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

[DND_Reborn]

The only way I could see not imposing disadvantage is if the invisible creature was also Hidden and wanted to remain Hidden.

If they aren't Hidden, the archer knows of their presence (hears them, sees dust kicking up when the moved, etc.) and would be concerned and distracted, and thus have disadvantage.

 

[Nikosandros]

I would rule that the invisible character has two choices. Remain hidden and let the archer attack normally, or reveal their position (but not ending the invisibility) and impose disadvantage.

 

[Horwath]

this is why we need AoO for using ranged attacks while you are in threat area of an enemy.

You attack normally with ranged attacks while in melee unless you suffer AoO(does not matter if attacks hits or not) from anyone that is threatening you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

this is why we need AoO for using ranged attacks while you are in threat area of an enemy.

You attack normally with ranged attacks while in melee unless you suffer AoO(does not matter if attacks hits or not) from anyone that is threatening you.

No. This is not a logical conclusion.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would rule that the invisible character has two choices. Remain hidden and let the archer attack normally, or reveal their position (but not ending the invisibility) and impose disadvantage.

Again, if they are Hidden in the first place. Otherwise, the RAW works and makes sense.

 

[Nikosandros]

Again, if they are Hidden in the first place. Otherwise, the RAW works and makes sense.

The OP states that the invisible character is hidden.

 

[Hriston]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The OP states that the invisible character is hidden.

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.

 

[nevin]

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.

I'd have agreed with you , if you were in front of the enemy, with the point that the disadvantage is he might hit you instead of his target. If you were behind him then no I wouldn't give the enemy a disadvantage.