So I was having debate with one of my players about a possible upcoming scenario and I would love some input. He is a multi-classed Sorcerer/warlock and at some point soon hopes to use the Magical Darkness/Devil Sight combo. The party also includes a Ranger/Rogue multi-class and she makes great use of her Sneak Attack.
Now I understand that if all creatures, both friendly and hostile, are in total Darkness then all advantage from unseen attacks and disadvantage from being the target of an unseen attacker cancel out, creating a level playing field (a bunch of people blindfolded with sticks have an equal opportunity to hit one another.)
The issue I'm running into is this: Would, or should, the Rogue be able use her sneak attack skill even though she is in total darkness? My initial thought was no, because even though according to the RAW its a level playing field and she should still be able to do things like get advantage on an attack if the hostile creature is within 5 feet of here allies etc. but thematically I'm hitting a wall because its a skill that assumes the creature (lets say a bugbear) is being distracted by an ally (lets say our paladin Dwarf) so the rogue takes advantage of that distraction and zeros in on a vulnerable spot and gains advantage. But in Darkness, The Bugbear can't see the Paladin to be distracted or engaged in the same way he could in light, the rogue can't study the bugbear in darkness and is essentially using her hearing and firing a shot into the dark. So it makes little sense to me to allow the use of certain skills that rely on such thematic precision even though total darkness for all creates a level playing field (except for the Devil sighted Sorlock who is running around wreaking havoc.)
Now I will say in this scenario the only player with Devil Sight would be the Sorcerer/Warlock, the other three players do not (rogue/ranger, paladin, bard) and the while it is a useful strategy for the Sorlock, he was concerned that it would nerf the other players abilities and we wanted to get a clear answer before this scenario presents itself.
I do know that as DM I can rule one way or the other but, cheesy as it sounds, i like to create a game where all the players feel a sense of ownership and agency in the world and would rather not slam down an iron monarchial fist and instead get input and make a decision. I should say that I do value thematically believable RP in my games fairly high. Thank you in advance for any and all input. What do you guys think?
The easy answer is no, the Rogue will not get Sneak Attack.
[snip]...if you have advantage on the attack roll...[snip]
This is the part of skill that is the most important. In relation to the situation you've provided the Advantage that would have been earned by an adjacent ally, or from being hidden, is negated by the Disadvantage imposed by Darkness.
By RAW, yes. This is the part you are refering to right?
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
Your disadvantage of being blind is negated by the advantage of being unseen.
Honestly, the whole not having disadvantage to hit because they can't see either is kind of dumb. If you want to, house rule that it is blanket disadvantage. Rogues eventually get blindsense at level 14.
It’s less about advantage/disadvantage, I was more curious if the rogue should still get the 1D6 extra sneak attack damage if the target was adjacent to an ally in total darkness where no one can see anything.
It’s less about advantage/disadvantage, I was more curious if the rogue should still get the 1D6 extra sneak attack damage if the target was adjacent to an ally in total darkness where no one can see anything.
An ally of yours standing next to the target removes the need for advantage, allowing Sneak Attack damage, unless you have disadvantage.
Darkness applies disadvantage.
Sneak attack cannot be applied.
Being unseen applies advantage.
The advantage, and disadvantage negate each other.
Sneak Attack cannot be applied.
Are you implying that the negated disadvantage still prevents the sneak attack? Because that is incorrect per RAW.
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.
Ok, this is one of those cases where I believe the strict reading of the letter of the book is choosing to look for a loophole rather than going by RAW.
In order for the quoted text to be true you must have both Advantage and Disadvantage occurring simultaneously.
Advantage ~ +5 bonus to the roll
Disadvantage ~ -5 bonus to the roll
X + 5 - 5 = X
It doesn't mean that the dis/advantage never existed, it simply means the two states create an equilibrium or negate each other. You are, in effect, adding and removing bonuses to attack, such as the +1 from a magic weapon. As such Sneak attack cannot happen.
Ok, this is one of those cases where I believe the strict reading of the letter of the book is choosing to look for a loophole rather than going by RAW.
In order for the quoted text to be true you must have both Advantage and Disadvantage occurring simultaneously.
Advantage ~ +5 bonus to the roll
Disadvantage ~ -5 bonus to the roll
X + 5 - 5 = X
It doesn't mean that the dis/advantage never existed, it simply means the two states create an equilibrium or negate each other. You are, in effect, adding and removing bonuses to attack, such as the +1 from a magic weapon. As such Sneak attack cannot happen.
This is incorrect. RAW *and* RAI both state that Sneak Attack can occur. I'll requote what he quoted above for emphasis:
If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20.
You said you believe reading it as such is "looking for a loophole" - I would argue that you ignoring RAW and RAI and house ruling based on how you feel theatre of the mind should play out is closer to that than anything else. :P The intent of the rule here is to simplify combat layers, if you start following the route you're talking about, you get into semantics about balancing levels of advantage and disadvantage (one could argue the exact opposite result in specific situations - if you have 10 sources of Advantage, doesn't that negate a single source of Disadvantage?), which is a large part of what the combat systems in 5E are attempting to avoid.
You said you believe reading it as such is "looking for a loophole" - I would argue that you ignoring RAW and RAI and house ruling based on how you feel theatre of the mind should play out is closer to that than anything else. :P The intent of the rule here is to simplify combat layers, if you start following the route you're talking about, you get into semantics about balancing levels of advantage and disadvantage (one could argue the exact opposite result in specific situations - if you have 10 sources of Advantage, doesn't that negate a single source of Disadvantage?), which is a large part of what the combat systems in 5E are attempting to avoid.
-Darkness imposes the Blinded status on the attacker. This gives the attacker disadvantage on their attacks.
-Darkness imposes the Blinded status on the defender. This gives attacks advantage against them.
Each creature has its own state during the time they are in the range of Darkness.
-Having an ally adjacent to the enemy imposes advantage for the attacker.
The rogue is still Blinded, the status has not vanished. The advantage and disadvantage imposed by these situations are bonuses to the attack. They are a mathematical problem. Advantage and disadvantage give, approximately, +5 and -5 respectively to the roll made.
X +5 -5 = X
The bonuses negate each other, they don't change the state of Blinded, they don't change that disadvantage is still applied from that state. As such I cannot see how the rogue would get sneak attack.
----
It's not about balancing layers of dis/advantage, it's about status effects/conditions and attack bonuses. I get that I'm on the unpopular side of the fence here, and I'm ok with that. I appreciate the conversation as it's been had so far.
Except, for that X-5+5=X, when you have both -5 and +5, it is treated as not having any. So no math. Just X=X. I’m just sharing my opinion. As it is treated as you don’t have disadvantage or advantage. However, that might mean you can’t use it, if you don’t have an ally within 5ft.
Except, for that X-5+5=X, when you have both -5 and +5, it is treated as not having any. So no math. Just X=X. I’m just sharing my opinion. As it is treated as you don’t have disadvantage or advantage. However, that might mean you can’t use it, if you don’t have an ally within 5ft.
Right, the math has nothing to do with it, it's about the fact that you're Blinded. While Blinded there is disadvantage applied and once it's been applied it negates the sneak attack. When you roll, the disadvantage and advantage bonuses negate each other. It doesn't change the fact that disadvantage was applied in the first place.
As well, just my take on it. I do understand where you and DxJxC are coming from, don't get me wrong, I just feel that there's something more to it than purely dis/advantage.
-Having an ally adjacent to the enemy imposes advantage for the attacker.
Ahh, I apologize, I misinterpreted your argument, but I do think I see where the confusion comes from (perhaps?). The Rogue does not gain Sneak Attack because he has advantage in this case - in fact, unless you're using the optional Flanking rules, having an ally adjacent to the enemy does not actually even give advantage. The Rogue has a flat roll on his attack, neither disadvantage nor advantage.
Sneak Attack specifically occurs in this case because of this line of the ability:
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
So, yes, he does not have advantage, but he does not have disadvantage either. The rules specifically state that having both means you treat the roll as having neither:
If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20.
So you treat it as if neither advantage nor disadvantage had applied to the roll, leaving the first quoted line from Sneak Attack being the only relevant one. Having an ally within melee of the enemy isn't granting him advantage, it's simply allowing Sneak Attack to work if he doesn't have disadvantage (which he doesn't, since having both advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out).
EDIT: Note that Sneak Attack specifically states "disadvantage on the roll", not having disadvantage altogether, and the advantage/disadvantage rules specifically state that you do not have disadvantage or advantage on the roll if you have both. It's not checking if the character's state gives them disadvantage, just whether the roll itself has disadvantage, which it doesn't.
Honestly, in reading all statements, this is the only part that matters:
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
As long as that condition is met ^, Sneak Attack applies. Since darkness prevents both advantage and disadvantage, just make sure there is a friendly next to the enemy targeted by the rogue, and you're good.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
Your disadvantage of being blind is negated by the advantage of being unseen.
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.
In conclusion, since you don't have disadvantage and the target has an enemy within 5 feet of them, you can sneak attack.
I've been quite thorough. I quoted the rule that says you don't need advantage and the rule that says you don't have disadvantage. There isn't even any room for interpretation, this is the RAW and anything else is a house rule.
I think folks have made it very clear that sneak attack can occur in darkness (when no one can see) as long as there is an opponent of the target adjacent to them.
The key rules citations are (from above):
1) "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20."
Disadvantage doesn't carry over at all. It is not a status effect. If one or more instances of disadvantage is canceled by one or more instances of advantage then you have NEITHER.
2) "You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."
Sneak attack does not require advantage. It only requires another enemy of the target within 5'. Period. You also do NOT have disadvantage on the attack roll if advantage and disadvantage cancel.
3) DMThac0's confusion may stem from his statement:
"-Having an ally adjacent to the enemy imposes advantage for the attacker."
This is NOT a 5e rule. I'm not sure where it is coming from. The closest is the optional flanking rules in the DMG. Sneak attack does not depend on an adjacent enemy of the target imposing advantage to enable sneak attack. This rule doesn't exist. The rule on sneak attack (cited above) requires an opponent of the target within 5' and the rogue can not be rolling with disadvantage.
----------
So, to answer the OP, the rogue is eligible to use sneak attack against an opponent in darkness (where neither can see) if there is an enemy of the opponent within 5' of it.
Yes, the comment about advantage by having an ally adjacent is due to the idea of flanking, something that is somewhat hardwired into my brain from previous editions.
Now, from what I've read by all of the previous posts, the conclusion is this:
If there is no disadvantage given to the Rogue, or there's both advantage and disadvantage given to the Rogue, and an ally is adjacent to the enemy, no matter any other circumstances, they'll get sneak attack.
-A Rogue has used an item to become invisible, fires an arrow across the room at an Invisible Stalker. He gets sneak attack because his Fighter buddy happens to be in a square adjacent to the creature even though no one is aware.
-A Rogue who's grappled can get sneak attack because Guiding Bolt was cast on the creature grappling him and the Cleric who cast it is standing next to the creature.
-A Rogue can sneak attack his quarry, in a sphere of magical darkness, simply because his ally happens to be standing in the correct square, adjacent to the enemy.
Hey All,
So I was having debate with one of my players about a possible upcoming scenario and I would love some input. He is a multi-classed Sorcerer/warlock and at some point soon hopes to use the Magical Darkness/Devil Sight combo. The party also includes a Ranger/Rogue multi-class and she makes great use of her Sneak Attack.
Now I understand that if all creatures, both friendly and hostile, are in total Darkness then all advantage from unseen attacks and disadvantage from being the target of an unseen attacker cancel out, creating a level playing field (a bunch of people blindfolded with sticks have an equal opportunity to hit one another.)
The issue I'm running into is this: Would, or should, the Rogue be able use her sneak attack skill even though she is in total darkness? My initial thought was no, because even though according to the RAW its a level playing field and she should still be able to do things like get advantage on an attack if the hostile creature is within 5 feet of here allies etc. but thematically I'm hitting a wall because its a skill that assumes the creature (lets say a bugbear) is being distracted by an ally (lets say our paladin Dwarf) so the rogue takes advantage of that distraction and zeros in on a vulnerable spot and gains advantage. But in Darkness, The Bugbear can't see the Paladin to be distracted or engaged in the same way he could in light, the rogue can't study the bugbear in darkness and is essentially using her hearing and firing a shot into the dark. So it makes little sense to me to allow the use of certain skills that rely on such thematic precision even though total darkness for all creates a level playing field (except for the Devil sighted Sorlock who is running around wreaking havoc.)
