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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I do. But this is one of the most important things. The designers agree with me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

Yes, me too. But we interpret competence differently.
You think they were so competent they made rules for every situation. I think they were so competent that they acknowledged that not every little corner case can't be covered without making the rules useless.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I thought about this post and I think I need to answer.
Taking only a part of the post does not frame it correctly. I have thanked you, explained myself lengthily, and all you take out of my long post is a little part which taken alone does not really reflect what I said.
I thought we can get out of the conversation by acknowledging the other's interpretation and agree to disagree.
But I think, this is impossible now, and lets just disagree about the role of rulesets and the designer's job.
I have given you a picture of a page from the new starter set, where the designers seem to share my position: make rulings if you think the rules don't work well in a situation, so I know, that I am on the right track.

 

[Hriston]

I do. But this is one of the most important things. The designers agree with me.

You do. So then why did you say you don't need a DM unless their rulings have the same importance as rules?

 

[Hriston]

Yes, me too. But we interpret competence differently.
You think they were so competent they made rules for every situation. I think they were so competent that they acknowledged that not every little corner case can't be covered without making the rules useless.

I don't think that. Why would you make such an assertion about what I think?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Early on, I think this was an interesting conversation. It's gone past that now.

See you in another thread, friends!

 

[Hriston]

I thought about this post and I think I need to answer.
Taking only a part of the post does not frame it correctly. I have thanked you, explained myself lengthily, and all you take out of my long post is a little part which taken alone does not really reflect what I said.
I thought we can get out of the conversation by acknowledging the other's interpretation and agree to disagree.
But I think, this is impossible now, and lets just disagree about the role of rulesets and the designer's job.
I have given you a picture of a page from the new starter set, where the designers seem to share my position: make rulings if you think the rules don't work well in a situation, so I know, that I am on the right track.

It says you can make rulings. Does anyone disagree with this? Also, it says to do this in the the spirit of fairness, impartiality, and fun, not because you think the rules don't work well, although I support that too.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Right. I don't want to attribute to you anything that you haven't said, and I think your position has strong RAW support.

I disagree with your premise that the designers' only possible reason for not explicitly addressing the interaction between hiding and adjacent foes vs shooting is incompetence.

The designers have explained on multiple occasions and in multiple venues that the design philosophy of 5E is deliberately looser than in the two prior editions, employing natural language and leaning on the DM's interpretative ability to judge corner cases and resolve odd situations and conflicts. This is a deliberate departure from 3E and 4E in terms of detail and precision. They believe this makes the game more accessible and helps keep the text more succinct. I think they're right.

That being said, it being a simple error is also not outside the realm of possibility. I mean look what a mess we have to deal with in the vision and darkness rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You do. So then why did you say you don't need a DM unless their rulings have the same importance as rules?

Because I answered to your overexaggerated statement with one of my own... Did i forget to lift my overexaggeration sign?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think that. Why would you make such an assertion about what I think?

Because that is what I get out of your posts. If I misinterpreted you, I am sorry.