D&D 5E Sight/Vision Rules

[Chris_Nightwing]

For the first time in a long while I managed to run a little playtest online last night. Down into the Mines of Madness went a pre-generated party of an Elven Ranger, Dwarven Paladin and Elven Wizard. Overall it was good fun, but we had a bit of a headache with the sight and vision rules.

See, the group went down the slide and landed in the chalk pit, and awoke the lizard skeletons. I gave them a round to fight those before the dwarven skeletons were attracted to the commotion. I also ruled that sources of fire in this place would have a strong chance of igniting the chalk stirred up in the air (sorry Burning Hands). At some point a thrown axe knocked the Wizard unconscious, so the Ranger decided to cast Fog Cloud to hopefully give them a chance to heal and make a plan. The text of Fog Cloud says it fills a certain area and provides heavy obscuration - great. What's heavy obscuration? Hm, well under stealth it says:

A creature in a heavily obscured area is out of sight, just as it if were hiding behind an obstruction, and thus can try to hide.

Ok, so the party was out of sight - to me that suggests they can't be targetted directly. But text says 'as if hiding' and 'thus can try to hide' - what? It's like you're hiding, so you can hide?

I ruled that the area that was heavily obscured basically made everyone in it invisible, so no direct targetting, any attack picks a square and has disadvantage, but equally you have advantage on attacks because you are invisible to your target so.. basically it's a normal attack if you know where your target is. This seemed to work, the Paladin then kicked up divine sense and knew where to target, and made normal ranged attacks against the skeletons. If someone had had some form of fog-piercing vision then they would basically be invisible.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to make rules like this clearer?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

They shouldn't have used the word hiding twice. Basically, the way I read it is that if there is a wall between you and an enemy, you can't be seen, but you aren't HIDING unless you make a hide check. Which means enemies can still hear you and therefore know you are there.

I believe heavily obscured is supposed to work the same way. People know which area you are in and therefore can target you since you are still making noise. If you spend an action to hide then you'd be invisible.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Aha, I think I understand that. So you're able to target someone unless they hide, and presumably your attacks have disadvantage. That makes some sense, but then isn't the obscured person also giving advantage because they can't defend themselves properly? It's akin to being invisible (but your location known) but also blind?

I feel like the different conditions could be made neater somehow. Rather than 'hidden', which seems nebulous to me, we could have 'located', 'invisible' and 'silent'. If you are invisible, it's harder to hit you, but if you move you can be located. If you're silent on top of that you can't be located until you make your presence known. Being silent by itself does nothing for you unless someone is looking the wrong way or blind. Further, I might rule that in a busy battle you wouldn't need to be silent to be locatable. Heavy obscuration would make you invisible, but still located until you move, and if you're not silent you'd remain located anyway. Light obscuration would make only some characters invisible (like wild elves).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it's similar to the (rather counter-intuitive) distinction 4e makes between "obscured" and "hidden."

In 4e, when a character is obscured, you can still target them, but you take a -5 penalty to hit them because you cannot see them or aim your attack in more than a general direction.

A character who makes a Hide check can become hidden, which is like "Obscured +;" no one can tell what area you're in, and so you can't be targeted with individual-targeting attacks (though area attacks might still hit you), unless the creature finds you by making a Perception check.

It's a little counter-intuitive, because we imagine that when we turn invisible (or similar), no one knows where we are, but the rules don't follow that logic.

 

[radja]

the way I see it, obscured just makes people unable to see you. There are still signs where you are though: rhustling leaves, stamping combatboots, the fogcloud stirring in a certain place or armour clanking... When you are hiding, you're trying to be silent and not give away your position. You stay still, breathe quietly and take not to step on sticks that might break. It seems logical to give a hidden person that little extra over just obscured.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I agree that actively hiding should be better than just surrounding yourself with fog. I think the key difference is whether or not you can be targetted directly. But it's confusing, the meaning of these terms aren't immediately apparent.

'Hidden', at least to me, implies only a visual component. I think 'Sneaking' or 'Stealthy' would be better, since it implies remaining both unseen and unheard. English really lacks an adequate verb. Then we can use 'Hidden' to mean what it does, out of sight. Everything in a Fog Cloud is hidden, which means it's harder to hit, but locations are known and targetable. If you're hidden in a fog cloud you could try to become stealthy, in which case you can't be targetted so long as you remain hidden and aren't detected by someone listening. Fog cloud aside, in order to sneak past a guard in a normal situation, you need to be stealthy. You can be automatically hidden by simply being out of sight. You'll have to roll move silently against listen to be stealthy and move behind the guard. If you can't remain out of sight you'll need to roll hide against spot in only lightly obscured areas - no obscuration and you can't be stealthy. The advantage of wild elves is that certain kinds of light obscuration should count as heavy obscuration, so they are hidden in heavy rain, with all that implies.

Basically what I don't like is there being no clear effect for heavy obscuration without a hide check.

 

[Phoenix8008]

Ran into this last night at gaming as the Ranger cast Fog Cloud on the dragon they were fighting and I couldn't find rules to show exactly what that did. I ended up just enforcing disadvantage on ranged attacks through the fog cloud since nothing was trying to hide. I did do the right thing in giving disadvantage for shooting into a fog cloud though, correct?

I agree that they need better definitions for all these states to make sure the rules are as clear and easy as some other sections.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Wiseblood]

Ouch! That's harsh...especially since chalk isn't flammable.

I would have gone with flour or fertilizer.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I ruled that the area that was heavily obscured basically made everyone in it invisible, so no direct targetting, any attack picks a square and has disadvantage, but equally you have advantage on attacks because you are invisible to your target so.. basically it's a normal attack if you know where your target is.

That seems like it was the right call, according to how To Attacking An Unseen Target work (How To Play PDF pg. 16)

Being in a Heavily Obscured area means you are out of sight, which i presume means you are invisible. But it'd be better if it'd specifically say so and thus could get clarification.