Cleave on an AoO?

[molonel]

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.

It's not an extra AoO. It's a cleave attack that you paid two feats in order to accomplish, or three if you have Great Cleave.

The price is adequate, and given that an opponent must actually be killed in order to enjoy the benefits of either two or three feats, placing additional constraints seems unnecessarily stingy to me.

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.

Any description of how cleave works is equally valid, since the feat itself says nothing of how the cleave attack comes about. It simply lists the triggering circumstances and effects. It is reasonable, however, to assume that cutting an opponent in half is not a requirement, as some people seem to think, since piercing and bludgeoning weapons can be used with the feat.

 

[Jhulae]

Any description of how cleave works is equally valid, since the feat itself says nothing of how the cleave attack comes about. It simply lists the triggering circumstances and effects. It is reasonable, however, to assume that cutting an opponent in half is not a requirement, as some people seem to think, since piercing and bludgeoning weapons can be used with the feat.

I disagree, only because the rules specifically apply penalties and/or bonuses when an opponent 'drops their guard'. Since the feat only allows an extra attack, but (by itself) provides no AC penalty or to hit bonus against the target of that extra attack, it can't be explained away by the opponent being distracted or whatever.

And, I agree with your second point, because you don't necessarily need to kill an opponent to trigger cleave (ie reducing HP to -10) but only drop them to any point below 0.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I dislike Cleave + AoO not because I think it is (or is not) unbalanced, but because it an unnecessary disincentive to actions that should be encouraged, as well as fitting poorly in my perception of the overall flavor of the rules.

If this is realistic, which it might be in some scenarios, it is the kind of realism the rules make a very very strong habit of avoiding.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And, I agree with your second point, because you don't necessarily need to kill an opponent to trigger cleave (ie reducing HP to -10) but only drop them to any point below 0.

And there are ways of "dropping" an opponent that do not include HPs at all -- an attack that renders an opponent helpless due to ability damage would typically be sufficient.

 

[Jhulae]

And there are ways of "dropping" an opponent that do not include HPs at all -- an attack that renders an opponent helpless due to ability damage would typically be sufficient.

Right.. but my agreement with the post I quoted was that 'many people seem to think you cut someone in half' and then get the cleave attack, which implies killing (as being cut in half is not conducive to living) and is hardly necessary. Only dropping an opponent in some way is necessary.

Although, there are very few ways of dropping someone *with an attack* that don't involve HP damage that aren't very contrived that I can think of offhand.

 

[billd91]

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.

<snip>

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.

How is ceding a free attack at full BAB not considered tangible. It's not a penalty in the sense that you subtract something from the provoking character, but if the AoO hits you will certainly feel penalized. It is certainly a penalty in the sense that you receive a judgement against you that you may need to pay for.
It also helps that the PH describes the provoking of an AoO as the sample character "lets her guard down".

It's not really important why someone gets a cleave in general. Suffice to say, you can infer that the attack that dropped the opponent simply took so little time that the attacking character had enough time to redirect his attack at another target. Maybe that's because you cut through him like butter and followed through to someone else. Maybe it's because you so outclassed him that you cut through his defenses immediately.

But I have a hard time seeing how that really applies to an AoO, which you only get because someone provoked it in the first place in direct contrast to anyone else you threaten... yet could still somehow attack off your turn because you have cleave.

 

[Nazhkandrias]

Although, there are very few ways of dropping someone *with an attack* that don't involve HP damage that aren't very contrived that I can think of offhand.

Actually, this is a more common scenario than you might think. Somebody with a Wounding weapon and Cleave, or a Duskblade channeling some sort of Strength-reducing spell through their weapon with Cleave could both accomplish this quite frequently.

And yeah, I guess I always did think of Cleave as cutting someone in half. The definition of the word cleave is pretty much sundering something in two. I guess it's all in description, but a Greatsword is most likely to do something like cutting someone in half, wheras a mace would probably make a monster "crumple to the ground when hit by the shattering blow". Still, a Greatsword could conceivably "deal a massive blow to the side of the goblin, splitting their side wide open and sending them tumbling down to the ground. The sword continues its path of destruction, dealing a mortal blow to the adjacent kobold."

I suppose its all in how you visualize it, as far as flavor goes. On a side note - anybody ever take Great Cleave with a spiked chain? It's fun, trust me.

 

[molonel]

I disagree, only because the rules specifically apply penalties and/or bonuses when an opponent 'drops their guard'. Since the feat only allows an extra attack, but (by itself) provides no AC penalty or to hit bonus against the target of that extra attack, it can't be explained away by the opponent being distracted or whatever.

Are you talking about Cleave attacks, or AoO's?

Cleave attacks never provoke any sort of penalty or bonus because it's simply an extra attack that triggers under very specific circumstances. At low- and mid-levels, Cleave is mostly a way to gain an extra attack and carry through a swing when you had an opponent close to death. Great Cleave is actually substantially less useful, in my opinion, except as a mook sweeper, and frankly, anyone who invests two or three feats deserves all the opportunities they get. Limiting cleaves off of AoO's strikes me as unnecessarily stingy.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

So, then do you also house rule away Opportunist? Slightly different, but in effect you get an AoO when your target does not provoke one. To be consistent, I think you have to ban that special ability. I think there are similar splat book feats as well.

 

[FireLance]

So, then do you also house rule away Opportunist? Slightly different, but in effect you get an AoO when your target does not provoke one. To be consistent, I think you have to ban that special ability. I think there are similar splat book feats as well.

Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with Opportunist. I have no problems with the idea that someone who had just been struck in melee could have a momentary lapse in his defences that most people could not take advantage of, but someone with the proper training could exploit. By extension, I would not have a problem if someone with the Opportunist ability Cleaved off an AOO into someone who had been struck in melee.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that someone else dropping/dying creates a lapse in your defences, especially when you don't even care for it (a summoned creature, say), or you don't even know that it exists (the invisible dire lemmings). Disclaimer: Remember, a Cleave off an AOO feels like an AOO to me - arguments to the tune of "it's an extra attack, not an AOO" notwithstanding. I'm just wierd that way, okay?

For the record, I'm not too keen on Evasive Reflexes, either, because I don't like the idea that someone else's lapse in defences could grant you extra movement.