To me, having Advantage means that you roll twice and take the higher. If you don't get to roll twice, I don't think you have Advantage any longer. I see them being intrinsically attached.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Ok, but are you specifically saying that you can have Advantage even if you are not rolling Advantage? Same with Disadvantage?
Sort of, yes. The circumstances to cause advantage/disadvantage don't go away, just the detriment/benefit.
If instead, you are told to ignore the advantage/disadvantage, you are treating those circumstances as nonexistent, so they don't get considered at all.
Basically, it is the difference between being told you cannot use a tool, and being told you cannot even have it on you. The former is the feature.
To me, having Advantage means that you roll twice and take the higher. If you don't get to roll twice, I don't think you have Advantage any longer. I see them being intrinsically attached.
Well, the rules seem to have a different take on that entirely:
"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."
Circumstances can cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, and that counts as neither.
To me, having Advantage means that you roll twice and take the higher. If you don't get to roll twice, I don't think you have Advantage any longer. I see them being intrinsically attached.
Well, the rules seem to have a different take on that entirely:
"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."
Circumstances can cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, and that counts as neither.
Right, meaning there is no longer Advantage or Disadvantage there. It counts as a normal roll, meaning it is not Advantage or Disadvantage. That's exactly in line with my thinking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Because if having Advantage and Disadvantage on the same roll means that you have them both, but you don't roll with either, that means that stuf like Rogue's Sneak Attack can never be regained in a situation where they had Disadvantage. Like, they couldn't negate it with Steady Aim and then get a friend to flank the enemy for a regained Sneak Attack.
Sadly correct according to RAW.
Which is one of those writing flaws in 5e. Basically, because of poor word choice and grammar, circumstances like these occur.
In such circumstances, we have to think logically and adjudicate as best we can.
Such as your Rogue example: the intent would seem to be that as long as you aren't rolling with disadvantage, if an ally is flanking, then you get Sneak Attack. Even though it is written ambiguously.
I mean, that is what the Advantage/Disadvantage rules say. You can have advantage and it can count as not having advantage when you also have disadvantage. It counts as neither. Thus you wouldn't be making a roll with advantage, you'd be making a single roll.
Ok, but are you specifically saying that you can have Advantage even if you are not rolling Advantage? Same with Disadvantage?
Because if having Advantage and Disadvantage on the same roll means that you have them both, but you don't roll with either, that means that stuf like Rogue's Sneak Attack can never be regained in a situation where they had Disadvantage. Like, they couldn't negate it with Steady Aim and then get a friend to flank the enemy for a regained Sneak Attack.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in that example. Are you saying that you can regain advantage by having two instances of advantage and one instance of disadvantage? Because that is not at all what I'm saying. I have been parroting the rule: "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." That rule certainly seems to imply that circumstances can cause a roll to have advantage (and disadvantage) while still having a net result of rolling once.
If a rogue has disadvantage, and advantage, then they are considered to have neither. Adding a flanking bonus doesn't get them back to advantage, but if another hostile enemy is within 5', then they could use sneak attack -- because of sneak attack's rules, not because of advantage or disadvantage.
Because if having Advantage and Disadvantage on the same roll means that you have them both, but you don't roll with either, that means that stuf like Rogue's Sneak Attack can never be regained in a situation where they had Disadvantage. Like, they couldn't negate it with Steady Aim and then get a friend to flank the enemy for a regained Sneak Attack.
Sadly correct according to RAW.
Which is one of those writing flaws in 5e. Basically, because of poor word choice and grammar, circumstances like these occur.
In such circumstances, we have to think logically and adjudicate as best we can.
Such as your Rogue example: the intent would seem to be that as long as you aren't rolling with disadvantage, if an ally is flanking, then you get Sneak Attack. Even though it is written ambiguously.
I'm inclined to disagree about the existence of Adv/Disadv without the roll being affected. I think the idea of having Advantage without having Advantage on the roll is meaningless and rather incoherent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Because if having Advantage and Disadvantage on the same roll means that you have them both, but you don't roll with either, that means that stuf like Rogue's Sneak Attack can never be regained in a situation where they had Disadvantage. Like, they couldn't negate it with Steady Aim and then get a friend to flank the enemy for a regained Sneak Attack.
Sadly correct according to RAW.
Which is one of those writing flaws in 5e. Basically, because of poor word choice and grammar, circumstances like these occur.
In such circumstances, we have to think logically and adjudicate as best we can.
Such as your Rogue example: the intent would seem to be that as long as you aren't rolling with disadvantage, if an ally is flanking, then you get Sneak Attack. Even though it is written ambiguously.
I'm inclined to disagree about the existence of Adv/Disadv without the roll being affected. I think the idea of having Advantage without having Advantage on the roll is meaningless and rather incoherent.
Except the actual text from the rules says "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." That rule text is fundamentally incongruous with your opinion.
If a rogue has disadvantage, and advantage, then they are considered to have neither. Adding a flanking bonus doesn't get them back to advantage, but if another hostile enemy is within 5', then they could use sneak attack -- because of sneak attack's rules, not because of advantage or disadvantage.
But remember that a Rogue cannot Sneak Attack if they have Disadvantage. If, as you say, the Disadvantage goes away when canceled by the Advantage, this would be fine, but if both Advantage and Disadvantage are still there and just not impacting the roll, then the Rogue cannot Sneak Attack. See Journer's reply above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Because if having Advantage and Disadvantage on the same roll means that you have them both, but you don't roll with either, that means that stuf like Rogue's Sneak Attack can never be regained in a situation where they had Disadvantage. Like, they couldn't negate it with Steady Aim and then get a friend to flank the enemy for a regained Sneak Attack.
Sadly correct according to RAW.
Which is one of those writing flaws in 5e. Basically, because of poor word choice and grammar, circumstances like these occur.
In such circumstances, we have to think logically and adjudicate as best we can.
Such as your Rogue example: the intent would seem to be that as long as you aren't rolling with disadvantage, if an ally is flanking, then you get Sneak Attack. Even though it is written ambiguously.
I'm inclined to disagree about the existence of Adv/Disadv without the roll being affected. I think the idea of having Advantage without having Advantage on the roll is meaningless and rather incoherent.
Except the actual text from the rules says "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." That rule text is fundamentally incongruous with your opinion.
I don't see how as it says they cancel out and have neither.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
I am just trying to point out that your opinion is fundamentally different from the way that the rules text seems to talk about advantage and disadvantage: Something can be a source of advantage and lead to not having advantage on the roll. The rules talk about the circumstances providing advantage as separate from the act of rolling two dice.
Again, the next sentence from chapter 7 says “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.”
Hence the conclusion: the shifter trait only cares about negating rolls with advantage, not negating circumstances imposing advantage.
Litteral RAW - Because the ability says "no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you’re incapacitated." If they have advantage on the attack roll they cant attack you. Simple as that. Because the ability doesn't say 'The creature doesn't gain benefits from advantage on attacks against you' or 'advantage can not be gained on an attack against you' the RAW interpretation would be that if an attack has advantage it can not be directed at you. Think like this.
Are they a creature within 30 feet of you? Yes -> Do they have advantage? Yes -> They can not make an attack roll against you.
I would never rule it like this, just thought it was a possible interpretation worth bringing up.
Probable RAI - Given the wording, it seems like it is supposed to remove the effects of advantage on a roll against you, IE the rolling two dice and any additional things that may result of having advantage like sneak attack. Especially since the advantage can still apply to other creatures, just specifically not you.
The question becomes when does this rule apply? Before or after the advantage/disadvantage interaction. I would say that since the rules for advantage and disadvantage are tied together they happen at the same time and MUST happen before this ability since this ability is dependent on the attacker having advantage.
So to answer the original question, the attacker wouldn't have had advantage on the attack roll thanks to the disadvantage and then the ability wouldn't have activated in the first place.
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.
The above is the Rule as Written on having both advantage and disadvantage, quoted partially by WolfOfTheBees.
As to the Wildhunt Shifter's feature, lets break it down: "no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you’re incapacitated."
Does it say the creature has disadvantage? NO. So it doesn't impose any disadvantage to cancel out advantage.
Does it say the creature must roll with disadvantage? NO. So it isn't forcing a bad roll.
Does it say the creature ignores advantage? NO. So there can be advantage to cancel with disadvantage.
Does it say the creature cannot roll with advantage? YES. So any circumstances in which the attacker would normally be able to roll twice and use the higher result are treated as being normal, forcing them to roll only the 1d20.
All that said, your confusion is understandable, given the way in which 5e's rules are written. In this case, I would have written the trait as: "whenever a creature within 30 feet of you makes an attack roll against you with advantage, the attacker instead rolls 1d20 as normal, unless you're incapacitated."
