Two blind/in darkness combatants will not in any way realistically fight with the same ability as two combatants that can see each other.
If you put two opponents in pitch blackness and let them go at it for 1 minute, do you think they will end up with more or less injuries than if their fight was lit?
I'd argue they would end up with more injuries, not less. Darkness should favour an attacker swinging wildly at a 6ft high target, not a defender trying to dodge, block, or parry a one inch wide weapon.
Perhaps the rule should be "both attackers have advantage"?
From a tabletop game point of view, if you give both attackers disadvantage then you don't change the end outcome at all (the better and/or luckier fighter still wins) it just takes twice as many rounds and dice rolls. Making the advantage and disadvantage cancel out and rolling as normal saves us players time at the table.
Perhaps the rule should be "both attackers have advantage"?
From a tabletop game point of view, if you give both attackers disadvantage then you don't change the end outcome at all (the better and/or luckier fighter still wins) it just takes twice as many rounds and dice rolls. Making the advantage and disadvantage cancel out and rolling as normal saves us players time at the table.
For a Rogue:
Having Advantage allows Sneak Attack. Having Disadvantage stops Sneak Attack.
So giving both advantage would create openings for sneak attack, which wouldn't make sense, as the rogue would have no idea where they are striking.
Giving both sides disadvantage actually does change the outcome as it makes critical hits statistically less likely, however, I agree that it should remain a straight roll for the sake of speeding up combat.
For realism, there should be different rules for Heavy/light armor, as wild swings against plate mail simply don't do much, whereas cutting through leather is pretty likely either way. Again though, this should be ignored for the sake of fewer headaches.
Additonally, my table has house-ruled blind attacks like that. If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you.Your attack is blind, therefore you do not have advantage. All attacks are at disadvantage.
The part in green is actually rules as written. In red, that's the house rule part (if both can't see each other)
The green text is in fact a house rule. RAW you unconditionally have advantage against a target that can't see you. The green text says advantage also requires seeing the target. In a double blind situation, that leaves both parties with the disadvantage of not seeing their target, but no advantage.
If you both cannot see each other, you have two different conditions - one that gives you advantage, and one that gives you disadvantage. RAW says in those cases they cancel out and it's neither.
PHB: 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.
If you put two opponents in pitch blackness and let them go at it for 1 minute, do you think they will end up with more or less injuries than if their fight was lit?
I'd argue they would end up with more injuries, not less. Darkness should favour an attacker swinging wildly at a 6ft high target, not a defender trying to dodge, block, or parry a one inch wide weapon.
Perhaps the rule should be "both attackers have advantage"?
I'd agree with that if it's life or death, 1 v 1, they're unarmored, there's no option to get out of the darkness and they're using weapons that are effective when swung in broad arcs.
I don't think that's what would happen if you add heavy armor, large monsters, multiple combatants, ranged attacks, the possibility of hitting an ally, and the option to get out of the darkness.
From a tabletop game point of view, if you give both attackers disadvantage then you don't change the end outcome at all (the better and/or luckier fighter still wins) it just takes twice as many rounds and dice rolls. Making the advantage and disadvantage cancel out and rolling as normal saves us players time at the table.
That's true, but it also incentivizes doing nonsensical things like cancelling the disadvantage of a restrained or prone ally by blinding everybody.
If you both cannot see each other, you have two different conditions - one that gives you advantage, and one that gives you disadvantage. RAW says in those cases they cancel out and it's neither.
That's the RAW result. Read the green text again. That's not going to be result with the house rule crzyhawk is using.
I'm failing to see how this it not rules as written.
Additonally, my table has house-ruled blind attacks like that. If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you.Your attack is blind, therefore you do not have advantage.
If you cannot see your target, you don't have advantage, even if the target also cannot see you. You don't have advantage in either case.
i9f your target doesn't see you, you have advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Darkness, and also fog cloud in some scenarios since they’re similar, are usually a way that the caster can reset disadvantageous effects. If your party is fighting in regular darkness vs creatures with darkvision, and you loose your light source, the creatures with darkvision can make their attacks with advantage. Cast darkness or fog cloud and they no longer have that advantage, it equalizes to neutral. Same thing can be true fir an underwater environment with creatures and swim speeds. If your unprepared and find your self in water there’s a high likelihood you’ll be baking your attacks at disadvantage. Darkness brings you back to neutral, and everything’s good. It counters pack tactics if you all get mobbed as well. Fighting creatures that can restrain, stun, paralyze, or become invisible can also be partially mitigated, as again, the advantage and disadvantage go back to neutral.
there’s also the cool effect that happens with the alert feat that makes these spells a more defensive boon if used. I have fog cloud with my war wizard who has the alert feat, and it’s awesome when we need it.
In our games, casters with Darkness have to be very careful of where they place the effect with regard to other players. Our DM has ruled that in addition to the adv/disadv rules, baring special sight, pcs covered by Darkness have to determine if they even attack in the correct direction, usually with a roll vs some very hard DC. If they succeed, then they can attempt the attack role. We have been able to reduce the DC if we can provide a story element/narrative that explains how we "know" where to swing. So, at our table, Darkness can screw allies.
In our games, casters with Darkness have to be very careful of where they place the effect with regard to other players. Our DM has ruled that in addition to the adv/disadv rules, baring special sight, pcs covered by Darkness have to determine if they even attack in the correct direction, usually with a roll vs some very hard DC. If they succeed, then they can attempt the attack role. We have been able to reduce the DC if we can provide a story element/narrative that explains how we "know" where to swing. So, at our table, Darkness can screw allies.
This isn’t RAW, but it’s a lot more realistic. Does he apply the same rules to enemies?
I'm failing to see how this it not rules as written.
Additonally, my table has house-ruled blind attacks like that. If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you.Your attack is blind, therefore you do not have advantage.
If you cannot see your target, you don't have advantage, even if the target also cannot see you. You don't have advantage in either case.
RAW:
you can't see the target: disadvantage to you
your target can't see you: advantage to you
result: cancel each other out
His house rule:
you can't see the target: disadvantage to you
your target can't see you: no advantage to you because you can't see the target ("If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you. ")
i9f your target doesn't see you, you have advantage.
Correct. Unless you also can't see your target. Then it's a wash - you both have neither advantage, nor disadvantage.
Exactly. that's why our implementation is a houserule. We rule both parties have disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
In our games, casters with Darkness have to be very careful of where they place the effect with regard to other players. Our DM has ruled that in addition to the adv/disadv rules, baring special sight, pcs covered by Darkness have to determine if they even attack in the correct direction, usually with a roll vs some very hard DC. If they succeed, then they can attempt the attack role. We have been able to reduce the DC if we can provide a story element/narrative that explains how we "know" where to swing. So, at our table, Darkness can screw allies.
This isn’t RAW, but it’s a lot more realistic. Does he apply the same rules to enemies?
Yes, he does apply the rules to both players and npcs. He tends to house rule several "realism" style modifications to RAW. We generally don't mind as he also allows us to RP ways around the rules as long as it makes for a good "cinematic" story. for an example, we have to declare our total turn (movement, action, bonus action) at the start of our turn. This prevents us from switching targets if the first one dies to our first attack or if we declared an attack to each and the first doesn't land, we can't adjust our second attack. On the other hand, if we fully describe our turn as a cinematic scene, he often awards bonuses or inspiration. Rule of cool applies.
In our games, casters with Darkness have to be very careful of where they place the effect with regard to other players. Our DM has ruled that in addition to the adv/disadv rules, baring special sight, pcs covered by Darkness have to determine if they even attack in the correct direction, usually with a roll vs some very hard DC. If they succeed, then they can attempt the attack role. We have been able to reduce the DC if we can provide a story element/narrative that explains how we "know" where to swing. So, at our table, Darkness can screw allies.
This isn’t RAW, but it’s a lot more realistic. Does he apply the same rules to enemies?
