So just trying to look at something that is heavily obscured means all attackers get advantage on me.
Is it the creature or the "something" that is in the heavily obscured space? Do creatures get advantage on me if I glance at something that is in the dark (while I'm not in the dark)? Or if I'm in the dark but look at something in the light, am I somehow giving attackers advantage? Neither of these makes intuitive sense to me.
Is this intentional?
What counts as "trying"? And also importantly, what counts as "not trying"? Am I only "trying" if I spend an action?
You can post that after any rules question. This is a question about the intentions of the game designer. Some things in games do not match intuition and there is a good reason for it. That is why such questions are asked.
So just trying to look at something that is heavily obscured means all attackers get advantage on me.
Is it the creature or the "something" that is in the heavily obscured space? Do creatures get advantage on me if I glance at something that is in the dark (while I'm not in the dark)? Or if I'm in the dark but look at something in the light, am I somehow giving attackers advantage? Neither of these makes intuitive sense to me.
Is this intentional?
What counts as "trying"? And also importantly, what counts as "not trying"? Am I only "trying" if I spend an action?
I think you're way, way overthinking this. All it means is that someone attacking you from in a heavily obscured area has advantage on attacks against you, because you can't see them. Don't overcomplicate things.
This rule is definitely not written very well but it does sort of work. You don't permanently gain the Blinded Condition. You only conditionally and temporarily have it when trying to see something there. Once your turn is done you are no longer performing that activity, so you are no longer Blinded. However, an attacker might still gain advantage against you due to being an Unseen Attacker, which is a different rule although the concept is related.
You can post that after any rules question. This is a question about the intentions of the game designer. Some things in games do not match intuition and there is a good reason for it. That is why such questions are asked.
It's so obvious how it is supposed to work, why do people go out of their way to dissect the words to try to come to a different conclusion. What ever happened to people's ability to think for themselves? It's like reading "Caution:hot" and asking what about the coffee cup is physically attractive.
You can post that after any rules question. This is a question about the intentions of the game designer. Some things in games do not match intuition and there is a good reason for it. That is why such questions are asked.
It's so obvious how it is supposed to work, why do people go out of their way to dissect the words to try to come to a different conclusion. What ever happened to people's ability to think for themselves? It's like reading "Caution:hot" and asking what about the coffee cup is physically attractive.
And yet the two posts above yours have quite different interpretations, one of which I didn't expect. I'm sure there are more. I believe they are worth discussing. You don't have to participate.
What counts as "trying"? And also importantly, what counts as "not trying"? Am I only "trying" if I spend an action?
In this case, it counts as trying at the exact moment that something happens which should require you to see into the obscured area, and not any other times.
For example if you targeted an enemy in the area and needed to roll an attack then you are blinded as you roll the attack. If an enemy inside the area casts a spell and you wanted to counterspell their casting then you are blinded in the instant you attempt to counterspell. If there is a trap in the area and the DM asks you to roll perception to see the trap then you are blinded during that roll.
At all other times you are not blinded as you are not trying to do anything that requires seeing into the obscured area. If you are doing something that targets into the area and another creature outside the area uses a reaction to attack you somehow as a result - then during that reaction you are not blinded because all parties involved in the reaction are outside the area so no one is trying to look into it.
This rule is definitely not written very well but it does sort of work. You don't permanently gain the Blinded Condition. You only conditionally and temporarily have it when trying to see something there. Once your turn is done you are no longer performing that activity, so you are no longer Blinded. However, an attacker might still gain advantage against you due to being an Unseen Attacker, which is a different rule although the concept is related.
I think this is generally the way I'd run it.
However, reading it in the context of the Exploration chapter, I have to wonder if they are intending that you are in the Heavily Obscured area yourself. The phrasing is very odd otherwise.
You can post that after any rules question. This is a question about the intentions of the game designer. Some things in games do not match intuition and there is a good reason for it. That is why such questions are asked.
It's so obvious how it is supposed to work, why do people go out of their way to dissect the words to try to come to a different conclusion. What ever happened to people's ability to think for themselves? It's like reading "Caution:hot" and asking what about the coffee cup is physically attractive.
And yet the two posts above yours have quite different interpretations, one of which I didn't expect. I'm sure there are more. I believe they are worth discussing. You don't have to participate.
