RAW Fog Cloud does nothing at all?

[Specter]

Last session, the Wizard used it to protect himself from a Death Tyrant's rays. He got out of the fog to cast his spells, then would go back in after he was done. He would be dead without it.

[Coidzor]

You're not suddenly disorientated.

I mean, a person who isn't specially trained or used to it really should be, because suddenly they're in a bloody fog that's so thick that they can't even see their ruddy hands in front of their face.

[mcsillas]

No, it's totally misunderstanding it.

If someone is in a Fog Cloud, everything outside or inside it is obscured by it.

If someone is outside a Fog Cloud, everything inside it or on the other side of it is obscured by it.

Solidly opaque obscurement, unlike darkness, obscures things not just in it. It obscures any attempt to see through it.

Not misunderstanding it in the slightest. The gaming mechanics, real life simulations, and the errata all lend themselves to our interpretation. Your interpretation is what causes threads like this where someone asks, "Fog cloud does nothing at all?" If you play that those in the fog cloud can see out, specifically if they are on the perimeter of the fog cloud, you see where a spell like this is beneficial. To address the darkness spell, it specifically says you can't see out of it because its mobile and allowing someone to have a heavily obscured area move with them is much too powerful for a 2nd level spell. Going back to Max's point, natural darkness works the same way: the one holding the candle is at an extreme disadvantage to the one hiding in the darkness because the one in the darkness can see out of it. And darkness without the presence of light is opaque.

[Tanarii]

Not misunderstanding it in the slightest.

So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

[mcsillas]

So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

If someone is on one side of the fog cloud and the other is on the other side of the fog cloud, I agree that they are both looking through a heavily obscured area and that neither will be able to see the other. If one is in the cloud, particularly on the perimeter of the cloud (DM discretion as to how far back in), I think the one in the cloud is able to see the one outside of it.

[Tanarii]

If someone is on one side of the fog cloud and the other is on the other side of the fog cloud, I agree that they are both looking through a heavily obscured area and that neither will be able to see the other. If one is in the cloud, particularly on the perimeter of the cloud (DM discretion as to how far back in), I think the one in the cloud is able to see the one outside of it.

what it sounds like you mean is it shouldn't block some short distance of viewing through it, so that standing next to someone or near the edge doesn't block vision since there's insufficient fog to block sight if it's not 'thick' enough. But if that's the case someone in the perimeter should be just as visible to anyone outside it, and there should be some special language that it only blocks vision after X feet. There no particular simulationist reason to think it should be one way, with a creature standing in the edge able to see clearly out, but a creature out not being able to see it.

Rules wise, your interpretation that the errata should only apply as 'obscured' if you're in the fog would allow creatures to see through the entirety of it, just not into it. ie treating it identical to normal darkness.

[mcsillas]

what it sounds like you mean is it shouldn't block some short distance of viewing through it, so that standing next to someone or near the edge doesn't block vision since there's insufficient fog to block sight if it's not 'thick' enough. But if that's the case someone in the perimeter should be just as visible to anyone outside it, and there should be some special language that it only blocks vision after X feet. There no particular simulationist reason to think it should be one way, with a creature standing in the edge able to see clearly out, but a creature out not being able to see it.

Rules wise, your interpretation that the errata should only apply as 'obscured' if you're in the fog would allow creatures to see through the entirety of it, just not into it. ie treating it identical to normal darkness.

Taking what I'm saying to real life situations: If you've ever played paintball and you're in the dense woods, you are able to see someone in a clearing and they can't see you, even if you shoot them and they look in your direction. The heavy foliage is so dense, they can't see you. This analogy can be used with fog, such as being on stage in a theatrical production when the fog machine is on, or if you're in a dark ally and someone comes down it shining a flash light.

I agree that depending on the type of heavy obscurity, you should only be allowed to be so far back in it before you are blinded yourself. Also, as the errata says "... suffer from the blinded condition when you try to see something obscured by it" if you and your enemy are both in the obscured area, you both suffer from the blinded condition.

[Tanarii]

Okay. But levels of obscurity, light or heavy, isn't something supported by the 5e RAW. Things are either obscured or they aren't. You're trying to introduce simulation, and then adapt the rules to it.

Now, I'll freely admit the 5e rules also don't support opaque obscurity (Fog Cloud, Foliage, etc) vs Translucent Obscurity (darkness aka lack of light). So there's some justification for the system rules requiring a level of interpretation with 'real world' knowledge, to at least that degree. So I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable to apply whatever 'real world' simulation of exactly how opaque or translucent something is before it counts as 'obscured'.

It seems like a good way to end up with a lot of table arguments to rule that it's one directional when it's 'sorta kinda opaque' obscurity though.

[mcsillas]

Okay. But levels of obscurity, light or heavy, isn't something supported by the 5e RAW. Things are either obscured or they aren't. You're trying to introduce simulation, and then adapt the rules to it.

Now, I'll freely admit the 5e rules also don't support opaque obscurity (Fog Cloud, Foliage, etc) vs Translucent Obscurity (darkness aka lack of light). So there's some justification for the system rules requiring a level of interpretation with 'real world' knowledge, to at least that degree. So I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable to apply whatever 'real world' simulation of exactly how opaque or translucent something is before it counts as 'obscured'.


