Odd but legal?

[hong]

Using what type of action? Provoking an AoO?

-Hyp.

I think you should test this. Kneel before your DM.

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[James McMurray]

Using what type of action? Provoking an AoO?

-Hyp.

Who cares?

If you find it mattering for you (outside of theoretical circle jerking) I suggest you go with whatever you and your players feel is best. Democracy In Action and all that.

 

[hong]

I wish my players would kneel before me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Who cares?

It matters for the analogy.

We have one set of actions which are undefined and under debate (removing a hand from a weapon held in two hands; placing a second hand on a weapon held in one hand). We have another set of actions which are undefined (kneeling from prone; standing from kneeling).

The way in which one set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (move action not provoking an AoO for the kneeling set) should give us a consistent basis from which to adjudicate how the other set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (free action for placing/removing a hand).

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

It matters for the analogy.

We have one set of actions which are undefined and under debate (removing a hand from a weapon held in two hands; placing a second hand on a weapon held in one hand). We have another set of actions which are undefined (kneeling from prone; standing from kneeling).

The way in which one set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (move action not provoking an AoO for the kneeling set) should give us a consistent basis from which to adjudicate how the other set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (free action for placing/removing a hand).

-Hyp.

Why?

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[Darkness]

Cheers, mate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why?

Because they're both examples of arriving at the same result as one action, via two different actions.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Because they're both examples of arriving at the same result as one action, via two different actions.

-Hyp.

In different contexts, for which different solutions may be appropriate.

I still see no alcohol here, Darkness notwithstanding.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In different contexts, for which different solutions may be appropriate.

How so?

Either the end dictates what the action type was, or the means can influence that determination.

Why should it be the end in one case and the means in the other?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

How so?

I think we are again confused.

Either the end dictates what the action type was,

The end being different situations with nothing in common except being vaguely covered by the ruleset.

or the means can influence that determination.

The means being the way in which the ruleset handles the underlying abstraction.

Why should it be the end in one case and the means in the other?

To preserve the integrity of the underlying abstraction, of course.

I still see no alcohol here, Darkness notwithstanding.