How would you rule Shadow of Moil vs...

[Spiritchaser]

So before this comes up in game, I figured I’d sort out what happens when various potential counters are applied to Shadow of Moil.

The spell is necromancy, and makes the caster heavily obscured to others by shrouding them in shadowy flames. (Amongst other effects)

As far as I can tell, darkvision and devils sight would not help against the heavily obscured condition.

Interestingly, as far as I can see neither does truesight.

I would expect that tremorsense would be effective. There’s nothing about hiding behind objects that dampens out how tremorsense works.

Blindsight? Tough to call. Blindsight includes extra senses, EDIT: by the text the examples given are thermal or sonar, which cannot penetrate obstacles and do nothing to overcome obscurement. Neither types of blindsight nor types of obscurement are categorized by the game, so on a legalistic first read, would seem to fail. Now: we could appeal to how and why the character is obscured, but other than noting that they are not illusion magic, and that they do some necrotic damage to others who hit you, we don’t have much.

I’m inclined to say blindsight doesn’t penetrate this spell. You’ll now the character is there of course, the spell does not make one invisible, but would still suffer dissadvantage.

That makes it quite strong

How would you rule these?

[dejarnjc]

So before this comes up in game, I figured I’d sort out what happens when various potential counters are applied to Shadow of Moil.

The spell is necromancy, and makes the caster heavily obscured to others by shrouding them in shadowy flames. (Amongst other effects)

As far as I can tell, darkvision and devils sight would not help against the heavily obscured condition.

Interestingly, as far as I can see neither does truesight.

I would expect that tremorsense would be effective. There’s nothing about hiding behind objects that dampens out how tremorsense works.

Blindsight? Tough to call. Blindsight includes extra senses, thermal or sound, but does nothing to penetrate obscurement. Obscurement isn’t categorized by the game, so on a legalistic first read, would seem to fail. Now: we could appeal to how and why the character is obscured, but other than noting that they are not illusion magic, and that they do some necrotic damage to others who hit you, we don’t have much.

I’m inclined to say blindsight doesn’t penetrate this spell. You’ll now the character is there of course, the spell does not make one invisible, but would still suffer dissadvantage.

That makes it quite strong

How would you rule these?

Obscurement specifically only blocks vision therefore I'd allow blindsight to continue to work since blindsight specifically says a creature is using something other than sight.

Truesight doesn't work against things like fog cloud so I'd agree with you that it doesn't work against Shadows of Moil either.

Agreed that Darkvision and Devil's sight would not work.

Agreed that Tremorsense would work.

[Spiritchaser]

Obscurement specifically only blocks vision therefore I'd allow blindsight to continue to work since blindsight specifically says a creature is using something other than sight.

This one’s tricky. The two examples which are given for blindsight are sonar/ultrasound and thermal, both of which are blocked by obscurement.

I’m not sure this is clear...

But on the other hand it’s not as if there couldn’t be other senses we have no concept of

[JackPhoenix]

This one’s tricky. The two examples which are given for blindsight are sonar/ultrasound and thermal, both of which are blocked by obscurement.

I’m not sure this is clear...

But on the other hand it’s not as if there couldn’t be other senses we have no concept of

They would get blocked by cover, not by obscurement. Thermal, maybe, but sonar would definitely work.

[Mikal]

Everything except blindsight (which doesn't use sight, so shadows wouldn't affect it) and tremorsense (unless flying somehow I guess) is blocked by Shadow of Moil based on the description.

[Spiritchaser]

Everything except blindsight (which doesn't use sight, so shadows wouldn't affect it) and tremorsense (unless flying somehow I guess) is blocked by Shadow of Moil based on the description.

Actually, examples of blindsight which are given are sonar and thermal. Both of which are “potentially” blocked by heavily obscuring swirling necrotic flames... or not.

[Ganymede]

Based on the description, the spell appears to wreathe the caster in reverse-fire; as opposed to burning flames that shed light, these are black flames that shed darkness.

