Like, if I'm Blinded because I'm in a Heavily Obscured area, can I suddenly see through it if I cast this spell on myself?
It doesn't make any sense, but the Lesser Restoration spell's description is extremely simple and straightforward in its wording: if you had one of these conditions, you don't have it anymore. It literally ends the condition.
No, it wouldn't cure it because you don't have the condition persistently, but while performing specific actions.
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
You touch a creature and end one condition on it: Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned.
The condition isn't on the creature, it's on it at any time it would be trying to see something in the specified area. This means Lesser Restoration would end blindness for a split second and then it'd be back in effect. ie it'd do nothing
I wouldn't say that's nothing. That split second is all I would need to find the location of the nearest enemy, for example.
Also, an Heavily Obscured area is just one example. What about Hunger of Hadar? It says I have the blinded condition if I'm within it, which means that it's the fact of entering that area that applies the condition. It's not constantly reapplied over and over.
No, it wouldn't cure it because you don't have the condition persistently, but while performing specific actions.
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
You touch a creature and end one condition on it: Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned.
The condition isn't on the creature, it's on it at any time it would be trying to see something in the specified area. This means Lesser Restoration would end blindness for a split second and then it'd be back in effect. ie it'd do nothing
I have to disagree here, it says the creature trying to look into the space has the condition which strictly implies that in fact the creature does have the blinded condition. Personally I wish they hadn't abused conditions so heavily in this edition, it would be more clear if it simply said you have the effects of the blinded condition against anything obscured by the space.
RAW: lesser restoration ends the blinded condition, you had the blinded condition and now see in the heavily obscured space
RAI: lesser restoration does not end the blinded condition against a heavily obscured space.
“creatures fully within the area are blinded”, this implies that the creatures inside the sphere are ALWAYS blinded, as when you cast lesser restoration and remove that condition, you are still inside it, thus you will still be blinded.
Although technically RAW, RAI-wise, it’s definitely not intended for finding targets that are hiding in darkness, as lesser restoration was designed to cure diseases, poison and effects made by monsters. There’s also no reason why the source of the blindness won't just instantly reapply before you are allowed to see.
Also, an Heavily Obscured area is just one example. What about Hunger of Hadar? It says I have the blinded condition if I'm within it, which means that it's the fact of entering that area that applies the condition. It's not constantly reapplied over and over.
No that's incorrect. The spell doesn't say that you get the condition when you enter the effect, it says that you have the condition when you are within it, it's a continual effect.
Yes it's continual. And the spell ends it, so the condition ends, as per the spell description. Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more, but also nothing less.
Although technically RAW, RAI-wise, it’s definitely not intended for finding targets that are hiding in darkness, as lesser restoration was designed to cure diseases, poison and effects made by monsters.
There’s also no reason why the source of the blindness won't just instantly reapply before you are allowed to see.
Is there a rule that says that it does? Again, rules do what they say they do. Nothing more, nothing less. The spell applies a condition. If that condition is somehow ended, it's gone. No exception is mentioned for this case.
No, it wouldn't cure it because you don't have the condition persistently, but while performing specific actions.
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
You touch a creature and end one condition on it: Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned.
The condition isn't on the creature, it's on it at any time it would be trying to see something in the specified area. This means Lesser Restoration would end blindness for a split second and then it'd be back in effect. ie it'd do nothing
I have to disagree here, it says the creature trying to look into the space has the condition which strictly implies that in fact the creature does have the blinded condition. Personally I wish they hadn't abused conditions so heavily in this edition, it would be more clear if it simply said you have the effects of the blinded condition against anything obscured by the space.
RAW: lesser restoration ends the blinded condition, you had the blinded condition and now see in the heavily obscured space
RAI: lesser restoration does not end the blinded condition against a heavily obscured space.
It has the condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space meaning that the condition isn't on the creature persistently, only while it meets a criteria. The moment you try to look at literally anything else, it's a new instance of the condition meaning anything that ended the previous instance would be moot.
I wouldn't say that's nothing. That split second is all I would need to find the location of the nearest enemy, for example.
Also, an Heavily Obscured area is just one example. What about Hunger of Hadar? It says I have the blinded condition if I'm within it, which means that it's the fact of entering that area that applies the condition. It's not constantly reapplied over and over.
No, I mean that split second would have zero rules impact—it wouldn't mitigate any mechanical effects of being blinded.
Hunger of Hadar is even more cut and dry. It doesn't give you the blinded condition, it gives you the blinded condition as long as you're in the area. Lesser restoration might remove it, then Hunger of Hadar would immediately re-apply it because you're still within the area.
tl;dr - Abilities that end conditions have zero impact if the condition is being continually applied based on an external factor, aka "while you're doing X" or "as long as you're doing X"
I wouldn't say that's nothing. That split second is all I would need to find the location of the nearest enemy, for example.
Also, an Heavily Obscured area is just one example. What about Hunger of Hadar? It says I have the blinded condition if I'm within it, which means that it's the fact of entering that area that applies the condition. It's not constantly reapplied over and over.
No, I mean that split second would have zero rules impact—it wouldn't mitigate any mechanical effects of being blinded.
Hunger of Hadar is even more cut and dry. It doesn't give you the blinded condition, it gives you the blinded condition as long as you're in the area. Lesser restoration might remove it, then Hunger of Hadar would immediately re-apply it because you're still within the area.
tl;dr - Abilities that end conditions have zero impact if the condition is being continually applied based on an external factor, aka "while you're doing X" or "as long as you're doing X"
Says who? I see you're making that call, but based on what?
I'd rule that while Lesser Restoration would end Blinded condition on you, the moment you would be trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space you would have it again because the spell doesn't make you immune to future application of the condition.
With that I agree, actually. Because the only thing that matters here is when the condition is applied, because conditions are states, and a state can only transition to another state.
In the case of Heavily Obscured areas, the condition is applied whenever you attempt to see something in that area. However, I would argue that if you cast Lesser Restoration after doing that, the condition ends and you can see whatever you were attempting to see. Then, if you try to see something else, the condition is applied again.
For Hunger of Hadar, if you rule that the Blinded condition is infinitely continuously applied (which the spell doesn't say it does, by the way), you are directly contradicting what Lesser Restoration does. Indeed, if the condition is ended for an infinitely small duration before being immediately reapplied, then it's not ended at all. And Lesser Restoration says that it does end the condition, so the condition must end.
In the case of Heavily Obscured areas, the condition is applied whenever you attempt to see something in that area. However, I would argue that if you cast Lesser Restoration after doing that, the condition ends and you can see whatever you were attempting to see.
At which point you are blinded because you are "trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space" which is what applies the Blinded condition
Afterwards. Because that instance of the condition that you are mentioning has already been ended, and it cannot be reapplied again because the character is not attempting to see something else. It's the same attempt, so the condition is only applied once. Once the condition is ended, you're not "trying" to see something, you just see it.
No, it wouldn't cure it because you don't have the condition persistently, but while performing specific actions.
Heavily Obscured
You have the Blinded condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. See also “Blinded,” “Darkness,” and “Playing the Game” (“Exploration”).
You touch a creature and end one condition on it: Blinded, Deafened, Paralyzed, or Poisoned.
The condition isn't on the creature, it's on it at any time it would be trying to see something in the specified area. This means Lesser Restoration would end blindness for a split second and then it'd be back in effect. ie it'd do nothing
I have to disagree here, it says the creature trying to look into the space has the condition which strictly implies that in fact the creature does have the blinded condition. Personally I wish they hadn't abused conditions so heavily in this edition, it would be more clear if it simply said you have the effects of the blinded condition against anything obscured by the space.
RAW: lesser restoration ends the blinded condition, you had the blinded condition and now see in the heavily obscured space
RAI: lesser restoration does not end the blinded condition against a heavily obscured space.
It has the condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space meaning that the condition isn't on the creature persistently, only while it meets a criteria. The moment you try to look at literally anything else, it's a new instance of the condition meaning anything that ended the previous instance would be moot.
Lesser Restoration doesn't state that it only removes persistent conditions, it just says conditions and it's clearly stated as a condition on the creature, thus I'd say RAW is that it would end the condition. Nothing in the rules as written actually says this works any other way. RAI, clearly it's meant to work this way but it's just another area I'd have to criticise 2024 for.
It could have clearly said, 'you can not see anything in an Heavily Obscured Space, as if you had the blinded condition against it', or used any other way to describe it but it doesn't, it says it gives the blinded condition and lesser restoration says it removes the blinded condition. If a creature were looking through binoculars directly at only the heavily obscured space then it would have the blinded condition persistently against that space and lesser restoration would remove that. Ultimately if a creature is in sight range of a heavily obscured space then it is considered to be persistently in their range of vision, the rules do not cover looking at two different things at the same time nor is direction particularly ever covered in the rules either.
Another area not covered under heavily obscured is if it can be one way or strictly two way? Does a major illusion of dense foliage supply heavily obscured? If so, does your party, having seen you cast it suffer heavily obscured when attacking through it even tho it now only appears as a faint image too them? Does the ambush target see it as heavily obscured when being attacked or attempting to attack back? I'd personally say heavily obscured spaces can easily be one way but it's not something really described or mentioned and something easily missed in how the rules are handled.
Illusions are a different can of worms though. They can't apply conditions (unless stated otherwise), but the Blinded condition and Heavily Obscured areas are not the only way to break line of sight. If I create a Minor Illusion of a wall right in front of you, you may not have the Blinded condition, but that doesn't mean you can see what's behind it.
Afterwards. Because that instance of the condition that you are mentioning has already been ended, and it cannot be reapplied again because the character is not attempting to see something else. It's the same attempt, so the condition is only applied once. Once the condition is ended, you're not "trying" to see something, you just see it.
The effect says nothing about attempting to see something else, just attempting to see something in the area. Saying "I'm not attempting to see the creature in the obscured area as I can already see them" is nonsensical bordering on rules lawyering. If something is in the area and you are attempting to look at it, you are continually having the blinded condition applied for anything that relates to looking at that thing.
I'm gonna check out of this discussion as I dislike engaging with rules discussions with this particular tone
Two different perspectives, both of which say "no":
This is attempting to apply the rules as if they're a purely mechanical system with no judgement ever required. They are not, and they cannot be. If you have a steel blindfold locked around your head, does Lesser Restoration remove it? That is out of its scope. Does it make you able to see despite the blindfold? That's silly. The DM has to adjudicate these questions. This one is particularly easy.
This leads to the other approach: there are conditions that are "on" a creature -- they will persist until removed, no matter how circumstances external to the creature change. Then there are conditions that belong to external factors -- if the factors change, the condition ends. They are not a property of the creature, so they cannot be removed by lesser restoration.
Judgement is subjective and will vary from DM to DM. I'm focusing on mechanical rules not because that's how the game is supposed to be played, but simply because judgement is irrelevant in a topic about mechanical rules, that's all :)
Judgement is subjective and will vary from DM to DM. I'm focusing on mechanical rules not because that's how the game is supposed to be played, but simply because judgement is irrelevant in a topic about mechanical rules, that's all :)
Mechanical rules without judgement is not the rules of D&D. There is no clean line between RAW and RAI.
But, speaking purely mechanically, would you care to weigh in on the question of Lesser Restoration vs locked steel blindfold? It's the question of the thread boiled down to its basics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like, if I'm Blinded because I'm in a Heavily Obscured area, can I suddenly see through it if I cast this spell on myself?
It doesn't make any sense, but the Lesser Restoration spell's description is extremely simple and straightforward in its wording: if you had one of these conditions, you don't have it anymore. It literally ends the condition.
Also, it's magic...
No, it wouldn't cure it because you don't have the condition persistently, but while performing specific actions.
The condition isn't on the creature, it's on it at any time it would be trying to see something in the specified area. This means Lesser Restoration would end blindness for a split second and then it'd be back in effect. ie it'd do nothing
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I wouldn't say that's nothing. That split second is all I would need to find the location of the nearest enemy, for example.
Also, an Heavily Obscured area is just one example. What about Hunger of Hadar? It says I have the blinded condition if I'm within it, which means that it's the fact of entering that area that applies the condition. It's not constantly reapplied over and over.
I have to disagree here, it says the creature trying to look into the space has the condition which strictly implies that in fact the creature does have the blinded condition. Personally I wish they hadn't abused conditions so heavily in this edition, it would be more clear if it simply said you have the effects of the blinded condition against anything obscured by the space.
RAW: lesser restoration ends the blinded condition, you had the blinded condition and now see in the heavily obscured space
RAI: lesser restoration does not end the blinded condition against a heavily obscured space.
“creatures fully within the area are blinded”, this implies that the creatures inside the sphere are ALWAYS blinded, as when you cast lesser restoration and remove that condition, you are still inside it, thus you will still be blinded.
Although technically RAW, RAI-wise, it’s definitely not intended for finding targets that are hiding in darkness, as lesser restoration was designed to cure diseases, poison and effects made by monsters. There’s also no reason why the source of the blindness won't just instantly reapply before you are allowed to see.
No that's incorrect. The spell doesn't say that you get the condition when you enter the effect, it says that you have the condition when you are within it, it's a continual effect.
Yes it's continual. And the spell ends it, so the condition ends, as per the spell description.
Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more, but also nothing less.
I don't know... Where is that written?
Is there a rule that says that it does? Again, rules do what they say they do. Nothing more, nothing less.
The spell applies a condition. If that condition is somehow ended, it's gone. No exception is mentioned for this case.
It has the condition while trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space meaning that the condition isn't on the creature persistently, only while it meets a criteria. The moment you try to look at literally anything else, it's a new instance of the condition meaning anything that ended the previous instance would be moot.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
No, I mean that split second would have zero rules impact—it wouldn't mitigate any mechanical effects of being blinded.
