Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3429674" data-attributes="member: 2011">I have to go with Egres on this one, but for a slightly different rules reason: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.</blockquote>

Verification