Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
So, if a caster puts up an area of blindness (fog or darkness) down, everyone in the area is blinded (assuming no special conditions that avoid it, like blindsight).
Anyone that attacks a blinded creature has advantage on the attack roll. As well, any blinded creature has disadvantage on attack rolls.
So by that reasoning, does a large area of blindness essentially do nothing? Anyone inside would have disadvantage against creatures outside, so that's still something, but all other cases the advantage would be negated by the disadvantage, yes? This is an old problem I've had with such effects and their usefulness as a DM and player both.
You're right. It's like an equalizer. If you are in a bad situation where enemies have advantage on you or you have disadvantage on them, a Fog Cloud or Darkness will negate that. You can't see them, but they can't see you. You don't know where to aim your attacks, but they won't be able to dodge them, and vice versa. In such a situation, nobody has an Advantage or a Disadvantage on each other.
It's the other way around really, and this is actually the key to the whole thing. At least for the Darkness spell. Fog is a bit different.
When it comes to Darkness, a creature is blinded only when they try to see something that is within that Darkness. Despite how a lot of people play, the best approach is to cast the spell onto your own location or onto an object that you pick up and carry around with you. When used in this manner, it's a buff to the spellcaster. The AoE is relatively small so if you are a ranged combatant anyway you should be trying to keep your enemies far enough away from you so that they remain outside of the Darkness. In that situation, you can see them just fine (no disadvantage to your attacks) because they are lit up, but they cannot see you (disadvantage to their attacks) because you are located within the Darkness and they are blinded when trying to see something there.
Unfortunately, you'll likely see a lot of people here argue against this pretty vehemently, but that's how it works.
I agree with Natrel. In that scenario, the way I understand the rules you won't have an Advantage or Disadvantage because they cancel each other out. Some traits, features, feats, or spells could help you see through darkness and tip things in your favor.
This topic comes up from time to time, so I'll leave a list of related threads here so you can read through the different opinions yourself
Yeah, this is one of those counter-intuitive scenarios where the game mechanics don't line up to what you would expect from a real fight. Two Human combatants attacking each other in complete darkness are equally as good at hitting each other as if they were in broad daylight. Obviously this would not be true in real life, but that's how the game mechanics shake out.
People will argue it because there are valid ways to read the rules that determine that that is not, indeed, how it works. This has been argued to death on these forums and elsewhere (as Tarod_'s comment shows), but a quick recap of crux of the argument:
1. The line of sight rules state that you determine if there's sight between two spaces by drawing a line from the corner(s) of one space to the other, and that if that line is blocked by any effect that blocks vision, there is no sight.
2. The rules for Obscured Areas state that any Heavily Obscured area - including Darkness - is opaque, which by definition means "impossible to see through."
As such, you cannot get line of sight through Darkness.
(Not to mention that the Darkness spell calls out that Darkvision can't see through it, not simply into it. Which easily applies that regular vision can't see through it, either.)
Now, I personally don't love this interpretation as it would mean a person can't see through Darkness - magical or not - at all, which implies if you're outside at night you couldn't see someone holding a torch some distance away, and that's stupid, but still. It is a valid argument.
I don't rule it the way I've stated for Darkness (magical or non) in general, but I do for the Darkness spell because of that "can't see through it" modifier.
The rules for Line of Sight do not list Darkness as an example because, quite obviously, Darkness does not block Line of Sight.
Opaque is actually defined within the rules for Heavily Obscured Areas. It that context, it means that you have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there.
When the Darkness spell specifies that Darkvision can't see through it, that text is not referring to Line of Sight. It is referring to the fact that Darkvision does not function as it normally does with respect to the rules for Obscured Areas. Normally, Darkvision allows you to see in Darkness as if it were a Lightly Obscured Area instead of a Heavily Obscured Area, hence, allowing you to "see through" that area when looking there.
You're free to interpret it however you want, as is anyone else. That doesn't make you correct, nor does it make anyone who would argue against you correct. Definitively saying "these are the rules" about almost anything in this game is hazardous because, unfortunately, a lot of systems in it are not written all that consistently.
I'm not here to argue about this (again), as it's truly a dead end; as has been stated, this has been discussed to death a hundred times over. If you do want to add your opinion to the pot I invite you to click any one of Tarod_'s links, or simply fire up your favourite search engine and find another dozen threads about it elsewhere on the internet. I'm just stating, it's not cut and dry.
I disagree. Darkness blocks light, therefore you can neither see into nor out of it, nor through it, because sight requires light. (And any light strong enough to penetrate Darkness also dispels it). And we know Darkness also blocks darkvision (regardless of how that is supposed to work; I really miss infravision).
The alternative fails to work on any level. It doesn't make sense narratively. It's not even describable.
The difference is that the blinded creature has to guess which square the enemy is in. If they guess the wrong square, they miss automatically.
(Also, the wizard has easy access to blindsight through find familiar, so they may well not be blind).
^ This is false. A blinded creature simply attacks with disadvantage. They do not guess the square.
No, it doesn't.
This is true. You are blinded when trying to see something there as per the rule for a Heavily Obscured area.
The rules don't say either of those things.
Only insofar as what the rules actually say in Playing the Game --> Exploration --> Vision and Light. Those rules specify that you are only blinded when trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured space. Furthermore, those rules make it clear that only Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured space. Areas of Dim Light and Bright Light do not. Therefore, when trying to see something in a Dimly Lit or in a Brightly Lit space, there is enough light to see, by rule.
No, it doesn't. It prevents Darkvision from functioning as it normally does by preventing it from seeing through Darkness in the manner in which it normally can -- which is:
Wait . . . What in the world!!??? It doesn't make sense narratively to be able to look up at night and see the moon and the stars? It doesn't make sense narratively to be able to see a roaring campfire at night that is 100 feet away? That sure makes sense to me but you do you. People can always play however they want after all.
One thing to keep in mind is the Fog Cloud is a 1st level spell. It is not supposed to be a massive game changer when it comes to combat. Darkness is a 2nd level spell. They are not supposed to magically give the party advantage on everything or enemies disadvantage on everything. These are low level spells, they are not intended to have a massive impact on combat.
Darkness as a spell for DMs is usually on monsters that have some way to 'see' through it, whether that's devil sight, or tremorsense, or something else. It also appears on some low-level monsters mostly for horror-themes rather than actual massive combat advantage. The main thing that makes Darkness scary to the players is that it makes it much harder for the party to work together - most (if not all) buff and healing spells require the caster to be able to see the target. Thus using Darkness or the like is effective in preventing a lot of those buff / healing spells from being used. Darkness might also be used by DMs to hide certain things from the party especially traps of various kinds. It's essentially impossible for the party to spot & disarm a trap if they are stumbling around in magical Darkness.
Fog Cloud hardly ever shows up on monster statblocks, but when it does it is usually again as a thematic / utility spell rather than as a combat spell. For instance if you want to have the enemies ambush the party, having one of the enemies be able to cast Fog Cloud enables all the enemies to use the Hide action anywhere within that fog cloud thus giving many more options for setting up that ambush - same for infiltrating the party's camp. Have the enemies cast Fog Cloud on their camp site and now all the enemies can Hide in the fog and sneak right into the heart of their camp. Alternatively, enemies can use Fog Cloud as an intimidation tactic, a few archers accompanied by a druid with Fog Cloud can pretend to be many more than they really are. A hostile druid can again combine Fog Cloud with the Hide action to distract and confuse the party by pretending to teleport around in the fog.
As players you can use it in a similar way, however, since the players are usually the ones moving towards the enemies and Fog Cloud can't move, it is much harder for the players to set up & use.
1. "When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the GM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly." SRD 5.1 p94
Why in the world would the rules have a line about having to guess a creature's location unless... you don't actually know where things you can't see are?
And no, I don't believe you can pinpoint a 5' square by sound alone automatically. That's nonsense. And I can find nowhere the rules say you do. I would presume finding a target's location based on sound would be a search action with a non-trivial perception check, as that's actually hard. (The rules are unsatisfyingly vague here). But invisibility is not worse Blur that ends when you attack something or cast a spell. That's dumb.
The perception and stealth rules are horribly written, so insisting you have the one true interpretation is a nonstarter, especially when your interpretation is so silly.
2. Darkness spell description:
"For the duration, magical Darkness spreads from a point within range and fills a 15-foot-radius Sphere. Darkvision can't see through it, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.
Alternatively, you cast the spell on an object that isn't being worn or carried, causing the Darkness to fill a 15-foot Emanation originating from that object. Covering that object with something opaque, such as a bowl or helm, blocks the Darkness.
If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of Bright Light or Dim Light created by a spell of level 2 or lower, that other spell is dispelled."
Couple things to note:
--magical Darkness spreads. It's a 'physical' thing (in the same sense light is a physical thing) that is present, not just an absence of light.
--It fills the 15' radius sphere. It doesn't just cover objects in it, the whole space is filled with magical Darkness, not as an absence, but as a presence. And to constrain it, you have to completely encase it in a physical object that blocks the darkness from radiating outwards.
--Nonmagical light cannot illuminate it. Not 'can't illuminate objects in it', can't illuminate "it", the magical Darkness. So the whole space cannot be illuminated by light, including the air. And that also means light cannot pass through it, because to pass through it would be to illuminate the space it passes through.
--Darkvision "can't see through it", where "it" is again the magical Darkness. Not can't see objects in it. Can't see through it.
Pure RAW, you can't see through magical Darkness, whether inside it or outside it. That's completely unambiguous if you actually read the spell description.
3. "Wait . . . What in the world!!??? It doesn't make sense narratively to be able to look up at night and see the moon and the stars? It doesn't make sense narratively to be able to see a roaring campfire at night that is 100 feet away? That sure makes sense to me but you do you. People can always play however they want after all."
magical Darkness is not regular darkness. It is not the absence of light, it is an actual thing that fills space in the same way light fills space.
Look, we can do this with a pretty easy thought experiment: Let's assume there's a campfire 100' away.
Scenario 1: It's just normal darkness, that is, an absence of light illuminating things between us and the campfire. We can see the campfire though, which means no objects obstruct our line of sight to it. Now let's say a person interposes themselves between the campfire and us, also in the 'darkness'. We can see their silhouette. Their presence is visible, because the light illuminates their outline, and we can see the light around them, but not through them. I agree, this scenario is completely sensible.
Scenario 2: It's magical Darkness, as per the spell. Let's assume you're right, that we can see the campfire through the magical Darkness. What happens when something in the darkness interposes itself between us and the campfire? According to you, we can't see it, because its in magical Darkness. Do we still see the unobstructed campfire, and look right through whatever is in the Darkness? We can't see the silhouette, because we definitely can't see them in magical Darkness, we both agree on that.
What if there's a wall between us and the campfire, but the wall is in magical Darkness. Do we see the campfire through the wall, because the wall cannot be seen by us? Why not?
What does the edge of a 15' radius sphere of Darkness even look like according to you, since you think you can see through it without issue?
It's pretty clear Scenario 2 with your interpretation is nonsense. This is what I mean by indescribable.
Bottom line: Darkness is not Invisibility 15'-radius. And yet that's what your interpretation says.
Fog cloud is a first level spell because (1) it's always been a first level spell (historical inertia is a major reason why spells are the levels they are), and (2) it's dispersible with Gust of Wind or similar strong winds.
Fog Cloud has always been a game-changer, especially for a party prepared to make use of it. Not being able to see is and should be a big deal.
Sorry I don't understand what your argument is.
A spell always being 1st level just reinforces that it isn't and has never been a massive game changer when it comes to combat. The fact that it is an old spell actually supports that it is intended to be a utility spell, because most spells back in the AD&D times were utility focused since in many cases adventurers were meant to find ways to avoid combat rather that fighting all the time (combat was much more deadly so there was a strong incentive to avoid combat, and XP was based on treasure found, not killing monsters).
Gust of Wind only disperses a small portion of a Fog Cloud, it would take ~3 rounds to fully disperse a Fog Cloud with Gust of Wind. So what is your argument here? Hold Monster can be ended instantly with a single casting of Lesser Restoration (a 2nd level spell) but Hold Monster is a 5th level spell.
Also neither of the above arguments apply to Darkness which fills a similar role as Fog Cloud. Evidently from design of the spell system, both Fog Cloud and Darkness are intended to have less of an effect on Combat than Slow does : Slow is a 3rd level spell, it requires concentration like Fog Cloud/Darkness but has a shorter maximum duration, Slow has a saving throw to avoid it both when cast and at the end of a creature's turn whereas Fog Cloud/Darkness have no saving throws. For the short time Slow has significantly less offensive benefits (i.e. just reducing enemy AC by 2) that gaining Adv on attacks has (on average Adv is equivalent to +3.5 on a d20 roll), Slow's debuffing ability is about equivalent to disadvantage on attacks).
And Fog Cloud was a major game changer in 1st/2nd edition AD+D, and 3rd edition D+D, and it hasn't really changed as a spell at all. I played all those editions. <3 Fog Cloud. Darkness had more variation across editions as far as what it did, so harder to comment as broadly.
In none of those editions did you know where creatures were if you couldn't see them.
I read the spell description as saying Gust of Wind immediately disperses the entire cloud, since it doesn't say anything about the area of effect. A strong wind simply disperses "it" (the entire cloud). But I don't have a strong opinion on that.
Sorry but you write like a teenager, you almost certainly weren't alive when AD&D was being played frequently. This is supported by the fact that you've stated factually incorrect things about those previous editions (Fog Cloud was not a 1st level spell in previous editions, it was a 2nd level spell, and every edition included a provision to locate/detect a non-visible creature using other senses other than vision, and several imply that creatures within 5ft of each other in a Fog Cloud do know each other's location). In Second Edition, lack of visibility is actually remarkable similar to in 5th edition:
It's only D&D 3rd edition and Pathfinder 1e that explicitly states that characters generally don't know where a creature is if it isn't visible and have to guess what square to attack/target.
But also, I don't know why you keep bringing up older editions. As I mentioned above the style of the game has completely changed over the years from a high-risk exploration focused game to an low-risk hack-and-slash game.
I mean, I'm not going to say I've got great recall on a ruleset I haven't played in 25 years. But you're misinterpreting that 2nd AD+D rule, because the default assumption for AD+D was theatre of the mind, not a battlemap. The -4 penalty was in lieu of guessing a square, ie, swinging wildly, if there was something there for you to hit, because there were no squares in theatre of the mind. You did not generally know where a creature you couldn't see was. (iirc, the Blindfighting NWP, which reduced penalties for fighting when it was hard or impossible to see, still explicitly disavowed you knowing the exact location of an invisible creature). The DM can and did just say 'you miss' when there was nothing next to you to swing at. And I can't recall any DM allowing someone to take a ranged attack against a creature they didn't know the location of.
2nd AD+D distinguished between having noticed an invisible (or otherwise unseen) creature, and having pinpointed it. Noticed just means you know something is in a general area. Pinpointed means you know its exact location, and generally required making them visible somehow. (The penalty you give is for swinging at a noticed unseen enemy in the general area, ie, a stand in for picking a square). How like 5th edition that is depends on whether you think you know the precise square of enemies you can't see. But if you hadn't even noticed an invisible or otherwise unseen creature, you'd have to guess a place to attack (with an automatic miss if nothing was there), and noticing was not automatic. (Int check of some sort iirc?)
I'm willing to be wrong on Fog Cloud having been a first level spell. My 2nd ed. PHB is buried in a box somewhere. (My old stuff is not as well sorted as I'd like). I remember it being available early, but 2nd level is still early. (And probably some bias in knowing a lot of other spells are the same level they've always been, so assuming it was the same here based on remembering it was early).
While the rules for sneaking in this game are quite lackluster, if you're allowing being in Darkness/Fog or being Invisible (etc.) to automatically hide where a creature is (what space they're in), then you're essentially causing any such feature to automatically include the Hide action, and that's quite OP.