Cleave and AoO

[Macbrea]

LCL

It is perfectly legal for character C to drop the first Little guy (L) and then Cleave the second one because he is within reach.

 

[Zhure]

from the FAQ:
"Q: The Cleave feat says you can attack another creature in the immediate vicinity when you drop a foe with a melee attack.
What is the definition of “immediate vicinity?” How does
that change when using supreme cleave?
A: A character can take only one 5-foot step each round, and then
only if the character has not otherwise moved during the round.
Supreme cleave lets you step between cleave attacks, but you still can step only once.
In the case of Cleave, “immediate vicinity” means within melee
reach. A character using supreme cleave can first take a 5-foot
step to determine who is within melee reach before choosing a
target for a cleave attack."

 

[mikebr99]

from the FAQ:
"Q: The Cleave feat says you can attack another creature in the immediate vicinity when you drop a foe with a melee attack.
What is the definition of “immediate vicinity?” How does
that change when using supreme cleave?
A: A character can take only one 5-foot step each round, and then
only if the character has not otherwise moved during the round.
Supreme cleave lets you step between cleave attacks, but you still can step only once.
In the case of Cleave, “immediate vicinity” means within melee
reach. A character using supreme cleave can first take a 5-foot
step to determine who is within melee reach before choosing a
target for a cleave attack."

Well I'll be...

Cleave away on the big guy all you want...

 

[kreynolds]

You 100% sure there?

99.9%. The missing .1% is to prevent anyone from accusing me of "preaching".

The combatant may take a 5 ft. step before, after, or between the attacks.

Whirlwind is a full attack action...

That's neither here nor there. I don't think that's what was intended in the case of whirlwind. This whole thing was beaten with a stick several times on these boards. Can't remember if what the result was though.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Now I remember the outcome. Nobody could agree.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Really though, how is that any different than getting an cleave on an opponent during a regular attack sequence. When your attack drops the orc in a normal attack, what did the cleave target do to provoke the attack? Nothing, other than be standing in an area threatened by you. This is a classic example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think it is sometimes overlooked that the cleave target during an AoO has to be in your threatened area. Its not like you can get an attack against an opponent who is only standing next the fallen victim.

You are completely missing the big picture.

In the case of a regular attack, having your ally nearly get hit and cleaved and then receiving the followup attack does not hurt you in the least. That is part of the normal price you pay for being near an enemy. While it may be disappointing that your ally did not slow down your opponent's offense, there is no logical problem involved because your opponent could have attacked you in the first place.

In the case of an AoO, your opponent is getting an extra attack out of sequence because an ally did something foolish. Common sense says that your ally choosing to drink a potion should not make you more likely to die. This gets weird when you throw in reach -- an "ally" 15 or 20 feet away can indirectly provoke an extra attack on you. It gets stranger still when you have multi-party combats -- an "non-ally" 15 or 20 feet away can provoke an extra attack on you.

Do you get it now?

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

In the case of a regular attack, having your ally nearly get hit and cleaved and then receiving the followup attack does not hurt you in the least. That is part of the normal price you pay for being near an enemy. While it may be disappointing that your ally did not slow down your opponent's offense, there is no logical problem involved because your opponent could have attacked you in the first place.

In the case of an AoO, your opponent is getting an extra attack out of sequence because an ally did something foolish. Common sense says that your ally choosing to drink a potion should not make you more likely to die. This gets weird when you throw in reach -- an "ally" 15 or 20 feet away can indirectly provoke an extra attack on you. It gets stranger still when you have multi-party combats -- an "non-ally" 15 or 20 feet away can provoke an extra attack on you.

Note the bolded text in the first paragraph. Would that not be the case when for the second paragraph also. He is still near an enemy so he has the probability of being hit. If the enemy is concerned his ally is going to do something foolish that may endanger him then he should move out of the immediate range of the enemy. Combat in 3E is dynamic, it doesn't matter how a character gets an attack (rather from being hasted and using a partial action as an attack, from an AoO, from your normal sequence in initiative, etc) when you do get to take a swing at someone, if you choose to rather than trip, disarm, sunder, etc. ., it is interpreted all the same. That means if you drop the foe you get the free swing of the cleave. That is how the game is played.

Now I have a scenario that with your interpretation shouldn't work. I have a fighter who is hasted. On his turn he opts to use his move Note the bolded text in the first paragraph. Would that not be the case when for the second paragraph also. He is still near an enemy so he has the probability of being hit. If the enemy is concerned his ally is going to do something foolish that may endanger him then he should move out of the immediate range of the enemy. Combat in 3E is dynamic, it doesn't matter how a character gets an attack (rather from being hasted and using a partial action as an attack, from an AoO, from your normal sequence in initiative, etc) when you do get to take a swing at someone, if you choose to rather than trip, disarm, sunder, etc. ., it is interpreted all the same. That means if you drop the foe you get the free swing of the cleave. That is how the game is played.

Now I have a scenario that with your interpretation shouldn't work. I have a fighter who is hasted. On his turn he opts to use his move equilivant action to move 30' to a target. With his partial action (from haste) he opts to take a single swing at the target in front of him, and in doing so he kills the target, with the option to take a cleave at any remainding targets. Now with the remainder of his action he readys a Partial Charge to attack the wizard 15' away if he starts to cast a spell.
On the wizards turn he begins to cast a spell. The Fighters condition comes up so he executes a partial charge into the Wizard, which also results in the kill. Therefore if he had cleave he should get a free swing at any target that is within reach of him. However by your interpretation he got an attack out of sequence (even though it was with part of his regular action), so he wouldn't get a cleave attempt.
action to move 30' to a target. With his partial action (from haste) he opts to take a single swing at the target in front of him, and in doing so he kills the target, with the option to take a cleave at any remaining targets. Now with the remainder of his action he readies a Partial Charge to attack the wizard 15' away if he starts to cast a spell.
On the wizards turn he begins to cast a spell. The Fighters condition comes up so he executes a partial charge into the Wizard, which also results in the kill. Therefore if he had cleave he should get a free swing at any target that is within reach of him. However by your interpretation he got an attack out of sequence (even though it was with part of his regular action), so he wouldn't get a cleave attempt.

Do you get it now?

Yeah I've seen the point that was trying to be made, I just don't agree with it. However you seem to have issues grasping the other side of the discussion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yeah I've seen the point that was trying to be made, I just don't agree with it. However you seem to have issues grasping the other side of the discussion.

I answered your question: "Really though, how is that any different than getting an cleave on an opponent during a regular attack sequence."

It is different. That is what my post shows.

Answer this question: Do you find it plausible that you will die more quickly when your ally standing 25 feet away drinks a potion than if your ally was never there in the first place? How about if that ally is around the corner and out of line of sight from you? In the next room?

I find all of the above implausible. Maybe you don't.

I have never said anything about Ready Actions. As far as I am concerned Ready Actions are a special type of Delay and not out of sequence actions. There is no logical problem with Cleave from a Readied Attack.

I do understand perfectly how the rules as written work in this case. By the book Cleave works with AoOs. Common sense says otherwise. That is all I am saying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd probably restrict Cleave from an AoO to opponents that are actually provoking AoOs. If 3 orcs try to charge past you, sure, cut 'em all down in one might swing. But if they charge past you while you locked in combat with a cagey duelist, I don't see why you should get an extra attack on /him/... (heck, if anything, he should get an extra poke at you while you're wildly hacking away at the orcs).

Basicly, Cleave should never let you get in an attack that you couldn't have taken /instead/ of the the one that dropped the opponent. Otherwise, you get situations - like the infamous bag o' rats - where it becomes advantageous to conjure up (litterally or figuratively) whimpy opponents so you can wail on the real ones by killing them.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I answered your question: "Really though, how is that any different than getting an cleave on an opponent during a regular attack sequence."

It is different. That is what my post shows.

What provokes the attack is different, but the attack and the mechanics of the attack are not. That is the point I am trying to get across since cleave is a mechanic of the attack action.

Answer this question: Do you find it plausible that you will die more quickly when your ally standing 25 feet away drinks a potion than if your ally was never there in the first place? How about if that ally is around the corner and out of line of sight from you? In the next room?

I find all of the above implausible. Maybe you don't.

Well since there are only a hand full of Creatures that have a 25ft reach (Tarrasque being one) no. If I am within reach of an enemy I am always at risk not only during there specific turn in the initiative cycle.
Being out of sight of an ally has nothing to do with it. If I was out of sight of the opponent I would have full cover so he wouldn't get an attack on me (well he could, but he'd have to guess what square I'm in, get a 50% miss chance etc etc).
The target never has any say so on when they are or aren't the target of an attack. The only thing the target does is make it harder or easier to do.

I have never said anything about Ready Actions. As far as I am concerned Ready Actions are a special type of Delay and not out of sequence actions. There is no logical problem with Cleave from a Readied Attack.

See Above statements.

It really comes down to DM preference though. If characters/or monsters for that matter, are dropping oponents with AoO's all the time during combat with other peon's dying from cleaves then implement a house rule. In our game I think this specific instance has happened a handful of times at max, and never in the same combat, let alone same combat round with the same character.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well since there are only a hand full of Creatures that have a 25ft reach (Tarrasque being one) no. If I am within reach of an enemy I am always at risk not only during there specific turn in the initiative cycle.
Being out of sight of an ally has nothing to do with it. If I was out of sight of the opponent I would have full cover so he wouldn't get an attack on me (well he could, but he'd have to guess what square I'm in, get a 50% miss chance etc etc).
The target never has any say so on when they are or aren't the target of an attack. The only thing the target does is make it harder or easier to do.

A=you
B=ally
M=monster with 10' reach

A _ M _ B

B is standing 20' away when he drinks his potion. Adding angles and bending around corners can make the distance 25'.

If you bend it around a corner, B may be out of sight from you when he gets smacked. Then you die.

Those last two sentences I quoted are exactly stating the problem. Why does B's action affect whether A gets hit an extra time?

Examples...

Combat 1 (A vs. M)
round 1
A hits M
M hits A
round 2
A hits M, killing M

Combat 2 (A & B vs. M)
round 1
A hits M
B drinks potion, M hits B, cleave on A
M hits A, killing A

Notice any difference?