AoO Cleave

[Enceladus]

Say two foes attack an ogre who has cleave.



As the Ogre has reach, the approaching one provokes a AoO from the Ogre.

You have to be careful here, because as long as the opponent is moving into the ogres threatened area the ogre gets no AoO. If the opponent is moving thru then yes he gets one.

 

[Madriver]

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with the logic and conclusion. I don't understand why it is a bad thing for a character to get a cleave off of a foolish act by another character, that is one of the points of the feat, to provide an extra attack when the opponent drops. To me it doesn't matter from where the point of view comes from, a cleave is a cleave. At least with some of the other nerfing rules you can justify and explain the action, but with this house rule you can't. What is the justification that allows you to not cleave on certain attacks? How do you suspend disbelief? On an AoO I can perform every other special attack in the book (disarm, trip, etc.), but for some reason I can't cleave into another foe. Is my attack any less powerful? Is it supposed to be some sort of finesse attack, taking advantage of an opponents weakness? If the later, then how do you explain a reach fighter waiting to be rushed and getting AoO's against his attackers? That obviously is not finessing.

When you nerf an ability it helps to have a reason and logical justification for it, not just an arbitrary "seems keystone coppish" (which I don't believe anyway, I love the visual for cleaving). One type of fighter build is a reach weapon fighter (not necessarily spiked chain) who relies on Spring Attack, Combat Reflexes, and Cleave, try explaining this rule to them, who rely more heavily on AoO's then on their regular attacks.

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.

How is it dumb luck? It is an acknowledged part of the game (cleave) and the PC's or creatures know all about AoO's and how they affect characters. If you're so worried about the monster taking an AoO and killing two PC's, then don't let him take the AoO, justify it by saying he sees the retreating PC as not being a threat anymore and is saving a possible AoO for the remaining PC's (the creature doesn't know if he will hit the retreating PC and may end up wasting an attack on someone who is unimportant to him at the moment). Just an example. You keep coming back to one scenario where the cleave off of an AoO would penalize the party, how about other scenarios. How do you explain not having cleave available when a creature passes through your threatened area? How about if a spellcaster starts casting in your threatened area, why no cleave there? The guy is standing still and it is just like a regular attack. There are many ways to help the PC's if they are in a jam, it is up to the ingenuity of the DM, but shouldn't require the elimination of abilities.

Don't forget, at least for lower level PC's and creatures without Great Cleave, if they use their cleave on the AoO then they can't use it on their regular attack round.

We seem to be going in circles. You don't like it, I do...I can live with that.

 

[Kerrwyn]

How about Hold the Line, Cleave & Great Cleave? Our party ranger took town a line of those little devils (forgot their name right now) that charged the party using that feat combo.

 

[Madriver]

How about Hold the Line, Cleave & Great Cleave? Our party ranger took town a line of those little devils (forgot their name right now) that charged the party using that feat combo.

Sorry, Hold the Line gives you an attack of opportunity on a charging opponent, so you shouldn't be allowed to cleave if you drop said opponent. You have been officially beaten with the nerfing pool noodle.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

At least with some of the other nerfing rules you can justify and explain the action, but with this house rule you can't. What is the justification that allows you to not cleave on certain attacks? How do you suspend disbelief? On an AoO I can perform every other special attack in the book (disarm, trip, etc.), but for some reason I can't cleave into another foe.

...

We seem to be going in circles. You don't like it, I do...I can live with that.

No offense taken, but I believe I have justified my opinion. My justification in a nutshell is not all attacks are created equal.

While you believe an attack is an attack is an attack and a cleave is a cleave is a cleave, I look at actions. All actions are not created equal. An attack is just a type of action.

There is nothing unnatural about having different ground rules for actions on initiative vs. actions out of initiative (AoOs). There are countless things you can do during intiative that are disallowed during an AoO. I happen to think cleave should be one of them.

There is really nothing more I can say.

It's been fun!

 

[SevenSir]

Cleave with piercing weapon

A thousand apologies if this is covered in the rest of your posts on this thread, but my search for piercing came up empty. A half-dozen apologies if it's been addressed on another thread (but for that I feel less apologetic because this forum won't let me search for posts without a membership fee (is that as ludicrous as it seems?)).

Simply for my descriptions of combat to my players ("he clips your arm with his greataxe, you take 2"), how in the world do you cleave with a peircing weapon? I can't imagine using a piercing weapon with other than a direct, thrusting motion, and I can't see how a pc might "cleave" through to an adjacent opponent. He'd have to redirect the direction of his momentum by ninety degrees, and this just seems completely inconsisten with the "momentum" interpretation of cleave.

[spiked chain would be an exception, since a sort of "rake" action would be possible, and would make a cleave attack emininently logical]

I was planning to rule that the feat (and its big ugly brother) were simply not usable with piercing weapons. This eliminates the majority of the reach weapons, I think, but I would not be opposed to a players request to cleave with a glaive.

From what I read above, AoO cleaving is something I'll try to eliminate from my group's play, once they reach cleave levels. It's wholely unreasonable to think that a single foe's "leaving himself open [to attack]" would entitle a character to an attack on an enemy who is actively defending himself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Cleave with piercing weapon

Simply for my descriptions of combat to my players ("he clips your arm with his greataxe, you take 2"), how in the world do you cleave with a peircing weapon? I can't imagine using a piercing weapon with other than a direct, thrusting motion, and I can't see how a pc might "cleave" through to an adjacent opponent. He'd have to redirect the direction of his momentum by ninety degrees, and this just seems completely inconsisten with the "momentum" interpretation of cleave.

How about the cinematics of Cleave not being a single chop/thrust/whatever carrying through to a second opponent, but a morale-based adrenalin rush that provides an extra attack through simply moving faster? That works for piercing and slashing...

-Hyp.

 

[Madriver]

Re: Cleave with piercing weapon

From what I read above, AoO cleaving is something I'll try to eliminate from my group's play, once they reach cleave levels. It's wholely unreasonable to think that a single foe's "leaving himself open [to attack]" would entitle a character to an attack on an enemy who is actively defending himself.

Damn, another one fell to the dark side.

 

[Forrester]

How do you suspend disbelief?

. . .

When you nerf an ability it helps to have a reason and logical justification for it . . .

Jesus f'ing christ . . . sure, you're not a troll. That's what Bugaboo says all the time, too .

This isn't rocket science. Step away from the rules for a second -- you're arguing that if someone standing 5' to my right shoots a bow, he's putting my life in jeopardy if there's a Cleaver in front of me. We're not the ones that need to suspend disbelief. Neither are we the ones with "logic" problems.

Going back to the rules -- the problem is that AoO/Cleave allows you to attack someone with an AoO that did not draw an AoO. The entire POINT of drawing an AoO is that you've left your guard down. In your little system, one can take an AoO against someone that does NOT have his guard down.

And that's just stupid.

An excellent compromise -- and one I've used -- is to allow AoO/Cleave *only* against foes that are drawing AoOs themselves.

For instance, let's say that the Cleaver is facing off five orcs -- they have surrounded him. The orcs realize that they're fighting Conan, shout "!", and try to run like hell -- not take a double move, but just flat-out run. (Hey, orcs are dumb.)

In this instance, I'd allow AoO/Cleave. If the Cleaver brings down the first orc that runs, he can follow through and attack the next of the four, and so on.

Is it starting to make sense? Finally?

 

[Madriver]

Is it starting to make sense? Finally?

I uderstand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

A cleave is a cleave. Why does it make sense that if I drop the bowman to your left during my regular attack that I should also get an attack on you? During a normal attack you're on your guard, so why do I get an attack against you if I drop someone else? Because that is how cleave works.

In my view, it is more ridiculous to take an ability that most people agree with, and limit it's power.

Ridley's Cohort doesn't like the combination mainly becuase (or so I take it) it can put party members in a very bad situation if they are dropping in HP's and their opponent has cleave. I agree that it makes it harder on the party, but I don't think it is enough justification to limit the ability.

And you can't really step away from the rules too much, because if you did then the whole system wouldn't make sense. Cleave is not an AoO, it is an attack bonus given by a feat, whether from an attack of opportunity or not. Your finishing blow is so strong that you can continue it to another opponent in the same swing, whether they had their guard down or not.

So...in my mind I don't see the justification for limiting the ability from within the rules. And from standing outside the rules, if you can't see a cleave attack coming from an AoO, then it seems a little strange that you can see a cleave attack happening at all. It is the same type of action, a powerful blow that results in an additional attack on the backswing or continuation of a swing (however you decide to describe it).

I understood your reasoning from the beginning, I just don't agree with it. If you allow cleave, then (in my mind) you should allow cleave off of an AoO, because they are the same action.