I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. Two guys on the Ethereal Plane I could see... it's like putting on the One Ring. Others can't see you, but you can see each other normally (or at least it would make sense to rule that way).
But invisible guys should not be able to see each other -- Invisibility spell gives you no particular sensory bonuses. So it is utterly ridiculous from the common-sense perspective that a pair of invisible guys would just be able to, in game mechanic terms, attack each other as normal, even though they literally can't see each other. (At least until someone attacks and it makes him visible.) Darkness is even worse since attacking doesn't "make you visible."
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. Two guys on the Ethereal Plane I could see... it's like putting on the One Ring. Others can't see you, but you can see each other normally (or at least it would make sense to rule that way).
But invisible guys should not be able to see each other -- Invisibility spell gives you no particular sensory bonuses. So it is utterly ridiculous from the common-sense perspective that a pair of invisible guys would just be able to, in game mechanic terms, attack each other as normal, even though they literally can't see each other. (At least until someone attacks and it makes him visible.) Darkness is even worse since attacking doesn't "make you visible."
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
I remember somewhere there was a house-rule mentioned for this sort of thing, which was something along the lines of changing:
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
to
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls against targets that it can see have advantage.
That way two invisible creatures (who therefore can't see each other) only have disadvantage to attacking one another. Same wording change for darkness works too, I think.
Honestly, this is not more realistic / logical, it means that it's as much more difficult for a visible character to avoid blows from an invisible creature than from a visible one, but that as soon as that character becomes invisible, it becomes as easy to dodge them whether the attacker is invisible or visible.
How do you figure that? Based on the house rule:
Visible attacking Visible - Straight roll
Visible attacking Invisible - Disadvantage
Invisible attacking visible - Advantage
Invisible attacking Invisible - Disadvantage
How is it that the visible character is better at avoiding blows from an invisible creature?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Honestly, this is not more realistic / logical, it means that it's as much more difficult for a visible character to avoid blows from an invisible creature than from a visible one, but that as soon as that character becomes invisible, it becomes as easy to dodge them whether the attacker is invisible or visible.
Does it?
with the extra wording (advantage vs things you can see):
visible vs visible = straight roll (no change)
invisible vs visible = advantage (no change)
visible vs invisible = disadvantage (no change)
invisible vs invisible = disadvantage (changed from straight roll)
anything vs anything, in the dark = disadvantage (changed from straight roll)
Isn't this what we were aiming for? I don't see how this makes it more difficult for a visible character to avoid blows from an invisible one (casting darkness, for example, would put you on level pegging - both swinging with disadvantage). I do wee how being invisible means it doesn't matter whether the attacker is visible or not, but then it is still disadvantage if the defender is invisible, no matter what, which makes more sense than saying "hah, now you can't see me either - it's as if we were both visible!". Two invisible enemies should miss each other all the time, not hit more than before!
D&D only provides 1 level of advantage for attacks, so there is no way it can be "harder than X but not as hard as Y" under the rules.
RAW, you can HIT an invisible character as easily as a visible one, if you are invisible. That is just as illogical.
I don't love either of these rulings. I might to something like "advantage but a -2 to both rolls" or something. Imma have to look up how Champions did it.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. Two guys on the Ethereal Plane I could see... it's like putting on the One Ring. Others can't see you, but you can see each other normally (or at least it would make sense to rule that way).
But invisible guys should not be able to see each other -- Invisibility spell gives you no particular sensory bonuses. So it is utterly ridiculous from the common-sense perspective that a pair of invisible guys would just be able to, in game mechanic terms, attack each other as normal, even though they literally can't see each other. (At least until someone attacks and it makes him visible.) Darkness is even worse since attacking doesn't "make you visible."
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
When trying to picture this, I don't see two people fighting normally. I see very different tactics that, when you get down to it, present roughly similar chances of hitting as if the two combatants were totally aware of each other.
When you're invisible, you can make much riskier swings. You don't need to worry about being countered or vulnerable on a miss. You also don't need to worry about them dodging your attack. This would increase your chance to hit. But you also can't see your target, so you might be swinging in entirely the wrong place (as things aren't really taking up their whole space). This would decrease your chance to hit.
It's not "normal" fighting. It's very different circumstances with substantial benefits and downsides that when taken together result in a hit rate that approaches normal fighting. The advantage system is very fuzzy, but I feel like they have it mostly right here.
In my game, if you can't see your target you need to know about where they are and you have disadvantage on the attack roll. Doesn't matter is you're hidden or invisible or whatever. If you can't see them, it's harder to hit them.
Statistically, it is highly unlikely that a fight between two seeing combatants will end at the same time as two blindfolded combatants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
In the end the problem is that "unseen attacker" should be a bonus, and "unseen defender" should be a penalty, but they shouldn't be equal penalties. In 3.5e, the first would have been +2 to hit, the second would have been a 50% miss chance (almost always a net reduction in hit chance). In 4e, the first would have been +2 to hit, the second would have been -5 to hit (always a net -3). However, 5e mostly did away with giving bonuses and penalties a magnitude, and thus they wind up equal.
In my game, if you can't see your target you need to know about where they are and you have disadvantage on the attack roll. Doesn't matter is you're hidden or invisible or whatever. If you can't see them, it's harder to hit them.
Statistically, it is highly unlikely that a fight between two seeing combatants will end at the same time as two blindfolded combatants.
I think that's what I'm going to do.
As Pantagruel said, other editions and other games have more fine-grained penalties. Champions would require you to make a targeting perception roll, if you fail, you are at penalties. You can also theoretically get a "surprise attack" or "surprise maneuver" bonus for attacking while invisible, but the target would get perception checks against being attacked. So that although things could turn out "equal" (11 or less to hit due to offsetting penalties), they are situational -- one phase you might have 11 or less, one phase 5 or less, depending on whether the target saw or heard or sensed something that phase due to perception checks (which happen every phase and even in between phases depending on circumstance).
I think this is one of those cases in which the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage system just does not do the job. I think in 90% of cases it does the job perfectly and avoids the complexity of something like Champions, but in the 10% of cases when it fails, let's face it, it fails hard. This is one of those cases.
I think my house rule will be to impose disadvantage to attack an invisible target, period, whether you are invisible or not, as Wysperra suggested. Unless someone can come up with something better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. Two guys on the Ethereal Plane I could see... it's like putting on the One Ring. Others can't see you, but you can see each other normally (or at least it would make sense to rule that way).
But invisible guys should not be able to see each other -- Invisibility spell gives you no particular sensory bonuses. So it is utterly ridiculous from the common-sense perspective that a pair of invisible guys would just be able to, in game mechanic terms, attack each other as normal, even though they literally can't see each other. (At least until someone attacks and it makes him visible.) Darkness is even worse since attacking doesn't "make you visible."
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
I've often thought of house ruling it that way (disadvantage if target is invisible) but in the end just go with RAW since it is faster and not unreasonable.
The reasoning is the following ...
If you are invisible then the creature you are attacking can't see the attack coming and can't move to block or dodge it effectively. This gives the attacker advantage.
If your target is invisible then the attacker can't see where to aim properly, they don't know exactly where the opponent is so they have disadvantage on their attack rolls.
If both creatures are invisible then the defender can't see the attack coming and can't block or dodge effectively BUT the attacker can't see where to attack to make their attack most effective. Both the attack AND defence are impeded when both creatures are invisible. Which one is the greater impediment?
Attacking and swinging your sword at a 5' area of space (where you know a creature is present somewhere) or defending by dodging and trying to block an attack you have no idea where it is coming from? 5e resolves this simply by saying that the attacks are made worse, the defences are made worse and that on average these two cancel so you might as well resolve the combat between two invisible creatures with straight rolls (in 5e terms advantage and disadvantage cancel).
If the DM feels that attacking is made significantly worse than defending by both creatures being invisible then they could decide to use disadvantage for the attacks. However, I find that using disadvantage for all the attacks significantly slows combat AND doesn't reflect that both attacking and defending are made worse by being invisible. So, in the interests of streamlined play, keeping combat relatively quick and applying some sort of effect to both attacking and defending when both creatures are invisible - I just go with RAW and straight rolls.
The main problem I have with RAW is less with invisible creatures than with spells like Darkness or Fog Cloud, which actually have the counterintuitive effect of sometimes making it easier to hit (Hm...our unit of archers can't hit the dragon because they're at long range, reducing a 10% hit chance to 1%. I know, I'll cast Fog Cloud over the unit, granting advantage because the dragon can't see them, and disadvantage because they can't see the dragon. The one advantage negates the multiple sources of disadvantage, so now they can hit!).
It reminds me of the Growth/Shrinking issue in Champions 2nd edition (fixed in 4th)... In those days, every level of "growth" made you 3' taller, somewhat wider, and because you had "larger hands" you had a bonus to hit things, +1 per 3'. So if you doubled in size, from 6' to 12', you had +2 OCV to hit.
Meanwhile, shrinking made you smaller, harder to hit. Each level of shrinking granted something like +2 to DCV and made you half sized, harder to hit.
So now figure this one out. If I grow twice as tall as normal size, to double your size, with Growth, then I have +2 to hit you, who are half my size. But if I stay my size, and you shrink to half your size, even though our relative sizes are still the same, I am at -2 to hit you.
WHAT???
Yeah, all RPGs have these things. Fortunately they fixed this in 4th edition, somewhat. (Growth doesn't give you a bonus anymore, but shrinking still gives DCV bonus). It's still kind of strange that someone can be 24' tall, and be at no penalty to hit a 6' person, but a 1.5' tall person is still harder to hit if you are 6' tall, even though the relative sizes are the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. ...
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
If you give both parties disadvantage then all that happens is that the combat takes twice as long. Giving them both normal rolls has exactly the same outcome but we spend half the time at the table rolling dice.
The main problem I have with RAW is less with invisible creatures than with spells like Darkness or Fog Cloud, which actually have the counterintuitive effect of sometimes making it easier to hit (Hm...our unit of archers can't hit the dragon because they're at long range, reducing a 10% hit chance to 1%. I know, I'll cast Fog Cloud over the unit, granting advantage because the dragon can't see them, and disadvantage because they can't see the dragon. The one advantage negates the multiple sources of disadvantage, so now they can hit!).
The problem here is you can’t discern the location of your target with obscurement like Fog Cloud. So you could miss entirely.
Also, not too many characters hit only on 19 or higher (where your 10% comes from).
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. ...
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
If you give both parties disadvantage then all that happens is that the combat takes twice as long. Giving them both normal rolls has exactly the same outcome but we spend half the time at the table rolling dice.
My suggestion is to go with the rules here.
And this - it just makes it easier to play. Giving disadvantage to everyone just lengthens combat and that’s all, there really is no advantage to home brewing it and then having to deal with issues regarding sneak attacks too (invisible vs invisible therefore can’t sneak attack because attack is at disadvantage). It literally just makes combat longer.
The main problem I have with RAW is less with invisible creatures than with spells like Darkness or Fog Cloud, which actually have the counterintuitive effect of sometimes making it easier to hit (Hm...our unit of archers can't hit the dragon because they're at long range, reducing a 10% hit chance to 1%. I know, I'll cast Fog Cloud over the unit, granting advantage because the dragon can't see them, and disadvantage because they can't see the dragon. The one advantage negates the multiple sources of disadvantage, so now they can hit!).
The problem here is you can’t discern the location of your target with obscurement like Fog Cloud. So you could miss entirely.
Also, not too many characters hit only on 19 or higher (where your 10% comes from).
Unless the target takes an action to Hide, you are assumed to know their location. Obscurement works just like Invisible.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. ...
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
If you give both parties disadvantage then all that happens is that the combat takes twice as long. Giving them both normal rolls has exactly the same outcome but we spend half the time at the table rolling dice.
My suggestion is to go with the rules here.
And this - it just makes it easier to play. Giving disadvantage to everyone just lengthens combat and that’s all, there really is no advantage to home brewing it and then having to deal with issues regarding sneak attacks too (invisible vs invisible therefore can’t sneak attack because attack is at disadvantage). It literally just makes combat longer.
There are times when one side in a combat wants to make things take longer. The classic example that should work, but doesn't, is using a visual screen (Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc) to cover a charge against archers or artillery.
The main problem I have with RAW is less with invisible creatures than with spells like Darkness or Fog Cloud, which actually have the counterintuitive effect of sometimes making it easier to hit (Hm...our unit of archers can't hit the dragon because they're at long range, reducing a 10% hit chance to 1%. I know, I'll cast Fog Cloud over the unit, granting advantage because the dragon can't see them, and disadvantage because they can't see the dragon. The one advantage negates the multiple sources of disadvantage, so now they can hit!).
The problem here is you can’t discern the location of your target with obscurement like Fog Cloud. So you could miss entirely.
Also, not too many characters hit only on 19 or higher (where your 10% comes from).
Unless the target takes an action to Hide, you are assumed to know their location. Obscurement works just like Invisible.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. ...
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
If you give both parties disadvantage then all that happens is that the combat takes twice as long. Giving them both normal rolls has exactly the same outcome but we spend half the time at the table rolling dice.
My suggestion is to go with the rules here.
And this - it just makes it easier to play. Giving disadvantage to everyone just lengthens combat and that’s all, there really is no advantage to home brewing it and then having to deal with issues regarding sneak attacks too (invisible vs invisible therefore can’t sneak attack because attack is at disadvantage). It literally just makes combat longer.
There are times when one side in a combat wants to make things take longer. The classic example that should work, but doesn't, is using a visual screen (Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc) to cover a charge against archers or artillery.
This is correct....RAW you know where a creature is unless it Hides.
How far does this work? Up to the DM....since its not covered explicitly in the rules. Technically you could shoot at an invisible creature at 150 ft just at DIS.....but I am sure a lot ofDMs would likely say that is too far to know where to target.
This whole interaction actually makes other silly combos as well....
Like an archer can shoot better in a fog cloud at a range outside of their first distance.....A fighter with a longbow shooting a target at 200 ft is better in a fog cloud (Unseen Attacker gives ADV/ Range gives DIS so Normal Roll) than just shooting (DIS For range)
There is no simple way of fixing unfortunately as the system is designed to be simple in this regard and basically requires the DM to intervene if they see it as unreasonable.
How far does this work? Up to the DM....since its not covered explicitly in the rules. Technically you could shoot at an invisible creature at 150 ft just at DIS.....but I am sure a lot ofDMs would likely say that is too far to know where to target.
Why let the bad guy get that close? Turn yourself invisible and shoot at 500 feet. Then you'll be shooting like normal, and it will shorten the fight and make it easier. [/sarcasm]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
does an invisible creature attacking another invisible creature cancel out the advantage it has? so it's a straight roll?
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
Yes, that’s correct.
I'm definitely going to have to figure out a way to house rule this in case it ever happens. Because it is just absurd that two invisible characters can attack each other as if neither one was invisible and it was just a normal situation. Two guys on the Ethereal Plane I could see... it's like putting on the One Ring. Others can't see you, but you can see each other normally (or at least it would make sense to rule that way).
But invisible guys should not be able to see each other -- Invisibility spell gives you no particular sensory bonuses. So it is utterly ridiculous from the common-sense perspective that a pair of invisible guys would just be able to, in game mechanic terms, attack each other as normal, even though they literally can't see each other. (At least until someone attacks and it makes him visible.) Darkness is even worse since attacking doesn't "make you visible."
If anyone has come up with a good way to house rule this, please let me know. Because RAW makes utterly zero sense to me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I remember somewhere there was a house-rule mentioned for this sort of thing, which was something along the lines of changing:
to
That way two invisible creatures (who therefore can't see each other) only have disadvantage to attacking one another. Same wording change for darkness works too, I think.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
How do you figure that? Based on the house rule:
How is it that the visible character is better at avoiding blows from an invisible creature?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Does it?
with the extra wording (advantage vs things you can see):
Isn't this what we were aiming for? I don't see how this makes it more difficult for a visible character to avoid blows from an invisible one (casting darkness, for example, would put you on level pegging - both swinging with disadvantage). I do wee how being invisible means it doesn't matter whether the attacker is visible or not, but then it is still disadvantage if the defender is invisible, no matter what, which makes more sense than saying "hah, now you can't see me either - it's as if we were both visible!". Two invisible enemies should miss each other all the time, not hit more than before!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
"As easily" is not "more easily."
D&D only provides 1 level of advantage for attacks, so there is no way it can be "harder than X but not as hard as Y" under the rules.
RAW, you can HIT an invisible character as easily as a visible one, if you are invisible. That is just as illogical.
I don't love either of these rulings. I might to something like "advantage but a -2 to both rolls" or something. Imma have to look up how Champions did it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
When trying to picture this, I don't see two people fighting normally. I see very different tactics that, when you get down to it, present roughly similar chances of hitting as if the two combatants were totally aware of each other.
When you're invisible, you can make much riskier swings. You don't need to worry about being countered or vulnerable on a miss. You also don't need to worry about them dodging your attack. This would increase your chance to hit. But you also can't see your target, so you might be swinging in entirely the wrong place (as things aren't really taking up their whole space). This would decrease your chance to hit.
It's not "normal" fighting. It's very different circumstances with substantial benefits and downsides that when taken together result in a hit rate that approaches normal fighting. The advantage system is very fuzzy, but I feel like they have it mostly right here.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
In my game, if you can't see your target you need to know about where they are and you have disadvantage on the attack roll. Doesn't matter is you're hidden or invisible or whatever. If you can't see them, it's harder to hit them.
Statistically, it is highly unlikely that a fight between two seeing combatants will end at the same time as two blindfolded combatants.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
In the end the problem is that "unseen attacker" should be a bonus, and "unseen defender" should be a penalty, but they shouldn't be equal penalties. In 3.5e, the first would have been +2 to hit, the second would have been a 50% miss chance (almost always a net reduction in hit chance). In 4e, the first would have been +2 to hit, the second would have been -5 to hit (always a net -3). However, 5e mostly did away with giving bonuses and penalties a magnitude, and thus they wind up equal.
I think that's what I'm going to do.
As Pantagruel said, other editions and other games have more fine-grained penalties. Champions would require you to make a targeting perception roll, if you fail, you are at penalties. You can also theoretically get a "surprise attack" or "surprise maneuver" bonus for attacking while invisible, but the target would get perception checks against being attacked. So that although things could turn out "equal" (11 or less to hit due to offsetting penalties), they are situational -- one phase you might have 11 or less, one phase 5 or less, depending on whether the target saw or heard or sensed something that phase due to perception checks (which happen every phase and even in between phases depending on circumstance).
I think this is one of those cases in which the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage system just does not do the job. I think in 90% of cases it does the job perfectly and avoids the complexity of something like Champions, but in the 10% of cases when it fails, let's face it, it fails hard. This is one of those cases.
I think my house rule will be to impose disadvantage to attack an invisible target, period, whether you are invisible or not, as Wysperra suggested. Unless someone can come up with something better.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I've often thought of house ruling it that way (disadvantage if target is invisible) but in the end just go with RAW since it is faster and not unreasonable.
The reasoning is the following ...
If you are invisible then the creature you are attacking can't see the attack coming and can't move to block or dodge it effectively. This gives the attacker advantage.
If your target is invisible then the attacker can't see where to aim properly, they don't know exactly where the opponent is so they have disadvantage on their attack rolls.
If both creatures are invisible then the defender can't see the attack coming and can't block or dodge effectively BUT the attacker can't see where to attack to make their attack most effective. Both the attack AND defence are impeded when both creatures are invisible. Which one is the greater impediment?
Attacking and swinging your sword at a 5' area of space (where you know a creature is present somewhere) or defending by dodging and trying to block an attack you have no idea where it is coming from? 5e resolves this simply by saying that the attacks are made worse, the defences are made worse and that on average these two cancel so you might as well resolve the combat between two invisible creatures with straight rolls (in 5e terms advantage and disadvantage cancel).
If the DM feels that attacking is made significantly worse than defending by both creatures being invisible then they could decide to use disadvantage for the attacks. However, I find that using disadvantage for all the attacks significantly slows combat AND doesn't reflect that both attacking and defending are made worse by being invisible. So, in the interests of streamlined play, keeping combat relatively quick and applying some sort of effect to both attacking and defending when both creatures are invisible - I just go with RAW and straight rolls.
The main problem I have with RAW is less with invisible creatures than with spells like Darkness or Fog Cloud, which actually have the counterintuitive effect of sometimes making it easier to hit (Hm...our unit of archers can't hit the dragon because they're at long range, reducing a 10% hit chance to 1%. I know, I'll cast Fog Cloud over the unit, granting advantage because the dragon can't see them, and disadvantage because they can't see the dragon. The one advantage negates the multiple sources of disadvantage, so now they can hit!).
Yes that is another issue
It reminds me of the Growth/Shrinking issue in Champions 2nd edition (fixed in 4th)... In those days, every level of "growth" made you 3' taller, somewhat wider, and because you had "larger hands" you had a bonus to hit things, +1 per 3'. So if you doubled in size, from 6' to 12', you had +2 OCV to hit.
Meanwhile, shrinking made you smaller, harder to hit. Each level of shrinking granted something like +2 to DCV and made you half sized, harder to hit.
So now figure this one out. If I grow twice as tall as normal size, to double your size, with Growth, then I have +2 to hit you, who are half my size. But if I stay my size, and you shrink to half your size, even though our relative sizes are still the same, I am at -2 to hit you.
WHAT???
Yeah, all RPGs have these things. Fortunately they fixed this in 4th edition, somewhat. (Growth doesn't give you a bonus anymore, but shrinking still gives DCV bonus). It's still kind of strange that someone can be 24' tall, and be at no penalty to hit a 6' person, but a 1.5' tall person is still harder to hit if you are 6' tall, even though the relative sizes are the same.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If you give both parties disadvantage then all that happens is that the combat takes twice as long. Giving them both normal rolls has exactly the same outcome but we spend half the time at the table rolling dice.
My suggestion is to go with the rules here.
The problem here is you can’t discern the location of your target with obscurement like Fog Cloud. So you could miss entirely.
Also, not too many characters hit only on 19 or higher (where your 10% comes from).
And this - it just makes it easier to play. Giving disadvantage to everyone just lengthens combat and that’s all, there really is no advantage to home brewing it and then having to deal with issues regarding sneak attacks too (invisible vs invisible therefore can’t sneak attack because attack is at disadvantage). It literally just makes combat longer.
Unless the target takes an action to Hide, you are assumed to know their location. Obscurement works just like Invisible.
There are times when one side in a combat wants to make things take longer. The classic example that should work, but doesn't, is using a visual screen (Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc) to cover a charge against archers or artillery.
This is correct....RAW you know where a creature is unless it Hides.
How far does this work? Up to the DM....since its not covered explicitly in the rules. Technically you could shoot at an invisible creature at 150 ft just at DIS.....but I am sure a lot ofDMs would likely say that is too far to know where to target.
This whole interaction actually makes other silly combos as well....
Like an archer can shoot better in a fog cloud at a range outside of their first distance.....A fighter with a longbow shooting a target at 200 ft is better in a fog cloud (Unseen Attacker gives ADV/ Range gives DIS so Normal Roll) than just shooting (DIS For range)
There is no simple way of fixing unfortunately as the system is designed to be simple in this regard and basically requires the DM to intervene if they see it as unreasonable.
Why let the bad guy get that close? Turn yourself invisible and shoot at 500 feet. Then you'll be shooting like normal, and it will shorten the fight and make it easier. [/sarcasm]
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale