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

[dco]

This is absurd.
If you are not being seen you can hide, if something or someone can target you with any sense you can't hide, it is not invisibility, you could unroll a bed sheet in front of you as a free action and the enemy would still hit you, that's not hiding.
The monsters also don't need to be stupid, they should gang the other players, more hits for some players, more deads if they do not try to convince the other player to not hide all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

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

By AD&D RAW, yes. That went away by 3e, though.

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

You can, but that doesn't make them melee combat. I can play with my phone while I am fishing. That doesn't make my phone use fishing.

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.

I left a portion off of my scenario. I had intended to give them time to move, but have them not opt to since they had no idea he could cast spells. As a result, the fighter/magic user had to guess where they are and launch the fireball.

My bad for leaving that part out.

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.

I missed that when you posted it the first time I guess Okay, so we have in the rules that an invisible creature can be attacked if the other side saw it turn invisible, but at a -4 penalty. Why is that? He can't see the invisible creature. It's because he can GUESS where the creature is, having seen it become invisible. Similarly, they should be able to attack at a -4 if they didn't see it happen, but the invisible creature makes noise, revealing it's approximate location that way.

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

It doesn't need to. It's an area spell and the explosion isn't going to go around the elf due the elf being undetectable.

Imaging a situation where there is an invisible creature guarding a doorway. I have no idea that it's there, but I want to get through the wooden door, so I launch a fireball at the door to destroy it. Are you seriously arguing that the invisible creature takes no damage?

 

[seebs]

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.

I am very confused by this. So far as I know, you're allowed to guess and attack blindliy.

 

[Caliban]

I am very confused by this. So far as I know, you're allowed to guess and attack blindliy.

You are. I have no idea what Hriston is going on about.

 

[pemerton]

I am very confused by this. So far as I know, you're allowed to guess and attack blindliy.

We're discussing Gygax's AD&D rules. Pages 60 and 70 of the DMG seem to make it pretty clear that, if an invisible creature is not detected in some way, then no attack is permitted.

The idea of "guessing" as a viable element of an action declaration is a more recent development in the rules.

Okay, so we have in the rules that an invisible creature can be attacked if the other side saw it turn invisible, but at a -4 penalty. Why is that? He can't see the invisible creature. It's because he can GUESS where the creature is, having seen it become invisible.

The last sentence is not a correct account of the relevant AD&D rules.

The reason the character can attack the invisible creature whom s/he saw turn invisible is because s/he KNOWS where the creature is.

Page 70 of the DMG says:

Invisible opponents are always at an advantage. They con only be attacked if they are attacking or otherwise detected somehow. These opponents always cause the attacker to attack at a -4 on “to hit” rolls because of the invisibility. They can never be attacked from flank or rear positions unless the attacker can see them (thus they are, in fact, visible!).​

This passage tells us a few things. First, detecting an invisible creature is a broader concept than seeing an invisible creature. If you can see it, it's not invisible at all (it is, in fact, visible!). Second, if you can detect but not see it, then it is still invisible, gets bonuses, but can be attacked. Third, if you can't detect it, you can't attack it.

Then, going back to p 60, we have:

Once detected, the invisible creature will be kept track of thereafter, as the detector will be able to note the cause. Any attacks incur the -4 penalty of attacking on invisible opponent, of course, and the invisible creature likewise is entitled to +4 on saving throws.​

That is, if an invisible creature is detected, it will be kept track of.

Finally, why is it the case that "if the party is observed doing so [ie turning invisible], there is no reason why an opponent cannot attack with the standard penalty (-4) for inability to see the target"? I think its' pretty clear that this is, likewise, because the opponent who saw the creature turn invisible can keep track of it.

How do you keep track of an invisible creature? Still on p 60, we are told that "[t]his is explainable as the observer's ability to note a minor disturbance in the air - a shimmering or haze - or by keen hearing, and/or keen sense of smell."

It's not guesswork.

 

[Yunru]

But how's that relevant to a DM experiencing a rogue that's constantly hiding?

 

[pemerton]

But how's that relevant to a DM experiencing a rogue that's constantly hiding?

I'm not sure how much of the thread you've read - but it's over 600 posts.

In the coures of those posts, I raised with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] the comparison between the 5e elf's Mask of the Wild ability and the classic D&D ability of elves to become invisible in natural surroundings. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] joined in that converstation, which has moved onto the details of if and how one might declare an attack against an invisible target in Chainmail and AD&D.

 

[Yunru]

I'm not sure how much of the thread you've read - but it's over 600 posts.

In the coures of those posts, I raised with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] the comparison between the 5e elf's Mask of the Wild ability and the classic D&D ability of elves to become invisible in natural surroundings. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] joined in that converstation, which has moved onto the details of if and how one might declare an attack against an invisible target in Chainmail and AD&D.

So you're saying it's been dragged off-topic?

 

[pemerton]

So you're saying it's been dragged off-topic?

No.

In 600 posts of trying to work through how elven hiding in nature works in 5e, it's not off-topic to bring in how other editions have worked.

It's probably not the first thing you'd go to, but if the thread is still active after 600 posts the first things that people have gone to clearly haven't resolved the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Hriston]

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).

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.