Depends a bit on the thickness of the fog, but at that distance the area is usually heavily obscured. So I have them pick a square (not enemy, as they can't see enemies that are heavily obscured) and attack with disadvantage. If they picked a square with an enemy and rolled over AC, hit, otherwise, miss.
Is that because the distance is too great to hear their location or see traces of it?
RAW, being in the fog cloud makes you unseen to the enemy (advantage), but also makes the enemy unseen to you (disadvantage). The advantage and disadvantage cancel, regardless of if you would also have advantage or disadvantage from any other source. Thus when you're at a long range (like 599 ft for a longbow), casting fog cloud on yourself technically negates your disadvantage. It's a quirky circumstance where (under RAW) blinding yourself makes you more accurate.
I usually play that being mutually unseen puts both creatures at disadvantage, instead of both at straight rolls. That means 599 ft under fog cloud is probably no different than 599 ft with no fog cloud. Not ideal, but a lot better than RAW where the fog cloud makes your archers more accurate.
Is that because the distance is too great to hear their location or see traces of it?
Yes. But mostly just because the rules either define an area as lightly, heavily, or not obscured. From that distance the area would be heavily obscured. And there are rules for heavy obscurity.
RAW, being in the fog cloud makes you unseen to the enemy (advantage), but also makes the enemy unseen to you (disadvantage). The advantage and disadvantage cancel, regardless of if you would also have advantage or disadvantage from any other source. Thus when you're at a long range (like 599 ft for a longbow), casting fog cloud on yourself technically negates your disadvantage. It's a quirky circumstance where (under RAW) blinding yourself makes you more accurate.
I usually play that being mutually unseen puts both creatures at disadvantage, instead of both at straight rolls. That means 599 ft under fog cloud is probably no different than 599 ft with no fog cloud. Not ideal, but a lot better than RAW where the fog cloud makes your archers more accurate.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that stupid rule interaction. I also just house rule mutual unseen as disadvantage.
I’m constantly surprised they didn’t originally or in an errata later on make the advantages and disadvantages stack up and then the higher stack wins.
I’m constantly surprised they didn’t originally or in an errata later on make the advantages and disadvantages stack up and then the higher stack wins.
I'm not. They intentionally removed that mechanic that was present in 4e to make 5e simpler.
How does your table adjudicate the combined effects of archers in a fog cloud spell shooting at enemies 599 feet away?
I understand the silly RAW mechanics. I'm looking for some good ol' "the DM decides" answers.
Depends a bit on the thickness of the fog, but at that distance the area is usually heavily obscured. So I have them pick a square (not enemy, as they can't see enemies that are heavily obscured) and attack with disadvantage. If they picked a square with an enemy and rolled over AC, hit, otherwise, miss.
I do the same with invisible enemies.
Is that because the distance is too great to hear their location or see traces of it?
RAW, being in the fog cloud makes you unseen to the enemy (advantage), but also makes the enemy unseen to you (disadvantage). The advantage and disadvantage cancel, regardless of if you would also have advantage or disadvantage from any other source. Thus when you're at a long range (like 599 ft for a longbow), casting fog cloud on yourself technically negates your disadvantage. It's a quirky circumstance where (under RAW) blinding yourself makes you more accurate.
I usually play that being mutually unseen puts both creatures at disadvantage, instead of both at straight rolls. That means 599 ft under fog cloud is probably no different than 599 ft with no fog cloud. Not ideal, but a lot better than RAW where the fog cloud makes your archers more accurate.
Yes. But mostly just because the rules either define an area as lightly, heavily, or not obscured. From that distance the area would be heavily obscured. And there are rules for heavy obscurity.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that stupid rule interaction. I also just house rule mutual unseen as disadvantage.
I’m constantly surprised they didn’t originally or in an errata later on make the advantages and disadvantages stack up and then the higher stack wins.
I'm not. They intentionally removed that mechanic that was present in 4e to make 5e simpler.
That far from the archer, I would rule that the targets can see the incoming missiles, so do not get disadvantage.
So, net effect: archers attack with disadvantage.
I'd also possibly rule "no, you miss." 600 feet away, your chance of blindly choosing the right square is effectively zero.
I like these suggestions of “you can see the arrows coming from that far away” a lot.