The "Bubble"

[Klaus]

Actually the wizard (yes, the wizard) in my gamming group did that. She steped inside the fallen cleric's square and shouted at the enemy: " you will not step any furter". I remmembered Samwise quite to Larachna... amazing scene.




Hahahahah Claudio, trying to sneak in that exploit again? You and I know you were trying to abuse my friend... double run, fall prone, and stand up free next round keeping the +2 bonus from prone instead of granting CA to those archers were a huge abusive maneuver....

And frankly these "skill fixes" are terrible, becuse basically the acrobatic character would be immune to the prone condition (as written) as his skills progresses. Makes no sense to me if there are powers/itens/feats outthere that you can buy exactly to do that trick.

Any "fix" would not only weak many knock prone powers, but make those aftermentioned things useless. Wanna get up easly? Spend some character resourses on it and stay a unique character.

Honestly I can underestand why the "stand up" is a well defined move action. And why everyone thinks they have to attack with their best tactic/weapon every single round of their carreers?

Only argument I believe is interesting on all this is that you can shift if there is someone in your square, but you cant if there is noone there. If you really wanna fix this we can merelly forbid "square invasion". Its way better that give free movement, or create basic combat maneuvers (partial charge) that counter encounter powers.

As aways just my 2 cents.

You ARE spending resources, my friend: choosing Acrobatics as a trained skill and having a Dex high enough to succeed on an Acrobatic Stunt.

Those powers and items you mention let you do more than just stand up. Hop Up, for instance, is the Rogue Utility 2 that lets you, as an immediate reaction to being knocked prone, stand up and shift 1 square. At level 2!

The Acrobatic Stunt use of Acrobatics and the DC/Damage by Level table in the DMG are there to let players think outside of the powers structure. Using Dungeoneering to cause a wall to collapse and create a square of difficult terrain, use Nature to set up a trap in a square next to the campsite, etc.

Creative thinking: embrace it!

 

[DracoSuave]

Or just wear a set of Acrobat Boots and fuggetaboudit.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's my challenge to anyone who doesn't like the idea of a "lunge":

Without referring to game balance or other rules-based arguments, give me one good and consistent* reason why a creature who is able to stand still and make an attack, or a move certain distance (in this case, 10 feet) and make an attack should be unable to move a shorter distance (in this case, 5 feet) and make the same attack.

* For purposes of this discussion, a consistent reason is one that does not rely on special circumstances to be effective, and is just as applicable on a flat, featureless plain as it is in mountains or jungles full of obstacles and difficult terrain.

The question is - how does a charge attack work? It combines move and attack, and you cannot use just any type of attack maneuver. Why might this be? Essentially, charge is its own attack maneuver. One of it requirements is achieving a certain speed and using that speed to direct your attack at your enemy. If you don't achieve the speed, you just can't time the attack right.

Of course, attempting to return from the abstraction of move and attack actions to the "real in game world "explanation is very questionable.

 

[Dr_Sage]

Here's my challenge to anyone who doesn't like the idea of a "lunge":

Without referring to game balance or other rules-based arguments, give me one good and consistent* reason why a creature who is able to stand still and make an attack, or a move certain distance (in this case, 10 feet) and make an attack should be unable to move a shorter distance (in this case, 5 feet) and make the same attack.

* For purposes of this discussion, a consistent reason is one that does not rely on special circumstances to be effective, and is just as applicable on a flat, featureless plain as it is in mountains or jungles full of obstacles and difficult terrain.

I love a good challenge!

Well, keeping respect for your conditions, even underestanding that DnD is not a simulation, lets go.

Lets compare apples to apples:

Regarding the "move a short distance part": try to lay down, them stand up and do something simple like grabbling a ball trown at you. Them try to move by walking a short distance. If you look carefully I will notice that stand up and be ready for some action takes roundly the same time as walking a short distance.

Regarding the attack part: black box here. Frankly an attack involves too much for us to compare here, its a complete abstraction, including feints and the like, not necessary 1 mighty swing.

And by the way lets do the other way around: if you allow this "partial charge" you will have to accept that you will aways allow it, and suddenly powers that allow some movement before the attack are complete crap. Players could ask: "why my deft strike gives me just 2 squeres, if I can move 1 and attack why I stand up? I should realistically move at least 4 squares etc etc etc."

 

[FireLance]

The question is - how does a charge attack work? It combines move and attack, and you cannot use just any type of attack maneuver. Why might this be? Essentially, charge is its own attack maneuver. One of it requirements is achieving a certain speed and using that speed to direct your attack at your enemy. If you don't achieve the speed, you just can't time the attack right.

Aside from the fact that "Essentially, charge is its own attack maneuver" seems like a borderline rules-based argument to me, the fact that the attack you make after a charge could also be made without moving implies to me that movement may be beneficial to the attack, but it is not necessary.

Admittedly, the assumption is that the attack you make when charging is fundamentally the same as the attack you make without moving. But, is there any reason why they should be different?

 

[FireLance]

IRegarding the "move a short distance part": try to lay down, them stand up and do something simple like grabbling a ball trown at you. Them try to move by walking a short distance. If you look carefully I will notice that stand up and be ready for some action takes roundly the same time as walking a short distance.

So, stand up and move a short distance should require less time than stand up and move a shorter distance?

Regarding the attack part: black box here. Frankly an attack involves too much for us to compare here, its a complete abstraction, including feints and the like, not necessary 1 mighty swing.

I am assuming that the character is making the same attack, unless someone can provide an argument why the attack that a person makes after moving a short distance should be different from one that he makes wihout moving, and why both should be different from one that he makes after moving a shorter distance.

And by the way lets do the other way around: if you allow this "partial charge" you will have to accept that you will aways allow it, and suddenly powers that allow some movement before the attack are complete crap. Players could ask: "why my deft strike gives me just 2 squeres, if I can move 1 and attack why I stand up? I should realistically move at least 4 squares etc etc etc."

Sorry, I think this falls squarely under rules-based arguments territory.

 

[Squire James]

Here's my challenge to anyone who doesn't like the idea of a "lunge":

Without referring to game balance or other rules-based arguments, give me one good and consistent* reason why a creature who is able to stand still and make an attack, or a move certain distance (in this case, 10 feet) and make an attack should be unable to move a shorter distance (in this case, 5 feet) and make the same attack.

* For purposes of this discussion, a consistent reason is one that does not rely on special circumstances to be effective, and is just as applicable on a flat, featureless plain as it is in mountains or jungles full of obstacles and difficult terrain.

"Explain a reason why a particular rules-based situation should take place without making a rules-based argument." Huh? Okay...

My premise is that normally a character that is not "next to" a foe cannot attack the foe. However, if the character can build up a certain amount of momentum to create an opportunity to attack when he normally would not have one.

A character standing up next to a foe can use the momentum of standing up as an attack opportunity. A character standing up some distance from a foe can build up enough momentum afterwards. A character standing close, but not next to, a foe lacks the ability to attack immediately but also cannot build up enough speed to break the (admittedly arbitrary) threshold that allows a special opportunity to attack.

 

[keterys]

The 'lunge' concept doesn't require standing up - it could just as easily apply to dazing someone and shifting back a square. So it's best to limit the reply to just what FireLance stated...

That is, a consistent reason why it's okay to attack someone at range 0, or range 2-7, but not range 1.

You've enough time or energy to do a full movement away and make an attack on someone, but not enough for someone just out of arm's reach. It's an interesting query.

Since I mostly DM, I'd find it convenient to not use that tactic with creatures (prone or daze then move 1 away, but not 2+) so I'm okay with the lunge mechanic myself. I'm not sure it comes up enough to warrant a house rule in many games, but for those it bothers, sounds good.

I don't really like the free shift on stand change. Then again, I'm not a big fan of the free shift on stand with a prone guy thing either. Any time you get someone going 'Quick, come over here and stand on me so I can get a free shift on my turn' ... yeah. If you want to make it more consistent, I guess, sure, go for it.

 

[FireLance]

A character standing up next to a foe can use the momentum of standing up as an attack opportunity. A character standing up some distance from a foe can build up enough momentum afterwards. A character standing close, but not next to, a foe lacks the ability to attack immediately but also cannot build up enough speed to break the (admittedly arbitrary) threshold that allows a special opportunity to attack.

I suppose the point about standing up is to draw a parallel between being able to attack without moving, and being able to attack after moving 10 feet? Even so, it is not clear that a character's momentum after standing up is greater than his momentum after moving 5 feet. Small characters, for example, may have actually moved less (and have built up less momentum) after standing up than after they have moved 5 feet.

 

[keterys]

Out of curiosity... would it be better for those opposed to a lunge, if the charge rules (or an exception thereof) allowed you to charge someone that close, perhaps by first moving away a square to build up the momentum?

That is, if someone with at least speed 3 moved 1 away, then 2 back towards the target that started 1 square away, all as part of a charge action. Or perhaps by zigging sideways 1, then into the square between them. Thereby 'building up' momentum by still moving at least two, still using the standard action charge.