I guess the argument comes down to a separation of opaque and heavily obscured. An area that is heavily obscured can not be seen into. Something that id opaque can not be seen through (we don't need rules for this, we have dictionaries).
Darkness is heavily obscured, but not opaque. You can see through and out of it, but not in to it.
Dense fog is opaque and heavily obscured. You can't see in, out, or through it.
Wall of fire is just opaque, and you can't technically fit inside the effect. You can't see through it, in and out shouldn't come up.
That all fits the RAW and matches real world expectations. I think I solved it. Take that half written rules, I filled in the blanks.
I agree with you :)
Lots of folks like to argue about unrealistic interpretations of the rules "Oh the rules state that you can't see into fog but you can see out of it or through it". My personal experience is that this is not the case :) thick fog blocks vision into, out of or through it, in my experience/opinion. So when I read the RAW and it says that opaque fog blocks vision entirely then I apply my experience to the rule and interpret it as into, out of or through. Others can choose to interpret it differently if they like.
It would be nice if the rules stated things a bit more clearly so that these arguments didn't come up.
The area that could use the most clarification is the difference between opaque fog or another opaque heavily obscured region and darkness (both natural and magical). The rules for natural darkness work fine if there aren't any light sources. The entire area is heavily obscured since without a light source, darkness is opaque unless you have darkvision. However, introduce a light source anywhere in that darkness and normal experience tells you the light passes through it. So the area near a light source is illuminated but the areas in natural darkness are still considered heavily obscured but in this case you can see through the obscurement to the illuminated area while with a fog cloud (or possibly magical darkness depending on the interpretation) you could not. So trying to treat fog and darkness exactly the same to make the rules simpler causes some situations that don't match normal experience and so the DM has to step in and interpret things so that the world hangs together logically for the players.
Is there really any confusion about whether you can see through something that is opaque?
Where does Fog Cloud say it's opaque?
The rules for Vision and Light divide fog into two categories: Patchy fog that lightly obscures vision, but can be seen through at a cost of disadvantage on perception checks; and opaque fog which heavily obscures the area. Fog Cloud specifies that the fog heavily obscures the area or effect, so it falls into the second category.
Texas, the Vision and Light rules provide that Heavy Obscurement (darkness, fog, foliage) is not opaque in both directions: "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." If a creature in the obscurement is looking at something not in the obscurement, they do not suffer the blinded condition.
*I do see how you could put the emphasis on a different syllabel to read that differently. "When trying to see something in that area" could mean "while you're in that area, if you're trying to see something, blinded..." But that isn't the way that sentence would normally be written for clarity, and reading it that way results in the opposite problem: creatures in the fog are blind, but those outside the fog can see them clear as day.
Hmm, we may not be talking about the same thing. I was just pointing out that from the perspective of someone outside of the fog cloud, if the opaque fog obscures things inside the cloud, it would also obscure things beyond it.
That would be logical, but then again, real world fog doesn't really act like D&D fog so lets keep logic out of it and focus on the Vision and Light rules that are provided:
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
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.
Couple of issues: first, we hear about "opaque fog" and "patchy fog" here as doing two different things, but the Fog Cloud spell just creates "fog." Luckily, Fog Cloud doesn't make us guess about whether its fog is patchy, opaque, or other, because it says right out what it does: the "area is heavily obscured."
Heavily obscured:
"Blocks vision entirely"
A creature (whether inside or outside of the area) "effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area
So in general for Heavy Obstruction, a creature on one side is not Blinded when looking at something on the other side. A creature on the inside is not Blinded when looking out at something on the outside. Blinded only effects something on the outside, looking at something on the inside.
Does "blocks vision entirely" do something else than the Blinded stuff that follows it? Does it apply effectively the same advantages as Blinded or Hiding to everything in and out of the obstruction when viewed through the obstruction in a separate overlapping way? Maybe!
So we have two possibilities:
Heavily Obscured just does the Blinded stuff to creatures trying to look in, does nothing to creatures looking out or all the way through, and the "blocks vision entirely" was misleading fluff.
Heavily Obscured "blocks vision entirely," and we aren't fully told what that means, but its clearly is sufficient to entirely overwrite and replace the sentence that comes after it, that Blinded sentence is misleading and too narrow.
Neither of those conclusions make me feel good, but I'm leaning towards #1.
This new course of conversation seems to be a repeat. There is no mechanical difference between heavily obscured areas created by opaque or non-opaque phenomena; you either have to use your brain or are left with some unresolvable quandary.
That would be logical, but then again, real world fog doesn't really act like D&D fog so lets keep logic out of it and focus on the Vision and Light rules that are provided:
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
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.
Couple of issues: first, we hear about "opaque fog" and "patchy fog" here as doing two different things, but the Fog Cloud spell just creates "fog." Luckily, Fog Cloud doesn't make us guess about whether its fog is patchy, opaque, or other, because it says right out what it does: the "area is heavily obscured."
Heavily obscured:
"Blocks vision entirely"
A creature (whether inside or outside of the area) "effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area
So in general for Heavy Obstruction, a creature on one side is not Blinded when looking at something on the other side. A creature on the inside is not Blinded when looking out at something on the outside. Blinded only effects something on the outside, looking at something on the inside.
Does "blocks vision entirely" do something else than the Blinded stuff that follows it? Does it apply effectively the same advantages as Blinded or Hiding to everything in and out of the obstruction when viewed through the obstruction in a separate overlapping way? Maybe!
So we have two possibilities:
Heavily Obscured just does the Blinded stuff to creatures trying to look in, does nothing to creatures looking out or all the way through, and the "blocks vision entirely" was misleading fluff.
Heavily Obscured "blocks vision entirely," and we aren't fully told what that means, but its clearly is sufficient to entirely overwrite and replace the sentence that comes after it, that Blinded sentence is misleading and too narrow.
Neither of those conclusions make me feel good, but I'm leaning towards #1.
I lean towards 2 because, to me, it is the most reasonable alternative.
1) Heavily Obscured "blocks vision entirely" - the book doesn't define "blocks vision entirely" however, if we fall back on common English usage which is what the books instruct us to do then "blocks vision entirely" means you can't see through it.
2) The first version of the errata actually fixed the issue: "A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.". I guess they decided that "obscured by it" sounded like a circular argument and changed it to the current wording.
3) Let's read the entire quote 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."
Your contention is that fog doesn't block vision to things on the other side of it. Creatures only suffer from the blinded condition when looking INTO the heavily obscured area.
However, heavily obscured includes "darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage" - let's consider dense foliage.
Using your interpretation, I am in a jungle, I am standing in a 10' clearing, I am surrounded by dense foliage for 50' in every direction so I can't see anything in the dense foliage. However, the clearing that is 60' away (but with 50' of dense foliage in between) is perfectly visible since it is not a heavily obscured area. I can see anything in that clearing, and I can attack anything in that clearing despite the fact that I am surrounded by a wall of foliage that one would normally think would block vision. However, using the interpretation you suggest, only looking at creatures in the heavily obscured area imposes the blinded conditions. This makes no sense to me so I read the first sentence that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely EXACTLY as it is written. The second sentence is a clarification that looking at a target IN a heavily obscured area is also blocked.
---
So lets go back to the original rules.
"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely."
Ok - if the obstacle blocks vision entirely then any creature in the heavily obscured area or trying to looking through the heavily obscured area can not see. However, what if you are trying to look into the heavily obscured area? Is your vision blocked? Or can you still see something IN the heavily obscured area? (personally, I think the statement that the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely is sufficient)
However, perhaps just to clarify the writers add the following "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." This makes it clear that if I try to see a creature IN the heavily obscured area then I am effectively blinded. Any creature IN the heavily obscured area or trying to see through the heavily obscured area finds that their vision is blocked entirely and so can't see anything out of the fog cloud or on the other side of the fog cloud. (or heavy foliage, or darkness if the entire area is dark).
Okay, so we're back to the situation that if you are in darkness, you can't see someone holding a torch, because the heavy obscurement of the darkness you are in "blocks vision entirely." That is quite plainly not RAI, while not being able to see through or out of a fog bank is only arguably not RAI.
The real world logic answer is that darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage are three very different things that don't work the same, that none of them would ever cause you to be blind to something 5 feet away, that there's no such thing as "opaque fog" that blocks vision entirely, etc. But none of that matters, because what we're dealing with is a game term ("Heavily Obscured") which has a clear mechanical definition (you are blind when trying to see things in the heavily obscured area) and also some other undefined language ("blocks vision entirely") that if read logically, means that the mechanical definition provided is incorrect (you would actually be blind when trying to see things in, out of, or through the heavily obscured area). So we're stuck in a crappy situation either way we cut it: either "blocks vision entirely" doesn't mean what it says it does, or "see something in that area" doesn't mean what it says it does. Pick your poison, it needs an errata either way.
Okay, so we're back to the situation that if you are in darkness, you can't see someone holding a torch, because the heavy obscurement of the darkness you are in "blocks vision entirely." That is quite plainly not RAI, while not being able to see through or out of a fog bank is only arguably not RAI.
The real world logic answer is that darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage are three very different things that don't work the same, that none of them would ever cause you to be blind to something 5 feet away, that there's no such thing as "opaque fog" that blocks vision entirely, etc. But none of that matters, because what we're dealing with is a game term ("Heavily Obscured") which has a clear mechanical definition (you are blind when trying to see things in the heavily obscured area) and also some other undefined language ("blocks vision entirely") that if read logically, means that the mechanical definition provided is incorrect (you would actually be blind when trying to see things in, out of, or through the heavily obscured area). So we're stuck in a crappy situation either way we cut it: either "blocks vision entirely" doesn't mean what it says it does, or "see something in that area" doesn't mean what it says it does. Pick your poison, it needs an errata either way.
I agree that the rules as written don't properly account for darkness that contains light sources. They work fine for darkness without light sources :) (in my opinion).
Here is how I run it ... for any physical or opaque heavily obscured region then you can't see through it, into it or out of it. It blocks line of sight. Apply vision rules for advantage and disadvantage as normal. Shooting through such an obstruction depends on whether it is visually opaque like a fog cloud or physically opaque like heavy foliage. This covers most of the common cases.
For natural darkness without light sources I treat it the same as a fog cloud. Visual obstruction that does block line of sight but does not block line of effect physical attacks or spells. The only difference here is that darkvision removes the obscuration effect of natural darkness.
For natural darkness with light sources. Natural darkness by itself does not block line of sight to an illuminated area. That is pretty much the only house rule/clarification.i.e. Natural darkness is considered heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely except to areas that are illuminated.
Anything IN the illuminated area is visible. Anything IN the darkness is heavily obscured (unless the darkness is effectively cancelled by effects like darkvision).
Keep in mind that natural darkness does not mean "pitch black", it can be very dimly lit. In the PHB it describes that a full moon may be considered dimly lit. Anything less is darkness. Half moon - dark, no moon but clear sky with stars - dark, 50' away from a torch at night - dark ... if you have ever been outside in such conditions then you know that you can actually make out figures, trees, objects most of the time, just not very well in many cases.
Finally, I treat magical darkness as creating an area of blackness or shadow like a fog cloud of darkness and as a result it blocks natural light sources (which it states the spell does). Light does not pass through magical darkness. Basically it is treated as a heavily obscured area blocking vision entirely as described in the rules.
---
So :) .. the one "house rule" I use for this is: "Natural darkness is considered heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely except to illuminated areas".
If you are not allowing creatures to see through or out of an area of fog created by Fog Cloud, then that thing with the darkness is certainly not your only house rule.
Heavily Obscured just does the Blinded stuff to creatures trying to look in, does nothing to creatures looking out or all the way through, and the "blocks vision entirely" was misleading fluff.
