AoO Cleave

[Trine]

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

Which means you're completely disallowing Cleaves on AoO's. Since the orcs can only act once at a time, only one of them is going to be drawing an AoO at any one time. Thus, your house rule is a lot more restrictive than you think.

By the rules (which is what this forum is for, House Rules belong elsewhere) there's no reason that you can't Cleave from an AoO. Cleave applies any time you make a melee attack and fell your opponent. AoO's are melee attacks. If the attack fells your opponent, the criteria for a Cleave is fulfilled and the Cleave attack occurs.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

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

Actually if anyone is trolling it sounds like you.

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.

How is this any different if someone is just standing next to you and they're killed during the normal attack iteration, thus putting your life in jeopardy because there is a Cleaver in front of you.

Let's take a look at your logic for a second. You are basically stating that you have two attacks that are exactly alike (same attack bonus, same weapon, everything), except in one instance if you happen to kill the foe you're hitting you can attack someone next to you for free, however with the other you can't. Not very logical to me. You are too hung up on what causes the attack, not the attack itself. What causes the attack has nothing to do with the attack.

Let's say I'm the fighter and for what ever reason I can't damage one creature (DR, High AC, whatever). Now I'm really concerned with killing creature two, so I'd ready my action to say that when monster one dies, I charge monster two. Simple example of when monster one dies, monster two gets attacked. Now according to your logic I can't do this, because the only reason monster two was attacked is because monster one died. What makes people have to suspend belief is when you have one situation where x occurs, but in the exact same situation y occurs. Unless magic is involved that is when my bs alarm starts to act up.

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.

You aren't getting an AoO against that person. You're getting an attack. But wait I see what you're getting at, during the normal attack action ALL the defenders around me drop there guard so I can take swings at them. Otherwise they wouldn't have there guard down when I killed there buddy next to them making me unable to cleave them. Again who's trying to suspend belief here?

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.

And how often does this come up in game play? It sounds like this would only come into play when you are moving a large number of opponents at once. It also sounds like there could be alot of upkeep for this as well. Case in point. You have your 8 orcs surrounding a fighter similar to the last situation:

Orc 1: Runs away (AoO) and is killed
Orc 2: Attacks Target
Orc 3: Attacks Target
Orc 4: Attacks Target
Orc 5: Attacks Target
Orc 6: Attacks Target
Orc 7: Attacks Target
Orc 8: Realized that Fighter is in trouble so he draws his bow and shoots at the Wizard (AoO). So now the Fighter gets his cleave attempt.

Definitely a lot of house keeping for this to work.

Is it starting to make sense? Finally?

Nope, you sound like you're ranting.

 

[Pbartender]

Consider this...

You and your buddy are attacking the Big Evil Bad Guy. In the midst of the melee, your buddy trips on his shoelace. He lets his guard down, and provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the Bad Guy. Your buddy raises his shield to block the blow, but misses, and the Bad Guy's sword tears right through buddy Cleaving him in half. The Bad Guys follows through, and now that sword continues to swing right at your head... Surprise! I'll bet you didn't that coming, eh?

That is why, even in real life, you have to be able to completely trust the fellows who are fighting on your side. Sometimes, their mistakes can affect you too.

Remember, the phrase "Right-hand man" came from the Greek Phalanxes, the Roman Legions, and the Medieval Shield-walls. It was the man on your right-hand side who protected you with the shield in his left hand. If he wasn't a trustworthy, steadfast and skillful warrior, he could end up getting you killed.

 

[Forrester]

Consider this...

You and your buddy are attacking the Big Evil Bad Guy. In the midst of the melee, your buddy trips on his shoelace. He lets his guard down, and provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the Bad Guy. Your buddy raises his shield to block the blow, but misses, and the Bad Guy's sword tears right through buddy Cleaving him in half. The Bad Guys follows through, and now that sword continues to swing right at your head... Surprise! I'll bet you didn't that coming, eh?

That is why, even in real life, you have to be able to completely trust the fellows who are fighting on your side. Sometimes, their mistakes can affect you too.

Oh, please. Like AoO/Cleave has ANY relation to what would happen in real life. According to these rules you monkeys are insisting on following to the letter, it wouldn't even have to be my buddy. It could be a summoned monster. It could be an ally of the Big Evil Bad Guy. It could be a butterfly that flew into the Big Evil Bad Guy's square.

In other words, it could be someone who I KNEW was not helping defend me. Wouldn't matter. I'm dead . . . dead because the guy five feet away from me tripped on his shoelaces. Makes sense in Toon. In DnD, not so much.

Yeah, I'm hung up on what caused the attack. Duuuuuuh. It's moronic to think it's irrelevant what's drawing the attack. The first attack is an AoO, for christ's sake. You're the ones who have to explain why Whirlwind/Great Cleave/Bag o' Snails makes sense. I mean, the characters took the feats, right? You wouldn't want to cheat them, right?

 

[Madriver]

Oh, please. Like AoO/Cleave has ANY relation to what would happen in real life. According to these rules you monkeys are insisting on following to the letter, it wouldn't even have to be my buddy. It could be a summoned monster. It could be an ally of the Big Evil Bad Guy. It could be a butterfly that flew into the Big Evil Bad Guy's square.

In other words, it could be someone who I KNEW was not helping defend me. Wouldn't matter. I'm dead . . . dead because the guy five feet away from me tripped on his shoelaces. Makes sense in Toon. In DnD, not so much.

I'll have to ask you again, how does it make sense that a person who may not even be in combat with you will get an attack on you by cleaving through his foe on his regular attack, but not on an AoO? I don't think it seems toonish at all.

Example: My buddy is low on HP's in a melee battle, so he draws an AoO by drinking a potion (we'll assume he didn't have the option of a 5ft step back). How is it toonish to say that our enemy can cleave? Only if you think cleave in general is toonish, or if you use a ridiculous example like tripping on a banana peel (which wouldn't draw an AoO anyway).

You're applying a feat to it's intended ability, that simple. There's no exploitation, no munchkinism, no active rules-bending going on, just application of a feats ability.

[qb]

Yeah, I'm hung up on what caused the attack. Duuuuuuh. It's moronic to think it's irrelevant what's drawing the attack. The first attack is an AoO, for christ's sake. You're the ones who have to explain why Whirlwind/Great Cleave/Bag o' Snails makes sense. I mean, the characters took the feats, right? You wouldn't want to cheat them, right? [/B]

The difference is that this is a loophole and exploitation of Great Cleave, not cleave in general. It is an active exploitation of the rules, not just an application of the rules in the intended circumstances.

If you want to get silly and talk abut rules lawyering...first the fighter with the bag of snails would have to drop each snail in the 5 foot threatened areas surrounding him, since whirlwind doesn't apply to creatures in your own 5ft square. I would rule that it would take a couple of rounds to do this, and probably cause several AoO's since the fighter is placing objects and not defending himself. And then I would argue that the snails are not enemies and not in melee, so not a viable target, otherwise fighters could argue they could cleave off of a chair . A much better idea is the bag of rats since they are an actual monster, and therefore a viable target. But there is a problem with this scenario as well, the rats would run away. It would take a standard or move equivalent action (thereby negating the possibility of using Whirlwind) to take out, open, and empty your bag o' rats, which means you have to use whirlwind on the next round. On the rats turn (the first round) they will run away, thereby denying the chance for both AoO's on them and using whirlwind in the next round.

But none of the above apply to this argument, because we're not talking about PC's actively exploiting loopholes. We're talking about DM's limiting the abilities of PC's because they feel the ability is too powerful. And if you think cleave is too powerful, then you should nerf it in every situation instead of picking and choosing.

Fighters are better than most other classes at lower levels, and the reverse is true at upper levels. If we are going to limit the abilities of fighters because they are too powerful at lower levels, then why not start limiting the abilities of the other classes at higher levels too?

 

[Hypersmurf]

... since whirlwind doesn't apply to creatures in your own 5ft square.

Source?

-Hyp.

 

[Madriver]

Source?

-Hyp.

You're right, I just assumed, and we all know what happens when you do that.

I checked and it says in the PHB that you can attack in your own square. But my other statement still holds, the snails aren't a threat so using them as an enemy for whirlwind doesn't work...otherwise you can use anything for whirlwind, chairs, flies, drapes...

Here's a question...if a fighter is standing in an insect plague (creeping doom? the druid spell) and performs whirlwind, does he get 800 attacks against all of the insects?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's a question...if a fighter is standing in an insect plague (creeping doom? the druid spell) and performs whirlwind, does he get 800 attacks against all of the insects?

It requires interpretation, but I'd say no.

Creeping Doom says that "anything that would deter or destroy normal insects is effective against these insects".

But Summon Swarm points out that "The swarm cannot be fought effectively with weapons, but fire and damaging area effects can force it to disperse".

Since they're both swarms of insects, I'd say you can't fight a Creeping Doom with weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[SevenSir]

Re: Cleave with piercing weapon

Thanks for addressing my question, Hypersmurf. I mentioned it to my first DM yesterday, and his explanation of a piercing cleave was wholely different.

Although he accompanied it with impressive pantomimes, the gist of his understanding of a cleave with a spear was that the cleaver would be wielding the spear with the traditional oriental "slashing from side to side" motion. If you don't know what I mean by this, the best I can do to explain it is to say that it's the way the kung fu master and Jackie Chan face off with spears under a [stopped] train in the beginning of The Legend of Drunken Master. Unfortunately, this motion is something I would consider to be an attempt to do slashing damage with a piercing weapon. I'd allow the attempt of course, but with an attack penalty. Because slashing damage would have been dealt, a cleave attempt would naturally be permissable, and my "no piercing cleave" ruling would stand.

Your interpretation is a little less physical, and that makes it harder to rule against. It seems slightly against the concept of a "cleave," as though it would call for some other name for the feat. Otherwise, it is reasonable. It would also save me from trying to find a lot of ways of telling my fighter that he's hacked all the way through a body and into another.

I also brought the issue of whether AoO cleaving would be overpowered to my fighter (he's level 2 now, and looking forward to cleaving.) He said he'd have the cleave feat only in effect on his action, because it represents a specific effort, not just a relfexive smack. Since he's agreed to that ruling and nobody else is looking at cleave, I'm happy to say that the issue is at rest for my group.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

You may not agree with my opinion (or Forrester's) but your reasoning here is circular: Cleave works that way because Cleave works that way.

Really you haven't answered the question about why I can't summon creatures to attack my reach weapon wielding buddy to generate free attacks. That is the purpose of Cleave, isn't it?