Here’s the relevant rules text: “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.”
Can we all just take a moment and laugh at this rules text? It says it blocks vision "entirely" and then immediately goes on to say that it blocks vision conditionally.
I suppose you can argue about what "entirely" means in this context, but I can't believe multiple people read this and said, "Yep, makes sense to me. Let's publish it."
I think this right here is the origin of all the confusion and debate. It's just not very clear. Maybe they were being meta by making the obscured rules obscure?
Funnily enough the rules perfectly describe the ability to see stuff that a player would have from their vantage point looking down at a battlemap. These rules seem to have nothing to do with what a character should see, and instead describe what a player might see.
Thinking about it in those terms: "Blocks Vision Entirely" starts to make sense because from an aerial vantage point looking down on a 2d map the edges of both darkness/foliage/fog block vision into their spaces entirely. Not laterally, or from one side to the other, but the player isn't looking at them from those angles so that simply isn't part of the equation. Instead, from their top down perspective, these obscurements are equally inhibitory. You simply cannot see into the area.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Here’s the relevant rules text: “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.”
Can we all just take a moment and laugh at this rules text? It says it blocks vision "entirely" and then immediately goes on to say that it blocks vision conditionally.
I suppose you can argue about what "entirely" means in this context, but I can't believe multiple people read this and said, "Yep, makes sense to me. Let's publish it."
I think this right here is the origin of all the confusion and debate. It's just not very clear. Maybe they were being meta by making the obscured rules obscure?
Yes, it's very poorly written. I think the intention is that it blocks vision from outside to inside, inside to outside, and inside to inside the area.
However, as written, what it says is that it blocks vision from outside to inside and from inside to inside.
Technically, the only applicable mechanic in that rule is this: "A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area." The first part of the rule, in addition to contradicting the second part, cannot be applied since we do not know what condition "blocks vision entirely" is. So as written, the Blinded condition does not apply when looking at things that are outside the area even though you are inside the dark area.
Funnily enough the rules perfectly describe the ability to see stuff that a player would have from their vantage point looking down at a battlemap. These rules seem to have nothing to do with what a character should see, and instead describe what a player might see.
Thinking about it in those terms: "Blocks Vision Entirely" starts to make sense because from an aerial vantage point looking down on a 2d map the edges of both darkness/foliage/fog block vision into their spaces entirely. Not laterally, or from one side to the other, but the player isn't looking at them from those angles so that simply isn't part of the equation. Instead, from their top down perspective, these obscurements are equally inhibitory. You simply cannot see into the area.
I have a game coming up where I use Roll20 created module and the starting tactic for a creature starts inside a darkness spell which on a battlemap seems pretty pointless because what is keeping the players (four) from using ranged weapons and just picking lanes to shoot into. I'm changing that up as it's going to be shooting a demon in a barrel so to speak. It's properly incorporating the spell on a battlemap that seems like a lot of I shoot this corner. I shoot that corner. All the while I'm moving the demon around trying to avoid being hit.
Funnily enough the rules perfectly describe the ability to see stuff that a player would have from their vantage point looking down at a battlemap. These rules seem to have nothing to do with what a character should see, and instead describe what a player might see.
Thinking about it in those terms: "Blocks Vision Entirely" starts to make sense because from an aerial vantage point looking down on a 2d map the edges of both darkness/foliage/fog block vision into their spaces entirely. Not laterally, or from one side to the other, but the player isn't looking at them from those angles so that simply isn't part of the equation. Instead, from their top down perspective, these obscurements are equally inhibitory. You simply cannot see into the area.
I have a game coming up where I use Roll20 created module and the starting tactic for a creature starts inside a darkness spell which on a battlemap seems pretty pointless because what is keeping the players (four) from using ranged weapons and just picking lanes to shoot into. I'm changing that up as it's going to be shooting a demon in a barrel so to speak. It's properly incorporating the spell on a battlemap that seems like a lot of I shoot this corner. I shoot that corner. All the while I'm moving the demon around trying to avoid being hit.
But D&D doesn't allow shooting into lanes. You have to target a specific location.
You can imagine this as the ammunition arcing through the air to miss anything in front of the target, and then hitting the floor shortly after the target area, and thus not able to do any significant damage to anything beyond the target location.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What about casting something like shatter and fireball? On the edge of the darkness sure and the aoe spreads out, but you could choose to cast it inside the darkness.
One of the major problems with vision rules in 5e is that they want to use the same rules for darkness and fog, and they really don't do the same thing -- one blocks vision into its area, one blocks vision through its area (which the darkness spell is supposed to do isn't entirely clear, I've always read it as opaque but it might not be).
According to my previous post referencing Jeremy Crawford, the Darkness spell should probably be thought of as "Shadow Fog". I.e. literally filled with darkness, not just magically devoid of light.
Warlock Devil's Sight then lets them ignore these "darkness particles", like infrared light passing through black garbage bags.
According to my previous post referencing Jeremy Crawford, the Darkness spell should probably be thought of as "Shadow Fog". I.e. literally filled with darkness, not just magically devoid of light.
Warlock Devil's Sight then lets them ignore these "darkness particles", like infrared light passing through black garbage bags.
That's just it though, all darkness in 5e works that way, according to the RAW. Magical or otherwise. It isn't unique to just the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don’t see why a character with a bow could not do the same— at least with disadvantage.
Honestly? Because that isn't how the rules for making an attack work.
Catapult has specific rules that take precedence over the general ones. The general ones for attacking something you can't see or don't know where it is are:
"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."
So, if players are firing into darkness and they don't know exactly where a creature is (or possibly even whether there is a creature or not). They choose a target location and roll some dice. If the target can see them but they can't see it which is the case for creatures with devils sight or truesight (and some other forms of vision) then the attack is rolled at disadvantage.
There is no option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e.
Among other issues adding this ability would introduce is the following - you have 5 creatures in locations in a row - if you can fire "along a line" and hope to hit something in darkness then why can't you fire "along a line" with 5 creatures you can see? You would be sure to hit something in most cases with 5 chances. Catapult can do that because it has specific rules and costs a first level spell slot. Allowing it for regular ammunition would be almost game breaking so I would recommend against it.
That's just it though, all darkness in 5e works that way, according to the RAW. Magical or otherwise. It isn't unique to just the spell.
Actually, it's the reverse. No form of obscurement in 5e blocks vision through its area, only into its area. So if you cast Fog Cloud on your party, you can see targets outside of the fog perfectly, and targets outside of the fog cannot see you.
What about casting something like shatter and fireball? On the edge of the darkness sure and the aoe spreads out, but you could choose to cast it inside the darkness.
I'm not sure what the question is :)
Both Shatter and Fireball allow targeting of ANY point within range. You are explicitly allowed to target points you can't see.
"If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
In both these cases, the caster could choose a center point within an area of Darkness. The fireball would affect the entire area and Shatter would affect a 10' radius area out of the 15' radius Darkness. Neither of these spells would dispel the darkness. Either of the spells could damage targets within the darkness. Neither of these spells would reveal whether they actually affected any creature at all if the creatures can't be seen.
That's just it though, all darkness in 5e works that way, according to the RAW. Magical or otherwise. It isn't unique to just the spell.
Actually, it's the reverse. No form of obscurement in 5e blocks vision through its area, only into its area. So if you cast Fog Cloud on your party, you can see targets outside of the fog perfectly, and targets outside of the fog cannot see you.
No to all of that.
You cannot see through darkness, fog, or heavy foliage, since they block vision entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is no option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e.
Among other issues adding this ability would introduce is the following - you have 5 creatures in locations in a row - if you can fire "along a line" and hope to hit something in darkness then why can't you fire "along a line" with 5 creatures you can see? You would be sure to hit something in most cases with 5 chances. Catapult can do that because it has specific rules and costs a first level spell slot. Allowing it for regular ammunition would be almost game breaking so I would recommend against it.
So. Gunslinger is a Fighter Subclass. One of their options is:
"Piercing Shot
When you make a firearm attack against a creature, you can expend one grit point to attempt to fire through multiple opponents. The initial attack gains a +1 to the firearm’s misfire score. On a hit, the creature suffers normal damage and you make an attack roll with disadvantage against every creature in a line directly behind the target within your first range increment. Only the initial attack can misfire."
