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

[Hriston]

Why all or nothing? There is an infinity big field to paint different shades of grey.

Well, I’m honestly asking because I don’t understand the set of priorities being advocated in this thread. Given that the purpose of rules in an RPG is to create fiction, and that the rule under discussion says fictional set of circumstances A (i.e. a creature has certain positioning relative to a ranged attacker) leads to mechanical resolution B (i.e. the attack roll is made with disadvantage), and that no further fiction (C) need be authored until after the resolution has taken place and the attack either misses or hits, I don't understand where the objection comes in that C must necessarily be a paradoxical nonsense when A involves a creature that is hidden and invisible. All I can come up with is that concerns about realism are being brought in from outside the game whereas, to me, the fiction is infinitely malleable. It’s very easy to narrate something that makes sense.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, I’m honestly asking because I don’t understand the set of priorities being advocated in this thread. Given that the purpose of rules in an RPG is to create fiction, and that the rule under discussion says fictional set of circumstances A (i.e. a creature has certain positioning relative to a ranged attacker) leads to mechanical resolution B (i.e. the attack roll is made with disadvantage), and that no further fiction (C) need be authored until after the resolution has taken place and the attack either misses or hits, I don't understand where the objection comes in that C must necessarily be a paradoxical nonsense when A involves a creature that is hidden and invisible. All I can come up with is that concerns about realism are being brought in from outside the game whereas, to me, the fiction is infinitely malleable. It’s very easy to narrate something that makes sense.

Well, it's that leap to C.

People are disputing the premise that "no further fiction need be authored", because as far as they can see, the existing fiction does not represent this situation. If I've premised my understanding of the rule on one fictional basis (the archer is being threatened by an adjacent enemy, and therefore is distracted defending themselves), and the game-rule situation doesn't match that basis, there is an understandable conceptual conflict.

I think Fitz has done a pretty good job of offering an explanation, but whenever a rule creates a situation that seems counterintuitive or inconsistent with the fiction, people are going to balk.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, I’m honestly asking because I don’t understand the set of priorities being advocated in this thread. Given that the purpose of rules in an RPG is to create fiction,...

I think i disagree with this premise.
My understanding is that the gaming group creates the fiction and rules and the DM as arbiter are there to resolve actions where the outcome is uncertain.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I still think just standing next to someone would not impose disadvantage- you have to meet the hostile part of the text. The example of the toad would not count, even if it is on the bad guys team, since it is not acting hostile. Cool picture above not withstanding.

The moment you wish to become hostile and bump the bow or such there is disadvantage, but also somehow to detect the invisible person.

Good catch @hostile.
Yes, and invisible creture trying to remain hidden does not sound very hostile.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If a PC is invisible, hidden, and within 5' of an enemy making a ranged attack:

If the PC wants to stay hidden, the PC has no effect on the enemy's ranged attack.
If the PC doesn't care about staying hidden, the enemy's ranged attack is at disadvantage and the PC's location is given away.


Same result if we flip the scenario around - if an enemy is invisible, hidden, and within 5' of a PC making a ranged attack:

If the enemy wants to stay hidden, the enemy has no effect on the PC's ranged attack.
If the enemy doesn't care about staying hidden, the PC's ranged attack is at disadvantage and the enemy's location is given away.

 

[el-remmen]

"Every time you lift your bow [or crossbow or spear or arms to cast] you keep brushing or knocking against something in your way, but nothing is there as far as you can see! You have disadvantage on the shot."

 

[Hriston]

We fundamentally disagree what the purpose of RPG rules is. To me their purpose is to be a mechanical representation of the fictional reality. If the fictional situation doesn't warrant the rule to be used, then it isn't.

I think you're imagining a different situation than what the rule envisions. The rule is a prompt to imagine a situation in which the creature’s positioning does allow it to increase the difficulty of the attack. Part of that positioning is that the creature is hostile to the attacker so is actively opposing the attacker’s goal of making a successful attack. If you’re imagining a situation where the creature isn’t doing anything to oppose the attacker, then I agree the rule doesn’t apply.

 

[aco175]

"Every time you lift your bow [or crossbow or spear or arms to cast] you keep brushing or knocking against something in your way, but nothing is there as far as you can see! You have disadvantage on the shot."

Yes, if the invisible person is trying to disrupt you. If he is not and just trying to stay hidden, then the 5ft cube next to your 5ft cube is large enough that you would not keep brushing up against something.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, if the invisible person is trying to disrupt you. If he is not and just trying to stay hidden, then the 5ft cube next to your 5ft cube is large enough that you would not keep brushing up against something.

In other words, if you have disadvantage on your ranged attacks, you are also alerted to the presence and approximate location of the invisible thing.

If the invisible thing actively tries to remain hidden by not interfering with your bow then there is no disadvantage on attacks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

But... you guys are inventing the idea that you have to not interfere in order to stay hidden. I'm not trying to insult here - inventing is good. You just don't have to do it. You can invent other ideas instead.

Rules-wise, interfering with a ranged attack is a trivial thing. It takes no action. Hostility is not an action. It's a state of being. Rules-wise you do nothing but stand there with hostile intent, and BAM, she's got disadvantage on her shot. You do nothing that under the rules for hiding will reveal your position.

Obviously, to all of us, that isn't satisfying in itself. But that's okay! D&D has always planned for that! You make up stories. Sure, you can also ignore Rules, that's fine. You just don't have to. You're making up the story anyway, so all you have to do is make up one where it works.

It's a lot easier to do if you're not absolutist. Start from the idea that combat is chaos and no one is perfect or has a perfect plan. Both the shooter and the invisible guy are just doing the best they can, without any master plan. They're both not 100% perfect at what they are doing. (To me, this is important for realism - everything else is fantasy).

Shooter tries to shoot. Invisible guy tries to mess up the shot. Both have many, many, MANY ways they can go wrong or right. I could literally spend hours coming up with scenarios to describe it, but the only important one would be one that actually happens during play, and you NEED all the factors in play for it to really matter. Who's the attacker? Who's invisible? Who else is there? Where are they? What just happened last round? What led to this odd situation? What's the terrain like? The weather? Etc etc.

Then the big one: What does the shooter roll on the dice?

I will use ALL of that to justify what happens when shooter goes to shoot and the hostile guy (invisible or not) tries to mess up the shot. The roll of the dice is ultimately most important, because if the shooter HITS ANYWAY then it doesn't really matter what the invisible guy was trying to do. Whatever it was, it didn't work. (I'm not saying that I wouldn't imagine what the attempt was, I would, but it's not as important when it isn't effective).

Maybe invisible guy WAS going to do something that would give away his position, but missed (like try to hack the bow with his short sword, but was too late - shot passes over his shoulder, so he changes tack on the fly and remains hidden).

Do what you like, obviously, but I personally would rather keep the fiction open and wild and the rules tight (ish - I am far from a rules lawyer). It manages expectations better (IMO) to have the rules remain what the player has read in the book, unless the scenario is entirely unworkable (which I don't think I've seen in D&D - I have seen it in other games.) Or your group is one thar plays with a lot of house-rules.

My conclusion is that this rare scenario does not need rulings to make it work - it needs dynamic descriptions. YMMV.