Unseen Attackers is sometimes weird

[strangebloke]

The easiest way to get advantage consistently is to be unseen.

Obviously this includes greater invisibility, but also gloomstalker, devil's sight + darkness, blindsight + darkness, shadow of moil, etc. Typically, these combos are extremely strong and massively enhance the DPR of the build that can use them effectively. If you assume a basic 65% hit rate, advantage changes this to 87%, meaning that your DPR is increasing proportionally by something like 18%. If your damage is much lower (because you're against a high AC target, or because you're using SS or GWM or both) This becomes something more like a buff from a 50% hit rate to a 75% hit rate - a 50% increase in damage. Things like Elven Accuracy can push this way higher.

And you all know this. It's not even (imo) really overpowered, but it does produce what are imo some pretty weird scenarios.

Like lets say there's a sniper with devil's sight hanging out in a cloud of darkness a hundred feet away. They aren't hidden at all. The logic of why an unseen attacker gets advantage (the attacked person can't see the attack coming/won't try to dodge/deflect it) just doesn't hold up here, since you can see/hear the projectile coming before it hits you. If you'd be able to dodge out of the way normally, why wouldn't you be able to do so here?

And this isn't an edge case, this is something that comes up all the time for nearly ever ranged damage-focused build. It also raises some questions, like "does an enemy firing through a narrow arrow slit count as 'unseen'?"

Here's my proposed alteration one of my friends proposed:

A ranged attacker doesn't gain advantage from being unseen unless they are Hidden, the target is Blinded, or the attacker is within 30 feet of the target

There are still a lot of ways to exploit this - I'd argue that a Gloomstalker who's invisible a few hundred feet away is usually going to be hidden so long as they keep moving - but they're more narrow and specific.

[Dork_Forge]

If we are meant to provide a defense for the current rules:

By not seeing that archer, you're losing the ability to read their movements in preparation for dodging. Being able to actually see an arrow coming at you at speed, and then reacting fast enough to dodge it is much more difficult when you don't know that arrow is coming until it's partway through its flight path.

I don't find the proposed alteration egregious at all, but you're drawing an arbitrary line at which you have enough time to react to the projectile, which doesn't follow the logic entirely either:

The archer is unseen, and this is what we base the rules on. The altered rules care about how far away they are so that you have time to dodge. The rules don't take into account the projectile being unseen. If the archer is in Darkness, they shoot from 20ft within the area. The rule states that someone would have to be within 10ft of the Darkness for the archer to get advantage, but the logic dictates that this should really work 30ft from the edge of the Darkness (so 50ft total) because the arrow doesn't become visible until it leaves the spell's area.

[Hytheter]

Like lets say there's a sniper with devil's sight hanging out in a cloud of darkness a hundred feet away. They aren't hidden at all. The logic of why an unseen attacker gets advantage (the attacked person can't see the attack coming/won't try to dodge/deflect it) just doesn't hold up here, since you can see/hear the projectile coming before it hits you. If you'd be able to dodge out of the way normally, why wouldn't you be able to do so here?

An arrow will cross that hundred feet in a fraction of a second. You can't dodge that. The advantage of being able to see the shooter is that you know where and when he's aiming, allowing you to anticipate the arrow before it's fired and defend yourself accordingly.

[Telok]

An arrow will cross that hundred feet in a fraction of a second. You can't dodge that. The advantage of being able to see the shooter is that you know where and when he's aiming, allowing you to anticipate the arrow before it's fired and defend yourself accordingly.

Apparently, from a couple quick searches, anywhere from a bit more than half a second to about 1/3rd of a second for an arrow to go 100 feet. Although that is assuming modern equipment.

And for reflexes: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+fast+are+human+reflexes

Make of it what you will, but please try to check before flatly stating these sorts of things can or can't be done.

[Dork_Forge]

Apparently, from a couple quick searches, anywhere from a bit more than half a second to about 1/3rd of a second for an arrow to go 100 feet. Although that is assuming modern equipment.

And for reflexes: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+fast+are+human+reflexes

Make of it what you will, but please try to check before flatly stating these sorts of things can or can't be done.

Linking to a generic search regarding reflexes doesn't mean anything when reflexes are such a broad category. Shifting your entire mass out of the way of an arrow would take longer than blinking in reaction to irritation.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but you haven't actually proven anything.

[Hytheter]

Apparently, from a couple quick searches, anywhere from a bit more than half a second to about 1/3rd of a second for an arrow to go 100 feet. Although that is assuming modern equipment.

And for reflexes: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+fast+are+human+reflexes

Make of it what you will, but please try to check before flatly stating these sorts of things can or can't be done.

