D&D 5E spiritual weapon against prone enemy advantage or disadvantage?

[Lyxen]

And what does that advantage/ disadvantage represent? The prone defender being unable to properly defend themselves vs a melee attack (A), or (for ranged attacks) the difficulty in hitting a prone target from a ranged attack originating from your space (D).

Spiritual weapon is much more likely to have A (the prone defender being unable to defend itself properly vs the melee attack) than B (you having a hard time hitting something due to being far away).

Ergo A trumps D.

I bet you London to a Brick this is what the Devs would tell you as well.

And no, they don't, because once more, I'm telling you about the rules, which are clear and precise in this case. You can have whatever trump whatever in your campaign, obviously, and the devs certainly tell you this as well, but as for the rule, it's clear, simple, and unambiguous.

 

[Lyxen]

How literally should “you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon” be taken?

Exactly as written, see "making an attack" in the PH. And since you seem to be wondering about why "melee", it's because there is a special rule about ranged attacks: "When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated."

So if you are within 5 feet of the target and your weapon is too (which it has to be to attack anyway), if it was a ranged spell attack, you would have disadvantage, which is silly for that spell. Hence the precision that it's a melee spell attack which does not have that specific rule.

Can the weapon attack a creature that is within 5’ but is behind a thick glass pane?

Obviously not, since the target would have total cover from the weapon and would therefore not be attackable. In general, when making an attack, you refer to the "making an attack" section of the rules, which tells you to "determines whether the target has cover". This has nothing to do with spiritual weapon or melee/ranged.

What happens if the caster can barely see the creature, but has positioned the weapon such that the attack is unobstructed?

Because, once more, the description of the spell is clear and says that the attacker is the caster, if he can barely see the creature, once more the rules on making an attack tell you "The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target."

What happens if the caster can hear the creature but can’t see it?

Then, once more, the rule on Unseen Attackers and Targets tell you, precisely: "When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see."

Again, all of these have NOTHING to do with spiritual weapon or prone, simply about making an attack...

 

[Lyxen]

Sounds to me like the prone rules need an update, something to add to the list for 5.5e. Change the prone rules so the RAW is actually in line with the RAI.

There will be no 5.5, it does not exist, the only thing announced is an anniversary edition. As for the prone rules, there is no RAI that I'm aware of. Do you have any clear indication about this, something at least coming from the devs ?

 

[Lyxen]

It is clearly neither advantage nor disadvantage, because disadvantage and advantage cancel out. Very oviously... I mean... Just the way I would handle it, not objective truth.

And that's fine for your games, and I might do the same depending on circumstances. For example, someone wielding a polearm 10 feet away.

I mean I don't buy the explanation that your exact position has any effect on your ability tonhit with this weapon

I do, it has a lot to do with the target position that you can see. If he's standing, you basically see all of him, if he's prone, it's much harder to see exactly how he is lying and where the limbs are, for example.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do, it has a lot to do with the target position that you can see. If he's standing, you basically see all of him, if he's prone, it's much harder to see exactly how he is lying and where the limbs are, for example.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I buy that explanation in many cases, but you could be 10ft away in a higher position and have a very celar view on the prone target. RAW they would still have disadvantage, but here it makes not a lot of sense.
So I would rule differently.

In a different thread I talked about how I preferred 3.0 over everything that came after at least in a few regards.

This is a case: in 3.0 the DM was able to adjucate cover and concealment in a very granular fashion and as they see fit. Also they could always give a +2/-2 bonus whenever they see fit.
5e has the nice feature (which could be even more prominent), that the DM can give advantage or disadvantage whenever they see fit or even overrule RAW. This is clearly a case, where I would rule on a case by case base.

 

[Lyxen]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I buy that explanation in many cases, but you could be 10ft away in a higher position and have a very celar view on the prone target. RAW they would still have disadvantage, but here it makes not a lot of sense.
So I would rule differently.

In a different thread I talked about how I preferred 3.0 over everything that came after at least in a few regards.

This is a case: in 3.0 the DM was able to adjucate cover and concealment in a very granular fashion and as they see fit. Also they could always give a +2/-2 bonus whenever they see fit.
5e has the nice feature (which could be even more prominent), that the DM can give advantage or disadvantage whenever they see fit or even overrule RAW. This is clearly a case, where I would rule on a case by case base.

