Dimension Door Clarification

[Deset Gled]

Tertium non datur, unless you can cite a rule that proves that an AoO can draw an AoO.

Why? That statement explains exactly what types of actions can produce AoO. It does not make any statement whatsoever about things that are not actions.

Consider the statement "Two shades of red can make a bull angry." This tells me what I need to know about the color red, but it tells me nothing about how a bull might feel about the color blue. And it certainly doesn't tell me anything about how the bull will react if I throw stones at it.

 

[Egres]

Why? That statement explains exactly what types of actions can produce AoO. It does not make any statement whatsoever about things that are not actions.

Consider the statement "Two shades of red can make a bull angry." This tells me what I need to know about the color red, but it tells me nothing about how a bull might feel about the color blue. And it certainly doesn't tell me anything about how the bull will react if I throw stones at it.

Unfortunately, a rulebook doesn't work in the same way.

There are no AoOs in real life, so, in order to know what draws an AoO, you must refer to the rulebook, and nothing else.

By your reasoning, anything could draw an AoO, since that part of the PHB doesn't cover everything.

Now, once again I'm forced to ask you the question you dodged: can you cite a rule that states that an AoO draws an AoO?

 

[werk]

can you cite a rule that states that an AoO draws an AoO?

I think I'm getting a little lost... You are basing the decision of whether an AoO is an action upon if it draws AoO itself? That seems like pretty limited reasoning, to me, because there are plenty actions that do not draw AoO that are definitely actions. So it would be possible for an AoO to not draw AoO and still be an action, but I'll digress...

For the sake of argument, let's consider the question though.
If you believe the RotG about creatures with reach, yes, AoO could draw AoO. I don't like that article myself, and don't play it like that IMC.

Is there any other case where an AoO could draw an AoO?

I can't think of any other than that RotG that expressly says that it is an interpretation of the rules and not RAW. Please let us know of any that you can think up, I'm not well versed on all the splat material, but I'm working on it constantly.

 

[Egres]

I think I'm getting a little lost... You are basing the decision of whether an AoO is an action upon if it draws AoO itself?

Don't worry.

Let Deset Glad answer.

I can't think of any other than that RotG that expressly says that it is an interpretation of the rules and not RAW. Please let us know of any that you can think up, I'm not well versed on all the splat material, but I'm working on it constantly.

RotG?

Nope.

From the FAQ 3.5:

Is it possible for an attack of opportunity to provoke an
attack of opportunity? For example, a fighter attempts to
trip a cleric. The cleric chooses to make a sunder attack
against the fighter’s weapon as his attack of opportunity.
Does the sunder attack then provoke an attack of
opportunity from the fighter?

Yes. An attack of opportunity is adjudicated just like any
other attack, and it is subject to the same rules (including
provoking additional attacks of opportunity). This can lead to
odd situations where as the reason for the original action no
longer exists. If this starts to confuse you, just remember that
D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not
necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every
maneuver. Even the “sequential” nature of D&D combat—I
make my attacks, then you make your attacks, then I make my
attacks, and so forth—is an artificial creation used to keep
combat moving quickly.
Using the example you provide, the fighter is indeed
allowed to make an attack of opportunity against the cleric.
(This attack could, in turn, provoke yet another attack of
opportunity from the cleric, but the cleric could make such an
attack only if he were allowed more than one attack of
opportunity in a single round.)
These attacks are performed in a “Last In, First Out”
sequence. The last attack of opportunity declared is the first one
resolved, with the remaining attacks resolved in reverse order
of their declaration, assuming the character can still make the
attack. If the fighter drops the cleric with his attack of
opportunity, the rest of the attacks in the sequence—including
the cleric’s attack of opportunity and the fighter’s original trip
attack—do not occur. The actions are still “spent,” however—
the fighter doesn’t get to use that original attack on some other
target (although if he has other attacks remaining he may take
them as normal).


Did anyone note that by Deset Glad reasoning a stunned character could make AoOs?

 

[seans23]

Perhaps it would be better to envision a scenario.

Wizard casts dimension door and lands in a spot 5' from the bad guy.
The wizard cannot take a standard action to attack the bad guy.
The bad guy moves out of the square (not withdrawing or taking a 5' step).
Does the wizard get an AOO on the bad guy? In other words, does the wizard threaten that square even though he can't take a standard action?

I'd rule yes. It seems to me to be the same situation as if the wizard had already used his standard action.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Or, you could just ignore that line which is obviously left over from a previous edition, and all is well with the world again..

 

[phindar]

It would also save us some shoe leather if AoO's were called out as "Free Attack Actions" rather than "Free Attacks". I gotta go with Attacks are Actions (free or not) and a character incapable of taking actions is incapable of taking free ones.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, a nauseated or panicked creature could make AoO in your opinion?

By your reasoning an AoO could never draw an AoO:

I have to go with Egres on this one, but for a slightly different rules reason:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

One cannot make a melee attack if one cannot take an action. This is no different than one cannot make a melee attack if one has no melee weapon ready (shy of Improved Unarmed Strike).

Hence, one does not threaten if one cannot take an action.

Hence, no AoOs when one cannot take an action.


Going back to Egres' reasoning, it is reasonable from the AoO rules quote that only actions can provoke AoOs and hence, an AoO can only provoke an AoO if it too is an action.


Although there is no explicit rule that an AoO is an action, there are implicit rules that indicate it.

However, it would be nice if WotC called AoOs immediate actions and hence, a character could not do both an AoO and an immediate spell in the same turn.

But until they make such a ruling, an AoO should probably be considered some form of "not an action" action. Something minor that is considered part of doing something else (in this case, threatening the squares around the character). The reason is because it is not called out as an immediate action, hence, the "not an action" action is the only other action that can be done outside of a character's turn (e.g. an opposed grapple check when an opponent tries to grapple a character).

This "one does not threaten if one cannot take an action" interpretation also makes a lot more sense than a dazed or stunned character getting attacks in.

 

[irdeggman]

And I have to agree with KD


From the SRD

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

Threatened Squares: 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 enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Basically in order to be eligible to make an AoO you must threaten a square. If you can make no actions then you do not threaten and thus can't take an AoO.

Generating an AoO is completely different than being able to make one.

 

[phindar]

If an AoO is a Free Attack, and an Attack is an action, I would think you can't take an AoO if you can't act.

Back in post 3 or 4, when I made this point, I went through my logical chain of reasoning to arrive at this conclusion and I was 99% sure someone was going to respond with, "No duh, it says right on Page xx of the PHB you can't make AoO's if you can't take an action."

I still think someone is going to come along at some point and say that, but at least this topic has shown that even if it is kind of an obvious point it's still one that has caused a little head-scratching.