When you make the first attack, hit or miss, you are not more hidden (unseen and unheard). So you have no more the advantage on the other attack rolls.
Same thing. The point is that you benefit from being hidden until you are no more. After the first attack roll, whatever the result, you are hidden no more.
It should be pointed out that, as far as the mechanics are concerned, "hidden", and "invisible" are two very different things.
As per the Player's Handbook, hiding works as per page 177 (or the hiding box here), and affects as per Unseen Attackers and Targets, mentioned in page 194 of the same book (or here). According to this, "If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." This means that all enemies now know where you are, and unless you have another means of keeping you unseen from them (such as actual invisibility, heavy obscurement such as darkness, total cover, or something along these lines), you are no longer an unseen attacker.
Also keep in mind you can be hidden from some creatures but not from others. For example, hiding behind a barrel may cause the creatures on the other side of the barrel to lose track of you, but a creature on your back can still see you. Or you can hide in darkness from the three human warriors, but the fourth, being an elf, has Darkvision and can still see you (you can attempt hide from a creature if you're heavily obscured from it, and darkness is only light obscurement within a creature's darkvision radius, since they treat it as dim light).
On the other hand, being invisible is a much more straightforward situation, as it is a condition with its own rules. An invisible creature's attacks have advantage, and attacks against it have disadvantage, for however long the condition lasts. In the case of Invisibility, this ends when you make an attack - a slight flaw that Greater Invisibility does not share. Note that you do not need to be hidden to gain these benefits; even if your target knows you're there, merely being unable to see how you attack grants you that advantage.
Being blinded is similar. If a creature is blinded, attacks against it have advantage for as long as the condition applies. This, again, is irrelevant to being hidden.
And, of course, there are some cases that circumvent or overcome the above, such as blindsight or truesight, but the interaction is usually clean and straightforward. For example, truesight can see invisible creatures, but you can still hide from a creature with it.
So say I am Hidden/Invisible (not Greater)/whatever and can't be seen by my target, I am an "Unseen Attacker".
I make my attack, if I hit or miss* then my location is revealed. This would give me Advantage on the attack roll.
What if I have multiple attacks? If I have 2 attacks/round, would Advantage apply to all attacks? What about 5 attacks in a round...all 5?
Being hidden or invisible effectively makes you an unseen attacker. The way you achieve it will tell you when it will end. In case of the invisibility spell, it ends for a target that attacks or In case of hidden when you make an attack, you give away your location. This may not necessarily makes you no seen though, if you're not seen because you're totally obscured due to darkness or heavy fog, you will remain unseen for multiple attacks.
If you're invisible due to some other feature, you also may not become unseen upon attacking, so it will all depend on what makes you unseen in the first place and pre-established conditions to break it.
. . . if you're not seen because you're totally obscured due to darkness or heavy fog, you will remain unseen for multiple attacks.
Yes, this is the key idea here. It does not matter if you are hidden or if you are invisible at all when you are attacking for the purposes of the OP. You get advantage on your attack when you are simply "unseen" from the Unseen Attacker rules:
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you remain unseen for every attack then you get advantage on every attack. After the first attack your location is given away so you are no longer hidden, but you might still be unseen.
Keep in mind that if you can't see your target you have disadvantage on the attack roll and if the target can't see you then you have advantage. This means that two creatures fighting in the dark who can't see each other, making either ranged or melee attacks, will have neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attacks because advantage and disadvantage cancel.
Also, if you are behind total cover then you can not make an attack since you can not see your target. There is an implicit assumption that a character can "peek" out or "step" out from behind total cover (where they were either hidden or unseen) in order to make their attack with advantage.
Once a character is visible, they no longer have advantage on attack rolls against a target that couldn't see them previously. This means that if you have extra attack then the first attack would be at advantage and subsequent attacks would not be. It is a DM call as to whether the same ruling applies to spells in which the attack rolls are made sequentially like Eldritch blast or Scorching Ray.
