Darkness & devil's sight; how does it play out in a fight? [Archive]

Corran

2015-10-11, 06:21 PM

I would like to examine the scenario the title of this thread specifies from a DM's perspective, as DMs have the option to houserule things if they feel it is necessary. Having said that, by no means am I seeking the opinions of only people who are DMing or have DM experience. I also have to say that I would like this thread to break down how this situation should play out, according to RAW and common sense, if we reach a dead end interpreting the rules or find out that the rules are insufficient to nail down exactly how this is supposed to work.

So, let us assume a character with devil's sight fights against an/some enemy(enemies) inside the area of a darkness spell. And suppose that said enemies dont have blindsight or any other feature that can cope with the darkness effect. The first thing to notice when reading the relevant rules for fighting in darkenss which creates a heavily obscured area, is that the character with the devil's sight will attack with advantage, and his enemies will attack him with disadvantage (since they suffer from the blinded condition). So far so good.

Reading the section unseen attackers and targets, in the combat section of the PHB, an extra piece of information comes forward. That the blinded creatures may have to guess the exact position of their enemy, otherwise their attacks automatically fail. Now that's a bit of a problem. If you are the player, then it's pretty straightforward for it to work, as the DM simply takes the enemy miniature out of the board (asumming grid play) and the player actually has to guess the square, so assuming the DM is not cheating, everything is fine. Is that how it is supposed to work when a player character has that advantage over monsters, and the DM has to pick a random square for the monsters to attack? Assuming a mutual trust between the people around the table, that nobody will resort to cheating, that could work. Though if many enemies inside the darkness area, it will be inevitable for the DM to correctly illustrate a realistic behaviour of the blinded creatures. The most likely scenario would be to have each one pick a different square, thus increasing the probability of landing a hit on the said pc, and definitely nulifying the probability of an enemy hitting another (if that can be the case at all, it certainly seems entirely plausible).

Another question would be if perception (hearing) could play any part in what chance the enemy has to correctly guess the pc's position. If only one enemy and the pc inside the darkness area, that actually makes sense. If more, it could have a negative effect (one enemy hitting another for example). In either case, how could one incorporate such a perception check into the situation? The rules dont seem to offer anything towards this end (unless I am missing sth). Would such a check help in balancing or making more realistic such a situation, or would it create more problems (for example the pc throws small stones, or other items to the wrong direction to mislead the enemy?

In the same section (unseen attackers and targets), it also states that the location of a hidden pc is revealed when he makes an attack. So, if the pc attacks and does with a melee attack and does not move, it is fair to assume that the enemy will know which square to attack. But what happens when the pc moves away after hitting the enemy with a melee attack. My guess would be that he is the target of an AoO (with disadvantage due to darkness ofc), and what happens in the subsequent round of the enemy is what is being debaited in the above paragraphs. But what if the pc has a means of moving away without provoking an AoO (such as mobile feat, or cunning action)? Would the enemy notice automatically or not (since he is not making an attack of opportunity)? Would it be logical to target the square from where he was hit and hence automatically miss (since the pc moved out)? Again, should he roll a perception to maybe hear the pc moving away?

Since the enemy would know the exact location of the pc when hit (as specified in the section about unseen attackers and targets), would it be a valid tactics for the enemy to ready an attack, hence avoiding to guess the exact square of the pc? That sounds good to me, especially if we are talking about enemies with multiple attacks, they sacrifice some of their attacks to just make one attack (as a readied action) but which will target the pc's square.

Would it perhaps better to just craft some probability table and roll a %die just before an enemy attacks, to see if that attack targets the pc's square or not, so see if I would bother rolling the attack or not? Maybe have conditions such as having the character roll a stealth check and according to how well he does vs the several passive perceptions, affect the probability of enemies guessing his location?

And last but not leat. The way the DM will have the enemies inside the darkness radius act, will be of critical importance. If he has all the enemies evacuate its area by simply moving out of it, it will make the effect of this combo partially redundant, as the enemies on their rounds will just walk outside the radius of the spell and target other pcs with their attacks not suffering disadvantage. If the DM has the monsters (all or some) stay inside the radius, it will make the fight a lot easier. How should a DM decide what to do with the monsters in such an occasion? Logic dictates that different monsters would act in different ways. For example a monster that has some knowledge of how this spell works (originates from a point and spreading up to a relatively small radius would simply walk outside it. Monsters that wouldn't know anything of the spell and how it works, might stay inside it for the whole duration. I understand that this mostly works according to dm's perspective. But are there any pointers and tips, official or not, on how a dm should have the monsters act in such a situation. Maybe have them roll an intelligence (arcana) check or something like that?

Any thoughts would be hugely appreciated, as I may have to deal with this situation at some point in the very near future in the campaign I am running. If also someone had that situation play out at their table, I would be delighted to hear how it worked out.

I know there have been a lot of threads about this combination, but I haven't found one yet that would explain how it would actually play out in a battle, or rather, how a DM should handle it.

Thank you in advance for any answers!

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 08:05 PM

I read the "may have to guess" clause as applying only when you've taken the Hide action. If you're just in the dark, everyone knows where you are well enough to attack you at disadvantage per usual. (Chalk it up to the PCs' keen battle-honed senses, etc.) Only by taking the Hide action do enemies lose track of your position.

This applies equally to PCs and monsters so it's easy to adjudicate.

I'll mention two things about Darkness in passing:

* Opportunity attacks require seeing the opponent, so heavy obscurement is great for melee kiting and goblin conga lines.

* Many truly powerful creatures have blindsight/truesight out to at least short range (60'), so Devil's Sight/Darkness is well-suited for easy fights but loses value in tough fights. If you're a warlock, don't get too used to having it easy.

Doof

2015-10-11, 08:11 PM

first order of business would be moving out of the area, which most characters can do unless they happen to be caught on the edge of the spell and very very unfortunately chose the other end of the spell (thus travel distance of 30 feet) to 'escape' the spell's area.

Most creatures I would presume would react by going back the way it came (safest known route), but more disciplined creatures with a leader might actually choose to advance based on the last position they saw.

An exception to this escape would be if the creature knew the position of a hostile creature (hopefully not you) within reach then it might, might, choose to attack the last known position, if it reasonably thinks you haven't moved from the position (heard no movement).

Then, it would be about readying an attack to the direction wherever the next one comes from, which would let them react to most melee attacks with a reasonable accuracy. Ranged, it gets tougher, but that means they'll likely spend the next turn moving toward where the arrow came from. It can't see it, but it can certainly feel it. The hobgoblin isn't going to go forward out of 'fairness' by DM if an arrow just struck its bum.

Edit: as such, the only real case this will work to its maximum potential would be in a small room with as few an exit as possible.

BootStrapTommy

2015-10-11, 08:17 PM

How I would would handle it as a DM:

Roll a Perception check for hearing the player, oppose to the player's Stealth. If the monster succeeds, it guesses correctly. But it rolls with disadvantage.

If the monster is deafened, or the player succeeds or is Silenced, roll a percentage to determine a random direction, auto failing if they get it wrong.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 08:32 PM

BootStrapTommy

2015-10-11, 08:44 PM

repeat until the game is either won, or we're done with this stupid meta-charOP bullcrap. Yes, because a tactic that can be beaten with a single cantrip is OP...

Corran

2015-10-11, 08:57 PM

"OK. Yeah sounds like you beat them no matter what. No need to roll out the encounter, you win"
*next fight*
"You win again, no need to roll: The loot is X, Y and Z"
*next fight*
"Don't worry, they're dead. Bob's character has killed them all in the darkness with no chance of retalation, get 4800 xp, 1400 gold and a +1 sword"

repeat until the game is either won, or we're done with this stupid meta-charOP bullcrap.
I dont think this tactics is overpowered. Well, maybe if the circumstances are ideal (some examples were mentioned above, like a small room with few and blocked exits) it could work perfectly, but that is a combination of luck and good strategy. I personally believe that this tactic is very difficult to put to use correctly, simply because it can go against proper teamwork, thus making a pc group less effective.

But I was just trying to figure out how this works, when applied. Not talk about whether it is a good or a bad strategy, or an overpowered or underpowered combo, or if people like it or not. So you are a bit off topic.
You also sound like you dont appreciate this combo a lot. Is it because you have seen how it plays out in a game? If so, would you like to share?

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 09:09 PM

I dont think this tactics is overpowered. Well, maybe if the circumstances are ideal (some examples were mentioned above, like a small room with few and blocked exits) it could work perfectly, but that is a combination of luck and good strategy. I personally believe that this tactic is very difficult to put to use correctly, simply because it can go against proper teamwork, thus making a pc group less effective.

But I was just trying to figure out how this works, when applied. Not talk about whether it is a good or a bad strategy, or an overpowered or underpowered combo, or if people like it or not. So you are a bit off topic.
You also sound like you dont appreciate this combo a lot. Is it because you have seen how it plays out in a game? If so, would you like to share?

In general, I appreciate charOP a lot less than this forum does a whole. I mean I get the appeal of it, finding efficient and powerful combos in a game is fun. I used to do quite a lot of CharOP back in the day. However I've since found that It's better to get my fix for that kind of thing in MOBAs, TT Wargames and other such genres of games fixed on competition and balance.

The issue is that CharOP shrinks the GMs design space as a necessity. If player has a *really* powerful gimmick,I've basically got 3 options

1) Ignore the gimmick. This means that the gimmick will dominate every encounter that does not counter it as natural consequence of the story, and as any given encounter is unlikely to counter the gimmick "They Win" to the point of not even needing to roll out encounters.

2) Counter the gimmick. This means that I design encounters with the gimmick in mind and make it irrelevant. This is no fun for anyone because I'm spending my time contriving reasons for the gimmick not to work and the PC is just getting their **** rekt for no in-game reason. Lose-Lose

3) Try to keep the gimmick in balance. This is a ton of work for me, the PC feels a bit better because sometimes their gimmick works and sometimes it doesn't but it's a super fragile balancing act. I've got to constantly juggle keeping their gimmick relevant but not dominating, with making the game feel organic and responsive to player's choices. This is *much* harder and sometimes impossible in comparison to characters who just kind of choose middle of the road options that "sometimes work, sometimes don't" just by virtue of being sub-optimal in a mostly-working game engine. It also runs a real risk of hurting the non-OP characters.

It's super frustrating. If you find a wombo-combo sure that's interesting in terms of just examining rules interactions and their extremes, but I've yet to see it enhance an overall game experience either as a GM or a player.

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 09:11 PM

Unless a character in darkness takes the hide action, it's location is automatically known. Even if it does take the hide action, it's stealth roll is still opposed by everyone else's Passive Perception. So guessing which square to attack probably won't come in to play unless the Warlock multi-classed Rogue 2 for Cunning Action.

That said, I don't think a DM would be out of line saying that once creatures move around, nobody knows which creature is which. If I was DMing and using a battlemat, I'd certainly consider replacing all creatures in it with generic tokens, especially if there were mixed PCs and enemies in the area of effect. Hilarity should ensue. :)

Malifice

2015-10-11, 09:13 PM

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 09:14 PM

In general, I appreciate charOP a lot less than this forum does a whole. I mean I get the appeal of it, finding efficient and powerful combos in a game is fun.This 'combo' is inherent to the Warlock class. They get access to the Invocation at level 2 and Darkness at level 3. Complaining about it as 'CharOp' is like complaining about a Wizard dropping a fireball. It's working as intended and a basic option built in to the class.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 09:17 PM

This 'combo' is inherent to the Warlock class. They get access to the Invocation at level 2 and Darkness at level 3. Complaining about it as 'CharOp' is like complaining about a Wizard dropping a fireball. It's working as intended.

A fireball is just a ref save vs damage that doesn't qualify as "You win - Seriously they can't hurt you, you win" in the way an interaction like this does. I'd honestly be shocked if the original designers had even tested this interaction, or if they had tested it wound up doing more than a cursory note of it. You're assuming way to much rigor on the part of the game creators here who were looking to make a "This mostly works, and feels representative" RPG than the "We've tested all the interactions, and have a spreadsheet of possible combos, damage output, keywords and their counters" in the way a tournament-focused MOBA, Wargame, or CCG designer would.

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 09:18 PM

, and I give them a hard time as the DM finding anyone or anything in the darkness. Movement over half speed etc attracts the occasional DC 10 Dex (Acrobatics) check or fall prone or DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check to locate enemies to launch an attack,youre overpowering darkness quite a bit there. Darkness doesn't inhibit movement or knowing which squares have creatures in them (unless they are hidden).

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 09:19 PM

I rule if you can see in magical darkness youre fine.

Anyone that can't see in the darkness gets disagvantage (mechanically) to hit, and I give them a hard time as the DM finding anyone or anything in the darkness. Movement over half speed etc attracts the occasional DC 10 Dex (Acrobatics) check or fall prone or DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check to locate enemies to launch an attack, as they cant see whats happening I dont allow them reactions, etc.

Its great for the Warlock, not so good for the other PC's.

It's fine for the other PCs. As long as both parties are in the Darkness, the disadvantage (mechanically, for not being able to see your target) is cancelled out by the advantage (mechanically) for your target not being able to see its attacker. Advantage + Disadvantage = nothing.

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 09:22 PM

doesn't qualify as "You win - Seriously they can't hurt you, you win" in the way an interaction like this does.Darkness & Devils sight doesn't mean you can't be hurt. It means you get advantage (assuming the target is in the darkness) and they get disadvantage (assuming you are in the darkness). It's powerful but, but not an automatic win button any more than a fireball generally is.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 09:33 PM

Darkness & Devils sight doesn't mean you can't be hurt. It means you get advantage (assuming the target is in the darkness) and they get disadvantage (assuming you are in the darkness). It's powerful but, but not an automatic win button any more than a fireball generally is.

In a level-appropriate encounter, it may as well be. Especially since this doesn't have per-day limits that would keep it from being in every encounter. In a fair fight where the assumption is both sides are more/less hitting each other on numbers between 8-12 universal adv/disadv may as well "You win. Barring an extremely weird run of the dice".

Fireball is easy to deal with: Use a bigger monster instead of multiple small ones. This is a very large design space and includes everything at or above the player's exact level. Such things are easily available at all levels of play and don't need much thought.
This has a very small space to counter with. Those things that can see in magical darkness and/or things that can remove the spell. At any given level these things might be entirely not present, or be stuck between "Way too strong for the players" and "A joke".

It's a gimmick. It overwhelms unless faced with 1 very specific ability, and does almost nothing when faced with it. It's just plain degenerate and if this was Warmachine, Heroes of the Storm, or Magic: The Gathering. I'd expect the designers to have accounted for it and complaining about it would be silly. Here? It's just the kind of thing that doesn't get design attention and just really makes the game harder to get a fully satisfying experience out of other than those who enjoy CharOP.

georgie_leech

2015-10-11, 09:45 PM

In a level-appropriate encounter, it may as well be. Especially since this doesn't have per-day limits that would keep it from being in every encounter. In a fair fight where the assumption is both sides are more/less hitting each other on numbers between 8-12 universal adv/disadv may as well "You win. Barring an extremely weird run of the dice".

Fireball is easy to deal with: Use a bigger monster instead of multiple small ones. This is a very large design space and includes everything at or above the player's exact level. Such things are easily available at all levels of play and don't need much thought.
This has a very small space to counter with. Those things that can see in magical darkness and/or things that can remove the spell. At any given level these things might be entirely not present, or be stuck between "Way too strong for the players" and "A joke".

It's a gimmick. It overwhelms unless faced with 1 very specific ability, and does almost nothing when faced with it. It's just plain degenerate and if this Warmachine, Heroes of the Storm, or Magic: The Gathering. I'd expect the designers to have accounted for it and complaining about it would be silly. Here? It's just the kind of thing that doesn't get design attention and just really makes the game harder to get a fully satisfying experience out of other than those who enjoy CharOP.

As a DM, several points:

It isn't going to be appropriate in every fight, because if it covers the entire encounter, it also affects the Warlock's allies. Thus, small areas aren't always well suited for this trick.
In large spaces it's unlikely you can get the entire enemy group within the darkness effect, and so it only acts as disadvantage against attackers within the darkness (other enemies outside can just attack the other PC's) and advantage on attacks. Hardly gamebreaking.
Powerful creatures frequently have Truesight, rendering them immune to this particular trick.

PC's will nearly always have some situational trick that works extremely well in some situations but not others. Sometimes you let it work, and other times it's not as effective.

Corran

2015-10-11, 09:49 PM

So you think it is better to simplify things and let anyone know the location of everyone else while inside the darkness, except the ones that successfully hid? Assume that via communicating there is no chance of accidental teamhits, and just use the advantage and disadvantage rules as specified? Certainly it would be easy to run this way. I quite liked the idea mentioned above to repace all miniatures by generic ones, though I fear that if there are going to be lots of fights inside darkness, it would significantly slow things down. Also, it is working in simplicity's and fast-paced gaming's favour that advantage cancels disadvantage. So, assuming 2 opposing sides fighting in the darkness, it would make no difference for anyone at all, except for the warlock (who gets hit with disadvantage) and the warlock's target (who gets hit with advantage). So not much of a benefit really for the PCs. The warlock justs spends a 2nd level spell and one of his 2 slots, plus concentration, to just give himself advantage on attack rolls (which is good but not game-breaking), and to be attacked with disadvantage (but getting hit a lot would not be the case in most fights anyways). Now that I see it that way, I am not sure how much I would prefer that to simply using hex for some straight extra damage (if I were in the warlock's shoes).

I guess there is some extra goodies for a warlock/rogue(2) who could use cunning action to hide, but if he is the only one who gets hit with disadvantage when inside the darkness, why should the monsters bother hitting him (I guess I could have one monster attack him if I want to help the pcs)? They would just go for the other characters inside the darkness.

Am I reading this correctly?

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 09:52 PM

In a level-appropriate encounter, it may as well be. Especially since this doesn't have per-day limits that would keep it from being in every encounter. In a fair fight where the assumption is both sides are more/less hitting each other on numbers between 8-12 universal adv/disadv may as well "You win. Barring an extremely weird run of the dice".

Fireball is easy to deal with: Use a bigger monster instead of multiple small ones. This is a very large design space and includes everything at or above the player's exact level. Such things are easily available at all levels of play and don't need much thought.

You know that Darkness/Devil's Sight isn't the only way to do the advantage for me/disadvantage for you combo, right? Consider a Shield Master Valor Bard with +12 to Athletics by level 9 and two attacks. He can cast Enhance Ability (Strength) or Enlarge on himself, then walk right up to an Earth Elemental (Str 20 = +5 to Athletics), knock it flat on its back with his shield (average roll 25.83 vs 16), then grapple it to keep it from standing up and also beat it a couple of times with his shield. It is essentially impossible for the Earth elemental to break out because it only gets one attempt per turn at steep disadvantage. Other PCs can now attack it at advantage and it has disadvantage to attack back, exactly the same as the devil's sight combo.

Yes, 5E lets you play Heracles the Valor Bard against Antaeus. :)

Coincidentally this works best against the exact same foe that counters Fireball: a bigger monster instead of multiple smaller ones. Therefore, a party with both a Shield Master Valor Bard and a Fireball Evoker is strong against a variety of threats.

BootStrapTommy

2015-10-11, 09:53 PM

2) Counter the gimmick. This means that I design encounters with the gimmick in mind and make it irrelevant. This is no fun for anyone because I'm spending my time contriving reasons for the gimmick not to work and the PC is just getting their **** rekt for no in-game reason. Lose-Lose
So you are saying that characters who use a tactic that can be countered with a super common spell will get frustrated when you poke holes in their cardboard shield?

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 09:58 PM

So you are saying that characters who use a tactic that can be countered with a super common cantrip will get frustrated when you poke holes in their cardboard shield?

Generally: Yes. Since you're bringing spell casters into the majority of encounters and having the majority of those spell casters have a particular cantrip. In my last D&D 5e campaign which ran roughly from 1st-to-7th levels, I think the players faced a total of 6 spellcasters or so. Certainly none of which ever had their spell selections chosen by virtue of what abilities the PCs had. I was able to more/less just ad-lib what popped up in reaction to what they did, picking roughly evocative things out of the MM on the fly as they moved forward maybe with some re-skinning here and there.

If someone was using this combo? I'd have to be constantly aware of it, and limiting my choices by what could be beat it since "What can beat it" exists within such a narrow band of the overall content available. Most things can't cast anycantrips.

Doof

2015-10-11, 09:58 PM

So you are saying that characters who use a tactic that can be countered with a super common cantrip will get frustrated when you poke holes in their cardboard shield?

Darkness the spell can only be countered by light spells 2nd level or higher :D So... Daylight all the things!

LET THERE BE LIGHT

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 10:02 PM

So you think it is better to simplify things and let anyone know the location of everyone else while inside the darkness, except the ones that successfully hid?I don't think it's simpler or not simpler so much as I think it's the rules. ;)

Assume that via communicating there is no chance of accidental teamhits, and just use the advantage and disadvantage rules as specified? Certainly it would be easy to run this way. I quite liked the idea mentioned above to repace all miniatures by generic ones, though I fear that if there are going to be lots of fights inside darkness, it would significantly slow things down.as far as this goes, yes I think letting friend and foe somehow know which is which will keep things simpler. My suggestion was if you wanted to create some havoc in a situation where everyone's all jumbled up at the expense of simplicity. And potentially within the rules, although it may be stretching or even breaking them. I'd have to dig in to it to be sure on that one.

Corran

2015-10-11, 10:02 PM

and I give them a hard time as the DM finding anyone or anything in the darkness.
Any specific ideas on how to go about it? Opposed stealth and perception checks as free actions maybe? Because there is no point spending an action to roll a perception check, as net round the one you are tracking might have moved.

Movement over half speed etc attracts the occasional DC 10 Dex (Acrobatics) check or fall prone
Quite like this idea, it certainly reminds me something from 3e, is it a rule in this edition? I could certainly use that as a houserule, not sure of its dynamic, but it certainly feels realistic enough, at least to me.

or DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check to locate enemies to launch an attack
That seems nice as well, it adds something to the game, without delaying it too much. And that DC could be different if the creature the perception check is made against a creature that took the hide action. Makes sense. I am slowly starting to piece it together.

as they cant see whats happening I dont allow them reactions, etc.
That seems a bit harsh, maybe allow a few reactions that make sense for characters to use despite not seeing? Hellish rebuke for example? From a a rules' point of view shield can also be used in such an occasion, though I am not sure how much that makes sense to me.

Its great for the Warlock, not so good for the other PC's.[/QUOTE]

Malifice

2015-10-11, 10:03 PM

youre overpowering darkness quite a bit there. Darkness doesn't inhibit movement or knowing which squares have creatures in them (unless they are hidden).

I agree, but the rules are not a physics engine.

You run around a pitch black room or forest at night (or with your eyes closed) and get back to me with how it goes.

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 10:07 PM

I agree, but the rules are not a physics engine.

You run around a pitch black room or forest at night (or with your eyes closed) and get back to me with how it goes.That's not my objection. I'd be more concerned about the effect on the power level of the Darkness spell in my games, that's all.

I absolutely agree that the game rules for darkness are pretty unrealistic in terms of freedom of movement and targeting people with attacks.

Mith

2015-10-11, 10:10 PM

Malifice

2015-10-11, 10:12 PM

Any specific ideas on how to go about it? Opposed stealth and perception checks as free actions maybe? Because there is no point spending an action to roll a perception check, as net round the one you are tracking might have moved.

Flat DC 10 I make it (unless trying to find someone who has taken the Hide action; then you need to use the Search action, and the DC is the Stealth result). Not every round either; you can generally zone in on the sound of battle if nearby and move to and target the right square.

Quite like this idea, it certainly reminds me something from 3e, is it a rule in this edition? I could certainly use that as a houserule, not sure of its dynamic, but it certainly feels realistic enough, at least to me.

Nah man, it's just going with the flow of the game and the DM simulating the chaos of fighting totally blind.

I had a PC try and shoot into darkness (darkmantles) from outside it. He could see the miniature (the player that is) and I told him his PC could hear the general location of the battle.

Assuming this just meant disadvantage, he took the shot.

I made him randomize who the attack was resolved on (luckily it was the darkmantle). He now thinks less about 'RAW' and is more inside the headpsace of his character.

Made sense to everyone at the table also. Just go with what feels natural and fun. Generally it's just disadvantage, but feel free to throw the occasional 'darkness induced complication' into the mix as well. Makes your battles much more dynamic (and almost like a pseudo skill challenge that also encourages visualising the battle).

That seems a bit harsh, maybe allow a few reactions that make sense for characters to use despite not seeing? Hellish rebuke for example? From a a rules' point of view shield can also be used in such an occasion, though I am not sure how much that makes sense to me.

Depends on the reaction really. I wouldnt allow the casting of shield against an attack you cant see (unless you declare it before the attack is declared, as a precaution). Hellish rebuke I might allow (although from memory it requires you to have LOS to your target).

Malifice

2015-10-11, 10:16 PM

That's not my objection. I'd be more concerned about the effect on the power level of the Darkness spell in my games, that's all.

Seeing as one needs devils sight, blindsight or similar (and those abilities hard to get for 5 x PC's - anless they are all Warlocks - but as common as I feel like on monsters), It's not that big a deal for mine.

BootStrapTommy

2015-10-11, 10:21 PM

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 10:25 PM

In my experience with being a PC without Darksight in a battle that was in the dark, I say that only the Warlock really benefits from this, and that any team playing strategy means that this tactic may not be used quite so often.

My experiences come from 3.5, where we had Ogres in the dark that we knew where they were roughly, and they were not moving, but there still was a percentile to hit after we rolled a successful hit. SO that roughly equates to Disadvantage in 5e.

In my experience with Shadow Monks (can cast Darkness practically at will, since she's got nothing better to spend her concentration or ki on except Pass Without Trace) in 5E, it's not just the Warlock who benefits from this. The Bardlock loves to summon Giant Poisonous Snakes (AC 14 with blindsight) and the wizard summons Earth Elementals (Tremorsense) and the Sorcerer or Bard can Animate Objects (animated objects have blindsight) and the Monk herself has the Alert feat. All of these go really well with Darkness and/or heavy obscurement.

Malifice

2015-10-11, 10:29 PM

In my experience with Shadow Monks (can cast Darkness practically at will, since she's got nothing better to spend her concentration or ki on except Pass Without Trace)

Aside from Dodge, Flurry, Moving fast, and Stunning.

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 10:30 PM

Aside from Dodge, Flurry, Moving fast, and Stunning.

I said nothing better, not nothing else. Dodging and Flurrying is generally a waste of ki from her perspective, especially since you can Dodge for free and she has the Mobile feat which is superior to Dodging most of the time. Stunning is good to have as an option against vampires/etc. but generally isn't needed.

Malifice

2015-10-11, 10:50 PM

I said nothing better, not nothing else. Dodging and Flurrying is generally a waste of ki from her perspective, especially since you can Dodge for free and she has the Mobile feat which is superior to Dodging most of the time.

Huh? You cant Dodge for free. It uses your action (unless you blow Ki on it).

Stunning is good to have as an option against vampires/etc. but generally isn't needed.

We play very different games. Stunning fist is the Monks core ability (like Rage on a Barb, or Action surge on a Fighter). 50 percent of Ki gets spammed on it.

JakOfAllTirades

2015-10-11, 11:26 PM

Tanarii

2015-10-11, 11:34 PM

Seeing as one needs devils sight, blindsight or similar (and those abilities hard to get for 5 x PC's - anless they are all Warlocks - but as common as I feel like on monsters), It's not that big a deal for mine.
No, I meant powering up darkness in terms of just dropping it on your enemies. Not the Devil's Sight combo. If the enemies are suffering these additional affects on top of just being blinded, it's a more powerful spell.

Malifice

2015-10-11, 11:44 PM

No, I meant powering up darkness in terms of just dropping it on your enemies. Not the Devil's Sight combo. If the enemies are suffering these additional affects on top of just being blinded, it's a more powerful spell.

In exchange the party can't target them easily and they can just move out of it.

MaxWilson

2015-10-11, 11:53 PM

Huh? You cant Dodge for free. It uses your action (unless you blow Ki on it).

Free = "zero ki cost" in this context. Since we're talking about ki.

We play very different games. Stunning fist is the Monks core ability (like Rage on a Barb, or Action surge on a Fighter). 50 percent of Ki gets spammed on it.

Apparently so. In my games, Shadow Jump and to a lesser extent Pass Without Trace and Darkness are the Shadow Monk's core abilities. She is primarily a scout and intel specialist. During combat, she plinks away with arrows unless an emergency occurs that requires her Stunning Strike to contain. She's not a combat specialist at all, although she is quite good in an archer duel due to high Dex, high mobility, and arrow catching.

But then, we already knew that you and I play different games. Your games are more about DPR novas than mine are, as I recall. In my game that approach doesn't scale.

Malifice

2015-10-11, 11:56 PM

Free = "zero ki cost" in this context. Since we're talking about ki.

Yeah cool.

Kane0

2015-10-12, 01:09 AM

1: Reading the section unseen attackers and targets, in the combat section of the PHB, an extra piece of information comes forward. That the blinded creatures may have to guess the exact position of their enemy, otherwise their attacks automatically fail. Now that's a bit of a problem. If you are the player, then it's pretty straightforward for it to work, as the DM simply takes the enemy miniature out of the board (asumming grid play) and the player actually has to guess the square, so assuming the DM is not cheating, everything is fine. Is that how it is supposed to work when a player character has that advantage over monsters, and the DM has to pick a random square for the monsters to attack? Assuming a mutual trust between the people around the table, that nobody will resort to cheating, that could work. Though if many enemies inside the darkness area, it will be inevitable for the DM to correctly illustrate a realistic behaviour of the blinded creatures. The most likely scenario would be to have each one pick a different square, thus increasing the probability of landing a hit on the said pc, and definitely nulifying the probability of an enemy hitting another (if that can be the case at all, it certainly seems entirely plausible).

2: Another question would be if perception (hearing) could play any part in what chance the enemy has to correctly guess the pc's position. If only one enemy and the pc inside the darkness area, that actually makes sense. If more, it could have a negative effect (one enemy hitting another for example). In either case, how could one incorporate such a perception check into the situation? The rules dont seem to offer anything towards this end (unless I am missing sth). Would such a check help in balancing or making more realistic such a situation, or would it create more problems (for example the pc throws small stones, or other items to the wrong direction to mislead the enemy?

3: In the same section (unseen attackers and targets), it also states that the location of a hidden pc is revealed when he makes an attack. So, if the pc attacks and does with a melee attack and does not move, it is fair to assume that the enemy will know which square to attack. But what happens when the pc moves away after hitting the enemy with a melee attack. My guess would be that he is the target of an AoO (with disadvantage due to darkness ofc), and what happens in the subsequent round of the enemy is what is being debaited in the above paragraphs. But what if the pc has a means of moving away without provoking an AoO (such as mobile feat, or cunning action)? Would the enemy notice automatically or not (since he is not making an attack of opportunity)? Would it be logical to target the square from where he was hit and hence automatically miss (since the pc moved out)? Again, should he roll a perception to maybe hear the pc moving away?

4: Since the enemy would know the exact location of the pc when hit (as specified in the section about unseen attackers and targets), would it be a valid tactics for the enemy to ready an attack, hence avoiding to guess the exact square of the pc? That sounds good to me, especially if we are talking about enemies with multiple attacks, they sacrifice some of their attacks to just make one attack (as a readied action) but which will target the pc's square.

5: Would it perhaps better to just craft some probability table and roll a %die just before an enemy attacks, to see if that attack targets the pc's square or not, so see if I would bother rolling the attack or not? Maybe have conditions such as having the character roll a stealth check and according to how well he does vs the several passive perceptions, affect the probability of enemies guessing his location?

6: And last but not least. The way the DM will have the enemies inside the darkness radius act, will be of critical importance. If he has all the enemies evacuate its area by simply moving out of it, it will make the effect of this combo partially redundant, as the enemies on their rounds will just walk outside the radius of the spell and target other pcs with their attacks not suffering disadvantage. If the DM has the monsters (all or some) stay inside the radius, it will make the fight a lot easier. How should a DM decide what to do with the monsters in such an occasion? Logic dictates that different monsters would act in different ways. For example a monster that has some knowledge of how this spell works (originates from a point and spreading up to a relatively small radius would simply walk outside it. Monsters that wouldn't know anything of the spell and how it works, might stay inside it for the whole duration. I understand that this mostly works according to dm's perspective. But are there any pointers and tips, official or not, on how a dm should have the monsters act in such a situation. Maybe have them roll an intelligence (arcana) check or something like that?

Alrighty, here's how my group would go about it:

1: I would actually choose not to use that rule in this kind of case, as it complexifies things. Disadvantage to hit is enough for us, and those that are enshrouded in the darkness can use it to hide, which gets you that bonus benefit of being hidden. The spell entry has everything you need.

2: It wouldn't be any more problematic than using the rule from number 1 above, but to keep things running smoothly I'd use passive scores here. You can impose disadvantage if you like but thats a balance call for the DM to make.
Tip: If you want to make it look like people stuck in the darkness are blindly fumbling around, make them take the long way around when moving in the darkness, or make them charge in a straight line until they hit something. You can also make them move as if in difficult terrain to simulate a careful approach.

3: Yeah he'd cop an opportunity attack as normal (unless it can be avoided of course), it can be easily flavored as the person blindly lashing out at someone who hit him if necessary. As for noticing, i'd be using passives again (at advantage if there is a balance concern here). The regular disadvantage to hit is enough, you shouldn't be automissing.

4: A very valid tactic, the tradeoff of taking their reaction and the regular disadvantage to hit balances it out.

5: Now you're overthinking it. Disadvantage to hit and some control over the battlefield is already a big enough deal, no need to start additional mechanics. Simplicity makes this tactic easier to deal with, not complexity.

6: Absolutely correct, each combatant in each situation will react differently. The less rolls the better. Some sample factors to consider:
- Is the creature familiar with magic, or been exposed to this before?
- Is the creature hampered all that much by losing sight?
- Does the creature realize that they can move away and exit the area of darkness?
- Does the creature possess the means to end the effect, or know how to?

For an example: A town guard a his faithful hound, accompanied by a local hedge mage that likes to volunteer for the town militia in his off time.
The town guard probably knows magic just happened, but may not know that he can escape its effects. He may hold his ground and fight more defensively as a response, taking the dodge action and hoping for opportunity attacks or readying a return swing.
The dog operates more by scent and hearing than sight, and although takes the disadvantage to hit acts as normal. The sudden chance may give it pause for a moment though.
The hedge mage knows exactly what happened, but is unable to end the effects. He moves out of the area and reassesses the situation, calling to his comrade if he has the sense to.

For our group, darkness means people still know what they're doing, they just have a slight problem to doing it because they cant see. They don't suddenly become useless, we just apply the mechanics under the darkness spell and that's all that needs to be done. If a warlock abuses the tactic set a bulette or something on him, his darkness won't matter one little bit.
It's not as big a deal as some make it, its one of many solid tactics available to a smart party and can be dealt with. Let the PCs use it, but make sure they are aware that there is plenty of things out there that they will need something else up their sleeves for in order to beat.

The1exile

2015-10-12, 02:32 AM

Kryx

2015-10-12, 03:17 AM

A spell is counterable by another spell, but to actually do so as a DM would require that a significant amount of encounters would require spell casters with this specific spell. That is not organic encounter design, but heavily meta oriented and extremely limiting.

If you counter it you're being a jerk and stifling that specific character
If you don't counter it then the encounter basically becomes a 1 man show of the party waiting around the edge of darkness to slaughter anyone who comes out while the Warlock EBs everything to death.

100% agreed that it's not fun to play with.

Malifice

2015-10-12, 03:23 AM

If you don't counter it then the encounter basically becomes a 1 man show of the party waiting around the edge of darkness to slaughter anyone who comes out while the Warlock EBs everything to death.

Or they just... you know... fall back 30' or overrun forwards.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 03:32 AM

Or they just... you know... fall back 30' or overrun forwards.
That tactic entirely depends on terrain and DM adjudication as mentioned in this thread.

On DM adjudication:
Some propose that you can basically run full speed in darkness. I can already foresee the debate that "you're making darkness more powerful by giving it more than it says", but allowing full speed running while blinded makes no sense. Here is PF's rules on blinded for example:
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
So in this case I'll happily accept that my houserule opinion of the blinded condition changes the power of darkness. I can't see playing blinded any other way and being satisfied with it.

Though I would also argue that by RAW failing any sight based checks means you run into everything in the area.

On Terrain:
It entirely depends how it is laid out. For instance my campaign is based on pirate ships. Using Darkness on an enemy ship is basically "encounter over" unless it is countered.
There are many terrain situations like this. A dungeon room with no other exists (the vast majority in 5e and PF adventures) or really any room with items in it.

Malifice

2015-10-12, 03:49 AM

[QUOTE=Kryx;19941166]That tactic entirely depends on terrain and DM adjudication as mentioned in this thread.

Yeah, I agree. See my post above where I call for the odd DC 10 (perception) or (acrobatics) checks in darkness to keep oriented or to not fall over when moving fast.

It entirely depends how it is laid out. For instance my campaign is based on pirate ships. Using Darkness on an enemy ship is basically "encounter over" unless it is countered.

You might be missing this line from the spell:

Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.

If the spell is such a game changer, then we can safely assume that well drilled pirate crews anticipate such tactics and keep a 'darkness blanket' or two on board most ships.

I dont see it being a game changer unless the opposing crew can see in darkness also.

Its no different from lobbing a smoke grenade or two on board.

The1exile

2015-10-12, 03:50 AM

So in this case I'll happily accept that my houserule opinion of the blinded condition changes the power of darkness. I can't see playing blinded any other way and being satisfied with it.

Even then, your mooks could dash to still move their whole movespeed through the difficult terrain (i.e. usually enough to get out of the darkness). They don't provoke OAs if the enemy can't see them, also.

It entirely depends how it is laid out. For instance my campaign is based on pirate ships. Using Darkness on an enemy ship is basically "encounter over" unless it is countered.
There are many terrain situations like this. A dungeon room with no other exists (the vast majority in 5e and PF adventures) or really any room with items in it.

I dunno what size ships you are using but assuming a Pirates of the Caribbean era size ships it's not unreasonable for the top deck of a ship to still be at least 80 ft x 25ft for a mediumish ship. Given Darkness is a 15ft radius sphere, that gives at least half the deck to move onto. I dug out this map off roll20 (http://imgur.com/o4Ivkrb) from a PF ship fight I ran to give an idea of scales. As to your dungeons, if the enemies have dragged the party all the way until they're corner in a 6x6 square room at the end of a dungeon with no way out, they deserve all the darkness, stinking clouds, fireballs, arrows, bullets and cloudkills that will inevitably be pumped into that room to force them to come and fight in the corridor approaching it. It';s not Darkness that's the problem there.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 03:57 AM

Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Ya, that is important. It is something I overlooked and it would change a fair amount for intelligent creatures who could find the center of darkness (perception at disadvantage by RAW)

If the spell is such a game changer, then we can safely assume that well drilled pirate crews anticipate such tactics and keep a 'darkness blanket' or two on board most ships.

I dont see it being a game changer unless the opposing crew can see in darkness also.

Its no different from lobbing a smoke grenade or two on board.
And I agree that those tactics would be natural in that environment. I have no problem with Darkness or smoke grenades. My only problem is with being able to see in it and the implications that has for a party.

One of the main issues I have with Devil's Sight is that it actually is better than every devil has.
Devils have Darkvision 120 and that is not limited by magical darkness.
Devil's Sight has "see normally" up to 120ft.

If the vision was still darkvision (ie: dim light) then it would be much more balanced.
I think if I just houserule that part I'd be happy with it and able to get rid of my houserule on it.

EDIT: Done. "You gain darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. If you already have darkvision, its range increases by 60 feet. Magical darkness doesn't impede your darkvision."

rollingForInit

2015-10-12, 05:49 AM

In a level-appropriate encounter, it may as well be. Especially since this doesn't have per-day limits that would keep it from being in every encounter. In a fair fight where the assumption is both sides are more/less hitting each other on numbers between 8-12 universal adv/disadv may as well "You win. Barring an extremely weird run of the dice".

Fireball is easy to deal with: Use a bigger monster instead of multiple small ones. This is a very large design space and includes everything at or above the player's exact level. Such things are easily available at all levels of play and don't need much thought.
This has a very small space to counter with. Those things that can see in magical darkness and/or things that can remove the spell. At any given level these things might be entirely not present, or be stuck between "Way too strong for the players" and "A joke".

If you introduce larger enemies to counter Fireball, you might as well introduce enemies with Truesight to counter Darkness+Devil's Sight.

Darkness+Devil's Sight be like any other great combo: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's decent but not great. There are some encounters that'll be over after one or two rounds because the Wizard killed everything with a single fireball. That's fine, but doesn't happen very often. Mostly, though, enemies are too far apart, have too much HP or have cover and so Fireball only hurts the combined strength of the enemies a bit, but doesn't trivialise the counter. Same thing should apply to Darkness+Devil's Sight. Sometimes it'll make the Warlock awesome, sometimes it'll just be a neat thing that protects it from some enemies, and sometimes it won't work at all. Wouldn't be strange at all for an enemy Wizard or Cleric to cast Daylight or Dispel Magic to counter it. Sure, levels 3-5 it'll be more powerful, but after that? Easily countered without much effort. It shouldn't be countered every encounter, but often enough that the Warlock should work on other strategies. And that's not even mentioning that spellcasters can just throw AoE spells into the darkness with no effort.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-12, 07:39 AM

If you introduce larger enemies to counter Fireball, you might as well introduce enemies with Truesight to counter Darkness+Devil's Sight.

Darkness+Devil's Sight be like any other great combo: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's decent but not great. There are some encounters that'll be over after one or two rounds because the Wizard killed everything with a single fireball. That's fine, but doesn't happen very often. Mostly, though, enemies are too far apart, have too much HP or have cover and so Fireball only hurts the combined strength of the enemies a bit, but doesn't trivialise the counter. Same thing should apply to Darkness+Devil's Sight. Sometimes it'll make the Warlock awesome, sometimes it'll just be a neat thing that protects it from some enemies, and sometimes it won't work at all. Wouldn't be strange at all for an enemy Wizard or Cleric to cast Daylight or Dispel Magic to counter it. Sure, levels 3-5 it'll be more powerful, but after that? Easily countered without much effort. It shouldn't be countered every encounter, but often enough that the Warlock should work on other strategies. And that's not even mentioning that spellcasters can just throw AoE spells into the darkness with no effort.

What enemy wizards and Clerics? What spellcasters?

PoeticDwarf

2015-10-12, 07:51 AM

MrStabby

2015-10-12, 09:12 AM

I only find devil's sight/darkness to be a problem if you design one dimensional encounters.

For a start it requires a lot of resources. At levels where you are dealing with things that cant see in the dark a warlock has 2 spell slots at a time. This takes half their spells to pull off.

Secondly it requires a spell choice and an invocation. Sure the spell choice is not such a premium resource but invocations, especially at low levels are a bit of an investment.

Thirdly it is concentration. I.e. you can lose it (and warlocks don't get good con saves by default) AND it stops you having something like Hex active.

Fourthly it takes an action. How many rounds do most of your combats actually take? I think most are decided within three rounds (even if some enemies/part members are left alive). To take a turn longer to begin to thin out numbers or to start to put damage on an enemy is kind of a big deal.

Not there are plenty of thing the players can face that don't care about disadvantage on attacks. Saves rather than rolling to hit - each caster should have a diverse spell selection; having a choice of spells suitable for different targets isn't DM metagaming, it is simply roleplaying casters to not be idiots. Yeah niche spells like daylight maybe shouldn't appear (unless there is a diviner or a scout or another intelligence gathering NCP in the fight) but sacred flame, counterspell or thunderwave are not unreasonable for casters to have. If another caster wins initiative then silence is also a perfectly valid option.

If you decide that the people your players are facing have no magic, that is also fine. Grapples and shoves need ability checks so no disadvantage there.

The remaining type of enemy that doesn't use strength or magic is the dexterous one - assassins, archers etc.. Now if these guys don't have the mobility to get out of the darkness then there is a good chance your players have used good tactics and should be rewarded. Archers tend to have a range of more than the 75ft that darkness could extend to so not much problem there.

90% of encounters should be able to use at least one of these techniques to keep fights interesting - and they can do so without any cheap tactics or improbable foreknowledge. The remaining fights... let them use it. They paid for it through not taking other abilities and it is using their concentration - why lot let these small number of fights be the ones they get to shine in.

Mellack

2015-10-12, 01:10 PM

Darkness is only a 15 foot radius. Most any creature should be able to move out of the area. Even those who use the move at half option will still be able to get out most of the time with a regular move. Since you need to see your opponent to take an OA, they can move safely from everyone but the warlock. Except in extremely cramped quarters, I would think most creatures would just move away until they can see again. This is not really that powerful.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 01:14 PM

Darkness is only a 15 foot radius.
I've seen this brought up a few times, but a 15 foot radius spell isn't small. That's 28 squares or 27 hexes.

JackPhoenix

2015-10-12, 01:48 PM

I've seen this brought up a few times, but a 15 foot radius spell isn't small. That's 28 squares or 27 hexes.

But if you're in the middle, it's only 3 squares to move away, or a half of a movement for an average medium character. Even if you get caught in the one end and want to move to the other, you can still cross it in one turn unless it's over a difficult terrain.

Corran

2015-10-12, 02:52 PM

Unless the rest of the Warlock's party is prepared to make use of the Darkness, they're probably going to be hindered by it. So a Warlock who makes use of this combo too often is more than likely to annoy his own allies. Most groups will discourage their Friendly Local Warlock from blinding the entire party just so he can run roughshod over a few enemies solo.
If the enemies dont have blindsight or truesight, or sth similar that would allow them to deal with the darkness, then I think the fight between the enemies and the warlock's allies would be carried out normaly inside the darkness, since advantage cancels disadvantage. I guess there would be an issue with characters who have a source of getting advantage somehow, such as if a barbarian with reckless attack was an ally of the warlock. Then, said barbarian would attack normaly (without advantage o disadvantage) and be attacked normaly, which wouldn't be that beneficial since AC is not the strong point of a barb, meaning it is in his benefit to attack with advantage and be attacked with advantage (exactly why he has reckless attack). Some other limitations might hinder the party, such as not being able to deal AoO, but neither the enemy would. So I think in most cases, where a party fights an enemy inside the darkness, not much would change if the fight was outside the darkness. Unless ofc the parrty had a means of capitalizing the darkness condition as a team, or if the enemy wasn't hndered by it.

Another point: Darkness requires concentration, so a Warlock using this combo doesn't get to use the Hex spell. From a DPR standpoint, it's definitely sub-optimal. Getting more hits from Advantage due to Darkness isn't guaranteed to make up for the lost damage bonus from that Hex spell you're not using. Essentially what I conclude to, as well. If the party cannot profit from the darkness as a team, then the warlock spends concentration just to get advantage to his attacks and to make himself harder to hit. Since he would not have been tanking either way, mainly the advantage on his attacks is what he gets, in which I agree with you, it is not necessarily better than hex in term of average damage it produces.

Finally, it's pointless to have this discussion without considering how many entries in the Monster Manual have blindsight, devils sight, tremor sense, or some other means of seeing in darkness. It's a long list; at least a third* of the entries will ignore darkness, if not more. In those cases, using this combo actually just helps the enemy by blinding the Warlock's allies, and doing nothing else.

*There was a post on RPG.net with a complete list of MM entries that ignore darkness, but now I can't find it. Apologies. Yeah, and there is always a chance for this mediocre (unless the group invests in it) tactic to backfire, if the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy are not taken into consideration, or are just unknown to the pcs/players.

Corran

2015-10-12, 03:01 PM

Alrighty, here's how my group would go about it:

1: I would actually choose not to use that rule in this kind of case, as it complexifies things. Disadvantage to hit is enough for us, and those that are enshrouded in the darkness can use it to hide, which gets you that bonus benefit of being hidden. The spell entry has everything you need.

2: It wouldn't be any more problematic than using the rule from number 1 above, but to keep things running smoothly I'd use passive scores here. You can impose disadvantage if you like but thats a balance call for the DM to make.
Tip: If you want to make it look like people stuck in the darkness are blindly fumbling around, make them take the long way around when moving in the darkness, or make them charge in a straight line until they hit something. You can also make them move as if in difficult terrain to simulate a careful approach.

3: Yeah he'd cop an opportunity attack as normal (unless it can be avoided of course), it can be easily flavored as the person blindly lashing out at someone who hit him if necessary. As for noticing, i'd be using passives again (at advantage if there is a balance concern here). The regular disadvantage to hit is enough, you shouldn't be automissing.

4: A very valid tactic, the tradeoff of taking their reaction and the regular disadvantage to hit balances it out.

5: Now you're overthinking it. Disadvantage to hit and some control over the battlefield is already a big enough deal, no need to start additional mechanics. Simplicity makes this tactic easier to deal with, not complexity.

6: Absolutely correct, each combatant in each situation will react differently. The less rolls the better. Some sample factors to consider:
- Is the creature familiar with magic, or been exposed to this before?
- Is the creature hampered all that much by losing sight?
- Does the creature realize that they can move away and exit the area of darkness?
- Does the creature possess the means to end the effect, or know how to?

For an example: A town guard a his faithful hound, accompanied by a local hedge mage that likes to volunteer for the town militia in his off time.
The town guard probably knows magic just happened, but may not know that he can escape its effects. He may hold his ground and fight more defensively as a response, taking the dodge action and hoping for opportunity attacks or readying a return swing.
The dog operates more by scent and hearing than sight, and although takes the disadvantage to hit acts as normal. The sudden chance may give it pause for a moment though.
The hedge mage knows exactly what happened, but is unable to end the effects. He moves out of the area and reassesses the situation, calling to his comrade if he has the sense to.

For our group, darkness means people still know what they're doing, they just have a slight problem to doing it because they cant see. They don't suddenly become useless, we just apply the mechanics under the darkness spell and that's all that needs to be done. If a warlock abuses the tactic set a bulette or something on him, his darkness won't matter one little bit.
It's not as big a deal as some make it, its one of many solid tactics available to a smart party and can be dealt with. Let the PCs use it, but make sure they are aware that there is plenty of things out there that they will need something else up their sleeves for in order to beat.
Thank you very much for your comments, that was actually really helpful!

Corran

2015-10-12, 03:07 PM

That tactic entirely depends on terrain and DM adjudication as mentioned in this thread.

On DM adjudication:
Some propose that you can basically run full speed in darkness. I can already foresee the debate that "you're making darkness more powerful by giving it more than it says", but allowing full speed running while blinded makes no sense. Here is PF's rules on blinded for example:
So in this case I'll happily accept that my houserule opinion of the blinded condition changes the power of darkness. I can't see playing blinded any other way and being satisfied with it.

Though I would also argue that by RAW failing any sight based checks means you run into everything in the area.

Yeah, I can see me using such a houserule, it makes sense. Worst case scenario for the players, would be that the enemies are a bit slowed down, you know, until they can get out of the AoE. Maybe they could even get out of it deorganized, so that could be of help to the group.

MaxWilson

2015-10-12, 07:54 PM

So apart from:

-noting that it takes an action to cast Darkness
-giving up hex due to concentration
-the warlock having to use an incantation for it even to work
-the fact it only gives +adv to one character

...has anyone tried just disengaging out of the AoE?

Or approaching the Warlock so he gets disadvantage on Eldritch Blast because of hostiles within 5'.
Or pushing the Warlock prone and/or grappling him, so everybody can beat on him with advantage (that cancels Darkness disadvantage).
Or just drop prone on your own turn so the Warlock has disadvantage to target you with ranged attacks.
Or targeting the other PCs besides the Warlock.
Or using mechanical traps and pits which do damage without regard to vision.

(Some) monsters should be actively seeking advantage on their own turns anyway. The Warlock thing is just one more tactical factor, not a dispositive one.

rollingForInit

2015-10-13, 08:44 AM

What enemy wizards and Clerics? What spellcasters?

Well, if the party is only fighting mundane, non-magical enemies, I'd say there's already something of a balancing issue, since there are many spells that would have absolutely no countermeasure.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-13, 03:55 PM

That the blinded creatures may have to guess the exact position of their enemy, otherwise their attacks automatically fail.

That only applies if the target's location is unknown. If they aren't using hide to stealth around (i.e. deliberately trying not to make noise that reveals their location) then their location is known and so no guess would be necessary.

Tanarii

2015-10-13, 04:25 PM

mainly the advantage on his attacks is what he gets, in which I agree with you, it is not necessarily better than hex in term of average damage it produces.I've seen a couple of people say this, but I don't see it. Assuming Agonizing Blast, the damage for attacking with advantage without Hex should be higher than attacking with Hex without advantage at pretty much all levels. Possibly before level 5 it would be a wash. Edit: Or am I not remembering Hex correctly? I thought it was +1d6 once per turn.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 04:52 PM

I've seen a couple of people say this, but I don't see it. Assuming Agonizing Blast, the damage for attacking with advantage without Hex should be higher than attacking with Hex without advantage at pretty much all levels. Possibly before level 5 it would be a wash. Edit: Or am I not remembering Hex correctly? I thought it was +1d6 once per turn.
All levels except 17+ due to advantage from Foresight.

DPR at levels:

5
Hex: 15
Darkness: 17

11
Hex: 25
Darkness: 27

17 (assuming no foresight)
Hex: 37
Darkness: 39

20 (assuming no foresight)
Hex: 37
Darkness: 39

Coidzor

2015-10-13, 05:27 PM

I've seen a couple of people say this, but I don't see it. Assuming Agonizing Blast, the damage for attacking with advantage without Hex should be higher than attacking with Hex without advantage at pretty much all levels. Possibly before level 5 it would be a wash. Edit: Or am I not remembering Hex correctly? I thought it was +1d6 once per turn.

It's +1d6 necrotic damage whenever you hit it with an attack, which is why it gets brought up for TWFers with some regularity. And you give the target disadvantage on ability checks with one ability score, which is nice if you have any grapplers in the party and/or if it's a grappler.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 05:58 PM

It's +1d6 necrotic damage whenever you hit it with an attack, which is why it gets brought up for TWFers with some regularity.
It's brought up and often diminished as both TWF and Hex/Hunter's Mark cost a bonus action which drastically reduces their usability together.

Xetheral

2015-10-13, 05:59 PM

That only applies if the target's location is unknown. If they aren't using hide to stealth around (i.e. deliberately trying not to make noise that reveals their location) then their location is known and so no guess would be necessary.

While a common interpretation, that is neither outright stated in the hiding/visibility rules nor is it necessarily implied. Many people interpret those rules differently than you do.

charcoalninja

2015-10-13, 06:18 PM

Tanarii

2015-10-13, 06:44 PM

While a common interpretation, that is neither outright stated in the hiding/visibility rules nor is it necessarily implied. Many people interpret those rules differently than you do.What rules are there to interpret differently? The rules for light are pretty damn specific that the only effect given by darkness is being (effectively) blinded. Only the hiding rules add any other effect.

Xetheral

2015-10-13, 07:12 PM

What rules are there to interpret differently? The rules for light are pretty damn specific that the only effect given by darkness is being (effectively) blinded. Only the hiding rules add any other effect.

The consequences of being (effectively) blind are open to interpretation. One of the mechanical consequences of being blind is that your character "can't see". Some DMs naturally assume that creatures that can't see their opponents don't necessarily know where they are. Other DMs naturally assume that creatures that can't see their opponents do necessarily know where they are.

The rules don't say either way, possibly due to an oversight, a deliberate ambiguity, or because the designers thought the answer was obvious. (Of course, based on the degree of controversy discussions of this topic have produced in a variety of threads over the past year, I think it's safe to say that both interpretations are extremely common, and thus that the answer certainly isn't obvious.)

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-13, 07:48 PM

While a common interpretation, that is neither outright stated in the hiding/visibility rules nor is it necessarily implied. Many people interpret those rules differently than you do.

Uh no, it's literally spelt out in the rules on both hiding and unseen attackers.

It specifies not knowing a location includes also not hearing them.

Which specifically references using hide to achieve unseen and unheard.

Malifice

2015-10-13, 10:04 PM

Uh no, it's literally spelt out in the rules on both hiding and unseen attackers.

It specifies not knowing a location includes also not hearing them.

Which specifically references using hide to achieve unseen and unheard.

While I largely agree with you re Hide v Search, It feels unrealistc to me to be strict about it to the point that you can always know where things are without hiding them or them hiding. I find the occasional DC 10 wisdom (perception) check to pinpoint enemies (and allies) in darkness or when blind (even when they havent taken the Hide action) to simulate the lack of situational awareness when blinded or unable to see feels better.

Same as the occasional DC 10 dex (acrobatics) to avoid tripping over when blind and moving at speed and such.

Both can be avoided by cunning PC's ('DM - I trail my hand along the wall as I move towards the sound of battle.' = no roll needed).

I love that I can expressly do this via the RAW.

Corran

2015-10-13, 10:33 PM

Malifice

2015-10-13, 10:52 PM

On a related note, could a character use a cantrip/spell that requires the enemy to make a saving throw, when said character is inside the darkness and cant see? Would that differentiate according to the specifics of the spell? For example, would a poison spray not work while a hellish rebuke would? Or would they both (not) work? What's your take on this guys?

You need to see something to target them with a LOS spell.

AoE are fair game though.

If you know roughly where they are, you can attempt an attack roll spell (at disadvantage).

Xetheral

2015-10-13, 11:35 PM

Uh no, it's literally spelt out in the rules on both hiding and unseen attackers.

It specifies not knowing a location includes also not hearing them.

Which specifically references using hide to achieve unseen and unheard.

The section on unseen attackers (PHB 194) treats targeting a creature you "can hear but not see" differently from "guessing the target's location". However, those rules do not state or imply that all non-hidden creatures can automatically be heard. Hidden creatures are stated to be unheard, but that certainly doesn't mean hiding is the only way something might be unheard. Accordingly, it is necessarily left to DM discretion whether a character can hear a given unseen opponent well enough to target it without needing to guess its location.

MaxWilson

2015-10-14, 12:03 AM

On a related note, could a character use a cantrip/spell that requires the enemy to make a saving throw, when said character is inside the darkness and cant see? Would that differentiate according to the specifics of the spell? For example, would a poison spray not work while a hellish rebuke would? Or would they both (not) work? What's your take on this guys?

My ruling: some spells like Finger of Death and Counterspell specifically require you to see the target. Invisibility, heavy obscurement, and Darkness make you immune to those spells (unless you have a way to pierce the invisibility/darkness/etc.).

Invisibility/etc. do not otherwise interfere with line of sight, and do not therefore interfere with spells without this requirement.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 12:27 AM

The section on unseen attackers (PHB 194) treats targeting a creature you "can hear but not see" differently from "guessing the target's location". However, those rules do not state or imply that all non-hidden creatures can automatically be heard. Hidden creatures are stated to be unheard, but that certainly doesn't mean hiding is the only way something might be unheard. Accordingly, it is necessarily left to DM discretion whether a character can hear a given unseen opponent well enough to target it without needing to guess its location.

Hidden is defined as 'unseen and unheard'. Unless the person in the darkness is making an effort to be unheard (via the Hide action) they are assumed to be making enough to noise to be noticed.

Although I agree with your second point.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 12:28 AM

Invisibility/etc. do not otherwise interfere with line of sight, and do not therefore interfere with spells without this requirement.

How can you have LoS to something you cant see?

Xetheral

2015-10-14, 12:45 AM

Unless the person in the darkness is making an effort to be unheard (via the Hide action) they are assumed to be making enough to noise to be noticed.

I disagree with this assumption, and can find no support for it in the rules.

georgie_leech

2015-10-14, 12:51 AM

Hidden is defined as 'unseen and unheard'. Unless the person in the darkness is making an effort to be unheard (via the Hide action) they are assumed to be making enough to noise to be noticed.

Although I agree with your second point.

"All X is Y" is not equivalent to "All Y is X." For instance, as long as we're dealing with ingame effects, you could be under the effects of both Darkness and Silence spells without taking the Hide action.

Safety Sword

2015-10-14, 12:54 AM

I disagree with this assumption, and can find no support for it in the rules.

Agreed!

Surely the onus of detecting whether an enemy is making enough noise is with the person trying to do the detecting.

That's what Perception checks are for!

Corran

2015-10-14, 01:05 AM

I disagree with this assumption, and can find no support for it in the rules.
I find it logical enough. Moving not in a stealthy fashion is bound to create enough noise for the enemy to know where you are. Granted, it is logical to say that he wouldnt know your exact location, but he would have a much better chance than if he was trying to guess when you were trying to be stealthy about it 9ie, using the stealth action). So if the rules were aiming for complexity, then I guess the enemy would have a X% chance of targeting the right square if you were hidden, and a much greater Y% chance to target your square in the case you were not attempting to hide/be stealthy. The rules though aim for simplicity, thus treating that Y% to be 100% (meaning that the enemy knows of your location when you dont try to hide). Thus instead of forcing every creature to roll a % miss chance before every d20 roll, that would vary depending on conditions (like for example how stealthy you were, or by how much your stealth roll was greater than the enemy's perception roll), they suggest that if not stealthy your location is known. And they let the disadvantage to be the mechanic that makes it harder to land the blow (which then again is canceled by the advanatge that the enemy has against you due to not being able to see as well, which is a bit strange, but all in all fairly balanced, simple, and makes for a fast paced combat, as far as I can tell).

Xetheral

2015-10-14, 01:26 AM

The rules though aim for simplicity, thus treating that Y% to be 100% (meaning that the enemy knows of your location when you dont try to hide).

Except that the rules don't actually say this. Of course, they don't take the opposite position either: both interpretations are RAW.

As I understand it, at tables that take the other approach, the DC to detect non-hiding creatures is usually much lower than the DC set by an enemy's stealth check. (So hiding is certainly advantageous under either interpretation.) This addresses your point of the difference between X and Y without needing to add new mechanics.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 02:23 AM

"All X is Y" is not equivalent to "All Y is X." For instance, as long as we're dealing with ingame effects, you could be under the effects of both Darkness and Silence spells without taking the Hide action.

Then you would be 'unseen and unheard' which is the PHB's definition of 'hidden'. Barring a lucky guess I'd certainly adjudicate that you couldnt be directly targetted.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 02:24 AM

Except that the rules don't actually say this. Of course, they don't take the opposite position either: both interpretations are RAW.

As I understand it, at tables that take the other approach, the DC to detect non-hiding creatures is usually much lower than the DC set by an enemy's stealth check. (So hiding is certainly advantageous under either interpretation.) This addresses your point of the difference between X and Y without needing to add new mechanics.

Personally I think the RAW gives DM's the flexibility to rule it however they want, and to make it up as they go along.

I certainly do.

Keeps the game much more intresting.

Corran

2015-10-14, 02:47 AM

I disagree with this assumption, and can find no support for it in the rules.

Except that the rules don't actually say this. Of course, they don't take the opposite position either: both interpretations are RAW.

As I understand it, at tables that take the other approach, the DC to detect non-hiding creatures is usually much lower than the DC set by an enemy's stealth check. (So hiding is certainly advantageous under either interpretation.) This addresses your point of the difference between X and Y without needing to add new mechanics.
I think the rules are clear on this one (or they become clear after a bit of trying to get one's dead around it). The absense of any specific rule for that situation leaves the general rules for hiding and unseen targets as the only resort from which one can deduct something. And it is explicitly stated that you must be both unseen and unheard to be hidden (which makes sense). So, darkness satisfies the unseen condition, but not the unheard one. So, assuming that no silence spell is into play, or sth with a similar effect, the only way for a character to satisfy the unheard condition is to use move silently, meaning he has to use stealth, which I think uses the character's action (unless cunning action or some other feature of similar effect). Hence I think that unless something is added to the rules, by RAW one's location is known unless he uses stealth successfully.

Now, I can understand that at some tables there is going to be some houseruling on this one, as the rules are simple enough not to accomodate every realistic view of this situation. I, myself, would probably use the free perception check (DC 10) approach, meaning that every character or monster would have to roll a perception check (as a free action) at the start of its turn in order to have some clue of what's going on, so that they can try to hit reasonably close (ie a 5by5 square, which is reasonably close but the attack is done with disadvantage due to not seeing exactly where the target is) to their respective enemy. Perhaps I would even have monsters hit one another if one rolled low enough (a natural 1 on the roll, or 5 or more below 10 as a total), would make for some funny accidents. Plus it is always fun to roll some extra dice, even if they are not meant attack or damage. Moreover, that extra perception check, would almost certainly affect the battle, in a sense that players or monsters could actually lose a turn (by attacking thin air most likely), so that adds an extra dynamic to this situation, acually it adds an extra dose of luck, which again seems only natural, if one thinks that the fight is being held inside complete darkness.

Dont mean to argue about the rules, just offered my opinion on how I interpret them, I could very well be wrong.

djreynolds

2015-10-14, 06:28 AM

For levels before 5th it works great. Dispel magic/ counterspell fixes a lot of problems. Evocation wizards sculpting a fireball on themselves is sweet, I mean my wizard is jerk. Dropping prone might work.

But it is a cool combo and possible life saver not just attack, think squid getting away from predator.

I guess what is needed to dispel darkness

Mr.Moron

2015-10-14, 09:40 AM

You've got to be kidding. Using the ability to see in the dark against those that can't is "Meta charOP bullcrap"? Do you quit the game every time someone chooses dwarf as their race too or is this strictly a warlock thing?

I am not kidding. A dwarf in say a dark cave is incomparable to a warlock using this combination. This is because any mundane light source will change the situation and there is a large stable of possible encounters at all levels that either have dark vision themselves or will be able to provide illumination. The solution to this combo is "Use your own magic to dispel it and/or get the extra special magical darkness vision". The the things that counter it are narrow, specific and would often feel contrived.

EDIT: As to the how to interpret being able to determine the location of something that's unseen try this for an excuse. Pick any object currently in the room from you at least say, 15ft away from you. Now, shut your eye and try to go over and touch it without tripping over anything on running into it first. Now imagine that thing is moving, and you're in pain from being pelted by attacks.

Being able to pinpoint that thing well enough to target it with an attack isn't just "D&D Characters can do things we can't do", that's a miraculous ability on-par with flight or the ability to conjure magical darkness. At least for someone that's sight-dependent and hasn't had a lifetime of being blind to adjust.

Tanarii

2015-10-14, 02:42 PM

The rules don't say either way, possibly due to an oversight, a deliberate ambiguity, or because the designers thought the answer was obvious. (Of course, based on the degree of controversy discussions of this topic have produced in a variety of threads over the past year, I think it's safe to say that both interpretations are extremely common, and thus that the answer certainly isn't obvious.)My general position is unless a rule specifically says otherwise, the normal rules apply. So unless something says a creature is somehow affected by darkness, and in X fashion, my personal interpretation would be that it isn't.

HOWEVER:
1) I don't have the rules in front of me, so I'll go dig around some more and see if my personal interpretation holds.
2) If it's been done to death in other threads, I'm not about to try and argue RAW in this thread.
3) I agree if it's written very ambiguously, it's a DM call.

Pex

2015-10-14, 02:52 PM

In general, I appreciate charOP a lot less than this forum does a whole. I mean I get the appeal of it, finding efficient and powerful combos in a game is fun. I used to do quite a lot of CharOP back in the day. However I've since found that It's better to get my fix for that kind of thing in MOBAs, TT Wargames and other such genres of games fixed on competition and balance.

The nerve of some players to think they're entitled to a combination of class features that do something awesome. Effective tactics are for DMs only.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-14, 03:08 PM

The nerve of some players to think they're entitled to a combination of class features that do something awesome. Effective tactics are for DMs only.

It has nothing to do with that. It's just if the chance of an encounter presenting any substantive challenge is trivial, why bother to have it? It's better to save the table time on not rolling iniative and however many attacks it takes to play out a foregone conclusion. Using this makes the space of encounters that provide substantive challenge vanishingly small. So now you either operate normally and either waste a ton of time on encounters with only one possible outcome, or you skip over the majority of encounters and neither of those options are fun. You can choose to operate in that tiny design space by always including elements that can mitigate the trick to some extent but this is going to feel very artificial if your campaign isn't orginally about caster-on-caster shenanigans. The answers also have a tendency to entirely nullify the trick making them feel targeted and "Why did I bother in the first place"

To take a more extreme example, if one could find a relatively straightforward infinite loop in the rules that dealt fire damage on might easily offer the counterargument that "There are more things immune to fire damage than anything else, there are lots of potential counters", is in the strictest sense true. However now you have

A) A campaign full of fire immune things for some reason.
B) A campaign where you spend a lot of time on rolling out encounters that will always be won because infinite damage.
C) A campaign where you skip all the encounters because "They're Toast anyway".

Things at are very powerful except when faced with one small set of answers, greatly shrink the breadth of content that the table can meaningfully interact with. You can slap the label "Awesome" on it but the loss of content potential is very real. "But it's awesome" is not a particularly compelling response to "Hey, this particular rules interaction is degenerate under a lot of common conditions".

I wouldn't expect the GM to use something like this either as the players will either have the handful of incredibly specific answers or they won't and unless the quest for "The Eyeglasses of Darkness-Seeing" is an interesting plot thread to have, putting up a roadblock that requires them isn't particularly good for the play experience.

EDIT: Of course the use of any mechanics shrinks the design space in some way to some degree, however most don't have the kind of gross narrowing effect things like this do.

Dalebert

2015-10-14, 03:26 PM

How can you have LoS to something you cant see?

I think you're being too literal with LoS. It doesn't mean you have to be able to see something. It means there can be no solid barriers between you, e.g. a wall or a closed door is a solid barrier but the bars of a jail cell are not.

I tend to agree with Mr. Moron that magical darkness is potentially OP and disruptive to the game. Spells like Sacred Flame and acid splash are a vulnerability of it and that's a very good thing. If you sense a creature in a certain direction, you can choose it as a target. You can argue that you may potentially pick the wrong target. A significant point of having those spells is for situations when it's difficult to succeed on an attack roll for whatever reason. They avoid all but total cover. They ignore heavily armored creatures, and so on. I think magical darkness has been made too effective in this game by making ways of dealing with it more rare. About the only way a PC or NPC can do so is either as a Warlock or a Druid wild-shaping into a creature with blindsight.

I reintroduced Ebon Eyes as a spell specifically for seeing through it and I reintroduced my own version of blind-fighting, which in this game worked out to a feat that can, with a bonus action, briefly grant a very short-ranged blindsight. It feels like those are gaping holes in the design so far. I'm expecting such things will get reintroduced with expansion material before long.

In fact, I'm in a quandary about this right now. I definitely want to make a shadow monk. The only question is do I want to prepare to eventually dip two levels of warlock? If I do, this will definitely be a common tactic--to make darkness that I can see through but not my enemies, and have a significant advantage. It seems so good that it might be cheesy even. Will it be annoying as crap to DMs, so much so that they keep trying to break it? If so, then I will definitely feel like the lost of two monk levels was a heavy price to pay. Will it be so good that it gets boring? On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of complications. Darkness is 40 feet in diameter and my fellow party members may get annoyed with this frequent tactic that impairs them and complicates every combat. I may find that I don't want to use it as often as I thought.

What do you folks think?

EDIT: I went straight shadow monk, wood elf instead of half-elf. Not planning to multi-class. Hit 3rd level in an AL game tonight.

Kane0

2015-10-14, 04:38 PM

Ebon eyes as a spell and a blind fighting feat (or half heat) are both great ideas, do you have them written up somewhere?

Edit: my group has a rogue/shadow monk/warlock, and hes fine. He probably dipped too mich though, better to pick two of the three and not spread yourself too thin.

Pex

2015-10-14, 05:38 PM

It has nothing to do with that. It's just if the chance of an encounter presenting any substantive challenge is trivial, why bother to have it? It's better to save the table time on not rolling iniative and however many attacks it takes to play out a foregone conclusion. Using this makes the space of encounters that provide substantive challenge vanishingly small. So now you either operate normally and either waste a ton of time on encounters with only one possible outcome, or you skip over the majority of encounters and neither of those options are fun. You can choose to operate in that tiny design space by always including elements that can mitigate the trick to some extent but this is going to feel very artificial if your campaign isn't orginally about caster-on-caster shenanigans. The answers also have a tendency to entirely nullify the trick making them feel targeted and "Why did I bother in the first place"

You're resenting having to face player ingenuity. "I Win D&D" abilities/combos are a thing, Wish/Simulacrum being a common meme now. They make the game unplayable. That's not what's happening with Darkness/Devil's Sight. It's simply just a cool thing, an on purpose combination the designers let players find for themselves and go "Eureka!" upon the discovery. It's mostly useful for bladelocks. How not so coincidental they have a lower AC and hit points than the more dedicated warrior classes allowing the combo to compensate for better character survival and success.

It's not a problem for a character's cool thing not to work all the time due to DM creating an encounter that stops it from happening. It behooves the player to have other things to do. It's only a problem if it never works due to DM encounter design or almost never. Let the character do his cool thing. Don't resent it.

Corran

2015-10-14, 07:30 PM

I would agree with Pex. I dont think it is an overpowered combo. I think it seems to be much better than it actually is. Haven't seen it play out at the table yet, although from how I have thought it would play out, it seems that it strictly relates to the party composition. Its effects can range from good (but not awesome, it is far from a win button) to outright negative for the party. Consider a barbarian with his reckless attack and GWM feat. That character depends a lot on having advantage, for using GWM to get a very nice flat bonus on each of his attacks (at the cost of beng attacked with advantage, which has that covered by reducing incoming damage via raging, after all that is the main way a barbarian can tank). This said barbarian would not benefit from fighting inside the darkness, as he would lose his advantage, thus his dpr would suffer significantly. Consider a character that most of the rounds during combat uses cantrips and spells that require the enemy to make a save, he will suffer as well (as I tend to agree with Malifice on this one, that such spells would be rended useless inside the darkness). What darkness does mainly, is what Pex said, that is that it offers bladelocks some extra and very much needed survivability, nothing more, nothing less. And it also affects the fight in a way that it restricts some things (having a reliable source of advantage. spells that require saves, AoO, etc). That doesn't mean it is a win button for the party, it can very well affect the party in a very negative way. All depends on party composition and on how well it combines with the resources of the other characters. It would be working extremelly well for a party that had optimized its usage (a party where everyine grabs 2 levels of warlock for example), as it would make most fights a lot more easier (not win by default though). That is another problem entirely though. And I think a DM could easily counter this by simply increasing the difficulty of such combats (ie more and harder monsters, that is another way of countering it, dispelling it or having only monsters with blindsight is not the only way). Plus it wouldnt work against most boss fights, where the big enemy would have means of overcoming this difficulty (blindsight, truesight). But again, if a party strived to make the most out of a certain combo and create characters only for that specific purpose, then there would be no problem whatsoever, even if that combo was indeed a win button (which again, I honestly dont believe it is), as the players would simply play to......just win (dont mean to be critical, it's not my cup of tea, yet, nothing wrong with that).

Mr.Moron, I agree with your reasoning, but I think you exagerrate on how game-breaking this combo is.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 07:35 PM

I think you're being too literal with LoS. It doesn't mean you have to be able to see something. It means there can be no solid barriers between you, e.g. a wall or a closed door is a solid barrier but the bars of a jail cell are not.

I tend to agree with Mr. Moron that magical darkness is potentially OP and disruptive to the game. Spells like Sacred Flame and acid splash are a vulnerability of it and that's a very good thing. If you sense a creature in a certain direction, you can choose it as a target. You can argue that you may potentially pick the wrong target. A significant point of having those spells is for situations when it's difficult to succeed on an attack roll for whatever reason. They avoid all but total cover. They ignore heavily armored creatures, and so on. I think magical darkness has been made too effective in this game by making ways of dealing with it more rare. About the only way a PC or NPC can do so is either as a Warlock or a Druid wild-shaping into a creature with blindsight.

I reintroduced Ebon Eyes as a spell specifically for seeing through it and I reintroduced my own version of blind-fighting, which in this game worked out to a feat that can, with a bonus action, briefly grant a very short-ranged blindsight. It feels like those are gaping holes in the design so far. I'm expecting such things will get reintroduced with expansion material before long.

In fact, I'm in a quandary about this right now. I definitely want to make a shadow monk. The only question is do I want to prepare to eventually dip two levels of warlock? If I do, this will definitely be a common tactic--to make darkness that I can see through but not my enemies, and have a significant advantage. It seems so good that it might be cheesy even. Will it be annoying as crap to DMs, so much so that they keep trying to break it? If so, then I will definitely feel like the lost of two monk levels was a heavy price to pay. Will it be so good that it gets boring? On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of complications. Darkness is 40 feet in diameter and my fellow party members may get annoyed with this frequent tactic that impairs them and complicates every combat. I may find that I don't want to use it as often as I thought.

What do you folks think?

Im certainly not going to allow targetting a creature with a SoS spell if the caster cant see them.

Whether theyre invisible, or in darkness it doesnt matter.

Dalebert

2015-10-14, 09:39 PM

Whether theyre invisible, or in darkness it doesnt matter.

So being invisible makes you invulnerable to single-target spells with saving throws? That's powerful.

Where is "line of sight" even mentioned? Under spell casting, they talk about "a clear path to the target". I'm trying to figure out what you're basing this on. For now it appears to be a house rule, which is fine of course if that's how you want to run it. I just think you're making invisibility and darkness too powerful, and darkness is already quite powerful especially if you have a rare means of not being impeded by it.

Ebon eyes as a spell and a blind fighting feat (or half heat) are both great ideas, do you have them written up somewhere?

Yep.
https://ascension-8.obsidianportal.com/wikis/house-rules

I decided to make it take a bonus action to turn on. That way you're not constantly alert to invisible creatures. This way, they can still sneak up on you but then you could trigger this to start fighting them without a penalty. It seems too good to just have constant blindsight, and also not in line with the spirit of this feat and how it works. This is something that takes focus and effort on the part of the character.

Corran

2015-10-14, 09:53 PM

So being invisible makes you invulnerable to single-target spells with saving throws? That's powerful.

Think of it in a different way. A monster the players are facing casts invisibility on itself, and the pc caster spams it with acid splash. Wouldn't it feel cheap? Plus, conditions like invisibility and darkness add another dynamic to the AoE spells. If you could just use SoS spells then the AoE spells would lose that additional functionality. SoS spells' functionality (attacking an enemy with a very good AC, or using them when you have disadvantage - mostly relates to a situation when the caster is fighting an adcacent to him enemy) remains intact and has nothing to do with being able to use them to spam invisible opponents (which is one of the many ways that would give you disadvantage).

Dalebert

2015-10-14, 10:13 PM

A monster the players are facing casts invisibility on itself, and the pc caster spams it with acid splash. Wouldn't it feel cheap?

No. Invisibility is still very advantageous. There are plenty of people in the party who will not have an SoS option and will just have to attack with disadvantage. And if the creature is moving at half speed and attempting to be silent, I'd still require a successful perception to target it with anything, SoS or attack. Why do you think a 2nd level spell should be so powerful? Blur is also 2nd level and also provides no benefit against SoS. So? Both are still extremely useful for 2nd level spells but should not grant massive spell immunity.

JoeJ

2015-10-14, 10:21 PM

So being invisible makes you invulnerable to single-target spells with saving throws? That's powerful.

A lot of spells with saves target one or more creatures of your choice that you can see within range. There are some that don't have that wording, but spells like Bane, Chain Lighting, Charm Person, and Disintegrate are useless if you can't see the target.

Corran

2015-10-14, 10:24 PM

I see your point Dalebert.

Searching in the rules I couldn't also find anything to support that SoS spells wouldnt work when inside darkness. Only total cover prevents them from targeting an enemy, and that is not the case when inside the darkness. However, I found something that would be useful in term of figuring out if an SoS spell would work or not. Having a look at some spells and their description, it becomes clear that some of the SoS spells wouldnt work. That is because in their spell description it is specified that the caster must be able to see the target. Look for example the description for the sacred flame. It wouldn't work inside the darkness, unless the caster could see normally. Hence I think that by RAW, SoS spells work inside the darkness, unless it is specified otherwise in the relevant spell's description. Ofc any DM could use houserules, allowing or disallowing several such spells from either working or not, according to his judgement. But I think we are starting to reach a conclusion as far as what is allowed by RAW (at least I do).

Malifice

2015-10-14, 10:27 PM

So being invisible makes you invulnerable to single-target spells with saving throws?

Yes. You cant see your target so you have no LoS to them.

Look at Power work Kill and Power word stun - they expressly only affect creatures you can see. As do most spells. Look at mass suggestion: 'You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence up to twelve creatures of your choice that you can see within range...'

You cant even shout a suggestion, or a power word at a creature in darkness or who is invisible. They hear the word, but are unaffected by the magic (or you simply cant target them).

Where is "line of sight" even mentioned? Under spell casting, they talk about "a clear path to the target". I'm trying to figure out what you're basing this on. For now it appears to be a house rule, which is fine of course if that's how you want to run it. I just think you're making invisibility and darkness too powerful, and darkness is already quite powerful especially if you have a rare means of not being impeded by it.

In spell descriptions themselves. The first line of mass healing word:

As you call out words of restoration, up to six creatures of your choice that you can see within range regain hit points equal to...

Magic missile:

You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range...

Power word kill:

You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly.

Levitate:

One creature or object of your choice that you can see within range rises vertically

etc.

All the targetted spells expressly require you to be able to see your target to target them. Invisibility (and darkness) stops that.

Malifice

2015-10-14, 10:29 PM

I see your point Dalebert.Searching in the rules I couldn't also find anything to support that SoS spells wouldnt work when inside darkness.

Read the spell description. Name one SoS spell that targets a creature at range that doesnt require LoS?

Corran

2015-10-14, 10:58 PM

Read the spell description. Name one SoS spell that targets a creature at range that doesnt require LoS?
Yeah, that's the point I made in the next paragraph. That although the general rules about casting spells dont specify anything (so one assumes you can cast SoS spells normally), the specific rules in the spell descriptions indicate the exact opposite (ie that you cannot cast them). Maybe there are SoS spells that dont require you to see the target, cannot look at every spell to see if there exist or not. The conclusion imo is, that you can use SoS spells while in darkness, unless otherwise stated in their description (ie the description specifies that the caster must see the target).

ps: Feels completey unreasonable that a caster wouldnt be able to cast levitate on himself, or does the range then become self, so he can do it?

djreynolds

2015-10-14, 11:19 PM

Magical darkness for a human is not the opposite of a drow suffering in the day light. The drow is squinting and can barely see, barely... thus the disadvantage to rolls, saves, etc. But magical darkness is different. Your torch or mundane fire does not work, nor does your light spell.

Darkness is a tactic drow have been using forever. But have no fear, when you went underground you took a cleric with you who has daylight prepared, right? Or a wizard with dispel magic? Why are you in the underdark at such a low level?

Malifice

2015-10-14, 11:28 PM

Feels completey unreasonable that a caster wouldnt be able to cast levitate on himself, or does the range then become self, so he can do it?

I require magic as requiring that visual link personally. Kind of like in Shadowrun - you form an astral link between a target you can see and yourself. Your eyes are somehow important in this - for example you cant use a camera or TV to 'see' something (although cybereyes are OK as you paid for them with essense cost).

Magical metaphysics and all that.

Wanna screw up a wizard? Gouge out his eyes.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-15, 12:58 AM

While I largely agree with you re Hide v Search, It feels unrealistc to me to be strict about it to the point that you can always know where things are without hiding them or them hiding. I find the occasional DC 10 wisdom (perception) check to pinpoint enemies (and allies) in darkness or when blind (even when they havent taken the Hide action) to simulate the lack of situational awareness when blinded or unable to see feels better.

Same as the occasional DC 10 dex (acrobatics) to avoid tripping over when blind and moving at speed and such.

Both can be avoided by cunning PC's ('DM - I trail my hand along the wall as I move towards the sound of battle.' = no roll needed).

I love that I can expressly do this via the RAW.

I think of it as the enemy is constantly giving away their position. Now, we're not talking Daredevil pseudovision, they're just aware of the general location of the enemy such that they can attack accurateishly having disadvantage on the roll (they still can't see the person). I don't impose any additional checks because I would argue the characters are doing their best to determine the location of the enemies already. I suppose you could institute a passive stealth (stealth

If the person uses stealth, now they both can't see and can't figure out more or less where they are, which is why there's that extra layer of protection of having to guess at the current location.

Think of it like the final encounter of Silence of the Lambs. Bill initially is stealthy, with Clarice being both unable to see AND hear him. But when pulls back the hammer on the gun, he makes a sound and exposes his location such that she can react to shoot at his location.

The section on unseen attackers (PHB 194) treats targeting a creature you "can hear but not see" differently from "guessing the target's location". However, those rules do not state or imply that all non-hidden creatures can automatically be heard. Hidden creatures are stated to be unheard, but that certainly doesn't mean hiding is the only way something might be unheard. Accordingly, it is necessarily left to DM discretion whether a character can hear a given unseen opponent well enough to target it without needing to guess its location.

I agree that hiding is not the only way one might be unheard, however if the subject is not employing some means of making itself unheard (the silence spell, for example) then by default it would be heard. Hiding, a Dexterity (Stealth) check is the specific means by which one attempts to make themselves unheard. The default would be that they are not trying to be unheard, and are thus constantly giving away their position via footsteps, grunting from effort, breathing, and so on.

The default state of things is not being stealthy, that requires a dexterity check. No check, no stealth.

djreynolds

2015-10-15, 01:41 AM

The real question, is how before daylight and dispel magic, do you defeat this?

Kane0

2015-10-15, 01:54 AM

The real question, is how before daylight and dispel magic, do you defeat this?

Dont you get daylight at the same spell level?

But you could move out of the darkness, take the dodge action, ready actions, use AoE spells (burning hands, thunderwave, thunderclap) ir find cover, just off the top of my head.

Its a conventration spell, break the casters concentration.

Corran

2015-10-15, 02:03 AM

The real question, is how before daylight and dispel magic, do you defeat this?
Pretty much the same way you defeat a warlock who instead of darkness and devil's sight uses hex and EB. Or the same way you defeat a cleric who casts bless on him and his allies. You dont have to deal with the darkness itself, you just have to deal with the enemy. Seriously, other than the warlock who can see in the darkness, the fight between any other characters inside it is being done on equal terms more or less. I say more or less because according to what features each character has, he might be affected from a slightly advantageous to a very disadvantageous way. This trick mainly offers the bladelock some extra survivability, as it was indicated in a previous post, and some extra dps that is very comparable (if not slightly worse) to a warlock using hex instead. But the way by which it affects the warlock's group strictly has to do with group composition. Seriously, it's not that good as it first looks to be, just read some of the posts above and think about it.

djreynolds

2015-10-15, 02:06 AM

Daylight is a 3rd level spell, so 5th level. I think darkness is 2nd level, AFB, so that's 3rd level character.

JakOfAllTirades

2015-10-15, 02:07 AM

Dont you get daylight at the same spell level?

But you could move out of the darkness, take the dodge action, ready actions, use AoE spells (burning hands, thunderwave, thunderclap) ir find cover, just off the top of my head.

Its a conventration spell, break the casters concentration.

Or just roll lots of attack dice, with lots of big freaking attack bonuses.

Multiple attackers, one enemy with multiple attacks, or with a high attack bonus (or all of the above) will often overcome the disadvantage of fighting in darkness. It's not like any of those are unusual! Personally, I've taken fewer hits when using Mirror Image, but for some reason that's not considered a "game breaking" tactic.

Whatever.

djreynolds

2015-10-15, 02:09 AM

Pretty much the same way you defeat a warlock who instead of darkness and devil's sight uses hex and EB. Or the same way you defeat a cleric who casts bless on him and his allies. You dont have to deal with the darkness itself, you just have to deal with the enemy. Seriously, other than the warlock who can see in the darkness, the fight between any other characters inside it is being done on equal terms more or less. I say more or less because according to what features each character has, he might be affected from a slightly advantageous to a very disadvantageous way. This trick mainly offers the bladelock some extra survivability, as it was indicated in a previous post, and some extra dps that is very comparable (if not slightly worse) to a warlock using hex instead. But the way by which it affects the warlock's group strictly has to do with group composition. Seriously, it's not that good as it first looks to be, just read some of the posts above and think about it.

Its enough of reason to avoid the underdark and drow, who make great warlocks already, til your 5th level. But if people did there would be no skeletons to loot.

Mirror image rocks, no concentration

Corran

2015-10-15, 02:14 AM

Or just roll lots of attack dice, with lots of big freaking attack bonuses.

Multiple attackers, one enemy with multiple attacks, or with a high attack bonus (or all of the above) will often overcome the disadvantage of fighting in darkness. It's not like any of those are unusual! Personally, I've taken fewer hits when using Mirror Image, but for some reason that's not considered a "game breaking" tactic.

Whatever.
If you roll against anyone else other than the warlock (assuming the warlock is the only one who can see while inside the darkness) you dont roll with disadvantage.

djreynolds

2015-10-15, 02:18 AM

If you roll against anyone else other than the warlock (assuming the warlock is the only one who can see while inside the darkness) you dont roll with disadvantage.

No percentile roll of hitting you buddies involved?

Corran

2015-10-15, 02:23 AM

No percentile roll of hitting you buddies involved?
No unless you houserule it to. It would make for some exciting times at the table :smallbiggrin:

NNescio

2015-10-15, 02:27 AM

Read the spell description. Name one SoS spell that targets a creature at range that doesnt require LoS?

Dissonant Whispers
Otiluke's Resillient Sphere
Dream
Planar Binding

...yeah, not a whole lot. And none of them are 'pure' SoSs.

Xetheral

2015-10-15, 03:26 AM

I agree that hiding is not the only way one might be unheard, however if the subject is not employing some means of making itself unheard (the silence spell, for example) then by default it would be heard.

I know you think that is the default, but there is nothing in the rules that requires that to be so.

Hiding, a Dexterity (Stealth) check is the specific means by which one attempts to make themselves unheard. The default would be that they are not trying to be unheard, and are thus constantly giving away their position via footsteps, grunting from effort, breathing, and so on.

The default state of things is not being stealthy, that requires a dexterity check. No check, no stealth.

Yes, if someone wants to be unheard the mechanic invoked is a Dexterity (Stealth) check. But nothing in 5e D&D requires that a character who does not invoke that mechanic is automatically heard. Consider: DMs call for Wisdom (Perception) checks to hear non-stealthy creatures all the time in situations where the creature's audibility might be in doubt. Basically, any situation where even though the character is giving off noise they might not be heard anyway due to (e.g.) distance, distraction, or environmental factors, the DM, RAW, can call for a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice or locate the character.

Malifice

2015-10-15, 04:19 AM

The real question, is how before daylight and dispel magic, do you defeat this?

Its not that big an issue. You just walk out of the darkness, smother it (if you know how) or hit the warlock with an axe.

Dalebert

2015-10-15, 08:12 AM

A lot of spells with saves target one or more creatures of your choice that you can see within range. There are some that don't have that wording, but spells like Bane, Chain Lighting, Charm Person, and Disintegrate are useless if you can't see the target.

It's true. I looked them up and it's in the description of many spells. I noted that it was lacking from Acid Splash which makes sense. That's sort of targeting an area. I was surprised that it's also in the wording of Poison Spray. That seems to me to effectively be targeting one hex. It's a "can't miss" attack that just involves a Con save (probably holding your breath) so it should be more effective than a regular attack in Darkness or against invisible creatures; yet they're immune somehow. I'm probably just going to handwave that particular spell as otherwise and effectively treat Acid Splash as a two hex area and Poison Spray as a one hex area spell, but I will generally concede to the wording of spells that require you see the target. Some senses are as good as seeing though, so if it's not the case already, I would treat blindsight as sufficient for "seeing" for these purposes.

The default state of things is not being stealthy, that requires a dexterity check. No check, no stealth.

Yeah, I think my head was stuck in previous editions with the moving at half speed thing and using stealth. In this edition they've made it clear that you have to use an action to actually roll on an ability check; hence passive perception and investigation. So I assume when characters are moving silently, they're forfeiting their action while moving, or bonus action in some cases.

No percentile roll of hitting you buddies involved?

I think if you roll a 1 in Darkness, I might say you hit your friends. I know it's not RAW. :smallyuk:

I don't know why folks seem to think this tactic is particularly good for blade locks. I used to use it with a tome lock. I'd cast Darkness on something my bat familiar was holding and could then control where I wanted the darkness to be at any time. I could be in it for protection, shooting out with advantage or I could position it over enemies and shoot in with advantage. It seems to me to be equally beneficial for a ranged character as a melee one.

Citan

2015-10-15, 09:03 AM

Hi OP, hi all!
Thanks for opening this very interesting thread. :)

Didn't have the chance yet to DM a battle where someone would be using this combo, but I've been thinking about it since I'm myself also interested in it as a player...
So, a few considerations...

1) Can hamper teamwork, so not great in all situations (unless everyone has Devil's Sight or similar).
2) You are not automatically hidden (= you have to take Hide action, otherwise enemy still knows where you are, just rolls with disadvantage).

For the rest, if I was DMing an encounter without having especially planned a counter I would probably consider one of the following.

- If I have no caster in the enemy group nor "blindsight/tremorsense" monster, everyone falls back.

- If I have someone who can see in darkness, either I make him lead the troop or fall back and direct from a safe place, depending on who else is in the darkness.

- If I have a caster with a lightning spell (Faerie Fire, Daylight, ???), I cast it as 3rd level to nullify Darkness.

- If I have a caster with Fireball or other AOE, I make allies fall back then launch AOE attacks to try and make my enemies go out (or hit and hurt Warlock and maybe break concentration).

- If my enemies are mainly melee and currently in the darkness area, I find a way to slow them or hurt them "naturally" (Plant Growth, Grease + Fire, etc). Either they suffer or move out.

- If darkness has been cast on an object, I use a wind spell to push it or I aim the center to destroy it (if it's destroyable).

- If darkness has been cast on an enemy, unless the darkness fills the room, I know where the center (= the source) is so I aim it directly.

In all honesty though, if a player uses this, I'd let him get a big win the first time, maybe another if he's crafty, then I'd always include at least taw "immune" enemy and/or casters with adequate abilities. If he manages to kill them all quickly, then he deserves to win with this tactic afterwards. Otherwise it means I can counter it anytime he tries, so he has to find another tactic.

Also, you could set numerous traps on the ground to slow down or hurt creatures. Your monsters would evidently know where they are, and you could decide that something on the ground makes them distinguishable in darkness (such as different texture, a faint smell or other thing)... Making your creatures less susceptible to fall into trap but effectively turning Warlock's darkness against any ally unless...
- He sees in the dark.
- Warlock concentrates on percepting traps and informing teams (which ALSO requires verbal communication unless he's telepath, which means your creatures can find him more easily).

Well, anyhow, I don't see it as an overpowered combo, at least more than once. :)

Friv

2015-10-15, 09:25 AM

It has nothing to do with that. It's just if the chance of an encounter presenting any substantive challenge is trivial, why bother to have it? It's better to save the table time on not rolling iniative and however many attacks it takes to play out a foregone conclusion.

I think the reason that a lot of people are reacting incredulously to your statements is that, in our eyes, this particular trick doesn't stop most encounters from presenting a challenge. At best, it's a useful ability in many situations.

I mean, this isn't a situation where the results are "enemies immune or enemies dead". I can think of the following counters:

1) Have groups of enemies who aren't all within 15ft of the warlock.
2) Have a mixture of melee and archer opponents
3) Use one of the 1/3 of the MM who are immune to magical darkness
4) Have a monster who is a spellcaster dispel the darkness
5) Have enemies rush out of the darkness to fight other PCs, allowing the warlock a non-overwhelming tactical advantage.
6) Have enemies who have high attack bonuses, and thus can get some hits through disadvantage.
7) Have enemies who can offset their own disadvantage in some way.

Note that Options #1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 all include situations that mitigate the darkness without making it totally useless, and Option 3 can do the same if the monsters are a mix of immune and non-immune. Also, options #1 and 2 seem like pretty reasonable and common things in a game.

Sure, occasionally someone's cool trick will make an encounter not work out. But I really don't think that the list of options above is "dramatically reducing the playing field".

Dalebert

2015-10-15, 10:33 AM

Excellent points, Friv. I find that necessity is the mother of invention. When I find myself in a pickle, I start exploring my resources for ways to deal with it the best I can. Then the next time it happens, I may have other resources to deal with it from having my butt kicked the first time. Maybe I've prepared a different spell. Maybe I have certain mundane items like a net to throw over the caster. It sounds like you've thought this through pretty well and are well prepared.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-15, 10:40 AM

I think the reason that a lot of people are reacting incredulously to your statements is that, in our eyes, this particular trick doesn't stop most encounters from presenting a challenge. At best, it's a useful ability in many situations.

I mean, this isn't a situation where the results are "enemies immune or enemies dead". I can think of the following counters:

1) Have groups of enemies who aren't all within 15ft of the warlock.
2) Have a mixture of melee and archer opponents
3) Use one of the 1/3 of the MM who are immune to magical darkness
4) Have a monster who is a spellcaster dispel the darkness
5) Have enemies rush out of the darkness to fight other PCs, allowing the warlock a non-overwhelming tactical advantage.
6) Have enemies who have high attack bonuses, and thus can get some hits through disadvantage.
7) Have enemies who can offset their own disadvantage in some way.

Note that Options #1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 all include situations that mitigate the darkness without making it totally useless, and Option 3 can do the same if the monsters are a mix of immune and non-immune. Also, options #1 and 2 seem like pretty reasonable and common things in a game.

Sure, occasionally someone's cool trick will make an encounter not work out. But I really don't think that the list of options above is "dramatically reducing the playing field".

Archers & Spread out opponents won't work because they can't see into the darkness from outside anymore than can see around from the inside. Being outside the darkness is the exact same situation as being inside. 3 is dramatic reduction in encounter space before high levels, 4 at any level.

5 is a more interesting case, but I see no reason the other PCs should engage in this case. It's just a liability. The warlock can kill or force enemies to flee from the area around the darkness equal to the maximum range of the longest weapon they can get their hands solo and both of these are victory conditions.

6 & 7 work only in the case you're going with the interpretation that precise targeting is possible against a character in total darkness. This thread has shown the position is at least controversial. I'd tend to be the camp that demands some kind of difficult roll and/or randomization to know you're even targeting the right space. I'll even concede that strictest RAW of the situation allows free targeting. Though, FWIW single target spells don't work by RAW, mostly. I can certainly say at every table I've played on, in every system I've played in just going "I attack that guy" when you can't see him has never flown from either side of the table.

I will agree that this trick is not overwhelming if you're willing to introduce lots of enemy spell casters, lots of enemies that can see through magical darkness, or just go with free targeting and slap at +5 on everything's attack bonus. In my opinion that is an undue constriction of the game for a single "cool" rules interaction. It certainly a disproportionate effect on the space the game can work with even in comparison to other things that exclude classes of encounters like Flight, energy immunities or force effects.

If you don't think that sort of constriction undue or dramatic, that's fine. One man's "Worst movie ever" is another "It wasn't great, but I liked it" or "That movie was awesome". I'm not gonna say you're wrong exactly just that we disagree and I don't think that general approach would be terribly fun for me. If it works for you or anyone else this forum, good for you I guess.

Doug Lampert

2015-10-15, 11:27 AM

The default state of things is not being stealthy, that requires a dexterity check. No check, no stealth.

And if a DM insists on claiming that there should be a perception check anyway, what's the DC?

10 has been suggested, but this means that nearly half the time an average person is louder and easier to find when they try to be stealthy and don't take any other action than they would be if they were running around and swinging a sword without worrying at all about how much noise they were making. Which sounds nonsensical IMAO.

So the DC to perceive them must be substantially less than 10. Call it DC 5 at best. And if they're that easy to localize I should probably do so without a roll using passive perception. Which goes back to Vogonjeltz's claim that "no check, no stealth" as the reasonable solution.

There's simply no justification for a high DC for the perception check to localize someone not being stealthy given how easy it is to find someone who is being stealthy.

Disadvantage is a fairly blunt tool for this, IMAO it doesn't give nearly a big enough disadvantage to blindness.

But disadvantage is the tool that D&D 5th has chosen, if you houserule that darkness is vastly more powerful than Vogonjeltz is using, and then find that darkness + devil's sight is too powerful, then my suggestion is "try playing it as appears to be intended, that stealth is insanely hard and darkness of fairly low value since you always know roughly where someone is and never hit an ally".

Sigreid

2015-10-15, 12:48 PM

I think the exact effect is going to depend on the foes. Drow for example likely have tactics specifically for dealing with magical darkness they can't see through.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-15, 04:11 PM

I think the exact effect is going to depend on the foes. Drow for example likely have tactics specifically for dealing with magical darkness they can't see through.

An interestiing though, now that you bring it up but this likely far more effective against those with Darkvision than without. At least those that don't regularly use it themselves.

If you have Darkvision and have never run into magical darkness before, you've never been darkness before in the way normally sighted creatures have. You'd have no frame of reference for things going Dark and your language might not even have a word for the concept. When you hit magical Darkness the world has gone black for the first time ever in your entire life, this must be terrifying even if you know if it's magic. If you don't have that kind of knowledge it must be one of the most horrible things that could happen.

It seems that the most natural reaction of Dwarf or other Darkvision'd creature getting hit with magical darkness could only be total panic or at least a very high WIS save (16-18) vs just losing their **** totally. Forget LOS rules or making tactical decisions, at that point not screaming and curling into the fetal position would be a win.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-15, 05:31 PM

I know you think that is the default, but there is nothing in the rules that requires that to be so.

Actually the rules do require an affirmative act to be unheard. PHB 177: "Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

Notice that last word? Stealth check is required to sneak and not be heard.

Further evidence:
Page 177 text box on Hiding: "An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet."
Page 195 also specifically links the state of hidden with being unheard: "If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

The only means to remain quiet in combat is by using stealth, which is explicitly the hide action per the rules, per page 192 on the Hide action: "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."

The games rules only assume unheard when the hide action has been taken. You are, without evidence mind, making the assumption that the default state of all things is unheard.

If you think the game rules don't assume this, then you surely can provide a citation backing up your opinion. I'd be extremely interested in reading that if it exists.

Yes, if someone wants to be unheard the mechanic invoked is a Dexterity (Stealth) check. But nothing in 5e D&D requires that a character who does not invoke that mechanic is automatically heard. Consider: DMs call for Wisdom (Perception) checks to hear non-stealthy creatures all the time in situations where the creature's audibility might be in doubt. Basically, any situation where even though the character is giving off noise they might not be heard anyway due to (e.g.) distance, distraction, or environmental factors, the DM, RAW, can call for a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice or locate the character.

Those are in situations where noticing the character might be in doubt, prior to combat. When no one is trying to be stealthy, it does not apply: Page 189, "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other." That is not the only reference to characters not trying to be stealthy being noticed, in point of fact every single reference I can find in the PHB indicates that is the default assumption. Where are the counterexamples? (actual citation please, not a vignette that you came up with on your own)

A DM certainly can deviate from the written rules, as you suggest, however that's still not the rule (which is what we're actually discussing) so it doesn't seem to be important. I'd remind you that combat isn't just any situation, the characters are specifically honed in on detecting danger.

MaxWilson

2015-10-15, 05:33 PM

An interestiing though, now that you bring it up but this likely far more effective against those with Darkvision than without. At least those that don't regularly use it themselves.

If you have Darkvision and have never run into magical darkness before, you've never been darkness before in the way normally sighted creatures have. You'd have no frame of reference for things going Dark and your language might not even have a word for the concept.

This might be true if you had infinite-range Darkvision, but to a creature with 5E Darkvision 60', magical darkness looks exactly like regular darkness when you're twenty paces away.

The only means to remain quiet in combat is by using stealth, which is explicitly the hide action per the rules, per page 192 on the Hide action: "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."

The games rules only assume unheard when the hide action has been taken. You are, without evidence mind, making the assumption that the default state of all things is unheard.

I'm not so sure of that. The DM could reasonably rule that hiding is implicit in certain other actions. For example, a Shadow Monk's bonus action Shadow Jump could reasonably be construed as forcing opponents to figure out his new location, e.g. Stealth vs. Perception contest to discover his new location. Functionally that makes it a Hide check (perhaps at disadvantage though). Invisibility before moving could reasonably be construed the same way, as a way of Hiding that uses a spell for its action.

It's not a slam-dunk case, but the mere fact that the PHB says "You can attempt to Hide as an action" doesn't necessarily imply that that is the only way to hide, ever. 5E isn't intended for close readings of the text in that fashion.

Sigreid

2015-10-15, 08:27 PM

This might be true if you had infinite-range Darkvision, but to a creature with 5E Darkvision 60', magical darkness looks exactly like regular darkness when you're twenty paces away.
.

There is a big difference between I can see 60' and I can't see my hand in front of my face. But what I was getting at was creatures (like drow) that can expect to regularly face threats capable of generating magical darkness (such as rival drow) are going to develop tactics and maybe even weapons to compensate. A village that is under attack by drow and has never encountered magical darkness is going to be impacted far more.

Xetheral

2015-10-16, 01:35 AM

Actually the rules do require an affirmative act to be unheard. PHB 177: "Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

Notice that last word? Stealth check is required to sneak and not be heard.

Further evidence:
Page 177 text box on Hiding: "An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet."
Page 195 also specifically links the state of hidden with being unheard: "If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

The only means to remain quiet in combat is by using stealth, which is explicitly the hide action per the rules, per page 192 on the Hide action: "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."

The games rules only assume unheard when the hide action has been taken. You are, without evidence mind, making the assumption that the default state of all things is unheard.

