Mixing
Does an invisible enemy within 5 feet of you still impose disadvantage on ranged attacks?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Example scenario:
An elf casts invisibility and sneaks to 5 ft on me, while I'm unaware of them. I then try to attack another elf in 30 ft with my crossbow. By RAW, I still get disadvantage because an enemy that is not incapacitated is within my 5 ft range.
PHB, p. 195 says, under "Ranged Attacks in Close Combat":
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
There is no explicit explanation why it is more difficult. I can only think of two ways:
Earlier editions of DnD, if I remember correctly, require a spellcaster to make a concentration check if there is an enemy within 5 ft of them. I take this to mean that seeing an enemy nearby somehow causes you to be wary and disturb your aim.
The enemy within range somehow tries to disturb your aim when you are about to make the attack. This can be a slap on your crossbow when you are about to release the bolt, or something else.
Having "lesser" invisibility (that gets dispelled if you attack or cast a spell) means that both shouldn't matter:
The ranged attacker doesn't see the enemy, and thus does not get their concentration disturbed more than when there is no enemy within 5 ft.
The enemy cannot slap the crossbow or physically tamper it to disturb the aim, because they will risk breaking their invisibility.
Based on that reasoning, am I right to conclude that having a nearby invisible enemy will not impose disadvantage on my ranged attack against another visible enemy that is not in melee range, or they will lose the invisibility when they do impose the disadvantage?
dnd-5e ranged-attack invisibility advantage
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Example scenario:
An elf casts invisibility and sneaks to 5 ft on me, while I'm unaware of them. I then try to attack another elf in 30 ft with my crossbow. By RAW, I still get disadvantage because an enemy that is not incapacitated is within my 5 ft range.
PHB, p. 195 says, under "Ranged Attacks in Close Combat":
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
There is no explicit explanation why it is more difficult. I can only think of two ways:
Earlier editions of DnD, if I remember correctly, require a spellcaster to make a concentration check if there is an enemy within 5 ft of them. I take this to mean that seeing an enemy nearby somehow causes you to be wary and disturb your aim.
The enemy within range somehow tries to disturb your aim when you are about to make the attack. This can be a slap on your crossbow when you are about to release the bolt, or something else.
Having "lesser" invisibility (that gets dispelled if you attack or cast a spell) means that both shouldn't matter:
The ranged attacker doesn't see the enemy, and thus does not get their concentration disturbed more than when there is no enemy within 5 ft.
The enemy cannot slap the crossbow or physically tamper it to disturb the aim, because they will risk breaking their invisibility.
Based on that reasoning, am I right to conclude that having a nearby invisible enemy will not impose disadvantage on my ranged attack against another visible enemy that is not in melee range, or they will lose the invisibility when they do impose the disadvantage?
dnd-5e ranged-attack invisibility advantage
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
2
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Example scenario:
An elf casts invisibility and sneaks to 5 ft on me, while I'm unaware of them. I then try to attack another elf in 30 ft with my crossbow. By RAW, I still get disadvantage because an enemy that is not incapacitated is within my 5 ft range.
PHB, p. 195 says, under "Ranged Attacks in Close Combat":
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
There is no explicit explanation why it is more difficult. I can only think of two ways:
Earlier editions of DnD, if I remember correctly, require a spellcaster to make a concentration check if there is an enemy within 5 ft of them. I take this to mean that seeing an enemy nearby somehow causes you to be wary and disturb your aim.
The enemy within range somehow tries to disturb your aim when you are about to make the attack. This can be a slap on your crossbow when you are about to release the bolt, or something else.
Having "lesser" invisibility (that gets dispelled if you attack or cast a spell) means that both shouldn't matter:
The ranged attacker doesn't see the enemy, and thus does not get their concentration disturbed more than when there is no enemy within 5 ft.
The enemy cannot slap the crossbow or physically tamper it to disturb the aim, because they will risk breaking their invisibility.
Based on that reasoning, am I right to conclude that having a nearby invisible enemy will not impose disadvantage on my ranged attack against another visible enemy that is not in melee range, or they will lose the invisibility when they do impose the disadvantage?
dnd-5e ranged-attack invisibility advantage
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
Example scenario:
An elf casts invisibility and sneaks to 5 ft on me, while I'm unaware of them. I then try to attack another elf in 30 ft with my crossbow. By RAW, I still get disadvantage because an enemy that is not incapacitated is within my 5 ft range.
PHB, p. 195 says, under "Ranged Attacks in Close Combat":
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
There is no explicit explanation why it is more difficult. I can only think of two ways:
Earlier editions of DnD, if I remember correctly, require a spellcaster to make a concentration check if there is an enemy within 5 ft of them. I take this to mean that seeing an enemy nearby somehow causes you to be wary and disturb your aim.
The enemy within range somehow tries to disturb your aim when you are about to make the attack. This can be a slap on your crossbow when you are about to release the bolt, or something else.
Having "lesser" invisibility (that gets dispelled if you attack or cast a spell) means that both shouldn't matter:
The ranged attacker doesn't see the enemy, and thus does not get their concentration disturbed more than when there is no enemy within 5 ft.
The enemy cannot slap the crossbow or physically tamper it to disturb the aim, because they will risk breaking their invisibility.
Based on that reasoning, am I right to conclude that having a nearby invisible enemy will not impose disadvantage on my ranged attack against another visible enemy that is not in melee range, or they will lose the invisibility when they do impose the disadvantage?
dnd-5e ranged-attack invisibility advantage
dnd-5e ranged-attack invisibility advantage
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
14.4k23594
14.4k23594
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
asked 4 hours ago
Vylix
5,95912287
5,95912287
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
2
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
2
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
2
2
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
There are arguments either way for why the invisible enemy within 5 feet of you might or might not impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, and the GM is going to have to take into account the exact situation and make a call.
