Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity

[Gaiden]

This is correct. Even if you take AoOs out of the equation, you can still end up in the situation where the BBEG takes more damage if he's accompanied by his minions, than if he's not. The problem is with Great Cleave itself; AoOs just make it obvious.

What I'd rule is that you can only make one cleave attack per target per round. So you can knock over as many mooks as you want, but you'll still only get one swing at the BBEG.

Actually, this is not correct. While Great Cleave could grant you far more attacks than normal, you would still get a maximum numberof attacks against the BBEG equal to your total number of attacks/round (barring of course AoO). The reason for this is that presumably the cleaving attack sequence will end when you hit the BBEG. So the problem is not at all with Great Cleave, but with AoO and cleaving in general.

Moreover, I forget who said that because this was a "should" debate, it belongs in the house rules forum. I move to disagree. This is precisely a rules argument because in this case, the rules make no sense - or at least in the spirit of the rules, allowing cleave to work unqualified with AoO makes no sense. As it has been stated, restated, and restated again, it simply does not make sense that a BBEG with mooks would be easier to defeat than a BBEG without mooks. It goes against the entire CR and EL system (even as defunct as that system is). For this reason it is a rules argument. As a player, sure, I'd love to see a broken tactic such as allowing cleaves to be used with AoO especially since it would rarely be able to be used against me (I know, irony at its best). However, as a DM, I would never allow this. The bucket of snails, or bag of rats shows how this mechanic is a slippery slope leading to nonsense. As with most slippery slope antagonists, there is always the argument to have the DM just arbitrarily block the descent. The problem with this is that it is arbitrary because the reason it is a slippery slope in the first place is that it is founded on a nonsensical premise - one that contradicts the CR/EL system.

The clearist way to make cleaving with AoO consistent with all of the other rules and with the CR system is to rule as an early poster suggested that you may not cleave into another foe with an AoO unqualified. That qualification can be any number of things. It could be that you could only cleave into another who also provokes an AoO. It could be that the provocation of that AoO has to occur during the same initiative count, etc. You could even rule that the cleave works on the same target that provoked the AoO, kind of like that demon ability (possibly devil, IDHMBWM) that allows a cleave attempt against the fallen opponent virtually guaranteeing death.

 

[Pielorinho]

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.

I'm having trouble following you; would you mind proofreading posts before submitting them? I think there must be suffixes or whole words missing or misplaced.

That said, who mentioned a chained or helpless impostor? That's not what I was talking about.

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.

Aside: a "slow though fool proof method it doesn't guarantee success"? The whole point of a foolproof method is that it guarantees success. This is an example of where your post really confused me.

It doesn't take a full minute to do this trick: it takes two, not necessarily consecutive rounds. Round 1: cast bless. Round 2: cast detect magic. As long as the rest of the group is out of your detection arc, and as long as the subject isn't under other spells, you've got your answer immediately on casting detect magic. This is not a trick to use in combat, sure, but my point isn't about combat: it's about resolving allegiances in a mystery-heavy, intrigue-laden adventure, in which combats are rarer than average.

A persistant foe might watch the group to figure out when the spell is cast, but that only works if it's cast on a regular basis. Again, that's not the situation I'm talking about: I'm talking about casting it to deal with specific suspicions. I don't want a foolproof method to deal with such suspicions.

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.

Hardly wasteful, if an orison and a first level spell enable the priests to detect any infiltrators with absolute success; on the contrary, a sensible god would demand the use of this spell combo by the faithful.

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?

According to the rules, yes. Gods don't micromanage; they delegate. That's what clerics are for. They're the middle managers of the holy hierarchy. If a cleric decides that the god hatin man is an ally and should be subject to bless, then that god hatin man is subject to bless. Maybe at some point the cleric's boss will have words with her, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that the gods are second-guessing every single spell choice their clerics make.

Daniel

 

[Pax]

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

CustServ rulings are worth exactly twice as much as the paper they're written on. (Think about it ...)

 

[Pielorinho]

Given the confusion their rulings cause, I think you're overvaluing them, Pax.

Daniel

 

[Elvinis75]

I'm having trouble following you; would you mind proofreading posts before submitting them? I think there must be suffixes or whole words missing or misplaced.

That said, who mentioned a chained or helpless impostor? That's not what I was talking about.


Aside: a "slow though fool proof method it doesn't guarantee success"? The whole point of a foolproof method is that it guarantees success. This is an example of where your post really confused me.

It doesn't take a full minute to do this trick: it takes two, not necessarily consecutive rounds. Round 1: cast bless. Round 2: cast detect magic. As long as the rest of the group is out of your detection arc, and as long as the subject isn't under other spells, you've got your answer immediately on casting detect magic. This is not a trick to use in combat, sure, but my point isn't about combat: it's about resolving allegiances in a mystery-heavy, intrigue-laden adventure, in which combats are rarer than average.

A persistant foe might watch the group to figure out when the spell is cast, but that only works if it's cast on a regular basis. Again, that's not the situation I'm talking about: I'm talking about casting it to deal with specific suspicions. I don't want a foolproof method to deal with such suspicions.


Hardly wasteful, if an orison and a first level spell enable the priests to detect any infiltrators with absolute success; on the contrary, a sensible god would demand the use of this spell combo by the faithful.


According to the rules, yes. Gods don't micromanage; they delegate. That's what clerics are for. They're the middle managers of the holy hierarchy. If a cleric decides that the god hatin man is an ally and should be subject to bless, then that god hatin man is subject to bless. Maybe at some point the cleric's boss will have words with her, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that the gods are second-guessing every single spell choice their clerics make.

