Combat bonus to hit of an invisible character

[doominicus]

I swear i have seen this in this section of forum, but after a search, nothing shows.
this situation arose yesterday night: aninvisible character try to hit a monster. How much bonus to hit do I give to him?
Possible answers in my mind:
1) the old way, the character earns a bth equal to that earned by a rogue who backstabs. +4 and this is earned even if the character attacks the front (and not the rear) of the enemy
2) at pag 131 of the PHB there's a tab that lists the situational modifier of the combat: the first says "defender prone or blind +5", now a blind person fighting a visible enemy equals a seeing person fighting an invisible person, right?

Anyway, I am inclined towards answer 1.
what do you think?

[serleran]

A person battling an invisible foe is effectively blind. I use the spell cause deafness or blindness to adjust combat rolls.

[Arduin]

Yes, I'd use the blind bonus. Can't parry and the like.

[Chainsaw Mage]

A person battling an invisible foe is effectively blind.

I'm not sure about this. I think there's a difference between you being blind and you having full sight but fighting an invisible foe. Two differences come to mind:

1. If you are blind, you can't only not see your enemy, you can't see anything about your environment. But if you can see, and are fighting an invisible enemy, you can still see his footprints in the dust, the chair he bumps against, the pebbles he accidentally kicks, etc.

2. If you are blinded suddenly (this wouldn't apply to someone born blind) the effect is disorienting on your other senses as well; you'd be truly helpless in a way that a person who can see is not.

I'm not sure how to best handle the distinction in terms of to hit bonuses, though. Sticking with the simple +5 might be easiest.

[doominicus]

sorry but my english is poor. I wasn't asking what is the bth of a blind who attacks (-10) or a normal person with full sight that attack an invisible enemy (-10) again, but what is the bth of the invisible attacker?
I think too that attacker blind/defender and attacker with full sight/defender invisible are separate cases

[Arduin]

sorry but my english is poor. I wasn't asking what is the bth of a blind who attacks (-10) or a normal person with full sight that attack an invisible enemy (-10) again, but what is the bth of the invisible attacker?
I think too that attacker blind/defender and attacker with full sight/defender invisible are separate cases

Your English is fine, no worries. Yes, we understand, we were extrapolating using the reverse. So, it is probably a +4 or +5 bonus for the attacker versus a blind defender.

[Lord Dynel]

sorry but my english is poor. I wasn't asking what is the bth of a blind who attacks (-10) or a normal person with full sight that attack an invisible enemy (-10) again, but what is the bth of the invisible attacker?
I think too that attacker blind/defender and attacker with full sight/defender invisible are separate cases

Your English is fine, good sir!

I would leave the BTH of the invisible character the same, but I would say that the defending character would lose any AC modifier from Dexterity (if he or she has one).

[serleran]

A person battling an invisible foe is effectively blind.

I'm not sure about this. I think there's a difference between you being blind and you having full sight but fighting an invisible foe. Two differences come to mind:

1. If you are blind, you can't only not see your enemy, you can't see anything about your environment. But if you can see, and are fighting an invisible enemy, you can still see his footprints in the dust, the chair he bumps against, the pebbles he accidentally kicks, etc.

2. If you are blinded suddenly (this wouldn't apply to someone born blind) the effect is disorienting on your other senses as well; you'd be truly helpless in a way that a person who can see is not.

I'm not sure how to best handle the distinction in terms of to hit bonuses, though. Sticking with the simple +5 might be easiest.

And you say others are heavy into simulation...

It is easier to use an existing effect than to create one, in general. However, if the PHB or other source says +5, go with +5. It's certainly not any more right or wrong.

[doominicus]

thanx to all and thanx to serleran. the last night I have taken your identical stand because I didn't want to slow down the combat searching for a rule or discussing it with the players.
But in the same moment I state the bth was effectively +5, a little voice began to whisper in my ear: "remember the rogue!"
Then I went to sleep, but the morning after, at work, again, the ghostly voice in my head bothered me, "the back attack" said.
Now, in my mind, a rogue that backstabs a victim is identical to an invisible attacker, so why only +4 for the rogue?
the only plausible reason that comes in my mind is that the rogue is so focussed on moving silently and hiding, that his attack is a little less effective, otherwise an invisible character can focus all his efforts into the attack and gain +5.
Any idea?

[SaveVsFail]

As others have stated. I treated the invis attacker as having the backstab to hit bonus (+4) when my party fought an Arcane Goblin with invisibility. Also once again as other have stated, remember the environment!

In my case the fight was on a raised packed earth road winding through a swamp. When I planned the encounter I was SURE the party would wade into the swamp as soon as the gobbo turned invisible so they could at least see where he was moving. They didnt... and proceeded to almost get wiped out before the duration on the invis ran its course. If they had done that I would have lowered both the to hit bonus of the goblin as well as the players penalty to hit him.

[doominicus]

After long days of thought I have changed the combat modifier table as:
defender blind/attacker invisible: +4
defender invisible/ attacker blind: +8
That's make a huge more sense to me!
PS: I hated to do that because I have broken one of the golden law under I make my own houserules, that is: "never change the existing rules of the book but ADD something where it lacks". I hope this will be the only time.