I've been knocked Prone! What to do?

[HumanFighter]

I've always found it interesting and sometimes frustrating seeing how various game systems handle the concept of being knocked prone in a fight.
In the old Fallout video games, for example, it costs like 3 action points to stand up after getting blown up from a grenade (if u survive that lol)
In D&D 3.5/Pathfinder, it is only a Move Action to stand from prone, but it provokes opportunity attacks. And I believe if you are insanely good at Acrobatics/Tumble you can stand up as a free action without provoking.
4th edition D&D: don't know, don't care
5th edition D&D: costs half your movement points

And of course there's various penalties and sometimes even benefits to being prone. Harder to get hit by ranged attacks, but melee attacks will almost always hit you. Makes sense.
In a system of mine that I have been cooking up for years now, it costs your Primary Action (the D&D equivalent to a Standard) to stand up from prone, but you still get your Minor and Move actions.
This I feel makes getting knocked prone a little harsh, but it goes both ways (for enemies and for players) and I think it makes getting knocked prone more of a meaningful effect.
But still, I don't know if this is the best way to go about this. No opportunity attacks here in this case, and there is Perks/Skills to get you on your feet faster, but being knocked prone is definitely not the worst thing that can happen to you, but is kind of annoying.

So, I ask the Playground, what in your opinion is the best way to handle the whole getting knocked prone thing in your games?

[Mastikator]

I like the involvement of acrobatics skill. In my opinion it makes sense that it varies from character to character and depends on their natural skill and training.
Translated into D&D: Acrobatics DC 10. And you don't roll, just take 10

Fail: uses move action, provokes attack of opportunity
Success: uses half movement, does not provoke
Super success: (beat 20) uses 5 feet movement of move action, no provoke

[Satinavian]

How punishing it is should fit well to how hard it is to trip someone. Ideally it should be happen occasionally but only occosionally if people act tactically sound. If it is done everytime or never at all, then the balancing is off.

TDE 4 has the following rules for getting up : You can decide to get up fast with the equivalent of a move action, but for that you need to pass an attribute check with armor penalty. If you failed, you wasted your action. Or you can take a full round action without a check. As the system has active defense, giving up your action can hurt a lot.

This is nice because it introduces a meaningful tactical choice to the person on the ground. Because it is an attribute check, there will always remain some chance of success failure.



As for skills, in most systems i see them used for not actually getting prone instead of getting up fast. I would not use them for both.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Interesting. While I guess being tripped would also result in going prone, I usually think of it as something that you do to avoid fire when there's no or minimal cover. I usually think of prone as a semi-positive thing you do yourself, that gives protection in exchange for speed.

Either way, I don't really see why acrobatics would be relevant, since like you're not doing backflips or contorting yourself of really anything acrobatic to get back on your feet from a prone position, whether you were knocked there by a grenade or dropped there on your own initiative.

As for what the movement penalty for crawling and standing isms, in battletech/time of war [the game I'm currently GMing], I know it costs 2 hexes to stand up because we just had that situation 2 sessions ago, and I think it costs double movement cost to crawl.

[Lord Torath]

Either way, I don't really see why acrobatics would be relevant, since like you're not doing backflips or contorting yourself of really anything acrobatic to get back on your feet from a prone position, whether you were knocked there by a grenade or dropped there on your own initiative.Kip-ups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbNhDnQCokc).

When you're playing mostly ranged combat, being prone is generally a benefit. You have a lower profile, and you can steady your aim against the ground.

In melee combat, it's much less beneficial. :smallamused:

[Xervous]

The more lethal combat is the more potent the penalties of being prone should be, else it falls behind other action-resource equivalents. The more combat moves towards a gradual slog the easier it should be to escape prone.

For the Shadowrun inspired system I’m currently working with it’s a hefty bonus to melee attackers (+4 dice) and standing consumes all movement. Granted the average character goes down in 2-4 hits, you mainly see prone inflicted as a rider effect or used for takedowns where the impaired mobility is crucial. Turns out players hate chasing speedy little buggers that don’t provoke and target the squishies.

