[4e] Helping Someone Else Stand up

[LibraryOgre]

Just a random question: Would you allow someone to spend an action to help someone else to their feat? What action would you require?

[Yakk]

Standard, by default.

Helping some else do X (without them having to do anything) is harder than them doing it themselves. Standing up is a move action. So harder is a standard action.

[LibraryOgre]

While I can see that argument, isn't picking something up a minor?

[Tiki Snakes]

I'd let you spend a move action to allow them to take a move action to stand, as per normal, with the free shift 1 square and all.

Picking something up is indeed a minor.

[rayne_dragon]

Well if picking something up is a minor, then you'd have to at least use another minor to set them down properly (as opposed to a free action to drop them back on their face). I'd probably say two minors or one standard.

[Kurald Galain]

Just a random question: Would you allow someone to spend an action to help someone else to their feat? What action would you require?

Sure. I would make it a move action, because it really is a waste of a standard. Giving a move action to another player in such a circumstantial way isn't unbalanced.

(I'm assuming the ally is adjacent)

[FoE]

It's a standard action, I say. The physical act of helping someone to their feet is only a minor action, but you have to hum a few bars from 'Lean On Me' while doing so.

[Yakk]

Yes, you can pick someone/thing up as a minor action. Check your encumbrance. You have them carried.

They can then dismount from you as a standard action. :-) (see mount rules)

[Grynning]

Sure. I would make it a move action, because it really is a waste of a standard. Giving a move action to another player in such a circumstantial way isn't unbalanced.

(I'm assuming the ally is adjacent)

This would sort of reduce the usefulness of powers like the Warlord Utility "Knight's Move" though wouldn't it? I think it should be a standard.

[Kurald Galain]

This would sort of reduce the usefulness of powers like the Warlord Utility "Knight's Move" though wouldn't it?

No, because Knight's Move works at a distance, and lets the target do other things besides just standing up. Also, it's not like KM is a particularly strong or desirable power.

[Hzurr]

Well, if a standard is too much, and a move is too little, what if it costs a move and a minor? (or, like someone else suggested, two minors)

[tcrudisi]

I would allow it as a standard action. It's a lot harder to pick someone up (especially when holding a weapon(s) or implement(s)) than it is to pick up an object from the ground. Since giving up your move action for someone else to give a move action is already the purview of the leaders (and the, uh, race that gives Telekinetic Leap), it seems unfair to them to allow it as a move action.

Besides, if you are going to argue that reaching a hand down to help someone up should not be a standard action, I would agree. In that case, they are helping you help them up (so they would probably use an action of their own to help themselves up).

Which means that the only other option is the player is trying to help them up without the fallen player helping out. I know I've picked up kids who were being stubborn, and they are hard enough. Definitely a standard, and they are kids!

Yeah, it might seem harsh, but giving up your action for someone else always comes with a penalty. Want to use someone's Second Wind for them? Use a standard action... and they don't get the defense bonus.

*edit* A side note: since there are no rules for this, my response is nothing but a house-rule (of course, it'll be that way for everyone).

[Meek]

I'm with Kurald on this one. In 4e, helping someone up as a standard action is a waste of a standard action. It doesn't matter what the logic behind it is like – a move action is a less tactically restricting in a tactical combat situation and that's what you should be looking at in terms of designing house rules like this. If it impedes a turn's worth of contribution in a tactical combat (using your standard action basically means you're not advancing the battle that turn much at all) for something as minor as getting someone to stand up, when they can stand up far more easily on their own turn, the dude is staying floored.

[tcrudisi]

I'm with Kurald on this one. In 4e, helping someone up as a standard action is a waste of a standard action. It doesn't matter what the logic behind it is like – a move action is a less tactically restricting in a tactical combat situation and that's what you should be looking at in terms of designing house rules like this. If it impedes a turn's worth of contribution in a tactical combat (using your standard action basically means you're not advancing the battle that turn much at all) for something as minor as getting someone to stand up, when they can stand up far more easily on their own turn, the dude is staying floored.

You are correct in that helping someone stand up is a waste of a standard action. Let's go back to high school for a few minutes. You and your best friend Bob have just gotten into a fight against Kobold and Orc. Kobold knocks Bob down to the ground. Are you going to take a couple of seconds to pick Bob up while Orc is beating on you? I'm gonna go ahead and guess "no". You might move over to him to try to protect him, but you've got someone beating on you... taking the time to pick him up would be foolish.

Now, if you were a Warlord, sure you could give up your Move action to allow Bob to stand up. But then we are talking about powers. Otherwise, forcing someone to stand up does take longer than them standing up on their own. (And yes, we are talking about forcing someone to stand up. If you just put out your hand to help them up, then they are still doing the standing mostly on their own. Err... I should not say "we", but at least it's what I'm assuming. Now, putting out your hand to help someone up would be different and I didn't cover that above.)

[Meek]

You're saying the same thing you said before – which is your position and I respect it. The TC's question has characters who DO want to help each other stand up from prone in the midst of, I would assume, a battle. In such a situation, I have answered I would let them do so as a move action in order to prevent it from being an even larger waste of their time than it already is. Logic doesn't enter into it for me – the D&D 4e DMing golden rule is to "say yes" and making it a standard action is basically saying "No" and stifling a player action that isn't really unbalancing at all. Your approach is different. Quite fine. I don't like it though.

As for the Warlord, Kurald has already made the point that Knight's Move is a) far more useful than just helping someone adjacent stand up and b) not that powerful anyway. So I don't see this specific use of a move action to be unbalanced at all.

[Inyssius Tor]

Standard action. It would have cost the prone character a move action; and, when it's used, that's the point. If the archer ranger (who doesn't need to move to attack) can spend a move action to lift the barbarian (who would), you've taken a condition which originally meant "target can't attack this turn" and appended "unless he wants to".

Allowing an ally to substitute their own move action would mess with the balance of a great deal of extant monsters and class powers, and would obsolete an element of the game's tactical complexity.

[Meek]

Standard action. It would have cost the prone character a move action; and, when it's used, that's the point. If the archer ranger (who doesn't need to move to attack) can spend a move action to lift the barbarian (who would), you've taken a condition which originally meant "target can't attack this turn" and appended "unless he wants to".

The Barbarian would've been able to Charge as a standard action, therefore being able to both move and attack.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm with Kurald on this one. In 4e, helping someone up as a standard action is a waste of a standard action. It doesn't matter what the logic behind it is like – a move action is a less tactically restricting in a tactical combat situation and that's what you should be looking at in terms of designing house rules like this. If it impedes a turn's worth of contribution in a tactical combat (using your standard action basically means you're not advancing the battle that turn much at all) for something as minor as getting someone to stand up, when they can stand up far more easily on their own turn, the dude is staying floored.

So, what's you opinion on spending a Standard action to give someone else a Saving Throw. Or +2 on a Check?

Helping someone out is supposed to be costly; if it were easy, then you could trade around Actions like they were Action Points.

I mean, how useful is knocking someone over if their adjacent ally can just blow a Move Action they weren't using anyways and then attack? Remember - if it is a Move Action to pick a PC up, it'll be a Move Action to pick a Monster up, too.

[Ryumaru]

Make sure they can only do it twice; third time they fall if they havn't spent a surge, they're down for the count.

-End horrid L4D comparison-

[Edea]

Closest thing to RAW on this is that it's merely a subset of the Aid Another action in the PHB ("You use your action to aid another character."), so yeah, it'd cost a standard.

TBH, though, either 1) Prone's not exactly a life threatening condition, so just don't worry about it and let them stand up on their own, or 2) Prone IS life threatening (such as against, say, those damned needlefang drake swarms), in which case spending the standard action to help the ally get up does more for the damage balance of the fight than attacking the enemy. Sounds good to me.

Frankly, I've -never- encountered a situation in 4e where I needed to help someone else stand up, and I've been playing constantly so the whole 'standard action is wasted' bit doesn't seem like a big deal IMO.

[rayne_dragon]

My party usually justs picks up the person and carries them around until the person's turn. I seem to recall the DM treating it as being uneder the grappling rules.

[Oracle_Hunter]

2) Prone IS life threatening (such as against, say, those damned needlefang drake swarms), in which case spending the standard action to help the ally get up does more for the damage balance of the fight than attacking the enemy. Sounds good to me.

FYI - they fixed Needlefangs

EDIT:

My party usually justs picks up the person and carries them around until the person's turn. I seem to recall the DM treating it as being uneder the grappling rules.

Dragging someone as per Grapple requires a Standard Action, and you can only move 1/2 speed.

[Kurald Galain]

So, what's you opinion on spending a Standard action to give someone else a Saving Throw. Or +2 on a Check?

That the former is generally a waste of time, and the latter is always a waste of time.

I mean, how useful is knocking someone over if their adjacent ally can just blow a Move Action they weren't using anyways and then attack?

(1) That it's not a given that there is an adjacent ally, (2) that it's not a given either that said ally wouldn't be using his move action, and (3) that you're still getting combat advantage in the meantime.

Prone is not a very strong debuff, nor is it intended to be a strong debuff.

[Kurald Galain]

Frankly, I've -never- encountered a situation in 4e where I needed to help someone else stand up, and I've been playing constantly so the whole 'standard action is wasted' bit doesn't seem like a big deal IMO.

It's not a big deal on its own, but it's a good example of how a DM can discourage players from trying some special action, by needlessly giving that action a significant cost and/or a small chance of success.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Prone is not a very strong debuff, nor is it intended to be a strong debuff.

I dunno - Granting CA, -2 to hit with melee, and requiring a Move Action to break can be pretty damaging.

[Inyssius Tor]

The Barbarian would've been able to Charge as a standard action, therefore being able to both move and attack.

Unless he was more than six squares away from his desired target.

Unless he was less than three squares away from his desired target.

Unless terrain / other enemies would block a direct charge.

Unless he was dazed.

Unless he was slowed.

These circumstances are not uncommon.

[tcrudisi]

Unless he was less than three squares away from his desired target.

Unless he was slowed.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement as a whole -- prone is a nasty condition. However, the two I have quoted above are incorrect. Concerning charge, PHB page 287 says: You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position... Since moving 2 squares satisfies "moving at least 2 squares", this means that you can move two squares to charge someone. However, a common tactic in my party is to knock someone prone and then move back a single step. Since the monster has to stand up (a move action) and we are out of range for its attacks, it can choose to either move closer to us (using its standard) or ready an action. It can no longer charge, as there is no one 2 squares away to charge it (or it will be punished via opportunity attacks if it charges back-line people).

[Mando Knight]

FYI - they fixed Needlefangs

And it was about time. Those buggers had the ability to deal 2-4d10 plus modifiers in damage every turn to their primary target, and 1-2d10 plus modifiers to everyone else trying to flank it.

[Yakk]

You're saying the same thing you said before – which is your position and I respect it. The TC's question has characters who DO want to help each other stand up from prone in the midst of, I would assume, a battle. In such a situation, I have answered I would let them do so as a move action in order to prevent it from being an even larger waste of their time than it already is.

Being able to burn your own move action, to give an ally back their move action, is not anywhere close to a waste of time.

If you can do that, then knocking prone goes from action denial and short-term debuff on a target, to short-term debuff on the target and fungable action denial, which is a far weaker ability.

My party usually justs picks up the person and carries them around until the person's turn. I seem to recall the DM treating it as being uneder the grappling rules.

Standard to grapple, standard to move at half speed while carrying a grappled target?

That the former is generally a waste of time, and the latter is always a waste of time.

Standard to grant a saving throw has been used a number of times -- when someone more effective in this context is being crippled by a (save ends) condition.

+2 on a check (aid another) can be useful when you are out of dailies/encounters and someone else wants to land a "this will end it" daily. It is far rarer that it is useful, I'll admit.

Prone is not a very strong debuff, nor is it intended to be a strong debuff.

So, making it weaker is good?

It's not a big deal on its own, but it's a good example of how a DM can discourage players from trying some special action, by needlessly giving that action a significant cost and/or a small chance of success.

If you stunt it, and use the environment, go for it!

If you want to be able to trade actions around free of charge without powers or stunts, no, you shouldn't be able to in general.

When you knock a melee character prone, then shift back one, that should be reasonably effective action denial.

[Mercenary Pen]

I'd allow you to use a move action so that an adjacent player/NPC can stand up from prone with an immediate reaction. However, I would require that the prone individual cannot also be immobilised or grappled at the same time- because under those circumstances there is every chance either they could not support their own weight (legs damaged by enemy martial ability) or you could not physically pick them up (grappled by tentacles extruding through holes in the floor).

I personally think that getting back yup from prone has to require some effort on the part of the affected player/NPC, and in this scenario an immediate reaction to the move action you're expending suits best.