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 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.
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured as explained in chapter 8, “Adventuring.”
To use more natural language, please allow me to use "LO" for lightly obscured, "HO" for heavily obscured, "looker" for the creature trying to see something, and "subject" for the creature/object/thing being seen.
So here's some initial observations:
Both chapter 7 and chapter 8 talk about an "area" being obscured. Unlike cover, which is a property of what sorts of objects exist between points A and B, obscurement (both LO and HO) appear to be properties of an area itself, not a measurement of their relationship to some other point. Square X might be behind total cover vs. square A, three-quarters cover vs. square B, half-cover vs. square C, and no cover vs. square D.... but Square X always is or is not Lightly Obscured or Heavily Obscured no matter where you're viewing it from.
"In" a lightly obscured area:
vision-based perception checks have disadvantage.
"In" a heavily obscured area:
[all of the qualities of lightly obscured, +?]
Lookers trying to see Subjects "in" the heavily obscured area suffer from Blinded with relation to that Subject.
A heavily obscured area "blocks vision entirely"
So the observation was made, that supposedly a lookersuffers disadvantage on perception checks when they are "in" a LO area, whether they are looking at something within that area or outside of it, but that a subjectbeing in the LO area doesn't impose disadvantage on any checks to see that subject in and of itself. By contrast, supposedly in an HO area, a subjectbeing in that area imposes Blinded against all observers, but a lookerdoesn't suffer Blinded when trying to see something outside that area (other than the fact that the area "blocks vision entirely").
So I'll just start things off and say... I don't agree. I don't think it's reasonable to read "in a lightly obscured area" to only be talking about lookers, and then read a heavily obscured area to only be talking about subjects. I don't think anyone would accuse this section of being written in the plainest possible language, but that's an overly-complicated unequal way to read this that I don't think matches RAI. And the Chapter 7 snippet boils both LO and HO down to "how well you can see in an area" equally, which I think is a very straightforward way to phrase it.
For both LO and HO, I believe that the vision difficulties (disadvantage for LO, Blinded for HO) apply (1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it, and (3) when looker and subject are both within the area. All three of those configurations are ways of talking about "how well you can see in an area," which is all Chapter 7 and 8 require.
So the observation was made, that supposedly a lookersuffers disadvantage on perception checks when they are "in" a LO area
That's not my interpretation at all (which means I think I agree with you?). That section is not well written, but it could just as easily refer to making Perception checks on subjects in an LO area and have nothing to do with where the looker happens to be standing. The subsequent sentence on HO makes this a lot clearer, and there's no logical reason to think they would be different. "Area" only makes sense, in both cases, in reference to the area the subject is in.
Changing 'in an area' to 'into an area' in that What Can You See? part of Chapter 7 would make this clearer as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The vision and light rules really have trouble mimicking natural behavior. I really think that I would essentially run it the way you described with the addition that HO areas between a looker and subject still imposes the HO penalty. I would also say the same for LO, i think. It makes sense to me that a looker would have the same difficulty observing a subject behind some bushes or an insect plague as they would if the subject were inside either of those areas.
I would treat “in the area” as either looker or subject for sure; first of all because the rule isn’t clear, second of all because that is what makes sense, and finally because “in an area” could reasonably include “looking while in” as well as “looking into.” I guess it is a house rule to apply the penalties when the HO or LO is between the subject and the looker, but that is one that is comfortable.
I would agree. I laid out (1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it, and (3) when looker and subject are both within the area... but HO at least also seems to have a (4) when neither looker nor subject are within the area but the area is between them (or at least, vision passing through the area is "blocked entirely", though technically HO doesn't hand out Blinded unless subject is literally in the area... that seems like a problem with wording, not an intended distinction). Giving LO the same (4) wouldn't make anything behave too weirdly, and would allow things like light haze in the line of sight to work as (I believe is) intended.
I agree, I would also agree that the respective LO and HO penalties apply when (4) the looker and the subject are both outside the LO/HO area but the area stands between them. I don't like the use of blinded in any of these situations due to the fact the condition is based on the loss of sight on the part of the creature, not due to environment (which is why you get stupid interactions like advantage and disadvantage cancelling out when both creatures are in the HO). I'd rather it be segregated and the 4 guidelines be used instead.
