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

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, if you want to add rolls to it. Or you can just let it happen in this case, like the rules say it does. (As an aside: trust me, I'm not beholden to "the rules" at all, this is just for the sake of this discussion - I really don't care much about RAW, myself, but that's what we're talking about here, so I'm stuck with it).

But if it makes you feel better to add rolls? By all means.

Always thinking: how would players react if you did it without a roll. And if I have the feeling a player would think it is unfair, I will add a roll. Probably vs passive perception, which a player should usually beat, but a random monster not.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ah, typical internet discussion. I mean, how many times in my posts did I take great pains to tell you "do what you like" and "IMO" and "It's reasonable to do so, if you want, but you don't have to".

I'm certainly not telling you your ruling is badwrongfun, and Hriston isn't either, even if he's overstated his position a few times, undiplomatically (easy enough to do in this kind of communication).

We're just supporting that what the rules say is happening is not "nonsense" or at least, doesn't have to be, with an open mind and some storytelling. Part of the fun of the game for us all, regardless of "playstyle" (which is probably not as different as it sounds).

Sounds reasonable enough for me. I also think that in most cases rules should be applied consistently. This is exactly why I promote a roll if I want to interfere in some way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Great scenario, thank you.

I am envisioning this as best I can, in context with the invisibility and hiding rules, and in context of my own background with combat sports, archery, fencing and wrestling.

Sure, but if you are experienced in these things (me too, some of them), then you know that all sorts of crazy stuff can happen in the moment. This doesn't have to be some regular maneuver that was expected to work every time. It can just be a one-off.

You sneak up to the goblin, he goes to shoot your buddy, and you quickly, quietly, briefly, tap his bow out of the way, and he misses (or you do - say you were too slow - and he hits).

As I picture it, the "slow and careful" method would take several seconds,

There you have it! You were too slow! Goblin shot your buddy. (Rolled high enough with disadvantage that he still hit).

and would be an action rather than an item interaction.

Only if you want it to be. Rules don't have it as any kind of action at all. it just happens. This is just one of many reasons as to why.

And to do it quickly and desperately would need some sort of roll or be likely to reveal your position, due to sound made during your hasty action.

Only if you want it to be. Or Goblin didn't notice because you didn't reveal your position. Because granting him disadvantage just happens. This is one of many reasons why.

The feelings of wind pressure on my body and much narrower bow from a given direction and some discrete force pressing just on the end of my bow are, physically, totally dissimilar.

I knew someone would say that. I'm not the goblin, nor are you. Maybe he's an idiot, Maybe the pressure was so brief, he wasn't sure what happened. Heck, if someone else (your archer, say) is shooting at him in the same round, he might be too busy to care. Combat is chaotic. Maybe he's just nervous, and thought it was his own fault.

I note we're also talking about standing in front of a shooter but accepting that there is no chance that the archer inadvertently shoots the invisible person.

Yeah, the goblin can't see you, but you can see him. You can stand off to the side, like you say.

Which would likely be a real risk, especially if the archer is tracking a moving target behind the invisible character, who can't see the target behind himself. I accept that there's no chance of that, given the game's inherent assumption that invisible characters are deliberately staying out of such firing paths.

Exactly.

Remember that to hide requires an action, and to remain hidden requires an ongoing effort at stealth.

Yeah, you can assume that you're trying not to give yourself away. But more importantly, you're not doing anything that gives you away, because granting disadvantage to a ranged attack made within 5 ft. while you're invisible is not one of the things that gives you away. Therefore, you can assume that your efforts to keep youself hidden are successful!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Always thinking: how would players react if you did it without a roll. And if I have the feeling a player would think it is unfair, I would add a roll. Probably vs passive perception, which a player should usually beat, but a random monster not.

Yeah, if it makes your players feel better, by all means. It's always a good idea to keep 'em happy. I allow quite a few things that I don't particularly "like" if it makes my player's happy (especially when it's something that ultimately doesn't particularly matter!)

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, you can assume that you're trying not to give yourself away. But more importantly, you're not doing anything that gives you away, because granting disadvantage to a ranged attack made within 5 ft. while you're invisible is not one of the things that gives you away. Therefore, you can assume that your efforts to keep youself hidden are successful!

