The rogue isn't really going to be able to get sneak attack anyway because the advantage and disadvantage canceling each other out.
The rogue doesn't need advantage to sneak attack if there is another enemy of their target within 5' of their target, they just need to not have disadvantage. So yes, the "everybody gets disadvantage" ruling does in fact change whether a rogue can or can't sneak attack (from "maybe" to "definitely not").
So ten disadvantages and one advantage cancel each other out completely?
And this is suppose to be easier than third how???
Because instead of having to run down an entire list of modifiers to a roll, both bonus and penalty, you literally only have to run down up to 1 source of advantage and up to 1 source of disadvantage because any more beyond that are irrelevant.
The rogue isn't really going to be able to get sneak attack anyway because the advantage and disadvantage canceling each other out.
The rogue doesn't need advantage to sneak attack if there is another enemy of their target within 5' of their target, they just need to not have disadvantage. So yes, the "everybody gets disadvantage" ruling does in fact change whether a rogue can or can't sneak attack (from "maybe" to "definitely not").
If I remember the rogue's ability doesn't it say if you have advantage or a friend within 5ft? Meaning having disadvantage doesn't negate the possibility of sneak attack if your friend is next to him.
This not even accounting for the fact that if the enemy has no idea your friend is next to him, you have no idea your friend is next to him, and your friend has no idea where you are, how in the world you can coordinate for a sneak attack is kinda silly.
I mean I'd almost say a blinded person by virtue of being blind can't sneak attack....but I like realism in games.
Keep in mind, hiding is a very different situation than what has been discussed so far. Hiding removes the capability of the attacker to hear you, thus know where you are. The DM can very well ask for point in space, or direction from your facing (or square in the grid) and outright judge a miss.
The default rules seem very straightforward to me. You only deal with two conditions: blinded (such as if you're in total darkness and you have no means to see through it), and invisible (you can see, but you can't see your opponent). In fact, only this recent scenario with one in darkness and the other in daylight assumes invisible opponents. The situation discussed so far, unless I'm mistaken, includes two people without Darkvision or similar in absolute darkness, neither hiding. So, both blinded (their attacks have disadvantage, and attacks against them have advantage).
Edit: I need to write faster (or do my research faster). Half a dozen posts since I started typing this... :p
Also, from Sneak Attack, PH page 96, the rogue can use Sneak Attack (once per turn) when he has Advantage with a Finesse or a ranged weapon, or a non-incapacitated enemy of his target (usually the rogue's ally) is within 5ft of his target and he doesn't have disadvantage.
So, yes, can't Sneak Attack while blinded, or in utter darkness without a means to see, regardless of friends near your target.
Also, the important bit isn't your ally near your target, but your target's enemy near him. If he doesn't know there's an enemy near him (people generally don't consider innocent bushes an enemy), it doesn't give you the Sneak Attack chance.
If I remember the rogue's ability doesn't it say if you have advantage or a friend within 5ft? Meaning having disadvantage doesn't negate the possibility of sneak attack if your friend is next to him.
Which do you trust more; your memory, or the information I literally just looked up to make sure I wasn't talking out my backside before posting?
So ten disadvantages and one advantage cancel each other out completely?
And this is suppose to be easier than third how???
Because instead of having to run down an entire list of modifiers to a roll, both bonus and penalty, you literally only have to run down up to 1 source of advantage and up to 1 source of disadvantage because any more beyond that are irrelevant.
So literally any spell that grants advantage is wasted if it is night outside or the opponent causes darkness somehow, unless you cast the spell on someone who has dark vision.
If I remember the rogue's ability doesn't it say if you have advantage or a friend within 5ft? Meaning having disadvantage doesn't negate the possibility of sneak attack if your friend is next to him.
Which do you trust more; your memory, or the information I literally just looked up to make sure I wasn't talking out my backside before posting?
My memory. I have no way of knowing whether or not you looked it up.
I feel like if you are blinded you shouldn't be able to sneak attack anyway, so I don't see an issue with it.
So literally any spell that grants advantage is wasted if it is night outside or the opponent causes darkness somehow, unless you cast the spell on someone who has dark vision.
Not wasted - just situational, like all spells should be. Cast something else, or save your spell slot for later.
My memory. I have no way of knowing whether or not you looked it up.
You don't have any way of knowing whether or not you are remembering correctly either, short of actually looking it up (which is super easy, since this forum happens to have the rules attached - but I'll save you some time; you remember incorrectly).
Hmm. I missed a couple of posts when the page shifted. InquisitiveCoder is right, advantage and disadvantage cancel each other completely, end of story.
That makes it weird. Strictly as written, thus, you still can't Sneak Attack while blinded, because you don't have advantage, but you can sneak attack a blinded opponent if he knows an enemy is within 5 ft of him.
On this, I think I'd go with NightsLastHero. I think I'd rule it that cancelling out doesn't eradicate the situation, just averages the roll (which I think is the purpose), because I think it is more elegant than house-ruling specific situations, but the effect would be that sneak attack while blinded is not really possible.
That doesn't work either. If it worked like that (if you have both, you only roll 1d20 but it counts as if you have both, rather than neither) it overcompensates (you can sneak attack when you have both even without an ally).
Hm. I should have known the rule of cancellation is there for a reason. I guess specific house ruling may be the way to go - and it was obviously left out of the general rule for simplicity.
If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage.
So ten disadvantages and one advantage cancel each other out completely?
And this is suppose to be easier than third how???
Because instead of having to run down an entire list of modifiers to a roll, both bonus and penalty, you literally only have to run down up to 1 source of advantage and up to 1 source of disadvantage because any more beyond that are irrelevant.
So literally any spell that grants advantage is wasted if it is night outside or the opponent causes darkness somehow, unless you cast the spell on someone who has dark vision.
No. remember that if you have disadvantage for being in the darkness, casting a spell that grants you advanatge at the very least takes the disadvantage away. Which is an "advantage" itself.
Something to keep in mind when house-ruling fighting in darkness: you have to take into account the Alert feat.
Someone with Alert gets an edge against another blinded enemies because enemies they can't see no longer get advantage. That means the Alert character makes neutral attack rolls, but enemies are making attack rolls with disadvantage. If you make both sides have disadvantage any time they attack in darkness, that aspect of Alert is useless.
In the end I hate advantage and disadvantage and I'm sure that colors how I would handle the situation. I mean literally advantage/disadvantage is why I hadn't looked into 5th edition until now. I love everything else about the edition though.
Why is that? As someone coming from 3rd edition, advantage/disadvantage seems like a much nicer system to me.
Players like bonuses, but if every circumstance that can help or hurt your roll has to be a bonus, then you need to start lumping them into categories and deciding which ones stack and which ones don't. For new or more RP-oriented players, that's too complicated. Even for veterans, it's a ton of book-keeping. The Cleric can't just tell you have a "+2 bonus to AC". You have to ask what kind of bonus, and then check if you already have some of that same kind, and remember whether they stack or not. For optimizers, the game quickly devolves into trying to collect one of each bonus type for maximum stacking. By the time the campaign I was playing ended, I needed a spreadsheet to keep my bonuses sorted out.
Advantage/Disadvantage are simple: they don't stack, and if you have both they cancel out. This lets you have fewer bonuses, and with fewer bonuses (and the concentration mechanic) you can get rid of bonus types and let them all stack.
Another problem with bonuses is that you have to remember them (or look them up). Is being prone a -2 penalty to AC? Or was it -4? Then you have to add it all up. That problem goes away with advantage/disadvantage too. For most circumstances, all you need to know is "roll twice".
Yet another problem is that with enough bonuses, no task is impossible. One key feature of advantage is that it doesn't change what you can do; it just changes how likely you are to succeed. If a DC 20 check is impossible for you without advantage, it's still impossible with advantage. Besides, some things shouldn't stack. If you're paralyzed, blinding or knocking you to the ground won't make stabbing you any easier.
One of the nicest consequences (and design goals) of making bonuses rare and small is that the range of DCs became a lot more narrow. Since AC and DC more or less max out at 20, non-proficient (or non-optimized) characters can still attempt hard tasks and have some chance of success. Back in 3.5 if you didn't optimize your character for a certain skill, there was no point in trying. If you had a mix of optimized and non-optimized characters in the party, setting DCs was lose/lose for a DM. You either set them so high that the unoptimized players can never do anything, or so low that the optimized ones always succeed.
Yes, I believe Full-Plate was +8 Armor with a +1 maximum Dex modifier
Also, negative Dex scores lowered your AC, even in Full-Plate
So, the idea that you couldn't dodge attacks in full plate (especially when you try to add the idea of "realism" into the equation) is just patently wrong. You aren't nearly as mobile in heavy armor, sure. But you don't just stand still and take beatings until someone gets lucky enough to slip through the chink in the armor.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
InquisitiveCoder, the primary reason I dislike advantage/disadvantage is because it is always a +5/-5. Disadvantage almost guarantees a failure (this could mean that at some point you end up risking turning to stone to attack a medusa because you have less chance to turn to stone than you have chance of dying while having disadvantage), while advantage gives you a slightly higher chance of success.
So yes, it is faster, but there are just somethings that shouldn't have that high of a penalty.
5th still has the same skill problems. Rogues for example will have x2 prof. bonus to four skills after a certain point. While everyone else has a bonus of about half that to the skills they are good with, and even less on the skills they aren't good with. Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't really help here.
InquisitiveCoder, the primary reason I dislike advantage/disadvantage is because it is always a +5/-5. Disadvantage almost guarantees a failure (this could mean that at some point you end up risking turning to stone to attack a medusa because you have less chance to turn to stone than you have chance of dying while having disadvantage), while advantage gives you a slightly higher chance of success.
