Shadow blade and magical darkness

[Segev]

I feel silly for having missed this until now, but not only does Shadow Blade give you advantage if you're attacking a target in dim light or darkness, but this property reduces the absolute need for a means of seeing in the dark if you like blinding foes with magical darkness (and your campaign uses ink blot darkness).

Because it grants advantage, it negates the disadvantage you would suffer for not seeing your target! So even if you lack a means of seeing in magical darkness, it lets you attack normally.

I know I am probably late to the party on this realization, but all my attention with their spell and that property had been focused on the fact that it gives auto advantage even if they can somehow see you in you darkness blob. So I had missed this obvious use of the spell's property, and felt like sharing it in case others had, as well.

[nathanv]

I feel silly for having missed this until now, but not only does Shadow Blade give you advantage if you're attacking a target in dim light or darkness, but this property reduces the absolute need for a means of seeing in the dark if you like blinding foes with magical darkness (and your campaign uses ink blot darkness).

Because it grants advantage, it negates the disadvantage you would suffer for not seeing your target! So even if you lack a means of seeing in magical darkness, it lets you attack normally.

I know I am probably late to the party on this realization, but all my attention with their spell and that property had been focused on the fact that it gives auto advantage even if they can somehow see you in you darkness blob. So I had missed this obvious use of the spell's property, and felt like sharing it in case others had, as well.

Not quite.

The issue with fighting in magical darkness is that you're at disadvantage against a target you can't see, and at advantage against a target that can't see you. In magical darkness, barring other complications, these are both in effect, and so the advantage and disadvantage cancel out-- you both roll straight.

But advantage doesn't stack. A single instance of disadvantage will cancel any number of instances of advantage. So in that above circumstance, adding in the advantage from shadow blade doesn't help: one source of disadvantage and two sources of advantage still cancel out, to neither advantage nor disadvantage.

However, let's consider a different situation where you're fighting a devil that can see in magical darkness. Normally, you'd be at straight disadvantage: you can't see your target, but they can see you. However, with shadow blade advantage, you now roll straight, because you have a source of both disadvantage and advantage. (Meanwhile, the devil rolls at advantage to hit you, because they can see you but you can't see them.)

So there are niche situations where shadow blade would improve your ability to fight in darkness, but not as much as just being able to see, and not all darkness situations.

[Segev]

Not quite.

The issue with fighting in magical darkness is that you're at disadvantage against a target you can't see, and at advantage against a target that can't see you. In magical darkness, barring other complications, these are both in effect, and so the advantage and disadvantage cancel out-- you both roll straight.

But advantage doesn't stack. A single instance of disadvantage will cancel any number of instances of advantage. So in that above circumstance, adding in the advantage from shadow blade doesn't help: one source of disadvantage and two sources of advantage still cancel out, to neither advantage nor disadvantage.

However, let's consider a different situation where you're fighting a devil that can see in magical darkness. Normally, you'd be at straight disadvantage: you can't see your target, but they can see you. However, with shadow blade advantage, you now roll straight, because you have a source of both disadvantage and advantage. (Meanwhile, the devil rolls at advantage to hit you, because they can see you but you can't see them.)

So there are niche situations where shadow blade would improve your ability to fight in darkness, but not as much as just being able to see, and not all darkness situations.

Ah, right; I actually forgot the RAW on fighting blind. The way I run it when I DM, and the way the DM running the game I'm in runs it, you only have advantage on attacks based on blindness if they can't see you and you CAN see them. So two blind people have disadvantage against each other, rather than advantage and disadvantage that cancel out.

[LudicSavant]

I feel silly for having missed this until now, but not only does Shadow Blade give you advantage if you're attacking a target in dim light or darkness, but this property reduces the absolute need for a means of seeing in the dark if you like blinding foes with magical darkness (and your campaign uses ink blot darkness).

Because it grants advantage, it negates the disadvantage you would suffer for not seeing your target! So even if you lack a means of seeing in magical darkness, it lets you attack normally.