It seems like a good way to end up with a lot of table arguments to rule that it's one directional when it's 'sorta kinda opaque' obscurity though.

Check Pg 183 of the PHB for levels of obscurity.

It can be a good way to end up with table arguments, but DM has the final say!

[Tanarii]

Check Pg 183 of the PHB for levels of obscurity.

Okay fair enough. I've forgotten that light obscuring existed in 5e (which is a shame, I should use that more often). But Fog Cloud is explicitly Heavily Obscured and blocks vision entirely.

In fact, that makes your position that it should be kinda-sorta-something less than-heavily obscured less tenable. Not more.

It can be a good way to end up with table arguments, but DM has the final say!

Sure. Or he can just call it a Fog Cloud house rule.

For example, I recently made something I didn't even realize was a house rule an official house rule. I thought that when something wasn't visible to you due to being obscured in a fog cloud, but therefore couldn't see you back, you attacked it with disadvantage. Talking about archers outside a fog cloud targeting something inside it, not two adjacent targets in melee. So I just changed that to be global ... disadvantage due to not being able to see a target isn't cancelled by advantage from them not being able to see you either. I freely admit that's a house rule, now that it's been pointed out to me.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If we're talking simulation, it makes sense to me that (magical) fog would not behave like foliage, since the obscurimentation of the foliage obstacle should depend on the two observers' respective distances from it, while the optical depth of the fog medium would depend only on the distance it covers between the observers.

Also, random note: magical fog cannot really be imagined as normal fog, but must be some kind of thick smoke, or it couldn't possibly achieve obscurement in five feet like we are informed it does.

[mcsillas]

Okay fair enough. I've forgotten that light obscuring existed in 5e (which is a shame, I should use that more often). But Fog Cloud is explicitly Heavily Obscured and blocks vision entirely.

In fact, that makes your position that it should be kinda-sorta-something less than-heavily obscured less tenable. Not more.

Sure. Or he can just call it a Fog Cloud house rule.

For example, I recently made something I didn't even realize was a house rule an official house rule. I thought that when something wasn't visible to you due to being obscured in a fog cloud, but therefore couldn't see you back, you attacked it with disadvantage. Talking about archers outside a fog cloud targeting something inside it, not two adjacent targets in melee. So I just changed that to be global ... disadvantage due to not being able to see a target isn't cancelled by advantage from them not being able to see you either. I freely admit that's a house rule, now that it's been pointed out to me.

I Agree fog cloud is a heavily obscured area and I believe that's what the errata was attempting to explain on how to handle. The RAW in the PHB makes it appear that being in a heavily obscured area blinds you when you are located in it, which errata is trying to clarify that it does not.

Much of D&D is up to personal preference/interpretation and that's part of what makes it so great - it's very wide open.

[Steampunkette]

I feel like Fog Cloud should make use of Light Obscurement as well...

In the future, I'll shrink the size of a fog cloud to 15 feet of Heavy Obscurement and tack on 15 feet of light obscurement.

[Vogonjeltz]

The 20 page thread on invisible Bob disagrees with this statement.

No it doesn't 🙈 is not equal to 🙉

[mgshamster]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

[SharkForce]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

i suspect the answer has something to do with nerfing invisibility so that other forms of stealth remain relevant...

[MaxWilson]

So you think that someone behind a Fog Cloud isn't obscured by it?

By the rules as written, that is correct. Obscurement affects an area, not a vector.

If you're saying you'd rule differently than the PHB if you were DMing, [shrug], that's fine. If you're saying the PHB doesn't say this, you're just wrong.

[Laserlight]

Has anyone ever had PCs do this?

"I turn and hit Bob."

"What?"

"Eh, we're in fog, how can I know you're not a manticore? Honest mistake. Crit! I take all his stuff."

Yes. It was hilarious. In-game, the artificer had just met the rest of the party about one minute before this incident. They were crawling through the passages of a gnome ship, with the cleric leading the way. The cleric realized the ship was sinking, whereupon he started cussing--and specified that he was doing so in Deep Speech. I passed the artificer a note that said "You hear someone up ahead snarling something in the Mindflayer language. It sounds like that spell caster you just met. You can't see what's happening."
The artificer said "Mindflayer!" and fired his musket. Ad/Dis cancel out and...crit!
"Chaz, there's a loud bang behind you and something hits you right in the butt." Did about a third of his HP.
Every session thereafter the cleric made sure to say, in the most aggrieved tones he could manage, "But you shot me!"

[Malifice]

What I don't get is if two people have the blinded condition from Fog Cloud/Darkness/whatever, and their advantage/disadvantage is cancelled out, why aren't they also required to guess the space of their enemy to see if their attack roll even matters?

Because neither of them are hidden. The abstraction of the game assumes they're still making enough noise to be able to be located and attacked inside of 6 seconds.

Of course either one of them could use the Hide action at will to become hidden (tiptoeing around in the fog).

A rogue in a fog cloud could could stab you, and then use cunning action to hide and move away every round. He wouldn't get advantage (or sneak attack) on the attack thanks to the obscurement providing disadvantage, but you would have to guess his location in order to attack him.

[mgshamster]

Because neither of them are hidden. The abstraction of the game assumes they're still making enough noise to be able to be located and attacked inside of 6 seconds.

Of course either one of them could use the Hide action at will to become hidden (tiptoeing around in the fog).

A rogue in a fog cloud could could stab you, and then use cunning action to hide and move away every round. He wouldn't get advantage (or sneak attack) on the attack thanks to the obscurement providing disadvantage, but you would have to guess his location in order to attack him.

I could see that if it was just two people in an area that was relatively quiet enough to hear where they're at, but not in any sort of environment beyond that. For example, the OPs bar fight. It would be way too loud to be able to pinpoint anyone else by hearing if you were blind. Swinging blindly is probably enough to hit someone, but no way you'd be able to pick who.

[Malifice]

Swinging blindly is probably enough to hit someone, but no way you'd be able to pick who.

A fog cloud is not even 10 meters in radius. I could cover the entire area of it by running around for six seconds swinging a sword.

Conceptually speaking its dense smoke akin to someone pegging a smoke grenade inside your lounge room. It would be swirling around and there would be some gaps and some visibility inside it, even if only temporary.

I don't really have any problem with the abstraction that two trained combatants could reasonably locate and fight each other inside of it within 6 seconds.

If one of them doesn't want to locate and fight the other, they should take the hide action.

[Tanarii]

By the rules as written, that is correct. Obscurement affects an area, not a vector.

If you're saying you'd rule differently than the PHB if you were DMing, [shrug], that's fine. If you're saying the PHB doesn't say this, you're just wrong.

The errata refers to 'obscured by'. In common english, which is the standard the PHB uses, 'obscured by' means to keep from being seen. So no, I'm not wrong. You're just trying to use an overly technical definition of lining up 'obscured by' with 'within a heavily obscured area'. Most likely because you're holding onto previous edition thinking in which an overly technical definition was the accurate way to interpret a rule.

[StorytellerHero]

I think that it's important to note that if one stops thinking purely in terms of mechanics and remember that it's a roleplaying game, that the tavern brawl would have stopped due to everyone there suddenly being confronted with an unnatural gas that is suddenly enveloping them.

This would probably result in at least the majority of the tavern customers trying to escape the vicinity because they don't know that the fog is not dangerous.

[Strill]

It means that enemies have to guess your location in the cloud before they attack, or else they fail automatically.

[Tanarii]

A fog cloud is not even 10 meters in radius. I could cover the entire area of it by running around for six seconds swinging a sword.

I'm envisioning this warrior sprawled on his face after having tripped over a chair.

I don't really have any problem with the abstraction that two trained combatants could reasonably locate and fight each other inside of it within 6 seconds.

OP said it was a brawl in a tavern, not two trained warriors dueling in an otherwise empty white room.

[TentacleSurpris]

The spell isn't useless. Yes, you roll a 1d20 as normal to hit a creature when attacking, but you have no idea who you are attacking. You can simply choose a square within your reach and throw a punch at whoever happens to be there. A clever spellcaster will start a barfight and cast Fog Cloud and then simply crawl out and bar the door. He won't provoke attacks of opportunity on the way out, and hopefully he noted a clear path before casting it. The other patrons will throw punches back and forth until they all knock each other out.

[Beelzebubba]

I see it as getting a reprieve from a spellcaster or archers.

And man, casting this one at higher level is definitely worth it. 3rd level = 60' radius. Some serious instant fog.

[StorytellerHero]

A clever spellcaster will start a barfight and cast Fog Cloud and then simply crawl out and bar the door. He won't provoke attacks of opportunity on the way out, and hopefully he noted a clear path before casting it. The other patrons will throw punches back and forth until they all knock each other out.

No, they won't, not in most cases. Common sense dictates that all the patrons, even if they're all drunk, would notice that there's something seriously wrong with the room and attempt to hightail it out of there themselves.

Fog Cloud is not invisible and it doesn't tell an affected person that it's harmless.

[mgshamster]

No, they won't, not in most cases. Common sense dictates that all the patrons, even if they're all drunk, would notice that there's something seriously wrong with the room and attempt to hightail it out of there themselves.

Fog Cloud is not invisible and it doesn't tell an affected person that it's harmless.

Well, only the sane ones would run. The ones who aren't sane? We also call them PCs.

[Temperjoke]

I think that it's important to note that if one stops thinking purely in terms of mechanics and remember that it's a roleplaying game, that the tavern brawl would have stopped due to everyone there suddenly being confronted with an unnatural gas that is suddenly enveloping them.

This would probably result in at least the majority of the tavern customers trying to escape the vicinity because they don't know that the fog is not dangerous.

I love how everyone focused on the mechanics and not the practicality of the matter! I mean, unless it was actually an assassination attempt disguised as a brawl, the fighting should have died down since normal people would have been confused by the sudden appearance of a fog cloud.