Cleave on an AoO?

[green slime]

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!

mwahahahahahaha!

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

You're not subject to an attack by someone taking an AoO.

You're subject to an attack by someone taking an immediate extra melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

You're not subject to an attack by someone taking an AoO.

You're subject to an attack by someone taking an immediate extra melee attack.

-Hyp.

Effectively the same thing in this case since the immediate extra melee attack was only there because of the AoO. I won't allow someone to become vulnerable to a direct attack just because some mook made a mistake and became vulnerable to a sucker punch.

 

[Jhulae]

Effectively the same thing in this case since the immediate extra melee attack was only there because of the AoO. I won't allow someone to become vulnerable to a direct attack just because some mook made a mistake and became vulnerable to a sucker punch.

Except that the extra melee attack is *not* only there because of an AoO. It's also there during the cleaver's 'normal' turn if she drops a mook. It's there *anytime* the cleaver drops a mook.

 

[brehobit]

Meh. As far as the Summon Monster thing goes. If the wizzie wants to spend a full round action and a third level spell in order to give the fighter 3-5 extra attacks, let him. Considering what wizards are capable of, that's pretty far down on the firepower scale. Heck, it's not all that much more than a haste spell which would have given the fighter possibly 2 attacks (over two rounds), a to hit bonus, an AC bonus and a movement bonus, as well as affecting several other PC's.

We play different games you and I.

If you created a spell that let the big fighter get 3 extra attacks _right now_ and made it 3rd level all of our casters would take it. Might not be their 1st choice of 3rd level spell, but I think it would be their 2nd. The big raging barbarian will do something like 2d6+8 damage at 5th level. 3 attacks at that damage with a 50/50 chance of a hit beats the 4th level orb spells and everything else at that level. Add in the standard buffs (bull str for example) and the barbarian is doing crazy damage...

Mark

 

[FireLance]

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.

Good point. I never liked the one attack roll = one swing model, anyway.

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.

That's another distraction-based argument, so it's time for the invisible dire lemmings again.

Except that the extra melee attack is *not* only there because of an AoO. It's also there during the cleaver's 'normal' turn if she drops a mook. It's there *anytime* the cleaver drops a mook.

The extra melee attack is not the issue for me. Using A, B and C again:

I have no problems with C dropping B and Cleaving into A on his turn. Since C could have ignored B and attacked A anyway, A isn't any worse off in terms of the number of attack rolls C makes against him even if C happened to drop B as well.

I wouldn't even have a problem if A and B both provoked AOOs from C, and C dropped B and Cleaved into A with his AOO. The same reason applies. Since C could have ignored B and used his AOO on A, A isn't any worse off in terms of the number of attack rolls C makes against him even if C happened to drop B as well.

Where I would have a problem is if A did not provoke an AOO from C, but B did, and C dropped B with his AOO and Cleaved into A. This gives C an extra attack roll against A which is effectively an AOO against A even though A did nothing to provoke one.

Of course, this is allowed because of the way that Cleave is worded in the rules. If I were to re-write Cleave for my campaign, I would define it as the ability to make attacks so powerful that they drop weak foes effortlessly. In game terms, the effect of the feat would be that the first time you drop an opponent in a round, the attack you used to drop an opponent effectively becomes a non-action, and you can continue to take actions as if you had not used an action to drop that opponent. This means that you cannot Cleave off an AOO, but if your AOO drops an opponent, it does not count towards the number of AOOs you make in a round. It also means that you can do some things that you cannot currently do with Cleave, e.g. drop a weak foe and then charge another opponent.

I guess what I'm saying is, I have no problems with Cleave granting an extra attack, but the extra attack should be made against the weak foe you dropped, and not against the stronger foe you happen to be fighting at the same time.

 

[billd91]

Except that the extra melee attack is *not* only there because of an AoO. It's also there during the cleaver's 'normal' turn if she drops a mook. It's there *anytime* the cleaver drops a mook.

My point is, it shouldn't be just *anytime* the cleaver drops a mook, so in my game, it isn't.

I would be open to arguments that, because of cleave, an AoO that drops the target shouldn't be charged to the cleaver's available AoOs for the round. I think that's more in keeping with the way cleave works in a regular melee round. Then initial attack was so successful that it didn't cost the cleaver anything in terms of being able to make more attacks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I do not think "comprehensive" means what you think it means.

Perhaps you could reword your reply in a manner that is easier to understand?

 

[Campbell]

So are the invisible dire lemmings also mute?

 

[FireLance]

So are the invisible dire lemmings also mute?

They could be silenced if you want.