Heavily Obscured "blocks vision entirely," and we aren't fully told what that means, but its clearly is sufficient to entirely overwrite and replace the sentence that comes after it, that Blinded sentence is misleading and too narrow.
Neither of those conclusions make me feel good, but I'm leaning towards #1.
Are you really leaning towards 1? If I tried to argue that my character has somehow selective X-Ray vision and can't see something in the fog but has a 20/20 vision of everything that is behind the fog, I'd be slapped in the head with a PHB.
I am not arguing with you that the wording needs perhaps a bit of clarification but you genuinely surprised me that you'd even consider such scenario.
Id be okay with treating regular darkness as 1 (can see out or through, but not into), foliage as 1.5 (can see out, but not into or through), and heavy fog and magical darkness as 2 (can’t see out, into, or through). But I at least recognize that that would be a house rule, and not what the rules actually describe.
Id be okay with treating regular darkness as 1 (can see out or through, but not into), foliage as 1.5 (can see out, but not into or through), and heavy fog and magical darkness as 2 (can’t see out, into, or through). But I at least recognize that that would be a house rule, and not what the rules actually describe.
I guess where we differ mostly is that I interpret "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." to mean what it says. A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely. Something that "blocks vision entirely" means (to me) that you can't see into it, you can't see through it and you can't see out of it because vision is entirely blocked. You interpret this sentence to mean something else (I'm not sure how it can be interpreted to mean something else which is likely my problem with the discussion since I can't see the alternate interpretation).
By the way, 5' of heavy foliage can be sufficient to block vision entirely ... enough leaves and you can't see into it, through it or out of it ... so I don't see a need for treating heavy foliage any differently than the dense opaque fog. I agree with you though that the rules don't work well for natural darkness containing illuminated areas.
I guess where we differ mostly is that I interpret "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." to mean what it says. A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely.
The problem is that one of those three cases (darkness) clearly does not block vision out of or through the area, and foliage is at least disproportionate in its effects (someone looking out through a gap in foliage isn't totally impossible to see, but seeing them is far more hindered than their ability to look out).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where does Fog Cloud say it's opaque?
No, the confusion comes from the lack of rules about treating some heavily obscured areas differently from others.
I agree with you :)
Lots of folks like to argue about unrealistic interpretations of the rules "Oh the rules state that you can't see into fog but you can see out of it or through it". My personal experience is that this is not the case :) thick fog blocks vision into, out of or through it, in my experience/opinion. So when I read the RAW and it says that opaque fog blocks vision entirely then I apply my experience to the rule and interpret it as into, out of or through. Others can choose to interpret it differently if they like.
It would be nice if the rules stated things a bit more clearly so that these arguments didn't come up.
The area that could use the most clarification is the difference between opaque fog or another opaque heavily obscured region and darkness (both natural and magical). The rules for natural darkness work fine if there aren't any light sources. The entire area is heavily obscured since without a light source, darkness is opaque unless you have darkvision. However, introduce a light source anywhere in that darkness and normal experience tells you the light passes through it. So the area near a light source is illuminated but the areas in natural darkness are still considered heavily obscured but in this case you can see through the obscurement to the illuminated area while with a fog cloud (or possibly magical darkness depending on the interpretation) you could not. So trying to treat fog and darkness exactly the same to make the rules simpler causes some situations that don't match normal experience and so the DM has to step in and interpret things so that the world hangs together logically for the players.
The rules for Vision and Light divide fog into two categories: Patchy fog that lightly obscures vision, but can be seen through at a cost of disadvantage on perception checks; and opaque fog which heavily obscures the area. Fog Cloud specifies that the fog heavily obscures the area or effect, so it falls into the second category.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Texas, the Vision and Light rules provide that Heavy Obscurement (darkness, fog, foliage) is not opaque in both directions: "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." If a creature in the obscurement is looking at something not in the obscurement, they do not suffer the blinded condition.
*I do see how you could put the emphasis on a different syllabel to read that differently. "When trying to see something in that area" could mean "while you're in that area, if you're trying to see something, blinded..." But that isn't the way that sentence would normally be written for clarity, and reading it that way results in the opposite problem: creatures in the fog are blind, but those outside the fog can see them clear as day.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Hmm, we may not be talking about the same thing. I was just pointing out that from the perspective of someone outside of the fog cloud, if the opaque fog obscures things inside the cloud, it would also obscure things beyond it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That would be logical, but then again, real world fog doesn't really act like D&D fog so lets keep logic out of it and focus on the Vision and Light rules that are provided:
Couple of issues: first, we hear about "opaque fog" and "patchy fog" here as doing two different things, but the Fog Cloud spell just creates "fog." Luckily, Fog Cloud doesn't make us guess about whether its fog is patchy, opaque, or other, because it says right out what it does: the "area is heavily obscured."
Heavily obscured:
So in general for Heavy Obstruction, a creature on one side is not Blinded when looking at something on the other side. A creature on the inside is not Blinded when looking out at something on the outside. Blinded only effects something on the outside, looking at something on the inside.
Does "blocks vision entirely" do something else than the Blinded stuff that follows it? Does it apply effectively the same advantages as Blinded or Hiding to everything in and out of the obstruction when viewed through the obstruction in a separate overlapping way? Maybe!
So we have two possibilities:
Neither of those conclusions make me feel good, but I'm leaning towards #1.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I know what "blocks vision entirely" means :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This new course of conversation seems to be a repeat. There is no mechanical difference between heavily obscured areas created by opaque or non-opaque phenomena; you either have to use your brain or are left with some unresolvable quandary.
I lean towards 2 because, to me, it is the most reasonable alternative.
1) Heavily Obscured "blocks vision entirely" - the book doesn't define "blocks vision entirely" however, if we fall back on common English usage which is what the books instruct us to do then "blocks vision entirely" means you can't see through it.
2) The first version of the errata actually fixed the issue: "A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.". I guess they decided that "obscured by it" sounded like a circular argument and changed it to the current wording.
3) Let's read the entire quote 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."
Your contention is that fog doesn't block vision to things on the other side of it. Creatures only suffer from the blinded condition when looking INTO the heavily obscured area.
However, heavily obscured includes "darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage" - let's consider dense foliage.
Using your interpretation, I am in a jungle, I am standing in a 10' clearing, I am surrounded by dense foliage for 50' in every direction so I can't see anything in the dense foliage. However, the clearing that is 60' away (but with 50' of dense foliage in between) is perfectly visible since it is not a heavily obscured area. I can see anything in that clearing, and I can attack anything in that clearing despite the fact that I am surrounded by a wall of foliage that one would normally think would block vision. However, using the interpretation you suggest, only looking at creatures in the heavily obscured area imposes the blinded conditions. This makes no sense to me so I read the first sentence that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely EXACTLY as it is written. The second sentence is a clarification that looking at a target IN a heavily obscured area is also blocked.
---
So lets go back to the original rules.
"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely."
Ok - if the obstacle blocks vision entirely then any creature in the heavily obscured area or trying to looking through the heavily obscured area can not see. However, what if you are trying to look into the heavily obscured area? Is your vision blocked? Or can you still see something IN the heavily obscured area? (personally, I think the statement that the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely is sufficient)
However, perhaps just to clarify the writers add the following "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area." This makes it clear that if I try to see a creature IN the heavily obscured area then I am effectively blinded. Any creature IN the heavily obscured area or trying to see through the heavily obscured area finds that their vision is blocked entirely and so can't see anything out of the fog cloud or on the other side of the fog cloud. (or heavy foliage, or darkness if the entire area is dark).
Okay, so we're back to the situation that if you are in darkness, you can't see someone holding a torch, because the heavy obscurement of the darkness you are in "blocks vision entirely." That is quite plainly not RAI, while not being able to see through or out of a fog bank is only arguably not RAI.
The real world logic answer is that darkness, opaque fog, and dense foliage are three very different things that don't work the same, that none of them would ever cause you to be blind to something 5 feet away, that there's no such thing as "opaque fog" that blocks vision entirely, etc. But none of that matters, because what we're dealing with is a game term ("Heavily Obscured") which has a clear mechanical definition (you are blind when trying to see things in the heavily obscured area) and also some other undefined language ("blocks vision entirely") that if read logically, means that the mechanical definition provided is incorrect (you would actually be blind when trying to see things in, out of, or through the heavily obscured area). So we're stuck in a crappy situation either way we cut it: either "blocks vision entirely" doesn't mean what it says it does, or "see something in that area" doesn't mean what it says it does. Pick your poison, it needs an errata either way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree that the rules as written don't properly account for darkness that contains light sources. They work fine for darkness without light sources :) (in my opinion).
Here is how I run it ... for any physical or opaque heavily obscured region then you can't see through it, into it or out of it. It blocks line of sight. Apply vision rules for advantage and disadvantage as normal. Shooting through such an obstruction depends on whether it is visually opaque like a fog cloud or physically opaque like heavy foliage. This covers most of the common cases.
For natural darkness without light sources I treat it the same as a fog cloud. Visual obstruction that does block line of sight but does not block line of effect physical attacks or spells. The only difference here is that darkvision removes the obscuration effect of natural darkness.
For natural darkness with light sources. Natural darkness by itself does not block line of sight to an illuminated area. That is pretty much the only house rule/clarification.i.e. Natural darkness is considered heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely except to areas that are illuminated.
Anything IN the illuminated area is visible. Anything IN the darkness is heavily obscured (unless the darkness is effectively cancelled by effects like darkvision).
Keep in mind that natural darkness does not mean "pitch black", it can be very dimly lit. In the PHB it describes that a full moon may be considered dimly lit. Anything less is darkness. Half moon - dark, no moon but clear sky with stars - dark, 50' away from a torch at night - dark ... if you have ever been outside in such conditions then you know that you can actually make out figures, trees, objects most of the time, just not very well in many cases.
Finally, I treat magical darkness as creating an area of blackness or shadow like a fog cloud of darkness and as a result it blocks natural light sources (which it states the spell does). Light does not pass through magical darkness. Basically it is treated as a heavily obscured area blocking vision entirely as described in the rules.
---
So :) .. the one "house rule" I use for this is: "Natural darkness is considered heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely except to illuminated areas".
If you are not allowing creatures to see through or out of an area of fog created by Fog Cloud, then that thing with the darkness is certainly not your only house rule.
Agree to disagree I guess.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Are you really leaning towards 1? If I tried to argue that my character has somehow selective X-Ray vision and can't see something in the fog but has a 20/20 vision of everything that is behind the fog, I'd be slapped in the head with a PHB.
I am not arguing with you that the wording needs perhaps a bit of clarification but you genuinely surprised me that you'd even consider such scenario.
I'm leaning towards 'sometimes 1, sometimes 2, and the rules should be better written'. Darkness should be 1, most other sources should be 2.
Id be okay with treating regular darkness as 1 (can see out or through, but not into), foliage as 1.5 (can see out, but not into or through), and heavy fog and magical darkness as 2 (can’t see out, into, or through). But I at least recognize that that would be a house rule, and not what the rules actually describe.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I guess where we differ mostly is that I interpret "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely." to mean what it says. A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely. Something that "blocks vision entirely" means (to me) that you can't see into it, you can't see through it and you can't see out of it because vision is entirely blocked. You interpret this sentence to mean something else (I'm not sure how it can be interpreted to mean something else which is likely my problem with the discussion since I can't see the alternate interpretation).
By the way, 5' of heavy foliage can be sufficient to block vision entirely ... enough leaves and you can't see into it, through it or out of it ... so I don't see a need for treating heavy foliage any differently than the dense opaque fog. I agree with you though that the rules don't work well for natural darkness containing illuminated areas.
The problem is that one of those three cases (darkness) clearly does not block vision out of or through the area, and foliage is at least disproportionate in its effects (someone looking out through a gap in foliage isn't totally impossible to see, but seeing them is far more hindered than their ability to look out).