Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity

[dcollins]

...but I believe rather strongly if you feel the need to bandaid it in this manner you should disallow it in the first place...

I don't see "no AOO against allies" as a band-aid, but rather my honest reading of the intent and flavor of the Cleave and AOO rules. The AOO language is in fact pretty consistent about using the word "enemies", as in "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity against you." (3.0 PHB p. 122)

 

[Hypersmurf]

The AOO language is in fact pretty consistent about using the word "enemies"...

Ah, but who determines who is an enemy and who is an ally?

If you think we're friends, but I secretly want to kill you, am I your enemy? Your ally? Both? Neither?

If you cast Bless, am I affected? If you cast Bane, am I affected?

What if I cast Bless, or Bane - which affects you?

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party? Seems like a weak reason to dicount something in the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party?

It's the lynchpin of the "Bag of Rats" trick (which still works in 3.5, even though the Bucket o' Snails has been stymied) - the theory is that a bag of rats dumped on the floor will result in said rats all running away and thus provoking AoOs. Combat Reflexes lets you drop each rat, and Great Cleave means each rat dropped results in an attack at full bonus against your opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Ah, but who determines who is an enemy and who is an ally?

If you think we're friends, but I secretly want to kill you, am I your enemy? Your ally? Both? Neither?

-Hyp.

We're all mature here. You don't have to throw in the word 'if' when you know you don't need it.

 

[Crothian]

It's the lynchpin of the "Bag of Rats" trick (which still works in 3.5, even though the Bucket o' Snails has been stymied) - the theory is that a bag of rats dumped on the floor will result in said rats all running away and thus provoking AoOs. Combat Reflexes lets you drop each rat, and Great Cleave means each rat dropped results in an attack at full bonus against your opponent.
.

I'm familiar with the it. But it's an interesting thing in theory, but in practice I've never heard of a DM not laughing at anyone who tried this. It's abusing the system, and I don't even know any gamers who would even try that at a serious game. Is there a rash of gamers across the world creating PCs with the full intention of doing this trick?

 

[Pielorinho]

What about rewording cleave this way (or something like this)?

Cleave: When your melee attack leaves an opponent unconscious, you may consider yourself not to have made that attack, for the purposes of figuring out how many attacks you have remaining. If the melee attack was made as an attack of opportunity, you may consider yourself to have chosen not to make an attack of opportunity against that opponent. Once you use this ability, you may not use it again until your next action.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm familiar with the it. But it's an interesting thing in theory, but in practice I've never heard of a DM not laughing at anyone who tried this. It's abusing the system, and I don't even know any gamers who would even try that at a serious game.

That's right. But it's used as an illustration of what some people consider to be a problem.

An Ogre barbarian is tough. An Ogre barbarian backed by half a dozen goblin lackeys should, theoretically, be tougher.

But if those goblins all provoke AoOs - particularly if they're under the influence of something like a Greater Command, but there are other ways it could happen - then suddenly the Ogre's life expectancy is much shorter. His allies, rather than increasing the challenge, decreased it.

Alternatively, the Ogre might, as you noted above, take the AoOs himself, and repeatedly Cleave into the PC tank, which the players will likely cry "Foul!" on.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party? Seems like a weak reason to dicount something in the rules.

You missed three out of four logical possibilities. The full array is:
(1) BBEG kills evil mooks to attack party.
(2) BBEG kills good mooks to attack party.
(3) Hero kills evil mooks to attack BBEG.
(4) Hero kills good mooks to attack party.

With the use of summonings a hero may kill good mooks without alignment problems. (It gets even more exciting if we add in third parties, e.g. neutral mooks, innocent bystanders, co-allies, co-enemies.)

The idea of distinguishing between "allies" and "enemies" is purely artificial and illogical. Mechanically speaking the relavant question is who do you choose to threaten or affect with Bless/Bane. It seems to me that the DM dictating who is or is not my enemy/ally is as extreme as railroading can get.

As far as the aboves reasons being weak, I am sure a lot of people agree with you. I am fine with that although my personal opinion differs. IMNSHO it is positively foolish to house rule case #4 while leaving #1, #2, #3 as is.

 

[Crothian]

But why would the ogre and orcs be that close together in the first place? It's not like fireball is this rarely used spell.

Sure it can happen, but I'm not willing to change something for a situation that rarely comes up in game.