I’m aware of the prone rules re this and the general understanding that hitting a prone target is difficult because of a smaller target being present. That said, I have a fly ability so if I moved directly above the target, would I still be at disadvantage?
An attack roll against the creature has advantageif the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage.
If you are within 5 feet you don’t have disadvantage otherwise you do, per RAW. Maybe you can convince your DM otherwise
If you think that you shouldn’t because you are above and the target isn’t a low profile from your vantage point remember if you get this the DM is well within their rights to say sure but all standing targets are at disadvantage to you because now their profile is smaller to you being above them.
You can't move through a hostile creature's space unless the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you, nor can you willingly end your move in its space. This even if you're flying or if it's prone. So if you move to a space 5 feet above the prone creature's space, you will have advantage but if you are any farther away, then you will have disadvantage instead.
Another consideration. Do you want to have disadvantage when attacking a target that is standing up when you are above it? Doesn't it have a lower profile from that perspective and thus would be harder to hit? Or what about a creature like a turtle, do you always have disadvantage to hit it because it presents a low profile target naturally?
An added complication ... at what angle does the effect of being prone disappear? 30 degrees? 45 degrees? 60 degrees? Immediately above the target?
The problem with your requested house rule is that it requires a number of other house rules since you are attempting to do something you consider more "realistic" in a game system that is heroic, approximate and not designed to be a simulation.
In addition, I couldn't find an explanation in the rules about why prone has the specific effects listed. The assumption mentioned here is that attacks from more than 5' away have disadvantage because the target presents a lower profile. However, think about it, from 8' away, how much of a smaller profile is there from lying down? So perhaps, the benefit from being prone is more that the target is acting more defensively than usual, squirming around while sacrificing their ability to attack just because they feel more vulnerable on the ground.
Keep in mind that even ranged attacks are at disadvantage when a target is prone. This means that you CAN fire a long bow while prone even though realistically you need to pull the bow string back somehow. In addition, crossbows are similarly restricted even though they don't require the same effort as a long bow.
Anyway, boils down to ask your DM but personally I'd just stick with RAW since I can come up with reasons why the effect of prone might be more than just a smaller target profile (though that is still probably the bulk of the reasoning for the effect).
This is definitely a case of the mechanics not accounting for a scenario. A prone target viewed from the air above it is the same size target as a standing target from the same distance along the ground, so it shouldn't be Disadvantage, but the rules don't account for that, leaving the general rule that ranged attacks against prone targets are at disadvantage.
This is definitely a case of the mechanics not accounting for a scenario. A prone target viewed from the air above it is the same size target as a standing target from the same distance along the ground, so it shouldn't be Disadvantage, but the rules don't account for that, leaving the general rule that ranged attacks against prone targets are at disadvantage.
And as I and David42 has pointed out if you want to go that way it introduces more complications as the standing target has a now smaller target size when viewed from above. So it should be at disadvantage in those cases. And as David42 points out, at what angle does it switch over? Totally unnecessary complications, imo. The general rule is fine as is.
This is definitely a case of the mechanics not accounting for a scenario. A prone target viewed from the air above it is the same size target as a standing target from the same distance along the ground, so it shouldn't be Disadvantage, but the rules don't account for that, leaving the general rule that ranged attacks against prone targets are at disadvantage.
And as I and David42 has pointed out if you want to go that way it introduces more complications as the standing target has a now smaller target size when viewed from above. So it should be at disadvantage in those cases. And as David42 points out, at what angle does it switch over? Totally unnecessary complications, imo. The general rule is fine as is.
It's not that complicated. A 45° angle would be fine, and there's no math required. If the height difference is equal or greater than the horizontal distance, you use the flying perspective, but if the horizontal distance is greater, you use the normal 2d determination. And if high flyers can normally attack prone targets, them having disadvantage against standing targets would make complete sense. At that point it's just another rule, that slightly more closely resembling the nuances of reality.
It all comes down on where on the scale from 5e to Pathfinder do you want your game to be in terms of rules crunchiness.
RAW is fine, but I'd have no problems with this house-rule being implemented.
I agree. In many cases this should be an overall advantage / benefit to the flying creature since they can use movement to set up attacks. So, move mostly above a prone target and attack and then simply move away from standing targets to attack again. No disadvantage.
It's worth keeping in mind an attack roll in D&D isn't about scoring any hit, it's about hitting a weak spot such that you can deal damage. By knocking a target prone you may actually make it harder to hit a weak point, especially if it curls up defensively or such until it's ready to get up again.
Personally I'm fine with the rule as it is; you (or your party) shouldn't knock targets prone unless you're actually in a position to take advantage of doing so, meanwhile if an enemy chooses to go prone it's trying to make itself harder to hit, so the rule is fine either way IMO.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
From the Player's Handbook: "The DM can decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." As the DM you can explicitly impose these at any time for any reason, you're never beholden to just what the RAW says about adv/disadv. (You're never beholden to RAW in general of course, but adjudicating advantage and disadvantage that seem silly to you are explicitly your job.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m aware of the prone rules re this and the general understanding that hitting a prone target is difficult because of a smaller target being present. That said, I have a fly ability so if I moved directly above the target, would I still be at disadvantage?
If you are within 5 feet you don’t have disadvantage otherwise you do, per RAW. Maybe you can convince your DM otherwise
If you think that you shouldn’t because you are above and the target isn’t a low profile from your vantage point remember if you get this the DM is well within their rights to say sure but all standing targets are at disadvantage to you because now their profile is smaller to you being above them.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yup, that’s my issue. It’s very 2d, tbh. Kind of stunts me from being creative re RAW. 🤷🏻♂️
Over to the DM it is. Pretty certain I know the way this will go as the DM hates wizards, lol.
See my edit I made while you posted. It could work against you if they agree
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You can't move through a hostile creature's space unless the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you, nor can you willingly end your move in its space. This even if you're flying or if it's prone. So if you move to a space 5 feet above the prone creature's space, you will have advantage but if you are any farther away, then you will have disadvantage instead.
Another consideration. Do you want to have disadvantage when attacking a target that is standing up when you are above it? Doesn't it have a lower profile from that perspective and thus would be harder to hit? Or what about a creature like a turtle, do you always have disadvantage to hit it because it presents a low profile target naturally?
An added complication ... at what angle does the effect of being prone disappear? 30 degrees? 45 degrees? 60 degrees? Immediately above the target?
The problem with your requested house rule is that it requires a number of other house rules since you are attempting to do something you consider more "realistic" in a game system that is heroic, approximate and not designed to be a simulation.
In addition, I couldn't find an explanation in the rules about why prone has the specific effects listed. The assumption mentioned here is that attacks from more than 5' away have disadvantage because the target presents a lower profile. However, think about it, from 8' away, how much of a smaller profile is there from lying down? So perhaps, the benefit from being prone is more that the target is acting more defensively than usual, squirming around while sacrificing their ability to attack just because they feel more vulnerable on the ground.
Keep in mind that even ranged attacks are at disadvantage when a target is prone. This means that you CAN fire a long bow while prone even though realistically you need to pull the bow string back somehow. In addition, crossbows are similarly restricted even though they don't require the same effort as a long bow.
Anyway, boils down to ask your DM but personally I'd just stick with RAW since I can come up with reasons why the effect of prone might be more than just a smaller target profile (though that is still probably the bulk of the reasoning for the effect).
This is definitely a case of the mechanics not accounting for a scenario. A prone target viewed from the air above it is the same size target as a standing target from the same distance along the ground, so it shouldn't be Disadvantage, but the rules don't account for that, leaving the general rule that ranged attacks against prone targets are at disadvantage.
And as I and David42 has pointed out if you want to go that way it introduces more complications as the standing target has a now smaller target size when viewed from above. So it should be at disadvantage in those cases. And as David42 points out, at what angle does it switch over? Totally unnecessary complications, imo. The general rule is fine as is.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's not that complicated. A 45° angle would be fine, and there's no math required. If the height difference is equal or greater than the horizontal distance, you use the flying perspective, but if the horizontal distance is greater, you use the normal 2d determination. And if high flyers can normally attack prone targets, them having disadvantage against standing targets would make complete sense. At that point it's just another rule, that slightly more closely resembling the nuances of reality.
It all comes down on where on the scale from 5e to Pathfinder do you want your game to be in terms of rules crunchiness.
RAW is fine, but I'd have no problems with this house-rule being implemented.
I agree. In many cases this should be an overall advantage / benefit to the flying creature since they can use movement to set up attacks. So, move mostly above a prone target and attack and then simply move away from standing targets to attack again. No disadvantage.
It's worth keeping in mind an attack roll in D&D isn't about scoring any hit, it's about hitting a weak spot such that you can deal damage. By knocking a target prone you may actually make it harder to hit a weak point, especially if it curls up defensively or such until it's ready to get up again.
Personally I'm fine with the rule as it is; you (or your party) shouldn't knock targets prone unless you're actually in a position to take advantage of doing so, meanwhile if an enemy chooses to go prone it's trying to make itself harder to hit, so the rule is fine either way IMO.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
From the Player's Handbook: "The DM can decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." As the DM you can explicitly impose these at any time for any reason, you're never beholden to just what the RAW says about adv/disadv. (You're never beholden to RAW in general of course, but adjudicating advantage and disadvantage that seem silly to you are explicitly your job.)