That's why I am waiting on the official response. It doesn't make sense if two blind people are fighting to say "oh they cancel out so it's normal attacks". That would mean they are no longer 'blind". And to everyone they are in combat like they see each other. Which is incredibly dumb. IMO
There is no shortage of RAW that doesn't make sense. This isn't a close call, it's quite clearly how the rules work.
Partly I'd assume this is because that was considered an edge case scenario; how often has anyone actually had a case where both sides of a fight are blinded? Plus, it keeps play moving when the field is equal, rather than stalling things out with a bunch of additional misses on both sides.
Not seeing someone and not knowing where someone is are two separate issues. Advantage and disadvantage cancelling out is under the assumption that the attacker is attacking the correct position, whether that's from knowing where the target is or just getting lucky picking a random spot.
Partly I'd assume this is because that was considered an edge case scenario; how often has anyone actually had a case where both sides of a fight are blinded? Plus, it keeps play moving when the field is equal, rather than stalling things out with a bunch of additional misses on both sides.
You've never had two characters without dark vision fighting at night?
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.
Sage questions for when SAC starts accepting questions:
1) Blindsight: If you have Blindsight and the caster cast fog cloud on you, but they are outside the fog, can you pierce through the fog and see the caster? Or is Blindsight like an off on switch, meaning it overrides your natural sight until you leave the fog? Seems kind of silly because then people can fire missiles at you with advantage from the outside.
2) Darkness: If you and another creature, fight in the dark wouldn't you both have disadvantage, since you don't know each other's position? Some believe that since you also have advantage when attacking someone can't see you/know your position, that both disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out. But if that happens, it would be like you weren't in darkness anymore.
2) RAW, in that scenario, you won't have disadvantage or advantage. They cancel out. Some traits, features, feats or spells could help you see through darkness to turn things in your favor.
That's why I am waiting on the official response. It doesn't make sense if two blind people are fighting to say "oh they cancel out so it's normal attacks". That would mean they are no longer 'blind". And to everyone they are in combat like they see each other. Which is incredibly dumb. IMO
I could agree it's not common sense, but it's not about "seeing each other", it's just a consequence of how Advantage/Disadvantage works. It's a simple mechanic, so it can lead to this kind of behavior.
In another place I left my personal opinion about having some modifiers included in the rules like those in AD&D or 3e, at least as a guideline for DMs, could help give a slight advantage to one side or the other.
Anyway, an official response is always welcome for sure.
Sage questions for when SAC starts accepting questions:
2) Darkness: If you and another creature, fight in the dark wouldn't you both have disadvantage, since you don't know each other's position? Some believe that since you also have advantage when attacking someone can't see you/know your position, that both disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out. But if that happens, it would be like you weren't in darkness anymore.
2) RAW, in that scenario, you won't have disadvantage or advantage. They cancel out. Some traits, features, feats or spells could help you see through darkness to turn things in your favor.
That's why I am waiting on the official response. It doesn't make sense if two blind people are fighting to say "oh they cancel out so it's normal attacks". That would mean they are no longer 'blind". And to everyone they are in combat like they see each other. Which is incredibly dumb. IMO
That is the official response. If you have advantage and disadvantage, you roll normally.
Does it make sense? Eh. One can argue that if the combatants can neither target nor accurately defend, it'll come out in the wash.
More importantly, two foes swinging at each other with disadvantage is an annoying, boring, whiff-fest.
Sage Advice exists for resolving internal conflicts of the game rules (ie rule A conflicting with rule B) or situations where a rule is unclear. The whole "two creatures fighting in darkness or while both blinded cancels out" falls under neither of these. The rule is clear—Advantage + Disadvantage = Both Cancel. There's also no internal rules conflict, nothing about any of the involved rules clashes.
What there is is an external rules conflict, specifically the rules "conflict" with an assumption about how things "should" work based on some assumptions that may or may not reflect reality/the game.
I don't think this would fall under something that Sage Advice would need to clarify.
More importantly, two foes swinging at each other with disadvantage is an annoying, boring, whiff-fest.
The issue is that the rules' solution to "I can't see my enemy, but if I go into darkness, shoot blindly, and it's all good as though I could see them all along!", which is counterintuitive.
Personally, I'd rule that they just can't engage or something. But people get stuck on RAW.
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.
Partly I'd assume this is because that was considered an edge case scenario; how often has anyone actually had a case where both sides of a fight are blinded? Plus, it keeps play moving when the field is equal, rather than stalling things out with a bunch of additional misses on both sides.
You've never had two characters without dark vision fighting at night?
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Partially Incorporeal. You can move through occupied spaces as if they were Difficult Terrain. If you end your turn in such a space, you are shunted to the last unoccupied space you were in.
Compare that to the Ghost:
incorporeal Movement.The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were Difficult Terrain. lt takes 5 (1d10) Force damage if it ends its turn inside an object.
It's not, given that there's been other threads on this matter. But thank you for your input. I'll wait for Sage to give a final ruling
The discussion in that thread seems to mostly be based on a misreading of the rules for moving around other creatures, and doesn't (to me) seem pertinent to your question. For your question regarding walking through walls and doors, the answer is "Yes you can." Occupied space is defined as a space completely filled by a creature or an object. An object is defined as "An object is a nonliving, distinct thing. Composite things, like buildings, comprise more than one object. See also “Breaking Objects.” In "Breaking Objects", the "Large" object examples are a cart and a dining room table. If you can pass through an entire cart with Partially Incorporeal(as it is an object filling a space, making the space "occupied"), I don't see why you wouldn't be able to pass through a door. There is not a fundamental difference between a table and a door or a section of wall as per the rules.
You can wait for the Sage Advice, but I really don't find any ambiguity in the rules regarding your question that would require a ruling. The only difference between the two abilities you mentioned is the "through occupied spaces" vs "through other creatures and objects", but "occupied space" is literally defined as "A space is occupied if a creature is in it or if it is completely filled by objects," so really they are saying the exact same thing.
Another thing about waiting for Sage Advice: There's no guarantee they'll ever see your question here. While there's a forum staff member who's making an attempt at getting proper eyes on this, there's no confirmation that the right people are seeing this and no staff answering the questions officially in this thread. This thread was just to discuss the Sage Advice return. So you're better off reading the response, reading the text of the ability, and moving forward.
(Also yes. Looking at the definition of occupied spaces, you can move through walls and other such objects.)
The discussion in that thread seems to mostly be based on a misreading of the rules for moving around other creatures, and doesn't (to me) seem pertinent to your question. [...]
I agree with you that most of the debate ended up being about what you said, but to be honest, I mentioned the thread because it started with a couple of replies about whether the feature allows you to move through walls.
I've been trying to find if the 2024 books just pick and choose what changed from 2014, or is it because if they didn't include it in 2024, then that rule is no longer valid?
Flanking, an optional rule in 2014 nonetheless has been a topic of discussion as to why it wasn't included in 2024. Is it because there was nothing to change or because it is no longer an optional rule?
Also I have seen arguments about monsters such as the Ogre Orc, being converted to Toughs, a general classification, in the 2024 MM. Certainly that doesn't mean Ogres Orcs no longer exist?
There is no shortage of RAW that doesn't make sense. This isn't a close call, it's quite clearly how the rules work.
Partly I'd assume this is because that was considered an edge case scenario; how often has anyone actually had a case where both sides of a fight are blinded? Plus, it keeps play moving when the field is equal, rather than stalling things out with a bunch of additional misses on both sides.
I wasn't asking a question, just waiting for the official response from SAC.
Not seeing someone and not knowing where someone is are two separate issues. Advantage and disadvantage cancelling out is under the assumption that the attacker is attacking the correct position, whether that's from knowing where the target is or just getting lucky picking a random spot.
You've never had two characters without dark vision fighting at night?
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.
I could agree it's not common sense, but it's not about "seeing each other", it's just a consequence of how Advantage/Disadvantage works. It's a simple mechanic, so it can lead to this kind of behavior.
In another place I left my personal opinion about having some modifiers included in the rules like those in AD&D or 3e, at least as a guideline for DMs, could help give a slight advantage to one side or the other.
Anyway, an official response is always welcome for sure.
EDIT: fix grammar error.
That is the official response. If you have advantage and disadvantage, you roll normally.
Does it make sense? Eh. One can argue that if the combatants can neither target nor accurately defend, it'll come out in the wash.
More importantly, two foes swinging at each other with disadvantage is an annoying, boring, whiff-fest.
Sage Advice exists for resolving internal conflicts of the game rules (ie rule A conflicting with rule B) or situations where a rule is unclear. The whole "two creatures fighting in darkness or while both blinded cancels out" falls under neither of these. The rule is clear—Advantage + Disadvantage = Both Cancel. There's also no internal rules conflict, nothing about any of the involved rules clashes.
What there is is an external rules conflict, specifically the rules "conflict" with an assumption about how things "should" work based on some assumptions that may or may not reflect reality/the game.
I don't think this would fall under something that Sage Advice would need to clarify.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The issue is that the rules' solution to "I can't see my enemy, but if I go into darkness, shoot blindly, and it's all good as though I could see them all along!", which is counterintuitive.
Personally, I'd rule that they just can't engage or something. But people get stuck on RAW.
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.
Both need to be in the dark to this happen, no?
No, not that I can recall.
I have a question for the SAC when it comes to Monks.
Warrior of the Shadow Monks have this interesting 17th level ability called, Partial Incorporeal. Is that to be taken literally or metaphorically? If literal does that mean you can pass through thick brush, trees or even doors and walls?
Compare that to the Ghost:
I think this is answered pretty well by the definition of "Occupied Space" in the Player's Handbook: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/rules-glossary#OccupiedSpace
pronouns: he/she/they
There's a related thread about it in Rules & Game Mechanics: Shadow Monk movement 2024
All the more reason why Sage advice should make a ruling
It's not, given that there's been other threads on this matter. But thank you for your input. I'll wait for Sage to give a final ruling
The discussion in that thread seems to mostly be based on a misreading of the rules for moving around other creatures, and doesn't (to me) seem pertinent to your question. For your question regarding walking through walls and doors, the answer is "Yes you can." Occupied space is defined as a space completely filled by a creature or an object. An object is defined as "An object is a nonliving, distinct thing. Composite things, like buildings, comprise more than one object. See also “Breaking Objects.” In "Breaking Objects", the "Large" object examples are a cart and a dining room table. If you can pass through an entire cart with Partially Incorporeal (as it is an object filling a space, making the space "occupied"), I don't see why you wouldn't be able to pass through a door. There is not a fundamental difference between a table and a door or a section of wall as per the rules.
You can wait for the Sage Advice, but I really don't find any ambiguity in the rules regarding your question that would require a ruling. The only difference between the two abilities you mentioned is the "through occupied spaces" vs "through other creatures and objects", but "occupied space" is literally defined as "A space is occupied if a creature is in it or if it is completely filled by objects," so really they are saying the exact same thing.
Another thing about waiting for Sage Advice: There's no guarantee they'll ever see your question here. While there's a forum staff member who's making an attempt at getting proper eyes on this, there's no confirmation that the right people are seeing this and no staff answering the questions officially in this thread. This thread was just to discuss the Sage Advice return. So you're better off reading the response, reading the text of the ability, and moving forward.
(Also yes. Looking at the definition of occupied spaces, you can move through walls and other such objects.)
I agree with you that most of the debate ended up being about what you said, but to be honest, I mentioned the thread because it started with a couple of replies about whether the feature allows you to move through walls.
I also think it's fine, by the way.
EDIT: fix text.
I've been trying to find if the 2024 books just pick and choose what changed from 2014, or is it because if they didn't include it in 2024, then that rule is no longer valid?
Flanking, an optional rule in 2014 nonetheless has been a topic of discussion as to why it wasn't included in 2024. Is it because there was nothing to change or because it is no longer an optional rule?
Also I have seen arguments about monsters such as the
OgreOrc, being converted to Toughs, a general classification, in the 2024 MM. Certainly that doesn't meanOgresOrcs no longer exist?