area the creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition. The sentence does NOT at any point contain text saying that it only blocks vision when trying to see something in that area. You are adding text to the rule that DOES NOT EXIST. So, I don't understand how I can be wrong or incorrect, when you are creating text that doesn't exist to justify a particular interpretation of the rule.
The rule explicitly states "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". It does NOT say "when you are trying to see something in that area". Something that "blocks vision entirely" means that you can't see into it, you can't see out of it and you can't see through it. Period. IF the rule said it "blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area" then I might see where your rules interpretation is coming from BUT the rules do NOT say that.
Anyway, as long as you are willing to make up rules and sentences that do not appear in the books to support a position on a rules interpretation, then there isn't really any point in discussing it further.
Magical darkness is not equivalent to normal darkness. Take your thick shrubbery example, if you were to lower yourself within said heavily obscured area onto your hands and knees looking for your dropped item, would you be able to see though the heavily obscured area from inside and clearly see the aforementioned dropped item as if it is no longer heavily obscured by any part of the the dense shrubbery? ( Answer, no. Because if that was how line of sight or heavy obscured worked in general, a person heavily obscured by say a 10ft thick wall could plant their face right against it and see everything on the other side of said wall as if the wall was never there. And if that were possible, then players and npcs would be constantly abusing the feature to the point where the logic of even having heavily obscured areas, and rules associated with said areas would be pointless.)
Sorry, but again the logic trying to be used in your argument just falls apart as soon as one begins to use common sense. ( common sense being if you can’t see into an object that is opaque, then you very well can’t see outside of the very same opaque object.)
Yes, if you are within the shrubbery, you could not see out of it, because shrubbery blocks your line of sight, which is a different rule.
A 10ft thick wall does not create a heavily obscured area. It is an object that blocks your line of sight, which is a different rule.
Where in the world are you getting any sort of association between darkness and the word "opaque"? Darkness is never referred to anywhere as opaque. In fact, darkness is exactly the opposite -- it's completely translucent. However, it does create a heavily obscured area so that your vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area.
Darkness does not block your line of sight. There's a different rule for that.
Yes, I am aware that the rule for line of sight also uses the word "blocks". People seem very desperate to cling to that single word to justify their nonsensical ideas about how darkness works, without considering the context of how the word is used in these two rules at all. The word does not mean the same thing in these two rules at all.
In the case of a heavily obscured area, your vision is blocked when trying to see something within the area. That's because the area itself is obscured from your view. This is totally different than the context of the line of sight rule, which is talking about actually blocking the straight line between your eyes and any object anywhere in the world.
In many cases, such as with fog and smoke and dense foliage, both rules will apply because the phenomenon obscures an area from view, AND it also physically interrupts your line of sight. That's NOT the case for darkness. You can see OUT of darkness just fine -- your line of sight is not impeded. That's why you can see the stars at night.
The heavily obscured rules don't make any distinction between darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage or spell AOE.
That's correct. That's because all of these can create a heavily obscured area. The resulting heavily obscured area is exactly what the rule says it is -- it's an area where any object within it is obscured from view. Your vision is entirely blocked when trying to see these objects. You are NOT "effectively blinded" unless you are trying to do the exact specified thing that's listed in the rule.
Someone summed up what I've been trying to say a lot more concisely a while back in this thread with these comments:
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."
This is indeed more or less what is happening with this rule. I wouldn't say that the first sentence is "not rules text" per se, but instead that this is a broad statement that becomes further qualified and more narrowly defined and more fully explained by the sentence that immediately follows it. So, these two sentences do not exist apart from each other in their own vacuums. They work together to create one rule, within one context of the game concept that is being explained. The second sentence essentially explains what the first sentence means in the context of this rule.
You keep saying that I am reading the rule incorrectly, that I am wrong, yet we are reading the same text and reaching different conclusions.
Here is the text again:
"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." Here is your version:
" These environments block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area."
The rule that I have quoted above does NOT say "block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area". It doesn't - where do you SEE those words? It only says that "These environments block vision entirely". The text then goes on to clarify that when trying to see something in that area the creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition. The sentence does NOT at any point contain text saying that it only blocks vision when trying to see something in that area. You are adding text to the rule that DOES NOT EXIST. So, I don't understand how I can be wrong or incorrect, when you are creating text that doesn't exist to justify a particular interpretation of the rule.