I also think that light and darkness should be segregated from these rules entirely. The RAW says darkness is a form of HO, and while not equated the penalties for Dim Light are the same as LO, but the logic of real world interactions would be different for Darkness/Dim Light, per the below:
(1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
(2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it (HO/Dim Light penalties should apply)
(3) when looker and subject are both within the area. (HO/Dim Light penalties should apply)
(4) when the looker and subject are both outside the area but the area stands between (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
This portion of the rules are broken/incomplete, DMs will need to adjudicate based on what makes sense to them.
Standing in dim light is standing in an area of LO. Yet there is absolutely zero rationale for why that would interfere with seeing something 20ft away in a brightly lit area. And yet...
Also, these rules treat fog, foliage, and darkness identically. If one blocks vision in any scenario then so do the others in exactly the same way. Thus, if a large shrubbery creates HO then a Looker trying to see a Subject on the other side of it would be perfectly able to do so, since the subject isn't IN the HO, merely behind it. Yet. If you then lean into the counter that HO Blocks vision entirely, a similarly sized patch of natural darkness would also create a HO area and a Looker would then be unable to see a well lit Subject on the other side of the HO darkness... somehow.
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.
I agree, I would also agree that the respective LO and HO penalties apply when (4) the looker and the subject are both outside the LO/HO area but the area stands between them. I don't like the use of blinded in any of these situations due to the fact the condition is based on the loss of sight on the part of the creature, not due to environment (which is why you get stupid interactions like advantage and disadvantage cancelling out when both creatures are in the HO). I'd rather it be segregated and the 4 guidelines be used instead.
I also think that light and darkness should be segregated from these rules entirely. The RAW says darkness is a form of HO, and while not equated the penalties for Dim Light are the same as LO, but the logic of real world interactions would be different for Darkness/Dim Light, per the below:
(1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
(2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it (HO/Dim Light penalties should apply)
(3) when looker and subject are both within the area. (HO/Dim Light penalties should apply)
(4) when the looker and subject are both outside the area but the area stands between (HO/Dim Light penalties should not apply)
I think your ruling on (1) and (4) makes sense for light effects, but not for fog effects. Until and unless light starts being treated differently than fog, I would recommend you rule the same for (1) and (4) as you do for (2) and (3), even though it makes seeing a candle in the darkness difficult.
The problem is that there are two different types of obscurement that 5e doesn't bother to distinguish:
An effect that obscures vision through its area.
An effect that obscures vision into its area.
Fog (and other gases) should clearly be of type (1), mundane darkness should be of type (2), though as written fog cloud is actually type 2. The darkness actually specifies A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, which implies that it's an opaque effect (and thus type 1), but that might be sloppy wording. My experience is that it always gets treated as an opaque effect, but the wording of the spell isn't clear, and wasn't clear in prior editions.
Honestly, my interpretation of the vision rules in the PBH is "needed better playtesting and/or editing, I'm going to ignore them and use what makes sense".
This portion of the rules are broken/incomplete, DMs will need to adjudicate based on what makes sense to them.
Standing in dim light is standing in an area of LO. Yet there is absolutely zero rationale for why that would interfere with seeing something 20ft away in a brightly lit area. And yet...
Also, these rules treat fog, foliage, and darkness identically. If one blocks vision in any scenario then so do the others in exactly the same way. Thus, if a large shrubbery creates HO then a Looker trying to see a Subject on the other side of it would be perfectly able to do so, since the subject isn't IN the HO, merely behind it. Yet. If you then lean into the counter that HO Blocks vision entirely, a similarly sized patch of natural darkness would also create a HO area and a Looker would then be unable to see a well lit Subject on the other side of the HO darkness... somehow.
These rules are broken. Follow your instinct.
Yep, agree with you here. These rules are so clumsily written as to be not much use as actual rules.
What we do have is the intended effect of two levels of obscured vision situations: Light (disadvantage on sight perception) and Heavy (auto-fail sight perception and disadvantage on a bunch of stuff as per blindness).
The DM is then invited to decide if and when each of those two vision effects are applied. I think references to an "area" of obscurement is a red herring. Any given area can be simultaneously heavily obscured to some observers, lightly obscured to other observers, and unobscured to others. An example: a dungeon corridor, dimly lit, with a fog cloud in one end. The area outside that fog cloud is heavily obscured for anyone inside or on the far side of the fog. It is lightly obscured for a human standing in the corridor. It is unobscured for a dwarf standing in the same space.
Clearly light, vision and obscurement only really have any meaning when it is addressed as a relationship between the looker and the subject. I don't think that the rule text is going to give you any better way to answer the question "can this creature see that object clearly?" than your own ability to visualise the situation.
That is not correct, you’re using cover analysis to analyze obscurement. Obscurement is areas, cover is relations. It’s just that obscurement areas penalize vision in them, out of them, or through them.
That is not correct, you’re using cover analysis to analyze obscurement. Obscurement is areas, cover is relations. It’s just that obscurement areas penalize vision in them, out of them, or through them.
Look, you can believe that if you want but it's not very useful for anything. Obscurement only means something in terms of vision, and vision is quite literally in the eye of the beholder.
The rules lay out dim light as an example of an "area of light obscurement" - but elsewhere having Darkvision tells us that I can see perfectly in an area of dim light. So for me, with my Darkvision, that area has no obscurement at all. Nothing has made that area inherently more or less obscured, except that the eyes of the creature doing the looking experience no such obscurement.
An obscurement that is not seen does not exist.
The rules describe obscurement with areas because most of the things that are likely to cause partial obscurement are things that have an area of coverage, while things that grant cover tend to be objects that interfere with a pathway between two points.
The decision a DM needs to make when applying the obscurement rules to a check or attack roll is "can the looker see the target clearly, somewhat, or not at all?" and then apply the appropriate effects for none/light/heavy obscurement. The area where the looker and the subject are located will play heavily into that decision, along with the vision (and other senses) of the looker as well as any objects or effects that exist between the two.
You can go ahead and argue that standing in dim light looking at a patch of bright light will still give you disadvantage on perception checks against anything trying to sneak towards you up that brightly lit corridor, but I doubt you will find anyone to agree with you because such a claim is ridiculous and makes the game worse.
That is not correct, you’re using cover analysis to analyze obscurement. Obscurement is areas, cover is relations. It’s just that obscurement areas penalize vision in them, out of them, or through them.
No they don't. RAW they don't at all, RAI I expect they're supposed to sometimes do so depending on type of obscurement.
I think tracking two different subtypes of LO and HO , and four different configurations for each of those four, all of which differentially prefer the looker or subject to be in the area… THATS what I think is bad for the game. Two types of obscurement is enough for me, and it’s enough to know they both effect “how well you can see” in/out/through their area.
Obscurement is explicitly in areas, not the relationship of lookers and subjects. It may be more realistic for seeing out of dim light into bright to work differently than seeing out of bright light into dim, and for light fog to be different from that, but that kind of nuance slows play. 5E isn’t and shouldn’t be realistically simulating light. Obscurement is a broad abstraction representing many different phenomenon, just like advantage/disadvantage replaces all sorts of different bonuses and contexts.
There needs to be a bright line between cover and obscurement, because otherwise it gets MORE confusing. Throwing out some of the written obscurement rules in favor of ad hoc cover reasoning, while retaining cherry picked obscurement rules… that’s the worst of both worlds.
When you duck behind a larger creature, that’s you having cover with relation to some other creature(s) or effect(s). When you step into a shadow, that’s you being LO, period. A creature with Darkvision may disregard LO areas entirely, fine, but you don’t have LO in this direction but not that, or LO vs observers but them not vs you, etc… it’s just LO across the board, as an effect tied to that area, not to you.
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 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.
I agree with you, and I think that's RAW.
The Looker suffers all of the penalties if they are within the LO or HO area whether the Subject is inside it or not.
The Looker suffers all of the penalties if they are outside the area and trying to see a Subject inside the LO or HO area.
For HO:
A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area
Assuming that the creature has the ground below them, and the obscuring area occupies at least a 15 foot cube around them, this would include all of the spaces around them. If you cannot see those spaces because you are blinded, you cannot see what is beyond them either unless you have something like arcane eye or use a Familiar to see for you. I suspect these caveats are the reason for the difficult wording of the rule. If it just said "Whilst in a heavily obscured area you are blinded then that would fail to take into account the possibility of your vision being separate from your eyes.
Assuming that the creature has the ground below them, and the obscuring area occupies at least a 15 foot cube around them, this would include all of the spaces around them. If you cannot see those spaces because you are blinded, you cannot see what is beyond them either unless you have something like arcane eye or use a Familiar to see for you. I suspect these caveats are the reason for the difficult wording of the rule. If it just said "Whilst in a heavily obscured area you are blinded then that would fail to take into account the possibility of your vision being separate from your eyes.
I think that part in red might be correct for the wrong reason. Remember that HO blocks vision entirely. That is the reason that you can't see past HO areas, and not being "effectively blinded" because that portion only matters when you are "trying to see something in that area."
Here is an interpretation that makes the rule actually mean what we all know it should mean:
When it says "obscured area" it is not referring to just the area where the obscuring effect is, but is in fact referring to the area obscured by the obscuring effect from your point of view. Light foliage doesn't just obscure the area of the foliage, but the area behind it. Darkness (non-magical) does only obscure the area of darkness, and not illuminated areas beyond it. The rule was written under the assumption that the reader knew how vision works, and was only applying game mechanics to that common sense.
Here is an interpretation that makes the rule actually mean what we all know it should mean:
When it says "obscured area" it is not referring to just the area where the obscuring effect is, but is in fact referring to the area obscured by the obscuring effect from your point of view. Light foliage doesn't just obscure the area of the foliage, but the area behind it. Darkness (non-magical) does only obscure the area of darkness, and not illuminated areas beyond it. The rule was written under the assumption that the reader knew how vision works, and was only applying game mechanics to that common sense.
/interpretation
I mean, that is how just about everyone has claimed that the rule should probably be played right? Maybe that is what they intended, but they certainly didn't provide any language indicating that the obscured area extends beyond the obscuring effect (except for the "blocks vision entirely" bit). But are you implying that the rules on the page still take some thought? Nah. Couldn't be.
This is why darkness and other visual cover is generally handwaved in about 90% of games I have been in.
Really the only time it makes any difference is COMPLETE darkness in which its a race to see which PC shouts "I have darkvision!" first as so many races have it now.
Generally followed by the human sighing and pulling out a torch.
The bottomline for me it its so rarely an issue its best not to get too caught up in the weeds of it.
To avoid entirely derailing another thread in Tips & Tricks, lets hash out where obscurement is, and how it effects the vision of observers.
PHB Chapter 8, Adventuring, Vision & Light:
And just because its related and talks a bit about obscurement, PHB Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores, Dexterity, Hiding:
To use more natural language, please allow me to use "LO" for lightly obscured, "HO" for heavily obscured, "looker" for the creature trying to see something, and "subject" for the creature/object/thing being seen.
So here's some initial observations:
So the observation was made, that supposedly a looker suffers disadvantage on perception checks when they are "in" a LO area, whether they are looking at something within that area or outside of it, but that a subject being in the LO area doesn't impose disadvantage on any checks to see that subject in and of itself. By contrast, supposedly in an HO area, a subject being in that area imposes Blinded against all observers, but a looker doesn't suffer Blinded when trying to see something outside that area (other than the fact that the area "blocks vision entirely").
So I'll just start things off and say... I don't agree. I don't think it's reasonable to read "in a lightly obscured area" to only be talking about lookers, and then read a heavily obscured area to only be talking about subjects. I don't think anyone would accuse this section of being written in the plainest possible language, but that's an overly-complicated unequal way to read this that I don't think matches RAI. And the Chapter 7 snippet boils both LO and HO down to "how well you can see in an area" equally, which I think is a very straightforward way to phrase it.
For both LO and HO, I believe that the vision difficulties (disadvantage for LO, Blinded for HO) apply (1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it, and (3) when looker and subject are both within the area. All three of those configurations are ways of talking about "how well you can see in an area," which is all Chapter 7 and 8 require.
Do you agree with that? Or if you disagree, why?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's not my interpretation at all (which means I think I agree with you?). That section is not well written, but it could just as easily refer to making Perception checks on subjects in an LO area and have nothing to do with where the looker happens to be standing. The subsequent sentence on HO makes this a lot clearer, and there's no logical reason to think they would be different. "Area" only makes sense, in both cases, in reference to the area the subject is in.
