Imagine your the dungeon master. One of your player characters decides on his turn to: Fall prone (free action) close his eyes (blinded) and tries to fall asleep (he stops fighting, stops moving, and stops paying attention to combat). Currently 8 different mobs threaten the squares he is trying to fall asleep in on his turn. You guys all here are saying that none of this provokes an attack of opportunity?
Falling prone explicitly doesn't provoke AoOs, that's absolutely a rule. It's not like you're just flopping to the ground. A better example would be a modern soldier diving forward to the ground in order to benefit from a low hill or something to block bullets, it's a tactical combat maneuver. As for the rest, there is no action, RAW, to fall asleep. If you were to create houserules to reflect this action, then it would be appropriate to have it provoke AoOs.
@x-codes: You can't make up an argument, act like I made it, then refute it. (Well I suppose you can, but it's not very effective)
My first point was my own argument, not yours. The section on the
action of falling prone has absolutely no bearing on other people's actions that cause you to fall prone, which is how your "slumping" rule was initially described to me.
My second point refutes your exact statement to me that, after getting run through by a spear, you are not prone from being knocked unconscious, but merely "slumping." That's why it's in quotes, it's your own word.
My third point is just to clarify that making D&D more "realistic" requires rules to be changed. You can't say that they're not rules changes because that's how things happen in real life. I'll admit that you haven't said this yet, but it's a common argument that DMs like you try to make once their obnoxious houserules get debunked as not RAW.