They are not. All [three now] explanations that have be posted of how the rule work are the same, the only thing different about them is how clearly they are explained. Hence I stand by it is obvious how it is supposed to work, and the only people "confused" about it are those who deliberately try to misunderstand it.
This rule is definitely not written very well but it does sort of work. You don't permanently gain the Blinded Condition. You only conditionally and temporarily have it when trying to see something there. Once your turn is done you are no longer performing that activity, so you are no longer Blinded. However, an attacker might still gain advantage against you due to being an Unseen Attacker, which is a different rule although the concept is related.
I think this is generally the way I'd run it.
However, reading it in the context of the Exploration chapter, I have to wonder if they are intending that you are in the Heavily Obscured area yourself. The phrasing is very odd otherwise.
I'd say if you're for example fighting in a dungeon without light, you're Blinded the whole time, not just on your turn.
Also, if you're exploring without turns, it makes even more sense to rule that way, not just when your character is actively doing something, which would feel odd too.
This rule is definitely not written very well but it does sort of work. You don't permanently gain the Blinded Condition. You only conditionally and temporarily have it when trying to see something there. Once your turn is done you are no longer performing that activity, so you are no longer Blinded. However, an attacker might still gain advantage against you due to being an Unseen Attacker, which is a different rule although the concept is related.
I think this is generally the way I'd run it.
However, reading it in the context of the Exploration chapter, I have to wonder if they are intending that you are in the Heavily Obscured area yourself. The phrasing is very odd otherwise.
I'd say if you're for example fighting in a dungeon without light, you're Blinded the whole time, not just on your turn.
Also, if you're exploring without turns, it makes even more sense to rule that way, not just when your character is actively doing something, which would feel odd too.
As a hand wave, this is generally true. But it's not because you are located in the darkness, it's because everywhere you look is within darkness. If there are well-lit areas nearby while you are in this dungeon you would be able to see into those areas.
This sort of ties in with the concept of whether or not people are actually running the Darkness spell correctly, as had been brought up in another thread recently and whether or not people are treating darkness in general in a way that makes sense -- like, can you look up and see the stars at night, for example.
The answer comes down to exactly how @RegentCorrean described it above so eloquently. A heavily obscured area, such as darkness, does not cause permanent blindness. You have the condition only when trying to see something there. This understanding of that rule allows the concept of darkness to function the way that it is supposed to function.
I didn't really mean to imply that it has to do with whose turn it is, strictly speaking. Again, @RegentCorrean described the concept better than I did and I agree with his explanation 100%.
I'm not convinced that there's a full consensus, but I don't think there's a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the OP is asking about. A better wording of the intent of heavily obscured would be
Heavily Obscured
Not disputed as far as I know: Objects and creatures in a heavily obscured area cannot be seen, unless some special sense allows doing so. This affects combat; see Unseen Attackers and Targets (box in the Cover section).
Disputed/Unclear: A heavily obscured area blocks vision through or out of the area (see Line of Sight); again, this affects combat. I mark this as unclear because that's a rule that only exists for miniatures, and because it doesn't make any sense for non-opaque darkness (mundane darkness is non-opaque; magical darkness is unclear).
Disputed/Unclear: A heavily obscured area blocks vision through or out of the area (see Line of Sight); again, this affects combat. I mark this as unclear because that's a rule that only exists for miniatures, and because it doesn't make any sense for non-opaque darkness (mundane darkness is non-opaque; magical darkness is unclear).
Sort of but not really. The 2024 rules are clear on the matter:
Obscured Areas
...
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there.
* Emphasis is mine.
This was also the case as far as I'm aware in 2014 rules as well, though it wasn't as clear so there were some clarifications by the designers. However, a common house rule was/is to make an exemption for darkness since IRL darkness is not opaque, thus running darkness as opaque leads to weird unintuitive situations.
For example if darkness is opaque then lighting a torch doesn't give away your position because the only creatures that can see that light are the ones within the area of the light because as soon as you are outside of the light the darkness is opaque and blocks vision of the lit area.
Hence for many people Rule 1 applies - i.e. the RAW rules don't make sense, so change the rules.
I find it interesting that the Heavily Obscured rules in the Glossary actually omits the part about the area being “opaque”. That makes me wonder if they decided to omit that, but then forgot to update the Light and Visibility section.
I find it interesting that the Heavily Obscured rules in the Glossary actually omits the part about the area being “opaque”. That makes me wonder if they decided to omit that, but then forgot to update the Light and Visibility section.
