14
\$\begingroup\$

After looking over a few of the rules in the PDFs for the next edition of D&D I didn't see anything about concealment ( as in miss chance percentage ) similar to D&D 3.5e or D&D 4e.

Has Concealment been completely axed in the newest iteration or does it still exist in some form?

I also don't completely understand the Heavily obscured line. If it confers an advantage to attack you and a disadvantage on your personal attacks, wouldn't someone else in the same area also be blinded and also confer a disadvantage on their attacks as well?

\$\endgroup\$
14
\$\begingroup\$

Concealment is indeed not a game term in 5e. However, the concept still exists.

Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance

Namely, these kinds of things do not produce a direct accuracy penalty, but instead provide disadvantage or even the effects of the Blinded condition. There are two states here.

  • Lightly obscured. This is like light fog or dim light. It imposes disadvantage on Wisdom(perception) (not attacks) if you don't have a way around it.

  • Heavily obscured. This is darkness or heavy fog, or dense foliage. It imposes the affects of the blinded condition, which are auto failure of any check requiring sight, and advantage to attack you and disadvantage on your attacks.

So no, concealment is not a game term here, but it's concepts are still alive and well.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Fix this answer to reflect @Eric's clarifications and I'll up vote. Right now it is incorrect. \$\endgroup\$ – cr0m Oct 23 '14 at 16:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @cr0m updated.. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Oct 23 '14 at 20:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @waxeagle, great! Up voted! \$\endgroup\$ – cr0m Oct 23 '14 at 20:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't completely understand the Heavily obscured line. If it confers an advantage to attack you and a disadvantage on your personal attacks, wouldn't someone else in the same area also be blinded and also confer a disadvantage on their attacks as well? \$\endgroup\$ – Sandwich Oct 23 '14 at 21:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sandwich there are ways that this would not be the case. For instance, a character with darkvision would not suffer from heavy obscurity, a character with tremorsense would not need to see at all. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Oct 23 '14 at 22:29
4
\$\begingroup\$

AFAIK the idea covered by Concealment in 3.x is now handled by the rules for Vision and Light, under The Environment section of the PHB, page 183.

(Fog, foliage, etc make a terrain either lightly or heavily obscured, which may have different effects on combat etc.)

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

As has been pointed out, concealment is now handled under Vision and Light on page 183 of the PHB.

Light Concealment covers dim light, patchy fog, moderate foliage, etc. etc. and imposes disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks.

Heavy Concealment covers darkness, opaque fog, heavy foliage, etc. etc. and blocks vision entirely. Heavy Concealment refers to the blindness condition (sic), which imposes disadvantage when the creature attacks and advantage when attacking the creature. In addition any checks that rely on sight automatically fail.

Note that the Heavy Concealment rules are kinda funky. As a creature in an area of complete darkness is technically blind when attacking targets in more lit areas. I don't know any groups that run it that way but I thought it worth mentioning.

Two creatures in heavy concealment effectively cancel out their advantage/disadvantage conditions which makes darkness an interesting way to even the odds against an enemy that's gaining constant advantage against you.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Sure. "A heavily obscured area - such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage - blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)." So standing in darkness blinds you. It's the literal reading of the rules. There's a poster on the WotC forums that pointed it out to me. He said he caught it in playtesting but it wasn't addressed before the game went live. I can't imagine any DM will play it that way and I expect it will show up in errata at some point, but there you go. \$\endgroup\$ – Eric Oct 23 '14 at 22:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah. That's actually not a bad general case, as it allows for an easy special-case exemption. (like a "sniper" feat.) \$\endgroup\$ – Bleep Oct 23 '14 at 22:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.