Cleave on an AoO?

[direheroics]

Cleave does not assume any drop in any defense.

The second creature attacked (and third, fourth, etc) still gain every defensive benefit they have.

The multiple attacks from cleave come from the notion of following through on an exceptionally powerful attack.... cleaving through someone and into the person next to him, poking a spear through 3 or 4 weaker gnolls.

Logically, there is no issue with Cleave and AoOs.

Imagine... two goblins standing in front of our greatsword wielding half-ogre fighter. Stupid goblin #1 decides to drink a potion, thereby necessitating an AoO. Our heroic fighter winds up and with a might Power Attack cuts through the stupid goblin and into the goblin standing next to him.

REGARDLESS of whether or not Goblin #2 provoked the attack, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (see Area of Effect Spells). Cleaves are nothing more than Area of Effect melee attacks. The creature is attacked because of his POSITION, which is independent of whatever he may be doing.... whether that's fighting defensively or picking his nose.

You know what might have saved goblin #2? Not standing so close to his not-so-bright comrade in arms. Why do you think people fight in formation with reach weapons?

In real combat, think of all the times people would miss one person with a weapon and accidentally strike someone next to their intended target instead... even if the other person was defending himself appropriately.

Logically, this works. Game balance-wise? That might be another story. Maybe don't clump a mass of low hit die creatures around a cleaving PC (once they've seen him do it, to be fair).

Do remember on AoOs, however, no matter what, you are limited to a single AoO against any single target. So abuses of combat reflexes and cleave can be ruled against because the cleave functions as the original attack (which was an AoO).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do remember on AoOs, however, no matter what, you are limited to a single AoO against any single target.

This is not the case in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

Cleave does not assume any drop in any defense.

Cleave does not assume any drop in defences, but an AOO does.

So, if you got the extra attack from Cleave because of an AOO, it feels like an AOO. In fact, mechanically, it is the equivalent of an AOO as it gives you more attack rolls against your target than you would normally be able to take in a round.

Consider this thought experiment using your half-ogre fighter and goblins #1 and #2: Let's assume that the half-ogre fighter attacks goblin #2 on his turn, goblin #1 tries to drink his potion, gets AOO'ed and drops, and goblin #2 gets Cleaved. Track the movements of the half-ogre fighter and goblin #2 throughout the course of the round. Now, in the next round, assume the half-ogre fighter and goblin #2 repeat the exact same movements they did in the previous round (for some reason, the half-ogre fighter swung his greatsword to exactly the same place where it cut down goblin #1 in the previous round, perhaps as a feint, and swung it at goblin #2 again). Does the half-ogre fighter get two attack rolls (one on his turn, and one out of his turn) or not? If not, why?

Essentially, if a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the person being Cleaved, will taking an AOO on an invisible dire lemming be enough to trigger a Cleave? If a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the Cleaver, would dropping a phantasmal opponent (an illusionary one that exists only in the mind of the Cleaver) on an AOO be enough to trigger the Cleave?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Essentially, if a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the person being Cleaved, will taking an AOO on an invisible dire lemming be enough to trigger a Cleave? If a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the Cleaver, would dropping a phantasmal opponent (an illusionary one that exists only in the mind of the Cleaver) on an AOO be enough to trigger the Cleave?

A Cleave on an AoO doesn't depend on perceptions; it depends on dealing enough damage to a creature to make it drop.

The phantasmal opponent is not a creature. No Cleave. The invisible dire lemming is a creature. Cleave away.

-Hyp.

 

[Jhulae]

Essentially, if a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the person being Cleaved, will taking an AOO on an invisible dire lemming be enough to trigger a Cleave? If a Cleave on an AOO depends on the perceptions of the Cleaver, would dropping a phantasmal opponent (an illusionary one that exists only in the mind of the Cleaver) on an AOO be enough to trigger the Cleave?

It's as Hyp said. There's no 'perception' involved on either side.

Did the Cleaver do enough damage with her attack to drop a real (ie non-illusionary) creature?

If yes: Cleave on the next creature within range. If no: No cleave allowed.

Consider this thought experiment using your half-ogre fighter and goblins #1 and #2: Let's assume that the half-ogre fighter attacks goblin #2 on his turn, goblin #1 tries to drink his potion, gets AOO'ed and drops, and goblin #2 gets Cleaved. Track the movements of the half-ogre fighter and goblin #2 throughout the course of the round. Now, in the next round, assume the half-ogre fighter and goblin #2 repeat the exact same movements they did in the previous round (for some reason, the half-ogre fighter swung his greatsword to exactly the same place where it cut down goblin #1 in the previous round, perhaps as a feint, and swung it at goblin #2 again). Does the half-ogre fighter get two attack rolls (one on his turn, and one out of his turn) or not? If not, why?

Okay, first, that was hard to follow.. but I'll give this a whirl.

G2 gets attacked by HOF during HOF's turn. G1 draws an AoO within HOF's range (why G1 didn't move out of the way is beyond my imagination, but anyway) and gets dropped, activating Cleave. G2 gets attacked since he's within range. Bad move on G1's part, but HOF has the training (as provided by the Cleave feat) to gain an attack on a nearby opponent. Note that nothing in the cleave feat says HOF actually chops through G1, so HOF could even use a piercing melee weapon to gain the cleave. So far everything's making sense to me.

Now, here's where it gets weird. If HOF is making a feint, he's trying to deny G2's dex bonus on HOF's *next* turn (as your example implies HOF only has one attack per round). That has nothing to do with cleave, nor, honestly the attack on G1. It's a use of the Bluff skill, which is totally different from taking an attack. If HOF isn't trying to feint, and is just 'swinging like he did' against G1, G2 gets to laugh at him for wasting a standard action. Either way, HOF isn't getting an attack action on G2 that turn.

If he's just making a 'wide swing' through where G1 used to be standing, well kudos on HOF's player for coming up with a description other than "I make an attack" and rolling the die. And he only gets the one attack, as there is no other target he's cleaving through.

 

[FireLance]

Now, here's where it gets weird. If HOF is making a feint, he's trying to deny G2's dex bonus on HOF's *next* turn (as your example implies HOF only has one attack per round). That has nothing to do with cleave, nor, honestly the attack on G1. It's a use of the Bluff skill, which is totally different from taking an attack. If HOF isn't trying to feint, and is just 'swinging like he did' against G1, G2 gets to laugh at him for wasting a standard action. Either way, HOF isn't getting an attack action on G2 that turn.

If he's just making a 'wide swing' through where G1 used to be standing, well kudos on HOF's player for coming up with a description other than "I make an attack" and rolling the die. And he only gets the one attack, as there is no other target he's cleaving through.

Perhaps the question would be better phrased this way (it has nothing to do with feint, by the way): In both the rounds, HOF moves his weapon in *exactly* the same way, including making a swing into G1's (now empty) space at the exact same time in the round when he would have taken the AOO against G1. Why does HOF get two attack rolls in the same round against G2 when G1 is there, and only one when G1 is not there? "Because he dropped G1" is a rules explanation based on the wording of Cleave. What is the flavor reason behind the way in which HOF gets the extra attack roll? If it is a matter of "training", why does the training only work when G1 is actually a creature, and not when G1 is only a phantasm or a major image (so that G2 and HOF will both react in the same way)?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The multiple attacks from cleave come from the notion of following through on an exceptionally powerful attack.... cleaving through someone and into the person next to him, poking a spear through 3 or 4 weaker gnolls.

Logically, there is no issue with Cleave and AoOs.

First of all, this first sentence is not necessarily true. It is merely one possible interpretation that fits many situations.

Second of all, examining carefully your own interpretation here reveals that there is (arguably) a big problem. The RAW makes no requirements regarding "next to" or "poking through". These and similar flavor explanations can easily enough be all blatantly wrong.

That is the problem with taking simple examples to "prove" a broad generalization. I can easily "prove" that Cleave + AoO is stupid.

Hint: Start getting creative with Reach, doorways, narrow corridors, Cover, Invisibility, neutral non-combatants, mutually hostile combatants and you will begin to see the insanity.

Now one might argue that these are mostly corner cases. To a degree, I would concede so. But there are far too many potential corner cases that disprove your interpretation above to just wave off.

The most robust flavor description of Cleave is a set of skills/tactics that take advantage of the confusions and frictions around multiple combatants to find opening for attacks that take little effort. Personally, I do not find this quite satisfying in all scenarios, but it is at least not as easily disproven as the Big Attack interpretation.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is the way I see it. You are continuously swinging your sword at the opponent, trying to hit them (as well as dodging, blocking, parrying, etc.). You may very well swing 3 or 4 times within the 6 second round. However, out of those 3 or 4 swings, only 1 has a chance to hit (this is represented by the attack roll). As you get higher in level, you have more chances to hit (this is represented by iterative attacks).

When an opponent provokes an AoO, you were already swinging at him anyway, except since he dropped his defense, you now have a better chance at hitting him (again, represented by the attack roll).

If you hit him, and deal enough damage to drop him, you may Cleave into an enemy (represented by an attack roll). I don't see this as a bad thing...

Why should Enemy B suffer when his buddy (Enemy A) messes up by provoking an AoO and then getting killed from it? Because D&D is a team sport for both players and NPCs. It requires tactics, knowing where to stand, where not to stand, when to provoke, when not to provoke, etc. And of course Luck plays a role as well. When one side is victorious, they all share in the victory, when one side fails, they all fail.

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.

 

[Jhulae]

Perhaps the question would be better phrased this way (it has nothing to do with feint, by the way): In both the rounds, HOF moves his weapon in *exactly* the same way, including making a swing into G1's (now empty) space at the exact same time in the round when he would have taken the AOO against G1. Why does HOF get two attack rolls in the same round against G2 when G1 is there, and only one when G1 is not there? "Because he dropped G1" is a rules explanation based on the wording of Cleave. What is the flavor reason behind the way in which HOF gets the extra attack roll? If it is a matter of "training", why does the training only work when G1 is actually a creature, and not when G1 is only a phantasm or a major image (so that G2 and HOF will both react in the same way)?

It has nothing to do with how HOF moves his weapon to begin with. It depends on whether HOF drops a foe. And, yes, it is a rules explanation based on the wording of cleave.

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.

And, it's a matter of 'training' via taking the Cleave feat. Not everyone has that training. The same kind of 'training' some characters get to fight better when they can't see (Blindfighting) or better avoid AoOs *only* when they move (Mobility), or getting more than one AoO per round, etc. There's no flavor text (since that's what seems to be the big hang-up) for most feats. What kind of training it actually implies isn't given, but the result of that 'training' (via taking the feat) is explicitly described.

Using a feat slot provides a tangible benefit. Cleave's is getting an attack on a creature within your threatened area after dropping a creature.

 

[FireLance]

It has nothing to do with how HOF moves his weapon to begin with. It depends on whether HOF drops a foe. And, yes, it is a rules explanation based on the wording of cleave.

And, it's a matter of 'training' via taking the Cleave feat. Not everyone has that training. The same kind of 'training' some characters get to fight better when they can't see (Blindfighting) or better avoid AoOs *only* when they move (Mobility), or getting more than one AoO per round, etc. There's no flavor text (since that's what seems to be the big hang-up) for most feats. What kind of training it actually implies isn't given, but the result of that 'training' (via taking the feat) is explicitly described.

Well, I'm glad that the "training" explanation works for you, but it doesn't for me. 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".

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. However, when you drop an opponent on an AOO, you are not able to Cleave into another opponent you threaten, but you do not use your AOO for the round. If another opponent subsequently provokes an AOO from you, you can take that AOO as if you had not AOO'ed the weak opponent.

For me, it's a small change that improves the flavor of the feat. YMMV.