Changing 'in an area' to 'into an area' in that What Can You See? part of Chapter 7 would make this clearer as well.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The vision and light rules really have trouble mimicking natural behavior. I really think that I would essentially run it the way you described with the addition that HO areas between a looker and subject still imposes the HO penalty. I would also say the same for LO, i think. It makes sense to me that a looker would have the same difficulty observing a subject behind some bushes or an insect plague as they would if the subject were inside either of those areas.
I would treat “in the area” as either looker or subject for sure; first of all because the rule isn’t clear, second of all because that is what makes sense, and finally because “in an area” could reasonably include “looking while in” as well as “looking into.” I guess it is a house rule to apply the penalties when the HO or LO is between the subject and the looker, but that is one that is comfortable.
I would agree. I laid out (1) when the looker is in the area looking at a subject outside of it, (2) when the looker is outside the area looking at a subject inside of it, and (3) when looker and subject are both within the area... but HO at least also seems to have a (4) when neither looker nor subject are within the area but the area is between them (or at least, vision passing through the area is "blocked entirely", though technically HO doesn't hand out Blinded unless subject is literally in the area... that seems like a problem with wording, not an intended distinction). Giving LO the same (4) wouldn't make anything behave too weirdly, and would allow things like light haze in the line of sight to work as (I believe is) intended.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree, I would also agree that the respective LO and HO penalties apply when (4) the looker and the subject are both outside the LO/HO area but the area stands between them. I don't like the use of blinded in any of these situations due to the fact the condition is based on the loss of sight on the part of the creature, not due to environment (which is why you get stupid interactions like advantage and disadvantage cancelling out when both creatures are in the HO). I'd rather it be segregated and the 4 guidelines be used instead.
I also think that light and darkness should be segregated from these rules entirely. The RAW says darkness is a form of HO, and while not equated the penalties for Dim Light are the same as LO, but the logic of real world interactions would be different for Darkness/Dim Light, per the below:
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.
I think your ruling on (1) and (4) makes sense for light effects, but not for fog effects. Until and unless light starts being treated differently than fog, I would recommend you rule the same for (1) and (4) as you do for (2) and (3), even though it makes seeing a candle in the darkness difficult.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The problem is that there are two different types of obscurement that 5e doesn't bother to distinguish:
Fog (and other gases) should clearly be of type (1), mundane darkness should be of type (2), though as written fog cloud is actually type 2. The darkness actually specifies A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, which implies that it's an opaque effect (and thus type 1), but that might be sloppy wording. My experience is that it always gets treated as an opaque effect, but the wording of the spell isn't clear, and wasn't clear in prior editions.
Honestly, my interpretation of the vision rules in the PBH is "needed better playtesting and/or editing, I'm going to ignore them and use what makes sense".
Yep, agree with you here. These rules are so clumsily written as to be not much use as actual rules.
What we do have is the intended effect of two levels of obscured vision situations: Light (disadvantage on sight perception) and Heavy (auto-fail sight perception and disadvantage on a bunch of stuff as per blindness).
The DM is then invited to decide if and when each of those two vision effects are applied. I think references to an "area" of obscurement is a red herring. Any given area can be simultaneously heavily obscured to some observers, lightly obscured to other observers, and unobscured to others. An example: a dungeon corridor, dimly lit, with a fog cloud in one end. The area outside that fog cloud is heavily obscured for anyone inside or on the far side of the fog. It is lightly obscured for a human standing in the corridor. It is unobscured for a dwarf standing in the same space.
Clearly light, vision and obscurement only really have any meaning when it is addressed as a relationship between the looker and the subject. I don't think that the rule text is going to give you any better way to answer the question "can this creature see that object clearly?" than your own ability to visualise the situation.
That is not correct, you’re using cover analysis to analyze obscurement. Obscurement is areas, cover is relations. It’s just that obscurement areas penalize vision in them, out of them, or through them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Look, you can believe that if you want but it's not very useful for anything. Obscurement only means something in terms of vision, and vision is quite literally in the eye of the beholder.
The rules lay out dim light as an example of an "area of light obscurement" - but elsewhere having Darkvision tells us that I can see perfectly in an area of dim light. So for me, with my Darkvision, that area has no obscurement at all. Nothing has made that area inherently more or less obscured, except that the eyes of the creature doing the looking experience no such obscurement.
