Level Up (A5E) [Rules] Powerful Strikes

[Vildara]

We are fighting in a blizzard. We have disadvantage on our attacks. The druid casts faerie fire and we have advantage. They cancel each other out.

The fighter uses Powerful Strikes:
If you are proficient with the weapon and do not have disadvantage you can declare a powerful attack. A powerful attack has disadvantage, but on a hit deals 10 extra damage.

1) Can he use this?
2) Does he attack with disadvantage?

 

[Steampunkette]

No.

He has disadvantage. It's canceled out by the Faerie Fire, of course, but it's still there. An active consideration in the fight.

Because he cannot gain disadvantage a second time, and has disadvantage, he cannot activate Powerful Strikes.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

page 11 of the AG:

When you have both advantage and disadvantage (regardless of from how many sources), they cancel each other out and you roll normally.

this suggests that a) all sources of advantage and disadvantage are applied before you determine what the actual roll is (meaning you cannot, say, have one source of advantage and disadvantage each cancel each other before applying another source of advantage or disadvantage to see if a feature applies), and b) that if you have both advantage and disadvantage on a roll, then like @Steampunkette said, they are still part of the roll, they've just each been made a non-factor.

so tl;dr @Steampunkette is right lol

 

[Vildara]

Ok. So.... A hidden poisoned rogue can still sneak attack. The hidden grants advantage against a foe, the poisoned grants disadvantage, he does not roll two dice but since he technically has advantage he gets the extra damage.

Looking at the PHB it says: If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage.

So my mind says he cannot do sneak attack as he does not have advantage or disadvantage. Which would mean that that in the original query, he does not have disadvantage and thus could use the feat.

#OSE4LIFE #HEADACHE

 

[Micah Sweet]

page 11 of the AG:

this suggests that a) all sources of advantage and disadvantage are applied before you determine what the actual roll is (meaning you cannot, say, have one source of advantage and disadvantage each cancel each other before applying another source of advantage or disadvantage to see if a feature applies), and b) that if you have both advantage and disadvantage on a roll, then like @Steampunkette said, they are still part of the roll, they've just each been made a non-factor.

so tl;dr @Steampunkette is right lol

I allow advantage and disadvantage to cancel each other out on a 1 for 1 basis.

Wouldn't help in this situation, I admit, but its far more satisfying in those situations where it would matter.

 

[Steampunkette]

It's certainly a fringe case that could be interpreted in multiple ways in 5e.

However. That's in the PHB for 5e, not the A5e AG.

A5e does not state that you have neither advantage nor disadvantage if you have both. It just notes that they cancel each other out and you roll normally.

Which means an invisible poisoned rogue has advantage on their attacks for the purposes of effects triggered by advantage and disadvantage for the purpose of effects triggered by (or in this case prevented by) disadvantage. Sneak Attack in A5e dictates that you must -not- have disadvantage to gain access to the sneak attack, and then lists a series of other conditions that allow for sneak attack including having advantage... but disadvantage is a must-not.

So a poisoned invisible rogue still cannot sneak attack within the A5e rules.

 

[Thudloderp]

A5e does not state that you have neither advantage nor disadvantage if you have both. It just notes that they cancel each other out and you roll normally.

...a poisoned invisible rogue still cannot sneak attack within the A5e rules.

I disagree with this interpretation of the sneak attack ruling; interpreting that the advantage and disadvantage being cancelled out DOESN'T also imply that you no longer have advantage and disadvantage leads to rules wackiness where your conclusion cannot be logically true. The line in the rules re: advantage enabling sneak attack reads, "Alternatively, you can apply sneak attack damage if you have advantage on the attack," emphasis mine. Thus, the previous list of conditions (no disadvantage and adjacent to another active hostile target) no longer applies; this alternative check satisfies the conditions and sneak attack goes through, even if the attack is on a target surrounded by only open air and his allies, because so long as the attack roll has advantage, the rest of the conditions are ignored.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, with regards to powerful strikes, because his roll has disadvantage and advantage, RAW suggests to me he can't use it, if we go hardball with the interpretation that the cancelled advantage and disadvantage are -still there-, just suppressed.. RAI by me would say 'I'd let him do it, but his neutral roll becomes a disadvantage roll, I don't -care- if advantage would normally cancel it out you don't get to powerstrike for free."

 

[Steampunkette]

shrug! You're free to run it how you like.

But I will stand by the "Must not have disadvantage" rule trumping the 'alternatively' section. You MUST not have disadvantage, you MAY if you have advantage. One is absolutely exclusive the other is accepting of situation.

Of course if you wanna go for stacking advantage/disadvantage, where 2 advantages grants advantage even when you have one disadvantage that's cool, too.

But to me? shrugs "Doesn't matter how invisible you are. If you're feeling sickly enough you can't make an attack without disadvantage, you're not well enough for a precise strike for sneak attack.