Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7123078" data-attributes="member: 1465">The RAW doesn't adequately cover the situation described.Crawford just has to provide some answer, but I am sure that in his own games he wouldn't rule this case like he says in the podcast. And invisible enemies are not exactly as bad as the PC being unable to see (in fact a lot of rationale about being able to pinpoint an invisible enemy is not only by sound but also by visual clues like misplaced sand/grass/water or bumping into objects). His ruling is also not really concerned about making full sense, but rather being fair in game terms i.e. not to make it too difficult for a PC to fight an invisible creature. But you started this thread saying you wanted to evoke a sense of chaos, right? The way I would probably handle it, is similar to what you guessed: I would hide the battlemat (I don't use a grid, so in my case I would just tell the players to ignore the minis on the table) and add randomness in the targets being hit. I haven't thought about the details, if both parties cannot see in darkness, then maybe the easiest idea is that instead of regular attack rolls, each combatants has a flat chance of hitting someone, and everything could be determined with a single roll (example: party of 4 PCs vs 4 enemies -> roll 1d10, results of 1 to 3 hit a specific ally in alphabetical order, results of 4 to 6 hit nobody, results of 7 to 10 hit an enemy). Area spells roll 2d10 or more, and ignore duplicates. This would be a simple way to represent the chaos of two parties attacking each other in complete darkness. Reciprocal (clueless) movement already taken into account by the randomness. But then, who would be so stupid to fight in complete darkness with your allies nearby? After a round or even less, you should expect your players to want to try something else.You are welcome.</blockquote>

Verification