An obscurement that is not seen does not exist.
The rules describe obscurement with areas because most of the things that are likely to cause partial obscurement are things that have an area of coverage, while things that grant cover tend to be objects that interfere with a pathway between two points.
The decision a DM needs to make when applying the obscurement rules to a check or attack roll is "can the looker see the target clearly, somewhat, or not at all?" and then apply the appropriate effects for none/light/heavy obscurement. The area where the looker and the subject are located will play heavily into that decision, along with the vision (and other senses) of the looker as well as any objects or effects that exist between the two.
You can go ahead and argue that standing in dim light looking at a patch of bright light will still give you disadvantage on perception checks against anything trying to sneak towards you up that brightly lit corridor, but I doubt you will find anyone to agree with you because such a claim is ridiculous and makes the game worse.
Yeah, I can only assume that these rules are just poorly written and not meant to make it possible to see through a fog cloud to areas outside it.
No they don't. RAW they don't at all, RAI I expect they're supposed to sometimes do so depending on type of obscurement.
I think tracking two different subtypes of LO and HO , and four different configurations for each of those four, all of which differentially prefer the looker or subject to be in the area… THATS what I think is bad for the game. Two types of obscurement is enough for me, and it’s enough to know they both effect “how well you can see” in/out/through their area.
Obscurement is explicitly in areas, not the relationship of lookers and subjects. It may be more realistic for seeing out of dim light into bright to work differently than seeing out of bright light into dim, and for light fog to be different from that, but that kind of nuance slows play. 5E isn’t and shouldn’t be realistically simulating light. Obscurement is a broad abstraction representing many different phenomenon, just like advantage/disadvantage replaces all sorts of different bonuses and contexts.
There needs to be a bright line between cover and obscurement, because otherwise it gets MORE confusing. Throwing out some of the written obscurement rules in favor of ad hoc cover reasoning, while retaining cherry picked obscurement rules… that’s the worst of both worlds.
When you duck behind a larger creature, that’s you having cover with relation to some other creature(s) or effect(s). When you step into a shadow, that’s you being LO, period. A creature with Darkvision may disregard LO areas entirely, fine, but you don’t have LO in this direction but not that, or LO vs observers but them not vs you, etc… it’s just LO across the board, as an effect tied to that area, not to you.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree with you, and I think that's RAW.
For HO:
Assuming that the creature has the ground below them, and the obscuring area occupies at least a 15 foot cube around them, this would include all of the spaces around them. If you cannot see those spaces because you are blinded, you cannot see what is beyond them either unless you have something like arcane eye or use a Familiar to see for you. I suspect these caveats are the reason for the difficult wording of the rule. If it just said "Whilst in a heavily obscured area you are blinded then that would fail to take into account the possibility of your vision being separate from your eyes.
I think that part in red might be correct for the wrong reason. Remember that HO blocks vision entirely. That is the reason that you can't see past HO areas, and not being "effectively blinded" because that portion only matters when you are "trying to see something in that area."
Here is an interpretation that makes the rule actually mean what we all know it should mean:
When it says "obscured area" it is not referring to just the area where the obscuring effect is, but is in fact referring to the area obscured by the obscuring effect from your point of view. Light foliage doesn't just obscure the area of the foliage, but the area behind it. Darkness (non-magical) does only obscure the area of darkness, and not illuminated areas beyond it. The rule was written under the assumption that the reader knew how vision works, and was only applying game mechanics to that common sense.
/interpretation
I mean, that is how just about everyone has claimed that the rule should probably be played right? Maybe that is what they intended, but they certainly didn't provide any language indicating that the obscured area extends beyond the obscuring effect (except for the "blocks vision entirely" bit). But are you implying that the rules on the page still take some thought? Nah. Couldn't be.
This is why darkness and other visual cover is generally handwaved in about 90% of games I have been in.
Really the only time it makes any difference is COMPLETE darkness in which its a race to see which PC shouts "I have darkvision!" first as so many races have it now.
Generally followed by the human sighing and pulling out a torch.
The bottomline for me it its so rarely an issue its best not to get too caught up in the weeds of it.
This seems like such an existential question.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting