Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity

[pdmiller]

Help save a paladin...
a paladin fighting a giant was on his last hit point, when a summoned badger (brought in by an allied sorcerer) scrambled to his aid. The giant AOOed the badger, smashing it to pieces, and then cleaved the paladin, with the same result.
The question is: do you get to cleave after dropping an opponent with an attack of opportunity? As the DM reading the feat description, there seemed to be no reason why not; however, it seems unfair that someone who hasn't themselves generated an AOO should suffer because of someone else's mistake?

What say you?

Captain Carnage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What say you?

By the rules as written, it's completely legal.

A lot of people hate it, consider it illogical, and house rule it, but by the rules, the paladin is dead.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

I say, logic is above the rules and so he should live!

But as the smurfster said, by the rules it's completely legal...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ottergame]

Cleave is using the momentum of one attack and continuing the same swing to another target. Valid and it makes sense.

 

[dcollins]

...a paladin fighting a giant was on his last hit point, when a summoned badger (brought in by an allied sorcerer) scrambled to his aid...

Exactly who was the sorcerer allied with?

While Cleaves off AOOs are definitely allowed, this sounds suspiciously like the "blind kobolds" argument. If the sorcerer/badger were allied with the giant, the proper ruling would be no AOO against an ally.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But as the smurfster said...

"Smurfster"?

Good grief

Cleave is using the momentum of one attack and continuing the same swing to another target.

Well, that's one interpretation, but it's certainly not the only valid one.

Exactly who was the sorcerer allied with?

If it was coming to the aid of the paladin on his last hit point, I'd say it was inimical to the giant.

-Hyp.

 

[Ottergame]

The giant chooses who his enemies are. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to hit all of his enemies, regardless of who's group each enemy may be in.

 

[Pax]

[house rule]

The way I, personally, would handle the interaction between Cleave and an AoO that drops it's target, is, I wouldn't count that attack against the characters AoO limit for the round. That gives a benefit clearly in the spirit of Cleave, but, doesn't open up the BBEG to free extra attacks just because his FLUNKIES act like careless fools. ^_^

[/house rule]

 

[shilsen]

"Smurfster"?

Good grief

Would you prefer Smurfinator ?

[house rule]

The way I, personally, would handle the interaction between Cleave and an AoO that drops it's target, is, I wouldn't count that attack against the characters AoO limit for the round. That gives a benefit clearly in the spirit of Cleave, but, doesn't open up the BBEG to free extra attacks just because his FLUNKIES act like careless fools. ^_^

[/house rule]

Hey, if you're not a good enough evil overlord to hire good (sorry, evil...er, make that efficient) help, you deserve to suffer!

 

[youspoonybard]

By the rules as written, it's completely legal.

A lot of people hate it, consider it illogical, and house rule it, but by the rules, the paladin is dead.

-Hyp.

Are you one of those people?

I've never seen why it's illogical, nor do I hate it...