I am just trying to point out that your opinion is fundamentally different from the way that the rules text seems to talk about advantage and disadvantage: Something can be a source of advantage and lead to not having advantage on the roll. The rules talk about the circumstances providing advantage as separate from the act of rolling two dice.
Again, the next sentence from chapter 7 says “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.”
Yes, I know the wording, I've been reading it over repeatedly for a little while now. It's just that I don't come to the same conclusion as you. Yes, a roll can have a circumstance that gives Advantage, but if it gets negated it no longer has Advantage even if that circumstance is still there which is a reading that still squares with Chapter 7.
Hence the conclusion: the shifter trait only cares about negating rolls with advantage, not negating circumstances imposing advantage.
Circumstances can offer Advantage, but if something removed Advantage from the roll it no longer benefits from it and thus no longer had Advantage. Even more, the Wildhunt feature is a circumstance that removes Advantage, but not by applying Disadvantage, it simply disallows Advantage from happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
I am just trying to point out that your opinion is fundamentally different from the way that the rules text seems to talk about advantage and disadvantage: Something can be a source of advantage and lead to not having advantage on the roll. The rules talk about the circumstances providing advantage as separate from the act of rolling two dice.
Again, the next sentence from chapter 7 says “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.”
Yes, I know the wording, I've been reading it over repeatedly for a little while now. It's just that I don't come to the same conclusion as you. Yes, a roll can have a circumstance that gives Advantage, but if it gets negated it no longer has Advantage even if that circumstance is still there which is a reading that still squares with Chapter 7.
Hence the conclusion: the shifter trait only cares about negating rolls with advantage, not negating circumstances imposing advantage.
Circumstances can offer Advantage, but if something removed Advantage from the roll it no longer benefits from it and thus no longer had Advantage. Even more, the Wildhunt feature is a circumstance that removes Advantage, but not by applying Disadvantage, it simply disallows Advantage from happening.
Except it doesn’t disallow advantage from happening, and it doesn’t disallow circumstances from granting advantage, it disallows rolling with advantage. And you wouldn’t be rolling with advantage if it was already negated by disadvantage.
Litteral RAW - Because the ability says "no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you’re incapacitated." If they have advantage on the attack roll they cant attack you. Simple as that. Because the ability doesn't say 'The creature doesn't gain benefits from advantage on attacks against you' or 'advantage can not be gained on an attack against you' the RAW interpretation would be that if an attack has advantage it can not be directed at you. Think like this.
Are they a creature within 30 feet of you? Yes -> Do they have advantage? Yes -> They can not make an attack roll against you.
I would never rule it like this, just thought it was a possible interpretation worth bringing up.
You know, this interpretation had occurred to me as well, but was also dismissed as very likely not RAI.
Probable RAI - Given the wording, it seems like it is supposed to remove the effects of advantage on a roll against you, IE the rolling two dice and any additional things that may result of having advantage like sneak attack. Especially since the advantage can still apply to other creatures, just specifically not you.
The question becomes when does this rule apply? Before or after the advantage/disadvantage interaction. I would say that since the rules for advantage and disadvantage are tied together they happen at the same time and MUST happen before this ability since this ability is dependent on the attacker having advantage.
So to answer the original question, the attacker wouldn't have had advantage on the attack roll thanks to the disadvantage and then the ability wouldn't have activated in the first place.
Hmm, interesting ... order of operations does seem to matter. Your reading is that the Adv/Disadv must happen before anything else, but why? Would it make a difference if the attacker tried to get Advantage first and then something like a [Tooltip Not Found]'s Reaction imposed Disadvantage later? Because one of the considerations that was brought up was order of operations and turn priority.
If we go with XTGE's... "If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first." .... We could say that whoever's turn it is decides whether the Adv/Disadv or the Wildhunt resolution happens first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
You raise a good question as to why I chose the order of operations. My reasoning is because the Adv/Disadv rules are tied together they happen at the same time. It doesn't really matter where in the order this happens, as long as they happen at the same time. Now, before you make an attack you would determine if there is adv/disadv because that affects if there will be an attack. This is where the Wildhunt's ability comes in, in response to an attack. Here is my timeline:
Prior turn -> Assess combat situation -> determine adv/disadv -> Makes attack -> preattack effects (when targeted abilities, etc) -> Roll dice -> Attack outcome (Damage, after getting hit/missing effects, etc) -> Rest of the turn
In your example, the gaining of advantage happened before the attack, the preattack effect of the Steel Defender gave disadvantage and the Wildshift's Ability came into effect at the same time. However, because the advantages/disadvantage are a part of the same rule as mentioned before they happen at the same time, which would need to be before the wildhunt ability because the wildhunt ability can only be activated if there is advantage. To draw it out again
Advantage -> Attack -> Reaction impose disadvantage -> Roll -> Attack outcome -> so on and so forth.
