Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7123751" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>