Rules question that came up in my session last night.
Ranged longbow attacker has light source on their position. The target is within range of the attacker and has their own light source lit. However, there is darkness between the attacker and the target. Does that intervening darkness affect the attacker (impose disadvantage or grant half cover)?
Rules question that came up in my session last night.
Ranged longbow attacker has light source on their position. The target is within range of the attacker and has their own light source lit. However, there is darkness between the attacker and the target. Does that intervening darkness affect the attacker (impose disadvantage or grant half cover)?
Plaguescarred is correct - the answer is no - and furthermore, the lighting on the attacker and defender works this way:
If the attacker is unseen, the attack has advantage.
If the defender is unseen, the attack has disadvantage.
This is where common sense meets the rules in the book.
How I would run it - these assume no darkvision since darkvision makes it possible to see through normal darkness within range.
If it is NORMAL darkness. Both the attacker and the target are in a lit area with a darkened area in between. I rule that since both are in lit areas they can see each other so neither advantage nor disadvantage apply. They can both be clearly seen. The darkness by itself doesn't provide cover to creatures outside the darkness. However, if there is an obstruction in the darkness that could partially obstruct the view then that could provide cover - however, the darkness by itself doesn't do anything.
If it is NORMAL darkness. If one creature is in a lit area and the other is in the surrounding darkness then the creature in the lit area can be seen by the creature in the darkness but the creature in the darkness can not be seen by the creature in the light. The lit creature has disadvantage to attack the creature in the darkness and advantage to be hit by the creature in the darkness.
If it is NORMAL darkness. If both creatures are in the darkness then neither can see the other. As a result the advantage for being unseen is canceled by the disadvantage for not being able to not see your target and attack rolls are resolved normally with neither advantage nor disadvantage (or cover for that matter).
In terms of magical darkness - I run this as creatures are unable to see through magical darkness (some folks play differently). In this case, magical darkness between two lit areas would prevent the creatures from being able to see each other. However, as for the case where both creatures are in normal darkness - the creatures can not see each other and advantage and disadvantage cancel - this is then a DM decision as to whether the target's location is sufficiently well known for an attack to be made. If it is then the effect of being unable to see the attack coming is countered by the inability of the attacker to see the target and the attack is resolved with a straight roll.
Here are the relevant rules
PHB p183
"VISION AND LIGHT The most fundamental tasks of adventuring - noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
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.
The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."
Unfortunately, the rules declare that darkness creates a heavily obscured area the same as opaque fog or dense foliage without distinguishing that this makes no sense when light sources are present in a darkened area. This is where a DM has to make a call and decide what is "common sense" for their game world and how they want darkness to work. It does say that a creature looking INTO a darkened area is effectively blinded to things in the darkness. It also says that bright light lets creatures see normally - so two areas of bright light should also let a creature see normally within the brightly lit areas even if there is darkness between ... but they would not be able to see normally if the darkness was replaced by dense foliage or opaque fog which is why (again) DM adjudication with a levy of common sense is needed.
Like in real life, natural darkness only affects your ability to see or attack targets in the unlit space. Both creatures in this scenario can see each other clearly since they're both illuminated. From Player's Handbook chapter 8:
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 Darkness spell is a bit different in that it creates a sphere of impenetrable darkness that can't be illuminated or seen through by normal means, so as far as vision is concerned it behaves more like a solid barrier.
I remember the last edition originally had a problem with areas of light between darkness. It was corrected since then and 5E did it the right way right off the bat. The key element is this: An area of darkness is heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely, effectively suffering from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. So when trying to see is areas otherwise lightly obscured or brightly lit, vision isn't block into them. If it was case, creatures wouldn't be able to see the stars ☺
The rules for senses are a bit over simplified, use common sense.
A fog bank and a shadow are not equivalent levels of obscurity IRL, but they are in the rules. And it depends on your interpretation whether that means you can't see past a shadow or you can see the other side of a fog bank or heavy foliage (I think it is written to imply the latter, but that is not the way I rule in game *see common sense).
This is really useful, thank you all. I'd been poring over the relevant sections of the PHB but there didn't seem to be an explicit case for this example, just implications of existing rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rules question that came up in my session last night.
Ranged longbow attacker has light source on their position. The target is within range of the attacker and has their own light source lit. However, there is darkness between the attacker and the target. Does that intervening darkness affect the attacker (impose disadvantage or grant half cover)?
No since the area in which the creatures are is not obscured.
(It would if the darkness would be magical and block vision though)
Plaguescarred is correct - the answer is no - and furthermore, the lighting on the attacker and defender works this way:
If the attacker is unseen, the attack has advantage.
If the defender is unseen, the attack has disadvantage.
Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other.
This is where common sense meets the rules in the book.
How I would run it - these assume no darkvision since darkvision makes it possible to see through normal darkness within range.
If it is NORMAL darkness. Both the attacker and the target are in a lit area with a darkened area in between. I rule that since both are in lit areas they can see each other so neither advantage nor disadvantage apply. They can both be clearly seen. The darkness by itself doesn't provide cover to creatures outside the darkness. However, if there is an obstruction in the darkness that could partially obstruct the view then that could provide cover - however, the darkness by itself doesn't do anything.
If it is NORMAL darkness. If one creature is in a lit area and the other is in the surrounding darkness then the creature in the lit area can be seen by the creature in the darkness but the creature in the darkness can not be seen by the creature in the light. The lit creature has disadvantage to attack the creature in the darkness and advantage to be hit by the creature in the darkness.
If it is NORMAL darkness. If both creatures are in the darkness then neither can see the other. As a result the advantage for being unseen is canceled by the disadvantage for not being able to not see your target and attack rolls are resolved normally with neither advantage nor disadvantage (or cover for that matter).
In terms of magical darkness - I run this as creatures are unable to see through magical darkness (some folks play differently). In this case, magical darkness between two lit areas would prevent the creatures from being able to see each other. However, as for the case where both creatures are in normal darkness - the creatures can not see each other and advantage and disadvantage cancel - this is then a DM decision as to whether the target's location is sufficiently well known for an attack to be made. If it is then the effect of being unable to see the attack coming is countered by the inability of the attacker to see the target and the attack is resolved with a straight roll.
Here are the relevant rules
PHB p183
"VISION AND LIGHT
The most fundamental tasks of adventuring - noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
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.
The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."
Unfortunately, the rules declare that darkness creates a heavily obscured area the same as opaque fog or dense foliage without distinguishing that this makes no sense when light sources are present in a darkened area. This is where a DM has to make a call and decide what is "common sense" for their game world and how they want darkness to work. It does say that a creature looking INTO a darkened area is effectively blinded to things in the darkness. It also says that bright light lets creatures see normally - so two areas of bright light should also let a creature see normally within the brightly lit areas even if there is darkness between ... but they would not be able to see normally if the darkness was replaced by dense foliage or opaque fog which is why (again) DM adjudication with a levy of common sense is needed.
Like in real life, natural darkness only affects your ability to see or attack targets in the unlit space. Both creatures in this scenario can see each other clearly since they're both illuminated. From Player's Handbook chapter 8:
The Darkness spell is a bit different in that it creates a sphere of impenetrable darkness that can't be illuminated or seen through by normal means, so as far as vision is concerned it behaves more like a solid barrier.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I remember the last edition originally had a problem with areas of light between darkness. It was corrected since then and 5E did it the right way right off the bat. The key element is this: An area of darkness is heavily obscured and blocks vision entirely, effectively suffering from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. So when trying to see is areas otherwise lightly obscured or brightly lit, vision isn't block into them. If it was case, creatures wouldn't be able to see the stars ☺
This is definitely one where we shouldn't overthink things.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The rules for senses are a bit over simplified, use common sense.
A fog bank and a shadow are not equivalent levels of obscurity IRL, but they are in the rules. And it depends on your interpretation whether that means you can't see past a shadow or you can see the other side of a fog bank or heavy foliage (I think it is written to imply the latter, but that is not the way I rule in game *see common sense).
This is really useful, thank you all. I'd been poring over the relevant sections of the PHB but there didn't seem to be an explicit case for this example, just implications of existing rules.