D&D 5E Invisible, hidden and within 5 feet of an enemy making a ranged attack

[Crimson Longinus]

True. I saw that at first but overlooked it when talking about more general cases.

If the PC is Hidden, causing disadvantage would reveal his presence, but he would still be invisible. If the archer has no clue he is there because he is Hidden, then no disadvantage as there is no hostile creature.

Yeah, that makes sense. An invisible thing making noise nearby is certainly enough to warrant a disadvantage.

 

[Hriston]

Nah. I’d rather adjust the rules to make sense.

No disadvantage if the shooter is completely unaware of the enemy would be my ruling.

This is a common theme in some recent threads. I don't do this. My preference is to let the rules tell me what happens. Otherwise, why use rules at all? Just tell the story you've already made up.

 

[billd91]

This is a common theme in some recent threads. I don't do this. My preference is to let the rules tell me what happens. Otherwise, why use rules at all? Just tell the story you've already made up.

What we have here is a different philosophy in the point of rules in RPGs. I use them to facilitate adjudicating what the players want their PCs to do in the game setting. But if they’re paradoxical, since rules cannot always account for every exception, then I don’t use them.

 

[Hriston]

What we have here is a different philosophy in the point of rules in RPGs. I use them to facilitate adjudicating what the players want their PCs to do in the game setting. But if they’re paradoxical, since rules cannot always account for every exception, then I don’t use them.

The paradox comes from assuming what the relevant fiction is before applying the rules. In this case, assuming there's no way a hidden hostile creature can interfere with the aim of a ranged attacker within five feet without revealing its position when that's exactly what the rules tell you is happening.

 

[billd91]

The paradox comes from assuming what the relevant fiction is before applying the rules. In this case, assuming there's no way a hidden hostile creature can interfere with the aim of a ranged attacker within five feet without revealing its position when that's exactly what the rules tell you is happening.

Different philosophy. Rules are subservient to the fiction.

 

[Hriston]

Different philosophy. Rules are subservient to the fiction.

Right, so why have rules? Why not just write a story and tell it to the players?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is a common theme in some recent threads. I don't do this. My preference is to let the rules tell me what happens. Otherwise, why use rules at all? Just tell the story you've already made up.

Part of the DM's job is to adjudicate edge cases where the rules fail to make sense. It's utterly ridiculous to imply that this means the DM is "just telling a story".

 

[billd91]

Right, so why have rules? Why not just write a story and tell it to the players?

Because they do work most of the time and, as I said above, they are facilitators of adjudicating the action.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It seems to be the intent of the rule that a hidden creature could interfere with a ranged attacker's ability to aim without revealing its location. Adjust your fiction to suit.

Double post.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It seems to be the intent of the rule that a hidden creature could interfere with a ranged attacker's ability to aim without revealing its location. Adjust your fiction to suit.

What makes you think so? It could as well be an oversight.
And then I guess, I'd still put the burden on the invisible PC to describe how they interfere without giving away their presence...