So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is no option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e.
Among other issues adding this ability would introduce is the following - you have 5 creatures in locations in a row - if you can fire "along a line" and hope to hit something in darkness then why can't you fire "along a line" with 5 creatures you can see? You would be sure to hit something in most cases with 5 chances. Catapult can do that because it has specific rules and costs a first level spell slot. Allowing it for regular ammunition would be almost game breaking so I would recommend against it.
So. Gunslinger is a Fighter Subclass. One of their options is:
"Piercing Shot
When you make a firearm attack against a creature, you can expend one grit point to attempt to fire through multiple opponents. The initial attack gains a +1 to the firearm’s misfire score. On a hit, the creature suffers normal damage and you make an attack roll with disadvantage against every creature in a line directly behind the target within your first range increment. Only the initial attack can misfire."
So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e".
That is homebrew so doesn't really count as an official rule.
What about casting something like shatter and fireball? On the edge of the darkness sure and the aoe spreads out, but you could choose to cast it inside the darkness.
I'm not sure what the question is :)
Both Shatter and Fireball allow targeting of ANY point within range. You are explicitly allowed to target points you can't see.
"If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
In both these cases, the caster could choose a center point within an area of Darkness. The fireball would affect the entire area and Shatter would affect a 10' radius area out of the 15' radius Darkness. Neither of these spells would dispel the darkness. Either of the spells could damage targets within the darkness. Neither of these spells would reveal whether they actually affected any creature at all if the creatures can't be seen.
There is no option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e.
Among other issues adding this ability would introduce is the following - you have 5 creatures in locations in a row - if you can fire "along a line" and hope to hit something in darkness then why can't you fire "along a line" with 5 creatures you can see? You would be sure to hit something in most cases with 5 chances. Catapult can do that because it has specific rules and costs a first level spell slot. Allowing it for regular ammunition would be almost game breaking so I would recommend against it.
So. Gunslinger is a Fighter Subclass. One of their options is:
"Piercing Shot
When you make a firearm attack against a creature, you can expend one grit point to attempt to fire through multiple opponents. The initial attack gains a +1 to the firearm’s misfire score. On a hit, the creature suffers normal damage and you make an attack roll with disadvantage against every creature in a line directly behind the target within your first range increment. Only the initial attack can misfire."
So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e".
That is homebrew so doesn't really count as an official rule.
It is published content here on DnDBeyond, the site we're talking about rules on, and not merely user submitted homebrew. I get what you're saying, in that it isn't published by Wizards, but it is not just "homebrew" here. This site even has a specific toggle for this content, and it isn't the "homebrew" toggle. But, you're right in that I should have said:
"So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e" here on dndbeyond".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can we all just take a moment and laugh at this rules text? It says it blocks vision "entirely" and then immediately goes on to say that it blocks vision conditionally.
I suppose you can argue about what "entirely" means in this context, but I can't believe multiple people read this and said, "Yep, makes sense to me. Let's publish it."
I think this right here is the origin of all the confusion and debate. It's just not very clear. Maybe they were being meta by making the obscured rules obscure?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Funnily enough the rules perfectly describe the ability to see stuff that a player would have from their vantage point looking down at a battlemap. These rules seem to have nothing to do with what a character should see, and instead describe what a player might see.
Thinking about it in those terms: "Blocks Vision Entirely" starts to make sense because from an aerial vantage point looking down on a 2d map the edges of both darkness/foliage/fog block vision into their spaces entirely. Not laterally, or from one side to the other, but the player isn't looking at them from those angles so that simply isn't part of the equation. Instead, from their top down perspective, these obscurements are equally inhibitory. You simply cannot see into the area.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, it's very poorly written. I think the intention is that it blocks vision from outside to inside, inside to outside, and inside to inside the area.
However, as written, what it says is that it blocks vision from outside to inside and from inside to inside.
Technically, the only applicable mechanic in that rule is this: "A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area." The first part of the rule, in addition to contradicting the second part, cannot be applied since we do not know what condition "blocks vision entirely" is. So as written, the Blinded condition does not apply when looking at things that are outside the area even though you are inside the dark area.
