This came up in last night's session and I wondered what you all thought about this ruling. A villain used a lair action to cast Darkness around them and one of my players wanted to use Burning hands to set them on fire. How does the Darkness effect damage spells that require a saving throw like Burning Hands? BH is cast in a 15 ft cone and the Darkness spell covers a 15 ft radius, so logically the player could hit the enemy with the spell. But in order to cast it, they have to be able to see their target, correct?
The range of the spell is self, and it is an AoO spell that emanates from the caster, so no reason why it wouldn't work. Since a 15ft radius sphere is basically 4 15ft cones, you could give it a 1 in 4 chance that it hits if the enemy has moved around within the darkness.
Burning Hands is an area of affect spell and it originates with the caster, so you can cast it at an area without seeing your target. Mechanically, when you're in a heavily obscured area, which is what Darkness creates, you are Blinded. Plus, didn't the villain move after casting Darkness anyway? That means he wouldn't have been hit by the spell because he wasn't there to be hit.
The only interaction I can think of is regarding Darkness's clause about dispelling spells that create light if there is any overlap. Burning Hands does not "officially" create light, so there should be no interaction, but if the DM rules that Burning Hands creates light, then Darkness should dispel it, unless Burning Hands was upcast to level 3 or higher. But that's not strictly RAW (since Burning Hands does not create light per RAW).
I would rule that the flames from Burning Hands would not be visible within the area of effect of the Darkness spell, in the same way that a lit torch would not be visible. The flame would still be there and would still do damage to anything within its area of effect.
I would represent the situation thusly: place a circle of black paper on the table, this represents the area covered in Darkness, now lay a triangle of orange paper down, this is the area covered by the Burning Hands. If the villain is within the cone of Burning Hands they take damage from that spell. However it is possible that moved from the position they were in when they cast Darkness and may not be within the cone of Burning Hands. Whether or not the villain is within the cone of Burning Hands, it used to be officially a fan-like sheet rather than an actual cone, depends on where the Burning Hands spell is targeted. A 15 foot cone cast into a 15 foot sphere will leave some portions of the sphere unaffected.
Of course, if the enemy used stealth while in the darkness, the caster might not know where to place his area spell (and might have to just guess).
Good point. It's easy to forget that unless a creature Hides, using their Stealth, you can still know where they are, even if you can't see them. Being unseen is just a sufficient condition to Hide.
Being unseen is considered total cover, which means they can't be targeted by a spell or attack. Being unseen isn't a sufficient condition to hide, it is the successful result of the hide action.
Burning Hands is an area of affect spell and it originates with the caster, so you can cast it at an area without seeing your target. Mechanically, when you're in a heavily obscured area, which is what Darkness creates, you are Blinded. Plus, didn't the villain move after casting Darkness anyway? That means he wouldn't have been hit by the spell because he wasn't there to be hit.
This is not true. As long as the creature in the darkness has not taken the hide action and used stealth to conceal their presence, you still know where they are. This is also true for invisibility. Invisible and concealed creatures are not automatically hidden.
As for the OPs question, there is nothing preventing the casting of burning hands at a target in darkness.
Burning Hands is an area of affect spell and it originates with the caster, so you can cast it at an area without seeing your target. Mechanically, when you're in a heavily obscured area, which is what Darkness creates, you are Blinded. Plus, didn't the villain move after casting Darkness anyway? That means he wouldn't have been hit by the spell because he wasn't there to be hit.
This is not true. As long as the creature in the darkness has not taken the hide action and used stealth to conceal their presence, you still know where they are. This is also true for invisibility. Invisible and concealed creatures are not automatically hidden.
As for the OPs question, there is nothing preventing the casting of burning hands at a target in darkness.
Agreed about the OP's question. But I'm not sure that a darkness caster not using Hide/Stealth means that the burning hands caster automatically knows where he is. If the darkness caster moves, just using regular movement, and the burning hands caster is inside the darkness radius, knowing where the darkness caster is should not be automatic.
