Multiple Prone Characters in the Same Space?

[zanetheinsane]

Can more than two creatures occupy the same square if only one of the creatures is not prone? Or more specifically, can you become prone (through any means) in a square in which another character is already prone?

Example: You end your movement in a square occupied by a prone character. No rules violations here. Is it possible to become prone? If so, could a third character enter this space? (and so on and so on).

Logically I would assume that no more than two normal(ish) sized character could occupy one square, but I couldn't find any rules detailing this.

 

[Ryujin]

By RAW you can (only) end your movement in a square which another creature occupies if it is an that ally is prone, or an enemy that is helpless, if your character is medium size. To me this implies that one must be prone and the other standing, though this isn't stated unequivocally.

 

[zanetheinsane]

Whether or not you could end in that square wasn't exactly my question. If you are in a square with a prone ally, could you either go prone or be forced prone, meaning that there would be two prone creatures in the same square? Where in the RAW does it state that you can't end your movement in an occupied square if you are both allies and prone?

Then, assuming that were the case, another ally could enter that square (and possibly go prone) since the RAW haven't contradicted anything that has happened here.

There doesn't seem to be any specific rules for maximum occupancy nor going prone in a square that already has a prone creature in it.

You can end your movement in an ally's square only if the ally is prone.

There are no specific stipulations for the state of your own character, and ending a turn while prone yourself isn't a violation of any sorts.

 

[Engilbrand]

Infinite Oregano?

Honestly, I view this as the sort of thing that you just houserule to make sense. They can't possibly account for every possible action, so they hope that you'll change what you decide needs to be changed. If I'm running and that comes up, I'd just have the person fall prone in an adjacent square. Done. Is that absolutely true by the RAW? Maybe not. Is part of being a DM deciding when to change something that doesn't work for you and acting as a rule arbiter when they're lacking? Yep.

 

[zanetheinsane]

We figured it might end up something like that, but due to a ridiculous power, some nasty situations could arise.

Opportunity Gore: Whenever you make an opportunity attack, instead of making the usual melee basic attack, you can use your goring charge racial power without expending it, even if you have used it this encounter. When you do so, you ignore the power's requirement and action type, and your target is the creature that triggered the opportunity attack.

Goring Charge: Hit: 1d6 + Strength modifier damage, and the target is knocked prone.

So in a fight with a decent number of opponents, it's possible that multiple enemies might try to advance past a certain choke point for whatever reason and be knocked prone in the same square. Granted they would have to be incredibly stupid to keep doing that, given enclosed quarters and possibly mindless opponents, it could come up.

Wasn't sure if it was something that had more definite rules (we sometimes have a couple of rules lawyers), but house rules will probably prevail.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'd say you can't have more than 2 creatures (allies) in the same square. There are rules for 2 (one ally is prone), but not more than 2 (look at the plurality of the words used). That's sufficient RAW for me, and passes the Infinite Oregano test.

What would be nice, however, would be a rule with something like "You cannot move through an ally's square if there are two (or more) allies in that square." It seems like the "or more" is redundant because it can't happen, but you never know!

 

[zanetheinsane]

Our initial thought was the same as yours, have the player fall in the nearest adjacent square prone. Of course, if you got to the point where three or four opponents were knocked prone (for whatever reason), problems start coming up based on the geometry of the dungeon. I suppose we'll just deal with that when it comes up.

With the grappling changes and the bigger emphasis on miniatures, the style of 4ED is definitely leading away from multiple occupancy in squares, which is why we chose this particular solution. With the synergies of the minotaur though the chain-knockdown build is very popular and it's probably going to end up popping up again.

The other solution we had was that two normal or small characters could become prone in a square but it would create a sort of man-made low obstacle. Standard jumping rules for low obstacles would apply and the square would be illegal for a movement end. This would of course create the "charging - falling in pit" scenario since jumping over the two prone characters would likely draw the same attack, ending your move in an illegal square and sending you back to your last legal position. Also, players could further add to the confusion by purposefully going double prone and creating roadblocks.

Either way there are going to be some problems that crop up.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why would you ever purposefully create roadblocks for allies? Note that even a single prone creature negates movement by similarly-sized enemies so this tactic would never happen vs. enemies.

 

[jester_gl]

"Hide behind the pile of dead bards."

Quote from Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

Note that a dead character actually fall prone, so should we leave all the monster figurine as prone and THEY would create roadblock by pilling helpless body on top of each other.

 

[Joker]

Oh, I thought it was a question about sex.