Rules you didn't realize

1383 posts / 0 new
Last post
This also means that taking a class-specific multiclass feat does not count as a being a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for qualifying for Epic Destinies.

It makes sense. I don't think anyone can "lay claim to being the world’s preeminent wizard" (Archmage, PHB p.179) with just 4 wizard spells and no knowledge of how a spellbook works.

That's a good point that I wouldn't have realized.
That is horribly OOC behaviour and any DM that plays like that ("Oh his wizard is using the "ready an action" delay action type, so I shall make the NPCs move out of the way" etc.) or lets his players play like that should be shot. I don't think that's really valid for this discussion. If it's the DM doing it, they just hear at most that the wizard is "preparing something". If it's the players, then the DM knows and isn't going to abuse the OOC knowledge.

Should be shot? WOW! That is taking the game to new extremes.

I guess we have different play styles. I wouldn't have much fun with a DM that says "the wizard is preparing something". Probably finish the session, be polite then find someone else to game with. If you can't describe what my character after being in dozens and dozens of battles having insight, arcana, perception, etc. up the wazuuu and all you can come up with is "THE WIZARD IS PREPARING SOMETHING" but you have no idea what it is or how to react, can't anticipate or suspect what it is, just forget it......don't even tell me "the wizard is preparing something" it is useless information and a complete waste of game time since it does not provide me with anything to help with my next action! Just keep your mouth shut and when I do something jump in saying AH HAH the wizards readied action does this and really messes you up AH HAH...oh don't whine, you shouldn't have a clue what is going on, your just level XYZ and have seen this ohhhhh I don't know over XYZ battles or so. Ya...."hes preparing something" alright. Even a first level character is a "hero" and anticipates, has intuition, reads between the lines, is a CUT ABOVE THE REST, and probably has a bit more of a hunch about what to do then react upon "......preparing something".

Given a choice of playing in a game that has the following two DM statements I know which game I'd prefer to play in:

"The NPC wizard ever fearful of your mighty sword carefully steps back calculating his next move. A barley visible smile emerges from his face as he spots the rest of your group nicely bunched together behind you...yet he shows restraint in not immediately attacking and keeps an ever watchful eye upon you.....waiting..... Everything you know about wizards from the stories told by your mentor to the many battles you have witnessed and taken part in tells you that he is just waiting for you to make the first move before unleashing his wrath upon your allies." DM to player: your turn.

OR

"The NPC wizard shifts back one and is preparing something". DM to player: your turn.

Point being that you don't have to go through the entire vivid painting of the NPC wizard's actions each time unless you are a DM that likes doing that and your group enjoys it. After awhile it should be fine to say things a little more direct. Some DMs and players may take this as OOC / Metagaming / etc. but the fact is that information is not OOC / Metagaming but rather is "direct talk" versus "descriptive role play talk" because it just gets tiresome to do "role play talk" all the time even to the die hard role players. Our core group of 4 with over 100+ years of playing D&D have come to the conclusion that "direct talk" is just fine because we all know that the same information can be dished out using "role play talk" but it takes a lot longer and were not always in the mood.

Anyway I don't think that myself or my current DM should be shot. I know in my games that a NPC wizard that shifts back and readies an attack that will likely be an area burst upon my allies based on something I do will not be kept secret and hidden with the description of "he prepares something" and I enjoy the game much more that way. To each his own. Personally the direction given in the DMs guide and all the FAQ answers about what players / monsters know about marks etc. I think it is obvious that it doesn't matter whether you give this information to the players in "direct talk" or "role play talk" just ensure that they have the information so as to best choose what to do. Nothing is more frustrating then having to sit outside the DMs house rolling your eyes with the other players about the decisions you made based on lack of info. Of course you wouldn't have moved to attack the wizard without warning the other players to spread out first had the DM only given you ANY kind of a clue. Ya that was something alright.....poor players....
Regarding your response to the fighter's turn being over.
No

I thought that when the fighter had taken his turn that it was over. Perhaps the fighter might say something like "I'm not using a move action or minor action so I guess I'll use a standard action to attack the wizard and my turn will be over." So if this isn't possible when does the fighters turn end?

[edit]Is it because the OAction is taken on the combatant's turn, thereby preventing it from ending? Must be - given OAction is triggered on other combatant’s turn (just not sure that because it is triggered on other combatant's turn that it resolves on other combatant's turn). So fighter can't do anything else but turn isn't over is what I suspect your interpretation is.[/edit]
Got this one right after reading through the excerpt for the Paragon Fighter:

#59: Even with a reach weapon, enemies do no provoke opportunity attacks unless they are adjacent to you. (PHB 217)
This one hurts.

In Paragon, the Armor Specialization +AC bonus doesn't stack with the Shield Specialization +AC bonus. They are both feat bonuses.

Additionally, the Shield specialization +Reflex bonus and the Lightning Reflexes +Reflex bonus do not stack, as they are both feat bonuses also.
This one hurts.

In Paragon, the Armor Specialization +AC bonus doesn't stack with the Shield Specialization +AC bonus. They are both feat bonuses.

Additionally, the Shield specialization +Reflex bonus and the Lightning Reflexes +Reflex bonus do not stack, as they are both feat bonuses also.

And thank God! Remember, choices is what 4e is all about. If they all stacked, they would all pretty much be mandatory. Do you want really good Ref? Take lightning ref...you want good AC, and you don't use a shield? Armpr spec. You use a shield? Take shield spec if you want AC and Ref bumps.

Choices, not requirements.

TBP
This one hurts.

In Paragon, the Armor Specialization +AC bonus doesn't stack with the Shield Specialization +AC bonus. They are both feat bonuses.

Additionally, the Shield specialization +Reflex bonus and the Lightning Reflexes +Reflex bonus do not stack, as they are both feat bonuses also.

IDHTBIFOM, but isn't the bonus from Armour Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the armour and Shield Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the shield? Since they aren't being applied to the same thing (neither is applied directly to AC, they're being applied to separate things that later go into the calculation of your AC), they end up being cumulative.

At least that's how I would expect it to work, and how it worked in 3.5 (but we all know the latter type of thinking is misleading as often as it's helpful...)
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
IDHTBIFOM, but isn't the bonus from Armour Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the armour and Shield Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the shield? Since they aren't being applied to the same thing (neither is applied directly to AC, they're being applied to separate things that later go into the calculation of your AC), they end up being cumulative.

At least that's how I would expect it to work, and how it worked in 3.5 (but we all know the latter type of thinking is misleading as often as it's helpful...)

Man I hope so. But RAW states that feat bonuses do not stack (PHB page 192). The information for both powers provides a feat bonus to AC (PHB 202 and 206). Come on errata, help me out! I had big plans on taking 5 defensive feats in Paragon with my defender...
IDHTBIFOM, but isn't the bonus from Armour Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the armour and Shield Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the shield?

The feat descriptions both describe the bonus as "You gain a +1 Feat Bonus to AC while using a shield/wearing X armor."

So they're not actually bonuses to the items in this case, they're bonuses that you gain while using that item.

This is something I didn't realize either. This is a great thread.

EDIT: Note that each feat does include something extra. Lightning Reflexes gives you +2 Feat Bonus to Reflex. Shield Spec gives you only +1 Feat Bonus to Ref, which is no use if you have Lightning Reflexes, but it also gives you +1 Feat Bonus to AC. Armor Specialization gives you +1 Feat Bonus to AC, which is pointless if you have Shield Spec already, but it also gives you a reduction in check penalty.

Thus if you have all of them you'd have +1 AC, +2 Ref, and a reduced check penalty.

So even if the Feat bonuses don't stack, there's still some benefit (though small) to taking all of them.
Actually, no, there isn't. You could just take Armor Spec and Lightning Reflexes for the same effect. Taking Shield Spec just saves you a Feat slot for a bit less of an effect.
Resident Logic Cannon
IDHTBIFOM, but isn't the bonus from Armour Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the armour and Shield Specialization a bonus to the AC bonus of the shield? Since they aren't being applied to the same thing (neither is applied directly to AC, they're being applied to separate things that later go into the calculation of your AC), they end up being cumulative.

At least that's how I would expect it to work, and how it worked in 3.5 (but we all know the latter type of thinking is misleading as often as it's helpful...)

