Prone Problems

[Black Lotus]

This is a very simple problem. When someone falls prone, voluntarily or involuntarily, their DCV is halved. Of course, this can be advantageous if you fall prone behind Concealment, but still -- it's harder to shoot at someone when they are prone, even on flat and barren terrain. The U.S. military trains soldiers to belly-crawl, keep their heads down, etcetera for exactly this reason; hell, I did it myself in Basic. Even with no concealment, it's still harder to hit someone at range when they're prone than when they're kneeling or standing.

I suppose I could just house-rule this -- as in, a prone character's DCV is halved against HTH attacks, but they retain their full DCV versus ranged attacks. To take it a step further, I could just say that any attack made against a prone character from a NON-adjacent square allows the character to retain their full DCV.

This could help counterbalance the "Ranged CSLs cannot be used to add DCV against Ranged attacks" optional rule that I also use.

What do you think?

[Hawksmoor]

Makes sense.

However prone is different from what we commonly think of as knocked flat on the back. That would be supine.

Supine = 1/2 DCV

Prone = 1/2 HtH DCV and full ranged DCV

Makes sense to me.

Hawksmoor

[Black Lotus]

Perhaps I should distinguish between voluntary/ involuntary Prone, then? In other words, if someone chooses to be prone, allow them to retain their full DCV against Ranged attacks (but perhaps have their Combat Movement halved (rounding up))?

[pinecone]

I guess I've always thought about it differantly...you're 1/2 DCV when prone, but you get a 1/2 to 3/4 cover concealment bonus...so Joe average with a Dex of 12 or less ends up better off when prone, but the Flash is much better off if he stays on his feet.....of course a flying foe can bypass the cover bonus with ease as well....

[CourtFool]

I would agree with pinecone. It would be more difficult to bob and weave while prone, but you should get some kind of concealment bonus.

[Fenixcrest]

I always thought the rules for prone make sense, as far as involuntary prone is concerned, which is the kind of prone that people end up with unless they dive behind something in most games I've played. I mean, after all, if you're "prone," then your maneuverability is reduced, and your movements become much more predictable.

Let's compromise: you get 1/2 HTH and range when involuntarily prone if your enemies are at relatively close range, like within 8-10". You have full ranged DCV if the enemy is farther away than that, unless they have a telescopic sense or are above you in angle by at least 45 degrees.

[Killer Shrike]

Yes, this is an oddity of the system.

Basically if the character is prone attackers should get a Concealment penalty to hit with Ranged Attacks, since the character's full body is not exposed to them. However that penalty is flat, either a -2 or -4, which interacts strangely depending on the CVs of the campaign in general and the prone character and their attackers specifically, but is still effective in most Heroic and some superheroic circumstances.

For example if a character has a 10 DEX they have a base DCV of 3, and thus falling prone and exposing only their head and shoulder to a distant shooter is a big help; they fall to 2 DCV and gain an effective +4 DCV from Concealment. Not bad.

A 30 DEX character on the other hand has a base 10 DCV, so falling prone hurts them vs ranged attacks.

This seems odd, until one considers that the reason the high DEX character is so hard to hit is somewhat predicated on their assumed ability to move out of the way of things. They can't do that while prone as effectively.

Campaigns with a lot of CSL's can cause some strangeness herein, but the same logic applies. Part of DCV is moving out of the way, and being Prone both lessens ones target area and also reduces ones ability to move. Some characters arent very dodgy in the first place and benefit from reducing their target area more than others.

Works well enough for me.

[Black Lotus]

That makes sense. After all, if i wanted perfect realism, I'd have to reduce a character's DCV versus Ranged attacks any time they stood still, since (in a Heroic campaign, anyway) it's hard to dodge bullets, but it's also hard to hit a moving target. Then again, one can still make oneself a hard target against bullets without having to actually dodge them -- ducking and weaving, etcetera.

And since it's more-or-less impossible to get a Prone concealment bonus against an adjacent character (i.e., one who is going to attack you with HTH attacks), that part's already covered.

[prestidigitator]

I would treat a ranged attack against a prone opponent as:
From the Front: A High Shot (-2 OCV; Location 2d6+1 if you wish).
From the Rear: A Low Shot (-2 OCV; Location min(2d6+7, 18) if you wish).
From the Side: No penalty; the whole body is exposed as if the character were standing so the only difference is orientation (I might give attacker's a -1 OCV the first time they shoot at the character due to the unusualness of the position, then drop the penalty).
At all times the defender is at 1/2 DCV.

EDIT: Oh, and as someone mentioned I would impose serious restrictions on movement. Probably a maximum of 1 hex Combat and 2 hexes Non-Combat. I would also impose a penalty on Dive for Cover rolls from this position if the mode used is Running or Leaping; probably a -3.

[Black Lotus]

EDIT: Oh, and as someone mentioned I would impose serious restrictions on movement. Probably a maximum of 1 hex Combat and 2 hexes Non-Combat. I would also impose a penalty on Dive for Cover rolls from this position if the mode used is Running or Leaping; probably a -3.

Myself, I can move... probably at a fast walk doing a belly crawl. :) If you haven't been through any sort of Basic Military Training, you won't know that it's possible to move QUITE DISTURBINGLY fast that way -- it just takes practice. Actually, when I was in military school, an Army Ranger Captain that instructed there could damn near sprint doing that crawl. There's a certain snakey, weaving trick to it, and you also have to be in good physical condition to pull it off.

I understand why this isn't included as part of the game rules, though, and I agree.

::Starts devising a new "Belly Crawl" Talent::

[Fox1]

The old rule was 1/2 DCV then +4 DCV vs. ranged attack. Seems that has been dropped in 5th edition. Wonder why...

I'd go back to using the old rule for ranged attacks at over 4" distance.

[t-bear]

I think the problem here you have to consider is the power level of your campaign. If you're doing a "heroes" campaign where it's skills and items it may make sense for prone to increase your DCV instead of lower.

But if you consider a super hero campaign I think it makes sense to be halved vs both ranged and hth.

Thinking about it, at a super hero level fighting a super hero level villian your ability to avoid getting hit isn't his lack of skill at hitting you as much as it's your skill in avoiding. Chances are if you were a non moving or dodging target the super villian could hit you pretty easily, even if you were laying down. It's your ability to be up and moving (even within your hex) that makes you harder to hit...again at that power level.

[prestidigitator]

Myself, I can move... probably at a fast walk doing a belly crawl. :) If you haven't been through any sort of Basic Military Training, you won't know that it's possible to move QUITE DISTURBINGLY fast that way -- it just takes practice. Actually, when I was in military school, an Army Ranger Captain that instructed there could damn near sprint doing that crawl. There's a certain snakey, weaving trick to it, and you also have to be in good physical condition to pull it off.

I understand why this isn't included as part of the game rules, though, and I agree.

::Starts devising a new "Belly Crawl" Talent::
How about, "being prone," as simply the SFX of some DCV CSLs. Then you don't have to worry about any sort of normal restriction on being prone that is not bought as a Side Effect. However, if you are knocked prone or Dive for Cover it will be a different matter.

[Fox1]

Thinking about it, at a super hero level fighting a super hero level villian your ability to avoid getting hit isn't his lack of skill at hitting you as much as it's your skill in avoiding. Chances are if you were a non moving or dodging target the super villian could hit you pretty easily, even if you were laying down. It's your ability to be up and moving (even within your hex) that makes you harder to hit...again at that power level.

Actually the old 1/2 DCV + 4 rule worked fine in representing this. For characters in the normal human range (i.e. under 7 DCV) going prone vs. range was a smart move.

For those of 9 DCV and higher were better off going with their vast defensive skills on their feet.

[Killer Shrike]

The old rule was 1/2 DCV then +4 DCV vs. ranged attack. Seems that has been dropped in 5th edition. Wonder why...

I'd go back to using the old rule for ranged attacks at over 4" distance.
It hasnt been dropped per se; it still exists, but it is covered by concealment instead.

+4 to your DCV would get halved to 2. Concealment penalizes affected opponents by -2 or -4 to hit, depending on how much target area the character is exposing.

Basically the same net affect or better for the character being shot at, and it is consistently handled along with other means of reducing your target area.

[BNakagawa]

Prone: 1/2 DCV X2 range mod penalty to hit

Hitting prone people is easy when you're standing right next to them.

Not so easy when you're 100 yards away.

[Killer Shrike]

It always amazes me how many people prefer to make up house rules to handle things that are already completely and adequately covered in the official rules.

I mean, Im all for house rules where they make sense, but I don't personally see the need to manufacture them willy nilly on a whim or when I can't be bothered to investigate the rules.

[Fox1]

Prone: 1/2 DCV X2 range mod penalty to hit

Hitting prone people is easy when you're standing right next to them.

Not so easy when you're 100 yards away.

Sadly, not a very good rule.

The core concept in HERO is that you gain a -2 Modifier for every halving of apparent target size. Your rule far exceeds that (assuming I'm reading it right).

[Fenixcrest]

My thing about Prone is that, in HERO, for at least the first phase you're prone in, it's usually right after you've been sent flying by a mighty blow. I'd say that, at best, you don't get to have anybonuses from being prone unless: you choose to be prone, or you take at least half a phase become "combat prone" after being blown off your feet.

[archermoo]

The old rule was 1/2 DCV then +4 DCV vs. ranged attack. Seems that has been dropped in 5th edition. Wonder why...

I'd go back to using the old rule for ranged attacks at over 4" distance.
Because it is taken care of with concealment. If all you can see of the person who is prone is their head an shoulders, you're at -4 to hit them. If you can see about 1/2 of them, you're at -2 to hit them. If you can see them all, no minuses. Much finer control than a set +4DCV if they're at range.

By the old rules, and from what it sounds like your house rule is, if I'm directly to the side of someone who is prone, they're at 1/2 DCV and then they get +4 added on to it. But as far as targeting them goes, the only difference is that they are horizontal rather than vertical. So under 5e they'd be at 1/2 DCV because they are prone, but wouldn't get a concealment bonus, because they aren't concealed.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

so under the old rules, people get a bonus to DCV if you stand on their prone body?

[Fox1]

Because it is taken care of with concealment. If all you can see of the person who is prone is their head an shoulders, you're at -4 to hit them. If you can see about 1/2 of them, you're at -2 to hit them. If you can see them all, no minuses. Much finer control than a set +4DCV if they're at range.

I think people are reading the rules differently than I. But I don't have my book in front of me. I seem to recall 5th not given any bonus to being prone, but noting that being prone allows you to take advantage of knee high cover turning into something more. Haven't looked at it in in while so I may be confusing games...

In any event, it may seem like finer control, in point of fact the issue is too complex for even the varying modifier given by the concealment rule. For but one example, most misses from ballistic weapons (by far the most common type in games) tend to go high and low- not left and right. This makes judging such modifiers even more difficult as does accounting for the relative height of the attacker.

The -4 DCV vs. ranged attack was just a simple flat modifier from old days. It worked, and really didn't need the confusion granted it in the new addition.

[Fox1]

so under the old rules, people get a bonus to DCV if you stand on their prone body?

No, it was only vs. ranged attacks.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

No, it was only vs. ranged attacks.

ah ok, not as silly as i thought

[archermoo]

I think people are reading the rules differently than I. But I don't have my book in front of me. I seem to recall 5th not given any bonus to being prone, but noting that being prone allows you to take advantage of knee high cover turning into something more. Haven't looked at it in in while so I may be confusing games...

As previously stated, 5th gives a bonus for "concealment", in this situation being defined as certain portions of the body not being available as targets. Only being able to target the head and shoulders of someone gives you a -4 OCV, which is the equivalent of someone who is prone and lying facing you at a sufficient distance. Being able to target roughly 1/2 of their body gives you a -2 OCV.


In any event, it may seem like finer control, in point of fact the issue is too complex for even the varying modifier given by the concealment rule. For but one example, most misses from ballistic weapons (by far the most common type in games) tend to go high and low- not left and right. This makes judging such modifiers even more difficult as does accounting for the relative height of the attacker.

You are correct that the real issue is more complex than the current rules give it credit for. You seem to feel that since it isn't perfect it shouldn't be used. I disagree. While it isn't perfect, it does a more accurate job than the old rules do, without adding much to the difficulty, so I think it is a great addition.


The -4 DCV vs. ranged attack was just a simple flat modifier from old days. It worked, and really didn't need the confusion granted it in the new addition.

If you don't like the new more accurate way of handling it, don't use it. Simple. I like the -1 OCV for doing a 1/2 move rule, so I still use it even though it hasn't been in the rules in forever.

[Fox1]

If you don't like the new more accurate way of handling it, don't use it. Simple. I like the -1 OCV for doing a 1/2 move rule, so I still use it even though it hasn't been in the rules in forever.

I don't use the new rule.

Indeed, I've spent some effort removing most of the changes in 5th from 4th. I would have avoided the whole problem and stayed with 4th, but new players should have a copy of the rules. Plus I like the new indexes.

[archermoo]

I don't use the new rule.

Indeed, I've spent some effort removing most of the changes in 5th from 4th. I would have avoided the whole problem and stayed with 4th, but new players should have a copy of the rules. Plus I like the new indexes.

Cool, problem solved. Personally, I like the direction that 5th has taken. Each to their own...