The "Bubble"

[Artoomis]

Fixing the "bubble" is not needed.

As is, if one takes advantage of the "bubble" it is simply a good tactic that makes knocking one prone actually have a a chance of being significant, which is otherwise mostly not true.

 

[LoneViper]

I have a question for those of you using the "Lunge" maneuver: do you allow a Lunge at any time? That is, is it a new action that's available at any time?

I can see places where a Charge may not be allowed (no available nearest square, unable to move in a straight line) where a player might want to simply use a Move action to get one square away, and then use a Lunge action. Is that allowed?

Just curious.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I have a question for those of you using the "Lunge" maneuver: do you allow a Lunge at any time? That is, is it a new action that's available at any time?

I can see places where a Charge may not be allowed (no available nearest square, unable to move in a straight line) where a player might want to simply use a Move action to get one square away, and then use a Lunge action. Is that allowed?

Just curious.

I allow Lunge anytime, as an at-will power akin to Charge. The caveat is that, just like a charge, it's the last action you can take (unless you use an action point).

 

[DracoSuave]

If you think the point of this thread was to 'fix' the bubble, then I think you missed a lot of the discussion which was to say 'The Bubble is good tactics.'

If you want to fix the bubble, say you can't stand up and charge in the same turn without an Action Point. Otherwise, you're missing the point of prone.

 

[Stuntman]

How is it better than a charge? Losing the action if the foe does the smart thing and doesn't come back is a pretty hefty penalty.

The smart thing is to stand up (move) and ready an action to attack. That way, if the character doesn't move in and attack on its next turn, he loses an action, too and both are even. If the attacker moves in, your ready action triggers and you get to attack. Again, you don't lose an action. This is exactly the same as if the attacker doesn't shift back or moves back more than one square. Everything is balanced.

And don't mistake this for a change that had to happen because the mechanic was ruining the game. It's purely us thinking "you know, it's really weird that you can stand and attack someone who is next to you, you can stand and attack someone 2 squares away, but if someone's 1 square away, you're just plain out of luck" and realising that very little changes if you make a minor rule adjustment to fix it.

You are not out of luck. If the attacker does not move back, you stand up and attack. If the attacker moves back 1, you stand up and ready an action. If the attacker moves back more than one, you stand up and charge. The solution exists.

 

[DracoSuave]

And if he moves away, and you're not the defender, then that's fine as well. Cause then he probably -is- attacking the defender.

But as well, your party should be in there if you're getting knocked prone, instead of leaving you twisting in the wind.

It's balanced and fair.

 

[Stuntman]

Honestly meaning no offense, one man's good tactic can appear to another as a cludgy workaround.

No offense taken. D&D combat is complex and there are bound to be many instances that would appear cludgy to some players.

I don't see bursting the "bubble" as a severe nerf to daze or prone. First, it applies on both sides of the screen (and thus merely represents a shift in tactics). Secondly, both daze and prone still do a lot for you (combat advantage, reduction of actions, attack penalty/ denial of opportunity attacks). Adding lunge just prevents prone and daze from granting melee immunity when combined with a shift.

It doesn't matter that it is balanced on both sides of the screen. It matters that you are nerfing prone and daze conditions. If one player/monster uses many powers that knocks prone or dazes enemies and another player/monster does not, you are shifting the balance against the one who uses daze and prone.

Removing situational immunity is technically a nerf, but the alternative just irritates the heck out of my players and me; it may have been intentional, but it certainly seems to us like an exploit of "game physics".

We'll just disagree on this. I agree that the move you use when the enemy knocks you prone and shifts back creates a situation where you need to use some not so obvious tactics. However, nerfing prone and daze irritates me a lot more.

 

[Stuntman]

The best workaround for prone, within the rules as written, is to crawl and attack (not getting up). It gives -2 to hit, but you do get to attack.

I still think that using the Ready action to attack when an enemy moves adjacent is a better general tactic than crawling. I guess it just depends on whether you prefer to lose a few points of initiative or take a -2 and remain prone for the entire round.

The knock prone shift back move also highlights abilities that counter such a move. The rogue has Deft Strike which allows a move and attack in the same action. You can stand up with your move action and then Deft Strike with your standard action. There are also other powers that other classes have that can do this such as the fighter and ranger. Also, some monsters have abilities that also counter this move. Kobolds for instance can shift with a minor action.

When fighting creatures that can move or shift without having to burn a move action, the knock prone shift move is not as effective. If you change the rules to allow every creature or character to negate the prone condition just as easily, you diminish these features of these specific classes and monsters. I do not feel you need to do this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think changing game balance in order to step up realism situationally is a bad idea.

I agree, but I'm not arguing for realism. I'm arguing that the game mechanics are screwy. This "bubble" is a silly quirk, worse than probably any other part of the game that I have heard people discuss.

IMO, I think the best fix is to simply allow a 5ft shift as part of standing up, always (but of course difficult terrain could negate that unless you're an elf). This also, btw, fixes the odd quirk that you can shift only when someone else is in the same square. I mean, huh?

 

[Stuntman]

I agree, but I'm not arguing for realism. I'm arguing that the game mechanics are screwy. This "bubble" is a silly quirk, worse than probably any other part of the game that I have heard people discuss.

Yeah. I agree it is quirky. You need to have some not so obvious knowledge of the rules (ready action) to deal with this situation.

IMO, I think the best fix is to simply allow a 5ft shift as part of standing up, always (but of course difficult terrain could negate that unless you're an elf). This also, btw, fixes the odd quirk that you can shift only when someone else is in the same square. I mean, huh?

The shift when standing up with someone in the same square is to ensure that only one standing character can be in one square at a time. This is one of the rules that needed to be in place because of the use of a battle grid.