AoO and Cleave

[Dinkeldog]

Thanee's wording has a rather huge glitch when it comes to the Supreme Cleave class ability (which allows you to take 5 ft. steps between your cleave attempts). If you can only take cleave attempts against targets you could have originally attacked, the Supreme Cleave class ability is horribly nerfed.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Justin, you are currently under a suspension. Please don't create another account to get around that suspension.

 

[Storm Raven]

Who said that "mythic capability is accepted as part and parcel of the game"?

The feats and capabilities of characters pretty much lead to that conclusion. The capability of characters from first level (no facing, all around attacks, and so on) begin to set up a mythic fantasy combat system.

At low level, there is nothing mythic about the game except the spells. Combat is not mythic at low level. Skills are not mythic at low level. It is perfectly reasonable for people to have a lower suspension of belief in a gaming system, especially at lower levels where the "cool stuff" doesn't happen yet. This can include rules like AoO.

Except for the fact that the game doesn't simulate reality, and doesn't purport to simulate reality. Expecting D&D combat to resemble "realistic combat" is like putting wings on a bus. It won't work, and trying to make it work will only frustrate you.

Could you knock it off with the telling people to try other game systems just because they disagree with you? People can have differing opinions about the DND rules without veiled suggestions to not play the game.

If you want realistic combat, D&D is not for you. Instead of trying to force the round peg into a square hole, perhaps one might try one of the the many other game systems that do attempt to model realistic combat, many of which do it quite well. Suggesting those alternatives to those dissatisfied with D&D's game mechanics is a perfectly reasonable position.

Also, you are incorrect here. FireLance has a fairness issue with this rule. Just because you do not does not mean that he does not.

There is no fairness issue. FireLance's fairness question is misplaced.

 

[Storm Raven]

The "fairness" issue is from A's perspective. If he doesn't do anything to lower his defences, I find it difficult to see why C's damage potential against A should increase.

That's not a fairness question concerning AoO in combination with cleave. That's an argument that you don't like cleave to begin with. Why should A be subject to a cleave attack at all using this logic? A never does anything that would make himself vulnerable to a follow-up attack, why is it any more fair or unfair that it occurs off of an AoO or a standard attack? Given that combat is simultaneous, and only broken up into "turns" in order to accomodate the limitations of humans playing a table top game, talking about "my turn" or "your turn" doesn't really get you very far.

 

[Nail]

Why should A be subject to a cleave attack at all using this logic? A never does anything that would make himself vulnerable to a follow-up attack, why is it any more fair or unfair that it occurs off of an AoO or a standard attack?

Exactly.

Cleave gives you an extra attack if you drop someone. You can attack anyone you'd like, so long as you threaten them and you attack them with the same weapon.

Consider this: You can use the Cleave feat with a whip to disarm another foe that is standing 30 feet away from the opponent you just dropped!

Explain how such an opponent dropped his guard.......

 

[KarinsDad]

If you want realistic combat, D&D is not for you. Instead of trying to force the round peg into a square hole, perhaps one might try one of the the many other game systems that do attempt to model realistic combat, many of which do it quite well. Suggesting those alternatives to those dissatisfied with D&D's game mechanics is a perfectly reasonable position.

If you say so. I have another opinion on suggestions like that.


With regard to realism, again, this is only your opinion.

I know players who think that DND combat does emulate realistic combat. Why? Because you swing a sword and opponents take damage. They do not care about a detailed emulation. One which allows them to understand what is going on is enough.

These type of players can still lose their suspension of belief due to a few DND rules like AoOs which other players take for granted. No amount of handwaving will change that. They are entitled to that opinion and just because you do not have the same opinion does not make their opinion invalid. It merely makes it different than yours.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's not a fairness question concerning AoO in combination with cleave. That's an argument that you don't like cleave to begin with. Why should A be subject to a cleave attack at all using this logic? A never does anything that would make himself vulnerable to a follow-up attack, why is it any more fair or unfair that it occurs off of an AoO or a standard attack?

I posted the answer earlier.

It is because that this is an extra unsolicited attack. If it's A's turn, he can choose to attack B or C. Both B and C are legitimate targets. If it's not A's turn, he can only choose to attack B or C if they themselves provoke.

Granted, this is not a big difference. But, it's enough of a difference for FireLance to make it a fairness issue.

 

[dcollins]

What exactly is the cleaver taking advantage of? I have trouble seeing why A would drop his defences (as mentioned, I don't really buy the various arguments that B's death distracts A)...

The best explanation is "distraction" (or as I say: "blood in the face"), so if you reject that, I don't see any answer for you.

What do you think the Cleaver is taking advantage of in a non-AOO situation?

 

[billd91]

Since the rules specifically allow a cleave to be done off of an AoO it comes apparently down to people have problems with the “logic” of it all. Now as far as logic goes with allowing a cleave attack off of an AoO – it depends on how you envision the cleave attack working. I see the extra attack off of a cleave as a continuation of the first cleave. That is the attacker is using his momentum to take the extra swing and this is allowed because of his training in downing many foes (which is why it is a feat). So the supplemental defender is not creating the opening but the attacker is creating it by his own attack style. IMO this logic extends to explain why cleave can’t be used with whirlwind attack – the style of continuation of the attack (the reason the whirlwind attack works) fights the continuation (or movement of the swing) of the cleave attack and so only one can be done at a time.

And what happens to your imagery when that attack that leads to a cleave started with a thrusting weapon? Someone could use that very imagery of using the momentum of a swing against allowing such a thing for thrusting weapons because it doesn't really make any sense. As far as the rules go, imagery is unimportant.
Cleave is a name for the feat that doesn't necessarily imply any particular visual effect. It could also be called "And the Horse You Rode in on" and have the same effect.

I think Thanee's house rule idea works for me, should I decide that cleaving off AoO is being abused. I would also consider charging the PC an AoO opportunity for every cleave off the original AoO... meaning you'd only be able to get cleave off an AoO with Combat Reflexes and a high Dex.
Until the rule gets abused, however, I'm just not going to worry about it.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you say so. I have another opinion on suggestions like that.

Because, apparently it is only reasonable for people to play D&D? When I want what D&D offers (which is often) I play D&D. When I want a gaming experience that is different in some way, I use another game system.

With regard to realism, again, this is only your opinion.

More like part and parcel of the rules. Claiming D&D simulates realistic combat is like claiming that housecats and tigers are the same thing.

I know players who think that DND combat does emulate realistic combat. Why? Because you swing a sword and opponents take damage. They do not care about a detailed emulation. One which allows them to understand what is going on is enough.

In which case the hand-waving issues of D&D combat should not bother them. But they do, because D&D does not emulate realistic combat. Expecting it to do so, and then getting annoyed when it does not is, as I said before, like getting mad at a bus that doesn't fly if you put wings on it. You are barking up the wrong tree.

These type of players can still lose their suspension of belief due to a few DND rules like AoOs which other players take for granted. No amount of handwaving will change that. They are entitled to that opinion and just because you do not have the same opinion does not make their opinion invalid. It merely makes it different than yours.

It makes their approach to D&D combat wrong for the system. Wanting realism in RPG combat is not a bad thing, but it isn't what D&D is designed to give you. If you want realism in your RPG combat, then D&D may not be the best system for your RPGing tastes.

 

[Storm Raven]

I posted the answer earlier.

Which actually isn't an answer.

It is because that this is an extra unsolicited attack. If it's A's turn, he can choose to attack B or C. Both B and C are legitimate targets. If it's not A's turn, he can only choose to attack B or C if they themselves provoke.

Any answer that relies on a "my turn"/"your turn" analysis is fatally flawed. There are no "turns" in D&D combat, all combat is simultaneous. Turns are merely a game mechanic to allow for the limitations of a table-top game.