Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I swear I read the whole thread to see if anyone explained it, but... why is it a problem to use Topple on a target if you're using a lance?
Is it just the inconvenience of having to be adjacent to the prone target? ie: you can't stay out of the prone orc's reach and benefit from their prone condition at the same time?
If that's the concern, then, yeah, I agree with most here that it's not worth the extra rules. I agree it's a clumsy rule as written, but honestly I think most tables would just hand-waive it and give the guy with the lance advantage anyway.
I don't think it has to be a viable strategy in many instances. If you're caught unarmed in an open field against a guy firing a heavy crossbow, you're either charging them bravely or hitting the deck and hoping they're not skilled. It's a last-ditch thing.
A lance is a reach weapon, so it lets you attack safely from 10' away. The rules for prone, though, state that anyone attacking a prone target from farther than 5' away has disadvantage -- it doesn't matter if the attack is ranged or melee. So if a person has a lance and knocks a target prone, they will then attack with disadvantage unless they get within 5' of the target. However, getting within 5' of the target exposes the lance user to regular melee attacks (albeit with disadvantage), opportunity attacks, and -- most importantly -- grappling. A prone being has no penalty to grapple. As such, losing reach on the lance is actually a pretty big deal.
Edit: Just wanted to add that if your table is homebrewing a hand wave for this situation, you are actually just making a new rule for prone. Why have it be unofficial when WotC could just update it for everyone and make it clear at every table how it would work?
So what? Reach weapons aren’t actually reliable for kiting in the first place, and if you’re somehow making it work then this is just a matter of presenting you with a tactical decision- do you want to prone the target to set them up for allies or improve your kiting, or do you want to keep attacking normally if able. This one niche scenario where you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too isn’t bad design- frankly, it’s really more indicative of well-balanced design.
When the enemy could step 5 feet towards the lance guy and grapple him on their next turn. It is not a problem.
I do think the disadvantage should not apply to melee weapons when at reach, it should just be against ranged attacks.
As for it being used as a tactic, yeah its a powerful tactic when you are in a position to take advantage of it. but i think its a pretty narrow range where its a good idea. remember you can move, attack, move. first it has to be a situation where you are not easily swarmed, which honestly is fairly common imo, in a open field no, but indoors lots of time terrain, other players etc block off enough they can't close in on you. 2nd it also has to be a place where you can't just grab full cover. As in most cases grabbing full cover is a better option. Sure they can ready a shot for when you pop out and cast, but if they have more than one attack they are better off just attacking multiple times at disadvantage.
So its good where you wont get swarmed and if there is cover the enemies only have one ranged attack. Does that come up, sure I have seen it in play. usually like in a hallway fight, or the enemy is so far away only ranged attacks are options.
With a lance and topple, you can reasonably move up to 10', attack, and retreat, and because it costs half of move to stand up, some melee enemies won't be able to reach you. The drawback is that, if you topple with your first attack, the second attack is at disadvantage, and getting closer both subjects you to opportunity attacks and uses up movement that you could otherwise use to kite.
I do not consider this a big problem, however.
Ahhh, the ol' "reach doesn't matter" argument strikes again!
But I counter with: Reach does, in fact, matter. That's why reach weapons are frequently desired. The point is that if an enemy is at reach, then barring special circumstances, they cannot start grapples, hit with opportunity attacks, etc. For example, it's perfectly legal to grapple as an opportunity attack.
something may not be a big problem and yet still be better if changed. And yeah the very small add a reach weapon gains form being able to topple and attack with advantage while maintaining reach is better than the current rules. While its not a ton less damage you are giving up damage to get reach, let them keep reach vs a toppled enemy with advantage. What is funny to me is on the extreme end where you have some gargantuan beast with like 15 feet reach that needs to close to 5 feet to avoid disadvantage, which realistically would be more clumsy and awkward to hit.
But reach really doesn't matter in a one-on-one situation. It doesn't let you hold back your enemy; you have to give ground to remain out of reach, and you usually don't have enough ground to give. Where reach excels is in many-on-many situations, where you can usually arrange it so you can attack and they can't trivially close on you. And in that situation, the lance's mastery is excellent. If you have multiple attacks, you can potentially knock down multiple enemies, leaving them disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Whereas in the one-on-one fight, it's... ok. You can stay out of reach with less retreating by knocking the enemy prone, but you risk putting yourself at disadvantage on your second attack. You can forgo the mastery on your first attack, but then you lose a chance to knock them down. It's now a matter of tradeoffs. And tradeoffs are more tactically interesting than no-brainers.
And if grappling is a thing that's to be so feared (it's really not; it's not like most of the melee fighters are getting grappled all the time), then you could prone them, step in, and grapple them yourself. Now they're at disadvantage to you and can't get up.
Anyway, the lance has topple because it's thematically appropriate, not because it's mechanically optimal. Lances are for charging around on your horse, knocking enemies flying. The fact that you can stand there and attack the same opponent repeatedly gives you no grounds to complain that it's not as good at that.
This whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill, especially the part about the lance.
The point about grappling is that it's a way for a prone opponent to quickly equalize their situation, that's all. It locks down the target to some degree and forces them to expend resources if they want to leave the grapple. If a lance user sacrifices their reach to get an advantaged attack and it's a legitimate threat.
As I've stated multiple times in this thread: I don't think prone is a catastrophic failure that ruins the d&d experience. I've even started that i don't use homebrew rules for it when i play. My point has always been that prone is flawed and improving it will make the game better. I stand by that position.
Thank you so much for completely understanding what amounts to the entire point of this thread!
I honestly did not realize _both_ the 2014 and 2024 prone conditions make no distinction between the type of attack (melee vs prone). My groups are pretty lazy about rules; I'm usually the only one concerned at all. And that detail never quite landed. Thanks for pointing it out!
I definitely concede that's a clear oversight in the rules. Made more glaring by them pairing lance and the Topple weapon mastery. Looking purely at RAW, it's plainly clunky design. Especially considering how grappling no longer requires an attack roll.
(outside of the Rules and Game Mechanics thread? Safe to say it's easy to use common sense with this one. And that's what DM's are for. Let all melee attacks qualify for advantage from the target being prone. For thoroughness, saving against a prone opponent should be at advantage. Grappling feats could negate that. Done.)
I wouldn't call it an oversight- given that you're reaching across at least 5 ft of empty space and will typically have to make a downward sweeping swing to try and hit the target, it would seem likely that they can more easily evade than you can strike.
Pairing lance and Topple matches internal logic. Big guy on a horse is likely to knock you down if you survive being impaled.
Being flat on your back near a mounted guy with a gigantic spear _should confer no benefit_. That makes no internal sense. That's the oversight.
It's not a big deal and is easily fixed. But, in my opinion, it's pretty obviously a mismatch.
Realistically, the big reason you go prone is so you can get cover from things that won't give you cover when you're standing up. Absent that, your reduced ability to defend generally cancels any defensive benefit from being a smaller target, unless it's something you can't defend against in the first place.
It actually should, I don’t know if you’ve ever used a long Polearm but it is somewhat difficult to strike something close to the ground via a stab. If you try to stab something beneath you with a long stick, you’ll find yourself missing by several centimeters, especially when your using a lance while possibly mounted.
I use it when at distance. A good distance. Like 100 feet or more.
Anything less than 2 rounds of movement from your enemy its not really worth it. It also helps when you have a couple of front liners to block the enemies attack run for a round or two.
It also helps to have a DM who does not meta game the bad guys into attacking the casters first and only. Who will accept an opportunity attack just to get past the front line to reach the casters.
they would still have a harder time evading while on the ground than while standing. there is no double advantage, so close attacks on prone might be even more advantageous, but 10 feet for a reach weapon vs a prone enemy would still be advantageous compared to when they are standing. Though I think it would actually be harder close up with a reach weapon, you have to choke up the weapon to hit.
It's not meta gaming to run past the heavily armored tank to mutilate a spellcaster, particularly when they have for some reason to decided to go prone.