Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity

[Plane Sailing]

No, but we do play with each other. Inconsistent answers lead to troubles down the road.

True for online games, I grant you... but I'd imagine that most of us play with a fairly stable gaming group (or groups) and resolve issues on a case by case basis to suit themselves, and it is merely a matter for the DM to make sure that any grey areas are made clear to the players. I play with multiple DM's within the same group and some of them will make a different call to me when it comes to adjudicating an issue, but that's fine.

I should add that I agree entirely with you that the ideal is nice clear rules, and that 3/3.5e is generally great at having clear and consistent rules. Unfortunately a side effect of specifying rules very closely is that little language loopholes appear which cause the very bless/bane issue above to be discussed, especially when attention is focused on the letter of the rules rather than coming to a (probably locally) agreed decision on what the intent of the rules are.

Cheers

 

[Pielorinho]

I disagree. Mary gets no choices. The question is not whether Mary *thinks* the creature is an ally. The question is whether the creature is an ally.

Is the creature allied with Mary in an active goal? If so, it is blessed. If not, it is not. We're looking for active assistance (or in the case of bane, active opposition).

As I said before, this ruling makes espionage and mysteries extremely difficult to run, inasmuch as it creates an undefeatable way to read someone's intentions. Mysteries, especially political mysteries, are my favorite sort of adventure; before I used this ruling, I'd do away with bless and bane entirely.

Incidentally, your ruling also becomes complicated in relationships where people have multiple goals. In a recent game, the PCs came across a fight between the deposed vizier's bodyguard and the druidic nomads who had helped the vizier overthrow the rightful queen. The PCs joined in the fight. Were they allied with the druids, since they shared the active goal of killing the bodyguard? Were they allied with the bodyguard, since they shared the active goal of killing the druids? Had one of them cast bless or bane, how would you have ruled it?

It would've been simple with my ruling: I would've asked the player who they considered an ally. At some point during the battle, they decided to focus their attentions on the druids; at that point, the player might have considered the bodyguard to be an ally. BUt only the player could know that.

Daniel

 

[Elvinis75]

So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bless, then Detect Magic again, anyone who doesn't show a new Enchantment aura is not really my ally?

So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bane, then Detect Magic again, anyone who does show a new Enchantment aura is actually an enemy?

-Hyp.

This is still nothing special!?! You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.

This also forces you to use up your spells to check this.

Does DM show you new enchantments over old enchantments?
Seems that you would have to sit there consentrating on the person for three rounds(twice).

Assuming that you are doing this outside of combat I would think that it would tip off the dop. that you are attempting to see if there is a rouse here. In a campaign that allows it, I would say that dop. would know that this is there weakness and so they get in and out of the group quickly.

 

[Pielorinho]

This is still nothing special!?! You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.

This also forces you to use up your spells to check this.

Does DM show you new enchantments over old enchantments?
Seems that you would have to sit there consentrating on the person for three rounds(twice).

Assuming that you are doing this outside of combat I would think that it would tip off the dop. that you are attempting to see if there is a rouse here. In a campaign that allows it, I would say that dop. would know that this is there weakness and so they get in and out of the group quickly.

Zone of truth has at least three weaknesses over this effect:
1) It's a higher level spell (the least of its weaknesses);
2) It allows its subjects a will save and spell resistance; and
3) It can be countered with a spell such as (depending on DM ruling) protection from good. Similarly, Detect Lies can be countered with Mind Blank or Misdirection.

This trick, on the other hand, has no defenses against it.

Another example of why this is important: in one early scene in my campaign, the players reported a particular nobleman to the guards as a leader of a revolutionary, demon-worshipping cult. Unfortunately, they also managed to tip off the nobleman that he was about to be investigated, and so the nobleman obtained a potion of glibness and a scroll of misdirection, drank the former, and had his house sorcerer cast the latter on him. When the town guard showed up, even though they brought a judicial priest with him for the investigation (complete with detect evil and zone of truth), they were unable to find out anything about his schemes.

