The 50x80 chamber is filled with smoke creating a heavily obscured environment. The party wanting to investigate the western wall is following the left-hand wall so they do not get lost in the smoke because of the fear of traps. Halfway down three of the members, passive perception fires off as they hear the sounds of beating wings. From the smoke, ten feet away appears eight Smoke Mephit. Combat ensues.
The sorcerer and warlock cast Shatter and wipe out half of the Mephit. The fighter runs up to one and attacks. The cleric cast Spiritual Weapon behind the creatures and attacks with it. The rogue Hides and then moves to be in position for the next round to attack the creature engaged with the Fighter to get the Sneak Attack bonus.
Since both sides had the blinded in this heavily obscured environment the advantage/disadvantage negates each other so attack rolls are made as normal.
Question:
I think I did this encounter wrong.
1) Since the creatures were ten feet away should the spellcasters have been able to see the creatures, to know where they are to target their spells at a location point. (I know Shatter is not target based)? Or could are they able to cast the spell based on 'hearing' the beating of the mephit wing?
2) With the blindedshould the characters only be able to see what is in front of them or on a grid the adjacent square? If not what is the distance if everyone is in a heavily obscured environment that they can see?
3) Since both creatures are in the heavily obscured environment does the advantage/disadvantage rules of being blinded are negated and normal attack roles are made by both sides.
4) Smoke Mephit have the following ability:
"Cinder Breath (Recharge 6). The mephit exhales a 15-foot cone of smoldering ash. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or be blinded until the end of the mephit’s next turn."
While I never got around to using this ability in combat I realized that you cannot make the environment 'MORE' heavily obscured or a character 'MORE' blinded so if I were to have used it it would have done nothing to impact the players.
5) I think I got the rogue moves correct just not sure about moving right up to the mephit.
If there is more that I may have been missing please let me know.
1/2/5 There are no rules for senses other than obscurement. You cant break a rule that doesn't exist, so I think you are in the clear.
3/4 You are right about dis/advantage canceling out and blindness not stacking.
1 None of the spells mentioned require seeing the target, so no problems there.
I'd say you handled it pretty well. I do suggest establishing some house rules about senses if it is something you plan to use occasionally (and honestly you should, monsters hunt in the dark a lot).
The rogue Hides and then moves to be in position for the next round to attack the creature engaged with the Fighter to get the Sneak Attack bonus.
Based on your description thus far, this sounds impossible. The only thing for the Rogue to Hide behind is the smoke itself, and if they're far enough away for that to work, they can't see any mephits to attack.
1) Since the creatures were ten feet away should the spellcasters have been able to see the creatures, to know where they are to target their spells at a location point. (I know Shatter is not target based)? Or could are they able to cast the spell based on 'hearing' the beating of the mephit wing?
I thought what you meant from your post was that you were using modified smoke that allowed visibility within 10 feet. If you weren't allowing any visibility at all, then yeah, the PCs would need to fall back on other senses, like hearing and smell. The rules for these basically don't exist, but your ruling - perfect echolocation - is one that some other DMs on here also claim to use. I prefer to compare passive Stealth to passive Perception to figure out who hears what.
2) With the blindedshould the characters only be able to see what is in front of them or on a grid the adjacent square? If not what is the distance if everyone is in a heavily obscured environment that they can see?
0 feet. They should not be able to see their hands in front of their faces, let alone an adjacent creature, let alone one 10 feet away. A complete shutdown of visibility.
3) Since both creatures are in the heavily obscured environment does the advantage/disadvantage rules of being blinded are negated and normal attack roles are made by both sides.
Yes.
4) Smoke Mephit have the following ability:
"Cinder Breath (Recharge 6). The mephit exhales a 15-foot cone of smoldering ash. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or be blinded until the end of the mephit’s next turn."
While I never got around to using this ability in combat I realized that you cannot make the environment 'MORE' heavily obscured or a character 'MORE' blinded so if I were to have used it it would have done nothing to impact the players.
Correct. Being blinded while blinded doesn't change you.
5) I think I got the rogue moves correct just not sure about moving right up to the mephit.
Smoke mephits can't see in smoke, so the Rogue could 100% legally hide, but it's sus letting the Rogue hide and then move into position - for one thing, they'd need to know which position to move into. For another, it's inherently sus letting anyone walk around while blinded without any possibility of failing to walk in a straight line, failing to walk to the space they intended to walk to, and/or simply tripping and falling over, if the "arena" has any sort of debris or the like. Blinded is incredibly punishing. From the sound of it, you let all of your PCs and your mephits be Daredevil from Marvel despite them not having picked up any powers or abilities to justify it.
As DM, it is your choice as to how thick the smoke is. Is it so thick that PCs can't see even their hand in front of their face? Is it only thick enough to allow them to see within 5 ft clearly (adjacent squares), and lightly obscured within 10 ft, then heavily obscured beyond that? (Or some other ratio of clear/lightly/heavily?)
Whilst the rules (RAW?) say that two blinded opponents have advantage and disadvantage against each other (see other forum posts about this discussion). It seems better to just go with just disadvantage to both to represent the real situation of just blindly swinging weapons in the air.
1 - the spell doesn't require you to see the point at which the shatter originates, so they can just nominate a point 10 or 15 feet in a particular direction.
4 - although they can't be more blinded, it can affect their ability to see nearby if you apply my environment suggestions.
The rogue Hides and then moves to be in position for the next round to attack the creature engaged with the Fighter to get the Sneak Attack bonus.
Based on your description thus far, this sounds impossible. The only thing for the Rogue to Hide behind is the smoke itself, and if they're far enough away for that to work, they can't see any mephits to attack.
I was applying the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule so if that was not the case where the rule applies then ok I did do that wrong.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
The question of the density of the smoke I never thought about I was just going off of the Heavily Obsurced 'vision' but if I were to associate with anything now I would say it was similar to Fog Cloud
I'm not sure how this sounds but...
Based on the conversations here by RAW it seems that if you are sharing the same visual 'condition' with other creatures there are no penalties and combat runs as normal.
The 50x80 chamber is filled with smoke creating a heavily obscured environment. The party wanting to investigate the western wall is following the left-hand wall so they do not get lost in the smoke because of the fear of traps. Halfway down three of the members, passive perception fires off as they hear the sounds of beating wings. From the smoke, ten feet away appears eight Smoke Mephit. Combat ensues.
The sorcerer and warlock cast Shatter and wipe out half of the Mephit. The fighter runs up to one and attacks. The cleric cast Spiritual Weapon behind the creatures and attacks with it. The rogue Hides and then moves to be in position for the next round to attack the creature engaged with the Fighter to get the Sneak Attack bonus.
Since both sides had the blinded in this heavily obscured environment the advantage/disadvantage negates each other so attack rolls are made as normal.
Question:
I think I did this encounter wrong.
1) Since the creatures were ten feet away should the spellcasters have been able to see the creatures, to know where they are to target their spells at a location point. (I know Shatter is not target based)? Or could are they able to cast the spell based on 'hearing' the beating of the mephit wing?
The area is heavily obscured. Every creature in the area has the blinded condition. This means that they can see nothing. They can't see 5', they can't see 10', they can't see at all. The only way characters know where opponents are, are by the sounds or other indications (scent etc) of their presence. RAW, unless a creature is hidden, you know where it is. Hidden is unseen and unheard. A DM can decide that the ambient environment, e.g. noisy, makes it impossible to hear opponents - so if you can't see them, they may be automatically hidden. In addition, creatures may start an encounter hidden at the DMs discretion depending on stealth vs passive perception rolls. However, as soon as a creature makes an attack or casts a spell, its location is known.
So yes, RAW, you can justify the party knowing more or less where the mephits are (and their team mates) based on the sounds they make.
2) With the blindedshould the characters only be able to see what is in front of them or on a grid the adjacent square? If not what is the distance if everyone is in a heavily obscured environment that they can see?
If you are blinded, you can't see at all at any distance. Heavily obscured is effectively something like a pea soup fog or heavy darkness where you can't see your hand in front of your face. The only reason you know something is 5' away is because you hear it.
3) Since both creatures are in the heavily obscured environment does the advantage/disadvantage rules of being blinded are negated and normal attack roles are made by both sides.
Correct. Advantage and Disadvantage cancel when you can't see your target and they can't see you. This results in all attacks being straight rolls. It also cancels all other forms of Advantage and Disadvantage (attacking from prone, long range ranged attacks, range attacks with an opponent adjacent, reckless attack - all are nullified if Advantage and Disadvantage are already being canceled out due to vision being obscured).
4) Smoke Mephit have the following ability:
"Cinder Breath (Recharge 6). The mephit exhales a 15-foot cone of smoldering ash. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or be blinded until the end of the mephit’s next turn."
While I never got around to using this ability in combat I realized that you cannot make the environment 'MORE' heavily obscured or a character 'MORE' blinded so if I were to have used it it would have done nothing to impact the players.
Correct. Characters can't be blinded twice - it effectively does nothing in this environment.
5) I think I got the rogue moves correct just not sure about moving right up to the mephit.
If there is more that I may have been missing please let me know.
I think from a RAW perspective you ran it all correctly. Some folks have issues with it from a realism perspective, but rules wise I think you are fine. Unless you want to house rule it differently, the base line assumption is that the locations of creatures in combat are known due to the sounds they are making unless they take the hide action to prevent themselves from being heard and their position known. Since locations are known, creatures can move freely to position themselves as they like and casters can cast spells as long as they do not require them to see their target.
Some DMs find it a bit unreasonable to accurately target an AoE spell when you can't see the location where you want to place it nor see the creatures even though you know where they are because you can hear them. I usually just ascribe this to the caster knowing exactly how big their area of effect is and practice with the spell so that they can place it at whatever location within range they like even if they can't see that location or the creatures to be affected.
----
Finally, the "creature's location is known" concept needs to be leavened with some judgement out of combat. A character does not automatically know the locations of all the creatures in a room before they open the door for example. They might get an idea listening at the door - but in that case I would likely use a perception check (possibly with disadvantage due to the door) vs passive stealth of the creatures in the room to determine whether the person listening can figure out how many there might be and where. However, if you are walking down a street, and no one is hiding, then the default assumption is that you can see anyone who can see you (if it happens to be a really foggy day you are still aware of the location of all those people due to the noise they make - however, in such a case, a DM might rule that the sounds reveal creatures within 30' or some other distance, but creatures farther away are effectively hidden because you can't see or hear them clearly enough to determine their position).
So what about taking the hide in the heavily obscured environment? Would that effectively cancel out any tells the creature/player may give away and move without being seen or heard? I guess I'm looking at this from an invisibility or darkness spell point of view,
So what about taking the hide in the heavily obscured environment? Would that effectively cancel out any tells the creature/player may give away and move without being seen or heard? I guess I'm looking at this from an invisibility or darkness spell point of view,
Yes. A successful hide action (stealth > passive perception of other creature) would allow the creature that is now hidden to move to a different location without being detected. However, if they make an attack or cast a spell their position becomes known again. Keep in mind that if the group of creatures has a range of passive perception values then it is possible for the creature taking the hide action to be hidden from some of the creatures but not others.
So what about taking the hide in the heavily obscured environment? Would that effectively cancel out any tells the creature/player may give away and move without being seen or heard? I guess I'm looking at this from an invisibility or darkness spell point of view,
Yes, it would.
Unseen means that other creatures can't see you. They can still hear you and smell you and see your tracks, and therefore know where you are.
Hidden means unseen and unheard and unsmelt and leaving no tracks and so on. Other creatures don't know where you are and may not even know that you are there at all.
You need to do something to become hidden. In combat this is the Hide action (or bonus action for some classes).
I agree with everyone else, lots of good pointers here.
Another thing to watch for with AoE spells is whether they rely on sight. In this case, shatter does not, as it just reads, "a point of your choice within range," but other spells might read, "a point you can see within range" or something to that effect. In those cases, the caster would not be able to use them in this type of scenario because they are blinded and thus cannot see a point to target.
Remember if a rogue has disadvantage they can't sneak attack. Even if the effect is canceled out by advantage.
My ranger uses it to shut down sneak attack via assassins.
This I had not taken into consideration and the reasoning behind this is because the rogue initial state is at a disadvantage even though the attack roll is made is normal.
Remember if a rogue has disadvantage they can't sneak attack. Even if the effect is canceled out by advantage.
My ranger uses it to shut down sneak attack via assassins.
This I had not taken into consideration and the reasoning behind this is because the rogue initial state is at a disadvantage even though the attack roll is made is normal.
That is because it isn't correct :)
"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."
The rules on sneak attack from the rogue class explicitly state "disadvantage on the attack roll" ... not "any instance of disadvantage". So as long as the rogue is NOT rolling the attack at disadvantage they are eligible for sneak attack. In the case of both target and attacker being unable to see, the attacker has advantage because the target can not see them but they have disadvantage because they can not see the target - the advantage and disadvantage conditions cancel out leaving the attacker with neither advantage nor disadvantage.
Without "disadvantage on the attack roll" - sneak attack is perfectly ok as long as there is "another enemy of the target within 5' of it".
Remember if a rogue has disadvantage they can't sneak attack. Even if the effect is canceled out by advantage.
My ranger uses it to shut down sneak attack via assassins.
This I had not taken into consideration and the reasoning behind this is because the rogue initial state is at a disadvantage even though the attack roll is made is normal.
That is because it isn't correct :)
"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."
The rules on sneak attack from the rogue class explicitly state "disadvantage on the attack roll" ... not "any instance of disadvantage". So as long as the rogue is NOT rolling the attack at disadvantage they are eligible for sneak attack. In the case of both target and attacker being unable to see, the attacker has advantage because the target can not see them but they have disadvantage because they can not see the target - the advantage and disadvantage conditions cancel out leaving the attacker with neither advantage nor disadvantage.
Without "disadvantage on the attack roll" - sneak attack is perfectly ok as long as there is "another enemy of the target within 5' of it".
The phrase considered to not have them(disadvantage or advantage) is not the same as not having them. A beasts attacks "considered" magical can still be affected by spells that target non-magic weapons (assuming natural weapons)
I see it as the explanation creates a functional roll "Neither roll" but does not remove either effect.(otherwise how could the multiple instances still be even ). Still I am willing to concede for now. I will look further into it.
The phrase considered to not have them(disadvantage or advantage) is not the same as not having them. A beasts attacks "considered" magical can still be affected by spells that target non-magic weapons (assuming natural weapons)
I see it as the explanation creates a functional roll "Neither roll" but does not remove either effect.(otherwise how could the multiple instances still be even ). Still I am willing to concede for now. I will look further into it.
Setup:
The 50x80 chamber is filled with smoke creating a heavily obscured environment. The party wanting to investigate the western wall is following the left-hand wall so they do not get lost in the smoke because of the fear of traps. Halfway down three of the members, passive perception fires off as they hear the sounds of beating wings. From the smoke, ten feet away appears eight Smoke Mephit. Combat ensues.
The sorcerer and warlock cast Shatter and wipe out half of the Mephit. The fighter runs up to one and attacks. The cleric cast Spiritual Weapon behind the creatures and attacks with it. The rogue Hides and then moves to be in position for the next round to attack the creature engaged with the Fighter to get the Sneak Attack bonus.
Since both sides had the blinded in this heavily obscured environment the advantage/disadvantage negates each other so attack rolls are made as normal.
Question:
I think I did this encounter wrong.
1) Since the creatures were ten feet away should the spellcasters have been able to see the creatures, to know where they are to target their spells at a location point. (I know Shatter is not target based)? Or could are they able to cast the spell based on 'hearing' the beating of the mephit wing?
2) With the blindedshould the characters only be able to see what is in front of them or on a grid the adjacent square? If not what is the distance if everyone is in a heavily obscured environment that they can see?
3) Since both creatures are in the heavily obscured environment does the advantage/disadvantage rules of being blinded are negated and normal attack roles are made by both sides.
4) Smoke Mephit have the following ability:
"Cinder Breath (Recharge 6). The mephit exhales a 15-foot cone of smoldering ash. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or be blinded until the end of the mephit’s next turn."
