Just spitballing houserules, but I wonder how the math would shake out if the person attacking maintained disadvantage, but the person getting hit lost their DEX bonus to AC?
Why would you do that? Like, what is the justification to adding another a negative to the person receiving the attack. You're basically just mitigating the math on how a disadvantage roll would work.
There are several people who rule that Darkness allows people to see out of or through it into illuminated areas but Darkness does not. Dungeon Dudes give a good and intuitive explanation of the issues with RAW darkness rules here and a fairly intuitive explanation of how the spell ought to work. Darkness the spell creates a magical effect that dispels all natural light and magical light from level 2 spells or less, but also demands two pretty rare conditions to counteract it.
Characters without Truesight, Blindsight, and/or Devil's Sight can't see into it, can't see through it, get disadvantage attacking into it, and disadvantage shooting/attacking out of it. I also rule that if Darkness is in place and characters are inside it before another character sees it go up, then everything inside of it is [Tooltip Not Found]. That said, the rules for Darkness obfuscating light and line of sight still apply and will look very suspicious to a patrol or anyone else passing by if it looks out of place.
That's the section you're referring to, but I disagree with your interpretation - nothing in that section addresses a situation where neither you nor your target can see each other. I still interpret the last sentence to mean that you get advantage if you can see the target but they can't see you - you're hidden, invisible, etc. Getting a normal attack roll while standing in a pitch black space where you can see literally nothing makes no sense.
I mean, I guess by your interpretation your opponent would ALSO get a normal attack roll which largely defeats the purpose of the spell. You put your enemy in and area of magical darkness: you can't see them, they can't see you, but you both attack normally?
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
That's the section you're referring to, but I disagree with your interpretation - nothing in that section addresses a situation where neither you nor your target can see each other. I still interpret the last sentence to mean that you get advantage if you can see the target but they can't see you - you're hidden, invisible, etc. Getting a normal attack roll while standing in a pitch black space where you can see literally nothing makes no sense.
I mean, I guess by your interpretation your opponent would ALSO get a normal attack roll which largely defeats the purpose of the spell. You put your enemy in and area of magical darkness: you can't see them, they can't see you, but you both attack normally?
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
My point exactly. And honestly, I think that even RAW were intended to work that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
RAW Advantage + Disadvantage is intended to cancel each other out. Multiple Dev Q&A involving Heavily Obscured areas have been posted over time. Here's an example
The idea was to have a middle ground between completely canceling the disadvantage and having only the disadvantage. The justification, rationale-wise, is that someone who can't see their attacker will not be reacting to the attack. DEX bonus to AC, is about being able to get out of the way. Armor AC is about blows landing but not causing damage.
That said, I'm not against just keeping the disadvantage. I was just spitballing some other ideas.
That's the section you're referring to, but I disagree with your interpretation - nothing in that section addresses a situation where neither you nor your target can see each other. I still interpret the last sentence to mean that you get advantage if you can see the target but they can't see you - you're hidden, invisible, etc. Getting a normal attack roll while standing in a pitch black space where you can see literally nothing makes no sense.
I mean, I guess by your interpretation your opponent would ALSO get a normal attack roll which largely defeats the purpose of the spell. You put your enemy in and area of magical darkness: you can't see them, they can't see you, but you both attack normally?
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
They're not fighting the same, it's just that the result is the same. You're taking wild swings that simultaneously are more likely to hit because the target can't see you coming and less likely to hit because you can't see your target. And by doing so you have also totally dropped your defenses.
Or however you want to describe it. The point that I made before stands (although no one has felt the need to address it) - defense is just as active and vital as offense when you are in close combat. Dodging, blocking, parrying, shifting your body to take a hit - all that stuff is tied up in your AC and losing it is not trivial and should not just be houseruled away.
Consider a real life example - you're locked in a room with a psycho with a knife. Would you feel safer by killing all the lights? Do you really think you'd be significantly less likely to get hurt?
That's the section you're referring to, but I disagree with your interpretation - nothing in that section addresses a situation where neither you nor your target can see each other. I still interpret the last sentence to mean that you get advantage if you can see the target but they can't see you - you're hidden, invisible, etc. Getting a normal attack roll while standing in a pitch black space where you can see literally nothing makes no sense.
I mean, I guess by your interpretation your opponent would ALSO get a normal attack roll which largely defeats the purpose of the spell. You put your enemy in and area of magical darkness: you can't see them, they can't see you, but you both attack normally?
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
They're not fighting the same, it's just that the result is the same. You're taking wild swings that simultaneously are more likely to hit because the target can't see you coming and less likely to hit because you can't see your target. And by doing so you have also totally dropped your defenses.
Or however you want to describe it. The point that I made before stands (although no one has felt the need to address it) - defense is just as active and vital as offense when you are in close combat. Dodging, blocking, parrying, shifting your body to take a hit - all that stuff is tied up in your AC and losing it is not trivial and should not just be houseruled away.
Consider a real life example - you're locked in a room with a psycho with a knife. Would you feel safer by killing all the lights? Do you really think you'd be significantly less likely to get hurt?
Although I agree the ability to see does affect your defense, if you have ever tried to fight blind you would realize that RAW on this is ridiculous.
I have real life experience in fighting blind, and training others to do so. I have also been in situations where both the 'attacker and defender' are blinded. Can it be done - yes. Can it be done with the same effectiveness as if both can see - no. The way you do it, is by finding the opponent, and using one hand to grab them, then using your other limbs, etc. to fight. With practice, you can even begin to predict how the opponent is standing (and where their arms and legs are just by what you feel from your one handed grasp), but you will never be as effective as you are when you can see.
That only works within reach, at range if both people are blinded and moving, it becomes exponentially more difficult.
Here's a 'safe' experiment you can try. Stand 20' away from someone, and throw 10 water balloons at each other. Count how many hits each gets (feel free to move while doing so). Then repeat the experiment with both people blindfolded (don't forget to move), and count how many hits each gets.
I understand their desire to 'simplify' the rules, but this is just one case where the rule 'should' be - both attack at disadvantage. I'd even be happy saying 'both at disadvantage and neither can apply their dex bonus'. But to say "oh, well, both penalties negate each other so just roll normally" over-inflates the number of hits that will be scored.
Mix in other compatants that CAN see, and suddenly the idea of the two blind combatants hitting each other just as well as the sighted combatants hitting the other sighted combatants, becomes even more ridiculous.
You are free to play any way you wish, I'm houseruling that when blinded you are at disadvantage - period. If your enemy is also blinded, they can be at disadvantage as well, but the two conditions will not cancel each other out.
Although I agree the ability to see does affect your defense, if you have ever tried to fight blind you would realize that RAW on this is ridiculous.
I have real life experience in fighting blind, and training others to do so. I have also been in situations where both the 'attacker and defender' are blinded. Can it be done - yes. Can it be done with the same effectiveness as if both can see - no. The way you do it, is by finding the opponent, and using one hand to grab them, then using your other limbs, etc. to fight. With practice, you can even begin to predict how the opponent is standing (and where their arms and legs are just by what you feel from your one handed grasp), but you will never be as effective as you are when you can see.
That only works within reach, at range if both people are blinded and moving, it becomes exponentially more difficult.
Here's a 'safe' experiment you can try. Stand 20' away from someone, and throw 10 water balloons at each other. Count how many hits each gets (feel free to move while doing so). Then repeat the experiment with both people blindfolded (don't forget to move), and count how many hits each gets.
I understand their desire to 'simplify' the rules, but this is just one case where the rule 'should' be - both attack at disadvantage. I'd even be happy saying 'both at disadvantage and neither can apply their dex bonus'. But to say "oh, well, both penalties negate each other so just roll normally" over-inflates the number of hits that will be scored.
Mix in other compatants that CAN see, and suddenly the idea of the two blind combatants hitting each other just as well as the sighted combatants hitting the other sighted combatants, becomes even more ridiculous.
You are free to play any way you wish, I'm houseruling that when blinded you are at disadvantage - period. If your enemy is also blinded, they can be at disadvantage as well, but the two conditions will not cancel each other out.
Yes! This.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
That's the section you're referring to, but I disagree with your interpretation - nothing in that section addresses a situation where neither you nor your target can see each other. I still interpret the last sentence to mean that you get advantage if you can see the target but they can't see you - you're hidden, invisible, etc. Getting a normal attack roll while standing in a pitch black space where you can see literally nothing makes no sense.
I mean, I guess by your interpretation your opponent would ALSO get a normal attack roll which largely defeats the purpose of the spell. You put your enemy in and area of magical darkness: you can't see them, they can't see you, but you both attack normally?
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
They're not fighting the same, it's just that the result is the same. You're taking wild swings that simultaneously are more likely to hit because the target can't see you coming and less likely to hit because you can't see your target. And by doing so you have also totally dropped your defenses.
Or however you want to describe it. The point that I made before stands (although no one has felt the need to address it) - defense is just as active and vital as offense when you are in close combat. Dodging, blocking, parrying, shifting your body to take a hit - all that stuff is tied up in your AC and losing it is not trivial and should not just be houseruled away.
Consider a real life example - you're locked in a room with a psycho with a knife. Would you feel safer by killing all the lights? Do you really think you'd be significantly less likely to get hurt?
Yes, actually. With the assumption that it's dark enough that neither of us can see.
If I have to stand there (or make moves to avoid his attacks) for, say, six seconds and just hope he doesn't get me, I'd much rather the lights were off. Sure, I'd find it harder to dodge an on-target attack, but he's much more unlikely to actually get one. Now, if I were in an unfamiliar pitch black room and I had to escape, my answer might change because now I need to do something that very much would be aided by my own sight and losing that might well be more problematic than the psycho being able to see me - but that's not relevant to the specifics of what's being discussed or the scenario presented.
You're much less likely to be stabbed if neither of you can see than if you both can see, unless you're a martial arts expert with a heavy reliance on sight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Although I agree the ability to see does affect your defense, if you have ever tried to fight blind you would realize that RAW on this is ridiculous.
I have real life experience in fighting blind, and training others to do so. I have also been in situations where both the 'attacker and defender' are blinded. Can it be done - yes. Can it be done with the same effectiveness as if both can see - no. The way you do it, is by finding the opponent, and using one hand to grab them, then using your other limbs, etc. to fight. With practice, you can even begin to predict how the opponent is standing (and where their arms and legs are just by what you feel from your one handed grasp), but you will never be as effective as you are when you can see.
[snip]
This likely changes significantly when both people have weapons, however. You don't need a lot of finesse or awareness to hit someone with a sword if they aren't defending themselves.
Just spitballing houserules, but I wonder how the math would shake out if the person attacking maintained disadvantage, but the person getting hit lost their DEX bonus to AC?
Why would you do that? Like, what is the justification to adding another a negative to the person receiving the attack. You're basically just mitigating the math on how a disadvantage roll would work.
RAW is that only a handful of things can pierce or destroy Darkness: Dispel Magic, Daylight, Truesight, Blindsight, Devil's Sight, and breaking the caster's concentration.
There are several people who rule that Darkness allows people to see out of or through it into illuminated areas but Darkness does not. Dungeon Dudes give a good and intuitive explanation of the issues with RAW darkness rules here and a fairly intuitive explanation of how the spell ought to work. Darkness the spell creates a magical effect that dispels all natural light and magical light from level 2 spells or less, but also demands two pretty rare conditions to counteract it.
Characters without Truesight, Blindsight, and/or Devil's Sight can't see into it, can't see through it, get disadvantage attacking into it, and disadvantage shooting/attacking out of it. I also rule that if Darkness is in place and characters are inside it before another character sees it go up, then everything inside of it is [Tooltip Not Found]. That said, the rules for Darkness obfuscating light and line of sight still apply and will look very suspicious to a patrol or anyone else passing by if it looks out of place.
edit: Forgot Tremorsense
I also have a house rule for this which I constantly forget to mention. Until it comes up.
If both of the combatants are in darkness and neither can see, they both have disadvantage to hit each other. I don't care what the rules say. There is NO way two blind fighters are going to fight the same as two fighters that can see each other.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
My point exactly. And honestly, I think that even RAW were intended to work that way.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
RAW Advantage + Disadvantage is intended to cancel each other out. Multiple Dev Q&A involving Heavily Obscured areas have been posted over time. Here's an example
I ranged attack enemy in a cloud from outside cloud, advantage or disadvantage?
The idea was to have a middle ground between completely canceling the disadvantage and having only the disadvantage. The justification, rationale-wise, is that someone who can't see their attacker will not be reacting to the attack. DEX bonus to AC, is about being able to get out of the way. Armor AC is about blows landing but not causing damage.
That said, I'm not against just keeping the disadvantage. I was just spitballing some other ideas.
They're not fighting the same, it's just that the result is the same. You're taking wild swings that simultaneously are more likely to hit because the target can't see you coming and less likely to hit because you can't see your target. And by doing so you have also totally dropped your defenses.
Or however you want to describe it. The point that I made before stands (although no one has felt the need to address it) - defense is just as active and vital as offense when you are in close combat. Dodging, blocking, parrying, shifting your body to take a hit - all that stuff is tied up in your AC and losing it is not trivial and should not just be houseruled away.
Consider a real life example - you're locked in a room with a psycho with a knife. Would you feel safer by killing all the lights? Do you really think you'd be significantly less likely to get hurt?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Although I agree the ability to see does affect your defense, if you have ever tried to fight blind you would realize that RAW on this is ridiculous.
I have real life experience in fighting blind, and training others to do so. I have also been in situations where both the 'attacker and defender' are blinded. Can it be done - yes. Can it be done with the same effectiveness as if both can see - no. The way you do it, is by finding the opponent, and using one hand to grab them, then using your other limbs, etc. to fight. With practice, you can even begin to predict how the opponent is standing (and where their arms and legs are just by what you feel from your one handed grasp), but you will never be as effective as you are when you can see.
That only works within reach, at range if both people are blinded and moving, it becomes exponentially more difficult.
Here's a 'safe' experiment you can try. Stand 20' away from someone, and throw 10 water balloons at each other. Count how many hits each gets (feel free to move while doing so). Then repeat the experiment with both people blindfolded (don't forget to move), and count how many hits each gets.
I understand their desire to 'simplify' the rules, but this is just one case where the rule 'should' be - both attack at disadvantage. I'd even be happy saying 'both at disadvantage and neither can apply their dex bonus'. But to say "oh, well, both penalties negate each other so just roll normally" over-inflates the number of hits that will be scored.
Mix in other compatants that CAN see, and suddenly the idea of the two blind combatants hitting each other just as well as the sighted combatants hitting the other sighted combatants, becomes even more ridiculous.
You are free to play any way you wish, I'm houseruling that when blinded you are at disadvantage - period. If your enemy is also blinded, they can be at disadvantage as well, but the two conditions will not cancel each other out.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Yes! This.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Yes, actually. With the assumption that it's dark enough that neither of us can see.
If I have to stand there (or make moves to avoid his attacks) for, say, six seconds and just hope he doesn't get me, I'd much rather the lights were off. Sure, I'd find it harder to dodge an on-target attack, but he's much more unlikely to actually get one. Now, if I were in an unfamiliar pitch black room and I had to escape, my answer might change because now I need to do something that very much would be aided by my own sight and losing that might well be more problematic than the psycho being able to see me - but that's not relevant to the specifics of what's being discussed or the scenario presented.
You're much less likely to be stabbed if neither of you can see than if you both can see, unless you're a martial arts expert with a heavy reliance on sight.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This likely changes significantly when both people have weapons, however. You don't need a lot of finesse or awareness to hit someone with a sword if they aren't defending themselves.
However, they are defending themselves.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
In the dark? You can't really do so unless you can anticipate an attack and its direction of origin.