Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Madriver" data-source="post: 704574" data-attributes="member: 9540">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]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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> . 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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification