Let's say Bob is in a dungeon and is suddenly ambushed by skeletons right before he's about to open a chest. He brings out his bow to fire an arrow at the skeletons, however he is unaware that the chest he was about to loot, is actually a mimic.
Now the mimic was going to use its turn in the initiative to reveal itself and attack. However, Bob goes before the mimic in the initiative. This brings forth two questions.
1. Does Bob have disadvantage on his ranged attack, if he makes it before the mimic takes its turn (Assuming Bob is standing within 5ft. of it)?
2. If the answer to the above question is yes, when the DM tells Bob's player that he must make the attack with disadvantage, does he have to explain why (As in, does he have to reveal the chest is a mimic and is planning to attack him on its turn)?
If it helps with clarification, the rule for making a ranged attack in close combat is: "When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."
And the description for False Appearance is: "While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object."
Let's say Bob is in a dungeon and is suddenly ambushed by skeletons right before he's about to open a chest. He brings out his bow to fire an arrow at the skeletons, however he is unaware that the chest he was about to loot, is actually a mimic.
Now the mimic was going to use its turn in the initiative to reveal itself and attack. However, Bob goes before the mimic in the initiative. This brings forth two questions.
1. Does Bob have disadvantage on his ranged attack, if he makes it before the mimic takes its turn (Assuming Bob is standing within 5ft. of it)?
2. If the answer to the above question is yes, when the DM tells Bob's player that he must make the attack with disadvantage, does he have to explain why (As in, does he have to reveal the chest is a mimic and is planning to attack him on its turn)?
If it helps with clarification, the rule for making a ranged attack in close combat is: "When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."
And the description for False Appearance is: "While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object."
Yes.
No. The DM does have to explain, but not in that level of detail. See below.
5E is chock full of rules like the OA one you've spotted here. Another example is that halflings have advantage on saves against being frightened. Here's the never-stated rule that handles it: whenever a rule would absolutely require that a PC be given information they shouldn't have in order for the rule to work, the rule by definition also grants the PC the necessary knowledge.
So in your example, Bob must be told he has disadvantage - he literally can't make the attack roll without being told - and unless the DM is engaging in dirty pool, he must also be told it's because of a hostile creature within 5 feet. He doesn't have to be given details about the creature, like which space it's in or what it looks like.
I actually would say that Bob makes the attack without disadvantage. My reasoning is that the mimic has done nothing to present itself as a threat, therefore doesn't meet the requirement of being a 'hostile creature'. Until the mimic does something to present itself as a threat I would treat it like the object it is pending to be.
As another example what if Bob was standing next to a spy? Someone Bob believes is an ally but really isn't? I feel the disadvantage on ranged attacks should only apply if there is something that is actively threatening you or your allies adjacent to you.
I completely agree, although by RAW there's nothing that outright says "this is because the enemy is actively interfering with your aim" -- although a DM might reasonably assume that the "can see you and is not incapacitated" clause is there to represent that.
At my table, I'd probably do the same thing. The Mimic (or the spy) isn't acting like a threat (yet) and so it's not something that is likely to spoil your aim. You're not wary of them, they're not actively providing cover or dancing around you in a distracting fashion..
But that's not RAW, which is what most people are here to ask about.
1. No. Until the mimic transforms you are not standing next to a hostile creature - you are standing next to a hostile object. Objects, hostile or otherwise, do not impose disadvantage on range attacks.
An hostile attitude in social interaction context shouldn't include objects or creatures not distinguished as so, meaning if a creature is not hostile nor what it seems, it shouldn't qualify. This is even more true for creatures that wants to hide their true motives, appearance or both, such as when polymorphing into an object.
I'd rule that a motionless creature indistinguishable from an ordinary object using False Appearance is not hostile for the purpose of the Ranged Attacks in Close Combats rules, until it's actually revealed. It's not more difficult to aim a ranged attack when no foe is next to you that you know basically.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat: Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.
I would likely rule it the same as Plaguescarred. As long as the adjacent hostile creature is unknown and not taking any action then they should not affect the ranged attack of an adjacent creature.
However, the RAW is pretty clear. If there is a hostile creature within 5' who can see you and isn't incapacitated the character has disadvantage on ranged attacks.
So the ruling isn't really RAW though a DM could come up with a definition of what hostile means in their game. Hostile could be defined to mean acting threatening or actively making attacks for example - so if a character is unaware of a creature and that creature hasn't done anything then they aren't yet considered hostile by the character.
However, does the situation change
1) if the adjacent hostile opponent is under the effect of a greater invisibility spell or otherwise hidden?
2) if the adjacent creature is a party NPC that is about to betray the party but hasn't taken an action to do so yet?
I think the application of "hostile" should be from the perspective of the character making the ranged attack and not from the perspective of the NPC or creature adjacent. If the character has no reason to consider the chest hostile then it should not affect their ranged attack.
I'd rule that a motionless creature indistinguishable from an ordinary object using False Appearance is not hostile for the purpose of the Ranged Attacks
Until the Mimic decides to attack (or at least make itself known as an enemy) it isn't a hostile creature - who knows, it might decide to be on the PCs side in this particular fight.
It's no different to standing next to an NPC who is travelling with you, who actually happens to be a spy/assassin who will turn on the party at some point.
I get that RAW the attack would be made at disadvantage. But if I was the DM I would rule that a creature who is attempting to conceal their hostility doesn't count as a hostile creature and the attack would be as normal. After all, if they're trying to hide the fact that they're a foe, why should they also benefit from being one by nerfing your attack? If the player don't know there's a foe next to them, and they don't WANT the player to know there's a foe next to them, then I'd say treat it as if there isn't, until either the player figures out the deception or the foe stops trying to fool them.
related but what if the enemy was invisible? Would you apply disadv. In that case?
Yes wether you can see the creature or not isn't factor. As long as its within 5 feet, it's hostile and it can see you and it's not icapacitated, you have disadvantage.
Until the Mimic decides to attack (or at least make itself known as an enemy) it isn't a hostile creature - who knows, it might decide to be on the PCs side in this particular fight.
It's no different to standing next to an NPC who is travelling with you, who actually happens to be a spy/assassin who will turn on the party at some point.
I think in combat order, some anachronisms are ok and can be explained away in narration (e.g. think of initiating combat with an attack, but then rolling low initiative).
OP said that the DM already decided that the Mimic wants to attack the group, thus it is hostile. If its cover is blown by being lured into obstructing the ranged attack, then so be it. I would narrate it like:
"Right as you are releasing the arrow you notice the chest next to you moving! It turns out it is a mimic and it's trying to take advantage of you dropping your guard! The realization puts you off balance, so your attack happens with disadvantage!"
If the PC has actions remaining, or if other PCs come first in initiative order, they can now take advantage of this information. So what? Initiative is already so inconsequential in 5e, I gladly give them this benefit of having rolled high initiative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's say Bob is in a dungeon and is suddenly ambushed by skeletons right before he's about to open a chest. He brings out his bow to fire an arrow at the skeletons, however he is unaware that the chest he was about to loot, is actually a mimic.
Now the mimic was going to use its turn in the initiative to reveal itself and attack. However, Bob goes before the mimic in the initiative. This brings forth two questions.
1. Does Bob have disadvantage on his ranged attack, if he makes it before the mimic takes its turn (Assuming Bob is standing within 5ft. of it)?
2. If the answer to the above question is yes, when the DM tells Bob's player that he must make the attack with disadvantage, does he have to explain why (As in, does he have to reveal the chest is a mimic and is planning to attack him on its turn)?
If it helps with clarification, the rule for making a ranged attack in close combat is: "When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."
And the description for False Appearance is: "While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object."
5E is chock full of rules like the OA one you've spotted here. Another example is that halflings have advantage on saves against being frightened. Here's the never-stated rule that handles it: whenever a rule would absolutely require that a PC be given information they shouldn't have in order for the rule to work, the rule by definition also grants the PC the necessary knowledge.
So in your example, Bob must be told he has disadvantage - he literally can't make the attack roll without being told - and unless the DM is engaging in dirty pool, he must also be told it's because of a hostile creature within 5 feet. He doesn't have to be given details about the creature, like which space it's in or what it looks like.
I actually would say that Bob makes the attack without disadvantage. My reasoning is that the mimic has done nothing to present itself as a threat, therefore doesn't meet the requirement of being a 'hostile creature'. Until the mimic does something to present itself as a threat I would treat it like the object it is pending to be.
As another example what if Bob was standing next to a spy? Someone Bob believes is an ally but really isn't? I feel the disadvantage on ranged attacks should only apply if there is something that is actively threatening you or your allies adjacent to you.
I completely agree, although by RAW there's nothing that outright says "this is because the enemy is actively interfering with your aim" -- although a DM might reasonably assume that the "can see you and is not incapacitated" clause is there to represent that.
At my table, I'd probably do the same thing. The Mimic (or the spy) isn't acting like a threat (yet) and so it's not something that is likely to spoil your aim. You're not wary of them, they're not actively providing cover or dancing around you in a distracting fashion..
But that's not RAW, which is what most people are here to ask about.
1. No. Until the mimic transforms you are not standing next to a hostile creature - you are standing next to a hostile object. Objects, hostile or otherwise, do not impose disadvantage on range attacks.
An hostile attitude in social interaction context shouldn't include objects or creatures not distinguished as so, meaning if a creature is not hostile nor what it seems, it shouldn't qualify. This is even more true for creatures that wants to hide their true motives, appearance or both, such as when polymorphing into an object.
I'd rule that a motionless creature indistinguishable from an ordinary object using False Appearance is not hostile for the purpose of the Ranged Attacks in Close Combats rules, until it's actually revealed. It's not more difficult to aim a ranged attack when no foe is next to you that you know basically.
I would likely rule it the same as Plaguescarred. As long as the adjacent hostile creature is unknown and not taking any action then they should not affect the ranged attack of an adjacent creature.
However, the RAW is pretty clear. If there is a hostile creature within 5' who can see you and isn't incapacitated the character has disadvantage on ranged attacks.
So the ruling isn't really RAW though a DM could come up with a definition of what hostile means in their game. Hostile could be defined to mean acting threatening or actively making attacks for example - so if a character is unaware of a creature and that creature hasn't done anything then they aren't yet considered hostile by the character.
However, does the situation change
1) if the adjacent hostile opponent is under the effect of a greater invisibility spell or otherwise hidden?
2) if the adjacent creature is a party NPC that is about to betray the party but hasn't taken an action to do so yet?
I think the application of "hostile" should be from the perspective of the character making the ranged attack and not from the perspective of the NPC or creature adjacent. If the character has no reason to consider the chest hostile then it should not affect their ranged attack.
Until the Mimic decides to attack (or at least make itself known as an enemy) it isn't a hostile creature - who knows, it might decide to be on the PCs side in this particular fight.
It's no different to standing next to an NPC who is travelling with you, who actually happens to be a spy/assassin who will turn on the party at some point.
I get that RAW the attack would be made at disadvantage. But if I was the DM I would rule that a creature who is attempting to conceal their hostility doesn't count as a hostile creature and the attack would be as normal. After all, if they're trying to hide the fact that they're a foe, why should they also benefit from being one by nerfing your attack? If the player don't know there's a foe next to them, and they don't WANT the player to know there's a foe next to them, then I'd say treat it as if there isn't, until either the player figures out the deception or the foe stops trying to fool them.
I’d rule it’s not an enemy since it is benefiting from false appearance. So no disadv. Unless it acts out.
related but what if the enemy was invisible? Would you apply disadv. In that case?
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
If they aren't hidden whilst invisible, then you know that they are there, so definitely.
Yes wether you can see the creature or not isn't factor. As long as its within 5 feet, it's hostile and it can see you and it's not icapacitated, you have disadvantage.
I think in combat order, some anachronisms are ok and can be explained away in narration (e.g. think of initiating combat with an attack, but then rolling low initiative).
OP said that the DM already decided that the Mimic wants to attack the group, thus it is hostile. If its cover is blown by being lured into obstructing the ranged attack, then so be it. I would narrate it like:
"Right as you are releasing the arrow you notice the chest next to you moving! It turns out it is a mimic and it's trying to take advantage of you dropping your guard! The realization puts you off balance, so your attack happens with disadvantage!"
If the PC has actions remaining, or if other PCs come first in initiative order, they can now take advantage of this information. So what? Initiative is already so inconsequential in 5e, I gladly give them this benefit of having rolled high initiative.