Green Flame Blade Question

[MThurston]

Do you need a secondary target to use this cantrip?

At 5th level Hexblade, you could be doing weapon damage, 1d8 from GFB, and 1d6 Hex.

Can you cast it again if you take the attack action again?

[nickl_2000]

Do you need a secondary target to use this cantrip?


I'm not sure if there is a RAW ruling on this. Our table runs it as follows. If there is another target 9besides yourself) within 5 feet, it has to jump even if it's an ally. If there is no other target it doesn't jump and just hits the main target.



At 5th level Hexblade, you could be doing weapon damage, 1d8 from GBF, and 1d6 Hex.


If hex is active, this is correct.



Can you cast it again if you take the attack action again?

If you were to get action surge from fighter where you get a complete second action on a turn, yes you could cast it again. It you get another attack from something (warlock invocation, fighter level 5, haste, whatever) you cannot cast it again. In fact if you are running a character that gets 2 attacks due to fighter 5, you can choose to either cast Green-Flame Blade OR take two attacks. You don't get both.

[MThurston]

After reading some more I found that it can only be cast once.

Now if I miss with the first attack and hit with my second attack, does it go off?

I do not see any rules saying there has to be another target or that you can only use it if there is another target next to your main target.

[Ventruenox]

Can you cast it again if you take the attack action again?

Quicken Metamagic from Sorcerer. You do not use the attack action any time you cast it. A weapon attack is part of the casting of the spell.

[nickl_2000]

After reading some more I found that it can only be cast once.

Now if I miss with the first attack and hit with my second attack, does it go off?

I do not see any rules saying there has to be another target or that you can only use it if there is another target next to your main target.

You don't get two attacks with Green Flame Blade. The only way you could get two attacks is to take an attack action.

If you cast Green Flame Blade, you are taking a cast a spell action, which allows you to make 1 melee attack as part of casting the spell.

[dnd2016]

It's a spell attack. you can only cast it once

[RipTide]

There is a sage advice saying that any time you have a choice of target you can chose to target nothing. So using green flame blade you can choose to hit only a single target.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/04/green-flame-blade-no-target-creatures/

[Malifice]

After reading some more I found that it can only be cast once.

Now if I miss with the first attack and hit with my second attack, does it go off?

I do not see any rules saying there has to be another target or that you can only use it if there is another target next to your main target.

You use the [cast a spell] action to use it, not the [attack] action. You make one attack with this spell as part of the cast a spell action.

[tieren]

AS others have said, GFB isn't a rider that goes on one of your attacks from the Attack Action.

Instead the melee attack is more a rider that goes with the text of the spell GFB. the spells says 'make a melee attack" so you do, but the only mechanical action you have taken is "Cast a Spell".

You do not get to do both "Cast A Spell" action and "Attack" action in the same turn, absent some feature to allow an exception (action surge, metamagic, etc...

Compare to the paladin smite spells (not the ability). They do not include the melee attack as part of the casting, you concentrate on the spell until you make a hit with a subsequent attack action. GFB is not like that.

[MThurston]

Ok. You can cast it twice but you'd have to use something like action surge that gives you another turn.

I think it is a pretty powerful cantrip.

At 5th level with say a rapier and hitting twice with hex the damage would be 2d8 rapier, 1d8 Flame, 1d6 Necro and 2x stat bonus damage.

So say you have a +3 that would be on average, 22 damage.

With a possible second target taking 1d8+3.

[tieren]

Just playing devils advocate here.

I cast the spell while attacking, I have a boon that allows me to attack twice when I take the attack action. Wouldn't that allow the first attack to miss and the second one to hit to meet the hit with a melee weapon?

No because you are not taking the attack action so the boon would not trigger.

I know its a bit counter intuitive but there is a mechanical difference between "taking the attack action" and "making an attack as part of the Cast a Spell action".

You get one action a turn, if you use your action to cast a spell, you can not take a second action to take the attack action. In this particular case you are making a weapon attack as part of the spell but you are NOT taking the "Attack Action" at all.

Just wait til you get to making ranged attacks with melee weapons for a head turner.

[MThurston]

No because you are not taking the attack action so the boon would not trigger.

I know its a bit counter intuitive but there is a mechanical difference between "taking the attack action" and "making an attack as part of the Cast a Spell action".

You get one action a turn, if you use your action to cast a spell, you can not take a second action to take the attack action. In this particular case you are making a weapon attack as part of the spell but you are NOT taking the "Attack Action" at all.

Just wait til you get to making ranged attacks with melee weapons for a head turner.

Are you saying that if I cast GFB, I can not make a second attack with my boon at all?


Yep. You can attack twice or cast GFB and take a melee attack.

Not as good as I thought this cantrip was going to be.

It would be a nice trick to hit the lower a.c. monster and dump the extra onto the higher a.c. monster that you have hex on.

[tieren]

Are you saying that if I cast GFB, I can not make a second attack with my boon at all?

Yes, assuming you worded the boon accurately above.

[JackPhoenix]

Are you saying that if I cast GFB, I can not make a second attack with my boon at all?

Yes. Thirsting Blade allows you to attack twice when you take the ATTACK ACTION on your turn. Booming Blade uses CAST A SPELL ACTION. You can use it twice if you have Action Surge (which gives you another action to use as you want) or Quicken Spell (which allows you to cast it as a bonus action, leaving your regular action free for other use).

[Malifice]

Ok. You can cast it twice but you'd have to use something like action surge that gives you another turn.

Action surge doesnt give you another turn. It gives you another action on your turn.


At 5th level with say a rapier and hitting twice with hex the damage would be 2d8 rapier, 1d8 Flame, 1d6 Necro and 2x stat bonus damage.

You cant attack twice with it with the same action.

Thirsting blade grants you an extra attack WHEN YOU TAKE THE ATTACK ACTION. Greenflame blade is not the attack action, its the cast a spell action. So you dont get the extra attack.

Read the ability.

[Willie the Duck]

Ok. You can cast it twice but you'd have to use something like action surge that gives you another turn.

I think it is a pretty powerful cantrip.

The spell (and it's fraternal twin, Booming Blade) are really good at turning an otherwise lackluster melee character (in that they only have one attack per turn) into a decent melee character (provided other things, such as HP and AC, are sufficient). They are great for the mountain dwarf abjurer, or non-blademaster Warlocks, or Arcana cleric (or any cleric with a spare ASI, to be honest, although BB moreso than GFB, given that they would still ping of Int if you picked them up through Magic Initiate). Likewise, BB is great for anyone with the War Caster feat, as a BB is much better as an Opportunity Attack than a regular Attack.

The place where they are not especially powerful is the normal attack actions of casters who otherwise would have multiple attacks. This includes bladesingers, Eldritch Knights (although EKs have other specific abilities which make the spells still make sense at certain levels and situations), anyone who wants to be doing two-weapon fighting (as the offhand attack is a rider on the attack actions specifically), and Bladelocks (at least those with Thirsting Blade). It is still doable, of course (and if you get the secondary effect to go off, the total damage might be higher*), but it competes with, rather than synergizes with, your multiple attack ability.
*although, with GFB in particular, consider the relative value of doing a lot of damage to one enemy vs. some damage to two enemies

[MThurston]

Action surge doesnt give you another turn. It gives you another action on your turn.



You cant attack twice with it with the same action.

Thirsting blade grants you an extra attack WHEN YOU TAKE THE ATTACK ACTION. Greenflame blade is not the attack action, its the cast a spell action. So you dont get the extra attack.

Read the ability.

Conceded everything you posted earlier. Read.

[Misterwhisper]

The spell (and it's fraternal twin, Booming Blade) are really good at turning an otherwise lackluster melee character (in that they only have one attack per turn) into a decent melee character (provided other things, such as HP and AC, are sufficient). They are great for the mountain dwarf abjurer, or non-blademaster Warlocks, or Arcana cleric (or any cleric with a spare ASI, to be honest, although BB moreso than GFB, given that they would still ping of Int if you picked them up through Magic Initiate). Likewise, BB is great for anyone with the War Caster feat, as a BB is much better as an Opportunity Attack than a regular Attack.

The place where they are not especially powerful is the normal attack actions of casters who otherwise would have multiple attacks. This includes bladesingers, Eldritch Knights (although EKs have other specific abilities which make the spells still make sense at certain levels and situations), anyone who wants to be doing two-weapon fighting (as the offhand attack is a rider on the attack actions specifically), and Bladelocks (at least those with Thirsting Blade). It is still doable, of course (and if you get the secondary effect to go off, the total damage might be higher*), but it competes with, rather than synergizes with, your multiple attack ability.
*although, with GFB in particular, consider the relative value of doing a lot of damage to one enemy vs. some damage to two enemies

SCAG Cantrips have made thirsting blade kind of Meh.

Celestial Tome Locks are a great example.
Use tome to get Shillelagh, and the invocation for a familiar.
At level 6 or 7 GFB.

Normal attack that uses CHA.
1d8 + Cha to damage as normal, 1d8 fire, + Cha again from the fire based damage thanks to Celestial.
that is 2d8 + Chax2 + fire damage to an enemy, and with advantage on your one attack from the familiar using help, and if you crit it does much better damage.
If you normal attack with thirsting blade you would still be doing the same thing, but no extra fire damage, adv on only the first swing, and spread over 2 attacks.

Later at 12 if you take Lifedrinker it adds CHA again.
Sounds great for the multi attacker, but by then GFB has gone up a bonus die on both sides of its damage, and the crit just keeps getting bigger, normal attacks didn't because their bonus is static.

[JackPhoenix]

spread over 2 attacks.

Which is actually an advantage. 2 attacks means two chances for critical hit, a chance to attack again if your first attack misses, and as you're using Attack action instead of Cast a Spell action, you can get BA attack through various means (PAM, GWM, TWF, CE... lot of options). You also get more mileage from Hex or similar abilities that add damage to every hit.

With GFB, you attack once and that's it, hit or miss, unless you're using limited resources to get off BA cantrip.

[Willie the Duck]

SCAG Cantrips have made thirsting blade kind of Meh.

Celestial Tome Locks are a great example.
<example>

Thirsting blade and lifedrinker by themselves probably don't make a sizable difference when compared to a Celestial Tomelock. However, a (ex.) Celestial Tomelock vs. a Hexblade Bladelock differ in that:

Shillelagh is club/quarterstaff-specific
Shillelagh requires your first bonus action per combat
The build adds fewer bonus damage dice per hex (or other per-attack rider, such as if you have a flaming weapon, or the like)
The build doesn't come online until level 3
you have to figure out how to get your AC up
you have none of the other combat benefits of other pacts or patrons

So there's a pretty good reason to take one versus the other, depending on how much melee combat you intend to see. I actually like a Celestial Tomelock a lot more (have almost all the good cantrips and ritual spells? yes please!), but I would put it behind a bladelock in the melee department most days that end in Y.

[Misterwhisper]

Which is actually an advantage. 2 attacks means two chances for critical hit, a chance to attack again if your first attack misses, and as you're using Attack action instead of Cast a Spell action, you can get BA attack through various means (PAM, GWM, TWF, CE... lot of options). You also get more mileage from Hex or similar abilities that add damage to every hit.

With GFB, you attack once and that's it, hit or miss, unless you're using limited resources to get off BA cantrip.


Thirsting blade and lifedrinker by themselves probably don't make a sizable difference when compared to a Celestial Tomelock. However, a (ex.) Celestial Tomelock vs. a Hexblade Bladelock differ in that:

Shillelagh is club/quarterstaff-specific
Shillelagh requires your first bonus action per combat
The build adds fewer bonus damage dice per hex (or other per-attack rider, such as if you have a flaming weapon, or the like)
The build doesn't come online until level 3
you have to figure out how to get your AC up
you have none of the other combat benefits of other pacts or patrons

So there's a pretty good reason to take one versus the other, depending on how much melee combat you intend to see. I actually like a Celestial Tomelock a lot more (have almost all the good cantrips and ritual spells? yes please!), but I would put it behind a bladelock in the melee department most days that end in Y.

I am not saying that it is better than just going Pact of the Blade, I am just saying that you don't just have to be pact of blade to be a melee character.
Same as just because you are a hex blade does not mean you have to be a weapon user.

[Malifice]

Conceded everything you posted earlier. Read.

Roger.

Sorry if I sounded snarky, but I suggest you go back to the PHB and read the abilities first to understand them before asking.

It'll help you immensely if you understand them yourself.

Thirsting blade tells you it only provides an extra attack with the 'Attack' action. Casting Greenflame blade is the 'Cast a spell' action (and not the 'Attack' action).

Read actions in combat again. It tells you what a turn is, what an action is, and what actions you can use.

From there you can simply read each ability, and it tells you on the tin what they do, what actions they use, and when you can recover their use.

[Man_Over_Game]

Roger.

Sorry if I sounded snarky, but I suggest you go back to the PHB and read the abilities first to understand them before asking.

It'll help you immensely if you understand them yourself.

Thirsting blade tells you it only provides an extra attack with the 'Attack' action. Casting Greenflame blade is the 'Cast a spell' action (and not the 'Attack' action).

Read actions in combat again. It tells you what a turn is, what an action is, and what actions you can use.

From there you can simply read each ability, and it tells you on the tin what they do, what actions they use, and when you can recover their use.

My first 5e group had an Eldritch Knight that thought that, since Extra Attack means he gets two actions to attack with, and he can cast a spell to make an attack, it translated to being able to cast two spells each turn. The DM was all like "That definitely sounds accurate". Almost wanted to shoot myself in the face. Not sure how I got to level 5 in that group.

[Malifice]

My first 5e group had an Eldritch Knight that thought that, since Extra Attack means he gets two actions to attack with, and he can cast a spell to make an attack, it translated to being able to cast two spells each turn. The DM was all like "That definitely sounds accurate". Almost wanted to shoot myself in the face. Not sure how I got to level 5 in that group.

I see groups like that all the time.

I dont get it. Like, there are 5 of you at the table. Surely one of you has read the rules?

5E is crunch medium, but it's written with far less terms of art and rules jargon than prior editions. It cant be that hard to understand surely?

[Man_Over_Game]

I see groups like that all the time.

I dont get it. Like, there are 5 of you at the table. Surely one of you has read the rules?

5E is crunch medium, but it's written with far less terms of art and rules jargon than prior editions. It cant be that hard to understand surely?

People don't read all the books. DMs are not usually the brightest ones at the table, but rather the one with the least to do. Sometimes, it just comes down to the fact that you're a player at a table and correcting the DM every minute is a lot less fun than just letting them do whatever they want.

Taught me a good lesson, though.

Never join a table without first talking about what to do if someone makes a mistake.

Never join a table without talking about what homebrews the DM likes to use that are always relevant (like trading proficiency bonus to-hit for damage, which a local table thought was a real rule this last Monday).

[Willie the Duck]

My first 5e group had an Eldritch Knight that thought that, since Extra Attack means he gets two actions to attack with, and he can cast a spell to make an attack, it translated to being able to cast two spells each turn. The DM was all like "That definitely sounds accurate". Almost wanted to shoot myself in the face. Not sure how I got to level 5 in that group.

Well, you didn't say that they thought it was a good rule, only that they thought that was how the rule worked. There are lots of times where someone can say something wrong 2-3 times before you actually fully listen and think, 'wait a sec...' Besides, it's not like the spells that are melee attacks or the whole 'attack action' vs. 'cast a spell action' is an intuitive thing that people have had to deal with outside of this game (most of them, at least). Catching people who came from 3e trying to talk about move actions or 5' steps or the like seems to be a right of passage at this point--and for that matter, it should be mentioned that the designers seemed to have not realized the potential of mixing actions at least once, as it seems to have come as a total surprise (so much that it was a significant motivator towards the early 3.5 release, at least supposedly) when 3.0 Haste let spellcasters cast 2 spells per round.

Edit: not sure why I am defending these strangers, they clearly goofed. I can just imagine it happening, particularly if no one cares all that much.

[Malifice]

People don't read all the books. DMs are not usually the brightest ones at the table, but rather the one with the least to do.

That's far from being true. DMs have the hardest job on game night, and do the most work.