[Martin Greywolf]

Realistically? If you go prone in a sword fight, you're dead. If you have armor, you're technically more likely to go prone than die outright, because getting you prone and then stabbing you in the groin is easier than stabbing you in the gap while you can move around.

This is such a universal staple of sword combat that no medieval manuscripts whatsoever mention ground fighting, because there is no point - you either surrender, or you die. Musashi's Book of Five Rings doesn't feature it either, and as far as I know, neither do any Chinese sources from times when techniques in them were in actual use.

With that in mind, being prone is equal to having 0 HP, so inflicting this status should be equally difficult.

[hifidelity2]

For GURPS (a lethal system) it takes 2 turns to get up from prone, 1st to get to your knees and second to stand up

[Democratus]

The more effective tripping is, the more pressure there is to perform the action.

If it's too good you will have it be the primary action in a combat. I remember well the spiked-chain trip-specialist from 3rd Edition.

No thank you. :smallsmile:

[gijoemike]

The 2 actions in GURPS was way overkill.

In PF there is a very long extensive feat chain dedicated to Tripping. Improved trip, brutal throw, greater imp trip, plus 4 or 5 others. That can be an entire feat chain for a character. If one dumps that much character points, limited resources into a thing that will be an amazing and common thing.


There are no sword fighting manuals that describe fighting from prone, but there are martial arts manuals that have 1000's of techniques of throws and counter throws. Plus, it is in martial arts that we see rolling to your feet, bouncing up from a throw, & instant kip up. In D&D unarmed and armed combat is mixed quite often. So, being prone is common. In other games, that doesn't happen so prone is far more dangerous and uncommon.


If standing up takes your whole action, it will happen often, because it is action economy manipulation.
If it takes only a tiny bit of movement, what is the point? Tripping in 5E is rarely helpful because the enemy can still get up and move and attack.

That leaves us with it takes up a needed action, but still lets the prone character present a danger. I prefer the 3.5 method of taking up the move action. The character can still attack, or can move away.

[Quertus]

Man, it really depends.

I mean, I want my armored turtle or my decrepit self (OK, I only *feel* decrepit) to spend *forever* getting up without assistance / to have to crawl to some nice handy scenery to grab onto to get up. I expect the trained soldier to drop prone / dive for cover at the drop of a hat (or especially the drop of a grenade pin), and get back up with relative ease. I expect a trained martial artist to make being prone look *advantageous*, and change state at their whim. I think that characters could / should be characterized by those differences.

What I really love is Battletech mechs, having to roll piloting to stand from prone, else they fall down again and take damage. :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Tripping in 5E is rarely helpful because the enemy can still get up and move and attack.
Shoving prone in 5e can be very helpful if you have allies in melee with you to attack them as well. They also can't stand up if they're also grabbed, so they're stuck prone until they get out of the grab.

[anthon]

making prone effective helps make prone fighting worth taking.

if i was running it, being prone means bad guys have advantage to kick you while down, but their short melee weapons are actually at disadvantage to hit you unless thrown (like daggers)

[LordCdrMilitant]

Kip-ups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbNhDnQCokc).

When you're playing mostly ranged combat, being prone is generally a benefit. You have a lower profile, and you can steady your aim against the ground.

In melee combat, it's much less beneficial. :smallamused:

You can stand up acrobatically like that, but it's not any faster or more efficient than just pushing yourself up with your hands and pulling your knee under you to stand up from prone normally, so I don't see why an acrobatics test would be necessary.



Man, it really depends.

I mean, I want my armored turtle or my decrepit self (OK, I only *feel* decrepit) to spend *forever* getting up without assistance / to have to crawl to some nice handy scenery to grab onto to get up. I expect the trained soldier to drop prone / dive for cover at the drop of a hat (or especially the drop of a grenade pin), and get back up with relative ease. I expect a trained martial artist to make being prone look *advantageous*, and change state at their whim. I think that characters could / should be characterized by those differences.

What I really love is Battletech mechs, having to roll piloting to stand from prone, else they fall down again and take damage. :smalltongue:

Battlemechs need life alert. "Help me! I've fallen and I can't get up!"

My players are starting to avoid wandering their mechs into rivers or anything that might provoke a piloting test, after one went in, failed his piloting test, and spent three turns trying to stand up his 55 ton battlemech and taking more damage every time.

To be fair though, a battlemech is a 55 ton robot that both doesn't have the same articulation as a person and often doesn't have hands to lift itself up with; and the thing that knocks you prone in the first place is usually a gyro crit, so your misbehaving gyro is going to make it hard to stand at all much less stand up.

[Mastikator]

You can stand up acrobatically like that, but it's not any faster or more efficient than just pushing yourself up with your hands and pulling your knee under you to stand up from prone normally, so I don't see why an acrobatics test would be necessary.

To reward the player who picked acrobatics instead of something useful like perception or arcana :smallwink:

It doesn't do much but it makes the player feel awesome. You can't convince me that isn't important.

[LordCdrMilitant]

To reward the player who picked acrobatics instead of something useful like perception or arcana :smallwink:

It doesn't do much but it makes the player feel awesome. You can't convince me that isn't important.

While there is making players feel accomplished [within the general spirit of the game] is a laudable aim, requiring a skill to do simple things like stand up from a prone firing position quickly really just serves to make everything feel narmy and kind of lame, or make the skill a pointless point-tax that everyone has.

It's like the whole ladder problem in some editions of D&D.


Standing up from prone is an incredibly simple action. I can do it in about a second, even with stuff in my hands, without any jumping or contorting or anything; and I'm not athletic at all. I definitely don't think there should be any tests involved.

[Mastikator]

While there is making players feel accomplished [within the general spirit of the game] is a laudable aim, requiring a skill to do simple things like stand up from a prone firing position quickly really just serves to make everything feel narmy and kind of lame, or make the skill a pointless point-tax that everyone has.

It's like the whole ladder problem in some editions of D&D.


Standing up from prone is an incredibly simple action. I can do it in about a second, even with stuff in my hands, without any jumping or contorting or anything; and I'm not athletic at all. I definitely don't think there should be any tests involved.

Yeah but can you do it with armor and a full backpack and a guy standing over you trying to murder you with a sword? Without exposing any openings for him to stab you? I think once you add some dangers it matters, if you're just lying down in a room then you just get to do your kip up if you're proficient, no roll or anything. If you're being murderized then a roll for an attempt may be useful.

[RedMage125]

If standing up takes your whole action, it will happen often, because it is action economy manipulation.
If it takes only a tiny bit of movement, what is the point? Tripping in 5E is rarely helpful because the enemy can still get up and move and attack.


Depends on your priorities in combat. Back when 5e was new (only PHB was out), I was in a game where I played a Dragonborn Valor Bard. Party ended up in combat with an enemy dragonborn (or possibly half-dragon), and a bunch of kobolds. Our party Warlock used Hex on the enemy dragonborn (hexxing his Strength checks), since he was wearing heavy armor, we figured he had no DEX. I grappled him, and then "shoved" him to knock him prone. The grappled condition means his Speed is 0, and he has to use half his speed to stand up, and can't stand up if his speed is 0. Granted, I had to use part of my Action for the next several rounds maintaining the grapple while the rest of the party took out all the kobolds, but I also completely neutralized the threat of the most dangerous enemy combatant with my turn. The Hex also meant that he had disadvantage on checks to attempt to escape the grapple (and I had a decent STR, so that didn't happen).

So...I can see your point, but sometimes, it can still be worth it, is all I'm saying.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yeah but can you do it with armor and a full backpack and a guy standing over you trying to murder you with a sword? Without exposing any openings for him to stab you? I think once you add some dangers it matters, if you're just lying down in a room then you just get to do your kip up if you're proficient, no roll or anything. If you're being murderized then a roll for an attempt may be useful.

Do you think that jumping up from your back is better than just standing up normally when you're wearing a plate carrier and all your wargear under fire?

Even if one would be slower to stand up in full wargear, that doesn't mean that one would be standing up differently, particularly in a more difficult way.


As for not being hit, moving evasively to not be hit is baked into the whole adding of your DEX to your HP.

[Quertus]

Battlemechs need life alert. "Help me! I've fallen and I can't get up!"

My players are starting to avoid wandering their mechs into rivers or anything that might provoke a piloting test, after one went in, failed his piloting test, and spent three turns trying to stand up his 55 ton battlemech and taking more damage every time.

To be fair though, a battlemech is a 55 ton robot that both doesn't have the same articulation as a person and often doesn't have hands to lift itself up with; and the thing that knocks you prone in the first place is usually a gyro crit, so your misbehaving gyro is going to make it hard to stand at all much less stand up.

Thanks for the laugh!

Sadly, one of my opponents did not heed that advice, braved the river, and powned my poor mech.

Usually, I design mechs from a player's PoV. But I'm beginning to think that, were I a pilot, I would probably want a Streak LRM-20, just to shoot at anyone with a gyro hit. :smallamused:


Standing up from prone is an incredibly simple action. I can do it in about a second, even with stuff in my hands, without any jumping or contorting or anything; and I'm not athletic at all. I definitely don't think there should be any tests involved.

I never could keep jealousy and envy straight, but… that's not something I can say. It usually takes me a bit to right myself after a fall.

[HumanFighter]

So I've been reading these posts and I've come up with a new idea for knocked prone/standing up for my game system.
Basically, standing up is still a Primary Action by default. However, you can opt to roll an Agility check (modified by Acrobatics skill and penalized by armor) to stand up fast as a free action.
If you fail this check, you still get to stand up but it costs you a Primary Action as normal.
However, if you get a Nat 1 on this check, you remain Prone and your turn just ends (Crit Fail!)
How does that sound?

[Mastikator]

Do you think that jumping up from your back is better than just standing up normally when you're wearing a plate carrier and all your wargear under fire?

Even if one would be slower to stand up in full wargear, that doesn't mean that one would be standing up differently, particularly in a more difficult way.


As for not being hit, moving evasively to not be hit is baked into the whole adding of your DEX to your HP.

Absolutely yes it is better and the reason is straightforward: it looks cooler

[LordCdrMilitant]

Absolutely yes it is better and the reason is straightforward: it looks cooler

I don't think that's a good reason to confer a mechanical advantage. Excess and flair is just excess and flair.

[Mastikator]

I don't think that's a good reason to confer a mechanical advantage. Excess and flair is just excess and flair.

Then we're at an impasse. I think coolness is one of the main points of the game, at least for any adventure based RPG.

[Sneak Dog]

Do you think that jumping up from your back is better than just standing up normally when you're wearing a plate carrier and all your wargear under fire?

Even if one would be slower to stand up in full wargear, that doesn't mean that one would be standing up differently, particularly in a more difficult way.

As for not being hit, moving evasively to not be hit is baked into the whole adding of your DEX to your HP.

You can't stand up 'normally', because you have to keep either your sharp bit of metal or a good bit of distance between you and whomever got you down here. You'd need to stand up using primarily your legs, keeping your poise as much as possible. While literally jumping up is a bit excessive, it is a better idea than rolling over, getting your arms beneath you and pushing yourself up.

Keep in mind you are likely to get trampled to break or mend your battleline and the person that knocked you prone may hit you during your fall, or jump on you for an easy blow when you land.

Rolling with whatever tripped you is your best option honestly, and still not pretty.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Then we're at an impasse. I think coolness is one of the main points of the game, at least for any adventure based RPG.

Coolness is important, but what we find cool is different.


You can't stand up 'normally', because you have to keep either your sharp bit of metal or a good bit of distance between you and whomever got you down here. You'd need to stand up using primarily your legs, keeping your poise as much as possible. While literally jumping up is a bit excessive, it is a better idea than rolling over, getting your arms beneath you and pushing yourself up.

Keep in mind you are likely to get trampled to break or mend your battleline and the person that knocked you prone may hit you during your fall, or jump on you for an easy blow when you land.

Rolling with whatever tripped you is your best option honestly, and still not pretty.

Yes, you can, and it is better than jumping up; you can find any video of troops in a firefight and note that they don't generally do weird acrobatics when standing up to move.

Also, standing up with your hands and feet is in fact better than jumping up like in that video from the perspective of avoiding being struck in CQC. Consider the kinematics of the action, and your points and opportunities to control yourself.


Also, dynamically avoiding blows is baked into the attack resolution process either from AC or a reactive dodge, which would cover not being hit while standing up.


I don't usually punish a desire to exhibit unnecessary or only mildly detrimental flair, but I also don't give a benefit for doing so.

[Democratus]

The D&D combat system is fairly abstract. One could assume that combatants are already trying to trip each other, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing - with the opponent usually getting up during the round of combat.

Whether your entire routine of punches, slashes, trips, dirt in the eye, etc. was effective is exactly what the TO HIT and DAM rolls reveal.

[FrogInATopHat]

...you can find any video of troops in a firefight and note that they don't generally do weird acrobatics when standing up to move...

When was the last time a 'firefight' involved melee-range combat with edged weapons?

To the nearest decade, even?

Did they have video then?

[LordCdrMilitant]

When was the last time a 'firefight' involved melee-range combat with edged weapons?

To the nearest decade, even?

Did they have video then?

IIRC 2012; at least for the developed world ;). While there aren't videos, I don't think there was any going prone in within reach of pointy.

That said - if it was faster to stand by jumping [or possible in battle gear] soldiers would be trained to do it. But it isn't actually faster, which basically rules out any reason you would, because a basic analysis of the situation would tell you that it's not more maneuverable or evasive.

Consider the kinetics of the act of standing up from a prone position. Jumping up like in that video relies on carrying through your momentum to put you on your feet; this is intrinsically bad from the not-being-stabbed perspective since you have less ability to either abort standing up and roll to the side, twist yourself out of the way, or otherwise change the position of your body from a more continuously controlled motion like a normal standing up.

[FrogInATopHat]

IIRC 2012; at least for the developed world ;).

Wow. What was the conflict?



That said - if it was faster to stand by jumping [or possible in battle gear] soldiers would be trained to do it. But it isn't actually faster, which basically rules out any reason you would, because a basic analysis of the situation would tell you that it's not more maneuverable or evasive.

I know that precisely one person brought up the Kip-Up thing, but why are you so focused on it? That's not in the rules and seems to have only been offered as a suggested interpretation of game mechanics that you've gotten very caught up in.

The acrobatics check, which seems to have been your initial problem, doesn't have to be for a kip-up. But what other skill or mechanic do you suggest to measure a character's proficiency or expertise in the kinetics of standing on two feet from prone successfully without exposing yourself to an attack from an adjacent foe?

[Democratus]

When was the last time a 'firefight' involved melee-range combat with edged weapons?

To the nearest decade, even?

Did they have video then?

There is currently an ongoing series of battles between the Indian and Chinese armies that involves entirely hand-to-hand combat because guns are banned in the region.

[FrogInATopHat]

There is currently an ongoing series of battles between the Indian and Chinese armies that involves entirely hand-to-hand combat because guns are banned in the region.

There is too!!

We're probably edging close to forum rule issues, but it seems that it's not so much 'guns are banned' as that both sides have unofficially agreed to not escalate.

Still very interesting thank you.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Wow. What was the conflict?

In october 2011, A British infantry platoon conducted a [successful] bayonet charge against a Taliban position during a firefight, routing the Taliban without incurring unnecessary civilian casualties. This is the most recent that made the news [the soldier who led the charge was decorated in 2012], but it wasn't a strictly isolated incident and I think there was another in Iraq in 2004 or so.

Of course, irregular and bush conflicts in Africa and South America have had plenty of fights with close quarters weapons too that are less recorded and less high profile, and as such we're less aware of.



I know that precisely one person brought up the Kip-Up thing, but why are you so focused on it? That's not in the rules and seems to have only been offered as a suggested interpretation of game mechanics that you've gotten very caught up in.

The acrobatics check, which seems to have been your initial problem, doesn't have to be for a kip-up. But what other skill or mechanic do you suggest to measure a character's proficiency or expertise in the kinetics of standing on two feet from prone successfully without exposing yourself to an attack from an adjacent foe?

The fact that doing so is intrinsically baked into the attack resolution process; in D&D as your DEX bonus to AC, and in some other systems as a reactive dodge option against attacks.

I would only call for an acrobatics skill check if the situation is in fact, acrobatic, and it is outside the ordinary level of actions and abstraction provided for by the system. Given that standing up does not require any out-of-the-ordinary degree of acrobatic talent [thus, standing up should not require one to pass to do so], and the fact that in D&D DEX adds to your AC is already accounting for twisting and dodging and parrying to acrobatically prevent an attack from landing [thus, having an acrobatics check to not get hit would be counting that effect twice as far as the abstraction goes].

[FrogInATopHat]

I would only call for an acrobatics skill check if the situation is in fact, acrobatic, and it is outside the ordinary level of actions and abstraction provided for by the system

By definition it is outside the level of ordinary level of actions and abstraction provided for by the system. Hence the additional requirement for the check. This point doesn't really make sense.

You can argue that there shouldn't be an extra rule. But there is.

That DEX accounts for dodging, parrying, etc within a round is an interpretation of the rules, and a valid one. But it is manifestly not a rule. We seem to have found a point where your interpretation doesn't match the text. That's fine and I houserule liberally myself. But that's exactly what you're doing here.

[LordCdrMilitant]

By definition it is outside the level of ordinary level of actions and abstraction provided for by the system. Hence the additional requirement for the check. This point doesn't really make sense.

You can argue that there shouldn't be an extra rule. But there is.

That DEX accounts for dodging, parrying, etc within a round is an interpretation of the rules, and a valid one. But it is manifestly not a rule. We seem to have found a point where your interpretation doesn't match the text. That's fine and I houserule liberally myself. But that's exactly what you're doing here.

Why else does DEX add to your AC, if not to represent using your flexibility and reactivity to avoid or turn blows?

Also, I'm away from my books right now, but as I remember, in 5e, being prone says that you may only crawl or stand up, you have disadvantage on attacks, melee attacks have advantage to hit you, and ranged attacks have disadvantage to hit you.
Standing up, in turn, takes half your movement with no other properties. There is presently no acrobatics check to stand up, opportunity attack or otherwise, [and IIRC you don't even get an opportunity attack, since those are only provoked by someone leaving your threatened space]

Edit: I just checked the SRD:

Conditions: Prone says:

A prone creature’s only Movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition.
The creature has disadvantage on Attack Rolls.
An Attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the Attack roll has disadvantage.

Combat: Prone says:

Combatants often find themselves lying on the ground, either because they are knocked down or because they throw themselves down. In the game, they are Prone.

You can drop prone without using any of your speed. Standing up takes more effort; doing so costs an amount of Movement equal to half your speed.
For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of Movement to stand up. You can’t stand up if you don’t have enough Movement left or if your speed is 0.

To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation. Every foot of Movement while crawling costs 1 extra foot. Crawling 1 foot in Difficult Terrain, therefore, costs 3 feet of Movement.

and Combat: Opportunity Attacks says:

In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity Attack.
You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature. The Attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can avoid provoking an opportunity Attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your Movement, action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

So I think my interpretation is consistent with the rules.



Also, why is it by definition outside the ordinary level of abstraction?

[Calthropstu]

3.5 got prone right. It is really easy to both attack someone prone or as they stand up. Having fallen during larp combat, my only option was to wait for an attack, deflect the incoming blafe to the side and roll away. Even as I rolled away I had to deflect a second strike and swipe at my opponents legs forcing him to back off before I could stand without getting skewered. An aoo, spending of move actions and provoking seems about where that is.

[FrogInATopHat]

Also, I'm away from my books right now, but as I remember, in 5e...

Ah, I didn't realise we were in the 5E forum so arguments were confined only to that system.

Acrobatics/Tumble has a long history of being used as an additional requirement to avoid attacks of opportunity in other systems including attacks triggered by rising from prone and your other example of moving from or through a threatened square.

3.5 (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm)

PF (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics/)

The following text is included in both descriptions of the prone condition in each system:


Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Ah, I didn't realise we were in the 5E forum so arguments were confined only to that system.