Hunger of Hadar is even more cut and dry. It doesn't give you the blinded condition, it gives you the blinded condition as long as you're in the area. Lesser restoration might remove it, then Hunger of Hadar would immediately re-apply it because you're still within the area.
tl;dr - Abilities that end conditions have zero impact if the condition is being continually applied based on an external factor, aka "while you're doing X" or "as long as you're doing X"
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Says who? I see you're making that call, but based on what?
I'd rule that while Lesser Restoration would end Blinded condition on you, the moment you would be trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space you would have it again because the spell doesn't make you immune to future application of the condition.
With that I agree, actually. Because the only thing that matters here is when the condition is applied, because conditions are states, and a state can only transition to another state.
In the case of Heavily Obscured areas, the condition is applied whenever you attempt to see something in that area. However, I would argue that if you cast Lesser Restoration after doing that, the condition ends and you can see whatever you were attempting to see. Then, if you try to see something else, the condition is applied again.
For Hunger of Hadar, if you rule that the Blinded condition is infinitely continuously applied (which the spell doesn't say it does, by the way), you are directly contradicting what Lesser Restoration does. Indeed, if the condition is ended for an infinitely small duration before being immediately reapplied, then it's not ended at all. And Lesser Restoration says that it does end the condition, so the condition must end.
When there's a conflict, specific beats general. And Lesser Restoration is more specific than Hunger of Hadar in this case.
At which point you are blinded because you are "trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space" which is what applies the Blinded condition
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Afterwards. Because that instance of the condition that you are mentioning has already been ended, and it cannot be reapplied again because the character is not attempting to see something else. It's the same attempt, so the condition is only applied once.
Once the condition is ended, you're not "trying" to see something, you just see it.
Lesser Restoration doesn't state that it only removes persistent conditions, it just says conditions and it's clearly stated as a condition on the creature, thus I'd say RAW is that it would end the condition. Nothing in the rules as written actually says this works any other way. RAI, clearly it's meant to work this way but it's just another area I'd have to criticise 2024 for.
It could have clearly said, 'you can not see anything in an Heavily Obscured Space, as if you had the blinded condition against it', or used any other way to describe it but it doesn't, it says it gives the blinded condition and lesser restoration says it removes the blinded condition. If a creature were looking through binoculars directly at only the heavily obscured space then it would have the blinded condition persistently against that space and lesser restoration would remove that. Ultimately if a creature is in sight range of a heavily obscured space then it is considered to be persistently in their range of vision, the rules do not cover looking at two different things at the same time nor is direction particularly ever covered in the rules either.
Another area not covered under heavily obscured is if it can be one way or strictly two way? Does a major illusion of dense foliage supply heavily obscured? If so, does your party, having seen you cast it suffer heavily obscured when attacking through it even tho it now only appears as a faint image too them? Does the ambush target see it as heavily obscured when being attacked or attempting to attack back? I'd personally say heavily obscured spaces can easily be one way but it's not something really described or mentioned and something easily missed in how the rules are handled.
Illusions are a different can of worms though. They can't apply conditions (unless stated otherwise), but the Blinded condition and Heavily Obscured areas are not the only way to break line of sight. If I create a Minor Illusion of a wall right in front of you, you may not have the Blinded condition, but that doesn't mean you can see what's behind it.
The effect says nothing about attempting to see something else, just attempting to see something in the area. Saying "I'm not attempting to see the creature in the obscured area as I can already see them" is nonsensical bordering on rules lawyering. If something is in the area and you are attempting to look at it, you are continually having the blinded condition applied for anything that relates to looking at that thing.
I'm gonna check out of this discussion as I dislike engaging with rules discussions with this particular tone
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Two different perspectives, both of which say "no":
This is attempting to apply the rules as if they're a purely mechanical system with no judgement ever required. They are not, and they cannot be. If you have a steel blindfold locked around your head, does Lesser Restoration remove it? That is out of its scope. Does it make you able to see despite the blindfold? That's silly. The DM has to adjudicate these questions. This one is particularly easy.
This leads to the other approach: there are conditions that are "on" a creature -- they will persist until removed, no matter how circumstances external to the creature change. Then there are conditions that belong to external factors -- if the factors change, the condition ends. They are not a property of the creature, so they cannot be removed by lesser restoration.
Judgement is subjective and will vary from DM to DM. I'm focusing on mechanical rules not because that's how the game is supposed to be played, but simply because judgement is irrelevant in a topic about mechanical rules, that's all :)
Mechanical rules without judgement is not the rules of D&D. There is no clean line between RAW and RAI.
But, speaking purely mechanically, would you care to weigh in on the question of Lesser Restoration vs locked steel blindfold? It's the question of the thread boiled down to its basics.