D&D 5E Should standing up from prone trigger opportunity attack?

[Mort]

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).

It makes knocking many targets prone the preferred go-to, as opposed to situational. Knocking a target prone already has some good uses (mob tactics etc.), just doesn't seem to be necessary as the go-to tactic against high AC opponents.

Also, it makes the BM trip attack and the shield master ability even more effective than it already is - there are ripple effects.

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?

I don't understand the question?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Not really, though. If you attack twice, you get to make two d20 rolls, adding your attack mod to each. For each of them that hits, you do your weapon’s damage to the target. If you attempt to shove the target prone with your first attack and attack it with your second, you first make a contested Athletics check. If you succeed, you get to make two d20 rolls, adding your attack mod to each. If either or both hit, you do your weapon’s damage to the target. If you fail the contest, you only get to make one such d20 roll.

So, best case scenario with the shove, you get the same chances of hitting with a lower maximum possible damage. Worst case, you have a lower chance of hitting and a lower maximum possible damage. In a white room duel, making two attacks is always better. It is only worth trying to shove the opponent down if you have three attacks, or if you have allies that can attack the target before it gets back up.

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?

I’m not sure what you mean by this, could you try rephrasing?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not really, though. If you attack twice, you get to make two d20 rolls, adding your attack mod to each. For each of them that hits, you do your weapon’s damage to the target. If you attempt to shove the target prone with your first attack and attack it with your second, you first make a contested Athletics check. If you succeed, you get to make two d20 rolls, adding your attack mod to each. If either or both hit, you do your weapon’s damage to the target. If you fail the contest, you only get to make one such d20 roll.

So, best case scenario with the shove, you get the same chances of hitting with a lower maximum possible damage. Worst case, you have a lower chance of hitting and a lower maximum possible damage. In a white room duel, making two attacks is always better. It is only worth trying to shove the opponent down if you have three attacks, or if you have allies that can attack the target before it gets back up.

That math changes with teammates, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

That math changes with teammates, though.

Precisely

 

[CubicsRube]

As others have said.

I had a barbarian wrestler and against high ac targets, rage a shove was his go to. +7 with advantage on the roll meant i had a good chance to take down most targets. I remember an ac19 paladin of death who the other 3 melee fighters were very happy to gang up on once he was prone... made a huge difference to the fight!

And yes if you're GMing with tactically minded enemies like hobgoblins, absolutely shove prone and gang up on. It's the only way players learn

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

This is really key. I built a character based around shoving targets to the ground (using the good Shield Master rules), and found more often than not I was making things worse. Our group was far too ranged based to fully utilize.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is really key. I built a character based around shoving targets to the ground (using the good Shield Master rules), and found more often than not I was making things worse. Our group was far too ranged based to fully utilize.

Prone doesn't negate ranged damage, provided you bring your ranged character into melee range

For some reason ranged characters always refuse to do that though...

 

[MarkB]

Prone doesn't negate ranged damage, provided you bring your ranged character into melee range

For some reason ranged characters always refuse to do that though...

Don't they lose out either way? It's either disadvantage for attacking a non-adjacent prone opponent, or disadvantage for making a ranged attack while adjacent to an opponent.

 

[FrogReaver]

Don't they lose out either way? It's either disadvantage for attacking a non-adjacent prone opponent, or disadvantage for making a ranged attack while adjacent to an opponent.

Advantage and disadvantage cancel out. They have advantage for attack a prone enemy from 5 ft away. They have disadvantage attacking an adjacent enemy with a ranged attack. Thus, they have a normal attack as opposed to an attack at disadvantage.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, I house rule it as provoking opp atts. Likewise picking stuff up from the ground (which also costs half your move), and drawing a bow or loading an x-bow in melee.

Don't want the opp att? Take Disengage action.