Cleave on an AoO?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Also, remember it goes both ways. If the PC does something that gets them dropped, they could have very well allowed their ally to get hit by a Cleave. There are more important attacks to worry about than a stray Cleave.

IMO this particular wrinkle is a Bad Thing.

Risks in tough situations should be encouraged because I believe it would make the game more fun overall. This adds what is effectively a very big random factor into the equation of how bad the results are likely to be. That kind of randomness encourages timidity on the part of the players (as adding luck tends to disfavor the PCs in the long term, as pointed out in the DMG).

Whether this kind of big random factor it fair or unfair, realistic or unrealistic is beside the point. When there is ambiguity in cases such as this, I go with what I believe will make the game more fun.

Most players are too timid when it comes to AoOs, given that it is so common to find players who report they never provoke an AoO on purpose. Pity that.

 

[castro3nw]

You could just as well have a feat that allowed the character to create a fiery explosion each time he dropped an enemy in combat and explain that he was able to do this because of "training".

So, I guess you don't much care for Desert Wind's 'Death Mark' maneuver in Bo9S?

 

[FireLance]

So, I guess you don't much care for Desert Wind's 'Death Mark' maneuver in Bo9S?

I see that as something more in line with a wizard's ability to create a fiery explosion with weird words, strange gestures, sulfur and bat guano. There's a magical or supernatural aspect to it that is absent from the usual flavor of a feat like Cleave.

If a feat deliberately built off a magical ability, such as a reserve feat that required you to have a [Sonic] spell available and allowed you to unleash a victory scream that dealt 1d6 points of sonic damage per level of the spell each time you drop an opponent in melee, I wouldn't have a flavor problem with that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My personal favored explanation that covers most of the situations where you would benefit from Cleave is that by taking the feat, you are able to drop weak opponents effortlessly - once per round for Cleave, and an unlimited number of times per round with Great Cleave. This turns the successful melee attack against the opponent you dropped into a non-action, and you may continue to act as if you had not attacked that opponent. In most cases, this will have the same effect as the SRD wording.

And in the cases where it doesn't, the explanation is incorrect, because it doesn't fit what happens by the rules

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

And in the cases where it doesn't, the explanation is incorrect, because it doesn't fit what happens by the rules

In the Rules Forum, the rules use YOU!

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the Rules Forum, the rules use YOU!

Well, I'm serious. If an ability gives you, say, a +1 insight bonus to AC, and you come up with a flavour explanation that explains why you get a bonus in most situations, but would deny you that bonus while flat-footed, say, your flavour explanation is either incorrect or incomplete.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

Well, I'm serious. If an ability gives you, say, a +1 insight bonus to AC, and you come up with a flavour explanation that explains why you get a bonus in most situations, but would deny you that bonus while flat-footed, say, your flavour explanation is either incorrect or incomplete.

True, and I generally do try to fit the flavor to the rules. In this case, however, I can't find a flavor explanation that fits with the rules which I like, so I do the next best thing, which is to find a flavor explanation that I like and change the rules to fit.

 

[robberbaron]

In our group we simply houseruled no Cleaving on AoOs.

Had a situation where the big fighter stepped into a load of tiny constructs and took them all out in THEIR turn.

 

[Votan]

In our group we simply houseruled no Cleaving on AoOs.

Had a situation where the big fighter stepped into a load of tiny constructs and took them all out in THEIR turn.

Interestingly enough, I see this as a good thing. A fighter using tactics and fets was highly effective at demolishing the opposition by using their weak points against them. I think that this is excellent use of a feat combination and the player should be proud to have pulled it off.

In my world, where wizards take out hordes of constructs throwing balls of fire, I worry about fighters being fun to play and/or effective but leave realistic to other games and other place.

 

[robberbaron]

Actually, we thought it was cool and a good use of feats as well.
It also seemed so silly that we agreed not to do it again.