Can you aim for something behind an invisible creature to avoid the disadvantage?
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
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
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
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
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
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
2 days ago
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
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
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
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
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
18k248114
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
18k248114
edited Nov 16 at 7:35
V2Blast
18k248114
18k248114
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
asked Nov 16 at 6:47
Maiko Chikyu
5,31631548
5,31631548
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
2 days ago
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
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
19.1k675157
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
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 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
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
19.1k675157
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
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
19.1k675157
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
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
19.1k675157
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
19.1k675157
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
19.1k675157
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
19.1k675157
answered Nov 16 at 7:10
HellSaint
19.1k675157
19.1k675157
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– mxyzplk♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
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 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
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 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
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 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
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 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
answered 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
answered 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
answered 2 days ago
MarkTO
1,13216
1,13216
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
2 days ago
3
What's your character doing differently when you declare an attack that way, versus declaring that you attack the invisible creature?
– Mark Wells
2 days ago