Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity

[Crothian]

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.

And after it happens once, the mooks all run away.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But why would the ogre and orcs be that close together in the first place?

Orcs? I said goblins. This isn't the Hobbit, man, they're different!

Anyway - the goblins weren't that close. They were hanging back with bows. But when they got hit with the Greater Command: Approach, they all had to run past the Tank fighting the Ogre to get to the Cleric, provoking AoOs as they went.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And after it happens once, the mooks all run away.

Provoking AoOs each one of them...

 

[dcollins]

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

The DM does. In general, it makes sense to base it on the perception of the actor, with the DM disallowing absurd declarations made just to cheese the language of the rules. That's what a DM's there for.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The DM does. In general, it makes sense to base it on the perception of the actor, with the DM disallowing absurd declarations made just to cheese the language of the rules. That's what a DM's there for.

I am not sure what you mean by "cheese" in this context. You will have to be more precise. I spelled out four equivalently logical cases for AoO+Cleave. They are all correct according to the rules. Where is the problem?

 

[Crothian]

Provoking AoOs each one of them...

They can easily move aout of the way without provocking AoO. But that still doesn't asnswer the question: Does this situation come up so many times that it really needs to be altered?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

They can easily move aout of the way without provocking AoO. But that still doesn't asnswer the question: Does this situation come up so many times that it really needs to be altered?

Not necessarily. Characters who would use these tactics on purpose almost certainly have reach weapons.

Needs to be altered? For most campaigns, probably not. Should be altered? Depends on how tolerant you are on these that are, um, you know, too cheesy...

 

[Crothian]

If a player sets himself to use this as his main tactic, I'd see no problem in it. It is very easy to neutralize and a good many encounters this doesn't apply to.

 

[dcollins]

I am not sure what you mean by "cheese" in this context. You will have to be more precise. I spelled out four equivalently logical cases for AoO+Cleave. They are all correct according to the rules. Where is the problem?

The problem is #1 and #4, in which the same character is directing mooks to act stupidly in combat, in a way that is suicidal, to gain extra free attacks. That's cheese and makes no sense in a roleplaying context.

I disagree that they are correct according to the rules. AOOs are only indicated as being allowed against "enemies".

 

[anon]

The basis for allowing a character to get an attack outside of the normal initiative sequence (an AOO) is that a threatened opponent has dropped their guard.

I can see no logical reason why if someone near me drops their guard that I should then be subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack.

I am not challenging the premise of Cleave--momentum/theatrics can explain it as much as I need, but rather the idea of an extra attack with no basis.