D&D (2024) I attack the darkness!

[UngeheuerLich]

I think you're referring to Theater of the Blind.

...

I'll see myself out. With disadvantage.

I think on the battlefield, you should leave pieces at the last known positions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

House Rule: If two combatants are fighting in darkness, or fog, and neither have special senses, they attack each other with disadvantage. (i.e. its a harder fight than normal lighting)

It though about this rule a lot. I think I would generalize it and add some "super (dis-) advantage".
If you have this, it can only be canceled by another source of super x.

I'd probably make darkness super disadvantage and the lucky feat super advantage. I am sure with the former and not so much with the latter.

Rationale: Being unseen by your opponent while you can see them is the theory for attacks having advantage. I feel the "you have disadvantage if you cannot see your opponent" overrides the "advantage/disadvantage cancel rule".

On the other hand, you don't dodge if you can't see what is coming.

In those situations I miss flat-footed AC. Which I would also use for unconscious and paralyzed targets.

 

[el-remmen]

I have always ruled you cannot target a creature you can’t see with a ranged attack. Seems pretty simple to me.

I have seen darkness used effectively by both sides, nonetheless.

 

[Mannahnin]

This distinction was a lot clearer in the 2014 rules,... etc.

Great post; countersigned.

House Rule: If two combatants are fighting in darkness, or fog, and neither have special senses, they attack each other with disadvantage. (i.e. its a harder fight than normal lighting)

Rationale: Being unseen by your opponent while you can see them is the theory for attacks having advantage. I feel the "you have disadvantage if you cannot see your opponent" overrides the "advantage/disadvantage cancel rule".

This is what I do too, and what I did in 2014 5E.

 

[Mistwell]

This came up in a game and made me realize the rules for attacking things you cannot see are weird.

This was discussed a lot for 5.0 but I don't think 5.5 fixed it, and this entire post is specific to 2024 rules: RAW, if you are attacking a target in Magical Darkness (such that darkvision is not in play)

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but for 5.24 this is incorrect. Unless the spell specifies you cannot see in that darkness (which the Darkness spell does specify), darkvision can now see in magical darkness.

 

[evilbob]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but for 5.24 this is incorrect. Unless the spell specifies you cannot see in that darkness (which the Darkness spell does specify), darkvision can now see in magical darkness.

It was the Darkness spell. But regardless, that's just an example.

 

[evilbob]

This distinction was a lot clearer in the 2014 rules, when being invisible was an entirely separate condition from being hidden. ...

I was wondering if I had missed something or if there was any other distinction in the 2024 rules, which I'm taking by your post and others in this thread to be: no. Your explanation was helpful: ultimately it reinforced my thought from the 2nd page of this thread that being unseen should probably be different from being hidden, as it used to be. Thanks for talking it all through.

One aside: the hide definition says you're no longer hidden when an enemy finds you; it mentions the DC for Perception checks earlier but I don't think that is meant to be exhaustive. I think they meant for it to be open-ended: how an enemy finds you can include whatever seems appropriate to the situation.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This thread has inspired us to revisit the whole two creatures that are heavily obscured / in fog cloud / in darkness advantage and disadvantage cancelling each other out thing in our 5e campaign.

Our solution: blinded creatures make attack rolls with disadvantage. Full stop.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thinking about this very common house rule regarding blindness, that the disadvantage from it can’t be cancelled out by advantage makes me think there’s potential in that as a piece of design tech. “You have disadvantage on X and can’t gain advantage on X” as a sort of more powerful version of disadvantage, and the inverse, “you have advantage on X and can’t gain disadvantage on X” as an upgrade to normal advantage. You’d want to use such mechanics sparingly, but there’s untapped design space there for sure.

 

[evilbob]

Our solution: blinded creatures make attack rolls with disadvantage. Full stop.

Indeed. Here's what I believe are my final version of two house rules as inspired by this thread:

Hide
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. A distracted creature may not have line of sight to you even if it normally would.

On a successful check, you are hidden. 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. It is possible to be hidden from some creatures and not others. You also have the Invisibility condition while hidden.

You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper or cast a spell with a Verbal component; you make an attack roll; an enemy finds you using the Search action or Passive Perception, an enemy moves into your location, an enemy has unblocked line of sight to you during its turn, or other situations the DM judges appropriate.


Invisible
...
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage if you can see your target. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature.