Lyxen
Great Old One
Actually, I almost made that point earlier, if the DM decides on an interpretation, then that's it, it's what matters for the game, move on.
After that, if it's an out of the game open discussion...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E spiritual weapon against prone enemy advantage or disadvantage?
- Thread starter ECMO3
- Start date
Actually, I almost made that point earlier, if the DM decides on an interpretation, then that's it, it's what matters for the game, move on.
After that, if it's an out of the game open discussion...
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Rules as written, if the attacker (which is the caster) is not adjacent, they don't get the benefit.
It's easy to fluff-justify/rationalize either way.
If you envision that the caster is directing the spell, you might similarly imagine that from further away they may not be able to capitalize on the defender's vulnerable position (similar to how ranged attacks against non-adjacent prone targets are actually at disadvantage due to the smaller target profile).
If, on the other hand, you envision the spell as semi-autonomous, doing the caster's bidding, then you might rule that it DOES get advantage, as it's right there and capable of taking advantage of the defender's vulnerability.
It's easy to fluff-justify/rationalize either way.
If you envision that the caster is directing the spell, you might similarly imagine that from further away they may not be able to capitalize on the defender's vulnerable position (similar to how ranged attacks against non-adjacent prone targets are actually at disadvantage due to the smaller target profile).
If, on the other hand, you envision the spell as semi-autonomous, doing the caster's bidding, then you might rule that it DOES get advantage, as it's right there and capable of taking advantage of the defender's vulnerability.
this is such a funny thing to say when disagreeing with someone... obviously there is ambiguity or else there is no conversation.
I think its a melee attack I would give it to them
I think the rule is pretty clear, you don't get advantage simply because you're doing a melee attack
- An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage.
Lyxen
Great Old One
The problem might be finding all the relevant quotes, or putting them together, but when you do, the picture is absolutely non-ambiguous:
- When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon.
- An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage.
While I agree that, in 5e, there are sections where interpretation matters because of the fluffiness of rules written in natural language, here, it seems straight and direct.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I agree with Lyxen and others that the rules are clear and unambiguous. As a player I am fine with that.
In a game I'm running I would probably say "This makes more sense with advantage, everyone okay with that?" and then consistently apply advantage for things of this nature, such as an echo knight's echo attack and similar situations. Not only does it make sense given how I (as DM) interpret the world to describe to the players, but it's also the simplest case - everything adjacent has advantage.
In a game I'm running I would probably say "This makes more sense with advantage, everyone okay with that?" and then consistently apply advantage for things of this nature, such as an echo knight's echo attack and similar situations. Not only does it make sense given how I (as DM) interpret the world to describe to the players, but it's also the simplest case - everything adjacent has advantage.
What makes most sense depends on how the you imagine the caster controls the weapon.
If you imagine that the caster must specify every motion the spiritual weapon makes, personally manipulating the angle and force of each blow, then the caster's sight lines become important. In that case, a prone target should impose disadvantage just like a ranged spell attack because it's based on what the caster can see.
On the other hand, if you assume the caster just moves the weapon from place to place and the weapon sort of attacks on its own without the caster personally directing each motion, then the weapon effectively functions as its own point of view and it should have advantage.
If you imagine that the caster must specify every motion the spiritual weapon makes, personally manipulating the angle and force of each blow, then the caster's sight lines become important. In that case, a prone target should impose disadvantage just like a ranged spell attack because it's based on what the caster can see.
On the other hand, if you assume the caster just moves the weapon from place to place and the weapon sort of attacks on its own without the caster personally directing each motion, then the weapon effectively functions as its own point of view and it should have advantage.
Last edited:
jgsugden
Legend
RAW is pretty well covered here, but here are some options you might consider as a DM:
* Tell the player that under RAW they do not get advantage, but you feel like that robs the player a bit. Accordingly, you'll let them roll a religion roll to try to gain advantage. This involves an extra roll before they can make the attack roll, but it lets them feel like you gave them a chance. In my experience, most players decline this extra roll, taking the RAW explanation, but they feel like you gave them an opportunity.
* Tell the player that under RAW it is not allowed, but if they can give a description to you why they should get the advantage you'll allow it. This encourages the players to 'get into' the game more, increasing immersion and adding to the fun. Again, players will decline, but in my experience they're more likely to do this than take the extra religion roll.
* Let them have it and say nothing about the RAW situation. I often let the RAW fall by the wayside in favor of a more fun ruling for the players. I'm not concerned when my players succeed - and l enjoy it when they revel in their great successes.
There was a time not too long ago when a PC with an upcast Spiritiual weapon (2d8+5) had the weapon just out of reach of the BBEG (it had been cleaning up fodder). The PC had cast a banishment spell, and the BBEG made the save. The BBEG was going to go next, and it was going to unleash a massive area attack that would likely have taken down multiple PCs. The PC moved the spiritual weapon next to the BBEG and was about to roll an attack when I pointed out that they'd moved it too far. They recounted it and their face dropped when they realized I was right. I gave them a chance to push it further by making a DC 20 religion roll. They grabbed the dice, made the roll and rolled well. Then, they rolled a critical hit, followed by a high damage roll, and managed to finish the foe off by doing ~30 damage. It was a great moment in the game that would not have taken place without giving the PCs a chance to exceed the RAW by just a bit.
* Tell the player that under RAW they do not get advantage, but you feel like that robs the player a bit. Accordingly, you'll let them roll a religion roll to try to gain advantage. This involves an extra roll before they can make the attack roll, but it lets them feel like you gave them a chance. In my experience, most players decline this extra roll, taking the RAW explanation, but they feel like you gave them an opportunity.
* Tell the player that under RAW it is not allowed, but if they can give a description to you why they should get the advantage you'll allow it. This encourages the players to 'get into' the game more, increasing immersion and adding to the fun. Again, players will decline, but in my experience they're more likely to do this than take the extra religion roll.
* Let them have it and say nothing about the RAW situation. I often let the RAW fall by the wayside in favor of a more fun ruling for the players. I'm not concerned when my players succeed - and l enjoy it when they revel in their great successes.
There was a time not too long ago when a PC with an upcast Spiritiual weapon (2d8+5) had the weapon just out of reach of the BBEG (it had been cleaning up fodder). The PC had cast a banishment spell, and the BBEG made the save. The BBEG was going to go next, and it was going to unleash a massive area attack that would likely have taken down multiple PCs. The PC moved the spiritual weapon next to the BBEG and was about to roll an attack when I pointed out that they'd moved it too far. They recounted it and their face dropped when they realized I was right. I gave them a chance to push it further by making a DC 20 religion roll. They grabbed the dice, made the roll and rolled well. Then, they rolled a critical hit, followed by a high damage roll, and managed to finish the foe off by doing ~30 damage. It was a great moment in the game that would not have taken place without giving the PCs a chance to exceed the RAW by just a bit.
Or the target going prone on purpose in order to be harder to see by the caster, who is at range (presumably).
Lyxen
Great Old One
Yes, it's a common usage of being prone when you are at a distance, presumably with a crossbow, and it makes sense to present a much smaller target. In which case, it also makes it more difficult for the caster to see you clearly and target you, although the spiritual weapon is close to you, he is not, and he is the one directing it.
Similar Threads
