Invisible, Insubstantial creatures

[azaroth42]

I can't find a reason why invisible and insubstantial creatures do *not* provide cover, but this seems ridiculous.

PHB says: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.

For example:
-------------
R . . . (p) P
-------------

R = Ranger
(p) = invisible and insubstantial fey panther sneaking up on R
P = not invisible or insubstantial fey panther R is shooting at

P has cover from (p), but as a DM you can't say why, right?

On a related note, does a Fighter who's blinded and immobilized get a Challenge attack on an insubstantial, invisible creature moving away? Yes this really happened!

 

[Bagpuss]

Insubstantial rules wise just means they take half damage. As far as I can find.

Insubstantial: The monster lacks a body that has physical substance and vital areas. It takes half damage from all sources.
If a monster is insubstantial, this is noted in the Resist entry of its statistics block.

It lacks a physical substance but you can still bull rush it and push it back 1 square? It lacks a physical substance but provides cover? It lacks a physical substance but is still but is still blocked by terrain?

It must have at least some substance or else you couldn't damage it. So I think the text is miss leading.

 

[Festivus]

I can't find a reason why invisible and insubstantial creatures do *not* provide cover, but this seems ridiculous.

PHB says: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.

For example:
-------------
R . . . (p) P
-------------

R = Ranger
(p) = invisible and insubstantial fey panther sneaking up on R
P = not invisible or insubstantial fey panther R is shooting at

P has cover from (p), but as a DM you can't say why, right?

Strictly RAW, yes P would get cover. I would usually just not announce such things and increase the defenses appropriately in this case... but I think they still get cover.

Now at my table, I would probably rule that since it's invisible P does not get the bonus of cover. I might even further guestimate that there would be a 50% chance of hitting (p), rolling in secret behind the screen, and then apply the attack accordingly... but that is certainly not RAW.

On a related note, does a Fighter who's blinded and immobilized get a Challenge attack on an insubstantial, invisible creature moving away? Yes this really happened!

Yes, at -5 on the attack roll and the attack will deal only half damage if it hits. I have had this come up before as well.

 

[Syrsuro]

Now at my table, I would probably rule that since it's invisible P does not get the bonus of cover. I might even further guestimate that there would be a 50% chance of hitting (p), rolling in secret behind the screen, and then apply the attack accordingly... but that is certainly not RAW.

Technically, the visibility of the 'cover' is not relevant to whether or not something grants cover. Visibility is a part of concealment. Cover is a physical blockage - even if that blockage is invisible.

So the fact that (p) is invisible does not relate to whether or not it grants cover any more than it does in the hypothetical case of an invisible wall.

As such, an invisible opponent does grant cover. If it came up in my game, I would apply the effects of the cover behind the screen and if the attack missed because of that cover I would inform them that there appeared to be some unseen object in the square that blocked the shot (but unless you allow for attacks to hit covering creatures normally I wouldn't allow the unseen creature to be hit in this case either).

That said - my concern is with bull rushing an insubstantial creature. Normal attacks do half damage, but bull rush isn't reduced in effectiveness. Should it be, somehow, reduced? By RAW, it is not. And yet ...

At the very least, I think I'll treat them as one size category larger.

Carl