D&D General Darkvision, Dim Light, and Disadvantage

[jayoungr]

For those arguing that no one should be able to attack while blinded: do you also think a creature should become immediately impossible to attack if it goes invisible?

 

[Reynard]

For those arguing that no one should be able to attack while blinded: do you also think a creature should become immediately impossible to attack if it goes invisible?

Yes.

 

[jayoungr]

Yes.

Even if it's standing right in front of you and you see it disappear?

 

[pukunui]

Why do we neutralizie challenges? Sometimes we do it because we don't want to be bothered with certain aspects of the game we find boring.

Sometimes we also do it because the DM hasn't made sure to get us on board with their campaign conceits.

All it takes is something like "Hey guys, I want to run Curse of Strahd, but I find that darkvision doesn't play nicely with the gothic horror vibe. Would you mind not choosing species with darkvision - or would you mind it if I make it so darkvision only works within 5 or 10 feet instead of the normal 60 feet or more? I want your PCs to be afraid of the dark."

Or "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign set during Toril's Spellplague. I'd like dealing with the consequences of the broken Weave to be at least a minor theme of the campaign, if not a major one, so I'm hoping that at least one of you will choose to play an arcane spellcaster ..."

Stuff like that.

 

[Horwath]

I have always applied disadvantage to ranged attacks against targets in dim light. Now, that was a misreading of the rule, but even once we found out we decided to keep it.

Darkvision is one of those things that is best just eliminated if you actually want to make dungeon exploration worthwhile.

If you want to see more penalties to ranged attacks, sure, add anything, but not seeing clearly is not reason enough for ranged attack penalty.
You just need to see it, not see it clearly.

That is like saying you would play Call of duty better in 4K instead of 480p. That is rarely the case, if ever.

 

[Reynard]

If you want to see more penalties to ranged attacks, sure, add anything, but not seeing clearly is not reason enough for ranged attack penalty.
You just need to see it, not see it clearly.

That is like saying you would play Call of duty better in 4K instead of 480p. That is rarely the case, if ever.

"Not being able to see your target clearly doesn't reduce your chance to hit it" has to be one of the strangest takes I have read recently.

 

[Reynard]

Even if it's standing right in front of you and you see it disappear?

If they turn invisible in front of you and then step left, right or back, you have lost them. Of course you can use dirty tricks to find them again. See the Translucent vs Billy Butcher fight in The Boys S1E1.

 

[jayoungr]

If they turn invisible in front of you and then step left, right or back, you have lost them. Of course you can use dirty tricks to find them again. See the Translucent vs Billy Butcher fight in The Boys S1E1.

And that's enough for you to say that no matter what you roll, there is no way you could possibly hit the invisible creature?

I don't find that realistic, personally. You should get a penalty, sure, and debates can be had about how big the penalty should be--but hitting the target should be possible.

 

[Reynard]

And that's enough for you to say that no matter what you roll, there is no way you could possibly hit the invisible creature?

I don't find that realistic, personally. You should get a penalty, sure, and debates can be had about how big the penalty should be--but hitting the target should be possible.

You have to do something to make it possible. If you are just swinging away and the invisible bad guy can see you, it's effectively impossible. IMO, obvs.

 

[jayoungr]

If you are just swinging away and the invisible bad guy can see you, it's effectively impossible. IMO, obvs.

I think our ideas about what is "obviously impossible" (and that's not even bringing up arrows and spells) are different enough that we're not going to find common ground here.