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

[nevin]

Obscured = vision

Cover = barrier

A cloud/darkness doesn't impede the progress of an arrow.

Think of it this way. If 20 archers fire arrows blindly into a fog, they might still hit something. If 20 archers fire arrows at a brick wall barrier, they won't hit whoever is behind that wall so the "attack" on anyone behind that wall is invalid. If 20 archers fire arrows into the darkness at someone hiding behind a table (3/4 cover), they might hit something. It's possible. In that scenario, both the "blind" and "cover" effects apply.

The same applies to spells. Remember, some spells don't function like arrows. Some can't "blindly" be fired and hope to hit something. They require a specific target "that you can see" to be valid.

That's all old news Sage Advice and Errata.

If you're talking a homebrew rule, I wouldn't because you're turning insubstantial barriers into physical barriers and adding a lot more power to low level effects.

If the spell requires a specific target then no you shouldn't be able to do it. so the question on Archers is, did they see where the target was before obscurment happened or are they really just firing blindly. Firing blindly I'd probably impose a large - to hit or if some of them hit roll a percentile to see how much actual damage occured after calculating it. I'd not expect firing blindly to have any realistic chance of being successful

 

[toucanbuzz]

If the spell requires a specific target then no you shouldn't be able to do it. so the question on Archers is, did they see where the target was before obscurement happened or are they really just firing blindly. Firing blindly I'd probably impose a large - to hit or if some of them hit roll a percentile to see how much actual damage occurred after calculating it. I'd not expect firing blindly to have any realistic chance of being successful

It depends on whether you're using "theater of the mind" or a grid map. On a grid map, a blind swing of a weapon, or an arrow shot, would require you to pick a square.

Theater of the mind would be more freeform and up to the DM as to whether firing blindly would have a "realistic chance." In a post on disadvantage, I talked about an absurd scenario where a PC had 11 sources of disadvantage and yet could attack normally if even 1 source of advantage (his owl familiar "helping" by hooting at enemy) occurred. Another poster suggested the DM should step in, use some common sense, and call it a miss. So cycling back to the OP, should we do more than the rules suggest? Sure, you can, but every modifier you toss into the game will slow the game down a bit and get it closer to what D&D was avoiding (less number crunching, more action).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

I wouldn’t go that route, myself. Instead, I’d say that shooting a heavily obscured creature is at disadvantage, regardless of the RAW.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the spell requires a specific target then no you shouldn't be able to do it. so the question on Archers is, did they see where the target was before obscurment happened or are they really just firing blindly. Firing blindly I'd probably impose a large - to hit or if some of them hit roll a percentile to see how much actual damage occured after calculating it. I'd not expect firing blindly to have any realistic chance of being successful

I might allow an archer to negate the disadvantage by not moving that turn, and taking their action and bonus action to make a single attack, spending at least 3 arrows. They’re blanketing an area.

But even then, if the target knows they’re being shot at, and has a shield or other way of protecting themselves, you’d be back to square one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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...

This is where I like to inject highly specific common magic items. 10g for the device, 5 silver per charge, gets you a device that looks like a turkey baster with a barrel on the dropper end, with a wad of flour and chemicals that will shed dim light when combined with oxygen, and a ball of magically compressed air in the squeeze end. Just point and squeeze, and the ball explodes out the barrel, shooting a shotgun blast of glowing flour out before it.

 

[billd91]

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 does seem a pretty reasonable fix. It’s a very bizarre case that fighting in complete darkness is equivalent to fighting in broad daylight.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

As others have pointed out, it should not grant cover, both by RAW and RAI.

This came up very early in 5E and our group has a very simple houserule for it:

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

This removes the cancelling of disadvantage while blinded. If two people can't see each other, there's going to be a LOT more missing than two people who can see each other.

I've always played it this way....didnt know I was houseruling.

 

[Charlaquin]

What seems to be ignored more often than not IME, is this:
View attachment 130307
View attachment 130308

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.

But unless the stalker is Hidden, the rogue can discern its location based on sound and contextual indicators like footprints and such.

It’s for the best that the rogue attacks without advantage or disadvantage here. That way the stalker benefits from being invisible by denying the rogue advantage on the attack (and most likely preventing a sneak attack) and the rogue benefits from stealth by not getting disadvantage on the attack (and most likely surprising the stalker).

 

[Charlaquin]

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...

I’d rule that the flour attack has to be made with the action if you want to make it first, but I’d allow the shortsword attack with the bonus action. Alternatively, a thief with deft hands could Use the bag of flower as a bonus action if for some reason it was important to save the action for the shortsword attack.

 

[Flamestrike]

I rule you don't get advantage om attack rolls against targets who can't see you if you also can't see them.

So attacks in the darkness situation are always at disadvantage.