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

[clearstream]

In other threads I read that some DMs adjudicating per RAW that

When you attack a target you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

Leading to the unsatisfactory situation of everyone inside Darkness making normal attacks against each other. Far from the chaotic picture I'd like to invoke. Thus I suggest the following

When you attack a target you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature you can see, can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

I feel like this cleans up Darkness (and the blinded condition considerably). How do others feel about this suggestion?

 

[jaelis]

Doesn't seem necessary or particularly realistic to me. My own rule is that if you don't know the location of the target but guess the right location, you have disadvantage on the roll no matter what. I think that does enough to capture the difficulty of fighting blind.

However, my opinion means nothing to your game, so if this works well at your table, then you have done it right

 

[clearstream]

Doesn't seem necessary

Thank you for replying. I guess I didn't state my problem clearly. A solution is rendered necessary for me because per RAW creatures in Darkness fight one another normally (no advantage, no disadvantage) and I would like to invoke a more chaotic feel. Fighting blindly against other blind creatures should feel distinctly different from fighting in a lit room!

or particularly realistic

For me, it feels hugely less realistic for creatures in Darkness to fight one another essentially normally. I expect realistically a lot of flailing around. You've ever LARPed in Darkness? Something like that. We possibly see eye-to-eye on this because you have come up with a (different) solution to the problem. Gaining advantage on an attack against a blind creature that you yourself cannot see seems very unrealistic to me.

My own rule is that if you don't know the location of the target but guess the right location, you have disadvantage on the roll no matter what.

I guess that yields the same result but fails to explain how that result is reached. I believe it is right to focus on results, but there are also benefits from understanding the framework that yields those results. Did you listen to Crawford on Stealth in the podcast? He seems to "clarify" that unheard is very different from unseen, and unless you take an action to Hide you are only unseen. While not Hidden, other creatures can guess your location from sounds you make (leaving it up the DM to decide, but I opt to say that in combat most creatures make enough sound to be located unless​ they take the Hide action!)

 

[Croesus]

When a creature you can see, can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

I feel like this cleans up Darkness (and the blinded condition considerably). How do others feel about this suggestion?

Not RAW, but I personally like this. I'll give it try at my table and see how it works.

 

[jaelis]

Thank you for replying. I guess I didn't state my problem clearly. A solution is rendered necessary for me because per RAW creatures in Darkness fight one another normally (no advantage, no disadvantage) and I would like to invoke a more chaotic feel. Fighting blindly against other blind creatures should feel distinctly different from fighting in a lit room!


For me, it feels hugely less realistic for creatures in Darkness to fight one another essentially normally. I expect realistically a lot of flailing around. You've ever LARPed in Darkness? Something like that. We possibly see eye-to-eye on this because you have come up with a (different) solution to the problem. Gaining advantage on an attack against a blind creature that you yourself cannot see seems very unrealistic to me.

My point is that I think creatures fighting in darkness should be less likely to damage each other, so the idea of giving advantage seems strange.

I guess that yields the same result but fails to explain how that result is reached. I believe it is right to focus on results, but there are also benefits from understanding the framework that yields those results. Did you listen to Crawford on Stealth in the podcast? He seems to "clarify" that unheard is very different from unseen, and unless you take an action to Hide you are only unseen. While not Hidden, other creatures can guess your location from sounds you make (leaving it up the DM to decide, but I opt to say that in combat most creatures make enough sound to be located unless​ they take the Hide action!)

Yes, I would require you to hide in order to benefit from my rule.

 

[jaelis]

But maybe I've misread your thing anyway

When a creature you can see, can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

So you are saying that if neither creature can see each other, both have disadvantage? That makes a lot more sense if so, sorry if I got it wrong.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Darkness has other effects other than just advantage/disadvantage.

In particular, if you cannot see your opponent then you cannot use any spell or feature that says "that you can see".

For example, you cannot:

• Use Protection fighting style.
• Use Uncanny Dodge.
• Make Opportunity Attacks.
• Cast any spells that require a target you can see.

Your attack rolls will be at normal (the advantage for the target not seeing you is negated by the disadvantage for not seeing your target) but the combat will play differently because of these unusable features.


Note: cross-posted from RPG.se.

 

[clearstream]

But maybe I've misread your thing anyway

So you are saying that if neither creature can see each other, both have disadvantage? That makes a lot more sense if so, sorry if I got it wrong.

We were in furious agreement

 

[clearstream]

Darkness has other effects other than just advantage/disadvantage.

In particular, if you cannot see your opponent then you cannot use any spell or feature that says "that you can see".

For example, you cannot:

• Use Protection fighting style.
• Use Uncanny Dodge.
• Make Opportunity Attacks.
• Cast any spells that require a target you can see.

Yes, accepted. My tweak doesn't address those because for me they're fine.

Your attack rolls will be at normal (the advantage for the target not seeing you is negated by the disadvantage for not seeing your target) but the combat will play differently because of these unusable features.

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?

 

[Li Shenron]

Leading to the unsatisfactory situation of everyone inside Darkness making normal attacks against each other. Far from the chaotic picture I'd like to invoke.

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.