Hiding and Blindness (updated)

[clearstream]

Basically what I was going to say.


Technically, both the PC and the creature being attacked are blinded so the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out.

I know, I know. That's very much per RAW. For me it causes considerable narrative dissonance. I prefer that when everyone is blind, everyone is safer than when everyone can see... at least from one another.

Edit: So! Is there a way that doing it as I suggest, is mechanically problematic?

 

[Oofta]

I know, I know. That's very much per RAW. For me it causes considerable narrative dissonance. I prefer that when everyone is blind, everyone is safer than when everyone can see... at least from one another.

Edit: So! Is there a way that doing it as I suggest, is mechanically problematic?

There's nothing wrong with the way you worded it. But ... there are other cases where you could have advantage and disadvantage at the same time that cancel each other out. Wording it differently makes it sound like this is a special exception when it really isn't (for the first attack anyway).

Let's take a different scenario for sake of argument. A PC is restrained (disadvantage on attacks) but attacking a creature that has been glitter-dusted (granting advantage on attacks). How does your rule interact with that, if at all? What if the target creature is just blinded? So personally I keep the rule as is for simplicity.

As far as your ruling on hiding, that sounds similar to what I do and is part of my session 0 explanation of how I run it in my games.

For movement in the dark I do it a little differently; while the person playing the PC can see the board and say their PC is moving in X direction or pattern their PC doesn't have the luxury of meta-gaming so they need to do intelligence checks to remember where things (or creatures) were if they saw it while they could see. DC depends on the environment. If just moving blindly somewhere they've never been at full speed I just figure it out as we go but once again I don't assume the PC knows exactly where they are going. It's quite easy to get turned around.

I don't have any hard-and-fast rules though because it comes up so rarely.

 

[Hriston]

Indeed, but when it is every turn it comes to feel over-rewarded as a strategy. Speaking from experience.


Indeed that is what RAW entails. My question is more about whether there are any mechanical issues to take into account if doing it differently? For me, as a DM, I dislike creatures proceeding in blanketing fog or magical darkness (sans magical seeing) as if they were all in clear daylight. It causes narrative dissonance.


Indeed, I am asking not so much what the RAW says, with which I am very much familiar, but rather if there are any obvious issues with doing things they way I propose.

Oh, so your questions are rhetorical. Sorry, that wasn’t clear to me. I re-read your OP in that light, and it seems you don't like how the mechanics treat the situations about which you asked. I don't agree that there's much here to fix, but I'll give a response if you're interested.

Unseen but not Unheard
For creatures that can make multiple attacks, only the first gains advantage from being unseen unless it fails to give away their position, or the creature moves between attacks to a new unseen position. Light and vision don’t abruptly terminate, so characters right on the edge of visibility can expect to be seen. Attackers who can’t see their target can guess its location from the noise it makes: the disadvantage they have on attack rolls also applies to checks for any special melee attacks they make.

The advantage gained by unseen attackers derives from being unable to anticipate the timing and angle of their attacks due to not being able to see them. It has nothing to do with whether or not their location is known -- they get the advantage whether they are hidden or not -- so there seems to be a disconnect between the reasoning behind the mechanic and your proposed changes to it. For example, an unseen and un-hidden target's location is known. It doesn't need to be guessed by the attacker. Likewise, an unseen and un-hidden attacker's location is known, so it can't be given away.

Unseen and Unheard: Hiding
Creatures can become unseen and unheard by taking the Hide action: you can try to hide if you are—

Heavily obscured by such things as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage;
Concealed by an object that blocks vision entirely such as a creature two sizes larger than you;
Unobserved such as when a creature is distracted;
Invisible such as through a spell or class ability.

You stop being hidden when you are in a creature’s field of vision under circumstances that would prevent you attempting to hide from it, or you make sounds that it can hear, or you attack it. Creatures whose lives depend on it will mark your position, forestalling further Hide actions until you shift to an unexpected new position or otherwise confound them.

I think this does a good job of elaborating on the rules and could help clear up misconceptions. My personal formulation is that you need to be heavily obscured or behind an obstruction, and that you can't hide from someone who knows where you are.

Blinded
Attackers have advantage on attacks against blind creatures that they can see. Each foot of movement while blind costs 1 extra foot of speed. If you Dash while blind you must make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (DC 12) or fall prone. Contact with a sighted guide lets you automatically succeed on that check.

This seems to go against what you wrote under "Unseen but not Unheard". By blind, I assume you mean blinded and that this is meant to replace the Blinded condition. If so, does that mean the blinded creature attacks a target that can see it without disadvantage? I'd assume that isn't what you want either.

As for movement, I think it's helpful in avoiding the type of interruption to your narrative that you've described to remember that darkness isn't just total darkness. It also covers moonlit nights with anything but the most brilliant full moon. I don't think the range of lighting conditions that falls under "darkness" really justifies a mechanical impediment to movement.

 

[clearstream]

Let's take a different scenario for sake of argument. A PC is restrained (disadvantage on attacks) but attacking a creature that has been glitter-dusted (granting advantage on attacks). How does your rule interact with that, if at all? What if the target creature is just blinded? So personally I keep the rule as is for simplicity.

There might be a slight misconstrual here about what I'm doing. I'm not creating an exception to advantage and disadvantage cancelling out. I'm only giving advantage to attacks against blinded opponents to attackers that can see them. An attacker that can't see their blinded opponent doesn't get advantage.

In your test case, restraint and glitter-dust cancel out, and restraint and attacking a blinded foe cancel out.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, so your questions are rhetorical. Sorry, that wasn’t clear to me. I re-read your OP in that light, and it seems you don't like how the mechanics treat the situations about which you asked.

Seeking analysis of the proposed changes, not solely a recital of the RAW. Perhaps that needed to be clearer. Yes, in play at the table I found the mechanics wanting. Particularly around movement when blind.

The advantage gained by unseen attackers derives from being unable to anticipate the timing and angle of their attacks due to not being able to see them. It has nothing to do with whether or not their location is known -- they get the advantage whether they are hidden or not -- so there seems to be a disconnect between the reasoning behind the mechanic and your proposed changes to it. For example, an unseen and un-hidden target's location is known. It doesn't need to be guessed by the attacker. Likewise, an unseen and un-hidden attacker's location is known, so it can't be given away.

I agree that per RAW giving away your location does not end your being unseen, and accordingly, you could continue to get advantage. What I found in play is that on larger maps in pitch darkness, numerous instances came up where a creature could attack - giving away its location - but continue to be unseen due to its target's inferior vision. This was subsequently spammed by players: revealing not simply a clever strategy, but a weakness in the underlying rules. The vision rules seem as weak in 5th edition as in every other edition of D&D! Or maybe moreso, due to streamlining efforts. I decided that advantage on the first attack was strong enough to be worth working for without warping the narrative around it. Especially with the out of shifting position.

Looking at that again critically, it could be better to say that advantage is only gained while location is unknown. The only issue with that is then a creature needs to be unseen and unheard, and Invisibility or attacking against a Blinded opponent that you can see would strictly speaking fail to give the expected advantage.

I think this does a good job of elaborating on the rules and could help clear up misconceptions. My personal formulation is that you need to be heavily obscured or behind an obstruction, and that you can't hide from someone who knows where you are.

I wanted to do something like the latter part, but p177 "An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide". "Always" is strong wording, so that made me feel that circumstances should be able to exist where your position is known, but you can still try to hide. Still, what you say helps me see that what I'm doing is stopping further hiding under circumstances that could well stop the first attempt. Making it inexplicable what is special about that attempt from earlier ones where your position was known. That needs reconciling.

This seems to go against what you wrote under "Unseen but not Unheard". By blind, I assume you mean blinded and that this is meant to replace the Blinded condition. If so, does that mean the blinded creature attacks a target that can see it without disadvantage? I'd assume that isn't what you want either.

Replaces the second bullet, and adds a third. The blinded creature will attack with disadvantage against a creature that can see it, I do not see how what I've constructed obviates that. It deals specifically with the case where all sides are blinded, which can happen under magical darkness or in pitch black underground. Circumstances that can come up frequently in a dungeon or Underdark adventure.

As for movement, I think it's helpful in avoiding the type of interruption to your narrative that you've described to remember that darkness isn't just total darkness. It also covers moonlit nights with anything but the most brilliant full moon. I don't think the range of lighting conditions that falls under "darkness" really justifies a mechanical impediment to movement.

This came out of numerous cases of running through magical darkness, as well as pitch black underground. I would rather say that a moonlit night was dim light, than treat all darkness without reservation as not pitch.

 

[Li Shenron]

a) a drow (120' darkvision) attacks a half-elf (60' darkvision) with a longbow (150'/600' range), staying always outside the range of the half-elf's vision... does the drow continuously get advantage?