The Glossary has barely one sentence, and refers to another section that also has barely one sentence, whereas the light and visibility section has much more text and is standalone. So if one were to say one is better than the other, I would err on the side of light & visibility. But it doesn't matter because neither ruling is better than the other from the "makes intuitive sense" point of view because "Heavily Obscured" lumps together different phenomena that behave differently in reality - a whiteout snow storm and heavy fog are opaque, darkness is not opaque, and vegetation is opaque from the other side of it but often not opaque to those within it.
I find it interesting that the Heavily Obscured rules in the Glossary actually omits the part about the area being “opaque”. That makes me wonder if they decided to omit that, but then forgot to update the Light and Visibility section.
The reason for this is because the word opaque is used in a specific context for this rule. It's a word that is used and then is immediately defined by the rule. Which means that it's basically not necessary if you were to summarize the actual mechanics of the rule -- which is what the Glossary entry does. To paraphrase, the rule basically says "the area is opaque -- (which means) you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there."
Sure, this could have been written with better punctuation that is more consistent with other rules which do this. They could have written it like: Bolded and Italicized word, period, definition of that word. They didn't do that in this case -- they opted for more of a plain English style of writing in this case for some reason. But it's clear from the existence of the Glossary entry that that's what is happening with this rule and that's how we should be interpreting it. It just so happens that this interpretation is also the one that actually makes sense for how we all know that areas of darkness are supposed to function.
Whether or not the particular environmental entity which is causing the area to be Heavily Obscured also blocks general Line of Sight is handled by a separate rule and game concept.
The reason for this is because the word opaque is used in a specific context for this rule. It's a word that is used and then is immediately defined by the rule.
I wouldn't say that's clear. There are a couple of standard ways to indicate that a sentence defines a term, including
Separating the term from the sentence with a : or --
Surrounding the sentence with ()
Adding a term such as 'i.e.'
The term is exposed as a fragment in a definition list
but that section does not use any of them. The particular text is
A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the rules glossary) when trying to see something there.
and while interpreting the second sentence as a definition for 'opaque' is not entirely implausible, it's not clear-cut.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Free Rules 2024 says that "You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space." and while blinded, "Attack rolls against you have Advantage".
So just trying to look at something that is heavily obscured means all attackers get advantage on me.
Is it the creature or the "something" that is in the heavily obscured space? Do creatures get advantage on me if I glance at something that is in the dark (while I'm not in the dark)? Or if I'm in the dark but look at something in the light, am I somehow giving attackers advantage? Neither of these makes intuitive sense to me.
Is this intentional?
What counts as "trying"? And also importantly, what counts as "not trying"? Am I only "trying" if I spend an action?
How do you think it is supposed to work?
.
.
.
Why wouldn't you run it that way?
You can post that after any rules question. This is a question about the intentions of the game designer. Some things in games do not match intuition and there is a good reason for it. That is why such questions are asked.
I think you're way, way overthinking this. All it means is that someone attacking you from in a heavily obscured area has advantage on attacks against you, because you can't see them. Don't overcomplicate things.
pronouns: he/she/they
This rule is definitely not written very well but it does sort of work. You don't permanently gain the Blinded Condition. You only conditionally and temporarily have it when trying to see something there. Once your turn is done you are no longer performing that activity, so you are no longer Blinded. However, an attacker might still gain advantage against you due to being an Unseen Attacker, which is a different rule although the concept is related.
It's so obvious how it is supposed to work, why do people go out of their way to dissect the words to try to come to a different conclusion. What ever happened to people's ability to think for themselves? It's like reading "Caution:hot" and asking what about the coffee cup is physically attractive.
And yet the two posts above yours have quite different interpretations, one of which I didn't expect. I'm sure there are more. I believe they are worth discussing. You don't have to participate.
In this case, it counts as trying at the exact moment that something happens which should require you to see into the obscured area, and not any other times.
For example if you targeted an enemy in the area and needed to roll an attack then you are blinded as you roll the attack. If an enemy inside the area casts a spell and you wanted to counterspell their casting then you are blinded in the instant you attempt to counterspell. If there is a trap in the area and the DM asks you to roll perception to see the trap then you are blinded during that roll.
