BryonD
Hero
A fighter is toe-to-toe with a wizard. The wizard has Blur in effect. A Rogue is friends with the fighter and hidden a few feet away, unbeknownst to the wizard.
None of the characters has any special vision or means to overcome Blur.
All attacks against the Wizard have disadvantage because of blur.
The rogue jumps out and attacks the wizard. As an "unseen attacker" he gains advantage.
The Blur disadvantage and the unseen advantage cancel out and he is "considered to have neither".
The rogue is still attacking and an enemy of the wizard is within 5 feet and not incapacitated.
Therefore, the rogue makes a sneak attack against the blurred wizard.
Is this analysis correct?
It seems wrong to me that the blur effect would not still trump the sneak attack. (Not from rules perspective, purely my feel for it here)
I was thinking of another way to process this information. But it ends up the same.
You can look at all of the factors at once and resolve everything simultaneously.
The instant the rogue attacks the following things are true:
Disadvantage from Blur
Advantage from Unseen
Adjacent enemy is present
All subsequent action look at all of these factors to find out how they resolve.
Disadvantage sees Advantage at the same time Sneak Attack see both of them.
Sneak Attack sees 2 ways it can work, adjacent enemy fails because disadvantage is present.
But advantage is present and that condition does not look for disadvantage.
At the same time disadvantage and advantage see each other and go away.
This option ends up being a very convoluted way to get to the same answer. So there is really no point.
Does it seem wrong that a blurred wizard can be subject to sneak attack? I certainly don't see any balance issue with it and I'm ok with forgetting what I know from prior editions.
But part of me thinks you just shouldn't be able to sneak attack someone under the effect of blur.
As a thought exercise, will there be other times that this level of timing is important?
WotC is the maker of MtG after all. (I'm starting to think 5E is too trading card gamey. I KID!!!!!!)
None of the characters has any special vision or means to overcome Blur.
All attacks against the Wizard have disadvantage because of blur.
The rogue jumps out and attacks the wizard. As an "unseen attacker" he gains advantage.
The Blur disadvantage and the unseen advantage cancel out and he is "considered to have neither".
The rogue is still attacking and an enemy of the wizard is within 5 feet and not incapacitated.
Therefore, the rogue makes a sneak attack against the blurred wizard.
Is this analysis correct?
It seems wrong to me that the blur effect would not still trump the sneak attack. (Not from rules perspective, purely my feel for it here)
I was thinking of another way to process this information. But it ends up the same.
You can look at all of the factors at once and resolve everything simultaneously.
The instant the rogue attacks the following things are true:
Disadvantage from Blur
Advantage from Unseen
Adjacent enemy is present
All subsequent action look at all of these factors to find out how they resolve.
Disadvantage sees Advantage at the same time Sneak Attack see both of them.
Sneak Attack sees 2 ways it can work, adjacent enemy fails because disadvantage is present.
But advantage is present and that condition does not look for disadvantage.
At the same time disadvantage and advantage see each other and go away.
This option ends up being a very convoluted way to get to the same answer. So there is really no point.
Does it seem wrong that a blurred wizard can be subject to sneak attack? I certainly don't see any balance issue with it and I'm ok with forgetting what I know from prior editions.
But part of me thinks you just shouldn't be able to sneak attack someone under the effect of blur.
As a thought exercise, will there be other times that this level of timing is important?
WotC is the maker of MtG after all. (I'm starting to think 5E is too trading card gamey. I KID!!!!!!)
)
