Fighting in the dark

[nedwasatool]

I recently cast FOG CLOUD on a spectator and then grappled him to keep him in the cloud, neutralizing his eye beams. My question is if everyone is at disadvantage do melee attacks just become standard rolls?

[Gignere]

I recently cast FOG CLOUD on a spectator and then grappled him to keep him in the cloud, neutralizing his eye beams. My question is if everyone is at disadvantage do melee attacks just become standard rolls?

RAW yes, but I’ve ruled and had other DMs ruled that both side were just attacking with disadvantage.

[Lokishade]

That's how I rule too.
You can't see, you attack with disadvantage, period.

[MaxWilson]

I recently cast FOG CLOUD on a spectator and then grappled him to keep him in the cloud, neutralizing his eye beams. My question is if everyone is at disadvantage do melee attacks just become standard rolls?

If you want a for-sure answer, ask your DM, not the Internet. All we can give you is opinions, not answers.

The books tell you that advantage for being an unseen attacker and disadvantage for attacking an unseen target cancel out and become standard rolls, but a lot of people feel that is a bit silly especially for archery, and the DM may be using different rules to fix that.

Just say, "Hey DM, in my Fog Cloud, will everyone's advantage and disadvantage cancel out? I'm hoping it will." Or if you hope it won't, say that instead.

[LudicSavant]

I recently cast FOG CLOUD on a spectator and then grappled him to keep him in the cloud, neutralizing his eye beams. My question is if everyone is at disadvantage do melee attacks just become standard rolls?

Advantage (from enemy not seeing you) and disadvantage (from not seeing enemy) cancel out, creating standard rolls.

Various factors can cause it to not cancel, such as the Blind-Fighting style, the Alert feat, or the Wildhunt Shifter race.

[Kvess]

I get up in the evening and I ain’t got nothing to say. I come home in the morning. I go to bed feeling the same…

Oh, fighting in the dark! Yeah, I think it’s a bit of a strange rules interaction that mutually obscured combatants are able to attack each other normally, and it’s not entirely clear to me how targetable unseen (but not hidden) enemies are from a given distance.

[Segev]

As others have said, the RAW are that as long as neither combatant can see each other, they both have Advantage for not being seen by the target and Disadvantage for not being able to see the target, washing out to normal attacking.

When I run, my house rule is that you only get Advantage for not being seen if you CAN see the target. This means that both sides have Disadvantage when fighting in blinding conditions unless one of them has a means of seeing despite those conditions. (Devil's Sight in magical darkness, Blindfighting style, etc.)

[greenstone]

The rules say that everyone attacks as normal (the advantage from your attacker not seeing you is countered by the disadvantage from you not seeing your attacker).

However, several things are different. First, no-one can use any spells or abilities that include a requirement of "that you can see." Second, no-one can use attacks of opportunity.

Many people houserule that everyone attacks at disadvantage. That does nothing to the outcome of the fight but makes everything take twice as long at the table. My suggestion - don't do this.

[Segev]

The rules say that everyone attacks as normal (the advantage from your attacker not seeing you is countered by the disadvantage from you not seeing your attacker).

However, several things are different. First, no-one can use any spells or abilities that include a requirement of "that you can see." Second, no-one can use attacks of opportunity.Good points.


Many people houserule that everyone attacks at disadvantage. That does nothing to the outcome of the fight but makes everything take twice as long at the table. My suggestion - don't do this.This seems inaccurate, to me: extending the time it takes to deal damage increases chances for people to withdraw. It can have a significant impact on the way the fight actually plays out. I find the verisimilitude more satisfying, myself, as well; you're not compressing 2 rounds into 1 when you make it have non-disadvantage, and thus are distorting outcomes. Further, other means of gaining advantage once again have meaning if you suffer disadvantage without advantage for being unable to see your foe even when he can't see you.

[MaxWilson]

Many people houserule that everyone attacks at disadvantage. That does nothing to the outcome of the fight but makes everything take twice as long at the table. My suggestion - don't do this.

That's not accurate--imposing disadvantage on both sides changes the outcome of a fight by favoring whoever has the highest AC (or rather, the lowest chance to be hit). If I hit you 50% of the time for 10% of your HP per hit, and you hit me 25% of the time for 25% of my HP per hit, and we both attack twice per round, then you kill me after 8 rounds on average in the light with 20% of your HP left, but in the dark I kill you after 20 rounds with ~70% of my HP left. That's a big swing.

[Gignere]

Good points.

This seems inaccurate, to me: extending the time it takes to deal damage increases chances for people to withdraw. It can have a significant impact on the way the fight actually plays out. I find the verisimilitude more satisfying, myself, as well; you're not compressing 2 rounds into 1 when you make it have non-disadvantage, and thus are distorting outcomes. Further, other means of gaining advantage once again have meaning if you suffer disadvantage without advantage for being unable to see your foe even when he can't see you.

This very much this, if short term buffs are in play it can be a valid strategy to drop sight blockers to drag the fight out.

[LudicSavant]

That does nothing to the outcome of the fight but makes everything take twice as long at the table.

Disadvantage has steep nonlinear returns (based on what the chance to hit you before Disadvantage was).

As such, inflicting Disadvantage does not affect both sides equally, and thus absolutely does change the outcome of fights.


My suggestion - don't do this.

That said, I agree with the suggestion to leave things be, especially if you're a new player who is just now learning how fighting in the dark works.

[MaxWilson]

This very much this, if short term buffs are in play it can be a valid strategy to drop sight blockers to drag the fight out.

For similar reasons, sometimes you want to have a long-range archery duel where both sides have disadvantage.

[Segev]

That said, I agree with the suggestion to leave things be, especially if you're a new player who is just now learning how fighting in the dark works.

I am not sure I agree. I think the RAW are actually less intuitive and more prone to error on the part of players than "oh, can't see them? Disadvantage all around."

I am not sure we could prove this either way, though. I am open to suggested experiments or means of determining this.

[DwarfFighter]

It seems natural to me that an unseen attacker will be better at attacking an enemy that he can himself see. If two guys are flailing about blindly, surely it's more likely both will make more attacks that are ineffective than if they could see each other.

I'd rule that neither get advantage, so consequently both get disadvantage.

[Hytheter]

When I run, my house rule is that you only get Advantage for not being seen if you CAN see the target.

I go the same way, though I've considered taking it a step further and declaring that if you can't see the target you can't benefit from advantage at all. After all, it's hard to leverage an advantage if you can't see what you're doing, I'd argue.

[LudicSavant]

I am not sure I agree. I think the RAW are actually less intuitive and more prone to error on the part of players than "oh, can't see them? Disadvantage all around."
I don't think that new players who are still learning their way around the system should be hasty to overhaul the rules, regardless of whether they're "less intuitive and more prone to error on the part of the players" or not.

Basically, I think players should learn the system before messing with it too much.

[Segev]

I don't think that new players who are still learning their way around the system should be hasty to overhaul the rules, regardless of whether they're "less intuitive and more prone to error on the part of the players" or not.

Basically, I think players should learn the system before messing with it too much.

That's fair. I agree to a degree, but if somebody is asking for advice from people who do know why things are as they are, and can explain it, and then can offer tweaks to improve on it, I don't think it's a bad thing. Especially if the tweak does make it more intuitive and easier to remember.