So yes, it is faster, but there are just somethings that shouldn't have that high of a penalty.
5th still has the same skill problems. Rogues for example will have x2 prof. bonus to four skills after a certain point. While everyone else has a bonus of about half that to the skills they are good with, and even less on the skills they aren't good with. Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't really help here.
How does disadvantage "almost guarantee a failure", but advantage is just "a slightly higher chance of success"?
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
InquisitiveCoder, the primary reason I dislike advantage/disadvantage is because it is always a +5/-5. Disadvantage almost guarantees a failure (this could mean that at some point you end up risking turning to stone to attack a medusa because you have less chance to turn to stone than you have chance of dying while having disadvantage), while advantage gives you a slightly higher chance of success.
So yes, it is faster, but there are just somethings that shouldn't have that high of a penalty.
5th still has the same skill problems. Rogues for example will have x2 prof. bonus to four skills after a certain point. While everyone else has a bonus of about half that to the skills they are good with, and even less on the skills they aren't good with. Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't really help here.
How does disadvantage "almost guarantee a failure", but advantage is just "a slightly higher chance of success"?
I think it has to do with the fact that you only have to hit the target number, so anything above that target isn't important Rolling a 15, then an 18 doesn't matter much, as both would be a success. While disadvantage tends to have more ranges that will cause you to fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So ten disadvantages and one advantage cancel each other out completely?
And this is suppose to be easier than third how???
Keep in mind, hiding is a very different situation than what has been discussed so far. Hiding removes the capability of the attacker to hear you, thus know where you are. The DM can very well ask for point in space, or direction from your facing (or square in the grid) and outright judge a miss.
The default rules seem very straightforward to me. You only deal with two conditions: blinded (such as if you're in total darkness and you have no means to see through it), and invisible (you can see, but you can't see your opponent). In fact, only this recent scenario with one in darkness and the other in daylight assumes invisible opponents. The situation discussed so far, unless I'm mistaken, includes two people without Darkvision or similar in absolute darkness, neither hiding. So, both blinded (their attacks have disadvantage, and attacks against them have advantage).
Edit: I need to write faster (or do my research faster). Half a dozen posts since I started typing this... :p
Also, from Sneak Attack, PH page 96, the rogue can use Sneak Attack (once per turn) when he has Advantage with a Finesse or a ranged weapon, or a non-incapacitated enemy of his target (usually the rogue's ally) is within 5ft of his target and he doesn't have disadvantage.
So, yes, can't Sneak Attack while blinded, or in utter darkness without a means to see, regardless of friends near your target.
Also, the important bit isn't your ally near your target, but your target's enemy near him. If he doesn't know there's an enemy near him (people generally don't consider innocent bushes an enemy), it doesn't give you the Sneak Attack chance.
Which do you trust more; your memory, or the information I literally just looked up to make sure I wasn't talking out my backside before posting?
Hmm. I missed a couple of posts when the page shifted. InquisitiveCoder is right, advantage and disadvantage cancel each other completely, end of story.
That makes it weird. Strictly as written, thus, you still can't Sneak Attack while blinded, because you don't have advantage, but you can sneak attack a blinded opponent if he knows an enemy is within 5 ft of him.
On this, I think I'd go with NightsLastHero. I think I'd rule it that cancelling out doesn't eradicate the situation, just averages the roll (which I think is the purpose), because I think it is more elegant than house-ruling specific situations, but the effect would be that sneak attack while blinded is not really possible.
Dammit!
That doesn't work either. If it worked like that (if you have both, you only roll 1d20 but it counts as if you have both, rather than neither) it overcompensates (you can sneak attack when you have both even without an ally).
Hm. I should have known the rule of cancellation is there for a reason. I guess specific house ruling may be the way to go - and it was obviously left out of the general rule for simplicity.
Well played, JC. :p
At least according to the rules
Yes, I believe Full-Plate was +8 Armor with a +1 maximum Dex modifier
Also, negative Dex scores lowered your AC, even in Full-Plate
So, the idea that you couldn't dodge attacks in full plate (especially when you try to add the idea of "realism" into the equation) is just patently wrong. You aren't nearly as mobile in heavy armor, sure. But you don't just stand still and take beatings until someone gets lucky enough to slip through the chink in the armor.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
InquisitiveCoder, the primary reason I dislike advantage/disadvantage is because it is always a +5/-5. Disadvantage almost guarantees a failure (this could mean that at some point you end up risking turning to stone to attack a medusa because you have less chance to turn to stone than you have chance of dying while having disadvantage), while advantage gives you a slightly higher chance of success.
So yes, it is faster, but there are just somethings that shouldn't have that high of a penalty.
5th still has the same skill problems. Rogues for example will have x2 prof. bonus to four skills after a certain point. While everyone else has a bonus of about half that to the skills they are good with, and even less on the skills they aren't good with. Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't really help here.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.