I did exactly that, thanks

[Hael]

The way the game treats distances is rather unrealistic to begin with. 100 feet in game feels more like 100 yards in reality.

At 40 yards, dodging an arrow is going to be hard (from anecdotal experience judging modern arrow speeds at archery ranges). You basically have to guess when the arrow is released. If you go real hard exactly when the arrow goes, it will miss you. If you have to rely on your vision to judge the arrow in flight, you'll likely be dead without having moved very much.. So there is something to be said about the obscurement thing (amusingly).

Now at 100 yards.. I am 100% confident a reasonably athletic person with good vision could dodge it if they saw an arrow coming from far enough away.

[ender241]

What about projectiles other than arrows? A crossbow bolt for example. Or ranged spell attacks like eldritch blast or scorching ray? How fast do those move? Why would 30 ft be the cutoff for "too close to dodge" for everything?

There are several quirky/confusing aspects of visibility and darkness in 5e. An unseen archer getting advantage on an attack from 100 ft away isn't one of them.

[strangebloke]

The archer is unseen, and this is what we base the rules on. The altered rules care about how far away they are so that you have time to dodge. The rules don't take into account the projectile being unseen. If the archer is in Darkness, they shoot from 20ft within the area. The rule states that someone would have to be within 10ft of the Darkness for the archer to get advantage, but the logic dictates that this should really work 30ft from the edge of the Darkness (so 50ft total) because the arrow doesn't become visible until it leaves the spell's area.
It's perhaps an arbitrary line, but this gets back to the point I made in the flanking thread: Advantage is a big deal. It's used to simulate things like the restrained and paralyzed conditions. "I couldn't see his bow when he loosed an arrow at me" seems like a very weak call compared to the above.

And sure, the point about an unseen projectile is a bit of jank this ruling introduces, I'll have to think about it.


An arrow will cross that hundred feet in a fraction of a second. You can't dodge that. The advantage of being able to see the shooter is that you know where and when he's aiming, allowing you to anticipate the arrow before it's fired and defend yourself accordingly.
Except, you can. A monk can catch the projectile, a wizard can cast shield, the rogue can dodge uncannily, and even normal characters get all of your normal AC, which is at least partially reflective of your ability to dodge. The reason the unseen attacker gets advantage is because you can't see them and this makes you as helpless as if you were paralyzed or tied to a wall.

Now, is it 'realistic' that you can dodge an arrow? Maybe not, but this is a superheroics simulator.

What about projectiles other than arrows? A crossbow bolt for example. Or ranged spell attacks like eldritch blast or scorching ray? How fast do those move? Why would 30 ft be the cutoff for "too close to dodge" for everything?

There are several quirky/confusing aspects of visibility and darkness in 5e. An unseen archer getting advantage on an attack from 100 ft away isn't one of them.

Crossbow bolts would be the same as a longbow, and EB and scorching ray can have whatever speed the mechanics imply.

[Keltest]

Except, you can. A monk can catch the projectile, a wizard can cast shield, the rogue can dodge uncannily, and even normal characters get all of your normal AC, which is at least partially reflective of your ability to dodge. The reason the unseen attacker gets advantage is because you can't see them and this makes you as helpless as if you were paralyzed or tied to a wall.


Yes, not being able to see an attack to be able to effectively protect yourself from it makes it harder for you to protect yourself from it. Where, exactly, is the confusion coming from here? Defense isnt just about attacking somebody and watching attacks deflect off your armor, even in full plate.

[Keravath]

Apparently, from a couple quick searches, anywhere from a bit more than half a second to about 1/3rd of a second for an arrow to go 100 feet. Although that is assuming modern equipment.

And for reflexes: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+fast+are+human+reflexes

Make of it what you will, but please try to check before flatly stating these sorts of things can or can't be done.

1) Nothing that the poster you are responding to was incorrect. They said an arrow would cross the distance in a fraction of a second. 1/2 or 1/3 ARE a fraction of a second.

2) The following link gives a more realistic minimum reaction time - this was a study pushing a button with hand or foot in response to a stimulus. Keep in mind this is under ideal conditions looking for a clearly visible stimulus at close range followed by a small movement of the extremities - NOT moving the entire body out of the way to dodge. In this study, the average response time required to move the extremity was on the order of 1/3 of a second.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4109600/

The following is another article that breaks reaction time down into mental processing/physical response time/response of equipment (the article is in terms of driving a car) - typical "reaction time" in this context between seeing a stimulus and the vehicle starting to slow is on the order of 1.5s. This might be more representative of a situation in which you have to be paying attention to the entire surrounding area (as in D&D combat) and then have to react to an incoming arrow. In a D&D fight a character can't stare at the dark sphere 100' away waiting for the arrow to appear while also needing to be aware of other attackers and possible incoming attacks.

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

3) Conclusion - based on the facts, assuming you look them up - dodging an arrow that you don't see released, that crosses 100' in 1/2 to 1/3 of a second would not be something easy to do - so applying advantage on the attack roll in a D&D context is as good an adjustment as any if you go with the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage system.

----

To the OP - being hidden is a DM decision. In order to be hidden, a creature needs to be "unseen and unheard" - if they are unseen and unheard then they are hidden even if they don't make a hide check. In most situations, in a game I was running, a character 100' away in the middle of a darkness spell (I use the ink blot version) can't be seen and with any environmental noise at all they can't be heard. As a result, they would always be hidden, they would give away their position by firing an arrow but could move 5' and be hidden again because under most circumstances they would be too far away to be heard. So in that case, your house rule wouldn't really do much anyway and since the discussion of reaction time to a fast projectile seems to indicate that it would be difficult to dodge (except for specific class features) - it doesn't seem that more "realistic" is really a justification in this case.

On the other hand, if you want to change it because you find ranged attacks from invisible or unseen creatures to be too powerful then change it - but be clear on why it is being changed :)

[Sigreid]

You are very unlikely to actually see an arrow in flight. Especially if you don't know exactly where/when to look.

[CapnWildefyr]

How fast the arrow or whatever travels is not relevant. You go on an initiative count, and the attack happens instantaneously. There's no count of "initiative ticks" or rounds while a flighted arrow or rock sails through the air. For all intents and purposes, it's instantaneous.

Classes etc that provide an ability to block missile weapons, like the monk, and a class like the rogue with uncanny dodge that can halve damage, provide these abilities regardless of time of flight for a missile weapon (or perhaps in spite of it?). So it makes sense that if you can't see the attacker, you can't dodge/deflect it, because there's no "time of flight" mechanic in the game.

And this is weird.

I wouldn't put a range limit on your proposed house rule, but you might want to tie it straight to surprise. I think you're stuck with DM arbitration regardless.

[loki_ragnarock]

The distance between a pitcher's mound and home plate is about 60' in modern baseball. They throw around 90mph these days, which is something under half a second from the mound to the mitt.

Modern baseball players start the process of swinging the bat before the ball has been released from the pitcher's hand. These are folks who know what's up in a controlled environment, have the reaction times of world class athletes, and they're still reading the pitcher rather than the ball trajectory to succeed in making contact with the raw zip coming over the plate. Frankly, it's a wonder that they manage to hit any instance of hurled, blurred, hide-bound cork... but take away their ability to read the pitcher?

That capacity to anticipate is a powerful thing. I think if you took it away - say, by slapping an orb of darkness over a pitcher with devil's sight - you'd wind up with alot more perfect games.


Which is to say, I think your archer being unseen is probably more important than you do.

[strangebloke]

Yes, not being able to see an attack to be able to effectively protect yourself from it makes it harder for you to protect yourself from it. Where, exactly, is the confusion coming from here? Defense isnt just about attacking somebody and watching attacks deflect off your armor, even in full plate.
Right, but its a question of extent. Are you so disabled by being unable to see the attacker that its equivalent to you being bound hand and foot? I think this is unreasonable.

On the other hand, if you want to change it because you find ranged attacks from invisible or unseen creatures to be too powerful then change it - but be clear on why it is being changed :)

I mean, my argument isn't based on 'realism' as such. I don't care about normal human reaction times since we've clearly left that domain. What I do care about is verisimilitude.

Realistically, if you are attacked (particularly in melee) while blind, the attack should simply hit. Someone who's a trained fighter isn't going to fail to hit someone who is blind and just standing right there. This is similarly true for flanking.

But advantage is how the system represents the paralyzed and restrained conditions, and someone who knows where you are, can hear you to some extent, can see the attack coming, and is 'aware of surroundings in combat' simply isn't the same as a paralyzed person lying on the floor. Indeed, as outlined, every character can learn to cast the shield spell, which means everyone has the capacity to 'react' to an attack, whether they can see it or not. Saying that you can be fast enough to cast shield or use cutting words or whatever else, but not fast enough to do your normal evasive movement.... There's a gap in verisimillitude here.

But yes, there are also mechanical reasons. Generally, I dislike any ability that makes it trivial to get repeated advantage turn after turn with no real cost. It makes a lot of features redundant, and centralizes the game around those effects. Ranged play is a strategy with low risk, and these strats make for extremely high payoff with low risk AND I find them weird from a verisimilitude perspective. I don't see them as 'overpowered' as such because damage by itself isn't that overpowered but in combination I would rather not have this as an option.

[Sigreid]

Right, but its a question of extent. Are you so disabled by being unable to see the attacker that its equivalent to you being bound hand and foot? I think this is unreasonable.


I mean, my argument isn't based on 'realism' as such. I don't care about normal human reaction times since we've clearly left that domain. What I do care about is verisimilitude.

Realistically, if you are attacked (particularly in melee) while blind, the attack should simply hit. Someone who's a trained fighter isn't going to fail to hit someone who is blind and just standing right there. This is similarly true for flanking.

But advantage is how the system represents the paralyzed and restrained conditions, and someone who knows where you are, can hear you to some extent, can see the attack coming, and is 'aware of surroundings in combat' simply isn't the same as a paralyzed person lying on the floor. Indeed, as outlined, every character can learn to cast the shield spell, which means everyone has the capacity to 'react' to an attack, whether they can see it or not. Saying that you can be fast enough to cast shield or use cutting words or whatever else, but not fast enough to do your normal evasive movement.... There's a gap in verisimillitude here.

But yes, there are also mechanical reasons. Generally, I dislike any ability that makes it trivial to get repeated advantage turn after turn with no real cost. It makes a lot of features redundant, and centralizes the game around those effects. Ranged play is a strategy with low risk, and these strats make for extremely high payoff with low risk AND I find them weird from a verisimilitude perspective. I don't see them as 'overpowered' as such because damage by itself isn't that overpowered but in combination I would rather not have this as an option.

This kind of sounds like you don't want your players to play smart. Alternately, you can have your monsters/npcs play smart as well. In the normal D&D campaign, magic and ranged attacks have been around for a very long time, so think about how especially intelligent opponents who have known about both for many generations would have come up with what to do in that situation.

[strangebloke]

This kind of sounds like you don't want your players to play smart. Alternately, you can have your monsters/npcs play smart as well. In the normal D&D campaign, magic and ranged attacks have been around for a very long time, so think about how especially intelligent opponents who have known about both for many generations would have come up with what to do in that situation.

What does 'playing smart' mean to you here? What counterplay are you alluding to?

[Segev]

The biggest weakness in verisimilitude of the advantage/disadvantage system is a lack of granularity. This is deemed, generally, an acceptable sacrifice. So comparison between "being bound hand and foot" and other things that give disadvantage is flawed because it is already generally deemed acceptable by the game designers.

In the end, the reasoning behind "unseen attackers" even at range has to do with the believed need to recognize the activity of the attacker more than just to see the projectile.

I also personally suggest a house rule that you only get the advantage to hit if you are unseen by your target AND you can see your target, though that tends to go more towards preventing a pair of blinded targets from attacking each other normally, rather than both with disadvantage.

[Dork_Forge]

Right, but its a question of extent. Are you so disabled by being unable to see the attacker that its equivalent to you being bound hand and foot? I think this is unreasonable.


You're over-reliant on restrained as an example, which doesn't say anything about being bound both hand and foot either.

Advantage also comes from any creature taking the help action, or the Faerie Fire spell lighting a target up etc. It's an over-relied on mechanic, granted, but I don't think there are grounds for your argument (advantage partially represents more severe things, so it shouldn't be used for lesser things).

That said, I have a hard time not viewing being an unseen opponent as anything but a significant advantage, certainly worth advantage.

[Sigreid]

What does 'playing smart' mean to you here? What counterplay are you alluding to?

Playing smart means to me using the advantages you can give yourself in any given situation. Counter play is the enemies likewise playing smart and having a general idea of the kind of tactics that can be used to minimize the other guys tactics.

[Corran]

But advantage is how the system represents the paralyzed and restrained conditions, and someone who knows where you are, can hear you to some extent, can see the attack coming, and is 'aware of surroundings in combat' simply isn't the same as a paralyzed person lying on the floor.
This can also be seen as a problem of advantage/disadvantage not stacking, or of not having various degrees of them. Not saying that the current rules are bad, because they do simplify and speed up play, but you do end up with equal benefits/drawbacks in situations that dont seem to be equally advatageous/disadvantageous. If you dont want to mess around with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, then it's just a matter of interpretation. Not being able to see the shooter should provide a disadvantage as per locki ragnarock's comment IMO, but is it closer to attacking a paralyzed target so that we model the attack with advantage, or is it closer to attacking a target that can see you (to model it as a normal attack)? And since the comparison is not between these two scenarios, maybe it would be better to just make attacking the paralyzed target (and similarly massively advantageous scenarios) an auto hit, while leaving the rest to be modelled with advantage. I think the best way to handle this is to add a little more complexity to how advantage/disadvantage applies, at least in theory. Maybe making it a variant rule so that not everyone would have to run with rules that might end up delaying their play enough for a better(?) attempt at realism to be worth it.


