Optional "Realism Rule" for Falling Prone

[Izerath]

Recently, I was perusing the Rules of the Game articles on WotCs website. Skip should be nominated for an award for this article series. It's absolutely brilliant - it's clear, concise and very detailed.

In one of his past articles on Movement, Skip clarifies the roles of kneeling, sitting and standing from prone, even getting up from a chair. He did so under the following section:

"Stand Up from Prone: Use this action to get up when you're lying on the ground. This does not count as movement, but you're pretty darn close to defenseless when regaining your feet, so standing up provokes attacks of opportunity. Getting to your feet when seated on the ground is just as difficult as getting up from a prone position and also requires a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. If you're kneeling on the ground, getting up takes some time, but it doesn't make you vulnerable, so you use a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. Getting up from a chair is a free action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity if the chair is fairly high; otherwise it's just like getting up from a prone position."

Based on the above, I would deduce that sitting or kneeling is a Move Action, presumably because you are doing so carefully to avoid injuring yourself. Reversing his logic, sitting would induce AoOs while kneeling would not.

As for falling prone, in the PH pg 144, falling prone IN YOUR SQUARE is a free action. Based on the RoG articles, I'd say there is another way you could rule on it for more realism.

Falling prone can be executed during movement, costing 5 ft of movement (and thus can be executed as a 5 ft step).

I believe this is a better ruling for falling prone, since the act of moving doesn't require you to move your full speed. Dropping prone should cost 5 ft of movment and be executed as part of movement. It then fits in with all the other rules on Hampered Movement in Difficult Terrain, Obstacles, etc. As for other complications:

- Dropping prone in Difficult Terrain (see Hamprered Movement) would cost double the movement, in this case 10 ft of movement, to drop prone. No one wants to hit their head on a rocky plateau when they dive for cover!

- As such, dropping prone as a 5 ft step when your movement is Hampered would not be possible, as per the rules on Hampered Movement.

I encourage you to think about reading Skip's articles - they really do a wonderful job clarifying those "tough" rulings, and in the process make it easier to make those types of calls on the fly.

 

[Aaron2]

If you're kneeling on the ground, getting up takes some time, but it doesn't make you vulnerable, so you use a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

When he says "kneeling" here, does he mean that your down on one knee or that your on both knees like your praying? Getting up from being down on one knee shouldn't cost anymore than 5' of movement. Its pretty close to a sprinter's stance already.

Falling prone can be executed during movement, costing 5 ft of movement (and thus can be executed as a 5 ft step).

I don't see how this is more "realistic". What are you going to worry more about, the fireball or a rock?


Aaron

 

[Izerath]

My answers

Kneeling in this case is on one knee or both. Neither Skip nor I discriminate between the two. The 1/2 second it takes to raise another knee is negligable.

As for the "realism" of having falling prone cost 5' of movement, it merely helps account for the terrain one is in when dropping prone. That is my intent in modifying the rule. If you want to fall prone in a field of jagged lava rock or a quarry for example, then I believe there should be consequences. In this case, pay the movement cost to avoid hurting yourself.

As for your example, I certainly would dive into the rocks and behind cover for the Reflex save bonus over feeling the full brunt of a fireball.....the difference is the consequence that occurs for that choice. Under the existing rule, terrain doesn't matter - in my modified rule, it does.

 

[Aaron2]

Kneeling in this case is on one knee or both. Neither Skip nor I discriminate between the two. The 1/2 second it takes to raise another knee is negligable.

I just don't see it taking an entire action to get up from one knee. I try to encourage character crouching behind terrain. If a character does crouch (what I call going down on one knee) his shield provides double the shield bonus (since its covering a smaller area).

As for the "realism" of having falling prone cost 5' of movement, it merely helps account for the terrain one is in when dropping prone. That is my intent in modifying the rule. If you want to fall prone in a field of jagged lava rock or a quarry for example, then I believe there should be consequences. In this case, pay the movement cost to avoid hurting yourself.

If I'm wearing armor that can stop a sword thrust, a jagged rock isn't going to do much.


Aaron

 

[Izerath]

Last comments

Ruling that kneeling or getting up from kneeling is a Move Action is not a statement of effort, but rather a statement of time. Getting up from kneeling on the ground with 40 pounds of chain mail covering your body is going to take you 3 seconds. It's about the time it takes, not the effort.

The same applies to the damage factor when falling prone. Arms and legs are not typically as well protected because it restricts movements when fighting. Your arms and your legs are what you use to help "break your fall" when dropping prone. You don't see anyone, even professional soldiers and mercenaries today, doing belly flops onto the ground. It would knock the wind out of you, even in armor.

Anyway - don't let me rain on your fantasy parade. As the rules stand now, falling prone is free. However the kneeling and standing rules are official. What I presented are just some options for more realistic movement rules. I personally think these are more suited to d20 modern and d20 future than D&D.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[Aaron2]

Ruling that kneeling or getting up from kneeling is a Move Action is not a statement of effort, but rather a statement of time. Getting up from kneeling on the ground with 40 pounds of chain mail covering your body is going to take you 3 seconds. It's about the time it takes, not the effort.

The same applies to the damage factor when falling prone. Arms and legs are not typically as well protected because it restricts movements when fighting. Your arms and your legs are what you use to help "break your fall" when dropping prone. You don't see anyone, even professional soldiers and mercenaries today, doing belly flops onto the ground. It would knock the wind out of you, even in armor.

Seems to me that a fully armored knight-type would have no trouble falling prone but would have trouble getting up. While a leather clad rogue dude would have no trouble getting up but might have to take some time finding a proper falling place. I just don't want to punish both on both ends; by requiring extra time to fall prone -and- to get up.

While researching WW2 stuff, I found this info about falling prone (i.e. belly flops) and getting up from prone:

http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/images/ww2/essential_training/drop_down.gif
http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/images/ww2/essential_training/advance_running.gif

Its from the "Essentials of Infantry Training - Eighth Edition, August, 1940"

http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/basic_scouting.htm

There's some neat stuff there. I have no idea what modern infantry dudes are taught.


Aaron

 

[Izerath]

Seems to me that a fully armored knight-type would have no trouble falling prone but would have trouble getting up. While a leather clad rogue dude would have no trouble getting up but might have to take some time finding a proper falling place. I just don't want to punish both on both ends; by requiring extra time to fall prone -and- to get up.

I'd say that the differences from the armor in this circumstance could be reflected in the movement rates given for those different armor types. In any case, you don't want a rule that discriminates too finely because of a variable like armor or duplicates the general intent of another rule. While your argument makes some logical sense, if we assume that the ease of dropping prone or getting up is reflected under the "heavy armor has a max speed of 20, while leather max speed is 30" rule, thereby reflecting the speed and efficiency of moving around in the respective armor types, then there's really no need to split hairs in this case.

You may even argue that I am doing the same in ruling that dropping prone costs an extra 5' of movement. But in my scenario, the rule is applied across everyone the same way and the overall effect of armor impacting movement rates is still the same.

BTW - cool pics in those links! The dropping prone pic demonstrated my point beautifully! And I picked up a modern infantry handbook for Marines basic training at a local army surplus store. They are usually older, out of print books, but are great for these kinds of things. Mine were from the late 80's/early 90's. Cost me around $2.

 

[Aaron2]

I'd say that the differences from the armor in this circumstance could be reflected in the movement rates given for those different armor types.

One thing I noticed is that there is an all-or-nothing aspect to the RAW. Something is either a Move Action or a Free Action; nothing in the core rules cost only part of a move action (like your 5' to fall prone). I'd like the freedom to assign certain actions a distance equivalent. So, getting up from prone might cost 20' of movement; an entire action for armor wearers but only 2/3 an action for the unencumbered. As it is, it takes more feet of movement for someone to get up who has less armor.

Table 1
Falling Prone: 5'
Getting up from prone: 20'
Getting up from crouch (or squatting): 5'
Getting up from kneeing: 15'
Getting up from chair: 10'
etc.


Aaron

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Kneeling?

Aaron2.. I think those are a bit too heavy. The point, I beleive, in all this is to have terrain and encumbrance factors apply. If Hampered Movement is applied to double the movement cost, your stand from prone would cost 40'!

I would suggest:
Fall Prone: 5'
Stand from Prone: 10'
Stand from sitting 5'
Kneel 5'

I don't think you should have a penalty to rise from kneeling as it is basically stepping forward and up.

Tumble checks of DC 20 could reduce the move to a free action similar to the Ride skill can make dis/mounting a horse a free action.


Are there already any game mechanics for kneeling?
I would think (off the top of my head) +2 to AC and -2 to hit/dam with melee weapons.

And interestingly, those are the exact same techniques still used, at least in the US military. So much changes, so much stays the same!

 

[Izerath]

Well, look where this went!

If I had to add my two cents, since I started this whole mess, , I'd have to agree with Prim here. Your numbers are too steep. Given what I have already tinkered with and the general guidelines of the RotG clarifications, I'd say the following would be within reason:

Fall Prone: 5'; no AoO
Kneeling (or Stand from Kneeling): 5', no AoO
Sit (or Stand from Sitting): 10'; AoO
Stand from Prone: 10'; AoO

I have thought about using skills during movement to reduce the movement cost impact: If I were to go there, I might say:

Balance check DC 15: Fall Prone, Kneel or Stand from Kneel; free (no movement cost), no AoO.
Tumble check DC 15: Sit, Stand from Sit or Stand from Prone; 5' no AoO

So there you have it. My two cents!