Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 698617" data-attributes="member: 545">There is a subtle but important difference you seem to be missing.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But if Y doesn't do that, why should X complain?&nbsp; In a certain sense, Y is &quot;invisible&quot; to X.However, if Y provokes an AoO that changes.&nbsp; Y is no longer &quot;invisible&quot;.&nbsp; In fact, a passive action on the part of Y (getting killed) actively affects X in a significant way.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In the long haul it will even out for and against the PCs.&nbsp; The real issue is that D&amp;D is a game where the PCs are heroes.&nbsp; As a game, it is desirable that dumb luck not be allowed to &quot;easily&quot; reinforce itself.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Maybe not.&nbsp; Is it desirable in a game?&nbsp; No.Pax,I do like your suggestion&nbsp; That gives a useful benefit for Cleave without the ugly potential cascade effect.&nbsp; It also creates an interesting possible ambiguity: Does he have Cleave or does he have Combat Reflexes?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ridley's Cohort, post: 698617, member: 545"] There is a subtle but important difference you seem to be missing. During a normal attack Cleave does [b]not[/b] grant an extra attack against X when Y dies [i]from the POV of X[/i]. 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. [i]Sometimes[/i] 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 [i]passive action[/i] on the part of Y (getting killed) [i]actively[/i] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification