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

[ECMO3]

Got into a discussion with my DM. I was invisible, hidden and standing next to an archer. When he fired at an ally of mine I reminded the DM the attack is with disadvantage. DM said if he does not know I am there it should not be disadvantage. We talked about it, ultimately he made the attack with disadvantage.

I think that is the right answer RAW, correct?

This creates an interesting dynamic though. IF I turn it around and imagining I am the archer as a player and the DM tells me I have disadvantage and I say "why" and he says enemy within 5 feet, then I immediately know there is an enemy near me. Can I move and take the shot from somewhere else based on knowing someone is near me when I don't know anyone is near me? Can I pullout a melee weapon and dodge? This is the case of a mechanic (disadvantage) alerting me of something I would not otherwise know.

 

[Hriston]

Yep, that's correct.

If I was your DM, though, I wouldn't tell you about the hidden invisible enemy. I'd just say the shot is more difficult to aim. You don't know why.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For reference:

You don't need to see the hostile creature within 5 feet of you, only it has to be able to see you.

So, yes, RAW I believe the archer would have disadvantage.

This creates an interesting dynamic though. IF I turn it around and imagining I am the archer as a player and the DM tells me I have disadvantage and I say "why" and he says enemy within 5 feet, then I immediately know there is an enemy near me. Can I move and take the shot from somewhere else based on knowing someone is near me when I don't know anyone is near me? Can I pullout a melee weapon and dodge? This is the case of a mechanic (disadvantage) alerting me of something I would not otherwise know.

First, the DM doesn't have to tell you why you have disadvantage, so you wouldn't necessarily know there is a hostile creature within 5 feet of you. Second, if the DM does allow you to know that, if you move you would provoke an opporunity attack as usual, and that attack would be made with advantage.

Third, once you have said you are making a ranged attack, you can't "change your mind" because suddenly the DM tells you that you have disadvantage. The disadvantage is not imposed until you MAKE the attack roll, at which point you are committed to the attack already IMO.

Now, a very lenient DM might tell you before you decide to attack, but that wouldn't be my ruling LOL!

 

[Stormonu]

If you were “just standing there” invisibly, I would have not given the archer disadvantage. If you chose to act in some way to threaten the archer, I would have given him disadvantage, but if it’s the sort of invisibility that ends when you attack, it would have also broken the invisibility (and quite possibly allowed you to make a surprise opportunity attack).

 

[billd91]

I’m going to buck the trend here. The reason you have disadvantage when a hostile creature is adjacent to you is because it’s somehow interfering with your ability to get off a normal shot. If you don’t even know it’s there, exactly how is it interfering? It‘s not. So as a DM, I’m not imposing disadvantage for an undetected, invisible foe next to a shooter.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

While I thought you had it right I just looked it up and, as per page 195 of the PHB, you only get disadvantage on ranged attacks "if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated".

Which would, strangely, seem to make the invisible enemy situation the one where you would get disadvantage, though as a DM I'd personally skip over that in favor of not tipping players off that something is afoot, though if they are shooting through an invisible creature I'd probably have them roll to see if they hit it.

 

[Smackpixi]

I’m going to buck the trend here. The reason you have disadvantage when a hostile creature is adjacent to you is because it’s somehow interfering with your ability to get off a normal shot. If you don’t even know it’s there, exactly how is it interfering? It‘s not. So as a DM, I’m not imposing disadvantage for an undetected, invisible foe next to a shooter.

I’m with you. The requirement that they must be able to see you is because if they can’t, they can’t interfere. If archer is invisible, person next to them doesn’t know to wave arms and distract. But if person next to archer is invisible no amount of arm waving is going to distract.

However, RAW, invisible people can do distracting things like yelling and screaming w/o losing their invisibility. So, I guess yes, invisible people can confer the disadvantage by making their presence known. Learning that there is an invisible entity next to you would be very distracting. Creature would still be invisible but their presence would be known, so giving disadvantage would be at the option of the invisible.

Someone with Greater Invisibility who had already attacked the archer would automatically confer disadvantage having already made their presence known. And just to cover all bases, I‘d say someone who was under Greater Invisibility and attacked the subject about to do a ranged attack on their last turn would still confer disadvantage even if they were no longer next to them.

 

[Shiroiken]

By RAW, a hidden enemy still grants disadvantage, but as a DM I would require them to no longer be hidden if they wanted to grant disadvantage. The idea behind disadvantage is that you're adjusting your aim and trying to defend against the enemy in your face, but if you don't know they're even there, they'd have to actively hinder your attack. This is a situation where I might consider instead granting an opportunity attack instead.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a clear case of where the DM should overrule RAW.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it should be the choice of the invisible creature.
Just stand there trying to hide? Nothing.
If you want to interfere in some way possibly telegraphing that something is off around the archer -> disadvantage.