Stand-up from prone is a joke

[Agamon]

It might feel wrong tactically, but think about it a minute. I can move 30 feet or I can stand up. Zuh? Is everyone wearing a big turtle shell on their back?

And, yes, there's no consequences. But this is just the core game, tactical rules are coming for the tactically minded. I should put that in my sig, I'd have to type it less often.

 

[slobo777]

"Prone" gets dished out a bit much in 4E, including an annoying tactical edge case of "prone + 2 squares away" which comes up a lot.

5E could easily have 4E or 3E-like conditions which combine its "prone" with another condition at the same time. These would obviously be rarer - only for specific spells or melee effects.

Having said that, I'm not too keen on "conditions" that are so trivial there's no point tracking them. Losing 5' of movement will make so little difference much of the time, it's not going to be worth the effort of pencilling a 'p' on the monster notes.

 

[Remathilis]

I kinda like how prone is fairly easy to get up from. It feels cinematic, and it keeps trip-monkeys from being born. While I'd like a little more control of the battlefield, it doesn't bother me one bit to see trip-AoO monkeys go away.

 

[Stalker0]

Also keep in mind that just because the base prone condition is easy to recover from doesn't mean a feat or theme couldn't be developed for the "trip monkey" guys.

Hold Them Down (Feat)

Prone enemies adjacent to you must use all movement to stand up from prone.

Or something of that vein.

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm thinking the cost of standing up needs to be considered together with:

1) How much effort would it normally take to stand up? How much does that effort differ between, say, someone who is encumbered or clumsy or slow and someone unencumbered, agile, or quick? How much should terrain matter?

2) What is the overall balance of costs? For example, in 3.5E, the cost of tripping someone (a standard action; with iterative attacks, a fraction of an attack action) tends to be quite less than the cost of recovering from being tripped (a move action plus multiple attack actions, counting a +attack from an opponent the same as a -attack for yourself).

3) What is fun? Tripping opponents and getting free attacks is fun, and adds a layer of tactical detail to fights. Being tripped your self, in particular, being "trip locked" is terribly unfun.

4) Also, what is the appropriate state model for being tripped? Would adding an "unbalanced" state help to even the action economy? Or would it add complexity with too little benefit?

TomB

 

[zlorf]

[


Hi,
Haven't tried Next yet, so I may be rehashing
staff already in the rules.

I like the idea of using your movement
to do things other than move.
Perhaps 10ft cost to stand up.
Say you had 30ft of movement,
In play it would work something like this:
Move 10ft, get something from your pack (10ft cost), open a door (5ft)
,move 5ft and the attack.

Cheers
Zlorf



QUOTE=Li Shenron;5958077]Does anybody else think that the 5e playtest rule for standing up is outrageously forgiving?

IIRC (please correct me if wrong) standing up from prone is:

in 3.0 a move-equivalent action that doesn't provoke AoO
in 3.5 a move-equivalent action that provokes AoO
in 4e a move action that doesn't provoke AoO
in 5e it costs 5ft of your movement action

As [MENTION=12306]Kraydak[/MENTION] pointed out in another thread, tripping someone prone has been at best a 1-round effect, although how good actually depends on the penalties than the prone character gets. Lots of penalties make being prone bad enough so that you might want to grant the prone character the option to stand up easily in the next round, and IMHO the 3.5 version with its AoO has always been too harsh and allowed for tripping monkeys.

OTOH the 5e version is really minimally costly... you still have pretty much all your round's worth of actions after standing up.

What would be the pitfalls, if instead of having lots of penalties with easiness of standing up, the rules went a bit easy on the penalties but instead required you e.g. to use your main action to stand up? IOW, shifting part of the overall penalties from the condition itself to the cost of getting out of it.

At least, that 5ft cost seems really small to me... it's practically free.[/QUOTE]

 

[PinkRose]

Remember, prone isn't just use 5' to stand up.
It also grants Advantage to those melee attacking it.
So don't discount it, slobo777.

But I agree, that 5' is too little.
I can't come up with what is just right.
Hlaf movement penalizes fast creatures. but might be the easiest.
10' or even 15' sounds about right, but then it penalizes slow characters.
5' +5' per monster in Zone of Control sounds about right.
Is your move action too much? You could still stand and attack.
Or stand and move (converting action to move).
How limiting is using all your move to stand?
Does prone happen too often that it gets annoying?

I think 5'+5 per adj monster is my favorite. Quick if you aren't in combat, and cautious if you are in the middle of melee, where you want to be anyway so losing movement doesn't matter.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Does anybody else think that the 5e playtest rule for standing up is outrageously forgiving?

Yes.

 

[Balesir]

I think 5' is far too little from two perspectives:

1) A turn is ~6 seconds. In a turn a typical character (move 30') could move 60' if they spent the whole turn moving. That suggests that they stand up from prone in around half a second; even with a "kip up" that sounds lightning fast.

2) Movement while prone is at half speed. A 5' of movement cost to stand up makes crawling while prone something you would basically never consider under any circumstances. Even if standing up cost half your move, that means you get the choice of (a) move half your move while prone and stay vulnerable/disadvantaged, or (b) stand up and still move half your move. Why would you ever choose (a)?

 

[DogBackward]

2) Movement while prone is at half speed. A 5' of movement cost to stand up makes crawling while prone something you would basically never consider under any circumstances.

Unless you're in a cramped cave with a 3ft high ceiling. Or there are laser-death-traps firing off at waist height. Or you need to wiggle under a tripwire to avoid squashy-wall-traps. Or you're sneaking behind cover. Or one of any number of other reasons to crawl.

Choosing to crawl or stand up... these aren't equal options because they're not supposed to be equal options; one is obviously better than the other, and for good reason. That's just common sense; standing up will always be a better option than crawling, assuming there isn't something that makes you want to crawl. If there is some other reason you'd want to crawl, then you need to know how fast you can crawl, which is why they mention that it's at half speed.

But "Standing up is faster." isn't why you want to avoid crawling.
"Crawling when you don't have to is a really stupid idea." is why you want to avoid crawling.