Acrobatics/Tumble has a long history of being used as an additional requirement to avoid attacks of opportunity in other systems including attacks triggered by rising from prone and your other example of moving from or through a threatened square.

3.5 (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm)

PF (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics/)

The following text is included in both descriptions of the prone condition in each system:

We're not in the 5e forum; I just defaulted to 5e because this is a primarily D&D-centric forum and it's the most used and current edition of D&D and a communicable reference point that I would expect all to relate to.

That said:

In Pathfinder, as you quoted, there isn't a provision for an acrobatics check to stand up or to avoid the opportunity attack.

In Dark Heresy 2E:


Type: Half Action
Subtype: Movement
If the active character is lying or sitting on the ground, he can
stand. If he is already standing, he can mount a riding beast or
enter a vehicle. If he is already atop a riding beast or is already
within a vehicle, he can dismount the riding beast or leave the
vehicle and end the Dismount action standing. This action can also
be used to move within a vehicle as needed.

There is also no provision for an acrobatics/agility test to avoid attacks while standing or or stand at all.

In Traveller [2016 Rulebook]:


A Traveller may stand, crouch, or lie prone as a Minor Action

There is no provision for an Athletics-DEX test when standing to avoid an attack.

In A Time of War:


Dropping prone, crouching, sitting or standing up are all
considered maneuvers. Each may be performed as part
of an appropriate movement action (determined at the
gamemaster’s discretion, when in doubt) at a nominal cost in
MPs. Dropping prone costs 0 MPs, while crouching or sitting
costs 1 MP and standing up costs 2 MPs. All of these maneuvers
are treated as Incidental Actions.

There is also no provision for an Acrobatics test to stand up. [as a human. A 'mech takes a Piloting test to do so, as previously mentioned.]



We could keep going through systems, but these are the one's I've played in/run recently/currently, and I would say relatively confidently that the act of moving to avoid strikes while standing up from the prone position is covered by the standard attack resolution mechanics.


In the D&D and Pathfinder system itself [since this is a relatively D&D-centric forum and the majority of the thread discussion is primarily from the perspective of fantasy games with melee combat as normative], this makes intuitive sense: you already have DEX as a contribution to your AC, representing your agility in avoiding and turning blows. Note that in Pathfinder, Prone does not make you Flat Footed, so your DEX is still contributing to your AC while you are prone and while you are standing up. Having an additional test to avoid the opportunity attack would be counting your agility in evading the blow twice against the attacker.



This is, of course, by no means universal. You could find a system where there is an agility-tangential check to avoid attacks while standing up that would not be ordinarily required as part of the standard attack process. But, I think it's safe enough to say that it is at least to some degree normative to consider evasion during the act of standing up to be the same mechanically as evasion while operating normally.

[FrogInATopHat]

In Pathfinder, as you quoted, there isn't a provision for an acrobatics check to stand up or to avoid the opportunity attack....

... other rules systems...

We could keep going through systems, but these are the one's I've played in/run recently/currently, and I would say relatively confidently that the act of moving to avoid strikes while standing up from the prone position is covered by the standard attack resolution mechanics.

This is, of course, by no means universal. You could find a system where there is an agility-tangential check to avoid attacks while standing up that would not be ordinarily required as part of the standard attack process. But, I think it's safe enough to say that it is at least to some degree normative to consider evasion during the act of standing up to be the same mechanically as evasion while operating normally.

First, I want to apologise. My posts to you in this thread, from rereading them have a distinct combative tone. I've been experiencing work-related tetchiness lately and it wasn't fair of me to get snotty on here with you on that basis. I honestly thought your next post to me would, rightly, call me out on it.

Secondly, you're right. There is no rules support for the acrobatics check. The first post that it was mentioned in is clearly worded to note that it's a personal house-rule. So there's no argument there. I think it's a good house-rule, you don't.

Thirdly, yes, avoiding strikes is covered under the existing AC rules in all editions of 3.PF, 4E and 5E. Again no argument. Similar mechanics in similar games also covered under this with no argument.

Prohibiting an AoO that would normally be triggered by an action is manifestly not avoiding a strike. It is negating your opponent's ability to get an additional strike against you outside of their normal turn order. They are very different things. Your AC (and by extension your DEX) can definitely contribute to that attack not landing. The rules state that rising from prone triggers the attack. I think it's fair to suggest some method by which a person can rise in such a way as to avoid presenting the opening that allows the attack.

Note: Nobody seems to have suggested requiring a check just to stand up. Only to avoid provoking an AoO when doing so.

I also think that feat creep is a real issue so this shouldn't be locked behind a feat. Nor should it necessarily be tied to a specific Ability Score total. Logically (to me), a skill check is the last remaining reasonable option (with the obvious inference that a higher DEX will make this skill check easier). And, by extension, acrobatics/tumble is the logical choice for the skill check.

Is your position:

1. Rising should always provoke an AoO?
2. Rising should never provoke an AoO?
3. Rising should sometimes provoke an AoO but with a different method to prevent it than a skill check?

I think your position is 2, with an option on 3. But I would suggest that moving from lying on your back to standing facing (yes, I know, no facing rules) an opponent is not a thing that it's easy to do without that opponent having an opportunity to stab you while getting up. Even the video you've shown earlier has plenty of time for the people involved to get a warhammer to the torso or a sword in the giblets while they stand up.

[LordCdrMilitant]

First, I want to apologise. My posts to you in this thread, from rereading them have a distinct combative tone. I've been experiencing work-related tetchiness lately and it wasn't fair of me to get snotty on here with you on that basis. I honestly thought your next post to me would, rightly, call me out on it.

Secondly, you're right. There is no rules support for the acrobatics check. The first post that it was mentioned in is clearly worded to note that it's a personal house-rule. So there's no argument there. I think it's a good house-rule, you don't.

Thirdly, yes, avoiding strikes is covered under the existing AC rules in all editions of 3.PF, 4E and 5E. Again no argument. Similar mechanics in similar games also covered under this with no argument.

Prohibiting an AoO that would normally be triggered by an action is manifestly not avoiding a strike. It is negating your opponent's ability to get an additional strike against you outside of their normal turn order. They are very different things. Your AC (and by extension your DEX) can definitely contribute to that attack not landing. The rules state that rising from prone triggers the attack. I think it's fair to suggest some method by which a person can rise in such a way as to avoid presenting the opening that allows the attack.

Note: Nobody seems to have suggested requiring a check just to stand up. Only to avoid provoking an AoO when doing so.

I also think that feat creep is a real issue so this shouldn't be locked behind a feat. Nor should it necessarily be tied to a specific Ability Score total. Logically (to me), a skill check is the last remaining reasonable option (with the obvious inference that a higher DEX will make this skill check easier). And, by extension, acrobatics/tumble is the logical choice for the skill check.

Is your position:

1. Rising should always provoke an AoO?
2. Rising should never provoke an AoO?
3. Rising should sometimes provoke an AoO but with a different method to prevent it than a skill check?

I think your position is 2, with an option on 3. But I would suggest that moving from lying on your back to standing facing (yes, I know, no facing rules) an opponent is not a thing that it's easy to do without that opponent having an opportunity to stab you while getting up. Even the video you've shown earlier has plenty of time for the people involved to get a warhammer to the torso or a sword in the giblets while they stand up.

My personal position is 1. Rising should always provoke an AoO [in systems where it is pertinent], and there should not be any pertinent skill checks of the acrobatic variety to ignore it.
That said, I don't really care where there is or isn't an AoO from standing, I'm mostly arguing that if there is one, there shouldn't be an acrobatics check to prevent it because that's baked into your AC.


An opportunity attack is still resolved against your AC. It's not resolved against your flat footed AC or anything. Thus, it is still assuming that you are moving or otherwise using your agility to turn or evade the opportunity attack, so a provoked opportunity attack while standing up should not be preventable by an acrobatics skill test, as that would be double-representing your dexterity-based defense.

If your full AC is used, then it's still counting your reflexes in attack avoidance. An opportunity attack doesn't hit flat footed, and while being prone gives a +4 to hit, it also doesn't hit flat footed. Therefore, there should be no acrobatics test.