In this example, the wildhunt ability is not necessary. If they waited to impose the disadvantage until the wildhunt ability has been activated then the attack has already been resolved and the imposing of disadvantage would do nothing.
At least that is the timeline as it makes sense to me. Obviously, if you'd want to rule it another way that's totally fine. It would be kinda sick to be able to build a character that uses their natural hunting skills and their engineering ability to always create a situation where they have the edge over their opponent.
If we go with XTGE's... "If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first." .... We could say that whoever's turn it is decides whether the Adv/Disadv or the Wildhunt resolution happens first.
So then it is necessarily the person making the attack whose turn it is when they're making an attack, and they can always choose a straight roll over disadvantage. Sure. That still results in the same conclusion even if it is for a reason I'd disagree with (I don't think it is in the spirit of the XTGE rule that non-timed features applying or not applying to a roll are the sort of events that it seems to be describing, so again we disagree).
You raise a good question as to why I chose the order of operations. My reasoning is because the Adv/Disadv rules are tied together they happen at the same time. It doesn't really matter where in the order this happens, as long as they happen at the same time.
Again, why? Why do they happen at the same time?
Now, before you make an attack you would determine if there is adv/disadv because that affects if there will be an attack. This is where the Wildhunt's ability comes in, in response to an attack. Here is my timeline:
Prior turn -> Assess combat situation -> determine adv/disadv -> Makes attack -> preattack effects (when targeted abilities, etc) -> Roll dice -> Attack outcome (Damage, after getting hit/missing effects, etc) -> Rest of the turn
In your example, the gaining of advantage happened before the attack, the preattack effect of the Steel Defender gave disadvantage and the Wildshift's Ability came into effect at the same time. However, because the advantages/disadvantage are a part of the same rule as mentioned before they happen at the same time, which would need to be before the wildhunt ability because the wildhunt ability can only be activated if there is advantage. To draw it out again
Advantage -> Attack -> Reaction impose disadvantage -> Roll -> Attack outcome -> so on and so forth.
In this example, the wildhunt ability is not necessary. If they waited to impose the disadvantage until the wildhunt ability has been activated then the attack has already been resolved and the imposing of disadvantage would do nothing.
At least that is the timeline as it makes sense to me. Obviously, if you'd want to rule it another way that's totally fine. It would be kinda sick to be able to build a character that uses their natural hunting skills and their engineering ability to always create a situation where they have the edge over their opponent.
Ok so what if there was no Disadvantage? When exactly would the Wildhunt feature come in? Because the way I see it it goes: Advantage > Wildhunt says no > Regular Attack roll
If we go with XTGE's... "If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first." .... We could say that whoever's turn it is decides whether the Adv/Disadv or the Wildhunt resolution happens first.
So then it is necessarily the person making the attack whose turn it is when they're making an attack, and they can always choose a straight roll over disadvantage. Sure. That still results in the same conclusion even if it is for a reason I'd disagree with (I don't think it is in the spirit of the XTGE rule that non-timed features applying or not applying to a roll are the sort of events that it seems to be describing, so again we disagree).
Ok, but then if we switch the turn order and say the Wildhunt Shifter is Dodging and leaving the reach of a Vengeance Paladin with Vow of Enmity up, thus incurring an Opportunity Attack, it is now the Shifter's turn and they can decide that the Wildhunt Feature resolves first, turning the Advantage into nothing, then the Dodge resolves, turning the nothing into Disadvantage.
Advantage and disadvantage have to cancel out before you take any other ability into account. It makes no sense any other way. Your racial ability only applies once everything is calculated. If you do let the disadvantage get applied after your ability, then some additional advantage could apply AFTER your racial abilitly is applies, so they could have advantage against you. Which makes no sense.
The shifter's wording is clear. You only remove advantage after everything else is calculated. That means their advantage cancels out their disadvantage before your ability is applied.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To me, having Advantage means that you roll twice and take the higher. If you don't get to roll twice, I don't think you have Advantage any longer. I see them being intrinsically attached.
