D&D 5E DMi suggestion - adjudicating attacks inside Darkness

Li Shenron said:

While advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, everyone (who can't see in the dark) has to guess everybody's location. How is that not chaotic?

Don't let players fool you into thinking that if they can hear their targets, then they should be able to target them. This might be true sometimes (I'd say rarely), but no way it grants the rights to know someone's location as easily as when you can see.

Click to expand...

Your statement is not RAW. Per the rules, unless someone takes the Hide action, everyone knows what square they are in, even if invisible. You're always assumed to be making noise, disturbing dust in the air, whatever if not taking the Hide action. So unless you Hide in darkness, your opponent doesn't have to guess which square you're in. At least, that's per RAW. Personally, I'm not a fan of that rule.

Li Shenron said:

While advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, everyone (who can't see in the dark) has to guess everybody's location. How is that not chaotic?

Don't let players fool you into thinking that if they can hear their targets, then they should be able to target them. This might be true sometimes (I'd say rarely), but no way it grants the rights to know someone's location as easily as when you can see.

Click to expand...

Did you listen to the podcast on Stealth with Jeremy Crawford? He stressed that unseen was not unheard and that even an invisible creature does not count as hidden until it takes the Hide action. He seemed to indicate that knowing a creature's location is usually a given unless they are hidden - both unheard and unseen.

We use a combat grid with figures or pogs representing each combatant. To mechanically represent combatants not knowing one another's location, I could remove all the figures and track them behind a screen or something, but that feels unmanageable! Definitely not worth the effort. Alternatively, I could get combatants to make a roll to see if they choose the right square. But if I do that, what is the real difference between having such a roll and simply applying Disadvantage? It hardly adds value. What do you do, to manage combatants in Darkness (i.e. mutually blinded) choosing squares as you suggest?

Li Shenron said:

While advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, everyone (who can't see in the dark) has to guess everybody's location. How is that not chaotic?

Don't let players fool you into thinking that if they can hear their targets, then they should be able to target them. This might be true sometimes (I'd say rarely), but no way it grants the rights to know someone's location as easily as when you can see.

Click to expand...

And here we go again!

This is how my group has always run darkness and blindness. Initially out of misunderstanding, but later I read the RAW on this forum. I never actually brought up the rules clarification to the group because I think it's more intuitive that in darkness your attacks would be at disadvantage.

Our warlock has devil's sight + darkness combo and he has a lot of fun with it. The confusion of enemies (and often times of allies as well) makes for fun encounters.

vonklaude said:

This is what my tweak addresses. Right now, attackers have advantage against blind targets even if those attackers are themselves blind. That makes no sense to me. My mental image of mutually blind attackers fighting involves a lot more flailing around. To correct that, I simply say that you have advantage against targets that cannot see you... that you can see.

This appeals to me because it is super simple and does exactly what I want it to do. Aside from being non-RAW, can you spot any flaws in this approach?

Click to expand...

I considered a similar tweak for a while, but ran into the issue that my players felt that blind-on-blind melee combat SHOULD cancel out instead of being at mutual disadvantage.

I subsequently realized that my greater objection was to the accuracy of ranged attacks for blind attackers, and wound up with a different house rule: attackers unseen by their targets gain advantage on melee attacks only, but not ranged attacks. Thus, two blind men shooting at each other with crossbows will be lucky to hit, but two blind guys punching each other will land plenty of hits*. To me at least, this seems perfectly plausible.

You say that your tweak does "exactly what [you] want it to do", and that's fine--but apparently you want something slightly different than I or my players do. Not much to say about that really--de gustibus.

* As others have remarked, it's still not quite the same thing as sighted-on-sighted combat. E.g. if one of the guys is a Rogue who can move silently via Cunning Action, he'll clean the other blind guy's clock by being impossible to find, at least until the other guy wises up and starts readying actions.

Croesus said:

Your statement is not RAW. Per the rules, unless someone takes the Hide action, everyone knows what square they are in, even if invisible. You're always assumed to be making noise, disturbing dust in the air, whatever if not taking the Hide action. So unless you Hide in darkness, your opponent doesn't have to guess which square you're in. At least, that's per RAW. Personally, I'm not a fan of that rule.

Click to expand...

The RAW doesn't adequately cover the situation described.

vonklaude said:

Did you listen to the podcast on Stealth with Jeremy Crawford? He stressed that unseen was not unheard and that even an invisible creature does not count as hidden until it takes the Hide action. He seemed to indicate that knowing a creature's location is usually a given unless they are hidden - both unheard and unseen.

Click to expand...

Crawford just has to provide some answer, but I am sure that in his own games he wouldn't rule this case like he says in the podcast. And invisible enemies are not exactly as bad as the PC being unable to see (in fact a lot of rationale about being able to pinpoint an invisible enemy is not only by sound but also by visual clues like misplaced sand/grass/water or bumping into objects). His ruling is also not really concerned about making full sense, but rather being fair in game terms i.e. not to make it too difficult for a PC to fight an invisible creature. But you started this thread saying you wanted to evoke a sense of chaos, right?

The way I would probably handle it, is similar to what you guessed: I would hide the battlemat (I don't use a grid, so in my case I would just tell the players to ignore the minis on the table) and add randomness in the targets being hit. I haven't thought about the details, if both parties cannot see in darkness, then maybe the easiest idea is that instead of regular attack rolls, each combatants has a flat chance of hitting someone, and everything could be determined with a single roll (example: party of 4 PCs vs 4 enemies -> roll 1d10, results of 1 to 3 hit a specific ally in alphabetical order, results of 4 to 6 hit nobody, results of 7 to 10 hit an enemy). Area spells roll 2d10 or more, and ignore duplicates. This would be a simple way to represent the chaos of two parties attacking each other in complete darkness. Reciprocal (clueless) movement already taken into account by the randomness. But then, who would be so stupid to fight in complete darkness with your allies nearby? After a round or even less, you should expect your players to want to try something else.

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

And here we go again!

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

vonklaude said:

How do others feel about this suggestion?

Click to expand...

I feel like it favors the defender without acknowledging that for combatants to benefit from darkness they need to use it to their advantage, which is through stealth and evasion. Also, attackers can benefit from darkness as well as defenders. It just depends on who's being stealthy. If your opponents are making themselves known to you, they aren't using the darkness to their advantage. The unseen attackers and targets rules work as written if you keep in mind that characters are always making themselves known, unless they make an effort to stop. Participants in combat make themselves known out to a distance of around 350 feet.

I've seen a combat where a PC and bandit were fighting in a smoke cloud and the DM ruled that since they couldn't see each other they both had disadvantage, because that makes sense, and thought it was RAW. It took a really really long time. The first rounds of them missing each other was novel. But after another two rounds of both missing you could see the frustration just build and it wasn't fun for either Player. A fight that should have taken two rounds took about five. By the end they were talking about how stupid this was.

I think the reason that they made the rules so they end up attacking normally was specifically to ensure that the fight doesn't bog down. Because it does. A lot.

Maybe have a pair of mock fights with both rules. Have a fighter and a Bandit, keep it simple and feel for yourself the differences back to back. Once you get a feel for the actual pace, consider that that'll be in the middle of a four party combat scene.

My issue with the way its written is that the intention RAW can be missed because you have to remember two different rules and combine them to figure out the rule. Which can easily be overlooked by new DMs. They should just add a line that specifically says "They end up attacking normally because they both have advantage and disadvantage."

Hemlock said:

I considered a similar tweak for a while, but ran into the issue that my players felt that blind-on-blind melee combat SHOULD cancel out instead of being at mutual disadvantage.

I subsequently realized that my greater objection was to the accuracy of ranged attacks for blind attackers, and wound up with a different house rule: attackers unseen by their targets gain advantage on melee attacks only, but not ranged attacks. Thus, two blind men shooting at each other with crossbows will be lucky to hit, but two blind guys punching each other will land plenty of hits*. To me at least, this seems perfectly plausible.

Click to expand...

Plausible, until one of them steps back a square or two taking advantage of the no opportunity attacks rule.

Hemlock said:

You say that your tweak does "exactly what [you] want it to do", and that's fine--but apparently you want something slightly different than I or my players do. Not much to say about that really--de gustibus.

Click to expand...

Sure, but one can have objective criteria for a good rule. Is it consistent? Easy to apply? Symmetrical (not all rules need to be symmetrical but it is often a sign of a great rule that it works the same on similar actors)? Simple to express. That's what I meant rather than to argue solely to my own taste.

Li Shenron said:

The RAW doesn't adequately cover the situation described.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

Li Shenron said:

Crawford just has to provide some answer, but I am sure that in his own games he wouldn't rule this case like he says in the podcast. And invisible enemies are not exactly as bad as the PC being unable to see (in fact a lot of rationale about being able to pinpoint an invisible enemy is not only by sound but also by visual clues like misplaced sand/grass/water or bumping into objects). His ruling is also not really concerned about making full sense, but rather being fair in game terms i.e. not to make it too difficult for a PC to fight an invisible creature. But you started this thread saying you wanted to evoke a sense of chaos, right?

Click to expand...

We can't advance any argument on the basis that Crawford is disingenuous because we don't know that for a fact, and if he was, we don't know what he actually does do. However, there is the point about footprints and so on - visible signs. Still, he repeatedly emphasises the difference between unseen, and unseen and unheard. And that is highly consistent with the rules and with WotC discussion of the rules. To be hidden you must take the Hide action and that makes you unseen and unheard (until you do something to break that). So per RAW a combatant in Darkness isn't hidden by default.

Li Shenron said:

TThe way I would probably handle it, is similar to what you guessed: I would hide the battlemat (I don't use a grid, so in my case I would just tell the players to ignore the minis on the table) and add randomness in the targets being hit. I haven't thought about the details, if both parties cannot see in darkness, then maybe the easiest idea is that instead of regular attack rolls, each combatants has a flat chance of hitting someone, and everything could be determined with a single roll (example: party of 4 PCs vs 4 enemies -> roll 1d10, results of 1 to 3 hit a specific ally in alphabetical order, results of 4 to 6 hit nobody, results of 7 to 10 hit an enemy). Area spells roll 2d10 or more, and ignore duplicates. This would be a simple way to represent the chaos of two parties attacking each other in complete darkness. Reciprocal (clueless) movement already taken into account by the randomness. But then, who would be so stupid to fight in complete darkness with your allies nearby? After a round or even less, you should expect your players to want to try something else..

Click to expand...

I don't desire to be at all disrespectful, but you have run this sort of situation much? I ask because "probably handle it" could imply that you're offering principally theorycraft. Theorycrafting is always welcome! However, to forge great rules we usually have to get at the nth iteration. What is this ruling like in actual play? What about after the 12th time we repeat it? Is it still fun of do we really, really want to ignore or streamline it by then?

The ruling I propose adds four words to RAW - "that you can see". It's consequence is a single extra die roll - for disadvantage - that in terms of process at the table is surely going to play faster than efforts to obfuscate target squares. Yet very often will have the same consequence: the narrative of swinging blindly readily incorporating that a combatant swung at the wrong square and that is why they had to choose the lower of two dice rolls. Hmm... here I am knocking your comments when in fact I appreciate them greatly because they help me to better understand the situation and how others may see it. Perhaps we can remain in friendly disagreement There could be times when a more elaborate process will be needed. Some years ago I ran a fight between two invisible and utterly deadly opponents - a player and an NPC. While the others at the table watched in pensive silence. Each move was fully hidden and could end the combat. After several tense actions, the player chose the right square and the npc failed to resist. Dying instantly. It was a good fight. I wouldn't have wanted to simply use disadvantage for that one.