I had a linguistics teacher who said that "every text wants to be understood." Thus, when the reader finds a gap, he unconsciously fills it. That is what happens here. Your explanation seems valid to me. It is logical that it works like this. But, as I say, in this thread we have seen three different ways to apply this. And, since the text does not explain it, I think that all three are valid. That's the problem, and what I was saying. I am not saying that it is not as you propose. In fact, I use it like this. But that does not mean that the rule is like that. That is our interpretation, because we want to give it coherence. The rule would go like this, without question, if it said something like a creature has a blind condition (we know what that is) if it tries to see something from, through, or into that area.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell rules and flavor apart. Often the flavor is part of the rule and then it can't simply be called flavor anymore. However, sometimes rules seem to contradict themselves, due to embedded flavor. What "flavor" really is in the D&D sourcebooks is not clear, and thus up to interpretation. Personally, I often regard flavor to be the very general statements, that seem more narrative than mechanical, and that do not directly refer to the game's mechanics, especially if the text contradicts a clearly explained mechanic found in the general rules.
I agree that the rules on Vision and Light are poorly described. Regarding the mechanics of Darkness, I personally rule that creatures are considered blinded for the purpose of seeing something whether or not you're looking from outside-in, inside-out, or inside-inside the area.
Vision and Light
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.
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
However I understand the rules the same way Feykiller seems to be. "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely", seems fine as a rules text on its own. But when read in context with the more specific sentence afterwards, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area", it seems to somewhat contradict a clearly stated rules text, that directly references general game mechanics.
If the 2nd sentence, which is the more clear rules text, is less important than the 1st general one, why include the 2nd sentence at all? Of course it does not directly contradict the 1st sentence, but it is clearly stated that the rule described in the 2nd sentence only applies if a creature is trying to see something in the area. Not from inside-out.
As I see it there are 2 ways to read the rules as written: 1. See the 1st sentence as the superior rules text. Following this interpretation gives most of us our desired result: you are considered blinded when trying to see anything from inside-out, outside-in, and inside-inside the area. However this does mean we have to wonder why the very clear rules in the 2nd sentence was added at all.
2. See the 1st sentence as flavor, and the 2nd sentence as the actual rule. This interpretation means that a creature would be able to see from inside the area and out, but not from outside-in or inside-inside.
As I see it there are 2 ways to read the rules as written:
1. See the 1st sentence as the superior rules text. Following this interpretation gives most of us our desired result: you are considered blinded when trying to see anything from inside-out, outside-in, and inside-inside the area. However this does mean we have to wonder why the very clear rules in the 2nd sentence was added at all.
2. See the 1st sentence as flavor, and the 2nd sentence as the actual rule. This interpretation means that a creature would be able to see from inside the area and out, but not from outside-in or inside-inside.
And of course, both readings can be appropriate. If you're dealing with mundane darkness, the second sentence is clearly more appropriate. If you're dealing with an opaque fog, the first.
There's also oddities such as Hunger of Hadar, which doesn't actually say that the area is obscured (though the fact it can't be illuminated says its darkness) and specifically says that creatures in the area are blinded.
I had a linguistics teacher who said that "every text wants to be understood." Thus, when the reader finds a gap, he unconsciously fills it. That is what happens here. Your explanation seems valid to me. It is logical that it works like this. But, as I say, in this thread we have seen three different ways to apply this. And, since the text does not explain it, I think that all three are valid. That's the problem, and what I was saying. I am not saying that it is not as you propose. In fact, I use it like this. But that does not mean that the rule is like that. That is our interpretation, because we want to give it coherence. The rule would go like this, without question, if it said something like a creature has a blind condition (we know what that is) if it tries to see something from, through, or into that area.
There are people who insist on not applying common sense. There it tells you that "blocks vision entirely", so that's the rule. How does it apply? Well, with the blind combat rule of course. That is, if you try to see something that is in the zone, if you are inside the zone, or if you try to see something through the zone, you have the blinded condition. It's pretty clear.
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.
You're on the dndbeyond forums. Dndbeyond doesn't classify it as homebrew. It is critical role content. When you make a character, you use an entirely different toggle to enable this option than the homebrew toggle. Make a character here and test it if you like. Report back your findings.
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.