But yes, there are also mechanical reasons. Generally, I dislike any ability that makes it trivial to get repeated advantage turn after turn with no real cost. It makes a lot of features redundant, and centralizes the game around those effects. Ranged play is a strategy with low risk, and these strats make for extremely high payoff with low risk AND I find them weird from a verisimilitude perspective. I don't see them as 'overpowered' as such because damage by itself isn't that overpowered but in combination I would rather not have this as an option.
It's usually low risk for the individual, but it's not necessarily low risk for the party. You most likely have melee's "up front" exchanging hit with the enemies, so in that case you are operating within a time limit. If you are not contributing with your AC/HP (much) at all, then you'd better be good at dealing a lot of damage to overcome this (scenario specific) drawback, and ideally by also directing it where it matters the most. This is for example one reason why I like gloomstalkers a lot. You can max ranged dpr and commit to it while at the same time baiting attacks against which you'll have an adequate defense (assuming disadvantage to get hit). Take some hp damage away from allies and when you had enough just leg it and fight from a safer distance.

Moreover, while it isn't generally as easy to shut down ranged attackers as melee ones, it can happen, and in many cases it will happen while the same wont be true for melee attackers (eg being swarmed or fighting somewhere with lots of available cover). This complicates things when trying to optimize in certain ways (eg party of all ranged dpr's in an attempt to make ranged attacking a low risk strategy for the whole party, or optimizing heavily for certain roles like for example all melee's are built as lobsters and all ranged are built as dpr's, in which case shuting down the dprs and/or bypassing the melee's makes things considerably harder).

[Burley]

Like lets say there's a sniper with devil's sight hanging out in a cloud of darkness a hundred feet away. They aren't hidden at all. The logic of why an unseen attacker gets advantage (the attacked person can't see the attack coming/won't try to dodge/deflect it) just doesn't hold up here, since you can see/hear the projectile coming before it hits you. If you'd be able to dodge out of the way normally, why wouldn't you be able to do so here?


So, the sniper has advantage because the target doesn't know there's a sniper, not because the sniper is in Darkness. Darkness on the target would mean the target can't see (effectively has the Blinded condition) which grants advantage on attacks made against it.
The sniper being in darkness would help the sniper's Stealth check to be unseen, which may grant advantage. But, darkness on the sniper doesn't affect the target in any way. The sniper's darkness is only really modifying their ability to hide.
Your warlock should really be casting Darkness on their target, be able to see it clearly with Devil's Sight, and then snipe with advantage against a Blinded target.

[Segev]

So, the sniper has advantage because the target doesn't know there's a sniper, not because the sniper is in Darkness. Darkness on the target would mean the target can't see (effectively has the Blinded condition) which grants advantage on attacks made against it.
The sniper being in darkness would help the sniper's Stealth check to be unseen, which may grant advantage. But, darkness on the sniper doesn't affect the target in any way. The sniper's darkness is only really modifying their ability to hide.
Your warlock should really be casting Darkness on their target, be able to see it clearly with Devil's Sight, and then snipe with advantage against a Blinded target.

Being in magical darkness will, for most observers, render the one in said darkness automatically unseen. Not automatically hidden, necessarily, but automatically unseen.

[strangebloke]

You're over-reliant on restrained as an example, which doesn't say anything about being bound both hand and foot either.

Advantage also comes from any creature taking the help action, or the Faerie Fire spell lighting a target up etc. It's an over-relied on mechanic, granted, but I don't think there are grounds for your argument (advantage partially represents more severe things, so it shouldn't be used for lesser things).

That said, I have a hard time not viewing being an unseen opponent as anything but a significant advantage, certainly worth advantage.
Faerie fire is magic, and help involves an ally setting you up for a cheap shot. I don't see the issue here.

Playing smart means to me using the advantages you can give yourself in any given situation. Counter play is the enemies likewise playing smart and having a general idea of the kind of tactics that can be used to minimize the other guys tactics.
I'm more asking what you think the 'intelligent counterplay' to this specifically is, since you said I don't seem to like intelligent play.


It's usually low risk for the individual, but it's not necessarily low risk for the party. You most likely have melee's "up front" exchanging hit with the enemies, so in that case you are operating within a time limit. If you are not contributing with your AC/HP (much) at all, then you'd better be good at dealing a lot of damage to overcome this (scenario specific) drawback, and ideally by also directing it where it matters the most. This is for example one reason why I like gloomstalkers a lot. You can max ranged dpr and commit to it while at the same time baiting attacks against which you'll have an adequate defense (assuming disadvantage to get hit). Take some hp damage away from allies and when you had enough just leg it and fight from a safer distance.

I don't really see how its high risk for the party to avoid melee and let people specialized for it fill that role if they feel the need to...

But fair enough wrt your other points.

[Sorinth]

The easiest way to get advantage consistently is to be unseen.

Obviously this includes greater invisibility, but also gloomstalker, devil's sight + darkness, blindsight + darkness, shadow of moil, etc. Typically, these combos are extremely strong and massively enhance the DPR of the build that can use them effectively. If you assume a basic 65% hit rate, advantage changes this to 87%, meaning that your DPR is increasing proportionally by something like 18%. If your damage is much lower (because you're against a high AC target, or because you're using SS or GWM or both) This becomes something more like a buff from a 50% hit rate to a 75% hit rate - a 50% increase in damage. Things like Elven Accuracy can push this way higher.

And you all know this. It's not even (imo) really overpowered, but it does produce what are imo some pretty weird scenarios.

Like lets say there's a sniper with devil's sight hanging out in a cloud of darkness a hundred feet away. They aren't hidden at all. The logic of why an unseen attacker gets advantage (the attacked person can't see the attack coming/won't try to dodge/deflect it) just doesn't hold up here, since you can see/hear the projectile coming before it hits you. If you'd be able to dodge out of the way normally, why wouldn't you be able to do so here?

And this isn't an edge case, this is something that comes up all the time for nearly ever ranged damage-focused build. It also raises some questions, like "does an enemy firing through a narrow arrow slit count as 'unseen'?"

Here's my proposed alteration one of my friends proposed:


There are still a lot of ways to exploit this - I'd argue that a Gloomstalker who's invisible a few hundred feet away is usually going to be hidden so long as they keep moving - but they're more narrow and specific.

I'm not sure there's much dodging against an arrow in flight, so seeing/hearing it is too late.

The assumption is more that you see the lead up to the attack so have a much better idea of when it's coming and therefore make the dodge by anticipating the shot. It's like a goalie on penalty shots in soccer, they can't wait to see the shot and then react, they have to anticipate/guess based on the lead up to the shot.

[Sigreid]

Intelligent counterplay against this would be using cover and waiting it out if necessary. Perhaps some of the mobs have Tower shields, which while useless as shields allow them to set up mobile and movable cover. Using bushes and such for concealment to even the odds again. Finding areas to fight that prevent ranged attackers from being able to strike from outside melee range. If all use fails, fleeing until a more favorable setup can be achieved.

[Corran]

Intelligent counterplay against this would be using cover and waiting it out if necessary. Perhaps some of the mobs have Tower shields, which while useless as shields allow them to set up mobile and movable cover. Using bushes and such for concealment to even the odds again. Finding areas to fight that prevent ranged attackers from being able to strike from outside melee range. If all use fails, fleeing until a more favorable setup can be achieved.
To add to these. Drawing melee/lower-range pc's away from the (longer) ranged ones, then using any combination of stealth and mobility to take out the less protected ranged pc's.

[Burley]

Being in magical darkness will, for most observers, render the one in said darkness automatically unseen. Not automatically hidden, necessarily, but automatically unseen.

Sure, but the Darkness is a hat on a hat, innit? I guess the OP did say "They aren't hidden at all," meaning they're standing well in the open, aside from being in magical darkness. But, being in magical darkness is hidden, so, I dunno. I feel like, in this scenario, Darkness is used as an automatic Hide success.

You're not rendering the target blind; you're hiding in the dark and, after you attack once, you're not hidden anymore. I presume because the target is aware of magic beams shooting from that black dome. They'd have disadvantage to hit you, because you're unseen within the black, but they can now see where the attack is coming from, so, you'd lose advantage, unless you made a new hide check. (A rogue may shoot a crossbow from hiding behind a box and get advantage. After firing, the target knows the shot came from behind the box, so, even if they can't quite see the rogue, they know where the attack is coming from and aren't caught off guard.)

I don't think I disagree with the OP, at all. Maybe just nitpicking on the use of Darkness to provide advantage, when really it's using Darkness to Hide (or, I guess, lower-case hide) to provide advantage.

[Dork_Forge]

Faerie fire is magic, and help involves an ally setting you up for a cheap shot. I don't see the issue here.


All it does is outline them with dim light, but you're okay with advantage in this case 'because magic said so?'

There was also the example of any creature taking the help action, no matter the size difference or actual threat it could pose.

Is this actually a problem for you (e.g. players 'abusing' ranged advantage from medium-long ranges)? Or is this more like 'this doesn't match my verisimilitude, it's used for these things I think are worse' kind of thing? The latter is just a symptom of simplifying the game with unifying mechanics like advantage/disadvantage.

[Segev]

Sure, but the Darkness is a hat on a hat, innit? I guess the OP did say "They aren't hidden at all," meaning they're standing well in the open, aside from being in magical darkness. But, being in magical darkness is hidden, so, I dunno. I feel like, in this scenario, Darkness is used as an automatic Hide success.

You're not rendering the target blind; you're hiding in the dark and, after you attack once, you're not hidden anymore. I presume because the target is aware of magic beams shooting from that black dome. They'd have disadvantage to hit you, because you're unseen within the black, but they can now see where the attack is coming from, so, you'd lose advantage, unless you made a new hide check. (A rogue may shoot a crossbow from hiding behind a box and get advantage. After firing, the target knows the shot came from behind the box, so, even if they can't quite see the rogue, they know where the attack is coming from and aren't caught off guard.)

I don't think I disagree with the OP, at all. Maybe just nitpicking on the use of Darkness to provide advantage, when really it's using Darkness to Hide (or, I guess, lower-case hide) to provide advantage.

Ink-blot darkness renders those within "unseen." Which is all that's required for the "unseen attackers" rule to come into play.

[sithlordnergal]

Sure, but the Darkness is a hat on a hat, innit? I guess the OP did say "They aren't hidden at all," meaning they're standing well in the open, aside from being in magical darkness. But, being in magical darkness is hidden, so, I dunno. I feel like, in this scenario, Darkness is used as an automatic Hide success.

You're not rendering the target blind; you're hiding in the dark and, after you attack once, you're not hidden anymore. I presume because the target is aware of magic beams shooting from that black dome. They'd have disadvantage to hit you, because you're unseen within the black, but they can now see where the attack is coming from, so, you'd lose advantage, unless you made a new hide check. (A rogue may shoot a crossbow from hiding behind a box and get advantage. After firing, the target knows the shot came from behind the box, so, even if they can't quite see the rogue, they know where the attack is coming from and aren't caught off guard.)

I don't think I disagree with the OP, at all. Maybe just nitpicking on the use of Darkness to provide advantage, when really it's using Darkness to Hide (or, I guess, lower-case hide) to provide advantage.

Actually, you are technically rendering the target blinded when you stand in darkness that you can't see through, as described in the rules for Obscurement:

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."

Meaning even if you don't subscribe to the Ink Blot form of darkness, the target looking into Darkness still suffers from the Blinded condition if they lack a way to see through that kind of magical darkness. Meaning a creature that can see through that darkness, such as via Devil's Sight, still gains advantage even if they aren't hiding because they still count as Unseen.

[da newt]

Of note, it's not that hard to see an arrow in flight if you are well off the path of the arrow, but MUCH harder to see as it travels right at your head ...

[Segev]

Of note, it's not that hard to see an arrow in flight if you are well off the path of the arrow, but MUCH harder to see as it travels right at your head ...

For whatever reason, this post made me picture a Diviner using Portent by shoving his ally's target underneath the descending arrow.

[Telok]

3) Conclusion - based on the facts, assuming you look them up - dodging an arrow that you don't see released, that crosses 100' in 1/2 to 1/3 of a second would not be something easy to do - so applying advantage on the attack roll in a D&D context is as good an adjustment as any if you go with the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage system.

Thank you for looking things up. I'm a very data driven person and blanket statements like "humans can't dodge flying objects of unknown speeds" or "can't run more than 4 mph for very long" tend to trigger me. Especially when people could and obviously don't check anything.

I don't care about the rules in this one, d&d isn't anywhere near accuracy or realism on any combat stuff anymore for it to make any sense.

[Hytheter]

It's perhaps an arbitrary line, but this gets back to the point I made in the flanking thread: Advantage is a big deal. It's used to simulate things like the restrained and paralyzed conditions. "I couldn't see his bow when he loosed an arrow at me" seems like a very weak call compared to the above.

This is disingenuous. Advantage is also used for a whole host of things that are clearly *less* severe than being completely unaware of an attack until the arrow's halfway towards you. If you object to this lack of granularity, your objection should be to the generosity gifted to sufferers of paralysis.


Except, you can. A monk can catch the projectile, a wizard can cast shield, the rogue can dodge uncannily

Exactly. You can't dodge the arrow. Exceptional PC's can - we model this by giving them special abilities like the ones you mention, not in the default rules that also apply to commoners, goblins, cows and all manner of creatures that definitely can't dodge arrows.


and even normal characters get all of your normal AC, which is at least partially reflective of your ability to dodge.

That's only because we don't have finicky rules like flat-footed anymore. If you like you can imagine it as the general evasiveness afforded by being nimble and actively mobile even when not actively defending against a specific attack. Or you can just accept it as part of the abstraction, a compromise for keeping the game simpler. After all, even paralysed or unconscious creatures still add Dex to AC - or do you posit that the rogue must be able to dodge while bleeding out on the dirt?

[kazaryu]

Linking to a generic search regarding reflexes doesn't mean anything when reflexes are such a broad category. Shifting your entire mass out of the way of an arrow would take longer than blinking in reaction to irritation.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but you haven't actually proven anything.

you don't need to move your entire body out of the way, you just need to move a defensive tool....like armor, into the way, which is significantly easier. failing that, you need to move enough that the arrow might be a glancing blow, or hit something non-vital. allowing the wound to be ignored (excepting infection).

[strangebloke]

This is disingenuous. Advantage is also used for a whole host of things that are clearly *less* severe than being completely unaware of an attack until the arrow's halfway towards you. If you object to this lack of granularity, your objection should be to the generosity gifted to sufferers of paralysis.
Why? The game is very generous to defenders generally. If 20 people shoot arrows at a guy, logically he shouldn't be able to dodge any of them. There's too many arrows! But the game lets him dodge all of them with equal skill, because the system is very favorable to defenders and because its in keeping with action tropes.

This is similarly true for the restrained condition, for example. A hero who's stuck in a web is still going to be able to prevent the giant spider from eating him somehow, as little sense as that makes.

"I can be aware of every enemy in every direction and can react to their every move, even if there are thirty of them, but if I can't see them the second they release their arrow, I'm as helpless as if I was stuck in a web" raises my eyebrow. Most of the other means of getting advantage are tied to specific, exceptional abilities - the only one that isn't is 'help' afaik, and again, help only benefits a single attack, not 7+ in a single turn.

Paralyzed probably could give auto-hits.


Exactly. You can't dodge the arrow. Exceptional PC's can - we model this by giving them special abilities like the ones you mention, not in the default rules that also apply to commoners, goblins, cows and all manner of creatures that definitely can't dodge arrows.

No? Everyone has a generic arrow-dodging mechanic. Dex to AC. If they're bad at it, this is reflected by a low Dex mod, but lots of things, including unintelligent beasts, have the ability to dodge arrows. Realism can take a hike, that spider is dodging arrows! This is consistent with the idea that everyone has hyper-fast reaction speeds and extremely high levels of awareness. Does a wizard suddenly get faster reaction speeds when he learns the shield spell? Or were his reactions that good all along and he just learned a technique that let him cast a defensive spell as a reaction?

[Segev]

Why? The game is very generous to defenders generally. If 20 people shoot arrows at a guy, logically he shouldn't be able to dodge any of them. There's too many arrows! But the game lets him dodge all of them with equal skill, because the system is very favorable to defenders and because its in keeping with action tropes.

Technically, this might be a cause for either using mob rules or using a "volley" type action, where the defender saves for half rather than being allowed to "dodge them all."

[Mellack]

If we are talking verisimilitude, I would find the proposal that a person throwing a dagger from 20 feet (at an average human speed of 45 fps) gets advantage but a person shooting a crossbow from 40 feet ( at an average speed of 300 fps) to be troublesome. The bolt would still get to the person in a third the time of the dagger, even from the farther distance.

[strangebloke]

Technically, this might be a cause for either using mob rules or using a "volley" type action, where the defender saves for half rather than being allowed to "dodge them all."

Oh well, this creates even weirder changes to the game. Shield doing nothing against massed fire? HAM doing nothing against massed fire? The rogue with 15 AC and evasion taking zero damage where they'd normally just die?

Not saying its a bad ruling, but these sorts of actions have weird consequences.

[Segev]

Oh well, this creates even weirder changes to the game. Shield doing nothing against massed fire? HAM doing nothing against massed fire? The rogue with 15 AC and evasion taking zero damage where they'd normally just die?

Not saying its a bad ruling, but these sorts of actions have weird consequences.

Valid points and concerns. The mob rules are not a house rule, but an optional one for DMs to pick up on, and would leave it relating to AC, though.