The alternative argument would be that sharks. snakes and similar creatures always attack at disadvantage and point blank attacks against them are always at advantage, since such creatures normally are prone and the rules do not specify them having any exception.
Nope, the argument is that they are not considered prone from a game mechanics standpoint.
The only meaning for the Prone condition that the game cares about is the one it lays out for describing that condition. So far as 5e is concerned, that's all that matters.
But nowhere does anything say that “being on one’s belly” is the prerequisite for the prone condition. It’s a specific condition that has to be applied, not a default for something like a snake.
Your interpretation is the houserule, not the rest of ours.
The game is written in English. Are we going to debate word meanings now? If someone voluntarily goes prone, do they not suffer from the penalties of the prone condition or not? If someone tired voluntarily goes to sleep, do they not count as unconscious simply because falling asleep was a choice rather than something inflicted on them? If they tie themselves up, does restrained not apply? Or would applying such conditions in such situations be mere 'house rules?'
You've been debating word meanings from the beginning. We've tread and re-tread the same territory ad nauseam now, but I'll try to condense and summarize.
It does not matter what name we ascribe to the prone condition. It is a specific condition with specific rules. Stop being so obsessed with what name that condition has. Calling it the "kerfuffled" condition sincerely does make things clearer, so with thanks to Sposta, I'm going to use this word from here on.
Kerfuffled is a condition. What is a condition? The rules say "Conditions alter a creature's capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster's attack, or other effect." Since conditions alter a creature's capabilities, the default, presumed state is no condition. No rule has to say anything doesn't suffer a condition, because that's the default.
Now, lots of things can impose a condition. For example, lying prone may cause a humanoid to become kerfuffled, which is a specific condition that has certain rules attached to it. Numerous spells and special abilities may also allow a creature to make another kerfuffled. The exact nature of what it means for a creature to become kerfuffled depends on the creature and the effect that caused it.
A snake lying on its belly is obviously not kerfuffled, because being on its belly is the default state for a snake, and since the snake doesn't have any rules that say it always suffers any kind of condition, it doesn't suffer any condition unless something else explicitly causes it to. Being kerfuffled doesn't inherently have anything to do with being on one's belly. It's just a set of penalties that certain spells or effects can apply.
I'm really not sure why you're obsessing over what is or isn't "voluntary" in your further examples. No one's suggested that the voluntary nature of anything has anything to do with this.
The only meaning for the Prone condition that the game cares about is the one it lays out for describing that condition. So far as 5e is concerned, that's all that matters.
You are avoiding my question.
So would someone voluntarily laying prone suffer from that condition or not? If not, why not?
Sure they would. But that’s not the point in this case. The point in this case is that a snake, even though it has absolutely no legs, and even though it’s normal posture happens to be flat on its belly, it suffers none of the advantages nor disadvantages of the prone unless something specifically applies that condition to the snake, or unless the snake voluntarily chose to apply that condition to itself. And if anything does impose the prone condition on a snake, I don’t care how the DM chooses to narrate the visual, it still can have the condition applied.
If you want to argue that certain segments of the rules are badly written and should be changed, fair enough. I agree with that sentiment. But the rules clearly state that a creature can go prone if it wishes to.
Also, I'm just going to throw this out there: This discussion is starting to go way off topic.
If you want to argue that certain segments of the rules are badly written and should be changed, fair enough. I agree with that sentiment. But the rules clearly state that a creature can go prone if it wishes to.
Also, I'm just going to throw this out there: This discussion is starting to go way off topic.
I don't know if this was brought up, but how much movement and which movement does a shark have to use to "stand up" from being knocked prone? Is that answer the same if the shark is in water or out?
This is relevant because the description of being prone talks only about "speed" just like longstrider. If "speed" means only walking speed, then a shark can never remove the prone from itself. Seems an obvious statement that a shark can't stand up, but that implies that it is immensely powerful to apply prone to creatures without a walking speed. On the other hand, if "speed" means "primary speed" or "largest speed" or "any speed" then that is quite different. That also seems to be the crux of the discussion here.
Can a giant octopus use 5 feet (half of its walking speed) to "stand up" then use the rest of its swim speed?
I wanted to know how using "speed" to stand up interacts with creatures with more than one speed, or have "Speed: 0ft., swim 50ft." because that interaction probably can inform how you treat "The target's speed increases by 10 feet..."
But what you are doing is insisting that the ability does something mechanically different against a snake than it would against a humanoid, to ensure it achieves the penalties of the effect.
Not even remotely. What I am saying is that the only mechanical effects the condition has are the ones listed in bullet points under the condition, and that the “laying on one’s belly” is not mechanical at all but purely narrative.
You are the one that is insisting that the narrative explanation of the effect and dictionary definition of the word are in any way attached to the mechanical points of the condition.
Nowhere does it say that being narratively “prone” and being mechanically prone are mutually inclusive. For the vast majority of creatures they are. But a snake is not listed as being perpetually prone, nor being immune to it. Therefore the base state of the creature is not affected by the condition, and that the condition can still be applied. It’s up to the DM to describe it in some way, so I invented a narrative description that fits a caveat not addressed by the condition. But the mechanics are wholly limited to those listed below the condition.
There are a variety of conditions you are permitted to apply to yourself, in which case you have that condition. A character who voluntarily goes prone does have all effects of that condition, positive and negative. There are times you would want to apply blinded (closing your eyes), deafened (a lot harder to do on purpose, but things like stopping your ears with wax), and applying unconscious is part of sleeping.
A character who wants to declare that he's crouched over but not prone may or may not be permitted to do so, depending on the DM, but if permitted, does not have the effects of being prone. A snake is on its belly but not prone, and if tripped, is probably flipped on its back or otherwise unable to conveniently move and has normal effects of prone. A monster that cannot ever suffer effects of being prone has condition immunity; see for example gray ooze.
Well, I thought there was an interesting thought experiment in that question. I didn't realize we'd be dragged into the mud of "can a creature without an immunity to a particular condition have that condition applied to it?"
Creatures that are innately immune to conditions have things called condition immunities listed in their stat blocks.
And, of course, if it is your supposition with this line of argument that sea creatures cannot be knocked prone, I don’t know why they’d give a giant sea horse a charge ability.
Since you insist on carrying this on, where exactly in the rules does it actually say that if you close your eyes you are subjected to the blinded status or if you plug your ears you are deafened? Although I swear I did read it somewhere, I could not find anything about voluntarily going prone either, at least not in the movement rules.
PHB Chapter 9, Movement and Position, Being Prone: "Combatants often find themselves lying on the ground, either because they are knocked down or because they throw themselves down. In the game, they are prone. You can dropprone without using any of your speed. Standing up takes more effort; doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed."
Regarding closing your own eyes it follows from a number of mentions where monsters have automatic gaze attacks, usually something similar to this: "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the saving throw."
As for being deafened, it doesn't say anywhere that deafening yourself is an option or what it would do, but most everything that could be affected by being deafened targets "a creature that can hear you" soif you for whatever can't hear anything that effect wouldn't work.
That is a great idea. I love the idea of just willy-nilly adding immunities to creatures that don’t have them. It is blatantly obvious that my plate clad PC is immune to slashing damage.
It is blatantly obvious that dwarves are so blocky they cannot be prone either. Their legs are short enough that even when they are on their belly, they can be standing.
On the other hand, when it is actually blatantly obvious that a monster cannot be made to suffer the effects of prone, they actually tell you that. See gelatinous cube as an example.
That is a great idea. I love the idea of just willy-nilly adding immunities to creatures that don’t have them. It is blatantly obvious that my plate clad PC is immune to slashing damage.
It is blatantly obvious that dwarves are so blocky they cannot be prone either. Their legs are short enough that even when they are on their belly, they can be standing.
On the other hand, when it is actually blatantly obvious that a monster cannot be made to suffer the effects of prone, they actually tell you that. See gelatinous cube as an example.
I am rather certain that you can tell the differences in body type between a dwarf and a snake. The condition is written with the assumption of a bipedal target. Do you also believe that a horse that is knocked prone can crawl at half speed without standing? Rules say it can... According to the interpretation being presented, a snake on its back can similarly move at half speed. Oh and a shark for some reason swimming upside down swims at half speed....
Can someone reduce their falling damage by going prone mid fall? When prone, your speed is halved until you stand....
I'm rather certain that you are not talking about the rules, you are trying to simulate reality based around words that you think you know the meaning of that also happen to appear in the rules.
Anyway, back to the real question, when a creature without immunity to the prone such as a giant octopus is knocked prone, does it get to choose which speed it removes the condition with? Does it matter if it is swimming or not at the time? How do you rule on this question? I'm only interested in actual rules answers on this and how it might inform your answer to the OPs question, so keep that in mind.
Anyway, back to the real question, when a creature without immunity to the prone such as a giant octopus is knocked prone, does it get to choose which speed it removes the condition with? Does it matter if it is swimming or not at the time? How do you rule on this question? I'm only interested in actual rules answers on this and how it might inform your answer to the OPs question, so keep that in mind.
It uses the total for that creature’s movement, not either specific speed.
In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here.
Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
Breaking Up Your Move
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.
Moving Between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
Using Different Speeds
If you have more than one speed, such as your walking speed and a flying speed, you can switch back and forth between your speeds during your move. Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed. The result determines how much farther you can move. If the result is 0 or less, you can't use the new speed during the current move.
For example, if you have a speed of 30 and a flying speed of 60 because a wizard cast the fly spell on you, you could fly 20 feet, then walk 10 feet, and then leap into the air to fly 30 feet more.
I am not sure that's right. It says that "Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed." That doesn't imply that your speed is the sum of all of your movement modes added together, rather the largest distance you could move in a turn is the largest speed that you have.
I am not sure that's right. It says that "Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed." That doesn't imply that your speed is the sum of all of your movement modes added together, rather the largest distance you could move in a turn is the largest speed that you have.
I didn’t say to add them together and use the “sum” did I? I said that it uses the creature’s total movement as the number. Whatever that total movement for the turn is calculated at, standing up from prone uses 1/2 of it.
Effectively I would just temporarily treat the Giant Octopus’s movement for the turn as: Speed 5 ft., swim 30 ft. after it “stood up.”
Nope, the argument is that they are not considered prone from a game mechanics standpoint.
The only meaning for the Prone condition that the game cares about is the one it lays out for describing that condition. So far as 5e is concerned, that's all that matters.
You've been debating word meanings from the beginning. We've tread and re-tread the same territory ad nauseam now, but I'll try to condense and summarize.
It does not matter what name we ascribe to the prone condition. It is a specific condition with specific rules. Stop being so obsessed with what name that condition has. Calling it the "kerfuffled" condition sincerely does make things clearer, so with thanks to Sposta, I'm going to use this word from here on.
Kerfuffled is a condition. What is a condition? The rules say "Conditions alter a creature's capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster's attack, or other effect." Since conditions alter a creature's capabilities, the default, presumed state is no condition. No rule has to say anything doesn't suffer a condition, because that's the default.
Now, lots of things can impose a condition. For example, lying prone may cause a humanoid to become kerfuffled, which is a specific condition that has certain rules attached to it. Numerous spells and special abilities may also allow a creature to make another kerfuffled. The exact nature of what it means for a creature to become kerfuffled depends on the creature and the effect that caused it.
A snake lying on its belly is obviously not kerfuffled, because being on its belly is the default state for a snake, and since the snake doesn't have any rules that say it always suffers any kind of condition, it doesn't suffer any condition unless something else explicitly causes it to. Being kerfuffled doesn't inherently have anything to do with being on one's belly. It's just a set of penalties that certain spells or effects can apply.
I'm really not sure why you're obsessing over what is or isn't "voluntary" in your further examples. No one's suggested that the voluntary nature of anything has anything to do with this.
Sure they would. But that’s not the point in this case. The point in this case is that a snake, even though it has absolutely no legs, and even though it’s normal posture happens to be flat on its belly, it suffers none of the advantages nor disadvantages of the prone unless something specifically applies that condition to the snake, or unless the snake voluntarily chose to apply that condition to itself. And if anything does impose the prone condition on a snake, I don’t care how the DM chooses to narrate the visual, it still can have the condition applied.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's there in the basic rules under "Being Prone"
If you want to argue that certain segments of the rules are badly written and should be changed, fair enough. I agree with that sentiment. But the rules clearly state that a creature can go prone if it wishes to.
