Talk:Night Hunter (5e Feat)

Thoughts

To me the second bullet is a little iffy. The first part sound just fine, a creature with darkvision that's used to darkness probably doesn't solely rely on vision in darkness, and may have some extra sensory input that a strike is coming. However, I don't know if that that would make you not attack with disadvantage when the condition being described is blindness. It feels off. Coaldstone (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2020 (MDT)

Fair, fair. Maybe add the caveat that you can't be blinded to benefit from this feature?

Oh! Make that blinded or deafened, actually! --IntellectMaster (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2020 (MDT)

My point was that I think the disadvantage clause should be entirely omitted. I don't think this feat should grant what is essentially condition immunity. Similar to how the alert feat only negates advantage from attackers that are unseen by you. Coaldstone (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (MDT)

Alert does that AND some other incredibly useful stuff. My goal for the second bullet of this feat was to make it useful in an additional way, but being entirely conditional on creatures that you can't see BECAUSE of darkness. If they are invisible, the feat shouldn't work for that. If they are invisible *and* in darkness *and* far enough away for you to not see them with darkvision or something similar, a) The feat shouldn't work (I had just been doing a very, VERY quick fix), and b) That enemy was being paranoid and redundant about being seen in an area of complete darkness. And, again, the other, flavorful, part of what I am eventually trying to accomplish is that you use a combination of your senses to still "see" a creature. Or would Blindsight just be a better thing to give, something that also negates being invisible, being in any form of darkness whether natural or magical, and functions regardless of any conditions you may be under (unless you're petrified, unconscious, or dead, of course)? There's a reason why I didn't start off with the actual thing that you seem to think I was going for! --IntellectMaster (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2020 (MDT)

I included the darkness spell, and invisible condition, as an example of not being able to see a creature because, it's counterintuitive to not be able to see a creature that's in darkness if you have darkvision. The wording of the feat, as is, will always include invisible creatures. Blindsight is almost exclusively a racial trait because it's a sense, so I think avoiding that would be wise. Adding Blindsight would also give you access to it during all times of day. My takeaway was you use your senses to still see a creature, and it shouldn't work for invisible creatures. If this is incorrect let me know. Coaldstone (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (MDT)

Suggested Revision

It seems like 'seeing' or 'sensing' should be a separate bullet point, for a total of 3. I think the feat would look something like this:

• First Bullet
• Creatures in darkness that you can't see, such as from the darkness spell or invisible condition, don't have advantage on attack rolls against you.
• You know the position of creatures in darkness within your normal sight range that aren't heavily obscured.

Adding the heavily obscured clause would make it so that invisible creatures still gain a form of protection, but they don't have advantage on attack rolls so you are defended from them. Some feats that grant advantage in combat are 'Grappler', 'Mage Slayer', and 'Mounted Combat'. 'Lucky' does too, but to a lesser degree. There are also a couple of feats that impose disadvantage on others, but the two are never paired together. Coaldstone (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2020 (MDT)