Can you cleave after making an AoO?

[kreynolds]

Cleave only works if you knock down an ENEMY.

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

LMAO

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Originally posted by kreynolds
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.

My comment is sort of explained by the following sentence (above).

The point is if you increase the potential cost of provoking an AoO you discourage AoOs. Obvious. On face value that is not a big deal: do something reckless or deperate, and sometimes you die.

IMO the problem is the "extra" cost from the cleave is not borne by the PC provoking the AoO. That creates both an in game and metagame disincentive. Gambling with your own PC's life is fun, the stuff of heroes. Gambling with the lives of other people's PCs is not fun (hopefully). It also can easily create bad player karma.

I think that is a Bad Thing. It is inevitable that foolishness by one PC will indirectly kill another PC. But I do not think there is any useful advantage in keeping quirky rules that makes this happen more often.

Is this a big deal? Probably not but it does depend on the campaign style. If the PCs are overmatched and forced to retreat it can easily come up. Keep in mind that physically intimidating and dangerous opponents are the most likely to have Cleave.

As for Rule 0 to restrict the 'range' of Cleave, I do not particularly like it because I think it squirms around the real issue, but I concede it is probably an adequate solution almost all the time.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Depends how Evil you are, doesn't it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

If you use the variant, then you would have a chance to parry or dodge the Cleave against you after your buddy drops, which still might hit, but if don't use the variant, then your dodging and parrying is passively represented by your AC and your attacker's attack roll.

I just don't see the problem here, that's all.

The problem is that your chance of dodging or parrying is passively represented by your AC and your attackers attack /roll/ - including how /often/ he makes that attack roll. If you drop your defenses, it's more likely you get hit that round, and it's represented by an extra roll, instead of a decreased AC. If you don't drop your defenses, you're no more likely to be hit - therefore no extra attack roll (AoO).

Fairly straightforward, conceptually, once you think about it.

But, it's not an argument about what the rules say, just about how you would conceptualize the way things go, when you rule that way.

The crux is that Cleave really only allows you to attack legitimate targets. For instance, if you're fighting two opponents, you could choose to attack either one. If you kill that one, you can cleave into the other. OTOH, if you're facing two opponents and one has his Tower Shield pointed at you such that he has 100% cover, you can't attack him from where he stands. You can attack the other, but, at best, if you kill him, you'll cleave into the other guy's Tower shield. He's just not an available target. When you take an AoO, your list of available targets is restricted to those provoking the AoO - and it would be no more apropriate for you to cleave through one of them into a guy who's /not/ provoking an AoO than it would be to cleave into someone half a mile away.

 

[SableWyvern]

Heh, I guess if you put the puzzle together, it does state it applies to melee weapons only right there in the description.

Take this...

The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature.

...and add it to this...

you get an immediate, extra melee attack

...and you get a complete answer. Nifty.

So, when I kill a guy with my composite bow, do I attack the guy beside me with an arrow, or the bow itself? Either way, I effectively get weapon finesse, because I get to use my composite bow attack bonus!

More seriously, how is this:

Guy B drinks potion, I nail him, then hit his mate "A"

any worse than this?:

I attack Guy B because I can, I nail him, then hit his mate "A"

I would certainly like to know what makes Guy B Potion Drinker considered incredibly dumb, while Guy B Not Drinking a Potion but Being Killed Just as Effectively, is not.

For a start, it would appear to me that the second guy is pretty damn stupid: he most certainly should have been drinking a potion of cure moderate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

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.

Actually, when interpretting rules, 'dumb' has a lot to do with it. A reading of the rules that brings about 'dumb,' imbalanced, or otherwise undesireable results should be discarded in favour of a ruling that avoids such. Of course a ruling should fit the letter of the rules, but it should be a good ruling.

The idea that you can cleave off an AoO or Whirlwind and, by doing so, gain more attacks against a given opponent in the round than you could have gained had you been facing that opponent alone, is both dumb and imbalanced. Any ruling giving such a result should be reconsidered. And, frankly, if a better legitimate ruling cannot be made, rule-0 should be gratefully invoked.

 

[SableWyvern]

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

The idea that you can cleave of an AoO or Whirlwind and, by doing so, gain more attacks against a given opponent in the round than you could hae gained had you been facing that opponent alone is both dumb and imbalanced. Any ruling giving such a result should be reconsidered. And, frankly, if a better legitimate ruling cannot be made, rule-0 should be gratefully invoked.

(my emphasis)

So, it's alright to "gain more attacks against a given opponent in the round than you could hae gained had you been facing that opponent alone" using cleave as part of your attack action, but not if you do it off an AoO?

Where is the logic in that? If you want to argue against cleaving off an AoO, you'll need better reasoning than that.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would certainly like to know what makes Guy B Potion Drinker considered incredibly dumb, while Guy B Not Drinking a Potion but Being Killed Just as Effectively, is not.

For a start, it would appear to me that the second guy is pretty damn stupid: he most certainly should have been drinking a potion of cure moderate.

It is a question of what "justifies" gaining a free out of initiative sequence action like an AoO.

If you believe that AoOs are cause by dropping your guard, which is implied but not stated by the rules, then there is a big difference. The touchy question is whether A dropped his guard for the followup cleave from the AoO. I would say is it sheer speculation to say A drops his guard when B gets smashed. (Consider the case where all three combatants are enemies.)

For normal attacks it is a non-issue because "dropping guard" has nothing to do with getting hit by the followup attack from the cleave because this happens on your opponent's action.

 

[SableWyvern]

For normal attacks it is a non-issue because "dropping guard" has nothing to do with getting hit by the followup attack from the cleave because this happens on your opponent's action.

But getting cleaved when somebody else has received an AoO doesn't happen on your action either.

However, rather than just arguing against the people who don't like AoO Cleaves, I'll try and be a little more constructive and give my ruling on the matter.

I don't think it can be argued definitively as to whether or not an AoO Cleave is stylisitically appropriate.

So, I considered: is an AoO Cleave unbalancing?

IMO, Cleave is not. Great Cleave, however, has the potential to be.

So, I ruled that an AoO Cleave counts against attacks of opportunity for the round.

I guess that that is sort of a middle line, allowing Cleaves on AoO, but keeping them from getting out of hand.

 

[kreynolds]

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

Actually, when interpretting rules, 'dumb' has a lot to do with it. A reading of the rules that brings about 'dumb,' imbalanced, or otherwise undesireable results should be discarded in favour of a ruling that avoids such. Of course a ruling should fit the letter of the rules, but it should be a good ruling.

The idea that you can cleave off an AoO or Whirlwind and, by doing so, gain more attacks against a given opponent in the round than you could have gained had you been facing that opponent alone, is both dumb and imbalanced. Any ruling giving such a result should be reconsidered. And, frankly, if a better legitimate ruling cannot be made, rule-0 should be gratefully invoked.

What does this have to do with the part of my post you quoted? Nothing. You are talking about a "dumb" rule. Fine. He was talking about a "dumb" player. Different.