Standing up from prone

[Caliban]

There is no such thing as a typical free action.

You yourself stated "typically free actions do not provoke". So a typical free action is one that does not provoke.

Free actions provoke if the action you are doing provokes.

Please show me some support for this, because I can't find it stated anywhere in the rules. I've shown two cases where an action that normally provokes is specifically stated as still provoking when done as a free action, but I don't see it as a general rule. It looks like those are specific exceptions.

Standing up from prone provokes. Turning it into a free action does not stop that unless the feat says that it stops that.

Free actions typically do not provoke. I don't see where it is stated that this free action provokes, unlike the examples that I listed. You have chosen not to address those examples, but they support my position.

This is really stretching Cal.

Please don't make this personal KD. It's not "really stretching" just because you disagree with it.

 

[Digital M@]

Well, if you are prone, can you tumble? Because if so, instead of taking a full round action to crawl back 5 feet (and provoke an AoO), you can tumble back 5 feet (using just 5 feet of your normal movement). I think...

I would say yes. Ther are martial artists that can get up from prone very very quickly. Using tumble to emulate this could be a good option.


The full round action from going to prone to kneeling and kneeling to standing has some grounds for merit, but sisnce the rules neither deny this option nor verify it, it is a GMs call. The rules cannot ever dictate every possible option. You may read the rules as moving from prone causes an AOO. I would have a 5" crawl provoke an AOO, as it is not a 5' step and is not quick or fluid with in the actions of combat as the 5'step.

 

[KarinsDad]

Free actions typically do not provoke. I don't see where it is stated that this free action provokes, unlike the examples that I listed. You have chosen not to address those examples, but they support my position.

Yes, they typically do not.

If there were a rule that stated "If an action changes from a standard action or move action to a free action due to a feat, spell, or special ability, and the original action provoked, then the new free action does not provoke", then you would be correct.

There is no such rule.

Using other feats that explicitly call out that a given free action still provokes is not a rule.

You just have to (as Hyp is prone to do) ask yourself the following questions:

1) Does Standing From Prone provoke? Yes
2) Do all free actions not provoke? No
3) Does the Prone Attack feat remove the provoking restriction explicitly? No

If the answer to #2 or #3 were yes, then it would act as you propose.


What you are doing is pulling together a series of different feats and using them to support a position that is not explicitly supportable. But, there isn't a single rule that supports your position. The rule we have is that Standing From Prone provokes. You do not get a benefit from a feat unless the rules say so.

The rules do not say that free actions do not provoke.

The fact is that a free action may or may not provoke. Changing something to a free action from a move action does not do ANYTHING except change it to a free action.


For example, you cannot use Prone Attack to do an AoO and then stand up during the AoO. It is a free action, not an immediate action.

 

[KarinsDad]

Please don't make this personal KD. It's not "really stretching" just because you disagree with it.

I wasn't making it personal and it is stretching.

You don't have a single rule that supports your POV. The rules, on the other hand, explicitly support my POV.

 

[mostholy2]

Thanks for the great discussion. I've always thought that the prone rules that practically automatically give enemies AoO was unbalanced, so I'm not averse to implementing the whole "full-round action" stand w/o AoO. However, if there is somewhere that has an "official" ruling on this it would be even better.

In your early post,

And according to the rules of the game, the player is correct. This is not a house rule. Going from prone to kneeling does not provoke an AoO according to the rules. Going from kneeling to standing does not provoke an AoO according to the rules.

Where is this printed exactly? I'd like to be able to quote something before just arbitrarily ruling one way or the other.

 

[KarinsDad]

Where is this printed exactly? I'd like to be able to quote something before just arbitrarily ruling one way or the other.

The rules specify when an action provokes. Since moving from prone to kneeling does not have a listing for AoOs, it does not have one.

The rules specify that a character has penalties for AC when sitting or kneeling.

Hence, sitting or kneeling is allowed.

It is more of a rule of omission than it is an explicit rule.

 

[TheEvil]

The rules specify when an action provokes. Since moving from prone to kneeling does not have a listing for AoOs, it does not have one.

The rules specify that a character has penalties for AC when sitting or kneeling.

Hence, sitting or kneeling is allowed.

It is more of a rule of omission than it is an explicit rule.

I would have sworn that I read somewhere that going from prone to kneeling and from kneeling to standing didn't provoke. Looks like I may need to eat some crow with my GM today. Seems like every time I get irritable with a GM for not taking my word, something like this pops up after they do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The rules specify when an action provokes. Since moving from prone to kneeling does not have a listing for AoOs, it does not have one.

The rules specify when certain actions provoke. They also specify when other actions do not provoke.

The 'listing for AoOs' would be a column on the table of Actions in Combat, next to the entry for Move Action: Kneel from Prone.

It could be 'Yes', or it could be 'No'.

Until a DM gets out his sharpie marker and adds that entry to the table, the rules don't say "Kneeling from prone does not provoke an AoO"; they simply don't say at all.

"Kneeling from prone does not provoke an AoO" has no rules support, any more than "Kneeling from prone provokes an AoO" does. It's entirely DM's call, since it's not specified.

You just have to (as Hyp is prone to do) ask yourself the following questions:

1) Does Standing From Prone provoke? Yes
2) Do all free actions not provoke? No
3) Does the Prone Attack feat remove the provoking restriction explicitly? No

If the answer to #2 or #3 were yes, then it would act as you propose.


What you are doing is pulling together a series of different feats and using them to support a position that is not explicitly supportable. But, there isn't a single rule that supports your position. The rule we have is that Standing From Prone provokes. You do not get a benefit from a feat unless the rules say so.

You left out a step between 2 and 3.

"Does 'regain your feet' use the same mechanics as 'stand from prone' in all respects save for action type?"

If I have a feat that allows me to destroy an opponent's weapon as a free action, should it immediately be assumed that I'm using the Sunder mechanic?

If I have a feat that allows me to regain my feet as a free action, should it immediately be assumed that I'm using the Stand from Prone mechanic?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I wasn't making it personal and it is stretching.

You don't have a single rule that supports your POV. The rules, on the other hand, explicitly support my POV.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe that the rules explicitly support your view. I have shown examples in the rules that support me, even if you want to ignore that. I don't think the rules are clear on the subject, but I do think my view is most likely to be correct, just as you think your view is correct.

If you can't respect that, then there really is nothing more to say.

 

[KarinsDad]

You left out a step between 2 and 3.

"Does 'regain your feet' use the same mechanics as 'stand from prone' in all respects save for action type?"

If I have a feat that allows me to destroy an opponent's weapon as a free action, should it immediately be assumed that I'm using the Sunder mechanic?

If I have a feat that allows me to regain my feet as a free action, should it immediately be assumed that I'm using the Stand from Prone mechanic?

Yes unless stated otherwise.

Do you assume that if a feat gives you the ability to cast a spell, that it means that you do not have to follow the normal rules of spellcasting, just because you are using a feat?

The normal rules apply for ANY rule of the game unless a feat explicitly overrules them. You gain ONLY the benefits listed and no others. Period. No exceptions. Anything else is a house rule.