Finally, if you make an attack, your location becomes known if it wasn't before. In the case of basic invisibility, the spell ends and the attacker is visible. In the case of a creature hidden behind total cover, popping out to make a ranged attack, their location behind the total cover becomes known. Similarly, a hidden creature under the greater invisibility spell also gives away its location when making an attack or casting a spell even though they remain invisible.
A creature's location remains known until that creature can be considered hidden either due to success on a stealth check or the DM ruling that the creature is "unseen and unheard" and thus hidden even if a die roll was not required. For example, a DM could decide that an invisbile creature in a very noisy room with a stone floor could become hidden automatically because the DM decides it would be impossible for the creature to be heard or their location noticed by other means - thus since they are unseen and unheard, the creature is hidden - DMs should make limited use of that since it is both difficult and frustrating for the players to deal with a constantly hidden creature that they have no way to track (though this is a situation when Faerie Fire or See Invisible shines).
Keep in mind that if you can't see your target you have disadvantage on the attack roll and if the target can't see you then you have advantage. This means that two creatures fighting in the dark who can't see each other, making either ranged or melee attacks, will have neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attacks because advantage and disadvantage cancel.
This has been a sore spot for me. You are correct as written, and I don't suggest otherwise, but I always felt like in this situation, both attackers should have disadvantage. Perhaps room for improvement in the new play test rules.
Ok I've gone a bit further down this rabbit hole checking some official tweets and errata, etc., and I think I've changed my mind a bit for how things work in the basic setup of a creature firing a ranged attack from behind total cover. I'm curious if others will agree with this:
So, in order to actually make the ranged attack from total cover, the creature must "pop out" or "peek out" to at least half or three-quarters cover to gain the line of sight to make their attack.
My current understanding is that if you were hidden behind total cover, then you can peek out as far as half cover and still make the first attack with advantage as an unseen attacker since your position was unknown AND the enemy still cannot see you clearly (you are still partially obscured by the half cover -- this was clarified in errata somewhere). Once that first attack hits or misses you are no longer unseen (or, at least, your position is given away). Even if you use some movement to peek back and forth between total cover and half cover for subsequent attacks, those attacks will NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule.
However, if you were NOT actually hidden behind the total cover but instead were merely positioned behind total cover (unseen but not unheard), then if you peek out into half cover to make your attack you are immediately seen and you do NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule UNLESS the DM decides that the enemy was sufficiently distracted.
I'm not sure how much of this can actually be found in the rules in terms of RAW but this is how I'm currently interpreting the official rulings.
Ok I've gone a bit further down this rabbit hole checking some official tweets and errata, etc., and I think I've changed my mind a bit for how things work in the basic setup of a creature firing a ranged attack from behind total cover. I'm curious if others will agree with this:
So, in order to actually make the ranged attack from total cover, the creature must "pop out" or "peek out" to at least half or three-quarters cover to gain the line of sight to make their attack.
My current understanding is that if you were hidden behind total cover, then you can peek out as far as half cover and still make the first attack with advantage as an unseen attacker since your position was unknown AND the enemy still cannot see you clearly (you are still partially obscured by the half cover -- this was clarified in errata somewhere). Once that first attack hits or misses you are no longer unseen (or, at least, your position is given away). Even if you use some movement to peek back and forth between total cover and half cover for subsequent attacks, those attacks will NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule.
However, if you were NOT actually hidden behind the total cover but instead were merely positioned behind total cover (unseen but not unheard), then if you peek out into half cover to make your attack you are immediately seen and you do NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule UNLESS the DM decides that the enemy was sufficiently distracted.
I'm not sure how much of this can actually be found in the rules in terms of RAW but this is how I'm currently interpreting the official rulings.
That is pretty much how I interpret RAW too. I think the rules do support that point of view but it takes a bit of back and forth to get there.
Keep in mind that if you can't see your target you have disadvantage on the attack roll and if the target can't see you then you have advantage. This means that two creatures fighting in the dark who can't see each other, making either ranged or melee attacks, will have neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attacks because advantage and disadvantage cancel.
This has been a sore spot for me. You are correct as written, and I don't suggest otherwise, but I always felt like in this situation, both attackers should have disadvantage. Perhaps room for improvement in the new play test rules.
I agree :). I keep getting tempted to house rule that both attackers have disadvantage in that circumstance but it would mostly just slow down the game and also makes it a bit more difficult to adjudicate other cases of overlapping advantage and disadvantage so I haven't bothered (the rules as written as designed to be easily playable and not necessarily realistic).
I also try to keep in mind that adventurers aren't really normal folks so maybe they have practiced their listening skills well enough that they can track an opponent well enough in the dark so that neither can gain a significant "advantage" :) in the fight - so the inability of a target to defend/block well is countered by the inability of the attacker to aim well - resulting in about the same chance of causing damage when they can't see each other as when they can.
So say I am Hidden/Invisible (not Greater)/whatever and can't be seen by my target, I am an "Unseen Attacker".
I make my attack, if I hit or miss* then my location is revealed. This would give me Advantage on the attack roll.
What if I have multiple attacks? If I have 2 attacks/round, would Advantage apply to all attacks? What about 5 attacks in a round...all 5?
When you make the first attack, hit or miss, you are not more hidden (unseen and unheard). So you have no more the advantage on the other attack rolls.
Ok, what if I have Multi-Attack?
Same thing. The point is that you benefit from being hidden until you are no more. After the first attack roll, whatever the result, you are hidden no more.
It should be pointed out that, as far as the mechanics are concerned, "hidden", and "invisible" are two very different things.
As per the Player's Handbook, hiding works as per page 177 (or the hiding box here), and affects as per Unseen Attackers and Targets, mentioned in page 194 of the same book (or here). According to this, "If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." This means that all enemies now know where you are, and unless you have another means of keeping you unseen from them (such as actual invisibility, heavy obscurement such as darkness, total cover, or something along these lines), you are no longer an unseen attacker.
Also keep in mind you can be hidden from some creatures but not from others. For example, hiding behind a barrel may cause the creatures on the other side of the barrel to lose track of you, but a creature on your back can still see you. Or you can hide in darkness from the three human warriors, but the fourth, being an elf, has Darkvision and can still see you (you can attempt hide from a creature if you're heavily obscured from it, and darkness is only light obscurement within a creature's darkvision radius, since they treat it as dim light).
On the other hand, being invisible is a much more straightforward situation, as it is a condition with its own rules. An invisible creature's attacks have advantage, and attacks against it have disadvantage, for however long the condition lasts. In the case of Invisibility, this ends when you make an attack - a slight flaw that Greater Invisibility does not share. Note that you do not need to be hidden to gain these benefits; even if your target knows you're there, merely being unable to see how you attack grants you that advantage.
Being blinded is similar. If a creature is blinded, attacks against it have advantage for as long as the condition applies. This, again, is irrelevant to being hidden.
And, of course, there are some cases that circumvent or overcome the above, such as blindsight or truesight, but the interaction is usually clean and straightforward. For example, truesight can see invisible creatures, but you can still hide from a creature with it.
Being hidden or invisible effectively makes you an unseen attacker. The way you achieve it will tell you when it will end. In case of the invisibility spell, it ends for a target that attacks or In case of hidden when you make an attack, you give away your location. This may not necessarily makes you no seen though, if you're not seen because you're totally obscured due to darkness or heavy fog, you will remain unseen for multiple attacks.
If you're invisible due to some other feature, you also may not become unseen upon attacking, so it will all depend on what makes you unseen in the first place and pre-established conditions to break it.
Yes, this is the key idea here. It does not matter if you are hidden or if you are invisible at all when you are attacking for the purposes of the OP. You get advantage on your attack when you are simply "unseen" from the Unseen Attacker rules:
If you remain unseen for every attack then you get advantage on every attack. After the first attack your location is given away so you are no longer hidden, but you might still be unseen.
Keep in mind that if you can't see your target you have disadvantage on the attack roll and if the target can't see you then you have advantage. This means that two creatures fighting in the dark who can't see each other, making either ranged or melee attacks, will have neither advantage nor disadvantage on the attacks because advantage and disadvantage cancel.
Also, if you are behind total cover then you can not make an attack since you can not see your target. There is an implicit assumption that a character can "peek" out or "step" out from behind total cover (where they were either hidden or unseen) in order to make their attack with advantage.
Once a character is visible, they no longer have advantage on attack rolls against a target that couldn't see them previously. This means that if you have extra attack then the first attack would be at advantage and subsequent attacks would not be. It is a DM call as to whether the same ruling applies to spells in which the attack rolls are made sequentially like Eldritch blast or Scorching Ray.
Finally, if you make an attack, your location becomes known if it wasn't before. In the case of basic invisibility, the spell ends and the attacker is visible. In the case of a creature hidden behind total cover, popping out to make a ranged attack, their location behind the total cover becomes known. Similarly, a hidden creature under the greater invisibility spell also gives away its location when making an attack or casting a spell even though they remain invisible.
A creature's location remains known until that creature can be considered hidden either due to success on a stealth check or the DM ruling that the creature is "unseen and unheard" and thus hidden even if a die roll was not required. For example, a DM could decide that an invisbile creature in a very noisy room with a stone floor could become hidden automatically because the DM decides it would be impossible for the creature to be heard or their location noticed by other means - thus since they are unseen and unheard, the creature is hidden - DMs should make limited use of that since it is both difficult and frustrating for the players to deal with a constantly hidden creature that they have no way to track (though this is a situation when Faerie Fire or See Invisible shines).
This has been a sore spot for me. You are correct as written, and I don't suggest otherwise, but I always felt like in this situation, both attackers should have disadvantage. Perhaps room for improvement in the new play test rules.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ok I've gone a bit further down this rabbit hole checking some official tweets and errata, etc., and I think I've changed my mind a bit for how things work in the basic setup of a creature firing a ranged attack from behind total cover. I'm curious if others will agree with this:
So, in order to actually make the ranged attack from total cover, the creature must "pop out" or "peek out" to at least half or three-quarters cover to gain the line of sight to make their attack.
My current understanding is that if you were hidden behind total cover, then you can peek out as far as half cover and still make the first attack with advantage as an unseen attacker since your position was unknown AND the enemy still cannot see you clearly (you are still partially obscured by the half cover -- this was clarified in errata somewhere). Once that first attack hits or misses you are no longer unseen (or, at least, your position is given away). Even if you use some movement to peek back and forth between total cover and half cover for subsequent attacks, those attacks will NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule.
However, if you were NOT actually hidden behind the total cover but instead were merely positioned behind total cover (unseen but not unheard), then if you peek out into half cover to make your attack you are immediately seen and you do NOT have advantage from the unseen attacker rule UNLESS the DM decides that the enemy was sufficiently distracted.
I'm not sure how much of this can actually be found in the rules in terms of RAW but this is how I'm currently interpreting the official rulings.
It's a sound interpretation and how i'd rule it too.
That is pretty much how I interpret RAW too. I think the rules do support that point of view but it takes a bit of back and forth to get there.
I agree :). I keep getting tempted to house rule that both attackers have disadvantage in that circumstance but it would mostly just slow down the game and also makes it a bit more difficult to adjudicate other cases of overlapping advantage and disadvantage so I haven't bothered (the rules as written as designed to be easily playable and not necessarily realistic).
I also try to keep in mind that adventurers aren't really normal folks so maybe they have practiced their listening skills well enough that they can track an opponent well enough in the dark so that neither can gain a significant "advantage" :) in the fight - so the inability of a target to defend/block well is countered by the inability of the attacker to aim well - resulting in about the same chance of causing damage when they can't see each other as when they can.