I just had a thought and am sure it has been discussed, but could not find previous discussions...
When looking at the different types of Cover, for both 1/2 Cover and 3/4 Cover, you get an AC bonus as you become harder to hit.
Separately, I know a lot of people use the table rule that if you are trying to hit an invisible creature, you roll at disadvantage, but looking at the documented rules in the 'Cover' section, would being invisible also increase your AC in addition to causing disadvantage on attack rolls?
Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty. Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers; Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas. Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
I don't think an invisible creature should get AC bonus. If it's in darkness or the attacker is blinded, the invisible creature shouldn't be harder to hit than it already is for being unseen.
No armor class bonus, disadvantage is significant enough, now while invisible a character certainly could take cover to gain that as well, but not because of invisibility.
Separately, I know a lot of people use the table rule that if you are trying to hit an invisible creature, you roll at disadvantage
That’s not a “table rule” at all it’s the actual rule. In chapter 9 the rules where it covers combat there is a specific section named “making an attack.” In that section there is a subsection named “unseen attackers and targets.”
In that subsection you can see the very first sentence of the first real paragraph says “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.”
As a house rule if you want to get rid of the advantage disadvantage rule you could replace them with a +/- 5 to the to hit roll. In general it does work out about the same.
The cover gives you improved AC because there's something literally between you and the attacker, providing the cover. You are harder to hit because there's something in the way.
Invisibility does not grant cover because the problem is that you don't know exactly where to stab, so you attack wildly, thus being disadvantaged. There's nothing in the way.
In the edge case of an invisible person standing behind cover, I'd make a snap rule as the DM and go with the moment.
The fundamentals are simple though:
Cover = More AC
Invisible = Disadvantage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Greetings D&D Beyond and Community,
I just had a thought and am sure it has been discussed, but could not find previous discussions...
When looking at the different types of Cover, for both 1/2 Cover and 3/4 Cover, you get an AC bonus as you become harder to hit.
Separately, I know a lot of people use the table rule that if you are trying to hit an invisible creature, you roll at disadvantage, but looking at the documented rules in the 'Cover' section, would being invisible also increase your AC in addition to causing disadvantage on attack rolls?
Thoughts?
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty.
Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers;
Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas.
Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
I don't think an invisible creature should get AC bonus. If it's in darkness or the attacker is blinded, the invisible creature shouldn't be harder to hit than it already is for being unseen.
No armor class bonus, disadvantage is significant enough, now while invisible a character certainly could take cover to gain that as well, but not because of invisibility.
That’s not a “table rule” at all it’s the actual rule. In chapter 9 the rules where it covers combat there is a specific section named “making an attack.” In that section there is a subsection named “unseen attackers and targets.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets
In that subsection you can see the very first sentence of the first real paragraph says “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.”
As a house rule if you want to get rid of the advantage disadvantage rule you could replace them with a +/- 5 to the to hit roll.
In general it does work out about the same.
The reason invisibility doesn't provide cover:
The cover gives you improved AC because there's something literally between you and the attacker, providing the cover. You are harder to hit because there's something in the way.
Invisibility does not grant cover because the problem is that you don't know exactly where to stab, so you attack wildly, thus being disadvantaged. There's nothing in the way.
In the edge case of an invisible person standing behind cover, I'd make a snap rule as the DM and go with the moment.
The fundamentals are simple though:
Cover = More AC
Invisible = Disadvantage