Now I will say in this scenario the only player with Devil Sight would be the Sorcerer/Warlock, the other three players do not (rogue/ranger, paladin, bard) and the while it is a useful strategy for the Sorlock, he was concerned that it would nerf the other players abilities and we wanted to get a clear answer before this scenario presents itself.
I do know that as DM I can rule one way or the other but, cheesy as it sounds, i like to create a game where all the players feel a sense of ownership and agency in the world and would rather not slam down an iron monarchial fist and instead get input and make a decision. I should say that I do value thematically believable RP in my games fairly high. Thank you in advance for any and all input. What do you guys think?
The easy answer is no, the Rogue will not get Sneak Attack.
This is the part of skill that is the most important. In relation to the situation you've provided the Advantage that would have been earned by an adjacent ally, or from being hidden, is negated by the Disadvantage imposed by Darkness.
By RAW, yes. This is the part you are refering to right?
Your disadvantage of being blind is negated by the advantage of being unseen.
Honestly, the whole not having disadvantage to hit because they can't see either is kind of dumb. If you want to, house rule that it is blanket disadvantage. Rogues eventually get blindsense at level 14.
It’s less about advantage/disadvantage, I was more curious if the rogue should still get the 1D6 extra sneak attack damage if the target was adjacent to an ally in total darkness where no one can see anything.
This is the question I answered.
An ally of yours standing next to the target removes the need for advantage, allowing Sneak Attack damage, unless you have disadvantage.
Darkness applies disadvantage.
Sneak attack cannot be applied.
Being unseen applies advantage.
The advantage, and disadvantage negate each other.
Sneak Attack cannot be applied.
Y’all are awesome, thank you!
Are you implying that the negated disadvantage still prevents the sneak attack? Because that is incorrect per RAW.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AdvantageandDisadvantage
I agree that it is dumb, but thats the rule.
In conclusion, since you don't have disadvantage and the target has an enemy within 5 feet of them, you can sneak attack.
Ok, this is one of those cases where I believe the strict reading of the letter of the book is choosing to look for a loophole rather than going by RAW.
In order for the quoted text to be true you must have both Advantage and Disadvantage occurring simultaneously.
Advantage ~ +5 bonus to the roll
Disadvantage ~ -5 bonus to the roll
X + 5 - 5 = X
It doesn't mean that the dis/advantage never existed, it simply means the two states create an equilibrium or negate each other. You are, in effect, adding and removing bonuses to attack, such as the +1 from a magic weapon. As such Sneak attack cannot happen.
This is incorrect. RAW *and* RAI both state that Sneak Attack can occur. I'll requote what he quoted above for emphasis:
You said you believe reading it as such is "looking for a loophole" - I would argue that you ignoring RAW and RAI and house ruling based on how you feel theatre of the mind should play out is closer to that than anything else. :P The intent of the rule here is to simplify combat layers, if you start following the route you're talking about, you get into semantics about balancing levels of advantage and disadvantage (one could argue the exact opposite result in specific situations - if you have 10 sources of Advantage, doesn't that negate a single source of Disadvantage?), which is a large part of what the combat systems in 5E are attempting to avoid.
-Darkness imposes the Blinded status on the attacker. This gives the attacker disadvantage on their attacks.
-Darkness imposes the Blinded status on the defender. This gives attacks advantage against them.
Each creature has its own state during the time they are in the range of Darkness.
-Having an ally adjacent to the enemy imposes advantage for the attacker.
The rogue is still Blinded, the status has not vanished. The advantage and disadvantage imposed by these situations are bonuses to the attack. They are a mathematical problem. Advantage and disadvantage give, approximately, +5 and -5 respectively to the roll made.
X +5 -5 = X
The bonuses negate each other, they don't change the state of Blinded, they don't change that disadvantage is still applied from that state. As such I cannot see how the rogue would get sneak attack.
----
It's not about balancing layers of dis/advantage, it's about status effects/conditions and attack bonuses. I get that I'm on the unpopular side of the fence here, and I'm ok with that. I appreciate the conversation as it's been had so far.
Except, for that X-5+5=X, when you have both -5 and +5, it is treated as not having any. So no math. Just X=X. I’m just sharing my opinion. As it is treated as you don’t have disadvantage or advantage. However, that might mean you can’t use it, if you don’t have an ally within 5ft.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Right, the math has nothing to do with it, it's about the fact that you're Blinded. While Blinded there is disadvantage applied and once it's been applied it negates the sneak attack. When you roll, the disadvantage and advantage bonuses negate each other. It doesn't change the fact that disadvantage was applied in the first place.
As well, just my take on it. I do understand where you and DxJxC are coming from, don't get me wrong, I just feel that there's something more to it than purely dis/advantage.
Ahh, I apologize, I misinterpreted your argument, but I do think I see where the confusion comes from (perhaps?). The Rogue does not gain Sneak Attack because he has advantage in this case - in fact, unless you're using the optional Flanking rules, having an ally adjacent to the enemy does not actually even give advantage. The Rogue has a flat roll on his attack, neither disadvantage nor advantage.
Sneak Attack specifically occurs in this case because of this line of the ability:
So, yes, he does not have advantage, but he does not have disadvantage either. The rules specifically state that having both means you treat the roll as having neither:
So you treat it as if neither advantage nor disadvantage had applied to the roll, leaving the first quoted line from Sneak Attack being the only relevant one. Having an ally within melee of the enemy isn't granting him advantage, it's simply allowing Sneak Attack to work if he doesn't have disadvantage (which he doesn't, since having both advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out).
EDIT: Note that Sneak Attack specifically states "disadvantage on the roll", not having disadvantage altogether, and the advantage/disadvantage rules specifically state that you do not have disadvantage or advantage on the roll if you have both. It's not checking if the character's state gives them disadvantage, just whether the roll itself has disadvantage, which it doesn't.
Honestly, in reading all statements, this is the only part that matters:
As long as that condition is met ^, Sneak Attack applies. Since darkness prevents both advantage and disadvantage, just make sure there is a friendly next to the enemy targeted by the rogue, and you're good.
That is what I've been saying.
I've been quite thorough. I quoted the rule that says you don't need advantage and the rule that says you don't have disadvantage. There isn't even any room for interpretation, this is the RAW and anything else is a house rule.
I think folks have made it very clear that sneak attack can occur in darkness (when no one can see) as long as there is an opponent of the target adjacent to them.
The key rules citations are (from above):
1) "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20."
Disadvantage doesn't carry over at all. It is not a status effect. If one or more instances of disadvantage is canceled by one or more instances of advantage then you have NEITHER.
2) "You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."
Sneak attack does not require advantage. It only requires another enemy of the target within 5'. Period. You also do NOT have disadvantage on the attack roll if advantage and disadvantage cancel.
3) DMThac0's confusion may stem from his statement:
"-Having an ally adjacent to the enemy imposes advantage for the attacker."
This is NOT a 5e rule. I'm not sure where it is coming from. The closest is the optional flanking rules in the DMG. Sneak attack does not depend on an adjacent enemy of the target imposing advantage to enable sneak attack. This rule doesn't exist. The rule on sneak attack (cited above) requires an opponent of the target within 5' and the rogue can not be rolling with disadvantage.
----------
So, to answer the OP, the rogue is eligible to use sneak attack against an opponent in darkness (where neither can see) if there is an enemy of the opponent within 5' of it.
Yes, the comment about advantage by having an ally adjacent is due to the idea of flanking, something that is somewhat hardwired into my brain from previous editions.
Now, from what I've read by all of the previous posts, the conclusion is this:
If there is no disadvantage given to the Rogue, or there's both advantage and disadvantage given to the Rogue, and an ally is adjacent to the enemy, no matter any other circumstances, they'll get sneak attack.
-A Rogue has used an item to become invisible, fires an arrow across the room at an Invisible Stalker. He gets sneak attack because his Fighter buddy happens to be in a square adjacent to the creature even though no one is aware.
-A Rogue who's grappled can get sneak attack because Guiding Bolt was cast on the creature grappling him and the Cleric who cast it is standing next to the creature.
-A Rogue can sneak attack his quarry, in a sphere of magical darkness, simply because his ally happens to be standing in the correct square, adjacent to the enemy.