Standing up from prone

[Hypersmurf]

Because a single action to stand is closer to the looked-for rule than two actions.

The 'regain one's feet' line doesn't mention whether or not it provokes an AoO. The Kneel-Stand rule (once supplied) doesn't mention whether or not it provokes an AoO. The Stand Up From Prone rule states that it provokes an AoO.

Doesn't this mean that the regain one's feet line is closer to the Kneel-Stand rule (once supplied) than it is to the Stand Up From Prone rule?

The action type changes in either case, so the action types of the Kneel-Stand rule and the Stand Up From Prone rule are irrelevant.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The action type changes in either case, so the action types of the Kneel-Stand rule and the Stand Up From Prone rule are irrelevant.

Definitely, it's not irrelevant. If we're looking for a rule to compare it to, I think the number of actions it takes to complete that rule is far more important than whether or not it takes an AoO (or defines if it does) or how many letters are in the rule name.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Definitely, it's not irrelevant. If we're looking for a rule to compare it to, I think the number of actions it takes to complete that rule is far more important than whether or not it takes an AoO (or defines if it does) or how many letters are in the rule name.

So would you required an opposed attack roll with relative size modifiers to resolve a feat that allows you to take your opponent's weapon as a free action?

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Give me a specific example or give me the whole text of this hypothetical feat. Keep in mind that if the rules are vague, as they are in this case, then the DM can rule either way. What you're asking for is my choice and why, so you can disagree but you cannot say it's wrong. As the regain your feet example, either way is not wrong, but you are seemingly looking for guidance on it, right?

 

[Artoomis]

...I think that in order for a free action to provoke, it would specifically state it. Otherwise it's a typical free action....

Almost by definition a move action turned into a free action with a feat is not "typical," right?

I think that you'd still provoke an AoO unless the feat specifically said otherwise.

Of course, a DM is always free to rule either way, but my expectation in a new group (not knowing the DM) would be that it would provoke an AoO.

I see it going something like this:

"Hi, I'm new."

....

"I stand up instantly without provoking an AoO."

DM: "How do you do that?"

"I have a feat"

DM: "Does it say you do no provoke an AoO?"

"Well, no, but it does say standing up become a free actaion, and free actions usually do not provoke AoS, right?"

DM: "Sorry, the BBG swings at you with his AoO..."

Hmmm.... that bit about a free action usually not provoking an AoO and therefore none is provoked in this case seems a bit... lame, doesn't it? At least it does to me. Generally speaking, rules that are changed by a feat must be quite explicit or one should assumed the rule was not changed.

The rule is that standing up from prone is a move action that provokes an AoO.

The feat changes it to a free action. No mention is made of the AoO.

Free actions usually don't provoke AoOs. This, on its face, seems to be an unusual circumstance where a free action provokes an AoO because it's a move action chaged to a free action without removing the fact that it provokes an AoO.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems straightforward to me.

EDIT: As for using two move actions (prone-knell, then kneel-stand) to avoid an AoO, that's up to each DM as no actual specific rule exists for this. I'd tend to think that prone to any other postion provokes an AoO, but not from kneeling or sitting to standing, but that's just my opinion based on other AoO rules and the general description of an AoO.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rule is that stadnig up from prone is a move action that provokes an AoO.

The feat changes it to a free action. No mention is made of teh AoO.

Yes, so then the next argument becomes "It does not explicitly state that it is the stand from prone action, hence, even though it does the exact same thing, it is not the stand from prone action.".

I find this argument a bit weak too, but there you have it.

 

[Caliban]

Almost by definition a move action turned into a free action with a feat is not "typical," right?

Nope, not right. I believe that Free Actions don't provoke unless it specifically states that a particular free action does provoke, as the examples I've quoted support. (Those would be the non-typical free actions.) I notice that you completely ignored the provided examples.

Call it lame if you want, but if that's how you want to discuss it, there really isn't anything more to say.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nope, not right. Free actions don't provoke unless it specifically states that a particular free action does provoke, as the examples I've quoted support. (Those would be non-typical free actions.) I notice that you completely ignored the provided examples, as did KD.

The provided examples did not prove your statement "Free actions don't provoke unless it specifically states that a particular free action does provoke".

There is no such rule.

There is a rule that free actions typically do not provoke, but that is not the same as free actions only provoke if they state so, especially for actions that are changed from a different type of action to a free action.

There are feats that explicitly call out that they are Free Actions which do not provoke. If the rule were as you state, then this would be redundant and unnecessary:

Arcane Strike
Quicken Spell (although it is Swift instead of Free, it still is explicitly called out as not provoking)
Ascetic Mage


The fact is that any feat, spell, or special ability that changes a rule changes only the aspects that it discusses, not other aspects. If a given DM thinks that regaining your feet from prone is standing from prone, then a rule is being partially modified and there is no "free actions do not provoke" aspect to it.

If a given DM thinks it is a brand new rule, then they did a poor job of explaining how it works with AoO unlike Arcane Strike and Ascetic Mage.

 

[Cabral]

Oh, and the Complete Adventurer allows a DC 35 check to stand from prone as a free action that still provokes an AoO.

This is probably a silly question ... but can you make a concentration check to avoid the AoO since you are using a skill? I don't think so since it's the standing that provokes, not the skill use ...

 

[Caliban]

The provided examples did not prove your statement "Free actions don't provoke unless it specifically states that a particular free action does provoke".

Never said they did. I said that they supported it, which they do.

There is no such rule.

There is a rule that free actions typically do not provoke, but that is not the same as free actions only provoke if they state so, especially for actions that are changed from a different type of action to a free action.

Semantics. Sounds like you are "stretching" to me.

There are feats that explicitly call out that they are Free Actions which do not provoke. If the rule were as you state, then this would be redundant and unnecessary:

The rules restate things all the time. It usually adds clarity, but when they aren't consistent about it (as frequently happens when you have multiple game designers), it can lead to confusion.

The fact is that any feat, spell, or special ability that changes a rule changes only the aspects that it discusses, not other aspects.

And the rule is that "typically a free action does not provoke". So the default ruling is that free actions do not provoke, although some do.

If a particular free action does not use the default ruling, then it should be stated as such in the action description. Since they did not do this for Prone Attack, it seems that it is meant to be treated as a "standard" free action, which by default does not provoke.

You have not proved that this a "non-typical" free action that should not use the default ruling. You have provided some good examples to lend credence to your point of view, but nothing definitive. (And I'm not saying that my ruling is definitely correct. Just that I think it's more likely to match an official clarification from WOTC than yours is. )

The "stand up from prone" move action provokes.
You have in no way proven that the "stand up from prone" free action provokes, any more than I have "proven" that it does not.
(Or even the "regain your feet" free action if you want to play semantics with Hypersmurf.)

So in spite of you telling me that I'm "stretching", and Artoomis telling me that my arguement is "lame" and giving a little made-up story as "proof" of his point of view, you haven't actually proven anything. You have just been repeating the same arguement over and over again.

You can be as repetative as you want, but that doesn't make you right.

So my original statement (slightly reworded for clarity) still stands: It's not clear (to me) that using the Prone Attack feat to regain your feat as a free action provokes an AoO.