| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This AoO mechanic does say you can make this free action out of turn.
No, it doesn't.
Attacks of Opportunity says you can attack "for free" and refers to them as "free attacks" but nowhere does it say that making an attack of opportunity is a free action.
The only time actions are mentioned in that entire section is referring to the actions that provoked the AoO, and actions you can take to avoid provoking an AoO. (And the image caption also incorrectly lists taking a 5-foot step as a free action)
Since making an AoO has no defined action type, it can either be interpreted as "Not an action" or as a Miscellaneous Action, or "No Action" as the table says, or having no action type at all.
Thus the argument hinges on whether "not an action" (or whatever you decide making an AoO is classified as) is still considered an action at all. If it's an action, then dazed explicitly prohibits it. If it's not an action, then dazed only implicitly prohibits it.
|
AoO's are in themselves an immediate action in response to a previous condition(i.e. something provoked.), you'd need to be more specific and explain the scenario, but I would 'assume' no you can't trump an AoO with an immediate action. With the possible exception that if your AoO somehow provoked an AoO...that gets kinda headachey though.
Taking this point Winterwalker, I believe that AoO can not be interrupted. The AoO is triggered... it is immediately resolved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
...list...Note that an AoO is not listed as a common free action.
Note the bolded part. It's exclusion from the list doesn't invalidate it as being a free action. (Doesn't mean it is either of course...).
Secondly, a character can not make more than one standard action in a turn. A Free action does not allow you to break this rule. A free action is an action that takes you virtually no time... are you suggesting an attack at full BAB takes no time?
Many things which are free actions do actually take time. Speaking does take time - even just a quick yes/no, battle shout, whatever. For game purposes these are simply considered to take little enough time that holding up your stop watch against the 6 second round is excessive.
Taking this point Winterwalker, I believe that AoO can not be interrupted. The AoO is triggered... it is immediately resolved.
This is a general rule for AoO's. Explicit rules will trump it. Another player using an immediate action to trump it would be an explicit rule.
|
|
If it's an action, then dazed explicitly prohibits it. If it's not an action, then dazed only implicitly prohibits it.
That is not techincally right.
If it is not an action that does not prohibit it period as dazed means a character can not act.The fact of the matter is that a daze creature can not act so in turn it does not threaten squares.
For what ever reason or condition that legally comes about a daze character COULD make an AoO as it is not an action.
I know it is a minor point but it is clearer in terms of the question I first posed.
|
AoO is not an actionYes it is.
It's an immediate action.
It is not. If you take an AoO, you are not denied your swift action for your next turn.
Darn it - missed that one.
Obviously you're right - it's possible to take multiple AoOs in a turn(assuming you have combat reflexes, of course).
Looking at the wording for limiting immediate actions, though, does help answer one question. In the definition of an Attack of Opportunity, it says "most characters can only make one per round".So , by RAW, this:
(start of round)
- Opponent A provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on A
- Your turn - you attack somebody
- Opponent B provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on B
is illegal unless you have combat reflexes. Personally I'd be very tempted to allow it, and limit opportunity attacks between turns rather than in some arbitrary thing called a round. Seeing immediate actions being limited (to one) in exactly that way makes this seem reasonable, if not RAW.
(But you still can't take an AoO when you're dazed)
Attack of Opportunity is a free melee attack.Correct.
An attack is a standard action.Incorrect.
Some attacks are indeed standard actions. Such as the attack made with the attack action.
Other attacks are not standard actions. Such as attacks made as part of a full-attack, or from casting a touch spell, or an attack of opportunity.
To be clear, I'm not talking about "other" attacks, like the ones you listed. An attack (a straight forward plain ol' normal attack) is a standard action.
Just like the attack you take with an Attack of Opportunity, the only restriction that it is a "melee" attack.
|
|
@bbangerter
I get your point. You can not disagree that a player only gets one standard action a turn though...
I still disagree with the immediate action. To further my point, an AoO is resolved immediately thus there is no time... no time to take an immediate action for example.
As soon as the AoO is announced it is IMMEDIATELY resolved. Done there and then... not an action to be interrupted.
|
I still do not agree that an AoO is an action. I respectfully add more fuel against GM Jeff point.
"Free ActionsFree actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
Cease Concentration on Spell
You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action.
Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.
Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
Note that an AoO is not listed as a common free action.
Secondly, a character can not make more than one standard action in a turn. A Free action does not allow you to break this rule. A free action is an action that takes you virtually no time... are you suggesting an attack at full BAB takes no time?
Thirdly, if an AoO was a free action it would appear in the offical actions in combat table.
An AoO is not an action!!!! It just happens. :)
If Dazed, you're not threatening any squares due to not being able to attack. That comes before anything else, and still stops you from getting an undefined attack option. Checking my wording, ya seems clear.
As soon as the AoO is announced it is IMMEDIATELY resolved. Done there and then... not an action to be interrupted.
Resolved immediately before the provoking character can take any more of his normal round actions - or finishing moving first, etc. It would not prohibit the provoking player from using an immediate action if they had one available to use. It would not prohibit anyone else in the area from using an immediate action.
|
|
is illegal unless you have combat reflexes. Personally I'd be very tempted to allow it, and limit opportunity attacks between turns rather than in some arbitrary thing called a round. Seeing immediate actions being limited (to one) in exactly that way makes this seem reasonable, if not RAW.(But you still can't take an AoO when you're dazed)
I think from the context of you statement, a dazed character could make an AoO as it is not action. But you are correct that a dazed character can not make an AoO because a dazed character does not threaten squares :)
I firmly believe they would immediate that appears in the description of AoO does not refer to immediate action but is implying, no stating, that the AoO is resolved immediately. I.e. roll the attack dice, the AoO can not be interrupted.
After all you can make an immediate action at anytime... but since an AoO is not an action it takes no time.... immediate.
|
|
Just like the attack you take with an Attack of Opportunity, the only restriction that it is a "melee" attack.
SNAP SHOT circumvents this. A range attack can be used for an AoO in this case.
Again... you can only take one standard action in a turn. Your logic is flawed because you are assuming the word free is referring to a free action.
The word free is being used literially. This clears up the point if you make an AoO before the character acts in the turn.
|
|
O.K. let's flowchart this bad boy.
Scenario set up.
The PC, with weapon in hand, is not flat footed at any time, squares off against a generic monster. They are both medium sized and in melee with each other.
The PC swings at the monster on her turn and whatever it doesnt matter hit or miss.
The monster can cast spells, but is dumb enough that it doesn't even bother trying to cast defensively.
This threatens an AoO, and the PC swings for free, and misses, before the spell goes off.
Uninterrupted the spell goes off, DAZE! The PC is now Dazed for 1 round.
PCs turn, he stands there dazed unable to take any action.
Monster tries to cast another spell, knowing the PC will recover shortly, he tries to cast sleep, and again is only smart enough to cast a few spells, but not really cast defensively or take steps out melee, and provokes another AoO.
Because PC is still dazed, and unable to provoke AoOs, he can't make a free no specific or whatever action and do that.
Because to be able to provoke it does say you need to actually threaten, i.e. be able to make an attack into that square, which you cannot do (attack) while dazed.
So you would never get to the point you are making about the way AoO are resolved.
Thats's correct, yes?
P.s. thanks Jiggy, I'll consider those words next post. I wasn't offended and i take criticism just fine. :)
|
|
I still disagree with the immediate action. To further my point, an AoO is resolved immediately thus there is no time... no time to take an immediate action for example.As soon as the AoO is announced it is IMMEDIATELY resolved. Done there and then... not an action to be interrupted.
Except that taking the attack of opportunity can, itself, provoke an attack of opportunity (which interrupts the first one), and so on.
Jiggy pointed you to one example here. There are lots of other examples to be found on other threads, too.
|
|
Resolved immediately before the provoking character can take any more of his normal round actions - or finishing moving first, etc. It would not prohibit the provoking player from using an immediate action if they had one available to use. It would not prohibit anyone else in the area from using an immediate action.
As soon as the AoO is announced it is IMMEDIATELY resolved. Done there and then... not an action to be interrupted.
My arguement is that an immediate action takes time. An AoO is not an action and takes no time as it is resolved immediately.
I can see out an immediate action can be used to "interrupt" an action... but I can not see how it can be used to "interrupt" a no action.
|
|
I still disagree with the immediate action. To further my point, an AoO is resolved immediately thus there is no time... no time to take an immediate action for example.As soon as the AoO is announced it is IMMEDIATELY resolved. Done there and then... not an action to be interrupted.
Except that taking the attack of opportunity can, itself, provoke an attack of opportunity (which interrupts the first one), and so on.
Jiggy pointed you to one example here. There are lots of other examples to be found on other threads, too.
I can live with that... it is basically a no action being interrupted by another no action. From a logically point makes sense. Surely though these infinite loop scenarios must have a ruling from those paizo type staff... or common sense preveils.
In in that worse case duelist scenario... they would eventually run out of attack of opportunities. There is only +X DEX bonus that combat reflexes can be used. X is a finite value. And to boot just because an AoO is triggered doesn't mean the character cannot chooose NOT to make an attack.
Please Mr Duelist... choose not to make the AoO. :)
|
|
The way I see it yes.
The sequence is spot on.
O.K. let's flowchart this bad boy.
Scenario set up.
The PC, with weapon in hand, is not flat footed at any time, squares off against a generic monster. They are both medium sized and in melee with each other.
The PC swings at the monster on her turn and whatever it doesnt matter hit or miss.The monster can cast spells, but is dumb enough that it doesn't even bother trying to cast defensively.
This threatens an AoO, and the PC swings for free, and misses, before the spell goes off.
Uninterrupted the spell goes off, DAZE! The PC is now Dazed for 1 round.
PCs turn, he stands there dazed unable to take any action.
Monster tries to cast another spell, knowing the PC will recover shortly, he tries to cast sleep, and again is only smart enough to cast a few spells, but not really cast defensively or take steps out melee, and provokes another AoO.
Because PC is still dazed, and unable to provoke AoOs, he can't make a free no specific or whatever action and do that.
Because to be able to provoke it does say you need to actually threaten, i.e. be able to make an attack into that square, which you cannot do (attack) while dazed.
So you would never get to the point you are making about the way AoO are resolved.
Thats's correct, yes?
** spoiler omitted **
Just like the attack you take with an Attack of Opportunity, the only restriction that it is a "melee" attack.SNAP SHOT circumvents this. A range attack can be used for an AoO in this case.
Again... you can only take one standard action in a turn. Your logic is flawed because you are assuming the word free is referring to a free action.
The word free is being used literially. This clears up the point if you make an AoO before the character acts in the turn.
I'm not talking about "exceptions" to the normal rule, I'm just talking about the normal rule. Of course there are many, many exceptions to every rule.
I know it's not a "Free Action", it's a free "Standard Action". It's a situation where the game says, "Here, take another standard action if you want to".
Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack...
Attack: Making an attack is a standard action.
I know there are exceptions to these rules, but we aren't talking about those exceptions. I'm talking about a normal attack from a normal Attack of Opportunity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the wording for limiting immediate actions, though, does help answer one question. In the definition of an Attack of Opportunity, it says "most characters can only make one per round".So , by RAW, this:
(start of round)
- Opponent A provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on A
- Your turn - you attack somebody
- Opponent B provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on B
is illegal unless you have combat reflexes. Personally I'd be very tempted to allow it, and limit opportunity attacks between turns rather than in some arbitrary thing called a round. Seeing immediate actions being limited (to one) in exactly that way makes this seem reasonable, if not RAW.
You are interpreting incorrectly.
That is start of turn, not start of round.
Start of turn
- Opponent A provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on A
- Your turn - you attack somebody and your Attack of Opportunity counter resets to zero
- Opponent B provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on B
is perfectly legal.
Now, without combat reflexes, the following is illegal:
- Your turn - you attack somebody
- Opponent A provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on A
- Opponent B provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on B
An attack (a straight forward plain ol' normal attack) is a standard action.
If you're using a standard action to make an attack action, then yes.
If you're not using a standard action to make an attack action, then no.
There is nothing in the rules that says an AoO is an attack action, or any other kind of standard action. It can't be, because otherwise no-one would ever be able to take one.
Further, there's nothing in the rules defining what type of action an AoO is, or if it even has an action type at all. Hence, the argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uninterrupted the spell goes off, DAZE! The PC is now Dazed for 1 round.
PCs turn, he stands there dazed unable to take any action.
Monster tries to cast another spell, knowing the PC will recover shortly, he tries to cast sleep, and again is only smart enough to cast a few spells, but not really cast defensively or take steps out melee, and provokes another AoO.
Because PC is still dazed, and unable to provoke AoOs, he can't make a free no specific or whatever action and do that.
Daze lasts for one round. This means at the beginning of monster's turn, the PC is no longer dazed. Thus, when monster provokes by attempting to cast sleep, the PC may make an attack of opportunity.
The Combat Round: "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on."
|
|
Looking at the wording for limiting immediate actions, though, does help answer one question. In the definition of an Attack of Opportunity, it says "most characters can only make one per round".So , by RAW, this:
(start of round)
- Opponent A provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on A
- Your turn - you attack somebody
- Opponent B provokes
- You take an attack of opportunity on B
is illegal unless you have combat reflexes. Personally I'd be very tempted to allow it, and limit opportunity attacks between turns rather than in some arbitrary thing called a round. Seeing immediate actions being limited (to one) in exactly that way makes this seem reasonable, if not RAW.
You are interpreting incorrectly.
That is start of turn, not start of round.
No - I really meant start of round. Combat runs in rounds (starting off with a surprise round, if appropriate). To take a concrete example, let's say that was the start of the second round of combat, and I hadn't taken any attack of opportunity in the first round. I was just pointing out that as the RAW on Attacks of Opportunity limit me to one per round, not one per turn, the sequence I posted was technically illegal.
|
|
@GM Jeff
Let me expand my previous post.
I believe you are taking the 'free attacks' from the AoO desciption and using the description 'making an attack is a standard action' from the standard action description. That right?
I believe the word free attacks mean that the attacks are free and do not count towards you normal melee attacks - literially free.
Whether or not the AoO is a free standard action you would be limited to one attack as the rules state that you can only one standard action a round. That doesn't seem right to me.
Combat runs in rounds (starting off with a surprise round, if appropriate).
Yep. Sadly, rounds, turns, and even "actions" are occasionally used interchangeably.
A round is the time from highest initiative to lowest.
A full round is the time between a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round.
A turn is the actions made by a character at a specific initiative count.
Sometimes "action" is used to mean turn, such as in Initiative Consequences of Delaying.
|
|
Uninterrupted the spell goes off, DAZE! The PC is now Dazed for 1 round.
PCs turn, he stands there dazed unable to take any action.
Monster tries to cast another spell, knowing the PC will recover shortly, he tries to cast sleep, and again is only smart enough to cast a few spells, but not really cast defensively or take steps out melee, and provokes another AoO.
Because PC is still dazed, and unable to provoke AoOs, he can't make a free no specific or whatever action and do that.
Daze lasts for one round. This means at the beginning of monster's turn, the PC is no longer dazed. Thus, when monster provokes by attempting to cast sleep, the PC may make an attack of opportunity.
The Combat Round: "Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on."
my bad in that I thought I typed in "extend spell Daze" i.e. a 2 round Daze. Sorry, your right though in that non-extended Daze scenario.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Bob is a level 1 Commoner. He doesn't have combat reflexes, and he has no special abilities at all. He's got a knife. On his turn, he stabs the rapid cow with his knife. After his turn, the rabid cow tries to cast a spell, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob makes his AoO and stabs the cow again. Bob is now out of attacks of opportunity, and it's not his turn.
Does Bob still threaten adjacent squares?
