I'm specifically looking at the write-up for Sleet Storm.
Does that mean that someone operating from w/in that area (80' diameter!) is dealing with the Blinded condition from it being Heavily Obscured or folks outside looking in?
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.
The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Vision rules are poorly worded and needlessly complex, but just picture heavily obscured squares to be opaque blocks since they "block vision entirely". Can't see into them, can't see out of them, can't see through them. Even if you're standing within the outside edge of effect trying to peek out without being seen, if you're in a square that is heavily obscured, your vision to your square and every other square is "blocked entirely."
This is perfectly logical and fine with something like sleet. It makes a lot less sense with darkness, since that isn't how darkness works in the real world. But that is how it works in D&D, anything that is heavily obscured is like ink in your eyes blocking everything.
The person outside is not suffering from the blinded condition. They just have no line of sight to anything inside the fog. It is effectively blind if it attempts to target anything inside the effect, but it is not mechanically blinded.
Disagree that "effectively blinded" is distinct from the "blinded" condition, or that "mechanically blinded" is a rule concept. The only necessary distinction I see is, you are "effectively blinded" only in relation to specific creatures or areas that are heavily obscured, while you are "blinded" in relation to everything everywhere.
"A blinded creature can't see" -- but the person standing outside the heavily obscured area can see just fine. A person standing outside a heavily obscured area is not blinded.
Look at it like this: from a distance you can see the persons inside a cloud of grey fog or smoke , maybe not detailed but you can clearly see them as you are standing outside of the smoke. but if you inside this smoke you cannot see shit.
This is the thing that most bothers me about the new rulebooks, actually. I think they could have fleshed out "Heavily Obscured" a bit to make it more obvious as to what their intention was. Heck, you guys summed it up in just a few sentences to where it makes way more sense than RAW.
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.
The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Vision rules are poorly worded and needlessly complex, but just picture heavily obscured squares to be opaque blocks since they "block vision entirely". Can't see into them, can't see out of them, can't see through them. Even if you're standing within the outside edge of effect trying to peek out without being seen, if you're in a square that is heavily obscured, your vision to your square and every other square is "blocked entirely."
This is perfectly logical and fine with something like sleet. It makes a lot less sense with darkness, since that isn't how darkness works in the real world. But that is how it works in D&D, anything that is heavily obscured is like ink in your eyes blocking everything.
The light rules do say that on a full moon lit night, you might only have light obscurement at night. I've been out in the woods with a bright moon, and it is easy to get around. I've also been out during the dark of the moon and couldn't see diddly squat. This is an area for the DM to determine, likely off a calendar they are keeping about such things.
I feel like they could have added a statement to better capture ordinary darkness. Something to the effect of: "Unless you have enhanced vision, you cannot see anything that does not emit or reflect a light source when in non-magical darkness."
That way you could still see a torch on a hill 100 feet away (even though a torch only creates a brightness effect for 40 feet), or a fire burning in a distant town on a moonless night. You would also still be able to see stars and a moon sliver at night, even if it wasn't bright enough to qualify as "Lightly Obscured."
I feel like they could have added a statement to better capture ordinary darkness. Something to the effect of: "Unless you have enhanced vision, you cannot see anything that does not emit or reflect a light source when in non-magical darkness."
That way you could still see a torch on a hill 100 feet away (even though a torch only creates a brightness effect for 40 feet), or a fire burning in a distant town on a moonless night. You would also still be able to see stars and a moon sliver at night, even if it wasn't bright enough to qualify as "Lightly Obscured."
I remember this example from the 2014 DMG (p. 104):
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. Even so, adventurers using light sources in a dungeon often attract monsters, just as dungeon features that shed light (from phosphorescent fungi to the glow of magical portals) can draw adventurers' attention.
This is the thing that most bothers me about the new rulebooks, actually. I think they could have fleshed out "Heavily Obscured" a bit to make it more obvious as to what their intention was. Heck, you guys summed it up in just a few sentences to where it makes way more sense than RAW.
The problem is that if you make it obvious, you wind up either with nonsensical results or you have to create two categories of effect: opaque obscurement (bushes, fog clouds, etc) and transparent obscurement (mostly darkness, though you can come up with other things that make seeing into an area impossible without making seeing through the area impossible). People have been complaining about fog and darkness being the same thing for years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm specifically looking at the write-up for Sleet Storm.
Does that mean that someone operating from w/in that area (80' diameter!) is dealing with the Blinded condition from it being Heavily Obscured or folks outside looking in?
Or both?
both I think
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Both.
Vision rules are poorly worded and needlessly complex, but just picture heavily obscured squares to be opaque blocks since they "block vision entirely". Can't see into them, can't see out of them, can't see through them. Even if you're standing within the outside edge of effect trying to peek out without being seen, if you're in a square that is heavily obscured, your vision to your square and every other square is "blocked entirely."
This is perfectly logical and fine with something like sleet. It makes a lot less sense with darkness, since that isn't how darkness works in the real world. But that is how it works in D&D, anything that is heavily obscured is like ink in your eyes blocking everything.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thanks, folks. Greatly appreciated!
Both "mostly"
The person outside is not suffering from the blinded condition. They just have no line of sight to anything inside the fog. It is effectively blind if it attempts to target anything inside the effect, but it is not mechanically blinded.
Disagree that "effectively blinded" is distinct from the "blinded" condition, or that "mechanically blinded" is a rule concept. The only necessary distinction I see is, you are "effectively blinded" only in relation to specific creatures or areas that are heavily obscured, while you are "blinded" in relation to everything everywhere.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Exactly...
Blinded is a condition on a creature.
"A blinded creature can't see" -- but the person standing outside the heavily obscured area can see just fine. A person standing outside a heavily obscured area is not blinded.
Look at it like this: from a distance you can see the persons inside a cloud of grey fog or smoke , maybe not detailed but you can clearly see them as you are standing outside of the smoke. but if you inside this smoke you cannot see shit.
No, you can't.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I rule such opaque freezing rain and sleet to block vision in & out.
This is the thing that most bothers me about the new rulebooks, actually. I think they could have fleshed out "Heavily Obscured" a bit to make it more obvious as to what their intention was. Heck, you guys summed it up in just a few sentences to where it makes way more sense than RAW.
The light rules do say that on a full moon lit night, you might only have light obscurement at night. I've been out in the woods with a bright moon, and it is easy to get around. I've also been out during the dark of the moon and couldn't see diddly squat. This is an area for the DM to determine, likely off a calendar they are keeping about such things.
I feel like they could have added a statement to better capture ordinary darkness. Something to the effect of: "Unless you have enhanced vision, you cannot see anything that does not emit or reflect a light source when in non-magical darkness."
That way you could still see a torch on a hill 100 feet away (even though a torch only creates a brightness effect for 40 feet), or a fire burning in a distant town on a moonless night. You would also still be able to see stars and a moon sliver at night, even if it wasn't bright enough to qualify as "Lightly Obscured."
I remember this example from the 2014 DMG (p. 104):
The problem is that if you make it obvious, you wind up either with nonsensical results or you have to create two categories of effect: opaque obscurement (bushes, fog clouds, etc) and transparent obscurement (mostly darkness, though you can come up with other things that make seeing into an area impossible without making seeing through the area impossible). People have been complaining about fog and darkness being the same thing for years.