One of my players recently cast hunters Mark on a target, who then cast darkness on themselves. The player was under the assumption that the advantage on perception checks to find the creature would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls that is created by the darkness (we usually allow a skill check as a free action in combat) but I am not so sure. My reasoning was that anybody could do a perception check to find a creature in darkness, and I don't think perception checks are quite that powerful.
Is there any official ruling on this? Thanks in advance!
One of my players recently cast hunters Mark on a target, who then cast darkness on themselves. The player was under the assumption that the advantage on perception checks to find the creature would negate the disadvantage created by the darkness (we usually allow a skill check as a free action in combat) but I am not so sure. My reasoning was that anybody could do a perception check to find a creature in darkness, and I don't think perception checks are quite that powerful.
Is there any official ruling on this? Thanks in advance!
There is, in fact.
To start with: Darkness is an interesting spell, and good for creating a way to be unseen. However, nothing about a target being unseen grants disadvantage on Perception checks to find them. In fact, due to the way stealth works in 5e, unless the creature had a way to use a bonus action to Hide, the PCs should still know where the creature is (barring something that keeps them from hearing, such as Silence or the Deafened condition). After all, the creature either didn't move or it did and made footsteps that reveal its position.
Basically: The creature's Darkness spell means they auto-fail any check relying solely on vision. And as the DM, you're free to rule that a Stealth check made (with the appropriate action) has advantage due to one of the senses being cut off. However, the Perception check shouldn't also be at disadvantage if you're going to do that, it should be one or the other. Now, if you say the creature's Stealth is at normal and disadvantage is put on the Perception check instead...
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.
This is from Chapter 7 of the PHB. If the spell grants advantage and any condition grants disadvantage, it doesn't matter what other circumstances are at play (with one exception) - they get a straight roll, against the Stealth of the hiding creature.
Exception: Anything that states a creature can't have advantage on the check would negate the Hunter's Mark advantage, but those kinds of abilities are few and far between. For an example of such a type of ability, see the Wildhunt Shifter (not a perfect example, but it gives the phrasing style):
While shifted, you have advantage on Wisdom checks, and no creature within 30 feet of you can make an attack roll with advantage against you unless you’re incapacitated.
Thank you, this does help. But I think I misspoke- to clarify, the player thought that the Hunters Mark advantage on perception would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls. Sorry, I should have explained that better, I'm editing the original post to clarify.
Thank you, this does help. But I think I misspoke- to clarify, the player thought that the Hunters Mark advantage on perception would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls. Sorry, I should have explained that better, I'm editing the original post to clarify.
In that case, no, absolutely not. It affects Perception and Survival, not attacks. So it's effective against Stealth/hiding in that darkness but doesn't offset the disadvantage from unseen targets.
Thank you, this does help. But I think I misspoke- to clarify, the player thought that the Hunters Mark advantage on perception would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls. Sorry, I should have explained that better, I'm editing the original post to clarify.
What happens is that the attackers has disadvantage because they cannot see their target, then the attacker has advantage because the target cannot see their attacker, so the attacker has neither advantage nor disadvantage, and rolls normally.
I find this to be absolutely silly but it's RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Thank you, this does help. But I think I misspoke- to clarify, the player thought that the Hunters Mark advantage on perception would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls. Sorry, I should have explained that better, I'm editing the original post to clarify.
The answer to that question is no. Advantage on a perception check might make it easier to determine the location of a creature that is trying to hide but it has no effect on attack rolls.
However, to second Wysperra's comment. Darkness does NOT provide disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures in the darkness UNLESS the creature in the darkness is capable of seeing out of it. For example, a shadow sorcerer using sorcery points to cast darkness can see through that magical darkness. Since they can see out of the darkness and see the attacker but the attacker can't see them, the attacker has disadvantage on their attack rolls.
However, if a regular wizard cast Darkness on themselves then they can't see creatures outside the darkness and the creatures outside the darkness can't see them. When a creature outside the darkness makes an attack against the creature inside the darkness, they have disadvantage because they can't see their target ... however, they also have advantage on the attack roll because their target can't see them. When a creature has both advantage and disadvantage then the character explicitly has Neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attack roll.
