AoO Cleave

[Baron Von StarBlade]

He does. He's within reach. That's qualification you need to be attacked with regular attack actions.

And the Cleave target isn't within reach during the AoO? How is that different? It sounds like what your saying is that the big burly ogre is only really dangerous during his attack action, not the other x turns during the initiative cycle.

But AoO's are no actions, and are only for those who provoke them (it's also a matter of tactics: if you don't do something stupid, you won't get attacked outside the normal order).

Actually they are, you can do anything during an AoO that you could with a normal melee attack, attempt a grapple, perform a trip, perform a disarm, etc. Again you are focusing on what causes the attack and that time frame, not the attack itself.

Mainly for balance reasons: you can calculate that you're attacked if you stand beside the enemy (or are within his max distance moved and so on), but he cannot attack you on your turn, unless you do something to provoke that. You can control that. But if you practically get an AoO without doing anything to deserve one, it's not right.

So is Fireball broken because if you happen to get 30 guys clumped around each other, it can take them all out? No, because it's situational. If you have 25 or 30 guys all standing next to each other in combat, they deserve to get fireballed.
In my eyes it goes back to something you mentioned earlier; tatics. It sounds to me in every situation the affected group (ie the group getting cleaved upon) are displaying poor tatics. If the DM running a horde of goblins is mad because the fighter keeps mowing them down, then he needs to play the goblins a little more effectively. If its the players getting the bad end of the stick, then there is no rule stating that the DM has to cleave on an AoO. Or on the other hand they PCs may just need to smarten up a bit.
Something isn't broken that happens in only a very rare situations. It isn't like the fighter will be utilizing this techinique in every single combat encounter. Besides the fighter dumped three feats to use this talent, when the situation arises that they can use the feats, let them know they weren't wasted. Honestly things like shows that they can match up to the wizard/cleric/rogue in the group.
Of course that is just my $.02

 

[SheepLord]

That 4th level fighter paid for the ability to be a goblin mower. He spent all his starting feats on being able to do it. Instead that 4th level fighter could have gotten Weap Focus, Weap Spec, and Expertise. He could still fight effectivly while having some better defense. That would be a good fighter to have buffing strong, single oponents. The other cleave machine would be great against large number of weaker oponents.

Feats are there so you can perform "amazing feats" which other people cannot perform. They allow more options, specialization as well as generalization. Don't penalize them for creating a fighter that is good in certain situations. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO!

I played in a campaign where the DM liked to use grapples and improved grab alot. Our fighters respose was to take the feat from the S&F that lets you fight off grapplers depending on how much damage you do (sorry, cannot recall the name of the feat right now). If I had a fighter in my party that DIDN'T do this, I would get pissed at them for not learning and responding to the situations.

It's called tatics. Not broken or unbalanced.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And the Cleave target isn't within reach during the AoO? How is that different? It sounds like what your saying is that the big burly ogre is only really dangerous during his attack action, not the other x turns during the initiative cycle.

From a narrow technical POV, that is the exact line of defense for the bucket of snails trick. Fair is fair, right?

The weird thing about AoO + Cleave is target X can end up dying just because target Y does something reckless when X would have been adequately safe if ally Y were not in the combat at all. The reason is that AoOs can generate extra attacks outside the combat sequence.

Personally, I find that assaults my common sense. For some people it doesn't.

Let me state it another way: Should it be easier to kill the Evil Boss plus mooks than Evil Boss alone?

My answer is a guarded "no". There should be no way to trick the basic mechanics into making an asset into a liability (although enormous active stupidity is still fair game to exploit).

That is the way I view the summoned blind kobold game: a perfectly legal way of giving the Evil Boss a mook, so you can kill it trick the mechanics into giving you a free attack.

AoO + Cleave works by the letter of the rules. The summoned blind kobold trick works as a direct result of the "logic" of AoO + Cleave. IMNSHO, the best thing to do is remove the AoO + Cleave from the game.

(Yes, summoned creatures are normally allies, but you can direct them to attack who you please. Therefore, you can carefully place them and direct them to attack your ally. All perfectly legal. And perfectly stupid.)

 

[Pax]

That is where I have the disconnect. During a normal attack the same situation holds true, the cleave target doesn't do anything to get attacked. The difference is how they are provoked, one happens during the PC's normal attack iteration, the other doesn't.

