AoO and Cleave

[irdeggman]

FireLance, I understand your logic. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you feel the way you do.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

I have to say, this must be the longest thread I ever started!

 

[Bayonet_Chris]

You mean like allowing someone to shoot more than one arrow in a round? What does an archer with a BAB of +16 do with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attacks? Or, can a wizard cast a quickened spell (with material components) and a regular spell (with components) in the same round? That requires 3 free actions (one for the quickened spell and two each for the componets).

It's not only not a bad precedent, it's not the defining precedent. Multiple free actions already happen. Of course, an AoO (and a cleave) are not free actions, but that was your analogy, so I ran with it.

I'll reword it. Multiple free actions are fine, but free actions springing from other free actions is a problem - multiple attacks are part of the rules as written when a BAB is high enough. Multiple free actions are OK as well. Of course, these things all happen during a person's normal action anyway. It's the reason why you can't take more than one attack of opportunity on the same threatened action.

It's like wishing for more wishes. An attack of opportunity is to represent a momentary chance to strike when a particular target leaves himself open.

[Edit] Some of the later posts state it a bit more elegantly.

 

[Lamoni]

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.

I don't see how it is fatally flawed. It is true that turns are merely a game mechanic, but aren't we discussing game mechanics? The game mechanics affect combat. We aren't just watching a combat and then applying whatever mechanics best represent it. We use the mechanics to tell the combat story. So... if you are able to get extra attacks on your 'turn' then when you convert that to the combat story you are telling (where turns don't really exist), you still attack twice as much as your opponent.

You are welcome to disagree that it is a problem. Maybe you don't care if C gets to attack A twice in a round when he should only be able to hit him once... however that doesn't negate the fact that it can happen. And the fact that it can happen is why people dislike allowing cleaves with AoO's.

Of course, this can only happen if the person took Cleave as a feat. Some may see that as an intended added bonus of the feat and that is just fine too. I can see both sides, prefer one, and dislike house rules enough that I'll still play the way it is written.

If anyone is still confused, you can read any one of Firelance's last 5 posts (I didn't really count) that repeat the same argument quite clearly. His first post should have been sufficient, but people seemed to still be confused.

Some people imagine combat like what you would see at a jousting and swordplay tournament. Others imagine it like you see in movies like Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Maybe you imagine King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. All this and much more can be represented with the story and you can still use D20's combat rules. So if someone doesn't see combat the same as you, they aren't really seeing it wrong. Anything can happen in a Fantasy setting because it is just that, FANTASY. But that means you could even imagine a fantastical world where people had even MORE restrictions and were LESS able than they are in real life. I doubt anyone does that, but you can't really point to your idea of fantasy and define all fantasy by that description. (this paragraph isn't directed to anyone in particular and isn't meant to accuse anyone of doing so... it just seemed to be at the heart of a lot of arguments)

Just my 9 cents...

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see how it is fatally flawed. It is true that turns are merely a game mechanic, but aren't we discussing game mechanics? The game mechanics affect combat. We aren't just watching a combat and then applying whatever mechanics best represent it. We use the mechanics to tell the combat story. So... if you are able to get extra attacks on your 'turn' then when you convert that to the combat story you are telling (where turns don't really exist), you still attack twice as much as your opponent.

We are talking about game mechanics and what they represent. The objection is that people don't like the 'feel" of someone getting to go out of turn and attack someone who "didn't drop hios guard when it wasn't the other guy's turn". The problem with this analysis is that it relies on the idea that somehow, "turns" have meaning other than as a convenient fiction to ease playability. The guy with cleave is really good at getting extra attacks. Whether he gets them on "my turn" or "tour turn" is beside the point - he has a skill that applies when he attacks. Using the "my turn"/"your turn" analysis to analyze it doesn't work, because it relies upon a game mechanic to describe a "feel" problem.

You are welcome to disagree that it is a problem. Maybe you don't care if C gets to attack A twice in a round when he should only be able to hit him once... however that doesn't negate the fact that it can happen. And the fact that it can happen is why people dislike allowing cleaves with AoO's.

"Rounds" are a game fiction as well. C has expended resources on being good at attacking quickly. The fact that he is quicker than A is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Lamoni]

I think maybe the central issue is what you see as causing or allowing the extra attack.

On one side, people see the person that caused the attack of opportunity as the one responsible. Why should the ally get hit for what he didn't cause?

On the other side, people see the person that took the cleave feat as the one responsible. Why shouldn't I get to take the attack when I invested the extra training?

I know the event requires both the feat and the AoO... I was just trying to sum up the thread in case someone comes and doesn't want to read the whole thing, and I was trying to understand the two sides better myself. I should then add that there is no rules debate. The rules are clear that you can do it.

 

[irdeggman]

I don't see how it is fatally flawed. It is true that turns are merely a game mechanic, but aren't we discussing game mechanics? The game mechanics affect combat. We aren't just watching a combat and then applying whatever mechanics best represent it. We use the mechanics to tell the combat story. So... if you are able to get extra attacks on your 'turn' then when you convert that to the combat story you are telling (where turns don't really exist), you still attack twice as much as your opponent.

You are welcome to disagree that it is a problem. Maybe you don't care if C gets to attack A twice in a round when he should only be able to hit him once... however that doesn't negate the fact that it can happen. And the fact that it can happen is why people dislike allowing cleaves with AoO's.

Of course, this can only happen if the person took Cleave as a feat. Some may see that as an intended added bonus of the feat and that is just fine too. I can see both sides, prefer one, and dislike house rules enough that I'll still play the way it is written.

If anyone is still confused, you can read any one of Firelance's last 5 posts (I didn't really count) that repeat the same argument quite clearly. His first post should have been sufficient, but people seemed to still be confused.

Some people imagine combat like what you would see at a jousting and swordplay tournament. Others imagine it like you see in movies like Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Maybe you imagine King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. All this and much more can be represented with the story and you can still use D20's combat rules. So if someone doesn't see combat the same as you, they aren't really seeing it wrong. Anything can happen in a Fantasy setting because it is just that, FANTASY. But that means you could even imagine a fantastical world where people had even MORE restrictions and were LESS able than they are in real life. I doubt anyone does that, but you can't really point to your idea of fantasy and define all fantasy by that description. (this paragraph isn't directed to anyone in particular and isn't meant to accuse anyone of doing so... it just seemed to be at the heart of a lot of arguments)

Just my 9 cents...

Like this post and point - that it a Fantasy game and such is subject to the individual's imagination.

 

[irdeggman]

I think maybe if we look at what Cleave (and Great Cleave for tha matter) is attempting to do.

IMO it is all about having a higher level character be able to dipatch a bunch of lower level ones in a fairly quick amount of time.

Like say a 15th level fighter and 10-20 kobolds. It is pretty much a no exp encounter so why should the fighter ahve to spend a lot of time dealing with it? By using cleave he can cut the numbers down within a few rounds (normally).

15th level fighter gets three normal attacks, if I've done the math properly of +15/+9/+3.

With any kind of Strength rating he should be able to dipatch 3 kobolds a round right?
With Cleave he can take out 4.

With Great Cleave he could conceivably take them all down - assuming that he takes a single 5 ft step after felling the last one within reach and then gets to start another cycle of cleaving as long as he doesn't move more than his single 5 ft step in the round.

Now even using cleave off of an AoO he is still limited to a single cleave attack in a round.

IMO the benefits of cleave only really come into play against real low hit point opponents or against those that are hurt real badly. In either case shouldn't they be easier to dispatch anyway?

 

[Lamoni]

IMO the benefits of cleave only really come into play against real low hit point opponents or against those that are hurt real badly. In either case shouldn't they be easier to dispatch anyway?

Yes they should. The only question that has spawned the debate is whether cleave was meant to work so that the quickly dispatching of one foe could actually HELP in the dispatching of his ally rather than in just not hindering him. You can also look at it another way... was an AoO meant to work so that you could hurt your ally for provoking one?

On one side, people see the person that caused the attack of opportunity as the one responsible. Why should the ally get hit for what he didn't cause?

People with this point of view downplay the fact that the person used a feat. The feat doesn't matter... what matters is that an AoO means someone let down their guard and should be punished for it. An AoO shouldn't mean that your buddy let down his guard so I'll be taking it out on you.

On the other side, people see the person that took the cleave feat as the one responsible. Why shouldn't I get to take the attack when I invested the extra training?

People with this point of view downplay the fact that it was an AoO. The AoO doesn't matter... what matters is that the fighter killed a foe and has the training to make another attack whenever that happens.

I think that pretty much sums up the entire thread. Although it was sort of weird to be quoting myself. That is the first time I have done that.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think that pretty much sums up the entire thread. Although it was sort of weird to be quoting myself. That is the first time I have done that.

That's either a sign of wisdom or insanity.