AoO and Cleave

[KarinsDad]

But how do you explain Cleave entitling someone to make an attack on a guarded opponent just because the fighter dropped his buddy? He's not any less defensive because it's the fighters turn.

Not that I want to get into a discussion of a common sense rationalization of the rules, but it is a different set of circumstances.

In one case, you are doing a follow through among the myriad attacks and counters within normal combat as part of a combination of blows.

In the other case, you are doing a follow through among a single quick attack due to someone lowering their guard.

Two different scenarios in some people's minds.

But, explaining how it works leads down the primrose path of silliness.

I think most everyone here agrees it can be done according to the rules, some people just do not like the fairness aspect of getting extra attacks on opponent one because opponent two lowered his guard. That is not the reason it happens in the "during the attacker's turn" scenario. It happens then as part of his normal combat abilities. No stupid ally required, just a dropped one.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not that I want to get into a discussion of a common sense rationalization of the rules, but it is a different set of circumstances.

In one case, you are doing a follow through among the myriad attacks and counters within normal combat as part of a combination of blows.

In the other case, you are doing a follow through among a single quick attack due to someone lowering their guard.

This is only a problem if you think of combat as a discrete series of turns. Given that combat is supposed to emulate a flowing, continuous interplay that is only represented in turns for convenience of play, the "single quick attack" is probably best thought of as simply being part of the "myriad attacks and counters within normal combat as part of a combination of blows". The difference is that with an AoO you are, as part of your myriad attacks and counters, you are exploiting an unexpected opening in your opponent's defenses.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Since time is flowing, and all actions are really happening at once, this seems to make perfect sense to me. When you make an attack roll, that is really several attacks at a single opponent, but only one of which has a real chance of hitting (ie the attack roll). If you get an extra attack from either an AoO, Cleave or Cleave off of an AoO, it is all the same thing. These attacks are all happening at the same time, even though initiative-wise it doesn't appear to be. Look at it this way:

This is all happening within 6 seconds (1 round).
A and B are "attacking" each other with multiple attacks, feints, etc. C runs past A, and A takes advantage of this and hits him, dropping him down. The strike is so strong it passes through C's body and strikes B (or maybe it misses). A and B continue attacking each other.

In the above example, we have A and B constantly attacking and each getting their one normal attack roll. We have C provoking from A, getting hit and dropped, and B getting hit as well from the Cleave.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is only a problem if you think of combat as a discrete series of turns. Given that combat is supposed to emulate a flowing, continuous interplay that is only represented in turns for convenience of play, the "single quick attack" is probably best thought of as simply being part of the "myriad attacks and counters within normal combat as part of a combination of blows". The difference is that with an AoO you are, as part of your myriad attacks and counters, you are exploiting an unexpected opening in your opponent's defenses.

Uh huh.

AoOs don't really happen in real life. It's mostly a game mechanic, even if someone can think of a way for it to sometimes work in real life. If you have 8 guys on you, you tend to concentrate only on a few of them at a time and if one of them "lowers his guard" for an instant, you typically cannot take advantage of it.

One person's common sense explanation of the rules is another person's suspension of belief (or not).

Like I said, common sense rationalization of combat rules is kind of silly. You can go round and round that mulberry bush for a real long time on that and get nowhere.

Explaining that a given rule (such as Cleaves on AoOs, or even AoOs in the first place) makes sense to you does not mean that it makes sense to someone else. Some rules are better at modeling what most people consider reasonable combat and other do not. Giving an explanation for why a given game mechanic can model reality will typically not change anyone's mind.

In fact, it is often the person who has to go out of his way to explain why a given mechanic works that is stretching belief. It's a game with rules. If you have to come up with a way to explain why the rule actually works as a model to your players in order for them to suspend belief, then there is probably something wrong with the rule.


AC and hit points, as an example, are fairly poor rules to model combat because single wound kill threats basically disappear as the character progresses up levels. Having the skill to parry or avoid the blow at all is a better model. But, people can talk until they are blue in the face explaining why hit points are a rational common sense model.

 

[Storm Raven]

AoOs don't really happen in real life. It's mostly a game mechanic, even if someone can think of a way for it to sometimes work in real life. If you have 8 guys on you, you tend to concentrate only on a few of them at a time and if one of them "lowers his guard" for an instant, you typically cannot take advantage of it.

In real life, the combatants are rarely fantasy epic heores of mythic proportions either. Resorting to "real life things don't work that way" is simply ignoring the conceits of the genre.

Explaining that a given rule (such as Cleaves on AoOs, or even AoOs in the first place) makes sense to you does not mean that it makes sense to someone else. Some rules are better at modeling what most people consider reasonable combat and other do not. Giving an explanation for why a given game mechanic can model reality will typically not change anyone's mind.

I'm not saying that the mechanic models reality. I'm saying that the mechanic makes sense given what D&D combat is intended to emulate. Taking the system to task for not emulating something else is just silly.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not saying that the mechanic models reality. I'm saying that the mechanic makes sense given what D&D combat is intended to emulate. Taking the system to task for not emulating something else is just silly.

What is the DND combat system intending to emulate?

What is Cleave intending to emulate?

What is AoO intending to emulate?

From all I can tell, these last two are merely cool ideas that popped up into somebody's head and they do not really emulate anything.

Unfortunately, they are used in a game system where it is human nature to try to wrap them up in a box and explain them. For some people, that works. For others, it does not.

 

[FireLance]

This is all happening within 6 seconds (1 round).

(Note: A, B and C changed in this quote to standardize)

A and C are "attacking" each other with multiple attacks, feints, etc. B runs past C, and C takes advantage of this and hits him, dropping him down. The strike is so strong it passes through B's body and strikes A (or maybe it misses). A and C continue attacking each other.

In the above example, we have A and C constantly attacking and each getting their one normal attack roll. We have B provoking from C, getting hit and dropped, and A getting hit as well from the Cleave.

It's not about A lowering his defenses. He's just in the path of the weapon when it blasts through B's body. Does thinking of it like that help any?

Not really. If A doesn't lower his defences, C might take a swing at him, but A "automatically" blocks it. If the swing wouldn't have gotten through A's regular defences, it shouldn't get through simply because B was in the way.

 

[FireLance]

But how do you explain Cleave entitling someone to make an attack on a guarded opponent just because the fighter dropped his buddy? He's not any less defensive because it's the fighters turn.

An extra attack granted by Cleave is just as valid, in my opinion, whether it happens from an attack of opportunity or from a standard/full attack action. Now, it might become tricky enforcing the 1 cleave per round. (Simple rule: One cleave per Initiative pass; Complex: 1 round between Cleaves)

To me, a Cleave is an attack (or sequence of attacks) so powerful that a weak opponent is dropped effortlessly - he might as well not be there.

From the turn-based perspective, if it's the attacker's turn, the opponent he attacked is irrelevant. He can continue to make an attack on someone else as if the opponent was not there.

From the continuous time perspective, the fact that he made an attack roll against the weak opponent (representing his efforts over the relevant round) is irrelevant. He can make another attack roll against another opponent.

To me, an AOO is a lapse in defences which allows an attacker to make an additional swing (turn-based) or makes the defender more vulnerable (continuous time). Both cases are represented by the additional attack roll that the attacker gets.

However, in both cases, one defender's lapse in defences shouldn't make any other defender more vulnerable. In the turn-based case, the other defender still blocks the attacker's swing as if the cleaved opponent was not there, and in the continuous time case, the attacker still only gets one attack roll against the other defender for the round, as if the cleaved defender was not there.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

Thanks for all the responses!

Ultimately, I still think that I ruled correctly. While some points made here have given me reason for pause, I still see nothing broken, unbalanced, or unfair about allowing a Cleave attack from an AoO. As stated, all combatants can do this, provided they have the Feat.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

in a nutshell, the RAW technicly allows it, I don't. In fact, I don't allow any "chain" attacks off of an AoO (like improved trip). Rather than being a slave to the RAW, I suggest that you think about how you would like aoos to work (are they a standard action attack taken out of turn, or a quick jab when an oppertunity opens up) and apply that consistently.