The 5e rules I've found link night settings to heavy obscuration to the Blinded condition (DisAdv for attacking others, Adv for those attacking). So if 2 belligerents are in a dark room, they would both get disadvantage in trying to stab each other? That seems to ignore a lot of tactile information you'd pick up in melee. Would every dark-fight devolve to grappling? Would every adventurer-level person automatically have a sense of not-quite-blindfighting? ('Course I don't have any experience in real sword-swinging in the dark; but in the boffer sword fights we used to have at night, seemed to be fairly easy to target one another. Modern day light-pollution?)
If the combatant are fighting into darkness (and none of them has senses like Darkvision), they both have advantage and disadvantage on the attack rolls (see Blinded), so both roll one d20. The rules also say that sight isn't the only factor to know the position of the you combatant. Unless one of them tries to hide, one knows the position of the other.
I still use the 3.xE mechanic of the miss chance, which is 50% in total darkness, which I guess is similar enough to the Disadvantage mechanic. As filcat nicely quoted though, the mutual advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out so they're making a normal attack roll in total darkness...which seems entirely counter-intuitive. *shrugs* So I have them make their attack rolls by first picking which adjacent square they're attacking (battle-grid helps here, sorry Theatre of the Mind advocates) and roll the d20 & d% simultaneously, reading the d% result first. If it's a 51% or greater, then we do the math of the to hit roll so I can describe whether they hit something, had their weapon glance off of something, or they just murdered the 'ell out of an empty square so they know to try another one.
It seems silly that while fighting in the dark you have the same chance of hitting someone as you both can see each other. Honestly I'd probably just go with disadvantage on the attack rolls as it makes more sense you have some disadvantage from not being able to see, rather than not just because your opponent also can't see. The actually ability to hit at all with disadvantage (rather than an automatic miss) would account for other senses beyond sight.
It's certainly simplified for the benefit of streamlined mechanics, but why does the advantage/disadvantage situation feel weird or counter-intuitive?
I mean, imagine people fighting in the darkness - no one is deaf, and they're really going for each other, but you can see them clearly.
Wouldn't it include both lucky hits that the target cannot evade (as he cannot see them coming) and laughable misses (as the attacker cannot see the target)?
Sure, the combat would be much less skillful-looking (and much funnier) than the same situation happening when both combatants can see each other, but the abstract representation seems consistent with the expectations I'd have.
It's certainly simplified for the benefit of streamlined mechanics, but why does the advantage/disadvantage situation feel weird or counter-intuitive?
It's the attacker with advantage + disadvantage = no-vantage that is counter-intuitive. In it's most simplified interpretation, if you're fighting someone within the effect of a darkness spell, being blind should be an attack at disadvantage even if the target should be at advantage to hit. Someone breathing hard, grunting, armour jingling as they attack should give the target enough of a clue to juke. The same can be said about the attacker, thon hears where their adversary is attempting to juke and chooses to swing at where the noise was or where they think the noise is going. It's this latter logic that had my table of players thinking back to 3.xE and going back to using the 50% miss chance rule again. It worked well enough in their battle with the Red Fangs of Shargaas after they dropped their darkness special ability on the PCs and did strafing attacks from their giant bat steeds. Pretty cool encounter actually.
It's certainly simplified for the benefit of streamlined mechanics, but why does the advantage/disadvantage situation feel weird or counter-intuitive?
I mean, imagine people fighting in the darkness - no one is deaf, and they're really going for each other, but you can see them clearly.
Wouldn't it include both lucky hits that the target cannot evade (as he cannot see them coming) and laughable misses (as the attacker cannot see the target)?
Sure, the combat would be much less skillful-looking (and much funnier) than the same situation happening when both combatants can see each other, but the abstract representation seems consistent with the expectations I'd have.
