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

[Plaguescarred]

Very little can end the Invisibility (and not most other feature or effect granting the invisible condition) which occur when one attacks or casts a spell. Most other actions including imposing disadvantage to ranged attackers within 5 feet is not listed. Anything else is DM Fiat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Very little can end the Invisibility (and not most other feature or effect granting the invisible condition) which occur when one attacks or casts a spell. Most other actions including imposing disadvantage to ranged attackers within 5 feet is not listed. Anything else is DM Fiat.

Noone argues that you lose the invisible status. There is a discussion if you lose the hidden status going on. Or better more or less resolved.

 

[Hriston]

Here's an alternate way to think about the rules in question here.

Tom and Jerry are having an archery contest. Three shots and highest score wins. Tom has no idea who Jerry is. Jerry knows that Tom killed his master and burned down his dojo. Jerry is hostile to Tom.

Tom and Jerry line up next to each other and turn to shoot at their targets.

Do you impose disadvantage on Toms shot because Jerry is within 5' and hostile to Tom?

Are Tom and Jerry in combat? Are they attacking someone? If not, then why would you use a rule for resolving attacks in combat?

 

[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.

I think I'm reconsidering my position a little bit based on this phrasing from the PHB:
"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Of course, an invisible, hidden PC within 5' of an enemy need not Attack to impose disadvantage on the enemy's ranged attack, so perhaps they are not automatically giving away their position. I think based on the potential subtlety used to impose said disadvantage, I might rule that the PC needs to succeed on a Dex(Stealth) check vs the enemy's Passive Wis(Perception) in order to remain hidden after imposing disadvantage.

Flip the scenario around - I'm going to call for disadvantage on the PC's attack roll, telegraphing to the player that "something or someone nearby distracted the PC" thereby giving away the enemy's location. It really is such an edge case that I don't mind such a slight discrepancy in ruling between PC and NPC/monster.

In both situations, the PC or NPC/monster can choose to remain hidden if they forego imposing disadvantage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Are Tom and Jerry in combat? Are they attacking someone? If not, then why would you use a rule for resolving attacks in combat?

Now we are starting to not applying universal rules, are we?

But change the arrangement and both are standing next to each other, shooting at goblins.

 

[Irlo]

Here's an alternate way to think about the rules in question here.

Tom and Jerry are having an archery contest. Three shots and highest score wins. Tom has no idea who Jerry is. Jerry knows that Tom killed his master and burned down his dojo. Jerry is hostile to Tom.

Tom and Jerry line up next to each other and turn to shoot at their targets.

Do you impose disadvantage on Toms shot because Jerry is within 5' and hostile to Tom?

The rules do not as far as I know define “hostile,” so whether Jerry’s animosity toward Tom is considered hostility, in game parlance, is a judgment call. As a DM I generally would limit “hostile” to mean “in active conflict” rather than just “I-hates-them.”

So no, I wouldn’t impose disadvantage in that situation.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The Tom and Jerry example is a good one to illustrate how pure RAW rulings can be silly, but it's not a good thing to base any kind of actual argument on. I wouldn't jump on the bait on that hook, if I were you. I think we'd be hard pressed to find any DM who would give out disadvantage in that so-rare-its-non-existent scenario.

I mean, our original scenario is rare enough!

 

[Maxperson]

I’m going to buck the trend here. The reason you have disadvantage when a hostile creature is adjacent to you is because it’s somehow interfering with your ability to get off a normal shot. If you don’t even know it’s there, exactly how is it interfering? It‘s not. So as a DM, I’m not imposing disadvantage for an undetected, invisible foe next to a shooter.

This.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I don't think one is slave to the other unless there is a disconnect created.

If an enemy is standing in front of the archer waving his hands all up in his grill and nothing happened, it would be like, "What? Why is he able to shoot so easily with me in his grill like that?" That creates a disconnect because the fiction is doing something significant and the rules are doing nothing.

If an invisible enemy is standing next to the archer doing absolutely nothing and you impose disadvantage, it would be like, "What? Why am I getting disadvantage? Nothing is happening to cause it."

In order for things to work smoothly, the fiction and the mechanics must match. You need equality for everything to make sense and work well. One should not be the slave to the other.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The Tom and Jerry example is a good one to illustrate how pure RAW rulings can be silly, but it's not a good thing to base any kind of actual argument on. I wouldn't jump on the bait on that hook, if I were you. I think we'd be hard pressed to find any DM who would give out disadvantage in that so-rare-its-non-existent scenario.

I mean, our original scenario is rare enough!

That's the idea, though. To point out how strict RAW play can lead to really dumb things happening in a game.

Like coffelocks, simulacrum abuse, bags of rats, peasant ion cannons, and darkness spells that can be used as light.