Aoo's while dazed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Aoo's while dazed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
shanizar
11-01-05, 12:41 PM I was wondering if a dazed creature still gets to make attacks of opportunity. I guess the question is wether it is considered "an action".

Hope someone can help with this question, and please include sources if possible.
tarkin
11-01-05, 02:10 PM I would say yes, AoO's are an action
Colmarr
11-01-05, 02:56 PM Agreed. AoOs are an attack, and an attack is a standard action.
Tony Vargas
11-01-05, 02:59 PM I see the dazed condition as something of a 'loose your turn' effect. I think it'd be reasonable to allow a dazed character to take an AoO, if he hadn't already used up his AoOs since his last action. However, threatening is based on the 'ability' to make an attack into a given square. Making an attack is certainly an action, so, since a Dazed opponent can't make an attack, it also wouldn't be unreasonable to rule that he doesn't threaten (and thus can't take AoOs). It's odd that conditions like Dazed or Stunned don't make mention of threatening, since it's an important aspect of 3E combat...
shanizar
11-01-05, 03:32 PM So we have opinions on both sides then... No one who knows if this has been addressed in any faq or article?
Nom
11-01-05, 04:04 PM I would think (and have always ruled) that loss of threatening is implicit in loss of actions. If you can't take any actions then you can't take attack actions. If you can't take attack actions then you can't threaten (the definition of threatening is 'squares into which you can make an attack'). If you can't threaten then no AoO.

It would be helpful if it were explicit, but I think it's pretty obvious how it's supposed to work.
Plothos
11-01-05, 05:46 PM I agree with Nom on this one. If you can't attack, you don't threaten, which is required for an AoO.
Shadowfax7
11-01-05, 08:03 PM My 2 cp.

An AoO is an action and you can't take actions for the round (or more) you are dazed.
Tony111
11-01-05, 10:51 PM Just for the record, I agree with Nom and the others.

Here is a devil's advocate argument, however:

:devil:

When you are dazed you lose your actions.

Is an AoO an action?

It is not a full round action.
It is not a standard action.
It is not a move action.
It is not a free action (can't take free actions on someone else's turn).
It is not a swift action.
It is not an immeditate action.

So it does not appear to be "an action" of any kind as defined by the rules.

Hence you can take AoO's while dazed.

Of course, I agree with you guys, and we play no AoO's while dazed or stunned in our campaign, but I was just presenting a passing idea for allowing AoOs.

-Tony
Colmarr
11-02-05, 12:57 AM Tony, I accept the spirit with which your devil's advocate makes his submissions, please see post #3. An AoO by definition is an attack, and an attack by definition is a standard action.

Nice try, but you'll need better rules-twisting skills to get past this lot ;)
shanizar
11-02-05, 06:02 AM ok, I agree with the no aoo when dazed, but I'm a bit irritated that they haven't clarified it anywhere. But the problem is of course in the writing of the devil's advocate, which is correct in its own way.

@Colmarr: your logic is very flawed if you're saying that an AOO is a standard action... the attack action is a standard action, not an attack.
The_Ditto
11-02-05, 07:53 AM I see the dazed condition as something of a 'loose your turn' effect.

.. and they remain dazed until the start of their next turn ...

ergo .. no AoOs ... until they get they're next turn ...

An example:

I play a Wilder .. so I occasionaly daze myself .. (I surge alot .. :cool: )

Anyway:

Turn 1: Manifest power - surge - daze ...

Turn 2: "Recover from being dazed" .. no actions .. lose this turn .. but no longer dazed ...

Turn 3: Manifest power ... continue ...

The trick here is, I was dazed for the period between turn 1 and turn 2
ie No AoOs

After Turn 2 (ie "the end of my next turn" as per the enervation rules) I am no longer dazed ... I'm past my turn, so no actions ... but I can now take AoOs between Turn 2 and Turn 3... as I am no longer dazed.

I understand there are other mechanics in the game which might cause daze condition ... but this is the one that pops into my head .. so I figured it would make a good example .. :tiphat:
Tony Vargas
11-02-05, 12:12 PM This is also prettymuch from the "Devil's Advocate" PoV, since I can see ruling it either way, and can't really object to the logic of the majority opinion, but....

I took a look at the Daze spell and it says: "A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it." Now, being able to make an AoO-provoking attack - like an unarmed strike, unarmed trip, disarm, sunder, or grapple - without suffering an AoO, is certainly an 'advantage.'