Most of the time when darkness is cast, RAW, it has NO effect on most melee or ranged to hit rolls. The darkness blocks effects like spells or class features that require the creature to see their target but if no one can see each other, the darkness (or fog cloud) will negate all forms of advantage and disadvantage resulting in a straight roll.
P.S. The 5e vision rules were written for simplicitly and ease of use not for realism. The DM may need to use their judgement in some of the more "extreme" or illogical cases that can come up.
e.g. Using a ranged weapon at long range it is easier to hit a target when you can't see them and they can't see you.
Advantage and disadvantage do not stack. A ranged weapon attack at long range has disadvantage to hit. However, if the target is in a fog cloud and the attacker can't see it and it can't see the attacker then these cancel all sources of advantage and disadvantage so it becomes easier to hit the target at long range if the creatures can't see each other.
One of my players recently cast hunters Mark on a target, who then cast darkness on themselves. The player was under the assumption that the advantage on perception checks to find the creature would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls that is created by the darkness (we usually allow a skill check as a free action in combat) but I am not so sure. My reasoning was that anybody could do a perception check to find a creature in darkness, and I don't think perception checks are quite that powerful.
Is there any official ruling on this? Thanks in advance!
It would depend if the DM determine the ability check to find the Hunter’s Mark target require sight or not.
If yes, then because the ranger is inside Darkness in such heavily obscured area is effectively blinded so it can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If no, then the ranger can still have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) made to find it that would instead rely on hearing or smell for exemple.
What happens is that the attackers has disadvantage because they cannot see their target, then the attacker has advantage because the target cannot see their attacker, so the attacker has neither advantage nor disadvantage, and rolls normally.
I find this to be absolutely silly but it's RAW.
As an aside, if you make both attackers rool at disadvantage then the only thing it does is make the combat twice as long. Having the advantage/disadvantage cancel out is all about saving time at the table.
What happens is that the attackers has disadvantage because they cannot see their target, then the attacker has advantage because the target cannot see their attacker, so the attacker has neither advantage nor disadvantage, and rolls normally.
I find this to be absolutely silly but it's RAW.
As an aside, if you make both attackers rool at disadvantage then the only thing it does is make the combat twice as long. Having the advantage/disadvantage cancel out is all about saving time at the table.
Possibly but doesn't make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
What happens is that the attackers has disadvantage because they cannot see their target, then the attacker has advantage because the target cannot see their attacker, so the attacker has neither advantage nor disadvantage, and rolls normally.
I find this to be absolutely silly but it's RAW.
As an aside, if you make both attackers rool at disadvantage then the only thing it does is make the combat twice as long. Having the advantage/disadvantage cancel out is all about saving time at the table.
Possibly but doesn't make sense.
Whether it makes sense or not depends on how much you consider being able to see to defend compares to being able to see to attack.
Keep in mind these are medieval melee and ranged weapons. An important part of melee is dodging, parrying and deflecting attacks. Similarly, with ranged attacks, seeing an arrow aimed in your direction allows you to react and move to avoid the aiming, if not the projectile itself. Seeing someone pull back a bow lets a defender dodge to the side before the arrow is released. The archer would need to lead their target when aiming.
Similarly, it is very challenging to aim a ranged weapon at a target that you can't see. You aim for a general area or space where you believe the target is - but that target can't actively move out of the way. The situation is equivalent for melee weapons where you attack a general area hoping for solid contact, but the defender can also not effectively dodge or parry.
Which is more important? Not being able to see your target or not being able to see the attacker and respond to the attack?
D&D takes the simple approach and considers the two to be about equally important and just cancels them out. Essentially, this is a statement that although the attacker and defender are both impacted and these may be different, we'll just call it even for the sake of simplicity. Is it accurate, no, but then again imposing the full penalty on one side or the other ignores the fact that a defender that can't see loses all of their defenses except the armor they are wearing and an attacker that can't see is just aiming their attacks at the general area where they think the opponent can be found. Both of which contribute something to the balance of the combat.
--------------
From a practical perspective, the combat also goes faster if everyone is making straight rolls. Requiring everyone to roll at disadvantage when they can't see each other increases the length of the combat substantially and also significantly shifts the balance of the combat.
Consider a character with a +6 to hit and 17 AC vs a creature with a +5 to hit and 15 AC (fairly typical numbers).
The player needs a 9 to hit the creature. The creature needs a 12 to hit the PC. This is a 60% hit rate for the player and a 45% hit rate for the NPC. This means that the player hits 60/45 = 1.333 times more often than the creature. If both are attacking at disadvantage then this changes. The PC has a 36% change to hit and the NPC has a 20.25% chance. The PC then hits 36/20.25 = 1.78x more often than the NPC. So having both creatures attack at disadvantage isn't the same probability as straight rolls all around ... it favors the side with the lower attack roll needed to hit.
-------------
P.S. I've considered trying a house rule where everyone rolls with disadvantage when they can't see each other but I usually just decide that the combats would just take longer without actually adding much to the verisimilitude of the situation considering that it is difficult to properly weigh the impacts on both attacker and defender.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello,
One of my players recently cast hunters Mark on a target, who then cast darkness on themselves. The player was under the assumption that the advantage on perception checks to find the creature would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls that is created by the darkness (we usually allow a skill check as a free action in combat) but I am not so sure. My reasoning was that anybody could do a perception check to find a creature in darkness, and I don't think perception checks are quite that powerful.
Is there any official ruling on this? Thanks in advance!
There is, in fact.
To start with: Darkness is an interesting spell, and good for creating a way to be unseen. However, nothing about a target being unseen grants disadvantage on Perception checks to find them. In fact, due to the way stealth works in 5e, unless the creature had a way to use a bonus action to Hide, the PCs should still know where the creature is (barring something that keeps them from hearing, such as Silence or the Deafened condition). After all, the creature either didn't move or it did and made footsteps that reveal its position.
Basically: The creature's Darkness spell means they auto-fail any check relying solely on vision. And as the DM, you're free to rule that a Stealth check made (with the appropriate action) has advantage due to one of the senses being cut off. However, the Perception check shouldn't also be at disadvantage if you're going to do that, it should be one or the other. Now, if you say the creature's Stealth is at normal and disadvantage is put on the Perception check instead...
This is from Chapter 7 of the PHB. If the spell grants advantage and any condition grants disadvantage, it doesn't matter what other circumstances are at play (with one exception) - they get a straight roll, against the Stealth of the hiding creature.
Exception: Anything that states a creature can't have advantage on the check would negate the Hunter's Mark advantage, but those kinds of abilities are few and far between. For an example of such a type of ability, see the Wildhunt Shifter (not a perfect example, but it gives the phrasing style):
Thank you, this does help. But I think I misspoke- to clarify, the player thought that the Hunters Mark advantage on perception would negate the disadvantage on attack rolls. Sorry, I should have explained that better, I'm editing the original post to clarify.
In that case, no, absolutely not. It affects Perception and Survival, not attacks. So it's effective against Stealth/hiding in that darkness but doesn't offset the disadvantage from unseen targets.
What happens is that the attackers has disadvantage because they cannot see their target, then the attacker has advantage because the target cannot see their attacker, so the attacker has neither advantage nor disadvantage, and rolls normally.
I find this to be absolutely silly but it's RAW.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The answer to that question is no. Advantage on a perception check might make it easier to determine the location of a creature that is trying to hide but it has no effect on attack rolls.
However, to second Wysperra's comment. Darkness does NOT provide disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures in the darkness UNLESS the creature in the darkness is capable of seeing out of it. For example, a shadow sorcerer using sorcery points to cast darkness can see through that magical darkness. Since they can see out of the darkness and see the attacker but the attacker can't see them, the attacker has disadvantage on their attack rolls.
