D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Standing up from prone draws AoOs?

[Rel]

Opponent with combat reflexes, improved trip, and a reach weapon: I delay.
Poor Player: I charge that mofo!
Opponent: Ooh, an Attack of Opportunity, eh? I trip him. W00t! He's down! I use my extra attack to whale on him!
Poor Player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?
Opponent: I stop delaying. I whale on him! I whale on him!
Poor Player: My turn again? Fine, I stand up, step forward 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take an AoO to trip you. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap! Fine, I use my remaining action to try to stand up again, and then I'll move back 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take another AoO to trip you again. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?

If I was the player, I'd say:

"I take a 5' crawl inside his reach (unless he's rather wisely using a spiked chain), stand up and whack him!"

I don't know if that is rules legal or not. But I figure it would distract the DM long enough for me to sneak attack him with my Sock Full of Pennies.

 

[Li Shenron]

AoO for getting up from prone makes perfect sense. Maybe it doesn't mesh well with the rules, but it makes sense.

Perhaps they make more or less the same sense as AoOs from moving, drinking a potion, using a ranged weapon or disarming.

But let's keep in mind that AoOs are a rule designed to pursue some kind of good strategy play. I don't know exactly about previous D&D editions, but I think that AoOs were introduced in 3ed to prevent easy-cheesy straegies, such as using a bow from close (which could make melee weapons much less useful if you could use ranged weapons easily in melee too).

Sense or nonsense, if it opens up the way to another easy-cheesy strategy it is not good for a game.

 

[the Jester]

Opponent with combat reflexes, improved trip, and a reach weapon: I delay.
Poor Player: I charge that mofo!
Opponent: Ooh, an Attack of Opportunity, eh? I trip him. W00t! He's down! I use my extra attack to whale on him!
Poor Player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?
Opponent: I stop delaying. I whale on him! I whale on him!
Poor Player: My turn again? Fine, I stand up, step forward 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take an AoO to trip you. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap! Fine, I use my remaining action to try to stand up again, and then I'll move back 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take another AoO to trip you again. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?

Daniel

Keep in mind that delaying or readying an action shifts your initiative down. In this example, the poor player might be better off crawling 5' forward and taking the -4 penalty for attacking from the ground- maybe sundering the opponent's weapon or trying to trip or disarm him. And it's rare that fights are straight one-on-one like this- one hopes that the 'poor player' has a friend to back him up.

 

[sithramir]

My point exactly -- except that this isn't a judgement call on the DM's part. Rather, this is what the rules would unambiguously call for. The combat would look like this:

Opponent with combat reflexes, improved trip, and a reach weapon: I delay.
Poor Player: I charge that mofo!
Opponent: Ooh, an Attack of Opportunity, eh? I trip him. W00t! He's down! I use my extra attack to whale on him!
Poor Player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?
Opponent: I stop delaying. I whale on him! I whale on him!
Poor Player: My turn again? Fine, I stand up, step forward 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take an AoO to trip you. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap! Fine, I use my remaining action to try to stand up again, and then I'll move back 5' --
Opponent: Not so fast! You stand up? I take another AoO to trip you again. W00t! You're down! I use my extra attack to whale on you!
Poor player: Crap, that ends my turn, right?

You see the problem. Under the old rules, at least the poor player could have stood up, moved forward 5', and gotten a single attack off on the Opponent without fearing an AoO; as it is now, if the tripper's got enough of a tripping advantage, the poor player can never close in.

Daniel

You charged him and he tripped you and that ended your turn? You still had a standard action left. (This might be wrong but i didn' t think falling would make you lose this)

He tripped you on an AoO and then got another one when you used your second move equivalent. For this he also needs combat reflexes or he couldn't do it. Not everyone has that feat.

You can crawl a 5' space away with your first Move equivalent action and then get up. He can't stop you from moving that way other than by grappling(can't trip a prone guy again). I wouldn't make crawling away occur an AoO personally as its similar to "full retreat" but at half movement for a crawl. If you assume that does incur an AoO he then needs Improved grapple or you get an AoO to stop him from doing that also.

Maybe your rules are different but I don't believe a charge incurs an AoO anyways unless the person you are charging has 10' or more reach or another opponent that you've entered and left his threatened range did it to you as you passed by.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

sorry for the OT post

I tried doing this behind the scenes but the admins have removed PMs, etc. Li - where did you get that avatar, is it from a larger art piece, who drew it?

- Ma'at

 

[Darklone]

[sarcasm]Next splatbook will certainly feature a feat that grants an AoO if someone trips you even with Imp Trip.[/sarcasm]

 

[hong]

[sarcasm]Next splatbook will certainly feature a feat that grants an AoO if someone trips you even with Imp Trip.[/sarcasm]

Why not? There's already Close-Quarters Fighting, from S&F. There's no reason not to extend it to apply to trips as well as grapples.

The problem here isn't the AoO or lack of one. The problem is that tripping, like disarming and sundering, is something that bypasses the hit point mechanic. It's basically a variation on called shots, with all the problems that entails. The new version may exacerbate the problem, but it was always there.

 

[Li Shenron]

Re: sorry for the OT post

I tried doing this behind the scenes but the admins have removed PMs, etc. Li - where did you get that avatar, is it from a larger art piece, who drew it?

- Ma'at

http://www.pen-paper.net/modules.ph...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

Samuel Araya is the author, very stylish. Just please don't use the same avatar as me! It took a long time for me to find one I really liked.

 

[Pielorinho]

You charged him and he tripped you and that ended your turn? You still had a standard action left. (This might be wrong but i didn' t think falling would make you lose this)

It's wrong . Charging is a full round option. A generous DM may allow you a MEA if you haven't moved your normal movement rate yet, but if you've moved more than your normal rate, then you've at the very least accomplished a double move this round and have no actions left. And even if you do manage to stand up, you'll just get tripped again.

He tripped you on an AoO and then got another one when you used your second move equivalent. For this he also needs combat reflexes or he couldn't do it. Not everyone has that feat.

But the guy in my example does, as you'll note.

You can crawl a 5' space away with your first Move equivalent action and then get up. He can't stop you from moving that way other than by grappling(can't trip a prone guy again). I wouldn't make crawling away occur an AoO personally as its similar to "full retreat" but at half movement for a crawl. If you assume that does incur an AoO he then needs Improved grapple or you get an AoO to stop him from doing that also.

Either way, you've spent your whole round either closing in or getting away; the tripper just has to take a 5' step or a charge (depending on what you did) to put the cycle right back where it started.

Maybe your rules are different but I don't believe a charge incurs an AoO anyways unless the person you are charging has 10' or more reach or another opponent that you've entered and left his threatened range did it to you as you passed by.

The tripper in my example specifically mentioned having a reach weapon; otherwise, you'd be right .

If you build a trip-fighter, you want to have a reach weapon (preferably a spiked chain), combat reflexes, improved trip, and a high strength. My point is that the trip-fighter character is far too effective against melee combatants not built specifically to withstand this strategy; moreover, his fighting style is really annoying, inasmuch as it denies his opponents a chance to do much of anything. Moreover, it's dumb: it's comical, but not particularly cinematic or exciting, to keep tripping someone over and over in a fight and prevent them from ever closing in or landing a blow.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

The problem here isn't the AoO or lack of one. The problem is that tripping, like disarming and sundering, is something that bypasses the hit point mechanic. It's basically a variation on called shots, with all the problems that entails. The new version may exacerbate the problem, but it was always there.

I disagree. The problem is the combination of a free attack following a successful trip, combined with the AoO for recovering from being tripped, combined with combat reflexes, combined with the ability to take multiple AoOs on one opponent.

Two of those features (the second and the last) weren't present in 3.0; as such, tripping wasn't nearly as bad then. One of them (the free attack following a successful trip) isn't a feature of any other Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat, meaning it's not an issue for them.

When you get all four game rules together in a room, yuckiness ensues. The one I'm happiest with removing is the AoO for standing up: without it, the yuckiness is greatly diminished.

Daniel