Yes.

b) characters are fighting creatures in a fog cloud, that they can hear (the creatures aren't hidden), but not see... can they target the creatures with their ranged attacks (albeit suffering disadvantage)?

Yes.

c) a party is fleeing through complete (but not magical) darkness from drow slavers; with them are humans... can the humans run blindly through the darkness just as well as if they could see?

Yes. And notice that "just as well" includes that if they run into a wall in the dark they get hurt "just as well" as when they run into a wall in broad daylight. Then think, are you going to tell the PCs there is a wall when they are in complete darkness so that they can stop just in time to avoid getting hurt? The answer depends if your DMing style is more "gamist" or "realistic".

 

[clearstream]

Yes.



Yes.

Ah, I was posing those as question intended to be resolved, not asking what RAW presently allows.

Yes. And notice that "just as well" includes that if they run into a wall in the dark they get hurt "just as well" as when they run into a wall in broad daylight. Then think, are you going to tell the PCs there is a wall when they are in complete darkness so that they can stop just in time to avoid getting hurt? The answer depends if your DMing style is more "gamist" or "realistic".

There aren't rules in RAW for running into a wall and of course, the god-like viewing point of PCs over a battle map means implementing something that... well has always been far too clunky at the table for my taste. I prefer just - slow them down (which is what hitting a wall is likely to do, anyway), and give them a chance to go prone.

 

[clearstream]

Looking over comments, which have been helpful! I think its worth restating what the mechanical consequences of vision and hidden circumstances are:

Unseen
This is offensive and defensive. You gain advantage on attacks against creatures who can't see you, and they have disadvantage on their attacks against you. They know your location, so they can target you with melee and ranged attacks, but they can't target you with spells that require that the caster can see the target. Per RAW, making an attack gives away your position but does not automatically make you seen, e.g. if you are outside a creature's Darkvision range you can stay unseen.

Hidden
Hidden does nothing offensively, it is purely defensive. Attackers have to guess your square. If they choose wrong, their attack misses regardless of what they roll. You can only become hidden by taking the Hide action. Per RAW, you can do that even if hostile creatures know your location... just so long as they cannot see you, e.g. invisible creatures are "always" allowed to try to hide.

Blinded
Blinded only has consequences for targeting some spells or similar effects, attacks, and ability checks reliant on sight. Per RAW, it has no consequences on movement.


Where I am coming at this from is that there are some obvious places for improvement in the mechanics, or at least for clear decisions about what is entailed. For instance, one could say from RAW that giving away your position seems mildly conflated with an assumption that doing so will make you seen. Jeremy Crawford has spoken about attacking while being "hidden", yet being hidden in RAW seems to have no consequence on your attacks: only on whether and how you can be attacked back.

 

[Li Shenron]

There aren't rules in RAW for running into a wall and of course, the god-like viewing point of PCs over a battle map means implementing something that... well has always been far too clunky at the table for my taste. I prefer just - slow them down (which is what hitting a wall is likely to do, anyway), and give them a chance to go prone.

I think it's always best to leave such kind of situations to each DM to handle it the way they want.

Personally, for me a RPG is always grounded in a story, and if I stop believing in the story I stop believing in the game. Frankly, in this particular case if the DM rules that in total darkness you can dart through doors and around objects at full speed because the RAW doesn't prevent that, I also stop believing in the person.

 

[clearstream]

Personally, for me a RPG is always grounded in a story, and if I stop believing in the story I stop believing in the game. Frankly, in this particular case if the DM rules that in total darkness you can dart through doors and around objects at full speed because the RAW doesn't prevent that, I also stop believing in the person.

I feel the same way you do! I don't want to slow things down managing hidden information or direction-scatter-chances, but I do want something that supports my narrative. "Your lamp dropped and broken far behind you, you're fleeing through pitch-black winding tunnels. Downwards... ever downwards..."

To capture that, I want something quick (added move cost per foot is quick) and able to yield unpleasant results (falling prone when dashing to escape something horrible is unpleasant).

I think it's always best to leave such kind of situations to each DM to handle it the way they want.

I've been using these in play and on the whole they have been working successfully. So I want to record them, get help from the community to ensure they are robust, and share them back with the community in case other DMs have hit the same situations and might like something that some work has gone into ensuring will work in a decent variety of cases.

I've had helpful feedback so far in this thread, and will make some changes. Recently when a target was inside the radius of a fog cloud a player questioned the whole not getting advantage thing (when both sides are effectively blind). So that is a good candidate.