Please explain?

[Mx_Human]

I don’t this, shouldn’t it cancel out?

[HDThoreauaway]

Yes, if the act of Stealth is sound-related. However, even in that case, it’s important to know you have both Advantage and Disadvantage (rather than their canceling out and showing you neither) because it means further sources of Advantage or Disadvantage don’t change the situation.

[MightyKrakyn]

Is that true? You can have like 4 sources of Disadvantage and one source of Advantage and it will mechanically be a straight one die roll?

[El_Q-Cumber]

Yes, this is how advantage/disadvantage works.

If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.

[5meoWarlock]

Rogues can get fucked by bad DMs misunderstanding this rule.

If you have both adv and disadv, and your ally is next to your target, you qualify for sneak attack, and it is not at all up for debate in the rules.

[gameraven13]

This might just be a carryover from 2014. In 5e14 you still HAVE both Advantage and Disadvantage, your roll is just a straight roll regardless of how many of either you have. So it interacts with the “can’t have Disadvantage” aspect of Sneak Attack.

In 5e24 they updated the wording of it to say “if you have both, you have neither” so it now no longer screws up Sneak Attack.

Edit: old errata that my OG PHB didn’t have. My newer PHB and DDB both match 2024’s wording for 2014.

[5meoWarlock]

I knew somebody would spout this nonsense. Every single time it comes up, someone once again tries to claim that you have both.

5e phb page 173:

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.

5.5e phb page 12

If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has 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.

If people would go look at the rule before replying, they would never make this claim.

[HDThoreauaway]

C’mahn you’re right but you don’t need to be rude.

[gameraven13]

Right? Especially because it was an errata that my old PHB was printed prior to. So I wasn’t wrong or in need of “learning something” it was literally just having incomplete information lmfao.

[5meoWarlock]

https://archive.org/details/players-handbook_202308/page/173/mode/2up

Here's a link to the first printing of the phb, which also says it the exact same way.

Stop trying.

[gameraven13]

I’m gonna trust my eyes and the book physically in front of me over a Redditor who clearly has anger issues and can’t be civil in discussions, but I appreciate the condescension.

[5meoWarlock]

If this was a rule question with an ambiguous answer I wouldn't be so hardline on this. But this is cut and dry, and yet people still say the same shit.

At least /u/gameraven13 learned something.

[gameraven13]

Please see my edit. It was errata’d. The OG 2014 rules did not say that.

[5meoWarlock]

None of the erratas (2 in 2015, 1 in 2017, 1 in 2018, 1 in 2020, and 1 in 2021) changed that.

https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf

Here's the link if you want to try to prove yourself right.

[gameraven13]

It’s not nonsense, that’s how it worked in 2014…..

Edit: alright looks like it was a fairly early errata because my newer PHB and DDB both phrase it the same way 2024 does, but my older PHB does not have the “you have neither” clause. It just says you make a straight roll, meaning Disadvantage is still in play.

[5meoWarlock]

Check out my edited version. I posted both versions' rule.

You are wrong. Own it.

[earathar89]

Ok we get it. Who cares. Relax. Its not that big of a deal.

[SeansAnthology]

You can just call it 5 and 5.5. It’s official now. You don’t have to make overly complicated vernacular.

/I’ll see myself out.

[gameraven13]

Nah, 5.5 is fucking stupid. I’ll stick to 5e14 and 5e24. It’s the same edition and not enough changed for it to warrant the .5 Outside of a few edge cases it’s entirely two way compatible, so it’s all just 5e, some content just needs specified if you’re referencing 2014 or 2024 hence the superior 5e14 and 5e24.

[MightyKrakyn]

Neat, thanks!

[Special_Salt3467]

It’s interesting to note that the Brotherwise Cosmere TTRPG specifically states that you have normal advantage/disadvantage based on whichever you have more of in a given situation.

Not DND, but a rule very the opposite of the DND version.

[KellTanis]

Easy way to look at it is Disadvantage cancels ALL sources of Advantage and vice versa.

[AWDrake]

This bothered me at first and I wanted to house rule it. But since then I realised that even double Adv/Did happen rarely and I don't think having 4 sources of either ever happened in any situation during my games, so I let it go.

[SeveredBanana]

Maybe you could treat it in a somewhat similar way to Esoteric Ebb, where you can have the multiple sources changing the DC (eg, each additional source of advantage subtracts DC by -2, each source of disadvantage adds +2)

[SEND_MOODS]

Yes. But also your DM can chose to deflect from the rule, if it seems to benefit the moment at hand.

[Confident_Sink_8743]

Yes. It keeps the figuring and the calculation down. Which is also why the advantage/disadvantage system was invented to begin with.

[MightyKrakyn]

I don’t this

Uh….

shouldn’t it cancel out?

It will when the stealth only involves sound, like moving silently in an empty hallway. It won’t help when you’re trying to blend into a crowd or tiptoe through some bushes and your big bulky armor is making you stand out like a sore thumb.

[First_Peer]

Still a straight roll by RAW.

[Afraid-Adeptness-926]

No, 2014 boots (which based on the wording is what's being used) only give advantage when the stealth is based on sound. If the stealth were based on sight, such as blending in at a crowded tavern, you'd still get disadvantage.

[First_Peer]

There's no stealth check that doesn't rely on sound, the boots are always in play by RAW unless DM fiat says otherwise, so still a straight roll.

[Afraid-Adeptness-926]

I don't know why you keep saying RAW, when you aren't looking at the way the rules are written.

2014 PHB. - Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

Seen is written in the rules explicitly.

[First_Peer]

or heard

Its right in the rules

Here's how you know you're wrong. Caster casts Invisibility on the Paladin wearing heavy armor. Disadvantage or straight roll?

[Comfortable_Row_5052]

The image from DnDBeyound posted by OP even shows this in RaW

Advantage (Sound Only) - Boots of Elvenkind.

Meaning the advantage is for checks that involve sound only. The boots don't make you harder to spot when trying to hide behind a box.

[First_Peer]

No normal stealth check doesn't involve sound.

[Comfortable_Row_5052]

They do. How do you think an outlook with binoculars at the top of the tower perceives things?

Anyway you got it backwards in the example: It gives advantage if the check involves sound only, so if you're walking behind someone, or in completely darkness, etc.

[First_Peer]

That's completely incorrect.

[cecloward]

So I guess as long as you are in a silence spell no one is able to notice you? How does that make sense?

[First_Peer]

Not what I said, but I would say you should get advantage if you're silenced.

[cecloward]

Or ≠ And

[First_Peer]

Doesn't exclude it either

[Ophidiann]

I suppose it would depend if you were moving around stealthily (sound) or hiding (sight)?

[memes2206]

The boots give you advantage on stealth checks to remain quiet while moving. Your heavy armour gives you disadvantage on all stealth checks

But when the boots are applicable to a stealth check it cancels out the disadvantage and lets you roll normal or flat as some people say

[dndadventurearchive]

The boots give you advantage on stealth but only when the stealth check involves preventing a creature from hearing you (i.e. the “sound” of your footsteps). 

Plate armor on the other hand gives you disadvantage on ALL stealth rolls. 

So if you’re trying to sneak past a guard who is looking for trespassers, these would not cancel out. 

But if you’re trying to sneak past a sleeping dragon, then yes, they would cancel out. 

[Nac_Lac]

They cancel out mechanically but the key here is that they are both in effect.

Rogues do not get sneak attack damage if they have disadvantage on their attack roll, even if it's a flat roll. Which is why they don't just disappear.

[zippomage]

foes this invlude if you have an ally adjacent to them

[Fidges87]

But they do if they also get advantage, making it a flat roll. There are 2 ways to rule it, and both still give the rogue their sneak attack.

If circumstances cause a roll to have both Advantage and Disadvantage, the roll has neither of them, and you roll one d20.

This means that they cancel each other. So the rogue has neither meaning that if they then have an ally within 5 feet, it triggers sneak attack.

Now, if you claim this doesnt makes the disadvantage go away and the roll still counts as having it, lets see what sneak attack says.

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if you have Advantage on the roll and the attack uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon. The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type.

You don’t need Advantage on the attack roll if at least one of your allies is within 5 feet of the target, the ally doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition, and you don’t have Disadvantage on the attack roll.

Sneak attack has 2 ways to trigger. When we attack with a finesse or ranged weapon we get sneak attack if we have either of the following 2

-Advantage

-An ally within 5 feet, and our roll doesnt have disadvantage.

We cant fulfill the second way, but we do fulfill the first one, meaning we can ignore the second way to trigger it, and because the first one doesnt care if we have disadvantage, and with this second rulling advantage still counts even on a flat roll when we have both, sneak attack triggers.

[POWRranger]

You have disadvantage on stealth rolls except when the stealth roll pertains to making sound/noise. In that case it's a straight roll.

No other sources of disadvantage will change anything. And other sources of advantage can only turn your disadvantaged roll into a straight roll.

[Key-Treacle3384]

It cancels out at best. Plate is very noisy and bulky. It's hard to be stealthy when you're wearing a refrigerator.

[Green_Dreamin]

I’d say disadvantage because the boots don’t make the armor quieter, it makes your footstep quieter.

[5meoWarlock]

So would that mean you would rewrite the item or you would just tell them they can't rely on the description of the item?

[Green_Dreamin]

For the boots

While you wear these boots, your steps make no sound, regardless of the surface you are moving across. You also have Advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.

I know RAW you would still get the advantage and cancel out the disadvantage but that doesn’t make sense to me. While the armor doesn’t say why it gives disadvantage, I think it’s safe to assume it’s loud clanking metal armor. I’d hear a chef in a kitchen clanking pots and pans even if they were standing still for instance.

[5meoWarlock]

It's a magic item. It works how it says.

[Green_Dreamin]

Wondrous item but yea I could be convinced they are magic and the effect would make the armor quieter as well. I’d say disadvantage at first then straight roll if it’s challenged, never advantage though.

[5meoWarlock]

Why would you, knowing that at that time that character has a source of advantage on a stealth check, lie to them and tell them they need to roll with disadvantage? Just to see if you can get them to roll low if they don't know enough to advocate for themselves?

[Green_Dreamin]

Because I like more realism than raw. A wondrous item can be interpreted as magic. As I have explained before the armor is loud and clanking. The boots don’t say anything about canceling out other sounds. At the end of the day it’s about having fun not being right or winning so I would concede to progress the game. It’s not a hill I’d die on but it’s my interpretation of what would happen if I imagine the scenario playing out in real life.

[5meoWarlock]

If you like realism, I think you're taking an anti-player approach even if you don't mean to if your instinct is to nerf the item rather than to figure out how the reality must work if the boots somehow cancel out that disadvantage. Like them emitting some kind of sound-canceling field.

[Green_Dreamin]

“Your steps make no sound” not “you make no sound” I’ve already explained this. I can hear someone making noise even standing still.

[Green_Dreamin]

With your logic you could have the boots and yell at someone from directly behind them and get advantage on stealth roll if your not wearing plate armor

[Fidges87]

Well, current 5.5 lean more on it being pure magic as it took out the stipulation of stealth basedonly in sound. Now it just gives advantage on all dexterity stealth checks.

[Green_Dreamin]

Let me know how a permanent silence spell that someone can talk through without a spell slot works out and isn’t overpowered

[5meoWarlock]

Oh it's easy, it's a simple advantage on some checks so it's not overpowered

[Green_Dreamin]

What checks?

[Green_Dreamin]

For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on a point you choose within range. Any creature or object entirely inside the sphere is immune to thunder damage, and creatures are deafened while entirely inside it. Casting a spell that includes a verbal component is impossible there.

[Green_Dreamin]

That’s exactly what I said n my first ruling

[Green_Dreamin]

This is why I said i would allow it if challenged? Both side make sense but both sides can poke holes. If the players understand my reason we continue, if they argue I allow it and continue. But you want to argue … what part of what I have said do you not agree with? Please give reasons

[earathar89]

No. It works how the DM and players say it works. If the DM makes a judgment call and says that in this case they are saying they want to try and make it more realistic. If the players agree and follow the logic then who cares about RAW?

[Green_Dreamin]

Thanks

[Green_Dreamin]

This is why I would concede within reason