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

[Mannahnin]

My recommendation would be to follow the procedure given in the rule. I.e. impose disadvantage on the roll and allow the resolution of the attack to occur. Then, if the attack misses and a fictional justification for that event is desired, invent one that is consistent with the established fiction.

Yes, I get that. So far Fitz has done a decent job of offering a fictional justification, and you haven't.

Where I think you've gone wrong in post #49 is by assuming the attacker is necessarily distracted by the nearby hostile creature. That's a fine thing to imagine in some cases but is inconsistent with the established fiction that the creature is hidden because it would require the attacker to notice the hidden creature in some way.

I don't think I was assuming anything. I explained what fictional/simulative reality the rule (a hostile creature within 5' imposes disadvantage on a character making a ranged attack) appears to me to be intended to represent, and invited you to offer an alternative. The baseline rule appears to be written assuming that the nearby hostile creature is not hidden.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right, so asking the player to roll with disadvantage doesn't create a contradiction within the established fiction. It's just part of resolving their declaration to attack. There can be all sorts of circumstances that cause disadvantage, many of which are hidden from the players.

I am not here to argue with you. I have made my stance pretty clear. So I retreat feom this discussion.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, I get that. So far Fitz has done a decent job of offering a fictional justification, and you haven't.

Thanks! Though I think Hriston is trying to say that it doesn't matter why there's disadvantage until after the attack hits or misses, and then you can use whatever method you like to decide why it hit or missed. Generally you can worry about it after the fact.

OTOH, it's been pointed out here that it would matter in the (I expect rare) case that an invisible creature is hiding from a PC, and the player asks the DM why he has disadvantage on his ranged shot. (I would still go with "trust me" myself, but trust can be a fragile thing in Player-DM-interactions).

I don't think I was assuming anything. I explained what fictional/simulative reality the rule (a hostile creature within 5' imposes disadvantage on a character making a ranged attack) appears to me to be intended to represent, and invited you to offer an alternative. The baseline rule appears to be written assuming that the nearby hostile creature is not hidden.

Maybe. But it doesn't have to be only that. It can be anything the invisible guy can do to screw up the shot that doesn't reveal his location (or does, as that can also be worried about after the fact. You could build to the invisible guy being revealed over the course of a couple of rounds:

Bob: "I shoot the zombie with my crossbow!"
DM: "Roll with disadvantage."
Bob: "Why?"
DM: "I'm sure you'll find out. Trust me."
(Bob rolls, misses)
DM: "Your quarrel inexplicably deflects to the left just after it leaves the strings."
Bob: "Wha!? What happened?"
(Here you can throw in a free Perception vs Stealth roll if you like, or you can use the "search" rule that requires it to be an action on the PC's part). Either way, in a subsequent round, either by attacking, casting a spell, being found by a player actively searching, or failing a stealth check vs passive perception, the invisible Necromancer will eventually show up. You've built some tension and made invisible Necromancer a bit scary. That's a win, IMO.
DM (later, if there's still any confusion): "It was the necromancer. Blocked your quarrel with his staff."
Bob: "Oh! Cool. Makes sense."

 

[Hriston]

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

It's not the only way to play. It's possible to play D&D in a way where the system doesn't include the DM deciding what happens without regard for the mechanics of the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thanks! Though I think Hriston is trying to say that it doesn't matter why there's disadvantage until after the attack hits or misses, and then you can use whatever method you like to decide why it hit or missed. Generally you can worry about it after the fact.

OTOH, it's been pointed out here that it would matter in the (I expect rare) case that an invisible creature is hiding from a PC, and the player asks the DM why he has disadvantage on his ranged shot. (I would still go with "trust me" myself, but trust can be a fragile thing in Player-DM-interactions).


Maybe. But it doesn't have to be only that. It can be anything the invisible guy can do to screw up the shot that doesn't reveal his location (or does, as that can also be worried about after the fact. You could build to the invisible guy being revealed over the course of a couple of rounds:

Bob: "I shoot the zombie with my crossbow!"
DM: "Roll with disadvantage."
Bob: "Why?"
DM: "I'm sure you'll find out. Trust me."
(Bob rolls, misses)
DM: "Your quarrel inexplicably deflects to the left just after it leaves the strings."
Bob: "Wha!? What happened?"
(Here you can throw in a free Perception vs Stealth roll if you like, or you can use the "search" rule that requires it to be an action on the PC's part). Either way, in a subsequent round, either by attacking, casting a spell, being found by a player actively searching, or failing a stealth check vs passive perception, the invisible Necromancer will eventually show up. You've built some tension and made invisible Necromancer a bit scary. That's a win, IMO.
DM (later, if there's still any confusion): "It was the necromancer. Blocked your quarrel with his staff."
Bob: "Oh! Cool. Makes sense."

The free perception check vs stealth effectively is the same a having the invisible creature roll sleight of hand vs passive perception.

The difference would be that I would give the hidden creature the option to not reveal themselves.

Overall I'd conclude we are more or less on the same page here.
Thanks for your elaborations!

 

[Plaguescarred]

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.

The rules as written don't mention how the adjacent creature come to impose disadvantage, all it does say is that it must be hostile and able to see the attacker. An hostile hidden creature able to see fit the description so it should impose disadvantage on the attack roll. While the attacker can't see the hidden creature next to it or even know an hostile creature was within 5 feet, it will know it attack with disadvantage somehow. Perhaps a sound distracted the attacker right before shooting, or a gut feeling alerted it. Or the ammunition literally got tempered with during its course. As DM i would reveal the reason for it, that it is due to making a Ranged Attack in Close Combat, which would indicate an hostile creature is hidden nearby, impacting the ranged attack somehow.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It's not the only way to play. It's possible to play D&D in a way where the system doesn't include the DM deciding what happens without regard for the mechanics of the game.

Won't the DM always have to decide what mechanics to apply? I don't see how it's possible to play without some amount of DM fiat.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The free perception check vs stealth effectively is the same a having the invisible creature roll sleight of hand vs passive perception.

The difference would be that I would give the hidden creature the option to not reveal themselves.

It could be done either way, sure. I'd probably do it whichever way makes the players feel more involved, without revealing too much. (It depends on if they're the one invisible, or a monster is, I expect.

Overall I'd conclude we are more or less on the same page here.
Thanks for your elaborations!

Yes, I think so. I don't think Hriston's all that far away either. (Not that I speak for him in any way).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Won't the DM always have to decide what mechanics to apply? I don't see how it's possible to play without some amount of DM fiat.

As is typical with internet discussions, we are more than likely arguing about degrees. We all do both (coming up with descriptions and choosing which rules to apply).

AFAICT, Hriston has been reacting to the suggestion that you have to throw rules out that make no sense, by pointing out that you should (or at least, could, if you so choose) see if you can make the rule make sense first before choosing to throw it out. I agree, but I probably wouldn't state it quite so absolutely as Hriston did.

I got on board though, because I personally enjoy coming up with descriptions for what happens in the game - so much so that I don't think that I'd find very many rules that don't make sense to me. It can ALL be explained, IMO, with enough imagination. So I'd probably (nearly) never need to ditch a rule to make things work.

Add a roll? That's a different story. That's definitely a big part of D&D for me.

 

[aco175]

I still think just standing next to someone would not impose disadvantage- you have to meet the hostile part of the text. The example of the toad would not count, even if it is on the bad guys team, since it is not acting hostile. Cool picture above not withstanding.

The moment you wish to become hostile and bump the bow or such there is disadvantage, but also somehow to detect the invisible person.