AoO and Cleave?

[Forrester]

thanks guys, i figured that it would work, but it seemed ... i dunno, off(?) to me. 'preciate the responses.

~NegZ

Your instinct is right -- it is "off", the rationalizing posted above notwithstanding.

The point of an AoO is that you're allowed one *only* if an opponent lets his guard down enough such that you can get a hit in when you normally wouldn't be able to -- because you can just make a quick strike.

Let's call the potion-drinker "Idiot" and his buddy "Shaft".

It is inherently unfair that Shaft has his guard up, and can be swung at by swinging "through" Idiot , but he can't be swung at if Idiot isn't there. Somehow, Idiot's presence makes swinging at Shaft EASIER than it normally would be. And this is dumb.

Officially, you can -- thems the rules. I don't think it can be realistically justified, though. I can see someone without Combat Reflexes being allowed to Cleave through someone who left themselves open to an AoO, to hit someone *else* who left themselves open for an AoO, though.

Time for Rule 0 . . .

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you think of each attack roll as a separate offensive maneuver against a specific foe, then yes, it seems silly that foe A's AoO will give you an attack against foe B. But if you see the entire Cleave "event" as being the results of one mighty swing, it's pretty sensible.

However if you think of attacks as single swings, many otherwise sensible things in D&D look pretty dumb.

While I am not disagreeing that the rules as written allow cleaves off an AoO, I think it is a very bad idea for game play reasons. The principle problem is it increases PC mortality without adding anything positive to combat. A secondary problem is opens up bizarre abuses, e.g. summoned blind kobolds.

 

[Enkhidu]

Sorry Forrester,

As much as I agree with you on most things (and believe me, I do), I have to disagree with you on this.

Think about it. Shaft (bad mutha...shut yo mouth that he is) is counting on Idiot being there to protect his flank. If Idiot does something worthy of his name and gets whacked by an AOO, Shaft hasn't got the time to protect that flank (that he was counting on Idiot being there to protect) and is left wide open for a cleave off of the AOO.

Course then Shaft has to lay the smack down, but that's just cuz he's Shaft.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Think about it. Shaft (bad mutha...shut yo mouth that he is) is counting on Idiot being there to protect his flank. If Idiot does something worthy of his name and gets whacked by an AOO, Shaft hasn't got the time to protect that flank (that he was counting on Idiot being there to protect) and is left wide open for a cleave off of the AOO.

Course then Shaft has to lay the smack down, but that's just cuz he's Shaft.

Total nonsense. There is no concept of "protecting his flank" involved. You obviously have not thought about it enough.

Consider allies that are physically separated. Consider reach.

Example: Shaft is surrounded completely by goblins, and 15' from an Ogre with a longspear. 30' away Idiot drinks a potion. Ogre kills Idiot, then kills Shaft.

Which flank was Idiot protecting, hmm?

 

[Enkhidu]

Total nonsense. There is no concept of "protecting his flank" involved. You obviously have not thought about it enough.

Consider allies that are physically separated. Consider reach.

Example: Shaft is surrounded completely by goblins, and 15' from an Ogre with a longspear. 30' away Idiot drinks a potion. Ogre kills Idiot, then kills Shaft.

Which flank was Idiot protecting, hmm?

A point I hadn't considered. And on I've never seen come up in the experiences I was drawing from (comes from dealing with other people who are actually normal sized).

[This space reserved for a position that I was writing, and then thought better of - I was going to make an argument based on the presumed awareness of the battlefield awareness in 3rd Ed combat, but then I realized that that arghument wouldn't hold water as the two threatened combatants only had to be in line of site of the threatenor, not each other]

So, looks like my argument doesn't hold water.

NEXT!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It actually came up the like the first or second time I was playing 3e. A large creature with reach nearly killed my character when my buddy 20' away retreated.

BTW, I apologize for the tone of my previous post. That was uncalled for.

 

[Enkhidu]

It actually came up the like the first or second time I was playing 3e. A large creature with reach nearly killed my character when my buddy 20' away retreated.

BTW, I apologize for the tone of my previous post. That was uncalled for.

No prob. Everybody has off posts.

And thanks for pointing out the flaw in my logic.

 

[The Sigil]

But...

Think about it. Shaft (bad mutha...shut yo mouth that he is) is counting on Idiot being there to protect his flank. If Idiot does something worthy of his name and gets whacked by an AOO, Shaft hasn't got the time to protect that flank (that he was counting on Idiot being there to protect) and is left wide open for a cleave off of the AOO.

Would that mean the guy doing the whacking with the AoO (if we play by the rules as written) gets the Shaft? And if so, why are we complaining if Idiot makes sure that AoO man, and not Idiot's ally, gets the Shaft?

*collective groan*

Sorry... that was pretty punny...

--The Sigil

 

[Finn E. Theodorsen]

[...]. There is no concept of "protecting his flank" involved. [...]

Consider allies that are physically separated. Consider reach.

Example: Shaft is surrounded completely by goblins, and 15' from an Ogre with a longspear. 30' away Idiot drinks a potion. Ogre kills Idiot, then kills Shaft.

Which flank was Idiot protecting, hmm?

All the rule-zeroing I've seen applied to this
goes like this: A cleave must take a direct
uninterrupted line toward the target cleaved.
With this rule zero the 'count on to cover
his flank' argument still works. Whether this
covers the old 'blind kobold/bucket
of snails' abuse of Great Cleave/Whirlwind
is a question though (you will still get at least
one cleave off this abuse you logically shouldn't
have gotten - perhaps even two - from the snail
on your enemys immediately left and right) but
then, a blind kobold in someones back still gives
you +2 and sneak ability against a foe too, so ...


//Finn

 

[Negative Zero]

... Whether this
covers the old 'blind kobold/bucket
of snails' abuse of Great Cleave/Whirlwind
is a question though (you will still get at least
one cleave off this abuse you logically shouldn't
have gotten - perhaps even two - from the snail
on your enemys immediately left and right) but
then, a blind kobold in someones back still gives
you +2 and sneak ability against a foe too, so ...

//Finn

um ... pardon the ignorance but ... WHAT????