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

[UngeheuerLich]

And if they do, does it negate their ability to remain hidden?

Depends. If they end up with an arrow that depending on interpretation vanishes or hangs around in the air after hitting the invisible creature accidently (I don't think that in this case that the AC bonus comes from the effort of the shooter to get around the obstacle).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Why all or nothing? There is an infinity big field to paint different shades of grey.

Right, so why have rules? Why not just write a story and tell it to the players?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not in the slightest. We aren't talking about getting into a wrestling match over the bow, or the like. All that's really needed is the equivalent of something that makes the archer flinch, or glance away for a moment in distraction. It doesn't have say, "YOOHOO I AM HERE!!"

"Gee, the bowstring felt weird just now," does not advertise someone present.

If you want to get technical, the rule doesn't say the hostile standing next to you has to do anything at all, coming up with something is fun and all but not required for the RAW folks?

Technically a wizard can teleport his invisible toad familiar at the feet of the archer and the archer would still have disadvantage while the toad stood there eating a worm or something.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I can. I just don't think that the invisible and hidden creature can do it easily without being detected or actually hurting themselves. Hence the roll.

Makes sense. When the outcome is uncertain then let the dice tell you is 100% D&D. (I think this one transcends playstyle differences, by itself, but I suppose I could be wrong.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Technically a wizard can teleport his invisible toad familiar at the feet of the archer and the archer would still have disadvantage while the toad stood there eating a worm or something.

Haw! A good example of how ridiculous it can get if you let it!

"You have disadvantage on your crossbow attack! Why? Because the toad is there. What's it doing? Eating a worm! But it's HOSTILE while doing it!"

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Haw! A good example of how ridiculous it can get if you let it!

"You have disadvantage on your crossbow attack! Why? Because the toad is there. What's it doing? Eating a worm! But it's HOSTILE while doing it!"

I can see this spinning into a whole "that's no normal toad....look at it" waste of 45 minutes!

 

[Hriston]

Part of the point of tabletop RPGs which use a GM is to utilize the judgement of that GM to adjudicate corner cases where the rules do not adequately or accurately represent the fiction envisioned by the folks at the table.

Speaking as a DM, I have explained what I understand the rules in question to be representing in the fiction. I try to make sure I'm on the same page as my players about that, so they can make meaningful decisions. If my explanation doesn't make sense to them, I'm certainly open to appeals and alternate explanations.

Can you explain what you think the rules are representing in the fiction, and where I've imagined incorrectly in post #49?

The rule represents that when an enemy is next to you (meeting the conditions described in the rule), the difficulty of making a ranged attack is increased. It doesn't describe and need not represent any specific fictitious causal process whereby this increase has occurred. That's something for the group and DM to come up with as needed on a case by case basis.

Where I think you've gone wrong in post #49 is by assuming the attacker is necessarily distracted by the nearby hostile creature. That's a fine thing to imagine in some cases but is inconsistent with the established fiction that the creature is hidden because it would require the attacker to notice the hidden creature in some way.

My recommendation would be to follow the procedure given in the rule. I.e. impose disadvantage on the roll and allow the resolution of the attack to occur. Then, if the attack misses and a fictional justification for that event is desired, invent one that is consistent with the established fiction.

 

[DND_Reborn]

"You have disadvantage on your crossbow attack! Why? Because the toad is there. What's it doing? Eating a worm! But it's HOSTILE while doing it!"

Is it a vicious toad, with long, pointy teeth?

Is so, the archer should be very afraid.

Is

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rule represents that when an enemy is next to you (meeting the conditions described in the rule), the difficulty of making a ranged attack is increased. It doesn't describe and need not represent any specific fictitious causal process whereby this increase has occurred. That's something for the group and DM to come up with as needed on a case by case basis.

Where I think you've gone wrong in post #49 is by assuming the attacker is necessarily distracted by the nearby hostile creature. That's a fine thing to imagine in some cases but is inconsistent with the established fiction that the creature is hidden because it would require the attacker to notice the hidden creature in some way.

My recommendation would be to follow the procedure given in the rule. I.e. impose disadvantage on the roll and allow the resolution of the attack to occur. Then, if the attack misses and a fictional justification for that event is desired, invent one that is consistent with the established fiction.

We fundamentally disagree what the purpose of RPG rules is. To me their purpose is to be a mechanical representation of the fictional reality. If the fictional situation doesn't warrant the rule to be used, then it isn't.

 

[Hriston]

Probably. But if you hit anyway, why bother. I would probably only give that explanation if you hit with one die, but miss with the other.

Right, so asking the player to roll with disadvantage doesn't create a contradiction within the established fiction. It's just part of resolving their declaration to attack. There can be all sorts of circumstances that cause disadvantage, many of which are hidden from the players.