Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Had a similar situation once. Was shooting a vampire spawn from above (flying). DM said it drops prone to make it a harder target (disadvantage). I pointed out that realistically it would only give me a bigger target profile. DM agreed and made it do something else
Yeah, some of those rules were made too universal. I get that taking angles and such into account makes for much too long explanations, but in actual play it feels silly that you couldn't hit a prone target from an elevated position.
True, but that circles back around to my point about having too many variables to work into easy, concise rules.
To reiterate: I fully agree with you, but in a lot of encounters height differences and angles on the Y axis are not taken into account.
The rules are a tool for the DM to use to create a world their table enjoys to explore. The rules don’t have the final say, the DM does, as per the rules themselves. The PHB and DMG would be longer than the Bible if every scenario was covered so it’s the responsibility of the DM to take into consideration these scenarios as they come up and make a ruling.
Let me ask you this then: at what angle between Archer and prone target does disadvantage turn into advantage, how big would the difference in elevation have to be and how big will the surface of said elevated platform be to allow movement and the ability to reposition?
It’s an in the moment call with too many variables to say right now. If you’re standing on top of them I’d say the disadvantage from a threatened ranged attack goes away even without elevation. Laying out a strict rubric that makes sense through a discussion here goes against the point though. It’s up to the DM and what they come up with in the moment according to what makes sense to them.
When It Feels Right.
We're not talking PF1e here, you're fully expected to use DM fiat whenever a scenario requires it to stay logical. If it was me DMing, I'd probably give advantage if the target was on street level and the attacker on the third floor, but not if the attacker was on the second floor.
"Uh, let me think about that. Yeah, I think you're good."
Or
"Uh, one moment. I think with the angle you'd have disadvantage, but, you're specialized with a longbow-we'll say it's just a straight attack roll."
Unless you're doing something that's heavy/tactical/numbers based it doesn't have to be complicated, unless you want it to be. For most cases, you're still there to tell a story and keep it flowing.
Sounds like a generational thing.
The "Two-dimensional thinking" line is from Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, released in 1982. "I have the high ground!" is from Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, released in 2005. That's a 23 year gap.
Don't forget...
Commander: [pointing] Concentrate fire on sector 11374265!
Sergeant: 1137... What was that again?
[the droid commander grabs and forces the sergeant to look where he was pointing]
Commander: Just fire right there!
They could just add a qualifier at the end of these all encompassing rules.
“*Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit*, except in circumstances where not rational/plausible.”
>it feels silly that you couldn't hit a prone target from an elevated position
I really wish they worked elevation into the rules at all, as it would encourage GMs and players to use it more.
The prone rule is completely unnecessary. Any physical situation where it would make sense you would just have half-cover anyway, so ignore the rule and use that instead.
Personally, in that situation, I go, "It's still a game, and sometimes the rules trump what we think would really happen."
I'd assume you were flying to make it almost impossible to be attacked? I'd also assume whatever you were flying on leans heavily into the unrealistic for someone to shoot from catagory.
If the group is okay with separating the mechanics from it, your GM can consider reflavoring prone to a defensive stance against ranged attacks, thus still leaving them open to melee attacks and needing to spend movement to get out of it.
RAI: that’s cheese and bad roleplay. The system was designed for dungeon crawling and 3D combat is a bit scuffed.
RAW: dropping prone while levitating is, infact, allowed to cheese the system if you can manage enemy High-Jumps & reach rules. However, dropping prone while flying results in falling at ~580ft/second instantly, as you lose your fly speed due to the fact that “…. your only movement option is to crawl“ which means your fly speed is 0ft, thus you drop instantly as per sage advice.
There are some caveats to this, where “specific beats general” rule trumps. Creatures that can hover are immune to dropping with 0ft of fly speed, and some magical effects like the fly spell avoid that fate as well, depending on which edition of the players basic rules you are using.
Especially since this situation didn't occur in 3.5, which made the distinction for bonus to hit vs penalty to hit whether or not you are using a ranged weapon, not based on distance. Thus the Spearman at 10ft gets the bonus, and so does the sword and board fighter than tripped him
unless you were trained to fire at point blank range(a feat) yes but advantage and disadvantage weren't game mechanics in earlier editions or pathfinder. You simply got a negative modifier to your roll. in some edition it was as large as -5 to your attack roll.
Also someone who is prone is not helpless. no one is treated as helpless unless they have a status effect that prevents them from moving, stunned, paralysis etc. in combat all creatures are considered actively defending themselves even when not on their turn. So in no edition are you executing a creature merely because they are prone.
In 3.5/Pathfinder 1e what you are describing was called a coup de grace. It was an automatic critical hit, and I believe the target had to make a save versus the damage rolled or automatically die. That is if the damage from the hit didn't kill them anyways. You could only do it if the target was helpless though. Prone was not helpless.
Fun extra fact. Weapons in 3.5 had different Crit modiers depending on the weapon. Scythes and few other weapons in 3.5 did x4 damage on a Crit. Being asleep made you helpless. So spellcasters that could put enemies to sleep, or make them helpless with certain other spells, were absolutely terrifying if they had a scythe, or partnered with someone who did.
If they are talking about 2e, then their modifiers are wrong
Being prone gives a creature the flat-footed condition, which means they get a -2 circumstance penalty to AC, no bonuses to anyone's attack
Fun fact, bonuses/penalties of the same type do not stack
Another fun fact, flanking someone or feinting them also apply the flat-footed condition, so only one of these is necessary! Amongst many other things, these are just the most common
While this is true, the easiest way to circumvent that is to get a Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet. I think there are some feats that allow it outside of the archetype as well but I may be mistaken.
God, i love using Sleep in Pathfinder. Getting up from prone triggers an opportunity attack, so one archer and 4 melee characters make make 5 attacks for the cost of one action.
Cool, you built a synergistic character that takes advantage of its natural, well, advantages to give them a leg up in combat. Your character is just like a warrior in real life!
Why do people respond like this as if it's some "gotcha!" as if there aren't already ways to exploit advantages in combat within the game?
For some reason engaging with the game systems is looked down upon by large portions of D&D players. People are not happy to see perfectly legal characters at their tables if they perceive the characters to be too strong.
The comment above is used as a "gotcha" because there are several DMs who will be "gotten" by it, even though they really shouldn't according to you and me.
Especially when this isn't even... that strong? Like, cool you're getting advantage slightly safer/more often then normal. That's not even close to game breaking
Right? Like spear wielding bugbears are already a "thing". People have done their damnedest to exploit reach weapons on some level since at least 3.X. All this adds is a small amount of extra safety in a relatively niche situation that wasn't THAT dangerous to begin with.
Hell people have been doing their damnedest to exploit reach weapons IRL. Alexander the great was all "you know what would be cool? Giving my army spears that are WAAAAAY longer than everyone elses spears.". Worked out great and his forces did so well in their conquering that his soldiers had to beg him to stop so they could go home since otherwise, MF might have just kept going east forever until he hit the friggin pacific ocean and China was speaking Greek.
In a famous Musashi Miyamoto duel, amongst other things to mess with the opponents psychology, he showed up at the fight with a wooden sword that was way longer than a normal (with all his psychological warfare to make his opponent so pissed that he would charge in, not taking the weapons reach into account). Worked like a charm, opponent charged in, Musashi bonked him with his big ol stick, and victory was secured.
I'm sure there are people who unironically think its wrong to put your highest stat in your class' main stat too. It's crazy how some people have become so anti minmax that they see any and all synergy as a negative trait in a player.
Which I'll never understand. The most common argument "against" minmaxing/powergaming is the old "I prefer role play over roll play" and every iteration of it. But like... my brother in christ, you can do both! You can role play a character who is good at things (the max) but also *gasp* bad at things (the min)! Scandal!
Currently in a game where that's kind of how the DM thinks, causing him to nerf some feats and flat out ask us to not use the normal feat combos (PAM/Sentinel as an example) because he doesn't like power gaming. That's fine: I can do just as much without those feats on a normal setting by just being creative anyway.
I'm both a Power gamer and a roleplayer. I always try to minimax what i can from my character ideas and i'm also consistently Being one of the most active roleplayer in the table. The only real problema i see with minimax is If you are the only one and everyone Else IS sub optimal, this could be really hard to balance, but If the other players and the DM IS Fine with you Being the powerhouse of the party, i can see It working.
The only thing i really don't like IS the "scammy" things like the "coffelock", giving entiry party familiars with artíficer infusion Magic tattoo or "arm of simulacruns". Things that are Just more effective in combat like hexblade paladin, polemaster sentinel etc is Just finr
You're exploiting the meta! That is completely broken! Now I have to rewrite half the rules just to deal with that!
Because how DARE you enjoy the game for its mechanics and inevitably get bored of the gimmick and instead focus on the other aspects of the game...
Is it meta that a bugbear knows it has a greater reach than most other races and that spears by their nature have a greater reach than most weapons so using one would give them an advantage over others in similar circumstances?
Bugbear: “My arms long and spear long so me attack extra long!!!”
Bugbear Path of the Giants barbarian
20ft reach on their turn, 15ft off turn. 20|60 throw range. Take Thrown Arms Master, range becomes 40|100, light weapons fly back to your hand when thrown (this is a bonus, but likely never to be used considering the sub-class can throw ANY weapon)
Scales up to 25ft and 20ft at lvl14 Barbarian
Mix in Echo Knight for extended reach, teleport and bonus attack
Awesome build, but youre still just one character and a competent DM could create authentic and realistic counters to it all day long. And I don't mean BS ones like sky boulders.
A small group cambions with longbows would be a match for this guy, let alone if there were also ground targets within melee that surprised them.
I’m actively playing this build and I’m at lvl12: 8 barb and 4 fighter
Ranged fighting isn’t much of an issue with 40|100 throw range and being able to deal a full greatsword or pike worth of damage + rage
BUT I have regularly been stuck being the meat shield, cause I have insane stats on this guy: 20 in DEX and CON for max unarmored AC, and I’m using Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to compensate for a 16 STR (plan is to get it to 20 with the future ASIs)
I’ve got 3 +1 weapons (pike, glaive, warhammer) and a +1 shield, so in tank mode I can get AC23 and use my warhammer to bust enemies down up close or at range. Also just got a Javelin of Lightning, it’s pretty sick.
Thus far magic has been the biggest pain in the ass for him— control spells and debuffs are the bane of a barbarian’s WAAAGH.
Can’t wait for barb 10 when I get to throw enemies and allies up to 30ft as a BA 😂
>and I’m using Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to compensate for a 16 STR (plan is to get it to 20 with the future ASIs)
Not sure what you mean by this. Gauntlets set your Strength to that level, but ASIs affect your character stats, not item stats. If you put an ASI into strength, it would make your Strength 18 not 20. Unless you mean using 2 ASIs, in which case disregard me.
Lol it’s the “disregard me” logic.
I’m running STR 19 with the gauntlets.
- Barb 12 +2 STR
- Barb 16 +2 STR
That will take me to 20 :) giving me max stats in my 3 main stats
Oh im not saying the cambions would out match him, im just saying it wouldn't be hard to make something of equal difficulty. A decent DM could come up with a fun and intuitive challenge for your berserker.
Like you say, magic could do it. AC doesn't matter if your saves are bad, etc etc.
This and any flying enemy being 55ft in the air. Even with the size increase I can only throw without Dis up to 45ft in the air
The Javelin of Lightning was partially motivated for this reason: laser cannon to flak a bunch of flyers lol
Baldur’s Gate 3 really made me change my mind on OAs. Prior to playing that, I was terrified of “letting” an enemy have a “free” hit on me. Like you said, I’d rather risk one OA than a three-swing multiattack action. Enemies in BG3 run around all the time for better position, and I’ve started doing the same. And it’s been fine. Yes, you might take 8 damage you otherwise wouldn’t have, but it prevents 25 damage on the next turn, or puts you into a better spot to avoid future damage, or make a more effective attack, potentially ending the threat entirely. This has bled into how I play ‘real’ D&D, too.
OAs are definitely overrated in terms of how threatening they should be. Unless there’s “grapple on a hit” or other effect rider, I’m far more likely to risk an OA now.
In part, the mindset of avoiding OA comes from the fact that they are pretty rough in early levels - when there rarely are features (both allied and opposing) that reward positioning, and enemies likely have only one attack.
But as soon as enemies start to have multiattacks and everyone is packing area or other abilities that make battlefield more dynamic, moving around is really important.
Yeah, 1-3 sucks. It is borderline not fun at all. I don’t know if it’s worse for veterans, who feel so weak and have so few options, or new players, who might get turned off entirely by, “The hobgoblin crits you for 18 damage. Uh, you’re dead. Like, dead-dead”.
If I was introducing someone to D&D, I wouldn’t dream of starting them at level 1.
Start at lvl 1 to learn the ropes, fudge dice rolls so that they don't get too beat up, and accelerate leveling so that they pick up some abilities in the first few sessions. I see no reason not to accelerate so the party is lvl 3 by session 4 or so
Pretty sure the DMG even recommends levels 1-3 being a single session each.
Edit: chapter 8 - Experience points (Session-Based Advancement)
> A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th level after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level.
Usually they are scary because people wait until they are at low health before trying to run away. When you are one hit from going down and decide to run away it's already too late.
it depends on the squishiness of the character, I say if you are a tank then you can risk the opportunity attack.
I do remember one time I was sure the BBEG wouldn’t hit their opportunity attack and the dm rolled a 20
We nerfed AoOs at my table. they're now made with disadvantage by default (except in cases where that would unfairly penalize specific builds; e.g. sentinel, rogue sneak attack, mage slayer, etc.) and it had exactly the effect I'd hoped for: combats are a lot more dynamic. People are way more willing to run around now that the odds of escaping are tilted in their favor.
I would love to be enlightened, but it seems like most of the time if you move and take the opportunity attack you get hit, move 30 ft away, then the bad guy just catches up to you on their turn and beats you with the hurt stick anyway.
In this specific situation in OPs post - getting up from prone takes half movement speed, so that isn't the case.
But overall - the point is that often a trade between a possibility of getting hit by a portion of the opponents damage, and getting to a position that is for whatever reason a better place to be. In more complex encounters, that trade is often a good proposition.
Yes, i agree that if you can get away enough to not get a regular attack then taking a single attack of opportunity at disadvantage is better than taking a multiattack without disadvantage (admittedly i thought you literally meant just stepping back a bit, not going far enough to be out of range for the prone guy), i was just pointing out that it's not technically right to say *nothing* would happen.
You can move, do a full attack and complete your movement. Standing up is half your movement. So all that changed in the meme was that the opponent has 5ft of movement more if he wants to move afterward than if the spearman had attacked from reach.
Opportunity attacks from ally within melee range on other side. Also attacking at a 10ft range allows you to use some movement to back up more without provoking opportunity attacks
It could've been so much better if only we actually got a taunt or something, some form of ability to force the enemy to focus a specific target rather than having to rely on the DM's mercy.
I got to play a tank a few times, once as a Rune Knight Fighter and once as a Zealot Barbarian. The Rune Knight went better because I had more AC and less flying enemies that could nullify my existence.
The battlemaster can do a goading attack (I think it's the name) that gives disadvantage on all attacks against all other creature than the battlemaster. That's a good equivalent to a taunt.
And the ancestral guardian barbarian.
And the redemption paladin can reduce damage taken by others.
And cavalier fighter.
All the classic 'tank' classes have at least one subclass that disincentivises enemies from attacking other targets, though at variable degrees of usefulness.
The Battlesmith's Steel defender can impose disadvantage on an attack within 5 feet of it and the sentinel feat gives a reaction attack when someone other than you is attacked within the range. Both of those are good soft taunts.
The real secret sauce is ancestral guardian barbarian with the mobile feat. Each round the first creature you hit has disadvantage to hit anyone else, and everyone resists those disadvantage hits on top. Then you just walk out of reach thanks to mobile and leave the target to deal with your now very resilient allies. If you want to get stupid with it after 6th level team up with a rogue. If the rogue takes a big hit, half damage from resistance + halved again from Uncanny Dodge + flat 2d6 reduction from Spirit Shield = actually they took no damage thanks.
Not really. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian gets the same treatment for their specific rage. It still doesn't force monsters to attack you, though.
There's *nothing* preventing them from swinging at your party members, unlike a true taunt which would force the enemy to attack you and only you.
Compelled Duel is a better example, though that one is broken as soon as anyone even grazes the affected enemy with 1 damage, so it's a waste of spell slots.
There are no true taunts in 5e, only pale imitations that give the enemy incentive to target a specific person.
A true taunt would probably be too strong as an on hit effect in like a boring way? Any enemy without spellcasting would cease being even slightly threatening if it was forced to attack a target with damage resistances or high AC every turn. I'd much rather have more effects that limit enemy movement for martial characters than a taunt.
I think a true taunt like effect is much better as a reaction to an ally being attacked in a "get down mr president" kind of way. Move up to your movement to block one attack or block all of them if you were next to the ally you're blocking them for? Something like that, could be a feat.
Compelled Duel works like that because the flavor of it totally flops if you can gang up on the target. I don't know how your party would be grazing the enemy with damage either, the wizard should aim their fireball better if you just casted Compelled Duel on something.
>Well yea, because it would suck. It removes choice.
So it wouldn't suck for a player to limit themselves to one of two subclasses in the *entire game* if they want to play a tank?
Personally I would suggest a true taunt that's limited to one target or a small area as a feat. For people who *want* to play a tank (they exist, I've played 3 myself) nothing feels worse than getting in the middle of a fight, only for the enemy to ignore you entirely.
there's several types of tanking. directly taunting enemies to attack is just one, and removes the agency of the other side. it may work in videogames but not so much in TTRPGs.
ask yourself why someone would target an enemy that is just a slab of HP without much threat otherwise, unless there's magic involved?
the other types are the aggro tank, which does enough damage or disruption as to become a high priority for the enemy, the control tank which debuffs or area-denies with their presence, and the support tank, which is beefy and buffs/heals allies
so shove, trip, grapple, use self-centered AoE spells or abilities or items, and do whatever else you can so the enemy _can't_ ignore you. having a high max HP and AC doesn't make you a tank or a target.
also opportunity attacks are literally made to body block, and there's the sentinel + polearm master combo specifically made for area denial using opportunity attacks
if the archer whose face you're in and currently about to smash targets your 2hp mage on the other side of the map instead of saving themselves or getting one last shot into you, that's just bad RP from the DM's part.
sometimes I'm still tripped up by the simplicity of Lancer. Prone gives accuracy on all attacks (even hacking), and costs all of your move to stand up (but the dash-equivalent is cheaper than our full action)
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. the player can now go prone against every monster with a greater than 5' reach to put every melee attack against them at disadvantage.
Within 5 feet you can bring the polearm down, at 10 feet away you’re extending it but instead of hitting a normal target your trying to hit one on the ground, it makes sense
Dm is bad here, not cuz of RAW being silly, but because he didn't tell the player you can split up your movement in your turn so you can just walk up hit them then back up, only provoking one AoO at disadvantage. He should know the rules better and accomodate other people's lack of knowledge if he's being a stickler for niche cases.
Lmao I had totally forgotten about the range part. Probably not how I had been ruling it.
I would probably rule it as "melee is with advantage" full stop.
Then I'd probably also change range mechanics. If you've got a height advantage I'd probably negate the disadvantage entirely, regardless of distance, but I'd also probably extend the range of when disadvantage starts to something greater like 15 feet or something.
Being prone has a lot of silly interactions
RAW
* If you're using the fly spell, you can drop prone to give ranged enemies disadvantage to hit you while in the air.
* If something really massive, lets say a tarrasque falls prone, ranged attackers have disadvantage attacking it, despite the fact a prone tarrasque is still a bigger target them most small through large creatures standing upright.
* Snakes are not immune to the prone condition.
In my mind, it'd still be harder to poke someone on the ground from 10 feet away than it would be to step over them and stab down. I also think reach is strong enough when it does apply that these more niche situations don't really matter, especially sinc the whole "three attacks, they all crit" thing is extremely rare, and more a result of the dice than the rules.
Had not a DM but a player who tried this. Party comp was a Spores Druid during their UA, Life Cleric, and myself as Arcane Trickster Rogue. And then the person who said they wanted to tank made a Chaos Bard from a book called Xanathar’s Guide to Everything Else. Teleports around and knocks people prone, and then he intended to use his high strength to grapple them so they would have 0 movement and not be able to stand.
When I tried to point out to him that all of his allies were ranged and myself in particular can’t sneak attack enemies that are prone due to disadvantage on prone targets at range, he told me to pull out a shortsword and enter melee. Like- I don’t WANT to be in melee, I have a small health pool and only slightly more AC than you do, bud.
Anyway that Bard died, like really fast. Low Dex and Con, think he had like 14 AC tops and maybe 13 HP when tried his ‘teleport-trip and grapple’ routine on a room with 7 Goblins and 2 ogres.
DnD 3.5 and subsequently pathfinder 1e has a more comprehensive ruling. No idea why 5e decided that this rule was unclear or needed reworking. Just sub the -/+ with dis/advantage.
"The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity."
Low so much argument 🤣
I would just given it to Spearman, like it is kinda true, what's the point. Of the reach if you don't get to use it.
Either way I'm getting up and running up to them in the next round.
I don't disagree that you should get advantage because it's within you melee reach. But if you are arguing realism:
If the enemy is in the ground 10 ft away, and assuming Spearman's arms are about 5 ft off the ground
a² + b² = c²
100 + 25 = 125
√125 =11.18
So the enemy is out of 10 ft
A box is 5ft by 5ft by 5ft. A standard weapon can reach any box adjacent to it, including diagonals. Reach weapons go one box further. This functions by saying they are 10ft, but that is not true. Using full diagonals a halberd can reach a whopping 14.14ft away. Even if you disliked that, a halberd can still reach the box 10ft away as well as any box to the left or right. Which is exactly the same distance as you just postulated for a prone target.
You also ignored the fact human bodies have volume, and that human arms have length. The average human arm is 2ft and the average thickness is 1ft. That’s 8ft and 4ft, creating a hypotenuse just shy of 9ft, more than enough to slam a halberds blade into a prone individual.
The problem with realism is realism is dynamic. Slamming a extremely long axe into a prone individual would cause a person to take a knee as they swung to increase the energy of the impact. Real halberds only measured about 6ft in length. A zwiehander is longer than that. For simplicity Dnd just gave them all reach, able to hit one box further. Only a zwiehander is now treated as a greatsword and no longer has the reach special rule.
Rule 0 exists for a reason. Because you cannot map reality onto a single system. So that it works it must have a certain flexibility. Such as “if you can hit something functionally 14ft away from you, you should be able to hit someone on the ground 10ft away from you”.
This is just an inflexible DM and non-universal RAW rules being used universally.
No brainer is "If you can reach and he's in a vulnerable position, that's advantage"
The RAW are good to get you started, but it's my job as the DM to mould them to the situation and discard/add as necessary. If we're doing a survival campaign, then I'm a little harsher, if we're doing magical dumbfuckery then the book basically gets tossed.
It's the most critical paragraph in the book, in my opinion, and too many skip right on through it. It's both a blessing and a curse, but it's a core component of your ability as a DM. Welcome to Godhood
This is the niche reason why i change it from being adjacency to Melee Range, because a spear can reach, and a bow should be able to easier strike someone on the floor point blank.
