Ok, so here is the situation. My PC's are exploring and come into a room feeling all super hero. Goblins are bunkered in behind a 3ft tall wall and open fire on them with short bows. My more "rules lawyer" player has a bright idea and decides to drop prone and belly crawl ...... on the flat, unobstructed, stone floor, TOWARDS the bunkered in goblins who are 25ft away. He quotes to me from the PHB where it says "...... going prone gives disadvantage to attackers...... blah blah. Yeah he gets shot anyways because I decide that rule in this situation is silly. Player goes nuts and gets insistent ".... the book CLEARY says..." Give me your thoughts on this please.
The book also says that the rules are guidelines and that the DM has the final say.
My personal opinion is that the rules about being prone are based on 2 dimensions. Flying or ambushing from higher ground should counter going prone unless you have cover from your attacker. If the goblins had a height advantage I’d agree with you. If they didn’t I’d disagree with you because they were shooting at a smaller target.
The player is right. The book clearly states what the rules are. You are wrong. Springing rules changes in the middle of combat makes you a bad DM. That player is clearly not having fun. If this is a home game you should give each player a list of all house rules you use well before combat or heck even character creation starts.
You making up rulings on the fly prevents players from being able to plan out anything or knowing what the abilities they chose actually do. Forcing players to play a game of mother may I to figure out how it will work this time makes combat effectively a single player game. If you wanted to be the only one controlling what the adventures do then just do that. Don't bother giving players the illusion of choice.
You as the DM can make any change you want to any rule you want.
BUT...
If you're going to do that, you need to let your players know about it in advance. Suddenly springing a rule-change on them in the middle of combat when they've already committed is bad sportsmanship and the players would (quite reasonably) feel as if you're just cheating to add fake difficulty to an encounter.
I agree with what the others said. Changing the rules is your right as a DM, but you should tell your players about your house rule before they commit to action based on that rule.
Based on the scenario as you described it, going prone should have made him harder to hit.
Your player is metagaming. He as a human player knows of that rule, but his character would not. And besides, what's more realistically plausible: a person getting shot in a wide open room standing and moving around, or one lying on the floor and not moving very fast?
Your player is metagaming. He as a human player knows of that rule, but his character would not.
Dropping to the ground when you're being shot at is a perfectly reasonable response in character.
The rules are there for the human player. That's the whole point of putting them in the Player's Handbook. Punishing a player for following the rules they've been told the game uses in an intelligent way is bad form.
Your player is metagaming. He as a human player knows of that rule, but his character would not.
Dropping to the ground when you're being shot at is a perfectly reasonable response in character.
The rules are there for the human player. That's the whole point of putting them in the Player's Handbook. Punishing a player for following the rules they've been told the game uses in an intelligent way is bad form.
Yes, dropping to the ground is a reasonable tactic for a character to take, but that character would not know about the rule that grants disadvantage to ranged attacks while prone. The concept of "rolling with disadvantage" is not something the character would have any awareness of...because they are a fictitious character in an RPG. The human player is adopting this tactic and using his knowledge of disadvantage as justification for the tactic. That's metagaming.
It doesn't matter if the character knows about the rule or not. They know that being on the ground makes them harder to shoot, and you admit it's a reasonable tactic. There doesn't need to be any further justification. The character did something reasonable and the player knows what that means in terms of dice rolls. Where's the problem?
Unless the goblins had used the Ready action to shoot anyone coming at them, the player could have just used his movement to close the distance and then any goblins he was adjacent to would have disadvantage with their bows. The player would also then get half-cover from the wall as well.
The best thing to do as a DM is to follow the rules and then use the same tactics against the party. If they are as annoyed as you were, you can agree to a truce, nobody will use those tactics from now on.
Example:
Players: We stay back and use ranged attacks against the dragon to stay away from its breath weapon.
DM: The dragon goes prone so you have disadvantage to hit it.
Players: But it’s the size of a house! How can prone make it harder to hit?
