Can I Sneak Attack if I cancel Disadvantage from Poison using Steady Aim or Vex?

I’m playing a Rogue using the 2024 D&D rules. In a recent session, my character was Poisoned, so I had Disadvantage on attack rolls.

On my turn, I used Steady Aim (and sometimes the target was also Vexed), which granted me Advantage. That canceled out the Disadvantage, resulting in a normal d20 roll.

I also had an ally within 5 feet of the target, fulfilling the Sneak Attack condition—as long as I don’t have Disadvantage.

However, my DM ruled that Sneak Attack was still disqualified because I “had Disadvantage,” even though it was canceled out. The reasoning was that the Disadvantage condition still existed—even if nullified by Advantage.

My understanding:

• If Advantage and Disadvantage cancel, the roll is normal, and I no longer “have Disadvantage.”

• So, Sneak Attack should still apply if I meet the ally adjacency condition, even without Advantage.

Personally, I disagree with this (as a DM myself), but this is not my table so I did NOT argue the point. 

What I'd like as input is, is this correct by RAW (Rules as Written) in the 2024 ruleset?
If anyone has dev quotes, Sage Advice, or rulebook page references, I’d really appreciate it!

This is the DMs logic.

The attack has Advantage + Disadvantage (maybe multiple sources of each) which cancel out their effects but they don't cancel their "condition" (if I can call it that), because if they did, the rule of stacking wouldn't work.

Disadvantage is a term and rolling two dice and keeping the lowest is the effect of that term the effect is cancelled but not the status/condition/term

For the stacking to work, it implies that Advantage + Disadvantage still exist but their effects get cancelled thus more instances of each would be "stacking".

In an analogy example, I think of as if you have a feature that lets you regain 1 hp when taking damage, and you take 1 damage. It's not as none of them happening and you took no damage, both happened, you both healed and took damage, but their effects were cancelled out. which would allow other sources to trigger on damage/healing and in our case Sneak Attack still getting negated by Disadvantage across 5e I always thought that's the balancing point of Sneak attack. otherwise it's a free overpowered smite that costs no resources and you can do out of your turn too (and from range)

While I "understand" their viewpoint, If you are going by RAW, which he does say he does (and says Rule of Cool is for lazy DMs who don't know the rules), this isn't RAW. This is justifiying a NERF to Sneak Attack. It's his table, so I roll with how he runs it. Just wanted other eyeballs and input. 

From another point of view, a Sneak attack would make sense, and even have advantage, because there is on debuff on the creature you are trying to hit and one buff and one debuff on you (the debuff in them being the Vexed status, the buff on you being the status of being steadily aiming, as well as the debuff poisoned). therefore it would stand to reason that the steady aim and the poison would cancel each other out, as you take aim to fire but are somewhat distracted by the pain or discomfort from the poison, but the creature you hit to begin with is still weakened to you, granting you an advantage and disadvantage from yourself, as well as an advantage because of the circumstances, eventually evening out to a net advantage to your ability to hit the creature. But, this is not my table and there is no arguing with the RAW so I have to ask myself, who exactly asked me to open my big mouth?

Quote from Luvac_Zantor >>

 

 

While I "understand" their viewpoint, If you are going by RAW, which he does say he does (and says Rule of Cool is for lazy DMs who don't know the rules), this isn't RAW. This is justifiying a NERF to Sneak Attack. It's his table, so I roll with how he runs it. Just wanted other eyeballs and input. 

 To be justified at the table - in combat - a rogue needs to sneak attack every round of every fight, forever. It's ok to have to work for it. But a rogue without sneak attack is a commoner. GM's need to realise this. 

Quote from spamandtuna >>

“If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#TheyDontStack

The advantage/disadvantage does not stack.  The DM is correct.

To get sneak attack, you do not add up how many times I can get advantage and subtract by how many times you get disadvantage.

Advantage/disadvantage do not stack so if poison gives you a disadvantage, the best you can hope for is to have it canceled out.

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from spamandtuna >>

“If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#TheyDontStack

 

The advantage/disadvantage does not stack.  The DM is correct.

To get sneak attack, you do not add up how many times I can get advantage and subtract by how many times you get disadvantage.

Advantage/disadvantage do not stack so if poison gives you a disadvantage, the best you can hope for is to have it canceled out.

 I think you missed the part where the rogue also had an ally within 5 ft. Since they did not have disadvantage on the roll (because it was canceled by advantage, explicitly NOT "applied but a wash"), the ally condition allows sneak attack to occur.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from spamandtuna >>

“If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#TheyDontStack

 

The advantage/disadvantage does not stack.  The DM is correct.

To get sneak attack, you do not add up how many times I can get advantage and subtract by how many times you get disadvantage.

Advantage/disadvantage do not stack so if poison gives you a disadvantage, the best you can hope for is to have it canceled out.

 I think you missed the part where the rogue also had an ally within 5 ft. Since they did not have disadvantage on the roll (because it was canceled by advantage, explicitly NOT "applied but a wash"), the ally condition allows sneak attack to occur.

No I did not because ally and vex = advantage.  Poison = disadvantage.  So they cancel each other out.  You are canceling out then adding more ergo stacking the advantages.

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from spamandtuna >>

“If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#TheyDontStack

 

The advantage/disadvantage does not stack.  The DM is correct.

To get sneak attack, you do not add up how many times I can get advantage and subtract by how many times you get disadvantage.

Advantage/disadvantage do not stack so if poison gives you a disadvantage, the best you can hope for is to have it canceled out.

 I think you missed the part where the rogue also had an ally within 5 ft. Since they did not have disadvantage on the roll (because it was canceled by advantage, explicitly NOT "applied but a wash"), the ally condition allows sneak attack to occur.

 

No I did not because ally and vex = advantage.  Poison = disadvantage.  So they cancel each other out.  You are canceling out then adding more ergo stacking the advantages.

 An ally within 5 feet does not give advantage in 5e.* It is a separate condition that permits using sneak attack without advantage.

* There were optional flanking rules in the 14 books.

 An ally within 5 feet does not give advantage in 5e.* It is a separate condition that permits using sneak attack without advantage.

I did miss the language on sneak attack.  As the 5' ally waiver occurs during the attack roll itself.  It is unclear how you wrote it, but the the timing/order is important.  Until reading the actual rule, I thought it was needed when you still had disadvantage.  I was wrong.

...and you don’t have Disadvantage on the attack roll.

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Luvac_Zantor >>

 

 

While I "understand" their viewpoint, If you are going by RAW, which he does say he does (and says Rule of Cool is for lazy DMs who don't know the rules), this isn't RAW. This is justifiying a NERF to Sneak Attack. It's his table, so I roll with how he runs it. Just wanted other eyeballs and input. 

 To be justified at the table - in combat - a rogue needs to sneak attack every round of every fight, forever. It's ok to have to work for it. But a rogue without sneak attack is a commoner. GM's need to realise this. 

 I mean the same can be said about a lot of classes in various situations. A wizard out of spell slots or in a silence field etc is probably even worse off. Or melee focused characters who only have thrown weapons at long ranges. There can and should be rounds where you are ineffective due to circumstances other than bad die rolls. Still RAW in 2024 the DM is wrong in this case.  i think they would be correct under 2014 rules though as there even though it did not effect the die roll you still were considered to have disadvantage.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Luvac_Zantor >>

 

 

While I "understand" their viewpoint, If you are going by RAW, which he does say he does (and says Rule of Cool is for lazy DMs who don't know the rules), this isn't RAW. This is justifiying a NERF to Sneak Attack. It's his table, so I roll with how he runs it. Just wanted other eyeballs and input. 

 To be justified at the table - in combat - a rogue needs to sneak attack every round of every fight, forever. It's ok to have to work for it. But a rogue without sneak attack is a commoner. GM's need to realise this. 

 I mean the same can be said about a lot of classes in various situations. A wizard out of spell slots or in a silence field etc is probably even worse off. Or melee focused characters who only have thrown weapons at long ranges. There can and should be rounds where you are ineffective due to circumstances other than bad die rolls. Still RAW in 2024 the DM is wrong in this case.  i think they would be correct under 2014 rules though as there even though it did not effect the die roll you still were considered to have disadvantage.

The rules on combining advantage and disadvantage are exactly the same in both the 2014 and 2024 rules. 

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Luvac_Zantor >>

 

 

While I "understand" their viewpoint, If you are going by RAW, which he does say he does (and says Rule of Cool is for lazy DMs who don't know the rules), this isn't RAW. This is justifiying a NERF to Sneak Attack. It's his table, so I roll with how he runs it. Just wanted other eyeballs and input. 

 To be justified at the table - in combat - a rogue needs to sneak attack every round of every fight, forever. It's ok to have to work for it. But a rogue without sneak attack is a commoner. GM's need to realise this. 

 I mean the same can be said about a lot of classes in various situations. A wizard out of spell slots or in a silence field etc is probably even worse off. Or melee focused characters who only have thrown weapons at long ranges. There can and should be rounds where you are ineffective due to circumstances other than bad die rolls. Still RAW in 2024 the DM is wrong in this case.  i think they would be correct under 2014 rules though as there even though it did not effect the die roll you still were considered to have disadvantage.

The rules on combining advantage and disadvantage are exactly the same in both the 2014 and 2024 rules. 

 you are right, i have a crap memory.