However, if a regular wizard cast Darkness on themselves then they can't see creatures outside the darkness and the creatures outside the darkness can't see them. When a creature outside the darkness makes an attack against the creature inside the darkness, they have disadvantage because they can't see their target ... however, they also have advantage on the attack roll because their target can't see them. When a creature has both advantage and disadvantage then the character explicitly has Neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attack roll.
Most of the time when darkness is cast, RAW, it has NO effect on most melee or ranged to hit rolls. The darkness blocks effects like spells or class features that require the creature to see their target but if no one can see each other, the darkness (or fog cloud) will negate all forms of advantage and disadvantage resulting in a straight roll.
P.S. The 5e vision rules were written for simplicitly and ease of use not for realism. The DM may need to use their judgement in some of the more "extreme" or illogical cases that can come up.
e.g. Using a ranged weapon at long range it is easier to hit a target when you can't see them and they can't see you.
Advantage and disadvantage do not stack. A ranged weapon attack at long range has disadvantage to hit. However, if the target is in a fog cloud and the attacker can't see it and it can't see the attacker then these cancel all sources of advantage and disadvantage so it becomes easier to hit the target at long range if the creatures can't see each other.
Thanks for the reminder about Darkness! I forgot about how that interaction works.
It would depend if the DM determine the ability check to find the Hunter’s Mark target require sight or not.
If yes, then because the ranger is inside Darkness in such heavily obscured area is effectively blinded so it can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If no, then the ranger can still have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) made to find it that would instead rely on hearing or smell for exemple.
As an aside, if you make both attackers rool at disadvantage then the only thing it does is make the combat twice as long. Having the advantage/disadvantage cancel out is all about saving time at the table.
Possibly but doesn't make sense.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Whether it makes sense or not depends on how much you consider being able to see to defend compares to being able to see to attack.
Keep in mind these are medieval melee and ranged weapons. An important part of melee is dodging, parrying and deflecting attacks. Similarly, with ranged attacks, seeing an arrow aimed in your direction allows you to react and move to avoid the aiming, if not the projectile itself. Seeing someone pull back a bow lets a defender dodge to the side before the arrow is released. The archer would need to lead their target when aiming.
Similarly, it is very challenging to aim a ranged weapon at a target that you can't see. You aim for a general area or space where you believe the target is - but that target can't actively move out of the way. The situation is equivalent for melee weapons where you attack a general area hoping for solid contact, but the defender can also not effectively dodge or parry.
Which is more important? Not being able to see your target or not being able to see the attacker and respond to the attack?
D&D takes the simple approach and considers the two to be about equally important and just cancels them out. Essentially, this is a statement that although the attacker and defender are both impacted and these may be different, we'll just call it even for the sake of simplicity. Is it accurate, no, but then again imposing the full penalty on one side or the other ignores the fact that a defender that can't see loses all of their defenses except the armor they are wearing and an attacker that can't see is just aiming their attacks at the general area where they think the opponent can be found. Both of which contribute something to the balance of the combat.
--------------
From a practical perspective, the combat also goes faster if everyone is making straight rolls. Requiring everyone to roll at disadvantage when they can't see each other increases the length of the combat substantially and also significantly shifts the balance of the combat.
Consider a character with a +6 to hit and 17 AC vs a creature with a +5 to hit and 15 AC (fairly typical numbers).
The player needs a 9 to hit the creature. The creature needs a 12 to hit the PC. This is a 60% hit rate for the player and a 45% hit rate for the NPC. This means that the player hits 60/45 = 1.333 times more often than the creature. If both are attacking at disadvantage then this changes. The PC has a 36% change to hit and the NPC has a 20.25% chance. The PC then hits 36/20.25 = 1.78x more often than the NPC. So having both creatures attack at disadvantage isn't the same probability as straight rolls all around ... it favors the side with the lower attack roll needed to hit.
-------------
P.S. I've considered trying a house rule where everyone rolls with disadvantage when they can't see each other but I usually just decide that the combats would just take longer without actually adding much to the verisimilitude of the situation considering that it is difficult to properly weigh the impacts on both attacker and defender.