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

[Mannahnin]

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.

In context, this is at least some pretty extreme hyperbole.

You can say that you disagree with the DM's ruling on this particular corner case scenario without stooping to this sort of thing.

I certainly understand favoring the practice of playing by RAW whenever possible, and molding the fiction to fit rather than bending the rules where they don't seem to the DM to fit the fiction they envision. It's normally best practice to try to understand HOW and WHY the rules are the way they are, and to try to stick with them rather than changing them willy-nilly.

That being said, I think the thread has shown fairly clearly that the idea of a hidden creature interfering with an adjacent enemy's shooting without revealing their presence is sufficiently counterintuitive that many players would find such a ruling by the DM representative of their own imaginings as well. If not, then certainly a discussion among the group is in order, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I would argue that you can impose disadvantage and still remain invisible. All the things you can do while invisible without breaking it, such as pick pockets and shout insults would back this up. A second point is that you disrupt invisibility on your turn by attacking or casting and not on other's turns.

Back to an upthread point, I think you can remain hidden and still impose disadvantage.

And I somewhat agree. But I would make the imposed penalty less, -1 or -2 on the roll rather than disadvantage. I feel that the stated rule assumes an obvious hostile opponent either attacking or at least feinting towards the archer. Or even, say, attempting to attack while under missile fire from opponents hidden behind a hedge.

But I would argue against the archer getting the full penalty with a hostile opponent who wishes to remain invisible.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And I somewhat agree. But I would make the imposed penalty less, -1 or -2 on the roll rather than disadvantage. I feel that the stated rule assumes an obvious hostile opponent either attacking or at least feinting towards the archer. Or even, say, attempting to attack while under missile fire from opponents hidden behind a hedge.

But I would argue against the archer getting the full penalty with a hostile opponent who wishes to remain invisible.

That's reasonable thinking, no doubt. However, it goes a bit against 5e's overall simplicity. That may be fine for you, and more power to you, but I wouldn't bother with that level of granularity, myself.

 

[Baron Opal II]

That's reasonable thinking, no doubt. However, it goes a bit against 5e's overall simplicity. That may be fine for you, and more power to you, but I wouldn't bother with that level of granularity, myself.

And that's a strength of the rules set. We can each adjust the rules to taste.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Right, which is why I qualified my statement the way I have. I’ve also said several times in this thread that my comments in this thread are based on the assumption that the group’s social contract includes using this rule.

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.

Well, the "it" that I said didn't sound like playing a game to me wasn't just "anything that did not follow the rules of the game". "It" was an instance of play in which the group's shared imagined fiction contained a creature with positioning that an agreed upon rule of the game states imposes disadvantage on a ranged attack, i.e. the situation contains the possibility that the creature does something to change the outcome of the attack, causing it to miss, but in which the DM decided that instead the creature does nothing or so little that it cannot possibly affect the outcome.

To me, this instance of play loses the qualities of a game (and particularly of an RPG) because whereas before there was an instance where the group’s shared imagined fiction (I.e. the creature’s positioning) feeds back into the dice-resolution of the attack, this has been replaced by the DM’s decision that that part of the fiction might as well have not happened, reducing it to mere color.

 

[Hriston]

In context, this is at least some pretty extreme hyperbole.

In context, I was responding to a statement that the DM having unilateral control over the fiction is "playing Dungeons & Dragons". I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say that just sounds like the DM telling a story. Why is that controversial?

You can say that you disagree with the DM's ruling on this particular corner case scenario without stooping to this sort of thing.

I certainly understand favoring the practice of playing by RAW whenever possible, and molding the fiction to fit rather than bending the rules where they don't seem to the DM to fit the fiction they envision. It's normally best practice to try to understand HOW and WHY the rules are the way they are, and to try to stick with them rather than changing them willy-nilly.

That being said, I think the thread has shown fairly clearly that the idea of a hidden creature interfering with an adjacent enemy's shooting without revealing their presence is sufficiently counterintuitive that many players would find such a ruling by the DM representative of their own imaginings as well. If not, then certainly a discussion among the group is in order, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

I don't think that's been demonstrated at all and don't see why it should be counterintuitive to D&D players. The fantastical tradition has its share of invisible characters who interfere with other characters without detection. While invisible, Doctor Faustus, in Christopher Marlowe's play, steals the Pope's meat and wine and even strikes him without his location becoming known. Likewise, in The Secret of Wilhelm Storitz by Jules Verne, the titular character disrupts a wedding party by singing and causing the brides wreath to appear to levitate, all without revealing his location. Surely such fiction is not outside the genre constraints that define what sort of occurrences are acceptable in many games of D&D!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Changing one rule via 5E's "rulings, not rules" mantra because the narrative of the scene doesn't fit the rule in question does not turn the whole thing into "the DM narrating a story". That is the hyperbole we have been suggesting is being made here.

I feel the same way when the "anti fudge" players here make the same argument when someone says they remove an enemy from the battlefield when they were knocked down to 1 HP, rather than 0. Doing so does not turn the entire scene / combat / game into a narrated story despite claims to the contrary.

 

[Hriston]

If the group's shared imagined fiction doesn't fit the rule in question (i.e. it does NOT include a creature that isn't incapacitated, is within 5 feet of a ranged attacker, and can see and is hostile to the attacker), then why is the rule even being considered for use?

I think what's under discussion is that the fiction does fit the rule, but that the rule's impact on the dice-resolution doesn't seem to fit how you're imagining the fiction playing out. Again, this seems like jumping to the end and telling a story about what you imagined happening rather than playing a game to find out.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just because there is a rule in the game for a situation does not mean it needs or should be used. That's the whole premise of "Rulings, not rules" in the first place.

Now if there is a particular DM who is much more about playing the "game" of D&D than they are creating a story with their players that comes out of what everyone is visualizing as to what is happening in the scene and only using the rules to help facilitate that creation... then sure, I certainly can see why dealing with the games rules and mechanics first would be the priority. But I would like to think that could be acknowledged as merely a playstyle difference, rather than doubling down that it should be the main focus of all games of D&D.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

So how exactly did he misrepresent you if you reiterate it.

So I repeat my question: if you want everything adjucated by hard rules, why play a ROLEPLAYING game with a DM instead of a board or computer game where everything is predetermined?