Can Sneak Attack work even "with" Disadvantage?

[CorporateSlave]

So, we've always played that Sneak Attack never works if there is something that grants Disadvantage on the Attack roll, even if something else also grants Advantage. No matter what else is present, if there is anything that grants a single instance of Disadvantage, Sneak Attack cannot function.

However, is this correct?

Sneak Attack RAW reads:
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.

So, for example, an enemy has been knocked Prone, granting Advantage, there is another enemy of the Target within 5' (lets say, the rogue-allied fighter who just knocked the enemy Prone). This fighter is not incapacitated, but the rogue is suffering from the Frightened condition and the creature causing the rogue to be Frightened is in line of sight, which grants Disadvantage. So if the rogue Attacks the Prone enemy, should he get to use Sneak Attack? We have always ruled "no" because the instance of Disadvantage violates the last phrase of the second paragraph of Sneak Attack criteria, right?

But I'm not so sure. The RAW for Advantage and Disadvantage reads (in part):
...If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage....

So in the above, or any similar example, I would think Sneak Attack would apply, because the roll doesn't have both Advantage and Disadvantage, it is considered to have neither. Per the second paragraph, the proximity of the enemy of the Target negates the need for Advantage, so Sneak Attack should be possible.

Has this been addressed elsewhere?

[Misterwhisper]

So, we've always played that Sneak Attack never works if there is something that grants Disadvantage on the Attack roll, even if something else also grants Advantage. No matter what else is present, if there is anything that grants a single instance of Disadvantage, Sneak Attack cannot function.

However, is this correct?

Sneak Attack RAW reads:
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.

So, for example, an enemy has been knocked Prone, granting Advantage, there is another enemy of the Target within 5' (lets say, the rogue-allied fighter who just knocked the enemy Prone). This fighter is not incapacitated, but the rogue is suffering from the Frightened condition and the creature causing the rogue to be Frightened is in line of sight, which grants Disadvantage. So if the rogue Attacks the Prone enemy, should he get to use Sneak Attack? We have always ruled "no" because the instance of Disadvantage violates the last phrase of the second paragraph of Sneak Attack criteria, right?

But I'm not so sure. The RAW for Advantage and Disadvantage reads (in part):
...If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage....

So in the above, or any similar example, I would think Sneak Attack would apply, because the roll doesn't have both Advantage and Disadvantage, it is considered to have neither. Per the second paragraph, the proximity of the enemy of the Target negates the need for Advantage, so Sneak Attack should be possible.

Has this been addressed elsewhere?

If you have both advantage and disadvantage, you attack with neither so you can snake attack as long as you meet the other criteria like an enemy of the target within 5ft or if you are a swashbuckler or inquisitive

[HolyDraconus]

As long as the disadvantage is cancelled out to neutral is how we always read it.

[Lunali]

We've always ruled it as working since the roll is treated as having neither.

From a less rules heavy viewpoint, rogues need to get sneak attack almost all the time to be able to compete with other martials for damage. If you completely deny them sneak attack for fear and other such effects, they might as well hide and wander off, at least at higher levels when sneak attack makes up the vast majority of their damage.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd rule only "true" disadvantage would prevent Sneak Attack. The moment where you take the lesser of 2d20.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

RAW it looks like having advantage and disadvantage is not having disadvantage and not having advantage so you can get SA is you a way to proc it like an ally near the enemy.

We always played like this.

[Talionis]

We have always played if you have Advantage you use sneak attack even if the Advantage is cancelled out for to hit.

[Lavaeolus]

...If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage...

I think this is pretty clear to me. In D&D 5e advantage is a trinary state: you either have advantage, disadvantage, or neither. Take note that are no rules on a feature addressing a special case where you had both advantage and disadvantage -- because such a situation simply doesn't occur.