The rule you quoted:
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
implies that the hostile creature is interfering with your ranged attack. While it doesn't say that explicitly, that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
But if the creature is doing nothing to interfere with the ranged attacker, then are they hostile? While their intent for lurking within 5 feet of you is probably not benevolent, if they are literally not doing anything, they're perhaps not hostile.
However, they're invisible, not undetectable. If you imagine that there's an invisible person standing within 5 feet of you right now (I know, creepy, right?), don't you feel like you might think something was up? Heat, air current, some faint noise, something?
There are enough variables going on in such a situation that I think the only clear ruling is that the GM is going to have to rule. Could go either way. The attacker perceives something strange, and it throws off their aim. Or they are completely unaware of the invisible person carrying a sword right behind them and they get their shot off.
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
There are arguments either way for why the invisible enemy within 5 feet of you might or might not impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, and the GM is going to have to take into account the exact situation and make a call.
The rule you quoted:
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
implies that the hostile creature is interfering with your ranged attack. While it doesn't say that explicitly, that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
But if the creature is doing nothing to interfere with the ranged attacker, then are they hostile? While their intent for lurking within 5 feet of you is probably not benevolent, if they are literally not doing anything, they're perhaps not hostile.
However, they're invisible, not undetectable. If you imagine that there's an invisible person standing within 5 feet of you right now (I know, creepy, right?), don't you feel like you might think something was up? Heat, air current, some faint noise, something?
There are enough variables going on in such a situation that I think the only clear ruling is that the GM is going to have to rule. Could go either way. The attacker perceives something strange, and it throws off their aim. Or they are completely unaware of the invisible person carrying a sword right behind them and they get their shot off.
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
There are arguments either way for why the invisible enemy within 5 feet of you might or might not impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, and the GM is going to have to take into account the exact situation and make a call.
The rule you quoted:
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
implies that the hostile creature is interfering with your ranged attack. While it doesn't say that explicitly, that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
But if the creature is doing nothing to interfere with the ranged attacker, then are they hostile? While their intent for lurking within 5 feet of you is probably not benevolent, if they are literally not doing anything, they're perhaps not hostile.
However, they're invisible, not undetectable. If you imagine that there's an invisible person standing within 5 feet of you right now (I know, creepy, right?), don't you feel like you might think something was up? Heat, air current, some faint noise, something?
There are enough variables going on in such a situation that I think the only clear ruling is that the GM is going to have to rule. Could go either way. The attacker perceives something strange, and it throws off their aim. Or they are completely unaware of the invisible person carrying a sword right behind them and they get their shot off.
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
There are arguments either way for why the invisible enemy within 5 feet of you might or might not impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, and the GM is going to have to take into account the exact situation and make a call.
The rule you quoted:
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
implies that the hostile creature is interfering with your ranged attack. While it doesn't say that explicitly, that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
But if the creature is doing nothing to interfere with the ranged attacker, then are they hostile? While their intent for lurking within 5 feet of you is probably not benevolent, if they are literally not doing anything, they're perhaps not hostile.
However, they're invisible, not undetectable. If you imagine that there's an invisible person standing within 5 feet of you right now (I know, creepy, right?), don't you feel like you might think something was up? Heat, air current, some faint noise, something?
There are enough variables going on in such a situation that I think the only clear ruling is that the GM is going to have to rule. Could go either way. The attacker perceives something strange, and it throws off their aim. Or they are completely unaware of the invisible person carrying a sword right behind them and they get their shot off.
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
There are arguments either way for why the invisible enemy within 5 feet of you might or might not impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, and the GM is going to have to take into account the exact situation and make a call.
The rule you quoted:
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
implies that the hostile creature is interfering with your ranged attack. While it doesn't say that explicitly, that seems like a reasonable interpretation.
But if the creature is doing nothing to interfere with the ranged attacker, then are they hostile? While their intent for lurking within 5 feet of you is probably not benevolent, if they are literally not doing anything, they're perhaps not hostile.
However, they're invisible, not undetectable. If you imagine that there's an invisible person standing within 5 feet of you right now (I know, creepy, right?), don't you feel like you might think something was up? Heat, air current, some faint noise, something?
There are enough variables going on in such a situation that I think the only clear ruling is that the GM is going to have to rule. Could go either way. The attacker perceives something strange, and it throws off their aim. Or they are completely unaware of the invisible person carrying a sword right behind them and they get their shot off.
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
answered 2 hours ago
Jack
8,16522976
8,16522976
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131805%2fdoes-an-invisible-enemy-within-5-feet-of-you-still-impose-disadvantage-on-ranged%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Your example scenario is not a quote, which is why I removed the quote formatting in my edit.
– V2Blast
4 hours ago
You yourself have (correctly) concluded what the answer is RAW. What is your question about then?
– Szega
3 hours ago
@Szega You're right. However, "that sounds silly" is what I've thought. I think I'm looking for support for my logical reasoning, or am I plain wrong in the reasoning. I'm looking for "not-too-strict RAW".
– Vylix
3 hours ago
2
@Szega there are quite a few questions posted here where people provide some RAW text as a background to their question, but then someone answers with additional RAW text that suggests an answer contrary to what OP anticipated. Why discourage OPs from providing all of the information they have found so far?
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago
@PinkSweetener I did not discourage anything. But as it is written, this is unclear or opinion-based.
– Szega
2 hours ago