It'd be an easier call if the description of daze actually said something about threatening, or even just explained the concept of the dazed condition a little better. Is a Dazed character confused, are his perceptions muddled, is he tired, bored, or what? Aparently, Dazed characters can react, since they retain thier DEX bonus to AC. That would seem to make it a less severe condition than, for instance, being flat-footed.

.. and they remain dazed until the start of their next turn ... Maybe wilders do, but victims of a Daze spell are Dazed for the spell's durration - which is 1 round, or, until the caster's next action. Still amounts to 'losing a turn' thanks to the cyclical initiative system, but it does mean that there will be a period between the victim's last action, and the casting of the Daze, and between the caster's next action and the victims following action, durring which he will not act, but will no longer be Dazed. Given that, I guess I have to concede that, while it'd like to think of it as a 'lose your turn' effect, it really isn't, it's a condition that limits what you can do on your turn (to, well, nothing). :rolleyes:
glennhefley
11-02-05, 12:47 PM From the AOO page 137 PHB

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An ememy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provoks an attack of oppeortunity from you. If you are unarmed, you don't norally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, page 139).

There are many things that can make you a "non threat", dazed is one of them, being disarmed (depending on your class) could be another, being asleep, paralyzed, stunned. The point made here in the PHB is "are you a threat" or not? If you are, and the other person has made an action in a square you threaten then you get the option of AOO, if you are not a direct threat at the time the AOO was provoked, then you don't. I don't see the other side of this at all. It seems very clear in the PHB.

The Dazed spell says this : "This enchantment clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions." -- That seems pretty clear to me.. you take no actions while you are dazed. You don't move, you don't speak, you are a drool monkey. If you take no actions, you are not a threat, and if you are not a threat then there is no AOO.

Attacks of Oppertunity are single melee attacks, hence the name. AOO are considered "free attacks" so they land in game mechanics somewhere between a free action and a standard action... page 137 again.

Since a Daze PC can make no actions, not even free ones, such as speaking, then I don't see how you could think they can make an AOO.
Egres
11-02-05, 12:51 PM Edited.
Tony Vargas
11-02-05, 02:16 PM You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. This line has always been a little funny. When it's not your action, by definition, you cannot make an attack, because you cannot take actions between your initiatives. Really, it means /able/ to make an attack. Able to move. Holding a weapon. That sort of thing.

I don't see the other side of this at all. It seems very clear in the PHB.

The Dazed spell says this : "This enchantment clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions." -- That seems pretty clear to me.. you take no actions while you are dazed. You don't move, you don't speak, you are a drool monkey. Actually, you can and do move while dazed. A dazed character doesn't lose his DEX bonus to AC, he's fullly able to defend himself. Better able to defend himself than a flat-footed or flanked character, for instance. That means he's at least dodging, and very likely fighting back when attacked - just not to the extent of taking an attack action on his initiative.

Attacks of Oppertunity are single melee attacks, hence the name. AOO are considered "free attacks" so they land in game mechanics somewhere between a free action and a standard action... page 137 again. Actually, they're not on the action tables at all. They're not Standard, Free or any other type of action.

Interestingly, there are two 'non actions' in the SRD:

No Action Attack of Opportunity
Delay No
5-foot step No Could a Dazed character do either of those? If he could Delay, he could Delay until the end of his Dazed condition... :uh-huh:

Speaking is also unusual.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. I don't think a Dazed character could convey any substantive information or give an opinion, but I do think he'd likely cry out in pain or surprise, for instance.

Since a Daze PC can make no actions, not even free ones, such as speaking, then I don't see how you could think they can make an AOO.That'd hinge on whether an AoO is an action, which is not clear. A Dazed character also presumably couldn't make an AoO unless he was threatening, and threatening requires the ability to attack - Daze could be construed as making you unable to attack, so that's another strong objection to allowing the AoO.
SureFoot
11-03-05, 01:02 PM I took a look at the Daze spell and it says: "A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it." Now, being able to make an AoO-provoking attack - like an unarmed strike, unarmed trip, disarm, sunder, or grapple - without suffering an AoO, is certainly an 'advantage.'

With respect, I believe this is faulty logic, Tony. The provocation (or not) of an AoO isn't an advantage/disadvantage that the AoO taker can or cannot make. It's drawing an AoO that's a condition of the *drawer*--something the recipient chooses to do by taking an action. "Attackers getting no special advantage" is talking specifically about (and comparing to) being stunned, when an attacker gets bonuses to hit a stunned creature.