Take note that in your initial read where 'disadvantage' and 'advantage' remain -- well, if that's the case, then any advantage, even cancelled out, should trigger SA. The condition for disadvantage preventing SA only applies to the second trigger, involving friends -- precisely because "If you have advantage on the roll, get SA; but you don't get it if you have disadvantage" would be entirely redundant.

Here (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/586408778829930496)'s one instance of Crawford confirming it, with specific regard to Sneak Attack.

[Chronos]

Except the rules also make it clear that having both advantage and disadvantage is not the same as having neither. If you have at least one source of disadvantage and at least one source of advantage, then they all cancel out, no matter how many of each you have. If having both were the same as having neither, then you could stack on another source of advantage and have advantage.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Except the rules also make it clear that having both advantage and disadvantage is not the same as having neither. If you have at least one source of disadvantage and at least one source of advantage, then they all cancel out, no matter how many of each you have. If having both were the same as having neither, then you could stack on another source of advantage and have advantage.

The private case of having more then one of each only reinforce the fact that having X advantage and Y disadvantage is the same as having neither.

The rules tell us that even in those circumstances it is like having neither.

[Lavaeolus]

The private case of having more then one of each only reinforce the fact that having X advantage and Y disadvantage is the same as having neither.

The rules tell us that even in those circumstances it is like having neither.

If I wanted to be very precise, I should probably say that for the purposes of an effect, spell, feature, etc. (dis)advantage is a trinary state: as far as the rules are concerned, there's no distinction between having both advantage/disadvantage and having neither.

To calculate whether (dis)advantage currently applies and what setting it's on, meanwhile, you look at two binary toggles (advantage and disadvantage), and if both are on you proceed as if they were both off.

[Keravath]

I think the key quotes are:

"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them"


Enabling sneak attack:

"you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll."

"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

You can get a sneak attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. If you don't have advantage on the attack roll (i.e. rolling two die and taking the higher) then you don't get it.

You can also get sneak attack if there is an enemy of the target next to it and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. Disadvantage on the attack roll means rolling two die and taking the lower.

Both of these specifically state "on the attack roll" and not just having a condition granting advantage or disadvantage. It is the final state after all conditions have been considered that matters. In addition, the rules for advantage/disadvantage state that any number of simultaneous advantage/disadvantage means that the target is treated as having neither.

This means that if a rogue can roll with advantage they can use sneak attack. If a rogue must roll with disadvantage they can't use a sneak attack. If a rogue is making a straight roll with an enemy adjacent to the target then they can use sneak attack no matter how many advantage or disadvantage conditions may have been involved since they all are considered to have neither advantage nor disadvantage in that case.

[Chronos]

But it's not trinary. The both case and the neither case both result in a single die being rolled, so they're the same in that way. But the neither case can be changed, by adding another source of advantage or disadvantage, while the both case cannot be changed.

[TaiLiu]

Yeah, agreed. It's a quaternary system. You can have:

* advantage;
* disadvantage;
* neither, and this state is affected by gaining either advantage or disadvantage;
* neither, and this state is not affected by gaining either advantage or disadvantage.

[OldTrees1]

The following is the logic tree with quotes from the PHB


Do you have Advantage?
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll.

Yes. Congrats you may SNEAK ATTACK.
No. Well, do you have Disadvantage?
You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll.

Yes. Sorry, no SNEAK ATTACK for you.
No. Congrats you may SNEAK ATTACK, provided another enemy of the target is within 5ft and is not incapacitated.




Now let's walk through in the 5 cases:
Advantage with No Disadvantage -> Sneak Attack because you answered Yes to the first question
No Advantage with Disadvantage -> No Sneak Attack because you answered No,Yes to the first,second question
Neither -> Sneak Attack* because you answered No,No to the first,second question
Both and it counts as both -> Sneak Attack because you answered Yes to the first question
Both and it counts as neither -> Sneak Attack* because you answered No,No to the first,second question

*Provided you meet the "another enemy" condition.

Sneak Attack does not care whether Advantage + Disadvantage counts as Both or Neither. Sneak Attack only asks about Disadvantage if you don't have Advantage.

To put it another way:
Sneak Attack IF you have Advantage OR don't have Disadvantage.
A v !D -> S



PS:
If a blindfolded rogue shoots a blindfolded hostage, perhaps we need to ask if someone was standing next to the hostage, but sneak attack is still possible. Rogues are extraordinary.

[greenstone]

But it's not trinary. The both case and the neither case both result in a single die being rolled, so they're the same in that way. But the neither case can be changed, by adding another source of advantage or disadvantage, while the both case cannot be changed.

I think it is. You roll 2d20kh or 1d20 or 2d20kl.

If (# of things giving advantage) > (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with advantage.
If (# of things giving advantage) = (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll normally.
If (# of things giving advantage) < (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with disadvantage.

Those are the only 3 choices.

[Lavaeolus]

I think it is. You roll 2d20kh or 1d20 or 2d20kl.

If (# of things giving advantage) > (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with advantage.
If (# of things giving advantage) = (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll normally.
If (# of things giving advantage) < (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with disadvantage.

Those are the only 3 choices.

Be aware that, as written, it's not a matter of adv/disadv outnumbering each other, it's a matter of whether there is any source of advantage or disadvantage at all.

Which means when establishing whether advantage applies, you're looking at:

If (advantage && no disadvantage), then roll with advantage.
If (disadvantage && no advantage), then roll with disadvantage. [I.e. (dis)advantage = disadvantage.]
Else, roll normally. [I.e. (dis)advantage = neither.]

Again, note that I am drawing a distinction between [I]what advantage-setting a roll is on and calculating what that setting is on. The former can, situationally, be changed by altering what conclusion the calculation would reach, although once both advantage and disadvantage are set it'll be stuck at neither.

But once the calculation's run and you're rolling, if the roll reaches else no matter how, both states are identical for the purposes of features like Sneak Attack.

"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them."

I'm pointedly not arguing that there is no difference between a state where you can add more sources of advantage and one where you can't -- I'm arguing that such a distinction does not exist / factor in when determining features and the like.

[OldTrees1]

I think it is. You roll 2d20kh or 1d20 or 2d20kl.

If (# of things giving advantage) > (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with advantage.
If (# of things giving advantage) = (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll normally.
If (# of things giving advantage) < (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with disadvantage.

Those are the only 3 choices.


Be aware that, as written, it's not a matter of adv/disadv outnumbering each other, it's a matter of whether there is any source of advantage or disadvantage at all.

Which means when establishing whether advantage applies, you're looking at:

If (advantage && no disadvantage), then roll with advantage.
If (disadvantage && no advantage), then roll with disadvantage. [I.e. (dis)advantage = disadvantage.]
Else, roll normally. [I.e. (dis)advantage = neither.]

Again, note that I am drawing a distinction between [I]what advantage-setting a roll is on and calculating what that setting is. The former can, situationally, be changed by altering what conclusion the calculation would reach, although once both advantage and disadvantage are set it'll be stuck at neither.

But once the calculation's run and you're rolling, if the roll reaches else no matter how, both states are identical for the purposes of features like Sneak Attack.

"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them."

Double Checking, but do you realize Sneak Attack doesn't care which of you is right? You might end at different "Yes Sneak Attack" branches but you end at "Yes" regardless.

The following is the logic tree with quotes from the PHB


Do you have Advantage?
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll.

Yes. Congrats you may SNEAK ATTACK.
No. Well, do you have Disadvantage?
You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll.

Yes. Sorry, no SNEAK ATTACK for you.
No. Congrats you may SNEAK ATTACK, provided another enemy of the target is within 5ft and is not incapacitated.




A v !D -> S

[Lavaeolus]

Double Checking, but do you realize Sneak Attack doesn't care which of you is right?

Oh, absolutely. If you read me earlier:

Take note that in your initial read where 'disadvantage' and 'advantage' remain -- well, if that's the case, then any advantage, even cancelled out, should trigger SA. The condition for disadvantage preventing SA only applies to the second trigger, involving friends

A point being completely pointless, entirely semantic, or even wrong, has rarely stopped me from arguing in the past, as I'm sure many people in my life can unfortunately attest to.

[Chronos]

Congratulations, OldTrees1, you've managed to cut through this Gordian knot (and deal an extra 1d6 damage to it). The ambiguity still remains in the case that you have both and there are no allies adjacent, but that's an uncommon enough case to begin with, and the ambiguity in that case works in favor of the player, so it's not as big a deal.

[Keravath]

I think it is. You roll 2d20kh or 1d20 or 2d20kl.

If (# of things giving advantage) > (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with advantage.
If (# of things giving advantage) = (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll normally.
If (# of things giving advantage) < (# of things giving disadvantage) then roll with disadvantage.

Those are the only 3 choices.

This analysis is wrong. There are three cases but the number of instances of advantage or disadvantage is irrelevant as long as there is at least one of each.

If (# of things giving advantage >0 AND # of things giving disadvantage = 0) then roll with advantage

If (# of things giving advantage =0 AND # of things giving disadvantage > 0) then roll with disadvantage

If ((# of things giving advantage = 0 AND # of things giving disadvantage = 0) OR (# of things giving advantage >0 AND # of things giving disadvantage > 0)) then roll normally

There is no difference in resolution between the case where neither advantage nor disadvantage applies or the case where at least one condition of each applies; both situations result in neither advantage nor disadvantage being applied.

Finally, from the PHB ...

"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them"

If a rogue is attacking a target without an opponent adjacent and they are not rolling with advantage (actually rolling), they do NOT get sneak attack. The rules make it very clear that if both advantage and disadvantage apply to an attack roll the character is considered to have NEITHER of them. As a result, a rogue attacking a target with a straight roll due to cancelling advantage and disadvantage will NOT get sneak attack unless there is ALSO another enemy of the target adjacent to it.

[greenstone]

Be aware that, as written, it's not a matter of adv/disadv outnumbering each other, it's a matter of whether there is any source of advantage or disadvantage at all.
Oops, that is a rookie mistake and one I've made before. I hang my head in shame. Sheesh. Can I blame lack of caffeine please?

Let me try again.

If (# Adv > 0 ) and ( # Disadv > 0 ) Then Normal.
If (# Adv > 0 ) and ( # Disadv = 0 ) Then Advantage.
If (# Adv = 0 ) and ( # Disadv > 0 ) Then Disadvantage.
If (# Adv = 0 ) and ( # Disadv = 0 ) Then Normal.

Have I got that one right?

[tomjon]

What About the luck feat. Is that still disadvantage or better then advantage. Correct me if I am wrong (i don’t have the book in front of me) but doesn’t luck let you roll an extra d20 and pick what one you use? So that would be 3d20s on a disadvantage roll.

As luck is a specific and limited use ability dose it not trump the general rules on advantage and disadvantage.

Honestly I could see it either way just wondering what you all think about it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

What About the luck feat. Is that still disadvantage or better then advantage. Correct me if I am wrong (i don’t have the book in front of me) but doesn’t luck let you roll an extra d20 and pick what one you use? So that would be 3d20s on a disadvantage roll.

As luck is a specific and limited use ability dose it not trump the general rules on advantage and disadvantage.

Honestly I could see it either way just wondering what you all think about it.

It does not remove advantage or disadvantage, just let you change the result of the dice.

[Chronos]

And by the rules, the net effect of using the Luck feat when you have disadvantage is that you roll three dice, and use the middle one of the three.

It only gives you the best of all three if you decide to use Sage Advice instead of the rules. But even if you do that, it's still not advantage.