Wow. In fact, I instinctively ruled a disadvantage on the attack roll without giving it too much thought at that moment 😅
But my doubt arose when, after that day, I was reading the posts here and recalling this specific text applied to both positions (player and enemy):
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.
Thanks again for your opinion, @TexasDevin, as usual!
I would rule the spellcaster has disadvantage on the attack roll since the caster cannot see the target. I see no problems with spell targeting, and I would not consider the attacker or the target to be blinded in this case, even though the target cannot see the attacker. Not being able to see the attacker does not impose any special penalty on the target in the absence of any conditions that modify this general rule. The rules for unseen attackers and targets handles it fine on its own.
EDIT: Situationally, if the DM wants to rule that the howling wind and falling snow makes the attacker unable to see or hear the target, then you could have the attacker guess the target's location and then roll the attack with disadvantage. At that point, treat the target as hidden at that moment. It's a DM's ruling on whether to apply a rule to a particular situation :)
I would just like to point out that applying disadvantage to the to hit roll in this situation is a homebrew rule and not RAW.
In a situation where you can not see your target, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. If the creature you are attacking can not see you (as in the described situation) then you have advantage on the attack roll (from the mentioned rule on unseen attackers and targets). In a situation where you have both advantage and disadvantage on a roll, neither applies.
In this case, it would be a straight roll to hit the unseen target.
Also, as noted, the DM could decide that the creature is too far away to be heard and thus is both unseen and unheard and becomes hidden. It's location is no longer certain and the spell caster has to guess which location to target their spell at. They then make a straight roll (neither advantage nor disadvantage) because neither creature can see the other. If the die roll is a hit and the creature happens to be in the location targeted, then the spell will hit.
Wow. In fact, I instinctively ruled a disadvantage on the attack roll without giving it too much thought at that moment 😅
But my doubt arose when, after that day, I was reading the posts here and recalling this specific text applied to both positions (player and enemy):
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.
Thanks again for your opinion, @TexasDevin, as usual!
I'd just like to point out that your original assessment in your first post would be correct based on RAW.
In a situation where the attacker and target can not see each other then the disadvantage for targeting a creature you can't see is canceled by the advantage resulting from targeting a creature that can't see you resulting in a straight roll. So, ruling disadvantage in the situation described is a perfectly ok house rule but it isn't RAW.
"Unseen Attackers and Targets
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. 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.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
Not all spells have to travel from you, some state they do not.
The prime example of this include Sacred Flame, where you have to see the target, but it does not benefit from cover.
Similarly, many Teleport type spells do not travel from you, and some do not require you to see the target (DImension Door), but others (Misty Step) do require you to see it.
I'd just like to point out that your original assessment in your first post would be correct based on RAW.
In a situation where the attacker and target can not see each other then the disadvantage for targeting a creature you can't see is canceled by the advantage resulting from targeting a creature that can't see you resulting in a straight roll. So, ruling disadvantage in the situation described is a perfectly ok house rule but it isn't RAW.
"Unseen Attackers and Targets
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. 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.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
Yes, I know, that was my understanding after reading some posts and checking the rules. I ruled that day against RAW, for sure.
Not all spells have to travel from you, some state they do not.
The prime example of this include Sacred Flame, where you have to see the target, but it does not benefit from cover.
Similarly, many Teleport type spells do not travel from you, and some do not require you to see the target (DImension Door), but others (Misty Step) do require you to see it.
I know this is debatable, but Sacred Flame says the target "gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw", but in my opinion this doesn't overrule the general rule PHB, p. 204: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover"
Also in PHB, p.196: "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell"
It seems Jeremy Crawford wrote a tweet or something about RAI (see post from @quindraco) and I hope PHB 2024 gives us some updates for this spell.
Regarding the OP, the rules about targeting are essentially the same, aside from clearer wording. Depending on the spell, you may or may not need to see the target.
Spells that say "that you can see" or similar wording require the caster to be able to see the target. This is in addition to the Clear Path to the Target rule:
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
This rule is also relevant when targeting: Area of Effect
If the creator of an area of effect places it at an unseen point and an obstruction—such as a wall—is between the creator and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of the obstruction.
I know this is debatable, but Sacred Flame says the target "gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw", but in my opinion this doesn't overrule the general rule PHB, p. 204: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover"
Also in PHB, p.196: "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell"
It seems Jeremy Crawford wrote a tweet or something about RAI (see post from @quindraco) and I hope PHB 2024 gives us some updates for this spell.
It did. And they went for the rules correct version instead of what JC tweeted some years ago.
Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 Radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from Half Cover or Three-Quarters Cover for this save.
Cantrip Upgrade. The damage increases by 1d8 when you reach levels 5 (2d8), 11 (3d8), and 17 (4d8).
The thing is, Clairvoyance has the same wording as many of the spells in question, insect plague, stinking cloud etc, "a point in range" then goes on to say like a known location, a place you can see or even behind a door, clearly you dont need an unobstructed path to the "point".
So unless there is a separate rule that says if a spell can cause a saving throw or attack roll it needs an unobstructed path as a direct override to the "point in range" , I don't see why these spells wouldn't all act like clairvoyance.
The thing is, Clairvoyance has the same wording as many of the spells in question, insect plague, stinking cloud etc, "a point in range" then goes on to say like a known location, a place you can see or even behind a door, clearly you dont need an unobstructed path to the "point".
So unless there is a separate rule that says if a spell can cause a saving throw or attack roll it needs an unobstructed path as a direct override to the "point in range" , I don't see why these spells wouldn't all act like clairvoyance.
Since Clairvoyance tells you can target areas that you cannot see, it overrides the general spell targeting rules.
Wow. In fact, I instinctively ruled a disadvantage on the attack roll without giving it too much thought at that moment 😅
But my doubt arose when, after that day, I was reading the posts here and recalling this specific text applied to both positions (player and enemy):
Thanks again for your opinion, @TexasDevin, as usual!
I would just like to point out that applying disadvantage to the to hit roll in this situation is a homebrew rule and not RAW.
In a situation where you can not see your target, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. If the creature you are attacking can not see you (as in the described situation) then you have advantage on the attack roll (from the mentioned rule on unseen attackers and targets). In a situation where you have both advantage and disadvantage on a roll, neither applies.
In this case, it would be a straight roll to hit the unseen target.
Also, as noted, the DM could decide that the creature is too far away to be heard and thus is both unseen and unheard and becomes hidden. It's location is no longer certain and the spell caster has to guess which location to target their spell at. They then make a straight roll (neither advantage nor disadvantage) because neither creature can see the other. If the die roll is a hit and the creature happens to be in the location targeted, then the spell will hit.
I'd just like to point out that your original assessment in your first post would be correct based on RAW.
In a situation where the attacker and target can not see each other then the disadvantage for targeting a creature you can't see is canceled by the advantage resulting from targeting a creature that can't see you resulting in a straight roll. So, ruling disadvantage in the situation described is a perfectly ok house rule but it isn't RAW.
"Unseen Attackers and Targets
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. 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.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
This is the line I missed.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not all spells have to travel from you, some state they do not.
The prime example of this include Sacred Flame, where you have to see the target, but it does not benefit from cover.
Similarly, many Teleport type spells do not travel from you, and some do not require you to see the target (DImension Door), but others (Misty Step) do require you to see it.
Yes, I know, that was my understanding after reading some posts and checking the rules. I ruled that day against RAW, for sure.
Thanks David!
I know this is debatable, but Sacred Flame says the target "gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw", but in my opinion this doesn't overrule the general rule PHB, p. 204: "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover"
Also in PHB, p.196: "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell"
It seems Jeremy Crawford wrote a tweet or something about RAI (see post from @quindraco) and I hope PHB 2024 gives us some updates for this spell.
anyone know what the rules are for this in 6e
There is no 6e, really, it's still D&D 5e.
Regarding the OP, the rules about targeting are essentially the same, aside from clearer wording. Depending on the spell, you may or may not need to see the target.
Spells that say "that you can see" or similar wording require the caster to be able to see the target. This is in addition to the Clear Path to the Target rule:
This rule is also relevant when targeting: Area of Effect
Well, if we count iterations, it would be the 9th one (assuming we don't count Chainmail as one of the iterations).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Touché.
It did. And they went for the rules correct version instead of what JC tweeted some years ago.
Thank you for adding that, @Thezzaruz.
I also updated this thread after the 2024 release to mention it, but I forgot to do so here. I'm glad they updated the spell this way.
The thing is, Clairvoyance has the same wording as many of the spells in question, insect plague, stinking cloud etc, "a point in range" then goes on to say like a known location, a place you can see or even behind a door, clearly you dont need an unobstructed path to the "point".
So unless there is a separate rule that says if a spell can cause a saving throw or attack roll it needs an unobstructed path as a direct override to the "point in range" , I don't see why these spells wouldn't all act like clairvoyance.
Since Clairvoyance tells you can target areas that you cannot see, it overrides the general spell targeting rules.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.