Basically two people fighting each other that can't see, cannot overcome armor with as much ease as if they weren't fighting blind.It makes sense only if AC was a pure function of dex. but because you are wearing armor it doesn't make sense, for the most part in metal armor you aren't avoiding attacks at all. In other words its unrealistically streamlined. . Feels like it would get even more wonky if you have someone outside of darkness and someone inside darkness. Basically the person in light should have disadvantage to hit you, and you shouldn't have disadvantage to hit them since they are in light you should be able to see them.
Just to remark here that the mechanics od D&D does not try to "translate" exactly real situation. The fact that both combatants in darkness do not have neither advantage nor disadvantage simply means that they are fihgting with "neutral" condition.
Yeah, I'm just not a fan of let's ignore the conditions just because of "neutral" ground. If you are fighting blinded it makes no sense at all to me that you fight as well as you can without being blinded so long as you fight another opponent who is blinded.
Basically I would prefer the third edition idea of where you could use flat-footed AC with a penalty to attack.
A soldier in full plate gains nothing from dex meaning they can't doge. So hence makes no sense they suffer a penalty (or grant an advantage) when they aren't going around dodging.
Yeah, I'm just not a fan of let's ignore the conditions just because of "neutral" ground. If you are fighting blinded it makes no sense at all to me that you fight as well as you can without being blinded so long as you fight another opponent who is blinded.
Basically I would prefer the third edition idea of where you could use flat-footed AC with a penalty to attack.
A soldier in full plate gains nothing from dex meaning they can't doge. So hence makes no sense they suffer a penalty (or grant an advantage) when they aren't going around dodging.
I guess it could be just me, but it seems like there are two paths to take that arrive at roughly the same place:
Either you take the easy route and roll without any modifiers on either side because both sides are roughly-equally-penalized by the conditions at hand, or you take the hard route and apply adjustments to both sides of the roll that have to be remembered or looked up. But in both cases, you come out to roughly the same odds that the roll succeeds.
To illustrate what I mean, I'll use some made up numbers because I don't remember exactly what the old rules are and don't feel like looking them up right now:
5e Approach: If an attack when both the attacker and target can see each other would be 1d20 +6 vs. AC 16, there is a 55% chance of success. If both the target and attacker are unable to see the other, the attack would also have a 55% chance of success because the advantage of the unseen attacker is canceled by the disadvantage of the unseen target.
3e Approach: If an attack when both the attacker and target can see each other would be 1d20 +6 vs. AC 16, there is a 55% chance of success. If you apply a -4 penalty to the attack roll because the attacker can't see the target (1d20 +2 now), and use the flat-footed AC of the target (which let's say ends up being 12 for the sake of this illustration) because they can't see the attacker, you've called modifiers into the mix and arrived at... a 55% chance of success.
Where the 3e approach differs is that it creates a situation in which some targets are less affected by not being able to see and some are more affected, which while some might consider that to be "cool" I think is particularly "uncool" because the characters most harshly affected are those that I imagine would be most likely to still duck under an attack even if they had to wait until they could hear it coming rather than starting to dodge when they saw it coming - and I like not having to try and remember a specific number, just whether something is good (advantage) or bad (disadvantage) which is more intuitive to figure out even when I figure what the book says on the matter.
Edit to add: Also, the usage of full plate armor is not to literally stand stark still and absorb blows, it's to dodge when possible and position the armor appropriate so it will reduce the impact of a blow - the game mechanic of not adjusting AC by Dexterity modifier is just that, a game mechanic that does things for game-play reasons, not an attempt at simulation of any reality - not even the in-game reality of how an armored character behaves.
As Aaron's edit mentions, armor usage (of any type) is much more complicated than "stand in it and ignore blows".
I believe that its bonus to AC is also a simplification for game rules, and how they interact with Dexterity is more for balance concerns than anything realistic. After all, Heavy Armor doesn't give a penalty to Dexterity saves, or the Dodge action, so dodging isn't impossible. It's just that its static AC represents a cap of coordination between moving your body and where that part of your body has a hard place to deflect incoming blows from.
Note, however, that Dodge requires you to see your attacker.
I can see the desire for more realistic approach. I have done so myself, and custom rules abound for such things (although I'd warn against going for strict realism with armor - it becomes both cumbersome and turns some armors extraordinarily better than others. I've tried...). Still, I think the core rules about this situation reflect the outcome pretty accurately for my tastes, without overhead or slowdown in the table.
Sure, the thief will jump around wildly to dodge swings he things he hears, and the knight will brace himself and hope incoming attacks will hit his plate and not his face, but, in the end, their chances are not changed that much. Well, the thief does have a disadvantage in that scenario, in fact. Sneak Attack (a precision strike) requires you to not have disadvantage.
It's a complex situation which I streamline to keeping it simple. Both have disadvantage.
It's the advantage cancelling out disadvantage that makes it feel off otherwise.
I would agree. It is having the disadvantage canceling out because the other person can't see how to dodge, when many of the armors don't actually allow for dodging anyway.
The game mechanic of not adjusting AC would in fact imply you are incapable of attempting to dodge. Realism would also say it is impossible to dodge in Plate. So hence it makes sense you aren't taking a penalty for something you can't actually do. Hence why third is better.
The game mechanic of not adjusting AC would in fact imply you are incapable of attempting to dodge. Realism would also say it is impossible to dodge in Plate. So hence it makes sense you aren't taking a penalty for something you can't actually do. Hence why third is better.
Game mechanics in 5th edition's design paradigm are not intended as simulation of reality, so "No" to the first statement.
Realism says no thing of the sort about plate armor, since people can literally sprint and do cartwheels in an appropriately fitted suit of plate armor in real life, so "No" to the second statement as well.
Which brings your third statement into light as what it is; your opinion. And one that doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense given that the thing you are attempting to say makes 3rd better (that heavy armor isn't penalized by "not being able to dodge") is less true of 3rd edition than it is of 5th edition given that Dexterity modifier did still influence AC in heavy armor in 3rd.
Thanks, everyone, for the options and insights. I appreciate you taking the time to help me think this through. For this campaign, I'll be going with darkness imposes disadvantage on both combatants (cause that's easy and I'm lazy). Except the rats here have Pack Tactics. That paladin better watch out.... :)
It's a complex situation which I streamline to keeping it simple. Both have disadvantage.
It's the advantage cancelling out disadvantage that makes it feel off otherwise.
How is this simpler than following the rules though? Combat's going to take longer because of missing more often, and rogues lose their Sneak Attack. I prefer to be consistent. I don't want my players having to remember exceptions to the written rules.
The game mechanic of not adjusting AC would in fact imply you are incapable of attempting to dodge. Realism would also say it is impossible to dodge in Plate. So hence it makes sense you aren't taking a penalty for something you can't actually do. Hence why third is better.
Like Onyx mentioned, it's clear you're still dodging, since the Dodge action still makes you harder to hit and being paralyzed or blinded makes you easier to hit. The fixed AC only implies there's not much of a difference between different people in full plate. You could rationalize this a couple of different ways. For example, the weight of the armor prevents fast people from having an edge, but the general lack of weak points means being slow isn't a disadvantage. Or, with that much armor on the only time you get hit is when you make a mistake, and being faster doesn't help much with that.
It doesn't matter too much anyways since HP is an abstraction that combines multiple concepts (stamina, strength, willpower, luck). You don't actually take a direct hit or suffer serious injury until you drop to 0 HP, so beating a target's AC usually doesn't mean you hit them dead-on.
I'm pretty sure Rogues lose their Sneak Attack in either case, in the situation being discussed. Having Advantage and Disadvantage (any number of each) on an attack cancels each other out for the purposes of rolling, but you're still treated as having a Disadvantage, which prevents Sneak Attack.
I'd say the real issue here is when you have one person in clear daylight and the other person in darkness hiding. Even more so when you add a melee combatant in the darkness also. It makes everything so much easier just to go, if you can't see your opponent you have disadvantage and if you can see your opponent you don't get disadvantage. I'd even say trying to figure out who has advantage and who has disadvantage would be more draining on play than just letting the two attack with disadvantage. (If disadvantage didn't mean an almost certain miss).
The rogue isn't really going to be able to get sneak attack anyway because the advantage and disadvantage canceling each other out.
May also be that I lean way more on the if you don't know where you opponent is, you can't really attack him. I mean you can try to attack in front of you, but if he isn't in front of you it isn't going to hit. Which is why I might be more inclined to allow the attack to occur with disadvantage to account for your randomness. It also means as a DM having to reveal whether or not the monster can see the player. Which you may not want to do.
In the end I hate advantage and disadvantage and I'm sure that colors how I would handle the situation. I mean literally advantage/disadvantage is why I hadn't looked into 5th edition until now. I love everything else about the edition though.
I'm pretty sure Rogues lose their Sneak Attack in either case, in the situation being discussed. Having Advantage and Disadvantage (any number of each) on an attack cancels each other out for the purposes of rolling, but you're still treated as having a Disadvantage, which prevents Sneak Attack.
Nah, they cancel out completely. The rules are pretty clear on this point - they go so far as to say it twice.
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.
And if you search for "from:jeremyecrawford advantage disadvantage" on twitter you'll also find about 5 tweets saying that advantage and disadvantage cancel out, with no further qualification.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you handle darkness in melee combat?
The 5e rules I've found link night settings to heavy obscuration to the Blinded condition (DisAdv for attacking others, Adv for those attacking). So if 2 belligerents are in a dark room, they would both get disadvantage in trying to stab each other? That seems to ignore a lot of tactile information you'd pick up in melee. Would every dark-fight devolve to grappling? Would every adventurer-level person automatically have a sense of not-quite-blindfighting? ('Course I don't have any experience in real sword-swinging in the dark; but in the boffer sword fights we used to have at night, seemed to be fairly easy to target one another. Modern day light-pollution?)
Chandelierianism: Not just for interns anymore.
If the combatant are fighting into darkness (and none of them has senses like Darkvision), they both have advantage and disadvantage on the attack rolls (see Blinded), so both roll one d20. The rules also say that sight isn't the only factor to know the position of the you combatant. Unless one of them tries to hide, one knows the position of the other.
I still use the 3.xE mechanic of the miss chance, which is 50% in total darkness, which I guess is similar enough to the Disadvantage mechanic. As filcat nicely quoted though, the mutual advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out so they're making a normal attack roll in total darkness...which seems entirely counter-intuitive. *shrugs* So I have them make their attack rolls by first picking which adjacent square they're attacking (battle-grid helps here, sorry Theatre of the Mind advocates) and roll the d20 & d% simultaneously, reading the d% result first. If it's a 51% or greater, then we do the math of the to hit roll so I can describe whether they hit something, had their weapon glance off of something, or they just murdered the 'ell out of an empty square so they know to try another one.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
It seems silly that while fighting in the dark you have the same chance of hitting someone as you both can see each other. Honestly I'd probably just go with disadvantage on the attack rolls as it makes more sense you have some disadvantage from not being able to see, rather than not just because your opponent also can't see. The actually ability to hit at all with disadvantage (rather than an automatic miss) would account for other senses beyond sight.
It's certainly simplified for the benefit of streamlined mechanics, but why does the advantage/disadvantage situation feel weird or counter-intuitive?
I mean, imagine people fighting in the darkness - no one is deaf, and they're really going for each other, but you can see them clearly.
Wouldn't it include both lucky hits that the target cannot evade (as he cannot see them coming) and laughable misses (as the attacker cannot see the target)?
Sure, the combat would be much less skillful-looking (and much funnier) than the same situation happening when both combatants can see each other, but the abstract representation seems consistent with the expectations I'd have.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
Just to remark here that the mechanics od D&D does not try to "translate" exactly real situation. The fact that both combatants in darkness do not have neither advantage nor disadvantage simply means that they are fihgting with "neutral" condition.
Yeah, I'm just not a fan of let's ignore the conditions just because of "neutral" ground. If you are fighting blinded it makes no sense at all to me that you fight as well as you can without being blinded so long as you fight another opponent who is blinded.
Basically I would prefer the third edition idea of where you could use flat-footed AC with a penalty to attack.
A soldier in full plate gains nothing from dex meaning they can't doge. So hence makes no sense they suffer a penalty (or grant an advantage) when they aren't going around dodging.
As Aaron's edit mentions, armor usage (of any type) is much more complicated than "stand in it and ignore blows".
I believe that its bonus to AC is also a simplification for game rules, and how they interact with Dexterity is more for balance concerns than anything realistic. After all, Heavy Armor doesn't give a penalty to Dexterity saves, or the Dodge action, so dodging isn't impossible. It's just that its static AC represents a cap of coordination between moving your body and where that part of your body has a hard place to deflect incoming blows from.
Note, however, that Dodge requires you to see your attacker.
I can see the desire for more realistic approach. I have done so myself, and custom rules abound for such things (although I'd warn against going for strict realism with armor - it becomes both cumbersome and turns some armors extraordinarily better than others. I've tried...). Still, I think the core rules about this situation reflect the outcome pretty accurately for my tastes, without overhead or slowdown in the table.
Sure, the thief will jump around wildly to dodge swings he things he hears, and the knight will brace himself and hope incoming attacks will hit his plate and not his face, but, in the end, their chances are not changed that much. Well, the thief does have a disadvantage in that scenario, in fact. Sneak Attack (a precision strike) requires you to not have disadvantage.
It's a complex situation which I streamline to keeping it simple. Both have disadvantage.
It's the advantage cancelling out disadvantage that makes it feel off otherwise.
The game mechanic of not adjusting AC would in fact imply you are incapable of attempting to dodge. Realism would also say it is impossible to dodge in Plate. So hence it makes sense you aren't taking a penalty for something you can't actually do. Hence why third is better.
Thanks, everyone, for the options and insights. I appreciate you taking the time to help me think this through. For this campaign, I'll be going with darkness imposes disadvantage on both combatants (cause that's easy and I'm lazy). Except the rats here have Pack Tactics. That paladin better watch out.... :)
Chandelierianism: Not just for interns anymore.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm pretty sure Rogues lose their Sneak Attack in either case, in the situation being discussed. Having Advantage and Disadvantage (any number of each) on an attack cancels each other out for the purposes of rolling, but you're still treated as having a Disadvantage, which prevents Sneak Attack.
I'd say the real issue here is when you have one person in clear daylight and the other person in darkness hiding. Even more so when you add a melee combatant in the darkness also. It makes everything so much easier just to go, if you can't see your opponent you have disadvantage and if you can see your opponent you don't get disadvantage. I'd even say trying to figure out who has advantage and who has disadvantage would be more draining on play than just letting the two attack with disadvantage. (If disadvantage didn't mean an almost certain miss).
The rogue isn't really going to be able to get sneak attack anyway because the advantage and disadvantage canceling each other out.
May also be that I lean way more on the if you don't know where you opponent is, you can't really attack him. I mean you can try to attack in front of you, but if he isn't in front of you it isn't going to hit. Which is why I might be more inclined to allow the attack to occur with disadvantage to account for your randomness. It also means as a DM having to reveal whether or not the monster can see the player. Which you may not want to do.
In the end I hate advantage and disadvantage and I'm sure that colors how I would handle the situation. I mean literally advantage/disadvantage is why I hadn't looked into 5th edition until now. I love everything else about the edition though.
The Forum Infestation (TM)