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!
Sort of, yes. The circumstances to cause advantage/disadvantage don't go away, just the detriment/benefit.
If instead, you are told to ignore the advantage/disadvantage, you are treating those circumstances as nonexistent, so they don't get considered at all.
Basically, it is the difference between being told you cannot use a tool, and being told you cannot even have it on you. The former is the feature.
Well, the rules seem to have a different take on that entirely:
"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."
Circumstances can cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, and that counts as neither.
Right, meaning there is no longer Advantage or Disadvantage there. It counts as a normal roll, meaning it is not Advantage or Disadvantage. That's exactly in line with my thinking.
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!
Sadly correct according to RAW.
Which is one of those writing flaws in 5e. Basically, because of poor word choice and grammar, circumstances like these occur.
In such circumstances, we have to think logically and adjudicate as best we can.
Such as your Rogue example: the intent would seem to be that as long as you aren't rolling with disadvantage, if an ally is flanking, then you get Sneak Attack. Even though it is written ambiguously.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in that example. Are you saying that you can regain advantage by having two instances of advantage and one instance of disadvantage? Because that is not at all what I'm saying. I have been parroting the rule: "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." That rule certainly seems to imply that circumstances can cause a roll to have advantage (and disadvantage) while still having a net result of rolling once.
If a rogue has disadvantage, and advantage, then they are considered to have neither. Adding a flanking bonus doesn't get them back to advantage, but if another hostile enemy is within 5', then they could use sneak attack -- because of sneak attack's rules, not because of advantage or disadvantage.
I'm inclined to disagree about the existence of Adv/Disadv without the roll being affected. I think the idea of having Advantage without having Advantage on the roll is meaningless and rather incoherent.
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!
Except the actual text from the rules says "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20." That rule text is fundamentally incongruous with your opinion.
But remember that a Rogue cannot Sneak Attack if they have Disadvantage. If, as you say, the Disadvantage goes away when canceled by the Advantage, this would be fine, but if both Advantage and Disadvantage are still there and just not impacting the roll, then the Rogue cannot Sneak Attack. See Journer's reply above.
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!
I don't see how as it says they cancel out and have neither.
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!
I am just trying to point out that your opinion is fundamentally different from the way that the rules text seems to talk about advantage and disadvantage: Something can be a source of advantage and lead to not having advantage on the roll. The rules talk about the circumstances providing advantage as separate from the act of rolling two dice.
Again, the next sentence from chapter 7 says “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.”
Hence the conclusion: the shifter trait only cares about negating rolls with advantage, not negating circumstances imposing advantage.
My take on the situation-
Litteral RAW - Because the ability says "no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you’re incapacitated." If they have advantage on the attack roll they cant attack you. Simple as that. Because the ability doesn't say 'The creature doesn't gain benefits from advantage on attacks against you' or 'advantage can not be gained on an attack against you' the RAW interpretation would be that if an attack has advantage it can not be directed at you. Think like this.
Are they a creature within 30 feet of you? Yes -> Do they have advantage? Yes -> They can not make an attack roll against you.
I would never rule it like this, just thought it was a possible interpretation worth bringing up.
Probable RAI - Given the wording, it seems like it is supposed to remove the effects of advantage on a roll against you, IE the rolling two dice and any additional things that may result of having advantage like sneak attack. Especially since the advantage can still apply to other creatures, just specifically not you.
The question becomes when does this rule apply? Before or after the advantage/disadvantage interaction. I would say that since the rules for advantage and disadvantage are tied together they happen at the same time and MUST happen before this ability since this ability is dependent on the attacker having advantage.
So to answer the original question, the attacker wouldn't have had advantage on the attack roll thanks to the disadvantage and then the ability wouldn't have activated in the first place.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The above is the Rule as Written on having both advantage and disadvantage, quoted partially by WolfOfTheBees.
As to the Wildhunt Shifter's feature, lets break it down: "no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you, unless you’re incapacitated."
Does it say the creature has disadvantage? NO. So it doesn't impose any disadvantage to cancel out advantage.
Does it say the creature must roll with disadvantage? NO. So it isn't forcing a bad roll.
Does it say the creature ignores advantage? NO. So there can be advantage to cancel with disadvantage.
Does it say the creature cannot roll with advantage? YES. So any circumstances in which the attacker would normally be able to roll twice and use the higher result are treated as being normal, forcing them to roll only the 1d20.
