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.
But what does "block vision entirely" mean in game terms? The light rules tell you that a creature has the "blinded" condition when it tries to attack another creature within a "heavily obscured" area, but says nothing about applying "block vision entirely".
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.
But what does "block vision entirely" mean in game terms? The light rules tell you that a creature has the "blinded" condition when it tries to attack another creature within a "heavily obscured" area, but says nothing about applying "block vision entirely".
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.
Notice that it lumps all three of these things together and treats them identically. Darkness=fog=foliage. They're all the same, here, in how they function.
TLDR: All darkness in 5e, even nonmagical darkness, acts like dark fog.
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.
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.
Notice that it lumps all three of these things together and treats them identically. Darkness=fog=foliage. They're all the same, here, in how they function.
TLDR: All darkness in 5e, even nonmagical darkness, acts like dark fog.
Nope. The second sentence explains the first, so in 5e all obscured areas prevent seeing into the area but do not affect seeing out of the area. If they intended a behavior like dark fog, it would read "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something through that area".
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.
Notice that it lumps all three of these things together and treats them identically. Darkness=fog=foliage. They're all the same, here, in how they function.
TLDR: All darkness in 5e, even nonmagical darkness, acts like dark fog.
Nope. The second sentence explains the first, so in 5e all obscured areas prevent seeing into the area but do not affect seeing out of the area. If they intended a behavior like dark fog, it would read "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something through that area".
TLDR: the vision rules in 5e are incoherent.
1. You're wrong. It says the area "blocks vision entirely". You can ignore that if you like, but, at that point you're not talking about the rules you're ignoring them. That's valid, but just know that's what you're doing.
2. Even if you were right, there'd still be no reason to try to correct me on the "dark fog" comment. Darkness and fog work identically. Even if they worked the way you describe (and they don't), but if they did... they'd still work identically. So darkness would still be like dark fog.
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.
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.
Notice that it lumps all three of these things together and treats them identically. Darkness=fog=foliage. They're all the same, here, in how they function.
TLDR: All darkness in 5e, even nonmagical darkness, acts like dark fog.
Nope. The second sentence explains the first, so in 5e all obscured areas prevent seeing into the area but do not affect seeing out of the area. If they intended a behavior like dark fog, it would read "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something through that area".
TLDR: the vision rules in 5e are incoherent.
1. You're wrong. It says the area "blocks vision entirely". You can ignore that if you like, but, at that point you're not talking about the rules you're ignoring them. That's valid, but just know that's what you're doing.
2. Even if you were right, there'd still be no reason to try to correct me on the "dark fog" comment. Darkness and fog work identically. Even if they worked the way you describe (and they don't), but if they did... they'd still work identically. So darkness would still be like dark fog.
1. Yes, it says that. The problem is that it doesn't explain what it means at rules level. The only thing it tells you at rules level is that a creature has the "Blinded" condition if tries to see something that is inside that area.
2. Yes, fog and darkness work identically. They are "heavily obscured" areas, and they work the same way at rules level.
2. Technically Darkness spell has a few points of difference as a Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation can see through it, Artificer Arcane Tinkering lights such as a glowing necklace can cut through it as well as flaming magic items (as they are light sources that aren't spells but are still magical).
I personally think it's more useful as that means it can be used as one-way smoke with Devil's Sight. Even if it can be partially nullified by fire weapons, and an Artificer's glowing necklace, with Devil's Sight you can still nearly guarantee that you have advantage on all attacks and make the enemy unable to target you by staying within or on the opposite side of Darkness. If a Darkness Devil's Sight warlock has an artificer in their party they could allow their melee teammates to still fight in the Darkness with glowing necklaces. Meanwhile, Fog Cloud is entirely defensive, and prevents everyone from making any good attacks with not much else you can use it for besides preventing damage from an ambush or giving you a chance to escape.
They really are the same at the rules level. Both elements impose a Blind Condition when a creature tries to see something that is inside that area. As for bypassing the Blind Condition, it can also be done with Fog (and anything else that imposes the Blinded condition, really) with things like the "Blind Fighting" fighting style. I understand the nuance that you comment regarding the application of, for example, Devil Sight, which would not work with Fog. But I think it's not relevant in this discussion. Anyway, what I don't understand is what you say about an enemy not being able to target you within the darkness spell. It could, but it would do with disadvantage (with the Blinded Condition, actually). And about the fog being entirely defensive, I don't quite understand either. What do you mean? Mechanically, they really behave the same when it comes to targeting someone who is in the area. What do you mean it's entirely defensive?
1. Yes, it says that. The problem is that it doesn't explain what it means at rules level. The only thing it tells you at rules level is that a creature has the "Blinded" condition if tries to see something that is inside that area.
Not understanding a rule doesn't stop it from being one. These areas: "block vision entirely".
If you're outside looking in, that vision is blocked entirely. And if you're inside the area? Your vision is blocked entirely.
I agree, generally speaking, that this section of the rules is poorly written. It spawns these types of topics where people debate something as silly as: if darkness is an inky void of light, or a clear void of light. Whether you can see through potentially miles of fog unhindered if you're inside it, instead of outside of it.
We all intuitively know how these very mundane phenomena should act. Some of us might be unfamiliar with direct sunlight, but we still all know how light and darkness functions in a practical sense. Most people have experienced fog before and know perfectly well that while you're in it you can't see very far. And we all know that fog and darkness don't behave the same way.
But, then you go and read the 5e rules on this topic and, well, what it describes is some bizzarro world physics that don't follow what we'd expect to see. Personally, when I DM, I fully homebrew this section to match real world expectations. But, here, on this particular forum, we're discussing what the rules actually say, not the best way to run a game. And, they say: heavily obscured areas block vision entirely. This could be fog, darkness, foliage or anything else that gets labelled a heavily obscured area. So, if you're sticking to the default RAW here, that's what happens.
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 think we're arguing about which ridiculously stupid interpretation is correct; we seem to agree that the rules are stupid, just disagreement about the details of how they're stupid.
1. Yes, it says that. The problem is that it doesn't explain what it means at rules level. The only thing it tells you at rules level is that a creature has the "Blinded" condition if tries to see something that is inside that area.
Not understanding a rule doesn't stop it from being one. These areas: "block vision entirely".
If you're outside looking in, that vision is blocked entirely. And if you're inside the area? Your vision is blocked entirely.
I agree, generally speaking, that this section of the rules is poorly written. It spawns these types of topics where people debate something as silly as: if darkness is an inky void of light, or a clear void of light. Whether you can see through potentially miles of fog unhindered if you're inside it, instead of outside of it.
We all intuitively know how these very mundane phenomena should act. Some of us might be unfamiliar with direct sunlight, but we still all know how light and darkness functions in a practical sense. Most people have experienced fog before and know perfectly well that while you're in it you can't see very far. And we all know that fog and darkness don't behave the same way.
But, then you go and read the 5e rules on this topic and, well, what it describes is some bizzarro world physics that don't follow what we'd expect to see. Personally, when I DM, I fully homebrew this section to match real world expectations. But, here, on this particular forum, we're discussing what the rules actually say, not the best way to run a game. And, they say: heavily obscured areas block vision entirely. This could be fog, darkness, foliage or anything else that gets labelled a heavily obscured area. So, if you're sticking to the default RAW here, that's what happens.
It's not that I don't understand it. The rule book doesn't explain it. What you say, even if it makes sense, is not written anywhere. That is, it is a rule that you are making by yourself. Makes sense? Yes, it does. But it is not something that is written. It's not even badly explained. It just isn't explained.
But what does "block vision entirely" mean in game terms? The light rules tell you that a creature has the "blinded" condition when it tries to attack another creature within a "heavily obscured" area, but says nothing about applying "block vision entirely".
1) Vision is a synonym, in this case, for sight.
2) Entirely means all of something, as opposed to some of something or none of something.
3) Blocking means to impede.
So "block vision entirely" using different words means to impede sight completely.
To put it a third way, if your vision is blocked completely, you can't see anything. If it is not blocked completely, you can see something.
To put it a fourth way, suppose I am your DM and your character's vision is blocked completely. If you ask me for a visual description of something in front of you, I will respond "no".
If you are still having trouble, please feel free to ask clarifying questions.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside? You can be funny all you want, that's fine, we're going to try to make the other one look like an idiot without trying to understand what he says. However, beyond the jokes, it is not explained what "block vision entirely" means. Everything you do to apply that is up to you. But the rulebook doesn't tell you any of that.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside? You can be funny all you want, that's fine, we're going to try to make the other one look like an idiot without trying to understand what he says. However, beyond the jokes, it is not explained what "block vision entirely" means. Everything you do to apply that is up to you. But the rulebook doesn't tell you any of that.
As written, if darkness, fog or foliage "block vision entirely" - then you effectively have the blinded condition when you are in the area attacking another creature in the area, if you are inside the area attacking a creature outside the area or if you are outside the area attacking a creature inside the area. All of these creatures can't see each other. The rules specifically show the example of outside looking in because that creature would not normally be blinded by the heavily obscured area but they are considered blinded when attacking something in that area. (Note: the rules for darkness are not consistent with how natural darkness behaves which causes lots of "discussion" :) ).
Anything IN a heavily obscured area is already blinded because the area blocks vision entirely already.
Anyway, not being able to see a target does not prevent you from attacking it. If you can't see a target you have disadvantage on your attack rolls. If the creature you are attacking can't see you then you have advantage on your attack rolls. Advantage and disadvantage cancel which means that if you are in darkness or a fog cloud you can attack creatures you can't see with a normal attack roll. The DM however can rule on whether the creatures are making sufficient noise or leaving some other indication that you know where they are. The default is usually that once a creature's location is known (if it started hidden) then it needs to take the hide action to successfully hide or if the DM decides that the creature is both unseen and unheard (there is no chance for other creatures to hear it or detect its presence) then it could be automatically hidden.
If a creature is hidden you will know the last location you noticed it and if you want to attack it you then select a location you think it might be in and make an attack roll. The DM will let you know if you hit.
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".
If you consider all possible homebrew options then of course anything you want exists. The Gunslinger class you are citing has the following disclaimer in large letters at the top.
THIS IS UNOFFICIAL MATERIAL
These game mechanics are usable in your campaign if your DM allows them but not refined by final game design and editing. They aren’t officially part of the Dungeons & Dragons game and aren’t permitted in D&D Adventurers League events unless otherwise stated. To use this content, toggle the Critical Role content on in the character builder.
"Gunslinger is a custom Fighter class archetype developed by Matthew Mercer for Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition when the group converted from Pathfinder.
There are two versions of the archetype: a professional version is available for purchase at Dungeon Masters Guild and a free version is available on D&D Beyond."
Availability on D&D Beyond doesn't make it any less homebrew. Being part of the CR universe also doesn't make it any less homebrew. It is a class ported over from Pathfinder for their home game. So, no, I wouldn't consider this part of 5e, any more than any of the game mechanics or content I create for my home game.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside? You can be funny all you want, that's fine, we're going to try to make the other one look like an idiot without trying to understand what he says. However, beyond the jokes, it is not explained what "block vision entirely" means. Everything you do to apply that is up to you. But the rulebook doesn't tell you any of that.
As written, if darkness, fog or foliage "block vision entirely" - then you effectively have the blinded condition when you are in the area attacking another creature in the area, if you are inside the area attacking a creature outside the area or if you are outside the area attacking a creature inside the area. All of these creatures can't see each other. The rules specifically show the example of outside looking in because that creature would not normally be blinded by the heavily obscured area but they are considered blinded when attacking something in that area. (Note: the rules for darkness are not consistent with how natural darkness behaves which causes lots of "discussion" :) ).
Anything IN a heavily obscured area is already blinded because the area blocks vision entirely already.
Anyway, not being able to see a target does not prevent you from attacking it. If you can't see a target you have disadvantage on your attack rolls. If the creature you are attacking can't see you then you have advantage on your attack rolls. Advantage and disadvantage cancel which means that if you are in darkness or a fog cloud you can attack creatures you can't see with a normal attack roll. The DM however can rule on whether the creatures are making sufficient noise or leaving some other indication that you know where they are. The default is usually that once a creature's location is known (if it started hidden) then it needs to take the hide action to successfully hide or if the DM decides that the creature is both unseen and unheard (there is no chance for other creatures to hear it or detect its presence) then it could be automatically hidden.
If a creature is hidden you will know the last location you noticed it and if you want to attack it you then select a location you think it might be in and make an attack roll. The DM will let you know if you hit.
No, you apply that like this. And it seems fine to me. But that is not written in the rules. The rules only tell you two things: that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely, and that a creature has the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. You are putting the rest, which is fine. But it is not in the text (neither implicit nor explicit).). It does not explain to you at any time what "blocks vision enterely" means mechanically. It doesn't tell you that it imposes the blinded condition on you. And, of course, the second part is not an example. The second part is a rule. Well explained, in fact, not like the first part that never explains what it implies at a mechanical level. That is why in this same thread we have seen, at least, three different ways to solve it. And all three make sense.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside?
You can always attack creature you can't see unless noted otherwise, using the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
Yes. The DMG has optional rules for hitting cover if you target a specific creature and miss them. In that case, you could hit whatever they are hiding behind even if that is another creature.
I can also see how this could be interpreted as firing along a line since you could potentially choose an empty square on the far side of the darkness ... automatically miss since there is nothing there ... then check to see if the die roll was high enough to hit any cover along the line.
Personally, even if I was using the optional cover rules, I probably wouldn't allow a character to do that since it seems an unintended side effect of the cover rules since a character knows they will miss if they target an empty location.
Similarly, even if the attacker doesn't know if the location is empty they will automatically miss if it is empty. So if the character rolls a crit that would have hit anything in that location - this gets applied to any cover along the way instead because the 20 misses the original target because there was nothing there even though the 20 would have hit if a target was present.
However, I can see how the mechanic could be used to "fire along a line" if anything along that line is treated as cover for a non-existent original target.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside? You can be funny all you want, that's fine, we're going to try to make the other one look like an idiot without trying to understand what he says. However, beyond the jokes, it is not explained what "block vision entirely" means. Everything you do to apply that is up to you. But the rulebook doesn't tell you any of that.
As written, if darkness, fog or foliage "block vision entirely" - then you effectively have the blinded condition when you are in the area attacking another creature in the area, if you are inside the area attacking a creature outside the area or if you are outside the area attacking a creature inside the area. All of these creatures can't see each other. The rules specifically show the example of outside looking in because that creature would not normally be blinded by the heavily obscured area but they are considered blinded when attacking something in that area. (Note: the rules for darkness are not consistent with how natural darkness behaves which causes lots of "discussion" :) ).
Anything IN a heavily obscured area is already blinded because the area blocks vision entirely already.
Anyway, not being able to see a target does not prevent you from attacking it. If you can't see a target you have disadvantage on your attack rolls. If the creature you are attacking can't see you then you have advantage on your attack rolls. Advantage and disadvantage cancel which means that if you are in darkness or a fog cloud you can attack creatures you can't see with a normal attack roll. The DM however can rule on whether the creatures are making sufficient noise or leaving some other indication that you know where they are. The default is usually that once a creature's location is known (if it started hidden) then it needs to take the hide action to successfully hide or if the DM decides that the creature is both unseen and unheard (there is no chance for other creatures to hear it or detect its presence) then it could be automatically hidden.
If a creature is hidden you will know the last location you noticed it and if you want to attack it you then select a location you think it might be in and make an attack roll. The DM will let you know if you hit.
No, you apply that like this. And it seems fine to me. But that is not written in the rules. The rules only tell you two things: that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely, and that a creature has the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. You are putting the rest, which is fine. But it is not in the text (neither implicit nor explicit).). It does not explain to you at any time what "blocks vision enterely" means mechanically. It doesn't tell you that it imposes the blinded condition on you. And, of course, the second part is not an example. The second part is a rule. Well explained, in fact, not like the first part that never explains what it implies at a mechanical level. That is why in this same thread we have seen, at least, three different ways to solve it. And all three make sense.
I'm not sure what the problem here is.
If something "blocks vision entirely" ... then you can't see into it, you can't see through it and you can't see out of it. That is EXACTLY what "blocks vision entirely" means.
A blinded creature can't see ... and a creature who can't see is blinded - that is what the words mean.
A region that "blocks vision entirely" MEANS "effectively blinded" because you can not see into, through or out of that region. That is what the rules explicitly state. The rules go on to explain one case - that when targeting something in the heavily obscured area the creature is effectively blinded because normally the heavily obscured area has no effect on a character outside it unless they are looking into it. This is a clarification of the first part that states "blocks vision entirely".
We may all agree that these rules don't make sense for natural darkness but they work fine for fog or foliage (though foliage would also provide cover that fog and darkness do not).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But what does "block vision entirely" mean in game terms? The light rules tell you that a creature has the "blinded" condition when it tries to attack another creature within a "heavily obscured" area, but says nothing about applying "block vision entirely".
Just consult the rules on vision.
Chapter 8: Adventuring, Vision and Light
Notice that it lumps all three of these things together and treats them identically. Darkness=fog=foliage. They're all the same, here, in how they function.
TLDR: All darkness in 5e, even nonmagical darkness, acts like dark fog.
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.
Nope. The second sentence explains the first, so in 5e all obscured areas prevent seeing into the area but do not affect seeing out of the area. If they intended a behavior like dark fog, it would read "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something through that area".
TLDR: the vision rules in 5e are incoherent.
1. You're wrong. It says the area "blocks vision entirely". You can ignore that if you like, but, at that point you're not talking about the rules you're ignoring them. That's valid, but just know that's what you're doing.
2. Even if you were right, there'd still be no reason to try to correct me on the "dark fog" comment. Darkness and fog work identically. Even if they worked the way you describe (and they don't), but if they did... they'd still work identically. So darkness would still be like dark fog.
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.
1. Yes, it says that. The problem is that it doesn't explain what it means at rules level. The only thing it tells you at rules level is that a creature has the "Blinded" condition if tries to see something that is inside that area.
2. Yes, fog and darkness work identically. They are "heavily obscured" areas, and they work the same way at rules level.
2. Technically Darkness spell has a few points of difference as a Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation can see through it, Artificer Arcane Tinkering lights such as a glowing necklace can cut through it as well as flaming magic items (as they are light sources that aren't spells but are still magical).
I personally think it's more useful as that means it can be used as one-way smoke with Devil's Sight. Even if it can be partially nullified by fire weapons, and an Artificer's glowing necklace, with Devil's Sight you can still nearly guarantee that you have advantage on all attacks and make the enemy unable to target you by staying within or on the opposite side of Darkness. If a Darkness Devil's Sight warlock has an artificer in their party they could allow their melee teammates to still fight in the Darkness with glowing necklaces. Meanwhile, Fog Cloud is entirely defensive, and prevents everyone from making any good attacks with not much else you can use it for besides preventing damage from an ambush or giving you a chance to escape.
They really are the same at the rules level. Both elements impose a Blind Condition when a creature tries to see something that is inside that area.
As for bypassing the Blind Condition, it can also be done with Fog (and anything else that imposes the Blinded condition, really) with things like the "Blind Fighting" fighting style.
I understand the nuance that you comment regarding the application of, for example, Devil Sight, which would not work with Fog. But I think it's not relevant in this discussion.
Anyway, what I don't understand is what you say about an enemy not being able to target you within the darkness spell. It could, but it would do with disadvantage (with the Blinded Condition, actually). And about the fog being entirely defensive, I don't quite understand either. What do you mean? Mechanically, they really behave the same when it comes to targeting someone who is in the area. What do you mean it's entirely defensive?
Not understanding a rule doesn't stop it from being one. These areas: "block vision entirely".
If you're outside looking in, that vision is blocked entirely. And if you're inside the area? Your vision is blocked entirely.
I agree, generally speaking, that this section of the rules is poorly written. It spawns these types of topics where people debate something as silly as: if darkness is an inky void of light, or a clear void of light. Whether you can see through potentially miles of fog unhindered if you're inside it, instead of outside of it.
We all intuitively know how these very mundane phenomena should act. Some of us might be unfamiliar with direct sunlight, but we still all know how light and darkness functions in a practical sense. Most people have experienced fog before and know perfectly well that while you're in it you can't see very far. And we all know that fog and darkness don't behave the same way.
But, then you go and read the 5e rules on this topic and, well, what it describes is some bizzarro world physics that don't follow what we'd expect to see. Personally, when I DM, I fully homebrew this section to match real world expectations. But, here, on this particular forum, we're discussing what the rules actually say, not the best way to run a game. And, they say: heavily obscured areas block vision entirely. This could be fog, darkness, foliage or anything else that gets labelled a heavily obscured area. So, if you're sticking to the default RAW here, that's what happens.
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 think we're arguing about which ridiculously stupid interpretation is correct; we seem to agree that the rules are stupid, just disagreement about the details of how they're stupid.
It's not that I don't understand it. The rule book doesn't explain it. What you say, even if it makes sense, is not written anywhere. That is, it is a rule that you are making by yourself. Makes sense? Yes, it does. But it is not something that is written. It's not even badly explained. It just isn't explained.
1) Vision is a synonym, in this case, for sight.
2) Entirely means all of something, as opposed to some of something or none of something.
3) Blocking means to impede.
So "block vision entirely" using different words means to impede sight completely.
To put it a third way, if your vision is blocked completely, you can't see anything. If it is not blocked completely, you can see something.
To put it a fourth way, suppose I am your DM and your character's vision is blocked completely. If you ask me for a visual description of something in front of you, I will respond "no".
If you are still having trouble, please feel free to ask clarifying questions.
When an heavily obscured area block vision entirely, it also means you have no line of sight to anything and can't target anything you must see.
That's very good. How do you apply it? Do you not let attack a target outside the area from inside the area? And from outside to inside? Because then it tells you that the creatures that try to see something that is in the area have the "Blinded condition". Outside to inside, or inside to inside, you have blind condition, and inside to outside blocks your line of sight and you can't attack? Or do you have Blind Condition from inside to outside and from outside to inside?
You can be funny all you want, that's fine, we're going to try to make the other one look like an idiot without trying to understand what he says. However, beyond the jokes, it is not explained what "block vision entirely" means. Everything you do to apply that is up to you. But the rulebook doesn't tell you any of that.
As written, if darkness, fog or foliage "block vision entirely" - then you effectively have the blinded condition when you are in the area attacking another creature in the area, if you are inside the area attacking a creature outside the area or if you are outside the area attacking a creature inside the area. All of these creatures can't see each other. The rules specifically show the example of outside looking in because that creature would not normally be blinded by the heavily obscured area but they are considered blinded when attacking something in that area. (Note: the rules for darkness are not consistent with how natural darkness behaves which causes lots of "discussion" :) ).
Anything IN a heavily obscured area is already blinded because the area blocks vision entirely already.
Anyway, not being able to see a target does not prevent you from attacking it. If you can't see a target you have disadvantage on your attack rolls. If the creature you are attacking can't see you then you have advantage on your attack rolls. Advantage and disadvantage cancel which means that if you are in darkness or a fog cloud you can attack creatures you can't see with a normal attack roll. The DM however can rule on whether the creatures are making sufficient noise or leaving some other indication that you know where they are. The default is usually that once a creature's location is known (if it started hidden) then it needs to take the hide action to successfully hide or if the DM decides that the creature is both unseen and unheard (there is no chance for other creatures to hear it or detect its presence) then it could be automatically hidden.
If a creature is hidden you will know the last location you noticed it and if you want to attack it you then select a location you think it might be in and make an attack roll. The DM will let you know if you hit.
If you consider all possible homebrew options then of course anything you want exists. The Gunslinger class you are citing has the following disclaimer in large letters at the top.
"Gunslinger is a custom Fighter class archetype developed by Matthew Mercer for Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition when the group converted from Pathfinder.
There are two versions of the archetype: a professional version is available for purchase at Dungeon Masters Guild and a free version is available on D&D Beyond."
Availability on D&D Beyond doesn't make it any less homebrew. Being part of the CR universe also doesn't make it any less homebrew. It is a class ported over from Pathfinder for their home game. So, no, I wouldn't consider this part of 5e, any more than any of the game mechanics or content I create for my home game.
You could drop a Shatter spell, for example, inside the darkness, taking into account any coverage, that would be possible, correct?
No, you apply that like this. And it seems fine to me. But that is not written in the rules.
The rules only tell you two things: that a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely, and that a creature has the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
You are putting the rest, which is fine. But it is not in the text (neither implicit nor explicit).). It does not explain to you at any time what "blocks vision enterely" means mechanically. It doesn't tell you that it imposes the blinded condition on you. And, of course, the second part is not an example. The second part is a rule. Well explained, in fact, not like the first part that never explains what it implies at a mechanical level. That is why in this same thread we have seen, at least, three different ways to solve it. And all three make sense.
You can always attack creature you can't see unless noted otherwise, using the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
Yes since you don't need to see the point of origin for a Shatter spell.
Yes. The DMG has optional rules for hitting cover if you target a specific creature and miss them. In that case, you could hit whatever they are hiding behind even if that is another creature.
I can also see how this could be interpreted as firing along a line since you could potentially choose an empty square on the far side of the darkness ... automatically miss since there is nothing there ... then check to see if the die roll was high enough to hit any cover along the line.
Personally, even if I was using the optional cover rules, I probably wouldn't allow a character to do that since it seems an unintended side effect of the cover rules since a character knows they will miss if they target an empty location.
Similarly, even if the attacker doesn't know if the location is empty they will automatically miss if it is empty. So if the character rolls a crit that would have hit anything in that location - this gets applied to any cover along the way instead because the 20 misses the original target because there was nothing there even though the 20 would have hit if a target was present.
However, I can see how the mechanic could be used to "fire along a line" if anything along that line is treated as cover for a non-existent original target.
I'm not sure what the problem here is.
If something "blocks vision entirely" ... then you can't see into it, you can't see through it and you can't see out of it. That is EXACTLY what "blocks vision entirely" means.
A blinded creature can't see ... and a creature who can't see is blinded - that is what the words mean.
A region that "blocks vision entirely" MEANS "effectively blinded" because you can not see into, through or out of that region. That is what the rules explicitly state. The rules go on to explain one case - that when targeting something in the heavily obscured area the creature is effectively blinded because normally the heavily obscured area has no effect on a character outside it unless they are looking into it. This is a clarification of the first part that states "blocks vision entirely".
We may all agree that these rules don't make sense for natural darkness but they work fine for fog or foliage (though foliage would also provide cover that fog and darkness do not).