Secret extra Lightly Obscured rule in the DMG

[SWAT]

What's the deal with the extra rule for lightly obscured terrain on the bottom right of p.61 in the DMG? Am I the only one who doesn't get why it's there, and only there?

Let's see, the rule itself, about how creatures 5 or more lightly obscured squares away from you have total concealment instead of concealment, doesn't seem to have any DM-specific reason to only be in the DMG. Why couldn't it be with the rest of the obscured terrain rules in the PHB's Combat chapter? And it's not even in the DMG's Additional Rules section, but tucked away with the examples of interesting terrain. To be fair, though, I think it was a bad move to split the special terrain section into two parts. The result is that the section on p.44 references p.61 three times!

Anyway, I'll be house-ruling that rule away, in part due to the unneeded extra complexity, but mostly out of spite for where they put the rule...

 

[Ziana]

The where might not make a lot of sense, but the rule does. Consider forest terrain to be light concealment; after 25 feet, someone's got total concealment.

 

[Zsig]

Anyway, I'll be house-ruling that rule away, in part due to the unneeded extra complexity...

I think you might have answered your question right there.

 

[Sylrae]

I dont think the question was what to do about it, but what the hell its doing in the middle of nowhere.

~Sylrae

 

[starwed]

Perhaps the DMG went to print after the PHB, and they slipped the rule in then?

I remember reading an account of a 3.0 slip-up like that: they realized that druid animal companions were way to good after the PHB was printed, so they added an extra rule in the DMG.

 

[bardolph]

Anyway, I'll be house-ruling that rule away, in part due to the unneeded extra complexity, but mostly out of spite for where they put the rule...

Obviously, you can house-rule away anything you want, it's not very complex. All they're saying is that 5 squares of light concealment = heavy concealment.

For example, someone at the edge of a forest is -2 to hit, but someone 5 squares in is -5 to hit. How is that "unneeded extra complexity"?

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Its probably there for the same reason the rules for Heavily Obscured are on the bottom of that page, top of the next.

That is where the rules for concealment are fully explained. They certainly are not in the PHB.

 

[Jhaelen]

For example, someone at the edge of a forest is -2 to hit, but someone 5 squares in is -5 to hit. How is that "unneeded extra complexity"?

Well, it's more complex than saying someone in the forest is -2 to hit. Period.

It's in the DMG because it's the DM's choice to use the more complex rule or stick to the rules in the PHB.

 

[darkadelphia]

Anyway, I'll be house-ruling that rule away, in part due to the unneeded extra complexity, but mostly out of spite for where they put the rule...

Be certain to write a letter of intent--it would be a tragedy for WotC not to know of this bold defiance of unjust law.

 

[SWAT]

For example, someone at the edge of a forest is -2 to hit, but someone 5 squares in is -5 to hit. How is that "unneeded extra complexity"?

The numbers aren't the problem, it's knowing where someone is I'm worried about. I admit this can happen in other cirucmstances, but I suspect that fighting in a completely lightly obscured area will produce a lot of cases where one PC can see an enemy, so the enemy's fig is on the table, but another PC can't (due to distance), but of course they can, because they can see the fig right there. Amount of audio clues then become important, and metagaming could become rampant. Rampant, I say!

To be fair, and considering that writing the above made the whole thing seem a tad sillier than I expected, I should try it out on my players first.