AoO to trip someone getting up from prone?

[pallandrome]

As others mentioned, the Fighter is at -4 to hit and -4 AC. This is against every melee opponent. This means that melee opponents will typically average 25% to 50% more damage (to hit and AC depending) per round against him and he will typically average 25% to 50% less damage per round against any close opponents. Being prone sucks.

The numbers on this aren't neccisarily correct. If the tripmonkey has a fairly low AC (say, high teens to low 20s) then the fighter (if an offensive specialist) will still probably hit on a 2 or a 3, even at mid levels. If a defensive specialist, he'll just use his tower shield to give him full cover and stand up. Wait, can you use the shield to get full cover when prone?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Take a similar example:
Say a spellcaster is attempting to cast a spell without casting defensively, adjacent to a greatsword-wielding fighter. This provokes an attack of opportunity. The greatsword-wielding fighter hits and deals damage, but the caster doesn't need to make a Concentration check because he is not yet casting his spell.

... or has his Cast a Spell action started after all?

We say he has started casting his spell, because it is implied by the rules on Concentration. We say the fighter is not yet in the grapple because that is what the rules say, it is implied he can use his greatsword.

The rules are not explicit with respect standing up.

There are a number of weird timing issues where the status of the original action is very fuzzy.

An extreme timing example is the (minority) opinion that one can have a Ready Action such as "Attack when he starts to attack, then step away 5'" to achieve sequence of events such that the original attacker is apparently cheated of an attack. I happen to disagree vehemently with this particular opinion argument. However, it is undeniable that provoked AoOs can theorectically achieve similar effects.

The weird part is that the RAW is silent on Readied Actions attempting to achieve the same ends. Theorectically I can find corner cases where a cascade started by an AoO can trigger a Ready Action.

 

[KarinsDad]

The numbers on this aren't neccisarily correct. If the tripmonkey has a fairly low AC (say, high teens to low 20s) then the fighter (if an offensive specialist) will still probably hit on a 2 or a 3, even at mid levels.

Hence the reason I said "typically".

Take 10th level: +5 Str to hit, +2 Str boost item (i.e. +1 to hit), +2 magic weapon, +1 weapon focus, +10 BAB = +19. The max AC of the Trip Monkey at that level might be: +8 plate armor, +2 magic armor, +2 large shield, +2 magic shield, +1 Dex = AC 25. The Fighter hits 75% of the time. Prone, he hits 55% of the time. On a single attack, he averages 27% less damage. On a full round attack, he has 55% on the first and 30% on the second as opposed to 75% and 55% or 35% less damage.

At lower levels, the decrease in average damage will go up. At higher levels, the single attack decrease in average damage will go down, but the full round attack decrease in average damage will typically go up (e.g. 11th level might be 60/35/10 instead of 85/60/35 or a 42% decrease in overall damage) compared to a full round attack standing.

So generally, the damage decrease will generally be about 25% to 50%, rarely more, but sometimes less, depending. And your concept of full round attacks from the ground actually lower the damage more the higher the PCs get.

So in answer to your question "Why would a decent fighter even bother standing up at all?", it's because he is usually worse off than a non-mobile cohort by staying on the ground.

He's not doing his job if he is on the ground.

If a defensive specialist, he'll just use his tower shield to give him full cover and stand up. Wait, can you use the shield to get full cover when prone?

Personally, I have never seen any PC combatant type use a Tower Shield in the game. But, if one did, he could use it to stand up (attack action to use it for full cover and move action to stand). That uses up a full round of actions and allows his opponents to move away and attack other PCs. And moving away will not provoke Attacks of Opportunity since the PC Fighter is behind the full cover of a tower shield.


All in all, it is often a terrible tactic to stay on the ground. Generally the only time a PC Fighter should do that is if a Trip Monkey keeps knocking him down (and damaging him with Improved Trip) every time he gets back up and he is unable to really get in many attacks at all. In that case, he is not doing much of anything by trying to stand back up and should probably attack from the ground. But most of the time, he should try to get back up (even taking the AoO for standing) in order to improve his to hit, his AC, and his mobility.

There are some cases at higher levels where a boatload of attacks from the ground is good regardless, but at those levels, opponents should sometimes attack other PCs as opposed to standing next to a full round attacking Fighter, even if he is prone (and by moving away, they force him to waste time getting up).

 

[Hypersmurf]

An extreme timing example is the (minority) opinion that one can have a Ready Action such as "Attack when he starts to attack, then step away 5'" to achieve sequence of events such that the original attacker is apparently cheated of an attack. I happen to disagree vehemently with this particular opinion argument.

Out of curiosity, what's your objection? My Readied action is "When someone makes a melee attack on me, I attack", keeping in mind that a Readied action may also include a 5' step.

We know that the Attack action has been taken, since otherwise the Readied action would not trigger. (Or Charge, or Full Attack, or whatever, but let's say Attack for the argument.)

We know that the Readied action occurs before the triggering action, and we know that the Readied action may include a 5' step.

Under the assumption that the opponent's turn was Move (move action) and Attack (standard action), then he's already committed his move and standard actions for the turn, though the standard action (Attack) is yet to resolve. He was 5 feet away, but after my attack and 5' step, he is now 10 feet away.

Given that he has 5 feet of reach, the Attack action he has already initiated cannot reach me; he has already used his move action; and since he has moved he may not take a 5' step.

Which element of this sequence do you object to?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All in all, it is often a terrible tactic to stay on the ground. Generally the only time a PC Fighter should do that is if a Trip Monkey keeps knocking him down (and damaging him with Improved Trip) every time he gets back up and he is unable to really get in many attacks at all. In that case, he is not doing much of anything by trying to stand back up and should probably attack from the ground. But most of the time, he should try to get back up (even taking the AoO for standing) in order to improve his to hit, his AC, and his mobility.

One moment we still talk about:

The Paladin had the only weapon capable of denting the Bearded Devil's DR. The Paladin had already been knocked unconscious twice, and healed by the cleric, who was now out of spells. The Paladin was prone, and on 0 hit points.

Rather than standing up, taking an AoO, and going unconscious to no avail again, he attacked from prone... hitting despite the -4, dealing just enough damage to drop the Devil, and then dropping to -1 himself due to taking a standard action on 0.

Oh, how we cheered!

(Of course, the Paladin's player was absent, and we were running the PC by committee. Good thing, too, since when the player was in control, the Paladin was such a blouse...!)

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

One moment we still talk about:

Cool.

Generally speaking, all such tactical decisions have to be taken with a grain of salt. What works well 90% of the time can easily be a poor choice that other 10% of the time (or vice versa).

 

[KarinsDad]

An extreme timing example is the (minority) opinion that one can have a Ready Action such as "Attack when he starts to attack, then step away 5'" to achieve sequence of events such that the original attacker is apparently cheated of an attack. I happen to disagree vehemently with this particular opinion argument. However, it is undeniable that provoked AoOs can theorectically achieve similar effects.

I too have some rules legal tactics that I find suspect.


For example, we had a PC Druid who wanted to heal the fallen PC Cleric (who was really seriously in negative numbers). He was standing next to an NPC Giant and did not want to risk the Cast Defensively. He also did not want to risk a Concentration check if he got hit.

So, his solution was to walk away from the Giant, provoke the AoO, get hit and take damage, and then continue movement to the fallen PC Cleric and cast with no chance of AoO (he assumed the Giant did not have Combat Reflexes).

Although rules legal, this is really metagaming.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Cool.

Generally speaking, all such tactical decisions have to be taken with a grain of salt. What works well 90% of the time can easily be a poor choice that other 10% of the time (or vice versa).

Oh, damned straight It was an anecdote, not an argument

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(he assumed the Giant did not have Combat Reflexes).

Those Stone Giants'll get you every time

-Hyp.