Unless I am mistaken, given two attacks, it is always better (for the fighter) to attack twice than (try to) shove a target prone and attack it once with advantage. Standing up from prone consumes half of ones movement. Therefore, standing up is kind of moving, and movement does provoke attack of opportunity within the threatened area otherwise. If the prone target chooses the stand up, the fighter would kind of get his/her second attack back (with advantage!). Is this even overpowered? I am trying to make this option more worthwhile and more commonly used.
D&D 5E Should standing up from prone trigger opportunity attack?
- Thread starter Mrodron
- Start date
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Nothing is overpowered when the DM has infinite dragons at his or her disposal.
Why?
akr71
Hero
Look at it from the reverse angle for a minute. If your character were knocked prone in combat and then on your turn, you provoked an attack of opportunity from a nearby opponent just because you were getting back into the fight, would it seem fair to you, or would you feel the DM was picking on your already penalized character?
You you would be fine with it, then go ahead. If I were to implement a rule like that, I would allow the prone creature a 'movie style' roll out of the way while on the ground which does not provoke an attack of opportunity. That is, spend your action to disengage while still prone, now get up (still costing half your movement).
You you would be fine with it, then go ahead. If I were to implement a rule like that, I would allow the prone creature a 'movie style' roll out of the way while on the ground which does not provoke an attack of opportunity. That is, spend your action to disengage while still prone, now get up (still costing half your movement).
If you allow the pre-errata'd use of shield master - it'll likely get used more.
Also BM fighters can take advantage of this better than most classes.
But also, it can still be very effective if you coordinate with the rest of the party. Knock the target down and everyone who goes before the target's turn gets advantage (well for melee, not a great tactic for ranged) - that's plenty effective.
True, which is why I tend to judge power level as to the PCs relative to each other.
But also, how will the PCs react if/when the DM uses this on them? And he has a lot more monsters then they have PCs!
MarkB
Legend
In a duel, yes. But fights in D&D are rarely straight-up duels. There are plenty of reasons why a fighter might want to put their foe on the floor in combat.
If they're part of a melee-focused group, and multiple other party members will get to act before the foe's next turn, they all get to attack with advantage.
If the foe is trying to get somewhere in a hurry, whether that somewhere is "away" or "to the squishy wizard" or "to the big red button", then making them waste half their movement can be well worth it.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I'm only concerned about that if it actually makes it harder for the DM to share the spotlight between the PCs. Which generally means that it will have to be something truly egregious.
I think the most important question in this thread is why the OP wants to do this. Because then the likely game impact can be compared to his or her goal to arrive at relevant conclusions.
`
Yes, I agree. If one character has an ability (or abilities) that allow them to consistently step on the toes of the other PCs - then you might have a problem. This likely doesn't qualify as it will help other characters without stepping on their shtick.
Seems like he thinks the tactic should work better than it does and wants to fix that? But, yes, it's an important question that only the OP is equipped to answer.
Yes, I agree. If one character has an ability (or abilities) that allow them to consistently step on the toes of the other PCs - then you might have a problem. This likely doesn't qualify as it will help other characters without stepping on their shtick.
Seems like he thinks the tactic should work better than it does and wants to fix that? But, yes, it's an important question that only the OP is equipped to answer.
No, because that's how it worked in 3.5/PF. I'd be actually more worried about PCs around a poor monster that has been knocked prone.
It isn't like D&D characters are generally short on training, though. These aren't commoners - these are people who get into fights as their bread and butter, who know how to use armor and weapons to full effectiveness.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think the trouble with something like this is that there’s no point where this becomes a tactic that is weighed versus making two attacks on a turn to turn basis. It will either be worse than making two attacks and never be used, or it will be better than making two attacks and it will be used every turn.
As-written, it’s currently better to make two attacks in a featureless white room with no creatures besides you and the monster. It becomes a more effective tactic when you have allies that will be able to attack the monster before it gets back up, or if you want to keep the monster from running away, or reaching a certain objective. I think this kind of situational utility is exactly what tactics like this should aim for.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I would be opposed to making it too much of a go-to tactic. If it worked as you described, a barbarian with a rogue partner would shove every single round. Boring.
Shoving prone does have its uses, just like grappling does, and I'm happy to let it be used in those cases.
Shoving prone does have its uses, just like grappling does, and I'm happy to let it be used in those cases.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
In my experience, one of the best ways to get a tactic to be more commonly used is to use it against the players.
In your next combat with multiple melee enemies, have one of them shove a player prone so the next melee enemies all get advantage, or worse have one shove them prone and them grapple the player, or have one shove prone and another grapple.
I think this will show to the players how worthwhile of a tactic it already is.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Knocking an opponent prone works a lot better with teamwork. All it takes is one orc to knock someone down and then their buddies spend their turns walloping on them. If you add an opportunity attack in, it becomes just not worth the risk of getting multiple OAs on you. I remember playing a Pathfinder 1e game where the whole of the party spent the last battle prone on the floor, rather than risk the opportunity attack. It was not fun at all, and I know it made me feel decidedly unheroic.
Switching things around, for a DM it would feel pretty disappointing to have your BBEG get surrounded, knocked prone, then have to trigger a bunch of OAs to get back up.
Switching things around, for a DM it would feel pretty disappointing to have your BBEG get surrounded, knocked prone, then have to trigger a bunch of OAs to get back up.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Well if getting up would provoke OAs it means there's enemies standing next to you, so if you stand up and then use movement you're going to get OAs, so the only way (excepting Disengage and special abilities) to prevent the OAs is to not use your remaining movement.
So I think it already mostly works that way.
How effective the shoving approach is depends on the target's AC. Against low-AC targets, making two melee attacks is the better option. Shoving the high-AC target prone kind of debuffs it. The tactic is not as effective against every target (either by RAW or by my suggestion). On the other hand, if an approach works against a target, if it was just making the ordinary melee attack, why would it not be used every turn?
Similar Threads
