So, suppose that you have a creature/player that has perfect fly and is just able to float everywhere at every which angle that they wish. They can float upsidedown, sideways, etc, etc.
Now, that creature/player voluntarily drops prone. Maybe they want to avoid some arrows; who knows.
Can that player/creature simply fly straight up from the ground on their next turn? If not, why not? Why would they have to stand up first?
Should be able to fly straight up, though if it's winged flight, probably not. And then right themselves as part of flying around.
They should still provoke an AoO for moving up from prone, whether it's a "stand action" or not, IMO. On top of any AoO for moving more than a 5 ft step. Whether standing up or hovering up in a prone position, either way your guard is lowered and thus AoO is provoked, I would say.
Are you talking logically, or by the rules?
By the rules, they have to use a move action to stand up.
By logic, of course they could just fly up normally.
Are you talking logically, or by the rules?
Both, really; I have a commitment I made as a DM to not enforce rules that can't be reasonably defended.
I think I like StreamOfTheSky's interpretation: you can right yourself as part of flying up, but it provokes since it's an awkward position.
Thanks, both.
|
Are you talking logically, or by the rules?
By the rules, they have to use a move action to stand up.
By logic, of course they could just fly up normally.
If they are using a fly or levitate spell, I see no need to stand up from prone before 'flying'. The rules do not state it is necessary and logically, it would not be needed. The only thing I might decide is that a levitating character may need to spend a move-equivalent action to right themselves if they wish to do so later.
If they are using wings, it makes sense that they would need to stand up so that they can use their feet to launch themselves in the air before actually taking flight.
RAW: While flying they can't be tripped, but could be tripped while temporarily standing on ground, or choosing to drop Prone for some reason (AC bonus, etc).
Nothing about having a Fly speed, perfect maneuverability or otherwise (maneuverability levels are just differing bonuses to Fly checks) negates the rules of Prone condition, so it takes the exact same action to 'stand up' (become un-Prone), i.e. a Move Action which provokes (for most characters). If you do have a Fly speed, you should be able to move in 3 dimensions while Prone, but you are doing so under the action/speed limitations of "Crawling", no free action non-provoking "5' Steps" (for most characters), etc.
This is all simply based off the concept that unless a rule specifically mentions a specific movement mode, then it applies to all movement equally. If you don't use that rule, then many many other parts of the game fall apart or become completely undefined, which is why everybody seems to use this approach, even if it isn't explicitly stated in the rules AFAIK.
This is the basis of the idea that a character with a Fly speed can make '5' Steps' that aren't 'steps' but are 3-d flying or other types of movement: the 'fluff' of 5' Steps isn't meant to restrict it to land movement, that's just the name of the rule. Several areas of the rule only explicitly cover 2-dimensional land-based movement, but the game falls apart unless you read them as actually also applying to/ allowing for 3-dimensional actions irrespective of movement mode. ...Although if you don't have a Swim speed but are using the normal Swim rules, then you can't make a 5' Step swimming movement as a free action, you're forced to spend actions as per the rules for non-Swim-speed Swimming, since the normal movement rules are based on using a Move Speed so if you don't have a Swim Speed you can't use the normal movement rules for Swimming.
Likewise, this means that we should be flexible in interpreting the fluff of the 'Prone' condition, when considering somebody on solid ground it's clear enough, but when considering a Flying or Swimming or Burrowing creature, we probably shouldn't restrict ourselves to the imagery of Prone person laying on ground vs. Standing Person (only with standard ground Move Speed). The mechanical effects of Prone may better be imagined as being 'off balance' or 'disrupted' when Flying, Swimming, or Burrowing.
...Nothing about having a Fly speed, perfect maneuverability or otherwise (maneuverability levels are just differing bonuses to Fly checks) negates the rules of Prone condition, so it takes the exact same action to 'stand up' (become un-Prone), i.e. a Move Action which provokes (for most characters). If you do have a Fly speed, you should be able to move in 3 dimensions while Prone, but you are doing so under the action/speed limitations of "Crawling", no free action non-provoking "5' Steps" (for most characters), etc.
This is all simply based off the concept that unless a rule specifically mentions a specific movement mode, then it applies to all movement equally. If you don't use that rule, then many many other parts of the game fall apart or become completely undefined, which is why everybody seems to use this approach, even if it isn't explicitly stated in the rules AFAIK....
I think I've just found the answer to my question from this thread. Flying prone gunnery AHOY!
+1
if somebody just wants to fly horizontal like superman, i'm not going to impose prone, but if the condition is invoked, then it's invoked 100%.
i should say my reading isn't the ONLY RAW interpretation (although it's the only one i've seen used, at least by people following the RAW), but what i said for the broader implications still goes: to rule otherwise, to insist on the particularity of fluff for things like 'prone' should likewise mean all such fluff is fully restrictive, which means that flying/swimming/climbing/burrowing creatures can't take free 5' steps, that option is only for 'normal' land speed movement (where 'steps' apply). I've just never seen it played that way, but that seems like the only other valid reading of RAW. (but that approach to reading the rules comes up with other problems, such as when the text of the RAW only considers 2d land movement, etc, which is why I don't consider that the RAW functionality, since it just isn't functional in the end).
I don't much like the rule that flying creatures can't be tripped anyhow. It can make sense for me if the creature doesn't have wings, or if it has Perfect maneuverability. But that clumsy Wyvern? I bet I could do something to that Wyvern that'll give it penalties to attack and AC.
3E actually had rules for using Trip on flying creatures to stall them in the air, slow them down, etc...
PF invalidated all of it by stating that flying creatures can't be tripped.
there's still ways to screw with a natural flyer, but they don't involve trip:
Collision While Flying: If you are using wings to fly and you collide with an object equal to your size or larger, you must immediately make a DC 25 Fly check to avoid plummeting to the ground, taking the appropriate falling damage.
it's not explicit how that's meant to work, but besides being hit by large objects (hurling barbarians are nice here) bullrush seems like it qualifies - you shouldn't even need to actually SUCCEED on the bullrush check, i.e. move them into another square (although you would need to pass any Miss Chance), as long as the attack roll hit touch AC it should count as a collision. although there is a separate check for being damaged while flying (whose DC is so low, it's auto-pass for many characters/creatures), the collision while flying rules CAN also apply to every single melee weapon attack, if the weapon size is large enough.
(it really feels like NOT the intent of the rules, but if creatures CAN count as objects, which is necessary if a bullrush is to trigger this rule, then it isn't clear exactly why making a UAS attack doesn't count as a collision with an object, but with a huge size advantage vs. normal sized weapons, since they are colliding with YOU, not a wielded weapon, which would be several sizes smaller than 'you' as an object. I guess one could treat UAS as a separate 'object' on par with appropriately sized weapons for that user... RAW/RAI is murky here.)but it IS just flat-out weird that a flyer CAN be prone and suffer all the penalties from that, but can't be tripped (causing prone) while flying, although if they are previously tripped that works, and any other mechanism that isn't called trip which causes them to be made prone works fine.
You see the same issue with other creatures, like those without legs. You can't trip a snake, but a snake could become Prone by falling from a height such that it takes lethal damage.
People seem to disagree whether a snake should be capable of the Prone condition. Some say that a snake is 'always prone', they just don't take the penalties from it; while others argue that if they flipped a serpent upside-down, it wouldn't be able to move, attack or defend normally until it righted itself.
From a design standpoint, I don't like the idea of Bull Rushes targeting touch AC rather than CMD.
Beyond the reflexive consistency of "combat maneuver means targeted against CMD", it makes me think of a creature that has a touch spell that can be channeled through its weapon, attacking against another creature's full AC and failing the attack roll -- then the ensuing argument between two people at the table, does that attack roll mean the weapon missed completely? Or does it mean that it was deflected off of armor, in which case, a held touch spell of shocking grasp should discharge even though the weapon didn't deal damage?
There is some amount of consistency here -- even if you have a held charge that you can channel through a weapon or natural attack, you can simply choose to deliver the charge, in which case you're attacking against touch AC. Yet that doesn't fully relieve my discomfort, even if you follow consistency and declare that it is legal to attempting bull rush against touch AC with the presumed benefit that a successful check won't push the opponent back but it will force a Fly check vs Collision.
Quandary, I think that rule exists to cover the whole "I summon a wall of force in front of the flying dragon's charge" schtick.
|
prone is a condition:
CRB p. 568
Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
you can't be knocked prone, or go prone, while flying. you can only be prone while on the ground.
Chernobyl, read Troubleshooter's post on Snakes.
There is a difference between saying you are immune to a specific action which applies a condition (and potentially does other stuff too), and saying you are immune to that condition period. Other things besides trip can cause Prone condition, and you can have been previously Tripped while not Flying. Like you said, Prone is a condition. Trip is an action, only one example of something that can cause the Prone condition to come into play.
The first sentence should essentially be read as no-Trip limitation for Swimmers, Climbers, Burrowers in the first place, yet all of those conflict with the fluff of that first line. Like I explained, not taking literally every bit of fluff isn't any more extreme in this case than in many other cases of the rules, e.g. 5' Step and rules which literally only discuss 2-d land movement.
@Ravingdork: On what basis are you so limiting the concept of 'collision'?
What happens when the Wall of Force is a 'living' individual entity?
Why should said living Wall of Force be treated differently than any other creature of equivalent/valid size?
I'm not really sure that I would even apply this Collision rule to your scenario,
you can't enter the square of an object fully occupying it's space, and there is no mechanical indication of a 'collision' of any sort for a creature in an adjacent square to a blocking object, so anybody using that tactic vs. a Charger would either just be content with blocking the charge line and not causing any 'collision' (since you can simply decide not to attempt to enter the next square), or need to cast the wall on a square the Charger is already in, which would apply certain effects (damage, slowing, etc) but I'm not sure if that would count as a collision, it's more on par with casting Entangle on a square they are already in.
Again, I don't see the difference between summoning a Wall of Force mid-charge, and Summoning a Creature of valid Size...
Attempting to enter the square of an enemy (pre-req to a Collision with them) actually should require an Over-Run maneuver in the first place (they can choose to avoid, in which case there is no collision, or if they choose to not avoid, there would be a collision, even if you fail at the Over-Run maneuver). Bull-Rush is a bit different in that you are touching/colliding with the enemy (in order to push them away) before you actually enter their square, you only enter the square by FOLLOWING the target. For objects the rules are less robust, if you CAN enter their square (even with slowed movement) then no rule indicates that you must necessarily 'Collide' with the object, although you can presumably CHOOSE TO Collide if you so wish. If you can't enter the object's square, then the rules are silent on how you could initiate a 'collision' against an object... I suppose it is left to: you have sufficient remaining movement that you COULD otherwise enter that square, AND you simply 'declare' that you are Colliding.
Since there just isn't really any other mechanics for 'Collisions', I don't see why the general English definition of it shouldn't apply here... I don't see why to limit it to your very specific scenario, which is never even alluded to by the rules, and exclude other things which would just as much meet the definition of 'Collision', other approaches which are indeed more detailed by the rules than your scenario.
Quandary, I think that rule exists to cover the whole "I summon a wall of force in front of the flying dragon's charge" schtick.
Not to derail this thread, but I did that recently in a game and wasn't sure how the damage should work.
I figure the dragon should take some but wasn't sure mechanically how it should work. I based it off of falling dmg = the distance the dragon had moved before he hit the wall.
RAW, that isn't a falling damage scenario.
If you conjure a wall in front of a charging character, they can simply not enter the next square.
If you conjure it 'on top of them', you apply any stated effects for doing so, but there isn't really any other effect.
This thread made me lolz...
About a month ago in our Jade Regent Campaign (no spoilers) we were ambushed (attacked) by some Stone Giants while traveling on a side of a Cliff Road (75 feet to the ocean below)...
My first Round action as a Gnome Druid was to Wildshape into a TINY Bat and go prone (because Boulders were going to be tossed our way)..
The GM was like WTF you are a 6 inch tall Bat on the ground and going Prone to 2 inches gives you a +4 AC against Range attacks??? I"m like YUp!
Party is laughing until the ground gives away from Transmute Rock to Mud(Stone Giant Elder ability)and the entire area becomes a landslide and falls into the ocean... luckily I was a Bat and I did a Fly check and did not fall all the way into the ocean...
Dm had the biggest smirk on his face.... I was just lucky I didn't take all that damage LOL
RAW, that isn't a falling damage scenario.
If you conjure a wall in front of a charging character, they can simply not enter the next square.
If you conjure it 'on top of them', you apply any stated effects for doing so, but there isn't really any other effect.
Yeah in a case like that I go by Intent or, what makes sense for the scene, rather than RAW.
Ever seen a bird fly into a window and break it's neck? I have. The bird didn't just gently stop and realize it couldn't "enter the next square".
I couldn't just throw out all semblance of physics. My players would have complained if I said nothing happens.
But really, I digress. If we want to discuss it further I should make a thread instead of hijacking this one.
sure, i just thought it was a topic still related to the thread,
and what the rules say, and what we might reasonably do in a home game, are different things.
since this is a rules question forum, that seems the priority for 'resolution',
even if sharing what actually happens in our home games is also interesting and revealing.
it's hardly difficult to think of a case where the rules may not be 'realistic', yet that doesn't change that this is a game of rules, and that following the rules is for the most part a functional way to run a game.
i usually try to follow my own advice: instead of thinking first of how the rules may conflict with a 'realistic' visualization of events, think of what 'realistic' visualization of events could possibly be compatable with the rules you are using. there is often a way for things to make sense, and immersion not to be disrupted.