I see what you're saying, and I think it's kinda like that. But a character with a big enough to hit bonus could hit you without critting. I'd be saying that any hit would be a crit regardless of roll. It's a smaller 'benefit' than without the AC bonus, but still significant. But I get where you're coming from. :)
Yeah, but that really brings up a deficiency of the system: a character with a big enough attack bonus should crit more often. I mean, if they're better at hitting, they should also be better at hitting better. (On the other hand, that would invalidate the entire Champion subclass, hehe!)
(Also, I disagree that any hit should be a crit regardless of roll, since that ignores glancing hits and non-"critical" head hits, like earlobes and cheek-grazes. Although, on the other hand, those might be taken into consideration by low critical hit damage rolls, maybe?)
I guess a better answer would be: do whatever feels fun, since modelling it to reflect actual reality is not only incredibly difficult, but also wildly out of sync with this game system. Which is really kind of a cop-out, to be honest. But yeah, while I think a situational forced critical hit system like what you describe is unnecessary, I also don't think it breaks anything, and it can add a fun tactical dimension to combat.
I see what you're saying, and I think it's kinda like that. But a character with a big enough to hit bonus could hit you without critting. I'd be saying that any hit would be a crit regardless of roll. It's a smaller 'benefit' than without the AC bonus, but still significant. But I get where you're coming from. :)
Yeah, but that really brings up a deficiency of the system: a character with a big enough attack bonus should crit more often. I mean, if they're better at hitting, they should also be better at hitting better. (On the other hand, that would invalidate the entire Champion subclass, hehe!)
(Also, I disagree that any hit should be a crit regardless of roll, since that ignores glancing hits and non-"critical" head hits, like earlobes and cheek-grazes. Although, on the other hand, those might be taken into consideration by low critical hit damage rolls, maybe?)
Low damage rolls, or even a miss on AC. Hit Points are still fairly nebulous, right? It's not like 'point of damage' = 'cut to your body' or something. If you're climbing a fence and you get a little cut on your finger, I'm not even giving you a single point of damage. But if you're dueling with a skilled swordsman and he hasn't hit you but is slowly wearing you down, that's one possible description of losing hit points.
So you swing at my exposed head, and just barely nick my ear. That could easily be the explanation of rolling to hit and missing by 1, as well as hitting as getting a 1 (double to 2).
EDIT: oops, forgot the first point. Yeah, damage is one of those places where D&D has always gone rules lite. It's a 'feature' of the system, as opposed to a 'bug'. :) Sometimes I like hit/damage complex systems, but sometimes they are a burden. There could be simple mechanics--we used to use a 1/4 of your current HP mechanic to indicate a critical in one group. Take more than 1/4 of what you have left, it's a crit. But a crit there wasn't more damage, it was a penalty to dex, being knocked down, etc.
Low damage rolls, or even a miss on AC. Hit Points are still fairly nebulous, right? It's not like 'point of damage' = 'cut to your body' or something. If you're climbing a fence and you get a little cut on your finger, I'm not even giving you a single point of damage. But if you're dueling with a skilled swordsman and he hasn't hit you but is slowly wearing you down, that's one possible description of losing hit points.
So you swing at my exposed head, and just barely nick my ear. That could easily be the explanation of rolling to hit and missing by 1, as well as hitting as getting a 1 (double to 2).
Well, yeah, but if you subscribe to that school of thought (that hit points aren't just "damage", but also reflect effort expended in avoiding damage), why would not-getting-hit-on-the-head-by-spending-effort (that is, a game "hit" while only your head is exposed, but not an actual hit on on the head) reduce your hit points more than not-getting-hit-elsewhere-by-spending-effort (a game "hit" while only your head is not exposed, but not an actual hit)? The answer could be: it wouldn't, no need to automatically count it as a critical hit. But it also could be: because you're more mindful of head-shots, so you try extra hard to avoid them. Or even: the blow hit your helm, and while it did no actual damage, it did leave your head ringing, wearing you down more than a blow to your chest plate. In short: either way can work, at this point, the discussion is purely academic (my favorite kind of discussion). :D
Low damage rolls, or even a miss on AC. Hit Points are still fairly nebulous, right? It's not like 'point of damage' = 'cut to your body' or something. If you're climbing a fence and you get a little cut on your finger, I'm not even giving you a single point of damage. But if you're dueling with a skilled swordsman and he hasn't hit you but is slowly wearing you down, that's one possible description of losing hit points.
So you swing at my exposed head, and just barely nick my ear. That could easily be the explanation of rolling to hit and missing by 1, as well as hitting as getting a 1 (double to 2).
Well, yeah, but if you subscribe to that school of thought (that hit points aren't just "damage", but also reflect effort expended in avoiding damage), why would not-getting-hit-on-the-head-by-spending-effort (that is, a game "hit" while only your head is exposed, but not an actual hit on on the head) reduce your hit points more than not-getting-hit-elsewhere-by-spending-effort (a game "hit" while only your head is not exposed, but not an actual hit)? The answer could be: it wouldn't, no need to automatically count it as a critical hit. But it also could be: because you're more mindful of head-shots, so you try extra hard to avoid them. Or even: the blow hit your helm, and while it did no actual damage, it did leave your head ringing, wearing you down more than a blow to your chest plate. In short: either way can work, at this point, the discussion is purely academic (my favorite kind of discussion). :D
This is a fun discussion. And you're right about the multiple ways to interpret. I guess I'd say that I've always considered a critical to be definite contact :) Some HP are lost by getting worn down, others by being hit. Crits are hits. (There's a hashtag in there somewhere.)
Yeah it's something that doesn't make sense in a real scenario (as with plenty of other rules).
My rulling is you have disadvantage at "long" range since you can't quite point the distance to aim for but if they're near you and they drop to the ground they're just asking to get pelted.
When the prone crawling character gets close enough to the wall the goblins open the hidden door the player did not know about swarming him with advantage melee attacks since he's prone.
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.
Didn’t read the whole thread yet but had to ask, why are the goblins behind a wall? Sure, you as the human DM are aware of cover rules and its advantages and disadvantages, but the fictional goblins don’t so by your logic you are meta gaming?
I think anyone would know a 6 foot target (standing up) is easier to hit than a smaller prone target would be unless they were laying at the goblins feet
I believe this is an encounter in sunless citadel i.e. th DM did not design this convenient half wall based on the rules for cover but rather wizards of the coast designed an encounter complete with authentic goblin strategy. That being said it is not on the DM to prevent the goblins from getting meta gamed so much as it is the DM's job to have the goblins react in the most goblin way possible, whatever that may mean.
Big cringe dude. Like others have said, if you don't like a rule it's ok to change it, but you need to be up front with your players about that. Doing it mid-combat is very unfair, especially as being the DM you have way more subtle ways of influencing things if you really wanted that character to get shot. Also, going prone did make a lot of sense in this situation, both in and out of character.
I suppose if the crawling character ends their turn in the prone position that would work. If the DM really wanted to punish the player for paying attention to the game or being invested in playing the game as intended. seems like the ruling was a gut reaction made as an emotional response. If the pattern continues I don’t see anything happening but the build up of resentment. The rules lawyer can be your bane, or a boon.
We have a couple of rules lawyers at my table. While it was rough in the beginning since we were all learning the system, we all spend time dming and researching. We definitely have arguments occasionally, but much less now. We’ve built up trust with each other and often lean on one another for references as we play to help the dm.
the passion and investment the OP has as a DM and the player has as rules lawyer can be cultivated for the good features of the table.
edit: this thread has been super necro’d, my apologies for keeping this undead ritual going.
To be clear, while prone he has half movement, making him take twice as long, and therefore (in essence) giving the goblins twice as many chances to hit him and therefore (in essence) canceling out the disadvantage they get from prone. So basically, what you did was give the goblins advantage because you decided that he's not allowed to be creative. You're a bad DM for this particular moment, and I suspect you are a bad DM in general based on the way you're talking about your players.
I would have allowed it, but if using a bow, I would have either added a penalty to the prone person's shots or disadvantage. A crossbow makes perfect sense, to me, to fire from prone without penalty, but a bow not so much. It sounds like the enemy would have at least half cover or even 3/4 cover to start with, so they are harder to hit than usual anyway.
If I were going to disallow something they thought would happen flat-out, I would tell them first. Not just have them shot anyway.
Some rulings have to be made up on the fly, but the rulings should take both your players and the monsters into effect. Otherwise, it feels like you are trying to beat the PCs.
Yeah, but that really brings up a deficiency of the system: a character with a big enough attack bonus should crit more often. I mean, if they're better at hitting, they should also be better at hitting better. (On the other hand, that would invalidate the entire Champion subclass, hehe!)
(Also, I disagree that any hit should be a crit regardless of roll, since that ignores glancing hits and non-"critical" head hits, like earlobes and cheek-grazes. Although, on the other hand, those might be taken into consideration by low critical hit damage rolls, maybe?)
I guess a better answer would be: do whatever feels fun, since modelling it to reflect actual reality is not only incredibly difficult, but also wildly out of sync with this game system. Which is really kind of a cop-out, to be honest. But yeah, while I think a situational forced critical hit system like what you describe is unnecessary, I also don't think it breaks anything, and it can add a fun tactical dimension to combat.
Low damage rolls, or even a miss on AC. Hit Points are still fairly nebulous, right? It's not like 'point of damage' = 'cut to your body' or something. If you're climbing a fence and you get a little cut on your finger, I'm not even giving you a single point of damage. But if you're dueling with a skilled swordsman and he hasn't hit you but is slowly wearing you down, that's one possible description of losing hit points.
So you swing at my exposed head, and just barely nick my ear. That could easily be the explanation of rolling to hit and missing by 1, as well as hitting as getting a 1 (double to 2).
EDIT: oops, forgot the first point. Yeah, damage is one of those places where D&D has always gone rules lite. It's a 'feature' of the system, as opposed to a 'bug'. :) Sometimes I like hit/damage complex systems, but sometimes they are a burden. There could be simple mechanics--we used to use a 1/4 of your current HP mechanic to indicate a critical in one group. Take more than 1/4 of what you have left, it's a crit. But a crit there wasn't more damage, it was a penalty to dex, being knocked down, etc.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Well, yeah, but if you subscribe to that school of thought (that hit points aren't just "damage", but also reflect effort expended in avoiding damage), why would not-getting-hit-on-the-head-by-spending-effort (that is, a game "hit" while only your head is exposed, but not an actual hit on on the head) reduce your hit points more than not-getting-hit-elsewhere-by-spending-effort (a game "hit" while only your head is not exposed, but not an actual hit)? The answer could be: it wouldn't, no need to automatically count it as a critical hit. But it also could be: because you're more mindful of head-shots, so you try extra hard to avoid them. Or even: the blow hit your helm, and while it did no actual damage, it did leave your head ringing, wearing you down more than a blow to your chest plate. In short: either way can work, at this point, the discussion is purely academic (my favorite kind of discussion). :D
This is a fun discussion. And you're right about the multiple ways to interpret. I guess I'd say that I've always considered a critical to be definite contact :) Some HP are lost by getting worn down, others by being hit. Crits are hits. (There's a hashtag in there somewhere.)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Yeah it's something that doesn't make sense in a real scenario (as with plenty of other rules).
My rulling is you have disadvantage at "long" range since you can't quite point the distance to aim for but if they're near you and they drop to the ground they're just asking to get pelted.
When the prone crawling character gets close enough to the wall the goblins open the hidden door the player did not know about swarming him with advantage melee attacks since he's prone.
Didn’t read the whole thread yet but had to ask, why are the goblins behind a wall? Sure, you as the human DM are aware of cover rules and its advantages and disadvantages, but the fictional goblins don’t so by your logic you are meta gaming?
I think anyone would know a 6 foot target (standing up) is easier to hit than a smaller prone target would be unless they were laying at the goblins feet
I believe this is an encounter in sunless citadel i.e. th DM did not design this convenient half wall based on the rules for cover but rather wizards of the coast designed an encounter complete with authentic goblin strategy. That being said it is not on the DM to prevent the goblins from getting meta gamed so much as it is the DM's job to have the goblins react in the most goblin way possible, whatever that may mean.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Big cringe dude. Like others have said, if you don't like a rule it's ok to change it, but you need to be up front with your players about that. Doing it mid-combat is very unfair, especially as being the DM you have way more subtle ways of influencing things if you really wanted that character to get shot. Also, going prone did make a lot of sense in this situation, both in and out of character.
I suppose if the crawling character ends their turn in the prone position that would work. If the DM really wanted to punish the player for paying attention to the game or being invested in playing the game as intended. seems like the ruling was a gut reaction made as an emotional response. If the pattern continues I don’t see anything happening but the build up of resentment. The rules lawyer can be your bane, or a boon.
We have a couple of rules lawyers at my table. While it was rough in the beginning since we were all learning the system, we all spend time dming and researching. We definitely have arguments occasionally, but much less now. We’ve built up trust with each other and often lean on one another for references as we play to help the dm.
the passion and investment the OP has as a DM and the player has as rules lawyer can be cultivated for the good features of the table.
edit: this thread has been super necro’d, my apologies for keeping this undead ritual going.
To be clear, while prone he has half movement, making him take twice as long, and therefore (in essence) giving the goblins twice as many chances to hit him and therefore (in essence) canceling out the disadvantage they get from prone. So basically, what you did was give the goblins advantage because you decided that he's not allowed to be creative. You're a bad DM for this particular moment, and I suspect you are a bad DM in general based on the way you're talking about your players.
I would have allowed it, but if using a bow, I would have either added a penalty to the prone person's shots or disadvantage. A crossbow makes perfect sense, to me, to fire from prone without penalty, but a bow not so much. It sounds like the enemy would have at least half cover or even 3/4 cover to start with, so they are harder to hit than usual anyway.
If I were going to disallow something they thought would happen flat-out, I would tell them first. Not just have them shot anyway.
Some rulings have to be made up on the fly, but the rulings should take both your players and the monsters into effect. Otherwise, it feels like you are trying to beat the PCs.
Just my 2 cents.
Just noticed the level of necro....