Can you aim for something behind an invisible creature to avoid the disadvantage?
Inspired by the question here. I wanted to ask if someone knows that there is an invisible creature in front of him can the person declare an attack on something behind the invisible creature in order to hit the invisible creature without suffering the disadvantage that would have come with aiming at the invisible creature using the optional cover rules? Would it make a difference if the thing aimed at is a living thing or an object?
dnd-5e invisibility targeting cover optional-rules
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
add a comment |
Inspired by the question here. I wanted to ask if someone knows that there is an invisible creature in front of him can the person declare an attack on something behind the invisible creature in order to hit the invisible creature without suffering the disadvantage that would have come with aiming at the invisible creature using the optional cover rules? Would it make a difference if the thing aimed at is a living thing or an object?
dnd-5e invisibility targeting cover optional-rules
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
7
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18
add a comment |
Inspired by the question here. I wanted to ask if someone knows that there is an invisible creature in front of him can the person declare an attack on something behind the invisible creature in order to hit the invisible creature without suffering the disadvantage that would have come with aiming at the invisible creature using the optional cover rules? Would it make a difference if the thing aimed at is a living thing or an object?
dnd-5e invisibility targeting cover optional-rules
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
Inspired by the question here. I wanted to ask if someone knows that there is an invisible creature in front of him can the person declare an attack on something behind the invisible creature in order to hit the invisible creature without suffering the disadvantage that would have come with aiming at the invisible creature using the optional cover rules? Would it make a difference if the thing aimed at is a living thing or an object?
dnd-5e invisibility targeting cover optional-rules
dnd-5e invisibility targeting cover optional-rules
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
19.6k356121
19.6k356121
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,76941756
5,76941756
7
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18
add a comment |
7
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18
7
7
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
3
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
If you are using the optional rule mentioned there and your DM does not say "Nope you can't do this, too cheesy" using Rule 0, yes, you can. But yeah, the DM can veto this independent of the rules if he finds it too abusable.
There are a few caveats here that might disappoint you, though.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
So, you only hit the invisible creature if you miss the original target and the attack roll exceeds the invisible creature AC. If the invisible creature has an AC higher than the target+2, for example, it actually becomes impossible to hit the invisible creature and attacking with disadvantage would be better (you always have at least a 0.25% chance of hitting). In other scenarios, it still might be better to attack with disadvantage than attack normally and only hit if you fail to hit the actual target.
It's also unclear how the DM will rule the attack if your target is, for example, a wall. He could rule that you always hit the wall and not even roll an attack.
Finally, your DM might ask you why you are targeting some random stuff (if it's an object) instead of the invisible creature (which presumably is the actual target). If your table is fine with this kind of metagame, it won't be a problem, otherwise you might have some hard time explaining why you decided to target the vase behind the invisible creature instead of trying to hit the actual creature.
TL;DR: The rules do allow it, but your DM might not allow it, and personally if I am the DM I can't think of a reason to allow it consistently (i.e. not a one time thing for the lulz) because it seems just... cheesy?
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
add a comment |
No.
Because disadvantage is a mechanic, not something you 'avoid' in-character. The roll is the same in either case. PCs do not have concepts of the mechanics as mechanics, unless you're playing Deadpool.
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135679%2fcan-you-aim-for-something-behind-an-invisible-creature-to-avoid-the-disadvantage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you are using the optional rule mentioned there and your DM does not say "Nope you can't do this, too cheesy" using Rule 0, yes, you can. But yeah, the DM can veto this independent of the rules if he finds it too abusable.
There are a few caveats here that might disappoint you, though.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
So, you only hit the invisible creature if you miss the original target and the attack roll exceeds the invisible creature AC. If the invisible creature has an AC higher than the target+2, for example, it actually becomes impossible to hit the invisible creature and attacking with disadvantage would be better (you always have at least a 0.25% chance of hitting). In other scenarios, it still might be better to attack with disadvantage than attack normally and only hit if you fail to hit the actual target.
It's also unclear how the DM will rule the attack if your target is, for example, a wall. He could rule that you always hit the wall and not even roll an attack.
Finally, your DM might ask you why you are targeting some random stuff (if it's an object) instead of the invisible creature (which presumably is the actual target). If your table is fine with this kind of metagame, it won't be a problem, otherwise you might have some hard time explaining why you decided to target the vase behind the invisible creature instead of trying to hit the actual creature.
TL;DR: The rules do allow it, but your DM might not allow it, and personally if I am the DM I can't think of a reason to allow it consistently (i.e. not a one time thing for the lulz) because it seems just... cheesy?
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
add a comment |
If you are using the optional rule mentioned there and your DM does not say "Nope you can't do this, too cheesy" using Rule 0, yes, you can. But yeah, the DM can veto this independent of the rules if he finds it too abusable.
There are a few caveats here that might disappoint you, though.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
So, you only hit the invisible creature if you miss the original target and the attack roll exceeds the invisible creature AC. If the invisible creature has an AC higher than the target+2, for example, it actually becomes impossible to hit the invisible creature and attacking with disadvantage would be better (you always have at least a 0.25% chance of hitting). In other scenarios, it still might be better to attack with disadvantage than attack normally and only hit if you fail to hit the actual target.
It's also unclear how the DM will rule the attack if your target is, for example, a wall. He could rule that you always hit the wall and not even roll an attack.
Finally, your DM might ask you why you are targeting some random stuff (if it's an object) instead of the invisible creature (which presumably is the actual target). If your table is fine with this kind of metagame, it won't be a problem, otherwise you might have some hard time explaining why you decided to target the vase behind the invisible creature instead of trying to hit the actual creature.
TL;DR: The rules do allow it, but your DM might not allow it, and personally if I am the DM I can't think of a reason to allow it consistently (i.e. not a one time thing for the lulz) because it seems just... cheesy?
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
add a comment |
If you are using the optional rule mentioned there and your DM does not say "Nope you can't do this, too cheesy" using Rule 0, yes, you can. But yeah, the DM can veto this independent of the rules if he finds it too abusable.
There are a few caveats here that might disappoint you, though.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
So, you only hit the invisible creature if you miss the original target and the attack roll exceeds the invisible creature AC. If the invisible creature has an AC higher than the target+2, for example, it actually becomes impossible to hit the invisible creature and attacking with disadvantage would be better (you always have at least a 0.25% chance of hitting). In other scenarios, it still might be better to attack with disadvantage than attack normally and only hit if you fail to hit the actual target.
It's also unclear how the DM will rule the attack if your target is, for example, a wall. He could rule that you always hit the wall and not even roll an attack.
Finally, your DM might ask you why you are targeting some random stuff (if it's an object) instead of the invisible creature (which presumably is the actual target). If your table is fine with this kind of metagame, it won't be a problem, otherwise you might have some hard time explaining why you decided to target the vase behind the invisible creature instead of trying to hit the actual creature.
TL;DR: The rules do allow it, but your DM might not allow it, and personally if I am the DM I can't think of a reason to allow it consistently (i.e. not a one time thing for the lulz) because it seems just... cheesy?
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
If you are using the optional rule mentioned there and your DM does not say "Nope you can't do this, too cheesy" using Rule 0, yes, you can. But yeah, the DM can veto this independent of the rules if he finds it too abusable.
There are a few caveats here that might disappoint you, though.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
So, you only hit the invisible creature if you miss the original target and the attack roll exceeds the invisible creature AC. If the invisible creature has an AC higher than the target+2, for example, it actually becomes impossible to hit the invisible creature and attacking with disadvantage would be better (you always have at least a 0.25% chance of hitting). In other scenarios, it still might be better to attack with disadvantage than attack normally and only hit if you fail to hit the actual target.
It's also unclear how the DM will rule the attack if your target is, for example, a wall. He could rule that you always hit the wall and not even roll an attack.
Finally, your DM might ask you why you are targeting some random stuff (if it's an object) instead of the invisible creature (which presumably is the actual target). If your table is fine with this kind of metagame, it won't be a problem, otherwise you might have some hard time explaining why you decided to target the vase behind the invisible creature instead of trying to hit the actual creature.
TL;DR: The rules do allow it, but your DM might not allow it, and personally if I am the DM I can't think of a reason to allow it consistently (i.e. not a one time thing for the lulz) because it seems just... cheesy?
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
20.4k685163
20.4k685163
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
Nov 17 at 3:26
add a comment |
No.
Because disadvantage is a mechanic, not something you 'avoid' in-character. The roll is the same in either case. PCs do not have concepts of the mechanics as mechanics, unless you're playing Deadpool.
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
add a comment |
No.
Because disadvantage is a mechanic, not something you 'avoid' in-character. The roll is the same in either case. PCs do not have concepts of the mechanics as mechanics, unless you're playing Deadpool.
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
add a comment |
No.
Because disadvantage is a mechanic, not something you 'avoid' in-character. The roll is the same in either case. PCs do not have concepts of the mechanics as mechanics, unless you're playing Deadpool.
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
No.
Because disadvantage is a mechanic, not something you 'avoid' in-character. The roll is the same in either case. PCs do not have concepts of the mechanics as mechanics, unless you're playing Deadpool.
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
answered Nov 16 at 22:28
MarkTO
2,106324
2,106324
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135679%2fcan-you-aim-for-something-behind-an-invisible-creature-to-avoid-the-disadvantage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
I put this too much in the cheesy column. It's akin to saying, "I'm not looking at the Basilisk, I'm looking at the wall behind it."
– MivaScott
Nov 16 at 8:34
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
Nov 16 at 9:18