They also do the most work setting up the campaign, and during the week prepping for sessions.

Or to be more correct they should. If the DM isnt doing that, they're almost certainly not fit to DM.

[Galithar]

That's far from being true. DMs have the hardest job on game night, and do the most work.

They also do the most work setting up the campaign, and during the week prepping for sessions.

Or to be more correct they should. If the DM isnt doing that, they're almost certainly not fit to DM.

I think that's basically what he meant. The one with the least to do outside of sessions . They are usually DM because they have the time to try to prep and organize a campaign.

That still didn't mean they are the brightest, just have the most time to make the game happen.

[RSP]

I think that's basically what he meant. The one with the least to do outside of sessions . They are usually DM because they have the time to try to prep and organize a campaign.

That still didn't mean they are the brightest, just have the most time to make the game happen.

Quick add to this discussion: most DMs, and really most good DMs, care a lot more about the story they’re sharing then they do the mechanics of the game. They’d much rather spend their prep hours refining that story and the events that help it unfold, rather than read the PHB and DMG to revisit mechanics.

[Malifice]

Quick add to this discussion: most DMs, and really most good DMs, care a lot more about the story they’re sharing then they do the mechanics of the game. They’d much rather spend their prep hours refining that story and the events that help it unfold, rather than read the PHB and DMG to revisit mechanics.

You shouldnt need to revisit mechanics during the week. You should have a solid grasp of them already before you DM.

During the week prep is creating encounters and hooks and so forth.

Game day is more about people management, ensuring the players are engaged and so forth.

[RSP]

You shouldnt need to revisit mechanics during the week. You should have a solid grasp of them already before you DM.

During the week prep is creating encounters and hooks and so forth.

Game day is more about people management, ensuring the players are engaged and so forth.

Again, I’m just relaying what I’ve gathered from every 5e DM I’ve played with and that’s the fact that DMs care much more about storytelling than mechanics.

There isn’t a right or wrong way to DM a game, so I can’t agree with a statement of “you should do this” or “you shouldn’t do that.”

If it’s fun for the group at that DM’s table, who cares if they focus more on story than mechanics?

[Man_Over_Game]

[...]
If it’s fun for the group at that DM’s table, who cares if they focus more on story than mechanics?

To be fair, players might.

If a player asks to have an animal companion using Animal Handling using the Ranger's rules, and the DM says yes, how is the Beast Master Ranger going to feel when a level 1 Rogue was able to get the same reward the Ranger got in 3 levels (on top of all of the other stuff Rogues get).

And that's not the player's fault for wanting to make the most of an investment, that's the DM's fault for not having a strong grasp on game balance with multiple players. Story is very important, but isn't always the most important aspect to everyone. Chess, on the other hand, is a game without any story, and has been historically more popular than DnD.

Or, put in another way, a Wizard wants to try and pickpocket someone with Mage Hand, which sounds like a cool narrative. I, the Arcane Trickster, get upset because that's literally my subclass specific ability that nobody else is supposed to get.

Should the DM tell the Wizard that he can no longer do the thing that he was told he can do? Does the DM tell myself to just suck it up? Or should the DM not have allowed that narrative-based ruling in the first place?

This isn't saying that cool, narrative stuff shouldn't be done, but it should either be less effective or more expensive than any other mechanical alternative to the game, and that requires a hefty resume of mechanical DnD knowledge.

--------------

You're right that the story should be developed, but with how simple 5e is, a DM could reasonably memorize most of the rules.

[RSP]

To be fair, players might.


This is why I qualified my statement with “if it’s fun for the group...”

Obviously, if the Players or DM aren’t having fun, they should figure something out.

Sure, ideally everyone knows all the rules; but if a DM doesn’t have a great grasp of the rules, or doesn’t care about them, there’s only so much a Player can do: help them understand the rules, stop playing with that DM, or learn to live with the situation.

[Rukelnikov]

To be fair, players might.

If a player asks to have an animal companion using Animal Handling using the Ranger's rules, and the DM says yes, how is the Beast Master Ranger going to feel when a level 1 Rogue was able to get the same reward the Ranger got in 3 levels (on top of all of the other stuff Rogues get).

And that's not the player's fault for wanting to make the most of an investment, that's the DM's fault for not having a strong grasp on game balance with multiple players. Story is very important, but isn't always the most important aspect to everyone. Chess, on the other hand, is a game without any story, and has been historically more popular than DnD.

Or, put in another way, a Wizard wants to try and pickpocket someone with Mage Hand, which sounds like a cool narrative. I, the Arcane Trickster, get upset because that's literally my subclass specific ability that nobody else is supposed to get.

Should the DM tell the Wizard that he can no longer do the thing that he was told he can do? Does the DM tell myself to just suck it up? Or should the DM not have allowed that narrative-based ruling in the first place?

This isn't saying that cool, narrative stuff shouldn't be done, but it should either be less effective or more expensive than any other mechanical alternative to the game, and that requires a hefty resume of mechanical DnD knowledge.

If rules are getting in the way of the story/fun, then the rules are wrong.

Your AT example is a clear example of this, if there was no AT at the table, the DM would maybe allow a roll to try n pickpocket (my sorlock did something like this once, though with unseen servant), and so everyone would be able to try n use mage hand for pickpocketing. The existence of an ability specifically made for that, makes it that now everyone else cannot. It's not that the AT got something extra to make himself better, it's that he banned it from everyone else.

The DM needs to know/learn how to try n make it so everybody at the table has fun. But as a rule of thumb going "yes, and" is much more interesting than "no".

[Misterwhisper]

If rules are getting in the way of the story/fun, then the rules are wrong.

Your AT example is a clear example of this, if there was no AT at the table, the DM would maybe allow a roll to try n pickpocket (my sorlock did something like this once, though with unseen servant), and so everyone would be able to try n use mage hand for pickpocketing. The existence of an ability specifically made for that, makes it that now everyone else cannot. It's not that the AT got something extra to make himself better, it's that he banned it from everyone else.

The DM needs to know/learn how to try n make it so everybody at the table has fun. But as a rule of thumb going "yes, and" is much more interesting than "no".

If you don’t want to actually use the rules in the book and just let anyone use whatever class ability is “fun” then why are you playing a d20 game built on rules and numbers.

Play something like Fate where whatever cheesy reason why you should be able to do something is fine and classes don’t really matter.

It may be cool if I want to make a monk martial artist who is a grappler but I still should not be able to roll acrobatics to grapple just because I am very good at it, that is athletics.

As soon as someone starts picking pockets with invisible mage hand then my wizard is going to start casting healing spells because it is just magic anyway.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think an important target that's being missed is that:

Story can equal fun.
Rules can equal fun.
Story and rules often conflict.

Fate is basically a system that only uses story to drive its games. Mechanically, it's simple, balanced, and...sometimes a bit bland.
On the other hand, Chess is a game that only uses mechanics. It's complex, fair, and...sometimes a bit bland.

Sure, I don't like a hard "No", but I'd rather prefer a DM that said "No, because..." more often than "Yes".

A DM that recognizes that each class is its own entity, its own identity with its own purpose, and that consequences to a choice (even in character building) is what defines value for that choice, is a DM that truly understands what makes the Warlock suck sometimes.

That's the DM that knows that Barbarians start to sink after level 7, that the Arcane Trickster is going to be dominating in any non-combat scenario, that Bladesingers can only hold their own against meatheads, and what makes the Ranger terrible.

Because I don't play a Wizard, hoping someone doesn't pick Arcane Trickster so that I'm allowed to steal with Mage Hand, I play a Wizard because I wanted to be a Wizard. I wanted my team and my DM's world to know "That is a friggin' Wizard". I'm not just a "spellcaster", I Wizarded my way into this mess, and I'm sure as hell gonna Wizard my way out of it.

----------

If I could pickpocket as an Arcane Trickster, control storms like a Sorcerer, use Identify for object reading like a Knowledge Cleric, all as a low level Wizard, how is the Fighter supposed to feel? That they just...had a bad opinion?

[n00b]

Sorry, I want my DM to know the rules and apply them. I'm even ok with homebrew rules, but there still needs to be structure.

[MThurston]

Rules are the bases for a game. They are important. If the group agree to change a rule it is ok as long as it's universal.

Example: Crits are max original damage dice plus another weapon dice roll. 1d8 +5, hex 1d6. Damage woukd be 19 + 1d8 + 1d6.

But it works for the monsters also.

Back to the rules for this thread.

So someone was saying at level 5 you should take the second attack or just take FGB.

Or should you take the second attack but only use GFB whenyou had a second target?

[n00b]

Rules are the bases for a game. They are important. If the group agree to change a rule it is ok as long as it's universal.

Example: Crits are max original damage dice plus another weapon dice roll. 1d8 +5, hex 1d6. Damage woukd be 19 + 1d8 + 1d6.

But it works for the monsters also.

Back to the rules for this thread.

So someone was saying at level 5 you should take the second attack or just take FGB.

Or should you take the second attack but only use GFB whenyou had a second target?

Totally agree. You can play the game however you want but the rules need to be in place and the DM needs to be familiar with them in order adjudicate them.

For GFB, if you have extra attack and there's only 1 target I say you need to use the extra attack. By my reading of the spell description you need to have a 2nd target to use it. It says You must be able to see the secondary target. So to me that means if there's no 2nd target you obviously can't see it so you can't use it. But you're free to play it however you want.

[Willie the Duck]

So someone was saying at level 5 you should take the second attack or just take FGB.

Or should you take the second attack but only use GFB whenyou had a second target?

It isn't really a 'should' situation, so much as a 'what are you giving up to get both of these two abilities that have non-stacking, overlapping, utility?' Yes, obviously there will be situations where GFB is better and situations where getting two attacks is better. The question becomes is it better to just pick one or the other and then get some other benefit you otherwise would have had to have given up to get both of them. For a Bladelock, the extra attack is merely* an invocation, but the decision to go Bladelock (as opposed to Tome or Chain, and even moreso if choosing bladelock also alters your patron choice) or not can be a big opportunity cost.
*I know, you don't get enough invocations that the expenditure of one can ever really be called 'merely'

[MThurston]

I'm playing a hexblade. The GFB is situational because it's 5ft from the target and not you.

So would it be better to take the second attack at level 5 or something else?

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm playing a hexblade. The GFB is situational because it's 5ft from the target and not you.

So would it be better to take the second attack at level 5 or something else?

It just really depends on whether or not you have plans to use a different invocation.

A 1d8 weapon, hitting twice, will deal 9 + 2xMod damage.
A GFB, hitting two creatures, will deal 9 + 2xMod damage.

The difference is, with hitting twice, you'll be able to utilize things like Improved Pact Weapon (shooting a bow instead), Eldritch Smite (Hitting bosses *really* hard).
With GFB, you can afford other invocations, like Tomb of Levistus (Block a crapton of non-fire damage), One With Shadows (can turn invisible when standing still in dim lighting), or Cloak of Flies (Gain a damaging aura).

Basically, it ends up translating into:

Two Attacks: Damage Dealer
GFB: Utility

Now, this is dependent upon your level. GFB will start to outpace the Extra Attack by level 11 (when it's usable).

[Willie the Duck]

I'm playing a hexblade. The GFB is situational because it's 5ft from the target and not you.
So would it be better to take the second attack at level 5 or something else?

As a hexblade, and thus a someone melee combat-focused character? Honestly, yes, the second attack is better. Better to do a killing amount of damage to one opponent than to do a non-killing amount to that opponent and an additional amount to the other opponent standing next to them (if there is one at all). This character ought to take thirsting blade. The only real question is if they should bother with GFB as well -- and honestly my advice there is no as well. This spell is better for salvaging a build which can't get multiattack).

[Malifice]

By my reading of the spell description you need to have a 2nd target to use it.

Thats not what it says at all. It says you need to be able to see the secondary target to make the flame leap to it.

If you cant see the secondary target (or there isnt one) you cant make the spell jump to a secondary target (it only affects the primary target).

If you're interpreting the spell working a different way, you're wrong. It's been confirmed by the devs.

Also, you really need to tidy up your rules interpretations mate. Thats a pretty absurd reading of the text.

[n00b]

Thats not what it says at all. It says you need to be able to see the secondary target to make the flame leap to it.

If you cant see the secondary target (or there isnt one) you cant make the spell jump to a secondary target (it only affects the primary target).

If you're interpreting the spell working a different way, you're wrong. It's been confirmed by the devs.

Also, you really need to tidy up your rules interpretations mate. Thats a pretty absurd reading of the text.

I said "by my reading of the rules." I didn't try to foist off RAW or RAI. I just said that's how I see it. I haven't read any Errata or Sage Advice on it so I can't speak to that. I just said my interpretation. I didn't get rude or snarky and didn't really expect any back. I don't really see it as an absurd interpretation at all. No need to get personal.

[MThurston]

After looking at the rule more closely.

Any weapon can be used, melee, thrown or ranged.

You must see the first target. I'm not sure why it says that, but ok. Then it says that it jumps to a target of your choice within 5 ft of the original target. That you can see. Again, not sure why this wording.

Very much vague but the part that you NEED to see the targets.

I would not be mad if a DM told me there had to be a secondary target.

The level up of the cantrip is awesome. The lower level is very situational.

Having one attack is a no brainer to use it. Having more than one is another thing. Then it comes into what might be better.

Taking a few swings at the boss and missing on 18s, may mean swinging at a minion next to him and have the GFB jump to the boss.

[RSP]

You must see the first target. I'm not sure why it says that, but ok. Then it says that it jumps to a target of your choice within 5 ft of the original target. That you can see. Again, not sure why this wording.


Not sure if this is the source of confusion for you but you can attack creatures you can’t see (usually at Disadvantage). The wording prevents you using GFB on creatures you can’t see (and many spells have that restriction even though standard attacks do not).

[JackPhoenix]

Any weapon can be used, melee, thrown or ranged.

"Thrown" is a weapon property that can belong to melee or ranged weapon, not a weapon category of its own. Also, the spell specifies melee attack, which means you would be using ranged weapon as improvised weapon: no proficiency bonus, Str-only, and 1d4 damage.

[Willie the Duck]

You must see the first target. I'm not sure why it says that, but ok. Then it says that it jumps to a target of your choice within 5 ft of the original target. That you can see. Again, not sure why this wording.


Not sure if this is the source of confusion for you but you can attack creatures you can’t see (usually at Disadvantage). The wording prevents you using GFB on creatures you can’t see (and many spells have that restriction even though standard attacks do not).

Agree with Rsp29a, this is a reminder that this is a spell, and thus as with many spells, you cannot use it to target unseen opponents, even though the spell emulates/uses components of the attack rules. I agree that it is unclear why the designer specifically chose the sight part to be the part that was clarified, but honestly, I wish they had done more clarification in this vein, reminding the reader that this cantrip is a spell first and an attack second (probably would have cleared up the OP's questions preemptively).

[MThurston]

Not sure if this is the source of confusion for you but you can attack creatures you can’t see (usually at Disadvantage). The wording prevents you using GFB on creatures you can’t see (and many spells have that restriction even though standard attacks do not).

Ah, Like the darkness spell. I don't allow them to be targeted. You pick a spot to attack and get disadvantage. Which would cover no use of GFB.

[MThurston]

"Thrown" is a weapon property that can belong to melee or ranged weapon, not a weapon category of its own. Also, the spell specifies melee attack, which means you would be using ranged weapon as improvised weapon: no proficiency bonus, Str-only, and 1d4 damage.

The rule I read said weapon. Maybe the melee part was left out of the writting.

[Malifice]

Ah, Like the darkness spell. I don't allow them to be targeted. You pick a spot to attack and get disadvantage. Which would cover no use of GFB.

No; plenty of spells and special abilities contain the rules limit sentence 'a target you can see'.

If you cant see them, you can't cast the spell on them.

Divine Word for example (oddly enough). Or Hex. Or Magic missile. Or healing word. Or hold person. Or attacks of opportunity.

In order to use those spells or abilities you need to be able to see the target.

It's how they made being invisible or in darkness really good. It makes you totally immune to many spells and effects (pretty much anything that doesnt require an attack roll or doesnt target an area).

You cant use GFB unless you have a target you can see. If you have that, you dont get the spells secondary effect unless there is a valid target you can see to jump the flame to.

It's similar to how chain lighting works.

[Chronos]

Green Flame Blade can use any weapon, but look again at where it describes the attack you make with that weapon: It must be a melee attack. So you could use a bow or something with GFB, but then you're using a bow to make a melee attack, in which case it counts as improvised and thus does only 1d4 and you're probably not proficient with it.

On spell targeting, a few spells don't depend on sight, but instead target a creature that can hear you, like Vicious Mockery or Dissonant Whispers. Which makes those spells a lot more useful when dealing with invisible enemies or in darkness. But that's very much the exception, not the norm.

[MThurston]

No; plenty of spells and special abilities contain the rules limit sentence 'a target you can see'.

If you cant see them, you can't cast the spell on them.

Divine Word for example (oddly enough). Or Hex. Or Magic missile. Or healing word. Or hold person. Or attacks of opportunity.

In order to use those spells or abilities you need to be able to see the target.

It's how they made being invisible or in darkness really good. It makes you totally immune to many spells and effects (pretty much anything that doesnt require an attack roll or doesnt target an area).

You cant use GFB unless you have a target you can see. If you have that, you dont get the spells secondary effect unless there is a valid target you can see to jump the flame to.

It's similar to how chain lighting works.

I don't play spell casters very much. Mostly fighters and rogues.

I would never allow anyone to direct a none AOE action to unseen targets and with AOE I have them pick the squares that the AOE effect.

As for my blind eyes.

I read the wrong part of GFB.

It requires V,S, a weapon.

The first part of the discription says melee weapon. Silly me. Getting selective reading in my old age.

[JackPhoenix]

The rule I read said weapon. Maybe the melee part was left out of the writting.

I'm not sure what rule you're reading, but it says "you must make a melee attack with a weapon". It doesn't need to be melee weapon, so improvised attacks with ranged weapons still work.

[Malifice]

I don't play spell casters very much. Mostly fighters and rogues.

I would never allow anyone to direct a none AOE action to unseen targets and with AOE I have them pick the squares that the AOE effect.

Ok cool, but you're doing it wrong. You're equating 'hidden' with 'unseen'. They're different things.

You can cast many spells at unseen targets (that are not also hidden). For example scorching ray or any spell with an melee or ranged spell attack roll.

The attack roll is made with disadvantage.

The benefit of being unseen is fourfold.

1) Many (most) spells require a target 'you can see'. You're flat out immune to all those spells.
2) For the rest of the spells, they pretty much all require attack rolls, and you're at disadvantage to the attack rolls against you, as they dont know exactly where you are (as they cant see you).
3) You can attempt to become hidden (via taking the Hide action, and succeeding in a Stealth check vs nearby enemies passive perception scores).
4) You get advantage on your attack rolls.

Pick a spell. Read the spells text. Most of them have the RULES line 'a target you can see' in the targeting section/ body text. If you cant see a target, you cant target them with the spell.

[MThurston]

Ok cool, but you're doing it wrong. You're equating 'hidden' with 'unseen'. They're different things.

You can cast many spells at unseen targets (that are not also hidden). For example scorching ray or any spell with an melee or ranged spell attack roll.

The attack roll is made with disadvantage.

The benefit of being unseen is fourfold.

1) Many (most) spells require a target 'you can see'. You're flat out immune to all those spells.
2) For the rest of the spells, they pretty much all require attack rolls, and you're at disadvantage to the attack rolls against you, as they dont know exactly where you are (as they cant see you).
3) You can attempt to become hidden (via taking the Hide action, and succeeding in a Stealth check vs nearby enemies passive perception scores).
4) You get advantage on your attack rolls.

Pick a spell. Read the spells text. Most of them have the RULES line 'a target you can see' in the targeting section/ body text. If you cant see a target, you cant target them with the spell.

Example.

I cast darkness. I stab a target inside the darkness and then move.

Are you saying that the person attacking the person on they can't see is at disadvantage to hit?

For me I would make them pick a square to attack and then if they pick the right square they are at disadvantage.

[Misterwhisper]

Example.

I cast darkness. I stab a target inside the darkness and then move.

Are you saying that the person attacking the person on they can't see is at disadvantage to hit?

For me I would make them pick a square to attack and then if they pick the right square they are at disadvantage.

Actually they attack normally because their disadvantage from attacking an opponent they can’t see is balanced out due to the fact they are also attacking someone that can’t see them.

Darkness is not as great as it gets made out to be.

[Tanarii]

Example.

I cast darkness. I stab a target inside the darkness and then move.

Are you saying that the person attacking the person on they can't see is at disadvantage to hit?

For me I would make them pick a square to attack and then if they pick the right square they are at disadvantage.
UP to the DM, but the general rule is that if you can hear but not see an opponent, you won't have to guess their location. And of course if you cannot hear nor see them, you should have to guess their location. See unseen attackers PHB 194-195.

However, there are no explicit rules that you're automatically heard if you're not hidden.

You'll have to use your own judgement at which perception checks are required to hear a creature that is not hiding based on circumstances and environment. For example, most people would probably not consider it reasonable to automatically pinpoint (no check) the location of a creature standing even 30ft away. Especially if it's from the sound of their bowstring twanging and general movement while you're crossing blades with something right in your face.

Edit: even though most don't seem to consider it reasonable that you can hear creatures easily at longish ranges, a large number of DMs I've discussed this with (mostly AL DMs) seem to go with "hide or automatically pinpointed" just because it's simpler.

[Malifice]

Example.

I cast darkness. I stab a target inside the darkness and then move.

Are you saying that the person attacking the person on they can't see is at disadvantage to hit?

Yes. Sort of. Unless they can see in the darkness themselves they dont get disadvantage (its cancelled out by the advantage the unseen creature gets).

Unless either creature Hides in the darkness (via the Hide action) the rules assume nearby creatures know roughly where they are with sufficient precision to be able to attack them (at disadvantage).

If the creature wants to make their position unknown (become hidden) while unseen (in the darkness) they have to take the Hide action.

Rogues can do it as a bonus action.

For everyone else though, it's an action.

If you succeed you're hidden in the darkness and cant be targeted all except by a lucky guess or by successfully using the Search action.

This has been done to death mate, and the rules on this are clear.

Google it.

[Malifice]

Actually they attack normally because their disadvantage from attacking an opponent they can’t see is balanced out due to the fact they are also attacking someone that can’t see them.

Darkness is not as great as it gets made out to be.

The main advantage of darkness or any other method of becoming unseen like invisibility etc is it enables you to Hide at will (via the action) and it makes you totally immune to most spells and special abilities (most of them require 'a target you can see'.)

[MThurston]

I think it would be outrageous to auto target someone in darkness. Turn off the lights in a room and have a battle scene playing over speakers. Bet you can't even point at the person.

But if it's the rules.

[Willie the Duck]

I think it would be outrageous to auto target someone in darkness. Turn off the lights in a room and have a battle scene playing over speakers. Bet you can't even point at the person.

But if it's the rules.

The rules are more just mostly silent* on the issue of when you can't target someone, ceding it to the 'rulings over rules' part of the game. That, combined with pushback from rogue players if ('so what good is our hide-as-a-bonus-action ability, if, in the #1 most common situation where we can hide at all, literally anyone can do it simply by moving?'), means that that is the generalized ruling that wins the day.
*yes, bad pun, but the sentence gets more confusing if I try to remove it.

I would definitely say that sufficient noise should move the targeting down a line from automatic to free action listen check, to action listen check, to random guessing of squares, but the rules aren't going to spell out when those should start happening. I doubt very much any of us our even remotely an expert at blind fighting in small groups skirmishes, but I'm genuinely not sure on what I'd say about battle noise. I mean, in general your goal is to move toward the noise and swing your weapon. Kinda makes me miss the old days of rolling randomly on who you attacked when firing into uncontrolled situations (but certainly not miss it much :smalltongue:).

[Malifice]

I think it would be outrageous to auto target someone in darkness. Turn off the lights in a room and have a battle scene playing over speakers.

Then have a person in that darkness trying to repeatedly stab you over the course of six seconds.

They're really not that hard to find.

Remember actions in combat are largely simultaneous. A single attack roll represents you advancing in the darkness waving a sword about wildly for 6 seconds (or so). You could sweep a sword over the entire area of your lounge room in that time.

Also, dont forget that a creature that has yet to take the Hide action hasnt made any effort to conceal his presence or be quiet. He has instead been attacking, running around, casting spells and so forth (using his action to do other things).

Its not that he cant Hide in the darkness; it's that he has chosen not to.

The game (as a whole) still makes him very hard to target. Most spells and special abilities cant be used on him at all. You cant target him with a Greenflame blade, a Hex spell, a Counterspell, a Hold person, a Dominate Person, a Magic Missile, a Divine Word, an Attack of Opportunity and plenty of other things. Of the few remaining things that he can be targeted with, those attacks are made at disadvantage.

In addition, he can Hide in the darkness whenever he wants, by using his action to do so. Until he does so, he's presumed to not be making any effort to conceal himself (which he isnt).

He wants to be quiet in the darkness and totally vanish? He can take the Hide action and go crazy.


But if it's the rules.

They are the rules.

I highly recommend sitting down and reading them. Then trying to grasp them as a whole.

[Malifice]

The rules are more just mostly silent* on the issue of when you can't target someone,

No, they're not.

Most special abilities and spells in the game contain the rules jargon: 'a target you can see.'

Healing word requires a 'target you can see'. You can only exclude friendly creatures from your Spirit guardians spell if they are 'targets you can see.' You can only Hex, Hold person, Greenflame blade, Dominate person, Divine Word etc a 'target you can see.'

The benefits of being unseen (invisible, darkness etc) when it comes to targeting are contained in the rules text of hundreds of special abilities scattered throughout the game.

The benefits are already there; you just need to look at the rules as a whole to see them.


I would definitely say that sufficient noise should move the targeting down a line from automatic to free action listen check, to action listen check, to random guessing of squares, but the rules aren't going to spell out when those should start happening. I doubt very much any of us our even remotely an expert at blind fighting in small groups skirmishes, but I'm genuinely not sure on what I'd say about battle noise. I mean, in general your goal is to move toward the noise and swing your weapon. Kinda makes me miss the old days of rolling randomly on who you attacked when firing into uncontrolled situations (but certainly not miss it much :smalltongue:).

A dude trying to hide while unseen (for example, in darkness) and wearing Elven Boots (which totally negate sound from movement) simply makes his Stealth check (via the Hide action) at advantage.

He's not automatically hidden.

If it's super loud in a combat for some reason, then I'd simply make the same ruling: (your Stealth) checks to Hide are made with advantage.

If a player wants to become hidden in darkness, he can take the Hide Action. If he also happens to be a Rogue who can do it as a bonus action, and has expertise in Stealth, then even better.

He doesnt have to take the Hide action if he doesnt want to. But in that case (barring an extreme outlier) he isnt making any effort to Hide, is instead [Attacking, Casting spells, Dodging, Dashing etc) and isnt hidden.

[Willie the Duck]

No, they're not.

Most special abilities and spells in the game contain the rules jargon: 'a target you can see.'

I should clarify, I was talking about targeting an individual for attack with a weapon. You are correct that the game specifically uses visual sighting as an yes/no targeting criteria for many-to-most spells. It wouldn't have to if there was a generalized targeting criteria.

Regardless, I stand by my point, post clarification. The game rules do not specify many particular cases when a person would not be able to target someone with a weapon attack, barring active hiding. This is not AD&D or 3e, and there aren't a whole bunch of charts. So you won't see a chart listing various activities and how noisy they are, with one level and past being a threshold past which you cannot use sound to target an opponent if you cannot use sight (because of darkness, invisibility, etc.). Thus it becomes a point of DM arbitration on where such a cutoff might exist.


If it's super loud in a combat for some reason, then I'd simply make the same ruling: (your Stealth) checks to Hide are made with advantage.

Seems like we are on the same page, although I would also stipulate that there are levels of loudness where the roll (or hide action) becomes unnecessary -- it is too loud to find someone via use of hearing.

[Malifice]

Seems like we are on the same page, although I would also stipulate that there are levels of loudness where the roll (or hide action) becomes unnecessary -- it is too loud to find someone via use of hearing.

What about touch and smell and disrupting the environment around them (footprints etc).

I concede some kind of extreme outlier might render a creature 'auto hidden' but for mine they're rare outliers. I'd much rather grant advantage to stealth and/ or disadvantage to perception in the lions share of cases (while retaining the Hide and Search action economy).

[MThurston]

LOL.

Hidden in darkness.

I play a warlock. I can see in darkness. I cast darkness on myself and I know anyone outside it can pretty much AOE my butt.

The poor fool that can't at all see me is at disadvantage. If he uses an avility to give him advantage, then he attacks me straight up.

I find that silly. And me being able to see you allows me to position attacks so the you think they are coming from that direction and not where I am.

Best way to simulate this is to have a buddy put on boxing gloves. You put on a blind fold and try to defend yourself.

It's impossible.

As I said, if that is the rule than you have to use them.

By this rule if I am in total darkness and someone is 120 feet from me. Am I at disadvantage to hit them with an arrow?

[Willie the Duck]

What about touch and smell and disrupting the environment around them (footprints etc).

Footprints are sight and I thought we were talking about doing stuff in darkness. I think we're running into 'what are we even talking about?' issues with this discussion.


I concede some kind of extreme outlier might render a creature 'auto hidden' but for mine they're rare outliers. I'd much rather grant advantage to stealth and/ or disadvantage to perception in the lions share of cases (while retaining the Hide and Search action economy).

My point was only that this is 5e, not 3e or AD&D. No big long charts of when you can and can't target someone. You know what square an opponent is in if you have any sense which could find them, unless they are hiding, and unless the DM rules it impossible (rulings over rules).

As to 'rather', once we get into the realm of preferences, and/or gamebuilding decisions, I'm not sure that the Hide and Search action economy would have to be what it is, if a specific class didn't have an special attack that only approached parity if it could get it most rounds (and their bonus action hide thus being a huge character assist). Without the rogue (or the rogue as it exists), I'm not sure I'd favor an attack with disability model over the guessing a square and attacking it, hoping they are there, that MThurston posited earlier. But that's pretty much rebuilding the game from ground up.


I play a warlock. I can see in darkness. I cast darkness on myself and I know anyone outside it can pretty much AOE my butt.
The poor fool that can't at all see me is at disadvantage. If he uses an avility to give him advantage, then he attacks me straight up.
I find that silly. And me being able to see you allows me to position attacks so the you think they are coming from that direction and not where I am.
Best way to simulate this is to have a buddy put on boxing gloves. You put on a blind fold and try to defend yourself.
It's impossible.
As I said, if that is the rule than you have to use them.
By this rule if I am in total darkness and someone is 120 feet from me. Am I at disadvantage to hit them with an arrow?

Okay, first of all, no you don't have to use the rules, most tables do not hew perfectly to RAW. However, you should make sure what rules you do use are pre-established at the table in question. By default, someone who knows how a darkness spell works should be able to go into the warlock's darkness and attack them (them being at the center) with disadvantage. As to silliness, I concede that both the way it stands and complete inability to defend yourself in the darkness are both rather silly extremes (people absolutely have been able to defend themselves when robbed of sight in real life, and D&D is genre emulation and blind fighting is definitely part of that). The dis/advantage mechanic has been leveraged to accommodate all forms of, well, acting at advantage or disadvantage, and sometimes the results are a little silly. As to your final question, you have disadvantage when shooting someone you can't see (regardless of distance), although that might be negated by them not being able to see you either.

[JackPhoenix]

LOL.

Hidden in darkness.

I play a warlock. I can see in darkness. I cast darkness on myself and I know anyone outside it can pretty much AOE my butt.

The poor fool that can't at all see me is at disadvantage. If he uses an avility to give him advantage, then he attacks me straight up.

I find that silly. And me being able to see you allows me to position attacks so the you think they are coming from that direction and not where I am.

Best way to simulate this is to have a buddy put on boxing gloves. You put on a blind fold and try to defend yourself.

It's impossible.