Much like how fire is different from the light it sheds, I'd say that the flame-like shadows are different from the darkness they shed. As such, I'd treat the obscurement from the shadows different from the darkness shed by them. For example, this obscurement wouuld foil any attempt to see the caster even if darkvision or devil's sight were involved.

Imagine the opposite scenario, where the target was fully immolated in a column of flame; even if you weren't blinded by the flame's radiance, you still couldn't see through it to the person within.

Since neither blindsight nor tremorsense rely on sight, they would be able to see the caster without any problem; heavy obscurement "blocks vision entirely" according to the PHB, which is no obstacle to blindsight or tremorsense.

[Spiritchaser]

Based on the description, the spell appears to wreathe the caster in reverse-fire; as opposed to burning flames that shed light, these are black flames that shed darkness.

Much like how fire is different from the light it sheds, I'd say that the flame-like shadows are different from the darkness they shed. As such, I'd treat the obscurement from the shadows different from the darkness shed by them. For example, this obscurement wouuld foil any attempt to see the caster even if darkvision or devil's sight were involved.

Imagine the opposite scenario, where the target was fully immolated in a column of flame; even if you weren't blinded by the flame's radiance, you still couldn't see through it to the person within.

Since neither blindsight nor tremorsense rely on sight, they would be able to see the caster without any problem; heavy obscurement "blocks vision entirely" according to the PHB, which is no obstacle to blindsight or tremorsense.

Again, (and yes, I think I'm getting hung up on this), examples of blindsight which are provided are sonar/ultrasound and thermal detection/thermal imaging.

Both of these are very much subject to being blocked by obscurement, at least as we understand them today.

I do see most people tend to think that blindsight would penetrate the spell.

Is that a balance consideration (I'm particularly concerned about this), a presumption that blindsight is, or can be something other than the examples cited? A desire not to poke at the examples too literally? Something else?

As written in the text, I don't see any limitations on what blindsight could be, so we can imagine plenty, but based on the guidance we do have, I'm still very inclined to say that:

Blindsight, unless a monsters description specifically describes that blindsight to be something other than thermal vision or sonar, does not penetrate shadow of moil

[JackPhoenix]

Again, (and yes, I think I'm getting hung up on this), examples of blindsight which are provided are sonar/ultrasound and thermal detection/thermal imaging.

Both of these are very much subject to being blocked by obscurement, at least as we understand them today.

I do see most people tend to think that blindsight would penetrate the spell.

Is that a balance consideration (I'm particularly concerned about this), a presumption that blindsight is, or can be something other than the examples cited? A desire not to poke at the examples too literally? Something else?

As written in the text, I don't see any limitations on what blindsight could be, so we can imagine plenty, but based on the guidance we do have, I'm still very inclined to say that:

Blindsight, unless a monsters description specifically describes that blindsight to be something other than thermal vision or sonar, does not penetrate shadow of moil

You're mistaking obscurement and cover. While the other usualy provides the former, it's not always true.

Glass wall (or Wall of Force) gives you cover, but no obscurement. It stops physical attacks, but you can plainly see through. It would propably stop echolocation, but not thermovision.

Most sources of obscurement provide no cover: smoke, darkness, illusions... both echolocation and thermovision would see right through, unlike visible light.

Some cover may provide obscurement from normal sight, but not from blindsight: thin wooden wall both blocks attacks and can't be seen through, but doesn't block thermovision (but it *does* block echolocation).

[Spiritchaser]

You're mistaking obscurement and cover. While the other usualy provides the former, it's not always true.

Glass wall (or Wall of Force) gives you cover, but no obscurement. It stops physical attacks, but you can plainly see through. It would propably stop echolocation, but not thermovision.

Most sources of obscurement provide no cover: smoke, darkness, illusions... both echolocation and thermovision would see right through, unlike visible light.

Some cover may provide obscurement from normal sight, but not from blindsight: thin wooden wall both blocks attacks and can't be seen through, but doesn't block thermovision (but it *does* block echolocation).

I think it’s more that I’m inclined to be conservative in assessing what sonar can actually do. It doesn’t take much to deflect or refract sonar. In water a thermocline is enough to bend or refract it, and while the density of, and speed of sound in shadowy necrotic flames is unknown, the odds of any random body of fluid being a good match with air are low enough that Id suggest neglecting it.

Similarly, I don’t think there is guidance one way or another on thermal. Do shadowy flames transmit radiated heat normally or not? Most things which would heavily obscure vision would heavily obscure a FLIR so... I’d again be very dubious that you’d see much. Not enough to be invisible but that isn’t the requirement.

I’m not saying that there isn’t a play balance reason that should trump this, but based on the text at hand and the principles being appealed to ( which unfortunately for clarity are physical in a fantasy game) it seems like quite a stretch to imagine blindsight getting through this

[Elric VIII]

Does being obscured by this give you advantage againt enwmies that cannot detect you or do they need to be inside the darkness as well?

[Ganymede]

Both of these are very much subject to being blocked by obscurement, at least as we understand them today.

I'll requote the relevant portion for you.

"A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely."

That's basically it. It blocks vision. The rule says nothing else about heavy obscurement having any other in-game effect.

I suppose you could venture into rulings territory as to the substance of "flame-like shadows" and do a case-by-case analysis of every example of blindsight, but there are two problems with that. One, why do this when the entries for the relevant monsters, such as the Darkmantle or Grimlock, already spell out what what negates their blindsight? Two, the spell summons shadow, and when is shadow known to block anything other than light?

There's also the consideration that most blindsight is not echolocation or keen smell. Instead, it is a generalized grab-bag of fantastic senses.

[Spiritchaser]

There's also the consideration that most blindsight is not echolocation or keen smell. Instead, it is a generalized grab-bag of fantastic senses.

I think that’s very much the problem. Some of those would should penetrate the spell, some should not, and there is no clear way to know.

It’s particularly difficult when trying to assess what fantastic versions of mundane senses are meant to do. A whale’s sonar will have issues with a thermocline, as will the best man made sonar. Will the same be true of a fantastic beast?

We could look at this and say: blind sight will always include enough extra senses to penetrate effects like this.

We could say that unless a monsters blindsight is stated to key off of something the spell doesn’t hamper (and again, I submit that sonar and thermal imaging aren’t on that list) then we should presume that heavily obscured is heavily obscured, after all, the game has no mechanism to differentiate obscurement by sensory type.

We could say both are equally problematic. What’s reasonable for a short duration 4th level concentration spell which likely can’t be used to hide, but which does do some reactive damage?

[Spiritchaser]

Does being obscured by this give you advantage againt enwmies that cannot detect you or do they need to be inside the darkness as well?

The way the spell is set up, there are visual queues that you are there. There might be instances where it could be used to hide, but you will most likely attract more attention with the spell than without. That having been said, a foe would effectively suffer from the blinded condition against you. You would have advantage to hit with an attack, and they would have disadvantage to hit you.

[Ganymede]

the game has no mechanism to differentiate obscurement by sensory type.

It doesn't need to, as obscurement is explicitly a hindrance to vision. Something being heavily obscured has no more rules implication beyond that it cannot be seen. That's it.

An object or environmental effect that heavily obscures something might also occlude other senses, and a DM might extrapolate the obscurement rules to handle those situations, but the heavily obscured condition, in and of itself, simply does not do that.

I think that’s very much the problem. Some of those would should penetrate the spell, some should not, and there is no clear way to know.

You seem to be implying that shadows can somehow block sound or smell. That's not convincing in the slightest.

We could imagine that someone obscured behind a smoke rack filled with red herring might also be difficult to smell, or that someone hiding in the area of a Silence spell would also be difficult to hear, but there is no indication, thematically or realistically, that the shadows summoned by this spell do anything to block senses other than sight.

You simply aren't on solid ground here regarding Shadows of Moil.

[Spiritchaser]

It doesn't need to, as obscurement is explicitly a hindrance to vision.