If you think the game rules don't assume this, then you surely can provide a citation backing up your opinion. I'd be extremely interested in reading that if it exists.

Those are in situations where noticing the character might be in doubt, prior to combat. When no one is trying to be stealthy, it does not apply: Page 189, "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other." That is not the only reference to characters not trying to be stealthy being noticed, in point of fact every single reference I can find in the PHB indicates that is the default assumption. Where are the counterexamples? (actual citation please, not a vignette that you came up with on your own)

A DM certainly can deviate from the written rules, as you suggest, however that's still not the rule (which is what we're actually discussing) so it doesn't seem to be important. I'd remind you that combat isn't just any situation, the characters are specifically honed in on detecting danger.

My entire point is that the rules are silent as to whether characters who do not try to hide are automatically heard by others. I can't provide a citation to back up a position that the rules are silent.

Your citations do not disprove my claim, because they are to the hiding rules, which are not relevant to a character who doesn't invoke the hide action (except to the point that they contain other, general rules, but in this case they don't). Specifically:

Page 177: Explicitly deals with the hide action, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.
Page 177 (sidebar): Explicitly deals with the hide action, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.
Page 195: Explicitly deals with revealing your location to enemies when you attack while hidden, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.

Yes, an affirmative action is required (a Dexterity (Stealth) check) to not be heard when you are trying to not be heard. But that's not what's being debated: we are instead discussing whether a character who doesn't take the hide action is automatically heard by every other opponent. And the rules are utterly silent on this point.

You agree there are situations where noticing a non-hiding character might be in doubt, out of combat. Yet those same situations apply in-combat. For example, characters in darkness might be too far away for an archer to easily be able to hear which unseen creatures are allies and which are enemies, or the roar of flames from a burning building might make hearing any footsteps nigh-impossible, or a combat might be so loud and chaotic that it's hard to hear over the din of battle an out-of-sight ally, even one who is actively shouting for you. There is nothing in the rules that says that the RAW in each of these examples is that the character automatically knows the location of all unseen allies and opponents.

As for your quote from page 189, you're reading it incorrectly and out of context. The quote says that if neither side tries to be stealthy, both sides automatically notice "each other", which is to say, they automatically notice the other side and thus aren't surprised. That's limited to being aware of each other's presence for purposes of surprise, not specifically stating that each side knows the other's location. Even if the rule did extend to being aware of the other sides' location, that doesn't necessarily mean that every combatant on every side is automatically aware of the location of every other combatant, even those currently out of sight.

Malifice

2015-10-16, 05:32 AM

My entire point is that the rules are silent as to whether characters who do not try to hide are automatically heard by others. I can't provide a citation to back up a position that the rules are silent.

Your citations do not disprove my claim, because they are to the hiding rules, which are not relevant to a character who doesn't invoke the hide action (except to the point that they contain other, general rules, but in this case they don't). Specifically:

Page 177: Explicitly deals with the hide action, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.
Page 177 (sidebar): Explicitly deals with the hide action, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.
Page 195: Explicitly deals with revealing your location to enemies when you attack while hidden, and says nothing about whether characters who don't hide are automatically heard.

Yes, an affirmative action is required (a Dexterity (Stealth) check) to not be heard when you are trying to not be heard. But that's not what's being debated: we are instead discussing whether a character who doesn't take the hide action is automatically heard by every other opponent. And the rules are utterly silent on this point.

You agree there are situations where noticing a non-hiding character might be in doubt, out of combat. Yet those same situations apply in-combat. For example, characters in darkness might be too far away for an archer to easily be able to hear which unseen creatures are allies and which are enemies, or the roar of flames from a burning building might make hearing any footsteps nigh-impossible, or a combat might be so loud and chaotic that it's hard to hear over the din of battle an out-of-sight ally, even one who is actively shouting for you. There is nothing in the rules that says that the RAW in each of these examples is that the character automatically knows the location of all unseen allies and opponents.

As for your quote from page 189, you're reading it incorrectly and out of context. The quote says that if neither side tries to be stealthy, both sides automatically notice "each other", which is to say, they automatically notice the other side and thus aren't surprised. That's limited to being aware of each other's presence for purposes of surprise, not specifically stating that each side knows the other's location. Even if the rule did extend to being aware of the other sides' location, that doesn't necessarily mean that every combatant on every side is automatically aware of the location of every other combatant, even those currently out of sight.

But the rules aren't silent. They expressly in a number of different passages in various places (the hiding sidebar, invisibility spell, Skulker feat, unseen attackers rules etc) strongly infer that you're assumed to be noticed until and unless you utilise the stealth skill.

A contrary inference is found nowhere in the rules.

It's never expressly stated I grant you; but all signs point to Rome.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-16, 06:11 AM

Corran

2015-10-16, 08:39 AM

I sit down and hold my breath inside a darkness spell. Does doing so require a stealth check, if so can I fail at such a simple action? If not by what means are they detecting me?
I believe that what you described just now translates to a character using his action to roll a stealth check. Granted, the fact that he is not moving should be giving him a bonus (or better yet, advantage) to his stealth roll (as there is less chance that he will make any noise if he tries to stay still - armor rattling, stepping on something), though by RAW he doesnt get any such bonus. That would be sth a lot of DMs could possibly houserule. But staying still trying to be quiet, is taking the hide action (using your action to roll a stealth check) as far as I can tell. It shouldnt be an autosuccess, as that character could still make enough noise to be heard (like I said, rolling low on the stealth check could mean that he couldnt stay completely still, so he might stepped on sth, or his armor might have made some noise, or his breath gave him away, or if he rolled a natural one you could even say that he farted and that was what gave away his position:smallsmile:). Though the lack of movement should probably give him a bonus, which is not the case by RAW.

ps: Is ''having to move at half speed in order to be stealthy'' a thing in this edition?

georgie_leech

2015-10-16, 10:34 AM

But the rules aren't silent. They expressly in a number of different passages in various places (the hiding sidebar, invisibility spell, Skulker feat, unseen attackers rules etc) strongly infer that you're assumed to be noticed until and unless you utilise the stealth skill.

A contrary inference is found nowhere in the rules.

It's never expressly stated I grant you; but all signs point to Rome.

So the combatants are aware of the locations of every other combatant? What's the range? If someone starts to run away, at what point do they drop of the radar so to speak? What if they go behind a door that they then shut? Two doors? A series of corridors? If there wasn't a fight going on? What if reinforcements are running in the other direction that this enemy is fleeing? When do the PC'S just know their exact locations?

Xetheral

2015-10-16, 12:29 PM

But the rules aren't silent. They expressly in a number of different passages in various places (the hiding sidebar, invisibility spell, Skulker feat, unseen attackers rules etc) strongly infer that you're assumed to be noticed until and unless you utilise the stealth skill.

A contrary inference is found nowhere in the rules.

It's never expressly stated I grant you; but all signs point to Rome.

You read the rules and come away with one inferrence. I read the same rules and come away with the opposite inference. Because they are inferences, by definition neither has explicit textual support. Obviously, we both think our inference is the better-supported inference, but that is inherently a matter of opinion.

When two groups of people read the exact same rules and come away with opposite inferences, they can either shout at each other until the cows come home, or they can realize that the text itself is silent and evidently supports multiple inferences.

rlc

2015-10-16, 01:38 PM

youre overpowering darkness quite a bit there. Darkness doesn't inhibit movement or knowing which squares have creatures in them (unless they are hidden).

i think it's more along the lines of stubbing your toe on a wall or tripping over something. or stepping on a rake.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-16, 10:03 PM

I sit down and hold my breath inside a darkness spell. Does doing so require a stealth check, if so can I fail at such a simple action? If not by what means are they detecting me?

Are you trying to do this quietly or not? If not, you make noise. If you are, you've just made a hide check, congratulations!

And yes, you can fail (i.e. your foot scrapes the ground as you go to sit, you kneel on a leaf or stick while sitting, the wind blows rattling some metal on your gear, etc...).

So the combatants are aware of the locations of every other combatant? What's the range? If someone starts to run away, at what point do they drop of the radar so to speak? What if they go behind a door that they then shut? Two doors? A series of corridors? If there wasn't a fight going on? What if reinforcements are running in the other direction that this enemy is fleeing? When do the PC'S just know their exact locations?

Great questions. In the DMG we have this advice on 243 under Noticing Other Creatures: "Creatures can be more likely to hear one another before they see anything. If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another."

We can also refer to the Chase section for information on when a character is attempting to escape another, which is that once the quarry is out of sight, they make a stealth check vs pursuer perception score, if it's quiet the check has disadvantage, if it's noisy it has advantage. That's pretty much the guidelines. So I'd say the distance at which someone hears something is basically up to the DM. That being said, I'd refer you to this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150401140833.htm

My entire point is that the rules are silent as to whether characters who do not try to hide are automatically heard by others. I can't provide a citation to back up a position that the rules are silent.

No, the rules are not silent. DMG 243, If neither side is being stealthy, they're automatically noticed. Stealthy is defined as unseen AND unheard. No inference required.

You agree there are situations where noticing a non-hiding character might be in doubt, out of combat. Yet those same situations apply in-combat. For example, characters in darkness might be too far away for an archer to easily be able to hear which unseen creatures are allies and which are enemies, or the roar of flames from a burning building might make hearing any footsteps nigh-impossible, or a combat might be so loud and chaotic that it's hard to hear over the din of battle an out-of-sight ally, even one who is actively shouting for you. There is nothing in the rules that says that the RAW in each of these examples is that the character automatically knows the location of all unseen allies and opponents.

No, I said that you were listing situations where noticing a creature might be in doubt, and that refers to hidden creatures. Non-hidden creatures get noticed. If you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not, you're not. It's tautological.

It's not a slam-dunk case, but the mere fact that the PHB says "You can attempt to Hide as an action" doesn't necessarily imply that that is the only way to hide, ever. 5E isn't intended for close readings of the text in that fashion.

It's the same as attacking or casting spells, either you're using a listed method of doing it, or you aren't doing it.

Malifice

2015-10-16, 10:21 PM

So the combatants are aware of the locations of every other combatant?

Unless someone starts the combat hidden, then generally yes. The assumption in my games is that everyone is generally aware of everyone else the could reasonably be expected to notice (arent hiding etc). It's a rebuttable presumption though depending on activity, circumstance and environment.

I've already noted above I might call for DC 10 perception checks to notice something in darkness from time to time even though it isnt hiding.

What's the range?

Depends on the environment doesnt it?

If someone starts to run away, at what point do they drop of the radar so to speak? What if they go behind a door that they then shut? Two doors? A series of corridors? If there wasn't a fight going on? What if reinforcements are running in the other direction that this enemy is fleeing? When do the PC'S just know their exact locations?

Of course you can drop off the radar. People arent aware of everyone everywhere at everytime. Were not omniscient. In fact doubling back around is one of the few times I let a PC attempt to hide in combat. Double back around and hide.

Its a question of common sense. IMO thats why they left the hide checks so vague.

I sit down and hold my breath inside a darkness spell. Does doing so require a stealth check, if so can I fail at such a simple action? If not by what means are they detecting me?

Yes, sounds to me like your using your action to try and be quiet. You can roll stealth.

If you fail to beat passive perception, then your armor creaked (it gives disadvantage for a reason) or your spell components jangled together.

georgie_leech

2015-10-17, 12:01 AM

Of course you can drop off the radar. People arent aware of everyone everywhere at everytime. Were not omniscient. In fact doubling back around is one of the few times I let a PC attempt to hide in combat. Double back around and hide.

Its a question of common sense. IMO thats why they left the hide checks so vague.

Exactly. The rules are silent on these scenarios, because every person has their own interpretation of these. Note how there aren't any examples like "In a forest, combatants are generally aware of each other within X feet," or "In a dungeon, a character must run three rooms away from the combat before characters can no longer identify their position," or even "this means that if a character is ever attacked by rats from behind a wall, they instantly know the relative positions and numbers without needing to make a Perception check unless the rats had previously taken the Hide action." The rules are deliberately silent on the issue.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-17, 01:28 AM

Exactly. The rules are silent on these scenarios, because every person has their own interpretation of these. Note how there aren't any examples like "In a forest, combatants are generally aware of each other within X feet," or "In a dungeon, a character must run three rooms away from the combat before characters can no longer identify their position," or even "this means that if a character is ever attacked by rats from behind a wall, they instantly know the relative positions and numbers without needing to make a Perception check unless the rats had previously taken the Hide action." The rules are deliberately silent on the issue.

Well that's just it, when something hidden attacks it's location is given away. So in darkness you would know where they were.

Xetheral

2015-10-17, 02:37 AM

No, the rules are not silent. DMG 243, If neither side is being stealthy, they're automatically noticed. Stealthy is defined as unseen AND unheard. No inference required.

Again, your citation doesn't say what you think it does. Like PHB 189, DMG 243 is explicitly dealing with rules on when sides notice each other while exploring. It is not generally-applicable to all questions of whether one creature notices another, particularly not during combat. Furthermore, it is limited to determining the presence of the other side, and says nothing about being able to pinpoint the other side's location (let alone the location of all creatures comprising that side).

No, I said that you were listing situations where noticing a creature might be in doubt, and that refers to hidden creatures.

I did indeed misunderstand you the first time. I did not for a moment consider that you might be claiming that (unless someone tries to hide) distance, distraction, and environmental factors are irrelevant to one character noticing another.

I find that claim incredulous, because it flies in the face of both anything I would recognize as common sense and the passage you quoted from DMG 243, where the range at which non-hidden sides notice each other is listed as "sight or hearing range". Distance, distraction, and environmental factors are all essential components of calculating "sight or hearing range", and therefore your interpretation that such factors are irrelevant must be incorrect according to the very passage you cited. (And if distance, distraction, and environmental factors are important to determine when one side notices the presence of another, then they're certainly also important in determining whether one creature can detect the location of another.)

Your interpretation is much more extreme than the common position that unseen-yet-nonhidden creatures are automatically detected. Previously I believed your position to be just as unsupported as my own, but I find this new facet of your claim to be in outright contradiction of the text.

Non-hidden creatures get noticed.

You haven't shown this. Instead, you've only demonstrated that, in the context of one group of creatures noticing the presence another group of creatures, non-hidden groups are automatically noticed when they enter sight or hearing range. This makes sense: the DM can take all the factors that would normally go into calculating a Wisdom (Perception) DC (e.g. distance, distraction, and environment) and calculate a simple "sight or hearing" range at which each party notices the other. (Note that the ranges for each party do not have to be identical! One party might notice the other party first even if neither is trying to hide--this makes sense: what are the odds that mutually-unaware parties hear the other at exactly the same time?) This "sight or hearing range" is a useful approximation when determining when one group notices another group, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest that this same simplified method should be applied when determining whether one specific creature can locate another non-hiding creature.

A DM could certainly choose to use this method more broadly, selecting a set distance for based on the prevailing conditions, inside which combatants are automatically aware of the location of other combatants. It would be a good compromise interpretation, but nothing in the rules requires (or prevents) this application.

If you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not, you're not. It's tautological.

It isn't a tautology under either the formal definition or colloquial usage, but regardless, you're again missing the point. Yes, "if you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not [trying to be quiet], you're not [hiding]". But I'm not making any claims about characters who are hiding. I'm talking about characters who aren't trying to hide, and how the rules are silent as to whether such characters' locations are automatically known.

The Shadowdove

2015-10-18, 03:32 PM

enemy boss is a high level warlock with devils sight as well.

hurhurhur.

enemy group is a bunch of mages who drop aoes into darkness.

hurhurhur.

Enemies find it amusing to throw various moletov coctail, ball bearing, ranged anything into darkness from behind cover.

hurhurhur.

Safety Sword

2015-10-18, 08:42 PM

I don't think it's ridiculous that if someone is standing in darkness that you might know that they are in the darkness but not know precisely enough to attack them.

I've had a Warlock in a game that uses this combination regularly. It's not as game breaking as some people make out.

In fact, many times it interferes with their team mates. It's also a big give away that "something" is going on when a perfectly hemispherical area of darkness appears. In low light or shadowy illumination it's a dead give away.
It's almost a signal for fireballs to go off.

Being able to see through the darkness is certainly an advantage (pun intended) at times. It's by no means an unbeatable combination.

Malifice

2015-10-18, 08:55 PM

I think the issue is that people read the game rules (advantage cancelles out disadvantage) and leave it there, without thinking about the practical difficulties.

Persoally I give everyone disadvantage unless they can see in it, dont allow precise miniature positioning, call for the occasional acrobatics or perception check to not trip over/ notice things etc.

Dalebert

2015-10-18, 09:02 PM

It seems to me that everyone would miss more in the darkness. Simply saying advantage cancels disadvantage and making it as if there's no darkness at all for mechanical purposes doesn't sit with me. I'm with Malifice. Complications are definitely introduced and assuming no one has a way to see through it, I think it would tend toward less damage being done overall, from melee at least, unless someone comes up with way to deal with that like AoEs.

Safety Sword

2015-10-18, 09:10 PM

I personally look at it this way:

If I can't see, I have disadvantage to my attacks.

If I can see and you can't, I have advantage to my attacks.

If we both can't see, we both have disadvantage to our attacks. You don't get to count an advantage for your opponent not being able to see, because that has already been counted on their side.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you only count the circumstances from the perspective of the attacker when you are determining advantage or disadvantage. It just seems to make more sense that way.

Malifice

2015-10-18, 09:24 PM

Safety Sword

2015-10-18, 10:17 PM

My view is you get advantage on your attacks because you they cant defend themselves. However your inability to see them means you cant take advantage of (this source of advantage). Ergo you remain at disadvantage.

I see what you mean but it seems you're getting advantage because they can't defend themselves from an attack that is probably ineffective because you can't see. I think that's double dipping.

I don't see the point of granting an advantage that you can't use because it's immediately taken from you because of the same circumstances that generated the advantage.

I hope I've expressed that well enough...

Malifice

2015-10-18, 10:28 PM

I see what you mean but it seems you're getting advantage because they can't defend themselves from an attack that is probably ineffective because you can't see. I think that's double dipping.

I don't see the point of granting an advantage that you can't use because it's immediately taken from you because of the same circumstances that generated the advantage.

I hope I've expressed that well enough...

You start at disadvantage as you are blinded.

You only get advantage due to your ability to see them and take advantage of their blindness (which you cant do, as you are also blinded).

Ergo, you dont get advantage, and only the disadvantage applies.

Safety Sword

2015-10-18, 10:43 PM

You start at disadvantage as you are blinded.

You only get advantage due to your ability to see them and take advantage of their blindness (which you cant do, as you are also blinded).

Ergo, you dont get advantage, and only the disadvantage applies.

You get advantage because you can see them in the dark, but you can't see them in the dark? That doesn't make sense. Surely you just never get that advantage in the first place?

You get the disadvantage from being (effectively) blind. That's it.

Doesn't that make more sense?

Edit: I realise we've reached the same conclusion; I'm just trying to understand how you got there.

Malifice

2015-10-18, 10:56 PM

Edit: I realise we've reached the same conclusion; I'm just trying to understand how you got there.

You only gain advantage to attack a blinded enemy if you can see them.

Seeing as you cant see them (being blinded yourself) you dont gain advantage.

As you dont gain advantage, you dont cancel out disadvantage from having the blinded condition yourself.

Safety Sword

2015-10-18, 11:14 PM

You only gain advantage to attack a blinded enemy if you can see them.

Seeing as you cant see them (being blinded yourself) you dont gain advantage.

As you dont gain advantage, you dont cancel out disadvantage from having the blinded condition yourself.

So, you have disadvantage from being blind and you haven't countered it with a source of advantage.

That's what I said....

However, some people (not I, by the way) argue that if you're blind and fighting someone who is also blind (let's say it's 2 humans in a darkness spell) that neither gets advantage or disadvantage.

My perspective is that they both get disadvantage because they both can't see the target. What the target can see is irrelevant to the determination. As above, I only take the attackers perspective when I determine the advantage/disadvantage status of the attack. I'll put some specific examples and you guys tell me who gets what.

1) A blinded human attacking a blinded prone target.
2) A blinded human attacking a sighted prone target.
3) A blinded barbarian attacking a blinded target recklessly.
4) A blinded barbarian attacking a sighted target recklessly.

I am interested to see how you guys would rule these.

Xetheral

2015-10-19, 12:36 AM

So, you have disadvantage from being blind and you haven't countered it with a source of advantage.

That's what I said....

However, some people (not I, by the way) argue that if you're blind and fighting someone who is also blind (let's say it's 2 humans in a darkness spell) that neither gets advantage or disadvantage.

My perspective is that they both get disadvantage because they both can't see the target. What the target can see is irrelevant to the determination. As above, I only take the attackers perspective when I determine the advantage/disadvantage status of the attack. I'll put some specific examples and you guys tell me who gets what.

1) A blinded human attacking a blinded prone target.
2) A blinded human attacking a sighted prone target.
3) A blinded barbarian attacking a blinded target recklessly.
4) A blinded barbarian attacking a sighted target recklessly.

I am interested to see how you guys would rule these.

Here's how I'd rule by RAW:

No advantage or disadvantage (Assuming a melee attack) No advantage or disadvantage No advantage or disadvantage No advantage or disadvantage
I also don't see wiggle room in the RAW. Page 194 is rather explicit that targets grant advantage to unseen attackers.

Personally, though I think darkness-as-the-great-equalizer is one of the most problematic aspects of the advantage/disadvantage system. It produces ridiculous results. I use advantage/disadvantage stacking to deal with the problem, but I like your method as an alternative.

Coidzor

2015-10-19, 12:42 AM

Mr.Moron

2015-10-19, 01:35 AM

Yes, sounds to me like your using your action to try and be quiet. You can roll stealth.

If you fail to beat passive perception, then your armor creaked (it gives disadvantage for a reason) or your spell components jangled together.

What if I'm naked. What if I just.. stand still? Are we gonna say it's a stealth check because there is some chance a random squirrel is gonna come up and bite my nuts and I need to avoid screaming?

The thing with all the "Off the Radar" questions being brought up earlier is that it's not reasonable to assume everyone's aware your exact location when you haven't made a stealth check, it's plainly absurd in some scenarios: Like being on the other side of the planet.

Clearly a stealth check should only be called for if your current circumstances would normally have some reasonable chance of alterting the party to your location.

Sitting in another city with regards to someone you've never met: No stealth check.
Trying to sneak in front of someone by darting from cover to cover as they shift their view: Stealth check.

So in this case we have to look and think "Would it be reasonable under normal circumstances for them to be able to pinpoint your locatoin?" If the answer is yes, a stealth check should be needed to oppose this. If the answer is no, then no stealth check should be needed because it would be absurd for them to be able to locate you in the first place.

The two conditions are being seen or heard:

Do they have a reasonable chance of seeing you: No in fact it's impossible.
Do they have a reasonable chance of hearing you: Probably not, walking at a normal pace across open ground. Even if they can being able to hear you will enough to pinpoint your location rather than simply getting an "About around there", ping which more/less would just narrow it down to roughly half the darkness bubble.

A simple sit down, or walk a couple feet in any direction aren't going to give enough noise for an accurate target location unless you'e wearing armor made out of those novelty screaming ducks.

Malifice

2015-10-19, 02:27 AM

What if I'm naked. What if I just.. stand still?

Standing totally still in darkness and making an effort not be heard... is using the stealth skill.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-19, 02:37 AM

Standing totally still in darkness and making an effort not be heard... is using the stealth skill.

Then I autopass? Then it's not a stealth check.
Then I make the check and have a roughly even chance of being found with pin-point accuracy? It's not a reasonable approximation of the situation. I mean any dumb bastard can stand still.

Hopping over a 3ft diameter puddle is arguably something like an athletics check but it's absurd to ask for one because action being performed has no meaningful chance of failure, there aren't enough variables for the die abstraction to come into play.

Just because a skill covers a particular type of action, does not mean it's reasonable to apply a check for all actions of that type. A stealth check must only apply when the party might be reasonably discovered. In order to create sufficient failure space for a die roll to come into play in this situation requires introducing really big contrivances.

Corran

2015-10-19, 02:52 AM

Then I autopass? Then it's not a stealth check.
Then I make the check and have a roughly even chance of being found with pin-point accuracy? It's not a reasonable approximation of the situation. I mean any dumb bastard can stand still.

Hopping over a 3ft diameter puddle is arguably something like an athletics check but it's absurd to ask for one because action being performed has no meaningful chance of failure, there aren't enough variables for the die abstraction to come into play.

Just because a skill covers a particular type of action, does not mean it's reasonable to apply a check for all actions of that type. A stealth check must only apply when the party might be reasonably discovered. In order to create sufficient failure space for a die roll to come into play in this situation requires introducing really big contrivances.
I grant you, it would make a lot of sense for the character standing still to have a bonus on his stealth check. Same if he was moving very slowly. The rules are simple, and they dont provide such clauses. Instead, they leave it up to us to easily adjust them into various and different situations. So, while I believe that such a stealth check you described (staying still trying not to make any noise) should not be an autopass (treating it as autopass is not in accordance with RAW imo), granting such a roll an advantage because as a DM you feel that makes for a better approximation to the situation (and I agree with you on that) is a good idea and legit as far as RAW are concerned.

Malifice

2015-10-19, 03:07 AM

Then I autopass?

Depends on how good you are at concealing your presence, keeping still and being quiet doesnt it?

Then I make the check and have a roughly even chance of being found with pin-point accuracy? It's not a reasonable approximation of the situation. I mean any dumb bastard can stand still.

It's not pin point accuracy. Its accuracy within a 5' radius, and they get disadvantage on attack rolls to hit you. They notice you, and have a general idea of where you are, but dont know exactly where you are.

Youre aware being invisible doesnt conceal your presence either? It just enables a stealth check to hide (as an action).

Xetheral

2015-10-19, 04:34 AM

Youre aware being invisible doesnt conceal your presence either? It just enables a stealth check to hide (as an action).

In a thread where the implications of being unseen are hotly contested, I find it perplexing that you'd present your assertion as accepted fact without at least acknowledging that it's controversial.

Malifice

2015-10-19, 11:24 AM

In a thread where the implications of being unseen are hotly contested, I find it perplexing that you'd present your assertion as accepted fact without at least acknowledging that it's controversial.

That isn't controversial at all. Read the invisibility section. It says nothing about being automatically hidden. It quite easily could. It just states 'for the purposes of hiding you are treated as being heavily obscured'.

Meaning you can always attempt to hide. Making rogue 2s with access to invisibility particularly dangerous.

If that passage was meant to say 'you are always hidden', it would say so, and likely set a DC to notice you.

In my view it's written that way to allow multiple interpretations of the text. If you want to make fully obscured things (and invisible things) automatically hidden, then go for it.

Personally I prefer a mixed bag approach. Generally you need to use the hide action to be stealthy while invisible or creatures can pinpoint your location with sufficient accuracy to be able to target you with attacks that don't require sight (at disadvantage).

Cast invisibility. Move if you want to (no attacks of opportunity). Next turn attempt to sneak off with a stealth check (via the hide action) and more movement. If you're a rogue 2, do it all in the one round.

If you're all alone after casting it, make a stealth check while alone (standing perfectly still, like hiding behind a pillar). That becomes the perception DC for creatures entering to notice your presence (a predator like shimmering in the air, the smell of your spell components, your footprints in the carpet, the creak of leather from your gear etc).

If circumstances permit, I might allow an auto stealth check (loud noise in the room assist you, your enemies are distracted and didn't notice you become invisible etc).

Xetheral

2015-10-19, 04:08 PM

That isn't controversial at all. Read the invisibility section. It says nothing about being automatically hidden. It quite easily could. It just states 'for the purposes of hiding you are treated as being heavily obscured'.

Meaning you can always attempt to hide. Making rogue 2s with access to invisibility particularly dangerous.

If that passage was meant to say 'you are always hidden', it would say so, and likely set a DC to notice you.

I don't think anyone has claimed that invisibility makes one automatically hidden. What is controversial is whether the location (or in some circumstances, presence) of unseen opponents is automatically known.

Safety Sword

2015-10-19, 05:07 PM

Here's how I'd rule by RAW:

No advantage or disadvantage (Assuming a melee attack) No advantage or disadvantage No advantage or disadvantage No advantage or disadvantage
I also don't see wiggle room in the RAW. Page 194 is rather explicit that targets grant advantage to unseen attackers.

Personally, though I think darkness-as-the-great-equalizer is one of the most problematic aspects of the advantage/disadvantage system. It produces ridiculous results. I use advantage/disadvantage stacking to deal with the problem, but I like your method as an alternative.

I think that sometimes advantage and disadvantage stacking can complicate the adjudication and lead to even more ridiculous results. But that's just my experience.

Let's try something else.

Here's where it gets strange.

Let's take the darkness away. Now, let's blind the attacker. Clearly this attacker has disadvantage for the blinded condition. (I think we all agree here). Now the target goes prone. Does the attacker even know where the target is?
How is the attacker able to cancel out the disadvantage of being blind just because the target lays on the ground?

This is why I decided to adjudicate advantage and disadvantage on an attack based on the attackers perspective and circumstances. It seems to make more sense in almost every case.

I would really like you guys to pose a situation and find one that doesn't work this way, so I can have a negative comparison.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-19, 05:34 PM

Again, your citation doesn't say what you think it does. Like PHB 189, DMG 243 is explicitly dealing with rules on when sides notice each other while exploring. It is not generally-applicable to all questions of whether one creature notices another, particularly not during combat. Furthermore, it is limited to determining the presence of the other side, and says nothing about being able to pinpoint the other side's location (let alone the location of all creatures comprising that side).

It's a general rule that easily extrapolates to any other situation in the absence of another general or specific rule. If you can't provide either of those, then it holds true on the individual level. In Combat it is assumed creatures are always looking for threats. Claiming they would be less likely to notice a threat doesn't make sense.

I said nothing about pinpointing, only knowing the location. You can know where someone is generally located in darkness without pinpointing them (which would eliminate the disadvantage of darkness).

I did indeed misunderstand you the first time. I did not for a moment consider that you might be claiming that (unless someone tries to hide) distance, distraction, and environmental factors are irrelevant to one character noticing another.

I find that claim incredulous, because it flies in the face of both anything I would recognize as common sense and the passage you quoted from DMG 243, where the range at which non-hidden sides notice each other is listed as "sight or hearing range". Distance, distraction, and environmental factors are all essential components of calculating "sight or hearing range", and therefore your interpretation that such factors are irrelevant must be incorrect according to the very passage you cited. (And if distance, distraction, and environmental factors are important to determine when one side notices the presence of another, then they're certainly also important in determining whether one creature can detect the location of another.)

Your interpretation is much more extreme than the common position that unseen-yet-nonhidden creatures are automatically detected. Previously I believed your position to be just as unsupported as my own, but I find this new facet of your claim to be in outright contradiction of the text.

My claim is merely that the actual text of the game rules should be followed. In the absence of either the hide check, or any other given method for obscuring auditory location of a character, a creature in darkness or who is invisible can and will have their location automatically detected by someone they are in combat with. (see: The invisible condition)

So far the only listed method(s) for being unheard are a hide action Dexterity (Stealth) check and anything imposing the Deafened condition.

Did you want to add another?

You haven't shown this. Instead, you've only demonstrated that, in the context of one group of creatures noticing the presence another group of creatures, non-hidden groups are automatically noticed when they enter sight or hearing range. This makes sense: the DM can take all the factors that would normally go into calculating a Wisdom (Perception) DC (e.g. distance, distraction, and environment) and calculate a simple "sight or hearing" range at which each party notices the other. (Note that the ranges for each party do not have to be identical! One party might notice the other party first even if neither is trying to hide--this makes sense: what are the odds that mutually-unaware parties hear the other at exactly the same time?) This "sight or hearing range" is a useful approximation when determining when one group notices another group, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest that this same simplified method should be applied when determining whether one specific creature can locate another non-hiding creature.

A DM could certainly choose to use this method more broadly, selecting a set distance for based on the prevailing conditions, inside which combatants are automatically aware of the location of other combatants. It would be a good compromise interpretation, but nothing in the rules requires (or prevents) this application.

The Invisible status also alludes to the fact that creatures not making an effort to be stealthy can still be detected by the noise they make.

Yes I've demonstrated that they automatically notice when they're not trying to hide. Visual range is listed on the same page as being about 2 miles absent environmental obstructions, half that in rain, down to 100-300 feet in fog, and increased to up to 40 miles from a vantage point.

Hearing is mentioned as sometimes being of greater range than sight. On page 105 in the DMG we see a paragraph on sounds which indicates that simply opening a door can echo hundreds of feet. So yeah, if you're not deliberately muffling those foot steps, they'll get detected. And deliberately being quieter than your surroundings is another way of saying: Sneaking. And Sneaking is another use of the Hide check.

It isn't a tautology under either the formal definition or colloquial usage, but regardless, you're again missing the point. Yes, "if you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not [trying to be quiet], you're not [hiding]". But I'm not making any claims about characters who are hiding. I'm talking about characters who aren't trying to hide, and how the rules are silent as to whether such characters' locations are automatically known.

Uhm, no, that actually is a tautology. A creature who is not hiding is not trying to be quiet, and by not being quiet their presence is known to anyone who can hear. i.e. Automatically known.

Personally, though I think darkness-as-the-great-equalizer is one of the most problematic aspects of the advantage/disadvantage system. It produces ridiculous results. I use advantage/disadvantage stacking to deal with the problem, but I like your method as an alternative.

Strange, I find it the most sensible.

If you can't see your attacker, you're incapable of properly defending yourself. If they can't see you, they're incapable of properly attacking. Both cancel out to make it about as likely to get hit as if you could both see each other properly.

Even if they can being able to hear you will enough to pinpoint your location rather than simply getting an "About around there", ping which more/less would just narrow it down to roughly half the darkness bubble.

Sound Localization is pretty specific in mammals, you can definitely locate a specific location and direction using sound alone. That being said, without being able to see you'd be at a distinct disadvantage (see what I did there?) in attacking something based purely on the sound.

Then I autopass? Then it's not a stealth check.
Then I make the check and have a roughly even chance of being found with pin-point accuracy? It's not a reasonable approximation of the situation. I mean any dumb bastard can stand still.

Hopping over a 3ft diameter puddle is arguably something like an athletics check but it's absurd to ask for one because action being performed has no meaningful chance of failure, there aren't enough variables for the die abstraction to come into play.

Just because a skill covers a particular type of action, does not mean it's reasonable to apply a check for all actions of that type. A stealth check must only apply when the party might be reasonably discovered. In order to create sufficient failure space for a die roll to come into play in this situation requires introducing really big contrivances.

No of course you don't autopass. What is happening is your character is trying to avoid making any unintentional noise from the sound of your breathing to the creak of your equipment.

In a thread where the implications of being unseen are hotly contested, I find it perplexing that you'd present your assertion as accepted fact without at least acknowledging that it's controversial.

I hotly contest your controversial claim that the rules in the game book at either hotly contested or controversial. I find it perplexing you'd present your assertion as accepted fact without at least acknowledging that it's controversial.

That something evokes disagreement doesn't mean the disagreement has genuine merit. The flaw in your argument is the assumption that both sides of an argument automatically have equal merit. If one doesn't

georgie_leech

2015-10-19, 05:47 PM

I think that sometimes advantage and disadvantage stacking can complicate the adjudication and lead to even more ridiculous results. But that's just my experience.

Let's try something else.

Here's where it gets strange.

Let's take the darkness away. Now, let's blind the attacker. Clearly this attacker has disadvantage for the blinded condition. (I think we all agree here). Now the target goes prone. Does the attacker even know where the target is?
How is the attacker able to cancel out the disadvantage of being blind just because the target lays on the ground?

This is why I decided to adjudicate advantage and disadvantage on an attack based on the attackers perspective and circumstances. It seems to make more sense in almost every case.

I would really like you guys to pose a situation and find one that doesn't work this way, so I can have a negative comparison.

On the other hand, fighting from the prone position puts the defender at a significant disadvantage defensively. They have worse leverage, and restricted movement options. In other words, they have a harder time defending themselves. Whether the attacker is blind or not, the defender still faces those difficulties. Since D&D uses a single attacker perspective and not opposed rolls, this is modeled as giving the Attacker Advantage. In other games this was modeled with a penalty to AC, but 5th uses the Advantage/Disadvantage instead, and there's no roll on the defender's part to apply Disadvantage to.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-19, 05:51 PM

No of course you don't autopass. What is happening is your character is trying to avoid making any unintentional noise from the sound of your breathing to the creak of your equipment.

If we're at the point with "Don't breathe so noisly that they can accurately target you in a void of unfathomable darkness" is a check, then any normal stealth check would have to be at DC 40++.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-19, 06:02 PM

If we're at the point with "Don't breathe so noisly that they can accurately target you in a void of unfathomable darkness" is a check, then any normal stealth check would have to be at DC 40++.

No, it just means you have to beat their Wisdom (Perception) score, which for most is going to be 9 to 15.

Safety Sword

2015-10-19, 06:03 PM

On the other hand, fighting from the prone position puts the defender at a significant disadvantage defensively. They have worse leverage, and restricted movement options. In other words, they have a harder time defending themselves. Whether the attacker is blind or not, the defender still faces those difficulties. Since D&D uses a single attacker perspective and not opposed rolls, this is modeled as giving the Attacker Advantage. In other games this was modeled with a penalty to AC, but 5th uses the Advantage/Disadvantage instead, and there's no roll on the defender's part to apply Disadvantage to.

That makes sense. If the attacker was sighted I would totally agree with that.

What doesn't make sense is that a blinded person should even know where their opponent is to attack effectively in the first place. I totally agree that defending yourself when prone does limit your options (many years of martial arts make me know this as a truth), however, if my opponent can't ascertain my position, my posture or position are not really relevant to me defending their strikes.

I don't think that my disadvantages for being blind (unable to target strikes, read tells on my opponent to anticipate their movements, know whether I can reach them, etc.) are in any way affected by whether my opponent can see or whether they are standing.

My point, I guess, is that when blinded I should be at a disadvantage no matter my opponents circumstances. Anything else doesn't make sense to me.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-19, 06:08 PM

Safety Sword

2015-10-19, 06:14 PM

If your opponent is also blind, how does he know when to defend himself effectively?

My point is that I can not attack effectively in any case. I have very little chance of hitting them in the first place. It's unlikely any defence would be necessary. That's what disadvantage represents.

Your point is taken, however.

I just don't think it makes sense that I attack normally when neither I or my opponent can see a damned thing. It's illogical.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-19, 06:35 PM

My point is that I can not attack effectively in any case. I have very little chance of hitting them in the first place. It's unlikely any defence would be necessary. That's what disadvantage represents.

Your point is taken, however.

I just don't think it makes sense that I attack normally when neither I or my opponent can see a damned thing. It's illogical.

I know, I'm saying you aren't attacking normally, if for example you have two opponents, one who can see and one who can't, you'll be worse off fighting the guy who can, but it still emulates that you're better vs the guy who can't.

Safety Sword

2015-10-19, 06:45 PM

I know, I'm saying you aren't attacking normally, if for example you have two opponents, one who can see and one who can't, you'll be worse off fighting the guy who can, but it still emulates that you're better vs the guy who can't.

My point is that you aren't any better at attacking a defender that can't see. You are stuffed when attacking whether the defender can see or not. You are literally swinging blindly and it's dumb luck if you hit anything at all.

Again, I think that if I only determine advantage/disadvantage looking at the attackers perspective it makes more sense.

Edit: I literally don't think that the defender being able to see would make them less likely to be hit because the attacks are essentially random if the attacker can't see.

georgie_leech

2015-10-19, 07:22 PM

That makes sense. If the attacker was sighted I would totally agree with that.

What doesn't make sense is that a blinded person should even know where their opponent is to attack effectively in the first place. I totally agree that defending yourself when prone does limit your options (many years of martial arts make me know this as a truth), however, if my opponent can't ascertain my position, my posture or position are not really relevant to me defending their strikes.

I don't think that my disadvantages for being blind (unable to target strikes, read tells on my opponent to anticipate their movements, know whether I can reach them, etc.) are in any way affected by whether my opponent can see or whether they are standing.

My point, I guess, is that when blinded I should be at a disadvantage no matter my opponents circumstances. Anything else doesn't make sense to me.

Which is fair, this is the edition that is most friendly to houserules, and I wouldn't have all that much trouble with that if you ruled that when I was a player. By RAW though, there are exactly 4 possible states. Normal, where things are as difficult as they would be normally, Advantage, where you have something that makes doing something easier, Disadvantage, which does the opposite, and both Advantage and Disadvantage, which cancel each other out and act like Normal for simplicity's sake. It's a consequence of how broad that is that you end up with weird scenarios like the above. Personally, if I was going to change it around, I'd add the possibility of Overwhelming A/D, mechanically identical to A/D except that they remain if countered by their regular opposite, needing Overwhelming A/D to cancel. A blind man attacking, say, Superman: Overwhelming Disadvantage. A blind man attack prone Superman: Overwhelming Disadvantage + Advantage -> Overwhelming Disadvantage. A blind man attacking prone Superman in a room made of kryptonite: Overwhelming Disadvantage + Overwhelming Advantage -> Normal.

Xetheral

2015-10-20, 01:15 AM

It's a general rule that easily extrapolates to any other situation in the absence of another general or specific rule.

It is a perfectly valid extrapolation, but, as an extrapolation, it's inherently not part of the rules.

I said nothing about pinpointing, only knowing the location. You can know where someone is generally located in darkness without pinpointing them (which would eliminate the disadvantage of darkness).

Notice that I also said "pinpoint the other side's location" not, "pinpoint the character's exact position".

My claim is merely that the actual text of the game rules should be followed.

No, you just said above that your claim is an extrapolation from the rules. It is therefore most certainly not part of the actual text.

So far the only listed method(s) for being unheard are a hide action Dexterity (Stealth) check and anything imposing the Deafened condition.

Did you want to add another?

You're forgetting the most important one: the DM's determination of what your character can hear (either automatically or with a listen check). A huge number of Wisdom (Perception) checks based on hearing are going to be utterly unrelated to stealth.

The Invisible status also alludes to the fact that creatures not making an effort to be stealthy can still be detected by the noise they make.

It's fine to read such an allusion in the rules, but again, it isn't explicit and it isn't required.

Yes I've demonstrated that they automatically notice when they're not trying to hide. Visual range is listed on the same page as being about 2 miles absent environmental obstructions, half that in rain, down to 100-300 feet in fog, and increased to up to 40 miles from a vantage point.

Hearing is mentioned as sometimes being of greater range than sight. On page 105 in the DMG we see a paragraph on sounds which indicates that simply opening a door can echo hundreds of feet. So yeah, if you're not deliberately muffling those foot steps, they'll get detected.

You've demonstrated only that your viewpoint is consistent with the text. But it's not the only viewpoint consistent with the text.

And deliberately being quieter than your surroundings is another way of saying: Sneaking. And Sneaking is another use of the Hide check.

Sneaking is going to the effort to become less noticeable. There are plenty of things that are naturally quieter than their surroundings without any such effort.

No, I said that you were listing situations where noticing a creature might be in doubt, and that refers to hidden creatures. Non-hidden creatures get noticed. If you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not, you're not. It's tautological.It isn't a tautology under either the formal definition or colloquial usage, but regardless, you're again missing the point. Yes, "if you're trying to be quiet, you're hiding, if you're not [trying to be quiet], you're not [hiding]". But I'm not making any claims about characters who are hiding. I'm talking about characters who aren't trying to hide, and how the rules are silent as to whether such characters' locations are automatically known.Uhm, no, that actually is a tautology. A creature who is not hiding is not trying to be quiet, and by not being quiet their presence is known to anyone who can hear. i.e. Automatically known.

I've already said your statement is true, but I've claimed it is not tautological, which you've disputed. As the question of whether or not your statement is actually tautological is not relevant to the conversation, I will merely demur and not discuss the question further.

If you can't see your attacker, you're incapable of properly defending yourself. If they can't see you, they're incapable of properly attacking. Both cancel out to make it about as likely to get hit as if you could both see each other properly.

Two sighted people both armed with crossbows are likely to hurt or kill one another. Two blind people with crossbows would be lucky to even scratch each other.

Sound Localization is pretty specific in mammals, you can definitely locate a specific location and direction using sound alone.

Here you are factually incorrect. See: here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#The_cone_of_confusion) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Distance_of_the_sound_source)

I hotly contest your controversial claim that the rules in the game book at either hotly contested or controversial. I find it perplexing you'd present your assertion as accepted fact without at least acknowledging that it's controversial.

You contest my claim that the rules are contested, despite knowing we actively disagree on how to interpret those rules? I'm going to assume you're being facetious.

That something evokes disagreement doesn't mean the disagreement has genuine merit. The flaw in your argument is the assumption that both sides of an argument automatically have equal merit. If one doesn't

When two posters take opposite positions and neither is convinced by the others' arguments, then the issue is, by definition, contested. Claiming otherwise, especially in the same thread where the contested issue is being discussed, comes across to me as an attempt to denigrate those who disagree with you.

While it is true that not all positions in a disagreement necessarily have equal merit, when two posters still disagree after considering each other's arguments, in the absence of new evidence for consideration there is no intrinsic method for the two of them to decide which of the two has more merit. (There are extrinsic methods available, such as seeking community consensus or developer input, but there may well be additional disagreements as to those methods' accuracy or relevance.)

Your claim that your argument has more merit that mine (and thus that there is no meritorious disagreement) is therefore inherently unfounded, because no intrinsic evidence can possibly exist to support it.

broodax

2015-10-20, 09:02 AM

Two sighted people both armed with crossbows are likely to hurt or kill one another. Two blind people with crossbows would be lucky to even scratch each other.

I find this ludicrous.

Would you feel safe in a room with a non-sighted person with a crossbow trying to shoot you? What if you weren't allowed to try to be quiet?

Now, however safe you might feel, would you feel less safe, more safe, or the same, if the room was pitch black and you couldn't even tell whether they were pointing the crossbow in your direction?

Xetheral

2015-10-20, 12:34 PM

I find this ludicrous.

Would you feel safe in a room with a non-sighted person with a crossbow trying to shoot you? What if you weren't allowed to try to be quiet?

Now, however safe you might feel, would you feel less safe, more safe, or the same, if the room was pitch black and you couldn't even tell whether they were pointing the crossbow in your direction?

I certainly wouldn't feel safe if *anyone* with a crossbow was trying to shoot me. But I'd feel a *lot* safer if it was pitch black and we couldn't see each other.

broodax

2015-10-20, 01:00 PM

I certainly wouldn't feel safe if *anyone* with a crossbow was trying to shoot me. But I'd feel a *lot* safer if it was pitch black and we couldn't see each other.

That wasn't the question. Would you feel safer in the dark with a un-sighted murderous crossbow wielder, or in a well lit room? Clearly you'd feel safer with the lights on, as you would at least have a chance to move if you saw he was pointing the thing in your direction.

The game models this by giving him disadvantage if the lights are on. Your house-rule loses this distinction entirely in favor of your distinction - that you feel it should be a *lot* harder to hit anyone with anything if you can't see them.

The thing is, the game already models that behavior as well, it just says that you need to take an action to hide in order to achieve the goal fully. You can take your action to hide in the dark room, and if you succeed, there's a very small chance of being hit (he's got to guess your square and make an attack roll).*And* it keeps the differentiation if the lights are on - then not only would he need to guess, he'd have disadvantage.

So your house-rule achieves some huge differentiation in one case, but then throws away all of this other stuff that happens to be contained in the very simple advantage/disadvantage rules already. Perhaps this is because you think that being in the dark makes one almost infinitely more difficult to harm, but if that's the case you are in disagreement with just about every sighted living thing ever.

Gee, I'm glad it is totally dark, the monsters will never be able to hurt me now.

Xetheral

2015-10-20, 01:13 PM

That wasn't the question. Would you feel safer in the dark with a un-sighted murderous crossbow wielder, or in a well lit room? Clearly you'd feel safer with the lights on, as you would at least have a chance to move if you saw he was pointing the thing in your direction.

The game models this by giving him disadvantage if the lights are on. Your house-rule loses this distinction entirely in favor of your distinction - that you feel it should be a *lot* harder to hit anyone with anything if you can't see them.

The thing is, the game already models that behavior as well, it just says that you need to take an action to hide in order to achieve the goal fully. You can take your action to hide in the dark room, and if you succeed, there's a very small chance of being hit (he's got to guess your square and make an attack roll).*And* it keeps the differentiation if the lights are on - then not only would he need to guess, he'd have disadvantage.

So your house-rule achieves some huge differentiation in one case, but then throws away all of this other stuff that happens to be contained in the very simple advantage/disadvantage rules already. Perhaps this is because you think that being in the dark makes one almost infinitely more difficult to harm, but if that's the case you are in disagreement with just about every sighted living thing ever.

I misunderstood. Yes, against someone who couldn't see me even if the lights were on, I'd prefer the lights to be on. But that's not particularly relevant to you finding it ludicrous that two people who can see are more likely to hit each other with crossbow bolts than two people who can't see.

Also, you may be confusing my houserule with someone else's: I simply permit advantage and disadvantage stacking so that darkness doesn't negate all other factors in combat.

(I also was careless with my word choice. By way of explanation, I was referring to "blind" characters as those who have the blinded condition as a result of being in darkness. I apologize for any confusion or offense.)

Corran

2015-10-20, 03:00 PM

Right, in regard to the disadvantage on attacks between blinded creatures.

My opinion is that by RAW attacks play out normaly between such creatures (no disadvantage that is). That is just how I read and understand the rules. But I dont want to focus on that.

From a certain point of view, it would make sense that all attacks done by blinded creatures should suffer disadvantage. I understand the logic behind this argument. But I have some counterpoints that I will present a few lines down. Before that, I want to make another point. Assume all creatures in the fight are blinded. Thus, using the disadvantage (house)rule I mentioned above following the logic concerning blinded creatures, one can come across two negative facts. The first one is that an attack from a blinded creatue against a creature that would be able to see would suffer no additional drawbacks, than an attack from the same blinded creature against another blinded creature this time. Now, that doesn't make sense to me (with respect to Safety Sword for expressing a different opinion on that matter, I simply cant put my head around it, if someone can see should have a better chance of avoiding an attack). The second fact, which has to do logic again, but this time from a different perspective, is that by applying disadvantage at everything, simply drags the fight longer, without affecting so much the end result. So it makes some sense to remove it just to have quicker-paced battles (that is just an additional argument, and not the main reason for which I think it is best for normal atacks than with disadvantage).

Now, let us see how logical it would be for attacks with disadvantage in term of how it translates with actual combat mechanics. Before going into mechanics, consider the followin scenario. You have 2 fighters, A and B. Assume that fighter A is significantly better than fighter B, and thus in a normal fight fighter A would win most of the times. Let us translate a part of the difference of these two characters' power in term of the chance the have to hit. Let us assume that character's A chance to hit is 70% and character's B chance to hit is 50%. Now, consider putting those two fighters against each other inside magical darkness. How should darkness affect the outcome of this fight, according to common sense? Well, my common sense tells me that it should affect the more powerful character (character A) in a slightly more disadvantageous way, meaning that an effect like darkness, that should add a bit of randomness to the outcome, should give the weaker fighter a slightly better chance to win, than what he would have if he fought his more powerful opponent under normal conditions. Assuming the attacks dont suffer disadvantage, the hit chances of both characters stay unaffected (assuming no particular features that relate to advantage and disadvantage, like reckless attack, but more on that later), so that does not cope well with the random element we would like darkness to add in this fight. But now assume disadvantage on the attack rolls, and notice that the hit chance of character A drops down to 49% (-21%) and the hit chance of character B drops down to 25% (-25%), so that indicates that disadvantage on attacks when in darkness, would act in favour of the more powerful of the 2 characters, which imo is further from common sense (at least my own) than what would happen if no disadvantage was applied. Hence in that particular aspect of a fight (ie hit chances), disadvantage on attacks would make darkness favour the more powerful guy rather than the less powerful, which doesnt seem logical to me.

But that is not the only way to examine if disadvantage on attacks makes more sense than attacking normally. We must consider different classes with particular class features and how these would be affected by disadvantage, to see if disadvantage makes more sense than normal attacks as well. Consider a rogue. Should a roguish character have a better chance of winning a fight or not, if fighting in complete darkness? My take on this is that he should. If we were to apply disadvantage in all rolls, rogues would be rendered useless, as that would eat away all their sneak attack damage.
To provide a counter argument of some sort to myself, barbarians should probably fight better against a fighter or other melee type when in darkness, as one would think that barbarians rely on power rather than accuracy. But without disadvantage on attacks when in darkness, that would mean that their reckless attack feature is essentially useless when they fight in darkness. Then again, this is a feature that improves a barbarian's dpr by improving accuracy, so i guess that the fault of a less effective (compared to other melee types) barbarian in darkness lies in the feature itself (as my take on barbarians is that they ''should'' strike less often but for more damage) and not in that the attacks are done normaly rather than with disadvantage.

Xetheral

2015-10-20, 04:27 PM

Now, let us see how logical it would be for attacks with disadvantage in term of how it translates with actual combat mechanics. Before going into mechanics, consider the followin scenario. You have 2 fighters, A and B. Assume that fighter A is significantly better than fighter B, and thus in a normal fight fighter A would win most of the times. Let us translate a part of the difference of these two characters' power in term of the chance the have to hit. Let us assume that character's A chance to hit is 70% and character's B chance to hit is 50%. Now, consider putting those two fighters against each other inside magical darkness. How should darkness affect the outcome of this fight, according to common sense? Well, my common sense tells me that it should affect the more powerful character (character A) in a slightly more disadvantageous way, meaning that an effect like darkness, that should add a bit of randomness to the outcome, should give the weaker fighter a slightly better chance to win, than what he would have if he fought his more powerful opponent under normal conditions. Assuming the attacks dont suffer disadvantage, the hit chances of both characters stay unaffected (assuming no particular features that relate to advantage and disadvantage, like reckless attack, but more on that later), so that does not cope well with the random element we would like darkness to add in this fight. But now assume disadvantage on the attack rolls, and notice that the hit chance of character A drops down to 49% (-21%) and the hit chance of character B drops down to 25% (-25%), so that indicates that disadvantage on attacks when in darkness, would act in favour of the more powerful of the 2 characters, which imo is further from common sense (at least my own) than what would happen if no disadvantage was applied. Hence in that particular aspect of a fight (ie hit chances), disadvantage on attacks would make darkness favour the more powerful guy rather than the less powerful, which doesnt seem logical to me.

Due to the non-linear nature of advantage and disadvantage, which combatant looses more from the imposition of disadvantage is not constant. For example, if character A started with a 50% chance to hit and character B started with a 30% chance to hit, your listed reductions of 21 and 25 percentage points would be swapped. (However, when measuring proportional reductions in hit chance rather than absolute, you are correct that the more skilled fighter is always hurt less by the imposition of disadvantage.)

Furthermore, while I can see a general argument that imposition of unusual circumstances introduces more randomness into a fight, I can also see the counter-argument that better-trained, more-experienced combatants are better at dealing with unexpected situations. To me it could go either way.

But that is not the only way to examine if disadvantage on attacks makes more sense than attacking normally. We must consider different classes with particular class features and how these would be affected by disadvantage, to see if disadvantage makes more sense than normal attacks as well. Consider a rogue. Should a roguish character have a better chance of winning a fight or not, if fighting in complete darkness? My take on this is that he should. If we were to apply disadvantage in all rolls, rogues would be rendered useless, as that would eat away all their sneak attack damage.

The only way for a rogue to get Sneak Attack while blinded by darkness is to have an ally within 5' of the target. Otherwise Sneak Attack requires Advantage, which is impossible to get while suffering both advantage and disadvantage from both the rogue and the target being unable to see. So, depending on the circumstances, even under RAW Rogues can be hurt far more by darkness than fighters.

This makes sense to me. In my mind, Sneak Attack is based on precision strikes to vulnerable areas, which I imagine an inability to see would make very problematic, especially with ranged attacks. (In a grappling brawl it makes more sense... easy to find the vulnerable points by touch.)

Safety Sword

2015-10-20, 04:32 PM

Lots of stuff

The main reason I apply disadvantage to everyone who attacks that can't see is simple. You are at a disadvantage to how you would "normally" attack (that is with neither disadvantage or advantage).

This is what breaks it for me. If both combatants are sighted they attack "normally".

How can it be that a blind attacker and a blind defender attack just as well? In my mind, you should have a much lesser chance to hit if you rely on sight and you can't see. That's disadvantage!

This also translates to the defender having a great chance to be missed, of course. I do concede that in the case where the defender can see and the attacker can not that the defender is no better off. The system dictates that disadvantage is already the lowest state, so I don't think that's an issue.

I have stated this before but the way I work out these things is by looking at it only from the attacker perspective. That is not to say that I don't consider the defenders position, I do, just from the attackers perspective.

Anyway, I found this way to make more sense and my players agree that flailing around in the dark is generally a bad idea that attaches disadvantage to your attacks.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-20, 04:37 PM

My point is that you aren't any better at attacking a defender that can't see. You are stuffed when attacking whether the defender can see or not. You are literally swinging blindly and it's dumb luck if you hit anything at all.

Again, I think that if I only determine advantage/disadvantage looking at the attackers perspective it makes more sense.

Edit: I literally don't think that the defender being able to see would make them less likely to be hit because the attacks are essentially random if the attacker can't see.

The ability to see an attack coming is fairly relevant to being able to deflect it or dodge it on purpose. Sure, the might miss, but they also might connect because you didn't know to react appropriately.

It is a perfectly valid extrapolation, but, as an extrapolation, it's inherently not part of the rules.

It's using the rules to determine how they would apply in the situation, ergo it's covered by the rules.

Notice that I also said "pinpoint the other side's location" not, "pinpoint the character's exact position".

Then you misused the word pinpoint, which means to find or locate exactly.

No, you just said above that your claim is an extrapolation from the rules. It is therefore most certainly not part of the actual text.

Extrapolation is using the rules. It's literally the act of basing a conclusion on something (in this case, the rules).

You're forgetting the most important one: the DM's determination of what your character can hear (either automatically or with a listen check). A huge number of Wisdom (Perception) checks based on hearing are going to be utterly unrelated to stealth.

A) Not 3.5, there are no listen checks. 5e doesn't work the way 3.5 does.
B) Ability checks are for accomplishing specific goals, a Wisdom (Perception) check would be used to "try and hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily through the forest." Note, none of those involving hearing unconcealed sounds, they are all in some fashion deliberately muted (by a door, being in another room, or using a Dexterity (Stealth) check).

It's fine to read such an allusion in the rules, but again, it isn't explicit and it isn't required.

Sorry, I misused the word allusion, I should have used the word explicit: "The creature can be detected by any noise it makes". Sorry for causing confusion.

There are plenty of things that are naturally quieter than their surroundings without any such effort.

Demonstrate this. I would contend that

Here you are factually incorrect. See: here and here

Those links don't say what you seem to think they do.

Re: Cone of confusion: "Of course, the importance of these ambiguities are vanishingly small for sound sources very close to or very far away from the subject" and "These ambiguities can be removed by tilting the head,".

"So sound localization remains possible even in an echoic environment."

The fact remains that humans have an astonishly easy time determining the direction and distance of a sound, and anything within the radius of a darkness spell (15 foot radius) is absurdly easy to locate using just sound.

You contest my claim that the rules are contested, despite knowing we actively disagree on how to interpret those rules? I'm going to assume you're being facetious.

No I'm not being flip, I'm saying you're attributing import to the idea that something is contested by at least one someone. Everything is contested by someone, somewhere. It's specious to demand that they note that something is "hotly contested" or "controversial" when it's just you trying to raise points and being shot down by the text.

When two posters take opposite positions and neither is convinced by the others' arguments, then the issue is, by definition, contested. Claiming otherwise, especially in the same thread where the contested issue is being discussed, comes across to me as an attempt to denigrate those who disagree with you.

While it is true that not all positions in a disagreement necessarily have equal merit, when two posters still disagree after considering each other's arguments, in the absence of new evidence for consideration there is no intrinsic method for the two of them to decide which of the two has more merit. (There are extrinsic methods available, such as seeking community consensus or developer input, but there may well be additional disagreements as to those methods' accuracy or relevance.)

Your claim that your argument has more merit that mine (and thus that there is no meritorious disagreement) is therefore inherently unfounded, because no intrinsic evidence can possibly exist to support it.

Uh no. Your argument is unworthy (the meaning of the word merit) because it is founded entirely on your own personal opinion.
My argument has merit (and thus is worthy) because it is founded on opening the book and citation of rules.

Once you cite applicable rules from the text, then I'll say your argument will have merit.

broodax

2015-10-20, 05:10 PM

You are at a disadvantage to how you would "normally" attack (that is with neither disadvantage or advantage).
And the defender is at a disadvantage compared to how they'd normally defend, i.e., at all.

How can it be that a blind attacker and a blind defender attack just as well?
They can't, but the defender can't defend as well either.

In my mind, you should have a much lesser chance to hit if you rely on sight and you can't see. That's disadvantage!
And the rules already cover this! If you can't see, and nothing else changes, then you get disadvantage. If you can't see, and the defender can't see, that's different, and the rules cover that too!

Again, your reasoning is fine if you want to do everything from one point of view, and if you want to do this nothing stops you. However you should realize you're actually giving up differentiation between situations and losing as much realism as you gain, if not more.

Corran

2015-10-20, 05:20 PM

Due to the non-linear nature of advantage and disadvantage, which combatant looses more from the imposition of disadvantage is not constant. For example, if character A started with a 50% chance to hit and character B started with a 30% chance to hit, your listed reductions of 21 and 25 percentage points would be swapped. (However, when measuring proportional reductions in hit chance rather than absolute, you are correct that the more skilled fighter is always hurt less by the imposition of disadvantage.)
Yes, I thought of that, but in the majority of cases I suppose that the hit chance will be above 50%, so that is why I examine only at 50% hit chance and above. A bit biased, I grant you, but I think that is going to be the case in almost all balanced fights.

Furthermore, while I can see a general argument that imposition of unusual circumstances introduces more randomness into a fight, I can also see the counter-argument that better-trained, more-experienced combatants are better at dealing with unexpected situations. To me it could go either way. I guess I would say that dealing with the situation would have more to do with things like perception and smart play (eg readying an action instead of attacking at random), and factors such as these, although they have something to do with experience, have less to do with actual experience points and hence power of a character, and more with skills that do not necessarily associate with whom of our two characters is more powerful.

The only way for a rogue to get Sneak Attack while blinded by darkness is to have an ally within 5' of the target. Otherwise Sneak Attack requires Advantage, which is impossible to get while suffering both advantage and disadvantage from both the rogue and the target being unable to see. So, depending on the circumstances, even under RAW Rogues can be hurt far more by darkness than fighters. If a rogue suffers disadvantage, then it is almost certainty that he can kiss his sneak attack damage goodbye. While I see your point that sneak attack targets vital areas, I think it can also be interpeted as striking when the foe's guard is down, or when simply the foe is distracted. At least that's what the mechanics (advantage = guard down, or ally next to the enemy = distraction) suggest to me. Not discrediting what you said about sneak attack here, I just presented an equally possible interpretation which imo is closer to what the mechanics suggest when reviwing how a rogue can sneak attack. By all which I mean, that the extra sneak attack damage could be explained by imagining the rogue hitting the target in a vulnerable spot, but the necessary conditions for him to be able to do so (by which I mean being able to apply sneak attack damage and maybe envision it as hitting a vulnerable area) is probably what I mentioned.

This makes sense to me. In my mind, Sneak Attack is based on precision strikes to vulnerable areas, which I imagine an inability to see would make very problematic, especially with ranged attacks. (In a grappling brawl it makes more sense... easy to find the vulnerable points by touch.) Ranged attacks generally seem problematic to me, when inside darkness. Maybe I would houserule that beyond a certain distance when inside the darkness, they suffer disadvantage. But a more perplexing question is the following: Assuming a ranged character who is inside darkness can attack the exact location of a non-hidden enemy who is inside darkness (a lot of controversy on this one, but assume for a moment that he does pinpoint and attack the exact location of the enemy), then could a ranged character who is outside of the darkness area do the same against a non-hidden enemy who is inside the darkness?

Safety Sword

2015-10-20, 05:21 PM

And the defender is at a disadvantage compared to how they'd normally defend, i.e., at all.

They can't, but the defender can't defend as well either.

And the rules already cover this! If you can't see, and nothing else changes, then you get disadvantage. If you can't see, and the defender can't see, that's different, and the rules cover that too!

Again, your reasoning is fine if you want to do everything from one point of view, and if you want to do this nothing stops you. However you should realize you're actually giving up differentiation between situations and losing as much realism as you gain, if not more.

If you've ever been in real total darkness (which I imagine a Darkness spell would be like) you might have an appreciation that trying to do any sort of fighting would be an act in futility. I have years of martial arts training and I can tell you that it is very important to be able to see where to strike. Perhaps I have an unusual set of experiences which give me that perspective?

I'm not trying to convince anyone here. I understand that my way of thinking isn't RAW. I was just trying to give you guys a different point of view.

In either case I don't think we've broken anything. Perhaps advantage/disadvantage stacking could solve some of the problems, but I have had a bad experience trying that in two separate games I run, so I'm not going back to that tainted well.

I am very much less concerned with realism than I am with quickly resolving the mechanics to get the die (or dice) rolling and getting on with the important stuff.

Xetheral

2015-10-20, 06:55 PM

It's using the rules to determine how they would apply in the situation, ergo it's covered by the rules.

No, you're using one rule and extrapolating it to another case where there is no explicit rule.

Then you misused the word pinpoint, which means to find or locate exactly.

No I didn't, because I said "pinpoint the other side's location". In D&D location is measured in 5' squares, so I was indeed referring to finding or locating something exactly. That one has disadvantage because one does not know an unseen target's position in a square does not affect whether or not one has pinpointed that location.

Extrapolation is using the rules. It's literally the act of basing a conclusion on something (in this case, the rules).

If you extrapolate from the rules to reach a new conclusion, that new conclusion is not part of the rules under all definitions of the word extrapolate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrapolate).

A) Not 3.5, there are no listen checks. 5e doesn't work the way 3.5 does.
B) Ability checks are for accomplishing specific goals, a Wisdom (Perception) check would be used to "try and hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily through the forest." Note, none of those involving hearing unconcealed sounds, they are all in some fashion deliberately muted (by a door, being in another room, or using a Dexterity (Stealth) check).

Resolving the question of whether a character hears a given sound, where the DM determines the outcome is in doubt, is a Wisdom (Perception) check. (PHB 178, "Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear or otherwise detect the presence of something.") The DM may opt to use a passive check instead of a roll, at their option. (PHB 175, note the permissive language.)

Sorry, I misused the word allusion, I should have used the word explicit: "The creature can be detected by any noise it makes". Sorry for causing confusion.

That still doesn't mean the character will be detected by any noise it makes, only that it can.

Demonstrate this.

An unconscious human in a busy tavern. A Halfling walking on a road as part of a large company of human soldiers. The clang of a sword on a shield in the midst of a pitched battle. The sound of a burbling brook in a rainstorm. Someone calling your name in a crowded marketplace. The sound of a small marching band playing into a brisk wind. (Personal experience) The sound of footsteps amidst a lively tavern brawl. The sounds of someone running on grass over the noise of a horse-drawn wagon. Someone talking to you over the sound of your adrenaline-fueled racing heartbeat. Someone shouting at you in a burning building. The sound of someone moving through a dense forest amongst the sounds of a skirmish in that same forest. The sound of distant footsteps on the deck on a creaking ship. The sound of someone breathing heavily in exhaustion in a dense melee.

Those links don't say what you seem to think they do.

Re: Cone of confusion: "Of course, the importance of these ambiguities are vanishingly small for sound sources very close to or very far away from the subject" and "These ambiguities can be removed by tilting the head,".

Nice selective quoting. The full quote is: "Of course, the importance of these ambiguities are vanishingly small for sound sources very close to or very far away from the subject, but it is these intermediate distances that are most important in terms of fitness." (emphasis added). Tilting the head only works after a noise has already been ambiguously heard, representing additional effort at localization.

The fact remains that humans have an astonishly easy time determining the direction and distance of a sound, and anything within the radius of a darkness spell (15 foot radius) is absurdly easy to locate using just sound.

No: "Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides." and "The human auditory system has only limited possibilities to determine the distance of a sound source."

Note that 15 degrees corresponds to an error of +/- 5 feet at a range of 40 feet. So, from 8 squares away, human beings can't localize a sound to within a 5 foot square.

Also, you've claimed far more than that characters in darkness are easy to locate within a 15' radius cloud of darkness. You've claimed that characters in darkness are easy to locate from any distance within earshot.

No I'm not being flip, I'm saying you're attributing import to the idea that something is contested by at least one someone. Everything is contested by someone, somewhere. It's specious to demand that they note that something is "hotly contested" or "controversial" when it's just you trying to raise points and being shot down by the text.

I'm contesting this now, in this very thread. That's hardly "someone, somewhere". Furthermore, this issues comes up repeatedly, in many threads on many forums, with many voices on both sides.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47727/what-happens-when-an-invisible-creature-is-detected
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4148631
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427833-Finding-invisible-creature-in-combat-an-action
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/51197/how-does-concealment-work
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/31agvj/what_happens_when_youre_invisible_but_not_hidden/
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?442964-The-Invisible-Condition-Awkward-Wording/page2
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425260-Devil-s-Sight-isn-t-Broken-Overpowered
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?422643-Tremorsense-other-special-senses-vs-Darkness
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4171021
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?414665-thief-used-his-invisibility-HIDDING

Uh no. Your argument is unworthy (the meaning of the word merit) because it is founded entirely on your own personal opinion.
My argument has merit (and thus is worthy) because it is founded on opening the book and citation of rules.

Once you cite applicable rules from the text, then I'll say your argument will have merit.

My argument is founded on my reading of the text. Your argument is founded on your reading of the same text. Your reading of the rules is no more privileged than mine.

In my survey of the various threads for the above list, however, I found a new textual argument I either haven't run across before (or forgot):

The Ranger Feral Senses ability grants 18th level rangers the ability to ignore disadvantage when attacking unseen foes. Additionally, it grants the ranger the ability to be "aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened". Under your interpretation of the rules, this second benefit of the ability is useless. This strongly implies, but does not explicitly state, that your interpretation must be flawed.

Additionally, the second benefit of Feral Senses doesn't work if the Ranger is blinded, and, from PHB 183 (and its errata), we know that darkness makes the ranger "effectively blind" when trying to see something obscured by it. Therefore, an 18th level Ranger loses the ability to detect the location of invisible enemies within 30' when both are heavily obscured by darkness. Under your interpretation of the rules, this provision would be nonsense.

georgie_leech

2015-10-20, 10:12 PM

Hence in that particular aspect of a fight (ie hit chances), disadvantage on attacks would make darkness favour the more powerful guy rather than the less powerful, which doesnt seem logical to me.

I disagree. I think it's fine for the better trained/more powerful fighter to be able to compensate for the disadvantage better.

Dalebert

2015-10-21, 01:23 PM

I agree it's a problematic thing, but can definitely see a rationale for shrugging and saying that if everyone has disadvantage in a given situation, then just roll normally in order to speed things along instead of rolling the extra dice and checking them against one another.

But Darkness should slow everything down. That could be the point of it. That's why it might be cast in a defensive manner--so you can avoid damage as you attempt to make an escape or so you can avoid damage until your casters' turn so they can use a spell that disregards it like an AoE or a spell that will only harm enemies.

Also, you've claimed far more than that characters in darkness are easy to locate within a 15' radius cloud of darkness. You've claimed that characters in darkness are easy to locate from any distance within earshot.

Exactly. Hearing is not a targeting sense for humans. Saying a human automatically knows even the 5 foot hex of a creature's location by sound alone is a stretch. You're practically giving them a form of blindsight or tremorsense. The fact that rangers have this as a high-level class ability fairly well establishes that everyone is not intended to automatically have this ability without so much as a perception check. If you acknowledge that someone can't automatically know to within a 5 foot hex a creature's location if it's far away, then you again acknowledge it's not automatic. Thus I'd posit it's just easier if they're closer. I would address this as maybe advantage on the perception check if they're close. The rules allow for you to apply common sense judgment to a situation like this.

Here's the logical problem with saying the advantage of attacking cancels out with the disadvantage of defending and why I continue to insist that darkness should make everyone miss more. Imagine you're shooting at an inanimate target, say a bullseye on the wall. You would acknowledge that it's harder to hit in darkness. But now replace it with something that's trying to be harder to hit. Maybe I can't see where you're aiming, but I can do something to make a harder target, maybe even just be constantly moving. Some folks are positing that I am easier to hit in the darkness than an inanimate object because I'm attempting to not be hit. In fact, you posit I'm just as easy to hit as if we were well-lit because I'm trying to avoid being hit! That is beyond absurd.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-21, 04:49 PM

If you've ever been in real total darkness (which I imagine a Darkness spell would be like) you might have an appreciation that trying to do any sort of fighting would be an act in futility. I have years of martial arts training and I can tell you that it is very important to be able to see where to strike. Perhaps I have an unusual set of experiences which give me that perspective?

I'm not trying to convince anyone here. I understand that my way of thinking isn't RAW. I was just trying to give you guys a different point of view.

In either case I don't think we've broken anything. Perhaps advantage/disadvantage stacking could solve some of the problems, but I have had a bad experience trying that in two separate games I run, so I'm not going back to that tainted well.

I am very much less concerned with realism than I am with quickly resolving the mechanics to get the die (or dice) rolling and getting on with the important stuff.

And being able to see is also important for defending yourself which is why they effectively cancel out. That's not to say these guys would be fighting well, just that the net outcome is as if they could both see.

No, you're using one rule and extrapolating it to another case where there is no explicit rule.

Yes, the one rule on when people notice each other. Eminently applicable!

No I didn't, because I said "pinpoint the other side's location". In D&D location is measured in 5' squares, so I was indeed referring to finding or locating something exactly. That one has disadvantage because one does not know an unseen target's position in a square does not affect whether or not one has pinpointed that location.

Pinpointing means precision. 5' is not precise. A 5' square is a very vague location.

If you extrapolate from the rules to reach a new conclusion, that new conclusion is not part of the rules under all definitions of the word extrapolate.

It's to infer from known values (i.e. to reach a conclusion based on rules). You're just quibbling with me over semantics at this point, we're reaching the conclusion becuase of the rules in the book.

Resolving the question of whether a character hears a given sound, where the DM determines the outcome is in doubt, is a Wisdom (Perception) check. (PHB 178, "Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear or otherwise detect the presence of something.") The DM may opt to use a passive check instead of a roll, at their option. (PHB 175, note the permissive language.)

You've not included important context information that undermines your position:
The passive check language on 175 is for noticing a hidden monster without rolling dice.
The language on 178 under perception indicates only attempts to detect hidden or obscured things.

That still doesn't mean the character will be detected by any noise it makes, only that it can.

Show that it won't within the rules.

1.An unconscious human in a busy tavern.
2.A Halfling walking on a road as part of a large company of human soldiers.
3.The clang of a sword on a shield in the midst of a pitched battle.
4.The sound of a burbling brook in a rainstorm.
5.Someone calling your name in a crowded marketplace.
6.The sound of a small marching band playing into a brisk wind. (Personal experience)
7.The sound of footsteps amidst a lively tavern brawl.
8.The sounds of someone running on grass over the noise of a horse-drawn wagon.
9.Someone talking to you over the sound of your adrenaline-fueled racing heartbeat.
10.Someone shouting at you in a burning building.
11.The sound of someone moving through a dense forest amongst the sounds of a skirmish in that same forest.
12.The sound of distant footsteps on the deck on a creaking ship.
13.The sound of someone breathing heavily in exhaustion in a dense melee.

Sorry if I was unclear: Demonstrate this within the rules.

Nice selective quoting. The full quote is: "Of course, the importance of these ambiguities are vanishingly small for sound sources very close to or very far away from the subject, but it is these intermediate distances that are most important in terms of fitness." (emphasis added). Tilting the head only works after a noise has already been ambiguously heard, representing additional effort at localization.

I selectively quoted because it provided the two most important pieces of information:
A) There are essentially no ambiguities in two of three cases and,
B) In the third case the ambiguity is resolved by head-tilting.

There's no there, there. Simple movements represent no effort at all within the game rules.

No: "Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides." and "The human auditory system has only limited possibilities to determine the distance of a sound source."

Note that 15 degrees corresponds to an error of +/- 5 feet at a range of 40 feet. So, from 8 squares away, human beings can't localize a sound to within a 5 foot square.

Also, you've claimed far more than that characters in darkness are easy to locate within a 15' radius cloud of darkness. You've claimed that characters in darkness are easy to locate from any distance within earshot.

Ok? So there's no facing in D&D standard rules, and thus localization is considered omnidirectional.

I'm contesting this now, in this very thread. That's hardly "someone, somewhere". Furthermore, this issues comes up repeatedly, in many threads on many forums, with many voices on both sides.

My critique isn't that you're not someone, nor even that people exist. I'm saying that calling something controversial is utterly meaningless because the term can be applied to anything. There's no value behind calling anything that. Benford's law is probably applicable here.

My argument is founded on my reading of the text. Your argument is founded on your reading of the same text. Your reading of the rules is no more privileged than mine.

In my survey of the various threads for the above list, however, I found a new textual argument I either haven't run across before (or forgot):

The Ranger Feral Senses ability grants 18th level rangers the ability to ignore disadvantage when attacking unseen foes. Additionally, it grants the ranger the ability to be "aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened". Under your interpretation of the rules, this second benefit of the ability is useless. This strongly implies, but does not explicitly state, that your interpretation must be flawed.

Additionally, the second benefit of Feral Senses doesn't work if the Ranger is blinded, and, from PHB 183 (and its errata), we know that darkness makes the ranger "effectively blind" when trying to see something obscured by it. Therefore, an 18th level Ranger loses the ability to detect the location of invisible enemies within 30' when both are heavily obscured by darkness. Under your interpretation of the rules, this provision would be nonsense.

Feral Senses just removes the penalties associated with attacking unseen attackers. Effectively suffering the blindness condition, which is what a heavily obscured area does, is not blinded. The Ranger can, in total darkness, fight normally because they aren't actually blinded. Note, the phrasing is that the Ranger is not blind, not that they are not effectively suffering the blindness condition.

Xetheral

2015-10-21, 06:43 PM

Yes, the one rule on when people notice each other. Eminently applicable!

I'm not saying it isn't applicable, I'm saying that it isn't an explicit part of the rules. Therefore, two people who disagree on whether the extrapolation is applicable are both following the rules.

You've not included important context information that undermines your position:
The passive check language on 175 is for noticing a hidden monster without rolling dice.
The language on 178 under perception indicates only attempts to detect hidden or obscured things.

I'm not talking about noticing hidden monsters, so the language relating to using passive perception to find hidden monsters isn't relevant. And there is nothing to indicate that the list of examples on page 178 is exclusive, and the general rule text clearly includes finding non-hidden and non-obscured things.

Show that it won't within the rules.

It says so right in the quote you provided.

Sorry if I was unclear: Demonstrate this within the rules.

Are you asserting that, under the rules, an unconscious man in a busy tavern is just as loud as his surroundings?

I selectively quoted because it provided the two most important pieces of information:
A) There are essentially no ambiguities in two of three cases and,
B) In the third case the ambiguity is resolved by head-tilting.

There's no there, there. Simple movements represent no effort at all within the game rules.

The part you failed to include was the most important: "is these intermediate distances [at which humans' primary localization methods produce ambiguous results] that are most important in terms of fitness".

Also, affirmatively tilting one's head to try to discriminate the location of a sound would arguably fall under the Search action. Particularly in a melee, the position of one's head is going to be determined by one's movements in combat, not by one's desire to localize a potential sound source. Also, tilting one's head only works if the sound source is repeated or constant.

Ok? So there's no facing in D&D standard rules, and thus localization is considered omnidirectional.

The lack of combat facing does not imply that human perceptive abilities are at all improved. Your claim was that humans are great at localizing sound, and I've demonstrated that they're not. You've also completely ignored the part about how humans are terrible at discerning the distance of a sound.

My critique isn't that you're not someone, nor even that people exist. I'm saying that calling something controversial is utterly meaningless because the term can be applied to anything. There's no value behind calling anything that. Benford's law is probably applicable here.

Knowing that a ruling is controversial is important information for anyone who comes to these forums looking for a ruling.

Feral Senses just removes the penalties associated with attacking unseen attackers.

No, Feral Senses has two explicit benefits, one of which is to detect the location of invisible opponents within 30' so long as the ranger isn't blinded or deafened.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-21, 07:25 PM

I'm not saying it isn't applicable, I'm saying that it isn't an explicit part of the rules. Therefore, two people who disagree on whether the extrapolation is applicable are both following the rules.

This might be true, however you are claiming limits without providing any evidence in the face of the rule stating that people not using hiding are automatically noticed. DMG 243. Provide a counter quote, not a counter opinion.

Are you asserting that, under the rules, an unconscious man in a busy tavern is just as loud as his surroundings?

I'm asserting only that you didn't provide any evidence that the mans snoring can't be heard, and certainly referenced no rule in doing so. If you want to convince, don't rely on anecdotes.

The part you failed to include was the most important: "is these intermediate distances [at which humans' primary localization methods produce ambiguous results] that are most important in terms of fitness".

Also, affirmatively tilting one's head to try to discriminate the location of a sound would arguably fall under the Search action. Particularly in a melee, the position of one's head is going to be determined by one's movements in combat, not by one's desire to localize a potential sound source. Also, tilting one's head only works if the sound source is repeated or constant.

The lack of combat facing does not imply that human perceptive abilities are at all improved. Your claim was that humans are great at localizing sound, and I've demonstrated that they're not. You've also completely ignored the part about how humans are terrible at discerning the distance of a sound.

No, you cherry picked a phrase that was completely refuted later in the text and when called out for doing so fell back on the claim that titling ones head would cost an action.

Knowing that a ruling is controversial is important information for anyone who comes to these forums looking for a ruling.

Knowing that anything and everything is controversial merely by claiming it is so completely undermines any value that might have been provided. It's meaningless.

No, Feral Senses has two explicit benefits, one of which is to detect the location of invisible opponents within 30' so long as the ranger isn't blinded or deafened.

Yes, and the upshot (in the way it interacts with the other rules) is what I said.

Xetheral

2015-10-21, 07:44 PM

This might be true, however you are claiming limits without providing any evidence in the face of the rule stating that people not using hiding are automatically noticed. DMG 243. Provide a counter quote, not a counter opinion.

There is no such rule. You're making an extrapolation from the text of DMG 243 that is not required by the rules. Accordingly, I disagree with your interpretation of the text.

I'm asserting only that you didn't provide any evidence that the mans snoring can't be heard, and certainly referenced no rule in doing so. If you want to convince, don't rely on anecdotes.

I need no rule to show that a sleeping man is quieter than a noisy bar: it's not a question of game mechanics.

No, you cherry picked a phrase that was completely refuted later in the text and when called out for doing so fell back on the claim that titling ones head would cost an action.

Hardly. I provided multiple quotes from the text that are not refuted anywhere in the article (only their scope limited, but not at the ranges we care about). When you brought up a possible objection that the scope limitations were problematic to my argument, I demonstrated that they are not fatal. I further pointed out that even if the "cone of confusion" problem with localization were to be a non-issue, you still have the problem of overall low localization accuracy (15 degree on the sides is a lot!) and also the problem at the article states that humans are not good at detecting distance from a sound. Either of these points on their own would be sufficient to refute your contention that humans are good at localizing sound.

Knowing that anything and everything is controversial merely by claiming it is so completely undermines any value that might have been provided. It's meaningless.

I didn't merely claim it was controversial, I outright controverted it, in this very thread. I later provided a list of links each demonstrating that the issue is controversial.

Yes, and the upshot (in the way it interacts with the other rules) is what I said.

So you're saying the entire second benefit of Feral Senses is useless because everyone can already know the location of non-hidden, invisible creatures within 30'?

Mr.Moron

2015-10-21, 08:38 PM

i need no rule to show that a sleeping man is quieter than a noisy bar: It's not a question of game mechanics.

No Common Sense. Raw only. Final destination.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-21, 08:55 PM

No Common Sense. Raw only. Final destination.

He could be a chainsaw snorer

Mr.Moron

2015-10-21, 09:18 PM

He could be a chainsaw snorer

Think back to the last time you were at a busy bar. You wouldn't be able to hear the loudest snorer on earth unless he was in the seat next to you.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-21, 09:30 PM

Think back to the last time you were at a busy bar. You wouldn't be able to hear the loudest snorer on earth unless he was in the seat next to you.

Bars today deliberately pump music at decibel levels mere chatter can not reach.

A medieval tavern would be decidedly quieter.

Dalebert

2015-10-22, 10:48 AM

Bars today deliberately pump music at decibel levels mere chatter can not reach.

Eliminating music, his point remains. I've been in plenty of restaurants where the chatter escalates to nerve-wracking levels. It's a viscous cycle. Everyone is trying to talk over the chatter around them so the person across the table can hear and the noise level elevates. The more people, the worse it gets. And plenty of bars (that aren't dance clubs) play either no music or very soft music and this still happens when it's crowded at all.

Regarding attack and defense cancelling out, envision this scenario.

Case 1: You're in an enclosed range with a bow and a bullseye target mounted on the wall. Someone turns out the lights. Is it harder to hit the target now?

Case 2: You're in an enclosed range and someone sets a wild fox loose for you to shoot at. Someone turns out the lights. Is the fox easier to hit than the still target with the lights out because it's running around trying to avoid being shot? Let's assume you know it's general location from its feet pattering on the floor. It's still a LOT harder to hit than a target sitting perfectly still and clearly not trying to defend its inanimate self.

The point is everything is harder to hit when you've lost your primary mode of targeting--your sight. Folks with any pistol training will know that even at a relatively short distance, just firing multiple shots wildly in the general direction of something without taking a moment to aim is mostly going to hit air. Darkness will make everyone miss more. Darkness is an all around damage-dampener.

BTW, someone explain to me what "defending" is in this context per RAW? By RAW, two things come to mind--your dex bonus to AC and the dodge action, neither of which calls for a roll for adv or dis to be applied to in the first place. If you're saying it's the dex bonus to AC, then the plate mail-wearing fighter with an 8 Dex should be essentially unaffected. If you're saying it's the dodge action, then dodging actually hurts you in the darkness because if you don't dodge, you're not taking any action for adv or dis to be applied to, even if dodging actually called for a roll on your part. And again, dodge doesn't call for rolling. It merely imposes disadvantage on your attacker. So how in the heck is "defending", whatever it is you mean, happening at disadvantage in the darkness?

broodax

2015-10-22, 11:52 AM

BTW, someone explain to me what "defending" is in this context per RAW? By RAW, two things come to mind--your dex bonus to AC and the dodge action, neither of which calls for a roll for adv or dis to be applied to in the first place. If you're saying it's the dex bonus to AC, then the plate mail-wearing fighter with an 8 Dex should be essentially unaffected. If you're saying it's the dodge action, then dodging actually hurts you in the darkness because if you don't dodge, you're not taking any action for adv or dis to be applied to, even if dodging actually called for a roll on your part.

The entirety of "defending" is abstracted in AC and the attack roll. 5e has no differentiation between types of defense. If you need to contextualize it, think of even a heavy armor user making use of their training to utilize the armor effectively. Combatants are also raising shields, parrying blows, etc. All of this requires the same sort of awareness that attacking does in the first place, which is why someone attacking you gets advantage if you can't see.

And again, dodge doesn't call for rolling. It merely imposes disadvantage on your attacker. So how in the heck is "defending", whatever it is you mean, happening at disadvantage in the darkness?

You just said it yourself! Your attacker gets advantage! The fact that there's only one roll involved is a result of the structure of the attack roll rules (and implicitly acknowledged in all the variant rules for having defenders roll or having spell casters roll rather than defenders in that case). If you don't give it to them (i.e. if you ignore the fact that it cancels out the disadvantage that they are under) you're ignoring the mechanic.

Dalebert

2015-10-22, 01:24 PM

I feel I have to concede that strictly RAW, that's how they want you to handle these scenarios--any amount of advantage cancels out disadvantage and vice-versa, but it results in so many absurd scenarios like this one that I understand why many DMs rule otherwise. This one is absurd because merely trying to avoid being hit in the dark actually makes you more vulnerable than if you were an inanimate object, that is unless you always treat inanimate objects as blinded (they technically are) and thus always give advantage against hitting them. Someone posted an excellent example but I don't remember the details. It went something like this.

An assassin is aiming for an enemy at the limit of his range with his crossbow. -- Disadvantage
The enemy is invisible. -- Disadvantage
The enemy is heavily obscured by fog -- Disadvantage
The assassin is currently restrained by an enemy -- Disadvantage
The assassin is making a ranged attack with an enemy adjacent (obviously) -- Disadvantage
The assassin is blinded -- Disadvantage

Someone casts Darkness engulfing the enemy and temporarily blinding him -- ADVANTAGE. Per RAW, it cancels out all the disadvantage and the assassin has a normal chance of hitting. *face palm*

MaxWilson

2015-10-22, 01:45 PM

Mr.Moron

2015-10-22, 01:55 PM

Also, the enemy is prone, the assassin is near-dead with fatigue (5 levels of exhaustion), and there's a paladin with Protection style shielding the target.

Binary advantage/disadvantage is wacky.

If only there was some kind of reasoning agent that could step in and provide reasonable resolutions when the baseline RAW is failing at providing an adequate representation of the situation. It could be some kind of high-powered computer or even better some kind of ape, but not one with much hair. It could gain a great deal of skill, mastery even about making judgement calls, applying common sense, and keeping the game world feeling cohesive. Some kind... Master Gamer.. or Game.. oh, no no no.

We just have to accept the game begins and ends with the RAW, and that any discussion that might hint at anything existing outside of it are only the fevered ravings of mad men. Let us be grateful for that, as any game that would stray from the sanctified pages of the rulebook (as incomprehensible as such a thing is), could only be the work of dark, dark forces.

Dalebert

2015-10-22, 02:01 PM

Coming to common sense conclusions about whether someone is actually on the aggregate at an advantage or disadvantage in a situation? This path leads to CHAOS!

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-22, 05:08 PM

Eliminating music, his point remains. I've been in plenty of restaurants where the chatter escalates to nerve-wracking levels. It's a viscous cycle. Everyone is trying to talk over the chatter around them so the person across the table can hear and the noise level elevates. The more people, the worse it gets. And plenty of bars (that aren't dance clubs) play either no music or very soft music and this still happens when it's crowded at all.

And yet I've been in plenty of those situations where everything remains audible. The point remains that if he wants to make the claim that this is how it works in the game and not simply offer up debatable real life scenarios, he must show a rules citation to back his position. He hasn't done that, instead relying entirely the "deny deny deny" position that the rules presented aren't really rules at all. "If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another." (DMG 243) couldn't be more explicit a rule.

Regarding attack and defense cancelling out, envision this scenario.

Case 1: You're in an enclosed range with a bow and a bullseye target mounted on the wall. Someone turns out the lights. Is it harder to hit the target now?

Case 2: You're in an enclosed range and someone sets a wild fox loose for you to shoot at. Someone turns out the lights. Is the fox easier to hit than the still target with the lights out because it's running around trying to avoid being shot? Let's assume you know it's general location from its feet pattering on the floor. It's still a LOT harder to hit than a target sitting perfectly still and clearly not trying to defend its inanimate self.

The point is everything is harder to hit when you've lost your primary mode of targeting--your sight. Folks with any pistol training will know that even at a relatively short distance, just firing multiple shots wildly in the general direction of something without taking a moment to aim is mostly going to hit air. Darkness will make everyone miss more. Darkness is an all around damage-dampener.

BTW, someone explain to me what "defending" is in this context per RAW? By RAW, two things come to mind--your dex bonus to AC and the dodge action, neither of which calls for a roll for adv or dis to be applied to in the first place. If you're saying it's the dex bonus to AC, then the plate mail-wearing fighter with an 8 Dex should be essentially unaffected. If you're saying it's the dodge action, then dodging actually hurts you in the darkness because if you don't dodge, you're not taking any action for adv or dis to be applied to, even if dodging actually called for a roll on your part. And again, dodge doesn't call for rolling. It merely imposes disadvantage on your attacker. So how in the heck is "defending", whatever it is you mean, happening at disadvantage in the darkness?

Case 1: Well, Objects don't dodge (DMG 246), so their AC is actually a question of how difficult it is to damage them, not hit them. Hitting is generally assumed to be automatic. So this is outside the bounds of the rules really, and would require a ruling (since you're not trying to destroy the paper per se).

Case 2: The fox is deliberately trying to evade (i.e. It knows you're shooting at it), but has no idea when or how, so it's as if neither of you had advantage or disadvantage as those cancel out no matter how many apply.

Yes, it's typically harder to hit something you can't see, but less hard than if you're trying to hit a target that makes no noise at all and you can't see (which is why you normally have to guess the square if you can't see or hear the target). The system simply wraps all disadvantages up into one ball, which is why being Blind and having your opponent Dodge are redundant. Worth noting, Dodge doesn't work against attackers you can't see.

Defending in this context is their attack roll compared to your AC. The only thing that advantage and disadvantage are applied to in this case would be the attack roll, and if they both exist neither is applied no matter how many things granting either would otherwise apply.

Given that there are a number of methods for removing various circumstances that might grant advantage or disadvantage to a roll, it's ok that some are otherwise redundant.

Dalebert

2015-10-22, 05:25 PM

broodax

2015-10-23, 09:05 AM

I've already conceded that by RAW, Darkness does nothing. There's really no point in casting it unless you're a warlock. Why they gave it to wizards and sorcerers is beyond me. By RAW, all the potential benefits or debuffs are cancelled out.

Common sense--
Even if you just looked at the bullseye and someone just turned out the light, your going to target it much more poorly in the dark because you can't see it.
The fox, just by virtue of being a moving target, even completely randomly, is a MUCH more difficult target than the bullseye, a target which you know exactly where that is from memory just moments earlier before the lights were turned off. You can argue that the RAW says it's easier to hit but you can't sincerely say common sense says that.

More common sense--
Give two guys with pistol training paint guns. Put them in a field 30 feet apart with some objects to hide behind and so forth. Have them shoot it out.

Now put blindfolds on the same guys in the exact same situation. Those guys are going to, at best, fire wildly in the direction of footsteps when the other guy is moving, footsteps which are likely very light because they're trying not to trip and bust their asses, and those guys are mostly going to miss. When they hit at all, it will be from a very lucky shot.

When everyone is firing blindly at sounds in the dark, they're mostly going to miss. Hence, I would give everyone disadvantage on attacks because of the complete impairment of sight, a humanoid's primary targeting sense. And just moving around at all, even randomly, makes that blind targeting much more difficult.

So, let's grant this for a moment (and I do think it makes pretty good sense). It should be difficult to hit things in darkness even if those things also can't see. Is granting "overwhelming" disadvantage the right move?

I don't think so, because, as previously mentioned, if you do that there is no difference between hitting a blind thing or a thing that can see perfectly well.

I think that, apart from really extreme cases of advantage/disadvantage stacking like the above (and really in this case half of those overlap - it doesn't matter if it's foggy if it's also dark), the disadvantage/advantage rule is not the culprit. There is probably some DMing that needs to get done in those extreme cases, but they are going to be exceedingly rare. The real culprit is the few places in the text where the rules state that combatants generally know where everything in the universe is located.

I happen to think that the only reading of this for RAW purposes that makes sense is that combatants do know with certainty where everything is, unless it's hidden. I just think it was extremely poorly written, and the writers really punted on providing any guidance for DMs. The argument in this thread I think is just a symptom of this problem - you can argue that the DM is meant to require perception checks to notice sleeping drunks if you want, but that doesn't really say much because the DM can require checks for anything they want at any time.

The problem is the rules define two states:
1) You're fighting and generally know where everyone is.
2) You're looking for someone that took the hide action.

Nothing in between those is defined at all in any way, and what happens in darkness is just one result of that failure. I recently asked a question in the RAW thread about all the abilities and items that give bonuses or penalties on perception checks that rely on site or sound or smell - and there is no answer. The DM just has to figure it out.

So, that's a long way of saying that I think the right thing to do if you want to add some realism is to leave Adv/Disadv as they are unless it is a clear extreme case and you make a DM ruling. Then, do something to fix the actual problem - maybe one of the other suggestions about needing a perception check to pinpoint someone by sound.

Dalebert

2015-10-23, 12:22 PM

So, that's a long way of saying that I think the right thing to do if you want to add some realism is to leave Adv/Disadv as they are unless it is a clear extreme case and you make a DM ruling. Then, do something to fix the actual problem - maybe one of the other suggestions about needing a perception check to pinpoint someone by sound.

I posit it is one of those extreme cases of disad for attack far overwhelming the argable advantage gaines from poor defense.

But you ventured into the other controversy--whether you know the location of something in the dark. My last couple of posts have been about why all blinded attackers should sensibly have disadvantage but I'll get back to that and address your point. Sight is, for most creatures including humans, the primary method of gathering information about the world. Every other sense, unless you're a bloodhound or a bat with sonar for instance, is non-targeting and gives only a general sense of things. Where the book says you "detect" something, unless it specifies more details, all that means is you know it's there, that it exists in your vicinity. It's quite a leap to go from that to saying you can actually use the detect as a targeting sense. You can hear footsteps of an invisible creature and get a sense that something is there and it's general direction. That's all that's reasonable unless maybe it's right next to you, in which case, you may reasonably guess more precisely. All sorts of factors might influence this like if it's Fall and you see leaves disturbed by footprints, again information from your sight, a human's primary means of getting detailed information about the world around him. Everything in pitch darkness is essentially hidden to anyone with sight as their only targeting sense (no blindsight, no tremorsense). It seems absurd that I have to argue that things are "hidden" in pitch dark. Obviously they are, to a large extent. You may know something's there from other senses, but not exactly where.

Back to my other point, but based on the same reasoning, I'm making the case that this is, in fact, a case where the disadvantage of not being able to use your primary targeting sense overwhelms the advantage of your target not being able to defend as well. Rejecting this results in pure absurdities like it being easier to hit a moving, defending target than an inanimate object. And if you stick to your guns on both of these points and say that we automatically know exactly where something is (within a 5' hex/cube) AND that disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out, then Darkness spells have almost no impact whatsoever and are pointless to cast unless you have Devil's Sight. I can't fathom what one would hope to accomplish by casting it if it has essentially no effect on anything.

Check out this blind man's (https://www.youtube.com/user/TommyEdisonXP) channel. It's quite entertaining. He's been blind since birth and has adapted impressively, yet he still has to move very slowly to keep from hurting himself and is largely ignorant of the world around him. Creatures who have spent their entire lives with sight as their primary means of gathering detailed information about the world around them, suddenly becoming blind, are going to drastically drop in their ability to interact with the world around them. Everything slows down. Everyone becomes, to a large extent, less competent. Give two suddenly blinded people guns and they are both going to hit a lot of air.

Honestly, common sense says everyone should move at half speed in the dark or have to make dex checks to avoid falling prone and possibly taking a little damage. In a sense, that would force everyone to be harder to detect in the darkness, a sort of imposed-basic-stealthiness. If you attempt to move at full speed, you not only have to make a dex check to not fall, but you make it easier for someone to detect your location, i.e. rapid pounding footsteps instead of what you would normally expect--slow, careful, baby steps (which are also inherently quieter). I'm just arguing for some common sense around this subject and also to make Darkness, the spell, actually relevant in the game somehow.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-23, 03:59 PM

I've already conceded that by RAW, Darkness does nothing. There's really no point in casting it unless you're a warlock. Why they gave it to wizards and sorcerers is beyond me. By RAW, all the potential benefits or debuffs are cancelled out.

Common sense--
Even if you just looked at the bullseye and someone just turned out the light, your going to target it much more poorly in the dark because you can't see it.
The fox, just by virtue of being a moving target, even completely randomly, is a MUCH more difficult target than the bullseye, a target which you know exactly where that is from memory just moments earlier before the lights were turned off. You can argue that the RAW says it's easier to hit but you can't sincerely say common sense says that.

More common sense--
Give two guys with pistol training paint guns. Put them in a field 30 feet apart with some objects to hide behind and so forth. Have them shoot it out.

Now put blindfolds on the same guys in the exact same situation. Those guys are going to, at best, fire wildly in the direction of footsteps when the other guy is moving, footsteps which are likely very light because they're trying not to trip and bust their asses, and those guys are mostly going to miss. When they hit at all, it will be from a very lucky shot.

When everyone is firing blindly at sounds in the dark, they're mostly going to miss. Hence, I would give everyone disadvantage on attacks because of the complete impairment of sight, a humanoid's primary targeting sense. And just moving around at all, even randomly, makes that blind targeting much more difficult.

1) I agree, the target, by virtue of being an object, is easy to hit. Indeed, the rules make the assumption that if you want to hit it, you automatically do, the AC roll on objects is to determine if you damage them. As we are not really trying to damage them, just make contact in what would be a more difficult situation it's incumbent on the DM to determine how difficult hitting a target in the dark is.

2) The fox, being a creature, follows different rules than attacking an object. It is more difficult to hit, but because it can't see you attacking it, it has no idea how best to avoid your shots. Ergo, the difficulty in attacking cancels out with its inability to properly zig-zag to avoid being hit, and it's just a probable to be hurt as if you both were able to see the shot coming. If it helps, think of it this way: Darkness reduces your chance to hit by approximately 5 points and it reduces the fox's chance to get out of the way by 5 points. The net effect is as if neither thing had happened. That being said, if you had a third attacker who could see in the dark, they'd have advantage on the roll.

3) Agreed, they are firing at the footsteps, the heavy breathing, the mild cursing when one stubs their toe on a root or rock or bangs into something they didn't see was there. There are a ton of sounds that people make in high stress combat situations. Stealth is the deliberate attempt to avoid all these noises that give away a person's location. And they do, but the key thing is that AC simulates a character's attempts to avoid being harmed as well. In darkness the characters can't do that effectively, which is why advantage is also applied to the attack roll, and then the dis/adv cancel out.

If you prefer you could use the variant where dis/adv are stackable and cancel out on a one to one basis, but this is substantially more book-keeping and will bog the game down, and probably won't result in any additional fun for either the players or the DM.

Besides, there are many ways in the game to undo some kinds of dis/adv, making the system potentially more dynamic as it is.

MaxWilson

2015-10-23, 04:27 PM

I've already conceded that by RAW, Darkness does nothing. There's really no point in casting it unless you're a warlock. Why they gave it to wizards and sorcerers is beyond me. By RAW, all the potential benefits or debuffs are cancelled out.

Actually, by revised RAW (post-errata), Darkness is a fantastic buff. It creates an area of heavy obscurement, which is a moving zone of combat advantage for creatures within it.

Vision and Light
The most fundamental tasks of adventuring—noticing
danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in
combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few—rely
heavily on a character’s ability to see. Darkness and
other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant
hindrance.
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In
a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog,
or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on
Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque
fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature
effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see
appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.
The presence or absence of light in an environment
creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim
light, and darkness.
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even
gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns,
fires, and other sources of illumination within a
specific radius.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly
obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary
between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and
surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and
dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full
moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters
face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit
nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a
subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

You know what's not in there? Heavy obscurement does not prevent you from seeing out. (Which makes perfect sense in some settings, such as hiding in bushes, and not so much sense in others, like being in the middle of in a cloud of smoke. D&D physics I guess.) Nor does it prevent you from seeing across, which again makes perfect sense in some settings (I can see from one lighted area into another) and not so much in others (if there's a fog bank, why can I see everything on the other side of the fog bank?).

It's up to the DM how he runs Darkness (the spell), and personally I'd just interpret it in the way that makes the most sense and is easiest to adjudicate: objects within the radius of a Darkness spell have zero reflectivity, so RAW applies literally, which means you can use Darkness to get advantage against anyone who's not in the darkness and can't see through the Darkness. In some circumstances maybe I'd rule that being silhouetted against a lighted backdrop beyond the Darkness radius cancels out that advantage, but for the most part Darkness becomes the non-stealthy equivalent of Greater Invisibility, except it doesn't work at close range. That's RAW and apparently RAI as well.

Dalebert

2015-10-24, 11:49 AM

Ergo, the difficulty in attacking cancels out with its inability to properly zig-zag to avoid being hit, and it's just a probable to be hurt as if you both were able to see the shot coming.

We're just repeating ourselves. I don't know why you're repeating the RAW when I have already conceded that it's the RAW and have made a case why I think folks should apply common sense to this situation instead.

If it helps, think of it this way: Darkness reduces your chance to hit by approximately 5 points and it reduces the fox's chance to get out of the way by 5 points. The net effect is as if neither thing had happened.

So Darkness has no effect on combat situations at all when treated that way and that's an absurdity that I have to address with a common sense ruling contrary to the simplified RAW way of handling adv and dis.

If you prefer you could use the variant where dis/adv are stackable and cancel out on a one to one basis, but this is substantially more book-keeping and will bog the game down, and probably won't result in any additional fun for either the players or the DM.

That's an exaggeration. I've already made the call on Darkness by common sense so that's not going to bog anything down. Done. And other situations where there are multiple adv and dis should be fairly rare, and when they happen it's not likely to be at all mathematically complicated, e.g. Two cases of adv vs. one dis does not require pulling out a calculator and slowing the game down. And that's just a guideline anyway. You don't always have to resolve it with math. Frequently a common sense judgment call by the DM will resolve it. For instance, being invisible while also in Darkness is not going to stack in any way. The point is you can't be seen so that's simply one case of disad on attacks on that character that may or may not be offset by an attacker gaining adv somehow.