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

[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.