AoO Cleave

[Madriver]

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.

I don't know about circular, but my reasoning is not arbitrary. An AoO is a regular melee attack, it should benefit from cleave just like an attack during a normal attack action.

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?

Well, if you think in-game and not think meta-game, a mage who summons a creature to attack one of his comrades will probably be attacked by said comrade right afterwards, and the DM should probably force him to do this. A fighter will not be thinking "OK, this will give me a cleave to my other foe for an extra attack", he will be thinking "damn, what the **** is wrong with this guy, he's attacking me instead of the BBEG". That is why it is an exploitation of the rules, because the player is now meta-gaming his character instead of role-playing him.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

The difference is that a normal attack occurs during initiative order and an AoO doesn't. If you assume all types of attacks are equal, then all attack mechanics should be identical. But your line of reasoning is circular.

The heart of the AoO + Cleave criticism is to ask whether an AoO is or should be exactly the same as a normal attack. If you do not consider that question then your are missing the point.

In fact, I can prove that AoOs and normal attacks are not the same. During a normal attack, I can attack whoever I want. During an AoO I can attack whoever draws the AoO. See, they are different?

Now that I have proven AoOs are not identical as normal attacks, we can broaden the invesitgation and look at messier cases to see which seems to make more sense. A lot of this is personal opinion. But just saying the rules work that way because the rules work that way doesn't cut it.

I want to ask a serious question of Madriver and BVS: Why do you think we have AoO rules at all?

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

In fact, I can prove that AoOs and normal attacks are not the same. During a normal attack, I can attack whoever I want. During an AoO I can attack whoever draws the AoO. See, they are different?

Really so you can attack the guy with full cover during your normal attack? Or you can attack the guy that you don't know about, or (using melee since those are what we are talking about) you can attack the guy out of your reach? All you have proven is that what causes the attacks are different. Do the attacks use a different mechanic? IE you don't add Cover modifiers for AoO's like you do a normal attack, or you don't add penalties from Power Attack/Expertise for AoO's? No. Again the mechanic is exactly the same the circumstances for them occuring are different.

A lot of this is personal opinion. But just saying the rules work that way because the rules work that way doesn't cut it.

I agree this definitely is a personal view. I look at it from the standpoint that a melee attacks are equal. It doesn't matter how or when it occurs, when it does occur they are all treated equally.

I want to ask a serious question of Madriver and BVS: Why do you think we have AoO rules at all?

AoO's are in the game to provide a mechanism to penalize the targets for doing something that isn't wise during a combat encounter. It is also a system which helps balance out certain gameplay factors (archery, spellcasting, etc) to make melee fighters better in combat encounters.

 

[Pax]

Really so you can attack the guy with full cover during your normal attack? Or you can attack the guy that you don't know about, or (using melee since those are what we are talking about) you can attack the guy out of your reach? All you have proven is that what causes the attacks are different. Do the attacks use a different mechanic? IE you don't add Cover modifiers for AoO's like you do a normal attack, or you don't add penalties from Power Attack/Expertise for AoO's? No. Again the mechanic is exactly the same the circumstances for them occuring are different.[/b/

Yes. I can step around that cover. I can walk up to that enemy.

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

 

[Fenes 2]

IMC, we use (great) cleave on AoOs without problem. Sure, weak foes will get slaughtered by the dozens if they attack the longspear-wielding barbarian, but that does not bother me. That PC used a great many of his few feats on that trick, and should get to enjoy it from time to time, just as the balance-tumble-freak duelist should get to enjoy a duel on a ship's rigging from time to time.
If I don't want to get the goons slaughtered in droves I either up their hitpoints a bit, pushing them out of the usual damage range of the barbarian, or just use better tactics/gear for them.

Usually though I just describe the barbarian ripping through some cannon fodder before they surrender or flee - playing out such a combat is not very high on my list of fun things to do in a roleplaying session anyway.

As far as cleaving and piercing goes, I usually visualize the longspear ripping through two in one thrust, or goring another on the backswing, or just piercing (and ripping out/through) the throat of one monster before going into another monster. No big deal for my imagination.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes. I can step around that cover. I can walk up to that enemy.

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

Or I can change weapons, perhaps using Quickdraw. Or I can attack where I think an invisible target may be (and have a 100% concealment penalty). Or I can take any Free Action. Or I can use a full attack action (Dirty Fighting, Circle Kick). Or I can cast a spell and make a touch attack, e.g. Shocking Grasp. Or I can cast any Quickened spell in preparation for my attack.

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

I think it is of some significance that you cannot perform Free Actions during an AoO. If one believes that Cleave is fundamentally part of the attack then one would argue for AoO + Cleave. If one believes that an AoO is more akin to a special kind of free action, then AoO + Cleave is suspect.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't know about circular, but my reasoning is not arbitrary. An AoO is a regular melee attack, it should benefit from cleave just like an attack during a normal attack action.



Well, if you think in-game and not think meta-game, a mage who summons a creature to attack one of his comrades will probably be attacked by said comrade right afterwards, and the DM should probably force him to do this. A fighter will not be thinking "OK, this will give me a cleave to my other foe for an extra attack", he will be thinking "damn, what the **** is wrong with this guy, he's attacking me instead of the BBEG". That is why it is an exploitation of the rules, because the player is now meta-gaming his character instead of role-playing him.

Your reasoning is arbitrary with respect to this discussion topic -- whether AoO should work with Cleave irrespective of what the letter of the rules say.

Metagaming? It is an in game observational fact that some grunts fight better surrounded. Much, much better. Why do you assume the grunt in question doesn't recognize that fact?

Is heavy-handed micromanaging of the players really the right answer for a problem with the rules?



Barbarian: "Why did you just summon kobolds to attack me?!?"

Wizard: "You always fight better when surrounded by enemies. Gets you mad."

Barbarian: "I am mad!"

Wizard: "Can kobolds hurt you?"

Barbarian: "No!"

Wizard: "Did you like chopping their heads off?"

Barbarian: "Yes... My blood sings when my foes fall. My axe and I become one. And Kord smiles."

Wizard: "And you killed that Hill Giant all by yourself, right? Last night it took all of us of us to kill just one. I bet Kord is pleased."

Barbarian: "Uh...Yeah! I kill giant all by myself! Keep summoning those kobolds."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or I can attack where I think an invisible target may be (and have a 100% concealment penalty).

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

Hey, I see a chance for a major thread hijack...

-Hyp.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Yes. I can step around that cover. I can walk up to that enemy.

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

That all really depends on the circumstance. What if the cover can't be stepped around (ie a wall of force), or the enemy in question is out of your double move?
Furthermore the movement isn't part of your attack, it's part of your standard action. I'm not stating that a standard action and and AoO are the same thing. I'm saying that a melee attack during the AoO and the melee attack during a standard action are the same.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Or I can change weapons, perhaps using Quickdraw. Or I can attack where I think an invisible target may be (and have a 100% concealment penalty). Or I can take any Free Action. Or I can use a full attack action (Dirty Fighting, Circle Kick). Or I can cast a spell and make a touch attack, e.g. Shocking Grasp. Or I can cast any Quickened spell in preparation for my attack.

I cannot do so when given an AoO option.

As in my previous post I'm not talking about the difference between the action type (AoO, Full Action, Standard Action, etc). I'm talking about the difference between the attack, ie the melee portion of the standard action, and the melee attack of the AoO.

I think it is of some significance that you cannot perform Free Actions during an AoO. If one believes that Cleave is fundamentally part of the attack then one would argue for AoO + Cleave. If one believes that an AoO is more akin to a special kind of free action, then AoO + Cleave is suspect.

I see cleave as an extension of a melee attack. It is a special scenario, similar to improved trip, where a certain event occurs it will trigger.

Here is a question for you RC. If a character has Improved trip, and does a trip attack as an AoO, do you allow him to get the follow up attack? Also, if a character has Knockdown and does 10 points of damage during an AoO, do you allow him to get the trip attempt?