I know what the rules say but, why is it you get just disadvantage for an enemy that you can't see, such as being in a fog cloud, them being invisible or other such things but if they turn around a corner they can't be targeted due to being in total cover. To me, you cannot target a creature you cannot see. I understand the grid square idea and how aoes work but, how is being completely obscured not like total cover?
Put yourself in the shoes of a character who's surrounded by opaque fog you can barely see through, you can't even see your hands in front of you—that's how abundant it is.
Now, let's say you had someone you wanted to punch somewhere in the fog. If you wildly throw hooks or flail your arms everywhere, chances are, you'll hit this enemy eventually, although not easily. This only works if the enemy is within striking distance of you though.
Now let's say there's no fog and you're an archer shooting an enemy. The enemy suddenly runs behind a corner. They're not in front of you, and the only thing next to that is a wall. There's no possible way to see them and successfully target them unless you move from your position.
The main difference between the two scenarios you described is that with heavily obscured (such as being invisible or in a fog cloud), the player CAN still hit the enemy; they're perfectly capable of doing so, the inability to see them just makes it 10x harder. Whereas with total cover (like running around a corner as you said), a person at range or even a person in melee range can no longer successfully hit the character without moving to a more optimal position.
As a general thing I do whenever heavily obscured comes up is I ask the player to tell me which square around them they're targeting. I make them roll an attack roll and if the enemy's not there, it doesn't matter what they rolled, I tell them they missed. Either they luck out with the correct square or they miss entirely.
If there is an invisible creature in a room with me, I may not even know it is there. But if I start firing arrows randomly around the room, there's a chance I might hit it.
If a creature (that is not invisible) is standing behind a large boulder the size of a medium boulder, and I start firing arrows at it, I will never hit it, because my arrows cannot go through the boulder.
The boulder makes hitting the target impossible, whereas invisibility merely makes hitting the target improbable.
The reason you can target creatures you can't see wether Heavily Obscured or Invisible, but can't target a creature behind Total Cover is because Cover is physical obstruction protecting those behind it. Fog, however dense it is, does not block or prevent attack for example.
Now being unseen can be hard to target when you have to pick a space/square you think such creature occupy and also many effects such as spells specifically target a creature you can see, which make such creature ineligible.
On the meta level, it's to keep combat moving. While they've managed to make it even more ambiguous and spawn no small number of... spirited debates on exactly how character awareness of an invisible creature works under '24 rules, I suspect many tables still take the original 5e approach of an invisible creature's position being known unless it has successfully taken the Hide action. Thus an invisible creature can still be attacked by weapons and some other options, keeping combat from stalling out until the position is found. Given how long a few rounds of combat can take already, this is definitely a positive imo. Total cover can get away with outright block attacks because it's usually not hard for other characters to reposition to negate the cover.
I know what the rules say but, why is it you get just disadvantage for an enemy that you can't see, such as being in a fog cloud, them being invisible or other such things but if they turn around a corner they can't be targeted due to being in total cover. To me, you cannot target a creature you cannot see. I understand the grid square idea and how aoes work but, how is being completely obscured not like total cover?
Put yourself in the shoes of a character who's surrounded by opaque fog you can barely see through, you can't even see your hands in front of you—that's how abundant it is.
Now, let's say you had someone you wanted to punch somewhere in the fog. If you wildly throw hooks or flail your arms everywhere, chances are, you'll hit this enemy eventually, although not easily. This only works if the enemy is within striking distance of you though.
Now let's say there's no fog and you're an archer shooting an enemy. The enemy suddenly runs behind a corner. They're not in front of you, and the only thing next to that is a wall. There's no possible way to see them and successfully target them unless you move from your position.
The main difference between the two scenarios you described is that with heavily obscured (such as being invisible or in a fog cloud), the player CAN still hit the enemy; they're perfectly capable of doing so, the inability to see them just makes it 10x harder. Whereas with total cover (like running around a corner as you said), a person at range or even a person in melee range can no longer successfully hit the character without moving to a more optimal position.
As a general thing I do whenever heavily obscured comes up is I ask the player to tell me which square around them they're targeting. I make them roll an attack roll and if the enemy's not there, it doesn't matter what they rolled, I tell them they missed. Either they luck out with the correct square or they miss entirely.
Your resident D&D hobo.
HAIL THE RAIN!!!
If there is an invisible creature in a room with me, I may not even know it is there. But if I start firing arrows randomly around the room, there's a chance I might hit it.
If a creature (that is not invisible) is standing behind a large boulder the size of a medium boulder, and I start firing arrows at it, I will never hit it, because my arrows cannot go through the boulder.
The boulder makes hitting the target impossible, whereas invisibility merely makes hitting the target improbable.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The reason you can target creatures you can't see wether Heavily Obscured or Invisible, but can't target a creature behind Total Cover is because Cover is physical obstruction protecting those behind it. Fog, however dense it is, does not block or prevent attack for example.
Now being unseen can be hard to target when you have to pick a space/square you think such creature occupy and also many effects such as spells specifically target a creature you can see, which make such creature ineligible.
On the meta level, it's to keep combat moving. While they've managed to make it even more ambiguous and spawn no small number of... spirited debates on exactly how character awareness of an invisible creature works under '24 rules, I suspect many tables still take the original 5e approach of an invisible creature's position being known unless it has successfully taken the Hide action. Thus an invisible creature can still be attacked by weapons and some other options, keeping combat from stalling out until the position is found. Given how long a few rounds of combat can take already, this is definitely a positive imo. Total cover can get away with outright block attacks because it's usually not hard for other characters to reposition to negate the cover.
This makes a bunch of sense, thank you!