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

[Hriston]

Now we are starting to not applying universal rules, are we?

Huh?

But change the arrangement and both are standing next to each other, shooting at goblins.

Shooting at the same goblins? And Jerry opposes Tom's efforts to hit the goblins? This example makes very little sense!

 

[Hriston]

@Hriston

Lets see what the designers have to say about the role of the rules and the DM and rulings in the newest stormwreck starter set.

Look under "be fair and flexible".

Their advice is to be both fair and flexible in service to ensuring the players have a good time. I don't see what's fair about nerfing a PC's effectiveness in combat because they succeeded at being hidden. That doesn't seem like the kind of flexibility with the rules that's being advocated.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How many times have you done this? Did it hurt when the arrow did not hit the staff?

We used stoppered arrows for practice, (which hurt only a little when you get hit). Real arrows would deflect differently and move faster but the principle is sound.

The basic point is IRL you use any tactic you reasonably can. All of it works only some of the time. Sometimes you die.

I say this only in that many of the ways that I imagine some D&D scenarios working involve both parties doing the best they can, but with no assurances that what they are about to try will work. It sometimes seems to me that many people expect every action to be tried-and-true.

How this relates to our scenario? Maybe quite is firing a crossbow. Invisible, hidden rogue is worried about his buddy the wizard, who is the target. He lifts his dagger fully meaning to stab, right as the quarrel fires. Quarrel glances off dagger and misses wizard. Does crossbowman know? Maybe. Maybe the wizard cast shocking grasp at that moment (same 6 second round) and he saw spots instead. Battle is chaos.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Their advice is to be both fair and flexible in service to ensuring the players have a good time. I don't see what's fair about nerfing a PC's effectiveness in combat because they succeeded at being hidden. That doesn't seem like the kind of flexibility with the rules that's being advocated.

You want to apply a rule regardless of how much sense it is. So here is a situation, which is strange but possible.
Two enemies being forced to defend against a common enemy is not totally unheard of.

Also: nerfing a PCs effectiveness is somewhat of an overexaggeration.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Two enemies being forced to defend against a common enemy is not totally unheard of.

The answer to this one seems simple to me: Do you want to cause disadvantage to your ally-enemies ranged attacks? Then you do. Do you want to maintain your temporary truce while you both shoot the mutual enemy? Then don't go bumping shoulders, or whatever.

IF we want to really stretch this hypothetical to you are hidden, invisible, and bumping shoulders with another archer who's taking shots at the same target as you, and you want to give them disadvantage but still remain hidden from them, well, I mean, I think we've stretched to a scenario that probably won't ever exist, but I suppose if it does... it's up to your DM. Just like it always was for all our other scenarios. I'd probably let it happen, myself, because ultimately, it's so rare, who cares if it's a little generous? (It would never happen in my game with the invisible-hidden-ally-foe-hindering-a-PC's-ranged-attack. It just wouldn't happen.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The answer to this one seems simple to me: Do you want to cause disadvantage to your ally-enemies ranged attacks? Then you do. Do you want to maintain your temporary truce while you both shoot the mutual enemy? Then don't go bumping shoulders, or whatever.

IF we want to really stretch this hypothetical to you are hidden, invisible, and bumping shoulders with another archer who's taking shots at the same target as you, and you want to give them disadvantage but still remain hidden from them, well, I mean, I think we've stretched to a scenario that probably won't ever exist, but I suppose if it does... it's up to your DM. Just like it always was for all our other scenarios. I'd probably let it happen, myself, because ultimately, it's so rare, who cares if it's a little generous? (It would never happen in my game with the invisible-hidden-ally-foe-hindering-a-PC's-ranged-attack. It just wouldn't happen.

I totally agree with you. I'd happily play at your table.

 

[Hriston]

You want to apply a rule regardless of how much sense it is.

Don’t tell me what I want. I’m not the one saying the rule results in fiction that doesn’t make sense. That assertion is coming from other posters and is one against which I’ve been arguing.

So here is a situation, which is strange but possible.
Two enemies being forced to defend against a common enemy is not totally unheard of.

So they become allies temporarily. Problem solved.

Also: nerfing a PCs effectiveness is somewhat of an overexaggeration.

Do you have better terminology?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Don’t tell me what I want.

I am sorry. I shouldn't have made that statement.

To the rest: lets walk away in disagreement. We won't convince each other and chances that we accidently insult or at least misrepresent each other is too hhigh. I guess we both run successful games with our own interpretation of the rules.

 

[Hriston]

No. What you said upthread was doing it the way others were saying and not you was not playing any game at all, but the DM having a storytime where they dictated what was happening to the players.



When you have to make that tired and ridiculous hyperbolic jump in your argument from ignoring one rule equals throwing out all the rules and it's now dictating a story... for my money your opinion is not worth bothering with.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said it doesn't "sound like... to me" a game in a particular instance of play where the DM has unilaterally altered the fiction without regard for the table's agreed on rules. I mean, where's the game in that, unless the game's objective is to learn about the DM's pre-authored fiction?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said it doesn't "sound like... to me" a game in a particular instance of play where the DM has unilaterally altered the fiction without regard for the table's agreed on rules. I mean, where's the game in that, unless the game's objective is to learn about the DM's pre-authored fiction?

Just because you can't determine how there's a game there doesn't mean there isn't one. Especially because you have no idea what any particular table's agreed upon rules are.

You suggested that anything that did not follow the rules of the game no longer sounded like a game to you and was just DM narration of a pre-determined result. Which many of us to find to be patently ridiculous. But if you'd care to walk that extreme take back to a more moderate opinion on the subject... that's cool. I'm sure others would appreciate it.