Can you cleave after making an AoO?

[Tony Vargas]

What does this have to do with anything?

Nothing to do with the exact wording of the rules, something to do with how you picture the events they represent unfolding. It would be silly to think of Cleave as a video-game-powerup that causes the character to suddenly speed up after he kills someone, and more reasonable to picture the attack that sets up the cleave as being the one that was more-or-less 'instant' or 'free.'

 

[mikebr99]

Tony...

This all boils down to how you read the description of Cleave and how you would rule "in the immediate vicinity".

If you rule that it means in your entire threat range... then maybe it is slightly broken.

But if you rule that your cleave continuse into a target that is in the immediate vicinity of the target that just fell... ie in an adjacent square... then maybe, just maybe it isn't broken???

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Now, aside from this tactic being absurdly potent (5 full-BAB attacks from a greatsword wielding mid-level fighter probably equating to something like 10d6+50 damage, vs 4d6 for an 8th level searing light), it's just plain lame. It is, simply, an undesireable result of a an overly litteral ruling, and easily prevented with a more thoughtful, less obvious, but still basicly legal ruling.

Your fighter has some impressive stats to pull all of that off.

And, yes, it is a cheap tactic, but a legal one.

Do you have a problem with it?

Then you have two options-

1) Punish the cleric
2) Ban the cleave feat

FD

 

[Tony Vargas]

But if you rule that your cleave continuse into a target that is in the immediate vicinity of the target that just fell... ie in an adjacent square... then maybe, just maybe it isn't broken???

Y'know, when I first read Cleave, I assumed that's what it meant, and, it certainly makes the abusive combos 'less broken' under that interpretation. But, it also makes legitimate uses of Cleave less effective. Overall, I guess, it'd render the feat balanced, but, I'd find the solution sub-optimal.

And, the official line from WotC is that 'immediate vicininity' = your threatened area. ::shrug::

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

1) I can hit and kill your friend, and I can cleave into you.
2) I can hit and kill your friend, but I cannot cleave into you.

That's the basis of your argument. You have provided no logical reason as to why you can have one but no the other. The only reason you have offered is "Someone could die". That's a pretty weak argument, especially when considering that...

Let me try one more time: My argument is that there are loopholes in the rules such that weak & insignificant breathing meat on the field of battle can have HUGE effects on the outcome of the combat.

It could be your ally drinking a potion. It could be frightened bar patrons. It could be a butterfly wandering across the meadow or a cockroach skittering on the wall.

AoOs + Cleave is such a loophole.

WWA + GC is such a loophole.

I am more concerned about the AoO issue because that one actually shows up in play.

The game is about being heroic. Therefore small, incidental effects should not have huge net results. These two cases look to be "accidents" in the rules that do not have any positive effect on play.

(Kobolds might have a huge effect when flanking is involved, but that appears to be very much by purposeful design.)

 

[kreynolds]

So you can Cleave into someone who has full cover?

No. You were trying to apply off-topic comment to my post. I debunked it. Simple as that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your fighter has some impressive stats to pull all of that off.

Um, 13 STR, 13 DEX, and 4 feats, do-able by 4th level. For the damage bonus I'm assuming a STR boosted to 18+ & DEX to 18 and a magic weapon. With Bull's STR & Cat's grace (or items) available, it's not too unlikely.

And, yes, it is a cheap tactic, but a legal one.

Do you have a problem with it?

Yes, it's increadibly lame and broken. Do you find it otherwise? Reasonable and realistic, perhaps? A desierable and traditional part of the Sword & Sorcerery genre, maybe?

Then you have two options-

1) Punish the cleric
2) Ban the cleave feat

In-game solutions like 'punishing' a player's character for using a nigh-irresistably potent combo, is probably the worst possible solution.

Baning Cleave would be over-reacting, since there's a within-the-written-rules interpretation that eliminates the problem.

 

[kreynolds]

Let me try one more time: My argument is that there are loopholes in the rules such that weak & insignificant breathing meat on the field of battle can have HUGE effects on the outcome of the combat.

Oh crap. Not the "meat" thing again...

It could be your ally drinking a potion.

Which clearly provokes an AoO. Change the rules if you want.

It could be frightened bar patrons.

Which would earn you an evil alignment and a bounty on your head.

It could be a butterfly wandering across the meadow or a cockroach skittering on the wall.

Do you see those often in the midst of battle in your games? Come on...this isn't even serious.

AoOs + Cleave is such a loophole.

No. It's in the rules, spelled out quite clearly. The problem you have is this "meat" thing, you know, the whole concept of provoking an AoO, actually getting hit with it, and a rules-based-supported attack cleaving through some poor sod and into you.

WWA + GC is such a loophole.

Easy fix if you bandaid Cleave.

I am more concerned about the AoO issue because that one actually shows up in play.

Of course it shows up in play. Inevitably, some sod is gonna pop a potion right in the face of a Dire Bear and get his head ripped off. Again, I ask, who's fault is it that you were standing next to that genius. Poor tactical planning. Not broken rules.

The game is about being heroic. Therefore small, incidental effects should not have huge net results.

You mean like a vorpal weapon? Or do you mean anytime that a situation might yield a result that could end in an embarrasing death?

These two cases look to be "accidents" in the rules that do not have any positive effect on play.

I don't see it that way (as accidents in the rules). They are accidents in combat, accidents that came about because some genius provoked an AoO. Bad things happen all the time. It's nothing new.

 

[kreynolds]

And, the official line from WotC is that 'immediate vicininity' = your threatened area. ::shrug::

Yup. But I think we covered that on the first page.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just to sow further confusion...

Say you allow an AoO to Cleave...

You're in the mids to of a combat (you have Cleave, but not Combat Reflexes), when two baddies try to move past you. One of them's a rogue and tries to tumble to avoid your AoO, but flubbs the roll. You could AoO either of them, but decide to go for the whimpier-looking rogue. You cack him with the AoO, and cleave into the other guy...

Here's the question: the guy your AoO is cleaving into has Mobility. In your opinion, does he get the +4 bonus to his AC?