The rule explicitly states "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". It does NOT say "when you are trying to see something in that area". Something that "blocks vision entirely" means that you can't see into it, you can't see out of it and you can't see through it. Period. IF the rule said it "blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area" then I might see where your rules interpretation is coming from BUT the rules do NOT say that.
@david42 with all due respect, this is NOT the rule for a heavily obscured area:
"A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely."
The actual rule for a heavily obscured area 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.
You have to read the whole rule and the context of what the rule is trying to explain. And how this is written in a way that clearly differentiates it from the previous rule for lightly obscured areas. Just because the author decided to put a period in the middle of the thought which is finished with a second sentence instead of just writing one long run-on sentence doesn't change the meaning of the rule.
It would make no sense at all for the rule to clarify that a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition only in a very specific scenario if that creature's vision is just entirely blocked in the sense that the creature is already just fully blinded. Why in the world would it be written like that if that were the case? Ok, the creature is blinded. But also, that creature is effectively blinded when looking at this one thing. That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
What is actually going on here is that the second sentence is clarifying what the first sentence means when it says that this area blocks vision entirely. In the context of this rule, that first statement means that a creature cannot see things in the area.
It's all right there in the text for the rule. Nothing has been made up.
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.
Abilities like Devil's sight which allow creatures to see through magical darkness require Hunger of Hadar to specify that creatures are blinded in it to prevent these special abilities from working. Without that, Devils' sight would be able to see through Hunger of Hadar.
By this reading, Warlocks with Devil's Sight (and any creature with Darkvision) can see in to Hunger of Hadar, but not out. Because the spell does not specify that creatures looking in are Blinded, only those "fully within the <spell's> area". Incidentally, I agree with this interpretation, but I suspect you do not.
So essentially, "darkness" is a key word, and only effects which explicitly create "darkness" behave as heavy obscurement? So a simple room with no windows or lights isn't "darkness" in this reading.
What i'm just saying is that Hunger of Hadar doesn't have the word "drakness" or "heavily obscured" anywhere written in the spell description but a DM can rule that such sphere of blackness is one nonetheless. Many effects other than darkness specifically say they do create heavily obscured area, Spell such as Fog Cloud or Incendiary Cloud for example.
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you folks see how these interpretations of the rules don't really work, right? Like you can't interpret the rules this way and also make any sense of the way these spells are written.
The Dev shares the same opinion as most of us here 😅
@skullmandible does this apply to magical darkness as well? can you see things on the other side of it? @JeremyECrawford A heavily obscured area, like darkness, blocks vision entirely (see PH, 183).
By this reading, Warlocks with Devil's Sight (and any creature with Darkvision) can see in to Hunger of Hadar, but not out. Because the spell does not specify that creatures looking in are Blinded, only those "fully within the <spell's> area". Incidentally, I agree with this interpretation, but I suspect you do not.
. . .
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight do not actually interact with Hunger of Hadar at all since these abilities are only related to the concept of darkness and darkness is never mentioned anywhere in this spell.
But your second statement is indeed the correct interpretation of how Hunger of Hadar works -- it's not a heavily obscured area and it doesn't create darkness. Instead, it's an AoE spell that blinds creatures and damages them. An outside observer would notice that there's blackness there, but nothing says that this blackness is opaque or that it would in any way block anyone's line of sight.
The Dev shares the same opinion as most of us here 😅
@skullmandible does this apply to magical darkness as well? can you see things on the other side of it? @JeremyECrawford A heavily obscured area, like darkness, blocks vision entirely (see PH, 183).
It's always entertaining to see a tweet from a developer. But, for the purposes of these Forums, a tweet never is and never will be the Rules As Written. Only the rules as they are written are the Rules As Written.
----------
Let me quickly get back to the original question of how heavily obscured areas created by darkness would affect the application of advantage and disadvantage because this entire discussion is starting to bother me as it has become extremely baffling:
If a person is standing in an area of darkness, the question of whether or not he can still actually see anything at all or if he is just totally blind will affect such advantage/disadvantage rulings as related to Unseen Attackers and Unseen Targets. So, this is a pretty important game mechanic.
Let's try it this way: Consider the phrase "Heavily obscured area". Grammatically, what does this mean? Well, the "heavily obscured" part is basically an adjective. The job of an adjective is to describe a noun -- in this case, the noun is "area". This rule describes a specific type of area. What type of area? A heavily obscured area.
So, there are various different areas all throughout the world. A lot of areas are easy to see. Some areas are a little harder to see. But some other areas are impossible to see -- that's because that area is heavily obscured. You can't see the area. Whatever is inside there -- you can't see it.
The area blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Again, no creatures are actually blinded. All creatures can still see. Although the area itself is blocked from view (entirely), unless there is actually something that interrupts your line of sight, you can still see an unlimited distance -- perhaps all the way to the twinkling stars above the night sky.
----------
However! Consider this troubling scenario. You and I are walking down the street to the north. The sun is rising in the east, just over the horizon. I am walking ahead of you and a bit to your right (diagonally in front of you), so you can see the entire landscape in front of you in plain, well-lit view. BUT . . . the angle of the sun is such that it crosses my body, which casts a thin but long shadow of total darkness right across your path. Perhaps a foot or so deep.
Are you all saying that the presence of this shadow plunges your entire view of the landscape in front of you into total darkness such that you are essentially blinded while we are walking outside on a sunny day?
In my humble opinion, that is an incredibly strange interpretation of what the rules for darkness actually say. If this were actually true, how have 10 years passed, and this has never been corrected via errata?
The answer is because that's not what the rules say and that's not what they mean. Just take a step back and read the entire rule and use a bit of common sense and the correct interpretation becomes clear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Please draw that, because I can't imagine how you can see the darkness and see thru it.
Really? This happens all the time in the real world. I don't know how to post drawings on here and I'm not sure how I would draw it.
But, if I'm in a dark room watching TV and then I turn off the tv, the room becomes mostly dark. Around the corner in the next room there's a light on. I can see through the doorway into a well-lit area such that I can see the picture on the wall in full color and other objects as well. Because that area is well-lit. But everything between me and that area I can only see in grayscale because it's mostly dark. In real life, in this situation this dark room can never be completely dark, but in 5e that's exactly what happens because there is a defined border between well-lit areas and dimly-lit areas and between dimly-lit areas and total darkness. But otherwise, this is a common occurrence.
Answer: Option 1 is correct, and all person B would see is total blackness, unless as others have pointed out person A or person B had some feature or spell that allows them to see though MAGICAL darkness like Devils Sight or TrueSight.
And if person C were directly behind person B, but not in the sphere, then they would have the same view as person A, till they walked off to the side enough where they would possibly see person A, and vice-versa.
As to the OP’s original post, unless the attacker inside the Darkness sphere has one of the aforementioned abilities, or some other means of detecting the exact location of the target in which they are attacking, then the advantage of being hidden by way of the UTA( unseen threat or attacker) would not apply. ( how can you gain the advantage on attacking when inside the heavily obscured area, and can’t see sh*t yourself? )
As for AoH, it’s the same as the Darkness spell, with extras, but has the exception that NO light of any kind, normal or magical can illuminate it, but still can be seen into or out of by means of the aforementioned ways.( Again Devils Sight or Truesight are about the only two at this time I can recall that would allow vision within these AOE’s that would negate the Blindness effect of said areas.)
No. Option 1 does not align with the 5e rules at all. In 5e, an area of darkness just makes it so that you cannot see anything within that area. Your vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area. Because it's dark there. In the picture, person A and person C are both standing in areas that are well-lit. Those are not heavily obscured areas. Trying to see something in those areas requires no effort. So, Option 1 is definitely incorrect.
This conundrum only applies when the target that you are attacking is in the area. Because you can't see anything in the area. Because the area is heavily obscured. But if you are in the darkness and your target is in a well-lit area, you definitely have advantage on your attack because you can see him but he cannot see you:
Now, if you were instead positioned in the middle of a heavily obscured area that is heavily obscured due to dense foliage or thick fog, then you would have trouble seeing because those environments actually physically interrupt your line of sight, which is a different thing altogether than the concept of a heavily obscured area. Darkness does not do this.
Someone posted the rule for line of sight a while back, but I think that it bears repeating at this point:
Darkness is not listed there, and there is nothing at all about darkness that would interact with this rule at all. You can always draw a line straight through any darkness. All that an area of darkness actually does, by rule, is to make it impossible to see something in that area of darkness. Because it's too dark in there to see it.
Consider this: You are standing in an area of dense shrubbery. But the shrubbery is only 3 feet tall and you are 6 feet tall. So, your line of sight is not blocked when looking into other areas. However, if you dropped your pocket-knife on the ground while walking into the middle of the shrubbery and began looking around for it using only your vision, you would automatically fail. Because the area is obscured from your view. It's a heavily obscured area. That's what it means. The area itself is obscured from your view.
Hunger of Hadar (not Arms of Hadar) is absolutely positively NOT the same as the Darkness spell -- not even close. Hunger of Hadar is an excellent example because it showcases the very different wording that is used and this difference is extremely intentional:
In the rule for a heavily obscured area, "A creature" (located anywhere) "effectively suffers from the blinded condition when" (and only when) "trying to see something in that area." Such creatures are not actually blinded. They ONLY have trouble seeing things in the area. It's the area that's obscured from view, not the creature.
In contrast, Hunger of Hadar states that "creatures fully within the area are blinded." This wording is totally different and it results in a totally different meaning. Now, instead of talking about a spell that just creates a heavily obscured area, you are talking about a spell that creates and AoE that actually blinds creatures, causes damage to those creatures and so on.
THIS is the phrasing that would have been used if the common interpretation about heavily obscured areas was actually correct. But they didn't say that. Instead, they said that a creature "effectively" suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. NOT that creatures fully within the area are blinded. The difference between these two concepts is very stark, and very different wording was used to portray these two concepts.
I must say, I commend the effort of definitely willing to die on that hill. Well, if an individual within any form of magical darkness can see out but not in, why would the designers even include within the text of the spells wording that explicitly states “effectively Blinded” if the individual would be able to clearly see outward?
Unfortunately, because the wording within said text does include such terminology, the only logical deduction one can truly derive is that any individual within the AOE of ether spell, Darkness or Hunger of Hadar, means that no one has Line of Sight though said AOE unless some magical means or ability grants the ability to do so.
Imagine this, your in a movie theater at night and the power goes completely out within a three block area, now everything is completely black and no visible signs of any light, not even the emergency flood lights come on. Without any source of light, would you be able to see anything that is going on outside the room or even inside the room, let alone the outside the theater building?
What about Specific vs General?, does not the specific wording of the spells effects override the very general wording of the Vision and Light rules, and the rules on Line of Sight, scattered throughout the entirety of the game rules?
sorry but at this point I just feel Up2ng that you are attempting to debate this topic in bad faith by selectively ignoring parts of the rules, and misconstruing them in an attempt to justify the false logic behind such.
As I said earlier, unless something grants the ability to see though the MAGICAL darkness, whether your in said magical darkness or outside of it, your not going to see anything. And if your inside, and can’t see out, then there is no way you can be granted advantage on attacking something from within, simply because you have no Line of Sight on the target. ( in that situation, the best guess method is the only chance one would have, unless they have some other means of having vision outside of the MAGICAL darkness.)
I'm just telling you in respecting to rules as written. Many DMs would effectively treat it as darkness.
"The heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area." is an erroneous parsing of the rules.
"A heavily obscured area is an area that is blocked entirely from view." is an erroneous parsing of the rules.
The area is not blocked entirely from view, when there is a spell AOE, dense foliage or opaque fog, you can see it and it's the very reason why it blocks vision entirely, because it's in your view! You don't have a clear view anywhere in or through and thus certainly not on the other side of it.
So essentially, "darkness" is a key word, and only effects which explicitly create "darkness" behave as heavy obscurement? So a simple room with no windows or lights isn't "darkness" in this reading.
What i'm just saying is that Hunger of Hadar doesn't have the word "drakness" or "heavily obscured" anywhere written in the spell description but a DM can rule that such sphere of blackness is one nonetheless. Many effects other than darkness specifically say they do create heavily obscured area, Spell such as Fog Cloud or Incendiary Cloud for example.
While not official ruling per se, the Dev said that that feature Devil's Sight letting you see in darkness, both magical and nonmagical doesn't pierce the void from Hunger of Hadar Can a warlock with Devil's Sight see within Hunger of Hadar? (sageadvice.eu)
@up2ng, using your logic, you would be able to see through a Fog Cloud if you were inside it as well. Are you really arguing that?
Nope, environments such as fog and smoke and thick foliage present a physical barrier that interrupts the lines that are drawn from your square to the square that you are trying to see, so by the rule for Line of Sight, you cannot see through those types of environments:
The heavily obscured rules don't make any distinction between darkness, opaque fog, dense foliage or spell AOE.
Abilities like Devil's sight which allow creatures to see through magical darkness require Hunger of Hadar to specify that creatures are blinded in it to prevent these special abilities from working. Without that, Devils' sight would be able to see through Hunger of Hadar.
You keep saying that I am reading the rule incorrectly, that I am wrong, yet we are reading the same text and reaching different conclusions.
Here is the text again:
Here is your version:
" These environments block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area."
The rule that I have quoted above does NOT say "block vision entirely when trying to see something in that area". It doesn't - where do you SEE those words? It only says that "These environments block vision entirely". The text then goes on to clarify that when trying to see something in that area the creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition. The sentence does NOT at any point contain text saying that it only blocks vision when trying to see something in that area. You are adding text to the rule that DOES NOT EXIST. So, I don't understand how I can be wrong or incorrect, when you are creating text that doesn't exist to justify a particular interpretation of the rule.
The rule explicitly states "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely". It does NOT say "when you are trying to see something in that area". Something that "blocks vision entirely" means that you can't see into it, you can't see out of it and you can't see through it. Period. IF the rule said it "blocks vision entirely when trying to see something in that area" then I might see where your rules interpretation is coming from BUT the rules do NOT say that.
Anyway, as long as you are willing to make up rules and sentences that do not appear in the books to support a position on a rules interpretation, then there isn't really any point in discussing it further.
Yes, if you are within the shrubbery, you could not see out of it, because shrubbery blocks your line of sight, which is a different rule.
A 10ft thick wall does not create a heavily obscured area. It is an object that blocks your line of sight, which is a different rule.
Where in the world are you getting any sort of association between darkness and the word "opaque"? Darkness is never referred to anywhere as opaque. In fact, darkness is exactly the opposite -- it's completely translucent. However, it does create a heavily obscured area so that your vision is blocked entirely when trying to see something in that area.
Darkness does not block your line of sight. There's a different rule for that.
Yes, I am aware that the rule for line of sight also uses the word "blocks". People seem very desperate to cling to that single word to justify their nonsensical ideas about how darkness works, without considering the context of how the word is used in these two rules at all. The word does not mean the same thing in these two rules at all.
In the case of a heavily obscured area, your vision is blocked when trying to see something within the area. That's because the area itself is obscured from your view. This is totally different than the context of the line of sight rule, which is talking about actually blocking the straight line between your eyes and any object anywhere in the world.
In many cases, such as with fog and smoke and dense foliage, both rules will apply because the phenomenon obscures an area from view, AND it also physically interrupts your line of sight. That's NOT the case for darkness. You can see OUT of darkness just fine -- your line of sight is not impeded. That's why you can see the stars at night.
That's correct. That's because all of these can create a heavily obscured area. The resulting heavily obscured area is exactly what the rule says it is -- it's an area where any object within it is obscured from view. Your vision is entirely blocked when trying to see these objects. You are NOT "effectively blinded" unless you are trying to do the exact specified thing that's listed in the rule.
Someone summed up what I've been trying to say a lot more concisely a while back in this thread with these comments:
This is indeed more or less what is happening with this rule. I wouldn't say that the first sentence is "not rules text" per se, but instead that this is a broad statement that becomes further qualified and more narrowly defined and more fully explained by the sentence that immediately follows it. So, these two sentences do not exist apart from each other in their own vacuums. They work together to create one rule, within one context of the game concept that is being explained. The second sentence essentially explains what the first sentence means in the context of this rule.
@david42 with all due respect, this is NOT the rule for a heavily obscured area:
"A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely."
The actual rule for a heavily obscured area is this:
You have to read the whole rule and the context of what the rule is trying to explain. And how this is written in a way that clearly differentiates it from the previous rule for lightly obscured areas. Just because the author decided to put a period in the middle of the thought which is finished with a second sentence instead of just writing one long run-on sentence doesn't change the meaning of the rule.
It would make no sense at all for the rule to clarify that a creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition only in a very specific scenario if that creature's vision is just entirely blocked in the sense that the creature is already just fully blinded. Why in the world would it be written like that if that were the case? Ok, the creature is blinded. But also, that creature is effectively blinded when looking at this one thing. That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
What is actually going on here is that the second sentence is clarifying what the first sentence means when it says that this area blocks vision entirely. In the context of this rule, that first statement means that a creature cannot see things in the area.
It's all right there in the text for the rule. Nothing has been made up.
By this reading, Warlocks with Devil's Sight (and any creature with Darkvision) can see in to Hunger of Hadar, but not out. Because the spell does not specify that creatures looking in are Blinded, only those "fully within the <spell's> area". Incidentally, I agree with this interpretation, but I suspect you do not.
By this reading, RAW, anyone outside the sphere Hunger of Hadar creates can see inside (provided the area in which the spell is being cast is otherwise not obscured), because the spell does not create a heavily obscured area.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you folks see how these interpretations of the rules don't really work, right? Like you can't interpret the rules this way and also make any sense of the way these spells are written.
The Dev shares the same opinion as most of us here 😅
Darkvision and Devil's Sight do not actually interact with Hunger of Hadar at all since these abilities are only related to the concept of darkness and darkness is never mentioned anywhere in this spell.
But your second statement is indeed the correct interpretation of how Hunger of Hadar works -- it's not a heavily obscured area and it doesn't create darkness. Instead, it's an AoE spell that blinds creatures and damages them. An outside observer would notice that there's blackness there, but nothing says that this blackness is opaque or that it would in any way block anyone's line of sight.
It's always entertaining to see a tweet from a developer. But, for the purposes of these Forums, a tweet never is and never will be the Rules As Written. Only the rules as they are written are the Rules As Written.
----------
Let me quickly get back to the original question of how heavily obscured areas created by darkness would affect the application of advantage and disadvantage because this entire discussion is starting to bother me as it has become extremely baffling:
If a person is standing in an area of darkness, the question of whether or not he can still actually see anything at all or if he is just totally blind will affect such advantage/disadvantage rulings as related to Unseen Attackers and Unseen Targets. So, this is a pretty important game mechanic.
Let's try it this way: Consider the phrase "Heavily obscured area". Grammatically, what does this mean? Well, the "heavily obscured" part is basically an adjective. The job of an adjective is to describe a noun -- in this case, the noun is "area". This rule describes a specific type of area. What type of area? A heavily obscured area.
So, there are various different areas all throughout the world. A lot of areas are easy to see. Some areas are a little harder to see. But some other areas are impossible to see -- that's because that area is heavily obscured. You can't see the area. Whatever is inside there -- you can't see it.
The area blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Again, no creatures are actually blinded. All creatures can still see. Although the area itself is blocked from view (entirely), unless there is actually something that interrupts your line of sight, you can still see an unlimited distance -- perhaps all the way to the twinkling stars above the night sky.
----------
However! Consider this troubling scenario. You and I are walking down the street to the north. The sun is rising in the east, just over the horizon. I am walking ahead of you and a bit to your right (diagonally in front of you), so you can see the entire landscape in front of you in plain, well-lit view. BUT . . . the angle of the sun is such that it crosses my body, which casts a thin but long shadow of total darkness right across your path. Perhaps a foot or so deep.
Are you all saying that the presence of this shadow plunges your entire view of the landscape in front of you into total darkness such that you are essentially blinded while we are walking outside on a sunny day?
In my humble opinion, that is an incredibly strange interpretation of what the rules for darkness actually say. If this were actually true, how have 10 years passed, and this has never been corrected via errata?
The answer is because that's not what the rules say and that's not what they mean. Just take a step back and read the entire rule and use a bit of common sense and the correct interpretation becomes clear.