Fighting in darkness?

[RangerWickett]

Let me know if I have this right:

If you can't see your target, you have disadvantage on an attack.

If your target can't see you, you have advantage on an attack.

Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. So if two people are fighting in pitch darkness, they're just as likely to hit each other as if they were fighting in broad daylight.

That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[bogmad]

I'd say the most intuitive way to call it would to simply say, since nobody can see anything, that you both have disadvantage. If it needs to be hard wired, I'd say that to attack with advantage it is a prerequisite that you can see your target(barring special senses). Easy fix.

 

[samursus]

Let me know if I have this right:

If you can't see your target, you have disadvantage on an attack.

If your target can't see you, you have advantage on an attack.

Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. So if two people are fighting in pitch darkness, they're just as likely to hit each other as if they were fighting in broad daylight.

That doesn't seem right to me.

First part, yup.

Second part, I would add "if you can see your target." This would be RAI IMHO.

 

[Traken]

Everyone in the fight having disadvantage is boring and frustrating. As long as they are on even footing, who cares?

Yes, disadvantage can be a bigger drawback depending on your attack bonus... I just can't see myself caring about that when actually rolling the dice.

 

[slobo777]

Everyone in the fight having disadvantage is boring and frustrating. As long as they are on even footing, who cares?

Yes, disadvantage can be a bigger drawback depending on your attack bonus... I just can't see myself caring about that when actually rolling the dice.

Depends how it happened . . .

If players or monsters have deliberately put down darkness (or fog) to cover an escape, I think disadvantage all round is reasonable, because that makes their gambit relevent.

If DM has dropped darkness down on two teams because it seemed like fun (or they forgot to protect their light sources), then it might make sense to hand-wave it.

IME the first scenario, with one or other team instigating the darkness for escape, is the more common. So I think the "everyone has disadvantage" supports it better (if you want just one consistent rule here).

In any case, we'll have characters reaching for their light sources in double-quick time if they don't like it.

 

[mlund]

Advantage and Disadvantage are are subjective metric anyway.

If you are aware of the location of someone within 5' of you but you can't see them you can still swing a sword at them. Assuming they are trying the same thing there isn't going to be a whole lot of effective dodging, feinting, or parrying going on like their might be in a sighted fight. So yeah, the whole advantage / disadvantage canceling out thing works just fine in the abstract. It won't be as pretty as a sighted fight, but probably just about as fast and deadly.

The really tough part of fighting in the dark is guessing what square your enemy is in. Trying to swing a sword at someone when you have no idea if they are even in one of the 8 squares near you is going to be a terrible inaccurate affair, even without disadvantage.

- Marty Lund

 

[timASW]

Considering that it takes away everyone's ability to effectively defend themselves it might make more sense to give everyone advantage instead.

It would make for short, ugly fights but doesnt that seem like what would most likely actually happen?

 

[Li Shenron]

Let me know if I have this right:

If you can't see your target, you have disadvantage on an attack.

If your target can't see you, you have advantage on an attack.

Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. So if two people are fighting in pitch darkness, they're just as likely to hit each other as if they were fighting in broad daylight.

That doesn't seem right to me.

You have it right about adv/dis cancelling, but your conclusion (highlighted) is not taking into account the fact that both combatant need to first find out where the other is!

If you haven't pinpointed the exact location of the opponent, you practically cannot attack him at all. (There might be some rules later on for just swinging/shooting randomly into a direction, although I don't think we need this, the DM can make it up).

Pinpointing takes an action (see "Attacking an Unseen Target" in Combat chapter, How to Play document) and a successful Wis/Perception check (see "Perception" in exploration chapter, same doc), which means you're both attacking less frequently, which means on everage they're definitely not hitting each other as much as in daylight. And guess what happens as soon as one of the two take a movement action? They have to pinpoint each other again!

The only case when it is almost the same as in daylight, is if the two opponents are never moving, and only after a few rounds anyway (until they made their Perception checks). If they want to do that, well... it's up to them. But I think that the one of them who notices he's getting beaten up is definitely going to try and move away from such position.

 

[Someone]

Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. So if two people are fighting in pitch darkness, they're just as likely to hit each other as if they were fighting in broad daylight.

Well, not exactly. Further advantage or disadvantage are ignored, so roges can't get their sneak attack dice and it's a good moment to get drunk.

 

[Prickly]

Wouldn't they both have disadvantage until one person hides (making no sound or sneaking in the dark) as an action. That person will then gain advantage, canceling out his disadvantage, whilst the other would still have a disadvantage.

Makes sense to me.