Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMi suggestion - adjudicating attacks inside Darkness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7123495" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Amen to that!</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>The ruling I propose adds four words to RAW - "<em><strong>that you can see</strong></em>". 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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7123495, member: 71699"] Amen to that! 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. 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 - "[I][B]that you can see[/B][/I]". 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMi suggestion - adjudicating attacks inside Darkness
Top