Effect of Darkness on combat

[Keravath]

Hi All,

So ... the darkness spell creates a 15' radius sphere of magical darkness. Darkvision doesn't penetrate but the Warlock ability Devil's Sight does (Shadow sorcerer can also cast a Darkness spell using sorcery points to have a similar ability). This leads to the moderately popular Darkness/Devil's Sight method of earning advantage for the warlock on attacks and disadvantage for others attacking the warlock.

However, one common comment is that the use of the tactic significantly interferes with the rest of your party engaging in combat and I don't understand this since in most cases it doesn't make any difference at all.

In terms of melee or ranged combat attacks ...

- If your target can't see you then you have Advantage on the attack roll.
- If you can't see your target then you have Disadvantage on the attack roll.

If both the target and the attacker are in Darkness and neither can see then the Advantage and Disadvantage from the vision rules cancel and it will be a straight roll to attack. Rules as written, Darkness appears to do nothing to interfere with either ranged or melee combat when neither can see each other.

What else does Darkness affect?
- spells or other effects that require the attacker to see or be seen by the target. For example, a vampire's charm effect does not work in Darkness, a su-monster's psychic attack doesn't work in Darkness, enemy spells like hold person don't work in Darkness. Of course, spells or abilities from your own party that require sight are also shut down .. but this makes Darkness situationally extremely useful depending on the opponents since it has no effect on melee or ranged attack rolls.

- Darkness prevents other ways of gaining advantage or applying disadvantage from being effective. If your ranged party members are surrounded by melee opponents then dropping a darkness on them allows them to attack without disadvantage at point blank range. If the opponents you are fighting have pack tactics then the Darkness will remove their advantage on attack rolls. If you are attacked by a barbarian then Darkness will prevent their use of reckless attack though it also prevents any allies from gaining a benefit from reckless attack. Ranged attackers in Darkness can fire at a prone target at a distance without Disadvantage.

- Darkness can provide cover for a rogue to hide even if there is nothing else around to provide it. A hidden target can't be directly targeted meaning that opponents outside the Darkness can't even choose to shoot at the hidden rogue unless they guess the location they are in. On the other hand, the rogue only has to poke their head out to get an attack with advantage (and sneak attack) against a target not in the Darkness, then retreat and hide again.


.. and if a character happens to have Devil's sight, Darkness is advantage on all attacks and disadvantage for all opponents attacking them (again due to the vision rules).

So ... Darkness has little or no impact on melee or ranged combat, it provides some very useful benefits in preventing opponent abilities requiring sight, it can prevent opponents from receiving advantage and allies from being at disadvantage, and finally, for the warlocks in the party it can be a significant tactical advantage.

Why do folks seem to say that it causes so much grief for the rest of the party that it isn't a very useful tactic?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Because all of those benefits you listed as preventing enemies from making use of those skills are also hindrances to the Warlocks party.

Spellcasters who want to use a spell that requires a target can't see a target. If you can't see your target for an attack, you select a location as the target, you have no way of knowing if the target is still in that location when you attack this way and can miss simply because you're attacking nothing.

On the mention of the rogue, you lose the benefits of being hidden as soon as you leave the darkness and a target can see you. The rogue would immediately become visible to a target outside of the darkness when they leave the darkness to attack, losing stealth.

Not every party is made up of warlocks with devils sight, your party is affected in all the same ways as the enemies are and it's not going to be fun for them when the Warlock sets up darkness and has their solo adventure.

[sophontteks]

If you can't see the target you can't target them with an attack. You can guess where they are, and if your right you roll normally. This would be really rough for archers.

Some say that if the target isn't explicitly hiding, everyone knows exactly where it is, even if its invisible. I don't think this idea is used by many DMs though. Exceptional things require rolls at the DMs discretion afterall. Maybe a perceptive character can pinpoint a loud target with a good roll.

That said, I think the flaws are manageable and the people writing of this strategy in guides are simply giving a heads up that it could screw with your team if care is not taken.

[Xetheral]

First, beyond a situation-specific distance, many DMs will rule that an unseen character's location may be unknown, making it difficult to attack them. This distance varies wildly from DM to DM, (and from environment to environment for the same DM) but if your DM sets a shorter distance limit, ranged characters may not be able to attack effectively if either they or their targets are unseen due to darkness.

Second, if your DM rules that the unseen targets are close enough to locate, your DM might rule that it's difficult to distinguish friendly unseen targets from hostile unseen targets, particularly if there is a lot of movement in the unseen area. Characters unsure of which targets are enemies can't meaningfully contribute to the combat.

Third, even if your DM rules that the unseen targets are close enough to automatically locate and identify, PCs who can't see through the dark may not be able to tell what actions are being taken by enemies or party members. This limits those PC's ability to make intelligent tactical choices, possibly making combat less fun for the players of those PCs.

Fourth, even if the DM rules that darkness only has exactly the mechanical impact you've described, players of blind PCs may not be comfortable continuing to fight, instead deciding that their characters would retreat out of the darkness rather than "risk" fighting blind.

[Mikal]

Hi All,

So ... the darkness spell creates a 15' radius sphere of magical darkness. Darkvision doesn't penetrate but the Warlock ability Devil's Sight does (Shadow sorcerer can also cast a Darkness spell using sorcery points to have a similar ability). This leads to the moderately popular Darkness/Devil's Sight method of earning advantage for the warlock on attacks and disadvantage for others attacking the warlock.

However, one common comment is that the use of the tactic significantly interferes with the rest of your party engaging in combat and I don't understand this since in most cases it doesn't make any difference at all.

In terms of melee or ranged combat attacks ...

- If your target can't see you then you have Advantage on the attack roll.
- If you can't see your target then you have Disadvantage on the attack roll.

If both the target and the attacker are in Darkness and neither can see then the Advantage and Disadvantage from the vision rules cancel and it will be a straight roll to attack. Rules as written, Darkness appears to do nothing to interfere with either ranged or melee combat when neither can see each other.

What else does Darkness affect?
- spells or other effects that require the attacker to see or be seen by the target. For example, a vampire's charm effect does not work in Darkness, a su-monster's psychic attack doesn't work in Darkness, enemy spells like hold person don't work in Darkness. Of course, spells or abilities from your own party that require sight are also shut down .. but this makes Darkness situationally extremely useful depending on the opponents since it has no effect on melee or ranged attack rolls.

- Darkness prevents other ways of gaining advantage or applying disadvantage from being effective. If your ranged party members are surrounded by melee opponents then dropping a darkness on them allows them to attack without disadvantage at point blank range. If the opponents you are fighting have pack tactics then the Darkness will remove their advantage on attack rolls. If you are attacked by a barbarian then Darkness will prevent their use of reckless attack though it also prevents any allies from gaining a benefit from reckless attack. Ranged attackers in Darkness can fire at a prone target at a distance without Disadvantage.

- Darkness can provide cover for a rogue to hide even if there is nothing else around to provide it. A hidden target can't be directly targeted meaning that opponents outside the Darkness can't even choose to shoot at the hidden rogue unless they guess the location they are in. On the other hand, the rogue only has to poke their head out to get an attack with advantage (and sneak attack) against a target not in the Darkness, then retreat and hide again.


.. and if a character happens to have Devil's sight, Darkness is advantage on all attacks and disadvantage for all opponents attacking them (again due to the vision rules).

So ... Darkness has little or no impact on melee or ranged combat, it provides some very useful benefits in preventing opponent abilities requiring sight, it can prevent opponents from receiving advantage and allies from being at disadvantage, and finally, for the warlocks in the party it can be a significant tactical advantage.

Why do folks seem to say that it causes so much grief for the rest of the party that it isn't a very useful tactic?

Because people get jealous when someone has a neat trick.

Slightly more serious, it does prevent certain builds from doing well, such as any Barbarian stuck in the area of effect, since they can't use Reckless Attack.

[MaxWilson]

Why do folks seem to say that it causes so much grief for the rest of the party that it isn't a very useful tactic?

Because plenty of folks on the Internet (and some DMs at the table) don't really know the rules of the game.

There are some niche cases where it can actually hinder your party (e.g. it prevents your front line fighters from using their Sentinel feats and whatnot to lock down opponents, and it prevents your party from benefitting from the nice grapple + prone combination that PCs are so good at), but for the most part people who think it's going to hinder your party are just wrong. It's more of an equalizer than anything else, unless you are using advanced tactics or relying on spells like Counterspell that require you to see the target.

[Segev]

A single-Invocation variant on this trick that is more party-friendly is use of Misty Visions to create a silent image of a fog cloud. Use a code word or other agreed-upon signal to notify your allies that it is an illusion, and they either will automatically see through it, or at least be perfectly justified in spending 1 action to Investigate and see through it (possibly with Advantage, since they know it's an illusion; you told them so). Your enemies have no reason to doubt your illusion's reality; fog is silent and intangible for all intents and purposes. They'll be unable to see into it, and won't know your allies can see out of it just fine.

[krugaan]

A single-Invocation variant on this trick that is more party-friendly is use of Misty Visions to create a silent image of a fog cloud. Use a code word or other agreed-upon signal to notify your allies that it is an illusion, and they either will automatically see through it, or at least be perfectly justified in spending 1 action to Investigate and see through it (possibly with Advantage, since they know it's an illusion; you told them so). Your enemies have no reason to doubt your illusion's reality; fog is silent and intangible for all intents and purposes. They'll be unable to see into it, and won't know your allies can see out of it just fine.

I've always thought that was sort of clever, except once they touch the fog, don't they automatically realize it's fake by RAW ("intangibility" aside).

[Segev]

I've always thought that was sort of clever, except once they touch the fog, don't they automatically realize it's fake by RAW ("intangibility" aside).

There are lengthy arguments regarding this. I would argue "no," but this isn't the thread for it. Ultimately, the answer is only given by your DM.

If your DM agrees with me, then run it as instinctively as you would.

If your DM thinks the RAW means touching the fog reveals its fakery, then just cover your allies who fight at range with it, and let the meleeists keep the enemies from getting into the fog.

[Keravath]

If you can't see the target you can't target them with an attack. You can guess where they are, and if your right you roll normally. This would be really rough for archers.

Some say that if the target isn't explicitly hiding, everyone knows exactly where it is, even if its invisible. I don't think this idea is used by many DMs though. Exceptional things require rolls at the DMs discretion afterall. Maybe a perceptive character can pinpoint a loud target with a good roll.

That said, I think the flaws are manageable and the people writing of this strategy in guides are simply giving a heads up that it could screw with your team if care is not taken.


PHB p194:

UNSEEN ATTACKERS AND TARGETS
"Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding. casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

You can clearly attack creatures that you can not see even ones that are hidden but you need to guess where they might be.

Also, if DMs are not allowing characters to attack opponents they can not see or the locations where hidden opponents
might be hiding then they are using a house rule and not the rules as they are pretty clearly written.

(As a side note, I am viewing this from a DDAL perspective where I have seen the tactic used a few times, generally without significant side effects on the ability of the party to deal with threats though there can be exceptions depending on the opponents ... like if you absolutely need to cast counterspell.)

[MaxWilson]

A single-Invocation variant on this trick that is more party-friendly is use of Misty Visions to create a silent image of a fog cloud. Use a code word or other agreed-upon signal to notify your allies that it is an illusion, and they either will automatically see through it, or at least be perfectly justified in spending 1 action to Investigate and see through it (possibly with Advantage, since they know it's an illusion; you told them so). Your enemies have no reason to doubt your illusion's reality; fog is silent and intangible for all intents and purposes. They'll be unable to see into it, and won't know your allies can see out of it just fine.

It's very easy in 5E to set up situations where you can see enemies but they can't see you, which is why I strongly recommend houseruling away advantage on ranged attacks in those situations. It makes no sense, and it makes the game too easy.


5.) An attacker unseen by his target has advantage only on melee attack rolls, not ranged attack rolls; however, he does qualify for sneak attack damage at range if unseen despite not having advantage.


Otherwise it becomes trivial for Sharpshooters to gain advantage and utterly destroy the enemy. You can do it with a single Dancing Lights spell underground, or with a Minor Illusion (or mundane concealment) in open terrain, and in either case it makes advantage too commonplace.

Granting advantage for being an unseen ranged attacker is like granting advantage for flanking (DMG flanking rules): it cheapens advantage to the point of making the game un-fun.

[Keravath]

First, beyond a situation-specific distance, many DMs will rule that an unseen character's location may be unknown, making it difficult to attack them. This distance varies wildly from DM to DM, (and from environment to environment for the same DM) but if your DM sets a shorter distance limit, ranged characters may not be able to attack effectively if either they or their targets are unseen due to darkness.

Second, if your DM rules that the unseen targets are close enough to locate, your DM might rule that it's difficult to distinguish friendly unseen targets from hostile unseen targets, particularly if there is a lot of movement in the unseen area. Characters unsure of which targets are enemies can't meaningfully contribute to the combat.

Third, even if your DM rules that the unseen targets are close enough to automatically locate and identify, PCs who can't see through the dark may not be able to tell what actions are being taken by enemies or party members. This limits those PC's ability to make intelligent tactical choices, possibly making combat less fun for the players of those PCs.

Fourth, even if the DM rules that darkness only has exactly the mechanical impact you've described, players of blind PCs may not be comfortable continuing to fight, instead deciding that their characters would retreat out of the darkness rather than "risk" fighting blind.

Just to clarify, points one and two are entirely house rules created by the DM to fit their idea of reality. The D&D rules don't impose any of these limitations as far as I know. (I am coming at this from a DDAL perspective where the rules are written are typically what is used to run the game).

Darkness may or may not make the combat more or less fun for other players. I generally haven't noticed any difference the few times it has been used (some very effectively). One exception where you might like to see what the opponents are doing might be the casting of counterspell though.

From a roleplaying perspective, I agree that the character may feel less comfortable in the dark if they weren't experienced with it or had not encountered it previously. That is a role playing decision. The interesting fact though, is that the way the D&D rules are written, fighting in Darkness actually doesn't seem to impose any added "risk". So if the character is aware of this they have no reason to leave the darkness.

[Xetheral]

Just to clarify, points one and two are entirely house rules created by the DM to fit their idea of reality. The D&D rules don't impose any of these limitations as far as I know. (I am coming at this from a DDAL perspective where the rules are written are typically what is used to run the game).

There is no consensus on this point (see, e.g., innumerable threads on this issue). There is no rule that unabiguously says that characters are aware of the locations of invisible creatures. The closest is the passage (citation unavailable, AFB) that says that an invisible creature's presence "can" be noticed by sounds or tracks, but there is disagreement over whether "can" implies a possibility of being noticed or the certainty of being noticed. (And additional disagreement over what factors are relevant to resolve the possibility of being noticed.)

Either way I haven't yet met a DM who doesn't impose some sort of distance limit on detecting the location of unseen creatures (note: some use a "is the invisible character part of the encounter" cutoff, rather than a distance-based one) For example, would you permit an invisible character's location to be known if the invisible character was 300 yards away? What about noticing the location of an invisible creature 60' feet away in a moderately crowded and very noisy marketplace? In ether case it is plausible for a visible creature to go unnoticed, and it seems absurd to rule that an invisible creature is easier to notice than a visible one.

Because of the uncertainty in the rules (and the controvsery surrounding them), it is my understanding that even in AL the treatment of unseen characters is largely up to the DM, and varies from table to table. So no, I don't accept your assertion that my first and second points are houserules.

[tieren]

Because of the uncertainty in the rules (and the controvsery surrounding them), it is my understanding that even in AL the treatment of unseen characters is largely up to the DM, and varies from table to table. So no, I don't accept your assertion that my first and second points are houserules.

Your first and second points said "many DMS" "may" "might rule".

it is accurate to say there is no consensus. It is not accurate to say the rules you made up to fix the problem aren't houserules. That is pretty much the definition of a house rule. As opposed to something that is clearly stated in the books (RAW).

[Xetheral]

Your first and second points said "many DMS" "may" "might rule".

it is accurate to say there is no consensus. It is not accurate to say the rules you made up to fix the problem aren't houserules. That is pretty much the definition of a house rule. As opposed to something that is clearly stated in the books (RAW).

I'm starting with the general philosophy that if the rules are ambiguous, it's not a houserule to make a ruling. If you want to define all rulings in such a case as houserules, I guess you can, but I don't consider that a useful definition of "houserule". I find it more useful to use that term to refer to deviations from unambiguous text.

[Keravath]

I'm starting with the general philosophy that if the rules are ambiguous, it's not a houserule to make a ruling. If you want to define all rulings in such a case as houserules, I guess you can, but I don't consider that a useful definition of "houserule". I find it more useful to use that term to refer to deviations from unambiguous text.

Well ... the rule about Unseen Attackers and Targets that I quoted above makes it quite clear that you can attack creatures you can't see. You can even attack locations and if a hidden creature is in that location you have the same chance to hit as you would if there was a known target you cant see in that location.

The rules say that if a creature is actually hidden then you don't know its location.

The Unseen Attacker and Targets rule describes some ways that you might identify the presence of a creature you can't see (hearing for example) but it isn't an exhaustive list. The rule also specifically mentions Darkness, Invisbility and hiding as mechanisms addressed by the rule.

The rule does NOT say that you need to take special actions, be within a certain range, make a skill check, or jump through any other hoop to attack a creature you can't see in Darkness or invisibility at any range. I realize that this may not seem realistic to many folks. It does simplify the rules for fighting with creature you can't see or which can't see you by imposing advantage/disadvantage as required.

The "ambiguity" in the rule arises from comparisons with reality in which DMs find it unrealistic that a character could effectively judge the position of a creature that they can't see, especially at range, sufficiently to execute an effective attack. I agree, the realism lacks a bit. However, from a rules perspective it would seem that nothing further is required. The rules don't require anything extra to attack a creature you can't see unless that creature is also actually hidden. Thus my comment about house rules ... any rule that a DM adds to make the mechanism more realistic from their point of view is a house rule ... something that is not included in the rule book.

[Tanarii]

The DM may call determine something automatically fails, automatically succeeds, or call for some form of check for anything. That includes if you can pinpointing the location of a creature sufficiently to target it without taking an additional action, such as the Search action, or if you have to guess its location. That's not a house rule. That's the general rules for adjudicating things.

[Xetheral]

Well ... the rule about Unseen Attackers and Targets that I quoted above makes it quite clear that you can attack creatures you can't see. You can even attack locations and if a hidden creature is in that location you have the same chance to hit as you would if there was a known target you cant see in that location.

The rules say that if a creature is actually hidden then you don't know its location.

The Unseen Attacker and Targets rule describes some ways that you might identify the presence of a creature you can't see (hearing for example) but it isn't an exhaustive list. The rule also specifically mentions Darkness, Invisbility and hiding as mechanisms addressed by the rule.

The rule does NOT say that you need to take special actions, be within a certain range, make a skill check, or jump through any other hoop to attack a creature you can't see in Darkness or invisibility at any range. I realize that this may not seem realistic to many folks. It does simplify the rules for fighting with creature you can't see or which can't see you by imposing advantage/disadvantage as required.

The "ambiguity" in the rule arises from comparisons with reality in which DMs find it unrealistic that a character could effectively judge the position of a creature that they can't see, especially at range, sufficiently to execute an effective attack. I agree, the realism lacks a bit. However, from a rules perspective it would seem that nothing further is required. The rules don't require anything extra to attack a creature you can't see unless that creature is also actually hidden. Thus my comment about house rules ... any rule that a DM adds to make the mechanism more realistic from their point of view is a house rule ... something that is not included in the rule book.

This has been debated endlessly in the past. There is no consensus on whether the rules require everyone to be aware of the location of unseen (non-hidden) creatures at all times. You may consider the rules unambiguous, but plenty of other disagree with you.

I would also note that if you're truly arguing that characters are aware of the location of all unseen (non-hidden) creatures at all times, regardless of range (even miles away!), then you're in a particularly small minority.

[SociopathFriend]

I pulled off the Darkness+ Warlock combo just last week in a campaign- though I specifically did so in a method that could not inconvenience the party. It can be a powerful crowd control option.

For the scenario:
We were jumping into a floating river on boats to explore a dungeon.
Having low strength and no athletics proficiency, I failed several times and another character was late arriving to the room to jump in the river at all.
The rest of the party jumped successfully and found themselves being attacked by 8 guards in full-plate, wielding greatswords, and also some leader-character that was far stronger.
When myself and the other player arrived- the guards had split into two groups to defeat pretty much the entire party (down or dying) while the leader was toying with the monk- who was basically dead on his feet.
The Barbarian went left, I went right, no other options; we needed the tide turned and we needed it turned ASAP.

Now for those who don't recognize the floating river- this dungeon has a mean way of taking all your equipment from you. I had a stick against 4 guys in plate with greatswords.
So I did what any self-respecting Drow that could see in his own Darkness would do- brought up a black bubble and proceeded to run around (rolling Deception) and smacking them in the face for no damage to make them hit one another.
I kept 4 full-hp guys busy for over 3 rounds and completely negated 5 crits thanks to disadvantage with: one race ability, an invocation from Warlock multi-classing, and a skill check made every round that I wasn't even proficient with. And aside from my group eventually winning their fights and asking me to please stop the sphere of "cartoon violence" so they could finish off the 4- I offered no inconvenience whatsoever to the group.

Unless your battlefields are mosh-pits of ten guys all in melee range with each other- there are plenty of opportunities to use Darkness that will not cripple your party. Throw one over the front of a house and the bad guys have to slow down and find the door by touch and not sight. Dig a massive hole in the ground and use the spell so that the enemy can't see it coming. D&D is based around being imaginative- think outside the box.

[Keravath]

This has been debated endlessly in the past. There is no consensus on whether the rules require everyone to be aware of the location of unseen (non-hidden) creatures at all times. You may consider the rules unambiguous, but plenty of other disagree with you.

I would also note that if you're truly arguing that characters are aware of the location of all unseen (non-hidden) creatures at all times, regardless of range (even miles away!), then you're in a particularly small minority.

Nope :) ... personally, I think there is potentially a lot of gray area from a reality perspective. Unless the characters have very refined senses it is hard to picture how they keep track of creatures that they can't see especially at a distance. This is even more challenging in Darkness since, unlike an invisible creature, any impact the creature has on the surrounding environment is also not visible leaving mostly only sound to identify the location of the target you can't see.

However, Adventurer's League is supposed to be playing by the same rules at every table so the rules used need to be as common and easy to interpret as possible. The rules in the PHB do not indicate any extra measures required to attack a target you can't see other than disadvantage on the attack roll. The text would seem to indicate that the character is free to attack anything they can't see as well as any location they like whether or not it is occupied. The rules don't appear to address awareness of characters you can't see except for the sections on stealth vs perception checks. Otherwise it appears the characters are apparently aware of the approximate locations of opponents on the field whether or not they can actually see them though this isn't explicitly stated from what I can find.

I think all of the suggestions made look like pretty good house rules to make this particular aspect of the rules more realistic but that doesn't really work in DDAL.

[Tanarii]

The rules in the PHB do not indicate any extra measures required to attack a target you can't see other than disadvantage on the attack roll. The text would seem to indicate that the character is free to attack anything they can't see as well as any location they like whether or not it is occupied. The rules don't appear to address awareness of characters you can't see except for the sections on stealth vs perception checks. Otherwise it appears the characters are apparently aware of the approximate locations of opponents on the field whether or not they can actually see them though this isn't explicitly stated from what I can find.
You're right, it isn't explicitly stated anywhere. What is explicitly stated is Wisdom (perception) checks are the tool that is used to detect things, that you may have to guess the location of targets you cannot see or automatically miss (per PHB 194 Unseen Attackers and Targets), and per the DMG that the DM determines when something is automatically successful or not successful or requires a check.

In other words, the DM may decide that you must guess the location of a target you cannot see. Or decide a check of some kind is necessary to determine if you must guess the location of a target you cannot see. Typically DMs seem to require either a passive perception or a no action rolled Wisdom (perception) check, with DC set based on circumstances such as how far they are & ambient noise.

None of this is house rules. It's just using explicit RAW. Edit: I'll add, local DDAL DM's in the three FLGS I host my campaign in vary on how they handle "do you have to guess". It's most definitely not standardized. And I know all these DMs believe in trying to follow the concept that DDAL isn't a place for house rules.

[Xetheral]

The text would seem to indicate that the character is free to attack anything they can't see as well as any location they like whether or not it is occupied. The rules don't appear to address awareness of characters you can't see except for the sections on stealth vs perception checks. Otherwise it appears the characters are apparently aware of the approximate locations of opponents on the field whether or not they can actually see them though this isn't explicitly stated from what I can find.

(Emphasis added.) As the bolded sections suggest, you appear to be aware that you are making an inference from the rules, rather than relying only on the text itself. Your inference is reasonable, but it is not the only reasonable inference. For example, it is just as reasonable to infer, as Tanarii does in the post above, that in the absence of a specific rule governing awareness of unseen creatures, the general rules regarding task resolution apply. If the general rules apply, then the rules give the DM discretion on how to resolve locating unseen creatures (auto-success, ability check, or auto-failure).