While I never got around to using this ability in combat I realized that you cannot make the environment 'MORE' heavily obscured or a character 'MORE' blinded so if I were to have used it it would have done nothing to impact the players.
5) I think I got the rogue moves correct just not sure about moving right up to the mephit.
If there is more that I may have been missing please let me know.
1/2/5 There are no rules for senses other than obscurement. You cant break a rule that doesn't exist, so I think you are in the clear.
3/4 You are right about dis/advantage canceling out and blindness not stacking.
1 None of the spells mentioned require seeing the target, so no problems there.
I'd say you handled it pretty well. I do suggest establishing some house rules about senses if it is something you plan to use occasionally (and honestly you should, monsters hunt in the dark a lot).
Based on your description thus far, this sounds impossible. The only thing for the Rogue to Hide behind is the smoke itself, and if they're far enough away for that to work, they can't see any mephits to attack.
0 feet. They should not be able to see their hands in front of their faces, let alone an adjacent creature, let alone one 10 feet away. A complete shutdown of visibility.
Yes.
Correct. Being blinded while blinded doesn't change you.
Smoke mephits can't see in smoke, so the Rogue could 100% legally hide, but it's sus letting the Rogue hide and then move into position - for one thing, they'd need to know which position to move into. For another, it's inherently sus letting anyone walk around while blinded without any possibility of failing to walk in a straight line, failing to walk to the space they intended to walk to, and/or simply tripping and falling over, if the "arena" has any sort of debris or the like. Blinded is incredibly punishing. From the sound of it, you let all of your PCs and your mephits be Daredevil from Marvel despite them not having picked up any powers or abilities to justify it.
As DM, it is your choice as to how thick the smoke is. Is it so thick that PCs can't see even their hand in front of their face? Is it only thick enough to allow them to see within 5 ft clearly (adjacent squares), and lightly obscured within 10 ft, then heavily obscured beyond that? (Or some other ratio of clear/lightly/heavily?)
Whilst the rules (RAW?) say that two blinded opponents have advantage and disadvantage against each other (see other forum posts about this discussion). It seems better to just go with just disadvantage to both to represent the real situation of just blindly swinging weapons in the air.
1 - the spell doesn't require you to see the point at which the shatter originates, so they can just nominate a point 10 or 15 feet in a particular direction.
4 - although they can't be more blinded, it can affect their ability to see nearby if you apply my environment suggestions.
I was applying the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule so if that was not the case where the rule applies then ok I did do that wrong.
The question of the density of the smoke I never thought about I was just going off of the Heavily Obsurced 'vision' but if I were to associate with anything now I would say it was similar to Fog Cloud
I'm not sure how this sounds but...
Based on the conversations here by RAW it seems that if you are sharing the same visual 'condition' with other creatures there are no penalties and combat runs as normal.
oh, by the way, thanks for all the feedback. I appreciate it.
The area is heavily obscured. Every creature in the area has the blinded condition. This means that they can see nothing. They can't see 5', they can't see 10', they can't see at all. The only way characters know where opponents are, are by the sounds or other indications (scent etc) of their presence. RAW, unless a creature is hidden, you know where it is. Hidden is unseen and unheard. A DM can decide that the ambient environment, e.g. noisy, makes it impossible to hear opponents - so if you can't see them, they may be automatically hidden. In addition, creatures may start an encounter hidden at the DMs discretion depending on stealth vs passive perception rolls. However, as soon as a creature makes an attack or casts a spell, its location is known.
So yes, RAW, you can justify the party knowing more or less where the mephits are (and their team mates) based on the sounds they make.
If you are blinded, you can't see at all at any distance. Heavily obscured is effectively something like a pea soup fog or heavy darkness where you can't see your hand in front of your face. The only reason you know something is 5' away is because you hear it.
Correct. Advantage and Disadvantage cancel when you can't see your target and they can't see you. This results in all attacks being straight rolls. It also cancels all other forms of Advantage and Disadvantage (attacking from prone, long range ranged attacks, range attacks with an opponent adjacent, reckless attack - all are nullified if Advantage and Disadvantage are already being canceled out due to vision being obscured).
Correct. Characters can't be blinded twice - it effectively does nothing in this environment.
I think from a RAW perspective you ran it all correctly. Some folks have issues with it from a realism perspective, but rules wise I think you are fine. Unless you want to house rule it differently, the base line assumption is that the locations of creatures in combat are known due to the sounds they are making unless they take the hide action to prevent themselves from being heard and their position known. Since locations are known, creatures can move freely to position themselves as they like and casters can cast spells as long as they do not require them to see their target.
Some DMs find it a bit unreasonable to accurately target an AoE spell when you can't see the location where you want to place it nor see the creatures even though you know where they are because you can hear them. I usually just ascribe this to the caster knowing exactly how big their area of effect is and practice with the spell so that they can place it at whatever location within range they like even if they can't see that location or the creatures to be affected.
----
Finally, the "creature's location is known" concept needs to be leavened with some judgement out of combat. A character does not automatically know the locations of all the creatures in a room before they open the door for example. They might get an idea listening at the door - but in that case I would likely use a perception check (possibly with disadvantage due to the door) vs passive stealth of the creatures in the room to determine whether the person listening can figure out how many there might be and where. However, if you are walking down a street, and no one is hiding, then the default assumption is that you can see anyone who can see you (if it happens to be a really foggy day you are still aware of the location of all those people due to the noise they make - however, in such a case, a DM might rule that the sounds reveal creatures within 30' or some other distance, but creatures farther away are effectively hidden because you can't see or hear them clearly enough to determine their position).
So what about taking the hide in the heavily obscured environment? Would that effectively cancel out any tells the creature/player may give away and move without being seen or heard? I guess I'm looking at this from an invisibility or darkness spell point of view,
Yes. A successful hide action (stealth > passive perception of other creature) would allow the creature that is now hidden to move to a different location without being detected. However, if they make an attack or cast a spell their position becomes known again. Keep in mind that if the group of creatures has a range of passive perception values then it is possible for the creature taking the hide action to be hidden from some of the creatures but not others.
Yes, it would.
Unseen means that other creatures can't see you. They can still hear you and smell you and see your tracks, and therefore know where you are.
Hidden means unseen and unheard and unsmelt and leaving no tracks and so on. Other creatures don't know where you are and may not even know that you are there at all.
You need to do something to become hidden. In combat this is the Hide action (or bonus action for some classes).
Remember if a rogue has disadvantage they can't sneak attack. Even if the effect is canceled out by advantage.
My ranger uses it to shut down sneak attack via assassins.
I agree with everyone else, lots of good pointers here.
Another thing to watch for with AoE spells is whether they rely on sight. In this case, shatter does not, as it just reads, "a point of your choice within range," but other spells might read, "a point you can see within range" or something to that effect. In those cases, the caster would not be able to use them in this type of scenario because they are blinded and thus cannot see a point to target.
This I had not taken into consideration and the reasoning behind this is because the rogue initial state is at a disadvantage even though the attack roll is made is normal.
I don't think this is correct. "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."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That is because it isn't correct :)
"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."
The rules on sneak attack from the rogue class explicitly state "disadvantage on the attack roll" ... not "any instance of disadvantage". So as long as the rogue is NOT rolling the attack at disadvantage they are eligible for sneak attack. In the case of both target and attacker being unable to see, the attacker has advantage because the target can not see them but they have disadvantage because they can not see the target - the advantage and disadvantage conditions cancel out leaving the attacker with neither advantage nor disadvantage.
Without "disadvantage on the attack roll" - sneak attack is perfectly ok as long as there is "another enemy of the target within 5' of it".
I type corrected. Thanks!
The phrase considered to not have them(disadvantage or advantage) is not the same as not having them. A beasts attacks "considered" magical can still be affected by spells that target non-magic weapons (assuming natural weapons)
I see it as the explanation creates a functional roll "Neither roll" but does not remove either effect.(otherwise how could the multiple instances still be even ). Still I am willing to concede for now. I will look further into it.
You're not accounting for the sentence at the end that says, "In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage." Which is much more clear than something being "considered" to not have disadvantage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!