Daniel

I didn't know that the book says that gods don't grant prayers? Give me the text that you are basing this off. I would think that is tailored to each campaign?

 

[Pielorinho]

I didn't know that the book says that gods don't grant prayers? Give me the text that you are basing this off. I would think that is tailored to each campaign?

I won't give you the text, because that's not what I said. If you think I said this, please quote the specific passage that gave you that impression, and I'll explain what I actually meant.

Daniel

 

[jgsugden]

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

These are terms that relate to the caster. More specifically, they relate to the goals of the caster. If the caster has a goal that he is actively working towards, and you are performing actions to further that goal, your are giving active assistance. If you are performing actions to hamper the caster in reaching his goal, you're engaged in active opposition. For the most part, motivation is irrelevant. You look at what the caster is actively trying to do and see which beings in range are trying to help the caster reach that goal (or otherwise trying to make that goal happen) or are trying to stop the caster from reaching his goal (or oterwise prvent the caster's goal from being reached).

I'm just using the definitions of the words without reading motivations into the discussion. An ally is a person giving assistance. Anyone assisting the caster in reaching a goal is an ally. Plain and simple.

 

[Pielorinho]

These are terms that relate to the caster. More specifically, they relate to the goals of the caster. If the caster has a goal that he is actively working towards, and you are performing actions to further that goal, your are giving active assistance.

No good. Mary is trying to kill the demon that Peter summoned. Her friend Mike is meanwhile trying to kill Peter himself. Does Mike not count as an ally, since Mary isn't trying to kill Peter?

What if both Mike and Peter are invisible, and Mary doesn't know they're fighting?

How broad is this "active assistance" and this "active goal" you're talking about?

Jill has been trying to kil the demon, but unfortunately, it stunned her last round. She's no longer actively trying to assist in the goal, because she can't. Is she an ally?

What about Bill, who would be trying to kill the demon if he wasn't under the effect of a Fear spell?

What about Lou, Peter's henchman who has decided in the heat of battle to run away? Since Peter was counting on Lou's help to defend the temple, does his running away count as actively assisting Mary in defeating the temple, inasmuch as it removes one of the temple's guardians? Would this change if he had actively surrendered?

If he doesn't get the blessing for removing himself from battle, does Guadelupe get the blessing for chopping Lou down before Lou gets a chance to skeedaddle?

What about the flatfooted, those who haven't had a chance to do anything yet?

I don't like your guidelines.
Daniel

 

[jgsugden]

You're looking at isolated incidents instead of looking at entire pictures. My system works because you look through the forest (all actions being taken by all creatures) for a particular kind of tree (giving assistance) and apply the effect if you see it. You're looking at one individual part of the forest and ignoring the rest of it.

The point of the system I mentioned is that it doesn't get bogged down by one aspect of motivation or conflicts in motivation.

No good. Mary is trying to kill the demon that Peter summoned. Her friend Mike is meanwhile trying to kill Peter himself. Does Mike not count as an ally, since Mary isn't trying to kill Peter?

What else is Mary trying to do? She probably has more than 1 goal. If she does *not* want Peter dead and killing the summoned creature is her only goal, then, no, Mike is not an ally. This type of vacuum never comes up. There are always multiple goals going on at a time.

What if both Mike and Peter are invisible, and Mary doesn't know they're fighting?

Are they trying to aid her? She doesn't need to know of their effeorts. She is not targetting them.

How broad is this "active assistance" and this "active goal" you're talking about?

As broad as the DM sees them being. It will, of course, be a judgement call. However, they are very easy standards to apply.

Jill has been trying to kil the demon, but unfortunately, it stunned her last round. She's no longer actively trying to assist in the goal, because she can't. Is she an ally?

Taking the word active too literally is a bit of a lame duck argument. If she is doing all she can in furtherance of the goal, she is an ally. Stunned could still be an ally. Unconcious probably wouldn't be.

What about Bill, who would be trying to kill the demon if he wasn't under the effect of a Fear spell?

Is he trying to assist the caster? You'll have to look at all the caster's goals and see if he is trying to help. It is entirely possible that just by fleeing due to a spell he is no longer trying to help the caster.

What about Lou, Peter's henchman who has decided in the heat of battle to run away? Since Peter was counting on Lou's help to defend the temple, does his running away count as actively assisting Mary in defeating the temple, inasmuch as it removes one of the temple's guardians? Would this change if he had actively surrendered?

Lou is not actively assisting or opposing the caster in your example (unless we have other surrounding circumstances), so he would be unaffected by bless or bane.

If he doesn't get the blessing for removing himself from battle, does Guadelupe get the blessing for chopping Lou down before Lou gets a chance to skeedaddle?

Is Guadelupe trying to help the caster reach a goal?

What about the flatfooted, those who haven't had a chance to do anything yet?

Are they doing something to help any goal that the caster is actively working towards?

I don't like your guidelines.
Daniel

They work really well. You're trying to look at them in isolated instances instead of how they'd come up in a real game. If you apply it to game situations, you'll see that it is really easy to use and covers all the bases.

Bless works on anyone that is actively working towards any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Bane works on anyone that is actively working against any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Very simple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bless works on anyone that is actively working towards any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Bane works on anyone that is actively working against any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Wait, I'm confused. Earlier you said that the flat-footed orcs weren't "enemies" because they weren't actively opposing... even though they were about to be.

But if Jill's stunned, she's still an ally, because if she weren't stunned, she would be actively helping?

-Hyp.