My more "rules lawyer" player has a bright idea and decides to drop prone and belly crawl ...... on the flat, unobstructed, stone floor, TOWARDS the bunkered in goblins who are 25ft away. He quotes to me from the PHB where it says "...... going prone gives disadvantage to attackers...... blah blah. Yeah he gets shot anyways because I decide that rule in this situation is silly. Player goes nuts and gets insistent ".... the book CLEARY says..." Give me your thoughts on this please.
Falling prone to dodge ranged weapons is reasonable, but in the case the original poster stated, in bold above, falling prone would not make sense unless the character knew that being prone caused the goblin to attack with disadvantage. He didn't fall prone behind or under anything, therefore he is completely exposed to a ranged attack. In this particular case, falling prone and crawling towards the goblins firing at him would be the dumbest thing to do, as it leaves them completely defenseless. His only defense would be the disadvantage, of which the character has no concept of.
The goblins are behind a 3’ wall. How tall are goblins? 4 feet tall? Can they even shoot a bow from behind a 3’ wall, can they shoot down without getting up on the wall? There are a whole lot of issues here if you are trying to impose realism on the situation.
Tinkering with the rules is usually a bad idea. Give it a lot of thought before you do.
The goblins are behind a 3’ wall. How tall are goblins? 4 feet tall? Can they even shoot a bow from behind a 3’ wall, can they shoot down without getting up on the wall? There are a whole lot of issues here if you are trying to impose realism on the situation.
Tinkering with the rules is usually a bad idea. Give it a lot of thought before you do.
I'll give you that, but the player using the rule as justification instead of saying, "Hey, they're behind a 3 foot wall and are barely taller than the wall" sets off my metagaming alarm. I would much rather have the player give me an in-game reason why they would have disadvantage rather than pulling out the rule book.
Dropping to the ground is absolutely a good tactic if you're being fired on both in real life and in game, especially against arrows. If you're being fired at from behind a wall, dropping and advancing to the wall will increase your cover the closer you get. The character knows this from fighting, the player knows this from a meta/mechanical standpoint.
But, realism vs game world isn't really the problem. I see it as punishing the "rules lawyer" in the moment. Whether they are the super rules lawyer that everyone bashes on, or just someone that knows the rules and is vocal when needed, it has come up enough to refer to him/her as such, and might have influenced your decision to homebrew a new ruling on the spot. Whatever the reason, changing or ignoring rules in the moment when you feel like it is a good way to lose players. Also, make sure that you keep that rule in effect throughout the rest of your campaign, for both PCs and NPCs.
It's pretty simple. Being prone makes you a smaller target. Smaller targets are harder to hit. It is the same reason soldiers and law enforcement stay low in fire fights even when crossing an open area. And any trained, experienced, or halfway intelligent character would know that.
And I think it is poor practice for a DM to violate the laws of physics to make up for a player out smarting them.
This reminds me of a question I posted somewhere about one of my players decisions and how to do more with it:
Imagine an owl being used specifically to thwart surprise attacks when adventuring outside and being used to grant advantage on every attack possible made by that player. I was at my wits end because the player was not abusing any mechanic and, they being the rules lawyer type, made sure to explain their case in detail. Needless to say the other forum goers did not answer in a way that was flattering to me, but they were right for the most part.
You cannot punish a player for using the book correctly.
You can reward a player for their use of those tactics.
You can have creatures learn from their experiences so that those tactics are less effective.
You can have the creatures use the same tactics against the players.
I believe all of us, as DMs, have been in situations where the book gave the players a tactic or tool to circumvent what we had set up. Sometimes it's to great effect that seems heroic, sometimes it's to comedic effect, and sometimes it just makes all of our planning go out the window making us feel like our work went to waste. That is the name of the game, that is the prerogative of the players, and that is the whim of the dice. The best we can do is suck it up, pout about it until the next session, and find ways to adapt to the players' ever changing tool box of tricks. Don't change rules on the fly without a well thought out reason, especially if it takes agency away from your players. Next time, let the player have their day in the sun, Goblins are sneaky critters, use that to your advantage.