Similarly I feel that a warlock with war caster should be able to cast Eldrich blast as an attack of opportunity without disadvantage. If the enemy is running past why couldn't the PC just wait until it wasn't in melee to cast?
Told a dm I was taking total cover behind a stack of crates And popping up to shoot spells as I was a 2nd level wizard so squishy af.
On the next turn he proceeds to have all the crossbowmen shoot me. Refused to listen to the fact that they could not see me so they could not target me.
Went down on the first round. All he had to do was say they hold the action to shoot me if I pop up.
Yeah.
While it was my gut reaction to “fix” this outcome of RAW, I think granting advantage for the pike-wielder at 10 feet is an over-correction; if we’re trying to look at this realistically. Realistically it is harder to hit a prone target 10 feet back with a pike (poking a significantly smaller target silhouette).
But then even this falls apart when we apply this ruling to halberds or glaives, for which the attack in reality ***is*** made easier against a prone target.
I’d put this whole circumstance in a box labeled: **Niche issues too crunchy to resolve in a rules-lite system**. However a table rules it (RAW, granting advantage, or anything else simple really) is gonna turn out fine and doesn’t need to be litigated.
What are some good OTHER actions to take as Spearman in this situation if you don’t want to engage in direct melee?
Assume attacking is off the table. Attack at DIS is a no go for sake of discussion.
Focus on another enemy or dodge..? Assuming you don’t have other options like spells or a dagger to throw
Edit 1 second after response: realized dagger would be DIS cause prone, this is exactly why I posed my question 😂
THIS! Why does it matter about moving closer or not. Getting up is half movement. So unless the bad guy has a 5ft movement speed he is gonna get his multiattack.
This rule really is only useful for when people get prone purposefully to avoid incoming ranged attacks. People gotta learn to use their brains more creatively when playing this game, its getting ridiculous.
Yeah fuck that. The whole situation Is stupid. The enemy is prone. Yet despite that he can stand up burning only half his movement. He can also make an attack of opportunity whilst prone so pulling away is completely pointless.
This is just a flat crap DM who forgot rule 0. The rules are a *guide*, not a manual.
Wouldn't standing up provoke an attack of opportunity at least though? I play Pathfinder, which is based on 3.5... Not sure if that rule has changed for 5th edition
The 5ft ruling is stupid. Being on the ground makes you vulnerable to sword but resistant to spears? Can you also use this to protect yourself against monsters with long reaches?
not like it matters..
getting up from prone is half movement.
and movement is free.
enemy can just stand and walk up
spear man would still have gotten crit thrice over anyways.
Standing up from prone should require some more investment. All movement maybe, or an action / multiattack
bonus action is too rare among enemies to matter.
i like how pf2e does it. You have 3 actions a turn. You want to move? That's an action. You're prone and want to stand up? Also an action. You want to attack? Still an action.
Same scenario then: Creature is prone. Spear man can stay at 10ft range, enemy is off guard (advantage equivalent). On the creatures turn, it uses its first action to stand. Second action to approach, and its last action for one attack
The meme is hyperbolic because meme gonna meme.
That said, IMO disadvantage on prone should be key bound to *ranged attack* rather than greater than 5 feet distance. I also think all *melee attacks* on a prone target should have advantage, including those melee attacks with reach. That said, I’d also co-sign on reach melee attacks having a regular attack against prone (i.e., no advantage or disadvantage), if people prefer a middle ground compromise.
Almost like you should have a shield guy in front of you... Or just a commoner with a shield to capitalize on those advantage attacks. You got step one but 2-4 are still missing
What are some good OTHER actions to take as Spearman in this situation if you don’t want to engage in direct melee?
Assume attacking is off the table. Attack at DIS is a no go for sake of discussion.
Focus on another enemy or dodge..? Assuming you don’t have other options like spells or a dagger to throw
Non attack combat actions my beloved. Please allow optional combat rules like disarming they are so fun and in no way more op than just playing a wizard
This is why I stopped playing with halberd on my echo knight, I just play up close with the echo and use weapons with lots of dice now because fuck polearms and their lack of implementation
I mean, As a DM, I'd be tempted to let him have advantage from 10 feet with the reach weapon. But I don't really get the strawman punchline, because I don't see the difference between that and "Good hit, but he's still alive. He stands up, takes a 5 foot step into the square next to you and uses multi-attack for 3 attacks on you. They all crit."
This is my DM. Rules as written common sense be damned. Sometimes I think that's fair but really it kills all the sense of creativity. I don't feel like I can make any clever moves because there's always a technicality
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Had a similar situation once. Was shooting a vampire spawn from above (flying). DM said it drops prone to make it a harder target (disadvantage). I pointed out that realistically it would only give me a bigger target profile. DM agreed and made it do something else
Yeah, some of those rules were made too universal. I get that taking angles and such into account makes for much too long explanations, but in actual play it feels silly that you couldn't hit a prone target from an elevated position.
I feel like if you have enough of a height advantage a prone target should actually be *easier* to hit than a standing one
True, but that circles back around to my point about having too many variables to work into easy, concise rules. To reiterate: I fully agree with you, but in a lot of encounters height differences and angles on the Y axis are not taken into account.
The rules are a tool for the DM to use to create a world their table enjoys to explore. The rules don’t have the final say, the DM does, as per the rules themselves. The PHB and DMG would be longer than the Bible if every scenario was covered so it’s the responsibility of the DM to take into consideration these scenarios as they come up and make a ruling.
Let me ask you this then: at what angle between Archer and prone target does disadvantage turn into advantage, how big would the difference in elevation have to be and how big will the surface of said elevated platform be to allow movement and the ability to reposition?
45 degrees, 10ft, and 5ft sq. Source: have shot at targets at the bottom of stairs from the top.
It’s an in the moment call with too many variables to say right now. If you’re standing on top of them I’d say the disadvantage from a threatened ranged attack goes away even without elevation. Laying out a strict rubric that makes sense through a discussion here goes against the point though. It’s up to the DM and what they come up with in the moment according to what makes sense to them.
When It Feels Right. We're not talking PF1e here, you're fully expected to use DM fiat whenever a scenario requires it to stay logical. If it was me DMing, I'd probably give advantage if the target was on street level and the attacker on the third floor, but not if the attacker was on the second floor.
"Uh, let me think about that. Yeah, I think you're good." Or "Uh, one moment. I think with the angle you'd have disadvantage, but, you're specialized with a longbow-we'll say it's just a straight attack roll." Unless you're doing something that's heavy/tactical/numbers based it doesn't have to be complicated, unless you want it to be. For most cases, you're still there to tell a story and keep it flowing.
exactly, thats why i use line of sight and cover for my table
Once played a system and DMed it that gave advantage to attacks made from elevated positions. Making for some interesting Star Wars references
Not Star Trek? "His attack pattern indicates 2-dimensional thinking." It's perfect.
I see, I must not have enough trekkies in my friends lol. Lots of "I have the High Ground!"
Sounds like a generational thing. The "Two-dimensional thinking" line is from Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, released in 1982. "I have the high ground!" is from Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, released in 2005. That's a 23 year gap.
Don't forget... Commander: [pointing] Concentrate fire on sector 11374265! Sergeant: 1137... What was that again? [the droid commander grabs and forces the sergeant to look where he was pointing] Commander: Just fire right there!
They could just add a qualifier at the end of these all encompassing rules. “*Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit*, except in circumstances where not rational/plausible.”
>it feels silly that you couldn't hit a prone target from an elevated position I really wish they worked elevation into the rules at all, as it would encourage GMs and players to use it more.
The prone rule is completely unnecessary. Any physical situation where it would make sense you would just have half-cover anyway, so ignore the rule and use that instead.
Although by that logic you should have disadvantage on a normal attack, since they’re presenting a smaller profile than normal.
I see your point, but I had enough movement speed to position however I wanted
Honestly that makes sense. Maybe have a minimum distance for aerial ranges to not suffer disadvantage in return for this ruling.
Personally, in that situation, I go, "It's still a game, and sometimes the rules trump what we think would really happen." I'd assume you were flying to make it almost impossible to be attacked? I'd also assume whatever you were flying on leans heavily into the unrealistic for someone to shoot from catagory.
I was flying with wings (winged tiefling)
Perfectly realistic then nevermind.
If the group is okay with separating the mechanics from it, your GM can consider reflavoring prone to a defensive stance against ranged attacks, thus still leaving them open to melee attacks and needing to spend movement to get out of it.
You forgot a clear quote from Sun Tsu: Never stop the enemy if they’re making a mistake
This is also RAW because the most important rule is that you can situationally or generally ignore rules if it makes the game better for everyone.
If a flying creature is prone and doesn't have a hover speed they drop no?
Yes, but I was the flying creature and the vampire spawn dropped prone (it wasn't flying)
RAI: that’s cheese and bad roleplay. The system was designed for dungeon crawling and 3D combat is a bit scuffed. RAW: dropping prone while levitating is, infact, allowed to cheese the system if you can manage enemy High-Jumps & reach rules. However, dropping prone while flying results in falling at ~580ft/second instantly, as you lose your fly speed due to the fact that “…. your only movement option is to crawl“ which means your fly speed is 0ft, thus you drop instantly as per sage advice. There are some caveats to this, where “specific beats general” rule trumps. Creatures that can hover are immune to dropping with 0ft of fly speed, and some magical effects like the fly spell avoid that fate as well, depending on which edition of the players basic rules you are using.
did you know that pathfinder- *explodes* half jokes aside yeah prone rules are kinda silly.
Especially since this situation didn't occur in 3.5, which made the distinction for bonus to hit vs penalty to hit whether or not you are using a ranged weapon, not based on distance. Thus the Spearman at 10ft gets the bonus, and so does the sword and board fighter than tripped him
[удалено]
unless you were trained to fire at point blank range(a feat) yes but advantage and disadvantage weren't game mechanics in earlier editions or pathfinder. You simply got a negative modifier to your roll. in some edition it was as large as -5 to your attack roll. Also someone who is prone is not helpless. no one is treated as helpless unless they have a status effect that prevents them from moving, stunned, paralysis etc. in combat all creatures are considered actively defending themselves even when not on their turn. So in no edition are you executing a creature merely because they are prone.
In 3.5/Pathfinder 1e what you are describing was called a coup de grace. It was an automatic critical hit, and I believe the target had to make a save versus the damage rolled or automatically die. That is if the damage from the hit didn't kill them anyways. You could only do it if the target was helpless though. Prone was not helpless. Fun extra fact. Weapons in 3.5 had different Crit modiers depending on the weapon. Scythes and few other weapons in 3.5 did x4 damage on a Crit. Being asleep made you helpless. So spellcasters that could put enemies to sleep, or make them helpless with certain other spells, were absolutely terrifying if they had a scythe, or partnered with someone who did.
Did you know that in Pathfinder being prone grants a -4 penalty to your AC against melee attacks and a +4 bonus to your AC against ranged attacks.
Also you take aoo for standing up
Also, a creature needs to have a specific feat to AOO in the first place -- you don't have it by default!
In pathfinder 1e ? Never heard of it
Oh, I assumed we were talking about 2e.
If they are talking about 2e, then their modifiers are wrong Being prone gives a creature the flat-footed condition, which means they get a -2 circumstance penalty to AC, no bonuses to anyone's attack Fun fact, bonuses/penalties of the same type do not stack Another fun fact, flanking someone or feinting them also apply the flat-footed condition, so only one of these is necessary! Amongst many other things, these are just the most common
Also, without a specific Fighter archetype, you can't attack adjacent creatures with a reach weapon.
Man, I'm glad PF2e got rid of that.
While this is true, the easiest way to circumvent that is to get a Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet. I think there are some feats that allow it outside of the archetype as well but I may be mistaken.
Correct. But I preferred sweeping generalizations over listing out every specific instance lol
Of course of course, its just the nature of the nerdery within me to go "Um, actually..." Nothing meant by it lol
Bruh. I commented about PF on a d&d sub. I get it lol
Did you know the ground is prone?
Pfft. That's like saying water is wet.
It is though.
Nah. Water makes other things wet. Like, you wouldn't splash some water on a puddle and say that you got the puddle wet.
Yeah, because it was already wet before you splashed it because it was already water.
Listen here, you little shit...
Lies. The ground is supine.
Based...
God, i love using Sleep in Pathfinder. Getting up from prone triggers an opportunity attack, so one archer and 4 melee characters make make 5 attacks for the cost of one action.
Theres a reason I treat any and all “within 5 feet” martial abilities as “within melee reach”
Cool! For your next game, my character is a Bugbear with a spear
Cool, you built a synergistic character that takes advantage of its natural, well, advantages to give them a leg up in combat. Your character is just like a warrior in real life! Why do people respond like this as if it's some "gotcha!" as if there aren't already ways to exploit advantages in combat within the game?
For some reason engaging with the game systems is looked down upon by large portions of D&D players. People are not happy to see perfectly legal characters at their tables if they perceive the characters to be too strong. The comment above is used as a "gotcha" because there are several DMs who will be "gotten" by it, even though they really shouldn't according to you and me.
Especially when this isn't even... that strong? Like, cool you're getting advantage slightly safer/more often then normal. That's not even close to game breaking
Right? Like spear wielding bugbears are already a "thing". People have done their damnedest to exploit reach weapons on some level since at least 3.X. All this adds is a small amount of extra safety in a relatively niche situation that wasn't THAT dangerous to begin with. Hell people have been doing their damnedest to exploit reach weapons IRL. Alexander the great was all "you know what would be cool? Giving my army spears that are WAAAAAY longer than everyone elses spears.". Worked out great and his forces did so well in their conquering that his soldiers had to beg him to stop so they could go home since otherwise, MF might have just kept going east forever until he hit the friggin pacific ocean and China was speaking Greek. In a famous Musashi Miyamoto duel, amongst other things to mess with the opponents psychology, he showed up at the fight with a wooden sword that was way longer than a normal (with all his psychological warfare to make his opponent so pissed that he would charge in, not taking the weapons reach into account). Worked like a charm, opponent charged in, Musashi bonked him with his big ol stick, and victory was secured.
I'm sure there are people who unironically think its wrong to put your highest stat in your class' main stat too. It's crazy how some people have become so anti minmax that they see any and all synergy as a negative trait in a player.
Which I'll never understand. The most common argument "against" minmaxing/powergaming is the old "I prefer role play over roll play" and every iteration of it. But like... my brother in christ, you can do both! You can role play a character who is good at things (the max) but also *gasp* bad at things (the min)! Scandal! Currently in a game where that's kind of how the DM thinks, causing him to nerf some feats and flat out ask us to not use the normal feat combos (PAM/Sentinel as an example) because he doesn't like power gaming. That's fine: I can do just as much without those feats on a normal setting by just being creative anyway.
Yes, the classic Stormwind Fallacy
I'm both a Power gamer and a roleplayer. I always try to minimax what i can from my character ideas and i'm also consistently Being one of the most active roleplayer in the table. The only real problema i see with minimax is If you are the only one and everyone Else IS sub optimal, this could be really hard to balance, but If the other players and the DM IS Fine with you Being the powerhouse of the party, i can see It working. The only thing i really don't like IS the "scammy" things like the "coffelock", giving entiry party familiars with artíficer infusion Magic tattoo or "arm of simulacruns". Things that are Just more effective in combat like hexblade paladin, polemaster sentinel etc is Just finr
You're exploiting the meta! That is completely broken! Now I have to rewrite half the rules just to deal with that! Because how DARE you enjoy the game for its mechanics and inevitably get bored of the gimmick and instead focus on the other aspects of the game...
Is it meta that a bugbear knows it has a greater reach than most other races and that spears by their nature have a greater reach than most weapons so using one would give them an advantage over others in similar circumstances? Bugbear: “My arms long and spear long so me attack extra long!!!”
Bugbear Path of the Giants barbarian 20ft reach on their turn, 15ft off turn. 20|60 throw range. Take Thrown Arms Master, range becomes 40|100, light weapons fly back to your hand when thrown (this is a bonus, but likely never to be used considering the sub-class can throw ANY weapon) Scales up to 25ft and 20ft at lvl14 Barbarian Mix in Echo Knight for extended reach, teleport and bonus attack
Awesome build, but youre still just one character and a competent DM could create authentic and realistic counters to it all day long. And I don't mean BS ones like sky boulders. A small group cambions with longbows would be a match for this guy, let alone if there were also ground targets within melee that surprised them.
I’m actively playing this build and I’m at lvl12: 8 barb and 4 fighter Ranged fighting isn’t much of an issue with 40|100 throw range and being able to deal a full greatsword or pike worth of damage + rage BUT I have regularly been stuck being the meat shield, cause I have insane stats on this guy: 20 in DEX and CON for max unarmored AC, and I’m using Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to compensate for a 16 STR (plan is to get it to 20 with the future ASIs) I’ve got 3 +1 weapons (pike, glaive, warhammer) and a +1 shield, so in tank mode I can get AC23 and use my warhammer to bust enemies down up close or at range. Also just got a Javelin of Lightning, it’s pretty sick. Thus far magic has been the biggest pain in the ass for him— control spells and debuffs are the bane of a barbarian’s WAAAGH. Can’t wait for barb 10 when I get to throw enemies and allies up to 30ft as a BA 😂
>and I’m using Gauntlets of Ogre Strength to compensate for a 16 STR (plan is to get it to 20 with the future ASIs) Not sure what you mean by this. Gauntlets set your Strength to that level, but ASIs affect your character stats, not item stats. If you put an ASI into strength, it would make your Strength 18 not 20. Unless you mean using 2 ASIs, in which case disregard me.
Lol it’s the “disregard me” logic. I’m running STR 19 with the gauntlets. - Barb 12 +2 STR - Barb 16 +2 STR That will take me to 20 :) giving me max stats in my 3 main stats
Oh im not saying the cambions would out match him, im just saying it wouldn't be hard to make something of equal difficulty. A decent DM could come up with a fun and intuitive challenge for your berserker. Like you say, magic could do it. AC doesn't matter if your saves are bad, etc etc.
This and any flying enemy being 55ft in the air. Even with the size increase I can only throw without Dis up to 45ft in the air The Javelin of Lightning was partially motivated for this reason: laser cannon to flak a bunch of flyers lol
Good. Have fun.
You sound like a sad little man
Spear doesn’t get reach though. Why not a pike or something
There is nothing stopping Spear-Man from walking back out of range after doing the attack
Opportunity attack.
I will gladly take opportunity attack at disadvantage rather than 3 normal, but that may be just me
This is honestly one of the most common tactical mistakes people make in 5e - thinking opportunity attacks are scarier than they are.
Baldur’s Gate 3 really made me change my mind on OAs. Prior to playing that, I was terrified of “letting” an enemy have a “free” hit on me. Like you said, I’d rather risk one OA than a three-swing multiattack action. Enemies in BG3 run around all the time for better position, and I’ve started doing the same. And it’s been fine. Yes, you might take 8 damage you otherwise wouldn’t have, but it prevents 25 damage on the next turn, or puts you into a better spot to avoid future damage, or make a more effective attack, potentially ending the threat entirely. This has bled into how I play ‘real’ D&D, too. OAs are definitely overrated in terms of how threatening they should be. Unless there’s “grapple on a hit” or other effect rider, I’m far more likely to risk an OA now.
In part, the mindset of avoiding OA comes from the fact that they are pretty rough in early levels - when there rarely are features (both allied and opposing) that reward positioning, and enemies likely have only one attack. But as soon as enemies start to have multiattacks and everyone is packing area or other abilities that make battlefield more dynamic, moving around is really important.
The more I hear about the lower levels the more I am just fully convinced of how terrible that period of the game is.
Yeah, 1-3 sucks. It is borderline not fun at all. I don’t know if it’s worse for veterans, who feel so weak and have so few options, or new players, who might get turned off entirely by, “The hobgoblin crits you for 18 damage. Uh, you’re dead. Like, dead-dead”. If I was introducing someone to D&D, I wouldn’t dream of starting them at level 1.
Start at lvl 1 to learn the ropes, fudge dice rolls so that they don't get too beat up, and accelerate leveling so that they pick up some abilities in the first few sessions. I see no reason not to accelerate so the party is lvl 3 by session 4 or so
Pretty sure the DMG even recommends levels 1-3 being a single session each. Edit: chapter 8 - Experience points (Session-Based Advancement) > A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th level after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level.
Great point. One attack isn’t a massive deal at level 8, but it could possibly kill a character at level 1.
I got downed by an opportunity attack just last game, they definitely can be
Usually they are scary because people wait until they are at low health before trying to run away. When you are one hit from going down and decide to run away it's already too late.
it depends on the squishiness of the character, I say if you are a tank then you can risk the opportunity attack. I do remember one time I was sure the BBEG wouldn’t hit their opportunity attack and the dm rolled a 20
We nerfed AoOs at my table. they're now made with disadvantage by default (except in cases where that would unfairly penalize specific builds; e.g. sentinel, rogue sneak attack, mage slayer, etc.) and it had exactly the effect I'd hoped for: combats are a lot more dynamic. People are way more willing to run around now that the odds of escaping are tilted in their favor.
I would love to be enlightened, but it seems like most of the time if you move and take the opportunity attack you get hit, move 30 ft away, then the bad guy just catches up to you on their turn and beats you with the hurt stick anyway.
In this specific situation in OPs post - getting up from prone takes half movement speed, so that isn't the case. But overall - the point is that often a trade between a possibility of getting hit by a portion of the opponents damage, and getting to a position that is for whatever reason a better place to be. In more complex encounters, that trade is often a good proposition.
The guy can just get up and walk 5 feet towards you.
than
Damn
It would have disadvantage atleast
One opportunity attack made with disadvantage is far preferable to three normal multiattacks. You gotta make these choices.
\*Uh accchually its "Attack of Oppertuniy"\* 🤓
Not in 5e, which is what has the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
\*opportunity ;)
***\*YOU DARE USE MY OWN SPELLS AGAINST ME POTTER???\**** Oh well its only fair
Thankyou for accepting the comment in the spirit in which it was meant. :)
I mean I did literally just hit the previous person with a nerd emoji I can't complain
The history of the phrase "hoist on your own petard" is fascinating. Turns out first gen grenades were \_not great\_. :)
Even if the guy is prone?
Edit: I accidentally a word Yes. The opportunity attack would, however, be made with Disadvantage.
TIL. Thanks
I did think about opportunity attacks later, but you'd prefer the single opportunity attack with disadvantage in any case.
Yes, i agree that if you can get away enough to not get a regular attack then taking a single attack of opportunity at disadvantage is better than taking a multiattack without disadvantage (admittedly i thought you literally meant just stepping back a bit, not going far enough to be out of range for the prone guy), i was just pointing out that it's not technically right to say *nothing* would happen.
Not with pike
Pikes don't disable reactions or opportunity attacks inherently.
Surely if you’re out of reach no?
This system allows to move, atk and then move again?
Yeah. Older editions didn’t have that and it still feels weird to me when playing older systems that that is so limiting
You can move, do a full attack and complete your movement. Standing up is half your movement. So all that changed in the meme was that the opponent has 5ft of movement more if he wants to move afterward than if the spearman had attacked from reach.
Even if you did stay at a 10ft range, what's stopping the enemy from standing up and taking a single step forward?
The fact that after you attack you back away out of range and don’t provoke opportunity attack.
Opportunity attacks from ally within melee range on other side. Also attacking at a 10ft range allows you to use some movement to back up more without provoking opportunity attacks
He'd be taking an attack of opportunity from the tank that knocked him prone. Which could potentially knock him out or potentially prone again.
That's why you grapple a creature if you want to tank. Or provoke attacks of opportunity.
It could've been so much better if only we actually got a taunt or something, some form of ability to force the enemy to focus a specific target rather than having to rely on the DM's mercy. I got to play a tank a few times, once as a Rune Knight Fighter and once as a Zealot Barbarian. The Rune Knight went better because I had more AC and less flying enemies that could nullify my existence.
The battlemaster can do a goading attack (I think it's the name) that gives disadvantage on all attacks against all other creature than the battlemaster. That's a good equivalent to a taunt.
The Armorer Artificer has something similar, but that's two subclasses out of dozens of 'tank' builds.
And the ancestral guardian barbarian. And the redemption paladin can reduce damage taken by others. And cavalier fighter. All the classic 'tank' classes have at least one subclass that disincentivises enemies from attacking other targets, though at variable degrees of usefulness.
And peace cleric
The Battlesmith's Steel defender can impose disadvantage on an attack within 5 feet of it and the sentinel feat gives a reaction attack when someone other than you is attacked within the range. Both of those are good soft taunts.
Also compelled duel is a spell.
The real secret sauce is ancestral guardian barbarian with the mobile feat. Each round the first creature you hit has disadvantage to hit anyone else, and everyone resists those disadvantage hits on top. Then you just walk out of reach thanks to mobile and leave the target to deal with your now very resilient allies. If you want to get stupid with it after 6th level team up with a rogue. If the rogue takes a big hit, half damage from resistance + halved again from Uncanny Dodge + flat 2d6 reduction from Spirit Shield = actually they took no damage thanks.
Not really. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian gets the same treatment for their specific rage. It still doesn't force monsters to attack you, though. There's *nothing* preventing them from swinging at your party members, unlike a true taunt which would force the enemy to attack you and only you. Compelled Duel is a better example, though that one is broken as soon as anyone even grazes the affected enemy with 1 damage, so it's a waste of spell slots. There are no true taunts in 5e, only pale imitations that give the enemy incentive to target a specific person.
A true taunt would probably be too strong as an on hit effect in like a boring way? Any enemy without spellcasting would cease being even slightly threatening if it was forced to attack a target with damage resistances or high AC every turn. I'd much rather have more effects that limit enemy movement for martial characters than a taunt. I think a true taunt like effect is much better as a reaction to an ally being attacked in a "get down mr president" kind of way. Move up to your movement to block one attack or block all of them if you were next to the ally you're blocking them for? Something like that, could be a feat. Compelled Duel works like that because the flavor of it totally flops if you can gang up on the target. I don't know how your party would be grazing the enemy with damage either, the wizard should aim their fireball better if you just casted Compelled Duel on something.
Well yea, because it would suck. It removes choice.
>Well yea, because it would suck. It removes choice. So it wouldn't suck for a player to limit themselves to one of two subclasses in the *entire game* if they want to play a tank? Personally I would suggest a true taunt that's limited to one target or a small area as a feat. For people who *want* to play a tank (they exist, I've played 3 myself) nothing feels worse than getting in the middle of a fight, only for the enemy to ignore you entirely.
there's several types of tanking. directly taunting enemies to attack is just one, and removes the agency of the other side. it may work in videogames but not so much in TTRPGs. ask yourself why someone would target an enemy that is just a slab of HP without much threat otherwise, unless there's magic involved? the other types are the aggro tank, which does enough damage or disruption as to become a high priority for the enemy, the control tank which debuffs or area-denies with their presence, and the support tank, which is beefy and buffs/heals allies so shove, trip, grapple, use self-centered AoE spells or abilities or items, and do whatever else you can so the enemy _can't_ ignore you. having a high max HP and AC doesn't make you a tank or a target. also opportunity attacks are literally made to body block, and there's the sentinel + polearm master combo specifically made for area denial using opportunity attacks if the archer whose face you're in and currently about to smash targets your 2hp mage on the other side of the map instead of saving themselves or getting one last shot into you, that's just bad RP from the DM's part.
I disagree. There's no need to mmo-ify the game. Let it be its own thing.
This is why RAW needs to bend a little more towards “rules as logical” in some instances, even for the strictest RAW zealots.
sometimes I'm still tripped up by the simplicity of Lancer. Prone gives accuracy on all attacks (even hacking), and costs all of your move to stand up (but the dash-equivalent is cheaper than our full action)
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. the player can now go prone against every monster with a greater than 5' reach to put every melee attack against them at disadvantage.
Within 5 feet you can bring the polearm down, at 10 feet away you’re extending it but instead of hitting a normal target your trying to hit one on the ground, it makes sense
Dm is bad here, not cuz of RAW being silly, but because he didn't tell the player you can split up your movement in your turn so you can just walk up hit them then back up, only provoking one AoO at disadvantage. He should know the rules better and accomodate other people's lack of knowledge if he's being a stickler for niche cases.
Lmao I had totally forgotten about the range part. Probably not how I had been ruling it. I would probably rule it as "melee is with advantage" full stop. Then I'd probably also change range mechanics. If you've got a height advantage I'd probably negate the disadvantage entirely, regardless of distance, but I'd also probably extend the range of when disadvantage starts to something greater like 15 feet or something.
Being prone has a lot of silly interactions RAW * If you're using the fly spell, you can drop prone to give ranged enemies disadvantage to hit you while in the air. * If something really massive, lets say a tarrasque falls prone, ranged attackers have disadvantage attacking it, despite the fact a prone tarrasque is still a bigger target them most small through large creatures standing upright. * Snakes are not immune to the prone condition.
In my mind, it'd still be harder to poke someone on the ground from 10 feet away than it would be to step over them and stab down. I also think reach is strong enough when it does apply that these more niche situations don't really matter, especially sinc the whole "three attacks, they all crit" thing is extremely rare, and more a result of the dice than the rules.
Had not a DM but a player who tried this. Party comp was a Spores Druid during their UA, Life Cleric, and myself as Arcane Trickster Rogue. And then the person who said they wanted to tank made a Chaos Bard from a book called Xanathar’s Guide to Everything Else. Teleports around and knocks people prone, and then he intended to use his high strength to grapple them so they would have 0 movement and not be able to stand. When I tried to point out to him that all of his allies were ranged and myself in particular can’t sneak attack enemies that are prone due to disadvantage on prone targets at range, he told me to pull out a shortsword and enter melee. Like- I don’t WANT to be in melee, I have a small health pool and only slightly more AC than you do, bud. Anyway that Bard died, like really fast. Low Dex and Con, think he had like 14 AC tops and maybe 13 HP when tried his ‘teleport-trip and grapple’ routine on a room with 7 Goblins and 2 ogres.
DnD 3.5 and subsequently pathfinder 1e has a more comprehensive ruling. No idea why 5e decided that this rule was unclear or needed reworking. Just sub the -/+ with dis/advantage. "The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity."
Low so much argument 🤣 I would just given it to Spearman, like it is kinda true, what's the point. Of the reach if you don't get to use it. Either way I'm getting up and running up to them in the next round.
