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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No one has shown how the rules fail to make sense in this case. They just don't conform to some posters' preconceptions of the fiction.

People have different ideas of "what makes sense". But that doesn't make your statement about "telling stories" any less ridiculous!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, they don't.
Imposing disadvantage will automatically give away that something is off. If you are hidden you are unnoticed however.
This is a contradiction.

Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?

Because then you notice something invisible is near you and is not hidden anymore (which is the subject of this thread).

Edit: I'd allow a sleight of hand vs perception probably to allow staying hidden in some cases.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

People have different ideas of "what makes sense". But that doesn't make your statement about "telling stories" any less ridiculous!

A good guideline is asking yourself as a player how you would react if the DM did this to you:

PLAYER: i attack with a bow.
DM: roll with disadvantage.
PLAYER: Why?
DM: Because!

PLAYER: is there something that distracts me?
DM: No.
PLAYER: Did something interfere with my bow or shot?
DM: No.
PLAYER: then why do I have disadvantage?
DM: Because!

PLAYER: may I roll a perception check to see if I notice something at least?
DM: No. Your character has no clue that something is off. It is just a rule I have to enforce, because it is a rule...

 

[Shiroiken]

Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?

By doing these things they'd reveal their presence and are no longer hidden, which is the option I'd give a player in this situation. They're still invisible, but the enemy is aware of where they are (until they Hide again).

 

[Stalker0]

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.

While fine, that's not really useful for this thread. I mean, any DM at any time can break or change any rule they want. We all know this, so stating that is your plan doesn't provide the community any benefit.

The goal of this thread is to understand the actual RAW if possible, and if at first that doesn't seem to make flavorful sense, see if flavor can be provided that justifies the rule and works in story. And then from there, DMs can of course decide how to use that information.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because then you notice something invisible is near you and is not hidden anymore (which is the subject of this thread).

Edit: I'd allow a sleight of hand vs perception probably to allow staying hidden in some cases.

Why would they assume it was caused by something invisible? (Other than maybe the whisper).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

By doing these things they'd reveal their presence and are no longer hidden, which is the option I'd give a player in this situation. They're still invisible, but the enemy is aware of where they are (until they Hide again).

But aside from "because I say so". Why do you assume that any of these things automatically reveal that you are there? The rules don't say they do. Attacking does. Distracting someone doesn't. All you need to do next is decide why. (By telling stories). This is all Hriston is trying to say, AFAICT.

People have different ideas of "what makes sense". But that doesn't make your statement about "telling stories" any less ridiculous!

Telling stories is not ridiculous. It's literally what the game is about. You can certainly change rules to suit your narrative if you like, but there isn't always reason to. Most of the time it is a simple thing (IMO) to come up with a bunch of reasons for why a rule might work like it does.

 

[Mannahnin]

I tend to concur that the RAW is nonsensical.

My understanding is that the reason for Disadvantage in this situation is the distraction of the immediate threat of an enemy within weapon reach. This factor forces the shooter to move or position differently to defend against that threat, and thus prevents them from optimizing their firing stance and focus as they normally would.

If the invisible character is NOT hidden, then the shooter knows they're present. That's a threat, and arguably even more of a distraction than a visible enemy, because you can't actually see where their sword is!

If the invisible character IS hidden, as far as the shooter knows, there's no one there. No threat. No distraction.

 

[Mannahnin]

But aside from "because I say so". Why do you assume that any of these things automatically reveal that you are there? The rules don't say they do. Attacking does. Distracting someone doesn't. All you need to do next is decide why. (By telling stories). This is all Hriston is trying to say, AFAICT.



Telling stories is not ridiculous. It's literally what the game is about. You can certainly change rules to suit your narrative if you like, but there isn't always reason to. Most of the time it is a simple thing (IMO) to come up with a bunch of reasons for why a rule might work like it does.

I agree that a lot of the time we can in fact come up with a fluff justification/rationalization of something that's happening in the fiction to justify how a rule works, even if it looks strange on first read.

I'm not seeing a way to justify it here. The suggestions you've made for things the invisible character could do to interfere with the shot all seem to be things that would give away their presence or require an action.