Standing up from prone

[darkadelphia]

Originally Posted by Danceofmasks

It could also be hilarious to walk over to a prone ally, then lie down next (in the same square) to him.
Next monster does the same thing.

PCs open a 5'x5' broom closet to find 1000 kobolds sleeping together.

1,000 minion kobolds in one square, wizard wins initiative and casts cloud of daggers--25,000 xp ;-)

[eamon]

Originally Posted by MarkB

One alternative would be to allow a character to move (not shift) up to one square when standing from prone, and to require that move when standing up in an occupied square.

This would make Prone more powerful in the fairly unusual circumstance of standing up in an occupied square, as you would provoke OAs, but make it weaker if there are no adjacent enemies when you stand up, as you can get in a square of movement at the same time.

That's sounds like a good compromise. Certainly I don't see a big problem with simply only allowing the shift if your square is occupied by an ally, but your rule is less nasty if you do fall unconscious and then wake up again.

It's inconsistent to allow the shift when an enemy occupies your square but not when the square is empty - that's implying that the enemy is helping you to stand up, which, barring exception situations, is unlikely to be the case.

[GlaziusF]

Originally Posted by eamon

It's inconsistent to allow the shift when an enemy occupies your square but not when the square is empty - that's implying that the enemy is helping you to stand up, which, barring exception situations, is unlikely to be the case.

Let's say I'm adjacent to an enemy. I spend a move action to stand up, and I wind up in the enemy's threatened area.

Now let's say an enemy's space overlaps mine and I'm prone. I spend a move action to stand up, and I still wind up in the enemy's threatened area.

There are corner cases where I'm prone with a free space to stand but multiple enemies still adjacent to me, but in that case the shift is really more of a drop of mercy in a flood of misfortune, wouldn't you say?

[Nikosandros]

What I'll probably end up doing, if the situation ever presents itself, is to offer a prone character with an enemy in its own space two choices:

1) Stand up in an adjacent unoccupied square of your choice and suffer an OA.

2) Stand up and let the enemy push you one square.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

What I'll probably end up doing, if the situation ever presents itself, is to offer a prone character with an enemy in its own space two choices:

1) Stand up in an adjacent unoccupied square of your choice and suffer an OA.

2) Stand up and let the enemy push you one square.

Why #2?

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by Nail

Why #2?

Well, the idea is to let the prone character stand up carefully, without provoking. In that case, the enemy, being in control of the square, can force the character to go in a certain direction.

Maybe it's just a silly idea, I don't know...

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

Maybe it's just a silly idea, I don't know...

I actually kind of like it.

Though your players may object to the increased lethality when they get knocked prone and end up in an enemy's square. Honestly, they may be better off simply stabbing from the prone.

[eamon]

Originally Posted by GlaziusF

Let's say I'm adjacent to an enemy. I spend a move action to stand up, and I wind up in the enemy's threatened area.

Now let's say an enemy's space overlaps mine and I'm prone. I spend a move action to stand up, and I still wind up in the enemy's threatened area.

There are corner cases where I'm prone with a free space to stand but multiple enemies still adjacent to me, but in that case the shift is really more of a drop of mercy in a flood of misfortune, wouldn't you say?

I think it's important to be consistent, and to avoid making exceptions just because it's nasty, without any in-game justification. I don' think it's reasonable to permit a shift because you happen to be under a threatening opponent - how could standing up be any easier? Frankly, it's not a situation likely to occur frequently (since you cannot move into an occupied square, even if the enemy is prone, unless he's also helpless). Balance is important, and sometimes we turn a blind eye in its name - but this situation doesn't warrant that kind of leniency, IMHO.

For that matter, it's not particularly unbalancing so simply permit an OA from the creature above you when you stand up. In those cases where you're unconscious and an enemy stands atop you, it's not unbalanced to be disadvantaged. Any adventurer/monster with a say in the matter would have avoided being put into that situation, and someone can force his opponent to fall unconscious and then stand on him, he deserves to have the (literal) upper hand, right?

I don't think it's a balance issue to not allow shifts when a creature stands up from prone ever, and it is a consistency issue to allow it specifically in those situations where you're least likely to stand up easily. My vote would be to not allow such shifts therefore, and in any case to never penalize a player for not having an enemy on top of his PC. A reasonable ruling could be to always allow one square of (provoking) movement as part of standing up, but that you can choose to forgo the movement and thereby avoid the OA(s).

On the other hand, in an actual game, I don't think this rule is important enough to have an argument about and I'd just play whatever the majority prefers.

[HighTemplar]

Perhaps if you stand up from prone with an enemy in your square he could just decide where you have to shift freely, making it more balanced instead of an AoO.

Or you have to bull rush him ? (haha who wants that ? but it seems reasonnable considering you've got someone standing over you not really letting you up)

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by HighTemplar

Perhaps if you stand up from prone with an enemy in your square he could just decide where you have to shift freely, making it more balanced instead of an AoO.

Yes, that was the gist of option #2. My phrasing was actually bad, I prefer yours. With pushing you have to deal with situations like a dwarf standing up...

[eamon]

Originally Posted by HighTemplar

Perhaps if you stand up from prone with an enemy in your square he could just decide where you have to shift freely, making it more balanced instead of an AoO.

If a creature is capable of shifting when an opponent is on top of it, why isn't it capable thereof when no opponent is on top of it?

I don't see the big balance problem with simply banning the shift, and permitting an OA-provoking 1 square move. Frankly, it's really lenient to permit a creature to be unconcious, wake up, stand up and move 5 feet all within a single move action in 6 seconds without provoking.

Another problem with the push or forced shift mechanic is that in general you can always push someone fewer squares. Or you push toward blocking terrain (and fail). What happens in these cases?

I think it's reasonable to penalize creatures for being in a horribly disadvantageous situation, and it's unreasonable to deny them these stand up abilities merely because they weren't helpless and there's no enemy standing on top of them. If you're really worried about prone being impossible to escape, grant some expensive action - say, if you use a standard action to stand up, you may shift a square - something, in any case, which makes it unattractive to use in normal situations so that you're not stuck with the inconsistency that only creatures with enemies on top of them (meaning they were helpless) can somehow stand up and move without getting hit.

I don't think there a balance issue with penalizing helpless critters being straddled by their enemies, and I think there is a consistency issue with penalizing those that weren't helpless and straddled.

[HighTemplar]

The whole issue is that standing up dosent provoke AoO and the whole ruleset has as a guideline that noone can share squares. So what happens if you stand up but your square is occupied, CS or PHB ruled that you can shift freely, which as you say is indeed riduculous if you couldn't do it without having your square occupied.

My point was that instead of ruling that being prone with an enemy in your square is a "horrible disadvantadge" which is obviously contrary to what the rules say (this whole thread is about how lenient they are on this issue) you can make a compromise thats more reasonnable than the illogical rules and less penalizing than getting up and getting merked or spending a standard action.

imho they should just have kept the stand up action provoking AoO but it is refreshing not to have it with the multitude of attacks that can make someone prone.

I guess other possible solutions could take into accoutn that being prne with an enemy on top of you is actually a worse situation for you then you just being prone. the rules seem tho think the latter but all of us here pretty much think that having an enemy standing on top of you shouldn't be helping you at all to move away.

I feel like i'm repeating myself, but anyways ruling could be: You either crawl out of there normally and then stand up from prone (which hurts, two move actions, + AoO) or that you just have to pay for the shifting (two move actions) or perhaps something weaker that implies that when you stand up from prone you can shift as a minor action kindof of making the stand up action a minor one IF you are willing to shift immediately afterwards. Afterall it is kind of possible to stand up while moving out of where you're currently standing.

Edit: Anyone who bullrushes a foe into a wall or difficult terrain is a retard.. Who would try to push someone on a wall ? I mean there's probably 7 other squares(directions) 5 of which im betting are not walls to push him towards.