If we'd used your interpretation of bless, they could've cast bless, gotten everyone except for the nobleman to stand behind the cleric, and cast detect magic to see whether he was allied with the city.

Sometimes you're not worried about tipping someone off that you're investigating them. There have been plenty of times in a game where I've suspected a party member of having been replaced by a doppelganger (not that I'm paranoid or anything) and have grilled the party member explicitly to verify that they've not been replaced. Such grillings aren't foolproof; your ruling would replace the grillings with an inexpensive and foolproof way to check.

Daniel

 

[jgsugden]

As I said before, this ruling makes espionage and mysteries extremely difficult to run, inasmuch as it creates an undefeatable way to read someone's intentions. Mysteries, especially political mysteries, are my favorite sort of adventure; before I used this ruling, I'd do away with bless and bane entirely.

No, my ruling would have no effect on these types of issues. Secret motivations are not really important in my ruling. Go back and read my answers again.

Incidentally, your ruling also becomes complicated in relationships where people have multiple goals. In a recent game, the PCs came across a fight between the deposed vizier's bodyguard and the druidic nomads who had helped the vizier overthrow the rightful queen. The PCs joined in the fight. Were they allied with the druids, since they shared the active goal of killing the bodyguard? Were they allied with the bodyguard, since they shared the active goal of killing the druids? Had one of them cast bless or bane, how would you have ruled it?

In that situation, both spells would have worked on the PCs. They were helping and opposing both sides.

It would've been simple with my ruling: I would've asked the player who they considered an ally. At some point during the battle, they decided to focus their attentions on the druids; at that point, the player might have considered the bodyguard to be an ally. BUt only the player could know that.

Daniel

Actually, I consider my ruling easier to make than yours because I don't have to ask the cleric anything. I just check to see if the targets are opposing or helping the catser in an active role. Your view also wouldn't follow the rules as closely as mine. Area of effect spells offer no choices unless they involve a targetted (ie; X targets in y area) aspect.

You don't seem to grasp my approach. It follows the rules and works very well. I strongly suggest people use it if they find problems with their interpretations.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

From the description of the Attack Action, a standard action:
"Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack."

So, using the Attack Action, rather than the full attack action, you cannot get more than one attack.

However, Cleave allows you to gain an extra attack whenever you drop an opponent. This includes if you drop an opponent with an Attack Action... despite the fact that ordinarily, you must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack.

Cleave provides an exception to this rule, just as it provides an exception to the Combat Reflexes rule.

-Hyp.

I took a little look at the 3.5 Srd and I'm with herman in thinking the "aoo=cleave" decision isn't as airtight as has been assumed. The section says "Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack..." I don't think that the "whenever" in cleave has to overrule any and all other rules. If an attack of opportunity is defined as a single melee attack, AND a person feels personally that allowing followup attacks on AoO is a bad idea, I see the text as supporting that interpretation, and we are not in the realm of houserules here. The "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity..." only backs up the line of thought that an attack of opportunity is a single blow, which cannot be expanded by use of improved trip, cleave, various insane lasher abilities or whathaveyou...

Has there been an official or even semi official ruling on this question, or is it just assumed that the cleave wording trumps other rules? (note that in the cleave/truestrike thread, the sage was quoted as specificly saying that the cleave "same attack bonus" wording is subordinate to the spell "one attack" wording)

Once we are in the realm of houserules, its worth noting that in the Stargate book (and I assume the spycraft rules its based on) they went to the bother of defining a "Single Attack" as what is given by various feats and special abilities (though they remove AoOs entirely) and specificly stating that you cannot use any ability to turn it into more than one attack. I found this very gratifying and refreshing, as I have seen certain feat/class combos used to practicly take full attack actions from one AoO, and not only the potential for abuse but simple logic has me restricting it IMC to "quick hits, no follow through".

Kahuna Burger

 

[jgsugden]

This is still nothing special!?! You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.

