AoO and Cleave

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

or perhaps a suspension of that rule will work just as well. I actually decided on my "no chaining attacks from AoOs" rule after seeing the obnoxiousness that was the Lasher. Not cleaving off of them is just an application of my general decision that AoOs should be single attacks with no follow up. Suspension of disbelief isn't an issue for me. Its just a mechanical rule, which I'll tolerate in games where its kept and change in my own.

 

[Goolpsy]

"Well the NPC can also use it, so its fair" - Im sorry but thats like the worst argument ever.

So everything is fair as long as NPC's can use it too?
So if I were to make a Magic missile that did 2000d4 damage per missile.. and theres 800 missiles (still a level 1 spell)
You're saying that it would be balanced just because an NPC can use it too?

Anyway.. I Agree with Firelance... why should A drop his guards.. really..?
Then lets turn it around.. If A drops his guards when C is attacking B, then in theory (for fairness, justice and reality) C would lower his defence as he is attacking B so, A should get an AOO on C...

This is a discusion of the Rules.. Its okay to post houserules here as long as they are PURELY ment as HOUSERULES, instead of basing huge theories on them.

In 950 out of 1000 cases it wouldn't matter if could make a Cleave on an AOO..
But there isn't any rules suporting this though. On the contrary there isn't any rules saying that can't... which give us the problem.

Posts as: "It didn't matter much in our game with that *semi-houserule*" doesn't answer the question acording to the rules.

If the campaigns were played a specific way.. it wouldn't even matter if you make an UBER magic missile.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And what happens to your imagery when that attack that leads to a cleave started with a thrusting weapon?

Then you describe it differently.

EDIT: Note that this is, in no way, related to the issue of Cleaving on AoOs.

 

[Storm Raven]

Anyway.. I Agree with Firelance... why should A drop his guards.. really..?
Then lets turn it around.. If A drops his guards when C is attacking B, then in theory (for fairness, justice and reality) C would lower his defence as he is attacking B so, A should get an AOO on C...

Why would A ever drop his guard under any circumstance, his turn or not? There is no "A's turn"/"C's turn" and so on except as a convenient game fiction to allow for play.

 

[irdeggman]

And what happens to your imagery when that attack that leads to a cleave started with a thrusting weapon? Someone could use that very imagery of using the momentum of a swing against allowing such a thing for thrusting weapons because it doesn't really make any sense. As far as the rules go, imagery is unimportant.
Cleave is a name for the feat that doesn't necessarily imply any particular visual effect. It could also be called "And the Horse You Rode in on" and have the same effect.

Think in terms of fluidity of motion again. It doesn't matter what type of attack is being used it is the way the actions flow from each other (IMO the essence of the cleave feat itself).

Check out River in the Serenity movie - pure fluidity in motion. A whole bunch of "extra" attacks and some based on what could be classified as AoO.

I remember her using her hands and feet, an axe and pretty much anything else she could get here hands on.

 

[Deathmonger]

One way I would describe it is that when an enemy sees you impale and drop the guy next to him, you take advantage of his momentary distraction to thrust at him. Not as cooly visceral as slashing through a guy into the next, but if that's the imagery your player wants, he'll be using a slashing weapon to begin with.

 

[irdeggman]

I think the name "Cleave" causes a lot of the problems. It conjures up images of cutting someone in two when the mechanic doesn't really depend on that.

I think of it more as a continuation of the attack. When there is no more resistance (i.e., the oppenent has fallen) then the attacker is "conditioned" (again through training and the acquistion of the feat in the first place) to "respond" and continue his attack to the next foe. Again it can be anyone he can reach which is part of the continous motion and why it doesn't work with Whirwind Attack.

I really don't like to equate this with having an opening since that puts it into the same realm as AoO which is what is causing most people to have problems in the first place.

IMO it is not "caused" by the foe but by the attacker - he is generating the action by his attack (and its results).

A separate set of questions to ask that might be related are:

Can you apply your Dodge bonus against someone making an AoO against you?

Can you use Power Attack as part of an AoO?

Weapon Finesse?

How about other feats?


IMO the same logic for "disallowing" cleave should also apply to every one of these.

 

[Goolpsy]

weapon finesse is a bad example as its a way of fighting.. just like 3.5 two weapon fighting.

But no i wouldn't allow someone to use Power attack as a part of an AOO either.. how can you focus your anger and 'rage' into a hard blow.. when you don't have time to focus. and without letting your guards down for the foe you are really fighting.

 

[Storm Raven]

But no i wouldn't allow someone to use Power attack as a part of an AOO either.. how can you focus your anger and 'rage' into a hard blow.. when you don't have time to focus. and without letting your guards down for the foe you are really fighting.

When did Power Attack become about focusing your anger and rage into a hard blow?

 

[Goolpsy]

Never really... sounds abit better though.. seeing Luke (starwars) focusing his anger and defeathing Vader.
btw
Would you also allow Expertise to be used when making an AOO? Well I don't care if I hit the foe as long as I can boost myself in some way ruining the attempt