Skip to main content
Role-playing Games

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I upvoted because it's a great answer rules wise, but the fact remains that now there's a harder shot that has become easier due to multiple circumstances. So the archer now can't see the tiny target at all, and it's easier to hit it anyway. If the target were a stuffed dummy, it couldn't see anyway, and I don't think anyone would rule that all shots on an immovable straw target are taken with advantage due to the straw dummy being unable to see the shooter. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 30, 2018 at 21:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Which is ironically a straw man argument because the straw target is an object with an AC around 11 (see DMG Chapter 8), which means the target creature in the scenario is already almost guaranteed to be harder to hit. Once the target creature is unable to see the attacker due to the fog cloud, then hitting the target creature ends up mathematically more like hitting the straw target. Again, system working as intended. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 30, 2018 at 22:17
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkTO I personally do think the "unseen attacker" rules are a little hinky, but the problem is in the "unseen attacker" rules, not in the advantage system itself. If this scenario bothers you, it would be easier to modify the "unseen attacker" rule to say "When you can see a creature but it can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it." So if you're both blinded, such as by a fog cloud, you both attack at disadvantage, which makes sense both narratively and logically. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 30, 2018 at 22:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DarthPseudonym That sounds like something you should flesh out into an answer of your own, because it actually addresses the original scenario's problem (as perceived by the original poster) better than the solution the original poster suggested. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 1, 2018 at 2:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ 's a good point. I'll work on some edits. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 2, 2018 at 2:22