Ignoring rules text by calling them "flavor text" is not the strongest foundation by which to form a take on this. It says the obscured area "blocks vision entirely". That's cut and dry. So, if you rule the area doesn't block vision entirely, that ain't RAW.
The RAW here may be poorly written, but it still is written. And "blocks vision entirely" is what they wrote. So that's what those areas do: block vision.
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.
The errata seems to have been written implying you're trying to see something in a heavily obscured area when trying to see beyond it.
Vision and Light: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A).
Errata: The second sentence of the third paragraph has been changed to “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.”
Ignoring rules text by calling them "flavor text" is not the strongest foundation by which to form a take on this. It says the obscured area "blocks vision entirely". That's cut and dry. So, if you rule the area doesn't block vision entirely, that ain't RAW.
The RAW here may be poorly written, but it still is written. And "blocks vision entirely" is what they wrote. So that's what those areas do: block vision.
If we assume that all text in the books are considered rules text then that is of course correct. I personally don't believe that to be the case as I described in my post, and I was under the impression that you didn't either.
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.
You're on the dndbeyond forums. Dndbeyond doesn't classify it as homebrew. It is critical role content. When you make a character, you use an entirely different toggle to enable this option than the homebrew toggle. Make a character here and test it if you like. Report back your findings.
D&D Beyond certainly does consider it homebrew.
Here is a link to a comment by a moderator on the subject - and a link to a comment on Stack Exchange.
The only reason Matt Mercer's homebrew has a special placement on D&D Beyond is due to an advertising arrangement between D&D Beyond and Critical Role. It doesn't make the content any less homebrew just because D&D Beyond gives it a special placement for advertising purposes.
All D&D Beyond did was add a Critical Role homebrew toggle in addition to their regular homebrew toggle so that you can filter out homebrew content of various types. If you only turn on the official sources during character creation then the Critical Role homebrew options don't appear.
If we assume that all text in the books are considered rules text then that is of course correct. I personally don't believe that to be the case as I described in my post, and I was under the impression that you didn't either.
This way lies madness. We have no basis for guessing what is a rule and what isn't if you're going to declare the lead-in to the rules on darkness to not be rules. At that point, there's no purpose to this entire forum and we should all move over to the homebrew one to discuss the "rulebook".
The way we normally work on this forum is by assuming 100% of all text carries full rules weight, and when it's self-contradictory, we explicitly lampshade that so DMs can know about and expect it when they need to make a house rule.
You've just said you don't think "blocks vision entirely" is a rule, although you haven't explained why not. Are you also claiming that darkness isn't heavily obscured? Or that opaque fog isn't? Because if you admit that both of them are heavily obscured, then you have to be arguing that the rules handle darkness and opaque fog the same way (and you would be correct, incidentally - they do). And that means either darkness and opaque fog are both opaque or neither is, and I would be reasonably shocked to discover that you are claiming that 5E fog is transparent.
You've just said you don't think "blocks vision entirely" is a rule, although you haven't explained why not.
Hm. Actually, while I was inclined to agree with it being flavor rather than a rule because the basic rules never explain what 'blocks vision' actually means or even talk about line of sight, I just located actual rules that are relevant in the DMG: line of sight specifies "If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight."
By those rules, line of sight does not exist (either in or out) for any character that is fully within an effect that blocks vision. A character that is partially within such an effect may or may not grant line of sight (depending on whether you can get line of sight from a corner that isn't within the effect). And yes, this means ordinary darkness is actually opaque.
If we assume that all text in the books are considered rules text then that is of course correct. I personally don't believe that to be the case as I described in my post, and I was under the impression that you didn't either.
This way lies madness. We have no basis for guessing what is a rule and what isn't if you're going to declare the lead-in to the rules on darkness to not be rules. At that point, there's no purpose to this entire forum and we should all move over to the homebrew one to discuss the "rulebook".
The way we normally work on this forum is by assuming 100% of all text carries full rules weight, and when it's self-contradictory, we explicitly lampshade that so DMs can know about and expect it when they need to make a house rule.
You've just said you don't think "blocks vision entirely" is a rule, although you haven't explained why not. Are you also claiming that darkness isn't heavily obscured? Or that opaque fog isn't? Because if you admit that both of them are heavily obscured, then you have to be arguing that the rules handle darkness and opaque fog the same way (and you would be correct, incidentally - they do). And that means either darkness and opaque fog are both opaque or neither is, and I would be reasonably shocked to discover that you are claiming that 5E fog is transparent.
I think you have misread my comment on several levels. I have not claimed it isn't a rule, simply mentioned my take on "flavor", and I did explain my considerations in that regard.
You've just said you don't think "blocks vision entirely" is a rule, although you haven't explained why not.
Hm. Actually, while I was inclined to agree with it being flavor rather than a rule because the basic rules never explain what 'blocks vision' actually means or even talk about line of sight, I just located actual rules that are relevant in the DMG: line of sight specifies "If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight."
By those rules, line of sight does not exist (either in or out) for any character that is fully within an effect that blocks vision. A character that is partially within such an effect may or may not grant line of sight (depending on whether you can get line of sight from a corner that isn't within the effect). And yes, this means ordinary darkness is actually opaque.
Now that's a rule, and it explains how to apply "blocks vision". Based on that rule, we can solve these kinds of situations without making any guess or make up an imaginary rule.
Yes you would see it if its mundane darkness as per DMG
The light of a torch or lantern helps a character see over a short distance, but other creatures can see that light source from far away. Bright light in an environment of total darkness can be visible for miles, though a clear line of sight over such a distance is rare underground.
The basic problem is that there are at least two types of obscurement (opaque vs unlit) and D&D only has one, so no way of interpreting it will be consistently correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a linguistics teacher who said that "every text wants to be understood." Thus, when the reader finds a gap, he unconsciously fills it. That is what happens here.
Your explanation seems valid to me. It is logical that it works like this. But, as I say, in this thread we have seen three different ways to apply this. And, since the text does not explain it, I think that all three are valid.
That's the problem, and what I was saying.
I am not saying that it is not as you propose. In fact, I use it like this. But that does not mean that the rule is like that. That is our interpretation, because we want to give it coherence. The rule would go like this, without question, if it said something like a creature has a blind condition (we know what that is) if it tries to see something from, through, or into that area.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell rules and flavor apart. Often the flavor is part of the rule and then it can't simply be called flavor anymore. However, sometimes rules seem to contradict themselves, due to embedded flavor. What "flavor" really is in the D&D sourcebooks is not clear, and thus up to interpretation. Personally, I often regard flavor to be the very general statements, that seem more narrative than mechanical, and that do not directly refer to the game's mechanics, especially if the text contradicts a clearly explained mechanic found in the general rules.
I agree that the rules on Vision and Light are poorly described. Regarding the mechanics of Darkness, I personally rule that creatures are considered blinded for the purpose of seeing something whether or not you're looking from outside-in, inside-out, or inside-inside the area.
Vision and Light
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.
_____________________________________________________
Darkness
Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
However I understand the rules the same way Feykiller seems to be.
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely", seems fine as a rules text on its own. But when read in context with the more specific sentence afterwards, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area", it seems to somewhat contradict a clearly stated rules text, that directly references general game mechanics.
If the 2nd sentence, which is the more clear rules text, is less important than the 1st general one, why include the 2nd sentence at all? Of course it does not directly contradict the 1st sentence, but it is clearly stated that the rule described in the 2nd sentence only applies if a creature is trying to see something in the area. Not from inside-out.
As I see it there are 2 ways to read the rules as written:
1. See the 1st sentence as the superior rules text. Following this interpretation gives most of us our desired result: you are considered blinded when trying to see anything from inside-out, outside-in, and inside-inside the area. However this does mean we have to wonder why the very clear rules in the 2nd sentence was added at all.
2. See the 1st sentence as flavor, and the 2nd sentence as the actual rule. This interpretation means that a creature would be able to see from inside the area and out, but not from outside-in or inside-inside.
EDIT: If you're curious about the interaction between the Darkness spell and magical light sources, take a look at this thread.
And of course, both readings can be appropriate. If you're dealing with mundane darkness, the second sentence is clearly more appropriate. If you're dealing with an opaque fog, the first.
There's also oddities such as Hunger of Hadar, which doesn't actually say that the area is obscured (though the fact it can't be illuminated says its darkness) and specifically says that creatures in the area are blinded.
There are people who insist on not applying common sense.
There it tells you that "blocks vision entirely", so that's the rule. How does it apply? Well, with the blind combat rule of course.
That is, if you try to see something that is in the zone, if you are inside the zone, or if you try to see something through the zone, you have the blinded condition. It's pretty clear.
You're on the dndbeyond forums. Dndbeyond doesn't classify it as homebrew. It is critical role content. When you make a character, you use an entirely different toggle to enable this option than the homebrew toggle. Make a character here and test it if you like. Report back your findings.
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.
Ignoring rules text by calling them "flavor text" is not the strongest foundation by which to form a take on this. It says the obscured area "blocks vision entirely". That's cut and dry. So, if you rule the area doesn't block vision entirely, that ain't RAW.
The RAW here may be poorly written, but it still is written. And "blocks vision entirely" is what they wrote. So that's what those areas do: block vision.
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.
The errata seems to have been written implying you're trying to see something in a heavily obscured area when trying to see beyond it.
If we assume that all text in the books are considered rules text then that is of course correct. I personally don't believe that to be the case as I described in my post, and I was under the impression that you didn't either.
D&D Beyond certainly does consider it homebrew.
Here is a link to a comment by a moderator on the subject - and a link to a comment on Stack Exchange.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/63220-questions-for-matt-mercers-gunslinger-subclass?comment=4
The only reason Matt Mercer's homebrew has a special placement on D&D Beyond is due to an advertising arrangement between D&D Beyond and Critical Role. It doesn't make the content any less homebrew just because D&D Beyond gives it a special placement for advertising purposes.
All D&D Beyond did was add a Critical Role homebrew toggle in addition to their regular homebrew toggle so that you can filter out homebrew content of various types. If you only turn on the official sources during character creation then the Critical Role homebrew options don't appear.
This way lies madness. We have no basis for guessing what is a rule and what isn't if you're going to declare the lead-in to the rules on darkness to not be rules. At that point, there's no purpose to this entire forum and we should all move over to the homebrew one to discuss the "rulebook".
The way we normally work on this forum is by assuming 100% of all text carries full rules weight, and when it's self-contradictory, we explicitly lampshade that so DMs can know about and expect it when they need to make a house rule.
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely.
You've just said you don't think "blocks vision entirely" is a rule, although you haven't explained why not. Are you also claiming that darkness isn't heavily obscured? Or that opaque fog isn't? Because if you admit that both of them are heavily obscured, then you have to be arguing that the rules handle darkness and opaque fog the same way (and you would be correct, incidentally - they do). And that means either darkness and opaque fog are both opaque or neither is, and I would be reasonably shocked to discover that you are claiming that 5E fog is transparent.
Hm. Actually, while I was inclined to agree with it being flavor rather than a rule because the basic rules never explain what 'blocks vision' actually means or even talk about line of sight, I just located actual rules that are relevant in the DMG: line of sight specifies "If at least one such line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision — such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog — then there is line of sight."
By those rules, line of sight does not exist (either in or out) for any character that is fully within an effect that blocks vision. A character that is partially within such an effect may or may not grant line of sight (depending on whether you can get line of sight from a corner that isn't within the effect). And yes, this means ordinary darkness is actually opaque.
I think you have misread my comment on several levels. I have not claimed it isn't a rule, simply mentioned my take on "flavor", and I did explain my considerations in that regard.
Now that's a rule, and it explains how to apply "blocks vision". Based on that rule, we can solve these kinds of situations without making any guess or make up an imaginary rule.
For those who are saying that all darkness blocks vision entirely, are you saying that:
If I am in an otherwise completely dark room, I cannot see an enemy that is holding a torch but is 50 feet away from me?
Yes you would see it if its mundane darkness as per DMG
Wouldn't that contradict the interpretation that darkness blocks vision entirely (including being able to see through it) and is considered opaque?
Common sense its not RAI since light is visible through darkness in reality as well.
That would mean that intervening darkness does not block vision through it. Thus:
1) Someone standing in an area of darkness can see someone standing in light outside of the area of darkness, and
2) Someone standing on one side of an area of darkness can see someone standing in light on the other side of the area of darkness.
Exactly how i adjudicate it.
The basic problem is that there are at least two types of obscurement (opaque vs unlit) and D&D only has one, so no way of interpreting it will be consistently correct.