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

[Umbran]

Which kind of precludes the archer not knowing the invisible creature is there.

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.

 

[billd91]

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.

On that we're going to have to disagree. Imposing disadvantage is no small thing like undetectably tweaking a bow string.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Again. Not speaking about just invisible. But also unnoticed = hidden.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

But that something is off. And I would not hold my fingers into a bow that is shot.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

On that we're going to have to disagree. Imposing disadvantage is no small thing like undetectably tweaking a bow string.

You still have a decent chance to hit your target! Are you saying that you can't imagine anything done softly that might throw off your aim, and yet again, might not?

But that something is off. And I would not hold my fingers into a bow that is shot.

Sure, but as an archer - same question for you: You can't imagine anything done to you softly that might throw off your aim, but then again, might not?

 

[Dausuul]

By RAW, a hidden enemy still grants disadvantage, but as a DM I would require them to no longer be hidden if they wanted to grant disadvantage. The idea behind disadvantage is that you're adjusting your aim and trying to defend against the enemy in your face, but if you don't know they're even there, they'd have to actively hinder your attack. This is a situation where I might consider instead granting an opportunity attack instead.

This is how I would rule, too. Interfering need not break invisibility, but it will un-hide you, revealing your location.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

What if invisible-guy has a shield? Shouldn't he logically be able to just stand there point-blank and place his shield in the way? Wouldn't that make the shot a 100% auto-miss, reather than disadvantage? (Of course, the arrow striking off (or sticking into) an invisible shield, would make you pretty darn sure that something was there (though not necessarily an invisible person as it could be any number of invisible force-fields).

My point is, I suppose, that if we go too far down individual "realistic" scenarios, we wind up with all sorts of possibilities, including the near-direct opposite of "no disadvantage" (to "no successful attack possible")

I'm fine with a catch-all "disadvantage" and figure out why depending on the case. (Assuming anyone is worried about it, which might never come up).

 

[ECMO3]

What if invisible-guy has a shield? Shouldn't he logically be able to just stand there point-blank and place his shield in the way? Wouldn't that make the shot a 100% auto-miss, reather than disadvantage? (Of course, the arrow striking off (or sticking into) an invisible shield, would make you pretty darn sure that something was there (though not necessarily an invisible person as it could be any number of invisible force-fields).

My point is, I suppose, that if we go too far down individual "realistic" scenarios, we wind up with all sorts of possibilities, including the near-direct opposite of "no disadvantage" (to "no successful attack possible")

I'm fine with a catch-all "disadvantage" and figure out why depending on the case. (Assuming anyone is worried about it, which might never come up).

This brings up another question - do invisible creatures provide cover for other creatures?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This brings up another question - do invisible creatures provide cover for other creatures?

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, but as an archer - same question for you: You can't imagine anything done to you softly that might throw off your aim, but then again, might not?

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.