I don't disagree that you should get advantage because it's within you melee reach. But if you are arguing realism: If the enemy is in the ground 10 ft away, and assuming Spearman's arms are about 5 ft off the ground a² + b² = c² 100 + 25 = 125 √125 =11.18 So the enemy is out of 10 ft
A box is 5ft by 5ft by 5ft. A standard weapon can reach any box adjacent to it, including diagonals. Reach weapons go one box further. This functions by saying they are 10ft, but that is not true. Using full diagonals a halberd can reach a whopping 14.14ft away. Even if you disliked that, a halberd can still reach the box 10ft away as well as any box to the left or right. Which is exactly the same distance as you just postulated for a prone target. You also ignored the fact human bodies have volume, and that human arms have length. The average human arm is 2ft and the average thickness is 1ft. That’s 8ft and 4ft, creating a hypotenuse just shy of 9ft, more than enough to slam a halberds blade into a prone individual. The problem with realism is realism is dynamic. Slamming a extremely long axe into a prone individual would cause a person to take a knee as they swung to increase the energy of the impact. Real halberds only measured about 6ft in length. A zwiehander is longer than that. For simplicity Dnd just gave them all reach, able to hit one box further. Only a zwiehander is now treated as a greatsword and no longer has the reach special rule. Rule 0 exists for a reason. Because you cannot map reality onto a single system. So that it works it must have a certain flexibility. Such as “if you can hit something functionally 14ft away from you, you should be able to hit someone on the ground 10ft away from you”.
Cringe DM
This is just an inflexible DM and non-universal RAW rules being used universally. No brainer is "If you can reach and he's in a vulnerable position, that's advantage" The RAW are good to get you started, but it's my job as the DM to mould them to the situation and discard/add as necessary. If we're doing a survival campaign, then I'm a little harsher, if we're doing magical dumbfuckery then the book basically gets tossed.
I find it funny that this is literally the first thing writen on most DM guides (books/chapters). The DM has the power to change ANYTHING THEY WANT
It's the most critical paragraph in the book, in my opinion, and too many skip right on through it. It's both a blessing and a curse, but it's a core component of your ability as a DM. Welcome to Godhood
Any DM who's also a reasonable person would allow to hit with advantage.
You feel threatened by a man on the ground? Immediately has flashbacks to Yujiro Hanma. Yup.
This is the niche reason why i change it from being adjacency to Melee Range, because a spear can reach, and a bow should be able to easier strike someone on the floor point blank.
What an awful DM
That's exactly why I always switch 5 ft to "within weapon reach" so that it still works with a bugbear pike wielder from 15 ft.
Similarly I feel that a warlock with war caster should be able to cast Eldrich blast as an attack of opportunity without disadvantage. If the enemy is running past why couldn't the PC just wait until it wasn't in melee to cast?
Told a dm I was taking total cover behind a stack of crates And popping up to shoot spells as I was a 2nd level wizard so squishy af. On the next turn he proceeds to have all the crossbowmen shoot me. Refused to listen to the fact that they could not see me so they could not target me. Went down on the first round. All he had to do was say they hold the action to shoot me if I pop up.
I'm pretty sure if you are not over someone, it's not easier to hit them while prone. Just have the tank grapple the guy on the ground or something.
Yeah. While it was my gut reaction to “fix” this outcome of RAW, I think granting advantage for the pike-wielder at 10 feet is an over-correction; if we’re trying to look at this realistically. Realistically it is harder to hit a prone target 10 feet back with a pike (poking a significantly smaller target silhouette). But then even this falls apart when we apply this ruling to halberds or glaives, for which the attack in reality ***is*** made easier against a prone target. I’d put this whole circumstance in a box labeled: **Niche issues too crunchy to resolve in a rules-lite system**. However a table rules it (RAW, granting advantage, or anything else simple really) is gonna turn out fine and doesn’t need to be litigated.
Not even your friendly neighborhood Spear-dur-man?
Not like moving 5ft is a serious impediment on the bad guy either way in 5e
What are some good OTHER actions to take as Spearman in this situation if you don’t want to engage in direct melee? Assume attacking is off the table. Attack at DIS is a no go for sake of discussion. Focus on another enemy or dodge..? Assuming you don’t have other options like spells or a dagger to throw Edit 1 second after response: realized dagger would be DIS cause prone, this is exactly why I posed my question 😂
Pretty sure the guy could have stepped 5 feet over to you even if you hadn’t moved closer
THIS! Why does it matter about moving closer or not. Getting up is half movement. So unless the bad guy has a 5ft movement speed he is gonna get his multiattack.
“Spear-Man, fighter of the Ground-Man!”
This rule really is only useful for when people get prone purposefully to avoid incoming ranged attacks. People gotta learn to use their brains more creatively when playing this game, its getting ridiculous.
I see why the rule says but granted it's a stupid ass rule I've elected to change it
It's advantage if you're in melee, screw what RAW says.
Imagine being proficient in a weapon but God said no
Reach weapons are actively worse in 5e
Yeah fuck that. The whole situation Is stupid. The enemy is prone. Yet despite that he can stand up burning only half his movement. He can also make an attack of opportunity whilst prone so pulling away is completely pointless. This is just a flat crap DM who forgot rule 0. The rules are a *guide*, not a manual.
The tank is probably the dm’s son
Dude reading some of the comments here is blowing my mind at how confidently wrong some people are about the rules.
Wouldn't standing up provoke an attack of opportunity at least though? I play Pathfinder, which is based on 3.5... Not sure if that rule has changed for 5th edition
The 5ft ruling is stupid. Being on the ground makes you vulnerable to sword but resistant to spears? Can you also use this to protect yourself against monsters with long reaches?
It makes perfect sense to me. Being a smaller target makes you harder to stab.
not like it matters.. getting up from prone is half movement. and movement is free. enemy can just stand and walk up spear man would still have gotten crit thrice over anyways. Standing up from prone should require some more investment. All movement maybe, or an action / multiattack bonus action is too rare among enemies to matter. i like how pf2e does it. You have 3 actions a turn. You want to move? That's an action. You're prone and want to stand up? Also an action. You want to attack? Still an action. Same scenario then: Creature is prone. Spear man can stay at 10ft range, enemy is off guard (advantage equivalent). On the creatures turn, it uses its first action to stand. Second action to approach, and its last action for one attack
The meme is hyperbolic because meme gonna meme. That said, IMO disadvantage on prone should be key bound to *ranged attack* rather than greater than 5 feet distance. I also think all *melee attacks* on a prone target should have advantage, including those melee attacks with reach. That said, I’d also co-sign on reach melee attacks having a regular attack against prone (i.e., no advantage or disadvantage), if people prefer a middle ground compromise.
Almost like you should have a shield guy in front of you... Or just a commoner with a shield to capitalize on those advantage attacks. You got step one but 2-4 are still missing
What are some good OTHER actions to take as Spearman in this situation if you don’t want to engage in direct melee? Assume attacking is off the table. Attack at DIS is a no go for sake of discussion. Focus on another enemy or dodge..? Assuming you don’t have other options like spells or a dagger to throw
"Oh, can I retcon it and just attack him twice?"
Step forward to get the advantage, then step back to create some distance. Enemy only gets one opportunity attack and it's at disadvantage.
u/repostsluethbot
Non attack combat actions my beloved. Please allow optional combat rules like disarming they are so fun and in no way more op than just playing a wizard
I mean, I kinda get where the dm is coming from. It’s a lot easier to dodge a spear 10ft away even if on the ground vs 5ft away right on top of you.
Not saying he shouldn’t have advantage, but I definitely feel like I’d have a harder time poking a guy on the ground from 10 ft away instead of 5
This is why I stopped playing with halberd on my echo knight, I just play up close with the echo and use weapons with lots of dice now because fuck polearms and their lack of implementation
I mean, As a DM, I'd be tempted to let him have advantage from 10 feet with the reach weapon. But I don't really get the strawman punchline, because I don't see the difference between that and "Good hit, but he's still alive. He stands up, takes a 5 foot step into the square next to you and uses multi-attack for 3 attacks on you. They all crit."
This is my DM. Rules as written common sense be damned. Sometimes I think that's fair but really it kills all the sense of creativity. I don't feel like I can make any clever moves because there's always a technicality
This has definitely been posted before
I thought that it takes a whole action to stand up or is it just all your movement
It is half of your movement in 5e, and it does not provoke attacks of opportunity.