Charging, Cleave, Spring attack and AoO...

[werk]

By RAW, I think it should be allowed. It doesn't make sense, to me, but I can't find anything in the rules that would prevent a cleave resulting from an opponent dropped by an AoO. This is a good one to add to your house rules sheet if it 'does-not-compute' (that's what I just did).

Remember, you should try to avoid AoO...they are bad.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of course it's a ludicrous set-up. It is deliberately ludicrous, to show the extent of the problem.

It's not a problem. The setup isn't merely an extreme example, it's impossible. It would be like suggesting that fireball does too much damage because if you cram 1000 critters within the area of effect then a 10d6 fireball does an average of 35000 points of damage.

If you don't like cleave on an AoO, then stick to that, but don't try to prove that cleave on an AoO is broken. In particular, don't use great cleave to try to show cleave being broken.

On a small scale, cleaving off an AOO is not unbalanced.

If by small scale, you mean that anything that could occur in a game, then I agree. It also means that your houserule is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist and you're nerfing cleave for what amounts to no reason. Or, you're nerfing it based on great cleave. It would be like removing disguise self becase you feel shapechange is too powerful.

I think you're missing her point. The reason to separate out the case during an AoO, is that you can only attack an opponent outside of your turn when they drop their guard.

I understand the distinction is due to being outside your turn. That's in the definition of AoO, and doesn't answer my question. Saying that the cleave happens outside your turn is a requirement that it's an AoO versus not an AoO. Saying that cleave is disallowed outside your turn because it's outside your turn is a circular justification. You can't use AoO or "outside your turn" to answer my question, unless you just want to say "because I said so." I could accept that and ignore the rest of the argument, but then you offer the additional justification that "you can't cleave to someone unless they drop their guard." Now you're actually trying to justify the restriction on cleave that is no longer a circular argument and might have validity. However, if you use this justification, then you have to disallow cleaving altogether because no matter what, whoever you cleave to will never drop their guard. It doesn't change the fact that you're restricting the cleave based purely on the defensive posture of the potential target.

The upshot is, the clear purpose of the feat is to give you extra attacks on your turn, not get attacks of opportunity against characters who haven't provoked them.

This purpose of the feat is clear? How can you justify that statement? Cleave has nothing about 'your turn' in it, only per round.

 

[Thanee]

I understand the distinction is due to being outside your turn. That's in the definition of AoO, and doesn't answer my question. Saying that the cleave happens outside your turn is a requirement that it's an AoO versus not an AoO. Saying that cleave is disallowed outside your turn because it's outside your turn is a circular justification. You can't use AoO or "outside your turn" to answer my question, unless you just want to say "because I said so." I could accept that and ignore the rest of the argument, but then you offer the additional justification that "you can't cleave to someone unless they drop their guard." Now you're actually trying to justify the restriction on cleave that is no longer a circular argument and might have validity. However, if you use this justification, then you have to disallow cleaving altogether because no matter what, whoever you cleave to will never drop their guard. It doesn't change the fact that you're restricting the cleave based purely on the defensive posture of the potential target.

You still don't get the point.

The point is, that Cleave basically allows you to 'repeat' the attack (follow-through with it, it's basically still the same attack) you just did, against a new target.

You could have attacked the second target with the first attack already, so you can do so with Cleave.

On an AoO, you could not have attacked the second target to begin with, so you should not be allowed to do so with Cleave either.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The point is, that Cleave basically allows you to 'repeat' the attack (follow-through with it, it's basically still the same attack) you just did, against a new target.

You could have attacked the second target with the first attack already, so you can do so with Cleave.

Two points:

1. Where does it say that in the definition of Cleave?

2. I'm very interested in hearing you describe how my swashbuckler, with a rapier, "followed-through with [the same attack]" by stabbing someone behind him and then cleaving on to the guy 180* away from the initial target.

 

[Thanee]

Two points:

Two points:

1. Where does it say that in the definition of Cleave?

Where did I say it does?

2. I'm very interested in hearing you describe how my swashbuckler, with a rapier, "followed-through with [the same attack]" by stabbing someone behind him and then cleaving on to the guy 180* away from the initial target.

That's a general problem with the Cleave fluff...

To quote the PHB: "Cleave: You can follow through with powerful blows."

...but it's not really relevant, how it is done, it's just relevant, that it is some sort of maneuver, which is a continuation of an attack (as I see it).

Bye
Thanee

P.S. I just knew this would happen, since I did not put up a link to my original post on every single reply... Doh! Heck, it would have happened regardless...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Where did I say it does?

Well, you're using it as the basis for your particular ruling. Ergo, I'd assume that it had some basis in the rules.

 

[Thanee]

Oh, I have explained that above already, that the rules for Cleave strongly suggest, that they indeed are modeling a continuation of the first attack, not - as the rules do, as an abstraction, because it doesn't really work otherwise - a new attack.

Bye
Thanee

 

[FireLance]

If you don't like cleave on an AoO, then stick to that, but don't try to prove that cleave on an AoO is broken. In particular, don't use great cleave to try to show cleave being broken.

For the record, I'm not trying to "prove" anything is broken. I believe that few game elements (feats, spells, class abilities, magic items, etc.) are truly broken, but certain game elements may not be appropriate for particular games, depending on the preferences of the DM and players. What I tried to do with the Great Cleave example was to show an extreme example of what happens if you allow cleaving off an AOO and why I, personally, do not like it. If you're fine with the implications of that example, then by all means allow cleaving off an AOO in your games. However, if that example makes someone think, "This interpretation of the rule leads to a result I don't like," then he should consider interpreting the rule differently in his games.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You still don't get the point.

The point is, that Cleave basically allows you to 'repeat' the attack (follow-through with it, it's basically still the same attack) you just did, against a new target.

You could have attacked the second target with the first attack already, so you can do so with Cleave.

On an AoO, you could not have attacked the second target to begin with, so you should not be allowed to do so with Cleave either.

I get all that. And, if you left your comment like that, I'd move on because you are not giving any justification at all. You are saying that you can't attack someone with cleave on an AoO if you can't attack that person on an AoO. You're using the concept that you are not already attacking them to say that you can't attack them. It's a circular argument.

Unfortunately, you instead said in post 4, "The 'problem' with Cleave and AoO is basically, that you are going to attack someone else with a follow-up attack based on the AoO, even though they did not let their guard down, because someone else provoked it. " The underlined part is what I have additional problems with. I know we're not arguing rules here, and I'm not trying to make anything personal. But, since you posted this comment, I assume you are open to criticism on it. I don't think I need to rehash the discussion, but I wanted to make it clear where I was arguing from and why.

For the record, I'm not trying to "prove" anything is broken. ... What I tried to do with the Great Cleave example was to show an extreme example of what happens if you allow cleaving off an AOO and why I, personally, do not like it.

So, the example with Great Cleave was not an attempt to show brokenness? I mean no disrespect, but I quite honestly cannot believe you when you say that.

If you're fine with the implications of that example, then by all means allow cleaving off an AOO in your games. However, if that example makes someone think, "This interpretation of the rule leads to a result I don't like," then he should consider interpreting the rule differently in his games.

What are the implications and what is the undesirable result if it has nothing to do with brokenness? What possible problem could you have with it if it's not broken and, say, a player gets to use it once in every 50 levels of a character? This is why I don't believe you. I have absolutely no doubt that the only reason that setup is ever presented is to show brokenness.

 

[FireLance]

So, the example with Great Cleave was not an attempt to show brokenness? I mean no disrespect, but I quite honestly cannot believe you when you say that.

What are the implications and what is the undesirable result if it has nothing to do with brokenness? What possible problem could you have with it if it's not broken and, say, a player gets to use it once in every 50 levels of a character? This is why I don't believe you. I have absolutely no doubt that the only reason that setup is ever presented is to show brokenness.

I guess there is a fine line between pointing out a potential problems with a game element and arguing that it is broken. I take the perspective that I can't tell you whether something is broken or not because I don't know what type of game you like to run. However, I can point out the potential problems with it and leave it to the individual to decide whether or not it is suitable for him.

When discussing the warlock, for example, I will point out that at high levels, it is capable of dealing out significant amounts of damage to multiple opponents, at will. This might be suitable for some games, but not for others.

When discussing whether a character who no longer meets the ability score prerequisites for a feat also loses the ability to use that feat as a prerequiste, I will point out that this interpretation means he also loses the class abilities of whatever prestige classes had that feat as a prerequisite. Again, this might be suitable for some games, but not for others.

So with the question of cleaving off an AOO, I will point out that it allows a charcter with Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave the opportunity to generate multiple attacks under the right circumstances, implausible though they may be. I don't like the implications of that, but that is merely my opinion. I am not going to declare it is broken because it might actually be what you want in your game.