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

[Hriston]

Nobody is saying anything different from “that’s not the only way to play D&D”, we’re just doing it with a different approach than you.

It is how Dungeons and Dragons has been played since the earliest sessions. I'm not sure what game your group is playing.

This sounds like someone saying something different to me.

That would be a misinterpretation. There’s nothing about the players not being in control of their attitude toward their foe. Rather, if they’re not doing anything to interfere or indicate their presence because they are still trying to remain unobserved, they are, in fact, the ones saying their actions aren’t doing anything to warrant application of the rule.

A hostile creature opposes the actions of those toward which they are hostile. Therefore, it cannot be both true that the player is in control of the PC's attitude AND the PC is doing nothing to warrant application of the rule regardless of what the player says. Requiring a PC to become unhidden in order to control their PC's attitude and have access to the normal rules of the game to which any other character has access is not honoring the success of the PC in becoming hidden.

 

[Hriston]

Sorry if I couldn't make it as clear as I wished. But trust me, it is very different to your approach.

Okay, how do you think it's different?

 

[billd91]

A hostile creature opposes the actions of those toward which they are hostile. Therefore, it cannot be both true that the player is in control of the PC's attitude AND the PC is doing nothing to warrant application of the rule regardless of what the player says. Requiring a PC to become unhidden in order to control their PC's attitude and have access to the normal rules of the game to which any other character has access is not honoring the success of the PC in becoming hidden.

Another misinterpretation. A hostile creature holds a hostile attitude but doesn’t need to engage in hostile action. They don’t need to become unhidden to be hostile, they need to give me a reason other than their unobtrusive presence to impose disadvantage.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Got into a discussion with my DM. I was invisible, hidden and standing next to an archer. When he fired at an ally of mine I reminded the DM the attack is with disadvantage. DM said if he does not know I am there it should not be disadvantage. We talked about it, ultimately he made the attack with disadvantage.

I think that is the right answer RAW, correct?

This creates an interesting dynamic though. IF I turn it around and imagining I am the archer as a player and the DM tells me I have disadvantage and I say "why" and he says enemy within 5 feet, then I immediately know there is an enemy near me. Can I move and take the shot from somewhere else based on knowing someone is near me when I don't know anyone is near me? Can I pullout a melee weapon and dodge? This is the case of a mechanic (disadvantage) alerting me of something I would not otherwise know.

I think it may be RAW, but I would not inflict disadvantage upon the archer.

Why does the archer have disadvantage? What is this rule simulating? I would submit that the rule is there because using a bow is difficult when an opponent is trying to disrupt the shot, either by striking the bow, forcing the archer to move in defense complicating the shot, &c. The point being that it is not a passive complication but an active one. If the character is just standing there unperceivable there is no distraction.

Now, if the character decides it is important enough to impose disadvantage, they can interfere with the shot. This is close enough to an attack that I would rule that the invisibility is lost.

Now, if the invisibility is of a "predator" type, where there is a chance to perceive distortions when the character moves, then I can see where you would have both- the archer is at disadvantage because they can perceive something hostile nearby, but also target the character at disadvantage because of the invisibility.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Okay, how do you think it's different?

You have rules as master and fiction as slave. For me it is the opposite.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One of the things that I dislike about D&D (and I love D&D like I love nothing else, so bear with me!) is how much the rules often make it seem like people are standing around doing nothing. I long ago reconciled that with myself by assuming that it's not true.

It's clearly not true. It's just a trap that we can find ourselves in if we take certain parts of the rules too literally. For example: You don't have to do anything to be missed by an attack while you're wearing heavy armor, If the attacker rolls below your AC, you are missed. In "real life" (and it's always dangerous to compare D&D to reall life, I know) if I had a sword, and you were wearing plate mail, and you just stood there while I attacked you, I WOULD KILL YOU. You have to defend yourself. You have to do everything you can to defend yourself. Or you die. Plate mail just helps. It helps a lot. But it doesn't do the job for you.

So if we assume that there is a lot going on that the rules don't directly speak to, which I think is fair, then we have near unlimited possibilities.

The rules connect to the fiction, sure, but only very loosely. It's such a delicate connection that it's worth having them very nearly unnconnected to free up head-space for story possibilities.

I also don't like how "misses" in D&D often feel like incompetence on the part of the attacker, rather than competence on the part of the defender. So I encourage people to flip it around in their heads. An attacker NEVER misses. A defender DEFENDS.

To use an extreme example, I will often describe a defender getting "missed" like this:

Attacker (with a sword) attacks and misses.
Defender (with a shield)... "Smashed the attacker in the face with (his) shield".

I'm sure to many of you here - that sounds "wrong". It sounds like an attack. Shouldn't there be damage involved? Yeah, yeah. No. The attacker missed the defender's AC. That's all that happened in the "rules" of the "game".

But in the story of the game, the attack missed because the attacker got hit in the face with a shield. (Though I will admit, not hard enough to lose any HP, you see, just hard enough to miss.) Because HP is an abstraction. Everything in the game is. You can describe anything however you want, so why not?

I'm sure this counts as a "playstyle" that's not for everyone, and that's fine. But I find it fun. You might too if you tried it. Or not. Who knows?

But it's a really easy way to reconcile the "problem" of this thread. The attacker attacks. The defender defends. The invisible guy does whatever he can to turn that roll into a miss. He doesn't give away his position while doing it because that's what the rule says it does. The game and the fiction only loosely interact. I'm not saying "don't describe what happens" FAR from it. I'm saying "describe it however you like".
rreens off

Maybe the attacker shoots and the arrow splits in half in mid-air. Attacker has no idea why.
Maybe it's defected so subtly that it looks like it was just a bad shot.
Maybe the bow keeps dipping down.
Maybe... I could go on for pages. You might like a few of them, you might hate them all. I dunno.

You have rules as master and fiction as slave. For me it is the opposite.

Seeing as I probably do things very similarly to Hriston, I would object to this characterization of that style. Because I can tell you... my fiction is not slave to the rules. Not a bit of it. (As I hope the above might illustrate).

The rules HAVE (almost) NO POWER over the fiction.

Unlike your way (as I see it) where the power dynamic is there, so you are forced to change rules to avoid them mastering the fiction. this way it seems to me like the rules have more power over your fiction than mine do. You just punish them for it!

 

[Hriston]

Another misinterpretation. A hostile creature holds a hostile attitude but doesn’t need to engage in hostile action.

It isn't a misinterpretation. The rule assumes the hostile creature does something to make the attack more difficult. It assumes this because it has already been established that the creature is hostile to the attacker.

They don’t need to become unhidden to be hostile, they need to give me a reason other than their unobtrusive presence to impose disadvantage.

That's fine. I'd also ask the player to narrate how they impose disadvantage on the attack without giving away their location. If the hidden creature's an NPC, I'd provide that narration myself.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Seeing as I probably do things very similarly to Hriston, I would object to this characterization of that style. Because I can tell you... my fiction is not slave to the rules. Not a bit of it. (As I hope the above might illustrate).

The rules HAVE (almost) NO POWER over the fiction.

Unlike your way (as I see it) where the power dynamic is there, so you are forced to change rules to avoid them mastering the fiction. this way it seems to me like the rules have more power over your fiction than mine do. You just punish them for it!

Extrapolating from that one example is risky. Usually I play rules as written.
I just sometimes decide that if a rule that forces me into fiction I or maybe even the player does not want, to just not apply it.

In this case, the player might not want to risk losin his hidden status (maybe not closing to 5ft).

But yes, we are running around in circles. If I misinterpreted Hristons words, I am sorry. But that was how I understood his elaborations.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's fine. I'd also ask the player to narrate how they impose disadvantage on the attack without giving away their location. If the hidden creature's an NPC, I'd provide that narration myself.

I don't object anything you write here. I would do it exactly as you do.

 

[billd91]

It isn't a misinterpretation. The rule assumes the hostile creature does something to make the attack more difficult. It assumes this because it has already been established that the creature is hostile to the attacker.

The rule assumes that, yes, and that makes perfect sense for a visible, hostile creature. Being invisible, however, opens additional possibilities, such as the invisible creature looking for better opportunities and not wanting to interfere in order to remain undetected. In those cases, the rule’s assumption is overbroad and, as DM, I can do better to match the circumstance.