Cleave on an AoO?

[molonel]

Ah, I see. A spinning motion on the ground, accomanied with quick, jabbing thrusts? So when a foe is dropped, you use the momentum from the thrust to whirl around and thrust again? But I can still beat down demons with a sausage, right? Say, how high of a level do you think you'd have to be to kill three Pit Fiends at full health in one hit and Cleave with a sausage?

Per the rules, a normal sausage does no damage.

So you couldn't.

Now, if it was a +5 holy silver sausage (we'll be generous and say 1d2-1 damage?) , bane versus evil outsiders, you'd still have the problem of doing 225 hp with a light weapon in one hand per hit.

I'll leave that up to the math monkies to figure that one out, but it would probably involve an epic paladin using Smite, Divine Might, Epic Divine Might and a metric butt ton of buffs.

(That's a metric butt ton, and not a long butt ton or a short butt ton.)

 

[Nazhkandrias]

OK, this idea may seem silly to some, but I think it is a fair compromise.

Roll a D% to determine if a Cleave hits someone else that did not provoke an AoO. This sort of attack hitting is essentially random, as far as real life goes, and D&D is a stylized, fantasy simulation of real life. If you wanted, you could make it a 50/50 chance, or apply modifiers to determine required % to hit (such as Dex, Int, AC, etc.). Thus, a level 10 Fighter is less likely to be caught off guard for an unexpected Cleave (or similar debateable situation for which there are no concrete rules) than a level 1 Goblin Warrior, due to his level of experience. It's one extra roll, true, but DMs concerned with the "realisticness and detail" of their games make so many extra rolls already, it hardly matters. Please note, this could be used for other strange situations as well, but that's on a case-by-case basis and completely under the jurisdiction of the DM.

Also note that this is only viable for MAXIMUM detail and realisticness, or for those who simply can't make up their minds. In general, it's quicker and better to choose one side or the other, without worrying about rolling a d20 to determine if your character can breathe and blink at the same time (either they can, or you don't care).

And what about a +5 Holy Devilbane Silver Greatsausage (two-handed)? That would make it a bit easier.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Eh? It's not a balance issue, it's a flavor issue.

If your entire argument wasn't a balance issue (and I thought that's what you were arguing because you are counting attacks), what would you get upset about it?

What I take issue with is that you are arguing balance and yet stating that you are arguing flavor and responding to people arguing flavor.

My stance on this is that I would allow cleave on an AoO because the rules do and I cannot contrive of a scenario that breaks the game.

 

[molonel]

OK, this idea may seem silly to some, but I think it is a fair compromise. Roll a D% to determine if a Cleave hits someone else that did not provoke an AoO. This sort of attack hitting is essentially random, as far as real life goes, and D&D is a stylized, fantasy simulation of real life. If you wanted, you could make it a 50/50 chance, or apply modifiers to determine required % to hit (such as Dex, Int, AC, etc.). Thus, a level 10 Fighter is less likely to be caught off guard for an unexpected Cleave (or similar debateable situation for which there are no concrete rules) than a level 1 Goblin Warrior, due to his level of experience. It's one extra roll, true, but DMs concerned with the "realisticness and detail" of their games make so many extra rolls already, it hardly matters. Please note, this could be used for other strange situations as well, but that's on a case-by-case basis and completely under the jurisdiction of the DM. Also note that this is only viable for MAXIMUM detail and realisticness, or for those who simply can't make up their minds. In general, it's quicker and better to choose one side or the other, without worrying about rolling a d20 to determine if your character can breathe and blink at the same time (either they can, or you don't care).

Yeah, because D&D combat really, REALLY needs more math and variables in it. Yay.

No. I just let Cleave work the way it's supposed to. My first longterm 3.0 DM was really bothered by Cleave for some reason, and ruled that you could only Cleave into a foe 3 squares in any direction. Great Cleave opened it up to five.

He abandoned it, eventually, because it's a balanced feat with a cool effect, and it's really not that awful.

And what about a +5 Holy Devilbane Silver Greatsausage (two-handed)? That would make it a bit easier.

That's a manly bit of meat, there.

I know I'd be scared, if I was a Pit Fiend.

 

[Nail]

My stance on this is that I would allow cleave on an AoO because the rules do and I cannot contrive of a scenario that breaks the game.

...and given that's coming from I2K, that's saying something.

 

[Nazhkandrias]

Hey, I think the numbers are unnecessary, too. I just put them in there for those that want a concrete, sensible (albeit complicated) way to resolve this issue with a roll of the dice. MAXIMUM realisticness, not to be used by the normal D&D player. Myself, I'd just keep Cleave and assume it works unless the manual says it doesn't. Just a suggestion for those math-lovin' DMs out there.

That's a manly bit of meat, there.

I know I'd be scared, if I was a Pit Fiend.

Two words: VORPAL SAUSAGE. (And for all of you that are about to say, "You can't do that! You can't do that! No bludgeoning vorpal weapons!", I say, "Shut up. It's my meat, I'll use it how I want.")

 

[Nail]

Bacon is better.....

Besides, bacon has an edge.

 

[Nazhkandrias]

Bacon is better.....

Besides, bacon has an edge.

What about vampires? In the world of meat, I think that bacon just wouldn't do. You'd probably need a STEAK!!! *Crickets* :\

 

[FireLance]

If your entire argument wasn't a balance issue (and I thought that's what you were arguing because you are counting attacks), what would you get upset about it?

What I take issue with is that you are arguing balance and yet stating that you are arguing flavor and responding to people arguing flavor.

My stance on this is that I would allow cleave on an AoO because the rules do and I cannot contrive of a scenario that breaks the game.

It's not always a balance problem (inconguous in the rules forum, I know, but there it is). Some things can be balanced, but raise flavor issues which do not appear consistent with the game's internal logic (to some people, at least). In the case of Cleaving off an AOO, as I mentioned, the flavor issue is that an extra attack from an AOO feels like an extra AOO, and it seems odd to apply it to an opponent that did not provoke an AOO from you. And at least to me, when there is a situation where you get multiple Cleave attempts from multiple AOOs, the flavor problem becomes more obvious.

Suppose there was a feat that allowed you to create a fiery explosion whenever you dropped an opponent. It could be balanced if it didn't deal too much damage, but the flavor issue of how a dropping an opponent could help you to create a fiery explosion remains.

On the other hand, if there was 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.

 

[Jhulae]

I'll have to say that all of the scenarios for 'the opponents dropping their guards' *are* out of the spirit of the rules and not a good way of describing Cleave, as anytime the rules say opponent drops their guard, it's accompanied by something tangible (like losing Dex bonus to AC when flat footed, or flankers getting bonuses to hit).

Since there's no penalty for the receiver of the extra attack provided from cleave (other than being attacked, but that's not really a penalty), the Cleavee is not dropping their guard.

Combat in D&D is an abstraction and each attack roll is only 'one attack from a volley' that manages to even potentially pass through the opponent's defenses. (Potentially, because the attack can still miss.)

How I view the 'momentum' (and that isn't even in the description of the feat in the SRD) is the cleaver is 'psyched up' at having dropped an opponent, therefore pressing his attacks against another available opponent (one within threatened range) through superior training (via having the cleave feat). It's not the physical momentum of the weapon, but the momentum of combat.

Granted, that's only my view, but given the abstract nature of D&D combat as it is, it makes enough sense to me that I don't have an issue with Cleave or Great Cleave, even on an AoO.