I believe this is a case where common sense dictates that there doesn't need to be a WotC sanctioned RULING. From the SRD:

"Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC. A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round."

A dazed creature can take no actions. There's yoru answer.
Tony Vargas
11-03-05, 01:22 PM With respect, I believe this is faulty logic, Tony. The provocation (or not) of an AoO isn't an advantage/disadvantage that the AoO taker can or cannot make. It's drawing an AoO that's a condition of the *drawer*--something the recipient chooses to do by taking an action. Exactly. And being able to take such an action without suffering the AoO is an advantage the attacker would enjoy, because of the condition of the defender. I'm not saying it's proof by any stretch of the imagination - remember, I'm just playing devil's advocate, here - but neither can it be so easily dismissed.

"Attackers getting no special advantage" is talking specifically about (and comparing to) being stunned, when an attacker gets bonuses to hit a stunned creature.Actually, the Stunned defender takes an AC penalty - an advantage for the attacker, certainly, but not an actual bonus given to the attacker. Stunned characters also can't take AoOs, so it could be being contrasted to that, as well.

"Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC. A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round."

A dazed creature can take no actions. There's yoru answer. Though I don't really disagree, it's not as definitive as you make it sound. An AoO is not actually listed as an action. I suppose you could say it's a reaction. :shrug:
SureFoot
11-04-05, 10:21 AM Exactly. And being able to take such an action without suffering the AoO is an advantage the attacker would enjoy, because of the condition of the defender. I'm not saying it's proof by any stretch of the imagination - remember, I'm just playing devil's advocate, here - but neither can it be so easily dismissed.

I disagree again. :-) Drawing an AoO is still drawing an AoO, whether someone actually takes it or not--or, for that matter, if someone is (percieved to be) threatening you or not. If the non-dazed character was threatening and chose to not take the AoO, would that be an advantage the drawer of the AoO enjoys? I say no.

Actually, the Stunned defender takes an AC penalty - an advantage for the attacker, certainly, but not an actual bonus given to the attacker. Stunned characters also can't take AoOs, so it could be being contrasted to that, as well.

but being stunned also denys you your Dex bonus to AC, which *does* confer potential bonuses to the attacker (SA for example), whereas being dazed does not.

I'm not sure I recall anywhere saying that stunned means you can't take AoO's--cite please? (However, since you drop what your'e holding, the likelihood is that your'e not threatening, unless you have natural weapons/IUA . . .)

Though I don't really disagree, it's not as definitive as you make it sound. An AoO is not actually listed as an action. I suppose you could say it's a reaction. :shrug:

It's not listed as an action, because it's not an "action" in the normal sense of something you do on your turn--they're sepcifically taken out of turn, and only in very rare circumstances would you take an AoO on your turn (say, if someone had readied an action that drew in yoru threatened area). However, an AoO is defined, in part, as a "single melee attack" in the SRD text on AoO's, so I'd call that an "action." Further, the FAQ says that anything you can do during an attack action--trip, disarm, sunder--you can do with an AoO.

You have my respect for playing devil's advocate--I'm of the opinion that it takes courage to do so, particularly when the majority is already in agreement. It's also very useful to actually hammer out an argument, so thanks for the opportunity. I still believe that there's enough in the RAW + common sense that no house rules are needed to say "no AoO's while dazed."
Traevanon
11-04-05, 12:37 PM As an aside I glanced briefly and thought the title to this thread was:

"AoOs while dead"

:ghosted:
Tony Vargas
11-04-05, 12:47 PM I disagree again. :-) Drawing an AoO is still drawing an AoO, whether someone actually takes it or not--or, for that matter, if someone is (percieved to be) threatening you or not. If the non-dazed character was threatening and chose to not take the AoO, would that be an advantage the drawer of the AoO enjoys? I say no. Having the option to take an AoO could be called an advantage for the defender, whether he chooses to take it or not. Provoking an AoO could be considered a disadvantage for the attacker for that reason. Conversely, if you know your opponent cannot take an AoO, you have a clear advantage in attacking that opponent, as you can choose to use AoO-provoking special attacks without giving him the option of taking that AoO.

I don't really think that the 'no special advantage' bit is /meant/ to clearly allow AoOs, but it does lend a little credence to the idea that Dazed characters aren't vulnerable, and, though they can't take actions, can still react to the actions of enemies.

but being stunned also denys you your Dex bonus to AC, which *does* confer potential bonuses to the attacker (SA for example), whereas being dazed does not.Nod. I'm saying the reference could be to /both/ the numeric penalties suffered by a stunned character (not bonuses to the attacker, BTW), and to the inability of a stunned character to take AoOs.

I'm not sure I recall anywhere saying that stunned means you can't take AoO's--cite please? (However, since you drop what your'e holding, the likelihood is that your'e not threatening, unless you have natural weapons/IUA . . .)Y'know, I couldn't find it explicitly in the SRD that you can't AoO while stunned. However, the case for it is much stronger than with Daze. You drop anything you're holding, so it's less likely you threaten, and, as when flat-footed, you lose your DEX bonus to AC.

Several conditions, though, do explicitly state that you don't threaten or can't take AoO, so the omission of that information from Daze and Stun is troubling.

It's not listed as an action, because it's not an "action" in the normal sense of something you do on your turnExactly. If you take the Daze condition's injunction against taking actions as being that specific (action types, which are always taken on your turn), then clearly AoOs wouldn't be affected. If you take it in the more general sense, then you have to wonder why you retain your DEX bonus to AC, since dodging attacks is certainly 'action' in the broader sense.

You have my respect for playing devil's advocate--I'm of the opinion that it takes courage to do so, particularly when the majority is already in agreement. It's also very useful to actually hammer out an argument, so thanks for the opportunity. I still believe that there's enough in the RAW + common sense that no house rules are needed to say "no AoO's while dazed."

Thank you. I agree that a formal 'house rule' is hardly required.

This has been an interesting thread. Though I'd probably go along with the consensus, I might want to house-rule in the ability of a character with Combat Reflexes to take AoOs even when Dazed (since Dazed seems to be a less restrictive condition than being flat-footed, and CR lets you AoO while flat-footed); or change the mechanical phrasing of Daze from inflicting a condition to forcing the victim to Delay for the durration of the spell.
cwslyclgh
11-04-05, 04:19 PM This line has always been a little funny. When it's not your action, by definition, you cannot make an attack, because you cannot take actions between your initiatives.perhaps AoO's are realy just a specilized type of immediate action ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shanizar 11-01-05, 12:41 PM	I was wondering if a dazed creature still gets to make attacks of opportunity. I guess the question is wether it is considered "an action". Hope someone can help with this question, and please include sources if possible.
tarkin 11-01-05, 02:10 PM	I would say yes, AoO's are an action
Colmarr 11-01-05, 02:56 PM	Agreed. AoOs are an attack, and an attack is a standard action.
Tony Vargas 11-01-05, 02:59 PM	I see the dazed condition as something of a 'loose your turn' effect. I think it'd be reasonable to allow a dazed character to take an AoO, if he hadn't already used up his AoOs since his last action. However, threatening is based on the 'ability' to make an attack into a given square. Making an attack is certainly an action, so, since a Dazed opponent can't make an attack, it also wouldn't be unreasonable to rule that he doesn't threaten (and thus can't take AoOs). It's odd that conditions like Dazed or Stunned don't make mention of threatening, since it's an important aspect of 3E combat...
shanizar 11-01-05, 03:32 PM	So we have opinions on both sides then... No one who knows if this has been addressed in any faq or article?
Nom 11-01-05, 04:04 PM	I would think (and have always ruled) that loss of threatening is implicit in loss of actions. If you can't take any actions then you can't take attack actions. If you can't take attack actions then you can't threaten (the definition of threatening is 'squares into which you can make an attack'). If you can't threaten then no AoO. It would be helpful if it were explicit, but I think it's pretty obvious how it's supposed to work.
Plothos 11-01-05, 05:46 PM	I agree with Nom on this one. If you can't attack, you don't threaten, which is required for an AoO.
Shadowfax7 11-01-05, 08:03 PM	My 2 cp. An AoO is an action and you can't take actions for the round (or more) you are dazed.
Tony111 11-01-05, 10:51 PM	Just for the record, I agree with Nom and the others. Here is a devil's advocate argument, however: :devil: When you are dazed you lose your actions. Is an AoO an action? It is not a full round action. It is not a standard action. It is not a move action. It is not a free action (can't take free actions on someone else's turn). It is not a swift action. It is not an immeditate action. So it does not appear to be "an action" of any kind as defined by the rules. Hence you can take AoO's while dazed. Of course, I agree with you guys, and we play no AoO's while dazed or stunned in our campaign, but I was just presenting a passing idea for allowing AoOs. -Tony
Colmarr 11-02-05, 12:57 AM	Tony, I accept the spirit with which your devil's advocate makes his submissions, please see post #3. An AoO by definition is an attack, and an attack by definition is a standard action. Nice try, but you'll need better rules-twisting skills to get past this lot ;)
shanizar 11-02-05, 06:02 AM	ok, I agree with the no aoo when dazed, but I'm a bit irritated that they haven't clarified it anywhere. But the problem is of course in the writing of the devil's advocate, which is correct in its own way. @Colmarr: your logic is very flawed if you're saying that an AOO is a standard action... the attack action is a standard action, not an attack.
The_Ditto 11-02-05, 07:53 AM	I see the dazed condition as something of a 'loose your turn' effect. .. and they remain dazed until the start of their next turn ... ergo .. no AoOs ... until they get they're next turn ... An example: I play a Wilder .. so I occasionaly daze myself .. (I surge alot .. :cool: ) Anyway: Turn 1: Manifest power - surge - daze ... Turn 2: "Recover from being dazed" .. no actions .. lose this turn .. but no longer dazed ... Turn 3: Manifest power ... continue ... The trick here is, I was dazed for the period between turn 1 and turn 2 ie No AoOs After Turn 2 (ie "the end of my next turn" as per the enervation rules) I am no longer dazed ... I'm past my turn, so no actions ... but I can now take AoOs between Turn 2 and Turn 3... as I am no longer dazed. I understand there are other mechanics in the game which might cause daze condition ... but this is the one that pops into my head .. so I figured it would make a good example .. :tiphat:
Tony Vargas 11-02-05, 12:12 PM	This is also prettymuch from the "Devil's Advocate" PoV, since I can see ruling it either way, and can't really object to the logic of the majority opinion, but.... I took a look at the Daze spell and it says: "A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it." Now, being able to make an AoO-provoking attack - like an unarmed strike, unarmed trip, disarm, sunder, or grapple - without suffering an AoO, is certainly an 'advantage.' It'd be an easier call if the description of daze actually said something about threatening, or even just explained the concept of the dazed condition a little better. Is a Dazed character confused, are his perceptions muddled, is he tired, bored, or what? Aparently, Dazed characters can react, since they retain thier DEX bonus to AC. That would seem to make it a less severe condition than, for instance, being flat-footed. .. and they remain dazed until the start of their next turn ... Maybe wilders do, but victims of a Daze spell are Dazed for the spell's durration - which is 1 round, or, until the caster's next action. Still amounts to 'losing a turn' thanks to the cyclical initiative system, but it does mean that there will be a period between the victim's last action, and the casting of the Daze, and between the caster's next action and the victims following action, durring which he will not act, but will no longer be Dazed. Given that, I guess I have to concede that, while it'd like to think of it as a 'lose your turn' effect, it really isn't, it's a condition that limits what you can do on your turn (to, well, nothing). :rolleyes:
