AoO Cleave

[Forrester]

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.
have.

I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll, or just a complete and total .

By your definition, "foolishly" includes "drinking a potion" or "shooting a bow".

By what bizarre logic should someone be able to take an extra swing at me just because there's a guy to my right shooting a bow?!

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll, or just a complete and total .

By your definition, "foolishly" includes "drinking a potion" or "shooting a bow".

By what bizarre logic should someone be able to take an extra swing at me just because there's a guy to my right shooting a bow?!

Would you as a PC shoot a bow while in a threatened square?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would you as a PC shoot a bow while in a threatened square?

Frequently.

Archer character charged by ogre. Two options: move back and take an AoO for movement, or full attack with the bow, take an AoO, and possibly drop the ogre before he can make a full attack next round.

It's come up more than once.

-Hyp.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Frequently.

Archer character charged by ogre. Two options: move back and take an AoO for movement, or full attack with the bow, take an AoO, and possibly drop the ogre before he can make a full attack next round.

It's come up more than once.

Why not just move back 5 feet and do the full attack? Since the ogre charged he would be at his maximum threat range (10 feet) so moving back 5 would put you out of AoO range.

Anyways, I should have fleshed out the situation a little more. You're a 1st or 2nd level character, would you stand next to the 10th level barbarian and shoot a bow drawing an AoO, for no reason?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why not just move back 5 feet and do the full attack? Since the ogre charged he would be at his maximum threat range (10 feet) so moving back 5 would put you out of AoO range.

Call it a move-and-attack instead of a charge, then, with the ogre moving to 5' away before attacking.

(Bizarre... a bull rush can be performed as a charge action, but 'The charge stops as soon as the combatant threatens the target'. So a creature with more than 5' reach can't bull rush on a charge...)

-Hyp.

 

[Madriver]

I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll, or just a complete and total .

By your definition, "foolishly" includes "drinking a potion" or "shooting a bow".

By what bizarre logic should someone be able to take an extra swing at me just because there's a guy to my right shooting a bow?!

Ouch, I'm no troll.

Yes, if you drink a potion and draw an AoO then you are foolish, in most cases you can step back 5ft and drink it safely. Same with the bow.

And as for the logic, it's called the Cleave feat. By what logic should I get an attack on you on my normal attack action if I drop the guy next to you? It's because I have successfully used a feat that I have selected and sacrificed for.

Most of the arguments here seem to be with people who don't like Cleave, not a cleave off of an AoO. The theory behind cleave (or my take on it ) is that the fighter uses such a powerful swing (Power Attack is a prerequisite) that they can attack another opponent they threaten when they drop the first one. If this is acceptable during a normal attack, why should an AoO be any different? It is still a melee attack performed by the same character. Why can I Trip, Disarm, Power Attack (if declared at the beginning of my action), etc. but not cleave on a AoO? Why does a 16 DEX 1st level reach weapon fighter with Combat Reflexes get 4 extra attacks when bum rushed, but my staple fighter is denied a Cleave?

Riddle me that Batman.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And as for the logic, it's called the Cleave feat. By what logic should I get an attack on you on my normal attack action if I drop the guy next to you? It's because I have successfully used a feat that I have selected and sacrificed for.

Most of the arguments here seem to be with people who don't like Cleave, not a cleave off of an AoO. The theory behind cleave (or my take on it ) is that the fighter uses such a powerful swing (Power Attack is a prerequisite) that they can attack another opponent they threaten when they drop the first one. If this is acceptable during a normal attack, why should an AoO be any different? It is still a melee attack performed by the same character.

The difference is an AoO is an action outside of the normal initiative. That is a very important difference.

Let's consider Cleave and Cleave only.

If X & Y are fighting monster M, Y being quickly killed during the normal initiative can never adversely affect X. In the absolutely worse possible case, X dies just as quickly as he would if Y were not there at all. No complaints about Cleave there.

If you consider AoOs, it is quite possible for Y to get X killed by provoking an extra out of sequence attack that is transferred to X by Cleave.

Even I admit that is not obviously wrong. But if you think about it long enough you will come to realize, right or wrong, it is a more than a little peculiar.

Why is it peculiar?

It is peculiar because the normal justification for AoOs is that you if drop your guard someone can sneak in a free attack. Why does someone else dropping their guard cause me to drop my guard?

It is peculiar that an inaction (dropping one's guard) that might be 15 or 20 feet away (or more) can affect my square in a significant way.

The Big Swing explanation does not cut it if you consider the D&D mechanics. One of the fundamental assumptions is that each combatant is continuously swinging at every enemy within their threat zone. Why does does my enemy drawing blood 15 feet away mysteriously make one of these countless swings that are already whizzing about my head connect with me when it wouldn't otherwise?

It only makes sense in a Keystone Kop kind of way, where the clown on the other side of the room slips on a banana peel then tosses a pie he was holding into the air and that pie lands on my head. In the abstract, that is exactly what is happening with AoO + Cleave.

If we were playing Toon or Paranoia, I would not give it a second thought. Since we are playing a herioc game I think it is out of place.

IMO, it would be best to house rule the AoO + Cleave out of the game. You are welcome to disagree, but please accept that I have carefully considered both the likely play consequences and the rules as written. (I do understand how Cleave works.) This is more a matter of taste than a black and white issue.

Is this really a huge deal? No, it isn't. I have seen it come up a couple times in real play.

The main downsides are (again):
(1) It discourages hard-pressed PCs from retreating -- not only could your character die, but you might kill your friend's character in the process. Players that are too thickheaded to retreat their PCs against an overwhelming foe is a very common DM complaint. If you accidentally wipe out the party for attempting to do so, you are teaching them a bad habit.
(2) It creates an ugly loophole for generating "extra" attacks. Example: Wizard summons 3 weak creatures to rush in and attack party Fighter with reach weapon, so that the Fighter will gain 3 bonus attacks on a high SR Monster.

 

[Pax]

Ridley -- what do you think of my idea, to allow a Cleave user to, once per round, if an AoO drops his foe, have that AoO not count against their allowed AoO's per round?

That IMO still gives a cleave-like benefit to the guy who did the killing, without unduly penalising the ally of the hapless corpse.

 

[Madriver]

The difference is an AoO is an action outside of the normal initiative. That is a very important difference.

Let's consider Cleave and Cleave only.

If X & Y are fighting monster M, Y being quickly killed during the normal initiative can never adversely affect X. In the absolutely worse possible case, X dies just as quickly as he would if Y were not there at all. No complaints about Cleave there.

If you consider AoOs, it is quite possible for Y to get X killed by provoking an extra out of sequence attack that is transferred to X by Cleave.

Even I admit that is not obviously wrong. But if you think about it long enough you will come to realize, right or wrong, it is a more than a little peculiar.

Why is it peculiar?

It is peculiar because the normal justification for AoOs is that you if drop your guard someone can sneak in a free attack. Why does someone else dropping their guard cause me to drop my guard?

On the same note, why does a melee attack against someone else 15ft away that drops them allow an attack on you? That is cleave. How about limiting cleave in general so that the cleave has to attempt to hit someone adjacent to the creature you dropped?

It is peculiar that an inaction (dropping one's guard) that might be 15 or 20 feet away (or more) can affect my square in a significant way.

The Big Swing explanation does not cut it if you consider the D&D mechanics. One of the fundamental assumptions is that each combatant is continuously swinging at every enemy within their threat zone. Why does does my enemy drawing blood 15 feet away mysteriously make one of these countless swings that are already whizzing about my head connect with me when it wouldn't otherwise?

Again, that is a beef with cleave and not with gaining a cleave from a AoO.

It only makes sense in a Keystone Kop kind of way, where the clown on the other side of the room slips on a banana peel then tosses a pie he was holding into the air and that pie lands on my head. In the abstract, that is exactly what is happening with AoO + Cleave.

If we were playing Toon or Paranoia, I would not give it a second thought. Since we are playing a herioc game I think it is out of place.

IMO, it would be best to house rule the AoO + Cleave out of the game. You are welcome to disagree, but please accept that I have carefully considered both the likely play consequences and the rules as written. (I do understand how Cleave works.) This is more a matter of taste than a black and white issue.

Is this really a huge deal? No, it isn't. I have seen it come up a couple times in real play.

The main downsides are (again):
(1) It discourages hard-pressed PCs from retreating -- not only could your character die, but you might kill your friend's character in the process. Players that are too thickheaded to retreat their PCs against an overwhelming foe is a very common DM complaint. If you accidentally wipe out the party for attempting to do so, you are teaching them a bad habit.
(2) It creates an ugly loophole for generating "extra" attacks. Example: Wizard summons 3 weak creatures to rush in and attack party Fighter with reach weapon, so that the Fighter will gain 3 bonus attacks on a high SR Monster.

The loophole is only there if the DM allows it. Like "the bag of rats" it is the DM's responsibility to tell the player when they are bending the rules, I just don't believe that cleave and AoO's goes that far.

The only time you would have a problem retreating is if the creature had a 10ft reach, and then it is up to the characters to be aware of the dangers and plan accordingly.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I don't believe in nerfing a legitimate ability that the PC has sacrificed for, just because it may give him an extra attack he otherwise might not have...even though that was the point he took the feat. Plus, there is no way I can rationalize someone getting a cleave off of a regular attack and not off of an AoO, it just doesn't make sense. The best I can do is what I mentioned above, limit the cleave to adjacent monsters, but even that is pushing it in my book.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

On the same note, why does a melee attack against someone else 15ft away that drops them allow an attack on you? That is cleave. How about limiting cleave in general so that the cleave has to attempt to hit someone adjacent to the creature you dropped?

There is a subtle but important difference you seem to be missing. During a normal attack Cleave does not grant an extra attack against X when Y dies from the POV of X.

From X's POV, Y may or may not be irrelevant. The monster earned the right to make his normal attacks on X on the basis on X being in the monster's threat zone on its initiative. X gets attacked exactly the same number of times if Y gets killed as if Y were not there at all.

Sometimes Y may helpfully absorb a hit that would have gotten X. But if Y doesn't do that, why should X complain? In a certain sense, Y is "invisible" to X.

However, if Y provokes an AoO that changes. Y is no longer "invisible". In fact, a passive action on the part of Y (getting killed) actively affects X in a significant way. That I consider a little Keystone Koppish.

I do not really like limiting the reach of Cleave because I accept that Cleave is what it is during normal initiative.

The problem is not really that AoO + Cleave is unfair. In the long haul it will even out for and against the PCs. The real issue is that D&D is a game where the PCs are heroes. As a game, it is desirable that dumb luck not be allowed to "easily" reinforce itself. My main concern is that bad luck against one PC forces that PC to retreat and kills two PCs in a single instant with no intervention possible.

Is that really unfair? Maybe not. Is it desirable in a game? No.



Pax,

I do like your suggestion That gives a useful benefit for Cleave without the ugly potential cascade effect. It also creates an interesting possible ambiguity: Does he have Cleave or does he have Combat Reflexes?