D&D 5E Darkness and Disengage

[Seramus]

Disengage works even if the enemy has a Hide check over 9000.

 

[Harzel]

Again, you don’t disengage from a particular threat. You Disengage and then for the rest of your turn your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of oppprtunity. Perhaps the action is poorly named, as what it really seems to model is guarded movement. You keep your guard up, and threats, seen or unseen, detected or undetected, can’t take advantage of you moving past them because you’re alert and on-guard.

Sure, but you're bound to be less effective at guarding against a threat that not only can you not see, you don't have any idea where it is coming from. It's the same reasoning that leads to an unseen attacker having advantage - and that's just unseen.

And just in case it's gotten lost - I fully concur that RAW says Disengage works anyway. I'm just mulling whether a house rule might be justified, verisimilitude-wise.

 

[Esker]

Sure, but you're bound to be less effective at guarding against a threat that not only can you not see, you don't have any idea where it is coming from. It's the same reasoning that leads to an unseen attacker having advantage - and that's just unseen.

I mean, there's lots of complexity in real combat that isn't addressed in the rules, right? This is one of those cases.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but you're bound to be less effective at guarding against a threat that not only can you not see, you don't have any idea where it is coming from. It's the same reasoning that leads to an unseen attacker having advantage - and that's just unseen.

And just in case it's gotten lost - I fully concur that RAW says Disengage works anyway. I'm just mulling whether a house rule might be justified, verisimilitude-wise.

Would it make sense for you to allow a player to disengage in such a circumstance?

That said, if it was my table the enemy isn't going to let fear of a single OA scare him. He's going to boldly walk out of the darkness and aim for the squishiest party member in range.

 

[Seramus]

I'm just mulling whether a house rule might be justified, verisimilitude-wise.

Will it considerably increase fun?

 

[Harzel]

Would it make sense for you to allow a player to disengage in such a circumstance?

That said, if it was my table the enemy isn't going to let fear of a single OA scare him. He's going to boldly walk out of the darkness and aim for the squishiest party member in range.

I am a pretty fervent sauce-for-the-goose-sauce-for-the-gander type. So whichever way I decided, yes, I would apply to both PCs and NPCs.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am a pretty fervent sauce-for-the-goose-sauce-for-the-gander type. So whichever way I decided, yes, I would apply to both PCs and NPCs.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm saying if the situation was reversed and the enemy was the warlock and the warlock was the guy in the darkness - Would you be more apt to rule to allow him to disengage?

 

[FrogReaver]

Will it considerably increase fun?

Define considerably

 

[Harzel]

Will it considerably increase fun?

Well, the OP presented a tactic they thought should work; presumably it would be more fun for them if it did. Even though I'd be inclined to rule against the OP's tactic working as presented, I was positing a somewhat improved tactic that, it seems to me, has a pretty good argument behind it. So, hypothetically, particularly if introduced by a player, yeah, it seems like it would make it more fun for them. Of course, there might be later circumstances in which they might regret it, but sometimes that's fun, too.

 

[Harzel]

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm saying if the situation was reversed and the enemy was the warlock and the warlock was the guy in the darkness - Would you be more apt to rule to allow him to disengage?

Oh, I see. Sorry. You're asking about if the first time this came up, the situation were reversed. That's a little harder. I think if the weirdness of it struck me, I would allow the disengage in that instance and then have a post-session discussion about it to let the table decide how we wanted to play it.