Cleave on an AoO?

[Mistwell]

I think the best "solution" for this supposed "problem" is the built-in role playing one. That is to say, summoned creatures summoned by a good aligned caster are good creatures. You killing them to get an extra hit onto a foe with an attack of opportunity is not a good act, but an evil act. Even summoned creatures feel pain, and I think it's fair to assume they do not want to be hit with a greatsword upside the head by the people who summon them.

Now with a malconvoker, I can understand it. But with a typical good aligned caster? Naw, I would start slamming your alignment left and right until you stopped or slid into an evil alignment, and that should take care of that.

And even a neutral character who is constantly slaying their own allied summoned creatures will eventually slide towards evil I think.

That's the way to deal with that silly, unrealistic and incredibly uncommon potential abuse of the system.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Zero times.

But then again, I like using a comprehensive strategy while in combat, and I can imagine corner cases where provoking AoOs are beneficial over-all. YMMV.

Wait, wait....

You're saying that the benefit of sucking up an AoO is added potential fun, and people should do it sometimes...yet you hate ever provoking an AoO and avoid doing so under any circumstances whatsoever?

 

[hong]

Yeah - I'm playing a Spontaneous Divine Caster druid at the moment, and two of my (three) first level Spells Known are Summon Nature's Ally I, and Snake's Swiftness.

-Hyp.

Apropos of nothing, but what book is snake's swiftness in?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Apropos of nothing, but what book is snake's swiftness in?

Most recently, Spell Compendium. I think it was maybe MiniHB before that?

-Hyp.

 

[Jhulae]

Some people are OK with this. They feel that it is "right" that A is made to "pay" for B's mistake, or that B's death "distracted" A and made him drop his defences, effectively subjecting him to an AOO even though he did nothing to provoke one.

If someone in my party is wearing a necklace of fireballs that explodes because of a failed save, and I happen to be in the area of the resulting explosion, is it "right' that I'm made to "pay" for the other party's mistake?

No, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Same thing with someone on the receiving end of a cleave. I don't even understand this 'made to pay' thing, or 'dropping his defenses'. That's not even how the feat says it works.

All that person is, is in the wrong place (within range of the free attack Cleave provides for dropping an opponent) at the wrong time (when an opponent is dropped).

And, if I received three attacks because my supposed allies did something thing stupid, I'd be upset at my allies, not the opponent benefiting from her abilities, just like I'm not 'upset' at the wolf getting a free trip on me or the Grey Render getting not only a free grapple attempt after a successful attack but also a free rake if the grapple is successful (in both cases, me getting hit more times than would 'normally' occur during the turn).

Yeah, it's not fun when it happens, but it's not that I'm 'being made to pay' in any of those cases.

It's the same with cleave, honestly. As soon as you know what your enemy can do, you can 1) take the hits because you don't change your tactics, or 2) change your tactics and find a different way to take out your foe.

 

[FireLance]

I don't even understand this 'made to pay' thing, or 'dropping his defenses'. That's not even how the feat says it works.

Using the same A, B, and C that I mentioned in post #57, in a normal round of combat, C only gets one attack roll against A. A could be fatigued, exhausted, flat-footed, dazed, confused, deafened, stunned, shaken, or slowed, but C only gets one attack roll against A in a normal round of combat.

C can get an extra attack roll against A in a single round of combat under certain circumstances. One is the use of spells such as haste and the previously-mentioned snake's swiftness. Another is for A to drop his defenses and provoke an AOO from C.

When C Cleaves off an AOO that B provokes, he gets an extra attack against A. From one perspective, C is simply taking advantage of his feat - he has dropped an opponent, and he gets an extra attack against another opponent he threatens. However, from another perspective, C is effectively getting an AOO against A, even though A did nothing to provoke one.

Do you see an attack roll as one swing in combat? If so, in a combat between A and C with no AOOs, A swings once against C and C swings once against A in each round. When C Cleaves off an AOO, C swings once against A, and swings a second time against him after he has made a swing against B and dropped him with an AOO. If he is able to take a second swing against A in the round of combat that he drops B, why is he unable to swing twice against A in a normal round of combat?

Do you see an attack roll as the net effect of several attempts by C to get past A's defences? If so, an attack roll is not a single swing, but several swings, most of which are parried or dodged by A, and an AOO is a lapse in A's defences that allows one swing which would normally be parried or dodged to get through. When C Cleaves off an AOO, what is it about C dropping B that creates a lapse in A's defences? Alternatively, what is it about C dropping B that increases C's combat skill to the point that a swing that would normally be parried or dodged by A actually gets through?

 

[billd91]

It's just a feeling or a hunch... AoOs are designed as penalties for doing something "not quite allowed". I think they might have been conceived as a sort of metagame penalty (it's too good if you can use a bow both as a ranged and a melee weapon), rather than to represent something realistic, although later a decent in-game explanation was found.

Furthermore AoOs were designed in such a way that you can always avoid getting an AoO... by simply not doing the provoking action.

As I said, it's just a hunch that something isn't quite fair with it.

That's my take on it as well. If you don't provoke, you're not subject to an attack by someone taking an AoO.

 

[Elethiomel]

Do you see an attack roll as one swing in combat? If so, in a combat between A and C with no AOOs, A swings once against C and C swings once against A in each round. When C Cleaves off an AOO, C swings once against A, and swings a second time against him after he has made a swing against B and dropped him with an AOO. If he is able to take a second swing against A in the round of combat that he drops B, why is he unable to swing twice against A in a normal round of combat?

In this model, it isn't "a second swing against A after he has made a swing against B and dropped him with an AOO". It's a "continuation of the same swing that dropped B". You might as well ask why he's able to take a second swing at all.

Do you see an attack roll as the net effect of several attempts by C to get past A's defences? If so, an attack roll is not a single swing, but several swings, most of which are parried or dodged by A, and an AOO is a lapse in A's defences that allows one swing which would normally be parried or dodged to get through. When C Cleaves off an AOO, what is it about C dropping B that creates a lapse in A's defences? Alternatively, what is it about C dropping B that increases C's combat skill to the point that a swing that would normally be parried or dodged by A actually gets through?

It creates a lapse in A's defenses because at the moment, C appears to be engaged with B. C has just wound up and taken a big swing at B and dropped him! This must (instinctively) mean that C is now extended after the attack, and A can press the advantage at the moment. But no! C uses the attack at B as a distraction to get at A, now that C no longer has to worry about B.

 

[Nail]

You're saying that the benefit of sucking up an AoO is added potential fun, and people should do it sometimes...

Nope.

I didn't say that. My post was #100. You must have mistaken it for post #86. I suggest you redirect your reply to that one instead.

 

[Nail]

...C uses the attack at B as a distraction to get at A, now that C no longer has to worry about B.

Sure, but what about little cats D, E, F, and G? And what about little cat H? And little cat I?

.....and watch out for little cat Z. He's got the Voom!