As I said, if that is the rule than you have to use them.

By this rule if I am in total darkness and someone is 120 feet from me. Am I at disadvantage to hit them with an arrow?

You sound a lot like lord drako in this post.

But no, if you can see your target and it can't see you, you aren't attacking with disadvantage. You'll have an advantage, unless you have a disadvantage for some other reason (shooting at long range or at prone target, for example). How about you read the rules before asking questions?

[Keravath]

Quick add to this discussion: most DMs, and really most good DMs, care a lot more about the story they’re sharing then they do the mechanics of the game. They’d much rather spend their prep hours refining that story and the events that help it unfold, rather than read the PHB and DMG to revisit mechanics.

Yes and no.

Yes, really good DMs care a lot about the situation that they have created for the characters. However, that situation exists within an understandable world where things work in specific ways. Mechanics is a fundamental aspect of ANY world building.

Really good DMs care about creating a fun consistent and immersive world where the "stories" are the result of the character interactions with that world. These interactions have to internally make sense or it will break immersion when the characters run into the DM running some fundamental interaction one way the first time and a different way the next (without some decent in game reason for the change).

The DM is NOT telling a "story" ... they are mediating the interactions of the characters with a game world and NPCs. These interactions are circumscribed by the "rules" in play.

So honestly, a really good DM is not referring to the rules during play because they care more about making up some story. They don't refer to them because they already know what mechanics will be used so they don't need to look it up OR if something unexpected comes up, they already know the rules well enough to decide how to deal with the situation in a clear and consistent way.

Having a DM trying to tell a story rather than letting the characters create it AND not knowing the rules well enough that they have to resort to making things up in an inconsistent way is generally a recipe for a mess.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just...add or subtract more advantage or disadvantage. Blindness not debilitating enough? Fine, it does 3d20, keep one.

It's not complicated, guys. DnD 5e is designed to be simple to get people into the game (and it has), but it's also fairly streamlined so the DM can pick and choose what's relevant or not.

If you want Blindness to be more important in a world where creatures have blindsense and players don't, sure? But the system is made the way it is to prevent a single element (like Darkness) from deciding a battle. It's not fun for the players to be subject to it, and it's not fun to have to rely on a single strategy to win.

But you could just have some effects (like blindness) impose more d20 rerolls as a penalty/bonus.

[MThurston]

Just because I don't read rules.

If I cast darkness, move to a target and atrack and then continue to move away, does my target get a reaction even though he can not see me?

[Misterwhisper]

Just because I don't read rules.

If I cast darkness, move to a target and atrack and then continue to move away, does my target get a reaction even though he can not see me?

No, you have to be able to see the target to be able make an Opportunity Attack.

[Willie the Duck]

Just because I don't read rules.

What is just because you don't read rules? This seems to be half of a thought.

[JackPhoenix]

What is just because you don't read rules? This seems to be half of a thought.

He's asking a question that wouldn't be necessary if he bothered to actually read the rules. And not for the first time.

[Malifice]

Just because I don't read rules.

If I cast darkness, move to a target and atrack and then continue to move away, does my target get a reaction even though he can not see me?

No. An attack of opportunity can only be made at 'a target you can see'. Its one of countless abilities, spells and other attacks that have this explicit targeting restriction ('a target you can see').

Its one of the things that makes darkness so potent. It completely shuts down hundreds of spells, special abilities and similar stuff with that targeting restriction ('a target you can see') in the rules text.

You can walk into darkness, waving your sword about like a madman for several seconds as you advance (getting your attacks at disadvantage, presuming the creature in the darkness can see you) and then stumble backward without suffering from an AoO (presuming the creature cant see you).

You need to read the rules. It's been said to you countless times already, but sit down and read the PHB.

[MThurston]

I have darkness up.

I move 10 feet to attack and then move away keeping the person that can't see in darkness at distance.

How does that person know where I am or how to get out of the darkness?

Would just like to know how people play this?

This is what I suggested and found on another site.

(Resolving the unknown location, mechanically, is DM fiat; generally, the DM makes creatures target random points within the bubble, and if they're more than 5' from the creature, they're not close enough to hit them. Otherwise, they use their Action to use the Search action, and if they roll high enough, they're able to know the location of their target)

[JackPhoenix]

I have darkness up.

I move 10 feet to attack and then move away keeping the person that can't see in darkness at distance.

How does that person know where I am or how to get out of the darkness?

Would just like to know how people play this?

This is what I suggested and found on another site.

(Resolving the unknown location, mechanically, is DM fiat; generally, the DM makes creatures target random points within the bubble, and if they're more than 5' from the creature, they're not close enough to hit them. Otherwise, they use their Action to use the Search action, and if they roll high enough, they're able to know the location of their target)

Unless you Hide (as action or Cunning Action), they can still hear you, or possibly smell you, or feel the draft caused by your movement, and they still remember in what direction you were moving. They simply move next to you and attack at disadvantage. No need to use Search action if you aren't hidden. If the part in parentheses is what you've found on another site, that site is flat-out wrong about random targetting. Your location is NOT unknown in this case.

[Willie the Duck]

How does that person know where I am or how to get out of the darkness?

The default game assumption is that they heard, smelled, or otherwise used all of their senses other-than-sight to have figured out where you went (as to how to get out of the darkness, well, they saw how big a radius-from-you it had before they were enveloped, and they know where you are, so they can extrapolate where it ends to figure out how to get out).

Is it pretty amazing that they could hear that you moved 15' NNW as opposed to 10' NWW (and have the perfect memory and positional awareness to move in response)? Sure, but in this game you're also generally allowed to count out distance-to-target and determine whether the opponent is 149' away or 151' away (and thus in short or long range for your longbow) before you decide to fire an arrow at them. Some of this is going to fall under gamist simplification for sake of ease of play.

Ease of play, and also playable balance. If a warlock could just cast darkness, be (nearly) the only one who could see through it, and routinely be able to move after their action such that any potential attacker would have to guess which square to attack... and then attack it at disadvantage... that at least would make the designers think twice about whether they would put the Darkness + Devil's Sight into the warlocks low-level repertoire. Particularly since the ability to roll a failable check to accomplish something similar is a somewhat class-defining feature of the rogue (who--the ranged version in particular--lives, dies, and meaningfully contributes based on how well and how often they can get their attack-from-hiding abilities to work).


Would just like to know how people play this?

Mind you, everything I said above is the academic arguments. Real people (DMs or otherwise) at real tables playing games where everything does not conform to 5' squares and the like make on-the-spot decisions based on what seems appropriate, not what is the letter of the law rules, nor what maintains a perfect game balance. Just note that, if you choose to play a warlock, and pick this setup -- even if your DM initially makes rulings that aid/facilitate this character by not assuming people can hear where others have moved to, eventually they will probably move to restrict its' use. That is my personal experience of the Darkness + Devil's Sight combo -- it's not grossly overpowered, it just makes combat just annoying enough that people rather quickly find ways to make it not happen (either by DM action or the rest of your party getting annoyed with you).



This is what I suggested and found on another site.

(Resolving the unknown location, mechanically, is DM fiat; generally, the DM makes creatures target random points within the bubble, and if they're more than 5' from the creature, they're not close enough to hit them. Otherwise, they use their Action to use the Search action, and if they roll high enough, they're able to know the location of their target)

That's a codification of a pretty common interpretation. It makes this ability all the more powerful (and annoying, particularly given that the 'swing and a miss' factor just stretches combat out). If you are the DM, try it out, but do not agree to use it in perpetuity until you've determined the consequences.

[Malifice]

I have darkness up.

I move 10 feet to attack and then move away keeping the person that can't see in darkness at distance.

How does that person know where I am or how to get out of the darkness?

Would just like to know how people play this?

This is what I suggested and found on another site.

(Resolving the unknown location, mechanically, is DM fiat; generally, the DM makes creatures target random points within the bubble, and if they're more than 5' from the creature, they're not close enough to hit them. Otherwise, they use their Action to use the Search action, and if they roll high enough, they're able to know the location of their target)

You're falsely looking at turns as if they model reality. They dont. Everyone else in the combat isnt standing still for 6 seconds while 1 person moves.

The person you moved 10' up to, attacked and then moved away from? They were following you up swinging a sword at you the whole way at the same time.

[MThurston]

Unless you Hide (as action or Cunning Action), they can still hear you, or possibly smell you, or feel the draft caused by your movement, and they still remember in what direction you were moving. They simply move next to you and attack at disadvantage. No need to use Search action if you aren't hidden. If the part in parentheses is what you've found on another site, that site is flat-out wrong about random targetting. Your location is NOT unknown in this case.

Nope, make a search roll.

[Willie the Duck]

Nope, make a search roll.

Okay, if you're not going to back this up with anything, we shouldn't take it seriously. You're just stating an opinion at this point.

What is this other site? I want to see if they are positioning the interpretation you mentioned as RAW, a ruling, or a house rule.

[Tanarii]

The default game assumption is that they heard, smelled, or otherwise used all of their senses other-than-sight to have figured out where you went (as to how to get out of the darkness, well, they saw how big a radius-from-you it had before they were enveloped, and they know where you are, so they can extrapolate where it ends to figure out how to get out).
This is not the case.

The default assumption is IF they can hear you, they figure out where you are. And do not have to guess your location.

The default assumption is IF they failed a Passive Perception vs your Hide check, they do not hear you.

If you did not succeed in a Hide check, whether or not they can hear you is completely in the DMs hands. It might be automatically successful, require a check of some kind, or an automatic failure. See your DMG for adjudicating actions. That's the 5e RAW.

[Willie the Duck]

This is not the case.

The default assumption is IF they can hear you, they figure out where you are. And do not have to guess your location.

The default assumption is IF they failed a Passive Perception vs your Hide check, they do not hear you.

If you did not succeed in a Hide check, whether or not they can hear you is completely in the DMs hands. It might be automatically successful, requires a check of some kind, or an automatic failure. See your DMG for adjudicating actions. That's the 5e RAW.

<Sigh>, my gods. Some days I have no idea why I bother coming here. Tanarii, did you somehow magically completely miss how I was the one person in this thread that was consistently been advocating that all of this is situational and based on the DM's adjudication of what the actual situation at hand was? So now you decide to swoop in and harp on me when I give a little of an inch to playing on the terms Mal and MT are talking about? Jesus Christ, you basically just made my larger point which I already made multiple times over the past several pages. I just... wow.

Now, we are discussing a specific sub-scenario MThurston came up with where he stipulated the actions present, and no one made a hide check. No one is hiding.

[Tanarii]

Someone has to present the RAW, which is: when no one is making a Hide check, if you're heard or otherwise detected to the degree that you're pinpointed is up to the DM to determine.

This needs to be presented because there are many people that like to try and claim RAW says if you're not hiding, youre automatically detected and pinpointed. This is false.

[Malifice]

Nope, make a search roll.

Perception check via the Search action. There is no such thing as a 'Search roll'.

And such a check is only necessary when your opponent has take the Hide action (i.e. he's stayed still in the darkness, and made some effort to conceal himself by moving quietly, stilling his breath and being sneaky) and has succeeded in the Stealth check.

If he hasnt done that (and has insteade been running around that 6 second combat round, casting spells or attacking) then the game defaults to you knowing (roughly) where he is with enough precision to make attack rolls against him (at disadvantage) while he's running around and attacking things.

Remember; he's not standing still during that round when your turn comes up. He's doing what ever you said he was doing when his turn came up (in this case, moving 10', attacking, and moving another 10'). While his miniature on the board is currently stattionary due to the 'stop start' cyclic nature of combat rounds, he's actually currently racing around, attacking things, and racing away when your turn comes around. He's not standing still in between his turns; he's in continuous motion from turn to turn.

If he had have declared he was instead making some effort to be quiet (Hide action and then maybe move) and was succesful in that action, then instead of you hearing him racing about you and attacking you, you instead hear nothing and have no idea where he is (meaning you now need to use the Search action to find him).

Stop viewing turns in combat rounds as if they model reality, with people acting one at a time, while everyone else stands still. The reality is they model simultaneous action, despite the stop start nature of how the mechanics works.

If (on your turn) you're moving around in darkness, and making melee attacks against me, and then moving away, you're obviously making a lot of noise, likely hitting me with a sharp sword (thats glancing off my armor or even cutting me) and running around the place for a full six seconds.

It makes perfect sense that I can swing my own sword back at you in the six seconds as you do so (at disadvantage because I cant see you).

If you instead wanted to be sneaky and quiet instead of attacking me and running around the place, you can do so (take the Hide action instead of the Attack action or the Dash action). The choice is up to you.


If you did not succeed in a Hide check, whether or not they can hear you is completely in the DMs hands..

No its not. If you failed in a Stealth check to Hide, you're not hidden [defined in the PHB as unseen AND unheard]. By logical extension, you're now (or you remain) one or both of 'seen' or 'heard'.

The default position in combat is that you're not hidden until you take the Hide action succesfully. A DM could (in extreme outliers) rule that the Hide action isnt necessary to be hidden [unseen AND unheard] of course. But that remains the defualt postion.

[MThurston]

Do you know how stupid it is to say you have to hide in darkness?

[Malifice]

Do you know how stupid it is to say you have to hide in darkness

Read the rules.

Being unseen (such as being invisible or being in darkness) does not automatically make you 'hidden'. Hidden is explicity defined in the rules as 'unseen AND unheard.' To make yourself hidden, you have to first make yourself unseen (such as becoming invisible or stepping into darkness) AND THEN TAKE THE HIDE ACTION (representing you attempting to take advantage of the darkness to make your position unknown).

The Hide action represents you taking the time an effort to move silently (or not move at all) and conceal your location in the darkness.

If you haven't taken the Hide action, you are NOT moving silently, or attempting to conceal your location. You have in fact been using your action for other things (attacking, casting spells, dashing etc). You're standing in the darkness, casting spells, yelling out to companions, swinging swords around (likely at other people), dashing about and so forth, likely in armor, weighed down by gear etc.

Seriously. The game has been out for 5 years now. Read the rules, understand them, and you'll see how they work.

[RSP]

Do you know how stupid it is to say you have to hide in darkness?

Less stupid than stating you don’t read the rules of a game, coming on online message boards asking what the rules to that game are, and then denouncing said rules as stupid?

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you know how stupid it is to say you have to hide in darkness?

Fine, but magic also isn't real. The game does things like this to ensure that:


The heroes and badguys can still do heroic/evildoer things.
The balance of the game is stable to ensure that each scenario is diverse and not stagnant.


Screw with that if you want, but making blindness effects better is just going to have players and enemies rely on those tactics because they're more efficient. It'll end up being boring and unbalanced.

Always ask yourself: If it doesn't make the narrative more exciting, and it doesn't make the game more fun, then who is it helping?

[Tanarii]

What's not stupid is to say "if at the DM's judgement it's quiet enough around you and you're close enough that you will be heard if you make noise, you need to Hide to be quiet while in the Darkness."

Hide check is necessary when the enemies will either automatically detect you if you make noise, or have succeeded on a check against any static DC required to hear (pinpoint) someone caused by ambient environmental noise / distance as determined by the DM.

Note that the latter may come after a Hide check instead of before. But it should not modify a hide check, since a Hide check itself should not make someone attempting it worse than not attempting to Hide. But you can hack the game a bit to do that ...

a quick but not mathematically accurate (ie doesn't match a separate perception check vs DC) way around having to make multiple checks is to make the ambient noise / distance DC a floor value for the hide check. If it's DC 10 to hear (pinpoint) archers who are 60ft away in combat, a DM can just make 10 the minimum value of the final roll including bonuses for someone making a Hide check at 60ft in combat.

[Shuruke]

If you were to get action surge from fighter where you get a complete second action on a turn, yes you could cast it again. It you get another attack from something (warlock invocation, fighter level 5, haste, whatever) you cannot cast it again. In fact if you are running a character that gets 2 attacks due to fighter 5, you can choose to either cast Green-Flame Blade OR take two attacks. You don't get both.


If you go eldritch knight fighter their 7th level feature can be great and action surge
This would allow you to cast gfb then attack with bonus action for up to 2d6 hex damage a turn along with weapon and scaling cantrip damage.