My interpretation is that it's the same action as a single attack out of a full attack, what I would have called an "attack action", if it weren't for other people insisting that an "attack action" is actually a standard action. It's certainly not a free action or a standard action, though; it's something different and ill-defined.
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. 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
AOO's nearly universally happen outside opportunity attacking players own turn. As such they are not actions and have no action cost (indeed there is no action cost listed and they are described as free attacks). The only action you can take outside your own turn is an immediate action and those were implemented some time in 3.5 well AFTER AoO's had already existed for an entire edition.
FREE ATTACKS are just that. Free. They take no actions to use. In the specific case of an AoO, you get ONE per turn, unless you have the combat reflexs feat.
They are most specifically not 'free actions' because the free action itself can only be performed on ones own turn (with explicit exeptions, such as speaking) and the vast majority of AoO triggers happen on someone elses turn.
So no, they have no action costs.
Now, this would seem to imply that an AOO actually takes no action at all, but I can see an interpretation that argues that it is a free action. Is there an official answer for this somewhere else in the forums or in the SRD/PRD, or am I the only one who has ever been this nit-picky about it?
I would say it is its own special kind of action.
Why is this important? I usually find when these question come it because someone is about to cut the cheese, if you know what I mean. (Not saying that's the case here; just asking, because sometimes it is easier to answer when you have the entire question.)
I guess it most closely fits Miscellaneous Action.
Not cheese per se. What I am looking at is can a character make an attack of opportunity when they are under an effect that says that they can take no actions.
The reason I was curious is because I can remember having the same argument over the dying condition ("A dying creature can take no actions.")
I eventually just house-ruled that there is a category of actions called "not an action." Although as I read the rules, I think the designers intent for this was that "not an action" meant "part of another action."
In the case of an attack of opportunity it is called a "single melee attack." So, where trying to rule about such nuances think about whether you would allow the PC to make such a "single melee attack" in his current condition(s).
|
Not cheese per se. What I am looking at is can a character make an attack of opportunity when they are under an effect that says that they can take no actions. Specifically, if I cast Command (with the HALT command) on a PC (or bad guy, depending on which side of the table I am on), can that PC (or NPC) make an attack of opportunity on someone who runs by?
I was pretty sure this is where the question was coming from. The AoO doesn't have a stated action type. But, an AoO is pretty much always in the form of what would otherwise take an attack, which is an action. In the few occasions where it has come up, I've ruled that a character that cannot take actions for whatever reason cannot make AoOs either. This seems in keeping with the spirit of things. YMMV.
|
|
Ordinarily, I would agree wholeheartedly. In this case, however, there is a companion spell (Forbid Action) for which a forum post appeared asking what that spell could do that Command::HALT could not. It got me to thinking, and I theorized that a creature commanded to halt could, with a certain interpretation, be allowed to make an attack of opportunity, but a creature targeted with Forbid Action::Attack would most definitely not be allowed to make one.
I get your point, but however you view it about taking an AoO when you can't take an action needs to be valid even without Forbid Action being an option at the table. You must do the following...(even if that is do nothing) and You may not do the following... can both result in a given course of desired action being unavailable.
In the case of Command:Halt, I would use the dictionary definition of "action":
–noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active.
2. something done or performed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity.
|
You have to threaten a square to get an AoO on an opponent...you wouldn't be threatening a square if you are being grappled, helpless, under hold person or command(unless the command was something like attack), etc. We also have the rule in our house game that you do not threaten if you are prone as well, but that may not be RAW.
SO if for example you were told to die, stop, drop, fall, etc, you are being controlled by the spell and so shouldnt be able to take an independent action as long as it was in effect.
You have to threaten a square to get an AoO on an opponent.
I think you are on to something here. The rules state: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
In this case he would not even threaten because he could not make a melee attack if it was his turn.
..you wouldn't be threatening a square if you are being grappled, helpless, under hold person...
Agreed.
..or command(unless the command was something like attack), etc. We also have the rule in our house game that you do not threaten if you are prone as well, but that may not be RAW.
Rules-as-written you threaten even when prone.
SO if for example you were told to die, stop, drop, fall, etc, you are being controlled by the spell and so shouldnt be able to take an independent action as long as it was in effect.
I don't think being under the influence of spell automatically prevents you from doing something. Fall allows the target to act normally while prone; drop wouldn't necessarily prevent it from threating if the target still had a viable weapon (natural weapon, improved unarmed strike, etc).