Charging, Cleave, Spring attack and AoO...

[Thanee]

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.

No, I'm saying, that you could not attack them, not that you are not attacking them. You still seem to confuse these two things. With regular Cleave you also are not attacking them, but you could attack them (or have attacked them; with the first attack, that is). With AoO Cleave you are neither attacking them nor could attack them. Because they did not let their guard down (i.e. provoked an AoO). They should not be a valid target for the Cleave, because they are not a valid target for the attack that spawns the Cleave, because this attack and the Cleave attack are - if you go back from the abstraction to the situation being modeled - the same attack.

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. "

Not sure what's unfortunate about that, but that's just the same thing... I used the phrase above, too, to make that a bit more clear hopefully.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Another way to look at it is this...

Cleave gives you a free attack under certain conditions.
Which is the free attack? Ok, obviously it is the second, as it comes after the condition is met.
But one could also see it the other way around. The first attack is (was) free, as long as it meets the condition.
You then, basically, get that attack back, so you can do it again, a second time.
It's still the 'same' attack, though, with the same weapon, same attack bonus, and as it should be IMHO, the same restrictions.

Bye
Thanee

 

[glass]

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.

It's not an impossible situation. Under the RAW it would be a common one. The characters live in a world governed by the rules, and would react accordingly. If the BBEG knows that he can fight much more effectively with sacrificial commoners milling about behind him, then he will makes sure that he has some milling commoners on hand in case he needs them. That hurts versimilitude, which is why I (and a lot of others) houserule it.


glass.

 

[Philip]

Cleave on AoO feels unfair to me, and hurts my suspension of disbelief. To me it feels the same as allowing the following feat:


OPPORTUNISTIC FEINT

You are trained in using the expectations of your enemies against them in combat, thereby creating an unexpected opening in their defenses.

Prerequisite: Bluff 3 ranks, Combat Reflexes

Benefit: When you receive an attack of opportunity, you can make an immediate extra melee attack on any opponent within the area you threaten instead of against the target that provoked the attack of opportunity. This counts as your attack of opportunity for the round. You can use this ability only once per round. Use of this ability does not deny the target its dexterity bonus.

Normal: A character without this feat can only make attacks of opportunity against the target that provoked it.

A fighter may select Opportunistic Feint as one of his fighter bonus feats.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's still the 'same' attack, though, with the same weapon, same attack bonus, and as it should be IMHO, the same restrictions.

So, to be consistent, you disallow a cleave off most charge attacks? Assuming you charge to one opponent, and the square you charge to is an invalid square against another opponent within range (invalid based on charging rules), then you can't cleave, right, because you couldn't attack that opponent in the first place from that position. I'm not sure I can come up with any other examples to show why your logic is faulty, but this one does at least.

It's not an impossible situation. Under the RAW it would be a common one.

Common? Are you serious? All those commoners are going run past the BBEG wielding a spiky chain knowing they will die? Please! Be realistic. It's an impossible situation because of all the idiotic assumptions you have to make. Yes, it could legally happen much like 400 orcs could agree to form a straight line and pack in as tightly as possible for your lightning bolt, but it won't happen and no sane person would suggest that it would happen.

Cleave on AoO feels unfair to me...

So, by unfair do you mean unbalanced?

 

[DM-Rocco]

Okay, new question, If I want to charge, or just move in, with A1 or A2 and I want to activate fighting defensively and pump 5 points into combat expertise, when does that take effect, after I attack, or before I move or whenever I want?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1. You can't Fight Defensively or use CE on a charge. Both require you to take the attack or full attack action. Charge is a separate full-round action.

2. Both CE and FD are options you may exercise when you take the attack or full-attack action. Accordingly, their bonuses / penalties do not come into play until you take that action. In your example, this means that it would take effect just before you start to attack, but after you complete your move.

 

[Philip]

So, by unfair do you mean unbalanced?

No, just unfair:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1899225&postcount=244

It can be unbalanced, but only if abused by players and DM's, but that's hardly unique to Cleave and AoO's, and not the main reason for me to disallow Cleaving of AoO's. I think the mechanic goes against the spirit of the game.

 

[Thanee]

So, to be consistent, you disallow a cleave off most charge attacks? Assuming you charge to one opponent, and the square you charge to is an invalid square against another opponent within range (invalid based on charging rules), then you can't cleave, right, because you couldn't attack that opponent in the first place from that position. I'm not sure I can come up with any other examples to show why your logic is faulty, but this one does at least.

It's completely consistent (well, as consistent as Cleave can be, anyways) and not faulty at all, you just look at it from the wrong angle.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

It's completely consistent (well, as consistent as Cleave can be, anyways) and not faulty at all, you just look at it from the wrong angle.

One could say exactly the same thing to people who feel that cleaving off of an aoo is 'unfair' or 'doesnt make sense' or 'tastes bad with pie'.