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

[Rashak Mani]

One of ours argued a similar thing... that crawling was not defined as the only movement for prone PCs... some of ours seem to think that prone is not necessarily "lying down"...

I agree its not exactly defined... but our rules lawyering about going from prone to kneeling would be safe isnt great.

 

[Legildur]

A lengthy combat in my tabletop game last night highlighted trip. My elven druid 3 with wolf animal companion (plus 6 other 3rd level characters) were hard up against it with a ghast, numerous ghouls, and a dozen skeletons. My wolf's tripping ability was looking like a godsend with a 50/50 trip chance (no counter trip) with each bite and the subsequent AOO for standing up.

The DM nerfed it, unintentionally mind you (just rules ignorance, and I didn't push the point), by ruling that the AOO occured after the creature had regained its feet, thereby denying threatening characters the additional +4 to strike prone creatures.

That seemed to return some balance (in that situation at least).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The DM nerfed it, unintentionally mind you (just rules ignorance, and I didn't push the point), by ruling that the AOO occured after the creature had regained its feet, thereby denying threatening characters the additional +4 to strike prone creatures.

Well, that's not a nerf if your wolf picks up Combat Reflexes.

It removes any ambiguity from the "Can I Trip on the AoO for standing up?" question.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Well, that's not a nerf if your wolf picks up Combat Reflexes.

It removes any ambiguity from the "Can I Trip on the AoO for standing up?" question.

-Hyp.

I never would have thought to hear a tripper twink complain about such a DM ruling

 

[Rashak Mani]

Would you allow for a 5ft disengage and then stand up when prone ? Or does prone = crawl necessarily ?

Its a full round just getting up again... pretty good result for a trip.

What about the +4 bonus when attacking someone tripped... is it the same when attacking someone trying to stand up ? An AOO is already nasty... getting the +4 makes tripping that much deadly....

How have people ruled and house ruled the new 3.5 prone aoo rules ?

 

[FrankTrollman]

How have people ruled and house ruled the new 3.5 prone aoo rules ?

In my own game, I've ignored them entirely.

It does not jive with my own personal experience of rolling to my feet while being attacked by 6+ skinheads armed with knives and stones. It does not have good game balance.

It's not a good rule. Why would I allow it into my games? It is both less realistic and less game balanced than the rules already in 3rd edition (unless you assume that I personally have over 15+ ranks in tumble such that I can perform "extreme tumbling"). Andy Collins simply fell down on the job and I see no reason to support him in this endeavor.

In my game the "house rule" is this: We use Monte Cook's rules on getting up from prone.

Then the entire stupid discussion of whether or not you can use tumble or jump or even run while prone is out the window and I don't have to screw around with it.

-Frank

 

[MarauderX]

FrankTrollman, I remember your skinhead story from another thread. In my martial arts classes I have been clobbered many times after falling and tried to stand up, from using my hands to rolling away if the attacker kept the pressure on they usually could land a hit or at least come close. I like the AoO for standing and feel it is much more realistic. What I don't like is the inability to move while down, such as rolling, flipping or squirming away to get the chance to stand. I also don't like getting pounded so I move a lot whether I am down or not, sometimes getting back up and getting tagged if my opponent is aggressive. A fight between two people only taking up two 5' squares the whole time is kinda goofy too, but we use that as a mechanic for the battles. And we don't subtract effectiveness for wounds either, so how 'realistic' are we really trying to get?

Anyway, I built a monk3/fighter2/wizard1 around boosting AC and the gimmicky feat of Great Throw(OA addendum) so he could toss people down and when they stood up provoking the AoO he would throw them again. This past sunday he was 0 for 2 times he tried it, and ended up getting tripped himself both times. It was a bad day for dice rolls, but he was helpless once he got knocked down the second time as he was surrounded by three fighters that began pounding him with a couple attacks each. If he stood he would have provoked 3 instant AoOs. If he was standing, he could have taken a 5' step and been unflanked. DM ruled there was no way he could move without giving up the AoOs, so he stayed where he was and just hoped the rest of the party would be coming to help soon. I wanted to argue the point, to say how kinda unfair it was, but we didn't have the time. He got knocked out, survived the fight, but the whole idea of not being able to possibly move without provoking the AoOs seemed so very wrong after the evil mage was using total withdraw to escape from the party rogue for 3 straight rounds without having an AoO on him. I suppose it's going straight by the rules, but it sure seemed like some were bending a little too much for me.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I don't know... tripping at high levels is almost useless. I guess if you're fighting a lot of classed humanoids, it's good, but my experience with higher (8+) level campaigns is that there are a lot of monsters rather than people... and the higher level they get the bigger they get. Try tripping a huge dragon, or even worse, a huge black pudding. There are just so many enemies that just aren't affected by it.

Plus, it's not like the trip is automatic... it is still an opposed roll, and in my experience, if we're fighting levelled humanoids, they're almost always the same or higher level than us... so it's a tossup who wins. And if the trip fails, you've just wasted an attack that could have been doing damage instead.

Err.....right. +21 to trip anybody? Did I mention that the attempt is totally free and doesn't cost anything? It's not the fighters who are the worst, it's the druids and the friends they summon up.

Most classed medium humaniods will have trouble ever making that...

 

[FrankTrollman]

FrankTrollman, I remember your skinhead story from another thread. In my martial arts classes I have been clobbered many times after falling and tried to stand up, from using my hands to rolling away if the attacker kept the pressure on they usually could land a hit or at least come close.

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.

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?

Or to put it another way: let's say you leap into an enemy campsite, when the enemies are just waking up... are you going to tell me that the enemies will be in any way safer if they attempt to poke you from their posiiton on the ground than if they had instead foolishly got to their feet and then attempted to poke you?

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

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?

I can't comment on multiple opponents or an armed opponent - outside my experience. But prone against an unarmed opponent (with IUS), I'd definitely prefer to defend from prone until such time as I'm not in a threatened area before standing up.

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.