At all other times you are not blinded as you are not trying to do anything that requires seeing into the obscured area. If you are doing something that targets into the area and another creature outside the area uses a reaction to attack you somehow as a result - then during that reaction you are not blinded because all parties involved in the reaction are outside the area so no one is trying to look into it.
I think this is generally the way I'd run it.
However, reading it in the context of the Exploration chapter, I have to wonder if they are intending that you are in the Heavily Obscured area yourself. The phrasing is very odd otherwise.
How to add Tooltips.
They are not. All [three now] explanations that have be posted of how the rule work are the same, the only thing different about them is how clearly they are explained. Hence I stand by it is obvious how it is supposed to work, and the only people "confused" about it are those who deliberately try to misunderstand it.
I'd say if you're for example fighting in a dungeon without light, you're Blinded the whole time, not just on your turn.
Also, if you're exploring without turns, it makes even more sense to rule that way, not just when your character is actively doing something, which would feel odd too.
As a hand wave, this is generally true. But it's not because you are located in the darkness, it's because everywhere you look is within darkness. If there are well-lit areas nearby while you are in this dungeon you would be able to see into those areas.
This sort of ties in with the concept of whether or not people are actually running the Darkness spell correctly, as had been brought up in another thread recently and whether or not people are treating darkness in general in a way that makes sense -- like, can you look up and see the stars at night, for example.
The answer comes down to exactly how @RegentCorrean described it above so eloquently. A heavily obscured area, such as darkness, does not cause permanent blindness. You have the condition only when trying to see something there. This understanding of that rule allows the concept of darkness to function the way that it is supposed to function.
I didn't really mean to imply that it has to do with whose turn it is, strictly speaking. Again, @RegentCorrean described the concept better than I did and I agree with his explanation 100%.
This was brought up in prior threads
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/205413-summary-of-issues-with-2024-vision-stealth-etc
It comes in the category of "terrible wording but the intent is clear".
I'm not convinced that there's a full consensus, but I don't think there's a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the OP is asking about. A better wording of the intent of heavily obscured would be
Heavily Obscured
Sort of but not really. The 2024 rules are clear on the matter:
* Emphasis is mine.
This was also the case as far as I'm aware in 2014 rules as well, though it wasn't as clear so there were some clarifications by the designers. However, a common house rule was/is to make an exemption for darkness since IRL darkness is not opaque, thus running darkness as opaque leads to weird unintuitive situations.
For example if darkness is opaque then lighting a torch doesn't give away your position because the only creatures that can see that light are the ones within the area of the light because as soon as you are outside of the light the darkness is opaque and blocks vision of the lit area.
Hence for many people Rule 1 applies - i.e. the RAW rules don't make sense, so change the rules.
I find it interesting that the Heavily Obscured rules in the Glossary actually omits the part about the area being “opaque”. That makes me wonder if they decided to omit that, but then forgot to update the Light and Visibility section.
The Glossary has barely one sentence, and refers to another section that also has barely one sentence, whereas the light and visibility section has much more text and is standalone. So if one were to say one is better than the other, I would err on the side of light & visibility. But it doesn't matter because neither ruling is better than the other from the "makes intuitive sense" point of view because "Heavily Obscured" lumps together different phenomena that behave differently in reality - a whiteout snow storm and heavy fog are opaque, darkness is not opaque, and vegetation is opaque from the other side of it but often not opaque to those within it.
The reason for this is because the word opaque is used in a specific context for this rule. It's a word that is used and then is immediately defined by the rule. Which means that it's basically not necessary if you were to summarize the actual mechanics of the rule -- which is what the Glossary entry does. To paraphrase, the rule basically says "the area is opaque -- (which means) you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there."
Sure, this could have been written with better punctuation that is more consistent with other rules which do this. They could have written it like: Bolded and Italicized word, period, definition of that word. They didn't do that in this case -- they opted for more of a plain English style of writing in this case for some reason. But it's clear from the existence of the Glossary entry that that's what is happening with this rule and that's how we should be interpreting it. It just so happens that this interpretation is also the one that actually makes sense for how we all know that areas of darkness are supposed to function.
Whether or not the particular environmental entity which is causing the area to be Heavily Obscured also blocks general Line of Sight is handled by a separate rule and game concept.
I wouldn't say that's clear. There are a couple of standard ways to indicate that a sentence defines a term, including
but that section does not use any of them. The particular text is
and while interpreting the second sentence as a definition for 'opaque' is not entirely implausible, it's not clear-cut.