AoOs and Cleave/Great Cleave

[frankthedm]

Do you feel that cheapens Combat Reflexes? since it gives another route to multiple AoOs per round?

IMHO there are not enough ways to get extra AoOs in the first place and this does not tread on combat reflexes real gem IMO of taking AoOs when flat footed. The surprise round and round one are usually all the mooks have to "Mob-the-mage" as it were. Also thats the rounds of combat the ambush predators go for the weak pack members the rest are huddled around.

 

[frankthedm]

Hmm but that doesn't make any sense at all per the RAW.

Since no two characters actions occur at the same time then only one character can provoke an AoO at a time and unless the character has Combat Reflexes he can only take a single AoO per round.

No It would not make a lot of sense by the RAW. "I allow... " was meant to indicate I was crossing into house rules terrtory.

Some DMs will disallow cleaving off an AoO because the person being cleaved into never drew the AoO. Most of that type let you use that "cleave" as a spare AoO should another AoO be drawn that round. Effectivly delaying that 'AoO cleave' until you have someone else that you were entitled to take an AoO on in the first place.

If a rogue can apply sneak attack damage during an AoO why can't a fighter use his Cleave feat to swing at a different foe? The rules say he can and teh FAQ reinforced this.

As I said it is not a matter of "fairness" it is a matter of meeting the conditions necessary to utilize cleave, just like sneak attacks.

IMHO when the intial attack can be taken because;

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

fairness and the issue of who let thier guard down come into play.

RAW is on your side and WOtc and FAQ have to or are at least supposed to side with the RAW unless errata say otherwise.

 

[Korak]

...and this does not tread on combat reflexes real gem IMO of taking AoOs when flat footed.

an excellent observation. At least in core D&D, that is probably the larger of the two benefits of Combat Reflexes. However, with the introduction of feats like Robilar's Gambit, Combat Reflexes is a much more powerful feat, and the high dex benefit of the feat becomes relatively more valuable.

I still don't agree with you, but I would enjoy playing at your table.

 

[molonel]

IMHO when the intial attack can be taken because; fairness and the issue of who let thier guard down come into play.

Except that it doesn't matter if someone's guard is down.

You go first in the initiative order and kill someone? Cleave. They're flatfooted. Their guard is still down. It doesn't matter. Completely fair.

Someone runs past you at full speed? No Dex bonus to AC? You kill them in one shot? Cleave.

You prepared an action to attack when someone cast a spell, and you roll a crit and kill them? Cleave.

Fairness and "who let their guard down" have nothing to do with it.

The circumstances that trigger a cleave are very specific:

1. You have a Str score of 13 or greater.
2. You have taken the Power Attack feat.
3. You have taken the Cleave feat.
4. You attacked someone or something, and hit, and did damage.
5. Your attack did sufficient damage to reduce them to 0 hit points or below.
6. Something else is standing in one of your threatened squares, and you are aware of it.

Everything else is preference.

 

[frankthedm]

Everything else is preference.

Why yes it is. I've already said the rules agree with you guys.

 

[molonel]

I've already said the rules agree with you guys.

I'm aware of that.

But I also disagree with your reasoning, and not merely your divergence from the rules.

 

[Korak]

Fairness and "who let their guard down" have nothing to do with it...

The circumstances that trigger a cleave are very specific...

Frank has already conceded (in this thread and others) that RAW is not on his side. He understands what the RAW says. He chooses to invoke Rule 0 for his table in the way he described, for the reasons he described. Other people (not including me) agree with his reasoning and ruling and use that variant rule. There is no need to continue hammering on Frank. Both of you understand the RAW. There is no disagreement.

EDIT: well, both of you shot off responses before I finished this, but my sentiment stands.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm aware of that.

But I also disagree with your reasoning, and not merely your divergence from the rules.

Then we disagree a cleave spawned from an AoO should work similar to an AoO.

 

[molonel]

Frank has already conceded (in this thread and others) that RAW is not on his side. He understands what the RAW says. He chooses to invoke Rule 0 for his table in the way he described, for the reasons he described. Other people (not including me) agree with his reasoning and ruling and use that variant rule. There is no need to continue hammering on Frank. Both of you understand the RAW. There is no disagreement. EDIT: well, both of you shot off responses before I finished this, but my sentiment stands.

I am not "hammering" anyone. I simply disagree with his reasoning, and said so. Nothing demands that either he, or you, respond to what I've said, but what I've said has been reasonable, rational and polite. I thank you for your efforts to keep the peace, but since there is no unrest or disrespect to prevent or curtail, I think those efforts unnecessary.

 

[frankthedm]

Frank has already conceded (in this thread and others) that RAW is not on his side. He understands what the RAW says. He chooses to invoke Rule 0 for his table in the way he described, for the reasons he described. Other people (not including me) agree with his reasoning and ruling and use that variant rule. There is no need to continue hammering on Frank. Both of you understand the RAW. There is no disagreement.

EDIT: well, both of you shot off responses before I finished this, but my sentiment stands.

I appreciate the sentiment. There is a slight disagreement. Nothing' major.