Throwing yourself Prone

[Octavious]

If you intentionally throw yourself Prone does it count as an action ?? I am thinking it is not a action if you do it yourself... so if I have a speed of 30 feet I think the following would be legal move (" I draw my bow back , fire at the goblin, I move back 30 feet then quickly lay down on the grass" ) The rules state going prone takes no speed but standing up takes half. So was that move Legal and am I right in this?

thanks in advance for any replies.

[Tabarkus]

Looks legit to me.

[Zacchaeus]

I don't see any reason why you can't do it. It would be classed as another action I suppose; it's certainly not an action or a bonus action. You could argue that you can't use all of your move and then go prone but that might be knit-picking. On the other hand I don't see any particular advantage other than if someone is shooting at you.

[Tabarkus]

It's listed under the Movement & Positioning rules so I see it as part of movement and therefore not an Action.

[Zacchaeus]

That's what I'm saying although not very well. For Another Action read 'Other Activity during your Turn'. Again though as you say it's part of the movement rules so it isn't even that.

[Octavious]

Thanks guys I appreciate it.. I thought I may be right.. as it is a condition not an action . The only real reason to use it is if you knew a lot of npc ranged attacks were coming at you (Ranged attacks have disadvantage on a prone creature) and you were out of their speed range so could avoid them rushing up on you and take the melee advantage attack on you . ( may keep you alive a little longer if no cover near) A good example for its use may be NPC's shooting at you from arrow windows in a structure etc.

[Tabarkus]

Here's another related question: does the prone condition and cover stack? So, prone behind cover? Disadvantage and -2 or -5 to your attacker using a missile weapon.

[Gwydion]

Here's another related question: does the prone condition and cover stack? So, prone behind cover? Disadvantage and -2 or -5 to your attacker using a missile weapon.

I think absolutely it does. Cover is its own category and prone is a condition. So, I believe you absolutely would have disadvantage and a -2 or -5 if shooting at a prone character behind cover.

[Nickademus]

If you really want dropping to the ground to be more than a chunk of nothing (rules-wise), then just make it cost 5 feet of movement to justify the moment it takes to fall and get settled.

[JohnD]

If you really want dropping to the ground to be more than a chunk of nothing (rules-wise), then just make it cost 5 feet of movement to justify the moment it takes to fall and get settled.

This what I'd do in my game.

[spite]

Really? Making up rules to justify someone throwing themselves fully to the ground? The payment is already there, the prone effect. They need to spend half movement getting up when they are done, and if a melee creature decides to chase down that pesky archer they are already disadvantaged. Why tack on a made up rule to punish some action that isn't just "I attack"?

[Nickademus]

Really? Making up rules to justify someone throwing themselves fully to the ground? The payment is already there, the prone effect. They need to spend half movement getting up when they are done, and if a melee creature decides to chase down that pesky archer they are already disadvantaged. Why tack on a made up rule to punish some action that isn't just "I attack"?

Yes, I'm making up rules to fulfill the hypothetical situation where the GM wants a rule to cover the situation, which is how it was suggested. If you don't want to use the rule or don't feel it's needed, then you shouldn't use it. Why assume that every GM has to interpret the situation the way you do?

[spite]

Yes, I'm making up rules to fulfill the hypothetical situation where the GM wants a rule to cover the situation, which is how it was suggested. If you don't want to use the rule or don't feel it's needed, then you shouldn't use it. Why assume that every GM has to interpret the situation the way you do?

I don't assume. But this is a discussion board, and I am discussing. I was asking why people feel the need to make up rules. It's not "interpreting the situation" differently. It's wondering why people feel the need to add this rule when the RAW already provides a "cost" here. I feel this is a legitimate question as the motivation is unclear to me.
But if you don't want to discuss things, perhaps put a note on your posts saying you don't want to hear opposed viewpoints or have your opinion challenged in any way.

[LordEntrails]

Be nice everyone. Let's try to always assume everyone means well and whenever things can be interpreted in more than one way, assume the better more generous way.

Note, this post is only in case someone isn't doing as recommended. I would hate to see this place degenerate to some of the other forums we all have experienced.

[JohnD]

Time honoured tradition of DM House Rule.

There are a lot of games out there. I'm sure it isn't terribly hard to find many where the DM handles multiple things differently from RAW for one reason or another (regardless of what's being discussed). Usually I find out what RAW says and then modify from there as makes sense to me when I'm DMing.

3.5 and Pathfinder seem to have 3 rules to handle every situation depending on what books you use. 5e was supposed to be a little more conducive to house rulings I thought.

The beauty of this is nobody has to play in any particular game.

There's discussing something and then there's responding to aggressively being pressed on something.

[Varsuuk]

OR ... heheh ... if one uses the 5' of movement, they place themselves down. If they "throw themselves" (which is automatic if all your movement is used up), then they need to roll a CON? (AGIL? ... choice?) check to see if they avoid stunning themselves (through hardiness... or gracefulness?)

I just read the one HR suggestion and thought to myself, maybe can combine that with the original.

And ya, anything that IS an interpretation or modification of a RAW is subjective.
(Feel free to comment on my additional (necroed - I was searching on "Chase" and found this) comment - not sure WHEN I'd need to use it, but was intrigued by both ruling ideas and thought maybe a merging of sorts. Open to opinions why it is overkill (my usual fault) or off in spirit, etc --- for REALS, I'd prefer to bounce it off folks)

[El Condoro]

I like to KISS, so I think the 1/2 move penalty to get up from Prone is sufficient, without any penalty for going prone at any point during a Move.

On a separate, though related topic, when a PC goes prone each turn between firing (or pops out from behind a wall et al.), perhaps getting that wonderful advantage on attacks from being hidden or disadvantage on attacks against them when prone, I get my intelligent NPCs to Ready their attack for when the PC appears - no more disadvantage and their attack occurs before the 'from hidden' attack. It encourages the time-honoured tactic of covering fire for both PCs and NPCs.

[ColinBuckler]

On a separate, though related topic, when a PC goes prone each turn between firing (or pops out from behind a wall et al.), perhaps getting that wonderful advantage on attacks from being hidden or disadvantage on attacks against them when prone, I get my intelligent NPCs to Ready their attack for when the PC appears - no more disadvantage and their attack occurs before the 'from hidden' attack. It encourages the time-honoured tactic of covering fire for both PCs and NPCs.

Funny - the exact same thing occured to me last night.....

Depending on the situation - if I had a Ranger PC who insisted on hiding behind a wall and the popping his head over to shoot and duck back (move to see/shoot/prone combo), I would most likely give the Ranger a disadvantage on the shot (as he could not observer the target sufficiently) and then full cover when behind the wall. However the NPC's would be intelligent enough to find cover themselves and then use a Ready action to target the Ranger when he popped out, giving the Ranger a +2 AC bonus (50% cover). Obviously the NPC's would most likely move to flank seeking cover themselves as they move :)