D&D 5E DMi suggestion - adjudicating attacks inside Darkness

[schnee]

I've seen a combat where a PC and bandit were fighting in a smoke cloud and the DM ruled that since they couldn't see each other they both had disadvantage, because that makes sense, and thought it was RAW. It took a really really long time. The first rounds of them missing each other was novel. But after another two rounds of both missing you could see the frustration just build and it wasn't fun for either Player. A fight that should have taken two rounds took about five. By the end they were talking about how stupid this was.

I think the reason that they made the rules so they end up attacking normally was specifically to ensure that the fight doesn't bog down. Because it does. A lot.

Yeah, I thought through all the stages of verisimilitude, game-ism, simulation, and common sense and got me to the same conclusion.

If there's a choice between 'more realistic' and 'more fun', I'll err towards fun.

A rule has to be pretty bad for me to spend the brain cycles on changing it - I've added house-rules before that had really bad unforeseen circumstances.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Plausible, until one of them steps back a square or two taking advantage of the no opportunity attacks rule.

That only matters if there's a difference in movement speeds, or if they mutually want to end the fight, or if one of them has Cunning Action per my original footnote. Otherwise, the other blind guys just follows him and keeps punching.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've seen a combat where a PC and bandit were fighting in a smoke cloud and the DM ruled that since they couldn't see each other they both had disadvantage, because that makes sense, and thought it was RAW. It took a really really long time. The first rounds of them missing each other was novel. But after another two rounds of both missing you could see the frustration just build and it wasn't fun for either Player. A fight that should have taken two rounds took about five. By the end they were talking about how stupid this was.

That's what happens when you use a bad initiative system which forces too much sequentialism on the players. There's no reason a five-round fight has to bog down if you're just swinging at each other--a ten-year-old could resolve that fight in less than a minute. It's less die-rolling than you use to play War-with-dice.

I've seen ten-round one-on-one fights play out in around ninety seconds: roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, roll, okay, the dwarf is unconscious and ogre wins. What bogs down fights is when there are lots of complicated decisions being made, especially decisions affecting multiple players, or decisions for high stakes (because then players dither).

I second your recommendation though: try some mock fights and see if the results feel right.

 

[clearstream]

I've seen a combat where a PC and bandit were fighting in a smoke cloud and the DM ruled that since they couldn't see each other they both had disadvantage, because that makes sense, and thought it was RAW. It took a really really long time. The first rounds of them missing each other was novel. But after another two rounds of both missing you could see the frustration just build and it wasn't fun for either Player. A fight that should have taken two rounds took about five. By the end they were talking about how stupid this was.

I think the reason that they made the rules so they end up attacking normally was specifically to ensure that the fight doesn't bog down. Because it does. A lot.

Hmm. And that could interact badly with hit-point sacks at higher levels. On the other hand, could I suggest that if combats are coming down to long chains of she-swings he-swings, your DM might want to consider throwing in something to shake it up a bit?

Maybe have a pair of mock fights with both rules. Have a fighter and a Bandit, keep it simple and feel for yourself the differences back to back. Once you get a feel for the actual pace, consider that that'll be in the middle of a four party combat scene.

I've tested it already of course. It was fine. It could be that my style is to keep fights fairly dynamic and so it works better for me at the table that it will for others.

My issue with the way its written is that the intention RAW can be missed because you have to remember two different rules and combine them to figure out the rule. Which can easily be overlooked by new DMs. They should just add a line that specifically says "They end up attacking normally because they both have advantage and disadvantage."

It is possible that they do not mean that to happen. I mean, as a games designer when I look at the blind rules they feel to me like the intent might not be to result in normal attacks. Notwithstanding the words. It feels like a lacuna.

I've tweeted Jeremy Crawford to see if I can get an official clarification. I'm curious what his thinking on it is. He replied missing my point, so I tweeted the exact question - "Do you need to see to get advantage against a blind opponent?"

 

[Hriston]

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that it's more "realistic" if being unable to see your opponent makes it harder for you to hit them. This seems to forget that it also makes it harder for you to avoid being hit by them, the two canceling out one another. I'd be interested to know what's considered realistic about it only making it harder to avoid an attack if your attacker can see you. It seems to me that it would be better to see the attack coming whether the one making the attack can see you or not, and that not being able to see it coming is the source of advantage to the attack roll. Perhaps there wouldn't be this perceived problem with the unseen attackers and targets rules if AC was treated as a passive defense score that is at disadvantage (-5) when you can't see your opponent.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the PHB rule does a great job.

I'll tell you what. We stand near each other. We both close our eyes and start swinging sticks at each others general direction. Your going to be amazed at how often you get hit unless you try to hide from me. You have next to no chance of blocking my stick with yours. You won't be able to duck it. Basically if you are in my sticks path when I swing you are going to get hit. If you can see to defend yourself then you will probably get hit less than if you can can't see LOL.

***Why would I be swinging in your general direction? Because you are making noise!

 

[clearstream]

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that it's more "realistic" if being unable to see your opponent makes it harder for you to hit them. This seems to forget that it also makes it harder for you to avoid being hit by them, the two canceling out one another. I'd be interested to know what's considered realistic about it only making it harder to avoid an attack if your attacker can see you. It seems to me that it would be better to see the attack coming whether the one making the attack can see you or not, and that not being able to see it coming is the source of advantage to the attack roll.

That's a good question and really at the heart of the matter. It strikes me that I can watch through some reenactment videos to get a better sense of how this should go. I have some experience larping, but not enough to resolve this question well. I would guess that blind combat is more variable: it can lead to a more sudden ending - due to being unable to effectively defend - or it can lead to the combatants losing contact and flailing ineffectually. Sighted combat my estimate is that the more skilled fighter generally wins, usually quickly.

 

[Li Shenron]

A solution is rendered necessary for me because per RAW creatures in Darkness fight one another normally (no advantage, no disadvantage) and I would like to invoke a more chaotic feel. Fighting blindly against other blind creatures should feel distinctly different from fighting in a lit room!

I don't know, this is the part of your original post that sticked to my mind, with the keywords being chaotic and different. Your first house rule makes everyone in darkness roll with disadvantage: it definitely sounds more realistic than the RAW to me, but it doesn't make the battle feel more chaotic nor different, only slower (because of more misses).

I proposed that you force everyone to guess where their target is, making up some rule that gives a chance to hit one of your own allies. To me that would definitely give a more chaotic feel, and it would be a different fight than normal.

Then you attacked me because my house rule doesn't follow Crawford's sage advice... I don't understand you, you are changing the RAW with a house rule, and you worry about sage advice? :/

I don't desire to be at all disrespectful, but you have run this sort of situation much? I ask because "probably handle it" could imply that you're offering principally theorycraft.

No, I have never had the situation of everyone being unable to see. Usually when there is a fight in darkness, it's because at least one party involved can see in it, and is trying to take advantage from it.

I'll tell you what. We stand near each other. We both close our eyes and start swinging sticks at each others general direction. Your going to be amazed at how often you get hit unless you try to hide from me. You have next to no chance of blocking my stick with yours. You won't be able to duck it. Basically if you are in my sticks path when I swing you are going to get hit. If you can see to defend yourself then you will probably get hit less than if you can can't see LOL.

***Why would I be swinging in your general direction? Because you are making noise!

I think this is pretty much the general problem, everyone is bringing up the perfect example to self-fulfill the rule they want to win.

What if I tell you instead that you have a room with 2 teams of 4 people, let's call them the PCs team and the monsters team. Everyone close their eyes and start swinging sticks at each others general direction. What happens? Who is going to hit who? And surely everyone is making noise... so everyone is capable of knowing the location of each and every enemy, and not confuse them with the allies?

The truth is that if you go with RAW + Crawford, it will be easy to run the battle, but it won't be much different from a normal fight (which is the OP's original problem he wants to address), so why bother with introducing a darkness scenario in the game?

 

[clearstream]

I don't know, this is the part of your original post that sticked to my mind, with the keywords being chaotic and different. Your first house rule makes everyone in darkness roll with disadvantage: it definitely sounds more realistic than the RAW to me, but it doesn't make the battle feel more chaotic nor different, only slower (because of more misses).

I proposed that you force everyone to guess where their target is, making up some rule that gives a chance to hit one of your own allies. To me that would definitely give a more chaotic feel, and it would be a different fight than normal.

Then you attacked me because my house rule doesn't follow Crawford's sage advice... I don't understand you, you are changing the RAW with a house rule, and you worry about sage advice? :/

Apologies if I seemed brusque. I feel like chaotic got too much emphasis: what broke SOD most for us was having mutually blind combatants fighting (and moving for that matter) much the same as if all were sighted. Note here that I think it is okay to aim to preserve the overall structure of a rule set while tweaking only part of it. So there's another requirement - to be harmonious with the other rules of the game

I think this is pretty much the general problem, everyone is bringing up the perfect example to self-fulfill the rule they want to win.

What if I tell you instead that you have a room with 2 teams of 4 people, let's call them the PCs team and the monsters team. Everyone close their eyes and start swinging sticks at each others general direction. What happens? Who is going to hit who? And surely everyone is making noise... so everyone is capable of knowing the location of each and every enemy, and not confuse them with the allies?

The truth is that if you go with RAW + Crawford, it will be easy to run the battle, but it won't be much different from a normal fight (which is the OP's original problem he wants to address), so why bother with introducing a darkness scenario in the game?

That is all very well put. Another example is where drow drop Darkness on the party and start peppering them with crossbow bolts. If we follow RAW and say that the drow have advantage because the players can't see their attackers, and disadvantage because the drow can't see the party, then that creates a situation that feels problematic. Of course, the party can make the same claims in shooting at the drow. But what is happening here? Mutually blinded ranged opponents behaving pretty much as if they were sighted?!

To straighten things out a bit, I'm not against your concept of making creatures in such situations pick squares, but only the cost of the process for the result. Say I get all the ranged attackers to pick squares by some random method, or I hide the targets. Either way the chance of picking correctly is 1/area e.g. if a target is somewhere in a 3*3 area then the chance is 1/9th. If targets shift each turn, then even after 9 picks there is still about a 1/3rd chance of never having chosen the right square. I'm also kind of against having one rule for ranged and one for melee, even though that is certainly an option. Partly, this is because of situations like the 4 vs 4 one you described. How complicated do we really want this to be?

I feel like RAW really does let players down in dealing with sight.

 

[clearstream]

I think the PHB rule does a great job.

I'll tell you what. We stand near each other. We both close our eyes and start swinging sticks at each others general direction. Your going to be amazed at how often you get hit unless you try to hide from me. You have next to no chance of blocking my stick with yours. You won't be able to duck it. Basically if you are in my sticks path when I swing you are going to get hit. If you can see to defend yourself then you will probably get hit less than if you can can't see LOL.

***Why would I be swinging in your general direction? Because you are making noise!

Blind archers attack each other normally?