D&D 5E New Errata "Vision"

[maritimo80]

I dont understanding this errata.

In heavily obscured i have blinded condition? Attack with disadvantage?
I can See Out?

Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

 

[Agamon]

It means, for example, if you are standing in complete darkness, you're blind for purposes of anything else in the darkness, but not for anything not obscured by the darkness, like someone standing 100 feet away holding a lit torch.

It's just a common sense ruling that was apparently required for some overly literal folk.

 

[CapnZapp]

It means that if you stand around on a perfectly sunny morning, and a black cloud suddenly appears, you are considered blind for purposes of seeing what's inside the cloud.

You're still not blind in general. The sun still shines, the bunnies still fornicate, the forest is still as green as always.

You're just blinded when it comes to seeing through that impenetrable blackness.

 

[Baumi]

I think I figured out what the reason for the errata.

Before Darkness/Fog doesn't give you anything since you get disadvantage for not seeing the enemy, but since he also counts as blind you get advatage to attack him .. which cancels out and you could attack with no modifier .. which is unlogical.

Now only the active Character counts as blind and therefore get disadvantage to attack someone which he cannot see, but since the target doesn't count as blind for the moment you do not gain advantage. So the net-effect is dissadvantage against targets you cannot see.

But that leads to another problem. If you can see the target (Darkvision) but he does not see you, you don't get advantag against him, except if you sneak first .. which takes away your action.

 

[AriochQ]

I have never paid attention to the multiple threads on this issue, because I have never had a problem with this issue. I just apply common sense to the situation and it all seems to work out. It may not follow the rules to the letter, but my players (also rational beings) have never complained.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have never paid attention to the multiple threads on this issue, because I have never had a problem with this issue. I just apply common sense to the situation and it all seems to work out. It may not follow the rules to the letter, but my players (also rational beings) have never complained.

It's a good thing rational beings never, ever argue with each other, and always, eternally possess identical conceptual frameworks, assumptions (especially with regard to unstated data), and analytical methods. What a terrible thing it would be if rational beings ever suffered from such woes! Why, it would be the Tower of Babel all over again--I can't even imagine the chaos, society would completely cease to function.

Edit:
Okay, maybe that's snarkier than you deserve. But it's all well and good that your table has "rational beings" at it. "Rational beings" can still disagree, even when they have (essentially) identical think-meats, identical access to information, and a legitimate and heartfelt desire to have a consensus on a topic. In general, I choose to assume that the people I discuss rules topics with are also rational (perhaps you do not?)--while still not thinking exactly the same things I think. That's why I like having rules that are clear, unambiguous, preferably simple, and which leave out only what must be (for whatever reasons); such rules shoot, as much as possible, for the global (or at least local) minimum of confusion and debate. Such rules mean more time spent doing and less time spent being caught by surprise because yet again my perspective didn't line up with the DM's (because--believe it or not--my DMs have all been quite rational people, while not seeing eye-to-eye with me on at very least 25% of rules-cases in literally every system I've played long enough to have a question about in the first place.)

 

[Mercule]

It's just shorthand. There's a "blind" condition. Use it to represent what happens when you're in the dark. But, just to keep the rabid rules lawyers in check, we're making it clear that you aren't literally blinded by being in the dark because, well, that'd be stupid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's just shorthand. There's a "blind" condition. Use it to represent what happens when you're in the dark. But, just to keep the rabid rules lawyers in check, we're making it clear that you aren't literally blinded by being in the dark because, well, that'd be stupid.

Personally, I see that as being for the "rabid" (not the word I'd use) simulationists, not the rules-lawyers. Then again, I am perfectly okay with accepting the idea of a prone gelatinous cube, so I may not be defining "rules lawyer" in quite the same way you do.

Edit:
Also, the thing I find funny about this errata is that a true "natural language" reading would seem to indicate that being surrounded by a cloud of unnatural darkness doesn't prevent you from seeing anything outside it, so it acts more like a column of total invisibility. Unless being inside it makes everything outside it also "obscured by it," in which case it would seem to be literally verbiage without a point. Other than, as mentioned, the "appeasement" meaning. To clarify my "simulationist" thing above, the appeasement would seem to be, "Okay, okay, we get it--being trapped in thick fog doesn't mean your eyes don't work, it means your eyes have nothing to work with. We get it. Here's a phrasing that doesn't imply your eyes stop working."

I mean, unless there's some kind of extra-special feature or something that only works on people with the Blinded condition? I don't know enough about 5e to respond to that, other than to say that I've never heard of such a feature, nor anything that would exploit it that *couldn't* exploit it with the errata'd text anyway.

 

[Mercule]

Personally, I see that as being for the "rabid" (not the word I'd use) simulationists, not the rules-lawyers. Then again, I am perfectly okay with accepting the idea of a prone gelatinous cube, so I may not be defining "rules lawyer" in quite the same way you do.

Pick an offender. I read it as "please don't be an ass."

Also, the thing I find funny about this errata is that a true "natural language" reading would seem to indicate that being surrounded by a cloud of unnatural darkness doesn't prevent you from seeing anything outside it, so it acts more like a column of total invisibility. Unless being inside it makes everything outside it also "obscured by it," in which case it would seem to be literally verbiage without a point.

Obscured is obscured. Anything directly behind something else that's obscured must, logically, also be obscured.

 

[Celtavian]

A prone gelatinous cube? I don't think I could handle that. It wouldn't make sense.