Cleave and AoOs

[Fester]

It's strange that people can take two arguments and conclude no question that one is right and another is wrong. So the cleave feat says you can make an extra melee attack per round. So what? The AoO rule says you can only make one per round. So who is to say which is the correct ruling? It's just a matter of opinion.

The primary reason I do not allow it imc is simply because, as already pointed out in this thread, if someone drops their guard and takes an AoO it has nothing to do with anyone else and using cleave in this way just seems, to me, to make a mockery of the rules.

 

[Aaron L]

And cleaving at any other time is different? You cut throguh one person and follow thru into someone else. Doesn't put conditions on it.


I just meant Great Cleave thinking that your first cleave was used up in your normal attacks. Dropping someone in melee provokes a cleave, whether it was on your first attack of a full attack action, your fourth, or on an AoO.

 

[thalmin]

And cleaving at any other time is different? You cut throguh one person and follow thru into someone else. Doesn't put conditions on it.


I just meant Great Cleave thinking that your first cleave was used up in your normal attacks. Dropping someone in melee provokes a cleave, whether it was on your first attack of a full attack action, your fourth, or on an AoO.

Cleaving allows you to hit someone else you could have chosen to hit in the first place.
AoO would not have allowed you to have hit the second target.
Many of us see my first sentence as a condition for cleave. Many do not. That is why the controversy.
That is why so many have house-ruled on this one. It will remain a somewhat gray area that DM's will continue to house-rule. As long as the players in a given game agree, or agree to abide by the DM's rules, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I also disallow Cleave and AoO to work together, as it's complete nonsense, that you can make an extra attack against someone who has not provoked an AoO, just because some idiot next to him does.

Bye
Thanee

I also don't allow it, or they will start packing several blind goblins and force them to throw pebbles all the time.

But I like the idea of additional AoO's with cleave.

 

[AuraSeer]

By the strict letter of the rules, it's clear that you can cleave off an AoO. The spirit of the rules arguably disallows it, though, because any rule that can be exploited with blind kobolds tends to strain suspension of disbelief.

The "correct" interpretation depends on the campaign, and how your DM interprets the rules. A strict literalist will probably allow the combination, while a realist or a freeformer probably will not.

 

[dcollins]

The latter however implies that you have to use an action to drop the foe!

No, the phrase "no matter what type of action" includes the "no action".

 

[Storminator]

Yep! That's a pretty nice idea to give a benefit to the fighter with Cleave still in that situation.

I also disallow Cleave and AoO to work together, as it's complete nonsense, that you can make an extra attack against someone who has not provoked an AoO, just because some idiot next to him does.

Bye
Thanee

I allow it. Cleave is limited enough in its use.

I see Cleave as plowing right thru the first guy, and continuing on to the next. And I can see how the first idiot prevented the second guy from properly defending himself by "virtue" of being in the frickin' way.

PS

 

[Camarath]

It's strange that people can take two arguments and conclude no question that one is right and another is wrong. So the cleave feat says you can make an extra melee attack per round. So what? The AoO rule says you can only make one per round. So who is to say which is the correct ruling? It's just a matter of opinion.

My stance is when a feat or spell is in conflict with the normal rules the rules set forth in the feat or spell trump normal rules. So if a feat, cleave in this case, sets a condition under which you gain a bonus then at any time that condition is met you gain that bonus regardless of the normal rules governing the situation, unless the feat or other rules that deal specifically with that feat state other wise. The fact that normally one is limited by a certain rule does not mean that that prohibition prevents one from using the stated benefit of a feat. For example the rules state that to make more than one attack in a round you must use a full attack action but that does not mean that one must use a full attack to use the Cleave feat since the Cleave rules trump those rules IMO.

 

[Dimwhit]

My stance is when a feat or spell is in conflict with the normal rules the rules set forth in the feat or spell trump normal rules.

That's a good idea, but I can see problems with it. Take Supreme Cleave for instance. It allows a 5ft step in between an attack and a cleave. But if you've already taken a 5ft step in the round, I don't think you can take another one. But I certainly could be wrong.

As for Cleave with an AoO, I think it's allowable. Great Cleave pushes the bounds of reason, but... And don't forget, if you've used your cleave during your normal attack, you can't use it for an AoO. I believe it's once per round, regardless.

 

[Thanee]

I allow it. Cleave is limited enough in its use.

I see Cleave as plowing right thru the first guy, and continuing on to the next. And I can see how the first idiot prevented the second guy from properly defending himself by "virtue" of being in the frickin' way.

Nothing wrong with that. I just tend to follow the spirit of the rules and that (to me at least) clearly seems to be, that this combination shouldn't work, since you only get an AoO because someone let his guard down and the abstract nature of D&D combat translates this into an extra attack, but it's - altho rule-wise the same - not an attack like the one you do on your turn, it's just an exploit of a weakness in someone's defense and has nothing to do with anyone else around!

Bye
Thanee