Short example of how too much munchkin can piss party

[Benny89]

So I have that one player that wanted to play Hexbalde because he wanted to do Darkness + Devil's Sight combo. Cast Darkness on himself (on a weapon) and charge on enemies with that so he can have advantage.

Since that combo is overrated and can be easly countered by Daylight and Dispel Magic (which is known by 9/10 casters) I wasn't too worry about it so I let him do his combo in first few fights. Rest of the party started to get irritated by enemies being constatly covered in Darkness.

Needless to say in some next fight he goes again with combo. This was this moment I said to myself "ok, enough Mr.One-Trick Pony" and then one of my other players says "I use Dispel Magic... on Warlock". And bum, warlock is out of Darkness. Next round he falls from 2 crits from enemies (since he has poor AC as most Hexblades) and after being healed by party he goes with why did they do that and party said that they have enough of his stupid Darkness and them having disadvantage and having to play around his Darkness Sphere. They told him he can use that away from them if he wants but if he will cover enemies in front of them again they will Dispel him every time or Daylight him.

Needless to say- some combos are not really party-friendly :D.

Also I don't understand a fuss about this combo. It's super easy to counter with 2 of most popular spells in game and it really mess other party members.

[Vorpalchicken]

That trick is too old to be considered munchkinry. Sounds more like poor tactics and bad teamwork. He could have stayed at range or just ended his turn not adjacent to baddies. It's only 15' radius. Also a Hexblade ought to have decent AC also given their shield and armour proficiency. I hope you rolled those crits in front of him and not behind a screen.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Its a nifty combo but like anything it can be overdone and used at the wrong time.

Once your player decides when to use it, and when not to, he'll be more effective.

Consider play action passes on 3rd and long. The defense is likely coming after the QB and not even watching for the run. On 2nd or 3rd and short though play action can open things up a bit.

You can't cast darkness every time just like you can't use play action every time.

[Benny89]

That trick is too old to be considered munchkinry. Sounds more like poor tactics and bad teamwork. He could have stayed at range or just ended his turn not adjacent to baddies. It's only 15' radius. Also a Hexblade ought to have decent AC also given their shield and armour proficiency. I hope you rolled those crits in front of him and not behind a screen.

What screen? We don't play using Skype or anything, it was normal table-game.

As for crits, enemy had half-elf archer on high groud with advantage and there goes one crit and other melee fighter next to Warlock got natural 20. Happens, dices are dices.

15 feet radius in corridors, rooms, tunnels, dungeons is still enough to give rest of the party disadvantage to attacks vs enemies that got caught in Darkness as well as making their range character (longbow SS Fighter) not being able to shot to enemies backline because of Darkness between him and them. It especially piss their Crossbow-Rogue since he doesn't get sneak attacks because Darkness makes him not see if ally stands next to enemy or not and it cancels his Advantage.

Not to mention that everyone and their dogs know Daylight and Dispell Magic spell in this game.... So this combo is very weak in real-gameplay scenario.

As for Decent AC: Breastplate with Dex 14 is AC 16. He is using polerams (of course) with PAM so his AC is not that impressive at all.

[Nhorianscum]

Attacks from blind people on blind people are neutral. Not at disadvantage.

Sounds like your players should have asked the lock to...

1) Stand off to the side inside a dark sphere and EB.
2) Move off to the side or farther back (to block archers) after his mele routine.
3) Use not-darkness when the trick was actively harmful.

Or just...

4) Have any comunication at all between players. Like adult humans do.

As for the party kill. **** move.

Your reaction to this commonly used built in class feature as a DM, and the other players response to the same are all "leave this table NOW" red flags.

[Benny89]

Attacks from blind people on blind people are neutral. Not at disadvantage.

Sounds like your players should have asked the lock to...

1) Stand off to the side inside a dark sphere and EB.
2) Move off to the side or farther back (to block archers) after his mele routine.
3) Use not-darkness when the trick was actively harmful.

Or just...

4) Have any comunication at all between players. Like adult humans do.

As for the party kill. **** move.

But aren't attacks to creatures inside Darkness at disadvantage? After all - you are shooting blindly inside Darkness Sphere.

You mean party kill when they Dispelled his Darkness? That "kill" on lock (he survived) was just my good dices.

I agree they should have just talked but I am not there to baby sit them. But I blame lock more. Casting Darkness and just yolo in front of your team or to group of enemies so rest of the team have harder time is just well... not very well planned.

They should maybe talked. But did their in-game characters wanted to? Or at some point their characters decided it's enough?

Well, me as DM, I jut narrate amd watch :D

[Trustypeaches]

I just have my Imp carry a lantern with darkness cast inside it.

On it's turn it opens the lantern and lets darkness around whatever enemy I want to hit, and I hit it (depending on initiative orders or if the DM has Imp move on the same turn). Because Imps can fly, I can position it high enough that the sphere of darkness only really occlude a single 5x5 square rather than 40x40 one.

And the imp can move every turn. This effectively keeps Darkness from hindering my allies.

[Beechgnome]

What screen? We don't play using Skype or anything, it was normal table-game.


Reading this made me feel really really old.

[Nhorianscum]

But aren't attacks to creatures inside Darkness at disadvantage? After all - you are shooting blindly inside Darkness Sphere.

You mean party kill when they Dispelled his Darkness? That "kill" on lock (he survived) was just my good dices.

I agree they should have just talked but I am not there to baby sit them. But I blame lock more. Casting Darkness and just yolo in front of your team or to group of enemies so rest of the team have harder time is just well... not very well planned.

They should maybe talked. But did their in-game characters wanted to? Or at some point their characters decided it's enough?

Well, me as DM, I jut narrate amd watch :D

You are the DM, yes, you are there to baby sit. If this happens all the time it's toxic. This was not the case.

If their characters are just down with casually murdering each other over a mild inconvenience then they're sociopaths and have no place at the table. Session 0 is a thing for a reason.

If the characters have an issue and fsr are unwilling to resolve that issue or are unable to then the players should absolutely talk about it out of game for the sake of either future development, or maximum hilarity on the blow up.

Attacks in darkness have disadvantage, additionally attacks ON creatures in darkness have advantage. It cancels. Straight roll.

Running in is suboptimal play, casting darkness with a higher than 2nd level slot is suboptimal play. Nothing munchkinny or wrong here. Just some dude enjoying his character. If he dies he dies. No need to get pissy and screw with em instead of just talking.

The OP was not "neutral GM" it was "Gotcha DM".

[Trustypeaches]

On a side note, attacks launched into darkness should just be straight rolls if neither the people firing into the darkness nor the enemies inside the darkness can see through it.


Disadvantage on attack rolls from not seeing the target
Advantage on attack rolls from the enemy's not being able to see you

These cancel out. It shouldn't be imposing that much of a hindrance on your allies regardless unless you rule against RAW on that.

[Benny89]

On a side note, attacks launched into darkness should just be straight rolls if neither the people firing into the darkness nor the enemies inside the darkness can see through it.


Disadvantage on attack rolls from not seeing the target
Advantage on attack rolls from the enemy's not being able to see you

These cancel out. It shouldn't be imposing that much of a hindrance on your allies regardless unless you rule against RAW on that.

Noted and corrected, thank you.

[Benny89]

You are the DM, yes, you are there to baby sit. If this happens all the time it's toxic. This was not the case.

If their characters are just down with casually murdering each other over a mild inconvenience then they're sociopaths and have no place at the table. Session 0 is a thing for a reason.

If the characters have an issue and fsr are unwilling to resolve that issue or are unable to then the players should absolutely talk about it out of game for the sake of either future development, or maximum hilarity on the blow up.

Attacks in darkness have disadvantage, additionally attacks ON creatures in darkness have advantage. It cancels. Straight roll.

Running in is suboptimal play, casting darkness with a higher than 2nd level slot is suboptimal play. Nothing munchkinny or wrong here. Just some dude enjoying his character. If he dies he dies. No need to get pissy and screw with em instead of just talking.

The OP was not "neutral GM" it was "Gotcha DM".

I understand where you are coming from but I won't baby sit over 30 years old people. I think they are old enough to get over it without my help. I babysit their characters in games, not them.

So far it was first "conflict" in party. I won't jump on it like firefighter, because it may yet do some good for them when they solve it by themselfs.

If situations like that would repeat then it might by toxic. Right now I will just see what will come out of it.

From my experience you should treat others like adults first before you treat them like children.

My personal opinion only.

[Malifice]

So I have that one player that wanted to play Hexbalde because he wanted to do Darkness + Devil's Sight combo. Cast Darkness on himself (on a weapon) and charge on enemies with that so he can have advantage.

Since that combo is overrated and can be easly countered by Daylight and Dispel Magic (which is known by 9/10 casters) I wasn't too worry about it so I let him do his combo in first few fights. Rest of the party started to get irritated by enemies being constatly covered in Darkness.

Needless to say in some next fight he goes again with combo. This was this moment I said to myself "ok, enough Mr.One-Trick Pony" and then one of my other players says "I use Dispel Magic... on Warlock". And bum, warlock is out of Darkness. Next round he falls from 2 crits from enemies (since he has poor AC as most Hexblades) and after being healed by party he goes with why did they do that and party said that they have enough of his stupid Darkness and them having disadvantage and having to play around his Darkness Sphere. They told him he can use that away from them if he wants but if he will cover enemies in front of them again they will Dispel him every time or Daylight him.

Needless to say- some combos are not really party-friendly :D.

Also I don't understand a fuss about this combo. It's super easy to counter with 2 of most popular spells in game and it really mess other party members.

He gets 2/slots per Short rest, and it takes an Action to cast Darkness (it does last for 10 minutes though). Every single time he takes damage he needs to pass a Con save or the Darkness drops.

While it lasts, he gets advantage to hit creatures, and they get disadvantage to hit him. Whoopee.

There are a ton of drawbacks to living in a sphere of Darkness.

For starters he cant be targeted by many beneficial spells (including Healing Word). He also cant be excluded (or included) from the aura of many beneficial (or harmful) spells such as a friendly Spirit Guardians (meaning he'll take damage from the Clerics spell).