glennhefley 11-02-05, 12:47 PM	From the AOO page 137 PHB You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An ememy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provoks an attack of oppeortunity from you. If you are unarmed, you don't norally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, page 139). There are many things that can make you a "non threat", dazed is one of them, being disarmed (depending on your class) could be another, being asleep, paralyzed, stunned. The point made here in the PHB is "are you a threat" or not? If you are, and the other person has made an action in a square you threaten then you get the option of AOO, if you are not a direct threat at the time the AOO was provoked, then you don't. I don't see the other side of this at all. It seems very clear in the PHB. The Dazed spell says this : "This enchantment clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions." -- That seems pretty clear to me.. you take no actions while you are dazed. You don't move, you don't speak, you are a drool monkey. If you take no actions, you are not a threat, and if you are not a threat then there is no AOO. Attacks of Oppertunity are single melee attacks, hence the name. AOO are considered "free attacks" so they land in game mechanics somewhere between a free action and a standard action... page 137 again. Since a Daze PC can make no actions, not even free ones, such as speaking, then I don't see how you could think they can make an AOO.
Egres 11-02-05, 12:51 PM	Edited.
Tony Vargas 11-02-05, 02:16 PM	You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. This line has always been a little funny. When it's not your action, by definition, you cannot make an attack, because you cannot take actions between your initiatives. Really, it means /able/ to make an attack. Able to move. Holding a weapon. That sort of thing. I don't see the other side of this at all. It seems very clear in the PHB. The Dazed spell says this : "This enchantment clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions." -- That seems pretty clear to me.. you take no actions while you are dazed. You don't move, you don't speak, you are a drool monkey. Actually, you can and do move while dazed. A dazed character doesn't lose his DEX bonus to AC, he's fullly able to defend himself. Better able to defend himself than a flat-footed or flanked character, for instance. That means he's at least dodging, and very likely fighting back when attacked - just not to the extent of taking an attack action on his initiative. Attacks of Oppertunity are single melee attacks, hence the name. AOO are considered "free attacks" so they land in game mechanics somewhere between a free action and a standard action... page 137 again. Actually, they're not on the action tables at all. They're not Standard, Free or any other type of action. Interestingly, there are two 'non actions' in the SRD: No Action Attack of Opportunity Delay No 5-foot step No Could a Dazed character do either of those? If he could Delay, he could Delay until the end of his Dazed condition... :uh-huh: Speaking is also unusual. Speak In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. I don't think a Dazed character could convey any substantive information or give an opinion, but I do think he'd likely cry out in pain or surprise, for instance. Since a Daze PC can make no actions, not even free ones, such as speaking, then I don't see how you could think they can make an AOO.That'd hinge on whether an AoO is an action, which is not clear. A Dazed character also presumably couldn't make an AoO unless he was threatening, and threatening requires the ability to attack - Daze could be construed as making you unable to attack, so that's another strong objection to allowing the AoO.
SureFoot 11-03-05, 01:02 PM	I took a look at the Daze spell and it says: "A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it." Now, being able to make an AoO-provoking attack - like an unarmed strike, unarmed trip, disarm, sunder, or grapple - without suffering an AoO, is certainly an 'advantage.' With respect, I believe this is faulty logic, Tony. The provocation (or not) of an AoO isn't an advantage/disadvantage that the AoO taker can or cannot make. It's drawing an AoO that's a condition of the drawer--something the recipient chooses to do by taking an action. "Attackers getting no special advantage" is talking specifically about (and comparing to) being stunned, when an attacker gets bonuses to hit a stunned creature. I believe this is a case where common sense dictates that there doesn't need to be a WotC sanctioned RULING. From the SRD: "Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC. A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round." A dazed creature can take no actions. There's yoru answer.
Tony Vargas 11-03-05, 01:22 PM	With respect, I believe this is faulty logic, Tony. The provocation (or not) of an AoO isn't an advantage/disadvantage that the AoO taker can or cannot make. It's drawing an AoO that's a condition of the drawer--something the recipient chooses to do by taking an action. Exactly. And being able to take such an action without suffering the AoO is an advantage the attacker would enjoy, because of the condition of the defender. I'm not saying it's proof by any stretch of the imagination - remember, I'm just playing devil's advocate, here - but neither can it be so easily dismissed. "Attackers getting no special advantage" is talking specifically about (and comparing to) being stunned, when an attacker gets bonuses to hit a stunned creature.Actually, the Stunned defender takes an AC penalty - an advantage for the attacker, certainly, but not an actual bonus given to the attacker. Stunned characters also can't take AoOs, so it could be being contrasted to that, as well. "Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC. A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round." A dazed creature can take no actions. There's yoru answer. Though I don't really disagree, it's not as definitive as you make it sound. An AoO is not actually listed as an action. I suppose you could say it's a reaction. :shrug:
SureFoot 11-04-05, 10:21 AM	Exactly. And being able to take such an action without suffering the AoO is an advantage the attacker would enjoy, because of the condition of the defender. I'm not saying it's proof by any stretch of the imagination - remember, I'm just playing devil's advocate, here - but neither can it be so easily dismissed. I disagree again. :-) Drawing an AoO is still drawing an AoO, whether someone actually takes it or not--or, for that matter, if someone is (percieved to be) threatening you or not. If the non-dazed character was threatening and chose to not take the AoO, would that be an advantage the drawer of the AoO enjoys? I say no. Actually, the Stunned defender takes an AC penalty - an advantage for the attacker, certainly, but not an actual bonus given to the attacker. Stunned characters also can't take AoOs, so it could be being contrasted to that, as well. but being stunned also denys you your Dex bonus to AC, which does confer potential bonuses to the attacker (SA for example), whereas being dazed does not. I'm not sure I recall anywhere saying that stunned means you can't take AoO's--cite please? (However, since you drop what your'e holding, the likelihood is that your'e not threatening, unless you have natural weapons/IUA . . .) Though I don't really disagree, it's not as definitive as you make it sound. An AoO is not actually listed as an action. I suppose you could say it's a reaction. :shrug: It's not listed as an action, because it's not an "action" in the normal sense of something you do on your turn--they're sepcifically taken out of turn, and only in very rare circumstances would you take an AoO on your turn (say, if someone had readied an action that drew in yoru threatened area). However, an AoO is defined, in part, as a "single melee attack" in the SRD text on AoO's, so I'd call that an "action." Further, the FAQ says that anything you can do during an attack action--trip, disarm, sunder--you can do with an AoO. You have my respect for playing devil's advocate--I'm of the opinion that it takes courage to do so, particularly when the majority is already in agreement. It's also very useful to actually hammer out an argument, so thanks for the opportunity. I still believe that there's enough in the RAW + common sense that no house rules are needed to say "no AoO's while dazed."
Traevanon 11-04-05, 12:37 PM	As an aside I glanced briefly and thought the title to this thread was: "AoOs while dead" :ghosted:
Tony Vargas 11-04-05, 12:47 PM	I disagree again. :-) Drawing an AoO is still drawing an AoO, whether someone actually takes it or not--or, for that matter, if someone is (percieved to be) threatening you or not. If the non-dazed character was threatening and chose to not take the AoO, would that be an advantage the drawer of the AoO enjoys? I say no. Having the option to take an AoO could be called an advantage for the defender, whether he chooses to take it or not. Provoking an AoO could be considered a disadvantage for the attacker for that reason. Conversely, if you know your opponent cannot take an AoO, you have a clear advantage in attacking that opponent, as you can choose to use AoO-provoking special attacks without giving him the option of taking that AoO. I don't really think that the 'no special advantage' bit is /meant/ to clearly allow AoOs, but it does lend a little credence to the idea that Dazed characters aren't vulnerable, and, though they can't take actions, can still react to the actions of enemies. but being stunned also denys you your Dex bonus to AC, which does confer potential bonuses to the attacker (SA for example), whereas being dazed does not.Nod. I'm saying the reference could be to /both/ the numeric penalties suffered by a stunned character (not bonuses to the attacker, BTW), and to the inability of a stunned character to take AoOs. I'm not sure I recall anywhere saying that stunned means you can't take AoO's--cite please? (However, since you drop what your'e holding, the likelihood is that your'e not threatening, unless you have natural weapons/IUA . . .)Y'know, I couldn't find it explicitly in the SRD that you can't AoO while stunned. However, the case for it is much stronger than with Daze. You drop anything you're holding, so it's less likely you threaten, and, as when flat-footed, you lose your DEX bonus to AC. Several conditions, though, do explicitly state that you don't threaten or can't take AoO, so the omission of that information from Daze and Stun is troubling. It's not listed as an action, because it's not an "action" in the normal sense of something you do on your turnExactly. If you take the Daze condition's injunction against taking actions as being that specific (action types, which are always taken on your turn), then clearly AoOs wouldn't be affected. If you take it in the more general sense, then you have to wonder why you retain your DEX bonus to AC, since dodging attacks is certainly 'action' in the broader sense. You have my respect for playing devil's advocate--I'm of the opinion that it takes courage to do so, particularly when the majority is already in agreement. It's also very useful to actually hammer out an argument, so thanks for the opportunity. I still believe that there's enough in the RAW + common sense that no house rules are needed to say "no AoO's while dazed." Thank you. I agree that a formal 'house rule' is hardly required. This has been an interesting thread. Though I'd probably go along with the consensus, I might want to house-rule in the ability of a character with Combat Reflexes to take AoOs even when Dazed (since Dazed seems to be a less restrictive condition than being flat-footed, and CR lets you AoO while flat-footed); or change the mechanical phrasing of Daze from inflicting a condition to forcing the victim to Delay for the durration of the spell.
cwslyclgh 11-04-05, 04:19 PM	This line has always been a little funny. When it's not your action, by definition, you cannot make an attack, because you cannot take actions between your initiatives.perhaps AoO's are realy just a specilized type of immediate action ;)