D&D 5E Does being Heavily Obscured grant Cover... And should it???

[loverdrive]

I think it would be better if you could only get advantage for being an unseen attacker if you yourself can see the target. Two characters fighting in the dark trying to hit each other should both have disadvantage.

That just makes game longer, while not adding any options or interesting things to exploit and without any actual impact on, well, anyone's effectiveness.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Think about this:

An invisible stalker is on guard duty. A rogue can hear it so has an idea of its location and moves up quietly behind it to attack it, but can't see it due to it being invisible. The stalker is unaware of the rogue behind it.

Who gets advantage or disadvantage on what?

This is a situation where RAW I understand everything should cancel out. The rogue would have advantage due to the stalker being unaware of the attack, but has disadvantage for trying to attack a target he can't see.

If you think like this:

When a creature you can see can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

I think it would be better if you could only get advantage for being an unseen attacker if you yourself can see the target.

The rogue would still have disadvantage on the attack, correct?

Then what would be the point of stealth and moving up on the target?

The advantage the rogue gets isn't because he can see the target, it is because his target (the stalker) is unaware of the incoming attack. The stalker isn't being "defensive", it is just standing or patrolling or whatever. It is almost like the reverse of Dodge.

That is why, at least as long as you have an idea of the location of a target (even one you can't see), you can make the attack and benefit if the target doesn't know the attack is coming.

What seems to be ignored more often than not IME, is this:

In the above example, as DM, I would require the rogue's player to make a Wisdom (Perception) check with disadvantage to determine the location of the stalker. If the check fails, the rogue "attacks" the wrong location, automatically missing, and is revealed to the stalker.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Think about this:

An invisible stalker is on guard duty. A rogue can hear it so has an idea of its location and moves up quietly behind it to attack it, but can't see it due to it being invisible. The stalker is unaware of the rogue behind it.

Who gets advantage or disadvantage on what?

This is a situation where RAW I understand everything should cancel out. The rogue would have advantage due to the stalker being unaware of the attack, but has disadvantage for trying to attack a target he can't see.

If you think like this:


The rogue would still have disadvantage on the attack, correct?

Then what would be the point of stealth and moving up on the target?

Yep, the rogue would still have disadvantage. The point of stealth would be that the rogue doesn't get attacked by the invisible stalker before he's ready to strike.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yep, the rogue would still have disadvantage. The point of stealth would be that the rogue doesn't get attacked by the invisible stalker before he's ready to strike.

Yes and the Rogue could still have surprise (key for Assassin as they can get a crit regardless of advantage/disadvantage).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yep, the rogue would still have disadvantage. The point of stealth would be that the rogue doesn't get attacked by the invisible stalker before he's ready to strike.

No much of a boon then IMO since the if the rogue wins initiative, the effect is the same.

Yes and the Rogue could still have surprise (key for Assassin as they can get a crit regardless of advantage/disadvantage).

This is potentially the bigger boon in that with surprise the stalker couldn't attack the first round, meaning if the rogue wins initiative he gets to act twice (in essence, anyway).

But, Assassins getting a crit isn't as big a deal without advantage (cancelled by the disadvantage the invisibility imposes for tables who want to house-rule it that way), as that means no sneak attack damage.

 

[Shiroiken]

No much of a boon then IMO since the if the rogue wins initiative, the effect is the same.


This is potentially the bigger boon in that with surprise the stalker couldn't attack the first round, meaning if the rogue wins initiative he gets to act twice (in essence, anyway).

If the rogue is hidden, then it gets surprise, which is a really big boon. If not, then it would have disadvantage as normal. If the rogue loses initiative, then the surprise negates the loss of initiative, with the possible chance of 2 turns in a row. Seems worth it to me.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No much of a boon then IMO since the if the rogue wins initiative, the effect is the same.


This is potentially the bigger boon in that with surprise the stalker couldn't attack the first round, meaning if the rogue wins initiative he gets to act twice (in essence, anyway).

But, Assassins getting a crit isn't as big a deal without advantage (cancelled by the disadvantage the invisibility imposes for tables who want to house-rule it that way), as that means no sneak attack damage.

If this edge case bothers you a lot, then we could expand the rule so that you always get advantage against an unaware opponent, regardless if you can see it or not.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No much of a boon then IMO since the if the rogue wins initiative, the effect is the same.


This is potentially the bigger boon in that with surprise the stalker couldn't attack the first round, meaning if the rogue wins initiative he gets to act twice (in essence, anyway).

But, Assassins getting a crit isn't as big a deal without advantage (cancelled by the disadvantage the invisibility imposes for tables who want to house-rule it that way), as that means no sneak attack damage.

Bonus action for the Assassin to off-hand attack the Invisible Stalker with a light bag of flour (covering the Invisible Stalker on a hit). Followed by an action to attack with their shortsword and... sneak attack.

Need a bit of buy-in from the DM on the bonus action flour "attack". And hope that the airborne flour doesn't also create a heavily obscuring cloud...

 

[Maxperson]

I was thinking about two niche rules issues:

1) Advantage can be very prolific and easy to grant, making it less special.

2) The classic "shooting at a target in a Fog Cloud" scenario in which advantage and disadvantage always cancel out.

It made me wonder: would a creature in a Fog Cloud or Darkness, or otherwise Heavily Obscured, have cover?

Here's what the PHB says about being Heavily Obscured:



And Total Cover:



Now I'm assuming that if the game designers wanted concealment to grant cover, they would have said so (or just combined the rules), so RAW it probably doesn't. Especially with that word "obstacle" in there, the designers were obviously thinking about being behind a wall, not a cloud.

But should it grant cover???

I could see a House Rule granting characters who are heavily obscured 3/4 cover or even total cover. This may make effects like Fog Cloud and Darkness more effective. What other consequences would it have?

No. Being in a thick fog or smoke is like being invisible. You are out of sight, but can still be targeted. Total cover is being behind a wall where you can't be targeted. They don't equate.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If this edge case bothers you a lot, then we could expand the rule so that you always get advantage against an unaware opponent, regardless if you can see it or not.

I think I would have to add that, personally. I see your point, believe me, but I also see the advantage is due to the opponent being unaware of the attack. Perhaps this is something more that having surprise would deal with?

At least if you are standing in the middle of a Fog Cloud and someone is shooting arrows into the cloud, you're going to be moving and aware of attacks, so I can see the attacker not benefiting if they can't see you, either.

Bonus action for the Assassin to off-hand attack the Invisible Stalker with a light bag of flour (covering the Invisible Stalker on a hit). Followed by an action to attack with their shortsword and... sneak attack.

Need a bit of buy-in from the DM on the bonus action flour "attack". And hope that the airborne flour doesn't also create a heavily obscuring cloud...

Yeah, this would require some DM buy-in LOL!

First, technically you can't use your Bonus Action to Attack until you have attacked with the Attack action. It's a minor issue, but it means for this to work you would have to:

Attack with the bag of flour. It would be a ranged attack (with an improvised weapon) against the stalker's AC, similar to oil or holy water I would think. Then use your bonus action for the second-weapon shortsword and sneak attack. The only downside to this method is no DEX mod to damage with the shortsword since it becomes your second-weapon. Again,

Unless you are using a 20-lb bag of flour, I doubt it would be enough for heavy obscurement!