Cleave and AoOs

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you can't imagine why or how you could get an extra attack in any situation: your imagination sucks.

It is also true if you can't imagine why or how you should not get an extra attack in any situation: your imagination sucks.

I am fortunate enough to be blessed with enough imagination to see it how it can work either way and give careful consideration to the pros and cons of both methods of resolving the situation. (As are a number of other posters here.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't think it's unbalancing to assume that Cleave can occur in an AoO. It's not like Cleave occurs ALL the time.

It is a corner case that will not come up all that often, I agree. The rarity issue cuts both ways. A DM will probably find it easiest to remember whatever is more intuitive for him or her.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And the "one fluid motion of attack" is what makes sense for me, so I allow it.

It is in the "drop" terminology, I think. Cleave represents, as far as I can tell, making the first target not impede the blow much or at all, still allowing you to carry through to another target. So it's just that the first target doesn't represnt any more of an obstacle to your normal attack than air. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon -- a sword slices through, while a trident could go in from a certain angle, or still be swung in a sort of triangular blow (as opposed to a circular one), and a mace blow just knocks the guy over as it travels through them, without stopping the blow.

I'd be tempted to allow someone to Cleave on a trip attack, too....

Though I readily admit the rules probably don't support that.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If you can't imagine why or how you could get an extra attack in any situation: your imagination sucks.

-Frank

If you can and do seek reasons to get some kind of bonus in any situation: you're a munchkin.

-Kae

 

[FrankTrollman]

And the "one fluid motion of attack" is what makes sense for me, so I allow it.

It is in the "drop" terminology, I think. Cleave represents, as far as I can tell, making the first target not impede the blow much or at all, still allowing you to carry through to another target. So it's just that the first target doesn't represnt any more of an obstacle to your normal attack than air. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon -- a sword slices through, while a trident could go in from a certain angle, or still be swung in a sort of triangular blow (as opposed to a circular one), and a mace blow just knocks the guy over as it travels through them, without stopping the blow.

Um.... tridents are a barbed stabbing weapon and do their primary damage when they are removed from the victim's body.

However it is that you get an extra attack when you drop someone with that weapon - it sure isn't because you did it in one fluid motion - even the regular attack isn't one fluid motion.

So once you wrap your mind around getting an extra use out of a two-part motion with the trident - I don't see how you could be having a problem with getting an extra sword swing from one of your enemies foolishly impaling themselves upon your blade.

-Frank

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let's assume that there's a guy standing in front of the Cleaver, and a dude standing behind him, and no other people around. The guy in front is at something like 2 hp, so he'll be the first target.
With a sword, the Cleaver does a little spin, slashing at the guy in front (who is barely even a bump on the path), and twirling around to strike the guy behind in the same motion.
With a mace, the Cleaver does nearly the same thing. Only, since the weapon doesn't go through the first guy, the first guy instead is dealt such a blow that he becomes something of a rag-doll, crumpling and being pushed aside, not impeding the path of the blunt weapon.
With a spear (or other peircing weapon), it becomes a bit more stylish. The first guy is hit at a slight angle, and when the weapon is drawn out, the Cleaver grips it near the head flipping it so that it faces behind them. It is then thrust through next to the Cleaver's body to the opponent behind them (which they're more-or-less blindly striking, but, hey, it's cinematic. ).

And this:

So once you wrap your mind around getting an extra use out of a two-part motion with the trident - I don't see how you could be having a problem with getting an extra sword swing from one of your enemies foolishly impaling themselves upon your blade.

I don't exactly understand. I wasn't aware that I had a problem with getting the Cleave on the AoO? I thought that's what I was saying...?

 

[Elvinis75]

The problem is mainly, that the extra attack spawns off another extra attack, which has a limited application, but that limit is lost on the way (which shouldn't be, IMHO at least).

The rules quite clearly do this and thus allow Cleaving off an AoO, but many people (including myself) do not allow this, for the reasons listed here.

It has nothing to do with imagination or what Cleave does represent (the fact alone, that you can Cleave with daggers or rapiers should make clear, that Cleave must mean more than a powerful blow, that cuts one victim in half and carries on into the next ).

Bye
Thanee

The problem that I have with your ruling is that it adds additional mechanics to the system without a reason. The AoO attack without a doubt has has it’s limitations. You cannot take an AoO unless some foe grants one. But what you are trying to do is limit the power of something that is not an AoO. The cleave feat is more than just swinging through opponent A to opponent B, else like you said daggers and rapiers would be out. I see it as being more akin to additional presence and tactical knowledge of the battlefield. The player with normal cleave can only use this once per turn. He thinks about it just enough to be able see now and again. The person with great or supreme cleave are the chess masters of the battlefield. No energy is wasted. They are always thinking about how they can swing and use motion to their advantage. Never commit more to any attack than you need to. When he makes the attack is not important. Every second that he is in combat he is looking for the advantage. The levels of insight are represented in the progression of that feat chain. C,GC,SC.

Your other agruement doesn’t seem to hold water. That was that say opponent A draws on AoO and you drop him and cleave to opponent B. Your point was what did opponent B do to leave himself open to another attack? The answer, nothing. Just like in the character’s normal attack in the same scenerio opponent B does nothing to leave himself more open. It isn’t something opponent B is doing. The character with cleave knows how to use the clutter of the battlefield to his advantage. The more opponents the better. He has chose to special in fighting large groups. It isn’t about the opponent B. It about the skill of the character. A person without cleave or any of the rest of the chain does not make the AoO with the same insight as someone with it. I think that the rules do and the designer’s would back this up.

 

[mikebr99]

The problem that I have with your ruling is that it adds additional mechanics to the system without a reason. The AoO attack without a doubt has has it’s limitations. You cannot take an AoO unless some foe grants one. But what you are trying to do is limit the power of something that is not an AoO. The cleave feat is more than just swinging through opponent A to opponent B, else like you said daggers and rapiers would be out. I see it as being more akin to additional presence and tactical knowledge of the battlefield. The player with normal cleave can only use this once per turn. He thinks about it just enough to be able see now and again. The person with great or supreme cleave are the chess masters of the battlefield. No energy is wasted. They are always thinking about how they can swing and use motion to their advantage. Never commit more to any attack than you need to. When he makes the attack is not important. Every second that he is in combat he is looking for the advantage. The levels of insight are represented in the progression of that feat chain. C,GC,SC.

Your other agruement doesn’t seem to hold water. That was that say opponent A draws on AoO and you drop him and cleave to opponent B. Your point was what did opponent B do to leave himself open to another attack? The answer, nothing. Just like in the character’s normal attack in the same scenerio opponent B does nothing to leave himself more open. It isn’t something opponent B is doing. The character with cleave knows how to use the clutter of the battlefield to his advantage. The more opponents the better. He has chose to special in fighting large groups. It isn’t about the opponent B. It about the skill of the character. A person without cleave or any of the rest of the chain does not make the AoO with the same insight as someone with it. I think that the rules do and the designer’s would back this up.

Here Here!!!

Funny how this pops up every so often.... And I'll back this side of the argument, as always.

YMMV


Mike

 

[RigaMortus]

I am with the "allow Cleave with an AoO crowd".

Funny story (well, it wasn't funny for the victim, but still)...

Our party was fighting some Azers and Fire Giants that were invading a town. One of the members of the party was facing an Azer, and right behind him was a Fire Giant. The Fire Giant swung at our ally, and missed him, because he had cover from the Azer. So the DM checked to see if he his the cover, and he did. So basically the Azer took some hefty damage from him Fire Giant comrad, and died. I asked (because I am mean), "Does the Fire Giant have Cleave by chance?" to which the DM replied, "Actually, he has Great Cleave." So the Fire Giant took his Great Cleave attack and ended up killing our party member. It is a great scene if you can picture it. The Fire Gaint, wading through his own allies, to kill one of ours. Sort of reminds me of the cave troll scene in LotR...

Not that that has anything to do with AoOs and cleave...

 

[Bagpuss]

I allow it

a) Because the rules allow it, and I'm pretty sure this has come up in Sage Advice as being okay.

b) It does make sense. I doubt anyone would be expecting someones sword to cut right through the person next to him and carry on to attack them so they aren't likely to be protecting that flank.

c) I don't like to limit special abilities especially if they already only come up in limited occasions.