Well, no I don’t agree.

It is most certainly possible to be obscured from thermal and acoustic information. I don’t accept that we have grounds by default, limit what obscured means.

An object or environmental effect that heavily obscures something might also occlude other senses, and a DM might extrapolate the obscurement rules to handle those situations, but the heavily obscured condition, in and of itself, simply does not do that.

I think my approach is different from yours. By default I would expect that a thing that blocks sight would block other signals, at least as a starting point.

You look at this as something which is a purely visual phenomenon, yes? And on those grounds they would do nothing for other senses.

I would note that this is not illusion magic.

You seem to be implying that shadows can somehow block sound or smell. That's not convincing in the slightest.

I think this one is tricky, but let’s be fair, I’m not making any claims about smell, and defracting ultrasound/sonar is very different than blocking sound.

The nature of the shadowy flames isn’t clear. They are not illusions, they can burn an attacker and they provide resistance to radiant damage.

Why wouldn’t they obscure other signals?

You simply aren't on solid ground here regarding Shadows of Moil.

I’d have to agree with you. I don’t think I am, but I would submit that so far, based on what we know, none of us are on solid ground. We have a stated condition with no stated limitations at all, with no clear way to interpret a fairly likely rules conflict by RAW, and insufficient information to evaluate this with an appeal to reality.

I’d be inclined to remain on the side of letting the spell defeat blindsight, unless I knew more about the blindsight for some reason.

[Ganymede]

It doesn't need to, as obscurement is explicitly a hindrance to vision.

Well, no I don’t agree.

At a bare minimum, we have to agree what the rules say.

If you are unwilling to agree that the rules say "A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely," then there is really no point in continuing.

[Specter]

What is bugging me about this spell is that if you're obscured, the foe is effectively blinded against you, and thus it's clearly superior to Greater Invisibility even though they have the same level.

[Spiritchaser]

At a bare minimum, we have to agree what the rules say.

If you are unwilling to agree that the rules say "A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely," then there is really no point in continuing.

I think the problem is that I am unwilling to say that while a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely, it will have no impact on thermal imaging or sonar.

Edit: I am presuming to avoid a semantic argument about what vision is in the context of 5e, and what that includes, but for the record, I would suggest that in the context of ordinary physical obscurement, truesight and blindsight are blocked.

Presuming anything else would allow those with blindsight to see through solid objects, which they cannot do.

[krugaan]

What is bugging me about this spell is that if you're obscured, the foe is effectively blinded against you, and thus it's clearly superior to Greater Invisibility even though they have the same level.

Greater invisibility means they probably don't even have a clue as to your general area (depending on how your DM rules invisibility).

Moil just makes it hard to hit you with targeted attacks.

[Spiritchaser]

What is bugging me about this spell is that if you're obscured, the foe is effectively blinded against you, and thus it's clearly superior to Greater Invisibility even though they have the same level.

Greater invisibility is much superior for actually hiding, it is also a touch spell, so it can be cast on others, or twinned

[Vaz]

Devil's Sight can let you see.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness... A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."
"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area."
"Flame~like shadows wreathe your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others"
"You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet."

So, unless you want to state that shadows aren't dark, and unless you want to go to the extents of the RAW of stating that you can only see normally while within darkness yourself, sure, knock yourself out, but Devil's Sight works.

[Spiritchaser]

I can certainly see that could be the case.

Or not

[Ganymede]

I think the problem is that I am unwilling to say that while a heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely, it will have no impact on thermal imaging or sonar.

This is simply incorrect.

Being obscured, heavily or otherwise, has absolutely zero impact on anything other than whether the thing obscured can be seen. Obscurement is only a game-state that describes how well something can be seen, and nothing more.

Of course, the object or environmental condition that is providing the obscurement might have some impact as to whether or not the thing obscured can be perceived with other senses, but there's neither any indication in the spell that its "flame-like shadows" impact other senses, nor is there any creature that has a parenthetical indicating that "flame-like shadows" would foil its blindsight. You're trying to add an "I don't know" with another "I don't know" to equal a "Yes!"

Devil's Sight can let you see.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness... A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."
"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area."
"Flame~like shadows wreathe your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others"
"You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet."

So, unless you want to state that shadows aren't dark, and unless you want to go to the extents of the RAW of stating that you can only see normally while within darkness yourself, sure, knock yourself out, but Devil's Sight works.

The justification for why you can see through the darkness but not through the flame-like shadows of this spell is similar to why you can't see someone in a column of flame even though the light emitted by the flame doesn't blind you; much like how the fire and the light emitted by it are two separate phenomena, the flame-like shadow and the dark emitted by it are two separate phenomena.

In essence, it could be imagined as conceptually similar to the blackness created by Hunger of Hadar, a void that also blocks Devil's Sight.

[tsotate]

One, why do this when the entries for the relevant monsters, such as the Darkmantle or Grimlock, already spell out what what negates their blindsight?

Every druid that's ever wildshaped into a snake wishes that were universally true. It would save so many discussions with the DM about whether or not the snake's blindsight "sees" particular things.

[Specter]

Greater invisibility is much superior for actually hiding, it is also a touch spell, so it can be cast on others, or twinned

Fair enough, but to more than make up for that, SoM gives you a resistance and damage similar to Fire Shield.

The justification for why you can see through the darkness but not through the flame-like shadows of this spell is similar to why you can't see someone in a column of flame even though the light emitted by the flame doesn't blind you; much like how the fire and the light emitted by it are two separate phenomena, the flame-like shadow and the dark emitted by it are two separate phenomena.

In essence, it could be imagined as conceptually similar to the blackness created by Hunger of Hadar, a void that also blocks Devil's Sight.

Yes. RAW doesn't state these shadows are darkness. Yes, it sounds absurd, but that's the way it is.

[Vaz]

The justification for why you can see through the darkness but not through the flame-like shadows of this spell is similar to why you can't see someone in a column of flame even though the light emitted by the flame doesn't blind you; much like how the fire and the light emitted by it are two separate phenomena, the flame-like shadow and the dark emitted by it are two separate phenomena.

In essence, it could be imagined as conceptually similar to the blackness created by Hunger of Hadar, a void that also blocks Devil's Sight.

Fair point.

I disagree with your assertion, but can see where you're coming from.

[Spiritchaser]

This is simply incorrect.

Being obscured, heavily or otherwise, has absolutely zero impact on anything other than whether the thing obscured can be seen. Obscurement is only a game-state that describes how well something can be seen, and nothing more.

I think it has to be more than that.

How well can you see someone heavily obscured behind a physical object with blindsight?

You cannot.

The obscurement blocks your “vision”

Does this obscurement block blindsight? Given what we know of blindsight, based on the examples cited... I’m leaning towards yes in the general case.

Of course, the object or environmental condition that is providing the obscurement might have some impact as to whether or not the thing obscured can be perceived with other senses, but there's neither any indication in the spell that its "flame-like shadows" impact other senses, nor is there any creature that has a parenthetical indicating that "flame-like shadows" would foil its blindsight. You're trying to add an "I don't know" with another "I don't know"

I’d prefer to think of it as: given that this is specifically defined as imposing the heavily obscured condition, I will start out presuming that said condition exists, and place the burden of proof on the observer. I’m ambivalent about that proof, so I will return to that condition which was stated.

[JackPhoenix]

I think it has to be more than that.

How well can you see someone heavily obscured behind a physical object with blindsight?

You cannot.

The obscurement blocks your “vision”

Does this obscurement block blindsight? Given what we know of blindsight, based on the examples cited... I’m leaning towards yes in the general case.

You're not talking about obscurement. You're talking about full cover. Different situation.

[Vaz]

Yes. RAW doesn't state these shadows are darkness. Yes, it sounds absurd, but that's the way it is.

Yes it does. It calls them explicitly shadows. Which are darkness.