Design Manager
|
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Bob is a level 1 Commoner. He doesn't have combat reflexes, and he has no special abilities at all. He's got a knife. On his turn, he stabs the rapid cow with his knife. After his turn, the rabid cow tries to cast a spell, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob makes his AoO and stabs the cow again. Bob is now out of attacks of opportunity, and it's not his turn.
Does Bob still threaten adjacent squares?
Careful here Grick. A lot of Rogue lovers are going to get very upset with this question, since if you don't threaten, you don't flank. Meaning, if the answer here is no, you cannot flank with someone who has no available AoO.
I'm not offering an opinion here, just pointing out the further consequences of this line of questioning.|
|
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Bob is a level 1 Commoner. He doesn't have combat reflexes, and he has no special abilities at all. He's got a knife. On his turn, he stabs the rapid cow with his knife. After his turn, the rabid cow tries to cast a spell, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob makes his AoO and stabs the cow again. Bob is now out of attacks of opportunity, and it's not his turn.
Does Bob still threaten adjacent squares?
I see what you are implying with this.
The answer is yes.
The commoner can make an attack because he is able to, that is, attack action or attack of opportunity. There is a limit on the number of attacks he can make not a limit on whether he can attack or not.
In the case above, he can make an attack but unfortunately used up his melee and AoO in this round.
In the case of dazed, the character can not make an attack as he has no actions if you like. No actions mean no threaten squares. Obvious once the the character becomes undazed you would expect the character to have the ability to attack so threatens again.
|
|
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Bob is a level 1 Commoner. He doesn't have combat reflexes, and he has no special abilities at all. He's got a knife. On his turn, he stabs the rapid cow with his knife. After his turn, the rabid cow tries to cast a spell, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob makes his AoO and stabs the cow again. Bob is now out of attacks of opportunity, and it's not his turn.
Does Bob still threaten adjacent squares?
Careful here Grick. A lot of Rogue lovers are going to get very upset with this question, since if you don't threaten, you don't flank. Meaning, if the answer here is no, you cannot flank with someone who has no available AoO.
I'm not offering an opinion here, just pointing out the further consequences of this line of questioning.
I believe it comes down to the ability or being able to attack. Remember just because you can attack/threaten does mean that you have to attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't threaten unless you can make an AoO, and you can't make an AoO unless you threaten, then we get a dependency loop and the universe implodes. As such, I think a better interpretation is that when "threatenability" checks to see if "you can make an attack", it's ignoring AoO's (and, as it states in the rules, it also ignores the fact that it's not your turn). So I think the check is "If it were your turn, would you be able to make a melee attack other than an AoO into such-and-such a square?" and if the answer is yes, then you threaten.
|
Design Manager
|
I believe it comes down to the ability or being able to attack. Remember just because you can attack/threaten does mean that you have to attack.Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Bob is a level 1 Commoner. He doesn't have combat reflexes, and he has no special abilities at all. He's got a knife. On his turn, he stabs the rapid cow with his knife. After his turn, the rabid cow tries to cast a spell, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob makes his AoO and stabs the cow again. Bob is now out of attacks of opportunity, and it's not his turn.
Does Bob still threaten adjacent squares?
Careful here Grick. A lot of Rogue lovers are going to get very upset with this question, since if you don't threaten, you don't flank. Meaning, if the answer here is no, you cannot flank with someone who has no available AoO.
I'm not offering an opinion here, just pointing out the further consequences of this line of questioning.
Well right, but based on the same premise that if you're dazed, you can't make an attack of opportunity because you don't threaten, if you consider someone who has spent their attack of opportunity to no longer threaten either, you run into situations where people with attack routines that no one ever questioned are suddenly useless. As a not-very-good example, if I had two Teamwork focused Inquisitors flanking an enemy and we planned on using a Broken Wing Gambit, Improved Feint Partner, Tandem Trip attack routine, it wouldn't work (unless we had Combat Reflexes) because after I took the Imp. Feint Partner AoO, I would no longer threaten for Tandem Trip.
That was kind of a forced example, but saying you have to have an available AoO to be considered Flanking is a little dubious and (I would think) clearly not RAI.
|
Design Manager
|
If you don't threaten unless you can make an AoO, and you can't make an AoO unless you threaten, then we get a dependency loop and the universe implodes. As such, I think a better interpretation is that when "threatenability" checks to see if "you can make an attack", it's ignoring AoO's (and, as it states in the rules, it also ignores the fact that it's not your turn). So I think the check is "If it were your turn, would you be able to make a melee attack other than an AoO into such-and-such a square?" and if the answer is yes, then you threaten.
Well put Jiggy. I love that you consistently make sense and display flawless reason.
|
|
@Ssalarn
To answer the question you posed in your first statement - no you can not.
The diffence between a character who is dazed and a character who has made all his attacks in a turn is that a daze character cannot make attacks while a character who has used up his allot attacks still has the ability to make an attack.
The Core Rulebook says an attack of opportunity is a "single melee attack".
Under Standard Actions it lists "Melee Attack".
The terminology is consistent, indicating that the AoO allos a standard action, but specifies what that action can be. It can only be a single melee attack.
Since actions are related in terms of how long and how much effort they take an AoO must be a free standard action.
If you are not taking the definition of Melee Attack from the subsection of Standard Actions:Attacks, then how do you determine what a melee attack is?
If you are taking that definition (which I believe you must since it the only place it is defined in the book) then an AoO is exactly a free standard action which can only be a melee attack and not another similar standard action.
I'm not offering an opinion here, just pointing out the further consequences of this line of questioning.
One should never cease to question for fear of learning the truth.
@Masika
In regards to your original inquiry, I believe some or all of this has already been mentioned, but let's streamline it here again.
Attacks of Opportunity (Core book Page 180)
- These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
- An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round.
Dazed (Core book Page 566)
- 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.
The problem in the rules for PF that you are targeting is that the book only uses Actions in Combat to describe actions, since actions at any other time are not as necessary to micromanage. You sort of have to give forwards and backwards definition to something that is not specifically called out elsewhere. In this case, I submit that "Attack" is the keyword in AoO and "Actions in Combat" (Core book Page 181) covers all forms of attacking under various "Actions" heading (Action Types specifically). Therefore, ANY form of an "Attack" would be classified as an "Action", even if the specific type of "Action" is not called out as well. Specifically here because the AoO is acting as an interruption to the normal flow of actions in a round, and interruptions are not covered elsewhere in the rules (if anyone is familiar with old Magic the Gathering, this is the very reason they turned all Interrupts into Instants).
At this point, I would classify an Attack Of Opportunity as an Action for the purposes of Combat (which is the only time it would be available as an "Action" anyways). Under the rules for a "Dazed" creature, "a dazed creature can take no actions", therefore leaving an AoO as not possible for a creature under the "Dazed" effect.
For your secondary question raised later, asking if an AoO can provoke an AoO, the rule itself specifies that "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack" (Core book Page 180) and that an Attack (melee) does not provoke an AoO (Core book Page 183, table 8-2 Actions in Combat). If someone is substituting some other action for an AoO, then it should be reviewed on a case by case basis for the ability/feat/spell/etc that is changing their AoO and see how the specific ability/feat/spell/etc itself would tackle the given situation.
An easier way to look at all of this is to go with the implied use/meaning of what you are asking. The Dazed condition, at the core, is to effectively skip a characters offensive actions for 1 turn (imho). That would include offensive reactions to me, which is really what an AoO is. The Dazed character/npc is in a situation of slight confusion, such as right after awakening, and is being defensive while their brain catches up, not looking to seize an advantage, such as an opening that can be taken with an AoO. By their next time to act, they have caught back up and may continue as normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An immediate action does indeed go before an attack of opportunity is resolved. If you, say, use some sort of powerful immediate action to teleport 200 feet away before an attack of opportunity goes off, you can escape that attack (assuming that weird power doesn't ITSELF provoke such an attack).
A dazed creature cannot make attacks of opportunity.