This is taking us a bit afar, but frankly, at mid+ level, and despite loving it at start, I really began to hate 3e and it's infernal cohort of modifiers changing all the time, and being discussed over and over until the pace of the game slows down to a crawl and nothing good ever happens.

5e was brilliant in saying "look, when you roll a d20, a +1 or +2 will not statistically make any difference compared to the range of the die", so let's cut through all that crap and let the DM simply assign something significant like adv/dis so that the game can move forward.

And the DM does do exactly that, rule case by case from a global perspective, but not spending 3 hours for each roll.

And the game did move forward, and noone at our table ever looks back...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is taking us a bit afar, but frankly, at mid+ level, and despite loving it at start, I really began to hate 3e and it's infernal cohort of modifiers changing all the time, and being discussed over and over until the pace of the game slows down to a crawl and nothing good ever happens.

5e was brilliant in saying "look, when you roll a d20, a +1 or +2 will not statistically make any difference compared to the range of the die", so let's cut through all that crap and let the DM simply assign something significant like adv/dis so that the game can move forward.

And the DM does do exactly that, rule case by case from a global perspective, but not spending 3 hours for each roll.

And the game did move forward, and noone at our table ever looks back...

I also don't look back at 3.5, because I do agree with you.

3.0 resembled 5e in that regard. You didn't have to count lines from square to square to determine cover. Instead there was a picture of an orc i think that hid behind a stalagmite. An concealment wa 10 to 50 percent. Near darkness, that is 40 percent miss chance. That was established a lot faster than "ok, is the night under full moon total concealment or half concealment or nothing?"

Also I think 3.5 added quite a few extra modifiers compared to 3.0 but I could be misremembering.

 

[S'mon]

I think in play I give it advantage; I think the RAW indicates disadvantage. I like the vision of the spiritual weapon bonking the prone ogre on the head.

 

[Lyxen]

I also don't look back at 3.5, because I do agree with you.

3.0 resembled 5e in that regard. You didn't have to count lines from square to square to determine cover. Instead there was a picture of an orc i think that hid behind a stalagmite. An convealnent wa 10 to 50 percent. Near darkness, that is 40 percent miss chance. That was established a lot faster than "ok, is the night under full moon total concealment or half concealment or nothing?"

Also I think 3.5 added quite a few extra modifiers compared to 3.0 but I could be misremembering.

I am not sure that there were differences, but it was complex:

I think it's 4e which made it even more complex by counting corners for standard and superior cover:

In any case, 5e made it way more simple, since the standard is Theater of the Mind, which we are gleefully using in most cases, since it's fun, lightning quick and allows us to have multiple exciting combats in one evening if we want and still have the major part of the evening for social and exploration...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not sure that there were differences, but it was complex:
View attachment 151774

I think it's 4e which made it even more complex by counting corners for standard and superior cover:
View attachment 151775

In any case, 5e made it way more simple, since the standard is Theater of the Mind, which we are gleefully using in most cases, since it's fun, lightning quick and allows us to have multiple exciting combats in one evening if we want and still have the major part of the evening for social and exploration...

That is not 3.0. Your picture is from 3.5.
3.0 did not have drawing lines...

This is the relevant text from the srd

Cover
Cover provides a bonus to a character's AC. The more cover a character has, the bigger the bonus.

Table: Cover
Degree
of Cover Cover
AC Bonus Cover Reflex
Save Bonus
1/4 +2 +1
1/2 +4 +2
3/4 +7 +3
9/10 +10 +4*
Total – –
* Half damage if save is failed; no damage if successful.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity
An attacker can't execute an attack of opportunity against a character with one-half or better cover.

Cover and Reach Weapons
If a character is using a reach weapon, another character standing between the attacker and the target provides cover to the target. Generally, if both of the other characters are the same size, the one furthest from the attacker has one-half cover (+4 AC).

Degree of Cover
Cover is assessed in subjective measurements of how much protection it offers a character. The DM determines the value of cover.

Source:

Dragon.ee 3.0 SRD

www.dragon.ee

In the actual book tgere was a picture to illustrate it.

 

[Lyxen]

That is not 3.0. Your picture is from 3.5.
3.0 did not have drawing lines...