The cleave target has no say so when they are targeted for a cleave, why should it be different during an AoO?

When it's my turn to attack, neither you nor the guy next to you have ANY say in wether or not I get to make a swing, and if so, who I make it at. It's my turn, so it's my decision.

When it is NOT my turn, you DO have a say -- you can choose to not give me an AoO. It's NOT my turn, so it's NOT my decision, until you GIVE me a chance to decide to take the AoO, or not.

I see no reason why the guy NEXT to you should cause you to take an AoO-like attack, just because HE did something stupid while low on HP.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

What the heck is a 4th level fighter wasting time killing Goblins for? No wonder he is killing 16 at a time. Let's see, goblins are CR 1/4 which would make 16 of them what? An effective CR 4 (still don't have my CRs down yet)? Assuming so, a 4th level fighter is a CR 4 as well. Seems fine to me that a 4th level fighter can take that many out at once.

Probably because I am not your DM...

When creating fights, I regularly persist in using Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, and the like until about 6th or 7th level, and beyond that if I decide I want some meat sheilds or lackeys for Ogres and the like. And I emphasise that I do not give them class levels when I do this. Of course, I do tweak their equipment a bit (better armor usually).

The simple fact is that at low levels, a Goblin or Orc can still usually hit the players on a roll of 17 or better. Some careful use of missile weapons, cover, flanking and ambush tactics can stretch out the usability of those monsters for a very long time.

The reason for it, I find, is quite simple. If you put in one or two Ogre's at about AC 17 and 8 Orcs at AC 14 up against your players, the fighter types go right for the Ogres. The orcs provide some cheap flanking, and can last quite a while when no one is swinging at them. Pull off a trip attack with the Ogre, and your Orcs can be at +6 (+2 flanking, +4 prone) to hit on the poor twit who tried to go toe to toe with the Ogres.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[mikebr99]

The weird thing about AoO + Cleave is target X can end up dying just because target Y does something reckless when X would have been adequately safe if ally Y were not in the combat at all. The reason is that AoOs can generate extra attacks outside the combat sequence.

Personally, I find that assaults my common sense. For some people it doesn't.

Not me!
Because target X isn't dying because Y did something stupid... X is dying because the Cleaver is really strong and takes big arcing swings all the time... the cleave feat is always on. You don't have to state at the biginning of the combat or the biginning of the round that "I'm turning on Cleave/Great Cleave now..."

It is just the way the guy fights... all the time. He puts his back into EVERY swing.

Let me state it another way: Should it be easier to kill the Evil Boss plus mooks than Evil Boss alone?

Nope!

My answer is a guarded "no". There should be no way to trick the basic mechanics into making an asset into a liability (although enormous active stupidity is still fair game to exploit).

That is the way I view the summoned blind kobold game: a perfectly legal way of giving the Evil Boss a mook, so you can kill it trick the mechanics into giving you a free attack.

AoO + Cleave works by the letter of the rules. The summoned blind kobold trick works as a direct result of the "logic" of AoO + Cleave. IMNSHO, the best thing to do is remove the AoO + Cleave from the game.

(Yes, summoned creatures are normally allies, but you can direct them to attack who you please. Therefore, you can carefully place them and direct them to attack your ally. All perfectly legal. And perfectly stupid.)

Is this how you use your Evil Boss and his flunkies? They just surround him and all charge? Not only does this scream to the Cleaver... it screams to the Evoker! FIREBALL!!!

Alt. Tactic #1
Send the mooks out in front... that way, if they slam into stronger resistance then they are... You run away!


Mike

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Not me!
Because target X isn't dying because Y did something stupid... X is dying because the Cleaver is really strong and takes big arcing swings all the time... the cleave feat is always on. You don't have to state at the biginning of the combat or the biginning of the round that "I'm turning on Cleave/Great Cleave now..."

It is just the way the guy fights... all the time. He puts his back into EVERY swing.

I do understand how Cleave works. There are peculiar situations where the outcome of the combat will hinge on the presence of a lame-brained Y or a blind kobold. That seems wrong for the genre of a heroic game, although it would work very well for Toon.

 

[Madriver]

The weird thing about AoO + Cleave is target X can end up dying just because target Y does something reckless when X would have been adequately safe if ally Y were not in the combat at all. The reason is that AoOs can generate extra attacks outside the combat sequence.

This happens all the time, with monsters and PC's. What if the fighter does something stupid that puts the rigue in danger of being flanked? The rogue didn't do anything wrong, he is being penalized for the fighters actions! Why shouldn't someone be penalized for the stupid and reckless actions of his allies? It happens all the time.

Personally, I find that assaults my common sense. For some people it doesn't.

Let me state it another way: Should it be easier to kill the Evil Boss plus mooks than Evil Boss alone?

Yes, if the evil boss is not in control of his mooks and they act foolishly, then they will end up being a liability and not an asset. I don't see a problem with this.

My answer is a guarded "no". There should be no way to trick the basic mechanics into making an asset into a liability (although enormous active stupidity is still fair game to exploit).

That is the way I view the summoned blind kobold game: a perfectly legal way of giving the Evil Boss a mook, so you can kill it trick the mechanics into giving you a free attack.

AoO + Cleave works by the letter of the rules. The summoned blind kobold trick works as a direct result of the "logic" of AoO + Cleave. IMNSHO, the best thing to do is remove the AoO + Cleave from the game.

(Yes, summoned creatures are normally allies, but you can direct them to attack who you please. Therefore, you can carefully place them and direct them to attack your ally. All perfectly legal. And perfectly stupid.)

This is a problem you have with cleave, not an AoO off of cleave.

As people have mentioned before, it takes a large number of feats to use this tactic, and it is hardly ever used. Reach weapon fighters have the advantage here, but then the DM can have the enemy run up one at a time and not in a bunch (ie on their turns, and not move them forward as one turn). The type of fighter who would benefit most from this are the ones who use the spiked chain, duom, or the like. They can cleave off of an attack of opportunity, and cleave into a creature already threatening at 5 feet. But this could be considered a problem with the weapon mechanics and not the feat.

Maybe we should nerf combat reflexes as well. I mean look what happens with a 1st level fighter with a 16 DEX using a reach weapon with Combat Reflexes...if he gets rushed he gets 4 attacks even before he uses his normal attack action....sounds like an abuse of the rules and a feeble attempt to get more attacks than they should have.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And the Cleave target isn't within reach during the AoO? How is that different? It sounds like what your saying is that the big burly ogre is only really dangerous during his attack action, not the other x turns during the initiative cycle.

The cleave target is within reach during that AoO. But since it's not the cleaver's turn, the target's actions determine whether it can be attacked.

When it's your turn, you can decice what you can attack, by going there, taking a swing at them, or throwing a fireball.

But during the rest of the round, the only way to be able to smack them is when they let you: you cannot attack them unless they provoke an AoO, and you cannot fireball them at all. So it they are attacked by you outside of your turn, it's their fault. But the second target in question hasn't provoked an AoO. So he should not get one.


But I'm not sure whether I would allow it or not. After all, you can be doomed by a trap that your ally springs....

Long story short: it's not entirely clear, there are good arguments for both sides, so it's up to the individual DM, and he should decide it taking into account his players: if they are going to abuse it with some nasty tricks (the running goblin shall get his place in the hall of fame for munchkin's little helpers, right alongside the blind kobold and the bucked of snails), you should disallow it. Otherwise you probably can as well allow it, since it may occur all that often...

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

When it's my turn to attack, neither you nor the guy next to you have ANY say in wether or not I get to make a swing, and if so, who I make it at. It's my turn, so it's my decision.

Not true, enemies can easily ready actions to move, or attempt a grapple/disarm/sunder. However, I understand the point you are trying to make

When it is NOT my turn, you DO have a say -- you can choose to not give me an AoO. It's NOT my turn, so it's NOT my decision, until you GIVE me a chance to decide to take the AoO, or not.

I see no reason why the guy NEXT to you should cause you to take an AoO-like attack, just because HE did something stupid while low on HP.

Unfortunately, the cleave target is giving you the option to attack him, if he is still in melee range then he's always a potential target. Therefore in my eyes you do have a say so. This would be a moot point if the cleave target wasn't standing next to the fighter. Again it goes back to the concept that your opponent is only dangerous during his attack phase, not the duration of the round/combat.

Having cleave is saying that whenever I kill an opponent with a melee attack (no matter when/or how it was provoked) I have the capability to hit someone else standing next to me.