Also, I'm just going to throw this out there: This discussion is starting to go way off topic.
It jumped the shark many pages ago.
@BKThomson: I see what you did there.
I wanted to know how using "speed" to stand up interacts with creatures with more than one speed, or have "Speed: 0ft., swim 50ft." because that interaction probably can inform how you treat "The target's speed increases by 10 feet..."
Not even remotely. What I am saying is that the only mechanical effects the condition has are the ones listed in bullet points under the condition, and that the “laying on one’s belly” is not mechanical at all but purely narrative.
You are the one that is insisting that the narrative explanation of the effect and dictionary definition of the word are in any way attached to the mechanical points of the condition.
Nowhere does it say that being narratively “prone” and being mechanically prone are mutually inclusive. For the vast majority of creatures they are. But a snake is not listed as being perpetually prone, nor being immune to it. Therefore the base state of the creature is not affected by the condition, and that the condition can still be applied. It’s up to the DM to describe it in some way, so I invented a narrative description that fits a caveat not addressed by the condition. But the mechanics are wholly limited to those listed below the condition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There are a variety of conditions you are permitted to apply to yourself, in which case you have that condition. A character who voluntarily goes prone does have all effects of that condition, positive and negative. There are times you would want to apply blinded (closing your eyes), deafened (a lot harder to do on purpose, but things like stopping your ears with wax), and applying unconscious is part of sleeping.
A character who wants to declare that he's crouched over but not prone may or may not be permitted to do so, depending on the DM, but if permitted, does not have the effects of being prone. A snake is on its belly but not prone, and if tripped, is probably flipped on its back or otherwise unable to conveniently move and has normal effects of prone. A monster that cannot ever suffer effects of being prone has condition immunity; see for example gray ooze.
Well, I thought there was an interesting thought experiment in that question. I didn't realize we'd be dragged into the mud of "can a creature without an immunity to a particular condition have that condition applied to it?"
Creatures that are innately immune to conditions have things called condition immunities listed in their stat blocks.
And, of course, if it is your supposition with this line of argument that sea creatures cannot be knocked prone, I don’t know why they’d give a giant sea horse a charge ability.
PHB Chapter 9, Movement and Position, Being Prone: "Combatants often find themselves lying on the ground, either because they are knocked down or because they throw themselves down. In the game, they are prone. You can drop prone without using any of your speed. Standing up takes more effort; doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed."
Regarding closing your own eyes it follows from a number of mentions where monsters have automatic gaze attacks, usually something similar to this: "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the saving throw."
As for being deafened, it doesn't say anywhere that deafening yourself is an option or what it would do, but most everything that could be affected by being deafened targets "a creature that can hear you" soif you for whatever can't hear anything that effect wouldn't work.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
That is a great idea. I love the idea of just willy-nilly adding immunities to creatures that don’t have them. It is blatantly obvious that my plate clad PC is immune to slashing damage.
It is blatantly obvious that dwarves are so blocky they cannot be prone either. Their legs are short enough that even when they are on their belly, they can be standing.
On the other hand, when it is actually blatantly obvious that a monster cannot be made to suffer the effects of prone, they actually tell you that. See gelatinous cube as an example.
I'm rather certain that you are not talking about the rules, you are trying to simulate reality based around words that you think you know the meaning of that also happen to appear in the rules.
There are actually rules about being prone and falling introduced in XGtE.
Anyway, back to the real question, when a creature without immunity to the prone such as a giant octopus is knocked prone, does it get to choose which speed it removes the condition with? Does it matter if it is swimming or not at the time? How do you rule on this question? I'm only interested in actual rules answers on this and how it might inform your answer to the OPs question, so keep that in mind.
It uses the total for that creature’s movement, not either specific speed.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MovementandPosition
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am not sure that's right. It says that "Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed." That doesn't imply that your speed is the sum of all of your movement modes added together, rather the largest distance you could move in a turn is the largest speed that you have.
I didn’t say to add them together and use the “sum” did I? I said that it uses the creature’s total movement as the number. Whatever that total movement for the turn is calculated at, standing up from prone uses 1/2 of it.
Effectively I would just temporarily treat the Giant Octopus’s movement for the turn as: Speed 5 ft., swim 30 ft. after it “stood up.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting