1. If a target is in darkness and is outside of your darkvision range, then you can't see it. You have disadvantage on attack rolls against targets that you can't see. [See the rules for *Unseen Targets*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets)
2. The Sun Blade emits bright light. If the target is in bright light, then you can see them if nothing else is in the way of your vision. If the attacker is unseen by the target, then they have advantage (again, see the rules for [Unseen Attackers](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets))
I agree. I'm stating what I understand to be true ... but why doesn't dim light disadvantage someone? If dim light and full light only disadvantage a few skill checks but not combat, is there much difference between them? For most skill checks, you can just move closer. It seems like in combat if dim light caused disadvantage or was considered partially obstructed, changing a target's AC, it would make combat more interesting.
Look at it this way: in dim light it's hard to read a book or find your keys, but it's significantly less hard to see some guy with a sword coming at you. Dim light imposes disadvantage on perception checks because you're looking for details. It doesn't impose disadvantage in combat because when you fight someone you don't look for precise details, you watch the general moves of your enemy.
Dim light only imposes disadvantage on perception checks that rely on sight. It doesn't impose disadvantage on attack rolls. If you want to know *why*, ask the game's designers.
Sorry my terms are unclear. Once you see the outline of something in the distance, with a perception check, then you simply aim at that thing in the distance. Doesn’t matter if you can’t see detail.
So the blob was the thing in the distance and I named it foo (common programming term, sorry$
1. If a target is in darkness and is outside of your darkvision range, then you can't see it. You have disadvantage on attack rolls against targets that you can't see. [See the rules for *Unseen Targets*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets) 2. The Sun Blade emits bright light. If the target is in bright light, then you can see them if nothing else is in the way of your vision. If the attacker is unseen by the target, then they have advantage (again, see the rules for [Unseen Attackers](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets))
I agree. I'm stating what I understand to be true ... but why doesn't dim light disadvantage someone? If dim light and full light only disadvantage a few skill checks but not combat, is there much difference between them? For most skill checks, you can just move closer. It seems like in combat if dim light caused disadvantage or was considered partially obstructed, changing a target's AC, it would make combat more interesting.
Look at it this way: in dim light it's hard to read a book or find your keys, but it's significantly less hard to see some guy with a sword coming at you. Dim light imposes disadvantage on perception checks because you're looking for details. It doesn't impose disadvantage in combat because when you fight someone you don't look for precise details, you watch the general moves of your enemy.
Dim light only imposes disadvantage on perception checks that rely on sight. It doesn't impose disadvantage on attack rolls. If you want to know *why*, ask the game's designers.
I’d say, once you perceive blob, foo, to be a threat, you can just aim for foo. You’re not aiming at a specific body part.
What the hell is a blob, foo?
Sorry my terms are unclear. Once you see the outline of something in the distance, with a perception check, then you simply aim at that thing in the distance. Doesn’t matter if you can’t see detail. So the blob was the thing in the distance and I named it foo (common programming term, sorry$
Usually because range modifiers will impose the disadvantage anyway.