I have a game coming up where I use Roll20 created module and the starting tactic for a creature starts inside a darkness spell which on a battlemap seems pretty pointless because what is keeping the players (four) from using ranged weapons and just picking lanes to shoot into. I'm changing that up as it's going to be shooting a demon in a barrel so to speak. It's properly incorporating the spell on a battlemap that seems like a lot of I shoot this corner. I shoot that corner. All the while I'm moving the demon around trying to avoid being hit.
But D&D doesn't allow shooting into lanes. You have to target a specific location.
You can imagine this as the ammunition arcing through the air to miss anything in front of the target, and then hitting the floor shortly after the target area, and thus not able to do any significant damage to anything beyond the target location.
catapult
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just for discussion
What about casting something like shatter and fireball? On the edge of the darkness sure and the aoe spreads out, but you could choose to cast it inside the darkness.
One of the major problems with vision rules in 5e is that they want to use the same rules for darkness and fog, and they really don't do the same thing -- one blocks vision into its area, one blocks vision through its area (which the darkness spell is supposed to do isn't entirely clear, I've always read it as opaque but it might not be).
I don’t see why a character with a bow could not do the same— at least with disadvantage.
According to my previous post referencing Jeremy Crawford, the Darkness spell should probably be thought of as "Shadow Fog". I.e. literally filled with darkness, not just magically devoid of light.
Warlock Devil's Sight then lets them ignore these "darkness particles", like infrared light passing through black garbage bags.
That's just it though, all darkness in 5e works that way, according to the RAW. Magical or otherwise. It isn't unique to just the spell.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Honestly? Because that isn't how the rules for making an attack work.
Catapult has specific rules that take precedence over the general ones. The general ones for attacking something you can't see or don't know where it is are:
"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."
So, if players are firing into darkness and they don't know exactly where a creature is (or possibly even whether there is a creature or not). They choose a target location and roll some dice. If the target can see them but they can't see it which is the case for creatures with devils sight or truesight (and some other forms of vision) then the attack is rolled at disadvantage.
There is no option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e.
Among other issues adding this ability would introduce is the following - you have 5 creatures in locations in a row - if you can fire "along a line" and hope to hit something in darkness then why can't you fire "along a line" with 5 creatures you can see? You would be sure to hit something in most cases with 5 chances. Catapult can do that because it has specific rules and costs a first level spell slot. Allowing it for regular ammunition would be almost game breaking so I would recommend against it.
Actually, it's the reverse. No form of obscurement in 5e blocks vision through its area, only into its area. So if you cast Fog Cloud on your party, you can see targets outside of the fog perfectly, and targets outside of the fog cannot see you.
I'm not sure what the question is :)
Both Shatter and Fireball allow targeting of ANY point within range. You are explicitly allowed to target points you can't see.
"If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction."
In both these cases, the caster could choose a center point within an area of Darkness. The fireball would affect the entire area and Shatter would affect a 10' radius area out of the 15' radius Darkness. Neither of these spells would dispel the darkness. Either of the spells could damage targets within the darkness. Neither of these spells would reveal whether they actually affected any creature at all if the creatures can't be seen.
No to all of that.
You cannot see through darkness, fog, or heavy foliage, since they block vision entirely.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So. Gunslinger is a Fighter Subclass. One of their options is:
"Piercing Shot
When you make a firearm attack against a creature, you can expend one grit point to attempt to fire through multiple opponents. The initial attack gains a +1 to the firearm’s misfire score. On a hit, the creature suffers normal damage and you make an attack roll with disadvantage against every creature in a line directly behind the target within your first range increment. Only the initial attack can misfire."
So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That is homebrew so doesn't really count as an official rule.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That answered what I was looking for thanks!
When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack. First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
It is published content here on DnDBeyond, the site we're talking about rules on, and not merely user submitted homebrew. I get what you're saying, in that it isn't published by Wizards, but it is not just "homebrew" here. This site even has a specific toggle for this content, and it isn't the "homebrew" toggle. But, you're right in that I should have said:
"So, there very much is an "option for weapon attacks "along a line" in 5e" here on dndbeyond".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.