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

[FitzTheRuke]

Let me try to keep the discussion going without repeating the circle if I can:

I have a question for those of you who assume that doing anything to interfere with the attacker would automatically (or close enough to automatically for our purposes) reveal your location if you were invisible: Why would it?

I've read it's "close enough to an attack", which would make me ask: In what way? I mean, as we all know, it's not an attack (by the rules) - it's not anything. So, why?

If we assume that the rules are right (and are friends to the fiction, not adversaries) then it's not close to an attack.

And, out of curiosity, does that mean (to you - it doesn't to me) that the description clearly can't then be something like "hacked the arrow out of the air with your sword" (the closest description I can think of to an attack that might cause the effect).

Can it be anything less like an attack than that? Where is the line? Does it really go all the way down to no description would make sense in this case?

Is it that it's quicker-and-easier to ditch/modify/add to the rule than to go through all the possible scenarios to pick one that you like?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Is it that it's quicker-and-easier to ditch/modify/add to the rule than to go through all the possible scenarios to pick one that you like?

I'd assume that if this situation came up in the game, I would rule on the spot, and if a player objects my ruling I'd either go with their interpretation if it convinces me or add a roll if it does not.
I assume either way it is done in a matter of seconds.

When you added your concrete scenario to our abstract discussion, both our approaches came to a very similar conclusion.

 

[GMMichael]

This dead horse looks to be quite beaten, but...

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.

RAI: a ranged attacker is at disadvantage because it is assumed the nearby opponent is harassing the attacker. If you're hidden, you're probably not harassing. If you're harassing, you're probably not hidden.

. . . 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?

It depends on why you have disadvantage. If you're being harassed, you'd already know about the disadvantage, so you should be allowed to make decisions based on what your character knows. If you have disadvantage because someone is blocking your shot, you wouldn't know until you took the shot - so you couldn't move first.

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.

Or it's a case of your DM making an Oopsie.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's fine. I'd also ask the player to narrate how they impose disadvantage on the attack without giving away their location. If the hidden creature's an NPC, I'd provide that narration myself.

Would you perhaps ask the player for a Dex(Stealth) roll, depending on the approach of the invisible, hidden PC?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Let me try to keep the discussion going without repeating the circle if I can:

I have a question for those of you who assume that doing anything to interfere with the attacker would automatically (or close enough to automatically for our purposes) reveal your location if you were invisible: Why would it?

I've read it's "close enough to an attack", which would make me ask: In what way? I mean, as we all know, it's not an attack (by the rules) - it's not anything. So, why?

If we assume that the rules are right (and are friends to the fiction, not adversaries) then it's not close to an attack.

(Emphasis mine) Well, if it is "not anything" it wouldn't inflict a penalty. But, to give a more useful answer:

Why is it appropriate that an archer have disadvantage on an attack when a foe is close to them? Especially when this rule applies to archers and not melee combatants?

Because we have many examples in history and simulation (LARPS, SCA, &c.) that it is hard to get a shot off when someone is in your face, especially at a third party.

This means that someone whose presence would interfere with an archer taking a shot is doing so actively, not passively. They are actively, purposefully interacting with another in a hostile manner. If it was passive the archer would just shoot around them without fear of harm.

The invisibility spell has as a theme through the editions of "if you mess with someone else you lose the invisibility". There have been many ways to frame and phrase this. This edition goes with the simple "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." Since they are interacting with the archer, however gently pushing the bow, they are adversely affecting another individual. This is enough to disrupt the spell to me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One of the things that I dislike about D&D (and I love D&D like I love nothing else, so bear with me!) is how much the rules often make it seem like people are standing around doing nothing. I long ago reconciled that with myself by assuming that it's not true.

It's clearly not true. It's just a trap that we can find ourselves in if we take certain parts of the rules too literally. For example: You don't have to do anything to be missed by an attack while you're wearing heavy armor, If the attacker rolls below your AC, you are missed. In "real life" (and it's always dangerous to compare D&D to reall life, I know) if I had a sword, and you were wearing plate mail, and you just stood there while I attacked you, I WOULD KILL YOU. You have to defend yourself. You have to do everything you can to defend yourself. Or you die. Plate mail just helps. It helps a lot. But it doesn't do the job for you.

So if we assume that there is a lot going on that the rules don't directly speak to, which I think is fair, then we have near unlimited possibilities.

The rules connect to the fiction, sure, but only very loosely. It's such a delicate connection that it's worth having them very nearly unnconnected to free up head-space for story possibilities.

I also don't like how "misses" in D&D often feel like incompetence on the part of the attacker, rather than competence on the part of the defender. So I encourage people to flip it around in their heads. An attacker NEVER misses. A defender DEFENDS.

To use an extreme example, I will often describe a defender getting "missed" like this:

Attacker (with a sword) attacks and misses.
Defender (with a shield)... "Smashed the attacker in the face with (his) shield".

I'm sure to many of you here - that sounds "wrong". It sounds like an attack. Shouldn't there be damage involved? Yeah, yeah. No. The attacker missed the defender's AC. That's all that happened in the "rules" of the "game".

But in the story of the game, the attack missed because the attacker got hit in the face with a shield. (Though I will admit, not hard enough to lose any HP, you see, just hard enough to miss.) Because HP is an abstraction. Everything in the game is. You can describe anything however you want, so why not?

I'm sure this counts as a "playstyle" that's not for everyone, and that's fine. But I find it fun. You might too if you tried it. Or not. Who knows?

I often describe a missed attack as the defender blocking, parrying, dodging, back-stepping, as well as the attacker just sometimes "whiffs" the attack.

But, FWIW, even if someone just stood there in plate armor and you struck or stabbed them with a sword, there is still a VERY good chance your attack would be deflected and/or fail to penetrate the armor entirely. It really was that good.

 

[Hriston]

You have rules as master and fiction as slave. For me it is the opposite.

I don't agree with this, but I think it does show a difference because I wouldn't have thought to put rules and fiction in that kind of power dynamic. For me, the purpose of rules in an RPG is as a means for the group to establish and agree on fiction that's generated while playing. In Forge jargon, this is called the Lumpley Principle. My preference is for rules and fiction to be strongly identified such that when a rule calls for a specific established fictional situation to have a certain mechanical resolution, as in the example of play described in the OP, that rule is honored according to the group's social contract, resulting in the establishment of new, agreed on fiction.

 

[Hriston]

I don't object anything you write here. I would do it exactly as you do.

Okay, but to be clear, I wouldn't use the player's narration to justify any additional requirements for their character to impose disadvantage or to retain their hidden status.

 

[Hriston]

The rule assumes that, yes, and that makes perfect sense for a visible, hostile creature. Being invisible, however, opens additional possibilities, such as the invisible creature looking for better opportunities and not wanting to interfere in order to remain undetected. In those cases, the rule’s assumption is overbroad and, as DM, I can do better to match the circumstance.

Why wouldn't they want to interfere unless you're imposing a downside that isn't contained in the rule? That would be nerfing the player's character for being hidden, which should be a benefit.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

(Emphasis mine) Well, if it is "not anything" it wouldn't inflict a penalty. But, to give a more useful answer:

I mean "not any kind of Action or specific activity". You just have to be hostile and be within 5 feet.

Why is it appropriate that an archer have disadvantage on an attack when a foe is close to them? Especially when this rule applies to archers and not melee combatants?

Because we have many examples in history and simulation (LARPS, SCA, &c.) that it is hard to get a shot off when someone is in your face, especially at a third party.

With you so far, but curious as to how it relates to the question I asked. The above part is not in debate, AFAICT.

This means that someone whose presence would interfere with an archer taking a shot is doing so actively, not passively. They are actively, purposefully interacting with another in a hostile manner. If it was passive the archer would just shoot around them without fear of harm.

Still with you, though during the chaos that is a battle, they could get in your way by accident while fighting someone else, for example. I'm pretty sure I could come up with a few other ways that someone could get in the way, but we might argue that they could be considered cover instead (though again, I would say that quite a few things in the fiction are covered by multiple rules - and some aren't covered at all).

The invisibility spell has as a theme through the editions of "if you mess with someone else you lose the invisibility". There have been many ways to frame and phrase this. This addition goes with the simple "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." Since they are interacting with the archer, however gently pushing the bow, they are adversely affecting another individual. This is enough to disrupt the spell to me.

You can choose that if you like, but I don't see how "gently pushing the bow" (which is still only one of many possibilities) is anything more than (similar to) an object interaction, which clearly does not negate invisibility, or you wouldn't be able to pick stuff up.

But, FWIW, even if someone just stood there in plate armor and you struck or stabbed them with a sword, there is still a VERY good chance your attack would be deflected and/or fail to penetrate the armor entirely. It really was that good.

Maybe if I only had six seconds to do it in, yeah. Much longer, and I'm pretty sure I could find a way through. But I'm sure that we are on the same page - plate does its job very well - still I'm sure you agree that it's important for survival not to stand around during a battle. You have to actively defend yourself, or you die.