Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 2750961" data-attributes="member: 3424">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification