Zazamori
2019-09-12, 11:44 PM
I should learn to be more succinct. I have included all the evidence & thought trains which brought me to my conclusions, but also there's a TL;DR at the end.
Throughout this post I will be using the convention that "Darkness" with the first letter capitalized refers to the level 2 spell titled Darkness. If I use an all lower-case "darkness", I am referring to mundane darkness.
In planning for a character that uses the Devil's Sight+Darkness combo, & then later Shadow of Moil, I've realized there is a lot of disagreement regarding how the mechanics of these work in combat. In the case of Shadow of Moil, that is largely due to the rather confusing wording of the spell itself. In the case of Darkness, that's due to the more general rules regarding lighting, obscurement, & unseen attackers not being fleshed out well enough. This also got me thinking about the proper use of all the special senses.
I understand Darkness creates a heavily obscured area, leaving creatures unable to see each other (barring special senses). If two characters were trying to fight with at least one of them being completely inside the area of darkness, or with an area of darkness between them, they should each get advantage to hit, given that the target can't see to defend itself, & disadvantage to hit, given that they can't see the target. This SHOULD have the net affect of negating all sources of advantage and disadvantage, resulting in normal attacks from both parties.
That all seems straight forward & makes sense if you don't dive too deeply. Strictly following RAW, it results in some odd situations, such as being able to attack normally at 4x the distance using a bow. That obviously can't be the proper way to play that.
A lot of people like to run it as both parties have disadvantage, which I had previously agreed made more sense, but since rereading the Unseen Attackers and Targets section (PHB 194-195), it seems clear to me that a character first has to GUESS where the enemy is located, which is unrelated to attacking & has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
If you can't see a creature, you can't target that creature. You may instead target a location, but the creature you want to hurt may not be in that location.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
Think of it as though you can only target a creature with an attack if you can see it. If you can't see it, then you can still attempt to attack it by choosing a direction. This goes beyond the advantage/disadvantage system. This really should've been spelled out more clearly.
This should mean that a character is more likely to hit it's target if there're fewer possible locations for the target to be located.
For example, imagine a character is in the center of a darkness spell is being attacked by an enemy located outside the spell's affect. If the outside enemy knows the creature is inside the darkness, he must choose a location to shoot. There are only so many squares inside the darkness. By contrast, while shooting outward there are a lot more spots from which to choose. This would provide a sort of pseudo-disadvantage, but not technically actual disadvantage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, no specific rules exist regarding mechanics on how to deal with attacking an unseen target. If using a grid with miniatures, you can't just let the player choose to have her character 'guess' that her target is in the square where the actual person can see the miniature is located; that's obviously unfair. You also can't violate movement rules by deciding the player guessed wrong & the target slipped to another spot outside of its turn. I think rolling an extra die is the fairest way to handle this, providing a second opportunity to miss. It's not difficult to choose die to approximate different chances of guessing correctly on the fly.
If, say, each square inside the Darkness could be struck by at least one of 6 lines drawn from the outside shooter (corresponding to the 6 square diameter of the Darkness sphere), then roll a d6 along with the actual attack. The attack is only aimed to collide with the target on a result of 6. Alternatively, you could count from left to right across the diameter (from the attacking character's perspective) & say that the shot travels in the direction aimed at the corresponding square, but can also potentially hit if the target is in any square in front or behind the targeted square. In either case, you still have to consider the target's AC, so roll a normal attack anyway.
If instead, the attacker knows the Darkness is centered on & moves with the enemy, then she could approximate the center, narrowing down the number of potential spots. In this case, maybe just call evens or odds & roll any die to give a 50% chance of shooting the correct direction.
Meanwhile, the character inside benefits from a huge defense boost, but takes an even larger penalty to hit chance. The character inside Darkness may be completely disoriented, perhaps only shooting the correct direction if a preliminary d20 direction roll results in a 20, followed by a normal attack roll to hit. I think even that might be too high a hit chance if the target is far away. Maybe rolling a d100, with only a result of 100 succeeding, would be more appropriate. She may be able to use sounds to narrow down the number of directions from which to choose; you could simulate that by making a separate Wisdom (Perception) check or simply adding a perception score to the direction die roll.
Last example: if two characters are both inside Darkness engaged in melee combat, they could be running around each other (or running into each other, lol) constantly during the fight. For this situation, it's not enough to swing in the direction the last attack came from because the enemy may have moved. Roll a d8 for direction, representing the 8 squares surrounding the attacking character's space. Only an 8 results in attacking the correct direction. Then roll a normal attack for hit. You could also bring in perception here. If you go with the method of adding Perception to the direction roll for this one, a perception of +7 guarantees you aim the correct direction, which I think seems reasonable for a character with acute hearing.
If it worked this way, making the attack normally (without disadvantage) makes more sense, because something else is already causing hit chance to suffer. I would say this also makes the interaction of cancelling other sources of advantage/disadvantage reasonable.
I must emphasize I pulled those numbers out of my bum. I maintain that the RAW do clearly imply that the location must be guessed or sensed in a different way, however I can't find any rules governing the mechanics of that, hence, I spit-balled some.
If used in that way, the Darkness spell is useful for protection even to a character that can't see through it (although not so much for helping them hurt baddies). However, this makes it a ridiculous amount more useful to characters that can see through it, perhaps to such a degree that it's completely unfair for a level 2 spell. I feel this is more in-line with a strict interpretation of the rules, but that doesn't exactly mean it's the best idea. Thoughts??
Then there's Shadow of Moil. I'm aware questions have been asked many times before & that JC has declared pseudo-official rulings, but I've yet to find a satisfyingly comprehensive answer. Although JC's statements provide some insight into the thought process behind the conception of SoM, they don't completely un-muddy the water. There's a peculiar irony to the way that a spell about obscurement is so difficult to understand.
The relevant comments by JC on the matter:
Shadow of Moil heavily obscures you, full stop. The spell also dims the light around you. The fact that you're heavily obscured is a result of the flame-like shadows surrounding you, not the result of being in darkness. This means you're heavily obscured even to darkvision (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1084904730789212160).
This makes it clear SoM has two discrete visual effects, only related in so far as they result from the same spell. When affected by SoM:
1) You are heavily obscured to other creatures.
2) The environment around you darkens by one category.
If this happens to make the environment around you into darkness, then this also results in you becoming heavily obscured, so long as those trying to see you lack special vision.
Truesight sees through darkness, including the darkness created by shadow of Moil. In contrast, truesight doesn't penetrate physical concealment, such as what would be created by a dense sandstorm or a blanket. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/943256098869469184)
Here JC gave the correct answer to the wrong question. In light of the first quote, it is clear that seeing through the darkness created by the spell (effect 2 above) is not the same as seeing through the "flame-like shadows" (effect 1). It is unclear if truesight should allow a creature to attack an SoM character without disadvantage. It seems to me JC danced around the actual issue, most likely because he wants to purposefully leave it open to interpretation for now. It's possible that one can infer from this that what he meant to state SoM > Truesight, but I feel that's not an absolute certainty based on his word choice.
A strict interpretation of RAW may also conclude that Truesight's ability to "automatically detect visual illusions" does not do anything against SoM because it is of the necromancy school of magic (which I find slightly odd).
I find it difficult to imagine how a character affected by SoM should appear from the outside. Apparently everyone does. That's the reason there's no intuitive way to decide if SoM should be treated as darkness &/or illusion for the purpose of TS. Shadows are synonymous with darkness, so it's difficult to picture being 'wreathed by flame-like shadows causing you to become heavily obscured' if that's not the same thing as weird wavy bits of darkness resembling the shape of flames blocking vision toward you.
Since the flame-like shadows can "lash out" at an enemy that hits you to deal necrotic damage (rather than psychic), I would say that's a small bit of evidence that they are not an illusion but a physical obscurement (such as heavy fog or dense sandstorm), also in-line with the implication that SoM defeats TS.
I've read it argued that TS should circumvent SoM because level 6 > level 4. I find that to be a reasonable way to handle it, but the logic there is severely flawed for several reasons:
1) TS isn't always from a spell.
2) The level 8 spell Maddening Darkness is essentially just an upgraded Darkness, but it is still seen-through by TS.
3) It makes just as much sense to argue that Control Weather (leavel 8) should counter SoM or that True Seeing should counter Flame Blade (level 2). Just being a higher level spell does not mean it counters the effects of a lower level spell, especially when the effects of one spell have nothing to do with the effects of the other spell, as seems to be the case with SoM vs TS.
At least it's clear from JC's comment that darkvision does not circumvent the heavy obscurement. I see no reason to believe that darkvision shouldn't trump the darkness/dim light portion. Darkvision trumping natural darkness is a case of specific beating general. Darkness spell trumping darkvision is a case of even more specific beating slightly less specific. Since SoM does not explicitly & specifically state that it defeats darkvision, it doesn't, correct?? So darkvision should allow a character to see in the area surrounding the SoM, but not see the character at the center.
According to my own interpretation of an area heavily obscured in darkness, as described above regarding the Darkness spell, a character who can't see in darkness created by SoM shouldn't even be able to see precisely which direction to attack. To hit the enemy hidden in the SoM, she should first have to semi-randomly choose a spot to attack. Such a character might have to roll for direction & then make the attack roll with disadvantage anyway. A character with darkvision won't become disoriented & will be able to see the proper direction to attack, negating the need to attack in a random direction, but the character attacks with disadvantage anyway because "flame-like shadows".
The description of tremorsense states that it allows determination of location, which is not the same as being able to perceive a target well enough to attack properly. A creature with tremorsense should be able to locate a target well enough to attack in the correct direction, but not necessarily to attack without disadvantage due to being unable to see. This should only partly counteracts Darkness & SoM. I assume this should work around walls and such, correct??
This seems correct to me based on the RAW. However, are there any creatures that would be crippled by interpreting tremorsense in this way, rather than saying it's as good as sight?? Is there any other reason why RAI should put tremorsense on-par with sight??
Similarly, blindsight doesn't rely on actual sight using eyes. It's more ambiguous as to how it functions. It also doesn't specify whether it is enough to detect a target's motion as well as actual sight, or if it just determines directionality. Based on using -sight as part of the name for this sense, rather than the more vague -sense, I'm inclined to believe blindsight is meant to be on-par with regular sight for determining location and movements of the target. That should mean it can attack the right spot without disadvantage against a SoM caster.
If blindsight is highly acute echolocation (an example offered by the book), it's reasonable to assume Darkness & SoM should provide no benefits at all to protecting from attacks against an echolocating creature.
What if blindsight is thermoception?? Many real life reptiles have thermoception acute enough to strike prey. As far as I know, there is no official lore backing this up, but I like to imagine that's how it works for dragons. Putting way too much thought into this, heat radiation is just another form of light from a non-visible part of the light spectrum, which one might imagine means Darkness blocks it. However, it's fallacious to try to apply more real life physics to an idea which is innately nonsensical in the context of real physics.
Though blindsight can be many things, it's easier to simply leave it at blindsight doesn't care about Darkness.
Are there any comments from D&D authority figures that clarify tremorsense & blindsight??
Have I overlooked anything?? Are there any holes in my reasoning?? Are there any other unanswered questions about this??
TL;DR:
When trying to attack a target in a heavily obscured area, you must guess the target's location, which should involve an element of chance & probably be more difficult than attacking with disadvantage.
Attacking a creature surrounded by the Darkness spell with:
normal senses = attack a random location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
darkvision = attack a random location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
tremorsense = attack correct location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
truesight = attack correct location with advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you attack normally unless other sources of advantage/disadvantage come into play)
blindsight = attack correct location with advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you attack normally unless other sources of advantage/disadvantage come into play)
Attacking a creature in Shadow of Moil with:
normal senses = attack a random location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
darkvision = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
tremorsense = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
truesight = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
blindsight = attack correct location without disadvantage (other sources of advantage/disadvantage may come into play)
Throughout this post I will be using the convention that "Darkness" with the first letter capitalized refers to the level 2 spell titled Darkness. If I use an all lower-case "darkness", I am referring to mundane darkness.
In planning for a character that uses the Devil's Sight+Darkness combo, & then later Shadow of Moil, I've realized there is a lot of disagreement regarding how the mechanics of these work in combat. In the case of Shadow of Moil, that is largely due to the rather confusing wording of the spell itself. In the case of Darkness, that's due to the more general rules regarding lighting, obscurement, & unseen attackers not being fleshed out well enough. This also got me thinking about the proper use of all the special senses.
I understand Darkness creates a heavily obscured area, leaving creatures unable to see each other (barring special senses). If two characters were trying to fight with at least one of them being completely inside the area of darkness, or with an area of darkness between them, they should each get advantage to hit, given that the target can't see to defend itself, & disadvantage to hit, given that they can't see the target. This SHOULD have the net affect of negating all sources of advantage and disadvantage, resulting in normal attacks from both parties.
That all seems straight forward & makes sense if you don't dive too deeply. Strictly following RAW, it results in some odd situations, such as being able to attack normally at 4x the distance using a bow. That obviously can't be the proper way to play that.
A lot of people like to run it as both parties have disadvantage, which I had previously agreed made more sense, but since rereading the Unseen Attackers and Targets section (PHB 194-195), it seems clear to me that a character first has to GUESS where the enemy is located, which is unrelated to attacking & has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
If you can't see a creature, you can't target that creature. You may instead target a location, but the creature you want to hurt may not be in that location.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
Think of it as though you can only target a creature with an attack if you can see it. If you can't see it, then you can still attempt to attack it by choosing a direction. This goes beyond the advantage/disadvantage system. This really should've been spelled out more clearly.
This should mean that a character is more likely to hit it's target if there're fewer possible locations for the target to be located.
For example, imagine a character is in the center of a darkness spell is being attacked by an enemy located outside the spell's affect. If the outside enemy knows the creature is inside the darkness, he must choose a location to shoot. There are only so many squares inside the darkness. By contrast, while shooting outward there are a lot more spots from which to choose. This would provide a sort of pseudo-disadvantage, but not technically actual disadvantage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, no specific rules exist regarding mechanics on how to deal with attacking an unseen target. If using a grid with miniatures, you can't just let the player choose to have her character 'guess' that her target is in the square where the actual person can see the miniature is located; that's obviously unfair. You also can't violate movement rules by deciding the player guessed wrong & the target slipped to another spot outside of its turn. I think rolling an extra die is the fairest way to handle this, providing a second opportunity to miss. It's not difficult to choose die to approximate different chances of guessing correctly on the fly.
If, say, each square inside the Darkness could be struck by at least one of 6 lines drawn from the outside shooter (corresponding to the 6 square diameter of the Darkness sphere), then roll a d6 along with the actual attack. The attack is only aimed to collide with the target on a result of 6. Alternatively, you could count from left to right across the diameter (from the attacking character's perspective) & say that the shot travels in the direction aimed at the corresponding square, but can also potentially hit if the target is in any square in front or behind the targeted square. In either case, you still have to consider the target's AC, so roll a normal attack anyway.
If instead, the attacker knows the Darkness is centered on & moves with the enemy, then she could approximate the center, narrowing down the number of potential spots. In this case, maybe just call evens or odds & roll any die to give a 50% chance of shooting the correct direction.
Meanwhile, the character inside benefits from a huge defense boost, but takes an even larger penalty to hit chance. The character inside Darkness may be completely disoriented, perhaps only shooting the correct direction if a preliminary d20 direction roll results in a 20, followed by a normal attack roll to hit. I think even that might be too high a hit chance if the target is far away. Maybe rolling a d100, with only a result of 100 succeeding, would be more appropriate. She may be able to use sounds to narrow down the number of directions from which to choose; you could simulate that by making a separate Wisdom (Perception) check or simply adding a perception score to the direction die roll.
Last example: if two characters are both inside Darkness engaged in melee combat, they could be running around each other (or running into each other, lol) constantly during the fight. For this situation, it's not enough to swing in the direction the last attack came from because the enemy may have moved. Roll a d8 for direction, representing the 8 squares surrounding the attacking character's space. Only an 8 results in attacking the correct direction. Then roll a normal attack for hit. You could also bring in perception here. If you go with the method of adding Perception to the direction roll for this one, a perception of +7 guarantees you aim the correct direction, which I think seems reasonable for a character with acute hearing.
If it worked this way, making the attack normally (without disadvantage) makes more sense, because something else is already causing hit chance to suffer. I would say this also makes the interaction of cancelling other sources of advantage/disadvantage reasonable.
I must emphasize I pulled those numbers out of my bum. I maintain that the RAW do clearly imply that the location must be guessed or sensed in a different way, however I can't find any rules governing the mechanics of that, hence, I spit-balled some.
If used in that way, the Darkness spell is useful for protection even to a character that can't see through it (although not so much for helping them hurt baddies). However, this makes it a ridiculous amount more useful to characters that can see through it, perhaps to such a degree that it's completely unfair for a level 2 spell. I feel this is more in-line with a strict interpretation of the rules, but that doesn't exactly mean it's the best idea. Thoughts??
Then there's Shadow of Moil. I'm aware questions have been asked many times before & that JC has declared pseudo-official rulings, but I've yet to find a satisfyingly comprehensive answer. Although JC's statements provide some insight into the thought process behind the conception of SoM, they don't completely un-muddy the water. There's a peculiar irony to the way that a spell about obscurement is so difficult to understand.
The relevant comments by JC on the matter:
Shadow of Moil heavily obscures you, full stop. The spell also dims the light around you. The fact that you're heavily obscured is a result of the flame-like shadows surrounding you, not the result of being in darkness. This means you're heavily obscured even to darkvision (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1084904730789212160).
This makes it clear SoM has two discrete visual effects, only related in so far as they result from the same spell. When affected by SoM:
1) You are heavily obscured to other creatures.
2) The environment around you darkens by one category.
If this happens to make the environment around you into darkness, then this also results in you becoming heavily obscured, so long as those trying to see you lack special vision.
Truesight sees through darkness, including the darkness created by shadow of Moil. In contrast, truesight doesn't penetrate physical concealment, such as what would be created by a dense sandstorm or a blanket. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/943256098869469184)
Here JC gave the correct answer to the wrong question. In light of the first quote, it is clear that seeing through the darkness created by the spell (effect 2 above) is not the same as seeing through the "flame-like shadows" (effect 1). It is unclear if truesight should allow a creature to attack an SoM character without disadvantage. It seems to me JC danced around the actual issue, most likely because he wants to purposefully leave it open to interpretation for now. It's possible that one can infer from this that what he meant to state SoM > Truesight, but I feel that's not an absolute certainty based on his word choice.
A strict interpretation of RAW may also conclude that Truesight's ability to "automatically detect visual illusions" does not do anything against SoM because it is of the necromancy school of magic (which I find slightly odd).
I find it difficult to imagine how a character affected by SoM should appear from the outside. Apparently everyone does. That's the reason there's no intuitive way to decide if SoM should be treated as darkness &/or illusion for the purpose of TS. Shadows are synonymous with darkness, so it's difficult to picture being 'wreathed by flame-like shadows causing you to become heavily obscured' if that's not the same thing as weird wavy bits of darkness resembling the shape of flames blocking vision toward you.
Since the flame-like shadows can "lash out" at an enemy that hits you to deal necrotic damage (rather than psychic), I would say that's a small bit of evidence that they are not an illusion but a physical obscurement (such as heavy fog or dense sandstorm), also in-line with the implication that SoM defeats TS.
I've read it argued that TS should circumvent SoM because level 6 > level 4. I find that to be a reasonable way to handle it, but the logic there is severely flawed for several reasons:
1) TS isn't always from a spell.
2) The level 8 spell Maddening Darkness is essentially just an upgraded Darkness, but it is still seen-through by TS.
3) It makes just as much sense to argue that Control Weather (leavel 8) should counter SoM or that True Seeing should counter Flame Blade (level 2). Just being a higher level spell does not mean it counters the effects of a lower level spell, especially when the effects of one spell have nothing to do with the effects of the other spell, as seems to be the case with SoM vs TS.
At least it's clear from JC's comment that darkvision does not circumvent the heavy obscurement. I see no reason to believe that darkvision shouldn't trump the darkness/dim light portion. Darkvision trumping natural darkness is a case of specific beating general. Darkness spell trumping darkvision is a case of even more specific beating slightly less specific. Since SoM does not explicitly & specifically state that it defeats darkvision, it doesn't, correct?? So darkvision should allow a character to see in the area surrounding the SoM, but not see the character at the center.
According to my own interpretation of an area heavily obscured in darkness, as described above regarding the Darkness spell, a character who can't see in darkness created by SoM shouldn't even be able to see precisely which direction to attack. To hit the enemy hidden in the SoM, she should first have to semi-randomly choose a spot to attack. Such a character might have to roll for direction & then make the attack roll with disadvantage anyway. A character with darkvision won't become disoriented & will be able to see the proper direction to attack, negating the need to attack in a random direction, but the character attacks with disadvantage anyway because "flame-like shadows".
The description of tremorsense states that it allows determination of location, which is not the same as being able to perceive a target well enough to attack properly. A creature with tremorsense should be able to locate a target well enough to attack in the correct direction, but not necessarily to attack without disadvantage due to being unable to see. This should only partly counteracts Darkness & SoM. I assume this should work around walls and such, correct??
This seems correct to me based on the RAW. However, are there any creatures that would be crippled by interpreting tremorsense in this way, rather than saying it's as good as sight?? Is there any other reason why RAI should put tremorsense on-par with sight??
Similarly, blindsight doesn't rely on actual sight using eyes. It's more ambiguous as to how it functions. It also doesn't specify whether it is enough to detect a target's motion as well as actual sight, or if it just determines directionality. Based on using -sight as part of the name for this sense, rather than the more vague -sense, I'm inclined to believe blindsight is meant to be on-par with regular sight for determining location and movements of the target. That should mean it can attack the right spot without disadvantage against a SoM caster.
If blindsight is highly acute echolocation (an example offered by the book), it's reasonable to assume Darkness & SoM should provide no benefits at all to protecting from attacks against an echolocating creature.
What if blindsight is thermoception?? Many real life reptiles have thermoception acute enough to strike prey. As far as I know, there is no official lore backing this up, but I like to imagine that's how it works for dragons. Putting way too much thought into this, heat radiation is just another form of light from a non-visible part of the light spectrum, which one might imagine means Darkness blocks it. However, it's fallacious to try to apply more real life physics to an idea which is innately nonsensical in the context of real physics.
Though blindsight can be many things, it's easier to simply leave it at blindsight doesn't care about Darkness.
Are there any comments from D&D authority figures that clarify tremorsense & blindsight??
Have I overlooked anything?? Are there any holes in my reasoning?? Are there any other unanswered questions about this??
TL;DR:
When trying to attack a target in a heavily obscured area, you must guess the target's location, which should involve an element of chance & probably be more difficult than attacking with disadvantage.
Attacking a creature surrounded by the Darkness spell with:
normal senses = attack a random location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
darkvision = attack a random location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
tremorsense = attack correct location without disadvantage or advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you have disadvantage which can be negated by gaining advantage from another source)
truesight = attack correct location with advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you attack normally unless other sources of advantage/disadvantage come into play)
blindsight = attack correct location with advantage (unless the target can see in Darkness, then you attack normally unless other sources of advantage/disadvantage come into play)
Attacking a creature in Shadow of Moil with:
normal senses = attack a random location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
darkvision = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
tremorsense = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
truesight = attack correct location with disadvantage (can be negated by gaining advantage)
blindsight = attack correct location without disadvantage (other sources of advantage/disadvantage may come into play)