So the reason I ask is because I am playing an arcane trickster rogue who has the spell Fog Cloud. I have this idea of using it to dart in and out of obscurement like batman.
But there are two things I am not clear on from the rules;
1. Do characters know where enemies are enough to target them while effectively blinded? The blinded condition seems to infer that you can locate enemies to attack but do so at disadvantage.
2. Can you move around while effectively blinded at full speed?
Creatures can target characters if they know where they are - even when blinded - but do so at disadvantage. But consider the rules on P.194 of the PHB:
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll... 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.
Also remember that disadvantage is cancelled out by the advantage gained from attacking creatures who are blind (P.290 PHB):
'A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.'
And also PHB P.193-4.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
In your scenario, if your Arcane Trickster cast Fog Cloud, neither your character, nor the enemy would be able to see each other - which would cancel out any advantage/disadvantage to attack rolls. Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss.
Regarding your second point, there is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot move around at full speed while blinded.
That is kind of what I was afraid of. Doing dnd online, that could be terribly complicated for my DM to try and manage. :/
Maybe we could work out a system where we can all see the board, but have to make some kind of check to see if we attack the right square in the first place.
Or I might just need to talk to my dm about swapping out Fog Cloud until he's more familiar with roll20.
That is kind of what I was afraid of. Doing dnd online, that could be terribly complicated for my DM to try and manage. :/
Maybe we could work out a system where we can all see the board, but have to make some kind of check to see if we attack the right square in the first place.
Or I might just need to talk to my dm about swapping out Fog Cloud until he's more familiar with roll20.
Honestly, for how you're wanting to use it, while it's not RAW, I'd just give disadvantage on attack rolls to everyone in the fog, along with failing any ability check that requires sight, as with blinded. That'd allow you to pop up a fog screen to move around the battlefield - and then you could choose to leave the cloud to attack if you didn't want to suffer a penalty (so long as the enemy you're attacking isn't in the cloud). It'd be good for manoeuvring.
If the enemy creatures hadn't seen you when you cast the fog, but you knew where the enemy was, I'd remove the disadvantage on your first attack. Depending on the creature and situation, I may deem the enemy surprised.
Creatures can target characters if they know where they are - even when blinded - but do so at disadvantage. But consider the rules on P.194 of the PHB:
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll... 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.
Also remember that disadvantage is cancelled out by the advantage gained from attacking creatures who are blind (P.290 PHB):
'A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.'
And also PHB P.193-4.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
In your scenario, if your Arcane Trickster cast Fog Cloud, neither your character, nor the enemy would be able to see each other - which would cancel out any advantage/disadvantage to attack rolls. Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss.
Regarding your second point, there is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot move around at full speed while blinded.
One clarification ...
The bolded part is DM dependent "Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss." RAW, if the creature does not take the hide action and surpass your passive perception with a stealth roll then you continue to know where they are when they move even if you do not see them likely because they are making too much noise or doing something else that gives away their rough position (i.e. square occupied).
However, hidden is both unseen and unheard so a DM could rule that the ambient noise in an encounter (eg perhaps near a waterfall) is sufficient to hide all sounds of movement outside of a certain distance and so if they can't be seen then they could be hidden automatically.
Adjudicating such situations is up to the DM but the DM should make clear to the players whether this is the case or not.
Creatures can target characters if they know where they are - even when blinded - but do so at disadvantage. But consider the rules on P.194 of the PHB:
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll... 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.
Also remember that disadvantage is cancelled out by the advantage gained from attacking creatures who are blind (P.290 PHB):
'A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.'
And also PHB P.193-4.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
In your scenario, if your Arcane Trickster cast Fog Cloud, neither your character, nor the enemy would be able to see each other - which would cancel out any advantage/disadvantage to attack rolls. Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss.
Regarding your second point, there is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot move around at full speed while blinded.
One clarification ...
The bolded part is DM dependent "Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss." RAW, if the creature does not take the hide action and surpass your passive perception with a stealth roll then you continue to know where they are when they move even if you do not see them likely because they are making too much noise or doing something else that gives away their rough position (i.e. square occupied).
However, hidden is both unseen and unheard so a DM could rule that the ambient noise in an encounter (eg perhaps near a waterfall) is sufficient to hide all sounds of movement outside of a certain distance and so if they can't be seen then they could be hidden automatically.
Adjudicating such situations is up to the DM but the DM should make clear to the players whether this is the case or not.
yeah this is correct....
You know where in the field the creature is unless there is some other environmental issue (Loud noise, heavy smell, etc...) that the DM could say you do not know where the creature is. OR If they successfully hide from you.
Mostly in 5e I have found that fog cloud, darkness, etc... tend to be a headache more often than a benefit. Even from the perspective of escape the DM could easily say you do not know which way is which and you run in the wrong direction. Mostly it just ends up being bad for the group in my experience.
IMO with the build you have mentioned I do not think it is worth it to use routinely as it makes it so you pretty much never have ADV on any roll due to the way it works.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
Yes, the rogue might use it to escape attack, but using it to aid attacks would be ill-advised (even if the disadvantage/advantage cancelled out, it would be impossible to end up with advantage, so no sneak attacks in any form or fashion with fog cloud)
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
Yes, the rogue might use it to escape attack, but using it to aid attacks would be ill-advised (even if the disadvantage/advantage cancelled out, it would be impossible to end up with advantage, so no sneak attacks in any form or fashion with fog cloud)
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
Yes, the rogue might use it to escape attack, but using it to aid attacks would be ill-advised (even if the disadvantage/advantage cancelled out, it would be impossible to end up with advantage, so no sneak attacks in any form or fashion with fog cloud)
Well they could if an ally was within 5ft
that is true, I stand corrected, and I don't care: in my games, if you attack in fog cloud, you attack with disadvantage regardless of whether the target is also in the cloud.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
Yes, the rogue might use it to escape attack, but using it to aid attacks would be ill-advised (even if the disadvantage/advantage cancelled out, it would be impossible to end up with advantage, so no sneak attacks in any form or fashion with fog cloud)
Well they could if an ally was within 5ft
that is true, I stand corrected, and I don't care: in my games, if you attack in fog cloud, you attack with disadvantage regardless of whether the target is also in the cloud.
Which is a great motivation for a rogue to either multiclass into fighter for 1 level or take the fighting style feat from Tasha's for blindfighting.
Which is a great motivation for a rogue to either multiclass into fighter for 1 level or take the fighting style feat from Tasha's for blindfighting.
Definitely not a bad idea. If you do, I'd go with the feat, so you have the option to change styles once the rogue gets blindsense at level 14 (annoyingly, it seems that this feature does not negate disadvantage while attacking invisible or hidden targets that you can sense...).
Definitely not a bad idea. If you do, I'd go with the feat, so you have the option to change styles once the rogue gets blindsense at level 14 (annoyingly, it seems that this feature does not negate disadvantage while attacking invisible or hidden targets that you can sense...).
I wasn't aware of the Blindsense ability for rogues. If Blindsense lets you know the location of invisible creatures within 10 feet of you, does that mean that normally characters DON'T know their location?
Definitely not a bad idea. If you do, I'd go with the feat, so you have the option to change styles once the rogue gets blindsense at level 14 (annoyingly, it seems that this feature does not negate disadvantage while attacking invisible or hidden targets that you can sense...).
I wasn't aware of the Blindsense ability for rogues. If Blindsense lets you know the location of invisible creatures within 10 feet of you, does that mean that normally characters DON'T know their location?
Yeah as written it is not good....Honestly I play it as blindsight but as written its just something anyone can do per RAW.
Wrong. You can tell where all creatures are in heavy obscurement. Invisible Condition -- "The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The only way you lose track of their location is if they defeat your passive perception with a stealth check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the reason I ask is because I am playing an arcane trickster rogue who has the spell Fog Cloud. I have this idea of using it to dart in and out of obscurement like batman.
But there are two things I am not clear on from the rules;
1. Do characters know where enemies are enough to target them while effectively blinded? The blinded condition seems to infer that you can locate enemies to attack but do so at disadvantage.
2. Can you move around while effectively blinded at full speed?
Creatures can target characters if they know where they are - even when blinded - but do so at disadvantage. But consider the rules on P.194 of the PHB:
Also remember that disadvantage is cancelled out by the advantage gained from attacking creatures who are blind (P.290 PHB):
And also PHB P.193-4.
In your scenario, if your Arcane Trickster cast Fog Cloud, neither your character, nor the enemy would be able to see each other - which would cancel out any advantage/disadvantage to attack rolls. Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss.
Regarding your second point, there is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot move around at full speed while blinded.
Really, obscurement isn't very realistic (or useful) for the purposes of keeping it simple.
That is kind of what I was afraid of. Doing dnd online, that could be terribly complicated for my DM to try and manage. :/
Maybe we could work out a system where we can all see the board, but have to make some kind of check to see if we attack the right square in the first place.
Or I might just need to talk to my dm about swapping out Fog Cloud until he's more familiar with roll20.
Honestly, for how you're wanting to use it, while it's not RAW, I'd just give disadvantage on attack rolls to everyone in the fog, along with failing any ability check that requires sight, as with blinded. That'd allow you to pop up a fog screen to move around the battlefield - and then you could choose to leave the cloud to attack if you didn't want to suffer a penalty (so long as the enemy you're attacking isn't in the cloud). It'd be good for manoeuvring.
If the enemy creatures hadn't seen you when you cast the fog, but you knew where the enemy was, I'd remove the disadvantage on your first attack. Depending on the creature and situation, I may deem the enemy surprised.
One clarification ...
The bolded part is DM dependent "Additionally, if any creatures move from where they are being targeted, the attacks simply miss." RAW, if the creature does not take the hide action and surpass your passive perception with a stealth roll then you continue to know where they are when they move even if you do not see them likely because they are making too much noise or doing something else that gives away their rough position (i.e. square occupied).
However, hidden is both unseen and unheard so a DM could rule that the ambient noise in an encounter (eg perhaps near a waterfall) is sufficient to hide all sounds of movement outside of a certain distance and so if they can't be seen then they could be hidden automatically.
Adjudicating such situations is up to the DM but the DM should make clear to the players whether this is the case or not.
yeah this is correct....
You know where in the field the creature is unless there is some other environmental issue (Loud noise, heavy smell, etc...) that the DM could say you do not know where the creature is. OR If they successfully hide from you.
Mostly in 5e I have found that fog cloud, darkness, etc... tend to be a headache more often than a benefit. Even from the perspective of escape the DM could easily say you do not know which way is which and you run in the wrong direction. Mostly it just ends up being bad for the group in my experience.
IMO with the build you have mentioned I do not think it is worth it to use routinely as it makes it so you pretty much never have ADV on any roll due to the way it works.
Thanks for the additional clarification - you are correct. Being unseen is not the same as creatures not knowing where you are.
I don't agree with the "canceling out" of the advantage/disadvantage rules here, even though it may the the RAW...the "double negative" effect doesn't make sense to me logically (I know I know, D&D isn't a simulation, but this one is immersion breaking for me even if I try to suspend my disbelief). I always rule as a DM that by itself, blind vs blind (either the condition or via darkness/heavy obscurement) is flat disadvantage. You can overcome this by another means that grants advantage, but not by the advantage granted by aiming at a blind target; I reserve that only for sighted attackers targeting blinded opponents.
Yes, it's a simple house rule to implement.
If it comes up in my game, I'll house rule the single disadvantage situation too.
In which case its even worse for the Rogue build as you will have DIS and thus no Sneak Attack.
Yes, the rogue might use it to escape attack, but using it to aid attacks would be ill-advised (even if the disadvantage/advantage cancelled out, it would be impossible to end up with advantage, so no sneak attacks in any form or fashion with fog cloud)
Well they could if an ally was within 5ft
that is true, I stand corrected, and I don't care: in my games, if you attack in fog cloud, you attack with disadvantage regardless of whether the target is also in the cloud.
Yeah fair enough as long as everyone knows before they pick something like fog cloud.
Makes more sense for most.
Which is a great motivation for a rogue to either multiclass into fighter for 1 level or take the fighting style feat from Tasha's for blindfighting.
Definitely not a bad idea. If you do, I'd go with the feat, so you have the option to change styles once the rogue gets blindsense at level 14 (annoyingly, it seems that this feature does not negate disadvantage while attacking invisible or hidden targets that you can sense...).
I wasn't aware of the Blindsense ability for rogues. If Blindsense lets you know the location of invisible creatures within 10 feet of you, does that mean that normally characters DON'T know their location?
Yeah as written it is not good....Honestly I play it as blindsight but as written its just something anyone can do per RAW.
Wrong. You can tell where all creatures are in heavy obscurement. Invisible Condition -- "The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The only way you lose track of their location is if they defeat your passive perception with a stealth check.