Maybe in this situation it was silly, but from your description the tactic seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I agree with most everything said above about not springing rule changes on players. I think a better way that you could have handled it would be to ask the player what he/she wants to do. If you think a tactic is silly (i.e. probably won't follow the normal rules), you should make it clear to the player that his/her character doesn't think it will work for x, y, or z reason. Players need to know under what circumstances they should expect things to work by the rules or not. Then allow that player, with the additional knowledge, the opportunity to do something else before adjudicating the action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so here is the situation. My PC's are exploring and come into a room feeling all super hero. Goblins are bunkered in behind a 3ft tall wall and open fire on them with short bows. My more "rules lawyer" player has a bright idea and decides to drop prone and belly crawl ...... on the flat, unobstructed, stone floor, TOWARDS the bunkered in goblins who are 25ft away. He quotes to me from the PHB where it says "...... going prone gives disadvantage to attackers...... blah blah. Yeah he gets shot anyways because I decide that rule in this situation is silly. Player goes nuts and gets insistent ".... the book CLEARY says..." Give me your thoughts on this please.
The book also says that the rules are guidelines and that the DM has the final say.
My personal opinion is that the rules about being prone are based on 2 dimensions. Flying or ambushing from higher ground should counter going prone unless you have cover from your attacker. If the goblins had a height advantage I’d agree with you. If they didn’t I’d disagree with you because they were shooting at a smaller target.
Professional computer geek
The player is right. The book clearly states what the rules are. You are wrong. Springing rules changes in the middle of combat makes you a bad DM. That player is clearly not having fun. If this is a home game you should give each player a list of all house rules you use well before combat or heck even character creation starts.
You making up rulings on the fly prevents players from being able to plan out anything or knowing what the abilities they chose actually do. Forcing players to play a game of mother may I to figure out how it will work this time makes combat effectively a single player game. If you wanted to be the only one controlling what the adventures do then just do that. Don't bother giving players the illusion of choice.
You as the DM can make any change you want to any rule you want.
BUT...
If you're going to do that, you need to let your players know about it in advance. Suddenly springing a rule-change on them in the middle of combat when they've already committed is bad sportsmanship and the players would (quite reasonably) feel as if you're just cheating to add fake difficulty to an encounter.
I agree with what the others said. Changing the rules is your right as a DM, but you should tell your players about your house rule before they commit to action based on that rule.
Based on the scenario as you described it, going prone should have made him harder to hit.
Rolling behind a DM screen solves some issues like these...
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
It also solves issues that result in a TPK....
Professional computer geek
RAW it works and, logically, I feel like it works too. Of course, his speed moving while prone will be half.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Your player is metagaming. He as a human player knows of that rule, but his character would not. And besides, what's more realistically plausible: a person getting shot in a wide open room standing and moving around, or one lying on the floor and not moving very fast?
Dropping to the ground when you're being shot at is a perfectly reasonable response in character.
The rules are there for the human player. That's the whole point of putting them in the Player's Handbook. Punishing a player for following the rules they've been told the game uses in an intelligent way is bad form.
Yes, dropping to the ground is a reasonable tactic for a character to take, but that character would not know about the rule that grants disadvantage to ranged attacks while prone. The concept of "rolling with disadvantage" is not something the character would have any awareness of...because they are a fictitious character in an RPG. The human player is adopting this tactic and using his knowledge of disadvantage as justification for the tactic. That's metagaming.
It doesn't matter if the character knows about the rule or not. They know that being on the ground makes them harder to shoot, and you admit it's a reasonable tactic. There doesn't need to be any further justification. The character did something reasonable and the player knows what that means in terms of dice rolls. Where's the problem?
Unless the goblins had used the Ready action to shoot anyone coming at them, the player could have just used his movement to close the distance and then any goblins he was adjacent to would have disadvantage with their bows. The player would also then get half-cover from the wall as well.