I know I am probably late to the party on this realization, but all my attention with their spell and that property had been focused on the fact that it gives auto advantage even if they can somehow see you in you darkness blob. So I had missed this obvious use of the spell's property, and felt like sharing it in case others had, as well.

If both you and the target cannot see each other, you already attack normally (you get advantage for them not seeing you, and disadvantage for you not seeing them).

It would only make a difference if the enemy (but not you) could see through the Darkness. In which case, you can generally just flip off Darkness with an object interaction (and flip it on again if you need it later).

[Tanarii]

Ah, right; I actually forgot the RAW on fighting blind. The way I run it when I DM, and the way the DM running the game I'm in runs it, you only have advantage on attacks based on blindness if they can't see you and you CAN see them. So two blind people have disadvantage against each other, rather than advantage and disadvantage that cancel out.Yep. That house rule really should be the way they wrote the rule in the first place.

Another thing is some DMs may rule you need to guess the location, even if they are not hiding (possibly with a perception check against a fixed DC to avoid). I never ran into one that does that for melee attacks, but there may be some out there. And of course special circumstances any DM might rule that, like fighting in a very noisy place where you can't hear them easily.

[Spiritchaser]

It would only make a difference if the enemy (but not you) could see through the Darkness. In which case, you can generally just flip off Darkness with an object interaction (and flip it on again if you need it later).

This would also be important in magical darkness if both our enemy and you CAN see each other (not necessarily all that uncommon) in this case there would be no modification on either side for vision, but shadow blade would have full advantage

Now, you might not choose to use magical darkness just for this, but I can totally see it happening if darkness was part of another party members go to strategy.

[Segev]

This would also be important in magical darkness if both our enemy and you CAN see each other (not necessarily all that uncommon) in this case there would be no modification on either side for vision, but shadow blade would have full advantage

Now, you might not choose to use magical darkness just for this, but I can totally see it happening if darkness was part of another party members go to strategy.

Valid, though the easiest way to simply gain advantage with the shadow blade is to fight in dim lighting. Or nonmagical darkness, with darkvision. I honestly think that's what'll come up the most. :smallcool:

[Spiritchaser]

Valid, though the easiest way to simply gain advantage with the shadow blade is to fight in dim lighting. Or nonmagical darkness, with darkvision. I honestly think that's what'll come up the most. :smallcool:

Notwithstanding fighting in naturally available dim light, I would suggest that the thaumaturgy cantrip comes up the “most” but that may be because way back when I took a literal approach to what dimming flames would mean.

Not that I think it’s been broken, but it can be pretty strong.

[Segev]

Notwithstanding fighting in naturally available dim light, I would suggest that the thaumaturgy cantrip comes up the “most” but that may be because way back when I took a literal approach to what dimming flames would mean.

Not that I think it’s been broken, but it can be pretty strong.

Hm. That's actually the first time I've seen any argument for existing spells creating dim light from bright light, neat. And I can see it. The bullet point that reads, "You cause flames to flicker, brighten, dim, or change color for 1 minute," when combined with the range of the spell and the statement that you cause these "minor signs" to happen "within range" would reasonably mean that all the flames "dimmed" in that range can't shed brighter than dim light. It won't work in all cases - any magical light sources, or light sources bright enough to be illuminating the area from outside the 30 foot range in which you can affect the flames, would be undimmed, and their light still brightening the area - but it will work especially at low levels in most indoor/underground dungeon crawling!

I could see a DM arguing otherwise, but it's not like thaumaturgy is a tremendously powerful spell to begin with, and this is too obvious to be useful with stealth except for hiding in combat (due to imposing disadvantage on perception checks for those without darkvision), and is pretty situational if you're using it combined with shadow blade. Sure, it's a situation you can arrange, but it's really shadow blade that's bringing the utility to the table; thaumaturgy is only providing a minor assist.