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

[Hriston]

This is an inference on your part, same as mine.

Let me try to lay out both our arguments in a premise/conclusion format.

Hriston Premise 1: The rules state that a hostile creature within 5' imposes disadvantage on ranged attacks.
Hriston Premise 2: There is no exception stated for Hidden foes.
Hriston Conclusion 1: A ranged attacker with a hidden foe within 5' suffers disadvantage.
Hriston Corollary 1: The designers intended for Hidden foes to interfere with shots in the exact same way as obvious threats.
Hirston Corollary 2: The designers intended this to be an example of Fortune-in-the-middle design, where the rule comes before the fiction, and we create fiction to match it.

Mannahnin Premise 1: The rules state that a hostile creature within 5' imposes disadvantage on ranged attacks.
Mannahnin Premise 2: This appears intended to represent the fiction that with an immediate threat in melee reach, a ranged attacker will be distracted defending themselves and unable to optimally aim and fire their ranged weapon.
Mannahnin Premise 3: If a Hidden creature makes its presence known/draws attention to itself, it loses the Hidden status.
Mannahnin Premise 4: Actively touching and interfering with the body or equipment of an enemy is consistently something which has to be declared as an action, and involves some sort of roll, in D&D.
Mannahnin Premise 5: Nearly all mechanics in D&D employ Fortune at the End; we establish the fiction, and the rules follow from and implement that.
Mannahnin Premise 6: 5E is deliberately written with simpler, less exhaustive language than the two prior WotC editions, intending to leverage player "common sense" to adjudicate corner cases and unusual situations.
Mannahnin Conclusion 1: While the rule for nearby hostile creatures imposing Disadvantage on ranged attacks states no exception for Hidden creatures, this situation does not appear to match the fictive justification for the penalty that I have shared understanding of with my various gaming groups since playing this edition. There is a conflict here between rules and fiction.
Mannahnin Corollary 1: The lack of an exception to the ranged attack rules for Hidden foes may be an oversight, or an example of WotC trying to keep the rule simple and not expecting this situation. The correct ruling is ambiguous.

I wasn't sure how to respond to this earlier, but I've had a few thoughts on it since then that I'd like to post.

I think it's worth noting that both premises you've identified as belonging to me are simply restatements of what's in the rule for ranged attacks in close combat. Whereas, the premises you ascribe to yourself include your own interpretations and assumptions you bring in from outside the rules.

That being said, you can add to my premises the assumption that the designers of the PHB were competent at their job and didn't forget that their game includes rules for hiding that could interact with the other rules they were writing, including this one.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wasn't sure how to respond to this earlier, but I've had a few thoughts on it since then that I'd like to post.

I think it's worth noting that both premises you've identified as belonging to me are simply restatements of what's in the rule for ranged attacks in close combat. Whereas, the premises you ascribe to yourself include your own interpretations and assumptions you bring in from outside the rules.

That being said, you can add to my premises the assumption that the designers of the PHB were competent at their job and didn't forget that their game includes rules for hiding that could interact with the other rules they were writing, including this one.

I'd rather add the premise, that the designers were so comoetent at their job that they just left out corner cases that near to never come up but will just clutter the rules book and instead appealed to your common sense to use rulings if the rules don't work well.
This is what was actually acknowledged in the newest tips for DMs in Stormwreck Island (and most surely also before them somewhere).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Rules regarding visibility simply do not make any sense by sticking to the strict RAW and without case by case adjudication. It seems that rules for hiding fall into this same category.

 

[Hriston]

I think rules are important. Otherwise the game aspect of RPG is not there.

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying?

 

[Hriston]

I'd rather add the premise, that the designers were so comoetent at their job that they just left out corner cases that near to never come up but will just clutter the rules book and instead appealed to your common sense to use rulings if the rules don't work well.
This is what was actually acknowledged in the newest tips for DMs in Stormwreck Island (and most surely also before them somewhere).

I don't think you get to choose the premises of my arguments for me. Anyway, that wouldn't be what I would call being competent. That's just making an excuse for not doing your job. Besides, a creature being hidden in combat is not a corner case. Rogues are expected to achieve this regularly. It would have been trivial to except hidden creatures from the rule if that was the intent.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

While I certainly think there ARE corner-cases where rulings have to be made, I don't personally think that this is one of those. I mean, I'm fine with a DM who wants to rule otherwise, I just don't think that it needs to be done here. Of course, I'm not actually sure that this scenario is even likely enough to occur to actually worry about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think you get to choose the premises of my arguments for me. Anyway, that wouldn't be what I would call being competent. That's just making an excuse for not doing your job. Besides, a creature being hidden in combat is not a corner case. Rogues are expected to achieve this regularly. It would have been trivial to except hidden creatures from the rule if that was the intent.

I don't chose it for you. I just make suggestions. I think you are wrong, saying that thr designers don't do their jobs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying?

Yes. But you quote me out of context.
I also say, as do the designers, that rulings are equaly important, otherwise you don't need a DM.

 

[Hriston]

I don't chose it for you. I just make suggestions. I think you are wrong, saying that thr designers don't do their jobs.

Huh? I said I think the designers were competent at their job and that your suggestion is not an example of competence.

 

[Hriston]

Yes. But you quote me out of context.
I also say, as do the designers, that rulings are equaly important, otherwise you don't need a DM.

It was the only part of your post that actually answered my question about the purpose of rules.

So you don’t agree with me that there are reasons for having a DM other than to make rulings.