The "Bubble"

[Saeviomagy]

Oh, can't ready an action for when he comes back to you? Cause... I mean... that's perfectly legal already, right. And probably better than a charge

How is it better than a charge? Losing the action if the foe does the smart thing and doesn't come back is a pretty hefty penalty.

And don't mistake this for a change that had to happen because the mechanic was ruining the game. It's purely us thinking "you know, it's really weird that you can stand and attack someone who is next to you, you can stand and attack someone 2 squares away, but if someone's 1 square away, you're just plain out of luck" and realising that very little changes if you make a minor rule adjustment to fix it.

 

[Rothe_]

The best workaround for prone, within the rules as written, is to crawl and attack (not getting up). It gives -2 to hit, but you do get to attack.

 

[Flipguarder]

Prone is a terribly weak condition. There is NO need to house-rule it in order to weaken it further. I have NO idea what you guys are thinking.

 

[DracoSuave]

How is it better than a charge? Losing the action if the foe does the smart thing and doesn't come back is a pretty hefty penalty.

I don't know if youi've noticed, but Prone is supposed to be an inconvenience. If you can just get up and attack someone as if nothing happened, basicly, you've made every melee prone power extremely pointless.

I know. Action Denial conditions actually denying actions!?! ABSURD!

While you're at it, being immobilized rather sucks. Let's nerf that too.

It's like someone gets wind of a decent tactic and everyone wants to grind it to the dirt.

If he attacks someone else, well maybe that someone else should get into a position where he can't bubble both of you any more.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't know if youi've noticed, but Prone is supposed to be an inconvenience. If you can just get up and attack someone as if nothing happened, basicly, you've made every melee prone power extremely pointless.

Granting CA is pointless? Limiting mobility is pointless? Lets not go overboard here. The houserule merely changes one strange aspect of the game. Saying the entire condition becomes a non issue because of this is just being ridiculous.

 

[Rothe_]

Yeah, I fully agree with the previous poster.

One example why you should not use "lunge":

PC uses encounter power on Enemy, in melee and adjacent, hitting and knocking him prone. Then he shifts back 1 square.

Enemy's turn. The enemy is a monster with a good basic attack. He "lunges" and attacks the character.

In this case, if the fight is 1-on-1, the prone condition very likely does *nothing*.

This is just plain stupid IMO. Knocking someone prone in a duel should not be useless.

EDIT: obviously the prone condition is better with allies around you to exploit the CA. But if you don't have them around, the condition should not be worthless most of the time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Those of you arguing against "nerfing" prone are completely missing the point. No one's suggesting nerfing prone, we're simply suggesting fixing The Bubble--you know, the point of this thread?

In other words, prone is already nerfed if you can move more than one square away, and it's nerfed if you remain adjacent. Prone is only powerful if you move exactly one square away, no more / no less?

How in the frakking world does that make sense? It doesn't! The only fix that DOESN'T nerf prone is to disallow a charge if it follows a stand-up from prone as a move action.

 

[Flipguarder]

How in the frakking world does that make sense? It doesn't! The only fix that DOESN'T nerf prone is to disallow a charge if it follows a stand-up from prone as a move action.

If fixing the "Bubble" seems to require you nerf prone OR charge, then yes I have a problem with that.

I think changing game balance in order to step up realism situationally is a bad idea.

I guess imo the best option I see would be to allow a charge 1 square away but give it a -3 to -5 on the attack roll.

 

[tiornys]

If fixing the "Bubble" seems to require you nerf prone OR charge, then yes I have a problem with that.

I think changing game balance in order to step up realism situationally is a bad idea.

I guess imo the best option I see would be to allow a charge 1 square away but give it a -3 to -5 on the attack roll.

-2 is sufficient--you can then end your turn prone having used any attack, or end standing having used a basic attack, but either way you've suffered a penalty to the attack.

t~

 

[Flipguarder]

-2 is sufficient--you can then end your turn prone having used any attack, or end standing having used a basic attack, but either way you've suffered a penalty to the attack.

I like that idea.

EDIT: actually no I don't because that just makes attacking from a prone position, never a good idea. I'd make it -3 so you take a penalty for using the tactic of charging from that far.