The best thing to do as a DM is to follow the rules and then use the same tactics against the party. If they are as annoyed as you were, you can agree to a truce, nobody will use those tactics from now on.
Example:
Players: We stay back and use ranged attacks against the dragon to stay away from its breath weapon.
DM: The dragon goes prone so you have disadvantage to hit it.
Players: But it’s the size of a house! How can prone make it harder to hit?
DM: That’s the rule.
Falling prone to dodge ranged weapons is reasonable, but in the case the original poster stated, in bold above, falling prone would not make sense unless the character knew that being prone caused the goblin to attack with disadvantage. He didn't fall prone behind or under anything, therefore he is completely exposed to a ranged attack. In this particular case, falling prone and crawling towards the goblins firing at him would be the dumbest thing to do, as it leaves them completely defenseless. His only defense would be the disadvantage, of which the character has no concept of.
The goblins are behind a 3’ wall. How tall are goblins? 4 feet tall? Can they even shoot a bow from behind a 3’ wall, can they shoot down without getting up on the wall? There are a whole lot of issues here if you are trying to impose realism on the situation.
Tinkering with the rules is usually a bad idea. Give it a lot of thought before you do.
I'll give you that, but the player using the rule as justification instead of saying, "Hey, they're behind a 3 foot wall and are barely taller than the wall" sets off my metagaming alarm. I would much rather have the player give me an in-game reason why they would have disadvantage rather than pulling out the rule book.
Dropping to the ground is absolutely a good tactic if you're being fired on both in real life and in game, especially against arrows. If you're being fired at from behind a wall, dropping and advancing to the wall will increase your cover the closer you get. The character knows this from fighting, the player knows this from a meta/mechanical standpoint.
But, realism vs game world isn't really the problem. I see it as punishing the "rules lawyer" in the moment. Whether they are the super rules lawyer that everyone bashes on, or just someone that knows the rules and is vocal when needed, it has come up enough to refer to him/her as such, and might have influenced your decision to homebrew a new ruling on the spot. Whatever the reason, changing or ignoring rules in the moment when you feel like it is a good way to lose players. Also, make sure that you keep that rule in effect throughout the rest of your campaign, for both PCs and NPCs.
It's pretty simple. Being prone makes you a smaller target. Smaller targets are harder to hit. It is the same reason soldiers and law enforcement stay low in fire fights even when crossing an open area. And any trained, experienced, or halfway intelligent character would know that.
And I think it is poor practice for a DM to violate the laws of physics to make up for a player out smarting them.
This reminds me of a question I posted somewhere about one of my players decisions and how to do more with it:
Imagine an owl being used specifically to thwart surprise attacks when adventuring outside and being used to grant advantage on every attack possible made by that player. I was at my wits end because the player was not abusing any mechanic and, they being the rules lawyer type, made sure to explain their case in detail. Needless to say the other forum goers did not answer in a way that was flattering to me, but they were right for the most part.
I believe all of us, as DMs, have been in situations where the book gave the players a tactic or tool to circumvent what we had set up. Sometimes it's to great effect that seems heroic, sometimes it's to comedic effect, and sometimes it just makes all of our planning go out the window making us feel like our work went to waste. That is the name of the game, that is the prerogative of the players, and that is the whim of the dice. The best we can do is suck it up, pout about it until the next session, and find ways to adapt to the players' ever changing tool box of tricks. Don't change rules on the fly without a well thought out reason, especially if it takes agency away from your players. Next time, let the player have their day in the sun, Goblins are sneaky critters, use that to your advantage.
Maybe in this situation it was silly, but from your description the tactic seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I agree with most everything said above about not springing rule changes on players. I think a better way that you could have handled it would be to ask the player what he/she wants to do. If you think a tactic is silly (i.e. probably won't follow the normal rules), you should make it clear to the player that his/her character doesn't think it will work for x, y, or z reason. Players need to know under what circumstances they should expect things to work by the rules or not. Then allow that player, with the additional knowledge, the opportunity to do something else before adjudicating the action.