Vision and Light vs. Polearm Master

[Nod_Hero]

Had this one come up during our session last night. Human with Polearm Master feat with no light source is approached by an enemy. She wanted to take her reaction attack but as DM I said no because she couldn't see. Her counterpoint was that because the feat says

...other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach. and the entry for OA specifically says
...when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. she should get her attack. We went with my decision and played on, but looking at it after the fact and reading some rules,

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area.

A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage. if we were going for a RAW perspective should she have been able to swing, albeit with disadvantage?

[Basch]

I'd personally say no to getting the attack due to not being able to see. Just like i wouldn't give every polearm master an attack when a rogue successfully sneaks up on them.

[Foxhound438]

unless the approaching creature was "hidden", as with a hide check, she would have had it. Reason being that, thematically, a creature not trying to be stealthy would still make sounds as they approach. You don't have quite daredevil blindsight level of hearing, but you can hear someone else running up to you.

[lebefrei]

Yes, she should have been able to attack with disadvantage. You've seen this scene in horror and action movies. The hero is being hunted by a creature in the dark, and they hear it run past and take wild swipes at it. Those are disadvantaged attacks, just like in this case.

[bid]

Had this one come up during our session last night. Human with Polearm Master feat with no light source is approached by an enemy. She wanted to take her reaction attack but as DM I said no because she couldn't see.
But she could hear.

At the very worst, she'd have to succeed a Wisdom(Perception) check to guess when the enemy enters her reach. Otherwise she'd use her reaction to attack the wrong spot.

[Talamare]

I would have given her the attack as well, if you wanted to really to make it unlikely just give her a penalty, lile another -5 or something

Good rule of thumb - When in doubt, ALLOW your player to do it this time, and then confirm the rules about next time
(unless they are doing something really really broken)

[AmbientRaven]

I normally make my players perception check (dc based on armour/size of target) to attack with disadvantage

[Corran]

Well, if we want to be extremelly technical about the RAW, then she maaaay be able to make this OA, due to how the description of OA's and the ''being able to see the target'' part, include the ''when the enemy leaves your reach'' part. Which is not the case for the OA granted by the PM.

However, the ''when the enemy leaves your reach'' part, is there just to add to the definition of the OA, not to restrict the ''being able to see the enemy'' to only OA's against enemies leaving your reach? Imo, the ''being able to see the enemy'' applies to all OA's, not only to those provoked by enemies leaving your reach, but also to enemies entering a PM's reach.

Due to some ambiguity in the warding, cause as I said, the ''leaving your reach part'' seems to restrict when the condition ''being able to see'' is applied, though that was not the intention imo. Anyway, due to this ambiguity, I think it is open for interpretation, and imo falls under DM's discretion.

And personally, I would rule it the way you did.

[Hrugner]

Polearm master grants an opportunity attack and should follow all rules for an opportunity attack except where it says otherwise. Since Polearm master only alters the trigger, a person entering reach rather than leaving, it still includes the requirement that you can see the target. If you ruled that she could see the target, but not well, then you'd grant the opportunity attack with disadvantage due to darkness. If she was unaware of the attacker, then there would be no opportunity attack.

[RickAllison]

If someone can't see, they still do get the opportunity attacks. They make the attack with disadvantage and have to make a Perception check (also with disadvantage) or just guess where to hit :smallwink:

[Corran]

If someone can't see, they still do get the opportunity attacks. They make the attack with disadvantage and have to make a Perception check (also with disadvantage) or just guess where to hit :smallwink:
I believe you are wrong. OA's, as well as many spells, require that the character must be able to see the enemy. Regardless of if the character knows where the enemy is.

[MrStabby]

Now you have me wondering if the "that you can see" part of the OA description is about people running past you. That it was intended to stop you hitting someone who ran behind you and out of your field of vision before leaving reach. It would seriously change much of the dynamic of my games and make me worry about facing a lot more if it were the intent (and if we were to play to that intent). This being said, it seems odd that you are less likely to be attacked circling round someone and away from them than just stepping in and out of 5ft radius. Although it seems equally odd that you are subjected to attacks for not being near someone vs remaining close...

[Malifice]

If someone can't see, they still do get the opportunity attacks. They make the attack with disadvantage and have to make a Perception check (also with disadvantage) or just guess where to hit :smallwink:

Nah mate. You must be able to see a target to OA it.

Many spells, abilities and effects carry the tagline: Choose 1 target 'you can see'. So invisible or hidden creatures, or creatures in darkness are effectively immune to these powers.

Remember - you can be unseen but not hidden [such as being invisible, or having total cover]. The two are seperate under the rules [hidden is being both unseen AND unheard].

