AoO and Cleave

[Lamoni]

Anyways, I think it's not unreasonable to only allow Cleaves against targets, that you could have attacked with the original attack instead of the target you have chosen. This completely rules out Cleaves off AoOs and also disallows Cleaving from Whirlwind Attacks, since in both cases your attacks only have a single specific target, which cannot be changed.

I just wanted to say Thank you Thanee. I have never liked the interaction of Cleave and AoO's before, but never knew how to elegantly state a house rule that would prevent it and be easily understood. I have therefore always played with the rules as written. Now I just have to determine if this is worth having as it would make my house-rule list go from 0 to 1.

I think it is interesting how this topic goes on for so long each time with people trying to convince other people that their vision of combat is wrong in some way. The game is supposed to help us to have fun. If anything in the game doesn't do that, they should feel free to change it. And as long as they are acknowledging on the rules forum that the rules don't actually work that way I don't understand the hostility that is generally aimed towards them for posting such ideas.

Anyway, I was merely thinking to myself with that last paragraph... no need to respond to it. This topic has already been discussed sufficiently many times. It has also drawn me in more than once in the past. Happy gaming everyone! . . . with or without your house rule.

 

[FireLance]

No, the question is this: once you are in a genre in which that sort of mythic capability is accepted as part and parcel of the game, why does accomplishing mythic level feats of skill become a problem? Celtic myths talk about heroes able to outrun arrows or balance on spears in flight, Greek heroes accomplished similar feats of skill, and so on. How is it that little things like "cleave off AoO" is a problem in that genre?

I suppose the key difference for me between outrunning arrows and balancing on spears vs Cleave of AOO is that one is a pure test of skill while the other is a contest of skill vs skill. Though not identical, it would similar in nature to rolling against a fixed (albeit high) DC versus an opposed check.

There's actually no fairness issue at hand. AoO off cleave is balanced under the rule system as presented. Some people find it aesthetically displeasing.

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. Consider the following three scenarios:

Scenario 1: C concentrates fully on attacking A. C only gets one attack roll against A per round.

Scenario 2: C splits his attention between A and B, but has Cleave. On his turn, C drops B with his attack and Cleaves into A. C still also only gets one attack roll against A in that round.

Scenario 3: C splits his attention between A and B, but has Cleave. On his turn, C makes an attack roll against A. On his turn, B does something to provoke an AOO from C. C drops B with his AOO and Cleaves into A. C gets two attack rolls against A in that round.

The fairness problem I have is that I feel C should not get more attack rolls against A in scenario 3 than he did in scenario 1 when he was concentrating fully on attacking A. I have no problems that C's effectiveness against A is not reduced in scenario 2 compared to scenario 1 because Cleave makes the weak opponent (B) irrelevant. What I have problems with is the way C's effectiveness against A increases (doubles, actually) in scenario 3. If A's defensive ability normally allows C to make only one attack roll against him in a round, either A's defensive ability was somehow reduced or C's offensive ability was somehow increased by B provoking an AOO. There are several explanations suggested why this should be the case (B's death distracts A, C shoves B into A, C gets a "rush" from killing B, B's blood is squirted into A's eyes) but I don't find any of them to be convincing.

I'm not saying it's unbalanced. I just don't like the idea.

 

[Scion]

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.

There are many, many different actions that people could take which will be beneficial or potentially harmful in some fashion, no matter if they are allies or not. Why is this one so special? At least this particular one takes special training in order to take advantage of, others just being somewhere nearby allows one to take advantage of it.. or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Or one could look at it from B's point of view, if I have your lettering system correct, and ask why is it fair that he wasnt able to use his ability when he should have. It makes his choice in feats less useful. Sounds unfair to him to disallow the use. 'Fair' is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Infiniti2000]

'Fair' is in the eye of the beholder.

Amen. Unless, of course, 'Fair' is suppressed in an antimagic field.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, the question is this: once you are in a genre in which that sort of mythic capability is accepted as part and parcel of the game, why does accomplishing mythic level feats of skill become a problem?

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

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.

There's actually no fairness issue at hand. AoO off cleave is balanced under the rule system as presented. Some people find it aesthetically displeasing. To me, this means they probably find lots of other aspects of D&D combat aesthetically displeasing as well, for example, you find a problem with using reach weapons as presented in the rules. For people concerned with such things, I suggest other game systems. GURPS, for example, will give you detailed realism out the wazoo.

...

Then, perhaps, a different game system would be more to his tastes.

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.

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are many, many different actions that people could take which will be beneficial or potentially harmful in some fashion, no matter if they are allies or not. Why is this one so special?

This one is special because it gives an extra action where one did not exist.

The vast majority of the other "different actions" you are referring to do not.

 

[FireLance]

At least this particular one takes special training in order to take advantage of

I think that the key problem I have. 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), and the idea that C would somehow gets a "rush" from killing B is unappealing to me.

Or one could look at it from B's point of view, if I have your lettering system correct, and ask why is it fair that he wasnt able to use his ability when he should have. It makes his choice in feats less useful. Sounds unfair to him to disallow the use. 'Fair' is in the eye of the beholder.

It should be C for cleaver, but never mind . Here we come up against the problem of something that is allowed by the rules, but the player or DM just doesn't like. It's a matter of taste, no different from disliking how a paladin can now summon his special mount, or disliking that the orb of [energy] spells are Conjuration instead of Evocation, or that they do not allow SR. I admit that not allowing Cleaving off an AOO reduces the power of the Cleave feat, but I don't think it's such a significant change that the feat is now useless.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I just wanted to say Thank you Thanee. I have never liked the interaction of Cleave and AoO's before, but never knew how to elegantly state a house rule that would prevent it and be easily understood.

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

 

[Legildur]

Welcome to the boards Justin. And your reference to Supreme Cleave also, I think, gives some insight into the original Cleave feat. That is that a full round of combat is a fluid thing and that some characters simply are, through their training, more able to make the most of available opportunities. While the mechanic (the Cleave feat) may not gel with everyone in terms of flavor, it's part of the core rules (and a popular feat at that), and perhaps a suspension of belief will help those who 'dislike' it.

For the record, I also 'dislike' the mechanic of it, but not enough to ask for a house rule (I'm not a DM), which I have done so for other rules, even to my disadvantage.

 

[irdeggman]

You can’t use a cleave (or any of the cleave tree) off of a whirlwind attack.
From the SRD:

WHIRLWIND ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Special: A fighter may select Whirlwind Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats

The corresponding text in the PHB specifically mentions cleave as an example of something that can’t be done with a whirlwind attack.

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.