Rules Update for Prone?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey.  I was just looking up the Rules Update documents for the Player's Handbook for the Prone condition.

Right now, this is what it says:

PronePage 277: Replace the bullet point that reads "You're lying on the ground.  (If you're flying, you safely descend a distance equal to your fly speed.  If you don't reach the ground, you fall.)" with the following bullet point.  

But it gives no other bullet point to replace it with.  The online RC gives a lot of stuff, but we are having a discussion over in another thread and one of the people in that discussion doesn't want to go by the online RC, so I'm trying to find the Rules Update for prone. 
I find it incredibly shocking that you looked up the word actually used in the current prone rules, without realizing that I was quoting the rule. Why would I do that?

Prone:

The Creature is lying down. However, if the creature is climbing or flying, it falls. RC pg 232.

Bullet point 2 is on movement (pushed pulled slid crawl teleport). Bullet point 3 is penalty to attack rolls. Bullet point 4 is CA to melee, +2 to def vs ranged.

A creature can end this condition by standing up. You can drop prone as a minor. Then there is a paragraph that it still effects things without limbs. And that would be the prone rules, in toto.

Funny how I'm not willing to accept the Compendium as a rules source when it disagrees with the rules, huh? Shocker.
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.  I guess you didn't want to risk someone else coming in and proving you wrong or something?  This is close to harassment, I think.
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.  I guess you didn't want to risk someone else coming in and proving you wrong or something?  This is close to harassment, I think.

Someone else is welcome to quote it if you feel the need for that. But the idea that I'd rewrite a rule to "be right" is asinine. I'm right because the rules agree with me, not the other way around.

But I'm sure Plague or Mand, or any number of other people will happily post the exact same quote from the RC.
I wish I had replied with the quote myself on the other thread as I was tempted to do...

Alcestis gave you the correct wording of prone as it is written in the rules compendium.
Yes, Alcestis gave the correct wording in his first reply on this thread. It was a direct quote of bullet 1, and an accurate paraphrasing of the rest of the Prone entry.

It should be pointed out that the published RC is the correct, most up-to-date rule source for this. So even if the PHB errata (or the online Compendium) said something different, it is the published RC (which Alcestis quoted) that takes precedence.
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.


Because the person quoting rules text changes what the text says, or something?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.


Because the person quoting rules text changes what the text says, or something?

Because sometimes one might be wary of the source, and a second opinion becomes valuable. It is clear that Undrhil doesn't fully trust Alcestis for whatever reason (bias was mentioned). I think you might be overreacting to his request for other people's input - wrong as he may be, he is entitled to see if anyone else thinks he is wrong, too, as opposed to just Alcestis.

One might be afraid of shotgun approaches to finding the "right" answer (or rather the answer the person wants), but seeking a second opinion is not a bad thing. If he wants to ask around, let him ask around and be told by other people. If people truly want to cheat by fishing for the right answer (see: wording the question right for hilarious customer service answers), they will do so and be worse off for it, and it wont be our problem.

Tl;dr: there's no problem with asking for someone other than Alcestis to answer him (as long as forum rules are followed, of course!). Let him ask.

Incidentally, I also second Alcestis' original assessment. 
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.


Because the person quoting rules text changes what the text says, or something?

Because sometimes one might be wary of the source, and a second opinion becomes valuable.


This is making the assumption that what the person said was an opinion.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Because sometimes one might be wary of the source, and a second opinion becomes valuable.

This is making the assumption that what the person said was an opinion.

As mentioned recently in the other thread, Alcestis' venomous posting style can hinder his message. Soliciting a reply from a different person seems like a fair and anticipated response, especially if someone felt harassed by him.
I was actually looking for an unbiased third person to answer this question, Alcestis.


Because the person quoting rules text changes what the text says, or something?

Because sometimes one might be wary of the source, and a second opinion becomes valuable.


This is making the assumption that what the person said was an opinion.

Second opinion was meant as a metaphor.

Also, I could argue that it IS an opinion, anyway. It also happens to be an opinion about what the facts are, and it happens to be true.

Regardless, my point is made. 
Facts and opinion are not the same thing.
Facts and opinion are not the same thing.

That's your opinion! 
Facts and opinion are not the same thing.

That's your opinion! 

It is fun to think you're being clever when you're being wrong?
Facts and opinion are not the same thing.

That's your opinion! 

It is fun to think you're being clever when you're being wrong?


Is it fun to be destructive when you could be constructive?
Facts and opinion are not the same thing.

That's your opinion! 

It is fun to think you're being clever when you're being wrong?


Is it fun to be destructive when you could be constructive?


judging from the evidence, it must be.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let's stay within the Code of Conduct and Terms of Service.
What is a published RC and where do I find it?
The RC is the Rule Compendium a handy and comprehensive D&D rules reference, that can be found in any stores that sells D&D products. See Store And Event Locator to find one near you.
lol.  One sec while I stamp newb on my forehead
Sign In to post comments