Darkness Spell Ruling (rogues, perception and sneak attacks don't add up)

[Beastrolami]

We all know the darkness devilsight combo. That is NOT what this is about. Now, before I jump in, I know there is a rational response, but as far as I can tell, if you follow the rules as written, Darkness becomes a very useless spell. It also interacts in a weird way with rogues.

Here's the scenario, there is an enemy (lets say fighter) and an arcane trickster (or drow rogue). The arcane trickster casts darkness on the enemy. The enemy is surrounded by darkness and essentially blind. Assuming that the rogue can target the enemy with a ranged attack, does he have disadvantage? Yes he should because he cannot see his target, but... his target cannot see him, so he gets advantage, and as we all know advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out.

We can even take this a step further and put them both in melee. As far as I understand the rules (and I don't have the book open in front of me, so it is probably a big misunderstanding) they can't see their oponent, so they have disadvantage, but their opponent can't see them, so they have advantage, which cancels out, and they fight normally.

Lets make this a bit more interesting. What if the rogue uses a bonus action to hide. Is the disadvantage cancelled out now?

What about sneak attack? Would the rogue get sneak attack because he has advantage? or would he lose sneak attack because it is negated by disadvantage?

[Arenabait]

Long story short, if you have multiple instances of advantage and disadvantage, they ALL cancel eachother out. You could have 100000 instances of disadvantage, but one instance of advantage and you roll normally.

Also, you roll normally, but you still have advantage AND disadvantage (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember this being explicit). The exact wording of sneak attack says that you have to have advantage (Or the other things) and NO disadvantage, so this whole scenario is rather easily defused.

[Dalebert]

If you look up advantage and disadvantage in the PHB, it states that having both is treated as having neither. So if you cancel out the disadvantage, the rogue can once again get sneak attack, assuming he has some way to get it like an adjacent ally.

Alert is the closest thing to a blind-fighting feat. In darkness or heavy obscurement, your opponent can't gain advantage on you for being hidden so they continue to fight with disadvantage but the fact they can't see you means you attack normally.

[Beastrolami]

I agree with the sneak attack ruling, but....

I think the real question is how it works with non-rogues. If darkness grants advantage to you because the enemy can't see you, but disadvantage because you can't see the enemy. What is the purpose of Darkness in combat?

Or... does one party need to be hidden to negate the disadvantage? (where rogues would come in, even if they don't get sneak)

[DivisibleByZero]

Darkness is the Great Equalizer.
No one gets advantage, no one gets disadvantage, because everyone already gets one count of each. Everyone attacks normally. The only exception to this is something like Devil's Sight.

When is it useful? Examples include anything with Pack Tactics, and other situations where the enemy gets advantage. Darkness makes the playing field even.

[Beastrolami]

yeah, you're right.... I just never thought of it that way. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I'm curious about how many DM's rule this way.

[Dalebert]

What is the purpose of Darkness in combat?

Besides equalizing as Db0 said, it also makes many spells useless as many require you to see your target. It allows for hiding when there would otherwise be no hiding place.

[Arcangel4774]

Darkness also negates opportunity attacks as they require sight.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yep.
No advantage for either side.
No disadvantage for either side.
No opportunity attacks for either side.
No spells which require sight for either side.
There are other reasons as well, but you see why I call it the Great Equalizer.

[Beastrolami]

TBH, I think i'll continue to rule it the way I was (both sides get disadvantage).

To me, the biggest problem is suspension of disbelief. You are an archer, shooting at a moving target 100 feet away, and you can't see them. (no negative modifiers) It just doesn't make sense, and comes back around to the idea that if you simplify the rules of dnd, you will end up with holes in weird places.

[Dalebert]

No adv or disadv is the RAW but many people do in fact rule it dsadv for everyone. That's probably fine. I argued that way for a while. I think that's more realistic but does realism matter that much? *shrug* It's been argued that disadv for everyone causes a combat to really drag out and ruin pacing.

[Malifice]

yeah, you're right.... I just never thought of it that way. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I'm curious about how many DM's rule this way.

I rule that darkness gives everyone in it disadvantage that cant be cancelled by advantage. Also, unless you can see in it, taking the dash action in darkness requires a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or you fall prone.

Does enough for mine to simulate the effects of flailing around in the dark.

Makes the devils sight + darkness combo a right pain in the rear for the rest of the party too.