Yes, he does apply the rules to both players and npcs. He tends to house rule several "realism" style modifications to RAW. We generally don't mind as he also allows us to RP ways around the rules as long as it makes for a good "cinematic" story. for an example, we have to declare our total turn (movement, action, bonus action) at the start of our turn. This prevents us from switching targets if the first one dies to our first attack or if we declared an attack to each and the first doesn't land, we can't adjust our second attack. On the other hand, if we fully describe our turn as a cinematic scene, he often awards bonuses or inspiration. Rule of cool applies.
The darkness rule I totally understand. But this one makes no sense to me. The game is simulating live decisions made on the spot. If your first target died, why would you continue attacking it?
Once you get 4th level spells https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/shadow-of-moil would be more likely to be a better fit as it still gives you advantage on attacks but doesn't effect your friends.
Additonally, my table has house-ruled blind attacks like that. If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you.
We have been using this modified blindness rule at our table for a while and it works for us thematically and mechanically.
I've been in situations where darkness on the whole party was very advantageous. We were fighting ghouls and a ghast that popped out of the ground and surrounded us. We generally had better AC than the ghouls, and because of their paralysis effect on their claw attacks we felt it was a good tactic to avoid getting hit by them as much as possible.
I've been in situations where darkness on the whole party was very advantageous. We were fighting ghouls and a ghast that popped out of the ground and surrounded us. We generally had better AC than the ghouls, and because of their paralysis effect on their claw attacks we felt it was a good tactic to avoid getting hit by them as much as possible.
I more see the benefit in a case with an enemy that requires sight as part of its effects. For example fighting an umberhulk darkness is your best friend.
I've seen various guides which say to use Darkness to negate advantage or disadvantage: If either your enemies have advantage but you don't, or you have disadvantage but your enemies don't (or, of course, you have disadvantage and your enemies have advantage), it levels the playing field. Everyone gets both advantage and disadvantage, so it cancels out for everyone.
The house rule above won't do that if you have disadvantage but your enemy doesn't. It closes off a use for the spell. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend on your opinion: Is it a valid use, or is it a loophole you want to close?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just to clarify natural darkness is the absence of light, you can look through it at a light source behind it or outside of it.
Magical Darkness/ the spell is opaque, no light can pass through it.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]If you put two opponents in pitch blackness and let them go at it for 1 minute, do you think they will end up with more or less injuries than if their fight was lit?
I'd argue they would end up with more injuries, not less. Darkness should favour an attacker swinging wildly at a 6ft high target, not a defender trying to dodge, block, or parry a one inch wide weapon.
Perhaps the rule should be "both attackers have advantage"?
From a tabletop game point of view, if you give both attackers disadvantage then you don't change the end outcome at all (the better and/or luckier fighter still wins) it just takes twice as many rounds and dice rolls. Making the advantage and disadvantage cancel out and rolling as normal saves us players time at the table.
For a Rogue:
Having Advantage allows Sneak Attack.
Having Disadvantage stops Sneak Attack.
So giving both advantage would create openings for sneak attack, which wouldn't make sense, as the rogue would have no idea where they are striking.
Giving both sides disadvantage actually does change the outcome as it makes critical hits statistically less likely, however, I agree that it should remain a straight roll for the sake of speeding up combat.
For realism, there should be different rules for Heavy/light armor, as wild swings against plate mail simply don't do much, whereas cutting through leather is pretty likely either way. Again though, this should be ignored for the sake of fewer headaches.
If you both cannot see each other, you have two different conditions - one that gives you advantage, and one that gives you disadvantage. RAW says in those cases they cancel out and it's neither.
PHB: 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.
I'd agree with that if it's life or death, 1 v 1, they're unarmored, there's no option to get out of the darkness and they're using weapons that are effective when swung in broad arcs.
I don't think that's what would happen if you add heavy armor, large monsters, multiple combatants, ranged attacks, the possibility of hitting an ally, and the option to get out of the darkness.
That's true, but it also incentivizes doing nonsensical things like cancelling the disadvantage of a restrained or prone ally by blinding everybody.
That's the RAW result. Read the green text again. That's not going to be result with the house rule crzyhawk is using.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm failing to see how this it not rules as written.
Additonally, my table has house-ruled blind attacks like that. If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you. Your attack is blind, therefore you do not have advantage.
If you cannot see your target, you don't have advantage, even if the target also cannot see you. You don't have advantage in either case.
i9f your target doesn't see you, you have advantage.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Correct. Unless you also can't see your target. Then it's a wash - you both have neither advantage, nor disadvantage.
Darkness, and also fog cloud in some scenarios since they’re similar, are usually a way that the caster can reset disadvantageous effects.
If your party is fighting in regular darkness vs creatures with darkvision, and you loose your light source, the creatures with darkvision can make their attacks with advantage. Cast darkness or fog cloud and they no longer have that advantage, it equalizes to neutral. Same thing can be true fir an underwater environment with creatures and swim speeds.
If your unprepared and find your self in water there’s a high likelihood you’ll be baking your attacks at disadvantage. Darkness brings you back to neutral, and everything’s good. It counters pack tactics if you all get mobbed as well.
Fighting creatures that can restrain, stun, paralyze, or become invisible can also be partially mitigated, as again, the advantage and disadvantage go back to neutral.
there’s also the cool effect that happens with the alert feat that makes these spells a more defensive boon if used. I have fog cloud with my war wizard who has the alert feat, and it’s awesome when we need it.
In our games, casters with Darkness have to be very careful of where they place the effect with regard to other players. Our DM has ruled that in addition to the adv/disadv rules, baring special sight, pcs covered by Darkness have to determine if they even attack in the correct direction, usually with a roll vs some very hard DC. If they succeed, then they can attempt the attack role. We have been able to reduce the DC if we can provide a story element/narrative that explains how we "know" where to swing. So, at our table, Darkness can screw allies.
This isn’t RAW, but it’s a lot more realistic. Does he apply the same rules to enemies?
RAW:
you can't see the target: disadvantage to you
your target can't see you: advantage to you
result: cancel each other out
His house rule:
you can't see the target: disadvantage to you
your target can't see you: no advantage to you because you can't see the target ("If you can't see your target you do not have advantage, even if the target cannot see you. ")
result: you still get disadvantage
Exactly. that's why our implementation is a houserule. We rule both parties have disadvantage.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yes, he does apply the rules to both players and npcs. He tends to house rule several "realism" style modifications to RAW. We generally don't mind as he also allows us to RP ways around the rules as long as it makes for a good "cinematic" story. for an example, we have to declare our total turn (movement, action, bonus action) at the start of our turn. This prevents us from switching targets if the first one dies to our first attack or if we declared an attack to each and the first doesn't land, we can't adjust our second attack. On the other hand, if we fully describe our turn as a cinematic scene, he often awards bonuses or inspiration. Rule of cool applies.
The darkness rule I totally understand. But this one makes no sense to me. The game is simulating live decisions made on the spot. If your first target died, why would you continue attacking it?
Once you get 4th level spells https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/shadow-of-moil would be more likely to be a better fit as it still gives you advantage on attacks but doesn't effect your friends.
We have been using this modified blindness rule at our table for a while and it works for us thematically and mechanically.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I've been in situations where darkness on the whole party was very advantageous. We were fighting ghouls and a ghast that popped out of the ground and surrounded us. We generally had better AC than the ghouls, and because of their paralysis effect on their claw attacks we felt it was a good tactic to avoid getting hit by them as much as possible.
I more see the benefit in a case with an enemy that requires sight as part of its effects. For example fighting an umberhulk darkness is your best friend.
I've seen various guides which say to use Darkness to negate advantage or disadvantage: If either your enemies have advantage but you don't, or you have disadvantage but your enemies don't (or, of course, you have disadvantage and your enemies have advantage), it levels the playing field. Everyone gets both advantage and disadvantage, so it cancels out for everyone.
The house rule above won't do that if you have disadvantage but your enemy doesn't. It closes off a use for the spell. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend on your opinion: Is it a valid use, or is it a loophole you want to close?