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

[Hriston]

Yes, I get that. So far Fitz has done a decent job of offering a fictional justification, and you haven't.

Well, no one has asked me!

For the record, I'm imagining a situation where the attack misses because the hidden invisible creature knocks the attacker's missile out of the air to protect their ally, and the attacker perceives this as nothing more than a fumble.

I don't think I was assuming anything. I explained what fictional/simulative reality the rule (a hostile creature within 5' imposes disadvantage on a character making a ranged attack) appears to me to be intended to represent, and invited you to offer an alternative. The baseline rule appears to be written assuming that the nearby hostile creature is not hidden.

You did. You assumed the rule is a representation of a process of being visually distracted by a known foe which assumption you've now attributed to the designers even though there's nothing in the rule itself that would indicate it was written with such an assumption in mind.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, no one has asked me!

I literally asked you in the post you were replying to.

I asked "Can you explain what you think the rules are representing in the fiction, and where I've imagined incorrectly in post #49?", and you replied by talking about the rules, rather than about the fiction they're representing.

That's ok. The conversation has moved on since then.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I literally asked you in the post you were replying to.

I asked "Can you explain what you think the rules are representing in the fiction, and where I've imagined incorrectly in post #49?", and you replied by talking about the rules, rather than about the fiction they're representing.

That's ok. The conversation has moved on since then.

This argument is becoming funny, because it is running around in circles.

Hriston plays his way, Fritz plays his way (and I can get on board with it), the rest play their own way and this is all ok.
We all made a decision who or what is in charge... the fiction, the DM, the players or the rules.
I think everyone has made their stances clear and some of us disagree, agree or partly disagree.
Good thing is: The D&D game is so open that we are all welcome. And as long as everyone on the table agrees with our interpretation, we all have fun. And if we disagree on the table over a little edge case that happens once in a blue moon, we will find some ruling or storytelling on the spot and just go on.
Then we ask for feedback on some nerdy forum and we start this discussion over and over again.

 

[Hriston]

Won't the DM always have to decide what mechanics to apply? I don't see how it's possible to play without some amount of DM fiat.

This isn't a case of deciding how the rules might apply to a situation not covered or making a ruling about how to handle a corner case. Assuming a group has agreed at the Social Contract level to play by the rules in the book, what is being discussed in this thread is a case where fiction has been established that clearly calls for the rule to be applied. What some in this thread are advocating is for the DM to unilaterally change the established fiction so the rule doesn't apply because using the rule would threaten the DM's preferred narrative. I'm saying that's not the only way to play D&D.

Look at what this looks like when the hidden invisible creature is a PC as was described in the OP. The rule says the PC has the positioning to impose disadvantage on the attack, but the DM tells the player the rule doesn't apply because their PC isn't doing anything to oppose the attack, essentially telling the player they are not in control of their PC's attitude towards their foe.

 

[Hriston]

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.

The "leap" you describe is caused by the Ranged Attacks in Close Combat rule employing a fortune-in-the-middle technique. As the rule states, all that needs to be established before rolling the dice is that a creature has the described positioning relative to a ranged attacker. The hostile attitude of the creature is a meaningful part of that positioning because it means the creature will take risks, if necessary, to oppose the attacker's actions. With that intent in mind, the attack is rolled with disadvantage, and the result informs any fiction that is then created about what the creature did to make the attack more difficult. By creating that fiction first, before mechanical resolution, you're adding an additional rider (e.g. that the creature must also distract the attacker) that is not present in the rule itself.

 

[billd91]

This isn't a case of deciding how the rules might apply to a situation not covered or making a ruling about how to handle a corner case. Assuming a group has agreed at the Social Contract level to play by the rules in the book, what is being discussed in this thread is a case where fiction has been established that clearly calls for the rule to be applied. What some in this thread are advocating is for the DM to unilaterally change the established fiction so the rule doesn't apply because using the rule would threaten the DM's preferred narrative. I'm saying that's not the only way to play D&D.

Nobody is saying anything different from “that’s not the only way to play D&D”, we’re just doing it with a different approach than you.

Look at what this looks like when the hidden invisible creature is a PC as was described in the OP. The rule says the PC has the positioning to impose disadvantage on the attack, but the DM tells the player the rule doesn't apply because their PC isn't doing anything to oppose the attack, essentially telling the player they are not in control of their PC's attitude towards their foe.

That would be a misinterpretation. There’s nothing about the players not being in control of their attitude toward their foe. Rather, if they’re not doing anything to interfere or indicate their presence because they are still trying to remain unobserved, they are, in fact, the ones saying their actions aren’t doing anything to warrant application of the rule.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or how it differs significantly from what I said. It can't both be true that the group creates all the fiction without using the rules AND the rules are there to determine outcomes. Those outcomes are the fiction!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or how it differs significantly from what I said. It can't both be true that the group creates all the fiction without using the rules AND the rules are there to determine outcomes. Those outcomes are the fiction!

Sorry if I couldn't make it as clear as I wished. But trust me, it is very different to your approach.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've enjoyed this conversation but it appears that we are starting to circle like a whirlpool.

Enjoy your gaming, everyone!

 

[Hriston]

I literally asked you in the post you were replying to.

I asked "Can you explain what you think the rules are representing in the fiction, and where I've imagined incorrectly in post #49?", and you replied by talking about the rules, rather than about the fiction they're representing.

That's ok. The conversation has moved on since then.

To me, asking what in the fiction this rule represents (which is the question I answered) is a different question from asking for fiction that justifies a missed attack (which I've now also answered but of which you've apparently chosen to be dismissive). The rule doesn't contain a representation of any such fiction, which is something I also addressed in my reply to you.