Can you cleave after making an AoO?

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you cleave after making an AoO?

My point is it should not be easier to cleave a dumb lump of meat than thin air.

As I said, this isn't a point. It doesn't apply. Dumb has nothing to do with this rules equation. The fact of the matter is that you can Cleave off of an AoO if you drop your opponent.

Look at case 1 and case 2 in my previous posts.

I looked at them before I replied to you the first time. It didn't change my stance then and it doesn't change my stance now. But, allow me to explain. This is your example...

Round 1
A hits Monster
B drinks potion, Monster hits B with AoO, cleaves & hits A
Monster hits A, A dies

If B drinks a potion, and monster hits B with an AoO, and B drops, resulting in a Cleave from the monster, which then hits you (A), then on the monster's action it hits you again, and you die, does that mean that the rules are broken simply because you don't like them, simply because you died? No.

Your argument appears to be based upon the fact that B is dumb, and because of that, the rules must be broken because A, obviously a very smart individual, gets hit with a Cleave and dies. Life sucks. There's not much more to say than that. I could understand your position on this if the rules were indeed unfair, but your entire argument appears to be based upon the fact that you (A) don't want to die simply because B provoked an AoO within the rules.

Now, my only question is this: Why the heck was A standing so close to an idiot like B in the first place?

A lot of people don't like rules when it kills or severely hampers them.

It begs the question why I can't AoO thin air or WWA + GC thin air to generate free attacks.

I don't think it begs that question at all.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you cleave after making an AoO?

Now, my only question is this: Why the heck was A standing so close to an idiot like B in the first place?

If you use the standard accepted reading of the rules, then 'close' could be 15' away and around a corner. Throw in reach and 'close' is meaningless.

If you restrict the cleave to 5 or 10 feet from the original target then there is something to what your say. I would counter that is reasonable rule 0, but why not fix the real problem, the cleave feat itself, in the first place?

A lot of people don't like rules when it kills or severely hampers them.

And some people given the choice between simple rules that gives weird results and require rule 0 to bandaid, and equally simple rules that give sensible results and don't require rule 0 prefer the latter. Your own comment about buckets of snails in the other thread supports my point.

The rules as written actually discourage tactics, albeit in a rather minor way. The net result of AoO + Cleave is a small but real disincentive to flee or provoke AoOs with risky tactics. It is one thing to risk your own neck but real heroes don't like killing their friends with the same action.

 

[Ristamar]

And in the immediate vicinity... means cleaving a target in an adjacent square to the target that you just killed.

[edit] Not 180 degrees away... not kill small baddie - cleave big baddie...wash-rince-repeat

I know this is a semi-popular interpretation. However, as per the current rules, the 180° cleave is legal (as is Cleaving off of AoO).

Goofy? Perhaps. But it's not like there isn't a ton of arguably 'goofy' rules in D&D besides this minor issue with Cleave.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you cleave after making an AoO?

If you use the standard accepted reading of the rules, then 'close' could be 15' away and around a corner. Throw in reach and 'close' is meaningless.

That's neither here nor there, as the Cleave description doesn't use the term "close". In fact, it uses the term "immediate vicinity", which is much stronger than the mere term "close".

If you restrict the cleave to 5 or 10 feet from the original target then there is something to what your say.

I restrict it to 5-feet, or a target in the "immediate vicinity", if you will.

I would counter that is reasonable rule 0

It's not rule 0. See previous comments.

EDIT: Restricting Cleave to 5-feet is indeed rule 0. See later post.

but why not fix the real problem, the cleave feat itself, in the first place?

Because I don't see how it's "broken" in regards to AoOs.

And some people given the choice between simple rules that gives weird results and require rule 0 to bandaid, and equally simple rules that give sensible results and don't require rule 0 prefer the latter.

Like I said, it's not rule 0. Furthermore, I just don't see this "weird result" you mention. Everything about cleaving off of an AoO makes perfect sense to me.

EDIT: Restricting Cleave to 5-feet is indeed rule 0. See later post.

Your own comment about buckets of snails in the other thread supports my point.

How so?

The rules as written actually discourage tactics, albeit in a rather minor way.

Huh? You lost me here. I think you left something out.

The net result of AoO + Cleave is a small but real disincentive to flee or provoke AoOs with risky tactics.

Attacks of opportunities themselves should be disincentive enough to try anything that would provoke them. Cleave doesn't make it any worse than it already is, especially since I think that's how it already works. If, however, you viewpoint is that cleaving shouldn't be allow off of an AoO as the rules already allow, then that's a whole different story, and one more appropriate for the house rules thread (but I don't think that's your viewpoint).

It is one thing to risk your own neck but real heroes don't like killing their friends with the same action.

True. But I also have a feeling that a "real hero" wouldn't pull such a boneheaded stunt like drinking a potion in the face of powerful monster, unless of course that "real hero" did so in an act of absolute desparation. Although, if desparation were the case, obviously, the fact that you can cleave off of an AoO doesn't make that apparently dangerous-as-hell-monster any more dangerous. The fact that the monster just cleaved your friend because of your act of desparation is just a sign of how completely nasty that monster is.

 

[kreynolds]

as per the current rules, the 180° cleave is legal

Would you mind explaining?

 

[Ristamar]

X = PC fighter
O = monster

O
X
O

If the fighter drops one of the monsters, he can cleave the other, regardless that there is a 180° differential in 'facing' (and I use that term extremely loosely, since official facing no longer exists, save for special circumstances, like beholders). Perhaps I should say 'directional targetting.' *shrug*

 

[HEL Pit Fiend]

Hey this is a topic I have experience with , we actually had this situation happen to us in a past session.

For those of you who believe that cleave only works on opponents standing next to each other (i.e. the guy you cleave attack must be 5 feet away from the guy you dropped), you are incorrect. "Officially" you may make a cleave attack anywhere you threaten, not just 5 foot from where you dropped an opponent, even 180 degrees behind you.

There is an example of this in SnF page 58. In a nutshell this is what happens, ol' Tordek the fighter wades in and faces off with 2 fire giants standing in a 120 degree arc in front of Tordek. Tordek drops firegiant 1 and cleave attacks firegiant 2 who happens to be 10 feet away from firegiant 1's now dead body (nice diagram in book).

Of course if you don't allow SnF in your campaigns then I guess it's not official for you, but for us, it's good stuff.

Also, I tend to agree with Ridley on his points on not allowing the use of cleave in AoO.

The arguement, I forget who made it, that simply dropping a guy who provoked an AoO allows a cleave on a non-AoO provoking opponent because that guy is somehow more vulnerable due to his friend going down MIGHT be true, but is very speculative.

Her's a better example, lets say 2 guys, both veteran fighters are having drinks in a crowded bar room. Both have the cleave and combat reflexes abilities. Fighter 1 makes insults about fighter 2's mother, fighter 2 in return makes insults about fighter 1's wife. Both fighters jump up, knocking over the table and draw weapons. They procede to take blows at each other. Other bar patrons, not wanting to get clobbered by stray swings, quickly get up and hustle to move out of the way of the two brawling fighters. A number of bar patrons move through various threatened squares of the two brawling fighters and provoke AoOs. Unfortunatly for the patrons, the 2 brawling fighters are EVIL, and decide to kill the 4 and 5 hit point peons to get free cleave attacks on the other offending fighter........ NO, not in my campaign, not gonna happen, I'm with Ridley on this one.

 

[kreynolds]

Perhaps I should say 'directional targetting.' *shrug*

No, no, no. That's ok. I get ya'. You essentially meant "within melee reach", as it states in the FAQ, yes?

 

[kreynolds]

For those of you who believe that cleave only works on opponents standing next to each other (i.e. the guy you cleave attack must be 5 feet away from the guy you dropped), you are incorrect. "Officially" you may make a cleave attack anywhere you threaten, not just 5 foot from where you dropped an opponent, even 180 degrees behind you.

I'm gonna have to go back on what I said earlier and say, yes, you are correct. However, if you restrict it to 5-feet, or "immediately adjacent", it instantly solves the "bucket-o'-snails" problem. (I just read the reply in the FAQ that explains "immediate vicinity". I hadn't noticed it before, or I just mucked it up.)

So, yes, I do house rule "immediate vicinity" to mean within 5-feet, instead of within melee range.

Did you catch that Ridley?

Still, I feel this ultimately fixes a serious problem with Whirlwind Attack, and it's the reason I did it in the first place. Granted, it doesn't fix the supposed "broken cleave/AoO" problem, but I don't see it as "broken" or a "problem" in the first place.

 

[Vaxalon]

Here's my completely canon cure for this problem:

Cleave only works if you knock down an ENEMY.

Since the bar patrons aren't enemies, you don't cleave off of them.