D&D 3E/3.5 Prone Rules [3.5]

[Li Shenron]

As long as we're talking personal experience, I'd agree completely that you're more vulnerable while in the process of standing up than while lying on the ground.

-Hyp.

I agree with you Hyp. As I wrote in my previous post, I do think 3.5 is more realistic than 3.0 when it rules that standing up from prone provokes an AoO. The consequence of this rule anyway is probably going to be that a prone character is nowadays rather trying to fight from prone than standing up, which is very unrealistic

 

[FireLance]

I agree with you Hyp. As I wrote in my previous post, I do think 3.5 is more realistic than 3.0 when it rules that standing up from prone provokes an AoO. The consequence of this rule anyway is probably going to be that a prone character is nowadays rather trying to fight from prone than standing up, which is very unrealistic

So you'd rather attack with a penalty (-4 to hit) and be easier to hit in melee (-4 to AC) rather than rather than provoke an AOO? Seems rather short-sighted, unless the AOOs are likely to drop you.

Personally, I think the tripping rules are fine. You could stand up, take your AOO (which might not even hit) and attack, or go on total defense/fight defensively/use Expertise to increase your AC and stand up with a move action.

It is not explicitly stated in the rules, but a character ought to be able to use Tumble to avoid AOOs from standing up from prone. However, since standing up from prone is a move action, and you tumble past opponents at half speed, I'd rule that you need two move actions (a full round action) to tumble up from prone. You'd need to make a Tumble check against each opponent that threatens you to avoid the AOO from that opponent, DC 15 for the first, and +2 to the DC for each subsequent opponent (you pick the order). You could also choose the accelerated tumble option to stand up from prone as a move action, but you take -10 to your Tumble checks.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Took this from a friends email response:

"Withdraw - Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to doble your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, ..."

So if your prone and somehow you move... then you dont suffer AOO when withdrawing. Still withdrawing is a full round action... so all you do is get out of the area... but you wont have a move equivalent to stand up ?

 

[Li Shenron]

So you'd rather attack with a penalty (-4 to hit) and be easier to hit in melee (-4 to AC) rather than rather than provoke an AOO? Seems rather short-sighted, unless the AOOs are likely to drop you.

Personally, I think the tripping rules are fine. You could stand up, take your AOO (which might not even hit) and attack, or go on total defense/fight defensively/use Expertise to increase your AC and stand up with a move action.

What scares me are PCs/NPCs optimized for tripping, with combat reflexes and improved trip. Haven't tried yet but I am concerned about the possibility of boring combats.

 

[Darklone]

What scares me are PCs/NPCs optimized for tripping, with combat reflexes and improved trip. Haven't tried yet but I am concerned about the possibility of boring combats.

"I shoot them with my crossbow!"

 

[MarauderX]

Isn't this already modelled well enough by the +4 bonus to hit prone opponents?
Attacks are abstracted, to the point where an individual attack roll often represents a collection of several punches, kicks, or sword swipes - not all of which hit. If I throw you to the ground, and have sufficient martial arts training that I get a second flurry attack or even an iterative attack - I am very likely to hammer you while you are on the ground. In D&D's abstracted initiative system, this getting hammered while you are on the ground is probably "actually" while you are standing - but D&D makes no attempt to make that distinction.
People who have Improved Trip get an extra bonus attack right then and there - as if no time had past at all. But from the standpoint of realism that attack is in fact after the initial attack - quite possibly while the victim is attempting to stand.

If you never get to attack him while he was prone, then why bother tripping in the first place, that is unless you have some friends nearby that will have a chance to get in an attack before the prone guy can get up on his turn. Now imagine a character without the extra attacks or Improved Trip facing an opponent one-on-one. Why bother wasting the attack to knock you down if you only get up for free on your turn?

Perhaps I got it wrong but I look at the Improved Trip as doing damage during the trip made. Maybe you got whacked in the knee, perhaps you were thrown to the ground on your head, whatever; it hurt, you are on the ground.

While you are prone, you are vulnerable. While you are standing up you are vulnerable. But are you ready to tell me that you are more vulnerable while standing than when you are just lying on the ground?

yadda yadda.

I think the understanding was your opponents got the +4 to hit whether you were prone or trying to stand up. That's fine by me.
What I don't agree with was the inability to move at least 5' for free while prone.

I don't want the combats to be boring fights where the strategy is knock down the first guy, everyone attack him, knock down the second guy, attack... rinse repeat until done. A monk PC I am running doesn't have nearly the damage capacity or HP of any of the other PCs, so his thing is building feats to keep opponents on the ground and keep them from attacking him without penalties. With Great Throw his hope is to start tossing enemies into convienent-for-flanking piles while taking AoOs with Combat Reflexes for any of them trying to stand. It's his schtick, and with some luck there will be a cliff or high walls to throw them from soon.