D&D (2024) I attack the darkness!

[J-H]

One of my early houserules was that if you can't see your target, you have disadvantage on your attack roll, even if they can't see you. There are a few ways to negate the disadvantage of course (5e True Strike, Reckless Attack, etc.).

AFAIK unless the unseen creature is actively hiding via their action (or bonus etc), they still make sound which is enough to tell others roughly where they are. This was the case in 5e14 at least, I'm not sure if they altered it in 5e24.

Yep. I do have a soft range cap for this... you can't hear someone well enough to shoot them with a bow at 100' without seeing them, even with disadvantage, unless you have a really good passive perception.

 

[jgsugden]

The key problem here is a three tier system: Advantage/Normal/Disadvantage. Trying to break complex storytelling worlds down into three tiers of benefit/detriment with uniform rules is impossible unless you write a billion and one exceptions.

To that end, I favor having the DM override and apply judgment whenever they feel like RAW is not doing the job. The challenge is that players and DMs do not always see situations in which the RAW is potentially not working the same. Then you can have frustration and disappointment over different steps of communication. That requires a good working relationship between DM and players so that they can keep the resolution of these issues positive.

 

[evilbob]

I wonder if there's not any "targeting" rule because "being hidden (Invisible)" is functionally separate from "being aware" of something. Once you are "aware" of something, it is always possible to know its location for targeting purposes; this is separate from "being Invisible" which causes it to be hard to hit.

In that case, "unaware" is almost like a separate condition, similar to the Pathfinder rules someone shared in another thread. I suppose this would be something that continued until an enemy had line of sight to you, or their Passive Perception beat your Stealth check, or you revealed yourself in some other way. But that makes hiding much less useful, since you can always be targeted once you've been detected at least once. You'd really want a way to become "unaware" to the enemy, so they cannot even target you.

Edit: Oh - I think there may already be a distinction, and it's the pseudo-condition "hidden." So basically you can be Invisible, but that is separate from being Hidden, which I'm now going to capitalize. Invisible gives disadvantage to being hit (etc.), but being Hidden means you cannot be targeted.

This actually could work: that way hiding while Invisible IS important, and hiding means you cannot be targeted - but if you are Invisible but NOT Hidden, you can be targeted normally. Effectively Hidden would be a condition that could be defined as: "Your location is unknown to others while you are Hidden," and the Hide action would grant Invisibility and Hidden.


Regarding hiding, I think one key phrase that is doing a lot of lifting (and causing a lot of heartache) is "until the enemy finds you" in the Hide action description. We know that the Search action can find someone, but I don't think that's exclusive: if an enemy moves into your space, it seems like they would also find you. The trick is if you consider "the enemy has line of sight" to you to also fall under this category - and since there's no specific rule, that's why we have 300 page threads about it. 4.0 specified that you needed at least some amount of cover to remain hidden (but specifically line of sight was ok if you had at least some cover), and that an enemy moving into your space finds you. It also kept the "you are Invisible until the end of the action that makes you no longer Invisible, even if you are no longer hidden during that action" which allowed the "sneak up and hit" idea. My personal opinion is that this is what 5.5 rules are trying to do, but instead of spelling out explicitly what counts as "finding you" they are letting the DM decide.

 

[jayoungr]

A player (with foreknowledge of the enemy locations) kicked in a door and cast Magical Darkness on a group of unaware enemies, with the reasonable intention that the blinded enemies would not be able to target the players, and "as they move out, we can pick them off." But RAW, this did nothing: the other players can attack those enemies normally, and those enemies can attack the players normally.

So you're saying the player cast Magical Darkness on the inside of the room, with the PCs waiting outside in the light? Or did the Magical Darkness cover both the enemies and the PCs?

Because PCs standing outside in the light, readying actions to attack enemies as they emerge from the door, should work just fine.

 

[evilbob]

So you're saying the player cast Magical Darkness on the inside of the room, with the PCs waiting outside in the light? Or did the Magical Darkness cover both the enemies and the PCs?

Because PCs standing outside in the light, readying actions to attack enemies as they emerge from the door, should work just fine.

PCs waiting outside the darkness, in a lit portion of the room, correct. The PCs could have readied actions, but my point is that they didn't need to: they could just attack normally. The enemies also could just attack normally RAW.

 

[jayoungr]

they could just attack normally. The enemies also could just attack normally RAW.

I get that from the PCs' point of view: they have disadvantage to attack things they can't see, but the enemies stumbling around in darkness have advantage to be hit because they're blinded.

But the enemies should just have disadvantage to attack the PCs, because the PCs aren't blinded ... right? What am I missing?

(Note: I might, as GM, want to grant advantage to readied actions to attack enemies stumbling out of darkness, due to favorable circumstances caused by the enemy's disorientation.)

 

[evilbob]

Ok, I'm going to do it: I'm going to make a Hide adjustment, like everyone else. My changes in bold:

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

Hidden: while hidden from a creature, it is not aware of your location.

You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper; an enemy finds you by taking the Search action, moving into your location, or other situations the DM judges appropriate; you make an attack roll; you cast a spell with a Verbal component.


Things I am tempted to add:
an enemy finds you by taking the Search action, moving into your location, an enemy has unblocked line of sight to you during its turn, or other situations the DM judges appropriate

This is tricky because I'm trying to do what everyone else is trying to do: make it so that you can sneak out on your turn, but a monster can also find you by moving. What it misses is a monster being moved not-on-its-turn, who happens to be placed where it can see you. But I'm ok with it not noticing until its turn. It also leaves it open for things like standing in a river: you aren't within unblocked line of sight, but you are clearly revealing yourself.

Hidden: while hidden from a creature, it is not aware of your location. It is possible to be hidden from some creatures and not others.

Technically not necessary, it just seems worth calling out that you can be hidden from enemies and not allies, or some enemies and not others (if they cannot communicate after finding you). You can also be "hidden" from guards while walking past them while other people in the street can see you.

To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. A distracted creature may not have line of sight to you even if it normally would.

Technically unnecessary and probably opening a can of worms, but it seems worth calling out that distraction hinders line of sight.

 

[evilbob]

But the enemies should just have disadvantage to attack the PCs, because the PCs aren't blinded ... right? What am I missing?

The PCs cannot see their attackers and therefore are effectively blind to them / they are effectively invisible.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Why would one choose to enter an area of magical darkness? Especially when there's probably an enemy in there?

And it is likely to be a grue.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Though one should think that something this basic-and-simple should not need to be fixed by Rule Zero.

Like, this isn't some bizarro edge case. This is literally "the party Arcane Trickster dropped darkness on us so we could try to escape...and it made no difference for whether we would get hit by opportunity attacks."

It does. Opportunity attacks are triggered when a creature you can see leaves your reach.