In addition enemy creatures in the darkness have the same immunity to many spells. They cant be targeted by many of his friends spells (magic missile, Hex, charm person, counterspell, hunters mark, bane, etc etc), class features and attacks of opportunity.

Enforce the RAW on darkness and targeting restrictions on spells, class features and so forth (most of them cant be used/ can only be used on 'a target you can see'). As long as you do this, the tactic becomes a lot more situational and quite often more detrimental than positive.

[Laserlight]

Dark + Devil's Sight can easily be countered...by casters who have the right spells. I did much of SKT with a hexblade and that combo, and never got it countered. And never caused a problem for my allies, although there were a couple of times in tight quarters when I used Hex instead of Darkness.

It sounds like your warlock is a poor tactician and your players are immature. That's not the fault of the spell.

Incidentally, the real problem with Darkness combo is that you spend your first turn casting Darkness instead of killing the enemy. If you're doing a long fight, it's great, but if you're finishing most combats in three rounds, it's just not worthwhile.

[sophontteks]

If the combo is blinding the party its a bad tactic. Why would a warlock run up to enemies with darkness and blind the party when they could stay back and do the same thing with EB without giving the whole party disadvantage?

This is not munchkin, its just plain bad.

[Slybluedemon]

Reading this made me feel really really old.

Its fine, people still use DM Screens

[Malifice]

I agree they should have just talked but I am not there to baby sit them.

As DM, yes you are.

You're not just an impartial Referee and numbers guy (we can get computers to do that). Your job is also to ensure one player isnt dominating the others, move the spotlight to allow all players at your table to shine, encourage engagement and make sure everyone is entertained.

DMing is as much an art as it is a science. You're there to encourage quieter players to comfortably engage more, manage the more difficult players, keep people entertained and off their phones, exersize a level of showmanship (fake rolls behind the screen, build suspense, steer the action and so forth).

Youre the director of the action. You work with the players to create the story their characters are engaged in, but you also manage the players to ensure a better game is had by all.

If some player does a jerk move like attacking another PC (to that players detriment) as referee and DM you absolutely have an obligation to intervene.

That might involve hitting the pause button on the action, and a discussion of your expectations in the game, the social contract of your table, any issues that players might be having with the story or your DMing style (or with other players) and so forth.

Just talk to them like adults.

[brainface]

Its fine, people still use DM Screens

(Like really old people.)

[Malifice]

(Like really old people.)

I use them. The're a great tool. I can roll behind them, ignore the results, pretend to look something up based on that roll, sigh loudly, shake my head and then look up and ask the players what they're doing.

Part of the showmanship of being a good DM.

[Benny89]

As DM, yes you are.

You're not just an impartial Referee and numbers guy (we can get computers to do that). Your job is also to ensure one player isnt dominating the others, move the spotlight to allow all players at your table to shine, encourage engagement and make sure everyone is entertained.

DMing is as much an art as it is a science. You're there to encourage quieter players to comfortably engage more, manage the more difficult players, keep people entertained and off their phones, exersize a level of showmanship (fake rolls behind the screen, build suspense, steer the action and so forth).

Youre the director of the action. You work with the players to create the story their characters are engaged in, but you also manage the players to ensure a better game is had by all.

If some player does a jerk move like attacking another PC (to that players detriment) as referee and DM you absolutely have an obligation to intervene.

That might involve hitting the pause button on the action, and a discussion of your expectations in the game, the social contract of your table, any issues that players might be having with the story or your DMing style (or with other players) and so forth.

Just talk to them like adults.


I disagree with that, I am not their father or their psychologist. I trust that people are mature enough to solve their problems and I only step in when things go out of hand. Not at every single time. It's normal that when new people start playing with each other- there might be some conflicts but if it's nothing major I treat it as normal thing when new people start playing with each other. I personally would rather resolve such issues as player by myself by talking to other player after session, then rely on DM to hold my hand.

Also you can't just treat every hostile action that in-game character makes towards other player in-game character as it's big halo. Conflicts in the party (in game world) are very good and add a lot of flavour. There is nothing worse than boring "we are best friends" party. The most important part is for people to understand that their in-game characters are not them, and hostility of other players is usually not directed to them, but it's part of roleplay.

I monitor situation and I will only step in when I see it might impact future playing. Right now- There is no need for me. I treat them as adults and first I will give them chance to solve that by themselfs. It usually does more good in the long run.

We may have different ways of DM-ing but I like to treat people more like capable beings who can solve their problems first and foremost.

[Benny89]

I use them. The're a great tool. I can roll behind them, ignore the results, pretend to look something up based on that roll, sigh loudly, shake my head and then look up and ask the players what they're doing.

Part of the showmanship of being a good DM.

A, that screens. I don't use them because I don't like making secret rolls. Every rolls I make is visible. The results might be secret but nobody will question what had happen if they saw secret roll showing 19.

Also for me Screen unnecessary seperate DM as "different member of the table" while I like to feel like I am same part of table as the rest of people. Of course that is only my style, everyone should use what they prefer :).


And now, you are not that "old" guys :D. I am just not native speaker and I didn't catch what did you mean by "screen". I am 35 and I still see some DM using "screens".

[EggKookoo]

Also you can't just treat every hostile action that in-game character makes towards other player in-game character as it's big halo. Conflicts in the party (in game world) are very good and add a lot of flavour. There is nothing worse than boring "we are best friends" party. The most important part is for people to understand that their in-game characters are not them, and hostility of other players is usually not directed to them, but it's part of roleplay.

I don't think I've ever seen in my many* years of playing and GMing a situation where one PC literally attacked another PC where it didn't end up in ruining the game. I'm not talking about disagreements over what to do next, or one player backseat-playing another ("no, don't do this, hit that guy!"). Or even a player outright mocking another player for making a stupid decision. Those are all fairly well within what I would consider the normal range of player discourse. But as soon as some one says the equivalent of "I hit Bob's character" and it's not part of some agreed-upon scheme or desperate attempt to save Bob's character somehow, then the table has gone rotten and it's basically game over for real. If not that session, it won't be long.

* I'm considerably older than 35. That's probably how long I've been playing TTRPGs.

[Benny89]

I don't think I've ever seen in my many* years of playing and GMing a situation where one PC literally attacked another PC where it didn't end up in ruining the game. I'm not talking about disagreements over what to do next, or one player backseat-playing another ("no, don't do this, hit that guy!"). Or even a player outright mocking another player for making a stupid decision. Those are all fairly well within what I would consider the normal range of player discourse. But as soon as some one says the equivalent of "I hit Bob's character" and it's not part of some agreed-upon scheme or desperate attempt to save Bob's character somehow, then the table has gone rotten and it's basically game over for real. If not that session, it won't be long.

* I'm considerably older than 35. That's probably how long I've been playing TTRPGs.

Well, maybe I just met different players and came from different RPG background but I many times took part in group as player or DM where players schemed against each other or even make hostile moves, especially if part of party was more good, and part more evil.

But they understood that those people simply roleplay their character. My friend who played Paladin wasn't mad at other guy who left him for enemies to capture him because he was very opportunistic and kind of cold hearted Sorcerer and he used Paladin to get away with life. While Paladin in-game was mad at him and later it lead to many nice clashes- players had fun roleplayin their characters.

I come from many other systems like Warhammer, Neuroshima, Eclipse Phase etc. where hidden schemes and conflicts in party are normal. So do my players and friends.

The "we are all friends" party in RPG system is just too fake, especially in DnD where alligments are in play and evil gods are openly worshiped.

Imo it's part of being good player too. You roleplay your character and try to act like your character would do, not you. If you are evil rogue who is being offered a bag of gold to lie to your party member you should ask your self not "is this ok for me to do that" but "what would my in-game character do?". It's roleplaying. It's important to have a line between you and your character and not take in-game things personally.

That is my opinion, everyone should play as they see fit :)

[Matticusrex]

Devil sight + darkness is fair when you remember the warlock's horrible spell limit, also attacking creatures in darkness from the outside causes both advantage and disadvantage so they get a normal attack roll. You played blindness wrong.

[Kenny Snoggins]

If the combo is blinding the party its a bad tactic. Why would a warlock run up to enemies with darkness and blind the party when they could stay back and do the same thing with EB without giving the whole party disadvantage?

This is not munchkin, its just plain bad.

Darkness doesn't give the party disadvantage. It's a flat roll, although it will counter advantage they may have had from other sources. Its surprising how widespread that misconception is.

I find martials like the darkness bubble even if they can't see through it. My bardlock often moves forward into the front lines with his darkness bubble so the battered fighter/ paladin can escape combat and still get a ranged attack after moving without eating a wall of opportunity attacks. On the front lines the only problem with it I have seen is that you cannot be deselected by an evoker sculpting a spell.

I think it's sort of strange how nobody in the OPs entire table knows how advantage and disadvantage works.

[EggKookoo]

The "we are all friends" party in RPG system is just too fake, especially in DnD where alligments are in play and evil gods are openly worshiped.

Imo it's part of being good player too. You roleplay your character and try to act like your character would do, not you. If you are evil rogue who is being offered a bag of gold to lie to your party member you should ask your self not "is this ok for me to do that" but "what would my in-game character do?". It's roleplaying. It's important to have a line between you and your character and not take in-game things personally.

"We're all friends" may be fake, but what about "Yeah, the rogue keep betraying us but we'll keep him alive and/or in the party because our players are all friends"? Why does the rest of the party let the rogue stick around? Or do they not know he's lying to them?

And I agree that if no one's taking anything personally or actually getting upset at the table, then everything's fine. The tone of your original post made it seem like the players were getting annoyed with the warlock's behavior.


That is my opinion, everyone should play as they see fit :)

Oh, of course. I wasn't proscribing anything. Just observing.