Think about what is actually a similar situation (although burning hands wouldn't help here). Fred and Susan are 20 feet away from each other--Susan in a room, Fred just outside the door in a hallway running left/right (not straight back away from the room). Fred on his turn uses his normal movement, not Hide/Stealth, to just sidestep into the hallway outside the room. Fred is not Hiding or using Stealth, so Susan could maybe hear him still. But Susan can't see him. Does Susan get to know where Fred is in that hallway? He used regular movement and can't be seen by Susan. So if instead Fred casts darkness and uses his normal movement, how would Susan automatically get to know where he is in that case?
Susan would know where Fred is because her passive perception beats his Dex (stealth) check, which is 0 since he didn’t use an action to hide.
Is this realistic in real life? Doesn’t really matter. In game, Fred needs to use an action to Hide if he doesn’t want Susan to know where he is.
So she'd know where he was in the hallway too? If she had a spell or weapon that ignored cover, she could target Fred in the hallway too? Or if Fred cast an illusion of a long wall and used his movement to move behind it, she'd be able to target him automatically? Not buying it.
1) I'd take issue with using passive perception in the middle of combat. Someone ducks out of sight behind a wall, while a fight is going on around you, and you're just going to know where they are? There's nothing that mandates that in the passive perception rules. In fact, those rules state, "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen." The rules indicate that distraction can provide different situations.
2) When you take the Hide action, if successful, the rules state that you "gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter." In other words, if you successfully use the Hide action, you gain the same benefits as a target that cannot be seen. Those Unseen Attackers and Targets rules state, "Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
So Hiding is one method of gaining those benefits. The other two methods listed are 'casting an invisibility spell' or 'lurking in darkness'. Those are listed along with hiding. They are not done only by hiding. Darkness would be another method of becoming 'Unseen', thus giving you those same benefits. Even if you don't hide, and even if they can hear you (asterisk, see below).
3) Really that second point is enough, but I'll add just because it's interesting that there's some debate about concealment and cover. Total cover prevents you from being targeted, and the rules refer to total cover as 'concealing' you--that's why you can't be targeted. I admit I don't know if/what Crawford has said about this, but Christopher Perkins has said than a believed illusion would indeed provide cover. In the case of just being unseen but not behind an actual obstacle, would the total cover rules apply? If what makes you unseen is a believed illusion--something you cannot see through--then you cannot be targeted. So is darkness something you cannot see through?
But really, the rules for attacking Unseen Targets, and the fact that they are not tied to the Hide action, are enough here. The darkness goes up, the opponent is now 'unseen'. You can tell the DM where you think the target is. The DM might allow a passive perception check. But in combat, you're distracted, and you might not get one. If you don't get one, you make your attack in the chosen direction. If the target isn't there, you automatically miss. The Unseen Target rules do not mention the necessity of the target to use Hide.
I will say this--the Unseen Target rules do say that you get disadvantage even if you can hear the target. The very next sentence is the one about choosing a location and auto-missing if you're wrong. And so it's not clear if the 'even if you can hear them' applies to that as well. Here's the full text as it appears in the passage:
(I put the numbers in)
(1)When you attack a target that you can't see, (2)you have disadvantage on the attack roll. (3)This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. (4)If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
It's unclear if (3) applies to (4), or just to the (1)(2) combo. If it does apply to the whole passage, then the passive perception check doesn't change a thing even if you get it.
At the place where I work there is a hallway. I can’t see down the hallway but I hear people walking in the hallway. I can tell about where they are in the hallway and usually know who it is based on the sound of their shoes, their gait, etc. If they open a door in the hallway (there are 3) I know which door is opening.
Granted, this is a place I’ve been in for years. But my hearing isn’t as good as it used to be and my life doesn’t depend on it so it’s not like I’ve been practicing this skill.
There are many factors in game that should modify a character’s passive perception based only on hearing. A battle with swords clanging against swords, armor and shields, with people yelling etc. should at the very least cause disadvantage (-5) to a passive perception check. In some cases, a DM could rule that you are effectively deafened. In that case, the effectively blinded and deafened character would have no chance of detecting the creature.
The game has a way for Fred to make his location unknown. Use the Hide action (or bonus action if he has that ability.) The DM has a way to rule that Susan has difficulty hearing Fred. Susan doesn’t “automatically” know where Fred is. It depends on what Fred does and how the DM rules.
Christopher Perkins has said than a believed illusion would indeed provide cover.
