D&D 5E Ranged attacks and disadvantage in melee

[auburn2]

Ok a few things came up on the verbiage:

"you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated."

Ok this brought up a specific cases in a recent game I DM and caused a larger discussion with one of the players. Here is my interpretation, tell me if I am wrong.

1. "I move behind him so he can't see me"
My rule is being behind someone does not mean they can't see you. Most enemies can turn and look at you. If you are sneaking up behind someone who does not know you are ther and you pass your stealth check ok I might let this go and I might even give you advantage, but if you are within 5 ft of an enemy an he knows you are there he is going to turn his head and look at you before you shoot.

2. Blind sight is not the same as seeing me
I am actually going to go with the player on this. If you are fighting someone who has no eyes (like a plant) I will let you shoot from 5' without disadvantage since he has no eyes and can't "see" anything.

What do you think?

 

[Dausuul]

Ok a few things came up on the verbiage:

"you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated."

Ok this brought up a specific cases in a recent game I DM and caused a larger discussion with one of the players. Here is my interpretation, tell me if I am wrong.

1. "I move behind him so he can't see me"
My rule is being behind someone does not mean they can't see you. Most enemies can turn and look at you. If you are sneaking up behind someone who does not know you are ther and you pass your stealth check ok I might let this go and I might even give you advantage, but if you are within 5 ft of an enemy an he knows you are there he is going to turn his head and look at you before you shoot.

2. Blind sight is not the same as seeing me
I am actually going to go with the player on this. If you are fighting someone who has no eyes (like a plant) I will let you shoot from 5' without disadvantage since he has no eyes and can't "see" anything.

What do you think?

I agree with you on #1. The player might want to consider all the ways monsters could take advantage of "I'm behind you, you can't see me!" There's a reason 5E doesn't have facing rules.

Disagree on #2. If a creature has blindsight, it can see well enough to attack you and defend itself from your attacks. No reason it shouldn't present the same challenges to ranged attackers as any other foe.

(Also, from a pure gamist perspective, ranged attacks are already on the strong side in D&D. They don't need any extra help.)

That said, #2 is an unusual scenario and it's no big deal to go either way. #1 is much more significant.

 

[Dragongrief]

Agreed with Daulsuul.

#1 - There is no facing in 5e (unless you're using tactical house rules), therefore you can see in all directions.

#2 - "See" is a descriptive term rather than a litteral statement. It's more of a shorthand for "has good knowledge of your physical location and movements."
Hense creatures with blindsight can "see" invisible things, while sighted creatures cannot.

That said, you can rule that interfering with ranged attacks relies on traditional sight, but then you would want to consider whether "non-sighted" creatures should be able to make opportunity attacks.

 

[ninjayeti]

#1 Agree. There are no facing rules in 5E. Otherwise it would be trivially easy in most fights to get advantage by running behind the other guy.

#2 RAW that's technically correct. RAI I think blindsight is be equivalent to actual sight here. If the plant or whatever can sense you well enough to attack you effectively, it can sense you well enough to smack your bow as you are trying to nock an arrow and line up a shot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok a few things came up on the verbiage:

"you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated."

Ok this brought up a specific cases in a recent game I DM and caused a larger discussion with one of the players. Here is my interpretation, tell me if I am wrong.

1. "I move behind him so he can't see me"
My rule is being behind someone does not mean they can't see you. Most enemies can turn and look at you. If you are sneaking up behind someone who does not know you are ther and you pass your stealth check ok I might let this go and I might even give you advantage, but if you are within 5 ft of an enemy an he knows you are there he is going to turn his head and look at you before you shoot.

You are correct; unless you’re using the optional Facing rules from the DMG, it’s assumed that creatures are aware of their surroundings in combat, and the rules draw no distinction between being “in front of” or “behind” a creature.

2. Blind sight is not the same as seeing me
I am actually going to go with the player on this. If you are fighting someone who has no eyes (like a plant) I will let you shoot from 5' without disadvantage since he has no eyes and can't "see" anything.

A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight. Arguing that a creature with blindsight can’t see you is pointless because it doesn’t need to “see” you in a literal sense. It’s aware of your presence and can detect you with exactly the same acuity as normal vision. It’s your game and you are free to rule however you like, but your player is definitely wrong about this and doing a poor job of trying to rules-lawyer it.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a reason 5E doesn't have facing rules.

#1 - There is no facing in 5e (unless you're using tactical house rules),

There are no facing rules in 5E.

sigh

No one reads the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

 

[FarBeyondC]

sigh

No one reads the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

Ok, so...

1. Is it really so hard to say that there are (optional) rules for facing on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide compared to what you did?
2. The (optional) rules for facing are so absolutely terrible that I don't blame anyone for blanking out on their existence.

 

[commandercrud]

1. Facing is an optional rule. Without that, or a similar rule, in place, facing doesn't matter.
2. Blindsight does mean you are "seen." It is blindSIGHT.

 

[Hriston]

I disagree with the player's reasoning in both cases. 1) Moving behind a creature doesn't make it not see you, and 2) as the name suggests, blindsight allows a creature to "see" without seeing.

I also want to point out that the discussion is focused on targeting a hostile creature within 5 feet, but the rule is that you have disadvantage if any hostile creature is within 5 feet whether that's the creature you're targeting or not, so it isn't about whether it can defend itself. It's about whether you can make a ranged attack effectively when you're potentially having to defend yourself from melee attacks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For reference: (Sorry, I like to see the complete rule/ situation)

I see some of the logic behind this, but frankly I think this is a bad rule. Think about the concept.

1. "I move behind him so he can't see me"
My rule is being behind someone does not mean they can't see you. Most enemies can turn and look at you. If you are sneaking up behind someone who does not know you are ther and you pass your stealth check ok I might let this go and I might even give you advantage, but if you are within 5 ft of an enemy an he knows you are there he is going to turn his head and look at you before you shoot.

Agreed.

A hidden attacker gains advantage because the target is unaware of the attack.

2. Blind sight is not the same as seeing me
I am actually going to go with the player on this. If you are fighting someone who has no eyes (like a plant) I will let you shoot from 5' without disadvantage since he has no eyes and can't "see" anything.

Blindsight allows the creature to "see" (perceive its surroundings) without needing to see. If the creature can sense you to attack you, it is a threat and should (according to the rule) impost disadvantage on your attack.

But, either way, I would just get rid of the original rule in the first place. shrug