[TheUser]

Since that combo is overrated and can be easly countered by Daylight and Dispel Magic (which is known by 9/10 casters) I wasn't too worry about it so I let him do his combo in first few fights. Rest of the party started to get irritated by enemies being constatly covered in Darkness.. Next round he falls from 2 crits from enemies (since he has poor AC as most Hexblades) and after being healed by party he goes with why did they do that and party said that they have enough of his stupid Darkness and them having disadvantage and having to play around his Darkness Sphere. They told him he can use that away from them if he wants but if he will cover enemies in front of them again they will Dispel him every time or Daylight him.

Needless to say- some combos are not really party-friendly :D.

This isn't how attacking a unit in darkness works.
The attacker and target are both unable to see eachother in this case which means it's advantage + disadvantage which is just a normal attack roll.

If the rules had been properly executed on the players wouldn't have been annoyed.

[Benny89]

This isn't how attacking a unit in darkness works.
The attacker and target are both unable to see eachother in this case which means it's advantage + disadvantage which is just a normal attack roll.

If the rules had been properly executed on the players wouldn't have been annoyed.

I stood corrected by another user and I admit that I have ruled it wrong. Anyway, so far party seems to get along well and it seems I made it sound like it is some really big conflict which was not. It should be all good.

And while I agree that I ruled Darkness wrong, It seems logical to me when you try to shoot from range weapon inside a total Darkness- you don't really see where you are aiming?

But to not hurt Warlock anymore since his combo is already easy countered anyway I will just go by RAW and correct myself on next session.

We learn something every day.

[Willie the Duck]

This was this moment I said to myself "ok, enough Mr.One-Trick Pony"

Benny, I think this is where you lost people on the idea that you are just a neutral arbiter letting the chips fall where they may. This sounded like delighting in table-chaos, and I think people got the impression that you were less 35+, and more 15-. First impressions and all that.


Also I don't understand a fuss about this combo. It's super easy to counter with 2 of most popular spells in game and it really mess other party members.

Things get fuss for lots of different reasons.

Some things break peoples' sense of realism/verisimilitude (18 lbs. pikes with 10' reach).
Some things make X play like Y even though people were expecting Z
Some things just don't seem fair (tridents being martial weapons but being pretty much statistically the same as their simple weapon counterpart).
Some are genuinely not overpowered, but seem to be convoluted (possibly unintentional) accidental confluence of design decisions (one-handed quarterstaff fighting with a shield and PAM is just about in line with other uses of your character resources, but it just seems like a bad accident that it is RAW, so it really bothers some people).
Others, like Leomund's Tiny Hut or this combo, are mostly a fuss because they are 1) highly disruptive and 2) are genuinely powerful (if limited) if you don't counter them, making them something the DM feels they have to countermand, and then the character who put a lot of effort into it feel like they wasted their build assets. As you saw, the player with this combo ran (somewhat) roughshod over the game (apparently as much over their own party as the opposition, which is also not uncommon) right up until people (fellow players this time) pulled out the shutdown, and now the warlock has spent an invocation and a known spell (the former still being useful as a lantern replacement, the latter can be swapped out next level, but still...) and gets no benefit. So who here has had any real fun out of the situation? That's why people fuss. To pour salt on the wound, it all looks like this was an intentional addition that the designers put in <head-desk>.

[Benny89]

Benny, I think this is where you lost people on the idea that you are just a neutral arbiter letting the chips fall where they may. This sounded like delighting in table-chaos, and I think people got the impression that you were less 35+, and more 15-. First impressions and all that.

You are probably correct. Sorry for bad first impression. My intention was to let him have fun with his combo because if I wanted I could have countered it sooner (they fight a lot of enemy magic users and Daylight and Dispel are available I believe to every caster class) but I wanted him to have his fun and see if he will try to just abuse it or use it with cautions or some thought behind it. Since every fight all he did was cast Darkness on weapon and yolo on enemies, I thought it was time to counter Mr.One-Trick Pony (because that was all what he did in fights) with Daylight spell to mitigate him and show him that it's really not that potent combo to use and abuse.

But one of party members was faster than me with Dispel spell.

But anyway- thanks for feedback of course. It was worth to start this thread for the sole fact to be corrected about darkness rulings.

[Damon_Tor]

Rest of the party started to get irritated by enemies being constatly covered in Darkness.

Why? One of the odd things about 5e is that two creatures that can't see each other attack each other normally: they have disadvantage on their attacks, but they also have advantage because the defender can't see them. The two cancel each other out and the attack occurs normally.

I suppose spellcasters might be annoyed because of the "a creature you can see" wording on many spells.

[Vorpalchicken]

I've got to say that I don't run heavy obscurement rules RAW. I think it's ridiculous to give advantage to the attacker against a target that he or she can't see even if the target is blind. (This for example would make an extreme long range shot into a fog cloud easier than just a clear shot.)
So I would never fault a DM for coming down hard on badly placed darkness.
I might object to giving an advantage to an archer who "has the high ground" however. (Or possibly not, depending on the circumstances. )
Darkness can be a useful tool if used properly. This player just didn't use it right.

[Willie the Duck]

Why? One of the odd things about 5e is that two creatures that can't see each other attack each other normally: they have disadvantage on their attacks, but they also have advantage because the defender can't see them. The two cancel each other out and the attack occurs normally.

I suppose spellcasters might be annoyed because of the "a creature you can see" wording on many spells.

In many cases this will effect non-spellcasters as well. Sure, once you've engaged the enemy, then both of you blind is roughly the same as both of you sighted, but you have to get to that position to begin with. The only one that really suffers is the barbarian whose rage might drop during those 'Well see if they're I this square' moments, but the fear is that they'll run into a situation where they all figure out where you are before you figure out where they are, and they effectively have a surprise round in the middle of combat.

[EggKookoo]

I've got to say that I don't run heavy obscurement rules RAW. I think it's ridiculous to give advantage to the attacker against a target that he or she can't see even if the target is blind.

Meh, in a KISS system like 5e it's probably the easiest way to handle it. Like how 3e used to give you a bonus to hit against Large creatures, but gave you a bonus to your AC when being attacked by Large creatures. Those bonuses canceled each other out when two Large creatures fought each other. I kind of with 5e kept that, but I suppose it's easy enough to homebrew it back in.

[Damon_Tor]

In many cases this will effect non-spellcasters as well. Sure, once you've engaged the enemy, then both of you blind is roughly the same as both of you sighted, but you have to get to that position to begin with. The only one that really suffers is the barbarian whose rage might drop during those 'Well see if they're I this square' moments, but the fear is that they'll run into a situation where they all figure out where you are before you figure out where they are, and they effectively have a surprise round in the middle of combat.

Unless the enemy is taking the "hide" action, you know where they are.

[Dark Schneider]

Remember the 1st rule about attacking something you can't see: an attack against an unoccupied space auto-miss. So you have to perceive the target first and then attack with disadvantage. If you fail to perceive it, and attack an empty space, you simply miss.

Darkness is a legitimate defense. You need a spell greater in lvl than it, have it prepared (not so probably if you use valuable known spells), and a free spell slot, using it. But the problem is that player not being careful with his comrades.

[Damon_Tor]

Remember the 1st rule about attacking something you can't see: an attack against an unoccupied space auto-miss. So you have to perceive the target first and then attack with disadvantage. If you fail to perceive it, and attack an empty space, you simply miss.

Sure, if they're taking the hide action. Which darkness would absolutely allow them to do, but except for a certain handful of creatures/classes, it would eat up their action.

[Dark Schneider]

Unless the enemy is taking the "hide" action, you know where they are.


Sure, if they're taking the hide action. Which darkness would absolutely allow them to do, but except for a certain handful of creatures/classes, it would eat up their action.
Yes that is one of those non-sense rules. It is used in general for all cases but it shouldn't.

- You fight against 20 foes, you see them, they all become invisible and move randomly, you know where are all of them as they didn't hide. Sound totally reasonable.

- You cast Darkness into an object you throw to floor, then move around the area. You attack with range weapon, so foes see from where it comes the arrow, OK, but then you move 10-foot aside. Who cares, all foes know where you moved to and can attack with their range weapons to your exact location from all possible within the Darkness area. I would be much more reasonable, IMO, in that situation foes to prepare action to use their reactions to attack you at the very moment they see your arrow, to attack your position, even not seeing you.

- You cast Impoved Invisibility at 150 feet and cast your spells then moving aside, all the foes know exactly where are you, they hear you or see perfectly your footprints at that distance to use their long bows. Sure. And more iteresting, you try to hide and can fail against their percetion checks.

But I suppose is more a balance related thing, because in realism is obviously near zero. That rule should be for when close distance, and the invisible one try to mislead the other one.

[Willie the Duck]

Unless the enemy is taking the "hide" action, you know where they are.

If an enemy moves while in an area of darkness, why would you know where they moved to?

[EggKookoo]

Yes that is one of those non-sense rules. It is used in general for all cases but it shouldn't.

- You fight against 20 foes, you see them, they all become invisible and move randomly, you know where are all of them as they didn't hide. Sound totally reasonable.

- You cast Darkness into an object you throw to floor, then move around the area. You attack with range weapon, so foes see from where it comes the arrow, OK, but then you move 10-foot aside. Who cares, all foes know where you moved to and can attack with their range weapons to your exact location from all possible within the Darkness area. I would be much more reasonable, IMO, in that situation foes to prepare action to use their reactions to attack you at the very moment they see your arrow, to attack your position, even not seeing you.

- You cast Impoved Invisibility at 150 feet and cast your spells then moving aside, all the foes know exactly where are you, they hear you or see perfectly your footprints at that distance to use their long bows. Sure. And more iteresting, you try to hide and can fail against their percetion checks.

But I suppose is more a balance related thing, because in realism is obviously near zero. That rule should be for when close distance, and the invisible one try to mislead the other one.

I think we have to assume invisibility and darkness and such are simply not absolute. Imagine when you turn invisible, you still leave a kind of Predator-ish ripple effect when you move? Maybe darkness is never really pure blackness? The specific giveaway is fluff, but crunch-wise if I can still target you visually with an attack when you're invisible, there must be something I'm targeting.

[Damon_Tor]

If an enemy moves while in an area of darkness, why would you know where they moved to?

Are you taking the position that the "hide" action isn't needed to become hidden?

[Willie the Duck]

Are you taking the position that the "hide" action isn't needed to become hidden?

I'm not the one making an absolutist statement.

To clarify, one does not need to be hidden (and one certainly does not need to be hiding) for another individual not to know where you happen to be. The later is dependent upon what the observer happens to have been in a position to observe before the actions of the observed even need be taken into consideration.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm not the one making an absolutist statement.

You're the one operating under a version of the rules where the very conditions under which the "hide" action becomes possible give all benefits of the hide action, making the hide action obsolete. That's fine if that's what works at your table, but it certainly doesn't help the OP solve his problem, which is that his party/GM don't understand how concealment works in D&D 5e.

[Laserlight]

I wanted him to have his fun and see if he will try to just abuse it or use it with cautions or some thought behind it. Since every fight all he did was cast Darkness on weapon and yolo on enemies, I thought it was time to counter Mr.One-Trick Pony (because that was all what he did in fights)

That sounds a bit adversarial to me. Sure, if there happens to be a caster with Dispel and that happens to be the best use of his spell slot, use it--and I have done that as a DM--but IMHO you shouldn't be wrecking his favored tactic very often. Among other things, you don't need to prevent it being abused because it isn't all that potent a combination to begin with.

[Trustypeaches]

Keep in mind that while attack rolls are straight, the majority of spells and features that target enemies require you to see them.

If they’re obscured in darkness, these aren’t usable.

[Floogal]

A, that screens. I don't use them because I don't like making secret rolls. Every rolls I make is visible. The results might be secret but nobody will question what had happen if they saw secret roll showing 19.

Also for me Screen unnecessary seperate DM as "different member of the table" while I like to feel like I am same part of table as the rest of people. Of course that is only my style, everyone should use what they prefer :).
The point of a GM screen isn't to hide your rolls. It's to hide your notes, maps, and stat blocks so that a player can't casually glance over and accidentally/intentionally spoil themselves.

In the modern day, laptops/tablets can perform the same function, and you can also be an amazing GM that has everything stored in your head.

[sophontteks]

WRONG

DM screens are there to show dominance over the players. While they must sit fully exposed, the DM can hide behind his cardboard wall and throw die at the players. It basically is there to say "We are not equals here!"

Everything else is just things DM say to justify why they need to erect this barrier.:smallbiggrin:

[Solusek]

You're the one operating under a version of the rules where the very conditions under which the "hide" action becomes possible give all benefits of the hide action, making the hide action obsolete. That's fine if that's what works at your table, but it certainly doesn't help the OP solve his problem, which is that his party/GM don't understand how concealment works in D&D 5e.

There is still a huge difference between something being hidden and simply not being able to see because it's dark, or your blindfolded or whatever.

In the dark you might hear some noise behind you but have no idea exactly where it's coming from because you can't see. That is a non-hidden creature moving around. Somewhere behind you, it's hard to tell where exactly.

No noise at all, so you don't even know something is there - that's a successfully hidden creature.

[Damon_Tor]

There is still a huge difference between something being hidden and simply not being able to see because it's dark, or your blindfolded or whatever.

In the dark you might hear some noise behind you but have no idea exactly where it's coming from because you can't see. That is a non-hidden creature moving around. Somewhere behind you, it's hard to tell where exactly.

No noise at all, so you don't even know something is there - that's a successfully hidden creature.

Take for example a rogue's ability to hide as a bonus action. Under your system once combat has begun, the enemy obviously "knows you're there." What would be the function of such an ability at your table?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I don't think I've ever seen in my many* years of playing and GMing a situation where one PC literally attacked another PC where it didn't end up in ruining the game. I'm not talking about disagreements over what to do next, or one player backseat-playing another ("no, don't do this, hit that guy!"). Or even a player outright mocking another player for making a stupid decision. Those are all fairly well within what I would consider the normal range of player discourse. But as soon as some one says the equivalent of "I hit Bob's character" and it's not part of some agreed-upon scheme or desperate attempt to save Bob's character somehow, then the table has gone rotten and it's basically game over for real. If not that session, it won't be long.

* I'm considerably older than 35. That's probably how long I've been playing TTRPGs.

I'm part of a game where 20 or so sessions ago our Rogue killed an NPC for one of them logical "greater good" reasons but one the party had sworn to protect, and my Bard convinced she would be safe coming with us.

My Elf Bard Level 2 "Phantasmal Forced" our Drow Rogue as a way of holding him still while doing minimal, yet torturesome, damage while the party discussed the situation for three rounds.

We're both still in the party. Our PC's have an interesting relationship of like/despise and similar racial background vs the rest of the party/different background vs eachother

[Laserlight]

I don't think I've ever seen in my many* years of playing and GMing a situation where one PC literally attacked another PC where it didn't end up in ruining the game.... as soon as some one says the equivalent of "I hit Bob's character" and it's not part of some agreed-upon scheme or desperate attempt to save Bob's character somehow, then the table has gone rotten and it's basically game over for real. If not that session, it won't be long.


I ran a campaign in which only one PC didn't attack any of the others. Two fights were to-the-death. when players were moving out of state; the rest weren't intended to be fatal and were (out of character) generally hilarious, or touching, or both. (Example: "I yell Alric, I need you! You can't leave me! ...and then I shoot him through the leg with a grapnel arrow, to make sure."). The players had complex characters, with issues. and all of the players knew each other well.

For most campaigns, yeah, if things get to the point of PvP, someone needs to grow up or leave.

[EggKookoo]

I guess I should specify about intent. PvP done for humor is fine if at least most players are laughing. Or as some kind of dubious benefit to one of the victims. In a CoC game we ran up against creatures that could infect you at a touch, a la The Thing, but maybe a bit slower. At one point one lashed out and hit my character's hand. Immediately, without any explanation, another player had his character trip me to the ground, stood on my arm, and blew my hand off with his shotgun. The GM was so impressed he declared that it saved my character's life.

My character didn't last very long after that, but hey, he tried!

[Lunali]

and now the warlock has spent an invocation and a known spell (the former still being useful as a lantern replacement, the latter can be swapped out next level, but still...) and gets no benefit. So who here has had any real fun out of the situation? That's why people fuss. To pour salt on the wound, it all looks like this was an intentional addition that the designers put in <head-desk>.

Both can be swapped out at level actually, invocations have similar restrictions to known spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

Reading this made me feel really really old. Since I am already old, its not a new feeling for me. :smallsmile:
You are the DM, yes, you are there to baby sit. If their characters are just down with casually murdering each other over a mild inconvenience then they're sociopaths and have no place at the table. Sorry, they are not sociopaths. They are a symptom of grief players, perhaps, which you may recognize from public play in RPGs/MMORPGs/MUDs, etc.
The OP was not "neutral GM" it was "Gotcha DM". Possibly true.
It sounds like your warlock is a poor tactician and your players are immature. That's not the fault of the spell. Nice post, all of it, but that bit was choice.
Its fine, people still use DM Screens Thanks, I feel better now, but not any younger. :smallfrown:
I disagree with that, I am not their father or their psychologist. I trust that people are mature enough to solve their problems and I only step in when things go out of hand. To your first sentence I agree. To your second sentence ... see the bolded part ... sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Really depends on the group.
A, that screens. I don't use them because I don't like making secret rolls. Every rolls I make is visible. The results might be secret but nobody will question what had happen if they saw secret roll showing 19. Also for me Screen unnecessary separate DM as "different member of the table" Just stop right there. That's a load of tripe. I will suggest to you that you are overthinking this. (In D&D 5e, as opposed to some other RPGs, the DM's role is very different from the role of the players). My screen is used to conceal maps and notes that the characters don't know about yet, and to hold my list of mini tables and references that help me run the game without having to refer to books and tables. Speeds up play a lot, having all of my quick references right in front of me.
WRONG..they need to erect this barrier.:smallbiggrin: You forgot the blue text. :smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

Both can be swapped out at level actually, invocations have similar restrictions to known spells.

That one I knew, but it is still useful regardless, as I mentioned.

[Laserlight]

Since I am already old, its not a new feeling for me. :smallsmile:

Indeed. I fairly often want to describe something to my group by mentioning a movie and then realize "That came out before any of you were even born..." But what really drove it home was that, a couple of weeks ago, my son turned 30.

[Pex]

Indeed. I fairly often want to describe something to my group by mentioning a movie and then realize "That came out before any of you were even born..." But what really drove it home was that, a couple of weeks ago, my son turned 30.

A couple of years ago I joined a game playing a Noble Sorcerer whom I named Ricardo. When the DM asked for a last name for background development I joked "Montalban". The DM said ok without a hitch. He hadn't a clue who Ricardo Montalban was. I wouldn't mind if he didn't know about Fantasy Island or his movie work before then, but he didn't even know about "Kaaaaaaaaahn!" I kept the name Montalban.

It was horrible.

[Malifice]

A couple of years ago I joined a game playing a Noble Sorcerer whom I named Ricardo. When the DM asked for a last name for background development I joked "Montalban". The DM said ok without a hitch. He hadn't a clue who Ricardo Montalban was. I wouldn't mind if he didn't know about Fantasy Island or his movie work before then, but he didn't even know about "Kaaaaaaaaahn!" I kept the name Montalban.

It was horrible.

Bonus points for also having a Gnome retainer called 'Zeplane Zeplane'.

[EggKookoo]

A couple of years ago I joined a game playing a Noble Sorcerer whom I named Ricardo. When the DM asked for a last name for background development I joked "Montalban". The DM said ok without a hitch. He hadn't a clue who Ricardo Montalban was. I wouldn't mind if he didn't know about Fantasy Island or his movie work before then, but he didn't even know about "Kaaaaaaaaahn!" I kept the name Montalban.

It was horrible.

Oh, the Corinthian nobleman, I've heard of him. His people make the finest leather armor.