D&D 5E (2014) DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[Yunru]

Elves aren't transparent, they're karma chameleons.

 

[Plaguescarred]

What happens if a wood elf hides in light foliage, and a Halfling then hides behind the Elf?

I believe the halfling should be able to hide behind a hidden creature but not an invisible one.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] and I were discussing the capacity, in Chainmail and 1st ed AD&D, of elves to become invisible - because this is the precursor, in the game, of Mask of the Wild. That was the context in which Maxperson denied that a Fireball spell counts as an attack. And you stepped into that discussion.

And more generally: the thread is at nearly 600 posts. You shouldn't be that shocked if some of the aspects of the discussion have strayed from what you would regard as central to the issue!

Just for clarity. I was arguing that a fireball is an attack and so combat is still taking place. [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] was arguing that it was not an attack, or maybe that it was an attack and since you can't attack an elf, the fireball mystically bends itself around an invisible elf. Not sure which.

 

[Hriston]

I think this is the bit that I couldn't find when I was looking for it a couple of months ago!

It isn't exactly clear what that line's intention is. It appears just beneath Attack Matrix 1.: Men Attacking, but it would be quite odd if it only applied when men and not when non-human monsters were attacking. Another possibility, however, is that it only applies to the alternate system. Evidence against that possibility is to be found in the arrangement of the Statistics Regarding Classes table on p. 17, in which the "Dice for Accumulative Hits" column is found right next to the "Fighting Capability" column which clearly refers to Chainmail, suggesting that the two (Hit Dice and Chainmail) are meant to work together.

The article, "Questions Most Frequently Asked About Dungeons & Dragons Rules", appearing on p. 3 of Strategic Review #2, makes it clear that hit damage is to be used in both fantastic and normal combat, but is still a little unclear if this applies to Chainmail or only to the alternate system.

 

[Hriston]

There is no such idea in existence. At least not in the rules. An elf can go "invisible" and not move from that spot. A fireball can be cast at or near that spot.

Only if the elf is invisible but not hidden, as per the DMG passage I've already quoted up-thread: "[Invisible opponents] can only be attacked if they are attacking or otherwise detected somehow." I thought you agreed that casting fireball is attacking.

Mini game rules are designed with different goals than RPG rules. Something that makes sense in a miniatures wargame(can't attack an invisible target), no longer makes sense in an RPG and is changed.

Except that it doesn't change between Chainmail and the DMG. You still can't attack an invisible and undetected (hidden) target, as it says in the rule I've quoted twice now.

So you're claiming that a fireball or cloudkill spell cast 5 feet from an invisible elf misses because the elf is fast?

No, I'm saying that an invisible and undetected creature cannot be attacked. There is no contingency for guessing in AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if the elf is invisible but not hidden, as per the DMG passage I've already quoted up-thread: "[Invisible opponents] can only be attacked if they are attacking or otherwise detected somehow." I thought you agreed that casting fireball is attacking.

You failed to prove anything other than in melee combat they can't be attacked. Spells are not a part of melee combat. Also, fireball is an "attack", but not an attack. The quotes mean that it qualifies for things like invisibility which refer to anything hostile and dangerous, but not for melee combat which is specifically called out by invisibility.

Consider the following situation. 6 elves are attacking a fighter/magic user and are unaware of the magic user part. They retreat back to a tree and fade from view while being observed. The fighter/magic user still being in combat lobs a fireball at a point near the tree. A second later a ball of fire blossoms and we now have 6 dead elves, nice and crispy. Combat is ended at that moment and not before.

Except that it doesn't change between Chainmail and the DMG. You still can't attack an invisible and undetected (hidden) target, as it says in the rule I've quoted twice now.

Quote something other than melee combat rules will ya? Melee combat rules don't apply to spells and never have.

No, I'm saying that an invisible and undetected creature cannot be attacked. There is no contingency for guessing in AD&D.

Sure there is. From the 1e PHB.

"The magic-user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball."

There is no requirement that it target anything. The magic user is allowed to guess anything he wants prior to picking the distance and height.

 

[Hriston]

You failed to prove anything other than in melee combat they can't be attacked.

So we agree that against an opponent with only melee capability an invisible and undetected elf cannot be attacked.

Spells are not a part of melee combat.

You can cast spells during melee, however. See the section on "Casting Spells During Melee" on p. 65 of the DMG.

Also, fireball is an "attack", but not an attack. The quotes mean that it qualifies for things like invisibility which refer to anything hostile and dangerous, but not for melee combat which is specifically called out by invisibility.

You're going to have to explain this distinction a little further. I don't see anything like it in AD&D where the word attack seems to have its natural language meaning and isn't a term of game jargon. In fact, on p. 80 of the DMG, you'll find fireball, yes "the magical fireball" listed as a form of attack along with other magical effects and blows from opponents, among other things.

Consider the following situation. 6 elves are attacking a fighter/magic user and are unaware of the magic user part. They retreat back to a tree and fade from view while being observed. The fighter/magic user still being in combat lobs a fireball at a point near the tree. A second later a ball of fire blossoms and we now have 6 dead elves, nice and crispy. Combat is ended at that moment and not before.

This scenario shows that you haven't understood what I've been saying. Maybe that's my fault for not explaining things well enough. The elves in your scenario, although invisible, are not undetected precisely because they are observed while
becoming invisible. Therefore, they can be attacked in the way you describe. What I've been arguing is that the elves, if undetected, could not be attacked.

Quote something other than melee combat rules will ya? Melee combat rules don't apply to spells and never have.

I already have, but I'll post it again since you seem to have already forgotten it. This is from p. 60 of the DMG, under the heading Invisibility: "... if the party is observed [becoming invisible], there is no reason why an opponent cannot attack..." This statement assumes that normally, if the party is not observed becoming invisible (or is not detected in any other way) then there is a reason why an opponent cannot attack. Notice that this rule is not qualified by any reference to melee whatsoever.

Sure there is. From the 1e PHB.

"The magic-user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball."

There is no requirement that it target anything. The magic user is allowed to guess anything he wants prior to picking the distance and height.

The spell doesn't give the magic-user the ability to detect a hidden elf.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]:

Would it be fair to describe your understanding of the relevant AD&D rules in thie following way?

The rules state that an invisible creature cannot be attacked. This rule is not a prediction about, nor a prescription of, how things work in the gameworld. It is not the case that invisible elves are fireproof in the fiction. Rather, the rule operates at the metagame level to constrain permissible action declarations and/or determine the outcome of their resolution. So, suppose a magic-user has reason to think there are invisible elves about in the woods (let's say her monk companion spoke to some animals). In the fiction, nothing stops the magic-user from guessing where the elves might be and unleashing a fireball there. But, at the table, the rules dictate that whereever (in the fiction) it was that the MU guessed, that wasn't the place where the elves were hiding.​

Is that a fair account?

 

[Hriston]

Yes, the same as if the monk tries to open hand attack a spot where she thinks the elves might be. Without detection the elves cannot be attacked.

 

[Yunru]

Yes, the same as if the monk tries to open hand attack a spot where she thinks the elves might be. Without detection the elves cannot be attacked.

Sure they can, they can be blindly attacked. Of course, the elf's only going to be hit if it is in that spot (assuming open hand doesn't require a visible target specifically).