You're right, I did not remember that, I found my old .pdf of 3e:

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You're right, I did not remember that, I found my old .pdf of 3e:
View attachment 151776

Nice. Also there was a picture from character view.
What I find most interesting is that half cover actually gave a meaningful +4 bonus instead of the lesser +2.

 

[Flamestrike]

And no, they don't, because once more, I'm telling you about the rules, which are clear and precise in this case. You can have whatever trump whatever in your campaign, obviously, and the devs certainly tell you this as well, but as for the rule, it's clear, simple, and unambiguous.

No, the rule is not simple and unambiguous, and the intent of the spell is not for all attacks against non adjacent prone creatures to be made with the SW at disadvantage.

The intent of the [advantage to hit prone creatures in melee] is to simulate the difficulty the defender has in defending themselves vs melee attacks. There is no rationale for imposing disadvantage on the SW's attacks in such a circumstance.

The SW's attacks are not hindered, hampered or disadvantaged in any way attacking a prone creature, and it should not have disadvantage to it's attacks.

You're using a literal reading of the rules, and (just like in real life, where literal reading of legislation, absent any context or Parliamentary intent leads to absurd results, that are rejected by Judges in favor of interpretations that make sense, or are in line with Parliaments intent) coming up with an absurd outcome.

Use what works for you man, but I would rule the exact opposite to you, and Im confident the Devs (the dudes that wrote the rule you're citing here) would be on my side on this one.

 

[Lyxen]

No, the rule is not simple and unambiguous, and the intent of the spell is not for all attacks against non adjacent prone creatures to be made with the SW at disadvantage.

The intent of the [advantage...

There is no intent, there's only ONE rule, and a simple it at that. You can choose to apply it or not, but it does not make it ambiguous.

The SW's attacks are not hindered, hampered or disadvantaged in any way attacking a prone creature, and it should not have disadvantage to it's attacks.

Once more, you are not reading the rule. The SW is NOT attacking. It's the CASTER who is attacking.

Honestly, you can play any way you want, but if you want to discuss the rules, you should start by reading them.

Use what works for you man, but I would rule the exact opposite to you, and Im confident the Devs (the dudes that wrote the rule you're citing here) would be on my side on this one.

It's funny, because it's exactly the contrary, JC tells you straight up that you are wrong. It took me 2 minutes to find it. So why don't you do a bit more reading and searching before coming in so hard (and wrong) ?

 

[ECMO3]

NM

 

[ECMO3]

The intent of the [advantage to hit prone creatures in melee]

I don't think this is the intent of prone though, I think the intent is to impose disadvantage on creatures you are not right next to.

 

[Oofta]

I think this thread just goes to show that no matter how clear, concise and reasonably logical a rule is some people will claim it's problematic. Attacking someone that is prone is one of the clearest rules in the book.

• If you attack someone that is prone while within 5 feet of them you have advantage.
• If you attack someone that is prone while more than 5 feet away you have disadvantage.

Done. No muss no fuss. No "melee attack", just "attack". Roll a D20 to see if you hit? The rule applies. The two other rules apply to many situations: ranged attacks have disadvantage if adjacent to an enemy and advantage + disadvantage = no change. None of this IMHO is hard to understand.

The rule and the intent is clear.

 

[Scott Christian]

Rules for prone:
An Attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the Attack roll has disadvantage.

My arguement - the "attacker" is the caster who is more than 5 feet away, so disadvantage. The player says it is advantage because it is a melee attack.

Who is correct?

The player.

 

[Lyxen]

The player.

Wrong, on three counts:

• The DM is right: the attacker is the caster
• The DM is always right: the fact that it's a melee attack has no import on a prone target.
• Even when he might be wrong, the DM is right, because he is the DM.

 

[Scott Christian]

Wrong, on three counts:

• The DM is right: the attacker is the caster
• The DM is always right: the fact that it's a melee attack has no import on a prone target.
• Even when he might be wrong, the DM is right, because he is the DM.

The DM should always try to err on the side of players. This is especially true when they are doing something that does not radically change the outcome of the game.

But, all humor aside, under strict rules, you are absolutely correct. I just don't seem the harm in it. Spiritual weapon doesn't do that much damage, and to increase its odds to his by 10-15% is minimal.