AoO and Cleave

[Scion]

If you think of it not as someone being punished for anothers actions and instead a person having very special training in order to take advantage of certain situations I think it clears things up nicely.

I havent seen any balance issues and it makes the system move smoother if it is allowed.. otherwise you have to try to make up some excuse as to why it works sometimes but not others.. destroys suspension of disbelief with the system if things work mostly randomly and/or if the dm is feeling nice that day.

 

[Abraxas]

otherwise you have to try to make up some excuse as to why it works sometimes but not others.. destroys suspension of disbelief with the system if things work mostly randomly and/or if the dm is feeling nice that day.

Just like not being able to sunder armor

It requires no more excuses than allowing it to work and has nothing to do with the DM being nice that day - allow it or disallow it becuase that what works for you and your group .

 

[Justin Bacon]

But it will grant you additional attacks outside your turn. The only other way to get more attacks outside your turn is by taking combat reflexes, have a high dex, and fight supid opponents.

What's the argument you're trying to make here? The rules allow it over here, so it's not possible that it should be allowed over here? That doesn't seem to follow logically in the least.

Or perhaps you're arguing that the rules have a way to take extra attacks out of turn, so Cleave couldn't possibly work that way, too. But Cleave isn't the only way to get extra attacks on your turn, either, so that logic would lead to Cleave never being used.

3.5 is also build more up on balance than 3.0 ... which cost alot of sad changes, but i don't think allowing cleave as a part of an AOO is balance wise in any way, nor is it realistic.

Not realistic? I think you're forgetting the simultaneous nature of the D&D combat rounds. From the character's perspective there's absolutely no difference between the two attacks they get to take against the orc because they're "just that good" (BAB) and the extra attack they get to take because the orc is "just that stupid" (provoked an AoO).

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Justin Bacon]

As several people have mentioned, there's nothing in the rules to stop you from Cleaving off an AOO. I'm one of the people who don't like it though. To me, an AOO occurs when someone has dropped his guard in combat, but that shouldn't make anyone else more vulnerable to an attack.

Then why should dropping the first guy ever result in someone else being more vulnerable to an attack?

Case in point:

I like to use the invisible dire lemming example to illustrate this. Let's say there are two fighters, A and B, facing each other in combat. B has Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave, and has true seeing cast on him. Someone (maybe an ally of B) suddenly releases a pack of invisible dire lemmings (like dire rats, but more suicidal) and they run behind B. As they do so, they provoke AOOs for movement from him. B gets several attacks on the dire lemmings because of Combat Reflexes, and he easily kills each with one blow and Cleaves into A. The dire lemmings don't distract A because he can't see them. As far as A is concerned, he's keeping a wary eye on B, and defending himself normally against him. However, B suddenly erupts into a flurry of motion, landing several solid blows on A.

A and B are facing off in combat. Someone releases a pack of dire weasels who all carefully move up to within 5 feet of B. On his turn, B uses his high BAB to make an attack against each dire weasel; kills each in turn; and uses each dire weasel death to Cleave into A.

The AoO element of your scenario is essentially irrelevant.

Personally, I wouldn't overrule cleaving from inivisible opponents in either case. I'd try to come up with some game-world explanation: Maybe killing dire weasels really gets B's blood pumping. Maybe invisible dire weasel blood splashing in A's eyes distracted him. And so forth.

But the rules are clear. And I'm not going to nerf B just because A can't see the opponents B is attacking. Otherwise we start getting into whacko scenarios in which A closes his eyes to avoid cleave attempts from B.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[anon]

I too think the rules as writter are clear. An AoO allows a Cleave into another combatant.

But, I think this makes for an internal contradiction.

And I quoteth the SRD on the explanation for Attacks of Opportunity:

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

and

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round.

Where was the lapse in defense in combatant B (the Cleave attackee) which allows for a free out-of-initiative attack(s)? There was none.

Of course one can rationalize the extra attack(s) by described powerful cuts and distracting secondary opponents, etc.. But there's nothing in the rules to justify these imaginative descriptions.

The argument that this interpretation opposes Cleave in general is inaccurate. On their turn a skilled fighter can swing at as many opponents as s/he threatens with the correct feats (spring attack, whirlwind, greater cleave, etc..) and a high enough BAB. But when it is not their turn a defender must do something specific which allows an out-of-initiative attack by that same fighter.

The structure of the round system is meant to very carefully contain ones actions to their own initiative. The primary exception to this is attacks of opportunity (though there are others) which allows out-of-initiative attacks. AoO are meant to place limits on what a character can do on their turn without dropping their guard to avoid drawing extra attacks. AoO/Cleave is the only example I can think in which a character may draw extra attacks of opportunity from an attacker without actually dropping their guard, i.e., through no fault of their own.

I realize this has been debated time and again. And I do agree that the RAW support AoO/Cleave. But to those who allow it, do any of you place any limit on this? Could a friendly caster summon a bunch of 0' reach creatures in the square of our best fighter, command them to attack him, only to have each of them draw an AoO as they enter his square, so that he could Cleave into the BB? This is logical? Even in your game logic world?

Not very logical, heroic, or fantastical in my mind--just a natural extension of inadequately thought out internally-conflicted rule combination.

 

[Justin Bacon]

I even had a player quit because he had a problem with a Fighter "in front of him" who was "facing away" and attacking someone else with a longspear and when he tried to sneak up behind him, the opponent got a free AoO against him.

I agree with that player. What the heck is that??? It makes no sense.

One of the great advantages of a reach weapon is just that: Reach. You get a chance to hit people before they can close with you and attack you in turn. Ever watch wuxia films? There are several films which will show you how a very effective fighter can use a reach weapon to make sure that no one closes with them.

You just don't sneak up on people on a battlefield, unless they're completely unaware of the possibility of a threat coming from that direction. (Which would require an appropriate Hide check mechanic, like the one found in the Complete Adventurer.) Just because I've been fighting guy A over there doesn't mean I'm going to let guy B come up behind me and stab me in the back.

But, this simple game mechanic rule has become so ingrained within our culture, that people even spend time explaining how something so non-intuitive actually makes sense.

There is absolutely nothing unintuitive about attacks of opportunity. They're an elegant game mechanic that reflects the reality of the battlefield in a very effective fashion, thanks largely to the fact that they bypass the initiative system (rather than weighting it down).

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.

Whaddya talkin' about? If I'm madly fighting for my life against eight guys who have me surroundedl, it is absolutely the guy who lowers his guard that I'm going to focus my attention on for the moment: I'm desperately looking for an opening to even the numbers up. Why wouldn't I take advantage of one if it suddenly appeared?

What is Cleave intending to emulate?

What is AoO intending to emulate?

Cleave: "You follow through with powerful blows." (PHB, p 92)

AoO: "Sometimes, however, a combatant in melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free." (PHB, p. 137)

There's no big secret here. These things are stated right in the rulebooks.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[KarinsDad]

One of the great advantages of a reach weapon is just that: Reach. You get a chance to hit people before they can close with you and attack you in turn. Ever watch wuxia films? There are several films which will show you how a very effective fighter can use a reach weapon to make sure that no one closes with them.

Reach weapons are a pain in real combat. Sure, when opponents first meet, they are good. But in real combat, they were quickly dropped (unless used on horseback) and replaced with more traditional weapons.

I hate to break it to you, but wuxia films are more fake than professional wrestling.

Sure, a Spanish Staff Fighter could keep a lot of opponents from reaching him as long as he has no nearby allies to accidentally hit. But in DND, you tend to have groups of PCs in close proximity. It would be impossible to attack someone 10 feet in front of you and then 10 feet behind you within a half second while you have allies on either side in a 8 foot tall room. But, it can easily happen in DND.

Allowing this in a game is called Suspension of Disbelief.

You just don't sneak up on people on a battlefield, unless they're completely unaware of the possibility of a threat coming from that direction. (Which would require an appropriate Hide check mechanic, like the one found in the Complete Adventurer.) Just because I've been fighting guy A over there doesn't mean I'm going to let guy B come up behind me and stab me in the back.

Have you ever been in real melee combat like a gang fight? It sounds like you haven't. Yes, you can easily be snuck up on. Ask anyone who has been in it.

There is absolutely nothing unintuitive about attacks of opportunity. They're an elegant game mechanic that reflects the reality of the battlefield in a very effective fashion, thanks largely to the fact that they bypass the initiative system (rather than weighting it down).

That's precisely it. Attacks of opportunity are a game mechanic. They handle balance issues of the game. But, they do not reflect reality in any way, shape, or form.

Very few DND game mechanics come close to reflecting reality. If you want reality in combat for a roleplaying game, consider playing Riddle of Steel.

Whaddya talkin' about? If I'm madly fighting for my life against eight guys who have me surroundedl, it is absolutely the guy who lowers his guard that I'm going to focus my attention on for the moment: I'm desperately looking for an opening to even the numbers up. Why wouldn't I take advantage of one if it suddenly appeared?

If you are fighting eight guys, you won't have time to take advantage of one of them lowering their guard. Nor will you probably see it happening. You'll be too busy.

But in DND, everyone is aware of most everything around them all of the time.

Cleave: "You follow through with powerful blows." (PHB, p 92)

AoO: "Sometimes, however, a combatant in melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free." (PHB, p. 137)

There's no big secret here. These things are stated right in the rulebooks.

If you think that this is what they do, fine. Just because you kill someone does not mean that you necessarily did a powerful blow (e.g. you could have done 1 hit point of damage, but that is irrelevant to Cleave). That's called flavor text. It allows people to wrap what happens into some framework of imagination. But, the flavor text typically did not come first. The game mechanic came first. If the flavor text came first on Cleave, it would have been something like: If you do 15 or more points of damage against one opponent, you cleave through him and get a free attack against another opponent.

Neither of these is even close to a real reflection of reality, but if it works for you, that's cool.

 

[FireLance]

Then why should dropping the first guy ever result in someone else being more vulnerable to an attack?

The second guy (A) is not more vulnerable to an attack. He is only just as vulnerable to an attack as if the first guy (B) was not there. If B was not there, C could have attacked A anyway. The way I see it, Cleave allows C to dispatch B with ease, so easily that his efforts against A are not hampered at all. This is represented by the fact that he gets an attack roll against A (representing his efforts at attacking A in the round) even though he has already made an attack roll against B.

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

A and C are facing off in combat. Someone releases a pack of dire weasels who all carefully move up to within 5 feet of C. On his turn, C uses his high BAB to make an attack against each dire weasel; kills each in turn; and uses each dire weasel death to Cleave into A.

Again, as in the previous example, C's Great Cleave feat makes the additional opponents irrelevant, but he doesn't get any more attacks against A than he would have got in a round. Had he ignored the dire weasels, he could still have made the same attacks against A. His Great Cleave feat just makes him so efficient at dispatching weak opponents like the dire weasels (C must be awfully high level if he can regularly drop a dire weasel with one blow) that his effectiveness against A is not hampered at all.

The AoO element of your scenario is essentially irrelevant.

Yes it is, and this is why. The fundamental premise I'm working on is this: an AOO happens when you lower your defenses (barring special abilities that allow you to take AOOs even when your opponent normally wouldn't provoke them, such as a rogue's Opportunist ability, and the Hold the Line feat). If you don't lower your defenses, you shouldn't be hit with what effectively is an AOO.

If A and C are fighting each other, C's damage potential against A is approximated by the attack rolls that C gets by virtue of his BAB. If A does something that causes him to lower his defences, e.g. A attempts to disarm C or sunder his weapon without the appropriate feat, or moves through C's threatened area, this lapse in A's defences is represented by C being able to take an AOO against A, thus increasing C's damage potential against A.

If you allow Cleaving off an AOO, C's damage potential against can A increase not because A has lowered his defences, but because someone else (B) did. Take a numerical example. Assume A and C are both 4th-level fighters. In a normal round, C gets just one attack roll against A. Now, three dire rats run behind C. With Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity of 14, C gets AOOs on all three of the dire rats, and with a bit of luck, drops them all (assuming a Strength of 18 and a +1 greatsword, C only needs 6 or better to hit a normal dire rat's AC of 15, and automatically deals enough damage to drop each one on a hit). If C then uses Great Cleave, he then gets three extra attack rolls in that round against A.

What I don't particularly like is how C's damage potential against A can quadruple in one round, not because A did anything to lower his defences, but because three weak opponents happened to provoke AOOs from C. This is why I don't think it's fair.

Personally, I wouldn't overrule cleaving from inivisible opponents in either case. I'd try to come up with some game-world explanation: Maybe killing dire weasels really gets B's blood pumping. Maybe invisible dire weasel blood splashing in A's eyes distracted him. And so forth.

But the rules are clear. And I'm not going to nerf C just because A can't see the opponents B is attacking. Otherwise we start getting into whacko scenarios in which A closes his eyes to avoid cleave attempts from C.

Just to clarify: I've no problems with Cleaving off invisible opponents, just Cleaving off AOOs. And I agree that you can explain Cleaving off an AOO in this manner. I just don't like it that's all. There's no accounting for taste, right?

 

[Justin Bacon]

The structure of the round system is meant to very carefully contain ones actions to their own initiative. The primary exception to this is attacks of opportunity (though there are others) which allows out-of-initiative attacks. AoO are meant to place limits on what a character can do on their turn without dropping their guard to avoid drawing extra attacks. AoO/Cleave is the only example I can think in which a character may draw extra attacks of opportunity from an attacker without actually dropping their guard, i.e., through no fault of their own.

Another example would be approaching an opponent with reach. I don't see any reason to assume that someone approaching a guy armed with a longspear simply decides to drop his guard at 10 feet and let them attack him. The AoOs for superior reach are better understood as modeling the fact that the guy with the longspear has more time in the round to make attacks than the guy with a dagger (and, thus, gets an extra attack roll).

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Nail]

If you allow Cleaving off an AOO, C's damage potential against can A increase not because A has lowered his defences, but because someone else (B) did.

This seems to be the core of your difficulties with the RAW. And frankly, this is just the result of the cleave mechanic. AoOs have little to do with it.