D&D 5E Using Darkness to cancel advantage and disadvantage.

[ECMO3]

In a game I DM a Drow who was poisoned cast darkness on his sword to cancel the disadvantage due to being poisoned and get a straight up roll on attacks.

The sounded very cheesy to me, but RAW it works I believe.

Inside darkness you have advantage because the enemy can't see you and disadvantage because you can't see the enemy. These cancel and make it a straight roll. However, if you have more than once instance of advantage and disadvantage they are all canceled. So the advantage on for being unseen cancels out the disadvantage from the poison as well.

You could also use this tactic to cancel disadvantage if you were using ranged attacks on someone prone or alternatively use it to cancel advantage on close attacks against a prone ally or a paralyzed ally.

I thought it was innovative the first time, however I am tempted to houserule it so it does not work any more.

 

[Maxperson]

In a game I DM a Drow who was poisoned cast darkness on his sword to cancel the disadvantage due to being poisoned and get a straight up roll on attacks.

The sounded very cheesy to me, but RAW it works I believe.

Inside darkness you have advantage because the enemy can't see you and disadvantage because you can't see the enemy. These cancel and make it a straight roll. However, if you have more than once instance of advantage and disadvantage they are all canceled. So the advantage on for being unseen cancels out the disadvantage from the poison as well.

You could also use this tactic to cancel disadvantage if you were using ranged attacks on someone prone or alternatively use it to cancel advantage on close attacks against a prone ally or a paralyzed ally.

I thought it was innovative the first time, however I am tempted to houserule it so it does not work any more.

While that may be RAW, I seriously doubt that it's RAI. RAI seems to me to have the unwritten, "If you can see the attacker," before the part about having advantage if it can't see you. Attacking blind shouldn't impart advantage on a target you can't see. I would never allow that to work.

 

[jgsugden]

While that may be RAW, I seriously doubt that it's RAI. RAI seems to me to have the unwritten, "If you can see the attacker," before the part about having advantage if it can't see you. Attacking blind shouldn't impart advantage on a target you can't see. I would never allow that to work.

This is absolutely and explicitly what was intended. They had example discussion videos when the edition was being released that covered these types of scenarios.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I'm a proponent of attacks getting advantage against an opponent who doesn't see you as long as you can see them. 5e just uses the blinded condition and works as you said @ECMO3. I would hope 1D&D adds an addendum to the blinded condition to fix this. If they don't I'll just keep using my house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

This is absolutely and explicitly what was intended. They had example discussion videos when the edition was being released that covered these types of scenarios.

Meh. It's stupid beyond belief. I ain't gonna allow it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Meh. It's stupid beyond belief. I ain't gonna allow it.

If it’s just two characters who can’t see each other, having them attack each other normally instead of having them both attack with disadvantage just speeds the fight along. Either way they are both receiving the same penalty, but in the former case there will be fewer turns wasted to misses. It’s only when there are other sources of disadvantage in play that it becomes weird, functionally upgrading a character from disadvantaged to neutral. And, yeah, that is silly. But I think it beats the alternative of having to count each instance of advantage and disadvantage and have them cancel out individually.

 

[Maxperson]

If it’s just two characters who can’t see each other, having them attack each other normally instead of having them both attack with disadvantage just speeds the fight along. Either way they are both receiving the same penalty, but in the former case there will be fewer turns wasted to misses. It’s only when there are other sources of disadvantage in play that it becomes weird, functionally upgrading a character from disadvantaged to neutral. And, yeah, that is silly. But I think it beats the alternative of having to count individual instances of advantage and disadvantage and have them cancel out individually.

It's nonsense, though. Two people flailing away in the darkness just aren't going to be as accurate as they would be in the light and able to see each other. I'm not going to engage in nonsense just to speed things along.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's nonsense, though. Two people flailing away in the darkness just aren't going to be as accurate as they would be in the light and able to see each other. I'm not going to engage in nonsense just to speed things along.

to each their own, I suppose. In either case we’re narrating two characters flailing at each other in the darkness. I just prefer the game mechanics I use to resolve that fictional action be ones that are less likely to waste table time on nothing happening.

 

[Lycurgon]

The other silly instance of this I have heard of is using darkness or Fog Cloud to negate the disadvantage from long range. The enemy is too far away to hit easily, no problem, make yourself better at targeting these distance foes by covering yourself in darkness. Arrows fly better it you are shrouded in darkness. It is complete nonsense.

Originally I was considering a houserule that it is DMs decision on which instances of Advantage and Disadvantage counter each other out and which don't because I don't want these sort of nonsense situations happening in my games.

But I think all that the houserule needs is that you only get the Unseen Attack advantage if you can see the target you are attacking. I think that solves all of the issues I have, but I am not sure there might be other instances that I haven't though of yet.

And I have absolutely happy for 2 blind attackers having disadvantage against each other and the fights taking longer because of it. If you have ever watched blindfolded people playing games trying to target each other, they definitely have disadvantage even though their target is also blinded.

 

[ECMO3]

You could also use it underwater to cancel the disadvantage associated with using weapons underwater.