Seriously? You couldn't spell out 'I don't have the book in front of me'? It took me a couple minutes to discern what this meant. Are people really using this abbreviation all that often? I haven't seen it yet. Pretty soon we'll all be posting a string of letters instead of typing full words. IDGWPTTIABWTC.
Thank you for writing.

1. No they do not stack since they are both feat bonuses to AC.

2. For Lightning Reflexes and Shield Specialization, it is basically the same. However you would use the better bonus. So you would get the +2 feat bonus to Reflex saves from Lightning Reflexes.

Good Gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Paul
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

So... Yeah. In the same vein, then, a Paladin or a Swordmage with Weapon Focus and Astral Fire would only add either weapon focus' or astral fire's feat damahe on a Holy Strike or Greenflame Blade or any other melee attack that also does radiant or fire damage, not both.

Raging Storm and Weapon Focus won't stack for Swordmage powers.

Etc, etc...
Seriously? You couldn't spell out 'I don't have the book in front of me'? It took me a couple minutes to discern what this meant. Are people really using this abbreviation all that often? I haven't seen it yet. Pretty soon we'll all be posting a string of letters instead of typing full words. IDGWPTTIABWTC.

It's actually fairly old-school; it used to be somewhat common on rec.games.frp.dnd, long before these boards existed. (I'll bet the majority of the people reading this have no idea what that address even means, or what Usenet is...)
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
It's actually fairly old-school; it used to be somewhat common on rec.games.frp.dnd, long before these boards existed. (I'll bet the majority of the people reading this have no idea what that address even means, or what Usenet is...)

Probably not... just us old-timers do.
IDGWPTTIABWTC.

I had to try and guess this one. Let's see... "I don't get why people think that internet abbreviations beat words typed concisely."

Or something like that.

Back on topic.

(PH, p. 158, "Spellbook") "After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level. You can’t prepare the same spell twice."

Nowhere in this text does it limit the spells you prepare by level. For example, a 5th-level wizard has the following daily attack spells in his book: acid arrow, sleep, fireball, stinking cloud. When he prepares spells for the day, he can select fireball and stinking cloud, since he can use two daily attack powers per day. Or he can opt for acid arrow and sleep.

When he reaches 6th level (and gains a new utility power), he can prepare two 6th-level utility powers (say, dimension door and wall of fog). At 26th level and up, he can prepare four attack and seven utility powers, and can choose them from the entire list he knows -- which, if he has Expanded Spellbook (and what wizard won't take this feat?), means he can have all three 29th-level attacks, one 25th-level, all three 22nd-level utilities, three of the 16th, and the 12th-level paragon spell.

Do not mess with an epic-level wizard.
Oh, here's another one we missed for way too long.

(PH, p. 61, "Healer's Lore") "When you grant healing with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword, add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains."

This line makes the cleric, hands down, the authority in healing. And we've been playing for about two months without seeing it.
I had to try and guess this one. Let's see... "I don't get why people think that internet abbreviations beat words typed concisely."

Or something like that.

Back on topic.

(PH, p. 158, "Spellbook") "After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level. You can’t prepare the same spell twice."

Nowhere in this text does it limit the spells you prepare by level. For example, a 5th-level wizard has the following daily attack spells in his book: acid arrow, sleep, fireball, stinking cloud. When he prepares spells for the day, he can select fireball and stinking cloud, since he can use two daily attack powers per day. Or he can opt for acid arrow and sleep.

When he reaches 6th level (and gains a new utility power), he can prepare two 6th-level utility powers (say, dimension door and wall of fog). At 26th level and up, he can prepare four attack and seven utility powers, and can choose them from the entire list he knows -- which, if he has Expanded Spellbook (and what wizard won't take this feat?), means he can have all three 29th-level attacks, one 25th-level, all three 22nd-level utilities, three of the 16th, and the 12th-level paragon spell.

Do not mess with an epic-level wizard.

Note: you are wrong.

"What you can cast per day for your level" means one 1st, one 5th, one 2nd, one 6th, and so on... check the FAQ if you would like further evidence of such.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Back on topic.

(PH, p. 158, "Spellbook") "After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level. You can’t prepare the same spell twice."

Nowhere in this text does it limit the spells you prepare by level. For example, a 5th-level wizard has the following daily attack spells in his book: acid arrow, sleep, fireball, stinking cloud. When he prepares spells for the day, he can select fireball and stinking cloud, since he can use two daily attack powers per day.

Do not mess with an epic-level wizard.

I play a wizard and totally missed that. Thank you ever so much.
I had to try and guess this one. Let's see... "I don't get why people think that internet abbreviations beat words typed concisely."

Or something like that.

You're good. I gave up early on that one.

Back on topic.

(PH, p. 158, "Spellbook") "After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level. You can’t prepare the same spell twice."

Nowhere in this text does it limit the spells you prepare by level. For example, a 5th-level wizard has the following daily attack spells in his book: acid arrow, sleep, fireball, stinking cloud. When he prepares spells for the day, he can select fireball and stinking cloud, since he can use two daily attack powers per day. Or he can opt for acid arrow and sleep.

When he reaches 6th level (and gains a new utility power), he can prepare two 6th-level utility powers (say, dimension door and wall of fog). At 26th level and up, he can prepare four attack and seven utility powers, and can choose them from the entire list he knows -- which, if he has Expanded Spellbook (and what wizard won't take this feat?), means he can have all three 29th-level attacks, one 25th-level, all three 22nd-level utilities, three of the 16th, and the 12th-level paragon spell.

Do not mess with an epic-level wizard.

I don't think so. The phrase "according to what you can cast per day for your level" does not mean that. "What you can cast per day" includes the level of the powers as well as their number.

A 5th level Wizard can cast one 1st and one 5th (or lower) level daily spell, not two 5th level daily spells.

EDIT: here's the FAQ entry (emphasis mine):

[INDENT]8. Can a 5th level wizard memorize two 5th level daily spells instead of a 1st and a 5th level daily spell?
[INDENT]At the end of each long rest, a wizard prepares one 1st-level Daily spell chosen from the list of 1st level daily spells in her spellbook. If she were at least 2nd level, she would also prepare one 2nd-level utility spell chosen from the list of 2nd-level utility spells in her spellbook. At 5th level she would also prepare one 5th-level daily spell from her list of 5th-level daily spells in her spellbook. She would repeat this process for every level that she has access to wizard daily or utility spells. She could not, as a 5th-level wizard, prepare a second 5th-level daily spell in place of a daily spell of a different level.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"
EDIT: here's the FAQ entry (emphasis mine)

(Snipped for brevity)

All right, I can see this. But the RAW invites a question: Why does it bother specifying "You can't prepare the same spell twice"? If you're limited to one of each level, then that's not even possible. Hopefully, this'll get cleared up in the errata -- right now, the FAQ is somewhat difficult to find.

As an aside, I could see maybe allowing a wizard to pick a lower-level power in place of a higher-level one, say a 5th-level wizard preparing two 1st-level dailies. That wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as what I originally posted.
(Snipped for brevity)

All right, I can see this. But the RAW invites a question: Why does it bother specifying "You can't prepare the same spell twice"? If you're limited to one of each level, then that's not even possible.

Because, each time you select a power when you level up (everyone, not just the wizard), you can opt for a power of a lower level. If a wizard decided that he prefers to take another 1st level daily power (instead of a 5th level power) when he levels up to 5th level, he'd have the possibility to cast two 1st level daily powers (and he'd have 4 1st level daily powers in his spellbook), but he could not use his spellbook to take the same power twice on a given day.

Hopefully, this'll get cleared up in the errata -- right now, the FAQ is somewhat difficult to find.

That it is. It is here: all the FAQs.

As an aside, I could see maybe allowing a wizard to pick a lower-level power in place of a higher-level one, say a 5th-level wizard preparing two 1st-level dailies. That wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as what I originally posted.

This is slighly different than what I describe above (i.e. if this is a 5th level wizard with 2 1st level dailies and 2 5th level dailies in his spellbook), but certainly not overpowered, just more flexible.
Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but it's pretty obscure stuff to know about flying:

DMG 47
✦ Remaining in the Air: If you fail to fly at least 2
squares during your turn, whether due to not moving
far enough or simply not using the fly action, you
crash at the end of your turn.

