AoO and Cleave

[catsclaw227]

A Monk (with some feat from complete warrior granting him an additional attack on a critical) fighting 4 monsters, 2 of which are low on hp, one leaves his treat range fleeing. He gets the AOO and kills it, quickly cleaving the other monster low on hp. If he has great cleave he should now be intitled to attack a 3rd monster, and lets assume he makes a critical hit, he deals damage and gains YET ANOTHER ATTACK. If this monster should die he could always start attacking the 4th monster and in some cases grant him yet another attack, should he score a critical.

So.. 1 monster flee's the Area, 3 monsters goes down, and left are a happy monk thats just made 6 attacks even though it wasn't his turn. This, even without combat reflexes.

Yea.... but withdrawing doesn't provoke an AOO. So when the 1st monster flees, there aren't any AOOs to be had anyway.

 

[FireLance]

Yeah. But time is meant to be flowing. Turn is just a game mechanism. In that "round", he could have chance to attack either A or B.

I don't see much difference in "realism" on allowing usual cleave but not on AoO. And the rule is clear. You can Cleave on AoO.

Well, since you brought up the concept of flowing time, consider this: The net effect of C's attacks on A over the course of a round is represented by the attack roll on C's turn (assume, for the sake of argument, that C's BAB is 5 or less and thus he only gets a single attack roll). If A defends himself "normally" and doesn't perform any distracting act, that single attack roll represents the net effect of C's efforts to attack A in the round.

Now, B enters the picture, and does something that attracts an AOO from C. C drops him with the AOO. So far so good. B lowered his defences, and the net effect of that is C managed to injure him enough to drop him.

However, it doesn't make sense to me if we go on from there and allow C to cleave into A. This effectively gives C two attack rolls against A in a single round, even though A was still defending himself normally against C and did not perform any distracting act. C's effectiveness against A is effectively doubled because B (not A) lowered his defences and performed a distracting act. That is what is hard for me to reconcile, and why I don't think it's fair.

I know it's the rule and it can be explained in several ways - B somehow "distracts" A by dropping and causes him to lower his defences (even if A doesn't know B exists, as in the invisble dire lemming example), C is somehow "energized" by dropping B, C has learned a combat technique that allows him to turn a killing blow into a deadly strike against someone else, etc. However, none of these really persuade me, and I still think it's unfair to A.

 

[wedgeski]

I allow it, and it happens so unbelievably rarely that I have no idea whether it is detrimental to the game. There's nothing worse for a Fighter to finally be in a position to execute on that feat and be told he can't do it. The sheer disappointment in the little guy's face... I just can't do it to him...

 

[Felnar]

does knocking someone unconscious with nonlethal damage count as "dropping" someone as far as Cleave is concerned?

 

[Blue]

Let me turn this on it's head.

Cleave shouldn't work if you're making a standard attack because you only get one attack unless makign a full attack action.

WTF?

I hope that shows how silly this is. Feats sometimes give extra attacks. Imporved trip has the exact same things as Cleave in an AoO, where if you trip someone you get a follow-up attack. I'm sure there are others. Combat Reflexes is that best at giving more attacks as AoO, because that is it's purpuse, but it doesn't magically bar other feats any more then mobilty bars dodge when you're moving.

Cheers,
Blue

 

[FEADIN]

Yes, I think that non-lethal damage work (I would rule that way).
Cleave is a strike so powerful that you cut through one opponent and touch the other, so it works with AoO.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Seems that you have an Issue with cleave giving an extra attack rather than getting the cleave of the AoO.

You example of C hitting on A, then B turning up, provoking an AoO and C killing him, then getting an AoO on A.

What if the round started with B stepping up, C gets an AoO, doenst kill him, then hits B again, in the hope of felling him, and does so, then cleaves on A

Or he hits A, kills him, cleaves onto B, then B fumbles, and allows an AoO

Either way, the guy has spent the feats, and the cleave is justified, however he gets it.

By the way, for fun shennigans, pre 3.5 get this line up

Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave
Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack
Improved Trip, Knockdown

Needs an 8th level human fighter, but pre 3.5 whirlwind attack could be used with knockdown, and great cleave, fighters could pull of some truely heroic battles, and to me, thats what its about, making the battle herioc, PC's should wade through minions, thats what makes it fun

If I want mundane, I will go watch TV with the wife

Feegle Out

 

[Patlin]

The entire concept of turns is an artificial simplification of combat and the ability to act out of turn when permitted by the rules can hardly defy logic as a result. Further, the concept of being negatively effected by the foolish action of a companion is hardly unique to D&D, Roleplaying, or games generally.

 

[Thanee]

PCs and NPCs can both do it and do, so it seems fair to me.

The other fair.

Bye
Thanee

 

[irdeggman]

I'm sure taking cleave on an attack of opportunity happens a lot, but I don't think it's right. An attack of opportunity is essentially a free action, and it's a bad precedent to allow chaining free actions.

Would that be like the chain of AoO when the combatants each have combat reflexes and the type of attack performed with an AoO (like a trip) generates another AoO?

Chain has been laid out in Rules of the Game (and I beleive the FAQ) as well as on the boards.