The rules for locating unseen creatures are not explicit, and require DMs to make an inference. Doing so does not require a houserule. (Or, if you want to define Houserule broadly enough to include anything not explicitly stated in the text, then your inference is just as much a houserule as any other inference.) You and Tanarii are both following the rules as written, even though you run unseen creatures differently.

Similarly, the AL DMs that Tanarii reports each run unseen creatures differently are also following the rules as written.

[Tanarii]

You and Tanarii are both following the rules as written, even though you run unseen creatures differently.I'll be clear, I think that a DM saying "you just get disadvantage if you can't see them, no guessing needed" is following RAW too. They've just made a (possibly subconscious) ruling of allowing creatures to automatically pinpoint locations of creatures they can't see, no checks required.

[tieren]

I'll be clear, I think that a DM saying "you just get disadvantage if you can't see them, no guessing needed" is following RAW too. They've just made a (possibly subconscious) ruling of allowing creatures to automatically pinpoint locations of creatures they can't see, no checks required.

I agree you are both making rulings that are consistent with two different interpretations of the text.

My issue with not knowing the location of characters that are in darkness BUT NOT HIDING is that it effectively gives those characters Hide for free, without requiring an action, bonus action, or class ability, even though there are classes specifically designed with specific abilities to hide in darkness. You are over powering the non-hiders and usurping the abilities of the hiders.

I personally agree there should be a range issue where detection no longer makes sense, but I wouldn't give everyone hide for free.

"No you can't attack the screaming barbarian clanging the great axe against your full plate paladin friend, you are across the room and he is in darkness, roll perception" - not at my table.

[Pex]

The DM may call determine something automatically fails, automatically succeeds, or call for some form of check for anything. That includes if you can pinpointing the location of a creature sufficiently to target it without taking an additional action, such as the Search action, or if you have to guess its location. That's not a house rule. That's the general rules for adjudicating things.

Annoying when rules of the game change depending on who is DM that day.

More seriously, you're actually right. The effectiveness of illusions is highly dependent on the DM, and I would say too dependent. It's not a 5E thing. It's about the illusion and DM. Silent Image Fog Cloud sounds great, but when the PC warlock is using it every combat the DM will get annoyed, and yes, he has my sympathy. He has to nerf it at which point there's no point in doing it and it becomes a ban, and maybe all illusions won't work so well as a result. The better solution is the illusion works as the PC intended but ban the invocation of at will Silent Image. However, despite my sympathy, would that be a DM overreaction anyway? Maybe accept it as a PC tactic. Smart enemies learn of it so it won't work for BBEG fights. For random encounter/generic fights, after a round or two of PCs being unaffected a bad guy spends the action making the Investigation check.

In the end, it is up to the DM. It's what he's supposed to do, and there is no universal perfect answer. I don't recall, does the DMG discuss this in terms of PCs using illusion magic? If not it should. The designers probably can't give a definitive answer either, but at least have a discussion about it. Warn the DM against the extremes between nullifying illusions to uselessness and PCs can do whatever they want it always works no matter what.

[Demonslayer666]

I do not think Advantage should be applied to an unseen attacker when that attacker cannot see their target.

[tieren]

I do not think Advantage should be applied to an unseen attacker when that attacker cannot see their target.

They don't, the advantage from being unseen cancels the disadvantage from not seeing your target and the attack is made as normal.

In general I think it works ok, but can lead to some absurd results. Like if I am shooting arrows at an enemy who goes prone, I get disadvantage, if he ducks his head and can't see me anymore while he is prone, I can suddenly have a better chance of hitting him, even if it was long range.

[Vorpalchicken]

This is how I rule it:

1. Even though it may be technically RAW for the unseen attacker bonus to cancel out the unseen enemy bonus, common sense has to prevail. If you can't see your target you have disadvantage. Period. Otherwise you get nonsense like casting darkness on yourself to cancel range penalties since dis/advantage doesn't stack.

2. Invisible targets that do not have their location hidden are valid targets for (usually weapon) attacks (but note many SPELLS require a target to be visible AND also note that OPPORTUNITY attacks require a target to be visible.) Of course this attack has disadvantage (and I will not allow the unseen attacker bonus to cancel this (see #1)

3. Attacking, casting spells and various other activities will reveal a target's location. This is where cunning action gives an edge.

4. If the target location is not known, a 5 foot square can be guessed or sometimes deduced. If the right square is guessed it's an attack at disadvantage. If the wrong square is picked it's an auto miss.

Summary: darkness can be a useful tactic, especially if the attacker can ignore the darkness. It is not immunity from attack since unless you have a way to hide, your general location will be known and even if you do hide you may not be safe since your location may be guessed.

[Laserlight]

Going back to the OP's actual question: whether your Darkness inconveniences the party depends on your build and tactics, and the sort of battles you fight. If you're a melee build and your DM usually has fights in corridors, 30x30 rooms and other constricted spaces, and you face a lot of difficult terrain or other movement inhibiting effects, then yes, Darkness is probably going to annoy the rest of the party.

If you're using a ranged build, or usually fight in open areas, or have lots of mobility, then no, it probably won't be a problem.

I played a Darkness/Devil's Sight melee hexblade for several levels, and as I recall there was only one occasion when our archer didn't have a clear target (because the PCs who were after me and before him in initiative killed all the enemies outside my Darkness). We were in SKT so almost always fighting in spaces with lots of room; I just ran in, attacked and ran far enough out to leave some targets for the rest of the group.

[Tanarii]

I personally agree there should be a range issue where detection no longer makes sense, but I wouldn't give everyone hide for free.

"No you can't attack the screaming barbarian clanging the great axe against your full plate paladin friend, you are across the room and he is in darkness, roll perception" - not at my table.
Oh I'm with you on that. But the converse is pinpointing an archer in a 20ft diameter cloud of darkness or fog cloud at 60ft, instead of 10ft. That's already pretty unrealistic, at that distance very loud talking has the same decibel volume as a whisper right next to you.

Now double that to an archer 120ft for typical max effective range, when their are multiple sources of loud combat sounds from the melee right next to you. IMO making that a DC 20 Passive Perception check for distance and environment isn't unreasonable at all the guy at the gym. But since this is heroic D&D, maybe call it DC 15 instead.

Also take the converse ... Letting a sneaky person do their job as a scout without screwing them on a failed check. If it's DC 10 to detect normal not shouting noise at 60ft, a scout can stay 60ft ahead of their non-stealthy companions and not worry about them giving him away, while still having them within a reasonable reinforcing distance in case of trouble. He also only has to make checks for particularly creatures before he gets within 60ft of them. (It's worth noting that 70ft is the average starting encounter distance per the DMG screen, and 35 ft if surprise is involved.)

[Zalabim]

Obligatory: What people call pinpointing does not at all resemble pinpointing, unless your pinpoints are 5' wide or more (7' at the diagonal for a square, 8' 8" across a cube). I object to the use of the biased and inaccurate term.

More practically, making an attack reveals your location, whether that's 120' or 300' away. Can you then just move and hide your location again? Does that rule only matter for reaction attacks, or can you treat combat as simultaneous enough that someone who wants to retaliate can do so with their action? This is more of a choice of how strong you want unseen attackers to be.

[Segev]

To illustrate the situation more clearly, let's say that there is no darkness spell, nor silent illusion, at least not active in our example.

Instead, Bob the Normally Observant has been afflicted with both Blindness and Deafness by curse or injury. He has had no special training to deal with these conditions, nor a lifetime to adapt to them; they happened last round.

Annie and Greenhilda (the hags who afflicted him) have moved after afflicting him, but have not had any available actions yet to take the Hide action.

It would seem, by the RAW, that he knows where they are well enough to point his bow at them and only suffer Disadvantage on his attack roll.

Moreover, if their pet goblin walked into the room, Bob would be able to tell the goblin is there (as the goblin did not bother to Hide) and point his bow and arrow right at it, too.

Alternatively, one might interpret the RAW to say that things unseen and unheard "can" be detected by means other than that, but that it's the DM's call whether they are. Which invites argument between Bob's player and the DM as to whether the goblin created air currents or has a smell that lets Bob know where it is. And whether the hags' motion on the ground is sufficient to cause vibration-senses to let him know where they've moved to.

Reduce it from Bob being deprived of two senses to only one, and we still have the question of how good his echolocation really is. This remains even if his sensory deprivation is from darkness or illusion magic. Or "real" magical fog.

By the rules, there's nothing about him being unable to see or hear that prevents him from knowing exactly where the creatures are. Invisibility and the like only provide the requisite concealment to allow a Hide check. In 3e, it increased the DC of sight-based noticing by 20, which covered the issue nicely (and stacked well with hiding). We lack that in 5e, partially, I think, due to an attempt to preserve bounded accuracy as a concept.

A nice house rule might be that being Invisible automatically gives a passive Stealth score.

[MaxWilson]

To illustrate the situation more clearly, let's say that there is no darkness spell, nor silent illusion, at least not active in our example.

Instead, Bob the Normally Observant has been afflicted with both Blindness and Deafness by curse or injury. He has had no special training to deal with these conditions, nor a lifetime to adapt to them; they happened last round.

Annie and Greenhilda (the hags who afflicted him) have moved after afflicting him, but have not had any available actions yet to take the Hide action.

It would seem, by the RAW, that he knows where they are well enough to point his bow at them and only suffer Disadvantage on his attack roll.

By the RAW the hags are "hidden" because they are "unseen and unheard," and the PHB suggests that becoming unseen and unheard is exactly what the Hide action is attempting to accomplish, and that this is sufficient for your location to be unknown.


If you are hidden–both unseen and unheard–when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

I think your example would better support your point if you remove the Deafness and just make him blinded, in which case Hide would mean "moving quietly to a new location" and giving away your position would mean "making enough noise to be located."

[Segev]

By the RAW the hags are "hidden" because they are "unseen and unheard," and the PHB suggests that becoming unseen and unheard is exactly what the Hide action is attempting to accomplish, and that this is sufficient for your location to be unknown.



I think your example would better support your point if you remove the Deafness and just make him blinded, in which case Hide would mean "moving quietly to a new location" and giving away your position would mean "making enough noise to be located."

When you use Hide, you set the DC to determine your location. What is the DC from the auto-granted "hidden condition?" Infinite?

It's worth noting that there's no Advantage or bonus for "moving quietly" due to using magic to fly. So do you automatically hear every creature moving that isn't taking the Hide action?

Do you, in fact, know where every fly in the room is, automatically noticing them all, as long as they aren't expressly taking the Hide action?

Can you tell there are 12 flies, one of which is invisible, in that swarm around the corpse, without any Perception check needed? Is it any harder to tell there are 12 than 11 with a Perception check? The fly isn't Hiding. It's just invisible.


These are all left to DM call, and will never be consistent, because the RAW are...I'll be generous and say "leaning too heavily on rulings" rather than "incomplete," here.

[Tanarii]

Do you, in fact, know where every fly in the room is, automatically noticing them all, as long as they aren't expressly taking the Hide action?

Can you tell there are 12 flies, one of which is invisible, in that swarm around the corpse, without any Perception check needed? Is it any harder to tell there are 12 than 11 with a Perception check? The fly isn't Hiding. It's just invisible.


These are all left to DM call, and will never be consistent, because the RAW are...I'll be generous and say "leaning too heavily on rulings" rather than "incomplete," here.and rightly so. Given how many variables there are in play, attempting to do anything other that leave it to DM ruling leaves us with the garbage that was 3e or 4e stealth.

I remember what a rules arguments mess that was all too well. In fact, i remember it affecting my mindset so strongly that I tried to bring it into 5e discussions of stealth and hiding.

Its 5e's stealth and hiding and detection rules that taught me what rulings and not rules really means. And why it is so awesome.

[Keravath]

One of the reasons I sometimes prefer the approach allowing characters to attack unseen (but not hidden - without guessing their location) opponents with disadvantage is that it reduces the power associated with the various mechanisms for blocking vision and invisibility.

For example, a warlock or sorcerer with the ability to see in magical darkness can cast darkness on a nearby but movable item. If they are 120' from the combat, then from a realism perspective, one would think it unreasonable for attackers to target them directly since there is virtually no way for their movement to be heard at that distance over the sounds of combat. These characters could be anywhere in the darkness and can attack all other targets with advantage while being virtually immune to targeted counter attacks.

Allowing attacks against unseen targets allows these characters to be attacked but with disadvantage. Although this is powerful, it is not virtual immunity to attacks.

Similarly, moving the Darkness effect into a melee, the darkness actually doesn't make any difference to the die rolls by two melee opponents who can't see each other ... their weapon attacks are straight rolls.

Although not very realistic in a lot of ways, the approach outlined in the first post, based on RAW, is simple to implement AND does not make the ability to become invisible or attack from Darkness overpowered since the character can still be attacked ... just with disadvantage ... when a more "realistic" interpretation might make them immune to attack or make attackers have to guess their location as if they received the benefit of the Hide action for no cost.

[Segev]

and rightly so. Given how many variables there are in play, attempting to do anything other that leave it to DM ruling leaves us with the garbage that was 3e or 4e stealth.

I remember what a rules arguments mess that was all too well. In fact, i remember it affecting my mindset so strongly that I tried to bring it into 5e discussions of stealth and hiding.

Its 5e's stealth and hiding and detection rules that taught me what rulings and not rules really means. And why it is so awesome.

I actually had fewer problems with 3e's Stealth than 5e's, which suggests that either you're objectively wrong (unlikely), or that this is a far more subjective judgment (more likely).

[Pex]

and rightly so. Given how many variables there are in play, attempting to do anything other that leave it to DM ruling leaves us with the garbage that was 3e or 4e stealth.

I remember what a rules arguments mess that was all too well. In fact, i remember it affecting my mindset so strongly that I tried to bring it into 5e discussions of stealth and hiding.

Its 5e's stealth and hiding and detection rules that taught me what rulings and not rules really means. And why it is so awesome.

What problem? Roll Perception vs another's Roll Stealth. Invisibility gives a bonus to the stealth roll.

[MaxWilson]

When you use Hide, you set the DC to determine your location. What is the DC from the auto-granted "hidden condition?" Infinite?

RAW certainly seems to suggest so.


Blinded
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.

...

Deafened
A deafened creature can’t hear and automatically fails any ability check that requires hearing.


(emphasis added)

If you're blinded and deafened, it's reasonable for the DM to declare that you automatically fail at attempts to locate the hags through sight or hearing.

Impossible things don't have a DC, they're just impossible, but if you want to call that "infinite DC" than yes, that might be appropriate here.

[Malifice]

To illustrate the situation more clearly, let's say that there is no darkness spell, nor silent illusion, at least not active in our example.

Instead, Bob the Normally Observant has been afflicted with both Blindness and Deafness by curse or injury. He has had no special training to deal with these conditions, nor a lifetime to adapt to them; they happened last round.

Annie and Greenhilda (the hags who afflicted him) have moved after afflicting him, but have not had any available actions yet to take the Hide action.

It would seem, by the RAW, that he knows where they are well enough to point his bow at them and only suffer Disadvantage on his attack roll.

Moreover, if their pet goblin walked into the room, Bob would be able to tell the goblin is there (as the goblin did not bother to Hide) and point his bow and arrow right at it, too.

Alternatively, one might interpret the RAW to say that things unseen and unheard "can" be detected by means other than that, but that it's the DM's call whether they are. Which invites argument between Bob's player and the DM as to whether the goblin created air currents or has a smell that lets Bob know where it is. And whether the hags' motion on the ground is sufficient to cause vibration-senses to let him know where they've moved to.

Reduce it from Bob being deprived of two senses to only one, and we still have the question of how good his echolocation really is. This remains even if his sensory deprivation is from darkness or illusion magic. Or "real" magical fog.

By the rules, there's nothing about him being unable to see or hear that prevents him from knowing exactly where the creatures are. Invisibility and the like only provide the requisite concealment to allow a Hide check. In 3e, it increased the DC of sight-based noticing by 20, which covered the issue nicely (and stacked well with hiding). We lack that in 5e, partially, I think, due to an attempt to preserve bounded accuracy as a concept.

A nice house rule might be that being Invisible automatically gives a passive Stealth score.

Hidden in the PHB is defined as 'unseen AND unheard'.

If you're both blind and deaf, other creatures are always hidden from you and your perception checks to locate them with hearing or sight automatically fail (also RAW).

So barring a lucky guess, or the ability to perceive the target using a different sense, you're in a world of trouble.

[Zalabim]

Obligatory the second, pointing at something that is making noise while you are blind(folded) is not an example or test of Echolocation.

3E's stealth rules worked in that they were easy to resolve and did not work in the sense that they did not result in engaging gameplay, simulate any sort of reality, or provide narratives similar to the stories that inspired the game.

[Segev]

Obligatory the second, pointing at something that is making noise while you are blind(folded) is not an example or test of Echolocation.

3E's stealth rules worked in that they were easy to resolve and did not work in the sense that they did not result in engaging gameplay, simulate any sort of reality, or provide narratives similar to the stories that inspired the game.
I don’t care enough to argue the first point here.

What was I engaging about the 3e rules hat 5e does better? Your assertions in no way give me any idea how you would not say the same thing about any other stealth “system” that is just a set of conditions in which to use a particular subset of the skill subsystem.

[Tanarii]

I actually had fewer problems with 3e's Stealth than 5e's, which suggests that either you're objectively wrong (unlikely), or that this is a far more subjective judgment (more likely).
Probably should have put an IMO in there somewhere. :smallwink:

IMO the problems caused by 3e's Stealth were things like being able to stealth when in plain view due to corner LoS clipping. Lots and lots of edge cases that were caused by the attempts to define precisely when and when you couldn't use the skill. Mearls has a wonderful video on the matter and why they did what they did with 5e. I spent years arguing the minutia of 3e (and to a lesser degree 4e) RAW on the WotC forums. In retrospect, it's clear it's one of those things more detailed & precise rules doesn't help much. Be it from a perspective of running a game, verisimilitude (feeling "real"), or simulation (rules as a physics engine for the in-game world).

Unsurprisingly, these are similar things people argue about with 5e Stealth. The difference is the answer is "work with your DM to get a ruling, within these guidelines, that makes sense to you guys".

Not an answer that people that love rules minutia and interactions enjoy. Nor those that want to run tactical miniatures combat without DM ruling on each little piece. Nor those that want to argue rules interactions at length on forums. (Please note I'm all of these at various times.)

[Segev]

IMO the problems caused by 3e's Stealth were things like being able to stealth when in plain view due to corner LoS clipping. Lots and lots of edge cases that were caused by the attempts to define precisely when and when you couldn't use the skill.

Okay, that's fair. But that actually doesn't come near addressing the points that have been under discussion, as the elements of 3e stealth being discussed didn't involve "LoS clipping" at all, but being actively unseen.

[Tanarii]

Okay, that's fair. But that actually doesn't come near addressing the points that have been under discussion, as the elements of 3e stealth being discussed didn't involve "LoS clipping" at all, but being actively unseen.
As far as I know, 3e didn't allow for not detecting pinpointing creatures that weren't using Stealth at all. Which is just as bad.

Edit: In fact, the term "pinpointing" is one we used to use in 3e/4e discussions all the time, to distinguish between detecting precisely and generally.

[Segev]

As far as I know, 3e didn't allow for not detecting pinpointing creatures that weren't using Stealth at all. Which is just as bad.

Edit: In fact, the term "pinpointing" is one we used to use in 3e/4e discussions all the time, to distinguish between detecting precisely and generally.

Being unseen (e.g. invisible) put a +20 on the DC to spot you. All Stealth actions did was let you roll to increase that DC by whatever you rolled. 3e had rules (which were often ignored unless somebody actually cared about stealth) for how hard it was to spot creatures of various sizes at various distances when they weren't actively trying to use stealth; use of stealth increased those DCs.

[Pex]

Probably should have put an IMO in there somewhere. :smallwink:

IMO the problems caused by 3e's Stealth were things like being able to stealth when in plain view due to corner LoS clipping. Lots and lots of edge cases that were caused by the attempts to define precisely when and when you couldn't use the skill. Mearls has a wonderful video on the matter and why they did what they did with 5e. I spent years arguing the minutia of 3e (and to a lesser degree 4e) RAW on the WotC forums. In retrospect, it's clear it's one of those things more detailed & precise rules doesn't help much. Be it from a perspective of running a game, verisimilitude (feeling "real"), or simulation (rules as a physics engine for the in-game world).

Unsurprisingly, these are similar things people argue about with 5e Stealth. The difference is the answer is "work with your DM to get a ruling, within these guidelines, that makes sense to you guys".

Not an answer that people that love rules minutia and interactions enjoy. Nor those that want to run tactical miniatures combat without DM ruling on each little piece. Nor those that want to argue rules interactions at length on forums. (Please note I'm all of these at various times.)

Nor those who want consistency so that they don't have to ask the same question to the next DM they play with. :smallwink:

[Maelynn]

The farther I waded into this discussion, the more it sounds like casting Darkness is turning the area into one big game of Battleship. And I have to admit I like that idea enough to consider using it.

- character casts Darkness
- DM swipes all pawns in affected circle off the table and places them on a drawn circle behind the DM screen
- on their turn, players must use their move by passing the DM a note saying a) whether they move or not and b) how far in which direction
- the DM moves the pawns behind the screen to keep track of who is where
- every attack will be like shooting at the Battleship grid... "you're trying to hit this square here? *imitates splashing sound* misssss!"
- if a creature reveals their presence, their pawn is replaced onto the table grid until the start of their next move, when it's removed again (regardless of whether the creature moved or not, because hey, you don't know!)

Uh-huh, yeah, I'm really starting to like this idea...

[MaxWilson]

The farther I waded into this discussion, the more it sounds like casting Darkness is turning the area into one big game of Battleship. And I have to admit I like that idea enough to consider using it.

- character casts Darkness
- DM swipes all pawns in affected circle off the table and places them on a drawn circle behind the DM screen
- on their turn, players must use their move by passing the DM a note saying a) whether they move or not and b) how far in which direction
- the DM moves the pawns behind the screen to keep track of who is where
- every attack will be like shooting at the Battleship grid... "you're trying to hit this square here? *imitates splashing sound* misssss!"
- if a creature reveals their presence, their pawn is replaced onto the table grid until the start of their next move, when it's removed again (regardless of whether the creature moved or not, because hey, you don't know!)

Uh-huh, yeah, I'm really starting to like this idea...

That's basically what my Underdark is like: stealth-on-stealth battles with drow warriors and goblins, with everybody Hiding and then spending subsequent rounds readying attacks for whoever gives away their position with an attack, and maneuvering to find advantageous terrain where most other characters will not be able to hit them with their readied attacks when you finally do make your attack, and using Minor Illusion to try to trick others into using up their readied attacks on a fake target, etc., etc.

The Underdark is supposed to be terrifying.

P.S. This is one of my major motivations for trying to automate 5E, because stealth-on-stealth battles are a pain to DM without tools, especially if you want an audit trail to show players afterward what was really happening, to be fair and to help them learn from their mistakes. Passing notes to manipulate characters on a grid that only the DM can see is a pain and a half and I usually wind up using some form of TotM just to reduce the amount of work, even though this is exactly the scenario where avoiding TotM would be most desirable.

[Tanarii]

Nor those who want consistency so that they don't have to ask the same question to the next DM they play with. :smallwink:

More rules didn't give that either. That's my point.

[Pex]

More rules didn't give that either. That's my point.

Number of rules are irrelevant. Clear concise rules that don't need interpretation based on who is DM that day are what matter.

[Malifice]

Number of rules are irrelevant. Clear concise rules that don't need interpretation based on who is DM that day are what matter.

You really dont get postmodernism do you?

;)

[Tanarii]

Number of rules are irrelevant. Clear concise rules that don't need interpretation based on who is DM that day are what matter.
3e and 4e tried that. They went with detailed stealth and detection rules, and ended up creating edge cases and weird situations all over the place.

5e gives the DM General tools for resolution instead, when needed.

I like the latter more.

[Segev]

You really dont get postmodernism do you?

;)
Ugh. Don’t get me started.

[Maelynn]

Passing notes to manipulate characters on a grid that only the DM can see is a pain and a half and I usually wind up using some form of TotM just to reduce the amount of work, even though this is exactly the scenario where avoiding TotM would be most desirable.

I can imagine that if (a large part of) your setting is on big Darkness area, it can become quite tedious to keep track of everything. Moving the battle scene behind the DM screen is only useful on a small scale. It sounds quite intriguing, to really use the lack of light in the Underdark to set up encounters this way. Especially with so many playable races having Darkvision.

Good thing that there aren't any arcane casters in my party, nor a Tiefling. I can keep this situational and toss an NPC at them who has it, just so I can test this mechanic and see how I like it.