Standing up from prone

[Hypersmurf]

So, is it your contention that since they did not use the word "stand", that they were being explicit that this is a totally different game mechanic?

It's my contention that it's in no way explicit that one should use the same game mechanic.

If one can claim that there must exist a 'kneel from prone' action, due to the existence of the kneeling status, and further claim that it does-not-by-the-rules provoke an AoO, because along with the absence of any definition or description of this action, the entry for whether or not it provokes an AoO is also absent...

... then considering the regain one's feet action to be different to the stand up from prone action is not even a small leap. And, naturally, it nowhere states that the regain one's feet action provokes an AoO...

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's my contention that it's in no way explicit that one should use the same game mechanic.

And, since you have avoided stating (several times now when I asked you a direct question) that it is your contention that it is explicit that it is a different game mechanic, one must go with the rules as written.

There is one way to stand from prone. If a feat overrides that, it should explicitly state so.

This one does not.

If it is a new game mechanic, it should state how this mechanic interacts with the AoO rules. It does not.


What we are left with is a feat that states one thing. You can get up from prone as a free action. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It does not state that it overrides the main rule. It does not state that it is a new rule. It merely gives you the benefits that it states and no more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is one way to stand from prone. If a feat overrides that, it should explicitly state so.

If I kneel from prone, and then stand from kneeling, have I not regained my feet?

Why can the Prone Attack feat not let me kneel from prone, then stand from kneeling, as a single free action?

Do you not maintain that those two actions, as two move actions, provoke no AoO?

The Stand Up From Prone action, and the Kneel-Stand combination (if one allows it) are two ways to regain one's feet. Since there's a way to regain one's feet (if one allows it) that does not provoke an AoO (if one considers the lack of an AoO entry to be a rule that no AoO is provoked), and since the Prone Attack feat makes no mention of an AoO (meaning no AoO is provoked, if one considers the lack of an AoO entry to be a rule that no AoO is provoked), why it is more likely that the Prone Attack feat would use the Stand Up From Prone (as a free action) mechanic than the Kneel-then-Stand (as a free action) mechanic?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

The Stand Up From Prone action, and the Kneel-Stand combination (if one allows it) are two ways to regain one's feet. Since there's a way to regain one's feet (if one allows it) that does not provoke an AoO (if one considers the lack of an AoO entry to be a rule that no AoO is provoked), and since the Prone Attack feat makes no mention of an AoO (meaning no AoO is provoked, if one considers the lack of an AoO entry to be a rule that no AoO is provoked), why it is more likely that the Prone Attack feat would use the Stand Up From Prone (as a free action) mechanic than the Kneel-then-Stand (as a free action) mechanic?

The difference is that the feat changes the type of action without changing any other rules.

The prone to kneeling, kneeling to standing is only possible due to the fact that kneeling is listed in the rules as a possible position. There has to be a way to get to the kneeling position from other positions in order to use the rules we do have. It is true that there are no AoO rules listed on those actions and it is reasonable for a DM to give them, but, it is more reasonable for a DM to not give them (considering that two move actions are used instead of one).

When it comes to rules of omission (like prone to kneeling, kneeling to standing) though, each DM will have to rule as he sees fit.


When it comes to adding additional benefits to a feat which are not listed in the feat, then that's a different story. In this case, implying that "regain your feet when prone" does not mean "stand when prone" is drilling for a loophole.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The difference is that the feat changes the type of action without changing any other rules.

How does it change the action when it doesn't reference the action at all?

The Tumble check in Complete Adventurer says "stand up from prone as a free action (instead of a move action)". This is changing the type of the stand up from prone action.

The Prone Attack feat isn't using the stand up from prone action to describe how it works at all.

I'll go back to my previous example. If a feat says I can take a weapon from an opponent as a free action, does that mean an opposed attack roll is required?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

How does it change the action when it doesn't reference the action at all?

The Tumble check in Complete Adventurer says "stand up from prone as a free action (instead of a move action)". This is changing the type of the stand up from prone action.

The Prone Attack feat isn't using the stand up from prone action to describe how it works at all.

It references the action, just not by the exact same phrase.

Are you saying that you are NOT standing?

Are you saying that just because you "regain your feet", that this actually means something else other than standing in the game?

You regain your feet. What does this mean? Does it mean that you are kneeling and ready to stand? Does it mean you are squating?


You cannot have it both ways. Either you are standing, or you are not. If you are standing, then it is referencing the "stand from prone" action. If you are not standing, then you cannot move. You cannot take a 5 foot step, etc.

If it is introducing a brand new game mechanic, then it did a terrible job of doing so because it does not state that it is doing this. Hence, we must assume that it is using slightly different words to talk about the exact same rule.

Feats can add new rules to the game, but they must explicitly do so. There are no implicit new rules. A lack of good writing does not mean that the rules change.

I'll go back to my previous example. If a feat says I can take a weapon from an opponent as a free action, does that mean an opposed attack roll is required?

If the feat does not change the rules, then it does not change the rules.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For the record, I agree with both Hyp and KD except for the following:

Complete Warrior has a Prone Attack feat that allows you to get up as a free action as well if you are successful with a melee attack. It also still provokes an AoO, but the opponent does not get the bonus to hit you because you are prone.

The opponent does get the bonus to hit (actually the defender gets the minus to AC vs melee and a bonus to AC vs. ranged attack). The reason is because the AoO interrupts the action and when that happens the opponent is still prone.

As for why I agree with both, Hyp is merely saying the rules aren't clear, which I agree with, but I choose to rule it the same way KD does. When a rule isn't clear, I look to similar rules for guidance. In this case, it seems obvious to choose the Stand Up from Prone action and rule similarly, with an eye towards making the feat balanced. I agree that it already provides a lot, so making it provoke an AoO is acceptable. After all, if regaining your feet is not standing up from prone, what is it? The only alternative is that it provides some sort of regneration, right?

 

[KarinsDad]

For the record, I agree with both Hyp and KD except for the following:
The opponent does get the bonus to hit (actually the defender gets the minus to AC vs melee and a bonus to AC vs. ranged attack). The reason is because the AoO interrupts the action and when that happens the opponent is still prone.

As for why I agree with both, Hyp is merely saying the rules aren't clear, which I agree with, but I choose to rule it the same way KD does. When a rule isn't clear, I look to similar rules for guidance. In this case, it seems obvious to choose the Stand Up from Prone action and rule similarly, with an eye towards making the feat balanced. I agree that it already provides a lot, so making it provoke an AoO is acceptable. After all, if regaining your feet is not standing up from prone, what is it? The only alternative is that it provides some sort of regneration, right?

The reason I stated that does not get the bonus to hit (or the penalty to the AC) is because the feat states that attacks against the character with the feat do not get these.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The reason I stated that does not get the bonus to hit (or the penalty to the AC) is because the feat states that attacks against the character with the feat do not get these.

Next time I should bring the book to work.

Then I agree with you in whole, KD.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Is there an actual RULE or ACTION listed for "prone to kneeling" and "kneeling to standing"? Or is this something ya'll made up? Shouldn't there be a "prone to sitting" rule, THEN a "sitting to kneeling" THEN "kneeling to standing"?

Does prone mean "on your back"? Because I don't think you can go from "on your back" to "kneeling" without going to "sitting" or "squating" first. JMHO.