D&D 5E Darkness and Disengage

[Esker]

Ask your DM. By the book, this isn’t possible, but the DM having final say can work to your advantage too. Make your case and see if your DM allows it.

I certainly agree that the rules don't allow for doing this outside your turn, but is there any rules reason why you couldn't place a bowl over your necklace at the end of your turn, perhaps as an object interaction, and then remove the bowl at the start of your next turn (I would think that would not use your interaction, in the same way that switching between a one- and two-handed grip on a weapon doesn't use up your object interaction)?

You would lose the defensive benefit of being in the darkness (disadvantage on attacks against you) this way since it would never be up outside your turn, but with Devil's Sight, you'd get the advantage on attacks and the immunity to AoOs if you move away (barring blindsight or some such), without hampering your allies' ability to benefit from advantage or use spells that require a target you can see.

 

[Charlaquin]

I certainly agree that the rules don't allow for doing this outside your turn, but is there any rules reason why you couldn't place a bowl over your necklace at the end of your turn, perhaps as an object interaction, and then remove the bowl at the start of your next turn (I would think that would not use your interaction, in the same way that switching between a one- and two-handed grip on a weapon doesn't use up your object interaction)?

You would lose the defensive benefit of being in the darkness (disadvantage on attacks against you) this way since it would never be up outside your turn, but with Devil's Sight, you'd get the advantage on attacks and the immunity to AoOs if you move away (barring blindsight or some such), without hampering your allies' ability to benefit from advantage or use spells that require a target you can see.

I would say that is absolutely supported by the rules, and probably the best tactical move if the DM doesn’t allow it as a reaction.

 

[Esker]

Also, I don't know how the OP's DM runs it, but by RAW, if both attacker and defender are blinded, there is both advantage and disadvantage, which cancel out (and also cancel any other source of advantage or disadvantage). So your allies are only hampered by your darkness if they would have had advantage on their attacks (or disadvantage against them), or if they specifically need to be able to see to do something (such as use a spell that requires a target you can see. Though I know many people don't run things this way and will rule that darkness, fog, etc., just impose disadvantage on all attacks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, I don't know how the OP's DM runs it, but by RAW, if both attacker and defender are blinded, there is both advantage and disadvantage, which cancel out (and also cancel any other source of advantage or disadvantage). So your allies are only hampered by your darkness if they would have had advantage on their attacks (or disadvantage against them), or if they specifically need to be able to see to do something (such as use a spell that requires a target you can see. Though I know many people don't run things this way and will rule that darkness, fog, etc., just impose disadvantage on all attacks.

This depends on how the DM rules on magical darkness and if creatures can see out of it. In normal darkness, a creature in the darkness can see a creature in light (think of being in a dark cave and seeing someone down the hall carrying a torch). In that situation, the character in light (A) would have disadvantage on attacks against the character in the darkness (B) because A can’t see B but B can see A. If the DM rules that creatures in magical darkness can’t see outside of the affected area (a reasonable ruling, since magical darkness seems to act as a substance that blocks light rather than mere absence of light), then A would have disadvantage for being unable to see B, and have advantage from B being unable to see A, which would cancel each other out.

Something else to consider is that a character outside the area of darkness will have to guess at the location of a creature inside the darkness area it wishes to attack. The DM might rule that there’s a chance that you attack completely the wrong space, or even that there’s a chance of hitting their ally by accident.

 

[Esker]

This depends on how the DM rules on magical darkness and if creatures can see out of it. In normal darkness, a creature in the darkness can see a creature in light (think of being in a dark cave and seeing someone down the hall carrying a torch). In that situation, the character in light (A) would have disadvantage on attacks against the character in the darkness (B) because A can’t see B but B can see A. If the DM rules that creatures in magical darkness can’t see outside of the affected area (a reasonable ruling, since magical darkness seems to act as a substance that blocks light rather than mere absence of light), then A would have disadvantage for being unable to see B, and have advantage from B being unable to see A, which would cancel each other out.

Ah, yeah I guess so. I've always thought about magical darkness as blocking light ("non-magical light can't illuminate it" after all), but I have seen DMs treat it the other way.

Something else to consider is that a character outside the area of darkness will have to guess at the location of a creature inside the darkness area it wishes to attack. The DM might rule that there’s a chance that you attack completely the wrong space, or even that there’s a chance of hitting their ally by accident.

I've always interpreted the rules to say that you only have to guess at the location of a creature if they are hidden, which requires the hide action. Darkness or invisibility automatically allows the hide action to be taken, but (at least once initiative has been rolled) you still have to hide for your location to be unknown. Though I just went to find a rules reference for this and I have to admit the text doesn't actually come out and say this explicitly anywhere that I can find. And regardless, a given DM can do whatever they want.

I guess the other thing is that nobody can make AoOs inside the darkness, so if you have a sticky tank type in your party then you're making it harder for them to do their job by putting them in darkness.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah, yeah I guess so. I've always thought about magical darkness as blocking light ("non-magical light can't illuminate it" after all), but I have seen DMs treat it the other way.

I do think that magical darkness as a substance that blocks light is consistent with RAI, but I’ve seen enough DMs rule the other way that it’s something worth asking about if you plan to cast Darkness a lot.

I've always interpreted the rules to say that you only have to guess at the location of a creature if they are hidden, which requires the hide action. Darkness or invisibility automatically allows the hide action to be taken, but (at least once initiative has been rolled) you still have to hide for your location to be unknown. Though I just went to find a rules reference for this and I have to admit the text doesn't actually come out and say this explicitly anywhere that I can find. And regardless, a given DM can do whatever they want.

Again, I believe that’s RAI, but it’s ambiguous enough that it bears mentioning.

I guess the other thing is that nobody can make AoOs inside the darkness, so if you have a sticky tank type in your party then you're making it harder for them to do their job by putting them in darkness.

Why can’t anybody make AoOs inside the darkness?

 

[BluejayJunior]

Why can’t anybody make AoOs inside the darkness?

If you can't see, you cannot make an opportunity attack. You can only take an opportunity attack when you can see someone move out of your reach.

To Esker, the benefit to a Warlock using Darkness is the invocation the OP took that allows him to see in magical darkness. So everyone else in the area is at a disadvantage, but the warlock acts like normal.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you can't see, you cannot make an opportunity attack. You can only take an opportunity attack when you can see someone move out of your reach.

To Esker, the benefit to a Warlock using Darkness is the invocation the OP took that allows him to see in magical darkness. So everyone else in the area is at a disadvantage, but the warlock acts like normal.

D’oh!

 

[Iry]

I wonder if Blindsight allows opportunity attacks? It's certainly in the name, Blindsight, but the description of Blindsight doesn't say you see, just that you perceive, which is something you can do with any sense.

Creatures like the Darkmantle seem to suggest Blindsight is not sight, just the approximation of it.

 

[Esker]

To Esker, the benefit to a Warlock using Darkness is the invocation the OP took that allows him to see in magical darkness. So everyone else in the area is at a disadvantage, but the warlock acts like normal.

Well, not quite. Everyone else in the area makes attacks against everyone else as normal (because they are both unseen and can't see), but are at disadvantage attacking the warlock; whereas the warlock is at advantage attacking them. But other party members might still be annoyed at not being able to see the creatures inside the darkness (b/c they can't benefit from any source of advantage if there is any source of disadvantage, or b/c they need to see to target someone with a spell), and so the idea was to "turn it off" between the warlock's turns, preserving their own advantage, but leaving allies unaffected on their turns.