Thanks for the polite and detailed discussion. You've definitely convinced me that it's a more reasonable position than I previously felt.

Can we talk briefly about the likely wider repercussions or other applications of ruling that an invisible character can easily physically interact with another character or their equipment?

Will an invisible bad guy be able to pickpocket a character's belt pouch without any rolls? Can they remove a weapon from his sheath, or arrows from his quiver? Are these things the players want to see happen in the campaign?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Always thinking: how would players react if you did it without a roll.

You mean, under the specific scenario that an invisible creature is giving them disadvantage on their attack against one of its own allies? Yeah, that's a little trickier, because it comes with player expectation (some players will just accept what the DM tells them, and others won't). DM says "make that ranged attack with disadvantage" and the player says "why". I guess it depends on the group.

Myself, I'd say, "Trust me. Wait and see." And I would take great pains to point out, when the invisible creature is eventually discovered, that the invisible creature had been doing something (whatever makes the most sense at the time) to get in the way of the shot. My players would trust me, and then they'd go "OH! It was that invisible creature messing up my shot!" To relief and laughter.

Under the exceedingly rare (probably impossible) scenario that they never find out, well... I guess they'd never find out? Maybe. I dunno. I can't imagine that happening.

Will an invisible bad guy be able to pickpocket a character's belt pouch without any rolls? Can they remove a weapon from his sheath, or arrows from his quiver? Are these things the players want to see happen in the campaign?

Now you've reached the point where I would definitely ask for a roll. (Because, unlike granting disadvantage to a foe, this is definitely an action on the part of the character)/ I'd probably grant advantage on your slight-of-hand check, like how attacking while invisible gives you advantage, but you'd have to roll. You're actively robbing them.

The reason that this is different is because it falls under a different part of the rules. Granting someone disadvantage on ranged attacks when you're standing in front of them (invisible or not) is something that just happens, rules-wise. Story wise is another matter - that requires storytelling, and can be anything you can imagine, as long as you also can accept it.

Pickpocketing is pickpocketing.

 

[aco175]

I do not see anyone talking about the 'hostile' part of forcing disadvantage. Everyone gets the within 5ft of you, but what if the invisible person is not hostile? If he is hostile and trying to distract you then I get the disadvantage part. What if the monster is just standing there waiting for you to move so he can go attack the mage or such. I would think that at that moment, he is not acting hostile and does not grant disadvantage.

The part of acting to interfere and thus grant disadvantage, but not act enough to let the archer know I'm there or break invisibility is where I have the problem. I would rule it as a case of specific over general with you wanting to force disadvantage, then you let them know that you are around them. You still stay invisible and he gets the -5 to hit you until you take a real action.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Well, you can spend your time however and call it whatever you want, but it doesn't sound like playing any sort of game to me. It sounds like the players are all gathering around for DM storytime.

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

 

[Umbran]

If you don’t even know it’s there, exactly how is it interfering? It‘s not.

Well, the abstract nature of the action doesn't require specific narrative. We can note the person imposing disadvantage doesn't take an action to have the effect, so shouldn't have to be specific about what they do.

If you need one, the invisible character can touch the bow or string while you are firing, or blow in the archer's ear at just the wrong moment, or whatever.

 

[billd91]

Well, the abstract nature of the action doesn't require specific narrative. We can note the person imposing disadvantage doesn't take an action to have the effect, so shouldn't have to be specific about what they do.

If you need one, the invisible character can touch the bow or string while you are firing, or blow in the archer's ear at just the wrong moment, or whatever.

Which kind of precludes the archer not knowing the invisible creature is there. It doing any of those should reveal their presence. That's most of the point. If the invisible creature is hostile but just hiding there, what's causing the disadvantage? Their gravity well?
It's like the issues back in 3e with flanking with invisible creatures. If the invisible creature is just standing there and the flanked creature doesn't know he's there at all, why is he penalized?
It's not that there needs to be a specific, non-abstract narrative, but the lack of a narrative at all is what's problematic.