Zone of truth has a save. If you run bless/bane as Hypersmurf is arguing against, you get no save. Of course, you could achieve the same goals with a good sense motive skill ...

 

[Elvinis75]

Zone of truth has at least three weaknesses over this effect:
1) It's a higher level spell (the least of its weaknesses);
2) It allows its subjects a will save and spell resistance; and
3) It can be countered with a spell such as (depending on DM ruling) protection from good. Similarly, Detect Lies can be countered with Mind Blank or Misdirection.

This trick, on the other hand, has no defenses against it.

Another example of why this is important: in one early scene in my campaign, the players reported a particular nobleman to the guards as a leader of a revolutionary, demon-worshipping cult. Unfortunately, they also managed to tip off the nobleman that he was about to be investigated, and so the nobleman obtained a potion of glibness and a scroll of misdirection, drank the former, and had his house sorcerer cast the latter on him. When the town guard showed up, even though they brought a judicial priest with him for the investigation (complete with detect evil and zone of truth), they were unable to find out anything about his schemes.

If we'd used your interpretation of bless, they could've cast bless, gotten everyone except for the nobleman to stand behind the cleric, and cast detect magic to see whether he was allied with the city.

Sometimes you're not worried about tipping someone off that you're investigating them. There have been plenty of times in a game where I've suspected a party member of having been replaced by a doppelganger (not that I'm paranoid or anything) and have grilled the party member explicitly to verify that they've not been replaced. Such grillings aren't foolproof; your ruling would replace the grillings with an inexpensive and foolproof way to check.

Daniel

Though you are right there are ways to avoid a ZOT it was also be risky for the imposter to agree to be chain and helpless and then pulled in knowing if they failed the save they were dead. If I were the imposter I would at that point call no joy and run.

Casting spells for a full minute and looking is a slow though fool proof process it doesn’t guarantee success. Any ally player can resist the bless spell. Is he not willing to accept the favor of kord(pick any) or a enemy replacement? The player could just decline to go through your little test every day for the rest of his life. It doesn’t stop a persistant foes from sneaking in. He watches the group and figures out when you go through this process for the day and then replaces someone finding info and or attempts to kill one of the party. Further proof that it is good to follow a diety and that it gives you better clarity on who is your friend and who is your foe.

I would not call this situation a deal breaker on the ally enemy situtation. I say that what works for 98% of situations is good enough.

Further looking at the wider issue of a king ordering the clergy to put people to the test there is the issue of would a god continue to grant wasteful prayers. The bless isn’t going to be the end all tell all in the what type of foe are they. Say that a person is angry and wishes another person ill but yet hasn’t done a thing. What about the case where one of the PC is a god hatin self made type of man and spits on your holy symbol. You think that your diety is going to bless that person? As a DM I can think of other situations like character races and the dieties contempt for them. Is Grumsh going to grant favor to elves? NIMC! Or a priest that follows an opposing diety? To many loopholes in my campaign to call that spell sequence a lock.

 

[anon]

Customer Service Responds

I emailed Wizards Customer Service the other day. Here is the predictable response:

Subject: RE: Cleave and AoO
From: Wizards Customer Service <custserv@wizards.com>
Date: January 12, 2004 5:28:36 PM CST

Cleave kicks in any time you drop an opponent. This includes instances where it happens as the result of an attack of opportunity.

Thanks!

**Please quote this e-mail in any reply.**
******************************************************************
Darrin
Wizards of the Coast - Customer Service
Website: http://www.wizards.com
Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496
Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 7 PM PST
Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500
******************************************************************

I strongly dislike this ruling (though I do think it's supported by the rules as written).

 

[Pielorinho]

No, my ruling would have no effect on these types of issues. Secret motivations are not really important in my ruling. Go back and read my answers again.
You don't seem to grasp my approach. It follows the rules and works very well. I strongly suggest people use it if they find problems with their interpretations.

I reread it, and you're right: I don't grasp it. Please define "active assistance" and "active opposition." Be aware I'll pick apart any definition as much as Hypersmurf has picked apart my method .

Daniel