✦ No Opportunity Attacks: A flying creature cannot
make opportunity attacks.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but it's pretty obscure stuff to know about flying:

Indeed. I have learned new things, thanks.
A shield's bonus applies to AC and Reflex. I hadn't made a shield using character until today...
A Swordmage's warding, which grants +1 or +3 AC, drops if the Swordmage is knocked out (or dying) and cannot be restored until after a rest (short or extended).
#? - Potion of Healing is a 5th level item!

Although probably not that relevant for a normal campaign, this means in the main RPGA campaign (the LFR campaign) you can't buy them yourself until you reach 5th level! (You can take them as treasure if you find them).

Note: The Brew Potion feat was also originally 5th level but has been errated to 1st level (presumably for future low level potions) -- you can take the feat but you can't make a Potion of Healing until 5th level.
#? - Potion of Healing is a 5th level item!

Although probably not that relevant for a normal campaign, this means in the main RPGA campaign you can't buy them yourself until you reach 5th level! (You can take them as treasure if you find them).

Is there some RPGA rule that says this?

PHB says (p223):
[INDENT]In practice, your character will
end up with some items that are three or four levels
above your level and others that are several levels
below. There’s no restriction on using or acquiring
items based on their level, except that you can’t use the
Enchant Magic Item ritual (page 304) to create an item
above your level.[/INDENT]

and
[INDENT]Your DM might say that you can
track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that
you might have to do some searching, but in general you
can buy any item you can afford.[/INDENT]


So I can't see where you get this.
#? - Potion of Healing is a 5th level item!

Although probably not that relevant for a normal campaign, this means in the main RPGA campaign you can't buy them yourself until you reach 5th level! (You can take them as treasure if you find them).

Check the Errata. Potion was changed to lvl 1.
Check the Errata. Potion was changed to lvl 1.

The Brew Potion ritual was changed to level 1, yes.

The basic Healing Potion, on the other hand, is still a level 5 item. (And the lowest level one I saw in AV was level 4.)
Is there some RPGA rule that says this?

So I can't see where you get this.

Specifically the main 4e RPGA campaign - Living Forgotten Realms - only allows you to purchase items of your level or lower.

You can get a Potion of Healing via treasure from a scenario, if it is written into the scenario (reasonably common), but otherwise you can't purchase (or make) them until 5th level.

The actual "rule I didn't realize" was that a Potion of Healing was a 5th level item, however this rule is not that important in a normal campaign (where the GM decides what happens, as you pointed out); it is more important in the RPGA LFR campaign due to it's specific rules.
#(?+1) - It's absolutely stupid, but it's RAW - Q: How many allies can fit in one square? A: As many as you want, so long as all but one are prone.

MOVING THROUGH OCCUPIED SQUARES
Ally: You can move through a square occupied by an ally.
Ending Movement: You can end your movement in an ally’s square only if the ally is prone.

First ally moves into square, drops prone.
Second ally can move into the square occupied by the ally and can end there because the ally is prone. Second ally drops prone.
Third ally can end their move in the square, even though it is an ally's square (two ally's, in fact), because they are prone. Third ally drops prone.
Fourth ally can enter because they are prone....
etc

Stupid.

Now, once the whole party is in the same square you take turns standing up (move action), attacking (standard), and then dropping prone (free).

This is good for doorways and narrow corridors :-)

Stupid. Funny stupid.
#(?+1) - It's absolutely stupid, but it's RAW - Q: How many allies can fit in one square? A: As many as you want, so long as all but one are prone.

[QUOTE PH1, p.283]
MOVING THROUGH OCCUPIED SQUARES
Ally: You can move through a square occupied by an ally.
Ending Movement: You can end your movement in an ally’s square only if the ally is prone.


First ally moves into square, drops prone.
Second ally can move into the square occupied by the ally and can end there because the ally is prone. Second ally drops prone.
Third ally can end their move in the square, even though it is an ally's square (two ally's, in fact), because they are prone. Third ally drops prone.
Fourth ally can enter because they are prone....
etc

Stupid.

Now, once the whole party is in the same square you take turns standing up (move action), attacking (standard), and then dropping prone (free).

This is good for doorways and narrow corridors :-)

Stupid. Funny stupid.

Drop prone is actually a minor action (PHB 289). And any area, burst, close attack would go after everyone in that square. And enemies would always have a +2 to hit vs. melee attacks.

Page 292, under stand up, states that you can only stand up in a square if it is unoccupied. The square is occupied, so you cannot stand up in it. You can shift 1 as part of standing. If there is no adjacent open square, you cannot stand up.

So getting everyone into 1 square is one thing, and can be done. But once you get there, getting back out is difficult.
Specifically the main 4e RPGA campaign - Living Forgotten Realms - only allows you to purchase items of your level or lower.

You can get a Potion of Healing via treasure from a scenario, if it is written into the scenario (reasonably common), but otherwise you can't purchase (or make) them until 5th level.

The actual "rule I didn't realize" was that a Potion of Healing was a 5th level item, however this rule is not that important in a normal campaign (where the GM decides what happens, as you pointed out); it is more important in the RPGA LFR campaign due to it's specific rules.

Wow, that's incredibly stupid. Your char better have his LFR ID badge which includes his name, address or adventuring area, date of birth, and level to show those pesky shopkeepers who will card you every time! Time to bring back the Forgery skill. LOL
The Brew Potion ritual was changed to level 1, yes.

The basic Healing Potion, on the other hand, is still a level 5 item. (And the lowest level one I saw in AV was level 4.)

Well I checked and you are correct. I could swear I read the change once.

I guess the memory goes first.
I guess the memory goes first.

Actually the memory goes 2nd, I just cant remember what the first thing to go is :D
#(?+1) - It's absolutely stupid, but it's RAW - Q: How many allies can fit in one square? A: As many as you want, so long as all but one are prone.

Err... yeah. Just wait until someone casts cloud of daggers on that square...
Reality is a reference point, not a limitation.
Page 292, under stand up, states that you can only stand up in a square if it is unoccupied. The square is occupied, so you cannot stand up in it. You can shift 1 as part of standing. If there is no adjacent open square, you cannot stand up.

Yes, good pickup.

Of course the multiple prone people in one square is really stupid, so I expect a decent GM to simply say "no", however I just realised a good tactical combination of the rules.

One thing that can suck is if a ranged attacker gets knocked prone adjacent to an enemy; losing an action to standing makes it difficult to get away without OA's and you probably need to give up your attack. (To avoid any OA you need to stand + shift, which only gets you one square away).

A good tactic for a defender (or other melee) would be to move (Walk if approaching, or Shift if necessary) into the prone allies square. Now, the ally can Stand Up and Shift as part of the same move action; they can then either still attack or if they want the distance Walk their full speed away.
#(?+1) - It's absolutely stupid, but it's RAW - Q: How many allies can fit in one square? A: As many as you want, so long as all but one are prone.



First ally moves into square, drops prone.
Second ally can move into the square occupied by the ally and can end there because the ally is prone. Second ally drops prone.
Third ally can end their move in the square, even though it is an ally's square (two ally's, in fact), because they are prone. Third ally drops prone.
Fourth ally can enter because they are prone....
etc

Stupid.

Now, once the whole party is in the same square you take turns standing up (move action), attacking (standard), and then dropping prone (free).

This is good for doorways and narrow corridors :-)

Stupid. Funny stupid.

Technically feasable though. It is possible to stack 5 people on top of each other if they're all lying down. I won't say it's a good idea and i fully expect the DM to impose some impressive penalties for pulling that stunt, but it is feasable IRL.
Technically feasable though. It is possible to stack 5 people on top of each other if they're all lying down. I won't say it's a good idea and i fully expect the DM to impose some impressive penalties for pulling that stunt, but it is feasable IRL.

I think it would be a stunt to pull just for the fun of it.

Party member 1 runs up and falls prone, then number 2, etc, until you get the whole party in one square (lying on top of one another).

Next roudn, as they stand up they each get a free shift (until the last person), because they are other people in the square.

Seems like one of those clown acts where they all pile into, and then get out of, a very small car :-)
Makes you wonder what they are all doing if they are lying down in the same 5ft space together...