All that said, your confusion is understandable, given the way in which 5e's rules are written. In this case, I would have written the trait as: "whenever a creature within 30 feet of you makes an attack roll against you with advantage, the attacker instead rolls 1d20 as normal, unless you're incapacitated."
Yes, I know the wording, I've been reading it over repeatedly for a little while now. It's just that I don't come to the same conclusion as you. Yes, a roll can have a circumstance that gives Advantage, but if it gets negated it no longer has Advantage even if that circumstance is still there which is a reading that still squares with Chapter 7.
Circumstances can offer Advantage, but if something removed Advantage from the roll it no longer benefits from it and thus no longer had Advantage. Even more, the Wildhunt feature is a circumstance that removes Advantage, but not by applying Disadvantage, it simply disallows Advantage from happening.
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!
Except it doesn’t disallow advantage from happening, and it doesn’t disallow circumstances from granting advantage, it disallows rolling with advantage. And you wouldn’t be rolling with advantage if it was already negated by disadvantage.
You know, this interpretation had occurred to me as well, but was also dismissed as very likely not RAI.
Hmm, interesting ... order of operations does seem to matter. Your reading is that the Adv/Disadv must happen before anything else, but why? Would it make a difference if the attacker tried to get Advantage first and then something like a [Tooltip Not Found]'s Reaction imposed Disadvantage later? Because one of the considerations that was brought up was order of operations and turn priority.
If we go with XTGE's... "If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first." .... We could say that whoever's turn it is decides whether the Adv/Disadv or the Wildhunt resolution happens first.
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!
You raise a good question as to why I chose the order of operations. My reasoning is because the Adv/Disadv rules are tied together they happen at the same time. It doesn't really matter where in the order this happens, as long as they happen at the same time. Now, before you make an attack you would determine if there is adv/disadv because that affects if there will be an attack. This is where the Wildhunt's ability comes in, in response to an attack. Here is my timeline:
Prior turn -> Assess combat situation -> determine adv/disadv -> Makes attack -> preattack effects (when targeted abilities, etc) -> Roll dice -> Attack outcome (Damage, after getting hit/missing effects, etc) -> Rest of the turn
In your example, the gaining of advantage happened before the attack, the preattack effect of the Steel Defender gave disadvantage and the Wildshift's Ability came into effect at the same time. However, because the advantages/disadvantage are a part of the same rule as mentioned before they happen at the same time, which would need to be before the wildhunt ability because the wildhunt ability can only be activated if there is advantage. To draw it out again
Advantage -> Attack -> Reaction impose disadvantage -> Roll -> Attack outcome -> so on and so forth.
In this example, the wildhunt ability is not necessary. If they waited to impose the disadvantage until the wildhunt ability has been activated then the attack has already been resolved and the imposing of disadvantage would do nothing.
At least that is the timeline as it makes sense to me. Obviously, if you'd want to rule it another way that's totally fine. It would be kinda sick to be able to build a character that uses their natural hunting skills and their engineering ability to always create a situation where they have the edge over their opponent.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
So then it is necessarily the person making the attack whose turn it is when they're making an attack, and they can always choose a straight roll over disadvantage. Sure. That still results in the same conclusion even if it is for a reason I'd disagree with (I don't think it is in the spirit of the XTGE rule that non-timed features applying or not applying to a roll are the sort of events that it seems to be describing, so again we disagree).
Again, why? Why do they happen at the same time?
Ok so what if there was no Disadvantage? When exactly would the Wildhunt feature come in? Because the way I see it it goes:
Advantage > Wildhunt says no > Regular Attack roll
Ok, but then if we switch the turn order and say the Wildhunt Shifter is Dodging and leaving the reach of a Vengeance Paladin with Vow of Enmity up, thus incurring an Opportunity Attack, it is now the Shifter's turn and they can decide that the Wildhunt Feature resolves first, turning the Advantage into nothing, then the Dodge resolves, turning the nothing into 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!
Advantage and disadvantage have to cancel out before you take any other ability into account. It makes no sense any other way. Your racial ability only applies once everything is calculated. If you do let the disadvantage get applied after your ability, then some additional advantage could apply AFTER your racial abilitly is applies, so they could have advantage against you. Which makes no sense.
The shifter's wording is clear. You only remove advantage after everything else is calculated. That means their advantage cancels out their disadvantage before your ability is applied.