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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

As I stated later, I was simplifying it very heavily. I want to create fiction in my groip, and the rules are there to help. As soon as the rules are a hindrance instead of help, it is time to use the right of the DM to overule the abstract rules written by D&D designers who can't pedict every single situation that may arise in out games (even if the rules were 1000 pages long or more).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@Hriston

Lets see what the designers have to say about the role of the rules and the DM and rulings in the newest stormwreck starter set.

Look under "be fair and flexible".

 

[Plaguescarred]

The rules do not as far as I know define “hostile,”

Here is what the rules say about hostile;

Social Interactions: In general terms, an NPC’s attitude toward you is described as friendly, indifferent, or hostile. Friendly NPCs are predisposed to help you, and hostile ones are inclined to get in your way. It’s easier to get what you want from a friendly NPC, of course.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm saying that's not the only way to play D&D.

No. What you said upthread was doing it the way others were saying and not you was not playing any game at all, but the DM having a storytime where they dictated what was happening to the players.

Well, you can spend your time however and call it whatever you want, but it doesn't sound like playing any sort of game to me. It sounds like the players are all gathering around for DM storytime.

When you have to make that tired and ridiculous hyperbolic jump in your argument from ignoring one rule equals throwing out all the rules and it's now dictating a story... for my money your opinion is not worth bothering with.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Largely agree.

If I were playing in or running a game in which we decided to play it RAW and have Hidden invisible creatures still hinder adjacent enemies' shooting, I would have to adopt Hriston and Fitz' approach of treating this as a "Fortune in the Middle" situation. We know how the rule works- so we have to see how the roll goes and retroactively interpret it. If they miss due to Disadvantage, the invisible foe MUST have done something to interfere with the shot. So we'd create that fiction.

I can do this. I was content with Warlords in 4E giving non-magical healing from a distance, which often requires similar retroactive fiction ("Ah, that HP damage wasn't a significant physical wound; it was mostly bruising and shock/stun, which the Warlord helps their friend shake off and fight through"). It's a little counter-intuitive, though.

And while (thanks to Fitz' examples) I can picture relatively subtle ways an invisible foe could potentially interfere with a shot without revealing themselves, I still think the RAW fails with regards to non-invisible Hidden foes. I picture the hobbits hiding under the roots/edge of the embankment at the roadside when the Nazgul comes by and nearly finds them in Fellowship of the Ring. If that Nazgul were to spot some other enemy and make a ranged attack while the hobbits were hiding right there under its nose, how could they possibly interfere with the shot without revealing themselves?

 

[Maxperson]

If I were playing in or running a game in which we decided to play it RAW and have Hidden invisible creatures still hinder adjacent enemies' shooting, I would have to adopt Hriston and Fitz' approach of treating this as a "Fortune in the Middle" situation. We know how the rule works- so we have to see how the roll goes and retroactively interpret it. If they miss due to Disadvantage, the invisible foe MUST have done something to interfere with the shot. So we'd create that fiction.

That really wouldn't sit well with me as a player if as in the OP, I was hiding. Hiding = trying hard to not let others know you are there. If the creature missed due to the disadvantage and suddenly my PC is interfering enough to give that disadvantage, my hiding is gone and what I as the player/PC wanted has been tossed out of the window. The enemy now knows that I am there.

And while (thanks to Fitz' examples) I can picture relatively subtle ways an invisible foe could potentially interfere with a shot without revealing themselves, I still think the RAW fails with regards to non-invisible Hidden foes. I picture the hobbits hiding under the roots/edge of the embankment at the roadside when the Nazgul comes by and nearly finds them in Fellowship of the Ring. If that Nazgul were to spot some other enemy and make a ranged attack while the hobbits were hiding right there under its nose, how could they possibly interfere with the shot without revealing themselves?

If you're talking about these, all of them give away that someone is there invisible. Or at a minimum give a roll with advantage to detect the hidden creature.

"Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?"

 

[Mannahnin]

That really wouldn't sit well with me as a player if as in the OP, I was hiding. Hiding = trying hard to not let others know you are there. If the creature missed due to the disadvantage and suddenly my PC is interfering enough to give that disadvantage, my hiding is gone and what I as the player/PC wanted has been tossed out of the window. The enemy now knows that I am there.

Obviously we'd need to communicate at the table to get everyone on the same page.

As DM I might say something like, "Note that the rules make no exception for the Hidden condition, so that means you get to interfere with adjacent enemies' shooting even while Invisible and Hidden. We therefore assume that in the fiction you're doing something subtle and non-obvious to interfere in that situation. Please note that bad guys will be be able to do this to you too." I would probably also specifically rule that they can choose NOT to do this if they don't want to give any clues to their position.

If you're talking about these, all of them give away that someone is there invisible. Or at a minimum give a roll with advantage to detect the hidden creature.

"Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?"

I agree that most of those from Fitz' original example list would almost certainly give away position. Whether just slightly pushing on the bow or, e.g., putting my staff against the side of the arrow shaft just before it's released would necessarily give away position is debatable, especially if the battlefield has other noise and chaos going on.

Note that I'm just explaining how I would interpret the fiction if my table chose to run it RAW. I agree that it's counter-intuitive, and I'd generally support an explicit house rule exception to the rule, for hidden combatants.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Yes, that was my point as well. We agree.

No. What you said upthread was doing it the way others were saying and not you was not playing any game at all, but the DM having a storytime where they dictated what was happening to the players.


Yeah, he got a little carried away in trying to make his point.

That really wouldn't sit well with me as a player if as in the OP, I was hiding. Hiding = trying hard to not let others know you are there. If the creature missed due to the disadvantage and suddenly my PC is interfering enough to give that disadvantage, my hiding is gone and what I as the player/PC wanted has been tossed out of the window. The enemy now knows that I am there.

If you're talking about these, all of them give away that someone is there invisible. Or at a minimum give a roll with advantage to detect the hidden creature.

"Why would it do that? What if invisible guy just uses one hand to tug your bow down slightly? Step on your foot? Whisper in your ear? Tickle you? Poke you?"

Only if you choose to make those things reveal you. I mean, obviously you feel that they should and that's fine. All of those are things that theoretically could reveal you, but there's no reason that they automatically have to.

I would just interpret it that in that exact particular moment, they don't. For the sake of using the rule and moving on. If the situation came up a lot, I might rethink it.

(Or maybe I'd come up with a better description that's less likely to reveal you, as all of those were off-the-top of my head examples (some jokes) in the moment - some are better than others).

I honestly think that we all generally do the same things, it's just a matter of degree as to how far we'd stretch it before resorting to ignoring/changing rules.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to ignore/change rules very often (nearly never) because I'm fine with (and enjoy) coming up with story that allows things to happen the way they sometimes do. I don't agree (at all) that that approach would make the story slave to the rules. I feel it's the opposite.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I agree that most of those from Fitz' original example list would almost certainly give away position.

Let's talk about that for a moment, because I both agree and disagree. I mean, a bunch of approaches would give away that something is there, but would they automatically reveal an invisible creature? Let's go through a few ideas (not necessarily form my first list, because I don't stand by all of them).

1) Gettin' in your face.
I think this is the standard method most of us use to describe the reason for disadvantage when you're NOT invisible or hidden. You yell, swing a melee weapon around, whatever. Right? Obviously if you did THAT while hidden (invisible or not) you'd reveal yourself.

2) Blocking the shot.
Another idea is that you're so close to the ranged attacker, that blocking the shot (with a shield, weapon, or (in the case of monks, say) striking the "arrow" (or whatever it is) out of the air.

Aside: IRL, I've trained in blocking arrows with a staff. One of the methods, is simply to hold the staff out in front of you upright (bottom forward). IF an arrow strikes the staff, it will deflect around you. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Let's say that happens in our game scenario (it should become quickly apparent that there could be limitless examples based on the combination of attacker/defender, etc) but for now. Arrow vs Staff. Depending on exactly how the arrow deflects off the staff, it might not even be obvious to the shooter what happened. Their arrow left their bow, and went slightly the wrong way. Maybe it made a head-on-wood ping/scrape, but then, your bow should just have finished making it's twang. Can you hear it over that? Do you automatically know that there's a guy with a staff? Do you think you screwed up your shot? We have no way of knowing. In fact, we (as storytellers) get to choose.

Again, this is also dependent on who is the player and who is the monster. It's easier if the shooter is the monster. The DM can just describe him going "WTF?" and move on. The player can feel good about themselves. If it's the other way around, you can tell the player "roll with disadvantage". They roll low. Your arrow deflects left. They can choose if they think that it means there's an invisible creature there and search, or not. It'll be up to them.

Maybe I'll come back and do some more ideas, but I've run out of time. Let me know what you think of that, first.

 

[ECMO3]

Aside: IRL, I've trained in blocking arrows with a staff. One of the methods, is simply to hold the staff out in front of you upright (bottom forward). IF an arrow strikes the staff, it will deflect around you. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

How many times have you done this? Did it hurt when the arrow did not hit the staff?