D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[Yunru]

Not in AD&D (1e), which is what we're talking about. They can only be blindly attacked (with a -4 penalty) if they are detected, which is the equivalent to attacking an invisible creature that isn't hidden with disadvantage in 5e. In 5e, if the creature is hidden, you can still aim an attack at a location where you think the creature might be, but in 1e a benefit of a character being invisible and undetected is that it can't be attacked at all.

Even then Rule 0 should apply. If I (accidently) engulf a room in flames that contains an undetected elf, should the elf not still get burned?

 

[Maxperson]

Even then Rule 0 should apply. If I (accidently) engulf a room in flames that contains an undetected elf, should the elf not still get burned?

It does. The no attack rule is in melee{hand heldd and ranged weapon) combat. Spells with area affects are not subject to it.

 

[Hriston]

It does. The no attack rule is in melee{hand heldd and ranged weapon) combat. Spells with area affects are not subject to it.

Melee (the striking of blows, etc.) is distinct from missile discharge, which is not melee. That's one of the reasons I find your interpretation of p. 70 ridiculous. It means I can shoot an arrow at a spot where I suspect there are hidden invisible elves, but I can't swing a sword at the same spot.

 

[Maxperson]

Melee (the striking of blows, etc.) is distinct from missile discharge, which is not melee. That's one of the reasons I find your interpretation of p. 70 ridiculous. It means I can shoot an arrow at a spot where I suspect there are hidden invisible elves, but I can't swing a sword at the same spot.

No more ridiculous than not being able to guess where an invisible elf is. If you can accept the one absurdity, why not both? There's no good reason for a melee combatant to be unable to guess and swing, and maybe hit an invisible elf.

 

[Hriston]

No more ridiculous than not being able to guess where an invisible elf is. If you can accept the one absurdity, why not both? There's no good reason for a melee combatant to be unable to guess and swing, and maybe hit an invisible elf.

One perfectly good reason I can think of for Gygax to have made invisible undetected creatures unable to be attacked by any attack form is that it separates player knowledge from character knowledge. The player might know where the creature is due to its appearance as a miniature on the gaming table for example, but the character is unable to act on such knowledge because the creature's hidden status makes such actions impermissible.

 

[Maxperson]

One perfectly good reason I can think of for Gygax to have made invisible undetected creatures unable to be attacked by any attack form is that it separates player knowledge from character knowledge.

That's nonsensical, though. There are craptons of ways that player and character knowledge aren't separated that Gygax could have made absurd rules for, but didn't. Besides, the player isn't going to know where the invisible elf is. Only the DM will unless the PC can detect it. In any case, the player is using PC knowledge to attack a square, as in there is no knowledge that either the PC or player has about the elf's location. That's why it's called a guess.

The player might know where the creature is due to its appearance as a miniature on the gaming table for example, but the character is unable to act on such knowledge because the creature's hidden status makes such actions impermissible.

That's the DM's fault. 1e didn't assume the use of miniatures, so it doesn't make sense for Gygax to make a rule just in case some groups use them AND the DMs of those groups were too lazy to remove the mini while it was invisible.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

One perfectly good reason I can think of for Gygax to have made invisible undetected creatures unable to be attacked by any attack form is that it separates player knowledge from character knowledge. The player might know where the creature is due to its appearance as a miniature on the gaming table for example, but the character is unable to act on such knowledge because the creature's hidden status makes such actions impermissible.

Good point, that's how most wargames handle "hidden" miniatures.

 

[Maxperson]

Good point, that's how most wargames handle "hidden" miniatures.

D&D is not a wargame. If the AD&D rule was implemented in order to keep player and PC knowledge separate, it assumes 3 things.

1) The table is using miniatures, and most 1e games I played in didn't use them.

2) The DM is too lazy to remove the miniature. All the 1e games I did play in that used minis, removed invisible ones from the table.

3) In the event the DM really is too lazy to just remove the mini, the players will cheat and/or are too incompetent to keep the knowledge separate.

Those three things make the reason put forth by [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] a bad one. Is it a reason? Sure. But it's not a good reason at all. I still maintain that there is no good reason why a PC can't guess at the location of an invisible creature.

 

[Yunru]

One perfectly good reason I can think of for Gygax to have made invisible undetected creatures unable to be attacked by any attack form is that it separates player knowledge from character knowledge. The player might know where the creature is due to its appearance as a miniature on the gaming table for example, but the character is unable to act on such knowledge because the creature's hidden status makes such actions impermissible.

I just don't move it from where it turned invisible until it's discovered again. Which I find to be a much neater solution.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

D&D is not a wargame.

AD&D was widely considered a wargame in its day.