He said: "An illusory wall provides no cover since it has no substance"
It's only when pressed with "so if somebody hides behind a illusionary wall which only covers 50% of him, no AC bonus is granted?" does he reply with "If the attacker believes the wall is real and is trying not to hit it, the target would effectively have cover." But this is not an official ruling at all, and at no point does he imply that darkness or invisibility might provide "cover". They provide Heavy Obscuration (which includes disadvantage on attacks, among other things... but not cover).
Christopher Perkins has said than a believed illusion would indeed provide cover.
He said: "An illusory wall provides no cover since it has no substance"
It's only when pressed with "so if somebody hides behind a illusionary wall which only covers 50% of him, no AC bonus is granted?" does he reply with "If the attacker believes the wall is real and is trying not to hit it, the target would effectively have cover." But this is not an official ruling at all, and at no point does he imply that darkness or invisibility might provide "cover". They provide Heavy Obscuration (which includes disadvantage on attacks, among other things... but not cover).
So he only said what I said he said when he said it. Gotcha. :)
I also of course exactly indicated that he's not Crawford. I mentioned that point only as an interesting aside, as a way of pointing out that there is still some confusion about these issues.
The game has a way for Fred to make his location unknown. Use the Hide action (or bonus action if he has that ability.) The DM has a way to rule that Susan has difficulty hearing Fred. Susan doesn’t “automatically” know where Fred is. It depends on what Fred does and how the DM rules.
Right, the game does have a way for Fred to make his location unknown. Several ways, in fact, and those are listed under the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. And those rules do not mandate (although they mention as one option) the Hide action. They also mention spells, and in fact just 'lurking in darkness' as other methods.
Everything of course depends on the DM--no game rules are ever believed by the creators to be able to cover every single instance clearly. But in this case, the rules are even labeled for this exact situation--we have an Unseen Target. If the rules said "A creature must use the Hide action in order to become unseen", then your interpretation would clearly be right. But the rules, though they can be overly mechanistic sometimes, are not overly mechanistic here. It is not 'do this action only and get this result'. The rules are reflecting a realistic sort of interpretation. The rules don't say anything like 'Hide being necessary', and in fact list other ways to become unseen. They then tell you what happens when you become unseen--disadvantage, and the attacker can auto-miss.
I never said that Hide is needed to be unseen. I agree with almost everything you said. I’m saying that a Darkness spell and movement by the target are not in themselves sufficient to cause the target’s location to become unknown. In most cases, the target must use Hide to make his location unknown. A combination of Darkness and Silence would also work, or Darkness and Deafened, and a lot of other things too.
This came up in last night's session and I wondered what you all thought about this ruling. A villain used a lair action to cast Darkness around them and one of my players wanted to use Burning hands to set them on fire. How does the Darkness effect damage spells that require a saving throw like Burning Hands? BH is cast in a 15 ft cone and the Darkness spell covers a 15 ft radius, so logically the player could hit the enemy with the spell. But in order to cast it, they have to be able to see their target, correct?
The range of the spell is self, and it is an AoO spell that emanates from the caster, so no reason why it wouldn't work. Since a 15ft radius sphere is basically 4 15ft cones, you could give it a 1 in 4 chance that it hits if the enemy has moved around within the darkness.
Burning Hands does not require that you see your target. Darkness would affect spells that require you to see your target to function.
Burning Hands is an area of affect spell and it originates with the caster, so you can cast it at an area without seeing your target. Mechanically, when you're in a heavily obscured area, which is what Darkness creates, you are Blinded. Plus, didn't the villain move after casting Darkness anyway? That means he wouldn't have been hit by the spell because he wasn't there to be hit.
Professional computer geek
The only interaction I can think of is regarding Darkness's clause about dispelling spells that create light if there is any overlap. Burning Hands does not "officially" create light, so there should be no interaction, but if the DM rules that Burning Hands creates light, then Darkness should dispel it, unless Burning Hands was upcast to level 3 or higher. But that's not strictly RAW (since Burning Hands does not create light per RAW).
I would rule that the flames from Burning Hands would not be visible within the area of effect of the Darkness spell, in the same way that a lit torch would not be visible. The flame would still be there and would still do damage to anything within its area of effect.
I would represent the situation thusly: place a circle of black paper on the table, this represents the area covered in Darkness, now lay a triangle of orange paper down, this is the area covered by the Burning Hands. If the villain is within the cone of Burning Hands they take damage from that spell. However it is possible that moved from the position they were in when they cast Darkness and may not be within the cone of Burning Hands. Whether or not the villain is within the cone of Burning Hands, it used to be officially a fan-like sheet rather than an actual cone, depends on where the Burning Hands spell is targeted. A 15 foot cone cast into a 15 foot sphere will leave some portions of the sphere unaffected.
It doesn't.
Nope, not unless the spell says so. Also, "area" spells are generally just cast on areas (rather than enemy 'targets').
Of course, if the enemy used stealth while in the darkness, the caster might not know where to place his area spell (and might have to just guess).
Good point. It's easy to forget that unless a creature Hides, using their Stealth, you can still know where they are, even if you can't see them. Being unseen is just a sufficient condition to Hide.
Being unseen is considered total cover, which means they can't be targeted by a spell or attack. Being unseen isn't a sufficient condition to hide, it is the successful result of the hide action.
BURNING HANDS!!!
I like 2 play spellcasters that can learn misty step.Also I like to play halflings,elves,dragonborn,warforged,teiflingfs, and half elf
Characters I play: Adron Nightbreeze
Help us Fight the godmodder! We need all the help we can get!
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/user/Orcalord (use link to get to homebrewery)
This is not true. As long as the creature in the darkness has not taken the hide action and used stealth to conceal their presence, you still know where they are. This is also true for invisibility. Invisible and concealed creatures are not automatically hidden.
As for the OPs question, there is nothing preventing the casting of burning hands at a target in darkness.
That is incorrect: cover is different from concealment.
That is also incorrect: Tonio was correct in his statement. Hidden means "unseen and unheard" (PHB p. 195) .
Agreed about the OP's question. But I'm not sure that a darkness caster not using Hide/Stealth means that the burning hands caster automatically knows where he is. If the darkness caster moves, just using regular movement, and the burning hands caster is inside the darkness radius, knowing where the darkness caster is should not be automatic.
Think about what is actually a similar situation (although burning hands wouldn't help here). Fred and Susan are 20 feet away from each other--Susan in a room, Fred just outside the door in a hallway running left/right (not straight back away from the room). Fred on his turn uses his normal movement, not Hide/Stealth, to just sidestep into the hallway outside the room. Fred is not Hiding or using Stealth, so Susan could maybe hear him still. But Susan can't see him. Does Susan get to know where Fred is in that hallway? He used regular movement and can't be seen by Susan. So if instead Fred casts darkness and uses his normal movement, how would Susan automatically get to know where he is in that case?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Susan would know where Fred is because her passive perception beats his Dex (stealth) check, which is 0 since he didn’t use an action to hide.
Is this realistic in real life? Doesn’t really matter. In game, Fred needs to use an action to Hide if he doesn’t want Susan to know where he is.
So she'd know where he was in the hallway too? If she had a spell or weapon that ignored cover, she could target Fred in the hallway too? Or if Fred cast an illusion of a long wall and used his movement to move behind it, she'd be able to target him automatically? Not buying it.
1) I'd take issue with using passive perception in the middle of combat. Someone ducks out of sight behind a wall, while a fight is going on around you, and you're just going to know where they are? There's nothing that mandates that in the passive perception rules. In fact, those rules state, "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen." The rules indicate that distraction can provide different situations.
2) When you take the Hide action, if successful, the rules state that you "gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter." In other words, if you successfully use the Hide action, you gain the same benefits as a target that cannot be seen. Those Unseen Attackers and Targets rules state, "Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
So Hiding is one method of gaining those benefits. The other two methods listed are 'casting an invisibility spell' or 'lurking in darkness'. Those are listed along with hiding. They are not done only by hiding. Darkness would be another method of becoming 'Unseen', thus giving you those same benefits. Even if you don't hide, and even if they can hear you (asterisk, see below).
3) Really that second point is enough, but I'll add just because it's interesting that there's some debate about concealment and cover. Total cover prevents you from being targeted, and the rules refer to total cover as 'concealing' you--that's why you can't be targeted. I admit I don't know if/what Crawford has said about this, but Christopher Perkins has said than a believed illusion would indeed provide cover. In the case of just being unseen but not behind an actual obstacle, would the total cover rules apply? If what makes you unseen is a believed illusion--something you cannot see through--then you cannot be targeted. So is darkness something you cannot see through?
But really, the rules for attacking Unseen Targets, and the fact that they are not tied to the Hide action, are enough here. The darkness goes up, the opponent is now 'unseen'. You can tell the DM where you think the target is. The DM might allow a passive perception check. But in combat, you're distracted, and you might not get one. If you don't get one, you make your attack in the chosen direction. If the target isn't there, you automatically miss. The Unseen Target rules do not mention the necessity of the target to use Hide.
I will say this--the Unseen Target rules do say that you get disadvantage even if you can hear the target. The very next sentence is the one about choosing a location and auto-missing if you're wrong. And so it's not clear if the 'even if you can hear them' applies to that as well. Here's the full text as it appears in the passage:
(I put the numbers in)
(1)When you attack a target that you can't see, (2)you have
disadvantage on the attack roll. (3)This is true whether
you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting
a creature you can hear but not see. (4)If the target isn't in
the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but
the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not
whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
It's unclear if (3) applies to (4), or just to the (1)(2) combo. If it does apply to the whole passage, then the passive perception check doesn't change a thing even if you get it.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
At the place where I work there is a hallway. I can’t see down the hallway but I hear people walking in the hallway. I can tell about where they are in the hallway and usually know who it is based on the sound of their shoes, their gait, etc. If they open a door in the hallway (there are 3) I know which door is opening.
Granted, this is a place I’ve been in for years. But my hearing isn’t as good as it used to be and my life doesn’t depend on it so it’s not like I’ve been practicing this skill.
There are many factors in game that should modify a character’s passive perception based only on hearing. A battle with swords clanging against swords, armor and shields, with people yelling etc. should at the very least cause disadvantage (-5) to a passive perception check. In some cases, a DM could rule that you are effectively deafened. In that case, the effectively blinded and deafened character would have no chance of detecting the creature.
The game has a way for Fred to make his location unknown. Use the Hide action (or bonus action if he has that ability.) The DM has a way to rule that Susan has difficulty hearing Fred. Susan doesn’t “automatically” know where Fred is. It depends on what Fred does and how the DM rules.
He said: "An illusory wall provides no cover since it has no substance"
It's only when pressed with "so if somebody hides behind a illusionary wall which only covers 50% of him, no AC bonus is granted?" does he reply with "If the attacker believes the wall is real and is trying not to hit it, the target would effectively have cover." But this is not an official ruling at all, and at no point does he imply that darkness or invisibility might provide "cover". They provide Heavy Obscuration (which includes disadvantage on attacks, among other things... but not cover).
So he only said what I said he said when he said it. Gotcha. :)
I also of course exactly indicated that he's not Crawford. I mentioned that point only as an interesting aside, as a way of pointing out that there is still some confusion about these issues.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Right, the game does have a way for Fred to make his location unknown. Several ways, in fact, and those are listed under the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. And those rules do not mandate (although they mention as one option) the Hide action. They also mention spells, and in fact just 'lurking in darkness' as other methods.
Everything of course depends on the DM--no game rules are ever believed by the creators to be able to cover every single instance clearly. But in this case, the rules are even labeled for this exact situation--we have an Unseen Target. If the rules said "A creature must use the Hide action in order to become unseen", then your interpretation would clearly be right. But the rules, though they can be overly mechanistic sometimes, are not overly mechanistic here. It is not 'do this action only and get this result'. The rules are reflecting a realistic sort of interpretation. The rules don't say anything like 'Hide being necessary', and in fact list other ways to become unseen. They then tell you what happens when you become unseen--disadvantage, and the attacker can auto-miss.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I never said that Hide is needed to be unseen. I agree with almost everything you said. I’m saying that a Darkness spell and movement by the target are not in themselves sufficient to cause the target’s location to become unknown. In most cases, the target must use Hide to make his location unknown. A combination of Darkness and Silence would also work, or Darkness and Deafened, and a lot of other things too.