Check out Power Word Kill for example. Total cover, hiding, becoming invisible, jumping into darkness or similar and you're immune. You're also immune if someone can pull a bag over the wizards head.

In this case by strict RAW the player has a point; the specific text of the feat trumps the general rules of OA's. That said, I am pretty sure this is an oversight in the feat, and isnt intended by RAI.

Accordingly I'd side with the DMs interpretation.

[RickAllison]

Nah mate. You must be able to see a target to OA it.

Many spells, abilities and effects carry the tagline: Choose 1 target 'you can see'. So invisible or hidden creatures, or creatures in darkness are effectively immune to these powers.

Remember - you can be unseen but not hidden [such as being invisible, or having total cover]. The two are seperate under the rules [hidden is being both unseen AND unheard].

Check out Power Word Kill for example. Total cover, hiding, becoming invisible, jumping into darkness or similar and you're immune. You're also immune if someone can pull a bag over the wizards head.

In this case by strict RAW the player has a point; the specific text of the feat trumps the general rules of OA's. That said, I am pretty sure this is an oversight in the feat, and isnt intended by RAI.

Accordingly I'd side with the DMs interpretation.

People would have more credibility if they would actually cite passages to reinforce interpretations. EDIT:This was me being snarky and rude. Few people on this forum deserve that, so I apologize in advance. Here is what I found:


You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile
creature that you can see moves out of your reach.

The Polearm Master text does not carry the same qualification, but I would be obliged to say it still follows the same restriction as above. Did I just cite the PHB to prove that I was wrong? I sure did.

That being said, I would let players know the approximate location the sound came from. As an example, I might tell them the sound came from behind them, which would equate to these spaces (open end of > indicates facing direction, O indicates potential sources of the noise):

XXXXO
XXXOO
XX>OO
XXXOO
XXXXO

They basically have a 20% chance to actually hit someone, and the attack would be with disadvantage still. They could roll a Perception check for hearing with disadvantage to narrow that down to two or three spaces. That, however, would be my house-rule as by the RAW I cited above, you could not do it.

[bid]

Nah mate. You must be able to see a target to OA it.
That also means that creatures depending on blindsight cannot OA at all.

[RickAllison]

That also means that creatures depending on blindsight cannot OA at all.

That might be overridden by the text for blindsight which indicates that "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." RAI, it's probably a case where blindsight overrides the need to see the target. RAW, I will leave it to more qualified individuals to argue the merits of either side.

[bid]

That might be overridden by the text for blindsight which indicates that "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." RAI, it's probably a case where blindsight overrides the need to see the target. RAW, I will leave it to more qualified individuals to argue the merits of either side.
I was being facetious here.:smallbiggrin:

It depends how the DM read AO's "see". Does it means "perceive" or does it mean "with your own eyes"?

[Malifice]

I was being facetious here.:smallbiggrin:

It depends how the DM read AO's "see". Does it means "perceive" or does it mean "with your own eyes"?

It means see, but blindsight obviates that restriction.

A wizard with his eyes closed cant target anything with [Power word kill].

[lebefrei]

This topic does force us to face the question posed: are we failing to account for facing? We are arguing for and against sight, yet in the abstraction of reality to make the rules work we allow Attacks of Opportunity against unseen attackers regularly.

In those six seconds of a round, does every combatant somehow always maintain 360 degree visual awareness? If someone behind a player moves away, that provokes an AoO. In fact, we don't even consider "behind" in the rules, and yet that moving enemy is not visible. They cannot be seen. Your focus is not on them, but you get an attack against them anyway.

One way to account for this is to let "see" actually mean "sense", so one hears that enemy moving away, or just gets that feeling we get. If that is the case, the player's case is stronger.

[RickAllison]

This topic does force us to face the question posed: are we failing to account for facing? We are arguing for and against sight, yet in the abstraction of reality to make the rules work we allow Attacks of Opportunity against unseen attackers regularly.

In those six seconds of a round, does every combatant somehow always maintain 360 degree visual awareness? If someone behind a player moves away, that provokes an AoO. In fact, we don't even consider "behind" in the rules, and yet that moving enemy is not visible. They cannot be seen. Your focus is not on them, but you get an attack against them anyway.

One way to account for this is to let "see" actually mean "sense", so one hears that enemy moving away, or just gets that feeling we get. If that is the case, the player's case is stronger.

And this is the price we pay for attempting to force logic into D&D. I love it, but I enjoy describing my actions to justify being able to pull stunts like this. One way I would love to interpret it for flavor is the polearm user throwing the rear arm back, allowing the polearm to slide down and strike with the haft to the target behind the user. Only get the 1d4 damage, but it just seems like an awesome, RaF maneuver :smallbiggrin:

[bid]

It means see, but blindsight obviates that restriction.
Blindsight does not use the word "see" or mention OA. The opposite interpretation is still open.

[Mr Adventurer]

Blindsight does not use the word "see" or mention OA. The opposite interpretation is still open.

Sorry, blind-what, did you say? :D

[MaxWilson]

Had this one come up during our session last night. Human with Polearm Master feat with no light source is approached by an enemy. She wanted to take her reaction attack but as DM I said no because she couldn't see. Her counterpoint was that because the feat says
and the entry for OA specifically says she should get her attack. We went with my decision and played on, but looking at it after the fact and reading some rules,

if we were going for a RAW perspective should she have been able to swing, albeit with disadvantage?

This is WotC's fault for describing abilities in terms of jargon instead of what is actually, physically happening in the game world. If they'd written it to say, "Like pikemen of old, you are trained in polearm combat, and can set your weapon in such a way that no one can approach you closely without endangering themselves with your blade. Whenever an enemy enters your reach you may expend your reaction to make an opportunity attack to represent this self-inflicted harm," we'd have a number of questions answered:

(1) Why is this attack happening? (Enemy is basically running onto your spearhead.)
(2) Should it work even in the dark/against a hidden enemy? (Possibly yes, at disadvantage, if you could have guessed the direction they were approaching from.)
(3) Can you use this with Warcaster to cast spells on an enemy? (No, that doesn't physically work with what's happening. See #1.)

TSR >>> WotC. Get off my lawn.

[Knaight]

This is WotC's fault for describing abilities in terms of jargon instead of what is actually, physically happening in the game world. If they'd written it to say, "Like pikemen of old, you are trained in polearm combat, and can set your weapon in such a way that no one can approach you closely without endangering themselves with your blade. Whenever an enemy enters your reach you may expend your reaction to make an opportunity attack to represent this self-inflicted harm," we'd have a number of questions answered:

(1) Why is this attack happening? (Enemy is basically running onto your spearhead.)
A few things here:
1) Technically speaking, polearm master doesn't work with spears, so writing out what is physically happening in that fashion makes little sense. I suppose you could try to use a halberd or similar in the way described, but swinging it at a target as they move makes a lot more sense.
2) Setting a spear so that someone runs into it has next to no utility in the context of skirmishes (with a small exception for dealing with cavalry). Formation fighting, yes, packed battles, yes. In a skirmish, you'll generally want to actually move to stab the person. So, even with a pike, that's probably not what expected usage would look like.


This topic does force us to face the question posed: are we failing to account for facing? We are arguing for and against sight, yet in the abstraction of reality to make the rules work we allow Attacks of Opportunity against unseen attackers regularly.

In those six seconds of a round, does every combatant somehow always maintain 360 degree visual awareness? If someone behind a player moves away, that provokes an AoO. In fact, we don't even consider "behind" in the rules, and yet that moving enemy is not visible. They cannot be seen. Your focus is not on them, but you get an attack against them anyway.

Every combatant always maintaining 360 degree visual awareness works vastly better than assuming that someone can only face one direction for six seconds, particularly when the turn structure makes that facing outright enable tactics like calmly walking around to someone's back and hitting them while fighting them, as if they couldn't just turn. This is further augmented by it being a reasonable expectation that people fighting together are warning their allies about things like people approaching them from behind.

[Serket]

Having melee skirmished a lot, I usually choose to pay attention to the whole situation. This gives me significantly better situational awareness than most combatants, but I pay for that by not focussing entirely on the person in front of me (and hence being less likely to deliver or defend against blows while looking around). It's like a combat mode with advantages and disadvantages, that I can turn on or off.

It also doesn't afford me 360 degree vision. Even when paying particular attention, I'm still only really aware of roughly 300 degrees at best. If I were trying to model it using hexes I'd have three "aware", two "penalised", and one heavily penalised to the point where noticing stuff there was implausible except in extreme situations. I'd also probably have that setup as an advanced boost over basic combatants with only one "aware" space. Teaching awareness is actually something I've struggled with - I explain the concepts, and then my trainees still get all tunnel vision about their fighting.

However... none of that is relevant to a game that abstracts as much as this one does. If someone wished to design a game where facing mattered and vision wasn't 360, I'd be very interested to play it, playtest it (and maybe even help design it), but such a game shouldn't use D&D's simple and abstract chassis. This just isn't that game.

More relevantly, if I were GM in this situation, I'd rule that the PC can attack only if they see the target. Otherwise people would be delivering AoOs to invisible targets, which seems pretty silly to me.
Although, if there were a light source that were further back, so that the target could enter reach in the darkness, then step forward within reach but into visibility, I might grant the AoO at the point where they became visible. And yes, I know that's not RaW. :smallsmile: